TRC Final Report

Volume 5

Chapter 5

Subsection 7

Implementation

58 The promulgation of government regulations on urgent interim reparation took longer than expected, which resulted in a delay in making this relief available. The time it would have taken for a multi-disciplinary implementing body (as originally envisaged) to be set up would, in turn, have meant further delay in delivering tangible reparation to victims.

59 The Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee thus took responsibility for disseminating, receiving and assessing reparation application forms. Two committee members recommended a cash payment and made suggestions about appropriate services that the applicant could access. This information was forwarded to the President’s Fund in Pretoria. The President’s Fund made payment to the applicant, either via electronic bank transfer or a cheque posted by registered mail and, through a network of nodal points in provincial governments, informed applicants of available services.

60 While this system was being implemented (first payments were made in July 1998), ongoing discussion took place about the constitution of the implementing body that would eventually take over from the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee. This matter had not been finalised at the time of reporting.

Implementation of Urgent Interim Reparations before the date specified by the President in terms of section 43(1)

61 This section outlines the different ways in which urgent interim relief policy was implemented before the date specified by the President in terms of section 43(1).

62 Regional Human Rights Violations Committees made preliminary findings on victim statements gathered from their areas. Preliminary regional findings were considered by the national Human Rights Violations Committee and were either accepted or rejected. If the Human Rights Violations Committee found that a gross violation of human rights had occurred and was of the opinion that a person was a victim of such a violation, it referred the statement of the person concerned to the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee. Moreover, if the Amnesty Committee granted amnesty in respect of any act and was of the opinion that a person was a victim of that act, it referred the identified individual to the Human Rights Violations Committee which, if it concurred, referred the matter to the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee. In addition, if the Amnesty Committee did not grant amnesty for an act and was of the opinion that the act was a gross violation of human rights and that a person was a victim in the matter, it referred the matter to the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee through the Human Rights Violations Committee.

63 Any person referred to the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee, in terms of the steps outlined above, was entitled to apply for reparation on the prescribed form that was sent to them.

64 The Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee applied its mind to the information contained in the prescribed application form and other evidence or information of possible relevance in order to determine whether the applicant was a victim (that is, whether he or she had suffered harm in terms of section 1(1)(xix) of the Act), whether s/he was in urgent need and to identify the nature of the urgency. The final decision was based on the information contained in the prescribed application form. If the applicant was found to be both a victim and in urgent need, the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee conveyed this decision and all other relevant information regarding this application to the President’s Fund.

65 Delivery of urgent interim reparation by the President’s Fund involved the following steps:

a Receiving decisions from the Commission’s Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee.

b Referring victims to appropriate service/s.

c Making payment according to the approved sliding scale and/or type of need.

66 It is recommended that all those found to be victims will be eligible for final reparation, regardless of urgency of need.