We'll deal firstly with the four points of the application made by the Prosecution yesterday.
The first application was that the Defence provide a list of core and backup witnesses prior to the recess. We understand from what Mr Griffiths for the Defence said this morning that there would be no problem doing that, so by consent we order that the list of core and backup witnesses be provided to the Prosecution by the Defence on or before close of business, 11 December 2009.
The next request was that the Defence provide the next set of Defence witnesses by DCT number only prior to the recess. We don't think that that is an unreasonable request and therefore we order the Defence to provide that list to the Prosecution on or before close of business, 11 December 2009.
The third and fourth applications were, firstly, for a 21-day notice of identity of witnesses to run during the recess and then two weeks' notice of the call order of Defence witnesses for the weeks of 11 January 2009 and 18 January 2009 to be provided by the Defence to the Prosecution. We will deal with both of those applications by ordering that the recess shall not affect the 21 days or two weeks' notice of call order that are already in effect.
There has been an objection to the Prosecution introducing in cross-examination some fresh documents. We are aware of our decision in Brima et al referred to by Ms Hollis, but there have since been other relevant decisions we need to consider, bearing in mind that the issue at hand is to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
We note that the bundle of fresh documents presented to us by the Prosecution today seems to be only one of several such bundles. Furthermore, we understand from what Ms Hollis has said that the purpose of the documents might eventually go beyond impeachment of the credibility of the accused.
We also note the objections of the Defence dealing with disclosure issues and claiming that they had been ambushed by the presentation of these fresh documents.
The issue of the Prosecution tendering fresh evidence at this stage of the trial, after it has closed its case, whether for impeachment and/or other purposes, is one that must carefully be considered by the Trial Chamber on a case-by-case basis and entails carefully balancing the interests of justice with the fair trial rights of the accused. We therefore consider that the Prosecution should be called upon to justify the presentation of this fresh evidence at this late stage by filing submissions by way of formal motion and that the Defence should be given an opportunity to formally respond.
Now the question, Ms Hollis: Is the Prosecution in a position to proceed with other questions while that is being done?