UNKNOWN
Firstly as I understand your argument, you're saying that we should find that there was no political objective in this case, and your reason for saying so is that the bombings of the Air Force Headquarters was out of proportion to the results achieved in the sense that many civilians were injured.  Are you suggesting that before this bombing took place, there should have been a counting of the number of civilians present or likely to be injured?  If so what would you say would be the minimum number of civilians permitted to be present before the bombing took place?
	Just one question more, let me put the other question as well so that you can answer at the same time.  You are aware no doubt that apart from this argument of proportionality, there are other criteria which Act sets out because to assist the Committee in determining whether or not there was a political objective.  There was for instance a question of the motive, the question of the context, the question of the objectives, the question of whether there was an order from above and in this one that you have raised of relationships; but there are other points also. Are you going to deal with these points to enable us to have a full picture of what your argument is in regard to that?