The Court of Appeal in London has reserved its ruling on whether former soldiers involved in the Bloody Sunday shootings should be allowed to keep their identities secret.
Lord Woolf, Master of the Rolls, sitting with Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Walker, said after a two-day hearing the court would try to give judgment as soon as possible.
Earlier the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday was accused of being too dismissive of the dangers former soldiers due to give evidence would face if they were forced to give their names in public.
Removing the anonymity they had enjoyed for 27 years would at the very least condemn the men and their families to a life of fear, said Sir Sydney Kentridge QC.
He was speaking for 17 former soldiers who fired live rounds in Derry on January 30th, 1972, when 14 civilians died and many more were wounded.
Last month they won a crucial legal victory when, by a 2-1 majority, the High Court ruled the tribunal's decision to reveal the names of the men was flawed and the only option, because of the risk of terrorist revenge attacks, was for them to remain anonymous.
The inquiry tribunal, chaired by Lord Saville, is asking the appeal court to declare that the High Court exceeded its powers and usurped the tribunal's functions of balancing the need for a full and open inquiry against the risks being named posed to the soldiers, mostly former members of the Parachute Regiment.
Mr John Coyle, representing families of the Bloody Sunday dead and wounded, backed the tribunal's call. He warned there was a grave danger of the new inquiry becoming a "charade" and losing the confidence of the public if the men were not named.
Mr Kentridge said: "The tribunal was too dismissive of the danger and did not weigh it properly."
He said Lord Widgery, who presided over the first inquiry, granted anonymity to the military witnesses who gave evidence in 1972, with the exception of the most senior officers.
The "Widgery assurance" that the men would not be named had been acted on for 27 years and the soldiers and their families had conducted their lives upon the basis of that assurance.
If that assurance was disregarded, "these people and their families will have in their minds a fear they did not have before.
"They will have to conduct their lives taking the due care and attention which they have not had to take [under the protection of the Widgery assurance]."