MR PRIOR
Yes.  Mr Chairman, I was going to conclude by referring the Committee to: "South African Criminal Law and Procedure - General Principles" where it deals with the nature and rationale behind superior orders, whether that can be of any assistance to the Committee.
	Unfortunately the authorities deal with and still refer to terrorist attacks where they are completely unjustified.  That's obviously dealing with it in a situation where you have a legitimate Government and a legitimate army fighting against liberation groups that are perceived to be the enemy, so the authorities are set in that  milieu.  
	However, the common law seems to be that the Law of Warfare - and I quote at page 108 of the S.A. Criminal Law and Procedure - General Principles, it's chapter 11:
"That the law of warfare however does not authorise certain acts, such as rape, looting, killing of civilians and the like.  The defence presently under consideration is pertinent to the situation where a soldier is ordered to perform an act which is not authorised by civil or military law"
An they go on to - if I may just refer to page 110, where they say:
'The defence would not be available in respect of a member of a guerrilla force carrying out the order of an officer in that force"
However, there's no basis or there's no - sorry, they refer to:
"State versus Andreas - 1989 : Two ...[indistinct] Reports - H38, South West Africa"
But again those authorities come from the old regime.
	May I just - possibly in conclusion, refer the Committee to an interesting remark dealing with proportionality made by - I think, Brigadier Fitla.  It was interesting at the open submissions or the open hearings, that the Committee questioned APLA on whether there were any limiting factors to the amount of force or the military - or the application of force and military operations and at page 220 - at halfway down the page Mr Chairman, there was a quote from an earlier submission that:
"The decision was aimed at carrying out legitimate reprisals and forcing the regime to end the killings of South African civilians.  This was done both in reprisal and self-defence and the only requirement was proportionality"
Sorry, if you'll just bear with me- at page 229, Mr Goosen on behalf of the Committee asked the question:
"What were the limiting principles"?
And at page 230, the answer was:
"Wherever an operation is not politically motivated, that operation falls outside our ambit of our definition of a target"