MR PRINSLOO
If we look at this application, what the first applicant says, he wished to do was to obtain firearms, that is what he believed that he went to do at that stage.
	The facts support this allegation, the fact that he worked there, etc.  The third applicant Mr Van Zyl, was just sitting in the car, and he knew that they were going to obtain firearms, it was his testimony.
	The matter of reconnoitring does not even occur in the application, so the Amnesty Committee cannot depart from the point that they were going to reconnoitre, because then they would have stated so in their application.
	The other aspect is that they were acting, there was no reason for Mr Holder to walk into that place with a balaclava, he was just reconnoitring, what was he doing with a balaclava and a firearm?  Why would he have to do that?
	What Mr Holder believed with respect Mr Chairman, can't be placed at the door of the first applicant, and he cannot be penalised by that.
	Let us assume with respect, that according to Mr Holder's version, that they hypothetically went to reconnoitre and they were confronted by guards who found them there on the military base, would he shoot?  Would it then have been a political motive or not?  I would with all honesty still say that it was still part of the struggle, and part of that political motive.
	It would be very unreasonable and unfair because circumstances dictated differently than was believed,  to penalise a person and say but you wished to commit some other kind of crime, but the crime which they committed and would have had to commit, would at least have been robbery and if violence had occurred, and a person had been killed, then at least murder.
	How could it change the facts at all whether there were one or two or six or eight people in that room?  How does that change it?  That is my argument in this regard, that if one were to look then at proportionality, it is completely different question and one would have to approach it on a different basis.