The transcripts of the trial of Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia. More…

  • Good morning and I welcome you all back after the short break. I think we have one uncompleted matter in relation to the last witness and that is dealing with documents marked for identification. Ms Alagendra?

  • Good morning, your Honours. Just for the record for the Prosecution today is Mr Nicholas Koumjian, Mohamed Bangura, myself Shyamala Alagendra and Maja Dimitrova, your Honours.

  • [Open session]

  • [The accused present]

  • [Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.]

  • Thank you. Mr Anyah?

  • Yes, good morning, Madam President. Good morning, your Honours. May it please the Court. Good morning, counsel opposite. For the Defence we have Mr Terry Munyard, myself Mr Morris Anyah, and Lansana Kamara.

  • Your Honours, in relation to the previous witness we would like to make an application to the Court for the exhibits to be marked and to be admitted into evidence, your Honour.

  • I think the neatest way is to go through them one by one.

  • Yes, your Honour. The first one for the Prosecution is MFI-16 and this was a proclamation entitled "Administration of Sierra Leone Armed Forces" and the Prosecution seeks for this document to be marked as an exhibit and admitted into evidence.

  • Yes, Madam President, I have no objection, but it should be noted that there are scribbles or additional notations on the document. There is a prior exhibit number and there is a name written at the top of the document as well that does not pertain to this case and so perhaps a redacted version of this document could be introduced into evidence, Madam President.

  • Have we got a clean copy, Ms Alagendra?

  • No, your Honours, this is the copy that was provide to the Office of the Prosecutor, but we are happy to go as counsel has suggested.

  • Let me get the number. What's the next Prosecution exhibit number, please?

  • Your Honour, it would be P-100.

  • That's a supplement to the Sierra Leone Gazette as marked and that will become Prosecution exhibit P-100.

  • [Exhibit P-100 admitted]

  • Your Honour, the next item is MFI-17.

  • I'm to interject. Madam President, will the redactions be made to P-100?

  • It would appear that there isn't a clean copy. That's what I asked Ms Alagendra. So I can only admit it in its present form if I don't have it, but the scribbles to me appear not to be relevant and there has been no application to have them as part of the core of the evidence, but if it's by consent that they can be redacted I see no problem in doing that.

  • Your Honour, the concern I have is if you look on the second page of the document, Madam President.

  • Yes, continue, Mr Anyah.

  • Yes, on the second page of the document are dates written. I suspect this was an exhibit in a prior case perhaps and the witness in that case marked this exhibit and on the second page of this document ending in ERN number 7672 somebody scratches off the number 27 and inserts 40. That was an issue raised in another document in this case that they will soon be seeking to introduce; that is the decision by the AFRC to change numbers of its members from 27 to 40. Your Honours will see this in another document that will be introduced.

    So the record needs to be clear that in respect of this document the number that should be on record is 27 and not 40 and that these dates have nothing to do with the witness who testified, that's the hand scribbled dates.

  • Yes, I think you have got a valid point there, Mr Anyah. Ms Alagendra, you have heard Mr Anyah's application to have this cleaned up or redacted.

  • Your Honour, we have no objection to the request by the Defence to have it redacted and the only matters we seek to admit into evidence is as stated in the official document and none of the scribbles.

  • Could I just maybe observe that on page 2, the part that Mr Anyah has drawn to our attention, this is merely an amendment. This is a normal way of someone indicating in the Registry or something that there was an amendment to this particular provision which changed the number from 27 to 40 and that was by decree number 4 of 1997 written in the margin.

  • That seems to be --

  • That is really what it is. I'm not saying you shouldn't redact, but that's what it appears to be. I don't think there is anything mala fide about it.

  • That seems to be correct, your Honour. In fact we will be asking the Court to admit the subsequent decree number 4 in any event, but I am agreeable to go as suggested by counsel, your Honour.

  • Well, this is a four page document headed "Public Notice, Supplement to the Sierra Leone Gazette, Extraordinary Volume" and it is admitted as a Prosecution exhibit with the redaction of two handwritten scribbles on the first and three handwritten scribbles on the second pages thereof.

  • Your Honour, the next item is MFI-17 which is the AFRC decrees dated 14 July 1997 and this specifically, your Honours, is AFRC decree number 4 being a decree to increase the membership of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council dated 14 July 1997 and we seek, your Honour, for this to be marked as an exhibit and admitted into evidence.

  • No objection, Madam President.

  • Very well. The Prosecution exhibit application is granted and "AFRC Decree No. 4" which is a two page document is admitted in evidence as P-101.

  • [Exhibit P-101 admitted]

  • Your Honours, the next item is MFI-18 and this will be AFRC decree number 3, being a decree to make provision for the establishment of the office of principal liaison officer dated 10 July 1997. Your Honour, we request that this document be marked as an exhibit and admitted into evidence.

  • No objection, Madam President.

  • Very well. MFI-18 which is a three page document headed "AFRC Decree No. 3" is admitted in evidence as P-102.

  • [Exhibit P-102 admitted]

  • The next item, your Honours, is MFI-19 and this is AFRC decree number 2, being a decree to establish council of secretaries and it's dated 10 July 1997. We request for this document to be marked as an exhibit and admitted into evidence.

  • Please proceed, Mr Anyah.

  • Yes, no objection, Madam President.

  • Thank you. So that is MFI-19 which is a five page document headed "Decree, Supplement to the Sierra Leone Gazette" and that becomes P-103.

  • [Exhibit P-103 admitted]

  • Your Honour, the next number is MFI-20 and this, your Honour, is a document entitled "Sierra Leone Gazette" dated 11 September 1997, number 53 which identifies members of the council, your Honour, and we request for this document to be marked as an exhibit and admitted into evidence.

  • The Defence will not have an objection to the fist two pages being admitted into evidence. The document consists of eight pages and the balance of the document, as the Court will notice, indeed starting from page 2, contains general notices. On page 2 there is a notice regarding the sitting sessions for the High Court of Sierra Leone and then on the balance of the page you have a revised list of chiefdoms and their councillors. That's what the balance of the document is. We would not object to the first two pages being admitted, but the remaining six pages we would tender an objection.

  • On what grounds, because this is a public document and it is normal practice for judicial notice to be taken of public document of this nature and not to divide them up.

  • Yes, Madam President, it is the case, but an application for the document to be judicially noted has not been made, of course the Chamber retains the discretion to do so sui sponte or proprio motu, but given it has been introduced by the Prosecution in this manner, we believe the evidence on record only pertains to the first two pages which they went over with the witness. He was not questioned about the balance of names on the other pages. The Chamber will note on page 2 in a part of the document not discussed with the witness a name appears on the document that could be said to be the witness's name. I am referring to page 2 ending ERN 7712 and on the right-hand column number 10 is a name that could arguably be said is the witness's name, that was not covered with the witness, and so for the rest of the document I make an objection on the record.

  • Very well. Ms Alagendra, you have heard the objection. It would appear that counsel is seeking to divide this document.

  • Your Honours, we would ask that the whole document be admitted into evidence and the Court to only consider the parts which were led in evidence. And in relation to the name appearing in number 10, your Honour, that should not be an issue at all because it was not something put to the witness or raised in Court.

  • Ms Alagendra, I am just curious to understand why you say the rest of that document is admitted. It doesn't appear to be relevant. Do you say it's relevant?

  • No, your Honours, it's just that because this is a public document and for the Court to understand the nature of this entire gazette and the purpose of it, which is to provide names of the various bodies during that particular time and during examination-in-chief we only made reference to one particular body which was the AFRC council.

  • We admit as evidence the first two pages of a document headed "The Sierra Leone Gazette" and dated Thursday, 1 September 1997, No. 53, as Prosecution exhibit P-104.

  • [Exhibit P-104 admitted]

  • Your Honours, the next item is MFI-21 which is the map of Kono where the witness marked certain locations that he had testified about and we request that that map with the markings made by the witness be marked as an exhibit and admitted into evidence.

  • Mr Anyah?

  • No objection, Madam President.

  • Very well. A map, a one page document headed "Kono District - Sierra Leone" with ten markings by the witness is admitted as evidence as P-105.

  • [Exhibit P-105 admitted]

  • Your Honours, the next item is MFI-22 which is the map of Bombali where the witness marked locations that he testified about and we request that this map with the markings by the witness be admitted as an exhibit into evidence.

  • No objection, Madam President.

  • Thank you, Mr Anyah. So a one page document, a map headed "Bombali District - Sierra Leone" with 11 markings by the witness is marked as Prosecution exhibit P-106.

  • [Exhibit P-106 admitted]

  • The next item, your Honours, is MFI-23. This is a map of Freetown with markings made by the witness and we request that the map with the markings be marked as an exhibit and admitted into evidence.

  • No objection, Madam President.

  • Very well. A map without a title but headed in the corner "Freetown" with 12 markings by the witness is admitted in evidence as exhibit P-107.

  • [Exhibit P-107 admitted]

  • The next item, your Honour, is MFI-24 which is a map of Freetown and environs. The witness had made markings on this map of locations that he testified about. We request that this map be marked as an exhibit and admitted into evidence.

  • Mr Anyah?

  • No objection, Madam President.

  • That is a one page document without a title, but the word "Freetown and Environs" is on the right corner and it has six markings by the witness. It is admitted in evidence as Prosecution exhibit P-108.

  • [Exhibit P-108 admitted]

  • The next item, your Honours, is MFI-25 and this is a road map of Sierra Leone and we were referring to the Western Area on that map. The witness made markings of locations he testified about. We ask that that map be marked as an exhibit and admitted into evidence.

  • No objection, Madam President. I just think we have to be mindful of the description given to this exhibit. Right now as I see it listed, and I know this is a tentative listing by the Court Management, it indicates map that ranges from Freetown to Magburaka, Sierra Leone. The Prosecution is referring to it as the Western Area and I recall when this map was put forward by the Prosecution they clarified that it was a portion of a larger map and was one of several different maps. We just have to have the right description, I think.

  • Very well. This is a map which does not have a title, but is acknowledged to be part of a larger map. It ranges from Freetown and Yawri Bay to Magburaka and it has 12 markings by the witness and it becomes Prosecution exhibit P-109.

  • [Exhibit P-109 admitted]

  • Your Honours, the next item is MFI-26. This is a map of Port Loko and the witness made markings on this map of locations he testified about. We request that this map with the markings made by the witness be marked as an exhibit and admitted into evidence.

  • Mr Anyah?

  • No objection, Madam President.

  • This is a one page document headed "Port Loko District - Sierra Leone". It is a map and it has five markings by the witness. It is admitted in evidence as Prosecution exhibit P-110.

  • [Exhibit P-110 admitted]

  • The next item for the Prosecution, your Honour, was a document which we referred to during re-examination and this was MFI-41 and this is a BBC article dated January 6 1999 entitled "World: Africa, Battle for Sierra Leone" and we request that this document be marked as an exhibit and admitted into evidence.

  • You have heard the application, Mr Anyah?

  • No objection, Madam President.

  • That's a two page document headed "BBC" and it becomes Prosecution exhibit P-111.

  • [Exhibit P-111 admitted]

  • Thank you, your Honours. That is all for the Prosecution.

  • Thank you, Ms Alagendra. Mr Anyah, have you any applications?

  • Yes, Madam President. There are a number of documents that were requested to be marked for identification by the Defence and I will start with the first one which is MFI-27. MFI-27 is a BBC article dated 18 April 1999 with the title "Rebel leader freed for talks" and we would request that this be admitted into evidence, Madam President.

  • Ms Alagendra?

  • No objections, your Honour.

  • Just let me get the number for the Defence exhibit.

  • Your Honour, it is D-19.

  • This is a three page document with a heading "BBC News Africa" and a bolder title "World: Africa, Rebel leader freed for talks". It becomes Defence exhibit D-19.

  • [Exhibit D-19 admitted]

  • The next document is also from the BBC. It is dated 6 August 1999, the title of the article is "Sierra Leone, Who are the kidnappers?" We respectfully request that this be admitted into evidence.

  • No objections, your Honour.

  • Well, this is another three page document headed "BBC" with a larger title "Who are the kidnappers?" It becomes Defence exhibit D-20.

  • [Exhibit D-20 admitted]

  • The next document is from the Sierra Leone News Archives. It is dated 31 August 1999 with portions also pertaining to 30 August 1999 and we request that it be admitted into evidence.

  • Mr Anyah, I think it would be a very good idea if you put on record the identification marking of each document so that we know we are talking about the same document.

  • Yes, Justice Lussick, and I will do so now in reference to the previously admitted documents. With respect to Defence exhibit 19, the MFI number is MFI-27. With respect to what has just been admitted as Defence exhibit 20 the MFI number is MFI-28. With respect to the document we propose for admission now from the Sierra Leone News Archives dated 30 and 31 August 1999 the MFI number is MFI-29.

  • No objections, your Honour.

  • Thank you, Ms Alagendra. That is a two page document headed "News Archives" and it becomes Defence exhibit D-21.

  • [Exhibit D-21 admitted]

  • Your Honours, the next document is MFI-30 also from the Sierra Leone News Archives, an article dated 30 September 1999 and we request that it be admitted into evidence.

  • No objections, your Honour.

  • This is a one page document headed "Sierra Leone News Archives September 1999". It becomes Defence exhibit D-22.

  • [Exhibit D-22 admitted]

  • The next document, your Honours, is from the BBC. It is dated 1 October 1999. The MFI number is 31. The title of the document is "Sierra Leone rebel leader delays return" and we request that it be admitted into evidence.

  • No objection, your Honour.

  • This is a three page document headed "BBC News" and underneath in bolder type "World: Africa, Sierra Leone rebel leader delays return". It becomes Defence exhibit D-23.

  • [Exhibit D-23 admitted]

  • The next document is MFI-32, an article from the BBC dated 6 August 1999. The title of the document is "Sierra Leone hostage tells of ordeal" and we ask that it be admitted into evidence.

  • No objection, your Honour.

  • This is a three page document headed "BBC News" and in bolder type "World: Africa, Sierra Leone hostage tells of ordeal" and it becomes Defence exhibit D-24.

  • [Exhibit D-24 admitted]

  • The next document is a map of Liberia with demobilisation sites between the period 22 November 1996 and 12 February 1997. The MFI number is 33 and we ask respectfully that this be admitted into evidence.

  • No objection, your Honour.

  • This is a one page document, a map headed "World Food Programme" and "Liberia Demobilisation Sites". It is admitted into evidence as Defence exhibit D-25.

  • [Exhibit D-25 admitted]

  • Madam President, the next document is MFI-34. It is an excerpt from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Sierra Leone's report, in particular a statement by his Excellency the Presidential Alhaji Dr Tejan Kabbah dated 5 August 2003 and we seek to have it admitted into evidence.

  • Your Honours, we object to the admission of this document on the grounds of relevance. I recall that the purpose for which the witness was shown this document by counsel was to establish that the size of the STF forces in Sierra Leone was considerable, but during the cross-examination of the witness it was noticed that there was nothing in the document that referred to numbers or the size of the STF and on that basis, your Honours, we don't think that document was relevant.

  • Madam President, I propose to the Chamber the document is relevant in several respects and irrespective of what purpose it was initially introduced, and I question the assumption that we merely introduced it to establish the size of the Special Task Force, but be that as it may, it is relevant for several different reasons.

    Number one, at issue during this witness's testimony was the origins of the Special Task Force and there is evidence on the record by the witness before he was confronted with this document as suggesting that the Special Task Force derived from the NPFL. This document was put to the witness to establish the ULIMO connection to the genesis of the Special Task Force. That's one matter at issue.

    The second matter at issue in respect of this document was General David Livingstone Bropleh and whether or not he continued to play any role in Sierra Leone and in particular respect in connection with the Special Task Force post the Lome Peace Agreement in 1999. That was also put to the witness.

    So for all of these factors I would propose to your Honours that the document is entirely relevant, in particular respect to this issue of Liberians and the Special Task Force fighting in Sierra Leone during the relevant period.

  • We consider that this is a relevant document and we admit it as an exhibit. It is a six page document with a cover sheet headed "Appendix 2, Submissions to the TRC" and it is admitted in evidence as Defence exhibit D-26.

  • [Exhibit D-26 admitted]

  • Thank you, Madam President. The next document is MFI-35. It is an article from the New York Times dated 13 May 1998 with the title "US reportedly backed British mercenary group in Africa". We respectfully move to have this admitted into evidence.

  • No objections, your Honour.

  • That is a two page document headed "New York Times" and a larger subheading "US reportedly backed British mercenary group in Africa". It is admitted in evidence as exhibit D-27.

  • [Exhibit D-27 admitted]

  • The next document, MFI-36, is from the Sierra Leone News Archives. It's a document pertaining to the date 31 December 1998 and we respectfully move it to be admitted into evidence.

  • No objections, your Honour.

  • Thank you. This is a three page document entitled "Sierra Leone News Archives" with a bolder "News Archives" subheading and dated 31 December 1998. It is admitted in evidence as Defence exhibit D-28.

  • [Exhibit D-28 admitted]

  • The next document, Madam President, is MFI-37, the title is "Sierra Leone People's Army", it is said to be from General David L Bropleh and we respectfully move to have it admitted into evidence.

  • No objections, your Honour.

  • I have mislaid my copy, but for the moment I will note there is no objection and therefore - I never did have a copy. This is a two page document of type headed "Sierra Leone People's Army" with a stamp across it partially obliterating some of the letters and it is admitted in evidence as a Defence exhibit D-29.

  • [Exhibit D-29 admitted]

  • Madam President, the next document is MFI-38 also from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Sierra Leone and the substantive part names the AFRC leadership and the AFRC high command/Supreme Council and we move to have it admitted into evidence.

  • No objections, your Honour.

  • Thank you. That is a six page document with a cover sheet with some pictures and "Witness to Truth" and it comes from volume 2 of the report of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is admitted into evidence as Defence exhibit D-30.

  • [Exhibit D-30 admitted]

  • Thank you, Madam President. The next document is MFI-39. It is from appendix 2 containing submissions to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Sierra Leone. It is dated 12 July 2003, a letter from the director of prisons, and we move to have it admitted into evidence.

  • No objections, your Honour.

  • Thank you. This is a six page document with a cover sheet entitled "Appendix 2, Submissions to the TRC". Within it are several typed pages and the relevant portions referred to by counsel are a letter from the director of prisons to the commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is admitted in evidence as exhibit D-31.

  • [Exhibit D-31 admitted]

  • The next document, Madam President, is MFI-40, also from volume 2 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report and in substantive components it deals with the RUF leadership structure, the RUF high command, and we move to have it admitted into evidence.

  • No objections, your Honour.

  • This is a six page document with a cover sheet with some pictures and the title "Witness to Truth, Volume 2" and inside is volume 2, report of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is admitted in evidence as Defence exhibit D-32.

  • [Exhibit D-32 admitted]

  • That's all we have, Madam President.

  • Thank you. Ms Alagendra, or is it Mr Bangura, I note that you are - do you have carriage of the next witness?

  • Yes. Good morning, Madam President. Good morning, your Honours. Your Honours, the next witness for the Prosecution will be TF1-143.

    Your Honours, this witness was granted protective measures by Trial Chamber I on 5 July 2004 - by a decision on 5 July 2004 and he is classified as a category 1B witness and that meant at the time that he was entitled to testify with closed circuit television, that is not testifying in open court, and as well as being entitled to have his image not shown and his voice distorted - no, I'm sorry. His image not shown and a pseudonym, your Honour.

    Your Honours, this was at the time when this witness was categorised as a child witness. At present he is above that age and he is not entitled to enjoy that category of protection, specifically that to do with testifying behind a closed circuit television. I am respectfully asking that that measure specifically be rescinded for his testimony before this Chamber and that for this present purpose he be entitled to the rest of the measures which are a pseudonym, testifying with a pseudonym, and with the screen as well as having his face distorted - the image distorted.

  • I haven't got - did you mention a screen before, Mr Bangura?

  • I did mention a screen, yes, your Honour. Your Honour, that is an application I am making.

  • Thank you. I am going to invite a reply. Mr Munyard?

  • Good morning, Madam President, your Honours. I note that the witness is now 22 years of age and therefore obviously my learned friend's application to rescind the one previous protective measure that he has mentioned is an appropriate application and clearly we support it. As to the other measures that are in force in relation to this witness we have no comment to make.

  • Thank you. Mr Bangura, have you got a copy of the relevant order of Trial Chamber I which you have referred us to?

  • Yes, I do.

  • Could you pass it up, please.

  • I just wish to point out that it has got some sections highlighted, but I hope that does not - your Honours, I have got clean copies.

  • May I take it that counsel for the Defence has seen this order?

  • I haven't in fact had direct sight of the order. I know that we have looked into this matter in the past, but I personally haven't looked at this order and so I would be grateful also for sight of it, Madam President.

  • I could assist your Honours by just pointing to the relevant areas of this decision so as to speed up your Honours' deliberation on this matter. On page 3 of the decision under the rubric "The motion" we have the Chamber stating out the categories of witnesses that the Prosecution applied to have protected and we have category 1B there as child witnesses is a category for which this witness - for which measures were applied for this witness. On page 4, 6(b) we have the measures that specifically applied to category 1B witnesses. Then finally at page 16 where the Court makes its orders at paragraph H --

  • I am sorry to interrupt, but my copy only goes up to page 14.

  • I am sorry. I think we have a more complete copy here. Again, at paragraph H and on page 16 the Court makes its orders and specifically states the measures to which the witness would be entitled. Your Honours, I might also add page 15 paragraph (a) under the rubric "Dispositions". That deals with pseudonyms - grants pseudonyms to all witnesses, all categories.

  • I am just looking for a reference to a screen, Mr Bangura.

  • Your Honours, there is no specific reference to screen in the order that was granted because what was granted the witness at that time was the closed circuit television measure which meant that he would have testified away from the courtroom and what we are seeking now, your Honour, consistent with the fact that he is entitled to a pseudonym and is entitled to facial distortion - what we are seeking now is that he be granted the measure of testifying behind a screen.

    Yes, your Honour, in fact my attention has been drawn to paragraph (e) on page 16 which grants all category of witnesses the use of screening device from the public.

  • Mr Bangura, I just need to seek your views on one matter.

  • This particular witness you say was granted measures by virtue of his tender age at the time. In other words, all the measures that you have named, including closed circuit TV, voice distortion, or image distortion, I beg your pardon, and pseudonym were on the grounds that he was under age.

  • That is correct, your Honour.

  • Now he is over age do you still think he needs to testify behind a screen and with voice distortion necessarily - face distortion necessarily since he is no longer a child?

  • Yes, your Honour, the witness - we have reviewed questions of his concerns about security and his safety and the witness still has such concerns as he had expressed to us quite a few years back, except for the fact now that he is not entitled by reason of his age to the measure of closed circuit television. That is he is just not entitled to testify away from the courtroom, but he does still have those concerns and it is consistent with these concerns that we still request that the Court grants or goes by the measures that had been ordered before.

  • Madam President, I wonder if I might just draw the Court's attention to something before you conclude your deliberations. One really has to go back to the beginning of this application to see what it was that was sought and why therefore the Court ordered as it did and if you look at page - well, starting on page 3 with the submissions, the Prosecution divided it witnesses into two groups. We are only concerned with the first group here, witnesses of fact. Categories within this group are (a) witnesses who are victims of sexual assault and gender crimes, (b) child witnesses and (c) insider witnesses. Now we know why the special measures were granted to this particular witness because he fell within category (b). It is the other two groups of witnesses (a) and (c) for whom the various other measures were granted. That is to say, screens, distortion, et cetera.

    If you turn over the page to page 4, paragraph 6, the Prosecutor asks for additional protective measures for certain categories of witnesses; witnesses in category (a) who are victims of sexual assault and gender crimes should testify with voice distortion to avoid recognition by the public. Witnesses in category (b), child witnesses, should be allowed to testify with closed circuit television for the obvious and usual reasons and (c) insider witnesses, voice distortion as the fear of reprisals for these witnesses and their families is particularly strong.

    Now that is the basis on which the measures appear to us at least to have been granted by the Court. I should mention that at the top of page 4 - I should have drawn your attention to this just before I took you to 6, in paragraph 4 it says, "The Prosecution states that the security in the country remains fragile and supports this assertion by affidavits" and that's clearly what the position was in 2004 when this was applied for, but of course that's four years ago.

    Now if one then goes to the decision of the Court, which - well, it is the orders of the Court starting on page 15 at the foot of page 15 under the heading "Disposition":

    "The Court hereby grants motion that orders for all witnesses in group 1, that is witnesses as to fact, all witnesses should be referred to by pseudonyms at all times during the course of proceedings, names and addresses and other identifying information shall be sealed."

    I am not going to bother with (c) because that's in effect an application of the same principle and likewise (d), (e) all witnesses shall testify with the use of a screening device from the public and (f) no photographs.

    Now, those general provisions clearly apply to the witnesses as to fact who fall within group (a) and group (c). Then if you look at what the Court further orders, the voices of witnesses in category (a) victims of sexual violence shall be distorted. That is specific to sexual violence victims. (B) closed circuit television, that is what we have been concerned with hitherto because this witness fell to be treated as a child then, and (c) insider witnesses shall have their voices distorted also.

    It appears on the face of the document that the measures that the Court imposed for this particular witness who fell within category (b) were the usual measures for a child witness. He doesn't, on the face of it, appear to fall within either category (a) or category (c) and it was for witnesses in those two groups that these other measures were ordered by the Court. So the protection for a child witness no longer applying in the case of this witness means that he didn't fall within the two categories (a) and (c) for whom those other measures were ordered. I thought it only right to draw the Court's attention to that and I hope that's helpful.

  • May it please your Honours, I appreciate my learned friend's point. I am not so sure whether my learned friend is now registering an objection.

  • He has not reneged on what he previously said in my hearing, Mr Bangura.

  • Yes, but just a point of correction there I should say. My learned friend is making the point that the measures for a pseudonym and screen were only ordered or limited to witnesses within category (a) and (c), but, your Honours, my reading and understanding of the decision is that all category 1 witnesses enjoyed the pseudonym, the screen and they were entitled to non-disclosure of - a 42 day non-disclosure of their unredacted material.

  • Thank you for that clarification.

  • Madam Court Officer, we are just seeking clarification according to the technicalities. When a witness testifies behind a screen is their image shown to the public?

  • Your Honour, the image of the witness is distorted automatically when a witness testifies behind a screen.

  • This is an application by the Prosecution. The Prosecution apply to vary the order for protective measures for witness TFI-143 on the grounds that he is no longer a child witness. The application is for the witness to testify behind a screen and image distortion and a pseudonym. The application is not opposed.

    The Court notes the order of Trial Chamber I of 5 July 2004 which granted inter alia that the witness shall be referred to as pseudonym at all times during the course of the proceedings whether during a hearing or in documents including the transcript of the proceedings and the witness will testify with the use of a screening device from the public. We note that the application is to vary the order at (h) which provided for closed circuit television.

    The Court has been informed that the effect of the screen will be to have an image distortion when the witness is giving evidence. Accordingly we grant the application to vary the order (h) and do away with the use of closed circuit television.

    For purposes of public record I will inform the public that all of the curtains will now come down. This is to allow the witness to come in unseen by the public. Once he is seated in position the side curtains will rise, but the screen will remain. The public will be able to hear what the witness says and what else takes place in Court. I will therefore ask the Court Officer to implement these matters so that the witness may be brought into the Court.

  • Thank you, your Honours.

  • Mr Bangura, for purposes of record what language will the witness give evidence in?

  • Your Honour, the witness will testify in Krio.

  • And the Krio interpreters are in position?

  • Yes, your Honour.