13fpZ7l

inding on the Court, "it is instructive to consider the experience and practice of
other courts that try similar cases".^^
9. The prosecution submits that witness preparation in this case should account for
the specific facts of the Kenya cases. ^^ It suggests that due to the high level of
witness interference in these cases, it is important for counsel to be able to meet
with witnesses before their testimony to allay any fears they may have and also to
inquire as to whether they have been interfered with since their last contact with the
calling party.^5
10. Additionally, the prosecution asserts that in previous cases it had more opportunity
to meet wdth witnesses outside The Hague whereas, in the present case, it is likely
that the witness will meet the lawyer who will question him or her in court for the
first time upon the witness's arrival in The Hague to testify.^^ It submits that the
VWU familiarisation process is insufficient to adequately prepare witnesses as
VWU staff cannot answer questions such as "what to expect questions on and
whether certain issues are relevant to the case".^^ The prosecution argues that under
the current system, witnesses may refuse to reveal, during their testimony,
information which may, in their view, expose them to increased risk. ^» The
prosecution contends that wdtness preparation assists in the process of recollection
and enables witnesses to tell their story accurately on the stand.^^
ICC-01/09-01/11-524 03-01-2013 6/44 NM T
11. Aside from the suggested benefits to witnesses, the prosecution also submits that
the Proposed Protocol will increase the efficient conduct of the trial by "enabling
parties to streamline their witness examinations and tailor them to the salient
^' ICC-Ol/09-Ol/l 1-446, para. 11.
^^ ICC-01/09-01/11-446, para. 16.
^' ICC-01/09-01/11-446, para. 17.
^^ ICC-01/09-01/11-446, paras 18-19.
*^ ICC-01/09-01/11-446, para. 19.
^^ ICC-01/09-01/11-446, paras 20-21.
^^ ICC-Ol/09-Ol/l 1-446, para. 28.
No. ICC-01/09-01/11 6/21 2 January 2013