GEORGE BIZOS
Yes, Mr Chairman.   Then, as far as question no 3 is concerned, the answer given on page 112, paragraph 9 is
"This request is the subject of legal argument which will be advanced at the appropriate time during the course of the proceedings."
Again hardly a helpful response in the circumstances Mr Chairman.  The same answer is given on the same page 112, in answer to paragraph 4 on page 3, and paragraph 5 on page 4.  So that our attempt to define the issues and possibly save time thereby has failed.  It may not be too late, Mr Chairman, because our learned friends may be persuaded that they ought to respond meaningfully to this during the course of the proceedings.  
	I may say right at the outset, Mr Chairman, that we will object to any court time being sought in order to do this.  We are anxious to conclude the matter as soon as possible.  What I mean by that is that they may want to make use of the court hours, the time, in order to really try and define the issues before the Committee.  They're not obliged to do it, however, Mr Chairman, but we thought that we would draw your attention to that fact.
	Now, we ask in paragraph 6 what each of the objectors must specify whether the said objector intends to be present and to testify at the hearing of the applicants for amnesty, what evidence the said objector intends to adduce at the hearing, what article or articles the said objector intends to submit at the hearing to be taken into consideration.  
	May I indicate, Mr Chairman, that the spirit in which these questions were asked was not to tie the objectors down to anything specific to which they did not want be specific about, but rather we hoped that if the information was given, we may be able to admit if we were given for instance medical records that this person was shot in the thigh or in the knee and if we could go outside court hours investigate this matter, we could make admissions which would may have been unnecessary for witnesses to be called.  However, we failed in that endeavour to shorten the proceedings as well.  
	Now, in relation to part B, on page 5, Mr Chairman, we also asked for admissions.  Firstly that the transcripts identified below accurately record the conversation and speeches of referred to therein, noting in certain instances the third transcripts do not cover the entire conversation or speech concerned and that such transcripts can be used at the hearing without further proof.  
	Firstly, the SAP radio reports, channel 27, on the 28th of March 1994, here we are pleased to inform the Committee that there has been a helpful response by the objectors in that they admit that what is referred to as "channel 27", which is an important document and which was an important document at the inquest but which unfortunately was only produced by those who had possession of it, the police, in July after the inquest had been going on for a number of months but it does contain important information.  I am corrected, Mr Chairman, on page 94 of this bundle you will find that Mr Wilsenach who appears for some of the objectors, the firm of attorneys for the objectors, they admitted Mr Chairman, on page 94 in paragraph 1.1.1 - it's particularly Dr van Wyk, Mr Chairman, who's is appearing here, who made that admission.  On page 5, that's page 5 of our documents, Mr Mosselson, by way of contrast - or Mosselsons by way of contrast, in paragraph F on page 114, paragraph 15 there says -
"The objectors are not in a position to either deny or admit the documents referred to in paragraph 1.1 to 1.9 of the request."
So that we are in a position that you will see on page 5, 6 up to top of page 7 that Mosselson could not admit or deny any of the matters that we asked for, we therefor have to prove them, Mr Chairman.  
	In relation to the radio channel 27, again we would urge that the legal representatives in consonance with their duty to the Committee and possibly to their clients, that the matter of the proof of that recording should possibly be admitted as the other matters that we have referred to, so that we can make some progress Mr Chairman.
	Then, in paragraph 2 of page 7 of our request -
"That the gathering at Library Gardens on the 28th of March 1994 and the marches associated therewith, took place at the instance of the IFP."
We would have thought Mr Chairman, that that matter could easily have been admitted but it has not.  The objectors represented by Dr van Wyk cannot - they deny it outright at page 95, paragraph 1.2 and Mosselson cannot admit or deny it, at page 114, paragraph 16.