Reseach article with an abstract ob the top and 3-4 key objectives just below it
Budget: $30 – $250 USD
Truth and Reconciliation Commissions as tools for Transitional Justice!
Coping with the past during the transition from a repressive regime to a democracy has taken a wide variety of forms. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) are regarded as alternative transitional justice mechanisms. They are non-judicial transitional justice mechanisms and do not have the powers to prosecute criminals.
Such TRCs as temporary bodies are mandated by governments or international agencies to investigate and make findings about acts and patterns of violence and gross human rights abuses that took place during a specific period of time against a certain group of people, often natives.
Genesis of truth commissions can be traced to the mid-1970s and early 1980s. In some South American countries, truth commissions were established to look into the “disappearances” of people during previous military dictatorships. The first truth commission to attract international attention was the National Commission on the Disappeared in Argentina, which operated from 1983 to 1984. There is no generally accepted precise definition of what exactly is meant by “truth commissions”. They can basically be described as ad hoc official bodies that may set up to investigate a past history of human rights violations over a certain period of time in a particular country or in relation to a particular conflict and make recommendations for the future.
Perhaps a more useful way of understanding and appreciating what truth commissions are is by trying to identify their distinctive features. In this respect, truth commissions should be distinguished from investigatory bodies such as the ordinary commissions of inquiry, or others, such as the ordinary courts and special tribunals such as the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
At least four features are observed about these “truth commissions”.
First, truth commissions focus on patterns of abuses over a period of time in the past rather than on a specific event
Truth commissions can also be defined by what they are not. They do not have the power to prosecute or punish perpetrators of human rights violations or make binding judicial pronouncements. They also do not have the power to implement or to compel any implementation of their recommendations. There have been over 20 truth commotions, as strictly defined above, that have been established in the world since the 1980s. Overall, truth commissions vary considerably depending on the country, the events that motivated its creation, its mandate, its composition and duration. The purpose of Truth Commissions has gained enormous interest due to various factors, inter alia; the universal consensus that during democratic transitions dealing with past human rights abuses cannot be ignored; and the perceived need to institute Truth Commission-like bodies in conflicts. These TRCs are seen as an important transitional justice mechanism for providing healing for victims and their families, providing peaceful coexistence, and instilling a new democratic order characterized by respect and value for human rights and supremacy of rule of law.
What are the responsibilities and contributions of the church and civil society in the reconciliation process?
And what can we learn from Canadian, South African, and Nordic experiences?
Is it important as a symbolic act of acknowledgement and a step toward restoring faith between the groups? How meaningful is the apology for the reconciliation?
Coping with the past during the transition from a repressive regime to a democracy has taken a wide variety of forms. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) are regarded as alternative transitional justice mechanisms. They are non-judicial transitional justice mechanisms and do not have the powers to prosecute criminals.
Such TRCs as temporary bodies are mandated by governments or international agencies to investigate and make findings about acts and patterns of violence and gross human rights abuses that took place during a specific period of time against a certain group of people, often natives.
Genesis of truth commissions can be traced to the mid-1970s and early 1980s. In some South American countries, truth commissions were established to look into the “disappearances” of people during previous military dictatorships. The first truth commission to attract international attention was the National Commission on the Disappeared in Argentina, which operated from 1983 to 1984. There is no generally accepted precise definition of what exactly is meant by “truth commissions”. They can basically be described as ad hoc official bodies that may set up to investigate a past history of human rights violations over a certain period of time in a particular country or in relation to a particular conflict and make recommendations for the future.
Perhaps a more useful way of understanding and appreciating what truth commissions are is by trying to identify their distinctive features. In this respect, truth commissions should be distinguished from investigatory bodies such as the ordinary commissions of inquiry, or others, such as the ordinary courts and special tribunals such as the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
At least four features are observed about these “truth commissions”.
First, truth commissions focus on patterns of abuses over a period of time in the past rather than on a specific event
Truth commissions can also be defined by what they are not. They do not have the power to prosecute or punish perpetrators of human rights violations or make binding judicial pronouncements. They also do not have the power to implement or to compel any implementation of their recommendations. There have been over 20 truth commotions, as strictly defined above, that have been established in the world since the 1980s. Overall, truth commissions vary considerably depending on the country, the events that motivated its creation, its mandate, its composition and duration. The purpose of Truth Commissions has gained enormous interest due to various factors, inter alia; the universal consensus that during democratic transitions dealing with past human rights abuses cannot be ignored; and the perceived need to institute Truth Commission-like bodies in conflicts. These TRCs are seen as an important transitional justice mechanism for providing healing for victims and their families, providing peaceful coexistence, and instilling a new democratic order characterized by respect and value for human rights and supremacy of rule of law.
What are the responsibilities and contributions of the church and civil society in the reconciliation process?
And what can we learn from Canadian, South African, and Nordic experiences?
Is it important as a symbolic act of acknowledgement and a step toward restoring faith between the groups? How meaningful is the apology for the reconciliation?