JUDGE PILLAY
You see Mr Dehal, I fail at this stage to appreciate the importance of the contents of those documents, or the document.   The issue that this Committee must decide is a question of principle, whether a record of what was testified to in the Section 29 investigation, is admissible or can be used in this hearing.   That is the crux of the enquiry at this stage.
	My understanding is that this whole process is run under the Act which establishes the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.   There are sub-Committees of that Commission established, one for investigations in terms of which Section 29 in question, was held.  Another Committee is this Committee, the Amnesty Committee.  So really we have two in-house Committees and the record of the evidence given before one of the Committees, and here we are discussing whether that record given before a sister Committee can be used in front of this Committee.  Really, is it not so that we can take cognisance of what was said in front of another Committee under the umbrella of a Commission?  Unless you have cogent reasons why we shouldn't.