1 Thursday, 12 January 2006
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [Accused not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 12.04 p.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Could the Registrar call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. This is case number
8 IT-03-69-PT, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. May I have the appearances?
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Good day, Your Honour. For the Prosecution,
11 we have Marek Michon as a new TA on the case. Case manager, Janet
12 Stewart, and my name is Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mrs. Uertz-Retzlaff.
14 For the Defence, please.
15 MR. KNOOPS: Good morning, Your Honour, Mr. Geert-Jan Knoops for
16 the accused, Mr. Stanisic.
17 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour, my name
18 is Zoran Jovanovic, attorney from Belgrade, and I represent the Defence of
19 Mr. Simatovic. Thank you.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I read from the website of ICTY that this
21 should mark the first proceedings in this institution so I would like to
22 take this opportunity to wish you all a very happy new year.
23 Since the last Status Conference dated 29th of September last
24 year, there have been certain though not much developments in the case.
25 First, a joinder motion was denied on 10th of November. Was it appealed,
1 Mrs. Uertz-Retzlaff?
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour, we did not appeal it.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. And the Prosecution's second amendment of
4 the indictment of this case it was allowed by the Chamber decision on 16th
5 of December and the Prosecution filed its amended indictment on 20th of
6 December and there have been a request from the Defence for certification
7 for appeal on 21st. And yesterday, the Trial Chamber issued its decision
8 on the variance of protective measures as the Chamber sees the Milosevic
9 case. I understand the Defence should have received them. I see them
11 And there are some -- a couple of pending motions. One is a
12 temporary modification of the provisional release conditions for the
13 Accused Stanisic, and we are waiting for the government's assurances. And
14 then the request from the Defence for certification for appeal against the
15 decision of an amendment of the indictment is being considered by the
16 Chamber, and the Chamber will make its decision in due course.
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, in relation to this issue I
18 would like to mention something.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: You may have noticed that the Prosecution did
21 not respond to this motion.
22 JUDGE KWON: No.
23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Actually, at the time, first of all, almost
24 nobody was there, everybody was on vacation.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: But, of course, there was here a person in
2 charge and correctly this person felt that there was no need to respond to
3 this motion because all the argument that is we had given that actually
4 supported the decision had been given in the previous filings so there was
5 no need. The only two things I would like to mention because
6 Mr. Jovanovic raised it in his motion for certification, we still don't
7 have the Stoparic statement that was given to the Belgrade district court
8 investigative judge.
9 JUDGE KWON: That is C-063.
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes and we have requested it and we will
11 receive -- we were assured that we will receive it very soon but we still
12 do not have it. And in relation to Mr. Knoops' submission we don't have
13 the full transcript of the Skorpion video. It's in the pipeline and as
14 soon as we have it we will disclose it. That's what I wanted -- want to
15 mention in relation to the certification. I mean, I reject the
16 allegations that we did violate our disclosure obligation. We can only
17 disclose what we have in hand and in our possession, and therefore we did
18 disclose what we have.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff. That should have been
20 noted by the parties and also, it will be noted by the Chamber as well.
21 And if the Trial Chamber rejects -- only if it rejects the Defence
22 motion for certification or later Appeals Chamber confirms the amendment
23 of the indictment, there will be needed a further appearance pursuant to
24 the Rules. So in that case, would the Accused be able to come to The
25 Hague? Are you in the position to answer that question?
1 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, my humble
2 submission is that in the event -- in the unfortunate event the
3 certification would not be granted or when granted the Appeals Chamber
4 would not allow the appeal our preference is this the initial appearance
5 for the accused Mr. Stanisic could be conducted by means of a videolink.
6 JUDGE KWON: It should be further appearance not initial
8 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, further appearance. You're correct,
9 Your Honour, thank you. This is our submission. Also in light of his
10 current medical condition, I was myself from the 28th until the 30th in
11 Belgrade. I've spoken with his medical team and his situation has
12 aggravated since the submissions we made to the Honourable Trial Chamber
13 several months ago. In this light, we anticipate the filing of a motion
14 on the fitness to stand trial earlier than expected. As Your Honour may
15 know, we have filed a motion in which we have notified the Chamber and the
16 Prosecution on the current medical situation of Mr. Stanisic substantiated
17 with a detailed medical report. During my interviews with his medical
18 team over Christmas, it turned out that the situation again has aggravated
19 and, if the Chamber wishes, we -- sorry, we can file an updated verse on
20 the medical status in due course.
21 But in light of his current medical condition and also in view of
22 the practical its of a potential return to The Hague for a further
23 appearance, we humbly submit that it could be considered to have this
24 further appearance being conducted through a videolink and we are familiar
25 with the practice of this Court that it has been conducted before in a
1 case, in the Plavsic case where the guilty plea of the accused was
2 conducted through a videolink. So this is the standpoint the Defence in
3 the case of Mr. Stanisic for the event that the further appearance should
4 be conducted in due course after the decisions your Honourable Trial
5 Chamber is going to make on the certification, presuppose the
6 certification would be denied or the Appeals Chamber would eventually deny
7 the appeal.
8 JUDGE KWON: I take it from your submission that there would be no
9 problem for the Accused to appear for the purpose of the further
10 appearance through video or telephone link.
11 MR. KNOOPS: That's correct, Your Honour. The Accused is able
12 physically and mentally to attend a further appearance through the
13 videolink as proposed.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Mr. Jovanovic, can I hear from you on
15 this point. You take the same position?
16 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Yes,
17 absolutely the same position. I think that it would be far more practical
18 and less costly and let me just also mention that quite recently a
19 videolink was established between the district court in Belgrade, the
20 department for war crimes, with the Court in Sarajevo so I think that all
21 the technical conditions set in place and I think it would be superfluous
22 now to change the decision on provisional release although it would be
23 necessary if the Accused were to be returned to The Hague and then to
24 Belgrade. So the accused Franko Simatovic is in good health but I think
25 it would be far better if that were to be done on the basis of videolink
1 or some such link.
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic.
3 Can I ask Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff whether the Prosecution has any
4 opposition to having a further appearance through videolink?
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the Prosecution, of course,
6 would prefer to have the Accused both here to attend the further initial
7 appearance and -- but if such an application is being made for videolink
8 in particular for Mr. Stanisic for health reasons, nothing can be done
9 against this but I would rather like to see such an application in
10 particular then also a confirmation by a doctor confirming that he's not
11 able to travel because that's the point, whether he's able to travel to
12 The Hague or not. And not so much that he is in bad health. I mean
13 that's for sure but whether he's able to travel or not. If such an
14 application is made and such a documentation is provided we would, of
15 course, not object against it.
16 JUDGE KWON: So that means that you're objecting to having a
17 further appearance in case of Mr. Simatovic, not even for the sake of
18 judicial economy.
19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: If Mr. Stanisic is not able to travel here,
20 then I would rather say --
21 JUDGE KWON: I take it Mr. Simatovic is very healthy.
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: He is able to travel, yes, so I think he
23 should be here.
24 JUDGE KWON: So that when necessary, the Chamber will consider the
25 matter but I would encourage the Defence to file their motion if they wish
1 to have the further appearance to be conducted through video or telephone
3 And I think I exhausted the points I noted down so I would like to
4 ask the parties if there is any further issues to raise at this moment.
5 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff?
6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE KWON: From the Defence? Yes, Mr. Jovanovic.
8 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Your Honour, I assume that you have asked the Defence to give a written
10 submission about an appearance of the Accused so we are going to wait for
11 your decision and then we will put in our demand for a videolink, of
12 course, if your decision is such and ruling is such that it rejects the
13 Defence's request to appeal. The second thing that I would like to say is
14 that if the Chamber rejects the certification submission by the Defence,
15 there is a deadline for launching a request and this was on second amended
16 indictment and the date was the 20th of December, and this means the 20th
17 of January. We received an additional statement by C-063 Witness, on the
18 12th of January pursuant to Rule 66. I don't know if that is additional
19 supportive material so in the case -- in case you should reject the
20 Defence's request we would like to know when the deadline for an appeal of
21 the decision is set.
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic. The Defence of
23 Mr. Stanisic are requested for that kind of somewhat sort of stay in their
24 motion so I don't think there is any reason to treat differently. So that
25 will be considered by the Chamber in its decision on the request for
1 certification for appeal. So the both -- speaking for myself, both the
2 Accused will be treated in the same manner. If that pleases you. Is
3 there any more -- any points, Mr. Knoops?
4 MR. KNOOPS: I'm not sure whether my learned friend has finished
5 his submissions in this regard but --
6 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I just have one more point to
7 raise but it is quite a different matter. The Prosecutor informed the
8 Defence or rather the OTP informed the Defence that Milan Martic's trial
9 has gone ahead and that during that trial evidence will be presented which
10 will -- some of which will be exculpatory pursuant to Rule 68 with respect
11 to Stanisic and Simatovic. The OTP said that it would be disclosing to
12 the Defence those materials which are to be presented in private closed
13 sessions and that the Defence should pay attention to the evidence that
14 will be tendered during the public open sessions.
15 I think that this once again in a way is pushing the ball into our
16 court pursuant to Rule 68 and I don't think it is practical for the
17 Defence to follow a trial that might last for even a year, up to a year,
18 and to wait to see whether some material will crop up which comes under
19 Rule 68 with respect to the Accused Stanisic and Simatovic. If the OTP is
20 ready to go ahead with Martic's trial, and I'm sure it stands trial ready,
21 in view of the fact that it is continuing on the 17th of January I think
22 that the Prosecution at this point in time knows which material could come
23 under Rule 68 already now and thus disclose to the Defence in the trial of
24 Stanisic and Simatovic and the Defence will certainly take an active part
25 and follow the proceedings because it is relevant for its trial too. But
1 I think that at this point in time the OTP could be in a position to
2 inform the Defence about the list of witnesses, list of exhibits, which
3 could be disclosed to the Stanisic and Simatovic Defence pursuant to Rule
4 68. So other wise, we would have to wait for months perhaps and follow
5 the trial for months before any material crops up or before we ourselves
6 find something that might be exculpatory and come under Rule 68.
7 JUDGE KWON: I don't think I followed you in full. What the
8 Prosecution said to the Defence, as I understand it, is that a possible
9 exculpatory material evidence may be led in Martic case so the Prosecution
10 asked the Defence of Mr. Simatovic and Stanisic to pay attention of the
11 public part of the proceedings. Am I right in so understanding? Can I
12 hear from the Prosecution?
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. And I think I can actually
14 clarify something for Mr. Jovanovic. Mr. Jovanovic at the moment we have
15 no idea what will be Rule 68 in the Martic trial because the Rule 68
16 material will come from the Defence in the Martic case and we don't know
17 what they will present in their cross-examinations or later in the Defence
18 case. So what we have so far exculpatory materials related to Martic that
19 you have already got because the cases are related. What we will do is,
20 of course, when the Martic trial is running, each witness that is also a
21 witness in your case here, you will get the transcripts according to Rule
22 66(A). You get them complete because that's our obligation under Rule
23 66. But under Rule 68 because it's a public trial we do not provide you
24 with those public sources, but what we do, we provide you with Rule 68
25 materials that come in in private or closed session because you don't have
1 access to it. And that's what we will review for you and provide to you,
2 but in relation to the public sources it's your own responsibility and we
3 have alerted you that there may be something coming up. Whether it does,
4 we don't know.
5 JUDGE KWON: I think it clarifies the matter.
6 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. All I didn't
7 understand was that the OTP meant the Defence material in Martic's trial.
8 I thought it was material relating to Rule 68 in the Martic trial which
9 might possibly be exculpatory with regard to the accused Stanisic and
10 Simatovic. So if they know what material they have in their disposal then
11 I had expected that to be disclosed, but of course I will actively follow
12 the proceedings as I do all other proceedings relevant to our trial as
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
15 MR. KNOOPS: In this sense I would support the submissions of my
16 learned colleague that it's our view that if the interpretation of the
17 letter of the Prosecution of the 11 January 2006 is as such that it has
18 fulfilled or will fulfill its obligations under Rule 66 and/or 68 by means
19 of putting the Defence on notice for the Martic trial, even the public
20 sessions thereof, we believe and I think this is also the argument of
21 Mr. Jovanovic that this is not fulfilling the obligations under the Rules
22 as such. You cannot simply say to the Defence in every case, you can
23 follow the trial yourself and find out what is 66 and/or 68. So I, on
24 behalf of the Defence of Mr. Stanisic, would like to stress that although
25 we are appreciative of the letter of the Prosecution and that we are put
1 on notice that the trial will take place and will potentially result in
2 exculpatory evidence, we still believe that the Prosecution has not
3 fulfilled its obligations by merely putting Defence on notice to fulfil
4 the obligations under Rule 66 or 68. That is the point the Defence would
5 like to make. Beforehand I think the Prosecution is able to provide for
6 instance the Defence in the Stanisic case and the Simatovic case with an
7 overview of, for instance, the exhibits and their witnesses under Rule 66
8 they are seeking to admit in court, and our point is that we as Defence,
9 we can timely anticipate the filing of these documents in our case instead
10 of waiting until the trial will progress for months and perhaps a year and
11 we are simply then too late in our pre-trial preparations based on the
12 documents which will emerge from the Martic trial, and I think this is the
13 right moment to stress this position of the Defence in the case of
14 Mr. Stanisic that we don't believe that the Rules should be interpreted in
15 that sense.
16 JUDGE KWON: No. What I understand from the Prosecution
17 submission is somewhat different. What the Prosecution had already in
18 their possession should have been disclosed either in 66(A)(i) or (A)(ii)
19 or 68. What they have -- what the Prosecution had in mind is that the new
20 evidence emerging from Martic case, from the Defence case, will be
21 disclosed and if it is a public document and they will not provide for --
22 specifically for that. I think that's as simple as that.
23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, and that is the usual
24 practice here. The Prosecution does not disclose under Rule 68 the public
25 open source material. That's -- but we have informed you that there may
1 be something upcoming, and whatever a witness says who is also a witness
2 in your case, that, of course, you will receive as Rule 66(A) material.
3 But I don't see any obligation that we have to provide you with the --
4 give you an outline of the Martic case. I mean, you can have this --
5 everything is in public hearings and you have the witness list in the
6 Martic case. That's all public documents that you can easily get from the
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. It might be a bit too early to raise this
9 but by the amendment a crime base has been added and all the disclosure
10 has been done or not, only the supporting material has been disclosed.
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, only the supporting
12 material so far but there isn't actually much else to disclose as far as I
13 see. There isn't really that much added. So --
14 JUDGE KWON: And I assume that pre-trial brief should be amended
15 or newly filed, and anything you will make a comment on that?
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. What we are actually at
17 the moment doing is preparing the final pre-trial brief, dropping the
18 crime bases that were dropped and adding the Srebrenica part and we also
19 will provide the final witness and exhibits list. It will take I've
20 discussed it with my colleague who is actually doing it and as the
21 Stanisic and Simatovic trial team is a small one, we think we will have it
22 in two months, if that's acceptable for anyone. We would file it in two
24 JUDGE KWON: And that is only after the certification is rejected
25 or the Appeals Chamber confirms the Trial Chamber's decision.
1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Actually I can say we will file -- of course,
2 if it is not granted we don't need to file anything new, but if it is
3 granted it's still the two months from now. So let's say in month there
4 is a decision, a further month and we file, so it's not that we start
5 doing the work in -- starting only after the decision. We are actually in
6 the process putting it together.
7 JUDGE KWON: And the scale of the case or length of the trial,
8 number of witnesses can be dealt with at the next Status Conference.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, but I can say it will not be more than
10 now because we are dropping something and we are adding something so it
11 will basically be the same.
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Some witnesses should be changed.
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE KWON: Any other points to raise?
15 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise if
16 I've been going on and on, but quite simply we did not have a 65 ter
17 meeting before this Status Conference so we could not present some of our
18 arguments. Related to C-063 and the statement of that witness that my
19 colleague stated just now, that this was not received although it was
20 taken by the investigating judge from the Belgrade court for war crimes, I
21 think it's a rather important statement.
22 I simply cannot believe that after so many months, that I told the
23 OTP that this statement exists, and at the Status Conference the OTP said
24 that practically the Defence assisted them in disclosing relevant
25 materials, discovering relevant materials. I think this is a very
1 important statement, and I also presented that in the request for
2 certification of appeal too. So again, if the Defence's request is
3 rejected, I still think it is very important for this statement to be
4 attached to the second amended indictment. How should I put this? It's
5 strange that there are these ongoing comments about the good cooperation,
6 intense and very good cooperation between the war crimes department in
7 Belgrade and the OTP and both offices of the Prosecutor have said that.
8 It's quite unbelievable that they haven't managed to receive this one
9 statement in months. The Defence, we work in cooperation after all, we
10 asked the commission for cooperation with the ICTY to get this statement
11 but I told the OTP that the statement is where it is so I would kindly ask
12 my learned friends to insist on it. If that is not sufficient material
13 for the actual request for certification of appeal, could it please be
14 taken into account when they make their preliminary objections to the
15 amended indictment? Thank you.
16 JUDGE KWON: If it is -- something is important for the Defence,
17 it is as important to the Prosecution as well. So I think Prosecution
18 will be doing its best to get the material, and just note for that -- I'm
19 speaking for myself, whether there is a prima facie case or not is not a
20 matter to be considered in -- in the motion for this -- for the request of
21 certification for appeal. But that's -- having said that, I think there
22 is no further issues.
23 Mr. Knoops, do you have anything to raise?
24 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, Your Honour, sorry. In the absence of a 65 ter
25 Conference, I beg your indulgence for three points I would like to raise.
1 One has to do -- the first two points have to do with disclosure and one
2 issue with the filing of a potential motion.
3 Your Honour, the Defence has noticed that the B/C/S versions of
4 the expert reports in the Milosevic case, from Mrs. Borrelli, Neilsen, and
5 Tunents [phoen], apparently are not on the JDB, and we -- our legal
6 assistant went with the Registry searching through these JDB and we were
7 not able to find the B/C/S versions of the three expert reports in the
8 Milosevic case. So perhaps the Prosecution is able to verify whether this
9 is indeed correct.
10 JUDGE KWON: Could you identify the items again.
11 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.
12 JUDGE KWON: One of them is Mr. Tunents.
13 MR. KNOOPS: Tunents? Expert report of Mr. Tunents, the expert
14 report of Mr. Neilson.
15 JUDGE KWON: Nielsen?
16 MR. KNOOPS: The expert report of Mr. Borrelli. We have the
17 English versions but not yet the B/C/S versions and we were not able to
18 identify them on the JDB.
19 JUDGE KWON: Did you say those were from the Milosevic case.
20 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, from the Milosevic case, Your Honour, that's
22 JUDGE KWON: I'm afraid I don't remember the last two, Neilsen and
24 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.
25 JUDGE KWON: That can be checked by the Prosecution.
1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think Neilsen, I'm not really sure that
2 it's from the Milosevic case but I'm sure he testified in the Krajisnik
3 case so -- but I can't be sure. But I think he only testified in
4 Krajisnik case and Borrelli, Borrelli I'm also not sure whether that's
5 Milosevic or Krajisnik, but --
6 JUDGE KWON: That may be the reason why the Defence was not able
7 to find it JDB but I don't know.
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: But we will also now see where to locate
10 JUDGE KWON: The Prosecution will pay attention to that and then
11 second thing?
12 MR. KNOOPS: The question whether the Prosecution is able to
13 disclose if that's the case any additional reports or documents filed by
14 the national council regarding the activities of the Serbian DB. Some
15 months ago we have filed a list with search terms to the Prosecution I
16 think prior to one of the Rule 65 ter Conferences and we were not able to
17 detect any documents filed from the national council on the Serbian DB and
18 one of our main questions is whether the Prosecution is in the possession
19 of such documents and, if so, whether these documents could be disclosed
20 and these relate specifically to the activities of the Serbian DB in 1991,
22 JUDGE KWON: I don't follow what the national council is regarding
23 the activities of the Serbian DB. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, do you follow
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I actually don't know what body that should
1 be. In relation to the search terms we have already before the Status
2 Conference today Your Honour we have discussed that we need to meet and
3 discuss certain issues, the Defence and Prosecution, and one of the issues
4 that we actually need to discuss, and my colleague who is in charge of
5 disclosure has alerted me to this, the Defence provided us with a list of
6 search terms but it's basically a list of issues and it's very difficult
7 to search what you want to us search. In the way you formulated, it's not
8 possible. If you ask for certain issues, you can't use the search term --
9 the issue is a search term and then we find it all now. We will have to
10 discuss how we can find the things that you would like to have to certain
11 issues and that's a point that we need to discuss.
12 As far as I know, what we have on the Serbian DB was disclosed, I
13 mean, when it was a Rule 68 was disclosed, and we have to continue further
15 JUDGE KWON: I would like to indicate to the parties and in
16 particular to the Defence that Status Conferences is not the only time to
17 communicate with the parties so I would like to encourage to you
18 communicate with the Prosecution to find that's -- an appropriate way much
19 disclosure. Can I ask the what is the last point?
20 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm grateful for the answer
21 of the Prosecution, thank you. Last point, Your Honour, is just an
22 information for Your Honours and the Prosecution that already indicated in
23 my first submission this -- during the Status Conference that the Defence
24 is anticipating the filing of a motion on the fitness to stand trial of
25 the Accused Mr. Stanisic far earlier than indicated in our motion which
1 was dealt with by the Trial Chamber, our last motion on this issue,
2 Your Honour, based on the latest medical information. As Your Honours may
3 remember, and also the Prosecution, we have indicated in that earlier
4 motion the intention to file a concrete release from the Chamber once the
5 trial schedule would be at stake. Yet it is our belief now, as matters
6 stand now, to pursue with filing of such a motion earlier and I hope Your
7 Honours that we can inform the Chamber in due course when this filing will
8 be made, in which filing we will request the Chamber for a hearing of
9 three or four medical experts on this issue and I endeavour to file that
10 motion in February, if time allows me, and the reports are received by
12 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber will consider whenever it is filed.
13 MR. KNOOPS: Of course, but I thought it would be appropriate to
14 inform Your Honours about the intention of the Defence because it will
15 mean a slight deviation from the announcement made in the earlier motion
16 in this regard.
17 Thank you very much for your patience.
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, for your information. The Chamber will be
19 on alert but you will bear in mind that the points ordered by the previous
20 Chamber's decision that a specific condition of the Accused may be a --
21 confidential but whether he's ill so as not to stand fit to the trial, is
22 it -- I think it's a public matter. There should be a good cause if it is
23 to be in -- it is to be dealt with in confidential way.
24 Anything else? I noted no -- none.
25 The hearing is now adjourned.
1 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at
2 12.41 p.m.