TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 2

Chapter 8

Subsection 6

Disputes over the guardianship of funds

45. The RRC was very careful to make sure that all parties concerned agreed on the name of the account into which the interim grant would be paid. This assurance was certified by means of an affidavit. However, it was occasionally b rought to the attention of the RRC that a person failed to behave in good faith in respect of an agreement that had been reached. In such cases, the RRC made clear how seriously it viewed such breaches and, as far as possible, facilitated fair conduct and adherence to the original commitments.

Problems and challenges encountered by regional offices

Victims who approached the Commission after the cut-off date for making the initial human rights violation statement

46. The fact that that only those declared to be victims by the HRVC or Amnesty Committee were eligible for reparation was constantly brought to the RRC’s attention. The cut-off date for submissions of human rights violations (HRV ) statements (December 1997) presented a number of difficulties, as many people felt they had been unable to make a statement for a number of legitimate re a-sons. This was especially true in KwaZulu-Natal, where many victims had been advised – either by their political party or by their traditional leadership – not to approach the Commission. The initial statement cut-off date was extended in an attempt to accommodate this group, and as many as 3000 statements were submitted at the eleventh hour.

47. The challenge for regional RRC staff was to explain the Commission’s closed-list policy, often in the face of a situation where individuals who were clearly victims of political violence had missed the opportunity to make an HRV statement.

Difficulty locating victims

48. Regions and the respective fieldworkers struggled to locate victims who had moved after making their initial statement to the Commission; whose recorded addresses were incomplete or inaccurate, or who lived in remote and inaccessible areas. This was especially marked in the Northern Province and northern KwaZulu-Natal .

49. Local radio and press were used on many occasions to call on victims either to approach regional offices or to meet at local venues where they could be assisted in completing application forms. This produced only sporadic results, but did have the effect of encouraging a number of people to make contact. Radio Zulu, Lesedi FM, Ilanga and the South Coast Herald in KwaZulu-Natal and the F ree State were generous in their allocation of free air time and column space.

Providing documentation

50. Supplying the necessary supporting documentation with the application form p roved to be one of the biggest delaying factors in the application process . Many individuals simply did not have original birth or marriage certificates. They then had to produce affidavits as official proof of the relevant information.

Accessing commissioners of oaths

51. Because the application form was itself an affidavit, each application had to be attested to by a commissioner of oaths. This proved to be a major, recurrent problem in rural areas, and further delayed the process. In some regions it was reported that police officers who were commissioners of oaths were reluctant to assist. Their attitude was perceived as a political or personal reluctance to support the process.

Copying documentation

52. Many people were approached in domestic situations where no photocopying facilities were available. Again, this meant delays in processing applications. Though the RRC purchased a mobile photocopier for each region, this did not solve the problem .

Inaccessible roads

53. The RRC experienced great difficulty in accessing victims in the Northern P rovince during the months of March to July 2000, owing to flood damage. Four-wheel drive vehicles had to be used to reach applicants.