CHAIRPERSON
Thank you.  We've discussed the arguments that were submitted prior to the lunch adjournment and it's not possible for us at this stage to make a definitive ruling as to which questions may be put in the future, will be relevant or not relevant, we cannot anticipate what questions will be put.  However we and certainly speaking for myself, know very little about the CCB and its operations and we would not find it irrelevant as to how such an organisation was established, how it worked, how it arrived at decisions, how it obtained information, how information was confirmed and matters of that nature.  We are also of the view that we would not find it relevant, which has already been mentioned, as to the minutia or details of other operations in order for us to arrive at a decision in this matter.  We are however, fully aware of the concerns of both the, of all the applicants and the victims in this regard.  We also are aware of the fact that time is a factor as well.  We would like these proceedings to proceed expeditiously.
	So, all we can say at this stage is that if there is an objection from one side or the other side to a question in the future regarding relevancy, we'll consider it without the need of making the same submissions every time.  We're fully aware of that.  With regard to the question that the objection was taken to now, namely what was the size of the, or the number of operatives of the CCB during Verster's tenure there, we are of the view that there's no reason why such question should be excluded.  I've personally got no idea as to the size of the CCB, whether it was small, whether it was large and it's the sort of information that certainly I can't see any prejudice to anybody, that information being revealed, so I will allow that question.  Thank you.  Mr Bizos.