Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I think that is incorrect, I think it was referred to a question, how many assaults had been committed and not so much shocks, and he used figures of 200 and so forth, and I told him I could not answer that, and I read it in this version and this was incorrect, he referred to assaults and not shocks.

MR RAUTENBACH: If you refer to shocks, and this is why I want to put this to you specifically, shocks, how many times in the past have you shocked people?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: It's difficult to give a specific number, it could have been 10, it could have been more over the years.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, would I be correct if I say that some people give more resistance than others, some people you have to shock for a longer period before they give information, am I correct?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: It's not only about resistance, it's also concerning the type of information that is withheld.

MR RAUTENBACH: But if you now, for example, want information and this person really doesn't want to give it to you ...(intervention)

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes?

MR RAUTENBACH: ...what would you say, as I understand you, and also from the other members' testimony, is this is a process where it was only started, the shock therapy was only started, if I can put it in this way.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you mention a case where you were involved, according to your experience, that was on the other side of the continuum, where the process had proceeded for quite some time, how many times would such a person have been shocked?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: It would depend on the specific case.

MR RAUTENBACH: You would not shock a person on end?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: If he doesn't want to talk, you would leave him at some stage and then you'll come back and then you'll continue with the shock.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you will refer to a process, you would shock the person, you would stop, you would come back, then have another session, shock him again?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: According to you, with your experience, what would have caused the red lights to go on, if you understand what I say?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: This shock method, according to me, is mostly there to make the person tired, there's also some pain involved, but this is the type of method that I cannot think that you can really kill a person.   I can just say that in this process of contracting, the person also keeps in his breath, holds his breath, and the moment the muscles are relaxed, he would then breathe normally again.    According to me, if I turn the sling for three minutes on end, then it could become dangerous, but I have never seen that any person, in the years that I've been in the police and involved in these instances, that a person had any damage, long-term damage, perhaps stiffness of the muscles, that is what he experiences.

MR RAUTENBACH: It seems to me from what you say that the measure of how the person feels uncomfortable, discomfort, is in correlation with how long you turn the sling, so that you could have the following situation:  a person doesn't want to give information, the electrodes are placed on his body, the sling is turned, he's in discomfort, it's visible, and you ask him, "Where's the information, I want the information?", and the person says no, he's not prepared to give the information, and then there's a strong possibility that the next time you would turn the sling even longer, so that the discomfort increases?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Not necessarily.   The number of sessions that you have leads also to the discomfort, it's like a child who is spanked, he gets his first, he's at the first time, now the second one is not more intense, but it becomes even more painful, but by continuing with the shock, letting it be longer, it also becomes more painful.

MR RAUTENBACH: Could you see any pattern that day regarding the duration of the shocks on the body?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No, the period was so short that I was really surprised that this person died, and the only deduction that I could make was that this man died because of a heart attack, that it was a shock, that he got such a fright.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, let's take it in such a way, if you had not been present and a person told you that, someone like Du Preez, Du Preez was a constable, wasn't he?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No, he was a sergeant.

MR RAUTENBACH: He comes to you and he says, "Lieutenant, we turned the sling two or three times for short periods, he's dead", it wouldn't have made any sense, you would have questioned it?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Exactly what I have said now, I would have asked him, "Didn't that man die of a heart attack?", because I want to say to you that I knew many fit people who I knew went to the gym every day, and walked into his office, it happened to a senior officer, one of the fittest people that I knew, and he walked into his office and when he drank his cup of coffee, he fell forward and he had a heart attack.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, how many people, in your experience, who were shocked by means of this electrical device, by turning this thing, how many people had died?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No, never, that was the first time.   I also want to mention another specific case, and it happened in my family, where someone broke in, and this particular family member of mine, and he got to the house and the thief ran away and he jumped over the wall and he shot at him with a 458 gun and he phoned the police, and the police came out and five metres on the other side of the wall, they found the man, he was dead, and he didn't have a single mark on him, and the finding was that this person died of shock.

MR RAUTENBACH: And while there was a body available to have a post-mortem investigation?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, and I would really have given everything that we could have a body available today to show to you that what we are telling you now is the truth and only the truth.   I personally would have liked that body to be here.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, this whole aspect would have been much easier if it been handled and dealt with in the way that you are saying now, and that is exactly what is the problem with the family, is the fact that you disposed of the body.   There's a very strong suspicion that the body was in such a condition that the police could not afford it that this body should ever be found?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I don't agree with you.   As I have already said, at that stage, it was a totally different situation as it is right now.   At this stage, I would also very much like the body to be available, to show to you, to prove to you that the man was not assaulted and that it can then be determined what caused his death, because my honest opinion is that he could have possibly died of a heart attack, and there's just no way that he could have died because of another reason.   The fact that the body was disposed of, you have to understand, was, there was really no other choice at that time, could I also just finish what I say, because of the political situation and the unrest and the war we were fighting and the complications it would have had for the government of the day at that stage, and also the police force.

MR RAUTENBACH: You made a lot of the 16th of June, but you could perhaps also have waited for after the 16th of June, that could also have been an option.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I don't understand what you're saying?

MR RAUTENBACH: You refer to the 16th of June, that was the 12th, so you could just have waited a few days and then you could have made it public that he had died in detention.   Well I know there are other factors, but this is something that you could have considered?