MR WESSELS
Yes.  The act, omission or offence to which the applicant relates, is associated with a political objective and was committed in the course of the conflict of the past, in accordance with the provisions of (2) and (3) and that the applicant has made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts.
	Mr Chairman, for purposes of determining if an act is associated with a political objective, the criterion in Section 20(2) shall be taken into account and to determine whether an act is associated with a political objective, the factors as set out in Section 20(3), should be taken into account.
	Then I'm just referred to Section 20(4), I won't dwell on that.  The other formalities or principles that are required I set out in 14, Mr Chairman.  It's not necessarily to deal with that I believe.
	Mr Chairman, what is important is that Section 20(2)(b) makes it clear that amnesty can be granted to members of a Security Force, who committed acts during a political struggle against members or supporters of an organisation opposed to the State, in the bona fide belief that they were countering and resisting the struggle.
	Similarly, Section 20(2)(f) indemnifies any person who, on reasonable grounds, believed that he was acting within the course and scope of his duties and within the course and scope of his or her expressed or implied authority.
	Then Mr Chairman, insofar as Section 20(1)(c) is concerned, one must read the words "full disclosure of all relevant facts" in the context of the Section as a whole.  The application for amnesty is for a particular act, omission or offence, and I refer to Section 20(1)(b) and that act, omission or offence, Section 20(1).  It is therefore clear, in my submission, that the legislature intended to deal only with particular acts and not anything more.  
	This Committee is an Amnesty Committee under Section 16 and 17 of the Act, and not an Investigative Committee under Section 12.  
	Insofar as evidence was elicited which do not pertain to the three applications of the applicant, it is my submission that it is irrelevant for the purposes of the application, whether given by the applicant or anyone else.  Section 20(1)(c) makes it clear that we are not dealing with all facts, but only relevant facts.
	The next question that arises is what is meant by "the Committee, after considering an application for amnesty, is satisfied that".  Mr Chairman, in the Afrikaans version of the Act "oortuig" is used, "satisfied" is not the same as "oortuig".  I refer to the case of S vs Makula and would like to quote from that case:
"The official version of Act 51/77, namely the Afrikaans text, uses the word 'oortuig' in the said Section, whereas the English text used the word 'satisfied'.  In my view, the correct translation of the words 'om te oortuig' is not to satisfy but to convince.  It is only if a person is convinced of a certain fact that one can say in Afrikaans 'hy is daarvan oortuig'.  The correct rendering into Afrikaans of the words 'to satisfy' in the present context, is not 'om te oortuig', but 'om tevrede te stel'.  According to the English/Afrikaans Grootwoordeboek, the word 'satisfied' is translated as 'tevrede, versadig, bevredig, voldoen' and the word 'satisfy' is 'bevredig, voldoen, tevrede stel, versadig, gerusstel."