1 Friday, 13th March 1998
3 JUDGE CASSESE: Good afternoon. May I ask
4 the Registrar to call out the case number?
5 THE REGISTRAR: The Prosecutor versus
6 Dragoljub Kunarac, case number IT-96-23-I.
7 JUDGE CASSESE: Can I have the appearances,
9 MS UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours for the
10 Prosecution, we have here Patricia Sellers and
11 Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff.
12 MR PANTELIC: Your Honour, I am Igor
13 Pantelic, Defence counsel on behalf of Mr Kunarac.
14 I am acting in accordance with the authorisation of my
15 colleague, Mr Prodanovic, who is not able to be present
16 here today, and I suppose that the Trial Chamber have
17 his explanations concerning these issues.
18 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr Kunarac, can
19 you hear me?
20 MR KUNARAC: I can, thank you.
21 JUDGE CASSESE: You may be seated.
22 We can now commence with this hearing. As
23 you know, this is the third hearing of the adjourned
24 initial appearance of the accused before the
25 International Criminal Tribunal for the former
1 Yugoslavia. As the parties are aware, the Trial
2 Chamber issued an order after the second hearing and
3 the initial appearance of the accused on Tuesday, 10th
4 March, and the order rescheduled the continuation of
5 the initial appearance and ordered Mr Prodanovic to
6 appear before the Trial Chamber at that time -- I am
7 reading out the order -- having made adequate provision
8 for prior consultation with his client, and he was
9 ordered to explain to the Trial Chamber the
10 circumstances of his absence from the hearing, failing
11 which the Trial Chamber would consider instituting
12 proceedings for contempt.
13 The Trial Chamber has since received a
14 Defence motion filed on 11 March in which Mr Prodanovic
15 lists objective circumstances which prevent him
16 appearing this afternoon.
17 In that motion, he suggested that the accused
18 might be represented by his colleague, Mr Pantelic.
19 The Trial Chamber takes this matter very seriously for
20 three reasons: first of all, Mr Prodanovic absented
21 himself from the last hearing without leave of the
22 court, and after having formally agreed to that hearing
23 taking place. I remember that I asked him whether he
24 would be available on Tuesday afternoon at 4.30 and he
25 said "yes" -- the next day in any case after the first
2 The second reason is that Mr Prodanovic
3 failed to consult with his client following the first
4 hearing, and prior to his departure from The Hague, so
5 leaving the accused without legal advice at a crucial
6 stage in our proceedings.
7 The third reason is that the Tribunal has not
8 been informed of any apology received from
9 Mr Prodanovic. The Trial Chamber now looks to his
10 colleague, Mr Pantelic, to explain these actions by
11 Mr Prodanovic. Mr Pantelic?
12 MR PANTELIC: Thank you, your Honour. First
13 of all, I am also fully authorised on behalf of
14 Mr Prodanovic to give to this honourable Trial Chamber
15 all his personal highest apologies about this
16 inconvenient situation and, also, he has authorised me
17 to inform you in some detail how this situation
18 developed. Briefly, I would like to bring to your
19 attention some important facts on this issue.
20 Late in the evening on Monday night of March,
21 my colleague has got some very important and very
22 urgent messages from Foca and as well as in the morning
23 of 10 March. This information is fully related to this
24 particular case and, also, with some of the other
25 co-accused in this case. In the morning of 10 March,
1 before our conference with the members of OTP, my
2 colleague informed some of the members of the Registry
3 in my presence about this, let us say, extraordinary
4 circumstances. During our conference with the Office
5 of the Prosecutor, he and me -- we also informed the
6 Prosecutor about these new events and finally,
7 immediately after this conference with the OTP, he was
8 in a situation to inform again the Registry and to
9 kindly ask to inform the Trial Chamber about these new
10 events, bearing in mind that this is a most urgent and
11 appropriate way to inform the Trial Chamber, through
12 the Registry.
13 Furthermore, Mr Heintz, Deputy Registrar,
14 around 1 o'clock on 10 March, spoke with me personally
15 about this issue, because my colleague Mr Prodanovic is
16 not an English speaker, so I was acting on his behalf,
17 and I briefly explained to Mr Heintz the reasons and
18 the circumstances why Mr Prodanovic was obliged to
19 leave The Hague before this second part of the initial
20 appearance according to Rule 62.
21 Also, at this point, please let me stress
22 that I saw this internal memorandum sent by the
23 Registry to this Trial Chamber and where the one
24 expression was that Mr Prodanovic was obliged to leave
25 The Hague in order to have some conferences in Belgrade
1 with his clients, which is a factual error, because
2 this conference took place in Foca, in Serbinje.
3 However, I have some other explanations which may be
4 very, very important to this Trial Chamber, and in this
5 light, I think this Trial Chamber will be satisfied
6 with these expressions, but because of the nature of
7 this information and because of some kind of level of
8 confidentiality, I would prefer if it would be possible
9 to do that in closed session, maybe after this hearing,
10 or in some other appropriate time, because that was one
11 of the requests of my colleague, Mr Prodanovic, having
12 in mind the sensitivity of these issues.
13 JUDGE CASSESE: First of all, with regard to
14 the behaviour of your colleague, Mr Prodanovic, as we
15 said before, we will make a formal report of his
16 behaviour to the Registrar --
17 MR PANTELIC: Can I stand or sit?
18 JUDGE CASSESE: As you wish. I am going to
19 ask you a question. What you just said you would like
20 to explain to the Trial Chamber relates to the guilty
21 plea, or --
22 MR PANTELIC: No, it is just in relation to
23 the motives and the circumstances about his sudden
24 departure from The Hague, which might be also important
25 for this Trial Chamber, just to have in general a
1 picture of this nature.
2 JUDGE CASSESE: It has nothing to do with
3 the plea?
4 MR PANTELIC: No, nothing.
5 JUDGE CASSESE: It will be done afterwards.
6 MR PANTELIC: That is just for your
8 JUDGE CASSESE: Let us move on to the
9 question of the plea. I would like to ask the
10 Prosecutor whether they are now in a position to set
11 out their position in regard to the outstanding counts
12 in the indictment, counts 40 and 43 -- counts other
13 than the one count, 41, on which the accused has
14 already taken a stand.
15 MS UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The Prosecution has
16 spoken with the accused in the presence of his counsel,
17 and with the Defence counsel separately as well, to
18 determine the factual basis of the charges to which the
19 accused has pleaded guilty. The Prosecution was not
20 satisfied with the underlying facts stated by the
21 accused in his interview in regard to the charge.
22 While the Prosecution has been willing to exercise
23 flexibility to determine the factual basis of this
24 plea, in order to conclude the initial appearance of
25 the accused, we must inform the Trial Chamber that we
1 are not prepared to concur with Defence counsel or the
2 accused, and we are also not prepared now to drop any
3 of the charges.
4 We would ask the Trial Chamber to set a date
5 for a status conference in which the future trial
6 preparation can be discussed. We appreciate very much
7 the time and attention that the Trial Chamber has
8 granted to the Prosecution and the Defence to settle
9 this pleading. The Prosecution stands now ready for
10 trial, your Honours.
11 JUDGE CASSESE: What you said applies to
12 which counts?
13 MS UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It applies to 41, to the
14 guilty plea and also to the other charges. We are not
15 dropping any charge now.
16 JUDGE CASSESE: Not even count 42, based on
17 grave breach, torture as a grave breach.
18 MS UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That might be at a later
19 stage, but not today.
20 JUDGE CASSESE: Alright. So we have now to
21 actually deal with the question of the plea to
22 count 41.
23 We have to clarify the question of the guilty
24 plea made by the accused with regard to count 41,
25 because, as you know, under our Rules and Procedures of
1 Evidence, Rule 62 bis, if an accused pleads guilty, the
2 Trial Chamber must be satisfied that the guilty plea
3 has been made voluntarily, the guilty plea is not
4 equivocal and there is a sufficient factual basis for
5 the crime and the accused's participation in it, either
6 on the basis of independent indicia or lack of any
7 material disagreement between the parties about the
8 facts of the case.
9 So, therefore, we have to see to it that this
10 provision is applied with regard to count 41. First of
11 all, the facts to which the guilty plea applies,
12 Mr Pantelic?
13 MR PANTELIC: Your Honour, in support of the
14 facts that we just heard from the Prosecution side,
15 I would also inform you that, in order to clarify my
16 client's mental relation and his conscience concerning
17 all the facts regarding this plea, I would say that,
18 after the analysis that we have made, I would say that
19 we were faced with some kind of legal arrachement
20 situation. It means that Mr Kunarac pleaded guilty
21 because he felt that he -- and he knows very well --
22 that he committed some crimes, but these crimes are
23 obviously not related to these charges and with this
24 kind of qualifications, so during this morning's
25 interview with the Prosecutor's Office, he openly, with
1 his free and open mind, explained all factual bases and
2 all the details concerning his mental relation to all
3 these issues.
4 Now I think it would be appropriate to hear
5 maybe another explanation from Mr Kunarac so that we
6 can proceed with the other steps in our relevant
7 procedures and, as the Prosecutor stated, we are as a
8 Defence ready to have another status conference with
9 all possibilities of possible withdrawal of some
10 charges, or maybe some clarification, because the main
11 issue, while we were discussing all these legal
12 moments, was that some paragraphs were related to his
13 prior behaviour during 1992, but it was not related in
14 general with the qualifications made by the Prosecutor,
15 so that was the main disagreement or some kind of
16 non-clarification of some issues. I would strongly
17 suggest we can maybe hear Mr Kunarac, what he can tell
18 us with regard to these issues.
19 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, thank you. After
20 carefully studying the indictment, it has become clear
21 to the Trial Chamber that, to enter a valid plea, the
22 accused must be aware that he is pleading guilty to the
23 various allegations listed in the indictment, and
24 I would refer to various points, so I will ask him
25 various questions and he should reply whether or not he
1 is pleading guilty with regard to the various
2 allegations, because, as Defence counsel is aware, the
3 charge of rape is based in the indictment on various
4 provisions -- Article 7(1) of the Statute, direct
5 participation in rape, 7(1) of the Statute again, but
6 in a different respect, allegations of aiding and
7 abetting rape; 7(3) of the Statute, namely, an
8 allegation that he is responsible as a commander for
9 rapes committed by subordinates and, again, then under
10 Article 5, rape as a crime against humanity, widespread
11 assault, rape as a part of a widespread assault on the
12 Muslim population of Foca, so we have to make clear
13 that the accused is entering a plea with full knowledge
14 of the implications of this guilty plea.
15 We will first of all now ask the accused to
16 specify these various points and then I will turn to
17 the Prosecution to ask a question about the factual
18 basis of the various charges. There is one point which
19 is not very clear, at least to me, namely, whether the
20 charges of torture, rape and various other charges --
21 they are all related to the same factual basis, whether
22 the same facts have been classified by the Prosecutor
23 in their charges against the accused as torture and
24 rape. Let us start with the Prosecution then.
25 MS UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, that is
1 just what we mean. All of the charges are based
2 basically on the same facts. We see these charges as
3 cumulative. That is how we will do it. There are some
4 legal differences in the different charges, but
5 basically it is the same facts, of course. We
6 understand, from the merits, that he himself was
7 involved in the rape of five women, especially here
8 described in the various chapters -- 7(1) clearly. As
9 far as he himself took women, for instance, to these
10 various rape locations, we also see clearly 7(1) and,
11 in regard to these cases, where the men took out the
12 women without his presence, then we consider 7(3).
13 JUDGE CASSESE: That means, if you do not
14 mind I would like to say at this point, for instance,
15 count 40 is crime against humanity; count 41 is again
16 crime against humanity; and count 40 is crime against
17 humanity (torture); count 41, crime against humanity
18 (rape). This double classification is related to the
19 same facts.
20 MS UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, your Honour.
21 JUDGE CASSESE: And, again, then you have
22 put forward the charge of grave breach (torture) and
23 war crime (count 43), again for the same facts.
24 MS UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
25 JUDGE CASSESE: Which you, in this case,
1 label, as it were, or classify as torture.
2 MS UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. The difference, of
3 course, is international armed conflict -- just armed
5 JUDGE CASSESE: You said before you have not
6 yet now decided whether or not to drop count 42, grave
8 MS UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We would like to do that
9 after the status conference.
10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Now we are in a
11 position, I think, having clarified the position of the
12 Prosecution, to move on to the guilty plea of the
13 accused, and, as I say, first of all, under our Rules
14 of Procedure, he must be -- the guilty plea must be
15 made voluntarily. I would like to ask the accused to
16 stand up and to answer my questions.
17 (The accused stands).
18 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr Kunarac, did you make
19 this plea voluntarily, no-one has forced you to do so?
20 MR KUNARAC: When I made a plea of guilty,
21 I did so because that is what I felt at the time,
22 morally and mentally, and if there is any problem here,
23 then it is because I want to tell the truth. The truth
24 is that I participated in an offence and I tried to
25 explain in my interview with the Prosecutor why I feel
1 guilty regarding what I personally said I had done --
2 I still say that I am guilty, in the context
3 that I explained it to the Prosecutor, at least I tried
4 to explain myself. Whether or not I managed I do not
5 know. If that has not been made clear, then I must
6 betray my own feelings and consciousness and say that
7 I am not guilty, because when the Trial Chamber hears
8 all the evidence, then they will be able to decide
9 whether I am guilty or not. In any event, I want to
10 admit my guilt to those acts that I personally
12 I do not know how all these things stand in
13 legal terms. I said before my plea that I did not want
14 to lie. I came voluntarily, in full consciousness to
15 tell the truth, the whole truth. That is why I am
17 How great my guilt is, it is up to you to
18 judge. I am here for that purpose. It is up to you to
20 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr Kunarac, my
21 question was more specific. Did anybody force you to
22 enter a guilty plea to a crime against humanity, or did
23 you plead guilty in a voluntary way.
24 MR KUNARAC: Nobody forced me to say that
25 I was guilty.
1 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Now we have to
2 move on to the second requirement set out in Rule 62
3 bis, namely that the guilty plea must not be
4 equivocal. That means that you must be aware of the
5 legal import and the legal implications of your guilty
6 plea. First of all, as I mentioned before, you have
7 been accused in the indictment with a crime against
8 humanity (rape) in various respects. First of all,
9 direct participation in rape -- Article 7(1) of the
10 Statute (this is one point). Then you have been
11 accused, because it is claimed by the Prosecutor that
12 you aided and abetted in the commission of rape, under
13 7(1) of the Statute; also, that you had command
14 responsibility, because you were responsible as a
15 commander for the rapes committed by your subordinates,
16 and you failed to stop your subordinates from
17 committing rape.
18 Are you aware of all these implications which
19 are set out in the indictment.
20 MR KUNARAC: I am aware of the way in which
21 the Prosecution has compiled the indictment. I think
22 that the Prosecution is totally unaware of what was
23 actually happening on the ground at the time. If my
24 confession, which I tried to clarify this morning,
25 regarding my guilt is not sufficient, then I will have
1 to say that I do not feel guilty of committing a crime
2 against humanity, because, when I said I was guilty,
3 when I pleaded guilty, I did not want to conceal my
4 guilt; I wanted to say that I felt guilty. It is a
5 fact, and these are facts that I tried to explain to
6 the Prosecutor in my interview this morning and, if
7 that act, under the circumstances under which it was
8 committed, was wrong in my plea, because I could not
9 find under counts 41, 42, 43 under which one of those
10 my feeling of guilt fits, so I do not know whether
11 I chose the worst or the least of the offences.
12 There is the word "rape" without resort to
13 force, and that is how I thought -- that is why
14 I thought that this was the count to which I could
15 plead guilty. If the Prosecution rejects this
16 possibility of my admission being adequate, in that
17 case I will have to withdraw my guilty plea, not
18 because I wish to confuse anyone, but I want to
19 understand the entire indictment, all the circumstances
20 of the whole event and knowing the facts such as they
21 were. I think that the Prosecution is absolutely in
22 the wrong and --
23 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr Kunarac -- (pause) --
24 what you just said probably indicates that you are not
25 clear about the legal implications of the charge
1 preferred by the Prosecution. Now, the Prosecution is
2 claiming that you committed rapes and/or failed to stop
3 a rape being committed by your subordinates and, in
4 this way, you have perpetrated a crime against
5 humanity. Now, what is meant by a crime against
6 humanity? I am sure that your legal counsel has
7 already explained everything. You are aware of that.
8 That means a serious attack on human dignity -- a very
9 serious attack on human dignity, which may take the
10 form of murder, rape, enslavement, extermination and so
11 on, in this case rape, which has a target of civilians,
12 so not committed against soldiers but against
13 civilians. This is the second legal ingredient, so a
14 very serious attack on human dignity in the form which
15 I have just set out, then, having as a target one or
16 more civilians, and the third legal ingredient of this
17 offence is that this serious attack on human dignity is
18 part of a widespread or systematic practice in the area
19 or in the country where the offence has allegedly been
21 So, therefore, this particular offence, in
22 this case rape, has been classified by the Prosecution
23 as a crime against humanity and you pleaded guilty to
24 this count -- crime against humanity -- rape as a crime
25 against humanity. I understand, but you may clarify
1 your position, that you do not feel that you are guilty
2 of rape as a form of torture, because one of the other
3 counts is that what you committed must be regarded or
4 classified -- legally classified as a form of torture.
5 Is it clear to you what is meant by "crime against
6 humanity"? As you know, we have under our Statute
7 various -- we deal with various classes of offences --
8 genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, grave
10 A crime against humanity, as has been held by
11 a Trial Chamber, is an offence which is more serious or
12 may be regarded as more serious as a war crime. You
13 are pleading guilty to a serious offence, namely, a
14 crime against humanity. Are you aware of these various
15 legal issues which I have tried to explain to you? Are
16 you aware of the implications?
17 MR KUNARAC: I am now, what crime against
18 humanity means in the case of rape. When I pleaded
19 guilty that day, I did not plead that I had in an
20 organised fashion, motivated by genocide, committed any
21 rape, and I must explain myself, that I was wrong at
22 the time I made that plea. The only thing I did not
23 want to do was to lie against myself. I did not commit
24 a crime against humanity, but I did commit one offence
25 from this indictment, and an act as referred to in that
1 count, in my opinion, it is not worded in a clear
2 manner. At the top it says that I committed acts
3 against such and such and such persons, and then the
4 numbers 9.3, 9.4, et cetera, and then we have counts 41,
5 but no reference is made to the previous paragraphs.
6 I am guilty of paragraph 9.10, so please
7 understand I do not find where those acts referred to
8 in 9.10 appear again in the counts, so that, if it was
9 in count 41, I plead guilty of a crime against humanity
10 as defined in paragraphs 9.10, 11, 12 and so on. Then
11 I would know what I was pleading guilty to. I hope
12 I have managed to explain how I was misled, not knowing
13 the law.
14 I wish to repeat that I do not want to tell a
15 lie at all, ever. I came here consciously to be
16 honest, to be decent, to tell you what exactly I did,
17 and it is up to you to say how guilty I am, and to mete
18 out a sentence. I hope I have made myself clear.
19 I hope you understand why I pleaded guilty. But could
20 you please tell me where in these counts is paragraph
21 9.10. If the Prosecution could tell me whether it is
22 under count 40, 41, 42 or 43 and then I would be able to
23 plead guilty; of course, taking into account the
24 circumstances under which the offence was committed .
25 As for other counts, I am absolutely not
1 guilty -- I am not guilty regarding all the other
2 charges made in the indictment, so I am now trying to
3 explain the amount of hesitation in my mind. I said
4 I was guilty of one act and not of all the three others
5 and that I have said quite clearly. I do not know if
6 I have legally made any violations of the Rules or the
7 Statute, but that was not my wish. I did not want to
8 cause any problems. I just wanted to honestly tell you
9 what I am guilty of.
10 I tried to explain to Madam, the Prosecutor.
11 Maybe she did not understand me. Maybe she does not
12 believe me. Then I am ready to plead not guilty on
13 each of those counts, and then the proceedings will
14 follow as they should if I plead not guilty. So, could
15 my counsel or somebody help me, if I am failing to make
16 myself clear in legal terms, which I do not understand.
17 JUDGE CASSESE: I now turn to the Defence
18 counsel and the Prosecution. If I understood the
19 accused correctly, he means to say that he is ready to
20 repeat his guilty plea to count 41, crime against
21 humanity, only with reference to the facts set out in
22 paragraph 9.10 of the indictment. Is this correct?
23 MR PANTELIC: Your Honour, let me be very
24 precise. We have got enough time yesterday for a
25 conference -- this morning, especially with the
1 presence of the Prosecutor's Office, and these
2 conferences were very, very important for Mr Kunarac.
3 Unfortunately, we cannot expect here that every client,
4 especially in this first period of appearances, is
5 fully aware. Maybe after -- maybe after six months,
6 one year, a year and a half, he would be more familiar
7 with all these events and all of the offences here.
8 I would ask Mr Kunarac to explain to you, if it was
9 clearly explained to him the difference between the
10 crime against humanity, which as you stressed is a most
11 serious crime, and, for example, the grave breaches of
12 the Geneva Conventions or some other forms, where we
13 theoretically and hypothetically might find a place for
14 his actions. So, I explained to him, in various ways,
15 all these things and my guess is -- my conclusion is
16 that, having in mind all these details, he is not
17 pleading guilty under the count 41, crimes against
18 humanity, relating to rapes.
19 He expressed his willingness very, very
20 precisely this morning to the Prosecutor's Office,
21 also, so my conclusion is not that he pleaded guilty
22 with all this explanation now to crime against
23 humanity. What I understood from his statements was
24 that he said that he committed some crimes, but are
25 these crimes fully related with some qualification in
1 the indictment, or maybe it will be amended in a future
2 period. Let us see. Up to now, my guess is that my
3 client is fully aware about these differences and that
4 he cannot consider himself guilty in particular to
5 count 41, crimes against humanity -- not to mention
6 sub-rule 3(E) that we have to discuss more after.
7 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr Pantelic, do you want to
8 say -- do you intend to say that now your client is
9 aware of -- more aware of the differences between the
10 various crimes -- offences provided for in our Statute
11 and that he does not know whether he should plead
12 guilty to, say, crime against humanity or war crime or
13 a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. However, he
14 admits to committing the offences which are set out in
15 paragraph 9.10 of the indictment, because he made
16 reference before to the facts listed there?
17 MR PANTELIC: Yes, your Honour, but if these
18 factual grounds mentioned in paragraphs 9.10, 9.21, let
19 us say and 10.1, which he mentioned this morning in
20 this interview, are related to a crime against
21 humanity, his position is that he is not guilty. But,
22 on the contrary, if this description of these actions
23 is related, for example, to some form of grave breaches
24 or customs of war, maybe in that case we can discuss
25 another light of his possible plea of guilty. That is
1 the main issue.
2 Now, if you are facing all these factual
3 grounds and qualifications, my guess is -- and that was
4 my advice to him, finally not to plead guilty under
5 these circumstances, because, as you well know, we have
6 to have some basic and important elements of one
7 crime. You very precisely explained to my client and
8 to the audience these differences and he is very well
9 of it, especially because of the third element of this
11 JUDGE CASSESE: Namely, the offence must be
12 part of --
13 MR PANTELIC: Part of widespread --
14 JUDGE CASSESE: Or systematic practice.
15 MR PANTELIC: Yes. I asked him precisely,
16 "Mr Kunarac, are you aware or can you explain to us
17 this general atmosphere and do you consider this
18 atmosphere as a widespread situation of torture or
19 massive terror and have you been a part of all these
20 actions, hypothetically?". He said "no". I cannot say
21 that that is a crime against humanity under these
23 JUDGE CASSESE: As I say, regardless of the
24 legal classification of the offence, war crime, crime
25 against humanity, grave breach, am I correct in saying
1 that Mr Kunarac admits to the commission of the facts
2 listed in paragraph 9.10 of the indictment -- leaving
3 aside the legal characterisation of the offence?
4 MR PANTELIC: That is right, your Honour.
5 JUDGE CASSESE: He is admitting --
6 MR PANTELIC: Yes.
7 JUDGE CASSESE: I wonder whether the
8 Prosecution can state their position?
9 MS UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, if it would
10 have been about legal problems only, we would not have
11 had any problems and we would have been very flexible
12 and would have been willing to do any possible
13 amendment on short notice. But, that is not what it is
14 about. It is about the factual basis and even about
15 the factual basis of this count 9.10. In 9.10 it is
16 clearly stated that two women were taken to these
17 headquarters, one was raped -- gang-raped brutally and
18 one was personally raped by this accused, but,
19 according to what he has told us, he hardly committed
20 any offence at all, because what he described was not
21 that what is here said in the indictment -- not at all.
22 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. (Pause). In the
23 light of what has just been said, it is clear to the
24 court that we have to enter a not guilty plea, and set
25 a date for the status conference.
1 However, let me, before we adjourn, point out
2 that this awkward situation has been created by the
3 fact that the accused has not been duly instructed --
4 has not been duly advised by the legal counsel.
5 Normally, before entering a guilty plea, or not guilty
6 plea, the accused should be advised by the Defence
7 counsel, who should explain to him or to her the
8 difference between the various offences, which are
9 listed in our Statute and which are charged in the
11 If he had been well advised, probably we
12 would not have been put in this rather awkward
14 I wonder whether -- since you said that you
15 would like to make some explanation in camera, in
16 closed session, I wonder whether we could adjourn now
17 and we could even -- would you be in a position to hold
18 the status conference, maybe in half an hour?
19 MS UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
20 MR PANTELIC: Yes.
21 JUDGE CASSESE: We move to a closed session,
22 you give us some confidential information and then we
23 discuss various matters within the framework of a
24 status conference. Thank you. So, half an hour, is
25 that too much or too little?
1 MS UERTZ-RETZLAFF: 20 minutes.
2 MR PANTELIC: 15, it is up to you.
3 JUDGE CASSESE: 20 minutes. We stand
4 adjourned for 20 minutes.
6 (A short break)