1 Wednesday, 24 September 2008
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.14 p.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon to everybody in and around the
8 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
10 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-81-PT,
11 the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 May we have the appearances for the day, starting with the
15 MR. HARMON: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Good afternoon,
16 counsel. My name is Mark Harmon. Appearing with me is Dan Saxon,
17 Barney Thomas, and shortly Carmela Javier, the case manager, will be
18 joining us.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 MR. HARMON: Thank you.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
22 And for the Defence.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour, and good
24 afternoon to everybody in the proceedings. My name is Novak Lukic, and
25 together with me is co-counsel Gregor Guy-Smith, as well as our legal
1 assistants, and I'd like to introduce them: Tina Drolec, Milos Androvic,
2 Deirdre Montgomery, Chad Mair, and our intern Yasmine Chaib, and our case
3 manager, of course, is Ms. Danijela Tasic.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Lukic.
5 Good afternoon, Mr. Perisic. Can you hear me in a language that
6 you understand?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 Now, General Perisic has returned to the UNDU on Monday, 18th of
10 September this year after having been on provisional release following
11 the Trial Chamber's decision of the 9th of June, 2005. Mr. Perisic, you
12 said you understand -- you said you can understand the proceedings in a
13 language you understand.
14 How is your health, Mr. Perisic? How is your health situation?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Quite all right.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you have or don't you have any complaints that
17 I should be aware of?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, I have none.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Perisic.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: We're very happy to hear that you enjoy good
23 By way of background, let me just say that the last
24 Status Conference was held on the 2nd of September, 2008. As stated in
25 the scheduling order issued yesterday, the Chamber has decided to defer
1 the Pre-Trial Conference which was originally scheduled for today to the
2 1st of October, 2008. The reason for this rescheduling is that the
3 Security Council has not yet approved the extension of the terms of
4 ad litem judges. For today, I, as Presiding Judge, have scheduled this
5 Status Conference pursuant to Rule 65 bis in order to facilitate further
6 exchanges between the parties for the preparation of trial.
7 I don't know whether there's any comment that the parties would
8 like to make on that little background. Nothing from you, Mr. Harmon?
9 MR. HARMON: No, thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic? Thank you very much, Mr. Lukic. I
11 notice you shake your head. For the record, you mean you don't have any
12 comment to make. Just to say that this is a matter that is beyond our
13 hands, our control.
14 Now, I wish to inform the parties about the composition of the
15 Chamber at the trial. As I mentioned just now, the situation has not yet
16 changed since the last Status Conference. The issue of the composition
17 of the Trial Bench is still pending as the Security Council has not
18 agreed to the extension of the terms of the ad litem judges beyond
19 September 2009, at which time this trial will still be in progress. The
20 President of the Tribunal has identified two ad litem judges to be
21 assigned to Trial Chamber I for the purposes of this case, but the
22 assignment order is still pending a resolution by the Security Council.
23 We will keep the parties informed of this matter.
24 I want to believe that there isn't any comment on either side on
25 that point. Okay.
1 Can we deal with the question of opening statements? The opening
2 statements are scheduled to begin on the 1st of October, 2008. I've been
3 informed by the senior legal officer that the Prosecution intends to
4 provide the Trial Chamber with the estimated length of its opening
5 statement. The Defence has elected to make its statement after the
6 conclusion of the Prosecution's presentation of evidence; however, it has
7 indicated that pursuant to Rule 84 bis, the accused will make a statement
8 of 30 to 45 minutes following the Prosecution's opening statement. The
9 question is: Is the Prosecution in a position to indicate how long the
10 Prosecution's opening statement will take?
11 MR. HARMON: Not at the moment, Your Honour. I will inform the
12 senior legal officer by the end of this week.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Harmon. We will
14 appreciate that.
15 Mr. Lukic, could you confirm the information on the expected
16 statement of the accused? In other words, does the Defence have any
17 further information in relation to the length of the statement?
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] For the moment, Mr. Perisic - I said
19 Petrovic, I mean Perisic - does intend to follow Rule 84 bis and hold an
20 opening statement which won't last longer than 45 minutes. That will be
21 the outside limit, but it may well be shorter.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
23 Is it fair to say, and I'm directing this question to the
24 Prosecution, that given the expected statements, opening statements,
25 would the Prosecution be ready to call its first witness by the 2nd of
2 MR. HARMON: It is a possibility, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. There's always a
4 possibility, Mr. Harmon.
5 Now, the next item relates to disclosure and translation issues.
6 In the last Status Conference, the parties informed the Chamber that
7 translations of some witness statements and documents were not yet
8 provided to the Defence. Could the parties update the status of pending
9 translations? Yes, Mr. Harmon.
10 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, could we pass on that particular issue?
11 During the day, the course of today's events, I asked Ms. Javier to give
12 me some statistics on that. She has come into the courtroom with those
13 statistics. I have yet had the opportunity to look at them. I will --
14 after a brief opportunity to review them with Ms. Javier, I'll be in a
15 better position to inform the Trial Chamber of the status of those
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Harmon. Then, in that
18 event, we'll skip that whole item, unless you have any strong objection,
19 Mr. Lukic. Okay, you don't.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No, I don't.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 Let's deal with the status of pending motions. I'd like to
23 provide the parties with the status of the Chamber's decisions on several
24 pending motions.
25 First, let me mention the decisions which the Chamber has
1 rendered over the past week.
2 One, on the 17th of September, 2008, the Chamber issued its
3 decision on the Prosecution's second motion for judicial notice of facts
4 relevant to the Sarajevo
5 Second, on the 22nd of September, 2008, the Chamber issued its
6 decision on the Prosecution's motion for judicial notice of facts
7 relevant to the Srebrenica crime base of the 10th of July, 2008.
8 Now, as to pending motions, there is the Prosecution's 92 quater
9 motions of the 1st of May, 2007; 3rd of September, 2007; 2nd of April,
10 2008; and 5th of September, 2008. The Chamber still awaits composition
11 of the Trial Bench before issuing a decision on these motions. That's
12 because of a decision that was taken, I think, earlier that these motions
13 must be decided by the Trial Chamber. So that's the only reason for the
15 Then, there is also a 92 bis motion of the 1st of May, 2007,
16 which also awaits the composition of the Trial Bench. Then there is the
17 motion -- Prosecution motion for leave to add witness -- I may not
18 mention his name, I think. It's a Rule 65 ter witness of the 31st of
19 March, 2008. Do the parties know who I'm talking about? Thank you.
20 Now, the Chamber will issue a decision once the Defence has had
21 an opportunity to reply. As discussed during the last Status Conference,
22 the Defence informed the senior legal officer that it will need three
23 days to respond once it has received the revised witness summary from the
24 Prosecution. The Prosecution, in turn, was awaiting clearance from the
25 Rule 70 provider. At the time of the last Status Conference, the
1 Prosecution was still engaged in efforts to obtain clearance from the
2 Rule 70 provider.
3 Mr. Harmon, does the Prosecution have any update that it wants to
4 give on this matter?
5 MR. HARMON: I have no update, Your Honour. I have still not
6 made progress on the matter. I'm still pursuing it.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I might ask, have you not reached a stage where
8 you probably might need the assistance of the Chamber?
9 MR. HARMON: I'm rapidly reaching that stage, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're rapidly reaching that stage. Rapidly
11 report to the Chamber as soon as you reach that stage, Mr. Harmon, and
12 then maybe we can help you.
13 MR. HARMON: I will. Thank you.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Thank you so much.
15 I'm not sure whether you have any comments to make on that,
16 Mr. Lukic.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Not for now, Your Honour. We remain
18 by our position.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
20 May the Chamber please move into private session.
21 [Private session]
11 Page 307 redacted. Private session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, we're back in open session.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 Let me repeat myself. I said the next item, then, is the partly
15 confidential Prosecution motion for reconsideration of the Trial Chamber
16 decision of the 1st of September, 2008, the so-called Srebrenica
17 intercepts of the 17th of September, 2008, and note that the Defence did
18 not object to the Prosecution's original motion to take judicial notice
19 of these intercepts.
20 Will the Defence be filing a response at all to the
21 reconsideration motion, Mr. Lukic?
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If I may be allowed not to state my
23 views immediately but to consult Mr. Gregor Guy-Smith and Mr. Kesler and
24 then I'll be able to respond when you give me the time to do so.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. I don't think you have any
1 objection to that, Mr. Harmon.
2 Can I tie you to a time-line, Mr. Lukic?
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Is that a time-line for the response or for the
4 consultation, Your Honour?
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: For expressing your views. For expressing
6 Mr. Lukic's views on whether or not he wants to respond.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think I better leave that in his capable hands.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: All right. I was surprised you stood up.
9 Mr. Lukic, do you have a time-line?
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We can respond within three days.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. So you've jumped one hurdle ahead.
12 Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could have at some point a moment to
14 confer, then if we are going to respond, we could respond within three
15 days. We may maintain the same position that had been previously
16 asserted which is no objection whatsoever, but we need to just speak for
17 a second.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine. In fact, that's why I said Mr. Lukic
19 jumped ahead of me. I thought he was going to say to me, he was going to
20 tell us his view in three days' time. He was talking about responding in
21 three days' time so I thought maybe --
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: If you would like us to tell you our view in
23 three days' time, that's fine too, but I think that that could cause a
24 different kind of a problem.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine. Whatever is convenient, if you can
1 do it as soon as possible.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Absolutely. Thank you so much.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
4 Then there is a Defence motion which is not before this Chamber,
5 that is, the Defence by Momcilo Perisic for access to confidential
6 materials in the Radovan Karadzic case. I don't know whether the parties
7 have heard anything about it from that Chamber, but we haven't heard
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: We have heard nothing as of yet. And we have not
10 received a response yet from the Prosecution, but I think they're still
11 well within their time.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I think the Defence had stated that they
13 would alert the Trial Chamber if any of the material would have any
14 impact on the presentation of evidence. Am I right in saying so?
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: I believe -- I believe that's an accurate
16 statement, Your Honour. Yes. At least at this juncture, knowing the --
17 contemplating the witnesses that we're to see initially, I don't believe
18 that it's going to be a difficulty. I don't believe it's going to be a
19 difficulty, however.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any comments from the Prosecution?
21 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, we intend to reply to that motion in
22 due course.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. And you say, Mr. Guy-Smith,
24 that they're still within their time-limit to render a decision in that
1 Let's leave that one and then go to the Prosecution motion filed
2 on the 22nd of September, 2008, with respect to two reports by
3 Mr. Treanor. Am I pronouncing that name correctly? Thank you.
4 The first report, "The Belgrade Leadership and the Serbs in
6 corrections to minor deficiencies to the report dated the 11th of
7 October, 2006, and that both reports have been disclosed to the Defence.
8 Can you confirm that, Mr. Lukic?
9 Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Since I've been tasked with Mr. Treanor, I stand
11 for this one. Yes, we have received both reports.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. So even the one that says Momcilo Perisic
13 and the Supreme Defence Council.
14 Now, yesterday, the Defence filed a motion to strike the
15 supplemental report of Prosecution witness Patrick Treanor. I understand
16 that the Defence seeks a decision refusing the admission of the testimony
17 or reports of Mr. Treanor as expert evidence or expert opinion evidence,
18 denying the admission of the above-mentioned report dated the 10th of
19 September, 2008, and should the report be allowed, granting the Defence a
20 reasonable extension of time to prepare for the cross-examination of
21 Mr. Treanor. This is a matter that needs to be dealt with with a certain
22 amount of urgency.
23 Mr. Harmon, does the Prosecution intend to file a response?
24 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, we intend to file a response
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. The Trial Chamber will urge you to do so as
2 soon as possible.
3 Now, maybe -- let me now bring to the attention of the parties a
4 number of factors that may call for a change of order of expert
6 The objection filed yesterday by the Defence, in paragraph 11 and
7 12, refers to a notice pursuant to Rule 94 bis (B) filed on the 6th of
8 December, 2006, whereby the Defence objects to the status of Mr. Treanor
9 as an expert and stating it did not accept his expert report, "The
11 no ruling on such notice as the Chamber is still waiting for the
12 composition of the Trial Bench. You'll remember that Pre-Trial
13 Chamber III deferred the decision to the Trial Bench.
14 Now, the question is -- before I come to the question, let me
15 just say that in conclusion, both reports by Mr. Treanor are, in fact,
16 objected to by the Defence and it would seem like the expert report of
17 Mr. Donia is subject to a motion to exclude such report. Should this be
18 the case, a decision needs to be issued by the Trial Chamber on these
19 expert reports before these witnesses can be called for
21 Now, before taking any decision, I would like to hear the parties
22 on how they propose we handle this, given the fact that we are supposed
23 to start the trial fairly soon. From the objections from the Defence
24 which were filed yesterday, there's a 30-day time-line within which they
25 must give their objection. Okay, they've given it yesterday, and then
1 there's the response coming from the Prosecution, then a decision to be
2 made. I don't see us being in time to call these witnesses by the 1st or
3 2nd of October.
4 Any comments, Mr. Harmon?
5 MR. HARMON: Such a -- obviously, such a decision would wreak
6 havoc with our planning. The first observation.
7 The second observation: Dr. Donia has been qualified as an
8 expert before this Tribunal on numerous occasions. I am not sure if the
9 Defence still maintains their position that Dr. Donia is not qualified as
10 an expert, and it would be important for us to understand their objection
11 and if they still maintain that.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
13 Mr. Lukic, does the Defence wish to confirm all objections at
14 this stage of the proceedings that have been made before? And
15 specifically, do the Defence object to Mr. Donia -- is it Mr. Donia or
16 Dr. Donia?
17 MR. HARMON: Dr. Donia.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Dr. Donia, as an expert.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, we maintain the
20 criticisms we made on the 22nd of December, 2006, and those remarks do
21 not refer exclusively to Mr. Donia, or Dr. Donia, and his status as
22 expert but also the expert reports that the Prosecution wishes to tender
23 through him. So we had significant criticisms to make and we wrote them
24 down in our notification and we stand by that. So it's not only
25 Mr. Donia's status but also that of his reports.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You've got the position now, Mr. Harmon. That's
2 their position still.
3 MR. HARMON: In respect of Dr. Treanor, he has been qualified
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me cut you short on that point.
6 MR. HARMON: Yes.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not asking you at this stage to respond to the
9 MR. HARMON: Right.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're going to do that in your reply.
11 MR. HARMON: Yes.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: At this stage I would like us to address the
13 logistical problem that, until a decision is rendered on your motion
14 which is being objected against, these witnesses cannot testify, and they
15 happen to be, if my reading of the situation is correct, to be listed as
16 your very first witnesses.
17 MR. HARMON: Yes.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: And therefore the problem to deal with is the
19 rescheduling of your witnesses.
20 MR. HARMON: I'm trying --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me just finish off and say, earlier on you
22 stood up and you said the decision would wreak havoc to the Prosecution's
23 scheduling. It is not a decision. It is the circumstances.
24 MR. HARMON: I understand, Your Honour. If the position at this
25 point is that we need to go back and reconsider our order of proof, we
1 will do that, because if there is no decision made on the first two
2 experts we have planned to call, then obviously we need to go back and
3 reconsider, which means that we need to contact a variety of other
4 witnesses to see their availability. We had planned for a considerable
5 period of time to call Drs. Donia and Treanor, followed by Mr. Randall,
6 although I gave the Defence notice, given the truncated schedule that had
7 been envisioned before there was to be a break, of the identity of one
8 other witness.
9 Now, I'm not in a position to tell you if other witnesses are
10 available starting on the 2nd of October. I will inform Your Honour of
11 that. Our preference would be to have the decisions made in respect of
12 Drs. Donia and Treanor prior to the 1st. In respect of Witness Treanor,
13 who has filed a second report, there are a number of options.
14 I want to inform the Court and I will put this in a response, but
15 I want to inform the Court that the subject matter of his report, the SDC
16 minutes were disclosed to the Defence in 2006 and in 2007 and in -- parts
17 of it in 2008. So the matters about which he's going to be testifying
18 have been disclosed to the Defence in the original language for a
19 considerable period of time.
20 Second of all, if the one problem that exists is that the Defence
21 is not prepared to cross-examine Dr. Donia, one solution would be to
22 defer Dr. Donia's testimony -- Dr. Treanor's testimony, I'm sorry,
23 Dr. Treanor's testimony in respect of the SDC minutes until the Court
24 makes a decision. One solution may be that Dr. Treanor's first report,
25 there could be a decision in respect of Dr. Treanor's first report. That
1 would permit him to testify as scheduled. That would leave two options -
2 either defer his testimony on the second report until the Court makes a
3 decision, and I think that would probably be the best solution --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me try one more time, Mr. Harmon, to capture
5 the problem that we are faced with.
6 MR. HARMON: Your Honour --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: The problem that we are faced with is not only the
8 fact that the Defence objects and that they therefore need time to -- you
9 need to reply and then the Trial Chamber needs to render a decision. The
10 problem also entails the fact that we don't have a Trial Bench yet which
11 must render the decision. When that Trial Chamber will be constituted,
12 your guess is as good as mine. And I don't want to sit here and give you
13 a promise that there is a possibility that the Trial Chamber could give a
14 decision before the 1st of October, because I don't know. There is an --
15 a variable here which we don't have control over. I don't know when we
16 are going to get the Bench. That is the spanner in the works.
17 MR. HARMON: Obviously, Your Honour, there's a ramification of
18 that --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Your colleague is on his feet, if you don't mind.
20 MR. HARMON: Well, I would --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think he stood up to interrupt you, so let's
22 hear what he's got to say.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might, if I understand the thrust of the
24 discussion we're having right now, it's not on the merits on any of the
25 motions that have been had, and to the extent there's been comment with
1 regard to merits, I leave a very brief comment which is that independent
2 of when we receive disclosure was in direct contravention of an order by
3 another Chamber.
4 Having said that, it seems to me that there may be a solution to
5 the dilemma, and I certainly am not in a position to tell my colleague
6 how to put on his case. However, the third witness that he is referring
7 to, as I understand it, is a summary witness who will not be rendering
8 any opinions about any of the evidence that they intend to tender through
9 him. If such is the case and I'm accurate in that regard, that it is a
10 summary witness who is going to be putting in documents, of which I
11 understand there are substantial number, then that would be a mechanism
12 whereby we could intelligently start the trial on the 1st, assuming that
13 we once again have a Bench, of course if that comports with Mr. Harmon's
14 ideas of how to do his case, I don't know. But this is a witness who, as
15 I understand it, is going to take a considerable period of time, because
16 the number of documents that are going to be coming through him are
18 Now, I don't know whether or not that's a solution or not, and
19 the solution that I offer is based upon the understanding that to the
20 extent he is a summary witness, he -- of which there is clearly decision
21 law in the Tribunal about, but to the extent he is a summary witness,
22 since he is not going to be rendering an opinion on any of the evidence
23 that's coming in, that might be a mechanism that would allow for an
24 efficient use of time and a way to start the proceedings, ensure the
25 Bench the ability to gather itself together, have a moment or two to
1 reflect on the positions taken by the respective parties, and render a
2 decision either for or against whichever side. I don't know if that
3 works or not, but I offer it as an idea.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith. That was
5 precisely the point that we are trying to put to you, Mr. Harmon, to say:
6 We need to look at the possibility of rescheduling the order of witnesses
7 precisely because of the dilemma that we find ourselves in.
8 MR. HARMON: I agree, Your Honour, and the suggestion that was
9 made by my colleague is not one that we can put forth. We are not
10 prepared to proceed with that witness at this point because we have been
11 preparing for the other two witnesses and preparing the exhibits for
12 those other two witnesses. We will not be in a position to proceed with
13 the witness, Mr. Brett Randall.
14 We find ourselves further in this difficulty, Your Honour. If
15 there is -- we can reschedule and we'll go back to our offices and we
16 will reconsider the schedule of witnesses who we can try to fill the
17 first days of these proceedings. The difficulty we have is if we -- no
18 Trial Chamber is constituted, obviously -- obviously, the Court can't
19 make a decision on the motions that prevent the regularly -- the
20 scheduled way we were going to proceed. But if there's no Trial Chamber
21 constituted, then dislocating potential witnesses also poses a problem
22 for us and for the witnesses. But if the Court wishes us to go back and
23 reschedule the order of witnesses, we can do that. Whether we can get
24 those witnesses here, we will advise the senior legal officer as soon as
25 we conclude those discussions.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harmon. The hope is
2 that by the 1st of October we will have a Trial Bench. When it will have
3 been composed, we don't know. Of course, the worst case scenario is that
4 we still might not have a Bench by the 1st of October. But if the
5 Prosecution has difficulty in rescheduling the order of witnesses, it
6 seems to me that the inevitability here is that we might have to postpone
7 the start of trial.
8 MR. HARMON: I certainly agree with Your Honour on that.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which is something that -- okay, I know I'm just
10 part of the Bench that is going to hear the case, I'm not the full Bench,
11 but I find that very hard to swallow. And I would like us to try and
12 work on the basis that we will start on the 1st and that if we do have a
13 Chamber by the 1st, let's have a witness to hear. That's the minimum
14 request I'm making, okay?
15 I don't know whether there's anything else that anybody wants to
16 say on this topic? Mr. Lukic? Mr. Harmon?
17 MR. HARMON: No, nothing.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then let's look at future motions.
19 In relation to expert reports, I've been informed that the
20 Prosecution will seek to introduce two of the most recent reports
21 prepared -- no, no, why are we still dealing with this. Oh, yes. That's
22 a different thing, although on the same issues. I was saying in relation
23 to expert reports, I've been informed that the Prosecution will seek to
24 introduce two of the most recent reports prepared by Dr. Donia for other
25 cases before this Tribunal. Considering that such reports contain parts
1 that are irrelevant to this case, the Prosecution has sought the guidance
2 of the Chamber and has informally been invited to file such reports
3 redacting the irrelevant parts and submitting an accompanying covering
4 letter explaining the redactions.
5 Are there any comments from the parties on this course of action?
6 MR. HARMON: I am informed, Your Honour, that the Prosecution
7 filed expert reports that were redacted that eliminated the portions of
8 the reports upon which we did not intend to rely. Those were also
9 disclosed to the Defence, I believe, yesterday.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. But the reports still made
11 sense, notwithstanding the redactions?
12 MR. HARMON: I certainly hope so.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: All right.
14 I'm also -- I also understand that the Prosecution may be filing
15 a sixth motion for amendment of its exhibit list. Am I right? And I'm
16 not sure whether you need to go into private session for that.
17 MR. HARMON: That's correct, Your Honour. We are awaiting a
18 translation on one document and we will be filing that forthwith.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Forthwith, did you say?
20 MR. HARMON: Yes.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
22 Could we then go into private session?
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 321-322 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, we're back in open session.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
5 Are the parties aware of any other motions to be filed prior to
6 trial that may not have been filed just yet?
7 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, there is a motion that we will be
8 filing with the Court to reconsider the exclusion of footnotes from
9 Dr. Donia's report. In an earlier filing they had been mischaracterised
10 and therefore they were rejected. We have reassessed and concluded that
11 the description that was provided in the previous filing was incorrect,
12 and therefore we will be filing a motion for reconsideration for the
13 admission of certain documents that were footnotes in Dr. Donia's earlier
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
16 From the Defence?
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We won't be having any new proposals,
18 but what Mr. Harmon just mentioned takes me back to a topic which it
19 might be interesting to deal with here today and hear the opinions of the
20 Presiding Judge, Judge Moloto, although that is maybe a subject to be
21 dealt with at the Pre-Trial Conference. We had a meeting with the
22 Prosecution and what we're worried about and what concerns us is the
23 approach to the documents from the 65 ter list, or rather earlier --
24 prior notification to the Defence of which documents the Prosecution
25 wishes to tender through a given witness.
1 I'm sure that at the Pre-Trial Conference you will take a stand
2 on the deadlines and the 65 ter documents in general which the
3 Prosecution wishes to introduce and to inform the opposite side about,
4 and I know that on the basis of the instructions you gave us, the
5 standard practice is two days. But we'd like you to hear our concerns
6 and that is that the first three witnesses that are to appear in court
7 are quite a bit different from what we're going to expect later on. To
8 be concrete, expert witness Donia on the 65 ter list has 450 documents
9 which the Prosecution can tender through him, introduce through him.
10 Now, Mr. Treanor, on the 65 ter list has about 200-odd documents. And as
11 to the summary, the witness summary for Mr. Randall, there are about
12 4.000 documents which are on the 65 ter list as possible documents that
13 the Prosecution intends to use and introduce through that witness.
14 Now, we had an exchange of views yesterday whereby we would be
15 informed on time, but we weren't able to find a common solution,
16 unfortunately, a common denominator. As the Defence, precisely because
17 of this possibility that certain -- that Mr. Donia's report will probably
18 be shortened in part, does that mean that the Prosecution will
19 nonetheless inform us on time about the number of documents it wishes to
20 introduce through that particular witness so that the witness can have
21 enough time to prepare itself and to raise certain objections perhaps in
22 the courtroom in due course?
23 Quite simply, the first three witnesses are critical with respect
24 to the number of documents on the 65 ter list, and I think we're going to
25 face that problem. So the Defence would like to receive an exact list of
1 documents that the Prosecution wishes to introduce through each of these
2 particular witnesses, if that is possible.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do I understand you, Mr. Lukic, to be saying the
4 common denominator you are unable to reach is the amount of advance
5 disclosure of the documents, or advance notice of the documents that are
6 going to be used? You probably need three months; they want to give you
7 three hours, something like that, and you want a middle line. Okay.
8 I want to believe that this is something that the guidelines is
9 going to -- are going to deal with, and actually the -- that is the next
10 item that we are supposed to be talking about, the guidelines. Off the
11 top of my head, I'm not quite sure whether a draft has been given to the
12 parties. There may be a reference to that kind of notice in the
13 guidelines and maybe that can form a basis for discussion for purposes of
14 this trial on the kind of notice that you require.
15 I'm not sure whether you want to start with that point now,
16 Mr. Lukic, or shall I just go through the items on guidelines and come to
17 that point when we get to it, if it is on the agenda at all?
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that would be best, as you
19 proposed; that you go through the points and guidelines and then we could
20 perhaps discuss what we consider to be important as parties in the
21 proceedings and to clarify certain issues if necessary.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
23 As indicated at the last Status Conference, after the Pre-Trial
24 Conference the Trial Chamber will provide the parties with set of
25 guidelines governing the admission of evidence and the presentation of
1 evidence and conduct of counsel. At the last Status Conference, we
2 already discussed the procedure in relation to the tendering of Rule 92
3 ter statements. Then I invited the parties to submit any questions and
4 proposals on how this Chamber should operate at trial in terms of case
5 presentation, especially as it relates to receipt of documentary
7 First, the senior legal officer informed me that the Defence has
8 a suggestion concerning the issue of very late disclosure. This
9 includes, according to the Defence, instances where the Prosecution
10 discloses a document a few days before using it in court while the
11 Prosecution had it in its possession for a very long time.
12 Let me -- rather than phrase it in that fashion, I know it's a
13 concern that came from the Defence, but I think that concern should be,
14 where a party tendering a document does so within a few days when it has
15 had the document for a very long time, because your turn is going to come
16 during the Defence case that the Prosecution will want to be treated the
17 way you want them to treat you. And therefore I would prefer, or I would
18 urge the parties, rather, when you discuss this point to know that much
19 as you might feel that when the Defence are asking for long notice,
20 you'll probably also want long notice during the Defence case; and that
21 as much as you feel that you are -- you may be under pressure during the
22 Defence case and you are not able to give long notice and you want to
23 give short notice, that you must also be prepared to accept short notice
25 Now, a question to the parties is: Are there any suggestions you
1 would like to come up with? You told me, Mr. Lukic, that you were not
2 able to reach a common denominator. Let's find out what your position is
3 and what the position of the Prosecution is on this issue. How much
4 notice do you require?
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let me say that in normal procedure
6 with the witness, the classical type of witness, classical procedure, 10
7 to 15 documents, I have no problem with the 48-hour deadline, as has been
8 the practice thus far in the trials we have worked in. But where the
9 problem arises is when we have the massive witnesses, if I can put it
10 that way, because there will be a vast number of documents that will be
11 used in court, especially with the documents being tendered. Once
12 they're exhibits, there's no problem. But the phase of their
13 introduction when we can perhaps raise objections, and although we have
14 48 hours to state our views, if you have 4.000 documents, we're afraid
15 that we are just going to look for the MFI markings, marked for
16 identification, and we wish to avoid that kind of situation. We don't
17 know if the Trial Chamber will allow that.
18 So if Mr. Donia is on the programme for the 2nd, we'd like to
19 have seven days in advance a list of the documents. If there were 400 on
20 the 65 ter list and if the Prosecution wishes to tender 200 documents, it
21 would be a very good idea if we could be told them seven days in advance.
22 That would be helpful.
23 So, I haven't got a concrete proposal to make, but I just want to
24 say that with respect to the first three witnesses coming in. That will
25 be a problem for the Defence. Although we're fully conscious of the fact
1 that our turn will come in the Defence case when we bring in our
2 witnesses and we're fully aware of the fact that if we wish to tender 400
3 documents through our particular witness, then we'll have to inform the
4 Prosecution on time, so the same will apply to us.
5 So I think this trial will have a problem with the number of
6 documents, with the paperwork, so I think that this is a good time,
7 before trial, to state our views loud and clear. So as far as the first
8 three witnesses are concerned, one week in advance would be very helpful,
9 if we had a clear list of documents that the Prosecution wishes to tender
10 through those first three witnesses.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Harmon?
12 MR. HARMON: As I understand the current state of play,
13 Your Honour, the first two witnesses referred to by my learned friend,
14 Dr. Donia and Dr. Treanor, are not the first two witnesses who are going
15 to be called because there's an objection to them, so the problem does
16 not arise.
17 In respect of --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: The problem will arise as and when they are
20 MR. HARMON: That's what I was going to go to next, Your Honour.
21 Now, the problem of the characterisation of witnesses as a
22 massive witness, I think it would be appropriate for the two parties to
23 sit down and discuss what the definition of "a massive witness" is
24 because it's unclear to me what that entails. I understand the thrust of
25 the Defence proposition, but are we talking about 400 documents or more,
1 300 documents or more? Are we talking about all expert witnesses? Those
2 are details that the parties can work out and I think we can reach an
3 agreement on.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would urge the parties to reach an agreement on
5 the definition of "massive documents." But do I understand you to be
6 saying you agree with the proposition that a massive witness or a witness
7 with massive -- voluminous documents, that seven-day notice would be
8 appropriate, and a witness with less documents, two days.
9 MR. HARMON: In principle, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: In principle.
11 MR. HARMON: Yes, I agree with that, because it applies to both
12 sides. We both have the disadvantages that Mr. Lukic presently complains
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Right.
15 MR. HARMON: Whether it's seven days or five days, I think that
16 can also be something that the parties can agree upon.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed.
18 Can I then suggest to the parties to make sure that they come
19 into agreement on the definition of "voluminous documents" so that we can
20 write that into the guidelines.
21 I take it that it is agreed that seven days for voluminous, two
22 days for ordinary, pending the definition of what is voluminous.
23 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, as I say, the number of days has yet to
24 be agreed, but the principle of disclosure in advance is agreed.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Thank you for that
1 clarification. So you may still change the number of days and weeks.
2 That's fine. As long as the parties agree on that and can stick to that.
3 Let me say also that where documents are voluminous, obviously
4 the Chamber also would like to read, and we don't want to read the whole
5 disclosure if only part of it is going to be used, so we would like to
6 focus on what is actually going to be used in court. Okay. I guess that
7 disposes of that part.
8 Secondly, at the last Status Conference the Trial Chamber invited
9 the parties to discuss amongst themselves -- or between themselves,
10 rather, and make suggestions on how to proceed with 92 ter witnesses in
11 court and whether this procedure can also be applied to expert witnesses,
12 pursuant to Rule 94 bis. This issue includes whether a summary of a
13 92 ter statement should be read out in court, and if so, how long the
14 summary should be.
15 Mr. Harmon, you raised at the last Status Conference that for the
16 sake of the public you would like a very short summary of the 92 ter
17 statement to be read out so that the people in the gallery can follow
18 what is happening and what is being discussed. Now the question is: Do
19 you have any suggestions to come up with, that are concrete now, we can
20 take to the guidelines?
21 MR. HARMON: I wasn't anticipating this question being asked me
22 so I don't have a concrete proposal for Your Honours. But I think in
23 practice before these various Trial Chambers, the summary of 92
24 witnesses, bis or ter -- ter witnesses, is usually a fairly brief
25 summary. What has happened in the past, in the practices that I've been
1 engaged in, is a summary is prepared. It's given to the Defence; the
2 Defence can examine it. Then that is read in court. I don't expect
3 these summaries to last a long time. I can't quantify it for Your Honour
4 at this point in terms of a proposal, but I can indicate that the past
5 practices have been short summaries.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. My question also was whether this practice
7 should also apply to 94 bis reports. That's one part. The other part is
8 we probably have different experiences in this Tribunal. In my
9 experience, 92 ter witnesses have come here and asked, Is this your
10 statement? Yes. Is this what you would say if you were called to
11 testify? Yes. And you are so and so? Yes. Thank you. And he sits
12 down. No summary at all is given and the witness is turned over to the
13 opposite party to cross-examine without any summary of the story. That's
14 the experience I've had here.
15 MR. HARMON: Well, my preference is for a different experience
16 than the one you've had, Your Honour --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
18 MR. HARMON: -- and obviously the summary, to be consistent and
19 logical, should also apply to an expert report that is presented, because
20 if a report goes in that's, let's say, 50 pages and the same discussion
21 goes on between counsel and the expert, Did you prepare this expert
22 report? I did. Is it accurate? Yes, it is. Thank you very much and
23 turn him over. The public remains ill-informed or uninformed completely.
24 So I think a summary in respect of the expert report that's being
25 tendered, although not a lengthy summary, should be included in the
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any comments from the Defence?
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The only comment that I'd like to
4 make is that this brief summary through viva voce testimony does not go
5 outside the boundaries of what has been written in the summary; that is
6 to say, I assume -- we assume that the witness does not say anything new
7 in court. That might be what concerns me. But leading the witness
8 through a summary like that, I have nothing against that, as long as it
9 doesn't go beyond.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's true, Mr. Lukic. Anything that goes beyond
11 would be an addendum. A summary is a summary of what is there already,
12 so it's got to be there. And maybe we need to be vigilant to make sure
13 that no additions are made.
14 I'm so sorry.
15 Finally, it's my understanding that yesterday the senior legal
16 officer invited the parties to comment upon the potential guidelines to
17 be adopted by the Trial Chamber and these comments and suggestions would
18 be included in the guidelines as appropriate. Am I correct, is my
19 understanding correct, and are there any comments that the parties would
20 like to make at this stage?
21 MR. HARMON: The Prosecution has no comments at this point. The
22 guidance we received from the senior legal officer was that the comments
23 were due by the 25th.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Harmon. That point has
25 just been explained. Okay. Then that is all that I had to say about the
1 guidelines, and I would imagine that -- yes, Mr. Guy-Smith?
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. As I understand it, apart from the one
3 matter that we did discuss here today, that being the issue of late
4 disclosure, if there are any other matters that we think would be
5 appropriately contained in the guidelines, we should make that part of
6 our suggestion, as I understand it.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. And I understood that that's what
8 Mr. Harmon was referring to when he said you'll do that by the 25th,
9 because you only received the draft today.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: There is a pending issue that we have not yet had
11 a chance to work out with each other and that's not because there's
12 disagreement. We've just been dealing with so many other things. But
13 I'd raise it again because it is a matter that does come up in almost all
14 the trials here and that is how are we going to handle proofing notes.
15 And I don't know whether or not the Chamber has any particular views on
16 this, and we have not come up with an accord yet on this issue. But more
17 than anything else, I'm just flagging it.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith. I do have
19 some experience of proofing notes. I do not want to mention that
20 experience at this stage before I hear what the parties have to say. Can
21 I ask that -- Mr. Harmon, would the Prosecution perhaps be prepared to
22 discuss this with their opposite number and make a suggestion, as you
23 make suggestions tomorrow and whenever?
24 MR. HARMON: Yes. We have not discussed it yet. We will discuss
25 it now that it's been raised, and so it should not be a problem.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Harmon.
2 The next item is the time available for presenting Prosecution
3 evidence and the number of witnesses. Rule 73 bis (C) provides that
4 after having heard the Prosecution, the Trial Chamber shall determine how
5 many witnesses the Prosecution may call and how much time will be
6 available to the Prosecution for presenting its evidence.
7 At the last Status Conference the Prosecution assured us that it
8 was making further efforts to reduce its case to as close as possible to
9 320 hours. The Trial Chamber has issued decisions upon the following
10 motions: The second motion for judicial notice of adjudicated facts
11 relevant to Sarajevo
12 adjudicated facts relevant to the Sarajevo
13 judicial notice of adjudicated facts and documents relevant to the Zagreb
14 crime base, motion for judicial notice of adjudicated facts relevant to
15 the Srebrenica crime base, and motion for judicial notice of Srebrenica
16 intercepts. Have we done that? Yes, barring the reconsideration.
17 Could the Prosecution -- is the Prosecution able to provide us
18 with some information on the number of witnesses it wishes to call and
19 the expected length of the Prosecution, given the decisions that have
20 been rendered?
21 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, thank you for that opportunity.
22 Yesterday we met to discuss the most recent decisions that were of
23 considerable importance to us in making our calculations. We met and
24 discussed the number of hours and we have now reduced the number of hours
25 to 355.
1 Now, that obviously is conditioned on a number of considerations,
2 the first of which is that the adjudicated facts themselves are not
3 contested, because we relied on the -- I'll wait.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're waiting? Okay.
5 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, Mr. Harmon.
7 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I'll start again.
8 Based on the most recent decisions of the adjudicated facts on
10 of yesterday, to review the impact that those decisions had on our
11 previously filed witness list and the number of hours for each witness.
12 After a considerable effort and study, we concluded that we could present
13 our case in 355 hours.
14 Now, that depends on a number of conditions, obviously, one of
15 which is that the adjudicated facts are not going to be contested. Now,
16 if they are, obviously, then that puts us -- another element into the
17 equation and we have to obviously respond accordingly.
18 The second condition is that the witnesses who've been selected
19 and who we will be relying on are witnesses who appear here and do not
20 have to be substituted, because if for some unforeseen reason they are
21 unable to attend these proceedings, that could complicate the number of
22 hours. But we don't expect that to be a major problem.
23 In respect of the number of witnesses we will now be calling, I
24 didn't prepare those figures for this afternoon's proceedings. I can
25 furnish them to Mr. Pittman this afternoon.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Harmon.
2 I don't want to tie you down. Are you able to give a guesstimate
3 of when you think you can give us this estimate?
4 MR. HARMON: The estimate on the number of witnesses,
5 Your Honour?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's right.
7 MR. HARMON: I can do that this afternoon.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You can do that this afternoon. And the revised
9 witness list?
10 MR. HARMON: Well, that will take some preparation. I could do
11 that by the end of the week.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: End of the week. Thank you so much.
13 I'm assuming that -- let me not make any assumptions. Do you
14 have any comments to make on this point, Mr. Lukic?
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to say that the
16 Defence would like to receive the final witness list as soon as possible,
17 because over the past two or three weeks, in discussing this with the
18 Prosecutor, I know that they've given up on certain witnesses, that they
19 won't be calling some, so we'd like to know which ones they intend to
20 call so that we can focus on them. So what we'd like is a final witness
21 list to be able to prepare, both the investigators in Belgrade and our
22 team here.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 I'm sure you take that on board, Mr. Harmon? Thank you.
25 Something we have touched upon already this afternoon is the
1 Trial Chamber then would like to -- the Prosecution at least to inform
2 the Defence and the Chamber of the first three witnesses to be called in
3 its case by the 29th of the September? That is assuming these are not
4 voluminous witnesses, Mr. Lukic.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Well, that will take us slightly by
6 surprise because we had an agreement with Mr. Harmon that he would inform
7 us three weeks in advance. But I assume that Mr. Harmon will certainly
8 do his best to ensure that the witnesses that he brings in won't mean any
9 massive change in our preparations. So if -- at least where the first
10 witness is concerned, we'd like to know, and then we'll give our
11 contribution to it to make the trial as expeditious as possible. We
12 don't wish any delays. Just to say that we'd like to receive everything
13 as early on as possible because it will be difficult for us if we're just
14 given a day's notice or something like that. That will make it difficult
15 for us and I'm sure you understand the position.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hope you also do understand, Mr. Lukic, that at
17 this point in time we are far below three weeks from start of trial. We
18 are about a week from start of trial. And based on the discussion we had
19 a little earlier, there's uncertainty as to what witness is going to be
20 called. So there's no way you can get three weeks at this point in time,
21 if we're starting on the 1st of October. I want to believe that the
22 Prosecution will give you the list of the first three witnesses as early
23 as they are ready to enable you to prepare. We also need to see those
24 because we also need to know who's coming to testify. Thank you very
1 Okay. As soon as the Trial Chamber receives the revised witness
2 list, a decision on the number of Prosecution witnesses and the length of
3 the Prosecution case will be rendered pursuant to Rule 73 bis (C).
4 Is there anything else that the parties would like to raise in
5 relation to this matter, Mr. Harmon?
6 MR. HARMON: Nothing, Your Honour. Thank you.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic?
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Nothing, Your Honour. Thank you.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's now deal with trial scheduling in 2008. As
10 agreed previously, in the light of the parties' suggestions and the
11 schedule of one of the Judges potentially sitting in this case, this
12 trial will proceed on a four-court-sessions per week for the time being.
13 The trial will not sit on Fridays, except for the 3rd of October. This
14 sitting schedule will be revised as soon as the situation of the Judge
15 changes. On Wednesday, the 8th of October, the trial will sit pursuant
16 to Rule 15 bis, due to the absence of the one Judge already. That is, if
17 the Chamber is proposed of these Judges that are envisioned. Finally,
18 there will be no court sittings from the 13th to the 24th of October,
19 2008. Once again, this depends on whether the proposed Judges are going
20 to be part of that Bench. If we get another Judge who doesn't have these
21 problems, we will sit.
22 Anything that any of the parties would like to raise on
23 scheduling for the remainder of the year? Nothing? I see both of you
24 are shaking heads. For the record, Mr. Harmon shook his head to say no
25 and so did Mr. Guy-Smith.
1 The last item is just any other matters generally. Are there any
2 other matters that the parties would like to raise which the Court forgot
3 to raise?
4 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, the Court had wanted information in
5 respect of translations that the Court deferred. If you wish to take a
6 recess, I can later -- and reconvene, I can provide you with that
7 information. Alternatively, I can provide the information to the senior
8 legal officer.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: We started at a quarter past 2.00 --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon. We started at a quarter past
12 2.00. It's 25 to? Can't we go to a quarter to without interfering with
13 the recordings? If that is the only point that you want to raise.
14 MR. HARMON: That's the only un -- the only matter that was not
15 concluded, Your Honour, that I know there was a deferral on. But if the
16 Court wants to have me pursue that with the senior legal officer and
17 inform him of the information, I can do so.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Will that be okay with the Defence?
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I agree, just to inform us
20 subsequently. No problems.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 Thank you, Mr. Harmon.
23 The Defence, any issue that the Chamber may have forgotten to
24 raise which you would like to raise?
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Then we don't need to come
2 back. That brings us to the end of the Status Conference for today.
3 Court adjourned.
4 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at
5 3.37 p.m.