MR DU PLESSIS
Yes.  One cannot see on what grounds Statewitnesses would not speak the truth.  On the other hand one cannotsee why the applicants will not speak the truth as they are heredealing with this process.  So we say that it would be to theadvantage of everybody concerned that the truth comes out andwe are sure that the truth will come out if they all speak thetruth.
 We submit in an international context it has always been a vexedquestion if amnesty should make in-roads into the State's responsibilityto investigate and prosecute grave human rights violations.  Inmost instances where transition of power has taken place, in worldhistory recently, amnesty prevailed.  The was the case in El Salvador,Argentina, Guatemala and recently Haiti.  In most cases severeopposition was experienced by various parties to the grantingof amnesty and especially blanket amnesty.  In each instance theimportance of truth and reconciliation prevailed.  
 It is therefore important, we submit, to take the 
1B international/...
26
international experience into account when consideration is givento the interests of the Attorney General as against the interestsof the Truth Commission, and we refer to certain internationalarticles dealing with this whole issue between the State's responsibilityto prosecute human rights violations on the one hand and the provisionof amnesty on the other hand.
 It is therefore submitted that it is imperative in the lightof the intention of the Act and with reference to the ambit ofthe Act that all evidence pertaining to the applications of theapplicants will be placed before the Commission so that the truthcan prevail.
 The Commission is therefore humbly requested to issue subpoenasor to allow subpoenas to be issued against the four State witnessesreferred to in the heads of argument and to subpoena the AttorneyGeneral to provide the Commission with the dockets pertainingto each of the five applicants referred to above.
 I want to make one last submission.  If there might be a possibilitythat the Attorney general feels that if the evidence should bedisclosed, publicly by State witnesses that the criminal proceedingsmight be prejudiced we submit that at least the statements inthe dockets which need not be read into the record but which canbe presented to the Commission on a confidential basis, then beobtained and presented to the Commission to assist in obtainingthe truth and considering the applications of the applicants.
 There is therefore a middle-of-the-road alternative which wewould suggest in that regard.  That would then mean that thesewitnesses would not testify or otherwise the witnesses could possiblytestify in camera so as to not 
1B prejudice/...
27
prejudice the criminal proceedings in future, and it can be orderedthat only the necessary people can be available or present whensuch evidence is taken down.  All we say is we want the truthto come out.  That is what we say.  And we say that will supportus in our amnesty applications will show that we have been bonafide, that we have disclosed the truth and will corroborateour versions and will help this Commission furthermore in dealingwith these amnesty applications.  Thank you.