That is correct. That is an option. It would appear, however, we would suggest, that another option that may be more fair to the Defence's presentation of evidence is that they be allowed to call these witnesses to testify as they wish them to but that the character of the testimony be properly characterised. Now, of course should they choose not to treat them as experts we would object to whatever portions of their evidence appear to be expert testimony. We won't want then to have a delay while they then try to present them as experts. So those are two options. We do appreciate the option your Honour has suggested.
Now, another matter that we had raised before was a request that the Defence provide the Prosecution with a list of the witnesses the Defence reasonably expected to testify in a given month one month in advance. It's important for the Prosecution to have such a list because it enables us to organise our work and to assign tasks. And it's consistent with the assistance that was given by the Prosecution to the Defence during the Prosecution case in chief.
The Defence has declined to provide such a list, indicating that as they give us names of witnesses 21 days before they testify we will have a good idea of who they are likely to call and that they will be calling their evidence in roughly chronologic order and that should assist us to narrow down the field.
Now, we suggest that having a good idea or narrowing down the field is not the kind of assistance that is helpful and we would again ask the Trial Chamber to request the Defence to provide us with a list of witnesses the Defence anticipates it will call each month one month in advance. We don't believe that's onerous. We believe the Defence must have a good idea of who they will be calling in a given month and it would greatly assist the Prosecution in organising its work.
Now, a matter that has arisen relates to the two week notice that was provided by the Defence. At our last status conference, on 8 June, the Defence indicated that it would endeavour to ensure that the Prosecution had a comprehensive list of the exhibits the Defence would be introducing through the accused in good time before the start of his testimony. Now, we have all recently received the notice for the week of 13 July and a copy of exhibits and we've received only exhibits that will be used for that week, so we have not received a comprehensive list.
Certainly the practice during the Prosecution case was that a comprehensive list of the exhibits that would be used with the witness was provided, even if it appeared a witness might carry over into the next week. There was no parcelling out of exhibits by week.
We would ask that the Defence be requested to provide the exhibits - not just the list, but the copies of exhibits - that they will be using with each witness at the two week point. That would include amending what they have provided so far for the accused.
In terms of the time that a witness would take, again it has been the practice to provide the entire time for direct examination but again we find that in their notice the Defence has parcelled that out for the week of 13 July only. For planning purposes it is helpful to have the estimated time for the entire direct examination.
We had also asked that the Defence provide us with copies of exhibits, or websites for publicly available exhibits of the exhibits that they anticipated they would use in a given month and that they provide that to us when they provide the list of witnesses they anticipate will be called in a month. This gives us the time we would need to research those exhibits so that we can be prepared during direct examination to determine whether there are valid objections to be made and also for our purposes during cross-examination.
We would ask that the Trial Chamber request the Defence to provide us with copies of exhibits they reasonably anticipate they will use each month a month in advance.
Again, the Prosecution is very aware that this would be what they anticipate they would use and it may arise that other exhibits are used, just as it may arise that other witnesses are called. We understand that and we understand that flexibility, but we don't believe that it undermines our basic request or the assistance that such information would provide to the Prosecution.
Now, when we met the last time on 8 June the issue also arose, and we had raised the matter, about the accused's contact with the Defence witnesses. At that point in time the Prosecution had indicated that that was within the discretion of the Trial Chamber to allow, and had also indicated that the Defence had ongoing investigations and thus we had stated that we had no objection to that procedure.
However, the Prosecution can no longer take that position. The Prosecution has information that in fact the accused has apparently abused privileged access lines to talk with persons not entitled to privileged communication with the accused. Therefore, the Prosecution has concerns about the ability to protect the integrity of the proceedings should the accused be allowed contact with witnesses and we are no longer in a position to be able to support such contact.
Should your Honours be nonetheless mindful to allow such contact, then the Prosecution requests that your Honours direct that such contact be monitored conversations only so that there is some way to ensure the integrity of the proceedings when these contacts occur. In this regard the Prosecution is mindful that this accused is not representing himself but, rather, has many counsel available to assist him and to present the case. Therefore, he has no kind of inferred privilege that would attach to an attorney representing him.
So, your Honours, these are issues that we once again raise and we would ask that your Honours would act on these issues as we have requested. Thank you.