MR MARTINI
Chairperson, thank you.  Chairperson, as the Committee is aware I represent Mr Abram van Zyl, otherwise known as Mr Slang van Zyl.
	Mr Chairperson, I do not want to, in the interests of time, rehash all the law that Mr Wessels has dealt with, but I associate myself with the arguments.  My Heads, I do believe, are rather comprehensive.
	Just to touch on the issue, Chairperson, of the purpose of the Act.  The purpose of the Act is to grant amnesty and one shouldn't be bogged down in minor technicalities or minutia relating to certain facts pertaining to the incidents.  And it's my submission, as I've elaborated in the Heads, that the Act should be given a broader, a more liberal interpretation, it shouldn't be interpreted restrictively.  And it must be interpreted in a benevolent manner.  
	After all it's the applicants that come, Chairperson, to this Committee and incriminate themselves.  There shouldn't be, to touch on the test of satisfied, there shouldn't be a heavy burden placed on them.  And my submission is that, as Mr Wessels stated, the test is, it must be reasonably possible, the version.
	What appeared to be a contentious issue, Chairperson, I've submitted in my Heads the proportionality.  I do believe that Section 20(3) are indicia, they're not requirements, they are there to assist of factors to be taken into account in order to determine whether the act was political or there was a political objective involved.  And I also say proportionality does become irrelevant, as raised in my Heads, because I say in these facts one has to look at what happened, was the result a grave result?  In most instances I'd say it was not, save possibly for the Early Learning Centre, it's a bomb, it destroyed the building, but still there weren't deaths, the results were not tragic.  And it's my submission that proportionality has no relevance.
	But insofar as the Committee may believe there's relevance, Chairperson, one has to look at the situation which prevailed.  The situation, it is submitted in my Heads, was a situation of war, it wasn't a simple political disturbance or uprising.  People were being burnt alive in this country, bombs were going off, innocent civilians were being killed, from actions carried out by the liberation movements.  It's tragic but it happened.  That's our history and it's regrettable that it happened.
	To revert back to the question of full disclosure, Chairperson, I associate myself with Mr Wessels, but at the same time it's quite clear from the wording of the Act, that there must be a full disclosure of relevant facts relating to the act for which application is made for amnesty.  Now on the clear reading of Section 20, it says:
"The Committee, after having considering an application for amnesty, is satisfied that the application complies with the requirements of this Act.  The act, omission or offence to which the application relates, is an act associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflict of the past, in accordance with the provisions of (2) and (3) and (c), the applicant has made a full disclosure of all relevant facts"
and it goes further, which my learned colleague did not elaborate on:
"it shall grant amnesty in respect of that act, omission or offence"
so it refers back to (b).  So it's quite clear that there must be a full disclosure of the relevant facts, but that must also be of the relevant facts pertaining to the act for which an applicant applies for amnesty.