ORI GIN AL PA PER

Memory, records, history: the Recordsof the Commission for Reception, Truth,and Reconciliation in Timor-Leste

Elizabeth Nannelli

Published online: 17 October 2009� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract This paper examines the implications of the context of creation on the current

and potential future uses of the records produced by the Comissao de Acolhimento,

Verdade e Reconciliacao de Timor-Leste (Commission for Reception, Truth and Rec-

onciliation, or CAVR). Given that the CAVR relied heavily on the testimony of the East

Timorese people in its investigations that addressed a 25-year period, this paper con-

siders the nature of memory and the role it played in creating and shaping the CAVR

records. It also addresses the potential influences of the CAVR records, particularly the

final report, Chega!, in shaping what will be known about this period by the Timorese

people. The paper concludes with a discussion of the potential role of the CAVR records

in contributing to the history of Timor-Leste. Although truth commissions are a prob-

lematic form of truth telling, with significant implications for the writing of history, the

records of the CAVR are an invaluable source of information for Timorese history. If

future users can recognize the CAVR records as the products of the context of their

creation, these records will have a critical role to play in the development of history

within Timor-Leste.

Keywords Truth commissions � Memory � Timor-Leste � Records

Introduction

The Comissao de Acholhimento, Verdade e Reconciliacao de Timor-Leste (Commission

for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation, Timor Leste, or CAVR) was formally established

in 2002. Its mandate, under United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor

(UNTAET) Regulation 2001/2010, was to investigate and report on the human rights

violations which took place in East Timor during the 25 years of Indonesian occupation

and after the 1999 vote for independence. Core components of the CAVR’s work were to

E. Nannelli (&)Culture Division, Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture, PO Box 1869, Apia, Western Samoae-mail: nannels78@yahoo.com.au

123

Arch Sci (2009) 9:29–41DOI 10.1007/s10502-009-9103-4

assemble a wide range of records documenting the experience of the Timorese people and

to produce a report outlining the Commission’s findings and recommendations.

The records of the CAVR are immensely valuable to this new nation. They have been

described as representing ‘the most complete available collection of documents about a

vital period of East Timor’s history’ (CAVR nd), a ‘shining beacon’ (van Klinken 2006), a

‘detailed analysis of the period’ (Marshall 2006), a ‘comprehensive historical record’

(Grenfell 2005–2006), and as providing ‘a basis for East Timor to understand its own

history’ (Shah 2006). These records are made even more valuable by the fact that little

other written evidence about Timor-Leste and its history is available within the country.

The questioning of rationalist interpretations of the world by postmodern thinkers has

caused the idea of records as independent, neutral, reliable, and authentic evidence of

actions and transactions to come under scrutiny. Current debates addressing postmodern-

ism in archival theory call for a thorough understanding of the context behind the content

of records in order to be aware of the political and social influences surrounding the

records, the power relationships shaping documentary heritage and the structure of the

document and the information management systems that house and shape it (Cook 2001).

The context behind the content is also significant because it not only shapes the current

record, but also shapes what will be known by future generations about the events the

records describe. Cook (2001) calls on the postmodern archivist to expose these deeper

contextual realities of the records, and bind this as a new, explicitly stated contextual layer

to the original record.

This paper provides an introduction to the CAVR, its historical background, and the

records it produced, and considers two key elements which have shaped the creation of the

CAVR records. It examines the implications of the CAVR’s reliance on individual and

collective memory and testimony in its investigations and final report. It also looks at the

CAVR records as the products of a truth commission, considering the nature of the

structure and operation of truth commissions and the influence of political and social

context within which the CAVR operated.

Historical background

East Timor was colonized by the Portuguese in the mid-sixteenth century. For the most

part, Portuguese intervention in East Timor was minor, accompanied by minimal invest-

ment in the way of infrastructure and development. From the nineteenth century, Portugal

sought to impose greater control over the colony and to shore up its control by favouring

certain local leaders over others. The CAVR’s final report, Chega!, noted that this left ‘a

society which lacked the cohesion required to forge a sense of nationhood’ (CAVR

2005a:11).

Portugal’s Carnation Revolution of April 1974 saw Portugal’s rapid disengagement

from its colonies, including East Timor. Distracted by wars in its African colonies, Por-

tugal did very little in East Timor to prepare it for its post-colonial existence. In an already

volatile climate, this resulted in a brief but devastating civil war between the two main

emerging East Timorese political associations UDT and Fretilin. About 3,000 people were

killed, and very deep and enduring scars were left within the country. Fretilin won the civil

war and unilaterally declared independence on 28 November 1975. However, 9 days later,

on 7 December 1975, Indonesia launched a full-scale invasion of East Timor. As Chega!notes, ‘thus began the war that lasted, though several distinct military and political phases,

for 24 years, and saw the conduct of gross human rights violations by all sides that

30 Arch Sci (2009) 9:29–41

123

impacted virtually the entire Timorese population’ (CAVR 2005a). Although exact figures

are difficult to ascertain for the period 1975–1999, it is estimated that from a population of

approximately one million, between 100,000 and 250,000 were killed and almost the entire

population was directly affected by some form of violence, famine, or forced relocations

(Central Intelligence Agency 2009).

Several factors saw the situation in East Timor come to a head in the 1990s. Within East

Timor, there was increased armed and political resistance to the Indonesian occupation.

There were deliberate attempts to raise East Timor’s profile on the international agenda,

which led to rising international concern over the reported human rights abuses occurring

within East Timor. Also, with the end of the Suharto regime in Indonesia in May 1998, the

new Indonesian government under President Habibie committed itself to improving the

situation in East Timor as part of its wider attempt to improve Indonesia’s human rights

record.

In May 1999, Indonesia, Portugal, and United Nations representatives agreed on a

consultation process for the people of East Timor to choose whether to accept or reject an

Indonesian offer of autonomy. On 30 August 1999, the citizens of East Timor voted

overwhelmingly in favour of independence. Immediately following the announcement of

the ballot, East Timor descended into violence committed mainly by pro-Jakarta militia,

supported by the Indonesian army. It is estimated that from a population of one million,

approximately 740,000 were displaced and 1,400 killed. The infrastructure of East Timor

was looted and then virtually destroyed as part of a wider scorched earth policy.

In the aftermath of this violence, members of the Timorese and international community

came together to consider the best way to help the new nation of Timor-Leste become

established and to move on from a violent, painful, and divisive past. It was decided that

the best way to do so was to hold a truth commission.

The CAVR and its records

From the commencement of its planning in 2000 until the handover of its report in 2005,

the CAVR focused on developing a process that would be relevant, meaningful, and

helpful to the people of Timor-Leste. To meet this goal, a substantial portion of the

CAVR’s research was based on speaking directly with the Timorese people. The CAVR

Chairperson observed in his introduction to Chega!: ‘the truth contained in this Report

comes largely from the words of those who directly experienced the years of conflict. The

Commission has attached special importance to listening directly to those who suffered

human rights violations throughout the 25-year period’ (CAVR 2005a).

The CAVR records are considered as key records documenting the birth of the inde-

pendent nation of Timor-Leste. Chega! describes the records as:

a priceless asset. They tell us who we are, what we have been through, what we have

lost, and show us the value of what we have gained… the experiences of ordinary

people…tell us where we have come from and help us understand who we are today

(CAVR 2005a).

These records are made even more valuable by the lack of other documentary sources

produced within Timor-Leste for this period. Much of the documentation produced during

the Indonesian occupation was removed when the Indonesians left Timor-Leste or was

destroyed in the post-ballot violence. The resistance was cautious about producing docu-

mentation during the occupation for fear of what would happen if its records were

Arch Sci (2009) 9:29–41 31

123

discovered. During this period, Timor-Leste had a strong oral tradition and limited

investment in education by the Indonesians, like the Portuguese before them, had left a

large percentage of the population illiterate (G. Robinson, personal communication, 4 April

2008).

Much of the CAVR’s information gathering was done through fieldwork conducted by

district teams, who were recruited from local communities within Timor-Leste. This

approach was used to demonstrate the CAVR’s commitment to a cooperative approach

with communities. Using people who were familiar with the local area enabled better

communication in local dialects and a deeper understanding of conditions and traditions in

each community. Team members received limited training in one of the three core pro-

gramme areas of the CAVR’s work, which were truth seeking, community reconciliation,

and reception and victim support. The processes involved in collecting information within

these programme areas were diverse and varied from district to district and team to team.

Key groups of records produced by the CAVR include:

• Approximately 8,000 individual statements collected from across Timor-Leste and 91

from West Timor, plus 1,000 targeted research interviews and 15 VIP interviews;

• A human right violation database, documenting patterns of violations and estimations

of numbers of victims;

• Records of approximately 1,500 community reconciliation processes (CRPs), which

were quasi-legal processes held in local communities to respond to the perpetrators of

less serious crimes and to facilitate reconciliation at a community level;

• National and sub-district public hearings, including audiovisual recordings of the

hearings;

• Community profile workshops, which examined the history of the conflict from a local

perspective;

• Documentation from healing workshops, the Urgent Reparations Scheme, and Returnee

and Outreach programmes;

• The CAVR’s administrative records, research materials, and a wide range of public

awareness and promotional material; and,

• The CAVR’s 2500-page final report, Chega! (CAVR 2005a).

The CAVR mandate included a requirement to organize its archives and records.

However, this aspect of the Commission’s work did not begin until towards the conclusion

of the Commission in April 2004, when the Archive and Comcara Division was estab-

lished. The late implementation of this part of the CAVR mandate meant that no formal

over-arching information structure to manage the CAVR records existed throughout the

entirety of the Commission’s operation. This led to each section having responsibility for

its own records, and resulted in haphazard, inconsistent, and intermittent recordkeeping

practices and reduced accessibility of the records. There are also indications that records

were removed, lost, or destroyed, and are thus not available to be captured in the archives

(G. Robinson, personal communication, 4 April 2008).

The CAVR archives

Recommendations relating to the management of the CAVR archives were provided in

recommendation 7.5 of Chega!, which describes the records as being:

32 Arch Sci (2009) 9:29–41

123

a unique part of Timor-Leste’s national heritage … entrusted to the Commission by

individuals, families and communities across the country as well as national and

international organizations and governments. In many instances the opportunity to

gather this information and material will never come again (CAVR 2005a).

The archives of the CAVR are held at Comcara Balide, a former Portuguese and

Indonesian jail that will become a heritage site and national memorial centre for victims

and for human rights.

Access to the records is currently restricted, partly because the records are still in the

process of being arranged and described with very limited resources—although a signifi-

cant portion of the collection is being described and digitized through the British Library’s

endangered archives programme (De Vasconcelos 2008). The records also contain per-

sonally sensitive information, which in the wrong hands could be damaging to people who

are named or to people who provided information.

Memory

The CAVR’s focus on listening to the voices of the victims leads to an interesting con-

sideration of the interplay of memory, records and history. Memory is widely recognized

within psychology, the legal system, and the social sciences as being problematic. The

process of ingraining information into both individual and collective memories is vul-

nerable to error, especially when the memories cover an extended period of time, which in

this case was 25 years. As the editor of a paper published by Walter Menninger in ArchivalIssues noted ‘[f]or various reasons…we tend to remember past events unreliably and our

recollection changes over the course of our lives’. As Dr Menninger points out, this calls

into question historical documentation that is predominantly based on people’s recollec-

tions of past events’ (Menninger 1996). However, there seems to have been no deliberate

evaluation of the CAVR’s reliance on memory, nor of the nature of memory and its

implications for the CAVR’s work. Yet memory played a critical part in the CAVR’s

investigations and provided the basis for much of the information captured into the

CAVR’s records. These records will be a foundation for how future generations come to

understand the events surrounding the birth of their nation. An analysis of the role and

influence of memory on the shaping of these records will provide useful contextual

information to help future users interpret them.

Individual memory

Cognitive approaches to the production of individual memory emphasize that memory

is made up by a number of stages and elements. At each stage of memory, there is

potential for error in the process of embedding memory. There is also general con-

sensus that what comes to mind through memory is not a perfect reproduction of what

happened (Johnson 2006; Millar 2006; Roediger 2004). Rather, the process of

remembering or perceiving events stored in memory is a process of reconstruction from

the selected fragments committed to long-term memory (Walker et al. 1994). This

process of reconstruction is also influenced by a vast range of factors which can

Arch Sci (2009) 9:29–41 33

123

introduce errors or biases during retrieval, including age, audience, capacity to

understand, the way questions are asked about an event, personal goals, expectations

and motivations, representations in the media, or hearing other people’s accounts (Frow

1996; Johnson 2006; Menninger 1996; Read 2004). The presence of stress heightens the

possibility for error.

The memory of traumatic events and the presence of post-traumatic stress disorder add

extra complexity to debates around the recall and accuracy of memory in individuals.

Some scholars argue that trauma blocks access to the memory of certain events or distorts

memory so that the individual can manage the event as a part of their life (Hayner 2002;

Menninger 1996).

Collective memory

Psychologists and social scientists also recognize that individual memory is intimately

intertwined with its cultural and social context. Sociologist Maurice Halbwachs, credited

as the founder of the term ‘collective memory’, described the constant interplay between

individual and collective memory: ‘[o]ne may say that the individual remembers by

placing himself in the perspective of the group, but one may also affirm that the memory of

the group realizes and manifests itself in individual memories’ (Reese and Fivush 2008).

Eyerman (2001) says:

while there is always a unique, biographical memory to draw upon, it is described as

rooted in a collective history. This collective memory provides the individual with a

cognitive map within which to orient present behaviour. From this perspective,

collective memory is a social necessity: neither an individual nor a society can do

without it.

Collective memory is developed through interaction with others including the family

and local community, education systems, and mass media. It is embodied through his-

torical evidence, cultural symbols, and commemorative memorials. It serves the needs of

the group in the present through the ‘formation and maintenance of a sense of group

identity, group cohesion and group continuity’ (Harris et al. 2008). As with individual

memory, collective memory is recollected, reconstructed, and subject to change over time.

Collective memories are dependent on the perspective of the group, so typically take on the

culturally or politically dominant group’s outlook. However, collective memory can alter

across time and generational lines and can be reshaped to fit cultural or political needs at

particular times. Change can result in the memory becoming more similar between

members of the group, or becoming more contested as aspects are negotiated, disputed, or

denied (Reese and Fivush 2008).

In instances of collective trauma, the trauma is played and replayed through public

reflection and discourse and is commemorated at a collective level in ways that ingrain

the trauma into collective memory. Within a collective setting, Pillemer (2004)

observes that exaggeration and graphic descriptions are used to create an image for the

members of the community who were not present at the original event. Through this

process of telling and retelling the memory of traumatic events can be transmitted to

community members who did not actually experience the original events and can shape

responses to subsequent events, people, or situations over generations (Eyerman 2001;

Pillemer 2004).

34 Arch Sci (2009) 9:29–41

123

Implications of memory for the records of the CAVR

One of the major areas of the CAVR’s research was the individual statement-taking

process. During statement taking, people were encouraged to come forward and share

information about their own experiences or others’ experiences they had witnessed. The

CAVR made concerted efforts to enable witnesses to be comfortable throughout the

process by using people from local districts, who were familiar with the language, tradi-

tions, and practices of the area, as statement takers; making participation in the process

voluntary; and using a loose narrative structure to encourage people to share what they

wanted in the way they felt most comfortable to do so (CAVR 2005b). However, as with

any witness testimony, many factors affect the content of the statement and the nature of

the truth recounted: the nature of the questions asked by the interviewer, the dynamics

between the interviewer and the interviewee, the audience to the interview, the context of

the interview, the traumatic nature of information recalled, and the motivations of the

interviewee in coming forward and in what the interviewee consciously or subconsciously

decided to recount. By way of illustration, Rawski tells of one man, who when talking in a

private interview of a massacre that occurred during the Indonesian occupation, spoke in

fiery language about ‘the traitors from Cassa,’ but only in private. Rawski noted: ‘[he] later

told me that this was the era of reconciliation, and that young men in the village might

misconstrue the story to justify retribution’ (Rawski 2002).

The length of time between the event and the recounting of the event, the acts of

rehearsal and recall between that time, and the influence of other occurrences during that

time can also alter what is recounted about the original event. Psychologist Elizabeth

Loftus found that:

Memories don’t just fade…they also grow. What fades is the initial perception, the

actual experience of events. Every time we recall an event, we must reconstruct the

memory, and with each recollection the memory may be changed—coloured by

succeeding events, other people’s recollections and suggestions, increased under-

standing or a new context… Truth and reality, when seen through the filter of our

memories, are not objective facts, but subjective, interpretive realities. We interpret

the past, correcting ourselves, adding bits and pieces, deleting uncomplimentary or

disturbing recollections (Menninger 1996).

These issues were compounded by the fact that the statement takers had only received

limited training in statement taking, and were not skilled in understanding the psycho-

logical processes of individual and collective memory and of traumatic memory, and

eliciting memories accordingly.

The CAVR also drew from the collective memory through the CRPs and community

profile workshops. The CRPs were established to offer a legal resolution for less serious

crimes committed during the conflict through a process outside the formal judicial system.

They were based on traditional justice practices and were focused on helping reconcile

victims and perpetrators and reintegrating perpetrators into the community (CAVR 2005b).

In the CRPs, an individual was required to recount their version of the crime or crimes they

committed. This recounting may have been coloured by embarrassment, fear of rejection, a

desire to receive a lighter punishment, to be reaccepted into the community, or so on. The

perpetrator’s account was then discussed and debated by the villagers who attended the

process. Discussion went back and forth between villagers, the perpetrator, and a Regional

Commissioner until a communally accepted truth was arrived at. A similar form of dis-

cussion and negotiation occurred through the community profile workshops, where

Arch Sci (2009) 9:29–41 35

123

members of the community came together to examine the history of the conflict from their

own local perspective. Harris et al. (2008) observe that ‘discussion affects the accuracy of

post-collaboration individual recall, and sharing memories in a group means that the

experiences of others may be adopted as our own and that the consequences of remem-

bering with others are ongoing’. It is also unlikely that the CRPs or the community profile

workshops were the first time that particular events had been discussed in a group setting,

suggesting that a degree of memory sharing and shaping had already taken place within

these communities which may have influenced the information provided through both the

individual and collective recounting.

Harris also notes that socially shared memories may be less accurate than individual

memories, but this should ‘not necessarily be interpreted as a disadvantage of socially

sharing memories, since accuracy often may not be the most important of social memory

functions’ (Harris et al. 2008). Within the context of the CAVR, sharing memory served as

one way in which victims’ experiences could be validated and confirmed. By having others

listen to stories of their experience, and by hearing the stories of those who had experi-

enced similar trauma, a sense of shared understanding and catharsis was generated amongst

the community. Similarly, the fact that a significant percentage of the CAVR’s records

draw on the memory and testimony of the Timorese people should not be interpreted as a

disadvantage. These records show the history of the conflict from the perspective of those

who experienced it. When considered as a whole and compared with other primary and

secondary sources which describe this period, they draw a comprehensive and clear picture

of atrocities which occurred during and immediately after the Indonesian occupation.

However, those records based on testimony should be considered as the products of their

context: the memory of often traumatic circumstances from a period of up to 25 years. If

researchers choose to use selected testimony, it will be important that they factor in the

considerations outlined earlier and be aware for the potential for errors or biases in records

based on both individual and collective memories.

Truth commissions

Truth commissions are an increasingly popular way for governments to be seen to address

the past and promote reconciliation, and usually begin with high hopes, noble aims, and

optimistic expectations. The Chairperson of the CAVR explained its mission as being to

discover the truth of events under the Indonesian occupation in order to:

establish accountability in order to deepen and strengthen the prospects for peace,

democracy, the rule of law and human rights in our new nation. Central to this was

the recognition that victims not only had a right to justice and the truth, but that

justice, truth and mutual understanding are essential for the healing and reconcilia-

tion of individuals and the nation (CAVR 2005a).

But this pursuit of the ‘truth’ of events is a problematic concept, with many arguing that

the concept of truth is ‘contextual, contingent and historical’ (Norval 1999).

Truth commissions are generally recognized as being created to fulfil a specific agenda

and are shaped by a number of contextual and historical factors. The CAVR and its truth-

seeking investigations were overtly and inadvertently shaped by the Commission’s man-

date and investigative powers; the definition of the crimes to be examined; the resources

made available; the appointment of Commissioners and key personnel; the timeframe

36 Arch Sci (2009) 9:29–41

123

allocated; and the weight of the sometimes contradictory expectations it was to address.

Additional factors affecting the CAVR’s investigations included:

• The information available to the Commission, including the documentation of previous

regimes, which in many cases was removed or destroyed;

• Public perceptions of the Commission;

• Individuals’ willingness to participate and the nature of the information they shared;

• The influences of powerful actors, who may have worked with, or against the

Commission; and,

• The will and desire to use interpretations of the past to achieve political goals

(Lanegran 2005).

The scoping of the CAVR’s investigations to focus on voluntary participation in its

processes was also a significant shaping factor for the information that became available to

the Commission. The Benetech Human Rights Data Analysis Group, which assisted the

CAVR with its human rights statistical analysis, noted that the voluntary statements may

not represent a valid statistical sample of experiences within Timor-Leste (Silva and Ball

2006). This is supported by indications that very few of the Timorese refugees remaining in

West Timor participated in the CAVR’s processes. Also, many individuals who were

suspected of committing less serious crimes or other acts did not come forward to par-

ticipate in the CRPs, could not be forced to participate. This suggests that people whose

stories ran counter to the majority may have chosen not to come forward and that dis-

senting voices are subsequently underrepresented in the CAVR records. The decision not

to prosecute perpetrators of serious crimes through the CAVR, the lack of formal legal

proceedings for serious crimes, and the lack of investigation within Indonesia into actions

by its forces stationed in East Timor also mean that many voices which can shed a different

light on events have yet to be heard.

The CAVR, like other truth commissions, was also the product of its political context.

This context included factors such as:

• The need to establish the new nation of Timor-Leste and to facilitate a sense of an

independent national identity for the Timorese people;

• The need to address human rights violations committed by both sides during the

occupation and for justice to be seen to be done;

• The need to promote healing and reconciliation among the Timorese people and

integration between those who supported the Indonesian occupation and those who

fought for independence;

• The need to provide a clear demarcation between the Indonesian Government rule and

the new political leadership of Timor-Leste; and,

• The desire to foster harmonious relations with foreign governments, particularly with

Indonesia.

There is a strong sense from many who have reviewed the work of truth commissions

that a major focus of their work is the deliberate creation of a new official national

narrative of the country’s recent past. Andrews explains:

truth commissions act as conduits for collective memory; as individual stories are

selected as being somehow representative, these stories come to frame the national

experience. Truth commissions are not, however, mere conduits for stories; rather

they wield an important influence on which stories are told and how they are to be

interpreted. Thus, they both produce and are produced by grand national narratives,

Arch Sci (2009) 9:29–41 37

123

and must be understood in the particular context(s) in which they emerge and the

particular goals, either implicit or explicit, which guide their work (Andrews 2003).

This narrative has the complex task of acknowledging the pain, suffering, and loss

experienced by individuals and communities; of acknowledging the wrongs of the past; of

providing some form of redress for victims and their families; and of rebuilding a sense of

belonging to the nation and of shared identity. More often than not, this narrative also

supports the agenda of the powerful and the political elite. As Lanegran observes:

A society’s selection and ascription of significance to a historical event is not an

arbitrary process. In public discourse, memory is constructed and deployed to

achieve a number of strategic ends. Manipulating memory is a potent tool in the

powerful actor’s arsenal. As a result, the official memory of past atrocities that the

truth-seeking institutions sanction should be regarded cautiously as a product of a

process shaped by the power balance among political actors (Lanegran 2005).

Chega! and the CAVR records play a significant role in creating and perpetuating these

new national narratives within Timor-Leste. They act as a site for the formation, contin-

uation, and reinterpretation of the collective memory of the Timorese struggle for inde-

pendence and the birth of the new nation and as a vehicle for the transmission of these

narratives across time and space. The CAVR records may also serve as a site for contesting

the Timorese identity. Apart from the relative silence from dissenting voices in the records,

there is also currently intergenerational strain between, broadly speaking, those who grew

up under Portuguese rule and those who grew up under Indonesian rule (Leach 2006).

There has been tension between those who were pro-Indonesia versus those who were pro-

autonomy. At present, the intellectual development of an Timorese identity does not yet

appear to be highly contested terrain, given that there are more immediate needs for the

development of shelter, security, and infrastructure. But there are murmurs that this will be

a contentious area in the not too distant future and will have interesting implications for

interpretations and uses of the information contained within Chega! and the CAVR

records.

Chega!, as the official record of the CAVR, also reflects the context in which the CAVR

operated. It was produced under significant time pressure by fatigued staff. There was

considerable debate over the interpretation of information gathered, how events should be

referred to, and what should be included, particularly when the information was complex

or potentially inflammatory (G. Robinson, personal communication, 4 April 2008). The

Commissioners were also well aware of the focus of their political masters, and may have

sacrificed some inclusions or recommendations to increase the likelihood that Chega! as a

whole would be considered and endorsed. An additional complicating factor is that despite

being presented to the President, Parliament, and Government of Timor-Leste following its

completion in October 2005, Chega! has yet to be debated or endorsed, which undermines

its potential contribution.1

1 The latest information available to date on the CAVR website notes: ‘The new Timor-Leste Parliament,elected in 2007, has asked the Parliament’s Committee A to address the CAVR Report Chega! in 2008…The Committee… is currently preparing a work plan and is expected to begin its deliberations when thecurrent state of siege is lifted. The Government has included implementation of the CAVR recommenda-tions in its National Priority Program for 2008…’ (CAVR nd).

38 Arch Sci (2009) 9:29–41

123

Conclusion

Truth commissions seek to discover the ‘truth’ of events under previous regimes by

creating an authoritative record of what happened in order to come to terms with the

past and move forward as a nation. But ultimately, they are a problematic form of truth

telling. Multiple, conflicting agendas are often at play in the design and operation of

the truth commission; resources are typically very limited; and expectations from what

a truth commission can achieve are often much too high. This has significant impli-

cations for the development of an authoritative national history based on a truth

commission’s work, records, and report. Given that a significant proportion of the

CAVR’s records is based on testimony drawn from memory and that the records are

the product of their political and social context, the records produced by a truth

commission should not be taken simply at face value as impartial, objective, and

containing ‘truth’.

This is not to say that these records are not valuable. On the contrary, these records are

invaluable to the new nation of Timor-Leste. They provide one of the first times that the

Timorese people have been able to produce their own national history, based on their own

experience, in their own words. They document the processes of reconciliation and

restorative justice among the Timorese people as they came together to examine their

experiences under occupation and to share and attempt redress with each other on a local

and national level. They are an incredibly rich resource documenting the Timorese struggle

for independence against significant odds and, at times, international indifference, and

retaining the memory of victims and survivors for future generations. These records may

also in the future serve as evidence to identify perpetrators of serious crimes and assist in

the prosecution of formal legal proceedings against them. As the Chair to the CAVR stated

in the foreword to Chega!:

these records are unique and must be preserved with great care—they are the living

testimony of the victims and key actors from a period that witnessed both the painful

birth of this nation and a shameful chapter in international politics… they are a rich

resource for future research, writing and education… As such I hope they will

continue to attract continuing support to ensure their long-term preservation,

accessibility and use (CAVR 2005a).

At multiple points through Chega!, it is acknowledged that the results of the CAVR’s

work are not perfect but that the work was done with a spirit of ‘openness, honesty, a deep

compassion for those who have suffered the most, an almost fanatical commitment to non-

violence, and a determination never, ever to let any of what is in the report happen again’

(CAVR 2005a).

It will be to the advantage of those coming to work with these records as records

management professionals, and to those seeking to access these records both now and

in the future, to bear in mind the context of the creation of these records, and the way

in which this context shapes what the records contain and how they are read and

used.

Acknowledgments Thank you to Dr. Geoffrey Robinson, UCLA, for his graciousness and kindness insharing his time and knowledge with me by participating in interviews for this research and in opening myeyes to what life has been like for those living in Timor-Leste.

Arch Sci (2009) 9:29–41 39

123

References

Andrews M (2003) Grand national narratives and the project of truth commissions: a comparative analysis.Media Cult Soc 25:45–65

CAVR (2005a) Chega!: the report of the commission for reception, truth, and reconciliation, Timor-Leste:executive summary. Commission for Reception Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor, Dili

CAVR (2005b) Chega!: the report of the commission for reception, truth, and reconciliation, Timor-Leste,part 1: introduction. Commission for Reception Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor, Dili

CAVR (nd) CAVR archives and library; preserving East Timor’s endangered archives. Available fromhttp://www.cavr-timorleste.org/archives.htm. Accessed 9 Dec 2008

Central Intelligence Agency (2009) CIA handbook: Timor-Leste. Available from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tt.html. Accessed 6 May 2009

Cook T (2001) Fashionable nonsense or professional rebirth: postmodernism and the practice of archives.Archivaria 51:14–35

De Vasconcelos A (2008) Preserving East Timor’s endangered archives: stage two. Available fromhttp://www.bl.uk/about/policies/endangeredarch/2008/vasconcelos.html. Accessed 10 Dec 2008

Eyerman R (2001) Cultural trauma: slavery and the formation of African American identity. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge

Frow J (1996) Recovering memory. Australian Humanities Review. Available from http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-Dec-1996/frow.html. Accessed 24 July 2007

Grenfell D (2005–2006) East Timor: when remembering isn’t enough. Arena Magazine, No. 80, December–January, pp 32–35

Harris CB, Paterson HM et al (2008) Collaborative recall and collective memory: what happens when weremember together? Memory 16(3):213–230

Hayner PB (2002) Unspeakable truths: facing the challenge of truth commissions. Routledge, New YorkJohnson MK (2006) Memory and reality. Am Psychol 61(8):760–771Lanegran K (2005) Truth commissions, human rights trials, and the politics of memory. Comp Stud South

Asia Afr Middle East 25(1):111–121Leach M (2006) History on the line: East Timorese history after independence. Hist Workshop J 61:222–237Marshall HJS (2006) Justice or appeasement—human rights in East Timor: address to July 2006 Meeting of

the United Nations Association of Australia. Available from http://www.unaavictoria.org.au/media/Monthly%20Meeting/Presentation%20delivered%20by%20Shane%20Marshall.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov2007

Menninger WW (1996) Memory and history: what can you believe? Arch Issues 21(2):97–105Millar L (2006) Touchstones: considering the relationship between memory and archives. Archivaria

61:105–126Norval AJ (1999) Review: truth and reconciliation: the birth of the present and the reworking of history. J S

Afr Stud 25(3):449–519Pillemer DB (2004) Can the psychology of memory enrich historical analyses of trauma? Hist Mem

16(2):140–155Rawski F (2002) Truth-seeking and local histories in East Timor. Asia Pacific J Hum Rights Law 3(1):77–96Read J (2004) Eyewitness memory, psychological aspects. In: International encyclopedia of the social &

behavioural sciences. Elsevier Ltd, pp 5217–5221Reese E, Fivush R (2008) The development of collective remembering. Memory 16(3):201–212Roediger HL (2004) Reconstructive memory. In: International encyclopedia of the social & behavioural

sciences. Elsevier Ltd, pp 12844–12849Shah A (2006) Records of East Timor, 1999. UCLA International Institute. Available from http://www.

international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=53444. Accessed 2 June 2007Silva R, Ball P (2006) The profile of human rights violations in Timor-Leste, 1974–1999: a report by the

Benetech Human Rights Data Analysis Group to the Commission on Reception. Truth and Recon-ciliation of Timor-Leste, Benetech

Van Klinken G (2006) The East Timor truth commission report shines. Policy Forum Online. Availablefrom http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0611Klinken.html. Accessed 2 June 2007

Walker M, Burnham D et al (1994) Psychology. Wiley, Brisbane

40 Arch Sci (2009) 9:29–41

123

Author Biography

Elizabeth Nannelli has worked at the National Archives of Australia since 2005. She took leave withoutpay between October 2008 and October 2009 to spend a year as an Australian Youth Ambassador forDevelopment working in Samoa for the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture’s Archives Unit, which isworking towards the strengthening of records management capability within the Samoan Government andthe establishment of a national archive within Samoa. Liz graduated from a Master of Information Servicesfrom Edith Cowan University in 2008. Her research interests lie in the area of archives and human rights indeveloping transitional and post-conflict societies.

Arch Sci (2009) 9:29–41 41

123