Yes. It is, in my submission, perfectly logical and appropriate to ask this witness if a prior witness for the Prosecution, testifying before this Court, gave evidence that in her view is inaccurate and whether counsel chooses to qualify or characterise that as her commenting on his credibility, so be it, but she can say if she disagrees with him or not. She can say why her evidence is more believable in her viewpoint than his. So that is the first basis of the objection; the second basis of the objection being my alleged mischaracterisation of Sesay's evidence. I would put it to your Honour, with respect, that Sesay said all sorts of things before this Court in the almost two weeks he testified. I am relying on evidence I believe I elicited in cross-examination and I have also relied on evidence that I believe came out in Sesay's direct examination. It is for your Honours to recall the evidence and consider it in the totality of all statements made by Sesay. What I have read, in particular your Honours will have heard Sesay make the distinction between the Red Lion group and the Red Lion battalion and I stand by the objectivity of that transcript. There might be other portions of Sesay's evidence that is unclear about this distinction, but that is for counsel to point out on re-examination and it is for your Honours to consider in the totality of this witness's evidence vis-a-vis Sesay's evidence.