Thank you, Mr Griffiths. I should also for purposes of record, since it would appear that we rose and didn't resume for about two hours, that was an electrical fuse problem that left the Court inoperative as far as light and electrical supplies was concerned.
I'm now giving an oral ruling on motion 683. The Prosecution originally filed its Prosecution motion for leave to call an additional witness and notice to admit witness's solemn declaration and in the alternative for admission of solemn declaration, that's motion 683, seeking (1), leave to add Mr Tariq Malik as a witness to the Prosecution witness list and if granted to approve the disclosure of his solemn declaration and (2) to seek to admit the declaration into evidence pursuant to Rule 92 bis or alternatively to admit the declaration under Rule 98(C) [sic].
The Defence do not oppose the motion to add Mr Malik to the Prosecution witness list, but object to the admission of a solemn declaration under Rule 92 bis or 89(C) absent "the opportunity for cross-examination".
The Prosecution has given notice on 6 January 2009 on notice 704 stating, "Should the Trial Chamber grant the Prosecution motion for leave to add Mr Malik as a witness the Prosecution now wishes to call Mr Malik to give evidence viva voce rather than pursuant to Rule 92 bis."
We consider it in the interests of justice to permit the Prosecutor, pursuant to Rule 73 bis (E), to add Mr Malik to the Prosecution witness list. The other request for alternative relief in the motion are thereby rendered redundant.
That is the end of the ruling. Please proceed, Mr Griffiths.