While the TRC made a considerable effort to provide psychological support and counselling to those victims who did testify before the HRVC, (199) another criticism was that such support was uneven.
Particularly in the early days of the TRC, the HRVC made various promises to victims that were not kept--for example, that they would soon obtain reparations, that follow-up information would be provided to them regarding relevant amnesty applications, and that there would be further meetings of the HRVC in their area.
Another type of criticism centred around perpetrator interventions in some HRVC hearings following the ruling in Du Preez, (203) which required any alleged perpetrator likely to be named in a HRVC heating to receive notice and to be allowed to bring his or her own lawyers, who could then cross-examine victims.
In order to determine its list of victims, the CRR relied upon the findings of both the HRVC (208) and the AC.
The lower profile given to the CRR in comparison to the AC and the HRVC meant that its work did not have the same type of support and level of awareness from victims and the public in general.
Unlike the AC, most members of the HRVC were also members of the larger TRC.
(166) The functions of the HRVC are set out in ss 14 and 15 of the Reconciliation Act.
Working with this definition, the HRVC took a number of steps in order to establish whether a person was a 'victim' under the Reconciliation Act.
(173) The TRC decided, in order to comply with the ruling, to provide 21 calendar days' notice to alleged perpetrators before all HRVC hearings, AC hearings and 's 29 investigation' hearings: ibid vol 1,185.
Again, like the HRVC, members of this Committee were also mainly members of the larger TRC.
(210) Under s 26 of the Reconciliation Act victims could apply directly to the CRR, but these applications were all immediately forwarded to the HRVC. Thus, in effect, the list of victims only came from the HRVC and the AC.