MR VAN DEN BERG
Yes.  But there are four series of inconsistencies in what is said by the applicants and what is contained by the judgment by the judge who then presided, I think it was Mr Marais, Judge Marais.  There is the fact that they are in possession of items taken from the home.  I would submit that if one has reference to the motive, if one has reference to the context in which the act took place, bearing in mind Advocate Motata's reservations, if one has reference to the legal and factual nature of the act, the use of violence, the assault of a man who is fatally wounded, the assault of a six year old child, that these are not acts which can be clothed with political immunity.
	There's further the criteria which requires that there must have been no personal gain and there is the evidence in respect of the money, the watches, the jewellery.  And then the omission, for what it's worth, of a third applicant before this panel.  I want to suggest Mr Chairperson, that the criteria as set out in Sections 20 sub 2 and sub 3, particularly with reference to ...(intervention)