MR KOOPEDI
The second applicant, I am totally leaving that to the capable hands of this Committee, but my submission is that you'd have to make a credibility finding on him and depending on that finding, then the matter is closed.  What I'm saying is, if it's found that he is telling the truth, you can't take the matter any further, he was acting under an order, you know, all the political motivations are covered, no personal gain, but if no so, then yes, there are problems.  Now with regard to the first applicant, Mr Mkosana, he's applying for amnesty for the killing of 28 people and the injuring of many others.  He has in his testimony and in the documents before you and in particular Exhibit A, told you that on the day in question he was acting as a professional soldier, not just a soldier.  I believe in your considerations, a subjective test would come into play when you make a consideration as to the facts that informed him at that stage.  I would ask Chairperson, Honourable Committee members, that this subjective test must be a test restricted to a professional soldier, as he has said, not an ordinary person.
	If I could go on.  He says in his testimony that he heard two shots being fired and then there are no further shots.  He then makes contact with his superiors.  His superior being van der Bank, speaks to someone else, Gen Ulser, comes back to him, Mr Mkosana and says to him:  "If you are being shot at, shoot."  Nothing indicates that between the time of the lapse of the two shots, the end of the two shots, until he receives this order that should beg there was any shooting, it is clear from his evidence and all other documents before you, that no one had heard any further shots, there wasn't any shooting, the order was that:  "If you are being shot at, shoot back."  
	As my learned friend has put it, Mr Smith, he doesn't ascertain as to whether, you know, are we still under attack, he just proceeds and gives an order to shoot.