Professor Kieran McEvoy:

The South African example is an interesting one because the British Government has made reference to it, albeit in a misleading way. In the South African truth and reconciliation process, the Committee on Human Rights Violations undertook investigations. While it was possible to get an amnesty, the amnesty process was pursued in the completely opposite way to what the British are proposing. The South African amnesty committee was chaired by a judge, so it was a quasi-legal hearing. Victims were present and legally represented during those discussions, some of which were televised. The criterion for the applicant to be successful was full disclosure. If the judge made a determination that the applicant had continued to lie or had not fully disclosed, the application would fail. There were 7,000 applications for amnesty, but I believe that only 1,000 plus succeeded. Many applications were knocked out because the judges determined that people were not engaging in full disclosure.