Good morning, your Honours, counsel opposite. Your Honours, for the Prosecution this morning are Ms Brenda J Hollis, Ms Julia Baly, myself Mohamed A Bangura and Ms Maja Dimitrova. Thank you, your Honours.
Yes, your Honour. Your Honour, the Prosecution intends to call TF1-358 this morning. Your Honour, the position, as I understand it, was not quite clear yesterday when this Court rose as to which witness would be coming on this morning, but we have an indication from the Defence that they are willing to go on with 358. Just for clearance on the record, I don't know whether my learned friend wants to make that clear to the Court.
Your Honour, yesterday I think before leaving this building I informally notified one of the legal officers that unless something dramatic occurred then I would be ready to deal with this witness this morning. Then before I left our offices at the other end of Maanweg yesterday afternoon, I think on the dot of 5 p.m., I notified one of Mr Bangura's colleagues from the Prosecution bench who was going to be dealing with the other witness, 274, that I would not be asking for an adjournment today. So I notified the relevant parties informally in person by 5 o'clock yesterday and then not very long after I got home, but after an interruption for a domestic emergency, I then emailed both legal officers and my learned friends opposite to say that that was the case.
I'm sorry, yes. I'm assuming everybody got it, because I got no delivery failure notification in my email. I don't know what time it was. It wasn't as early as I had hoped, but of course I had spoken personally, not on the telephone but face-to-face, with representatives of the interested parties and that's our position. We're ready to deal and I'm grateful, your Honour.
I'm grateful to my learned friend, your Honour, for the clarification. Your Honours, the Prosecution, as I stated, intends to call TF1-358. Your Honour, this witness is a protected witness pursuant to a decision of this Chamber. Initially he was granted protective measures under the 2000 decision - November 2006 - and by error of communication the Prosecution believed at one stage that the witness intended not to testify using those protective measures and the Prosecution had applied to have those measures rescinded.
That's right, yes, and that decision restoring the measures and granting further measures is contained in the decision dated 3 November 2008. Pursuant to that decision, your Honour, the witness is entitled to testify using image distortion and voice distortion and, as necessary, we would apply to have certain aspects of his evidence adduced in closed session.
Isn't there a screen in position? I am just trying to - I have just been handed it, yes, because it's not just the most recent application. There was a reinstatement of the protective measures granted in paragraph (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l) and (m) of the decision of 5 May 2006, plus the extras you have referred to.
Yes, that's right, your Honour. The witness under the previous order that your Honour has referred to was also entitled to testify using a pseudonym and that is part of the complement of measures that he's entitled to testify with.