ADV VAN DER WALT COMMISSION ON MERITS OF CASE
Mr Chairperson, I support Mr Prinsloo's argument. I won't repeat the whole body of the argument. I would just like to emphasise certain points as they relate to Mr Gerber. I would also like to argue that he complies with the requirements of Section 22(a), (d) and (f), but I would like to further argue in relation to Mr Van Eyck that he complies with the requirements of subsection (2)(g).  Any person who associates himself with any act, omission or offence committed for the above purposes mentioned in the mentioned paragraphs.
	Chairperson, it is so, and I would like to argue that the witness called by Mr Mpshe, Jack Mkoana, confirmed that Mr Van Eyck told you the truth when he testified here.  No other evidence was placed before you which contradicts this and it is so that Mr Justice Roos also found that Mr Van Eyck did not commit this murder.  It is also true that as Judge Wilson said, that he cannot apply for amnesty if he did not commit murder, but here I would like to argue that Mr Van Eyck was present during the torture and he also took part in it.  When the shooting started, the shooting by Mr Oosthuisen and later continued by Mr Gerber, Mr Van Eyck was present.  He did nothing to prevent the shooting and during cross-examination by Mr Prinsloo also said that he associated himself with this act.  He goes on to actually burn the corpse and he told the honourable Commission that he did this, because he wanted to make it appear to be a political deed, political murder. So he took this act much further and I want to contend that he was correctly convicted of murder and he therefore is entitled to apply for amnesty, and that he also complies with the requirements set out in subsection (2)(g).
	It is very important to note the requirements set out by Section 22(f) and if you look at this subsection, it is quite widely drafted, and that is that any person in Sections (a) and (d) as I would like to argue, I am contending that he complied with those requirements.  Any person who had reasonable grounds to believe that he was acting in the course and scope of his duties.  Here I want to point out that the section continues by saying that the instructions could have been given in an express or an implied way, that he believed as a result of certain information which he had received that this was the case.  Mr Gerber also said in his evidence that various slogans had been painted on walls, et cetera.  All the things which led him to believe that the ANC, PAC and Apla were involved in these armed robberies.  Mr Van Eyck acted in this belief that what he was doing was correct.
	I am not going to address you further on subsection (3), that is the section from which you must determine whether this was an act associated with a political motive.
	Chairperson, what is very important is that subsection (f) which is perhaps one of the most important subsections of Section 3, is that there must be proportionality between the act committed and the objective ...
END TAPE 3 - DAY 2 - SIDE A
TAPE 3 - DAY 2 - SIDE B
	... the proportionality here and as Mr Prinsloo contended, I would like to contend that you employ different criteria than those used by the Indemnity Committee, but it can never be ignored, especially in relation to subsection (f) that in what Barend Strydom did, that there was on proportionality there between his act and the objective pursued, because he simply went out one day and shot people at random.  He simply wanted to show his political convictions.  But here the applicants had the motive and objective to obtain information about the PAC. 
	Mr De Graaff who does not know the two applicants, and who did not testify on their behalf, but placed objective facts before you, and those facts I contend support the conclusion that the PAC at that time had financial problems. 
	I would like you to bear these considerations in mind and also to grant amnesty to Mr Van Eyck for the deed which he committed. Thank you.