The evidentiary problem in transitional contexts

Transitional accountability mechanisms — truth commissions, special tribunals, hybrid courts, documentation centres — must construct an evidentiary record under conditions that diverge sharply from ordinary criminal procedure. The events under investigation are often years or decades in the past. Records may have been destroyed, fabricated, or buried. Witnesses may be dispersed, deceased, or unwilling. Investigators may face institutional or political pressure to reach particular conclusions.

These conditions do not exempt transitional work from evidentiary discipline. They make that discipline more, not less, important.

Three commitments

We propose three commitments that ground evidentiary practice in transitional contexts: openness about provenance (every piece of evidence carries a documented chain of custody); openness about doubt (gaps, contradictions, and limits of certainty are recorded alongside conclusions, not buried); and openness about the limits of what evidence can be made to do (evidence supports findings, it does not generate them).

Working framework

Around these commitments, we sketch a working framework: documentation protocols, verification practices, review structures, and reporting conventions that translate the three commitments into concrete operational guidance.

The framework is a starting point, not a final word. The Institute will revise it as transitional-accountability practice continues to evolve.