13350:: Karshan posts old article on Truth Commission in answer to Casimir question

[corbetre@webster.edu]

From: MKarshan@aol.com

Haiti's Truth and Justice Commission
by Fanny Benedetti
On February 5, 1996, the president of the Haitian National Truth and Justice
Commission (Commission) delivered its final report to Haitian president Jean
Bertrand Aristide. The Commission was created on December 1994 by an
executive order issued by Aristide. On March 28, 1995, the Commission
announced as its mandate "to globally establish the truth concerning the most
serious Human Rights violations perpetrated between September 29, 1991 and
October 15, 1994, inside and outside the country and to help to the
reconciliation of all Haitians without any prejudice against seeking legal
action based on these violations.

The Commission's initial goal was to obtain as much evidence as possible by
interviewing citizens about Human Rights violations that had occurred during
the period at issue. The Commission based its findings on testimony gathered
throughout the country by forty Haitian and foreign human rights
investigators during the summer of 1995. The Commission's toughest challenge
was to guarantee the security of victims and investigators and the
confidentiality of those testifying because the fear of reprisal for
testifying was a major concern echoed by several human rights organizations.
The Commission, therefore, chose discretion over publicity and abandoned the
idea of a media campaign such as the one carried out by the UN Truth
Commission for El Salvador, was therefore abandoned. Information of the
investigation, however, was made available to the numerous grassroots
organizations that held the confidence of the population at large. These
groups reacted promptly and efficiently in notifying the populace of the
presence of the Commission in various localities. The results were greater
than many observers had expected. A strong willingness to testify about human
rights abuses was the rule rather than the exception even though a
significant number of victims expressed anxiety about the presence of past
perpetrators of human rights violations in the surrounding areas. In a period
of eight to ten weeks, the Commission received more than seven thousand
complaints. The investigators documented violations on detailed
questionnaires. The Commission also obtained information from secondary
sources such as local and international human rights organizations, including
the United Nation/Organization of American States Civil Mission in Haiti. The
Commission chose to use these secondary sources mainly to verify the
information collected from primary sources.

The question of sources is directly related to the issue of the proper
standard of proof. The Commission considered three standards. The information
collected was considered germane whenever it was supported by sufficient
evidence, that is, there were more facts supporting it than against it. Two
higher standards were also established. Evidence required for certain
findings had to be at least substantial or overwhelming. If the evidence
gathered removed any possibility of a contradictory finding, then it met the
standard of overwhelming proof. If the evidence strongly supported a finding,
then it was deemed substantial. These standards applied whenever persons
alleged to have committed the violations were identified by name. This was a
very sensitive issue because the Commission interpreted its mandate as
requiring it to identify the alleged violators. Although perpetrators were
identified by thousands of victims and witnesses, the Commission faced
difficulties because time constraints and limited resources would not permit
a more thorough investigation of the accused. In some cases, the standard of
substantial or overwhelming proof was met when thorough analysis of the
collected data revealed that a particular perpetrator was mentioned with high
frequency as involved in a certain type of human rights violation. For
example, in some rural areas, perpetrators frequently operated in a
particular locality and their acts were witnessed by most members of the
community.

After collecting testimonies and conducting interviews, the investigating
units began to examine the data before submitting it for entry into a newly
created database. This process was then followed by a more thorough analysis,
at the regional level, of the targets, planners, and patterns of repression.
At the same time, the Commission also carried out special investigations
regarding specific forms of repression, such as sexual violence toward women
and the repression of the press.

The Commission sought to investigate acts of political repression in a broad
manner. Unlike other truth commissions in the past, such as the UN Commission
for El Salvador which focused on a limited number of prominent cases that had
a significant impact on society in general, the Haitian Commission s goal was
to paint a general portrait of the repression. The methods of the UN
Commission for El Salvador allowed for fewer, but more thorough,
investigations which allowed the UN Commission to publish the names of those
who engaged in human rights violations. One reason for this was that the UN
Commission for El Salvador was investigating a twelve-year period of
repression, and therefore had to focus on a select group of cases. By
contrast, the Haitian Commission's mandate covered only a three year period
(September 1991 - October 1994) and, therefore, the goal of the investigation
was to be as extensive and inclusive as possible.

Reconciliation is mentioned twice in the preamble of the March 1995 executive
order, which established the Commission, and the theme also appears in
Article 2 of the Commission s mandate. Reconciliation is important in
understanding the political context in which the Commission was created. The
Commission does not regard itself as the primary instrument to carry out
national reconciliation, but rather expects reconciliation to occur once the
truth about past human rights violations has been revealed. The political
goal of reconciliation inspires the Commission as a "central aspect of its
mandate, and directly influences the recommendations made to the Haitian
government.

The Commission, however, faced political constraints, in part, because it was
created during a period of transition where the Aristide government was
characterized as being weak. At the local level, some of these basic
challenges included public pressure for justice from numerous grassroots
organizations; the specter of mob inspired "street justice"; and the
prevailing public distrust of government. Such challenges added to the
politically charged atmosphere which surrounded not only the Commission but
also the July 1995 legislative elections and the December 1995 presidential
election.

The findings of truth commissions in other countries have proved that
exposing the truth about human rights abuses in a particular country and
regime does not worsen the existing political situation or further social
disturbances. Some findings, however, may further upset a politically fragile
situation. The publication of names, for example, requires serious
consideration of all possible consequences. The UN Commission for El Salvador
assumed that a thorough investigation of the most egregious acts of
repression required the publication of names because of their distrust of El
Salvador's judicial system. The Commission in Haiti, in contrast, did not
focus necessarily on the key leaders and supporters of the repression. It
focused instead on recommending reform measures to be taken by the Haitian
government with regard to the judicial system and other state institutions,
in addition to identifying the authors of violations and their victims. In
this respect, the Commission was the first to have the word justice included
in its official title. By comparison, the UN Commission in El Salvador was
less concerned with studying and proposing judicial reform in part, because
reforms had been negotiated by the parties to the country's peace accords. It
is important to remember that neither commission was granted prosecutorial
nor judicial powers. Some scholars have argued, however, that the UN
Commission in El Salvador, by publicly naming the perpetrators of human
rights violations, had come close to becoming a prosecutorial as well as an
investigative body.

In the past, successful truth commissions have been lauded for primarily for
telling the truth. New discoveries did not make these commissions a success,
since most instances of political repression were generally well known among
the citizens of a given country and by the international media. The
commissions had an impact because of they officially acknowledged the truth.
"To transform knowledge to acknowledgment," is a step widely considered to be
a necessary first step toward national reconciliation because of its
psychological impact.

Other goals commonly associated with earlier truth commission reports include
reparation to the victims, the prosecution of the violators, the
implementation of punishment measures, and the reform of the judiciary. All
of these ambitious goals were specifically mentioned in the mandate of the
Haitian Truth and Justice Commission. The implementation of its
recommendations is now the responsibility of the post-Aristide government.
The government also is compelled, under Aristide's executive order which
created the Commission, to publish the Commission s report. Publication is
the only way to achieve the goal of the Commission -- to tell the truth about
human rights abuse which occurred from 1991 to 1994.

The next major step proposed for Haiti will be the establishment of a
commission for reparations to the victims. The Truth and Justice Commission
recommended its creation in light of the repression's devastating economic
effect on Haitian citizens. This new initiative may, ultimately, be one of
the key achievements of the Truth and Justice Commission.

----- End forwarded message -----