by Glenda Wildschut and Paul Haupt

edited by Liam Mahony

I'll Walk Beside YouProviding emotional support for testifiers at the South African Truth & Reconciliation Commission

A Tactical Notebook published bythe New Tactics Project

of the Center for Victims of Torture

Published byThe Center for Victims of TortureNew Tactics in Human Rights Project717 East River RoadMinneapolis, MN 55455 USAwww.cvt.org, www.newtactics.org

Notebook Series EditorLiam Mahony

CopyeditingHelen Healy, Nick Healy

DesignSue Everson

The Leadership Academy of the Desmond Tutu Peace Centre and the Center for Victims of Torture wish toacknowledge the following institutions that provided support for the New Tactics in Human Rights Africanregional training workshop, of which this and other tactical notebooks are a product:

· The Rockefeller Foundation

· The International Center on Nonviolent Conflict

· Norwegian Church Aid

· The European Union Conference, Workshop and Cultural Initiatives Fund in conjunction with theSouth African National Trust

· The United States Department of State

· The United States Institute of Peace

· Donors who wish to remain anonymous.

We are also greatly indebted to the work of numerous interns and volunteers who have contributed theirtime and expertise to the advancement of the project and of human rights.

The New Tactics project has also benefited from more than 2000 hours of work from individual volunteersand interns as well as donations of in-kind support. Some of the institutional sponsors of this work includeMacalester College, the University of Minnesota, the Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs, theMinnesota Justice Foundation and the public relations firm of Padilla Speer Beardsley.

The opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed on this site are those of the NewTactics project and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders For a full list of project sponsors seewww.newtactics.org.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the New Tactics in Human RightsProject. The project does not advocate specific tactics or policies.

© 2004 Center for Victims of TortureThis publication may be freely reproduced in print and in electronic form as longas this copyright notice appears on all copies.

66

54

The Center for Victims of TortureNew Tactics in Human Rights Project

717 East River RoadMinneapolis, MN 55455 USA

www.cvt.org, www.newtactics.org

Author biographies

Letter from the New Tactics project manager

Introduction

Historical context

7Psychosocial support for victims & testifiers

9Briefing as a tactic

13Training for briefings

13Outcomes

14Limits of the process

14Transferring the tactic

16Appendix: Critical Incident Debriefing

Glenda Wildschut &Paul HauptGlenda Wildschut is presently the director of theDesmond Tutu Leadership Academy. In 1995 she wasappointed by President Nelson Mandela to serve as acommissioner on the South African Truth and Reconcili-ation Commission under the chairmanship of NobelPeace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, where sheserved on the Reparation and Rehabilitation Commit-tee. She also worked at the World Health Organisationheadquarters in Geneva, examining the role of healthworkers in transitional societies.

Ms. Wildschut has been involved in human rights advo-cacy since the early 1980s, working particularly withpolitical prisoners in South Africa and Namibia, theirfamilies, exiles and orphaned returnee children. MsWildschut is a registered nurse, midwife, psychiatric nurse(specialising in child and adolescent psychiatry), com-munity nurse practitioner and nurse educator. She isalso a mother, sister, daughter and aunt, with interests inthe arts, particularly choral music, and she trained as aclassical singer. She is a member of the Cape Town Sym-phony Choir.

Paul Haupt is a clinical psychologist, currently the di-rector of perpetrator studies at the Institute for Justiceand Reconciliation in Cape Town. In this capacity, hehas conducted more than 50 in-depth interviews amongSouth Africa’s former antagonists from across the politi-cal divides. This work aims to deepen understanding ofthe motives and perspectives of South Africans engagedin armed political conflict.

Mr. Haupt worked as a briefer for the Reparation andRehabilitation Committee of the Truth and Reconcilia-tion Commission, providing emotional support for vic-tims appearing in public hearings (including hearings onhuman rights violations and amnesty). He has extensiveexperience in the workings of the commission and hasbeen engaged in the debates surrounding its work andSouth Africa’s political transition in general.

AcknowledgementsFor nearly three years, from December 1995 to October1998, I had the honour and privilege to serve as a com-missioner on the South African Truth and Reconcilia-tion Commission. In writing this notebook, I made ampleuse of the official report of the Commission (Part 2).

In this capacity I learned many valuable lessons-lessonsof courage, hardship, good and unspeakable evil. Mostof all I learned of a generosity of spirit amongst ourpeople, particularly those who agreed to testify beforethe commission at public hearings. It is to these wit-nesses who exposed their hurt, trauma and pain on radioand before the glare of television cameras that I offerspecial thanks. Had it not been for testifiers we wouldnot have had the possibility of a successful Truth andReconciliation Commission.To the briefers who wentbeyond the call of duty to provide a safe space for thethousands of people who appeared before the commis-sion, I salute you.

Writing this notebook—along with preparation for theNew Tactics African Regional Training Workshop—hasgiven me the space to reflect on the process of providingpsychosocial support in the context of a judicial process,and I hope others will benefit from these insights. I thankmy colleagues at the Desmond Tutu Leadership Acad-emy, especially Cheryl Vallay, for all the assistance theyhave given in getting this job done. And finally, to myson, Luke, who has to step aside so that tasks like thesecan be done, I am grateful.

September 2004

Dear Friend,

Welcome to the New Tactics in Human Rights Tactical Notebook Series! In each notebook a humanrights practitioner describes an innovative tactic used successfully in advancing human rights. Theauthors are part of the broad and diverse human rights movement, including non-government andgovernment perspectives, educators, law enforcement personnel, truth and reconciliation processes,and women’s rights and mental health advocates. They have both adapted and pioneered tactics thathave contributed to human rights in their home countries. In addition, they have utilized tacticsthat, when adapted, can be applied in other countries and situations to address a variety of issues.

Each notebook contains detailed information on how the author and his or her organization achievedwhat they did. We want to inspire other human rights practitioners to think tactically—and tobroaden the realm of tactics considered to effectively advance human rights.

In this notebook Glenda Wildschut and Paul Haupt outline the victim accompaniment process forthe South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) that developed the concept of“briefers” to install a victim-friendly process. Victims were provided with the opportunity to testifyand be supported before, during and after the process. The TRC selected briefers—chosen from thecaring professions, such as ministers, social workers and nurses—from the community to provide thissupport. The briefers acted as volunteers and were trained to perform various tasks with regard to theentire structural process of the TRC. As a consequence of the sustained, supportive work of thebriefers during the entire process, victims better understood their legal, emotional and practicalposition. Thus, they felt they owned the process and were able to contribute in an important way bymaking recommendations about reparations. Briefers could be utilized in many settings—e.g. thoseinvolving domestic violence or rape, and tribunals court systems—where vulnerable victims needmediation and support to overcome traumatic experiences and especially in processes that involveperpetrators as well.

The entire series of Tactical Notebooks is available online at www.newtactics.org. Additionalnotebooks will continue to be added over time. On our web site you will also find other tools,including a searchable database of tactics, a discussion forum for human rights practitioners andinformation about our workshops and symposium. To subscribe to the New Tactics newsletter,please send an e-mail to newtactics@cvt.org.

The New Tactics in Human Rights Project is an international initiative led by a diverse group oforganizations and practitioners from around the world. The project is coordinated by the Center forVictims of Torture (CVT) and grew out of our experiences as a creator of new tactics and as atreatment center that also advocates for the protection of human rights from a unique position-one ofhealing and reclaiming civic leadership.

We hope that you will find these notebooks informational and thought-provoking.

Sincerely,

Kate KelschNew Tactics Project Manager

6

IntroductionBetween1995 and 1998, 21,529 people gave state-ments to the South African Truth and ReconciliationCommission (TRC).1 The thousands of hours of hear-ings were broadcast publicly and became the mostwatched programming in South African televisionhistory. Testifiers recounted the horrors of 34 yearsof apartheid and repression, bringing to light the con-tours of a national trauma, and the details of thou-sands of individuals’ suffering.

Testifying publicly about one’s own personal traumais itself a terribly difficult experience. The TRC com-mitted itself to creating a process that was friendlyand accommodating for victims. Part of this processwas a program of “briefing” for people coming forthto testify. Thousands of people were accompaniedbefore, during and after their testimony by volun-teers trained in psychosocial support as well as in thelegal and practical realities of the hearing process.The goal was to provide the necessary support tomake the experience of testifying an empoweringone that would help in the victim’s longer-term heal-ing process, rather than contribute to renewed suf-fering.

The briefing process had positive effects on threedifferent levels. On the individual level, it helped thetestifiers overcome their apprehensions, avoid sec-ondary trauma, process their painful past and moveon with their lives. On a community level, it helpedtrain community members to assist in the psychoso-cial healing process of the testifiers, while also bring-ing whole communities together to process and healfrom their mutually shared past experiences. And fi-nally, on a national level, the briefing helped the TruthCommission achieve its goal of creating a victim-friendly process that would promote national heal-ing for a traumatised nation. On each of these levels,there are lessons to be learned that may be appli-cable in other contexts.

Historical contextEach time a country shifts from an authoritarian, re-pressive government to a newly democratic one, theinfinitely complex issue of what has come to be knownas transitional justice, has to be tackled. In South Af-rica, the most significant and powerful mechanismdevised to deal with the country’s transition and theproblems that necessarily lay within it, was the Truthand Reconciliation Commission. The seed of this ini-tiative was planted with the adoption of the InterimConstitution on December 5, 1993, which emphasisedthe importance of the country’s reconstruction andpursuit of national peace. The Constitution aimed tofinally seal the lid on the bloody conflict between theincreasingly militant liberation struggle and the apart-

heid regime in power that had locked the country ina notoriously violent and oppressive stranglehold formore than 40 years. The United Nations and otherworld organisations had now declared apartheid “acrime against humanity.” In line with this human rightsperspective, the Constitution claimed to mark “anhistoric bridge between the past of a deeply dividedsociety characterised by strife, conflict, untold suf-fering and injustice, and a future founded on the rec-ognition of human rights, democracy, and peacefulco-existence.”

The fundamental concept behind the establishmentof the TRC was that the future reconciliation neces-sary for peaceful co-existence in South Africa wouldbe possible only as a result of knowing as complete apicture as possible of the nature, causes and extentof gross violations of human rights committed duringthe apartheid era, a public recognition of the truththat had been hidden for so long by false propagandaat the hands of apartheid’s helmsmen. Also, the tran-sitional justice required to steer the country towardreconciliation had to be of a restorative, rather thanretributive, nature. To this end, the decision was madeto combine a process for granting amnesty to perpe-trators with a process of public truth-telling on be-half of victims. Both procedures would serve also asan acknowledgement of past atrocities and lost dig-nities and place the new democracy on a moral planewithin which the aim of preventing a reoccurrencewas implicit.

Contrary to widespread belief, the South African TRCwas not the first truth commission in existence, andother prominent initiatives can be seen to have servedas its predecessors. Whilst undoubtedly the most am-bitious and thorough to date in terms of its scale andpowers, there have been some 17 similar commis-sions around the world since 1974, principally in LatinAmerican countries that were also attempting tounmask the truths of their unsavoury histories. Norwas the TRC the first body established in South Africato investigate human rights abuses. Following persis-tent reports and rumours in the media from 1989onwards around the existence of death squads withinthe national army and police, the Harms Commissionwas appointed to investigate this specific matter. Onthe back of this, a Commission of Inquiry into PublicViolence was established in 1992, and came to beknown as the Goldstone Commission, headed by Jus-tice Richard Goldstone. It was set up to investigatethe origin of so-called “third-force” attacks, whichwere linked to the police and military instigating vio-lent conflict between supporters of the Inkatha Free-dom Party and the African National Congress (ANC),on trains and in other public places, in an attempt todestroy the peace process. In fact, 16,000 people werekilled during the peace process.2 The ANC also estab-lished two internal commissions in the early 1990s—the Skweyiya and the Motsuenyane Commission—in

1Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report, Vol. 6(2003). Kenwyn: Juta

2 Race Relations Survey 1990-1995: Johannesburg: SAIRR

I’ll Walk Beside You 7

response to allegations of human rights violations inits own armed camps across the border. An extensiveprocess of debate and analysis within civil society fur-ther prepared the ground for the specific embodi-ment of the TRC. Eminent figures from other countriesin conflict that had undergone similar processes—most notably, the former president of Chile, PatricioAlwyn—were invited to participate in a series of con-ferences and seminars in 1994 and 1995 that helpedto formulate the Truth Commission.

At the request of then-president Nelson Mandela andby constitutional obligation, the Promotion of Na-tional Unity and Reconciliation Act created the TRCon July 26, 1995. The Act charged the TRC with“provid[ing] for the investigation and the establish-ment of as complete a picture as possible of the na-ture, causes and extent of gross violations of humanrights committed from March 1, 1960,” the year ofthe Sharpeville Massacre, until the democratic elec-tions of 1994. To clarify the breadth of this mandate,the Act defined a “gross violation” as “the killing,abduction, torture, or severe ill-treatment of anyperson” with a political motive or any attempt tocommit such an action. The Act further defines the“victims” as those who directly “suffered harm inthe form of physical or mental injury, emotional suf-fering, pecuniary loss” or gross violations of humanrights and “the relatives and dependants of such vic-tims as prescribed.”

The President of South Africa was charged with ap-pointing between 11 and 17 people to serve as truthand reconciliation commissioners. The TRC was man-dated to create three committees: the Committeeon Human Rights Violations which would serve as theinvestigative wing of the TRC and submit reports tothe commission regarding human rights violations;the Committee on Reparations and Rehabilitationwhich would consider the cases of alleged victims andsubmit recommendations for the victims who appliedfor reparations; and the Committee on Amnestywhich would facilitate open hearings on gross viola-tions of human rights and grant or withhold amnestyfor perpetrators.

Altogether, the aim of the TRC was to realise manyof the ideals set forth in the South African Constitu-tion. When proclaiming the justification for estab-lishing the TRC, the Promotion of National Unity andReconciliation Act cites that “the Constitution statesthat the pursuit of national unity, the well-being ofall South African citizens and peace require reconcili-ation between the people of South Africa” and that“the Constitution states that there is a need for un-derstanding but not for vengeance, a need for repa-ration but not for retaliation, a need for ubuntu butnot for victimisation.” (Ubuntu is the concept thatour humanity is dependent on the humanity of oth-ers.) While the mandate of the TRC clearly statedthat victims of gross violations of human rights mustbe treated with the utmost respect and care, it alsoasserted that the commission must thoroughly seekto uncover all human rights violations occurring be-tween 1960 and 1994, without regard to the race,sex or religion of either perpetrator or victim. In do-ing so, the commission would clarify many of the awfulmysteries of the apartheid era and clear the way fornational reconciliation, unity and progress.

Psychosocial support forvictims and testifiersThe Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee of theTRC was responsible for providing victims with psy-chosocial and emotional support. From the outset thecommission recognised the need to provide an envi-ronment that supported and respected the dignityof all who approached it and stressed the importanceof sensitivity to the immediate needs of all those tes-tifying, encouraging that they should be referred toexisting service agencies for necessary support.

BIRTH OF THE BRIEFING PROGRAMIn the psychosocial sense, a “briefer” is someone whoaccompanies a person going through a traumatic timeand subsequently helps people decode what has hap-pened. The briefing methodology we used comes fromcritical incident debriefing (CID), a practice that hasdeveloped in situations where people have gonethrough unusual or traumatic experiences (naturaldisasters, for example). Prior to serving as TRC com-

Briefers in a training session.

Briefer sitting behind a testifier and supporting her in a difficultmoment during testimony.

8

missioner, I had been working on starting a torturetreatment centre, and was on the board of a traumacentre. We saw, for instance, that when police orfirefighters come back from a traumatic experiencein their work, they recuperated from that traumabetter if they had a process to talk through it. Like-wise, I saw torture survivors who, when they talkedabout their experiences, would relive these traumas.As I surveyed the relevant literature at the TraumaCentre, I learned that levels of secondary trauma arereduced if there is an early briefing process. It hasbeen shown, for instance, that posttraumatic stresssyndrome is reduced in rescue workers when CID isapplied.

More technical information on critical incident de-briefing is provided in the Appendix. The tool is rela-tively simple and does not require professional skills.CID has three aspects: cognitive, emotional and prac-tical. On the cognitive level, we ask the person, Whatwere you thinking during the traumatic incident? Onthe emotional level, What did you feel during theevent? And finally, on a practical level, What did youdo? The CID process then illustrates to the affectedperson how their responses are normal, even thoughthey were experiencing very abnormal circumstances.

We had a number of members of the health profes-sions on the TRC (which is unusual—more frequentlysuch commissions are composed of people with legaltraining). When we presented the idea of briefing tothe rest of the commission, it was accepted easily.They understood that the process would be hard forthose who testify. The TRC had committed itself tobeing a victim-friendly process that would givetestifiers the dignity and the worth they deserve.More frequently it is the perpetrator who is in thelimelight, with the victims playing a smaller part. Thiscan be very frustrating for the victims. We chose tostart the process with victim hearings rather thanthe amnesty hearings.

With the commission’s approval, we spent a lot oftime adapting the CID model to the TRC setting, wherepeople would come to report on incidents or providetestimony. We found that people appreciated thatsupport. The commission went so far as to appointpsychosocial professionals to our staff. Commission-ers and staff also needed support for their own stress-ful work.

OBJECTIVES OF THE BRIEFING PROGRAMWith the briefing program we were addressing threelevels of objectives:

Support and empower the individual: The primarygoal was to establish a supportive environment forsurvivors in general, allowing them the space to ex-press their feelings, in a healing process. We wantedto facilitate this process in order that it have the best

possible chance of being an empowering experience,one that would sustain or restore their sense of dig-nity, and which would not contribute to renewedtrauma.

Support the community healing process: The TRC wasinvestigating events with a cumulative impact. Mas-sacres and discrimination had been targeted at wholecommunities. Each human rights abuse against anindividual served as an act of terror to frighten ev-eryone around them and left many peopletraumatised. The process of healing also needed tobe collective. People needed to come to grips withthe past in the context of their families and commu-nities. Therefore, our process needed to draw fromthe community and family and find, strengthen orrebuild the resources for psychosocial healing withinthem. The process of training community briefers wascrucial in this respect.

Maximise the impact on national healing: Finally, ourbriefing process was part of a massive national ca-tharsis, and the hearings involved many thousands ofvictims. To really be victim-friendly we could not settlefor a few visible, model cases of adequate emotionalsupport. We needed methods that could be devel-oped with limited resources that could effectivelyreach a substantial portion of the numerous peoplewho would testify. And we needed a process thatwould show the whole country the importance weplaced on maintaining the dignity of the victims, asthis message would help the positive catharsis wesought.

To achieve these goals, we trained two kinds ofbriefers. A core group of briefers worked intensivelythroughout the process. In addition, communitybriefers were recruited and trained in each of thehome communities of the those who testified. Thecore briefers were more intensively trained andgained more experience, as they helped testifiersfrom various communities month after month pre-pare for and go through their hearings. They alsohelped to train the community briefers. The commu-nity briefers had a more focused and shorter-termobjective: to provide support for their own commu-nity and the testifiers coming from that community.Thus, some of our briefers were trainers of otherbriefers, and then within each community, these lat-ter could continue to help the community learn aboutthe healing process the victims needed.

The briefer’s job included:¨ Facilitating the testifier’s preparation in a sup-

portive environment.¨ Allowing survivors the space to express their feel-

ings. (Some events had happened 20–30 yearsago, others had just happened. Everyone was atdifferent stages and we needed to support themwherever they were in their healing process.)

I’ll Walk Beside You 9

¨ Educating testifiers about the legal realities andimplications of giving testimony.

¨ Educating testifiers, their families and their com-munities about the psychosocial dynamics of theprocess of testifying about the events of the pastand the relationship to healing.

¨ Offering emotional support to each testifier be-fore, during and after the hearing.

¨ In the case of the amnesty hearings, specificpreparation encouraging survivors to imagineboth possible outcomes (amnesty granted to theperpetrator, amnesty not granted) and to reflecton implications of each outcome for their ownhealing process.

¨ In some cases, briefers facilitated or mediatedencounters between victims and perpetrators.

Briefing as a tacticThe process we developed involved the followingstages: 1) initial contact with the community; 2) ini-tial contact with witnesses; 3) a full-day briefing ses-sion; 4) the hearing itself; 5) a closure process; and 6)a follow-up visit.

1) INITIAL CONTACT WITH COMMUNITY: FIND-ING COMMUNITY BRIEFERSThe scale of the TRC’s work nationally limited us toonly about an eight-week relationship with each com-munity. So it was important to stimulate whateverresources were in the community. Our capacity tofollow up on the process was very limited.

Our initial contact with a community was usually inthe form of a public meeting, involving teachers,people in the legal professions, health workers andothers in the community. They would come to a com-munity hall, where we would present the work ofthe commission. We would explain our needs and tryto form a partnership with the community.

As with any kind of external intervention of a hu-manitarian nature, it was essential to build a part-nership with existing community leaders and to valueand take advantage of the resources and skills thecommunity already had. We tried to identify the keystakeholders: community council members, peoplefrom faith communities, traditional leaders, author-ity figures, etc. They would be introducing the com-mission to the others in the community. We wouldask these authorities to hold a public meeting andbring people together. Their permission and conven-ing authority was important. Then we would movefrom there.

In most of the communities there was an affiliationwith the South African Council of Churches, whichhelped us a great deal. In the Western Cape therewas an organisation called The Religious Response tothe Truth Commission which brought together NGOs

and members of the local faith communities. Theyhelped us find local partners.

One immediate goal of this first gathering was toidentify potential community briefers. Very often itwas church people, social workers, teachers ornurses—people who already had certain professionalexperience helping individuals and the communitythrough difficult situations. No one came into thebriefing process without relevant experience. Weneeded people with some level of psychosocial train-ing, because we knew we would not have time for anin-depth training process. The prospective commu-nity briefers would usually present themselves to usvoluntarily. We found that as long as people came inwith some basic experience in providing empatheticsupport, the training process was not difficult.

The next step would be training sessions with theselected community briefers. The sessions would gomore deeply into the process, describe the needs ofthe witnesses and explore what kinds of support al-ready exist within the community. (See section ontraining).

2) INITIAL CONTACT WITH WITNESSESOnce the cases were selected to be publicly heard bythe Human Rights Violation Committee, invitationswere sent to the witnesses. Invitation letters to ap-pear before the TRC at a public hearing were typi-cally hand-delivered by TRC logistics staff members.The invitation letter included details of the briefingprocess, the date of the briefing session and the hear-ing. TRC logistics staff made transport arrangementsfor witnesses to and from the briefing session andpublic hearing.

The briefers’ first contact with a witness was gener-ally on his or her arrival at the briefing session. Wit-

Briefers sits next to a testifier.

10

nesses were welcomed with something to eat anddrink before the session began.

3) THE FULL-DAY BRIEFING SESSIONWhen we had a hearing scheduled for a group oftestifiers from a community, we would organise afull-day briefing session two days beforehand. Thiswould bring together all the witnesses scheduled fora specific hearing day. We wanted to create a senseof group support that could be maintained duringthe hearing itself. There were usually about eightwitnesses scheduled for a given day and we encour-aged them all to bring a friend or family support per-son with them.

We all sat in a circle, and witnesses and briefers in-troduced themselves. Then we would describe therole of the briefers and explain the agenda for theday’s session. We sought always to eliminate as manyunknowns as possible, thus reducing people’s stress.

Next we would explain three key aspects of the hear-ing process:¨ Practical and logistical aspects: We would give

people an overview of the schedule, process andlocation as well as their own role in it all. Wewanted to prepare people for the physical set-ting, which could be potentially intimidating.

¨ Legal aspects: For example, we encouragedpeople to read from prepared statements andurged them not to name new perpetrators inpublic (because all accusations had been corrobo-rated in advance by the TRC).

¨ Emotional aspects: We discussed what unex-pected feelings people might experience andclarified again the briefers’ support role.

The next step was a tour of the hearing room to letpeople know exactly what to expect.

After returning from the hearing room, we dividedinto smaller groups of six to eight people to sharestories, facilitated by the briefer. For many witnesses,this was the first opportunity to share their stories ina group. For the briefers, this could be one of themost satisfying experiences. There was a sense ofconnection, as neighbours conveyed experiences forthe first time. We encouraged these groups to stay intouch after the TRC process was over. Before closing,we would ensure that the group exchanged contactinformation to maintain a supportive connection af-ter the event.

4) THE DAY OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGOn the day of the hearing, the witnesses and briefersgot together an hour before the hearing was to be-gin and discussed their immediate feelings about theday ahead. We again went over the logistics andschedule to minimise unknowns during that anxiousperiod.

During the hearings, each witness was assigned abriefer who provided support over the course of theday and accompanied him or her when he or she tookthe stand.

After the testimony, debriefing was very important.The witness would be taken to a separate room forthis before going back into the public room. This wouldenable the briefer to help him or her get through theprocess and also allow him or her to say anything elsethat he or she felt a need to add.

5) CLOSUREWe encouraged people to think in terms of “leavingit all behind”—to leave the trauma in the hands ofthe commission. This was a relief for many people.Figuratively, they could now turn their backs on itand leave it behind. We further urged them to con-tinue to draw support from each other and from theircommunity.

As a commission we did not conduct any particularclosure rituals. But there were other accompanyingorganisations that took on such processes. In KwazuluNatal there is a “washing the spears” ritual, linkedto an ancient ritual in which none of the warriors canenter the village with their spears when returningfrom war. This ritual has adapted over time and isalso a conciliation ritual. A part of the ritual is a physi-cal action of not looking back—not looking upon thebattlefield—literally putting it behind you. For somepeople Christian rituals, such as mass and commun-ion, were also important.

CASE STUDY: THE BRIEFING PROCESS INHANOVERTRC staff had been working in the surrounding areasof Hanover for six weeks and Hanover had been iden-tified as having centrally located facilities that couldhost a public hearing. Staff of the Human Rights Com-mittee had collected victim statements. TRC investi-gators had corroborated victim statements. And thebriefer for the Reparation and Rehabilitation Com-mittee had identified and trained community mem-bers to help provide support to witnesses who wereto appear before the TRC. The days preceding thepublic hearings were devoted to briefing witnesses.The TRC briefer and trained community briefers con-ducted these sessions, preparing witnesses for theprocess of giving public testimony and supportingthem through the often daunting process of sharingtheir traumatic memories in a public TRC hearing.

As witnesses arrived from surrounding communitiesfor the day’s briefing session, they were welcomedby the briefers and invited to a drink and sandwich.Many had traveled long distances. After greeting eachother, the initial atmosphere of apprehension slowlygave way to a determination to tell their stories, tospeak out—they were not alone. As usual, the brief-

I’ll Walk Beside You 11

ing session began formally with a welcome and intro-duction. Sitting in a circle, they all introduced them-selves. The briefers facilitated the process as peopleshared a little about themselves and their feelingsabout sharing their very personal stories in a publicforum. For the majority of people, this was the firstoccasion to share experiences with relative strang-ers. Each story revealed blatant disregard for humanlife and brutality generating intense emotions—tears,shock, anger and cries interrupted the stories, butwere then contained by comforting words or a touchfrom a fellow witness. Sharing each other’s pain, com-forting words, exclamations of shock and horror andstrong statements about the injustices endured de-veloped camaraderie among witnesses, a realisationthat although silenced, they were not alone.

Group members felt a profound connection to eachother after witnessing these painful memories. Draw-ing strength and inspiration from the experience ofbeing heard and supported by each other, the deter-mination to speak out was palatable. They had toshare their experiences of the injustices anddehumanisation that characterised apartheid-eraSouth Africa for the vast majority of South Africans,to give their traumatic stories away, to create aware-ness of the inhumane acts that were perpetrated inthe name of politics and to share the responsibilitythat these atrocities are never again repeated.

The group’s discussion gained momentum, facilitatedby the briefers. Members of the various communitiesrepresented in the group began to talk about howthey would stay in contact with each other once theTRC had completed its work and moved on. The chal-lenge of remembering the past in a way that wasmeaningful to themselves and their communities tookpriority for the remainder of the day. Their aim wasto decide how they would continue the process ofhealing that they and their various communities hadbegan and wished to continue. Two group membersdecided that they would lead by example. Implicatedin a fatal attack on the brother of a fellow commu-nity member, “the perpetrator,” a victim himself inanother case, asked the brother of his victim for for-giveness.

Now acting as mediators, the briefers’ task was tocontain the process. The atmosphere in the groupchanged from relaxed and easygoing to a solemn,though content, silence. Although these two men hadlived side by side in the same community for years,they had seemingly never had the opportunity to dealwith this history that had estranged them. Now, morethan a decade later, they seized the opportunity andprepared to take the risk. To manage this risk thebriefers mediated the confrontation in order to helpthese former adversaries to engage each other asbrothers as fellow South Africans and no longer aspolitical enemies.

This mediation generated a conversation that reso-nated deeply with the rest of the group as they toowere grappling with the complex task of confrontingthe past in order to move on with their lives. To con-tinue their journey of personal healing, they acknowl-edged their vulnerabilities as human beings andmoved beyond the prejudices they held about oneanother that made it possible for them to dehumaniseeach other. As these two former enemies engaged intheir complex history as violator and violated, theyenacted a symbolic journey of healing for all in theroom. Though an immensely difficult journey, it is also

12

one that brings with it the opportunity for change. Inthis instance, these two men were about to changetheir perceptions of each other forever. They decidedthat after they had given testimony to the TRC thefollowing day, they would visit the site of the killingtogether.

As the sun rose over the town of Hanover, beginninga new day, there was an air of excitement and antici-pation. That day, this little dusty town of 4,000 in-habitants, situated deep in South Africa’s KarooDesert, was hosting one of the TRC’s hearings forvictims of gross human rights violations. The silencethat had shrouded the dark years of oppression, thathad made its mark on even the smallest of SouthAfrican towns, was about to be broken. This day wasthe opportunity for survivors and families of victimsof gross human rights violations in and around thecommunities of Hanover to share their stories withthe commission, the country and the world, firsthandexperiences of the brutality of apartheid’s inhuman,racist and unjust system.

The town’s recreation centre was filled to capacity asmembers of the community eagerly congregated tohear testimony about the conflict, pain and humilia-tion their community had experienced. Each witnessfor the day’s hearing was assigned a briefer whowould support him or her throughout the day. Thebriefer accompanied the witness to the witness standand after the testimony was completed the briefer

went with the witness to a private room where thewitness was debriefed.

By lunchtime on the first day both the men who hadbeen through mediation the previous day had giventestimony. The two men had given differing accountsfrom different perspectives of the murder of “abrother” and “a spy” who had worked as a police-man in the community. Honouring their agreement,they walked across an open field, accompanied bytheir briefers, to the place where the killing occurred.A small crowd of community members followed.When they reached the site, they silently shook handsand embraced each other, tears filling their eyes.Onlookers, entangled in their own history and movedby what they were witnessing, broke the silence byapplauding the men for their gesture of forgiveness.

It was at this level that much of the Reparation andRehabilitation Committee’s work occurred. Out of thespotlight, in the silence of human engagement, thiswork of the TRC provided a concrete opportunity forthe restoration of the human dignity of survivors andof the family and friends of victims of horrendous,dehumanising acts. Although it was an unseen sideof the TRC’s work, the restoration of human dignityin concrete and other ways was fundamental to themandate and objective of the process. Restoring hu-man dignity is, after all, a key challenge to every post-conflict society, as it attempts to establish a basis forsocial restoration, reconciliation and lasting peace.

As the sun set on Hanover that evening and the starsslowly began to light up the Karoo sky, the events ofthe previous days were somehow captured in the mo-ments of dusk. The brief moments between the daythat has passed and the day that is to come. Heldtogether by trust in the knowledge that the nightwill bring refreshing rest and the day, more opportu-nity.

6) FOLLOW-UPWe learned after the first round of hearings in 1996that the hearings could open up old conflicts thatthreatened stability in communities. It became clearthat they needed to provide opportunities for recon-ciliation. Sometimes the community briefers weretraumatised or overwhelmed by the requests of thetestifiers. We felt it was important to go back to ev-ery community where the hearings had been heldand try to deal with the issues that had not beenresolved. Things had been revealed in those hearingsthat no one had known about in the community. Theserevelations in the communities required that therebe space to think through the new realities and dealwith them. It was not our mandate to resolve theseproblems, but we tried to provide the space withinwhich the community could work to resolve them.Thus we brought in an additional step, involving a

Commissioner listens while testifier prepares for testimony.

Testifier being supported by community briefer after givingtestimony.

I’ll Walk Beside You 13

follow-up debriefing visit for the whole community.These visits helped communities to:¨ evaluate the impact of gross violations of hu-

man rights;¨ help formulate reparations policy recommenda-

tions;¨ devise strategies to promote reconciliation and

healing for individuals and neighbourhoods; and¨ begin to own the reconciliation process and cre-

ate community-based initiatives that would con-tinue after the commission’s work had ended.

MEETINGS BETWEEN VICTIMS AND PERPETRA-TORSSometimes at the follow-up meetings, or duringpreparation for the amnesty hearings, requests arosefor victim-perpetrator mediations. Many were com-munity-level mediations—some arising spontane-ously—and the community would use some kind ofritual or symbolism to confront the issue. The brieferssometimes facilitated face-to-face meetings be-tween survivors and perpetrators, as long as bothparties wanted it. There was a lot of media hypeabout this, full of idealistic notions of forgiveness—always highlighting photos of any friendly looks orinteractions. In contrast, the preparation for such ses-sions needed to be realistic and honest; there was noexpectation that people would kiss and make friends.In the preparation, we wanted to help the survivorsinto a position to feel empowered to meet the per-petrators face-to-face. It is a situation where the vic-tims see, for the first time, the perpetrator as ahuman being rather than a power machine.

Training for briefingWorking with victims of violence exposes helpers tothe high levels of trauma and pain experienced bytestifiers. To deal with this they need a certain levelof skills. Because specialised facilities for trauma ser-vices are very limited in South Africa, and tend to bebased in urban areas, it was a challenge to train coun-sellors in the rural areas where many testifiers lived.

Treatment of trauma is a long, slow process, so wehoped to provide testifiers with sustainable supportthat would be available long after the commissionhad concluded its work. For this reason, the emphasiswas on building capacity in existing community struc-tures, by training briefers within the affected com-munities.

Regional coordinators and a mental health specialistcoordinated this training. Community briefers weretrained to increase the commission’s capacity to pro-vide emotional support and assisted with the brief-ing and debriefing of testifiers before, during andafter the hearings. After the hearings, they contin-ued to provide support to people in their communi-ties. This also ensured that support was provided by

people whom the testifiers trusted and who sharedthe same language and culture.

Briefers needed to be able to debrief people before,during and after giving testimony and to control theirown emotions when dealing with the pain of the vic-tims. Their training consisted of:¨ sensitisation to interpersonal dynamics;¨ role-playing, with a focus on person-centred and

fact-centred listening and the effects on the in-terviewee of different styles of questioning;

¨ the paralinguistic aspects of listening;¨ an introduction to posttraumatic stress syndrom

symptoms;¨ an introduction to basic crisis management skills;¨ an introduction to stress management, using sys-

tems theory; and¨ defining the boundaries of the briefers’ role.

TRC staff who took victims’ statements were alsogiven this training, to sensitise them to testifiers’needs when they retell their stories. This was an im-portant transfer of skills. Many of these statement-takers were paralegals, who had some training.These interviews tended to be quite formal, so wetried to encourage the statement-takers to be moreemotionally supportive and cognisant of the needsof the deponent.

Outcomes“The briefing process was the… human side [of thecommission’s work]—as most of the work was itsquasi-judicial face.” Paul Haupt, TRC briefer

Approximately 2,600 witnesses appeared at the vari-ous Human Rights Violations Committee public hear-ings of the TRC held across the country. Each wasbriefed, accompanied while giving public testimonyand debriefed. The Reparation and RehabilitationCommittee had briefers in each of its four regionaloffices, a total of 11 full-time briefers. Between fourand six community briefers were trained in each ofthe communities where the TRC held public hearings.A briefing session was held for every public HumanRights Violation Committee hearings.

In addition to their work during the hearings, briefersalso provided support to survivors and families of vic-tims who attended amnesty hearings. This work wasnot carried out in the same manner across the coun-try and it is therefore difficult to estimate the num-ber of amnesty hearings in which briefers providedsupport to survivors and the families of victims.

Most testifiers speak fondly of their briefers and saythat they would not have had the courage to telltheir story had it not been for the support of thebriefers. For the TRC, although the briefing was lessvisible than the other work of the commission, it did

14

help to achieve the objective being a victim-friendlyprocess.

The limits of the processSeveral aspects of this work could have been im-proved, but in every case it would have required asignificantly greater investment of human resourcesand time.¨ We had a very limited ability to follow up suffi-

ciently. There had been so much secrecy in thecommunities and this process took the lid off that.The kind of community mediation that shouldhave followed after these hearings could havegone much further to achieve community-levelreconciliation, but our mandate did not extendthis far and resources would have been too lim-ited in any case.

¨ We needed a way to offer support to the peoplewho didn’t appear in the public hearings. Theyhad similar experiences and similar feelings. Thepublic hearings provided a window into acommunity’s experience, but the public testimo-nies were not necessarily the worst of those ex-periences. Thousands of other witnesses gaveprivate depositions to TRC statement-takers. Itwould have been helpful to make a briefer avail-able after testimony was given to every state-ment-taker.

¨ On a qualitative level, we had to be clear thatthis is a very focused model of support over ashort time. Our briefers encountered manypeople in need of more intensive support, andhad to refer quite a few to the Department ofHeath, Social Services and other services. We hadto be strict about this, as the commission was notan implementing or service-providing body. Thenatural inclination of someone with psychologi-cal training might be to try to offer more inten-sive counselling support, but it was importantthat we not create unrealistic expectations ofwhat we could offer.

¨ This was also a difficulty for the communitybriefers, who lived in close proximity to thetestifiers. By nature of their role in the commu-nity, they might, in some cases, have been ableto offer some level of ongoing psychosocial sup-

port. But we were in no position to monitor thequality of such interventions. We do know thatsometimes the briefers were overwhelmed withrequests for support.

¨ The TRC ended up making many policy recom-mendations without any teeth. It was skewed inits use of resources, with insufficient investmentin reparation and follow-up. It was a victim-basedprocess in the short-run, but in the longer pro-cess the perpetrators got their amnesty imme-diately but reparation for victims waslong-delayed.

Transferring the tacticINDIVIDUAL LEVELClearly the positive impact of this tactic has implica-tions for any situation in which individuals are givingtestimony about human rights abuse—or testimonyabout any traumatic experiences, for that matter.Our experience suggests, therefore, that anyorganisation or lawyer involved in litigation, lawsuits,prosecutions or legal inquiries into past traumaticexperiences should be providing this kind of psycho-social support to the witnesses they are dependingupon. All too often, legal processes are blind to theemotional and psychological impact on participants.Because human rights litigation is intended to pro-mote the welfare of past and future victims, it is es-sential that such supportive processes be integratedinto all witness preparation and testimony.

Similarly, the mainstream human rights movement isfounded upon processes of fact-gathering and docu-mentation of past traumas. Every human rights re-searcher who ever interviews a trauma survivor shouldbe trained in the skills of psychosocial briefing. If not,they are not dealing responsibly with the risk thattheir fact-finding may have negative consequenceson the very sources they depend upon—the survivors.

COMMUNITY LEVELSimilarly, organisations looking into political traumasaffecting whole communities can learn from this ex-perience. It is important to recognise that communi-ties have their own psychosocial resources in thehelping professions, including mental health work-ers, religious leaders, teachers, doctors, nurses, andsocial workers. In any community process that looksinto past traumas, such resources should be takenadvantage of. Ideally, these people would be recruitedto provide psychosocial support for the community asthey investigate or mobilise around a past trauma.Organisational and community-level processes thatlook at the necessary political strategies for over-coming a community’s difficult past must also delib-erately plan for the psychological needs of thecommunity as old wounds are re-opened.

A one-on-one session between briefer and testifier.

I’ll Walk Beside You 15

NATIONAL LEVELFinally, every nation that goes through a post-con-flict situation has to grapple with its past. In somecases, this is a daunting challenge, as the quantity ofpast crimes overwhelms any capacity for investiga-tion, justice or accountability. No post-conflict nationhas infinite resources, either financial or professional,for the needs of an exhaustive process, and in someconflicts the quantitative imbalance between pastcrimes and existing resources is even worse than itwas in South Africa. So of course there will be trade-offs. We were largely looking at “window cases”—cases that were exemplary of the types of crimesthat had been committed. There was never any im-practical expectation that we could examine everycrime that had been committed in the 33 years cov-ered by our mandate. Our goal was that examiningthese exemplary cases would help to heal the entirecountry. Even those whose cases were not broadcaston television would see that justice and reconcilia-tion is possible, and this would help them move for-ward in their lives with hope for the future.

We believe, however, that for victimised people tomove forward with hope, they must see that the jus-tice process was responsive to their needs. Any truthand reconciliation process will have to accept that itcan only look at a fraction of the truth. The mannerin which it looks at this fraction, though, is crucial:people watching the process must believe that it islegitimate. Even those whose cases never came tothe TRC should have been able to watch the processand feel that it helps the victims, and even imaginethat something similarly constructive might also havebeen possible in their own case. If, on the other hand,the invisible majority of victims see a process thatfurther traumatises testifiers, or focuses entirely onthe perpetrators, this will not empower the nationto see a better future for itself.

Although every truth and reconciliation process isunderfunded and under-resourced, we believe it isessential that significant effort and resources be putinto psychosocial support for people who testify, notonly because it is a moral responsibility to supportthose individuals upon whose testimony the processdepends, but also because the process will gaingreater legitimacy. A post-conflict process of recon-ciliation can only succeed if it is legitimate in the eyesof the victims.

16

These web sites contain more information on CID andposttraumatic stress:

ht tp : / /www.pbhi .com/MgrsSupers_publ ic /M y W o r k p l a c e / C r i s i s I n t e r v e n t i o n /IncidentDebriefingServices.asp

http://www.hypno-therapists.co.uk/cid.htm

h t t p : / / w w w . h e a l t h - c o n c e r n . c o m /critical_incident_debriefing.htm

http://www.aaets.org/arts/art54.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/biz2/dmhs/attach60.html

h t t p : / / w w w . g e n e s t p s y c h o l o g y . c o m /traumainfodebrief.html

http://www.columbiapsych.com/norman_cid.html

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/specialed/rci/app3.htm

http://www.istss.org

Appendix: Critical Incident DebriefingA critical incident is one that “causes a distressing, dramatic or profound change or disruption in the physical(physiological) or psychological functioning” of a person (www.aaets.org). Such events commonly precipi-tate strong emotional reactions. If these situations are not properly handled, the victim’s susceptibility toposttraumatic stress disorder is dramatically increased. In an effort to address these issues, the process ofcritical incident debriefing (CID), also referred to as critical incident stress debriefing, was developed to:assist in defusing emotions associated with such an event; address the physical and psychological impact ofthe incident on the individual; and provide information on stress management and other available supportservices.

CID was initially created to alleviate the impact of “secondary posttraumatic stress” on safety and healthworkers who are continually exposed to traumatic environments. Its uses were quickly expanded to deal withfirsthand traumatic experiences, and CID has consequently become widely used as “psychological first aid”(www.columbiapsych.com). In both cases, CID uses techniques for “debriefing” (dealing with the physiologicaland psychological aftereffects of the traumatic event) and “defusing” (allowing the victim to vent theiremotions regarding the incident), in order to:¨ assess the impact of the incident on the victim;¨ identify the immediate safety and security issues;¨ “defuse” the event by allowing victims to express their feelings;¨ validate the normalcy of the victims’ responses to the event; help the victims make sense of their

experiences and reactions;¨ help predict future feelings or events by providing education on typical reactions to stress and other

traumatic events;¨ conduct a systematic review of the critical incident by looking at the physical, emotional and psychologi-

cal impact of the incident on the victim;¨ raise awareness of possible resources and support systems available to the victim;¨ bring closure to the incident and assist with the victim’s reentry into society; and¨ \ refer the victim to a psychologist or other skilled mental health practitioner for further help, if necessary.

One important factor is how long after the traumatic event the CID takes place. To alleviate the interferenceof natural defence mechanisms, such as avoidance or denial, there must be at least 24 hours between theevent and the debriefing session. Past this initial cooling off period, the impact of the session will diminishwith time. While CID sessions occurring months and even years after the incident have been shown to havea positive impact on the victim, most experts agree that the session ideally should be held between 48 and 72hours following the event. Furthermore, analysis of previous CID sessions suggests that holding such sessionsclose to the site of the incident can have a positive impact on the proceedings. While one-on-one sessionsbetween the victim and a trained mental health practitioner can be beneficial, group sessions (using smallergroups for more emotional topics) are considered to be more effective than individual meetings.

The Mitchell and Dyregrove Model for Critical Incident Debrief-ing is the most common CID model used by debriefers (summaryat: www.health-concern.com/Free_Training/Critical%20Incident%20Debriefing.pdf). This process calls for twodebriefing sessions: one short-term session aimed at disseminat-ing information, defusing potentially detrimental emotions andcurbing possible long-term effects; and one long-term sessionfocused on reflecting on the incident and its aftereffects. Theprocess of the Mitchell and Dyregrove Model is broken into sevenphases:¨ Introductory phase: The group becomes familiar with oneanother, ground rules and expectations are made explicit.¨ Fact phase: A participatory process in which the groupdescribes thoroughly the incident. There may be wide disparitiesamong recollections of the incident, but a description of the inci-dent, the feelings and reactions of those involved, their interac-tion with other victims and the conclusion of the incident must befocal points of the discussion.¨ Cognition (thought) phase: The discussion turns to the“why” to explain the reasoning behind actions and feelings. Com-pare current and previous impressions of the incident.

I’ll Walk Beside You 17

¨ Reaction phase: Discuss the feelings and emotions associated with what happened and the results of the“why” discussion (above). This is the most involved and intense phase.

¨ Symptom phase: Discuss common reactions to stress and posttraumatic stress disorder. Assure the par-ticipants that their responses to the situation are normal.

¨ Educational phase: Continue assuring the participants that their responses are normal; teach and reviewmechanisms for coping with stress.

¨ Reentry Phase: This phase outlines the support structures available to the participants and predictedfuture responses to the situation. The facilitator summarises the previous session, distributes informa-tion and concludes the process.

Critical incident debriefing is a way to limit or alleviate the impact of posttraumatic stress disorder on peopleinvolved in potentially traumatising incidents. It allows for several mental health professionals to engagewith many victims over a short period of time. While these sessions often provide the necessary support forvictims of such incidents, they must also be used as a psychological triage unit. Following the session, thepractitioner(s) must undertake a confidential debriefing session to psychologically evaluate each of theparticipants. If necessary, participants should be referred to mental health professionals for further treat-ment.

18

NOTES

I’ll Walk Beside You 19

NOTES

The Center for Victims of TortureNew Tactics in Human Rights Project

717 East River RoadMinneapolis, MN 55455

www.cvt.org / cvt@cvt.orgwww.newtactics.org / newtactics@cvt.org

To print or download this and other publications in the Tactical Notebook Series,go to www.newtactics.org.

Online you will also find a searchable database of tactics andforums for discussion with other human rights practitioners.