MR VAN RENSBURG
If we can continue then, perhaps if we are already in the wrong order, if I can continue with the second applicant with your permission, Mr Chairperson?
	Yes it is so that the second applicant has testified that he cannot read English and therefore does not, can confirm the contents of his application form.  We only have his word to test that on but I would suggest that in a normal, if we take into account the normal circumstances that will take place herein which would be that his advocate would go or his legal representative would go through the form with him during the consultation, I cannot accept that it is just a simple fact that the second applicant did not understand or did not know what is contained in this form.  We've had absolutely no indication from his legal representative that there was a problem as we normally could expect in the circumstances because normally if you consult with your client going through the form it would have been put to him, you wrote down here:
"I assaulted the deceased with a stick"
	"Is that all you did?"
And then the whole story would have come out.  This is not what happened in this instance.  I don't think we can just explain the whole evasiveness of the second applicant to take responsibility for the omissions in his statement just on the fact that he cannot read English.  The version that he raised that he did not even mention the fact that he cannot read English to his legal representative is to me farfetched version as I've explain in the normal sequence of events, it would have come under the attention of the legal representative that this man cannot understand what is written in his forms during the consultation and in those circumstances there was an onus on him to have informed the ...(intervention)