Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 126

 1                           Thursday, 8 December 2011

 2                           [Status Conference]

 3                           [Open session]

 4                           [The accused entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 4.56 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  We now continue this afternoon with the

 7     Status Conference, where we had the Further Appearance a little bit

 8     earlier.  This is the fourth Status Conference in this case, and as with

 9     the previous Status Conferences, any guidance and decisions that will be

10     announced have been deliberated and adopted by the Chamber as a whole.

11             The purpose of this and other Status Conferences is to monitor

12     the progress made with regard to pre-trial work and preparation for

13     trial.  Like earlier Status Conferences, this one has been preceded by a

14     Rule 65 ter meeting, which was held earlier this week.  We discussed at

15     that meeting certain pre-trial matters in more detail than this

16     Status Conference allows to do.

17             I will first deal with the pre-trial planning.

18             At the last Status Conference the Chamber reminded the parties of

19     the then upcoming dead-lines for their Rule 73 bis (D) submissions,

20     dead-lines which have now passed.  To those in the public following these

21     proceedings, I will briefly explain that.  Rule 73 bis (D) of the

22     Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence permits the Chamber to invite

23     the Prosecution to reduce the size of the indictment against the accused.

24             On the 18th of November, the Prosecution filed its submission on

25     reducing the indictment, and the Defence filed its response on the

Page 127

 1     25th of November.  And at the last Status Conference the parties were

 2     also reminded that the dead-line for their adjudicated facts motions was

 3     seven days from the filing of the Chamber's decision on the

 4     Rule 73 bis (D) submissions.  The Chamber's decision was filed on the

 5     2nd of December, and therefore the parties' adjudicated facts motions are

 6     due on the 9th of December, that is, tomorrow.

 7             What, therefore, remains at this stage of the proceedings mainly

 8     includes the filing of the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter submissions and the

 9     parties' pre-trial briefs.  At the 8th of November 65 ter meeting, that

10     is, a month ago, the parties were informed that they should be preparing

11     these filings now and that they could expect the dead-lines for them to

12     be set for the beginning of next year.

13             The Chamber now sets the following deadlines.  10th of February

14     is the dead-line for the Prosecution's pre-trial brief and its

15     Rule 65 ter filings.  The dead-line for the Defence's pre-trial brief

16     filing is hereby set for the 2nd of March, 2012.

17             Again, I will briefly explain to those in the gallery and

18     following these proceedings that Rule 65 ter (E) requires the

19     Pre-Trial Judge to order the Prosecution to file a pre-trial brief.  That

20     includes a summary of the evidence the Prosecution intends to present, a

21     list of witnesses the Prosecution intends to call, and a list of exhibits

22     that it intends to offer at trial.  Once the Prosecution has submitted

23     these items, the Defence is then required to submit its pre-trial brief.

24             Just to explain, that pre-trial brief is slightly different from

25     the Prosecution's pre-trial brief because it should include, in general

Page 128

 1     terms, the nature of the accused's defence; second, the matters which the

 2     accused takes issue in the Prosecutor's pre-trial brief; and third, in

 3     the case of each such matter, the reason why the accused takes issue with

 4     it.

 5             The 10th of February, 2012, dead-line triggers certain other

 6     Prosecution dead-lines.  As already announced at the 6th of October

 7     Status Conference, the Prosecution is reminded that the dead-line for its

 8     Rule 66(A)(ii) disclosure is set for the same day as the filing of its

 9     witness list, therefore, also the 10th of February, 2012.

10             Additionally, at the same 6th of October, 2011, second

11     Status Conference the Chamber set two Rule 68(i) disclosure dead-lines

12     distinct from the general dead-line.  These two dead-lines are that the

13     Prosecution has 30 days from the filing of the Defence pre-trial brief

14     and 30 days from the filing of its witness list to complete its

15     Rule 68(i) disclosure related to these filings.  The Chamber reminds the

16     Prosecution that it is instructed to file a notification when these

17     disclosures have been completed.

18             Finally, as I announced last month at the Status Conference, the

19     first Prosecution Rule 92 bis motion should be filed no later than one

20     week after the filing of the Prosecution's witness list.  This means that

21     the first Rule 92 bis motion should be filed no later than the

22     17th of February, 2012.  And this same dead-line, the

23     17th of February, 2012, also applies to the Prosecution's first

24     Rule 92 quater motion.

25             At the 5th of December 65 ter meeting, the Prosecution indicated

Page 129

 1     that it would be in a position to file its first Rule 92 bis and quater

 2     motions even earlier, within one to two weeks of the adjudicated facts

 3     motion being filed.  The Chamber welcomes such filing by the Prosecution

 4     of its first Rule 92 bis or quater motions within two weeks of the filing

 5     of its adjudicated facts motion.

 6             Finally, pursuant to Rules 73 bis (A) and 65 ter (E) and (F),

 7     which require the Pre-Trial Conference not to be held any earlier than

 8     six weeks after the filing of the Prosecution's pre-trial brief and not

 9     earlier than three weeks after the filing of the -- no, less than three

10     weeks after the Pre-Trial Conference, the Chamber expects - I emphasize

11     that word at this moment - expects that it will schedule the

12     Pre-Trial Conference to be held on the 26th of March, 2012, and the

13     opening statements and statement of the accused, if any, on the

14     27th of March, 2012.

15             These are the plans as of now, and these last mentioned dates are

16     not yet finally set.  However, they are the dates that the Chamber

17     expects and that the parties should therefore work towards.

18             I move on to my next item which is disclosure.  On the

19     25th of November the Chamber received the Prosecution's third pre-trial

20     report, which included an update on the disclosure of materials to the

21     Defence.  Additionally, at the 10th of November Status Conference, the

22     Defence was invited to make submissions on the Prosecution's proposed EDS

23     methods of disclosure, which it did on the 17th of November.  The Chamber

24     received the Prosecution's response on the 2nd of December, and these

25     submissions were discussed at the 65 ter meeting on Monday and, in

Page 130

 1     particular, the steps taken to address the Defence concerns that were

 2     outlined in the Prosecution's response.  As stated at the 65 ter meeting,

 3     the Chamber would be interested in hearing whether the Defence concerns

 4     remain after taking into account these additional steps.

 5             Therefore, Mr. Lukic, the Chamber invites you to file a reply to

 6     the Prosecution's response and asks that you indicate therein whether and

 7     to what extent the response alleviates any of the issues you originally

 8     raised.  Any reply should be filed by the 2nd [sic] of December.  And

 9     this will allow the Prosecution to address any continuing concerns raised

10     in the reply in its next pre-trial report.

11             Are there any questions or concerns in relation to what I have

12     said until now?

13             MR. GROOME:  Not from the Prosecution, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Not from the Prosecution.

15             Mr. Lukic.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, I'm not sure if I understood you

17     correctly regarding those opening statements for March 2012.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  You did.

19             MR. LUKIC:  I did?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Does it mean that the trial should start on those

22     dates?  Or ...

23             JUDGE ORIE:  As I said before, that the Chamber expects to

24     schedule it as I said.  You know what that means.

25             MR. LUKIC:  I'm afraid that we will not be ready to start trial

Page 131

 1     in March 2012, Your Honour.  It's not possible for our team to finalise

 2     all the work which is in front of us.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, of course the Chamber expects that a lot of

 4     work has been -- will be finalised by dealing with the adjudicated facts

 5     motions and by other matters.  But as I said before, these are the plans

 6     as they are now.  They have not been carved in stone yet, these dates.

 7     But, as I said before, the Chamber expects that the parties should work

 8     towards these dates, and that should be your ultimate effort.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I'd like to move on.

11             If you -- if, Mr. Mladic, you would like to consult with counsel,

12     do it by whispering - you speak the same language - and switch off your

13     microphone.  Mr. Lukic, you have an opportunity to consult with your

14     client.

15                           [Defence counsel and Accused confer]

16             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, if you allow, Mr. Mladic will address

17     something in regard of the schedule.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Mladic is represented by you.  I would --

19     if there's anything you would like to raise, you're invited to do so.

20     And I might consider to give --

21             MR. LUKIC:  I have --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  -- Mr. Mladic an opportunity to add something to

23     that.  What I do understand, that you say your schedule is too tight.

24     Now, I don't think that a Status Conference is the place where we could

25     discuss this further in detail, but it's clearly on the record that you

Page 132

 1     consider the schedule as envisaged by the Trial Chamber to be too tight.

 2             Now, if you'd like to add in a few words, but we can't --

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... just a few words --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- have the whole of the debate on that.  Just a few

 5     words.  Yes, please do so.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  And I have an instruction from my client that -- to

 7     raise the issue of the team.  As you know, our team is not complete --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  That is on my agenda for a later stage --

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and to some extent in private session.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.  Thank you.  Then ...

12                           [Defence counsel and Accused confer]

13             MR. LUKIC:  If you would allow Mr. Mladic to say a few words.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  A few words, Mr. Mladic, if you wish to do so,

15     although it's uncommon if represented by counsel that you address the

16     Chamber yourself.  But I'll make an exception, if there's anything, but

17     could you please limit it to, really, two minutes and say -- focus very

18     much on the core of what you want to tell me.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  That's very kind of

20     you.  I'll try and say something within the next two minutes, and I'm

21     starting now.

22             I heard what you said with regard to the schedule.  It's very

23     dense.  And maybe you are in a hurry; I'm not.  For me, time is of no

24     consequence.  I appreciate your plans and schedules; however,

25     irrespective of the fact that I have a lawyer who represents

Page 133

 1     him [as interpreted], and chapeau to him, but I have not been allowed to

 2     complete my team.  The Russian lawyer Mezyaev and the American lawyer

 3     Dan Ivetic have not been allowed to join my team.  You don't even allow

 4     my friends and admirers from Russia to come and visit me, be it a male or

 5     female scientist, a male or female doctor.  I would like to thank you for

 6     allowing doctors from the medical academy in Belgrade to come and visit.

 7     They have planned to examine me over two days.  And of all that I was

 8     examined by a neuropsychiatrist, a pulmonologist.  They examined me.  I

 9     was provided with their medical report, of the five of them, to say that

10     within the last period I lost 20 kilos.  The other says I lost 24 kilos.

11     And the third says that I lost --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic, first of all, one of the reasons why

13     usually it's counsel who speaks is because he knows the rules better.

14     And as far as visits and medical care is concerned, he would have

15     addressed this matter primarily with the Registry because the Registrar

16     is responsible for the medical care unless it affects the trial

17     proceedings or the pre-trial proceedings, in which case, in an organised

18     way, the Chamber may be involved in the matter.

19             Further, your physical condition, medical part, will be dealt

20     with in a minute.  So it is on my agenda.  It has been discussed before.

21     And it's certainly something we'll address later this afternoon.

22             Thank you for keeping within the time-limits.  I would then, at

23     this moment, move on to the adjudicated facts.

24             Mr. Groome, at the last Status Conference you asked whether, in

25     its Rule 65 ter witness list filing and the Rule 92 bis and the

Page 134

 1     Rule 92 ter motions, the Prosecution should indicate to which fact or

 2     facts in the Prosecution's adjudicated facts motion the witness's

 3     evidence relates.

 4             The Chamber accepts this proposal; however, the Chamber

 5     reiterates that the parties should not request that the Chamber take

 6     judicial notice of those facts for which they intend to present other

 7     evidence, for example, witness testimony.  If the Prosecution files its

 8     Rule 65 ter witness list before the Chamber renders its decision on the

 9     adjudicated facts motion, the Prosecution should compose the list

10     assuming that the Chamber will take judicial notice of all the requested

11     facts.  In the same way, there should be no Rule 92 bis and 92 ter

12     motions dealing with witnesses whose evidence is covered by the

13     adjudicated facts proposed in the Prosecution's adjudicated facts motion.

14             Should the Chamber ultimately decide not to take judicial notice

15     of certain facts, the Prosecution will have a possibility to supplement

16     its witness list and the relevant Rule 92 bis and Rule 92 ter motions

17     then.

18             I add to this, Mr. Groome, that you also expressed some concerns

19     in relation to the case law on adjudicated facts and rebuttal evidence,

20     that is, a decision in the Lukic and Lukic case, and in that decision in

21     Lukic and Lukic case I think reference is made to the Karemera case, the

22     Appeals Chamber decision in the Karemera case.  The Chamber is carefully

23     studying this at this moment and will consider how to respond, how to

24     deal with the concerns you have expressed.

25             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Your Honour.  And in tomorrow's

Page 135

 1     adjudicated facts motion, the Prosecution will be setting out its

 2     concerns and its understanding of the jurisprudence in greater detail.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that.  We'll then read that tomorrow.

 4             Any further matter in relation to the adjudicated facts?  If not,

 5     I'll move on, the next agenda item being presentation and tendering of

 6     evidence.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, the same:  If Mr. Mladic wants to consult

 9     with you, then please inform me and so that you -- that I allow you to

10     consult with your client.  And then, again, if he keeps his earphones on,

11     that usually has the result of speaking louder.  So if you consult and if

12     you take your earphones off for a second, that usually lowers your voice.

13             MR. LUKIC:  I think that Mr. Mladic, Your Honour, already

14     transferred to me what he had to say.  And he said that he does not want

15     to be tried through adjudicated facts because everybody else's trial was

16     different, and it doesn't mean that the other accused would address any

17     issue properly, and that he wants to have the trial in which the truth

18     and the factual findings would be addressed specifically to him, and not

19     to somebody else, and then we have to apply somebody else's findings to

20     him.  So that was the concern he wanted to raise.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Lukic, you're certainly fully aware and

22     you'll be able to explain to Mr. Mladic the details of the case law on

23     adjudicated facts, including that taking judicial notice of an

24     adjudicated fact does not necessarily mean that that fact cannot be

25     challenged anymore.  But you also know that, whether or not to be tried

Page 136

 1     on the basis of adjudicated facts, Mr. Mladic will be tried on the basis

 2     of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence which are in line with the

 3     Statute of this Tribunal.  And as you know, adjudicated facts are covered

 4     by a specific rule on that, and the case law developed since then is

 5     mainly focusing on guaranteeing that the use of adjudicated facts, to

 6     take judicial notice of adjudicated facts, does not amount to unfairness

 7     of the trial.

 8             And I take it that you will have an opportunity to explain this

 9     to Mr. Mladic.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Before I continue, Mr. Lukic, I was -- my attention

12     was drawn to the fact that I might not have been clear when I said that

13     the reply you are encouraged or invited to file to the Prosecution's

14     response in relation to the disclosure methods, that that reply should be

15     filed by the 22nd of December, whereas there was some concern that I

16     might have been understood to have said the 2nd of December.  No, it was

17     the 22nd.

18             MR. LUKIC:  I understood 22nd.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Then there was no problem, but I'll then continue.

20             THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  If you want to consult with your client, Mr. Lukic,

22     please do so.

23                           [Defence counsel and Accused confer]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic --

25             MR. LUKIC:  We can continue, Your Honour.

Page 137

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

 2             We then continue with the presentation and tendering of evidence.

 3             Mr. Groome, at the last Status Conference you asked whether the

 4     Chamber's presentation and tendering of evidence guidance applies to

 5     Rule 92 quater witnesses as to the preference for a statement over

 6     transcript testimony.  The Chamber informs you that the absolute

 7     preference of the Chamber is to receive witness statements clearly

 8     summarising the witness's testimony through Rule 92 bis and Rule 92 ter

 9     applications and that this reference also applies to Rule 92 quater.

10             And I immediately add to this that the Chamber, of course, will

11     be more flexible with regard to Rule 92 quater witnesses and

12     Rule 92 quater motions as they deal with witnesses who are not available

13     to testify orally.  And the Prosecution, therefore, may have very

14     limited, if any at all, possibility to make selections among the material

15     because it may be that the preferred material is not available.  So,

16     therefore, the Chamber is not blind for the problems it may cause.  But

17     when you are in a position to make your selections, then the preference

18     clearly stands.

19             So it is with this caveat that the guidance with regard to the

20     Rule 92 bis motions is also applicable to any Rule 92 quater motions.  Is

21     that clear enough?

22             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then you also raised, Mr. Groome, a question as to

24     the relative flexibility of including no more than five to ten witnesses

25     in each Rule 92 bis application.  This restriction serves the purpose of

Page 138

 1     not overburdening the Defence and the Chamber and will allow us to deal

 2     with the Rule 92 bis motions expeditiously.  However, the Chamber will

 3     allow the parties to exceptionally depart from this rule if they submit

 4     good reasons to do so.  One good reason may be what you mentioned

 5     already, Mr. Groome, that - you mentioned that at the last

 6     Status Conference - namely, if there are more than ten witnesses dealing

 7     with one particular topic, then of course we would consider whether 12 or

 8     13 or 14 or even 16 would be appropriate under those circumstances.  But

 9     you are invited, if you wish to do so, to submit good reasons for such a

10     decision.

11             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Then finally, in the -- in paragraph 22 of the

13     Prosecution's third pre-trial report, the Prosecution notes that the

14     parties are in agreement on a number of matters related to the

15     presentation and tendering of evidence.  However, the Chamber has already

16     issued its guidance on those matters referred to in this paragraph 22.

17     And I add to this that should the parties consider that exceptions from

18     the guidance are necessary for certain witnesses, they should make

19     specific submissions with regard to those, clearly setting out the

20     reasons why the Chamber should exceptionally allow to depart from its

21     guidance.

22             Again, nothing is carved in stone forever.  It's for good

23     reasons, for good cause shown, that we will consider to allow the parties

24     not to follow strictly the guidance.  This about the presentation and the

25     tendering of evidence.

Page 139

 1             I now move on to my next agenda item which is questions from the

 2     parties and other miscellaneous matters.

 3             On the 16th of November, the Chamber ordered an expert medical

 4     examination of Mr. Mladic pursuant to Rule 74 bis of the Tribunal's

 5     Rules.  The Chamber received the expert report on the 6th of December and

 6     has carefully reviewed it.  Based on the information contained in the

 7     expert report, the Chamber sees no need at this time to order any further

 8     expert medical examinations or to take any other steps in this regard.

 9             As I previously mentioned, the Chamber received two reports from

10     the United Nations Detention Unit medical staff, those of the 10th and of

11     the 22nd of November.  These reports were prepared for the purpose of

12     informing the Chamber as to Mr. Mladic's ability to attend a

13     Further Appearance.  In advance of today's Further Appearance and

14     Status Conference, the Chamber received two additional medical reports,

15     filed on the 25th of November and the 2nd of December.  These reports

16     indicated that Mr. Mladic was well enough to attend today's proceedings.

17     With the Further Appearance now having taken place, the Chamber requests

18     that the Registry please discontinue the preparation and filing of these

19     reporting medical officers -- of reports as a routine matter.  Of course,

20     if need be, we'll further consider to request such a reporting medical

21     officer report.

22             Finally, the Chamber notes that the report of the

23     25th of November indicates that in the opinion of the medical officer

24     there is no health-related reason Mr. Mladic cannot wear handcuffs during

25     transport, except for those times when he is walking just on his own.  As


Page 140

 1     I have previously stated, the issue of Mr. Mladic being handcuffed during

 2     transport is a matter for the Registry and for those responsible for that

 3     transport.

 4             Therefore, should you, Mr. Lukic, want to pursue this issue on

 5     behalf of Mr. Mladic, then you should raise this matter directly with the

 6     Registry.

 7             I would like to briefly move into private session.

 8                           [Private session]

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 141











11 Pages 141-144 redacted. Private session.
















Page 145

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13                           [Open session]

14             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I received a message, Mr. Lukic, only a second ago,

16     that is, the issue of the import of electronic material to the

17     United Nations Detention Unit.  I'm provided with a -- it's found on

18     pages 122 and following of the transcript of the 65 ter meeting, and I

19     just read to you what information I received at this very moment.

20             "In this regard, please note that the Registry has identified

21     solutions to this issue.  OLAD will speak with Mr. Lukic to advise him of

22     available options for import of electronic material.  We expect to have

23     this issue resolved successfully without the need for Mr. Lukic to

24     formally seize the Chamber of this request, as he indicated during the

25     65 ter meeting," and the reference is made to transcript page 125,


Page 146

 1     lines 1 and 2.

 2             This was the message we received from the Registry.  I take it

 3     that you'll further discuss what the solution in the eyes of the Registry

 4     would be, and of course I hope that this is an acceptable solution for

 5     all parties.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Then there is one other matter, which is the -- on

 8     the 7th of December the Prosecution has filed a motion, the urgent

 9     Prosecution submission to exceed word limit, requesting that it be

10     allowed to exceed the word limit in its adjudicated facts motion due

11     tomorrow, the 9th of December.  The request was granted that same day,

12     Mr. Lukic, and it was communicated by Chamber staff in an informal

13     communication to the parties.

14             Therefore, I hereby put on the record that the Prosecution's

15     request to exceed the word limit in its adjudicated facts motion was

16     granted on the 7th of December.

17             I have no further matters on my agenda.  Could I invite the

18     parties and/or the accused, you, Mr. Mladic, to address the Chamber on

19     any additional matters.  Legal and procedural matters preferably to be

20     raised by counsel; other matters, if need be, to be raised by Mr. Mladic.

21             Mr. Groome.

22             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I have one matter I would like to raise

23     with the Chamber.

24             On the 2nd of December, 2011, the Chamber entered its decision

25     pursuant to 73 bis (D).  Part of the -- that decision included an order

Page 147

 1     to the Prosecution to re-file its victim lists, which it had previously

 2     filed on the 1st of November, 2011.  As the Chamber is well aware, the

 3     Prosecution has made substantial reductions to many parts of its case

 4     except the Srebrenica portion of the case.  It does not anticipate that

 5     there will be any material change to the victim lists with respect to the

 6     Srebrenica portion.  That list of victims of Srebrenica comprises over

 7     950 pages, and the Prosecution is requesting that it be -- or the

 8     Chamber's order be varied to allow the Prosecution to incorporate, by

 9     reference, the victim lists of the Srebrenica victims that have -- has

10     already been filed on the 1st of November, 2011.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber will consider your request, Mr. Groome.

12             Mr. Lukic, any need to respond to this request?

13             MR. LUKIC:  No, Your Honour.  We don't object.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  You do not object.  That's on the record.

15             We'll consider your request.  And we might use an informal

16     communication to inform the parties about the decision so as not to

17     obstruct the further progress to be made.  And if so, it will be formally

18     put on the record at a later stage.

19             That was the only issue you wanted to raise, Mr. Groome?

20             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, any matter you would like to raise?

22             MR. LUKIC:  Again, the only issue I would raise again, and

23     reiterate it, is that envisaged schedule for the beginning of the trial.

24     I know you told us that it's not engraved in the stone, but our team is

25     absolutely not prepared to proceed with the trial at -- not even close to

Page 148

 1     those dead-lines.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  That is on the record as well.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

 4             And Mr. Mladic would like to address you shortly, please.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  If you can allow him.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Mladic, I invited the parties but also you.

 8     Is there any matter you would like to raise?  And I expect that any legal

 9     matter to be raised, that that would be done through Mr. Lukic, but if

10     there's any other matter, please proceed.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge.  Concerning this

12     complex trial and this monstrous indictment, I have three issues to

13     raise.  One, I don't understand what obstacles we are talking about, what

14     kind of barricades - if I can put it that way - to the consolidation of

15     my Defence team.  I will ask Mr. Lukic to explain that to me tomorrow so

16     that I can be on top of things.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We dealt with this matter in private session.

18     That's -- if you would now continue with your second point, then there's

19     no problem; but if you would further expand on it, then we should go into

20     private session again.  But if you have -- if the -- if you wanted to

21     convey the message that you'll further discuss it with Mr. Lukic, who

22     will certainly be able to inform you further, then we can remain in open

23     session.

24             Your second point, please, Mr. Mladic.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

Page 149

 1             Two, I have to say I'm sorry for every innocent person that got

 2     killed on any side in any ethnic community in the former Yugoslavia.  I

 3     regret every victim on all sides and I insist that Lukic explain to me

 4     tomorrow.  I want every victim's name, not only victims of Srebrenica,

 5     but in all the 196 municipalities, I want to know their name and

 6     surname - whether they're Orthodox, Serb; Muslim; or Catholics, Croat -

 7     where they were born, when, in which unit they served, and whether they

 8     participated in the war or not.  I want to know that because I want to

 9     vow to all the innocent people who got killed on every force -- on every

10     side of the world.  That war was not my wish or the wish of my state.

11     Still today there are barricades around Kosovska Mitrovica.  I'm

12     following that.  And for the sake of the truth and justice, I never want

13     to hear the word "war" again, let alone see it repeated.  And you will

14     judge as your conscience tells you.  I will appreciate it if I could

15     speak to my lawyers about this tomorrow at greater length.

16             Thank you for letting me raise these two matters.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Mladic, you raised two issues, the one was

18     what you'd like to know in terms of details of the identities of victims.

19     Mr. Lukic will certainly be able to tell you exactly to what extent the

20     Prosecution is obliged to give details and what kind of details of

21     victims.  We have had cases before this Tribunal where victims were

22     sometimes unidentified but were nevertheless considered to be victims.

23     That's one.

24             The second one, your personal feelings about -- about innocent

25     victims, as you said, I think those are best addressed in filings and in

Page 150

 1     the later trial proceedings rather than at a Status Conference, which is

 2     focusing, rather, on practical matters of progress.  But even having said

 3     this, what you said is on the record at this moment and is part of the

 4     transcript of this Status Conference, but you'll certainly seek advice of

 5     Mr. Lukic whether you should bring these matters preferably at

 6     Status Conferences.  I would be inclined to say that that's not the most

 7     appropriate moment, or, rather, to do that in further filings and further

 8     submissions at trial or in pre-trial briefs, for example.

 9             Any other matter?  Then --

10             MR. LUKIC:  Nothing else, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  -- if there's nothing else, then this concludes our

12     Status Conference.  The next Rule 65 ter meeting will be held on the

13     16th of January, 2012, and the next Status Conference is scheduled for

14     the 19th of January, 2012.  And I further remind the parties that the

15     next progress report on agreed facts is due on the 6th of January, 2012,

16     as is the Prosecution's next pre-trial report.

17             We therefore adjourn until the 19th of January, 2012, courtroom

18     and exact time to be communicated by the Registry at a later stage.

19             We stand adjourned.

20                           --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned

21                           at 6.04 p.m.