CHAIRPERSON
Yes, Mr. Erasmus.
MR. ERASMUS: Thank you My Lord.
      I want to invite your Lordships attention to Section 23(3)(I)  and sub-section 3(II).   It is clear from the evidence that not one of the applicants received personal gain from any of their actions and that nothing was done out of personal malice, ill-will or spite directed against their victim.
      I want to draw your Lordships attention to a decision of Hendrik Jakobus Steyn;   it was an application number 69 of 1996.   In this application, evidence was led of the death of ANC member after a gun fight between member of the Police and Terrorists.   The victims were wounded by the Security Forces.  The applicant, Hendrik Jakobus Steyn recognised the two wounded as two well known terrorists.   He testified that he knew that they would eventually be redeployed against the Security Forces.   He testified that the Courts could not handle the situation, and that it was necessary to act outside the normal legal system.   He then killed the two wounded soldiers.
      In the judgment the Committee found that the motive of the applicant was to kill the deceased so as to prevent them from acting in future against the Security Forces. Steyn did so because the normal legal process was not successful in that regard.
      This is important with respect for the argument pertaining to the application of the applicant, and the reason why they acted outside the normal scope of the legal system.   It is also important for purposes of the couter-revolutionary strategy and the prevention policy of the South African Police at that time.   It was found that the context of the action was against the background of a fight between Security Forces and Terrorists.   The Committee found that it was foreseeable that people could die because of the struggle.   The deceased were all political opponents.    
      In respect of proportionality, the Committee found that the South African Police on the one hand, and the Liberation Movements on the other hand, were legitimate targets of each other, and that the killing in this specific instance of a person was therefore not necessarily not proportional to the political objective.
      Now it is submitted that this judgment of Steyn supports the application of Mr. Beneke and the other co-applicants.
      Now I want to turn to disclosure of all relevant facts.