MR RORICH
Mr Chairperson, I said that even although the applicant may not have believed it was legal, he nevertheless believed it was with authority and therefore in the course of his duty, due to the experience with the Security Forces in the past.
	The applicant's motive for the matter, as stressed before, is either coercion or fear, was in reaction to a bomb blast which may be irrelevant for the purposes of the abduction and was during the peak of the struggle and the abduction was to obtain information.  To his best knowledge the abduction was not to murder, only for the sake of gaining information.
	The applicant did receive financial remuneration from the state, but he received no reward for this.  The applicant stated to this Commission that he received beers, whether that can be classified as a reward he doesn't know.
	The applicant did not act out of malice, as I established before the Commission.  He didn't even know the deceased's name until the TRC hearings began.  
	In respect of proportionality, I would submit that the abduction was just a furtherance of the arrest, whether it was legal or illegal to him would have made not difference, he was just following orders at that stage.
	On these grounds, it is submitted the applicant should be successful in the amnesty and I would like to point out to the Commission that the probabilities are in the applicant's favour in this regard.  Thank you, Mr Chairperson.