Your Honour, I'll look to see if in the big map book that the Prosecution themselves were so reluctant to use the other day does in fact have these towns on it, but if they do then clearly this witness on the face of it has been taken through the map. Why else is my learned friend able to go straight to these towns and so on and so forth unless this has been gone through with this witness? There's a handful of paragraphs - a handful might be an exaggeration - about what this witness was doing in Cote d'Ivoire and indeed Burkina Faso. Burkina Faso amounts to a handful of lines, not even paragraphs.
I'm simply enquiring at this stage, in the light of the way this examination-in-chief is proceeding, as to whether or not there is more detail that the Prosecution have obtained prior to this testimony from this witness that they haven't yet disclosed to us. In the meantime, I'm happy for it to proceed and I will dig out the map book and no doubt my learned friend will give us the reference to the map that he's talking about. I don't want to hold things up, but I am putting down a marker.