1 Monday, 15 December 2003
2 [Pre-Trial Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 3.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Case number
8 IT-01-42-PT, the Prosecutor versus Pavle Strugar.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Madam Registrar.
10 First of all, good afternoon to everyone in and around this
11 courtroom. Mr. Strugar, may I first check whether you can hear me in a
12 language you understand, and please remain seated, if that's more
13 comfortable to you.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I first have the appearances, that is,
16 Prosecution first.
17 MR. WEINER: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Philip Weiner for the
18 Office of the Prosecutor. With me is Nicholas Kaufman, to my left; senior
19 trial attorney Dermot Groome is here to assist for the day;
20 Victoria McCreath; behind me is Gina Butler, for the Office of the
21 Prosecutor. Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Weiner.
23 I was informed that you have some problems also in standing, so
24 for you the same is true as to what I said to Mr. Strugar, that if you
25 have difficulties to stand, then please remain seated.
1 MR. WEINER: Thank you. I suffered a back injury, so...
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 For the Defence, appearances, please.
4 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. On
5 behalf of the Defence of General Strugar, Goran Rodic, attorney at law
6 from Podgorica, and my colleague, Mr. Vladimir Petrovic, from Belgrade.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Rodic.
8 We are here to hear the parties in a Pre-Trial Conference, at the
9 same time, I was informed that approximately one hour ago, or a little bit
10 over one hour ago, a new motion was filed. Part of the problems that
11 might arise today concern the health situation of Mr. Strugar. Whenever
12 it comes to that, and if the Defence would prefer to have a private
13 session, which means that you're still visible but not audible any more
14 for the outside world, would you please indicate so that I can take the
15 necessary measures.
16 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence is not
17 opposed to public session, also when we discuss this motion.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then of course we are not going into closed or
19 private session unless there's a specific request to do so. But if there
20 might come a moment, and the same is true for you, Mr. Strugar, if there
21 comes a moment when you'd rather discuss medical matters in a private
22 session, please let me know or please instruct the counsel to ask for it,
23 and we'll then turn into private session.
24 There are a few issues left from the last 65 ter conference, and
25 already at that conference it was indicated that the health situation of
1 Mr. Strugar was such that, as it stood at that time, it was difficult for
2 him to travel or to move around. And fortunately, these problems seem to
3 have been solved to the extent necessary to come to The Hague, but I do
4 understand that this has not solved all of the problems.
5 I read from the transcript of the last 65 ter conference that the
6 Defence suggested that sittings would not be any longer than one hour and
7 a half. But now, in the latest filed motion, it's not entirely clear to
8 me whether this is still in support to reduce the time the Chamber would
9 be sitting or whether this has a further-reaching goal. Could you please
10 explain to us, Mr. Rodic, what exactly you're seeking, apart from what is
11 clearly expressed in the motion.
12 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in this motion, we wish
13 to draw the Chamber's attention to the issue which we believe is the most
14 important of all issues, that is, the condition of Pavle Strugar as
15 regards his health. We believe that these proceedings cannot continue
16 until this matter is solved. Therefore, we would like to begin today's
17 conference by explaining this issue, with your leave.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I certainly will give you an opportunity to
19 explain that, but I'd rather not have anything repeated what's already in
20 your motion, because that's in writing now. And I also have to draw your
21 attention to the following: I am sitting today as a Pre-Trial Judge in
22 this case, but on from tomorrow, the case will be assigned to
23 Trial Chamber II. That means that other Judges will hear this case, and
24 therefore, some of the issues raised today might be decided by the other
25 Judges as well. The case has been assigned today to that section of
1 Trial Chamber II that consists of Judge Parker, as Presiding Judge,
2 Judge Thelin, and Judge Van den Wyngaert. They are present in this
3 courtroom today, so that they have first-hand knowledge of whatever is
4 said during this Pre-Trial Conference. And in order to save you looking
5 around who is where, the three Judges will hear the case are sitting to my
6 left, just in front of the interpreters' booth.
7 So, Mr. Rodic, if you would like to add anything to what's in your
8 motion, please proceed.
9 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. At present,
10 it is the position of the Defence of General Strugar that psychologically
11 he is not fit to follow these proceedings. On the basis of the medical
12 examinations of Pavle Strugar so far, he has the following diagnosis: A
13 chronic insufficiency of the kidneys, an adenoma of the prostate,
14 dementia, documented by magnetic resonance indicating multiple chemical
15 changes, or rather, strokes of the brain, insufficiency of the blood
16 vessels in the brain, as well as the early stages of Parkinson's disease.
17 Psycho-organic dysfunction has also been found, arterial hypertension,
18 chronic atherosclerotic cardiomyopathy, serious degenerative changes of
19 the vertebrae in the neck, and coxarthrosis of both hips, where an
20 operation of the right hip is indicated.
21 As dementia implies degeneration of psychological, intellectual,
22 and cognitive functions of the personality, this means that attention is
23 poor and impaired, concentration is poorer, and memory of past events is
24 not sure. Parkinson's disease, which is a neurological disease, as well
25 as the chronic kidney problems from which the general suffers, which
1 affect all his blood vessels, all this makes the degenerative
2 process -- it exacerbates it. Apart from this, changes in the spine, in
3 the neck vertebrae, and the hips, along with constant pain of changeable
4 intensity, further worsens General Strugar's health condition and
5 negatively affect his ability to follow, remember, understand, and
6 concentrate the sequence of events.
7 Bearing in mind that all this has been going on for several years
8 now, and is constantly growing worse, as can be documented by medical
9 findings, by specialists from Podgorica and Belgrade, as well as the
10 Tribunal experts, in November 2001, who independently of one another all
11 reached the same conclusion, I feel that on the basis of the medical
12 documentation obtained from three different sources, the Chamber has
13 grounds to issue a decision on a psychiatric evaluation of the general's
14 fitness to follow the trial.
15 As his Defence counsel, I consider that Pavle Strugar is unable to
16 follow the proceedings. This is a brief explanation of our motion filed
17 today, in which we ask for a medical examination under Rule 74 bis. I
18 wish to add --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so, but I may draw your attention to
20 the fact that approximately 20 per cent of what you tell us is new, and
21 approximately 80 per cent of what you tell us is already in the motion.
22 But please proceed and finish your submission.
23 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I only wish to mention that the
24 Chamber is seized of General Strugar's health condition and has been since
25 October and November 2001. Medical documentation was delivered in 2002,
1 and in November and December of this year, before the arrival of
2 General Strugar in the Detention Unit in The Hague. I wish only to add
3 that the Defence and the general, on the 1st of December, agreed, under
4 Rule 74 bis, but the only thing that has been done up to now is evaluating
5 his fitness for transport to the Detention Unit. And on the 12th of
6 December, on the general's arrival in the Detention Unit, a general
7 practitioner only had an interview with the general, and this is not
8 adequate treatment of the general's problems and not in accordance with
9 our motion. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Does the Prosecution want to respond to the
11 submission of the Defence? Mr. Weiner.
12 MR. WEINER: Yes. I just wanted to note for the record,
13 Your Honour, that we have received conflicting reports as to the general's
14 condition over the past two to three months, and it seems as we get closer
15 to trial, there are new ailments that are arising. However, if there is
16 an issue of competency, the matter has to be determined prior to
17 proceeding to trial, if there is an issue of competency, either physical
18 or mental.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That's a clear position.
22 Mr. Rodic, you said that from three medical sources, they all came
23 to the same conclusion. Let me just check where you said that. Could you
24 please say in one or two lines what that conclusion was. And of course,
25 the most important issue is whether the accused is fit to stand trial and
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 not whether he needs any hip surgery, for example, because if he needs hip
2 surgery, it will be given to him if necessary, and at the time, and of
3 course at such moment the trial could not continue because we have to stop
4 for the hip surgery. But let's try not to confuse matters. The most
5 important thing at this moment is whether Mr. Strugar is fit to stand
6 trial. You say he's not. And you have referred to a conclusion from
7 three different medical sources. Could you please briefly repeat what
8 exactly this conclusion was.
9 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what the Defence can
10 assert before this Tribunal is that our information under the health
11 condition of General Strugar comes from three sources. First of all, in
12 November 2001, when the Trial Chamber was to --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you, Mr. Rodic. You said, and I'm
14 referring to page 5, at line -- is it page 5? Yes, line 9 and 10. You
15 said: "Independently of one another," and you were referring to the three
16 sources, "all reached the same conclusion." I would just like to know
17 from you what that conclusion was.
18 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] The conclusion establishing the
19 diagnosis of dementia comes from the psychiatrist, Dr. Kmetic, from
20 Rotterdam, if I'm not wrong, who was engaged by the Chamber in 2001, when
21 holding a hearing on provisional release. Also as regards his chronic
22 insufficiency of the kidneys and urological problems.
23 JUDGE ORIE: What did Dr. Kmetic at that time conclude, that
24 because of the dementia that Mr. Strugar could not stand trial, that it
25 would bother him that much that he could not stand trial or was that his
1 conclusion? I'm just trying to find out. I'm not saying that people over
2 60 or 70 years old might have some elements of dementia, but what was his
3 conclusion as far as the ability to stand trial was concerned? Was there
4 any conclusion in that respect?
5 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Kmetic on that
6 occasion was not called upon to establish fitness to stand trial. He
7 was -- he only found dementia in his medical report. And no detailed
8 psychiatric examination to evaluate the general's ability to stand trial
9 was conducted at that time.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So you're saying one of the sources is
11 Dr. Kmetic and the other doctors who established dementia, and to what
13 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I did not
14 understand your question, Your Honour, about the degree of dementia.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether what other doctors concluded to
16 dementia and whether they indicated any degree of that disease.
17 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] In the meantime, after the findings by
18 the psychiatrist, Dr. Kmetic, dementia was confirmed in the findings of
19 appropriate specialists in Belgrade and in Podgorica. This was also
20 confirmed by a magnetic resonance of the brain, in 2002. Since then, we
21 have not had a new magnetic resonance examination, but dementia, as a
22 disease, cannot improve. In other words, the patient's health cannot
23 improve; it can only deteriorate further.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Has the Chamber been provided with the medical
25 reports from Belgrade?
1 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] The registrar and the Tribunal
2 received the latest reports from Belgrade, as well as those from
3 Podgorica, and in General Strugar's file, in the Detention Unit, all the
4 medical findings from 2001 are also included.
5 JUDGE ORIE: May I just confer with the registry.
6 [Trial Chamber confers with registrar]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Rodic, there has been some supporting material
8 for your -- for some of the motions that have been filed over the last few
9 weeks. There were medical reports and statements of doctors from
10 Podgorica. I do not remember that I have seen any report from Belgrade.
11 When have these Belgrade reports been provided to the registry? Has it
12 been done by you? Has it been done by Mr. Strugar himself?
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on the 12th of December,
15 on his arrival in The Hague, General Strugar had all his medical
16 documentation with him. This included the documentation from the military
17 medical academy in Belgrade and from Podgorica, with the magnetic
18 resonance findings. When applying to the Tribunal for a change in his
19 provisional release, when he was to go to Belgrade for additional
20 treatment, medical documentation was provided on that occasion. And a
21 complete set of medical documentation was provided on his first arrival in
22 The Hague, because the general had been in hospital in Podgorica at the
23 time and he interrupted his treatment in order to come to The Hague.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you remember exactly what the Podgorica
25 report said about dementia? Otherwise we'll have to look it up. What did
1 it in particular say?
2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] In Podgorica, as far as I can
3 remember, dementia was certainly established, as well as the initial
4 stages of Parkinson's disease.
5 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just, Mr. Rodic, trying to find exactly what the
7 first report said. But that's mainly about hips. And...
8 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, are you looking at the
9 findings of the 28th of November? Maybe you're looking at the findings of
10 the orthopaedist from the clinical centre in Podgorica. That report talks
11 about the hips and the spine, the problems diagnosed in that particular
12 report. Together with that report, on Friday, on the 28th of November,
13 neurologist's findings were also provided. Together with those findings,
14 while the treatment was still under way, the Defence wanted to demonstrate
15 the fact that General Strugar was indeed hospitalised and undergoing
16 treatment. So that was the reason why we did not provide the entire
17 documentation from that hospital treatment.
18 After that, Dr. Greve provided his expert opinion as to his
19 competency to be transferred to the Detention Unit, without going into
20 details of his health condition.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So I do understand that I do not find anything
22 on dementia here, but could you please indicate exactly where to find it,
23 because I want to understand your position clearly. Is it in the letter
24 signed by eight doctors? Is that the one? Because I've got here in front
25 of me the accused Pavle Strugar request for postponement with three
1 annexes, and that's the - I would say - is the most extensive, although
2 very much concentrating, I do agree, on the other problems, just
3 urological problems. I'm asking you because I, as a Pre-Trial Judge, I
4 have asked to be informed about the first findings of -- after
5 Mr. Strugar's arrival in the Detention Unit, and it's reported to me that
6 there's no indication that the cognitive functions of Mr. Strugar are
7 affected. And you say he's suffering from dementia, which is a -- well,
8 at least, it contradicts the finding of the doctor in the Detention Unit.
9 And therefore, I'm trying hard to find a sound basis for your submissions
10 that, on the basis of dementia, he would not be able to -- he would not be
11 fit to stand trial.
12 So therefore, I'm specifically looking for that. Is there
13 anything in the Belgrade reports about dementia? Then we have to find
14 them and to analyse them. The Chamber has never seen any report from
16 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with all due respect,
17 General Strugar was examined by a general practitioner at the Detention
18 Unit, and the examination was merely a conversation with the general,
19 nothing more than that. As for the medical documentation regarding
20 dementia, once again, I claim with full responsibility that there exists
21 already, from 2001, the findings of Dr. Kmetic. They are at the
22 Detention Unit. And also, the findings included in the entire medical
23 documentation that the general has brought with him, the findings -- that
24 is, his release letter from the military medical academy, signed by eight
1 Now, the findings that you just mentioned of the 28th of November,
2 they come from the clinical centre in Podgorica.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Rodic, it certainly would highly assist the
4 Chamber if you would just could give the quotes and say this is what they
5 said about dementia and it's signed on that day by that doctor. That
6 would certainly help. Because it seems that the Chamber has not all the
7 material available. Perhaps we would have a break soon and try to find
8 out what exactly is known about dementia. We could give it to the
9 translators. And do you have copies of this medical documentation from
10 Belgrade, for yourself, for your own ...
11 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] The Defence has the copies, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Would you, then, please give the page on which
13 dementia is mentioned in the Belgrade report, or the Belgrade reports, and
14 give a copy to the Chamber during the next break so that at least we could
15 know what is said about it, apart from what decision then to take and
16 whether I should take a decision, or anyone else.
17 I think that the matter of dementia is dealt with at this moment
18 sufficiently, and you may provide the Chamber with a copy of that specific
19 page on dementia so that we can look at it, and if you would please do the
20 same; give a copy to the Prosecution as well.
21 Then let's -- of course, we do not know what this all will result
22 in. Let's try to continue and see whether there are any other problems
23 apart from this one.
24 May I again ask you: You said, I think it was on the 3rd of
25 December, that one and a half hour would be the maximum time Mr. Strugar
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 could be in a Court and sufficiently concentrate on matters. Is that
2 still the same? If he would be fit to stand trial.
3 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is merely our
4 assessment, that is, if his competency to stand trial should be
5 established, that would be our assessment. Whether that would indeed be
6 the case, I wouldn't know. I'm sure that medical doctors, in particular,
7 psychiatrists, that is, the specialists, could provide a better-reasoned
8 opinion on that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And may I take it the assessment is based on
10 your general impression?
11 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes, you're right, Your Honour. So
12 this is just a proposal.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand.
14 Then I'd like to turn to -- so no decision has yet been taken on
15 it. I, as a Pre-Trial Judge, am seeking more information on the issues
16 you have raised, Mr. Rodic.
17 I'd like to move to another issue at this moment. I take it that
18 the Defence has received the new, the third amended indictment. Is there
19 anything you'd like to bring to the attention of the Chamber in respect of
20 this new indictment which is, as I understand, the same as the previous
21 one, apart from co-accused having been taken out? Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as regards the third
23 amended indictment, we have no comments to make. We have received the
24 indictment in the Serbian version as well, so we do not have any arguments
25 to make regarding the indictment itself.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Petrovic.
2 Then I'd like to move to another issue, that is the issue of
3 disclosure. At the last 65 ter meeting, it seemed that quite some
4 progress had been made and that disclosure was almost complete. Is there
5 anything at this moment, and perhaps I'm first addressing the Prosecution,
6 is there anything still to be disclosed to the Defence which should have
7 been disclosed already but has not been disclosed?
8 MR. WEINER: We are moving ahead, Your Honour, with the expert
9 reports, of the three experts, we're hoping to disclose the report or the
10 conclusions from Mr. Pringle this week or next week and they're also
11 finalising -- the other two experts are also finalising their reports. So
12 we hope to disclose them if not by the end of the new year, sometime in
13 early January.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Weiner, we'll come at a later stage to the
15 question of how much time the trial will take. I did understand that the
16 Prosecution took the view that the trial would take some six to eight
17 weeks. If we would start disclosing expert reports somewhere mid-January
18 or later in January, and if, under Rule -- I think it's 94 bis, the
19 Defence would have 30 days to consider whether or not to accept the
20 report, wouldn't we be in a situation where experts could not yet be
21 examined, because of late disclosure where trial on all the other elements
22 had been finished already?
23 MR. WEINER: Yes. We have to apologise. We are a bit late with
24 the expert reports. However, we were initially told that a 65 ter
25 hearing, there was an agreement that less than 30 days would be allowed,
1 that three weeks would be sufficient. At a later 65 ter hearing, a new
2 decision was made that there would be one month. So we're trying to rush
3 them out. We're going to place the experts on at the end of the trial and
4 try and get them in the early part of January. So there shouldn't be a
6 JUDGE ORIE: We're talking about how many expert reports,
7 Mr. Weiner?
8 MR. WEINER: One will be provided, as I said, this week or next
9 week, and then the other two should be provided in either late December or
10 early January.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do I understand that some of these expert
12 reports are written in B/C/S?
13 MR. WEINER: One, I believe, is written -- will be written in
14 Slovenian and let me check on the other.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I've got on my list a...
16 MR. WEINER: The Zorc report will be written in -- the second
17 expert, Mr. Zorc, his report will be written in B/C/S. The Defence have
18 indicated that they would take them in any language.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is the Prosecution willing to already disclose
20 it in the original language?
21 MR. WEINER: We're ready to disclose it to them before we even
22 receive that translation.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That at least shows quite some confidence in
24 your experts, doesn't it? And the report from Mr. Poye. Is that the
1 MR. WEINER: Yes. That report will be in Slovenian.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then the report of Dr. Allcock has been
3 submitted already?
4 MR. WEINER: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So that's disclosed. Do we also expect an expert
6 report by Mr. Zorc?
7 MR. WEINER: Yes. That's the one which will be in B/C/S,
8 Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's the one that will be in B/C/S. And when could
10 that be disclosed.
11 MR. WEINER: That's the one we're hoping for late in the year or
12 early January.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What about late this year? Would that be -- I
14 mean you're late, and I gladly accept your apologies, but I'd rather have
15 disclosure as soon as possible.
16 MR. WEINER: I will contact our military analysis unit and have
17 them contact him and expedite the matter, as quick -- and have him get the
18 report out as soon as possible. We've remained in contact with the
19 experts on a weekly basis, and we're trying to get their reports as soon
20 as possible. We have made strides to --
21 JUDGE ORIE: I suggested this year. You said either this year or
22 early next year. I suggested this year. Of course, I could cement you a
23 deadline, but if you could agree on this year, perhaps that could prevent
24 me from setting any further deadline.
25 MR. WEINER: It's a little bit difficult because the holiday
1 season is coming, but I will contact the witnesses.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber expects a well-reasoned submission
3 if you are not able to file this report this year. Yes? And then still
4 it has to be decided whether any further delay will be granted.
5 Then finally we have I think the last report is from Dr. Pringle
6 or Mr. Pringle.
7 MR. WEINER: The report of Dr. Pringle is due either this week or
8 next week, so there shouldn't be any problem with that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So that will be...
10 MR. WEINER: General Pringle.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That will be disclosed before Christmas, before our
12 Christmas, I should say.
13 MR. WEINER: Yes, it should be.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then the Chamber then expects you to disclose
15 it before the 25th of December of this year.
16 Okay. Expert reports. Could we now perhaps as far as disclosure
17 is concerned return to the witnesses. Because experts is a specific
18 category. And is my understanding right that there were four expert
19 reports scheduled?
20 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour. There are four scheduled. One has
21 been provided.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But no more. I mean, when I'm talking about
23 four I've dealt with them all.
24 MR. WEINER: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then about witnesses. We have seen that in your new
1 pre-trial brief, we find a new list of witnesses, and as far as we could
2 establish, you've taken off three witnesses from the previous list, but
3 you've added four. The Chamber rather would see the other way around, but
4 is our -- meanwhile, our statements or audiotapes or whatever, what is
5 disclosed to the Defence in respect of these witnesses?
6 MR. WEINER: We've disclosed summaries. There were a few
7 witnesses that we were disclosing reports. I know we received two
8 statements last week. And we're waiting, I believe, for one more
9 interview of a military member, the chief of staff to the accused,
10 Mr. Filipovic. And we cannot interview him without an authorisation from
11 the government. Being a member of the military, they have to provide him
12 with a waiver before we can speak to him. He had agreed to speak with us.
13 We went out and visited him and he could not speak because of the lack of
14 waiver. That's in the process and it should be arriving any day.
15 With regard to the other witnesses, we have made all strides to
16 provide statements or summaries. In the case of one witness, we
17 videotaped, either videotaped or audiotaped the interview, and we have
18 that instead of a statement. It's a long tape.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to hear from the Defence whether they agree
20 with the Prosecution in this respect, that is only in respect of
21 Mr. Filipovic, from whom there's no statement yet available, that they
22 received -- that summaries or in other forms the content of what the
23 Defence could expect is disclosed to them.
24 Mr. Petrovic.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on behalf of the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Defence, I wish to inform you on the current status of the disclosure.
2 What the Prosecution said about expert witnesses, that is correct. We
3 have received only one expert report, both in Serbian and in English, as
4 one of the working languages of the Tribunal. As regards other expert
5 reports, the Defence at this point has only the names of the experts. And
6 you certainly will recall that we discussed the issue on our 65 ter
7 conference in December last year.
8 So, so far, in the meantime, only one expert report has been
9 disclosed, the report by Dr. Allcock. Together with this report we have
10 also received today your decision regarding Rule 94 bis.
11 As regards witnesses, let me point out two issues. As regards
12 fact witnesses, that is crime base witnesses, and the acts with which our
13 client has been charged, we can say -- we can state that the disclosure
14 has been completed. However, when we talk about background witnesses, the
15 witnesses that are also very important for our defence, the other
16 witness --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel be asked to slow down a
18 little, please.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, the interpreters have some difficulties
20 in following you. Would you please slow down.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies. I will do my best,
22 Your Honour.
23 In order to mention the name of this other witness, since the
24 pre-trial brief is partially confidential, I should ask for a private
25 session for a second, at least, so that I can mention the name of the
1 witness so that we can continue.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We turn into private session for a moment.
3 Could you please wait until it's confirmed that we are in private
5 [Private session]
12 Page 213 – redacted – private session.
15 [Open session]
16 JUDGE ORIE: I see it's confirmed on my screen, Madam Registrar.
17 Is that correct?
18 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
20 Then disclosure of exhibits. Is there any remaining issue in that
21 respect? I did understand that there was still an issue outstanding or
22 perhaps already solved, about documents stemming from the EUMM. Is that
23 correct? Mr. Weiner, could you --
24 MR. WEINER: The EUMM, previously known as the ECMM, documents
25 have been disclosed. We have contacted them. They've indicated what
1 could in fact be disclosed and they gave us authorisation to do so, and we
2 have disclosed them to Defence counsel.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So that issue has been solved.
4 Is there any submission from the Defence in respect of the
5 disclosure of documents?
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'd like to avail
7 myself of this opportunity, with your permission, of course, to try and
8 establish at this point something that I believe is very important for the
9 proceedings. So I'm talking from experience at this Tribunal. When we
10 have new exhibits introduced during the trial, I think that there should
11 be a rule, that there should be a procedure on how to deal with that. We
12 have a new exhibit, an exhibit that has not been previously introduced,
13 there has to be a rule as to the time limit, how soon -- that is, how soon
14 it has to be disclosed before being introduced in evidence. If I may, I
15 should like to suggest, barring any objection from the opposing side, that
16 two or three weeks prior to the actual use of the exhibit in the trial,
17 this exhibit be disclosed to the opposing party so that it can become
18 familiar with the exhibit and use it appropriately for the purposes of
19 examination of the witness.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you're talking about documents never
21 disclosed before?
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. So if we have an
23 exhibit that is completely new, that is appearing for the first time, we
24 have had two motions recently concerning two additional exhibits of the
25 Prosecution, which I believe will be used, and I think that this situation
1 is likely to appear in the upcoming weeks of the trial. I think that
2 there should be a deadline for the disclosure of these exhibits, that is,
3 the certain amount of time should elapse between the disclosure and the
4 actual use of the exhibit in trial.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weiner.
6 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, if we have to add any exhibits to our
7 list, we would give Defence and the Court notice that an exhibit has just
8 been found, a piece of evidence or a document that was not available
9 previously. With regard to two weeks, I think that's really a
10 case-by-case situation. If, for example, what if a photograph is found,
11 something that you could just turn over to the Defence very quickly, show
12 it to them, or something that they find and they want to show to us and
13 then use? I don't feel that two weeks is necessary for proper notice. If
14 it's a key document signed by the defendant, maybe, maybe some additional
15 time would be necessary. But if we are able to find some documents
16 through the JNA, the Yugoslavian national army and it takes time to obtain
17 the document, I don't think either side should be severely punished or
18 should be prevented from using the document at trial because a foreign
19 government is failing to produce the exhibit or the document. I think
20 it's really a matter for a case-by-case determination.
21 JUDGE ORIE: You say it depends what is the reason for the late
22 disclosure and what is the content of the document involved.
23 MR. WEINER: Yes. And whether or not there's any prejudice
24 involved to the accused.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you rather have it on a case by case basis,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 whereas the Defence would like to have a fixed term of two or three weeks.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this was offered as
3 minimum notice, because even if the exhibit in question is a photograph,
4 it is possible that we are in the situation that we have to assess the
5 veracity, the authenticity, of the photograph. If such an exhibit is
6 intended for the use at trial, there's nothing we can do on a one or
7 two-day notice. This would be our request, because otherwise we don't
8 know how we will be able to deal with such exhibits, such documents.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
10 I suggest to the parties that undisclosed documents that are
11 really of importance should not be disclosed any later than ten days
12 before they are introduced in the examination of a witness, and that if
13 the Defence, for whatever reason, would think that these ten days, because
14 of the nature of that document, would not be sufficient to prepare
15 themselves, that they will show good cause and ask for additional time to
17 Similarly, if the Prosecution would like to use any document which
18 has not been disclosed more than ten days before the appearance of the
19 witness, that they should seek permission of the Chamber to use that
20 document, and of course there again, upon good cause shown why disclosure
21 was so late, the Chamber will decide whether or not to grant that.
22 I emphasise that whatever provisional decisions I give at this
23 moment may be changed by the Chamber that hears your case, but I think I
24 could not leave you without guidance at this moment.
25 Is there any other issue in respect of the disclosure of exhibits?
1 Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, I
3 should have mentioned this, but I will do it now. The issue of the list
4 of witnesses who are to testify before the Chamber, how much advance
5 notice will we have? Just before entering this courtroom, we received a
6 list of witnesses for tomorrow and the day after. I would ask the Chamber
7 to take up a position on this also and to determine a minimum time period,
8 such as seven days, for notice to be given to the Defence as to the names
9 of witnesses who are to testify. I think this is the practice before
10 other Chambers as well in this Tribunal.
11 JUDGE ORIE: In other Chambers sometimes seven days prior notice,
12 that means seven days in advance, the other party will be informed about
13 which witness will appear and what documents, already disclosed, will be
14 presented to that witness.
15 Mr. Weiner, would that be a basis to work on?
16 MR. WEINER: That would be fine, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: So the parties agree on a seven-days notice. I would
18 suggest to the parties that apart from giving the name of the witness,
19 that they always clearly should identify whether there are any protective
20 measures in effect in respect of that witness, that documents to be used
21 are disclosed to the other party, and also, if this would -- if this might
22 cause any problem, in which languages the documents are disclosed.
23 Then I'd like to turn to my next issue. The last witness list we
24 received, Mr. Weiner, that's, I think, a list dated the 3rd of December,
25 2003, introducing four new witnesses and taking out three of them. Is
1 that the last and final list?
2 MR. WEINER: We filed a -- I believe another witness list on
4 JUDGE ORIE: You say as part of the pre-trial brief.
5 MR. WEINER: As part of the pre-trial brief.
6 JUDGE ORIE: As part of the pre-trial brief. That would then be a
7 witness list -- let me just try to find it. Do I see 44 witnesses on that
9 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And is it also a correct understanding that viva voce
11 witnesses on that list would altogether take 71 hours for
12 examination-in-chief? Perhaps you would check that over the next break,
13 because we'll have to have a break anyhow. Because after the break, I'd
14 like to go a bit more in detail on the matter on how long the trial would
15 take, based on that witness list. I also understood that during the last
16 65 ter meeting, that the Prosecution has suggested that there might be a
17 possibility to reduce even the size of this list. What I notice is that
18 four were added, three were taken out, which is not -- at least not what I
19 understand to be a reduction. So could you please inform us about that.
20 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour. We've provided the latest witness
21 list, and we have included names on that list of persons who will not
22 testify. For example, we have on the list both Petar Kriste and
23 Davorin Rudolf. Our plan is to use Davorin Rudolf as a witness. Because
24 of Ambassador Rudolf's schedule if he is not able to appear, we have left
25 Petar Kriste on the list. We hope not to call Petar Kriste. In that
1 situation, we will either call one or the other.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That saves one witness, which brings it back in
4 MR. WEINER: In addition to -- there's more.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. WEINER: We've also listed a Mr. Janicot, or former ambassador
7 Janicot, and a Rok Vogric, last name Vogric, V-o-g-r-i-c. That is the
8 same situation. Mr. Vogric was the initial witness. Due to certain
9 difficulties in getting him here, we have gone to our back-up witness,
10 Mr. Janicot, who lives closer in the area, who I believe is right now
11 living in Geneva. So we will call one or the other. So that would reduce
12 the list by two.
13 We also have on the list, as a precaution, we listed a military
14 analyst, which it has just been left kind of as an individual in reserve.
15 That has remained on the list, and in all likelihood, as long as the
16 military experts can testify, that person would be removed from the list.
17 So that would be a reduction in at least three witnesses.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I saw on your list, Mr. Weiner, that all viva
19 voce witnesses have been -- at least if I look at the summaries, that you
20 indicated how much time they would take to be examined, to be examined in
21 chief. You also indicated that you would present an expert report of
22 Mr. Zorc, but unfortunately, although he's listed as a viva voce witness,
23 I do not see any indication as far as time is concerned. Is that correct?
24 MR. WEINER: In the proofing chart, which is being supplied today
25 at the request of the Court, he's listed as appearing in one session.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then I have to check that.
2 MR. WEINER: Page 15. It's the last name. It's to be filed
3 today. I'm sorry. I don't believe it's been filed, Your Honour. We have
4 them. We can file them just before the break. We can file them right now,
5 if you would like.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think that it has been filed, partly confidential.
7 Could that be true?
8 MR. WEINER: No.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Last Friday, or is it --
10 MR. WEINER: No. Those were the summaries that were filed. The
11 Court had requested a proofing chart.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, that's the new proofing chart, where we find the
13 relation between counts and witnesses and the other way around.
14 MR. WEINER: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because on the filing of the 12th of December,
16 I still find Zorc on page 22, viva voce witness. No estimated time
17 indicated at all. But I do understand that today, and how much time would
18 that be?
19 MR. WEINER: One session.
20 JUDGE ORIE: One session. I take one session for four hours.
21 MR. WEINER: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Any other witnesses to be taken off the
23 witness list, Mr. Weiner?
24 MR. WEINER: No, but based on -- Your Honour, based on the
25 situation where we have not received any news on our 92 bis motion, what
1 we would like to do is use some of the 92 bis witnesses as viva voce
2 witnesses, including the first week in January, call one or two of them.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand.
4 MR. WEINER: We had originally filed a motion for 92 bis for
5 approximately 15 or 16 witnesses, maybe 18.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. WEINER: Since there hasn't been any ruling for some months --
8 JUDGE ORIE: I can explain the parties why there has been no
9 ruling. It was known already for a longer period of time that
10 Trial Chamber I would not hear the case, and that it was to be preferred
11 to have a decision taken by the Trial Chamber that will actually hear the
12 case. And of course the new Judges have been appointed only recently,
13 very recently. But still, we try, or at least they will try, to reach a
14 decision even this week. I cannot give any promise because it's not me
15 who has to do it, and I'm not fully aware of all the complications. But a
16 decision on 92 bis will be taken as soon as possible, and if at all
17 possible, even before the recess.
18 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, I wasn't trying to criticise the Court
19 on the matter. But what happens is, even if we did receive news on the
20 last day of the session, by the time the Prosecution and investigators
21 went to Croatia, obtained 92 bis statements or just took their current
22 statements and had them sworn before a registry clerk, it would probably
23 be one or two weeks into January, probably into the second or third week
24 of trial. So what we thought we would like to do is take a few of the 92
25 bis witnesses that we were attempting to bring early in the trial, and
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 instead of bringing them as a 92 bis witness, put them on as a viva voce
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. I take it that the Defence
4 will get an opportunity to respond to that, perhaps briefly tomorrow, if
5 the trial would start tomorrow.
6 Then, having gone through the list of witnesses, I would suggest
7 to the Prosecution that they will revisit the question whether or not
8 additional witnesses could be struck from the list so that we really get
9 to the core of the case. The case has been reduced considerably in size.
10 And so repetitious evidence is not needed. Evidence of limited or very
11 limited relevance is usually also not of great assistance to the Chamber.
12 So would you please reconsider, at all times, whether the evidence you
13 intend to present is really necessary to prove your case.
14 The proofing charts have been filed. The new Chamber will have a
15 look at it and see whether it meets the need of the Chamber and whether it
16 gives the assistance as they would like to receive it.
17 We have dealt with the witnesses.
18 The Defence has also received, I take it, a decision on whether or
19 not the Prosecution is allowed to call Dr. Allcock as a witness. As you
20 may have noticed, I don't think that it's already an admission into
21 evidence. It's finally up for the Trial Chamber which hears the case to
22 finally decide. But on the basis of the motion, there was no reason to
23 prevent the Prosecution from calling Dr. Allcock as a witness, and for not
24 receiving at this moment the expert report submitted.
25 Then I would like to have a short break at this moment, for 15
1 minutes, in which I expect the Defence to produce the relevant pages on
2 dementia from the Belgrade medical report, and if there's any news as far
3 as witnesses are concerned, then I'd like to hear from Mr. Weiner after
4 the break. After the break, still on my agenda - but of course, you could
5 add whatever you like to add, if it needs to be discussed at this
6 moment - is whether there's any further cutting down of witnesses, the
7 estimated length of trial, if we would start tomorrow. I'd also like to
8 briefly discuss videolink witnesses, if there are any. I'd like to
9 briefly discuss opening statement. And as far as I'm understanding, the
10 accused would not intend to -- and the Defence would not intend to give an
11 opening statement right after the Prosecution has done so; is that
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes, that is correct.
14 That's what we stated at the 65 ter conference.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm just seeking confirmation of that. Did I
16 also understand that the accused wants to give a -- to provide a statement
17 under Rule 84 bis has not been decided yet, or has it been decided?
18 That's an unsworn statement.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't recall
20 discussing this, but I can inform you that the accused will not be making
21 this kind of statement, either in the near future or in the following
22 weeks and months. And the reason for this is the issue we raised at the
23 opening of this session, and that is his health condition.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand.
25 We'll have a break. We'll adjourn until a quarter to 5.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 4.31 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 5.04 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I received some copies during the break which seem to
4 be medical reports. I would invite the Defence to guide us through these
5 reports, to the extent possible, without having a written translation.
6 Have copies been presented to the interpreters' booth?
7 THE INTERPRETER: No, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: They have not. Could someone take care that, first
9 of all, copies will be given to the interpreters' booth.
10 Yes. I do understand that the booth, who is primarily responsible
11 for the language in which these reports are written, has received a copy.
12 Is that correct? I can't hear you because I am on the wrong channel. I
13 think I have to go to the zero channel to get that confirmed, that the
14 B/C/S booth has received a copy. Could I get confirmation?
15 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honour. The B/C/S booth got the copy.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Previous translation continues] ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm now on channel 6. The B/C/S booth has
18 received a copy? Thank you very much.
19 Mr. Petrovic, may I first take you back, before we go to this
20 material: You said that in the documents signed by the eight doctors,
21 that is not the specific urological or the orthopaedic report, but that we
22 find something about dementia. Could you please indicate where it is,
23 because I was not able to find it.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, my
25 colleague, Mr. Rodic, will try to explain this to you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Rodic, let me first take you back, because you
2 said it was not in the specific reports provided by the Podgorica
3 hospital, but it was in the other general report signed by the eight
4 doctors, as far as I understand, that we find the information about
5 dementia. Could you please tell us where exactly.
6 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you can see that the
7 report consists of three pages. In the heading, on the left, is the coat
8 of arms of the military medical academy. So this is their report of the
9 9th of December, 2003. You can see this in the heading on page 1.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I think I'm first taking you back to the Podgorica
11 report, which is of late November, isn't it?
12 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
13 The report from the Podgorica hospital, signed by eight doctors, was a
14 report that you were able to see when the Defence submitted it on the 3rd
15 of December, if I'm correct. However, this is a meeting only of the
16 doctors' team, when the issue was the arrival of General Strugar in
17 The Hague, and that is a ten-line document, with a conclusion that the
18 patient's treatment should not be interrupted in order to avoid a
19 deterioration of his state of health. When General Strugar was
20 transferred to Belgrade, to the military medical academy, on the 5th of
21 December, acting on orders from the investigating judge in Belgrade,
22 specialists of the military medical academy, as far as they were able to
23 do, because the time was very short, they gave an opinion in which the
24 conclusion was that the general could be transferred to The Hague, with
25 medical attendance, but they also gave an opinion on the medical
1 documentation accompanying Mr. Strugar from Podgorica, and a small part
2 that they were able to do at the military academy in the short time
4 In the second paragraph from the bottom - and this is only the
5 part Your Honour is interested in - the last sentence says: At the
6 magnetic resonance of the head, from 2002, multiple changes can be seen,
7 because of a disease of small blood vessels, which can explain the
8 amnestic disorder present in the patient.
9 In the next paragraph, the second sentence says: Psycho-organic
10 dysfunctions were registered, most probably of a vascular genesis, which
11 were not objectified due to shortage of time.
12 Also, there is another passage which states the problem of a
13 shortage of time.
14 The next document, on page 1 of this document, it says: Institute
15 for Neurology, clinical centre of Serbia. And it is signed by Vera Ilic,
16 a psychologist, and Dr. Dragan Pavlovic, neuropsychologist. It's signed
17 in Belgrade, on the 2nd of October, 2002.
18 On the first page of this neuropsychological report, there are
19 four diagnoses, and dementia is the third of these, followed by
20 pseudoneurasthenia, which is the first diagnosis. The case history
21 follows, then the tests used, the analysis and conclusion. On page 3, I
22 can read you the conclusion, if you will allow me to.
23 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you: You were just referring to the first
24 page. This is the report of April 2002; is that correct? One signed by
25 Dr. Fikret Nikolic [phoen]?
1 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] No. No, Your Honour. That's another
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'm confusing two documents. Could you please
4 repeat what document you're referring to.
5 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise, Your Honour, for not
6 having a translation at the moment. The document I'm referring to is the
7 neuropsychological report that has three pages. And on the last page, you
8 can see the date, the 2nd of October, 2002. In the upper right-hand
9 corner, the number 6, 7, and 8.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I have got that one. Yes. Could you then please
11 repeat what you refer to in this report.
12 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I said about this report that on page
13 1, on page 1, the diagnosis with which the patient was referred has
14 actually four diagnoses, the third one being dementia, and the last one
15 also referring to a psychological problem. What follows --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please -- could we please ask the
17 interpreters to read exactly what is written on the place where you say
18 the diagnosis is dementia.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, the diagnosis is in Latin.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let me then just see.
21 MR. RODIC: Dementia senilis incipiens.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What means that last word, Mr. Rodic? Because
23 you only referred to dementia.
24 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] It means that it is the beginning of
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Until now, I haven't heard anything about where
2 all the reports are talking about the beginning of dementia. I only heard
3 you pronounce the words dementia, and always leaving out "beginning."
4 Because you said it was the --
5 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the part we have just
6 read out, where I read out the Latin diagnosis, in the left-hand corner,
7 it says that this is the diagnosis in the referral of the patient.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's --
9 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Page 3 we have the conclusion.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then please lead me to the conclusion,
11 page 3.
12 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] May I read these six lines,
13 Your Honour?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'd rather have them -- if you read them, and
15 if the B/C/S booth could follow it on paper. That's the page with the
16 number 8 on top of it, and the date of signature to be the 2nd of October,
17 2002; is that correct? Yes. So if you slowly read it, and if it would be
18 translated by the B/C/S booth. Yes. Into English, please.
19 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Quantitative and qualitative analysis
20 of the results obtained by neuropsychological examination shows a
21 narrowing of the scope of visual attention, dyscalculia, dysfunction of
22 the complex visual organisation, and constructional praxis, both in two
23 and in three dimensions. Phonemic fluency for low frequency phonemes and
24 a tendency of the deterioration of verbal delayed memory. This finding
25 corresponds to a subcortical cognitive deterioration with predominant
1 dysfunction of the right hemisphere of the large brain, which corresponds
2 to initial subcortical dementia within the framework of (most probably)
3 vascular extrapyramidal disorder."
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do I understand from that report, apart from
5 details provided, that it is initial dementia? And is that the same as we
6 find on the report of the 9th of December, 2003, where the -- on page 2 we
7 find a diagnosis saying -- no. I'm not -- no. It doesn't say anything.
8 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Are you referring to the previous
9 findings that we read out?
10 JUDGE ORIE: No. I'm not --
11 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Or maybe Dr. Nikolic, whom you
13 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Nikolic also used the term "dementia senilis
14 incipiens," which is also, as far as I understand, a beginning of senile
15 dementia. And I checked the report of Dr. Kmetic, and that was
16 approximately the same, that he said there could be a beginning, at least
17 there was a suspicion of a beginning dementia. So do I understand that
18 you're asking a psychiatric report not on the basis of findings of doctors
19 that dementia has been established, but that a beginning of dementia has
20 been established? Is that a correct understanding of your position?
21 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] In view of the psychiatrist report of
22 Dr. Kmetic and the fact that it has been corroborated by an MR report, MR
23 results, the Defence would like to request, because no detailed
24 psychiatric report has been provided so far --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say that the report of Dr. Kmetic has been
1 confirmed. What actually did Dr. Kmetic say? What was his conclusion?
2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] His conclusion was that
3 General Strugar suffered from the initial stages of dementia. As far as I
4 could understand, Dr. Kmetic, in November 2001, only conducted an
5 interview with the general, on the basis of which this report was
6 compiled. So there have been no detailed psychiatric examinations so far.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Rodic, let's try to get things clear. You say on
8 the basis of the findings of Dr. Kmetic, as confirmed by other doctors,
9 you'd like to submit something to the Chamber. When I ask you to tell me
10 exactly what Dr. Kmetic at that time said, I'm not asking for an expose on
11 the shortcomings of his diagnosis or the shortcomings of the examinations
12 he made. I'm just asking you: What did he say? I'll read it to you. In
13 the conclusion, it says, and of course we find something prior to that in
14 the report itself: "On the ground of information raised, a suspicion that
15 the client suffers from dementia."
16 So there clearly he says there's a suspicion for that. And he
17 also said: "At the moment, symptoms of dementia are at the early stage
18 and a cognitive deficit is not very pronounced."
19 As a matter of fact, I see that in all the reports, that there are
20 some cognitive disturbances, although, as far as I understand, not such
21 that a general practitioner who saw Mr. Strugar immediately noticed that
22 there was. And as a matter of fact, in the letters that I received from
23 Mr. Strugar, I didn't find anything specific which would have drawn my
24 attention to any dementia, as a matter of fact. But all the reports are
25 talking about a beginning dementia, whereas you submitted to the Chamber
1 that on the basis of dementia, further examination was needed.
2 I'll give it some thought at a later stage. Is there anything
3 else you'd like to submit to the Chamber in respect of the newly provided
4 medical documentation?
5 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] The documentation that has been
6 provided, that we are in possession of -- and you have now reminded me of
7 the report by Dr. Kmetic. I must admit that I only had in mind his
8 conclusion from 2001. I have only now remembered the details, after
9 hearing it from you. The findings that we have just supplied confirmed
10 the suspicion raised by Dr. Kmetic during this interview. This suspicion
11 is further corroborated and diagnosed in this report. As to the degree of
12 dementia, how advanced the illness is, I'm not a specialist; I cannot talk
13 about it. From -- all I know is on the basis of the communication that we
14 have with the general, and we do experience problems in this regard,
15 especially in the view of what we know about dementia.
16 Dr. Nikolic also diagnosed initial stages of the Parkinson
17 disease. This, coupled with all other disturbances and illness of
18 General Strugar, further exacerbates his medical condition, his physical
19 condition. At this point, the Defence merely wishes for his competency to
20 stand trial, to be verified, so that we can be clear whether he can stand
21 trial or not. This is the basis on which we can proceed with the trial.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Rodic.
23 Any observations from the Defence -- from the Prosecution, I'm
24 sorry. Mr. Weiner.
25 MR. WEINER: I would just note that these are all more recent
1 filed documents, that no actions have been taken up to this point, no
2 documents had been filed over the years, and then just suddenly, within
3 the past few months, these documents are being filed. And up to this
4 point, they have not met any threshold to raise the issue. The issue
5 should have been raised a long time ago, if it did exist at all. But the
6 other question I had: Since he has been here, have they performed any
7 sort of tests at the prison facility? I know when a defendant usually
8 arrives, there is a battery of tests that are performed, and is there any
9 help that we have and any information we have through the Registry from
10 the doctors at the prison? Is my question.
11 JUDGE ORIE: From what I understood, no specific additional tests
12 have been done. But of course, it could be considered to do such tests,
13 if they are not done. But perhaps, Mr. Strugar yourself: Have
14 you -- Mr. Strugar, could you tell us whether you, apart from
15 having -- please remain seated. I know that it's not easy for you to
16 stand up, so I have no problem if you remain seated. Apart from having
17 seen a general practitioner in the Detention Unit who examined you, have
18 you seen any other specialist, either over the weekend or today?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And could you tell us how long this examination has
21 taken, approximately, when you were examined by the doctor?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On this occasion, the doctor was
23 rather forthcoming, as was his personnel, as opposed to what happened in
24 2001, and the examination lasted about half an hour. I don't know if I'm
25 making myself clear. The examination lasted approximately 30 minutes.
1 As for the first occasion, it was following an intervention by my
2 counsel that I was given assistance. But it was only a week later, and
3 then two weeks later, a specialist examined me. This occasion, however,
4 they were correct in their approach. The doctor gave me -- prescribed me
5 some medicine and listened to what I had to say.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Has the doctor now prescribed any medicine you did
7 not yet receive before, Mr. Strugar? Has he changed anything in your
8 medication or ...
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, currently I'm taking
10 three types of medication, three types of drugs. One of them has been
11 prescribed for the prostate; then a painkiller; and the third one is -- I
12 don't know what is it for. I'm taking this medicine on a regular basis,
13 either in the morning or in the evening.
14 But to be perfectly frank, I'm really unable to tell you what the
15 reasons, what the indications for those medicines are. I know that one is
16 for the prostate, but I am not sure about the others.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Has your medication changed since your arrival or are
18 you taking the same pills as you did before?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's only on the basis of their
20 shape that I can conclude that this is a different kind of a medicine.
21 Normally, they replace the medicine that I bring with their medicine. I
22 don't think there's anything wrong with that. It must be some sort of
23 principle that they apply. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear,
24 Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could it be that they're not available perhaps in the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Netherlands under the same form and under the same name? Is that a
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In all likelihood, but I'm really
4 not sure I have given you the right, the correct answer. You should ask
5 the doctor. I'm really not sure whether this is the same medicine that I
6 used to take. I don't know.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not expecting you to confirm that these are
8 really the same chemical substances as you received before, because I do
9 understand that you could not do that. I do not expect you to analyse
11 You made a small comparison to the treatment you had two years
12 ago. Do you see any major difference in how you are treated by -- or how
13 you were treated by the doctor this weekend? Was it upon your arrival on
14 Friday or on Saturday or on Sunday that a doctor saw you?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. This was immediately after I
16 entered the building. The first person I met was the doctor, and it was
17 only after that that I met with the Detention Unit commander, or chief,
18 whatever you call him. And this was not the same doctor as the one who
19 actually really offended me on the first occasion. Because I had
20 interrupted my treatment at that point. I had had severe haemorrhage in
21 hospital, and I had arrived with a needle stuck into my vein. Because on
22 the plane, I was being given infusion, if that's how you call it, and I
23 kept asking for this to be removed. But this thing stayed in my vein for
24 another week. And he even laughed at me, and I complained to my lawyer
25 about this treatment. However, this time, it was a different person who
1 was very polite and treated me correctly.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for your information, Mr. Strugar.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You're welcome, Your Honour.
4 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Rodic.
6 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,
7 maybe it would be a good idea to ask the general, since he has already
8 explained to you what happened at the examination. You can perhaps ask
9 him to tell you the details of the examination, and if he can perhaps tell
10 you how he feels at this point, what his current situation is. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'd like to leave that. At this moment we are
12 talking mainly about procedural issues, and health is dealt with at this
13 moment mainly in the context of the procedural issues. But I'll certainly
14 ask him about it in a later stage, Mr. Rodic.
15 This is additional information given in respect of the motion you
16 filed and on which a decision will have to be taken.
17 I would now first like to return to where we were, that is, the
18 first issue is the length of the trial.
19 Could you, Mr. Weiner, try to set out, just in brief, how much
20 time, all together, you think the trial would take on the basis of your
21 present witness list.
22 MR. WEINER: I still feel that will it will take approximately two
23 months, with both examination-in-chief and cross-examination. And I'm
24 talking about just the Prosecution's case.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. WEINER: We've maintained that period of approximately eight
2 weeks --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. WEINER: -- all along and we continue to maintain that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And would that include cross-examination of the
7 MR. WEINER: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And of course it's of vital importance for such an
9 assessment of such an estimate on how much time, in your view,
10 cross-examination usually takes, compared to the time taken by
12 MR. WEINER: What we've done is just try and estimate on each
13 witness. For example, with regard to General Jokic -- I'm sorry,
14 Admiral Jokic, we have estimated that he would be on the stand for three
15 days on examination-in-chief, three sessions. And he would be
16 cross-examined, we're estimating, for two to two and a half, as many as
17 three sessions too. With each witness we've kind of run cross-examination
18 pretty close to the amount of time on direct examination, or
19 examination-in-chief, as it's called in Europe.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If we do that, the time you have given for
21 your witnesses until now - and I'm looking at the list of 44
22 witnesses - is for those who will testify viva voce, it would be 71 hours,
23 but you now also indicated that Mr. Zorc would take another four hours,
24 that would make 75 hours. Then the time indicated for witnesses, either
25 92 bis or viva voce, where you usually have not given any indication as to
1 how much time that would take --
2 MR. WEINER: None of the witnesses under 92 bis would be extensive
3 witnesses. Even if they were required to give full -- testify in full in
4 examination-in-chief, which we don't expect will happen, the most that
5 they would testify would be is approximately one hour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: On your list, I find also estimates of two hours.
7 MR. WEINER: Possibly two, but ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. WEINER: With a few, possibly two, but pretty much one hour
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I have noted down approximately what time you
12 estimated. It comes to approximately 86 hours. And that's for the
13 witnesses for which we have a time estimate, whereas for other witnesses
14 we might not have any time estimate. 86 hours in chief. Let's just
15 assume that it would need some 65 hours in cross-examination. Would that
16 be a fair assessment?
17 MR. WEINER: Approximately.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Approximately. That would then bring us to
19 approximately 150 hours. For those witnesses of which a time estimate has
20 been given until now. Let's just assume that those for which you have not
21 given an estimate yet are not the most time-consuming witnesses. That
22 would lead us, then perhaps all together, to 180, close to 200 hours. Two
23 hundred hours, at twenty hours a week, that's five days, four hours each
24 day, would be ten weeks. That's a little bit more than eight weeks.
25 MR. WEINER: It's all estimates, Your Honour, and we've done our
1 estimates with calendars and we've come out to about eight weeks. We've
2 done it several times, and --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's just assume, although, of course, a
4 final decision has to be taken on that, that we would start in December,
5 and let's just assume that we would continue on the 12th of January,
6 Monday, the 12th of January. That would then bring you to approximately
7 the 5th of March. Is that a -- then I've given you a few days extra, if
8 we would sit full time.
9 MR. WEINER: With your estimates. Our estimates have us until the
10 end of February. But maybe --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So may I take it that, in view of available
12 court time, if we would sit every day, if we would sit normal hours,
13 that's four hours a day, effective time, that you could close the
14 Prosecution case by -- well, let's say by not later than the 5th of March,
15 Friday, the 5th of March?
16 MR. WEINER: Based on the estimates at this time, yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just assume that, for whatever reasons, we
18 could only sit three days a week. That would need then an additional
19 number of -- well, an additional percentage at least of 60 per cent,
20 because we are sitting less intensively. That would then bring us close
21 to, on a schedule of three days a week. Would you agree with that?
22 MR. WEINER: Yes. It should bring us somewhere towards I'd say
23 end of March/early April, probably.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that if you estimate
25 eight hours -- eight weeks for the case on a five-days week, then on a
1 three-days week you have to add 60 per cent, which is more than five
3 MR. WEINER: I'm sorry. I thought you said 16. I'm sorry,
4 Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: 60. I think it would bring you close to mid-April.
6 You would agree with that?
7 MR. WEINER: Yes. And once again, these are all estimates. I
8 just wanted to mention: Last week in the Hadzihasanovic case, a witness
9 who was supposed to be on for an hour and a half completed his testimony
10 after three days, and things happen, objections, motions, and we're just
11 dealing with estimates here.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Sometimes it goes quicker and sometimes it
13 takes more time. Isn't it? Is that what you want to say?
14 MR. WEINER: Yes. And also with regard to the 92 bis witnesses,
15 which we're dealing with a large number, if there's no cross-examination
16 on some of them, if there's little or no direct - I keep on saying direct
17 examination - examination-in-chief on some of them, those could go very
18 quickly. We could do as many as 12 in three days.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So to start with, we have a rough estimate
20 of -- based on full-time sitting, the case would -- the Prosecution could
21 close its case by early March, certainly not later than the 5th of March.
22 And if we would sit on three days a week, the Prosecution could conclude
23 its case presentation by not later than Easter. I'm just trying to figure
24 out in less abstract terms, but just until when would it take us in this
25 pace, and that's what the Prosecutor, although saying that it's all
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 estimates, you know, most of the Chambers do not like -- of course I'm not
2 aware of the Chamber to come, whether they like estimates which turn out
3 to be not very correct later on, but most Chambers always very much like
4 estimates which are real estimates and not too optimistic estimates. And
5 that's the reason why I ask you again whether I well understood your
6 estimates. Yes.
7 As far as the Defence is concerned, I took into consideration that
8 cross-examination would take, on an average, not more than 60, 70 per cent
9 of the time of examination-in-chief. Is that something the Defence would
10 also consider to be a right assessment of the experiences in this
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence would like
13 to assure you that we will try to be as expeditious as possible. So we
14 hope that in most of the cases we would spend less time than the
15 Prosecutor for the examination-in-chief. However, on the basis of what we
16 see now, in terms of potential evidence for the Prosecution, that it is
17 possible that we will exceed the estimated time. I don't think we
18 should -- we could talk in percentages, but what we can do is to promise
19 that we will try to focus on essential, key issues raised in the
20 examination-in-chief. Whether this is going to be 60 or 70 per cent of
21 the time of examination-in-chief, I cannot tell you, because that will
22 depend on the individual witnesses. But this is my -- the best answer
23 that I can give you, on the basis of my experience in representing cases
24 before this Tribunal.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think you certainly could speak about
1 percentages, but the Defence would rather speak about what they will focus
2 on, and I heard that submission.
3 Okay. That gives a more or less a global outline of what time the
4 case would take if we would sit either five days a week or three days a
5 week, and of course this still has to be further decided. I'll come back
6 to that at a later stage.
7 I have on my list also room for cutting down the number of
8 witnesses, Mr. Weiner, and I dealt with it and you took off two witnesses
9 that were introduced more or less as a pair, I would say, of which you say
10 only one of the couple. Is there any other possible cutting down number
11 of witnesses?
12 MR. WEINER: Not right now at this time. As you know, the lead
13 counsel in this case, senior trial attorney Susan Somers, is away in the
14 United States. She had made plans to be away, based on the prior
15 scheduling of this case. And I would not want to remove any other
16 witnesses without contacting her or consulting with her.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. WEINER: But as we progress, if the evidence flows as we
19 believe it will, there could be -- there could definitely be possibilities
20 to reduce the number of witnesses.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I may expect the Prosecution to come back to this
22 issue at a later stage to the Trial Chamber.
23 MR. WEINER: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Weiner.
25 Then videolink witnesses. The Prosecution has indicated,
1 Mr. Weiner, that it intends to request a videolink for some 12 to 15
2 witnesses. You also indicated that still witnesses might testify viva
3 voce, and that you'll file a motion, bearing in mind a 14-days' deadline.
4 Because, as you are aware, a videolink takes quite some time to prepare
6 MR. WEINER: We're planning to file the motion this week,
7 Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You're planning to file the motion this week. So at
9 least then we would have another three weeks, at a minimum, to prepare for
10 that during the recess.
11 We have dealt with opening statements and Rule 84 bis statements
12 before the break. Is there anything at this very moment the parties,
13 either Defence or Prosecution, would like to raise?
14 Mr. Rodic, perhaps Defence first.
15 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have listened carefully
16 to these estimates of the length of trial, but it is quite obvious that we
17 should also take into account the state of health of General Strugar and
18 the length of trial will partly depend on that, I imagine, as well. It is
19 moot as to how long he will be able to sit per day, per week, so I think
20 that everything is relative, as far as that is concerned. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm fully aware of that, and you will
22 understand that it's on the basis of this that I started already with two
23 scenarios. And of course, if needed, third or fourth scenario should be
24 developed, but that of course is not something we could do at this very
1 This brings us in more general terms to the health of you,
2 Mr. Strugar. At an earlier moment I dealt with your health mainly in
3 terms of how they would influence the procedure. But I'd like to hear
4 from you how you feel at this moment, how you experience personally your
5 health situation.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I must tell you: It's very hard for
7 me to say this, but I'm not well. Let me tell you: It's only now, in
8 hospital, that I found out that I have three vertebrae in the neck that
9 are damaged. One of them was crushed. When this happened, there was a
10 war on, and I had neither the time nor the inclination to put myself into
11 the hands of doctors, for them to see what my state of health was. I went
12 back to the front line from Belgrade and I suffered all these problems for
13 three months I was barely able to turn around, except sitting on a chair.
14 Now I can see that this was fatal for me. My problems with my neck
15 vertebrae are very great indeed. I apologise for using very simple words,
16 but very often I'm nauseous, I have pain in my shoulders, in my neck
17 arteries. I feel constantly sleepy and apathetic. I lack energy. And
18 this is bothering me even more than my hips, my prostate, and my kidneys,
19 and so on.
20 So this is what is bothering me most at the moment. At the same
21 time, I am conscious of the fact that I must survive and that I must be
22 here, at my age, and the position I held. And yet, I have started losing
23 my memory very quickly. I forget what I said just a moment ago. And
24 because of this, I feel depressed; this gets on my nerves. So when you
25 ask me about my health, my health at present is poor.
1 It's also poor because this is the second time that I have
2 interrupted a therapy that was started. The first time I did this because
3 I wanted to respond as a human being and as a soldier, and come here as
4 soon as possible, so I did not complete my treatment. Now I started my
5 treatment before I received the summons. I was referred to the doctors on
6 the 11th of November. I was hospitalised on the 24th. I received the
7 summons from The Hague on the 27th. With very great respect, I ask you to
8 take this into consideration. I have now interrupted my therapy for only
9 one reason, and that is to remain myself. I wish to have this over with
10 and to tell the Court what it is my duty to say, so that the Court may
11 reach its decision. But this is emotionally hard for me. I am an old
12 person, so I find this very hard. When you ask me how I am, I have to
13 tell you that I am also emotionally moved because of all this.
14 I do apologise for speaking at such length, but my overall
15 condition is poor.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Strugar. There is no need to
17 apologise for taking some time for what is an important issue, and that
18 is, how you feel and how you personally experience your health.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am a bit emotional, Your Honour,
20 and I regret this. I'm angry at myself for being so emotional. I would
21 like to be calm and composed, but I can't be. Do you understand me?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I fully understand, and I also understand that
23 for someone your age, it is not an easy thing to appear before a court,
24 with the expectation that you have to stand trial. I fully understand
25 that that's not easy and that it brings --
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Absolutely.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there any other thing the Defence would like
3 to raise at this moment?
4 MR. RODIC: [No interpretation]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Rodic.
6 Mr. Weiner, is there anything the Prosecution would like to raise
7 at this moment?
8 MR. WEINER: Yes. I just wanted to advise the Court that I had
9 spoken with the legal officers on behalf of Chambers this morning, and
10 they asked me to address a few of these issues, and I'll do this very
11 quickly. What we were looking for is some of the so-called ground rules
12 for the trial, to have some idea what the Chamber was -- how the Chamber
13 viewed different matters and situations. For example, we're interested on
14 the new Chamber's views on objections. Some Chambers do not like or do
15 not care for objections and do not want them. We're also, assuming they
16 will allow objections, what about objections during opening and closing
17 statements? I know even the Chambers that allow free objections or open
18 objections, they do not allow them during opening and closing statements.
19 What about the Rules on redirect or re-cross-examination? Some
20 Chambers allow examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and redirect, and
21 then in their discretion, re-cross-examination. We'd be interested in
22 some sort of idea where this Chamber would be heading.
23 Are there any special rules for cross-examination?
24 JUDGE ORIE: What do you mean by special rules? I would say the
25 ordinary rules for cross-examination, such as leading questions allowed.
1 MR. WEINER: Yes. Leading questions allowed. I know some
2 Chambers are uncomfortable with it. I come from a jurisdiction that
3 that's all we use pretty much in cross-examination are leading questions.
4 Will there be time limits on cross-examination? I know some Chambers do
6 Also, down in the future, may the Prosecution interview Defence
7 witnesses prior to their testimony?
8 And then the last issue, which could -- that could affect the
9 number of witnesses is the issue of authentication. As you know, the rule
10 of authentication here in this Tribunal is actually the Rules favour
11 admissibility and that the issue of authentication goes more to the weight
12 as opposed to admissibility. Will that be the policy followed by this
13 Chamber or will we have to make adjustments to our list of witnesses and
14 have to bring in chain of custody witnesses?
15 JUDGE ORIE: In general terms, I would say that I'll pass this
16 list of very specific, brief questions to the new Chamber, and I think
17 that the Chamber could provide you with guidance in that respect. I only
18 make one observation in respect of your last question, that is, about
19 authentication of documents.
20 This Tribunal is not a Tribunal where a jury sits, but there are
21 professional Judges assessing the probative value of the evidence. In
22 such a system, a more liberal approach to authentication issues may be
23 expected. That's the only thing I would like to say at this moment. But
24 I have written down the list, and the questions are simple and clear, and
25 I'm quite convinced that the answers you will get, or the guidance you
1 will get, will be as simple and as clear. I can imagine that the new
2 Chamber, if the trial would start tomorrow, would not find time yet before
3 the opening statement of the Prosecution to give an answer to all your
4 questions, but I'm sure that in due course you'll get the guidance you
6 MR. WEINER: Thank you very much.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Since there are no other issues on the agenda, I'd
8 like to bring the following to the attention of the parties: A motion has
9 been filed asking for the examination of -- medical examination in more
10 detail of Mr. Strugar. A decision on that motion will be given by the new
11 Trial Chamber. And although the motion has not asked for a postponement
12 of the trial as such - at least I do not find that's one of the decisions
13 that the motion seeks to be taken - I have considered whether, on the
14 basis of this motion, I would have to decide at this moment that the start
15 of the trial to be postponed. On the basis of the medical examination
16 submitted to me, and on the basis of my personal impression during this
17 hearing, and on the basis of the earlier submissions in writing by
18 Mr. Strugar to me, I find at this moment no reason to postpone the start
19 of the trial which is scheduled for tomorrow.
20 I will, however, suggest to the new Trial Chamber that since there
21 are only a few days left to sit in this week, and that we'll have a recess
22 then, I'll suggest to the new Trial Chamber, perhaps in order to seek
23 confirmation of my opinion, because it's not that much a decision, since
24 you have not asked any specific decision in this respect, but my decision,
25 or at least my position that I'm not going to order the postponement of
1 the trial to start tomorrow. I'll suggest to the new Trial Chamber to see
2 whether there will be an opportunity during the recess of three weeks,
3 whether it's possible to get additional information on the health
4 situation of Mr. Strugar; and if that information would clearly show that
5 I took a wrong decision by not postponing or by not taking any decision on
6 the postponement of the start of the trial tomorrow, the new
7 Trial Chamber, of course, could draw the consequences out of such a
8 mistake. But at this moment, I find no reason to decide that the start of
9 the trial will be postponed.
10 We stay adjourned until tomorrow at -- Madam Registrar, in
11 courtroom --
12 THE REGISTRAR: 12.00 in Courtroom II, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: 12.00 in Courtroom II.
14 --- Whereupon the Pre-Trial Conference
15 adjourned at 6.07 p.m.