"The important thing to remember about South Africa is that we did not have a situation similar to Germany after World War II. In Germany, the Nuremberg trial, and I think it was a good thing that there was a Nuremberg-type trial and similar trials, but they were only possible because of victory in war and that total defeat of Germany in that war by international forces. Coupled with that victory was the exercise of the power which the international community held—the allied powers in particular—and, in fact, their determination and the political will which they exercised in order to impose Nuremberg type trials upon Germany. In South Africa, we did not have that kind of situation.

"In our case, the decision to set up . . . procedures for amnesty, because that is the controversial aspect, the issue of amnesty. In our case the issue of amnesty was decided not after the democratic government came into power. It is an issue which formed part of the negotiation process in our country.

"When negotiations commenced between the African National Congress and the apartheid regime, the apartheid regime was very much in power. It was the government of the country. It controlled the army, the police, the civil service—everything. And there was no guarantee that there would be democratic elections. Indeed, the National Party and the apartheid regime led by deKlerk entered negotiations with the object of preventing democratic elections. They sought through negotiations to impose or win a constitutional settlement which would basically have retained the basic structures of apartheid. The African National Congress, on the other hand, entered the negotiation process with a view to securing democratic elections in our country. Because, in our view at the ANC, we could through democratic elections, remove the white minority regime from power and replace it with a democratic regime.

"Our (the ANC's) preoccupation was how do you dislodge this minority regime from power? How do you achieve a democratic dispensation? And therefore the issue of amnesty arose in that context. To win democratic elections we had to agree to many, many things. One was to work out a constitutional framework with which all parties would be secure, feel secure. A second was that there would be no witchhunt against people classified white and thirdly that we deal with the issue of conflicts of the past and the crimes which were committed during those conflicts of the past.

"We came to the conclusion that we cannot follow the route followed by many other countries and that is making provision for general amnesty. We also came to the conclusion that there can be no automatic amnesty. We came to the conclusion that for us to establish the rule of law and accountability in the future, we need to establish accountability in respect of the past. And to do that, there needs to be individual accountability.

"The idea is that we want to put the past behind us but we don't want to forget. We want to remember and we want to deal with that past in a way which will enable South Africans to end the violence which has existed—the cultural violence which continues to exist—and for us to be able to establish accountability in our country and the rule of law. And so the context, I believe, is important for understanding the South African situation. And as I say, we tried to create a mechanism—the structures and procedures—which would mean that we locate the amnesty process within a morally acceptable framework to all South Africans."