Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 37

 1                           Wednesday, 5 December 2012

 2                           [Status Conference]

 3                           [Open session]

 4                           [The appellant entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.36 a.m.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good morning, everybody.  My apologies for starting

 7     a little bit late, but we had a technical problem in one of the

 8     interpretation booths which has now been fixed, and so we can proceed.

 9             Madam Registrar, could you kindly call the case, please.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honour.  This is case number

11     IT-05-87/1-A, the Prosecutor versus Vlastimir Djordjevic.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Appearances starting with the

13     Prosecution first.

14             MS. GOPALAN:  Good morning, Your Honour.  We have for the

15     Prosecution Priya Gopalan, together with Kyle Wood and our Case Manager,

16     Colin Nawrot.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you very much.  And appearances for the

18     Defence.

19             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.  The

20     Defence counsel consists this morning of

21     Dragoljub Djordjevic [as interpreted] and Veljko Djurdjic.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Before we proceed I want to make sure

23     that interpretation in a language that everyone can understand is being

24     received, particularly I'm concerned with you, Mr. Djordjevic.  I want to

25     make sure that you are able to follow the proceedings in a language that

Page 38

 1     you understand.

 2             THE APPELLANT: [Interpretation] Everything is okay.  I can follow

 3     the proceedings.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.

 5             This Status Conference is called in accordance with Rule 65 bis

 6     of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of this Tribunal.  Rule 65 bis(B)

 7     requires a Status Conference to be convened within 120 days after the

 8     filing of a notice of appeal and thereafter within 120 days after the

 9     last Status Conference.  The reason for this is to give an opportunity to

10     any person in custody pending appeal the opportunity to raise any issue

11     in relation thereto, including, of course, issues relating to the mental

12     and physical condition of that person.

13             In the present case, the parties filed their notices of appeal on

14     24th May 2011, and the first Status Conference was held on 30th May 2011.

15     The second, third, fourth, and fifth Status Conferences were held on

16     21st September 2011, 16th January 2012, 11th May 2012, and

17     23rd August 2012 respectively.  Today's Status Conference being the sixth

18     in this case was scheduled by an order issued by me on the

19     2nd November 2012.  The scheduling order was subsequently amended on

20     22nd November 2012.

21             I'll start with the first part of today's agenda dealing with

22     detention conditions and the health of Appellant Djordjevic, and I would

23     like, first of all, to inquire into the status of detention condition and

24     health situation.

25             Mr. Djordjevic, if you have any concerns in relation to the

Page 39

 1     conditions of your detention or your state of health I would invite you

 2     to raise then now.  Particularly in relation to health issues, if you

 3     prefer, if you have any, if you prefer this discussion can take place in

 4     private session.

 5             THE APPELLANT: [Interpretation] Thank you for your interest.

 6     Everything is all right both with regard to the conditions and my health.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you very much.

 8             Next item on the agenda deals with recent procedural history.

 9     Before we turn to any issues that the parties may wish to raise, I would

10     like to briefly set out the procedural history of this case.  This is

11     mainly done for the benefit of the public because, of course, the parties

12     know exactly what has been happening since the last Status Conference,

13     but the general public wouldn't know.

14             The parties will note that much of the procedural history I am

15     about to summarise will essentially be the same as that summarised during

16     the last Status Conference, and the parties will of course all be already

17     aware of all this information as I have just said.  However, as I have

18     mentioned at previous Status Conference, it is important also that the

19     public also be made aware of the background of the case and for that

20     reason I will repeat all the information here.

21             On the 11th of March, 2011, the parties were granted an extension

22     of time of 60 days to file their notices of appeal.  Both parties filed

23     their respective notices of appeal on 24th May 2011.  The Prosecution

24     presented two grounds of appeal, while Appellant Djordjevic presented 19

25     grounds of appeal.

Page 40

 1             On the 27th of May, 2011, the Djordjevic Defence filed a motion

 2     requesting an extension of time and word limit in respect of its appeal

 3     brief.  During the Status Conference held on 30th May, 2011, I extended

 4     the deadline for the filing of the appeal briefs by seven days, up to

 5     15th August 2011 for both parties.  In addition, I granted the

 6     Djordjevic Defence an extension of up to 15.000 words for its appeal

 7     brief and granted the Prosecution the same extension in respect of its

 8     brief in response.  Both parties punctually filed their appeal briefs on

 9     15th August 2011.

10             At the Status Conference held on the 21st of September 2011, the

11     Djordjevic Defence requested an extension of time of 15 days for the

12     filing of its reply brief as well as an extension of the word limit by

13     6.000 words.  I granted both parties an extension of time up to the

14     26th of October, 2011, for the filing of their briefs in reply and also

15     granted the Djordjevic Defence an extension of up to 3.000 words.  Both

16     parties filed their response briefs on the 26th of September, 2011, and

17     subsequently filed their reply briefs on the 26th of October, 2011.

18             The Prosecution filed a public redacted version of its appeal

19     brief on 17th August 2011.  On the 30th of September of last year, the

20     Djordjevic Defence filed its public redacted version.  This was later

21     withheld pending determination of a confidential motion filed on

22     24th September 2011 by the Prosecution in which it requested the

23     redaction of certain information from Djordjevic's appeal brief.  The

24     Djordjevic Defence filed its confidential response to the motion on

25     7th December 2011, and the Prosecution filed a confidential reply on

Page 41

 1     9th December, 2011.

 2             I issued a confidential decision on this matter in my capacity as

 3     Pre-Appeal Judge on the 20th of January, 2012.  In that decision, I

 4     granted the Prosecution motion in part and ordered, inter alia,

 5     Appellant Djordjevic to file a new public redacted version of his appeal

 6     brief incorporating one additional redaction.  Pursuant to that decision,

 7     Appellant Djordjevic refiled the public redacted version of this appeal,

 8     of his appeal brief, on the 23rd of January of this year.

 9             Both parties filed public redacted versions of their response

10     briefs on the 30th of January, 2012.  The Prosecution filed its public

11     redacted reply brief on the 8th of February, 2012, and

12     Appellant Djordjevic filed a notice of reclassification of his reply

13     brief on the 9th of February, 2012.

14             On the 7th of March of this year, President Theodor Meron issued

15     an order replacing a Judge in this case.  Pursuant to that order,

16     Judge Khalida Rachid Khan was assigned to the Bench in place of

17     Judge Fausto Pocar.  Another order replacing a Judge in this case was

18     issued by President Meron on the 27th September 2012.  Pursuant that

19     order Judge Patrick Robinson was assigned to the Bench in place of

20     Judge Liu Daqun.

21             Finally, on 17th October 2012, the translation of the trial

22     judgement into the B/C/S language was filed.  I issued an order on the

23     following day, that is 18th October 2012, setting the time limit to file

24     any motion seeking a variation of the grounds of appeal following

25     translation of the trial judgement.  Pursuant to that order, any such

Page 42

 1     motions were to be filed by no later than the 29th November 2012.

 2     Appellant Djordjevic filed a submission following translation of the

 3     trial judgement recently, precisely on the 29th of November, 2012.

 4             Having dealt with the procedural history, I would now deal with

 5     the last item on the agenda for today's Status Conference, namely issues

 6     that the parties may wish to raise.  I will start with the Prosecution.

 7             Are there any issues that you would like to raise?

 8             MS. GOPALAN:  Yes, Your Honour.  We do have one matter to

 9     address, and this is in relation to Mr. Djordjevic's submission following

10     the translation of his trial judgement which Your Honour mentioned was

11     filed on the 29th of November.  The Prosecution understands from the

12     submission that Mr. Djordjevic does not seek to vary his grounds of

13     appeal.  We do not consider that the submissions supplement the argument

14     that Mr. Djordjevic has already made in the previous appellate filings or

15     that these submissions provide any additional authorities, Your Honour.

16             Accordingly, we do not anticipate having to file any written

17     submission in response.  Our position is that our written submissions are

18     already before the Chamber, and we consider from our viewpoint that the

19     case has been fully briefed.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you very much.

21             Defence counsel, do you have any submissions, in particular in

22     response to what you have just heard?

23             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours, and we also

24     don't want to raise any other issues.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  That, I think, concludes today's

Page 43

 1     Status Conference.  I thank the parties for their attendance and the

 2     staff, technical, clerical, whatever, for their work, and particularly

 3     the technicians who managed to solve the problem in a few minutes.

 4             We stand adjourned.  Thank you.

 5                           --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned

 6                           at 9.51 a.m.