1 Wednesday, 17 December 2008
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
7 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-84-R77.4, the
8 Prosecutor versus Astrit Haraqija and Bajrush Morina.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. I see that Mr. Haraqija
10 is present, as is his counsel, Mr. Khan. Same for Mr. Morina and
11 Mr. Dieckmann; and Mr. Saxon is present on behalf of the Prosecution.
12 The Trial Chamber is sitting today to deliver its Judgement in
13 the case of The Prosecutor versus Astrit Haraqija and Bajrush Morina.
14 For the purposes of this hearing, the Trial Chamber will briefly
15 summarize the procedural history of the case, the applicable law, certain
16 submissions of the parties, and the Chamber's findings. We would like to
17 emphasise that this is but a summary and that the only authoritative
18 account of the Trial Chamber's findings is the written Judgement which
19 will be made available at the end of the session.
20 I start with the procedural history and the indictment.
21 The indictment against Astrit Haraqija and Bajrush Morina was
22 filed by the Office of the Prosecutor on the 8th of January, 2008, and
23 was confirmed on the 12th of February, 2008. It alleges that, in
24 July and August 2007, the accused, acting on their own initiative or at
25 the request of others, incited or committed contempt of the Tribunal by
1 having knowingly and wilfully interfered with the administration of
2 justice by interfering with a protected witness in the case of the
3 Prosecutor versus Haradinaj et al. The protected witness will be called
4 Witness 2 for the purposes of this Judgement.
5 The indictment alleges that the accused knew that Witness 2 was
6 an important witness in the Haradinaj et al. case. It further alleges
7 that in early July 2007, Astrit Haraqija, then Minister for Culture,
8 Youth and Sport, instructed Bajrush Morina, who knew Witness 2, to
9 organise a meeting in order to persuade Witness 2 not to testify against
10 Ramush Haradinaj. The indictment alleges that although Astrit Haraqija
11 initially planned to travel with Bajrush Morina to meet Witness 2,
12 eventually only Bajrush Morina met him.
13 According to the indictment, on the 10th and the 11th of July,
14 2007, Bajrush Morina and Witness 2 had two meetings, which were recorded
15 by the police, in which Bajrush Morina pressured Witness 2 not to testify
16 against Ramush Haradinaj. As an official of the Ministry for Culture,
17 Youth and Sport at that time, Bajrush Morina required permission for his
18 trip abroad. According to the indictment, the expenses were paid by the
20 Based on the foregoing, the Prosecution has charged
21 Astrit Haraqija with one count of contempt of the Tribunal, punishable
22 under 77(A)(iv) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal,
23 or, in the alternative with one count of incitement to contempt of the
24 Tribunal, punishable under 77(A)(iv) and (B) of the Rules, and
25 Bajrush Morina with one count of contempt of the Tribunal punishable
1 under Rule 77(A)(iv) of the Rules.
2 The trial was conducted from the 8th of September, 2008
3 11th of September, 2008. During the trial, the Trial Chamber admitted
4 39 exhibits into evidence. It also received evidence from a total of
5 five Prosecution witnesses and four witnesses for the Haraqija Defence.
6 Astrit Haraqija also made a statement pursuant to Rule 84 bis and
7 testified as a witness. Counsel for Bajrush Morina did not call any
9 I will now move to the relevant law as applied in this case.
10 Despite the Statute's silence on contempt of the Tribunal, it is
11 firmly established that the Tribunal possesses an inherent jurisdiction
12 to prosecute and punish contempt. This inherent jurisdiction derives
13 from the Tribunal's judicial power to ensure that its exercise of the
14 jurisdiction given to it by the Statute is not frustrated and that its
15 basic judicial functions are safeguarded.
16 Both accused are charged pursuant to Rule 77(A)(iv) of the Rules.
17 This provision provides that:
18 "The Tribunal, in the exercise of its inherent power, may hold in
19 contempt those who knowingly and wilfully intensive with its
20 administration of justice, including any person who:
21 "(iv) threatens, intimidates, causes any injury or offers a bribe
22 to, or otherwise interferes with, a witness who is giving, has given, or
23 is about to give evidence in proceedings before a Chamber, or a potential
24 witness ..."
25 A "threat" is defined as a communicated intent to inflict harm or
1 damage of some kind to a witness and/or the witness's property, or to a
2 third person, and/or his property, so as to influence or overcome the
3 will of the witness to whom the threat is addressed.
4 "Intimidation" consists of acts or culpable omissions likely to
5 constitute direct, indirect, or potential threats to a witness, which may
6 interfere with or influence the witness's testimony.
7 "Otherwise interfering with a witness" encompasses acts or
8 omissions, other than threatening, intimidating, causing injury or
9 offering a bribe, which are capable of and likely to deter a witness from
10 giving full and truthful testimony or in any other way influence the
11 nature of the witness's evidence. The person otherwise interfering with
12 a witness must have acted willingly and with the knowledge that his
13 conduct was likely to deter or influence the witness.
14 In the alternative, Astrit Haraqija is also charged with
15 incitement to commit contempt of the Tribunal pursuant to Rule 77(B) of
16 the Rules, according to which any person who knowingly and wilfully
17 encourages and/or persuades another person to commit any act described in
18 Rule 77(A) of the Rules shall be subject to the same penalties as one who
19 commits the act.
20 The requirement of corroboration, I will now turn to the question
21 raised by the Haraqija Defence whether evidence relating to the acts and
22 conducts of Astrit Haraqija in Bajrush Morina's suspect interview that
23 was admitted into evidence requires corroboration; and if so, whether the
24 corroborating evidence may originate from the same witness. If the
25 answer to both questions is in the affirmative, then the Trial Chamber
1 must also consider the extent to which its findings may permissibly rely
2 upon a statement which has not been subject to cross-examination.
3 The Appeals Chamber has confirmed the principle that a conviction
4 based solely, or in a decisive manner, on the depositions of a witness,
5 whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined
6 either during the investigation or at trial, constitutes an unacceptable
7 infringement of the right of an accused to a fair trial. The right to
8 confront witnesses applies to depositions made against an accused, both
9 by regular witnesses as well as co-accused. Therefore evidence of a
10 witness who has not been subject to cross-examination will require
11 sufficient corroboration by significant evidence if relied upon to
12 establish a conviction.
13 As the Rules and the Tribunal's jurisprudence are bereft of any
14 case which deal with the requirements in relation to corroborative
15 evidence, the Trial Chamber analysed the approaches taken by several
16 national jurisdictions in that respect. As the Trial Chamber is not
17 bound by any national rules of corroboration, it did so only in looking
18 for guidance.
19 From the analysis that can be found in the Judgement, the
20 Trial Chamber concluded that while some jurisdictions require that in
21 order to be used as corroboration, the evidence must come from a separate
22 and independent source, others take a less technical approach, requiring
23 only that the corroborating evidence link a defendant with the commission
24 of the crime, but not necessarily originate from a different source.
25 Mindful of its duty to apply rules of evidence which will best
1 favour a fair determination of the matter before it and are consonant
2 with the spirit of the Statute and the general principles of law, the
3 Trial Chamber determined that, in order for a piece of evidence to be
4 able to corroborate non-cross-examined evidence, it must not only induce
5 a strong belief of truthfulness of the latter, i.e., enhance its
6 probative value, but must also be obtained in an independent manner.
7 Rejecting a technical approach to this issue, the Trial Chamber held that
8 corroborating evidence might include pieces of evidence that, although
9 originating from the same source, arose under different circumstances, at
10 different times, and for different purposes. Such evidence would indeed
11 meet the requirement of sufficient corroboration, which is aimed at
12 preventing an encroachment of the rights of the accused.
13 I will now address the Trial Chamber's findings in relation to
14 the responsibility of Bajrush Morina.
15 The Trial Chamber heard evidence establishing that Bajrush Morina
16 contacted Witness 2 on July the 2nd of 2007, and subsequently travelled
17 to meet him on the 10th and the 11th of July. During the meetings,
18 Bajrush Morina told Witness 2 that he had been sent by Astrit Haraqija to
19 ask Witness 2 not to testify against Ramush Haradinaj in order to save
20 Haradinaj. Bajrush Morina also told Witness 2 that other witnesses who
21 had testified in the Haradinaj et al. case before the Tribunal were
22 subsequently killed.
23 The Trial Chamber found that the evidence consistently shows that
24 Bajrush Morina knew that Witness 2 was about to testify in the Haradinaj
25 et al. case. The Trial Chamber dismissed the submission by the Defence
1 that the Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
2 Bajrush Morina's conduct was likely to dissuade Witness 2 from giving
3 evidence. Although the conduct of Bajrush Morina took the form of
4 amicable advice and was staged in a friendly atmosphere, it was clear
5 that Bajrush Morina's words were intended and could only be understood as
6 a strong and unequivocal call on Witness 2 to refrain from testifying in
7 the Haradinaj et al. case. In the Trial Chamber's view, such behaviour
8 constituted intimidation, an interference of a nature proscribed by
9 77(A)(iv) of the Rules. Bajrush Morina's failure to dissuade Witness 2
10 from testifying was immaterial for establishing Bajrush Morina's
12 Likewise, the lack of motive alleged by the Defence could not
13 have an impact in this case. Just as the existence of a motive to commit
14 a crime is in itself of minimal, if any, probative value, that the
15 accused has committed it, the absence of a motive cannot disprove facts
16 established through reliable evidence. The absence of a motive may,
17 however, call for further exploration of the convincing potential of the
18 evidence before establishing that the crime was committed and that the
19 accused committed it. In the present case, however, the evidence was
20 strong and convincing.
21 The Trial Chamber therefore found that Bajrush Morina's conduct
22 constituted contempt of the Tribunal purpose to 77(A)(iv) of the Rules.
23 I will now move to the Trial Chamber's findings in relation to
24 the responsibility of Astrit Haraqija.
25 The Trial Chamber first addressed the Prosecution's submissions,
1 that, on the 2nd of July, 2007, Astrit Haraqija met Bajrush Morina at
2 cultural event in Peja and instructed him to organise a meeting with
3 Witness 2. While the evidence was not conclusive, the Trial Chamber
4 found that the date and place of such a conversation is immaterial for
5 Astrit Haraqija's responsibility and subsequently turned to the question
6 whether it had been established that Astrit Haraqija directed
7 Bajrush Morina to interfere with Witness 2.
8 The Trial Chamber recalled its findings that Bajrush Morina's
9 conduct constituted contempt of the Tribunal. Whereas Astrit Haraqija's
10 involvement follows most directly from Bajrush Morina's suspect interview
11 and the intercepts of the meetings between Bajrush Morina and Witness 2,
12 the Trial Chamber found that it was also established by the totality of
13 the evidence. The Trial Chamber was mindful that most pieces of evidence
14 ultimately originated from Bajrush Morina. However, it considered them
15 to be independent from the suspect interview, as well as from each other,
16 since they arose under different circumstances, at different times, and
17 were generated for different purposes, as is explained in more detail in
18 the Judgement.
19 In addition to regarding the different categories of evidence as
20 sufficiently independent from each other and thus being capable of
21 corroborating the suspect interview, the Trial Chamber also found that
22 there was a higher -- a high degree of consistency throughout the entire
23 evidence regarding Astrit Haraqija's involvement. Moreover, the
24 Trial Chamber found that the evidence negated the alternative scenario in
25 which Bajrush Morina would have consistently implicated Astrit Haraqija
1 under all circumstances and at all times when the incriminating evidence
2 was generated. Moreover, Astrit Haraqija's diary and other travel
3 commitments did it not contradict the evidence concerning
4 Astrit Haraqija's involvement, since they do not contain any commitments
5 on the relevant dates, which would be capable of raising a reasonable
6 doubt as to Astrit Haraqija's participation.
7 Finally, considerations of an alternative motive for
8 Bajrush Morina to meet with Witness 2 in order to interfere with his
9 testimony also did not raise a reasonable doubt as to Astrit Haraqija's
10 responsibility. The Trial Chamber found it highly unlikely that
11 Bajrush Morina would have undertaken the trip on his own, considering his
12 personal and financial background. Astrit Haraqija, on the other hand,
13 had become involved in the Defence of Ramush Haradinaj in the context of
14 his political position within the Democratic Alliance of Kosovo, the LDK
15 and the coalition government under Haradinaj. Furthermore,
16 Astrit Haraqija had repeatedly expressed discontent and lack of
17 understanding with respect to the trial of Kosovars, such as
18 Ramush Haradinaj, before this Tribunal.
19 In conclusion, the Trial Chamber was satisfied that the only
20 reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence in its totality,
21 considering its mutually corroborating linkages and the circumstances as
22 a whole, is that Astrit Haraqija knew that Witness 2 was a witness in the
23 Haradinaj et al. trial before the Tribunal, and instructed Bajrush Morina
24 to call on Witness 2 with the specific task of interfering with his
1 Although Astrit Haraqija did not personally meet or interact with
2 Witness 2, the Trial Chamber found that the evidence established beyond a
3 reasonable doubt that Astrit Haraqija, knowing that Witness 2 was about
4 to give evidence before the Tribunal, exercised his influence over
5 Bajrush Morina, who accepted Haraqija's authority and followed his
6 directions. Therefore, the Trial Chamber found that Haraqija's conduct
7 formed an integral part of Bajrush Morina's criminal conduct and thus
8 constitutes contempt of the Tribunal, pursuant to 77(A)(iv) of the Rules.
9 I will now turn to the Trial Chamber's considerations of the
10 sentences to be imposed.
11 The Trial Chamber noted in respect of both accused that the
12 intimidation of witnesses is particularly grave among the possible ways
13 of interfering with the administration of justice. This assessment of
14 gravity also took into account the importance of ensuring that the
15 atmosphere of trials before the Tribunal allow for the proper
16 administration of justice by protecting witnesses from interference.
17 Therefore, the Trial Chamber did not further consider the particular
18 situation, which the Trial Chamber in the Haradinaj et al. case faced, in
19 securing witness testimony in an atmosphere that many witnesses perceived
20 to be unsafe as an aggravating circumstance.
21 As an aggravating circumstance, the Trial Chamber found that
22 Astrit Haraqija abused his high position in the structure of the
23 government to put pressure on an employee of his ministry.
24 As mitigating circumstances for Bajrush Morina, the Trial Chamber
25 considered his good character, the absence of a prior criminal record,
1 and his family situation. The Trial Chamber also considered the fact
2 that, in committing the contempt of the Tribunal, Bajrush Morina was
3 pressured by Astrit Haraqija and that Bajrush Morina was reluctant to
4 carry out what Astrit Haraqija had told him to do, and apologised for his
5 behaviour to Witness 2.
6 As mitigating circumstances for Astrit Haraqija, the
7 Trial Chamber considered his good character and his involvement in
8 inclusive and conciliatory political projects as well his family
10 I will now read the relevant part of the disposition of the
12 Mr. Haraqija, would you please rise.
13 I do it at the same time, Mr. Morina, would you also please rise.
14 Pursuant to the Statute of the Tribunal and Rules 70 and 77 bis
15 of the Rules, the accused Astrit Haraqija is guilty of contempt of the
16 Tribunal, Count 1, punishable under 77(A)(iv) and Rule 77(G) of the
18 Astrit Haraqija is hereby sentenced to a single sentence of five
19 months of imprisonment. Astrit Haraqija has been in custody for 36 days
20 and pursuant to Rule 101(C) of the Rules he is entitled to credit for the
21 period of time he has been in custody towards service of the sentence
23 The accused Bajrush Morina is guilty of contempt of the Tribunal,
24 Count 1, punishable under 77(A)(iv) and Rule 77(G) of the Rules.
25 Bajrush Morina is hereby sentenced to a single sentence of three
1 months of imprisonment. Bajrush Morina has been in custody for 36 days.
2 Pursuant to Rule 101(C) of the Rules, he is entitled to credit for the
3 period of time he has been in custody towards service of the sentence
5 The registrar is take measures necessary for the enforcement of
6 the sentence.
7 This concludes the deliver of the Judgement, which will now be
8 made publicly available.
9 The Chamber stands adjourned.
10 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, if it please, Your Honours, two short
11 matters with your leave. Firstly we're grateful for the judgement.
12 There is a right of course articulated in Rule 77(J), a right of appeal.
13 Your Honour, that is, of course, not before Your Honours, but given the
14 Christmas recess, I wonder if in court we could get the agreement of the
15 Prosecution, just for the record, that there will not an objection should
16 we wish to extend that 15 days to start from the new term in the new
17 year. That's the first matter. It's quite discrete, but it may expedite
18 matters when we do file an application under Rule 127 for an extension of
20 Your Honour, I'll deal with the second matter, with your leave,
21 after my learned friend Mr. Saxon has responded.
22 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the Prosecution does not agree with the
23 proposition of my learned friend, and believes that the appropriate
24 procedure at this point would be file a motion that can be addressed
1 JUDGE ORIE: If you allow me, Mr. Khan, for the -- the -- this
2 Trial Chamber, of course, I observed what you were asking from Mr. Saxon,
3 that is to have on the record his position in relation to the matter you
4 raised. You will understand that a Trial Chamber is of course not in a
5 position to extend any time-limits for filing appeals. And therefore,
6 it's on the record, but that's all that can be said at this moment. And
7 I will not engage in any discussion at this moment to what extent
8 time-limits, in relation to appeals are of public order and not easily to
9 be changed under Rule -- I think it is it Rule 126 bis or 127 bis.
10 That's being put on the record so that you have no expectations, you
11 could not rely on this Trial Chamber allowing you to raise at the matter
12 at any later stage as to the results of your efforts.
13 MR. KHAN: I'm grateful and, Your Honour, we don't have
14 expectations. I think we're quite reasonable in that regard.
15 The 15 days, of course, does expire on the 2nd of January, but we
16 will make the application in the usual way.
17 Your Honour, the other matter is this sentence of course and this
18 judgement has profound implications for the client. He has previously
19 been granted provisional release by Your Honours. There is, in my
20 submission, a -- a gap in the Rules regarding the precise procedure that
21 should be adopted now. Rule 65, I -- I believe, makes it very clear
22 beyond any doubt that the Appeals Chamber itself can grant provisional
23 release, but it can only grant provision release when it is seized of a
24 matter. It will not be seized of a matter until a notice of appeal is
25 filed. We have 15 days to file that notice of appeal.
1 Your Honour, as a generally principle of law, in my submission,
2 that a decision should be rendered effective. They should not be
3 rendered negatory or devoid of meaning. Given the time my client has
4 served in custody thus far, and given the five-month sentence that has
5 been imposed and the one-month gap, or thereabouts, that is enforced upon
6 the client due to no fault of his own because of the Christmas recess, we
7 ask -- it is my submission that Your Honours do have inherent power under
8 Rule 65 to grant provisional release pending an application to the
9 Appeals Chamber.
10 Your Honour, if we do not have recourse to Your Honours for
11 justice, we do not have recourse at all in a manner that would make an
12 appeal as to the sentence and this -- and I pause there. This is the
13 highest sentence for contempt, as far as I'm aware, that has been --
14 imposed by this Tribunal in its existence.
15 So, Your Honours, it is my principal submission that Your Honours
16 are empowered, not necessarily under Rule 54 only, but even by the terms
17 of Rule 65, to grant provisional release pending appeal. Your Honour,
18 that is my principal application. Perhaps if my learned friend can
19 respond, I may reply to whatever options he has. But in a nutshell, if
20 we do not have such a right, in effect any appeal would be rendered
21 devoid of meaning and substance.
22 MR. DIECKMANN: Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dieckmann.
24 MR. DIECKMANN: For the Defence of Mr. Bajrush Morina, I would
25 like it join the submissions of my learned friend. Just for the record.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Dieckmann. Mr. Saxon.
2 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, the Prosecution in no way wants to deny
3 a particular procedural right to the Defence. But having said that, we
4 leave it in the Trial Chamber's hands to determine whether the Chamber
5 can take jurisdiction over this matter at this time.
6 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, I'm most grateful for that indication.
7 In that regard then, the submissions that have been addressed and
8 accepted by Your Honours previously are relevant in my submission;
9 namely, that the trial in this case in which the alleged contempt or in
10 which the contempt was committed, according to Your Honours' finding, is
11 ceased. Mr. Haraqija has been previously granted provisional release and
12 there's not been a whisper, there's not been an allegation whatsoever
13 that he has breached any term of the provisional release in the months
14 that he has been free. In those circumstances and given how -- how
15 Draconian in many respects the sentence -- or how great the impact the
16 sentence is on the accused, it is my submission that the margin of
17 discretion must err in the side of his being granted a provisional
18 release pending appeal.
19 Your Honours, unless I can assist you further, those are my
20 principal submissions. Mr. President, if you or Your Honours do have
21 questions, I would be delighted to try to address them; but certainly
22 there has been no difficulty with UNMIK in policing the conditions that
23 have been previously imposed. If the appeal is not successful, and
24 Your Honours have very candidly, even from the summary Judgement read
25 out, acknowledged that this is a novel area of law regarding
1 corroboration. The authorities are not in conformity as to the weight
2 that should be given, and in those circumstances, I would ask that --
3 Your Honour, in those circumstances I would ask that the application be
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 MR. KHAN: I'm grateful.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Khan and Mr. Dieckmann, you have raised the
9 issue of a gap in the rules. The gap between the Trial Chamber and the
10 Appeals Chamber. You have addressed us, and I understand your
11 submissions, and may I take it that Mr. Dieckmann also joins in those
12 submissions, that all circumstances still are as they were before. There
13 is, of course, one difference that there was a judgement now, but I'm
14 confident that you have not ignored that.
15 You have suggested that in this gap that this Trial Chamber would
16 have competence, would have jurisdiction to still decide on requests for
17 release, but let me refrain from saying whether it is provisional or not
18 because there is a judgement, although it still might be appealed, but
19 that we have competence to do so. We'll consider that.
20 If the answer would be in the affirmative, then, of course, we
21 will rule on your request, on your application. However, a gap has
22 always two sides. The Trial Chamber is the one side; the Appeals Chamber
23 is the other side of the gap. And who would fill it in, if either of
24 them would fill in a gap or whether that gap is there for good reasons,
25 is still to be seen. Now, the Trial Chamber advises you that just in
1 case we might feel -- we might determine that we're not competent to deal
2 with the matter, not to ignore and not to neglect the other side of the
3 gap because if we would not be competent to rule on the matter, then most
4 likely at whatever stage it will be the Appeals Chamber.
5 So therefore don't forget the Appeals Chambers in this respect.
6 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, I'm most obliged and with your
7 indulgence, two points. It is my respectful submission that at the
8 moment, at this present moment, there is -- well, the gap only arises
9 later on when the Appeals Chamber is seized of the matter. At this
10 moment, the only Court that is seized of this matter is Your Honours.
11 It's this Trial Chamber. You're no longer -- you're still not functus of
12 this case. The written judgement still has not been distributed to the
13 parties, and that was in relation to my principal submission. But
14 Your Honours, your point is well taken that in the event that we're not
15 successful in relation to our primary submission, of course, we are alive
16 to possible remedies to the Appeals Chamber, but the Appeals Chamber has
17 to be seized of the matter.
18 Your Honour, the second point --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Khan, if you would please be very brief because
20 it is quite exceptional that we start this kind of matters during a
21 session where a Judgement is delivered, but under the special
22 circumstances, I and the Chamber allowed you to do that. So be very
24 MR. KHAN: Your Honours, I will be extremely brief. Your Honour,
25 there has been cases where suspended sentences have been imposed by a
1 Trial Chamber but this Court. And I think in those circumstances, the
2 Trial Chamber -- and it's not been a matter of controversy, as far as I'm
3 aware, have still been there to police that suspended sentence.
4 Your Honour, the second option, of course, for Your Honours is to grant a
5 stay of execution for the enforcement of a sentence pending any appeal.
6 So there are two procedural devices available --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Under which Rule?
8 MR. KHAN: Well, Your Honour, that's your inherent powers.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Inherent powers.
10 MR. KHAN: I mean, that's your inherent powers. I mean, Your
11 Honours, of course, are intimately familiar with the whole scheme of
12 these Rules, and the way that they were drafted is to deal with the
13 readily anticipated matters that come before Your Honours. Contempt
14 matters, of course, are a subspecies of that, as it were, but I would ask
15 that Your Honours do give the most anxious scrutiny to these two
16 procedural options that I have attempted, however feably, to articulate.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We will consider the matter.
18 Finally, I would like to apologise to you, Mr. Dieckmann.
19 MR. DIECKMANN: No worries. Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: The Trial Chamber stands adjourned.
21 --- Whereupon the proceedings adjourned
22 at 3.05 p.m.