World Fact Research

The process of reconciliation must include justice: accountability for perpetrators and the
righting of wrongs committed against innocent civilians. “The ultimate goal of justice is…to
make peace — by repairing damage, protecting victims, and reforming criminals — both apart
from, and also through, retributive punishment,”29 according to Bishop Nigel Biggar. People of
traumatized societies, like those of El Salvador and Guatemala, yearn for a sense that justice has
been done following tremendous violations of human rights, especially committed by
governmental authority. They ache for a definitive resolution. Genevieve Jacques explains, “the
victims need public recognition of the wrongs they have suffered and need to see those
responsible identified, named, and held to account.”
Punishing the guilty has the potential to bring a clear sense of relief and resolution — a sense
that justice has been done — to the victims, families, and general public. After suffering direct
damage or the death of a loved one, it is common to want retribution. The goal is that victims
and families who feel a need to inflict revenge may do so peacefully through the court system,
rather than resorting to one’s own devices. Instead of committing another wrong in response, the
wrong is righted. Court convictions of those responsible for disappearances and torture can be
rehabilitating and give a sense of protection to the families and friends of the victims.
30
Other
punitive measures could include removal from office or public service or obligation of financial
compensation to the victims or families. Agents of such punitive methods of justice argue that
12the convicted “got what they deserved” — social stigma, moral humiliation, and restrictions of
freedom. They are troubled by the perpetrator’s lack of feeling and sympathy in his/her exertion
of power over the victim. Punishment can potentially relieve family of the victim’s emotional
pain because it finally reverses the power relationship. The conviction functions to exert power
over the perpetrator and deny him/her sympathy. Just as the victim and his/her loved ones were
consequently held captive psychologically, emotionally, and physically by the violence inflicted
upon him/her, the perpetrator must be held captive, bound to his own actions, and denied
freedom and human dignity. The victim’s power and sympathy from the authority and society
are restored.
Effective justice comes in other forms besides the above retributive criminal trial method.
Favoring a more constructive restorative justice, Bishop Biggar argues, “Justice is primarily not
about the punishment of the perpetrator, but about the vindication of the victims, both direct and
indirect.”31 Minow writes about the reparative value of restorative justice that it is essential for
national reconciliation of different sectors of society:
Restorative justice emphasizes the humanity of both offenders and victims. It seeks to repair
social connections and peace rather than retribution against the offenders. Building connections
and enhancing communications between perpetrators and those victimized, and forging ties across
the community, takes precedence over punishment or law enforcement. 32
These aims of restorative justice reflect a practical view about human psychology. They are
unlike retributive approaches, which require inflicting suffering of another in order to raise one’s
self up, but may reinforce anger. In contrast, reparative approaches instead aim to help victims
move beyond anger, a sense of powerlessness, and destructive desire for revenge. Restorative
justice specifically seeks to stop a cycle of violence, while empowering the victimized. Typical
restorative justice measures include the exhumation, return, and reburial of relatives’ remains,
the opportunity to tell their stories of suffering publicly, and compensation or reparations to
13victims and families. It is important that when speaking about reconciliation and justice,
punitive court trials are not the only mechanism seen as pursuing justice. Any method used that
raises up the dignity of the victims after having been dehumanized by the offender or holds the
perpetrators accountable to their wrongful acts, furthers the ideal of justice.
Given the above explanation of reconciliation as both a goal to which conflicting parties
should aspire and a process, encompassing three vital ideals of truth, acknowledgment, and
justice, it’s now pertinent to explore truth commissions’ potentials for demonstrating and
promoting these goals of reconciliation. While some truth commissions have earned respect as
model commissions investigating the past, there are no binding rules of structure. Each of the
more than twenty truth commissions established around the world since 1973 is unique. 33 Truth
commissions in general, however, have the same overarching goal of airing the truth of the past
in order to facilitate societal and individual-level healing and reconciliation in the future. A truth
commission can be more or less nurturing of reconciliation, partly depending on its specific
context, structure, and mandates. Still, truth commissions have great potential to make
significant progress towards ideals of truth, acknowledgement, and restorative justice

To seek the truth, to know the truth, to tell the truth —
for those who have endured the dark times of repression or conflict
this is the first requirement, a vital, existential need.
- Genevieve Jacques
Seeking and establishing the truth about atrocities committed during prolonged internal
conflicts is not only essential to reconciliation, but is the first step that must be taken before other
vital parts of reconciliation will be able to follow. This need for truth in order for reconciliation
7presents certain challenges of pursuing an ideal so ambiguous and obscure. There is not one
truth to be found. Many different truths exist within a country of diverse realities. There are
different kinds of truth as well and some are more easily arrived at or explained than others. The
two most prominently recognized branches are “forensic truth” (or factual truth) — the acts
committed by whom, to whom, and when — and “emotional truth” — an understanding of
psychological and physical impact of such fear and violence on the victims and their
communities. 16 Another type of truth relevant here to reconciliation, includes plausible
interpretations of the causes of the original conflict and escalating violence and an analysis of the
historical, social, political, and cultural context of the conflict. 17
Establishing the truth is an intricate process more accurately described as clarifying history
based on a wide range of perspectives rather than finding the “one” truth. To ‘find the truth’
sounds like an absolute, terminable project, whereas clarifying history based on many truthful
narratives is an endeavor than never has a definitive end.
Developing an official authoritative account of a contested past, and especially doing so in an
objective and careful manner consistent with strict standards of historical and social science
research, requires far more than accumulating anecdotal evidence to support widely held beliefs
about what has happened and who is responsible.”"
By establishing or clarifying the truth of the past, the corrupt, systemized practice of
secrecy, deceit, and denial is exposed and undermined. Once the implicated institutions or guilty
individuals are revealed, they are newly vulnerable to pressure from civil society, constituents,
and the international community to apologize and reform. If those implicated in atrocities can
demonstrate genuine remorse and reform, as determined by the victims themselves, they will be
able to begin to (re)gain the public’s trust — a pivotal piece of reconciliation. As Christian
Tomuschat affirms,
…no government is entitled to hide the truth about its own involvement in a conflict, or the
involvement of a predecessor regime. Only on the basis of the full truth can a people learn from
the past and immunize itself against the danger of falling into the same trap as before. °
8Publicizing and educating a fuller, truer, impartial history prevents recurrence of tragedy. A
historical narrative that consults those who have been traditionally marginalized and integrates
their memory into a revised representation of a country’s history is more respectful of the distinct
cultures within that country. At the same time, it seeks to unify the state under a fully
participatory exercise of writing history. Jacques explains the importance of constructing a
shared historical memory that lifts up the victim’s humanity out of the shadows of secrecy.
Awareness of and a sense of joint responsibility for how history has unfolded can come about
only through the gradual construction of a “shared memory” which does not try to conceal either
the victims or the guilty, the crimes or the acts of courage. Only in this way can a process of
genuine reconciliation become possible, founded on recognition of each by the other. 2°
Constructing a state’s national memory that includes, shares, and upholds the value of the varied
experiences of its citizens, allows each person equal recognition. Leveling the power
relationship between the victims and the guilty is the objective here; it helps to facilitate cross-
sector communication and mutual cooperation in the future.
If a tradition of keeping the truth public and accessible is planted and continues to be
supported, society will become more open and trusting and reconciliation of the past may be
possible. Truth should not solely be upheld because of its healing potential, but because — more
importantly — it is a basic human right. Michelle Parlevliet supports this with evidence from the
UN’s recognition of the right to truth:
Internationally, a ‘right to truth’ is now recognized for both societies and individuals. For the
former, it is considered essential to avoid the repetition of crimes in the future. For the latter, it is
part of an effective remedy for violations. This right is included in a set of principles prepared for
the United Nations with a view to combating impunity. 21
Establishing the truth is critical to reconciliation because it helps the families and
communities mourn the loss of their loved ones with a better understanding of the circumstances
and broader context of their deaths. A lack of answers prevents those left behind from entering
into an effective, vital grieving process. 22 To many indigenous peoples, including the Maya who
9suffered most of the 45,000 disappearances during the Guatemalan civil war, it is an offense and
outrage not to be able to carry out essential rites of mourning. 23 The final report of Guatemala’s
truth commission, the Commission on Historical Clarification explains:
For all cultures and religions in Guatemala, it is practically inconceivable that the dead not be
given a dignified burial; this assaults everyone’s values and dignity…The CHC has concluded that
the existence of clandestine and hidden cemeteries, as well as the anxiety suffered by many
Guatemalans as a result of not knowing what happened to their relatives, remains an open wound
in the country. They are a permanent reminder of the acts of violence that denied the dignity of
their loved ones. 24
In the midst of such confidence in truth’s virtues visa vis reconciliation, this optimism
should not purport a direct causal relationship between ‘truth revealed’ and ‘reconciliation
achieved.’ Tuomas Forsberg cautions against idealistic slogans such as “Truth is a road to
reconciliation” 25 because there is no certainty that the revelation of truth leads directly to healing
and rebuilding a shattered past. 26 Establishing the truth does not necessarily bring about
reconciliation because there are a host of outside factors at play. The immediate watershed effect
of the truth-revealed on reconciliation depends on the reaction of various sectors of society
(government, civil society, public, etc.) and whether or not they are spurred to act. If such truths
are ignored, the positive effects of truth-telling on reconciliation will likely be negligent. If the
truth is effectively recognized, sparking a movement for remembrance and restorative justice,
and if the government does not block retributive justice in the courts for the victims, the truth
could lead directly and swiftly to valuable levels of reconciliation.