I drew simultaneously on theoretical and empirical literature to build framework. Meanwhile, I reviewed academic discussions on evil, suffering, memory and archives, the research assistant analyzed two international experiences: the South Africa and Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (hereinafter SATRC and SLTRC, respectively). As the revision was advancing, the variables and dimensions were changing. To see the evolution of the framework, see the annexes of this chapter.
Once the bibliographic revision was completed for theoretical issues and international experiences, the research focused on the Colombian case (Chapter 4). The first step was to determine the then current situation of Colombia’s peace negotiations (end of 2014 and beginning of 2015). This involved looking at the
73
laws, which had already been passed regarding truth seeking initiatives, and then studying the advances of some of these initiatives (specifically the National Center
of Historical Memory).
During this stage, the research assistant and I asked ourselves whether a TC was truly required, taking into account the numerous and admirable efforts that already were taking place in the country with the purpose —among other things— of satisfying the right to know the truth (e.g. National Center of Historical Memory,
The Justice and Peace Unit). Once the agreement of creating the TC was
published in June 2015, we studied it and participated in a special seminar (Center
of Memory, Peace and Reconciliation) to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of
the agreement with national and international experts.
Once the Colombian context was reviewed, we prepared a draft of the matrix to review it with strategic actors. To do that, we made an alliance with different universities such as Universidad de Antioquia (Medellín), Universidad
CES (Medellín), and Universidad del Valle (Cali), to share our findings. The result
was a series of two events: one in Cali on Nov. 27, 2015 and another in Medellín on Dec. 11, 2015. Each event had two working sessions, one with scholars and another with victim organizations and local authorities. After presenting and explaining our matrix to them, we used a group methodology —previously discussed with a hired expert— to listen to their comments. The findings regarding the Colombian case will be presented in Chapter 4.
1.1 Why South Africa and Sierra Leone TRCs?
After almost 10 years of conflict and political turmoil, a peace agreement was signed in 1999 between the government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Lomé, Togo. Article XXVI of the Lomé Peace Agreement ordered a TRC to “be established within 90 days after the signing of the [… Agreement] and [should], no later than 12 months after the commencement of
74
its work, submit its report to the Government for immediate implementation of its recommendations” (1999, V, XXVI, 3)18.
In response to the Lomé Peace Agreement’s requirements, the Sierra Leone’s Parliament ratified the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act in 2000, which officially created the TRC and specified, among other things, the importance of the report which the TRC was expected to submit:
The report shall summarise the findings of the Commission and shall make recommendations concerning the reforms and other measures, whether legal, political, administrative or otherwise, needed to achieve the object of the Commission; namely the object of providing an impartial historical record, preventing the repetition of the violations or abuses suffered, addressing impunity, responding to the needs of victims and promoting healing and reconciliation. (2000, V, 15, 2),
The context of the SATRC is somewhat different as it was established after more much than twenty years of increasing ethnic exclusion and abuses under the official racial segregation policy of the Apartheid. Most of the active opposition by disenfranchised groups were answered with a governmental crackdown involving extreme levels of violence and human rights abuses. However, after a series of international sanctions and the end of the Cold War a mostly peaceful transition away from the Apartheid system began with a series of negotiations between the governing party and the African National Congress between 1990 and 1993. Democratic elections were held in 1994, and an interim constitution was passed. The TRC was set up by the newly elected parliament to address the evils of the
18
It is important to clarify that the SLTRC Report mentions the Abidjan Peace Agreement as a relevant antecedent of the final SLTRC: “The Abidjan Peace Agreement of 30 November 1996, which initially offered the hope of an end to the conflict but which did not succeed, for reasons detailed elsewhere in this Report, made no provision for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission or for any similar process. Yet article 14 of the Abidjan Agreement granted an amnesty to members of the Revolutionary United Front, allegedly so as ‘[t]o consolidate the peace and promote the cause of national reconciliation’” (2004b, 1,1,2). According to Hirsch, the structure of the entire Lomé Agreement was simply a modification of the original Abidjan Agreement (Hirsch 2001, 83).
75
apartheid , which was endorsed by president Nelson Mandela and other prominent South African figures (USIP, 2016).
These two TRCs (SLTRC and SATRC )were selected because they both meet two important criterions. First, a reasonable amount of time has passed since both TC finished their work —SA finished on 2003 and SL on 2004— , so there is an adequate number of assessments and studies to have been published for these two cases; this helped us to ensure that we would be able to study not only the official TRC documents, but also the posterior expert assessments.
Second, and most importantly, the two selected commissions provide important features that could be compared in the framework of this research. These two TRCs, then, have complementary features that suggest their utility as representative cases of two poles of the wide spectrum of possible TRCs:
Table 2. Comparative table between South African and Sierra Leone TRC
South Africa TRC Sierra Leone TRC
Judicial Functions Yes, Amnesty Committee No, such functions were assigned to the SCSL Working time
period 3 years, plus 4 additional years 2 years Years of conflict
investigated 34 years 9 years
The SATRC had several important judicial functions, such as granting amnesty to perpetrators who confessed their crimes truthfully and completely. Because the time period covered by the SATRC was broad (it worked for three years and was later granted four additional years to investigate thirty-four years of conflict), the report documented a wide and varied list of acts. Despite the fact that the final report defined four notions of truth that had guided the TRC: factual or forensic truth, personal or narrative truth, social truth, and healing and restorative truth (2004b, 1, 3, 21), this Commission was widely criticized for offering an over-
76
legalistic view and not contributing to an improved understanding of the context, patterns and causes of past violations (Wilson, 2001, p. 33)
Conversely, the SLTRC did not have any legal functions because it worked simultaneously with the Special Court for Sierra Leone, a different organism in charge of assigning criminal responsibility. Because the SLTRC covered a narrower period of time than the SATRC (two years to investigate nine years of conflict), the report paid special attention to the experience of children and victims of sexual abuse. Additionally this report has been praised for providing a crucial framework for debates on violence and repression.
In sum, these two TRCs (SLTRC and SATRC) were selected because they both meet important criterions. First, there is an adequate number of assessments and studies published on these two cases. Second, the two selected commissions provide important features that could be compared in the framework of this research. African models might raise some issues for Latin American TCs, however, the experience of the South African TRC was the first TC attained worldwide prominence (Freeman, 2006:22) and this help us to ensure that we would be able to study not only the official TRC documents, but also the posterior expert assessments for different and complementary approaches.