1 Tuesday, 12 April, 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 3.07 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone. Madam Registrar, will
6 you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-03-69-T,
9 The Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Mr. Jordash, you are on your feet.
12 MR. JORDASH: On my feet and here at last. I do apologise, I
13 assumed foolishly that the hearing would be cancelled and it was simply
14 an absent minded assumption, and I do apologise.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it would have been preferable if you would have
16 verified that. That's clear for everyone, apology is accepted, let's
18 First of all, I'd like to put on the record that the Chamber has
19 received an informal communication from the Simatovic Defence, the gist
20 of which is that the Simatovic Defence has decided not to reply to the
21 Prosecution's response to its Rule 98 bis submissions.
22 Mr. Bakrac.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Yes, you are
24 quite right. Sorry, I seem to have this echo in my headphones. You are
25 quite right. The Simatovic Defence stands by the argumentation it
1 provided on the 7th of October -- sorry, 7th of April, 2011, in line with
2 Rule 98 bis. We appreciate the response of the Prosecutor and this is
3 our position, we believe that our argumentation is strong enough to lead
4 to an acquittal without going into any kind of rebuttal after the
5 Prosecutor, especially bearing in mind the alleged participation of
6 Mr. Franko Simatovic in the alleged joint criminal enterprise. We are
7 convinced that the Honourable Trial Chamber will look at both sets of
8 arguments in a comprehensive manner and we therefore believe it is
9 unnecessary to deal with the facts in this case any further. We leave
10 this to the Trial Chamber. You are going to assess everything that the
11 parties have presented and you are going to rule on Rule 98 bis. Thank
12 you for having allowed me to address you, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you, Mr. Bakrac. Of course the parties
14 seem to be far away from each other, anywhere between not a shred of
15 evidence and the Prosecution saying that they have a lot of evidence, but
16 of course you are free to choose your position in this and the Chamber
17 will, of course, deliberate on the basis of the submissions as they were
18 made by the parties.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise, just
20 for the transcript, my mistake, I said that they did not provide any
21 proof whatsoever. I correct myself. The Prosecution did not provide any
22 proof even if it were to be assessed in the most favourable light
23 possible, they could not lead to a conviction. I'm sorry, perhaps it's a
24 minute difference but it's important to have it reflected in the record.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It is now on the record.
1 Mr. Jordash, you have made no submissions, you have listened to
2 all of this, I would have difficulties in understanding procedurally how
3 I could give you an opportunity now to raise any matter because you
4 didn't raise initially, and therefore the response of the Prosecution,
5 which of course may have some relevance for the Stanisic case as well,
6 but you've chosen this position so unless you come with a strong argument
7 why you now suddenly would have to make submissions. By the way the mere
8 fact that you thought there would be no session at all, already confirms
9 that you do not consider the Stanisic Defence at this moment to be in a
10 position to make any submissions.
11 MR. JORDASH: We have taken the position that we'll answer what
12 needs to be answered commencing on the 15th of June.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 Mr. Groome, similar story, I would say for the Prosecution. You
15 have had an opportunity to respond to the Simatovic Defence submissions.
16 There are no further submissions on their behalf so therefore I take it
17 that 98 bis submissions are concluded.
18 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then there's one matter, however, I would --
20 no, as a matter of fact, there are two matters. Let's start with the
21 easy one. Today the Simatovic Defence has filed an urgent request for
22 provisional release and one of the requests is that the Chamber shortens
23 the time-limit for a response. Before the Chamber considers this,
24 Mr. Groome, could you give us an indication as to whether you would need
25 the full two weeks or whether you envisage that you could already meet
1 some of the Simatovic concerns.
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would like to address this. I had
3 asked -- was going to ask for an opportunity to address this. I want to
4 raise concerns the Prosecution has with what appears to have become a
5 practice in it this case to file all provisional release applications on
6 an urgent basis. Rule 126 bis sets out the time for a response.
7 Rule 127 allows for the alteration of a response time and section A
8 states: "Save as provided by paragraph C, a Trial Chamber or Pre-Trial
9 Judge may, on good cause being shown by motion, one, enlarge or reduce
10 any time prescribed by or under these rules."
11 There are some cases in which filing urgent applications are well
12 founded on their face; the good cause is self-evident. It is clear that
13 if such were handled according to the normal schedule for motion
14 practice, the relief sought would be moot. For example, on the 20th of
15 December, 2010, the Simatovic Defence filed an urgent motion seeking to
16 extend provisional release. The Prosecution accepts that given the terms
17 of the original provisional release order in December 2010, such motion
18 for an extension was an appropriate way to file that application. This
19 has not always been the case and there seems to be a practice developing
20 that provisional release motions are routinely filed on an urgent basis.
21 If it were intended that provisional release applications were to follow
22 a different response schedule, then the rules would provide for such
23 special time-limits. They do not, although they do provide for truncated
24 time-limits for other applications.
25 When I reviewed the Simatovic urgent application filed today, I
1 could see no section or statement setting forth a basis upon which the
2 Chamber might find good cause for changing the prescribed time-limits,
3 other than the Simatovic Defence is seeking for Mr. Simatovic to be
4 provisionally released on the 18th of April, six days from now.
5 It is the Prosecution's position that Rule 127 cannot be
6 unilaterally invoked by the Prosecution or the Defence, and that if a
7 party seeks an alteration of the applicable time-period, that a request
8 for such alteration should be set out and the facts establishing good
9 cause clearly articulated. In fact, it should be specific relief sought
10 in the relief section, much as we now sometimes seek to exceed applicable
11 word limits.
12 While I have always maintained a flexible and common-sense
13 approach to procedural dead-lines, and have sought to accommodate Defence
14 counsel and the Trial Chamber whenever possible, in this particular
15 instance it is quite likely that the point in time when the Trial Chamber
16 is fully seized of this application, may decide what legal standard must
17 be applied. Our response would, according to the Rules, be expected
18 normally on the 26th of April. The Chamber would be fully seized of the
19 matter nine days before it renders its decision on the 98 bis
20 application. Depending upon how long it would take the Chamber to decide
21 the provisional release application, it is likely, given the time the
22 Chamber has taken with similar applications in the past, it would seem
23 that the decision would be rendered around the same time as the 98 bis
24 decision which could impact a legal standard to be applied. Obviously an
25 expedited motion schedule works to the advantage of Mr. Simatovic, in
1 that lower threshold for provisional reliefs would be applied. If such
2 is to be the case, I should submit that it should only be upon the order
3 of the Court, based upon a finding of good cause and not simply because
4 the Simatovic Defence chose to submit their application as an urgent one.
5 Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me first inquire: Was this a response to the
7 motion or just to that request for response within a shortened period of
9 MR. GROOME: Simply a response to the shortened time, but in this
10 given circumstances because we are in between the giving of the argument
11 and the decision it actually has substantive repercussions or substantive
12 implications. It is not simply about -- and Your Honour has asked me
13 when we could have it done. I think I probably could get it done before
14 the 14 day-time period that would normally be extended, but I think in
15 this particular case, despite having tried to accommodate the Chamber
16 whenever we could in the past, I think it has significant implications
17 for how the Chamber would decide the motion and absent a showing of good
18 cause, I don't think a different legal standard would be a showing of
19 good cause, so absent a showing of good cause I would think there's no
20 reason to adjust the time-limits as provided for under Rule 127.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, you would like to respond to this
22 aspect raised by the Prosecution.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. First of all, I
24 would like to say that the good cause seems to be obvious from the motion
25 itself, we believe. The time-limit is very short and the time-period we
1 are asking for is very short and it's getting closer and closer, so it
2 would be pointless if we are to deal with this differently. As the
3 Trial Chamber knows, the 15th of June is the point in time when the
4 Defence case should start. Time is very short. We explained in several
5 motions why it is very important for us to have Mr. Simatovic present in
6 Belgrade. If it were something that could be resolved through regular
7 channels, if we were not bound by different limits, both the 98 bis
8 decision and even more so the very short period of time until the Defence
9 case starts, we would not have asked for these expedited responses to our
10 motions. If our colleagues do not respond to our motion within these
11 shorter periods of time, then our motion would not make any sense. There
12 wouldn't be enough time for Mr. Simatovic to be there and for him to be
13 provisionally released. That is why we ask for these periods to be
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, I am going to stop you there. What
16 Mr. Groome raises is why haven't you filed the motion any earlier? I
17 mean, everyone understands that if you want to be released for two weeks
18 or three weeks or four weeks, that if you first have to wait for an
19 answer for two weeks -- and that's exactly I think what Mr. Groome is
20 raising. Why haven't you filed it earlier? Didn't you take a risk that
21 Mr. Groome would oppose any request for a quick response? Mr. Groome, if
22 I understood you well, that's the core of -- apart from other matters.
23 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That is it. Now, you are apparently saying that how
25 important it is that they should respond very quickly because otherwise
1 the motion doesn't make much sense. Of course, I would say even this
2 Chamber without this explanation could understand that, but the real
3 issue is why haven't you filed the motion earlier. That's the matter
4 which is at stake at this moment. Could you please focus on that.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as for the timing of
6 filing our motion, it was conditioned by the schedule that we received
7 seven or eight or ten days ago, that is to say, when we found out what
8 the actual time-limits would be for taking all of these actions. That is
9 when we came to this idea. In the meantime, we needed time to prepare
10 all the other things that we were doing too. So quite simply as soon as
11 we finished working on 98 bis, already on the following day we finalised
12 our work on this motion and filed it. That was it. We did not have a
13 clear picture as to what schedule lay ahead of us and perhaps that is why
14 we are running a few days late. But that was the reason. Perhaps it's
15 not good enough but if all sincerity that is the reason.
16 JUDGE ORIE: If I understand you well, you said once you had
17 finished your 98 bis work, that was, I take it, on last Friday, because
18 you didn't know yet the response of the Prosecution therefore you
19 couldn't start preparing the response to that, and then you said one day
20 after that we had finalized our work on the motion and you filed it.
21 Now, isn't it true that the motion was filed today or am I not well
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the motion -- well,
24 perhaps I did not express myself as precisely as I should have. Yes, it
25 was filed today but it was finalised yesterday. As for intensive work on
1 it, it started along parallel lines with the other work we were doing,
2 that is to say when we finished our important large-scale work
3 previously. So in addition to 98 bis and these motions, as Your Honours
4 know, this Defence team is doing a lot of other things. You know that
5 the burden of all this work is on our shoulders, Mr. Bakrac's and my own.
6 We are basically the team. We are trying to set our priorities and we
7 are trying to defend Mr. Simatovic's interests in the best possible way
8 in all the fields that we are supposed to cover. Perhaps we do not
9 always succeed, but believe me, we are trying to do whatever we can.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Anything else, Mr. Petrovic?
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: A matter which is not directly related, but perhaps
13 also not totally unrelated, isn't it true, Mr. Jordash, that you are now
14 the Chamber could expect a filing for provisional release on behalf of
15 the Stanisic Defence as well.
16 MR. JORDASH: That's right, probably tomorrow.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Probably tomorrow. Then the first thing the Chamber
18 will have to do is to consider the request for a -- for a response not
19 after 14 days, but earlier under Rule 127. Mr. Jordash, do you have any
20 idea on when tomorrow you would file such a motion because just to
21 exceptionally to inform you about the internal dealings of this Chamber,
22 we'll meet tomorrow morning and we'll certainly then consider the request
23 raised by the Simatovic Defence. It might be very practical if it would
24 already have the content of any motion you would file.
25 MR. JORDASH: The plan was to file it tomorrow late afternoon.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, there's a fair chance that -- I leave it
2 in your hands. Finally, I told you that this Chamber certainly will meet
3 tomorrow morning in the course of the morning. If you file something in
4 the afternoon it goes without saying that we can't consider it tomorrow
5 morning. That's clear. I hope so, then you draw whatever consequences
6 you want to draw yourself.
7 MR. JORDASH: Yes. Point taken.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it to you.
9 That was the one matter. The Chamber will consider the motion
10 and also the specific request for shortening the time-limit for the
11 Prosecution, Mr. Petrovic.
12 Having dealt with this, there's one other matter pending, that is
13 a motion for clarification of issues related to legal representation of
14 Mr. Stanisic. Mr. Jordash, as you may remember, there are a few specific
15 questions raised by the Prosecution in paragraph 10 of that motion, I
16 don't know whether you brought it or not but -- you have it there. Now,
17 it sounds perhaps a bit odd, but I think that the Prosecution would like
18 to have a hearing in the presence of Mr. Knoops. If you could shed
19 already some light on what would be your provisional answers to those
20 questions, then we might include that in our consideration whether we
21 would schedule a hearing in which Mr. Knoops would be invited as well.
22 There are four questions, so if you could tell us something about that,
23 that's one. And second, apart from considering the present situation and
24 how happy we are with the contribution of Mr. Knoops of which we do not
25 know much, although the Prosecution has, at least it appears from the
1 questions that they have some concerns about the contribution of
2 Mr. Knoops until now to the Defence, of course there's another matter and
3 that is what progress has been made for the near future, that is in
4 relation to the composition of the Defence team and on any discussions,
5 if there were any already, with OLAD. Would you be so kind to the extent
6 you are able to do so to tell us something about -- to give us some kind
7 of provisional answer on questions A, B, C, and D, in paragraph 10, and
8 also to inform the Chamber, and that is of course to some extent related
9 to perhaps -- could be related, I should say, to question D in paragraph
10 10, could you inform us about any progress made at this moment in the
11 preparation for a Defence case, if there will be one.
12 MR. JORDASH: Certainly. May I begin the answer to the four
13 questions by just making the point that we don't accept that the
14 information provided to the Chamber or in filings to date has been
15 inconsistent. I'm not going to develop that further unless Your Honours
16 wish, but I believe we've been consistent and we've related to the
17 Chamber what the facts are concerning representation.
18 To the extent that we haven't, I'll seek to answer questions A to
19 D now. At present, the only counsel representing Mr. Stanisic is myself.
20 As I've indicated previously, Mr. Knoops is not working on the case in
21 any substantive way. He has one extremely minor task, but effectively
22 the work of co-counsel is being split, as much as we are able, between
23 myself and the team. And I think I've indicated that in the past and I
24 indicate it again.
25 Question B: There is a plan for Mr. Knoops to withdraw from the
1 case and not just in the way that I've indicated, but to withdraw
2 technically and an application has already been made to OLAD. An
3 application was made also in October in relation to a hope to take on
4 Mr. Gosnell, and at that stage, OLAD indicated that Mr. Knoops could not
5 withdraw until they were satisfied that Mr. Gosnell was up to speed with
6 the case and could take on a full role as co-counsel, and step into my
7 shoes if anything should happen to me. And thereafter we've made another
8 application, I think it must have been at the beginning of March, for
9 Mr. Knoops to be replaced by a Mr. Scott Martin. It's taken from then to
10 now and the decision I think from OLAD is imminent, and that is not in
11 any way to criticise OLAD. OLAD have acted with remarkable speed in the
12 circumstances on this issue, but it has taken that long, for various
13 reasons. Mr. Martin had to join the counsel's list and so on and those
14 formalities took awhile. He also had to give notice from his present
15 position. And as soon as that is done and I indicate to OLAD that
16 Mr. Martin is up to speed so that he can step into my shoes, then
17 Mr. Knoops will be officially withdrawn from the case and take on an
18 official consultancy position.
19 Question C: Well, in some ways the question is the wrong
20 question. In some ways, the question I would submit, is more apposite is
21 this: Given the funding of this case and the fact that Mr. Knoops has
22 not been able to work on this case to the degree expected of a counsel,
23 what impact will his leaving the case have on Mr. Stanisic's
24 representation? Well, in the circumstances in which we've had to
25 operate, I'm happy to say that Mr. Knoops is leaving the case, or rather,
1 I should say Mr. Martin's joining the case will have a significant impact
2 on Mr. Stanisic's representation in that he will be represented by
3 adequate personnel, or personnel who will be working full time and
4 therefore the amount of work we can do will be significantly more.
5 Unfortunately, because of OLAD's funding of the case, the new
6 co-counsel will -- let me put it differently, I will be almost
7 exclusively having to deal with the Defence case in the courtroom because
8 I know the case and I am interviewing witnesses at the moment and the new
9 co-counsel isn't and won't be in a position to assist with that for, I
10 would guess, at least a month. And so it will make forensic sense for me
11 to lead most of the witnesses unfortunately. And we expect Mr. Martin to
12 step into the breach and deal with all other matters that counsel would
13 do ordinarily. So things, we hope, are about to get much easier for our
15 And question D: I think I've partly answered that by answering
16 C, the planned change of counsel will hopefully help us to keep to the
17 trial schedule. Your Honours will recall when we applied recently to
18 extends the period of adjournment between the end of the Prosecution case
19 and the beginning of the Defence case, one of the bases was that we were
20 operating currently with only one counsel and we hoped that the new
21 counsel would begin working in April and he will, but he won't, as I've
22 indicated, be able to assist with witnesses. But nonetheless we still
23 hope and expect to be able to stick to the court schedule, and at this
24 point in time we don't anticipate asking for any more time before
25 commencing on the 15th of June. And we are, I think, working at
1 break-neck speed to make sure we don't hold up the proceedings. I do
2 want to take the opportunity to say how difficult that is with only one
3 counsel and a legal assistant and a case manager. To be frank, I'm
4 looking to the summer knowing that at least when we get to the end of
5 July, we'll have another three weeks to gather our resources for the
6 final stage of the Defence case. But for the summer, I would certainly
7 be asking for more time at this stage. It's an impossible task with only
8 one counsel, however hard working and talented the team I lead is, and I
9 hope that answers Your Honours' questions.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Have your talks been initiated with OLAD, just
11 on the presumption that there would be a Defence case as to funding, or
12 have talks started already?
13 MR. JORDASH: Talks have commenced insofar as the OLAD have
14 agreed that we can submit invoices, if you like, for non-sitting days and
15 also for recess periods and they've indicated that they understand that
16 work was done during those periods and will look at the submissions and
17 are prepared to at least recognise some of those periods. And their
18 position in relation to the Defence stage is that they are not prepared
19 to enter into discussions because the Prosecution case has to finish and
20 the 98 bis decision has to be made, but we've asked OLAD to expedite
21 things and move things forward, move the end of payment stage
22 reconciliation forward and also move forward their assessment of the
23 Defence case, but for one reason or another, they say that's not
24 possible. So what we've done is, I mean, since this has been aired
25 publicly, the new co-counsel has agreed to work for what is a far far
1 less than a co-counsel should be paid on the basis that we hope that once
2 the end of payment reconciliation is made, we have a good indication of
3 what approach OLAD will take to the Defence case and at that point the
4 new co-counsel can be satisfied that he will at least be paid something
5 more reasonable and we as a team can assess more accurately what is
6 coming or what may come during the Defence case.
7 This is the problem with the OLAD scheme, effectively in
8 situations like this administers a lump sum which in our case we submit
9 is inadequate and at the end of the stage reconciles it. And one of the
10 problem we might have with the Defence phase is exactly the same, that we
11 submit invoices at the end of the stage and six months, one year --
12 hopefully not one year, but six months down the line we find out what
13 money is to be paid for the preceding six months.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information. Now, you have faced
15 quite some difficulties, I at the same time hear that at least the latest
16 talks with the OLAD at least give some expectation of relief, perhaps not
17 what you wished but at least not as dark and black as you were afraid of
18 before. In those difficult times, have you asked Mr. Knoops who still
19 bears a responsibility for the Defence in this case to intensify his work
20 for the case, his contribution to the case, and if so, was there any
21 response to that?
22 MR. JORDASH: I think Mr. Knoops is well aware of -- as any
23 counsel would be, of his responsibilities and well aware of what work we
24 are doing.
25 JUDGE ORIE: But that was not my question. My question was
1 whether you asked him to intensify his contribution and I added to that
2 that he still bears a responsibility so that's not a question for me but
3 something I would say I establish -- although of course you can comment
4 on it to say to what extent that responsibility in your view does exist
5 or not. But that was specifically the reason why he was not relieved
6 from his duties and was -- had to stay on the team. My question was
7 whether you have asked him to intensify his contribution that might have
8 given some relief in difficult times as well, and whether that has led to
9 a response which might make it better for the Chamber to understand the
11 I notice that you are -- well, I could be mistaken, that you are
12 hesitant to answer this question.
13 MR. JORDASH: Well, I am hesitant. Your Honour is right. I feel
14 as though I'm being somewhat put on the spot and I feel as though I ought
15 not to speak on behalf of Mr. Knoops and the decisions he took. But I
16 would -- I will answer the question if Your Honour presses me.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I have not pressed you yet. Perhaps I could put
18 another question to you. I know that the system works with time-sheets
19 and for the Chamber to get a better impression of what the actual time
20 spent on the case has been over the last couple of months, could you give
21 us an indication, or would you rather prefer to not do it at this moment
22 or find another way of informing the Chamber about it? Because there
23 seems to be a concern on behalf of the Prosecution and I'm trying to gain
24 information so as to -- as to form an opinion that it really is a matter
25 for which we would ask Mr. Knoops to come to this courtroom and to have a
1 hearing on the matter. Of course, one of the elements is what has
2 Mr. Knoops' contribution been. I asked you whether you had asked him to
3 intensify it, but I've not pressed you yet to answer that question. But
4 a very practical question, how many hours of Mr. Knoops appear on the
5 timesheet since, well, let's say since he changed his position? Are we
6 talking about five hours a month? Are we talking about 50 hours a month?
7 Are we talking about ... ?
8 MR. JORDASH: Well, I would need to go to look at the timesheets.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You must have an impression.
10 MR. JORDASH: When Mr. Gosnell was in the shoes of co-counsel
11 even though he was only a consultant, I think, from October to December,
12 so Mr. Knoops didn't do anything, well, anything, I probably did five
13 hours in a month, ten hours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
15 MR. JORDASH: This year, a similar amount.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And that has not been increased since Mr. Gosnell
17 was --
18 MR. JORDASH: No.
19 JUDGE ORIE: That has remained the same.
20 MR. JORDASH: No, it's remained the same. There's two important
21 reasons that I can give for that at least and Mr. Knoops can maybe
22 elaborate on more, but one is that there comes a point in time when the
23 case moves on and there were many witnesses from October until December.
24 And second point is the money. There is or was no money in the pot to
25 ask him to give up paid work to work on this case.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I'm not going to further discuss that at this
2 very moment, whether that means that there's no situation which you could
3 ask him to do something, but I think I got an answer to most of my
4 questions. I add to that is what happened is exactly what OLAD intended
5 to prevent to happen in October.
6 MR. JORDASH: Well, but if OLAD had exercised the same
7 willingness to listen as they have since Your Honours intervened, we
8 wouldn't be in this position.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I was not that far yet. I said that exactly that
10 happened what they wanted not to happen. I didn't say yet who was to
11 blame for that. That's a second question perhaps.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would like to leave it to this at this
14 very moment.
15 Mr. Groome, the request for a hearing on which we still have to
16 decide is -- comes from you. You have noticed that we asked Mr. Jordash
17 some questions which may be relevant for deciding on what you asked for,
18 that is, that special hearing. Is there anything at this moment, perhaps
19 also on the basis of what Mr. Jordash told you, what you would like to
20 add before the Chamber will consider your request?
21 MR. GROOME: Just two things, Your Honour. Mr. Jordash said that
22 he does not anticipate seeking any additional time with respect to the
23 schedule. And I would just ask Mr. -- if Mr. Jordash would confirm,
24 there are important disclosure obligations that the Defence has that the
25 Prosecution relies on that are spelled out in 65(G). Has he considered
1 that -- does he expect that he will be able to meet those disclosure
2 obligations prior to the 15th of June.
3 And, second, with respect to Mr. Stanisic's representation, he
4 obviously has an awful lot to say about this, so I would ask the Chamber
5 to consider giving him an opportunity, if he has concerns about his
6 representation to express them to the Chamber. That's it, Your Honour.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, I take it that you intended to refer
9 to 65 ter(G) rather than to Rule 65(G).
10 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. JORDASH: May I just consult with my client, Your Honour.
13 Thank you.
14 [Defence counsel and accused Stanisic confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
16 MR. JORDASH: Could I suggest that the Prosecution are going a
17 little far now. I understand the Prosecution's concern. I understand
18 why they raise the point, but what I would submit is: In the absence of
19 obvious signs of a lack of due diligence or competence or other such
20 aspects which indicate that Mr. Stanisic isn't being represented
21 properly, then my assurances, which I've already given, ought to suffice
22 and the Prosecution's obligations as ministers of justice obviously
23 extend to reacting but only reacting when, in our submission, those signs
24 are there. And Your Honours' obligations, I would submit, in terms of
25 intervening, again, must be based on something concrete. And I submit
1 that those things are not there.
2 I've given an assurance that in my view we'll be ready. I
3 haven't been quiet in terms of raising our concerns about the funding for
4 this case in the past, and Your Honours can be sure from that that if I
5 regard other problems as equally problematic for Mr. Stanisic's Defence,
6 I will be the first to raise those concerns and I have been concerned and
7 I remain concerned about the funding in this case, and I remain concerned
8 and I have not had the continuity of a co-counsel for a variety of
9 reasons. But it's my assessment that once Mr. Martin comes into this
10 case with the present team and with his assistance we can be ready for
11 the 15th of June. The circumstances are not ideal. I'd rather not be
12 working to the extent that I am, but this is the circumstances we find
13 ourselves in. Mr. Stanisic, in our view, is being represented properly.
14 When we cannot do that, I will raise it with the Chamber.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Apologies, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, you've made a suggestion in respect of
18 giving an opportunity to Mr. Stanisic to express himself on the matter.
19 At this moment the Chamber has not felt or received any indication that
20 Mr. Jordash would not have expressed the views of the Defence and as the
21 Defence is identified and our rules of procedure is counsel and accused
22 together, which leaves it open that if at any future stage Mr. Stanisic
23 would have specific concerns where he would think - again the Chamber has
24 received no indication at this moment that that would be the case - that
25 apart from going over the same ground as Mr. Jordash has done, but to
1 separately address the Chamber, then of course the Chamber would hear
2 such an application and would decide on whether or not to give
3 Mr. Stanisic leave to address the Chamber on matters related to this.
4 The Chamber fully understands that it's a difficult situation, not only
5 for Mr. Stanisic but for Mr. Jordash as well. There's sufficient
6 experience in this Chamber to understand what kind of problems we are
7 facing. At the same time the Chamber also has a responsibility for the
8 fairness of the trial, we try to take that as seriously as we can. But
9 at this moment we have no indication that we are in a situation where
10 Mr. Jordash has not adequately presented the position, including the
11 position as felt by Mr. Stanisic himself. But again, this is also not a
12 invitation to the future, but to leave open for the future that if
13 Mr. Stanisic would ever feel that he has to -- has to raise his voice,
14 again, not on matters Mr. Jordash have dealt with already, then of
15 course, we would be -- hear him then and decide on whether such an
16 opportunity will be given. That concludes, as far as the Chamber is
17 concerned, the matter for this moment.
18 Anything else procedurally to be raised by the parties?
19 MR. GROOME: Not from the Prosecution, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And the silence of the Defence is understood as --
21 MR. JORDASH: May I just inquire as to what time Your Honours are
22 meeting in the morning, so I know that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I must check my agenda. Yes, you might perhaps
24 be ...
25 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We start at 9.30, Mr. Jordash. I know you would
2 have wished that we would take our time until 11:00 or 12.00 but that's
3 not the way in which this Chamber works. After checking our e-mails,
4 et cetera, we start at 9:30 with our meeting. Any other matter?
5 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll adjourn until the 5th of May when the
7 Chamber, as matters stand now, will deliver it's 98 bis decision. In my
8 agenda I have no time and courtroom yet filled in, therefore the parties
9 will further be informed in which courtroom and at what time we'll resume
10 on May the 5th.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.03 p.m.
12 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day of May,
13 2011, at 9.00 a.m.