MR DLAMINI
14B/11 the so-called terrorists was displayed when they refused to accept the evidence of victims of torture.  These judges condoned the barbaric practices of the security police and they gave the savagery of the infamous section 6 of the Terrorism Act and the following section 29 of the Internal Security Act their blessing and the veneer of legitimacy.  Now, whether the evidence was concocted, false or tailored to secure a conviction didn't matter much, but these judges - specific judges - played a very powerful role in legitimising an illegitimate and evil system of government.  One may ask, "What were their motives?"   I am sure I have many answers, but I would hope that they would or some of them would probably come to this Commission and say what their motives were themselves.  I want to highlight one case which I think we have heard about already, and that's of Andrew Zondo - a very young person, who was found guilty of the bomb blast at Amanzimtoti and was sentenced to death.  There were extenuating circumstances in his case and in many other cases, but the one extenuating circumstance that stands out was the factor of his youth.  He was a very young man, and I think evidence has already been led before the Commission about his background.  This factor of his youth alone would have spared him his life in any other civilised court of the world, but this did not happen.  His particular case and the manner in which it was conducted was very distinct from - in the way it was, as I would put it - steamrolled.  It went very fast from the time of his arrest, to trial, to conviction, to appeal, petition, and his very swift execution.  Before even the normal progressive groupings in the country could gather