GEORGE BIZOS
Well it depends, because there are three things as we say in this argument, there is motive, context and proportionality, those are the things.  And the position of the askari who really burnt his bridges when he left a country, to a certain extent, but built the bridges and blew up the roadways once he has turned over, that his motivation, his circumstances are quite different to the situation of the people at Brixton Murder and Robbery turning over, in order to gain the benefits that they have.  So that we submit that - and we will develop this argument when we deal with the requirements of motive, circumstance and proportionality.
	But may I say, Mr Chairman - and I will develop the argument, but this business about applying the Act in such a generous way that the rights of victims disappear, is contrary to the spirit of the Judgment of the Deputy-President of the Constitutional Court, Mohammed, it's contrary to the provisions of the Act.
	And I also, Mr Chairman, and with due respect, the argument is often made that there must be parity, the Afrikaners, and it was said here this afternoon, must not feel that they are misunderstood by those who argue cases against them or even possibly by those entrusted with the duty of granting it.  Mr Chairman, you are administering an Act which has provisions, you are not there, with the greatest of respect, to make presents or because someone else has received amnesty, that they are entitled to amnesty.  
	And also this introduction of the Indemnity Acts, Mr Chairman, there is some misconception in relation to their effect.  They didn't deal with amnesty, they dealt with indemnity.  And what happened was - I believe that there is a difference between the grant of indemnity as an executive act by the President, who was then President de Klerk, where we had a simultaneous announcement that Mr McBride and Strydom, that was an executive trade-off, Mr Chairman.  Your function is quite different.