TRC Final Report

Volume 5

Chapter 1

Subsection 2

Preparations for the hearings

15 The preparatory work began with the dissemination of information about the Commission and its work, followed by the gathering of statements and background information.

16 Preparatory discussions, during what was usually an eight-week cycle, often coincided with preparations made by the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee to lay foundations for counselling and other assistance which could be obtained from local sources.

Public information

17 Public meetings and workshops were held in each area selected for a hearing, organised with the assistance of local municipalities, faith organisations, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), civic bodies or any other appropriate grouping. Commissioners would explain the aims of the Commission and the way it would work, and would answer questions and attempt to allay fears or respond to criticism. Announcements would be made about the advent of statement taking in the area, and where statements could be made. The media and communications staff assisted with leaflets, banners and press releases.⁴

The gathering of statements

18 The Commission devised a form, referred to as a ‘protocol’ or ‘statement form’, for recording the statements made to the Commission by people who believed they had suffered gross violations of human rights. It appointed and trained ‘statement takers’ to listen to the accounts related by such persons, and to record them in a manner which would facilitate their entry into the Commission’s database.⁵

19 For thousands of people, statement takers represented their first and often their only face-to-face encounter with the Commission. They were selected for their ability to listen to the stories told by people in their chosen language, to distil the essential facts, and to record them in English (since for practical reasons this was the language the Commission had decided to use). Equally important was their ability to listen with empathy and respect, so that the interview itself became part of the therapeutic and healing work of the Commission. Interviews often took several hours, and involved both the deponent and the statement taker in an intense process of reliving anguishing experiences. Many deponents clearly found this to be a catharsis, but others were still bitterly angry or deeply wounded. Some were referred to supportive organisations for counselling and treatment.

20 The statement takers thus carried a heavy burden of responsibility and were the front rank of those who gathered the memories of the pain and suffering of the past. They themselves required support as the work took its toll on them, and the Commission made counselling and, if necessary, further therapy available to them.

21 Statement takers were based in each of the four regional offices of the Commission, and the public was informed about where to find them. They also moved out into surrounding areas, responding to requests or to recommendations from the Research Department or other sources of information. Their numbers were increased by volunteers (who were also trained by the Commission) and at a later stage by a project of ‘designated statement takers’ drawn from community-based NGOs.⁶

22 In this way the Commission was able to fulfil its aim of reaching the widest possible number of people located across the entire country, making itself accessible to them, protecting their safety and privacy and allowing them to communicate in the language of their choice.

The selection of witnesses for public hearings

23 After the statements had been taken and submitted to the information management team for entry onto the database, the Human Rights Violations Committee in the region would select a number of them for public hearing. The criteria used were:

a the hearing should reflect accounts from all sides of the political conflicts of the past;

b the entire thirty-four-year mandate period should be covered;

c women as well as men should be heard, and the experiences of the youth should also be considered;

d finally, since not all the people of the area could be heard, there should be an attempt at least to provide an overall picture of the experience of the region so that all people could identify in some way with what was demonstrated.

24 Deponents making statements were always asked whether they would be willing, if invited, to testify in public. The majority of them were willing, even eager, and many were angry or disappointed if they were not selected. The exceptions were people who feared possible repercussions. In fact, it is noteworthy that there were not many such repercussions, and fears of intimidation or retaliatory attacks appear to have been largely unfounded. Where there was any such risk, the Commission’s Witness Protection Programme was available.⁷ The bomb threat made to the East London hearing was a sobering illustration of what might come, but such threats were not realised.