Page 48

 1                          Tuesday, 20 June 2006

 2                          [Open session]

 3                          [Status Conference]

 4                          [The accused not present]

 5                          --- Upon commencing at 6.00 p.m.

 6            JUDGE THELIN:  Good evening.  Could we have the case called

 7    please.

 8            THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  This is the case number

 9    IT-04-79-PT, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic.

10            JUDGE THELIN:  Thank you.  And for the record, representation.

11    Prosecution.

12            MS. RICHTEROVA:  Good afternoon, Your Honour.  Anna Richterova for

13    the Prosecution, accompanied by Diana Dicklich, case manager.

14            JUDGE THELIN:  Thank you very much.  And for the accused.

15            MR. BEZBRADICA:  Good evening, Your Honour.  Stevo Bezbradica, the

16    counsel for the accused, Mico Stanisic.

17            JUDGE THELIN:  Thank you very much.

18            Well, as the parties are well aware, this is a regular Status

19    Conference.  We are obliged to hold one every 120 days, and the last one

20    was held on the 15th of February, 2006.  And it is according to the Rules

21    to see to it that the case is handled with an eye to be efficient and to

22    make sure that it is as soon as possible ready for trial.

23            In this case your client is on provisional release, and I take it,

24    Mr. Bezbradica, that there are no indications as to any problems in

25    connection with that.  As far as the Chamber is aware, the conditions are

Page 49

 1    fulfilled as required.

 2            MR. BEZBRADICA:  That's correct.  At this stage in my

 3    communication with him, I don't have any trouble.

 4            JUDGE THELIN:  Thank you.  And you have also assured me that you

 5    do not have any problems in communicating with your client.

 6            MR. BEZBRADICA:  No, Your Honour.

 7            JUDGE THELIN:  Thank you.

 8            Yesterday in preparation for this Status Conference, I met with

 9    counsel and Prosecution in order to fulfill the requirements of Rule 65

10    ter (D), and the discussion we had yesterday obviously need not to be

11    repeated today.  Suffice it to say at this stage that we took note of the

12    pending motion from counsel regarding an extension for the times indicated

13    in the existing work plan, an issue that we will deal with shortly, and

14    also substantially actually dealt with yesterday.  But the discussion, I

15    think for the record, should be noted at yesterday's meeting was with a

16    focus and an aim to encourage the Prosecution to focus on core issues and

17    consider to reduce the number of crime bases and/or counts in the

18    indictment, and equally so to encourage the Defence to agree to facts

19    proposed by the Prosecution and also to take note of adjudicated facts put

20    forward by the Prosecutor eventually.  And the result, as I said, of that

21    discussion will be reflected in the existing work plan with modifications

22    to follow.

23            Let me, before I go into that, remind the parties of what has

24    happened formally within the existing work plan.  As had been noted

25    before, the Prosecution has fulfilled its requirement regarding disclosure

Page 50

 1    under Rule 66(A)(i), which happened already on April 18th, 2005.  So that

 2    was something that was taken note of before.  Since the last Status

 3    Conference, the Prosecution has also, on the 8th of May, notified the

 4    Chamber of its compliance with Rule 66(A)(ii), and that was nearly in

 5    compliance with the work plan, it was a mere week after the requirement.

 6    The requirement was in April 2006.

 7            The -- I am well aware that counsel has been recently appointed to

 8    his new role here, that happened on the 5th of May, 2006, and also the

 9    fact that you were given the material from the previous counsel as late as

10    the 9th of June, has put you in a position whereby you feel the need to

11    have an extension and a modification of the existing work plan.  As

12    indicated yesterday, the Pre-Trial Judge is minded to grant your motion in

13    that respect only partially.  And as a consequence of that, I will now,

14    for the record, and for the parties' attention, lay down the new work plan

15    and the new times to be observed within that work plan.

16            And they are as follows:  The Prosecution is to file a motion on

17    adjudicated facts not later than the 31st of August, 2006.  The Defence is

18    to file a notification on alibi or any special defence according to

19    Rule 67(A) not later than the 31st of July this year.  That is an

20    extension according to the work plan that should have happened a month

21    earlier, so that is where the partial granting of your motion comes in,

22    counsel.

23            The question of agreed facts, i.e. Rule 65 ter (H), the

24    finalisation of a discussion on this topic is to be had not later than the

25    31st of August, 2006.  The Defence is obliged to file a response to the

Page 51

 1    motion on adjudicated facts not later than the 15th of September, 2006.  A

 2    Scheduling Order relating to pre-trial briefs and Pre-Trial Conference is

 3    to be held in September this year.  The Prosecution is to file its

 4    pre-trial brief, according to Rule 65 ter (E), not later than the 1st of

 5    November, 2006.  And the pre-trial brief from the Defence, Rule 65 ter

 6    (F), is to be filed on the 1st of December, 2006.

 7            Dates regarding Pre-Trial Conference, Rule 73 bis, and the start

 8    of the trial, are dates to be determined later.

 9            Are there, regarding this new work plan, any questions from

10    counsel?

11            MR. BEZBRADICA:  Your Honour, only I would like to ask you for a

12    semi-clarification.

13            As you said yesterday, you mentioned that the OTP should reduce

14    indictment.  I just wondering is it necessary to put there some dead-line

15    for that.  It would be good for us if we have some kind of dead-line for

16    that before we start to write pre-trial brief about everything.  It will

17    be easier for us if I know that some charge are dropped or something like

18    that.  There is no need for me to looking for some witness or something,

19    and only if you can discuss something in respect of this with the OTP.

20            Thanks.

21            JUDGE THELIN:  Thank you, Mr. Bezbradica.  I understand your

22    question.  But as you also may recall from yesterday, we have not yet

23    reached any stage nearly where the Chamber is directing the Prosecution to

24    reduce or cull its case.  It is merely at this stage encouraging the

25    Prosecution to do so.  And the anticipation from the Pre-Trial Chamber is

Page 52

 1    that that will be reflected not only in the notification of adjudicated

 2    facts, which the Prosecution will put forward according to the dead-line

 3    just mentioned, but also in the proposal and agreed facts on which you and

 4    your client will have to react.  So this is too early to consider any time

 5    regarding the obligation of the Prosecution vis-a-vis the indictment,

 6    other than what has been stated in the work plan regarding adjudicated

 7    facts and agreed facts.  So it's incumbent upon you with the dialogue with

 8    the Prosecution to as early as possible find out whether this

 9    encouragement from the Pre-Trial Chamber has borne fruit or not.  And I

10    think that meets also with the understanding of the Prosecution.

11            MS. RICHTEROVA:  Exactly, Your Honour, because once we have

12    decision on adjudicated facts then we can reduce the crime -- number of

13    crime base on which we have to led evidence in court.  It means we do not

14    really drop any crime base, because this crime base can be either agreed,

15    can -- fall within the scope of agreed facts or adjudicated facts.

16            JUDGE THELIN:  Thank you.

17            That means that when we come, Mr. Bezbradica, to mid-September,

18    the clarity regarding the scope of the indictment and how far we have

19    reached will be evident for all of us.

20            And let me, on this, since there seems now to be clarity regarding

21    the work plan, indicate to the parties that the next 65 ter meeting and

22    the Status Conference will be held in September, obviously in later part

23    of September, and a Scheduling Order regarding this will follow in due

24    course.

25            Well, that was the sum of the issues that I intended to raise at

Page 53

 1    this Status Conference.  And I will now -- would like formally to inquire

 2    whether the Prosecution or counsel would like to raise any other matter.

 3            MS. RICHTEROVA:  I do not have any matters to raise.  Only when at

 4    the beginning you mentioned that the Prosecution filed on 8 May the

 5    notification of compliance with Rule 66(A)(ii), you mentioned that it was

 6    one week after, I just want to clarify that at that day we only notified

 7    Your Honour that we -- we met our dead-line and we disclosed all of our

 8    material by 28 of April.  So we met our dead-line, which was end of April.

 9            JUDGE THELIN:  Ms. Richterova, I stand not only corrected but

10    humbled by this clarification.  Indeed you're right, the Prosecution did

11    meet its requirement, and it was -- the date you referred to was only a

12    notification of that fact.  So thank you for correcting me on that point.

13    And this should be a guiding line for all that, so far, dead-lines have

14    been met, and it is the anticipation of the Pre-Trial Chamber that future

15    dead-lines indeed will be met as well.

16            Now, formally do you have anything else to offer on the part of

17    your client or yourself on the matter?

18            MR. BEZBRADICA:  No, Your Honour, I don't have any further issue

19    to raise today.  Thanks.

20            JUDGE THELIN:  Thank you very much.

21            And that being the case, we are now adjourned.

22                          --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at

23                          6.13 p.m.

24

25