A/HRC/24/42 repository of the archives is not inconsequential. Consideration should be given to the following factors: • Physical access. Transferring archives to far-away locations or abroad, even in a host institution with liberal access policies, puts non-digitalized sources out of reach for concerned populations. • Preservation. Documents, even in digital form, need to be preserved, not simply warehoused.102 • The trustworthiness of the repository institution in the eyes of different stakeholders, including victims. Placing archives in institutions that are widely mistrusted by victims due to their past involvement in human rights violations, for example, generates powerful disincentives for victims and others to seek access to the archives or raises concerns about the accuracy of the contained information. 86. There is no uniformity in the criteria for obtaining access to archives. On one end of the spectrum are the archives of the CEH of Guatemala at the United Nations in New York, which require written authorization “signed by the Secretary-General in person” to open a sealed container prior to 1 January 2050.103 At the opposite end lie the archives of the truth commission of the Republic of Korea, which recommended that “the records should be utilized in extensive scale to find more facts and to be studied as historical sources”, and directed the repository to cooperate with all interested stakeholders.104 Most commissions’ archives lie between these extremes, some limiting access to parts of the archives, particularly witness statements105 and material that may disclose the identities of child 101 102 103 104 105 24 See ST/SGB/1999/6, whereby Secretary General Annan established “a special regime for the management, utilization, preservation and disposition of the documents, records and other materials of the Commission for Historical Clarification” in the archives of the United Nations in New York. All the records transferred from Guatemala’s CEH to the United Nations in New York are sealed, and as far as anyone can tell, not even preservation efforts have been carried out. See, e.g., Trudy Peterson, Final Act (2005), pp. 74ff. Aside from technical aspects relating to preservation there is the question of the sheer physical safety of the archives, which have become an issue in different countries. See Secretary-General’s bulletin, Commission for Historical Clarification, ST/SGB/1999/6, 8 June 1999. The Oslo Peace Agreement between the Government of Guatemala and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG) stipulated that the “Commission’s proceedings shall be confidential so as to guarantee the secrecy of the sources and the safety of witnesses and informants.” This, in itself, however, does not call for totally sealed archives, as is made plain by the Secretary-General’s bulletin, which contains an exception for records “specifically designated by the Coordinator of the Commission as being for the public domain”, although no such designation appears to have been ever made, see Oslo Peace Accords, 23 June 1994, Agreement on the Establishment of the Commission to Clarify Past Human Rights Violations and Acts of Violence that have Caused the Guatemalan Population to Suffer, Operation, para. IV. For an in-depth description on the question of the archives see Trudy Peterson, Final Act (2005), pp. 68ff. Final Report of the Presidential Commission on Suspicious Death (Republic of Korea), recommendations 14-4 and 15-3. E.g., Liberia’s TRC, which, after stating the framing principle that “all TRC documentations […] are deemed confidential insofar as it does not affect the public interest objective of the TRC,” stipulated that “all TRC witnesses statements marked ‘confidential�� or ‘not for public’ and TRC minutes and Commissioners memos shall be deemed strictly confidential and subject to [a] 20-year prescription”, see TRC Report (fn 40), vol II, pp. 335 and 394.