MR DEHAL
I agree totally with what you have said Judge Pillay, my only difficulty is that (5) under Section 29, to the extent that argument has been adduced to seek reliance there on for the purposes of inclusion of the evidence, in my respectful submission, falls outside the purview of this enquiry, because (5) is (5) to Section 29, but broadly speaking, I think even morally the submission is right that this Committee, the Amnesty Committee ought to have regard to any aspect before the Inquiry Committee, yes.
	And that brings me to the penultimate aspect, and that is Section 31.  Section 31 in my respectful submission is more apt, more appropriate, more on point on this enquiry, on this enquiry, as opposed to Section 29(5).   To that extent and as included in the Heads, I respectfully submit that 31(2) is appropriate and ought to be relied upon.  31(3) in my respectful submission is to be read differently from what you Mr Chairperson, thought the difficulty related to and I would read it as follows when one deals with criminal proceedings.   Indeed it is correct that criminal proceedings cannot be heard, apart from a court of law, and certainly not by a body or institution, so in line 4 ...