1 Tuesday, 6 October 2009
2 [Pre-Trial Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good afternoon, everybody.
7 Could you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, and good afternoon, Your Honours.
9 This is case number IT-95-5/18-PT, the Prosecutor versus
10 Radovan Karadzic.
11 JUDGE KWON: Could I have the appearances.
12 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. Good afternoon, Mr. President,
13 Your Honours. Alan Tieger, Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff, and Iain Reid
14 appearing for the Prosecution -- excuse me, and Ann Sutherland. I got
15 into a litany.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Tieger.
17 Mr. Karadzic, I take it that you are following these proceedings
18 in the language you understand, and I also take it that you are appearing
19 on your own today.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Excellency, you are right
21 on both counts.
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
23 This is a Pre-Trial Conference held pursuant to Rule 73 bis of
24 the Tribunal's Rules in order to make the final arrangement for the
25 commencement of the trial. For this reason, we are sitting as a Bench
1 comprised of myself, Judge Howard Morrison, Judge Melville Baird, and
2 Judge Flavia Lattanzi as our Reserve Judge. However, since Judge Baird
3 has decided to refrain from sitting pending the accused's motion to
4 disqualify him, we are sitting today pursuant to Rule 15 bis.
5 The Chamber had previously decided that the trial would commence
6 on Monday, 19th of October, 2009, following which Mr. Karadzic filed an
7 application for a certification to appeal, which we granted. The
8 Appeals Chamber is currently considering the matter and will render its
9 decision in due course. Should the Appeals Chamber not issue its
10 decision before 14th of October, the Trial Chamber will need to consider
11 staying the commencement of trial until such time as the
12 Appeals Chamber's decision is issued. However, until that time, we must
13 continue to work on the basis that the trial will commence as planned.
14 I wish to inform you, however, that for administrative reasons
15 the Trial Chamber intends to commence the trial on Wednesday, 21st of
16 October, rather than the 19th, and will sit that week for two days, being
17 21st and 22nd October, in the mornings.
18 Before turning to some of the procedural issues associated with
19 the commencement of the trial, I will first deliver on behalf of the
20 Chamber our decision on the application of Rule 73 bis. On 22nd July
21 2009, the Trial Chamber ordered the Prosecution to make written
22 submissions on how Rule 73 bis (D) may be utilised to reduce the size of
23 the trial and ensure that it is conducted fairly and expeditiously. The
24 Prosecution filed its submission on 31st of August, making a number of
25 proposals. First, it reduced the length of time required for the
1 examination-in-chief of its proposed viva voce and Rule 92 ter witnesses
2 by moving a number of witnesses to a reserve list and re-assessing the
3 time required for each of the remaining witnesses. It also proposed the
4 reduction of a number of crime sites or incidents alleged in the
5 indictment, removing several municipalities in their entirety from the
6 scope of the trial, as well as several specific crime sites or incidents
7 within the remaining municipalities.
8 Following a discussion on the matter at the Status Conference
9 held on 8th of September, 2009, the Prosecution made a second written
10 submission on 18th September, stating that it could not reduce the
11 municipalities or crime sites and incidents any further without doing
12 damage to its case as a whole, but further revising the time needed for
13 the presentation of its evidence in chief down to 252 hours.
14 The accused filed a written response on 30th of September,
15 without making any specific proposals or submissions in relation to the
17 The Trial Chamber has carefully considered how to exercise its
18 Rule 73 bis powers, in light of the parties' submissions and the
19 observations made at the 8th of September Status Conference concerning
20 the length of the trial as a whole and the practical realities that the
21 Chamber and the parties must face. It emphasises again that its
22 paramount interest is ensuring a trial that is conducted fairly,
23 including fairness to the accused and to the Prosecution and the victims
24 that the Prosecution represents, as well as expeditiously so that justice
25 is done.
1 First, the Chamber appreciates the efforts made by the
2 Prosecution in its first written submission to reduce the crime sites and
3 incidents that will be the subject of this trial. The Chamber accepts
4 each of the proposals for reduction made by the Prosecution and
5 determines pursuant to Rule 73 bis (D) that the Prosecution may not
6 present evidence in respect of the crime sites and incidents identified
7 by it. Despite the efforts of the Chamber to encourage the Prosecution
8 to identify further crime sites and incidents that might be omitted from
9 the scope of this trial, the Prosecution has disappointingly chosen not
10 to do so. The Chamber remains gravely concerned about the scope of the
11 Prosecution's case; however, without yet having a detailed understanding
12 of the Prosecution's case or evidence and in the absence of assistance
13 from the Prosecution, it is extremely difficult for the Chamber to select
14 additional crime sites or incidents for removal. Therefore, the Chamber
15 has decided to adopt another approach.
16 In addition to the reductions suggested by the Prosecution's
17 first written submission, the Chamber will exercise its power under
18 Rule 73 bis (C) to determine the time available to the Prosecution for
19 the presentation of its evidence. In light of the various proposals made
20 by the Prosecution and the Chamber's own time calculations, we consider
21 that Prosecution should lead all of its evidence within a total of
22 300 hours. This figure is to include its examination-in-chief and any
23 re-examination of its viva voce and Rule 92 ter witnesses, including any
24 witnesses whose evidence is denied admission under Rule 92 bis.
25 It also includes time for any witnesses who have been placed on
1 the Prosecution's reserve witnesses list and who the Prosecution
2 determines during the course of its case in chief that it needs to call.
3 Given that this figure of 300 hours is close to the amount of time which
4 would be allowed to the Prosecution to present its case, if the
5 Prosecution case is to last for a year with the Chamber sitting five days
6 a week, and that the Prosecution has been allowed much more time than the
7 final version of its estimate of time for the presentation of its case
8 which was 252 hours and even the Prosecution's original estimate before
9 any reductions of crime sites and incidents was less than this number,
10 i.e., 293 hours, the Prosecution should be able to finish its case within
11 this time-limit and should not exceed it in any event.
12 In the interest of clarity, the Prosecution should file a
13 marked-up version of the indictment and its schedules based upon
14 appendix B to its 31st August submission and this decision with each of
15 the municipalities and/or crime sites or incidents that will be -- that
16 will not be the subject of evidence at trial struck through. Where the
17 crime site or incident that has been thus removed is not the subject of
18 specific schedule or is subsumed within a scheduled site or incident that
19 remains part of the trial, the Prosecution should use footnotes to
20 explain those charges that have been removed and those that remain part
21 of the trial so that the accused can understand what charges are
22 remaining clearly. This marked-up version of the indictment should be
23 filed publicly by 19th of October, 2009.
24 This is the Chamber's decision which will be followed shortly by
25 a written version.
1 Having dealt with this now I come to the procedural guide-lines
2 issue. Shortly after this Pre-Trial Conference, the Chamber is minded to
3 issue an order setting out certain procedural guide-lines for the conduct
4 of this trial. We have already carefully considered the written
5 submissions of the parties on this matter, and I wish to raise a few
6 items for discussion before we finalise our order.
7 First, with respect to opening statements, both the Prosecution
8 and the accused wish to make opening statements at the commencement of
9 the trial. The accused has requested time equal to that of the
10 Prosecution for his opening statement, but the Prosecution has not
11 indicated how much time it envisages taking. I would like, therefore, to
12 ask Mr. Tieger how much time it will take for your opening statement.
13 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour. I don't know if the Court
14 has had an opportunity to look at the times allotted in related or
15 comparable cases, but we did take a look at that and that assessment as
16 we saw it was actually confirmed by the materials prepared today for
17 opening. So the Prosecution would ask the Court to allot two days for
18 the opening statement.
19 JUDGE KWON: So if the trial is to be commencing on 21st of
20 October, you will need that whole week, given that we are sitting for two
22 MR. TIEGER: It's a different way of looking at it, but I guess
23 it comes down to that, Your Honour, yes. Thank you.
24 [Pre-Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
1 Mr. Karadzic, I take it that you'll -- you would then request for
2 two days as well for your opening statement?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Excellency. I would
4 really require the same amount of time. If I'm able to present my case
5 earlier, I can finish earlier. But now this is a good opportunity to
6 reiterate that this commencement date goes beyond any reasonable
7 possibility for me to be prepared regarding my submission and appeal, but
8 I'm going to use the time that is going to be allocated to me.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
10 Mr. Tieger, on your part do you have any observation as to the
11 opening statement by the accused?
12 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour, nothing comes to mind.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
14 Next issue that I have on my agenda is the modalities of the
15 conduct of the trial, in particular on the part of the accused in terms
16 of his self-representation.
17 Mr. Karadzic has requested that during the course of the trial
18 the Chamber grant right of audience to his legal advisor,
19 Mr. Peter Robinson, so that he can intervene on legal matters on behalf
20 of the accused. He has also asked that his assigned case managers and
21 another of his assigned legal associates be permitted access to the
22 courtroom without rights of audience to assist him in the conduct of his
23 defence. Before deciding this matter, I would like to hear from you,
24 Mr. Karadzic, on precisely the role you envisage for Mr. Robinson in the
25 proceedings. What kinds of legal issues do you intend for him to speak
1 on, or can you give us examples of other types of scenarios where you
2 would wish him to be actively engaged in arguments or submissions.
3 Mr. Karadzic.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, what I envisage
5 as a role of Mr. Robinson would be something that I, myself, would have
6 to allocate as the time for consultations on exclusively legal issues
7 that have nothing to do with the factual situation; in other words, that
8 would be an attempt on my part for -- to gain and offset the time that we
9 might use for preparation in order to ensure a smooth conduction of
10 proceedings. Therefore, I will have an opportunity not to waste any time
11 when it comes to legal issues. These are procedural matters, solely
12 procedural matters, whereas as for the factual issues, I shall be solely
13 responsible to conduct my case and Mr. Robinson would only have an
14 advisory role, and by my authority he would point to -- we possibly would
15 object in terms of procedural matters.
16 So in my view, that would be exclusively advantageous for a
17 smooth and expeditious conduct of the trial, and I reckon that this is a
18 concession on my part and a contribution as well for these proceedings to
19 be administered without any hindrance that might possibly arise from my
20 need to consult my associates, just like the other party in the
21 proceedings is doing, meaning consulting in the course of the trial.
22 JUDGE KWON: Do you imagine that he would have any part in the
23 cross-examination of witnesses?
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, Your Excellency. I'm going to
25 lead my defence case by myself in its entirety. But instead of asking
1 for a break, an adjournment, to consult with my associates, my associates
2 will be here on the spot, just like the other party have their associates
3 available at hand.
4 JUDGE KWON: In your submission, Mr. Karadzic, regarding the
5 remuneration of the legal advisor, you compared the role to be played by
6 Mr. Robinson to that of amicus curiae. However, while the amicus curiae
7 will usually be acting in the interest of justice as a whole,
8 Mr. Robinson will be acting, as you stated, "on behalf of Dr. Karadzic"
9 pursuant to instructions from you. Do you have any observations?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that this is also -- will
11 be for the benefit of justice, but primarily for the sake of an
12 expeditious trial. I will not waiver any of my rights that I'm entitled
13 in terms of self-representation, but I believe that the presence of my
14 associates here would be beneficial for the expeditious proceedings. As
15 for everything else, it will remain in my hands, and I believe and I'm
16 sure that this is going to be to everyone's satisfaction.
17 JUDGE KWON: What you envisage is this, that you will have the
18 overall control of your case and you will conduct the examination of
19 witnesses; however, as far as legal matters are concerned, Mr. Robinson
20 will, upon your delegation, represent you. Am I correct in so
21 understanding, Mr. Karadzic?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This will not be any kind of
23 representation. This is going to amount to assistance. Instead of me
24 putting forward an objection and having consultants outside of the
25 courtroom, Mr. Robinson, with my consent and my instructions, will just
1 point out to what we object with relation to the procedure. So this will
2 not be representation. I will represent myself. Instead of Mr. Robinson
3 sitting outside of the courtroom and providing assistance to me, he will
4 be present with me and thus contribute to a smooth conduct of the
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, in your submission you stated that --
7 I'll -- I quote:
8 "Dr. Karadzic hereby moves that his legal advisor,
9 Peter Robinson, be given right of audience at the trial to address the
10 Trial Chamber on legal issues on Dr. Karadzic's behalf."
11 So in substance, irrespective of any nomenclatural or semantic
12 discussion, Mr. Robinson will be partially representing you as far as
13 legal matters are concerned. Could you elaborate on this matter again,
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There can be no question of
16 representations. I am representing myself fully. But in order to have a
17 smooth and unhindered proceedings, Mr. Robinson will be here on the spot
18 in the courtroom instead of sitting outside of the courtroom. Whatever
19 his advice he can give me, I can verbalise and present myself; but I
20 think it would be better for him to do it himself. The same procedure is
21 applied when it comes to the Prosecution.
22 JUDGE KWON: So what you are saying at the end of the day is a
23 kind of division of work while you have the overall control?
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You're absolutely right,
25 Your Excellency.
1 [Pre-Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, you talked of Mr. Robinson dealing
3 with procedural matters. I assume by that you don't just mean procedural
4 law, but also issues of substantive law that may fall to be determined
5 during the course of the case?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I suppose that these kind of
7 situations will arise in which Mr. Robinson will consult with me what it
8 is in procedural terms unacceptable for us. As for all other substantive
9 matters, it is I who will be the ultimate decision-maker.
10 JUDGE MORRISON: Law falls into two quite separate categories.
11 There are those aspects of the law which are known as procedural law, how
12 the case progresses, the rules of the admission of evidence, and things
13 like that; but there is also substantive law, case law which has been
14 determined in other cases, and opinions as to the application of the
15 jurisprudence of the Tribunal. I'm assuming that there will be occasions
16 when Mr. Robinson will be, upon your instructions, asked to address the
17 Trial Chamber upon matters of substantive law as well as purely
18 procedural matters. Do you follow the distinction?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm trying to trace this,
20 Your Excellency, but this is how things are. In order for the
21 Trial Chamber to understand this better, let's put it this way. After
22 consulting with Mr. Robinson, I'm going to articulate certain
23 submissions; but if it be more expeditious and if this can facilitate
24 matters, then Mr. Robinson will speak instead of me. If there is any
25 confusion, it will be me who will address the Trial Chamber, but that
1 will require more time for me to consult him here in the courtroom.
2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Tieger, do you have any -- Madam Uertz-Retzlaff,
3 do you have any observations?
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, indeed. The Prosecution
5 has of course also considered this request by Dr. Karadzic, and the
6 Prosecution does not oppose the presence of members of the Defence team
7 in the courtroom. We think, actually, it would be helpful if he gets
8 this assistance. However, we oppose the right of audience that is
9 requested for Mr. Robinson.
10 In the first place, Karadzic's request is incompatible with his
11 continued wish to represent himself fully. In the second phase, granting
12 his request would hinder the efficient and expeditious conduct of the
13 proceedings. Making courtroom submissions - and this is my understanding
14 now even after this discussion - making courtroom decisions [sic] is what
15 is intended, and making such submissions on legal issues is counsel's
16 duty and it's not associates' duty. Except for tasks which he cannot
17 complete because he is detained or in -- otherwise hindered in his work,
18 that's what the associate is meant for, but not making submissions to the
20 The appointment of counsel to a self-represented accused is a
21 limitation to self-representation and, rather, it cannot be complementary
22 to it. So we cannot have an associate acting basically as a counsel and
23 at the same time an accused saying, I do not relinquish any of my right
24 to represent myself. And therefore, we are opposed of this.
25 Giving Peter Robinson the right of audience to make legal
1 submissions in court while Karadzic continues to be fully in charge would
2 hinder the trial process in two ways. First of all, to me, it's even --
3 now that I heard more on this issue, to me it's still not clear who would
4 do objections, for instance, to questions asked during the
5 examination-in-chief or during the cross-examination because these are
6 basically mixed issues, legally and substantive. So there are also a lot
7 of other issues that are mixed that combine legal elements and also
8 substantive factual -- factual elements. Therefore, I think letting them
9 both talk would lead to confusion. It could even lead to contradictions,
10 and, therefore, I think it should not happen. It would lead to delays,
12 Tribunal practice has recognised partial self-representation and
13 has actually allowed associates to address the Court. That was, for
14 instance, in the Krajisnik case, an issue on the appeals stage. However,
15 the -- these associates acting as counsel in this part -- in this case
16 was addressing a very discrete legal issue. That's completely different
17 from what Mr. Karadzic has in mind. He wants Robinson to address the
18 Court on all sorts of legal issues, and this is what we cannot agree on,
19 and that's something that actually has so far not been allowed in this
21 The Trial Chamber in this case has previously held that the
22 solution to Karadzic's concern that he may need to be relieved from
23 making submissions in court on legal issues, that can be addressed by
24 being represented by counsel. That is what the Trial Chamber actually
25 has found in its decision of the 28th of January, 2009, in its decision
1 on accused's motion for adequate facilities and equality of arms.
2 What -- if the accused wants to be advised on legal issues and if he
3 thinks he is not experienced enough to address the Court on legal and
4 factual issues, then he should actually select a -- to be represented by
5 counsel all through this trial.
6 Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
8 [Pre-Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE KWON: Would you like to reply, Mr. Karadzic?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, all I can see here is certain
11 fear with respect to the combination of Mr. Robinson and myself, and that
12 flatters me. That means that I have a good associate. It is a fact,
13 though, that the other side also has several people on their team
14 speaking to the Court, not just the chief Prosecutor or the Prosecutor in
15 charge of this case. At any rate, I can verbalise, I can articulate the
16 advice I receive from Mr. Robinson in this courtroom, but it will
17 certainly lead to a much greater waste of time. One thing is certain,
18 though, I am in charge of the Defence case, and I will never relinquish
19 that role to anybody else. However, I do believe it will be easier for
20 the Chamber if Mr. Robinson were to verbalise, articulate, what he would
21 normally say to me, and it will be less precise and less clear if I were
22 to articulate that. I think it will be harder for the Prosecution, but
23 there will be a greater legal benefit.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
25 [Pre-Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We'll leave the matter at that. We'll
2 consider the issue and we'll issue our decision, in a decision which will
3 be followed immediately after this Pre-Trial Conference in due course.
4 And then we'll deal with the modalities of examination of Rule 92
5 ter witnesses. The Trial Chamber is considering an appropriate procedure
6 to put in place with regard to Rule 92 ter or partial Rule 92 ter
7 witnesses. The Chamber is concerned to ensure the use of Rule 92 ter in
8 this case will assist in an expeditious trial while at the same time not
9 resulting in a case record that is unreasonably burdened with repetitious
10 or irrelevant evidence and not prejudicing the rights of the accused.
11 Therefore, the Chamber is contemplating requiring the parties to provide
12 one amalgamated, or consolidated, witness statement for those witnesses
13 who are brought pursuant to Rule 92 ter and who have two or more witness
14 statements or transcripts from previous proceedings. This would not be a
15 new statement, but rather a consolidation, removing repetitious and
16 irrelevant portions of statements and/or transcripts that already exist
17 and have been disclosed.
18 It is Chamber's expectation that the amalgamated statement would
19 be shown to the witness by the calling party well in advance of his or
20 her coming to the courtroom to testify. Any corrections to the
21 amalgamated statement that result from it being shown to the witness
22 shall be incorporated into the statement itself. The final amalgamated
23 statement would be provided to the opposing party and the Chamber at
24 least 48 hours prior to the testimony of the witness. This would also
25 dispense with the need for the supplemental information sheet proposed by
1 the Prosecution in order to correct or add to previously given
3 Before the Chamber issues its order on procedure, I'd like to
4 hear from the parties on this suggestion which I believe has been
5 implemented in at least one other Chamber here at the Tribunal.
6 Prosecution, Mr. Tieger or Ms. -- yes, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, to me it is not entirely clear
8 what you understand to be an amalgamated statement. What we actually
9 intended to do and actually have already prepared, we have prepared
10 motions or notices, depending on what you prefer to have, with charts
11 addressing the parts of the previous testimonies that we have, specifying
12 the pages that we wanted to have -- wanted to tender, and at the same
13 time also list the associated exhibits. If you consider to be an
14 amalgamated statement to just put us now these references into a text and
15 have the whole -- all these parts that we pick from previous testimonies,
16 if you want this to be the amalgamated statement, that would be easy for
17 us to do and we can also show it to the witness. But if you want us to
18 create an entirely new text -- rather, a summary of an existent
19 testimony, that would be definitely very time-consuming, and I wonder
20 whether we could do that at least for the first ten witnesses. That
21 would be probably quite an issue, a logistic issue.
22 JUDGE KWON: In cases where there are more than two, practically
23 several, witness statements including this transcript or previous
24 testimony, Chamber is wondering what point there would be in admitting
25 all of those voluminous statements and transcripts. So what Chamber has
1 in mind is just admitting one consolidated new statement, not admitting
2 the remaining, original, existing previous statements.
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Just in addition to this, we have actually
4 aimed to only always pick one testimony, not several testimonies. So we
5 actually take the same approach like we did in the Rule 92 quater
6 motions, that we just pick one of the previous testimonies.
7 JUDGE KWON: So this guide-line would apply to the case where the
8 Prosecution is minded to produce more than two statements. So as a
9 general rule it would not be applied to the case when the Prosecution is
10 minded to produce only one statement?
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, I understand now that that's workable,
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, do you have any say in relation to
14 this issue?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Excellencies. The
16 Prosecution can opt for only one statement, but the Defence needs to
17 review all of the statements of that witness. So this isn't much of a
18 help for us. That's one matter. The other matter is that we generally
19 object to all abbreviations of testimony. The best case would be if
20 everybody were to testify viva voce, and in that case we could
21 cross-examine and we would have a completely transparent proceedings.
22 When it comes to 92 ter, I would kindly ask that packages for each
23 witness be delivered prior to the beginning of proceedings so that I can
24 see what do they have against me, what arguments they have against me.
25 Ten days prior or any other abbreviation of the dead-line means that I'm
1 unable to prepare myself adequately, to conduct research out in the
2 field, to have my associates conduct research, which means that prior to
3 the beginning of the trial, I need to be made aware of everything that
4 the Prosecution is minded to present in their case against me. So this
5 is my general comment, general objection, namely, that all the packages
6 of documents, everything pertaining to 92 ter needs to be sent to me in a
7 timely fashion, both when it comes to the accompanying material and the
8 order of witnesses. I think that after 14 years the Prosecution needs to
9 be ready for this case, and there is no reason why the Prosecution should
10 know more than the Defence or the Chamber. All of us need to know
11 identical facts in order to be able to carry out our work properly.
12 If I may also say this, 92 ter should not be applied in case of
13 important witnesses who will testify about significant events which took
14 place on the ground, that's one issue. The other issue is that the
15 Chamber should order the Prosecution that in a public session, verbally
16 they need to read out the entire statement of the witness once the
17 witness confirms it. This needs to be done in a public session. They
18 need to disclose publicly everything that is relevant and important
19 within the material that they're tendering into the file.
20 JUDGE KWON: We'll deal with case-by-case whether specific --
21 evidence of specific witnesses should be led entirely per 92 ter or
22 partially 92 ter when it arises.
23 As to the disclosure issue, it is true that you have to be
24 disclosed every material, every statement, previous statement, but it
25 will be interest of yourself and to your benefit if you were to receive
1 one consolidated statement, in the sense that you can concentrate on
2 those issues. And it will be much easier for you to notice what the
3 Prosecution is going to lead from this witness.
4 And the time-limit for the disclosure, although I said to the
5 Prosecution at least prior to the 48 hours prior to the testimony, as I
6 noted, they should do so well in advance. It is highly recommended for
7 the Prosecution to disclose the 92 ter packages in a timely manner, as
8 Mr. Karadzic suggested.
9 And the Chamber is also preparing its order regarding the
10 procedural guide-lines to requiring the calling party to read out in
11 court a summary of the witness's evidence. It will be reflected in its
12 order to be followed.
13 Mr. Tieger.
14 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, if I could just make at least one and
15 perhaps two observations, primarily dealing with the logistics. I think
16 it's clear what the Court has in mind by way of the consolidation and the
17 primary purpose behind that. It does occur to me, however, that there
18 will be occasions where the intent and advantage gained in so doing will
19 be offset by certain logistical issues. I think -- that presumes, I
20 would assume, that the -- that Word versions of the relevant documents
21 are available so they can be -- it can be a cut-and-paste. I'm confident
22 the Court doesn't have in mind that in the hectic pace of trial that
23 someone would be designated to actually re-type or re-form those
24 documents. So it does occur to me that there are circumstances where
25 that is the case. I did a quick check by e-mail and with Mr. Reid as to
1 whether there are circumstances like that. I would certainly ask that in
2 those circumstances that the intent of consolidating, to make it an
3 easier process for everyone to have it at their finger-tips, give way to
4 the reality of the situation and that there's some form of identifying in
5 perhaps two statements, sometimes perhaps three, the relevant portions
6 and consolidating them in a more mechanical way, rather than in one
7 document that has been painstakingly reconfigured. So I'm essentially
8 asking for a pragmatic approach as we try to move forward in a way that
9 makes it easier for the Bench and for the parties to identify the
10 material that will be led and to work with that material. So where we
11 can do so effectively and efficiently and without undue cost, we're
12 certainly prepared to. But where it invites an additional burden that I
13 don't think anyone really intends, we would ask for more flexible
15 JUDGE KWON: Setting aside -- apart from setting a general rule,
16 the Chamber can without doubt deal with the specific cases on a
17 case-by-case basis to address the specific needs arising at the time.
18 I've -- however, Mr. Tieger, do you envisage that this situation where
19 you have to produce a consolidated or amalgamated statement would start
20 only when the witness comes to The Hague?
21 MR. TIEGER: I understand there has been -- let me -- and it
22 occurs to me that this matter may involve more complexities than a pure
23 at first blush. So I'm glad the Court is inquiring about this. I
24 understand the Court's concerns in the past about the proofing of
25 witnesses immediately before they testify and occasions on which those
1 have given rise to new information of such a nature that the proceedings
2 have been delayed or the cross-examination needs to be delayed, and so
3 on. It's certainly our intention to meet with our witnesses as early as
4 we can for all purposes, including proofing or the identification of
5 92 ter packages. However, looking back on previous trials and the
6 conduct of those trials and the availability of counsel to meet with
7 those witnesses and the length of statements involved, including
8 statements given previously under oath or signed statements that had
9 previously been given, I think it must be clear that it would be
10 logistically impossible to devise a system that calls upon the
11 Prosecution or the Defence at any point to essentially re-create the same
12 process that was painstakingly undergone before and that gave rise to
13 those very statements. So by virtue of the process envisaged by 92 ter,
14 the submission of previous testimony given under oath and clearly the
15 identification of the most relevant parts of those testimonies, the --
16 the -- any procedure that would require the Prosecution essentially to
17 re-do that entire process with the witness before submission of the 92
18 ter package I think would be logistically impossible, and further I don't
19 think it would advance the interest of the proceedings in any event.
20 So I am giving you the benefit of our reactions to the proposal
21 or the suggestions made by the Court as we think them through, but I am
22 concerned about unforeseen or not fully considered consequences of this.
23 And that's the first one that comes to mind. I suspect that on
24 30-minutes' reflection, there may be others, but I wanted to at least
25 share that with the Court in response to your question.
1 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Tieger, you are aware of -- that such practice
2 has been adopted in other Chambers in the Tribunal?
3 MR. TIEGER: I haven't personally encountered it, Your Honour, in
4 the trials I've conducted. I'm certainly not disputing the Court's
5 position that it has been done. On the other hand, to the extent that's
6 the case, I'm not aware of the behind-the-scenes issues it may have given
7 rise to and the -- the value-versus-cost equation involved. If -- I'd be
8 happy to be directed to or I will certainly make every effort to inquire
9 about cases in which that approach or a similar approach has been
10 undertaken and see how successful it seems to have been and what
11 problems, if any, it may have given rise to.
12 JUDGE KWON: But as Madam Uertz-Retzlaff indicated, if
13 Prosecution is minded to produce only one statement per witness, there
14 would be no problem on your part.
15 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I think that's -- we understand the
16 value of so doing. For one thing, it represents a -- the coherent -- in
17 the cases of testimony, of coherent testimony by the witness in one
18 relative sitting. So we do consider that ideal, but I'm also aware that
19 there are circumstances where that's simply not possible. I do
20 appreciate the fact that to the extent that that objective can be met,
21 then it minimises the problem I may be raising. But I think it's fair to
22 say that that won't be the case in every circumstance, and I'm not in a
23 position at this moment to say precisely the percentage of cases in which
24 it becomes an issue. I think we'll see -- even where we don't see one
25 testimony supplanting all others, we're likely to see one testimony
1 predominant and some significant but relatively small portions of other
2 testimonies or statements also being elicited.
3 So I think as a -- I understand the point made by
4 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff and the Court's reaction to it, but I don't think we
5 can proffer it as a universal situation.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. The Chamber will consider your
7 submission as well.
8 I have three other matters in front of me --
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour --
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I have two questions in relation to 92 ter
12 filings, and I would -- as it fits here I would like to raise it right
13 now, if you agree.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.
15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
16 In relation to the associated exhibits, we had actually planned
17 to prepare tables. Let's assume the situation we have picked one
18 testimony and we would offer tables in which we list all these exhibits
19 that are either tendered through that witness in their testimony or
20 referred to by the witness. We would list them even though in cases
21 where we would want to -- we do not intend to tender them through that
22 witness. We would actually like in the 92 bis filings -- we would list
23 all these exhibits, notice in a special column whether we want to tender
24 these exhibits through this particular witness, but at the same time
25 Dr. Karadzic would see which other exhibits the witness had referred to
1 or had been put to him, for instance, Defence exhibits, and could then
2 choose to address those. We thought that would be quite a fair process,
3 and therefore this is what we actually intended to do, if you agreed to
5 JUDGE KWON: Speaking for myself, there is no reason not to admit
6 it, but I'll consult my colleagues.
7 [Pre-Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE KWON: Do you have any observation, Mr. Karadzic, on this?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Defence needs to read
10 everything that pertains to a particular witness. You are right. This
11 means focusing and narrowing down the issues that we are going to deal
12 with, and yes, that will be of assistance. But we still need to study
13 and review everything that has ever been stated by a particular witness.
14 The same applies to all other issues concerning the scope of the
15 Prosecution case. If there is a single incident in a municipality, I
16 need to deal with the entire municipality and the climate that existed
17 there and the circumstances and so on. At any rate, what is the most
18 important issue here for the Defence is when we will be disclosed the
19 92 ter package.
20 Another issue that is important is that the summary must be
21 disclosed publicly, in a public session.
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
23 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, the practice you suggested is highly
24 recommendable in the view of the Chamber.
25 What is your second observation?
1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The second point is during the preparation
2 of these tables - and we actually are already doing this since quite some
3 time - we have realised that some of the exhibits being referred to or
4 tendered in the previous testimony of the witness are not on the
5 Prosecution's 65 ter exhibit list. The question is: Do you want them
6 all to be added in a supplementary exhibit list, or should we simply
7 leave it at that?
8 JUDGE KWON: First of all, my reaction is that it may depend upon
9 your intention, whether the Prosecution is minded to tender those
10 documents as evidence or not. If yes, it should be added to the 65 ter
11 list; otherwise, I see no reason it should be there.
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 [Pre-Trial Chamber confers]
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, if I may.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I only wish to avoid any surprises.
17 I would like to receive this evidence well in advance. If they are not
18 on the list of 65 ter, I know nothing about them and my teams on the
19 ground also have to deal with that. I'm not going to prepare any
20 surprises for the other party, therefore they shouldn't do the same to
21 me. Your Excellency, there are about 45.000 documents, and I still don't
22 know which one of them is going to be presented or not. I'm still
23 wasting my time going through the material, of which perhaps only
24 one-fourth would be presented to the Trial Chamber.
25 JUDGE KWON: There are two categories of exhibits referred to --
1 documents referred to in -- for example, in one of the 92 ter witness
2 statements. One would be the documents the Prosecution is minded to
3 tender as evidence, and the other is ones the Prosecution is not minded
4 to tender as evidence, but they're going to disclose the list of those
5 documents for your information. So although they will not be listed in
6 their 65 ter list, they should be included in so -- as you put it, in
7 65 ter -- I'm sorry, 92 ter package. And then I take it that the
8 Prosecution, bearing in mind your need, they will be -- exercise their
9 functions in a timely manner.
10 So that exhausted your questions.
11 So I'll turn to the issue of 92 bis witnesses -- oh, there's one
12 further thing: Order of witnesses and notice of it.
13 The Chamber is minded to order the Prosecution -- parties, but
14 the Prosecution in the first instance, to file bimonthly, monthly, and
15 weekly lists of the witnesses it will bring in order of their intended
16 appearance. Each monthly list will be due on the 15th of the preceding
17 month. However, on our working assumption that the trial will commence
18 on 21st of October, the Prosecution should file immediately the list of
19 witnesses for the remainder of October as well as for November and
20 December. And on 15th of October, it should file its more detailed list
21 of witnesses for the month of November as well as October. This
22 procedure will be set out in detail in the Chamber's written order.
23 Let me deal with the 92 bis motions first. Now that the Chamber
24 has rendered its Rule 73 bis decision, the Chamber will begin finalising
25 and issuing its decisions on various motions filed by the Prosecution for
1 the admission of witness evidence pursuant to Rule 92 bis. We note that
2 you, Mr. Karadzic, filed an omnibus response to these motions on 8th of
3 July, 2009, and that the former Pre-Trial Judge informed you that you
4 could file further responses at any time up to the Chamber's
5 determination of these motions. Indeed, you have filed a response to the
6 fifth motion for admission of Rule 92 bis evidence insofar as it relates
7 to one particular witness. The Chamber is conscious of your efforts to
8 interview Prosecution witnesses and to agree, where possible, to the
9 admission of their evidence pursuant to Rule 92 bis following your
10 interviews with them and the submission of initial evidence you consider
11 important. However, it is now important for the Chamber's decision on
12 these Rule 92 bis motions to be finalised so that the Prosecution is
13 aware which of its witnesses it needs to bring to give oral testimony or
14 for cross-examination. For this reason we cannot wait indefinitely for
15 you to file further responses in relation to individual proposed Rule 92
16 bis witnesses. So I'm letting you know that these decisions will be
17 issued in the coming few weeks. The Chamber will make its own assessment
18 of whether the requirements of admission of evidence under Rule 92 bis
19 are met.
20 Should we admit the evidence of a witness under Rule 92 bis whose
21 evidence you would wish to supplement with your own Rule 92 bis
22 statement, you are free to file a motion to that effect.
23 As I said at the beginning, the Chamber is still considering the
24 various other matters raised in the parties' submission on the trial
25 procedure, and we will issue our order very soon following this
1 Pre-Trial Conference.
2 Is there any other item falling under this heading that anyone
3 wishes to raise today before we finalise that order? I give the floor to
4 the Prosecution first.
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, in relation to the 92 bis
6 decisions that are upcoming, we would -- it would be very helpful for the
7 Prosecution if you would start with looking at our submission in relation
8 to the Sarajevo
9 component of the case that will go first. So it would be very helpful to
10 have a decision on this issue.
11 In relation to this, there is an issue with the interviewing of
12 witnesses that Dr. Karadzic has actually embarked to go so that he can
13 make meaningful suggestions for the 92 bis filings. The problem is so
14 far we have only had two interviews conducted, and we have three
15 interviews scheduled but they were cancelled, and nothing else seems to
16 be forthcoming. So I don't know how we could factor this in. I mean, it
17 was a useful exercise and you have already seen result of this in
18 relation to one witness, but we are not actually doing much Defence
20 JUDGE KWON: "We" being Dr. Karadzic and the Defence team having
21 interview with the witnesses?
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: So far two witnesses were interviewed, and
23 one of them was a 92 bis witness and he has made submissions on how he
24 agrees to admitting this evidence 92 bis and has actually made a
25 supplementary filing to this effect. And -- but that's the only one so
1 far, and I do not see that any other interviews of 92 bis witnesses are
2 scheduled, and I don't really see it happening now that the trial starts.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
4 Do you have anything to say, Mr. Karadzic?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Excellencies. You
6 have seen for yourselves that this is an extremely useful exercise and
7 probably the majority of these witnesses would have been accepted by our
8 side under the terms and conditions under which these interviews were
9 conducted. Sixty witnesses accepted to have contacts with the Defence.
10 As far as 92 bis is concerned, Your Excellency said that not all the
11 1200 [as interpreted] witnesses would be accepted. It would be very
12 useful for us to know which witnesses are going to remain within the
13 remit of 92 bis and which witnesses will have to appear here in person.
14 I would kindly ask for a possibility to interview them when they come
15 here. I had one interview with a 92 ter witness, which was very
16 beneficial. Once the Trial Chamber decides which witnesses are not going
17 to be accepted under 92 bis and if OTP still persist in their intention
18 to call these witnesses, I will therefore request respectfully to
19 interview them, just like I did with this 92 ter, that is to say to
20 conduct interviews with them once they arrive here and before they give
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Your submission is helpful, so much so
23 that we can now understand that it is in the interest of you and justice
24 for us to expedite the issuing -- issue the decision as soon as possible.
25 Apart from 92 bis issue, Mr. Karadzic, do you have any issues to
1 raise in relation to the trial procedure?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Excellency. Is there
3 anything else on the agenda? No, as I suppose?
4 JUDGE KWON: I have something else, but I will give you the floor
5 to address the Court as to the issues which relate to the trial procedure
6 or procedural guide-line.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency. I
8 would like to express my gratitude to you and the Chamber for taking
9 seriously into consideration the difficulties faced by the Defence with
10 the voluminous material and the commencement of the trial, particularly
11 with regard to the witnesses. The OTP witness -- 92 ter witnesses will
12 be dealt with by the OTP for a very brief time. However, the Defence has
13 to deal with much more material than stipulated by the 92 ter summary.
14 As far as that is concerned, I hope that the Chamber will accept that the
15 Defence should be granted much more time than the OTP and that all the
16 abridgments announced by the OTP and with regard to the material that I
17 have to deal with is not of much help to me. I still need ample time in
18 order to review everything that concerns each particular witness and for
19 me to be able to achieve -- to challenge certain things. Therefore, the
20 Defence allocated to the time should not be correlated with the time used
21 by the OTP, but rather with each particular witness on a case-by-case
23 If the Defence manages to be fully prepared for the period of
24 time saved, that will curtail the duration of this trial and this is
25 going to be beneficial during the proceedings itself.
1 Now, that as far as the witnesses are concerned and the time
2 issue, which, in my mind, is very important. Also crucial is
3 transparency and the timing of disclosure, and in that respect you have
4 given the right to Defence to have everything available in time and in an
5 orderly manner. I must say that the law -- the majority of the material
6 we received since mid-May until today, but we still miss certain
7 material. Papers are rather submitted in a chaotic manner, and we are
8 wasting too much time in trying to put them in order. The esteemed
9 Registrar, I must say, is in a sort of a -- protecting this institution
10 from my interviews in the media, but I hope that in this courtroom I will
11 have an opportunity to challenge the credibility and the conduct of all
12 participants in our crisis, particularly those who are accusing me and
13 putting forward certain allegations. Therefore, those who are accusing
14 me have to subject themselves to my scrutiny of their role and their
15 integrity and possibly their interest to demonstrate that they are either
16 biassed or not biassed. When I say "those who are accusing me," I'm not
17 referring to the OTP; I'm referring to a number of major countries who
18 call themselves the international community and who operate through the
19 United Nations. Therefore, I should be given an opportunity to
20 demonstrate how the UN and UNPROFOR had been abused in this war. How can
21 I defend myself if I cannot raise the issue of the responsibility of
22 other participants and the conduct that affected our conduct as well? We
23 did not act in a vacuum. We were faced with challenges that were
24 jeopardising our survival. So let us prepare ourselves for the
25 possibility for me to ask questions concerning the role of certain
1 United Nations member states and address -- respect -- I'm expecting
2 certain documents to be provided to me.
3 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Tieger.
4 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I merely stood because it became
5 apparent and I wanted to make -- well, to curtail an unnecessary advance
6 proffer of alleged relevance to anticipated cross-examination questions.
7 I don't think this is the time or place.
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
9 This is a criminal proceedings, different from a fact-finding
10 mission for the purpose of the history finding or anything else. So --
11 but as far as the time for cross-examination is concerned to which he
12 referred briefly, the Trial Chamber will not at the present time set a
13 specific time-limit on cross-examining party for the cross-examination of
14 the opposing party's witness. However, that said, the cross-examination
15 should be limited to relevant and material matters. So the
16 cross-examining party should use its best efforts to avoid unnecessary,
17 irrelevant, or repetitive questioning of the opposing party's witness as
18 a general rule.
19 Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Your Honour, in relation to
21 cross-examination, Dr. Karadzic has actually in paragraph 18 of his
22 submissions on the procedures made a very concrete proposal that we
23 actually would oppose. We would suggest another course of action in this
24 regard. We would suggest that in his oral request for additional time
25 when his cross-examination time comes to an end, Dr. Karadzic should not
1 only list the general topics, but rather provide details of the evidence
2 he expects to elicitate from the witness. That would actually give the
3 Trial Chamber the information it would need to make a determination. I
4 do not think that it makes any sense to later on prepare an offer of
5 proof and file it with the Trial Chamber. Such a written offer of proof
6 the Prosecution would definitely move to strike. So I would suggest that
7 he would rather make these submissions orally before a decision is taken.
8 JUDGE KWON: Instead of dealing with that issue in vacuum, how
9 about dealing with the issue when and if it arises, during the course of
11 [Pre-Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE KWON: It will be included in our order to be followed.
13 This trial will be conducted under the e-court system -- give me a
15 So the general principle will be that the -- all documents shall
16 be handled through this system. However, in terms of practicality, I was
17 informed that the access to all the e-court material from your seat you
18 are currently seated is not possible. So my understanding is that you
19 have -- during the course of trial, you have to be seated -- so you have
20 to sit in one row forward and with your legal associates being seated
21 immediately in front of you.
22 And there are a couple minor issues I would like to raise. First
23 thing is related to Rule 70 witnesses. The Chamber has issued a decision
24 concerning the Rule 70 conditions placed on the evidence of witnesses 240
25 and has received the motion from Mr. Karadzic for the recision or
1 variation of very similar conditions placed on the evidence of witness
2 number 314. Insofar as these conditions relate to the testimony to be
3 given by these two witnesses and the manner in which it is to be given,
4 the Chamber has to determine whether to allow these trial-related
5 conditions to remain in place or to exclude the evidence of these two
6 witnesses on the basis that it is -- its probative value is outweighed by
7 the need to ensure a fair trial. So we are minded to do that very soon
8 and would be assisted in this matter by hearing from the Prosecution on
9 whether it still intends to call these two witnesses subject to the
10 trial-related conditions in place.
11 So should we wish to -- should you wish to go into private
12 session in order to discuss this, we can do so.
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I don't think there is a need
14 for this as long as we just refer to these two witnesses as the two
15 witnesses. We still intend to call them, and we had actually planned to
16 file submissions -- a motion for a trial-related protective measures
17 closer to the time they would be called. However, if you want us to do
18 that earlier, we can do that earlier as soon as you like it. Because
19 we -- from the wording in the decision that you referred to, we got the
20 understanding that the Trial Chamber would prefer to receive that --
21 these submissions at a later date. But if you prefer to have them now,
22 we can file them now.
23 JUDGE KWON: That would be helpful. Thank you.
24 One final thing I would like to comment is the -- is regarding
25 pending motions. There are a number of other motions pending before this
1 Chamber in addition to those before Appeals Chamber and one before a
2 three-Judge Panel. Of those to be dealt with by this Chamber, the large
3 majority of motions submitted by the accused for binding orders or the
4 production of documents by various states on motions for the admission of
5 evidence in writing submitted by the Prosecution. The binding order
6 motions are being actively considered by the Chamber and we have taken a
7 number of necessary steps to move their resolution forwards. This
8 procedure takes some time, but please be assured, Mr. Karadzic, that we
9 are dealing with them as quickly as possible.
10 I have already mentioned the Rule 92 bis decisions which will be
11 rendered soon, and the same applies to the Chamber's decision on the
12 second Prosecution motion for judicial notice of adjudicated facts, which
13 should be issued before the end of this week. That leaves one last
14 Prosecution motion for judicial notice of adjudicated facts which is
15 pending a response from the accused.
16 That said, I think I exhausted all the bullet points I prepared,
17 so I'd like to know whether there are any other further matters for the
18 parties to raise.
19 Mr. Tieger.
20 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
22 Mr. Karadzic.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] By your leave, I would like to
24 point out two or three matters. (redacted)
6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: [Microphone not activated]
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- and that needs to be
8 demonstrated --
9 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic -- I think it's okay for the moment.
10 So we have your submission, so you don't have to repeat what you
11 stated in your submission.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Well, the other side
13 repeated it so I did the same thing, repetition follows repetition.
14 As for the other matter, I'm grateful to the Chamber for their
15 understanding; namely, this trial cannot be transparent unless it is
16 prepared well, unless all of the arguments are in place. The countries
17 that are asking for this Tribunal to be shut down, that are asking for
18 the proceedings to be speeded up are not submitting documents in a timely
19 manner. And without their cooperation, this trial can never be fair.
20 Therefore, I expect that you will urge these countries to provide these
21 documents as soon as possible. Further on into the trial we will have
22 even more sensitive documents. These documents that we have requested so
23 far are not as sensitive, and we have not encountered as many problems in
24 receiving them until now.
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We'll see to it that -- I noted that you
1 were on your feet, Mr. Tieger. Did you mean to say something?
2 MR. TIEGER: It just concerns the issue of a redaction which
3 we're sending to the Registry at this point, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. That will be taken care of.
5 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
6 [Pre-Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, you've heard that the procedure is
8 going to be used where the e-court system is going to be central. Now, I
9 understand that you've had some training in the e-court techniques. Do
10 you feel that that's sufficient or you -- do you require further
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency. I had
13 a very brief training. They promised to provide a server for me that I
14 would be able to use from my room. So far that hasn't happened and
15 probably will not be put in place before the end of the year. I will
16 probably have an associate helping me with this. I don't expect this to
17 be a huge problem if I have enough time to prepare my Defence case and to
18 prepare myself for this trial, and during that period of time I will also
19 train myself in the use of e-court. The material that I have to use is
20 huge, over 1 million pages, over 300 days of testimony, audio and video
21 material, this is a huge amount and I will need every kind of assistance
22 imaginable. First, I will need to have sufficient time for preparation
23 and I will need training; and without that it would be even harder.
24 JUDGE MORRISON: Thank you.
25 [Pre-Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE KWON: Then the hearing is adjourned until the commencement
2 of the trial which will be notified in due course.
3 --- Whereupon the Pre-Trial Conference
4 adjourned at 3.47 p.m.