Grounds for reconciliation: participation and reparations at the Inter-American Human Rights System
Abstract
Reconciliation in a transition requires interconnected events and processes to enable peaceful coexistence and restore trust in State institutions after a period of systematic violations to human rights. It involves articulating different transitional justice mechanisms. Prosecutions, truth commissions, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence must be implemented comprehensively, ensuring victims’ families feel repaired. The absence of this balance hinders reconciliation. This research explores the participation of victims and their relatives in proceedings before the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) and the implementation of reparations as mechanisms for reconciliation. The study argues that victims’ relatives and survivors’ input in legal proceedings and horizontal relationships with legal representation foster agency and dignity, enabling reconciliation. Whereas full engagement in the IAHRS process promotes an inclusive legal environment, failure to implement Court-mandated reparations obstructs reconciliation with State institutions and the idea of justice itself, causing disillusionment.
Received: 15 May 2025; Accepted: 19 November 2025
Downloads
References
Avocats Sans Frontières. 2019. Reflections on Victim Participation before the International Crimes Division in Uganda. Accessed November 10, 2025: https://www.asf.be/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Policy-Brief-Victims-participation-in-Uganda-1.pdf.
Bar-Tal, Daniel, and Gemma H. Bennink. 2004. «The nature of reconciliation as an outcome and as a process». In From conflict resolution to reconciliation, edited by Daniel Bar-Tal and Gemma H. Bennink, 11–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Doorn, Neelke. 2008. «Forgiveness and reconciliation in transitional justice practices». Ethical Perspectives 3: 381–98.
Dwyer, Susan. ‘Reconciliation for Realists’. Ethics & International Affairs 13 (March 1999): 81–98.
Fischer, Martina. 2011. «Transitional justice and reconciliation: Theory and practice». In Advancing Conflict Transformation. The Berghof Handbook II, edited by Beatrix Austin, Martina Fischer, and Hans J. Giessmann, 405–30. Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Gibson, James L. 2002. «Truth, justice, and reconciliation: Judging the fairness of amnesty in South Africa». American Journal of Political Science 46(3): 540–56.
Gómez Dupuis, Nieves. 2009. Plan de Sánchez. Una aproximación a la estrategia psicojurídica. Ciudad de Guatemala: ECAP.
González, Miguel Á.. 2006. Perú: Autoritarismo y democracia. Sobre las dificultades de la consolidación de la democracia en la América Andina. El Perú de Fujimori. Madrid: Compañía Española de Reprografía y Servicios.
Govier, Trudy, and Wilhelm Verwoerd. 2002. «The promise and pitfalls of apology». Journal of Social Philosophy 33(1): 67–82.
Gready, Paul, and Simon Robins. 2014. «From transitional to transformative justice: A new agenda for practice». The International Journal of Transitional Justice 8(3): 339–61.
Greiff, Pablo de. 2015. «Security sector reform, including vetting of security institutions». A/70/438. Relatoría Especial sobre la Promoción de la verdad, la justicia, la reparación y las garantías de no repetición.
IACtHR. 1997. Goiburú and others v. Paraguay. Court file (IACHR Evidence Appendix II).
IACtHR. 2006. Goiburú and others v. Paraguay. Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs).
IACtHR. 2008. Goiburú and others v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Resolution of August 6.
IACtHR. 2009. Goiburú and others v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Resolution of November 19.
IACtHR. 2010. Case of Gomes Lund (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Jugdment (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, Costs).
IACHR. 2014. Report No 6/14 (Merits). Case 12.788. Members of the Chichupac Village and Neighbouring Communities of the Municipality of Rabinal (Guatemala). 6.
IACtHR. 2016a. Members of the Chichupac village and neighbouring Communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Court file (Part I).
IACtHR. 2016b. Members of the Chichupac Village and Neighboring Communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Public Hearing of April 28. Accessed November 10, 2025: https://vimeo.com/showcase/3924876.
IACtHR. 2016c. Members of the Chichupac Village and Neighbouring Communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Judgment (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs).
IACtHR. 2018. Case of Maurilia Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Judgment (Merits, reparations and costs).
IACtHR. 2019. Goiburú and others v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Resolution of May 14.
IACtHR. 2022. Dismissed Employees of Petroperú and Others v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment resolution of Sep 9.
IACtHR. 2023. Regulations of the Psychological Support Service for Declarants before the Inter-American Court.
IACtHR. 2024. Members of the Chichupac village and Neighboring Communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Resolution of September 2.
Janssens, Bert. 2012. Oj K´aslik. Estamos vivos. Recuperación de la Memoria Histórica de Rabinal (1944-1996). Rabinal: Museo Comunitario de la Memoria Histórica.
Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz. 2023. DAV (Dirección de Atención a Víctimas). Accessed November 10, 2025: https://www.jep.gov.co/Planeacion1/Informes%20de%20gesti%C3%B3n/2022/20230125_DAV%20Visor%20Vigencia%202022.pdf#search=DAV.
Madlingozi, Tshepo. 2010. On transitional justice entrepreneurs and the production of victims’. Journal of Human Rights Practice 2(2): 208–28.
Martin Beristain, Carlos. 1998. «Health, memory, and human rights in Guatemala». The Lancet 352 (9129): 733–34.
Martín Beristain, Carlos. 2009. Diálogos sobre la reparación: qué reparar en los casos de violaciones de derechos humanos. Quito: Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos, Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos.
OAS. 1996. IACHR: 93 Period of sessions. Accessed November 10, 2025: https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/sessions/default.asp?S=93.
OAS/IACHR. 2021. IACHR Reports good results in 2020, the fourth year of its program to overcome procedural backlog. 1 February. Accessed November 10, 2025: https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/jsForm/?File=/en/iachr/media_center/preleases/2021/019.asp.
Oficina de Derechos Humanos, Arzobispado de Guatemala (ODHAG). 1998. Guatemala: Nunca más. El entorno histórico. Ciudad de Guatemala: ODHAG.
OHCHR. 2012. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparations and Guarantees of non-Recurrence. Ways in Which the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non- Recurrence Contribute to Strengthening the Rule of Law. A/67/368.
Pérez Liñán, Aníbal, Luis Schenoni, and Kelly Morrison. 2023. «Compliance in time: Lessons from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights». International Studies Review 25(1): 1–23.
Phakathi, Sizwe T., and Hugo van der Merwe. 2008. «The impact of the TRC’ amnesty process on survivors of human rights violations». In Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: Did the TRC Deliver?, edited by Audrey R. Chapman and Hugo van der Merwe, 3:116–141. Baltimore: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Rettberg, Angélika, ed. 2005. Entre el perdón y el paredón: preguntas y dilemas de la justicia transicional. 1. ed. Bogotá: Uniandes.
Robins, Simon, and Erik Wilson. 2015. «Participatory methodologies with victims: an emancipatory approach to transitional justice research». Canadian Journal of Law and Society 30(02): 219–36.
Romero, Juan P. 2010. «De un dolor a un saber: cuerpo, sufrimiento y memoria en los límites de la escritura». Papeles Del CEIC 2: 1–27.
Sharp, Dustin. 2013. «Beyond the post-conflict checklist: linking peacebuilding and transitional justice through the lens of critique». Chicago Journal of International Law 14(1): 164–96.
Sharp, Dustin. 2016. Interrogating the peripheries:The Preoccupations of Fourth GenerationTransitional Justice. https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9944-3005.
Simangan, Dahlia. 2017. «The pitfalls of local involvement: justice and reconciliation in Cambodia, Kosovo and Timor-Leste». Peacebuilding 5(3): 305-319.
Tavuchis, Nicholas. 1991. Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Theidon, Kimberly. 2006. «Justice in transition: The micropolitics of reconciliation in postwar Peru». The Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(3): 433–57.
Verdeja, Ernesto. 2009. Unchopping a tree: Reconciliation in the aftermath of political violence, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Copyright (c) 2025 University of Deusto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Deusto Journal of Human Rights / Revista Deusto de Derechos Humanos is an Open Access journal; which means that it is free for full and immediate access, reading, search, download, distribution, and reuse in any medium only for non-commercial purposes and in accordance with any applicable copyright legislation, without prior permission from the copyright holder (University of Deusto) or the author; provided the original work and publication source are properly cited (Issue number, year, pages and DOI if applicable) and any changes to the original are clearly indicated. Any other use of its content in any medium or format, now known or developed in the future, requires prior written permission of the copyright holder.
3.jpg)
3.jpg)
3.jpg)
.jpg)
