MR BLACK
Well, one can look at the face of the document, the normal questions, and whether or not he was offered legal representation, or whether or not he was in fact legally represented, I think, without going into the contents of the document.   So prima facie I would submit one could determine that.   And anyone wanting to use that document would then have to show that the constitutional rights were in fact complied with or met, or requirements, not rights, were met.
	So my respectful submission is that this documentation, which I have had sight of, and the confession which was referred to, of which a copy I have now had sight of, prima facie does not comply with the requirements, and without being unduly - I would submit therefore that it should not be allowed and that, with all due respect, a fishing expedition should not be embarked upon in order to try and determine some form or basis of opposition, which we still don't know, which has not been put to the applicant, and my respectful submission is that if any concrete basis exists, apart from saying, "I don't want to see this applicant be granted amnesty", then that must be put and we must know what case do we have to meet, are witnesses going to be called, then - but I don't want to get into an adversarial type of forum, which this is not, and I again refer to the Act and to the nature of the relief which the Act seeks to grant the victims and the hurts and violations which the victims have suffered, which the Act wishes to address and redress and effect some form of reconciliation.
	So my submission is that it would appear that this forum is being treated almost as a court of law.