1 Wednesday, 24 November 2004
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open Session]
4 [The accused not present in court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 3.15 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to all of you.
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Case number
9 IT-04-74-PT, the Prosecutor versus Jadranko Prlic, Bruno Stojic, Slobodan
10 Praljak, Milivoj Petkovic, Valentin Coric, and Berislav Pusic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have a Status Conference this afternoon.
12 May I ask the parties for their appearances. Prosecution first.
13 MR. SCOTT: Good afternoon, Your Honour, Kenneth Scott for the
14 Prosecutor, and with me today is Ms. Josee D'Aoust, Mr. Pieter Kruger,
15 Mr. Roeland Bos, and case manager Denise Gustin.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Scott. And the Defence, perhaps in
17 the order from right to left.
18 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. My name
19 is Zelimir Par. I am the Defence counsel for Jadranko Prlic.
20 MR. OLUJIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. OLUJIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. My
23 name is Zeljko Olujic. I'm a lawyer from the Republic of Croatia, and
24 I'm defending Mr. Bruno Stojic.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Yes.
1 MR. KOVACIC: I'm Bozidar Kovacic, Defence lawyer from Croatia,
2 for Mr. Slobodan Praljak. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Kovacic. Then the second row.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. My
6 name is Vesna Alaburic. I am Defence lawyer for the fourth accused, Mr.
7 Milivoj Petkovic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Alaburic.
9 MR. JONJIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. My
10 name is Tomislav Jonjic, and I defend Mr. Valentin Coric.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jonjic.
12 MR. SKOBIC: Good afternoon, Your Honour. My name is Marinko
13 Skobic, a lawyer from Mostar, and I am Defence lawyer for the accused
14 Berislav Pusic.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Skobic.
16 We're here on a Status Conference. I received the report of a 65
17 ter meeting that was held yesterday. I would very much like to focus on
18 the issues remaining since that 65 ter meeting, and I'd like to start
19 with disclosure.
20 The Chamber has read a lot of submissions. Sometimes perhaps not
21 everything written in those submissions was necessary to write down
22 because other solutions could have been found by the cooperation between
23 the parties, but I would like to know what the remaining issues are. And
24 if I have understood well, five out of six counsel are satisfied that the
25 Prosecution has fulfilled its disclosure obligations, but I do understand
1 that counsel for Mr. Petkovic, Ms. Alaburic, that you still have a matter
2 of principle you'd like to pursue. But let me first check whether my
3 observation in respect of the other five counsel was correct. Yes or no?
4 Since I do not hear any denials, I take it that for counsel of
5 Mr. Prlic, Mr. Stojic, Mr. Praljak, Mr. Pusic, and Mr. Coric that
6 disclosure issues are non-existing any more.
7 Ms. Alaburic, I -- from the reading of your submissions, it
8 appears that you're mainly concerned about the way in which translated
9 material is available to Mr. Petkovic, and especially that you'd like it
10 to be in -- written in hard-copy form and that the availability of
11 audiotapes in the language of your client, Mr. Petkovic, that that does
12 not satisfy you. Is that a correct understanding?
13 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] That is mainly correct. If I may
14 explain why I use the word "mainly." Yesterday there was an agreement
15 made the complete material would be delivered to us on two CDs. I trust
16 that we have resolved my objection referring to the provision of the
17 supporting material in EDS which had not been available directly to the
19 I believe that the other unsolved matters to which I objected,
20 which I deemed to be important and crucial and which I would like to
21 summarise as follows: Firstly, the supporting material is not
22 differentiated according to individual accused but, rather, the whole
23 1.700 documents were delivered as if they applied to each individual
24 accused separately; believing that the accused in composite indictment
25 cannot be denied the right to a fair trial, I believe that each
1 individual accused has the right to know which part of the supporting
2 material, in view of the OTP, supports the indictment or the part of the
3 indictment that pertains to him particularly.
4 My second objection --
5 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask a question on this issue, Ms. Alaburic.
6 MS. ALABURIC: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: This is not the first case where we have several
8 accused. Is there any case law that you rely upon to support your
10 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] According to the case law that I
11 managed to consult, I only saw that there were cases when certain accused
12 were not given the material that pertained to other accused, and
13 therefore the request by these accused for -- that they wanted to have
14 full insight into the material relating to the remaining accused.
15 Unfortunately, I have no knowledge of any case that an accused in
16 a composite indictment ever requested the supporting material to be
17 divided as regards individual accused.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear. Thank you. I interrupted you. You
19 were about to make your -- to summarise your second point.
20 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] My second objection referred to
21 the transcript of the conversation of the first accused Prlic with the
22 Prosecution. I think that in compliance with Rule 43(vi), this
23 transcript should be handed over to the person who took part in the
24 conversation as a suspect and became later an accused, and that refers to
25 both versions, the Croatian and the English one. Given that the defender
1 here is a co-accused must not be denied the right to the supporting
2 material and preliminary statements in comparison with other accused, the
3 rights of the first accused, Prlic, is equal to those enjoyed by the
4 other accused and that they should receive this transcript of the
5 conversation in writing.
6 The Defence counsel received this interview in English. However,
7 we received a videotape. My request in this respect, if I read the
8 decision correctly, is in compliance with the ruling of the Trial Chamber
9 II in case Prosecution versus Cermak and Markac of 26 May of this year,
10 in which the Prosecution was ordered to, according to Rule 66(A)(i), in
11 conjunction with Rule 43(vi), provide the accused with the transcript of
12 the interview.
13 And my third objection referred to the testimony by Petkovic and
14 Praljak in three cases, and I believe that these testimonies can be
15 treated as preliminary statement and that the rule on transcript should
16 apply to them too. These testimonies were delivered to us only in the
17 form of videotapes, and as inasmuch as my team and I were able to search
18 through the EDS supporting material, we couldn't find any delivery of the
19 transcript of either in English or in -- or B/C/S or, rather, Croatian
21 All my objections, since we resolved some of them yesterday and
22 some in direct communication with the OTP are now basically boiled down
23 to these three objections, which I deem to be of crucial importance and
24 made in principle. They pertain not only to this case, but they also may
25 apply to the rights to be exercised by other accused appearing before
1 this Tribunal.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Alaburic.
3 I have one specific question for you, Mr. Scott. As far as the
4 testimonies of Mr. Petkovic and Mr. Praljak is concerned, I'm not taking
5 any position at this moment whether these are preliminary interviews but
6 the testimony of them, I do understand that the videotape has been
7 provided to Ms. Alaburic. Is there any reason why the transcript of
8 those hearings, I don't know whether they were public or not, could not
9 be provided?
10 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour is correct, if I understand, that the
11 testimony provided by Mr. Petkovic and Mr. Praljak in the earlier cases,
12 these are not statements made to the OTP. They weren't statements taken
13 by the OTP. They were trial testimony, in court, and the recordings were
14 made as in the usual manner, and those have been provided.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Scott, may I just interrupt you. I said I took
16 no position whatever, so that I'm correct in joining your position is not
17 a fair way of dealing with the matter. I kept out of it. I said
18 testimonies. Whether you consider them preliminary statements or not is
19 a completely different matter. I have taken no position.
20 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. Yes. I don't see any reason
21 physically why the existing transcript, English transcript that is
22 recorded, that is created in the course of usual business can't be
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Alaburic, would that meet your third point?
25 Microphone, please.
1 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. My headphones are
2 not properly working so I'm following the English version. If you could
3 just give me a minute to read from the transcript what exactly your
4 question was.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll be glad to repeat it.
6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] It's all right. If I understand
7 correctly, Mr. Scott said that they had an English transcript and that
8 there was no reason why we should not have them. The Defence counsel
9 would truly be grateful to the OTP if they did that. However, if this
10 transcript should be translated into B/C/S and given to the accused will
11 be up to the Court to decide. I would only just like to add that I know
12 of the case law -- instances in which the trial transcripts were not
13 given to the accused from trials. Instead, they were given videotapes.
14 However, I believe that in this particular instance we're dealing with a
15 completely different situation.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore, the issue of transcripts in
17 English has been solved, and the remaining issue, whether you're entitled
18 to have a hard translated copy, is still remaining.
19 Ms. Alaburic, just one question. Did you ever ask Mr. Scott to
20 receive an English copy of the transcript of Mr. Petkovic and Praljak?
21 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott -- Mr. Scott is aware of
22 my objections. Before I appealed to the Court with my first submission,
23 each and every of my objections or dilemma was first explained to Mr.
24 Scott in writing. Therefore, Mr. Scott is fully aware of my objections.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Scott, first of all I would like you to respond
1 to that and to ask whether you were aware and, if so, why not English
2 transcripts are already in the hands of Ms. Alaburic.
3 MR. SCOTT: Perhaps, and I was just checking, Your Honour, on
4 this matter, and perhaps as a further solution or to clarify, it's our
5 understanding -- I thought -- I thought that they were, and I've just
6 confirmed with the case manager that in fact the English transcripts were
7 provided by cover letter dated the 27th of August.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then my next observation would be that if
9 there's any possible misunderstanding, please double-check first before
10 writing motions or further spend time on the issues in court.
11 Ms. Alaburic, the Chamber will give a brief opportunity to Mr.
12 Scott to respond. At the same time, I add to that I wonder whether it is
13 necessary, because what Ms. Alaburic has done is just to summarise what's
14 already in the written submissions. If the Prosecution would like to
15 respond by summarising the messages, that is not necessary because the
16 Chamber has the full information available.
17 MR. SCOTT: Then, Your Honour, I'll abide by the Chamber's
18 instructions and say nothing further.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's not an instruction. I just said it's
20 not necessary, which is of course not an instruction, but I do understand
21 that you very much value an efficient spending of the time in court.
22 That's, then, the -- is there anything else on the disclosure issue that
23 should be raised at this moment?
24 Ms. Alaburic, the Chamber will give a decision in writing as soon
25 as possible.
1 Then we have an issue pending which only concerns Mr. Praljak but
2 might be of some importance for the other accused as well since they are
3 bound by the same conditions, in view of their provisional release.
4 Did I understand you well, Mr. Kovacic, that Mr. Praljak would like to
5 have further guidance as to how to interpret the prohibition to have
6 contact with the media?
7 MR. KOVACIC: Yes, sir, your interpretation is right. We are
8 only little bit afraid whether we as -- I mean, Defence and my client,
9 whether we interpret -- interpreted the order inappropriately, whether
10 the sentence "any media" includes any media in whatever the subject
11 matter can be or only limited to these proceedings. Even -- of course we
12 agree, even remotely - and that I'm adding after seeing the response
13 yesterday - even if remotely connected to this case, of course the client
14 will not enter any contact with media. But if, for example, something
15 entirely different issue like postal stamps or sport or whatever, then we
16 think he is entitled to talk with media.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll give you the following guidance on the
18 conditions, and this, of course, would apply for the accused as well.
19 First of all, if an accused would incidentally observe the
20 presence of the media at an occasion where he also is present, that as
21 such is not a reason to withdraw from that event unless the media would
22 focus their attention on the presence of the accused at that occasion.
23 If so, the accused should, under those circumstances, withdraw. So
24 therefore, if they're in a meeting and the media are following what is
25 happening in the meeting, not specifically the presence of the accused,
1 that's no problem. But as soon as everyone is, just speak in terms of
2 the press, zooming in on the presence of the accused, then the presence
3 of the accused gets a certain weight which should be avoided. So then
4 the accused should leave that meeting.
5 Whenever at such an occasion questions would be put it an
6 accused, let's say the beginning of an interview, those questions should
7 not be answered, and those questions would already indicate that the
8 presence of the media is focusing, perhaps among other things, on the
9 presence of the accused. So no -- certainly no interviews, even not if
10 it's by just coincidental meeting with media.
11 The accused should also avoid to attend whatever event or meeting
12 where they could expect that the media would be present and would focus
13 on the presence of the accused.
14 The final issue is the one you raised about the postal stamps.
15 It is often difficult to clearly distinguish between whether such an
16 occasion would have no link whatsoever or whether it could be perceived
17 in whatever way as having a link with the case. So therefore, for your
18 guidance: If someone would present a book on postal stamps prior to
19 going to such an event, the accused should ask permission. And if it's
20 really just postal stamps and nothing else, then it's very likely that
21 the permission would be given. But just to remain in the example, postal
22 stamps are sometimes about flowers. Sometimes there are postal stamps on
23 the organisation of the Red Cross. There may be even postal stamps which
24 are printed in memory of historical events which are not, under all
25 circumstances, not linked to this conflict or any other conflict or any
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 historical events.
2 So in order to make no mistakes, usually if you publish a book on
3 postal stamps, you know well in advance when this will be presented. You
4 can also expect the press to be there. So under those circumstances, the
5 accused invited to get in touch. Defence are invited to get in touch
6 with the senior legal officer and then get a decision, not after a couple
7 of weeks, but quickly.
8 Is this guidance sufficiently clear?
9 MR. KOVACIC: For me, I think yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, I just want to tell you without having
12 those guidelines, which of course will be very much helpful, I just
13 wanted to stress that the client actually wants to keep his word. And
14 very soon, coincidentally, actually, we found out there is a grey area.
15 Perhaps we were not able to understand or what for ever reasons, but
16 obviously it may happen.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I appreciate that the accused was seeking further
18 guidance from the Chamber in order to fully observe the condition.
19 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Any further issues in this respect? If not, then we
21 have one matter which primarily concerns Mr. Coric. And I don't know
22 whether we should deal with it in the presence of all other and whether
23 the -- Mr. Jonjic, whether the subject matter as such, which is a matter
24 of -- health-related and family circumstances is something you'd like to
25 deal with in public session and whether you'd like to address me in
1 private session or in the absence of other counsel. It's -- there's no
2 direct link to the substance of the case.
3 MR. JONJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't see any reason
4 to exclude the public, given the fact that the documents that the request
5 by Mr. Coric is based was submitted as confidential [as interpreted].
6 However, the discussion about the request itself can be conducted without
7 mentioning any particular medical circumstances that his request was
8 based upon. Therefore, I don't see any reason for excluding the public,
9 and I don't know if there is any need for everybody here to be burdened
10 with this type of discussion, and by that I mean all members of the
11 Defence counsel.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Jonjic, did I understand that the Defence
13 yesterday received guidance as to provide further detailed guarantees as
14 to what would happen if Mr. Coric would reside for a short period of time
15 on BH territory?
16 MR. JONJIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour. Last
17 week, in the communication with the senior legal advisor, Mr. Harhoff, I
18 was given an instruction to appeal for additional guarantees to be
19 provided by the government of BH, and already today we have the
20 appropriate documents in hand.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So we can then soon accept further submissions by
22 you in relation to this issue and the Chamber will give a ruling when the
23 Prosecution has had an opportunity to respond to the last information.
24 MR. JONJIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honour. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The Prosecution is invited, in view of the subject
1 matter, to respond as quickly as possible to any further submissions by
2 Mr. Jonjic, because delays here are to be avoided.
3 Then we have an issue on protection of victims and witnesses.
4 There have been some suggestions by the Office of the Prosecutor how to
5 deal with it. Is there any need, in addition to what has been written
6 down, to address the Chamber in this respect?
7 MR. SCOTT: Perhaps, Your Honour, ever so briefly. And primarily
8 on the -- what appears to be sound advice of your senior legal officer,
9 Mr. Harhoff yesterday.
10 The issue was discussed, and as I understand -- as I understand
11 it, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, there was ultimately no
12 Defence objection to our proposal. Mr. Harhoff thought perhaps the best
13 way of resolving it for the record was an oral motion on the record in
14 this fashion, and it concerns this:
15 On the 30 this is of July, the Chamber entered its order for
16 protective measures. In paragraph 2, and I won't take the time to read
17 it, but paragraph 2 essentially requires that the Prosecution, in the
18 course of making its disclosures, distinguish in all instances between
19 public and non-public material. I've explained to both Mr. Harhoff and
20 to counsel that in reality, and perhaps the Chamber won't be surprised,
21 that is a substantial burden on the Prosecution. There is, despite the
22 modern -- the wonders, excuse me, the wonders of modern technology, the
23 is no one-button fix by which we can simply sort out the public versus
24 the non-public. It's a very labour-intensive process.
25 Further, it's our understanding, and perhaps there is where there
1 might have been some previous misunderstanding, the OTP has always
2 operated on the assumption or the premise that Defence counsel have the
3 right to make use in a reasonable and discreet way of any material
4 provided to them, whether it's public or non-public, as long as it's for
5 legitimate defence usage and provided they do so in a reasonably discreet
7 It was clear in talking to Mr. Harhoff, which was very helpful,
8 that once we understood that was the understanding and the Defence is not
9 in any way -- according to our understanding -- barred from using even
10 the non-public material in such a fashion, the reason for that
11 requirement seemed to largely go away, in light -- and in contrast or
12 especially in light of the considerable burden placed on the Prosecution.
13 So we, Your Honour, would move, if I might and I'll certainly
14 respond to the Chamber's further questions, but for purposes of the
15 record, the Prosecution would move to amend the order for protective
16 measures dated 30 July 2004, to remove paragraph 2, which of course would
17 require other paragraphs, I suppose, to be renumbered.
18 And we would also note that as to paragraph number 4, there would
19 have to be some changes because there's some premise -- there are some
20 things in paragraph 4 that reflect on with paragraph 2, that talk about
21 public versus non-public.
22 The Prosecution clearly does believe, and we don't wish to be
23 misunderstood on this point, that indeed as to all material disclosed to
24 the Defence -- essentially all of it, except, I suppose, for truly
25 open-source material, newspaper articles, it's all sensitive to one
1 degree or another, witness statements, et cetera and it's only to be used
2 of course for legitimate purposes of preparing the case. And that would
3 apply to all categories and the Defence would be expected to use the
4 material discreetly and with appropriate safeguards in all cases. But
5 paragraph 4, we would suggest respectfully, would probably also have some
6 amended to make it consistent with the removal of paragraph 2.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Scott.
8 The Defence is concerned, I would like to know if any Defence
9 counsel would not agree with Mr. Scott on the issue of discretion and
10 appropriate safeguards in all cases. If there would be anything else,
11 apart from this point where on the basis of the silence I take it that
12 you all agree -- if there's any other response to be made? If not, we'll
13 proceed to our next subject.
14 Again, I interpret your collective silence to move on to the next
16 A decision will be made, Mr. Scott. We'll have to review the
17 30th July decision so as in order to avoid any inconsistencies, if we
18 would follow your oral motion.
19 Then on my agenda is agreement on facts. I do understand that
20 the matter has been discussed with the senior legal officer, Mr. Harhoff,
21 and that the parties are still working on it. Yes.
22 The Chamber would not only encourage the parties to work on it
23 but also to see whether they can achieve a substantive result.
24 Is there anything you'd like to raise in respect of this subject?
25 If not, we'll proceed to the next point that is on the agenda, that's the
1 pre-trial work plan. I do understand that a plan has been more or less
2 agreed upon, at least in a calendar where the first 65 ter meeting will
3 take place on the 15th of December, and then the next one on the 14th of
4 February. A more detailed work plan will be prepared. So that's not
5 only dates that are set, because that's certainly helpful, but it's also
6 certainly not sufficient to make the necessary progress.
7 Is there any matter to be raised in view of the health of the
8 accused or -- at this moment? I remember that one of your clients had
9 some difficulty in walking and sitting for a longer time. Is there any
10 positive or negative development in that? These were back problems,
11 isn't it -- isn't it, Mr. Skobic?
12 MR. SKOBIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes. Accused Pusic did
13 experience different problems, but since he is provisionally in Zagreb, a
14 place where adequate medical assistance is available, his condition is
15 now completely satisfactory, although he is undergoing a permanent course
16 of treatment; but he doesn't have any major problems.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Skobic. I'm glad to hear that
18 medical treatment has a positive effect.
19 One second, please.
20 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: I will raise the issue of a time limit for the
22 preliminary motions. I do understand that it has been discussed
23 yesterday and that all parties would accept preliminary motions to be
24 filed not any later than the 15th of December. And I also understand,
25 but please, Ms. Alaburic, correct me if I'm wrong, that the matters of
1 principle you'd like to raise do not affect as such your ability to file
2 a pre-trial -- the preliminary motions, if you intend to file one or more
3 of them. Yes, from --
4 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Yes, your understanding is
5 correct, Your Honour. I will fully abide by the deadlines we agreed upon
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Defence counsel have also understood that
8 the Chamber, until now, has not given any permission to go beyond the
9 ten-page limit; but at the same time, the Chamber has made clear that
10 preliminary motions on different subjects would each have ten pages.
11 They can be filed separately. So therefore, whether it's jurisdiction or
12 whether it's the form of the indictment, you would have on each of the
13 subjects -- I'm not encouraging you to use on each of these subjects the
14 full ten pages, but on one subject you're limited to ten pages. And
15 you're certainly aware that in the directive it's also clearly indicated
16 what is within the ten pages and what is not and what's the size of the
17 letters you can use and number of lines.
18 Is there any other issue you'd like to raise at this moment?
20 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, I apologise.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
22 MR. KOVACIC: I pushed it but not enough.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. KOVACIC: I apologise. Perhaps I'm a bit wrong, but I just
25 wanted to add, very briefly, a very few words on the issue of undisputed
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. KOVACIC: Personally, I believe that it is a perfect tool
4 which may seriously contribute to a more efficient trial. However, I
5 don't want to leave an image and false hope of all of us in this
6 courtroom that this process will go very fast and very soon. This simply
7 cannot happen, Your Honour. For time being, of course, because I don't
8 see any possibility to discuss undisputed facts before we know what
9 actually will be indictment, because the indictment we are dealing now
10 with are not giving us a chance even to run some basic defence
12 In other words, a usual calendar of work or plan of work for
13 Defence is a little bit change. I first have to see what ultimately the
14 indictment looks like, and only then I can decide which material first I
15 need from the other cases connected on one way or another and where I'm
16 going into my own Defence investigations.
17 Of course, I have to learn the facts. And within facts I have to
18 distinguish which of the facts will be disputed, which of them will not
19 be disputed, and only then I can enter into the process of trying to --
20 of stipulation. The plan was I would initiate this because it's easier
21 for one who is starting with the proposals.
22 I just want you to have a clear picture that despite of our wish,
23 my wish at least, this process, by my humble opinion, cannot even start
24 before we see indictment, we see other facts. So we are not just about
25 to start. That is my only remark, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Any further submissions to be made?
2 Now, Mr. Kovacic, I'll respond immediately to your observation
3 just made. I do understand that it's your expectation that the
4 indictment will look different in the future, which of course still is to
5 be -- we'll first have to wait whether the indictment as it stands now
6 will be the one that stands in the future, of course. I can't say
7 anything about that, because we'd first have to see whether any
8 preliminary motions on the form of the indictment.
9 But the Chamber expects all Defence counsel to start working on
10 the basis of the indictment as it is now. So therefore, you should focus
11 your activities on the indictment as it is. And of course I can imagine
12 that you say, "Well, I have a specific part of the indictment which I'll
13 challenge as to the appropriateness of its form," but I hardly can
14 imagine that there are not considerable portions you could not yet start
15 to investigate, and as a consequence of such investigations, that you
16 could not start, not enter into whatever conversations with the OTP as
17 far as an agreement on facts is concerned.
18 Of course, agreement on facts is always within the limits of your
19 responsibility to defend the accused. But this is a clear mark that if
20 at a later stage you say, "Well, even though the indictment has been
21 slightly changed, we could not start until the moment we knew," then the
22 answer will be that you should have started only the basis of the
23 indictment as it stood then. Of course we'll see if the whole of the
24 indictment will change. Of course the situation would be a bit
25 different, and you would be excused for not being properly prepared at
1 that time. But if the changes would not be basic ones, and if the
2 changes were be foreseen by yourself on the basis of the preliminary
3 motions you are about to file, then all the remaining part should be
4 something you should start working at.
5 This is a brief response to the observations you must made. Is
6 there any other issue you'd like to raise, either Prosecution or Defence?
7 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, just on the issue of the Rule 75(A)
8 motions, we would probably feel more comfortable if it was made clear on
9 the record: Our understanding was it's also agreed yesterday -- and I
10 assume or I hope Mr. Harhoff would have communicated this to you, I'm
11 sure he has -- that in turn the Prosecution responses would be due on the
12 28th of January in light of the end of the year holidays, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I only mentioned the first time limit, but I
14 did understand that it has been agreed, and the Chamber also affirms the
15 date you just mentioned for the response of the Prosecution as the 28th
16 of January, 2005.
17 Any further issues to be raised? If not, this concludes this
18 Status Conference. I thank you very much for assisting me.
19 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned
20 at 4.03 p.m.