MR WESSELS
Mr Chairman, I'm on page 13 of my Heads.  We deal with Section 20(3), in regard to the criteria to be used and whether there was a political motive present.  I will not refer to it in detail, I didn't gain the impression that there was any real dispute about any of those aspects.  I will just refer briefly to the proportionality principle that has been dealt with on page 17 and further of my Heads, and make the submission Mr Chairman, that this is a very relative concept and the way that it's been applied in these cases, show that there is not really a true weighing of the act committed, on the one hand, towards the end result or the success to be achieved by that.  It is impossible to do it really.
	It is my submission that the proportionality principle would only find practical application in extreme cases, where you may have a case that in a war situation although the attempt is made to fight the enemy, there are means used which are so far removed from the possible success to be achieved that you can't say that it falls within the parameters of the Act.  And one can perhaps think of examples where the Forces of one country tries to subject the Forces of another country in any possible way.  It would be legitimate for the parties to shoot each other, in war theory, on the one hand.  But now how far does it go?  Would it be permissable for the one party's Forces, the enemy's Forces to burn down the houses of the opposing Forces soldiers and take their wives and children, put them in concentration camps, because it may have an effect on the outcome of the war situation?  Does it go further, if that is legitimate, would it be further to rape all the women that stay behind, because that will weaken the moral resolve of the enemy Forces.  And one can go to very bizarre examples and it's very difficult to apply that.