An Assessment of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC): Did it enable justice for victims?

TRC in South Africa

We live in a violent world. South Africa is one of the countries that had to deal with a prolonged period of violence and oppression. The South African black people were denied of their fundamental human right. Resistance to the laws of apartheid was managed with police brutality. The racial tension created inestimable, endless wounds in the lives of the people. When transitioning into democracy, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up, which invited perpetrators to talk about their transgression and victims were given a platform to tell their stories and express their feelings. The TRC in South Africa (SA) is well known to have been successful in putting the past to rest, but questions are still lingering on whether it brought justice to victims.

South Africa is one of the countries that is generally regarded to have been successful in democratic transition. Its democratic transition is "widely acclaimed as one of the most successful transformations in the world today" (Gibson, 2005, p. 341). The country has had to deal with a violent history where gross human rights violations were common (Garkawe, 2003). The South African black population has been denied basic human rights, and, there has been an unequal distribution of resources, which led to widespread poverty. Resistance in the country was managed with severe torture of those who resisted, police brutality (which in turn led a lot of people to be afraid of the police), and administrative detention (History, 2010). People disappeared without a trace, the police had no obligation to tell anybody when they had taken someone, and if someone died in police custody, the police would destroy the body (Langa, 2000). After many years of the brutal apartheid era, it was impossible to imagine how different people could coexist. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was put forward by the newly elected parliament to heal the deep wounds among people. Nelson Mandela and other well-known leaders of that time endorse the TRC (History, 2010).  For South Africa, "dealing with the past meant knowing what happened, who ordered the killing of a certain person? why did this gross violation of human rights take place?" (TRC Volume 1 (V1), 1998, p. 10).
Until recently, victims and survivors of violent conflict and gross violations of human rights have not been given much consideration in the development of mechanisms that deal with the perpetrators (Huyse, 2003). Criminal courts were built to bring perpetrators of crime to justice, the role of the victims was a secondary consideration as they were seen only as witnesses to a crime, and the focus was mainly on the perpetrator (ibid).  The formation of the truth commission in the 1980s was an effective way to deal with a nation's past and was seen to have a potential for victims. When the TRC was set up, it was designed to help those who had been victims to regain their dignity (Langa, 200). The TRC was put in place to assist citizens to come to terms with the violence of the past (ibid). "One major criticism of TRC's is that they are perceived, mainly by many international human rights advocates, as avoiding or weakening the prospects of bringing perpetrators to 'justice'" (Gerkawe, 2003, p. 345). One central question about the TRC that lingers in every reader's mind is whether it enabled justice for victims.

Overview of the SATRC's

For countries that have witnessed political struggles, violence, and gross human rights violations, people need to deal with the past for society move forward towards a unified and peaceful future and avoid falling back into conflict (Mc Leod, 2015, p. 8). More than ever, SA needed to deal with its past in a way that promotes unity and harmony among the divided groups. Therefore, in a pursuit to promote "national unity and reconciliation in a spirit of understanding which transcends the conflicts and divisions of the past, the parliament was directed to develop an Act, and they developed the Truth and Reconciliation Act No. 34, 1995 (TRC V1, 1998, p. 55; Langa, 200, p. 353). The TRC was SA's cathartic experience in transitioning from an "oppressive society to a society where human rights are respected, and to a constitutional democracy where the Constitution itself is supreme" (Langa 2000, p. 347).
According to the TRC Act: "gross violation of human rights means the violation of human rights through - (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, and the commission of which was advised, planned, directed, commanded or ordered, by any person acting with a political motive" (TRC V1, 1998, p. 60).
The first mandate of the TRC was "to provide for investigations which will develop a complete picture of the probable causes, the nature and extent of gross human rights violations" (Langa, 200, p. 353). The second mandate was to facilitate the granting of amnesty. Conditions of the amnesty involved, firstly, full disclosure of all relevant facts and, secondly, acts had to be affiliated with political objectives (Bhargava, 2002). The last condition was that they had to prove that their actions had been proportional to their stated objective (Buarque de Hollanda, 2013, p. 16).  The third mandate was to establish and make known the fate or whereabouts of victims and restore the human and civil dignity of such victims by providing them with an opportunity to tell their account of the violations and by recommending reparation measures (TRC V1, 1998). The fourth and last mandate was to "compile a report providing a comprehensive account as possible of the activities and findings of the Commission contemplated in the first, second and third mandate" (TRC V1, 1989, p. 55). The Act divided three committees: the human rights violations committee, the reparations and rehabilitation committee, and the amnesty committee.
First, the human rights violations committee was established to investigate human rights violations, to impose victim status and to determine whether certain victims were eligible for government reparations (Llewellyin & Howse, 1999). "The objective was to make clear the links between institutions which committed human rights violations during the apartheid years" (Buarque de Hollanda, 2013, p. 13). By so doing, the powerful or dominant groups of the former regime were collectively held responsible, regardless of whether they had links with the state or not (ibid).  The committee investigated abuses which took place between 1960 and 1994 (TRC V1, 1998). The committee conducted victim hearings and took more than 21.000 statements, covering 37.000 violations (Verdoolaege, 2009). Approximately, 21.000 thousand victim stories got heard, more than 2.000 were public hearings, which included live broadcasts on national radio and television networks (Buarque de Hollanda, 2013). "The Human Rights Committee estimated the number of detentions between 1960 and 1990 at approximately 80.000, of which about 10.000 were women and 15.000 children and youths under the age of 18" (TRC V2, 1998, p. 187).
Second, the Reparations and Rehabilitation Committee served the reconciliation process and promised reparations to all victims of the apartheid struggle (Verdoolaege, 2009). The committee had two main tasks.  The first one was to select people to testify for the Human Rights Violations Committee among those victims or witnesses of serious rights violations who voluntarily put themselves forward (Buarque de Hollanda, 2013). The second one was to recommend governmental reparations to be given to victim dependents, with the goal of symbolically breaking and putting to rest the organizational principles of the past government (ibid). One manner of providing reparations was monetary. Furthermore, reparations included rehabilitation or recognition (Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act No. 34, 1995). Some forms of reparations were given collectively in a "form of public tributes to anti-apartheid figures with the building of monuments, parks, and museums and the renaming of roads, schools, and other public spaces" (Buarque de Hollanda, 2013, p. 15).
Third, the Amnesty Committee in the SATRC was a significant mark of distinction from other commissions in the world (Buarque de Hollanda, 2013). The main task of the Amnesty Committee was to review applications for amnesty that were made under the provisions of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act (TRC, V1, 1998, p. 269). The primary goal of the amnesty process in the SATRC was to find out the truth, mainly concerning the motives of the perpetrator (TRC Act, 1995). Amnesty was granted if the three (earlier mentioned) conditions were met.
The SATRC provided victims with space for mourning and expression of emotions (Buarque de Hollanda, 2013). "The process aimed to deter future violence, by establishing why such crimes had occurred and by presenting a clear picture of who had engaged in political violence, as opposed to common crimes" (Bhargava, 2002, p. 1307). Moreover, the amnesty process aimed at establishing the accountability of perpetrators for the offences they committed (ibid). When looking at these goals, the SATRC's amnesty process was strikingly different from that of other truth commissions (Gibson, 2005). To date, the SATRC was the only truth commission which gave amnesty to perpetrators (Sirleaf, 2014). SATRC was instilled with the principles of "ubuntu," (Sirleaf, 2014). Ubuntu is a word derived from a Nguni (Zulu) saying: "Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu, translated as "a person is a person because of or through others" (Moloketi, 2009, p. 243; Tutu, 2004, p. 25-26).  Ubuntu in the African culture means to express compassion, reciprocity, dignity, humanity, and mutuality in the interests of the building and maintaining communities with justice and mutual caring (Khoza, 2006, p. 6).
It took about five years for the TRC to document and examine the atrocities committed during the struggle against apartheid (Gibson, 2005). The commission conducted a lot of hearings, and interviewed thousands of apartheid victims, and admitted amnesty to approximately 850 human rights violators (ibid). The TRC "moved around the country for two years, so both victims and perpetrators forums were held many times, in various places" (Allais, 2011, p. 334). Finally, the TRC compiled a detailed report about the accounts of victims and perpetrators and the circumstances in which human rights violations were committed (ibid).

Defining a victim

Victims are at the centre of a very process when dealing with past conflict and violence. Violence and conflict create different kinds of victims; there are those who are directly victimized and those who are indirectly victimized. Just like any other country that has gone through a transition, SA dealt with the issue of deciding which individuals should be considered victims when addressing its past. Furthermore, when dealing with post-conflict violence, society influences the definition of a victim. Socio-political factors, legal definitions of a victim, and cultural influences can influence the meaning of a victim (Huyse, 2003).
First, in the socio-political factors, the official authorities define who a victim is. "Initiatives in the area of healing, truth-telling, justice, and reparation contribute to the definition of who gets included in the category of victims" (Huyse, 2003, p.59). The time frame is a key factor in defining victims. Truth commissions usually focus on a specific time-period on where the violations occurred (ibid). Secondly, legal definitions of victims include the one that is given by the law. "The criminal legislation of a post-conflict state, combined with international humanitarian and human rights law and the state's customary, indigenous and religious law, constitutes a second element in the identification and recognition of victims" (Huyse, 2003, p.59). The definition of the victim, in this case, also includes the one provided by the UN Commission on Human Rights 'Declaration on the Right to Restitution for Victims of Gross Human Rights Violations of 1999 (ibid). 1999/33", UN document E/CN.4/ 2000/62,
"A person is a 'victim' where, as a result of acts or omissions that constitute a violation of international human rights or humanitarian law norms, that person, individually or collectively, suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss, or impairment of that person's fundamental legal rights. A 'victim' may also be a dependant or a member of the immediate family or household of the direct victim as well as a person who, in intervening to assist a victim or prevent the occurrence of further violations, has suffered physical, mental or economic harm" (Declaration on the Right to Restitution for Victims of Gross Human Rights Violations, 1999).
The United Nations Declaration of basic principles of justice for victims in 1985 defines Victims of abuse of power:
"Victims" means persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that do not yet constitute violations of national criminal laws but of internationally recognized norms relating to human rights (UN, 1985, p. 2).
The SATRC report in the rehabilitation and reparation committee includes, in its definition of victims, the relatives and dependents of a victim and listed them as follows: "a) parents (or those who acted/act in place of a parent); b) spouse (according to customary, common, religious or indigenous law); c) children (either in or out of wedlock or adopted); d) someone the victim has/had a customary or legal duty to support" (TRC V5, 1998, p. 176).
Third, the cultural influences on definitions of a victim are also important because they influence as to who is gets regarded as an indirect victim. The SATRC shows that by providing a list as to who can be regarded as relatives or dependents (see above paragraph). "Societies in Africa and Asia work with broader definitions of the scope of the immediate family and of community ties than do many in Europe (Huyse, 2003, p. 60).

Victim Experiences

The experiences of victims are made up of many stories, stories of loss and trauma and every experience of the crime differ from one victim to the other. South Africa's history of apartheid is known all over the globe, but what does it look like? "Apartheid meant more than just separate and inferior public services, benches and building entrances for non-whites. It also stripped black South Africans of their citizenship (placing them into tribally-based bantustans instead) and abolished all non-white political representation" (Byrnes, 2013, p. 1). "Black SAn suffered gross inequalities in access to social services, resources, and economic opportunities" (Liebenberg, 2000). The consequences of repression under apartheid include the physical effects caused by torture and other kinds of severe ill-treatment, psychological, and economic effects (TRC V1, 1998). The psychological impact on victims accelerated because of the other stresses of living in a deprived society (ibid).
During the apartheid period in SA, millions of people were deprived of their most basic rights (TRC V1, 1998). Apartheid redrew the map of SA (TRC V1, 1998). The wealth of the country, "the cities, the mines, parks, and the best beaches became part of white SA, all over the country, public buildings and amenities were divided and sometimes even duplicated according to race group, retaining the best for the white group (TRC V1, 1985, p. 64). Private-sector space was also subjected to rules: banks, restaurants, shops, places of worship, bars, hotels, and entertainment areas were all segregated, often by legislation and often by self-imposed segregation. "Black SA suffered gross inequalities in access to social services, resources, and economic opportunities" (Liebenberg, 2000). A lot of university courses were reserved for whites only. Therefore, non-whites couldn't choose what they wanted to study. The future on non-whites in SA looked bleak with no hope for a better tomorrow.
The segregation Act of 1923 called for the establishment of separation of Africans throughout the country, usually at the edge of town (AM, 2008). Therefore, millions of people in SA were forcibly removed from rural and urban areas, between the year 1960 and 1980 (TRC V1, 1998). The group' area act was a law put in place to mark off the land for different racial groups (Steiner, 2015). Consequently, this law made it illegal for people to live in any place but only in their assigned areas (ibid). Through this body of laws, black people were forcibly removed out of areas which were reserved for whites (TRC V1, 1998). Black people, "were evicted from their homes and they forced out of the cities into the rural areas (homelands) and what Father Cosmas Desmond has called, 'dumping grounds'" (TRC V1, 1998, P.63). In those homelands, there was neither water nor shelter nor living to be made (TRC V2, 1998). Apartheid also dominated the private lives of black citizens (ibid). The law prohibited marriages and sexual relationships across the colour line (AM, 2008). The Group Areas Act affected a lot of individuals, below is the testimony of one of the victims.
Mrs Gadija Jacobs: "Oooo, don't talk about the Group Areas Act, people, please don't talk about it to me. I will cry all over again. There's when the trouble started… when they chucked us out of Cape Town. My whole life changed! What they took away they can never give back to us! It will never be the same for us again… I cannot explain how it was when I moved out of Cape Town and I came to Manenberg. Oooo my God, my whole life was stumbling down! I couldn't see my life in this raw township! You know, far away from family. All the neighbours were strangers. That was the hardest part of my life, believe me… They destroyed us, they made our children ruffians" (AM, 2008, p. 47).
The SA government at that time limited the flow of Africans into urban areas by controlling who was allowed in town (Apartheid Museum (AM), 2008). It meant that every African man who went to town had to carry a pass which permitted him to be in town (TRC V1, 1998). Frequently, the police conducted pass raids, if a person was found without a pass, such a person was arrested and kicked out of the urban area (AM, 2008). It happened so frequently in the sense that in one time or another, most black SA's got arrested for pass law offences (ibid). "The pass laws protected affluent whites from much of the violence experienced in the townships. When township violence occasionally spilled into white areas, it was quickly pushed back to its source and ignored" (Gordon, 1998, p. 8).
Police brutality was common during apartheid. The police were the most feared and engaged in a lot of human right violations. Most perpetrators of violence during the apartheid period were the police (Steiner, 2015). The period was characterized by the widespread use of force in arrests, police raids in the townships, detention without trial, interrogation and use of violence to extract information was common (Bruce, 2002). Their abuse of power and violence was only directed to the black SAn. Torture of suspects was also prevalent, and the South African Police (SAP) justified their vigorous and authoritarian policing with reference to the constant threat to the well-being of the white South African (Bruce, 2002; ISS, 2012). Police brutality was most visibly shown in massacres such as that at Sharpeville in 1960 which 69 blacks got killed and more than 180 wounded (Bruce, 2002). The quality of police services provided in white areas and to white people greatly varied from that provided to black people (ibid). The story below tells one story of police brutality during the apartheid period, from the story, a lot of people lost their loved one. Some of those wounded were left with a disability.
At 1:15 pm with nearly 300 police facing a crowd of 5000, a scuffle broke out at the gate leading to the police station. A police officer accidentally, or deliberately was pushed over. The attention of the front rows was focused on the gate, and they surged forward, pushed by people behind them who wanted to see what was happening. At this stage, according to a police witness, stones were thrown at them. The more inexperienced constable began firing their guns spontaneously. The majority of those killed or wounded were shot in the back. Altogether 69 people died including eight women and ten children. One hundred eighty people were injured (AM, 2008, p. 64).

Justice needs

In the past years, victims have been described as the forgotten party in the Criminal Justice System (CJS) (Wergens, 2014). In response, victims now have rights, and the CJS now takes into consideration the justice needs of victims. Justice means a lot of different things for different people in different situations, time and place (Warren, 2014). The situation of the victim is marked by the experiences of the crime and its effects (Wergens, 2014), the effects or the experience of crime creates justice needs which must be met. For every victim, the word justice tends to take many forms, and it changes with the situation and the attitudes of the individual victim (Crime Survivors (CR), 2012). At the time a person becomes a victim, justice becomes personal, it's rules and terms change (ibid). On a frequent basis, victims are seen as being more likely to have a punitive view and are characterized as being against community sentences (Victim Support (VS), 2012).
"What do victims want? Do they want retribution via a criminal trial, possibly leading to punishment of the perpetrators, or do they want a more restorative approach, where they can perhaps gain a better chance of receiving reparations, telling their stories and finding out the truth of what happened?" (Gerkawe, 2003, p. 346). Justice needs to give a measure of the efficiency of justice processes from the victim's point of view. Furthermore, having their justice needs met, gives victims a sense that justice has been done (Esquer, 2007). Victims of gross human rights violations have different understandings and obligations when it comes to justice, as their justice needs are influenced by a range of experiences and beliefs (Chapman& Van Der Merve, 2008). Justice needs of victims differ significantly, for some victims, justice means retribution while for some it means acknowledgement and accountability (Clark, 2010). Some victims only want information on the disappearance of their loved ones, and some want to be acknowledged by the whole country, some want a confrontation with the perpetrator and asked why they did it and who commanded it. Some reject the TRC at all and demand that perpetrators will be punished for their crimes (Simpson, 1998).
Despite the many differences, it is possible to identify similar features about their expectations and needs (Schotsmans, 2005). Justice needs are not fixed and are likely to differ for different groups of victims. "In cases of gross human rights violations, victims want to know exactly what happened to them or their loved ones, why it happened, who did it and when, where and how, they want their suffering to be recognized, they will want the perpetrator to apologize and at least some kind of acknowledgement or punishment, and they want some kind of reparation for the harm they suffered" (Schotsmans, 2005, p. 106). Some of the essential victim needs are mentioned by (Schotsman, 2005; Toews 2006; Daly, 2014):
The need for physical security: victims often experience emotional and physical devastation. This need includes physical and emotional safety before the conflict has not come to an end, victims have a great need for the conflict to stop. And when it has ended, they want assurance that it will not reoccur in the future. In this regard, South African Victims (SAV) needed to be assured that apartheid will not happen again. They wanted to know if they can trust white people, and establish a way of coexistence without any violence or discrimination.
The need for recognition of suffering: They need for people to recognize their pain and suffering which is caused by the crime. Also, they need to express their feelings and emotions, the need to have others listen to the impact of the harm and be believed.
Voice:  victims want to be given the opportunity to tell their stories, and for the public to validate it and acknowledge it. For SAV letting the public know meant that they did not have to carry their pain on their own, and their stories were easily validated when the offender would testify to the crime. Furthermore, they needed to talk to someone about their pain, and they wanted someone to listen to their stories from their point of view.
Truth: they want to find out the fact as to why the injustice happened to them, and they want their questions answered. The truth is not only about discovering the bodies of lost loved ones, but victims also have questions that need to be answered, and those questions need to be answered truthfully. Those questions include but not limited to who did it? When was it done? Where was it done? Why was it done, and how was it done?
Acknowledgement by the perpetrator: victims prefer that they get acknowledged by the perpetrators themselves. They want perpetrators to recognize the harm or damage they caused and expresses remorse and regret for the harm done. For SAV's they wanted the perpetrator to acknowledge their pains, let them see how their action has affected them.
Empowerment: The victims desire to stand up for the self against the injustice of harm. The crime disempowers the victims leaving them vulnerable and weak. Victims, therefore, need to regain their sense of self, they need to recover back their power and control.
Growth and healing: This is the need to be forward-looking in life, to not being emotionally locked into negative emotions such as anger. Victims need to heal from their suffering, and they need to have their trauma and fears dealt with so that they can be able to move on.
Reparation: Reparations include symbolic and material reparation. Material reparations include monetary compensation given to the victim, can also include community service, etc. by the perpetrator. Symbolic reparations involve gestures of expression of remorse, respect, and forgiveness. Reparations can either be individual or collective. Individual reparations are provided to the particular victim for the crime they experienced while collective reparations are given to the whole group of victims as a whole and they can include monuments and museums.
The need to be restored: victims need to be restored to who they were before the crime/injustice took place. Victimisations tends to rob people of their human dignity and sense of who they are. During apartheid, non-whites were denied common humanity; there was no respect and dignity for them. Therefore, to gain respect, they want their human dignity restored.

Justice in the SATRC

As opposed to the typical responses to gross human rights violation which emphasizes prosecution, the TRC functioned with the purpose to bring Restorative Justice (RJ) (Corliss, 2013). RJ is the theory of justice that seeks to repair the harm caused by wrong-doing or criminal behaviour (Walgrave, 2015). Opposing the traditional criminal justice system, RJ's emphasis is on healing rather than punishment (Corliss, 2013). The aim of RJ is not establishing guilt and imposing sentences and penalty (Mc Leod, 2015). The SATRC served as a focal point for discussions regarding, justice and victims' needs (Stone, 2009). The condition for amnesty was to encourage perpetrators to make a 'full disclosure' of their action, and this was significant for victims seeking the truth about what affected them most (Gerkawe, 2003). Furthermore, this directly benefited victims by making it possible that they receive information concerning the relevant criminal offence.
The SATRC required perpetrators to come forward publicly and were urged to take responsibility for all the crimes which they committed during the apartheid struggle, and they were compelled to acknowledge past wrongdoings (Bhargava, 2002). Only when perpetrators admit their violations are the experience of victims confirmed as real and not illusory and their sense of self is affirmed (TRC, 1998). At this moment, they are then acknowledged by their communities for the harm they suffered, and their stories are validated, and they are believed to be real. Furthermore, part of the TRC's function was to acknowledge the pain victims of gross human rights violations under apartheid, to redress the injustices of the past (Bilchitz, 2016).  The process itself led to serious punishment as the perpetrators were publicly disapproved, shamed, embarrassed, and disadvantaged (Laplante, 2009). Through this process, victims had someone to hold accountable for their suffering. This is different from how the CJS could have done it because usually, the perpetrators could have been prosecuted. This way ensures that perpetrators know the impact of their actions and how they are disapproved and this helps them not to repeat them.
During the hearings, victims were provided with the opportunity to talk about the human rights violations they experienced under apartheid (Verdoolaege, 2009). Hundreds of victims were given a voice, and they were provided with a platform to talk about their experiences, this gave them a chance to be heard (ibid). Victims were able to tell their stories and how they experienced them rather than to have someone summarise the injustices that took place. Therefore, the need to have a voice is fulfilled for those who have the opportunity to participate.  Besides, their testimonies about their experiences revealed the extent to which apartheid had a detriment effect on their lives and the lives of their loved ones (Gibson, 2005). An element of the TRC was that there would be reparations paid to the victims for the harm they suffered. (ibid). The SATRC provided for both individual and symbolic reparations, individually, monetary compensations were given to each victim, or they had to equally share the money among relatives (TRC V5, 1998). The reparations were given to victims to acknowledge their suffering, to help them gain access to health services and the money was to assist in daily living costs (ibid). Through symbolic reparations, SAn victims were able to regain their sense of self and have their human dignity restored.
TRC's aimed to achieve RJ goals by bringing together "elements of public truth-seeking, victim-offender confrontation, public apology, and historical accounting" (Sirleaf, 2014, p. 2265). The offenders could face their victims and feel their pains, and they also got the opportunity, to tell the truth, and apologize for their past transgressions. An apology from offenders is significant to victims, and it is the most treasured symbolic expression of understanding their pains and regretting their actions. "The objectives of truth commissions often include promoting truth-telling and reconciliation, psychological healing for victims, recommending reparations for victims, ensuring minimal accountability, restoring dignity to victims, making recommendations for institutional reform, as well as preventing violence and repetition of abuses" (Sirleaf, 2014, p. 2266). The victims needed the truth because they had many questions about the disappearances of their loved ones, they needed to know what happened to them. Through truth-telling, they got their questions answered, and that provided the starting point for their psychological healing because they did not have to make up stories about what happened. Knowing the truth can also be very hurtful and heart-breaking for many victims, but through knowing then the healing process can begin and victims can be able to be forward-looking in life.

The TRC sought to answer a series of questions which are essential to the victim: "What happened? When did it happen? Who did it? Why was it done?" (Landman, 2001, p. 2). As mentioned above, through truth-telling, the victim got answers to questions that have hunted them from the moment the crime was perpetrated. The SATRC was victim-oriented because it sought to answer victims' questions, to provide an opportunity for extensive victim participation, and to financially compensate victims for their suffering (Stone, 2009). The experiences of victims are made up of many stories, SA's victims had many stories as well about their own experiences. Their stories in a sense end up being perceived by others as untrue or unreal to the point where victims can begin to doubt themselves.  Only when perpetrators admit their violations are the experience of victims confirmed as real and not illusory and their sense of self is affirmed (TRC, 1998). In the SATRC victims were rehabilitated, they got to hear the truth
The central lesson of all this, however, relates to the importance of victim support structures and an organized voice for victims as critical to the trajectory and outcome of the process - mainly when both the Commission and its political architects are too often willing to compromise for the sake of politically-based reconciliation. In South Africa, in contrast to the Truth Commissions of Argentina or Chile, there was some early organization of survivor support groups and organs of civil society, able to articulate the demands and needs of victims during the life of the TRC and thereby capable of playing a role in shaping the process as it unfolded. By contrast, in Argentina and Chile, it was only once the findings of their Truth Commissions left survivors dissatisfied and angry, that they found their organizational voice.

The meaning of TRC's for victims/non-victims

Experiences and expectations of victims vary from one individual to the other, and victim needs can change over time (Gerkawe, 2003). The majority of victims and relatives of victims mentioned that they found the public hearing process of the TRC to be psychologically beneficial (ibid).  In his study, Gibson (2005) found that most black SA rated amnesty to be unfair to the victims and those who have died during the apartheid struggle. In his qualitative and quantitative study, Van der Merve (2008) found that thirty-nine of the four hundred and twenty-nine survivors indicated a desire for the perpetrator to be punished by the courts in some way. Gibson (2005, p.344) found that "some victims and other ordinary SAn's rejected that the truth can somehow lead to reconciliation, claiming that uncovering the truth about past horrific events only alienates people. He went on to say that the truth about the past makes people unwilling to coexist together in the new democratic regime (ibid). "For victims, amnesty was a fundamental rejection of their rights to legal recourse," for them, amnesty was perceived as a process of perpetrators getting off free without the punishment they deserve (Van der Merve, 2008, p. 40). Nonetheless, for victims who were ready to forgive and move on, amnesty was additional social support for their healing process (ibid).
SATRC is one of the most acclaimed exemplary mechanisms to address past atrocities (Stone, 2009). However, questions remain about how victims and another ordinary SA perceived the TRC. Many authors have praised the SATRC. However, it is not without criticism (Gibson, 2006). One determinant of whether victims of gross human right violations "will look positively or negatively on TRC is whether they perceive the process as having delivered justice" (Gerkawe, 2003, p. 340). The Act promised full immunity to the offenders of crimes which are associated with a political objective (Laplante, 2009). The thought of perpetrators being free to carry on their lives as they please with immunity is unfair (Stone, 2009). Especially when considering the "impossibility of freeing their victims from the legacies of torture, death, loss, displacement, disfigurement, disempowerment and other grievous violations" (Stone, 2009, p. 116). "While the TRC was applauded internationally as a model for future truth commissions, the law created an outcry among victims as perpetrators were permitted to escape justice" (Laplante, 2009, p. 930).
The truth is that the issue of material compensation or reparation to victims raises tremendous difficulties. Victims are resentful of the fact that they need to prove that they qualify for restitution, or that the process may measure their levels of suffering regarding the amount granted. At the same time, it has to be recognized that different victims may require different reparation packages. The dilemma is how to compensate thousands of people (whether monetarily or in-kind), with different needs, the majority of whom are impoverished - and doing so without bankrupting the new government. Victims' reparative needs are expressed individually. However, the more individualized the process becomes, the more difficult the debates to which this gives rise and the greater the complexity of the burden of implementation.
On the other hand, strictly collective or symbolic reparations (monuments) do not meet the individual's needs. What is of even more concern is the TRC's tendency to underestimate the passion associated with the monetary expectations of many victims. This has often been based on the evidence before the Commission of victims' willingness to "forgive," or of victims' acceptance of purely symbolic reparation as a sign of their acknowledgement. However, it is suggested here that the TRC has been inadequate in monitoring the changing needs and expectations of the majority of victims who will certainly not be satisfied with notions of symbolic reparations - and many of whom are extremely sceptical of government's commitment to providing direct forms of compensation.
As mentioned above, the TRC sought to answer victims' questions, to provide an opportunity for extensive victim participation, and to financially compensate victims for their suffering (Stone, 2009). However, the questions that victims had were not all answered, not all their stories were told, and there was inadequate payment of the financial reparation (ibid). Not all victims of apartheid were included in the TRC process: "It focused on the victims of gross violations of human rights committed in pursuit of a political objective" (Stone, 2009, p. 126). For the victims who were excluded, they thought of the process as devaluing their experiences (ibid).
TRC's most significant accomplishments were that it facilitated a story-telling process, which helped to uncover a large part of the truth about the past of the country (Allan & Allan, 2000). Furthermore, during the apartheid period perpetrators were not aware of victims' experiences and sufferings, giving victims the opportunity to tell their stories was important as perpetrators and victims were able to relate their stories (Leebaw, 2003). The SATRC was costly, and such can be regarded as a weakness by many, but the TRC was worth its price since it positively contributed to the start of democracy in SA (Gibson, 2006). "Truth commissions assisted in establishing a historical record, formulate restorative recommendations; establish broader social patterns of culpability and complicity" (Stone, 2009, p. 132). Reconciliation played a significant role in the TRC in the sense that reconciliation was the main stated goal of the TRC proceedings (Corliss, 2013). TRC made a great contribution in helping the country recover from its violent past dominated by human rights violation and inhuman treatment of people (ibid). The TRC report (1998, p. 17), has claimed that the vast majority of SAn's, those who form the larger group of victims of the policies of the past, have said they believe reconciliation is possible. Another advantage of TRC processes as compared with the criminal justice approach is "their flexibility and capacity to adjust to the needs of victims as the process unfolds" (Gerkawe, 2003, p. 337).

In conclusion, the SATRC is considered to be one of the most successful in the world. The SATRC was not designed with the justice factor in mind, but it was designed for reconciliation. For a country to make an excellent transition to democracy, the past needed to be dealt with so that people can move forward toward a harmonious future. Victims of violence and gross human rights violations have different experiences. Their experiences transform into justice needs which must be met. Those justice needs are different for each victim, and they are dependent on the nature and gravity of the harm suffered. For some victims, they only wanted information on the disappearance of their loved ones, and some wanted to be acknowledged by the whole country, some wanted a confrontation with the perpetrator and asked why they did it and who commanded it. Some rejected the TRC at all and demanded that perpetrators be punished justice and that justice is called Restorative justice. Justice for victims was met through restorative justice, but that does not mean that all victims wanted or preferred this kind of justice. What needs to be kept in mind is that people define justice in many ways, one thing that seems just to one person may not be just for another. Through examining the strengths and weaknesses of the TRC, amnesty has been seen by many as a failure in disapproving apartheid, and it has been observed to have undermined justice. Nevertheless, amnesty was a symbolic gesture. Through it, a compelling picture of different experiences was painted.