1 Tuesday, 11th January, 2000
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open Session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 11.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE HUNT: As you are here, it may be a
6 good idea if we treat this as a Status Conference so
7 that time will commence for the next one as from
8 today. If there's anything you wish to raise, you are
9 welcome to do so. If you think of something later, not
10 having received any warning of this, then certainly you
11 may make an application by the way of motion in the
12 usual way.
13 At the present time, General Talic is
14 proceeding with his application for a separate trial,
15 and the English translation of his document arrived
16 this morning. Hopefully now that the vacation is over,
17 the translation services will be able to keep up with
18 their promise to do these matters speedily.
19 The other matter which is outstanding,
20 though, from the point of view of General Talic is his
21 motion to dismiss the previous indictment. Are you
22 able to say, Mr. Pitron, whether you propose to proceed
23 with that, in some way transposing it to the amended
24 indictment, or are you in a position where you realise
25 that you are unlikely to get very far with it?
1 MR. PITRON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I
2 have three things that I wish to say in relation to
3 this question.
4 The first is the following: First of all, I
5 have not received a French translation yet of the
6 document dated the 5th of January, 2000 requesting me
7 to state whether I wish to continue with my motion
8 related to the first indictment. So I read the
9 document of the 5th of January, I read it in the
10 English language, and if I understood it correctly, it
11 seemed to me that you were asking me to continue, for
12 the motion to proceed, that is.
13 My second objection would be the following:
14 I am in a bit of an embarrassing position because now I
15 really do not know whether the amended indictment fully
16 annuls and replaces the previous indictment, or is it
17 simply an addition to the previous indictment? Of
18 course, depending on that, that is to say, whether the
19 first indictment should be taken into account or not,
20 my position will have to be based on that.
21 My third point: In view of your document
22 dated the 5th of January, 2000, you are asking me to
23 tell you whether I shall proceed in connection with the
24 rulings of the Appeals Chamber in the Brdjanin case. I
25 believe that it is not for me to personally state my
1 views on that which this Tribunal has to say in the
2 Talic case in relation to what the Tribunal concluded
3 in the Brdjanin case. So I abide by my first motion
4 related to the first indictment. Thank you.
5 JUDGE HUNT: Well, in answer to your first
6 question, if you understood that document, albeit in
7 the English version, as inviting you to continue, that
8 is wrong. All that the Trial Chamber was asking was
9 whether you intended to proceed.
10 As to your second point, the amended
11 indictment does, indeed, replace the original
12 indictment. The original indictment is no longer
13 relevant to the trial.
14 As to your third statement, I'm not sure
15 whether you are saying that you do not wish to state
16 your own views or whether your own views are you wish
17 to proceed. So I suggest we wait until you have
18 received a French translation of the document of the
19 5th of January. I assure you all it is doing is asking
20 you whether you wish to proceed and to let us know
21 within a certain time. It also states that if you do
22 not do so within that time, then the motion will be
24 My own view, for what it's worth, or my own
25 suggestion to you, for what it's worth, is that it
1 would be preferable for you to start with a fresh
2 motion. So different now is the indictment to that
3 which was originally filed, it would be much cleaner
4 from your own point of view and from the Trial
5 Chamber's point of view if you brought a fresh
6 application so that we know precisely what the
7 objection to the indictment is. That, however, is only
8 a suggestion but it is one which I think you should
9 take some note of.
10 Now, are there any other matters that any
11 party wishes to raise?
12 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Ackerman.
14 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I just need to
15 bring to the Court's attention at the first opportunity
16 a document that was filed on the 10th of January by the
17 Prosecutor entitled "Confidential Motion for Protective
18 Measures," and I don't know if this should be done in
19 public session or not. I'm going to talk about that
20 motion a bit. I don't know if it's appropriate to do
21 it in --
22 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Mr. Ackerman, you have the
23 advantage over me. I don't have that document. It
24 hasn't found its way into any of the Judges' chambers.
25 What is it, Mr. Keegan? Is it something
1 that's likely to be of some dispute?
2 MR. KEEGAN: Well, I would assume from
3 Mr. Ackerman's posture that it probably will be, Your
4 Honour. The motion, in essence, requests, I would say,
5 what are the usual protective measures requested by the
6 Prosecution at the beginning of any case, and in
7 particular the confidentiality measures with respect to
8 witnesses at this early stage of the proceedings. It
9 was submitted yesterday to put the Defence on notice,
10 because we have today the supportive materials for the
11 amended indictment to provide to each counsel after
12 this hearing, with the index. There's an attached
13 letter again notifying of this motion and requesting
14 that they respect the protective measures requested in
15 the motion until such time as the Chamber has ruled on
16 that motion.
17 In light of that, the witness statements, as
18 they will receive them, have identification material
19 redacted until such time as there is a ruling by the
21 Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. It seems to me,
23 Mr. Ackerman, it may be preferable for this to proceed
24 in the usual way. You have a right to be heard, but it
25 would be preferable, I think, if it was done in
1 writing. It's a matter where there is usually, if
2 there is any debate at all, a debate which will reveal,
3 to some extent, the concerns which the Prosecution
4 has. That should never be done in public.
5 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I don't intend to
6 do any such thing in public, and I have very little
7 objection to what the Prosecutor -- or, in fact, no
8 objection to what the Prosecutor characterises as the
9 usual protective measures. However, this document
10 contains some unusual language that I find a bit
11 scurrilous and a bit offensive.
12 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Mr. Ackerman, I think
13 before you go any further, I don't have the document,
14 you can't even refer me to a page or to a paragraph.
15 If you have some objection to the language, I suggest
16 that you either contact the Prosecution directly, which
17 would probably be the best way, if it's something which
18 can be cured. If it can't be cured, then you should
19 put a response on and we'll deal with it in the usual
21 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I'm satisfied
22 that no one can now claim that I didn't attempt to
23 raise it at the first opportunity. Thank you.
24 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sure we have all been aware
25 of that. Thank you.
1 Is there anything else?
2 All right, then. I'll treat this as a Status
3 Conference for the purposes of the relevant Rule, and
4 the time will commence to run again from today. I
5 repeat that if anything arises which any party wishes
6 to bring to the attention of the Trial Chamber, they
7 may do so in the usual way.
8 Thank you for your attendance.
9 --- Whereupon the Status Conference
10 adjourned at 11.07 a.m., sine die.