If we look at the quote that I just read, it contains a number of assertions. First, the Defence say that in some accounts, that's in quote: "In some accounts, the arms and ammunitions were given to Charles Taylor - to Taylor by Bockarie."
Actually, in every account of this shipment Taylor was involved and was overseeing provision of the material to Bockarie.
The second assertion is that DAF testified he was told the ammunition came from Monrovia. But this assertion is really so strange that it deserves some attention. The brief cites Daf as the source of the testimony and then it cites Abu Keita. But Daf actually testified that going on this trip - he testified that going on this trip and he says that the material was originally supposed to be obtained from Libya and that this was changed to Burkina Faso. It is clear that none of the witnesses cited purportedly give different accounts at all.
The third assertion is that on other accounts, the arms and ammunition came from either Burkina Faso or Libya, and they also cite Daf. Again, this is just a blatant misrepresentation. Daf's testimony is that he never testified as he has already - as we've already seen, Daf never testified as such, and it is clear that the Defence are seeking to invent an inconsistency which does not exist.
And obviously, they try to achieve this by omitting parts of some of the witnesses' testimony and presenting parts of - parts that would seek to suggest that there is some inconsistency.
I move to paragraph 1093, also on shipment of arms. The Defence cites the UN panel report, exhibit P-18, in relation to General Diendere, who signed the end user certificate for shipment of arms to Burkina Faso in February 1999. They say that this document demonstrates that the arms shipment could have been obtained independently by the RUF without any support or any assistance by Taylor. But the report, in describing the end user certificate was clearly demonstrating that this certificate and the associated arms were intended actually to be delivered to Taylor, and this is contrary to the Defence assertion. They, basically, are saying that this certificate, the exhibit, points out that the certificate, which shows that the shipment was to Burkina Faso establishes that the RUF could have independently obtained arms without Taylor's support but this is not what this evidence says.
I move on to radio communications. As a matter of - as a general matter, the Defence brief concerning communication does not refute the overall evidence of the Prosecution concerning the - concerning communications between the accused and the AFRC/RUF during the indictment period. In fact, in particular, the communication links between Taylor's station in Monrovia and Yeaten's compound in the Executive Mansion with Sam Bockarie's station in Buedu are not - evidence regarding that is not affected at all.
Rather, the Defence picks certain portions of the testimonies of various radio operators and then they assert that these pieces are not credible. Many of these assertions rest upon taking certain evidence out of context, just as I've explained before.
Paragraph - at paragraph 986, the Defence say that Lansana, TF1-275, CO Nya, testified that, "He did not have the skills to operate the radio system." In fact, the witness did not testify to this. First of all, a prior statement was put to this witness and he never actually was asked whether it was true or not. Furthermore, the prior statement which is referred to is mischaracterised. The actual statement referring to here is a statement dated 16th of January 2007, ERN 00037719.