Yes. Your Honour, the evidence is relevant not just to place this witness's testimony in context and his changes in assignment, but it is relevant for the reasons Mr Anyah is objecting because it does show a pattern of conduct and it is covered under Rule 93. It goes to show the proof of what the Prosecution case is, which is that the RUF and Mr Taylor's minions in Sierra Leone carried out a campaign of terror, that they were an organisation based on terror internally and that is how they treated the civilians even internally. Mr Taylor's control over the RUF, similar to his control over the NPFL, part of that was his power to execute anyone who didn't obey his orders; anybody who didn't carry out what he felt was the job he wanted them to do. This pattern of the accused continually executing commanders - even very top persons - without evidence, simply because they went against his wishes or failed in their assignments, illustrates this pattern of terrorising the organisation, maintaining absolute control of it and that this is part of how he maintained the control of the RUF and the other forces that he influenced in Sierra Leone.
I would add also, if I may, that the Prosecution does have of course the burden of proof showing beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Taylor held the intent that terror be committed. This pattern of conduct of killing even those very close to him and killing civilians also in Liberia is very probative, in our view, of what his intent was of what happened in Sierra Leone.