1 Friday, 14 February 2003
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.29 p.m.
6 JUDGE HUNT: Call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon. This is Case Number IT-98-30/1-A,
8 the Prosecutor versus Miroslav Kvocka, Mlado Radic, Zoran Zigic, and
9 Dragljub Prcac.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Appearances.
11 MR. STAKER: May it please Your Honour, my name is Christopher
12 Staker. I appear for the Prosecution with my colleagues Mr. Anthony
13 Carmona, and Ms. Helen Brady, our case manager is Ms. Nicola Bonfield.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. For Mr. Kvocka.
15 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Good day, Your Honour. Krstan
16 Simic, appearing for Miroslav Kvocka.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. For Mr. Radic.
18 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour, Toma Fila
19 and Zoran Jovanovic appearing for Mr. Mlado Radic. Thank you.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Zigic.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour, my
22 name is Slobodan Stojanovic, and I appear for Mr. Zoran Zigic. Thank
24 JUDGE HUNT: And for Mr. Prcac.
25 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour, Jovan
1 Simic, attorney at law from Belgrade appearing for Dragoljub Prcac. Thank
3 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Mr. Stojanovic, we did make every attempt
4 to contact you before this date was set. Unfortunately your mobile
5 telephone number informed us always that it was switched off. You don't
6 have a message machine. A fax was sent and we didn't hear from you, but I
7 am glad to see you're here. I hope you'll get your telephone working
8 again because it's very difficult to keep in contact with you.
9 This is a Status Conference held in accordance with the rules.
10 First of all I think, Mr. Staker, you'll be able to tell us hopefully that
11 all of the disclosure has now been completed.
12 MR. STAKER: That is so, Your Honour. In our third status report
13 on disclosure which was filed on the 12th, the day before yesterday, we
14 anticipated that the following day, yesterday, a final collection of paper
15 documents would be disclosed to the Defence. In fact that amounted to 83
16 documents. They were left in the lockers for Defence counsel here at the
17 Tribunal yesterday, and we hoped that they have all been received.
18 I understand that some of the compact disks that were disclosed
19 last week on the 7th of February may not have been received by all Defence
20 counsel yet. And they have been sent by courier. If that's the case, the
21 relevant counsel for the Defence might confirm, but they have been sent.
22 JUDGE HUNT: First of all, I should say everybody is very grateful
23 that this was completed in the middle of February instead of the end of
24 April, and the OTP is to be congratulated on having achieved that.
25 MR. STAKER: I should add one further point, Your Honour. We also
1 do withdraw paragraph 18 of our third status report. We indicated there
2 was some material from the Tadic case that might be looked at. In fact,
3 we've since ascertained that that was reviewed during the trial
4 proceedings in this case.
5 JUDGE HUNT: What paragraph number?
6 MR. STAKER: Paragraph 18.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Good. Thank you. Oh, yes. Is there anything else
8 the Prosecution wanted to raise?
9 MR. STAKER: Not at this stage, Your Honour. No.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Are you able to tell me roughly how many pages are
11 revolved in the total disclosure?
12 MR. STAKER: Your Honour, we have prepared an overview summary
13 which we have provided to the Court and which -- yes, that's it indeed,
14 Your Honour.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Have the counsel for the accused got it?
16 MR. STAKER: They have, Your Honour. It indicates that on the
17 22nd of November, 40 documents were disclosed as indicated in our status
18 report on disclosure. They constitute one binder. We haven't counted the
19 exact number of pages, but in fact, I have it with me in Court today, Your
20 Honour. I could demonstrate it.
21 Yesterday, 82 documents were disclosed in paper form, also
22 constituting one binder of documents. The three sets of compact disks
23 that were disclosed, the first contained 5.654 documents. We don't know
24 the exact number of pages, but we're informed that the average is 6 and a
25 half pages per document, and using that as a basis for calculation, we've
1 indicated 36.751 pages. And in the second set of compact disks, 15.423
2 documents, again multiplied by 6.5 comes to approximately 100.249 pages,
3 although I would add, Your Honour, that in relation to electronic
4 disclosure, those figures aren't particularly meaningful because they are
5 to be searched electronically. As we've indicated previously, many of
6 these documents may be wholly irrelevant; some of them may be very long
7 documents that contain one mere reference to a name somewhere in the
8 middle. And when being searched electronically, the searcher is taken
9 immediately to that.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Are they in Cyrillic script?
11 MR. STAKER: The documents no, Your Honour. I understand that
12 none of the documents on the CDs are in Cyrillic script, they would all be
13 in Roman, but searchable with a search engine.
14 JUDGE HUNT: I see. Taking only a slight rounding up is 21.200
15 pages approximately plus the folder.
16 MR. STAKER: Although account would have to be taken, Your Honour,
17 of the length of time that some of this material has been in the hands of
18 the Defence.
19 JUDGE HUNT: That would have been better if the 15 and a half
20 thousand weren't -- if they had been delivered before the 7th of
21 February. It's an important thing. They have had some of them, about a
22 quarter of them since November. But I'm just trying to make out how long
23 it's going to take them to prepare a Rule 115 application, if there is
24 going to be one, you see.
25 MR. STAKER: Well, Your Honour, the time frame for doing that
1 originally was indicated in the Prosecution first status report on
2 disclosure in which the Prosecution had indicated that it intended to do
3 all of that review. At the subsequent Status Conference the message they
4 were given was we should simply give everything to the Defence and that
5 would speed things up, and that they could very quickly ascertain whether
6 anything was useful or not. Now, it may be that in fact the range of
7 materials that have been disclosed were somewhat broader than the counsel
8 for the Defence originally envisaged would be disclosed.
9 JUDGE HUNT: They asked for it, and they have been given it. I
10 don't see that there's any cause for complaint about it, but I still have
11 to work out approximately how long they are going to need to review the
12 material even with a search engine. I might say that my experience in --
13 at the trial level was that the search engines often didn't work very
14 efficiently. Because documents were blurred or something like that. I
15 hope that the hardware or software, whichever it is, has been improved.
16 MR. STAKER: I have myself, Your Honour, experimented with the
17 CDs. The results from my quick experimentation were quite good. I would
18 leave it to my colleagues for counsel for the Defence to comment on their
19 own experience.
20 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Well, thank you. Is there anything more
21 that you can tell us about this?
22 MR. STAKER: No, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Thank you. Well, I think the way, if I
24 may say so, counsel for the appellants should look at it now is how long
25 do you need in order to tell us how long you need to get your Rule 115
1 applications in? I don't expect you to be able to give that figure
2 immediately, but it may take you, say, a week to have a look at what has
3 been now provided or at least provided the last week and the last few days
4 so that we could require you to nominate a period you say you'll need to
5 put your -- any 115 applications on. I hasten to add that we won't
6 necessarily accept your assessment, but at least you will have had the
7 opportunity of making a submission as to how long you think you'll need.
8 Now, perhaps I could take you in turn. Mr. Krstan Simic, what do
9 you say about how long you'll need?
10 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, at the last Status
11 Conference, we raised an issue, and we feared that we would be brought in
12 to an embarrassing situation, so I would like to present a brief
13 introduction before I give the reply to your question. I will also refer
14 to the jurisprudence of this Tribunal which I have before me.
15 The Tribunal has dealt with questions relating to additional
16 evidence, for example, in the Prosecutor versus Delalic, the 24th of June,
17 1997, where the Trial Chamber provided a definition of material falling
18 under Article 68. The materials known to the Prosecution and favourable
19 to the accused because they may indicate innocence or make his position
20 more favourable. Now that we have entered into this long story of
21 disclosure after the initial judgement, we have to ask ourselves what the
22 standard is for evidence favourable to the accused? And this has brought
23 us into an absurd situation. After the end of the trial, documents which
24 might be exculpatory or mitigate the sentence amount to as much as several
25 hundred pages of documents, 3 or 400 pages. I will not be cynical, but if
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 all these documents meet the requirements of Rule 68, what would happen if
2 I were to submit all of these documents to the Chamber tomorrow and say:
3 "All of these documents could affect the Trial Chamber's decision."
4 I'm afraid that this standard has not been met in this case --
5 JUDGE HUNT: Just one moment, Mr. Simic. The Prosecution does not
6 by producing the documents admit that they are in fact exculpatory; their
7 obligations is to produce material which may prove to be exculpatory. You
8 can't just tender everything they have disclosed. You have to go
9 through. You have to demonstrate in relation to particular issues of fact
10 found at the trial that the material you want to tender, whether it's
11 exculpatory or otherwise, may have affected the verdict. I'm putting that
12 in very general terms. But that's the more recent decision of what 115
14 Let's not worry about what Rule 68 means. 68 determines the
15 obligation of the Prosecution to disclose it to you. You now have to
16 demonstrate under 115, and you bear the onus of persuasion about it, that
17 the material you tender may have affected the decision at the trial in
18 relation to specific findings of fact. So let's not worry about what Rule
19 68 means unless you are going to complain that there is material that the
20 Prosecution has which they haven't disclosed to you. So let's just go and
21 look at 115, not 68. And that has been defined very much more recently
22 than 1997.
23 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understand very well
24 what you are telling me. But I have not finished my presentation. I was
25 simply --
1 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry to interrupt, and I know it's difficult for
2 the interpreters, but we haven't got all afternoon. I don't want to hear
3 about Rule 68 unless you are complaining about the nature of the
4 disclosure which has been made. I am interested only in what you want to
5 do with those documents now that you've got them. And the only thing you
6 can do with them is seek to tender them under Rule 115. So let's turn to
7 115 because what I want to know at the end is how long you think it's
8 going to take you to tell us how long you need to make those
9 applications. Now it's very straightforward. So let's forget your
10 presentation in the order you've got it, and let's jump ahead to what do
11 you want to say about Rule 115, please.
12 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honour. If these
13 materials are of the quality and content that we received previously
14 according to this memorandum, not a single document was relevant enough in
15 order to be used in favour of the accused Kvocka. I was about to say that
16 I fear this is a strategy of the Office of the Prosecutor which is
17 detrimental to the accused Kvocka. I will go through the material. But
18 bearing in mind all the work that has already been done on this case by
19 the Prosecution, the Defence and the Trial Chamber, it is my view as the
20 Defence counsel of Kvocka that all issues were raised during the trial
21 itself and that there was insufficient evidence to find Kvocka guilty. I
22 think that we will not find anything in this material that will rise to
23 the standard of Rule 68 that I have just mentioned.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Well, that's a matter for you, Mr. Simic. I'm not
25 interested in what your views are about whether it complies with Rule 68
1 unless you make a complaint about the nature of the discovery which has
2 been made. Your argument as I understand it is that you have been given
3 too much material. Well, that's a matter for you as well. You either
4 looked through it to see whether it was going to help you, or you stick to
5 the one argument you've got that your client should never have been
6 convicted on the evidence which was presented.
7 But we have found in the Appeals Chamber that this late disclosure
8 of material sometimes does throw up material which is relevant to the
9 issues which were fought at the trial. And as I said to you I think on
10 the last occasion, if you don't want to look at it, don't look at it. But
11 I'm not here to advise you how to run your client's appeal. All I want to
12 know is: Do you want to file a Rule 115 application? If you can tell me
13 that now, I'd be grateful to hear it, because if you're not, I'll ask you
14 to sit down. If you think you may want to file a Rule 115 application, I
15 want to know approximately how long it's going to take you in order to
16 have a sufficient look at the papers to tell me how long you need to get a
17 formal application filed under Rule 115. Now perhaps we should start at
18 the beginning of that.
19 If you tell me now you are not going to file a Rule 115
20 application, there's nothing more that I need to hear from you.
21 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] It will take me seven days to look
22 through this material.
23 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Seven days. Thank you.
24 Now, Mr. Fila, what about you?
25 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have received all the
1 material. I received it this morning. That's when the last batch
2 arrived. We have looked through what we have already got, more or less,
3 in my office, but I think that 15 days would be enough for me to decide
4 whether I will make any submissions under Rule 115 or not. I think I
5 will, but I can't be sure now. So I ask to be given time until the 1st of
6 March to look through the material, from the 1st to the 15th of March, to
7 make my submission, and then a further 15 days for the Prosecution to
8 respond. And then I ask that a date be set for the hearing. This is what
9 I am mostly interested in, for the hearing of the appeal.
10 So I need two weeks to look through the material, a further two
11 weeks to write up the submissions. I might be able to do it faster. I
12 will try. But in any case, I would expect an appeals hearing to be held
13 in April. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Mr. Fila, if I may say so, that's a very more
15 realistic approach to it. But I was hoping you might be able to tell me
16 how long you need a little bit more quickly than within 15 days. I'm not
17 asking you to be bound by it. I think the month that you use or the four
18 weeks that you use in order to get your Rule 115 application is a very
19 fair one. I just don't want to leave this for two weeks before we make
20 any orders about it. That's all. I would prefer to make an order perhaps
21 by the end of next week or perhaps the beginning of the week after saying
22 all Rule 115 applications must be filed by the, say the 15th of March. Do
23 you think you would be able to give me an answer by the end of next week?
24 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I can. Thank you.
25 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Mr. Stojanovic, Mr. Zigic has already got
1 one application under Rule 115 pending. But that hasn't been dealt with
2 because we could foresee this avalanche of paper would produce at least
3 something, and we want to determine them all together. It's the only
4 proper way to look at it. Sometimes there's evidence in one application
5 which will help you in another application. But are you able to tell me
6 within seven days how long you need to file any further application under
7 Rule 115?
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm afraid I'll have
9 to take my time replying. First of all, I wish to apologise my
10 cellphone -- my mobile telephone. I have both a Montenegrin and a Serbian
11 one, and I have only reported the Serbian one to the Tribunal. That is
12 connected to the changes underway in our state. However, with regard to
13 this issue, I have to raise another previously-raised issue, that is the
14 issue of the Defence of Mr. Zigic, that is whether I will continue to
15 defend him. I would like to read out my today's statement for this Status
16 Conference. It is not very long, and that's what my response to the other
17 question depends on.
18 The Registrar of this Tribunal, and now the Appeals Chamber as
19 well, according to the session of the 7th of February of this year,
20 related to the decision of the registry to cancel legal assistance,
21 maintain that the accused Zigic has money to afford legal assistance.
22 Zigic himself claims the opposite. Between them, stand I. And for the
23 past eight months, I have been working for free and paying all my costs,
24 including travel and stay in The Hague. At the same time, my obligations
25 related to tax and other costs of running a law office continue to run,
1 and I continue to miss other affairs which could be lucrative. I cannot
2 make either the Registrar or the accused Zigic to pay me.
3 It was my wish for some time, for a long time at that, to help
4 Zigic as well as the Tribunal, as I have done before, but I am compelled
5 to mention here immodestly, perhaps, that I have assisted the Tribunal in
6 the Celebici case even to my financial detriment, as well as that I have
7 completely free of charge mediated between the representatives of the
8 Tribunal and the authorities -- the then authorities of the former
10 Money has never been my first concern, and I must say that it is
11 with a certain amount of reluctance that I speak about the earning and
12 spending of money. However, in this case especially after disclosure of
13 52.000 documents that I have to review and study, the Defence under these
14 conditions puts into question my business, my health, and the welfare of
15 my family. This free work that I have engaged in with best intentions is
16 not really helping Mr. Zigic. And the Appeals Chamber has not been very
17 full of praise about the Defence. Issues are being reviewed without any
18 relevance to the appeals proceedings.
19 I do expect to be paid, especially with regard to the intention of
20 the Defence to adduce new evidence. The Appeals Chamber seems to have
21 prejudged its decision in this case. If we add to this the inaccurate
22 claim from paragraph 55 of the decision of the Appeals Chamber and the
23 fact that I received the decision of the Registrar of the 8th July, 2002,
24 on that same day and failed to inform Zigic, whereas this decision was
25 sent to me on Saturday afternoon on the 13th of July, 2002, while my
1 conversation with Mr. Zigic was ruled impossible on the same day that the
2 decision was made, taking all these facts into account, I have to say that
3 I cannot continue to work in these conditions.
4 I must add that I do not feel guilty about my decision, and the
5 decision to abolish legal assistance. All the allegedly property of
6 Mr. Zigic which was the subject of the appeals proceedings was acquired
7 before I received my first fee from the Tribunal and before I ever
8 collected the first amount. I have submitted proof of this to the
10 In conclusion, I wish to say that I'm not particularly interested
11 in the payment of my services either by the Registrar or by the accused
12 Zigic. However, I'm very anxious to get out of this situation which is
13 very harmful for me. In these circumstances, I shall act in accordance
14 with Article 19(A) about code of conduct. I shall submit to Mr. Zigic a
15 written statement of the costs of his legal representation. In the past
16 18 months of my work, and the costs of travelling to The Hague three
17 times, after a total of 900 hours of work, I do not wish to ask for
18 anything. I have worked alone all the time because -- since there is no
19 payment for legal services, I haven't had any assistants. However, the
20 situation will change tomorrow. According to my rough estimate, another
21 1200 hours of work are needed at least, without taking into account these
22 240.000 pages.
23 I am not bound by the estimate of the number of hours made by the
24 Registrar or the OTP. I will only stick by my own estimate. This 1200
25 hours of work plus the costs of travelling to The Hague once or twice
1 would amount to, I'm afraid, about 135.000 dollars, and this bill will be
2 given to Zigic. I am no optimist in regard to the implementation of this
3 work, so the prospect, it seems to me, of Zigic remaining without any
4 legal assistance is more than real, I'm afraid. I am grateful for giving
5 me this opportunity to make my statement at this Status Conference.
6 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Stojanovic, it's a matter for you what attitude
7 you take in relation to continuing your pro bono services, and I don't
8 want to say anything about that. But there are two things you said which
9 I want to pick up. The first is you said that the Appeals Chamber has
10 prejudged its decision in this matter. I have no idea what you mean by
11 that. There is not one word in that judgement in relation to Mr. Zigic's
12 review which in any way deals with the issues which arise in this appeal.
13 Not one word. And I think, to put it the most kindly I can, you've
14 misread it.
15 The other thing was you said that the Appeals Chamber had not been
16 very full of praise about the Defence. If the word "Defence" means your
17 own part in it, there was no findings of fact made against you in relation
18 to it. Indeed, the judgement took great care to ensure that we were
19 dealing with financial issues only, the means of your client, and that we
20 expressly said in it that we were not making any findings against
21 counsel. So I want that to be perfectly clear to you. If those were --
22 if those two matters were somehow effective in the decision you've
23 reached, it might be just as well if you did reconsider it. But I'm not
24 asking you to do so. I want to make it perfectly clear there has been no
25 prejudgement and no findings in relation to your conduct.
1 Right, now, Mr. Jovan Simic, what do you see about the time you're
2 going to need? Do you think you'll be able to give me an estimate within
3 seven days?
4 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Defence of Mr. Prcac
5 believes that it can be abide by the time frame you have had in mind and
6 mentioned to the Defence counsel of Mr. Radic. We believe we can manage
7 to review the documents within seven days.
8 JUDGE HUNT: When you say review the documents, Mr. Simic, what I
9 want at the end of seven days is an assessment as to how long you think it
10 will take to get your Rule 115 application filed, and I think Mr. Fila's
11 estimate of a month seems to be a pretty fair one, but I won't bind you to
12 that but that's what I would anticipate would be the figure that is used.
13 Anyway, I will then make an order that the parties within seven days
14 indicate the time which they think that they will need in order to file
15 their 115 applications.
16 The other matters which have been raised both counsel for
17 Mr. Kvocka and I think Mr. -- Yes, for Mr. Prcac, have asked this Appeals
18 Chamber in some how to deal with the question of extra hours that are
19 needed in order to read this material which has unexpectedly been
20 produced. The Appeals Chamber can't deal with that except by way of
21 review because it is the Chamber before whom those particular accused are
22 appearing. The Registry has not so far refused it. I think probably very
23 wisely, the Registry is waiting to see what happened today as to the
24 amount of material that you would be required to investigate. That
25 decision I would hope and I will certainly ask it to be made clear to the
1 Registry should be given now fairly speedily as to what additional hours,
2 if any, you will be granted. But it is certainly not a matter which we
3 can deal with at this stage.
4 Now, is there any other matter which any counsel for the Defence
5 wishes to raise in relation to the issues? I'll come to Mr. Zigic in a
6 moment. But any other issues which counsel for the accused wish to
7 raise? Mr. Zigic, you appear to be now unrepresented. Is there something
8 you would like to say? Make sure your microphone is on, if you would,
10 THE APPELLANT ZIGIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. It
11 doesn't only appear, it is a fact. From this moment on, I am without
12 legal counsel, and I represent myself. The amount mentioned by
13 Mr. Stojanovic is something that I cannot even dream of paying. If you
14 allow me, Your Honour, since I have no legal remedy in your decision, I
15 would like to say a few words about your decision, if you allow me, very
17 JUDGE HUNT: Well, if you're going to ask us to reconsider it, I
18 think that you are sailing into fairly windy conditions. You can say what
19 you like very briefly, but I'm not here to hear an appeal from the
20 decision of the Appeals Chamber.
21 THE APPELLANT ZIGIC: [Interpretation] I certainly don't mean to
22 complain, because the decision itself does not allow me to. The decision
23 is final, and I have no one to appeal to. I would only like to get a
24 response from you because I have bad experience with certain services of
25 this Tribunal including the Registry and the Prosecution. I would like to
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 ask you if you had my 45 documents of Defence evidence before you when you
2 were making your decision, because not a single document -- that includes
3 documents from the Republic of Serbia, various institutions, and none of
4 them are mentioned in the decision. I would only like to know if you had
5 these documents before you when you were making your decision because I
6 cannot see in this decision a single document that I have submitted. Is
7 it possible that you ignored all 45 of them? I couldn't believe that.
8 And the decision is based on the notes of the investigator of the
9 Tribunal, and you confirmed this decision which means that you seem to
10 have attached more importance and more weight to the notes than statements
11 and documents. To me, notes are as good as journalists' reports.
12 Just one detail in your decision which is very important: The
13 information that I had the opportunity to make a statement on the 13th and
14 the 18th of June, 2000, before representatives of the Registry about my
15 finances is not true. It is simply not accurate. I never had that
16 opportunity, and you seem to have been misinformed. That is one. And
17 second, I was not even able to talk because investigation was not
18 completed. On the 18th of -- on the 13th of June, 2002, I was informed by
19 Mr. Rohde that an investigation in my finances is underway. No more than
20 that. So you have been misinformed by the Registry. I had no opportunity
21 to say a single word, nor could I have said anything. I wasn't allowed to
22 because the investigation was still underway.
23 Furthermore, I apologise, but I didn't receive a translation into
24 B/C/S, and I do not dare to read out paragraph 88 of your decision because
25 my English is too bad. I would only like to remind you of the essence of
1 this paragraph that was mentioned by Mr. Stojanovic. Under this
2 paragraph, Mr. Stojanovic is claimed to have spent 370 hours on useless
3 correspondence with the Prosecution, and it is precisely these 370 hours
4 that relate to requests for additional evidence which is crucial to my
5 appeal. This decision puts -- calls into question and prejudges
6 adducement of new evidence by the Defence. That is the essence of
7 paragraph 88.
8 Do I have legal remedy to fight this decision which is obviously
9 unjust? I don't know. I would like to hear from you what legal remedy is
10 available to me. Can I ask the Registry to -- that this decision be
12 At this stage, I am without legal assistance, and in all previous
13 stages, I have been very satisfied with the services of Mr. Stojanovic,
14 and I cannot think of any other person who could possibly represent me at
15 this stage. Mr. Stojanovic is the person who did everything that needed
16 to be done in the appeals proceedings. However, I am not able to pay
17 him. All my property, even if I sold my own wife and child, is not enough
18 to collect 135.000 Euros. It is up to you to decide what to do with me.
19 Your Honours, I surrendered myself voluntarily to this Tribunal. I got 25
20 years for something I haven't done, but that is a matter for the appeal.
21 And now deep into the appeals proceedings, you have left me without legal
22 assistance. I am completely at your mercy. You have to decide what to do
23 with me. Thank you for giving me the floor.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Zigic, what you said about the what you say are
25 the inaccuracies in the decision are not a matter for me to discuss with
1 you. The judgement has been given. And what remedy you may have is not
2 exactly clear. After all, this is the final Appeals Chamber. Whether you
3 have a right to appeal from that, I am not going to advise you. It's not
4 my task to advise you, and if I tried to, I'm sure that there would be
5 people who said -- who would say that what I had said was wrong. So I
6 really can't give you legal advice. It would be wrong for me to attempt
7 to do so.
8 The one thing that you said, though, that I think I should seek
9 some further elucidation from you, you said your 45 documents. Now, I
10 haven't got your appeal as it's called with me here today, but it did have
11 a large number of documents. Whether there were 45 of them, I do not
12 know, I can't remember. But there were a very large number of documents
13 which were attachments to your appeal. I can assure you they were read.
14 They were important material. Indeed, the Prosecution -- I'm sorry, not
15 the Prosecution, that's unfair. The Registry used one of them in order to
16 justify its decision, and you may have noticed in the decision we pointed
17 out they had no right to do so.
18 But the remainder of your complaints, well, I'm sorry that you
19 have them, but the decision has been given, and I was a party to it. And
20 all I can say to you is we have done what we think is right. And if you
21 have any remedy, then you'll have to seek that advice from somebody else.
22 What I want to know, though, is: What do you want to do about
23 these applications for further evidence to be filed? We have one
24 application from you already, and that has been set to one side until all
25 of the applications are in so they can be heard together. In that way, I
1 can assure you that it's to benefit the appellants, not the Prosecution.
2 Are you going to read through this material?
3 THE APPELLANT ZIGIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you are putting
4 me into a very unfortunate position. For your information, I'm an
5 ordinary truck driver. I am not competent to discuss such matters, nor do
6 I have any knowledge. It was Mr. Stojanovic who put forth my Defence, and
7 I can do nothing without his assistance. I don't even know what you are
8 talking about because for the past eight months, I have had no contact
9 with my counsel. And I have not been informed of anything that has
10 happened in the past eight months. For the past eight months, I have not
11 had a lawyer. I have had one only as regards his corresponding with you,
12 the OTP, the Registry. But I know nothing about this. I know nothing
13 about anything that you are saying here.
14 JUDGE HUNT: You mean that during the last eight months when
15 Mr. Stojanovic has been here before this Tribunal, I think he said three
16 times, he hasn't been to see you? Is that right?
17 THE APPELLANT ZIGIC: [Interpretation] He was present for an hour
18 and a half on two occasions, but this was not long enough for us to
19 discuss the voluminous material relating to my appeal, and we have not had
20 a chance to discuss it.
21 For your information, Your Honour, I have to inform you that upon
22 your order, I received some of these materials in B/C/S, but the rest are
23 simply in a foreign language. I am no lawyer. These materials mostly
24 concern the law, and I am not competent to make any decisions about this
25 or to gamble with my destiny and with my years to which I have been
1 convicted. I have to rely on Mr. Stojanovic - that's all I can say - if I
2 want a fair trial.
3 JUDGE HUNT: Is there anything more you want to say?
4 THE APPELLANT ZIGIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I simply
5 want to thank you for allowing me to speak. I may have said too much.
6 But you will understand that I am concerned about my fate and the fate of
7 my appeal. And as regards the legal remedy, if you cannot assist me and
8 tell me to whom I can appeal, who will help me? To whom should I turn?
9 To the guards in the Detention Unit? I have been left alone, completely
10 alone. There is no one I can turn to.
11 The representatives of the Registry have not been talking to me
12 for the past eight months. The administration of the Detention Unit has
13 been ignoring me. There is no one I can turn to. The Registry has turned
14 me into a millionaire. I wish this were true. If it were, I would be a
15 fortunate man today. And by your decision, you have simply confirmed the
16 standpoint of the Registry which has said terrible things about me and my
17 money in the media. But in any case, Your Honour, I thank you for giving
18 me this opportunity to speak of my problems. Thank you very much.
19 JUDGE HUNT: I should say, Mr. Zigic, I didn't criticise you for
20 saying those things. I just said they are not matters that I can discuss
21 with you. I think we could all understand the position you find yourself
22 in. As to where you get legal advice from and what money you have to pay
23 for it, I'm afraid I cannot assist you. But I think it might be a very
24 good idea if you have any funds available, to obtain at least some
25 advice. I don't mean to represent you in the appeal. That would
1 obviously be beyond your means if you say you haven't got the cash.
2 But the Appeals Chamber, of course, proceeded upon what your
3 assets were rather than the cash you had in hand. The question of you not
4 being able to read documents, though, is something I propose to raise with
5 the Prosecution. The documents I think you are referring to were the ones
6 that related to your review, and you did, of course, have an
7 English-speaking assistant provided for you by the Registrar. You have
8 not yet seen these documents which the Prosecution has disclosed. Is that
10 THE APPELLANT ZIGIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely not, no, no, I
12 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much. Well, you may sit down.
13 Mr. Staker, what language are all these documents that have been
14 disclosed in?
15 MR. STAKER: Your Honour, many of them are in B/C/S. Numbers of
16 them are in English. The documents on the CDs, because they weren't
17 reviewed, I can't say exactly what is included amongst them. In the
18 documents we have reviewed, we have also looked at documents in German and
19 Swedish and Norwegian and French. It's not the practice for us to provide
20 translations of all the documents we look at.
21 JUDGE HUNT: That's because your practice is related usually to
22 people who are represented, and they are only represented because they can
23 speak one of the two languages of the Tribunal.
24 MR. STAKER: We also look at documents, Your Honour, that are in
25 neither of the two languages of the Tribunal.
1 JUDGE HUNT: I realise that. But if you had to produce those
2 documents to an accused who speaks neither of those languages, would there
3 not be an obligation for you to have them at least some summary in B/C/S?
4 MR. STAKER: Your Honour, that, in our submission, would be an
5 impossibility, particularly since disclosure has proceeded in this case on
6 the basis that we gave the Defence everything. These CDs include many
7 documents that may have absolutely nothing whatever to do with this case.
8 And we proceeded in that way precisely at the request of the Defence. The
9 resources to do it would simply be impossible to marshal, but even if they
10 existed, it would be a very ineffective use of these resources.
11 JUDGE HUNT: I have to say, Mr. Staker, and it's put I think as a
12 matter of fundamental principle, that justice should not be determined
13 according to resources. The Prosecution can move their resources in order
14 to do justice.
15 MR. STAKER: Your Honour, I'm not even in a position to give an
16 estimate of what the resources to undertake that would be.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Well, tell me this: What does counsel do if they are
18 given something in Norwegian?
19 MR. STAKER: We find somebody who speaks Norwegian to indicate to
20 us what the document is, and if necessary, it's looked at more closely.
21 JUDGE HUNT: And is there a note kept of what the Norwegian man or
22 woman says to you?
23 MR. STAKER: If the document is not relevant, Your Honour, it
24 would simply be put aside. If the document is relevant, it may be the
25 Prosecution -- it would depend on our working method. A handwritten note
1 might be made somewhere or something relating to the document, but not
3 JUDGE HUNT: Then what you're saying is this, as I understand it:
4 Because the Defence, in order to get this appeal on more quickly, just
5 asked you to produce the material, you have taken no account of relevance
6 at all in producing it?
7 MR. STAKER: The explanation was given as to the methodology in
8 our earlier status reports on disclosure, that electronic search terms
9 were run over the electronic database of the Office of the Prosecutor.
10 But that experience shows that very many of those documents that are
11 identified in a search may, when they are looked at, prove to be wholly
12 irrelevant to the case simply because of the quality of the electronic
13 character recognition. And a large percentage of that material will be
14 removed immediately by our ISU on the basis that the words that have been
15 found electronically aren't in fact the words we were looking for, and
16 they have nothing to do with the case at all.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Have they been removed from the material which has
18 now been disclosed to the Defence?
19 MR. STAKER: No, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Because you just gave them everything.
21 MR. STAKER: That was the methodology we outlined.
22 JUDGE HUNT: Actually, the documents don't add up too well because
23 the figures that were being given to us I think at the last Status
24 Conference suggested that there were a lot more documents than have now
25 been produced. So I think it was something like 50.000 was --
1 MR. STAKER: Your Honour, I was proposing to address that point
2 because we have heard various figures mentioned. A motion was filed on
3 the 5th of February on behalf of Mr. Prcac which mentioned 61.050
4 documents. Just today in Court, Mr. Stojanovic mentioned 52.000
5 documents, and subsequently he made mention of 240.000 pages, and all of
6 those figures are inaccurate. The 61.050 documents mentioned in
7 Mr. Prcac's motion is I believe the sum of two figures mentioned in the
8 Prosecution's first status report on disclosure. It referred to the
9 documents received by the Office of the Prosecutor since the 29th of June,
10 2001. And the first status report indicated that the electronic search
11 had produced 8.850 hits.
12 Now, those documents were, in fact, reviewed by the Office of the
13 Prosecutor, and we only disclosed that material which was considered might
14 fall within Rule 68, and in fact 40 documents were disclosed. So 8.850
15 were reduced to 40. The other figure mentioned in the first report was
16 52.200 documents.
17 JUDGE HUNT: That's the one I had in mind, yes.
18 MR. STAKER: In relation to the material received prior to the
19 29th of June, 2001. Of that material, approximately 12.000 documents were
20 not included on the CD-ROM on the basis that it fell into that category
21 that the Prosecution indicated it would do a Rule 68 review of, and those
22 approximately 12.000 documents were reduced to 82 which were disclosed
24 Now, of the remainder, I'm told the figure is nonetheless somewhat
25 lower than originally indicated because there are some duplications, and
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 that reduced the figure significantly. What we have in the end are 21.077
2 documents on the CDs and 82 pre-29th of June, 2001, paper documents which
3 have been reviewed plus the 40 from the period since the 29th of June,
5 JUDGE HUNT: You say that some of those documents have been
6 disclosed may well be in Norwegian. Let's just take Norwegian as an
7 unintelligible language to most of us. Is that so?
8 MR. STAKER: I can't say if any document in Norwegian was actually
9 disclosed, but documents in Norwegian were looked at by the Prosecution as
10 part of the review exercise for those that were reviewed for the Office of
11 the Prosecutor.
12 JUDGE HUNT: I understood you, however, to be saying that there
13 will be documents that you have disclosed which are in languages other
14 than English, French, or B/C/S.
15 MR. STAKER: I am told one or two, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE HUNT: What are counsel for the accused, where there are
17 counsel, expected to do with those?
18 MR. STAKER: I imagine, Your Honour, it's not the first case in
19 which this has occurred, and I presume normally counsel for the Defence
20 would proceed in the same way as counsel for the Prosecution, that you
21 find somebody who can understand the language to get a gist of it, and
22 perhaps find the resources to get a professional translation if it's
23 deemed warranted.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then, what do you suggest most of the documents
25 are? Mostly in B/C/S?
1 MR. STAKER: With your indulgence, Your Honour.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MR. STAKER: I'm informed, Your Honour, the statements that we
4 disclosed in paper, the language would be about 50/50. But that for many
5 of those that are in English, there may well be B/C/S translations.
6 JUDGE HUNT: Have they been disclosed?
7 MR. STAKER: No, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE HUNT: I think that Mr. Zigic is entitled to some assistance
10 MR. STAKER: Where B/C/S translations were discovered, they were
11 disclosed, I'm informed, Your Honour. As for the material on the CDs, we
12 simply can't say. There was, as requested and as indicated in previous
13 status reports, simply a case of giving the Defence everything.
14 JUDGE HUNT: All right then. Well, is there anything else you
15 want to say in response to the -- what counsel for the Defence or
16 Mr. Zigic has said?
17 MR. STAKER: In connection with what I just said, I feel I also
18 have to respond to a suggestion that was made by Mr. Simic about a
19 deliberate strategy --
20 JUDGE HUNT: Look, this sledging, I think is a sporting term for
21 it, doesn't impress me in the slightest. If you want to answer it by all
22 means, but one becomes very tired of sledging in the courtroom.
23 MR. STAKER: That had not been my intention. It was simply to
24 remind my colleague --
25 JUDGE HUNT: The sledging on their part, I was suggesting. And I
1 dismissed it as such. I wrote it down actually, but if you want to say
2 something about it, by all means.
3 MR. STAKER: Simply reiterate that it was done at the request of
4 the Defence.
5 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, thank you.
6 MR. STAKER: The other matter I would simply mention is that the
7 timetable for the subsequent procedure after Rule 115 motions are filed
8 may remain still to be set, but the Prosecution's understanding of what
9 the procedure would be is that the Prosecution would be given time to
10 respond to the motion, the Defence would then reply to the Prosecution
11 response, and there would then be a ruling on whether the evidence would
12 be admitted. Once that ruling is made, if any additional evidence is
13 admitted, the Prosecution would then require time to undertake any
14 investigations with a view to presenting rebuttal evidence pursuant to
15 paragraph (a) of Rule 115.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Well, it would be hoped that this appeal would not
17 sink to the levels in which the Blaskic appeals sunk where there was so
18 much material that it was clear that there could be no, in effect,
19 rehearing by the Appeals Chamber. Perhaps it won't get to that. But if
20 it does, that last step may be something that will be dealt with at a new
22 MR. STAKER: As I indicated, Your Honour, that's something that
23 remains for a subsequent procedure, and one has to await what 115 motions
24 will be made.
25 JUDGE HUNT: That's why no forecasts can be made at this stage
1 unfortunately as to when the appeal can but heard. But bearing in mind
2 that two of these are fast approaching -- two of these appellants are fast
3 approaching a time when if they had gone to some of the more favourable
4 countries, they might have been released, we have got to keep the pressure
5 on to get it done.
6 Very well then, thank you very much. A formal order will be
7 probably issued on Monday, but you may take it that we require for counsel
8 for the accused and from Mr. Zigic by next Friday at 4.00 p.m. an
9 indication as to how long it will take for the applications under Rule 115
10 to be made. And I maintain the indication I gave that we would expect you
11 to be able to get them on within a month.
12 If there's nothing else -- yes, Mr. Fila.
13 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I know you are tired,
14 probably tired of us as well, but there is an issue that I still have to
15 raise. As Defence counsel, I and the rest of us have no intention of
16 dealing with Mr. Zigic, but he has a right as every human to read the
17 record and all the materials and defend himself. It's not a question of
18 time either. We'll abide by the time frames as well. I shall say in
19 passing that there is only one document in German. There are no documents
20 in Sanskrit or any other unintelligible languages. It's no problem; we
21 will have them translated.
22 There is another problem, however, if it turns out that the right
23 to the fair trial of Mr. Zigic needs an extension of time, with all due
24 respect, I don't wish the proceedings to be slowed down by this. I'm not
25 saying Mr. Zigic does not have the right to a fair trial, but the rest of
1 the accused have the right to a speedy trial. And this whole story about
2 the Defence counsel of Mr. Zigic is slowing down the rest of us. And that
3 is why I would like to ask the Chamber to deal with it, because we have
4 another three accused here. I apologise again for taking your time, but
5 this is a real concern for the Defence. We may be facing a problem. And
6 as you know, this trial has been going on for a long time already, at
7 least to my test.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Fila, I think we've got to get our lines straight
9 here. The Appeals Chamber has found that the Registrar was not incorrect,
10 to put it in a double negative, in determining that Mr. Zigic has
11 sufficient means to pay for his appeal. Now, he may not have the cash,
12 but he has, according to the Registrar's findings which the Appeals
13 Chamber have not interfered with, he has a very large reserve of assets
14 which can be sold. Now, he disputes that, I know.
15 But from the Appeals Chamber's point of view, we look at it on the
16 basis that according to this Tribunal, he has the means to pay for his
17 appeal. So there will be no slowing down for him. But if he maintains
18 his position, and I'm not criticising him in any way for doing so, that he
19 can't pay for it, then we have to do our little best to assist him in what
20 way we can, but it will not, and I repeat, it will not slow up the appeal.
21 Right. Well now, anything else? Yes, Mr. Zigic. Before you
22 start, I should stay, Mr. Fila, if I looked tired, I'm sorry, but I am not
23 tired, I can tell you. And I'm not tired of hearing you.
24 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I apologise. It was just a joke.
25 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Zigic.
1 THE APPELLANT ZIGIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 From the discussion between you and the Prosecution, I reached the
3 conclusion that you said that Zigic should be assisted with these
4 documents. That's what you seem to have said. Does it mean that these
5 300.000 documents times 6 pages which amounts to a million and 800.000
6 pages is something that I should be assisted with? Is that what you
7 meant? Because that's what I have to review, a million and 800.000 pages;
8 that's 40 CD-ROMS.
9 JUDGE HUNT: I know that you said that you were a truck driver,
10 Mr. Zigic. But you got your maths very wrong somewhere. Because what we
11 were told was it was just over a 135.000 I think or somewhere like that
12 pages. That's all. And there is a search engine supplied in which if you
13 want to look for a name of a witness or of yourself or of a particular
14 event, you just type in the name or the word that you are searching for,
15 and that tells you where that word will be found in these documents. You
16 don't have to sit down and read 135.000 pages. The search -- there's only
17 I think 40 documents which are not able to be searched electronically.
18 Now, you forget the figure of over a million. In fact, you can
19 probably forget the figure of 135.000, because there's only 40 documents
20 that you will have to read through. And the rest of it should be able to
21 be searched with this search engine that the Prosecution must surely now
22 be making a profit out of because they have had to provide them to so many
23 people. That's what I meant by -- when I spoke of assistance, what I
24 meant was if there were any B/C/S translations of the English documents,
25 that they should be provided to you. But I'm told that where there were
1 B/C/S translations, they have been provided to you.
2 THE APPELLANT ZIGIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wish to
3 restore my piece of mind before I go back to my cell in the Detention
4 Unit. I want to have certain things clear. From this moment on, I have
5 no legal counsel. Mr. Stojanovic is no longer representing me. Your
6 decision, which you have just repeated, is that the Appeals Chamber has
7 established that I have immoveable property worth 42.000 Euros. It
8 doesn't mean that I can sell. If I sold it today, it would bring me no
9 more than 20.000. How much legal assistance can I buy with that? Perhaps
10 a month, maybe a little more. What happens after a month? Who will
11 assist me then?
12 At any rate, I wish to reiterate that I have absolutely no means
13 of reviewing these documents even if the Prosecution keeps sending them to
14 me. It's -- they are no use to me. I don't want to handle my Defence
15 myself. I need a professional. I need a lawyer, especially since I am
16 not so knowledgeable about the work already done for my appeal.
17 Mr. Stojanovic has been actively searching the CD-ROMS he received from
18 the Prosecution. He spent 40 days and reviewed only 19.000, and there are
19 about 50.000 of them in total. If we go at this rate and the Prosecution
20 gives us another 30 CD-ROMS, I would need two years to search them all.
21 Even if I spent only a minute per page, I need two years.
22 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you, Mr. Zigic.
23 THE APPELLANT ZIGIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Very well. I'll now adjourn.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
1 at 3.40 p.m.