Home / Reparations / Government / 2011 Regulations

SACTJ Comments to 2011 Regulations

Comments On The Draft Regulations Published By The Department Of Justice Dealing With Reparations For Apartheid Era Victims - 8 June 2011

The SACTJ consists of: Khulumani Support Group, Centre for the Study of Violence & Reconciliation, Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, Human Rights Media Centre, South African History Archives, International Center for Transitional Justice, Freedom of Expression Institute, Trauma Centre for Victims of Violence and Torture

Download Khulumani's Summary

Download the SACTJ Document

I. Introduction: Comments On The Draft Regulations Published By The Department Of Justice Dealing With Reparations For Apartheid Era Victims

The South African Coalition for Transitional Justice (SACTJ or the Coalition) submits the following comments regarding the May 11, 2011 General Notice 282 published in…

II. Executive Summary: Comments On The Draft Regulations Published By The Department Of Justice Dealing With Reparations For Apartheid Era Victims

The Coalition objects to the Notice 282 regulations on procedural, constitutional, and international law grounds. The Coalition’s first main objection is the failure of the…

III.1. The Failure to Meaningfully Involve Victims in the Law-Making Process Undermines Their Constitutional Rights

Between 1999 and the present date, the Khulumani Support Group (Khulumani)—an organization of survivors and families of victims established in 1995—and other groups have engaged…

III.2. The Failure to Extend Reparations to Victims Outside the “Closed List” is Unconstitutional

The Notice 282 regulations relating to education define “victim”[1] as “a person who has been found by the Commission to be a victim as defined…

III.3. The Failure to Extend Reparations to all Victims of Apartheid Violates South Africa’s Obligations under International Law

The closed victims’ list policy violates a number of international law instruments and is contrary to current best practices under customary international law. The government’s…

III.4. The current definitional and eligibility standards proposed in the draft regulations are likely to exclude victims who have suffered harm

The draft regulations establish a series of rigid definitional and eligibility standards that victims and their relatives and dependents will need to meet if they…

III.5. Aspects Of The Regulations In Notice 282 Are Procedurally Unfair

The Annexure Request Forms are unnecessarily complicated to complete; these complex administrative procedures may adversely affect many victims. While the medical benefits regulations specifically provide…

III.6. Other Aspects of the Notice 282 Regulations are Problematic

Funding for these reparation regulations is to come from the President’s Fund, established by the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act.[1] Providing community reparations…

III.7. Other Comments Addressing Inadequacies of the Regulations Relating to Assistance to Victims in Respect of Basic Education and in Respect of Higher Education and Training

i) In the case of educational benefits, the draft regulations offer no definitive guidelines for determining the class of eligible “victims.” Instead, the draft regulations…

IV. Recommendations

The SACTJ makes the following recommendations:

V. Conclusion

The Notice 282 regulations fall considerably short of addressing the needs of victims. The current reparations program lacks the accountability, transparency and accessibility required to…

Quick Contact

Online Donations

Donate: