Over the years, the TRC gathered 22 000 testimonies - among which 90% were made by Blacks - regarding 38 000 serious violations including 10 000 murders. The TRC provided a forum where the victims could tell their story, express their sufferings and be recognised as victims per se. Besides, as Elizabeth Stanley mentions in the Journal of Modern African Studies (2001) "in allocating (such) a space for those who have been previously silenced, the commission played a part in affirming that individual experiences of trauma are important at a societal level." It was more than recounting the facts, it was recognising and acknowledging them as part of a shared past. The victims could indeed add their own personal account to the national historical memory. When they were asked, the victims explained how much relieved they felt after telling their story. They had the impression that they were given back their dignity or that they had had the opportunity to publicly honour their loved ones’ memory. What seems important to notice is that the victims remained all very modest in the reparations they asked for. A few required financial reparations but most of them just wanted an apology from their torturer, a tombstone for the person they had lost or simply the truth. What they got above all, more than a relief from their own discourse, was a relief from the disclosure of the perpetrators.

The TRC collected 7000 applications for amnesty. Among those lacking were applications from the security forces, from the National Party former members as well as from the ANC ordinary members. On the contrary, thousands of Afrikaaners came before the Commission to tell the truth. Some critics have questioned the sincerity of the disclosures. They doubted that they were telling the truth and believed they were trying to hide brutal killings behind "appropriate" political motives, with an eye on the benefits. The truth unveiled was often regarded as only partially true. But nevertheless the perpetrators were given a chance to ask for forgiveness and the victims to grant it which permitted the latter to get rid of a burden of anger and the first to become human again. The ability to forgive set the victim above the perpetrator. This does not equal forgetting because nothing can make victims forget their trauma. But it helped the country to heal its wounds.

Evaluation of the TRC outcomes

Having victims relate their story and perpetrators ask for forgiveness was the main mission of the TRC. After three years of search for truth, struggling with a heavy workload and tension, criticism and support, the TRC published its final report of over 3000 pages in November 1998.

Along a negative description of South Africa’s society that one can draw today lies the criticisms addressed to the TRC’s results. It seems that the time allotted to the Commission to complete its work seemed to have been too short. Many activities have gone unreported, thousands of victims have not shared their experiences and as suggested above, many perpetrators have not come forward. Besides, limited acknowledgement of the structural and institutional nature of apartheid was made. More importantly, the reparations promised come up against a lack of funds - depriving the victims and their family of a part of their recognition. Many recommendations made by the Commission concerning prosecutions as well as reparations have been ignored by the government, the judiciary and the business sector which were supposed, as a former Apartheid beneficiary, to participate in the reparation process. This lack of political will greatly undermines the TRC’s work and gives ground to more virulent criticism on the overall philosophy of the TRC. In this respect, B. Rolston in his book "Turning the page without closing the book" warns that seeking truth without justice is to risk achieving neither. At some point, sanctions must be applied and if necessary perpetrators prosecuted. The restorative system of justice that the TRC promoted needed to be accompanied by a retributive-typed justice. The nation’s reconciliation is here at stake.

However, the TRC should not be under-estimated. As a matter of fact, forgiving takes time and apologising does too. Much regret can be expressed towards the silence of political parties, professional associations and churches and their contribution to sustaining and legitimising apartheid. But it took the Catholic leaders and the government in France, more than forty years to apologise for the role they had played in the deportation of Jews during World War II. Besides, the TRC could on its own guarantee social justice in South Africa. It is today essential that measures be taken in order to fill the economic and social gaps between the communities. The government must take on the lead and trigger off an efficient redistribution of wealth within the South African society. The TRC never said it would dissolve years of conflict and power struggles overnight and would command reconciliation. It took on the responsibilities to unveil a healing truth so that Black South Africans felt they were given back a voice and a status, and felt empowered and ready to live with Whites again.

For many reason, the TRC process needs to be regarded as a great achievement for a country that was less than 15 years ago still sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression. Even partially, only few societies are ready to turn over their past the way South Africa did. The procedures were conducted in a fair and quasi-judicial way. Transparency and independence were respected and no matter what are the difficulties in today’s South Africa, the different communities have once confronted each other in a peaceful arena. The population is now proud of having undergone such a process ("the TRC did not just record our history, it became part of it.") and knows that without the TRC, political peace would have never been reached. Despite the continued inequality and discrimination, truth has been made and truth stands as a high value element for a nation to reconcile. The TRC cannot be judged a failure because it failed to change behaviour and institutions. That was not its task. According to Michael Ignatieff, a Harvard scholar on the practice of Human Rights, "the past is an argument and the function of a truth commission is simply to purify the argument, to narrow the range of permissive lies". Indeed, telling truth "reduces the number of lies that can be circulated unchallenged in public discourse". In South Africa nobody can now deny the past atrocities which is something greatly encouraging for the future. If truth is not the only step towards reconciliation as shown by today’s situation, it is certainly the first and most necessary one. This is what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission achieved.