Mr Nmehielle, the orders we've made are made in light of the existing rules and the existing articles on -- the existing Directive on Assignment of Counsel. We have not come out with any directives that fall outside of these provisions. We've not invented anything new.
Now, practical difficulties or no difficulties, we cannot have a vacuum situation whereby the trial is held to ransom or the progress of the trial is held to ransom because you've not been able to assign counsel. It is precisely for such a situation that Duty Counsel has been appointed. If you think that the present Duty Counsel is not able to handle the case, then please come up with someone who can. And I don't think that Duty Counsel is required, for the purposes of responding to the motions, to be conversant with the 40,000 pages of disclosure. That is one.
But, secondly, it is all the more reason that you should expedite the appointment of this other counsel, Assigned Counsel, that we've directed in the short term. And if counsel, on the 3rd of July, have any problems addressing the Court or dealing with any issues, surely they are capable of making their own applications in that regard.
I see no reason to adjust our court orders, especially in the absence of alternatives. You leave no room to the Trial Chamber -- to the Trial Chamber for alternative orders. So we have to go by what the rules say and what the directives say.