applicant also submits, in effect without elaboration, that the recollections of Persons 40, 41, 18, 42 and 43, who say they saw local nationals in the vicinity of the tunnel courtyard, should also not be accepted by the Court.
678 With respect to EKIA57, the applicant submits that considerable weight should be placed on the fact that the alleged unlawful killing was not the subject of contemporaneous reporting. When Person 14 did raise the matter, he did so with Mr Masters nearly a decade after the event and on that occasion, he gave an inconsistent account to the one provided to the Court. Person 6, who on the respondents' case had a degree of animus towards the applicant, raised complaints about the applicant on a range of matters, but never mentioned this allegation. Person 24 is a discredited witness and his evidence has clearly been coloured by his discussions with Person 14 over the years.
679 I have already explained the reasons I do not consider there were a large number of people who knew about the execution of EKIA56. Those that must have known were the applicant, Person 5, Person 4 and Person 41. Others may have known, others may have suspected, for example, Persons 40, 42 and 43, but not known.
680 As to the alleged execution of EKIA57, I will deal with who must have known about that, or may have known of that, when I come to deal with the circumstances of that event.
681 The applicant submits that the evidence given by Person 41 is not reliable. He points to the following matters.
682 First, the applicant submits that no other person has corroborated Person 41's evidence about the alleged execution of EKIA56 by Person 4 and the actions of the applicant. I have already identified the applicant's submission about the improbabilities of the events Person 41 described assuming his time-line is correct, that is to say, the events either did not happen or they were (improbably) witnessed by a large number of people who did not see the body or failed to report an execution. I reject this submission. On Person 41's account, there were three people present. He has given evidence of the incident. The applicant has denied it and Person 4 claimed the privilege against self-incrimination under's 128 of the Evidence Act and was not required by the Court to give evidence about events at W108.
683 Secondly, the applicant makes the point that Person 41's account is inconsistent with the contemporaneous mission reporting in two respects. First, none of the reports record more than one fighting age male being located at W108 and secondly, the Patrol Debrief describes
