Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-25

MR VISSER: I'm not wishing to portend that I want to put in the last word Chairperson, but there is a matter of Kubeka about which I wish to say very briefly something.  I know that you are not going to be involved with that matter but least we find ourselves in the same position, Chairperson, may I briefly sketch what has happened?
	We received an additional bundle.  From that bundle it appears that a body had been found with a bullet hole in the head.  Now there is a lot of evidence set out in that bundle, in the additional bundle, regarding identification of this body.  The point here, Chairperson, is from that very bundle two things appear.  One is that there was a dental inspection and a dental report during the post-mortem examination which described certain deformities of teeth.  The husband of the late Mrs Kubeka made a statement in which he said that he knows that she visited a dentist and that dentist he could point out.  Now we don't know whether that has been followed up but it occurs to us quite clearly that a dental report may very well, one way or the other, settle the whole issue of whether this was her skeleton, yea or nay.  Surely Chairperson the skeleton is still available so the teeth are still there so it is quite easy enough in our submission to have a report by some dental expert by way of affidavit or whatever and to approach the dentist whom we don't know who it was but on the instructions of the husband of Mrs Kubeka and get any records that he may have of her dental condition when he saw her if that is available.  Now if that can be done, Chairperson, clearly we won't have to sit here and listen to witness after witness who tries to identify her dress etcetera and to link the two bodies in that way.  We don't know, we rather presumed that this investigation would have been done by the investigation unit so perhaps through the Chair if we could establish (i) has it been done, if so what was the result and can we see the results, or (ii) if it hasn't been done can it be done post haste Chairperson, before we come to Kubeka's case because it's only going to mean one thing and that's we're going to have to postpone that matter sine die the way things are looking now if we start with it next week.

CHAIRPERSON: One thing I didn't quite understand Mr Visser, you said there was a dental report at the post-mortem?

MR VISSER: It's part of the papers there, I haven't seen the documents myself but I've been informed that there is a report which says something about her teeth, of the skeleton.

CHAIRPERSON: But does there have to be a further examination or is that report sufficient to submit to the dentist?

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, we don't know that because we don't know what records the dentist who had worked on her teeth while she was alive has.  If he has no records well then obviously one will have to rely on his memory and one will have to show him this report and he may comment on that by way of affidavit or whatever but the best way to go about it would clearly be whether he has got records, he may even have x-rays.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood you to say that someone should examine the skeleton and prepare a dental report.  If there is already a dental report that was handed in, there's no need for another one at this stage?

MR VISSER: No expect that we don't know whether X-rays were taken or what was done by the dentist.  He simply said that this is what he found on the skeleton and he describes.  I'm not sure whether that is sufficient for another dentist expert to say well, I can now clearly see what he means.  It may be that he might require particulars so what we're saying to cover both instances is that perhaps the dentist should be approached by the investigation unit with what they've got and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's only after that if it becomes necessary?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether the dentist would be willing to examine the teeth himself and say I know those, that's my work but that's a matter of ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: That's one way of doing it.  I don't want to be ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You may well find that it's not a way that the ordinary person will accept, you need a forensic person to do it but can we ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Yes, I don't want to be prescriptive Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It does seem to me - is anybody else interested in it?

MR WILLS: It does appear, obviously I'm acting for the family in that matter, it does appear I concur with Mr Visser in that this - if this report was done by the family dentist this could dispose of a lot of evidence and save us all a lot of time, I agree with that.  My problem is, is I don't want to sit here and go through all the preparation and come on Monday if we are going to postpone for that purpose.  I record that I've got another trial which I had intended to give away in brief somebody to do on that day so obviously it would be I think in everybody's interests to know what the position was as soon as possible in order that we knew when this matter was going on.  That's my only comment.

CHAIRPERSON: Now can you arrange for the family dentist to be made available to examine the documents that are available as yet as soon as possible?  Where is he?

MR WILLS: I don't know, Chairperson, I don't know, there's just as Mr Visser says, I've briefly looked through the bundle and there's the only - I haven't consulted with the family yet.  The only evidence there is, is a statement by the husband indicating that he was - that the deceased was examined prior to her death by a dentist.  So as I understand Mr Visser it would be a matter of corroborating that dentist's reports with the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Where does she live, where does she live?  I know nothing about this matter and is it a local matter?

MR WILLS: Yes it is a local matter, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's not a question of going and finding a dentist in Johannesburg, you can point out somebody here and he can be spoken to in a matter of an hour or two?

MR WILLS: I can endeavour to try and get that done Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If she was merely examined the dentist may have no records, he had merely looked and said well, there's nothing I can do or you don't need anything.  We can find that out quickly enough but it certainly seems worth doing if as you both gentlemen agree would save an enormous amount of time at the hearing so can we request that when we adjourn now immediate arrangements be made to try to identify the dentist concerned and to approach him with the documentation available at the present time.  If he says he has records but he requires more or different documentation, make arrangements for that to be done?

MS THABETHE: I'll do my best Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And stage two, keep in constant touch with the legal representatives so you can tell them you should be able to do by tomorrow whether some agreement may be reached or whether the matter will have to be adjourned for further investigation and so Mr Wills will be able to solve his problems and it will assist Mr Visser too.  Is that the matter you discussed that is going to last all week next week?

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, with the additional bundle that has come to hand it now appears that we won't finish in that week therefore all these witnesses have to be called.

CHAIRPERSON: But if you don't have to call them - so it is that case that you're talking about?

MR VISSER: Yes that's the case, Chairperson.  If I may just mention that there other applicants from the Transvaal because Vlakplaas was present at the time and there are a whole bunch of, I'm not sure how many, of other applicants in that matter as well so it is already a longish matter.

MS THABETHE: There are 9 applicants for the record.