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.