Thank you, Madam President. May it please the Court, my colleague Mr Koumjian and I will present the Prosecution oral submissions today and tomorrow. We will organise our responses as follows: Mr Koumjian will respond to the following questions set out in your 30 November scheduling order: Question 2, sub (i)(a), whether the Trial Chamber correctly articulated the actus reus elements of aiding and abetting liability under customary international law; sub (ii) relating to any mens rea standard of purpose; sub (iii) and (iv) regarding whether any acts of assistance not specifically directed to the perpetration of a crime, or which are not acts of assistance to the crime as such, can substantially contribute to the commission of the crime, both for aiding and abetting liability; and finally question (vi) regarding how this Appeals Chamber should apply existing jurisprudence relating to adjudicated facts in the context of a Defence motion to admit such adjudicated facts following the close of the Prosecution case. I will respond to the following questions in the scheduling order: Question 2(i)(b), the issue of differences and similarities between aiding and abetting, instigation and ordering as forms of liability under Article 6(1) of the Statute; 2(i)(c), whether customary international law recognises that certain forms of liability in Article 6(1) of the Statute are more or less serious than other forms of liability for sentencing and other purposes; and question 2(v), whether the sources of law identified in Rule 72 bis (ii) and (iii) establish that uncorroborated hearsay cannot be relied upon as the sole basis for specific incriminating findings of fact. And, I will simply say in advance that our remarks are certainly submissions to you, no matter what form they may take, and if we make direct assertions, we are in no way attempting to usurp your Honours' decision-making authority over the law and the facts. I will ask Mr Koumjian to begin our submissions and now turn over the podium to him. Thank you.