Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and the Colombian Justice and Peace Law and Victims

This dissertation answers the question of what the proper balance is for victims with respect to the formation of a truth or truth and reconciliation commission that is formed to address the aftermath of an authoritarian regime or armed conflict. A review of the historical operation of entities that have operated in the aftermath of authoritarian regimes and armed conflict is conducted in this dissertation. From the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials to the present day, nations have struggled to try to devise a systematic way to deal with the aftermath of harm caused to victims as a consequence of authoritarian regimes and armed conflict. An examination of the various past truth and reconciliation commissions, the International Criminal Court, and various treaties is here juxtaposed with the Colombian Justice and Peace program implemented a decade ago to bring about peace and reconciliation in Colombia. This dissertation concludes that an entity formed with the purpose of achieving the proper balance for victims of an authoritarian regime or armed conflict, must have a truth-telling component that works in tandem with a specialized court conceived with the objective of operating alongside the commission. Thus, while there is a punitive aspect, the focus is more on the relationship between the events, solutions, and relief provided for victims. An entity with such a focus has various components, including truth-telling and some form of sanction or punishment, but always with the betterment of the past, present, and future victims as well as the subject society or country as its priority. In that vein, a set of proposed flexible guidelines are presented as the culmination of this dissertation. The flexible guidelines proposed here set forth a balanced system between the commission and the court that will provide for both punishment and reconciliation for particular countries and the victims.