MR VISSER
Mr Chairman, you are absolutely correct, and I hope I didn't indicate that I am saying anything different, but what I am saying is this: If an applicant comes to you and says, 'I killed A, give me amnesty', you are going to say to him, "But hang on, I can't give you amnesty unless I hear something more from you'. If you then, Mr Chairman, as a Committee come to know, come to understand that it was an act associated with a political objective, surely the man who is asking for the amnesty - and this is my only point - must come and tell you why he wants amnesty. He was ordered to do it, he thought he was acting within the course and scope of his employment. Those qualifications which I mentioned to you. 	I fully agree with your setting out of the legal situation, Mr Chairman, and if you are wrong certainly I am wrong, and if you are right I think I am right. I didn't intend to differ from that. What I am saying is, these two applicants must now come and tell you why they are asking for amnesty, and all they say is, 'We were ordered to do so'. What I am saying because of that is that when you look at the evidence, there is the one question that has to be answered in their favour in the affirmative, and that is, on the balance of probabilities you have convinced us that Coetzee and Erasmus and Shaw gave you the instructions as you said.