9 Having told them, he felt much better about it. He asked them not to tell his parents but, according to the complainant, they had ultimately decided to do so in order to prevent the same thing happening with his younger brother. H, who was also called as a State witness, confirmed the essential features of the appellant’s evidence. [17] H had in the meanwhile discussed the matter with his partner and they had decided that they had no choice but to notify the complainant’s parents, as they were concerned about the complainant’s younger brother. Thus, some three or four days after the complainant’s return to Pretoria, H telephoned the complainant’s father and told him what the complainant had imparted. Under cross-examination, H testified that he was somewhat troubled by the father’s reaction. Although he had expected a major outburst, the complainant’s father, although shocked and ‘a bit upset’, had remained quite calm and had simply said that he would discuss this with Mrs B. According to H, he was fully aware of the dangers of HIV and, when the complainant had told him that no condoms had been used by the appellant, he had told the complainant to take proper precautions ‘in the future’. He testified that he had requested the complainant’s parents to report the matter to the police immediately and to take the complainant to see a doctor. [18] Some while after H had told Mr B what the complainant had conveyed to him, he (H) telephoned Mrs B to find out how she was. Mrs B told him that the appellant was at that moment visiting in their home. As soon as he heard this, H told her to request the appellant to leave the premises at once. He then telephoned the complainant on the latter’s mobile phone and told him to remove his younger brother, A, from the house and to go for a drive. After he had done this, he telephoned Mrs B again. She then had a ‘major outburst’, becoming quite hysterical and screaming uncontrollably. H tried to calm her down and told her that he would immediately fly up to Pretoria to assist and support the family. This he then did. [19] When H contacted the complainant on the latter’s mobile phone, the complainant questioned H and heard for the first time that his parents knew ‘the whole story’. He then followed H’s instructions and drove with A to his friend J’s house, leaving the appellant behind at the B home. He and A had only been away for about 15 minutes when H again telephoned the complainant on his mobile phone and