1 Wednesday, 12 March 2008
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 4.00 p.m.
6 JUDGE THELIN: Good afternoon. Could we have the case called,
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honour. This is case number
9 IT-98-32/1-PT, the Prosecutor versus Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic.
10 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. Before we proceed I just want to make
11 sure that the two accused are able to follow what is now being said in a
12 language they understand. Mr. Milan Lukic?
13 THE ACCUSED M. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE THELIN: Mr. Sredoje Lukic.
15 THE ACCUSED S. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. That seems to be in order. Could we
17 have the representation. Prosecution, please.
18 MR. GROOME: Good afternoon, Your Honour. For the Prosecution
19 Dermot Groome and I'm accompanied by Verica Balikic.
20 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. And for Milan Lukic.
21 MR. SULEJIC: Good afternoon, I am Bojan Sulejic and I'm the lead
22 counsel representing Milan Lukic and with me, to my greatest pleasure, is
23 my colleague from Albuquerque, Jason Alarid who was appointed as my
24 co-counsel a few days ago, and together with us is our case manager,
25 Jelena Rasic. Thank you very much.
1 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Sulejic.
2 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm Djuro Cepic, counsel for
3 Mr. Sredoje Lukic appearing with me is Mr. Jens Dieckmann is the
4 co-counsel, and Christina -- Ms. Christina Kerll is our assistant.
5 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you very much. Well, the same line-up for
6 you as last time. For those who have joined respective teams, welcome to
7 the case.
8 We have quite a few items on the agenda and I know that they have
9 been comprehensively and skillfully dealt with during the 65 ter
10 Conference which was chaired by Ms. Yvonne Featherstone yesterday so I
11 think most of the things would be well-digested and maybe we have also
12 had some progression on some fields which were unclear yesterday.
13 So I would like to start with the question of the alibi issue, if
14 I could term it like that. There are some motions which are pending and
15 the first on my list is the Prosecution's motion to preclude the notice
16 of alibi regarding Milan Lukic because it was filed too late. Is that
17 correct, Mr. Groome?
18 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I noticed that it was filed after we
19 filed that application so I would withdraw the application to prohibit
20 it, but it is the Prosecution's position that what was filed does not
21 comply with Rule 67.
22 JUDGE THELIN: That is understood. It means that your motion is
23 hereby then dismissed.
24 And we then have the -- in the respect that it seeks an order for
25 preclusion of the evidence of alibi is dismissed in that case.
1 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, but I'm not withdrawing the
2 application itself that what was filed was insufficient, which we filed
3 after they filed their 67 notice.
4 JUDGE THELIN: I understand but you're no longer seeking an order
5 that they should not be able to bring evidence on alibi in the case or
6 that Mr. Lukic should not be able to do that. That's the position; is
7 that right?
8 MR. GROOME: With respect to that first application, yes,
9 Your Honour.
10 JUDGE THELIN: In that respect your motion is then dismissed.
11 I have understood that the issue of the substance, if you will,
12 of the notices are also linked to various issues where there is a need to
13 interview, I believe, from the Prosecution the need to have an interview
14 with the accused, both of them, and also I understand that there is a
15 need to -- from the part of the accused to have access to Prosecution
17 I see all these issues as interlinked, and I would like to hear
18 where we are on this, and I again turn to you, Mr. Groome. What is it
19 more that you seek in order to have a firm position on this?
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, with respect to the notice that was
21 served, it's the Prosecution's position that it is deficient, more
22 deficient in the case of Milan Lukic than Sredoje Lukic. In the case of
23 Milan Lukic there are -- much of the Rule 67 notice are simply claims
24 that he was not present. In some cases he refers to large numbers of
25 unnamed witnesses without addresses, so it's really -- the Prosecution is
1 unable to proceed with the investigations that it must undertake to
2 explore this alibi.
3 With respect to Sredoje Lukic, the Prosecution was just asking
4 confirmation statements, we were provided with statements that spoke
5 about addresses that these people lived at the time that they witnessed
6 what they with -- they witnessed of their observations with respect to
7 the alibi. The Prosecution was seeking to confirm, are those still the
8 current addresses where we might be able to seek information about those
9 people and then the Prosecution was also seeking to establish are there
10 any documents or any other evidence upon which the Defence of Sredoje
11 Lukic is going to rely on for alibis, so in the event forensic testing is
12 required that we would have an opportunity to do that.
13 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. Mr. Sulejic, comments?
14 MR. SULEJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, I have
15 to inform you about a major step forward that has been done in the
16 defence of Mr. Lukic. This is also part of my submission that I sent to
17 the Prosecution when I was on my own in the team.
18 Since my appointment I have managed to design the whole concept
19 of my client's defence which my predecessors failed to do for over a
20 year. I completely agree with the Prosecution that the text according to
21 Rule 67 that we submitted is not enough for the Prosecution to
22 investigate the defence. However, at this moment since my learned friend
23 Jason Alarid is with me today and I have spent a lot of time with him
24 discussing the whole idea of the defence and our appearance, I would
25 kindly ask you to allow him to address you on the issue because I believe
1 that he has more experience with the type of law that is practised here
2 at the Tribunal and he's more familiar to this type of procedure than I
4 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you, Mr. Sulejic. I'm certainly not going
5 to deny Mr. Alarid the opportunity to address, but I want to know if you
6 need more time to move this along or what the problem is because you see,
7 Mr. Sulejic, we're not going to decide on the substance today, I just
8 want to know what time frame you're in. And also in respect to what I
9 understand the request to have your client being interviewed by the
10 Prosecutor but if you don't feel you're ready to respond to this, I'm
11 certainly happy to listen to your co-counsel. If he's ready. He seems
12 to be ready.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please so we can hear you.
14 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, I would -- I would like to address the
15 alibi information because we've been working hard with Mr. Lukic. I've
16 been to four meetings at this point with him and at this point in time
17 we've received four names of which we would be prepared to give to the
18 Prosecutor, but we also would like a little extra time in just doing our
19 own due diligence. We have a duty to the Court in terms of --
20 JUDGE THELIN: How long do you need? Sorry to interrupt you,
21 Mr. Alarid, how long do you need?
22 MR. ALARID: We would ask for 30 days.
23 JUDGE THELIN: I'm prepared to give you 14 days.
24 MR. ALARID: Fourteen days.
25 JUDGE THELIN: So 28th of March. And I take it then all issues
1 related to this, including your final position as to the interviews and
2 have them carried out within that time as well.
3 MR. ALARID: Yes, Judge. I mean, I believe that we need to do a
4 little due diligence as to the names given to us and we believe that
5 we'll be able to have more. So we don't want to give it piecemeal per
6 se. We'd like to have as much possible for the Prosecutor to follow up
7 on and then follow up with an interview with our client.
8 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you.
9 For Sredoje Lukic, Mr. Cepic.
10 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I think we fully comply with
11 the Rule 67 in our motion in relation to alibi defence, and just to give
12 a clarification, we gave more than it's necessary, more than it's
13 complied with. We gave the witness statements in both languages, in
14 B/C/S, in English, and also just for clarification, we -- in that motion
15 we filed current addresses of mentioned witnesses. And I already
16 informed in relation to the town of Obrenovac
17 So I gave additional information to Mr. Groome by e-mail.
18 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you.
19 Mr. Groome, are you happy with these comments.
20 MR. GROOME: I am very appreciative to Mr. Cepic for that
21 information. The only other outstanding matter with respect to
22 Sredoje Lukic and the question is, is the Sredoje Lukic going to rely on
23 any documents or any kind of physical evidence that -- if so, we would
24 seek to inspect it. If it's not in their possession, we would seek to
25 know where it is so we can inspect it.
1 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
2 Are you ready to address that now, Mr. Cepic?
3 MR. CEPIC: Your Honour, our obligation is under the Rule 67 as
4 soon as we find something or collect something to disclose to OTP.
5 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. Well, I would urge you to look into
6 the matter with the concern to what the Prosecution said and the same
7 time frame would then apply to you in order to move this issue forward.
8 So the 28th of March to have the parties come to a conclusion on those
9 matters regarding the alibi and then obviously the -- if there are any
10 outstanding issues the Chamber will decide on it. So a report is sent to
11 obviously to the senior legal officers not later than the 28th of March
12 to see where we are on this matter.
13 Is that understood?
14 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. Nods from the Defence on both sides
16 confirms this. Thank you.
17 I think we then could move to other pending matters which are the
18 Rules 92 bis and ter motions. And just to see that I have understood it
19 correctly, the motion was filed on the 15th of February by the
20 Prosecution. Response was due on the 29th of the same month. No
21 response yet filed by the Defence for Milan Lukic. Mr. Sredoje Lukic
22 Defence timely filed his response on the 28th. And then in addition to
23 that the Prosecution has sought leave to reply in motions filed on the
24 5th and 6th of March.
25 So it seems when it comes to Mr. Sredoje Lukic matters are ready
1 for a decision but for Milan Lukic we haven't heard anything.
2 Comments? Mr. Sulejic or is it again Mr. Alarid who wants to
4 MR. ALARID: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE THELIN: I understand that you may be seeking to switch
6 positions so you would be the lead counsel and Mr. Sulejic the
7 co-counsel, is that --
8 MR. ALARID: That was at the request of both the client but more
9 importantly, Judge, it's based on a mutual agreement between counsel.
10 We've kind of creating -- we definitely needed to amend the work plan as
11 it was otherwise submitted. I understand the deadlines that are passed,
12 coming up, and also the Trial Chamber's desire to get this moving, and so
13 in to kind of efficiently deal with those time constraints, we're really
14 trying to comply with the Court's needs and organise our team in such a
17 JUDGE THELIN: So I understand. You take the paperwork and put
18 that in motion in order to have that settled then with the registry.
19 MR. ALARID: We will do that, Judge, and we also anticipate
20 filing either a motion for additional funding and/or a change in
21 complexity. They're kind of related and we look at them in the
22 alternative of each other, really. The client actually doesn't like the
23 idea of the increased complexity level but in order for us to comply with
24 a -- a -- what we believe is a fast-approaching trial date, there's a lot
25 of work to get covered including some things that we probably should have
1 had done beforehand just to respond to these motions. I mean --
2 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. And where are you now on the 92 bis
3 and ter motions?
4 MR. ALARID: I'm just in the infancy, Judge. Your Honour, we --
5 well, basically I'm in the process of beginning to read the Vasiljevic
6 transcripts. I think that's important to put in context the request for
7 using priorly adjudicated materials and all we were given from a
8 Mr. Jatman [phoen] was 11 disks with very little attorney work product on
9 them. It's mostly disclosure material and, of course, that has to be
10 cross-referenced to the Vasiljevic trial in order to determine what
11 relevance was used. One --
12 JUDGE THELIN: I take it that you intend to respond to this then?
13 MR. ALARID: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
14 JUDGE THELIN: There hasn't been an indication to as to why you
15 didn't respond within the time set.
16 MR. ALARID: I think it was just a lack of familiarity of the
17 team with the materials they were requesting be included.
18 JUDGE THELIN: So that is the reason why you now seek an
19 extension. How much would you need?
20 MR. ALARID: I would like the original 60 days that counsel was
21 allowed to review the entire disclosures, since we are reviewing the
22 disclosures from scratch this time.
23 JUDGE THELIN: Sorry, Mr. Alarid, this is not going to happen.
24 MR. ALARID: Okay.
25 JUDGE THELIN: We are not restarting this trial. I understand
1 that you have had problems with the change of counsel, I am obviously
2 aware of that. And for that reason and that reason alone, I'm minded to
3 grant you an extension to respond to the 92 bis and 90 ter motions, but
4 it will not be longer than 14 days. So also here you are obliged to
5 respond to that within 14 days, i.e., the 28th of March.
6 Let me also -- thank you, Mr. Alarid. Let me also indicate that
7 at this point because you what you raised, Mr. Alarid, I think it's time
8 to air this already now, it is clear that we have some fixed timetables
9 and those are set for the very reason that this case should be brought to
10 trial as quickly as possible.
11 Now, we also know the way scheduling of trials happen in this
12 Tribunal, that nothing is yet set in stone. It means that the
13 Trial Chamber is obviously not yet assigned and whether this will happen
14 after Easter and at what time I'm not familiar with the scheduling
15 process. Nothing has to me indicated that the times we have laid down
16 should not hold, and that's what I and also you then should be guided by.
17 When it comes to certain of these motions they would be dealt
18 with by the pre-trial Chamber, but some of them are better left for the
19 Trial Chamber to hear the case, and that would, according to the practice
20 we have in the Tribunal, be, for instance, for the matters of 92 bis and
21 ter and related matters and also goes, I should indicate, the point we
22 will come to, namely the issue of adjudicated facts. But that does not
23 mean that we will hold the time lines for a proper preparation of that
24 indefinitely or in abeyance, and that's why the time lines are as short
25 as they are in this motion, because we know that all of a sudden even if
1 there is a change in -- in plans when this case should go to trial, and I
2 appreciate that both counsel for Mr. Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic are
3 aware that it is in the interest of their clients that this case is
4 brought to trial sooner rather than later. It means that if changes
5 happen, it can also happen the other way that all of a sudden this is put
6 on the back-burner but all of a sudden it's on the front-burner again,
7 because for some reasons that we cannot control.
8 So we should not be -- even if now after Easter there is an
9 indication that this case may not be brought to trial before summer, I'm
10 not saying this is going to happen I'm just trying to share with you my
11 anticipation, it could very well change again. And that's a fact of life
12 that counsel will have to live with, and it is shared equally, this
13 burden, with the Prosecution and with the Defence teams.
14 So now I've shared with you the anticipation of how things is
15 going to evolve and that means that we need to focus. And I appreciate
16 the concern that you have, Mr. Alarid, which you shared, but you need to
17 then exert whatever extra energies you have in order to -- to do your end
18 as it were, and I'm not going to hold you or the team against you that
19 you may have lapsed in the past, but there is no reason now for lapse in
20 the future. I think that is by the nodding that that is understood.
21 Thank you.
22 So we then come to a special part of the 92 bis which is -- has
23 to do with experts and I understand there is an issue there whether there
24 was timely disclosed under 92 bis as well. Would the Prosecution like to
25 comment on that.
1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, some of the experts that the
2 Prosecution -- there are a couple of issues with the experts. The
3 experts that testified in the Vasiljevic case, it's the Prosecution's
4 intent to not only use their expert reports from the Vasiljevic case but
5 also to rely on their testimony. I don't believe, especially in light of
6 the alibi evidence, that it doesn't seem that one of the issues at trial
7 will be whether there were people killed or where the bodies were
8 recovered from, so it's the Prosecution's position that the motion was
9 appropriately made under 92 bis.
10 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. And again here we are obviously at the
11 same time line for response in this matter from Mr. Milan Lukic. I would
12 say -- Defence for Mr. Sredoje Lukic, you may be the objection that the
13 clock, as you put it, should not start to run. And I can give you my
14 response it is. It has started to run, and that means that the -- the
15 comments that you should make should timely be made from both of you,
16 then, the 18th of March on this, and that may be a bit soon for both of
17 you. I'm minded to extend that to the 28th of March.
18 I understand from the Prosecution there was an indication at
19 the 65 ter that you wanted to -- to add another expert; is that correct
20 Mr. Groome.
21 MR. GROOME: Well, Your Honour, the alibi that's been imperfectly
22 raised by Milan Lukic suggests that he was involved in military
23 activities outside the vicinity of Visegrad. When we do receive the
24 information about where he precisely was, if it seems that during the
25 course it maybe helpful to the Trial Chamber to have information about
1 what military activity was taking place in the vicinity of Visegrad, we
2 would be seeking at that time to -- as soon as we get the alibi notice,
3 to review whether we have documentary evidence that our military analyst
4 would be able to testify about and at that time we'd make a decision
5 whether or not to apply for an additional expert report.
6 JUDGE THELIN: Well, in light of the -- my ambition to have these
7 matters clarified by the 28th of March, how soon thereafter would you be
8 able to disclose whatever additional military expertise you need to -- to
9 bring to the case?
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, as soon as I get some information about
11 where and what operations and have some information in the filing from
12 Defence, I can task the military analyst to work on it promptly as soon
13 as I have the information about where Mr. Lukic says. Now if the Defence
14 can make a representation here today that the information provided in
15 that original filing is the only information about the military
16 operation, I will speak to the analyst after we leave here today and I
17 would -- and could commit to having a report or some indication of
18 whether we would file a report within the next week or two, have him
19 review the documents.
20 JUDGE THELIN: I would appreciate that if you then report on that
21 matter also on the 28th of March and no later than.
22 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
24 Well, that would bring me, unless the parties need to address any
25 other matters on this, to the Rule -- Rule 94 motions on adjudicated
1 facts. And again we have filings from the Prosecution where responses
2 are due on the 13th of March, and we have a response from
3 Mr. Sredoje Lukic but nothing from Milan Lukic for reasons that are now
4 well-known. We also have notices of proposed agreed facts both regarding
6 Do the parties wish to address this matter as well? Mr. Groome.
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if the Court will entertain an oral
8 application for an extension for leave -- for us to file a leave to
9 reply. As you know, we are filing all of our 65 ter submissions and
10 pre-trial brief this Friday and it will also be impossible for us to also
11 reply by this Friday. If the Court would be so kind as to grant us an
12 additional week, we would like to reply to the response of the
13 Sredoje Lukic team.
14 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. I think that would be in order. You
15 are hereby then granted leave to reply to the response not later than
16 21st of March. Was that noted, Mr. Groome?
17 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
18 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. And of course the time that Mr. --
19 Defence for Milan Lukic will have, I think, should be then properly
20 adjusted to what we have said before, namely the 28th of March.
21 MR. ALARID: May I speak, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE THELIN: Yes, Mr. Alarid.
23 MR. ALARID: I think just as a housekeeping matter in the
24 extensions of which the Prosecution would like because of our late
25 tendering would be under the assumption that the Prosecution would get
1 the same benefit of our extensions in terms of filing responses.
2 JUDGE THELIN: Maybe they don't want to seek a leave to reply to
3 your response, if that is what you're after.
4 MR. ALARID: Yes.
5 JUDGE THELIN: We take it when it comes. Or do you anticipate
6 that you need to reply to that response as well?
7 MR. GROOME: I appreciate the generosity but we will not need
8 additional time to reply. As soon as we have it, we can meet our
10 JUDGE THELIN: That's what I thought. Thank you. Let me also
11 say when it comes to agreed facts in relation to what the Defence for
12 Sredoje Lukic indicated in its response, which was filed on the 10th of
13 March, that I see the agreed facts as a matter linked to adjudicated
14 facts in the sense that if you have adjudicated facts which are not
15 opposed, they are technically to be treated as agreed facts. And agreed
16 facts is something that the parties obviously are at liberty to deal with
17 throughout the case. I wouldn't say an ultimate limit for it but it goes
18 without saying that the more the parties can agree on facts or consent to
19 adjudicated facts the better it is for everyone. So we will not close
20 the door on any discussions which the parties wish to entertain on the
21 matters of agreed facts and adjudicated facts. And I'm also very much
22 aware that this also is linked to the question of alibi because it could,
23 were the Prosecution to recognise the validity of alibis offered, I would
24 imagine it would impact on the indictment as such. Isn't that true,
25 Mr. Groome?
1 MR. GROOME: It would, Your Honour. And if the Court reviews the
2 history of Mitar Vasiljevic, he served alibi notice and after being
3 interviewed by the Prosecution several weeks after that, the Prosecution
4 actually dismissed several of the most significant counts against him.
5 So that is why we're very anxious to investigate this and do a thorough
6 job and we take our responsibility to investigate it quite seriously.
7 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you, Mr. Groome. And that of course by
8 extension would mean that the pleas that have now been entered by the
9 accused could also change depending on the reactions from the Prosecution
10 and I certainly would encourage all sides to work in that atmosphere to
11 try to see what could be reduced and if that entails a change of plea,
12 the better.
13 On my list I also have a late filing from Mr. Sredoje Lukic.
14 It's a confidential filing so I think we shouldn't give too much as far
15 as specificity here on this. It's a Rule 54 bis motion, and it was filed
16 as early as the 7th of November, 2006, and this will engage then another
17 state presupposes steps to be taken. And I just want to inquire,
18 Mr. Cepic, whether the motion as it lays is enough to act or whether you
19 feel the need to refile it and then update it with whatever steps you may
20 have taken already since the filing in November 2006. Do you have any
21 comments on this?
22 MR. CEPIC: No, Your Honour. We just collected -- we marked
23 everything what we collected. In meantime, we didn't find anything else
24 in relation to mentioned material.
25 JUDGE THELIN: No, I understand that you haven't found anything
1 as far as disclosed by the Prosecution, but have you acted in any other
2 way in order to get the information you seek from this state?
3 MR. CEPIC: As is -- as is attached in the annexes of the motion
4 we tried with authorities of the Bosnia and Herzegovina and also before
5 that with relevant broadcasting companies but the answer was no.
6 JUDGE THELIN: I understand that, but I just want to make sure.
7 MR. CEPIC: I understood that.
8 JUDGE THELIN: After that, nothing has happened.
9 MR. CEPIC: No, no, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE THELIN: So I take it then we will then take this and we
11 will issue a decision in due course.
12 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE THELIN: Let me then look at the disclosure matters as they
15 The Prosecution pre-trial brief is due, as Mr. Groome indicated,
16 very soon, on the 14th of March, this Friday. And that will then entail
17 obviously the witness and exhibit lists. I hesitate here because I had
18 an indication, Mr. Groome, that you wanted to -- to add witnesses which
19 are yet not disclosed to the Defence. Is that correct?
20 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. The preparation of the pre-trial
21 brief there are witnesses that some for the substantive charges and some
22 for the alibi so we will be filing our witness summaries this Friday, and
23 shortly thereafter we'll be completing disclosure, 66(A)(ii) disclosure
24 on those witnesses.
25 JUDGE THELIN: And what is the reason for your inability to
1 disclose them already now?
2 MR. GROOME: Just -- they've just been selected in the last few
3 days, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE THELIN: I take it you are not anticipating or wishing for
5 this to be disclosed after you filed your pre-trial brief. Is that what
6 you're seeking?
7 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. Within a week after the filing of
8 the pre-trial brief after we've made a final selection of our witnesses
9 we would be disclosing the information or the statements that we require
10 to under the Rules.
11 JUDGE THELIN: Yeah. I'm a bit puzzled about this, because I
12 would -- to me it would seem given the length of preparations that have
13 been available to the Prosecution that it wouldn't be any need to
14 disclose anything after the filing of the pre-trial brief.
15 MR. GROOME: Well, Your Honour, I've just returned to the office
16 after being aware for some time so I'm not sure of the history but I do
17 know that we have not completed all of our disclosure. I can create a
18 report for the Chamber if the Chamber wishes with more detailed
19 information about the history of when different disclosures were made and
20 when different witnesses were identified as being relevant to the trial
21 in this case.
22 JUDGE THELIN: There is no need, Mr. Groome, to make a lengthy
23 report, but if you are, as you seek, to indicate to disclose a week after
24 the submission of the pre-trial brief, I think there is a need for some
25 reasoning in the pre-trial brief for this.
1 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I will include that.
2 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. When it comes to disclosure in general
3 it seems to me that the supporting material to the indictment, i.e.,
4 Rule 66(A)(i) seems to have been disclosed in total. Is that correct,
5 Mr. Groome?
6 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE THELIN: When it then comes to (ii), the witness statements
8 you anticipate to have apart from a few which you will seek to disclose
9 later including in the pre-trial brief; that is correct?
10 MR. GROOME: That is correct, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. Could you indicate how many statements
12 we are talking about? How many? Just give us a -- just give us a
14 MR. GROOME: In total we've disclosed 54 statements. 34 of those
15 are under 66(A)(ii).
16 JUDGE THELIN: Okay. Thank you very much.
17 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I stand corrected, 42 have
18 been disclosed under 66(A)(ii).
19 JUDGE THELIN: Okay. Thank you. That is noted. And when it
20 comes to 66(B) i.e., the inspection by the parties to material, photos
21 and the like, is that ongoing or is there a need to set times for this as
22 well? Mr. Cepic, you want to address us?
23 MR. CEPIC: I think that we will have a good cooperation with
24 Mr. Groome. I already sent him one e-mail with request for some material
25 but before that just with your leave to underline something which we
1 already requested Mr. Groome and I discussed yesterday and also Defence
2 of Mr. Milan Lukic. In relation to the interview of Milan Lukic which he
3 gave to OTP, I think that this interview has to be delivered to our
4 Defence and this material is under the Rule 66(A)(i).
5 JUDGE THELIN: Well, on this, Mr. Cepic there could be some
6 disagreement. I understand that this is something that the co-defendant
7 has in party to his counsel which has now come to the possession of the
8 Prosecution, and I suggest if the -- if this cannot be resolved by the
9 parties, and I haven't yet heard Mr. Groome on this, I think, Mr. Cepic
10 you need to move in writing for this material to be disclosed.
11 What is your position on this Mr. Groome?
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the document that Mr. Cepic is talking
13 about is, I think, about a five-or six-page letter provided to my
14 predecessor by the former Defence attorney for Mr. Milan Lukic. The
15 first paragraph sets out that it's given under certain conditions. The
16 Office of the Prosecutor gave undertakings with respect to those
17 conditions. One of them is that we are prevented from providing it to
18 anyone else. I provided the Milan Lukic team yesterday with a copy of it
19 so that they could review it. And if they consent, then the problem is
20 solved; but if not, as Your Honour has pointed out, it may be a matter
21 that needs to be brought before the Chamber.
22 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you, Mr. Alarid, are you in position now to
23 indicate your position on this particular document.
24 MR. ALARID: Yes, I am, Your Honour. We've consulted with the
25 client last night on the specific request of disclosure and we would be
1 objecting to its disclosure pursuant to the original terms of the
2 agreement, more so it also would violate Mr. -- the attorney of becoming
3 a witness because this was not a direct statement with recordings and all
4 the other safeguards for authenticity.
5 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you, Mr. Alarid. Well, it seems, Mr. Cepic,
6 if you want to pursue this matter, you need to move in writing.
7 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE THELIN: Further, when it comes to Rule 68 exculpatory
9 material that is obviously an obligation which is ongoing. Are there any
10 problems or matters that needs to be raised on that?
11 Mr. Groome.
12 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. Just to say -- to say on the
13 record what I've said to Defence counsel, since this is an alibi case I'm
14 suggesting and offering the services of the Office of the Prosecutor to
15 develop search terms which can be most useful to them in searching the
16 large quantity of materials we have in our possession, but it really
17 requires some assistance or some participation by the Defence in process
18 to identify the material that's most useful to their alibi.
19 JUDGE THELIN: Will the parties be able to indicate a time that
20 they would need before the 28th of March to try to come to an agreement
21 with the Prosecution on the search terms, which seems to be a sensible
22 way to move forward on this? If not, I would suggest that you try to
23 reach an agreement with the Prosecution before the 28th of March on this
24 as well, so that we don't slip on this.
25 Mr. Cepic?
1 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour. With your leave, we would
2 like to see the whole collection of OTP and maybe to select something
3 what is -- what could be useful for our defence.
4 JUDGE THELIN: Well, that's part of the discussion you will take
5 with -- with the Prosecution on this. I'm not going to rule on this but
6 I would suggest that the parties try to come to an understanding. If
7 that is practical or whatever, it's for the Prosecution then to assist
8 you on this because this is an onus that is on the Prosecution, but it is
9 as the Prosecution points out, in light of the alibi now offered it's a
10 special requirement that needs some fine-tuning and that is what the
11 Prosecution offers. So I think you need to engage in the dialogue and
12 let's say that you report back then, Prosecution and the Defence for both
13 counsel, to the senior legal officer not later than the 28th of March and
14 where we are on this particular issue.
15 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
16 MR. CEPIC: Thank you very much.
17 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. I understand when it comes now to the
18 scope of the length of the trial that we have some open matters
19 obviously, I mean, we touched upon the Defence alibi. We've touched upon
20 the 92 bis, ter statements related matters. So I understand Mr. Groome
21 that this is not an easy task if I ask you if you can estimate the length
22 of trial but give me a maximum minimum. I mean, if you indicate that you
23 were to be granted all your wishes as far as 92 bis is concerned, what
24 would be the estimated length of the trial?
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if it's possible for me to defer that
1 statement until Friday, we're in the process of really trying with great
2 precision making our 65 ter submission to work out in very -- with great
3 precision what the time would be so by Friday I would be able to give you
4 rather specific numbers. I'd be -- I'd be hazarding a guess if I were to
5 talk off the top of my head at this moment, though.
6 JUDGE THELIN: I look forward to the filing on the 14th of March.
7 We have touched upon that time in the work plan looking at other
8 dates in the work plan just to remind ourselves after the pre-trial
9 brief, the Defence pre-trial briefs are then due six weeks later, i.e.,
10 the 25th of April. And the early indication of a Pre-Trial Conference by
11 16th of May, 2008, still stands with the caveat that I earlier indicated
12 that things after Easter and May evolve in such a way that the present
13 scheduling for this case may have changed but we will, then, obviously
14 let the parties know if there is a change in that.
15 So for this time and this moment these times are valid.
16 Are there any other matters that the parties when it comes to the
17 work plan and the matters we have dealt with need to raise any issue or
18 we have overlooked an issue that you feel that we need to address again?
19 Mr. Groome.
20 MR. GROOME: Not from the Prosecution, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE THELIN: Defence for Mr. Milan Lukic?
22 MR. ALARID: I apologise. Your Honour, what we would be
23 addressing but of course we'll do it first through the registry and I'm
24 sure there will be some consulting that will happen is we'll be making
25 requests for adjustment based on the exceptional, legal and factual
1 circumstances that have arisen through how this case has evolved. Some
2 of it may be self-inflicted by the previous circumstances of the case but
3 definitely we would --
4 JUDGE THELIN: Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Alarid. Are you
5 saying that you are will come back and then seek leave to change the
6 times that we have laid down?
7 MR. ALARID: No, I will do my level best to honour the Court's
8 requests. I think that's important because you need to see that we're
10 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. I appreciate that.
11 MR. ALARID: And this will show that we're working. But I think
12 from a grand scheme approach, definitely we would be in an ineffective
13 assistance of counsel position were circumstances to remain the same.
14 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. You put that on record now. Thank
16 Mr. Cepic.
17 MR. CEPIC: No, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you. I now turn then to the two accused.
19 As you know you have an opportunity if you want to address the Court in a
20 matter that deals with your personal well-being, and I don't know whether
21 the matters you have indicated, Mr. Milan Lukic, that you want to
22 address. Is this something we can do in open court or do we need to go
23 into private session?
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please.
25 THE ACCUSED M. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We can deal with this in
1 open session.
2 JUDGE THELIN: Mr. Milan Lukic.
3 THE ACCUSED M. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I heard something from
4 Mr. Cepic according to which I gave an interview to the Prosecution. He
5 referred to some sort of an audio recording. I can claim with full
6 responsibility, and bring Mr. Harmon here if you like, but all I will
7 admit is my own handwriting. I never gave any audio recordings because
8 people in the detention unit say that I had something recorded, I
9 reported on something. They're threatening my family too. I don't know
10 what is at stake but if there are any audio recordings, provide them to
11 Mr. Cepic. I don't know what -- what we're dealing with here. I only
12 wrote down something. They -- they set up the affair in Visegrad. They
13 killed my brother. They wanted to kill me. I didn't give any interviews
14 of any kind. I'm saying this quite frankly. When the time comes for me
15 to give an interview, the public will know the truth. I won't lie, but
16 no one can prevent me from telling the truth. I'm prepared to be held to
17 account for anything I did, but not for what I haven't done. I don't
18 know what sort of CDs we are talking about. That's the truth, and that's
20 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you, Mr. Lukic. I'm sure counsel will take
21 note of what you have now put on the record. Thank you.
22 Mr. Sredoje Lukic, do you need to or do you want to address the
23 Court on anything?
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please.
25 THE ACCUSED S. LUKIC: [Interpretation] There is nothing I would
1 like to say. Everything is fine.
2 JUDGE THELIN: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
3 Well, it seems then that we have come to an end of this Status
4 Conference. As we all know, the need to have a 65 ter Conference before
5 the Pre-Trial Conference may arise and in that case the senior legal
6 officer will inform you of it, and if there is any change to that date as
7 well, as I have indicated -- but as I said before, I at present do not
8 see any change so that is what we all should be guided by. And with that
9 this Status Conference is adjourned. Thank you.
10 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned
11 at 4.46 p.m.