This paper uses the case study of Chile to examine how, and under what conditions, judiciaries once openly supportive of and collusive with authoritarian regimes can come to exercise effective post-hoc accountability. It argues that a peculiar blend of outward-facing continuity with gradual internal evolution can, as in this case, produce a dramatic shift in outcomes without an explicit acknowledgment of past wrongdoing. It also argues that an exclusive focus on internal judicial politics often fails to recognise broader justice system actors, such as police, prosecutors and forensic services, potentially key vectors of change even in criminal justice systems centred on investigative magistrates. The paper is based on first-hand empirical study of Chilean judicial practice around dictatorship-era accountability cases since 1998, and draws on a detailed database of case outcomes plus extensive and numerous recent interviews with human rights case magistrates, lawyers, complainants, detective police and forensic scientists.
