A/HRC/24/42 Court of Human Rights acknowledged the right to truth not only for victims and their families but for the general public as well.16 20. The right to truth entitles the victim, his or her relatives and the public at large to seek and obtain all relevant information concerning the commission of the alleged violation,17 the fate and whereabouts of the victim18 and, where appropriate, the process by which the alleged violation was officially authorized.19 With this legal framework in mind, in the aftermath of repression or conflict, the right to truth should be understood to require States to establish institutions, mechanisms and procedures that are enabled to lead to the revelation of the truth, which is seen as a process to seek information and facts about what has actually taken place, to contribute to the fight against impunity, to the reinstatement of the rule of law, and ultimately to reconciliation. IV. Selected current problems in the operation of truth commissions and proposed responses to increase their effectiveness 21. The past two decades have seen a steady increase in the establishment and use of various truth-seeking mechanisms, ranging from State-sanctioned truth commissions to “unofficial” truth-seeking processes, carried out by civil society groups, including victims’ organizations.20 Truth-seeking has also been pursued at the international level through international commissions of inquiry and fact-finding missions. 22. The present report will focus on selected current problems of State-sanctioned truth commissions in the aftermath of gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law, and proposes responses to increase their effectiveness. It identifies some challenges stemming from trends that can be usefully addressed in a text of this sort. Hence, the report will deal with aspects related to the establishment and operation of truth commissions that, if addressed adequately ex ante, improve the likelihood of a commission being able to make its distinctive contribution. It also deals with topics that might improve the chances of a commission’s recommendations being taken up ex post, emphasizing an underlying practical interest. A. The state of the field: achievements and challenges 23. As temporary, ad hoc institutions, truth commissions are not part of an established institutional framework and have no pre-existing political constituency or cadres of wellestablished bureaucrats. Yet they have proven to be capable of making significant contributions to transitional processes in the over 40 countries that have implemented them 16 17 18 19 20 6 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (n° 39630/09), 13 December 2012, para. 191, the Court emphasizes “the great importance of the present case not only for the applicant and his family, but also for other victims of similar crimes and the general public, who had the right to know what had happened”. E/CN.4/2006/91, para. 38. A/HRC/16/48, pp. 12-17. General Assembly resolution 60/147, annex, para. 24; see also IACommHR (fn 13), p. 193; IACtHR (fn 14), para. 274; ECtHR (fn 16), para. 192. Some of them have produced important reports, including Brazil’s Nunca Mais, Guatemala’s Proyecto lnterdiocesano de Recuperación de la Memoria Histórica (REHMI), Uruguay’s Nunca Más, Northern Ireland’s Ardoyne: the Untold Truth, and Greenbsoro’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Final Report.