1 Monday, 10 December 2001
2 [Status Conference]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.30 p.m.
5 JUDGE MAY: Let the registrar call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-00-39 & 40-PT, the Prosecutor
7 versus Momcilo Krajisnik and Biljana Plavsic.
8 JUDGE MAY: The appearances, please.
9 MR. HARMON: Good morning, Judge May, Judge Kwon. My name is Mark
10 Harmon. Appearing with me is Mr. Tieger from the Prosecution.
11 MR. BRASHICH: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Deyan Brashich with
12 Nikola Kostich for the Krajisnik Defence.
13 MR. PAVICH: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Robert Pavich with
14 Eugene O'Sullivan and Peter Murphy for the Plavsic Defence.
15 JUDGE MAY: The purpose of this hearing is a Status Conference in
16 this case in which a number of matters have to be dealt with, chiefly to
17 establish a timetable for the trial.
18 Mr. Harmon, it may be that you can assist in that. A number of
19 matters were dealt with at the meeting which I held with the parties.
20 Perhaps you can give an update on the various matters.
21 MR. HARMON: Judge May, I'd be glad to. The first item that we
22 discussed in the meeting last month was the issue of 92 bis statements.
23 We are prepared today to -- tomorrow to turn over to the Defence 62 of
24 those 92 bis statements with attestations, and I am in the process of
25 checking with my investigators as to the remaining number. Should there
1 be remaining 150 bis attestations that were completed on the most recent
2 mission, it's my desire to turn those over forthwith to the Defence.
3 The second point that we discussed at the meeting was the issue of
4 expert reports. To summarise, the Defence was in need of a Defence expert
5 and needed an expert appointed by OLAD to assist them in reviewing the
6 exhumation reports, and it was agreed that within 30 days of the
7 appointment of that expert, the Defence would get back to the Prosecution
8 and inform the Prosecution whether they accepted the statement of the
10 It is my understanding that on the 6th of December, a request for
11 the appointment of an expert was made to OLAD. So we await the decision
12 by OLAD as to the appointment of that expert and then matters can progress
13 in the manner which I have outlined.
14 The third issue that we discussed was the issue of adjudicated
15 facts, and at the last meeting, the parties had agreed to identify
16 adjudicated facts for consideration under Rule 94(B) by the 31st of
17 January, 2002, and we undertook to attempt to reach an agreement on some
18 or all of those by the 1st of March, 2002. I can report to the Court that
19 we have prepared today a submission of adjudicated facts that we have
20 identified. These adjudicated facts are facts that have been identified
21 from the various decisions that take us up to today's date. I suspect
22 there may be some additional adjudicated facts but I'm confident that the
23 majority of those facts that we believe have been adjudicated and we have
24 identified we will give over to the Defence today. So we're ahead of
25 schedule, considerably ahead of schedule, on that project.
1 The issue of the untranslated documents, it is my understanding
2 that -- and I will defer to my colleague Mr. Tieger in just a moment.
3 He's been principally dealing with that issue. It's my understanding that
4 there is a new regime, so to say, as to who controls the documents and the
5 rate of production of translation of those documents that will soon be
6 undertaken. Mr. Tieger can address that issue in just a moment with Your
8 The next issue that we raised at the --
9 JUDGE MAY: Shall we deal with the untranslated documents while
10 we're still on it?
11 MR. HARMON: I will be glad to defer to my colleague Mr. Tieger.
12 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Tieger, if you would tell us what the
13 position is.
14 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour. Mr. President and Your Honour, as you
15 will recall, we were previously operating on the basis of two translation
16 schedules. The original one, for a period of time, envisioned
17 approximately 1.000 pages a month. The latter schedule, which was
18 reported in our last meeting, appeared to be 700 a month. It's my
19 understanding, and I don't wish to pre-empt any clarification by the
20 Registry on an issue which I understand they are grappling with seriously,
21 that an institution-wide regime is about to be implemented which will --
22 which may result in changes to the individual allocations to particular
24 Essentially, that means that we cannot report a fixed number of
25 pages per month on which to base estimations of the completion of our
1 untranslated documents. Obviously, we will be working as closely as
2 possible with whatever instrument is formed to allocate particular pages
3 to particular cases, whether that's a committee or otherwise, but I think
4 it's fair to report our present understanding that the assurance of 700
5 pages upon which we previously relied should no longer be taken for
7 JUDGE MAY: What effect is that going to have on the preparation
8 of this case?
9 MR. TIEGER: Well, I think it's difficult to say. I don't know
10 whether or not an institution-wide regime will result in any dramatic
11 change in the number of pages we can expect a month. Obviously, we hope
12 not. In addition, during meetings with the Defence, we have discussed or
13 begun discussing possible ways to reduce the number of pages needed for
14 translation through agreements between the parties.
15 Just to say two things: Number one, we haven't received
16 estimations yet which tell us with any certainty whether or not the
17 previous projections will be reduced or increased, and if it turns out
18 that we are receiving fewer pages per month, we would like to work as
19 creatively and as energetically as possible to adopt procedures which will
20 reduce our own need for -- within the case for translated pages. At the
21 same time, unilaterally, we will continue to look at our exhibits to see
22 if that can be culled in such a way to reduce the number of necessary
24 JUDGE MAY: Clearly, if it's possible one way or another to reduce
25 this backlog, it's going to help the readiness of the case. So I for one
1 would encourage very much agreement between the parties as to the
2 disclosure of untranslated documents or whatever other regime can be put
3 into place.
4 MR. TIEGER: We will certainly take those words to heart, Your
5 Honour. And as you know, we have been successful to date in our efforts
6 to achieve consensus between the Defence and the Prosecution. I am
7 optimistic we can continue to do so and those efforts will certainly be
9 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Harmon.
10 MR. HARMON: I will continue then with the discussion about what
11 occurred at the last conference and where we are in respect of each of
12 those items.
13 We had agreed as well to provide the Defence with untranslated
14 documents as soon as possible, approximately 12.000, and we are prepared
15 at this point to provide to the Defence, on a disk, 500 copies of
16 documents. In addition, we will provide to the Defence, by the 22nd of
17 December of this year, an additional 2.000 documents. Those documents
18 will be in B/C/S and in English translation.
19 That brings me to a related issue, and that is that we had
20 undertaken to provide to the Defence a copy of all of our discovery
21 materials on a disk, with a more powerful search engine, Zy 4, and that
22 was at the last conference a procedure that was being tested by the
23 technical people of this organisation. I am told that there are
24 difficulties in terms of absorbing these materials onto a disk in a very
25 quick fashion. I have discussed this. I've raised the issue with the
1 Defence today. We're prepared, in the alternative, to provide hard copies
2 of all of those pages to the Defence. So we have given the Defence a
3 choice, and the choice is wait for those documents to be copied on a
5 I was asked when I thought the completion of the burning of those
6 documents onto a disk would be done. I didn't have an answer for them
7 this afternoon. I'm endeavouring to get an answer for them, but the
8 alternative choice for the Defence is to receive hard copies, and we're
9 able to furnish hard copies very quickly of those outstanding documents.
10 JUDGE MAY: Let me see if I have it right. 500 copied documents
11 today on a disk.
12 MR. HARMON: Correct.
13 JUDGE MAY: 2.000 documents in translated form on the 22nd of
15 MR. HARMON: That's correct. In B/C/S and in translated form.
16 Which leaves us with a remainder, and that's where the problem develops.
17 And I have explained the problem to the Defence and given them a choice,
18 and they will get back to me as to whether they want the remaining
19 documents in hard copy or they want to wait until they can be burned on to
20 a disk, and I owe them the answer of when I can best estimate the
21 technical process of burning those on to a disk will be completed. I
22 expect to get that information after today's status conference.
23 JUDGE MAY: So that would be hard copy in B/C/S.
24 MR. HARMON: That's correct.
25 JUDGE MAY: Now, or within a reasonable time.
1 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MAY: And that would be all the disclosure material
4 MR. HARMON: Yes.
5 JUDGE MAY: Yes, well, that will be a start.
6 MR. HARMON: Judge May, another issue was raised at the conference
7 that we had last month was the issue of video materials, and I had
8 outlined to Your Honour that there were some film clips that we had
9 disclosed to the Defence for which there were no translations, no
10 transcripts. And as I outlined to Your Honour at the last conference, it
11 was agreed by the parties that the Defence would prepare transcripts of
12 those for which there were no transcripts, and they would forward those to
13 us, and we would submit those to CLSS for translation. So I am waiting
14 for receipt of those transcripts from those video clips for which there is
15 no transcript. And upon receipt of those, I will submit those directly to
16 CLSS for translation.
17 JUDGE MAY: So the scheme is the Defence would provide B/C/S
19 MR. HARMON: That's correct.
20 JUDGE MAY: And you would have them translated.
21 MR. HARMON: Correct.
22 The next item was the issue of reciprocal discovery, and at the
23 last conference, I undertook to provide the Plavsic Defence with indexes
24 of materials they had requested by the 15th of November, 2001. And we
25 were delayed by one day. But with the consent of the Defence, I provided
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 those indexes to the Defence on the 16th of November, 2001.
2 Lastly, I can report to Your Honours that on the 26th of November
3 of this year, we produced a Rule 68 production to the Defence in which we
4 identified materials that fell possibly within the ambit of that rule.
5 And I do believe, Mr. President, that that concludes all of the items that
6 we had discussed.
7 In the interim time, I can report to Your Honours that there is an
8 additional matter, and that is that many of our witnesses that we have
9 identified in the course of these pre-trial proceedings have been
10 witnesses who testified in other cases. And we have approximately 500
11 audiotapes of previous ICTY testimony, and I have suggested to the Defence
12 a compromise position in that. I've given them an index. I've identified
13 a portion of those witnesses for whom we have transcripts of their
14 testimony. The Defence is in a position to review those transcripts, and
15 if they want the audio portion of the testimony of the witness in B/C/S,
16 then they will inform me that they want that audiotape, and we will copy
17 it for them and produce it to them. So I'm waiting to hear from the
18 Defence as to which of those previous testimonies in B/C/S they would like
19 us to copy on to tape.
20 The alternative is, of course, for us to copy 500 audiotapes per
21 accused, a total of 1.000 audiotapes, and I believe that that would be
22 essentially a waste of the Tribunal's resources. I don't think the
23 Defence will listen to 500 audiotapes in total. I think they will listen
24 to the audiotapes they want to hear. They will identify those to us. We
25 will copy those audiotapes and make them available to the Defence. So
1 that is something that wasn't raised at the last conference but raised in
2 the interim time, and the -- we're working on the resolution of that
3 particular issue as well.
4 JUDGE MAY: Are these witnesses whose evidence you're going to
5 rely on or merely evidence which you think should be disclosed?
6 MR. HARMON: Evidence that we think should be disclosed and
7 evidence that we may rely on. So it falls under both categories.
8 JUDGE MAY: Will you be seeking, do you think, in due course to
9 put the transcripts in?
10 MR. HARMON: We may. Correct, Judge May.
11 JUDGE MAY: Two other matters. There was a motion -- I think
12 there's a motion from Mr. Brashich of the 28th of November to which you
13 have to respond within the next day or two.
14 MR. HARMON: I thought I had addressed all of the issues, but if
15 Your Honour has a copy of the transcript and can refer me to the page.
16 JUDGE MAY: It's a motion of the 28th of November for access to
17 some supporting material.
18 MR. HARMON: Judge May, I have a copy of that before me.
19 JUDGE MAY: And also, a further motion for production of
20 statements made by a co-accused.
21 MR. HARMON: We will be responding to that in due course. As to
22 the motion to receive statements of the co-accused -- Judge May, we will
23 be filing written responses in due course as to each of the motions raised
24 by Mr. Brashich.
25 JUDGE MAY: Very well. The final matter is the clarification of
1 the indictment. You said at the meeting that you would probably provide
2 an amended indictment by the end of January.
3 MR. HARMON: Yes.
4 JUDGE MAY: But the matter was left over to the status
6 MR. HARMON: We intend to file an amended indictment by the 31st
7 of January. It is still our intention.
8 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Are there any orders which you seek?
9 MR. HARMON: No.
10 JUDGE MAY: And perhaps I can put this to you: As things stand,
11 is this case on course or is it not on course for a hearing in the autumn
12 of next year? Is there any reason why it shouldn't be?
13 MR. HARMON: Realistically, we are making enormous steps toward a
14 trial that could commence in the fall. What is unknown to us is what this
15 new translation regime brings to us. We will be inquiring, as Mr. Tieger
16 said, as to whether this means we will have fewer documents translated or
17 more documents. At the same time, we will be working vigorously to try to
18 reduce the number of documents that need to be translated, in addition to
19 which we will be trying to narrow the focus of this indictment, which
20 could also result in this case hitting the mark of trial in the fall.
21 So I would say at this time, projecting ahead with those unknowns,
22 particularly the language translation, I would say that we are on course.
23 The Defence will have at least in untranslated form the majority of our
24 documents. When I say the majority, they will have all of the exhibits we
25 have identified now and the interim time. And if we continue to identify
1 additional documents, we will turn those over to the Defence upon receipt
2 and upon proper identification.
3 JUDGE MAY: What is the date now for the pre-trial brief?
4 MR. HARMON: We have not selected a date for the pre-trial brief.
5 I would kindly request the Court to reserve fixing a date for the
6 pre-trial brief until the next status conference.
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes. I note that I said at the meeting that next
8 March would be a suitable date for a pre-trial brief. We will have to fix
9 a pre-trial conference obviously before then.
10 MR. HARMON: Judge May, it seems to me that the -- a March
11 pre-trial brief might be a little premature. When we amend the indictment
12 on the 31st of January, there may be some motions, although it's our hope
13 that there will be very few motions relating to the form of the
14 indictment, if any. But it's the translation backlog that causes us the
15 most concern in a sense that we don't quite have a firm handle on how far
16 advanced we're going to be on that issue. And that's a fundamental issue
17 that impacts on our ability to prepare properly a pre-trial brief and
18 impacts on the Defence's ability to understand the case against them.
19 They will have, of course, all of the documents at hand very soon,
20 but they will be untranslated. My suggestion, if the Court please, would
21 be to defer the fixing of a pre-trial brief. I think March is too early.
22 I tried to sketch out in this realm of speculation when we would have all
23 of the documents completed, a date for a filing of a pre-trial brief from
24 the Prosecutor. My date is the 30th of June with the Defence pre-trial
25 brief at the end of August. But those are dates that, again, I'm
1 uncomfortable with, given the state of play with the translations.
2 I think those dates -- I defer to my colleagues from the Defence.
3 They are best able to comment on their views as to when our pre-trial
4 brief should be filed and when theirs should be filed. But I think the
5 problems that confront both sides are common. They relate to the
6 translation backlog. And if we are to file something that is useful,
7 intelligent, and helpful to the Court and to each side, then we have to
8 have a firm grasp of the documents in a language that we, the lawyers,
10 That is my suggestion, Judge May, if we could defer scheduling
11 that at this point in time. And if you could await -- if Your Honours
12 could await hearing from the parties further on as we progress through
13 these issues, I think that would be very helpful to both of us.
14 JUDGE MAY: I think that may well be a sensible course. But it
15 must be understood that this trial must come on sooner rather than later.
16 And next fall is the target date. If the translation problems are getting
17 in the way of that, then they must be resolved. So if there are further
18 difficulties, you can perhaps report them to the Court as soon as they
19 emerge and we'll have to consider them together.
20 MR. HARMON: We will do so. Thank you.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. I'll hear from the Defence. Mr. Brashich.
23 MR. BRASHICH: Good afternoon, Your Honour. The Defence really
24 has nothing further to add to Mr. Harmon's statements at this present
25 time, and we of course reserve our position.
1 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Pavich.
2 MR. PAVICH: Nor does the Plavsic Defence, Your Honour. We have
3 an institutional problem and it requires institutional solutions, and I
4 think we're all working toward that end.
5 JUDGE MAY: The Court would obviously encourage cooperation
6 between counsel towards resolving these problems.
7 Now, it remains for me to fix a date for the next conference, but
8 before I do that, is there anything that anybody wants to raise in
9 relation to detention or matters of that sort?
10 Mr. Brashich, do you or your client want to add anything?
11 MR. BRASHICH: If I may have a moment, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
13 [Defence counsel confer]
14 MR. BRASHICH: Nothing at this time, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. We will fix the next Status Conference for
16 the 8th of March. Meanwhile, there will be meetings with the Senior Legal
17 Officer to ensure that progress continues.
18 The Court will rise.
19 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned
20 at 3.03 p.m.