1 Tuesday, 23 September 2003
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 3.04 p.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Could the
7 Registrar please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-03-69-PT, the Prosecutor versus
9 Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Will both parties make their appearances,
12 MR. GROOME: On behalf of the Prosecutor, Dermot Groome, Camille
13 Bibles, and Stephanie Wee as case manager.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
15 For the Defence.
16 MR. VUKCEVIC: [Interpretation] For Mr. Jovica Stanisic, Defence
17 counsel Vladan Vukcevic and Mr. Knoops, who will introduce himself in a
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Vukcevic, and Mr. Knoops.
20 MR. KNOOPS: Mr. Knoops, appearing as co-counsel in the case of
21 Mr. Stanisic.
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Knoops.
23 MR. KNOOPS: You're welcome.
24 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. I'm
25 attorney Zoran Jovanovic and I am Defence counsel for the accused Franko
1 Simatovic. Thank you
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
3 This is the first Status Conference according to Rule 65 bis
4 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. And as the parties are aware,
5 this conference is held in order to organise exchanges between the parties
6 and to review the status of the case so as to ensure the expeditious
7 preparation for trial.
8 And first of all, I would note that the Chamber is now seized of
9 the preliminary motions challenging the form of the indictment, filed by
10 Defence counsels of both Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic, and also the
11 Trial Chamber, as the Trial Chamber of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, is seized
12 of the motion asking for the access to the material of the Milosevic case.
13 And the Chamber is deliberating on these issues and will file its decision
14 in due course.
15 Having said that, shall we move on to the issue of disclosure.
16 And first, my understanding is that the Prosecution has completed its
17 obligation under Rule 66(A)(i).
18 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE KWON: Can I have this confirmed by the Defence counsels.
20 MR. VUKCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as the Defence counsel
21 for Mr. Stanisic, I do confirm that we have received within the time
22 period prescribed all the material relevant to the indictment, and we have
23 lodged a complaint, and we expect your decision. Thank you.
24 JUDGE KWON: And how about for Mr. Simatovic?
25 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the same goes for us.
1 According to Rule 66(A), the material was disclosed in August, and we have
2 filed a motion along those lines, as you yourself said, so that we have
3 completed that part of the process. Thank you.
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Then if Mr. Groome could tell me the
5 situation in relation to Rule 66(A)(ii) materials.
6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, we are in the process of finalising the
7 witness list and with a view towards making the case as compact as
8 possible, also selecting witnesses wherever possible that have testified
9 previously so that we may apply to have their testimony heard via 92 bis.
10 Recognising that the Court will set the schedule for the completion of
11 that process, it is an ongoing process for us, and what the Prosecution
12 would request, we would request a date in January, prior to the next
13 Status Conference, for which we would have completed that process, as well
14 as have filed a pre-trial brief and have met all of our obligations under
15 65 ter. I believe that would be the time that we would be able to
16 reasonably comply with all the pre-trial obligations that the Prosecutor
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I would very much encourage to stand by
19 what you just now said.
20 Is there anything to add for the Defence, to this comment by
21 Mr. Groome?
22 MR. VUKCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,
23 I'd like to say the following: On the 19th of September, that is to say,
24 immediately prior to this Status Conference, we did receive this document
25 from the Prosecution, in which we were informed of the tempo and manner in
1 which the Prosecution would give us access to exculpatory and other
2 material that they might have. In this brief we were also told that some
3 electronic system was being prepared which would enable us to have
4 speedier access into these documents.
5 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we'll come to the
6 Rule 68 in a minute. So if you have anything to add to the issue of
7 disclosure of Rule 66(A)(ii).
8 MR. VUKCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I didn't understand. I do
9 apologise. I'll take the floor later on, then, thank you, when the time
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. You don't have to apologise.
12 Nothing from the -- from Mr. Jovanovic?
13 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are expecting
14 disclosure on the part of the Prosecution, the sooner the better, of
15 course. Thank you.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
17 Then, Mr. Groome, could you start on the exculpatory -- disclosure
18 of exculpatory materials.
19 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. But before I do that, if I might
20 just -- one other disclosure provision in Rule 66. The Defence of
21 Mr. Stanisic has invoked reciprocal discovery under 66(B). I'd ask them
22 to confirm that on the record. And we will await some indication from
23 them of what issues they feel are material to the Defence, and we will
24 then search our files and make available to them as soon as practicable
25 any disclosure that would be warranted under 66(B). I have no such
1 indication from the Defence of Mr. Simatovic. I'm not sure if they are
2 prepared to indicate one way or the other whether they seek disclosure
3 under 66(B), but perhaps we could include the matters under Rule 66, and
4 then I will discuss Rule 68.
5 JUDGE KWON: 66(B) and 67?
6 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Vukcevic, do you have anything to add to this?
8 MR. VUKCEVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, not at this point.
9 Thank you.
10 JUDGE KWON: Then let's move on to Rule 68.
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, with respect to Rule 68, a large portion
12 of OTP's evidentiary collections will become available on line for the
13 Defence counsel to search for evidence they believe is relevant to their
14 case. The Prosecution requests that given the imminent availability that
15 we not be required to search, print, and deliver the accused's documents
16 from those searchable collections at this point, assuming that the
17 implementation of that system goes as planned. With respect to the
18 remaining collections and all other documents in evidence in the
19 possession of the Prosecutor, we will be conducting searches of that
20 material and provide it as it is identified. The method with which we
21 will identify this material is by conducting electronic searches of
22 keywords or phrases, and then reviewing all of the documents that contain
23 those keywords or phrases, and then, in turn, disclosing any of those
24 documents which contain Rule 68 material. Could I suggest that the
25 Defence counsel provide to the Office of the Prosecutor, in writing, any
1 keywords or search terms they believe will identify exculpatory material,
2 and I will, in consultation with the people responsible for those computer
3 searches, ensure the effective searching of those terms.
4 We have, prior to this date, disclosed to Defence counsel a copy
5 of the search terms presently used for Rule 68 searches in the Milosevic
6 case on the belief that since many of the factual issues are overlapping,
7 that may assist them. So if they can indicate to us in writing whether
8 they a adopt those searches and whether they want any additional searches,
9 we will begin the process of identifying that material and disclosing it.
10 And then finally, Your Honour, outside of those two areas or
11 sources of Rule 68 material we will, of course, continue to observe our
12 obligation to disclose any material which we become aware of, that is,
13 falls under Rule 68.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes. As you mentioned just now, the Rule 68
15 obligation is an ongoing duty on the part of the Prosecution. So I'd like
16 to remind that now.
17 Yes, any comment from the Defence?
18 MR. VUKCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you have just said
19 what I was going to say as Defence counsel; that is to say, that Rule 68
20 does exist and the Defence calls for it to be complied with. Of course,
21 with the introduction of an electronic system, things are made more
22 easier, then we accept it. But we also take into consideration the
23 preparation of our clients in their defence case, and electronic methods
24 are completely impossible for them, in amassing exculpatory material. So
25 we insist upon the application of Rule 68 as it has been stipulated in the
1 documents. Thank you. Just that, for the moment.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Jovanovic.
3 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Honour, any
4 technical advancement in the sense of searching for material under Rule 68
5 is very welcome. However, the Rule as it stands now imposes upon the
6 Prosecution the duties as -- concerned in Rule 68(A)(ii). So it is an
7 ongoing, continuous duty of the Prosecution, which must take place without
8 the active participation of the Defence. Of course, the Defence will not
9 be passive, so if the Defence has any knowledge of any material being in
10 the Prosecution's hands that could be considered to be exculpatory, it
11 will take the initiative and have that material surface. However, this
12 mustn't diminish the responsibility on the part of the Prosecution to
13 disclose material pursuant to that Rule in a continuous fashion. And it
14 is along those lines that I propose, or rather, I should like to stress
15 that we do expect the Prosecution to function in the same way and the same
16 tempo and speed in disclosing supporting material, material from other
17 cases, where investigation has taken place. So we should like them to
18 proceed in the same manner with respect to the exculpatory material.
19 Now, disclosure up until January, as they have said, and the
20 pre-trial brief as well, means that we're going to have a speedy process,
21 in view of the indictment. Now, I'm afraid that we would be a bit late
22 with the Rule -- material under Rule 68 if we expect the Defence to locate
23 and stipulate what it wishes to obtain. Thank you.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Rule 68 says that "The Prosecutor shall,
25 as soon as practicable, disclose to the defence the existence of material
1 known to the Prosecutor which in any way tends to suggest the innocence or
2 mitigate the guilt of the accused," and so on. So that does not mean that
3 the Prosecution should be necessarily proactive to find out all these
4 mitigating materials. So in a practical sense, the cooperation from the
5 Defence is necessary and requisite. So whether I can ask the Defence
6 whether they are willing to cooperate in providing these search criteria,
7 which can be used in electronic file search. Or is the Prosecution's
8 offering that they come to the office and they can use the search engine
10 MR. GROOME: There are actually two ways, Your Honour, and Your
11 Honour is correct in both. The first body of material is material
12 basically giving the Defence in this case the same access that our staff
13 would have. We can, of course, if the Court so orders, we can search
14 that, but I think the plan that has been worked on by the Registrar is
15 that the Defence would be able to sit down and put in their own search
16 criteria and identify any documents and then simply print them off. That
17 is the majority of the evidentiary collection that is now in the
18 possession of the Prosecutor's -- in the Prosecution's office.
19 The second body of material, which includes statements and
20 evidence provided to the Prosecutor under Rule 70, that will not be part
21 of the system. And what I'm indicating is that we will undertake
22 immediate searches of that material for Rule 68 material, using the search
23 criteria that we've used in the Milosevic case, and I'm inviting my
24 colleagues to submit additional search criteria that they would like us to
25 search that body of material that will not be part of what I believe is
1 called a disclosure suite. So I'm proposing that we begin with the
2 material that they will not have access to. If it comes to pass that the
3 disclosure suite is not satisfactory, we will of course then meet our
4 obligation in other ways by proposing that we begin with the closed body
5 material and begin searching that.
6 JUDGE KWON: As I said earlier, that I have to emphasise this
7 thing once again, the cooperation. It's necessary. But the failure to
8 cooperate does not necessarily mean that Prosecution is relieved from
9 their Rule 68 obligation.
10 MR. GROOME: I recognise that, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE KWON: And then having said that, can I recommend the
12 parties, while you are here, to meet with the Prosecution after this
13 meeting or conference, or tomorrow, to discuss those things, those
14 practical matters in relation to Rule 68 materials. I note nodding. Can
15 I take it as a positive answer? Thank you.
16 And then did we hear about the reciprocal disclosure from the
17 Defence? Just confirming what the Prosecution has said.
18 MR. GROOME: Not from the Defence. From Mr. Simatovic.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Mr. Simatovic. Yes. Do you have any say on
21 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] At this point in time, the Defence
22 of the accused Mr. Franko Simatovic is not in a position to disclose
23 material to the Prosecution of this kind, but we will do so in due course
24 on time. However, we cannot do so right now. Thank you.
25 JUDGE KWON: I understand. I understand that there will be five
1 expert witnesses?
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this stage, that's not a firm number.
3 It's an estimate of expert witnesses, and some of them will have testified
4 in prior trials. So we may be seeking to introduce their report and their
5 expert testimony under 92 bis.
6 JUDGE KWON: It may be too early to ask, but when do you think you
7 can complete their disclosure, roughly?
8 MR. GROOME: For some of them, Your Honour, I would think sometime
9 in December or early January, and for the remainder, I think at that stage
10 I will be able to identify for the Court a precise date if any additional
11 or new experts are required, I would be able to identify a precise time
12 schedule when we would expect those new experts to have their discovery
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. It is my understanding that the
15 Prosecution's office sent some list of sample facts to produce agreed
16 facts in the later stage. Could you explain that to me.
17 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would first recognise that we have met
18 with Defence counsel just before this hearing and have, on a previous
19 occasion, met with Mr. Jovanovic and Mr. Knoops. So in the spirit of
20 cooperation, the Prosecutor has forwarded to the Defence, both
21 Mr. Simatovic and Mr. Stanisic, some potential agreed facts. It is a very
22 early list of facts at this stage, but it is a basis upon which to begin a
23 discussion about which facts really aren't in dispute and which facts are.
24 I would expect that list to change dramatically over the course of
25 continuing negotiations and would expect by the time of the filing of the
1 pre-trial brief that there would be a clear indication about what facts
2 are agreed to and what facts are not.
3 JUDGE KWON: So it is based on the voluntary cooperation on the
4 part of the Defence. They are not duty-bound to answer those questions.
5 MR. GROOME: I recognise that, Your Honour. This is simply a
6 vehicle to begin negotiations about what facts are truly in dispute in
7 this case.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I'd like to hear some observation on this from
9 the Defence.
10 MR. VUKCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is premature to
11 speak about the facts that have been agreed upon, the agreed facts, but I
12 do recognise the efforts made by the Prosecution to indicate the agreed
13 facts. As Defence counsel for Mr. Stanisic, I could agree that some of
14 them are historical, geographical facts which are not in dispute, of
15 course, but for the moment I don't see any link with the trial against
16 Mr. Stanisic in view of the indictment issued. So it is too early for us
17 to speak about these general facts which would not be in dispute. But
18 once you have given me the floor, and I thank you for doing that, may I
19 just make a remark and go back to a subject we broached earlier on? And
20 it would mean a great deal to the Defence.
21 At a meeting, pursuant to 65(E) and ter -- 65 ter that we had a
22 month ago, the Defence counsels for Mr. Stanisic made a request, and we
23 would like to reiterate it on this occasion. From the ruling on
24 confirming the indictment as it stands, we can see that the distinguished
25 Judge who got the indictment to confirm it on the 24th of April this year
1 made certain remarks with respect to the indictment and later on these
2 remarks were acted upon. We received a second indictment, which was then
3 confirmed as well, on the 1st of May. And I don't think I need tell you
4 that it is in the interests of the Defence to have the text of that first
5 indictment that was confirmed, and especially the remarks that Judge Agius
6 made on the occasion with respect to that first indictment. Because if
7 the ruling of the Court is in place, then of course we would like to learn
8 about it, and we would be very much interested in learning of that matter
9 and the two indictments. Thank you.
10 JUDGE KWON: It has nothing to do with the Rule 66 or such
11 disclosure. So having heard that, if Mr. Groome can give any
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just before this hearing, Mr. Jovanovic
14 once again requested that material. I must confess I'm not fully apprised
15 of the jurisprudence regarding this. I told him that I would reconsider
16 the matter and study the jurisprudence and would act accordingly after
17 that. So I will -- there doesn't seem to be any formal motion before the
18 Chamber at this stage for it. I will discuss my decision with
19 Mr. Jovanovic informally, and if he seeks to formally apply for that, then
20 I will respond.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I would -- yes, Mr. Simatovic. I beg your
22 pardon. Mr. Jovanovic.
23 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Just a
24 slight digression. The request made by Mr. Vukcevic was made, and I would
25 like to join in in asking for that too, if he does get what he has
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
2 Now, the topic we broached before what my learned colleague
3 Mr. Vukcevic just said with respect to accepting -- or rather, the agreed
4 facts, there are 680 of them, in fact, if I remember correctly, these --
5 the facts stipulated. But as I say in my letter, I'm not quite clear on
6 the status of this list of agreed facts, because it was stated that this
7 could be an example, along with the letter attached to it by the
8 Prosecution, attached to the list, that they might be facts which have
9 nothing to do with this trial, in fact. But that, on the other hand, it
10 could represent a basis for discussion. So I'd just like the Prosecutor
11 to tell us, quite precisely: Are they facts offered to the Defence in
12 this case, agreed facts? And is that what we're going to start off with?
13 Or is it just something that is to be discussed and harmonised in due
14 course with another list to be compiled? Thank you.
15 JUDGE KWON: My understanding is they are nothing but a sample,
16 and if Defence seems to be cooperative, the OTP will be ready to send the
17 list of facts in due course. Am I right in guessing so?
18 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. And I would also point out that we
19 view this as a cooperative process. If there are facts that the Defence
20 feels may not be in dispute, we would welcome their suggestion about those
21 facts. And it may very well be that the Prosecution would then agree to
22 those facts. So what was provided, as you say, was simply a sample to
23 begin the process of discussing what facts are agreed to and what are not.
24 JUDGE KWON: Speaking for myself, it is also a good way for the
25 Defence to send the list of facts which they think they shouldn't be in
1 dispute at all. And coming to the disclosure of a previous indictment, my
2 recommendation would be this: First wait for the Prosecution's reaction,
3 whether they can give you or not; and if you can get it, and you feel like
4 having it in the near future, my recommendation is to file it in official
5 motion; and then it will be for the Chamber to deliberate on that, and the
6 Chamber will give a ruling on that. And I think it's too early to discuss
7 at this stage, for example, number of witnesses or length of trial, so
8 let's have a discussion on the next Status Conference on those issues.
9 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I would be able to provide precise
10 numbers at that stage.
11 JUDGE KWON: Then is there anything to add for the parties?
13 MR. GROOME: Not from the Prosecution, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE KWON: And for the Defence?
15 MR. VUKCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that this is
16 the right time to state the following: The Defence of Mr. Stanisic faces
17 problems that are of an extra-legal nature. Namely, the condition of the
18 health of Mr. Stanisic. This compels us to act in certain ways, and it is
19 in this respect that we expect your assistance. Could you kindly give the
20 floor to my colleague, Mr. Knoops, and he would be in a position to inform
21 you about the plans of the Defence in this respect.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Knoops.
23 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour. First one to Rule 67(D), the
24 Defence finds it appropriate to notify your Court and the Prosecution of
25 the existence of additional evidence or material, the disclosure of which
1 may be deemed in the interests of the case. This material relates to new
2 and fairly important medical evidence about the accused. In light of this
3 observation, the Defence wishes to inform your Court, as well as the
4 Prosecution, of its intention to file a Rule 74 bis motion in order to
5 have the accused's mental condition examined, and submit this new medical
7 Secondly, the Defence herewith informs your Court and Prosecution
8 of its intention to file in due course a motion for provisional release,
9 which may be intertwined with the present medical condition of the
10 accused. Although this Status Conference is probably not meant for
11 elaborating in detail on the contents of these two motions, the Defence
12 holds the opinion that it is in the interest of an efficient procedure to
13 disclose their purpose so your Court and the Prosecution are able to
14 anticipate these motions.
15 In addition to the medical file which is already part of the
16 material disclosed by the Prosecution, the Defence was provided last week
17 with additional medical reports which can either be disclosed at this
18 instance or together with the request for a Rule 74 bis motion, which will
19 be filed according to schedule this week by the Defence.
20 In this context, the following reports are disclosed. It pertains
21 to ten reports from the period of 2001 to 2003, all being written by
22 medical experts from Belgrade. The thing is, Your Honour, that the
23 physical condition of the accused is deteriorating further and has severe
24 potential effect on the mental condition. These reports also illuminate
25 the causal relationship between the disease, on the one hand, and the
1 mental condition of the accused, on the other hand. From this point of
2 view, the proposed medical examination of Mr. Stanisic, through a forensic
3 psychiatrist, seems quite relevant. Moreover, as mentioned in my letter
4 to the case manager of your Court of the 22nd September, under paragraph
5 2, it is material to the Defence, and probably also to the other parties,
6 to assess whether the accused is considered fit to stand trial,
7 considering also the announcement of the Prosecution to disclose a
8 significant part of the volume of potentially exculpatory evidence and
9 material of the Milosevic case, amounting to almost 90.000 pages and 150
10 videotapes. Therefore, two questions emerge. A: Does there exist a
11 relevant causal relationship between the disease of the accused and his
12 mental condition, and if so, to what extent? And secondly, can the
13 accused be considered to be mentally fit to face the mentioned trial and
14 subsequent mental pressure stemming from this trial. Therefore, with
15 regard to the above-mentioned medical information, the new information,
16 the Defence firstly announces its intention to file a request for the
17 appointment of a forensic psychiatrist in order to answer these two
18 questions. Eventually, through a Rule 74 bis motion. To that end,
19 the Defence proposes to appoint Dr. Offermans, an experienced Dutch
20 forensic psychiatrist who is also affiliated to the psychiatric
21 observation clinic of the Dutch Ministry of Justice in Utrecht. This
22 expert has an extensive experience with regard to mental examination of
24 Despite the fact that this expert is, according to our
25 information, not yet mentioned in the list of the Registry, we prefer to
1 have him appointed eventually in conjunction with a second expert of the
2 Prosecution's office.
3 And secondly, we like to stress that we intend to file in due
4 course a motion for provisional release, which, as stated before, could be
5 intertwined with the present medical situation of the accused, which is
6 quite concerning.
7 And I think this is important also for your Court to realise that
8 the reports we have now access to indicate that the mental situation also
9 of the accused is deteriorating due to his severe illness. Thank you for
10 your time.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Knoops. I don't think I followed you in
12 full when you said the relation between the vast scope of the 68
13 materials, for example, 90.000 materials, and health of the accused. Could
14 you elaborate on that once again?
15 MR. KNOOPS: Well, Your Honour, the only point the Defence wants
16 to make is that it's not unlikely that we will face a long trial in this
17 case, because also the materials which we added to the provisional and the
18 supporting materials are considerable. And it's a question if the accused
19 is properly fit to stand this lengthy trial. And therefore, the Defence
20 seeks to have an examination, medical examination, for this purpose as
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes. You have the point. And correct me if I'm
23 wrong. The Defence is going to file its Rule 74(D) motion in relation to
24 provisional release motion, irrespective of provisional release.
25 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, irrespective, Your Honour. Yes. So the first
1 intention of the Defence is to file 74 bis motion, and depending also on
2 the outcome of that motion, we will consider the filing of a motion for
3 provisional release. So first of all we think it's important to have this
4 motion filed for a 74 bis ruling, to have the accused medically examined
5 by a forensic psychiatrist.
6 JUDGE KWON: But on the part of Defence, you have already some
7 expert opinions as to the health of the accused?
8 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, we have, Your Honour. We have in this -- at
9 this moment, we have ten additional medical reports, based on the physical
10 condition of the accused, but was not yet conducted a forensic examination
11 of the accused. And the present reports indicate the existence of a
12 causal relationship between the physical condition of the accused, on the
13 one hand, and his mental condition. But again, for this specific issue,
14 we think it would be appropriate to appoint an expert witness to conduct
15 an examination specifically for that element, that medical element.
16 JUDGE KWON: So what you are saying is that whether the Defence
17 will file its provisional release motion will depend upon the outcome of
18 the expert opinion.
19 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.
20 JUDGE KWON: When admitted.
21 MR. KNOOPS: Correct, sir.
22 JUDGE KWON: Then I'll pass on this information to the Chamber.
23 But you have to file the motion to get a ruling on that.
24 MR. KNOOPS: Of course. That's clear, Your Honour. We intend to
25 file the 74 bis motion already this week.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Anything else?
2 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. Just to say, from the Prosecution's
3 point of view, we would of course not oppose any examination, medical, of
4 Mr. Stanisic. I do have some concerns that the expert selected does not
5 speak Mr. Stanisic's language, and we would be seeking to file a similar
6 motion to have a Serbo-Croatian-speaking psychiatrist conduct an
7 examination, as we believe that would be more appropriate to have that --
8 an expert, we actually have somebody in mind. So just to let the Chamber
9 know that it may anticipate a similar motion from the Prosecution of this
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We'll see.
12 And is there any matters to raise at this moment, or from the
14 Yes, Mr. Jovanovic.
15 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I would
16 just like to raise one more question, but could we please move into
17 private session in order for me to do that.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Let's go into private session.
19 [Private session]
12 Page 33 – redacted – private session.
25 [Open session]
1 JUDGE KWON: Is that what you were going to say?
2 Yes. I have in mind to have a next Status Conference around 20th
3 January next year, just before the deadline for the next Status
4 Conference. And unless there's anything to be raised, the hearing is
6 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned
7 at 3.51 p.m.