MR PRINSLOO
In so far as the question as to why it is not mentioned or recognised that a deed was committed, should that aspect arise, I would like to refer you to the judgment of the Amy Biehl case where nobody at all, accepted accountability.  In the case of the St James church, I would like to refer you to that specific judgment on page 2 of the judgment.
	It was contended by the objectors that the attack on St James was not an APLA or PAC operation as it was denied by APLA's Director of Information, Majosi - at a time inferred that Barney Desaai of the PAC had at that time, accused the Third Force of mischievously connecting the attack to a PAC military wing in order to derail negotiations which were then under way and to which the PAC was a participant.
	In considering this contention, we had to be mindful of the fact that many political parties on the liberation movements, might have denied any involvement in any incident, because they might have considered it strategically important and politically wise and expedient to do so and that accordingly the alleged utterances must be viewed against the political background that existed at the time.
	In our view, it was of cardinal importance in the fact that both the PAC and APLA have acknowledged in their submissions to the TRC in 1996 and 1997 respectively, that the St James attacks was one of the authorised operations carried out by APLA.
	With respect, the issue is that at the time of the committing of this deed at the St James church, there was no - this is also apparent in the Amy Biehl case.  In the current case, the applicant has stated that there were methods and what prevented him from doing anything, was the fact that he was hospitalised, and furthermore that it was conveyed to Gen Van Rensburg, who took this up with his command structure, the person in command of the structure, Andrew Ford and that they took over the situation.
	It is clear that this action was approved by the organisation.