Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-06-29

MR MEYER: Indeed so, Mr Chairman.  Also the fact - another factor one has to remember is that there were many victims that were involved.  And not all the victims came forward either.  Only some of the people who were arrested it seems have come forwards as victims but, we know that there were others as well.  And that must have led to confusion in the minds of the applicants also with regards to the detail of the assaults.
	Also one has to take into account, Mr Chairman, that one applicant didn't only deal with one suspect or one victim but it was a collective effort by all of them and their counterparts to get as much information as possible and to get confessions from the suspects so that they could be prosecuted in courts and that they could be seen as doing their job properly.
	Also, it must be remember, Mr Chairman, that although they're only asking amnesty now with regard to one incident, namely the bombing of the police station, I think it must be assumed that they were also involved in other investigations.  And that could also play a role with regard to the clarity on their memory of exactly what they were doing and to whom.
	And, as I've already indicated, also with regard to the quality of the evidence of the applicants, one has to take into account that, or it's clear that the applicants really tried to or they did their best to disclose to this Committee exactly what they had done and in that regard, on numerous occasions, all of the applicants would concede when it was put to them, for instance by Ms Mtanga, that one of the victims would say that a certain applicant was also involved with a certain victim, that they would concede that it's quite possible but that they just can't remember exactly if it was so.  And they didn't try to deny that and to down play their involvement.
	So, my submission then with regards to the quality of the evidence, Mr Chairman, is that all the applicants, and I must concede that I don't think their evidence was always a hundred percent satisfactory, there were instances where they were slightly unclear but, I think most of that can be connected to the fact of the long time lapse and that they simply can't remember everything.
	And I would submit that the Committee should not make a negative inference from the fact that their evidence wasn't always a hundred percent clear.
	Then, if I can turn to the next point, Mr Chairman, also with regard to full disclosure and something which came up very clearly yesterday and, that is the dispute with regard to the injuries to the private parts of the victims.  I think in the light of the evidence of the applicants in general, there was an anxiousness on their part to be open and to fully disclose their involvement with regard to the torture of the victims.
	And, born out by the fact that they would very easily concede when confronted with certain statements that yes, they might have been involved but they cannot remember, it's my submission that it's clear that they were well aware at the time when they gave their oral evidence anyway that they must make full disclosure.  And the question has to be asked, Mr Chairman, why then would they not disclose this one further act of torture.
	It's my submission that it would be quite illogical for them to know that they must make full disclosure and full being absolutely everything, that they would then concede possible involvement where they were not sure, where they know that if they do not make full disclosure that they will not be granted amnesty, why they would then hide this one particular factor and not disclose that to the Committee because, one also has to remember that the torture methods that they used were very serious.  And the other methods were anyway serious enough and it wouldn't make any difference.
	Of course, it is also very serious to injure someone's private parts but, if the other methods that they had used were very minor methods, only physical assaults and so on and not really torture, then it might have been - one maybe could  explain then that they would try to hide the rest of their methods but, where the other methods were already in any way so serious, it's just illogical why the applicants would then try to hide the fact that they then injured the private parts of the victims.
	And, it's my submission ...(intervention)

SISI KHAMPEPE: Or in other instances deny the fact that they pulled hair out of the other victims' parts of the body?  It's not something that's being admitted by all the applicants, is it?  It's not only the private parts but it's the pulling of hair.  In one instance they pulled hair from the pubic - the pubic hair from Mr Phoshwana, if I'm not mistaken, I may not remember the name of the victim but, even in that instance, the applicants denied any involvement.  It's not only the method of electrocuting the private parts of the victims, it's also other methods that have been denied by them.

MR MEYER: Yes, you're quite correct.  The applicants deny any involvement with the genital area of the victims, if I can put it like that.  Also the pulling out of their pubic hair and they did admit pulling the hair on the head and the beard of the victims.
	But, what I'm saying is that that is one point on which the applicants were very clear.  That they did not come near the genital areas of any one of the victims but, with regard to the rest of the methods that they were confronted with, they either conceded that it's possible that they for instance pulled hair from their heads or their beards or they told the Committee themselves exactly what they had done.
	And then one has to compare their evidence with regard to this aspect with the evidence of the victims.  And firstly if I can deal firstly with Dr Farisani's evidence, it's my submission, Mr Chairman, with regard to that aspect of his evidence he was a highly unsatisfactory witness.  It's my submission that one simply cannot believe that this type of torture which Dr Farisani himself referred to as the most atrocious or the worst torture that was ever committed was not referred to in his evidence before the HRV Committee.  And I would submit that that seriously has a very negative effect on the credibility of Dr Farisani with regard to this aspect.

SISI KHAMPEPE: What do you make of the statements that has now been referred to, which statement led to the hearing taking place before the Human Rights Violations Committee?  You are aware of the procedure, victims would present statements to the investigative unit of the Human Rights Violations Committee, as a result of the statement made by the victims to the investigators, the statement would then be analysed by the members of the Human Rights Violations Committee and those statements which were found to warrant a hearing would then be set down for a hearing and victims would be called upon to come and give evidence as a result of the statements that they had made to the Truth and Reconciliation Committee's Investigative Unit.