1 Tuesday, 5 December 2006
2 [Status Conference]
3 [The accused Gotovina entered court]
4 [The accused Cermak and Markac appeared via
6 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning everybody.
8 May the registrar please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honour, this is case number
10 IT-06-90-PT, the Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. May I first take this
12 opportunity to welcome everybody and ask for the appearances of the
13 parties, please.
14 The Prosecution.
15 MR. TIEGER: Good morning, Your Honour. Alan Tieger, Laurie
16 Sartorio appearing for the Prosecution with Kim Fischer, case manager.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
18 For the Defence of Mr. Gotovina.
19 MR. KEHOE: Gregory Kehoe and Luka Misetic for Mr. Gotovina.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Kehoe.
21 MR. KEHOE: I do apologise, Your Honour. Gregory Kehoe and Luka
22 Misetic for General Gotovina.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 Defence for Mr. Cermak.
25 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. My
1 name is Cedo Prodanovic, attorney-at-law, together with my colleague
2 Mrs. Slokovic. I appear here for General Cermak.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
4 And for Mr. Markac.
5 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. My
6 name is Miroslav Separovic, attorney-at-law, and together with Goran
7 Mikulicic, we appear for General Markac.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Did you see Goran Mikulicic?
9 Sorry, I hear something different from what's written by way of the name
10 of your co-counsel.
11 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] Goran Mikulicic. I think you
12 heard very well.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 Okay. By way of introduction, let me just indicate that the last
15 Status Conference in this case was held on the 7th of September, 2006 and
16 pursuant to Rule 65 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, a Status
17 Conference shall be convened every 120 days in order to organise exchanges
18 between the parties, to ensure the expeditious preparation for trial, and
19 to allow the accused to raise issues in relation to the case and his
21 And then of course also that in the light of the charges of the
22 joint indictment, the present proceedings are also further appearances
23 pursuant to Rule 50(B) which provides that in the amended indictment
24 includes new charges and the accused has already appeared before a Trial
25 Chamber in accordance with Rule 62, a further appearance shall be held as
1 soon as practicable to enable the accused to enter a plea on the new
3 Now, I believe that earlier this morning a 65 ter meeting was held
4 with the parties and -- I haven't sort of got a full report on that.
5 Can we deal with the orders of the 22nd and 23rd of November, 2006
6 again, assigning this case to a new Chamber and a new Bench. I just want
7 to remind the parties that on the 22nd of November an order by the
8 President assigned this case to Trial Chamber I, and on the 23rd of
9 November, the Presiding Judge of Trial Chamber I assigned the case to
10 Pre-Trial Bench consisting of Judge Alphonsus Orie as the Presiding Judge,
11 Judge Christine Van Den Wyngaert and myself, and I am also assigned as the
12 Pre-Trial Judge in this case.
13 Following the Appeals Chamber's decision on the 2nd of December,
14 2004, the accused Cermak and Markac are on provisional release in the
15 Republic of Croatia and they -- I want to believe that they will follow
16 the current proceedings by videolink from Zagreb.
17 Can we just confirm that they are linked.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Can we get confirmation from Zagreb that you are
19 hearing us and seeing us, please.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. And can we also confirm that
21 the accused here, Mr. Gotovina, hears the proceedings in a language that
22 he understands.
23 THE ACCUSED GOTOVINA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, I
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Thank you.
1 If I may just ask Mr. Gotovina through you, counsel, about his
2 health and conditions of detention.
3 MR. KEHOE: Well, obviously the general is in detention --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone, please.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I apologise, there is a lot of noise that I hear.
6 It looks like it comes from Zagreb. I can't hear you. Just hold on. I
7 can't hear anything.
8 Can you try now?
9 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour. As you know, the general is
10 detention at this point but his health is good.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
12 He doesn't have any complaints to make, given -- in terms of
13 conditions of detention.
14 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 I'm not sure whether we need to inquire from Zagreb on the health
17 of the accused who are out on provisional release. I know they are not in
18 detention but still, I don't know whether it's appropriate to ask, and I
19 don't think there could be anything wrong in asking.
20 Yes, Mr. Cermak.
21 THE INTERPRETER: The sound is not sufficient for interpreting,
22 I'm afraid. There is no microphone, I think.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we find out from the court officer in Zagreb if
24 the accused have a microphone in front of them?
25 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, that's fine now.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we just find out from them if they can hear the
2 proceedings in a language that they understand?
3 THE ACCUSED CERMAK: [Interpretation] Yes, we do follow the
4 proceedings in a language we understand.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we take them one by one.
6 Mr. Cermak.
7 THE ACCUSED CERMAK: [Interpretation] As for my health, everything
8 is perfectly fine. And as for the language, I do understand the language
9 of the proceedings.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Cermak.
11 Mr. Markac.
12 THE ACCUSED MARKAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my name is
13 Mladen Markac. My health is bad, and my team of doctors is doing their
14 utmost to improve my condition, and if that is impossible, then to keep it
15 at the present level.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Markac. We are sorry to
17 hear that your health is not good, but we are also comforted in the
18 knowledge that your team of doctors are doing their utmost to get it
20 Can you tell us whether you can hear the proceedings in a language
21 you understand? Mr. Markac.
22 THE ACCUSED MARKAC: [Interpretation] I do follow the proceedings
23 in a language I understand.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Markac. Thank you.
25 Now, there is a point I would like to raise with the parties with
1 regard to Rule 50. I'm sure the parties are aware that before the accused
2 Cermak and Markac had a chance to plead to the new charges which were
3 added to the second amended indictment in that case, IT-03-73, the accused
4 Gotovina was arrested, and at a Status Conference -- sorry, I see you
5 shaking your head, ma'am. Am I saying something wrong?
6 MS. SLOKOVIC: No.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Oh, thank you.
8 And at the Status Conference on the 20th of January, 2006, Judge
9 Parker as the Pre-Trial Judge ruled that in view of the proposed joinder
10 of the Cermak and Markac case with the Gotovina case, it would be
11 premature for the accused Cermak and Markac to the plead to the new
13 Then subsequently the new charges of the second indictment against
14 the accused is Cermak and Markac were included in the joinder indictment
15 of the joint Gotovina Cermak and Markac case. Now, the joinder indictment
16 was filed on the 24th of July, 2006, and at the accused Gotovina's initial
17 appearance, he pleaded to the amended indictment in the Gotovina case,
18 which was filed on the 19th of February, 2005, and upon the joinder of the
19 cases, new charges against him were also included in the joinder
21 The new charges are identical for all three accused and
22 consequently all accused must enter pleas regarding the new counts on the
23 joinder indictment, and those counts are Counts 6, 9, 7, and 8, which
24 are -- 7 and 8 are amended as compared with the previous indictment
25 against the accused.
1 However, before entering a plea, Rule 62 requires that if -- that
2 it be ascertained that the accused are represented by counsel. They are
3 represented in this case, I realise. And the accused have a right to have
4 the charges read out to them.
5 If I may just find out from you, does Mr. Gotovina want to have
6 the charges read out to him?
7 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour, we waive reading of the charges.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you also waive -- how does Mr. Gotovina plead to
9 Count 6?
10 MR. KEHOE: General Gotovina pleads not guilty.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Count 7.
12 MR. KEHOE: Not guilty.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Count 8.
14 MR. KEHOE: Not guilty.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Count 9.
16 MR. KEHOE: Not guilty.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
18 Mr. Prodanovic, how does Mr. Cermak, does he want to have the
19 charges read out to him?
20 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, no need, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: How does he plead to Count 6?
22 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Not guilty.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Count 7.
24 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Not guilty.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Count 8.
1 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Not guilty.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Count 9.
3 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Not guilty.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Separovic. Does your --
5 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there is no need to
6 read the indictment to General Markac.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: General Markac, how does he plead to Count 6?
8 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] Not guilty.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: 7.
10 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] Not guilty.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: 8.
12 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] Not guilty.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: 9.
14 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] Not guilty.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, in -- pursuant to Rule 50(C), an accused has a
18 further 30 days from entering his or her plea on new charges pursuant to
19 subparagraph (B) to submit preliminary motions under Rule 72.
20 Can we get an indication -- or let me say 30 days should take us
21 somewhere around the 4th of January. Can we have that as a time-line?
22 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, if I may, we discussed this during the
23 65 ter conference this morning, and given the Christmas vacation and the
24 holidays, and in consultation with the Office of the Prosecutor, we asked
25 for a two-week period after January 4th, simply because to allow people to
1 enjoy the Christmas vacation before operating in earnest on these motions.
2 I do believe there is no objection to that two-week extension from the
3 Office of the Prosecutor. Of course, we agree to raised that time-frame
4 with Your Honour here this morning.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: This is not a motion to the entire charges; it's
6 just to the additional charges. Do you need more than that, just for the
7 four counts?
8 MR. KEHOE: We do, Judge, because there is a degree of detail in
9 these newer charges. I just ask that, Judge, given -- we would not ask
10 for this additional period of time if it were not the Christmas season,
11 and the Christmas season just is difficult because people have the family
12 time that they haven't had all year, including myself for that matter,
13 would like to spend with my family during that period of time, and that's
14 the only reason we were asking for this additional two-week time-frame.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: That the position of the other counsel?
16 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is the joint
17 position of the Defence teams that we also expressed at the 65 ter
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: You confirm that, sir?
20 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that the position of the Prosecution?
22 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, Mr. Kehoe accurately reflected the
23 discussion at the 65 ter, and we found the request reasonable and had no
24 objection to it.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. This -- if I may just get some clarity. We
1 are not later going to ask to -- and I know we haven't discussed it yet,
2 to shift starting time of the trial. I know we have not discussed the
3 starting time of the trial, but I would be inclined to grant the two-week
4 extension if I'm satisfied that we will start. From the Chamber's view,
5 we are looking at around May to start.
6 MR. KEHOE: If I may, Your Honour. I mean we can talk about that
7 particular trial time of May -- if we want to talk about that in unison, I
8 think that the May trial time, which came to our attention this morning at
9 the Rule 65 ter conference, I think came as a surprise to everyone as not
10 only the Defence but -- I don't want to speak for the Office of the
11 Prosecutor, but I think that -- them as well. And the view of the
12 preparation for this very, very extensive trial --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt you.
14 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't want to talk about this in unison. I was
16 just throwing that date so that when you talk about this time-line for
17 this motion, you have that date as a preferred date by the Chamber, and if
18 you're saying to me the two-week extension will impact on the time-line
19 for starting time, then we've got to try and adjust our positions such
20 that we impact it as minimally as we possibly can.
21 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Judge. And we will not use this
22 two-week extension as -- when we discuss the trial time.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 MR. KEHOE: Okay.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's the position of everybody else.
1 You were on your feet, Mr. Tieger.
2 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour, because you raised the issue and I
3 knew it had been raised at the 65 ter I was going to foreshadow that and
4 something akin to the fashion that Mr. Kehoe did. I understand that these
5 two matters are now being looked at separately, so let's get to them one
6 at a time.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. What date are you proposing for the motions,
8 preliminary motions?
9 MR. KEHOE: I think, given if today is the 5th, I would say -- and
10 you said -- Your Honour, I think you said January 4th, a two-week period
11 after January 4th. 18th, would that be -- that would be January 18th.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: 18th of January it will be unless anybody else has
13 got any objection to that date. Okay.
14 Apart from that, those preliminary motions, then we have some
15 pending motions. The Prosecution's combined notice of compliance and
16 motion for protective measures was filed on the 19th of October, 2006. I
17 think that motion is also still pending.
18 This Trial Chamber now is seized of those motions and there hasn't
19 been an indication from the Defence whether they want to respond or how
20 they respond to those motions.
21 MR. KEHOE: Judge, we likewise I think discussed this at the
22 Rule 65 ter conference, and we had discussed that we had no objection to
23 the Prosecutor's motion. And at the time, during one of the last Status
24 Conferences or the 65 ter conference, we indicated that there was no need
25 to file anything in addition on top of that.
1 However, if Your Honour wants to file a no objection response we
2 will do that. But for the record, Judge, we had no objection to the
3 motion filed by the Office of the Prosecutor.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you have no objection, then it's on record here,
5 that's fine. There's no need for you to file a no objection motion. I
6 wasn't aware that it had been raised at the last Status Conference.
7 Can we hear from Mr. -- General Cermak's Defence.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Microphone, counsel.
10 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] The Defence of General Cermak has
11 no objection to the Prosecution's proposal.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, counsel for Mr. Markac.
13 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] Same with the Defence of General
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Then in that event, a
16 decision will be rendered as soon as possible.
17 The next item that we need to deal with is disclosure.
18 If I may turn to the Prosecution, what is the status of the
19 disclosure? If you can deal with the -- Rule 66, 68 and 70 separately.
20 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, with the Court's permission, I would ask
21 to defer the details to the text of the 65 ter. A number of issues were
22 raced both by the senior legal officer and the Defence.
23 If I can summarise those briefly, there was a question of
24 remaining translations, the question of the disclosure of statements that
25 appear to have different ERNs from those that were intended. A number of
1 other issues that appeared to be largely technical problems that the
2 parties agreed should be quickly resolved in the course of discussions and
3 didn't present, at least in so far as we were able to determine in our
4 discussions, significant disclosure issues.
5 There was also the question about the request for further
6 disclosure by the Defence which had been raised for the first time at the
7 65 ter. We indicated also to the senior legal officer that we would
8 discuss with the Defence the precise nature of that request, that is for
9 access to materials relating to other cases and the precise parameters of
10 it, and the Prosecution's response to it. It's not something that I think
11 we're in a position to respond to immediately, but it is one of the issues
12 we need to address forthwith in discussions with the Defence.
13 Finally, the issue of the disclosure of materials that are not
14 accessible to the Defence on EDS, a matter which was the subject of some
15 previous discussion at 65 ter Conferences. The Prosecution reported to
16 the senior legal officer during the course of the conference this morning
17 the status of those efforts which entail searching documents based on
18 agreed search criteria that we have discussed with our Defence colleagues,
19 then evaluating the documentation to see whether it falls within the
20 parameters of disclosure, and then, if so, seeking or taking the necessary
21 steps to obtain disclosure for such items as Rule 70 materials.
22 There may have been other general matters that I failed to mention
23 in the course of this summary, but I think that we went through the
24 pending disclosure issues fairly meticulously during the course of the
25 65 ter.
1 I'm not aware at the moment of a problem that would benefit from
2 direct discussions in court to resolve some kind of conceptual impasse but
3 indicate to the Court, as we did at the 65 ter, that further discussions
4 with respect to both technical matters and with respect to the new request
5 would clearly be of benefit.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I quite appreciate the new issues that you have
7 raised and which are mainly of a technical nature. But just for purposes
8 of the record, I would like to get specific answers to issues that were
9 outstanding from the previous Status Conference, namely that -- the
10 Prosecution had indicated, for instance, that there were 100 documents
11 that remained to be translated. I want to know: Have they been
12 translated and, if so, have they been disclosed?
13 MR. TIEGER: My understanding from our support staff, Your Honour,
14 is that the answer is in the affirmative. They have been translated and
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: And can we get confirmation of that from the
18 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, we have indeed received several witness
19 statements. I did not count them, so I could not tell you whether it's
20 exactly 100. And we also don't know what statements the Prosecution
21 intended to disclose to us at that time, so I can confirm that we have
22 received, I believe in November, as well as in September, two disclosures
23 from the Prosecution in the form of CDs, and there has been another
24 disclosure on the EDS system. Whether that's all of it, I didn't count
25 them up, so I don't know for sure.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
2 I would imagine that's the same for the rest of the other teams.
3 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is so, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
5 Then the Prosecution had been awaiting approval from providers of
6 seven Rule 70 documents, again approximately 100 of them. Has that
7 approval been obtained and, if so, have those documents since been
9 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, approval has not been obtained,
10 notwithstanding ongoing and repeated efforts by the Prosecution. Our
11 latest proposal is to actually meet with the provider and go over the
12 individual documents in an effort to obtain such approval.
13 So we're been doing our utmost in that regard and we will continue
14 to make those efforts.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please. The Chamber will appreciate that very
16 much. Excuse me.
17 What about Rule 68 disclosures. Is there any continuing searches
18 that -- and disclosures being made to the Defence?
19 MR. TIEGER: The disclosures are being made on an ongoing basis.
20 One of the Rule 68 issues to which I alluded earlier concerns the
21 non-EDS accessible documentation. The Defence is aware of the
22 Prosecution's efforts in that regard. I can tell the Court, as it may
23 have gleaned from the previous 65 ter conference, and as I mentioned
24 earlier that it is essentially a three-step process, and we are actively
25 in the process of pursuing those steps.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Again, if I may just ask from the Prosecution
2 whether any translation matters are -- are there any translation matters
3 which may be holding up any disclosures or you don't have any problems
4 around translations?
5 MR. TIEGER: First of all, the translation issue was raised at the
6 65 ter by the Defence. We're not entirely sure, based on what was
7 discussed this morning, precisely what the problems are or the extent of
8 those problems. One issue is -- involves the question of receipt by the
9 Defence of certain statements or other documentation that is untranslated.
10 We believe that involves the issue of what documents the Prosecution is
11 obliged to translate. That is, not all documentation that's disclosed to
12 the Defence but statements for which the Prosecution has determined those
13 witnesses will be called or documentation that it intends to introduce
14 into evidence. That's one of the matters that I suggested would likely be
15 resolved during the course of discussions with the Defence, and I'm --
16 remain optimistic that that's the case.
17 The Court is aware, and I mentioned this at the 65 ter, that CLSS
18 is among the resources of the Tribunal that prioritises the translation of
19 documents and that I understood that the Court's indication of a proposed
20 or tentative or target date would facilitate the translation of any
21 documents submitted to CLSS. So I think that will facilitate the process.
22 At the moment, I'm not aware of translation difficulties that are
23 impeding disclosure in a way that needs to be brought to the attention of
24 the Court at this moment. I take on board, however, the change in
25 circumstances generally, and will focus on that particular issue for that
1 particular reason and liaise with the senior legal officer in that
2 connection at the earliest opportunity, and with my colleagues for the
3 Defence as well.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Now, from what we have heard from the
5 Prosecution, I guess we can establish that disclosure has not been
6 concluded yet.
7 MR. TIEGER: That's correct, Your Honour, even beyond the caveat
8 that Rule 68 disclosure of course is never -- is always ongoing. But
9 beyond that, the Court's conclusion is accurate.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I was just going to say barring the Rule 68
11 obligations, what time-line can we put for the rest of the disclosures?
12 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I'm going to ask for forgiveness in
13 advance if it seems like I'm in any fashion dodging the question, but I
14 have said repeatedly, during the course of this morning, that now that
15 pleas have been entered on the amended indictment, a matter that was
16 the -- the parties were waiting for in the past, we can engage in serious
17 discussion about the precise nature of the case, the precise matters at
18 issue, and the best way of paring down the case so that the Court receives
19 only the best information it needs to make its decision. All of those
20 factors are going to affect the disclosure issues. I mean, it will --
21 when we pare down the issues, I'll give you one simple example, agreed
22 facts, which we need to focus on very intently, that has a tremendous
23 impact on the number of documents which are relevant to the case which are
24 required or not required for submission to the case. And I hope we can be
25 in a position to avoid the unnecessary disclosure and translation of
1 documents that turn out to be irrelevant to the trial because the parties
2 have essentially agreed that those facts are not in contention.
3 So that process will have, I think, a huge beneficial impact on
4 the number of documents that need to be disclosed and will make our
5 representations to the Court concerning documents remaining for disclosure
6 much more realistic. One of the factors, for example, and I'll use a
7 concrete example here, was question of disclosure of the material that
8 will be reviewed that is not accessible to the Defence in the EDS system.
9 It will be enormously helpful for us to engage in further discussions with
10 the Defence so that we are not consuming time and resources reviewing and
11 translating documents, burdening them with the receipt of large numbers of
12 documents which no one in the case considers to be relevant. And focusing
13 that in conjunction with the other areas with focus and agreement that I
14 mentioned will dramatically reduce the number of documents in terms of
15 both translation and disclosure.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: That was a very successful dodging of the question,
17 indeed, Mr. Tieger. Thank you very much.
18 I guess we leave it at that point. I don't think you want to do
19 any further dodging of the question, gentlemen. We'll leave it at that
21 MR. KEHOE: He did a wonderful job, Judge.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we then move to agreed facts, which you alluded
23 to, Mr. Tieger, and I suppose they can be equally treated the same, eh?
24 Let me just say, of course, that the parties have been waiting for
25 the pleading in the joinder indictment, and from the point of view of the
1 Chamber, now that we have pleaded this morning, the parties are encouraged
2 to begin to engage almost as soon as possible on discussing the question
3 of agreed facts. I don't know whether you wanted to say anything on that
4 aspect, Mr. Tieger? You seem to be wanting to stand up.
5 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour, I'm sorry. Just that my preliminary
6 discussions with my learned friends suggest to me that that will be a
7 fruitful area of discussion, and it's not difficult to identify even
8 quickly a number of areas that should be amenable to that process.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, I probably might be asking you yet another
10 question which may not be very appropriate. I believe in time-lines,
11 because that's the only way we get to know whether we are on target or
12 not. And I'm comforted by you saying that you think you can agree quickly
13 on the question of agreed facts. Now, how quickly is quick?
14 MR. TIEGER: Did I say quickly?
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: You did. Do you want to look at the record?
16 MR. TIEGER: Well, first of all, I'm anxious to embark on that
17 process as soon as possible. Second, I tried to indicate that I thought
18 there were at least a couple, if not several areas, that were obvious
19 targets of such an effort. And I'm happy to identify that to my
20 colleagues from the Defence today. At the beginning of these discussions,
21 to liaise with the senior legal officer, to indicate to him the areas that
22 we've agreed to focus on initially, and to formulate with them in the next
23 day or two some proposed time-line for coming to possible agreement on
24 those issues.
25 I think it would be a little bit remiss for me to arbitrarily
1 offer a rigid time-line without talking to them, but I can -- I'm happy to
2 commit to liaising to the senior legal officer and getting that
3 information back to the Court within the next 48 hours.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much; I appreciate that. That's
5 enough. Thank you very much.
6 Let's get to the next point of trial starting date.
7 You indicated, gentlemen, this morning, and ladies, that the
8 parties would like a date other than May. How far would you want to go
10 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, I believe that as far as the Defence is
11 concerned, if -- the Defence of General Gotovina, I did consult with my
12 colleagues. I mean the absolute earliest that we could start this would
13 be the fall, September or after. I mean, it's just physically impossible
14 to get this done prior to that time. This is an enormous case, an
15 enormously important case to my client, with a tremendous amount of
16 ramifications for the rest of his life. So getting ready prior to that,
17 I -- it's just virtually impossible and it would be -- it would do a grave
18 disservice to General Gotovina. I don't want to speak for my learned
19 colleagues, but I think they might echo that same response.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Kehoe, it could be September. We have to talk
21 around some other date, but September is just too far out.
22 MR. KEHOE: Judge, this is an enormous case.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand.
24 MR. KEHOE: And obviously it's got an enormous -- I understand
25 that Your Honour has looked at the indictment and has called for some
1 amendments to that indictment, but it's an enormous case and involving a
2 significant, significant set of facts. And I think that much of those
3 could be hashed out prior to that. If we do not take that time, and I
4 think Mr. Tieger will echo this, we could very well be spending trial time
5 on matters we could have resolved among and between ourselves.
6 That being said, Judge, it is simply for the sake of these
7 particular defendants and their preparation time that they have that time.
8 We have -- this morning was the first indication we have ever had
9 concerning a trial date, and it came on all of us quite quickly and quite
10 surprisingly, given the amount of work that we have to do. I will say
11 this as a personal matter, Judge. I mean, I'm a trial lawyer by trade,
12 that's what I do for a living, I try cases. Obviously I try quite a few
13 cases, and I do have cases scheduled out during that period of time. I
14 know that's not the Trial Chamber's problem, but there are clients out
15 there that have -- I have been working for for years and years that I do
16 have an ethical responsibility to as well as I'm sure Your Honour knows
17 being an attorney one time in your career, having that ethical
18 responsibility going through. And with such short period of time going
19 through May, much of that trial time -- many trials have been scheduled
20 for me during that period of time that will be resolved during that
22 But that's not the most important issue. The most important issue
23 is the rights of General Gotovina and the ability to fully and completely
24 prepare this case for trial, and given that set of circumstances, and I
25 believe that the Office of the Prosecutor and the other Defence will
1 agree, that the earliest that we could do this is a September time-frame.
2 And I think that the Prosecutor has some ideas on the actual --
3 how long it will take to finish this trial, given the completion strategy
4 for the Tribunal, and I think that in consultation, I don't want to speak
5 for Mr. Tieger, that Mr. Tieger can discuss some of those approximate
6 time-frames so we're not going to run into a problem.
7 But as far as the Defence of General Gotovina and for General
8 Gotovina as well as the other defendants, I think it would be virtually
9 impossible to start prior to September.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: You do know, Mr. Kehoe, that one of the General
11 Gotovina's fundamental rights as entrenched in the Statute is that he must
12 be tried as expeditiously as possible.
13 MR. KEHOE: I do know that, Judge, and I do believe that once we
14 begin this trial, that will be as expeditious as possible.
15 That being said, Judge, this is a very, very, very fact-intensive
16 case with many different nuances, and the ramifications for General
17 Gotovina are enormous, obviously. He's on trial here for his life, the
18 rest of his life, potentially, given the charges that have been filed
19 against him. And that being said, given those ramifications, General
20 Gotovina would want this additional time in order to make sure that the
21 Defence is completely ready. And that's the time-frame that we are asking
22 for, or the defendants are asking for, and I don't think that that is not
23 in concert with what the OTP projects because it simply would be virtually
24 impossible to complete this -- or to start this case in May, given
25 everything that is going on here.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You know, your address seems to suggest to me that
2 the accused saw the charge for the first time yesterday and that you
3 haven't sort of been working on this case all this time. It's just --
4 just received the indictment and you are only now going to start to
6 MR. KEHOE: I'm not saying -- and, Judge, please, don't take my
7 comments in that regard as -- that no work has been done on this case.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not suggesting no work has been done. I'm
9 saying you're talking as if.
10 MR. KEHOE: No, no, I beg it differ, with all due respect, Judge.
11 However, when you have a particular target, as the Court has a
12 particular target to aim for, the effort -- the things that you need to
13 do, such as bring -- completing all the witness interviews, I mean we
14 haven't had complete disclosure yet, completing all that, getting ready
15 for trial, getting ready for the defendant and everything to be set here
16 in The Hague, that's an enormous process, a time-intensive process and of
17 course an expensive process, and it takes an enormous amount of time.
18 And in order for us to fully and completely do that to the best of
19 our abilities and protect the rights of General Gotovina, given what's at
20 stake here, I do believe, Your Honour, it's impossible for us to begin and
21 be ready in good conscience in May. I do believe that the earliest that
22 we can be ready to do that is September, given the enormity of this case.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Mr. Kehoe, I've heard what you've said. I
24 would -- would that be the position of the remainder of the Defence teams?
25 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is the position
1 of General Cermak's Defence, but we would like to add on to that that so
2 far, the starting date was spring 2008, and despite the fact that we have
3 prepared, we have known what the charges are, moving the date forward by a
4 year disrupts our plans, not only in the way presented by Mr. Kehoe.
5 Let me remind you that before the joinder of these proceedings and
6 indictments, we started discussing agreed facts which was interrupted
7 because of the joinder, and now, for all intents and purposes, we are at
8 the very beginning. The indictment has just been confirmed, we have the
9 right to appeal, so we are in the early stages of the proceedings.
10 The month of May 2007 as the starting date, which came as a
11 surprise, is very much premature, both on the Defence of General Cermak as
12 well as for the other Defence teams.
13 I know that the Defence of General Markac shares our position, and
14 we have heard it from Mr. Kehoe and the position of his client,
15 Mr. Gotovina.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Prodanovic, where does the date of spring 2008
17 come from?
18 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] The potparol of the Prosecutor's
19 office has said it publicly.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: The potparol?
21 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Spokesman, yes, Mr. Nikiforov.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that the Prosecutor's office that schedules
24 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Of course not, Your Honour, but
25 nobody has indicated anything different. Nobody has said that this is not
1 the likely date of the beginning of this trial, and this indication of the
2 date has been made known publicly.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would like to see where it was made known,
4 because -- but anyway, I'm not aware of the Prosecution scheduling cases.
5 I would have thought that the Chamber schedules the cases. At least that
6 has been my experience, my very limited experience, and if the
7 spokesperson --
8 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] Of course you're right, Your
9 Honour. I'm just saying what facts we have been dealing with. And since
10 this has been made public on two occasions in the media, and since it has
11 never been denied by anybody, and in view of the preparations, this is the
12 term that we have had in mind so far.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Unfortunately, you have used the wrong source for
14 your information, Mr. Prodanovic. This Chamber has just been allocated --
15 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] That seems to be obvious, Your
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. Indeed, it is very obvious. This Trial
18 Chamber has only just been allocated to this case, and it is this Chamber
19 that is going to schedule the case, not the Prosecution's office.
20 Anyway. Thank you so much.
21 Anything to add, Mr. Separovic?
22 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, of course it is up to
23 a Defence team to prepare for the trial whenever the date is set by the
24 Chamber. However, we agree with our colleagues, and taking into account
25 all the arguments that have been put forth, we have been guided by the
1 principle that any accused has a right to a speedy trial but also to a
2 fair trial. If a number of technical issues have not been resolved, then
3 the trial itself will not be an expeditious one and that's why we believe
4 that we should delay the start in the meantime, to deal with all the
5 technical issues, and then once the trial starts, we have all things in
6 place. That is why we would like to second the words of our learned
7 colleague and agree to the start of trial in autumn, in September, that
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's almost six months from today to May, and are
10 you saying that six months is not enough to get the Defence ready, in
11 addition to the time that you have had already? Mr. Prodanovic has just
12 told us that you are just about to discuss agreed facts even in the
13 Cermak/Markac case when there was the disruption because of the Gotovina
14 intervention. Surely six months from --
15 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, of course that we
16 have worked all this time, we have prepared ourselves based on the
17 documentation that we have received from the Prosecutor's office and that
18 we, ourselves, have obtained. I can provide you with some very concrete
19 information as to how much of the documentation has not been translated,
20 and if all this is to be translated, if all the documentation is to be
21 received, if all the accused -- agreed facts are to be agreed on, then we
22 can start earlier.
23 However, judging by all the indications from all sides, we have
24 accepted and we believe that the most realistic date for that would be the
25 beginning of September. Having said that, of course, it's not up to us to
1 set up the date, but let me remind you that the indictment has been set so
2 broadly that the Defence has to follow that and be broad as well to follow
3 the indictment.
4 Of course the ultimate goal is to have an expeditious but also a
5 fair trial which would be in everybody's best interest.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Separovic.
7 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I want to move on to something slightly different
9 from the Prosecution.
10 Yes, Mr. Tieger. What contribution are you able to make to this
11 discussion? The Defence wants to start in September. I'm sure the
12 Prosecution would like to start in March.
13 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, let me address one preliminary matter
14 and -- just before answering that and that was with respect to the comment
15 concerning the anticipated trial date based on media reports, and I
16 express this in the interest of the spirit of collegiality that has been
17 part of these proceedings thus far and I think I want to maintain.
18 I understood my colleague to be saying that was the best
19 information he had available, not that he assumed that the Prosecutor's
20 office was in any position to schedule the trial or could trump the Trial
21 Chamber's authority to do so. I can only say in that regard that to the
22 extent speculations about that may have been in the media, I can only
23 presume they were based on what all of us try to do under those
24 circumstances and that is to assess ongoing trials and anticipated trials
25 and make the best judgement possible about allocation of resources and
2 Now, I think that probably the most significant contribution I can
3 make to this discussion is based on some experience in previous cases that
4 have faced one scheduling deadline or another, plus one additional
5 factor. The first factor is recognition of what I think may be a sense of
6 frustration by the Court in attempting to move these cases forward toward
7 an expeditious conclusion. And I guess it's incumbent upon me to say what
8 I believe to be accurate, which is that the representations that have been
9 made by a couple of my Defence colleagues to the effect that the time
10 spent in this pre-trial process will not be lost time is, in my view,
11 accurate. There is a great deal left to be done, it should be done right,
12 that can make this an expeditious trial. And it has been my experience
13 that averting or not addressing those issues fully and comprehensively
14 before trial tends to mean that the time not spent doing that is consumed
15 in open court instead.
16 I was asked and expressed during the 65 ter, or immediately after
17 the 65 ter in the presence of Defence counsel, some -- for a sense of when
18 this trial could be completed if the -- those necessary steps were taken.
19 And it's -- and I heard from the senior legal officer some generalised
20 sense of how long it was anticipated that this case would take, which
21 certainly made the need for the earliest possible trial date a virtual
23 I think that perception is a misunderstanding and my -- so I feel
24 an obligation to say at least this to the Court to -- so that it can
25 consider the previous submissions in proper context, and that is that it
1 seems -- that I believe, based on what I know about the case and what I'm
2 trying to achieve in focusing the case and what I hope to achieve with the
3 Defence in the course of these discussions, that this case would be
4 completed within an approximately 12- to 14-month period, not the inflated
5 periods of time that I heard mentioned at the 65 ter and may otherwise
6 have played a role in the Court's assessment of what the submissions --
7 what the impact of the submissions were.
8 It just seems to me to be remiss not to raise that issue in the
9 light of the Defence submissions and leave the Court with a misimpression
10 about the length of time that would ensue from the commencement of trial
11 under the circumstances we've discussed.
12 I hope that that's helpful to the Court. It seems to me something
13 that I would want to know in the Court's shoes in order to properly
14 evaluate what otherwise seemed to be the competing concerns raised by
15 those submissions.
16 Again, I can only say that I believe that -- and particularly in
17 light of the strict time-lines the Court is talking about. I believe that
18 working and liaising with the court officer, and I say this not for
19 purposes of this particular submission, but because it's something that
20 I've been saying for years. Working with the senior legal officer in that
21 kind of focused, strict fashion, I believe, will produce the most
22 expeditious and effective and efficient trial and mean that the time spent
23 doing that will not be lost time but will be time properly used. And as I
24 say, I've said that over and over in other contexts, and I felt obliged to
25 say it here as well.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Tieger. I accept that the length of
2 time it will take to complete the case is, in my view, not necessarily a
3 very good ground for starting later rather than sooner.
4 MR. TIEGER: I tend to agree, Your Honour, except to the extent
5 that the two are linked, which is another -- if I failed to indicate the
6 relationship between the two, I think there is a clear relationship
7 between focused pre-trial preparation in collaboration with and
8 consultation with the Court and the status that I think many cases find
9 themselves in before they start without benefit of that process.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Anyway, I've heard the presentations and the
11 submissions of the parties. I'm still not convinced that -- or satisfied
12 that September is the appropriate date to start. I would like to give the
13 matter further thought and, if need be, I may ask for further submissions
14 from parties. But I would like, in the meantime, also the parties to put
15 their minds to the starting date and see how much forward they can push it
16 from their side. I will try to see how much backwards I can push it.
17 Let's meet somewhere halfway.
19 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, thank you. If I could just point out
20 one thing. You indicated that you may invite further comment from the
21 parties. We have just found out about this literally within the last hour
22 and a half. If we could have time to consider all the ramifications of
23 the trial date, we would be grateful if you would invite us indeed to
24 provide a written submission to you about our positions on this issue.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
1 MR. MISETIC: Thank you.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know whether you want them to be written,
3 but I would just like to hear more from you, and if you could also address
4 how much you can push the date forward.
5 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. I want to suggest that we
7 leave the trial date out of the question for now, on that note that we
8 will consider it further.
9 The next item that we wanted to talk about is in relation to the
10 invitation of the Prosecution to reduce their indictment pursuant to
11 Rule 73 bis (D). This may not necessarily be the appropriate time to do
12 so, but we just wanted to raise the issue with you and find out whether
13 there are such possibilities from the side of the Prosecution.
14 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, as the Court may be aware, I'm fairly
15 recently into the case upon the completion of a lengthy trial in another
16 matter. I understood my selection to this case to be an invitation,
17 implied invitation by the OTP as well to do my best to ensure that the
18 case was as focused and narrow as possible and so I certainly take on
19 board the Court's invitation. I -- and I appreciate the spirit in which
20 it was just offered. That's part -- that is part of what we hope to
21 achieve and we'll certainly be looking at the matter carefully in that
22 particular way.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I go to my refrain. Do you have any time-lines
24 in mind?
25 MR. TIEGER: I mean to be perfectly transparent, Your Honour, no,
1 I didn't have a time-line in mind. I -- but I welcome the adoption of a
2 time-line. I appreciate the opportunity to think it through in light of
3 everything we're trying to achieve, but I think the Court's suggestion is
4 a sound one and even perhaps an obvious one, and so if the Court will
5 permit me to communicate with -- in fact, maybe the best thing would do
6 was to prepare more broadly some kind of proposed time-line on a number of
7 pending issues but having said that, I am more than happy to communicate
8 to the Court via the senior legal officer, in consultation with the
9 Defence, some proposed time-line for that particular aspect of the
10 pre-trial preparation.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: That would be very much appreciated, Mr. Tieger.
12 Thank you so much.
14 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour, I had one thought on this as,
15 again, we just first discussed this in the Rule 65 ter. But just for
16 something for the Court to consider is the potential impact that any
17 reduction that the Prosecution may make to the indictment would have on
18 our Rule 72 motions. For the sake of efficiency, we may be writing
19 motions and engaging in motion practice over matters that may not appear
20 in a final indictment. I don't know what to do with that, but it may be
21 something for you to consider in terms of us streamlining this case and
22 narrowing the issues that what they ultimately decide to do under Rule 73
23 may have an impact on what we decide to file under Rule 72.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good point, I agree with you. Did we give any
25 time-line for Rule 72 motions? We said the 4th of January.
1 MR. MISETIC: You said the 18th of January.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: 18th of January.
3 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Tieger, are you able to marry these two?
5 MR. TIEGER: I was just thinking the same thing myself, Your
6 Honour, how best to merge those two concerns.
7 I'm not sure I have an idea of a technical formalistic scheduling
8 process that would effectively do that, especially in light of the holiday
9 season coming up, which will have an impact on everybody obviously. But
10 it seems to me at a minimum, that discussions that we can try the
11 following, and that is to see if we can, in consultation with the Defence,
12 identify areas that we know fairly quickly will remain in the indictment
13 or that we -- the Prosecution feels should remain in the indictment, or
14 alternatively, identify fairly quickly some areas which we think can be
15 pared down.
16 Now, it to seems to me also that that process would be facilitated
17 by hearing from the Defence about those issues of concern. I'm sure they
18 will raise matters which we will have to take on board in deciding what
19 parts of the case can be or should be effectively crafted.
20 So it seems to me a two-way street. I don't think it's possible
21 to -- or it would be difficult, to seems to me, to defer the Defence
22 Rule 72 issues entirely behind this effort to pare down the indictment
23 because I think they are interrelated. At the same time, I think
24 Mr. Misetic's point has been made and there's -- no one wants to oblige
25 the Defence to engage in unnecessary effort about matters that aren't
1 going to be at issue.
2 So to the extent that discussions about their projected Rule 72
3 concerns and our feedback to them about areas that -- as quickly as
4 possible, that we think they can remain focused on because it's not likely
5 to form a part of our response to the Court's invitation to reduce the
6 indictment or, alternatively, focus -- you know, alerting them to areas
7 that we've decided affirmatively to respond on it in connection with that
8 invitation, will be of help to the parties. I know it sounds, you know, a
9 little less concrete than I'd like but that's simply because it's one of
10 those problems, it seems to me, where you can't necessarily just put one
11 matter before the other because of their interrelationship, and the best
12 we can do is to communicate as openly as possible during that time.
13 Now, if we can meet together shortly and the progress is such, one
14 way or another, that we know it won't impact on the date for filing the
15 Rule 72 motion, or we know that it will impact on that while still moving
16 the process forward, we can let the Court know as far in advance as
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: By way of concretising what you have just been
19 saying, Mr. Tieger, would it help if the Chamber suggests that maybe you
20 give yourselves a time-line for the meeting between the parties?
21 MR. TIEGER: Absolutely, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: To sort out those things, so that even if you have
23 not yet acted in terms of Rule 73 bis (D) your learned colleagues have an
24 idea of which way you are going to go as they prepare their 72 motions,
25 their Rule 72 motions.
1 MR. TIEGER: Certainly.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: All right. What time-line would we give them?
3 MR. TIEGER: I'm not sure about their availability. It's a little
4 easier for me to ...
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would be particularly keen to get a time-line
6 before the recess.
7 MR. TIEGER: I think we can commit to that.
8 MR. KEHOE: How is tomorrow?
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's very good.
10 MR. KEHOE: Do you like that?
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I like that, Mr. Kehoe.
12 MR. KEHOE: I knew you would, Judge.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe we could start yesterday.
14 Are you serious?
15 MR. KEHOE: I'm serious, Judge.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Prodanovic.
17 In the meantime, Mr. Separovic, how about tomorrow?
18 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have already
19 bought tickets to return to Zagreb and we lost our tickets last time
20 already because there was a meeting scheduled and then didn't happen, so
21 this would be the second time that the tickets would be wasted.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. But as soon as possible. I
23 suppose I can leave that to the parties to sort out.
24 MR. TIEGER: You can, Your Honour. And we will communicate with
25 the senior legal officer about precisely that issue and the concrete steps
1 that are being taken and the concrete progress that is being made.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Tieger. Let's leave it on
3 that note.
4 The next point relates to potential conflicts of interest between
5 various Defence teams. I think I'm going to ask you, Mr. Kehoe, to lead
6 us on this one.
7 MR. KEHOE: Judge, our position with regard to the -- any conflict
8 is it's up to the other Defence counsel, and we have no position on that
9 other than as it related to the matters that we had set forth.
10 This is a matter that had never been brought before a Trial
11 Chamber. It came up with regard to an appellate decision, so I will leave
12 this to my learned colleague.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. But it was because of the arguments that were
14 being put forward before the appellate -- before the Appellate Chamber,
15 isn't it, sir?
16 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, Your Honour?
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: It came out because of the submissions that were
18 being put before the Appellate Chamber and some of the parties submitting
19 that there very well may be conflict of interest.
20 MR. KEHOE: And, Your Honour, we addressed some of those matters
21 as it related to the joinder indictment and witnesses, but what we have
22 never had is any type of discussion with the Trial Chamber with regard to
23 this matter, nor how to resolve this matter so that every defendant has
24 the counsel of his or her choice.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. May I be corrected, this is a matter on
1 which we are still awaiting a decision from the Appeals Chamber.
2 MR. KEHOE: I do believe that my -- Mr. Separovic has a matter and
3 we did respond to it at that point.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: On the clarification of --
5 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Maybe let's -- rather not go into it, let's
7 leave it at that. It is still in the Appellate Chamber, we leave it at
8 that. Unless anybody else wants to say anything on it.
9 Mr. Tieger.
10 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour, I have nothing to add.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Separovic. Mr. Prodanovic.
12 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 The last item from the Bench relates to translation requests to
15 CLSS. The policy of CLSS is to translate only those documents which are
16 to be submitted as evidence in court. The main problem here is that
17 parties tend to submit translation requests of documents labelled as
18 intended to be tendered as evidence which they eventually do not so
19 tender. And then on the 24th of August this year, the bureau endorsed
20 various recommendations with special regard to trials of multi-accused
21 cases, and one such recommendation is that the Pre-Trial Judge will raise
22 this issue at the Status Conference, and I should therefore stress that
23 the parties are really sort of requested to try and limit, to the best of
24 their ability, their translation requests to those documents which will
25 ultimately be tendered into evidence and that they must prioritise their
1 translation requests and make relevant information available to CLSS and
2 ODM on a confidential basis.
3 Any questions or any issues? Don't ask me what CLSS stands for or
4 ODM. May I help you on that one.
5 Yes, Mr. Tieger.
6 MR. TIEGER: I think everyone -- I see everyone nodding, I'm sure
7 everyone takes on board the problem of limited resources and the need to
8 focus as well as we can. I can only note the obvious issue that it's --
9 apart from the progress of trial which affects the assessment of the need
10 for a particular document to some extent, there is the more obvious
11 problem of trying to assess a document, a document's value and its utility
12 in the litigation without the translation. So there's a chicken-and-egg
13 problem that comes into play. I know everyone does its best; I just ask
14 the understanding of the Court with respect to that particular dilemma.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. No, that's quite
17 Any issue that any of the other parties would like to raise.
18 Mr. Tieger?
19 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour, thank you very much.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Kehoe.
21 MR. KEHOE: No, Your Honour, thank you very much.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Prodanovic.
23 MR. PRODANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour.
24 MR. SEPAROVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then this brings us to the end of our Status
1 Conference and pre-trial appearance.
2 Court adjourned.
3 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at
4 10.20 a.m.