MR VAN DEN BERG
Yes, we would agree with that.  There is also the doctrine of common purpose which would come into it.
	If one then has reference to the criteria set out in Section 20, Sub 3, the motive of each of the applicants has been covered in their formal written application.  The context of the act or the context in which the act took place was summarised by the witness we called, Mr Lehobye.
	The legal and factual nature of the act is probably best encapsulated by the evidence of the applicant Makhura.  We heard from each of the applicants how the target was identified.  We'd from the applicant, Masango in respect of the reconnaissance and the preparatory work that was done, but at the end of the day the act was the death of Brigadier Molope.  
	There is the question of the proportionality of the act.  We heard this morning a suggestion that Molope died in a hail of bullets.  It would appear that he was shot 21 times but it is not as if Molope was kidnapped and tortured to death, it's not as if, it's difficult to say that this was a plain and straightforward assassination but that is really what it was.
	There was also the evidence of the applicant, Makhura, in respect of what arms and ammunition he had available to him and there was nothing which prevented them from throwing a handgrenade into the house.  	There was direct evidence from Masango and from Makhura in respect of the civilians present on the premises.  There was evidence that there was a woman and a child on the premises and that steps were taken to ensure that they were not caught in the cross-fire.
	I would submit that what the applicants sought to achieve and the means which they used to achieve that, that those were proportionate in the overall context of the struggle in South Africa. 
	In respect of an order, they've testified to a broad mandate.  The fact that the unit was tasked, that it was an elimination or an assassination unit and that it was tasked by Chris Hani with a category or categories of the persons who would be legitimate targets.  There is also the evidence that they reported back on this incident and on other incidents.
	There is no evidence of any personal malice on the part of the applicants against the deceased.  There is also no evidence of any personal gain.  It is so that the four applicants are now in one or other form employees of the state with the exception of the applicant Mr Masango.