I just want to specify one thing. For a journalist, I have been able to be here, but maybe we have had this discussion in many trials and there is this depressing sense of familiarity. Now, it would be proper for the Prosecutor to take the floor, but I wonder, are we in the right room or the right players to answer this question? One wonders finally, what has politics done? Has it shaken some form of support? No. The court was created by the United Nations, which imposed some limits on it. The limits were the outcome of a political debate. So we had some of these discussions at the Security Council, which decided on the limits of the Tribunal. I believe there was a discussion between the ambassador of France and the ambassador of Rwanda.

So there was that political discussion that dates back to 1990. So I’m surprised that people are surprised that the Tribunal is political or that there is a political stake. It has always been there from the beginning.

Now, to what extent have the Prosecutors been influenced by this? We don’t know. Maybe from what Madam Del Ponte has said there is no surprise. So it is no great surprise that the RPF crimes have not been investigated. Because it is the subject of a political discussion. So I’m not trying to be Rwanda’s advocate here, but we forget that the Tribunal was not set up by Rwanda, who voted against it. But those who set up the Tribunal left a political mark on it. In fact, some of them refuse to collaborate with the Tribunal to some extent. So I’m surprised that this debate, even though I think it is very beautiful legacy for the Tribunal, that it gave room for discussion, maybe if they can reveal more things that we do not know about the agreements and other things, in addition to the Washington discussion that we don’t know about, it would be a lot more interesting to us. Thank you.