UNKNOWN
Now, well I think all one can say about where there is prima facie a grain of irrationality to the methods employed and the reason why they were pursued, that gives you even more reason to expect that the operatives who were involved would come along and at least endeavour to produce some cogent evidence to persuade you as to why their conduct was justifiable although one can understand why one would wish to avoid doing that because what evidence are you actually really going to come an produce, where you're going to explain why you as the government regarded it as justifiable in those circumstances to resort to murder.
	We say even if you look at the laws of war, it's clear from the laws of war that in any armed conflict the rights of the parties to the conflict the rights of the parties to the conflict to choose methods of warfare is not unlimited and what that means is once again.  The applicants lay great stress on this undeclared war situation in South Africa and they say you mustn't take an armchair approach and this, that and the other was happening.  The point I wish to make is a matter of international law, even if there had been a full blown war going on in this country with tanks and troops and aeroplanes, it doesn't mean that the rules of the game get thrown out and then you can just start shooting, whichever civilians you choose to shoot.  There is inherent in the laws of war is the concept of proportionality and the protocols of the Geneva Convention were partly introduced to say that in terms, say in a war situation we do not accept.  Just maybe to read in paragraph 67.2:
"The civilian population as such as well as the individual civilians shall not be the objective of attack."
And 67.3:
"Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section unless they take a direct part in hostilities."
Then paragraph 70 page 36 we refer to an American decision cited in the federal supplement ...(intervention)