If I may be allowed, Madam President. The reason I rise is this has broader implications extending to other witnesses as well. Indeed, the Defence were given notice of existing protective measures very early on, in accordance with Rule 75, and, in fact, when disclosure was made, even redacted disclosure was made, regarding this witness it was clear from that disclosure that there had been prior protection.
In addition to that, in something that we filed on 28 January reference to this witness was made and an oral decision was put in this reference and the oral decision is one that was followed by the written decision you have before you, so for the Defence to say they did not have notice, we suggest, is without merit.
Secondly, 75 says very clearly they are in effect until there is an application for them to be rescinded. There needs to be a timely application for this. Witnesses are not ping pong balls. We can't bring them, keep them here until the last minute, have it decided that they can't go in a forum that they find comfortable and protective of their security and then expect them, at some later date, to be able to come back. This is an untimely application and we suggest they have given no reason that there should be any change to it and such application is untimely. If they wish to go into more detail to make a record, we suggest we go into private session. Again, I think there has been a very cavalier treatment of the protections afforded these witnesses and we think this should be, in a minimum, private session, if not closed session, if we are going to go into the specifics.