The Hague, September 21, 2003

 

 

In the last years we have been witnesses of how Truth and Reconciliation Commissions spread around the world. [i] It is interesting to note the addition of the word “Reconciliation” to these Commissions. Truth Commissions have been an instrument to deal with issues related to Human Rights violations in more than twenty countries in the last three decades. [ii]  But only in the last one, after the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, these two concepts have become a “trade mark” of these initiatives.

This addition has not been done without strong discussions. In the Peruvian case, for instance, many Human Rights organizations still question the inclusion of this concept. For many, it is only a Christian perspective that instead of adding something to truth, weakens the process of pursuing justice.

Therefore, if we are for a Centre for Justice and Reconciliation, we should make it clear that Reconciliation not only does not diminish the importance of Justice but opens it to a different dimension, which includes restorative processes, reparations and healing.

It is important, however to admit that the resistance to include reconciliation has historical bases. In some cases the voices of the churches have called for reconciliation requesting that facts from the past should be forgotten. But these facts included summary executions, torture, disappearance!

 

The reconciliation process

I believe that some of the classic moments of the reconciliation process, as understood by the Christian churches, although related to the individual, could offer some criteria of discernment to pursue authentic reconciliation. [iii]

One of the moments of the reconciliation process is the moment of confession. In it the sinner recognizes the sin he/she has committed and asks for forgiveness. Confession includes the acknowledgement of the violation committed, of the harm produced and the acceptance of the own responsibility.

This acknowledgement of the fact and its consequences, has a lot to do with the issue of truth [iv] .  In the Human Rights arena, a week ago a colleague and friend, who has been working on Human Rights for twenty years and is now working at Human Rights Watch, told me the following: “You know, for years I have thought that to create commissions to investigate what had happened was a waste of resources. We knew, I thought, what had happened. However, now after having participated at different TRC processes I realized we didn’t know, societies didn’t know what happened in their own countries”.

I think this is true. Having heard from victims the atrocities committed in Peru or Sierra Leone, for instance, I realized, truth is not something fixed, abstract, an absolute value, “Veritas” but something painfully built through the sharing of memories, experiences, sadness and hope.

 

Reconciliation as a spiritual journey

In Ayacucho, when the public hearings of the Peruvian TRC began, victims (most of them indigenous) walked for days to deliver their testimonies. It was indeed a physical walk through the Andes, but also a spiritual path towards recovering their violated human dignity. Coming before the ICC will also be a physical journey. I think perhaps one of the contributions of the CJR would be supporting the spiritual journey.

Firstly, a journey for the victims. To listen to the stories told by the victims, this is their own approaches to truth is crucial to go ahead in the journey.

But secondly, a journey also for the perpetrators. Many of them, will not recognize facts and responsibility. This wouldn’t be surprising. It’s the same attitude of Cain when he denied having killed his brother. But the accompaniment of victims and perpetrators coming to the ICC would be an issue to be discussed at the CJR. 

Thirdly, a journey, a reconciliation process for the whole society. The reconciliation of the society is one of the requisites, I believe, of restorative justice procedures. At the communal level it is quite clear that restorative process’ methodologies have as goal not only to restore relationships between victims and offenders but within the whole community. [v] Shifting from community to national and international level on Restorative Justice procedures is still a big challenge. But if we pursue, as I think we should, reconciliation within the whole society, then other means should be looked for to address this task. I am thinking specifically of the awareness-building responsibility of the CJR and the relation with the Media that has been and still is a hard work for many TRCs.

 

Reparation

The process of bringing their stories, cases before the Court and to the public is in itself a process of restoring human dignity. [vi] When you are witness of the testimony-taking procedures you can see the changes in the faces of the victims and in some cases of the perpetrators.

The notion of reparation is also central to the process of reconciliation. The spirit of the ministry of reconciliation is to relate the reparation to the sin that has been committed. There should be a direct relation between sin and reparation. In many cases the reparation cannot change the damage, the harm made. If a person was killed, if a girl was raped, if a child lost his hands because of the explosion of an antipersonnel mine, there is no possibility to get back to the previous stage. 

In many cases the issue of reparation has been central to TRCs, Tribunals and Courts. Discussions on reparations were many times limited to the State possibilities to give economic reparations to the victims. [vii]

But let me stress the need of symbolic reparations. The CJR should consider how it can contribute to this process.

Relatives of disappeared people in my own country, Uruguay, after more than fifteen years of having achieved democracy, are still looking for different ways of symbolic reparations. There is a large memorial monument in Montevideo. They appreciate this symbol. But they are continuously looking for more. This could also be a never ending story.

 

A never ending story

From the Christian theological perspective, “authentic reconciliation is an eschatological process that doesn’t reach its perfection in history, but is a never reachable however obligatory aim”. [viii] This is perfect reconciliation can never be reached but is a constant exigency. In other words the circle of reconciliation is open, it is not closed. Questions at our annotated agenda are a very good way to continue this process of reflection.

 

Notes