Mr Koumjian, what I am going to say is not the opinion of the Trial Chamber. I am just giving - it is something I am thinking of and I am just giving you an opportunity and possibly Mr Griffiths an opportunity to answer this. If the document cannot be linked to the evidence of the witness, then you are not seeking to prove any facts by oral evidence. You are seeking to prove them by documentary evidence. And it seems to me that if that is so then the provisions of 92 bis apply and you cannot attempt to evade those provisions by simply dumping documents on witnesses who know nothing about them and trying to admit them through 89 (c). As you know very well, 89 (c) is a general rule giving the Court some right to admit evidence if it sees fit and if the evidence is relevant, but Rule 92 bis is lex specialis dealing with information in documents.