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

Chapter 4

The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Database Representation

Gerald O’Sullivan

Introduction

The work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was dominated by information processing. By the time the Human Rights Violations Committee of the TRC had completed its work, it had gathered 21,298 statements, containing 37,672 gross violations of human rights. The Amnesty Committee of the TRC received a total of 7,127 applications for amnesty. At this time (mid-1999), the work of the Amnesty Committee is not complete, so the total number of violations gathered by the amnesty process is not known, but could ultimately be in excess of 10,000.

The anticipated volume and complexity of the information was such that the Commission decided to set up a wide-area network and develop its own database to process the data. As it turned out, the network and database comprised the backbone of the organization, structuring its work in a systematic way. The end result is a rich, complex, logically disaggregated set of corroborated data which enables researchers to make powerful statements about human rights violations.

Information technology in South Africa is sophisticated despite South Africa’s violent past, under-developed economy and years of sanctions. It has become more so in the years since the ban on liberation movements in 1990 was removed. With the necessary hardware, software and skills available, the TRC was able to rapidly build a powerful electronic infrastructure.

In this paper, I describe the TRC’s experience of putting together this electronic infrastructure. I will describe 1) the basic network structure, 2) the organizational structure of the TRC, 3) the information flow by which the data was loaded onto the database, 4) the logical model of the database and finally 5) give some examples of the analytical results that such a database model provides. In the appendices, I give the complete statement used to gather data and the coding frame.

The editors excerpted and summarized lessons learned for this chapter and for Chapter 3. This section appears as Appendix 3.

The Basic Network Structure

The local area networks

The TRC had four regional offices, based in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban and East London. Each of the offices had a local area network (LAN) consisting of a number of workstations and heavy-duty printers connected together by an Ethernet network with a Windows NT server at the center of each LAN. The communication protocol was TCP/IP. There were about 250 workstations in the Commission’s four offices.

The workstations ran Windows 95, and the Microsoft Office suite was used to carry out the administrative work in the offices. The e-mail facility in particular proved to be a valuable internal communications tool. In addition to Microsoft Word, which was used for word processing, the researchers used the Excel spreadsheet to analyze trends in the data on human rights violations and to graph the results of their analyses.

These products were easy to install and use, readily available and well suited for a network of this scale. However, the domain structure of Microsoft NT complicated the management of the network, and the stability of the servers was often compromised by the shortcomings of the network operating system.

In addition to the off-the-shelf software, all users involved in the TRC Information Flow (data processors, corroborators, researchers and commissioners) had access to the TRC Database. The database was a client-server design, so users had screens loaded on their workstations enabling them to query and update the information stored on the file servers.

Most of the TRC staff had had little or no prior experience with computers, so each office had a Computer Officer who fixed the hardware, installed and maintained the software and provided the users with support. A commercial network service provider supported the Computer Officers by performing the more complex hardware and networking tasks.

The Wide Area Network

A wide-area network (WAN) connected the four regional networks together, using 64k digital lines rented from Telkom, the national telecommunications provider, as shown in the schematic diagram of Figure 1.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the Wide Area Network

The WAN allowed users to send e-mail from one office to another, transfer word-processed documents between regions and share database information between the offices.

The commission network was not connected to the Internet for security reasons. Instead, each office had one or more freestanding computers (i.e., without a connection to the network) with dial-up access to an Internet Service Provider. There was no physical connection between the TRC network and the Internet. This was the simplest, most reliable, least expensive way of isolating the network from potential intruders, although more computer-literate users were frustrated by the lack of e-mail connections to the outside world.

The Organizational Structure of the TRC

The TRC consisted of three sub-committees:

The executive arm of the commission consisted of national portfolio holders reporting to the chief executive officer (CEO). They worked with the managers of the four regional offices to carry out the operational functions of the TRC and gathered and processed the HRV statements and amnesty applications on which the commissioners made findings.

Responsibility for the database and network fell under my charge as the Information Systems Manager. I worked closely with the Information Managers in each of the regional offices to ensure that the database functioned as expected, making enhancements to the functionality as more processes in the information flow came on stream. The Information Managers kept the information flow moving and ensured that the data gathered by each office was loaded onto the database efficiently and accurately.

The structure of the commission was as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Structure of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission

By vesting the responsibility for the electronic information systems in a position reporting directly to the CEO, the database was assured of a high profile in the organization, thereby avoiding contests of ownership. It was not relegated to a purely "research" function or subsumed in the work of the investigative unit.

Indeed, the reverse was a greater problem. It was difficult to get the Research department, Investigative Unit and Commissioners to take ownership of the data that fed their own processes. The main focus of the work of the Commission was on the public hearings, rather than on gathering statements. Thus, for nearly two years, the attention of the researchers, investigators and commissioners was directed away from the database, towards the logistics of preparing for hearings.

In the absence of involvement from other portfolios and committees, the perception emerged that the contents of the database (quality, volume, and integrity) were the responsibility of the Information Systems portfolio and the Information Managers in the regional offices only. This had a substantial negative impact on the quality of the data since none of the principal users added value through active use of the data, until the findings process began in earnest and the writing of the final report was started.

The Information Flow for Loading Data onto the Database

The TRC database was originally designed to be a research tool, but subsequently become integrated into the operations of the commission. It was at the heart of the Information Flow in which the violations reported in statements made by deponents were analyzed, captured onto the database, corroborated by investigators and finally passed to commissioners who made findings on whether the violations constituted gross violations of human rights as defined by law.

The information flow was as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. TRC database information flow

The first four stages of the information flow were implemented early in the life of the commission. There was enormous pressure to get the database up and running and filled with data. As soon as the first phase of the database development was completed (database engines installed on the servers, input screens developed and installed on workstations), the registration, processing and data capture began.

At the same time as the database development was underway, the commission started its process of holding public hearings. These hearings generated enormous coverage for the work of the commission and the statement-takers were able to harness the energy of the hearings to gather statements. Unfortunately, the hearings diverted the focus of the commission from stages 5 and 6 and the crucial processes of corroboration, research and the making findings were put on hold. The data processors and data capturers worked in isolation during this time, and received no feedback on the quality or quantity of their work.

Once the process of corroboration began, and researchers began to rely on the primary data from the statement-takers to prepare for hearings, rather than using mainly secondary source material. As before, the quality of the data improved dramatically. The corroborative material (death certificates, press clippings, medical files, photographs) added enormous value to the database. Late in the life of the commission, the findings process started and the data were authenticated.

Although laborious, the process of corroboration proved invaluable and gave the findings a legitimacy they might otherwise have lacked. Before this, the data gathered often represented the data-processor’s understanding of a hastily written statement, translated into English during an interview with a possibly traumatized deponent, recounting events which may have happened several years previously. Under these conditions, the probability of, and the scope for error were enormous.

The HRV statement

The data gathered by the statement-takers were written down on a standard protocol sheet. The format of the statement changed in the early stages of the commission’s life. It was initially a free-flowing narrative, with sheets attached for the statement-takers to record the specific details, and to remind them to ask certain questions. Statement-takers complained that it was too repetitive, and because at that stage the commission’s rate of statement-taking was very slow, the format of the statement was questioned. Some members of the HRV committee then argued for a format in the style of a motor-vehicle license application, so that these forms could be distributed by public bodies (the post office, churches, non-governmental organizations, and so on). With such a format, deponents could fill in the forms themselves, or be assisted by family members, official functionaries or religious leaders.

A form was drawn up and put into use. The quality of the data declined dramatically, and I was able to show this by doing word-count comparisons of the two styles. I did this by counting the minimum, average and maximum numbers of words entered on the database by the data-capturers to describe the nature of the violation, the outcome of the violation and the description of where the violation took place. By comparing the counts from the free-text statements to those from the "license application form," it was easy to see that we had lost almost all context and gained nothing in the process. This form was dropped and the HRV Committee eventually compromised on a semi-structured statement (see Appendix 1).

This semi-structured statement had advantages and disadvantages when compared to the free-text statements, as I discovered by doing word-counts and by comparing the number of violations, victims and perpetrators per statement and the number of violations per victim. The results were mixed but interesting.

In those offices where data processing was known to be weak, the numbers of violations, victims and perpetrators improved, but in those where data processing was known be better, the rates dropped. The structure helped weak data processors to identify the relevant violations, victims and perpetrators. Previously, they had been lost in the narrative, but better data-processors had less narrative from which to draw, and the structure of the statement only allowed for one victim per violation type, such as killing, torture, severe ill-treatment, etc. (See Appendix 1). Thus, they ended up with fewer violations per victim and fewer victims and perpetrators per statement.

The word-counts showed little change in the amount of detail captured to describe each violation and the consequences of each violation (whether the office increased the number of violations per statement or not). However, they did show a definite improvement in all offices where details about the perpetrators, political context and the place of violation were concerned. It was clear that the semi-structured statement focussed the attention of statement-takers on questions that had been previously neglected. A deponent’s testimony is understandably centered on the trauma of the violation itself, so less detail was gathered about the context in which the violation took place.

The Logical Model of the Database

The database was developed in great haste, as there was enormous pressure get the information flow functional, and with very little idea of how it would operate in practice, since the commission itself was in the process of defining its role. Drawing on the experience of Patrick Ball, as well as the work of the Human Rights Information and Documentation Systems International (HURIDOCS) team, and my knowledge of corporate databases, we created a functioning database in record time.

The design process began with the work of the Database Development Group. They reviewed the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act1 to identify which sources of data were legally available to the TRC and which print-outs and analyses would be needed from the database to fulfil the reporting objectives of the Commission. This review was then used by a small team consisting of myself, a researcher, a systems analyst and a programmer, to design the database model and its interfaces.

The process development time was reduced by using industry-standard software. The end product was a client-server relational database using Oracle software, which is the database technology of choice for a project of this scale and nature. We chose Oracle partly for technical reasons, but also because SyBase, a database platform with similar functionality, was distributed and supported locally by a South African company with close ties to the arms procurement agency of the old regime. Commissioners feared that to use SyBase could have been seen as a conflict of interest.

We used Oracle’s Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) tool, Designer 2000, to store the logical model, data flow functions, validation rules and the data integrity rules. By investing more effort early in the design process, we were able to use the CASE tool to generate the bulk of the code needed to create the screens, as well as the SQL scripts needed to create the database tables. Once the CASE tool had generated the code, it was a simple matter to fine-tune the screen designs and add indexes to the tables to enhance performance.

The database consisted of four database engines (one on each server in each regional office) which were kept synchronized across the wide-area network, using the standard Oracle replication functionality. This automatically integrated the data from all the offices, providing one coherent national picture.

The users had a suite of programs on their workstations that connected them to the database servers. This arrangement allowed them to register statements and amnesty applications, capture the contents of the violations, carry out complex searches on the data, extract data into spreadsheets, and print a variety of computer-generated reports such as: the content of statements or amnesty applications, corroboration carried out, letters of acknowledgement, perpetrator details, incident reports, as well as statistics for monitoring the performance of the information flow.

The data model

The underlying logical structure of the database is relatively simple, with just six core data entities. There were a total of 50 entities in the end, most of which were code tables for lookup purposes. The others were added over time to provide additional administrative functionality.

The six central entities, with the attributes2 of relevance for the purposes of this paper, were PERSONS, SOURCES, ACTS, PERPETRATORS, WITNESSES and EVENTS. We first describe these entities with their attributes and then show the relationships among these entities in a flow chart.

A number of other PERSON attributes were on the system, but did not prove as useful as the above, because the information was either unavailable or unreliable. These attributes included marital status, religion, employment status and language. Other attributes not included here involved administrative functions - notes about the person, date of the victim finding, etc.

The dates and person identifiers above held valuable details of the progress of the document through the information flow. They were particularly useful for monitoring blockages in the system, finding the location of backlogs and monitoring the performance of individual staff members in terms of speed and accuracy. These fields were not normalized for ease of programming and database performance. Strictly speaking, a SOURCE_HISTORY entity should have been used.

The ACT entity had a several other attributes for administrative purposes, including a "veracity" indicator. This was subsequently used to record the commissioners’ finding on whether the violation constituted a gross violation of human rights, or whether amnesty was granted in respect of the offence.

The perpetrator entity proved to be very useful for analytic purposes, especially with respect to the alleged organizational allegiance of the perpetrator. However, in most cases, the rest of the information was too sparse to be of much value for investigative purposes. In most cases deponents remembered little of substance other than the name of the organization involved; the other attributes, such as vehicle_used, or place_last_seen, were rarely used.

The WITNESS entity proved less useful than was anticipated at the start. It was intended help the investigators follow up the details of the case, but in most cases, the deponents themselves were the best witnesses.

The EVENT entity had great potential, but was not used to its full capacity by the researchers who were expected to be the major users of this entity. Due to other pressures, they were unable to devote enough time to learn how to make it useful for their needs. Ultimately, it proved useful to the investigators preparing for hearings who used it to extract violations, which they then loaded into a tool, which drew diagrams of links between thousands of incidents, perpetrators and victims in a matter of seconds. The Event entity was also later used by the Amnesty Committee to plan hearings by grouping violations from various amnesty applications together.

Despite the relatively few entities in the data model, it was complex enough to model all the real world events that were brought before the commission. For example, the same person could be a victim at different times and in different places. A person could be a deponent telling about the death of a relative, and simultaneously be a victim in his or her own right. A person may be the victim of torture, and then perpetrate a gross violation of human rights in retaliation at a later date.

These entities were related as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Entity relationship diagram

To keep the database design as straightforward as possible and to minimize the time spent on the design and build phase, no history of changes to entities was maintained. Instead, the same record was updated as new information became available or errors identified.

Given more time, it would have been of great benefit to design a database capable of holding various versions of the violation, for example, to keep the original version as told by the deponent separate from the corroborated, or "the finding" version. With such a capability, researchers could have investigated the nature of oral testimony as compared to the "official" version of history. Also, operational managers could have seen where errors were corrected and why, or if needed, to revert to an earlier version.

Examples of Analytical Results

It took several months before results were obtained from the database. This delay caused a great deal of anxiety on the part of the commissioners, until six months later when the first graphs of the results were produced. The following graph which compares the number of fatal to non-fatal violations reported to the commission over the mandate period is one of the first to be produced.

Other analyses were done on the ages of victims, their gender, their political affiliation, and by the type of abuse suffered. For example, graphs were drawn of the different age cohorts of deponents for each gender, which showed that the perception of statement-takers that most deponents were middle-aged women was true.

Besides its analytic value, the database was used to monitor processes in the information flow. For example, the graph below shows the progress of implementation of a pilot HRV statement in an office.

This type of analysis informed research work, as well as policy formulation for the Rehabilitation and Reparation Committee and strategic planning of the commission’s work. The results contributed substantially to the final report of the commission, underpinning the narrative text in a way that dramatically highlighted the scale and extent of the violence of the past.

Appendix 1

The TRC Gross Violations of Human Rights Statement

Note: Throughout this appendix, we have reduced the spacing between lines and removed blank space for entries to reduce space and make it easier for the reader to determine the structure. Where blank spaces for entries, their presence is indicated by entry lines (" ...........................................") of varying length.

S T A T E M E N T

concerning

GROSS VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The aim of this STATEMENT is to gather as much information as possible about the gross violations of human rights suffered as a result of the political conflict in South Africa. According to the legislation, gross human rights violations are:

Killing, torture, severe ill-treatment, abduction and disappearance

or

Any attempt, conspiracy, incitement, instigation, command or procurement to commit a gross human rights violation, defined by parliament as killing, torture, severe ill-treatment, abductions and disappearances,

that occurred in a political context

between 1 March 1960 and 10 May 1994.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)

The aims of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission are:

• to give as complete a picture as possible of the gross human rights violations resulting from the conflicts of the past;
• to restore human and civil dignity to those who experienced violations by letting them tell their stories and recommending how they can be assisted; and
• to consider granting amnesty to perpetrators who carried out the abuses for political reasons, and who give full details of their actions to the Commission.

If you have experienced or have knowledge of Gross Violations of Human Rights committed between 1 March 1960 and 10 May 1994, please complete this statement. Thank you for sharing your painful experience with the Truth Commission. Your contribution will help our country come to terms with the past.

Should you run out of space when answering the questions, please use the additional pages at the back (page 23 and 24).

NOTE:

• You are entitled to legal representation at your own cost, both while completing this statement and/or when testifying in a possible public Human Rights Violation hearing. You can apply for legal aid if needed. Please contact the office.
• If you make a false statement willingly and knowingly you could be prosecuted.
• If you complete this statement by yourself, please post (or hand deliver) to any of the following Truth and Reconciliation Commission offices listed below.
• Please attach additional documents (for example, copy of ID, press clippings, doctors reports, etc.).
• Please put your initials (sign) on every page of your statement at the bottom of each page.
• By submitting this statement to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, your name may appear in the final report of the Commission; perpetrators may be informed of any allegations you make; and your medical, legal and other records may be made available to the Commission.

Declaration

I, ……….………………………………………………………. solemnly declare that the information I am about to give the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, is to the best of my knowledge, true and correct and I consider the contents of this statement binding on my conscience.

_________________________________ ________________

Signature / Finger Print / Mark Date

_________________________________

Witness signature

If you are called to a public hearing, will you be prepared to appear? YES NO [circle]

IMPORTANT:

• Some women testify about violations of human rights that happened to family members or friends, but they also have suffered abuses. Don’t forget to tell us what happened to you yourself if you were the victim of a gross human rights abuse.

Details of the person HELPING to fill in the statement

1. DETAILS OF PERSON MAKING STATEMENT

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Other names: ……………………………………….

(for example, clan names, code names, pseudonyms, nicknames, aliases)

Home Language: …………………………………………..

CONTACT ADDRESS

Where does your post go to?

Home Telephone No.: …………..…Work Telephone No.: ………..…..

What is the best and easiest way the TRC can contact you in future?

(Could be the same address as above or could be a friend or relative with whom there is regular contact)

Name of Contact person: (if relevant) ………………………………………………

Contact address: ……………………………………………………………

Contact telephone: ( ) …………………………………

2. WHOSE STORY ARE YOU GOING TO TELL THE COMMISSION?

Are you going to tell the Commission about what happened to you? YES NO [circle]

3. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE VIOLATION OF

HUMAN RIGHTS

Please briefly describe what happened to you or the person you are telling us about. Please tell us:

What happened? Who got hurt, killed or kidnapped? When did it happen? Where did it happen? Who did it?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

4.VICTIM DETAILS

Please list ALL the victims you have mentioned and give details as far as you know:

5. POLITICAL CONTEXT

Please describe the political situation in the community at the time of each incident. ....................................................................................................................

(for example, there was a mass funeral in the community that day; stay-away; boycott; march; mutiny in the camp; political rally; etc.)

6. PLEASE PROVIDE SPECIFIC DETAIL NEEDED BY THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

This section of the statement is to provide all the relevant information needed by the TRC concerning the specific gross human rights violations.

Please mark the boxes below, and then turn to the appropriate section and answer the questions afterwards as far as you can.

The questions below are arranged according to the different types of gross human rights violations as defined by Parliament. You are requested to:

• please indicate which categories are relevant to your experience by marking a cross (X) in the appropriate box. If you have experienced more than one type or category of violation please indicate this by putting a cross (X) in the appropriate boxes.
• If your experience does not fit exactly into any one of the types/categories of violations listed below, please use the ADDITIONAL PAGES at the end of this form to write down your story.

Mark with an X

EVENT

Name of Victim. …………………………………………...........................………

When was the person killed? (date and time): …………………..........................…

Where was the person killed? (exact location, including street, name of building, area, town): ……………..................................................……………………………….

(for example, in front of the house in Akker St.; at the taxi rank in Extension 4)

Please describe how the person was killed. Include details of what weapon was used to kill the person: .........................................................................................................

Why was the person killed? ……....................………………………………………

Was there a post-mortem or inquest? If yes, what was the outcome?

(for example, did a doctor examine the body to find out the cause of death? Did you find out how the person was killed? Did you go to court to find out what happened? Was anybody found responsible for the death?)

…………………………………………………………………………………………

PERPETRATORS

Can you identify the perpetrators in any way? Give names, rank and title, and physical description. ............................................................................................

(for example, Mr. Siyanda, member of people’s court; four men in balaclavas; a big man with a scar called Kallie)

How do you know who they were? ………………………………....……

(for example. I saw them; my neighbor told me; there was a court case)

What organization do you think they belong to or support? ……………...

(for example. SAP, UDF, witdoeke, PAC, comrades, SADF, Riot Squad, Town Council, Inkatha, ANC)

Can you specify who did what? Who was in charge? Who gave orders? Who was with them? ........................................................................................................

(for example, Mr. Siyanda ordered the killing, Vusi poured the petrol and Toto lit the match)

Where and when did you last see the perpetrator(s)? ..................................

Would you like to meet the perpetrator(s)? .................................................

WITNESSES

Is there anyone else who knows what happened to you or the alleged victim either before, during or after the killing? If yes; please answer the following questions as fully as possible.

Additional information

…………………………….…………………………………………………

EVENT

Name of victim. ……………………………………......................……………

When did the violation occur? (date and time) ……………...…………………

Where did the violation occur? (exact location, including street, name of building, area, town): ..............................................................................................................

(for example, in front of the house in Akker St.; at the taxi rank in Extension 4)

Please describe in detail what was done to you and/or the person you are talking about? .……………………..................................................................……….

Were you or the victim sexually assaulted? Please give details: ..........................

Was there a court case? If yes, what was the outcome? …………………...……

PERPETRATORS

Can you identify the perpetrators in any way? Give names, rank and title, or physical description. ........................................................................................................

(for example, Kitskonstable Jacobs; Mrs Daba and a group of comrades; four men in balaclavas)

How do you know who they were? …………………………………………...…

(for example. I saw them; my neighbor told me, there was a court case)

What organization do you think they belong to or support? ………………….....

(for example. SAP, UDF, witdoeke, PAC, comrades, SADF, Riot Squad, Town Council, Inkatha, ANC)

Can you specify who did what? Who was in charge? Who gave orders? Who was with them? .................................................................................................................

(for example. Capt Coetzee ordered the shooting; Constable Denga shot me in the stomach)

Where and when did you last see the perpetrator(s)? …......…………………….

Would you like to meet the perpetrator(s)? …………………..........…………….

WITNESSES

Is there anyone else who knows what happened to you or the alleged victim either before, during or after the incident?

If yes; please answer the following questions as fully as possible.

Additional information

.....................................................................................................................

EVENT

Name of victim. ………………………………………………....................…

When were you and/or the victim tortured? (dates, times, length of time) ……

Where did the torture occur? (exact location, including street, name of building, area, town) :…………………………………………………………..……..........…

(for example, Loubscher’s office at the police station; in the detention centre near the camp)

Please describe in detail what was done to you or the person you talking about. In other words, describe the torture: ....................................................................

Were you sexually assaulted? Please give details: …………………………..….

Why were you or the person you are talking about tortured? …………………

(for example, to sign a statement, to become a state witness, punishment)

Describe the conditions of the captivity ……………………………............….

PERPETRATORS

Can you identify the perpetrators in any way? Give names, rank and title, or physical description ……………….....................................................................……

(for example, Kitskonstable Jacobs; Mrs Daba and a group of comrades; four men in balaclavas)

What organization do you think they belong to or support? ……….....……….

(for example. SAP, Security police, Mbokodo , ANC, SADF, Town Council, Inkatha, Transkei police)

Can you specify who did what? Who was in charge? Who was with them?

(Capt Piet was in charge of my interrogation; Botha applied electric shocks; Commander ‘Zizi’ suspended me upside down )

Where and when did you last see the perpetrator(s)? …….…………….....….

Would you like to meet the perpetrator(s)? ………........................................

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Describe any visits by doctors or District Surgeons. Give names and details: .....

Describe any visits with a magistrate. Give names and details: .........................

Did you see a lawyer? Was there a court case? Was the torture experience described in court? What was the outcome of the case? .........................................................

Is there anything else you wish to tell the Commission about this experience of torture? …………………………………………………………………….........….…….

WITNESSES

Is there anyone else who knows what happened to you or the alleged victim either before, during or after the incident? ..................................................................

If yes; please answer the following questions as fully as possible.

EVENT

Name of victim . …………………………………………………

When did the abduction/disappearance take place? (date and time) ……………

Where did it happen? (exact location, including street, name of building, area, town) :………………………………………………………………………………….

(for example, from his house at 1711 Loerie St.; from the taxi rank in extension 5)

Please describe how it happened. ……………………………………………..

Where was the person taken to? (street, building, town) ……………………..

Why did it happen …………………………...........…………………………..

What was the outcome? Did the person come back? ……..…………………..

(for example, They let me go after two weeks; my son’s body was found the next day)

PERPETRATORS

Can you identify the perpetrators in any way? Give names, rank and title, or physical description. .....................................................................................................

(for example, Mr Siyanda member of people’s court; Chief Ndlela , leader of Mbokodo; four men in balaclavas)

How do you know who they were? ……………………………………………

(for example. I saw them; my neighbor told me, there was a court case)

What organization do you think they belong to or support? ………………….

(for example. Security police, vigilantes, comrades, Mbokodo, Town Council, Inkatha, ANC, SADF)

Where and when did you last see the perpetrator(s)? ...……………………….

Would you like to meet the perpetrator(s)? ……………...…………………….

WITNESSES

Are there any witnesses to the violation either before, during or after the incident? .........................................................................................................................

If yes; please answer the following questions as fully as possible.

7. EXPECTATIONS

An important part of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s proposals to the President will be about symbolic acts which will help us remember the past, honour the dead, acknowledge the victims and their families and further the cause of reconciliation.

Please give us your opinion on what should be done:

7.1 For individuals: ...................................................................................

(for example, medals, certificates, street names, memorials, grave stones, etc.)

7.2 For the Community: ............................................................................

(for example, a peace park, build a school, special ceremony, annual religious service, etc.)

7.3 For the Nation: ....................................................................................

(for example, a monument, national day of remembrance, etc.)

8. CONSEQUENCES OF THE EXPERIENCE

The following questions are specific to the victim who experienced the violation.

8.1 If the violation(s) caused permanent physical injury, please describe the injury: ………………..…...............................................................…………………….

8.2 What treatment did the victim get for the injury? Do you still need medical treatment?……...........................................................……………………………

8.3 Please describe the present physical health of the victim: ...........................

8.4 If the person cannot look after themself, please explain how they live with the situation: .....................................................................……………………………

8.5 Did the violation cause emotional and psychological suffering or pain? .......

8.6 Please explain how the victim coped with the suffering: ..............................

(for example, did somebody help you deal with the pain of the event? Did you see a therapist or your priest, or a traditional healer?)

8.7 Did the violation affect relationships with friends, family, partner or children?

................................................................................................................................

(for example, I have lost contact with them; my marriage broke down; we do not talk together like we used to, etc.)

8.8 Has the person’s behaviour changed since the violation? ..............................

(for example, he is depressed all the time; she feels like dying; I am always angry; I hate going near that place; etc.)

8.9 How did the violation affect the health, education, accommodation, and finances of the victim’s family? ................................................................................

8.91 Health .........................................................................................................

(for example, since the death of my daughter, we have been suffering from depression.)

8.92 Education ....................................................................................................

(for example, since my husband died, my son had to leave school to earn money.)

8.93 Accommodation: ........................................................................................

(for example, since my son died, we are living in this shack.)

8.94 Finances .................................................................................................

(for example, before I was shot, I was working, but now I am not working and can’t feed the children.)

9. DOCUMENTATION DETAILS

Have you already made one or more statements about this incident? YES NO [circle]

If yes, please specify:

Do you have any documents that will help the Commission understand the situation and experience you have described? YES NO [circle]

(for example, Doctor’s Certificate, Membership card, Diary, Newspaper clippings, Legal Documents, Post-Mortem report, Hospital records, Police records, Court records, Inquest reports etc).

What legal action did you or the victim take? Please give dates and the name of the lawyers, magistrates and judges if you can. ...............................................................

(for example, was there a court case about the violation? Did you sue the perpetrators for damages? Did you lay charges against the perpetrators?)

What was the result? .................................................................................................

additional page

Please mark clearly which question or paragraph you are answering on this page. .........................................................................................................................

CHECK LIST FOR THE PERSON FILLING IN THIS STATEMENT

This page is to help check that the statement has been completed as fully as possible.

CHECK LIST yes / no Other comments

COMMENTS / OBSERVATIONS OF THE STATEMENT TAKER.

……………………………………………………………………

RELEASE FORM:

Medico-Legal Records

I, ………………..…………………………………………....

(name of person giving permission

hereby grant permission for the Investigative Unit of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to obtain copies of all

medico-legal records of …..……….………………………………………..………. who is

……………..……………………….........,

(relationship to victim, for example, myself, my son, my daughter)

for the purposes of ongoing investigation being conducted by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Yours faithfully,

Signature: ..……………………………Date: …………………….

Appendix 2

Coding frame for gross violations of human rights

Introduction

The task of the TRC is to identify those people who suffered gross violations of human rights, which are defined as follows: Killing, Abduction, Torture and Severe Ill-treatment. In addition to these four, there is a fifth category which is not a gross violation of human rights, but is important for understanding the context, called an Associated Violation.

Each of the five categories has several sub-headings, which explain how the violation took place (a person can be killed in different sorts of ways, 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.

The HRV categories

When coding, the first step is to decide under which HRV category does the violation fall. The table below shows the categories with their definitions (the words in bold should be used in the description of the act when they are applicable).

The violation types

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

Appendix 3

Lessons Learned

By the editors

Science and Human Rights Program

Copyright © 2000