Paper short abstract:

This paper seeks to understand how courts face the legacy of Apartheid in contemporary South Africa. Comparing different cases allows me to analyze how ordinary courts have regained their centrality in matters concerning Apartheid crimes. I also highlight their scope of actions and constraints.

Paper long abstract:

From early 2000's numerous legal actions have been sued before South African courts by a coalition of human rights organizations representing Apartheid victims. While these procedures represent another dimension of the judicial treatment of apartheid crimes, they are completely ignored in comparison to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's (henceforth TRC) work. This paper seeks to present how ordinary courts face the legacy of Apartheid crimes in the shade of the TRC.Comparing different cases either adjudicated or dismissed, allows me determining how courts face the « unfinished business » of the TRC. They also have to confront with questions which were not addressed before. Secondly, I analyze how courts' decisions can improve the understanding of TRC mechanisms with regard to the amnesty process. In this respect, the Robert McBride vs Citizens decision by the Constitutional Court is a case in point. On the other hand, the controversial position of the South African government regarding apartheid issues led human rights and victims organizations to use courts as a political forum to oppose some decisions. Doing so, they shape the scope of actions examined by the judicial power. Indeed human rights and victims' organizations have to determine relevant strategies : bringing the unresolved matters to the judicial arena or relying on the classical repertoire of political mobilization. All in all, this presentation explains how South African Courts have regained their centrality in matters concerning apartheid and sheds light on their possibilities of actions and constraints.