MR PRINSLOO
Regarding Mr Smuts, with respect, he acted on the orders of and on behalf of the organisation the Orde Boerevolk, an organisation that he belonged to.  The target was identified and the instruction was given by the commander, Mr Botha.  That is evidenced in Mr Botha's evidence and also in Mr Smut's evidence.  No questions - there have been no questions saying that this is not the case.
	With respect, furthermore, Mr Smuts' attitude now.  He said that he would continue believing and acting for what he believed, to establish a Volkstaat by negotiation.  He didn't say by means of violence.  There is no requirement in the legislation that a person has to say to each of the victims that he regrets it, that he has remorse.  
	No reconciliation can take place if that is the basis of negotiation because you have a path of negotiation and reconciliation, it's this Committee which has to give the applicants the opportunity to negotiate with people and then to achieve reconciliation.
	But it can't be achieved while they're sitting in prison, not at all.  With respect, there has been no indication at all that these people as a result of any other action than a political motive, that they acted for any other reason than a political one.  Political motive is distinct from a person's intent.  These two concepts shouldn't be confused.
	With respect, in respect of whether it was an order, a cell acts at it's discretion like the discretion of the leader when it sees fit, otherwise it would make no sense.  This is clear in the case of the State v Messina.  1990  709, page 718 of that judgment ...[intervention]