1 Wednesday, 26 October 2005
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [Accused and their counsel appearing by phone]
5 --- Upon commencing at 3.02 p.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Would the
7 Registrar please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. Case number
9 IT-95-14-R77.2, the Prosecutor versus Ivica Marijacic and Markica Rebic.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
11 May I take the appearances from the Prosecution?
12 MR. AKERSON: Yes, Your Honour. David Akerson on behalf of the
13 Office of the Prosecutor. I'm here with Rebecca Graham, Salvatore
14 Cannata, and Sebastian van Hooydonk, who is our case manager.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Akerson.
16 I wonder if the Defence is following this procedure. Can I take
17 the appearance for the Defence for Mr. Marijacic?
18 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm Marin Ivanovic,
19 attorney at law in Zagreb, and I represent Mr. Marijacic in this case.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Ivanovic.
21 Then appearances for the accused, Mr. Rebic.
22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour, I'm
23 Kresimir Krsnik. I'm a member of the Croat bar association and I
24 represent Mr. Rebic, and I'm joined by Mr. Miljevic as co-counsel and
25 we've got a legal assistant, Cosic.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I wonder, both the Accused are also
2 present there? Mr. Krstic?
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, both Mr. Marijacic
4 and Mr. Rebic are present.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Krsnik. First of all, I have to not
6 that today's hearing is being held by telephone link with the Defence for
7 both accused participating from the ICTY Field Office in Zagreb Croatia.
8 Since it is the first time for me to have a hearing in the form of a
9 telephone conference, I think I need to understand the implication of the
10 technical setting. My understanding is that the interpreters in the
11 courtroom will interpret simultaneously, as usual, but that the Defence,
12 however, will follow the procedure only in B/C/S. Since it is not
13 possible to see the person who is speaking, I would ask the interpreters
14 to kindly identify the speaker who is speaking before they start to
15 interpret his or her words so that the participants can follow who is the
16 speaker. And also, it is important for the Defence, who are now in
17 Zagreb, to identify themselves before they speak. Do you follow,
18 Mr. Ivanovic and Mr. Krsnik?
19 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We can hear
21 everything very well. We do have a special conference phone and we are
22 all able to follow the proceedings perfectly, thank you.
23 JUDGE KWON: Also, it would be very important, I think, under this
24 situation for every speaker to put a pause before he starts to speak.
25 Having said that, I'll turn to our agenda for today. Today's
1 hearing is a Status Conference, being held for the first time since the
2 initial appearance which took place in 14th of June this year. Yesterday,
3 the Chamber issued four decisions denying certification for appeal against
4 the decision on the motions to amend the indictment and the decision on
5 motions to dismiss the indictment due to lack of jurisdiction. By this, I
6 think all the preliminary motions filed by both parties have been resolved
7 and there are no pending motions.
8 Under the circumstances of this case, therefore, I scheduled
9 today's hearing to check if the case is ready for trial and, further,
10 thereafter, explore the possible trial dates.
11 First of all, I'd like to turn to the issue of disclosure. In the
12 meantime, as for indictment, the Prosecution filed the amended indictment
13 on 14th October 2005, following the Trial Chamber's decision on the motion
14 to amend the indictment. At the Initial Appearance in June, the
15 Prosecution stated that Rule 66(A)(i) disclosure would be completed the
16 very morning, the next morning. Can I confirm with the Prosecution that
17 disclosure was completed?
18 MR. AKERSON: Your Honour, I think there was some confusion. The
19 disclosure that we were referring to, and maybe this might be my error,
20 was disclosure of the supporting materials at that point. We are planning
21 to provide Rule 66(A) disclosure on Monday.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I had in mind the 66(A)(i) supporting materials
23 and the order. So now we are going to deal with 66(A)(ii) but we have to
24 deal first of all with how many witnesses the Prosecution is going to call
25 for the trial.
1 MR. AKERSON: Maximum of six witnesses. We expect it to be lower
2 but at the moment that would be the maximum number of witnesses,
3 Your Honour.
4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Akerson, to be frank, I don't follow your words.
5 Maximum six, so given this more important issue would be legal matter than
6 factual matter. What witnesses do you have in mind?
7 MR. AKERSON: One of the issues in this trial, Your Honour, based
8 on the Trial Chamber's ruling on our motion to amend is that we have to
9 prove that an order of the court was violated. There are three relevant
10 orders in this case, and one of the aspects that we need to prove is
11 potentially the application of these orders to the Accused. So we have to
12 call witnesses to establish, pertaining to the 1997 order in the Blaskic
13 case, that it would apply to these Accused. That is not by the way our
14 only legal theory but that is one of the legal theories, that the orders
15 must be directed to these Accused and so we have a factual determination
16 that we have to prove and that has to be established by a witness who can
17 say -- the 1997 order by the way states that the order applies to the
18 Blaskic Defence counsel and their representatives, and that is a matter of
19 proof for us to show that these Accused fall within that category of
20 people, and so we are going to need to call witnesses to establish that.
21 JUDGE KWON: Sorry to interrupt, how many witnesses do you need
22 for that fact?
23 MR. AKERSON: If I could have one moment, Your Honour
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
25 [Prosecution counsel confer]
1 MR. AKERSON: Your Honour, the legal team is trying to locate the
2 witness list as it currently exists. Off of memory, I'm going it tell the
3 Court I think there are two witnesses, if memory serves me, that are
4 listed for that basis. We have two witnesses that are foundational
5 witnesses for the exhibits that we intend to admit into court.
6 JUDGE KWON: I don't follow. Why do you need a witness or
7 witnesses to lay foundation on the orders? Do they not speak for
9 MR. AKERSON: Not for the orders; these are other exhibits. We
10 have exhibits relevant to the proof of the 1997 order and the
12 JUDGE KWON: That's the -- to prove that one of the Accused is --
13 can be classified as a representative of counsel?
14 MR. AKERSON: Correct.
15 JUDGE KWON: So you need two witnesses and exhibits to prove that
17 MR. AKERSON: We need two witnesses. There are multiple
18 exhibits --
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
20 MR. AKERSON: -- regarding that. There is a number of exhibits
21 that we will need to introduce to prove that point.
22 JUDGE KWON: And other four witnesses, when you say a maximum six,
23 what are they for?
24 MR. AKERSON: One is our lead investigator in the case.
25 JUDGE KWON: He's going to testify on what field?
1 MR. AKERSON: He conducted the investigation as to the article.
2 There is a previous publication to the article that is going to need to be
3 discussed. He has also investigated the employment of Mr. Marijacic at
4 another newspaper in the year 2000 that's relevant to this case because
5 one of the other orders that's applicable to this case was served on the
6 Slobodna Dalmacija newspaper while Mr. Marijacic was an employee there.
7 And he can testify just generally to the background of this case.
8 JUDGE KWON: And if you could go on.
18 JUDGE KWON: So you've dealt with one, two, three, four, five, so
20 MR. AKERSON: And one other OTP employee, who is a member of our
21 legal research team, and her responsibility is to monitor all public
22 record documents, newspapers, and she's also listed as a foundational
23 witness to establish the authenticity and admissibility of the newspapers.
24 Based on stipulations by Defence counsel which we've discussed verbally
25 but we are going to submitted in writing we may not need foundational
1 witnesses in this case. But as of right now I have to list them.
2 JUDGE KWON: Speaking for myself, I'm wondering whether the OTP
3 needs all of these witnesses but on the one hand, the Chamber will
4 consider this matter in due course, but I would very much encourage to
5 reduce the number on the part of the OTP as well.
6 MR. AKERSON: And we would share that concern and we will make
7 every effort to try to trim down our witness list. But since we only got
8 the Court's decision, the Trial Chamber's decision on the certification
9 we've only had a few days to figure out our legal strategy as the
10 indictment is currently amended. So that will -- we'll get more clarity
11 on that in the coming days.
12 JUDGE KWON: I had in mind the Prosecution would have only one or
13 two witnesses at maximum, but we'll see.
14 How long would you expect the Prosecution case to last overall?
15 MR. AKERSON: Maximum of five days, probably less. But maximum of
16 five days.
17 JUDGE KWON: You're surprising me.
18 MR. AKERSON: I'm sorry about that.
19 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber has in mind that all the trial would last
20 not more than two days but we'll see.
21 So you have statements of these -- all of these witnesses? So
22 that they can be disclosed to the Defence?
23 MR. AKERSON: Whatever statements we have will be disclosed. Some
24 of these witnesses won't have statements but if a witness has a statement,
25 we will of course disclose that. For a foundational witness, for
1 instance, we are not going to produce a statement.
2 JUDGE KWON: You once mentioned an expert but you're not minded to
3 call an expert this time?
4 MR. AKERSON: No, we are not, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE KWON: And when do you think complete your 66(A)(ii)
7 MR. AKERSON: We plan to submit that on Monday.
8 JUDGE KWON: Monday meaning next Monday?
9 MR. AKERSON: Next Monday.
10 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
11 [Trial chamber and legal officer confer]
12 JUDGE KWON: Monday being 31st of October.
13 MR. AKERSON: I will trust the Court's calendar because I don't
14 have one in front of me. But I think that's right.
15 JUDGE KWON: Let me say again, we have an article which says
16 everything, and I understand the Prosecution wishes to call witnesses who
17 may say that Mr. Rebic or Marijacic can be said to be a representative of
18 the Defence or something, but I still have difficulty following why the
19 Prosecution needs all these "foundational" witnesses. I would urge
20 Mr. Akerson to think it over again but -- and as for pre-trial brief,
21 since this trial contains these legal matters, I would -- I think it would
22 be advantageous to have a written submission in the files, in the form of
23 pre-trial brief, and when do you think you can file the pre-trial brief,
24 Mr. Akerson?
25 MR. AKERSON: We plan to file that as well on Monday, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE KWON: The 31st. That's good. Thank you, Mr. Akerson.
2 Can I now turn to Mr. Ivanovic and Mr. Krsnik?
3 How many witnesses do you envisage for trial? If Mr. Ivanovic
4 could speak first.
5 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is Marin Ivanovic
6 speaking. According to our current assessment -- well, we haven't looked
7 into this in great detail because we've received a decision from this
8 Court only today, the decision which rejects our own proposals. We're
9 still at the preparatory stage, we're still proofing the witnesses. And
10 according to our current plan, we are counting on five witnesses at most.
11 But following the Prosecution I think we will have to give it some more
12 thought and ponder some additional details, as I said in the light of what
13 we just heard from the Prosecution, in order to decide whether we need any
14 extra witnesses or not.
15 JUDGE KWON: What would be the point of those five witnesses, at
16 least five witnesses, would lead us to?
17 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Basically it would be expert
18 witnesses or, rather, witnesses on the basis of position and the respect
19 they enjoy are qualified to appear as foundational witnesses and they
20 would be in a position to testify as to the potential relationship. First
21 of all, between Mr. Marijacic and the ones that the order for 1997 refers
22 to, as well as other evidence, I mean we'll have to wait for the
23 disclosure from the Prosecution in order to be able to say anything more.
24 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ivanovic, if you could elaborate on expert, what
25 expertise do you need for this trial? Do you have in mind legal
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 submissions, legal expert?
2 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I do apologise. This is
3 Marin Ivanovic again. First and foremost, legal experts who would be in a
4 position to indicate how this fits within different legal systems, the
5 indictment against Mr. Marijacic and all that.
6 JUDGE KWON: Speaking for myself, I wonder why -- whether we need
7 a legal expert to deal with the legal issues. Why do you -- why are you
8 not able to deal with it in the form of your submission?
9 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Marin Ivanovic again. Of course we
10 are going to do that. But as to individual theories and comparisons with
11 regard to provisions within other bodies of law that are not always
12 familiar with is going to be left up to the experts, expert witnesses.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes. And the other witnesses than this expert will
14 be testifying on what matters? If I can ask you.
15 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Marin Ivanovic again. As the
16 Prosecution officials said earlier on in the course of this Status
17 Conference, is going to be looking into the relationship between Marijacic
18 and the Defence team for which General Blaskic. Once we've seen that,
19 we'll certainly be in a position to see whether we'll need to call any
20 witnesses. For the time being I can't really say anything more because we
21 haven't seen any of those documents from the Prosecution.
22 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
23 If Mr. Krsnik has anything to say.
24 MR. KRSNIK: Certainly. First of all, I would like to stress that
25 we have not received disclosures as yet apart from the supporting
1 materials. So this is the first point I'd like to make. Once we've seen
2 that we'll be able to start working on witnesses. At the present moment,
3 quite frankly, I can't begin to tell you how many we'll have for
4 Mr. Rebic. In fact we are rather surprised to hear what the Prosecution
5 has to say, and their learned colleagues on the Prosecution. But on the
6 one hand we're pleased about that because they are simply confirming the
7 thesis put forward by the Defence. That is to say that, in as far as
8 contempt of court is concerned it is very difficult.
9 JUDGE KWON: I note Mr. Akerson is on his feet.
10 MR. AKERSON: I just --
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Akerson.
12 MR. AKERSON: Sorry for interrupting, Your Honour but I've just
13 been told that the Court Reporter is not getting the translation.
14 JUDGE KWON: There is a switch which can turn down the B/C/S. Now
15 is it okay? Mr. Krsnik, if you can say a word so that the court recorder
16 can confirm he can listen to -- he can follow the procedure.
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] In fact, what I was trying to say is
18 that we were rather pleased that our learned colleagues from the
19 Prosecution have -- is it okay? Can you follow now?
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you very much. Mr. Krsnik, I have to clarify
21 one thing. You said you haven't received the supporting material yet but
22 you received the so-called supporting material which accompanied the
23 indictment, didn't you?
24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Correct. We did receive the
25 supporting material but we have not received anything according to Rule 66
1 bis -- 66(A)(ii).
2 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, interpreter's correction.
3 JUDGE KWON: So you will receive them next week on Monday, as was
4 noted by Mr. Akerson. And proceed, Mr. Krsnik.
5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, by all means, Your Honour, but
6 you know how essential it is for the Defence to analyse such materials
7 very carefully because that's what our Defence strategy is based on. At
8 the present moment, quite frankly, I'm not in a position to tell you how
9 many witnesses we will have to call. I don't suppose very many. Roughly
10 speaking, I can tell you that since this is mostly about legal issues,
11 we'll have witnesses from the legal profession.
12 And to come back to the points I was making earlier when I was
13 interrupted, as I said, we were rather surprised but also very pleased to
14 hear the attitude of our learned colleagues from the Prosecution. It
15 simply confirms the point that the Defence has been making from the very
16 start, that is to say that this contempt of court issue is very
17 questionable so to say with regard to a third party, especially if we are
18 talking about journalists, and I can see now that they are trying to
19 establish a link between them and the Defence team. This is a new
20 development from our point of view. And we shall certainly have to
21 develop our Defence strategy along those lines, and, of course, trying to
22 prove the opposite.
23 And unfortunately, I have to say that rather than basing it all on
24 reasonable doubt, we'll have to counteract this on the basis of proving
25 the truth.
1 Your Honour, that's all we have to say on behalf of Mr. Rebic. I
2 don't know whether my colleague, Miljevic would like to add anything.
3 Yes, my colleague, Mr. Miljevic, would like to say a few words. So if you
4 allow him to take the floor he'd very much like to do so. Thank you.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Krsnik.
6 Mr. Miljevic, do you have anything to say?
7 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] This is Veljko Miljevic. I do, just
8 very briefly. On the basis of what we've heard so far and according to
9 Rule 66, the Prosecution has lived up to its obligations according to Rule
10 66(A)(i). However, they did not act in line with their obligations on the
11 basis of Rule 66(A)(ii), nor indeed 66(B). Only at such time when the
12 Prosecution fully complies with their duties on the basis of Rule
13 66(A)(ii) and 66(B) shall we be in a position to get a decision on the
14 part of the Trial Chamber with regard to Rule 73 bis(C), and that has to
15 do with the number of witnesses that the Prosecution is allowed to call
16 and the amount of time that they will have available for their evidence.
17 Once we find out about that, and I suppose we are likely to find out as
18 early as Monday, as I said only when we find out about that shall we be
19 able to tell you how many witnesses we'll call, and certainly we'll have
20 less witnesses than the number suggested by the Prosecution, and called by
21 the Prosecution.
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Having heard from the Prosecution that
23 they are going to complete their 66(A)(ii) disclosure and that they will
24 file their pre-trial brief on next Monday, the 31st of October, how long
25 would the Defence need to submit their pre-trial brief? Can I hear from
1 Mr. Ivanovic first?
2 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Marin Ivanovic. Your Honour, we
3 are unable to tell you at the present moment. Once the Prosecution has
4 complied with their duties, we shall study the relevant materials and then
5 we will make our decision. However, I would like to stress that according
6 to the current state of affairs, we'll certainly have to ask for
7 assistance from this Trial Chamber in terms of subpoenas being issued in
8 order to get certain pieces of evidence. If we can get that, I think we
9 shall need an appropriate period of time in order to do all that.
10 JUDGE KWON: Can I hear from you more about that subpoena? If
11 necessary, we can go --
12 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Marin Ivanovic. Perhaps we could
13 go into private session now.
14 JUDGE KWON: Is it possible under this setting and telephone
15 conference? Yes. Yes, we will go into private session.
16 [Private session]
11 Page 30 redacted. Private session
11 Page 31 redacted. Private session
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
6 We are in open session again.
7 Yes, please.
8 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Marin Ivanovic again.
9 I don't know where the learned colleague from the Prosecution found the
10 information to lead him to think that we can arrive at a stipulation, but
11 what I was saying quite simply was that we might need some assistance from
12 the Court in getting those documents. However, if the Prosecution have
13 that information and if they are kind enough to submit it to us, we will
14 be extremely pleased and, of course, we won't have to seek assistance from
15 the Court.
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Could I take the floor now, please?
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Since we are in open session, I think
19 we have to be careful but I think we'll understand one another. It is
20 about a crucial issue here but it is rather simple and straightforward.
21 This supposedly published article is not a part of the transcript from the
22 trial and so this is the crucial issue because this allegedly published
23 article deals with something else and not the actual transcript from the
24 trial. I do agree and --
25 THE INTERPRETER: We've lost the sound.
1 JUDGE KWON: Do you follow?
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, we can follow you once again.
3 JUDGE KWON: Okay. Continue, Mr. Krsnik.
4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I don't know what was the last point
5 that you heard because unfortunately I have no way of following what you
6 are hearing up there in the courtroom.
7 But I was trying to emphasise the crucial difference between the
8 status of the witness, because this allegedly published article was not a
9 part of the transcript from the trial, and it had nothing to do with the
10 status of the witness in the course of the trial, but there is a
11 difference between the status of the witness in the course of the trial
12 and in the course of the investigation.
13 Because this allegedly published article conditionally speaking
14 refers to the investigation stage, when, according to the opinion of the
15 Defence --
16 JUDGE KWON: Can I interrupt for a minute?
17 Mr. Akerson the indictment alleges that the accused published the
18 statement as well as transcript, am I correct?
19 MR. AKERSON: The indictment, Your Honour, sets forth the
20 publication of the statement, not the transcript.
21 JUDGE KWON: Not the transcript.
22 MR. AKERSON: But if I can just add, Your Honour, I think we are
23 getting into matters that are to be litigated at trial.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
25 MR. AKERSON: What we are trying to decide today --
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE KWON: Because we are dealing with the number of witnesses
2 so we will touch upon very briefly.
3 MR. AKERSON: Okay. Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
5 Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] That's what our objections have all
7 been about, that was the whole point of our motions from day 1. And I
8 apologise if I'm wrong. I wouldn't like you to misunderstand me, but I
9 have the impression that the Prosecution is trying to avoid answering this
10 question because it does state in the indictment that the article
11 published the statement from the main trial, which is totally untrue. And
12 as the Defence team, we have to sort that one out. And we are willing to
13 talk to the Prosecution and to reach some form of agreement in case they
14 are willing to renounce this form of indictment.
15 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Krsnik, Mr. Akerson is on his feet.
16 Mr. Akerson?
17 MR. AKERSON: I'll just read the applicable provisions of the
18 indictment, Your Honour, and I think this will clarify. Paragraph 10 of
19 the third amended indictment, which is the current indictment, states that
20 "Mr. Marijacic knowingly and willingly -- wilfully interfered with the
21 administration of justice in three respects by publishing the identity of
22 the protected witness, the statement of the witness, and the fact that the
23 witness had testified in non-public proceedings before the Tribunal."
24 Paragraph 11 by contrast says that "Mr. Rebic, knowingly and
25 wilfully interfered with the administration of justice in three respects
1 by disclosing the identity of the protected witness," and that is
2 disclosing to Mr. Marijacic at the newspaper, but it's disclosing the
3 identity of the protected witness, the statement and the transcript of the
4 witness, and the fact that the witness had testified in non-public
5 proceedings before the Tribunal. So Mr. Marijacic is charged with
6 publishing the statement of the witness.
7 JUDGE KWON: Not including the transcript.
8 MR. AKERSON: Correct. And that's clear because paragraph 11
9 charges Mr. Rebic with disclosing the statement and transcript of the
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Akerson.
12 I hope that has clarified the question from the Defence for
13 Mr. Rebic.
14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No, it's not clear, at least
15 according to our position. May I take the floor once again?
16 JUDGE KWON: Briefly, please.
17 MR. KRSNIK: Yes, very briefly. Your Honour, when I said this was
18 the crucial issue here, well, this has just been confirmed once again
19 because this alleged article never included the publication of any part of
20 the transcript or any part of the statement made by the protected witness.
21 The alleged article refers to the witness at the period of time when he
22 did not enjoy the status of a protected witness and it was during the
23 investigation stage.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
25 MR. KRSNIK: And in that sense, of course, we shall have to call
1 witnesses who will be in a position to confirm that.
2 JUDGE KWON: Very well. So today's hearing is not for the
3 discussion of the merit so leave it there. And shall we come back to the
4 issue of pre-trial brief? Some -- I'd like to ask the Defence whether
5 three weeks is sufficient for them to submit their pre-trial brief after
6 they have received the pre-trial brief of the Prosecution?
7 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is Marin
8 Ivanovic. I would like you to leave this decision until such time when we
9 have finally received the motion from the Prosecution. Let me stress once
10 again that we've only received the decision on the part of the Trial
11 Chamber about our motion being rejected. So if the Prosecution provides
12 these papers on Monday, I would ask for the Court to give us an
13 appropriate period of time. But I believe that three weeks is not enough.
14 It is not enough in order to prepare a proper case for the Defence, which
15 would not be to the detriment to the rights of the Accused.
16 JUDGE KWON: Given --
17 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may --
18 JUDGE KWON: Given that the contempt hearing is to be conducted
19 and concluded in a very swift manner, so to speak, the Chamber has in mind
20 that we can have a trial sometime in January next year. So that's why I'm
21 trying to speed up the preparation for trial. So, as a Pre-Trial Judge,
22 I'd like to give the Defence a month from the day of receipt of the
23 Prosecution's pre-trial brief, and then I'd like to encourage them to
24 comply with that deadline. But at the end of the day, if necessary, they
25 can ask for an extension. But we'll see.
1 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Krsnik, do you have anything to say on this
4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, just one brief
5 point. I would just like to point out that our clients are paying for
6 everything themselves. I would just like to bring this to the attention
7 of the court. That's all.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes. What is it, please?
9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I was just pointing out to
10 Your Honour that we are having problems with funding, that's all.
11 JUDGE KWON: So you are not asking a specific thing -- measure
12 from the Chamber at this moment?
13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No. I just mentioned the fact that
14 we were having difficulties from that point of view as well, and that
15 compromises the preparation of the Defence case.
16 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
17 Can I ask the Prosecution about the status on 68 disclosure? Is
18 there anything to disclose there or is it -- I know it is ongoing matter
19 but --
20 MR. AKERSON: It's our intention, Your Honour, to try to disclose
21 everything in our possession on Monday --
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
23 MR. AKERSON: -- in order to try to expedite the trial date as much
24 as we can.
25 JUDGE KWON: Excuse me a minute.
1 [Trial chamber and legal officer confer]
2 JUDGE KWON: So we'll receive the Prosecution's pre-trial brief
3 and from the Defence in a month from that, and we'll see what we can do at
4 that moment.
5 There is one matter to raise with Mr. Rebic -- the Defence for
6 Mr. Rebic, Mr. Krsnik in particular, so I have to note that Mr. Rebic has
7 been filing his documents always confidentially, even where it would
8 appear that there is no good reason for that. So I'd like to note at this
9 time that -- to file the documents as confidential where it is strictly
11 Do you follow, Mr. Rebic? I'm sorry, Mr. Krsnik.
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I do follow you, Your Honour. And
13 you're quite right. It was the case of the last two motions or briefs,
14 and that's the way we typed them in our office, and so it happened by
15 chance, in fact.
16 JUDGE KWON: And as for pre-trial brief, I emphasise once again
17 they should be as concise as possible and as focused as possible. And I
18 think I have exhausted my agenda that I noted down and I wonder if there
19 is any issue to raise for the parties.
20 Mr. Akerson?
21 MR. AKERSON: I have two issues, Your Honour. The first issue is
22 that regarding the disclosure on Monday, we would ask the Court to issue
23 an oral non-disclosure order to the Defence, to prevent them from
24 disclosing this material to persons outside the Defence team except for
25 legitimate Defence purposes upon application to the Chamber. Some of the
1 material is protected from other cases. Some of it pertains to ongoing
2 investigations. And so we just need to make sure that it's not disclosed
3 outside the Defence team.
4 JUDGE KWON: Do you have any opposition, Mr. Ivanovic and
5 Mr. Krsnik?
6 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Marin Ivanovic speaking. We have
7 no objections, and we believe that we have complied with this provision so
8 far and we shall continue to comply.
9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Of course, we always play by the
10 Rules and we have full respect for the Court, but if we take a look at the
11 materials, sometimes the Prosecution team wants to go beyond that, if
12 there is no reason to keep something confidential, we don't think we
13 should. But, of course, we shall comply with whatever decision the Court
15 JUDGE KWON: It is hereby so ordered but if Mr. Akerson needs a
16 written order, could you file something in writing as well?
17 MR. AKERSON: I would be happy to do that, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE KWON: And your second thing?
19 MR. AKERSON: And for this matter I need to go into private
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
22 [Private session]
11 Pages 41-49 redacted. Private session
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE KWON: So 66(A)(ii) materials will be disclosed to the
20 Defence on Monday, 31st of October. At the same time, the Chamber and the
21 Defence will receive the Prosecution's pre-trial brief. And then the
22 Defence is ordered to submit their pre-trial briefs until Monday, 28th of
23 November, which is one month's time from the Prosecution's submission.
24 And then the Chamber will consider whether it will have a Pre-Trial
25 Conference or not to get the case going for trial.
1 The hearing is adjourned.
2 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at
3 4.21 p.m.