MR CLAASSEN
(Cont)
	Just resuming at the question being put about the common purpose of the perpetrators, and having a quick look they were indeed convicted on the basis of a common purpose, but, and one can't get past the fact that the amnesty as such is also linked to their conviction on these mentioned crimes.  
	It would be my submission though that looking at their behaviour on that specific day, and especially Mr Ndlovu's, the fact that he acted with other people, with people other than the applicants, it was decided by the Supreme Court that that still constituted the common purpose in killing this alleged innocent bystander, which complicates matters for some of the other applicants.  
	But Mr Chair it would be my submission that, all taken into account, with the problems as mentioned by the Committee regarding these initial applications, and the fact that there seems to be a bit of a problem surrounding that, it would be my submission that the evidence given before this Commission should be accepted as truthful.  There were obvious inconsistencies, there were, I think on both sides, but I believe that these applicants are bona fide applicants and that the incident as such was a direct consequence of political instability at the time.  
	And just getting to the question of full disclosure, I believe that they were truthful in what they said before this Commission, they were thoroughly tested by Mr Cachalia on their versions, and surely it is to be expected, where an incident of this huge scale occurred, that they will not corroborate each other word for word and sentence for sentence.  
	But I think as Advocate Sigodi mentioned the crux of the issue comes down to who actually attacked who and who retaliated as such, and it's my submission that on the basis of the applicants it was, it was obvious that the fight was unavoidable, there was going to be a fight.  And what resulted was, I think, to blame on both sides.  The evidence is that several attempts were made to try and resolve this issue.  There were tempers, there were a bit of a preceding history between the two parties, and this, all of this led to what eventually occurred.  
	And Mr Chair if I may just, in conclusion, it is my submission that on their applications, to which they testified, the applicants does qualify, or they do qualify, for amnesty as set down should they be found to have fully disclosed all that happened, and as such being my submission that they did, be granted amnesty. 
If there's anything else that the Commission would like to hear now?