THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION (TRC)
What was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? “Court-like” refers to the fact
The TRC was an independent, court-like body that was created as part of the that although the TRC had
Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995. some specific legal powers,
The TRC was tasked with investigating apartheid-era human rights crimes/ they were not able to declare
violations of both the government and the liberation organisations that had been somebody guilty or innocent,
committed between 1960 and 1994. nor hand down any type of
The Commission was composed of three main committees, each of which would sentence.
deal with one aspect of human rights violations:
The Human Rights Violations Committee would listen to the testimony of victims in public
hearings. The aim of this committee was to reveal the details of human rights violations that had
occurred, usually very secretly, under apartheid.
The Amnesty Committee would assess those perpetrators who applied for Amnesty is a pardon
amnesty and decide whether each individual should, or should not, receive from prosecution.
amnesty for their crimes.
The Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee was to plan for and recommend what form of
reparations or interventions government should make to help victims of apartheid-era human
rights violations.
Aims of the TRC:
The TRC was massively ambitious in its aims.
It wanted to reveal the truth (itself a slippery
concept) about human rights violations that had
occurred during apartheid.
Stress the need for a culture of human rights in
the new South Africa.
Find out what had happened in the violent past
and why such violence had occurred.
Set straight a distorted historical narrative that
had been pushed by the NP government.
Ensure that white South Africans in particular
were aware of the horrors and atrocities of
apartheid.
Create empathy amongst South Africans.
Allow for a national catharsis. The TRC was chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, with Vice-Chair Alex
Build a “rainbow nation”. Borraine
Bring about reconciliation.
Some important concepts: As you should notice from the
You will come across a number of new concepts in this section, many above list, the aims were
of them rather philosophical. extremely broad and idealistic.
When we assess the TRC it is
A few of the most important concepts you need to understand when it important to keep the idealistic
comes to the TRC: nature of these aims in mind.
Most of this section is about
Justice: looking at the extent to which
A concept in both ethical philosophy and in law that deals with the TRC was successful in
actions/ people being fair and balanced. achieving various aims.
In the case of crimes or rights violations, justice has to do with
following a process and gaining an outcome that is somehow fair, right, and appropriate.
There are many different interpretations of what is fair, right, and appropriate.
Retributive justice:
, This theory says that there must be some form of punishment (retribution) if a wrong has been
done/ crime has been committed.
Generally, in retributive justice, the punishment must be proportional to (“fit”) the crime.
Much of our criminal justice system is based on retributive justice, as is any demerit/ detention
system in a school context.
In terms of human rights violations, the best example of retributive justice would be the
Nuremberg Trials that were held after World War Two. This was the first time that individuals
were held accountable for crimes against humanity and war crimes (in fact, those concepts did
not exist before the Nuremberg Trials). The Nuremberg Trials laid the foundation for
international standards of response to such crimes, holding that any crime against humanity must
be punished.
Restorative justice:
This is an approach which identifies crime as not only a legal thing, but something which harms
individuals, communities, and relationships.
The aim of restorative justice is to address/ repair those harms first and foremost, as well as deal
with the criminal action itself.
Restorative justice tends to be more victim- and community-centred.
Forms of justice (Tutu):
The South African TRC had aspects of both restorative and retributive justice in it, although it
leaned far more towards restorative, and is often seen as an example of an attempt at restorative
justice on a grand scale.
Tutu, as head of the TRC, promoted a “third way” of justice. This was somewhere between
restorative and retributive justice, between blanket amnesty and full prosecution.
Tutu wanted justice in South Africa to walk a path between “victor’s justice” and “collective
amnesia”.
Tutu later reflected on this choice in his memoir, No Future Without Forgiveness.
Amnesty:
This is when the government pardons a person or group of people for crimes they have committed,
usually in a political context.
This does NOT mean that the person has been declared innocent. Amnesty in fact assumes that the
person is guilty, but that the government is not going to try (put on trial) and sentence that person.
During the South African TRC, perpetrators of human rights violations could apply to the TRC for an
amnesty hearing which would decide whether or not they should be granted amnesty.
“Blanket” amnesty:
When an entire group of people is granted amnesty without conditions attached.
This sometimes happens in countries after a war, or when such unconditional amnesty is the only
way to ensure a dictatorial government relinquishes power.
Conditional amnesty:
The granting of amnesty only if certain conditions are met.
In the case of South Africa, amnesty would only be granted if the person made:
“full revelation” (ie: told everything he knew and did not hide anything or lie at all).
if the crime was politically motivated.
if the crime was committed within the given time-frame of 1960 – 1994.
if the scale of the crime was proportional to (matched) the aim/ objective.
The TRC either granted or denied amnesty for individual offences. Thus, one individual might be
granted amnesty for some of his crimes but not for others.
Catharsis:
What was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? “Court-like” refers to the fact
The TRC was an independent, court-like body that was created as part of the that although the TRC had
Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995. some specific legal powers,
The TRC was tasked with investigating apartheid-era human rights crimes/ they were not able to declare
violations of both the government and the liberation organisations that had been somebody guilty or innocent,
committed between 1960 and 1994. nor hand down any type of
The Commission was composed of three main committees, each of which would sentence.
deal with one aspect of human rights violations:
The Human Rights Violations Committee would listen to the testimony of victims in public
hearings. The aim of this committee was to reveal the details of human rights violations that had
occurred, usually very secretly, under apartheid.
The Amnesty Committee would assess those perpetrators who applied for Amnesty is a pardon
amnesty and decide whether each individual should, or should not, receive from prosecution.
amnesty for their crimes.
The Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee was to plan for and recommend what form of
reparations or interventions government should make to help victims of apartheid-era human
rights violations.
Aims of the TRC:
The TRC was massively ambitious in its aims.
It wanted to reveal the truth (itself a slippery
concept) about human rights violations that had
occurred during apartheid.
Stress the need for a culture of human rights in
the new South Africa.
Find out what had happened in the violent past
and why such violence had occurred.
Set straight a distorted historical narrative that
had been pushed by the NP government.
Ensure that white South Africans in particular
were aware of the horrors and atrocities of
apartheid.
Create empathy amongst South Africans.
Allow for a national catharsis. The TRC was chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, with Vice-Chair Alex
Build a “rainbow nation”. Borraine
Bring about reconciliation.
Some important concepts: As you should notice from the
You will come across a number of new concepts in this section, many above list, the aims were
of them rather philosophical. extremely broad and idealistic.
When we assess the TRC it is
A few of the most important concepts you need to understand when it important to keep the idealistic
comes to the TRC: nature of these aims in mind.
Most of this section is about
Justice: looking at the extent to which
A concept in both ethical philosophy and in law that deals with the TRC was successful in
actions/ people being fair and balanced. achieving various aims.
In the case of crimes or rights violations, justice has to do with
following a process and gaining an outcome that is somehow fair, right, and appropriate.
There are many different interpretations of what is fair, right, and appropriate.
Retributive justice:
, This theory says that there must be some form of punishment (retribution) if a wrong has been
done/ crime has been committed.
Generally, in retributive justice, the punishment must be proportional to (“fit”) the crime.
Much of our criminal justice system is based on retributive justice, as is any demerit/ detention
system in a school context.
In terms of human rights violations, the best example of retributive justice would be the
Nuremberg Trials that were held after World War Two. This was the first time that individuals
were held accountable for crimes against humanity and war crimes (in fact, those concepts did
not exist before the Nuremberg Trials). The Nuremberg Trials laid the foundation for
international standards of response to such crimes, holding that any crime against humanity must
be punished.
Restorative justice:
This is an approach which identifies crime as not only a legal thing, but something which harms
individuals, communities, and relationships.
The aim of restorative justice is to address/ repair those harms first and foremost, as well as deal
with the criminal action itself.
Restorative justice tends to be more victim- and community-centred.
Forms of justice (Tutu):
The South African TRC had aspects of both restorative and retributive justice in it, although it
leaned far more towards restorative, and is often seen as an example of an attempt at restorative
justice on a grand scale.
Tutu, as head of the TRC, promoted a “third way” of justice. This was somewhere between
restorative and retributive justice, between blanket amnesty and full prosecution.
Tutu wanted justice in South Africa to walk a path between “victor’s justice” and “collective
amnesia”.
Tutu later reflected on this choice in his memoir, No Future Without Forgiveness.
Amnesty:
This is when the government pardons a person or group of people for crimes they have committed,
usually in a political context.
This does NOT mean that the person has been declared innocent. Amnesty in fact assumes that the
person is guilty, but that the government is not going to try (put on trial) and sentence that person.
During the South African TRC, perpetrators of human rights violations could apply to the TRC for an
amnesty hearing which would decide whether or not they should be granted amnesty.
“Blanket” amnesty:
When an entire group of people is granted amnesty without conditions attached.
This sometimes happens in countries after a war, or when such unconditional amnesty is the only
way to ensure a dictatorial government relinquishes power.
Conditional amnesty:
The granting of amnesty only if certain conditions are met.
In the case of South Africa, amnesty would only be granted if the person made:
“full revelation” (ie: told everything he knew and did not hide anything or lie at all).
if the crime was politically motivated.
if the crime was committed within the given time-frame of 1960 – 1994.
if the scale of the crime was proportional to (matched) the aim/ objective.
The TRC either granted or denied amnesty for individual offences. Thus, one individual might be
granted amnesty for some of his crimes but not for others.
Catharsis:
