1 Wednesday, 13 June 2001
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 10.04 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
7 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English? Yes.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think -- let me repeat. I was
9 saying good morning to you all.
10 Madam Registrar, could you call the case, please.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Mr. President. This is case number
12 IT-97-24-PT, the Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] May we have the appearances?
14 Ms. Somers, could you introduce the Prosecution team, please.
15 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. For the Prosecution,
16 Susan L. Somers, assisted by Kapila Waidyaratne and Ms. Gustin. Thank you
17 very much.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The Defence. Your appearances,
20 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honour. Branko Lukic on behalf of
21 Mr. Stakic this morning.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
23 I should like to look at the agenda together with you, which is
24 going to be made up of basically four points. The first is to see how
25 things stand, an update; point number two, the Status Conference proper;
1 third, miscellaneous or other matters, matters that have not been
2 considered under points one and two; and finally point four, the
3 calendar. At the end, I'm going to give the floor to Dr. Stakic. But
4 let's begin at the beginning with point one and an update on the
6 I understand that you are at present focusing on another trial,
7 another case that is very well known to us, whether it be the Prosecutor
8 Ms. Somers or Mr. Lukic. But Mr. Lukic has also just come to us from that
9 trial, and I think it is important, for purposes of organisation, to see
10 and take up the question of the presentation of disclosure and the
11 modified indictment. So we're going to look at those two aspects, the
12 presentation of disclosure and amended indictment.
13 First of all with respect to disclosure, after the last meeting we
14 had on the 13th of May, that is to say, a month ago, Ms. Somers indicated
15 to us that Professor Radomir Lukic and others presented documents, and the
16 question is the following: Madam Somers -- and that you would be given
17 the supporting material. For the record, could you tell us exactly what
18 date -- what is the deadline for exceptional disclosure and when the time
19 starts running, when the preliminary motions, the time for them to start
20 running, that is to say, the date when you disclosed all the documents,
21 all the supporting material.
22 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, if I may just refresh everyone's
23 recollection, because it has been some time, we did give out at the last
24 Status Conference the supporting materials that would have properly
25 accompanied the one-count indictment for genocide. The Chamber and
1 counsel have been aware and we are holding to our schedule of the amended
2 indictment that the Chamber has indicated would seek an approximately 31
3 July date.
4 What we did at the last conference was we had put out the
5 suggestion, and it was generally agreed upon by the Defence and the
6 Chamber, that we hold in abeyance the Rule 72 motions until the new
7 indictment has, in fact, been acted upon, and then 30 days after, the
8 disclosure of all the materials that would accompany the new indictment so
9 that there's no prejudice. Mr. Lukic, as a matter of fact, Your Honour,
10 had expressed concern because he was not aware of the decision to hold
11 these in abeyance, and I indicated that I would make that a record matter
13 So we are preparing -- although, yes, we are very much involved in
14 the other case as well, we have a parallel, full-time staff working on
15 this case. So to reassure the Chamber, things will be in order and timely
16 when the new indictment has been presented. But the new materials would
17 not -- or the request for any type of action on 72 would not be triggered
18 until 30 days after that subsequent disclosure for the new indictment
19 under the Chamber's ruling, as I understood it from the last Status
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand, Ms. Susan
22 Somers. Perhaps I mixed up those two points and conjoined them, but let
23 me separate them for things to be clearer.
24 With respect to the indictment not yet amended, have you already
25 conveyed to the Defence the documents which were the fundamental documents
1 for that, and what the date was? So I'm not talking about preliminary
2 motions now, just the date, the date that you transmitted the evidence
3 following the indictment which has not yet been amended.
4 MS. SOMERS: That date, Your Honour, was the 3rd of May. It was
5 at this Status Conference that was held by this Chamber last time.
6 Mr. Lukic accepted them, and this Mr. Lukic, the current Mr. Lukic, has
7 given us -- provided a receipt for those materials.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well, thank you,
9 Ms. Susan Somers.
10 I'm now going to give the floor to Mr. Lukic to see if he has any
11 comments or questions to raise with respect to that. Mr. Lukic, you have
12 the floor.
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. As you know, we are pretty
14 fresh in this case, and we are not in any kind of hurry, so the 31st of
15 July this year fits the Defence, and we don't have any objections.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you. Perhaps
17 the question that we ought to discuss is the amended indictment and
18 amendment to the indictment because it's true that, as Ms. Somers said and
19 proposed and the Chamber accepted, preliminary motions and the proposals
20 made, the Defence accepted that, and we should consider the preliminary
21 motions after having received an amended indictment. So the amended
22 indictment comes first.
23 Ms. Susan Somers has just told us that the presentation of the
24 indictment could take place between the 15th and 31st of July, that that
25 is when we can expect to have an amended indictment. You also said that
1 the amended indictment will be based on other facts additional to the ones
2 contained in the present indictment; but you also said that those are the
3 facts based on facts already enumerated in the present indictment, set out
4 in the present indictment or set out in the indictment against Kovacevic.
5 And you also said that it would be an event -- focus on the event which
6 took place during one night but illustrative of a certain policy.
7 Now, I have some questions to ask you now, and perhaps I'll go
8 into them separately, individually, one by one, so that we can have a
9 direct answer to each of the queries and questions. The first question
10 is: Can you tell us whether the Prosecution confirms his intention to
11 amend the indictment? I think that that is something we already know, but
12 I do have to ask the question, so that is my first question.
13 MS. SOMERS: Yes, Your Honour. The Prosecution confirms this
14 intention to amend the indictment.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] My second question: Have you
16 already had some discussions with the Defence on that point about the
18 MS. SOMERS: Not substantive discussions, more procedural
19 discussions indicating that it is very much anticipated that it will be a
20 heavy document case, and perhaps -- we've discussed - we have a very good
21 working relationship; I hope it continues - discussed some invocation of
22 Rules which may facilitate the receipt of materials and help, I think, all
23 around to get the pre-trial phase as well as the strategy for trial worked
24 out. So we are talking, and I anticipate no interruptions in that
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Have you already got a more
2 exact date, an idea of the date when the amended indictment will be
3 presented, Ms. Susan Somers?
4 MS. SOMERS: So as not to make a commitment that I cannot keep, I
5 am trying to stick with the later 31 July date, and if there appears to be
6 a plus or minus factor, I will inform the Chamber of my team's concerns,
7 but that is our target date based on the Chamber's express wish that this
8 case be in pre-trial final shape by, I believe, November.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The third point: What impact,
10 if you can tell us, will this modification and amendment have on the -- on
11 providing additional documents? How many more new documents will you have
12 following the amended indictment? And when I say "impact," I don't know
13 whether we can measure the documents in kilos or cubic metres, but you
14 know when I say "impact" how much of it.
15 Now, we're speaking now about millions or billions of pages? What
16 is it?
17 MS. SOMERS: I think the fairest adjective would be it is a
18 significant number of documents. As Chamber is aware, since the
19 original -- since the first amendment of the former co-accused Drljaca and
20 Kovacevic, there have been seizures and other means of evidence gathering,
21 some of which have appeared in the Omarska case as well, and we will place
22 considerable reliance on the use of these documents and, of course, want
23 the Defence to have the benefit through the appropriate means and the
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And my last question: How much
1 time will you need to hand over the bulk of all the documents?
2 MS. SOMERS: There is an ongoing analysis. Certainly those
3 documents which are currently available, I believe once the new indictment
4 has been confirmed, could easily be the subject of an appropriate motion
5 under the appropriate Rule, depending on how counsel views things. And I
6 am prepared to make sure that, should those Rules be invoked, that there
7 is something in hand.
8 We have discussed, as a matter of fact, Your Honour, just the
9 logistics of examining, because there had been similar invocations of the
10 Rule in the other case, and it requires some planning. Therefore, I have
11 asked Mr. Lukic if perhaps we might be able to discuss logistics on this.
12 And the Chamber has our full assurance, that is, we will work together to
13 make sure that there is a procedure in place so that things can come
14 systematically, hopefully with a sufficient opportunity to review. And
15 that is the crux of the problem, I think for both sides; the delivery of
16 materials and the opportunity to review.
17 So we are addressing those, trying to look at staffing issues, who
18 would -- who on their part would come to the Office of the Prosecutor,
19 things that are very much nuts and bolts of the review process, but we are
20 undertaking, and I'm sure if the Chamber asked Mr. Lukic, he can indicate
21 we've done this discussion.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Let me now address
23 Mr. Lukic.
24 Mr. Lukic, as you know, the Defence have found that it was not
25 opportune to file preliminary motions before it receives the amended
1 indictment. I would like to put four questions to you.
2 First, do you still maintain the same position, Mr. Lukic?
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Yes, we do.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. My second question:
5 In view of what you know, that is, the indictment issued against
6 Kovacevic, could you indicate to us whether you will have any preliminary
8 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I haven't discussed this issue with my
9 client, but my opinion is that we will have preliminary motion.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Do you intend to
11 resort to the mechanism of Rule 66, which would lead to reciprocal
13 MR. LUKIC: At this point, very gladly, Your Honour, because we
14 have nothing in our hands. So we are not in any danger to disclose
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So that means you will make a
17 benefit. You will have the chance of receiving a lot and giving nothing.
18 MR. LUKIC: That's right, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Could you tell us whether you
20 would resort to an alibi defence or any other special defence? I draw
21 attention to the fact that, as you know, such a Defence must be notified
22 to the Judges as early as possible and certainly not after the beginning
23 of trial. So you know the provisions of Rule 67, I'm sure.
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. I'm aware of this provision, but I
25 haven't been discussing this matter with my client, and I'm not aware of
1 any special defence by now.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, then. You may be
3 seated. Thank you very much.
4 As you see, we are trying to send out feelers to find out with the
5 parties how we can continue a dialogue so as to be able to prepare the
6 case as well as possible.
7 Let me now go on to the second item of the agenda, and that is the
8 Status Conference proper, if I may call it that. I should now like to
9 remind you, first of all, that I still would like to have the case fully
10 prepared or, rather, to complete the preparation of the case before the
11 Chamber leaves, and I would like to have the cooperation of the parties
12 for this to be achieved.
13 We were rather optimistic in setting a deadline. That was our
14 desire, to complete the pre-trial phase in July, but to be more realistic,
15 we realise that is not possible as we are going to have an amendment to
16 the indictment. That is why I am -- I would like to suggest that we keep
17 in mind that we have to complete that phase by the end of October, and we
18 will do everything we can -- at least, I will do that, that is, the
19 Chamber will be available and will do everything in its power to achieve
21 You will understand that from the standpoint of the rights of the
22 accused, a speedy and fair trial requires that the pre-trial phase be
23 completed so that the trial can begin as early as possible. If the
24 pre-trial phase had been completed, then the trial could have started in
25 the course of this year; however, that is not the case now.
1 In order to proceed quickly, I think that we have to address at
2 least three or four points, that is, judicial notice; consider the
3 hypothesis of the reading of the indictment as a preliminary means of
4 coming to an agreement on any matters of fact or law, or to be more
5 precise, an agreement on disagreements which, after all, is the purpose
6 of -- is the subject of the trial. And there is a third point that I
7 would like to address with you in private session, and then we'll have
8 some other matters to deal with.
9 To begin with, judicial notice. We have the good fortune that, in
10 this case, the Prosecutor and the Defence have a good amount of knowledge
11 about the facts that Dr. Stakic is charged with. Both Mr. Lukic and
12 Ms. Susan Somers are familiar with the fundamental and basic facts. The
13 question now is whether the parties plan to have any agreement on judicial
14 notice, and could those discussions be held between the parties even
15 before the amendment of the indictment?
16 That is the question that I'm addressing now to Ms. Susan Somers.
17 MS. SOMERS: The Prosecution, Your Honour, very much favours the
18 use of the judicially-noticed facts. We are of the opinion that they have
19 enormously not only saved time, which was not the critical point, but
20 narrowed issues. And I think in the discussions that lead to agreement on
21 judicially-noticed facts, from those discussions arise the points that
22 need to be emphasised at trial.
23 On our part, I think perhaps using as a model some of the facts
24 which were used in the Kvocka case that, of course, arise out of the same
25 operative facts, or many of them, as well as some that perhaps based on
1 various expert opinions that we may choose to seek out, would give us a
2 core group of facts that I could envision saving hours, days, weeks of
3 testimony, and that I think are essential both to the pre-trial Chamber --
4 or helpful to the Chamber and to any new Chamber coming on board.
5 It is also my hope that the Chamber might consider the mechanism
6 used in the Kvocka case whereby instead of a duelling experts type of
7 scenario, the use of perhaps papers versus papers. I know there are
8 occasions where it is very important to have the expert in court, and that
9 may well be the case; but should there be a need for, for example,
10 background material, that may not merit bringing in someone live but
11 nonetheless in the spirit of what was done by Drs. Kecmanovic and Donia,
12 perhaps we might be able to work out something like that to facilitate
13 more of the judicially-noticed facts.
14 However, on our part, we're prepared to work with the Defence.
15 The issue, Your Honour, in all candour, is time because all of us are
16 still fully engaged in finishing up the Kvocka case. I think literally
17 just finding time to sit down before the 31st July may be difficult.
18 However, if this could be considered an ongoing matter under the tutelage
19 of the Chamber all the way through, I would be very glad to commence it
20 and perhaps suggest that we begin by looking at the facts that were
21 noticed by this Chamber in Kvocka as a starting point, and maybe that
22 could give us something to talk about for the next round.
23 If I may take one moment just to let the Chamber know, because of
24 the timing, we will finish, I guess, the 20 something of July with Kvocka
25 and I think the week of the 16th is the last, so whether we have an
1 opportunity literally to meet before then is a bit questionable, and I
2 simply ask the Chamber's indulgence. I know you understand the timing
3 factors. Thank you.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Ms. Susan Somers.
5 Thank you very much.
6 Mr. Lukic, on your part, what would be your suggestions and
8 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, we are always ready to speak openly with
9 the Prosecution. We are ready to cooperate. We cannot promise that we
10 are going to accept anything at this moment because we don't know what
11 would be offered, but we are available. And because I'm not involved in
12 Kvocka case any more, so whenever the Prosecution has time, I just have
13 timely information, I'll be here in The Hague to discuss the matter. So
14 we agree with the proposal of the Prosecution.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you,
16 Mr. Lukic.
17 So as you have heard, Ms. Susan Somers, Mr. Lukic has nothing to
18 do just now. So you must give him work to do. Disclosure of documents is
19 very important to Mr. Lukic. So you will bear that in mind, won't you?
20 Let me go on now to the second point of this agenda item. That is
21 the reading of the indictment.
22 I think that this reading of the indictment, in its current form,
23 without any amendments, and in its final form, on the assumption that it
24 will be amended, in my view is a very essential step in the pre-trial
25 phase. When one reads the indictment together, when the parties read
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English Transcripts.
1 through the indictment together, it would be possible to say, as you go
2 along, "I agree," or, "I don't agree," or, "I agree partially," or, "I
3 agree regarding this little point but not regarding the rest." And this
4 could be the first step towards the larger issue of agreement on matters
5 of fact and matters of law. It is true that Mr. Lukic could undertake
6 this exercise alone, reading through the indictment in order to see, "What
7 do I accept?" and "What do I not accept?"
8 Therefore, the question to be put could be the following: Are the
9 parties ready to embark upon this pass? What, according to them, should
10 be the frequency of their meetings, and specifically, their talks with the
11 legal officer of the Chamber? That would be the first step towards
12 reaching agreement on matters of fact and matters of law.
13 Ms. Susan Somers, how do you respond to this proposition? Though
14 there's a difference between you; you are busy with Kvocka and Mr. Lukic
15 is still not so busy.
16 MS. SOMERS: If I may just be sure I understand the Chamber's
17 position, is it an informal type of reading or is it a reading of the
18 indictment as a formality and then kind of a question and answer? How
19 does the Chamber envision this is happening; in a less formal structure or
20 in written form? Again, I've not had the benefit of this type of
21 practice. And perhaps this would be useful. I just don't know how the
22 Chamber has it planned.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. We engaged in this
24 exercise in other case and the results were good. The problem is that
25 today we have an indictment with shaded and unshaded paragraphs. So in
1 that way, we would know which of the parts that the Defence can accept and
2 which of those it cannot accept.
3 When I'm making this suggestion, I mean that you could have an
4 informal meeting between the parties, after which you could have a meeting
5 with the legal officer of the Chamber to communicate to him the results
6 achieved. The Chamber could see those results and possibly at another
7 meeting with the Chamber or the legal officer, after analysing those
8 results, one could come back to certain points and ask now, "Why are you
9 not in agreement on this point?" And then one could have a discussion and
10 maybe make a little more progress along that path.
11 I don't know whether you have any additional remarks to make now,
12 Ms. Susan Somers.
13 MS. SOMERS: If the Chamber would allow me to consider what has
14 been proposed and see how perhaps we might best fit it in, in a meaningful
15 way so the exercise counts and that it will lead to some result, I'd
16 appreciate that.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
18 What are your reactions on this, Mr. Lukic, on this practical way
19 of trying to reach agreements or an agreement on disagreements?
20 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, this is also something new for me as it
21 is for Ms. Somers. I'll try to cooperate, but when we meet, I'm not sure
22 that I would be able to answer immediately. Probably I'll have to analyse
23 first the indictment. And I think that those steps shouldn't be taken
24 before the amended indictment. I think that it's your proposal not to
25 discuss the present indictment, and if you please clarify this matter for
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but that's true. As you
3 know, Mr. Lukic, Ms. Susan Somers told us that the factual basis is almost
4 identical for the amended indictment, which means if we take the factual
5 basis of the current indictment, it would be possible for you, perhaps
6 working with Dr. Stakic, your client, to know, regarding the factual
7 basis, which in principle will be the same, what can be accepted and what
8 cannot, which might be your responses with a view to coming in agreement
9 on contested points, because the factual points will be the same, and
10 taking into account the Kovacevic indictment, which is the one which the
11 Prosecutor will be elaborating upon, so you can work with your client on
12 that basis, because if we look at the history of the Kovacevic indictment,
13 which, as you know, was the same indictment covering Kovacevic, Kvocka,
14 and Dr. Stakic originally, the facts were reorganised in a certain way in
15 order to develop from the count of genocide and complicity in genocide, to
16 develop 15 counts, violations of the Geneva Conventions, crimes against
17 humanity, and war crimes, but all these stem from the same factual basis.
18 Therefore, if we maintain that factual basis of the indictment and
19 the Kovacevic counts, the factual basis was developed to develop these new
20 counts and then you will have an idea of what will happen. And that is
21 the basic reasoning I have; that is, the basis for the charges is
22 virtually the same. So you can already start working with Dr. Stakic on
23 that basis, and that would be my suggestion.
24 Do you have any additional reactions now, Mr. Lukic? Are you
25 still standing by your position?
1 MR. LUKIC: I have to be honest with you, Your Honour. I haven't
2 seen Kovacevic amended indictment. I just saw the same as is present for
3 Mr. Stakic. So I'll try to get in touch with Kovacevic amended indictment
4 so I would be able to discuss some points with Dr. Stakic.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Ms. Susan Somers, do
6 you feel that my reasoning, that is, proceeding from the Kovacevic
7 indictment in its original version and going on to the modified version of
8 that amendment, does this reasoning correspond roughly to what we can
9 expect from the modified indictment against Mr. Stakic?
10 MS. SOMERS: I will be very cautious in my response, Your Honour,
11 but I think what could be of value would be to review both indictments
12 since effectively the genocide count was picked up in the amended for
13 Kovacevic and the Drljaca and the Stakic indictment. Perhaps from there
14 we might be able to embark further on some of the potential
15 judicially-noticed facts, which in my view would be one of the ways to
16 move the entire process along.
17 Because this is a different level clearly from the Omarska case,
18 discussing policy, accused, there will be other factors that will
19 distinguish it from the type of perhaps strategy that might have been used
20 in the Omarska case. However, I think it would be helpful, given this
21 period of time between now and the end of July, which would be effectively
22 the only time we could even begin to consider any -- with the proper
23 motions, any document release, I think it would be very useful,
24 particularly if counsel has the opportunity now while we're not so
25 available, to read through the Kovacevic indictment -- well, yes, the
1 earlier indictment, the amended, and if there are points of agreement from
2 there, it would, I think, be very helpful. I think it would be very
3 helpful. I think it would move things along ultimately for future
4 conferences where the Chamber wants to know what we can include in our
5 base of judicially-noticed facts or stipulations, simply stipulations,
6 which I hope would also be invoked even if these facts don't amount to
7 things which would be normally subject to judicial notice. Stipulation is
8 a very good method, and I think it would not be a waste of time on the
9 part of all parties to do that.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you, Ms. Susan
12 To address another matter that I mentioned, I should like us to go
13 into private session for a few seconds.
14 [Private session]
13 Pages 1317-1321 redacted – private session
22 [Open session]
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The other point was
24 miscellaneous or other matters, point three, before we go into discussing
25 the calendar, the timetable.
1 Are there any questions that we have not discussed, any issues
2 anybody would like to raise?
3 Ms. Susan Somers?
4 MS. SOMERS: I can't think of anything right now, Your Honour. I
5 think we're well covered.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Lukic, how about
8 MR. LUKIC: We don't have anything on our mind. Thank you.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. Following
10 exchanges here, I don't think it will be necessary to meet again before
11 the end of July, that is to say, when the amended indictment will be
12 submitted in conformity with what Ms. Somers has apprised us of.
13 I think that Mr. Olivier Fourmy will keep in contact with you and
14 will keep me informed of any needs you might have for your part and any
15 matters for consideration.
16 In concluding, I should like to turn to Dr. Stakic. Will you
17 please rise, Doctor. Dr. Stakic, would you like to say anything, to
18 inform me of anything with respect to your state of health or conditions
19 of your detention?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you for inquiring
21 in such a humane way. After the operation that I underwent, I have
22 nothing new to add but to thank you, thank the medical staff at the
23 hospital for their professionalism. And two months after the operation, I
24 can say that I feel quite well.
25 As far as the conditions in the Detention Unit are concerned, I
1 have never been in a prison before so I can't say if the conditions are
2 better or worse than they are anywhere else, but I was brought up in a
3 modest family, I have led a very modest life, and I have nothing to say
4 with respect to the conditions. Everything is in order, and thank you for
5 inquiring and the care and attention you have shown me.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may be seated,
7 Dr. Stakic.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] As we don't seem to have any
10 other business to attend to, I should like to thank you for your
11 attention, and I ask you to give thought to what we have been discussing,
12 and you, Mr. Lukic, the factual basis could perhaps be discussed with
13 Dr. Stakic so we can proceed more speedily when Ms. Somers provides us
14 with the rest of what she has to do. And I think that it is always our
15 goal to finish our Status Conferences towards the end of October, as we
16 have, and any preliminary issues.
17 Having said that, I adjourn the meeting and wish everybody much
18 success in their work.
19 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned
20 at 11.05 a.m.