With respect, that puts us back then on to the decision of 5 July 2005 and the consequences of that decision applying in this case. On the face of it Rule 75(F)(i) appears to apply, but then the question arises as to whether or not it can properly be asserted that that decision of 5 July 2005 did actually give this witness the protective measures referred to as opposed to clearly giving protective measures to the three specified categories of named - by their numbers that is, named witnesses who were referred to.
The Trial Chamber will remember that this particular decision, the motions that led up to it and indeed the footnotes in it, all raised the question of whether or not ordinary witnesses - that's what I'll call them, witnesses of fact simple - were actually covered by the protective measures referred to in that decision, and it's really a matter for the Court whether you think that that decision does actually apply protective measures to the class of ordinary witnesses who weren't singled out and put into special groups.
Can I say just one thing before the Court confers. If you do need to refer to any other documents or any oral decisions, I'm mindful of the time. I've not got very many questions for this witness, but if this particular discussion is going to continue for more than a few more minutes then inevitably we're going to go over to tomorrow. I just wonder, bearing in mind the welfare of the witness, if the Court thinks it's appropriate to consider his position first before deliberating on this legal question.