MR LANDMAN
Mr Chairman on page 10 we deal again with the third applicant's position which was very clear.  He was asked to watch the television new, which he said he never used to watch and he saw the report and he deliberately refrained from informing the police about his knowledge.
	Mr Chairman it's our submission therefore that the evidence of the applicants was satisfactory, there were no material contradictions and they testified freely and openly about their involvement in the issue.
	Mr Chairman our submission is that they've made full disclosure as to their roles and the roles of others in this incident.  Mr Chairman we therefore say in paragraph 5 on page 11 that the evidence given by them is to be accepted as the factual context within which the attack occurred.
	Mr Chairman in paragraph 6 we deal with the three main requirements that have to be satisfied and which the Committee has to be satisfied about before amnesty shall be granted.  
	Mr Chairman we refer the Committee to one of the few reported cases dealing with the amnesty process of Gerber versus Kommissie van Waarheid en Versoening.  Mr Chairman if I recall correctly, you Mr Chairman would have knowledge of this particular matter as it concerned an application in which inter alia yourself was involved as a Committee member.  Mr Chairman, his Lordship Mr Justice Southwood in that case made a number of observations which I submit reflect the approach which the Committee, the Amnesty Committee indeed does take when approaching these matters.  The first being that each case should be judged on it's own merits and shouldn't be analysed and considered in the light of other applications, but that the facts of the present matter ought to be taken into account.
	Mr Chairman then on page 13 we deal with the three requirements.  Mr Chairman only one of the three applications was sworn to or affirmed, depending on what the person would have done if the procedure had been followed fully, but Mr Chairman it's our submission that the failure to have attested to these applications is in our submission not a material defect which is so substantial as to prevent the Committee from considering the application.
	Mr Chairman in regard to the second requirement ... (intervention)