MR WILLS
Proportionality at war, is always a very difficult thing to justify.  We are aware that one cannot sit in an armchair analysis of events in a situation like that.
	Clearly the applicant did not kill that second person.  His actions were directed at the target.  However, he has taken political responsibility for the death of that second deceased in the sense that he was a Commander of an operation and the person who accompanied him on that operation, was one of his fellow SDU members.
	I think it is my submission that as a result of the fact that that person was killed in an operation such as this, it is enough to indicate that the matter was politically motivated, particularly in view of what I said earlier, that had the target not been identified clearly, that second accused, the second deceased would not have been killed.
	It is also my submission that one cannot rely too heavily on the judgement in this matter, with respect.
	In addition to the trite legal position that a judgement of one Court cannot be accepted by another forum, there is the evidence in the judgement where the Judge actually refers to the inexperience of the legal representative that was representing the accused at the time, which was obviously a pro deo appointment, and I submit in those circumstances, it makes the judgement even more - it makes it even more dangerous in those circumstances to rely on findings of the judgement with respect.