The Equity and Reconciliation Commission (Arabic: هيئة الإنصاف والمصالحة, Tamazight: ⵜⴰⵡⵉⵍⴰ ⵏ ⵓⵙⵓⵎⵓ ⴷ ⵓⵎⵙⵓⴼⵔⵓ, French: Instance Équité et Réconciliation; IER) was a Moroccan truth and reconciliation commission active under a two-year mandate from 2004 to 2005 focusing on human rights abuses committed during the Years of Lead mainly under King Hassan II's rule.

The commission was established to reconcile victims of human rights abuses, such as torture, forced disappearances and arbitrary arrests, committed by the government and high-ranking officials during the Years of Lead, with the State.

The committee investigated approximately 20,000 cases, resulting in a number of recommendations to the state including: reparations (financial, psychological, medical and social), modification of the constitution, and ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), among others.

[2] After an opposition party won a small number of seats in the 1965 election, King Hassan II took complete control over the legislature.

[2] In 1975, the King repressed independent advocates located in the Western Sahara region, demonstrating the monarchy's fear of opposition movements.

King Hassan II appointed an Advisory Council on Human Rights (CCDH) to confront criticisms and to review the practices of the state.

[2] The goal of the CCDH was to investigate reports of human rights abuse and to begin adherence to international standards by recommending changes to Moroccan law and practices.

[2] The Advisory Council on Human Rights did make a number of changes, ultimately leading to the creation of the Independent Arbitration Panel in 1999.

From here, the commission was to include recommendations to the King regarding monetary compensation, psychological and medical care, social reintegration, and as Article 9.6 states, "recommend measures designed to memorialize the human rights violations, as well as to guarantee their non-repetition, remedy their effects, and restore confidence in the primacy of the law and respect for human rights.

[2] Additionally, the IER was a strictly advisory body and the state was under no obligation to follow through with any of the recommendations made (except in the area of individual remuneration).

First, the decree to proceed with the proposed mandate was made by the King of Morocco, a leader who inherited his power through hereditary rule.

Third, there had been no abrupt change in power or government (as is common in truth commissions), but merely gradual reforms over a long period of time.

[11] Additionally, when the original Advisory Council on Human Rights began in 1990, nine years before King Hassan II's death, it was an unusual action considering no drastic change in government or power.

The commission had an approximate total of 20,000 cases to investigate; 7,000 of those coming from the previous arbitration panel and the other 13,000 from an open call to the public for submissions at the beginning of its mandate.

[11] In order to reach as large an audience as possible, the IER decided to include a series of themed seminars which were broadcast on state TV during prime time.

[11] In December 2005, the commission submitted its final report to King Mohammed VI outlining both its findings and recommendations related to the abuses that took place between 1956 and 1999.

These included: Overall, the commission was received as a positive step towards a stronger and more democratic Morocco after a tumultuous, repressive and abusive period in its history.

[16] In addition, various ministries and agencies signed agreements to provide medical care and vocational training at no cost to the victims and their families.

[3] In 2011, a newly drafted constitution was created (largely in response to the Arab Spring), incorporating the recommended human rights, however, there remain certain restrictions in place.

Organizations like Human Rights Watch have criticized this aspect of the truth commission and the Moroccan state more generally for ensuring judicial actions are not taken against perpetrators, no matter the crime committed.

[11] Similar to many commissions, there is nothing stopping victims from trying to hold their perpetrators accountable through the public court system, however this is a risk for many people as judicial independence is widely questioned.