MR MAPOMA
Chairperson, we don't have a position, we are probing.
R U L I N G
	Having listened to counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the issue in this hearing is whether there were police or white persons during the attack who took part and assisted the attackers and secondly, whether Mr Vanana Zulu was present and took part in the attack.
	These issues raise matters of credibility of the witnesses and the reliability of the evidence relating to the identity of persons alleged to have been present during the attack.  
	Insofar as issues of credibility are concerned, the ordinary rule relating to cross-examination is that a cross-examiner is allowed a wide latitude, in particular to probe matters that are in issue.  The limit to that cross-examination will be repetition, but on matters that are not in issue, that is collateral issues, the answer to those questions given by the witness, is final.  It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rules but broadly-speaking these are the limits that will be allowed during these proceedings, bearing in mind that one is dealing with an inquiry.
	The other matter which is of grave concern to us and we find it deeply disturbing is that at the very beginning of these hearings it was agreed that there will be an exchange of documents that will be used during the proceedings so as to afford the other side a proper opportunity to examine the documents and prepare the case of those that counsel is representing.  That role has not been observed, and I once again urge the parties to comply with that rule.  
	We have urged the parties to reach some agreement as to what precisely are the matters that are in dispute, that has not been done.  As a result of that we hear evidence on matters that appear to be common cause or that are not in dispute and in the process the process is being delayed.  And I want to state and urge the parties once again, we now know what is in issue and what is not in issue, I urge the parties to stop fighting about matters that are not in dispute or matters which can readily be ascertained, but only to agree on what evidence we need to hear relating to these matters that I have now placed on record and which the parties have agreed are in dispute.  I sincerely hope that the legal representatives will comply with this request.
	To the victims who are here to testify, it is necessary that we know what happened and one way that it can be done is to ask questions as to what happened.  The purpose is not to traumatise the witnesses, but it is a sincere attempt to know what happened, so that at the conclusion of these hearings when we sit down to consider the evidence, we have the full picture of what happened. 
	I hope I am expressing the sentiments of each and every Member of this Committee, when I say we understand the pain and the trauma that you suffered at the time.  If we had an option we would have preferred not to ask you to relate these events once again, but we have a job to do. When counsel oversteps the limit we will intervene.  I therefore ask you for you co-operation so that we can bring these proceedings to some finality.
	Yes, Mr Strydom?