1 Including Argentina, Bolivia, Chad, Chile, East Timor, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Philippines, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Uganda, Uruguay and Zimbabwe.
2.
2 M. Ignatieff, ‘Articles of faith’, Index on Censorship (Vol. 25, no. 5, 1996), p. 113.
3.
3 Ibid.
4.
4 Ibid., p. 111.
5.
5 Such findings indicate that the UK Terrorism Act 2000, which allows the British government to prosecute alleged ‘terrorists’ from operating within UK nation-state borders, should be approached with extreme caution. Ideological censures instigated thousands of miles away may be subject to forceful action in the UK.
6.
6 N. Nattrass, ‘The Truth and Reconciliation Commission on business and apartheid: a critical evaluation’, African Affairs (Vol. 98, no. 392, 1999), p. 390.
7.
7 Ignatieff, op. cit.
8.
8 P. Hayner‘Fifteen truth commissions - 1974 to 1994: a comparative study’, Human Rights Quarterly (Vol. 16, 1994), pp. 637-638.
9.
9 S. Cohen, States of Denial: knowing about atrocities and suffering (Cambridge, Polity, 2001), p. 162.
10.
10 Ibid., p. 41.
11.
11 Ibid.
12.
12 P. Hayner, ‘Commissioning the truth: further research questions’, Third World Quarterly (Vol. 17, no.1, 1996), p. 28.
13.
13 M. Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: facing history after genocide and mass violence (Boston, Beacon Press, 1998), p. 138.
14.
14 F. Kermode, ‘Palaces of memory’, Index on Censorship (Vol. X, no. 1, 2001), p. 90.
15.
15 K. Bloomfield, We Will Remember Them (Belfast, Northern Ireland Stationery Office, 1998) p. 8.
16.
16 Ibid., p. 24.
17.
17 Thanks to Bill Rolston for debating this point. See his article in this issue.
18.
18 E. Stanley, ‘Evaluating the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’, Journal of Modern African Affairs (September 2001).
19.
19 REMHI/ODHAG, Guatemala: Never Again! (London, CIIR, 1999), p. 315.
20.
20 Despite the regular attempts made by state leaders to attribute blame for human rights violations to ‘bad apples’, and to view brutality as an aberration, commissions may also be faced with past histories that emphasise large-scale social or institutional complicity and participation in violence. Here, the distinctions between who can be designated as a ‘victim’ or as a ‘perpetrator’ may be skewed and difficult to decipher.
21.
21 Marie Smyth‘Remembering in Northern Ireland: victims, perpetrators and hierarchies of pain and responsibility’ in B. Hamber (ed.), Past Imperfect (INCORE, 1998), p. 44.
22.
22 Ibid.
23.
23 S. Silbey, ‘“Let them eat cake”: globalization, postmodern colonialism and the possibilities of justice’, Law and Society Review (Vol. 31, no. 2, 1997), p. 228.
24.
24 Ignatieff, op. cit.
25.
25 B. Hamber, op. cit., p. 98.
26.
26 Juan Garcia Melara (mayor of El Paisnal, El Salvador) ‘Truth, memory and reconciliation: reflections from El Paisnal’, Conference on Truth and Memory (University of Surrey and CAFOD, 25 March 2000).
27.
27 G. Simpson, ‘Interview on the Today programme’, BBC Radio Four (7 August 2000).
28.
28 Silbey, op. cit., p. 231.
29.
29 Silbey, op. cit., p. 221.
30.
30 B. Rolston, Unfinished Business: state killings and the quest for truth (Belfast, Beyond the Pale, 2001), p. 324.
