ADV STEENKAMP
Mr Chairman, I'm not trying to skip the question, but first of all, I would respond for respect to saying that first of all the applicant is carrying the onus here, to meet all those requirements, first of all. Secondly, I would suggest that taking on, taking all the evidence as a whole, I'm personally of the view, it's my own personal view that I don't think there was any intention of the applicants to actually, that specific day, go out and kill the applicant. I think what actually, with all due respect, what happened, there was some sort of scuffle which ensued there and they just decided to kill the applicant, I mean the deceased.
	My question, my personal difficulty with that argument put over by my learned colleague is the fact that the moment you admit self-defence, surely the whole question of unlawful, unlawfulness must fall away. Which means that murder can't be, in this specific circumstances, be the subject for amnesty. 
	As far as I know, Mr Chairman, the test still is the same. On the probability, surely, the applicant in the circumstances, if he don't what's happened there, it seems to me that the applicant has difficulty to explain to us what happened there. But objectively, looking at the facts of this put before the court, whatever happened, whatever the motives may be, other objective witnesses testified, and fortunately enough we have those statements in our possession, testified to the fact that what they saw. They didn't identify the applicant. The applicant identified himself at the scene. And those people testified, broadly speaking, exactly the same what happened. And if you take the applicant's own testimony in this regard, Mr Chairman, with all respect, it's actually supporting the witnesses' statements, actually what happened there. 
	It's my contention, Mr Chairman, with all due respect, in the circumstances, if you take all the factual difficulties I had with, and the victims had, with the testimony of the applicant, he didn't carry the onus, he didn't prove at least, that he complete, that he met all the requirements of the Act, and specifically dealing with self-defence. I understand the question raising specific dealing in that circumstances, but it is my view that they, I mean the applicant and the people who were there with him, went far beyond that. And it's easy to sit back today and say, listen, but there was political motive, basically because they have to meet those requirements. 
	I would like to add, Mr Chairman, that the testimony of the witness, of the applicant, must surely be taken with some circumspect. Clearly, he was one stage an applicant. Clearly his brother of the applicant, clearly was at the scene. Yes, and I think in those circumstances his evidence must be weighed on those specific perspective. 
	Answering the question, I would like just to say that I think it is difficult to say it's intertwined. Yes, it is intertwined. But if there was a question that they were attacked, as it was supported by the witness himself, surely then the question of self-defence stands up and the question of unlawfulness must be addressed. I hope that answers the question. Thank you, Mr Chairman.