Again I rule your point not well taken. I think what Mr. Van Kesteren is saying is that in his view it would be prudent to have the report before we proceed with any witnesses.
But then, that's not relevant to the amendment, because it's not mentioned in it.
By the way, witnesses do not have to provide a written statement or any statement before they come, and they can say what they want. I don't think it's fair to the witnesses to presuppose what their evidence will be. We'll hear what their evidence is and we'll decide at that time whether it's relevant. We can assess what weight we want to put to hearsay, or whatever the case may be.
So I ask again, are there any comments relevant to the amendment, Mr. Van Kesteren?