I think in some respects the witness protection regimes in the ICTR have not caught up to the changes in the global situation of witnesses introduced by Gacaca in Rwanda. In a context where Gacaca forces everyone to testify without any sort of protection, it makes the way we’ve approached witness protection in the ICTR out of pace with global developments in managing witnesses of genocide. If witnesses can testify without protection in Rwanda, I don’t see why the same regime can’t be introduced in the ICTR.

Witness protection issues impact upon some of the questions that Madam Conde raised, which is our ability to go through our records and disclose all of the information that may be relevant for all the parties to better understand our evidentiary database.

I don’t have an easy answer. There is no easy answer. But what I would like to suggest is that the problem needs to be viewed globally. It’s not just an issue of how we handle the cases in the ICTR, but how we deal with witness protection issues across the broad for genocide prosecutions when you have so many journalists coming into Rwanda, witnesses exposing themselves internationally and witnesses willingly exposing themselves in Rwanda. We have then his sort of antiquated witness protection regime in the ICTR that is limited to hiding the witness’s identity.

I am not offering an answer, but the question is much more profound than the way we have been approaching it so far.