What are Human Rights Archives?

Caswell (2014) defines human rights archives as collections of records that document systemic and violent abuses of power ¹. Under this expansive conceptualization, such archives include not only holdings of organizations explicitly identifying as human rights entities or the records produced by global truth commissions, but also documentation generated by nongovernmental organizations, communities, and private individuals who record violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. This comprehensive understanding extends to archives preserving evidence of slavery, the persecution of LGBTQ communities, violence against Indigenous peoples, and other historically or contemporarily marginalized struggles.

Viebach (2021) introduces the related concept of transitional archives, designed to emphasize the “multi-layered afterlife” of human rights records and their open-ended, continually evolving nature ². By framing such records as transitional archives, Viebach highlights their status as products of power and negotiation, while also underlining the persistent tension between what these documents record and their intended goals of justice and reconciliation. From this perspective, these archives must undergo constant reactivation and reinterpretation to remain effective instruments of accountability.

This project focuses on human rights or transitional archives committed by various state or government actors around the world. It uses CollectionBuilder-Sheets and a Google Form Submission to collect and manage data on such archives. Previous and other related projects on mapping human rights or transitional archives exists, or existed, such as:

• Memorias Situadas - a joint project by the CIPDH (Centro Internacional para la Promoción de los Derechos Humanos) and UNESCO, which is an interactive map of different memory sites of serious human rights violations
• Mapa de Archivos y Derechos Humanos - the earliest mapping project of human rights archives that I found, and is no longer active (Retrieved from the Internet Archives).

Guiding Principles

Standards and ideals for human rights and transitional archives can be traced to a series of pivotal events following the end of the Second World War. The Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and the establishment of the International Council on Archives (ICA) in 1948 collectively laid the foundation for linking archives with questions of accountability, memory, and justice. Subsequent historical moments further shaped the field: the rise and fall of military dictatorships in Latin America, the collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe during the 1970s and 1980s, and the proliferation of truth and reconciliation commissions in the 1990s, including those in South Africa, Rwanda, and Cambodia. The concurrent global diffusion of Freedom of Information laws further reinforced the principle that access to records is central to both governance and human rights protection ³.

One notable codification of these ideals was the 1997 Joinet Principles—formally titled the Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity. These principles, later revised by Diane Orentlicher in 2005, established victims’ rights to truth, justice, and reparation, with Principles 14–18 specifically addressing the preservation of, and access to, archives bearing witness to human rights violations. Building on these frameworks, the ICA published more technical and practice-oriented guidelines, including the Application of ISAD(G) for Human Rights Archives (2012) and the Basic Principles on the Role of Archivists and Records Managers in Support of Human Rights (2016).

Taken together, these documents constitute what are often referred to as soft law: nonbinding principles that articulate international standards but whose implementation ultimately depends on the legal frameworks, political will, and institutional contexts of individual states.

Typologies of Human Rights Archives

In analyzing collections of human rights archives, it is essential to consider their provenance. Bernasconi (2022) proposes a general typology of such archives based on their origins ⁴. The first category consists of records produced during the period of atrocity itself. Within this category, one set comprises materials created by victims as acts of testimony, resistance, or survival, while another encompasses bureaucratic records generated by the state, often as instruments of control and repression. A second category consists of records produced in the aftermath of atrocities, particularly during phases of political transition from authoritarian regimes to more democratic forms of governance. These post-atrocity archives often emerge through truth commissions, judicial proceedings, or institutional reforms aimed at reckoning with past violence.

In terms or type of institution, this project identified the following:

• Human Rights and Non-government Organizations
• Truth, Reparations, and/or Memorialization Commissions
• Community-led, family, or individuals
• Tribunals and other courts
• Public library, archives, or museum
• University or research institute
• Religious Sector
• Other government agencies

Lessons Learned so far

From mapping these various archives and learning about their histories, three key lessons emerged.

Understanding Provenance First and foremost is the importance of understanding the unique circumstances of the origins of the records of human rights archives. Understanding their provenance can help us decide the levels of care needed, or risks associated with our collections.

International Cooperation and Networking Next is that preserving and activating records of human rights violations is a universal or international concern. Partnerships between Latin American archivists and U.S. institutions, for example, have helped digitize and safeguard records of enforced disappearances that might otherwise have been lost.

The Progress of Human Rights Documentation The teleological assumption of a linear, cumulative progression within human rights advocacy is challenged by empirical evidence of its inherent fragility. The post-dictatorship context of Argentina in the early 2000s, characterized by a “memory explosion,” saw the institutionalization of archival practices within state apparatuses, including the military. These collaborations, involving archivists and human rights practitioners, were instrumental in the preservation of documentary heritage from the period of state-sponsored violence. A parallel trajectory unfolded in Guatemala in 2005 with the inter-organizational effort to recover and safeguard the Historical Archive of the National Police (AHPN).

The reversals of 2016, however, demonstrate the contingent nature of these achievements. The administration of Mauricio Macri in Argentina initiated a process of de-funding human rights programs and liquidating memory centers. In Guatemala, the political transition to the Jimmy Morales presidency led to the institutional dismantling of the AHPN’s autonomy, transferring its custody from the National Archives to the Ministry for Culture and Sports. The consequences for AHPN personnel—including death threats, professional marginalization, and forced exile—further illustrate the precariousness of this work.

This regression validates Walter Benjamin’s critical warning against historicism, a mode of thought that frames history as a cumulative march toward progress. Benjamin’s alternative, a materialist conception of history, posits that historical moments are not additive but are instead constituted by ongoing, antagonistic struggles between dominant and marginalized groups. This theoretical framework provides a powerful lens through which to understand the role of transitional archives. It reframes them not as neutral repositories but as active sites requiring continuous efforts to re-capture and re-contextualize records, thereby empowering marginalized narratives and serving the cause of restorative justice for victims of human rights abuses.

References