MR STEWART
If I understand the Committee Member correctly that's particularly in relation to orders being given.  Yes indeed, indeed.  Of course, it's my submission that it's not a requirement, inasmuch as someone may be placed in a position where they have the authority to make the decisions, and to order and to command others to do certain things, and they're not themselves acting under orders, yet they would qualify for amnesty, or the circumstances might be such that they would qualify for amnesty.  And that applies in particular in the case of Mr Luthuli in these hearings, that there are occasions in which he didn't necessarily have specific orders, he had general orders, and he had authority, and in, within the scope of that authority he then took decisions which involved either himself acting on things or ordering other people to do so.
	So it's in my submission not a requirement but that, where there are order from high authority, then it's that much easier for the Committee to conclude that it's an act associated with a political objective.
Now insofar as the various incidents are concerned, as I've indicated, we will draw particular attention to some of them, but it's not, in our submission, practical to deal with every single one.  We would be here for a week, and in respect of some it may not be necessary at all, and we would be wasting your time.  But in the event that Members of the Committee have particular concerns or questions about any particular incidents, then obviously we would welcome the opportunity to  address you on those particular concerns.  It may be that we don't ourselves have all the facts and the record immediately to hand, but we would be able to do so as quickly as possible. 
	Members of the Committee will notice that in the schedules that we've prepared there are cross-reference from the affidavits forming the applications by the members, and to them the places in the record where the incidents are dealt with.