UNKNOWN
Mr Chairman, if I might be allowed just one or two things. Mr Chairman, it is the view of the victims that the applicant has not made a full disclosure. Based on the probabilities, Mr Chairman, it is highly unacceptable or it's difficult to understand why should different witnesses whose got no links to the applicant at all, doesn't even know him, and the victim and the group there, would testify, broadly speaking, supporting each other saying that there was three people assaulting, kicking, handing out fist blows and ultimately overpowering the deceased then killing him. This is what basically, this is basically the facts that was also accepted by the court a quo.
	Today the applicant's testimony, to say the least, Mr Chairman, it is my respectful view, is very insufficient as specifically referring to the factual testimony, his own factual testimony what happened that day. On numerous questions, as I 
understand it, and as I understand my learned friend now as well, one of the answers of the applicant is that he actually operated or acted in self-defence. If that is the position, Mr Chairman, clearly requirement for unlawfulness for murder falls away, which means that the applicant is actually not applying for amnesty. But he is probably applying for killing or something else but not for murder. The unlawful event becomes lawful.
	It's also the view of the victims that the circumstances, if the court a quo made a mistake or error, with all respect with this regard, this is probably the wrong forum then to deal with that problem. Something else must have been done or appeal, or something else.
	But it is my respectful submission, not for the Committee today, to hand out amnesty to the applicant in the circumstances. It's my view, with all respect, Mr Chairman, that in the circumstances, because of the defence put up by the applicant, even today, even in the court, even on his own evidence and as well as the evidence of the witness, who was called on his behalf, that yes, there was self-defence. There's no such a thing, with all respect, Mr Chairman, as an element of self-defence. He acted in self-defence. They acted in self-defence, if that can be accepted on a second degree. It means that basically the whole application of murder would, like I said, then fall away. 
	It's furthermore my view, Mr Chairman, that the whole question of political motivation is very scanty, described by the applicant, he suffered and he had difficulty to answer questions put to him by the Panel about political motivation. It's broadly speaking, Mr Chairman, the view of the victims that in the circumstances, amnesty for the applicant must be, must be denied. As it pleases you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Mr Chairman.