MOKOTEDI MPSHE
Oh, my apologies, the IFP.  The IFP, that's not the question of the proportionality, Mr Chair, I'm indebted to you, that's Section 23, I want to believe, (g).
	The protection has always been there, by all organisations but more in particular to the IFP it was also there but not to the extent of killing and this is what the applicant has testified to.  If this is what he has said then in essence he is saying to us: "I did that which was not sanctioned by the IFP" which would not sanctioned by the IFP that is the killing.  So that takes him out of the realm of authority as expected in terms of Section 20.
	Mr Chairman, the war situation, although I must say, refer to the remarks by the bench, particularly the bench to my right, that there was war in that area, the member said particularly in this area.  I don't want to say there was no war but what I'm saying is, are we saying this was a reaction to a turbulence or a disorder that was taking place in that particular area.  I may jump into Section 23, that is Sub-Section (b) where it says it must be reaction to a disorder to a - to mention those words.  Are we saying because of knowledge that this was a war zone at that time when the applicant and his brother approached and killed the deceased, it was a time when there was war?