Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-10-20

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: No.

MR DONAN: How was it that Mr Mostert was let lose on a particular victim - detainee?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: I never let him loose on anybody.

MR DONAN: Well who made the decision to allocate Mr Mostert to a woman rather than a man?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: I never made such a decision.

MR DONAN: Who made the decision to let Mr Benzien loose on Mr Yengeni and Mr Kruser?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: At that stage I was not here, I cannot reply.

MR DONAN: So you can't answer those questions?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: No.

MR DONAN: You can only assume that what was happening here was the same as was happening elsewhere?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: Absolutely, and that's what I'm trying to explain to the Committee.  I think that the system which was valid in the Western Cape was valid throughout the country and I do not think that there will be any distinction, everywhere where I was stationed that was the position.

MR DONAN: I think the question that we are ultimately going to get to - which you can keep at the back of your mind, is how high up this understanding went but before I finish with this point, I just want to point out to you or point out to the Committee, the contradiction in what you've been saying and ask you whether you appreciate it.  You say that you went from a position of - shall we call it peace and the laws that apply in peace, to a position of war.  Is that correct?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: Ultimately yes, Sir.

MR DONAN: Were you ever told or were you ever aware that in war there are rules about how you conduct war?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: Yes, vaguely I knew about.

MR DONAN: Were you told for example that there was a convention in 1949, signed by South Africa which related to internal wars ...[intervention]

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: No.

MR DONAN: You weren't told that the South African Government had signed that and that specifically forbade torture of people who were injured or had been detained during the war?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: No.

MR DONAN: You I understand it, like Mr Stadler were an expert on the ANC,  did you know that the ANC had signed the protocol to the Geneva Convention?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: Yes.

MR DONAN: And what did that mean?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: I think that they had the distinction between military signals and non-military signals.

MR DONAN: Didn't it mean that they also regarded themselves as being at war with you?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: I think this is accepted that members of the ANC/SACP who said that they were in war with South Africa and that our members - our political leaders said that, I think this well known.

MR DONAN: So both sides regarded themselves as being at war ...[intervention]

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: Absolutely.

MR DONAN: But your response to that is that you could then proceed to break the laws of war and there were no controls on how you detained - how you dealt with ...[intervention]

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: It was a matter of - our overhead function was to protect lives and property and in order to do this it was a question of we went further than we were allowed to.

MR DONAN: Now who gave the instructions?  Essentially it was common cause that the methods you used were that the end justified the means, is that right?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: Please repeat.

MR DONAN: It was a common understanding in the South African police force that the ends justified the means as far as your treatment of detainees was concerned?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: I will concede to that.

MR DONAN: But did it make a difference who the particular detainee was?  What was the criterion whether that person would talk, or whether that person had something to say about the war?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: I do not understand the question.

MR DONAN: Was it a general system of interrogation used by the security police, did it involve torture systematically in respect of anyone who was detained?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: No, Chairman, not all.

MR DONAN: Well what was the criterion, when was torture used and when wasn't it?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: I do not know about a criteria because I did not apply it.

MR DONAN: If you didn't know the criterion, who did?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: I don't know whether there was a criteria.

MR DONAN: So there was simply no control, there was just a general understanding that anybody ...[intervention]

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: Absolutely, that is how I tried to explain it.

MR DONAN: Anybody could do whatever they wanted?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: That was exactly what happened.

MR DONAN: To whoever they wanted?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: If one wants to put it so broadly.   I do not know what the ultimate result of that question is, the people had a function to control matters and they did not take the responsibility for this.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Sorry, can I interrupt?  Didn't you start assaulting detainees once - I don't mean you in particular, I'm talking about the system.  Weren't the detainees assaulted once it became apparent that they were withholding information?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: Yes, let me put it this way.  If a detainee should have been confronted with information which we already had and he wanted to make a confession by the nature of the cause, there would be no reason to assault such a person.  Only if the security branch would have information that he had information with regard to terrorism - terrorist activities or that he was involved, then I would say that to prove the argument that we had to protect lives and property, then the man would have gone further because he had to perform his duty as was expected of him.  And that was to get information as fast as possible about the activities and the planning and those involved.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Going back to the question which was asked, wouldn't one say that: "Well, a detainee would be assaulted once it appeared that he or she didn't give the information required, wouldn't that be ...[intervention]

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: I'm inclined to agree with you that that's the criteria.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: This may a convenient stage to take the short adjournment unless you're about to finish.

MR DONAN: As I've said before, there is another subject that I still have to cover, and that's the chain of command.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn for 15 minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: You are still under your former oath.

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: (s.u.o)

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  Mr Donan?

MR DONAN: (cont)
	Thank you Chairperson.   Mr Griebenauw, before the adjournment we were dealing with the criteria that were used before torture was applied and we'd only established one criteria, and that was that people didn't answer questions, was that the only criteria?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: I would say so yes.

MR DONAN: The questions were asked on the basis of information which the torturers had in their possession, is that correct?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: The investigating officers.

MR DONAN: And that information was sometimes also obtained by torture, wasn't it?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: It's possible, yes.

MR DONAN: So it may well have been very unreliable information?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: I don't think so, there were many sources of information not only this one source.

MR DONAN: Or it could have come from informers?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: Possibly.

MR DONAN: Who could have also not told the truth?

JOHANNES LODEWIKUS GRIEBENAUW: The probability exists that if you're working with a person, that your information could be wrong.