MR DEHAL
Mr Chairperson, I agree totally with that submission, in fact it is my view that there is no need to find on whom onus rests, but principally because Mr Richard raised it, and I felt myself obliged to answer thereto.
	Mr Chairperson, it would appear to me if I even begin to deal with the Sections and reiterate the legal aspects as I have in my Heads, there appears to be two fundamental difficulties.  
	The first I submit is the following - the question of privilege does not begin and rest nor end, where Mr Richard seeks to have it, or Mr Prior seeks to have it.   The enquiry relative to privilege is a very much wider one, it is a factual and legal enquiry, and does have devastating consequences inasmuch as this Commission does not have any powers to impose penal sanctions.  Let's look at the very real possibility of the corollary that if this Commission decides to refuse amnesty, then the document that is the evidence in the Section 29 proceedings, by its very inclusion in these papers, is a public document and within the realms of public domain, and may well be used in most any civil and criminal proceedings, not even those in criminal proceedings in a court of law.