Session 5: Access to Information: Rights, Limitations, and Obligations

Session five of the conference focused on Safeguarding archives and access to information. Panelists debated states’ obligation to preserve archives of human rights violations and make information available to the public.

Catalina Botero - Special Rapporteur
for Freedom of Expression, Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights

Catalina Botero, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) led the panel with an analysis of whether victims of human rights violations have the right to access information on these violations, whether there are limitations to this right, and what obligations states have to deliver this right.

There are at least four arguments that support access to information as a right, she said.

First, information on past human rights violations serves as evidence in criminal trials, which makes it necessary to the successful implementation of justice. To deny access to this information would deny the right to justice.

Second, to deny families of the disappeared information of the whereabouts of their relatives and loved ones perpetuates their suffering, and is therefore tantamount to cruel and unusual treatment.

Third, building a narrative about what happened during periods of mass atrocity is crucial to ensuring a successful transition to democracy and respect for human rights. Archives are essential to the construction of an accurate and complete narrative.

The fourth argument counters the idea that keeping archives classified is critical to maintain national security. Knowledge of past atrocities cannot threaten a democratic idea of security, Botero argued. Rather, access to this information serves to protect and promote future rights, thus strengthening national security.

She concluded by highlighting two exceptions to the right to access to information and discussing the obligation states have to provide access to archives. Information can be withheld when the information violates an individual’s right to privacy and when it has the potential to compromise an ongoing investigation, she argued, although these exceptions will always be temporary or partial. States have the obligation to use these exceptions only when necessary to protect the greater good.

Gustavo Meoño , director of the Historical Archive of the National Police of Guatemala, discussed Guatemala’s experience with the discovery and preservation of archives of over 80 million papers from 1882–1997. These archives included information about human rights violations perpetrated by the Guatemalan army and police, primarily against indigenous populations in Guatemala.

He shared the lessons learned in preserving, digitizing and facilitating public access to this information, and discussed political and security sensitivities faced by the national archives in executing this process. To date, tens of thousands of documents have been made available to victims and families of the disappeared and researchers, and have been used in human rights trials as evidence.

Jaime Antunes, general director of the National Archive of Rio de Janeiro, applied what was discussed previously to the case of Brazil, and stated that the interest of the National Archives is to make the available documents public.

His discussion focused on the concern of the destruction of documents. During consultations between the National Archives and the army to discuss possible security risks, officials said that many documents were deemed no longer needed by the government, and were destroyed. Antunes argued this is in violation of a Brazilian law regulating the processes in which documents can be destroyed.

The discussion following the debate included questions about partiality and legality of information contained in archives, the destruction of documents and what the state’s responsibility is in such situations, Brazil’s process in reconstructing archives, and clarifications on the relationship between state security and access to information.