1 Wednesday, 23 February 2000
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The appellants entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 10.32 a.m.
6 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] This is case
7 IT-96-21-A, the Prosecutor versus Zejnil Delalic,
8 Zdravko Mucic, Hazim Delic, and Esad Landzo.
9 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry for the late
10 commencement. It was caused by some problem with the
12 Appearances, please.
13 MR. STAKER: May it please Your Honour. My
14 name is Staker. I appear today on behalf of the
15 Prosecution, together with my colleague, Mr. Huber.
16 JUDGE HUNT: For Mr. Delalic.
17 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I'm John
18 Ackerman. I'm appearing here on behalf of
19 Mr. Delalic.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Is your client here today?
21 MR. ACKERMAN: He is not, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
23 For Mucic.
24 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Good morning, Your Honour.
25 Tom Kuzmanovic here on behalf of Mr. Mucic. My
1 co-counsel, Howard Morrison, will not be present
3 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
4 For Delic.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your microphone.
6 MR. KARABDIC: Excuse me. Good morning, Your
7 Honour. I'm Salih Karabdic, counsel from Sarajevo. I
8 am here with my colleague, Tom Moran, from Houston. We
9 represent Hazim Delic.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
11 For Landzo.
12 MS. SINATRA: Good morning, Your Honour. I'm
13 Cynthia Sinatra, and along with my colleague, Peter
14 Murphy, we represent Esad Landzo.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
16 Can each of the appellants who are present
17 hear the proceedings in a language which they
19 Mr. Delalic is not here.
20 Mr. Mucic, can you hear?
21 THE APPELLANT MUCIC: Yes.
22 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Delic?
23 THE APPELLANT DELIC: [No audible response]
24 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. And Mr. Landzo?
25 THE APPELLANT LANDZO: Yes.
1 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
2 This Status Conference has been called in
3 order to comply with the new obligation imposed by Rule
4 65 bis in relation to appellants who are in custody.
5 Does any counsel wish to raise any issue in
6 relation to the condition of their client who is in
8 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. I have a few
9 matters that I've spoken and discussed with my client
10 about that he would like to bring before the Court.
11 JUDGE HUNT: I'm asking counsel. That is the
12 usual practice. You tell me what it is you want to
14 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour.
15 Mr. Landzo suffers from a condition of
16 asthma, and in the detention centre, he is on a smoking
17 floor. There's no segregation between the non-smokers
18 and the smokers. He can't go to the exercise room
19 without being exposed to smoking, and it is detrimental
20 to his physical condition.
21 I understand that there are enough
22 non-smokers and enough smokers with the two floors that
23 they could segregate one floor for non-smokers and one
24 floor for smokers. That's the first issue.
25 The second issue is, I understand that the
1 detention centre is now limiting phone calls home,
2 what's equivalent to a phone card where they can make
3 two calls a week to their family. This segregates the
4 two because the people who have money, that are not
5 indigent, can telephone home all the time. The people
6 who are indigent and in custody are limited to calling
7 their family twice a week.
8 Mr. Landzo has been diagnosed with a
9 psychological condition, and I believe it's detrimental
10 to his psychological condition at this point to not to
11 be able to contact his family.
12 The third issue that we have is that there's
13 a nine-hour time difference between The Hague and
14 California, where his counsel resides, and it's often
15 very difficult to communicate by telephone when he
16 needs to talk to me. So we would ask the Court's
17 permission, and the permission of the U.N. Detention
18 Centre, that if he drafts a letter, that they be
19 allowed to fax it to my office so that I can have the
20 communication from him as soon as possible.
21 Those are the three issues that we have to
22 raise today, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE HUNT: Have any of these matters been
24 taken up with the commander of the detention unit?
25 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. The smoking
1 issue has been an ongoing issue that --
2 JUDGE HUNT: The answer is yes, that one
3 has. Have the other two been?
4 MS. SINATRA: So far, the commander over
5 there allows me to send faxes to Mr. Landzo but does --
6 JUDGE HUNT: Please. I did ask you, have
7 these complaints been raised with the commandant. You
8 said one of them has been.
9 MS. SINATRA: One has.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Have the other two?
11 MS. SINATRA: The other two have not, Your
13 JUDGE HUNT: Well, may I suggest that's what
14 you should do. The Tribunal has no power, I have no
15 power to deal with them. If the commandant is unable
16 to deal with them, you may make a complaint to the
17 Registrar, or I think that he has to transfer it to the
18 Registrar. This is an area that's dealt with by the
19 President, and it's not really a matter that I can deal
21 So may I suggest that you raise them with the
22 commandant, and if you didn't receive satisfaction, in
23 relation to the smoking one, you take the matter
24 further. But there are regulations, detention
25 regulations, and those should be followed.
1 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
3 Are there any other matters by counsel on
4 behalf of their clients?
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, Your Honour. Tomislav
6 Kuzmanovic, on behalf of Mr. Mucic.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Yes.
8 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, in a way, it
9 relates to our motion for provisional release which had
10 been denied by the Court, and the Court's aware of the
11 timing of the briefing and the fact that, for whatever
12 reason, our brief was not received before the Court's
14 JUDGE HUNT: Well, there was a concession,
15 when it was re-sent, that it would have made no
16 difference. So what is it you want to raise? What's
17 the issue you want to raise?
18 MR. KUZMANOVIC: It does relate to the
19 condition with respect to my client, Your Honour. His
20 father's standing is such that it is affecting my
21 client's mental state in prison.
22 And the guidance we would seek from the
23 Court, if it's possible, would be, in circumstances the
24 Tribunal has sent medical personnel to check on the
25 status of those to be extradited. Realising that this
1 is a family member, we are seeking the Court's
2 indulgence to try to make a determination of assistance
3 for Mr. Mucic's father -- in a medical situation, for
4 him to be able to have some attempt at, possibly in the
5 future, gaining provisional release to take care of his
7 JUDGE HUNT: I still don't understand what
8 issue you are raising under Rule 65 bis that I am able
9 to determine. You are not making an application for
10 provisional release?
11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Not at this time, Your
12 Honour. We would end up doing it all over
13 again, but --
14 JUDGE HUNT: Well, are you asking me to say
15 that the Tribunal should arrange for a medical
16 examination of your client's father?
17 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, I am, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Well, I have no power to deal
19 with that. That's a matter that has absolutely nothing
20 to do with me. If anybody has anything to do with it,
21 I suggest you proceed through the usual channels out at
22 the detention unit; ask whether some assistance can be
23 given. But I wouldn't promise you that we are going to
24 send people out to look after members of their family.
25 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I understand that, Your
1 Honour. It does affect my client's condition of
2 imprisonment, simply because it's his father, and I
3 understand the inherent difficulties that the Court has
4 with this issue. But I did want to raise it, since it
5 was an issue. And it is very important to my client.
6 JUDGE HUNT: I understand that, but I really
7 don't see what I can do about it. You will have to
8 make an application to the commandant for some
9 consideration to be given to it and proceed from
11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I will, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
13 Now, the Scheduling Order that was issued may
14 perhaps have been understood as suggesting that this
15 was going to be some form of preliminary conference, as
16 the pre-appeal judge in relation to the procedures to
17 be followed for the hearing of the appeal.
18 I really do not think that it is possible to
19 deal with those matters until the deluge of paper
20 ceases. And I see that there was a new filing the
21 other day, for which leave is being sought to file out
22 of time.
23 I do have limited power in the Status
24 Conference to at least note any issues which counsel
25 may wish to raise in relation to the appeal, and I'll
1 return to that in a moment.
2 What I want to do at this stage is to outline
3 to you what this preliminary conference will be when it
4 is held, so that you will be forewarned as to what will
5 be discussed there. There are a number of grounds of
6 appeal which may be described as common grounds, or at
7 least grounds which form a discrete group. An easy one
8 is whether the Bosnian Serbs detained in the Celebici
9 camp were protected persons under the Geneva
10 Conventions. All of the appellants have raised that
11 particular issue.
12 And there is, perhaps, an associated issue,
13 as to whether the conflict in Bosnia at the relevant
14 time was of an international nature. Obviously, it is
15 preferable that such groups -- that such grounds of
16 appeal be argued in a group, and that they be heard
17 completely before moving onto the next group, so that
18 we hear arguments by counsel for the appellants, the
19 response by the respondent, and then a reply, before we
20 move onto the next group.
21 I see that there has been handed in this
22 morning a motion on behalf of three of the appellants.
23 That is obviously the sort of thing which we will be
24 discussing. For what it's worth, I'll tell you how I
25 have roughly grouped them, but I am very happy to hear
1 any suggestions to the contrary.
2 There is the one I've spoken about, about the
3 Geneva Conventions, and whether it's international
4 character of the conflict. Now, the next one, all of
5 the appellants, except Mr. Landzo, have joined in this,
6 where Article 3 of the Tribunal Statute incorporates
7 common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, whether the
8 common article imposes individual criminal
9 responsibility, and whether it applies in international
10 conflicts. And Mr. Delic has raised what might be
11 described as an associated ground, whether the Geneva
12 Conventions apply when Bosnia was not a party to them
13 at the relevant time.
14 Then there are two groups dealing with Judge
15 Odio-Benito, in which all of the appellants, except
16 Delalic, have joined. Whether Judge Odio-Benito was
17 disqualified as a judge at the Tribunal by reason of
18 her election of vice-president of the Republic of Costa
19 Rica, and there has been some further suggestions made
20 in the documents recently filed which are relevant to
21 that. And whether Judge Odio-Benito was disqualified
22 as a member of the Trial Chamber by reason of her
23 membership of the Board of Trustees of the United
24 Nations Voluntary Fund for the Relief of Victims of
1 And then there is a ground of appeal directed
2 to Judge Karibi-Whyte, in which all, except Delalic,
3 have joined, whether a fair trial was denied by the
4 participation of the Presiding Judge who, it is said,
5 was asleep during substantial portions of the trial.
6 And then all of the appellants, except
7 Landzo, have raised an issue of command responsibility
8 from either of the legal or the factual point of view
9 or both.
10 Then, finally, perhaps what could be called
11 the seventh group, are a number of individual grounds.
12 There are sentencing issues raised by the Prosecution
13 in relation to Mr. Mucic's sentence, Mr. Landzo in
14 relation to his sentence, and there is some further
15 issues raised in the recent filings, if leave is
16 granted to file those submissions.
17 Mr. Mucic has raised the admissibility of the
18 Prosecution interviews and the competence of trial
19 counsel. Mr. Delic has raised the sufficiency of
20 evidence in relation to some of the counts, the issue
21 of nullum crimen, which has been somewhat expanded by
22 the recent submissions, and Mr. Landzo has raised
23 issues of what is described as selective Prosecution
24 and the issue of diminished responsibility.
25 Now, that's the way I see it, but as I say, I
1 am happy to hear, when we come to the preliminary
2 conference, whether you have a better idea of the
3 groupings. I haven't had a chance to read very
4 carefully what was handed in this morning.
5 What I will be seeking to organise, at the
6 preliminary conference, is first the order in which the
7 different groups will be heard. Mr. Delalic,
8 obviously, has only a very limited interest in the
9 whole thing. And his should, obviously, be either
10 first or last, as matters of convenience. And then the
11 order in which we wish the different appellants will be
12 heard in relation to which particular group.
13 What I hope will be agreed between you, but
14 if not agreed, then there is going to have to be some
15 resolution by me, of who is going to be the first
16 counsel in relation to the various groups. Obviously,
17 some -- the way in which the submissions will be made,
18 some have a greater interest in points than others.
19 But the counsel who first addresses will be expected to
20 carry the burden of the argument on that group of
21 grounds of appeal. And counsel who follow will not be
22 permitted to repeat the arguments which the first
23 counsel has put. They will be expected to add anything
24 they wish to add or add material which is directly
25 relevant to their client.
1 Perhaps I should say at this stage that
2 counsel will be required to proceed upon the assumption
3 that the bench is familiar with the written
4 submissions, and we do not want counsel to read their
5 written submissions. Although the bench cannot, of
6 course, promise to be as familiar with those written
7 submissions as counsel are. But we are not there for
8 you to read what we have already read.
9 The second thing to be sorted out at this
10 preliminary conference is the time which counsel
11 estimate their addresses will take. Bearing in mind,
12 once again, that they should not be expected to be
13 allowed to read out their written submissions. The
14 Appeals Chamber will reserve its right to impose time
15 limits which are shorter than the estimates.
16 So I want you, if you will, to start thinking
17 about those matters, and, more particularly, discussing
18 them amongst yourselves, especially in relation to
19 which counsel will carry the burden in relation to the
20 particular groups of grounds of appeal.
21 Now, before I turn to any matters that you
22 want noted, are there any other issues which counsel
23 think could be usefully discussed at the preliminary
25 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour.
1 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mrs. Sinatra.
2 MS. SINATRA: Cynthia Sinatra for Esad
4 We also have a consideration as far as
5 presentation of evidence. I believe in some of the
6 orders it has been understood that there may be allowed
7 actual live witness testimony prior to the oral
8 argument. We would like some guidance from the Court
9 on what this would entail and how the Court might
10 perceive the presentation of evidence would go.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Well, that was one of the
12 matters that I had noted to discuss under the other
13 part of Rule 65 bis, but I don't mind raising it now.
14 The Prosecution has, I think until next
15 Tuesday, to determine whether it wants to cross-examine
16 the expert on the constitutional law of Costa Rica.
17 But assuming that they do wish to cross-examine the
18 expert, and there is the evidence of Mrs. Sinatra
19 herself, I wondered whether there would be any point in
20 taking that evidence by way of depositions, in advance
21 of the hearing of the appeal. I would like to hear
22 your thoughts about that.
23 MS. SINATRA: If --
24 JUDGE HUNT: It will be taken in one of the
25 courtrooms here, which means that the witness, whoever
1 that witness may be, will be videoed, and if any Judge
2 wants to see it, they will be able to.
3 MS. SINATRA: I didn't know whether the
4 Judges would like to participate in the taking of the
5 evidence, because it might be possible, as in my venue,
6 that the Court likes to ask questions of the witnesses
7 at that point. And I don't know whether the Court
8 would have questions that they might like to ask of the
9 expert witness at that point that weren't covered by
10 the Prosecution or the appellant.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Well, is your point that you are
12 making that you wish to have the evidence before all
13 four or five Judges?
14 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Well, I understand
17 Anybody else have any views about that?
18 Now, you've said that there was an issue as
19 to when it should be taken. Clearly, the evidence
20 would have to be taken before hearing any submissions,
21 but it would depend, would it not, upon the point to
22 which the evidence is relevant. For example, the
23 expert on Costa Rican constitutional law should give
24 his evidence at the beginning of that section of the
25 appeal dealing with the Judge Odio-Benito point. That
1 would be my understanding of the sensible way of
2 looking at it.
3 Have you got anything to say about that?
4 Mrs. Sinatra, you seem to be one of the parties to that
6 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. I am going
7 to defer to Mr. Murphy to discuss the taking of
8 evidence of this expert witness, if the Court will
9 allow so.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Murphy.
11 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, the most convenient
12 thing, as Your Honour says, it might well to have that
13 evidence taken immediately before the submissions on
14 that issue. There are some other evidentiary issues
15 surrounding what I could call the Judge Odio-Benito
16 grounds which Mr. Staker and I are discussing, and it
17 may well be, Your Honour, that we can resolve those
18 without the necessity for further evidence.
19 Briefly, those are matters which concern the
20 membership of Judge Odio-Benito and the board of
21 trustees, and also the question of whether Judge
22 Odio-Benito accepted ministerial responsibility in the
23 Costa Rican government after the 8th of May 1998. Your
24 Honour, Mr. Staker and I may well be able to resolve
25 that. If not, we should probably be able to deal with
1 it just by putting in certain documents at the same
3 So I don't anticipate that will be a
5 JUDGE HUNT: All right. In relation to the
6 expert, I suppose that could be dealt with more easily
7 before the five Judges. But what are his movements?
8 He is a lecturer, isn't he, at university?
9 MR. MURPHY: He is in private practice, Your
10 Honour. He also teaches. But I'm sure we can arrange
11 for him to attend, as and when necessary.
12 JUDGE HUNT: My idea is that once we know
13 what the estimates are, I would say that on a
14 particular day we will deal with groups one, two, and
15 perhaps three, and the next day groups four, five, six,
16 sort of thing. So we've got at least overnight to get
17 our thoughts together about what's to come the next
19 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, yes.
20 JUDGE HUNT: So when that's sorted out, we
21 can give him some general idea as to when he will be
23 Is there anything else about the questions of
24 evidence that are going to arise?
25 Yes, Mr. Staker.
1 MR. STAKER: Your Honour, the Prosecution
2 will be responding to the order relating to this expert
3 witness within the required time frame.
4 I just wish to foreshadow at this stage that
5 the Prosecution is giving consideration to the question
6 of whether it should call its own expert witness in
7 relation to the constitutional issues in Costa Rica.
8 That may be an additional factor in assessing
9 procedure. That's, perhaps, a little bit further down
10 the road, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE HUNT: It seems to me that the
12 constitution should speak for itself and that we are
13 there to interpret a document. If there are any cases
14 on -- it's a proper interpretation by the Costa Rican
15 courts, they'd be interesting. But I don't know where
16 all this evidence is leading us, frankly.
17 MR. STAKER: There was one very specific
18 issue mentioned in the Prosecution briefs relating to
19 the constitution of Costa Rica, Your Honour, which is
20 one that wasn't addressed in this expert opinion, and
21 that was Villalobos Brenes.
22 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much. All
23 right. Well, then you'll let us know by next Tuesday.
24 Are there any other issues which counsel
25 suggest we should be discussing at this preliminary
2 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, if we could get a
3 general time frame on when this is going to occur.
4 JUDGE HUNT: You mean the preliminary
6 MR. MORAN: And also the oral argument, Your
7 Honour, so that we can get our schedules straight.
8 JUDGE HUNT: As I think I've made it clear,
9 the preliminary conference can only take place after
10 we've stopped getting paper from you, so that we can
11 have everything sorted out.
12 The hearing of the appeal, I can't give you
13 any real idea yet. There has to be a further
14 appointment to the Appeals Chamber. But I would say it
15 certainly will not be next month. Hopefully, it will
16 be in April. But that will depend upon what the
17 schedule of the Appeals Chamber is for that month.
18 But certainly the preliminary conference
19 we'll get under way the moment that I can be assured
20 that it is useful to do it, and it's not useful to do
21 it until we know what the grounds of appeal are.
22 Is there any other matter that anybody wants
23 to raise now?
24 Yes, Mr. Staker.
25 MR. STAKER: Your Honour, just one further
1 point. I refer to the notice that was filed on behalf
2 of Mr. Delic and Mr. Mucic, placing on the record their
3 position that they have joined Mr. Landzo's fourth
4 ground of appeal.
5 JUDGE HUNT: Yes.
6 MR. STAKER: That is not a formal motion, but
7 the Prosecution does expect to respond to it. It does
8 not coincide with their position, and I just wanted to
9 foreshadow at this stage that we would be sending out
10 our position in a written response.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Well, I suppose, at best, they
12 can say they want to amend their grounds of appeal now
13 to rely upon that ground.
14 MR. STAKER: Yes. The Prosecution position,
15 Your Honour, would be that an amendment to the grounds
16 of appeal would require leave of the Appeals Chamber.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, that is probably so. One
18 of them, in the grounds of appeal, said that they would
19 think about it, as I recall. I've forgotten which one
20 it was. I think they were waiting to see what was
21 going to come up.
22 MR. STAKER: That was the brief filed by
23 Mr. Mucic, the original appeal brief.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. And then what are you
25 going to do if they seek leave? I don't want you to
1 say it now, but when you respond to this, it would be
2 best, if I may suggest it, if you say more than just
3 "leave is required." We'd like to know what your
4 attitude towards the grant of leave would be.
5 MR. STAKER: If this leave were applied for?
6 JUDGE HUNT: Yes.
7 MR. STAKER: Yes. And I should perhaps
8 also --
9 JUDGE HUNT: I think you can say it's an
10 implied application for leave to amend their grounds of
12 MR. STAKER: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 I would also refer to the motion for the
14 filing of the supplementary brief. It would be the
15 Prosecution position that the supplementary brief which
16 is sought to be filed there also appears to raise an
17 additional ground of appeal that hasn't been raised by
18 any of the other appellants before.
19 JUDGE HUNT: I think you're right. From my
20 reading of it, I think you're right, but, no doubt,
21 counsel opposing you from the opposite side of the room
22 will take note of what you said.
23 MR. STAKER: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Ms. Sinatra.
25 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I'm not going to
1 raise this issue now. This is something that we will
2 raise at the preliminary hearing. Thank you.
3 JUDGE HUNT: Well, are you going to let us
4 into the secret as to what it is about?
5 MS. SINATRA: It will be the issue of my
6 testimony on the issue of waiver, and I didn't know how
7 the Court was going to proceed as far as my presenting
8 evidence on that issue. Will I be asked to give live
9 testimony at that point? Will it be by deposition?
10 What is the recommendation of --
11 JUDGE HUNT: You've just said that you don't
12 want it by deposition, you want it before all five
14 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour, that is
16 JUDGE HUNT: So you'll have to make up your
17 mind about that.
18 MS. SINATRA: That will be prior to the oral
19 arguments, about the same time, is my question.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Yes.
21 MS. SINATRA: Okay. Thank you.
22 JUDGE HUNT: The three applicants who have
23 filed these further documents -- the three appellants
24 who have filed these further documents, it is true that
25 if you wish to rely upon an additional ground of
1 appeal, leave is required. It may be, on the face of
2 it, an empty formality, but, nevertheless, it's a very
3 important one, so that there is something on the
5 Grounds of appeal are of vital importance in
6 the hearing of any appeal so that they define the
7 issues which we are going to decide, and those who wish
8 to rely upon new grounds of appeal arising out of some
9 more recent jurisprudence of the Tribunal should, I
10 think, make it a formal matter, formulate your grounds
11 of appeal, and seek leave to add them.
12 What Mr. Staker says is quite right. What
13 attitude the Appeals Chamber will take will have to
14 resolve at that time. But the sooner the better, that
15 you make your applications.
16 Now, is there anything more?
17 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour --
18 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour --
19 JUDGE HUNT: Perhaps we'll let Mr. Ackerman
20 have a turn. Yes.
21 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you. On behalf of
22 Mr. Delalic, I would simply like to urge the Court to
23 reconsider, or continue to consider Mr. Delalic's
24 motion for severance. We have filed everything in that
25 case; it's been ready for argument at the time. It's
1 very painful for Mr. Delalic to sit there with his
2 future in doubt, while all the other people in this
3 appeal continue to bombard the Court with paper.
4 We're prepared to conclude this matter, and
5 would like to do it as soon as possible, and be severed
6 from the others.
7 JUDGE HUNT: I can only say that you've added
8 nothing to what you've already said before,
9 Mr. Ackerman.
10 MR. ACKERMAN: That's true, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE HUNT: It means that everybody will
12 have to assemble, and everybody will have to be here,
13 except one party, Mr. Landzo, to determine those
14 issues, and it doesn't save any time or trouble or
16 MR. ACKERMAN: My client will be proud of me
17 for having raised it, Your Honour. Thank you.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Ms. Sinatra.
19 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. I just
20 wanted to raise the issue of timing, and I know that
21 the Court has said that they cannot begin to schedule a
22 preliminary hearing, or the oral argument, until the
23 paperwork stops flowing in.
24 I would like the Court to be apprised that
25 Peter Murphy must begin teaching a course at the end of
1 June, and so we ask that hopefully this scheduling
2 occur in April or May, or the 1st of June, to suit our
3 schedules. I do hope that -- we discussed it last
4 night, everybody met at the same time, and I know that
5 June starts getting hairy for everybody.
6 JUDGE HUNT: Well, the amount of pre-appeal
7 activity on this particular appeal has probably broken
8 every record that the Tribunal has ever had. The delay
9 in its hearing has been particularly unfortunate, but,
10 at some stage, I think the Tribunal has to say, "We
11 will not do anything further until you stop bombarding
12 us with paper." It's no good spending a lot of time
13 sorting out what's going to happen in an appeal if
14 everything is then changed by somebody coming along
15 with yet a fresh motion. I think we're up to motion
16 35, I'm not quite sure about that, but it is absolutely
17 extraordinary. Perhaps if you could exercise some form
18 of control, self-control, a lot of you, we'll get on a
19 lot more quickly.
20 I take note of what you say, and I would be,
21 myself, appalled if this appeal was not heard before
23 MS. SINATRA: Thank you for that bit of
25 JUDGE HUNT: All right. If that's all, thank
1 you for attending, and I'll adjourn.
2 --- Whereupon the Status Conference
3 adjourned at 11.05 a.m.