Human rights violations and truth

Truth, Fact, and Fiction in the Human Rights Community 103

6. America's Watch, Peru Under Fire: Human Rights Since the Retunt to Democracy (New Ha- ven, CT: Yale Unwersity Press, 1992) DESCO, Violencia Polftica en el P~i, 1980-88 (Lima: Centro de Estudios y Promoci6n del Desarrolln, 1989, 2 vols.). Deborah Poole and Gerardo R6nique, Peru: The lime of Fear (London: Latin America Bureau, 1992).

7. Daniel H. Levine,"Peru: El Derecho de Pensar en Situadhn de Fin de Mundo," SIC 548 (1992).

8. Thomas Wlckham Crowley, Guerrillas and Revolution in Latin America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992).

9. Kathryn Sikkink, "Human Rights, Principled Issue Networks, and Sovereignty in Latin America," International Organization 47 (1993): 411-441.

10. Christian Smith, Resisting Reagan: The U.S. Central America Peace Movement (Chicago: Uni- versiW of Chicago Press, 1996)

11. Judith Adler Hellman,"The Study of New Social Movements in Latin America and the Question of Autonomy,'in The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: ldentih d, Strat- egy, and Democracy, ed. A. Escobar and S. Alvarez (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992), 54.

12. Tristan Borer, Challenging the State: Churches as Politzcal Actors in South Africa, 1980-1994 (Notre Dame, IN: University, of Notre Dame Press, 1998). Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson, eds., Religion: The Missing Dimensions of Statecraft (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).

13 Cf. Luis P~isara, Nena Delpino, RocioValdeavellano, and Alonso Zarzar, eds., La Otra Cara de la I.una: Nucvos Adores Sociales en el Peril (Lima: CEDYS, 1991), or Brian tl. Smith, More Than Altruism The Pohtics o/Private Foreign Aid (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), on the origins and agenda of development groups.

14. Hellman,"New Social Movements,"54 15. Patrick Ball, Paul Kobrak, and Herbert Spirer, State Violence in Guatemala, 1960-1996: A

Quantitatiw, Reflection (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1999).

16 Stoll, Rzgoberta MenchzJ, 278. 17. Stoll, Rigoberta Mench~. Cf. G.N. Harding,"Intellectuals and socialism: making and break-

mg the proletariat," in Intellectuals and Politics From the Dn,yfus Affi~ir to Salman Rushdie, ed Jeremy Jennings and Anthony Kemp-Welch (London: Routledge, 1997).

18. Sherry. Ortner,"Resistance and the Problem o[ Ethnographic Refusal,"Comparatlve Studies m Socie~. and History 37:1 (1995): 173-193.

19. Cf. the comments in Robyn Wilson,"A Challenge to theVeracit3, of a Multicultural Icon," Chronicle of Higher Education January. 1999, or in Robvn Wilson, "Truth, Fiction, and Hu- man Rights," The New York Times, December 23, 1998.

Human Rights Violations and Truth

Luis Roniger ~

[n Rigoberta MenchtJ and the Story o f Al l Poor Guatemalans , David Stoll forces us to mee t face to face with the merciless realization that a great voice which touched our emot ions and genera l ized a public concern with h u m a n - r i g h t s violat ions in G u a t e m a l a was that of a biased in formant w h o does not comply with Western s t andards for es tabl i sh ing the t ruth. H e likewise forces us to recons ider h o w naive and faulty a Western aud ience can be in th inking that we can easily use our categories and narrat ive genres to unde r s t and wha t some- one f rom a n o t h e r culture tries to tell us. He reminds us that it is t ime to move

from the hagiographic recept ion of any text to the known , but of ten left-aside,

104 Human Righls Review, October-December 1999

level of analysis of the journey a text makes through a chain of interpretive communities. Finally, he raises crucial issues about the connection between truth, politics, academia, and the human-rights community.

Stoll suggests that I, Rigoberta Mench~ 2 expressed a"poetical truth,"since it drew widespread attention to the atrocities and human-rights violations committed against thousands of Guatemalans during the late 1970s and early 1980s. While it projects the suffering of this human community, the book's full international impact should be interpreted, says Stoll, as a function of its inclusion as melodrama or morality play in the agenda and mythical worldview of oth- e r s - those others being North American and European intellectual and political circles concerned with class issues, with multiculturalism and feminism, ethnic and subaltern studies, and the equation of revolutionary movements with the sum total of popular aspirations.

These circles turned I, Rigoberta Menchti into an icon of resistance to oppres- sion, into "an authoritative text on the social roots of political violence, indigenous attitudes toward colonialism, and debates about ethnicity, class, and identity. "3 The iconic character of I, Rigoberta Mench~ relied oll its tenor."Forced into exile by the assassination of her parents and brother, she [Rigoberta] be- heved that the army's massacres were galvanizing her people to revolutionary militancy. "~ As it served their own moral needs of righteousness and political correctness and guided by dissent with U.S. foreign poll O, in Central America and by a dichotomous Cold War image D, these circles accepted the claims and beliefs in I, Rigoberta MenchF~ at face value. By doing so, they followed an indis- criminate reading of Mayan peasants as supporters of the guemllas, thus rein- forcing ethnic fears and prejudice within Guatemala, which then turned peasants into a target of military and para-military repression. International circles of schol- ars and intellectuals thus reinforced unwittingly a mythical and nafve reading of the background and unfolding of violence in Guatemala.

During fieldwork in the Western highland areas portrayed in L Rigoberta Mench~, Stoll discovered significant gaps between Rigoberta Mench6's testimonio and the stories reported by other informants. Beyond their concrete unfolding, these discrepancies reflected a different political reading of reality. The stories brought by the other informants indicated that the peasantry did not live up to the ideal image of class solidarity projected by L Rigoberta Mench~, but was strongly divided from within, along ethnic, community, and kinship lines. As typified in the case of the struggle of Rigoberta's father, Vicente Mench'6, with his wife's kinsmen over land possession, rural society was characterized by internal struggles, distrust, inefficient land use, and general de- cline. 5 This occurred long before the countryside became dominated by state, guerrilla, and paramilitary violence and before human-rights violations became the generalized lot of entire populations. As is well known, during the repression, peasants were enrolled as civil patrollers by the army and were made to join punitive expeditions against villages suspected of insurgency.


From among the same ranks of the repressed peasantry came the collabora- tors, committed killers, and conscripts who formed the counterinsurgency forces started under President Lucas Garo'a and expanded under Pa'os Montt. This may also explain why it may be so difficult in Guatemala to separate victims from per- petrators of human-rights violations, which paradoxically makes the situation there closely resemble dilemmas and policy options seen in other settings, particularly Central and Eastern Europe following the overthrow of communism. ~

The stories StoU heard also revealed peasants' lack of identification with the guerrillas, whom they lumped together with soldiers as a force of evil that brought them misfortune and suffering. Rather than protecting communities, as suggested in I, Rigoberta Menchfi, the guerrillas laid the local population open to repression. The testimonies from survivors of the violence indicated that people felt "caught between two fires," suffering and resenting the blows and counterblows of the military and the guerrillas.

Bringing these different voices together to build a socio-historical analysis, David Stoll is highly critical of the readings and uses of L Rigoberta Menchti as a"book with a cult following."; "[T]aking a claim to victimhood at face value means accepting a very partial version of events that produced so many victims," he claims. ~

By rejecting approaches that require dichotomizing participants into victims and victimizers, the book raises serious questions about the uses and misuses of truth, not only by those who oppose human rights, but also by those who are concerned with inalienable human rights. In this manner, this work problematizes the political and social context and uses of the discourse of human rights.

Stoll's book is the latest in a series of works which have been purposefully formulated to unravel the making of collective myths in the social sciences and humanities. Accordingly, the book has triggered waves of controversy throughout the intellectual world. This controversy is reminiscent of an earlier case in anthropology: the ardent controversy surrounding the publication of Derek Freeman's Margaret Mead and Samoa, 9 a book in which the author criti- cizes the truisms shaped by "the best-selling of all anthropological books," Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa. While Mead's classic had shaped the cultural outlook of millions throughout the world since its publication in 1928, Free- man suggested----on the basis of his own research--that the book was based on a biased reading of the ethnographic background of Samoan society. More- over, he claimed that Coming of Age had reached an almost hagiographic status as its findings were made to fit the paradigmatic needs of cultural anthropology and relativism. The attempted debunking of one of the founders of modern anthropology did not go uncontested, as can be seen in the pages of Lowell Holmes's Quest for the Real Samoa, ~~ among other works. Similarly, works such as Raymond DeMallie's The Sixth Grandfather have raised the question of the hazards of translation and editing processes regarding Native Ameri-

106 Human Rights Review, October-December 1999

can informants. 11 What was conveyed when John G. Neihardt, a white Ameri- can poet who recorded the teachings of Nicholas Black Elk, an Oglala Sioux eider, made famous the Sioux vision by creating"a work of art"? What is the function of the Western writer? Is it merely ornamental, serving solely as a literary or artistic vehicle? Is the product distorted through translation, failing to convey the worldview of Native Americans?

While related to these controversies, Stoll is breaking new ground as he uncovers not only a misrepresentation of reality in the process of translating indigenous voices for a Western audience, but also wider issues related to authorship, truth construction, and the complex and often problematic relation- ship between the human-rights community, politics, and anthropology. Let me review some of these issues and point out some of their most important implications.

On the simplest level, Stoll has called part of Menchfi's story into question, claiming on the basis of other informants' stories that she distorted some of the events reported by her and chronicled by Elizabeth Burgos in 1982. Cer- tainly, Stoll's claim of L Rigoberta Menchzi's dubious credibility can be used to discount the magnitude and extent of human-rights violations allegedly committed by the Guatemalan state, armed forces, and paramilitary civil patrols, particularly in the heyday of repression in the early 1980s. Stol], however, brings two claims to his defense. First, he claims that anthropologists have no right to selectively exclude some of the voices they uncover, privileging one informant over the others for the sake of protecting myths. Second, he suggests that the misconstruction of truth by Rigoberta Menchfi and her political allies turned her story into the authoritatiw~ reading of reality with political consequences which affected "all poor Guatemalans." That is, the Mayan peasants were misconstrued as supporting the guerrillas, and this turned them into targets of repression. This line of interpretation was suggested by Mayans themselves, who were aware of the deep fear that Ladinos had of them, a fear which led to the genocidal intensity of the violence against them. As reported by one of anthropologist Kay Warren's informants:

There has always been a clash of classes here in Guatemala. Many have thought that someday the Indian would rise up. But many people misconstrued this, and their fear caused panic. Of course they were against the Indians, thinking one day they would rebel.They thought the indians would exploit the existing opposition to the state. They believed Indians were participants or were in the leadership. This is why they tried to eliminate, to kill the indigenous leadership. '2

Those fears of the "other" were reflected in the scorched earth war of the early 1980s in the highlands. That internal war produced a depopulation through the massacre of nearly 440 villages, the burning of forests, massive forced relocations, the killing and disappearance of between 100,000 and 150,000 civilians, and the forced displacement of over a million people. All


these measures were adopted by the military to deny cover to the guerrillas in an area which supposedly served them as a cMlian support base. The Indian populations of this rural area were thus doomed to suffer what many consider to be genocide because they were considered to be "subversive" by definition.

Finally, Stoll indicates that the local reading of Rigoberta's testimonio is not meant to challenge the veracity of the repression, the magnitude and depth of which is beyond question. Researchers of testimonios too admit that the genre expresses a genuine, but not a literal reflection of reality. Testimonios

come to be distorted by psychic stress and torment, just as it [sic] speaks to the crucial nature of such distortion--their absolute necessity as verbal representation, spurred on by the death or forced silencing, by the actual and subjective exile, of many who might have been varying , but ultimately confirming, versions of what somehow must be saidJ 3

This raises, however, the general problematic of relying on informants in anthropological research, especially those who live under conditions of hardship, stress, and violence, as in Guatemala. Stoll himself recognized that he could not be sure if his informants were keeping"hidden transcripts"while they were talking to him publicly. 14 Yet, he claims that the range of opinions expressed allows a local reading of the social and political forces at work, which shows that peasants were drawn, first as bystanders and later as victims, into a dichotomous scenario by forces far outside of their own leanings, interests, and networks. Their silence was interpreted by many as an expression of generalized support for the guerrillas, and their voices were silenced by those who insisted on a revolutionary reading of the situation in the Guatemalan countryside.

Stoll's book suggests that all forces in the political spectrum have been in- volved in the social production of truth and that I, Rigoberta Mencha attained a hagiographic status due to its instrumentality for social actors working on a world scale to discredit the repressive state of Guatemala. Under such an understanding, what are the implications of Stoll's work? If Rigoberta's story was misconstrued fl)r the sake of the general good, does this override the misconstruction? Secondly, perhaps her language was manipulated independently of her own intention?

On the latter question, there is wide agreement that Rigoberta Menchd pur- posely transformed her personal testimonio into"the story of all poor Guatema- lans," by incorporating the plight of others, which turned it into archetype:

The narrative voice has a metonymic function that is a latent aspect of its narrative convention, by which each individual testimony evokes an absent polyphony of other voices, lives and experiences. The testimonial form affirms the speaking sub- ject by addressing the reader in the form of art"l" that demands attention....What we have is an individual decentered by a collective textual mode. 1~

As much as Mench6 was"used," she was fully in control of the situation of authorship and used it to become a collective mouthpiece for a suffering human community. It should be stressed, however, that after her testimony was


recorded in 1982, Rigoberta changed, her commitment to the guerrilla movement changed, and her country changed. As she and her other main characters changed their perspectives in life, the story of how I, Rigoberta MenchF~ was constructed has itself been contested and Rigoberta has expressed misgivings about its production. ~" And yet, her testirnonio took on a life of its own, projected to world renown due to the contextual forces at work in the international community.

On the issue of authorship and authors' responsibility, Stoll's critical study offers instructive lessons. It resembles what J.J. Leclerce wrote regarding the critical assessment of another idolized personality, Martin Heidegger, especially the problematic connection between his political stances and his authorship:

Perhaps [such a critical reading] will rid us for good of the drift from critique to hagiography, from philosophical to moral discipleship to which intellectuals of the 1960s and 1970s were so prone. 17

Stoll's critique highlights the importance of paying attention to the history of a text's reception, since it is this reception that explains how the text takes on meaning. As much as the book is a critique of L Rifoberta Mencha, it is also a call on the na/vet6 of basing the analysis of a society on just one literary voice, powerful as it may be, assuming that any group would act without internal dissent. It shows how dangerous it is to mute the polyphony of voices found in any human collectivity. A corrective text for Guatemala is Margaret Hooks's collection of interviews with Guatemalan women who confront in their own voices the stereotypes reinforced by the reception of I, Rigoberta Mencht2 in some academic circles. TM

The question of truth (or misconstruction of truth) in the service of political and humanistic objectives is more problematic. Certainly, L Rigoberta MenchF~ was an inspiration for many activists, both in Guatemala and abroad. It galva- nized international support for the protection of human rights in Guatemala. Turning knowledge into intervention on behalf of the persecuted often re- quires endowing knowledge about human-rights violations with a moral status that justifies intervention on behalf of the victims of state violence. Raised to such a level, such a moral imperative then turns into one of the most important forces for the protection of universal human rights.

As Stanley Cohen has indicated, the motivational grounding of action for the protection of human rights worldwide is one of the most difficult things to attain internationally, lq By pointing out the unreliability of L Rigoberta Mench~ as a testimony (rather than as a testimonio), Stoll's research can be unwillingly used by those who would seek to thwart a sense of generalized concern with the protection of human rights. This possibility is a reminder of how scholar- ship is not limited purely to the contexts of its production, but often becomes central in fueling the political debates of our time. 2"


Stoll's book forces us to ask in merciless terms the question of whether it is advisable to conceal portions of research for the sake of greater goods such as the strengthening of a commitment to moral causes and the protection of human rights. There are many answers to this question. Stoll himself would disclaim that an attack on the details of Rigoberta Menchf's story should be considered an attack on her people, or that Menchf's worldwide recognition transforms her into an untouchable icon. StoU's position has been attacked in some circles as nafve and presumptuous. His claim of loyalty to the idea of truth will probably be seen by some as "the oldest and most expedient disguise for serving the interests of the powerful. "21 Many would remind him that he himself should be aware that research and morality are to be seen as "con- tained within the all-encompassing sphere of the political. "22 His critics will probably argue along the lines of Roberto Goizueta, who notes:

An intellectual who presumes that he or she is an isolated, atomic entity who can have access to authentic knowledge through the rigorous use of reason [and research] is blind to the self-interested bias of that"knowledge."Despite the claims to "objectivity," such an intellectual is a participant and beneficiary of injustice. And the nature and extent of that injustice is visible only to those who suffer its consequences....23

Stoll is aware of this line of argument and indicates that he waited for Guatemala to progress in the peace process before he brought forward his findings.

I would like to claim that there is a greater benefit to be gained from critical studies such as Stoll's. It is instructive for societies undergoing the reconstruc- tion of their social, political, and public life after decades of repression and violence. The most obvious consequences of such a history of state violence, repression, and civil war are the creation of a culture of fear, distrust, intimida- tion, and injustice as well as the breakdown of institutional life. As societies emerge from such periods of repression, there is need for debate on the past along with the expectation of justice. An open debate on the origins and forms of violence is as important as the demand for justice in reshaping the social and institutional fabric of post-traumatic eras. Many Latin American societies, Guatemala included, have been characterized by disjunctures between formal organizational principles and the informal working of institutions; between decision-making and policy enforcement; and between the cultural models in the public sphere and the actual practices and realities of social life. The failure of these societies to integrate their lower and middle classes into the twenti- eth century resulted in the formation of political systems based on rigid control of public spheres, state demobilization of social movements, and varying degrees of state repression and violence. The cases of massive repression of their own citizens by Central American dictatorships or the military rulers of the Southern Cone are variants of the same ideological confrontation with


popular trends of mobilization and the perceived dangers of social revolution in the Cold War era. In the wake of their repressive rule, and confronted with a legacy of human-rights violations, political classes and civilian centers of power have regained their primacy over human-rights networks and other sectors of civil society that, in tandem with international constraints, played a leading role in the return to democracy.

In the case of Guatemala, the return to civilian rule and the restructuring of public life did not succeed in establishing standards of accountability and responsibility for past deeds as central to public life. The process of formal de- mocratization allowed the expression of limited political rights and of demands of social justice, but left many of the legacies of the counter-insurgency war intact. The late 1980s were characterized by self-censorship and fear, reprisals for voidng protest, continuing human-rights violations, political assassinations, and death threats against labor union activists, peasants, students, and church leaders. Overall, these were years characterized by persisting violence and

...a macabre"message system," in which ultra-right death squads and/or security forces...acted against specific individuals in order to intimidate entire constituencies....[T]he countefinsurgents kept alive the specter of a return to the massive brutalities of the early 1980s....[Tlhe government conducted no serious investigations of these actions, and no one was held responsible. Cerezo resolutely upheld the "amnesty" self-proclaimed by the army just before he took office. In stark contrast to Alfonsfn in Argentina after that country's dirty war, he had cam- paigned on a promise not to prosecute army officers for past human rights crimes or death squad activities.This impunity with respect to the past implicitly created a shield of unaccountability in the present... :4

A decade later, the armed forces and most sectors of the political class continue to evade any responsibility for the devastating effects of state repression and violence. Impunity, the specter of polarization, and collective historical oblivion have become persistent traits of the contemporary scene, with only minor exceptions, such as the recently opened investigation of the army mass killing of Las Dos Erres in 1982. This case, in which sixteen members of the military, including former President Rfos Montt, were called to testify on the torture, rape, and final massacre of over 300 people by military personnel in civilian disguise, represents a major symbolic gain for the survivors of state violence and the relatives of the victims. Moreover, it is a real move towards the opening of the public sphere to issues of institutional transcendence.

Even though most avenues to justice are foreclosed, what seems important at this stage is the strengthening of an open public sphere. In such a public sphere, debates should be conducted on the ways of relating to and mastering the past, while assessing the lessons that could be learned from the grim pe- riod of repression and its legacy. The report of the Commission for Historical Clarification in Guatemala is another important step in shaping collective


memory. To debate these issues widely can be ins t rumenta l in nar rowing the gap be tween the rhetoric and formalities of public life and the realities of public inclusion and exclusion. In this context, t ruthfulness and open debates about the past are a political virtue, a major de te rminan t of the character of public spheres in which individuals and communi t i es conduct their lives. > From this perspective, David Stoll's book may have a very positive effect in fostering debate on the sources of the local legacy of human- r igh t s violations and on the prospects of reshaping insti tutional life and elaborating collective m e m o r y in Guatemala .

Notes

1. I am grateful to Shuli Roniger, Mario Sznajder, Helga Welsh, and Ulnke Wiethaus for shanng with me thmr helpful comments and suggestions.

2. Elizabeth Burgos, Me Ilamo R~gobet'ta Mench(~ y asf me nact6 la conciencla (Barcelona: Six Barral, 1983).

3. Dav]d Stoll, Rigoberta Menchf~ and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999), 5.

4. David Stoll, Between Two Armies in the lxil Towns of Guatemala (New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 1993), 17.

5. Stoll,'Rigoberta Mench~, 19-40. 6 See Helga A. Welsh, "Dealing with the Communist Past: Central and Eastern European

Experiences after 1990," Europe-Asia Studies 48:3 (1996): 413-428. 7. Stoll, Rtgoberta Menchzi, 274. 8. Stoll, Rigoberta Mench~, 40. 9. Derek Freeman, Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropologi-

cal Myth (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983). 10. Lowell D. Holmes, Quest Jar the Real Samoa The Mead~Freeman Controversy and BeyomI

(Massachusetts: Bergin and Garvey Publishers, 1987) 11. Raymond DeMallie, The Sixth Grand~ther Black Elk's Teachings Given to ]ohn G. Neihardt

(Lincoln, NE and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1984). 12. Kay B Warren, ln&genous Movements and Thetr Critics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press, 1998), 93. 13. Marc Zimmerman,"Testimonio in Guatemala,"in The Real Thing Testmmmal Discourse and

l,atin America, ed. Georg M. Gugelberger (Durham, NC: Duke Universit3' Press, 1996), 112.

14. Stoll, Between l~wo Armies, 20-21. 15. John Beverly"Anatom/a del testinlonial," in Del Lazarillo al Sandmismo: Estudios ~bre la

Juncifn ideol6~ca de la literatun~ espafiola e hispanoamericana (Minneapolis: Pnsma Insti- tute, 1987), 161-162. Cited in Zimmerman,"Testimonio," 112.

16. Stoll, Rigoberta Mench~i, 177-188. 17. J.J. Leclerce,"Textual Responsibility,," in The Political Responszbility of Intellectuals, ed I.

Maclean, A. Montefiore, and P. Winch (Cambridge Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 19q0), 121.

18. Margaret tlooks, Guatemalan Women Speak (London: Catholic Institute for International Relations, 1991).

19. Stanley Cohen, Doual and Acknowledgement: The hnpact of lnJbrmation about Human-Rights Violations (Jerusalem: Minerva Center for lluman Rights, 1995).

20. See Warren, Indigenous Movements, on her connections with Mavanist movements of cultural revitalization, and Richard A. "~lson, ed, Human Rights. Cultun" and Contt:xt: Anthn> poloqwal Perspectives (London: Pluto Press, 1997), for comparative experiences


21. Andrew Ross,"Defenders of the Faith and the New Class,"in Intellectuals, Aesthettcs, Poh- tics, Academics, ed. Bruce Robbins (Minneapolis: Universit2/of Minnesota Press, 1990), 109.

22. Alan Montefiore, "The Political Responsibility of Intellectuals," in The Political Responsibil- i~. of Intellectuals, ed. I. Maclean, A. Montefiore, and P. Winch (Cambridge, Eng.: Cam- bridge University Press, 1990), 224.

23. Roberto S. Goizueta,"The Preferential Option for the Poor,"in Intellectuals and Public L!fe, ed. Leon Fmk, Stephen Leonard, and Donald Reid (Ithaca, NY: Comell Universitv Press, 1996), 281.

24. Susanne Jonas, The Battle for Guatemala: Rebels, Death Squads, and U S. Powr (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991), 163.

25. On these issues in the Southern Cone, see Luis Roniger and Mario Sznajder, The Legacy of Human-Rights Violations in the Southern Cone: Argentina, Chile and Uruguay (Oxford: Ox- ford University Press, 1999).

Date post:	26-Aug-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	luis
View:	222 times
Download:	3 times

Human rights violations and truth

Documents