1 Friday, 29 August 2003
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 12.07 p.m.
6 JUDGE POCAR: This Status Conference is called to order. Good
7 afternoon -- good morning, actually, to everybody.
8 Mr. Registrar, please can you call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. Good afternoon. This is
10 case number IT-98-34-A, the Prosecutor versus Mladen Naletilic and
11 Vinko Martinovic.
12 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. May I call for the appearances. For the
14 MR. STAKER: May it please Your Honour, my name is
15 Christopher Staker. I appear on behalf of the Prosecution with my
16 colleague Ms. Sonja Boelaert-Suominen, our case manager today is
17 Ms. Lourdes Galicia.
18 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. For Mr. Martinovic.
19 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. My name is
20 Zelimir Par, a member of the bar. I am accompanied by Mr. Kerns who shall
21 introduce himself.
22 MR. KERNS: Good morning, Your Honour. My name is Kurt Kerns on
23 behalf of Mr. Vinko Martinovic.
24 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. For Mr. Naletilic.
25 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, appearing for Mr. Naletilic is Mr. Meek.
1 Co-counsel Mr. Hennessy is not available today. Thank you.
2 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. May I ask -- so the appellants are
3 present. May I ask Mr. Martinovic if he understands the proceedings or if
4 there is any problem with the translation.
5 THE APPELLANT MARTINOVIC: [Interpretation] There aren't any. I
6 can follow them.
7 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. Mr. Naletilic.
8 THE APPELLANT NALETILIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you.
9 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. Now, I wish to recall the purpose of
10 this Status Conference since it is the first time we have a Status
11 Conference in this appeal. According to the Rules, and in particular Rule
12 65 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of this Tribunal, a Status
13 Conference is convened regularly every 120 days or, of course, more
14 frequently if necessary, to allow the persons in custody pending the
15 appeal an opportunity to raise issues in relation to their custody,
16 including the conditions of the person in custody.
17 And, of course, the second purpose of the Status Conference is to
18 update the appellant with respect of the status of the case or to discuss
19 any relevant matter concerning the preparation of the case.
20 Now, I would ask the appellants, the counsels, if there is any
21 problem relating to the detention of the person they represent, the two
23 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as far as the conditions in
24 the Detention Unit are concerned, our client doesn't have any objection at
25 the moment.
1 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, as far as the conditions in the Detention
2 Unit are concerned, Mr. Naletilic also has no objections at this moment.
3 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you. I wish to remind you that should any
4 problem arise, the Rules governing the detention of persons awaiting trial
5 or before the Appeals Chamber allow for a special procedure, a special
6 complaint procedure that you may take note of should the case arise.
7 Now, let's come to the status this appeal. I don't have to recall
8 the briefing schedule. There are some pending deadlines for presentation
9 of briefs both as concerns the briefs, the appeal briefs, and the
10 responses, and as concerns the 115 motions.
11 There is, however, one thing I believe we should deal with, and it
12 is probably the Naletilic 115 motion that has been -- for additional
13 evidence, that has been submitted on the 15th of August. There are two
14 problems there. One problem concerned the documents and the translation
15 of the documents that were submitted in Serbo-Croat without, apparently, I
16 don't know exactly, I would like to be briefed. Was -- perhaps the
17 Defence may clarify whether the translation was requested by the Defence
18 when submitting -- before submitting the motion or not.
19 Please, Mr. Meek.
20 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, may I address that issue while you have it
21 fresh on your mind. We did actually, as you know, file the 115 motion
22 with Serbo-Croatian documents. That is because we had just discovered
23 these documents. We could not have them translated in time. It is my
24 understanding that Mr. Hennessy, the lead counsel, was to -- has requested
25 those be translated as soon as possible, but we felt that we had to file
1 at least what we had to make the deadline, with the understanding that we
2 would have those translated as soon as possible, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE POCAR: Yes. Thank you. Well, am I correct, if I
4 understand it, a translation has been now made and submitted?
5 MR. MEEK: To clarify, Your Honour, I believe that they are in the
6 translation unit but they have not been completed. The translation has
7 not been completed to date. That's my understanding.
8 JUDGE POCAR: Well, thank you. I understand part of the
9 translation has been made but not all of them probably. I don't know
10 whether -- has it been submitted or not? It is submitted.
11 Well, I understand the translation has been completed. I don't
12 know whether it has been regularly submitted, whether it has reached the
13 Prosecution or not. May I have the Prosecution view on that?
14 MR. STAKER: Your Honour, the Prosecution has received a filing
15 which does contain English translations of this material. We've not yet
16 verified whether it's complete, but that may well be the case, Your
18 JUDGE POCAR: Okay. Thank you.
19 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, with that in mind, I would ask that those
20 translated documents be placed in my locker box 144, because I have not
21 received the translated -- English translations back yet. Perhaps I could
22 get a copy of those after the Status Conference.
23 JUDGE POCAR: Okay. Thank you. This question will be clarified,
24 but as I understand it, it is simply a question of simply having it put at
25 the disposal of the parties if there is any problem of this kind.
1 So, the second question I wanted to deal with concerns the filing
2 of the 115 motion itself. There has been a response to that motion
3 presented by the Prosecution challenging the format of the motion and
4 asking either to dismiss the motion or to -- or that the motion be refiled
6 May I have perhaps the Prosecution seeing if this -- if this is
7 correct or if they want to clarify better the position?
8 MR. STAKER: Your Honour, the Prosecution position was set out in
9 the response filed on the 19th of August, the Prosecution submission being
10 that the motion should be dismissed in its entirety for the reasons given
11 in our response. We did take an alternative submission in the event that
12 that primary submission was not accepted by the Chamber, but the primary
13 submission is that it should be dismissed in its entirety and we submit
14 that this is because parties should not be encouraged to file motions in
15 defective form in the expectation that they will then be given an
16 opportunity after the deadline has passed to put it in order. Where there
17 is a deadline for filing a motion, we submit the responsibility is on the
18 party to file it in proper form within the deadline.
19 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you, Mr. Staker.
20 May I ask Mr. Meek the views of the Defence on this question. If
21 I understand, no reply has been filed to the Prosecutor's response so far.
22 Is that correct?
23 MR. MEEK: I believe that's correct, you were. We have not filed
24 a response. That does not mean, in any fashion, that we agree with what
25 the Prosecution filed. We believe that the form was not defective.
1 Honestly, Your Honour, we submitted and I told you earlier today that we
2 filed those documents not in English because we didn't have a translation.
3 They have apparently now been translated. We believe that the response of
4 the Prosecutor is a boilerplate response. They deny any relevance which
5 we expected them to deny relevance. They denied relevance to most of our
6 documents but that doesn't make -- just because they make that allegation
7 we don't believe it's true. If you'd like a response to that, we'd be
8 happy to file a response. But our response would be that we think the
9 Prosecution is out of line and there is no merit to their motion.
10 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you, Mr. Meek. I don't ask you to file a
11 reply to that. I just wanted to have your views because indeed apparently
12 my position is that -- is that the -- the motion you filed is in
13 compliance with Article 115 but not with the practice direction concerning
14 the filing of 115 motions, with Rule 11 of the practice direction on
15 formal requirements for appeals from judgement, which would ask the party
16 submitting additional evidence to be more precise in indicating a number
17 of requirements. And I think parties should essentially comply with this
18 practice direction because otherwise, the dealing with the appeal and with
19 the evidence becomes more difficult.
20 So on this question, my inclination would be to accept the
21 Prosecutor's position that the motion is not in accordance with the
22 practice direction and to decide exacting the alternative proposal of the
23 Prosecution, that is to set to the Defence of Mr. Naletilic a short
24 deadline to refile the 115 motion in full accord with the practice
25 direction, taking into account the practice direction. And of course, the
1 Prosecution would be entitled to respond to that motion as of the date in
2 which it will be filed, in which the 115 will be refiled. This is
4 MR. STAKER: Your Honour.
5 JUDGE POCAR: Yes, Mr. Staker.
6 MR. STAKER: Just a question by way of clarification. Would that
7 decision apply to the real 115 motion proper? Because there is a separate
8 issue in relation to the supplement to the Rule 115 motion which, as we
9 noticed, was filed after the deadline and also contained material which
10 clearly was available at trial. Our objections weren't addressed simply
11 to the form of the motion, they also went to the substance of compliance
12 with Rule 115 and in case of the supplement, I think that arises in a
13 fairly immediate way.
14 JUDGE POCAR: Well, I will -- I will have to reflect on the
15 supplement, actually. I will reserve on the supplement. But as to the
16 motion -- sorry. Mr. Meek?
17 MR. MEEK: Please, Your Honour, I believe the document that
18 Mr. Staker is referring to, while he states to this Court that it was
19 available during trial, I believe it was delivered to the Defence during
20 the rebuttal case. So it wasn't available to us during the trial. It was
21 given to us at the last moment by the Prosecution.
22 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you. Well, I will rule on that after having
23 further consideration. But as to the 115 motion itself, I will -- I think
24 that a few days will be sufficient to refile it, and I'm -- I don't want
25 to delay the proceedings too much for a refiling simply.
1 Mr. Meek?
2 MR. MEEK: With all due respect, Your Honour, I've -- I'm
3 travelling tomorrow. God willing, I'll be back in the United States. Due
4 to press with other legal business. There is probably no way I could
5 refile that in a few days. We have a final brief due on the 15th. It's a
6 tremendous task, and I would ask for more time, Your Honour. I'll be
7 given the English translations of the actual documents for the Rule 115
8 today I presume, so I can attach those and put it in the proper form, but
9 I would ask for more than a few days, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE POCAR: Well, Mr. Meek, I take into account your
11 consideration. However, we are in the presence of a filing that, in my
12 view, was not in compliance. So the alternative -- and we are facing also
13 the alternative simply of dismissing the request. I am not inclined to
14 give too much time. I will come with a ruling in writing today, or at the
15 latest Monday, to take care of all the points. But I'm not inclined to
16 give a long delay for that.
17 One other question I wanted to raise with the Prosecution. I
18 understand that there are documents being disclosed in these days. I
19 would like to have more information about the disclosure. How far are we
20 with that?
21 MR. STAKER: Your Honour, a status report on disclosure was filed
22 with the Chamber yesterday. It remains --
23 JUDGE POCAR: I am aware of that.
24 MR. STAKER: It remains the case, of course, Your Honour, that
25 disclosure is an ongoing obligation for the Prosecution so that
1 notwithstanding any deadlines in the proceedings, there will always
2 continue to be material disclosed. Disclosure -- the processes of
3 disclosure, I perhaps need not detain Your Honour with the mechanics of
4 how that disclosure procedure is conducted, but there is a procedure that
5 is followed. It's been in train. An amount of material was disclosed to
6 the Defence yesterday and disclosure, searches and reviews will continue
7 throughout the course of the proceedings.
8 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you, Mr. Staker. I understand that, that
9 disclosure is a continuing obligation and it has to go on, if new
10 documents are -- have to be disclosed to the Defence. However, it should
11 not be something that could go on for too long. I mean, if -- unless new
12 documents appear. If the documents are in your possession, that should be
13 done quite quickly.
14 I mean, the problem is if you have the documents, I'm not ready to
15 accept that you can disclose them any time during the proceedings. You
16 should do it as soon as possible, as quickly as possible. If new
17 documents arise -- come to you from other sources that you couldn't, of
18 course, control, that's different. But if you are just reviewing what you
19 have to see whether it has to be disclosed, I would like that you do it in
20 a very short time to put the Defence in the position to have these
21 documents and prepare the defence, actually.
22 MR. STAKER: That's understood, Your Honour. In principle the
23 procedure is that periodically a search is done and a review of material
24 that has come into the possession of the Office of the Prosecutor since
25 the last review and search was done.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE POCAR: So in your assessment, how long will it take to
2 review what you have actually?
3 MR. STAKER: Well, the aim is to remain up-to-date. We have done
4 disclosure yesterday. And in the future another search and review will be
5 done of material that has come into the Office of the Prosecutor since
6 that search and review. Certain documents have arrived within the Office
7 of the Prosecutor within the last few weeks, so a search and review will
8 be undertaken of that material. And as is evident, new material may come
9 into the Office of the Prosecution, but the aim, in principle as I say, is
10 to periodically conduct reviews of new material that have come in since
11 the last review.
12 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you, Mr. Staker. Well, I will urge you to
13 proceed with the disclosure as soon as is feasible.
14 Mr. Kerns.
15 MR. KERNS: May it please, Your Honour. Kurt Kerns. Part of the
16 concern of the Defence is simply that the disclosure of these documents
17 has been as to 17 documents on the eve of the deadline for the filing of
18 our appellate brief. In addition to that, according to paragraph 7 of the
19 Prosecution's status report, apparently it's undisputed that they have
20 material potentially relevant to our appeal, that they're apparently going
21 through it, and have been in possession of it for at least three weeks.
22 That's important because when the Court takes into consideration how much
23 time we've been given to finalise our appeal brief, the Court will take
24 note I was appointed on August 5th to assist with the legal issues. We
25 asked for an extension of our appeal brief deadline which was denied so
1 I'm able to tell the Court we filed our brief this morning.
2 And now, after actually we filed our brief we then come into
3 possession of a document which tells us well, we've got potentially
4 relevant material that we've had for three weeks and we're also giving you
5 17 pages of documents which I haven't had an opportunity to review. So
6 we're really putting Vinko in a position of saying file your appeal brief
7 before you have all of the relevant information concerning your appeal.
8 So if the Court please, what we would ask for is at least two
9 remedies. One, give us an opportunity to either supplement our Rule 115
10 argument with any information that might be disclosed from the
11 Prosecution, and two, allow us to supplement our appeal brief, which we
12 have filed, if in fact revelations given to us by the Prosecution call for
13 additional supplementation, because really we're in a position right now
14 of saying to Vinko, file your appeal brief, you can have an extension of
15 your appeal brief but wait, I suppose indefinitely, until the Prosecution
16 gets all their information together and provides it us to under Rule 68.
17 So our remedy that we are requesting, based on the status report
18 that was faxed to us 15 minutes before the close of business yesterday, is
19 to simply say, "Prosecution, you've got a deadline to get us this
20 information by," and "Defence, you have at least I would hope 30 days or
21 so to process that information and supplement either your Rule 115 motion
22 on your appellate brief," because I think to put Vinko in the position of
23 saying your appeal is due before you have all the relevant documents flies
24 in the face of fundamental fairness and due process. Thank you.
25 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you, Mr. Kerns.
1 Mr. Meek.
2 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I would echo the sentiments and concerns
3 of Mr. Kerns and Mr. Martinovic, because Mr. Naletilic and his Defence
4 team share those same concerns. Today, as a courtesy copy, the
5 Prosecution handed me this file and this is the 17 documents. I would
6 also tell the Court, Your Honour, that not all of these are even
7 translated into English. Some are only in Serbo-Croatian. The lead
8 counsel does not speak Serbo-Croatian. I do not speak Serbo-Croatian. So
9 we're somewhat hand-tied and hamstrung on some of these documents until
10 they're translated into English. I also share the concern of
11 Mr. Martinovic with the status report stating that -- admitting that they
12 have potentially relevant material to this appeal received in the last
13 three weeks. But what they want to do, Your Honour, is they want to
14 determine whether it's relevant or not. I believe that the proper
15 procedure would be to order the Office of the Prosecutor to give us all
16 those documents and let us determine whether they're relevant for our
17 appeal right now rather than wait another three or four weeks after we --
18 our deadline is passed to file our brief. I think that would be the only
19 fair way to handle this, Your Honour.
20 MR. STAKER: Your Honour.
21 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. I understand -- sorry. Mr. Staker.
22 MR. STAKER: If I might be permitted to respond to the submissions
23 by my colleagues.
24 JUDGE POCAR: Yes.
25 MR. STAKER: The Prosecution's submission would be that this
1 analysis is somewhat artificial. It's not the case that there is a date
2 by which all material relevant to a case comes into the possession of the
3 Prosecution and then no more material is ever going to materialise so from
4 that date we can disclose and the appeal briefs are filed and the appeal
5 is run.
6 In principle, all relevant material is before the Trial Chamber
7 and formed the basis of the trial judgement. And then on appeal we have
8 deadlines for appeal briefs and argument and so forth. It just remains
9 the case that material will come into the possession of the Prosecution
10 and that will never stop; that will continue throughout the appellate
11 proceedings. And it's not possible to set a cutoff date because that
12 would mean after a certain date there will be no more investigations.
13 The continuing disclosure should not affect the other deadlines in
14 the case. There is a deadline for filing the appeal brief. There may be
15 a deadline for Rule 115 motions and the Prosecution's submission is there
16 should be nothing that requires any change to that. If new material comes
17 into the possession of the Prosecution, it will be disclosed to the
18 Defence. If the Defence, on consideration of that material, feel it's
19 something they want to use in some way - because it may be much of the
20 material we disclose turns out to be of no particular use in the Defence's
21 opinion - but if they want to do something with it then at that point they
22 can file an additional 115 motion and it can be dealt with on its merits.
23 If at that point they feel they've found something that may require a
24 modification or an addition of a new ground of appeal then they can seek
25 leave to do so at that stage.
1 The continuing disclosure by the Prosecution in our submission is
2 an ongoing process. It does not cease and it does not affect the time
3 limits for all the other stages in these appellate proceedings.
4 Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you, Mr. Staker. Actually, what I want to say
6 is that -- I agree that the disclosure process is a continuing one. We
7 discussed this earlier. I only urge the Prosecution to proceed as quickly
8 as possible with the disclosure, not to delay the appeal.
9 As to the 115 motion, it is clear that the motion having been
10 filed, if later on documents are disclosed, that the Defence considers
11 should come in as new evidence under Rule 115 and the Defence shows good
12 cause for doing so, a motion can be submitted to admit this new -- to
13 present this new evidence, and I will have no difficulty, as in many other
14 cases, to permit the Defence to file additional 115 motions to take care
15 of these documents. Let's be clear. I will not put in a deadline now, of
16 course, because it really depends on when documents will be disclosed to
17 the Defence.
18 Well, is there any other matter that the parties want to discuss
20 MR. MEEK: Yes, Your Honour. I have a matter which I believe is
21 relevant to the preparation of this case.
22 Mr. Staker said in principle all evidence was in front of the
23 Trial Chamber. I note that in this new binder which was given us today,
24 there is an indictment or proceeding in the Mostar, in a case number
25 K1:2/95. We have been, for over a year, asking for the Prosecutor to give
1 us all copies of their file in the Mostar case number K5/96. On July of
2 this year we had previously written the Ministry of Defence. We were told
3 by a carbon copy from the Ministry of Defence addressed to the president
4 of the county court of Mostar and the county prosecutor of Mostar asking
5 them what happened to the file - and I refer to it as the lost file. It
6 concerns indictments of individuals in Sovici arising out of the events of
7 17 of April, 1993, under the Roman rules of the road, the proper procedure
8 would be that the Ministry of Justice would obtain the files from the
9 Office of the Prosecutor and then send them back to the court in Mostar.
10 It is clear -- we believe that the file never reached the Ministry of
11 Defence as it should have. We've sent another letter to the Ministry of
12 Defence on 21 of August. We have not received a reply from that.
13 However, Your Honour, on July 22nd, the Defence for Naletilic sent
14 a letter to the president of the county court of Mostar asking for
15 information regarding this case, the lost file or case number K5/96. We
16 did get an answer to that, which we filed pursuant to Rule 115, and it's
17 been sent for translation. I understand today all those have been
18 translated. That letter stated that the date of the letter, the Mostar
19 court had never received a file from the higher court of the Mostar and
20 the East Mostar court, nor from the higher court of the West Mostar court
21 which was combined into one court about July of 1999.
22 The letter of the county court of Mostar, there's a register which
23 demonstrates that on the 2th of August, 1996, the indictment under KT10/94
24 and, Your Honour, that's the Prosecutor's number for the same indictment
25 of the court file I referred to earlier, which later became case number
1 K5/96 against certain individuals for war crimes of genocide, war crimes
2 against civilian population, war crimes against war prisoners under the
3 laws of the former Yugoslavia was issued by the Prosecution and received
4 in the court.
5 In the same register, it is written in pencil that a part of the
6 tile was sent to the Ministry of justice, and in brackets "For The Hague"
7 on 22nd of July, 1998.
8 Further, Your Honour, in that register there is no mention of the
9 indictment at all. In the file of K5/96 was not brought to the county
10 court of Mostar after the 19th of July and that was the date the two
11 courts combined in Mostar to make one court.
12 On July 21st, the Defence for Naletilic sent a letter to the
13 county prosecutor for the county of Mostar asking for information. We
14 wanted to know if the case K5/96 was ever returned from the Office of the
15 Prosecutor to the prosecutor in Mostar. We've received no answer.
16 Your Honour, this file is highly important. We believe -- in
17 fact, we know that the Prosecutor has portions of this file because they
18 delivered, finally, towards the end of the Defence case in the middle of
19 the Defence case, two binders. However, those binders did not include the
20 witness statements. The witness statements are what we're after. We
21 cannot find these. We're hitting a brick wall. We don't want the Court
22 to lose sight of the fact that in principle while all relevant evidence
23 should have been before the Trial Chamber, we verily believe that this is
24 highly relevant information. We believe it is sitting in the Office of
25 the Prosecutor somewhere and we believe, with due diligence, they should
1 have found that and given it to us by now.
2 You got to understand, Your Honour, that in this file, the Mostar
3 file K5/96, the one we're looking for, Mr. Naletilic was never indicted,
4 never mentioned in the indictment for any of the crimes that he's been
5 convicted in this court, in this Tribunal of. The judgement, the Trial
6 Chamber judgement inter alia states, paragraph 55, 531 and 532, and also
7 paragraph 32, for example, mention the incidents which occurred in Sovici
8 on or around the 17th of April, 1993. The indictment in
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina, in case number K5/96 is specific as to which persons
10 are responsible for the unlawful transfer of civilians from Sovici --
11 JUDGE POCAR: Mr. Meek, may I interrupted you? I mean, we are not
12 here to argue the appeal. I mean, you are starting arguing the appeal,
13 and this is not the appropriate place to do it. This is a Status
15 MR. MEEK: I apologise, Your Honour. I just want to bring to the
16 Court's attention. My client asked me to bring this to the Court's
17 attention that the Court not lose sight of the fact that we verily believe
18 that the Prosecutor does have this file, these statements. They are
19 highly relevant to this case and we ask that they be turned over. If they
20 can't find them and keep claiming they can't find them, that's fine. I
21 just want Your Honour to know that we're making every effort we can in
22 Mostar, in Herzegovina to find these files and we just keep hit ago brick
24 JUDGE POCAR: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Meek.
25 MR. MEEK: One moment.
1 [Defence and appellant Naletilic confer].
2 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, may it please the Court, with all due
3 respect, I don't have a translator here. I do not speak Serbo-Croatian.
4 I would ask to indulge my client. He would like to make a comment to Your
6 THE APPELLANT NALETILIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wish to
7 address the Prosecution also. I will tell you what this is about.
8 I believe that half of the indictment is based on Sovici and
9 Toljani. I always told my counsel I never set foot in Sovici and
10 evidently, I received only half a sentence for this reason. The court in
11 Mostar has sentenced people to 20, 15, and 10 years in prison for the
12 crimes I have been charged with. We have asked the president of the court
13 for a subpoena to get this court documentation, but our motion was denied.
14 I may be offending the Prosecution and the Tribunal, but I am
15 forced to address the public asking for these documents to come to light.
16 We are asking for witness statements. We have some statements that we
17 have seen, and Tuta was never mentioned in these documents.
18 So, Your Honour, I ask you once again at this higher level to
19 issue a subpoena for these documents. We believe that the Prosecution
20 cares about the truth. And if these documents show that I never so much
21 as set foot in Sovici at the relevant time, that is, the first time I
22 arrived in Sovici was three months after the massacre. So at the relevant
23 time, I never so much as set foot in Sovici. And for the sake of justice,
24 for the sake of the Prosecutor, for the sake of the truth, please let us
25 get hold of these documents so that we can show them to the President of
1 the Tribunal.
2 If Judge Liu refused to issue a subpoena, and we know through
3 various witnesses that my name was never mentioned during that trial and
4 that those documents are here, they're not down there, they're here in the
5 OTP and the OTP received these documents. I believe that you will agree
6 that it would be honest for you to let us have these documents. Thank
8 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE POCAR: Mr. Naletilic, I take note of what you say, but I
10 have to tell the Defence that any request can be made but must be made
11 according to the Rules of Procedure of this Tribunal. This is the only
12 thing I can say at this stage on this. And the consideration that you
13 make of the substance of the case, that will be taken care of in due
14 course in light of the documents.
15 Well, is there any other matter to be dealt with at this stage?
16 MR. KERNS: May it please the Court, just very briefly. I stand
17 the Prosecution's argument that we have a continuing duty to disclose and
18 therefore no deadline should be set. I want to direct the Court's
19 attention to paragraph 7 of the status report which basically says they
20 have right now and have for at least three weeks material potentially
21 relevant to the appeal. So I would ask, certainly at least with regard to
22 that information that they agree they've got right now in their hand, that
23 there shouldn't be a problem with us getting that documentation before I
24 fly out tomorrow, if possible.
25 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you, may I ask the Prosecution to say how --
1 may I ask the Prosecution in their assessment now how long it will take to
2 review the material they refer to in paragraph 7 of the status report?
3 MR. STAKER: Your Honour, I'm not in a position to say that now.
4 If necessary, perhaps I could give some indication in a filing perhaps
5 within a few days. The information I'm given is that the material we have
6 is not yet electronically searchable and for technical reasons it will
7 take our technical people a certain amount of time to put it in
8 electronically searchable form, and then the disclosure searches are done
9 electronically, and then they have to be viewed by legal staff to
10 determine whether they come within the ambit of Rule 68. So although
11 we're very mindful of our disclosure obligations, these things do simply
12 take a certain amount of time.
13 JUDGE POCAR: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Staker. Please see to it that
14 it's done as soon as possible and inform the Court and the Defence of
15 the -- of the time that will be needed as soon as you are in the position
16 to do so.
17 MR. STAKER: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE POCAR: Well, is there any other problem at this stage? I
19 don't think so. In that case, this Status Conference stands adjourned.
20 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at
21 12.52 p.m.