MR BERGER
No but Mr Malan it's not - a decision to strike at X because he's an ANC supporter, is political in the broad sense of the word, but that doesn't qualify for amnesty in terms of Section 20 (3) of the Act.  That's my submission to you.  My submission is, the example I wanted to give, the killing of Chris Hani, the ordinary person in the street is amazed, that's not political.  Clearly it's political, but does it comply with the requirements of the Act?  The Committee found no, it doesn't, because it wasn't committed on behalf of an organisation whose policies were x, y and z, so what I'm saying is what might appear at first blush to be political, is not necessarily political for the purposes of the Act and what I'm submitting is that I'm using it at the moment for the question of full disclosure.  What I'm submitting is that the applicants tailored their evidence to fall neatly within what would be accepted as being an act associated with a political objective because if it was an attack aimed at the army of the ANC, an attack by the army of apartheid, then questions of proportionality and motive and all of those things are easy to decide, but when you have an attack and I submit that this attack is clear, was an attack - look at the facts, 1985, I submit you can take judicial notice of the fact that that was when the state of emergency, the first state of emergency was declared, 1985, the climate at that time, the rumblings from the apartheid state that were coming out at that time, the way there was such a clamp down, then Mr McPherson testified.