Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-06-29

CHAIRPERSON: Morning, everybody.  Yesterday we concluded the evidence in this matter and as you will recall, we adjourned it until this morning for argument.  Mr Meyer, are you in a position to proceed?

MR MEYER: Mr Chairman, yes.  Ms Mtanga handed over to me some statements this morning and before I continue I would just like to know what she intends doing with them and if she wants to put them in as evidence or what the procedure is going to be.

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, with the leave of the Committee, I would like to submit those statements as evidence from the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MEYER: Mr Chairman, yes, I'm going to object to the handing in purely of these statements at this late stage.  We're already in a position where we want to make submissions to the Committee, the statements were only received by us this morning, we haven't had the opportunity of dealing with them with our clients.
	The statements which are in our possession are not affidavits, some of them are not even signed, well, the pages that I have in my possession.  And that it is my submission that they were only referred to yesterday by the victims and they were not confirmed by them or put in as evidence as the proper procedure is and it is my submission that the Committee cannot at this stage accept the statements purely  by them being handed in by Ms Mtanga.  And I will object to the possibility ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think, what I can recall was that the statements were first referred to during the course of cross-examination of the witnesses, when they were being asked as to why they hadn't said certain things in the Human Rights Violations Committee and then they responded by saying 'Well, that was an omission but we have said them to the investigator who wrote them down.'
	So it was really on that issue, is it not - the statements therefor, it's not the whole statement that's of concern, it's just on that single point, is there not any way that the parties can get to some agreement as to whether or not that those statements were in fact made and what the witnesses said in their evidence was confirmed in those statements, that all it says?

MR MEYER: Yes, Mr Chairman, that might be a possibility but the problem is that these statements were only received by us this morning, and it will prejudice the applicants in a sense that they haven't been able to - haven't been confronted except yesterday in cross-examination and they haven't had the opportunity to go through the statements with their legal representatives.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Meyer, as I understand the Chair, the only issue relating to these statements handed in by Ms Mtanga is with regard to your cross-examination of Dr Farisani with regard to his evidence in relation to his assault, the method of assault that was used on him.  And your cross-examination was pertinently with regard to the fact that there is no evidence before the Human Rights Violations Committee to the effect that his private parts were electrocuted.
	And he responded by saying he went before the Human Rights Violations Committee as a result of a statement which had been taken by the TRC's investigators and that the evidence that was adduced before that Committee was as a result of the statement obtained from him by the investigating officers.  And he was merely trying to show that the evidence, the transcript that we have from the Human Rights Violation inasmuch as it does not specifically infer to the fact that his private parts were electrocuted, that statement had been made prior to him even appearing before the Human Rights Violations  Committee, as a result of the step taken by the Human Rights Violations Committee's Investigative Unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think this just gets down to one very simple point.  From the line of your cross-examination, one would imagine that trying to establish that what they said here about them being tortured in a particular way, their private parts being electrocuted, etcetera, was recent fabrication.
	Now, they said 'No, because we had given it in a written statement even prior to the Human Rights Violation Hearings.'  And that's the only issue, really.  We as a Committee, and I agree with you, I don't think the whole statement can be admitted as evidence as to what happened when they were arrested, where they were taken, who they saw, etcetera.  It's just that one point.
	And then is it not possible just to get at some agreement whether there's recent fabrication or not.  It's not a question of having to study those whole statements and go through them with your clients so that all other issues - because it's just that one point which was raised by the applicants.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Meyer, if I could put it just very briefly, the way I see it is that these statements are not being tendered as proof of the content of what is in the statement so, there's no need for you to cross-exam.
	The statements are simply tendered to show that these documents exist and, I mean there's really no need for any cross-examination on that.

CHAIRPERSON: And I just think, also when the point was raised yesterday, Ms Mtanga did indicate on record that it's being faxed, we're waiting for it, everyone seemed to accept that that would be all right, just to confirm that point, I don't know if you want to have a short adjournment and have a discussion with Ms Mtanga on that issue.

MR MEYER: Yes, may I ask for a very short adjournment, I can also discuss it with my attorney, if you please, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.  I might say Ms Mtanga did give us copies of it but we haven't - you know, we've been in the room, we haven't had the time to read them.

MR MEYER: Yes, I won't make an issue of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you, we'll take a short adjournment just to enable the representatives to discuss with each other and take instructions.

MR MEYER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Meyer?

MR MEYER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, we've agreed that the statements can be handed in and, I'll just address you then on the evidentiary value of the statements in my argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, I appreciate the fact that you arrived at an agreement.

MR MEYER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Meyer, you may then proceed.