Abstract

This article discusses the presuppositions and consequences of different forms in which successive Chilean governments have tried to ‘come to terms’ with a legacy of terror usually designated as ‘human rights violations’. Thus, a political strategy centered in a body like a truth and reconciliation commision is compared to a judicial strategy of individualising perpetrators and punishing them according to the rules and principles of normal criminal law. Having distinguished these strategies, the article maps them onto two conceptions of human rights: one political and one legal . The thesis is then defended that law cannot grasp the political meaning of human rights, and thus cannot grasp the full political meaning of terror