Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 1

 1                          Monday, 11 December 2006

 2                          [Status Conference]

 3                          [Open session]

 4                          [The appellant enters court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 3.58 p.m.

 6            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Registrar, may I ask you, please, to call the

 7    case.

 8            THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honour.  Case number

 9    IT-00-39-A, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.

10            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Thank you so much.

11            Before asking for the appearances, as we have a new Defence

12    counsel today, may I introduce myself, Judge Schomburg, acting as

13    Pre-Appeal Judge in this case.

14            The appearances, please, for the Prosecution.

15            MS. DAHL:  Good afternoon, Your Honour, my name is Christine Dahl

16    and with me is Matteo Costi.

17            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Thank you.

18            And for the Defence, please.

19            Mr. Nicholls:  [Microphone not activated]

20            THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

21            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Thank you so much.

22            Can I ask Mr. Krajisnik, can you follow the hearing in a language

23    you understand?

24            THE APPELLANT: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.

25            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  I thank you.

Page 2

 1            In order to avoid overlaps, I have a very short draft agenda for

 2    today.  Of course first we have to discuss potential health issues, the

 3    detention conditions, the question of counsel, the filing of notice of

 4    appeal, pending motions, and of course then it's for the parties to raise

 5    other issues if they so want.

 6            Let us turn to the first point and this would be, Mr. Krajisnik,

 7    do you have any health problems or do you have any complaints you want to

 8    raise about the conditions in the United Nations detention facilities?

 9            THE APPELLANT: [Interpretation] No, nothing of significance.

10    Thank you.

11            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  I thank you.

12            As regards now the question of counsel.  By the decision of last

13    Friday, the Registrar, following an order of the at that time Pre-Appeal

14    Judge and at the same time Presiding Judge in the case, President Pocar,

15    Mr. Colin Nicholls, Queen's counsel, was assigned as Defence counsel.

16            May I ask you to keep the record straight.  Do you face any

17    problems in conducting this Defence on appeal in the concrete case,

18    Mr. Nicholls.

19            MR. NICHOLLS:  [Microphone not activated]

20            THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

21            Microphone for the counsel, please.

22            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Microphone.

23            MR. NICHOLLS:  Is that right?

24            Your Honour, I do face certain problems.  As Your Honour knows, I

25    was instructed in this matter or assigned to this matter on Friday

Page 3

 1    afternoon late.  Over the weekend, I have actually skim-read the

 2    judgement.  I have seen Mr. Krajisnik today for about an hour.  He has

 3    indicated to me that he wishes Mr. Dershowitz from the United States to

 4    act as his lead counsel and he has said that if Mr. Dershowitz is not able

 5    to act for him or is not allowed to act for him then he wishes to conduct

 6    his own Defence.  In other words, he does not wish me to represent him.

 7    There are two letters I have been handed.  One is a letter to Mr. Menon

 8    of the Registry from Mr. Dershowitz himself and it's dated the 8th of

 9    December.  I don't know if Your Honours had a copy of that.

10            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  No.

11            MR. NICHOLLS:  May I hand it up to you.  I've only got the one

12    copy.  There is a second document which is again a letter to Mr. Menon

13    dated the 9th of December, and that is from a person who was concerned in

14    the Obrenovic case.  Perhaps I can hand the documents to Your Honour first

15    and perhaps give some explanation.

16            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Thank you so much.  I apologise in the direction

17    of the Prosecution.  Of course in due course as soon as possible you will

18    get copies of this.

19            MR. NICHOLLS:  I'm sorry that I just did not have another copy and

20    I've only just received it.

21            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Okay, please.

22            MR. NICHOLLS:  Your Honour, in short, what Mr. Dershowitz is

23    saying is that he wishes to represent Mr. Krajisnik, but he wishes his

24    brother to act as his co-counsel.  The second document is a letter from a

25    person who was concerned in the Obrenovic case with which Your Honour no

Page 4

 1    doubt is familiar, where the defendant's brother was proposed as an

 2    investigator in the case.  It was originally opposed on the basis that it

 3    would involve a breach of Rule 16(F) of the Directive, but in due course

 4    the brother as investigator was allowed.  If that is so, then the accused

 5    says in this case the brother of Mr. Dershowitz acting as co-counsel

 6    should be acceptable to the Court on the principal as finally resolved in

 7    Obrenovic.  That in short is the point he wishes to make.

 8            Your Honour will have noticed in the letter from Mr. Dershowitz he

 9    says that he was not able to appear today because he has health problems,

10    but that he had wanted to be able to appear and to appear for those

11    grounds that I've just put forward.  May I make absolutely clear, any

12    question of representation of this accused I would normally not say

13    anything at all because it's really a matter for him and the Court, but he

14    has asked me this afternoon that I should place this position before

15    Your Honour and his application is in short that Mr. Dershowitz should be

16    allowed to represent him and should be assigned in the case with the

17    brother as co-counsel.  And he's saying if that is not allowed then he

18    wishes to represent himself.

19            The next matter on Your Honour's agenda is, in fact, the notice of

20    appeal, and I don't wish to stray into that area unduly, but I have of

21    course indicated to the accused that as I am assigned to him as his

22    counsel at this moment in time with a time-limit of 30 days from the date

23    of my assignment, I have absolutely no way of knowing whether I can comply

24    with the Court's orders.  And indeed what Mr. Krajisnik has said to me is

25    that I must not do what I cannot do, which is a basic principle so far as

Page 5

 1    advocates are concerned.  And with his knowledge of the case he said to me

 2    there is no theoretical possibility that I could do a credible job in the

 3    time.

 4            Your Honour, may I just state the position.  As I say, I am rather

 5    straying but I think it's appropriate that I should.  I've indicated when

 6    I was assigned to the case and I've indicated that over the weekend I have

 7    read, skim-read, the judgement.  At this moment, I have no team, and if

 8    the 30-day rule is to apply, the notice of appeal would have to be in by

 9    the 7th of January.  It puts me in an impossible position, and if I am to

10    have a team it is absolutely essential, even if Your Honour extends the

11    time, it is essential that I should have counsel who preferably was

12    previously involved in the case, not Mr. Stewart, or at least someone who

13    has some knowledge of the case who could give me the assistance that I

14    would desperately need in conducting an appeal.  Your Honour, there's the

15    judgement, there's the motions, there's so much of the evidence as may be

16    needed to be read in due course.  I have absolutely no idea how long all

17    that will take.  I don't make my application for the extension of time at

18    this moment.  Your Honour would obviously wish to deal with the point of

19    representation first.

20            May I just add this that I have just summarised what the accused

21    wishes to say, but he has asked me to indicate to Your Honour that he does

22    wish to say something himself.  I would ask Your Honour to allow him

23    insofar as it's permissible to say something himself.  As I say, I have

24    merely summarised the position.

25            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  I'm extremely grateful for this summary.  And

Page 6

 1    this is an international tribunal, a hybrid tribunal, having both

 2    approaches from civil law and common law.  I see no obstacle at all to

 3    allow Mr. Krajisnik the floor if he so wants to address the Bench, please,

 4    Mr. Krajisnik.

 5            THE APPELLANT: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I would

 6    like to say a few words, and what I would like to say is that if there is

 7    any problem I would really like to receive assistance in appointment of

 8    Mr. Dershowitz.  If there are no problems in that regard I wouldn't want

 9    to even spend your time on this.  I could, if necessary, give you a

10    history of this case and to tell you what are the efforts that we have

11    taken so far to find out a solution in full cooperation with the Registry.

12    And now that the Dershowitz problem has been solved I would like to ask

13    you once again to approve this appointment.  If you need any additional

14    information, I am here and I can give you any additional information

15    necessary.

16            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Thank you.

17            Mr. Krajisnik, it's true, only might be some document is missing,

18    it's correct that Trial Chamber I rendered its judgement in this case on

19    27th September 2006, and immediately afterwards there were two related

20    requests to extend the deadline for filing against appeal against the

21    judgement, both filed by you in person on 6th -- 17 October 2006; that's

22    correct.  Under the Rules, the notice of appeal would be due no later than

23    27th October 2006; however, as the President in this case ruled that there

24    is under Rule 127(B) an opportunity that a Pre-Appeal Judge may on good

25    cause being shown by motion, by motion I emphasise, enlarge or reduce any

Page 7

 1    time-period prescribed by or under the Rules.  And it was therefore that

 2    another 30 days were already allotted to you, 30 days starting immediately

 3    after the assignment of counsel to you.  Of course, it's settled

 4    jurisprudence when due to lack of time and good cause has been shown, it

 5    is always possible to show in greater details the grounds of appeal and/or

 6    to add additional grounds of appeal.

 7            However, the case has to proceed.  It's in -- not only in your own

 8    interest that -- because the notice, the term of fair trial no doubt

 9    includes that a case be heard as soon as possible and as soon as

10    practicable and that all others waiting for judgement, they are also

11    entitled to have a case heard as soon as possible.

12            I wonder, what was the reason why it was not possible to come to

13    an agreement with Mr. Dershowitz earlier?

14            THE APPELLANT: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm going to try to

15    describe all the efforts that we have made in order to secure a lawyer for

16    me.  I really wanted to have a lawyer as soon as possible, a lawyer that

17    is going to handle my appeals.  Even before the Trial Chamber judgement

18    was issued, I have contacted certain lawyers.  I was thinking if it would

19    not be necessary for me to lodge an appeal, then the Prosecutor is

20    certainly going to lodge an appeal so that the whole process is going to

21    start as soon as possible because I was aware of the 30-day deadline.

22    Immediately after the judgement was pronounced I have obtained approval

23    from lawyer Mr. Brasic and three professors of law from Belgrade, who all

24    stated that they are willing to start to work on my appeals at once.

25    Within seven days I received the reply from the Registry saying that

Page 8

 1    Mr. Brasic is not listed under Rule 46, or was it 45.  I asked Mr. Brasic

 2    to register on that list, and when he registered on the list it turned out

 3    that the Registry has a ban on Mr. Brasic practising law before this

 4    Tribunal.

 5            At the same time, I wanted to appoint Mr. Dershowitz because ever

 6    since this trial began I always wanted Mr. Dershowitz to be part of my

 7    team.  And Mr. Dershowitz kept replying that he needs far great facilities

 8    in order for him to lodge the proper appeal.  To in order to appease the

 9    Registry I suggested a lawyer who is on the list, Rule 45 list, and I

10    proposed Mr. Dershowitz.  A representative of the Registry then contacted

11    both lawyers, and a lawyer who is on the list then gave up and

12    Mr. Dershowitz accepted under certain conditions.  He again insisted on

13    certain conditions.

14            After that, I proposed a French lawyer, he agreed to be appointed

15    for my defence; however, he requested additional time in order to do

16    certain checks.  And what I have forgotten to say is that immediately

17    after Mr. Brasic fell off the list, the three professors from Belgrade

18    simply gave up as well.  So this lawyer from Paris simply said after 15

19    days that he needs more time to think.  I gave his name and his phone

20    number to the representative of the Registry.

21            In the meantime, it looked that Mr. Dershowitz is going to have

22    all his problems solved, and, Your Honour, it was on Wednesday when I was

23    informed that there should be a temporary counsel assigned for the

24    purposes of today's hearing.  And then on Wednesday evening I was also

25    informed that there is a decision that the lawyer appointed for the

Page 9

 1    purposes of this hearing should also be permanently appointed for the

 2    appeals.  I do not want to accept any experiment now because I already

 3    have a plan with Mr. Dershowitz to see how we can prepare the appeals

 4    brief.  So I sent a letter to the gentleman in the Registry in which I

 5    said that if Mr. Dershowitz is unable to represent me, then I would like

 6    to defend myself.  Of course for that purposes I would need the judgement

 7    translated into Serbian and the appropriate time to prepare the appeal.

 8            Then on Thursday evening I received notification that

 9    Mr. Dershowitz accepted and that made we very happy because it was within

10    the deadline prescribed by the Tribunal.  However, one hour later I was

11    informed that there is an obstacle to the appointment of Mr. Dershowitz

12    and the obstacle is that this particular rule now requires that he wants

13    his brother as a co-counsel.  I have to say that the counsel sitting here

14    in front of me has very faithfully described the situation.  I simply

15    cannot [Realtime transcript read in error "I simply accept him"] accept

16    him.  It is not because I have anything against him.  Indeed, this is the

17    first time in my life that I see him.  But this is a serious judgement,

18    and I really have to find a plan, a serious plan, with which I am going to

19    proceed in the appeals.  And if you allow me just one more thing, maybe it

20    was a mistake, but I received a notification from the Tribunal that the

21    beginning of the 30-day deadline is going to be postponed until a

22    permanent counsel is appointed.  Now, the way I understood it it means

23    that on the day that the counsel is appointed the 30-day deadline is going

24    to start.  So then I was really surprised last week when they told me that

25    I have to solve this problem immediately, within several hours.

Page 10

 1            So that is why I would like to ask you to enable me the only fair

 2    solution, and that is to appoint Mr. Dershowitz as my counsel and he

 3    should start with the appeals as soon as possible.  Thank you.

 4            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  I thank you for this long explanation; however,

 5    I have to recall that as a matter of fact since the last decision signed

 6    by the President of this Tribunal, as a matter of fact you had ample time

 7    to reconcile this question.  We are in an international tribunal, in a

 8    domestic setting this would be for about three days for -- to assign

 9    counsel.  Of course you may be seated, Mr. Krajisnik.  Please, sit down.

10            Thank you, Madam Registrar.  I was just made aware that on page 8,

11    line 7, there was a mistake.  You, Mr. Krajisnik, correctly as I recall

12    said that you simply cannot accept Mr. Colin Nicholls, Queen's counsel, as

13    counsel.  This should please be corrected.

14            Before giving the floor to the other party, let me give you some

15    reflections on the problem before us.  But let's please make a distinction

16    between the question who can be assigned as co-counsel; is there a right

17    to self-representation.  And the second question, of course, the deadline

18    or the deadlines.

19            As regards the right to self-representation, we have ample

20    jurisprudence in this Tribunal on self-representation before a Trial

21    Chamber.  There is, however -- anybody who knows something better please

22    may correct me -- there's no jurisprudence at all about

23    self-representation on appeal.  As I mentioned at the beginning, this is

24    an international tribunal applying a set of Rules of Procedure and

25    Evidence being hybrid by nature and therefore please allow me a short

Page 11

 1    view on domestic law.  I think it's undisputed that in civil law countries

 2    and in particular in the -- in former Yugoslavia and in the states now on

 3    the territory of former Yugoslavia, when you have to hear a serious case,

 4    then it's mandatory to have counsel.  Why?  Simply because a person is not

 5    regarded able to overcome all these obstacles and legal hurdles in a

 6    criminal case of such a serious as the one we have before us.  The

 7    approach in common law countries, as we all know, is different.  There is

 8    of course the right of self-representation, it's enshrined in human rights

 9    tools like the international covenant, and this right to represent oneself

10    is verbatim repeated in our Statute.  However, we have to look into the

11    jurisprudence, inter alia, of the US Supreme Court.  The fundamental

12    decision, no doubt, was Faretta versus California.  And in Faretta versus

13    California it was already said that if need may be, a judge even at a

14    trial level may terminate self-representation under certain conditions.

15    However, on appeal I think the leading case is Martinez versus Court of

16    Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, where it reads in extreme

17    clearness that they say that, "We the Judges are not aware of any

18    historical consensus establishing a right of self-representation on

19    appeal.  In the appellate context, the balance between the two competing

20    interests surely tips in favour of the state.  The status of the accused

21    defendant who retains a presumption of innocence throughout the trial

22    process changes dramatically when a jury returns a guilty verdict.  The

23    requirement of representation by trained counsel implies no disrespect for

24    the individual inasmuch as it tends to benefit the appellant as well as

25    the court."

Page 12

 1            According to this, we find, interestingly enough, in our -- in the

 2    Rules of Procedure and Evidence of our twin court, the Arusha ad hoc

 3    tribunal dealing with genocide committed in 1994, Rule 45 quater, stating

 4    that, "The Chamber may, if it decides that in the interests of justice,

 5    instruct the Registrar to assign counsel to represent the interests of the

 6    accused."

 7            So therefore, I believe the decision to assign counsel was a

 8    reasonable one, and you had ample time in the past.  In addition, we were

 9    informed -- may I ask the registrar if I'm wrong that first of all we were

10    informed that Mr. Dershowitz was not able and willing to fill in the

11    necessary forms for his representing an accused before this Tribunal; and

12    second, that there was an obstacle because of his health condition, as

13    referred to in his own letter as kidney-stones, being an obstacle to

14    travel to The Hague.  That as a matter of fact, it seems to be correct

15    that there was not possible or no possibility to assign Mr. Dershowitz.

16            And finally, it's in the discretion of the Registrar, as opposed

17    to other legal systems, to assign the lead counsel, the lead counsel being

18    a person in the 45 -- Rule 45 list, and I take it that immediately after

19    the decision of the President you were given a list of these persons, as

20    you yourself stated of counsel on the list under Rule 45.

21            Then, this is concretised far more in Article 16(F), where it

22    reads:  "Member of the family or close friends of suspects, accused, and

23    counsel are not eligible for assignment under the directive of counsel,

24    expert, legal assistant, investigator, translator, or interpreter, unless

25    the Registrar determines that the assignment is in the interests of

Page 13

 1    justice."

 2            And I think, Mr. Nicholls, you referred to this situation prior to

 3    this referring to another case.  However, it's under our system for the

 4    Registrar to exercise the discretion and until now I can't find any

 5    mistake in this exercise of discretion by the Registrar.  But having said

 6    this I think we should hear now Prosecution on this question, limited to

 7    the question of assignment of counsel.

 8            MS. DAHL:  May it please the Court.  I believe it would be

 9    premature at this point to determine whether or not Mr. Krajisnik can

10    represent himself, and I do not know the circumstances under which

11    Mr. Dershowitz's brother would or would not qualify under the Rule 16 that

12    the Court has referred to.  So we at this point take no position and would

13    request that Mr. Nicholls be permitted to continue in his representation

14    until there's some reason to believe there's a more suitable counsel.

15            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Thank you.

16            Having read all the documentation, in particular the history of

17    the attempts to assign counsel, I think it's a matter of fairness, not

18    only vis-a-vis Mr. Krajisnik, but also vis-a-vis other appellants waiting

19    for a final judgement that indeed Mr. Nicholls who -- please don't

20    misunderstand me, Mr. Krajisnik, is a highly -- is a counsel of high

21    reputation, if I may say so, well-known from the famous Soering case with

22    all due respect.  And I think he's one of the best-placed counsel to sit

23    in this court and hereby if there is no other motion brought by any of the

24    parties, decide that it was correct the Registrar assigned Mr. Nicholls as

25    counsel in this case, and this decision stands until further notice if

Page 14

 1    there is no motion.  And you will have time to file such a motion.  This

 2    is so decided.

 3            However, the second question is a -- indeed, another valid point

 4    you raised and this is the notice of appeal.  Until now we would not sit

 5    here because there is no appeal pending on the part of Mr. Krajisnik.

 6    There is only appeal from the Prosecution.  However, fairness warrants

 7    that we think about the deadline in his former decision, of course always

 8    in the expectation that counsel would be assigned immediately, meaning

 9    within some days, that as of this date 30 days after this, notice of

10    appeal has to be filed.

11            I understand you referred already to one case, that within 30

12    days, having acted as Defence counsel myself, it's a mission impossible to

13    present a proper notice of appeal even though, as I mentioned before,

14    having once written the notice of appeal this is not the end of the story.

15    Of course, you can go in further details later on, and you can even add

16    reasons of appeal later on showing of good cause.

17            This judgement we have before us handed down the 27th of

18    September, 2006, is more than 400 pages long and the trial record

19    corresponds to this.  So therefore, we have to think about what is

20    possible.  I have to recall, once again referring to Article 16, that

21    first in the interest -- Article 16(C):  "In the interests of justice and

22    at the request of lead counsel, the Registrar may assign a second counsel

23    to assist with the defence of the suspect or accused."  In this case the

24    accused.  "Furthermore, at the request of the lead counsel and where the

25    interests of justice so require, the Registrar may assign co-counsel who

Page 15

 1    does not speak either of the two working languages of the Tribunal but who

 2    speaks the native language of the suspect or accused.  At the request of

 3    the lead counsel, the Registrar may assign other persons, such as legal

 4    assistants, consultants, investigators, and interpreters as required to

 5    provide support to counsel."

 6            So it is a matter for the now-acting lead counsel to take care to

 7    choose and I think it's necessary in this case, to choose a second counsel

 8    and the assistance in particular in interpreter always available to you

 9    that you can understand what Mr. Krajisnik wants to expresses in a

10    language both of you understand.  And as I've heard from the Registry, in

11    the past this has happened already several times, and there is -- I think

12    you also trust this person.  There was the person acting not only as an

13    interpreter but also as a person assisting all members of the team, and I

14    take it that this person would be available for both of you.  If I'm

15    right, this person also enabled you to have a conversation this afternoon.

16    Is it correct?

17            MR. NICHOLLS:  [Microphone not activated]

18            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Thank you.

19            So taking into account that of course immediately - and

20    "immediately" means immediately and not as soon as possible - these

21    persons you need have to be assigned, and it is for the lead counsel under

22    the Rules, having consulted Mr. Krajisnik, to decide who should act in all

23    these capacities, in particular it would be for you to decide whether, for

24    example, Mr. Dershowitz, if he is able to travel again, could be one

25    co-counsel.  But this is for you.  It's not -- it's neither for the

Page 16

 1    Registry nor for the Bench to decide this.  So all these possibilities are

 2    available for you.  Taking this into account, and I think we shouldn't act

 3    here as being on an oriental bazaar, what would be from your point of view

 4    a reasonable time to file a notice of appeal?

 5            MR. NICHOLLS:  Your Honour, I would ask that we should be given

 6    somewhere in the region of 60 days, in other words, twice what there would

 7    normally be available; or if not that, at least that Your Honour would

 8    allow an extension from the 15th of December or the equivalent of the 15th

 9    of December to the 8th of January, that's the court's recess period.  If

10    we consider at the present moment -- of course it may take me some time to

11    organise a team.  Ideally I would find somebody who's been previously

12    involved; if not, there are of course very considerable difficulties.  The

13    record has to be circulated, it has to be read, and then we have to come

14    together to discuss it.

15            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Right.

16            MR. NICHOLLS:  So it is a fairly elaborate process.  So I would

17    ask for, ideally, 60 days; if not 60 days, that Your Honour grants the

18    extension that there would be if we were allowed the recess from the 15th

19    of December to the 8th of January, that period of time as an extension.

20    It's about the same.

21            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Thank you.

22            May I hear the Prosecution on this.

23            MS. DAHL:  Yes, Your Honour.  There is a slightly related issue in

24    that Mr. Krajisnik's response brief is due on the 27th of December.  My

25    assumption is that Mr. Nicholls will represent him in the Prosecution's

Page 17

 1    appeal, and we do not oppose an extension to file the notice of appeal but

 2    would like the Court to be aware that there were actually two filings that

 3    I believe Mr. Nicholls would be responsible for.

 4            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  You are referring to another case, Perisic?

 5            MS. DAHL:  No, Your Honour, the Prosecution filed its notice of

 6    appeal on the 26th of October.  Under the Rules our brief was then due on

 7    the 27th of November where we filed our brief.  Sentencing appeals proceed

 8    on a more expeditious briefing schedule than appeals concerning

 9    convictions and sentences.  By our calculation the response for the

10    Defence brief is due the 27th of December.

11            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Right.  Thank you for recalling, but I thought

12    it goes without saying that filing the appeal brief by the Defence at the

13    same time because no doubt you will deal with questions of sentencing also

14    that at the same time the response will be due.  You were kind enough to

15    ask for this period of time by the end of court recess.  However, I think

16    it's a matter of judicial courtesy that we look back to previous cases,

17    and there's the Blagojevic case.  And when we take into account the

18    additional time granted in this case, when counsel had changed from the

19    trial phase to the appeals phase, taking this into account if you are

20    moving for this I would be ready to grant an extension of time until the

21    5th of February that you can do this in due course; however, in a decent

22    way and in a detailed way because it's not in the interests of justice

23    that you file a notice of appeal and then later identify far more details

24    and additional grounds of appeal and then we are seized of this.  So

25    please take it as an act of courtesy, but on the other time also in the

Page 18

 1    interests of justice and in the interests of this Bench that over your

 2    request, if you so move, a deadline elapsing the 5th of February could be

 3    granted.

 4            MR. NICHOLLS:  Thank you.  And that will be for the response as

 5    well as the notice of appeal?

 6            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Right.

 7            MR. NICHOLLS:  Thank you.

 8            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Would there be any objection to this?

 9            MS. DAHL:  No, Your Honour.

10            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Thank you.

11            So I take it that this was an oral motion on your part.

12            MR. NICHOLLS:  Yes.

13            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Rule 127 provides that there must be a motion,

14    and this motion is hereby granted.  The notice of appeal is due on 5th of

15    February, 2007.

16            MR. NICHOLLS:  Thank you.

17            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  I have to, going now to the next point on the

18    agenda, that's his pending --

19            THE APPELLANT:  [Microphone not activated]

20            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  As I said in the beginning it's only

21    exceptionally that for personal reasons the floor is granted to an

22    accused.  In this system before this Tribunal under the Rules, I can give

23    you the floor only on -- in extraordinary situations.  And please, if you

24    want to address the Court, do it by motion, assisted by your counsel.

25    Thank you.

Page 19

 1            THE APPELLANT:  [No interpretation]

 2            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  I didn't hear anything in English.

 3            THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter apologises, she was on the wrong

 4    channel.  The accused said:

 5            THE APPELLANT: [Interpretation] Does this mean I cannot be granted

 6    the floor now?  Does this mean I cannot speak?  Do I understand correctly?

 7            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Unfortunately, I have to answer your question in

 8    the affirmative.  Being acquainted myself with a different system,

 9    however, our Rules of Procedure and Evidence are predominantly ones

10    tailor-made in the Anglo-American system and I can't see any extraordinary

11    circumstances why I should give you the floor right now.  As I said if you

12    so want it's always your right and you're always entitled to file a motion

13    assisted by your counsel, and in addition I should not forget if there

14    should be any health questions and if there should be any complaints on

15    the United Nations Detention Unit's condition, please address me directly

16    and I will not hesitate to convene another Status Conference.  But these

17    points on the agenda are decided for today.  But there is still one matter

18    and this is a matter of pending motions.

19            In the Stanisic case, the Defence for Mr. Stanisic moved for a

20    motion to get access to documents admitted into evidence in the trial case

21    against Mr. Krajisnik.  We have already heard Prosecution on this;

22    however, because also documents tendered by the Defence and admitted as

23    such are at stake, I think it's only fair to give also you the possibility

24    to respond to this and if you have any objections that this material be

25    transferred to the Stanisic case, then please do so, and taking into

Page 20

 1    account the huge workload the Tribunal has.  And I think it would be

 2    reasonable, being seized for the first time today with this problem, that

 3    there would be a deadline, say the 15th of February, ten days after this

 4    motion.  Are there any obstacles from the side of the Prosecution because

 5    I take it that the case is not due to start in the near future?

 6            MS. DAHL:  Yes, Your Honour.

 7            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  Thank you.

 8            So decided.  The 15th of February, please take note of these

 9    admissions in this matter and if you so want, respond.

10            May I ask the parties, are there any other issues to be raised

11    now?

12            MS. DAHL:  No, Your Honour.

13            MR. NICHOLLS:  No.

14            JUDGE SCHOMBURG:  This is not the case.  This concludes today's

15    Status Conference.  I thank you.

16                          --- Whereupon the Status Conference

17                          adjourned at 4.53 p.m.