TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 1

Chapter 2

Subsection 5

Fourth stage

Upon completion of the required investigations and after final perusal by the evidence analyst, an application was ready for submission to the Committee and would be dealt with either in chambers or at a public hearing.

In the early stages of the Committee’s life, applications considered at public hearings were dealt with on an individual basis. Later it emerged that duplication could be avoided and staff expertise used more efficiently if applications were clustered into political groupings and geographical regions. This allowed the Committee to hear more than one applicant in the same region or with respect to the same incident. This not only assisted the Committee in evaluating the evidence of various applicants, but also assisted the Commission in obtaining the fullest possible picture in respect of the incident(s) concerned. The groupings into which the applications were divided included:

a Members or supporters of the African National Congress (ANC) and aligned organisations ;

b Members or supporters of the Pan Africanist Congress(PAC)and aligned organisations;

c Members or supporters of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and aligned organisations;

d Members of the former security forces; and

e Members or supporters of the white right-wing organisations.

48. In an effort to assist the Committee, applications were initially submitted to the chief leader of evidence for quality control before submission to the Committee. Incomplete applications were referred back to the analyst with further instructions. If the application did not involve a gross human rights violation, or where it appeared, prima facie, that the application was not likely to be successful, the application was re f erred to the Committee to be dealt with in chambers. If the application involved a gross human rights violation and it appeared, prima facie, that amnesty was likely to be granted, the application was handed to an evidence leader to prepare for a public hearing. When the chief leader of evidence resigned during 1998, the quality control function was taken over by members of the Committee.

Fifth stage

49. The leader of evidence was responsible for putting before the Committee all the relevant evidence it might require in order to come to a decision as to whether or not amnesty should be granted. The leader of evidence was also re sponsible for ensuring that all the necessary investigations were done and that all releva n t documentation was available before a hearing was scheduled.

50. The scheduling of an application was a complex issue. Various factors that could influence – and indeed determine – the scheduling needed to be taken into account. These included:

a the place where the incident (the focus or subject matter of the hearing) took place, so that the local public could attend;

b the location of the applicant at the time of the scheduled hearing (if the applicant was in prison, the necessary arrangements had to be made so that s/he could attend);

c the location and availability of victims, so that they could attend the hearing; d whether other similar applications should or could be heard simultaneously;

e the availability of the necessary logistical services, namely a suitable and secure venue, translating facilities, recording facilities, accommodation, transport and witness protection services; and

f the availability of legal representatives of the applicants, victims and/or implicated persons. Some hearings involved no fewer than nineteen legal representatives.