CHAIRPERSON
Yes.  The point that I wish to make - arising out of the AZAPO case, is the distinction between the ordinary criminal justice process as a result of which the applicants are serving long terms of imprisonment and this particular process.
	You will recall Mr Chairman, that on a number of occasions - perhaps unfairly, I tried to engage some of the witnesses especially the victims and families of the victims, about this issue and that is why I'm addressing it now before you - I think you mentioned that it should be addressed in argument.  So it's very important to understand the context in which this whole process takes place and that is what I'm highlighting by - and especially the emphasised portions in the quotes..
	Then perhaps I'd just like to highlight from paragraph 13 on page 11 onwards:
	Thus, whereas the criminal process resulted in the suppression of the truth by the applicants using their right to remain silent, the amnesty process has encouraged the applicants to openly and publicly disclose what they did and why they did it.  The inherent value of the amnesty process is nowhere better illustrated than in an exchange which I had with one of the victims, Mr Quentin Cornelius who gave evidence both at the criminal trial and before this Committee.  
	After he was asked how he felt when the applicants were found guilty and sentenced, he said - and I quote:
"I felt in the first place that due to the evidence that was there - and they were convicted on that evidence, that is was the right thing to have happened - for them to be jailed or sentenced for crimes committed, so I felt that that was correct.
	I also felt that is was - justice had been served but I hadn't heard the entire truth, I hadn't heard everything behind it.  So I did have a feeling of emptiness and I must admit that through these proceedings it has been a lot more evident to me and a lot more has come out than what we knew after that court case and for that I am grateful". 
	Then just to deal with the grounds of the opposition to the amnesty application Mr Chairman, is really two fold.  Firstly, on an emotional basis which I understand I don't have - no one can have a problem with that, when your loved ones have been brutally killed and injured in the fashion that they were, then I don't think one can have a problem with that.  Unfortunately that is not a legal requirement and it is not a requirement which this Committee has regard to.  The second one is the more pertinent one and that is that the applicants must make a full disclosure of all the relevant facts.
	Paragraph 15 on page 12:
	It is submitted that it is otherwise common cause that the applicants have complied with the formal requirements of the Act and that the offences which they committed as a result of the attack on the Heidelberg Tavern are offences associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past in accordance with the provisions of Section 20(2) and (3) of the Act.
	In this regard it is common cause that the applicants are members of the PAC and of APLA and that they were trained soldiers of APLA.  Both the PAC and APLA are publicly known as political organisations and liberation movements which advised, planned, directed, commanded, ordered and committed offences in furtherance of the liberation struggle waged against the apartheid State, crucially before 10 May 1994.
	Accordingly, it is submitted that the whole of the amnesty process must be located in the struggle for the liberation of the majority of people in this country.  During the course of that struggle or conflict against the apartheid State, many, many, gross human rights violations were committed on both sides of the divide.  Both the Constitution and the Act recognise this.  
	Parliament has indicated by law that the cut-off date beyond which no amnesty applications would be entertained, is the 10th of May 1994.  In other words, were any act, omission or offence was committed before the 10th of May 1994 and which essentially had a political objective or was ordered, directed, commanded etc., by a political party or liberation movement, then provided a full disclosure of the relevant facts is made, then such an act, omission or offence would attract amnesty.  
	Thus, however heinous, reprehensible or morally indefensible the deed, act or offence, amnesty could be applied for an be granted provided the requirements of the Act are met.
	Now, I mention this at this point Mr Chairman, because of two things, the one is the line of cross-examination - which again I understand and have no problem with which I picked up from the questions put by my learned friend Mr Prior, was the morally reprehensible nature of the deed - there were lots of questions about how close they were to the victims, they were shot at point blank range etc. 
	And the other is the aspect that during December 1993, negotiations were going on at Kempton Park, appeared to be quite well advanced - question: 
"Why did this attack take place notwithstanding the fact that people were talking and they were busy negotiating"?
Answer to that is that:
"Parliament, all the political parties have recognised the cut-off date is the 10th of May 1994, not December 1993 as it was originally as it was extended"
So, provided the requirements of the Act can be met and most important, that the acts can be associated with a political objective and all the relevant facts are disclosed, then that is not in issue.  That is the point that arises out of that section of my Heads of Argument.
	Then I've referred to some precedence Mr Chairman, I referred to the cases of Brian Victor Mitchell - Judge Wilson of course knows this case very well, he presided in the trial, and also Dirk Coetzee.  So with respect to Judge Wilson, I hope I haven't said anything that I shouldn't have said about the Brian Mitchell case.  
	But both those cases - from pages 13 through to page 16, I highlight to make a point and that is, in both those cases - in the case of Dirk Coetzee, Griffiths Ngenge was brutally murdered, hacked to death, disembowelled, it was a terrible, terrible deed, amnesty was granted.  This Committee found that Coetzee had received an order even though van der Hoven denied that he gave Coetzee a direct order, the Committee nevertheless found from the evidence, that he did get an order.  Of course, in turn Coetzee had directed members of the task group - whom he had assembled to kill Ngenge, that they were under his orders.
	So in that case presumably - well, one must accept, full disclosure was made and Coetzee was granted amnesty for that particular offence.  Mitchell likewise collected a group of special constables, ordered them to burn down a hut.   Unfortunately the wrong victims were killed, they were men women and I think young children were killed - it was a most awful deed which certainly compares with what happened at the Heidelberg Tavern if not worse.  
	Again in that case Mitchell was under orders, he was fighting against the ANC and the UDF - this Committee accepted that he acted under those instructions and that he believed subjectively, that what he did was in furtherance of the political aims and objectives of the Government of the day.
	The case for the applicants is that their case should be seen no differently, that here they were members of a liberation army APLA, they carried out orders, those orders they did not question.  Yes, it is a fact - we now know it, that the Heidelberg Tavern was not frequented by the security forces, that those who were killed were young, unarmed, innocent individuals and that's what happened.  	Notwithstanding that, my submission is that the applicants in this case should be granted amnesty and should be treated no differently than Coetzee, Mitchell or any other applicant who has come before this Committee to ask for amnesty.
	And then from page 17 onwards, I proceed to deal with the facts.  My submission is that the only requirement which this Committee should be considering in this application is whether or not the applicants have made a full disclosure of the relevant facts.  Now, from page 17 I say that it is common cause that the applicants at the time of the attack, were members of APLA and that they were given this instruction.  
	It is clear that it was part of an operation, they were told on the 17th of November, they were despatched to Cape Town and only Madasi and Jantjie - who's now laying in the Conradie Hospital, only the two of them come from Cape Town and know Cape Town, none of the other applicants or none of the other members of that group come from Cape Town.  They were told to carry out certain attacks - Lingelethu West, Nyanga Army Base and the Heidelberg Tavern.
	Then if I may move to page 19, paragraph 22.  Without going into much detail at this point, it is submitted that it is evident that:
(a) The applicants were members of a political party, namely the PAC and a liberation army namely APLA.
Secondly, that the applicants were ordered by members of the APLA High Command to carry out the attack on the tavern on the basis that the tavern was frequented by members of the security forces.
	Just to make a point here - that during the Coetzee application I remember reading your decision that this Committee found that if those who instruct you or who give you a command, if they satisfied themselves that it was necessary to carry out a certain act or deed, then it is not incumbent on the foot soldiers to question that - it is enough for this Committee to satisfy themselves that they in fact carried out an order.  Because that too was in issue here:
"When you came to the tavern and when you were so close to the people in the tavern, you could surely have seen that they were young and they were there to enjoy themselves"
	It was even said that Jos Sithole who is a well-known Black musician - one of our foremost musicians, was playing there at the tavern and he's of course a Black person.