MR CLAASSEN
That is one hundred percent correct Madam Chair.  My line of reasoning is this that it is indeed true that this evidence was heard and it was in a criminal court, he was found guilty of these offences.
	Madam Chair, if I might address that issue later, surrounding the merits of his testimony.  If I may just - I looked at the definition of murder, and it is stated that it is unlawful, intentional causing of another's death, and any person who, in whatever way, unlawfully, intentionally causes another person's death, is therefore a perpetrator of this murder, or the murderer, which is indeed the capacity in which he was convicted.
	Madam Chair, I would however like to take it a bit further and also look at the definition of an accomplice to such a murder.  It is also said that an accomplice is somebody who does not in terms of his conduct, state of mind and personal qualities, comply with the definition of the crime, but nevertheless unlawfully and intentionally furthers its commission by somebody else.
	I think this follows clearly that the perpetrator and the accomplice promote the commission of the crime, before it is completed.
	Madam Chair, if I might just also look at the different degrees of perpetrators.  There is a definite difference made in the criminal law between a principal perpetrator, a co-perpetrator and an indirect perpetrator.
	It is my submission that once again, as stated and as it was conducted, he was in the context of the conviction, as stated by the witnesses, the perpetrator of this particular crime.  Madam Chair, it is my line of reasoning, if one looks at the well known principle of doctrine of common purpose, known in our criminal law, and if I may, it is stated in this doctrine although not impossible, it is improbable that somebody would participate in a murder merely as an accomplice and not as a perpetrator.  It is improbable that the furthering of death, would be regarded as anything other than causing it.
	If two or more persons decide to murder someone, for all of them to be liable as co-perpetrators, it is not necessary that each of them should stab or fire a shot at the deceased.  It is not even necessary for them to touch the deceased, or be present at the scene of the crime.  This is especially relative, say a relatively large number of persons decide to murder a single victim, which was not the exact facts, but just - there was a meeting held according to the evidence, and it was decided at this particular meeting that a person or that the bus should be attacked.