MR MARTINI
Yes Mr Chairman, I think possibly this argument should be dealt with at the beginning and I think all legal representatives should participate in it, so we get a decision rather than go through it step by step as each applicant testifies, otherwise we're going to have these arguments.  I don't know how the rest of the legal - I just think it's a practical solution.
	Mr Chairperson, I agree with Mr Wessels that unfortunately this Committee today is an Amnesty Committee falling under the auspices of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  There are various committees.  There are Committees on human rights violations, which gives that Committee different functions.  Now this Committee is the Committee on amnesty.   It's established to receive applications by applicants for amnesty.  Section 18 of the Act and by the Act I mean the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, Mr Chairman, specifically:  
"Any person who wishes to apply for amnesty in respect of any act, omission, or offence, on the grounds that it is an act associated with a political objective, shall: ..."
and it goes on.  Read with Section 20:
"In this Act, unless the context otherwise indicates, an act associated with a political objective, means an act or an omission"
Clearly the act in section 20 which refers to the granting of amnesty pursuant to having had an application filed before you, Mr Chairman, relates to the very act that you're seeking amnesty.  Possibly a Committee on human rights violations might have other powers, vaster powers than this Committee has, but in respect of this Committee, it's my submission that the evidence must be relevant to this act in respect of which the applicant applies for amnesty.  This is the mechanism which an applicant has been given to come forward and make application for a specific act and surely on the strict reading of this legislation, the evidence to be led or cross-examination must be limited to the very acts in respect of which amnesty is applied for, because it would serve no purpose Mr Chairman, if one has to investigate additional acts, it's nonsensical because an applicant, even if evidence had come out that he was guilty of another act, of another gross violation, this Committee is not empowered to give him amnesty for that act because its not an act that amnesty was sought for because it says...(intervention)