MR VISSER
Thank you Mr Chairman, I am informed that the argument is being recorded.  Mr Chairman, I was saying that the Committee is a creature of statute of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, to which I shall refer as the TRC Act, and does not possess of the inherent jurisdiction which resides in the Supreme Court.
	Therefore Mr Chairman, it is bound to the four corners of the empowerment of its parent, the Act.  The only reference in the TRC Act to the compellability of witnesses to answer questions Mr Chairman, you will find in Section 31, which I have quoted in my written argument.
	I have quoted it there by reason of the fact that certain phrases and words are emphasised, I will read it to you Mr Chairman.
	Section 31 deals with the compellability of witnesses and inadmissibility of incriminating evidence given before the Commission, and it says in subsection 1, any person who is questioned by the Commission in the exercise of its powers in terms of this Act, or who has been subpoenaed to give evidence, or to produce an article - the following words are not really relevant - says, be compelled to produce any article or to answer any question put to him, or with regard to the subject matter of the hearing, notwithstanding the fact that the article or his or her answer may incriminate him.
	Now, immediately it becomes clear that subsection 1 deals with an entirely different situation, than does the Amnesty Committee.  What it deals with here Mr Chairman, is clearly the proceedings before either the Human Rights Violations Committee or the Investigation Unit, because it is only there where these issues will become relevant.
	The question of incriminating Mr Botha himself, does not enter the arena or the enquiry here.