Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T20:20:30.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in Truth Commission-Administered Accountability Initiatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2016

ALISON BISSET
ALISON BISSET*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor in International Human Rights Law at the University of Reading, UK [[email protected]].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent times, transitional justice practice has increasingly seen truth commissions tasked with administering accountability programmes, distinct from, and in addition to, their traditional truth-seeking role. Such accountability schemes typically take the form of granting or recommending amnesty for those who disclose involvement in past crimes or facilitate reintegration on the basis of similar disclosures. Self-incriminating disclosures made in the course of traditional truth commission proceedings generally attract a robust set of legal safeguards. However, the protections within transitional accountability schemes administered by truth commissions tend to be less stringent. This article explores this anomaly, focusing particularly on the extent to which the privilege against self-incrimination is protected within truth commission-administered accountability programmes. It considers the programmes operated to date, and the levels of protection afforded, and demonstrates a lack of consistent practice in the safeguarding of individual rights within these programmes. It examines international legal standards on the privilege against self-incrimination and questions whether the procedures operated by accountability programmes can be reconciled with international norms in order to protect those who make self-incriminating disclosures within accountability initiatives. The article argues that a failure to ensure individual rights against self-incrimination risks compromising the efficacy of the programmes themselves and the contribution that they can make to long-term peace and reconciliation in transitional states.

Keywords

accountability schemesself-incriminationtruth commissions
Type
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 155 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report (2002), Vol. 1, Ch. 7; Vol. 6, Section 1, Ch. 4.

2 See United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) Regulation No. 2001/10 on the Establishment of a Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2001/10, 13 July 2001, s. 17; Kenya, Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission Act 2008, s. 28 (2008 Kenyan Act); Witness to Truth: Report of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2004), Vol. 1, Ch. 5, 151, 154.

3 Bisset, A., ‘Principle 9: Guarantees for Persons Implicated’, in Haldemann, F., Gaeta, P. and Unger, T. (eds.), Commentary on the UN Principles to Combat Impunity (2016) (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

4 A. Bisset, Truth Commissions and Criminal Courts (2012), 74–103.

5 South Africa, Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 1995, s. 31(3); Ghana, National Reconciliation Commission Act 2002, s. 15(2); Kenya, Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission Act 2008, s. 24(3).

6 See, Chega!, Report of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation for East Timor, (2006), Part 9.

7 Ordinance on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 14 March 2013, Ordinance No. 8 of 2012/2013, s. 23.

8 Ibid., s. 23(5).

9 M. Freeman, Truth Commissions and Procedural Fairness (2006).

10 UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), Rule of Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Truth Commissions (2006), 21.

11 Freeman, supra note 9, at 110; Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, UN Doc. A/67/368, 13 September 2012, paras. 72–3.

12 D. Orentlicher, Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, 8 February 2005, Principle 9; González, E. and Varney, H. (eds.), Truth Seeking: Elements of Creating an Effective Truth Commission (2013), 26 Google Scholar; UNHCHR, supra note 10, at 21–2.

13 South Africa, Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 1995, s. 31(3); Ghana, National Reconciliation Commission Act 2002, s. 15(2); An Act to Establish the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Liberia 2005, s. 30; Kenya, Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Act 2008, s. 24(3).

14 Chega!, supra note 6, Part 2, paras. 34–5; Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Liberia (2009), Vol. 1, Section 2, Part C; TRC of South Africa Report, supra note 1, Vol. 1, Ch. 4; From Madness to Hope: The Twelve Year War in El Salvador: Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, UN Doc. S/25500 (1993), Ann.; Witness to Truth, supra note 2, Vol. 2, Ch. 2, para. 5.

15 Report of the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (2013), Vol. 1, Ch. 2, para. 61. See also Witness to Truth, supra note 2, Vol. 1, Ch. 5, 154–5; Report of the TRC for Liberia, supra note 14, Vol. II, 190.

16 Chega!, supra note 6, Part 2, para. 34.

17 Witness to Truth, supra note 2, Vol. 1, Ch. 5, 151.

18 Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 1995, Ch. 4.

19 UNTAET Regulation 2001/10, ss. 22–32.

20 Freeman, supra note 9, at 35.

21 No Peace Without Justice, Closing the Gap: The Role of Non-Judicial Mechanisms in Addressing Impunity (2010).

22 A. du Bois-Pedain, Transitional Amnesty in South Africa (2007), 185; J. Sarkin, Carrots and Sticks: The TRC and the South African Amnesty Process (2004), 127–34.

23 Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No 34 of 1995, s. 20(1) (1995 Act).

24 Ibid., s.19, 21.

25 Ibid., s. 20(7).

26 P. Gready, The Era of Transitional Justice: The Aftermath of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa and Beyond (2011), 102.

27 1995 Act, supra note 23, s. 31(3).

28 Ibid., s. 21(2)(b).

29 UNTAET Regulation No. 2001/10, s. 3.1(c).

30 Ibid., s. 14.1(c).

31 Ibid., s. 14.1(d).

32 Ibid., s.17.1, 17.2.

33 Ibid., s. 18.

34 Ibid., s. 15.

35 Chega!, supra note 6, paras. 3–4.

36 Ibid., Part 9.2, para. 10.

37 Ibid., para. 10.

38 Burgess, P., ‘East Timor's Community Reconciliation Process’, in Roht-Arriaza, N. and Mariezcurrena, J. (eds.), Transitional Justice in the Twenty-First Century: Beyond Truth versus Justice, (2006) 176, at 195–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Chega!, supra note 6, Part 9, para.102.

40 Ibid., para. 169.

41 Burgess, supra note 38, at 196.

42 TJRC Report, supra note 15, Vol. 1, Ch. 2, 71.

43 2008 Kenyan Act, supra note 2, s. 34(1)–(3).

44 Ibid., s. 36(5)(a).

45 Ibid., s. 36(5)(b).

46 Ibid., s. 28.

47 Ibid., s.36(7) and (8).

48 Ibid., s. 40.

49 Ibid., s.36(9)(c).

50 The Truth, Justice and Reconciliation (Hearing Procedure) Rules 2011, s. 19(2).

51 On the original Nepali model see International Commission of Jurists, Authority without Accountability: The Struggle for Justice in Nepal (2013); OHCHR, Comments on the Nepal ‘Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Ordinance’ – 2069 (2013) (2013).

52 Controversially, s. 26 of the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2071 (2014) (the 2014 Act), maintains the possibility of amnesty for gross violations of human rights. See International Commission of Jurists, Justice Denied: The 2014 Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Act (2014).

53 2014 Act, supra note 52, s. 25, 29.

54 Ibid., s. 26(3) and (4).

55 Ibid., s. 26(5).

56 Ibid., s. 26(9).

57 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 999 UNTS 171, Art. 14(3)(g); 1969 American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), 1144 UNTS 123, Art. 8(2)(7). Neither the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights nor the European Convention on Human Rights explicitly mention the right against self-incrimination. In the ECHR context, it has been recognized in the jurisprudence on Art. 6. See, John Murray v. UK, Decision of 8 February 1996, [1996-I] ECHR 49 and Saunders v. UK, Decision of 17 December 1996, [1996] ECHR 65, para. 68.

58 Bassiouni, M.C., ‘Human Rights in the Context of Criminal Justice: Identifying International Procedural Protections in National Constitutions’, (1992-3) 3 Duke Journal of International and Comparative Law 235, at 265, n.138Google Scholar.

59 Art. 21(4)(g) International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Statute; Art. 20(4)(g) International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) Statute.

60 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, appended to the Report of the Secretary-General on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, S/2000/915, 4 October 2000, Art. 17(4)(g); Law on the Establishment of Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, Art. 35(g).

61 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2187 UNTS 3, Arts. 55(1)(a) and 67(1)(g).

62 Redmayne, M., ‘Rethinking the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination’, (2007) 27 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also P. McInerney, ‘The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination from Early Origins to Judges’ Rules: Challenging the “Orthodox View”’, (2014) International Journal of Evidence and Proof 101.

63 Saunders, supra note 57, para. 68. See also Redmayne, ibid., at 225.

64 McInerney, supra note 62.

65 C. Bradley (ed.), Criminal Procedure: A Worldwide Study (1999).

66 Ibid.

67 See M. Berger, ‘Compelled Self-Reporting and the Principle Against Compelled Self-Incrimination: Some Comparative Perspectives’, (2006) European Human Rights Law Review 25.

68 ICCPR, supra note 57, Art. 14(3)(g). See also Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(c).

69 ACHR, supra note 57, Art. 8(2)(7).

70 Dolinko, D., ‘Is there a Rationale for the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination?’, (1986) 33 UCLA Law Review 1063 Google Scholar; Allen, R., ‘Theorizing About Self-Incrimination’, (2008) 30 Cardozo Law Review 751 Google Scholar.

71 Redmayne, supra note 62, at 218–25.

72 Dann, B.M., ‘The Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Extorting Physical Evidence from a Suspect’, (1970) 43 Southern California Law Review 597 Google Scholar; Stuntz, W.J., ‘Self-Incrimination and Excuse’, (1988) 88 Columbia Law Review 1227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 Taslitz, A.E., ‘Confessing in the Human Voice: A Defense of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination’, (2008) 7 Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal 121 Google Scholar.

74 Human Rights Committee, ICCPR A/52/40 vol. I (1997), paras. 241–2, 357; ICCPR A/56/40 vol. I (2001) 59, 70; ICCPR A/59/40 vol. I (2003) 15; ICCPR A/60/40 vol. I. (2004), 25; ICCPR A/60/40 vol. I (2005), 70.

75 Cabrera Garcia and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, 26 November 2010; Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Merits, Reparations and Costs, 27 November 2003.

76 Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights v. Arab Republic of Egypt, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Comm. No. 368/09 (2014); Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Comm. Nos. 54/91, 61/91, 96/93, 98/93, 164/97, 196/97, 210/98 (2000).

77 Murray, supra note 57; Saunders, supra note 57; Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, Decision of 21 December 2000, [2000] ECHR (Ser. A) 684; Weh v. Austria, Decision of 8 April 2004, (2005) 40 EHRR 37; Luca v. Italy, Decision of 27 February 2001, (2003) 36 EHRR 46; JB v. Switzerland, Decision of 3 May 2001, [2001] Criminal Law Review 748.

78 Ashworth, A., ‘Self-Incrimination in European Human Rights Law – A Pregnant Pragmatism’, (2008) 30 Cardozo Law Review 751, at 754 Google Scholar.

79 Funke v. France, Decision of 25 February 1993, (1993) 16 EHRR 297; Murray, supra note 57; Saunders, supra note 57. See also Jackson, J., ‘Reconceptualizing the Right of Silence as a Fair Trial Standard’, (2009) 58 ICLQ 835, at 841–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Funke, ibid.; Heaney and McGuinness, supra note 77.

81 Saunders, supra note 57; I.J.L and others v. UK, Decision of 19 September 2000, (2001) 33 EHRR 11.

82 Murray, supra note 57, para. 47.

83 Magee v. UK, Decision of 6 June 2000, (2001) 31 EHRR 35. Funke, supra note 79; Serves v. France, Decision of 20 October 1997, (1999) 28 EHRR 265; Heaney and McGuinness, supra note 77.

84 Funke, supra note 79; Serves, ibid.; Heaney and McGuinness, ibid.; Deweer v. Belgium, Decision of 27 February 1980, (1979-80) 2 EHRR 439; Jusilla v. Finland, Decision of 23 November 2006, (2007) 45 EHRR 39.

85 Saunders, supra note 57.

86 Weh, supra note 77.

87 Janosevic v. Sweden, Decision of 23 July 2002, (2004) 38 EHRR 22.

88 Enzeh and Connors v. UK, Decision of 9 October 2003, (2004) 39 EHRR 1.

89 Ozturk v. Germany, Decision of 21 February 1984, (1984) 6 EHRR 409.

90 Janosevic, supra note 87, para. 65-7.

91 Engel and others v. Netherlands, Decision of 21 November 1975, (1976) 1 EHRR 647; Ezeh and Connors, supra note 88, para. 82; Jusilla, supra note 84.

92 Janosevic, supra note 87.

93 See Marttinen v. Finland, Decision of 21 April 2009, (2010) 50 EHRR 46, paras. 63–4, re. when an individual might be considered ‘charged’ for the purposes of the privilege under Art. 6(1).

94 Jusilla, supra note 84, para. 45.

95 Ezeh and Connors, supra note 88, para. 86; Jusilla, supra note 84, para. 31.

96 Ibid.

97 Jusilla, supra note 84, para. 31.

98 Jusilla, supra note 84, para. 30.

99 Saunders, supra note 57, para. 67; Fayed v. UK, Decision of 21 September 1994, (1994) 18 EHRR 393, paras. 61–2.

100 See Section 3.3.

101 Weh, supra note 77.

102 Weh, supra note 77, paras. 53–6.

103 Funke, supra note 79; Heaney and McGuinness, supra note 77; Marttinen, supra note 93.

104 Abas v. Netherlands, Decision of 26 February 1997, [1997] EHRLR 418; IJL, GMR and AKP v. UK, Decision of 19 September 2000, (2001) EHRR 11; Allen v. UK, Decision of 10 September 2002, (2002) 35 EHRR CD289; Van Weerelt v. Netherlands, Decision of 16 June 2015.

105 Weh, supra note 77, Dissenting Opinion of Judges Lorenzen, Levits and Hajiyev, para. 1. On US divisions see Marchetti v. U.S. 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968); Grosso v. U.S. 390 US 62 (1968).

106 Marttinen, supra note 93, para. 75.

107 Saunders, supra note 57; Weh, supra note 77.

108 R. v. Fitzpatrick, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 154, per La Forest J. at para. 125; R. v. S. (R.J.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451, per Iocabucci, J. at paras. 107–8.

109 Reg. v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, 330; Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 599; Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 374.

110 Marchetti, supra note 105.

111 Allen, R.J. and Mace, K.M., ‘The Self-Incrimination Clause Explained and its Future Predicted’, (2004) 94 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 243, at 256–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

112 Sedley, S., ‘Wringing Out the Fault – Self-Incrimination in the Twenty-First Century’, (2001) 52 Northern Ireland Quarterly Review 107, at 123Google Scholar.

113 A. L-T. Choo, The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Criminal Justice (2013), 32.

114 Berry v. Jamaica, Communication No. 330/1988, UN Doc. CCPR/C/50/D/330/1988 (1994), para. 11.7.

115 Castillo Petruzzi and others v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, 30 May 1999, para. 167–8.

116 See Heaney and McGuiness, supra note 77, paras. 48, 55; Funke, supra note 79, para. 44; Murray, supra note 57, para. 49.

117 Allen v. UK, supra note 104.

118 Heaney v. Ireland [1994] 3 IR 593; Quinn v. Ireland, Decision of 21 December 2000, (2001) 33 EHRR 264; Funke, supra note 79.

119 Allan v. UK, Decision of 5 November 2002, (2003) 36 EHRR 12.

120 Saunders, supra note 57.

121 Allen, supra note 104. Nor do laws requiring individuals to disclose personal details to police under threat of a fine violate the privilege. See Vasileva v. Denmark, Decision of 25 September 2003, (2005) 40 EHRR 27.

122 Weh, supra note 77; O'Halloran and Francis v. UK, Decision of 29 June 2007, (2007) 46 EHRR 21.

123 Condron v. United Kingdom, Decision of 2 May 2000, (2001) 31 EHRR. 1

124 Rogers v. Richmond, 365 US 534, 544 (1961); US v. Washington, 431 US 181, 188 (1977).

125 Arenella, P., ‘Schmerber and the Privilege against Self-Incrimination: A Reappraisal’, (1982) 20 American Criminal Law Review 31, at 32Google Scholar; Allen and Mace, supra note 111, at 250–6.

126 Allen and Mace, supra note 111, at 256.

127 Dufraimont, L., ‘The Patchwork Principle against Self-Incrimination under the Charter’, (2012) 57 Supreme Court Law Review 241, at 262Google Scholar.

128 R. v. Jones, [1994] S.C.J. No. 42, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 229, para. 29, Lamer C.J.C. dissenting; R. v. Brown, [2002] S.C.J. No. 35, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 185, para. 92.

129 Dufraimont, supra note 127.

130 H. Varney, ‘The Malan Trial (South Africa)’, Presentation to International Centre for Transitional Justice, Domestic Prosecutions and Transitional Justice Conference, 16–19 May 2005, Magaliesburg, South Africa; J. Rauch, Police Transformation and the South African TRC, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (2004).

131 Berry, supra note 114, para. 167.

132 Deweer, supra note 84.

133 Natsvlishvili v. Georgia, Decision of 29 April 2014, para. 97.

134 Redmayne, supra note 62, at 221–4.

135 G. Sluiter and A. Zahar, International Criminal Law (2008), 305.

136 Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., Decision on the Prosecution's Oral Requests for the Admission of Exhibit 155 into Evidence and for an Order to Compel the Accused, Zdravko Mucic, to Provide a Handwriting Sample, Case No. IT-96-21, 19 January 1998.

137 Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., supra note 136; Prosecutor v. Halilovic, Decision on Motion for Exclusion of Statement of Accused, Case No. IT-01-48-T, 8 July 2005.

138 Rule 74(3)(c) ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence; Rule 75 ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

139 Prosecutor v. Norman, Decision on the Request of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Sierra Leone to Conduct a Public Hearing with Samuel Hinga Norman, Case No. SCSL-03-08-PT-101, 29 October 2003, para. 14; Prosecutor v. Norman, Decision on Appeal by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Sierra Leone and Chief Samuel Hinga Norman against the Decision of His Lordship Justice Bankole Thompson to Deny the TRC's Request to Hold a Public Hearing with Chief Norman, Case No. SCSL-03-08-PT-122-I and II, 28 November 2003, para. 41.

140 Saunders, supra note 57, at 2065.

141 Ibid.; Heaney and McGuinness, supra note 77, paras. 57–8.

142 Jalloh v. Germany, Decision of 11 July 2006, (2006) 44 EHRR 32, paras. 118–21.

143 O'Halloran and Francis, supra note 122, para. 43.

144 Ibid., at 56–7.

145 Ibid.

146 Heaney and McGuinness, supra note 77, paras. 51–5.

147 Ibid. On this decision see Ashworth, supra note 78, at 764.

148 [2001] 1 AC 681 (PC).

149 For critique see Berger, supra note 67. Balancing can also been seen in the case law of England and Wales, see R. v. Mushtaq [2005] UKHL 25; R v. K (A) [2010] QB 343; R. v. Kearns [2002] EWCA Crim. 748.

150 California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971) 402, 427–31, confirmed in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada, Humboldt County et al., 542 US 177 (2004).

151 [1999] 2 SCR 417.

152 Ibid., at 71. See also Berger supra note 67.

153 On the balancing approach see Berger, supra note 67; Meyerson, D., ‘Why Courts Should Not Balance Rights Against the Public Interest’, (2007) 31 Melbourne University Law Review 873, at 902Google Scholar.

154 See, e.g., PRIDE, ‘Ex-Combatant Views of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, A Study in Partnership with the International Center for Transitional Justice (2002), 19.

155 For examples see Choo, supra note 113, App. 2.

156 Freeman, supra note 9, at 253.

157 Berger, supra note 67, at 34.

158 On national approaches see Choo, supra note 113, at 35–9. See also, O'Boyle, M., ‘Freedom from Self-Incrimination and the Right to Silence: A Pandora's Box’, in Mahoney, P. et al. (eds.), Protection des Droits de l'homme: La Perspective Europeenne: Melanges a la Memoire de Rolv Ryssdal (2000), 1029 Google Scholar.

159 M. Wierda, P.B. Hayner and P. van Zyl, Exploring the Relationship Between the Special Court and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Sierra Leone, International Center for Transitional Justice, (2002), 12.

160 Amnesty International, Truth, Justice and Reparation: Establishing an Effective Truth Commission, AI Index: POL 30/009/2007, 11 June 2007, 32.