MR WILLS
No clearly, we don't know who those people are, and neither do we know who the persons are in the first instance, so in that sense, there is no reason to discriminate between the first and the second instance.
	But again, the contemporaneity of the events, leads me to submit that there is a probability that those bodies were related to Pat's attack.  In his application for example, he talks and he also mentioned it in his evidence, the applicant mentions this person coming up from the direction of the river, with his arm bleeding, and hearing gunfire.  It is clear, and then he goes down to the river and he sees those bodies.
	One must assume and they reported that they had a battle on the river, so one must assume that clearly those - and then he goes and he sees, obviously he was told where the battle was.  He goes down and he sees where those bodies are, so I submit that those bodies were bodies that were, persons who died in that battle.
	I would submit in brief that the same type of decision worded as the Chairperson did, in respect of the first incident, would be appropriate in the second incident.
	Unless there is anything else to address on the issue of full disclosure, I submit he has satisfied that fully.