MR SWART
Certainly.  The next criteria which is sub-section C is the legal and factual nature of the act including the gravity of the act.  Now, the murders definitely must be the gravest kind of offence which you can commit and I am speaking only in respect the first applicant at the moment.  So obviously it is a very serious matter.  Then if one goes to the object or objective of the act, that is what has being discussed at some length now and then specifically whether the act or mission or offence was primarily directed at a political opponent or the State property or personnel or against private property or individuals.  Now, in this case, that is very telling, because the murder was not of a political opponent, by the first applicant's own evidence, it was somebody who was with them in the struggle.  This person could not, was a defenceless person and so when one looks at that specific criteria then he did not make the grade on that one, definitely not.
	The next one, whether the act, mission or offence was committed in the execution of an order of or on behalf of or with the approval of the organisation.  Now there again there is a problem for the first applicant in that it seems to be common cause that the instruction from the ANC was not to kill.  It was to obtain firearms.  So, in respect of that criteria as well, my submission is he does not make the grade.  
	Then, very important, is the next one is sub-section F.  That is the relationship between the act, mission or offence and the political objective pursued and, in particular, the directness and proximity of the relationship and the proportionality of the act, mission or offence.  My submission is that the first applicant could, as has been said, when he made his decision when he decided to shoot the first shot.  Before he pulled the trigger they could have turned their backs, they could have walked away and if the farmer himself had seen them at the gate and let them enter I assume nothing further would have come it, but by pulling the trigger he did something which was completely disproportional to the circumstances and if one then looks at what happened afterwards, after the first shot in proportion to what they were there for, it is disproportionate.  
	Then I, in respect of the first applicant, I must go further and at the small roman two, one must just look at the facts and it makes one wonder if it was not, as it says here, if his actions do not speak of someone acting out of personal malice, ill-will or spite directed against the victims.  His evidence was, no, it was not, it was to prevent being identified, but the actions, shooting defenceless people, shooting somebody who is tied up, shooting a person who has had somebody plead for his life with you.  It makes one wonder if, in fact, he was not acting out of ill-will or spite or malice.  That in respect of the first applicant and then if one ...