The Haitian National Truth and Justice Commission

The CNVJ was appointed by presidential Decree, six months after Aristide returned to office in Haiti. This commission was established to seek and identify the instigators, perpetrators, and accessories to the many human rights violations and crimes against humanity following the military control of government from September 1991 to October 1994, both inside and outside the country.[2] The commission was implemented in order to aid the country in reconciliation and to recover the truth about the human rights violations in the given time period. The hope of the commissioners was to provide a guideline for legal recourse and a way of helping the country move forward.

The commission was required to submit a report that many felt was unfinished to an extent, mainly because Aristide was being pressured to hand the presidency over to his elected successor, and the mandate specifically expressed that the report had to be handed directly to Aristide.[2] In the end the mandate was intended for everybody to access. Even though the report included the testimonies of the public, time and financial constraints that made it difficult for the report to provide details of what was discovered. A bright spot in the report was that it revealed names of almost 9,000 victims from the period along with the particular abuse that was inflicted upon them.[2]

The initiative is largely credited to the Haitian diaspora as the impetus toward establishing a truth and justice commission initially came from Haitians abroad.

The mandate of the CNVJ was to begin an investigation regarding human rights violations that occurred during the three year coup d'état that begun September 30, 1991 until Aristide's return to power in October 1994.

"to globally establish the truth concerning the most serious Human Rights violations perpetrated between September 29, 1991 and October 15, 1994, inside and outside the country and help to the reconciliation of all Haitians without any prejudice against seeking legal action based on these violations."[3] This is a quote from Jean-Bertrand Aristide upon creating the mandate of the CNVJ.

The final report of the CNVJ was submitted to Aristide on February 5, 1996. The commission had centered its findings on the testimonies gathered by forty Haitians and foreign rights investigators throughout the country in the summer of 1995."[3] During the commission's investigation, they quickly discovered that they had to stress the safety of victims coming to testify because many of them feared retaliation as a result of their testimony. This caused the commission to take the path of discretion during their investigation to put victims at ease once they made the decision to speak out."[3] Information soon got out to many popular organizations in Haiti, which allowed most of the population to obtain knowledge of the commission's ongoing investigation. Despite of the commission's activity in the country being common knowledge to the important organizations, they actually added to the efficiency of the investigation by notifying even more citizens."[3] With these institutions influence, the inclination of the Haitian populace to testify increased, even though many were still threatened by the presence of known human rights violators walking around in immediate areas. In almost three months the CNVJ received more than seven thousand complaints from Haitian citizens."[3] The human rights violations expressed in these complaints were documented thoroughly with questions created by the commission. In addition to the complaints the commission received, they used secondary information from local and international organizations (this included the United Nations and the Organization of American States Civil Mission in Haiti)."[3] These secondary sources were essential to help validate the information given in the numerous complaints submitted.

The commission had to distinguish what classified as outstanding evidence against the perpetrators of human rights violations. They established three types of supporting evidence for different types of violations. They accepted testimonies that were backed by sufficient evidence which means that there was more proven facts supporting the testimony than opposing it."[3] If the information gathered could not be contradicted by any other information then it was deemed to be overwhelming evidence."[3] The third distinction was if the evidence was extremely supportive to a finding of the commission, it was deemed to be substantial evidence."[3] These distinctions were used when testimonies revealed a violators name, which proved to be important because this was the goal of the mandate. The information given to the commission by thousands of victims, which revealed many perpetrators by name, was undermined by time constraints restricting the commission to perform thorough investigations of the accused. Some violators had numerous complaints towards them because they exercised most of their human rights violations in the same area, being observed by most community members."[3]

Once the victim testimonies were collected, they had to be carefully analyzed regionally, pertaining to the targets, planners and displays of repression cruelty."[3] The commission opened special investigations pertaining to certain types of cruelty, such as sexual abuse and subjugation of the press.

The CNVJ prioritized investigations that pointed to the repression of government in a large scale, more than anything else. Truth commissions in the past, such as the UN Commission of El Salvador, prioritized a smaller number of cases that impacted the country's society overall. It was the CNVJ's desire to essentially develop a summary of the repression. To contrast the UN Commission of El Salvador with the CNVJ, the commission in El Salvador did fewer but more detailed investigations which provided for more quality cases against named perpetrators to be done. The UN Commission of El Salvador had to do this because they had to worry about a twelve-year period of human rights violations as opposed to the Haitian mandate only having to worry about a three-year period of repression. As a result, the CNVJ's investigation had to be more widespread than the UN Commission of El Salvador.

Reconciliation is also stressed in the mandate of the CNVJ. The commission was not meant to be the reason for national reconciliation but to aid it, by revealing the truth regarding the past human rights violations that occurred in Haiti."[3] The commission was implemented by executive order to provide guidance and influence rooted from the recommendations made to the Haitian government so the nation can move forward.

Many of the victims are still waiting for justice for the terrors they endured during the coup etat of 1991–1994, but a few important trials were held, specifically ones involving the Raboteau and the Carrefour-Feuillles killings. The case regarding the Raboteau, ended in November 2000 and as many as fifty accused perpetrators were convicted.[5] This included everybody in the military high command and the leaders of the paramilitary FRAPH (Front Revolutionaire pour l'Avancement et le Progres Haitiens)[2] On May 3, 2005, the Supreme Court of Haiti opposed the verdicts given to fifteen of the former members of the FRAPH,.[5] none of whom were imprisoned at the time.

The testimonies the commission based its findings on would have been more structured if the commission was able to gain access to the U.S government information regarding the FRAPH.[6] Without this information from the United States, the testimonies lacked the quality needed for them to hold their ground. The United States documents concerning the FRAPH were finally returned to Haiti in early 2000, which was one of the final priorities of the Clinton Administration.[5]

• Truth and reconciliation commission