earticle

영어

This article tries to examine what followed after the official activities of ' the Argentine CONADEP(Comisi? Nacional sobre la Desaparici? de Personas) and the Peruvian TRC. The Argentine example along with its official report titled Nunca M? was regarded as a model case that the subsequent similar commissions would have to consult. After a long pause of forgetting and indifference, the Argentine civilian governments succeeded in resuming the processes of transitional justice, caring for the victims' rights to truth and justice, providing them with reparations, and even putting the military perpetrators on tria l. In contrast , the Peruvian case , in spite of the comprehensive recommendations of the TRC, exemplified a complex and unfavorable situation in which the longstanding tripartite strife hindered the successive governments from propelling effective policies of reparations and reconciliation.
In both countries, reparations entailed acts of restoring what had been lost and giving something, whether symb. ic ' material, to victims equivalent to a loss to compensate harm. Neither truth nor justice, including economic reparations, was able to repair the loss of victims, but such measures provided recognition for victims and contributed to better individual and collective processes of dealing with the tragic past.
The policy of reconciliation included not only reparations but also a continuing dynamic confrontation with the past, in other words , an exercise of memorialization through institutional and state-sponsored commemoration. In Argentina and Peru, these programs of reconciliation at the level of the state worked in the form of building monuments for victims and opening security archives, though it is too early to judge whether such development of levels of reconciliation could be identified as solid democratization and culture of peace and human rights.