MR RICHARD
I simply say we cannot know.  There is the question of the money which substantiates nothing.  It is not consistent and beyond that, again, we can only speculate.
	On the level of speculation and on that point, it is my argument that it is not for us to redevelop as a matter of probability what might have happened, what could have happened.  It is for the applicants to take the Committee into their confidence and reveal what their case is.
	It is not for them to argue after four days' evidence, what case they might have been able to present if they had known what the evidence was going to be.  That is in conflict with anything underlying the notion of full disclosure.
	I have been reminded that the Dhlomo family would like to record their position in regard to this hearing.  They do oppose the granting of amnesty to the four applicants.  They don't condone what the four applicants did or accept their apologies therefore.
	But their opposition should not be seen in any way as an attack on the ANC, the political organisation that they have supported for many years.  Their opposition is based on their clear belief that the applicants attempted to place their criminal actions within the context of a legitimate struggle and in so doing, to demean the hero of the struggle, in this case, their son.
	The Dhlomos' trust that the findings of this Committee will dismiss the unsubstantiated allegations made by the applications that their son was an informer for the system that he dedicated his young life to fight, and died for.  Thank you.