Good morning, Mr president, Good morning, Your Honours, Madam Prosecutor. Good morning, members of the Prosecution, good morning. May it please the court appearing for the Defence this morning myself, Morris Anyah. I am joined by co-counsel Dr Eugene O'Sullivan, Mr. Christopher Gosnell, and Ms Kate Gibson. Our expert ...

Well, if I may just point out one important word in that paragraph, it is that each independent set of evidence must be credible, "... one prima facie credible testimony ..." If independently they are credible then we would say, yes, that would apply also in the context of non-testimonial evidence.

It is in paragraph 30 of our brief, and we have relied on the Nahimana Appeals Chamber decision and that decision defines the term "corroboration" as follows, "Two testimonies corroborate one another when one prima facie credible testimony is compatible with another prima facie credible testimony regarding the same fact ...

The short answer is, yes. It's in our brief under ground of appeal number 1 and I will give you the paragraph, if I have a second?

Madam President, I will speak to two issues relative to uncorroborated hearsay very briefly. This morning learned counsel opposite said in respect of Rule 92 quater, which is identical before the Special Court as well as the ICTY, that the rule explicitly does not require corroboration. If you look at ...

Thank you, Madam President. Mr Gosnell will first address issues dealing with aiding and abetting and then I will briefly address issues dealing with uncorroborated hearsay. Thank you.

Yes, it does, Madam President.

Madam President, your Honours, may it please the Court, I will deal with the issue of uncorroborated hearsay. I will be brief. There is really one significant issue we feel we ought to respond to. Yesterday learned counsel opposite suggested to your Honours that the manner in which question 5 ...

Thank you. Mr Gosnell, please.

Thank you. And the last issue is just a housekeeping matter. We will proceed in the same manner as yesterday: Mr Gosnell goes first, Ms Gibson second and I will go last. We do not have a response to the issue - the third issue - subsumed under Roman numeral (i) which ...

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, before we commence, just two brief observations with leave of your Honours. The first is that your Honours have outlined how we should proceed vis-à-vis the submissions made yesterday, but in listening to the submissions of the Prosecution this morning invariably some of the ...

Good morning, Madam President. Good morning, your Honours. Good morning, counsel opposite. For the Defence, myself, Morris Anyah, Dr Eugene O'Sullivan, Mr Christoper Gosnell, Ms Kate Gibson, Mr Isaac Ip, Mr Michael Herz, Ms Szilvia Csevár, Ms Alexandra Popov and Ms Yael Vias Gvirsman. We are also joined by ...

Well, the totality of the evidence adduced in this case includes the uncorroborated hearsay. This is the problem. It is part and parcel. You can't divorce the two. It is part and parcel of the evidence used to convict the accused. In most instances it was hearsay of what ...

I will be quick because I heard in the arguments today the mention of Rambo Red Goat. So the last page, the last row, these deal with the December 1998 offensive and the Freetown invasion. On the left, arms and ammunition from Burkina Faso were distributed to RUF and AFRC ...

And on the far right-hand column is the reliance on Isaac Mongor's hearsay, where the Trial Chamber finds, based on this evidence, the Trial Chamber finds that the accused told Bockarie that the operation should be made fearful. Now, I'm saying this is double hearsay. The original declarant ...

-- of that page.

It's the information on the middle row --

Okay, Madam President. It is the middle row.

What we've done in this chart is to isolate an adverse finding of fact made by the Trial Chamber, in one column. In the next column we've identified the uncorroborated hearsay relied upon, and the next column, we've shown the manner in which the hearsay was relied ...

I understand the difficulties. Well, I understand the AV booth is trying to resolve the situation. I will just read and I will read slowly.

Yes.

Yes, Madam President.

Yes, it appears they're having difficulties. We did give to your legal officers the same document.

Good afternoon again, Madam President, your Honours, counsel opposite. May it please the Court. Madam President, the question presented about hearsay, we answer in the affirmative, yes. The question presented is whether the sources identified in Rule 72 bis (ii) and (iii) establish that uncorroborated hearsay cannot be relied upon ...

I will hand the floor to Mr Gosnell.

Thank you, Madam President. If I may begin by indicating the order of presentation of the Defence's appeal in respect of the questions posed under Roman numerals (i) through (vi) of number 2 of your order of 30 November. Mr Chris Gosnell, to my immediate right, will address Roman ...

Good morning, Madam President. Good morning, your Honours. Good morning, counsel for the Prosecution. Appearing for the Defence this morning: Myself, Morris Anyah; to my immediate right is Mr Christopher Gosnell; to my immediate left is Dr Eugene O'Sullivan; and next to Dr O'Sullivan is Ms Kate Gibson ...

Thank you.

And for the respondent's brief, I think an reasonable page limitation for us would be about 150 pages, 50 pages in addition to the 100 pages. And in speaking with the Prosecution, they seemed to say that about 200 pages for the appellant's brief would be acceptable as ...

In our discussions with the Prosecution this morning, we discussed this issue, and we suggested that from the Defence's perspective for the appellant's brief, we would be requesting in the vicinity of 300 pages for the appellant's brief. Now, in prior cases before the Special Court, the ...

For both the appellant's brief and the brief in response, the respondent's brief.

Well, the governing principle is a document from 2008. The Practice Direction on dealing with documents in The Hague sub-office currently provides for a hundred pages or 3.000 words.

Yes, we are.

Madam President, there is one other issue you might wish to reflect upon or hear from us about and that has to do with the page limitations that apply to appellant's and respondent's briefs.

We're grateful for the clarification. Thank you.

Well, we just wish to state on the record that we hoped we had been consulted, because it is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of the President of the Court, but at this time this was prepared and circulated, the parties were not consulted and there were some issues ...

Madam President, there are a number of issues that could be raised in respect of this Practice Direction.

Very well. I will have to verify that to speak more to it.

No, in other courts.

I've referred to Sainovic, and I've just been told by my learned friend Mr Gosnell that in Sainovic the Court did not grant additional time on the basis of delay caused by translation of the document to a language the accused understands. They went ahead with the English ...

Madam President, if I may just make a quick observation.

I would say for us a reasonable time would be 60 days in addition to the 14 days those provided. That brings it to a total of 84 days.

We bear in mind that the Prosecution might ask for the same or more time than that given our discussions with ...

And I believe the Prosecution has indicated an additional 39 days would be appropriate to bring the total amount of days to 60.

Now, the basis for us seeking 90 additional days is indeed comparative analysis to other cases in like circumstances, if I might say so, before other Tribunals ...

Madam President, just to be heard on some of the observations made by learned counsel opposite regarding the appellant's brief, the Prosecution, I understood counsel to say, has asked for an equal amount of time as granted the Defence.

Yes, we agree.

That would be fine with us if it is so designated.

Thank you.

Madam President, that -- that legally might pose difficulties to file a document titled "Notice of Appeal" so as to authorise Your Honour to perform certain functions. That would not be our preferred way of proceeding. I think the fact that you're designated and President of the Court empowers you ...

Yes, Madam President, we do intend to appeal.

A hundred and eleven days total. So 90 days in addition to the 21 days.