MR VISSER
Absolutely. Of course you've got to take that into account. I am sorry, - let me try to put it this way: The point I am trying to make is when I deal with an application for amnesty which I know is going to come before you, Mr Commissioner, I look at the facts, and I look at the act, and I say to myself: Where do I slot in with this particular witness? Oh well, this was the general, he gave the instruction for whoever to be eliminated. That is the top of the scale. The bottom of the scale, we've got a foot soldier here that it told to come along and to fetch firewood or whatever the case may be. There is a vast difference. Then, of course, you've got the other segment in the middle, which is perhaps the most difficult one.
	What I am saying here, Mr Chairman, is, these two are the bottoms ones. They're the ones who say: We acted on instructions; we didn't have any personal view. Subject to what Commissioner De Jager said, and again he is quite correct. But that is the only point I'm making and coupled with that, as far as Mr Ngo is concerned, those incidents that came before the 10th February 1986; in other words, the incidents which the applicants have not convinced you on the balance of probabilities, fell after the 10th February 1986; they cannot obtain amnesty for, Mr Chairman, because they fall between two chairs. They cannot apply for amnesty - Ngo cannot apply for amnesty for those acts because he wasn't a policeman, so he does not fall under Section 22(b).