MR VAN RENSBURG
If that evidence is accepted, of course it will have a serious implication on the evidence of Mr Netshivale.  I would also argue and that forms part of my address, Mr Chairman, that the question of the memory of the specific persons also must play a role in this instance.
	We must remember that, and that was the evidence of specifically Mr Netshivale, that it was not only the Security Branch members who interrogated suspects at the time in this brutal way, it was standard practice and normal procedure.  Therefor it is submission that these instances will stand out more vividly in the memories and the recollection of the victims rather than that of the applicants.
	As my learned friend, Adv Meyer, argued these events took place a long time ago and I would submit that, and on the basis then that if Mr Mahumela's evidence is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that Mr Netshivale and perhaps also the other applicants elected not to tell the Commission about this but, it can perhaps be explained by the long time lapse.