MR BERGER
No, I'll deal with it now, Chairperson, it seems to of concern.  The granting of amnesty in terms of the Act was a constitutional requirement.  I don't think I need to go into the history of the compromise that was reached at Kempton Park, everybody knows about it.  In the interim constitution, it was recorded that there shall be amnesty and the constitution said "Amnesty shall be granted" - let me start at the beginning of the sentence:  "In order to advance such reconciliation and such reconstruction, amnesty shall be granted in respect of acts, omissions and offences associated with political objectives and committed in the course of the conflicts of the past.  To this end, parliament under this constitution shall adopt a law determining a firm cut off date which shall be a date after 8 October 1990 and before 6 December 1993 and providing for mechanisms, criteria and procedures including tribunals, if any through which such amnesty shall be dealt with at any time after the law has been passed."  The constitution said that an act of parliament must provide for procedures and criteria through which amnesty can be granted because amnesty was not going to be granted to any one and everyone, it had to be granted in terms of certain criteria and in terms of certain procedures - that's what the constitution required so it was prior to the start of the work of the TRC, even prior to the Human Rights Violations that the constitution already contained an imperative that there shall be amnesty but subject to procedures and subject to criteria.
That there is a trade off between truth and justice was recognised and in fact has been recognised by the Constitutional Court in the AZAPO case, AZAPO versus President of the Republic of South Africa - it's referred to in my heads of argument.  The Deputy President, Justice Mohammed as he then was, said the effect of an amnesty undoubtedly impacts on very fundamental rights.  All persons are entitled to the protection of the law against unlawful invasions of their right to life, their right to respect for and protection of dignity and their right not to be subject to torture of any kind.  When those rights are invaded, those aggrieved by such invasion have the right to obtain redress in the ordinary courts of law and those guilty of perpetrating such violations are answerable before such courts both civilly and criminally and amnesty to the wrongdoer effectively obliterates such rights.  
	Now my learned friend says there will be no prejudice to anybody if these defective applications are allowed to stand.  That is not correct.  Meta Molete will not have the right to sue  - Meta Molete, Mrs Pauline Mbatha will not have the right to sue if the applicants are granted amnesty.