For example, the Basic Education and Higher Education and Training Request Forms ask for banking details and bank stamps of several institutions / persons that a victim may have difficulty collecting. Heads of schools should be educated about these forms, and the regulations should stipulate that school personnel must assist victims in completing them. The schools and training facilities with a high concentration of students who are receiving this assistance should be required to hold open house days during which representatives of banks, boarding homes, transportation providers, and uniform stores are all present to help the victims complete all the necessary paperwork efficiently, ensuring each student is ready to begin school as quickly as possible. Mr. Thapelo Mokushane also advised in his response than any assistance to victims would be detailed in the regulations. The lack of any such provisions in the education regulations implies that there may be no intention to provide assistance.

The forms provided for victims and relatives to apply for assistance with education and skills training do not give sufficient opportunity to provide details about contextual factors relating to vulnerability and financial need.  The BER Regulation 9(3) and HER Regulation 10(3) require that the administrator take into account which requests are most “deserving,” “if there are not sufficient funds available for a particular year to provide assistance to all the victims or relatives of the victims.” However, the forms themselves do not request information that may be highly relevant for an administrator to make an accurate assessment of the household’s financial circumstances.

Additional measures could be taken to ensure more accessibility. Request forms should be available at all schools and not just on the Department of Education website, as stipulated in the regulations.[2] It is unclear how victims are expected to submit the Request Form to the Director General.[3] The regulations should specify that schools and training facilities will be responsible for submitting all necessary paperwork to the Director General, since those who are most in need of this assistance are likely to have the most difficulty accessing the centres where these forms will be processed. The regulations should also include provisions regarding outreach to victims. It is the State’s responsibility to ensure all children who have been affected by gross human rights violations in the past are registered in schools.

In relation to medical benefits, the request process is equally problematic.  The state is only required to liaise with the health official regarding whether or not approval is made. There is no obligation to inform the applicant. This kind of paternalistic legislation is disempowering.

The head of the health establishment must submit to the dedicated official the invoices relating to health services within 7 days.  There are no consequences for non-compliance. But does it mean that the state doesn’t have to pay if there was no such submission?  If so it would be completely unfair and unreasonable.

There is no provision made for someone to apply as a listed victim or relative of a listed victim and then have confirmation that they have been so assessed so that they don’t have to go through the same application process again next time they require health services.

The form requires the provision of information about the incident in which the victim was involved and the harm suffered as a result of the ‘conflicts of the past’ which served as the basis on which the TRC identified the person as a victim. It is stated on the form that the information is necessary to determine whether the person is a listed victim or a relative of a listed victim. Given the limit of listed victims to those determined by the TRC, this information is not necessary. That it is not included in the forms regarding applications under the educational regulations evidences this. It should therefore be deleted. Its inclusion suggests that some assessment will be made regarding whether the health services required are related to the injury which afforded ‘victim status’. The provision of health services are not limited that way in the regulations and therefore the requirement to provide the information is inappropriate.

The government should store each victim’s information and details of assistance received in the past in secure and easily accessible databases. This would make it possible to quickly identify which eligible children have not applied for assistance and target outreach efforts to specific victims. Each victim should be given an official number; this number should not be connected to the TRC process and should allow all victims of gross human rights violations to access educational and medical benefits. In addition, the renewal forms for educational assistance should be much simpler to complete if a person is staying at the same school or training facility, and this should not involve the same long and tedious process of gathering the same particulars. Storing victim information in databases would also make it unnecessary for a victim to have to recount past traumatic experiences, as the Medical Benefits Request Form currently requires.[4]

The Notice 282 regulations lack clarity in several areas. For one, the 5-year limit on the regulations is not explained. Where does this leave a child who begins receiving assistance at grade 1 and is then left with no support after grade 5? The educational assistance program should be focused on achieving completion and graduation. Similarly, the criteria that the head of a health establishment must use to determine which health services are “necessary” and must therefore be rendered in accordance with the regulations is not detailed.[5] This criteria needs to be made explicit. It should not depend solely on the judgment of the head of the establishment’s personal and medical judgment, as he/she would be unlikely to assume risks and is likely to refuse services out of fear that the service may not be covered by these regulations.