Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 16

  1                         Tuesday, 22 February 2005  2                         [Status Conference]

  3                         [Open session]

  4                         --- Upon commencing at 10.00 a.m.

  5           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, is the accused

  6   present? 

  7           THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes. 

  8                         [The accused entered court]

  9           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call the

 10   case, please. 

 11           THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Mr. President. 

 12   Case number IT-98-29-1/PT, the Prosecutor versus Dragomir Milosevic. 

 13           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we have the appearances

 14   for the Prosecution, please. 

 15           MR. STAMP:  Yes, Mr. President, if it please you.  My name is

 16   Chester Stamp, and I appear on behalf of the Prosecution. 

 17           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we have appearances for the

 18   Defence counsel, please. 

 19           MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  I am

 20   Branislav Tapuskovic, attorney from Belgrade, and I appear on behalf of

 21   General Milosevic. 

 22           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would like to greet the

 23   Prosecution, Mr. Stamp, who I have the pleasure of meeting again, Defence

 24   counsel who is from Belgrade, as he has just said, and I greet the accused,

 25   General Dragomir Milosevic. 

Page 17

  1           I would like to ask the accused to rise and to tell me whether he

  2   is receiving the interpretation of what I am saying. 

  3           THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have not been receiving any

  4   interpretation. 

  5           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I will repeat what I

  6   have said.  Could you please stand up and tell me if you're receiving the

  7   interpretation of what I've been saying in your own language? 

  8           THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not receiving interpretation at

  9   all. 

 10           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I think the accused

 11   is listening to the right channel now.  If you can hear what I'm saying,

 12   would you please stand up and tell me whether you're receiving the

 13   interpretation of what I am saying. 

 14           THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, now I am receiving

 15   interpretation. 

 16           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  You may sit down,

 17   General. 

 18           THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. 

 19           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This hearing is taking place

 20   pursuant to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which provides that 120

 21   days after the Initial Appearance of the accused, it is necessary to hold a

 22   Status Conference. 

 23           The purpose of this hearing is to meet the accused, the parties,

 24   and to raise various issues that are contested or that are in dispute.  As

 25   far as this pre-trial -- as far as the Status Conference is concerned, we

Page 18

  1   are holding this Status Conference to organise exchanges between the

  2   parties, to ensure that we can prepare rapidly for the trial.  This is the

  3   purpose of the Status Conference. 

  4           In addition, this meeting, and the meetings, the hearings, that we

  5   will subsequently have, will be dedicated to examining how we are

  6   progressing, and also to give the accused the possibility of raising issues

  7   that concern his health or the conditions in the Detention Unit.  

  8           The Pre-Trial Judge, who has certain duties, according to Rule 65

  9   ter, his mission is to coordinate exchanges between the parties in the

 10   course of preparation for trial.  And I must ensure that there are no

 11   unjustified delays.  As the Pre-Trial Judge, I should carry out all duties

 12   pursuant to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. 

 13           We must set a schedule for work and indicate to the parties the

 14   obligations that must be fulfilled by the parties.  I must also request

 15   that the parties meet to discuss all issues that have to do with

 16   preparation of the case, and in particular, I must ensure that the

 17   Prosecutor can carry out his obligations under Rule 65 ter.  The Pre-Trial

 18   Judge must also invite the Prosecutor to file, at a date which I will

 19   subsequently set, the final version of the Prosecution's pre-trial brief

 20   concerning each count in the indictment.  Similarly, a list of exhibits

 21   must be filed.  At that point in time I will ask the Prosecution to provide

 22   me with a list of witnesses and with a list of exhibits as well, in

 23   preparation for trial. 

 24           But as you are aware, the Prosecution, pursuant to 11 bis, Rule 11

 25   bis, has forwarded to the President of the Tribunal a motion to defer this

Page 19

  1   case to the authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Following this motion,

  2   dated the 31st of January, the President designated a Chamber on the 1st of

  3   February, 2005, a Chamber composed of three Judges, in order to determine

  4   whether the indictment should be referred to the authorities of Bosnia-

  5   Herzegovina, pursuant to Rule 11 bis. 

  6           The procedure that involves referring the case to the judicial

  7   authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina arises from Resolution 15134 of the

  8   Security Council, according to which when a case concerns low-ranking

  9   accused, the judicial authorities in the accused's country may put that

 10   accused on trial.  But the Tribunal in The Hague, which is seized of the

 11   case, must ensure that the conditions for a fair trial have been met in the

 12   country from which the accused comes. 

 13           Within the framework of this procedure, another group of three

 14   Judges must deal with this issue of deferral.  But this is quite a recent

 15   issue.  The Judges have amended the Rules of Procedure quite recently,

 16   since 11 bis has been amended.  Rule 11 bis has been amended, and according

 17   to the Rule, the Rule provides that the Chamber, dealing with Rule 11 bis,

 18   only has exclusive competence as far as the referral is concerned. 

 19   Everything else is dealt with by the Chamber to which I belong. 

 20           I wanted to point this out to the parties to ensure that there were

 21   no ambiguities concerning the role of the various Chambers, the composition

 22   of various Chambers.  This could cause certain problems if we don't bear in

 23   mind principles of governing competence.  The Chamber concerned with Rule

 24   11 bis only deals with the issue of deferral.  Everything else is to be

 25   dealt with by the Chamber to which I belong, and it is part of my

Page 20

  1   competence within the framework of certain duties that I have to perform. 

  2   This is what I wanted to point out to the parties. 

  3           Whether it's the Defence or the Prosecution -- both the Defence and

  4   the Prosecution have filed a number of motions which I will deal with

  5   immediately. 

  6           The Defence has filed a motion on the 3rd of February, 2005,

  7   pursuant to Rule 72, which concerns a preliminary motion based on an error,

  8   a formal error, in the indictment.  According to the Defence's submissions,

  9   the following is the case:  When the accused appeared at the Initial

 10   Appearance, he was informed of the indictment, dated the 24th of April,

 11   1998, which concerns Stanislav Galic, the accused Stanislav Galic, whereas

 12   there was an indictment dated the 26th of March, 1999, which was

 13   subsequently filed against Galic and the accused who is present here,

 14   General Dragomir Milosevic.  As a result, the accused was not provided with

 15   the right indictment, was not informed of the right indictment.  That is

 16   the problem that the Defence has underlined. 

 17           When I read these submissions, I asked myself a certain number of

 18   questions to try and determine what had actually happened.  I'll render a

 19   written decision, but I'm already in a position to tell you that,

 20   initially, there was an indictment that concerned Mr. Galic and the accused

 21   Dragomir Milosevic.  At a later date, the Prosecution filed a motion

 22   concerning Mr. Galic, a motion to amend. 

 23           On the 26th of March, 1999, as a result, there was an indictment

 24   which concerned Mr. Galic, but there was also an indictment on the 26th of

 25   March, 1999, which concerned Dragomir Milosevic.  When we compare the two

Page 21

  1   indictments, they are the same, they are identical.  The charges are the

  2   same, the charges have not been amended. 

  3           So how is it possible that the 1998 indictment was provided,

  4   whereas reference should have been made to the indictment dated the 26th of

  5   March, 1999?  On one hand, I have noted that the member of the Prosecution

  6   wasn't Mr. Stamp at the Initial Appearance.  The member of the Prosecution

  7   at the Initial Appearance wasn't Mr. Stamp.  He wasn't present, apparently. 

  8           In addition, the Judge at the Initial Appearance who, perhaps, was

  9   aware of these amendments was Judge Orie, who was the Presiding Judge in

 10   the Galic case.  So could he have known that there was the indictment dated

 11   the 26th of March, 1999?  Whatever the case, it seems that when the accused

 12   was asked whether he was entering a guilty or innocent plea, the 1998

 13   indictment was referred to.  But the charges are the same, the charges have

 14   not been amended.  That is the situation.  And as I have been provided with

 15   a written motion, I will soon be rendering a written decision with regard

 16   to the issue.  There are certain other issues that were raised in this

 17   motion.  Certain legal issues were raised and I will address them in good

 18   time. 

 19           Apart from this motion, the Prosecution, on the 14th of February,

 20   2005, addressed me, filed a motion, in order to suspend all acts of

 21   procedure that aren't indispensable; for example, submissions and orders,

 22   pursuant to 65 ter.  As far as -- this also includes the pre-trial brief

 23   with the exception of the pending motion.  The Prosecution asks me,

 24   requested, to suspend certain non-essential proceedings because the

 25   Prosecution says that there is this motion which is based on 11 bis, on

Page 22

  1   Rule 11 bis. 

  2           I will soon be rendering a written decision with regard to this

  3   motion that I can now provide the party with some preliminary information. 

  4   If I suspended the deadlines and the Prosecution's obligations to prepare

  5   its pre-trial brief, wouldn't we be risking -- wouldn't this pose a risk

  6   for the accused?  His case might be extended for no good reason, because,

  7   according to Rule 11 bis, the case might not be referred to Bosnia-

  8   Herzegovina.  In this case, this Chamber would be competent to judge the

  9   case.  So this motion causes substantial problems, and naturally, the

 10   Defence must express its position because there's a double risk, firstly,

 11   with regard to the motion granted on Rule 11 bis.  We don't have any

 12   deadlines and we don't know when the competent Chamber will be sitting.  We

 13   don't know how much time they will require.  And in addition, this is a

 14   unique group that is dealing with 11 cases. 

 15           I don't know what the position of this case is, I don't know in

 16   which order it appears.  I believe the Chamber will go case by case. 

 17   Perhaps it will be examined in one month, in two months, in six months, I

 18   don't know.  If this case is examined in six months, this could cause

 19   prejudice to the accused, if everything is suspended while the Chamber is

 20   deliberating and examining the issue, whereas our Chamber is fully

 21   competent, pursuant to Rule 65 ter, and may request that the 65 ter

 22   obligations be carried out. 

 23           I'll be rendering a decision on the issue, but naturally I will

 24   first wait for the Defence to state its position. 

 25           Before I address certain other issues, is there anything the

Page 23

  1   Prosecution would like to say?  Mr. Stamp, is there anything you would like

  2   to say with regard to the issues I have just raised?  And later I will give

  3   the floor to Defence counsel. 

  4           MR. STAMP:  The Prosecution will, of course, await the written

  5   decisions that you have indicated you will render in respect to the motions

  6   that have been filed. 

  7           However, since the issue as to the two -- as to the indictment

  8   filed on the 28th of April, 1998, as compared to the redacted indictment in

  9   respect to the accused Dragomir Milosevic singularly, that was filed on the

 10   -- filed in March 1999, I think the issue and the facts surrounding that

 11   has been addressed in the Prosecution's written motion filed in respect to

 12   the Defence Rule 72(A) motion. 

 13           However, having regard to what has been stated in the Defence

 14   motion, I think I should ask for a clarification from the Defence, through

 15   the Court, of course, when the Court invites him to do so.  As indicated,

 16   the accused had originally been indicted with the co-accused Stanislav

 17   Galic.  The cases do not overlap in time, neither in respect to the

 18   incidents charged.  There is a huge amount of material which is solely and

 19   exclusively relevant to the accused Galic.  They are completely relevant to

 20   the accused Milosevic.  It had been understood by me, and it might well

 21   have been because of the fact that I spoke with learned Defence counsel

 22   through interpreters on the occasions when I spoke to him, that he was not

 23   interested in the material which was wholly relevant to the accused

 24   Dragomir Milosevic and related exclusively to the accused Stanislav Galic. 

 25   And I think that is the -- that is what is indicated, I think, in the

Page 24












12   Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13   English transcripts.













Page 25

  1   Defence motion.  But I don't think it is absolutely clear.  It now appears

  2   that the Defence may be saying, and I may have misunderstood, that they are

  3   interested in all the material, including the material that is not relevant

  4   at all to the accused Milosevic.  If that is so, we will, of course,

  5   disclose all of this material, but I wish that to be absolutely clear. 

  6           Thank you very much, Mr. President. 

  7           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stamp. 

  8           Before I give the floor to the Defence, the Prosecution raised an

  9   issue that I wanted to address later on, but we might as well address the

 10   issue immediately. 

 11           The Prosecution, within the framework of the procedure that governs

 12   our Tribunal, has two obligations:  The Prosecution must disclose to the

 13   Defence all the material that is incriminating; this is a legal obligation

 14   that the Prosecution has.  But the Prosecution has another obligation which

 15   does not exist in countries that have the continental system, because in

 16   those countries there's an investigative judge who deals with the case. 

 17   But the Prosecution must also provide the Defence, in our case, with all

 18   exculpatory materials.  If the Prosecution believes that a document might

 19   be beneficial for the accused, the Prosecution must provide this document

 20   to the Defence.  Naturally, sometimes it's difficult to make a distinction,

 21   but usually the Prosecution must disclose to the Defence all the material

 22   that is relevant. 

 23           Mr. Stamp, representing the Prosecution, has just stated that he

 24   fails to understand the Defence's position with regard to the documents

 25   that concerned the accused Galic, exculpatory and culpatory documents

Page 26

  1   included.  And the Prosecution would like to know whether the Defence

  2   counsel would like to have all this material at its disposal.  That is the

  3   situation.  So I will now give the floor to the Defence, to hear what your

  4   position is. 

  5           MR. STAMP:  Before my friend proceeds, with your leave, Mr.

  6   President.  I would just like to indicate that I was referring specifically

  7   to the confirmation material, and thereafter any other material that might

  8   arise. 

  9           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what we will hear. 

 10           You may take the floor. 

 11           MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I will

 12   try to be as brief as I can and only present the essential aspects of what

 13   I already addressed in my motion.  I will try not to repeat any of the

 14   points made already in the motion. 

 15           At the outset, I can say I believe I fully understand what you have

 16   said, Your Honour.  That happens to be my understanding of the entire

 17   problem, the problem that we are dealing with.  In view of the two parallel

 18   procedures that are underway, mutually dependent but not in a direct kind

 19   of way, everyone has to do their own job.  I think that was your

 20   explanation, and that happens to be my conviction too.  These two things

 21   are not necessarily related.  

 22           Even more importantly, your Trial Chamber, the Trial Chamber led by

 23   you at this point in time, will keep on working as though there was no Rule

 24   11 bis motion, and in compliance with Rule 65 bis and Rule 65 ter, saying

 25   that all measures must be taken for the case to go to trial as soon as

Page 27

  1   possible, especially in view of Rule 66, which says that the names of all

  2   witnesses must be given ahead of time which the Prosecutor intends to call,

  3   to appear at trial, and most importantly for us, the stipulations under

  4   Rule 68. 

  5           There is no dispute, therefore, that this is how the Chamber sees

  6   this issue.  I would just like to briefly address what the Prosecutor,

  7   Carla Del Ponte, on the 14th of February, 2005 included in her own request,

  8   asking that all non-essential proceedings be suspended.  I think this may

  9   have been a mistranslation, because the Prosecutor said non-essential and

 10   not unnecessary, as the translation ran. 

 11           It is my deepest conviction that this Trial Chamber should proceed

 12   as though it will finish the task that is has been entrusted with.  We are

 13   still far from a stage where we could talk about the pre-trial brief and

 14   the list of witnesses at the pre-trial stage.  Therefore, I have no need to

 15   speak about that now.  But as for all the other essential preparations, we

 16   must carry them out, assuming that this Trial Chamber will eventually deal

 17   with the case at trial stage.  So much for what Carla Del Ponte has

 18   proposed us. 

 19           For this other problem in relation to the indictment, the

 20   indictment dated the 26th of March, 1999, the indictment against Dragomir

 21   Milosevic which was amended in relation to the one dated 1998, as the

 22   accused's Defence counsel, it was only after my Rule 11 bis motion that I

 23   found out about this new amended indictment, whereas the accused, Dragomir

 24   Milosevic, himself has not received a copy of the indictment to this very

 25   day. 

Page 28

  1           Most importantly, as his Defence counsel, just in order to be fair,

  2   the indictment should have been translated.  It's very difficult for me to

  3   address the indictment until my client has seen a translation.  It has not

  4   been translated or signed.  It bears no date and no signature. 

  5           Your Honours, as I said in my motion, when the accused Galic was

  6   tried - the first instant sentence has already been passed in that case -

  7   Galic had this indictment when he first appeared before the Court.  I'm

  8   asking myself, How is it possible for Galic to have the indictment and be

  9   able to enter a plea?  Once the trial began, it had already been

 10   translated, whereas our indictment has not been translated to this very

 11   day. 

 12           This stirs a lot of confusion, even in the head of the accused

 13   himself, I must say.  If you read carefully, the transcript of the

 14   accused's Initial Appearance, you will see that at one point in time, even

 15   Judge Orie used the word "confusion," saying that this might lead to

 16   confusion.  There is a lot of confusion there.  In essence, I am not trying

 17   to make the Chamber's work any more difficult here, I am -- we can be sure

 18   that the accused would plead the same.  But these are two different time

 19   periods, and the incidents referred to are quite different.  Therefore,

 20   these two indictments may be related, but there is a crucial point at which

 21   they part ways.  This is August 1994.  That's when the responsibility of

 22   one accused stops and that of the other begins.  This is a highly sensitive

 23   situation. 

 24           The problem is will I be speaking any further documents, or rather,

 25   any documents related to the Galic case.  Of course, I'm not sure what the

Page 29

  1   OTP's interpretation was of my motion.  I certainly am renouncing on

  2   things, incidents, and dates that the accused Milosevic has nothing to do

  3   with.  But there are general issues at stake there that are very important. 

  4           And let me say something else.  Coincidentally, I acted as amicus

  5   curiae in the Milosevic case, and I am aware from details during this

  6   period of time that are essential to the accused.  I will seek from that

  7   Trial Chamber, the Trial Chamber in charge of the Milosevic case, to be

  8   forwarded everything that I might find of interest as Defence counsel for

  9   Dragomir Milosevic.  There are plenty of other things that I can discuss

 10   with the OTP, without necessarily bothering you with these details. 

 11           If there's still time, I ask leave to say something else later in

 12   relation to my preliminary motion.  You have seen my preliminary motion,

 13   and you have seen that I was adamant about one thing:  First and foremost,

 14   Galic did not use, take advantage, make use of his right to object, or he

 15   was late, which I think is very important.  It's up to you to decide after

 16   the OTP have submitted their own position.  It's an undisputed fact that

 17   during those events, there was a permanent state of armed conflict.  My

 18   conviction is, if there was a permanent state of arm conflict during these

 19   critical incidents, at the time of these critical incidents, the indictment

 20   should tell us who the participants in that armed conflict were.  Quite

 21   unlike what we find stated in their response. 

 22           I didn't get the motion directly.  I received a translation from

 23   Belgrade that there were no civilians taking part in the conflict, but

 24   everything that was done was done against the civilian population.  If you

 25   have a statement in the indictment that there was a state of armed

Page 30

  1   conflict, then the indictment must also ascertain who the parties to the

  2   conflict were, especially in view of the point in time when the accused

  3   Milosevic's responsibility begins, which is the 10th of August, 1994, in

  4   circumstances that were very different from what they used to be back in

  5   1992. 

  6           At this point in time, I believe this is all I wish to raise, and I

  7   thank you, Your Honour. 

  8           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. 

  9           I'll give the floor to the Prosecution again, but there is

 10   something I would like to be informed of.  Your client, General Dragomir

 11   Milosevic, when he arrived in The Hague, did he surrender voluntarily or

 12   was he arrested and did he come here after having been arrested?  If that

 13   was the case, if the latter was the case, he must have been informed of the

 14   arrest warrant that was issued in 1998, quite certainly.  Could you provide

 15   me with any clarifications? 

 16           MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't believe that

 17   is in dispute.  He arrived of his own free will, accompanied by the justice

 18   minister of Serbia.  That's my impression, at least.  At any rate, I think

 19   it is beyond dispute that he surrendered of his own free will and appeared

 20   here, which I pointed out in my clarification in relation to the Rule 11

 21   bis motion.  There is no shadow of a doubt that he would have been prepared

 22   to surrender even earlier, but no one was interested.  I will not be

 23   explaining this now.  However, this time, when he came to town, he came of

 24   his own free will. 

 25           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for this information. 

Page 31

  1           I'll give the floor to the Prosecution.  Before me, I have the

  2   transcript of the Initial Appearance of Mr. Galic, the 29th of November,

  3   1993.  It was Judge Riad who was present at the Initial Appearance, and at

  4   the Initial Appearance, the Initial Appearance was based on the indictment

  5   of 1999, which had been translated into Mr. Galic's language.  Defence

  6   counsel has told us that the amended indictment of 1999 has not even been

  7   translated into the language of the accused.  All I have is a document in

  8   English before me, and I don't have this document in the accused's

  9   language.  It is, nevertheless, an essential guarantee that the accused

 10   must be provided with the indictment in his own language.  That is a

 11   minimum request. 

 12           Mr. Stamp, what could you tell us about this issue, although it

 13   appears that the charges concerned are the same? 

 14           MR. STAMP:  Thank you, Your Honour.  The circumstances surrounding

 15   the latter redacted indictment, that is, the indictment dated the 19th of

 16   March, I think, was explained in -- were explained in the Prosecution's

 17   response.  The redacted indictment was filed as a result of the order of

 18   the Court, and the purpose of the redacted indictment was to protect the

 19   integrity of the original indictment of the 24th of April, 1999, that is,

 20   to protect the integrity of the sealing procedure. 

 21           Thus, if the accused, Dragomir Milosevic, was apprehended before

 22   his co-accused, information related to the key accused would not be

 23   revealed.  The redacted indictment is not a new indictment, it is not an

 24   amended indictment, it is just an indictment -- a redacted indictment in

 25   which the name of the other accused has been removed.  And any reference to

Page 32

  1   the other accused is removed, and the counts are renumbered so that they

  2   relate only to the accused Dragomir Milosevic.  The accused is not severed

  3   from the original indictment.  The original indictment is still operable,

  4   and the accused was properly pleaded and brought before the Court on the

  5   original indictment which was translated into his own language. 

  6           The original indictment, notwithstanding some initial confusion,

  7   was quite clearly explained to the accused at his Initial Appearance.  It

  8   was -- the relevant parts were read to him at his Initial Appearance, and

  9   he entered a plea, having acknowledged that he understood everything that

 10   was relevant to him. 

 11           So I would invite the Court to consider the Prosecution's response. 

 12   What we're asking is that, in future, subsequent to these Rule 72 hearings,

 13   we, for the sake of convenience, convenient reference to the counts, could

 14   use the redacted indictment as was used in the Galic case.  However, at

 15   this moment, the operable indictment is still the indictment of -- that was

 16   signed and confirmed in April 1998.

 17           There is not much I could say in respect to what my friend has said

 18   regarding the Prosecutor's motion of the 14th of February, except to

 19   underscore that the motion is based on the resources available to the

 20   Prosecution, which is really very thin nowadays, having regard to the fact

 21   that we are doing six trials at the same time.  So I'd ask the Court to

 22   have due regard to that in considering whether or not non-essential

 23   proceedings could be suspended pending the determination of the Rule 11 bis

 24   motion. 

 25           The issues in respect to the conflict, the parties to the conflict

Page 33












12   Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13   English transcripts.













Page 34

  1   have been addressed in the Prosecutor's response to the Defence Rule 75

  2   motion, and there is not much I can add, except to reiterate that, in

  3   respect to a non-international armed conflict, or an allegation that does

  4   not involve an international armed conflict, it is not necessary for the

  5   Prosecution to name the parties.  May it please you, Your Honour. 

  6           Finally, before I sit, I will take it, based on what my friend has

  7   said, that he does not, or he does not need to have the material which

  8   exclusively deals with the incidents and matters which Stanislav Galic was

  9   charged and tried. 

 10           Thank you, Your Honour. 

 11           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you, Mr. Stamp. 

 12           While the Prosecution was speaking, I had a look at both

 13   indictments, and one can see in the English version that - it must be the

 14   case for the B/C/S version too - that originally there was an indictment

 15   containing the name of Mr. Galic, and beneath it there was Dragomir

 16   Milosevic's name.  Galic above and Dragomir Milosevic below. 

 17           Then it said the Prosecution, the Tribunal's Prosecutor, et cetera,

 18   and then it says Stanislav Galic and Dragomir Milosevic.  What happened? 

 19   Galic was deleted and only Dragomir Milosevic remained at the top, to the

 20   right.  Stanislav Galic was deleted, and the name Milosevic remained. 

 21           Given the confidential character of the document at the time, in

 22   paragraph 5, reference was made to the accused.  In the 1998 indictment,

 23   reference was made to the accused Galic and then to the accused Milosevic. 

 24   The paragraph concerning Galic was deleted and only the paragraph

 25   concerning Milosevic remained.  And paragraph 6, which is the Milosevic

Page 35

  1   paragraph in the 1998 indictment, became paragraph 5 in the 1999

  2   indictment. 

  3           Why was this not signed?  You raised the issue a minute ago.  It's

  4   true that, in 1998, the indictment was signed Louise Arbour, the

  5   Prosecutor, on the 14th of April, 1998.  But when it was amended at a

  6   subsequent date, it wasn't deemed necessary to have the indictment signed

  7   again. 

  8           Naturally, I'll have to state my position with regard to this

  9   issue, but that is how the issue of the two indictments arose. 

 10           As far as the second issue is concerned, Defence counsel has stated

 11   that they would like to have all the material, including the Galic material

 12   and Slobodan Milosevic material.  That's what the Defence has confirmed.  I

 13   will also render a decision with regard to this issue. 

 14           Would you like to -- would the Defence like to take the floor

 15   again? 

 16           MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is not my

 17   intention here to cause any further complications.  I fully agree that the

 18   essence of the case has suffered no prejudice at all.  The accused Dragomir

 19   Milosevic, and I have spoken to him on a number of different occasions, has

 20   no essential objections between the differences between the two

 21   indictments.  But there are some other differences too.  At any rate, this

 22   indictment too -- rather, he must be allowed insight, he must be allowed to

 23   inspect the indictment.  As Defence counsel, I understand what the case is

 24   about, but I think he too should have a right to compare the two.  You have

 25   been able to compare the two versions in view of the fact that you know

Page 36

  1   both languages, whereas he only knows the Serbian language, and he should

  2   be entitled to have a look, to inspect the documents. 

  3           I talked to him, and he said he would have no objections.  I

  4   believe that this is definitely an omission and an error.  It's been so

  5   long we received -- we have this situation, to date, has still not been

  6   translated, and I believe this matter should have been dealt with some time

  7   ago.  This is an obvious matter, and I don't think we should waste any more

  8   time on that.  It will be up to your decision, Your Honour.  Eventually, we

  9   shall see what that decision will be.  Also in relation to the preliminary

 10   motion regarding the indictment, I'm sure that a solution that will be

 11   found.  And it is up to you to accept or reject the motion, of course. 

 12           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  As I have already

 13   said, I will rule on the issue that has been raised. 

 14           Very briefly, I would like to address the issue of disclosure. 

 15   According to Rule 66, the Prosecution must disclose to the Defence all the

 16   documents that fall under Rule 66.  I know that you have disclosed 22

 17   binders, but if I render a decision, according to which it's also necessary

 18   to disclose Galic material, there will be more than 22 binders. 

 19           Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic, you may take the floor. 

 20           MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may be of assistance, Your

 21   Honour.  Those 22 binders, I got them on the 7th of January, as early as

 22   that.  Those are the confirmation documents, and I received them in good

 23   time.  There is one error, however.  I believe it should be easy to

 24   correct.  The exact number is not 22 but rather 21 binders.  At any rate, I

 25   received those documents already. 

Page 37

  1           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  The Defence has

  2   received the binders. 

  3           I mentioned Rule 68 a minute ago.  The Prosecutor must disclose to

  4   the Defence any exculpatory material, or any material that affects the

  5   Prosecution's evidence. 

  6           The question arises as to the effect of Rule 11 bis.  It would seem

  7   that, according to Rule 11 bis, in the Ademi/Norac case, the Prosecutor at

  8   the hearing that was held, stated that the Prosecution had the obligation

  9   of providing documents that fell under Rule 68. 

 10           Mr. Stamp, your colleague from the Prosecution adopted a position

 11   in the Ademi/Norac case and stated that the Prosecution, regardless of Rule

 12   11 bis, had to provide all the material that fell under Rule 68. 

 13           Mr. Stamp, you may take the floor.  

 14           MR. STAMP:  The Prosecution's obligation under Rule 68 arise at any

 15   -- right through the proceedings.  However, as regarding specific orders

 16   with respect to deadlines at this point in time, we would still ask that

 17   they be postponed nonetheless.  I must confess that I am -- may I put it

 18   this way:  I would respectfully ask that they be postponed pending the

 19   decision in the Rule 11 bis motion.  However, we will attempt to serve on

 20   the Defence all Rule 68 material which we are aware of.  However, we would

 21   ask that the Court does not, at this point in time, make an order which

 22   involves any deadlines in that regard. 

 23           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I will be rendering

 24   my decision.  But regardless of the written decision, it seems

 25   extraordinary to me that one might suspend this obligation or postpone it

Page 38

  1   given that there might be exculpatory material, material that might be

  2   fully exculpatory.  There is a serious problem there, and I will address

  3   the issue in a written decision, because one should not forget that the

  4   accused is in detention.  This is something that should also be taken into

  5   consideration when considering the necessity of proceeding expeditiously. 

  6           That concerns the Rules 66 and 68.  Now, there are other issues I

  7   would like to raise, issues concerning the health of the accused and the

  8   conditions in the Detention Unit. 

  9           General, could you please rise and tell me whether you have any

 10   problems with your health.  Is there anything you would like to tell me

 11   about your health, very briefly?  Are you in perfect health, or do you have

 12   any problems? 

 13           THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  Thank you

 14   for asking.  My answer is very clear:  My health condition is very good,

 15   nor do I have any complaints about the conditions prevailing at the

 16   Detention Unit. 

 17           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  As far as detention

 18   conditions are concerned, you have just said that there are no problems. 

 19   You should be aware of the fact that if you do encounter any problems, you

 20   should inform us of the fact immediately.  You should either inform your

 21   lawyer.  I'll read out Rules 84 to 88 to you. 

 22           You may, at any point in time submit a request or complaint to the

 23   person in charge of the Detention Unit.  If your request is not granted,

 24   you may contest the response and refer to the President of the Tribunal. 

 25   You may also have access to someone from the outside who may come to pay

Page 39

  1   you a visit and meet you in the absence of the person in charge of the

  2   unit.  If there are any problems, don't hesitate to mention the problems to

  3   your lawyer or to the person in charge of the unit, of the Detention Unit. 

  4           But so far you are telling us that there are no problems, that

  5   everything is fine.  Is that correct, General? 

  6           THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you for saying all these

  7   things, Your Honour.  I confirm that everything is all right, everything is

  8   in perfect order. 

  9           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I have another

 10   question.  Do family members visit you, or are you isolated? 

 11           THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am not isolated.  My wife came to

 12   see me recently.  (redacted) they have not come over to

 13   see me so far.  All in all, I am certainly not isolated.  But I will be in

 14   touch if I require anything further. 

 15           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I believe that you

 16   have access to a telephone as well.  You can phone your wife and your

 17   children, in accordance with the rules that have been established.  As far

 18   as telephone communication is concerned, you have no problems there either? 

 19           THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There are no problems.  The only

 20   problem at this point in time is how I feel.  I am sure you understand,

 21   this is not the place or the time to discuss this.  Therefore, my answer to

 22   you is:  Everything is perfectly all right. 

 23           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, General.  I have fully

 24   understood you.  You may sit down now. 

 25           Before we adjourn, are there any other issues that either of the

Page 40

  1   parties would like to raise? 

  2           Mr. Stamp, I'd give you the floor, if you like. 

  3           MR. STAMP:  Mr. President, no further issues. 

  4           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. 

  5           Mr. Tapuskovic, are there any issues you would like to raise? 

  6           MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No. 

  7           JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. 

  8           Very well.  We will now adjourn.  As I have already said, I will

  9   soon render the decisions that concern the pending motions.  I will be

 10   acting expeditiously and without prejudice.  To the decision concerning the

 11   11 bis procedure, it is now February.  We will take stock of the issue at

 12   the beginning of June, unless a decision has been rendered regarding Rule

 13   11 bis by that time.  So a hearing will be scheduled for the beginning of

 14   June, and I believe that this case could be rapidly prepared and it should

 15   be possible to ensure that the accused can stand trial very soon, either

 16   here or in his own country. 

 17           Thank you, and I will be rendering my decisions, I will be

 18   providing you with further information in the course of the month of June. 

 19                         --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at

 20                             11.00 a.m.