MR CURRIN
That is correct, one of the factors.  But the one, the next one which we really turn to then really, is you have to consider - if one looks at (d) - the objective of the offence and in particular, whether the offence was directed at a political opponent or State property or personnel or against private property or individuals.  Now we have already argued that in our view the political objective was to regain control and power over their own affairs. That objective was certainly aimed at a political opponent.  There is evidence of that and I think that is indisputable.
	The next aspect to which you need to have reference, is whether the act, whether the offence was committed in the execution of an order or on behalf of all, with the approval of an organisation, institution, liberation movement or body of which the person who committed it was a member or agent or a supporter.
	Now I have already heard you on an issue which is similar to that one, but not identical.  All we would like to say there is that the two applicants were either members 
PHOKENG HEARING	AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN	149	ADDRESS
or supporters of a liberation movement.  It is not our case - we would like to emphasise - that the offence was
committed either as an order or on behalf of or even with
the approval of the tribal council or the action committee.  It has never been our case.  Our case is though that it was committed or the case of the applicants, that it was committed with the approval of the political organisations to which they belonged.  
	Now we have ... (intervention).