GEORGE BIZOS
I want to illustrate in view of Mr Martini's intervention, opposition, by a statement in 5(a) page 86.  The context, it is on the briefing of what the policy of the CCB was and it continues on top of page 86, Mr Chairman
"We are informed that the disruption of the enemy for example the existence of breaking of a window, the killing of a person and this depends on the priority class.  The organisation identified targets by means of information upon which we received instructions.  Several non de plumes were used."
Elsewhere Mr van Zyl says more graphically, whether we kill somebody or we break a window, depended on the decision of Mr Verster, he was the Managing Director and presumably it will be confirmed by Gen Webb who is sitting here.
	Now this is very important on the proportionality issue.  How was this policy applied and how can we decide whether the witness has made full disclosure or not if we are prohibited from or restrained from asking questions, well what other decisions did you make?  Illustrate to us when somebody had the penalty of death or the breaking of a window pane, so that the Committee decide what your policy was and how you applied it.  It's very clear that we cannot do justice to the case that we have undertaken on behalf of the victims if we are restrained.  My learned friend Mr Wessels, Mr Chairman, says for the last 20 years you can't go and do things.  Now we're not interested in 20 years.  We are interested in the period and that the question was, how many people were there in the CCB during your stewardship, during your leadership of this organisation?  And then my learned friend says that we have misread the papers because he did apply for amnesty in other matters.  Yes, we have not overlooked the pages 192 to 193 of the application in relation to Ribeiro and one other, the Community House, which was clearly outside the period when he was a CCB General Manager.  It was at a time when he was a staff officer in the Special Forces, so we haven't forgotten about that and we want to give you and our learned friends an assurance that we will confine ourselves to the nature and extent of the CCB and its activities and the participation of each one of the gentlemen before you, of what they did so that you may properly decide whether they comply with the requirements of the Act.  My learned friend Mr Wessels, correctly stated that there was a Section 29 hearing.  It was a painful experience to read it, Mr Chairman, because the witness and the others spent most of their time making lengthy speeches and not answering questions about the importance of their work and refusing to ask questions on specific matters which they avoided completely and the Chairman of the Commission did not direct them to answer them.  The victims are not obliged to accept those as the final word, they have a right to claim the information before the Amnesty Committee, Mr Chairman.