Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-07-14

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: Although I think Section 29 of the then Security Act was the (indistinct) legislation, I do not per se think that it was used for the torture of people in such as physical abuse.
	The detention could have led to mental abuse, the long times in solitary confinement, but there was safeguards in the Regulation 29 article where I think the detainee was visited by the Inspector of Detainees every 14 days, and District Surgeons and so forth.
	The abuse of a detainee normally took place within the first 48 hours of arrest, before the person was detained in terms of Section 29 because one of the procedures were that that person had to be examined by a District Surgeon.
	Am I correct in answering that?  Is that what you are asking?

CHAIRPERSON: I think what you are really trying to say is that Section 29 did not itself say that people who are detained may be tortured.

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: It emphatically said there was to be none,sir.

MR FORBES: I think the motivation is that I think with reference to the statement, we seem to be under the impression that we are dealing with half an hour or 48 hours, or that immediately once people are arrested, that you are quickly debriefed or tortured so as to get information.
	I think it is my assertion that the entire process, the entire legislation that surrounded Section 29 was designed to ensure that even if it took six months, that that was the time and the institution which the State had to be able to torture people and I am going to assert and go through it a little bit more slowly that it is not a half an hour, that it is not 48 hours, but that it is a systematic and protracted process that people are subjected to.

CHAIRPERSON: In which he was involved?

MR FORBES: That is correct Sir.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Could we then Mr Forbes, if you don't mind, lay a proper basis for it by saying, instead of saying that the Act was specifically meant for the torture and the like, would it satisfy you perhaps if I were to frame this question as follows
	Section 29, in the way that it was framed, did it lend itself to abuse of detainees in the way that the police, like yourself, were able to abuse the detainees?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: Your Honour, I presume like anything, or any legislation, it could have been used, be abused, but my idea of Section 29 and more specifically in Mr Forbes' case, after the initial arrest and interrogation, yes he was detained in terms of Section 29.	I am speaking specifically of myself.  After the person who had been detained, had been to a District Surgeon who had already then noted any injuries or what have you, he would have been, what I am trying to convey to the court is, even your interrogation methods were not to have any marks or hurts on that person.
	So as for - I am not quite following Mr Forbes.  If he means Section 29 per se, if I can speak Section 29 as far as Mr Forbes is concerned, then I think he is the only person detained Section 29, who I then practically lived with for six months, for his duration of his 29.
And that was, I did all his questioning, day in and day out.  Taught him to smoke, took him on a trip in the country.  I don't want to elaborate on that if I am not on the right track.  I would like to get clarity from Mr Forbes.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: No, my question was actually that Section 29 was such that it was susceptible to abuse by the Security Police and they did in fact exploit that.

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: I am quite sure that could have been exploited Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: You could have kept him from sleeping for days and nights on end?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: You could have kept on interrogating him for hours and hours after starting?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So, wouldn't that be a torture (indistinct), not leaving marks, physical marks, but mental torture?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: I am sure it could be.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he did say that.

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: I could concede that could be, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Forbes?

MR FORBES: Can I ask again if you perhaps remember the 16th of April when I was arrested.  That was in my situation the black bag method was also used?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: I concede yes.

MR FORBES: Do you also remember, maybe ...

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Forbes, may I interrupt.  What kind of method did you say was used on you on the 16th?

MR FORBES: Oh, the wet bag.

SISI KHAMPEPE: The wet bag.

JUDGE WILSON: Of what year, 16th of April?

MR FORBES: 1986.  Can I also ask that when I was arrested, do you remember saying to me that you are able to treat me like an animal or like a human being and that how you treated me, depended on whether I cooperated or not?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: I can't remember it correctly Sir, but I will concede, I may have said it.

MR FORBES: Do you remember that when the wet bag method was used, that people are also undressed?  That I was undressed, that my pants was pulled towards my ankles and that in that way, and thereafter the wet bag was pulled over my head and suffocated?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: I cannot remember it specifically, but I am willing to concede.  If you can remember that aspect, I may concede, yes.

MR FORBES: These are things that I understand, maybe there are many aspects, details that you can't remember, but most of these things, they stand out vividly in my mind, so most of these things are things that I can remember.
	Can I then also just ask if you remember that while I was laying on the ground, that somebody inserted a metal rod into my anus and shocked me?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: No, Sir.  As heinous as it may sound, I used an electric generator on one person and then did not use it, it was on Peter Jacobs, not on you.

MR FORBES: This is something that I do remember.

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: I am sitting in the position Sir, where I cannot remember that, but if I can remember I am not trying to squirm away from my responsibility.
	You I can remember especially because I think that the two of us after weeks of your confinement, really became quite close.   I may be mistaken, but I think we became relatively, I wouldn't say good friends, but on a very good rapport.

MR FORBES: Can I then also ask that if you remember that why the date is significant, is that always on the 16th it would be the day that the assaults would happen?  That although the first time this type of assault took place, was the day of my arrest, but that after that, whenever it came to the 16th, that it would either be the threat or actual assault on me.
	That it didn't perhaps take place once, but it took place at least three times?

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: May I just ask a moment here.  You say you were arrested on what date?

MR FORBES: The 16th.

JEFFERY T BENZIEN: And if I understand you correctly, you are saying subsequently the 16th of each month, I would assault you?

MR FORBES: The 16th, not of each month, yes, but on each month, that that would be the day on which I was to expect an assault?