MR KINCAID
I appreciate that Mr Chairperson, it appears to have been an application for general amnesty based on their convictions in the Supreme Court.  I realise that some of the offences for which they were charged, not all the applicants were found guilty, some of them were and some of them not.  Maybe I do need a sit down and be more specific in what is actually being applied for.  To do that I'd appreciate a little bit of time.  I may have misunderstood the whole purpose of this application, by having regard to the Provisions of Section 20 of the Act, I was of the view, rightly or wrongly, that it's not what was committed but it was with what purpose, with what objective, with what motive, these acts were committed, that is of importance and that is why through the applicant I have attempted to establish the conflict in the community in which he lived in and why it was decided to attack the particular victims which they did.  So I didn't, when I led the applicant, I didn't really deal with the merits of the application, I kind of accepted the fact that they were guilty of the acts with which they were charged and rightly convicted and that the convictions aren't being attacked.  What we have attempted to show the Committee is the reason why we committed those acts and what motivated us and what the purpose was.  So that's why it was left as a general broad application but if you're inviting me to be more specific then I see the merits of doing so, I would just appreciate some time with which to apply my mind to that aspect.