Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 818

 1                           Wednesday, 29 October 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good morning to everyone in and around the

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case number

 9     IT-04-81-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I don't know if it's me, but I'm hearing B/C/S on

11     my headphones, and I am on channel 4.  Are the lines crossed somehow?

12     Thank you so much.

13             Could we have appearances for today, starting with the

14     Prosecution, please.

15             MR. SAXON:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Dan Saxon for the

16     Prosecution, with my colleagues Salvatore Cannata, Barney Thomas, and

17     Carmela Javier.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

19             And for the Defence?

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Good morning, Your Honour.  Novak Lukic, Danijela

21     Tasic, Chad Mair, Milos Androvic, Tina Drolec, and I'm Gregor Guy-Smith,

22     for the Defence.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.

24             Just before we call the next witness, one or two housekeeping

25     matters, please.

Page 819

 1             On the 3rd -- I beg your pardon, on the 4th of November, there is

 2     a Plenary at 1.00 in the afternoon.  The hope at this stage is that that

 3     Plenary might end before quarter past 2.00, and we might be able to start

 4     our case at a quarter past 2.00.  If, however, it takes a little longer,

 5     we might start a little late.  It's just a warning.  But just to say the

 6     start time on that day.

 7             Secondly, on the 5th of November, again, after approaching

 8     various Trial Chambers, we have been approached also to contribute to the

 9     Appeals Chamber request for a number of days to hear their cases, and we

10     tried to resist but finally we had to give the 5th of November.  So we

11     will not sit at all on the 5th of November.  Okay?  Thank you very much.

12             Yes, Mr. Saxon.

13             MR. SAXON:  Your Honour, Mr. Thomas will call the next witness.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Thank you.  Yes, thanks.  Sorry, I didn't

15     catch the name.  I'm trying to look for it in the script.

16             MR. THOMAS:  Barney Thomas, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Barney Thomas.  Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

18             MR. THOMAS:  Before I call Mr. Bell, he is the only witness that

19     the Prosecution has set for today.  He has an estimated time of

20     evidence-in-chief of two hours, so it was intended that he take the

21     entire day.  However, Your Honours, there is a matter relating to him, as

22     well as to other witnesses, that I'd like to raise in advance of calling

23     him because it may affect the evidence that he's able to give, and it may

24     affect, in fact, whether -- how far we're able to proceed with him today.

25             His intended evidence as --

Page 820

 1                           [The witness entered court]

 2             MR. THOMAS:  I'm sorry, Your Honours, this is probably

 3     appropriately dealt with in the absence of Mr. Bell.

 4             Following Your Honours' rulings yesterday on the video clips that

 5     we intended to lead through Mr. Bell, what remains to be covered by his

 6     evidence includes effectively general comments that he is able to make

 7     regarding the shelling and sniping of civilians and the general life of

 8     civilians in Sarajevo.  His evidence is two-fold in that respect.

 9     Firstly, he describes that situation and, secondly, he will give evidence

10     as to how that was being reported by the international media at the time.

11     And that remains essentially the sole focus of his evidence today.

12             The Prosecution's view, as has been -- as it has put on the

13     record previously, is that it does not consider such general comments of

14     shelling and sniping of civilians to be what has been termed "unscheduled

15     incidents" in the context of the 73 bis ruling such that would require a

16     motion for leave to call that evidence.  However, the Defence has a

17     different view, and it has advanced in its responses to the Bell and

18     Wilson motions that were filed a position that such general comments are

19     caught by the 73 bis ruling which is therefore engaged and that the

20     Prosecution is required to file a motion if it wants to lead evidence of

21     a general nature regarding the shelling and sniping of civilians.

22             The question --

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You are speaking to the filing of this morning?

24             MR. THOMAS:  Yes, Your Honour.  So that takes me to this

25     morning's filing.

Page 821

 1             The Prosecution wanted to set out by its submission this morning

 2     its arguments in support of the proposition that the 73 bis ruling does

 3     not apply to such general comments.  The Prosecution sees the resolution

 4     of that question as necessary, not only for the ability to lead Mr. Bell

 5     through his evidence but also in relation to several, if not many,

 6     witnesses who will be called before this Trial Chamber during the course

 7     of the trial.  It's a matter that is of importance, obviously, in that

 8     respect.  It goes directly towards not just the evidence that people are

 9     able to give but the ability of the Prosecution to properly schedule

10     witnesses and have them here in sufficient time, because if a four-week

11     rule is going to operate in terms of even general comments about the

12     shelling and sniping of civilians in Sarajevo, then that obviously

13     causes -- that's something that the Prosecution needs to build in to its

14     ability to present witnesses before the Trial Chamber on a timely basis.

15             But our immediate concern this morning, sir, is that Mr. Bell

16     will give that evidence and the question, therefore, arises as to how we

17     deal with that, given that there remains this outstanding question.  The

18     Prosecution felt it was important to properly articulate its position,

19     and therefore the submission has been filed, but I'm conscious of the

20     fact, of course, Your Honour, that the Trial Chamber has only just

21     received it and my learned friends have only just received it.  And even

22     though they have previously articulated their position in response to the

23     proposition, perhaps you need to hear from my learned friends as to -- as

24     to whether or not they are in a position or not to proceed with this

25     question.

Page 822

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sure.  I beg your pardon.

 2             Before I turn to your learned friends, can I get clarity on your

 3     position.  When you filed the motion about which a decision was rendered

 4     yesterday, what was your understanding of unscheduled incidents?

 5             MR. THOMAS:  In terms of general comments relating to the

 6     shelling and sniping generally of civilians, Your Honour, our

 7     proposition, our position, always was that we did not consider such

 8     general comments to be caught by the decision, and we footnoted that

 9     position in those two motions.

10             The position we take on the submission has altered a little, in

11     fact, from the position that we took at the time of filing of the motions

12     in respect of General Wilson.  I should stress, Your Honour, that the

13     submission is not an attempt in any way to relitigate the Wilson motion.

14     That is done and the decision has been rendered.

15             The motions themselves had their genesis in the issues that arose

16     during the examination of Mr. van Lynden on the first day of testimony in

17     the trial where incidents that we hadn't anticipated would amount to

18     unscheduled incidents became the subject of discussion in this court, and

19     we were aware at that time that we had scheduled Bell, or were intending

20     to schedule Mr. Bell, and General Wilson to give evidence this week, and

21     we were concerned that we did not want to run into any arguments or any

22     objections at the last minute in relation to Mr. Bell and General Wilson,

23     should incidents, if I can describe them generally in that way, be

24     categorised as unscheduled incidents which would require leave and a

25     motion to be filed.  So it was that which prompted the motions in respect

Page 823

 1     of Mr. Bell and General Wilson.

 2             In relation to General Wilson, the specific incidents which were

 3     pleaded in that motion related to shelling in the period of May to June

 4     1992.  As I've said, Your Honour, that was primarily motivated by a

 5     concern that we not fly General Wilson from Australia all the way here to

 6     be present in the witness box and to meet an objection that that

 7     constituted an unscheduled incident or not.

 8             The Prosecution, having filed its submission overnight, has

 9     examined once again the process by which the Trial -- the Pre-Trial

10     Chamber game to its decision in the 73 bis ruling and how it came to draw

11     a distinction between scheduled incidents and unscheduled incidents, and

12     the Prosecution is of the view, which it has set out in its submission,

13     that, in fact, even those Wilson incidents would not be characterised by

14     that Pre-Trial Chamber as unscheduled incidents requiring leave.  But

15     that, as I've said, Your Honour, is something that -- a position that

16     have been arrived at subsequent to the filing of that motion, and

17     that's -- I'm not intending to re-open that.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sure.

19             MR. THOMAS:  But I indicate that because there is specific

20     reference to that in the submission, because that is the very part of the

21     pre-trial brief that the Pre-Trial Chamber referred to in its decision.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I am not quite sure I have followed you quite

23     clearly.  Do I understand you to be saying, in one sentence, that general

24     comments on shelling and sniping in Sarajevo, in the view of the

25     Prosecution, should not be caught by the term "scheduled incidents"?

Page 824

 1             MR. THOMAS:  It should not be caught by the term "scheduled --"

 2     "unscheduled incidents," which would require leave.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Right.  Now, in the view of the Prosecution, what,

 4     then, are those unscheduled incidents which would then require leave?

 5             MR. THOMAS:  When one goes back to the particularly footnoted

 6     passages of the 73 bis decision which deal with references in the

 7     pre-trial brief, which deal with the Prosecution's amended witness list,

 8     which included the 65 ter witness summaries, the Prosecution's position

 9     is that the term "unscheduled incident," as considered by the Pre-Trial

10     Chamber, amounts to those incidents which are usually expressly described

11     as such in the 65 ter witness summaries, and annexed to the submission --

12     sorry.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Described as "scheduled incidents" in the 65 ter

14     list.

15             MR. THOMAS:  In the 65 ter summaries, Your Honour, one of which

16     is annexed to the submission by way of example.  Some witnesses are being

17     called to give evidence about scheduled incidents.  There is a heading

18     "Scheduled Incident A7," and then it sets out what that witness is

19     intending to say about that particular scheduled incident.  In the same

20     summary, there will also be, under usually a separate heading, an

21     unscheduled incident, "Unscheduled Incident, 2nd May, 1994" where the

22     witness -- and then a passage dealing with the witness's intended

23     evidence regarding that particular unscheduled incident.

24             There are on some occasions isolated instances in the 65 ter

25     summaries where those unscheduled incidents do not appear under a

Page 825

 1     separate heading in the 65 ter summary, but at the end of the summary

 2     where the particular relevance of the witness's evidence is set out,

 3     there is reference to that particular unscheduled incident.

 4             In other words, if I can put it concisely, Your Honour, the

 5     Prosecution's position in relation to what the Pre-Trial Chamber meant

 6     when it was talking about unscheduled incidents requiring leave is those

 7     which are expressly identified as such in the -- in the 65 ter summaries.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 9             Mr. Guy-Smith.

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If I could, for the moment, I have not had the

11     opportunity to review the Prosecution's submission, but I would like to

12     have the opportunity to do that, obviously, and I don't think that

13     Mr. Thomas is taking any exception to that.  He's really trying to work

14     out where we go from here.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sure.

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:  There is one quick thought that comes to mind

17     based upon what Mr. Thomas has said with regard to a definition of

18     "unscheduled incidents," and I refer the Chamber and Counsel to paragraph

19     11 of the decision, which has oftentimes been cited to you, concerning

20     the 73 bis matter, specifically paragraph -- the second sentence in

21     paragraph 11, which probably should be read in context of the first.

22              "After hearing the Prosecutor," this is the first sentence,

23     paragraph 11, "the Chamber may reduce the number of counts charged and

24     fix on the basis of the criteria set out in Rule 73 bis (D) of the rules

25     crime sites or incidents that are 'reasonably representative of the

Page 826

 1     crimes charged' and for which evidence will be presented," which they

 2     have done in scheduled incidents.

 3             The second sentence, I think, is of some importance in the

 4     analysis, no matter when we really grapple with the entirety of the

 5     issue.

 6             "The corollary of fixing the number of crime sites or incidents

 7     in respect of which evidence will be presented is that," and now I

 8     emphasise, "the Prosecution shall not present evidence in respect of

 9     other crime sites or incidents that are not included in the fixed

10     number."

11             Now, I think that, when read in conjunction with the analysis

12     that we have gone through on a number of occasions in paragraph 16 and

13     17, answer the question in a relatively clear manner, and I don't think

14     there is any dispute or room for, as the Prosecution has suggested,

15     interpretation of what that means.  However, that does not deal with,

16     certainly, some of the procedural as well as substantive issues that

17     still are to be addressed with regard to this whole area, and

18     specifically the analysis that is engaged in by the Chamber in paragraph

19     17.

20             Having said that, I would like to stop for the moment and ask for

21     the opportunity to read the submission and see how best to respond in a

22     cogent and comprehensive manner to it.  But I thought I should just

23     mention that in passing, because it may quickly take care of the issue

24     because it wasn't addressed by the Prosecution in their submission just

25     now, and it seems to be avoided in terms of what the Chamber has done

Page 827

 1     with regard to the specific matter in hand and that is the definition of

 2     "incidents."  But I need some -- I need some time in addition if that

 3     doesn't settle the issue at first blush.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.

 5             Let me just make one or two comments.  I find myself, and I want

 6     to believe that I'm speaking on behalf of my fellow Judges, if I say that

 7     we are equally a little at sea about this matter because we are -- we

 8     only saw the filing this morning.  We haven't read it.  Certainly, I

 9     haven't read it.  And I don't feel that I'm sufficiently informed to be

10     able to make a contribution towards a decision.

11             But just one question that I would like to ask you,

12     Mr. Guy-Smith, from this quotation that you have just given us, you said

13     that "the Prosecution shall not present evidence in respect of other

14     crime sites or incidents that are not included in the fixed number."  Is

15     that a fixed number of incidents that constitute, according to that

16     decision, that constitute scheduled incidents, and can one sort of go

17     somewhere and find it?

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  That's how I have understood the decision, and in

19     response to your question, what I then did is I went to the indictment

20     and went to the schedules following -- following the indictment that had

21     a fixed number of identified incidents; for example, schedules A and B,

22     which are really what the subject matter is we are talking about.

23     Schedule A has nine incidents; schedule B has 12 incidents.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, that's the simplistic approach that I was

25     taking to this matter insofar as the definition of "scheduled" and

Page 828

 1     "unscheduled incidents" refers.  I was looking at the schedules to the

 2     indictment.

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:  You and I were doing the same thing, Your Honour.

 4     That's what I understood to be the fixed number that they're talking

 5     about.  That's where I went.  I went from paragraph 11 to the indictment,

 6     I saw what was here.  I then took a look at the analysis in paragraph 16

 7     and 17 to see where there could be any deviation and how the deviation --

 8     and if there could be deviation from those incidents, how that occurred.

 9     And that led me to an understanding of what the -- what the Chamber's

10     analysis was there, which is that "thou," meaning the Prosecution, "shall

11     not lead evidence on --" what now is being called - and I think is being

12     used euphemistically, to be perfectly honest with you - is now being

13     called "general conditions," and I think what they really mean there is

14     precisely what the Chamber said they should not do, which is lead

15     evidence on terror in relation to the Sarajevo counts.  I think it's

16     pretty clear what this evidence is about.

17             I then went to paragraph 17 and understood from paragraph 17 that

18     there were two predicates that had to be met in order for an unscheduled

19     incident to be considered by the Chamber to be allowed to be led.  One

20     was the issue of notice; that's the procedural matter.  And the second is

21     the substantive matter, and the substantive matter had to tie in to a

22     particular requirement that it proved an essential aspect of the case,

23     and then they gave an example, which is the same example -- and I don't

24     mean to be repetitive, because I seem to be just repeating that which the

25     decision says, and it says, "... if a scheduled incident is necessary to

Page 829

 1     link the accused to the crimes charged."

 2             I think the decision is pretty straightforward.  I was not having

 3     the difficulty in interpretation that the Prosecution was which didn't

 4     mean that our job is -- of the Defence was any easier.  We still had a

 5     formidable task in front of us to counter the evidence that the

 6     Prosecution planned on bringing, but it seemed that the analysis that the

 7     Chamber had gone through was pretty clear.  There was sufficient evidence

 8     in the crimes that were charged and the incidents related to those crimes

 9     that allowed for the concern that the Prosecution had concerning notice,

10     as well as other aspects that they must prove.  And in the event there

11     was something above and beyond, something special, something

12     extraordinary, then they would come to the Chamber and ask for leave,

13     after having made a good showing both in terms of a procedural reason why

14     they had failed to bring this up at any earlier time as well as a

15     substantive reason.  That was the way that I was interpreting and have

16     been consistently interpreting this decision, as has my colleague.

17             And to a certain extent, I don't think that there's been a

18     dissimilar approach in analysis in some of the conversations that have

19     been had as between the parties.  I think it's more a question of

20     preference of how to present the evidence in this case as opposed to that

21     which is essential for proof in this case.

22             I'll leave it at that because conversations as between the

23     parties oftentimes are subject to interpretation that may be different as

24     between us, and I don't want to push that particularly hard.

25             I hope that I've -- I looked at this as a pretty straightforward

Page 830

 1     ruling.  I didn't see too much -- I didn't see too much ambiguity here.

 2     And perhaps I'm not as nuanced as others, but I just didn't see it.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can I just find out from you, Mr. Guy-Smith, while

 4     you're on your feet, would you include annex -- I beg your pardon,

 5     schedule C amongst the scheduled incidents, in your understanding?

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Absolutely.  I mean, anything that's scheduled --

 7     anything that's here that's scheduled is -- I would include.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Thomas, I'm sure you're aware of the dilemma

10     in which we have all landed.

11             MR. THOMAS:  Yes, sir.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You've told us that Mr. Bell comes from

13     Australia --

14             MR. THOMAS:  No, he's from the UK, sir.  He's -- rescheduling

15     him, if necessary, doesn't present difficulties.  It's General Wilson who

16     comes from Australia, and he's here tomorrow, but that's -- so our

17     difficulty today just involves Mr. Bell.  He's from the UK.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But you realise that, having not read your filing

19     this morning, the Defence having not had an opportunity to respond, we

20     are -- we cannot be in a position to give a decision.  In fact, I'm not

21     quite sure I've been able to digest your arguments this morning.  I would

22     like to hear them again, and maybe after reading the submission, then I

23     might be able to follow what you're saying better.

24             MR. THOMAS:  Yes, sir.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And my question is what, then, what we do with

Page 831

 1     Mr. Bell, who is standing outside ready to testify?

 2             MR. THOMAS:  This is why I wanted to raise this in advance, sir.

 3     I don't see, in the absence of a ruling, given the positions taken by the

 4     parties, that we can deal with Mr. Bell's evidence.  My learned friends

 5     still dispute that the general comments that he would make about shelling

 6     and sniping of civilians constitutes or don't constitute an unscheduled

 7     incident, and while they take that position, that's something that would

 8     have to be resolved before he's able to give that evidence.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  On the way forward, there are two -- it looks to

11     me like there are two options here, and I put them to the parties to make

12     a recommendation to the Bench.  Either we adjourn for the day and make

13     sure that this matter is properly ventilated and a properly reasoned

14     decision is rendered or, in trying to accommodate Mr. Bell, we hear

15     Mr. Bell on whatever it is that the Prosecution wants to lead on the

16     understanding that once this matter has been properly ventilated at a

17     later stage and depending on the decision that is rendered, whatever

18     needs to be expunged from Mr. Bell's testimony as not being scheduled

19     incident shall be expunged.  I'm not sure whether that second alternative

20     came out clearly.

21             Yes, Mr. Thomas -- you are on your feet.

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I believe I understood the second alternative

23     quite well.  If it's not too much of an imposition on the Court, if the

24     Prosecution and the Defence could talk for a moment, perhaps we could

25     address the issue, because, as I understand it, Mr. Bell is -- Mr. Bell

Page 832

 1     is waiting outside.  I have no desire to inconvenience him whatsoever.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's an alternative.  That's a third

 3     alternative.

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If we could have a moment.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Would you prefer that, Mr. Thomas?

 6             MR. THOMAS:  I'd certainly appreciate the opportunity to consider

 7     the matter just briefly for a moment, sir.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's quite okay.

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The parties will notify us when they are ready to

11     start?

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  We'll take an adjournment.

14                           --- Break taken at 9.36 a.m.

15                           --- On resuming at 10.07 a.m.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Thomas.

17             MR. THOMAS:  Sir, I can -- Your Honours, I can advise that my

18     learned friends and I have been discussing the matter.  We agree that the

19     greatest importance in so much as we are able to influence that should be

20     placed upon resolving the issue and obtaining a decision.  This is an

21     issue that affects not just Mr. Bell but also Mr. Wilson and probably all

22     of the international witnesses in some limited form or another.

23             My learned friends and I are both happy, as is Mr. Bell, if it

24     would assist the Court, for him to travel back on another occasion.  We

25     are certainly, both I and my friends, of the view that Mr. Bell shouldn't

Page 833

 1     give his evidence until there is a ruling on what can be -- what should

 2     be the compass of his evidence, and the same would apply to

 3     General Wilson.

 4             I'm conscious, of course, Your Honours, that both the Trial

 5     Chamber and my learned friends haven't had and need the opportunity to

 6     proper consider the Prosecution's submission.  Mr. Bell, if he's not

 7     going to testify today, can come back on another occasion.  That is not a

 8     problem.  I'm awaiting confirmation almost at any minute that General

 9     Wilson is here and would be available to give evidence Monday, perhaps

10     even Tuesday of next week, if my learned friends needed more time to be

11     able to address these issues, for example, tomorrow, instead of today.

12             In any event, the lesser of two evils would probably be, as far

13     as the Prosecution is concerned, that General Wilson give his testimony

14     after such a decision, even if that means he has to return sometime in

15     the future.  But my learned friends and I are in agreement that this is

16     a -- this is a decision that will dictate how many witnesses are going to

17     be dealt with.  It shouldn't affect in terms of timing anything too

18     significant.  But because a lot of witnesses are going to be commenting

19     in some way on these issues, that my learned friends and I both feel that

20     we should spend the time resolving the issue, getting the decision,

21     before evidence of this type is led.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

23             Mr. Guy-Smith.

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:  We agree.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You're agreed.  And the sum total is we adjourn.

Page 834

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  That would be our joint request at this time,

 2     Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Before we do so, how --

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:  How soon can we get something on file or be in a

 5     position to respond?  If I could have two seconds.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'll give you five.

 7             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you.

 8                           [Defence counsel confer]

 9             MR. THOMAS:  I'm sorry, Your Honour, if I could just interrupt

10     for a moment.  I've just received notification that General Wilson --

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Has arrived.

12             MR. THOMAS:  He's here.  He would be amenable -- well, his

13     arrangements allow him to testify on Monday or "a few days later, if

14     necessary," or he's able to return sometime in the future as well.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas.

16             Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.  That, I hope, doesn't affect the timeline

17     for your filing?

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  No, it doesn't.  I'd like to say maybe grab an

19     hour or two more, but other than that, no.  If we could -- if we could

20     have -- today is Wednesday.  If we could have the balance of the day and

21     perhaps get some in file first thing tomorrow morning, that would be

22     appreciated.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I think we can work within that timeframe.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

Page 835

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Sure.  I think that should take care of the issue

 2     about scheduling.  I think it should give us enough time, I would think.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.  I'm trying to think whether -- if you're

 4     going to file tomorrow morning, it doesn't seem to make sense to postpone

 5     to tomorrow morning, because we'll only get your filing tomorrow morning,

 6     and then we'll need to consider it --

 7             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Right.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  -- and draft our decision.  Most probably -- you

 9     said today's Wednesday?

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Right.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, Judge Picard just pointed out to me that

13     yes, we don't sit on Fridays.  So if we can't sit tomorrow, then it can

14     only be Monday.

15             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Very well.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Very well, then.  The matter stands postponed to

17     Monday -- sorry, Judge.  Let me just check the dates.

18             Monday, the 3rd of November, at quarter past 2.00 in the

19     afternoon.  It will be in Courtroom II.  Thank you very much.  Court

20     adjourned.

21                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 10.14 a.m.,

22                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 3rd day of

23                           November, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.