TRC Final Report

Volume 1

Chapter 6

Subsection 1

Volume ONE • Chapter SIX

Methodology and Process

■ INTRODUCTION

1. Section 4 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act (the Act) sets out the functions that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (the Commission) is required to perform. It reads as follows:

Functions of Commission

The functions of the Commission shall be to achieve its objectives, and to that end the Commission shall-

a facilitate, and where necessary initiate or co-ordinate, inquiries into-

(i) gross violations of human rights, including violations which were part of a systematic pattern of abuse;

(ii) the nature, causes and extent of gross violations of human rights, including the antecedents, circumstances, factors, context, motives and perspectives which led to such violations;

(iii) the identity of all persons, authorities, institutions and organisations involved in such violations;

(iv) the question whether such violations were the result of deliberate planning on the part of the State or a former state or any of their organs, or of any political organisation, liberation movement or other group or individual; and

(v)accountability, political or otherwise, for any such violation;

b facilitate, and initiate or co-ordinate, the gathering of information and the receiving of evidence from any person, including persons claiming to be victims of such violations or the representatives of such victims, which establish the identity of victims of such violations, their fate or present whereabouts and the nature and extent of the harm suffered by such victims;

c facilitate and promote the granting of amnesty in respect of acts associated with political objectives, by receiving from persons desiring to make a full disclosure of all the relevant facts relating to such acts, applications for the granting of amnesty in respect of such acts, and transmitting such applications to the Committee on Amnesty for its decision, and by publishing decisions granting amnesty, in the Gazette;

d determine what articles have been destroyed by any person in order to conceal violations of human rights or acts associated with a political objective;

e prepare a comprehensive report which sets out its activities and findings, based on factual and objective information and evidence collected or received by it or placed at its disposal;

f make recommendations to the President with regard to - (i) the policy which should be followed or measures which should be taken with regard to the granting of reparation to victims or the taking of other measures aimed at rehabilitating and restoring the human and civil dignity of victims; (ii) measures which should be taken to grant urgent interim reparation to victims;

g make recommendations to the Minister with regard to the development of a limited witness protection programme for the purposes of this Act;

h make recommendations to the President with regard to the creation of institutions conducive to a stable and fair society and the institutional, administrative and legislative measures which should be taken or introduced in order to prevent the commission of violations of human rights.

2 Even a cursory examination of this section of the Act reveals that the task facing the Commission was both daunting and formidable. Not only was it required to perform the extensive activities listed in section 4, but it had to do so in an extremely difficult context.

3 The Commission was required to consider cases that had occurred over a thirty-four year period, stretching from 1 March 1960 to 10 May 1994. In so doing, it found itself responsible for the examination of over 50 000 cases of gross violations of human rights. As described in the Mandate chapter, these violations were narrowly defined in the Act. This means that numerous other violations of human rights – all heinous and, in their own way, ‘gross’, were not considered. It is in this context that this chapter will examine the ways in which the Commission chose to complete its work.

■ THE START UP

4 One of the greatest challenges the Commission faced was that the two-yearperiod within which it was required to complete its work began on the day thatthe commissioners were formally appointed. The Act made no provision for astart-up period during which offices could be located and established, staffsought and appointed, and a modus operandi carefully developed. There waslittle time for reflection. The result was that the methodology of the Commissionevolved and changed quite considerably throughout its term of operation.

5 In addition, although the Act listed a set of functions that the Commission wasrequired to fulfil, it provided very little guidance on how these functions were tobe performed. While this gave the Commission the freedom and flexibility todevelop appropriate systems and staffing structures, it also posed a tremendous challenge. It was difficult to design, in a short period, systems that adequately addressed the extensive, at times competing, priorities of theCommission. This meant that many of the Commission’s systems had to beadapted as priorities changed and new needs and challenges emerged.