Yes, thank you. First of all, of course if we choose to have a witness testify three hours, or two hours, we don't need to request that. We ask for limits on the overall examination to ensure that the Prosecution would not take advantage of a situation, so in fairness we said if you order one day for us then the rest of the time is for the Defence. That would be one-and-a-half days, or two days depending on how long we sat on Friday. That is the only reason we included our examination. Of course, we can limit it as we choose.
In terms of the Defence argument we would point out that in the Brdjanin case cited by the Defence the Trial Chamber did state that the balancing exercise required was between the rights of the accused and the rights of victims and witnesses, and as we pointed out earlier the limitations that were imposed in the ICTY have been found not to be a violation of the accused's rights in any way and those are the same rights he has in this Court.
The Prosecution would never dictate the proceedings to the Judges, that is why this is an application and so of course we are not trying to control the proceedings, but any party may request relief it believes appropriate for its case.
In terms of the rules cited by the Defence as not making reference to limitations on cross-examination, if you look at those rules they don't make any reference that there may not be such a limitation either.
We certainly endorse that the first and foremost obligation of a Trial Chamber is to ensure proper justice and a fair trial and that efficiency is secondary. We are not asking this relief for purposes of efficiency. This witness may not return because of security issues. Our indication at this point is that it would be likely he would not return. So, we are not talking about efficiency. We are talking about fairness and justice. And fairness and justice have a home on both sides of this courtroom, not just one, and the Prosecution has a right to present its case.
Your decision about our protective measures, the reason that - excuse me, our motion on guidelines, the reason that we read it to you is that should you impose limitations today you would not be going behind your decision, because your decision was in part:
"Considering that ... the Rules are intended to be flexible in order to enable the Trial Chambers to interpret them in the fairest manner in the specific circumstances at issue".
It is the specific circumstances at issue today that brings us to this application. We believe that it is within your Honour's sound discretion to make the decision we have asked you to make and, of course, we rely upon your sound discretion in deciding our application. Thank you.