UNKNOWN
Yes, especially if you do it as regularly as you do it.  Now this is on the basis on which they operate.  The ground level operatives would be asked to justify the truth of an allegation made about the victims.  Being unable to do so, the Committee would be told that this information was sent upstairs somewhere, where it was verified.  Verster and Webb were asked to justify the truth of the allegations relied on, to justify decisions to eliminate, would tell us that we must ask people at the ground level where they obtained this information.  Whenever the ground level operative denied that he was a source of the so-called intelligence, the Committee were then told that the information must have come via the intelligence system.  This evidential ping-pong match, I would submit, had the end result that the truth or otherwise of the allegations made about the victims, could never be tested.  It is submitted that the applicants should not be allowed to derive the benefit of the doubt which results from this process.  It is the applicants who are seeking amnesty.  They had made certain claims about the victims in order to justify their own decisions.  If the applicants claim that the CCB decided to eliminate Omar or members of the Q-Town Youth because the CCB had evidence that these people were terrorists, or because they had evidence of Gavin Evans's links with Grosskopf, then insofar as the victims dispute these allegations, it is the applicant who must produce evidence to support their allegations.  The Committee, it is respectfully submitted, cannot make findings in favour of the applicants on the basis of "evidence", which amounts to no more than the applicants saying:  "I can't justify what I say, you can't test the truth of what I say, but someone out there would probably justify what I have to say, but I can't tell you who."
	The effect of this is rather bizarre, Mr Chair, because we have heard some very quaint reasons for killing, that Adv Omar was counselling the leading terrorism case.  Now once it is given, it is a fact of which apparently was considered of relevance.  Who was it, who are we to judge for that Judgment?  Was that enough?  He was Chairman of Lawyer for Human Rights, which he wasn't.  In fact the Chairman of the Lawyer for Human Rights at the time was, if I remember correctly, George Brodie and before that Mr Justice Kriegler, when he was still a member of the Bar.  Now were they potential victims?  It had a Council of eight originally, some of them leading members of the Bar who are now judges on the Constitutional Court and Senior counsel in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, were they victims?  Who - what responsibility was there?   And in relation to motive and in relation to circumstance and in relation to proportionality, they do not square up, Mr Chairman.
	Then we want to deal on page 46 with the next question, which we deal with.  We quote Gen Webb's evidence:
"The only case during my time was the Athlone Bomb incident."
R30 000 000, international tentacles, provincial responsibilities of Co-ordinators and the Chairman of the CCB tells us that's all I was consulted about.  Now if we are to believe that, then if we believe that then we can believe anything, but he's not alone.  Section 20(2) provides that:
"Whenever a particular offence is an act association with a political objective, decided with reference to criteria which include the motive, the context, proportionality."