MR BERGER
Chairperson, as far as the first point is concerned, the applications, I understood that we were attempting to get the entire paper trail from the time that the applications were originally sent in which was on the 10th May 1997 until the real applications, if I can call them that, were submitted which was in 1998.  All we've received so far is the original letter which was faxed through on the 10th May 1997 as well as the original application, the first application that was faxed through.  We haven't received the other documents in the paper trail and if it's not proposed to tender them, well then we will argue on that basis, that's alright with us.  Our stance is clear, that is that the applications are not valid applications this is but for Mr Mthembu's application, they're not valid applications because they don't comply with the requirements of the Act.  The applicants legal representatives know that that is our position and if they have any documents which can shed light on it, so be it.  If the documents are only those documents which we have before us, well then we will argue on the basis that those are the only documents which exist and we will make our argument in that regard.  The only point I'm making is that the full paper trail has not been revealed, if it's not going to be revealed, we will argue on that basis as well, that's fine.
	The second point, Chairperson, is that Mr Brink said that we had a blanket opposition to amnesty.  That's strictly speaking not correct.  What we said was that we will oppose on the three bases set out in Section 20, Sub-Section 1 of the Act and in particular, in so far as acts associated with a political objective are concerned, we will oppose on that basis within the meaning of Section 21 and 23 of the Act.  We're not saying that there was no conflict, we're not going to argue there was no conflict of any nature.