MR WILKINSON
Mr Brink is right to say that this legislation places a tremendous burden on you and other members of the Committee in terms of having to reach a decision.  This case is no exception.  Yesterday Mr Marais presented his evidence.  Mr Purshotam of Legal Resources was invited to question this.  He rejected the invitation of the Committee.  I would then like to suggest that the yesterday's evidence should be judged in the light of the criteria.
	Mr Brink said that he didn't have a problem with Section 21(a) and (c).  His problem is in the political objectives.  So, to determine what the offence was that was connected with a political objective, there are six criteria in the legislation.  The members of the Committee, this is a serious request to you as I said during my submission.  
	We have to accept that no amnesty application is going to have a model answer to all six criteria and at the end of the day that's precisely what the legislation uses.  It uses the word "guidelines".  This doesn't mean that the application fails if one of the criteria is absent.  So my request is that 
what has been submitted, should be approached holistically and objectively.  
	We must look at the picture as a whole.  That's the only way in which this Committee is going to be able to build a bridge between a deeply divided past full of conflict and injustice, to the future.  That's the only way that this Committee is going to be able to realise the purpose of this legislation.  We cannot, because one or two criteria are absent, allow an application to fail.  Then a few aspects ...[intervention]