MS QUNTA
Yes, Mr Chairman.  Mr Prior is - I'm not suggesting in any way that Mr Prior is the only person who made this decision, I'm saying as a legally trained person, when you say: "implicated" and you look at the definition in 32, you can't go on one statement.  This statement was by a witness, that statement - when you read that statement, it in no way links my client to the Heidelberg incident, it in no way does that and one does not have to be legally trained to see that.
	And I will go through that Mr Chairman, what I would like to say now and raise this with - none of the applicants here - and they were asked by their counsel, none of them knew Mr Ntsebeza except perhaps from - as one of the applicants said, from the television that he is connected with the Truth Commission.  Each of the applicants said they had no dealings with an Audi, so the people who are here who are directly involved in that attack have said they do not know.  
	Now, when you look at evidence, I think what you do as a legally trained person and that is why I believe in the Amnesty Committee, everyone is a legal person so that you can weigh up the validity and the weight of the evidence before you and you look at the totality of the evidence, you don't simply look at one aspect and  you see whether that evidence is sufficient to make an inference that someone may be implicated.  In this instance it's my submission that there was no basis for calling my client and there may be another reason, there may be another reason which Mr Prior is not privy to why my client was called here but it is quite important for me to raise this.