1 Tuesday, 4 July 2006
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 5.00 p.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honour. This is case number
9 IT-03-67-PT, the Prosecutor versus Mr. Seselj.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 May I have the appearances. Prosecution first.
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Good afternoon, Your Honour. For the
13 Prosecution, Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff and Ulrich Mussemeyer, and we are
14 accompanied by Ana Katalinic.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
16 For the Defence. I see, Mr. Seselj, that you're here, you
17 represent yourself and stand-by counsel, Mr. Van der Spoel is present as
18 well. That's on the record then.
19 We are having a Status Conference to check on the status of the
20 case and to make some announcements.
21 Mr. Seselj, I made a very brief list of matters that I would like
22 to deal with. I usually do it very shortly before the Status Conference,
23 but since I have a translation for you, it could be handed out as a
24 courtesy copy. If in future moments I would have such a list available
25 and if there's sufficient time to communicate that to you, I'll try do
1 that so that you're better able to prepare.
2 Mr. Seselj, the first item on the agenda after an introduction is
3 your health and your conditions of detention. Mr. Seselj, I'd like to
4 give you an opportunity to raise any issue in relation to your health, and
5 if you wish it could be done in private session. If this's anything to be
6 raised as far as detention conditions are concerned, you may do so as
8 Please proceed.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I'm never going to ask for
10 private session for any matter, especially not with respect to my
11 condition of health.
12 On the 7th of June, I sent you, as the Trial Chamber, a submission
13 on just five pages, normal five pages, normal format, and I presented
14 there basic information about my health. This was prepared by members of
15 my expert team, and there are an additional three pages with the original
16 medical finding, medical report, by a cardiology, pulmologist [as
17 interpreted], and neurosurgeon. You, Mr. Orie, returned that to me,
18 returned my submission probably because the explanation you gave was that
19 I hadn't counted the correct number of words. And in your ruling and
20 decision you called my legal experts "so-called experts," which is an
21 insult. They are my real experts and my real expert team for preparing my
23 Therefore, Mr. Orie, I have decided not to give you any
24 information in future with respect to my health condition.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then, any matter in relation to detention
1 conditions, Mr. Seselj?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I recently received a package,
3 a travelling bag with clothing which contained T-shirts, caps, socks,
4 jerseys, and so on, and goodness knows what else, with Serbian national
5 symbols and insignia. And it says with the slogan "Serbia is rooting for
6 you," with respect to the world football championships. But the
7 authorities in the Detention Unit did not allow me to receive that package
8 and seized it. That kind of conduct is broadly tolerated for all the
9 other inmates, the Croats have T-shirts with enormous national insignia
10 and so on, but it has been denied me. Even during the football
11 championships the guards wore Dutch T-shirts rooting for the Dutch
12 national team. I think this is serious discrimination which cannot be
13 tolerated. So they are not propagating my party, my alleged crimes,
14 myself as a public figure, but the clothing just had national emblems, the
15 national emblems of Serbia.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, have you addressed the Registrar on the
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, there's absolutely no
19 sense for me to address the Registrar on any matter, and I wouldn't have
20 presented that matter here either to you had you not asked me about the
21 conditions of detention. That is another subject that I'm not going to
22 raise at any occasion. But since you asked me, I presented it here and
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Seselj, you know the rules. The rules are
25 that it's the registry -- the Registrar who's responsible for the
1 situation in the Detention Unit, but if any matter in the Detention Unit
2 would have an impact on the proceedings in this courtroom, then after you
3 have addressed the Registrar, you can address the Chamber, but the
4 Chamber, neither I as a Pre-Trial Judge, is going to take over the
5 responsibilities of the Registrar. So within the limits I just explained
6 to you, you can address the Chamber.
7 Mr. Seselj, having dealt with both what you told me about health
8 issues and about the package of clothing you insist that you should have
9 received, anything else on the first agenda item?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move on to the next agenda item, which is
13 Earlier today, Mr. Seselj, I issued, or the Chamber issued the
14 decision on the format of disclosure. You'll receive it translated as
15 soon as possible, but meanwhile I already could read to the parties the
16 disposition so that you are at least informed about the bulk of the
17 decision. Let me just find it.
18 The disposition reads as follows - of course the original written
19 decision being authoritative - that the Trial Chamber finds that the
20 Prosecution is entitled to provide Rule 66(A) and (B) material as well as
21 Rule 68(i) material in electronic format subject to the qualifications
22 regarding assistance for the accused.
23 The Trial Chamber also finds that there is an obligation to
24 provide Rule 68(i) material in a language the accused understands. The
25 Trial Chamber directs the Prosecution to provide the accused with those
1 witness statements in its possession in which the accused is mentioned by
2 name, subject to the exceptions mentioned in the body of the decision.
3 Further, the Trial Chamber directs the Prosecution to provide the
4 accused with the names or pseudonyms and transcript references of private
5 and closed session testimony in cases before this Tribunal where the
6 accused is mentioned by name. Further details you'll find in the
8 Then the Chamber dismisses all other requests in the
9 aforementioned filings by the parties, and the Chamber also dismisses all
10 other motions of the accused for translation of material into
11 Serbo-Croatian to the extent that they are inconsistent with the present
12 decision. This decision has been signed, is -- will be translated and
13 will be given to you, but you're already aware, Mr. Seselj, of what the
14 decision is about.
15 That's the decision on the disclosure.
16 I'd like to pay attention at this moment to the status of the
17 disclosure so far. Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, one clarification. In the past
19 we have actually tried to disclose electronic versions of all --
20 JUDGE ORIE: That's --
21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: -- these materials. Is that -- do we have to
22 repeat it or is that --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I will read you the relevant part of the
24 decision in that respect. Now I just hope that I've got the -- the --
25 The decision contains a paragraph on compliance, which -- and I'm
1 now putting it very short, says that if the accused, if Mr. Seselj refuses
2 to accept any electronic disclosure, that -- so if he refuses to accept
3 that material, then you would have discharged your obligations in this
4 respect. But it also says that if Mr. Seselj would decide that after all
5 he accepts the material, he's entitled to receive it, including material
6 he has refused to accept in the past. So it should be offered to him
7 again upon request, as the decision says, of the accused, this must be
8 provided anew to him by the Prosecution. So specific attention is paid to
9 that aspect in the decision.
10 Then I'd like to move on to the status of disclosure so far. And
11 of course I'm aware that the -- the fact that the decision of the Trial
12 Chamber --
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have something to say, Mr. Orie.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'll first -- one second. I'll find a moment soon
15 where you have an opportunity to say something.
16 I first would like to inquire into the first material that's
17 66(A)(i), the supporting material. The current status is -- as I
18 understand is completed.
19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. And if you like to hear
20 more details, Mr. Mussemeyer is prepared to give you all the details.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the last batch of disclosure was
22 done on the 26th of January of this year.
23 MR. MUSSEMEYER: That's correct.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 Mr. Seselj, would you like to say anything in respect of this
1 agenda item, that's disclosure under 66(A)(i)?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, since the Prosecutor had a
3 question, I have a question, too, just one single question.
4 What am I to do, Mr. Orie, with those computer diskettes that the
5 Prosecutor is going to provide me with? On the one hand, you have
6 forbidden me to send material to my legal advisors; and on the other hand,
7 you are making me take it in electronic format, which is quite useless to
9 And I take advantage of this opportunity to make a request that
10 you issue me a request for an appeal to the Appeals Chamber, because if I
11 send in my request in writing you might return it to me because the
12 correct number of words is not there and I haven't counted them properly,
13 whereas it is in the interests of justice that you assign a court official
14 who will count the words himself and look through the document.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, you are raising a few questions. You
16 say: What to do with the computer diskettes? I would say use them and
17 the decision says something about support you would receive in order to be
18 able to use that material. Within the limits of other decisions, of
19 course you can share knowledge, but strictly within the limits of other
20 decisions, with whomever is entitled to share that information with you.
21 Finally, Mr. Seselj, whether or not you want to look at that
22 material is entirely in your own hands. You just addressed to me the
23 request that I should assign a court official to do the word count. The
24 answer is that I will not assign any court official to do the word count
25 for you. You have to do that yourself.
1 If you want to appeal the decision of the Chamber, you know the
2 procedure to follow; that is, you should apply for a certificate for an
3 appeal and give the reasons for it. I advise you to take into
4 consideration what the Rules say about the criteria, and then the Chamber
5 will decide on the matter.
6 Then I'd like to move on to the present state of disclosure in
7 relation to Rule 66(A)(ii).
8 Could the Prosecution say whether there's anything new on that. I
9 remember that on the 19th of May, he was referring to: "If a decision is
10 issued soon regarding the Trial Chamber's appropriate form for disclosure,
11 then we expect very soon to be able to begin disclosure of additional
12 witness statements under Rule 66(A)(ii)." And if you are permitted, as he
13 said, to make this disclosure in electronic form, you expect to be able to
14 complete this work no later than the end of July.
15 That is what was said on the 19th of May. Is there anything to
16 add to that at this moment?
17 MR. MUSSEMEYER: No, Your Honour, there's nothing to add. We can
18 immediately begin our disclosure for all the witnesses who are not
19 sensitive. We already have burned their statements on a CD, and we can
20 immediately begin this disclosure.
21 Another issue is other sensitive witnesses where we are -- where
22 we asked to disclose their statements 30 days before from trial date.
23 That is what we -- we want to wait, for securitive reasons.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's one of the pending motions. Let me just
25 see. I have to check. That's still a pending motion or is it --
1 MR. MUSSEMEYER: There is one pending motion, our seventh motion
2 for protective measures, and we are preparing an eighth motion for
3 protective measures, which includes a delayed disclosure for sensitive
4 witnesses and trial-related protective measures.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are allowed for the time being to wait what
6 our decision will be on these motions before you -- before you disclose
7 any material that is covered by those motions.
8 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Anything else to be added 66(A)(ii)?
10 Then the next item on our disclosure list, Mr. Seselj, is Rule 68
11 material. I notice, Mr. Seselj, that in respect of Rule 68 material that
12 there are although perhaps not strictly exculpatory material, that there
13 are two issues pending, that is a motion you filed requesting all the
14 material relating to the Serbian Guard to be disclosed to you. And
15 another motion to compel certain states to disclose information. We'll
16 soon deliver a decision on these motions, but there was a -- there were
17 quite a lot of motions pending, so we have to do them one by one.
18 Is there any matter the Prosecution would like to bring to my
19 attention in relation to disclosure of Rule 68 material?
20 MR. MUSSEMEYER: There's nothing to add. It's more or less an
21 ongoing procedure. We already disclosed something like 280.000 or we
22 tried to disclose 280.000 pages which were --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's mainly Rule 68(ii)?
24 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's both the relevant material and
1 exculpatory material, which I take it is not as vast in quantity.
2 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Yeah. And we also disclosed about 165 witness
3 statements which mentioned the accused's name.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's, to some extent, also covered by our
5 disclosure decision of today.
6 MR. MUSSEMEYER: Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
8 Mr. Seselj, would you like to raise any matter on the disclosure
9 of Rule 68 material, which is under Rule 68(i), the exculpatory material,
10 or under Rule 68(ii), other relevant material?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, you on the spot are
12 brutally violating my rights pursuant to the Rules of Procedure and
13 Evidence. The same legal value is attributed to submissions presented
14 orally and written -- in written form, just like your rulings, whether
15 they be oral or written. I have tabled a request for the Trial Chamber to
16 enable me to complain and appeal your decision, and I have very strong
17 reasons that I presented. And I expect the Trial Chamber to make a ruling
18 in that regard. I --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, I -- first of all, I invited you to make
20 any submissions on the status of Rule 68 material. If you would insist me
21 to give a decision on your request, I will do so. I gave you an
22 opportunity to file it properly, but if you insist on a decision I will
23 not only do it, but I'll give you the reasons for it right away. And I
24 gave you a hint when I suggested to you to make such a request in writing.
25 But again, tell me that you insist and I will give you the decision.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I consider that I have
2 already filed the request orally, and you do not have a right to give me a
3 ruling straight away, because you cannot decide it as an individual. It
4 is the Trial Chamber who makes a ruling and decision on that. You do not
5 have the right to decide yourself here and now, and I do have the right to
6 file an appeal orally.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me do it the following way, Mr. Seselj. If you
8 insist on having a decision at shortest notice, then the decision would
9 certainly express, and I hinted to that at an earlier stage, that a
10 request for a certificate for an appeal is to be denied unless the party
11 presents the reasons for such a certificate, and these reasons for
12 granting a certificate are found -- let me just have a look at what Rule
13 it exactly is. In Rule 72 -- yes, Rule 73, I made a mistake. I was
14 referring to preliminary motions. It's Rule 73, under (C) -- no, I am
15 making a mistake. It's Rule 73 under (B) which reads: "Decisions on all
16 motions are without interlocutory appeal save with certification by the
17 Trial Chamber, which may grant such certification if the decision involves
18 an issue that would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct
19 of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial, and for which, in the
20 opinion of the Trial Chamber, an immediate resolution by the Appeals
21 Chamber may materially advance the proceedings."
22 So I suggest to you that you elaborate in any request on these
23 criteria you'll find in Rule 73(B).
24 Then moving on. Is there anything, Mr. Seselj, you would like to
25 say about the present status of Rule 68 material?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to have you know that
2 disclosure in electronic format means nothing to me unless I can pass it
3 on to my legal advisors. On the one hand, you have forbidden me to
4 provide them with material; and on the other, you provide me with useless
5 computer diskettes. That is something that the jurisdiction has not seen
6 yet; that is to say, to force the accused against his will to receive
7 documents in electronic format. That is something that the judiciary and
8 the history of the judiciary has never seen.
9 And I'm grateful to you for that because my name will go down in
10 the annals of world judiciary because you have done something that is
11 quite unbelievable in my trial, so thank you very much for that, Mr. Orie.
12 JUDGE ORIE: There is no need to thank me, Mr. Seselj.
13 Then we move on to Rule 65 material. Pre-trial brief. The
14 Prosecution has filed its pre-trial brief on the 14th of December, 2004,
15 but due to the new amended, modified indictment which was filed on the
16 15th of July, 2005, an additional pre-trial brief covering greater
17 Sarajevo, Bijeljina, Brcko, Mostar, and Nevesinje was filed on the 17th of
18 February, 2006.
19 Anything to be added in relation to the pre-trial brief under
20 Rule 65 ter?
21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Nothing, Your Honour, except for the fact
22 that we also have filed a witness list and most recently the final
23 exhibits list.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I come to that, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff. The witness
25 list was -- was recently updated and filing took place after it was
1 translated on the 22nd of May; that was just a couple of days after the
2 last Status Conference.
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 Then the third item, the exhibits list. The exhibit list was
6 submitted on the 17th of February, 2005 but was then filed only on the
7 14th of July, 2005, due to the need to be translated. Following the
8 modified indictment, an updated exhibit list has been filed
9 on the 3rd of July, yesterday, from what I understand.
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I was just passed a note for a
11 moment because we actually brought down the materials on the 30th of June,
12 2006, but it was filed officially only yesterday. Yes, so you were right.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I said the updated exhibit list has been filed
14 yesterday. That's --
15 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, could you tell us anything about the
16 prospects for future disclosure in view of the decision on disclosure I
17 just discussed already with you and of the denial of the certification to
18 appeal a decision on protective measures which was issued on the 21st of
19 June. Could you -- is there anything you would like to bring to my
20 attention in this respect?
21 [Prosecution counsel confer]
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the only -- the only thing that
23 should be mentioned that in relation to the exhibits we of course will
24 immediately disclose the exhibits as far as it -- these are not exhibits
25 that are provided by sensitive witnesses where we had requested also
1 delayed disclosure for these documents.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I allowed you that not to include them in
3 present disclosure until a decision has been taken on these requests.
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Seselj, would you like to make any
6 submissions, any observations, in relation to Rule 65 ter material? That
7 is pre-trial brief, witness list, and exhibit list.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yesterday they tried to give me an
9 exhibit list in the English language, and I refused that because I insist
10 that this be exclusively done in the Serbian language.
11 As for the witness list, I haven't received it yet.
12 I received the pre-trial brief some two months ago, that is true.
13 But, Mr. Orie, I received two expert reports and also the list of
14 adjudicated facts. So I would like to tell you something about that.
15 Anthony Oberschall and Yves Tomic are these experts. I am going to
16 challenge all their allegations because these experts are highly
17 unexpert-like, but I want to express my views in writing by the 1st of
19 Also I need a deadline for writing about the adjudicated facts,
20 too. I will give you a list of facts that are incorrect that I'm going to
21 challenge and that are mentioned there as adjudicated facts. There are a
22 great many incorrect facts that I will easily challenge. Unbelievable
23 mistakes were made in terms of the facts themselves.
24 So, if possible, could you give me the 1st of September as a
25 deadline for all three, for Anthony Oberschall, Yves Thomas, and the list
1 of adjudicated facts.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As far as the experts are concerned, you'll
3 find the relevant Rule 94 bis where it says: "Within 30 days of
4 disclosure of the statement of the expert witness, or such other time
5 prescribed by the Trial Chamber or Pre-Trial Judge, the opposing party
6 shall file a notice indicating whether: (i) it accepts the expert witness
7 statement; or (ii) it wishes to cross-examine the expert witness; and
8 (iii) it challenges the qualifications of the witness as an expert or the
9 relevance of all or parts of the report and, if so, which parts."
10 I do understand that you want to file such a notice. The Rules
11 say that it should be done within 30 days, but also that the Trial Chamber
12 or the Pre-Trial Judge could prescribe another time-limit. If you wait
13 one second.
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, perhaps I may be of assistance.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Because actually the accused may have
17 forgotten it, but he has already filed a submission, number 141, related
18 to the expert report of Anthony Oberschall, and it's dated the 17th of
19 January, 2006, and we can easily -- sorry, that's when -- the official
20 filing date is 24th of March, 2006, and I seem to recall that there is
21 also already one for Mr. Tomic but that I need to check first.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, could you please respond to that. First
23 of all, it must have slipped out of my mind if it's there. But is it true
24 that you filed already a --
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm surprised, Mr. Orie, by what the
1 Prosecutor said that I do remember this. I remember everything. I
2 submitted it. It was one page respectively. I gave you notice that I'm
3 going to challenge this and that I will want to question the expert as a
4 witness. But in these filings I also asked for a deadline in order to
5 carry out thorough preparations. So I stated my views as briefly as
6 possible in a single sentence, but I want to prepare this seriously so
7 that it could be obvious why I challenge what the expert said.
8 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
9 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, we'll check that, if you have asked
11 within the time-limits for further time to prepare a filing -- prepare
12 filing a notice under Rule 94 bis (B), and if no decision has been taken
13 on that it is on the record now at least that you would like to have until
14 the 1st of September.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, may I just add something
16 else in relation to this?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I stated my views only with regard
19 to items 1 and 2. Do I accept the expert witness statement? No. Do I
20 wish to cross-examine the expert witness, yes, on both counts.
21 And now number 3: Do I challenge the relevance -- or rather, the
22 qualifications of the witness as an expert or the relevance of all or
23 parts of the report? And if so, which parts. I have to do that very
24 thoroughly. I have to indicate which parts and so on and so forth.
25 Therefore, I need expert assistance. Not all of that can fit into one
1 page. That is why I ask for this additional time, of course by your
2 leave, although I have a right to do that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I have in front of me a document which translates --
4 a handwritten document, Mr. Seselj, dated the 22nd of March, 2006, and
5 I'll read it in full so to see whether there's any -- so that we are both
6 aware, and the Prosecution, about its contents.
7 It reads: "To Trial Chamber II. On the 21st of March, 2006, I
8 received the Serbian translation of a document entitled 'Prosecution
9 submission of the expert report of Anthony Oberschall, dated 17th January
11 "I do not accept the report of the alleged expert because it is
12 anti-Serbian, partial, politically biased, based on false assumptions and
13 facts, and technically amateurish. I forcefully object to this report
14 being included in the case file without testimony of the 'expert' in
16 "I demand to be enabled to cross-examine Anthony Oberschall,
17 within the court proceedings, about all the circumstances and the overall
18 contents of his report. I shall contest Oberschall's overall report as
19 well as every detail and the utterly inappropriate methodological
20 procedure that was applied when drawing up this report."
21 Mr. Seselj, upon reading this document, I have some difficulties
22 to find a request for a further time-limit to be set by the Trial Chamber
23 for making any further submissions under Rule 94 bis (B). Could you
24 assist me where to find that.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the submission where I stated my
1 views on Yves Tomic, expert witness, I referred that I asked for the same
2 treatment to be given to the Oberschall report, and obviously the
3 Prosecutor had that in her hands. She seems to remember a bit of it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, I'm now focussing on the Oberschall
5 report, and if in any Tomic document you ask for the same as you asked for
6 in relation to Oberschall, then at least we should find a request in the
7 Oberschall document. I can't read any request for setting of further
8 time-limits here, but if it's somewhere else we'll certainly find and
9 then --
10 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I -- in our list of filings,
12 there is no filing related to Mr. Tomic of that kind that we just spoke
13 about in relation to Mr. Oberschall. Obviously I was mistaken with my
14 memory. And also from what I see here, the Prosecution submitted the
15 expert report under the filing date 23rd of May, 2006. So it is probably
16 very doubtful that by now Mr. Seselj has the B/C/S version and could have
17 filed a document like the one that he -- that you have now in hand in
18 relation to Mr. Oberschall.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie --
20 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
21 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first try to make it clear when the Oberschall
23 report was filed. Was that at that moment just in English or was it
24 accompanied by a translation?
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I just -- Your Honour, I think
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 you have misspoken. We are talking now about Tomic, are we not?
2 JUDGE ORIE: I first wanted to come back to Oberschall.
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Oberschall was first filed in the English.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And then after translation it was officially
7 JUDGE ORIE: And that was at what date? I think that was on the
8 21st of March that Mr. Seselj received it --
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: That's at least what he writes: "I received the
11 Serbian translation of a document" --
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. And originally we filed the Oberschall
13 report -- or, rather, we submitted the Oberschall report to the Registrar
14 on the 17th of January, 2006.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 So therefore, Mr. Seselj, up to this moment I have not found any
17 request for a new time-limit to make any further submissions under Rule 94
18 bis under (B).
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to tell you two things.
22 First of all, I'm astonished that the Prosecutor does not know what
23 documents were submitted to me.
24 On the 31st of May, 2006, I received in the Serbian language the
25 report of expert Yves Tomic. And, Mr. Orie, in a submission on one page
1 only, submission 172, I informed you -- please, that is less than one
2 page. May I leave -- may I read, by your leave, what I said there? Do
3 you allow me to do that, Mr. Orie?
4 JUDGE ORIE: If you give me the date, I'll read what it says and
5 see to what extent it is important.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The 7th of June, 2006,
7 submission 172, one page.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I'll have a look. One second, please.
9 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Seselj, we'll verify whether it has been
11 filed. Yes, but we now slowly move to the Tomic report. What would you
12 like to bring to my attention, Mr. Seselj, in respect of the Tomic report
13 and any submission under Rule 94 bis?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm presenting three positions
15 here in this submission. Since I was never informed that the Trial
16 Chamber or the representatives of the Judges set a deadline for disclosing
17 any expert report called by the Prosecution, there is a dilemma as to
18 Tomic's report is complete and whether it was submitted in due time.
19 THE INTERPRETER: The speaker is reading too fast. The
20 interpreters cannot keep up.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, if you don't slow down your speech, the
22 interpreters will not be able to follow you.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Oh, I'll slow down, Mr. Orie.
24 I insist that I cross-examine the expert, and also I challenge his
25 qualifications as an expert -- or rather, the relevance of the entire
1 report. Since I fully challenge the entire report of Yves Tomic,
2 Prosecution witness, and also his personal qualifications, and before that
3 I also said to you that I challenge the report of Anthony Oberschall and
4 his professional qualifications for that job, I require that Trial
5 Chamber I should urgently clarify what this is all about, what deadlines
6 are involved so that the members for my expert team for assisting the
7 Defence could in a timely fashion give all the grounds for the challenge.
8 As you told me that the trial will begin in the first half of
9 October 2006, I ask that you set the 1st of September as a deadline by
10 which I will give official notification as to why I do not accept the
11 report by Anthony Oberschall and also the expert report of Yves Tomic.
12 At the same time, these will be the reasons why I insist that
13 both -- that I should cross-examine both expert witnesses and at the same
14 time I will prove that neither of them is ethically credible or
15 professionally qualified for the job entrusted to them by the Prosecution.
16 Now I'm adding something to this orally, along similar lines.
17 Again, I'm asking for the deadline of the 1st of September for the list of
18 adjudicated facts so that I could tell you why I'm challenging the list of
19 adjudicated facts and on what grounds.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I was just about to come to the adjudicated facts.
21 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, one very practical question in relation to
22 the report of Mr. Oberschall, the Defence -- or rather, Mr. Seselj has
23 informed us that he does not accept the report. He did so on the 22nd of
24 March where we writes -- of course that should be verified perhaps that he
25 received the Serbian translation on the 21st of March, which means that
1 under Rule 94 bis one would expect the expert witness to be called. Would
2 you oppose against giving a deadline up till the 1st of September so that
3 Mr. Seselj could challenge the qualifications of the witness as an expert
4 or the relevance of the report as a whole or in part?
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Despite the fact that Mr. Seselj has actually
6 missed the deadlines given by the Rules, I wouldn't object against him
7 filing his opinions.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It might be a practical solution for that
9 matter. It's always better that the parties and the Bench is aware of the
10 reasons why Mr. Seselj challenges the qualifications of the witness.
11 Mr. Seselj, it is not of great use to write down in full detail
12 why you oppose the expert report. That's, of course, usually done at
13 trial, but under Rule 94 bis you are expected to notify us whether you
14 accept the report, whether you want to cross-examine the expert witness,
15 and it's clear that you want to do that, and whether you challenge the
16 qualifications and the relevance of this report.
17 Mr. Seselj, we'll now move to the Tomic report. Could you tell us
18 whether you asked for any further deadline to be set, apart from the
19 deadline we find in Rule 94 bis under (B)?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I did not ask for a
21 deadline apart from a deadline because you actually never set a deadline
22 for me.
23 According to the Rules, the deadline is one month, and the Trial
24 Chamber did not state its views in this regard. Now I'm asking the Trial
25 Chamber to set a different deadline, as allowed by the Rules of Procedure
1 and Evidence, and the 1st of September would be an optimal deadline for
3 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. Please, Mr. Seselj, be aware that
4 the Rule reads that the deadline is 30 days or such other time prescribed
5 by the Trial Chamber or the Pre-Trial Judge, which means that if no other
6 time has been set as a deadline, that the 30 days of the Rule do apply.
7 I have noted your request to get further time until the 1st of
9 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, in relation to witness -- expert witness
10 Tomic, any objection against this request?
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the -- as I see it, the accused
12 received the report end of May in his -- in the language he understands,
13 and two months I think would be appropriate, because it is quite an
14 extensive, complex report. So end of June -- end of July would actually
15 be the date that we propose.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Do you intend to call the expert witnesses early in
17 the case or ...
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No, later on in the case. Thank you for that
21 We'll consider the matter and we'll decide.
22 We move on to the next item, that is 92 bis and adjudicated facts.
23 Motions have been filed by the Office of the Prosecution.
24 Mr. Seselj, you have replied orally with some remarks on 92 bis,
25 that is written statements. I would like to inform the parties that for a
1 number of reasons the Chamber has decided not to decide on the admission
2 of these items until the beginning of the trial. Since this may well have
3 an impact on the choice of evidence to be presented by the OTP, the
4 Chamber wanted to notify the OTP of this as soon as -- this to the parties
5 as soon as possible. Also this means that the Chamber allows the accused
6 to respond to these submissions - and we're now talking, Mr. Seselj, about
7 adjudicated facts and 92 bis material - until the 15th of August, that is
8 six weeks from now on.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I never received any
10 92 bis material.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, I do understand that this 92 bis material
12 was offered electronically.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's not true. It was offered in
14 the English language, 14 enormous binders, on paper but in English. It is
15 not true that it was in Serbian in electronic form. Of course I would
16 have refused electronic form, too, but that's not true. It was on paper
17 in English.
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand that it was an audio -- or could you
20 please --
21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, what we did is we made simply a
22 usual filing with the Rule 92 bis materials.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And usually the Registrar would then
25 translate the documentation. And our proposal to the Registrar was to
1 provide audio files.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And -- but --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Which has been practiced many times in this,
5 especially if it is Rule 92 bis (D) material from --
6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I assume so. But -- but I'm not sure whether
7 this was actually then done by the Registrar.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's -- we'll --
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: At least what I know is that Mr. Seselj
10 returned the filing completely.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll try to find out exactly what happened,
12 whether it has been considered to provide --
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie --
14 JUDGE ORIE: One moment, Mr. Seselj, let me just finish my
15 sentence before I allow you to speak.
16 We'll find out what exactly happened. But was it ever suggested
17 to you whether or not you liked that suggestion that the 92 bis material
18 would be provided to you apart from in hard copy in English in audio
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. As for what the Prosecutor said
21 a few moments ago, that's not true. I did not return the entire material;
22 I returned only what was in English, and that is an enormous quantity,
23 95 per cent, but I selected everything that was in Serbian and kept that.
24 And I sent an accompanying letter on five handwritten pages to the
25 Prosecutor, and I referred exactly to what I kept and what I'm returning.
1 And I'm returning it because it's in English.
2 Mr. Orie, methods are being devised here all the time in order to
3 impede my preparation for defence. Now audio material. One man cannot
4 listen to all of that. This material has to be on paper. With all these
5 slow translators, very often unprofessional ones, what am I supposed to
6 do? Spend a year listening to all the material they're going to submit to
7 me? Imagine how many hours that is going to be and how many hours per day
8 a person can spend fully focussed on listening to that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, if you have any complaints about
10 translations, you may make submissions on that. General statements on
11 slow translators and general statements on unqualified translators are not
12 appreciated. Please draw our attention to any specific complaints where
13 you consider a translation to be not correct, as you did in the past a
14 couple of times.
15 We'll -- so when you said you do not have 92 bis material, you
16 never received any 92 bis material, I now understand that you kept a small
17 portion of it and you returned whatever was in English --
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So that's at least then clear for the time being.
20 We'll further look into the matter to see what has happened and
21 what still has to be done in this respect.
22 It goes without saying that if the result of such inquiries would
23 justify a new deadline to be set, so that is not the 15th of August but
24 later, then a decision will be taken accordingly.
25 Anything else on 92 bis material? If not, we move to adjudicated
1 facts. Mr. Seselj?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can say something about
3 adjudicated facts, Mr. Orie, or have we gone through that? The material
4 that was -- I was provided with and the adjudicated facts, I have received
5 that with the additional material. And it is some 75 pages of an addendum
6 and 418 facts.
7 Now, I have already pin-pointed the ones that I intend to
8 challenge of those 418, and I am going to do that in writing of course
9 with the help of my expert team. If you allow me the 1st of September
10 deadline, I can get through that work by that time. But I haven't had
11 time to write it yet because I received the material on the 29th of June.
12 But I have pin-pointed everything that I intend to challenge, and you can
13 take a look at that if you're interested.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although I said the 15th of August as a
15 deadline, I'll consider whether we would allow you until the 1st of
16 September, which would then be the same date as the dates for the two
17 expert reports.
18 Mr. Seselj, perhaps it's unnecessary to tell you, but when you are
19 making submissions as to the admission of adjudicated facts, then it might
20 be a good idea to orient yourself and to focus on the criteria which are
21 accepted in the case law of this Tribunal for the acceptance of -- for the
22 admission of adjudicated facts. I just -- without giving an exhaustive
23 list, I just mention, for example, that this should be facts rather than
24 legal findings, that these should be facts that are not established on the
25 basis of any plea agreement, that should be facts that are finally
1 established in a final decision. That means that if a decision is still
2 pending on appeal, the facts established in the first instance could not
3 be taking judicial notice of as adjudicated facts until the Appeals
4 Chamber has decided or - and that's another exception - if they are not
5 challenged on the appeal.
6 So therefore, if you want to challenge them -- of course if you
7 say: I do not agree them to be admitted, these are the kind of criteria
8 the Chamber will first of all take into account. But even if an
9 adjudicated fact has been taken judicial notice of, at least where they
10 are admitted so that judicial notice can be taken of them, there still is
11 an opportunity, although within certain limits, to prove that these
12 adjudicated facts which do not require proof anymore are nevertheless not
13 facts in the real sense of the word.
14 So therefore, please focus on the criteria under Rule 94 to start
15 with, and if you find at any moment once they are admitted any reason to
16 challenge these facts which do not require proof then anymore, then that
17 would be the moment to present evidence on these facts.
18 Anything else on 92 bis and adjudicated facts?
19 Yes, then we move on to the next one -- yes, yes, Mr. Seselj.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I do not intend to
21 challenge the factual context of concrete crimes from other trials and
22 proceedings, because those crimes have nothing to do with the indictment
23 against me. But I do intend to challenge the facts that have to do with
24 general historical and political circumstances; they are untruthful. And
25 I have come by the knowledge, because I have read all the judgements that
1 are available in the Serbian language, that the Defence in most cases
2 never dealt with those questions. It wasn't interested in dealing with
3 those matters, so cardinal errors slipped through, historical
4 falsifications, if I can put it that way. And that is something I find
5 totally unacceptable, so I would like to state my views on each and every
7 As I say, I'm not interested on specific crimes in other
8 proceedings and trials.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, we'll read in your submissions what
10 adjudicated facts you're challenging and which not, and I do understand
11 that one of the criteria that might be of importance for you is whether
12 they are fully litigated, yes or no.
13 Then we move on to the next item on the agenda. I would like to
14 deliver an oral decision. That is the decision on the accused's motion
15 requesting the Trial Chamber to acquire a complete report on the accused's
17 This is a decision on the accused's submission number 159
18 entitled: Motion for Trial Chamber I to acquire a complete report on the
19 health of Professor Vojislav Seselj.
20 The accused's submission, dated the 19th of May, 2006, requests
21 that the Trial Chamber instruct the Registry to provide copies of the
22 accused's complete health report to the Trial Chamber and to the accused.
23 The accused submits that on the 25th of April, 2006, when his wife came to
24 the United Nations Detention Unit for a visit, she was required to sign a
25 form entitled: Undertaking for visitors, in which she undertook not to
1 disclose information about the accused's health to anyone. He submits
2 that such restrictions regarding his health information indicate that the
3 Registry has knowledge of a deteriorating medical condition of which he
4 himself is unaware. The accused thus requests copies of his complete
5 medical report.
6 On the 8th of June, 2006, Mr. Sebastian van de Vliet, head of the
7 office for legal aid and detention matters, sent a letter to the accused
8 explaining that his wife was required to sign the undertaking for visitors
9 form because of her interview appearing in the 12th of April, 2006 edition
10 of the Nedeljni Telegraf, in which she discussed information regarding,
11 and I quote from the letter: "The security screening procedures at the
12 United Nations Detention Unit, the location of detainees within the United
13 Nations Detention Unit, and information concerning other United Nations
14 Detention Unit detainees."
15 The letter also informed the accused that the Registry had taken
16 his complaint into consideration and the language of the visitors' form
17 regarding the health information of the accused persons being visited had
18 been changed. The form now no longer contains any general prohibition on
19 the disclosure of the health information of the accused person being
21 On the 29th of June, 2006, the Registry filed a submission with
22 the Trial Chamber explaining that requiring the accused's wife to sign the
23 visitor form was an appropriate restriction designed to protect the
24 interests of security and good order at the United Nations Detention Unit
25 given the accused's wife's disclosure to the media of sensitive
1 information concerning UNDU procedures. The Registry also submits, and I
2 quote: "It does not consider the accused's medical condition to be in
3 such a state that a report needs to be filed before the Trial Chamber."
4 On the 28th of June, 2006, the Prosecution filed its response to
5 the accused's submission number 159. It submits that the accused has
6 failed to show any medical justification for the production of a complete
7 medical report or how acquiring such a report would facilitate the
8 preparation or conduct of the trial, or serve the interests of justice.
9 The Prosecution also submits that the accused's complaint was improperly
10 filed with the Trial Chamber instead of with the Registrar and the
11 President of the Tribunal. The Prosecution requests that the submission
12 be denied.
13 The Trial Chamber notes that the Registry required the accused's
14 wife to sign the undertaking for visitors form because of her interview
15 with the media in which she disclosed information regarding the security
16 and the detention practices of the UNDU.
17 The Trial Chamber considers that the specific restriction
18 regarding the non-disclosure of the accused's health information was part
19 of the general requirements of the undertaking for visitors form and was
20 not specifically imposed in response to a deteriorating medical condition
21 of the accused. The Trial Chamber further notes that since the filing of
22 the accused's submission, the Registry has adjusted the language of the
23 visitor form to accommodate the accused's concerns.
24 Finally, the Trial Chamber considers that the legal remedy sought,
25 namely the production of a complete medical report on the health status of
1 the accused, has no basis given that the Registry is not aware of a
2 deteriorating medical condition of the accused requiring the attention of
3 the Trial Chamber.
4 The Trial Chamber therefore denies the accused's request, and this
5 concludes the Trial Chamber's decision.
6 Then I'd like to invite the parties to tell me whether there are
7 any other matters to be raised.
8 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, we have some -- one small
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: On the 28th of March this year, we actually
13 provided to the Registrar the -- a motion for the -- to the Trial Chamber
14 which was then actually filed on the 31st March 2006 concerning the filing
15 of the expert report of Mr. Theunens, the military expert. We had
16 requested the Trial Chamber to allow us to file a redacted version of this
17 report, and we were wondering when a decision is made on our request.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I'll look into the matter. I couldn't give you an
19 answer right away, but thank you for drawing your attention to this motion
20 still pending. We are trying to get the list of pending motions down in
21 number as soon as possible, but there is quite a lot of work to be done as
22 you well understand. Any other matter?
23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, any matter to be raised on your part?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. According to the
1 instructions with respect to the length of filings, Mr. Orie, the party
2 who wishes the Trial Chamber to allow it to have a more lengthy filing
3 must submit a request to that effect. However, when the Prosecution filed
4 a request to impose counsel on me, it did not seek permission beforehand
5 but in the text of the request stated why it considers the filing and
6 motion should be longer than the one prescribed.
7 When I responded to that filing, different criteria were applied
8 to me, and my response was returned, although it was much shorter than the
9 Prosecution filing and did not go beyond 3.000 pages. Because when I
10 counted, I counted 4.545 words. Your staff did not count the words. It
11 would appear that my 29th of May filing has less than 3.000 words, but you
12 returned it, whereas you didn't return the Prosecution's filing, although
13 it did not request in advance to allow it to submit its filing on more
14 pages than allowed.
15 From that, Mr. Orie, I draw the conclusion just how biased you are
16 and in favour of the Prosecution to my disadvantage.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, we'll look into that matter.
18 The Chamber has not decided yet on the motion. At the same time,
19 I can inform you that if rules are not observed in full and exceptionally
20 there is a non full observance of that rule, then Chambers are inclined to
21 show more flexibility compared to situations where, as the decision reads,
22 and I'll read the most important line of it perhaps again, that in a
23 situation as the Chamber considered that for reasons of the prolixity of
24 the submissions you filed, Mr. Seselj, that patent lack of merit in
25 general, their repetitiousness of their arguments and the triviality of
1 most of the issues raised where -- for these reasons the Chamber
2 considered that you had abused the process of the court less flexibility
3 might be inclined to be given. At the same time, I do understand that you
4 insist that at least your request that we pay more attention to any filing
5 by the OTP going beyond the page limit, the general page limit which is
6 applicable, that you suggest to us that we should not accept any filing
7 which goes beyond such a limit without prior approval.
8 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I'm just looking at our filing
10 and it says, actually, in paragraph 3 of this filing, which indeed is
11 about 4.500 words long, it says: "The Prosecution seeks authorisation
12 from the Trial Chamber to exceed the word limits."
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As a matter of fact, I think the issue raised
14 by Mr. Seselj is that you should first ask for exceeding the page limit
15 and only once leave is granted that you would be allowed to file a
16 submission that goes beyond that page limit.
17 That's the point I take it, Mr. Seselj, that you would like to
18 bring to my attention; is that correct? I'll consider the matter with the
19 other Judges of the Chamber and pay proper attention to it.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have something to add, Mr. Orie.
21 In this submission, in one point of it, I state, because I know
22 that permission should be asked in advance, and I'm interpreting this in a
23 freer form, that permission be asked in advance. So if the Prosecution
24 didn't ask in advance, I'm not asking either. I'm asking it in my -- in
25 my response to the Prosecution. But you returned my response, whereas you
1 accepted the Prosecution's.
2 Now, when you speak of triviality, you are not applying the same
3 criteria. According to one criteria, you say that my filings and
4 submissions are trivial, and you use another yard-stick and criterion to
5 allow the Prosecution to supply me with an enormous amount of trivial
6 material under Rule 68, just as the reports about the exhumation of bodies
7 in the Prijedor area that I referred to last time. So those aren't
8 trivialities, are they, and what I'm writing about are trivialities? Is
9 that it?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, the only thing I did is to quote from the
11 decision on the length of your submissions, and in order to explain where
12 Chambers are more or less inclined to show some flexibility, that's the
13 only thing I did. And I did not initiate any debate on what is and what
14 is not trivial in submissions by the parties in more general terms.
15 Anything else, Mr. Seselj?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I also would like to note,
17 Mr. Orie, that in that way you are demonstrating your breadth of vision
18 towards one side and your lack of it towards the other side; that is to
19 say, you're not adhering to the rules. Either rules apply to one and all,
20 or you can change them according to your own free will.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Seselj, this is not a debating club in which we
22 are going to enter into a debate. I invited you, as a matter of fact,
23 whether there was any other issue, not continuing the same issue, to be
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. This was an additional issue,
1 Mr. Orie.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Seselj.
3 Mr. Van der Spoel, anything to be raised?
4 MR. VAN DER SPOEL: No. Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then this concludes this Status Conference --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, yes, I do have something
7 to say. I have a short objection, Mr. Orie.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Make your --
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There was an error in the
10 interpretation -- or rather, the translator. Because van der Spoel was
11 not -- you can say that he's a stand-by counsel, but he's not a counsel of
12 mine, Defence counsel in any way. I have made that decision definite.
13 JUDGE ORIE: In the beginning of this session I established that
14 stand-by counsel, Mr. Van der Spoel, was present, and I addressed him at
15 the very end of this session as "Mr. Van der Spoel." That's on the record
16 as far as I'm concerned.
17 This concludes this Status Conference. We stand adjourned
18 sine die.
19 --- Whereupon the Status Conference
20 adjourned at 6.26 p.m.