Your Honours, we don't - first of all, for purposes of argument I will say that this evidence is not linked to the witness. I have stated my position that it is; that the document is linked to the witness's evidence. But regarding 92 bis, I believe your Honour makes an important point and I would like to talk a little bit about that.
Your Honours know that Rule 92 bis was taken from the rules of the ICTR originally word for word and I believe that the language has been amended since then. There is also a very similar 92 bis provision in the rules of the ICTY. 92 bis applies for evidence that is offered in lieu of oral evidence and, if you look at the use of that rule in the other tribunals, in the other tribunals it has clearly been used to put in witness testimony of witnesses who are not going to come to court, or under the provisions of, I believe, it's D, under D, to come to court only for cross-examination.
One of the reasons I think it is clear that 92 bis does not apply to every document and it would not make logical sense for it to apply to every document is that 92 bis specifically says the document cannot go to the acts and conduct of the accused. So, your Honours, it would not make sense that no document can be admitted in this tribunal that goes to the acts and conduct of the accused. That would make that rule - it wouldn't make sense. For example if there was a letter from an accused ordering crimes that would not be admitted because it goes to the acts and conduct of the accused, or a videotape of the accused participating in crimes because it goes to the acts and conduct it could not be admitted. Our position is that 92 bis is very specific if you look at the history of the rule and how it has been used --