MR DEHAL
Correct Mr Chairperson, and indeed it also included an application for amnesty by Mr Aboobaker Ismail, which in itself referred to the names of the persons who were injured and killed in the car bomb, and hence to obviate the need to reiterate those by pure reference, for purposes of inclusion of the names, sorry of the names of the injured and deceased, purely confined to that inquiry alone and that list alone, was this reference made.  More importantly Mr Chairperson, it refers also to during the 29 proceedings, there were certain subpoenas served on my client, Mr McBride and also on Ms Apelgren, both of whom presented themselves at the 29 hearings and certain documents that were dealt with during the 29 hearings, which were looked at before the hearings began and which dealt with the list of names alone.  Support for that submission can be found in a correct logistic reading of this application for amnesty and as earlier submitted, the acts are dealt with earlier in paragraphs (a).  There is no reference under that Act to the evidence under the 29 proceedings, and surely if one had regard to the 29 proceedings and the evidence, it would be prudent, advisable, astute, correct to refer to those submissions and evidence under 9(a) and not under 9(b), which simply requires a detailed recording of the names of the persons injured.  Just one further submission Mr Chairperson, in that regard quickly, the 29 - sorry the evidence heard under Section 29, does not in any way record a list of the names of the injured and deceased persons at the Why Not. If it does not contain that list, nowhere in the evidence of the 29 proceedings, is there a list of the names of those injured and deceased persons.  It cannot conceivably be argued that the evidence was intended to be included as a result of the, albeit ambiguous (indistinct) under (9)(b)(iii).