CHAIRPERSON
Yes no, I think I follow what you're saying.  We must obviously throw into the scales when we assess this incident, we must throw into the scales the fact that your client was what is often referred to as a footsoldier.  It's not to say that under those circumstances, if we're dealing with an applicant in that position, that the criteria in Section 20(3) don't matter anymore, we can ignore the criteria, we must only ask "Is this a footsoldier?"  If it is, did he get an order.  No matter how unreasonable the order was, no matter how senseless the incident was, no matter whether the incident furthered a political struggle and all of the other requirements of the Act, he's entitled to amnesty.  It appears to me on the face of it, that what we have to do is, we must take into account the position of your client, but that we must still do the exercise that we do with every other application, and that is to judge it against those criteria and decide at the end of all that exercise whether we are satisfied that the application complies with the requirements of the Act.
	And I think that is why we raise this thing about, is it relevant, to what extent is it relevant, what is the weight of the fact that those were unknown people just sitting drinking in a shebeen, having absolutely nothing to do with the Shongwe's, except that they came to drink at their shebeen.  Whether that is a relevant fact and if so, what weight should we be attaching to that.  And that's the sort of exercise that we were thinking of really.  But we do have your submissions in that regard.  Very well.