9. [T]he Appeals Chamber recalls that under Rule 75(F)(ii), the Prosecution, in discharge of its disclosure obligations, should notify the Defence to whom the disclosure is being made of the nature of the applicable protective measures. The Appeals Chamber notes that such notification was included by the Prosecution in the Impugned Disclosure.[1] Consequently, the Appeals Chamber finds the Appellant’s contention that the Prosecution failed to meet its Rule 75(F) obligation irrelevant and in any case moot in light of Michel Bagaragaza’s open session testimony in the Zigiranyirazo case on 13 June 2006.