What Truth? How Civil Society Organisations Shape the Knowledge Production of Truth Commissions

ABSTRACTThis article examines how civil society organisations are able to shape the politics of knowledge production of truth commissions (TCs). The article argues that their capacity varies according to the ongoing power dynamics resulting from local, national and international factors that shape the establishment of a TC. The interactions of these factors are studied through an analytical framework that assesses three dimensions, namely: the standardisation and diffusion of global transitional justice (TJ) norms; the footprint of these norms in the design of TCs at the national level; and the negotiation of the mandate of a TC with civil society actors.KEYWORDS: Truth commissionstransitional justiceknowledge productioncivil societyvictims Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 This article benefited during 2021 from a research grant from the International Catalan Institute for Peace (ICIP) (R-ICIP008-2020).2 The paper acknowledges the concept of ‘new civil society’ developed by Gready and Robins (Citation2017) that encompasses social movements and collective action beyond the traditional concept of civil society as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), mainly human-rights NGOs. Yet, it focuses on victim’s organisations as they have been the main interlocutors with the TCs. In many cases, these organisations are part as well of larger social movements themselves, such as ethnic-territorial movements, for instance in Colombia.3 Particularly, Fernandez-Torne (Citation2015) divides a truth commission process into three stages: the period leading to the establishment of a truth commission; second, between their establishment and the submission of the final report, that is while the TC is performing its work; and third, when the recommendations are compiled in a TC’s final report. In this paper we examine the first and the second stage and leave aside the third.4 From 2002 with the establishment of Sierra Leone’s TC until the launch of the final report of Colombia’s TC in 2022.5 On the theoretical framework, we would like to thank Briony Jones, Julie Bernath, and Simon Robbins for their insights and suggestions to initial drafts.6 The authors would like to appreciate the insights provided on the Colombian case by Adriana Rudling, senior consultant from ICTJ; on the Nepal case by Nirajan Thapaliya, Director of Amnesty International in Nepal; on the Ivory Coast by Ousmane Zina, Head of the Department of Political Science of the University of Bouaké.7 Presidential Decree 2011-85, from 13 May 2011.8 Interview, ICTJ representative, July 2021.9 Interview, CSCI Coordinator, Abidjan, July 2021.10 For an overview of the consultations conducted, from 2007 to 2011, for both the commission of inquiry into disappearances and the truth and reconciliation commission, see Fernandez Torne Citation2013.11 Interview, ICTJ representative, August 2021.12 Interview, coordinator of the gender group of CEV, 3 August 2021.13 Interview, director Ruta Pacífica de las Mujeres, 25 August 2021.14 Interview, ICTJ representative, August 2021.15 Interview, CDVR former member, 30 July 2021.16 Interview, CEV representative of the Unit of Knowledge, 17 August 2021.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by Institut Català Internacional per la Pau (ICIP)/ International Catalan Institute for Peace [grant number RICIP008-2020].