MR BLACK
No, no, not at all, and it does not confer any such right, and that is why, either, and this why I made it quite clear that it has become a practice and a, possibly a rule of the Committee, I don't know, but certainly I'm just simply making that statement, that this cross-examination certainly can, whichever, opportunity, let's put it that way, is given to somebody, can be controlled and curtailed.
	While we're on the issue of witnesses, and in order to curtail and focus any cross-examination, my submission is that it must be clear for whom the legal, whom the legal representative is representing, and the basis upon which the opposition is being made, should there be any opposition being made.   I must confess that to date I have not yet, I am not clear as to, first of all, what basis the opposition is, the victims must clearly make representations to this Committee, the victims, as the preamble says, must be granted an opportunity to relate the violations they suffered, and if their representations to the Committee is one of a form of opposition, then I submit that it must be clear on what basis, on what grounds they are opposing the matter, because this cross-examination and the lengthy delays that can ensue are, it's mind-boggling, it defeats the whole, undermines the whole objective and purpose of these proceedings.
	At present I get the impression, and most of the parties here are represented by legal representatives, but the impression I get is, someone comes along and says "oppose", you get served with a summons, you go to your lawyer and you say "oppose", but on what basis?   We must be told, and as applicants we want, we wish to know on what basis this opposition is being made.   We on one day hear that it's being opposed because of motives, the other day we hear that it's being - well I don't know on what basis that he's not telling, there's no full disclosure.   We can't chop and change.   My respectful submission is that a victim cannot simply come and oppose, without making representations and setting out the basis to the applicant.
	Now, from an evidential point of view, with regard to these particular documents, it is clear that insofar as this particular applicant, Mr Gushu, is concerned, he has already stated that he was tortured and acted at all times under duress from the date of his arrest.   
	Now, furthermore, it is perhaps not that clear, but I can inform the Committee, and I'm certain that my learned friend for the victims is aware of the fact that the sole basis upon which the Court, in convicting Mr Gushu, relied upon, the sole evidence was the evidence of a pointing out and a confession, and those confessions, as were obtained under duress, but to assist my learned friend as far as the basis or his argument relating to the fact that on the face of the confession it was lawfully obtained, and his information obtained from the investigating officer corroborates that, I just by way of analogy wish to refer the Committee to one or two cases, which I submit are perhaps in point.
	The first matter is the case of the S v MVELASE 1997(2), the October law reports of the South African criminal law reports, just to, it relates to a confession, about the before and the after effects of coming into effect of the constitution.   This was an appeal from a decision in the Natal Provincial Division ...(intervention).