Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-05-06

UNKNOWN: Firstly as I understand your argument, you're saying that we should find that there was no political objective in this case, and your reason for saying so is that the bombings of the Air Force Headquarters was out of proportion to the results achieved in the sense that many civilians were injured.  Are you suggesting that before this bombing took place, there should have been a counting of the number of civilians present or likely to be injured?  If so what would you say would be the minimum number of civilians permitted to be present before the bombing took place?
	Just one question more, let me put the other question as well so that you can answer at the same time.  You are aware no doubt that apart from this argument of proportionality, there are other criteria which Act sets out because to assist the Committee in determining whether or not there was a political objective.  There was for instance a question of the motive, the question of the context, the question of the objectives, the question of whether there was an order from above and in this one that you have raised of relationships; but there are other points also. Are you going to deal with these points to enable us to have a full picture of what your argument is in regard to that?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman to take the honourable Commissioner's questions in turn.  On the first issue of whether there should have been a head-count as it were of civilians, at the time when reconnaissance was done, we suggest certainly that would have been a factor which would have had to be taken into account. Far from us be it to suggest that in no situation could there be a political motive commensurate with damage if some civilians were to be hit, that's not, we're not suggesting that at all and I hope that I didn't create that impression, but what we're saying Mr Chairman, and I was hoping that we'd made that clear, was that one must look at the circumstances, you must look at all the circumstances, you must look at the particular nature of the target, how do you classify it, do you classify it as a hard target or as a soft target?  In no war Mr Chairman, we would submit, would the killing of civilians for no purpose be acceptable.
	I'm not saying that's what happened here but I'm saying that at some stage or other, depending on all the facts and circumstances surrounding the issue, there comes a point where you've got to say to yourself, what we want to achieve here with the knowledge of the casualties it would cause amongst civilians, we don't continue.  
	Mr Ismail has given you a very good example of that, the example of the Mobil Oil Refinery and I have no doubt that what went on in his mind at the time in Durban is, he said to himself, this is the political object which we wish to achieve, this is the method we want to use, that is the object we want to attack, this is the percentage of possible or probable civilian casualties, therefore weighing up all these factors, in my report I say to Headquarters, I advise against this.  He was talking of a vapour cloud.
	And we say Mr Chairman with respect that in this particular case, in the Church Street bomb case, there was no such proportionality, there was no such a weighing-up or consideration given to those issues.  
	You will have noticed that I have not directed any of the questions on these lines in regard to the Roodepoort bomb or the Krugersdorp bomb, because Mr Chairman, with respect, we can't argue that in line with ANC policy of the time, that an attack on a police station, and I understand both these were police station attacks - it's called the magistrate's court bomb of Krugersdorp, but I understand it's a police station.

CHAIRPERSON: There was an adjacent police station apparently.

MR VISSER: Yes.  I am certainly not going to argue, flogging a dead horse as it were, that those were not commensurate with the purpose which they sought to achieve.  The question of the double blast bombing, that's another matter.  We would certainly submit when the time comes that that is not proportionate.
	But we say, the short answer Mr Chairman, is that we say that it necessitates a weighing-up of all the factors, given all the particular circumstances of the case, and given the circumstances of the Church Street bomb where anybody who had spent any time at all in reconnaissance would have known that on a Friday afternoon at around 4 o'clock, the street would have been full of civilians.  In those circumstances we say, could only be disproportionate to any object which you wished to have achieved.  I hope that's the answer to your first question.

UNKNOWN: Can you just tell us - conceive of a situation where it would be, there will be no civilians anywhere around there and the whole place will be clear except for military personnel and the bombs and then the bombs could then be fired?

MR VISSER: No Mr Chairman, we did suggest that there were targets, military targets; if you wanted to attack a military target like Speskop, 44 Parachute Battalion etc where there would be no civilians, but I want to be clear on one thing, I'm not saying that an attack could only be launched after it was established that no civilians would be present, I'm saying Mr Chairman it's a matter of consideration of all the aspects; the purpose which you wish to achieve, the political purpose; the means which you're going to use and the probable results, all those factors should be considered and weighed up.  Those are the factors which we submit this Committee will have to weigh up at the end of the day in terms of the requirements of Section 20 subsection 3 to determine whether it can be said that this was an act with a political objective.  I'm not saying that there had to be no civilians, no I'm not saying that, it's a question of a weighing up all the circumstances and we say in this case, and we've tried to demonstrate why we say that either there was no such weighing-up at all or in effect it turned out, and it should have been realised that the effect would be as we know it was, and it shouldn't have been proceeded with.
	Mr Chairman, the second question I have just now forgotten. I remember that it was an easy question...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser that will probably become apparent from your further. cross-examination..(intervention)

MR VISSER: Oh yes, the other - yes I do remember now, it's the other aspects of section 20, subsection 3, there are one or two aspects which I will very briefly touch upon.  Yes I will come to that in due course.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.