UNKNOWN
And that's also, it's a good example again of why we say the proportionality of the response of the Generals and the foot soldiers has to be assessed differently in relation to the factors in Section 20(3) because each persons motive in that context may be different and their reasons for why they participated.  We say we have not been able to trace any case where an attack mounted by soldiers and directed against unarmed civilians has been used as a basis to claim that these actions should be recognized in law as constituting political offences.  In other words, there's obviously a distinction between what some people euphemistically refer to as collateral damage, that is caused to civilians while you are in fact attacking an armed enemy and a situation where you directly target civilians and what we say when we go back to the other section in the Heads is we can't really perceive of a situation where somebody would attempt to come and justify that in the context certainly of a declared war situation never mind an undeclared war situation because it is directly against the terms of the Geneva Convention and that would probably explain why nobody would get up, has attempted to get up in a court of law and say this, it is proportional to murder civilians.