Well, your Honours, we are trying to be of assistance to the Trial Chamber and I should point out that almost all of these exhibits were included in very early motions filed even before the commencement of trial and certainly efforts were made to put many of these exhibits before witnesses and as is clear in the first group of 14 ten have already been admitted, many as Defence exhibits.
But certainly my analysis in reading the motions indicate that the motions largely had to deal with this problem of moving items into evidence without a witness and we had the lex specialis point that your Honour has cited as well, but now that we have adopted Rule 92 bis that therefore if you use 92 bis, in other words no witness present, a declaration going in, or the witness only being subject to cross-examination, then that evidence can't go to the acts and conduct of the accused. However once you do have a witness then of course, as many of these witnesses that have appeared in support of documents aren't the makers of them, or have other knowledge of them, those documents have gone in through a live witness.
So basically we removed all of the issues that are at stake in the motion, other than the simple issue that frankly Rule 89(C) says relevant evidence goes in. Is there an additional element of reliability that has to be added to that before something is admissible?
Frankly we submit that, even if there were such an element, this testimony standing alone supplies that. We of course also submit that under the Fofana Appeals decision, recalling specifically that the Prosecutor had objected in the Fofana bail to a document coming in and a particular declaration and saying that it's not reliable, it should be excluded, the Appeals Chamber said, "No, reliability is not a condition of admission. That comes later. It's relevance".
So I am prepared today to argue that each of these documents are relevant, but if it's your Honours' position that additionally there is the fact of reliability then I think we meet that. All of these other issues I think are removed by the presence of a witness and, of course, all evidence is prejudicial if it's relevant. So we - and I don't see in the various grids in which the Defence has objected to each of the admissions on many of them they come down to the exhibit is cumulative, et cetera. That is their main objection, or that there is no witness present to give support to it, and we think frankly those issues can be confronted here today.
We are simply trying to go forward with the witness and save this Court an enormous amount of time, but obviously if your Honours wish to defer this question of admission I presume that means that with the witness then we would need to come back and make a motion at an appropriate time if that is your Honours' decision.