MR DORFLING
Mr Chairman, very basically, the essence of the objection relates to a failure to disclose in full particulars the details of what happened on that day.  If I could be more specific, it relates to ...(inaudible) took place and lastly the perceived situation, being the perceived situation that there was an attack whereas factually it wasn't the situation.  	Now, we are of the view that those grounds have been dealt with fully at the inquest proceedings and that the evidence bears out the findings in this regard and we would seek to put such evidence in front of this Committee that would support the findings by His Lordship Mr Justice Nugent in this regard.  So basically those three grounds are basis on which we say there wasn't full disclosure.
	Then furthermore it is our contention that the applications as they stand at present, we are present in possession of the applications made by the applicants which contain affidavits and a filled in roneo form, we say that also does not comply with the Act in that it does not show the so-called political objective which the act requires.  Basically those are, in essence, the grounds on which we object.
	There are the other two points I would like to deal with, Mr Bizos has criticised the objectors for not specifically dealing with the questions pertaining to the injuries, nature of injuries and so forth.  With the greatest respect, the objectors of which six of the nine affidavits have been made available to Mr Bizos, indicate what the nature of the injuries are, what the applicant was doing at the time when he sustained the injury, and in the particulars Mr Bizos ...(intervention)