MR LOUBSCHER
It's merely the weighing up, Mr Chairman, and it's true but as in many of the amnesty applications one doesn't always deal whether it's State property or private property.  The main object of it, and there's no suggestion whatsoever that there was any other object in mind of the three, four people involved in these applications, other than a political motive and the Volkstaat idea.
	There is probably only one possible conflict and that's where Mr Kriel said - and I must say, Mr Chairman, I all of them were very very frank, you heard in the end Mr Kriel's frank admission that his parting of the ways with the AWB in 1993 was in fact a sham and that the three others were led up the garden path so to speak for other reasons.  He was forthcoming and very very honest and frank about it.  The only possible dispute between them as to whether injury and loss of life, where does that really fit in.
	Now you will recall that Mr Labuschagne initially said that they would try to avoid loss of life and injury and he listed the steps.  They held a prayer meeting and then they timed the attacks in the evening so that they would minimise the chance of this occurring.  Clearly he felt strongly about it.  In cross-examination it was stated simply as a fact to him that those were his instructions.  But it was clear from Mr Labuschagne's - if one looks at the whole tenor of his evidence, that he realised very well if you dabble with explosives only a fool will say or think that there isn't always a chance, a very real chance that people may get killed and injured.
	Clearly, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, Mr Kriel doesn't or didn't feel so strongly about it, while the other two members, the two very junior members, those without rank, they obviously followed orders but they were under the impression that they would try to avoid death and injury.
	We submit however, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, that that detailed difference should not be fatal for this application.  In general the applicants were frank, they were open, they told the Committee exactly what they did, they told the Committee exactly why they did it, they told the Committee who was involved, especially when it came to Mr Kriel.  
	We submit, Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, that amnesty should be granted to the four applicants for the deeds as set out in their applications and in particular the deeds as set out in the charge sheets.