Good morning, Mr president, Your Honours, opposing counsel. Appearing for the Prosecution today, Brenda J Hollis, Nicholas Koumjian, Mohamed A Bangura, Nina Tavakoli, Ruth Mary Hackler, Ula Nathai-Lutchman, Coman Kenny, Christopher Santora, Alain Werner. And we're also pleased to have present special consultants David M Crane, Sir Desmond de ...

Excuse me, your Honour, but are they going to be able to respond to our reply? Do we then get to respond to their reply?

Thank you, Madam President, your Honours. I will very briefly address the Defence remarks in relation to question 2(v) about reliance on uncorroborated hearsay and then Mr Koumjian will address the Defence remarks relating to adjudicated fact 15 and the questions on aiding and abetting. Very briefly, your Honours ...

All right, certainly. Certainly, your Honour. So, again, that was corroborated. Now, your Honours, if we look at the next one, which is "Operational Support - Communications", and that's at the top of page 6, this was corroborated and we direct you to paragraph 3830 of the Judgement and our ...

Your Honour, that would be at the bottom of page 4. The box -- there's only a couple of lines in that box and it goes over to page 5 talking about the Pademba Road prisoners.

Yes, and we are talking -- we just replicated the chart that the Defence gave us. This -- and it would be -- it will be tab 9 in that bundle, your Honours. Tab 9. And if we could just very, very briefly go over these alleged examples of uncorroborated hearsay, starting with ...

Madam President, your Honours, may it please the Court. I will address the questions 2(i)(c), relating to whether customary international law recognises certain modes of liability are more or less serious than others, and then I will address 2(i) -- or 2(v) in relation to this question ...

Thank you, Madam President. My colleague, Mr Koumjian, will begin the Prosecution's submissions in response. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam President, your Honours, opposing counsel. This morning for the Prosecution Brenda J Hollis, Nicolas Koumjian, Mohamed A Bangura, Nina Tavakoli, Ruth Mary Hackler, Ula Nathai-Lutchman, James Pace, Cóman Kenny and Christopher Santora.

Thank you, your Honour. We suggest that, yes, it may, and it will depend upon the evaluation of the evidence itself and the indicia of liability that are looked at to determine is this evidence believable? Because when we look at corroboration, what are we really looking at? We are ...

I will ask him then to rise and respond to it.

Then, Madam President, your Honours, I will turn to the last question that I would address and that is your question at 2(v) of the scheduling order. The question is whether the sources of law identified in Rule 72 bis (ii) and (iii) establish that uncorroborated hearsay cannot be ...

Thank you, Madam President. Unless your Honours have questions about similarities and differences of the three modes of liability, I will now move on to your next question? Thank you. Your next question, under paragraph 2(i), was whether customary international law recognises that certain forms of liability set forth ...

Yes, it would.

Thank you, Madam President, your Honours. As I said, I'll begin with the question you posed at 2 sub (i) part (b), the differences and similarities between aiding and abetting, instigation and ordering as forms of liability under Article 6(1) of the Special Court Statute, and if I ...

Thank you, Madam President. May it please the Court, my colleague Mr Koumjian and I will present the Prosecution oral submissions today and tomorrow. We will organise our responses as follows: Mr Koumjian will respond to the following questions set out in your 30 November scheduling order: Question 2, sub ...

Good morning, Madam President, your Honours, opposing counsel. Appearing this morning for the Prosecution: Brenda J Hollis; Nicolas Koumjian; Mohamed A Bangura; Nina Tavakoli; Ruth Mary Hackler; Ula Nathai-Lutchman; James Pace; Cóman Kenny; and Christopher Santora.

In relation to the appellant's brief, again we're of the view that additional pages would be required. We think that up to 200 pages would be reasonable. On one hand, of course it's important for Your Honours to have fully developed arguments; on the other hand, the ...

Your Honour, there is one additional matter I would like to inquire about if Your Honour is in a position to respond to it today, and that is if Your Honours on the Appeal Chamber have given thought to a summer recess and if you have decided whether or not ...

No, Your Honour.

But again, beyond that we cannot be of assistance today.

We do suggest to Your Honour that we should perhaps be looking at time that is equal for almost equal to the time for the appeal briefs themselves.

So we think that perhaps pure speculation would be of less assistance to Your Honour and to the Appeals Chamber in relation to response and reply.

In general, however, we would suggest to you that we believe that there will be good cause for some extensions of time for the ...

Thank you, Your Honour. We don't believe in the other courts there were like circumstances in the sense that it was very important for the Defence that the judgement be translated into a language that the accused understood, or as with the Prosecution, it was in a language they ...

Yes.

We would suggest that perhaps if it was entitled "Notice of Intention to Appeal" and would simply say that we do intend to appeal, it would not be a Notice of Appeal per se, and it would cover any concerns that Your Honour has based on the plain language of ...

If we may address that.

That is correct.

So that you have notice of that.

In relation to the filing of the appeal brief, we certainly have discussed delay with the Defence. We believe that the Defence can show good cause for delay. We are not in agreement again on the time, and we believe that 60 days ...

We will give the specifics at a later date, but we will appeal.

Thank you, Madam President. And before I state that position, Madam President, for whatever import it may have in relation to your concern about jurisdiction, the Prosecution will be appealing.

Very briefly, Your Honour. We certainly agree with the Defence that some addition is appropriate in this case. We view the complexity of the case as primarily factual as opposed to legal complexity. We do note that from the time the written judgement was issued, both parties have the opportunity ...

Good morning, Your Honour. For the Prosecution this morning, Brenda J. Hollis, Nicholas Koumjian, Mohamed A. Bangura, and Ula Nathai-Lutchman.

Good morning, Mr president, Your Honours, opposing counsel.

This morning for the Prosecution, Brenda J. Hollis, Nicholas Koumjian, Mohamed A. Bangura, James C. Johnson, Ruth Mary Hackler, Nina Tavakoli, Leigh Lawrie, Christopher Santora, Kathryn Howarth, Ula Nathai-Lutchman, James Pace, Coman Kenny, and we are joined by our interns Lena Sokolic ...

Certainly.

The only evidence that his fleeing to Nigeria might be related to the Special Court is that he was then aware of an indictment, so he was becoming, in effect, a fugitive from justice. That warrants no reduction in sentence.

And as to provisions in the United Kingdom, first ...

Thank you, Mr President. May it please the Court.

In arriving at a sentence in this case, we agree with the Defence that Your Honours should look at the gravity of the crimes and the specific conduct of the accused in relation to those crimes, and we suggest the recommended ...

Not all, Mr President.

Thank you, Mr President. May it please the Court. In arriving at a sentence --

Good morning, Mr President, Your Honours, opposing counsel.

For the Prosecution today, Brenda J. Hollis, Nicholas Koumjian, Mohamed A. Bangura, James C. Johnson, Ruth Mary Hackler, Leigh Lawrie, Nina Tavakoli, Christopher Santora, Kathryn Howarth, Ula Nathai-Lutchman, James Pace, Cóman Kenny, and our intern, Danielle Fritz.

Good morning, Mr President, Your Honours, opposing counsel. This morning for the Prosecution, Brenda J. Hollis, Nicholas Koumjian, Mohamed A. Bangura, Nina Tavakoli, Ruth Mary Hackler, Ula Nathai-Lutchman, James Pace, Leigh Lawrie, Desmond de Silva, Christopher Santora, Cóman Kenny, our interns Rosemelle Mutoka, Charlotte Kyakwera, Danielle Fritz, and Lena Sokolic.

And we are at this point going back to the testimony of Mr Malik in relation to the document that Justice Sebutinde had the question about.

Madam President, the Defence posed many questions to your Honours that they said needed to be answered. Now, Mr Koumjian has answered some of ...

Madam President, your Honours, before I begin, do you have any other questions of Mr Koumjian?

Good morning, Madam President, your Honours, opposing counsel. This morning for the Prosecution, Brenda J Hollis, Nicholas Koumjian, Mohamed A Bangura, Ruth Mary Hackler, Ula Nathai-Lutchman, Nathan Quick, and we are also joined by, as always, our case manager, Maja Dimitrova and two interns, James Pace and Nadeah Vali.

Good morning, Madam President, your Honours, opposing counsel. This morning for the Prosecution, Nicholas Koumjian, Mohamed a Bangura, we are joined by our case a manager and myself Brenda J Hollis, and our case manager, of course, is Maja Dimitrova.

That is correct, Madam President. And making the presentations for the Prosecution this morning will be Mr Bangura and Mr Koumjian.

Good morning, Madam President, your Honours, opposing counsel. This morning for the Prosecution, Nicholas Koumjian, Mohamed A Bangura, our case manager, Maja Dimitrova and myself Brenda J Hollis.

Madam Justice, it has everything to do with the motion that is before you, which the Prosecution was not given the opportunity to respond to in writing, but was requested to respond to here orally. And a part of that motion indicates that they want a stay in order to ...

May I respond?

Thank you, your Honour.

Thank you, Madam President. The Prosecution views this Defence request as really dealing with two different issues. The first issue is, very clearly stated, a request for a stay of proceedings until there is a decision on the outstanding motion, either through your Honours determining you will not grant appeal ...