TRC Final Report

Volume 1

Chapter 10

Subsection 4

Notes on the flow chart

17 The process should be seen as overlapping and integrated and cannot be demarcated into clear-cut compartments. In order to understand the flow process in its entirety, the following points should be noted:

Starting point

18 By the time the starting point was reached, a great deal of work had already taken place. Steps performed by the administrative personnel included: a the registering of the application and the allocation of a reference number; b sending an acknowledgement of receipt to the applicant; c creating a working file; d filing the original application and the working copy; e capturing the information in the application on the database; f compiling spreadsheets on group applications, applicants, political affiliation and incidents; g ongoing correspondence and telephonic discussions with applicants, victims and legal representatives regarding non-legal matters; h controlling and maintaining the flow of applications between filing rooms, evidence analysts, leaders, investigators, researchers and committee members.

Stage one

19 Evidence analysts were divided into ‘specialisation groups’. They were provided with computer spreadsheets that prioritised applications (priority was generally given to applications from people in custody). The analysts then drew the applications and took whatever steps were necessary to prepare them. It is estimated that fewer than 10 per cent of all applications were complete and required no further preparation. Where further work was required, it may have included one or more or all of the following steps:

a ascertaining whether the application complied with the formal requirements of the Act;

b requesting further particulars from the applicant or his or her legal representative;

c obtaining the relevant prison records from the Department of Correctional Services;

d requesting a criminal docket from the SAPS;

e securing transcripts of all relevant court records from the registrars or clerks of the court;

f acquiring a report from the attorney-general concerned;

g asking the Investigation Unit to investigate the application;

h making recommendations to the Amnesty Committee or evidence leaders.

20 The analysts and the analyst co-ordinator held fortnightly meetings to deal with problems and chart the progress of work.

Stage two

21 This was the quality control stage. One of the following routes would be followed. Incomplete applications were referred back to the analyst with further instructions. Completed applications were forwarded to the Committee by different routes. If the application did not involve a gross human rights violation and a public hearing was, therefore, not required, it was referred directly to the Committee which dealt with it in chambers. If a completed application involved a gross human rights violation, a public hearing was held. In the latter case, the application was scheduled for a hearing (in consultation with the legal representatives of the applicants, implicated persons and victims) and allocated to an evidence leader for preparation and finalisation.

22 Various factors determined the process of scheduling hearings including, amongst others:

a the place where the violation took place (to allow for the public to attend the hearing);

b the current location of the applicant;

c the location and availability of victims;

d whether other similar applications could be heard simultaneously;

e the availability of legal representation for applicants, victims and implicated persons (some applications involved no less than fifteen legal representatives);

f the availability of the necessary logistic services, for example, a suitable and secure venue, translation services, sound and recording facilities, accommodation, transport and witness protection facilities and services;

g financial costs and constraints.