Amnesty Hearings — Palm Ridge — 1998-11-25

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well there is no formal application before us, but the letter Exhibit A was brought to our attention and for that reason we had requested Advocate Steenkamp, the Leader of Evidence at this hearing, to put on record what the situation was concerning interested parties, particularly possible victims of the conduct which forms the subject matter of the hearing.  He has placed that on record.  He has placed on record the steps that were taken in order to identify and notify any possible victim of the hearings and to make it possible for such persons to attend.
	It appears that on the applications that have been submitted to the Amnesty Committee, no victims have been particularly identified.  We have heard evidence about the nature of this conflict and it appears to have been a situation where the particular community was subjected to an on-going situation of violent conflict, resulting in substantial loss of life and damage to property.  The numbers of people who had lost their lives in this unfortunate situation have been placed before us.  Through some of the evidence thusfar, a figure of approximately 3 to 4 000 deaths were mentioned in the Katorus area, which includes Thokoza, where the specific applications that we are hearing emanate from.  
	The statement Exhibit B which was placed before us from Mr Huysamen indicates that something of the region of the order of 60 to 100 people were killed per month in this particular area.  And it appears that even the authorities have not been able to properly identify those people that lost their lives in this conflict.
	Advocate Steenkamp has also indicated that various steps were taken to advertise first of all, the fact that these applications that we are hearing have been submitted to the Amnesty Committee and the fact that they would be heard, via the radio, via newspaper advertisements and various attempts to convene meetings where interested parties could attend and where provision could be made for them to participate in these proceedings.
	It therefore is clear to us that at least at this stage there are not identified or identifiable victims or interested parties who ought to have been notified of this hearing, who have not been notified.  And that therefore there is no basis at this stage for us to conclude that these proceedings should not continue in order to provide for an opportunity for interested parties to participate.
	Of course the position is that if any victims become identified in the course of the hearing of course, the necessary would be taken to notify those parties and to create an opportunity for them to participate in the hearing.
	It appears also as if there was a discussion with Mr Msizi, who is the author of the letter Exhibit A, which was placed before us.  It appears as if the officials of the Committee have informed him of the situation.  We have been advised by Advocate Steenkamp that he appeared to have understood that situation.  Importantly, it appears as if he is well aware of these proceedings and should he be an interested party of course, he has got every right to attend and participate to the extent that it is authorised.
	So therefore in the circumstances, we are not persuaded that there is any basis at this stage to discontinue these proceedings.  These remarks are simply made in order to address the letter, Exhibit A and it is not to be seen as a ruling on a formal application for a postponement.