Truth as Justice: Investigatory Commissions in Latin America

Abstract

In recent years, Latin American countries have sought to come to terms with prior periods of widespread human rights violations, relying increasingly on investigatory commissions. Investigatory efforts have been undertaken by democratically elected governments that replaced military dictatorships, by UN‐sponsored commissions as part of a UN‐mediated peace process, and by national human rights commissioners. This article examines truth commissions in Chile and El Salvador, an investigatory effort in Honduras, and a proposed commission in Guatemala. It compares the achievements and limitations of these commissions within the political constraints and institutional reality of each country, focusing on four major goals: the effort to create an authoritative account of the past; vindication of victims; recommendations for legislative, structural, or other changes to avoid repetition of past abuses; and establishing accountability or the identity of perpetrators.

Can Truth Reconcile a Nation? Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in Argentina and Chile: Lessons for Mexico

“…More specifically, the commissions set four goals (Popkin & Roht‐Arriaza, ): (1) create an authoritative record, (2) provide redress and a platform for victims, (3) recommend legislative, structural, or other changes, and (4) establish accountability for the perpetrators. To create an authoritative record, truth commissions rely on their composition and method of investigation.…”

“…Finally, the goal of accountability of individuals and institutions for past acts refers to the relationship between truth and justice. This relationship can be honored by “naming those individuals found responsible for killings and disappearances within their report or by passing the information onto the court system in the hope that the courts will follow up” (Popkin & Roht‐Arriaza, , p. 105). A coordinated effort between the government, the military, and social institutions is needed to accomplish this goal, and this has been one of the greatest challenges of all truth commissions.…”

“…427–8). According to Popkin and Roht‐Arriaza (), truth commissions in Latin America have been formed in two kinds of circumstances, civilian governments replacing formal or de facto military dictatorships, and public demands for investigation in the context of a negotiated end to civil wars. The first case can be found in truth commissions in Chile, Honduras, and Argentina, and the second is represented in the cases of El Salvador and Guatemala.…”

“…By examining the nature of truth commissions and their goals and challenges, it will be easier to understand the relevance of two of the most remarkable commissions in Latin America. Several factors encourage Latin American governments to choose the truth commission as the centerpiece of their efforts to confront the past (Popkin & Roht‐Arriaza, , pp. 81–2): (1) the need for truth is related to the types of violations committed under the former regime or during a period of war, (2) investigatory commissions shortcut some of the difficulties inherent in using “normal” investigatory channels such as the ones derived from complicity in the crimes by the police and courts themselves, (3) political constraints on other types of actions, particularly those that more directly challenge the hegemony or institutional integrity of the armed forces.…”

Icebergs and other hazards: An epilogue

“…In Peru, a truth and reconciliation commission went to work within months of the fall of Alberto Fujimori, which brought the 20-year-long civil war to an end (see, for example, Gonza´lez Cueva, 2004). Similarly, the truth commission set up in 1992 in El Salvador in accordance with the Chapultepec Peace Accords went to work almost immediately after the end of the civil war (see, for example, Popkin and Roht-Arriaza, 1995).…”