I just wanted to say in response to what Aicha Conde was saying that there is, in fact, as far as I am concerned, a control by the Judges. It exists now. The system that we’ve got can be made to work because if the Prosecution fails in its very serious obligation to communicate elements to the Defence that are helpful to the Defence, the Defence has a recourse to the Trial Chamber. That’s the control it exists.

In the sort of system that you see at the ICTR, there is a very powerful obligation on the Prosecutor to communicate to the Defence elements that would be of assistance to the Defence. That is the responsibility that the Prosecutor has because of the nature of the work that the Prosecution through its investigators does.

I agree with what Dior Fall has said and would add that one of the difficulties can be knowing what would be useful to the Defence in the vast amount of information that the Prosecution now possesses. One of the efforts that was made, certainly while I was still in Arusha, was to make accessible electronically the entire bank of information that the Prosecution had. We were still obliged, however, according to the decisions that came down from the Appeals Chamber, from the Trial Chambers to search through all this material and find, identify what would be helpful to the Defence in a particular case.

But, in my view, the Defence has a role to play. They have got to articulate what it is they need. That can assist the Prosecution in identifying material for the Defence. There also has to be made accessible to the Defence the materials that we’ve got, some of which frankly we don’t know there is any value to the Defence. The Defence has to be active in the sort of system that we are talking about where you don’t have “un juge d’instruction” who is sort of putting together a dossier. The Defence has to take its responsibilities at hand and conduct its investigations. But it has the right to rely on the Prosecution, obligation to make disclosure. But, as I say, there is a control.