1 Wednesday, 18th July 2007
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Good afternoon to everybody.
6 May I ask Madam Registrar to call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honour.
8 This is case number IT-03-69-PT, the Prosecutor versus Jovica
9 Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
11 May I have the appearances on behalf of the parties, please.
12 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: Good afternoon, Your Honour. For the
13 Prosecution, Doris Brehmeier-Metz, accompanied by Klaus Hoffman, Gregory
14 Townsend, and Carmela Javier.
15 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
16 MR. JORDASH: For Mr. Stanisic, myself, Wayne Jordash, and
17 Anne-Marie Verwiel. Good afternoon.
18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
19 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. I
20 am Zoran Jovanovic, attorney-at-law, representing the accused Franko
21 Simatovic. Thank you.
22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic.
23 Welcome to this further Status Conference after the last one,
24 having been held on the 21st of March, 2007. The last Rule 65 ter
25 Conference was held by senior legal officer Linda Murnane yesterday, the
1 17th of July, 2007. I would like to thank the senior legal officer for
2 all her support.
3 We actually don't need to deal with a lot of open issues, as the
4 following have been dealt with in the 65 ter Conference, but there will be
5 pending issues, disclosure, other pre-trial preparation, the date of next
6 meeting, and any other matters.
7 But before we go into these, I would like to hear about the health
8 of the accused.
9 Maybe go into private session for that purpose.
10 [Private session]
11 Page 642 redacted. Private session
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, we are back in open session.
24 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
25 As we are now going to the outstanding issues, in view of the
1 preparation of the trial, I'm referring to the work plan. According to
2 the actual work plan, the case should be trial ready by next month. I'm
3 referring to, first, the order establishing a work plan of 19th of
4 January, 2007; then a decision on Prosecution motion for adjustment of
5 work plan of the 7th of May, 2007; and, lastly, the decision on several
6 applications to modify terms of the work plan and order, following a Rule
7 65 ter conference of the 31st of May, 2007.
8 The fact that the Tribunal is running at its full capacity, with
9 seven trials underway, should not keep us from aiming at the target to get
10 the case trial ready in the very near future.
11 As to pending motions, are there any comments? The entire list of
12 pending motions was discussed by Ms. Linda Murnane at the Rule 65 ter
13 Conference yesterday.
14 Do you wish to comment, please?
15 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: No, thank you, Your Honour.
16 MR. JORDASH: No, thank you.
17 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
19 Then, as to the disclosure issues, under preliminary questions on
20 disclosure, I would like to point out on the 25th of June, 2007, the
21 Prosecution filed a notification of compliance in response to the
22 Pre-Trial Judge's order of the 23rd of May, 2007, regarding re-disclosed
24 On the 11th of July, 2007, the Stanisic Defence responded to this
25 notice, stating that the Prosecution was not in compliance with the
1 Chamber's order. The language of the order of 31st May, 2007 is clear.
2 The burden is on the Prosecution to show which materials have been
3 "re-disclosed." If this issue cannot be worked out between the parties,
4 the Defence may seek relief in the form of a written motion.
5 Going into the details, under Rule 66(A)(i), the supporting
6 material to the indictment, I can see no issues arising; (B), it would be
7 under Rule 66(A)(ii), witness statements, here we have outstanding
8 translations, but apart from that, no issues seem to be arising; (C), Rule
9 68, i.e., mitigating or potentially exculpatory material. The Defence
10 raised the issue of the Prosecution's noncompliance with the 11th of
11 March, 2005, decision on motion of Defence of Jovica Stanisic for variance
12 of protective measures pursuant to Rule 75(G)(i). The Prosecution
13 explained at the 65 ter Conference of 17th of July that it will give an
14 update on this matter during today's Status Conference.
15 Do you want to do that now, or I would like then also to ask when
16 the so-called Milosevic letters will be disclosed. This issue has been
17 raised many times now, and it's unclear whether this and the previous item
18 are one and the same issue.
19 Please, Ms. Brehmeier-Metz.
20 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Coming to the second issue raised by Your Honour, the so-called
22 Milosevic letters, as Your Honour is aware and as are the parties aware,
23 this is a problem of requesting consent from the U.K. government to
24 disclose these letters to the Stanisic Defence and the Simatovic Defence
25 as well. We are in contact with the U.K. authorities on this matter, and
1 the U.K. authorities are aware of the urgency that lies behind all that.
2 However, unfortunately, we have not yet received a decision. The U.K.
3 authorities, as I understand, are in the process of making that decision;
4 and as soon as the decision will be delivered to us, I will, of course,
5 forward it to Defence and C.C. it to the Court.
6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. You may give them additional
7 information by referring to today's Status Conference, for example.
8 Please, proceed. I interrupted you.
9 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: I shall certainly do that, Your Honour.
10 As for the 11th March 2007 Milosevic decision, first of all, I'm
11 grateful for my learned friend for the Stanisic Defence of having pointed
12 out this problem to me in great detail and accuracy. I have to say that
13 the Prosecution team, all of the members of this team having come to the
14 case after this decision in Milosevic was made, were unfortunately not
15 aware of this decision. The decision having been brought to our attention
16 yesterday, we made it, of course, our habit to immediately check and try
17 and find out what happened in between.
18 And the breakdown and result of it is this: There is a number of
19 59 witnesses for the Prosecution in Milosevic that are on the
20 Stanisic/Simatovic Prosecution witness list as well. The material
21 relating to these witnesses was disclosed by the Stanisic/Simatovic team
22 to the Stanisic and Simatovic Defence, in the meantime either in
23 unredacted form or, if these are witnesses for which -- for whom delayed
24 disclosure is requested, in redacted form.
25 That leaves us with a number of 54 witnesses for the Prosecution
1 in Milosevic whose testimony was given in private or closed session.
2 These 54 witnesses will, in the following time, have to be reviewed by the
3 Prosecution, and the decision whether or not to grant access or redact the
4 statements for the Stanisic and Simatovic Defence will have to be made in
5 due course.
6 The Milosevic decision is understood by the Prosecution to relate
7 to the Prosecution witnesses of the Milosevic case only. The Prosecution
8 does indeed submit that it is unable to request consent of witnesses that
9 appeared for the Milosevic Defence. If, however, the Prosecution is not
10 correct in its assumption, we would seek clarification from the Court as
11 to how to understand the Milosevic decision, in order to be able and react
12 correctly to this.
13 So for the time being, we are left with the number of 54 witnesses
14 with confidential material for the Prosecution. If the Prosecution is
15 informed that the Milosevic decision relates to Defence witnesses as well,
16 that would add a number of 52 further witnesses that appeared for the
17 Defence in Milosevic.
18 I should also like to point out in this respect that we are in
19 collaboration with the Registry in order to find out exactly which access
20 has been provided, in fact, to the Stanisic and Simatovic Defence for the
21 Milosevic transcripts, so as to know exactly what has been at their access
22 already. That is what I can say for the time being in relation to the
23 Milosevic order.
24 Thank you.
25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you very much.
1 The Pre-Trial Judge will consider that, and we will deal with the
2 matter of the interpretation of that decision.
3 I suppose there are no further issues under Rule 68. Everything
4 has been already discussed.
5 Ms. Linda Murnane. Just a moment, please.
6 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I would just quickly go through the other two
8 Rules, and then ask the parties to comment on the disclosure issues in
9 general. I was thinking of Rule 66 (B), inspections on demand. I see no
10 issues arising, but I'm open to comments.
11 And then there is Rule 94 bis, expert reports. All Defence
12 notices under Rule 94 bis should be filed by 1st of August, 2007, with the
13 exception of the notice on the Tromp report, which is due on 8th of
14 August, 2007. The Rule 94 bis motions will be dealt with by the Trial
15 Chamber that will hear the case, but I'm certainly open to any comments of
16 the parties.
17 Who wants to comment on that?
18 MR. JORDASH: No, thank you.
19 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
20 Mr. Jovanovic?
21 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour, except
22 for what I mentioned yesterday at the 65 ter meeting. The Defence already
23 submitted, after the Prosecution submitted its 65 ter motion. We have
24 already indicated that we wanted to cross-examine all expert witnesses at
25 the time when we were given just the summary of the reports. But the
1 Defence would definitely -- will definitely be stating whether it intends
2 to cross-examine the experts or not by the deadline that has been
4 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
5 Any other comments?
6 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: There's nothing from the Prosecution, thank
8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
9 Now, as to other pre-trial preparation, here is the possible use
10 of Rule 92 bis or 92 ter evidence. The Rule 92 bis motions will be dealt
11 with by the Trial Chamber that will hear the case. No issues seem to be
12 arising. The same is true for 92 ter, and maybe also 92 quater. I'm not
13 remembering if we had any submissions under 92 quater.
14 Yes, there was something.
15 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: The Prosecution has filed all its motions
16 under 92 bis, ter, and quater that were intended.
17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes. Okay, thank you. Also quater.
18 Then, as to adjudicated facts, agreed facts, and stipulations on
19 the indictment, motions in that regard will be dealt with by the Trial
20 Chamber that will hear the case.
21 Are there any issues arising at the moment? I see noting "no."
22 MR. JOVANOVIC: No, thank you, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Comments?
24 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: No, thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
1 Now, the general question of the anticipated length of trial and
2 possible trial date.
3 There's no new information about the estimation of the length of
4 the trial, I guess.
5 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: Your Honour, no. As I said yesterday, during
6 the 65 ter Conference, the Prosecution is at the moment unable to say
7 anything other than has been said before in regard to the estimated length
8 of the Prosecution case.
9 We have filed motions under 92 bis, ter, and quater which, if
10 granted, would have considerable impact on the estimated length of the
11 Prosecution case. At the moment, the Prosecution intends to call 122
12 witnesses, or those are the witnesses in the witness list. If the motions
13 under 92 bis, ter, and quater were granted, that would leave us with the
14 number of 69 witnesses to be called either partially or in total, viva
15 voce, or for cross-examination. Of course, that would make considerable
16 impact on the estimated length.
17 And the other thing that is unknown to us for the time being is
18 whether we can actually, in view of the announced motion for
19 Mr. Stanisic's unfitness to stand trial, whether we can actually
20 anticipate a trial that will last five days a week for five hours or
21 whether there anything may change. That is something that cannot be set
22 possibly by the Prosecution for the time being.
23 So these are the reasons why, at the moment, I am unable to say
24 anything other than we have said before, five to six months for the
25 estimated Prosecution case.
1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes, thank you. And that will be duly considered,
2 and it's a very important issue, of course, how much time per week can be
3 used for work if Mr. Stanisic is not completely fit.
4 Do you want to comment on that now?
5 MR. JORDASH: Only to repeat the point I made yesterday, which,
6 well, one, of course, it's an issue which will be decided in due course by
7 the Court in conjunction with expert testimony; but, two, as I mentioned
8 yesterday in relation to the length of the pre-trial period, when the
9 trial begins, how much preparation has been done by the accused, and where
10 we're at at that stage will certainly impact on his ability to be able to
11 sit full hours or not. So it is a difficult question at this stage to be
12 able to answer.
13 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
14 And Mr. Jordash, especially for your client, but for all of us, it
15 will be very important to know soon when the trial can start. But as Ms.
16 Murnane has explained to you, there are different possible scenarios.
17 Thank you.
18 Do you want to comment?
19 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps I should just indicate when we do have a
20 definite date, at that stage, we'll be indicating forthwith what our
21 application as regards to fitness will be.
22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: That is understood. Thank you.
23 The most probable window, if we are considering when the trial
24 could fit into the schedule of this Tribunal, what we are currently
25 looking at is the trial will start around early 2008, although several
1 different scenarios are possible, as everyone knows who has to do with
2 this Court.
3 Most probably, we will need the date for the next meeting in the
4 format of a Status Conference, and this is my last point. Although no
5 further Status Conference was planned or is planned, according to the work
6 plan, given what was explained yesterday and what was discussed now
7 regarding the possible trial start, it is likely that there will be
8 another Status Conference within 120 days; that is, the first half of the
9 month of November.
10 Concluding, I would like to ask what of any other matters is
12 Do you want to comment, please?
13 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: Nothing further from the Prosecution, Your
14 Honour. Thank you.
15 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And from the Defence.
16 MR. JORDASH: No, thank you.
17 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
19 Maybe I could add that the last Defence notice on the
20 Prosecution's Rule 94 bis, expert reports, will be due on the 8th of
21 August. It is suggested that, at that time, the Pre-Trial Judge then can
22 report this case ready for trial. This may also facilitate the issue of
23 the outstanding Prosecution translations, which currently do not seem to
24 be a priority.
25 Thank you all, and I wish you a good summer period.
1 The conference is adjourned.
2 --- Status Conference adjourned at 2.55 p.m.