CHAIRPERSON
We will await those heads.  Will both counsel for both parties then pay attention to the following please.  With respect of the application that relates to Mr Jones, that quite apart from the question of credibility, what the position of the applicant would be in terms of his version, there is not victim because they've got mutually destructive versions.
	We need an argument on that, what we should do and what approach we should adopt.  That is quite apart from the credibility factor.
	Secondly, in respect of Mr Biko, this applicant says he assaulted Mr Biko with a piece of hosepipe, he doesn't think that it contributed to Mr Biko's death.  The question is was there a crime in that?  
	The third question, the applicant's version amounts in common terms to an accident, infliction of the wound led to his death.  Does that in fact comply with the political requirements of the Act?
	Fourthly, the omission relating to medical assistance or timeous medical assistance, in the applicant's own version he said he did not do so because he only followed orders.  (a) has a crime been committed, (b) if so, does it comply with the political requirements of the Act, (c) can the applicant rely on the political motivation with such omission and such omission and political motivation being that of another?
	If his superiors had political reasons for not affording Mr Biko medical assistance, would this applicant be able to rely on that political motivation?
	Mr Booyens, as Mr Bizos will deal with the value of the co-applicants' evidence in the other application, we would like you to deal with the value of that evidence as well.