UNKNOWN
Thank you Mr Chairman, just one or two points quickly, but I will also make use on the same basis as Mr Martini of the opportunity to do it in writing.  Just two or three points I want to make here and that is Mr Bizos quite correctly pointed out this was an inquisitorial procedure, no one has to prove anything and he came here to assist the Committee.  My problem is that what has happened here in view of the Heads of Argument of the victims, is that we have been led up the garden part to a certain extent in a trial by ambush situation because what has happened here is that it's been pointed out in the Heads of Argument that a couple of points, a couple of the requisites as set out in the Act, are now being attacked in the sense that it is said that the applicants didn't prove that and I'm referring here specifically to for instance the political motives of the applicants.  It was never disputed in cross-examination.  The context of the deeds, that is the struggle of the past or the conflicts of the past, as it is referred to in the Act, the CCB structure as part of the SADF, the CCB policies as set out in evidence by the applicants, that's just very briefly and I submit that firstly, I'll in any event make the submission that although these aspects were not attacked in cross-examination by the representatives for the victims, I would in any even submit that the Commission has got sufficient evidence by the applicants themselves in this regard.  I'm referring specifically to Botha, to Burger and Basson here, I wish to point out that and I have found the places in the record where they said that when they joined the CCB, they did not know what exactly was going to be required of them as far as Maree is concerned.  It's 2467 of the record.  As far as Burger is concerned, it is 1775, that is Burger and the other one I'll give you now, it is 2467, Mr Chair.
	Now furthermore, I just wish to submit that we also have the evidence of Gen Webb.  Now Gen Webb was the Chairman, he was a General in the South African Defence Force.  He was questioned by myself on behalf of specifically Burger, Maree and Basson in this regard and his evidence is to be found in the record.  I'm not going to refer to that obviously in detail now, but the fact of the matter is that it was never disputed with Gen Webb or in any event not seriously at all, that there was no such policy of the CCB to destabilise the enemies maximally, etc, and it could involve murder and that he could approve it and in fact that is his evidence on page 1431.  His evidence specifically was that he could have proved murder, but only if he got authorisation again from higher up, but it is abundantly clear that at least in the South African Defence Force, there was a policy to destabilise the enemies of the country by committing crimes against them.  	Now as far as my clients are concerned, they were faced, when they entered the CCB, with a completed structure.  Basson was in the Defence Force all his mature life.  He was transferred into the CCB.  He was then told that he was going to operate in foreign countries and in fact he did operate in foreign countries only until the CCB was created as Region 6 internally and I submit, as far as Burger and Maree are concerned, it is clear from the record that they didn't know exactly what they were in for at the stage when they joined up and I have given the references, so I will submit that my learned friend for the victims argument that the applicants didn't prove these aspects is totally devoid of any truth.  We have all the evidence here.  We have referred, in questioning Gen Webb and Verster, who were the Commanding Officers of all my clients, we've referred in detail to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report and there was no objection from my learned friends and it was confirmed by Verster.  How can it now be said that my clients didn't prove that there was such a policy in the Defence Force and in the CCB specifically?  And that also goes as far as the struggle of the past is concerned and the reason why I'm referring to that is obviously because it's a requirement or one of the aspects the Committee must take into consideration when it comes to motive and context, for instance, it must be taken into consideration.  This was confirmed by Verster.  It was ...