Latin American Amnesties in Comparative Perspective: Can the Past Be Buried?

Abstract

Throughout Latin America during the past 15 years, new democratic or postwar governments have faced demands for transitional justice following the end of authoritarian rule or the conclusion of internal armed conflicts.Demands for justice for serious past abuses have often been met by threats of destabilization by the perpetrators and calls for forgiving and forgetting in the name of reconciliation.Although recent developments in and interpretations of international law oblige states to punish those responsible for serious human rights violations, many transitional governments insist that reconciliation requires broad amnesty laws. This essay first reviews basic legal and conceptual issues relating to prosecution of, and grants of amnesty to, those responsible for gross human rights abuses during earlier periods. A comparative examination follows, starting with El Salvador, where the amnesty law constitutes the most comprehensive and successful action to end efforts to address past abuses. The essay then reviews the status of efforts in Argentina, Chile, Honduras, Guatemala, and South Africa, where, despite amnesty laws, civil society and courts have sought to uncover the truth about the past, hold perpetrators accountable, and obtain redress for victims.

Local Evaluations of Justice through Truth Telling in Sierra Leone: Postwar Needs and Transitional Justice

“…In these cases, many victims, and the surviving family members of disappeared victims, demanded truth from perpetrators after years of lies and silence. The very nature of the crimes committed, wherein even the perpetration of a crime was often simply denied by those responsible, combined with the need in the postwar period to placate still powerful perpetrators, resulted in the acceptance of truth seeking as an alternative to criminal tribunals (Landsman 1997;Minow 1998;Popkin and Bhuta 1999;Opotow 2001). As the outright denial of wrongs committed in the past was itself considered an affront to the human rights of the victims, the acknowledgement of the truth was theorized to provide justice to the victims and survivors, while restoring the larger community.…”

Neoliberal Penality and State Legitimacy: Politics of Amnesty in Turkey during the AKP Period

“…What makes the Turkish experience with amnesty more interesting is the fact that even though amnesty is granted across the world almost exclusively for “political crimes,” particularly during periods of regime transition or collapse (Lessa and Payne ; Mallinder ; Popkin and Bhuta ), Turkish amnesties have rarely covered political crimes, or “crimes against the state” until the AKP period . AKP's approach, however, reverses this past trend and stresses that the state can only “pardon” offences committed against itself—i.e., political crimes and should not interfere when the criminal act concerns another person's right to life or property.…”

Performative memory and re-victimization: Truth-telling and provocation in Sierra Leone

“…The plan for the public hearings in Sierra Leone was consistent with a vast body of literature that describes the positive effects of truth-telling in transitional or postwar states. Many theorists have seen truth-telling itself as a form of justice, arguing that allowing perpetrators to hide the events of the past from victims and survivors is itself another violation and that knowing the truth will thus provide some measure of justice (Minow, 1998; Popkin and Bhuta, 1999). There is in fact a significant push to have the “right to truth” recognized in international law (Antkowiak, 2002; Naqvi, 2006).…”