Your Honour, if I may step in. This issue of willing to address this matter from the point of view of the Registry is really one that does not address the points the way they should.
Now, your Honours, the issue of international investigator, I had made a budget proposal which was supported by the Cassese recommendation that an international investigator be appointed for the Taylor trial at a P5 level, which the Cassese report adopted, but somehow the Registry says, "No. Why should we have an international investigator at the P5 level for the Taylor trial? We have to cut it down to P3," and it was done unilaterally and I had no choice but to accept it.
Again, my proposal for a P4 legal officer substantively to be involved with this team from day one was made prior to March, even during the budgets, and of course subsequently in the staffing of The Hague, they were just rejected and thrown overboard. And I had even requested for an administrative assistant to help organise the administrative aspects of the Defence Office to enable the team to function. For instance, we run around between one photocopier and one Duty Counsel and the members of the Defence team. Again, that was rejected.
So the whole issue of willingness is not clearly seen from the practice that is on the ground.
Now, as to -- as to the offer being made, we are not bantering here. That's why I said that the way forward, I had expected after my mission to The Hague, was to agree. We had come to the point of knowing that there's a need for replacement of counsel and we began to engage on this issue. Surprisingly, we saw a Rule 33 submission rather than pushing the matter forward.
Your Honours, I just thought that the best way to go about this matter is for your Honours to issue an order to the Registry, looking at the recommendations that we've made in the report, to provide adequate resources for -- particularly in the legal representation of the accused and investigative services, and consultancy or expert services to the Defence team that would be constituted, from what the Bench, the Honourable Trial Chamber, looks as fairly reasonable, and to also allow time for this to happen, because at the end of the day, delay is inevitable, no matter how little, to be able to organise this process forward, since the willingness of the Registry has not translated into positive action right from the beginning.
And if we will recall from day one, the former counsel had complained of the inadequacy and the inability to organise a formidable team because of inadequate resources that have been made -- that have been provided for the Taylor trial, from day one. I mean, we had counsel saying he had instructed -- he had consulted between 10 to 12 QCs. Nobody is willing to come because of the resources offered.
Again, yes, we are in a legal aid system, but we have a case, from the point of view of the Defence Office, that is very complex in terms of its expanse and even the legal dimensions of it, that can stand in close comparison to the Milosevic case. Therefore, that requires, therefore, much more than the current resources that are provided.
Your Honours, it is not us here making a case for the accused to have 10 or 20 QCs on his case. No. We want to be reasonable in terms of ensuring that the Article 17 rights of the accused are addressed from the point of view of adequacy of legal defence.