TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 5

Chapter 2

Subsection 2

THE APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW TO THE SOUTH AFRICAN SITUATION

Introduction

9. The Commission made findings against the South African government and its security forces based on the information it received. These included statements from victims, submissions by organs of civil society, political parties, international human rights groups, local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and community-based organisations (CBOs), confessions made by amnesty applicants and many other interested parties.

10. It was, however, the statements made by individual victims and perpetrators to the Commission that presented the most compelling picture of the reign of terror conducted by the organs and agencies of the former state. Overwhelmingly, these statements revealed a picture of the gross human rights violations that were perpetrated by the state. These included the widespread use of torture , the use of excessive and indiscriminate force in public order policing, the abduction and disappearance of activists and the extrajudicial killing of political opponents and activists.

11. The Commission was able to investigate a number of cases thoroughly and also used its section 29 powers to hold subpoena hearings which effectively compelled many perpetrators to apply for amnesty.

12. In order to ensure the integrity of the information that it received, the Commission applied a policy of low-level corroboration to each case before declaring a person to have been a victim. Many have criticised this policy. However the Commission did not have the capacity to conduct a full-scale investigation into each case. Therefore, it selected cases and conducted strategic investigations. The Commission acknowledges the fact that more thorough investigations may have yielded more information about particular individuals and incidents. However, it is the Commission’s view that it is unlikely that this would have impacted on its view of the role that the former state played in the commission of gross human rights violations, nor on its view that the former state acted in a criminal manner.

13.It is indeed the Commission’s opinion that more information would simply have strengthened the patterns that had already emerged.

14. The Commission recorded the fact that patterns of abuse manifested themselves throughout South Africa in much the same way. These were not isolated incidents or the work of mavericks or ‘bad apples’; they were the product of a carefully orchestrated policy, designed to subjugate and kill the opponents of the state. In any event, the Commission’s findings are supported by the submissions made by many victims to various human rights organisations during the apartheid period.

15. The Commission has also been criticised for making findings without having completed the amnesty process. It should be noted, however, that the Commission did take cognisance of the information contained in many applications. Further, the Commission did not make findings in respect of specific incidents where applications had not been heard or where the Amnesty Committee had not yet made a decision.