Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-06-29

MR MEYER: Well, I think when one has a look at the written applications, it specifically states if I remember correctly, that no gross human rights violations were committed and that is a problem, I must concede that.

CHAIRPERSON: On page 9 I think.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That's a covering letter.

SISI KHAMPEPE: From the attorneys.

CHAIRPERSON: "We respectfully submit that the acts for which the applicants beg amnesty do not in any way amount to gross violations of human rights."

ADV BOSMAN: And, in addition to this  ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There is no need for a hearing.

ADV BOSMAN: Sorry.  And in addition to this, your clients have consistently only admitted to the 'klapping' or the slapping of the open hands.  Can one not draw an inference from that?  I mean why is it that not at least one of them had remembered that there were other methods of torture used?

MR MEYER: Well, are you referring now to the written applications or the oral evidence?

ADV BOSMAN: I'm referring to the written applications.  The fact that in the written applications, they have consistently only admitted to having slapped with the open hands, etcetera and can one not then also draw the inference that they were sort of in cahoots when they filled out the application forms for all of them to consistently deny any other form by necessary implication of torture except for the slapping?

MR MEYER: Yes, the written applications are very similar, that is so.  But I think one must also remember that the applicants all represented by the same attorney and they were always together when they discussed the matter with each other and also with their attorney.  And in that light, I think it's to a certain extent understandable that the applications are similar.

ADV BOSMAN: If there were only one or two incidents, Mr Meyer, I may not have had all that much difficulty but, there were several separate incidents and they are all now being put to us as having been slaps with the open hand.  That makes it even more of a difficulty, does it not?

MR MEYER: Yes, I have to agree with that, Mr Chairman, there are serious discrepancies.

ADV BOSMAN: I would rather say there are serious consistencies.

MR MEYER: Well, yes.  But discrepancies between their applications, written applications and their oral evidence but, I would still submit that those discrepancies do not indicate that the applicants were lying at any stage.
	I think one has to also take into account that it's not a question of, because this a completely unique process, I think the inference or the negative inference to be drawn is worse when the written statements give more evidence or contain more evidence and is then down played during the oral evidence than it is - but in this instance it's working the other way around.
	And I would still submit that when the applicants eventually gave their oral evidence, they were very open with the Committee and it's obvious that they were trying their utmost best to make full disclosure and there are several indications during their evidence that because of the long time lapse, they could not remember for instance, whether one of the applicants was involved with a specific victim and they would then concede that it's possible that they cannot remember.
	And it's my submission that if one has regard to that that the applicants were not trying to down play during their oral evidence anyway, they were not trying to down play their involvement in the torture and the assaults, that they did make full disclosure except for the serious dispute with regard to the assault or injuries to the private parts of the victims which I will get to soon.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Meyer, before you leave this aspect, what do you say to the fact that several written applications were made by the applicants?  Firstly, December 1996 wherein I would like presume that those were applications completed on their own without the assistance of the attorney.  And that these were done by each applicant, separate from the other.
	And then later on, they had an opportunity of consulting an attorney who knew the requirements of the Act with regard to full disclosure in relation to the specific acts for which amnesty was being sought.  Now they had a second opportunity to apply their minds with regard to the particular acts for which they intended to seek amnesty.
	Yet they still maintained the fact that no serious injuries had been sustained by the victims, even now they now had the assistance of a person who was in a position to advise them of the requirements of the full disclosure in relation to the particular acts for which they sought amnesty.

MR MEYER: Yes, Mr Chairman, as I've already said in their written applications they specifically mention that there were no serious human rights violations.  And I think the explanation for that would be, in the first place as I've already said, I think they did remember and they might have had more information or a better memory when the - can I call it the second written application was done.
	But I think that goes back to what I've already argued, the fact that this is a process which is strange to the applicants and I think it would be difficult for any applicant, especially a person who was previously involved and a supporter of the previous government and a member of the Security Police who are known to have used extreme methods to simply go along and in a written application already give or make or tell whoever is reading this statement exactly how extreme the methods that they used were.  And I think one has to also have regard to that factor when one looks at the written applications.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Yes.  Is it your submission that when they gave evidence-in-chief they were quite open with this Committee?

MR MEYER: Yes, that is my submission, Mr Chairman.

SISI KHAMPEPE: That's where you are getting to now?

MR MEYER: That is correct, yes.  As I've already indicated and I'm not going to deal with each applicant respectively, I first want to address the Committee in a broad way on the quality of the evidence of the applicants.
	And, once again, when one considers the quality of their evidence, Mr Chairman, it's my submission, as I've already said that it's important to remember that the events took place a substantial amount of time or a very long time ago.  And that it's impossible for the applicants to remember each and every detail of how and when and where and who they assaulted and which methods they used.
	Once again, also in the context of the fact that is was normal practice in the Security Police to use these methods, and I think the evidence by, and I think it was Mr Nesamari, indicated that there was no discipline, that there were no real rules that were laid down ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it would seem that was clear, when they got these young, I think they were referred to as young constables joining in and ...(intervention)

MR MEYER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And we've received evidence of up to 20 people in a room where a person is being interrogated, it doesn't point to an orderly disciplined procedure.