164 Rule 66(B) and do not recur in Rule 67(C). Accordingly, even if they bear that larger meaning, those words do not operate to entitle the prosecution to inspect defence witness statements. 46. The prosecution is obliged to furnish the defence with copies of prosecution witness statements and with any exculpatory evidence. Thus, so far as this kind of material is concerned, the defence does not need to invoke reciprocity to gain access to the material. 47. It may seem odd and unbalanced that the defence has a unilateral right to receive copies of prosecution witness statements under Rule 66(A)(ii). But that, I think, is the transmuted equivalent of the right of an accused person, under many legal systems, to be apprised beforehand, in one way or another, of the evidence for the prosecution. Also, it has to be remembered that, altogether apart from the question whether he is guilty or not 9 guilty, a man has a right not to be charged without just cause. Fairness requires this kind of unilateralism. A man who has been indicted, with the prospect of loss of liberty, has a right to know what is the evidence on the basis of which he is being put through the judicial process. The prosecution does not stand on that ground and has no similar basis for demanding access to the evidence of the defence. 48. In my opinion, the reciprocity provisions of Rule 67(C), read with Rule 66(B), do not enable the prosecution to have access to defence witness statements.More importantly, it appears to me that, a contrario, those provisions imply that the prosecution stands excluded from such access : materials to which the prosecution may have access, and then only on a reciprocal basis, are specified, and they do not include defence witness statements. 49. A new Rule 73ter(B), not in force at the relevant time, empowers a Trial Chamber to order the defence to file, between the close of the case for the prosecution and the opening of the case for the defence, "a summary of the facts on which each (defence) witness will testify".10 That goes some way in the direction of the submissions of the prosecution in this case, but not all the way: it implies that the prosecution has no right of access to defence witness statements. 9 See the reference by Lord Parker CJ to the impermissibility of "an accusation of crime without cause" in R. v. Martin [1961] 2 All ER 747. 10 See Richard May and Marieke Wierda, "Trends in International Criminal Evidence: Nuremberg, Tokyo, The Hague and Arusha", Col. J. of Trans. L, Vol. 37, 1999, No. 3, p. 761.