Yes. Good morning, Madam President. Good morning, your Honours. I will be examining this witness for the Defence.
I don't know if an application is being made by the Prosecution of any nature, I don't think so, I think they're just apprising the Court of the current status vis-a-vis the protective measures. I wish to make an application given the practice the Prosecution has adopted in this case which is to make oral applications to rescind or vary these measures. I wish to make an application that these measures be rescinded and the basis is this:
We were disclosed a DVD about this witness. I believe it's a public video from the Open Society. I have watched the video during the testimony of the prior witness. The video was disclosed to us in the year 2007. As your Honours noted, this decision dates from 2004. I am not in a position to tell the Chamber whether or not this video was made subsequent to the entry of this decision as in vitiating any protective measures that the witness was granted by virtue of him having appeared in the video, subsequent to the decision that is, but I do know we do have a video disclosed to us by the Prosecution in March 2007. It was one of 32 videos disclosed to us in a three day period and I believe it's a public document.
I intentionally am being vague in order not to inadvertently disclose the date of publication of the video and the entity from which it originates so that I do not in any way interfere with the Chamber's ruling, but counsel opposite can confirm the disclosure of this video to us. It's referred to in the witness's statement and he does say in his statement that, yes, he is the person shown in the video talking about the events we anticipate him testifying about. The only issue for the Chamber I suspect is was this video done after this decision by Trial Chamber I on 5 July 2004.
So I do make an application on that grounds and I would just add this, your Honours, if it please the Chamber, that in particular respect to this decision, and I listened carefully to the arguments made by counsel opposite, I'm referring to the decision of 5 July 2004, so much time has transpired between now and then. We're speaking of four years and when you consider that the events in question - most of the factual events actually occurred in the late 1990s we're now talking about 10 years hence and a question arises for measures such as voice distortion, which is not relevant to this discussion, and even face distortion and the like, people's appearances change over the course of 10 years, some of these witnesses were relatively young in the late 1990s and appearances have changed, people have moved from one locale to another and the continuing viability of these requests and measures should be revisited.
There should be some obligation on the part of the Prosecution to revisit these issues and show the necessity for continuing these measures, albeit that Rule 75 does say that the measures remain in force until an application is made and a new order is made by the second Trial Chamber. Thank you.