MS GABRIEL
I want to suggest that it's highly improbable that they would not have spoken to Taylor before making the application given that they were all applying for the same set of events and for the same sets of killings and given the fact that they subsequently realised that Taylor had in fact made several mistakes.  On this - my basic submission is that the amnesty applications and this has been the basis of the family's objection, the amnesty applications have limited the disclosure of what they knew and how they were involved to aspects on which they know they cannot be questioned on.  For as long as they distinguish Taylor's evidence, they do not have to justify the proportionality, they do not have to justify any personal knowledge of Ninela.  At that point they can simply remember, yes, well perhaps I met him in prison, but du Preez then is forced to say that Ninela is lying about the torture because he doesn't want to reveal that there was in fact a prior relationship between them.
	Even if my submission is rejected on that score, I submit that there are still problems with the versions presented by the applicants.  If the order was to execute, if as they say, the order came from Taylor to execute, why desecrate the body?  Why blow up the head?  Why blow up the hands?  We had du Preez who said one of the purposes in blowing him up was to serve as a deterrent.  If indeed they were blowing up an MK soldier, they would want that presumably to be known the ANC.  Wasserman says that he thought that the explosive was a good idea because then no identity would be possible and people would think that he had left to Swaziland.  How is it then that on Mwelase's evidence, Taylor had the same belief, or fed Mwelase the same story that Ninela was in Swaziland?  I want to suggest that this was part of a much broader plan and that Wasserman's sudden recollection points at some measure, to a much more organised and deliberate execution of Mr Ninela than we are given to believe.
	Du Preez, having distinguished Taylor's evidence, states in his second application that he had not personal knowledge of Ninela's activities.  That is what prompted the family to go out and investigate and that is what prompted the family and the investigators to discover that indeed there were documents that showed a very traumatic and a very early relationship between du Preez and Ninela.  Even so, du Preez seeks to distinguish the references to torture.  There is no reason for Ninela to have falsely implicated du Preez.  The problem is that du Preez must now stick to his version that he couldn't recall Ninela and to the extent that he could recall him, well he wasn't an exceptional personality.  If anything the documents show not that it's directly relevant now on their version, but the documents show that the legal machinery was partly employed and that it could have continued to be employed against Mr Ninela.  
	I submit that on the evidence that has been placed by both sides, the entire modus operandi surrounding the death of Mr Ninela is strange.  On the evidence presented and as the evidence recalled by the applicants, the profile of Ninela is not that of an ANC military operator.  It's not that of an ANC terrorist.  Why then...(intervention)