Well, I do have obviously some arguments to make and some observations as well. I do see the issue the Court is grappling with and I think in the documents there is perhaps some clarity on some of these issues and I would ask to address the matter when we come back after the break, but before the break I would point the Chamber and counsel opposite to footnote 6 of the decision of 5 July 2004. I think that provides some clarity.
The Prosecution's motion was not properly drafted, I am referring to the renewed motion in question, and this is the source of the whole dilemma. I think Justice Sebutinde is absolutely right in saying that you cannot read the Trial Chamber's order beyond what was requested in the motion. What was requested in the motion and as defined as category 1 witnesses is limited to these three expressly stated categories and that's the problem with which the Prosecution is faced.
If I could take the Chamber to the first order in question, because this is what set the whole thing in motion. Trial Chamber I had a status conference where the Prosecution orally suggested that certain witnesses would need additional protections. Trial Chamber I then issues a decision saying, well, with respect to this suggestion you have raised can you put it in writing? That is essentially what this order of 2 April 2004 means.
There is a paragraph there where the Chamber says:
"Recalling further the submissions from the Prosecution that certain categories of witnesses including victim witnesses or insider witnesses may require greater levels or forms of protection than other categories of witnesses", and then it goes on in the final paragraph where it issues its order: "Directing the Prosecution to file by 3 May 2004 for each witness which appears in its list what specific protective measures it is seeking."
What does the Prosecution do? It files its witness list, 266 witnesses, and then it files this renewed motion trying to comply with the Trial Chamber's order and it essentially leaves vague what happens to another category of witnesses beyond the 87 that fall in these three categories. The Chamber notes the fact in its decision, counsel for Morris Kallon points it out, it's in the footnote, that there is confusion in the Prosecution's submission and then we get to the final portion of the Chamber's decision where it says - and this is the decision of 5 July 2004 and the Chamber says, "Disposition" - it's on page 15. It says, "hereby grants the motion and orders for all witnesses in group 1 witnesses of fact." The group 1 there is referring to the group 1 as defined in the Prosecution's renewed motion. It cannot be stretched beyond that. Therefore I propose to you - indeed I submit to the Chamber that witness 215 who is up next is not covered by this order.