Designing truth: Facilitating perpetrator testimony at truth commissions

Abstract

Truth commissions aim to promote transparency, accountability, and reconciliation by compiling detailed narratives of political violence. To achieve this end, both victims and perpetrators of abuses must testify. Yet, little is known about how commissions can be designed to facilitate perpetrator testimony. This article develops a theory of perpetrator participation in truth commissions, with a focus on institutional design. The article then evaluates the effectiveness of four design features—amnesties, subpoena powers, dual-party agreements, and spiritual frameworks—in facilitating perpetrator testimony in the truth commissions in Sierra Leone, South Africa, and Timor-Leste. The analysis indicates that the theoretical constructs developed are present, functional, and influential for perpetrator participation in the three commissions. And, while no individual design feature is essential, the case studies reveal that perpetrator participation may not be forthcoming without a robust dual-party agreement and/or a resonant spiritual framework. This underscores the importance of normative foundations for perpetrators’ engagement with commissions. Crucially, though advantageous features may be present, the criteria required for them to function may not be met, resulting in no effect or a negative effect on participation.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank seminar and workshop participants at Pomona College, the 2014 Summer School on Transitional Justice and the Politics of Memory hosted by Pomona College, the University of Groningen, the University of Rijeka (Cres, Croatia), and the 2017 Summer School on Human Rights and Transitional Justice hosted by Leiden University (The Hague, The Netherlands). I am especially grateful to Heidi Nichols Haddad, Pierre Englebert, Benjamin A.T. Graham, Wayne Sandholtz, and two anonymous reviewers for The Journal of Human Rights for valuable comments on earlier drafts.

Notes

1 I draw on Hayner (2011: 11–12) as the authoritative text for both my definition and universe of truth commissions: “A truth commission (1) is focused on past, rather than ongoing, events; (2) investigates a pattern of events that took place over a period of time; (3) engages directly and broadly with the affected population, gathering information on their experiences; (4) is a temporary body, with the aim of concluding with a final report; and (5) is officially authorized or empowered by the state under review.”

2 See, for example, Schabas (2004). Many Sierra Leonean rebel and militia leaders were themselves child soldiers during British colonial rule.

3 In postwar Mozambique, many people believed reconciliation would be more likely absent accountability for past crimes (Hayner 2011).

4 Transitional truth commissions (Bakiner 2014): Argentina, 1983; Chad, 1991; Chile, 1990; El Salvador, 1992; Guatemala, 1997; Haiti, 1995; Liberia, 2006; Nepal, 1990; Nigeria, 1999; Peru, 2001; Sierra Leone, 2002; South Africa, 1995; Sri Lanka, 1994; Timor-Leste, 2002; and Uganda, 1986. I identify three truth commissions from Hayner (2011) that fulfill Bakiner’s criteria but that are excluded from his analysis: the truth commissions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), 2004; Germany, 1992; and Uruguay, 1985. There are, thus, eighteen transitional truth commissions. I exclude abortive transitional commissions—namely, Bolivia, 1982; Ecuador, 1996; Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), 2001; and The Philippines, 1986.

5 A transitional truth commission is “established within zero to three years after the transition to peace and/or democracy” (Bakiner 2014: 15–17).

6 Transitional truth commissions with perpetrator participation: Argentina, El Salvador, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, South Africa, and Timor-Leste

7 Potential selection effects do not pose a concern for this article. The aim of the article is not to explain truth commission inaugurators’ decision to solicit or not solicit perpetrator testimony. Rather, the aim is to explore features that influence perpetrator participation at truth commissions, given the decision to solicit perpetrator participation. In other words, the dependent variable is not the choice to include perpetrator testimony in a truth commission (which would result in selecting on the dependent variable). Instead, the dependent variable is the level of perpetrator participation, given the choice to include it.

8 Cross-commission comparisons are not perfectly analogous, given different conceptualizations of perpetrators. For example, the South African commission admitted Adriaan Vlok, the Minister of Law and Order—a key policymaker and director of the security forces. Conversely, the East Timorese CRP only admitted individuals who committed minor crimes—such as theft, minor assault, and arson. Thus, some perpetrators may be allowed to participate in some commissions but not in others. However, this is likely a small subset of individuals, and the majority of perpetrators are those who enacted abuses and could participate in the commissions studied.

9 “[T]o me, it is confusing; maybe it’s just a trick between the TRC and the Special Court.  Even the idea of not sharing information between the TRC and Special Court—it is today a big doubt.”—SLTRC participant, “Base Marine,” former RUF commander (Kelsall 2005).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Office of the Provost at the University of Southern California in the form of the Provost Fellowship in the Social Sciences. In addition, this material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE-1418060. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Notes on contributors

Kelebogile Zvobgo

Kelebogile Zvobgo is Provost’s Fellow in the Social Sciences and a Ph.D. candidate in political science and international relations at the University of Southern California.