MR SWANEPOEL
Even though his application conforms to the standards, conforms to the norms, he was assisted by the same people on the same date, there is no real reason save lack of diligence, to the omissions in the written applications on behalf of the other applicants.  The reason that something was contrary to instructions, people should read documents, that is the rule, especially documents as important as this.
	Condonation of that regard and acceptance of that reason regardless will purely result in a flurry of useless applications, as was the case before this Committee with respect, only a very small portion of the total amount of applications was heard in the end because of this difficulty.
	The disadvantage to the process of truth and reconciliation is by far larger than the disadvantage to the individual, greater than the disadvantage to the individual.  With respect, the difficulties could have easily been rectified even by supplying further particulars at an earlier stage or at an earlier stage setting the wheels of rectification in motion.  There were several ways.  
	But it's strange that a person supplies the Committee with a written document and without a word inbetween comes and sits on the day of the hearing and he gives evidence that cannot possibly be reconciled with the contents of the written document.
	And also with respect, it's difficult to understand as a mistake because each of them gave oral evidence regarding one or two specific instances, not a great amount of events that could easily be confused, that he could easily not remember, where he did what, when.  They were specific on specific events, and then the chances of a mistake greatly diminishes.  There was not a great deal to occupy their minds with in the meantime.  And the probabilities with respect, is that when these applications were lodged, the evidence that was given was not contemplated on the ...(intervention)