English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In recent Latin American trials for past human rights crimes, investigative magistrates have overseen exhumation of remains, location and exegesis of documents, questioning of witnesses, interrogation of suspects, and the requesting of information and extradition across borders.These inputs are entered into a single, compendious, judicial record. Existing truth(s) therefore become evidence, subject once more to challenge and doubt. For a verdict to be delivered, this body of evidence is scrutinised afresh by the judge, who adjudicates between competing truth claims. The judicial process becomes a black box, within which inputs are processed according to defined rules of evidence in order to produce a new iteration or form of truth: ‘judicial truth’. This, once confirmed by higher courts, duly takes its place in the canon of available truths about atrocity. It becomes, in one sense, simply one more competing version of truth. Like other versions, it can be accepted, refuted, celebrated or simply ignored.This paper explores how existing and new sources of truth are called into question, deployed, and/or discarded in the process of domestic trials for past human rights violations or other atrocity crimes. It examines tensions inherent when truth commission and other existing archives are used to produce new narratives. These narratives -- statements of proven fact contained in judicial rulings -- make special claims to truth, or at least to performative significance, given their weighty consequences for individuals found guilty of state terror crimes.

Truth, Evidence, Truth: The Deployment of Testimony, Archives and Technical Data in Domestic Human Rights Trials