Session 3: Discovering the Truth

The final session of the first day focused on Seeking the Truth: the right to truth and the role of truth commissions in achieving it. Priscilla Hayner, Senior Advisor to the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, reflected on the power gained from investigating and establishing the truth, and the role Latin America has played in setting the standards we now come to expect from truth commissions.

The central question Hayner addressed was what makes a truth commission successful. Over 40 truth commissions have been established to date, but only about half of these could be considered successful. Hayner identified four key factors in determining this success: political will, foundational mandate, membership, and capacity of the commission.

Focusing on membership, she used Guatemala as an example of where the selection of commissioners determined the ultimate success of the truth commission. In the face of widespread criticism and public opposition, the selected commissioners pushed the mandate as far as possible and were not afraid of strong language in a report that ultimately came to be adopted.

Priscilla Hayner -Senior Advisor to
the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue,
co-founder, ICTJ

The Kenya Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC), on the other hand, provided an example of where the selection of commissioners served to the detriment of the commission. The head of the commission was called before the TJRC itself to answer to alleged charges under the commission mandate.

In light of these experiences, she urged Brazil to ensure that the truth commission holds a consultative process with civil society when selecting commissioners and to ensure that the commission receives appropriate resources and support throughout its work.

Elizabeth Lira, professor and researcher at the Center for Ethics at the University Alberto Hurtado in Chile raised the issue of competing beliefs on how to establish the truth about what happened in the past. There are two avenues to truth, she argued, through witness testimony and through a historical analysis based on other forms of documentation. There is potential room, therefore, for more than one methodology for a truth commission.

Edson Teles, Professor of Philosophy, faculty member of the Philosophy Department of Unifesp, highlighted points that should be considered in the debate surrounding the truth commission bill in Brazil’s congress now.

The creation of a truth commission alone does not guarantee that truth will be revealed, he argued. To ensure a commission that establishes truth, Brazil must first carefully define three aspects of the commission: structure, which truth is being sought, and the composition of the commission. He argued that it is fundamental that the voices of the victims are heard in the entire process of establishment and work of the commission.

Belisario dos Santos Junior, President of the Latin American Lawyer’s Association for Human Rights discussed further the specific dangers a truth commission in Brazil may face, including contradictory expectations for what it is to achieve. He stressed that a truth commission should build on what the archives of Brazil have already sought to achieve, and that the quest for establishing truth has already been started.

Marcelo Torelly - Head of the Historical Memory of the
Ministry of Justice’s Amnesty Commission

Marcelo Torelly, the coordinator general of historical memory at the Amnesty Commission provided closing remarks to the panel, summarizing the discussions held throughout the day and relating the issues back to where Brazil stands now in the search for truth. The key to overcoming obstacles in the transitional process lies in creativity, he argued: creativity of the commissioners in carrying out their mandate and creativity in civil society in engaging with transitional processes.

He addressed the often-raised issue of amnesty:

“There is a need to reestablish equality,” he said. “The problem is that amnesty breaks the equality of people in the face of the law. Some are penalized by the rule of law and some are not held responsible.”

The closing discussion focused on questions of the structure of truth commissions and the selection of commissioners. Participants asked panelists to discuss whether there are precedents for international observers within a national truth commission, if commissioners are selected without consultation with civil society, and whether this has the danger of perpetuating an authoritarian system.