UNKNOWN
I don't have a copy of the AZAPO decision here but I think there is a footnote in that case that says certainly as far as the convention itself was concerned and this was litigated before in other matters, it was never accepted as a rule of law in South Africa, for whatever reason and my submission is not one that is really, for purposes of my submission, it is in fact irrelevant whether it was or wasn't accepted as a rule of law in South Africa.  The point is to test, as I put at the top of page 36, we say these are some assistance in assessing some of the circumstances under which it might ever be proportional, even in a situation of war for a unit of the army to murder civilians who do not take a direct part in hostilities.  That is the bottom line.  These are accepted international norms whether for reasons of some or other historical anomaly they were never given force of law in South Africa at that time either because it was not regarded as a declared war situation insofar as that may be relevant or because the parties refused - on or more of the parties refused to become signatories, that is of no great consequence.
	I then refer to the Mogmoet case where the court held that an act punishable even in the context of a declared war or in the heat of open military conflict cannot fall within the political offence exception.  Attacking civilians was, the court held, in breach of notions of civilized strife and thus not a political offence.  
 	I then refer to a case from the - that citation should be IRL not - it appears to be 1R1.  IRL - Irish Law Reports.  No, sorry now I'm getting mixed up if it's IRL or ILR.  Sorry, the citation would be ILRM 385.  That was the only case that I was able to trace that dealt with the murder of people with political profile but who were not involved in armed conflict.