MR VAN RENSBURG
That is correct, thank you, Mr Chairman.  The evidence was further led that the same pressure was exerted through all the ranks, right down to the constables involved in the investigation.
	This is the situation that the fifth applicant found himself to be in at the time.  He was a fairly newly appointed member of the Security Branch, he was a constable, he did not form part of the inner core of the investigation team.  Mr Netshivale was not involved in any decision making, he was not involved in the arrest of any of the victims or suspects at the time.  He formed part of the core of young policemen who were co-operating or asked to co-operate on an ad hoc basis on a day to day basis to support the interrogation team.  From all the evidence it is clear that he played a minor role during this whole investigation.
	He testified himself that he received direct orders from his superiors.  At least, I submit that from the actions of the superior officers, he deducted that it was his implied orders to assault and to interrogate the victims in the ways that he has testified.
	There is no doubt that the actions that he has admitted to falls under the ambit of gross human rights violations.  It falls within the definition of the Act and it falls within the definition of each and everyone here present.
	Mr Netshivale has admitted to slapping on the body and also on the head of the victims with the open hands.  He has admitted to assisting other superior officers when they used the electricity shocking device as well as the wet bag method.
	In principle his evidence is corroborated by that of the victims themselves.  They, although they did not say that explicitly, it can be deducted from their evidence that Mr Netshivale was not the person in charge during their interrogations.
	Rev Phoshwana testified that the fifth applicant was the first person who pulled his hair and he said that this incident was imprinted or left an imprinted picture in his memory.  It must be stressed that he could not identify the fifth applicant by name as also being one of the persons who pulled hair from his private parts.  And it must also be stressed that Rev Phoshwana did not mention the fifth applicant by name in any of the previous statements that he has made, including the statement handed in this morning.
	Regarding the evidence of Mr Mahumela, he again corroborated the evidence of Mr Netshivale in that he testified that it was Mr Netshivale who slapped him in the face.  It was only at a very late stage during his evidence that, on a question from Adv Bosman, he testified that the fifth applicant was actually the one who gave him instructions to do the so-called flicker exercises.  This was omitted during his evidence-in-chief and even did not come out during cross-examination.