The Truth Commission In Timor-Leste Case Analysis

2624 Words 11 Pages
1. One word I encountered that I didn’t know (and what it means):
One term that I came across that I did not know was unflinchingly. After researching the word I found that it meant, “steadfast or unflattering” as defined by Dictionary.com. This made me have a better understanding of how the truth commission in Timor-Leste was not going to halt in holding Indonesia responsible for the death of between 100,000 to 180,000 East Timorese civilians by intentionally starving them to death.
2. Main argument of this article:
The main argument of the article was to how certain truth commissions were assigned specific type of cases to look over, such as disappearances and how to view international actors who supported those with arms and training during
…show more content…
The article explained the truth commissions were a way for those on trial to explain what their actions were without having to worry being prosecuted in criminal trial yet. The idea was that the truth commissions were the first step in learning the truth about what occurred, and the defendant had the ability to confess their wrongdoings without being sentenced. Although this seemed to be a good trade-off, it swiftly became a practice that backfired as people were upset that those who participated in these were given lighter sentences or were not prosecuted at all. This occurred in countries such as Argentina, who found that even with the help of CONADEP examining thousands of files, they were only able to have, “five of the nine accused were convicted of homicide, torture, and other acts of violence, with sentences ranging from four and one-half years to life in prison” (Hayner 94). Having the issue of convicting people was common throughout countries that established truth commissions, and there were many other failures associated with it. In South Africa, people were granted amnesty and recommended to be prosecuted, defeating the purpose of using truth commissions as a way to start the trial process later. The article explained how although the judiciary process was not as prevalent in the trials, countries such as South Africa say that the limited prosecution led to people being more willing to explain the truth of what occurred since they felt what they were saying was not being used in a trial against them. The final portion described how Argentina established an amnesty law in 1999 that would be sound for the defendant explaining how, “the amnesty could not be applied until it was clear to whom it should be applied based on the jurisdiction of the

Related Documents