MR VISSER
Yes.  Chairperson, Mr Webster appeared for three of the families he told you at the beginning.  It now appears that he is acting for all three the families, judging from the evidence led this morning and he made certain points in his cross-examination and placed some matters in dispute by doing that.  We have to deal with those in the sense of alerting you to those points and giving you a brief reply thereto.
	The first point that was made, Chairperson, was that Exhibit A, which serves before you, the general background document, is not applicable to policemen but rather to the South African Defence Force because policemen were not involved in a war.  Now Chairperson, it's not necessary for Stalin's organs and bombs to explode around your ears to be involved in a war.  This Amnesty Committee has found on more than one occasion that there was an intense war in this country during the struggle of the past, although not a declared war and that is our submission, Mr Chairman and as far as Exhibit A is concerned, that has been drafted specifically with policemen in view and that is specifically based on the evidence of van der Merwe and Vlok which had been accepted by the original Amnesty Committee in each of the applications of Jack Cronje and Hechter in their Amnesty Decisions, Chairperson, all of them at page 1 on the first page of their Amnesty Decisions.
	We also say Mr Chairman, that Exhibit A has been accepted as being applicable to policemen without reservation, by various Amnesty Committees thereafter and it deals entirely with the position of policemen, not the SADF.  We've never appeared for the SADF.  We have been given to understand, Chairperson, that all we had to do was to refer to the facts in Exhibit A, without the necessity of evidence and that was not only in the Cronje decision at page 2, lines 10 to 12, but also during a meeting on the 5th of February last year where Judge Wilson presided and to which we've already referred you and Mr Chairman you yourself, in the record at page 9 line 21 to page 10 line 3, also stated this position quite clearly and I don't intend to waste any further time on that issue.
	Mr Chairman, next, the issue of having been of the intention and having decided beforehand by the applicants to eliminate the victims and not to arrest them. Chairperson, I have basically now dealt with that issue and I can take it no further than that, other than repeating, Chairperson, that on the probabilities, this is not the way seasoned policemen would have gone about it, if they wanted to eliminate these people and least but not - another aspect which is not unimportant, Mr Chairman is the evidence of Wasserman.  I forgot to make a note of the page reference, but Wasserman told you that they thought, on the information which they had, that the victims would be armed with AK47's and with hand grenades and he says that if the intention had been and my attorney has just given me the passage, if the intention had been to eliminate them, he wouldn't have gone there with his service pistol, he would have taken his R1 rifle.  The reference to that is at page 694, at the bottom of that page of the record, 694, it starts a little earlier but I'm going to read from the bottom, Chairperson:
"