1 Thursday, 10 March 2005
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, I'm having a
6 problem with my screen. I have a document. We have documents of the 16th
8 We won't waste any more time. We shall begin. I have nothing in
9 front of me, but I'll behave as if I had.
10 Mr. Registrar, will you please call the case.
11 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
12 IT-01-47-T, the Prosecutor versus Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
14 The appearances for the Prosecution, please.
15 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
16 Your Honours, Counsel, and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the
17 Prosecution, Matthias Neuner and Daryl Mundis, assisted by Andres Vatter.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can we have the appearances for
19 the Defence now, please.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. President.
21 Good afternoon, Your Honours. On behalf of General Enver Hadzihasanovic,
22 Edina Residovic, counsel; Stephane Bourgon, co-counsel; and Muriel Cauvin,
23 legal assistant.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 The appearances for the second Defence team, please.
1 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
2 On behalf of Mr. Kubura, Rodney Dixon, Fahrudin Ibrisimovic, and Nermin
3 Mulalic, legal assistant.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On this day, the 10th of March,
5 2005, I bid good afternoon to all those present: The representatives of
6 the Prosecution, of the Defence, Generals Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, and
7 all others present in this courtroom.
8 I have learnt that Courtroom II will be free tomorrow morning
9 because a trial there has been suspended and adjourned until next Monday,
10 which means that the courtroom is free. The question arises, therefore,
11 whether the Defence and the Prosecution would have no problems if we held
12 our hearing tomorrow morning.
13 The Prosecution.
14 MR. MUNDIS: We have no objections.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the Defence? Will you have
16 time to prepare your witness?
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we shall do our
18 best, and we agree that we begin tomorrow morning.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judges were wondering over
20 something, and it seemed to us that during the Prosecution case the
21 Prosecution witnesses were seen by the Defence, so we were wondering
22 whether your witnesses meet the Prosecution before appearing in court.
23 [Defence counsel confer]
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon has understood.
25 Perhaps he can give me an answer.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I wasn't following
2 the question you put to me.
3 We did meet with witnesses at our request, and those were mostly
4 international witnesses. We never encountered a witness from the
5 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the exception of the first or
6 second witness, whom we saw for five minutes in the witness room with your
7 permission. The Prosecution has not shown any interest in meeting our
8 witnesses. The Prosecution has spoken to some of them before in
9 preparation of their case when they stated that they would be Defence
10 witnesses, and then the Prosecution did not call them as their witnesses.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for this explanation,
12 which is quite clear now.
13 If there's no need for the Prosecution to be present, then it's
14 not necessary.
15 Mr. Registrar, is it possible to hold the hearing tomorrow
17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That being settled, we're
19 happy, because as you know, we were fierce partisans of Friday-morning
21 Secondly, the Defence has given us their list regarding the
22 scenarios indicating the name of each witness. Does the Prosecution have
23 this document and what do they say?
24 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. We did in fact receive a
25 copy of that document from the Defence. At this point in time, we don't
1 have anything to say in response to the document. We -- we may seek your
2 leave to address Your Honours on that document in the near future or we,
3 of course, will most certainly address that document during our closing
4 arguments and in our final trial brief, but I don't believe we'll be
5 making any comments prior to that point in time. If we choose to do so,
6 we'll seek Your Honours' leave in order to -- to be permitted to do that.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Should I take it, then, that as
8 far as the Prosecution is concerned, if this document is given an exhibit
9 number, there is no comment on the part of the Prosecution?
10 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, our position would be that it -- that
11 perhaps it should be filed, as with the -- the written filings that the
12 Hadzihasanovic Defence filed with respect to the witness, but our view is
13 that it should not be categorised as "evidence," because it -- in our
14 respectful submission, it's not evidence. It's simply a -- attorney work
15 product that was compiled in order to assist the witness with creating the
16 scenarios for purposes of the litigation in this case. And our view would
17 be it's not evidence.
18 Again, Your Honour will recall when this issue came up earlier in
19 the week one of the indicators that we expressly requested be provided was
20 the precise page numbers and dates of the testimony so that we could
21 pinpoint with some degree of accuracy exactly where it is the witnesses
22 testified about the matters that were then reflected in the maps produced
23 by the witness this week. I understand the Trial Chamber specifically
24 requested simply the names and the scenarios. But -- but our view,
25 Mr. President, is that this is not evidence and it shouldn't be treated as
1 evidence. We have no problem with it being treated as a filing or as some
2 kind of a pleading, but -- but our position is that this document is not
3 evidence. It is certainly perhaps some kind of reflection as to where the
4 information came from, but without any specifics, our view is that it's --
5 it's not in any way evidence. It's simply something that was created by
6 the Defence.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I had difficulty following what
8 you were saying.
9 Exhibit 25, which is the table prepared by the witness, and the
10 15 scenarios with the distances, the heights, the differences in
11 distances, and his conclusions, observation possible, possible, not
12 possible, et cetera. This document which the Defence has tendered, what
13 is it in your view? Is it a Defence exhibit? What is the nature of that
15 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, you'll -- you'll recall that in
16 the -- the Defence filing with respect to this witness our initial fax
17 letter to them was provided. Our position has been that this is the type
18 of evidence that an expert produces. That is, he's provided with certain
19 information and then based on his expertise produces some kind of report
20 or analysis of the information.
21 Certainly the chart that the witness produced is or can be
22 considered evidence in the sense that this witness, who had some expertise
23 that the average layperson doesn't have, is now before Your Honours. Our
24 position, however, that the chart on the top whereby the Defence indicates
25 which witness testimony those specific points that the expert or the
1 witness was provided with in order to undertake his analysis is not
2 evidence. In other words, the fact that Witness X may or may not have
3 indicated where he was when he testified that he saw something at a
4 different place, that -- that's in -- that's already in evidence. That's
5 trial testimony. It's reflected in the transcripts. If the Defence can
6 tell us on this date this witness said he was on Strmac and looked at
7 Cukle, for example, we have no problem with that. Again, it's not
8 necessarily -- the -- the chart is not evidence. It's part of the
9 Defence's position. It's their argument. But simply indicating that some
10 witness was the basis for these points without telling us where or what
11 day and what page, our -- our respectful view is -- is of no value
13 And again, our position is that the parties - that is, the
14 Defence or the Prosecution - isn't in a position to be in effect creating
15 evidence such as that. And that -- and simply that the cover page is not
16 evidence. The underlying sheet that the witness produced is already in
17 evidence. But our position is that that front page, at least, is
18 certainly not evidence. It might reflect the evidence. But in the -- in
19 its current state, without being more precise, it has little or no value,
20 in our respectful views.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will give the floor to the
23 If I understand well, the position of the Prosecution is that the
24 witness who testified should not have been a fact witness but more of an
25 expert witness. However, due to the fact that he was a fact witness, if a
1 document is produced, it should be produced by an expert witness.
2 Whereas, this particular document was produced by the Defence.
3 In this connection, my personal opinion would be as follows: We
4 are in a mixed type of procedure, common-law and continental law. In
5 continental law, when there is an expert report which is drafted by an
6 expert who is independent of the parties, the expert is informed of the
7 question of a technical nature and he would in that case be given 15
8 scenarios and he would also be given statements of witnesses related to
9 those scenarios, and the expert in continental law would then have
10 prepared this table, which is under tab 25, and he would have placed a
11 column with the names of the witnesses. And during the testimony of the
12 expert, the Chamber would have that table with the names of the witnesses.
13 That is the comment that I would make.
14 Certainly in common law in the strict sense of the word, that is
15 not possible, but I was saying that we are in a kind of hybrid system, a
16 combined system.
17 So, Mr. Mundis. And after you, I'll give the floor to the
19 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the procedure works virtually the
20 same way that Your Honour has just described it in the common law, and one
21 of the requirements is that the expert's report or his testimony be done
22 in such a transparent way so that everyone knows precisely what the
23 witness based his or her conclusions on.
24 All we have now -- and it would be the same in the common law.
25 The expert would be provided with the actual transcript testimony of the
2 What we have in this case is the Defence simply informed the
3 witness, the expert if you will, for lack of a better term, "Can you see
4 from Strmac to Cukle?" Now, our point becomes the fact that, for example,
5 as indicated on the chart with -- the witness Jandric testified about
6 that. We need to know exactly where Mr. Jandric says he was. The fact
7 that he was somewhere on the Strmac mountain or hill, which is a large
8 feature, as is clear from the map, that's our precise concern with this,
9 Mr. President, that -- that -- until the Defence can say, "On this page,
10 this line, he said I was at this point on the mountain," in our respectful
11 view, this entire exercise has some flaws in it.
12 And so the simple fact that they said, "This witness said he was
13 on this mountain," which is a large thing, looking at, again, Cukle, for
14 example - there's Upper Cukle, Lower Cukle, Strmac has two elevation high
15 points, as we explored with the witness - the simple fact that he said
16 Jandric said he was on Strmac and looked at Cukle. That's our problem.
17 That's our concern with this. And the simple fact that they've informed
18 us which witness testified about that without telling us where in the
19 transcript that came from, that's been our problem all along,
20 Mr. President, with respect to this exercise.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for the additional
22 explanations you have given.
23 Now to elucidate the Judges, what can the Defence tell us, as you
24 have been following the debate.
25 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Good
1 afternoon, Your Honours.
2 Mr. President, I think that there may be a confusion in the
3 arguments presented by the Prosecution. Regarding the question, to use
4 the term used by my learned friend, "the exercise itself is faulty," I
5 would come to that at the end. But the first point I wish to make is the
6 question of whether the witness was an expert or not.
7 It was decided by the Chamber as a fact witness, so he did not
8 testify as an expert witness.
9 Having said that, a week prior to the appearance of the witness
10 in court, we informed the Chamber that there had been some discussion
11 between the Prosecution and us to agree on the modality so that everything
12 should be clear for everyone. I met with my colleague, who gave me a list
13 of questions, to which the Defence answered in the most objective and
14 clearest possible manner so that there should be no confusion. Those
15 questions were put. There were no comments by the Prosecution regarding
16 that filing. That is the first point, the question of the status of the
18 Secondly, what we would like or are asking to tender today - on
19 this point I agree with my colleague - it does not constitute evidence.
20 It is just information that we wish to give to the Chamber so as to
21 facilitate their work. If the Chamber is interested in reviewing and
22 applying the conclusions of the witness to the source from where the
23 conclusions came - that is, the testimony of certain persons who appeared
24 before this Chamber - they can do so. So it is not evidence. It is
25 simply to facilitate our work.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 We asked the witness to carry out observation from point A to
2 point B, and his conclusion is that you couldn't observe things from point
3 A to point B, and it is useful for the Chamber to know whether this can
4 apply to one of the -- to the testimony of one of the Prosecution
6 Also, we explained to the Chamber, as we did in our written
7 submissions, that -- why we never gave the witness the nail of the person
8 and the evidence; it's simply because we wanted him to carry out a
9 technical exercise. And during the Prosecution case, also there was an
10 effort to submit drawings of damages that didn't -- were not
11 contemporaneous. So we had to witness who analysed distances. And during
12 our closing arguments, we will be able to refer to them and argue them, as
13 my learned friend has mentioned.
14 If the Chamber wishes to have the details at this stage - that
15 is, that Witness X was standing at such-and-such a place - then that
16 exercise would become evidence, and that is what we wanted to avoid, not
17 to provide those details, because that would be making arguments prior to
18 the closing argument. So we're giving the Judges the sources. And if the
19 Chamber feels it's useful to go and look, that's fine. If the Chamber
20 will wait until the end, when they hear the closing arguments, it is up to
21 the Chamber to decide. They're absolutely independent and it's up to them
22 to decide what they will do with it. But it is not evidence.
23 Regarding the exercise as such, my learned friend from the
24 Prosecution during the first day of testimony contacted me and said that
25 there were problems regarding the relevance of the conclusions, and it was
1 then that he asked me about the sources, and I provided him with the
2 necessary information as to where the practical instances submitted to the
3 witness came from.
4 The question of shortcomings, I think my learned friend can
5 always argue that, as we will do in our closing argument for our part. In
6 our view, there are no shortcomings. The witness said he took -- he stood
7 at the most favourable position, regardless of whether he was on one
8 summit or another. The witness took the most favourable position. So as
9 far as we are concerned, there's no problem. But the Prosecution is free
10 to argue that the witness's conclusions are not good.
11 All we wish to do at this stage is to facilitate the work of the
12 Chamber. If a witness said, "You couldn't see from Strmac to Gornji
13 Cukle," then go and check with what a certain witness said.
14 So we have had a lot of argument and a lot of debate, which I
15 don't think is necessary.
16 Finally, one of the reasons why the witness did not appear as an
17 expert was a question of budget. We don't have a budget for an expert
18 witness. We don't have the means provided to engage an expert witness.
19 And I explained to my colleague that that was one of the reasons, and we
20 don't have the funds envisaged by the Tribunal's Statute for this.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The parties agree,
22 however, that this document is not evidence. But if you're asking it to
23 be given a number, that's the problem. If you're asking DH2060 for this
24 document, the Prosecution can say, "Wait a minute. Then That is
25 evidence." Are you asking for it to be given a number or not?
1 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. All we
2 would like is to add this information to an existing number, wherever it
3 may be practical. There were 15 practical cases, as explained by the
4 witness. The number is DH1978, I think. And we would simply like to add
5 this document to that document. Because if one wants to use a document
6 from this number, then this will be very helpful.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you simply wish that we add
8 it under 1978.
9 And the other Defence attorneys? Have they any additional
10 clarifications to give? No.
11 Mr. Mundis, have you understood? The Prosecution is asking just
12 one thing -- or rather, I'm sorry, the Defence. The Defence. They don't
13 want a new number. It is not evidence. They just want this document to
14 be added to the documents under 1978. So there'll be no new number. And
15 it will not serve as evidence, just simply to help everyone; you as well.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, with all due respect, I -- I believe
17 that if it's appended or added to a currently existing exhibit, then
18 it's -- then it's part of the evidence. I would again make just a -- a
19 suggestion on a way at of this. Perhaps my learned colleagues could file
20 a one-sentence filing saying, "This is an annex to our filing of,"
21 whatever date they filed the methodology of the expert report and simply
22 say, "Attached is an annex which is a supplemental information pursuant to
23 the modalities that they explained to us in their earlier filing. This
24 could simply be an annex to that. They could either put it in or file an
25 additional sentence indicating that this should be attached to this
1 earlier filing. It's just my suggestion. But I don't believe that we ever
2 add anything to exhibits once the witness has left, particularly something
3 the witness wasn't aware of. The only thing I'm aware that ever gets
4 added to an exhibit is a translation that might be forthcoming or revised.
5 But I don't believe we should be adding things to exhibits, particularly
6 when the witness wasn't aware of any of that information, and it then
7 becomes part of the exhibit.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecution is suggesting a
9 solution, and that is for the Defence to make a filing of a few lines
10 saying, "Following Exhibit 1978, we are submitting a list of witnesses
11 corresponding to the scenarios," and simply to clarify things and not as
12 evidence, at a certain stage, at some point.
13 But the Prosecution wishes to be reassured, and it would like a
15 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
16 The best solution would be on the document itself to make a note
17 on the piece of paper itself, the one that we wish to tender. But this is
18 just to facilitate things.
19 My learned friend is suggesting that we add this document to the
20 filing on modalities. We feel that that is not possible because in that
21 filing we specified that this was an important phase for us, that the
22 witness did not have this information.
23 If the Chamber goes back a little. When the witness completes
24 his testimony, we simply wish to indicate scenario number 1 refers to
25 such-and-such a witness.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, we seem to be using
2 a lot of time.
3 Rest assured this helps in advancing the procedure.
4 The Judges will spend a lot of time discussing the matter and
5 we'll tell you what is the most suitable solution, because the matter is
6 of some importance after all. We will deliberate on this later.
7 We shall now go into private session because I have something
8 else to add.
9 [Private session]
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In open session, the CLSS in
9 accordance with the request of the Chamber in a memo dated the 3rd of
10 March reviewed once again the question of the translation of the
11 word "odnosno" appearing in Exhibit P662, and the CLSS in their memo,
12 which you have, confirmed that this term should be translated by the
13 words "in other words."
14 That's it. That is what they're telling us.
15 Mr. Dixon, we've come to the third memo. You're not going to ask
16 us for a fourth. But I give you the floor.
17 MR. DIXON: Your Honour, certainly not. I'm not going to ask for
18 any further request to be sent back to the CLSS. I think we've come to
19 the end of the road in this regard, and we do wish to thank them for the
20 work that they've undertaken.
21 However, I do wish to use the opportunity to -- to indicate that,
22 in my submission, the primary question which we have raised still has not
23 been answered, and -- and that is, we have said all along this word can be
24 read in two ways. It can be read "in other words" or it can be read as to
25 mean "and." So it can read: "The 7th Brigade and the Mujahedin."
1 The CLSS have indicated that it can only be read in one way. In
2 our view, with the greatest respect to them, this is an incorrect
3 interpretation of the word. And we will therefore have to, as
4 Your Honours have suggested, take this matter further and discuss it with
5 experts in the field. And as part to have case for Mr. Kubura, we may
6 decide to call an expert witness to clarify that point.
7 We would, in addition to that, Your Honours, request that if this
8 memorandum is now to be made an exhibit, which I'm sure it does need to
9 be, that we attach to it a copy - and I have extra copies here - of the
10 dictionary definition. This definition is referred to in the memorandum.
11 It's the Buljas [phoen] dictionary. And in that definition, which is
12 partly quoted in the -- the memorandum, it quite clearly says in the
13 examples that are set out under the word that "odnosno" can mean "and."
14 And I referred to these on the last occasion, your, they're examples 14
15 and 17, 8 and 9, aunt and cousin. And you'll see if Your Honours have a
16 look at this document how the examples show that the word can be read to
17 mean "and" as well.
18 And in our view, seeing it has been referred to in the
19 memorandum, the -- the dictionary definition, but only partly quoted, we
20 do believe that it would only be fair that it be attached to this
21 memorandum and become part of the exhibits so that Your Honours can see
22 the full dictionary definition of the word.
23 The one final thing I -- I do wish to say, Your Honours, is that
24 I have been listening for the word "odnosno" when it has come up a few
25 times during the -- the trial, and it has, in fact, been interpreted - I
1 don't know if Your Honours have heard this - in both ways. I've heard it
2 interpreted as "in other words," but identify also heard it interpreted
3 as "and." For example, a few days ago: "1993 odnosno 1994," it was
4 interpreted as "1993 and 1994." So once again, that lends support to our
6 I know Mr. Mundis will probably say these are all submissions
7 which we can make in our closing argument, which we will. The memorandum
8 from CLSS is only one part of the evidence and we will be able to make
9 submissions on that. But I thought it important now to point out and it
10 might come up again in the future, that this word is interpreted by those
11 in the interpretation booths in both ways and it may well be that we will
12 in our case in calling a witness seek to confirm that through additional
14 But, Your Honours, my only request now is that if it is to be
15 made an exhibit, can the full dictionary definition please be appended to
16 the memorandum. I have additional copies here. With the assistance of
17 the usher I can hand those to my learned friend, Mr. Mundis, and to
18 Your Honours, of course.
19 Thank you, Your Honours, for the opportunity to address this
20 matter again.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll show the dictionary
22 definition to the Prosecution.
23 The Defence would like us to attach this document to the memo.
24 In this document, you will all note that -- that "and" also appears as a
1 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, we have no objection to this. And
2 again, our position has always been, as reflected in the previous CLSS
3 memos, that the word "odnosno" needs to be taken in its proper context.
4 And of course my learned friend pointed out, the example of "1993 odnosno
5 1994" and clearly that would be an example where in the context of that it
6 would be the word "and" used, because you wouldn't normally say "1993 in
7 other words 1994." So clearly in the exact example he's given, the use of
8 context is important. And we've always said that.
9 CLSS, with respect to this document, has reviewed the issue, and
10 in the context indicates the -- the translation as they have now
11 re-revised it. So we certainly have no objection to the -- to the excerpt
12 of this dictionary being appended to the 3 March 2005 CLSS memo, and I
13 presume, as with the other memos, that it be given a Court Exhibit number.
14 We have -- we have no problem with that, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll give the floor to the
16 Defence. I myself have noted that several witnesses have used this word,
17 and I was tempted to ask them to explain the word, but that would mean
18 entering a discussion on grammar, and that was not why the witness came.
19 I noted that Madam Residovic also used the word very often. I
20 was going to ask her to tell us what she means when she uses it. You have
21 the floor.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we agree with the
23 arguments provided by our learned friend Mr. Dixon.
24 I also wanted to add that each time that we ask the witness a
25 question, especially when he's enumerating things and he says "odnosno,"
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 then I remember this document.
2 What you noticed yourself is also the best confirmation of our
3 claim, that the word "odnosno" is frequently used in different contexts
4 with a different meaning, and the drafter of the document, or the person
5 who is speaking would be in the best position to explain then in what
6 sense the word was used.
7 In the case of this specific document, the Court has several
8 options: He has -- they have heard the witnesses. They will also hear
9 different interpretations. But we would like to have this attachment
10 together with the interpretation by the translation service along -- under
11 the same exhibit number.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I would now like to
13 the registrar to give us the number for the note from the translation
14 service and a number for the excerpt from the dictionary.
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Regarding the memo from the
17 translation service from March 3rd, 2005 and the copy from the dictionary
18 provided by Mr. Dixon, could you please give us a number.
19 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. That will be
20 Exhibit of the Court C11.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. And now we can
22 press all the buttons to have the blinds down and so that we could bring
23 in the witness and move into closed session.
24 [Closed session]
11 Pages 17154-17210 redacted. Closed session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, we are in
4 open session.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was saying that if there are
6 no special issues to address this evening, we will adjourn and resume work
7 tomorrow morning at 9.00. Thank you.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.56 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Friday, the 11th day of
10 March, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.