UNKNOWN
If the material available, Mr Chairperson, the evidence, demonstrates the absence of full disclosure or fails to demonstrate the presence of an offence with a political objective, the Committee cannot be satisfied that Section 20(1)(b) and (c) have been complied with.  Whether there has been full disclosure or whether a political offence or an Act with a political objective has been committed, are clearly matters capable of objective determination by reference to the evidence in the application of the legal principles.  The making of findings of fact that are essential to this process.  These findings of fact must obviously be based on the evidence.  Sufficient evidence must be produced by the applicants to satisfy the Committee that the factors referred to in Section 20(1) exist.  Where there is evidence to support such a finding must be decided on a balance of probabilities.  We would pose a question, on what other basis might a tribunal which has heard evidence under oath an listened to extensive cross-examination, come to make a conclusion.  What lower standard of truth could possibly apply?  The words of "satisfy" can never in themselves connote that either the owners or the civil standard has been dispenses with.  There are plethora of decisions dealing with statute which provide that the court or tribunal will only be satisfied whether something has been proven on a balance of probabilities.  It can hardly be that an Act which provides for exoneration from crimes as serious as the preparation of gross human rights violations, perpetration of human rights violations.
	All that is required is that the applicant must cross the low threshold of convincing the Committee to make a finding as vague as the one to the effect.  The pros in favour of amnesty outweigh the cons and we quote the case of Johannesburg Local Road Transportation vs D. Morton Transport Limited 761887 A at 9048.  Obtaining amnesty surely cannot be as easy as obtaining a road transportation permit.  As the AZAPO decision makes clear, the whole truth is required and the whole truth we would respectfully submit can hardly be established by reference to some standard of proof, lower than proof on a balance of probabilities.  
	Our learned friend, Mr Wessels, submits that the objects of the Act may be satisfied by a victim being given the perpetrators assurance that this is what I reasonably may have done.  It is submitted that this interpretation cannot satisfy the finding in the AZAPO matter regarding the purpose of the Act.  
	And then we quote the shorter Oxford Dictionary on the historical principles which defines the verb "satisfied" to mean the following:
"To furnish with sufficient proof or information, to set free from doubt all uncertainty to convince."
	The word "satisfy" in rule 22.4, dealing with summary Judgment, Mr Chairperson, according to ...(indistinct) Thompson J, in Afrikaans ...(indistinct) Beperk - it should be a versus there, Mr Chairperson, vs Neeser 1948, 2295 SA297 means Mr van Zyl for the plaintiff has in argument me a number of grounds which tend to show that the strong probability is against the defendant's ...(indistinct).  Under rule 22l.4, it is for the defendant to satisfy the court that he has a bona fide defence to the action.  It is true the authorities show that this is not a heavy onus.  "Satisfy" does not mean prove.  I take to satisfy to mean, therefore, that the court must feel that there is a fair probability that the defendant's defence is a good one.  At any rate that is bona fide.  My prima facie impression with all the facts is that it is the impression on the probabilities and the facts, is that it is a made up defence.  But I do not find that and merely say that it is the impression which all the facts make on my mind.  May I draw your attention to the fact, Mr Chairperson, that the word "satisfy" there is in a rule dealing with summary Judgment, a Judgment which is not necessarily a find Judgment by the way.  You can pay the money in ...(intervention)