MS VAN DER WALT
That is correct.
RULING
	At this stage I am asked to make a ruling on the following aspect, and that is as to whether the applicant can be questioned about the content of a written document purporting to reflect the events relating to pointing out and contemporaneous notes of his pointing out at the time the criminal investigations were being conducted.   These criminal investigations relate to his convictions and sentence which are presently under discussion.
	I may mention that it is a pity that I have been called to make the ruling, and the matter not being settled by the representatives.
	Be that as it may, we have been asked to rule on this aspect, especially because it seems the voluntariness of the actions and the statements attached thereto seem to be in dispute.   We are further not certain if the actual contents, as it appears in the document, is accurate or not.
	The process clearly does create rights for various persons who at various times will have opposing interests.  However, in our view, the Act is couched in terms that suggest the spirit thereof is that of reconciliation, to discourage anger and favour rather the applicants than the rights of others.   This does not mean that we ignore the rights of others.
	In this matter, we may mention that the actual grounds for opposition is not at all clear.   Indeed we have been informed on numerous occasions that the attempt was to test whether the applicant was making full disclosure, and at best about his political reasons for having committed the crimes.
	The right to cross-examination has specifically been curtailed in the Act, and this is indicative of our view as regards the spirit of the Act.   It fortifies the tendency to lean in favour of the applicant.   While this is so, it is clear that the right to cross-examination must be protected, albeit in a restricted way.   
	Furthermore, if any dispute as to voluntariness or the truth of the contents of a document arises and which makes the use of such documents doubtful, there is no provision in the Act which allows one to embark on a mechanism to prove the truth of the contents or whether that statement or document had been made voluntarily.   The process was intended to be completed as quickly as possible, and not to be converted into a full-blown, long, dragged-out criminal trial.
	As I understand it, Mr Hattingh, fairly I think, has changed slightly his position, and he's not seeking that the document be admitted, but rather that he could use it.  
	I do not plan to go into all the implications thereof.  However, our ruling is as follows:  that certain propositions which may or may not appear in the document can be put to the applicant.   His answers thereto will stand.  Should the answer tend to negate the truth of the proposition or dispute the voluntariness thereof, the aspect cannot be taken further in terms of the document.
	That is our ruling.
	Mr Hattingh, were we by you or ...(intervention).