MR WILLS
I think it can be inferred reasonably from the evidence Mr Chairperson, that one can distinguish between the two persons that were in the room.
	Clearly from the questioning of my colleague, there was a closer relationship between the accused, the applicant and the person who was released from the room, and the second deceased.  Clearly I think, the Committee member Mr Lax, established in the evidence that the relationship between the applicant, sorry the relationship between the applicant and the person who was released, was such that the applicant trusted that person.
	But the same couldn't be said of the second person who judging from the questions of my colleague, Ms Thabete, was that he really hardly knew the person.  He didn't even know the extent of the relationship.
	I think one can make that distinction.  I also submit that whilst the actions of the second attacker, the now deceased person who was a State witness, was such that it was part of the operation which can be related to the political motivation of the killing of the prime target.
	It was an incidental to that operation.  I submit that in those circumstances, it can be said that he died as a result of a politically motivated act.
	The sine qua non would be that had the deceased, the target, not been present, clearly the second deceased would not have died.