ADV MATHANA
That is correct Mr Chairman.  Now the impression unfortunately has been created now, when or after the consultations have taken place between themselves and myself in preparation for the hearing, the impression now is going to be created that they are deviating from the contents of the application to a certain extent, but the truth of the matter is that the nature of their evidence should have been the nature of their applications in the first place - nothing has changed.
	Their evidence which is being presented today is what they consider to be the truth.  When they submitted their applications and out of ignorance of the requirements of the law, they obviously were still under the impression that they were going to go to a court of law, to the same circumstances to a court of law, where they would be in a position of being accused and obviously they were still labouring under that impression that they were still being prosecuted and they had to be defensive in the setting out of their circumstances of this particular offences.
	But had they had this advantage of legal representation at that stage, they would have known that all that is required of them at this present moment and that is going to save them at the present moment, is nothing but the truth.
	Had they had that opportunity, I submit Mr Chairman, we would not now be dealing with applicants who seem to be untruthful because apparently their credibility is supposed to be suspect at this particular moment.
	As far as the requirements of the Act is concerned Mr Chairman, I submit that the applications have been submitted in the proper or prescribed manner, complying with the Act.  I submit Mr Chairman, that the acts they have been able, I submit that they have been able to show that the acts for which they had been convicted and for which they are now seeking amnesty, can be associated with a political objective.
	Their background, the background to the commission of the acts Mr Chairman, shows that they were in a situation at the time prevailing in the townships, a situation that was causing them to act in the manner in which they did and the situation had been caused by an agency of the State.
	Indirectly, some persons had become victims in the sense that although their object is the State, the object of their act is the State, they have to focus their attention on the instruments of the agency of the State in the form of the - the person that they regarded as the informer, Mpisane.
	Therefor I submit that their action which was directed at Mpisane was in the final analysis an action which was directed at the State.
	As far as the death of a person who was totally unconnected with this incident, I submit to the Commission that under the circumstances in which that occurred, they have been found guilty of something they had no direct intention aimed at that particular victim.