MR MAPOMA
Yes, Chairperson, that's my submission that a doctrine of common purpose cannot be escaped by him if this particular evidence that I've just applied could be established in a criminal case, ...(indistinct), therefore I would say that in the circumstances he can be convicted for murder as well as attempted murder, but I may say that somewhat faintly, but I would once again not leave it there.  The part of association by him with the actual murder, I submit Chairperson goes a long way.  I mean now given the interpretation of the Act now, the TRC Act, without necessarily being so strict as to criminal liabilities and the principles of that and Crimina Law are concerned, I would argue Chairperson that in the circumstances, the association itself makes him qualify for amnesty for those actions, even though perhaps criminally he may not necessarily be liable, strictly speaking.  I'm saying Chairperson, it may now be a question of interpreting the Act, given the facts and putting the interpretation into perspective.