TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 2

Chapter 1

Subsection 3

DELAYS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REPARATION THUS FAR

19. Since the submission of the Final Report of the Commission with its proposals for reparation, there has been a considerable delay on the part of government in setting forth its vision for the Reparation and Rehabilitation programme. Indeed, government’s only response thus far has been to challenge the individual reparation grant component of the Commission’s recommendations.

2 0 . This delay has led to ongoing public debate and widespread criticism. Much of this criticism has been directed at the Commission, as public perception, frequently fuelled by the media, has continued to see reparation as the responsibility of the Commission rather than of the government.

2 1 . The fact that this delay has taken place against the background of the amnesty process is also unfortunate. The fact that victims continue to wait for reparations while perpetrators receive amnesty has fuelled the debate about justice for victims⁷ within the Commission process.

22. It needs to be strongly emphasised that giving victim evidence before the Commission was not simply a question of reporting on the past. It was intended to change peoples’ views and experiences of their own pain and suffering. It was intended, moreover, to play an important role in reconciling the nation. This exposure and exploration of past experiences – this reconciliation – needed to be accompanied by reparation and rehabilitation - related services and the meeting of financial and other needs. Without this important component, the work of the Commission remains essentially unbalanced.

23. It should be noted further that, while the public debate has tended to focus on individual financial grants, the reparation policy proposed by the RRC was much broader in intent. In other words, it did not focus simply on financial compensation. It catered not only for the individual needs of those who suffered from past abuses, but had implications for communities that had been targeted for abuse as well as those requiring fundamental institutional transformation.

THE FOCUS OF THIS REPORT

24. The purpose of these chapters is to re-emphasise the urgency and importance of the recommendations for reparation and rehabilitation. This section also focuses on the work undertaken by the RRC since 29 October 1998. At that time, the RRC had processed seventy applications and sent them to the President ’s Fund. As of 30 November 2001, when the RRC closed down, a total of 17 016 forms for UIR grants had been submitted to the Preside n t ’s Fund, of which some 16 855 payments had been made, totalling R50 million. The processing of forms and data in respect of UIR has formed the bulk of the R R C ’s work since October 1998.

25. In addition to the above, the RRC has been responsible for considering victims referred to it by the Amnesty Committee for purposes of reparations.⁸ Further, the Committee on Human Rights Violations has continuously re f erred new victims to the RRC as it completed its findings and dealt with appeals against earlier negative findings. As a result of these two processes, victim referrals were still being made to the RRC up to the time of finalising this re port . Back to Contents Page...go to page 98