MR MASHABANE
(continued)   Thank you Mr Chairman.   In addressing the problem we are faced with, I would love again to go back to the decision which I referred the Honourable Chairperson to it and ratify one thing on that aspect.
	The issue there which was decided on that case, the Boipatong case, by the Honourable Nqobo, the facts were that the applicants, 17 of them, signed blank forms and they filled the application form when, at a later date, when the cut off date had already passed.
	The Judge in ruling on that one, he went on the intention.  He said we must look at the intention of the applicants, and clearly by applying, then the applicants had intentions to give further evidence on the date of the hearing.
	The one who was acting for the victims, he objected to that application, but the Honourable Judge in his ruling, he said what is required was an intention.  I therefore submit that even in this case, Mr Chairperson, I submit what is required is the intention, and clearly the applicant  in filling that form, showed intention to apply for amnesty and further evidence would have been given in a way of viva voce or by an affidavit, during the hearing proceedings Mr Chairman.
	That is the point which I would like to submit before the Honourable Chairperson.  In the event that the Honourable Chairperson is not satisfied with that point which I have just submitted, I would therefore ask that this matter be postponed so that compliance with the Act, Section 19(4) could, the victims to be informed.
	I submit that if a postponement can be granted, the TRC would then inform the victims and then there would be no prejudice if that postponement is granted and if the victims would attend the hearing at a later date.
	If that postponement is not granted, then the applicant would suffer prejudice in the sense that he will remain in prison for a long time.