Well, again, I rise merely to seek further clarification because Justice Sebutinde's question raises the additional issue of what occurred before the Chamber last week, which is in respect of TF1-065. We certainly appreciate your Honours have ruled, we are not seeking to go behind the decision, we just seek clarification.
In respect of that witness the Prosecution put forth before this Chamber only one of the two decisions that was rendered on 23 May. That is not to say perhaps Mr Santora, learned counsel opposite, did not mention all three orally. The one that was relied on in open court, of which copies were circulated to your Honours and to the Defence Bar, was the one in respect of Issa Hassan Sesay, not the one in respect of Morris Kallon. So apparently of two decisions both rendered on 23 May 2003 they unilaterally elected one of those two to propose that that was the basis for the protective measures granted to TF1-065.
Today before your Honours counsel is heard to be saying that so long as a witness's statement predates a decision, that is the controlling factor vis-a-vis which decision is proposed as being the relevant decision in question.
Well, last week they had two decisions from which they could have proceeded and they proceeded on the basis of the one pertaining to Issa Hassan Sesay. This invariably has impacted our approach procedurally to this issue.
Your Honours will soon receive circulation from CMS something that was filed on Friday last. The matter is sub judice since it has been filed, but at an appropriate time on the basis of what has been said in Court we may make an application to amend what has been filed.