Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) have become a widely used tool to reconcile societies in the aftermath of widespread injustice or social and political conflict in a state. This article focuses on TRCs that take place in non-transitional societies in which the political and social structures, institutions, and power relations have largely remained in place since the time of injustice. Furthermore, it will focus on one particular injustice that TRCs try to address through the practice of truth-telling, namely the eradication of epistemic injustice. The article takes the Canadian and Norwegian TRCs as two examples to show that under conditions of enduring injustice, willful ignorance of the majority, and power inequality, TRCs might create a double bind for victims which makes them choose between epistemic exploitation and continued injustices based on the majority's ignorance. The article argues that the set-up and accompanying measures of TRCs are of the utmost importance if TRCs in non-transitional societies are to overcome epistemic injustice, instead of creating new relations of exploitation.

The increased use of information and communication technologies arguably represents important opportunities for the field of transitional justice, notably with respect to the optimization of existing mechanisms and the development of new ones. This article focuses on state-based and typically very formal mechanisms, namely international, internationalized and national criminal tribunals as well as truth and reconciliation commissions. These institutions often apply and engage with international law and operate with the involvement or under the close scrutiny of the international community. Moreover, they can be expected to be the first ones to embrace insights from the field of cyberjustice to a significant extent.

Enhancing access to and participation in such mechanisms, rendering them more cost-efficient and facilitating information-sharing would correspond to generally accepted norms relating to both international human rights and justice. However, cyberjustice initiatives may also entrench an already common ‘toolkit approach’ in the field of transitional justice. This article builds on recent critiques of the dominant legalistic and normatively driven transitional justice paradigm and argues that transitional justice + cyberjustice hence risks furthering a technocratic top-down approach that unduly limits creative solutions. By adopting a critical legal-pluralistic approach that conceives individuals as law-creative actors and that is cognizant of the close relationship between means and ends, the article imagines ways of benefiting from the promises of transitional justice + cyberjustice.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada on Indian Residential Schools provides us with the opportunity to observe the process through which victims reconsider their place in the history of the state. The statements offered in this context put into relief the suffering and memories of assault and torture of children, to the detriment of a more complete and varied view of the origins, modes of operation, and consequences of these residential schools. By favoring the expression of a certain type of testimony, Canada’s TRC shapes many narratives of trauma, institutional crime, and national history. This essentialization of testimony leads us to question the ability of the TRC to effectively reveal the diversity and dynamics of the residential schools, the reasons for their establishment, the causes of the corruption of their goals, and the common features they might have with ongoing, enduring forms of abuse and institutional power.

This article illustrates how the ECCC is struggling to combine successfully two distinct institutional responses to crimes, by being both a criminal tribunal, with its formal rules of procedure and focus on retributive justice, and a quasi-truth and reconciliation commission, with its more flexible approach to participatory rights for victims and focus on reconciliation. The article highlights the advantages and challenges of adopting a ‘two for the price of one’ model within the Cambodian context and uses the experiences of the ECCC to underscore important lessons for future ad hoc and hybrid courts.