•R  ight to translated documents. The Tribunals have held that the accused should be entitled to receive in translation (a) all the evidence against him or her; (b) all materials supporting the indictment; and (c) all orders and decisions of the court. Less crucial are other materials disclosed by the prosecutors, motions and transcripts; these can be in a working language of the court.72 • Equality of arms. An essential element of fair trials is that equal opportunity to present their case should be provided to both parties. In an adversarial setting, this may require particular attention to the defence, which often lacks the prosecution’s full investigative machinery.73 Defence counsel should receive adequate institutional support to carry out their tasks. •R  ight to an expeditious trial / to be tried without undue delay. It is critical to conduct an expeditious trial and this right is applicable to all stages of the proceedings. While war crimes trials are complex and may on average last longer than ordinary trials, they should be expedited wherever possible, including through the admission of background evidence in written form and limiting the number of witnesses.74 •R  ight to be present during trial. In general, international criminal courts have not allowed for in absentia trials, although proceedings in the absence of the accused short of conviction may be permissible.75 • Public trial. Although security concerns may be considerable, it is of the utmost importance to conduct the proceedings openly and to make them accessible to the public. Whenever possible, the trial should remain in open session. Courtroom layout is important and due consideration should be given to the necessary technology.76 Basic documents—including indictments, court orders and decisions, and pretrial briefs—should be available online. Anonymous witnesses have not generally been permitted by the international criminal courts. •R  ight to “examine or have examined witnesses against him or her”. The fact that evidence has not been subject to cross-examination does not in itself lead to its exclusion. But the absence of an opportunity to cross-examine may decrease its probative value, even to the point where it may be rendered inadmissible.77 Absence of cross-examination may be less of an issue where the evidence does not pertain directly to the accused or his role in the crimes.78 72 Delalic et al., ICTY Trial Chamber Decision on Defence Application for Forwarding the Documents in the Language of the Accused, 25 September 1996, para. 6. 73 F or example, it may be necessary to provide defence witnesses with procedural tools such as safe conduct and limited immunity from prosecutions in order to ensure testimony from key witnesses. 74 See, for instance, ICTY rule 73 bis and ter and rule 92 bis. 75 See, for instance, ICTY rule 61. 76 T echnology may include television screens that enable the viewing of exhibits and the distortion of the witness’s voice and image for the public gallery. Layout is important. For instance, in the first hearings of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, exhibits were projected in such a way that they could be viewed by only half the public gallery. Screens should be made available for protected witnesses, and they should be able to enter and leave the courtroom without being seen by the public gallery and without needing to halt the proceedings. 77  leksovski, ICTY Appeals Chamber Decision on Prosecutor’s Appeal on Admissibility of Evidence, 16 February 1999, A para. 15. 78 See ICTY rule 92 bis. 26