Silences and Official Truth: Silencing Operations in the Case of the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture in Chile*

Daniela Mansilla Santelices

Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile

Oriana Bernasconi Ramírez

Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile

https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda51.2023.06

Received: June 15, 2022; accepted: December 14; modified: January 15, 2023.

Abstract: This article explores silence as a constitutive and constituent practice of the production of official and state truth regarding serious human rights violations, using the case of Chile as a starting point. We focus, in particular, on Chile’s National Commission on Political Prisoners and Torture (2003-2005), and its counterpart, the Advisory Commission for the Qualification of Disappeared Detainees, Political Executed, and Victims of Political Prisoners and Torture (2010-2011), whose objective was to qualify and repair the victims of the last Chilean civil military dictatorship (1973 and 1990). We discuss four silencing operations in which we identify the ways in which they relate and act in/with different artifacts and procedures of the Truth Commission (TC) device, after addressing its performative capacity on testimony, residual truth, and official truth. This qualitative research included interviews with declarants and ex-officials of the commissions, and professionals of the National Institute of Human Rights, along with a study of secondary sources. Drawing from a post-structuralist theoretical-methodological approach and from the field of science, technology, and society studies, we conduct a rhizomatic analysis and an exercise of infrastructural inversion, focusing on that which is not part of the official truth, or that which is not public and visible. We strive to contribute to the field of study of ecologies of visibility/invisibility in knowledge infrastructures, and to memory and human rights studies. We do this based on a critical reading of the production of truth about human rights violations that, overcoming the dichotomous approach of what is said and not said, proposes that the official truth is not reduced to the information and data collected. Rather, it also includes operations of silencing that provoke actions within the Truth Commission and in its public reception.

Keywords: Human rights violations, knowledge infrastructure, residue, secrecy, transitional justice, truth commissions.

Silencios y verdad oficial. Operaciones de silenciamiento en el caso de la Comisión Nacional sobre Prisión Política y Tortura de Chile

Resumen: este artículo explora el silencio como una práctica constitutiva y constituyente de la producción de verdad oficial y estatal relativa a graves violaciones a los derechos humanos, a partir del caso de Chile, en especial, en la Comisión Nacional sobre Prisión Política y Tortura de Chile (2003-2005), y su continuadora, la Comisión Asesora para la Calificación de Detenidos Desaparecidos, Ejecutados Políticos y Víctimas de Prisión Política y Tortura (2010-2011), cuyo objetivo fue calificar y reparar a víctimas de la última dictadura civil militar chilena (1973 y 1990). Se analizan cuatro operaciones de silenciamiento, en las que se identifican las formas en que estas se relacionan y actúan en/con distintos artefactos y procedimientos del dispositivo Comisión de Verdad (CV), tras abordar su capacidad performativa sobre el testimonio, la verdad residual y la verdad oficial. Esta investigación cualitativa consideró la realización de entrevistas a declarantes y exfuncionarias/os de las comisiones y a profesionales del Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos, además del estudio de fuentes secundarias. A partir de una aproximación teórico-metodológica posestructuralista y del campo de estudios de la ciencia, la tecnología y la sociedad, se realiza un análisis rizomático y un ejercicio de inversión infraestructural, poniendo el foco en aquello que no forma parte de la verdad oficial, o que no es público y visible. Se busca contribuir al campo de estudio de ecologías de visibilidad/invisibilidad en infraestructuras de conocimiento, y a los estudios de la memoria y los derechos humanos, por medio de una lectura crítica de la producción de verdad sobre violaciones a los derechos humanos que, superando el enfoque dicotómico de lo dicho y no dicho, propone que la verdad oficial no se reduce a la información y a los datos recolectados, sino que también incluye operaciones de silenciamiento que provocan acciones dentro de la Comisión de Verdad y en su recepción pública.

Palabras clave: comisiones de verdad, infraestructuras de conocimiento, justicia transicional, secreto, residuo, violaciones a derechos humanos.

Silêncios e verdade oficial. Operações de silenciamento no caso da Comissão Nacional sobre Prisão Política e Tortura do Chile

Resumo: neste artigo, é explorado o silêncio como prática constitutiva e constituinte da produção de verdade oficial e estatal relacionada a graves violações dos direitos humanos, a partir do caso chileno, em especial, na Comissão Nacional sobre Prisão Política e Tortura do Chile (2003-2005), e sua seguidora, a Comissão Assessora para a Qualificação de Detidos Desaparecidos, Executados Políticos e Vítimas de Prisão Política e Tortura (2010-2011), cujo objetivo foi qualificar e reparar as vítimas da última ditadura militar chilena (1973 e 1990). São analisadas quatro operações de silenciamento nas quais as formas em que estas são relacionadas e atuam são identificadas em/com diferentes artefatos e procedimentos do dispositivo Comissão de Verdade, após abordar sua capacidade performativa sobre o depoimento, a verdade residual e a verdade oficial. Esta pesquisa qualitativa considerou a realização de entrevistas com testemunhas e ex-funcionários/as das comissões e com profissionais do Instituto Nacional de Direitos Humanos, além do estudo de fontes secundárias. A partir de uma abordagem teórico-metodológica pós-estruturalista e do campo de estudos da ciência, da tecnologia e da sociedade, são realizados uma análise rizomática e um exercício de inversão infraestrutural, enfatizando aquilo que não faz parte da verdade oficial ou que não é público e visível. Pretende-se contribuir para o campo de estudo de ecologias de visibilidade/invisibilidade em infraestruturas de conhecimento e para os estudos da memória e dos direitos humanos, por meio de uma leitura crítica da produção de verdade sobre violações dos direitos humanos que, superando a abordagem dicotômica do dito e não dito, propõe que a verdade oficial não se reduza à informação e aos dados coletados, mas sim inclua operações de silenciamento que provocam ações dentro da Comissão da Verdade e em seu acolhimento público.

Palavras-chave: comissões da verdade, infraestruturas de conhecimento, justiça de transição, resíduo, segredo, violações dos direitos humanos.

The turbulent decades of the 1960s and 1980s witnessed the establishment of state terrorism in Latin America under dictatorships and armed conflicts, which often resorted to systematic and widespread violations of human rights. Once these catastrophic periods came to an end, societies and states were confronted with the daunting task of reconstructing, at least partially, a truth that had been distorted and hidden until then. In response, various mechanisms were employed by the state, particularly in the Southern Cone region, with one widely used approach being the establishment of Truth Commissions (TCs). These TCs function as governance technologies (Bernasconi 2019; Bernasconi, Mansilla and Suárez 2019; Bernasconi, Ruiz, and Lira 2018; Castillejo 2007; Mansilla 2022; Wilson 2001) that produce institutionally legitimized knowledge, often referred to as the official truth, by drawing on the testimonies of victims and survivors. The official truth serves as a means of (re)recognizing past human rights violations.

This article critically examines the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture in Chile (also known as the Valech Truth Commission), focusing on the pivotal role of silence in shaping the official and state truth surrounding grave human rights violations. To elucidate this phenomenon, the concept of silencing operations is introduced, encompassing the procedures that deliberately create silences during the production, dissemination, and legitimization of the official narrative regarding severe human rights abuses. By closely examining and analyzing these silencing operations, the authors uncover their inherent capacity to institute silence, their intricate interplay with various artifacts and procedures employed by the Truth Commission, and their profound implications for the construction of the official truth.

Numerous studies within the field of memory and human rights have conducted extensive research on the creation of state knowledge, shedding light on the often-overlooked realm of bureaucratic truth production (Buur 2002; Mora-Gámez 2016; Wilson 2001). These studies delve into the intricate processes involved in translating victims’ personal narratives into factual accounts of human rights violations (Bernasconi and Díaz 2022; Buur 2002; Díaz 2020). Information processing, verification, categorization, among other operations, contribute to the “production of standardized narratives for the assessment […] of the pain experienced by the applicants” and their conversion into “official codes and numbers” (Mora-Gámez 2016, 69). As a result, scholars have dedicated their inquiries to examining the role of specific resources and discursive strategies in establishing an objective truth. These resources encompass corroborated evidence related to the contextual backdrop of the conflict, its underlying causes, repressive practices, patterns of violence, and individual incidents (Moon 2012; Wilson 2001). Researchers have also analyzed the technologies employed, such as records and protocols, which actively participate in this truth production. The body of literature in this field suggests that the aim of constructing the official truth is to generate an openly circulating, objective knowledge while simultaneously harboring certain residual elements within a black box. These elements may consist of particular contents, procedures, and technologies that remain undisclosed or inaccessible to the wider public.

The theoretical-methodological framework employed in this research embraces a poststructuralist and Science, Technology, and Society (STS) approach, which places emphasis on infrastructural processes and materialities. Within this perspective, the Truth Commission (TC) is viewed as a sociotechnical assemblage (Bijker and Law 1992; Brown 2012; Latour 2008; Latour and Woolgar 1995), consisting of various interconnected components. These components include individuals such as declarants and TC officials, as well as artifacts such as archival documentation, records, and databases. Moreover, institutional practices, expert knowledge, and technical procedures, such as evaluations and classifications, are integral to this assemblage. All these elements operate within a specific historical context that addresses severe human rights violations and other forms of violence (Castillejo 2016).

The research methodology employed in this study adopts a qualitative approach characterized by its exploratory and inductive nature. The primary method of data production involves conducting semi-structured thematic individual interviews1 with various key informants. These informants include survivor declarants, former employees of the Valech Truth Commission, and professionals from the National Institute of Human Rights, who are responsible for preserving the Valech archives. The interviews were conducted between 2018 and 2020 and provide valuable firsthand perspectives and insights into the subject matter.

The study also incorporates the analysis of secondary sources, which include documents such as the National Report on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech 1, 2004/5) and the Report of the Presidential Advisory Commission for the Qualification of Detained Disappeared, Executed Political Prisoners, and Victims of Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech 2, 2011). The authors also examine relevant laws and supreme decrees that established the Truth Commissions. Additionally, a sample of 23 declassified Valech Archive folders provided by the Desclasificación Popular collective,2 an organization advocating for the declassification of archives from the dictatorship period, specifically the Valech 1 archives, is analyzed.

The analysis focuses on the registration artifacts and procedures of the Truth Commission that mediate the production of knowledge about this dark past, and was not designed to delve into the meanings of silences but rather into their interconnections. A rhizomatic approach inspired by Deleuze and Guattari (2004) is adopted, emphasizing the interconnectedness and relational nature of the phenomena. The data is therefore not interpreted and analyzed in the traditional sense as mere evidence, but rather as non-representational and transgressive (St. Pierre 1997). This approach aligns with Deleuze’s (1988/1986) concept of the fold, which disrupts the concept of interiority by defining the interior as an external operation, thereby “avoiding distinction, opposition, and fatal binary thinking, treating the exterior as an exact reversal or ‘membrane’ of the interior” (Badiou 1994, 54-61). Within this framework, the production of truth and silencing operations are viewed as interconnected and constituting multiplicities, lacking a fixed origin or predetermined sequential order. Such a perspective transcends a dichotomous understanding of silence and opens up avenues for exploring alternative definitions and functions.

Furthermore, directing attention towards the omissions in the official truth or the concealed and unseen aspects can be viewed as an “infrastructural inversion” (Bowker 1994; Bowker and Star 2000). This concept highlights the visibility of what is typically invisible, uncovering the obscure and gaining access to the “black box.” This approach enables the analysis of the diverse range of practices, processes, artifacts, personal truths, and residual elements, as well as the silencing operations that are inherent in the production of the official truth.

By applying the perspective of studies that explore the visibility/invisibility of occupations, knowledge, tasks, procedures, and categories in knowledge production (Bowker et al. 2010; Denis and Pontille 2012; Star and Ruhleder, 1996; Star and Strauss, 1999) to the TC device, we can see that the production of the official truth involves “masking the operations that enable its creation, publication, and circulation” (Denis and Pontille 2012, II). This means that the visible—the official truth—is not simply the accumulation of information, but rather the result of translation, selection, exclusion, hierarchy, classification, and other operations. Through these operations, the State leaves a residue (or several), which does not circulate publicly in the Final Report and therefore remains invisible, obscured, and secret to the majority.

In this sense, the value of the official truth and its recognition is the result of an ecological distribution between what is made present and accessible, on one hand, and what is erased and made invisible, on the other (Star and Strauss 1999). This implies that “visibility and invisibility are constantly generated in relation to each other” (Denis and Pontille, 2012, IX), and that “there is no absolute visibility: shedding light on something will obscure another part” (Star and Strauss 1999, 24); this highlights the relational link between silence and truth.

Based on the above, this research makes a valuable contribution to the field of visibility/invisibility ecologies in knowledge and information infrastructures (Bowker et al. 2010; Denis and Pontille 2012; Star and Strauss 1999; Star and Ruhleder 1996), as well as to the field of memory and human rights studies. It critically examines the processes of truth production concerning recent human rights violations.

The following repertoire presents four types of silencing operations, analyzing their relationship with various artifacts and procedures within the Truth Commission apparatus, and considering their performative impact on testimony, residual truth, and official truth. It is important to note that these silencing operations are not presented in a predetermined sequential or hierarchical order. Rather, they are organized according to the stages of truth production within the examined Truth Commission for clarity. However, it is crucial to understand that silencing operations are not isolated phenomena; they are interconnected and contingent on the context of official truth production. They are created, articulated, iterated, modified, and suppressed at different stages of truth production, extending beyond the confines of the Truth Commission apparatus itself.

Truth Commissions in Chile

In Chile, the civil-military dictatorship (1973-1990) came to an end through a negotiated transition “in which the military, while accepting to return power to civilians, retained considerable influence” (Groppo 2016, 39). In 1990, the government of President Patricio Aylwin established the National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation. The commission’s primary objective was to investigate cases of individuals who had disappeared, been executed, or subjected to torture resulting in death, with a specific emphasis on holding the State morally accountable for the actions committed by its agents or individuals in its service.3

Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, various groups of former political prisoners in Chile mobilized to challenge and revise the official narrative of the recent past. These groups aimed to gain recognition for victims of torture and political imprisonment during the dictatorship. In 2003, President Ricardo Lagos established the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture, commonly referred to as the Valech Commission 1. This commission was the first state institution worldwide to provide individual recognition to surviving victims of political imprisonment and torture. This sets the Chilean case apart from other countries such as Argentina (1983), El Salvador (1993), South Africa (1995), Brazil (2014), among others (Foundation for Due Process of Law 2010), where a single investigative commission has been established to exclusively qualify victims who died.

The Valech Commission was established three decades after the coup d’état and had the primary objective “to determine the individuals who suffered deprivation of liberty and torture for political reasons between September 11, 1973, and March 10, 1990, and to propose reparations measures” (National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture, 2004/5, 15). As a result, it revealed the massive scale of the phenomenon, documenting 28,459 victims of political imprisonment (94% of whom were victims of torture) and identifying 1,132 detention centers used throughout the country between 1973 and 1990, indicating the planned nature of state repression and its extent and intensity.

Its successor, the Presidential Advisory Commission for the Qualification of the Disappeared Detainees, Executed Political Prisoners, and Victims of Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech 2, 2010-2011), added to the total figures of victims of political imprisonment and torture, with 9,795 individuals and 30 non-survivor victims. This brings the total number of individuals recognized by the State as victims who experienced human rights violations during the dictatorship to over 41,000.

The Declarants’ Right to Silence

After the establishment of the Valech Commission 1, there were survivors who, for various reasons, did not come forward to testify or withdrew during the interview process. Some saw their non-participation as a political act of resistance (Goicovic 2004), while others refrained due to fear, mistrust, insecurity,4 or simply because they were unaware of the Commission’s existence or the criteria and procedures for submitting their testimony. Despite the Commission’s efforts to establish a presence throughout the country and reach out to Chilean residents abroad through consular offices, there were still individuals who submitted their information to the Valech Commission 1 after the submission deadline, which was six months after its establishment. This is evident, for example, in the 232 declarants who submitted their information for Valech 1 after the deadline for submission, six months into its operation (CNPPT 2004/5, 86).

Although some of these individuals later provided their testimony to the Valech Commission 2, there are still many who chose not to testify. In this regard, a group of individuals recognized by the Valech Commission 2, in the context of a public statement to request the same benefits as the victims of Valech Commission 1, expressed why they did not come forward in the first instance, stating that “if we did not apply to the first Valech Commission, it was — among other reasons — due to misinformation, fear, and above all because we had no way to prove our status as former detainees, resulting from the secrecy that surrounded our situation” (Group of Beneficiaries of the Second Valech Commission 2015).

Among those who did testify before the Commission (Valech 1 and 2), not all of them shared their testimony. The Commission acknowledged in its final report that the decision to present testimonies was voluntary for the victims, recognizing that recalling painful events required significant effort (CNPPT 2004/5, 79). In the chapter on the “Consequences of Political Imprisonment and Torture” in the final report, the Commission included an excerpt from the testimony of a declarant who was detained in 1973 at the age of seventeen in the Metropolitan Region. In the interview, the declarant explained the reasons for their silence:

I will not provide specific details about the torture and human rights abuses that occurred there because, in my personal case, I was deeply impacted to the point where I cannot revisit those moments. Even recalling them is painful and agonizing. (CNPPT 2004/5, 504)

However, it is important to mention that as part of the entry form and case file creation, it was mandatory to provide identification data, including name and identity card number. Indeed “the quality of the data recorded in the form and supplemented during the interview was a key aspect to facilitate the subsequent investigation process” (CNPPT 2004/5, 42). During the initial interview with the Truth Commission, there is a provision known as the right to remain silent, which allows individuals to exercise control over the narrative of their personal truths. This provision grants them the option to choose not to share their testimonies or provide additional details during the interview process.

The following two cases of declarants who used this operation shed light on the relationships, components, and impacts of this silencing operation within the work of the Commission. The first case is an instance of delegation (Latour 1994) of the qualification of victimhood condition to documentary evidence; the second case is a delegation of the qualification option to other individuals affected by the events in question.

In the first case, an ex-official of the Valech Commission 1 and 25 describes the case of a former detainee at Villa Grimaldi who made a conscious decision not to recall or disclose her experiences in the presence of the “listening ears of the State.” After relocating to Europe, marrying, and having children, she had chosen to leave that chapter of her life behind and preferred to maintain that closure. During the interview, she exercised her right to remain silent, opting not to provide her testimony. The Commission employee duly documented this choice in the Political Prisoner and/or Torture Entry Form, thereby initiating the investigation and data collection process concerning her case.

A wide range of sources were employed for background research and the verification of instances of deprivation of liberty. These sources included specially curated databases created for the qualification task, legal documents such as complaints and habeas corpus petitions, testimonies, and other records generated or gathered by human rights organizations such as the Comité Pro Paz, the Vicaría de la Solidaridad, the Comisión Chilena de Derechos Humanos, the Fundación de Ayuda Social de las Iglesias Cristianas, and the Comité de Defensa de los Derechos del Pueblo. Additionally, reports investigating violations prepared by UN-appointed rapporteurs and the International Labour Organization (ILO) were also taken into consideration.

Regarding the specific declarant’s case, at the conclusion of the interview, the former official noted that her file contained a “weak testimony” due to the absence of a detailed account of the events. In order to bolster the case, TC officials appended a habeas corpus petition and a legal complaint obtained from the Fundación de Documentación y Archivo de la Vicaría de la Solidaridad to her case file. Acting as representatives, these documents provided supplementary evidence and facilitated the qualification process. In other situations where a narrative was lacking, the TC heavily relied on documentation to form their moral conviction. However, it is important to acknowledge that approximately 68% of the documented detentions acknowledged by the TC were not recorded by human rights organizations during that period, as these organizations commenced operations after the timeframe in which the TC recorded the highest number of detentions (from September 11 to December 31, 1973) (CNPPT 2004/5, 79). Without testimony or documentation, it would have been challenging for the declarant to be effectively recognized by the State as a victim.

The Commission also took into account documentation generated by the apprehending organizations themselves. Therefore, if a declarant chose to exercise their right to remain silent but their information appeared in one of these sources, such as the Army List6 (Figures 1 and 2), the TC considered the case to have adequate verification to validate the detention.

The documentation produced by the perpetrators presents a paradoxical effect, as it diverges from the historical pattern in the human rights field in Chile regarding the pursuit of truth. It is widely known that perpetrators typically refrain from speaking or taking responsibility for their actions.7 If they do confess, their accounts are often self-serving, aimed at concealing certain aspects and justifying or downplaying the crimes they committed (Payne 2009). Consequently, the burden of denunciation and providing evidence has consistently fallen on the victims.8

Figure 1. Extract from the Prequalification Sheet, Folder ID 14,137

Source: Archive of the Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech 1), 2004, available at: Archivo Digital de Desclasificación Popular. https://desclasificacionpopular.cl/intranet/buscadorPub.php

Figure 2. Extract from the Army list that is part of the documentation attached to Folder ID 14,137

Source: Archive of the Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech 1), 2004, available at: Archivo Digital de Desclasificación Popular. https://desclasificacionpopular.cl/intranet/buscadorPub.php

However, in this particular case, the official list compiled by the Army reveals the names of its victims (Figure 2). It is the perpetrators themselves who, in a way, bear witness to the harm they inflicted, enabling the qualification process of a survivor who chose to remain silent. In fact, as emphasized by some declarants in the Valech Commission 2, the documentation created by the perpetrators played a crucial role in validating individuals who were not recognized as victims in the Valech Commission 1 in 2004/2005.

A large number of beneficiaries under Law 20.4059 were able to claim their rights largely thanks to the book La verdad histórica. El Ejército guerrillero by former DINA director Manuel Contreras, which was published after the first Valech Commission (Grupo Beneficiaries Second Valech Commission 2015, n. p.)

When a declarant decides to exercise their right to remain silent, their account of the experience is often sustained through documentation that may contain simplified information about the repressive events. For instance, the Army list includes fields such as “order number, name, occupation or profession, camp, circumstances of detention, subsequent action,” often using abbreviations that can be challenging to decipher (Figure 2). This simplicity contrasts with the depth and complexity of the victim’s testimonial narrative regarding their experience.

Once released, the residual truth maintains its status as a leftover. It is not integrated by the State into the official truth, but it remains available to the individual holder in case they wish to circulate it through other means of managing the recent past, such as trials, memorial sites, and places of memory, etc. In other cases, it is made available to the general public through a digital archive of the Popular Declassification collective.10 Haydee was four months pregnant when she was apprehended by agents of the Naval Intelligence Service in Santiago in December 1975 and taken to the Silva Palma Barracks in Valparaíso. Simultaneously, Navy members also detained her mother and her one and a half-year-old daughter as a means of applying pressure, issuing threats, and instilling fear. As a result of the torture she endured during her time in the Military Barracks, Haydee lost her baby. It was a forced abortion carried out with violence amidst the torture.

In 2003, during the early stages of the Valech Commission, Haydee appeared before the Commission but elected to exercise her right to remain silent and withhold her testimony. During the interview, the interviewer reassured her that she would immediately qualify as her information was already known. However, this was not Haydee’s primary concern as she had no doubt about her eligibility. Instead, her silence was intended to bring visibility to the experiences of her deceased mother, her younger daughter, and her unborn baby. By invoking the right to remain silent, Haydee sought to transform her family from mere spectators or witnesses into individually affected victims who would be acknowledged by the State.

Haydee’s decision to shed light on the experiences of her family had unforeseen consequences, breaking other forms of silence. During the dictatorship, it was Haydee’s mother who remained silent about her own repressive experiences, downplaying them in order to prioritize the resistance against the dictators. Haydee recalls her mother’s words during the interview, “No, no, no, you have been through much worse things, I’ll keep mine to myself and that’s where we stand […] and the key thing, comrade, is that we have to fight against these dictators, so forget about it.” Her mother was one of the many survivors of the dictatorship who passed away before the Commission was created. However, after the completion of the Commission’s work, her mother’s case was acknowledged based on evidence and testimonies that corroborated the traumatic event. Haydee’s older daughter was recognized as a minor who was born in prison or detained with her parents, but the Commission did not address cases involving unborn children resulting from forced abortions within its mandate. The Commission primarily focused on discussions concerning individuals conceived through rape during torture sessions as beneficiaries. Ultimately, the majority of the Commission decided to recognize as direct victims those individuals who were born as a result of rape.11 Nevertheless, cases involving individuals who were in gestation while their mothers were tortured, individuals born in prison, and minors detained due to their parents’ incarceration (such as Haydee’s daughter) were recognized as special situations, entailing a distinct form of economic reparation.

Indeed, choosing to remain silent in order to bring visibility to others creates tension within the victim category established by the Valech Commission. It necessitates a redefinition of victimhood beyond isolated individuals and individual victimizing events, highlighting the interconnectedness between individuals and repressive acts and challenging the hierarchical structure of victimhood. The creation of separate files for Haydee’s family and the recognition of her mother and unborn child as distinct cases are political actions aimed at emphasizing the relational and collective dimensions of repression during the civil-military dictatorship. This highlights that while the Commission initially focused on qualifying victims of political imprisonment and/or torture, they were confronted with a complex reality that encompassed cases not initially foreseen, requiring them to deliberate as they encountered these new situations.

In this context, the operation of the right to remain silent is closely related to the management of personal truths. Choosing to remain silent triggers procedures, deliberations, and processes within the Commission, even pushing the boundaries of its mandate, without necessarily being the original intention or motivation of the declarants. It exemplifies the agency and transformative capacity of silence, highlighting its ability to shape and influence the work and outcomes of the Commission.

Distillation Operations: By Mandate and by Generalization

The process of extracting essential elements from the testimonies provided by witnesses, as carried out by the Valech Commission, is referred to as distillation. This operation involves the production of an official truth that is publicly disseminated in the final report, while the residual truth, although undisclosed and invisible, never completely disappears. Essentially, this operation entails the deliberate decision by the State, represented by the Commission, to withhold certain known information for various reasons. In the following sections, we will explore two types of distillations.

During the dictatorship era, survivors, relatives of victims, and human rights organizations have advocated for progress in terms of justice, the identification of perpetrators, and the accountability for human rights violations. By mandate, the State determined that the Valech Commission would lack jurisdictional functions, meaning that it would not be authorized to pronounce on “the responsibility that, according to the law, could correspond to individuals for the facts that it became aware of” (Article 3, Supreme Decree 1040).12 Thus, the Commission was not a probative instance for those responsible for the crimes, and it was not within its tasks to indicate guilt or, much less, pass judgment.

The powers and limitations of the Commission had a significant impact on the artifacts and procedures utilized during its work. This included the Political Prisoner and/or Torture Entry Form, the methods of interviewing and investigating cases, and the final report, among others. As a result, the Entry Form did not include a section to record the names of perpetrators. If declarants mentioned the names of perpetrators in their testimonies, such information was considered irrelevant to the qualification process and fell outside the Commission’s mandate.

Despite these limitations, some declarants did mention the names of perpetrators during the hearings. Erika Hennings, a human rights activist, declarant in Valech 1, and former employee of Valech 213, recalls from her role as a “listener for the State” that, although there was no space to indicate names, she “added pages to write down the names that people wanted to provide because there was no designated space for them to be included.” In other cases, this information was recorded in the “observations” section of the form (Figure 3). As a result, the identification of perpetrators was occasionally documented, albeit as residual information within the case files.

Figure 3. Short excerpt from a torture narrative in a Political Prison and/or Torture Entry Form, Folder ID 28.869

Source: Archive of the Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech 1), 2004, available at: Archivo Digital de Desclasificación Popular. https://desclasificacionpopular.cl/intranet/buscadorPub.php

Indeed, due to the limitations of the Commission’s functions, the names of perpetrators do not appear in any of the approximately 650 pages of the Final Report. This omission can be seen as a form of silencing, specifically a mandated distillation, rather than outright exclusion, as these names were indeed recorded in the forms and form part of the narratives provided by the declarants. The distinction lies in the fact that, by mandate, the names of the perpetrators were meant to remain as part of the residual truth.

The individualization of perpetrators is just one example among others that could be questioned, such as cases of individuals who were not qualified or unborn babies. This operation highlights that while the principles of the official truth are defined in the mandate (which includes qualifying only cases of political imprisonment and/or torture and not possessing jurisdictional functions, among others), it does not imply that these elements are not part of the personal truths and the evidence and information received and investigated by the Commission.

A second operation of distillation is known as generalization. Generalization is carried out by the TC and involves decisions on how the official truth will be presented in the Final Report. This process is intended to abstract what is common and essential in order to form a general statement that encompasses all the previously mentioned aspects. It involves extracting elements from specific, intimate, and personal repressive situations in order to make the information more widely accessible. Generalization is closely related to simplification, reducing the individual experiences and the violence, particularly torture and political imprisonment, and transforming complex, problematic, uncomfortable, or risky elements for the affected individuals into residual aspects.

Generalization is employed, for instance, to develop the profile of qualified victims, describe various torture and political imprisonment practices, outline the consequences of these repressive acts, and provide descriptions of the detention centers where these acts took place. The analysis of generalization specifically focuses on the description of the detention centers.

The Valech Report represented a significant advancement in knowledge production regarding detention centers. Through the analysis of thousands of testimonies, the Commission managed to gather information on 1,132 facilities used as detention sites throughout the country. It is important to note that this figure is approximate, as detainees did not always mention all the facilities where they were held, often due to their inability to identify them. Some of these facilities were described in Chapter VI of the Final Report, organized by region. To determine which centers would be characterized, the TC applied the following criteria: (a) the importance of the center, referring to those that housed a large number of detainees; (b) the condition of being secret or clandestine centers; (c) centers known for the application of severe mistreatment and particularly cruel torture; and (d) the period of operation, allowing for an understanding of what occurred throughout the entire timeframe covered by the Commission (CNPPT 2004/5, 305).

In the Political Prisoner and/or Torture Entry Form, there is a section specifically designated for “Torture Information.” In this section, declarants have the opportunity to provide details such as the name of the facility, the responsible organization, the duration of their detention, whether they were held incommunicado, and whether they were subjected to torture. Additionally, there is an open section where they can provide a brief account of the torture they endured and specify the facilities where it took place.

As an example, Benito del Carmen, a declarant in Valech 1, included a testimony in his entry form describing his detention experience in 1975. He indicated that he was held in five different detention facilities during that period. One of these facilities was the Military Prosecutor’s Office in Rancagua, referred to as “Fismil” in his entry form. It is noteworthy that during his detention, he was transferred to this facility along with another prisoner who had previously been held at the El Buen Pastor women’s prison,

[…] To the Intendancy, now the Governorate of Cachapoal, where the Canton of Recruitment was located on the second floor, and the Military Prosecutor’s Office on the first floor. After providing my personal information and reading my family history, I was subjected to torture, with beatings and electricity applied to my ears and genitals. I cannot precisely recall the duration since I would lose my sense of time and even my awareness, as my mind would only start functioning again when I was in the “Siberia” courtyard, which I remember vividly. I was taken to that place for four “sessions,” as they jokingly referred to that ritual of cruelty and dehumanization they practiced on defenseless and often morally broken human beings. That hellish place was an interior courtyard with very high gray walls and a red floor, with only one door and no roof; it would be very easy for me to locate it today.14 (Excerpt from a torture account related to the Military Prosecutor’s Office. Folder ID: 36,068, Source: Popular Declassification Archive)

In the final report, the Commission refers to this facility as “Fiscalía Militar, Rancagua/Ex Intendencia Provincial” (Figure 4).

When comparing the two accounts of the detention facility in Rancagua, the use of the generalization operation becomes evident. The declarant’s narrative is incorporated and contained within the official narrative of the TC, but not in its entirety. While both narratives include descriptions of the facility’s use, the experiences of detention, and torture methods such as beatings and electric shocks, as well as references to interrogation spaces, the declarant’s testimony is considered an exceptional situation in relation to the official account. According to the TC, the use of the facility was limited to the year 1973, downplaying the presence of detainees in 1974, while the declarant’s repressive experience occurred in 1975.

Figure 4. Description of the detention facility Fiscalía Militar de Rancagua

Source: CNPPT (2004/5, 398).

Certain elements are rendered residual through the process of generalization. On one hand, specific detailed descriptions of certain spaces within the facility, such as the Siberia courtyard, are excluded. On the other hand, the TC does not incorporate the declarant’s interpretation of their experience where he describes the torture as “a ritual of cruelty and dehumanization” and refers to the place where these acts occurred as “hell.” Thus, the declarant’s testimony, like thousands of others, becomes fragmented, abstracted, and diluted within the TC’s official narrative. The objective is to create a collective sense, constructing a common, homogeneous, and sufficiently broad narrative that remains faithful to the information produced and collected, allowing all testimonies to be encompassed and disseminated in the public sphere.15

The brief description of the detention center is just one of the many ways in which the TC employs generalization. Other cases include the construction of victim profiles or the description of detentions according to specific periods. What generalization ultimately achieves is a distillation of repressive practices, simplifying the social practice of violence, particularly torture and political imprisonment.

The operations of distillation impact personal truths and shed light on strategies involved in shaping the official truth. For instance, the use of testimonial excerpts in composing the official truth alters the narrative composition of the declarant and strips the account of its authorship. However, it highlights the atrocity of the limited violations and distinguishes spaces of definition and description from spaces of recognition.

The Secrecy Operation

The secrecy operation was implemented by the State through the enactment of Law 19.99216 after the conclusion of the TC’s work. The Valech Commission 117 is unique among truth commissions worldwide in being subjected to complete secrecy. The decree that established the TC in 2003 declared that “all actions taken by the commission, as well as all the information it receives, shall be treated as confidential for all legal purposes” (Article 5, DS 1040, 2003)18. Additionally, the decree granted authority to ensure the anonymity of those providing information or assisting the commission (Article 10), including its staff.

With the publication of the Final Report in 2004, the Executive Power, through Law 19.992, imposed absolute secrecy for a period of fifty years, prohibiting access to the documents, testimonies, and information provided by survivors to the Commission by any “person, group of persons, authority, or court.” This means that even the courts do not have access to these files (Marelic 2015).19 Therefore, at the time survivors submitted their statements and information to the Commission, there was no prohibition on accessing information directed to the courts, as there is currently.

The secrecy operation serves to keep hidden and concealed what is intended to be concealed, impacting the residual truth contained in the approximately 67,000 case files of the declarants, as well as administrative documentation such as the minutes of the commission’s sessions, purchases of supplies, internal regulations of the Commission, among others; and the artifacts and procedures of management and systematization of personal truths. It also affects the TC’s database.

The implementation of the secrecy law creates a tension between the defense of the individual right to data protection based on dignity and privacy of the declarants, and the collective right to truth and justice, which involves the revelation of information that has been abstracted from victims and society through investigations into the violations. This information is essential for the development of democratic systems (Mansilla and Suárez 2018).

While the Executive Power views the secrecy operation as an act of consideration and protection of personal data, survivors and other actors perceive it as fine print, a measure that alters the conditions under which declarants came forward to the TC. Haydee Oberreuter, a survivor and declarant, critically analyzes the secrecy law, arguing that it promotes impunity for another fifty years and that the discourse of protection may have alternative interpretations:

We have been made to believe that staying away from these unfathomable spaces is done for our own good and for the good of society as a whole. In practice, silence, far from being an act of protection, is an act of aggression. Every time you are silenced on these issues, you are slapped in the face.

Opposing interpretations of the same operation have led to a contentious debate over access to the archives. Haydee highlights the “unfathomable spaces” that encompass the documentation, information, and overall process of constructing the official truth. These aspects, when they become uncomfortable or problematic, are marginalized and hidden, creating a separation between them and the official narrative.

The decision to enforce a fifty-year period of secrecy by the State indicates that alternative uses of the official truth were not taken into consideration beyond the final report within this transitional mechanism. This restriction inhibits the integration of this mechanism with other contexts and the participation of additional stakeholders in the pursuit of “never again,” as seen in other truth commissions in the Southern Cone. For example, the Commission for the Clarification of Truth, Coexistence, and Non-Repetition in Colombia (2017-present) has included a pedagogical strategy that involves

collaborative learning, designing, and developing strategies with others, and ultimately aims to sensitize, move, and mobilize individuals around the commission’s mandate, instilling in young people the necessity of non-repetition and the path towards lasting and sustainable peace (Truth Commission Education Task Force, 2019)

The imposition of the secrecy operation not only deprives declarants of their ownership over their testimonies, but it also extends to the documentation provided by the declarants and collected by the Truth Commission. This loss of ownership has profound consequences, including the prohibition for courts to access information from the Archive of the Valech Commission. This highlights the prevailing logic in the field of human rights, regarding the weight placed on the victims in terms of making their statements. By keeping the testimonies of victims and non-qualified declarants hidden from the courts, a revictimization occurs, as the burden falls on the survivors to pursue justice and they are compelled to testify repeatedly, when it is the State’s obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish the authors and perpetrators of human rights violations, and provide answers to the truth sought by the victims (Suazo 2017; Valdez 2007).

The Redaction Operation

Ten years after the implementation of the secrecy operation on the Valech Archives, a political-artistic collective called Desclasificación Popular emerged in response to the social and legal disputes surrounding the secrecy. Composed of former political prisoners, artists, social scientists, and lawyers, this collective aimed to provide civil society with a pathway to access the Valech archives and lift some of the secrecy.

In 2015, the declassification of declarants’ folders occurred for the first time. The National Human Rights Institute (INDH), responsible for the custody and preservation of the archive, was compelled to release the folders of twelve declarants while ensuring the protection of personal data. However, the concept of data protection in the context of declassification led to the emergence of another operation: redaction. This procedure operates on the residual truth once it is released from secrecy,20 thus making redaction a necessary condition for the residual truth to circulate.

Redaction is an act of writing that intervenes in the text. Its purpose is not to suppress or remove the text completely, nor is it about starting from scratch or replacing the text with another one for correction purposes. Instead, redaction involves obscuring certain segments of the text, making them unreadable. This silencing mechanism is achieved by inscribing thick black lines or squares (Figure 5) over specific data, rendering the original content on the document impossible to read. Thus, the information is buried under a black box. While concealing, redaction also marks and highlights what is not intended to be shown or disclosed by those who unveil it.

Figure 5. Redactions made by the INDH in the Prequalification Sheet and Gloss of Folder ID 14.049

Source: Archive of the Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech 1), 2004, available at: Archivo Digital de Desclasificación Popular. https://desclasificacionpopular.cl/intranet/buscadorPub.php

Redaction can be carried out either by the State, through the INDH, or by the declarant themselves, who is considered the owner of the documentation in their case folder. When the INDH hands over the folder upon a formal request, they redact any third-party information based on the argument of protecting personal data. Once the declarant receives their folder, they have the choice to donate it to the digital archive of the Desclasificación Popular collective,21 with the option to redact any data they do not wish to be made public, such as their identification information. In this process, both the INDH and the folder’s owner assess which elements they consider sensitive and in need of protection, as well as which ones are essential to be visible. For instance, while the INDH redacts third-party data, any names of perpetrators mentioned by the declarant in the documentation are not erased.

Figure 5 presents the redactions implemented by the INDH, showcasing the obscured names of third parties and the redacted “glosa,” which contains essential information for the TC to assess the victim status of the declarant. The redactions extend to various aspects, including elements related to the repressive acts and even the identity of the folder’s owner. Consequently, the redaction process fragments the truth, obscuring significant details and impeding a comprehensive understanding of the victimizing events, the experiences and testimonies of the survivors, and the criteria and procedures employed by the Truth Commission.

Conclusions

The official truth inscribed in the final report of a Truth Commission is shaped within a political realm. The State aims for this truth to be broad enough to encompass the diversity of personal truths and gain acceptance from society. However, this process involves multiple silencing operations without reducing personal truths to mere exclusions or voids.

Silencing operations, carried out by actors such as declarants, the INDH, or the State, contribute to the construction of an official truth regarding severe past human rights violations. These operations create residues, emphasizing certain elements while obscuring others. They operate within the dynamics of visibility and invisibility, employing practices of displacement, translation, delegation, generalization, and omission. The official truth is not a simple aggregation of individual facts, but a complex assemblage.

The residual refers to aspects that lose significance in the process of truth production. These include uncomfortable, problematic, or sensitive elements that require protection through obscuring. This article focuses on understanding the role of silences and silencings as constitutive practices in shaping official and state truth regarding human rights violations. By examining infrastructural processes and materialities, it seeks to conceptualize truth as an ecology of relationships that undergo transformations through negotiations involving different actors, at different moments, and driven by various motivations.

According to Nelly Richard (1998), the residual has the potential to challenge discursive hierarchies. When made visible, the residual gains agency and can destabilize the official truth. It brings forth uncomfortable and problematic aspects, shedding light on the procedures and criteria for qualification, and enabling their circulation. Thus, the residual becomes a crucial element in understanding silences as sites of plurality and multiplicity, rather than empty or absent spaces.

By bringing the production of official truth, including its silences and operations, into visibility, new possibilities arise for engaging with the recent past. This allows for the recognition of multiple truths and challenges the dominance of a singular narrative, as suggested by Richard (1998) in terms of displacing discursive hierarchies. It illuminates the procedures involved in shaping the official truth, transforming it from a rigid and seamless construct into one truth among many. It also enables us to understand that the official truth is not solely determined and disseminated by the State, but rather a product of the articulation of different actors, truths, and silences within transitional mechanisms.

This perspective extends beyond Truth Commissions and applies to other frameworks for dealing with the recent past, such as human rights archives and memory sites. It raises critical questions about the production of narratives, their intended audience, and how the residual is addressed. The treatment of the residual, as a component of the narrative that may require distinct consideration from the official truth, becomes an important aspect to explore and manage.

References

1. Badiou, Alain. 1994. “Gilles Deleuze. The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque.” In Gilles Deleuze and the Theater of Philosophy, edited by Constantin Boundas and Dorothea Olkowski, 51-69. New York: Routledge.
2. BCN (Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional). 2016b. Alcance del secreto de los antecedentes recopilados por la Comisión Valech, produced by Matías Meza-Lopehandía. Santiago de Chile: Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile, Departamento de Estudios, Extensión y Publicaciones. https://obtienearchivo.bcn.cl/obtienearchivo?id=repositorio/10221/23374/1/FINAL%20-%20Alcance%20del%20secreto%20Valech.pdf
3. BCN (Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional). 2016a. El carácter secreto de los antecedentes de la Comisión Valech: derechos humanos y experiencia extranjera, produced by Matías Meza-Lopehandía. Santiago: Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile, Departamento de Estudios, Extensión y Publicaciones. https://obtienearchivo.bcn.cl/obtienearchivo?id=repositorio/10221/23843/1/FINAL%20-%20COMISI%C3%93N%20-%20El%20secreto%20de%20los%20antecedentes%20de%20la%20Comisi%C3%B3n%20Valech.pdf
4. Bernasconi, Oriana, ed. 2019. Political Violence Resistance in Latin America: Documenting Atrocity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Bernasconi, Oriana and Paola Díaz. 2022. “Factualize and Commensurate Human Rights Violations and Organized Violence.” Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society 5 (1): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2022.2128595
6. Bernasconi Ramírez, Oriana, Daniela Mansilla Santelices, and Rodrigo Suárez Madariaga. 2019. “Las comisiones de la verdad en las batallas de la memoria: usos y efectos disputados de la verdad extrajudicial en Chile.” Colombia Internacional 97: 27-55. https://doi.org/10.7440/colombiaint97.2019.02
7. Bernasconi, Oriana, Marcela Ruiz, and Elizabeth Lira. 2018. “What Defines the Victims of Human Rights Violations? The Case of the Comité Pro Paz and Vicaría de la Solidaridad in Chile (1973-1992).” In The Politics of Victimhood in Post-Conflict Societies, edited by Vincent Druliolle and Roddy Brett, 101-131. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70202-5_5
8. Bijker, Wiebe and John Law. 1992. Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: MIT Press.
9. Bowker, Geoffrey. 1994. “Information Mythology and Infrastructure.” Information Acumen: The Understanding and Use of Knowledge in Modern Business, edited by Lisa Bud-Frierman, 231-247. London: Routledge.
10. Bowker, Geoffrey and Susan Star. 2000. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
11. Bowker, Geoffrey, Karen Baker, Florence Millerand, and David Ribes. 2010. “Toward Information Infrastructure Studies: Ways of Knowing in a Networked Environment.” In International Handbook of Internet Research, edited by Jeremy Hunsinger, Lisbeth Klastrup, and Matthew Allen, 97-117. Dordrecht: Springer.
12. Brown, Steven D. 2012. “Two Minutes of Silence: Social Technologies of Public Commemoration.” Theory & Psychology 22 (2): 234-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311429031
13. Buur, Lars. 2002. “Monumental Historical Memory: Managing Truth in Everyday Work of the South Africana Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” In Commissioning the Past: Understanding South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, edited by Deborah Posel and Graeme Simpson, 66-93. Johannesburgo: Witwatersrand Press.
14. Castillejo Cuéllar, Alejandro. 2016. “La domesticación del testimonio: audibilidad, performance y la descolonización de la palabra.” In Víctimas, memoria y justicia: aproximaciones latinoamericanas al proceso transicional colombiano, edited by Neyla Pardo and Juan Ruiz, 111-125. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
15. Castillejo Cuéllar, Alejandro. 2007. “La globalización del testimonio: historia, silencio endémico y los usos de la palabra.” Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología 4: 76-99. https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda4.2007.04
16. Castro, Mercedes. 2005. “Niños prisioneros: el dilema que zanjó la Comisión Valech.” La Nación, June 4. http://www.archivochile.com/Derechos_humanos/com_valech/prensa_varios/hhddgobotros0120.pdf
17. CNPPT (Comisión Nacional sobre Prisión Política y Tortura). 2004/5. Informe de la Comisión Nacional sobre Prisión Política y Tortura. Santiago: Ministerio del Interior.
18. Deleuze, Gilles. 1988/1986. Foucault. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
19. Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. 2004. Mil mesetas: capitalismo y esquizofrenia. Valencia: Editorial Pre-Textos.
20. Denis, Jérôme and David Pontille. 2012. “Trabajadores de lo escrito, materias de la información.” Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 6 (1): I-XX. Translated by Nathalie Greff-Santamaria. https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.015.0040
21. Díaz, Paola. 2020. “Contando la muerte y la desaparición de personas en contexto migratorio.” Sociología y Tecnociencia 10 (1): 1-24. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2356793255?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
22. Equipo de Trabajo de Pedagogía Comisión de Verdad. 2019. Comisión de la Verdad. Lineamientos de Pedagogía, 1-22. Bogotá. https://www.compartirpalabramaestra.org/documentos/otras-investigaciones/comision-de-la-verdad-lineamientos-de-pedagogia.pdf
23. Feld, Claudia. 2012. “Las capas memoriales del testimonio. Un análisis sobre los vínculos entre espacio y relatos testimoniales en el Casino de Oficiales de la ESMA.” In Topografías conflictivas. Memorias, espacios y ciudades en disputa, edited by Anne Huffschmid and Valeria Durán, 335-368. Buenos Aires: Nueva Trilce.
24. Fundación para el Debido Proceso Legal. 2010. Las víctimas y la justicia transicional ¿Están cumpliendo los Estados latinoamericanos con los estándares internacionales? Washington D. C.: Fundación para el Debido Proceso Legal. https://www.dplf.org/es/resources/justicia-transicional-10
25. Goicovic Donoso, Igor. 2004. La implacable persistencia de la memoria. Reflexiones en torno al Informe de Prisión Política y Tortura. Santiago: CEME / Archivo Chile. http://www.archivochile.com/Derechos_humanos/testimo/hhddtestimo0024.pdf
26. Groppo, Bruno. 2016. “Dictaduras militares, archivos de movimientos políticos y sociales y archivos de la represión en América Latina.” In Archivos y memoria de la represión en América Latina (1973-1990), edited by María Graciela Acuña, 31-53. Santiago de Chile: LOM Ediciones.
27. Grupo Beneficiarios Segunda Comisión Valech. 2015. “Declaración pública de Grupo deBeneficiarios Segunda Comisión Valech.” Radio San Joaquín, August 11. https://www.radiosanjoaquin.cl/declaracion-publica-grupo-beneficiarios-segunda-comision-valech/
28. Latour, Bruno. 2008. Reensamblar lo social. Una introducción a la teoría del actor-red. Buenos Aires: Manantial.
29. Latour, Bruno. 1994. “On Technical Mediation: Philosophy, Sociology, Genealogy.” Common Knowledge 94 (4): 29-64. http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/54-TECHNIQUES-GB.pdf
30. Latour, Bruno y Steve Woolgar. 1995. La vida en el laboratorio: la construcción de los hechos científicos. Madrid: Alianza.
31. Mansilla, Daniela. 2022. “Secreto, silencio, desclasificación y uso de las declaraciones de las víctimas ante la Comisión Nacional sobre Prisión Política y Tortura de Chile.” Revista Austral de Ciencias Sociales 43: 107-127. https://doi.org/10.4206/rev.austral.cienc.soc.2022.n43-06
32. Mansilla, Daniela and Rodrigo Suárez. 2018. “El secreto en la Comisión Valech.” Revista Mensaje 67 (670): 48-52. https://repositorio.uahurtado.cl/handle/11242/26290
33. Marelic, Branislav. 2015. “Historia legislativa del secreto de la Comisión Valech. El establecimiento del secreto de 50 años en los archivos de la comisión sobre prisión política y tortura.” London 38: Espacio de Memorias.
34. Moon, Claire. 2012. “What One Sees and How One Files Seeing: Human Rights Reporting, Representation and Action.” Sociology 46 (5): 876-890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038512451530
35. Mora-Gámez, Fredy Alberto. 2016. “Reparation beyond Statehood: Assembling Rights Restitution in Post-conflict Colombia.” Doctoral Thesis, University of Leicester, England. https://hdl.handle.net/2381/37961
36. Payne, Leigh. 2009. Testimonios perturbadores. Ni verdad ni reconciliación en las confesiones de violencia de Estado. Translated by Julio Paredes. Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes.
37. Richard, Nelly. 1998. Residuos y metáforas. Ensayos de crítica cultural sobre el Chile de la transición. Santiago de Chile: Cuarto Propio.
38. St. Pierre, Elizabeth. 1997. “Methodology in the Fold and the Irruption of Transgressive data.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 10 (2): 175-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183997237278
39. Star, Susan and Anselm Strauss. 1999. “Layers of Silence, Arenas of Voice: The Ecology of Visible and Invisible Work.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8: 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008651105359
40. Star, Susan and Karen Ruhleder. 1996. “Steps toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces.” Information Systems Research 7 (1): 111-134. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23010792
41. Suazo, Alejandro. 2017. “Archivos de comisiones de verdad Valech I y II: una breve aproximación a su estructura archivística y su aporte a la memoria histórica.” Bachelor’s Thesis in Documentation Sciences, Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaíso.
42. Valdez, Patricia. 2007. “Comisiones de la Verdad: un instrumento de las transiciones hacia la democracia.” Memoria Abierta. http://www.memoriaabierta.org.ar/materiales/pdf/comisiones_de_la_verdad.pdf
43. Wilson, Richard. 2001. The Politics of Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: Legitimizing the Post-Apartheid State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

---