Multiple sources close to the court have alluded to the court's current financial status as "unclear". A few have suggested that the court's alerts about the Cambodian side running out of money by the end of April were pre-mature and not well-founded financial statements. These, however, are individual, however well-informed, opinions. It is interesting why the court won't let the general public make their own judgments on exactly how critical its current financial situation is. If the earlier-cited Indian audit firm gave the court a clean bill of health on matters of financial management, what prevents the court from releasing their current and suggested budgets and let the public see first hand what the court has been talking about all this time. Transparency doesn't start with newpaper ads advertizing positions available at the court, as anyone can put an ad in the paper. It does start with the general public -- and particularly the public of the donor states which is footing the bill of the process -- knowing exactly how the court spends its money in an itemized way. Until this is done, all transparency talk, vis-a-vis this tribunal, is nothing, but high-falutin' posturing.