Before starting her PhD, Terzieva spent nearly 14 years working at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. ‘I realized how lucky people from Yugoslavia were to even have a tribunal with over 160 people accused. In many conflicts, the chance of an international criminal trial is very slim. It sparked my interest in how victim’s rights under international law to the truth, access to justice and reparations could impact domestic trials dealing with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Even more so because we can use our knowledge from international trials in domestic courts.’

In what instances is the right to the truth relevant?

‘Imagine your doorbell rings, your daughter is taken somewhere, and you have no idea what happened – even 5 years later. The “right to the truth” was first mentioned in the 1970’s in relation to missing people. It means that the victims of human rights violations have the right to know what happened. Generally, this is about unlawful detention, torture, disappearances or murder. Victims need to know how and by whom their loved ones were harmed. This may also reveal who is responsible for the crime, and if it’s an isolated crime or part of war crimes on a bigger scale.’

Isn’t truth-finding always part of an investigation in a courtroom?

‘Yes. The question is how. If you are in a domestic court dealing with a murder, you investigate the elements of a particular murder. You don’t look at other similar murders or the bigger pattern. You can establish that one person disappeared. But if you look at the bigger picture, a lot of people in the country may have been kidnapped under similar circumstances and could have been tortured in the same way. You may find that the authorities responded with the same line, “no information or record of this person,” in dozens of cases. If you put all of this material together, you can find patterns, and it could lead to the person giving the orders. The right to the truth wants you to investigate holistically: it’s a procedural weapon.’

How does that work?

‘I looked at cases about World War II, the Latin American human rights crisis and domestic crimes in the Balkans. The comparison was interesting because we are dealing with similar crimes that domestic courts approach differently. You can see what does and what doesn’t work. Many people think it’s impossible to investigate crimes in the country where they happened. That could be true in the immediate aftermath. But at some point, things start to settle, and there is the sense that something needs to be done. This can create an opportunity for public attention and a space for a different perspective. In Latin America, for example, victims have been able to start domestic proceedings that led to the Supreme Court's abolishing amnesty laws and acknowledging that victims have the right to the truth about their missing loved ones.’

Is this only possible in countries that accept human rights?

‘You do need a culture that is open to human rights, that has a basis in individual rights and democratic values. It has worked well in Latin America, and there is a basis for it in Europe as well. You do need people to trust courts for this to work.’

What can the right to the truth eventually lead to?

‘There is a realization that a lot of conflicts arise because we don’t really know what happened. Often, we are in disagreement. If we have the same facts, we will more likely draw the same conclusions. At the heart of all this conflict are people with different versions of the facts. If the courts can establish the facts credibly, that will help. It’s credible because evidence can be challenged in court, and this all happens in public. During my research, I came across interviews with members of the society in Guatemala, where horrible crimes against minorities occurred. When the truth commission came out with its findings, no one paid attention. But when Guatemalans heard the victims tell their stories in court, people started to understand that the crimes really happened. Even people who were less inclined to believe the victims became more open to do so because of the truth-finding in a public trial.’