UNKNOWN
That is so, I agree.  I agree.
	Then I move to paragraph (b) of the same Section 20(3), which states very categorically that the offence committed, it should be established whether it was committed in the course of or as part of a political uprising, disturbance or event or in reaction thereto.  With respect, Mr Chairman and honourable members of the Committee, we do not have such evidence.  There was no political uprising whatsoever. There was no disturbance or event whatsoever.  Neither was there any reaction thereto.  The only attempt made was to pull us to the overall situation, but I am still saying, put aside all those "plakkers" or documents, or even the evidence of the journalist, and confine ourselves to this situation, to the issues before us, and then a finding will be made that definitely there was no such a thing, and then this criteria would not be satisfied.
	(c) thereof. Mr Chairman, the crime or the offence to my mind, was criminal and very grave.  I must admit right-away Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, that some criminal acts can become political acts, but, and this is a warning, but the political element should be found to be dominating.  In casu, we don't have evidence to the effect that the political element in the committing of this crime is dominating. Instead, the evidence before us in totality directs us to a finding that the criminal element is dominating.
	This is a crime against life.  Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, I must admit furthermore that the standards are that crimes against life may also qualify as the honourable member of the Committee has already indicated some few minutes ago, but the qualification has got a rider.  It is said that crime against life may only qualify if it is a last resort - if it is a last resort - in reaching the political objective.  
	Firstly, no political objective has been established.  Therefore, we cannot speak of taking a life as a last resort in reaching a political objective.  	(d) thereof.