KHULUMANI WORKS ON REPARATIONS SUBMISSIONS TO ASSIST THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE TO ACHIEVE JUSTICE AND REPARATIONS FOR VICTIMS OF APARTHEID GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS Khulumani Support Group (www.khulumani.net) and member organisations of the South African Coalition on Transitional Justice are working on submissions to the Department of Justice to assist in their adoption after so many years of a comprehensive programme of reparations to redress the damage suffered by victims in their contribution to the liberation struggle in South Africa. 2016 marks the 20th Year since the commencement of the TRC in April 1996. Dr Cath Byrne who completed her PhD with Khulumani Support Group almost 20 years ago through the University of Santa Cruz in California, USA, returned in 2005 to conduct follow up interviews with victims and survivors who had received the Individual Reparations Grants. This year Cath summarised her findings regarding the experiences of those relatively few survivors of apartheid gross human rights violations, who had received the benefit of a R30,000.00 once-off grant. These findings are summarised in the attached Power Point presentation. Cath has expressed the hope that these findings might inform Khulumani's ongoing advocacy for reparations. Cath produced a book of the 30 narratives told to her that had formed the basis of her PhD. The book is called All That Was Lost and was launched by Khulumani with all 30 families present, at an event held in Freedom Square, Kliptown followed by a lunch at the Soweto Hotel. Khulumani wishes to sincerely thank Dr Cath Byrne for her continued and continuing concern for the lives of survivors of apartheid gross human rights violations.

1. R E C I P I E N T S ’ R E S P O N S E S I N 2 0 0 5
SOUTH AFRICAN TRC
REPARATION PAYOUTS
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / 2016 / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA
1

2. CONTEXTUALIZATION OF RESEARCH
RESULTS PRESENTED
• This research study was conducted in 2005 at the Khulumani office in
Johannesburg. Nineteen (19) Victims/Survivors of Human Rights
Violations who had previously been interviewed about the TRC, were
interviewed regarding their experience of receiving reparations.
• Researcher: Dr Catherine Byrne, a South African, who was at the time
an Assistant Professor at the University of California Santa Cruz
(UCSC), USA. Dr Byrne was supported in the write up of the data by
then graduate student and now Dr Jenny Escobar.
• We believe that although 10 years have passed since the data was
collected, and though we have not at this point published it in academic
journals, that as the reparations process seems still yet to be completed
that such data – though with its limitations/generalizability due to a small
number of interviewees – that it might be helpful for Khulumani, the
South African government, NGOs, the media, etc. Particularly as this
year marks the 20th Anniversary of the South African TRC and other
countries look to it as an example to be copied.
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 2

3. SUMMARY FINDINGS:
THE IMPACT OF REPARATIONS PAID OUT
- Survivors’ Meanings of Reparations: Literal & Symbolic
- Survivors’ Plans to Spend Reparations Money
- Actual Ways in which Reparations Money was Spent
- Survivors’ Current Socioeconomic Suffering and Needs
- Socio-emotional Impacts of Reparations
- Critiques of the Reparation Amount and Process
- Survivors’ Perceptions of the Current Government
- Survivor’s Recommendations for Improving the Process
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 3

4. HOW SURVIVORS MADE MEANING
OF REPARATIONS PROVIDED
• LITERAL MEANING
Money to meet basic needs: e.g.,
for buying food
SYMBOLIC MEANING
- A gesture of “welcoming back”
victims into society
- An act of justice
- A reminder of those who had
died
- A way to reconcile with the
perpetrators
- A comforting gesture/sign of
acknowledgement from the
government
- A show of remorse
- A way to “wipe away tears”
- A sign of the government
making a mockery of their
sacrifice
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA
4

5. SURVIVORS’ PLANS TO SPEND
REPARATIONS MONEY
• For TRAINING PROGRAMS to ensure their future
employment
• For their CHILDREN’S FUTURE: School Education
• For RITUAL CEREMONIES/TOMBSTONES for their
deceased loved ones who were killed during apartheid
• For opening a SMALL BUSINESS
• For PAYING DEBTS
• For HOME IMPROVEMENTS
• For MEDICAL NEEDS and,
• SAVING the money
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 5

6. ACTUAL WAYS THE MONEY WAS SPENT
• On BASIC NEEDS:
FOOD, CLOTHING & SHELTER
• On ACCUMULATION OF MUNICIPAL DEBTS:
WATER, RENT & ELECTRICITY
• On HOUSEHOLD REPAIRS (police had broken doors etc)
• On MEDICAL NEEDS
• On OPENING UP A SMALL BUSINESS
• On BURIAL RITUALS/COMMEMORATIONS
• MONEY WAS SAVED for the future (accruing bank fees
an issue however)
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 6

7. CURRENT (2005) SOCIOECONOMIC
SUFFERING AND NEEDS
• Continuing CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATIONS &
IMPACT of DISABILITIES
• PHYSICAL PAIN is still being endured
• The impacts of DISABILITIES are still affecting their lives
• BULLETS are still lodged in their bodies
• Employment is a CHALLENGE due to pain and disabilities
• The negative impact of an unearned CRIMINAL RECORD
remains e.g. in terms of employment possibilities
• LONG TERM income lost due to breadwinner absence
• SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONCERNS
• Lack of employment opportunities
• High cost of living (water, electricity, rent)
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 7

8. CURRENT (2005) SOCIOECONOMIC
SUFFERING AND NEEDS
• Survivors’ EXISTING NEEDS:
• Due to violation related disabilities and injuries:
• A NEED for HEALH CARE
• Due to POVERTY, most in need interviewed could not afford follow up Doctor
visits needed (e.g., for bullet and stabbing wounds, and constant sharp pain)
• A NEED for MONEY TO COVER:
• TRANSPORTATION to/from HEALTH CARE
• PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS
• FUNDS to put up a TOMBSTONE for the deceased
• FUNDS to pay for their own or their children’s education
• Survivors’ WAYS OF COPING FINANCIALLY:
• Some received pensions and/or disability grants
• Started a small business (eg., one person rented out a pool table in
her home) – though it was not enough to live on
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 8

9. SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACTS OF
RECEIVING REPARATIONS
• INCOMPENSATABLE LOSS
• Money cannot erase suffering
• Money cannot heal wounds
• Money cannot bring back the dead
• Money cannot be equated with human life
• “One’s life is not worth thirty thousand (Rand)”
• MEANINGLESS MONEY
• The money was just money, without any special symbolic
meaning
• The money was used for basic needs and was not available for
more meaningful things (healing, or to give to grandchildren etc.).
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 9

10. SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACTS OF
RECEIVING REPARATIONS
• Cont.
• DISCLOSING RECEIPT OF REPARATIONS TO
FRIENDS/COMMUNITY
• Some friends and family ASSUMED THEY WERE RICH having
received the reparations
• REQUESTS FOR MONEY was a concern
• Some survivors who had NOTHING TO SHOW for the money felt
ASHAMED when asked about it
• There was a concern that it might be STOLEN by “thugs”
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 10

11. SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACTS OF
RECEIVING REPARATIONS
• POSITIVE FAMILY IMPACT
• Family members reacted positively towards their receiving
reparations
• Family members were happy their family member was one of few
survivors in the country to receive the amount
• Family members participated in deciding how the money was to be
spent
• NEGATIVE FAMILY IMPACT
• Family members were not happy with the amount received
(especially if there was a long term injury/disability involved)
• Family were not happy with the way the money was allocated
• Family was broken apart as a result of the money tensions
• Survivors felt pressured by family to spend it in a certain way
• Survivors suffered hardships (not having food to eat) while waiting for
the money to be finally paid out
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 11

12. SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACTS OF
RECEIVING REPARATIONS
• Cont.
• OBLIGATIONS TO HELP OTHERS WITH THE MONEY:
• Felt they were expected to help others financially after receiving the money
• Many used the money to help family members and friends
• Used for others for: medical attention, burial services, or basic needs of food,
shoes and clothes
• For cultural traditions: for example, paying labola to his marriage partner with
his reparations
• Helping others financially as a way to acknowledge and thank them for their
support
• LACKING SKILLS TO MANAGE MONEY
• Lacking budgeting skills to use reparations wisely
• Not really knowing how they had spent all the money
• Experiencing a feeling of “mismanaging” the money – despite having spent it
on food, rent, municipal debts etc.
• Disappointed as the expectation was that there would be real long term
visible impacts from the reparations
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 12

13. SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACTS OF
RECEIVING REPARATIONS
• Cont.
• ACCOUNTABILITY FOR REPARATION MONEY:
• A concern arose around the ability to “show others” what they had done with the
money when asked about it
• Explaining was easier if it had been used for something TANGIBLE (house repair)
• Felt guilty and angry if needing to explain NONTANGIBLE uses (bills etc.)
• Frustrated that they had received the money but still lived in a shack (used for other expenses)
• A CHANCE TO DO IT OVER:
• Survivors said they wanted to do things differently with the money if given the
chance
• Guilt for not spending it “properly”
• Desire to have used it in more constructive ways or on “better things” (something
with long term benefit)
• MONEY RECEIVED WAS BETTER THAN NOTHING
• FRUSTRATION REGARDING THEIR INABILITY TO CHANGE
REPARATIONS OUTCOMES (more say about reparations would have
been preferred)
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 13

14. CRITIQUES OF THE REPARATION
AMOUNT AND PROCESS
• Money paid out was TOO LITTLE
• Particularly in light of the basic current needs for which survivors
used the reparations (including for their dependents)
• Not enough to invest in some long-term sustainable project
• THE WAITING TIME WAS TOO LONG
• It took the government a long time to distribute reparations
• Survivors had unmet needs during the years of waiting
• Survivors lost hope that the reparations would be paid out
• THE MONEY IS FINISHED
• The amount received was insufficient and it is now finished
• There is no money left to support themselves
• The money is gone but the pain remains, and their lifestyle did not
improve
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 14

15. CRITIQUES OF THE REPARATION
AMOUNT AND PROCESS
• Cont.
• CONCERNS AROUND ALLOCATION OF MONEY:
• A structural concern was the LACK OF CLARITY regarding the reparations pay out POLICY
• Confusion occurred regarding the AMOUNT of money received per victim
• Survivors did not expect to SHARE reparations with family members
• No planning possibility as the MONEY JUST ARRIVED one day
• TOO FEW PEOPLE RECEIVED REPARATIONS
• Survivors showed gratitude for having received the reparations
• NOT everyone who suffered from human rights violations qualified for reparations
• Recipients compared themselves to those who received nothing – “so many people suffered
under the old regime”
• SURVIVORS HAD TO PUT UP A FIGHT TO GET REPARATIONS
• Survivors were frustrated that they had to put up a fight to get government to finally pay out
reparations (having to go into the streets and march etc.)
• LACK OF SURVIVORS INPUT IN DESIGNING REPARATIONS
• Some survivors expressed dissatisfaction with the money received because they felt they did
not have a voice in the process
• Some survivors might have preferred housing, healthcare or psychological help instead of a
financial payout
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 15

16. SURVIVORS’ PERCEPTION OF THE
CURRENT (2005) GOVERNMENT
• Felt BETRAYED by the government
• Believed government officials were BENEFITTING from
high positions in government and getting “fat” salaries
(while victims had to take to the streets to be paid
reparations promised them)
• Felt the government had FORGOTTEN about the
CONTRIBUTIONS made by VICTIMS during the fight
against apartheid. A LACK OF RECOGNITION of victim
sacrifice.
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 16

17. SURVIVORS’ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
IMPROVING THE REPARATIONS PROCESS
• Distribute LONG-TERM payments vs. a one time payment
• Issue in installments
• Over time
• Survivors questioned why the government issued a one time payment of R30,000 versus what was recommended by
the TRC of “annual payments for 6 years”
• Offer CASE BY CASE Compensation
• Reparations should be tailored to individuals most URGENT needs
• Compensation should be in relation to their highest need, depending on their situation. For example, for those disabled,
access to healthcare might have been key. For those who lost a family breadwinner, money to pay bills and rent might
be the priority.
• COMMUNITY REPARATIONS
• ACCESS: Survivors requested that government set up liaisons in various government departments where TRC victims
could get quick access and attention (and not have to struggle with accessing an already overloaded system)
• The exhumation of the bones of loved ones
• Investigative committees to find out information about the disappeared
• Ritual ceremonies to commemorate the dead
• Access to education and healthcare
• Specific employment opportunities for victims and their families
• Special rent subsidies and tax rates for victims
• Psychological services provided for dealing with suffering in the past and present
• OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
• The setting up of financial management workshops for recipients
• Skills on how to best invest or use the money for long term returns
• Victims requested receiving an additional reparation payout from the government in the future (in addition to the $30K
paid out)
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 17

18. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF
FINDINGS
• Limitations: Though the group of survivors we
interviewed (19) is small, and generalizability thus
limited, those interviewed share similar characteristics
with the larger group of survivors who submitted a TRC
statement. Also as all those interviewed are Black South
Africans, this research may not represent the views of
non black South Africans who received reparations.
• RESULTS SHED LIGHT ON THE COMPLEX IMPACT
MONETARY REPARATIONS HAVE ON SURVIVORS
OF GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 18

19. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF
FINDINGS
• OUR FINDINGS:
• Indicate an OVERALL DISSATISFACTION with the REPARATION PROCESS
• The MAJORITY of survivors SPENT THEIR MONEY not on long term support but on
IMMEDIATE BASIC NEEDS such as:
• MUNICIPAL DEBTS
• FOOD
• CLOTHING
• SHELTER
• SOCIO-EMOTIONAL impacts:
• Most described the PROCESS as more a BURDEN than a relief
• Many whose family members had died during apartheid felt the money could not bring them back – and thus
LACKED MEANING
• Some reported SOCIAL STRAIN once receiving reparations (it caused separation based on us vs. them –
those who got reparations and those who did not)
• FAMILY STRAIN around reparations
• An EXPECTATION from family and friends that you would HELP OTHERS with the money
• The AMOUNT of money was TOO LITTLE to accomplish what they wanted to do
• The LENGTH OF TIME – the WAIT for reparation payout – was TOO LONG
• LACK of PARTICIPATION around the reparations process was frustrating
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 19

20. TAKING SURVIVORS’ SUGGESTIONS INTO
ACCOUNT: “WHY DIDN’T THEY ASK US?”
• Suggestions from survivors:
• Survivors individual NEEDS should be given PRIORITY when determining
what TYPES of reparations to assign them
• Include SURVIVORS at ALL levels of DECISION MAKING when designing
TRCs and reparations process: ask victims directly and set up committees
who collect information through interviews, focus groups, surveys etc.
Inclusion on the GOVERNMENT’S decision making panel regarding
reparation allocation
• The TRC and Government should provide more TIMELY CLARITY regarding
the amount of money that would be allocated and when it would be paid out
• REPARATIONS should be an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of PAST SUFFERING
and addressing CURRENT NEEDS
• GOVERNMENT leaders should not forget their OWN and their LOVED ONES
CONTRIBUTIONS to the STRUGGLE against apartheid
• SOUTH AFRICANS should acknowledge the CRUCIAL ROLE victims played
in constructing the NEW DISPENSATION of the country
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 20

21. TAKING VARYING VIOLATIONS INTO
ACCOUNT: “WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME”
• Government should take note that NOT ALL VICTIMS ARE THE
SAME or EXPERIENCING the same suffering
• VICTIMS are different from one another
• The TYPE(S) of VIOLATION suffered really matters
• The CONTEXT in which the violation occurred matters
• The DURATION of the violation matters
• The SEVERITY of the violation matters
• VICTIMS may have VERY DIFFERENT NEEDS and CONCERNS
• Giving ALL victims the SAME amount may NOT be EFFECTIVE.
Compensating them according to their need may perhaps be better.
• For example, those who suffered property damage would receive
less than someone disabled for life as a result of the violations
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 21

22. TAKING VARYING VIOLATIONS INTO
ACCOUNT: “WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME”
• Survivors’ FRAMING of reparations as a TOOL for LONG
TERM RESULTS (versus short term immediate and
basic needs) LED THEM to be concerned how others
would JUDGE how they used the reparations.
• Some felt ASHAMED that in someone’s eyes – who had
long term impacts in mind - they “mismanaged” the
money (as they had nothing now to show for it).
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 22

23. BASIC NEEDS: A FORM OF REPARATION?
OR THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSIBILITY?
• Offering reparations in the CONTEXT of WIDESPREAD SYSTEMIC
POVERTY IS VERY IMPORTANT
• Survivor’s day-to-day BASIC NEEDS should be met through
government agencies AS PART OF REPARATIONS to ALLOW for
the allocated money (R30,000) to be INVESTED in LONG TERM
and SUSTAINING EFFORTS
• Government should provide or heavily subsidize water, housing etc. and that alone
should not be considered reparations
• Survivors requested that government:
• Lower or stabilize rents
• Subsidize municipal costs (a number of survivors had spent most of their financial
reparations paying such bills)
• IN SUMMARY: reparations given by the government were in a sense given back to
the government (or private contractors working with government) in the form of
municipal debt payments. This circular repayment process should not be what
reparations are about. Government should consider erasing/cancelling all municipal/
rent debts incurred during apartheid. Those citizens privileged by the apartheid
system did not face such financial burdens of municipal debts.
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 23

24. SURVIVORS CONTINUE TO FACE
SUFFERING FROM APARTHEID YEARS
• The suffering and challenges of survivors of apartheid-era
human rights violations CONTINUE TODAY
• We must notice and focus on SURVIVORS continuing
RESILIENCE despite challenging circumstances
• Only THEY KNOW what will help them continue their
ONGOING HEALING PROCESS
• It is VITAL that GOVERNMENT follows through with ALL the
RECOMMENDATIONS of the TRC and allocate (and pay out)
RELATED NATIONAL BUDGETS in an ETHICAL and TIMELY
MANNER
Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 24