1 Wednesday, 4
2 [Status Conference]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [Open session]
5 --- Upon commencing at 4.30 p.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: Let the Registrar call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Case number
8 IT-00-39-&-40-PT, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik and
9 Biljana Plavsic.
10 JUDGE MAY: The appearances, please.
11 MR. PIACENTE: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Nicola Piacente and
12 Carolyn Edgerton, for the Prosecution, assisted by Carmela Annink-Javier.
13 MR. BRASICH: Good afternoon, Your Honour, Deyan Brasich for the
14 Krajisnik Defence. I'm aided by Mr. Goran Neskovic of the Bosnia and
15 Herzegovinac bar, as well as by Mr. Karkin Fahrija, also of that bar.
16 Good afternoon, Your Honour.
17 MR. PAVICH: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Robert Pavich on behalf
18 of Biljana Plavsic.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 MR. PAVICH: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Robert Pavich on behalf
21 of Bilijana Plavsic.
22 JUDGE MAY: The purpose of this hearing is to work on the progress
23 of this case. I should say that I have to attend a meeting of the Bureau
24 at five o’clock so we need to be expeditious, if you please.
25 I think the easiest way to deal with it is this, that the Trial
1 Chamber has drawn up a timetable. It's a prospective timetable, but we
2 would expect it largely to be adhered to. I will hear what counsel, of
3 course, have got to say about it, but it might be simplest if the legal
4 officer or somebody would kindly distribute the proposed timetable. Just
5 one for the Prosecution and one each for the Defence.
6 You will see, first of all, that the proposed trial date is the
7 second half of November. That is because this trial cannot take place
8 before the new Judges have been installed and the Trial Chambers have been
9 reconstituted. But with that in mind, this Trial Chamber -- this trial
10 should clearly take place as soon after that event as possible, bearing in
11 mind that one of the accused has been in custody for nearly a year
12 already. Bearing in mind too that the other accused has more recently
13 come and, therefore, should have time for preparation of the trial.
14 This will be a substantial trial, and the Trial Chamber has in
15 mind the difficulties of preparation for both sides, but also the need
16 that the trial should take place as soon as possible in order that times
17 in custody are kept to a minimum before trial.
18 With those considerations in mind, it's necessary to give as much
19 time as possible for reasonable preparation, and the proposed timetable,
20 you'll see, is there should be a further conference on the 17th of May;
21 that the Prosecution should complete disclosure by the 22nd of June;
22 pre-trial brief, 29th of June. Pausing there, that will allow the
23 Prosecution three months from today's date to be ready.
24 I will hear any submissions on that, but in my view, they should
25 be ready by now considering the amount of time that has elapsed since this
1 indictment was first preferred and since the first accused came into
3 That would be followed by a Status Conference at the beginning of
4 July, another one at the beginning of September. The Defence Pre-Trial
5 briefs would then be on the 28th of September. Pausing there, that will
6 have allowed the Defence a period of three months between the Prosecution
7 Pre-Trial brief and the submission of their own briefs. A Pre-Trial
8 Conference would then be scheduled for the 5th of November and an earlier
9 Status Conference on the 3rd of October.
10 All that should lead to the trial being ready, this case being
11 trial-ready, by the second half of November of this year.
12 Now, I'm sorry that you haven't had greater notice of this
13 proposed timetable, but it's important that we get on with it. And so
14 I'll hear any submissions that anybody has about it, and after that, we
15 will deal with any other matters, bearing in mind the constraints of
17 Now, Mr. Piacente, it seems to me that the 29th of June is the
18 very latest that the Prosecution can have for their Pre-Trial brief.
19 MR. PIACENTE: Your Honour, I'm afraid I cannot share the same
20 opinion, considering the warning scenario this case has developed in the
21 last month. The previously appointed senior trial attorney, Ms. Brenda
22 Hollis, left the OTP, and the newly appointed senior trial attorney, Mark
23 Harmon, is engaged in the Trial Chamber dealing with the Krstic case.
24 There will be the need to restructure the whole trial team, considering
25 the fact that I myself will be leaving the OTP by the end of May.
1 So I would say, reconsidering, reading what Your Honour submitted
2 to both parties, I would say that the Prosecution can be ready to disclose
3 the bulk, the biggest part, of the material falling within the language of
4 65 ter (E) by the first week of July.
5 We will try the best, beyond best, to finish, to be ready with the
6 Pre-Trial brief by the fall of this year, 2001, and --
7 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment, Mr. Piacente, you are proposing this
8 autumn for the Pre-Trial brief?
9 MR. PIACENTE: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MAY: Am I not right this case was subject to Rule 61
11 proceedings, this indictment, in 1996.
12 MR. PIACENTE: Not to my knowledge, Your Honour. It was the
13 indictment against Mr. Karadzic.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes, same indictment. Well, be that as it may, you've
15 had since April last year to prepare a Pre-Trial brief. It's unacceptable
16 now to come before the Trial Chamber and say that you need 18 months,
17 which is what it would have been, to prepare a Pre-Trial brief. It should
18 have been ready months ago. Now, I understand you have problems. We've
19 heard before from Ms. Hollis about the number of documents that you've had
20 to go through. Of course. But that doesn't mean that you can't be
21 getting on with the Pre-Trial brief so that the accused know the case they
22 have to meet and so that the Trial Chamber knows the case which it's going
23 to have to try.
24 You must restructure your work, you must restructure your team.
25 You've got three months and that should be sufficient to do it. By this
1 stage, your case should be almost ready.
2 MR. PIACENTE: Well, Your Honour, the trial preparation might be
3 more expeditious, for example, if we did not have a fully litigated case.
4 Today, only a few minutes before the beginning of this Status Conference,
5 we received a response from the Defence of Mr. Krajisnik about a number of
6 adjudicated facts and other allegations subject to stipulation, and of
7 course, in the next hours, and the next days, we are in the process to
8 analyse them. Plus we were submitted a number of facts by the Defence for
9 potential and possible stipulation, and we also have to analyse it. This
10 is with reference to Mr. Krajisnik, and this is the latest update about
11 the situation.
12 But with reference to Mrs. Plavsic, let's say that we had last
13 week some fruitful discussions, meetings, with the Defence counsel, but so
14 far, we have not agreed to any kind of stipulation and we are waiting, of
15 course. I mean we understand that the Defence counsel just took over the
16 case, and just took over, you know, the interests of Mrs. Plavsic. So we
17 wait to hear from Mr. Pavich, whether it's going to be a fully litigated
18 case or whether there are some areas of agreement. I understand that both
19 parties are tending to --
20 JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Piacente, that of course is much to be
21 encouraged. Any agreement that can be reached in order to shorten the
22 case will of course have the Trial Chamber's full blessing. And I'd
23 encouraged you before, and I would encourage you again, to continue with
24 these negotiations, these discussions. But that cannot in any way affect
25 your duty to produce a Pre-Trial brief on the basis, if need be, that this
1 is a fully argued case.
2 As I say, the programme gives you three months to do it. Yes?
3 MR. PIACENTE: Yes, Your Honour, again, I mean, the concern coming
4 from the Prosecution bench is related to a professional preparation of the
5 case and the Pre-Trial brief in order to avoid any other delay or
6 adjournment of the case. So what I was proposing, humbly proposing, to
7 Your Honour, was, let's say, a realistic prospective of the Prosecution,
8 which at the end for -- with reference to the, let's say, important aspect
9 of the whole issue, which is the beginning of the case, won't affect very
10 much the scheduled trial date because we will do our best to be ready, but
11 the date scheduled by the Trial Chamber or at the latest, at the very
12 beginning of December of this year.
13 JUDGE MAY: No. The beginning of December is not acceptable. The
14 date which is at the moment is the latter half of November, and
15 Mr. Piacente, it must be understood that the Prosecution is to be ready by
17 Now, the dates which we have put forward, which I have suggested,
18 seem to me to be realistic dates in order to meet a trial by the end of
19 November. As I've already pointed out, one of the accused has already
20 been in custody for a year. I remember at the very first Status
21 Conference Ms. Hollis saying for the Prosecution that it would take a year
22 to prepare this case. You've now had a year and you're asking for another
23 six months and more.
24 MR. PIACENTE: Considering -- I'm sorry, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MAY: I don't think there is much point debating it
1 further. The matter should be ready for trial within that time.
2 I will hear what the Defence have got to say in a moment. But as
3 far as the Prosecution are concerned, that must be the timetable.
4 MR. PIACENTE: I suppose I'm not allowed to propose another
5 scenario of difficulties to you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, you can mention what -- Mr. Brasich, I'll hear
7 you in a moment.
8 Yes. What other difficulties have you got?
9 MR. PIACENTE: You may argue, Your Honour, that it is not strictly
10 related to the preparation of the trial brief, but still, I mean we're
11 finding a lot of difficulties in the procedure set out by the new
12 Rule 92 bis. Of course, we are in the process and we intend to use, as
13 much as extensively possible, these Rules in order to expedite the case.
14 So we are in the process, in an active process to identify all the
15 witnesses with statements falling within the language of this new Rule.
16 But, Your Honour, please consider that no procedure, practical
17 procedure how to get the statements is being set up yet, and to my
18 knowledge up-to-date, up to this date, no presiding officer has been
19 proposed yet. And as we are talking about 41 municipalities and crime
20 base which includes a big part of country which is Bosnia, definitely our
21 estimation is that in order to expedite the case, we should submit to the
22 Court the biggest number possible on 92 bis statements. And in order to
23 do so, we must be, you know, in the position to get these statements and
24 to get all the -- and to meet all the requirements, and this situation,
25 the current situation, is not helping us very much.
1 JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Piacente, if you have difficulties about the
2 Rule and the Trial Chamber can be of assistance, perhaps you'd like to set
3 them out in the form of a motion or the like and we'll consider the
5 MR. PIACENTE: We will consider it, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MAY: That should not hold you up.
7 MR. PIACENTE: We'll consider it, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes.
9 Yes, Mr. Brasich.
10 MR. BRASICH: Good afternoon, Your Honour. I, of course, have
11 just gone on board in this particular case, and I will have to rely on the
12 Office of the Prosecutor's completion of their tasks before I can really
13 start preparing my defences. However, a thought came to me, Your Honour,
14 with regard to a possible solution.
15 The Court, if I read the comments made, is very conscious of a
16 speedy trial situation. There has been a change, a political change, in
17 Yugoslavia. Perhaps if the Prosecution would consent to a provisional
18 release, the time constraints would not be an issue, and I would invite
19 the Prosecution to seriously consider such an arrangement.
20 With regard to the plan itself, Your Honour, as I said, I do not
21 speak for Mrs. Plavsic, but she surrendered. My client has been in for
22 over a year. The experiences that I have had with the other case that I
23 have had the honour to represent a client in, the provisional release has
24 had no problems and the --
25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Brasich, with respect, that's a separate issue.
1 MR. BRASICH: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MAY: We hear what you say, and no doubt the Prosecution can
3 consider what is suggested.
4 MR. BRASICH: Fine. Your Honour. With regard to --
5 JUDGE MAY: With regard to the timetable, I understand you've only
6 just come into the matter, and Mrs. Plavsic, of course, has surrendered
7 more recently, but nonetheless, one would hope that some work has been
8 undertaken. There was a problem at an earlier hearing which was raised
9 about the provision of resources. I understand that the Registry are
10 making much more resource available in this case than they are normally.
11 MR. BRASICH: That is correct, Your Honour. With regard to that,
12 Your Honour, in you schedule, I plan to make some in limine motions.
13 Would there be a schedule in regard to that? We have been served so far
14 by 85.000 pieces of paper. Perhaps we can cut down the necessity of all
15 of those documents with the proper in limine motion.
16 Would the Court like to hear such a motion? That would be my
17 first question.
18 My second question, Your Honour, is I'm an American, July 4th is
19 the traditional holiday. We had last year, that problem. I was wondering
20 if we could move it either a little bit earlier or later so that I
21 wouldn't lose the July 4th weekend.
22 JUDGE MAY: That would be one of the easier matters to deal with.
23 MR. BRASICH: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MAY: As for motions, the usual Rules apply about motions,
25 as to when they should be entered, and I don't think there will be any
1 distinction in this case. Perhaps you would like to consult the Rules and
2 act accordingly.
3 MR. BRASICH: The reason why I'm saying that, Your Honour, is I
4 can't make a motion in limine until I get all the disclosure. That's why
5 I'm asking the question.
6 JUDGE MAY: You'll have to take whatever course you think fits.
7 If you can put a motion in earlier, so much the better. If it has to be
8 later, well, then, we'll deal with it later.
9 MR. BRASICH: Okay, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MAY: Now, is there anything anybody else wants to say about
11 the proposals? Yes.
12 MR. PAVICH: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, I know the
13 Court is pressed for time. Nonetheless, I have some grave concerns that I
14 think must be raised before the Tribunal at this time.
15 I was assigned as Mrs. Plavsic's counsel approximately three weeks
16 ago with the purpose of determining the scope and magnitude of the case
17 against her so as to determine what might be necessary and what might be
18 required for adequate representation.
19 Toward that end, we've had several conferences and two meetings
20 with the Prosecution over the past three weeks, and in those meetings, I
21 think we have determined that the scope and magnitude of this case is
22 greater than any other that has come before this Tribunal for a number of
23 reasons. First, all the other cases that have been tried before this
24 Tribunal. If we look at paragraphs 18 and 20 of the consolidated
25 indictment, for example, to see the detention camps and villages that are
1 listed, many of these cases have been tried over the past nine years and
2 essentially have been rolled into this case.
3 We've had fruitful discussions, as Mr. Piacente has said, in our
4 meeting last week with Mr. Piacente and Mr. Harmon, and I think that going
5 through the consolidated indictment paragraph by paragraph, as we did last
6 week, it became clear that at this time, it would seem that the case
7 against Mrs. Plavsic is going to be a case without holding the
8 Prosecution, at this time, to any commitment. But based on the facts that
9 the Prosecution has at this time, we believe that this case is going to
10 involve a case in which the question about Mrs. Plavsic will be whether
11 she should have known what was occurring during the period of the
12 indictment and whether she should have taken greater steps or more steps
13 to prevent what was happening.
14 I mention that because this is the broadest possible charge that
15 can be made. We're not talking about an individual charge at a specific
16 moment in time, but we're talking about what she knew or should have known
17 more particularly during this period and whether she should have taken
18 certain steps or perhaps even more steps than she did take in order to
19 prevent or mitigate what happened.
20 To that extent, I was advised that behind the indictment there are
21 approximately 3 million pages of documentation. That relates to the basic
22 indictment itself. We spoke briefly about Rule 68 and materials that
23 might have to be disclosed under Rule 68. Mr. Harmon advised me that the
24 documentation would amount to approximately 3 million pages. That does
25 not, however, I think, include an interpretation of Rule 68 that I brought
1 to the attention of the Prosecutors last week and that is whether material
2 in mitigation -- as Your Honour knows, mitigation is considered at the
3 same time that the underlying liability is considered in the case, whether
4 material in mitigation would be --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please speak a bit slower.
6 THE INTERPRETER: -- be advised to mind the interpreters, please.
7 JUDGE MAY: Could you slow down.
8 MR. PAVICH: I apologise, Your Honour. I'm conscious of your time
9 frame and I apologise.
10 Whether material in mitigation would be limited to the period of
11 the indictment, we believe that it would not. The reason I mention this
12 fact, together with one other important fact, the indictment, the
13 consolidated indictment mentions a number of other additional facts
14 beginning, I think, with paragraph, I believe, 48 through 67. These are
15 facts that do not necessarily relate directly to the facts that need to be
16 proven by the Prosecution but, as Mr. Harmon and Mr. Piacente explained to
17 me, these are facts that are necessary in order to create the proper
18 context so that the Tribunal may understand the full context in which the
19 Prosecution is making its case.
20 The comments, of course, from our end on that is that there may be
21 additional facts that we feel may become necessary in order to more fully
22 complete the context that the Prosecution may feel is necessary for the
23 Court to fully understand the situation. If the Court would look at these
24 paragraphs, it will see that these paragraphs relate almost exclusively to
25 what the Bosnian Serbs were doing at particular moments in time. It has
1 nothing to say about what may have been done to the Bosnian Serbs at this
2 particular time.
3 The reason I mention this context of additional facts in the
4 Prosecution's consolidated indictment and the Rule 68 is that the
5 3 million documents and 3 million pages that stand behind this indictment
6 apparently may not even go to documents that may be necessary under a full
7 or more complete Rule 68 disclosure relating to, say, mitigation or to
8 additional facts that may become necessary in order to more fully advise
9 the Court as to the context of the proceedings.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Can the counsel please slow down?
11 JUDGE MAY: Can you slow down, please?
12 MR. PAVICH: May I proceed, Your Honour? With all this in mind,
13 I've taken the time to also meet with the Registrar, and have expressed
14 both to the Registrar, and to Mr. Piacente and Mr. Harmon most recently,
15 my grave concerns about whether Ms. Plavsic will be able to defend herself
16 in this matter, and that's going to depend on whether she is given
17 adequate resources to defend herself.
18 A simple point, Your Honour: 3 million pages, if it takes --
19 Defence counsel must look at the documentation that's behind the
20 indictment. I cannot, as an officer of the Tribunal or as assigned
21 counsel to Mrs. Plavsic, undertake this case without undertaking the
22 responsibility of looking at the documentation. If, for example, we take
23 two minutes per page - and I'll bore the court very briefly with this very
24 simple proposition - at 3 million documents, that's 6 million minutes. If
25 one person were to take 365 days a year, 8 hours a day, if I were to
1 undertake that, at 2 minutes per page, it would take me 34 years in order
2 to simply read the documents. So --
3 JUDGE MAY: Let me interrupt you before you go on. I don't know
4 where this figure of 3 million documents came in. My recollection from
5 what was said in an earlier hearing was that the Defence were looking
6 through and -- Prosecution, I'm sorry, were looking through a million
7 documents - still a substantial number - to see what number they had to
8 disclose. But at this stage, there may be little point in discussing
9 whether it's a million or 3 million. I take the point that it is a very
10 substantial number.
11 The important point, if I may say, is to ensure that what is
12 disclosed is what is relevant to the case, and that a large amount of
13 documents are not disclosed which are totally irrelevant.
14 I know there are problems about resources. They have been raised,
15 and I understand that the Registry has made particular efforts to ensure
16 that adequate resources are available to you.
17 MR. PAVICH: May I mention my discussion with the Registry in that
19 JUDGE MAY: Except for this, that this is another logistical
20 problem, I agree an important one, but it's a logistical problem which
21 must be seen to. What are you asking me to do, having regard to the
23 MR. PAVICH: Your Honour, unfortunately, this is a logistical
24 problem of such a magnitude that it raises -- rises to the level of
25 whether or not Mrs. Plavsic is going to be able to defend herself. I've
1 met with the Registrar's office. They have made extraordinary efforts in
2 this case to provide resources, but the resources that have been given,
3 which would amount to 8.600 hours, would not even allow us to complete
4 reading the documentation that has preliminarily been disclosed, and that
5 is the 26.000 or 27.000 pages of hard copy. And the 29 CD-ROM disks, that
6 would be approximately another 90.000 pages. And, Your Honour, this is
7 simply -- we are only talking at this moment about reading documentation.
8 We are not even -- this is the very preliminary aspect of any Defence.
9 And so these logistical problems, these management problems,
10 raise -- rise to the level of fundamental fairness and whether or not we
11 are going to be able to defend her. I cannot, in good conscience,
12 undertake a representation of Mrs. Plavsic if I know from the beginning
13 that I'm not going to be able to complete even reading the documentation
14 that may stand behind the indictment.
15 I believe what we have is a situation under Article 21, which
16 created the Tribunal, which specifically indicates in Article 21 that the
17 Defence --
18 "In the determination of any charge against the accused ... the
19 accused shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full
22 "(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of
23 his defence."
24 As Your Honour has mentioned, the Prosecution has basically had
25 eight years to prepare its case, and has in fact been working on smaller
1 cases that have been rolled into this indictment for the past eight
2 years. They have an institutional memory that we can never compete with.
3 They have an office. They have an entire Tribunal, essentially, behind
4 them. I, Your Honour, on behalf of Mrs. Plavsic, have nothing behind me.
5 I have no desk. I have no chair. I'm not trying now to be facetious, but
6 if we do have 3 million pieces of paper. We have to have a place to put
8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Pavich, at this stage, you have warned us of the
9 difficulties which you face. What would be most sensible is this: If you
10 gather together the current position that you are in - so roughly what
11 you've said today - explain the position, and it would be better, it seems
12 to me, to put the matter into writing and the Trial Chamber can then
13 consider it.
14 MR. PAVICH: I would be happy to do that, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MAY: And we will review the whole position. But not only
16 are there constraints of the size of the case, there are also time
17 constraints, as I have mentioned earlier on.
18 MR. PAVICH: This is where the resources become critical, Your
20 JUDGE MAY: Particularly with people in custody. Now, we will
21 also find out from the Prosecution the precise size of their anticipated
22 disclosure, and in that way, we will get a full picture of the task which
23 you're facing.
24 MR. PAVICH: I simply wanted at this point, at the earliest
25 possible moment, Your Honour, raise what I believe are very, very grave
1 concerns about whether or not Mrs. Plavsic is going to be unable under the
2 circumstances to defend herself unless some drastic measures are taken to
3 provide either resources or to drastically reduce the amount of material
4 that would be necessary to review. However, I'm not optimistic that the
5 latter will be possible for this reason, Your Honour: The indictment, as
6 I understand it, our Defence and the Prosecution are going to be focusing
7 in this case on whether she should have known what was happening and
8 whether she should have taken more serious steps to do more to stop what
9 had happened. And in that broad context, I think it's going to be very
10 difficult, Your Honour, to substantially narrow the documentation. In any
11 event, I think it was important for me to raise this, and Mr. Piacente may
12 have a comment. I don't mean to speak out of turn, but I do believe that
13 we did discuss this and did I raise my concerns with him last week in
15 JUDGE MAY: Well, it's helpful to have the issue narrowed in that
16 way, and if it is narrowed, one would hope there could be a narrowing of
17 the amount of evidence necessary.
18 Mr. Piacente, I don't want to continue this debate very much
19 longer but is this figure of 3 million an accurate one?
20 MR. PIACENTE: Your Honour, Ms. Brenda Hollis mentioned in the
21 last Status Conference that we were dealing with 2.700.000 pages of
22 documents we have in-house. Of course, the selection and the analysis of
23 these documents is going very, very narrow, so definitely we are not going
24 to submit to the Defence all the documents we have in-house. That's
25 definitely not our purpose. Definitely, I mean, our theory of the case
1 will be specified in our Pre-Trial brief and I'm afraid it won't be the
2 same that the Defence counsel has anticipated. And I don't want to add
3 anything else about that, but definitely our theory of the case won't
4 imply the necessity to hand over to the Defence or to the Trial Chamber
5 such a huge amount of documents.
6 JUDGE MAY: And you will have heard what I said about narrowing,
7 as far as possible, the documents which are disclosed to those which are
8 really relevant.
9 MR. PIACENTE: Your Honour, we asked both Defence counsels of both
10 accused to specify, if they are available, to their potential or future
11 theory of the case or strategy of the Defence. We didn't mean anything
12 but try to understand what the theory of the case might be and try to
13 adapt our disclosure process to that theory of the case, in order to
14 narrow as much as possible and to expedite as much as possible the trial
15 preparation. Also for the counterpart.
16 JUDGE MAY: And are you in a position to say what volume of
17 documents might be disclosed?
18 MR. PIACENTE: I don't want to be wrong, Your Honour, so let me
19 not answer this question, please.
20 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Clearly, Mr. Pavich, what would assist
21 would be further discussions with the Prosecutor and Mr. Brasich, too, in
22 order to try and narrow the scope of the case which would be in
23 everybody's interest; yours in terms of preparation, Prosecution in terms
24 of their disclosure. It may be in that way that some progress can be
25 made. But the Trial Chamber -- I should make this point to both sides,
1 that the Trial Chamber is available, and I as the Pre-Trial judge am
2 available at any time to assist in these matters. And although I've
3 listed Status Conferences, it's perfectly possible to have additional
4 hearings at any time which is convenient, and it may be that that would be
5 a sensible way forward.
6 Now, is there anything anybody else wants to raise at the moment?
7 There is the necessity for the Trial Chamber to inquire about
8 detention. This is the opportunity for the accused to raise issues in
9 relation to detention. Is there anything that anybody wants to raise?
10 MR. PAVICH: As Your Honour knows, when I was assigned, an
11 application had been pending for Pre-Trial release. We withdrew that
12 simply to give us an opportunity to refile it and in order to prepare in a
13 way in which I think we may be able to get some additional guarantees. So
14 I anticipate filing an application within the next two weeks.
15 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Mr. Brasich, anything you want to say?
16 MR. BRASICH: No, Your Honour, not at this -- I keep forgetting
17 that. Not at this time, Your Honour, I'm too new in the case to have
18 really taken all possible steps on behalf of my client, so I would like to
20 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Well, this matter will be adjourned.
21 There will be a Status Conference at the latest on the 17th of May, but
22 meanwhile, the Trial Chamber will be reviewing the position, having regard
23 to what's been said here today, and if necessary, further hearings will be
25 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at 5.08 p.m.