<p>The purpose of this essay is to examine and compare narrations by five witnesses, who has written about atrocities against Christians from 1915 to 1919 in what is today south-eastern Turkey, but what was then the Ottoman Empire. I have focused on how the roles of perpetrators, victims, spectators and protectors are featured in the witness narrations. Four questions were posed in the study: Who are portrayed as perpetrators, victims, bystanders and protectors in the various witness narrations? How are these roles expressed in the witness narrations? What differences can be found among the five selected witness narrations from Mardin and Urfa, 1915-1919? What are the explanations of the differences in the witness narrations? The method I have used has been an analysis in which I compare how the different narrations capture the events of 1915-1919. I have used three factors to look at the explanations why there may be differences in the witness narrations. The three factors are nationality, position, and religious affiliation. In the comparison and the results of the witness narrations, I have found that the three factors affect the way the authors write about the events and that these factors help to explain the differences in the witness narrations. These factors are a part of the authors’ respective worldviews. Also, local differences, power constellations, and political factors meant that witness narrations differed.</p>

The purpose of this essay is to examine and compare narrations by five witnesses, who has written about atrocities against Christians from 1915 to 1919 in what is today south-eastern Turkey, but what was then the Ottoman Empire. I have focused on how the roles of perpetrators, victims, spectators and protectors are featured in the witness narrations. Four questions were posed in the study: Who are portrayed as perpetrators, victims, bystanders and protectors in the various witness narrations? How are these roles expressed in the witness narrations? What differences can be found among the five selected witness narrations from Mardin and Urfa, 1915-1919? What are the explanations of the differences in the witness narrations? The method I have used has been an analysis in which I compare how the different narrations capture the events of 1915-1919. I have used three factors to look at the explanations why there may be differences in the witness narrations. The three factors are nationality, position, and religious affiliation. In the comparison and the results of the witness narrations, I have found that the three factors affect the way the authors write about the events and that these factors help to explain the differences in the witness narrations. These factors are a part of the authors’ respective worldviews. Also, local differences, power constellations, and political factors meant that witness narrations differed.

Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Text in Afrikaans / In the past, witness statements obtained by or on behalf of a party to a criminal case were protected, from disclosure to the opponent, by privilege. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate whether such claims to privilege are justified and whether openness before and during the trial is not perhaps more important to the interests of justice. The disclosure of witness statements to the defence is a commonly recognized practice all over the world. This practice enhances openness before and during the criminal trial. The arguments against and in favor of such a practice are many, but investigation into these has shown that it is in the interests of justice to disclose such statements to the defence, rather than to deny access. Furthermore, the writer investigates whether it would be in the interests of justice to compel the defence to assist the court in determining the truth. / In die verlede is getuieverklarings wat deur of ten behoewe van 'n party tot 'n strafsaak bekom is deur privilegie beskerm, teen openbaarmaking aan die teenstander. Verskeie argumente is aangevoer om die beroep op getuieverklaring privilegie te regverdig. Die doel van hierdie verhandeling is om ondersoek in te stel of sulke aansprake geregverdig is en of openheid voor en gedurende die verhoor nie meer belangrik vir die belang van geregtigheid is nie. Die openbaarmaking van getuieverklarings aan die verdediging is 'n algemeen erkende praktyk regoor die wereld. Hierdie praktyk bevorder openheid voor en tydens die strafverhoor. Die argumente vir en teen so 'n praktyk is baie en 'n ondersoek daarvan dui daarop dat dit in die belang van geregtigheid is om sulke verklarings aan die verdediging te openbaar, eerder as om toegang daartoe te weier. Die vraag is nou of dit nie ook in die belang van geregtigheid is dat die verdediging verplig word om die hof by te staan om die waarheid vas te stel nie. Ten slotte het die skrywer aan die hand gedoen dat partye tot 'n straf saak getuieverklarings gelyktydig voor die verhoor uitruil en ondersoek ingestel of so 'n praktyk in ooreenstemming met die Grondwet van Suid-Afrika 108 van 1996 kan wees. / Law / LL.M.

Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Text in Afrikaans / In the past, witness statements obtained by or on behalf of a party to a criminal case were protected, from disclosure to the opponent, by privilege. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate whether such claims to privilege are justified and whether openness before and during the trial is not perhaps more important to the interests of justice. The disclosure of witness statements to the defence is a commonly recognized practice all over the world. This practice enhances openness before and during the criminal trial. The arguments against and in favor of such a practice are many, but investigation into these has shown that it is in the interests of justice to disclose such statements to the defence, rather than to deny access. Furthermore, the writer investigates whether it would be in the interests of justice to compel the defence to assist the court in determining the truth. / In die verlede is getuieverklarings wat deur of ten behoewe van 'n party tot 'n strafsaak bekom is deur privilegie beskerm, teen openbaarmaking aan die teenstander. Verskeie argumente is aangevoer om die beroep op getuieverklaring privilegie te regverdig. Die doel van hierdie verhandeling is om ondersoek in te stel of sulke aansprake geregverdig is en of openheid voor en gedurende die verhoor nie meer belangrik vir die belang van geregtigheid is nie. Die openbaarmaking van getuieverklarings aan die verdediging is 'n algemeen erkende praktyk regoor die wereld. Hierdie praktyk bevorder openheid voor en tydens die strafverhoor. Die argumente vir en teen so 'n praktyk is baie en 'n ondersoek daarvan dui daarop dat dit in die belang van geregtigheid is om sulke verklarings aan die verdediging te openbaar, eerder as om toegang daartoe te weier. Die vraag is nou of dit nie ook in die belang van geregtigheid is dat die verdediging verplig word om die hof by te staan om die waarheid vas te stel nie. Ten slotte het die skrywer aan die hand gedoen dat partye tot 'n straf saak getuieverklarings gelyktydig voor die verhoor uitruil en ondersoek ingestel of so 'n praktyk in ooreenstemming met die Grondwet van Suid-Afrika 108 van 1996 kan wees. / Law / LL.M.