[77] I am not convinced even should I have regard only to the evidence of the witnesses called on behalf of the defence that the defence has discharged its onus on a preponderance of probabilities that the third plaintiff has provided informed consent in respect of the sterilisation procedure done on her. [78] It must be stated that one has an appreciation of and sympathy for the abnormal circumstances, as testified by the witnesses, under which physicians and other health professionals must work at State Hospitals. [79] Regarding the issue of group counselling when family planning is discussed Dr Kimberg testified that individual counselling is required. In view of the testimony of Dr Krönke and other health professionals individual counselling due to the large number of patients is simply impractical. I agree that even though individual counselling may be an ideal situation in which to do proper and skilled counselling one should not close one’s eyes (figuratively speaking) to the realities encountered at State Hospitals. I can see no reason why group counselling cannot be adequate and sufficient, provided that skilled counsellors are engaged and information is conveyed in languages which are understood by the patients requiring such counselling. [80] In respect of the first claim I am of the view that the defendant has failed to discharge its onus to prove that all three the plaintiffs had given informed consent in respect of their respective sterilisation procedures and that the plaintiff’s should succeed in respect of this claim. 39 [81] In view of this finding I deem it unnecessary to deal with the alternative claim. [82] In respect of the second claim the plaintiffs allege that the sterilisation procedures were performed on them because of their HIV status and that this resulted in an unlawful practice of impermissible discrimination against them. Since the plaintiffs claim that they were sterilised because they were HIV positive I am of the view that the onus is on them to prove this to be the case on a preponderance of probabilities. [83] I am of the view that there is no credible and convincing evidence that the sterilisation procedures had been performed on the plaintiffs due to the fact that they are HIV positive. The second claim stands accordingly to be dismissed. [84] In the result the following orders are made: 1. The first claim in respect of each of the plaintiffs succeeds. 2. The second claim in respect of each plaintiff is dismissed. ________