A number of issues have been raised by the Prosecution regarding the conduct of the case and we've considered what the Prosecution has to say and also the Defence response.
Dealing first with the Prosecution request for the Defence to provide a list of core and back-up witnesses, the Trial Chamber appreciates that investigations are ongoing and we accept what the Defence says that they are not in a position as yet to make up the two lists, that is a core list and a back-up list. This is a matter that the Trial Chamber thinks is appropriate to revisit closer to the end of the testimony of the accused and we intend to do that.
Moving on to Ms Hollis's comments regarding the provision of adequate witness summaries, we note those comments and those comments are part of the record and do not call for any specific order.
As for the Prosecution application that certain witnesses be classified as expert witnesses, we note that the Defence says that they are not expert witnesses. The Prosecution in that regard is protected by the rules of evidence and in our view no order is necessary.
The Prosecution has also applied for an order that the Defence provide a list of witnesses one month in advance of their evidence. We note that the Defence says that it doesn't have the resources at present to provide such information one month in advance.
The Trial Chamber is of the view that the situation for the Defence may be a little clearer should the ongoing investigations prove fruitful. This is another matter, therefore, that the Trial Chamber considers appropriate to revisit closer to the end of the accused's testimony.
As regards the Prosecution's application for an order that copies of exhibits be provided by the Defence one month in advance of the evidence given by the specific witnesses, we note that there is an existing order that the actual exhibits are to be produced two weeks in advance of the witness's testimony. We do not see any reason to vary this order. However, the Prosecution can always apply for relief if it can demonstrate specific prejudice.
The last matter raised by the Prosecution involves the question of the contact by the accused with certain witnesses, or potential witnesses, and the Prosecution claims that the accused has apparently abused privileged access lines to talk with persons not entitled to privileged communications with the accused and, accordingly, the Prosecution ask for an order that such contact be in the form of monitored conversations only so that there is some way to ensure the integrity of the proceedings when these contacts occur.
The Trial Chamber notes that specifically the integrity of the proceedings is a matter of concern to the Prosecution and we therefore hold that if the Prosecution wants to pursue this application then a formal motion should be filed in order to enable the Trial Chamber to consider all of the circumstances pertaining to the issues.
There are just two more matters that the Trial Chamber would like to mention. The first one is to point out to the Defence the provisions of Rule 73 ter (D) which enable the Trial Chamber to reduce the number of witnesses if an excessive number are being called to prove the same facts.
We simply mention that at this stage, Mr Griffiths, not because we are contemplating orders at this stage but simply to make you aware of the fact that it is something the Trial Chamber can consider.
The other thing we would mention is simply to reiterate that this case will open for the commencement of the Defence case next Monday, that is 13 July. On that day the opening statement will be made by the Defence and evidence in the Defence case will commence the following day.
Thank you. We will adjourn now until next Monday.