non-governmental initiatives geared toward revealing the truth about past crimes and serve as a component of a broader strategy of accountability and justice. To do so, they are self-consciously or coincidentally resemble official truth commissions. UTPs are rooted in civil society and hosted and driven by human rights organisations, victim groups, universities, and other societal organisations. When truth commissions are not feasible because of political constraints, are ineffective, or politically compromised, or human rights activists and their allies in government choose not to create them, UTPs may represent viable alternative strategies and can be seen as more legitimate interlocutors for the task of confronting the past. (Stan and Nedelsky, 2013:106) UTPs can resemble official truth commissions, as, for instance, the Legal Resources Foundation (LRF) and the Catholic Commission for Peace and Justice (CCJP) report, Breaking the Silence, which is fully discussed in the next chapter. UTPs are normally conducive in those scenarios were „there is insufficient political will or governmental capacity to establish an effective inquiry, civil society, local governments, and other institutions have stepped in to create innovative, truth commission-like inquiries„ (Stan and Nedelsky. 2013:106). UTPs are instrumental in “mobilizing victims and survivors, documenting abuse, and issuing formal findings, these inquiries have often generated public support and catalyzed official action, leading to stronger official inquiries and other measures‖ (Gonzalez and Varney. 2013:10). The only example in the ITJDBP database is the Algerian Ad Hoc Inquiry Commission in Charge of the Question of Disappearances, which was empowered to identify, investigate and determine the fate of people who were disappeared between 1992 and 1999, and also to draft a reparations plan for the families of the disappeared and assisted victims in attaining rehabilitation and compensation. In 1979, Zambia established a special international commission of inquiry chaired by Reuben Kamanga. However, it was only centered on one mission goal; to establish the death of a Zimbabwean freedom fighter who was exiled in Zambia, Herbert Chitepo, and hence the name, the „Chitepo Commission‘. By way of contrast, the Uganda commission of 1974, The Commission of Inquiry into the Disappearances of People in Uganda, was to investigate and report on disappearances in the first years of the Amin government from January 25, 1971 until 1974. The four commissioners were targeted by the state in reprisal for their work. By far, most truth commissions were created as post-transitional justice mechanisms and processes. This is attributed to the fact that, at the end of many conflicts, there is great pressure for accountability. Moreover, there is frequently pressure from the international community to adopt accountability mechanisms for a clean break with the past. This is the case in those countries like Algeria, whilst in others like Zambia and Uganda the truth commissions are pre and post-transition. In others, such as Central African Republic, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone these were all post-transition commissions. The best known of these of course is the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), and the vast majority of the literature on truth commissions focuses upon South Africa, as can be seen in the International Internet Bibliography on Transitional Justice. However, it should be pointed out that “truth commissions are most effective when integrated in a comprehensive transitional justice strategy that includes reparation policies, criminal prosecutions, and institutional reforms‖ (Gonzalez & Varney. 2013, 9). Thus in pretransitional states, the focus of the present discussion, by delivering clear findings and 26