CHAIRPERSON
But, Mr Mapoma, on what basis are we to reject his testimony before us in the absence of any other counter evidence, as Mr Mbandazayo had submitted?  The criminal trial, when it came to the question of sentence or mitigation, had obviously been conducted on the basis of revenge.  The State had sort of relied, it's quite clear on the question of revenge, in a situation where the accused was raising an alibi.  He knows nothing about this incident, he was at the school attending a concert.
	So, under those circumstances, there was never really any list, any point of dispute on the underlying motivation for the incident between the defence and the prosecution.  And it's not uncommon to have that sort of all or nothing situation where, if you raise an alibi you waive the right to rely on clear mitigatory factors subsequent to a conviction.  You normally on an alibi, you normally go for all or nothing.  You're convicted and that's the end of the road really in sense for you.  	So, under those circumstances, I mean what sort of real weight can we attach to what happened in the trial, and to what extent can we criticise the applicant for not having raised the question at that stage, because I think in the judgment on sentence, the court says, "The accused still denies that the attack was based on revenge".  So, it's obviously clear that it was one of those cases that was conducted on the basis of all or nothing, if you go down on the trial you might try your luck on an appeal, but your hands are tied on mitigation.  So isn't that the sort of situation that we have and how do we deal with that?