Truth and Reconciliation Commission
SAGS:
Reasons for the TRC
Various forms of justice: restorative justice and the TRC hearings
(retributive justice and the Nuremberg trials in post-war Germany [NOT
EXAMINABLE])
The debates concerning TRC:
- Positive aspects (TRC as instrument of reconciliation)
- Amnesty provisions and problems with amnesty
- Focus on human rights of 1980s and ignoring institutional violence
and human rights abuses of apartheid.
- Reparations
Responses of political parties and reasons for responses and final report
of TRC [NP, IFP, ANC]
REASONS FOR TRC:
- New dispensation would not be starting with a ‘blank slate’.
- Atrocities had been committed by apartheid perpetrators.
- Brutal apartheid system abused civic and human rights of majority
of South Africans. The detentions and torture of 60s and 70s had
given way to abduction, torture, and murder of the 80s.
- ANC also faced accusations of human rights abuses in its training
camps in parts of southern Africa e.g., in Quatro camp in Angola.
- ANC set up an internal inquiry and it was revealed that human rights
and it was revealed that HR violations had occurred in ANC training
camps.
- ANC’s National Executive Committee (NEC) accepted the findings
but decided that these violations needed to be see against the
overall human rights violations that were perpetrated over decades
in SA.
- Rather than ANC looking for general amnesty for itself, it called for
an independent truth commission so that everyone could be
accountable for the past.
- In favour of blanket amnesty: some said should be granted to
perpetrators of apartheid crimes (general pardon by new
government for all apartheid era HR violations.
- Against blanket amnesty and retributive justice: others rejected this,
arguing for criminal prosecution and retributive or punitive justice for
those guilty of HR violations.
, - In favour of retributive justice: acts committed by apartheid regime
= criminal, therefore conviction, sentencing, and punishment.
- Against retributive justice: criminal prosecutions would have
affected the apartheid security forces (army + police) making them
fearful of punitive action, therefore would not ensure peaceful
elections and transitions. Their assistance was needed.
- Against retributive justice: criminal prosecutions = no reconciliation
but rather deepen divide between black and white people.
- Against retributive justice: call for restorative justice as way of facing
past and uncovering truth about gross HR violations and more than
would be possible in court, given much evidence was destroyed
during apartheid or transition to democracy. Therefore, more
evidence by offering perpetrators amnesty if they came forward
and shared stories of gross HR violations.
- In favour of restorative justice, w specific amnesty for perpetrators
who came forward and met particular criteria: compromise
between blanket amnesty and retributive justice.
- SO: compromise set up a commission to uncover truth of apartheid-
era.
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE:
Rejects exclusive focus on punishment.
TRC and perpetrators take responsibility for actions.
Victims + perpetrators come to resolve aftermath of offence and
implications.
AIMS OF TRC:
1. Investigate causes and extent of politically motivated gross HR
violations during apartheid from 1960 to 1994.
2. Uncover truth about past, assuming knowledge was necessary to start
national reconciliation.
3. Recommend compensation or reparations for victims.
4. Grant conditional amnesty to perpetrators under specific
preconditions, including full and public testimony of their actions; that
those were proportional to their intention and that their actions had a
political motive.
5. Blanket amnesty rejected.
SAGS:
Reasons for the TRC
Various forms of justice: restorative justice and the TRC hearings
(retributive justice and the Nuremberg trials in post-war Germany [NOT
EXAMINABLE])
The debates concerning TRC:
- Positive aspects (TRC as instrument of reconciliation)
- Amnesty provisions and problems with amnesty
- Focus on human rights of 1980s and ignoring institutional violence
and human rights abuses of apartheid.
- Reparations
Responses of political parties and reasons for responses and final report
of TRC [NP, IFP, ANC]
REASONS FOR TRC:
- New dispensation would not be starting with a ‘blank slate’.
- Atrocities had been committed by apartheid perpetrators.
- Brutal apartheid system abused civic and human rights of majority
of South Africans. The detentions and torture of 60s and 70s had
given way to abduction, torture, and murder of the 80s.
- ANC also faced accusations of human rights abuses in its training
camps in parts of southern Africa e.g., in Quatro camp in Angola.
- ANC set up an internal inquiry and it was revealed that human rights
and it was revealed that HR violations had occurred in ANC training
camps.
- ANC’s National Executive Committee (NEC) accepted the findings
but decided that these violations needed to be see against the
overall human rights violations that were perpetrated over decades
in SA.
- Rather than ANC looking for general amnesty for itself, it called for
an independent truth commission so that everyone could be
accountable for the past.
- In favour of blanket amnesty: some said should be granted to
perpetrators of apartheid crimes (general pardon by new
government for all apartheid era HR violations.
- Against blanket amnesty and retributive justice: others rejected this,
arguing for criminal prosecution and retributive or punitive justice for
those guilty of HR violations.
, - In favour of retributive justice: acts committed by apartheid regime
= criminal, therefore conviction, sentencing, and punishment.
- Against retributive justice: criminal prosecutions would have
affected the apartheid security forces (army + police) making them
fearful of punitive action, therefore would not ensure peaceful
elections and transitions. Their assistance was needed.
- Against retributive justice: criminal prosecutions = no reconciliation
but rather deepen divide between black and white people.
- Against retributive justice: call for restorative justice as way of facing
past and uncovering truth about gross HR violations and more than
would be possible in court, given much evidence was destroyed
during apartheid or transition to democracy. Therefore, more
evidence by offering perpetrators amnesty if they came forward
and shared stories of gross HR violations.
- In favour of restorative justice, w specific amnesty for perpetrators
who came forward and met particular criteria: compromise
between blanket amnesty and retributive justice.
- SO: compromise set up a commission to uncover truth of apartheid-
era.
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE:
Rejects exclusive focus on punishment.
TRC and perpetrators take responsibility for actions.
Victims + perpetrators come to resolve aftermath of offence and
implications.
AIMS OF TRC:
1. Investigate causes and extent of politically motivated gross HR
violations during apartheid from 1960 to 1994.
2. Uncover truth about past, assuming knowledge was necessary to start
national reconciliation.
3. Recommend compensation or reparations for victims.
4. Grant conditional amnesty to perpetrators under specific
preconditions, including full and public testimony of their actions; that
those were proportional to their intention and that their actions had a
political motive.
5. Blanket amnesty rejected.
