You can have a seat because this is quite lengthy. Just before we broke we asked for a list annexed or a list that indicates the witnesses to whom the protective measures in the 5 July 2004 decision related. Now during the break a number of documents were brought to the attention of the Court. The first of course was the decision itself entitled "Decision on Prosecution motion for modification of protective measures for witnesses" dated 5 July 2004.
In addition, we were given the documents that shed some light on the history of this decision. The first of them was a document entitled "Materials filed pursuant to order to the Prosecution to file disclosure materials and other materials in preparation for the commencement of the trial of 1 April 2004". This document is dated 26 April 2004 and this document contains in its annex a witness list of a total of 266 witnesses apparently.
Now the other document we were provided with is a document entitled "Order to the Prosecution for renewed motion for protective measures" dated 2 April 2004. The third document that we were provided with was a document entitled "Renewed Prosecution motion for protective measures pursuant to order to the Prosecution for renewed motion for protective measures" dated 2 April 2004. Now this fourth document is dated 4 May 2004 and gives rise to the decision that we are now looking at.
Now on the face of this decision, reading it in conjunction with the renewed Prosecution motion, it appears to us that the sum total of the witness list is reduced into annexes A and B of the so-called renewed Prosecution motion. Annex A being the annex containing the names of witnesses of fact. These witnesses are in three categories: category A being victims of sexual violence; category B being children; and category C being insider witnesses. Annex B has not been provided to the Bench, but I imagine that is the annex dealing with expert witnesses.
Now the decision in question was made in light of these two annexes, annex A and annex B, and it appears on the face of it that the orders made by the Court, Trial Chamber I, on 5 July 2004 were made in respect of the witnesses contained in annex A and annex B that I have recited above.
Now on the face of it we fail to find witness TFI-215, which is the witness in question. Now these are the documents that we have been provided by the Prosecution and we would like, before we finally rule on this matter, to say to the Prosecution can you show cause why we should not ask this witness to testify publicly?