World Fact Research

A truth commission’s success is hard to measure because “success” is so subjective and
relative when the objectives — harmony, peace, trust, reconciliation, etc — are also ambiguous.
The five prominent truth commissions mentioned above won their status as relatively successful
when measured against other commissions’ attempts to satisfy the priorities, purposes, and goals
articulated in their mandates. The Argentine, Chilean, Salvadoran, South African, and
Guatemalan commissions have also received considerable international attention, often due to
the direct involvement of prominent international figures or substantial economic and/or
administrative support from the United Nations or foreign countries.
Rather than evaluate the success of the Salvadoran and Guatemalan truth commissions — a
seemingly impossible task - this paper seeks to analyze the two truth commissions’ realized and
potential connections to reconciliation as a process and as a goal. In what ways have the
Salvadoran and Guatemalan truth commissions contributed to national reconciliation and why
have they not been able to achieve more? To what extent have the TC and CEH been catalysts
for reconciliation?
35National reconciliation requires that the truth of the past be known and recognized; that the
responsible parties publicly acknowledge their guilt, their role, the wrongness of committing
such atrocities against their victims, and regret for their actions; and that justice, according to the
needs of the victims, be served with restorative, reparative measures and with punitive, deterrent
juridical action. As explained in the theoretical section, truth commissions have the potential to
contribute to reconciliation in any and each of these directions. The remainder of the paper will
be dedicated to analyzing the consequences of the TC’s and CEH’s specific compositions,
mandates, conclusions, recommendations, and report dissemination visa vis the ideals of truth,
acknowledgment, and justice for reconciliation

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

As the violence of a period of protracted internal conflict or repression subsides and signs of
the authority’s new commitment to peace emerge — often through a peace accord between former
political enemies — the country recognizes its aching need for healing. Healing within itself and
across lines of tension is necessary in order to live side by side in peace, confidence, and mutual
trust and to march forward together as contributing members of a cooperative society. This need
they feel and call for is that of reconciliation. It can be a personally, morally, or politically
motivated desire depending on the position of a person or group to the conflict and peace
process. Given the potentially explosive issues and sensitivities that mine the road to trust,
reconciliation implies immense challenges and lofty, yet necessary, ideals. Even the meaning
and interpretation of this elusive concept — reconciliation — is debated within academic circles of
outsiders and between members of these very societies and government institutions that are
trying to understand the best way to seek it.
2By some interpretations, reconciliation is seen as a goal within itself, an end, a state of
mutual trust and peaceful coexistence. Marc Forget illustrates this interpretation when he
explains, “Reconciliation can be viewed as one pole on a continuum that has hostility as its other
pole.” 1 In the essay, “Truth Commissions, Transitional Justice, and Civil Society,” David A.
Crocker cites at least three meanings of reconciliation, classifying them into “thinner” and
“thicker” interpretations. 2 “Thinner” signifies a more realistic interpretation of reconciliation,
while “thicker” is more idealist. At the base level, a “thinner” reconciliation can mean “simple
coexistence” — the opposing sides agree to follow the law instead of killing each other. 3 This
first definition seems to be a compromise of mutual concessions — the concession of giving up
violence. The two warring ideological and political poles of both El Salvador and Guatemala
first needed to adhere to this mutual renouncement of violence to initiate the peace process.
However, one cannot expect to further the healing and rebuilding process significantly by only
achieving this minimal version of reconciliation. Societies need to aim for more advanced
criteria whenever possible.
Moving a step up from this minimal conception of reconciliation, Crocker sets out a second
interpretation of reconciliation: former enemies must live together nonviolently and respect each
other as fellow citizens, even though they may continue to disagree.
4
Mark Osiel identifies this
level of reconciliation with the term ‘liberal social solidarity.
f/5
In this form of reconciliation, the
different sides are able to engage in peaceful dialogue, sharing and listening to each other’s
views patiently and earnestly. They uncover common concerns and then work collectively
towards a compromise on public policy matters.
According to Crocker, the deepest and most advanced form of reconciliation is an ideal to
which countries with real, collective intentions for building democratic institutions, participatory
3civil society, legitimate governance, and lasting peace aspire. This “thicker” form of
reconciliation can be either a “shared comprehensive vision, mutual healing and restoration, or
mutual forgiveness.” 6 Crocker names these three possibilities for signaling such ideal
reconciliation, as it may appear in different forms depending on the circumstances of the conflict,
actors, and cultures involved. A shared comprehensive vision — consensus on the past and future
— may be possible when complete mutual forgiveness is not. While a shared, comprehensive
vision demonstrates a positive, empowering mindset, its boundaries are ambiguous. With so
many varying actors and opposing interests, it is difficult to know when to declare that society
has reached a point such as “mutual healing and restoration.”
More than a goal, reconciliation is also a process, a means by which society can build trust
and seek to live together peacefully and cooperatively. In his essay, “Changing Forms of
Coexistence,” Louis Kreisberg defines reconciliation as the process of developing a mutual,
conciliatory accommodation between formerly antagonistic groups.
7
Marc Forget speaks of
reconciliation as a process of transformation, “a difficult but tremendously powerful process that
has the ability to transform individuals, communities, and whole societies. “8 In order to achieve
reconciliation after devastating, divisive civil conflict, there needs to be gradual, long-term
healing towards mutual agreement of facts of the past, tolerance for one another across previous
lines of tension, and mutual commitment to pursue justice and prevent escalation of violence in
the future. David Crocker lists many possible measures that aim to deal with the past actively:
trials and punishment, truth commissions, international criminal tribunals, social shaming and
lustration, public apology to victims, memorials, reburial of victims, compensation and
reparations for the families of the victims, historical writing, and amnesty. 9 National
governments, parties to the former conflict, civil society, individual leaders, and the international