18 Commissioning justice Truth commissions and criminal justice Two (2) truth commissions did not actively refer information about alleged crimes to national authorities, but recommended the prosecution of crimes under international law. The 1990 Chadian Commission recommended prosecution and was followed by a law creating a special tribunal to judge Hissène Habré and his accomplices.40 The 1997 Commission in Guatemala could not share the information gathered with prosecution authorities, but recommended prosecutions for the crimes not covered by a previous amnesty.41 Of the remaining fourteen (14) truth commissions, seven (7) worked alongside criminal prosecutions or civil litigation; four (4) were prevented from actively contributing to prosecutions by a previous amnesty or by statutes of limitations in their domestic legislation; three (3) were limited by their mandate or by the political situation in their country. Seven (7) truth commissions worked alongside criminal prosecutions or civil litigation. The commissions established in Germany in 1992 and 1995 carried out their work while tribunals were prosecuting former representatives of the East German regime; they provided ‘vocal support’ for criminal prosecutions and lustrations.42 In Sierra Leone, the Commission and the Special Court worked as two completely separate bodies; the Special Court’s Prosecutor was keen to clarify that he would not use any information gathered by the Commission.43 The 2001 Commission in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was established during the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (see Box 2). A year before the establishment of the 2004 Commission in Burundi, a law had provided that an international tribunal for Burundi would be established to prosecute crimes under international law.44 In Canada, the work of the 2006 Commission focuses on establishing an historical record and promoting awareness and commemoration; it is separated from legal proceedings.45 Government ministers reportedly gave their assurances that the 2008 Commission in the Solomon Islands would not interfere with ongoing criminal cases.46 BOX 2: THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA The truth commission in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was initially intended to grant amnesty to those accused of “crimes against the state” in exchange for their testimony.47 According to some observers, the Yugoslav authorities had proposed the commission in an effort to justify their refusal to send former president Slobodan Milosevic to The Hague for trial.48 In response to these plans, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe noted that the commission ‘may in no circumstances substitute itself for the [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia]’.49 The Yugoslav Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Komisija za istinu I pomirenje), established in March 2001, did not have any power to grant amnesty.50 It disbanded in 2003 without producing a report. Four (4) truth commissions were prevented from actively contributing to prosecutions by a previous amnesty or by statutes of limitations in their domestic legislation. The 2000 Commission of Uruguay investigated crimes covered by a 1986 amnesty law; it recommended full reparations for the families of the victims Amnesty International April 2010 Index: POL 30/004/2010