Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-07-26

MS THABETHE: Do you have any other comment or additional comment on the post-mortem report of Dr Chetty, that you want to bring to the attention of the Committee?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, and that is that to replace that page, paragraphs 10 to 21, it is there.  There is the correct page substituting that, nothing is really missing, it simply says from paragraphs 10 to paragraph 21 "decomposed".

CHAIRPERSON: Decomposed and ditto marks right down the page?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.  So Dr Chetty's full report is ...

MS THABETHE: To sum up Dr Naidoo, we are trying, we are arguing that the body or the remains that you examined, have features which match those of Ntombi Kubheka, would that be your conclusion as well after examining the body, sending it for facial reconstruction?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Yes?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Well, that will also be my conclusion in that, to put it, to word it correctly that all the features and all the findings that I found, do match that of the alleged deceased, that there was nothing whatsoever that I found that does not match the alleged deceased, and from my findings, everything corresponding, age, race, sex, race, stature and then ...(indistinct) facial identification.  The reconstruction, I will ignore the reconstruction because if I, I don't know if I can comment on it, that part, because it was the result of an investigation returned to me for my final compilation report, that I would ignore the reconstruction as Prof Vanezis did say that that just puts it in the right race group and sex group, but the ...(indistinct) appears to me to my untrained eye, and subject to the experts there, it seems to be a very good match.
	That, his finding, does support my findings and adds to the number of corresponding features.  I find that there is nothing that would tell me that this is not the person and everything that I found, supports that.

MS THABETHE: That it is the person?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes.  That is all I can say.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Last question.   Having said this, Dr Naidoo, what would you respond to an argument that the DNA test was necessary to identify whether this is Ntombi Kubheka or not, what would you say to that comment?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: I would have been very pleased professionally, if I did get a result.  I am not saying that it would have matched the deceased or not, I would have been pleased that I would have got
a DNA profile, whatever that might be, because it would mean that I had success in extracting DNA out of bone that were at least ten years old.
	That is one point.  The second thing is, I am not surprised that we had such difficulty, because one of the worst things that can happen to biological matter is that it dries out.  A third thing is, had we got DNA, we would have had biological certainty, which we are short of.

MS THABETHE: But does that fail our case, our argument, on the other features that match the body of Ntombi, can we safely rely on those since, at the absence of the DNA test?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, oh yes, well right up to now and until the DNA had been used, in fact DNA is still sometimes contested to the extent that we have to determine when and what quality of work, DNA work will be acceptable in a court.
	Up to now, we have done all our ...(indistinct) short of DNA and we have had multiple positives.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  I see it is just after one o'clock, this would be a convenient stage then to take the lunch
adjournment and if we could take the lunch adjournment now and start, what time, would quarter to two be, or do you need time, or two o'clock?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, yes, we would certainly need a little time to go through this, a lot has been put on the table.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, two o'clock then.

MR VISSER: I must tell you that I am not entirely certain whether we could cross-examine this witness at this time.  We can certainly put some questions, that is already an indication that we might have to have his cross-examination stand down until we have spoken to our experts.  I would like to discuss this with my Attorney.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  We will now take the lunch adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: I see most of us are here, but the witness is not here.

MR LAX: I see he didn't go for a pub lunch.

CHAIRPERSON: Also if you see Messrs van der Merwe and Nel, you could inform them.

MR VISSER: ... statements to Dr Naidoo at the present time, without having consulted.  We find it a pity, but we didn't have a report beforehand from Dr Naidoo and we didn't know he was going to say exactly what he did.
	Chairperson, the same applies as far as the evidence of Dr Vanezis is concerned, particularly to his standard of certainty of high likelihood.  It is clearly of some importance and we would have to do that, so it seems Chairperson, that we will not be able to complete the evidence, we will go as far as we can, which will be most of the questions which we have, but we won't be able to complete the cross-examination.  We do apologise for the inconvenience to the doctor, but there seems to be nothing we can do about that.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you foresee Mr Visser, with regard to the evidence of Prof Vanezis and Dr Naidoo?

MR VISSER: Well, clearly ...

CHAIRPERSON: You will go as far as you can as you have done with Prof Vanezis, and you will go as far as you can now with Dr Naidoo and then what?

SEGARAN RAMALU NAIDOO: Yes, well Chairperson, then we will have to go to Pretoria and we will have to consult with Dr Loth and or others and we will have to come back another day.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.    All right, and then, would you know, would you say now that you definitely have to come back another day or you might have to come back on another day, depending on the outcome of your consultations?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, no, I cannot say that.  There are some permutations in the answer to your question.  One would be the easy one where we say we are satisfied as matters stand, and we don't wish to call any further evidence; the next permutation would be that we would need to call further evidence, and then you have two possibilities.  We would then draw a proper report by the expert and we would let all the interested parties have it, beforehand, to which they may agree.  If they agree, then again, we don't have to come back, if they disagree, well, then we have to come back.  So it seems to me.
	I don't know whether those ...

CHAIRPERSON: Then there is another permutation that you might consult and then feel "well, that is it, we won't call anyone"?

MR VISSER: Yes, well, that was my first permutation, that is the easy one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay, so at this stage we will continue with Dr Naidoo as far as you are able to do so.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other witnesses besides, at this stage, besides Dr Naidoo from anybody?

MS THABETHE: From my side, Mr Chair, this was my last witness.

MR WILLS: Mr Chair, we will probably  lead two witnesses, but we would want to do that at the conclusion of the proceedings as I think is the standard procedure for applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but, if the proceedings are going to just be concluded with, maybe with some further technical medical evidence, then I don't think there would be any problem to fit them in before then, would there?

MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, possibly I can consult on that.