MR PRIOR
It is unclear, but they have responded to the notices, albeit late, but indicated that they were interested.  I will follow that up.
	The indication by Ms Cambanis was one of the victims had brought the employer along and the employer with the victim, Mr Matsekane was interested in whether they could get, because they had actually applied for Legal Aid, nothing had happened.  After discussion with the employer, I indicated to the representatives of the other victims, that the witness seemed to want representation outside of the Committee.
	The indication was that the Wits Law Clinic may come to the assistance of that.  Mr Patel was supposed to have come through, but that hasn't materialised.  Those victims will be here tomorrow, so nothing really has taken place.
	They are still being represented by the Amnesty Committee, the Evidence Leader.  Obviously I never took full instructions from them, the reasons why they wanted an independent Attorney, but that was the indication that they felt they could probably be better represented, it is their choice.
	And the indication also, they were very concerned about reparation and so from that side, I think they wanted to engage their own Attorney.  But it is not an insurmountable problem from my side.  
	There are three, whether they are led by Mr Landman or myself, they will be led, also five to ten minutes, certainly no longer than that.  And then possibly three others, but they haven't turned up yet.