As a point of law, then - thank you, your Honour. As a point of law I would say that the case law is clear that the exact same rules of evidence apply to the Defence and to the Prosecution and that what we are seeking is that the equivalent rules be clearly stated and applied to both parties. The evidence is clearly relevant. As we have seen in other documents, and as your Honours have stated many times in your written decisions, in your oral decisions, the authenticity of the document can be - is not necessary at the time of admission. It is something you weigh later.
Many documents we presented through one witness and further witnesses have commented on it, the document's authenticity is built up over time over several different witnesses and is further corroborated as one document and one document corroborates another.
So these records, which on their face are clearly relevant, they mention the sites that the witness has talked about in Kono, they clearly mention caratage, we believe should be admitted at this time because they meet the standards of - that this court has articulated as to the standards for admissibility whether or not a document is relevant, and it is directly tied into this witness because he has talked about the mining, he has talked about the sites and he has talked about these commanders. Thank you.