Abstract
In light of the disturbing impunity in Guatemala, one wonders whether the CEH could have done more to promote justice and accountability. Specifically, should the Commission have identified the names of individual perpetrators in its report? This Article advances the argument that, despite persuasive reasoning in favor of naming names, the Commission correctly decided against doing so. General structural limitations of truth commissions and specific restrictions in the CEH’s mandate strongly militated against identifying individual perpetrators.
Although one might construe the Commission’s decision as a blow to the goal of individual accountability, an examination of the circumstances that led to the decision reveals its validity. Part II, of this Article, details the report of the CEH, including its conclusions about the war and certain recommendations to deter future human rights violations. Part III considers the current reality of impunity in Guatemala, paying specific attention to the state of the judicial system, the current crime wave plaguing Guatemala, and the government’s response to the crime wave. Part IV examines in depth the establishment of the CEH and its mandate. Finally, Part V analyzes the CEH’s decision not to name names in light of its mandate, the structural confines of truth commissions, and the goal of individual accountability for human rights violations.
Recommended Citation
Keller, Andrew N.
(2001)
"To Name or Not to Name? The Commission for Historical Clarification in Guatemala, its Mandate, and the Decision Not to Identify Individual Perpetrators,"
Florida Journal of International Law: Vol. 13:
Iss.
3, Article 3.
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/fjil/vol13/iss3/3