1 Tuesday, 21 June 2005

2 [Status Conference]

3 [Open session]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.13 p.m.

5 [The accused entered court]

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

7 the case, please.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honour. This is case number

9 IT-98-29/1-PT, the Prosecutor versus Dragomir Milosevic. Thank you.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11 Could we have the appearances for the Prosecution, please.

12 MR. STAMP: Good afternoon, Your Honour. I beg your pardon.

13 Thank you very much, Your Honour, and good afternoon. I am Chester Stamp,

14 and I appear with Mr. Manoj Sachdeva for the Prosecution, and with us is

15 our case manager, Ms. Victoria McCreath. Thanks very much.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. And could we have

17 the appearances for Defence counsel, please.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. My name

19 is Branislav Tapuskovic. I'm a lawyer from Belgrade, and I represent

20 Dragomir Milosevic. Thank you.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'd like to greet

22 everyone present, members of the Prosecution, the accused who is present

23 in the courtroom, his Defence, and naturally I wouldn't want to forget

24 everyone else in the courtroom, as well as those who are assisting us

25 outside the courtroom, mainly the interpreters and the technicians.

1 We will be holding a Status Conference today, and as you are well

2 aware, the accused was transferred to the Tribunal on the 3rd of December,

3 2004. His initial appearance took place on the 7th of December, 2004, and

4 our first status conference was held here on the 22nd of February, 2005.

5 In accordance with Rule 65 bis of the Rules of Procedure, it is necessary

6 to convene a Status Conference every 120 days to ensure that exchanges

7 between the parties proceed normally and in order to give the accused the

8 opportunity to raise issues relating to his health and his conditions of

9 detention.

10 Before we deal with disclosure of exhibits between the Defence and

11 the Prosecution, I would like to remind you that on the 31st of January,

12 2005, the Prosecution filed a motion pursuant to Rule 11 bis in order to

13 obtain authorisation to refer the case to the authorities of Bosnia and

14 Herzegovina. The President of the Tribunal appointed a Bench on the 1st

15 of February, 2005, a Bench to deal with the issue of referring the case to

16 the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and this Bench will be

17 rendering a decision on the merits of the Prosecution's motion. And as

18 far as I'm concerned, and Trial Chamber II, with regard to the procedure

19 under Rule 11 bis, we have no comments to make with regard to this

20 parallel procedure. On the other hand, our Chamber is currently seized of

21 three important pending motions. I will now enumerate them.

22 First of all, there is a preliminary motion from the Defence that

23 was filed on the 3rd of February, 2005, pursuant to Rule 72(A)(ii). This

24 concerns a preliminary motion with regard to a shortcoming in the

25 indictment. The Prosecution responded to this motion on the 17th of

1 February, 2005. This Chamber will be rendering its decision next week.

2 So there will be a decision. And in a minute I will go back to this

3 motion.

4 Secondly, we have been seized of a motion for provisional release

5 that was filed on the 26th of April, 2005, by the accused, and the

6 Prosecution filed its response on the 10th of May, 2005. The Trial

7 Chamber will also be rendering this decision. I believe that that will be

8 in the course of the following week or somewhat later.

9 There is a third pending motion which was filed on the 14th of

10 February, 2005, a motion to suspend all procedures that were not

11 indispensable, such as written submissions and orders pursuant to Rule 65

12 ter of the Rules. And this includes pre-trial briefs with the exception

13 of the pending motions. As far as this Prosecution motion is concerned,

14 the Defence has not responded to the motion nor has it filed any written

15 submissions.

16 As far as the first motion is concerned -- and as I said, this

17 Chamber will rule on the motion next week, that is certain. As far as

18 this motion is concerned, I have a question that I would like to put both

19 to the Prosecution and to the Defence, a question that concerns a legal

20 problem. The motion dated the 3rd of February, and the Prosecution

21 responded to it on the 17th of February, 2005, deals with certain legal

22 issues, and in particular with issues that concern effective control, and

23 therefore Article 7(3) of the Tribunal's Statute.

24 As the Chamber will have to rule on this legal issue, I would like

25 to know -- I would like the Prosecution and the Defence to inform me

1 whether, according to the laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina -- or whether

2 within the laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina there is a law that allows

3 someone to be prosecuted on the basis of Article 7(3). And I would also

4 like the Prosecution and Defence to inform me whether it would not be the

5 Judges seized to deal with the issue of referral to finally provide a

6 legal description, a definitive legal description of the charges, and the

7 -- if the case is referred to the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

8 this indictment would not be binding in terms of legal -- the legal

9 description of the charges. It would not be binding on the local Judges.

10 So could the Prosecution provide me with any information as far as

11 this matter is concern.

12 MR. STAMP: A straight answer to the question is that it is my

13 belief that the laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina do provide for proceedings

14 in similar terms to proceedings under Rule 7(3) of the Tribunal's Statute.

15 I don't think they have incorporated Rule 7(3) and therefore proceed under

16 Rule 7(3), but I feel confident that they have on their Statute books laws

17 substantially amounting to the provisions of Rule 7(3) and therefore the

18 accused could be prosecuted for substantially the same charges in Bosnia

19 and Herzegovina.

20 I recall that matters of that nature were addressed in the

21 Prosecutor's pleadings in respect of the Rule 7(3) motion before the

22 specially appointed Chamber, and if Your Honour is so inclined, I would be

23 happy to provide some written submissions in respect to the questions put

24 by the Court.

25 Thank you very much.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stamp, for this

2 information. The second part of my question concerned the following: I

3 would like to know whether the Judges in Bosnia and Herzegovina would have

4 the possibility of providing a legal description of the charges without

5 being bound by the legal description of the charges contained in the

6 indictment brought against the accused by the Prosecution at the ICTY.

7 Could you provide me with any information with regard to this matter.

8 MR. STAMP: It is my view, and again I respectfully request that

9 we be given the opportunity to provide clear written submissions on this

10 question, but it is my view that the Judges and the Courts in Bosnia now

11 have legislation that allow them to formulate charges substantially

12 similar to the 7(3) responsibility as provided for in the Tribunal's

13 Statute. I'm not sure if that is an answer to the question that the Court

14 has put.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, to a certain extent,

16 but the Judges in Bosnia and Herzegovina, are they in a position to give

17 the charges in the indictment a different legal qualification in

18 accordance with the local laws prevailing in the country? For example,

19 even if this only concerned the charges under Articles 3 to 5 of the

20 Statute.

21 MR. STAMP: I could not give the Court a direct answer in that

22 regard. I'm not sure whether or not the Courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina

23 could provide a different legal qualification. That is something that I

24 could answer with some confidence later on, if the Court is inclined to

25 allow some time to respond.

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

2 I would now like to ask Defence counsel whether he could provide

3 me with information with regard to the two parts of my question.

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I must admit that I

5 have not expected us to discuss this today before Your Honour. This is

6 one of the matters that will certainly have to be borne in mind by the

7 Chamber that will decide on 11 bis Rule motions.

8 What I can tell you at this moment is as follows: It is

9 absolutely certain that the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina is

10 competent to qualify certain facts in any indictment against somebody, and

11 obviously during the proceedings it is only the Judges of Bosnia and

12 Herzegovina to establish the final qualification of the act that was

13 committed. This is the only way it can be. This is the way things stand

14 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and this is also the situation in Serbia, and

15 that is the only way it can be.

16 The second question had to do with whether Bosnia and Herzegovina

17 is duty-bound to take over the indictment from the ICTY in its entirety or

18 whether the indictment has to be adjusted to the laws of Bosnia and

19 Herzegovina. It is absolutely certain that the acts mentioned in the

20 indictment issued by the ICTY can also be mentioned in indictments in

21 Bosnia and Herzegovina. The only question that is raised here is the

22 command responsibility, which for the time being does not exist either in

23 the laws of my country or, as far as I know, in the laws of

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Obviously there is an obligation upon these countries

25 to honour international convention and international law.

1 Thank you very much.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for that information.

3 I put these questions to you because the Chamber of which I am a part will

4 be rendering a decision, as I have already said, on a motion that raises

5 certain legal issues, and this concerns Article 7(3) in particular. And

6 before we render our decision, it was necessary for me to be informed

7 about these issues that could give rise to debate. So I would like to

8 thank the parties for having answered my questions.

9 I would also like to deal with the issue of the motion that was

10 filed on the 14th of February, which concerns suspending all proceedings.

11 As I said already, the Defence had nothing to say about this motion. The

12 Chamber has not yet rendered a decision on the motion, but to the extent

13 that it is possible, I would like Mr. Stamp to tell me how this motion is

14 compatible with the obligation that the Pre-Trial Judge and the Pre-Trial

15 Chamber has to do everything in order to expedite pre-trial proceedings so

16 as to ensure that the trial can be held in good time? Because there are

17 two possible solutions: The first one, if the 11 bis Chamber refers the

18 case to the authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina, then this issue will not be

19 raised if there is a demand to suspend the proceedings. But on the other

20 hand, if the 11 bis Chamber does not refer the case and decides that the

21 case should be tried here, and if we have suspended all the proceedings,

22 if all the proceedings are suspended, that will result in slowing down the

23 case, and would this not involve causing prejudice to the accused?

24 Mr. Stamp, could you provide me with any clarifications.

25 MR. STAMP: The Prosecutor's application of the 14th of February,

1 2005, was an application to suspend non-essential proceedings pending the

2 outcome of the Rule 11 bis hearings. The basis of the application has to

3 do with economy of resources. No doubt this Court is aware of, the

4 resources available to the Prosecution, as well as the resources available

5 to the Chamber itself, is limited. The trials are scheduled having regard

6 to those resources, and I think the Chamber would also be aware of the

7 decisions of the scheduling committee in respect to the pending trials of

8 the Tribunal.

9 So even if non-essential proceedings are suspended in this

10 proceeding pending the Rule 11 bis decision, no prejudice can be or would

11 be caused to this accused having regard to the situation with scheduling

12 of forthcoming trials. I think the Rule 11 bis decision is forthcoming

13 and will be delivered within a reasonable period of time.

14 The important matters that the Court would have to deal with, and

15 that the Prosecution must continue to discharge its obligation in respect

16 to, are disclosure of material that will assist the Defence under Rule 68,

17 and although there has been a small amount of delay, we have disclosed to

18 the Defence a substantial amount of material in that regard, and we have

19 received some guidance from the Defence as to the areas in which they'd

20 like us to assist with conducting searches on their behalf and continuing

21 that disclosure proceeding.

22 So if I may refer back to the precise question, and I know Your

23 Honour likes a precise answer, having regard to the scheduling of the

24 future proceeding before this Tribunal and the probability that a decision

25 on the 11 bis will be delivered in a reasonable time, then if

1 non-essential proceedings are postponed having regard to all the issues of

2 economies and resource limitations, then on the balance this accused will

3 not be prejudiced.

4 May it please Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Stamp. When you

6 say -- or when you refer to non-essential proceedings, which proceedings

7 do you have in mind? Could you tell me how you distinguish between what

8 is essential and what is not essential? In your opinion, what could be

9 suspended?

10 MR. STAMP: As I indicated, what clearly must be essential is the

11 Rule 68 disclosure obligation which continue, which begin as soon as the

12 accused come in custody and continue until the end of proceedings. That

13 is clearly essential.

14 There are other proceedings in respect to lists of witnesses,

15 lists of exhibits, final lists, briefs, pre-trial briefs, which at this

16 point in time may become redundant and otiose, it may result in the use of

17 resources here in The Hague where if the decision goes one way it would be

18 a waste of valuable and scarce resources. And those proceedings, although

19 they are important and although at once depending on the result in the

20 Rule 11 bis hearing will become most essential, it is submitted that at

21 this stage they are not so essential as to impose upon the Prosecution the

22 -- the use of resources now.

23 Thanks, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I have understood you

25 correctly, you're saying today that the list of witnesses and the list of

1 exhibits are, in your opinion, issues that could wait until we have ruled

2 on the 11 bis motion. So this leads me to conclude that today as yet you

3 have not disclosed to Defence counsel the list of witnesses and exhibits

4 pursuant to Rule 66(A)(ii). Have I understood your position correctly?

5 MR. STAMP: That is correct, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Defence counsel will

7 now inform me of its position with regard to this stage of the

8 proceedings.

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you remember only

10 too well that at the last Status Conference, which was held four months

11 ago precisely, and if I'm not mistaken this was on the 21st or the 22nd of

12 February, we dealt with the problem and the problems that arose from the

13 motion to rule on Rule 11 bis and to see the case to the authorities of

14 Bosnia-Herzegovina. You expressed your hope that this would be known

15 within four months, before this Status Conference. Unfortunately, this is

16 the only case for which Mr. Stamp hopes that we will soon have a decision

17 on Rule 11 bis. However, only at the request of the Prosecution, nothing

18 has been held. No discussion, no rule has been issued. The Trial Chamber

19 is not duty-bound to hold a conference and deliver its decision. There is

20 no rule to hold a conference on that. And the Bosnian and Herzegovinian

21 authorities have already told us that. I'm not going to dwell upon that.

22 We don't have even a hint that this will be resolved very quickly. The

23 time flies. Mr. Dragomir Milosevic is in the Detention Unit.

24 On the other hand, you remember, and you said it yourself when you

25 opened this issue, that on the 14th of February a motion was filed by the

1 Prosecutor for some of the proceedings to be suspended, and it is not true

2 that we have not responded to that. I did not have the time to respond in

3 writing within a few days. We received this motion on the 14th of

4 February, there was a Status Conference only a couple of days later, and

5 at that Status Conference I said it would be logical for some of the

6 proceedings to be suspended. For example, the pre-trial brief, or for the

7 Prosecution to provide us with a final list of exhibits and witnesses.

8 This is only logical. And the Prosecution was not to -- required to do

9 that at this stage.

10 However, obligations that arise from Article 66(A)(ii) cannot be

11 suspended. You know the Rule. I don't have to read it to you. It says

12 here that copies of statements of all the witnesses that the Prosecutor

13 intends to call should be submitted. There should be no selection or a

14 short list. There shouldn't be a pre-trial brief. However, this

15 obligation here is very clear.

16 It is the first time today that I've had a very good meeting with

17 the representatives of the Prosecutor before this Status Conference, and

18 we agreed on a number of things, this is true, however, what remains is

19 the obligation arising from Rule 66(ii). There are some other problems

20 there I would not proceed with. I believe that we will resolve all these

21 issues subsequently.

22 In any case, I believe that this obligation cannot be avoided.

23 The evidence that the Prosecutor intends to present in this case has to be

24 studied, and that's why I adhere to what I already said at the last Status

25 Conference. So much from me. Thank you.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you are

2 confirming that the Defence has not yet received exhibits it should have

3 been provided with pursuant to Rule 66(A). You have not received all the

4 documents that were provided with the indictment, that supported the

5 indictment, and you don't know the names of the witness nor are you

6 familiar with the witnesses' statements; is that correct?

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It is true, and I have requested

8 a certain number of witness statements, and I have received them on

9 CD-ROMs. However, Your Honour, I have only received those today at

10 quarter past twelve. I did not even have time to look at them. I believe

11 the accompanying document, but I still need to study this that was

12 submitted to me on the E media.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So that at half past

14 twelve you received certain documents on a CD-ROM.

15 Mr. Stamp, could you provide us with any more information about

16 this?

17 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour. With your leave, may I just attempt

18 to clarify one or two things. There are two provisions in Rule 66(A).

19 One relates to the disclosure of the supporting material, and that's

20 66(A)(i). That was done within the time prescribed by the Rules. The

21 Defence received all of the statements and all of the material in respect

22 to the first part of Rule 66. The second part of Rule 66 refers to

23 statements which must be disclosed within the time limit set by the Court,

24 and that is precisely what the Prosecutor's application on the 14th of

25 February is all about, that these time limits not be imposed at this point

1 in time but pending the 11 bis decision. So the Prosecution is not in

2 breach of any disclosure obligation.

3 In respect to the disclosure today, the -- there had been some

4 delay in the disclosure, and part of the reason, part of the reason is

5 that the Defence has requested and has done so more than once to receive

6 documents in hard copy. Many of these documents are sensitive witness

7 statements. We awaited the arrival of counsel to hand them to him in CD

8 form. We can disclose them immediately on the Electronic Disclosure

9 Suite. That is not convenient to the Defence. In handing the material to

10 the Defence in CD form today, we were merely trying to accommodate the

11 Defence with a courtesy to the Defence.

12 Notwithstanding that, there is or was some delay on the part of

13 the Prosecution, unavoidable delay in gathering some of the material for

14 disclosure, but that has to do with staff limitations. But the reason why

15 they were received today is because we preferred to hand them to the

16 Defence directedly as we -- as has been indicated by the Defence was their

17 preference. Of course, we could discontinue that type of disclosure.

18 Thank you very much, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll give the floor to Defence

20 counsel.

21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have to draw your

22 attention to another matter. The problem that has arisen has got nothing

23 to do with the electronic media and the EDS. You have to know that our

24 bar association, with this Tribunal, launched an initiative that the

25 Prosecutor is aware of. Everybody has problems with the E media and the

1 EDS. It is not only my problem as the Defence lawyer of Dragomir

2 Milosevic. This is a general problem that has to be resolved in order for

3 us to be able to communicate with the Prosecutor. I believe you have to

4 know that before I say anything about the evidence according to Rule 68 of

5 the Rules of Evidence.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As I was saying, this exchange

7 was useful since the Chamber will soon have to rule on the 14th of

8 February motion to suspend certain proceedings. I will try to ensure that

9 the decision is rendered by next week to avoid causing prejudice to the

10 rights of the accused in order to respect the Rules of -- the provisions

11 in the Statute and in the Rules.

12 We have just dealt with the provisions under Rule 66. The

13 Prosecutor said that as far as Rule 68 is concerned, the Prosecution has

14 disclosed material to the Defence and Defence counsel has confirmed that

15 documents have been disclosed to the Defence, and in particular

16 exculpatory material has been disclosed to Defence counsel, or is that not

17 correct?

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. The

19 Prosecutor's office has not disclosed anything according to Rule 68.

20 There is an obligation here that the Pre-Trial Chamber --

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Stamp, I thought

22 that you said that the material that should be disclosed to the Defence

23 pursuant to Rule 68 was disclosed to the Defence, and Defence counsel has

24 just said that that was not the case.

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not saying this, Your Honour.

1 Something has been disclosed according to Rule 68 today, but nothing

2 according to Rule 66 has been disclosed. This is what I'm saying.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

4 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, just again for clarification. There are

5 two parts to Rule 66. We have complied with our obligations under the

6 first part, Rule 66(A)(i). So it is not correct to say that we have not

7 disclosed according to Rule 66.

8 We have -- there's a second part, and that depends on the order of

9 the Court which is pending having regard to the motion of the 14th of

10 February by the Prosecutor, and therefore, we are not in breach of that

11 one either.

12 Thank you, Your Honour.

13 And just to be clear, just for the record, the CDs which we

14 disclosed contain over 3.000 documents. They -- and they include

15 spreadsheets referring to thousands of other documents that the Defence at

16 their convenience can indicate to us whether or not they would like us to

17 supply them with.

18 Thanks again, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, then. You have not

20 provided us with a complete answer regarding documents according to Rule

21 68. Have documents according to Rule 68 been disclosed to the Defence?

22 68, that is.

23 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour. In excess of 3.000 documents on

24 CDs. Prior to that, I would not be able to tell how many, but prior to

25 that there were a number of documents also disclosed. Indices have also

1 been disclosed referring to thousands more documents, which the

2 Prosecution will make available to the Defence if the Defence so chooses.

3 The indices again is another courtesy to the Defence based on our

4 discussions. Many times, having regard to the problem the Defence has

5 indicated it has in downloading documents on the EDS, if you supply them

6 with documents that they find irrelevant, it presents problems to them.

7 In putting -- in giving them the indices, we provide them with a system

8 where they can tell us or limit what we disclose without being flooded by

9 irrelevant documentation.

10 So as far as Rule 68 is concerned, we are trying to discharge our

11 obligations. We have disclosed thousands of documents, we are prepared

12 to disclose thousands more. It is an ongoing obligation which we will

13 endeavour to discharge to the best of our ability.

14 Thanks again, Your Honour.

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I've just said that

16 I was very happy with today's meeting with the Prosecutor. However, we

17 have a misunderstanding here.

18 I repeat, it is up to you what you are going to rule on Rule

19 66(A)(ii). However, when it comes to Rule 68, I heard from Mr. Chester

20 today that we were to receive these documents. If one receives 3.000

21 documents, there is nobody who can search those documents and request for

22 only the relevant ones.

23 When I spoke to Mr. Chester, the way I understood it was that I am

24 yet to receive things on Rule 68. Amongst those things exculpatory

25 documents or documents proving mitigating circumstances. I'm sure that

1 the Prosecutor already has things that are relevant and that correspond to

2 Rule 68(i). Until this very day I have not received anything. I have not

3 looked at these CD-ROMs. I believe that this -- these are documents from

4 the Galic case. The way I understood it was I am yet to receive certain

5 evidence according to Rule 68.

6 Can you please rule on this, because I have not received any

7 exculpatory documents that already exist and that the Prosecutor is

8 already aware of, and this is something that I would not go into detail

9 of.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I talk about the

11 documents according to Rule 66 and 68, I am turning again towards the

12 Prosecution to ask them this: This is the Galic case, and there were

13 documents there, the documents that have been admitted into evidence at

14 the request of the Defence and of the Prosecution during the Galic case.

15 These documents from the Galic case, have they been disclosed to

16 the Defence?

17 MR. STAMP: Yes, they have been disclosed to the Defence.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And how were they disclosed; on

19 CD-ROMs?

20 MR. STAMP: On CD-ROMs. There appears to be another

21 misunderstanding. Documents have been disclosed on CD-ROMs. The Defence

22 has also made specific requests in respect to 12 persons. The statements

23 of those persons have been disclosed also under Rule 66, and we have also

24 offered to the Defence to disclose to them other material relevant to

25 those persons and have provided the Defence with spreadsheets of all the

1 documents we can find in relation to those persons.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Maybe after this Status

3 Conference the two parties should talk to each other to discuss the issue

4 of communications irrespective of the decision that we're going to make on

5 the motion. So you two should discuss the issue of disclosure. I believe

6 that it will be very useful for the two parties to talk to each other and

7 to discuss the problem before they inform the Chamber. The Chamber has to

8 be informed, but the two parties have to deal with this type of problems.

9 This is what we prefer.

10 And now I would like to turn towards the accused and ask him.

11 General, could you please stand up. Could you please tell me whether

12 you're satisfied with the conditions in the Detention Unit. Do you have

13 any problems? Do you have anything to tell me about your current

14 conditions in the Detention Unit?

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't have anything

16 to share with you at the moment, nothing that would deserve your

17 attention, nothing to specify with regard to my situation.

18 I thank you for your concern, and I also thank you for -- I would

19 like to thank everybody who is looking after me in the Detention Unit.

20 When it comes to the conditions of life in the Detention Unit and

21 the attitude towards me, I don't have any objections.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Do you have the

23 possibility of receiving visitors and can you make phone calls? As far as

24 that is concerned, is everything running smoothly?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have

1 received visitors. There are certain problems with this regard, but they

2 are of personal nature. They have nothing to do with the decisions that

3 have been made or the conditions that prevail in the Detention Unit. And

4 these issues of personal nature will also have to do with the course of

5 trial and problems with regard to Rule 11 bis.

6 My family is awaiting certain decisions, decisions on the issues

7 that have been raised through various motions, one of them being for my

8 provisional release and similar motions. So these are the issues that

9 have a bearing on me and my family but have nothing to do with my

10 treatment here. It is all about an uncertainty that exists at this

11 moment.

12 My wife has been under medical attention when she -- and she heard

13 that my trial could continue in Sarajevo, and she herself had been

14 expelled from that town.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for that information.

16 Is there anything else that you would like to inform me of? Are there any

17 other issues that you would like to raise or have you covered everything?

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just wanted to point out some of

19 the things that have been done by the Detention Unit personnel. I had an

20 eye injury which was rather serious, but at the moment when I needed a

21 medical attention, the attention of a specialist, this was provided very

22 swiftly, and the final outcome of that injury was very good for me. This

23 is something that I would like to point out. And I would like to say that

24 it is very important for everybody - in this case it was very important

25 for me - to have my eye attended to so successfully and so swiftly.

1 As far as the rest of my stay in the Detention Unit is concerned

2 and my medical condition, I receive all the medical care. Everybody is

3 very attentive. And it deserves to be pointed out that given the

4 conditions, the medical attention in the Detention Unit is very good.

5 Your Honour, I would like to thank you. I really don't have

6 anything else to say, no other grounds to cover, everything is all right.

7 Thank you very much.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I have understood you

9 correctly, you say that your eye was injured and that you were immediately

10 treated for this injury. How is it that your eye was injured, though?

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Through a certain problem -- to a

12 certain extent the problem was treatable, but it became so serious that I

13 found myself in a situation where I could lose my right eye. It was an

14 accident. I was hit by a football ball as I was standing in the

15 courtyard, and the injury was such of a nature that I had to be operated

16 upon. So I had to be seen by a surgeon, and the surgeon had to operate on

17 my eye.

18 My sight in the right eye is somewhat diminished. I'm actually,

19 to be honest, almost blind. However, the most important thing is that I

20 don't suffer any more. I suffer no more pain. That's what I wanted to

21 say.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you're telling us that you

23 are partially blind in the right eye as a result of the football that hit

24 you; is that correct?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not only partially but almost

1 completely.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Defence counsel, would you

3 like to provide me with any other information about this problem that I've

4 just heard about?

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] As my client's lawyer, I believe

6 that I should say something. We don't want to leave anything out.

7 His eye had been injured during the war, and now this trivial

8 incident has aggravated the situation and that's why he is almost

9 completely blind. It is not the case of him being injured for the first

10 time in the Detention Unit. He had already been injured.

11 I'm saying this just to make sure that you do not think that he is

12 exaggerating a trivial problem that occurred to him in the Detention Unit.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to thank Mr. Tapuskovic

14 for this clarification. This was by no means my intention. On the

15 contrary, it is absolutely correct that I was injured during the war and

16 that my sight was restored to a certain extent after that. And then there

17 was this accident in the Detention Unit that has aggravated the matter.

18 And it indeed was an accident that could not have been prevented.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, General. You may sit

20 down now.

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

22 parties would like to raise?

23 Mr. Stamp, are there any issues you would like to raise?

24 MR. STAMP: Nothing, Your Honour. Thanks very much.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Defence counsel?

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, after such a

2 fruitful discussion, I have nothing further to add at this very end.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. It is now June.

4 Theoretically speaking, I should see you in 120 days' time. So that would

5 be in October. If there is no decision rendered pursuant to 11 bis, we

6 will see each other again in October. And by October we will have

7 rendered the three -- our three decisions with regard to the pending

8 motions, and perhaps the 11 bis Chamber will have rendered its decision by

9 that time.

10 Having said that, I would like to thank you for having attended

11 this Status Conference, and we will now adjourn.

12 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned

13 at 3.10 p.m.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25