1 Thursday, 20 January 2005
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 3.03 p.m.
5 JUDGE KWON: Could the registrar call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. Good afternoon, Your Honour.
7 This is the case number IT-03-69-PT, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic
8 and Franko Simatovic.
9 JUDGE KWON: Appearances, please.
10 MR. GROOME: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Dermot Groome for the
11 Office of the Prosecutor, accompanied by Mr. David Re and Ms. Skye Winner,
12 our case manager.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
14 And for the Defence, please.
15 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, Geert-Jan Knoops, lead counsel for
16 Mr. Stanisic, and Ms. Melinda Taylor, legal assistant.
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
18 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. I am
19 attorney-at-law Zoran Jovanovic from Belgrade, appearing on behalf of
20 Franko Simatovic. Thank you.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic.
22 It was on 23rd of September, last year, that we had the last
23 Status Conference. And since then I don't think there are many
24 developments; however, we'll go through several issues. It is my
25 understanding that there are no pending motions. Am I right?
1 MR. GROOME: Not from the Prosecution, Your Honour.
2 MR. KNOOPS: No motions pending from the Defence in the case of
3 Mr. Stanisic, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE KWON: There are none.
5 I'm very pleased to note that the pre-trial briefs are submitted
6 in a timely manner from the Prosecution on 19th July last year with
7 corrigendum on 22nd July. And the Defence submitted their pre-trial
8 briefs on 18th of this month. However, I have to note and bring it to the
9 attention of the parties that the pre-trial brief of Mr. Stanisic was
10 filed confidentially and ex parte.
11 Can I hear from Mr. Knoops the reason for that, the reason being
12 why it has to be filed confidentially and in -- I think we can deal with
13 it in open session. Not -- without going into detail, and in particular
14 the reason for being ex parte. If you -- Mr. Knoops, you want to discuss
15 it in private session, you can say so.
16 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, I can just say that Your Honour is
17 familiar with the fact that certain Rule 70 materials are disclosed to the
18 Defence and which are now made part of the pre-trial brief. And we are
19 under an obligation to file these materials even indirectly, when they are
20 indirectly referred to on a confidential and ex parte basis. That is the
21 only reason why we were obliged to file the brief confidentially ex parte.
22 Because throughout the whole brief reference is made on several -- in
23 several sections to Rule 70 materials. And it makes for us problematic to
24 distinguish between non-confidential and confidential parts of the brief.
25 Therefore, we opted to file it in its entirety as a confidential ex parte
2 JUDGE KWON: I wonder -- yes, whether you have --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
5 I wonder if you have endeavoured to get the permission from the
6 provider to disclose it to the co-accused.
7 MR. KNOOPS: We did, Your Honour, but without going into further
8 details in that respect, I would ask you to go into private session. But
9 I can only state in public that this obligation we are under as Defence,
10 this legal obligation, contractual obligation, also extends to the
11 disclosure of material to the co-defendant.
12 JUDGE KWON: At first I was concerned that in the future the
13 Defence of Stanisic may be asking the severance of the case, but it is not
14 the case?
15 MR. KNOOPS: No.
16 JUDGE KWON: I notice Mr. Groome was on his feet.
17 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I did see what were, I thought, two or
18 three references to Rule 70 material. It would be the Prosecution's
19 position that in the interest of the public nature of the proceedings that
20 Mr. Knoops be required to file a redacted copy of his pre-trial brief that
21 eliminates the -- or redacts the references to the Rule 70 material.
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Groome. That was exactly what I was
23 going to say.
24 Is it possible for the Defence?
25 MR. KNOOPS: That's possible, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE KWON: And that's the -- would be in the interest of the
2 co-accused, I would say.
3 MR. KNOOPS: I hope so. That our arguments also may benefit for
4 the co-accused. So I have no problem confirming that with the accused,
5 with the client. And if that is convenient we will file a redacted form.
6 JUDGE KWON: So that -- whether it be called redacted, unredacted,
7 or public version, when do you think you can file it?
8 MR. KNOOPS: Say within a week.
9 JUDGE KWON: Two weeks time.
10 MR. KNOOPS: Two weeks okay, yes.
11 JUDGE KWON: Then we shall move on to the matter -- issue of
12 disclosure briefly. I don't think there are serious issues in relation to
13 66 disclosure. If you can briefly brief me on the status, Mr. Groome.
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour --
15 JUDGE KWON: 66.
16 MR. GROOME: There were no outstanding issues. Mr. Knoops in his
17 brief yesterday raised a couple of matters which I've asked Ms. Skye
18 Winner to investigate overnight and I just have a report on those. So if
19 it pleases the Court, I will run through those three items.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I was able to read that part as well, so if you
21 could respond to that.
22 MR. GROOME: One of the issues was the translations of some
23 intercepts, the English translations of the original B/C/S intercepts.
24 These English translations to these documents had been previously provided
25 on the DVDs which had been provided to the Defence. When I read this
1 query by Mr. Knoops, I did some investigation and was somewhat surprised
2 to learn that English translations of original B/C/S documents are not
3 always on the EDS system. They have not made the system current to
4 include those yet. It is still a project that is being worked on. To
5 facilitate the Defence's ability to get to those translations, however,
6 Ms. Winner has provided another CD with a complete set of the transcripts
7 of the intercepts in their original B/C/S, in their English translation,
8 and has formulated a complete index which should make it quite easy for
9 the Defence to put their hand on the English translation.
10 JUDGE KWON: So it has been already provided to the Defence?
11 MR. GROOME: It has been already provided.
12 JUDGE KWON: It can be confirmed by the Defence right now?
13 MR. KNOOPS: You're referring to the CD-ROMs just provided?
14 MR. GROOME: Yes.
15 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, they've just been provided, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes. And then General Vasiljevic's interviews?
17 MR. GROOME: Previously the Prosecution had provided the Defence
18 with a video of the interviews which were conducted both in English and in
19 B/C/S. We are now in possession of an English transcript of the video and
20 for the convenience of Defence we have provided that today.
21 However, Ms. Winner, in checking the disclosure with respect to
22 General Vasiljevic, has discovered that there is another
23 interview that was conducted by a member of the Office of the Prosecution
24 on the 8th of February, 2002, which had not been previously disclosed. An
25 English copy of that transcript was provided today and a copy of the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 videotape will be disclosed to both accused before the end of January.
2 JUDGE KWON: I hope that will resolve the matter.
3 Any comments on that from the Defence?
4 MR. KNOOPS: No, Your Honour. I can confirm that we received the
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Jovanovic?
7 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] The same applies to me, Your
8 Honour. I have no questions to raise in relation to this matter.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
10 Other matters.
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the third query raised by Mr. Knoops in
12 his brief had to do with the status of some translation of some documents
13 referred to in the Prosecution pre-trial brief. These documents are now
14 translated and have been turned over today, and they number 94 documents.
15 I would remind the Chamber, however, that we are still outstanding
16 143 exhumation documents or missing person reports. They have been
17 provided in B/C/S. For the most part these documents just contain
18 information about the name of the victim and certain information which is
19 easily discernible even without the translation.
20 I would also inform the Court that we are getting most of them
21 back, and they are in the process now of just being redacted to see if
22 there is any witness address information or any information which should
23 be redacted from them before they are disclosed. So I would expect by the
24 end of February or sometime sooner all of those 143 exhumation reports
25 will have been turned over in their English translation.
1 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
2 Previously I was informed the number of reports was 154.
3 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. That's why I'm an attorney and not
4 a mathematician. It was my subtraction which was in error. But it is
5 143, and again we hope to have them available before the end of February.
6 JUDGE KWON: What would be the situation in relation to the SDS
7 Assembly minutes?
8 MR. GROOME: As I noted in my pre-trial remarks, they have --
9 translation has been requested of those. It's been requested some time
10 ago. Because of it volume of work that CLSS is facing, it has been
11 assigned a low priority. Many of those sessions are exhibits in pending
12 trials now. So it is my hope that because they are needed for cases that
13 are ongoing now, that it will be -- their priority will be elevated. But
14 I have little control over the priority that they are being given
15 currently in terms of being translated.
16 JUDGE KWON: Very well. If you can comment on the Defence request
17 for hard copies of Rule 66 materials.
18 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, there's just one other disclosure
19 matter, if I might, before --
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
21 MR. GROOME: If it pleases the Court, just to conclude this
23 Mr. Knoops also raised the point of footnote 291 in the
24 Prosecution pre-trial brief which was a document he was not in possession
25 of. That has been turned over today as well.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
2 MR. GROOME: Now, with respect to hard copies, Your Honour, as the
3 Court is well aware the ICTY as an institution is moving towards an
4 electronic courtroom and electronic disclosure. All of these documents
5 have been provided on a CD-ROM and most of them in the EDS system, but for
6 the exception -- some exceptions. So the Prosecution is not in the
7 position to dedicate the resources that would be required to print them
8 out and organise them for the Defence.
9 I would also note that a year ago we had a Status Conference on
10 this case, and I had first proposed at that stage about the electronic
11 disclosure and it was fully discussed, and both the Defence counsel agreed
12 to receiving the material in electronic format then. Since that time now
13 it has become a policy of the Tribunal to deal with these matters
14 electronically, and so I must decline Defence's request to produce hard
15 copies of all those materials.
16 JUDGE KWON: Is the problem actually the matter who will take the
17 burden of locating the documents and making photocopies of them?
18 MR. GROOME: Well, Your Honour, the documents are all provided now
19 on CD-ROMs. If the Defence want a copy of that, they can simply print out
20 those documents and they will have them, or perhaps come to some
21 agreement with the Registry that somebody else -- that's sent out to some
22 outside vendor to print those documents. But the Prosecution does not
23 maintain a hard copy of what Mr. Knoops has in electronic format. We have
24 the exact same electronic format. So in terms of the mechanics of taking
25 those electronic files and printing them and putting them into binders
1 there is absolutely no savings of work. It would require us the exact
2 same amount of time. And as Mr. Knoops pointed out in his brief
3 yesterday, he estimates that that would be several hundreds of hours of
4 work. That's not a resource that I have available to me at this time to
5 do that.
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Knoops' suggestion seems to be that in the
7 Prosecution's office there must be hard copies and making a photocopy of
8 them they be easier than printing out them -- the documents, but it is not
9 the case as you put it just now?
10 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. It would be tantamount to saying
11 go down to the library and find the book and then take the book and
12 photocopy it. If Mr. Knoops is looking for the most efficient way to make
13 hard copies, I would suggest that the simplest and most efficient way is
14 to simply print them from the disk. They are the exact same ones that may
15 be scattered in files in other cases. That would be even a more enormous
16 task, to go and pull out the discovery -- in other cases identify the
17 particular documents that have been provided electronically and then to
18 make photocopies of them.
19 JUDGE KWON: And it is only for my information. But is search
20 possible in that CD?
21 MR. GROOME: Yes, they are searchable CDs, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE KWON: They are not just scanned documents?
23 MR. GROOME: Some of them are image files, Your Honour, but they
24 are organised by the witness to who they pertain to. So Ms. Winner has
25 organised that CD, so each witness has their own independent folder and
1 all the disclosure falls in under that witness. So it is not a matter of
2 the documents being provided in any disorganised way.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Groom.
4 Mr. Knoops, any observations?
5 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, if I may, the reference the Prosecutor
6 makes to our remark a year ago, that's of course correct. But since then
7 the Defence is confronted with a growing amount of documents and therefore
8 this request was made in view of the growing amount of documents. The
9 problem for us still remains the search of certain documents on the
10 CD-ROMs, especially for the accused where I also ask your attention to his
11 medical situation. Perhaps we can come later to that issue.
12 We were under the impression that most of the materials referred
13 to in this case were identical or almost identical to the materials served
14 in the case as mentioned in my brief in -- on page 6 under section D. And
15 perhaps that -- if that is the case, that Defence is allowed to get copies
16 of the materials available from the Prosecution already in a printed form.
17 With respect to the preparation of the Defence and the trial, it
18 simply seems to be far more efficient to have the printed version of
19 certain documents. And indeed it -- our modest estimation is that it will
20 indeed take several hundred hours for the Defence to print all the
21 documents out. Yet, we have to go through all these documents with the
22 accused. And also in the interest of his position this request is made.
23 And I ask specifically your attention, Your Honour, to footnote 5 of our
24 brief on page 6 belonging to section D, whereby we interpreted the current
25 situation as embracing the obligation of the Prosecution to disclose hard
1 copies of the -- at least the Rule 66 materials. We do agree that such an
2 obligation does not exist or cannot be interpreted pursuant to Rule 68,
3 but we hold the view that the Rule 66 materials should be provided to the
4 Defence in a hard copy form.
5 JUDGE KWON: Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Knoops. I don't think we
6 can go further when the Prosecution is saying that they don't have the
7 hard copies either. They may have some materials, witness statements, and
8 making photocopy of them may be easy. But in relation to the items they
9 don't have in possession, there would be some difficulty. Printing out
10 from the CD-ROM is maybe much easier.
11 MR. KNOOPS: Well, also considering the quite restricted -- the
12 Defence is working under, we would like to forward the suggestion to the
13 Honourable Trial Chamber to look for a possibility that within the
14 Tribunal there will be a facility for printing out materials for
15 Prosecution and Defence.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
17 MR. KNOOPS: Just a request and a suggestion.
18 JUDGE KWON: Since this matter involves a very interesting issue,
19 whether the obligation on the part of the Prosecution is satisfied by
20 e-disclosure or whether they have to further provide hard copies, I think
21 the matter is in the end for the Chamber to decide. But before that, if
22 the parties can negotiate and make the best of it, and then, Mr. Knoops,
23 it is for you to draw the matter to the attention of the Chamber and then
24 the Chamber will consider the matter.
25 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour, for your consideration.
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE KWON: And expert report, it's done, and except for the
3 translation of Dr. Tabeau's report.
4 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE KWON: And --
6 MR. GROOME: It has been requested and as soon as it is available
7 it will be disclosed.
8 JUDGE KWON: And in his memorandum, Mr. Knoops suggested that
9 Prosecution to draft a list of suggestions which the Defence would
10 consider in due course. Is the Prosecution minded to do that?
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, are you referring to the suggestion with
12 respect to 92 bis or with respect to adjudicated facts?
13 JUDGE KWON: Agreed facts and adjudicated facts.
14 MR. GROOME: If I could answer the Court's question with perhaps a
15 question to the Court. After reading the pre-trial brief of Mr. Knoops,
16 there are facts, there are assertions in there that the Prosecution would
17 be prepared to agree to. One of the ways we could proceed, and I want to
18 seek the Chamber's guidance on this, if I file an application indicating
19 which assertions that are made in that pre-trial brief that the
20 Prosecution will not contest, will agree to, is the Chamber prepared to
21 rule on that and make those agreed facts for the purposes of this trial?
22 JUDGE KWON: Or you can also put some questions to the Defence
23 whether they agree or not.
24 MR. GROOME: I thought this might be more expedient since I
25 already have what Mr. Knoops has asserted to be a fact; for example, this
1 law existed and it meant this, that if I were to say, okay, the
2 Prosecution agrees with that, does not contest that, that that could then
3 become a fact that does not have to be litigated at the trial. Perhaps
4 that would be a expedient way to at least identify some of the clearly
5 uncontestable facts.
6 JUDGE KWON: Speaking from myself, I think we need some more
7 specific agreement by the parties.
8 Any observation from Mr. Knoops?
9 MR. KNOOPS: Well, Your Honour, I support the suggestion of the
10 Prosecution that first step to come to a potential agreement on the 92 bis
11 materials but also the agreed and stipulated facts could be that the
12 Prosecution based on the pre-trial brief indeed indicates what they can
13 agree or cannot agree. And I think I recall the session, the last
14 Rule 65 ter conference session whereby I proposed to the legal officer of
15 your Honourable Trial Chamber to first file a pre-trial brief and enable
16 the Prosecution to assess the brief in view of potential agreed or
17 disputed facts. So in line with this status -- this Rule 65 ter
18 conference, that could be the first step to come to some mutual agreement
19 on certain agreed and stipulated facts. I do agree, of course, with your
20 Honourable Trial Chamber that it would probably not be the end list, but
21 it could be a first -- first start.
22 Thank you.
23 JUDGE KWON: To prompt the procedure, I would be encourage the
24 Prosecution to initiate the procedure to produce some agreed facts.
25 MR. GROOME: We will do that, Your Honour. Thank you.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Jovanovic.
2 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. In
3 relation to this issue, I would like to point out that if there are facts
4 that my colleague Mr. Groome would be disposed to agree to, facts in the
5 pre-trial brief, then Franko Simatovic's Defence must also be informed
6 about this, because agreed facts is something that concerns all parties.
7 I'm not sure how we can verify this, given the fact that the motion was
8 filed confidentially and ex parte.
9 JUDGE KWON: That is a matter, of course. And you will be handed
10 over the public version excluding the Rule 70 matters in due course, very
11 soon, I would assume.
12 I think I've done all of my agenda I've noted down. Is there any
13 further matters for the parties to raise?
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just related to this, Mr. Knoops also
15 raised the issue of 92 bis. I do have some observations on that if it
16 pleases the Court now.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.
18 MR. GROOME: I believe Mr. Knoops's position on this matter is
19 that if the Prosecution would indicate to the Defence which particular
20 portions of a witness's testimony it will seek to introduce via 92 bis,
21 then the Defence will be in a position to indicate its agreement or
22 challenge of that particular mode of taking the witness's testimony.
23 Can I ask my learned colleague if that accurately reflects his
24 position on that matter?
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please. I didn't follow that part.
1 Mr. Knoops.
2 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you for the question,
3 my learned colleague.
4 Indeed it's the suggestion -- it's the suggestion from the side of
5 the Stanisic Defence, that confronted with the potential list of Rule 92
6 bis materials it could be a start that the Prosecution perhaps could
7 indicate whether the Rule 92 bis materials they intended to admit will
8 comprise certain statements as a whole or certain statements by way of
9 portions. We don't have, in other words, any indication as to the amount
10 of Rule 92 bis materials as referred to in the Rule 65 ter witness list of
11 the Prosecution. So the only thing we ask for is perhaps some more
12 specific guidance from the side of the Prosecution as to the amount of the
13 92 bis materials and perhaps the portions of certain materials, or perhaps
14 that the Prosecution thinks to file all of the materials mentioned here in
15 its entirety at trial. And based on this guidance, the Defence is able to
16 indicate whether or not they can admit to the Rule 92 bis materials, which
17 the Prosecution intends to file.
18 I hope that I clarified the point.
19 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if I could give the Prosecution's
20 response to that.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Whether it is intending -- it is minded to
22 introduce 92 bis statement at all, yes, please.
23 MR. GROOME: On the 9th of July last year, the Prosecution filed a
24 document entitled Prosecution's list of witnesses pursuant to 65 ter
25 (E)(ii). That document contained a summary of the testimony of each of
1 the witnesses that the Prosecution intends to call. It also included a
2 table indicating which witnesses the Prosecution will be seeking to admit,
3 at least part of their testimony under the Rules of 92 bis or 89(F). If
4 you look at the summary of any of those witnesses who we have indicated it
5 is our intention to make use of 92 bis, you will see that some of the
6 summary is printed in italics and some is printed in standard text. Any
7 of the text that has been printed in italics is that portion of the
8 testimony that the Prosecution will seek to introduce via 92 bis. So if
9 the Defence can review that document and indicate to the Prosecution which
10 of those italics portions it is to willing to agree be taken under 92 bis,
11 which ones it will seek to challenge, we will then be in a position then
12 to bring appropriate submissions and applications before the Trial
14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Groome, did you indicate at that -- in the
15 document dated 9th of July whether Prosecution is going to introduce those
16 statements without cross-examination or not?
17 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I have a copy of the table - if it
18 helps the Court, and I believe -- I think one is being handed up to you
19 now - for each witness the Prosecution has indicated whether it is our
20 intention to take the evidence viva voce, completely 92 bis, or partially
21 92 bis'd. For those witnesses that we've indicated will be partially
22 92 bis'd or entirely 92 bis'd, if you look at their summary later in the
23 document you will see that the paragraphs that are italicised are those
24 paragraphs which the Prosecution submits would be appropriately taken
25 under 92 bis.
1 JUDGE KWON: Will that answer be sufficient to Mr. Knoops?
2 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour. That clarifies the position
3 of the Prosecution and enables the Defence to respond. Thank you.
4 JUDGE KWON: Any other matters?
5 Is there any other matters for the parties to raise?
6 Mr. Jovanovic.
7 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in relation to
8 disclosure, I have nothing further to say. However, the Defence has
9 informed the OTP, given the fact that we did not hold a 65 ter meeting,
10 about an issue that we wish to raise. The same has been done by my
11 colleague, Mr. Knoops.
12 We have a list of 24 persons submitted to the Defence team by the
13 Republic of Serbia, Ministry of Justice. These persons are persons that
14 the indicted must not get in touch with during the --
15 MR. GROOME: I'm not able to hear the translation anymore. I
16 don't know if anyone else is experiencing the same problem.
17 JUDGE KWON: I'm hearing. But you have to turn up the volume.
18 If Mr. Jovanovic says some words in order for Mr. Groome and
19 others to follow.
20 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Of course. Of course.
21 I will repeat. The issue that the Defence wishes to raise at this
22 time --
23 JUDGE KWON: Are you following, Mr. Groome?
24 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE KWON: If you could repeat.
1 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Of course, of course, Your Honour.
2 The Defence wishes to raise the following question. It's about a
3 list containing the names of 24 persons submitted to the Defence by the
4 Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Serbia. The list actually contains
5 the names of persons that the accused must not contact during their
6 provisional release. The list was submitted at the request of the
7 Defence. The Defence has managed to find out that such a list is in
8 existence and that it was submitted to members of the Ministry of Interior
9 of the Republic of Serbia at a meeting with representatives of the ICTY in
11 This list was forwarded to the Defence 25 days after it was given
12 to the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia. It contains, as I
13 said, 24 names. Only a few of the names are the same as those mentioned
14 on the 65 ter list of the OTP. The remaining persons were not indicated
15 as potential witnesses pursuant to 65 ter. In relation to some of these
16 persons, there is no indication whatsoever of these persons in the OTP's
17 pre-trial brief. Therefore, this begs the question: What is the status
18 of these persons? And why exactly is the OTP trying to prevent the
19 accused from contacting these persons in that case. What the Defence
20 wants to know is whether the OTP has any particular status in mind for
21 these persons and what the role of these persons will be in the course of
22 further proceedings.
23 I will confine myself to citing two examples in relation to
24 problems that may or may not arise from these actions. No motion was
25 addressed to the Chamber that the Defence would then respond to. It was
1 forwarded directly to the police by the ICTY office in Belgrade, and
2 immediately after the Defence team found out that such a list was in
3 existence we filed a request for the list to be forwarded to us, noting
4 also that we would be raising this issue at a Status Conference before the
6 In relation to one person, the name was stated incorrectly;
7 therefore, the Defence can only assume who this person is. In relation to
8 a different person, his function or official position is cited as
9 financier. This is something that is not indicated in the pre-trial
10 brief. This person is a close relation of one of the accused, and for 25
11 days he had not been informed that he was not supposed to contact this
12 person. Fortunately, this person currently resides abroad, so therefore
13 no contact was ever established.
14 So what the Defence wishes to have is an update on the exact
15 status of these persons, and if any changes have been made to their
16 status, we would want to know whether they would have any role in these
18 What follows is that statements by these persons should be
19 discussed. If indeed these persons do not have the status of witnesses in
20 this case, the question remains why there must be no contact between the
21 accused and these persons.
22 In relation to another issue that was raised in this letter in
23 relation to the fear that exists for the personal safety of the accused
24 Franko Simatovic, the Defence contacted the OTP before this Status
25 Conference, and we have obtained all the information that we deemed
1 necessary. Therefore, we no longer have a need to swell on this
2 particular issue. Thank you.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic.
4 Yes, Mr. Knoops.
5 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, I was indeed also about to raise this
6 matter, but I was under the impression that you first wanted to deal with
7 the whole agenda for today. But as you may have noted, the Defence in the
8 case of Mr. Simatovic did address the same issue in our brief of yesterday
9 under section A, in which section we also elaborated on the potential
10 ramifications of this so-called order. And we also delineated our view
11 that this so-called order is violating the rules of your Tribunal. And
12 also we indicate that we feel seriously endangered by this action which
13 also is potentially undermining the proper Defence preparation. And
14 therefore we proposed in the Defence of Mr. Stanisic for the prompt
15 intervention of the Honourable Trial Chamber or, alternatively, we are
16 ready file and are able to file a motion to this extent because we think
17 this relates to a very principal matter which goes at the heart of the
18 Defence preparation. And therefore you find on pages 1 until 3 of our
19 brief several suggestions to that extent. And our brief in section A
20 closes with the readiness of the Defence to file an official motion to
21 that extent which could enable your Honourable Trial Chamber to rule on
22 this rather fundamental issue.
23 Thank you.
24 JUDGE KWON: To clarify, it is different from the regime of
25 protection of a witness?
1 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.
2 JUDGE KWON: And speaking for myself, I have never heard of this
3 kind of list or order. And, Mr. Knoops, you suggested there for reasons
4 of judicial economy you suggest the Chamber to resolve the matter without
5 filing a written motion. But given the significance of the matter, I
6 would rather encourage the parties to put it in a written filing in order
7 for the Chamber to consider the matter.
8 But before that, if you have anything to say, Mr. Groome on this
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, it was brought to my attention in
11 Mr. Knoops's briefing yesterday when I was provided also a copy of the
12 letter and Mr. Jovanovic earlier today provided me with a copy of the
13 letter he received. I have found out some details, but if it is the
14 Court's wish to take this important matter in writing, it probably is
15 better for me to further investigate what exactly occurred and to put it
16 in a written submission to the Court.
17 JUDGE KWON: But if you could tell us what it is about briefly and
18 orally now.
19 MR. GROOME: Well, what I have been able to discover, Your Honour,
20 is that after the Appeals Chamber affirmed this Trial Chamber's
21 provisional release of the two accused in Belgrade, the field office of
22 the ICTY was contacted by members of the Serbian/Montenegrin government,
23 and they formally requested that that representative of the Tribunal
24 provide them with the names of all the witnesses, including the protected
25 witnesses, in this case. That person forwarded that request to the
1 investigator responsible for the case. That investigator thought it was
2 inappropriate to, in that manner, disclose the names of protected
3 witnesses and declined to do so, but did offer a list of names of people
4 that he thought there might be some concern if there was contact between
5 the accused and these people. And that information was then in turn
6 provided to the government officials that requested it.
7 The OTP did not initiate this correspondence. It was a request by
8 the government. And OTP has made no request whatsoever to the government
9 with respect to restricting any additional restrictions on the accused
10 outside of what the Court has ordered.
11 What I might contribute to this discussion is in fairness to the
12 government is that aside from their undertakings to the Chamber, they also
13 have a legitimate police function to perform and to protect their
14 citizens. When these two gentlemen were provisionally released, there was
15 some reaction in Belgrade; in fact, one of the most prominent human rights
16 activists publicly stated that she had information that these two men had
17 engaged in the intimidation of witnesses.
18 It's not for -- I would urge the Court to get more information
19 from the government of Serbia, I think that in the event that they may be
20 more involved here. Again, they may be exercising legitimate lawful
21 restrictions completely aside from what -- and not simply just simply
22 interpreting the Chamber's order.
23 From the Prosecution's view, we have no role to play in the
24 regulation of the terms of their provisional release. The Court has
25 issued a clear order on that. If the government of Serbia and Montenegro
1 were hoping that the Prosecution would clarify your order, well, that is a
2 misdirected request. We have no role to play in that and believe that
3 it's a matter between the Chamber, the Defence, and the governmental
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
6 I would prefer the matter to be taken more seriously and prudently
7 by way of written filing, unless the parties wish to raise urgently at
8 this stage.
9 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, we are ready to file a motion already
10 next week to this extent.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes. The Chamber will consider the matter.
12 Any other matters?
13 MR. KNOOPS: Sorry --
14 MR. GROOME: After you, sir.
15 MR. KNOOPS: The final matter is probably not for a public session
16 to elaborate on but just to draw the attention of the Trial Chamber to --
17 JUDGE KWON: I've noted the -- some confidential matters you've
18 raised in your brief.
19 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.
20 JUDGE KWON: But --
21 MR. KNOOPS: If --
22 JUDGE KWON: My question is whether you have to raise it in a
23 Status Conference or is it enough for you to file a written filing drawing
24 the attention of the Chamber to what you've written down in your brief?
25 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 The letter is indeed the case. This is for just by way of
2 information of the Honourable Trial Chamber and the Prosecution about the
3 status quo on the specific topic. I refer to section D of my brief. I
4 will not rephrase it in public. If the Trial Chamber appreciates, and the
5 Prosecution, we can file the whole report we referred to in section B of
6 our brief in its entirety with a motion to the extent as suggested in our
7 brief. But we thought it is appropriate to raise the matter -- at least
8 bring the matter to the attention of Your Honour in a view of the topic
9 which was also on the agenda on the anticipated length of the trial,
10 et cetera. So we are happy to leave it as it is, bring it to your
11 attention, and we can deal with the topic in a written filing.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.
13 Mr. Groome.
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would ask that any request to change
15 the conditions of provisional release be done in writing so we can have a
16 full opportunity to respond carefully to it.
17 JUDGE KWON: The Prosecution didn't respond to the earlier motion
18 from the Defence in relation to the variance -- variation of the status in
19 relation to the provisional release?
20 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, we took no opposition to that, but
21 this seems to be somewhat different. If Mr. Knoops is seeking an oral
22 variation of that order, the Prosecution would like to know more details
23 about where it is proposed that the accused is permitted to go and for
24 what period of time and perhaps some further assurances from the
25 government that they will be able to fulfill their obligations to the
2 JUDGE KWON: Sorry. I'd like to be clear about this. You're
3 referring to his visit to his mother's grave?
4 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. What I'm referring to at this point
5 is what Mr. Knoops has referred to just recently and is in his brief about
6 the accused being allowed to leave Belgrade for additional medical care.
7 It is that matter.
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
9 It will be put into writing?
10 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, Your Honour, we will put it into writing.
11 JUDGE KWON: So the Prosecution will be able to respond to that.
12 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
14 MR. GROOME: I have one additional matter.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.
16 MR. GROOME: It has recently come to my attention that the
17 Stanisic Defence has made contact with a former member -- a former senior
18 member of the Office of the Prosecutor and solicited confidential
19 information about events surrounding the surrender of another accused.
20 I'm not sure to what end this was done, but I must insist if there is
21 information that the Stanisic Defence believes is important, relevant, and
22 is in possession of the Office of the Prosecutor or has to do with former
23 employees acting in their official capacity, that he make an official
24 request, rather than soliciting it from employees who are still bound by a
25 duty of confidentiality.
1 JUDGE KWON: Defence must have heard that.
2 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour. But it was in no
3 way meant to circumvent any rule, and we were already notified by the
4 particular person to make an official filing to that extent. So we will
5 ask the Prosecution officially to perhaps cooperate on this issue, which
6 is already referred to in the pre-trial brief. Thank you.
7 JUDGE KWON: Are there any other matters for the Defence to raise?
8 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No. Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE KWON: Final matter will be the next Status Conference. I
10 was informed that that would be 20th of May, 2005. I would like to have
11 it on Thursday, 19th of May, at 3.00. If there -- should there be a
12 change, I'll let the parties know.
13 The hearing now -- is now adjourned.
14 --- Whereupon the Status Conference
15 adjourned at 3.52 p.m.