United States Institute of Peace • www.usip.org • Tel. 202.457.1700 • Fax. 202.429.6063

UNITED STates institute of peace

© USIP 2012 • All rights reserved.

“When establishing a 

truth commission or commission of inquiry, there 

are a number of choices 

that convening authorities 

need to make. Although no 

one-size-fits-all truth-seeking 

mechanism works for any 

country facing a legacy of 

past abuses, there are some 

common ingredients for a 

successful truth commission 

or a commission of inquiry.”

January 12, 2012

The Diversity of Truth Commissions 

and Commissions of Inquiry

Summary

•	 Over the past several decades, dozens of countries have established truth commissions and 

other bodies to investigate mass atrocities or systematic human rights abuse. Lessons learned 

from past truth-finding processes are invaluable to help address the legacies of human rights 

violations in countries transitioning to democratic regimes in the Middle East and North Africa 

and elsewhere.

•	 Truth commissions aim to uncover and acknowledge abuses from the past by recognizing 

the suffering of victims and making recommendations to prevent a recurrence of violence 

in the future.

•	 When convening authorities establish a truth commission, they need to select a process to 

choose the commission’s membership, decide on the subject matter and a deadline for the 

work it will do as well as its legal powers, its duration and the extent to which its work is public. 

•	 USIP has established a Truth Commissions Digital Collection (http://www.usip.org/publications/truth-commission-digital-collection) that provides summaries and vital statistics of 41 

past commissions from 35 countries, along with copies of most of their legal charters and 

final reports. Each commission has a dedicated page along with information on subsequent 

developments, such as reforms, prosecutions and reparations to victims.

•	 The Truth Commissions Digital Collection is a resource for researchers and implementers seeking to learn and apply lessons from the past to make current “truth processes” more effective. 

Introduction

Truth commissions are now considered a standard element of transitional justice that aim to 

address and overcome a legacy of past human rights abuse. More countries will establish truth 

commissions in the near future. In Brazil, the Senate unanimously passed legislation to create a 

truth commission to investigate human rights violations committed during Brazil’s authoritarian 

past. In Nepal, a proposal is underway to form a commission to investigate abuses committed 

during the armed conflict in Nepal between 1996 and 2006. Representatives of civil society from 

Afghanistan and Angola to Colombia, Iraq, the United States, and Zimbabwe have called for the 

establishment of new truth-seeking mechanisms in their respective countries. 

Most recently, the upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa region have already been 

followed by intensified debates on the establishment of mechanisms to uncover abuses from 

Evelyne Schmid

E-mail: e.schmid@bangor.ac.uk

peaceBrieF118
© USIP 2012 • All rights reserved.

The Diversity of Truth Commissions and Commissions of Inquiry

page 2 • PB 118 • January 12, 2012

the past. In Tunisia, several commissions have reportedly started to investigate violations of 

human rights and corruption of the past regime, and the Libyan transitional government has 

indicated that it intends to prioritize transitional justice now that Moammar Qaddafi’s 42-year 

rule has ended.

Countries create truth commissions to uncover the facts about broad patterns of abuse, to 

better understand and acknowledge the scope of abuses committed, and to address changes that 

need to be made to prevent future atrocities. Truth commissions are temporary bodies officially 

authorized or empowered by the state. They typically focus on a specific period of time, usually 

engage directly with the affected population and gather information on their experiences. Most 

of more than 30 commissions formed in the past three decades have—with various degrees of 

success—completed their mandates to investigate and report on patterns of human rights abuses. 

The majority of them have published their findings in final reports, made broad ranging recommendations of reform and urged for prosecutions and reparations to victims. 

Governments, civil society or international organizations often convene similar bodies with 

a more limited scope than truth commissions, typically to investigate a particular atrocity or an 

episode of the conduct of a former leader. USIP refers to these bodies as “commissions of inquiry.” 

These commissions can be similar to truth commissions, but more closely resemble a criminal or 

quasi-judicial investigation than a national process. In some cases, commissions of inquiry have 

operated without the official backing of the state, but were organized by civil society or international organizations.

USIP has established a comprehensive online digital collection of truth commissions and 

commissions of inquiry at http://www.usip.org/publications/truth-commission-digital-collection, 

which includes the charter, reports and basic facts about more than 30 truth commissions and 

selected commissions of inquiry. This is designed to facilitate better design for truth processes 

seeking to account for legacies of past abuse.

Inspiration and Lessons from Past Truth Commissions and 

Commissions of Inquiry

When establishing a truth commission or commission of inquiry, there are a number of choices 

that convening authorities need to make. Although no one-size-fits-all truth-seeking mechanism 

works for any country facing a legacy of past abuses, there are some common ingredients for a 

successful truth commission or a commission of inquiry.

Engage in public consultations and tailor the mandate and goals of a truth commission to fit societal 

needs and the historical context. Truth commissions and commissions of inquiry have the greatest 

prospects of success when they are designed for the societal context in which they will serve. The 

society in one country may feel that it is most important to obtain the most complete historic 

record of patterns of past abuses. Or, it may want to acknowledge and then raise awareness about 

past violence. But in another country, an investigation, for example the finding of remains of a 

particular massacre, matters most. The best way to determine a society’s needs is to consult the 

public at large before designing a mandate to ensure that it serves national goals rather than a 

particular group’s narrow agenda.

Provide a robust mandate that enables a truth commission to access and investigate evidence 

without political restrictions. A truth commission tasked with examining the nature, antecedents, 

root causes, and impact of human rights violations, for instance, will require unhindered and safe 

access to evidence, witnesses and other sources of information. The commission will also need 

sufficient time and adequate human and financial resources to successfully complete its mandate. 
© USIP 2012 • All rights reserved.

The Diversity of Truth Commissions and Commissions of Inquiry

page 3 • PB 118 • January 12, 2012

A truth commission may also need specific legal powers of investigation or the right to explicitly 

name perpetrators in its report and refer those cases to courts. Often times, truth commissions 

conduct detailed investigations but are then pressured politically or otherwise prevented from 

releasing a final report revealing their findings. Provisions for the mandatory public dissemination 

of the body’s final report can help to protect the independence of a commission’s conclusions at 

the end of the process.

Select commissioners that are seen as objective and have a reputation for personal integrity. Individual truth commissioners must be credible and seen as independent persons of integrity who 

are selected in a transparent process. Where commissions are established based on inclusive and 

frank public consultations and formed with strong members, the more likely they will be seen as 

legitimate. In Togo, for instance, official consultations with civil society groups revealed that only a 

commission composed of individuals who are not members of political parties or the armed forces 

could gain public trust and legitimacy. In other countries, credibility may be ensured by including 

members from each of the main political, ethnic, or religious groups. 

Ensure sufficient resources are committed at the beginning of the process to enable a truth commission to execute its mandate. Many truth commissions have struggled with waning political and 

financial support. As time passes and controversial findings emerge from the process, interest in 

sustaining the commissions tends to drop. Truth-seeking initiatives are most likely to garner the 

most political and financial support shortly after the transition. To avoid this, authorities should 

equip the commissions they create with a mandate securing its political and financial independence throughout the duration of its operations. 

Do not rely on a truth commission to resolve all post-conflict problems; instead, combine truthseeking initiatives with other mechanisms of transitional justice. Despite the best intentions and the 

strongest design, a truth commission alone is often unable to meet the multiple expectations 

of a society emerging from an abusive past. To alleviate this challenge, past experiences show 

that it may be warranted to combine a truth-seeking mechanism with other transitional justice 

mechanisms that address different types of abuses and their impacts on victims. South Africa, 

Sierra Leone and Timor Leste, for instance, combined their truth commissions with parallel judicial 

processes. Numerous countries established out-of-court reparations programs for victims, either 

directly after the completion of a truth commission, such as in Morocco, or sometimes years after 

a truth commission published its findings, such as in Argentina, Chile or Peru. Other available 

options include institutional reforms and the vetting of public officials. 

The USIP Truth Commissions Digital Collection: a Library 

for Policy-Oriented Analysis

Given the complexities involved in designing truth commissions and commissions of inquiry, it is 

not surprising that those who wish to establish a new commission often seek inspiration from past 

examples of bodies created in other countries. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, for example, is probably the most famous example of a truth commission. However, it is 

not the only experience from which to gain useful insight, and may not be an appropriate example 

for other countries with different circumstances. Drawing inspiration from truth commissions 

without understanding why they were considered relatively successful, or without knowing why 

less acclaimed models are perceived to have failed, can lead to flaws in a new truth commission’s 

mandate that will undermine its effectiveness. 

In fact, policy makers have a vast choice of options available to them for the design of a truth 

seeking mechanism. The USIP Truth Commissions Digital Collection contains facts, documents 
© USIP 2012 • All rights reserved.

USIP provides the analysis, training and 

tools that prevent and end conflicts, 

promotes stability and professionalizes 

the field of peacebuilding.

For media inquiries, contact the office 

of Public Affairs and Communications, 

202.429.4725

2301 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20037

About This Brief

This brief was written by USIP 

researcher Evelyne Schmid, who 

compiled the Truth Commission 

Digital Collection since 2008. 

She is a lecturer at the University 

of Bangor, Wales, UK and a PhD 

candidate at the Graduate Institute 

of International and Development 

Studies in Geneva. She previously 

received a MA in law and diplomacy from the Fletcher School of 

Law and Diplomacy. 

and analysis of past examples of truth commissions and selected commissions of inquiry. It also 

includes information on their duration, background, and structure, as well as access to most of the 

full texts of the commissions’ legal mandates and their final reports. The site is updated periodically 

with information about subsequent developments such as institutional reforms, prosecutions and/

or reparations. It also includes a bibliography with links to relevant primary and secondary sources. 

This may serve as a tool for policy makers, civil society, and researchers that seek to derive lessons 

from past truth processes and design appropriate truth mechanisms. 

There have been far more commissions of inquiry created over the years than truth commissions. USIP portrays a few selected examples that played a significant role in debates on how to 

address an abusive past. In Brazil, for instance, an unofficial team of civil society activists secretly 

worked from 1979 to 1982 to copy page after page of the Military Supreme Court’s records. Based 

on the information gathered through this unofficial inquiry, the team published a final report that 

became a bestseller in Brazil and provoked a movement pushing for the official acknowledgement 

of abuses committed by the military regimes. Persistent demands for truth and justice now, in late 

2011, resulted in an official truth commission there. 

Rather than replicating any one truth commission from the past, policy makers should explore 

the broadest possible range of the options from past truth seeking experiences and make choices 

based on their own political and social contexts. The USIP online library enables policy makers to 

analyze many of the experiences in other countries. Such analyses will in turn help create commissions that draw from the valuable lessons of the past but that are tailored to be effective within the 

communities in which they seek to serve in the future. 

The Diversity of Truth Commissions and Commissions of Inquiry

page 4 • PB 118 • January 12, 2012