Well, your Honour, I have before me the provisions of Rule 89 which in summary provides that the Chamber can admit any relevant evidence. Now whereas we appreciate the width of that provision, nonetheless it seems to us that we ought to be provided with some information by which the Defence can question firstly the origins of this document, secondly its authenticity.
At present we have a situation whereby Mr Koumjian through this witness in effect is saying here is a document, we want it to go before the Court because it includes relevant evidence, but one or two a priori conditions have not been met. Where did it come from? Who wrote the document? Where is the original? Is it available for inspection?
If none of those one would have thought necessary conditions are met, effectively what my learned friend is arguing for is a position whereby the OTP could download any document from the internet and present it to this tribunal through any witness and in our submission Rule 89 cannot be that wide. So I am still asking for some foundational evidential support for this document.