Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 66

1 Tuesday, 11th January, 2000

2 [Status Conference]

3 [Open Session]

4 --- Upon commencing at 11.00 a.m.

5 JUDGE HUNT: As you are here, it may be a

6 good idea if we treat this as a Status Conference so

7 that time will commence for the next one as from

8 today. If there's anything you wish to raise, you are

9 welcome to do so. If you think of something later, not

10 having received any warning of this, then certainly you

11 may make an application by the way of motion in the

12 usual way.

13 At the present time, General Talic is

14 proceeding with his application for a separate trial,

15 and the English translation of his document arrived

16 this morning. Hopefully now that the vacation is over,

17 the translation services will be able to keep up with

18 their promise to do these matters speedily.

19 The other matter which is outstanding,

20 though, from the point of view of General Talic is his

21 motion to dismiss the previous indictment. Are you

22 able to say, Mr. Pitron, whether you propose to proceed

23 with that, in some way transposing it to the amended

24 indictment, or are you in a position where you realise

25 that you are unlikely to get very far with it?

Page 67

1 MR. PITRON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I

2 have three things that I wish to say in relation to

3 this question.

4 The first is the following: First of all, I

5 have not received a French translation yet of the

6 document dated the 5th of January, 2000 requesting me

7 to state whether I wish to continue with my motion

8 related to the first indictment. So I read the

9 document of the 5th of January, I read it in the

10 English language, and if I understood it correctly, it

11 seemed to me that you were asking me to continue, for

12 the motion to proceed, that is.

13 My second objection would be the following:

14 I am in a bit of an embarrassing position because now I

15 really do not know whether the amended indictment fully

16 annuls and replaces the previous indictment, or is it

17 simply an addition to the previous indictment? Of

18 course, depending on that, that is to say, whether the

19 first indictment should be taken into account or not,

20 my position will have to be based on that.

21 My third point: In view of your document

22 dated the 5th of January, 2000, you are asking me to

23 tell you whether I shall proceed in connection with the

24 rulings of the Appeals Chamber in the Brdjanin case. I

25 believe that it is not for me to personally state my

Page 68

1 views on that which this Tribunal has to say in the

2 Talic case in relation to what the Tribunal concluded

3 in the Brdjanin case. So I abide by my first motion

4 related to the first indictment. Thank you.

5 JUDGE HUNT: Well, in answer to your first

6 question, if you understood that document, albeit in

7 the English version, as inviting you to continue, that

8 is wrong. All that the Trial Chamber was asking was

9 whether you intended to proceed.

10 As to your second point, the amended

11 indictment does, indeed, replace the original

12 indictment. The original indictment is no longer

13 relevant to the trial.

14 As to your third statement, I'm not sure

15 whether you are saying that you do not wish to state

16 your own views or whether your own views are you wish

17 to proceed. So I suggest we wait until you have

18 received a French translation of the document of the

19 5th of January. I assure you all it is doing is asking

20 you whether you wish to proceed and to let us know

21 within a certain time. It also states that if you do

22 not do so within that time, then the motion will be

23 dismissed.

24 My own view, for what it's worth, or my own

25 suggestion to you, for what it's worth, is that it

Page 69

1 would be preferable for you to start with a fresh

2 motion. So different now is the indictment to that

3 which was originally filed, it would be much cleaner

4 from your own point of view and from the Trial

5 Chamber's point of view if you brought a fresh

6 application so that we know precisely what the

7 objection to the indictment is. That, however, is only

8 a suggestion but it is one which I think you should

9 take some note of.

10 Now, are there any other matters that any

11 party wishes to raise?

12 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Ackerman.

14 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I just need to

15 bring to the Court's attention at the first opportunity

16 a document that was filed on the 10th of January by the

17 Prosecutor entitled "Confidential Motion for Protective

18 Measures," and I don't know if this should be done in

19 public session or not. I'm going to talk about that

20 motion a bit. I don't know if it's appropriate to do

21 it in --

22 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Mr. Ackerman, you have the

23 advantage over me. I don't have that document. It

24 hasn't found its way into any of the Judges' chambers.

25 What is it, Mr. Keegan? Is it something

Page 70

1 that's likely to be of some dispute?

2 MR. KEEGAN: Well, I would assume from

3 Mr. Ackerman's posture that it probably will be, Your

4 Honour. The motion, in essence, requests, I would say,

5 what are the usual protective measures requested by the

6 Prosecution at the beginning of any case, and in

7 particular the confidentiality measures with respect to

8 witnesses at this early stage of the proceedings. It

9 was submitted yesterday to put the Defence on notice,

10 because we have today the supportive materials for the

11 amended indictment to provide to each counsel after

12 this hearing, with the index. There's an attached

13 letter again notifying of this motion and requesting

14 that they respect the protective measures requested in

15 the motion until such time as the Chamber has ruled on

16 that motion.

17 In light of that, the witness statements, as

18 they will receive them, have identification material

19 redacted until such time as there is a ruling by the

20 Chamber.

21 Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. It seems to me,

23 Mr. Ackerman, it may be preferable for this to proceed

24 in the usual way. You have a right to be heard, but it

25 would be preferable, I think, if it was done in

Page 71

1 writing. It's a matter where there is usually, if

2 there is any debate at all, a debate which will reveal,

3 to some extent, the concerns which the Prosecution

4 has. That should never be done in public.

5 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I don't intend to

6 do any such thing in public, and I have very little

7 objection to what the Prosecutor -- or, in fact, no

8 objection to what the Prosecutor characterises as the

9 usual protective measures. However, this document

10 contains some unusual language that I find a bit

11 scurrilous and a bit offensive.

12 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Mr. Ackerman, I think

13 before you go any further, I don't have the document,

14 you can't even refer me to a page or to a paragraph.

15 If you have some objection to the language, I suggest

16 that you either contact the Prosecution directly, which

17 would probably be the best way, if it's something which

18 can be cured. If it can't be cured, then you should

19 put a response on and we'll deal with it in the usual

20 way.

21 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I'm satisfied

22 that no one can now claim that I didn't attempt to

23 raise it at the first opportunity. Thank you.

24 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sure we have all been aware

25 of that. Thank you.

Page 72

1 Is there anything else?

2 All right, then. I'll treat this as a Status

3 Conference for the purposes of the relevant Rule, and

4 the time will commence to run again from today. I

5 repeat that if anything arises which any party wishes

6 to bring to the attention of the Trial Chamber, they

7 may do so in the usual way.

8 Thank you for your attendance.

9 --- Whereupon the Status Conference

10 adjourned at 11.07 a.m., sine die.