MR CURRIN
Mr Chairman the applicant would be willing to answer all questions put to him in respect of these other two incidents for which he is applying for amnesty if we're going to now proceed with that amnesty application.  Until that amnesty application commences, he is not obliged to answer any questions in regard to those incidents.  That is certainly my understanding of the Act and if necessary I can get the relevant sections, but maybe I can help both the committee and my colleague on that side by placing on record that this applicant, as he indicated in his evidence, was an MK soldier.  In that capacity he was engaged in what he regarded as a war for the liberation of South Africa, in the course of that he was involved in the two incidents which are referred to above, in other words Act No 1 which related to activities which are subject to a separate amnesty application and in respect of which he has already been sentenced and convicted.  The only reason why he's applying for amnesty there is because he is not entitled to travel freely throughout the world because he has a criminal record and he wishes to clear his criminal record.  The issue relating to Brigadier Malope is a separate matter, it's got nothing at all to do with 1.  In respect of that matter he has never been prosecuted, in fact that assasination was never ever successfully investigated and he voluntarily came forward and submitted the information with regard to that particular incident so those are two separate incidents, they are not in any way related to one another and he for not one moment would deny that as an MK soldier he was involved in activities which resulted in the death of people and that is why he is applying for amnesty.  The third application relates to the Shell House incident and it is completely separate from the other two.