MAKING THE CASE
Investigating Large Scale Human Rights Violations Using Information Systems and Data Analysis

Chapter 3

The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Data Processing

Themba Kubheka

Introduction and Objectives

The objectives of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, as set out in the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, are to:

• Give as complete a picture as possible of the gross violations of human rights that took place as a result of past conflicts.
• Restore to victims their human and civil dignity by letting them tell their stories and recommending how they can be assisted.
• Consider granting amnesty to perpetrators who carried out the abuses for political reasons, and who give full details of their actions to the Commission.

The Act defines a gross violation of human rights as

(a) the killing, abduction, torture or severe ill-treatment of any person; or

(b)any attempt, conspiracy, incitement, instigation, command or procurement to commit an act referred to in paragraph (a), which emanated from conflicts of the past and which was committed during the period 1 March 1960 to 10 May 1994, within or outside the Republic [of South Africa], and the commission of which was advised, planned, directed, commanded or ordered, by any person acting with a political motive.

To gather information about the gross violations of human rights suffered by South Africans, a Gross Human Rights Violation (GHRV) statement was developed and referred to as the protocol. The GHRV statement gave victims an opportunity to relate the violations they suffered, and in so doing, provided the information for data processing. As the commission went about its work, the GHRV statement went through several conceptual stages as ordered below:

Tell your story. It started as a narrative statement, but developed into a questionnaire to make it easy for victims to understand.

Give the deponents the emotional space to tell the story in their own way. This meant presenting the events and highlighting the issues as perceived by the statement-giver. However, some regional officers believed that the TRC had to serve the deponent’s emotional needs.

For many people the act of giving a statement was a mini-hearing. The GHRV statement fell into two main groups of deponents’ statements: those made by victims themselves and those made on behalf of victims.

Information also came to the TRC by letter. Initially, letters were screened and the letters which were accepted were those that provided narratives that were within the mandate of the commission. Later in the course of the work, a Designated Statement Program helped in-house statement takers reach out to thousands of South Africans who suffered gross human rights abuses. This program was administered by non-governmental organizations.

In the next section, I give a chronological history of the Data Processing Unit of the TRC, and a summary of its functions and work practices as they progressively developed during the project.

History and Operations of the Data Processing Unit

The Data Processing Model

Prior to the establishment of the TRC, a database development group was formed to establish the goals and deliverable objectives of the database, along with a work plan. The overall design was derived from the "who did what to whom?" model, based on the experience with databases for other truth commissions.

The database consultant1 applied a "Who did what to whom?" model. In this model, which is based on his experience with other truth commissions, the first principle is to record "who did what to whom." For example, in "John hit Jane on the head," the victim and perpetrator are linked through the recorded act of violence. "When and where" place the act in the context and are recorded through the narrative that links acts into a coherent whole. Recorded acts are specific and are the building blocks of the system. For example, a number of acts, e.g., blow to the head, electric shock to the genitals, make up an incident of torture. An event comprises several incidents, such as "The arrest, detention and torture of Mr. Masinga."

The rationale for detailed recording of each act is the complexity of incidents of human rights violations. During a single event such as the Boipatong massacre, there can be many linked perpetrators, victims and acts separated from each other at various times and places. To make sense of this massive amount of information, it is important to break down the event into its component parts in the greatest possible detail.

This conceptual model of a human rights violation protocol is the basis for the training of statement takers and their subsequent work with deponents.

The Role of Data Processing

Following the taking of a statement, a data processor was employed to decide which protocol information would be processed for entry into the database. To consistently and reliably make these decisions we needed controlled vocabularies for violations as shown in Appendices 1 (Initial Action Types and Codes) and 2 (The Final Set of HRV Categories). These controlled vocabularies are coded for entry into the database.

Every data processor had a copy of the controlled vocabularies and copies were given to researchers, investigators and other concerned parties. The head data processors had final approval over any additions or deletions. To assure that the data processors cannot change these codes, the HRV categories and their types of violations are hard-coded. Appendix 3 (Example of Coded Killings) shows the appearance of these codes when they are coded for particular killing violations.

In addition to violations, there are other items of data for which controlled vocabulary is required, such as organization, locations, etc. These items are described later.

Chronology of Events

We then initiated the process of collecting supporting information. This process involved contacting a wide range of organizations and institutions to assemble comprehensive lists of necessary and potential data sources. In this process, additional data processors and data entering personnel were employed by the TRC and were involved in the task of information collection. Because there was a large amount of information that was not available in machine-readable form, it was decided that the data processing unit would compile a range of resources. These could be stored in hard copy as part of a resource pack or included in the computerized information on the database. At this time, we started collating some of the information collected, such as cross-checking various lists of trade unions.

We organized and conducted a one-day workshop to train new data processors and data entering personnel. Training materials included an overview of the legislation governing the work of the TRC and the "Who did what to whom?" model. In this workshop, we brainstormed acts of violence, adding additional acts of violence to the list already developed and discussing the hierarchical organization of the acts, in particular how this structure would relate to the TRC’s legislative categories of human rights violations. The consensus was that some of the enlarged categories were too broad to be analytically useful and that the hierarchies should be based on acts of violence; for example, the category of asphyxiation would include tear-gassing. How to link acts of violation to the legislative categories was left open. Once the draft list of acts of violence had been completed, a list of synonyms for the acts was compiled, as well as a non-hierarchical, alphabetical list, as shown in Appendix 4 (Acts of Violence).

As the discussion of acts of violence continued, researcher Lydia Levin and systems analyst Gerald O’Sullivan worked with the database software vendor, Oracle, to develop a database model. Data processors brainstormed, proposed and reviewed possible questions to which the database would supply answers. For almost three months the data processors and data entering personnel met daily to review every possible act of violence one person could inflict on another. Data processors provided ongoing and ad-hoc assistance to the research department, particularly in compiling a legislative chronology. The results are tabulated in Appendix 4 (Acts of Violence). Every act was written on the board and debated in detail.

Under the four categories, Killing, Abduction, Torture and Severe Ill-treatment, described in the Act, we ended up with about 200 types of violations (Appendix 1, Initial Action Types and Codes) which were later reduced to 90 (Appendix 2, Final Set of HRV Categories). The TRC added the two categories, Attempted Killing and Associated Violations.

Using the initial codes of Appendix 1 (Initial Action Types and Codes) we could only detect the act of violation from the outcomes, such as: did the victim die, or become injured or miscarry. Hence, we would code one of the following outcomes: death, injury, damages to property, pregnancy, disappearance, abduction and forced removal as the violation.

The Associated Violations category, which is not a gross violation of human rights, is important for understanding the context of the act. There are also two more categories for unclassified cases: Other and Unknown violations. Each of these categories has several sub-headings which explain how the violations took place (a person can be killed by different methods, so we need to identify how they were killed). By breaking the categories into sub-headings, we can then do meaningful counting for the final report.

In September of 1996, the three head data processors from Johannesburg, Durban and East London met their counterparts and the head researchers in Cape Town. The CEO of the TRC and the TRC’s methodological advisor decided that we should reduce the 200 acts of violation to about 50. After three days we could not reach consensus and returned to our regional office to consult with our respective data processors. Following that consultation, consensus was mandated, and achieved. At our second workshop, we were told to produce the final product and we did.

The data processors who were by this time using the initial codes of Appendix 1 (Initial Action Types and Codes), put forward a number of observations, critical comments and objections, expressing their concerns about the categories of Appendix 2 (Final Set of HRV Categories). They felt a detailed violation was more meaningful in describing an act. For example, beating a victim with a gun was different from beating the victim on the soles of feet or whipping with a Sjambok (initial action codes in Appendix 1). In the new codes of Appendix 2 (Final Set of HRV Categories) these different types of assaults all were subsumed under BEATING.

Of course, with the new codes, the data processors’ task was easier and we could process more statements than before and the new codes of Appendix 2 (Final Set of HRV Categories) were retained. To synchronize the acts already captured with the new ones, the system analyst Gerald O’Sullivan created an Excel spreadsheet for each regional office and instructed head data processors to change the old acts to the new ones, line by line. The Johannesburg office had over 10,000 lines of codes of violations to be modified, but the job was done and the corrected spreadsheets loaded into the database.

What Was Data Processing at the TRC?

Critical questions in an information management system include, How will the information be processed? How will raw data from a large number and wide variety of sources be transformed into a body of information to be used to generate an analysis based on a database of a problem, issue, or situation?

Integrating the Data

How will these raw data be integrated? Each source has common and unique problems. The primary information collected from witnesses is vulnerable to bias and inaccuracy. Documentary sources of evidence such as commission reports contain their own assumptions. Different methods are needed to handle each information source. Dealing with these input issues to produce useful, integrated results is data processing.

But how outputs are defined -- what will be done with the data once it is processed -- also determines the nature of data processing. The TRC uses information from the data base for many purposes: to conduct research, to facilitate investigation, to record the testimony of victims of human rights violations, to record the evidence of amnesty applicants and to formulate a reparation and rehabilitation policy. Not all of the output of the system will be tangible. The understanding of dynamics, conflicts, and so forth, that investigators, and possibly statement takers develop, is information that will not necessarily be easily put into a protocol. To satisfy the objectives of the TRC, data processing must make it possible for the database to serve all these needs.

Not only will data come from different sources but also it will be gathered at different regional and national levels. It is crucial that all these information-gathering processes are not carried out in parallel to each other but are part of an integrated whole. At this level of integration, data processing is the key element. It is the point at which the incoming data and information is managed and organized, and where the analytical process begins. Data processors make a great number of decisions about how to define the information. Such decisions might include the answers to questions such as these: "Is this truly a gross human rights violation?" "Was it part of the Boipatong massacre?" "Is Colonel Swanepoel the same man already implicated in numerous other torture cases?"

Data processing is where the investigation begins. Data processors deal on a daily basis with the full spectrum of incoming information. They should be the first to pick up on discrepancies between the stories of amnesty applicants and their victims, and first to identify the trends of violations in particular areas or perpetrated by particular people, units, sector of society, and so forth. A structured means of feeding this information into the research and investigation processes on an ongoing basis is crucial or these insights will be lost.

Also, data processing is the first point of contact between the national process of amnesty applications and the regional processes of human rights violations reporting. It is the skills of data processors that assure that amnesty applications can be cross-checked with reports of human rights violations. National investigations and research processes are meaningless unless they can draw on the full range of information available from different regions.

None of these processes necessarily happen sequentially. As the TRC does its work, verification of new information, or contradiction of information, adding to or complicating information already collected, is an ongoing process. Hearing evidence for amnesty applicants or victims of human rights violations must be recorded and linked to the original statements of witnesses or applications for amnesty. Discrepancies and additions must be identified and fed into the research, investigation and reparation processes.

In addition to its research and investigative functions, the TRC is also attempting to deliver reparations to victims. It is crucial to this process to accurately record the individual consequences of violations of human rights and the needs resulting from those violations. This information must be systematically gathered and processed to generate a national policy on reparation and rehabilitation and to ensure full attention to the needs of every victim of a reported human rights violation to the TRC.

Capturing the basics

The database was designed to accept statements and pass the information through stages on the way to making findings. Later at the TRC, I had two jobs, that of being the Information Coordinator and the Documentation Officer. I received all statements and I reviewed them to check whether they fell within the TRC mandate. Based on the mandate, my criteria for accepting a statement were:

1. Time period - 1 March 1960 to 10 May 1994.

2. Politically motivated.

3. Gross human rights violations.

My guidelines were as follows:

• Do not analyze a bundle of statements as a group and then capture them as a group. In so doing, you may confuse the statements.
• Finish one statement entirely before moving onto another. You must code exactly what is on the statement, even if you believe the statement is inaccurate, is full of contradictions, etc.
• You must be very careful not to allow any biases to creep in, and further, not to allow any of your own commentary or observations to enter the coding. What is captured is exactly what the statement says, but in a coded form.
• Remember that you are trying to extract as many acts and victims per statement as possible. Even if you have scanty details about a particular event, code and capture what is there. You may be able to gather more information through investigations, research, etc.

A step-by-step description of how data was captured is given in Appendix 7 (Data Processing User Guide).

Problems

To show the nature of the work of data processing, the following is a list of some of the problems we encountered and resolved. (Note: The lessons learned in this aspect of work on the TRC information management system have been integrated with those of the database representation, and are found in Chapter 4.)

Data flow

• How will new information collected through hearings, statements, informally, and through the work of the investigators, be entered and again made available for further research and investigation?
• How will the database or processing be used to handle the problem of various types of information coming from the different sources?
• How will the information gathered be fed into the investigation and research processes?
• How to maintain a high rate of document processing in view of potentially lengthy verifications and statements that are difficult to code?

Definition and naming

• How to name categories? For example, we have DEGRADATION. But the purpose of torture is degradation. Should we then use SHAME or EMBARRASSMENT?
• How do we deal with inconsistency, such as between "death" and the omission of "attempted killing"
• Should we state whether a statementmet the TRC criteria using the words ACCEPTED or REJECTED?
• In what category do you put assassination, circumstances of death and capital punishment?
• What is the purpose of all the synonyms?

Quality control

• How to minimize coding errors?
• How to establish and enforce consistent coding practices?
• How to check for typing errors?
• How to code ambiguous information?
• What is the impact of serious errors on the quality of data?
• What are the implications of changing information and updating the database?

Overall issues

• What is role of the database in reparation and rehabilitation?
• How can the database be used as an integrative tool? For example, how do we link national and regional processes, amnesty, HRV and reparations?
• What will be the benefits of feeding information to investigation and research processes?
• What is the desired role of the database in supporting the objectives of the TRC?
• How will the database be used as a corroborative tool (what for and how)?
• What is the role of the database in tracking various processes happening in the TRC?
• How will the database assist in making HRV findings?
• If we look for trends, how will we identify which trends to look for and how will these trends be tracked?

System design

• How to incorporate the free text field
• How to group acts into events and mega-events, and finding connections between persons places, acts, and vehicles.
• Should the data processor attempt a preliminary corroboration of the file material and if so, how?

Getting the Relevant Data

After the major design problems were resolved, assignments were given to both data processors and data enterers to assemble relevant literature and statistical documents from multiple sources to capture into the database.

Examples of the kinds of literature and documents that we captured on the database included community policing, policing in general, military and private army uniforms, private army structure, police dockets, police station daily registers, NGO databases.

We obtained such information from NGOs, police authorities, library reference materials, military museums, university archives, purchased books (for example, from the Institute of Race Relations), public libraries, the National Archivist, and so forth. Our personal experiences with the apartheid system also provided valuable information.

Specific types of information we obtained included the names of all the political parties, the names of all liberation movements, new far right parties and armies, non-governmental organizations, trade unions, civic, women’s, students’ societies and organizations, military and paramilitary forces and their ranks, all the languages spoken in South Africa, lists of other countries, and regional divisions (breaking down each region to its smallest entity).

Some of our breakdowns of information may be of value to future data processing projects. These include:

Coding Using the Data Processors’ Coder’s Sheet

When coding, the first step is to decide on the HRV category into which category the violation falls. Appendix 2 (Final Set of HRV Categories) shows the categories with their definitions (the words in boldface should be used in the description of the act when they are applicable).

We developed a coder’s sheet to enable data processors to code acts in a chronological order since most statement narratives are not chronological. Some protocols had only one act belonging to one victim, others had several acts dating back as far as 1960 and others had two or more victims with one or several acts. Some abuses may have happened at one time or at several different times and at different places. If several victims were mentioned in the same protocol, we tried to group together those acts belonging to that particular victim in a chronological order. Appendix 5 shows a completed coder’s sheet and Appendix 6 is a complete TRC statement.

TRC System User Guide

A TRC user guide with the various input screens was provided by Oracle, the database designers. Later I simplified this guide to use in training new data processors. To show the nature of this guide, in Appendix 7 (Data Processing User Guide), I show the main screens used by data processors in their daily capture of statements into the database.

Problems with data processing

Despite our many efforts to train, standardize, and simplify, we still had many problems to solve. We did solve them with varying degrees of effort, and we list some of them here as a guide to others working on similar projects.

• Incomplete statement by statement-takers, e.g., no acts of violation, no narrative, no address, no victims, etc. Difficult to recall deponent to correct errors especially those who live in rural areas.
• Duplicate statements, i.e., statements taken twice and the narratives differ, same narrative but statement has been registered a second time.
• Incorrect registration and statement has already been processed.
• Illegible statements.
• Forged statements by statement takers.
• Untrue stories by victims.
• Unclear TRC mandates in statements.
• Not within the mandate and already registered.
• Statements taken or delivered after the official closing date.
• Victim applying for both HRV and Amnesty in the same protocol.
• Lost and missing statement i.e., in the office, post office. Registered but statement is missing. Difficult to re-take statement.
• Unsworn statement. Faxed, letters, sent by post.
• Undelivered statement, e.g., the Designated Statement Takers (DST) program - DSTs would not deliver statements until paid direct.
• Reference number designed to enable extraction of statement from various areas within the old boundaries. Difficult to extract statements from former homelands.
• Person ID number - create one number for perpetrator, e.g., SAP-UNKNOWN and use same number in other statement rather than create a new one for each statement.
• Bad data processing - incorrect/missing acts of violations, biased/wrong summaries, no witnesses/perpetrators, etc.
• Tracking of statements.
• Bad photocopying of copy statements.
• How many statements per day per processor. Long, winding statements take a long time to process.
• Number of data processors per region.
• Vetting - quality control.
• Daily queries from victims. Who must attend to them?

• Attending to request by other sections, e.g., investigators, researchers, etc.

Appendix 1

Initial Action Types and Codes

This is the initial set of action types and their codes, as described in the section, Chronology of Events. Data Processing used these types and codes in the initial coding work, but in September 1996, teamwork among the head data processors and researchers resulted in the final set of categories and types shown in Appendix 2.

Top Level

Subsidiary

Abduction

Abuse using animals

Assault

Assault using vehicles

Bombing

Burns

Capital punishment

Deliberate spreading of disease

Deprivation

Drowning

Electric shock

Financial impropriety

Framing

Harassment

Harmful substances

Improper burial

Incarceration

Life threatening situations

Physical stress

Psychological torture

Sexual abuse

Shooting

Staged accident / suicide

Stress to the senses

Suffocation

Theft and Vandalism

Threats

Appendix 2

Final Set of HRV Categories

As discussed in the section, Chronology of Events, teamwork by the head data processors and researchers resulted in this final set of HRV Categories, types and codes. Data Processing used the types and codes of Appendix 1 in the initial coding, but all those codes were replaced by the appropriate codes defined in this appendix.

The Violation types

The next step is to decide how the violation took place (for example: was it a beating, an electric shock and so on). The tables below show the HRV categories and their types of violations within each.

Appendix 3

Examples of Coded Killings

This appendix shows how the different killing methods are coded for individual acts of killings.

Appendix 4

Acts of Violence

Specific acts of violence and their synonyms where relevant are shown in this appendix. As described in the section, Chronology of Events, these acts are the result of three months discussion and brainstorming.

Asphyxiation (Synonym-Choke)

Strangling (Synonym-Throttle)

Suffocation (death)

Bag overhead

Wet towel over head

Tear-gassing

Buried alive

Drowning

Submerge in water

Gagging

Assault (Synonym-Strike with an object)

Batoning

Beat (Synonyms-hit/batter) with a sharp object concealed in a cloth

Hacking

Sjambok

Stab (Synonym-cut/wound/gore)

Stoning

Cane

Flog (Synonym-whip/thrash/lash)

Beating with a rifle

Pistol whipping

Assault on Specific Parts of the Body

Beating on the soles of the feet

Beating pregnant women on the stomach

Clapping (Synonyms-whack/bang) on ears with both hands

Kaffir Klap (cheek)

Banging the head against a wall

Scalping (removal of hair from scalp with knife)

Removal of nails

Beating

Slapping (Synonyms-spank/thump/bump/strike/knock)

Kicking (Synonyms-boot/stomp)

Punching

Breaking (Synonyms-fracturing/crack/shattering/snapping) of bones

Assault Using vehicles

Dragged (Synonym-pull) behind a vehicle

Attached (Synonym-fastened) onto a moving vehicle

Thrown (Synonym-chuck) out of moving trains / taxis

Driven over

Rough ride

Put in boot

Abduction (Synonym-Kidnapping/ Apprehend/ Capture/Seize/Catch)

Disappearance

Bombing (Explode)

Land mine

Grenade

Mortar / shell

Hand grenade

Explosive / bomb

Booby trap bombs

Letter bombs

Car bomb

Burns (Synonym-scorch)

Chemicals

Cigarettes

Boiling water

Live fire / burning sticks

Necklacing

Arson

Deliberate (Synonyms-Premeditated/Planned spreading of disease) Psychological -Torture (Synonym/Torment/Pain/Anguish /Suffering/Agony/Tribulation/and Ill-treatment) - excludes Threats.

Verbal abuse (Synonym-Mistreatment/Indignity/Violation/Insult/Offence/

Malign/Denounce/Defame/Misuse/Deceive/Subvert/Mishandle/Betray/

Unjust/Crime/Condemnation/Censure/Defamation)

Simulated execution

False and alarming information / disinformation

Detention of children and family members to extract information

Russian Roulette (Gun against the head with one bullet left)

Suspension (Synonyms-Hang/Dangle) from a great height/moving vehicle

Members of family forced to watch or participate in torture

Solitary confinement

Surveillance (Synonym-Watch)

Threatening acts e.g. brandishing guns

Dismissal from employment as a result of political affiliation

Harassment

Threats (Synonyms-Coercion/Intimidation/Warning)

Against the targeted person

Against a family member of the targeted person

Against a colleague or work associate of the targeted person

Against a friend of the targeted person

Against someone working on behalf of the targeted person e.g. lawyer, human rights worker

Threats against children

Verbal threats

Deprivation (Synonym-Loss)

Deprivation of medical attention, treatment

Deprivation of food and/or water

Deprivation of sleep

Deprivation of sanitary facilities

Denial of privacy

Overcrowding (Synonyms-Packed/Strafed/Crammed/Filled)

Placed in isolation

(Synonyms-Seclusion/Solitude/Isolation/Aloneness/Separation

Confinement (Synonyms-Detention/Incarceration) in a small space

Degradation (Synonym-Shame/Embarrassment/Abasement/Humiliation)

Deprivation (Synonym-Loss of personal hygiene)

Denial (Synonyms-Refusal/Reject) of toilet facilities

Nakedness

Abuse with excrement

Denial of privacy

Derogatory (Synonym-Disparaging/Rude) language

Destruction (Synonyms-Damage/Ruin/Vandalize/Smash/Devastate/Wreck/Raze) of property

Destruction of homes/offices/schools/buildings/vehicles/personal property/arson

Extortion (Synonyms-Blackmail/Coercion/Ransom/Bribe/Pay-off

Theft (Synonyms-Pillage/Plunder/Rob/Root)

Poisoning (Synonyms-Contaminate/Pollute/Infect)

Poisoning of food

Poisoning of clothing

Intravenous poisoning

Murder (Synonyms-Liquidation/Permanent removal/Annihilation/Carnage/Manslaughter/Slay/Homicide

Assassination

Extra-judicial/illegal unlawful execution

Hanging

Electrocution

Ritual murder

Witchcraft

Use of animals

Sexual Molestation (Synonyms-Mistreatment/Violation/Abuse) and Rape

Forced performance of sexual acts other than rape

Introduction of objects into the rectum/vagina

Rape by someone of the opposite sex

Rape by someone of the same sex

Gang rape

Physical assault and touching

Body searching by members of the opposite sex

Pumping water into the uterus

Abuse with body fluids

Abuse with animals

Assault on genitals

Suspension of weights from the testicles

Imprisonment (Synonyms-Detention/Locking up/Confinement/Captivity/ Arrest/Incarceration)

Banning

Banishment

House arrest

Forced (Synonyms-Bound/Compelled/Obliged/Postures) position -

Physical Stress (Duress/Pressure/Force/Strain)

Suspension: hanging the victim by arms, legs, etc.

Forced exercise

Excessive exercise

Forced stationary posture - standing, kneeling, sitting, standing on two bricks

Forced labour

Stretching of limbs and trunk

Helicopterð= - hanging the victim from the stick between knees and arms bound

tightly together

Stopping of blood flow

Forced carrying of heavy weights

Buried alive

Stress to the Senses

Loud noises or music

Screams and voices

Powerful lights

Blindfolding

Exposure to extreme heat or cold

Bound or tied up

Complete immobilization

Overcrowding

Confined to small space

Bad smells

Staged accidents / suicide

Forced jumping or being thrown from heights

Car sabotage

Use of drugs

to effect psychological damage

to effect physical damage

Torture as a witness

Victim is forced to watch or listen to the torture of others

Victim is forced to participate in the torture / assault of others

Electric Shock

Electric shock to the genitals

Electric shock body - toes and fingers, etc

Shooting

Random shooting

Rubber bullets

Live ammunition

Birdshot

Buckshot

Capital Punishment

Post Mortem - Violation after death

Mutilation

Decapitation

Disembowelment

Improper burial - burial in a shallow grave

Blowing up bodies or body parts

Burn or braai a body

Removal of body parts

Appendix 5

Completed Data Processors’ Coder’s Sheet

As described in the section, Coding Using the Data Processors’ Coder’s Sheet, the data processors coded acts of violence in chronological order.

continues in the next block

continues in the next block

continues in the next block

continues in the next block

Appendix 6

A TRC Statement

Below is the full complete statement made by an HRV victim.2

The aim of a Gross Violation of Human Rights Statement is to try and gather as much information as possible about the gross violations of human rights suffered by South Africans between 1 March 1960 and 5 May 1994. The questions that form the basis of the STATEMENT are designed to make explicit the circumstances (broader context), the nature (type) and the consequences of the violations.

What are "gross human rights violations"?

These are serious human rights violation like the killing of people, the kidnapping of people, torture, or the severe ill treatment of people.

Who are victims of gross human rights violations?

Victims of gross human rights violations are people who are killed, abducted, tortured or severely ill-treated; and family members or dependants of a person who was killed or who disappeared.

What happens to your statement?

Your statement will be recorded on the computer and you will be given a reference number (JB04500/01GTSOW). The HRC Committee will carefully consider your statement. You might be asked to come to a public hearing to talk about your case. The Committee will then decide if you qualify as a victim in terms of the law that set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It will send you a letter telling you whether or not you qualify.

If the Committee on Human Rights Violations finds that you are a victim, it will include your case in the report it sends to the Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation. The Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation will look at all the cases sent to it.

Ms. Dudu Chili voluntarily gave the following statement to me and can be contacted at 27 11 331-3719 (W) and 27 11 462-7240 (H).

Ms. Dudu Chili’s statement

I, Dudu Chili, declare under oath in English that I am a female aged 54 years, ID number 411028 0191 084, and residing at number 7556 Maseko Street, Orlando West, P.O. Orlando 1804, Soweto in the district of Johannesburg.

I wish to state that on the 28^th February 1989 my house, at Orlando West in Soweto, was bombed by the Mandela United Football Club (MUFC) and that I lost everything in it. My family and I were left with what we were wearing.

I lost my niece – Finkie Msomi - who was thirteen years old. Finki, who was in my bedroom, was shot in the head with an AK47 and died on the spot. Thereafter petrol bombs were hurled into my house and it was burnt down. My cousin Barbara Chili was also burnt while trying to save Finki from the fire. Barbara suffered third degrees burns on her waist. Finki’s sister, Ntombenhle Msomi, was slightly burnt on the foot.

Sometime in 1986, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela formed the Mandela United Football Club. She demanded that all the youth in our area, Orlando West, should join her club. Those who refused were labeled sell-outs and hunted down to be killed. Since my son, Sibusiso Chili, refused membership of the club, he became a target and I tried to intervene to protect my son. I approached my cousin, Matilda Dlamini, to plead with the MUFC to spare my son’s life. Matilda, a long-standing best friend of Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, temporarily succeeded. Matilda was married to Mosetlha. Mosetlha’s daughter was married to President Mandela’s son, Makgatho.

Two years later, in 1989, the hunting down of Sibusiso started again. A former member of the MUFC, Lerotodi Ikaneng, had deserted the club. No one was allowed to leave the team. Lerotodi was later caught and had his throat cut with garden shears by Jerry Richardson – the former MUFC coach. Lerotodi survived. Some months later after this incident, Lerotodi pointed out one of his assailants to Sibusiso. Lerotodi informed Sibusiso that this man had held him (Lerotodi) down while Jerry Richardson cut his throat. Sibusiso then suggested to Lerotodi that they approach this man and asked him to accompany them to my house to explain why they tried to kill Lerotodi. The man agreed. At that time, I was highly involved with the youth in Orlando West. Since it was late at night, I promised to attend to the matter the following day and asked this man to spend the night at my place. He agreed and slept with Sibusiso and the other boys. That night, I phoned Mrs. Sisulu to come and help to solve this problem. Mrs. Sisulu agreed and contacted the other leaders in the area.

The next day I phoned a Mr. Ndo, who was the co-president with Mrs. Sisulu, to attend the meeting. I also phoned a Mr. Steward Ngwenya who was a member of the Soweto Civic and he promised to attend.

Whilst waiting for the above civic leaders to come, the young assailant requested to go home to wash and changed into fresh clothing. He came back and was questioned on the motive to kill Lerotodi and on the harassment of other youths that were not affiliated to the MUFC. He was also asked why he was not attending school. The young man regretted his acts in the attempted murder of Lerotodi and left.

I heard that some youths that were members of the MUFC reported to Winnie Madikizela-Mandela that they saw this young man in the company of Sibusiso at my house. Lerotodi’s assailant was summoned to appear before Winnie Madikizela-Mandela and her daughter, Zinzi Mandela, to explain his visit to my house. In that meeting a decision was taken to eliminate i.e. to kill Lerotodi and Sibusiso because they have become "too problematic". Some MUFC members were mandated to "carry out the order". The late Maxwell Madondo and the self-exiled Katiza Cebekulu were part of the group entrusted with the task to kill Sibusiso and Lerotodi. Katiza Cebekulu was also asked to point out Sibusiso to the other members because they did not know him.

Immediately after the meeting, Dodo, a member of the MUFC club, rushed to both Lerotodi’s place and my house to warn us of the impending attack. On hearing this, I immediately called Alfred Msomi – Finki’s father – who lived, at the back house opposite to mine. Dodo immediately left the township fearing for his life for alerting both the Lerotodi’s and I about the decision to kill our sons.

The following day I was surprised to see my house being strategically guarded by people wearing scarves and balaclavas. I informed Finki that these people were armed and apparently their mission was to attack the house and kill Sibusiso. Sibusiso and his brothers had all gone into hiding after being alerted by Dodo. This guarding of the house continued for several days – 24 hours a day. These MUFC members apparently were not aware that we already knew of the attack.

I wish to point out that when the hunting down of both boys started, I had just arrived from London. I had gone there to attend an anti-apartheid movement conference at Sherfield. There was a concern shown by Winnie Madikizela-Mandela on my trip. I heard that she thought I had gone to London to report her about the Stompie Sepei affair to the ANC leadership and other anti-apartheid movements (i.e. the UDF, the Civic, the youth and the church leaders). Stompie Sepei – a young activist from the Free State - had been kidnapped and killed the previous December in 1988. Stompie and three other youth – Kenny Kgase, Gabriel Megoe and another – had been kidnapped from the Methodist manse under Rev. Paul Verryn and taken to Winnie Madikizela-Mandela’s house in Diepkloof. The remaining youth at the manse reported the matter to me since Rev. Paul Verryn was on holiday. I was the first person to hear of the kidnapping. This trip annoyed Winnie Madikizela-Mandela and I also became her target.

During the change of guards, my sons would sneak home to wash, change clothing and rush back to their different hideouts. We too, had our spies watching the changing of shifts and would immediately notify Sibusiso and others. One day Sisusiso was on his way home when he met three of the MUFC members and a fight ensued. Immediately the word went out in the township that some MUFC members had caught up with Sibusiso. The township youth ran to Sibusiso’s rescue. One the three MUFC members, Maxwell Madondo, was clubbed and stoned to death. The other two escaped and reported the killing of Maxwell to Winnie Madikizela-Mandela. Dempsey of the South African police arrested me. First Dempsey said they were going to question me about my trip to London. Dempsey wanted to know which ANC members did I meet and talked to. When they could not extract this information from me, I was charged with the murder of Maxwell Madondo. When Maxwell was killed, I was in my house. I was detained for a week and my letters were confiscated. My house was bombed the same day I was arrested. The following day after my arrest, Dempsey took me home in a police car. On our way, I read a poster stating in bold "Thirteen-year old girl dies". It never occurred to me that this girl was my niece, Finki. On arrival at my place, I found my house destroyed by fire. Everything was completely gutted. All our belongings – furniture, clothing, etc. – were burnt. Nothing was left except for the clothes we were wearing.

The police did not allow my neighbors to speak to me. My sisters informed me that my boys were safe but that my niece Finki had died and that my sister Barbara had burnt her foot and was in hospital. She hurt herself while trying to drag the body of Finki from the fire. I was taken to Kliptown police station. During the court proceeding I was informed by the prosecutor that the charge against me was withdrawn.

In conclusion I wish to state that Winnie Madikizela-Mandela was behind all the unfortunate happenings both in Orlando West and at my home. She was in charge of the MUFC and the members of this club took orders from her. She controlled the issuing of guns and ammunition. One of the MUFC members – Charles "Bobo" Zwane - is serving a life sentence. Most of the MUFC members refused to implicate her since they feared for their lives.

Processing a TRC statement:

Extract all personal details from the statement for capturing and check to see whether these people are already on the database. We should avoid registering people more than once. We must also check that they are accurately captured.

DEPONENT / VICTIM

VICTIMS/WITNESSES:3

VICTIM

WITNESSES:

PERPETRATORS4

Then capture the following:

Katiza Cebekhulu, a former Mandela United Football Club member who is now in London, is alleged to have left the country before the Winnie Madikizela-Mandela trial in 1991, in which he was a co-accused in the Stompie Sepei trial.

Maxwell Madondo, a cook at the Winnie Madikizela-Mandela house and a member of the Mandela Football Club, was killed when Sibusiso Chili dropped a rock on his head in February 1992.

Chili’s defense was that he has acted in self-defense and that Madondo was part of a hit-squad of three Football Club members who had instructions to kill him. In court two of the three were named as Madondo and "Killer". The third was not named.

However, a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) program later named the third person as Cebekhulu and interviewed him. He said that at a meeting at the offices of Winnie Mandela, it had been decided that Sibusiso Chili and another Football Club member, Lerotodi Ikaneng, should be killed.

The hit-squad was to have killed five youths who were accused of selling out to the police, but instead Madondo was killed and six youth stood trial. Police later found the hit-list with five names at the home of Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, where the Football Club members were living.

According to the BBC, "the most extraordinary development came near the end of the trial – an incident that surprisingly went unreported by the South African media. The defense and prosecution advocates stepped outside the courtroom to confer. The defense said they would call as witness the third unnamed youth who had been with Madondo just before he was killed." The BBC said they had learnt that this youth was Katiza Cebekhulu and he had made a statement for the defense confirming there had been a meeting in Winnie Madikizel-Mandela’s office in Orlando West, at which it had been decided that Chili and Ikaneng would be killed.

He told the lawyers that the meeting had been chaired by Winnie Madikizel-Mandela and that Zinzi Mandela and Jerry Richardson were present. He named others who were there.

After conferring with the defense, the State read the following statement into the court record:

"The admission the State will make is that the deceased Maxwell Madondo was a member of the Mandela Football Club and that a decision was made by Mrs. Mandela and the football club to kill accused no. 1 (Ikaneng) and no. 6 (Chili). But the witness, m’lord, whose name I will not mention now, together with "Killer" and the deceased, was instructed and went out to kill accused no. 1 and no. 6. That the person known as "Killer" was in possession of a firearm was to carry out the mandated decision."

Chili was the only one found guilty and he was sentenced to one year’s jail. However, Jerry Richardson, who was sentenced to death – later commuted to life – has made statement to the TRC and he will be able to confirm or deny Katiza’s allegations.

Chili’s mother, Dudu Chili, told the BBC that she had worked with Albertina Sisulu to assist boys to escape from Winnie Madikizela-Mandela’s home. She said she had been warned that a decision had been taken to kill her son and she had warned him. Dudu Chili was one of seven originally charged with Madondo’s murder. She was released on bail on condition that she stayed away from Soweto for her own safety, and was discharged before the trial began. Her house was, however, burnt down allegedly by Football Club members and her 11-year-old niece was shot and burnt to death.

The summaries - read the entire case through highlighting the names of people mentioned and make a short summary of the statement. It should include ‘WHO did WHAT to WHOM, WHEN, WHERE and WHY’. Use names of victims and perpetrators.

The deponent, Dudu Chili, claims that her niece, Finkie Msomi was killed by a bomb and a bullet shot on the 28^th of February 1989 at Maseko Street in Orlando West. Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, her daughter Zinzi Mandela and other members of the Mandela Football United Club are implicated in this act of human rights violation. The deponent further claims that Madikizela-Mandela and the MUFB members had begrudged her sons for refusing to join the club. They were labeled sellouts. The person who had been targeted for murder was her son, Sibusiso Chili, who narrowly escaped death after a mob, including Sibusiso, killed one of the assailants in the name of Madondo in self-defense. Prior to these attacks, Lerotodi Ikaneng, another targeted youth, had also escaped death after an attempt to murder him by cutting his throat. Ikaneng had sinned by pulling out of the club. Chili asserts that they were thought to be dangerous because they had all the information about the activities of the club.

(Give all known reference numbers of statements – HRV and amnesty - related to this case).

Refer: JB04520/01GTSOW, JB04637/01GTSOW, JB04519/01GTSOW, JB05408/01GTSO, JB05194/01GTSOW, JB05714/01GTSOW, JB03657/02PS, JB05407/01MPNEL, JB05262/03NW, JB05845/01GTSOW, JB05846/01GTSOW, AM2422/86, AM3690/96, AM6400/97, AM6401/97, AM6402/97, AM7351/97, AM7511/97, KZN/MP/017/BL.

Extract as many acts, victims, witnesses and perpetrators as possible.

ACTS – Ensure that you use the controlled language when describing an event. For every description consult the controlled language and ensure that a word in bold is used. When multiple injuries led to a death i.e. a person was bombed, shot and burnt, it is unclear which act was the cause of death. State all the above three acts under Severe Ill-treatment and add a fourth under Killing, thus Killing / Unknown.

VICTIMS – Write ‘DECEASED’ or ‘DISAPPEARED’ in brackets for all victims killed or disappeared respectively.

PERPETRATORS – The person who performed the act, people who gave orders or people who were involved in the conceptualization of the act.

WITNESSES – Two categories of witnesses. Those who actually saw the event and those who may not have seen it but can corroborate it or give more information.

ACTS FROM THE ABOVE STATEMENT5

Act 1

PERPETRATORS

Act 6

PERPETRATORS:

WITNESSES:

Act 13

PERPETRATORS:

WITNESSES:

Documentation and Statements.

Clearly indicate all attached documents. Further, indicate if the whereabouts of other documents are mentioned, e.g. if the death certificate is at home or with a lawyer. This could assist with the low level corroboration.

Consequences of the experience for the victim & expectations.

Briefly state whether the violation caused any permanent physical injuries or left any emotional suffering of pain. Describe the nature of the injury, what treatment was received for the injury and state the present physical health.

Mention the exact expectation the person would like from the TRC e.g. school bursaries, pension, gravestone erected, national monument with all the names, accommodation, etc. Are these at the person or national level – capture both.

Relations

Relate from the deponent’s side i.e. from Dudu Chili.

Biographies

Capture the persons’ political party, union, community involvement, etc.

A letter of acknowledgement.

The following letter is sent to each deponent / victim immediately after his / her statement has been processed.

(letter head)

Reference No.: JB04500/01GTSOW

Ms. Dudu Chili

P.O. Box 925,

Johannesburg,

2000

Gauteng

16th September 1998

Dear Ms. Chili,

Re: Statement submitted to the Human Rights Violation Committee

We would like to thank you for making a statement to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We apologize for the long delay in responding and ask for your understanding in this regard.

The Human Rights Violation Committee of the Commission is in the process of determining whether or not you or the persons mentioned in your statement are victims of gross violations of human rights as defined by its mandate. You will be notified of our finding by no later than 31st March 1998.

When a finding has been made, those who were found to be victims will be referred to the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee. This committee will send these victims a Reparation Application form in due course. The Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee will the make recommendations to the State President on how the government should help those victims found to have suffered gross violations of human rights.

Your willingness to trust the Commission with your memories will assist us to find out the truth about South Africa’s past and will help bring about the healing that you and our country need.

Thank you very much for volunteering to be part of the process of healing and reconciliation in our country.

May you be blessed.

Yours sincerely,

The Most Reverend Desmond Mpilo Tutu

Chairperson

Structure of the Reference Number

JB04500/01GTSOW

Other Examples

JB00099/01ERKWA

JB01238/03VT

JB04211/03WR

JB03331/02PS

JB04100/02NW

Appendix 7

Data Processing User Guide

This is the text of the Data Processing User Guide discussed in the section, TRC System User Guide. It is complete except for certain omissions and changes made to save space. This guide was used primarily in the training of data processors.

TRC Main Menu - After logging into the TRC database you will enter the Main Menu screen. From this menu you can run any of TRC modules available to you.

Source Menu

Accesses all modules relating to GHRV statements, amnesty applications and any other sources of information.

Note: To save space, we list all field names appearing on screens in the left to right order in which they appear on the actual screen.

Source Details

Once a source document has been registered and all necessary processing has taken place, details regarding the HRV, amnesty application are entered. All the information entered at registration time will appear on the first page.

The second page of the Source Details module allows for the capturing of details of specific acts of human rights violations, which appear in the source document (see Figure 1, above). Any number of perpetrators or witnesses can be captured for a single act.

Person Details

Accesses all modules relating to people referenced within the system, including their relations and biographies.

Person Details Screen

Any person referenced anywhere within the system need only be captured once. This module allows for the capturing and querying of detailed information concerning a person. The Person ID is system assigned when the record is saved in the database. The only other required field is the person’s surname. This field may also be used as descriptor if nothing specific is known about the person. The more detailed the information entered here, the more powerful the analysis and research that may be done on it at a later stage.

The system also provides for the capturing of aliases and nicknames. It also allows for the logging of multiple biographical episodes or periods for each person stored in the database. This then serves for the building up of a political curriculum vita or any other biographical image of interest for each individual person referenced within the system. If a person is deceased or disappeared, indicate by writing (DECEASED) or (DISAPPEARED) in brackets after the surname.

Registration Menu

Register Source Document

Once an interview has been conducted or an amnesty application has been received, this module is used to register the source information within the TRC system. The reference number assigned to this source must be entered in the appropriate field and all other necessary information about the source provided.

Starting off:

Check that registration is correct.

Read entire case through from beginning to end before you start capturing.

Highlight the names of people mentioned in the case. Determine whether they are victims, perpetrators or witnesses. People who do not seem to fit into any category should be classified as witnesses (district surgeons, lawyers, etc.).

Capture the names of the people mentioned in the case, first checking whether they exist on the database. However, be careful not to deduce links that are not 100% clear. That is, do not assume that two identical names are for the same person. Put as many details as possible into the Person Details screen for each person and check that they are accurately captured. Corrections should be made and highlighted, especially with ID numbers. If you have no details, then at the very least put a general value in the address, i.e., the province field. Check for ages, especially of the victims. Every key person mentioned in the statement must be given a number - Person ID.

Write the person numbers of all victims/perpetrators/witnesses next to their names in the statement. Use the coder’s sheet.

Call up the case number - Reference Number - on the Source Details screen.

Check that the right deponent is linked to the case number. The Documentation Officer does (this linkage at registration time).

Summaries

Observe the following two mnemonics in your summaries:

What, Where, When, Who, Why & How - the five wives and a husband.

Accurate, Clear & Concise.

The summary should be as objective as possible and contain facts found in the statement. This is necessary because each statement submitted needs to be listed in the Final Report.

Three key elements which should appear in the summaries in order of writing:

What happened (Two people died and two were injured in an attack on a house in Soweto in 1990).

Contextual remarks (The day before, there had been an Inkatha rally).

What happened afterwards (People were taken to Chris Hani Baragwanath hospital by ambulance and private car. The deponent laid a charge with the Jabulani police).

In the summary, include the names of deponent and victim(s) and their relationship to each other and what happened, when, where, why and how it happened. Include the age of victim(s) if available. Give an indication of the affiliation of victim(s) and alleged perpetrator(s). Be sensitive when mentioning accusations made by anybody. Use phrases such as "alleged perpetrator or perpetrators," and "are believed to be." If the perpetrator is identified, then refer to him as "named," or "identified." Construct sentences carefully: "they’s" and "he’s" in a sentence without names can be confusing. The summary must give some indication of the political motive (if this is clear from the organization of the victim and perpetrator and that would be sufficient). Be brief.

Fill in the "Date captured" and put your name, i.e., your person number in the fields for "Processed by" and "Captured by".

The "Notes" field is for the following type of comments: (a) reference to other statements, (b) victim has appeared in a hearing, (c) an indication that the statement was not clear which perpetrator was linked to which violation and (d) an indication that the statement was confusing or there were discrepancies with dates, etc. This is where we need to capture any observation which we may have made, such as the fact that it is linked to Boipatong massacre, Trustfeed massacre, etc. It is NOT for the data processor to comment on whether or not you think this is a gross violation of human rights - that is up to the HRV Committee to decide.

Save your work.

Move to the next screen for the violations.

Capturing the violations:

Refer to Appendix 5 (Completed Coder’s Sheet).

Call up the victim - by "person number"- under the acts.

Log the "date" of the violation. You need at least the year. If no date is given, you might be able to work it out from checking the TRC chronologies and/or checking related statements. If you do this, then state it in the "Notes" field. If you cannot work out the date, log the year as 00 and put an explanation in the "Notes" field.

Log the "town" where the violation happened. If this is not specified but from the context seems to be the hometown of the victim, then use this. You can usually work this out from the context of the statement. Often the victim’s hometown is also the deponent’s hometown. If you cannot work it out, put it as "Unknown". Put a note in the "Notes" field if the town was not specified.

Add the "Description of place." Give whatever detail possible, e.g., "At home, White City, Soweto" or "at John Vorster Police station" or "open ground next to the main road through Duncan Village." This is essential in order for the researchers to code properly for the "location."

Add the "Description of violation." This is the detailed free text area that was left out of the summary.

You do not have to repeat any information captured in other areas, such as who did it or where it was done. This area is crucial for capturing any information concerning the act not captured elsewhere. In essence you need to capture what happened, what was used, where on their body they were injured, how many times, etc. An example is: "jumped out of window." Remember to specify if a woman was pregnant or miscarried or if a killing was an assassination.

Use the coding sheet definitions as a guide and include the necessary keywords. You need to ensure that you are all using the controlled language for description of events. For every description consult the controlled language and ensure that a word in bold face is used, i.e., use the "catch phrases." This is to ensure that at a later stage searches can be made on the free text searching through key words from the controlled language. This should not just be one word but it must be a description of what happened. .

Add the Outcome and consequences. Here you capture all mental and physical injuries, such as:

If they are not able to work as a result of their violation. This is not to be confused with if they lost their job because of discrimination, or absenteeism whilst in detention, etc. These two fall under Associated Violation.

If they lost any benefits which they should have received. Double check with the R & R" (Reparation and Rehabilitation) form and "Further Question" for this information as well.

If any friends or relatives, including the deponent have been affected, this needs to be captured here as well.

State anything that happened immediately after the event. Examples: "fled the area," "death," "released after seven (7) weeks detention," or "dies four (4) days later as a result of injuries," or "permanently disabled and died of complications five (5) years later," or "signed a confession after two (2) hours torture and subsequently convicted on arson charges." If outcome is not specified under that section of the statement you can often pick it up somewhere else in the statement. In cases of incarceration, state the length of time involved, not just the date of arrest.

This needs to be captured in a short, concise way.

Add the "HRV category." See coding sheet as a guide for this. Here you select one of the following: Killing, Attempted Killing, Torture, Severe Ill-treatment, Disappearance, Associated Violation, Other, and Unknown.

Add the "HRV type". See the coding sheet. Here you select one of the 90 codes for acts. These codes were kept close to words so that they are easier to remember but at the same time they can only have eight characters. Sometimes the acts have come out with shortened words.

Add the Reason for violation." This is the immediate reason for that specific violation - thus the "State of Emergency" is inappropriate.

Here you need to state why the person was violated. You are trying to capture what motivated the perpetrator to commit that specific act. For example: "the victim belonged to a particular political party," "he was a shop steward," "shot after throwing stones at the police," "beaten because he was regarded as a police informer," "tear-gassed because he was part of the march," "tortured to force her to make a statement implicating someone else," etc.

It is very important that you do not presume anything here. You must only capture reasons which are stated in the deponent’s statement. Do not assume. If it is left blank, assume that no reason was stated.

You do not capture here that they were innocent bystanders, for instance. This is not part of the reason why they were violated. This is captured under circumstances.

Add the "Political context" if you are able to do this. The political context has two aspects to it. It can include both the national political context, e.g., there was political conflict, a national stay-away, etc. The second aspect which should be included is if what the person was doing at the time is relevant, e.g., if the person had recently returned from exile, if they were attending a night vigil, etc. Sometimes none of this information is available, just indicate that it is not stated. Be careful that if the context is different for different acts in the same statement that you clearly state two different contexts. For example: a person may have been in a march, beaten up and imprisoned and whilst in prison they are tortured. These two acts have different direct contexts and this needs to be indicated. You must never assume a political context even if you are aware that this act was part of the June 16 Soweto riots. If the deponent does not mention this, you cannot put it into the coding but add a comment on the "Note" field. Usually the deponent provides the political context either under that question in the statement or in some other part of the statement.

Add the "Victim age" if possible. This is the age at the time of the violation. Please check the dates if the deponent has supplied the age at the time. You can do this by checking the date of birth and the date of the incident where both are supplied. Please note that deponents often make mistakes on the date of the time of the incident. If there is a discrepancy between your addition - based on the date of birth and the date of the incident - and the deponent’s version, then go with your addition but put a note in the "Notes" field about the discrepancy.

Organization number and name. If the deponent refers to more than one organization, then use this to refer to the main organization or to the organizations which resulted in him/her being attacked. Remember that some organizations – resident’s associations - were affiliates to others like the UDF. Use the main organization – UDF—in this case. We need the organization which the victim belonged to at the time of the violation.

Event number and name. This is used by researchers for the research coding. You can fill it in from the main list of events if it is clearly part of that event. Do not add events without consulting with the researchers. It is up to the researchers to create new events.

Save your work.

Victims:

In the Surname field, please write "DECEASED" or "DISAPPEARED" in brackets for all victims killed or disappeared respectively.

Witnesses and Perpetrators:

In order to classify someone as a perpetrator, you do not take only the person who actually pulled the trigger, for instance. If the names of people who gave the order or who were involved in the conceptualization of the act are given, they are all captured as perpetrators.

The witnesses and the perpetrators are linked to the specific violation. So, for each violation you must add appropriate witnesses and perpetrators in the fields below the acts. Be careful not to put wrong witnesses and perpetrators onto acts.

Use the perpetrator "notes" field for any additional information.

Remember that there are two categories of witnesses: those who actually saw the event and those who may not have seen it but can corroborate it, give more information, etc. You need to indicate (Yes/No) whether or not they saw it. Examples are: "saw the victim shot" or "did not witness the shooting but saw the victim’s wounds the day after" or "was the doctor who attended to the victim" or "acted as the deponent’s lawyer," etc.

Ensure that it is possible to understand the context around the witnesses and perpetrators - it is not sufficient to just log the names onto the acts without explaining.

If a person fills in a statement himself/herself, that person is registered as the deponent. If someone assists a deponent to fill in a statement the person who assisted should be mentioned in Documentation below. At the same time not every single person named in the statement needs to be extracted, e.g., if the deponent went to the morgue and found the deceased victim, and while there bumped into a friend "X," "X" does not have to be captured as a witness.

If there is not much information on the perpetrators, just put what you have, e.g., SAP.

Save your work

Move to the next screen for details of documentation.

Documentation

Record documentation in the field marked "Statements made & other documents or items provided."

Only record documentation which the TRC actually has in possession and NOT documentation which we would like to have.

Mark whether or not the documents are attached.

If the items are too bulky to attach to the file, e.g., X-rays or a large file annexure, DO NOT indicate that the items are attached. State clearly - in the details field - that the TRC is in possession of the items but that they are filed elsewhere.

Include dates of documents

Use the attached list as a guide for how to list documents.

Save your work.

Move to the next screen for capturing Expectation & Consequences.

Examples of type of documentation

Expectation & Consequences

Type the number of the question on the TRC statement onto the first column ("question"), i.e., 7.1 or 7.2 or 7.3

Then move to "Reply" and write in the answer in the free text (for example, "Bursaries for two school-age children").

You cannot have more that one line per question number (i.e., the database won’t accept the same question number being used more than once). This means you have to put all the replies to one question in one line (e.g., "Bursaries for two school-age children and information about incident"). Be brief.

Remember that the database will be set to a current form of the TRC statement - if you are capturing a different version of the statement, then the answers will be in different fields.

Do the same with consequences

If there are no answers given to the Expectations & Consequences questions, then do not fill them in on the database - just fill in the ones that have information.

Save your work.

Reparation & Rehabilitation (R & R) coding:

The R & R coding was treated differently by the four regions. In our region one data processor was appointed to access the R & R screens of the database and capture the relevant code for that information.

Click on R & R sub-menu at the top of the screen and then choose R & R coding.

Click on the query button and then type the number of the case you were working on; press F8 to call it up.

Go to code field and call up the list of codes (off the list of icons on the left side). Choose the code which suits the answer for 7.10

Go to the question field and scroll down to the next question number (7.20). Then move to the code field again, call up the list of codes and choose the appropriate code.

Repeat this for question 7.30

Remember that different protocols will have different question numbers.

Save your work.

Vetting – Quality control

Checking of coding errors. This was done in different ways. At the end of each day, each data processor would hand over the statements s/he processed that day. I would take one or two statements from s/he pile and re-process them comparing the victims, the acts of violations, the witnesses, perpetrators, etc., that have been extracted. I would mark all the errors in red and send the statement for re-processing. The other way is to use peer evaluation, where data processors would exchange statements and check each other’s errors. Also the corroborators, researchers, investigators and commissioners would in a way help to check errors when doing their work.

STANDARDIZATION

To maintain consistency within the regions and among the data processors themselves, a document on standardization was produced and circulated to all people concerned. One of the most important issues is the importance of extracting all the acts from the statement, including the Associated Violations.

General issues:

Use small caps:, e.g., summary, description of violation, outcomes, notes, etc.

I.D. numbers - divide them as they are recorded, e.g., 19860214 5449 088

Phone numbers - write the codes in brackets, i.e., (011) 333-6330

Titles - if not stated, call all men "Mr." and all women "Ms."

General Comment:

A concise, short summary/overview of the full statement.

If the case is linked to any other statement list those reference numbers.

If the case is linked to any major events such as Boiphatong Massacre, mention this.

Comments from different units - data processors, HRV committee, researchers, investigators, etc. First state what unit the comment is from and then make the comment.

Further Comments:

State any particulars which are only pertinent to that particular act within the statement. It is not general to the whole statement but rather specific to that act, and therefore, has not been captured by the general comment or in any other place.

Circumstances:

Here you paint the broad picture of what was happening in the community at the time of the event. You paint the broad community context, such as violence between particular political groups, school boycotts, stay-aways, etc.

This also where you capture the individual activities, for instance on their way home from school, participating in a march, only doing her/his washing, watching from his doorway, walking to the shops, etc.

Biographies:

This is where we need to be capturing peoples’ political/union/community involvement, etc. This needs to be used for all people captured, if we have the information.

Relations:

We need to be relating from the deponent, i.e., the victim is a young boy, the deponent is his mother and the witness his sister, etc.

References

Ball, Patrick, 1996. Who Did What to Whom? Planning and Implementing a Large Scale Human Rights Data Project. Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Ball, Patrick, Ricardo Cifuentes, Judith Dueck, Romilly Gregory, Daniel Salcedo, and Carlos Saldarriaga. 1994. A Definition of Database Design Standards for Human Rights Agencies. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science and Human Rights Information and Documentation Systems International.

1 Patrick Ball of the American Association for the Advancement of Science acted as methodological advisor to the TRC and led the database development group. The "who did what to whom?" model is outlined in (Ball et. al., 1994) and (Ball, 1996).

2 In some cases of multiple similar entities (e.g., perpetrators, witnesses), where it does not affect under-standing, we have omitted one or more entities.

3 Number 5 omitted for space reasons.

4 Perpetrators numbers 5, 6, and 7 omitted to save space.

5 Thirteen acts were defined based on this statement. We show only Acts 1, 6, and 13.

Science and Human Rights Program

Copyright © 2000