Well, if I may respond, Madam President, regarding the two issues. The first issue, if I understand learned counsel opposite correctly, the Prosecution is saying that your decision is simply a pretrial decision, but Madam President has pointed out paragraph B of the orders, which the last sentence reads: "This order shall remain in effect after the conclusion of proceedings." And that is why we make this application regarding the pseudonym. So, therefore, our reading of this decision is that until the witness affirmatively indicates that they wish to waive this right to a pseudonym when they appear in Court, we need to make the necessary application for your Honours to rescind provisions that apply to the witness.
In any event, with respect to the second observation by counsel opposite, it is true that disclosure of the witness's name was not made within 21 days of today. We disclosed the witness's name to the Prosecution on 2 February. I have a copy of the letter here. Today makes it the 20th day. Tomorrow makes it the 21st day, which means the Prosecution, had they wished, could have moved for an application for an adjournment until tomorrow so that they would have the full 21 days within which to have had the witness's name. For us, yes, it is noteworthy that we did not comply. But the witness is here. He is present. Today is the 20th day. Tomorrow is the 21st day. And in the future we will make all efforts to amend such situations, Madam President.