UNKNOWN
...(sound cut off) ... before even getting to the merits of what they are asking.  In any event, 4.1, that concludes 4.1.
	As far as 4.2 is concerned:
"the act or offence must have been committed by the applicant having been a member of the Security Forces of the State, as defined in the Act."
Now here once again my learned friends for the victims in their Heads of Argument are in fact stating that the applicants do not qualify in terms of the definition of Security Forces.  But I do not see them mentioning that Security Forces includes any full-
time, a member (and I wish to underline) or agent of the South African Defence Force.
	Now my submission in my Heads as from page 8 and further - no, sorry a bit later, page 10 and further, is that the term Security Forces in fact includes the term: "agent of the South African Defence Force".  I then go into the background of the CCB and make the same submissions virtually as Mr Martini was making, that because of the fact that they were State funded and also responsible to account to the SADF, they have a General who is their Chairman, obviously a highest authority, that it can definitely not be said that they are not members of the Security Forces.  
	I go further to point out that the TRC Report in fact finds that the CCB represented a new method of State directed warfare in South African context, part of the Special Forces.  And I submit that that finding by the TRC in their Report is in fact correct and should be followed by this Committee.  
	But I then go further to say on page 12, that in the alternative, the CCB was acting as an agent of the South African Defence Force, and I submit that there could be no quarrel with that.  Clearly, if the CCB was contracted by the South African Defence Force, as my learned friends for the victims are suggesting, to just do their dirty work, being paid for that with State funds, then surely it must be said that each and every individual then working for the CCB, must have been an agent of the South African Defence Force, and as such they would fall under this definition.
	The further enquiry would then obviously be whether they were committing these deeds for gain or not or whether from political motive, but that's quite another enquiry.  And my submission is that they should easily clear the first hurdle, stating that they would fall under the definition of Security Forces, as defined in the Act.  That concludes that point.
	Then as far as 4.3 is concerned:
"the act or offence must have been committed by the applicant in the course and scope of his duties within the scope of his expressed or implied authority or he must have had reasonable grounds to believe so"
is found on page 12 and further.  
	Now I submit here that it has never been disputed that these applicants were all employed by the CCB.  The nature of the CCB was never disputed and in fact, I again refer to the TRC Report and findings, especially on page 384 of Exhibit D, the CCB was a secret, apparently civilian strike force which was to supplement the Special Forces of the SADF.  The purposes of the CCB, as we've heard many a time, death, infiltration, bribery, compromise and blackmail or destruction.  We know that they've been, all three my applicants at least, have been on an induction course where they've been addressed by Verster and even Generals, as to the background, why the CCB is necessary, who the enemy is, what they should do, what they are entitled to do, that there was a war situation.  I'm not only referring to the TRC Report, but it was in this hearing confirmed by Verster who was the Managing Director, it was said by Gen Joop Joubert who was the Chairman before Webb.  So I submit that at all times relevant to any of the acts my clients apply for amnesty for, it is clear that they were not acting in their private capacities, but they were acting as members of the CCB.
	And I submit further that they had no reason, that's Burger and Basson as well as Maree, that they had no reason not to believe that they were acting in the course and scope of their duty.  Now what I'm referring to here obviously, is the fact that there is a dispute between Verster and Webb as to whether certain authority was given and in the cases of Omar and Evans.  I submit that it cannot affect Basson and Burger, because they didn't know that.  We must at all times, keep in mind that we had to do here with cut off points.  Burger and Basson weren't allowed to walk into - well they weren't even allowed into the offices of Special Forces at Headquarters, but they weren't allowed to walk into the General's offices and ask him whether Verster did in fact get his approval or not.  There were cut off points and they were working on instructions.  So if it's said that they were not acting within the course and scope of their duties in the Omar and Evans matters, then it must be said at least, that they had reasonable grounds to believe so.  And I then submit that as far as this requirement is concerned, obviously they also qualify.
	Then 4.4 is referring to Section 20(2) and 20(1)(b) and there are several Sections referred to there.  That is:
"The act must have been advised, planned, directed, commanded, ordered, committed with a political motive or objective, in the course of the conflict of the past."