UNKNOWN
No, but what you can have is someone who operated as part of a death squad on behalf of a South American government that was in power but is no longer in power and then the new regime attempts to extradite that person say from Canada.  He comes along and he says "I was part of the death squad operating on behalf of the government."  The question there which immediately asked is why does a government which has the courts and the law of the land and the detention without trial at its disposal, why is it forced to make use of you to go out and assassinate people.  Now what we say is, it would be of the greatest of difficulty that anybody in a foreign court would succeed in preventing extradition on that premise but we recognise that quite obviously in the context of this Act, Committees do recognise that exceptional circumstances might exist where somebody can come along and actually prove to you that even though they were an agent of the government for some or other reason, it became proportional to resort to the commission of murder and what we say later on, we say notionally we presume somebody could produce such evidence.  We have difficulty in conceiving of it but you don't need to get bogged down in the circumstances under which someone might notionally produce such evidence.  No ...(inaudible)
...(inaudible) heard any evidence which goes to show why the government of South Africa in 1989 with all the means at its disposal became obliged to target civilian politicians for assassination.  We submit that the applicants do not begin to convince you that their conduct was proportional to the need that the State had to take steps against its enemy.
	And 53.5, I've already made that point.  Moving over to page 28, 53.6, we say that even soldiers who have killed innocent civilians while engaged in fire fights with armed enemy insurgents faced problems in justifying their actions and that's the situation where I open fire on the enemy who I believed to be there but there were civilians there at the time and I shot them at the same time.  Notionally, you could come along and say well, for reasons x, y and z, the killing of a civilian in those circumstances is proportional.  Once again, with the greatest of difficulty, but it is conceivable.