CHAIRPERSON
I think, what I can recall was that the statements were first referred to during the course of cross-examination of the witnesses, when they were being asked as to why they hadn't said certain things in the Human Rights Violations Committee and then they responded by saying 'Well, that was an omission but we have said them to the investigator who wrote them down.'
	So it was really on that issue, is it not - the statements therefor, it's not the whole statement that's of concern, it's just on that single point, is there not any way that the parties can get to some agreement as to whether or not that those statements were in fact made and what the witnesses said in their evidence was confirmed in those statements, that all it says?