CHAIRPERSON
I think that you should ...[indistinct] really yourself as far as your client is implicated in this matter and to the extent that your client's version differs from the evidence given implicating your client or distancing your client from the facts.  Your client was not at Komatiepoort at the time - he doesn't claim to be there.
	Your client does say in his statement about seeing torture being inflicted and so on, whether it was on Mr Kondile or not, those probably be the matters that you might want to clear up.  I understand from the reading of your client's statement, that he witnessed torture being inflicted on Kondile.  This witness has denied that - it was put to him.  If your client is going to give evidence on that, should you not put that to this witness?