CHAIRPERSON
I think it's a matter for argument.  The situation we have here is that there is a large group of individuals who on the evidence we've had so far, were carrying items and were ...(indistinct), they are seen by the army.  On the evidence that we've heard there is nothing that the army does.  So what has been put to this witness is the simple proposition that it is because of a collusion, the army was helping them.  It is entirely up to the witness, either to admit or deny.  I think there is sufficient factual basis to test the proposition against the witness.  In those circumstances the question will be allowed.