1 Tuesday, 5 July 2005
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused Jankovic entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.56 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-96-23/2-PT, the Prosecutor versus
9 Radovan Stankovic and Gojko Jankovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 May I have the appearances. The Prosecutor first.
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Good afternoon, Your Honours. For the
13 Prosecution, my name is Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff, and I appear here with
14 my colleague Manoj Sachdeva, and we are accompanied by our case manager,
15 van Hooydonk, Sebastian.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
17 For the defendants. First, I see that you are alone, Mr. Koppe.
18 Mr. Koppe, you are assigned counsel to Mr. Stankovic. I do see that
19 Mr. Stankovic is not in the courtroom. We'll deal with that soon.
20 Then for the accused Jankovic.
21 MR. LAZAREVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Aleksandar
22 Lazarevic, counsel for Mr. Jankovic.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lazarevic.
24 Before we continue, perhaps I should first raise the issue of the
25 absence of Mr. Stankovic. I was informed that Mr. Stankovic refuses to
1 enter this courtroom in the presence of Mr. Jankovic because he considers
2 that he is entitled to have his own Status Conference and not together
3 with Mr. Jankovic. Is that a correct understanding?
4 I do not hear any confirmation. I can understand, Mr. Koppe, that
5 in the present situation might not be easy for you to confirm such a thing
6 because, from what I read, Mr. Stankovic's attitude towards you is rather
7 hostile and perhaps does not allow you to confirm the information I
8 received. Is that correct?
9 MR. KOPPE: That's correct, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 Then, of course, we have to deal with the matter. I go now in
12 the history of this case where -- and please correct me when I'm wrong --
13 whether it's counsel for Mr. Jankovic or counsel for Mr. Stankovic.
14 Mr. Stankovic has been indicted together with four others. That was a
15 joint indictment. Is that correct?
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Actually, Your Honour, it was, as far as I
17 remember correctly, seven others.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Seven others.
19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then I forgot a few. I am aware -- so that
21 was a joint indictment brought against all these accused under -- and
22 charges were brought under Rule 48, which reads: "Persons accused of the
23 same or different crimes committed in the course of the same transaction
24 may be jointly charged and tried." That's joinder of accused. Joinder of
25 crimes is not -- Rule 49 is not relevant at this moment.
1 The defendants, having been charged jointly, are therefore in the
2 same case. And unless there is a decision under Rule, I think it's 82,
3 which would be an order for separate trials, then they are still in the
4 same case. Was there ever any application for a separation or severance
5 of trial?
6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I must admit I cannot answer
7 that question. According to my memory, there wasn't. But I may be wrong
8 on this. And we are trying at the moment to find a decision because my
9 colleague Mr. Sachdeva seems to recall that there was a decision of
10 severance. But he also isn't sure.
11 JUDGE ORIE: What I'm aware of is that in the second amended
12 indictment, that it was -- the Prosecution presented in its argument that
13 it would leave out any reference to any other accused, and therefore on
14 from the second amended indictment we see that it's only the name of
15 Mr. Stankovic that appears, which in itself might not mean that this is
16 the same as an order for separate trial. But if you could further inform
17 me, Mr. -- Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff or Mr. Sachdeva.
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think my colleague who was on that
19 Stankovic case could easier answer the question than me.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Your Honour. May it please you.
21 We did seek to amend the second amended indictment and just place
22 Mr. Stankovic separately in the indictment. And following that, we sought
23 to amend again the second amended indictment, which resulted in a decision
24 which confirmed a third amended indictment against Radovan Stankovic
25 where --
1 JUDGE ORIE: That third amended indictment was filed on the 8th
2 of December, 2003, as far as I can see.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: That's correct. And I understand a decision
4 was -- was rendered on the 24th of February, 2004, if I'm not mistaken.
5 And that, as I understand it, is how the -- how it stands -- how the case
6 stands against Mr. Stankovic.
7 JUDGE ORIE: So do I have to understand this, that there's no
8 severance -- the cases were not severed, although the indictment now only
9 names Mr. Stankovic?
10 MR. SACHDEVA: I understand that's correct, that there was no
11 formal decision on severance. However, there is an indictment confirmed
12 separately against Radovan Stankovic.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which -- then, Mr. Lazarevic, I know that you
14 are not representing Mr. Stankovic, but of course your client is one of
15 the candidates for being in a joint case with Mr. Stankovic. What --
16 what's your view on that, and since Mr. Jankovic is here and has not
17 refused to appear together with Mr. Stankovic, what's your view?
18 MR. LAZAREVIC: Well, Your Honour, the only thing I can say is
19 that I share my client's position. He definitely has no problem of being
20 here at this moment. But the indictment that I was dealing with was the
21 initial indictment, the first indictment with seven persons on it, so I'm
22 not aware of any decision regarding severance of trial.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before we started today this Status
24 Conference - because I should have noted that we are in a Status
25 Conference at this moment - I asked the Registry to convey the message to
1 Mr. Stankovic that if he would appear - and that would be to appear
2 together with Mr. Jankovic - that I would have given him a couple of
3 minutes right in the beginning of this hearing to explain why he considers
4 these cases to be separate cases rather than joint cases. I learned from
5 the representative of the Registry that Mr. Stankovic refused even to
6 enter the courtroom even if such an opportunity would be given to him.
7 Under the present circumstances, where there is no clarity and where
8 Mr. Stankovic seems not to wish to contribute to clarify the issue, we
9 will continue with this Status Conference even in the absence of
10 Mr. Stankovic.
11 Mr. Koppe, you are assigned as counsel, so you're the one who
12 represents to the best of your abilities, and I do understand the
13 problems, but you are the one who represents the interests of
14 Mr. Stankovic at this moment during this hearing.
15 If at any later stage any of the parties would have a different
16 view on whether these cases are joint cases or not, I'd like to hear. If
17 Mr. Stankovic would for whatever reason consider it inappropriate to be in
18 a joint case with Mr. Jankovic, he will be in a position to apply for a
19 severance of the cases. And the Registry is instructed to convey this
20 message in a language the accused understands to him.
21 We'll now continue with the Status Conference.
22 The first issue is the application Mr. Stankovic in some letters
23 made that he wants to represent himself. If Mr. Stankovic would have been
24 present at this moment, I would have explained to him again the reasons
25 why his former counsel -- why assignment of former counsel was withdrawn,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 that is, for reasons of financial misconduct.
2 I would then have asked Mr. Stankovic, because that's not
3 entirely clear from the letters he sent to the Chamber, whether it's his
4 wish to represent himself is mainly because he does not want to be
5 represented by counsel presently assigned, that is, Mr. Koppe, and that he
6 would withdraw an application for self-representation apart from whether
7 the formalities were fulfilled if another counsel of the list but, of
8 course, not his former counsel, Mr. Radovic, would be assigned. We don't
9 have that information at this moment; therefore, we'll wait and see
10 whether that information will reach the Chamber.
11 In view of the two options that were in the mind of the Chamber,
12 I would say the following: If Mr. Stankovic would withdraw his wish to
13 represent himself if other counsel would be assigned to him, the
14 appropriate way of proceeding would be that he applies with the Registrar
15 for replacement of counsel. Whether that would be granted is a different
16 matter, but that's the way it should be done. If, however, Mr. Stankovic
17 would not accept any other counsel than the one that previously was
18 assigned but whose assignment was withdrawn, then the Chamber would be
19 hesitant to accept self-representation for the reasons that obstructionist
20 and abusive behaviour might give a reason to make an exception to the
21 right of a defendant to represent himself. In the present situation where
22 Mr. Stankovic is not present, I will refrain from taking any decision, but
23 matter has been considered within the Chamber.
24 I finally make the following observation: That whatever this
25 Chamber would decide in terms of self-representation or being represented
1 by counsel, by assigned counsel, then that is totally separate from what
2 the Appeals Chamber will do in the 11 bis proceedings pending at this
4 Is there any need to make any further submissions related to what
5 I just said, in relation to self-representation sought by Mr. Stankovic?
6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the Prosecution would, of
7 course, not object to -- to the fact if Mr. Stankovic would select a
8 different counsel, probably a counsel that speaks his language. We
9 wouldn't have objections against this idea. But, of course, we would have
10 considerable objections against his self-representation.
11 And, Your Honour, if you want me to address these considerable
12 concerns now, I can do that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I --
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And I can also do that in writing at a later
16 JUDGE ORIE: I'm a bit hesitant. The way in which the matter has
17 been introduced, that is, sending a letter to the Judges and say, "I don't
18 want Mr. Koppe" -- and, Mr. Koppe, you may have noticed that the terms in
19 which Mr. Stankovic describes you are not the most elegant ones, to say it
20 briefly. That's of course not a way to introduce such a matter. At the
21 same time, on this Status Conference I could address the matter because it
22 deals with practicalities and not only with formal requests.
23 The first thing the Chamber will do is whether -- to determine
24 whether there's a formal request for self-representation or whether
25 there's not. And if we would consider the request for self-representation
1 to be introduced in such a manner that we could further consider it, then
2 you're invited, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, the Prosecution is invited to give
3 its view on the self-representation.
4 Thank you for your observations.
5 Mr. Koppe, any ...
6 MR. KOPPE: Yes, Your Honour, I have a few things to say.
7 I -- I wish to say to you that I do find myself in quite an
8 awkward position. On the one hand, I am -- I should be representing the
9 interests of Mr. Stankovic to the best of my ability and knowledge; on the
10 other hand, it's clear that Mr. Stankovic doesn't want me to represent
12 I have been asked by the Registrar at one point in time - I
13 believe it was sometime in April - to represent Mr. Stankovic solely on
14 the matter of the appeals -- appeal against the decision on the 11 bis
16 As you are undoubtedly aware, this procedure has almost finished
17 in respect of the appeal and the brief of -- the appeal brief, which
18 should have been finally filed by yesterday. So it seems to me that if
19 there are no oral arguments at one point in time, that the -- the
20 representation requested by the Registrar seems almost finished. And it
21 is my inclination that I would like to request withdrawal as an assigned
22 counsel at one point in time and that -- the reason that I'm here now is
23 solely because of the fact that the appeals procedure is still formally
25 But summarising, it is, once again, for me awkward and strange to
1 stand here and represent Mr. Stankovic in the clear view that he doesn't
2 want my assistance.
3 These are just the few observations I would like to make at this
4 stage. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Koppe.
6 I do understand your position to be a very difficult one. It's a
7 position in which counsel would not wish to be in. At the same time, I do
8 hear that you might soon apply for a withdrawal of your assignment as
9 counsel. At the same time, you may also be aware -- and first of all,
10 that is a matter for the Registry to decide and not for the Chamber -- and
11 that there is at least, to say it frankly, some tension between accepting
12 withdrawal and not accepting if the Chamber would not accept
13 self-representation by Mr. Stankovic, so therefore the two are related and
14 therefore I can't promise you that whatever action you take, that you're
15 out of trouble immediately.
16 Then, Mr. Lazarevic, do you have to add anything to this? I
17 think it's not related directly to your client, so it's ...
18 MR. LAZAREVIC: Nothing, Your Honour. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the second point on the agenda. The
20 Chamber has become aware that an appeal brief has been filed in the 11 bis
21 proceedings. If there's anything more to be said about it, of course this
22 Chamber is not seized of any appeal nor seized of the 11 bis application,
23 because it's exclusively the Referral Bench who deals with that.
24 Any need to make any further observations in that respect?
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, thank you, Your Honour.
1 MR. KOPPE: No, thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lazarevic, of course there's also pending a --
3 MR. LAZAREVIC: No.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- not an appeal but an 11 bis application is pending
5 for Mr. Jankovic. Is there anything in relation to that, not the
6 substance of it, because that's before the Referral Bench, but is there
7 any observation to be made in this respect?
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: Well, we are mindful that this Status Conference
9 is not held on this issue, that this Chamber is not designed for 11 bis
10 proceedings, so nothing.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I come to my next point, and that is the
12 application for provisional release filed on behalf of Mr. Jankovic.
13 You've set out the reasons why the Defence considers it appropriate to
14 provisionally release Mr. Jankovic. We have not yet received the response
15 from the Prosecution.
16 There are two ways to deal with it: We either could invite the
17 Prosecution to file its response. We also could give an opportunity to
18 the Prosecution to orally respond to the application at this moment.
19 Mr. Lazarevic, would you oppose against any of the options?
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: Of course not, Your Honour. I mean, according to
21 the Rules, the Prosecution is entitled to give its response in whatever
22 way they find appropriate.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if -- if you'd say, "No, that should not
24 be done orally," then I would like at least to know that. But since
25 there's no objection, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, what would you prefer to, to
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 respond, in writing or orally?
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the Prosecution is currently
3 already preparing our response in writing, and I assume it can be filed
4 this week or beginning -- beginning next week. So I would prefer to give
5 a considered and well-formulated opinion on the provisional release. Of
6 course I can say today that we are opposing it, but I actually would --
7 would like to file a -- a well-considered response. And it's on its way.
8 Actually, it's being prepared at the moment, as we speak.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we could expect that still this week, as I
10 understand you.
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's very likely that we'll file on Friday,
12 but it could also be next Monday.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll respect the preference expressed by
14 the Prosecution. Of course, the Chamber will -- once we have received the
15 response, will consider the application and give a decision in due course.
16 Then the next point on the agenda is an application made by the
17 Prosecution, as far as I understand, to stay the determination of a motion
18 challenging the form of the indictment.
19 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Your Honour, the application by the
21 Defence was filed on the 12th of May, 2005 and the Prosecution on the 23rd
22 of May filed a motion requesting halt of the decision on the motion until
23 the decision on 11 bis is filed.
24 Should the case remain before this Trial Chamber, the Prosecution
25 would amend the indictment in form, not in substance, however. It is an
1 indictment originating from 1997, and therefore we would like to amend the
2 form of the indictment and make it consistent with the findings in the
3 Kunarac case and the jurisprudence on the form of the indictment within
4 these almost -- almost nine years. Many of the objections of the Defence
5 relate to vagueness of the indictment and a lack of particulars, and we
6 would like to address it in an amendment.
7 The charges and the scope of the indictment, however, would
8 remain absolutely the same. That's why we think the amendment would not
9 have any impact on the decision on 11 bis that is pending before the
10 transfer chamber.
11 If 11 bis is granted, there would be no need at all to amend the
12 indictment in this institution here. The Prosecutor in the Sarajevo State
13 Court would have to amend the indictment to -- related to their charging
14 practice there and the provisions that they would have to deal with.
15 I think if we would be ordered to amend the indictment now, we --
16 we would delay proceedings and we would actually have to do unnecessary
17 work because in the event that it is transferred -- the case is
18 transferred, our work wouldn't really have an impact on the decisions and
19 the dealings of the Prosecutor in Sarajevo. And if the case stays here in
20 The Hague, then amendment would have to be done and there would be enough
21 time to do it after the decision is known.
22 Therefore, I would ask you to grant our motion to keep the
23 decision on the preliminary motion of the Defence in abeyance until the
24 time on the 11 bis decision.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lazarevic, from the answer of Madam Uertz, I
1 take it that vagueness is not a problem when a case has to be referred but
2 vagueness might be at least -- you have filed your motion on the 12th of
3 May, that vagueness is a problem in trying the case here. Could you -- I
4 have some difficulties in understanding why vagueness in the one context
5 would not cause a problem and in the other it would. Although, of course,
6 I'm aware that an indictment could be reformulated if a case is referred.
7 But could you give your views on the matter.
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: Well, yes, Your Honour. I understand fully the
9 position of the Prosecution. There are basically two ways that this case
10 will go on in future: One is, well, whether 11 bis filing is granted. In
11 such a situation, the case will be referred to Sarajevo and the national
12 prosecution will file a completely new indictment. So the Prosecution
13 feels obviously that it would be a work -- that the work on the indictment
14 would be done without any good reason. On the other hand, in -- if the
15 case stays in The Hague, they are ready to file a new indictment. That's
16 basically the way I understand the Prosecutor's situation.
17 But the reasons that were given for not amending the indictment
18 are basically the same that have to do with the previous issue that we
19 were dealing with, and this is the provisional release. Basically the --
20 it also has an impact -- the 11 bis proceedings would also have an impact
21 and still the Prosecution is ready to file a motion and its response to
22 our filing. So basically what we wanted to say and all the issues that we
23 raised in our motion on the form of the indictment remained the same. We
24 are leaving all these to the Trial Chamber to decide, to determine whether
25 the Prosecution request is granted.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do I understand you well that you say you do
2 not take any firm position on the matter since both options - the one is
3 that - not -- well, the option that we would wait and see what the
4 Referral Chamber does is -- whether or not the preferred one is not an
5 unacceptable one?
6 MR. LAZAREVIC: Well, basically we would prefer to have a new
7 indictment, but of course it's up to the Trial Chamber to determine.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. I do understand. It's the Chamber
9 that decides. But I would like to find out how strong your position is --
10 how strong your preference is. And that is the need to have the -- to
11 have a decision on the amendment of the indictment even if the case would
12 be referred.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: Well, I believe that I have just stated we would
14 like to have an amended indictment.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you say it's -- I consider this to be a slight
16 preference for amendment to the proceedings on the amendment to be
18 Madam Uertz, you say it's -- it's double work to deal with the
19 amendment of the indictment. Would you fear any problems if the Stankovic
20 and the Jankovic indictment would be entirely -- would it bother you if
21 there would still be that much difference in view of a referral?
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it -- it wouldn't bother me,
23 because when you look at the indictment, the -- the rapes that are
24 actually related to this accused here, Mr. Jankovic, are not the same ones
25 that Mr. Stankovic is charged with. So I can't really see why that should
1 be a problem --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say --
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: -- at all. Because looking at the Stankovic
4 indictment, that's basically conduct that relates to the Karaman's House
5 in Miljevina, while the conduct of Mr. Jankovic, his -- his participation
6 is related to other places, like Buk Bijela, like Partizan -- Partizan and
7 Foca High School. So they -- the indictment would always look different.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Because it's simply a different conduct that
10 they -- they are accused of.
11 And to address, again, the matter of vagueness and lack of
12 particulars. I -- I would say the indictment is still in the margin that
13 would be sufficient here, but of course if we get the -- the order to
14 amend the indictment or whether we have an opportunity to amend the
15 indictment, we would simply add more details on, in particular, his role
16 as commander and his -- his role as a leading soldier, a soldier leading
17 others, because that -- at that time, when we filed the indictment, all
18 the details that we later learned in the Foca cases that were conducted
19 here in this Court gave us a lot more details on this position. And that,
20 we could add. And that's what we wanted to add in case we have to amend
21 the indictment.
22 The crimes as such as they are described, they are very detailed.
23 They're already described in a lot of details. And these crimes, we
24 wouldn't add to. But just to his role as a commander.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Uertz.
1 Any further need to respond to that, Mr. Lazarevic? If not, then
2 I'll move to the next subject, which would be the -- any concerns about
3 the health of the accused at this moment or their detention conditions.
4 Mr. Koppe.
5 MR. KOPPE: I cannot say anything obviously about his present
6 health situation because I have never spoken to my client.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And since he's not in the courtroom, we can't
8 even observe whether he looks healthy or not at this moment.
9 Mr. Lazarevic, in respect of Mr. Jankovic.
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, maybe it would be more appropriate
11 that Mr. Jankovic states for himself what is his health condition. I'm
12 not aware of any particular problems that Mr. Jankovic might have in the
13 Detention Unit, but of course he could say that for himself in --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: -- a more -- much better way.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jankovic, you have an opportunity to address me
17 in relation to any health matter or any detention matter. If there would
18 be any need to turn into private session because you consider the matter
19 to be such that they should not be available to the public, you may
20 indicate so and then I'll decide whether or not to go in private session.
21 Please say what you'd like to say.
22 THE ACCUSED JANKOVIC: [Interpretation] As far as the Detention
23 Unit is concerned, I'm absolutely satisfied with everything. I wouldn't
24 single out anything. I am completely satisfied with everything.
25 As for as my personal health is concerned, when you look at me, I
1 look healthy; however, my health is rather impaired. All of my internal
2 bodily organs -- only my left kidney is healthy. My lungs don't work
3 properly; my heart neither; the liver; the prostate. I should have been
4 operated on the prostate a year and a half ago. In my left -- right heart
5 I have a bullet fragment that should have been taken out. I suffered two
6 minor coronaries and I still have problems with my heart.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jankovic, you describe health problems you're
8 facing at this moment. You also say, "I should have gone -- undergone
9 surgery already for quite some time ago." Should I understand this as
10 that you do not receive the proper care or that there are other reasons
11 why you could not receive such treatment at this moment? For example, I
12 can imagine that taking out a bullet fragment from, as you say, your right
13 heart - it's good to se that persons have two hearts - but I take it the
14 right portion of your --
15 THE ACCUSED JANKOVIC: [Interpretation] I was diagnosed at the
16 military academy in Belgrade in Yugoslavia. The fragment cannot be taken
17 out. I was in a state of clinical death, and I had to be -- undergo RCP
18 [as interpreted] while this was happening. The fragment has to stay
20 And as far as the prostate surgery is concerned, it was said a
21 year and a half ago that I should be operated on. However, I was treated
22 with some teas that I received from the former Yugoslavia, and recently I
23 have run out of that tea or herbal remedy, so I have again within
24 suffering from nocturnal pains. I have to go to the bathroom more often
25 than usually.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it, Mr. Lazarevic, if there would be
2 any problem to the extent that Mr. Jankovic would not receive the medical
3 treatment he's entitled to, that you would bring that first of all to the
4 attention of the Registrar and, of course, if that doesn't resolve
5 anything, finally the Chamber might be in a position - I'm cautious to say
6 that - might be in a position to -- to deal with the matter also. But you
7 know the procedure. The procedure is the Registrar is responsible for the
8 Detention Unit and only if it affects the trial or if there is an explicit
9 right to ask review of any decision of the Registrar, you can address the
11 MR. LAZAREVIC: By all means, Your Honour. I am fully aware of
12 the procedure. What I can inform the Trial Chamber is that I have just
13 brought from Belgrade a complete medical record of Mr. Jankovic, so the
14 Detention Unit will have a complete medical record. And if anything goes
15 wrong for Mr. Jankovic, he will definitely inform me and I will undertake
16 all the measures.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 Mr. Jankovic, of course the Chamber and I feel sorry to hear
19 about your medical problems.
20 You may be seated, unless you would like to add anything.
21 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any other matter to be raised at this
24 Madam Uertz.
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Perhaps a -- I can again be of assistance in
1 the original question a little bit more now, on the original question of
2 whether the cases are still joined or not.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Because in the Kunarac case a similar
5 situation arose. Kunarac was arrested a long time before the other two,
6 and his indictment was amended considerably. And when the other two
7 accused were finally here in The Hague, a decision was made on joining the
8 trial, the trials against the three.
9 So decision on joinder of trials, a formal decision was made on
10 the 15th of February, 2000 in the case IT-96-23-PT. Obviously the Trial
11 Chamber at that time found that the cases had to be joined formally. That
12 means that they thought they were separated from Kunarac.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So I do understand that the initial situation
14 where several accused were jointly indicted was then changed to the extent
15 that the Kunarac case was at least severed from the others and the others
16 were joined, or should I say, joined again.
17 Let there be no doubt: If it would appear - but we'll pay
18 further attention to it - if it would appear that the cases could not be
19 considered to be joined case, then a new Status Conference will be
20 scheduled to have a separate scheduled -- Status Conference for
21 Mr. Stankovic. But in the present situation, I have insufficient reasons
22 to schedule such a separate Status Conference.
23 Any other matter, Madam Uertz?
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Koppe.
1 MR. KOPPE: No, thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lazarevic.
3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Nothing. Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then this concludes this Status Conference.
5 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at
6 3.41 p.m.