13fpZ7l

15. The defence requests that the Chamber deny the prosecution's motion to alter the
Familiarisation Protocol in order to permit substantive witness preparation at the
place of testimony and submits that there is no legal basis for this practice in the
ICC Statute or Rules of Procedure, nor is it "supported by general principles of
law".27 Moreover, the defence argues that there is no compelling justification to
depart from the practice of other Chambers of this Court.^»
16. The defence also submits that the prosecution's proposed modifications are
contrary to the rights of the accused persons to have adequate time to prepare their
case and "are not the most effective way of ascertaining the truth".^^
17. The defence suggests that most or all of the components of substantive witness
preparation proposed by the prosecution - including reviewing with the witness
the topics to be covered in direct and cross-examination, showing the witness
exhibits, and answering questions the witness may have about what to expect in
court - could and should be done prior to the witness's arrival at the place of
testimony.^^
ICC-01/09-01/11-524 03-01-2013 8/44 NM T
18. Although the defence submits that "proofing forms an integral part of a genuine
investigative attempt to understand the full ambit of a witness's knowledge and
which aspects of the case he is able to speak to", it suggests that this exercise must
be carried out far enough in advance of testimony so that "any inadvertent coaching
will have worn off or been forgotten by the time of testimony".^^ The defence
submits that the prosecution has had adequate time to carry out all of the activities
listed in the Proposed Protocol prior to the witness's arrival at the place of
^^ ICC-01/09-01/11-452, paras 3-9.
2^ ICC-01/09-01/11-452, para. 8.
^^ ICC-01/09-01/11-452, paras 9 and 15 - 20.
'^ ICC-01/09-01/11-452, paras 7, 10 and 20 - 22.
'^ ICC-01/09-01/11-452, para. 21.
No. ICC-01/09-01/11 8/21 2 January 2013