UNKNOWN
Madame Chair, my submission to there that the applicant has contradicted himself in his evidence when cross-examined and in the issue of following orders, I mean in his affidavit he's made it clear that it was on his own initiative to eliminate the victims and I think this is in line with his reason behind because he says they were investigating him or he believed that they were investigating him.  It goes very well with the fact that he could have taken an initiative to eliminate them.
	Further Madame Chair, the basis of having identified the victims is really, it's nothing political, I mean the applicant has 
given evidence that they were identified on the basis that they were Indians which doesn't even link him to the objective that he alleges that he wanted to give a clear signal to the security policemen.
	Madame Chair, I would submit in short that there's nothing political according to the evidence given by the applicant and given the fact that he has contradicted himself so much and the fact that he keeps on saying there's nothing that he could do even though he claims that he was a member.  It looks like he didn't even have authority to give such instructions.
	I don't think really he complied with the requirement of full disclosure and it is my submission that amnesty should be refused.  Thank you.