MR VISSER
Well, Mr Chairman, that is part of the conflict of the past.  Many people on both sides were killed for less reasons than we today would do far less to persons.  That is the reality of the situation, Mr Chairman.  Yes, when one thinks about it on the basis of normal society, the killing of one person, as I said before, is unjustifiable, but what we're talking about here, Mr Chairman and you'll remember the case of Steyn who received amnesty as the ultimate example, where he was given instructions to take a man to hospital.  He then decided that he's been looking for this man for so long, he's not going to go through that terrible ordeal again.  He takes him behind a bush and he shoots him.  Now those were the terrible facts of our past Mr Chairman, which the Interim Constitution charges us to reconcile with each other through the process of amnesty and it is sometimes difficult, of course it is, but those are the realities, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Chairman, just to put one matter straight.  My learned friend seems to assume that Mr Taylor, because he's amnesty application went in the same time as du Preez and Wasserman, did that in cahoots or together with Wasserman.  It's not true.  Wasserman and du Preez did their amnesty applications through attorneys Wagener and Muller in Pretoria, while Mr Taylor did his through Mr Nel.  Mr Nel can confirm that, Mr Chairman.
	Now my learned friend says that du Preez was forced to deny that he assaulted Ninela.  Well that is not his evidence.  He says that he can't remember and he can take it no further than that.  For a man who can't remember, he can't say, Mr Chairman.
	Now we find it very strange that my learned friend says that after they heard what the applicant said, they went to do research and they found the documents which they placed before you.  Now referring to those documents, Mr Chairman, you heard my learned friend say this morning that the brother of Mr Ninela wishes to come and give evidence to say that the applications for the release of Mr Ninela was within his custody, so that would suppose, with Mr Chairman, that he had it all along.  It wouldn't have been something which he had gone to look for now because of anything that the applicant said, with great respect. 
	Yes, so to round up, Mr Chairman, it is not for the applicant to show that Mr Ninela was anything more than what my learned friend refers to as a sympathiser.  We prefer to refer to as a supporter of a political organisation and with that Mr Chairman, I again repeat my request that you consider the applications favourably.