CHAIRPERSON
I personally, and I might be wrong, don't fully agree with the decision of the Appellate Court in the Veenendal decision, particularly the last part of that decision.  I agree with the reasoning which they relied on and to find that the applications or the incidents to which those people, it was Veenendal and I've forgotten who the other - Stopforth, were applying for, was not part of our struggle, it was part of Untag and the Namibian struggle at that time, but the decision after that, the arbiter dictum to the effect that the legislature could not have contemplated giving this Committee jurisdiction greater than the Courts, I personally don't agree with and I think it is arbiter and I think it's clear from the intention of the Act, that the amnesty process was to look at all sorts of matters that occurred, not only within the country.  But we do know that if amnesty is granted in respect of an event which took place overseas, the granting of amnesty in this country will not in any way hamper the authorities in the country in which the event took place.  So in that sense the granting of amnesty has no effect in such other country.
	I'm prepared to allow the ...(indistinct), but we're also on the other hand, not the question on a matter of relevance, interested in receiving details of incidents that are not the subject matter of the applications here.