TRC Final Report

Volume 5

Chapter 6

Subsection 5

■ HOW THE FINDINGS WERE MADE

63 It should be noted that the findings that follow focus largely on institutions or structures of society and in only a few cases on major political figures. A number of other findings – which are not repeated here and which deal with particular events or perpetrators – are to be found in Volumes Two, Three and Four. The names of those in respect of whom individual victim findings are made appear elsewhere in this volume. Further details on these will be available at a later stage.

64 Some of those in respect of whom the Commission has made adverse findings may complain of the untested nature of some of its evidence. The point to note here is that the Commission is not a court of law. It was set up as a commission of enquiry and, as such, was not bound by the same rules of evidence as are the courts. In order to make a finding, it had to operate within the framework of a balance of probabilities, which is the standard criterion used in civil litigation. Its conclusions are therefore findings rather than judicial verdicts.

The Commission’s position on responsibility and accountability

65 In evaluating the role played by those who were involved in the conflicts of the past, the Commission was guided, in particular, by section 4 of its enabling Act, the relevant portions of which read as follows:

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

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

(iii) the identity of all persons, authorities, institutions and organisations involved in [gross violations of human rights] (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 violations.

66 In the light of the above and of the evidence received, the Commission is of the view that gross violations of human rights were perpetrated or facilitated by all the major role-players in the conflicts of the mandate era. These include:

a The state and its security, intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, the SAP, the SADF and the NIS.

b Groups and institutions which, to a greater or lesser extent, were affiliated or allied to the state in an official capacity. These include homeland governments and their security forces as well as groups and institutions informally allied to the state or receiving financial or logistic assistance from the state in order to oppose and/or withstand the liberation movements and their internal allies. Groups falling into this category include the IFP and conservative surrogate organisations and groupings like the witdoeke, AmaAfrika and the Eagles.

c White right-wing organisations which, while actively opposing the state, actively and violently took action to preserve the status quo in the 1990s. These include the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB), the Afrikaner Volksfront and the Boere Bevrydingsbeweging.

d Liberation movements and organisations which sought to bring about change through armed struggle and which operated outside South Africa and by covert and underground means inside the country.

e Organisations which sought to bring about change by non-violent means prior to and post-1990, including the United Democratic Front; and

f Non-state paramilitary formations such as the ANC’s self-defence units and the IFP’s self-protection units (SPUs).