MR LANDMAN
That is also correct Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman it will be our argument at the end of the day that the third applicant, in the evidence which is before you, would in any event fall under sub paragraph g as being a person who's associated himself with acts of persons who've committed the acts preferred to in the preceding sub paragraphs.
	Mr Chairman on page 8 we set out the manner in which the first applicant set about actually detonating the bombs, from paragraph 2.22.  Mr Chairman we submitted the significant in regard to the question of proportionality and whether there's a relationship between the act and the objective that was sought to be achieved.  That he did attempt to minimise casualties by placing the explosives at the rear entrance of the Courts and by time the explosions to occur while the Courts were in session, that is to say before the spectators and other attendees at the Courts left on the lunch break. 
	Mr Chairman it's also apparent from the photographs themselves that the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court building is a very sturdy and solidly built building.  Mr Chairman there can be no suggestion that he intended to cause major or major structural damage to that building and that the attack, as he has described, was indeed aimed against the Security personnel, although indirectly against the symbol of the judiciary at the time.  
	Mr Chairman the first applicant made full disclosure and he explained how he had connected a battery to the main bomb, how he placed the mini limpid mine near the spot where the Golf car was parked.  He'd set the time, he waited in a nearby cafe until the mini limpid mine exploded and he observed and kept watch whilst the police placed the cordon around the area and policemen moved towards the scene of the explosion.  
	Mr Chairman the statements of the policemen who were present at the time confirm that this is indeed what happened and that the police did attempt, in fact moved towards and that civilians were being kept away.  Vehicles were also parked at particular corners, again no doubt in an attempt to ensure that civilians did not approach the scene.
	Mr Chairman on page 9 at paragraph 2.26 we say: "Standing at a distance and having determined that policemen were within range of the car bomb he activated same using the remote control device supplied to him by the second applicant".  Mr Chairman we submit again that this is an indication that was a military operation intended to cause fatalities amongst a particular group of people and that is why it was necessary for him to be present and to ensure that the bomb would indeed cause the harm which was intended.
	Mr Chairman it is so that a number of vehicles were damaged in the second explosion and some civilians were slightly injured.  Mr Chairman the second applicant in particular has informed the Committee as to the ANC's approach to civilian casualties at the time.  That because of the intensification of the armed struggle, the ANC came to realisation that it's initial pre-occupation with avoiding civilian casualties could no longer be sustained and that the civilians who were injured and the vehicles that were damaged were really part of the unfortunate casualties of war.