ADV PRIOR
Mr Chairman, I'm a bit concerned and I need to voice my concern on behalf of amnesty and the Evidence Leaders.  I understand and I have empathy with my learned friend's position, particularly in communicating with the client.
	But the situation becomes untenable when we are supplied with statements on whatever basis, that we are precluded from properly ventilating those matters because of uncertainty as to the instructions.
	I don't want to put my learned friend in an embarrassing situation but paragraph 17 contains factual information, and I believe in the interest of justice and the interests of this process that some explanation would be offered to the Committee where that information was obtained from.  It simply could not have been dragged out of the air.  
	I think Mr Chairman also had the same concerns as myself when I asked that question because the impression certainly was created in the statement that the discotech was a random target, they looked around.
	And I think in all fairness to the process and to the victims I think it's necessary for my learned friend, obviously if never personally consulted with the applicant Mr Shiceka in obtaining this information, that some explanation be advanced which obviously will be acceptable in the circumstances.  But at the moment it is left in the air.
	And secondly, for purposes of certainty the onus is on the applicants to make a full disclosure.  If we look at Mr Shiceka's amnesty application, it is very thin and one expects the - or expect the statement to be supplementary to that application.
	Obviously if one can't then rely on any information supplied prior to the giving of evidence, then it certainly I think detracts to a very large extent from the testing of that evidence.  Thank you Mr Chairman.