Well, that was a request that we're going to make because we really don't know.
Now when we talk about these numbers and the times, we would look at Trial Chamber I when it was discussing equality of arms in relation to numbers and times. Trial Chamber I referred to the Oric case, which was an appeals case at the ICTY in terms of equality of arms. They indicated that there was under the equality of arms doctrine no right to even the same number of witnesses as the Prosecution had but to a proportionate number, and that when you're looking at numbers and times for the Defence case it's proportionate, not mathematical, equality that you're looking at.
Now, that's for a variety of reasons. The predominant reason of course is that the Prosecution has the burden of proof in this case. It has to tell the entire story and prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. So it's a basic principle of proportionality, not a strict principle of mathematical equality.
We would suggest that on their face the number of witnesses and the estimated times that you have are unreasonable and they're excessive and they're not supported by the principle of equality of arms. They're not proportionate to the Prosecution's time or number of witnesses.
We would request that perhaps in a way to further clarify who these witnesses really are that your Honours consider ordering the Defence to indicate which of these witnesses are core and if there are any which are backup witnesses and then you could review numbers once you have that. That would be our suggestion in that regard.
Now we also have some concerns about the fact that all of their witnesses were given pseudonyms, including four witnesses who are described as "Former African Head of State", "Former African leader", "Former West African leader", and we wonder if indeed they asked for protective measures, if they were asked about them and if they asked for non-disclosure.
We have the same questions for the witnesses - and the ones I just mentioned, your Honours, are 031, 101, 127 and 150. We also have the same question about senior ECOWAS or ECOMOG officials. Did they ask for protective measures? Did they ask for non-disclosure? Were they even asked about this? Those would be numbers 027, 029 and 122.
Finally we have the same question for witnesses who have been described as "High ranking member of the United Nations", "Senior United Nations official", "Member of UNAMSIL". Did they ask for protective measures? Were they asked about this? We're referring here to 006, 048 and 077.
The second main topic that we would like to address with your Honours is the adequacy of the summaries that we received. Except for 39 we believe that these summaries are inadequate, and we do have a list of the 39 we believe are adequate if it would be of assistance to your Honours and the Defence.
For the others, they list topics, not facts. They have inadequate information. If we look at examples of the inadequacy of some of these others, we see that 009 has been put down as testifying for two days and we have a three line summary. 035 has been listed as testifying for three days and we have a four line summary. 083 has been listed as testifying for two days and we have a two line summary. 089 testifying for three days, a four line summary. 146 testifying for five days, a six line summary. 172 testifying for seven days, an eight line summary. These are indicative of the other summaries that we have received.
We would ask that your Honours consider ordering the Defence to provide adequate summaries with more detail as to the information these witnesses are expected to give, bearing in mind that this is the only source of information that the Prosecution has from which to prepare its cross-examination in a timely fashion.
Now we don't want remedying inadequate summaries to delay the proceedings, so we would suggest that the Defence be requested to provide these more detailed summaries with a list of witnesses expected to be called for each month if they're unable to provide more detailed summaries earlier. That would at least give us more of an opportunity to study these for the month in which the witness would be called, so that is why we would ask for that.
Many of the summaries contain opinions that the witnesses will purportedly give. Now that general issue aside, it appears that three of them would give evidence that should more properly be given by experts and so we would object to these witnesses as fact witnesses.
Witness 034 is supposed to testify as to the ethnic nature of the Liberian conflict. We think that would more properly be the subject of expert testimony. 052 is listed as a geologist, who will testify about the 2000 report of Ian Smillie, and we suggest again that would more properly be expert testimony. 082 is listed as a mortician, who would testify among other things about cause of death, and again we suggest that more properly would be expert testimony and that they should be filed as experts.
Those are our questions and concerns about what has been filed. We understand from what the Defence has indicated in court today that today we will be getting a list of exhibits that will be - I think the word was they would use at the beginning of their case. We would ask they give us a list of the exhibits to be used with the accused if not today, by the end of this week.
Now by letter of 8 May we had requested the Defence to provide us copies of exhibits they were going to use which had not been provided to them by the Prosecution, so if it's an exhibit that we have not provided them we ask they provide us either copies, or if it's a public document the website that we could go to so that we could have copies in advance. We would ask that those copies be provided to us at least 21 days before witnesses testify so we have an opportunity to review the documents. That would prevent any type of undue delay while we have to examine documents.
Those are the comments that we wish to make relating to the materials that were filed and to the documents, the exhibits list, Mr President.