Your Honour, I would just point out that we prosecutors are quite fungible human beings. In our view, we are doing - at times we have switched the prosecuting attorney in the interest of the efficiency of the trial. When Ms Hollis was ill, this allowed us to go forward when I took her place when I was notified, rather late, that she was not feeling well enough to come. In the present case, in order to comply efficiently with your Honours' order to disclose information to the Defence, she believed that this is the most efficient use of the Prosecution resources.
It seems to us that which Prosecutor is doing which task is completely an internal matter for the Prosecution. If a question has been asked and is asked again, that is a legitimate objection. If counsel is saying that points are not followed up on, it would seem to me that that benefits only the accused.
So I would also point out that there is precedent. For example, in the Krajisnik case he testified for a long time, not nearly as long as Mr Taylor, and the Prosecution counsel did switch off and on on the cross-examination. That was Mr Tieger and Mr Harmon at the ICTY. Thank you.