Amnesty publishes scathing report on TRC

Yesterday Amnesty International released a scathing report on the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The report is available here.

Below are some things I learned from the report. I copied large chunks of language directly from the report.

• Some expressed doubts about the timing chosen for the deployment of statement takers, corresponding to the rainy season, when traveling is particularly difficult, and then to harvesting time, when Liberians in the interior are busy in the fields.
• In October 2006 the Association for the Legal Defense of Charles G. Taylor (John T. Richardson’s group) appealed to the Supreme Court to stop the TRC from hearing testimony against Charles Taylor, arguing that it could jeopardize Taylor’s chance of a fair trial at the Special Court because Taylor could not defend himself against allegations. The Supreme Court decided not to proceed on the petition.
• The TRC plans to hold thematic hearings in Monrovia from July to September 2008, including a hearing on prosecution in September. Institutional hearings will take place in October. The TRC plans to organize a National Conference on Reconciliation in November. The TRC is scheduled to produce a report on its activities and findings by September.
• During hearings that Amnesty observed, the TRC consistenly asked those testifying to name the perpetrators of the crimes they were recounting and to specify whether they would be able to recognize them.
• A press release issued by the TRC itself provided so many details about the testimony of witnesses whose names were withheld for security reasons that they could be easily identified. Photos and names of the witnesses, including in some cases information on their place of origin and residence, appeared on the front pages of Monrovia newspapers together with photos of the person they had accused and a complete account of the allegations against them.
• Some witnesses said that during the hearings they had been assured that “none would harm them” –an assurance beyond the TRC’s real capacity.
• Cases implicating government officials will be heard behind closed doors. It is not clear whether this decision is dictated by concerns of security or political or other considerations.
• Original outreach posters showed the TRC process as two people standing in front of four Commissioners, sitting behind a bench. That image was later considered to equate the TRC to judicial proceedings—not the way the TRC wants to be perceived. In a second poster designed to publicize the public hearings, the TRC staff were portrayed sitting inside a palava hut. Despite this shift, the hearings in Monrovia have looked more like judicial proceedings than a palava hut meeting.
• Liberian society is increasingly expressing strong views in support of addressing impunity. Because some legislators are alleged to have perpetrated human rights violations themselves, the current composition of the legislature makes bringing perpetrators to justice a major challenge.
• TRC policy says that it will recommend prosecution for individuals who have violated international human rights law and ignore or disregard the TRC process. Amnesty believes that participation in the TRC process should not be a criteria for recommendations of prosecutions.
• The TRC Act provides that all recommendations shall be implemented. The Act gives the Independent National Human Rights Commission the responsibility to make sure the recommendations are implemented. This Commission, however, has not yet been established.
• If the Liberian criminal justice system is not in a position to respond to ongoing human rights violations, it is in even less of a position to deal with past crimes under international law.
• While the problems linked to lack of resources are slowly being overcome, new problems are emerging:
  1. Lack of in house legal support.
  2. Lack of clarity among local media, general Liberian public, and Shelby [my addition] about TRC policies on reparations and prosecutions.
  3. Policy on granting “general immunity.”
  4. Lack of comprehensive program for psychological advice and support to victims and witnesses.
  5. Insufficient protection measures for victims and witnesses.
  6. Inadequacy of TRC procedures to protect the presumption of innocence of those named as perpetrators. [Anyone who reads local papers will agree with this.]
  7. TRC policy on recommending reparations only at the community level. [This criticism I disagree with—I think individual reparations would cause too many problems. And how can you monetize one person's suffering compared to another's?]

• A procedure exists where individuals can apply to the TRC for amnesty. This procedure requires the TRC to determine whether the crimes disclosed amount to violations of international human rights law in order to exclude the granting of immunity. As of February 2008 no perpetrator had requested amnesty. Some say this is a sign of true repentance and reconciliation in Liberian society. However, the attitude of most perpetrators seems to be difference. The option of requesting amnesty has been scarecely publicized. In addition, the practice of automatically granting confidentiality to all those requesting it and the policy on granting “general immunity” to all those giving information made application for amnesty not necessary to shield from criminal prosecution.
• Outreach activities targeted at local radio and newspapers can be considered generally successful.
• In June 2007 a BBC survey showed that 80% of the adult population in Liberia were aware of the TRC, but only 51% of those with no formal education were aware of the TRC.
• While focusing on promoting participation in the statement-taking process, the TRC failed to explain clearly its mandate and policies to the Liberian public. The message focused on truth telling and reconciliation. The same survey cited in the previous bullet showed that of those who knew the TRC existed, less then half understood its powers.
• Observers noted a lack of coordination between outreach and statement-taking.
• In January 2008 the TRC estimated having collected between 10,000 and 16,000 statements in Liberia; more than 400 Liberians in the UK and the US had given or had signed up to give a statement and 700 statements had been gathered in Ghana.
• The TRC admitted that allowing public allegations at the start of the statement-taking process had been a mistake, gave assurances that statements would be verified before the hearings and announced that those accused in statements would be invited to proceedings. Unfortunately, the TRC did not keep all of these promises.
• In 2006 some organizations expressed concern to Amnesty about encouraging women to give their statement to the TRC, as no form of protection was in place, especially in rural areas. The TRC adopted a policy that testimonies by victims of sexual crimes would be heard behind closed doors. However, confidentiality is the only form of protection currently available, as protection measures for victims and witnesses are severely insufficient.

A TRC outreach poster making the public hearings look like a judicial proceeding. Picture from here.

• In the final report, with regards to prosecutions, the TRC could recommend:
  1. An international ad hoc tribunal
  2. An internationalized tribunal
  3. A special chamber within the national judiciary
  4. International prosecutors and judges sitting on national panels with national judges
• The insistence of the TRC on the importance of national ownership of the process should be commended, as well as the financial and other support provided by the government.