Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-06-29

MR MEYER: Yes, well my submission in that regard, Mr Chairman, is the only thing that that statement shows is the fact that he also told someone else that his private parts were injured.
	That doesn't mean that the fact that he also said it to someone else makes it necessarily true.  I would still think that he would have referred to it during his oral evidence then at a later stage before the HRV Committee.
	And then also he does refer to being shocked with electricity but he specifically mentions the earlobes and, one would think that if he had already - it was really so that the electrodes were attached to his private parts he would have said that.  And I really think that his explanation that it was simply an omission is highly unsatisfactory and seriously - has a seriously negative effect on his credibility in that regard.
	And that one also has to take into account, then his further explanation with regard to this whole question of Park Station which, Mr Chairman, with the greatest respect, I really don't think is satisfactory.  It's clear that the context in which those words were used were not used with regard to his private parts and, as Adv Bosman with respect, correctly pointed out, it was used in the context of a place or a destination and not with regard to his private parts.
	And then, similarly, with regard to Rev Phoshwana, exactly the same problem presented itself and well, it now seems that he also made a statement previously before he gave oral evidence before that Committee but, once again, my argument would be that again it doesn't mean that it's necessarily true because exactly the same argument goes for him.  If it was so serious, why didn't he mention it then in his oral evidence and him as well, he also refers to the electric shock treatment but, once again, only in connection with his earlobes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Meyer, may I interpose?  Are you saying we must disregard the fact that those particular aspects of torture was mentioned by the victim when he made a statement as the request of the Human Rights Violations Committee and he stated the details of the torture that he had been subject to in a statement.
	He was then subsequently called to give evidence as a result of the statement that he had made to that Committee.  Are you saying the fact that that has now been omitted during the vive voce evidence, that should mean that it was never said at all by that particular victim?

MR MEYER: No, I'm not saying that it was never said at all.  He did say it in his statement to the investigating unit ...(intervention)

SISI KHAMPEPE: Yes.

MR MEYER: ... but, what I'm saying is that the evidentiary value of that statement or the credibility of what he said in that statement must be questioned in light of the fact that he didn't repeat it orally before the Human Rights Violations Committee.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Why should he repeat it orally?  Why should he repeat it if already a statement is before that Committee?  That Committee is sitting with his statement.

MR MEYER: Well, there's was no obligation on him to repeat, but one would expect him to repeat it if he then - why then does he repeat all the other methods that are contained in the statement but he omits this specific one?

SISI KHAMPEPE: Well, the explanation that he gave yesterday, I mean, he gave an explanation why that was omitted.

MR MEYER: Well, his explanation was that it was simply an omission, he couldn't give an explanation as to why it was omitted.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Simply it was an omission.  But he contended that it had already been given to that Committee because that Committee had sent its own investigators to take that particular statement.

MR MEYER: Yes, and I can accept that, Mr Chairman, but the fact remains that he did not repeat it before the Human Rights Violations Committee and why didn't he do so?  He had the opportunity to do it and he specifically referred to electric shock treatment but he never once mentioned his private parts.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you submitting, Mr Meyer, the fact that both the witnesses concerned who made mention in their prior written statements of having being shocked on their private parts, then both of them omitted to mention it when testifying before the HRC Committee and only mentioned being shocked on the earlobes?  Is that, because of that, one can deduce that they weren't shocked on the genitals, otherwise at least one of them would have mentioned it, especially now seeing that they say that it was by far the worst part of the torture.

MR MEYER: Yes, that is what my submission boils down to.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you're submitted?

MR MEYER: Yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Is it your submission that the method of torturing people in the manner in which the victims are alleging was never used is not something that you have referred to as a normal practice that was prevalent in the Security Police, particularly here in Venda?

MR MEYER: I'm saying it was normal practice to use methods of torture and assault, it was not normal practice to use electric shock treatment on the private parts of suspects or victims.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Yes.  And the evidence of Mr Phosiwa was to that effect.  He gave evidence before the Human Rights Violations Committee and mentioned that he had been so electrocuted on his private parts.  That was not disputed by you, did you do that when he gave evidence also here before this Committee yesterday?

MR MEYER: Well, Rev Phosiwa's evidence was that he wasn't - even if he was electrocuted, even if he did receive electric shock treatment on  his private parts, he wasn't able to tell us who was involved.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Yes, but I mean his evidence with regard to the fact that such a method was used on him, you can't dispute, can you?

MR MEYER: No, I cannot dispute that but ...(intervention)

SISI KHAMPEPE: Yes, thank you.

MR MEYER: ... the applicants weren't here implicated in that.   Yes, and then, if I can turn then to Mr Chikororo's evidence.  Mr Chikororo didn't give evidence before the HRV Committee, the first time he gave evidence was before this Committee.  Mr Chikororo admitted that there were also other people involved in his torture besides the three applicants and, I'm not quite sure, I stand to be corrected but I think his evidence was also that he couldn't see who attached the electrodes to his private parts, if I remember correctly.
	And then, with regard to Mr Mahumela, Mr Mahumela specifically says that that specific method was not used on him.  Again, Mr Ramaligela had conceded that he might have been involved in the torture of Mr Mahumela and Mr Nesamari also conceded that already in his evidence before - when he gave evidence-in-chief.
	So, my submission in regard to this aspect, Mr Chairman, is that if one has a look and one compares the evidence of the applicants who were very keen to fully disclose everything they did but, they denied specifically this specific method and you compare that with the evidence of the victims which I've already submitted was unsatisfactory, it is my submission that you must find when you have to make the decision between which version is correct, that the version of the applicants is the correct one and that they indeed did not use this method of torture on the victims.

SISI KHAMPEPE: So, your submission is that we must disbelieve the victims merely because with regard to this kind of method of torture they've alluded to, that was not evidenced before the Human Rights Violations Committee?