La reticencia de los testigos-víctimas de crímenes de terrorismo de Estado a que su palabra circule fuera del ámbito judicial luego de haber brindado su testimonio, nos da la oportunidad para interrogar cuál es el estatuto de la palabra que la instancia judicial reclama en quien ofrece su testimonio.Así, este artículo considerará la diferencia entre la palabra entendida en un sentido documental, despojada de su carácter ficcional y el testimonio como una decisión que no se configure como una exhibición de lo íntimo sino como una escritura. Palabras clave Terrorismo de Estado,Testimonio, Confidencialidad, Escritura pública Abstract WRITING THE TESTIMONY During the ongoing legal proceedings for crimes of state terrorism is common to find in the witnesses, who were victims, the refusal to circulate their statement outside the trial. Which is the explanation of this limitation? The court claims from the witness a word in a documental sense, taking off its fictional nature. Due that, we can mention two different effects. From one side, it produces a word that is the repetition of the situation suffered in the past. From other side, it conduce the word to be a display of intimacy and not necessary a public word. What this article is trying to emphasize is that to speak in the public area needs a decision of the witness. As the notarial deed, to make a deed with the testimony equivalent to publish his word, which means, at the same time, to appropriate and to lose the testimony. Key words State terrorism, Testimony, Confidentiality, Writing public