ADV PRINSLOO
The ANC believed that they would reach their goal and in my argument I have in fact stated that they have met their goal.  Similarly the applicant believed that he would reach his goal.
	The argument is not that he believed that it was a wrong act at that time, he considered it an act of war.  In the context of a war declared against the ANC/SACP alliance
and the then government, and with respect, that is what occurred.
	One could never, ever consider any person for amnesty if you were to consider what other persons did and this person believed in a specific ideal and he acted in terms of that ideal.  His Organisation was structured in a particular way, there was a military wing, the Boer Republican Army, similarly to the military wing of the ANC.
	The difference then is in terms of the goals and ideals, but my argument is with respect that there was no lack of proportionality between the act and the ideal or goal.
	With regard to big business or the so called large financial institutions, it was his testimony that the Muslim Indian, members of the Muslim Indian community had in fact the particular financial means to contribute to the aims of the ANC.
	With regard to State institutions and the difference drawn.  With respect I want to argue that the testimony of the witness is that by placing the bomb at the commercial centre, he believed that this would make a difference.
	A State or a government building was therefor not considered.  A further aspect that the - it would have been better to use a controlled device, with respect Mr Chairman, you have pointed out to Mr Black the fact that landmines have been used in many cases.  This was a situation of war.
	A further aspect is that it is clear that the applicant Mr Harmse, was promoted in the Boer Republican Army because of this act, there was no other reason for his promotion.
	Thank you Honourable Chairman.