Yes, Madam President, I renew my objection. Some things are clear from the exercise we have undertaken: 1, the witness doesn't know who wrote the document, that is clear; 2, he doesn't know when it was written, the document in front of him, that is also clear; 3, we see from the title of the document it says "Black Guards" in plural. It is an administration log book, or purports to be one, written by somebody. Initially the question, or the sequence of questions, suggested that it was written by a particular Black Guard. It is still unclear who the author of the document is.
Lastly, the witness says it is identical in every respect to what they have termed the "manual" that they used and looking at the copy, or the document he has in front of him, it is obvious pages have been ripped out, I can see it from here, so it obviously would not contain the identical information, assuming, for the sake of argument, that it relates to an original manual that is not before the Court.
At a minimum, more has to be established than bringing an exercise book of handwritten notes that could have been written down three months ago, three years ago, four years ago, by a school child who runs across some manual in their father's or mother's study and they bring it here and purport to be an RUF manual seeking to introduce it to the Court. I renew my objection.