Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 194

 1                           Wednesday, 9 July 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [Pre-Trial Conference]

 4                           [The accused entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Will the registrar please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning,

 8     everybody in the courtroom.  This is case number IT-98-32/1-PT, the

 9     Prosecutor versus Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic.

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Appearances, please.

11             MR. GROOME:  Good morning, Your Honours.  For the Prosecution I

12     am Dermot Groome, I am accompanied by Frederic Ossogo, Adam Weber and our

13     case manager today is Sebastian van Hooydonk and we are also assisted by

14     an intern by the name of Solmaz Firoz.

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  And for the Defence of Milan Lukic?

16             MR. ALARID:  Good morning, Your Honours, Jason Alarid appearing

17     on behalf of Mr. Milan Lukic who is present in Court.  I am also present

18     by legal assistant, Maria O'Leary, my case manager, Vladimir Rasic, and

19     another legal assistant, Mihailo Lakcevic.

20             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You're very well resourced, Mr. Alarid.

21             MR. ALARID:  I think so, thank you, sir.

22             JUDGE ROBINSON:  And for the accused Sredoje Lukic.

23             MR. CEPIC:  Good morning, Your Honour.  Good morning, Your

24     Honours.  I'm Djuro Cepic, Defence counsel for Mr. Sredoje Lukic

25     appearing with me on my left-hand side my learned friend,

Page 195

 1     Mr. Jens Dieckmann, as a co-counsel, behind us on my left-hand side is

 2     our legal assistant Ms. Christina Kerll, behind me is our case manager

 3     Ms. Sladjana Marjanovic.

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thank you.  We have a busy day ahead of us.  We

 5     are going to begin with the Pre-Trial Conference.  Then there will be a

 6     break.  Thereafter will follow the opening statements and, if possible,

 7     the calling of witnesses.  On my list I have several issues to deal with

 8     and I begin with the disclosure and translation matters.  During the

 9     status conference on the 12th of June, the Prosecution informed the

10     Chamber that translations for a number of documents were still pending.

11     May I ask, Mr. Groome, what is the status in relation to these

12     translations?

13             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, all translations now have been provided

14     to the Defence.

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, and since you're on your feet you may as

16     well answer this question.  It relates to the photograph spreadsheets

17     that could not be located.

18             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, as I've stated in prior occasions, the

19     Prosecution cannot find those spreadsheets -- those photo spreads.  There

20     is nothing has changed since the last time I reported that to the

21     Chamber.

22             JUDGE ROBINSON:  What's the consequence of that?

23             MR. GROOME:  Well, Your Honour, there are many of the photo

24     spreads have been disclosed with respect to particular witnesses.  I

25     recognise to the extent that witnesses are called and the Prosecution is

Page 196

 1     unable to produce the photo spreads that they were shown, that is going

 2     to be a matter for the Chamber to consider in assessing the credibility

 3     and the reliability of that witness.  It is not all witnesses, Your

 4     Honour.  It is some witnesses that are shown several photo spreads and

 5     those photo spreads cannot be located now.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid, did you want to say something?

 7             MR. ALARID:  No, sir.

 8             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Any other disclosure matters to be raised by

 9     either party?  If not, I move to agreed facts.  I understand that

10     negotiations are still ongoing and I'd like to find out the status of

11     those negotiations.

12             Mr. Groome and then Mr. Alarid.

13             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, Mr. Ossogo has been taking personal

14     charge of this aspect of the case, and I'd ask him to address the

15     Chamber.

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

17             MR. OSSOGO:  [Interpretation] Your Honour, before we reported

18     before you on February 29th, 2008, the -- what we said to the Defence as

19     regards the possibility of agreeing on a number of facts, we have not

20     received a response from the Defence.  We know, however, that they have

21     only admitted four of the facts amongst the 79, and they have indicated

22     that after they completed their investigations, in particular as regards

23     a number of witnesses, they may contact us again.  So we have not

24     received any counterproposal on the part of the Defence in order to be

25     able to continue these negotiations.  That is the present state of

Page 197

 1     affairs as regards our negotiations.  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thank you.  Mr. Alarid?

 3             MR. ALARID:  Yes, Your Honour, we are still in [Microphone not

 4     activated].

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 6             MR. ALARID:  I apologise.  Your Honour, we are still in the

 7     preliminary stages of investigation still.  We've opened an office.  We

 8     do have a good team in place but as the depth of the trial are kind of

 9     still in the distant forest we are really focusing on what's going to

10     start with in the next three days and the continued investigations and

11     our obligations for alibi witnesses and even just exculpatory evidence in

12     general.  We will attempt to -- I can see as I'm going through the facts,

13     going through the Vasiljevic transcripts, there are some facts that we

14     would be willing to agree on but I'm not in a position at the point of

15     opening to make those agreements at this juncture.

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid, it's a little late to be in a

17     preliminary stage of the trial starting today.

18             MR. ALARID:  I agree with that, and that has been the difficult

19     point of the situation as a total; and I know there has been problems

20     with counsel, those problems with counsel have transcended my entry into

21     this case.  As you know, I only came in as co-counsel in -- and was

22     appointed March 10th.  I was appointed lead counsel, and I've only been

23     lead counsel for three months.  My staff has only been in place for a few

24     weeks and that is the truth of my preparation.  I can't --

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Well, thank you, Mr. Alarid.  I warned you,

Page 198

 1     however, to move ahead with your work.

 2             MR. ALARID:  And we have been, Judge.  I'm as ready as I can be

 3     to proceed forward today.  It's not a matter of lack of diligence.  It's

 4     simply a matter of the resources available at the time.  For instance,

 5     Your Honour, our investigator still is not been appointed even though we

 6     requested him mid-June and so those are the kind of little things but

 7     they are big things when we have been racing to trial in such a manner.

 8             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Why has your investigator not been appointed?

 9             MR. ALARID:  It's still with the Registry, Your Honour.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid, that's a very serious matter, and

12     I'm going to ask the court deputy to bring to the attention of the

13     registrar the failure of the Registry to appoint an investigator for the

14     Defence.  It goes to the question of equality of arms and the registry

15     should see that the investigator is appointed as soon as possible so that

16     the Defence can proceed with its investigations.  This is normal, and it

17     should be done.

18                           [Trial chamber and legal officer confer]

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please speak into his microphone

20     when he takes the floor?  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  I now understand that the matter is in

22     hand and that the Registry is, in fact, proceeding with its own

23     investigations in relation to the candidate, so I expect that that will

24     be dealt with shortly.  If it is not, then please bring it to our

25     attention.

Page 199

 1             MR. ALARID:  I will, sir, thank you.

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  [Microphone not activated]

 3             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, your microphone.

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I'll say that again.  The Prosecution filed a

 5     motion on adjudicated facts, both accused persons have objected to the

 6     motion, and the Trial Chamber will give its decision in due course.

 7             In the motions that have been filed since the last Status

 8     Conference, the Defence has consistently -- that's the Defence for

 9     Milan Lukic, has consistently requested the Trial Chamber to reconsider

10     the date for the start of trial.  Insofar as that is a formal request, I

11     have to say that the Chamber is not at all convinced by the submissions

12     of the Defence and will not reconsider the date for the start of trial.

13             I move next to the question of alibi rebuttal witnesses.  The

14     Prosecution has indicated that it intends to call four witnesses to rebut

15     alibi evidence to be led during the Defence case.  Following the case law

16     of the Tribunal, these witnesses are to be called during the

17     Prosecution's case in chief.

18             I turn next to the issue of the time for the Prosecution case.

19     The Chamber notes that the Prosecution intends to present the evidence of

20     50 witnesses during an estimated 69 hours of examination-in-chief.  On

21     that matter, I make the following comments:  First, the Prosecution

22     estimates one hour for examination-in-chief for the witnesses it intends

23     to call pursuant to Rule 92 ter, but in accordance with the Tribunal

24     practice, 30 minutes will be allowed by the Chamber for these witnesses.

25     If the Prosecution requires more time, then it must make an application

Page 200

 1     to do so.

 2             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, may I address the Chamber on that

 3     issue?

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

 5             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, this case is somewhat different than

 6     other cases that are before the Tribunal, in that here we have the direct

 7     perpetrators of the crimes so in many cases these witnesses, they will be

 8     speaking about their observations of the two accused, what the accused

 9     did, which is very different than many of the other cases before the

10     Tribunal where that is not the case.

11             The Prosecution put forward its motions for 92 ter because we

12     think that there is great benefit in leading in written form evidence of

13     those witnesses with respect to background information and if that's not

14     directly related to the accused but so much of their evidence is going to

15     be directly related to their observations of the two accused and what

16     they did and their ability to recognise them, that I don't believe that

17     we can do that in 30 minutes.  I'm mindful the Chamber's concern of

18     running the case as efficiently as possible, but I don't believe I can

19     adequately lead evidence directly related to the accused in a blanket

20     ruling of 30 minutes.  And that's why I, in our filings, had estimated

21     the time that would take to lead the evidence with respect to those

22     witnesses would be an hour.  I think we would be able to do it within an

23     hour and use the 92 ter written evidence to deal with all the other

24     evidence not directly related to the accused.

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Well, let us see how we will get on, Mr. Groome,

Page 201

 1     as the case develops.  If it is necessary the Chamber will hear an

 2     application for more time.

 3             The second matter that I wish to raise is that in its filing of

 4     the 11th of April, on the 25th of April, the Prosecution limited the

 5     evidence of a number of witnesses, five of whom are still included on the

 6     witness list, to the matter of alibi rebuttal only.  However the

 7     summaries of these witnesses indicated that they are also expected to

 8     address other matters.  The Chamber expects the Prosecution to streamline

 9     the evidence of these witnesses so that their testimony is confined to

10     alibi, thereby reducing the time for examination-in-chief, and I'm to say

11     that in principle their evidence should not exceed one hour of

12     examination-in-chief.  We have also found examples of cumulative

13     evidence.

14             The Prosecution intends to provide evidence of 15 witnesses

15     addressing the Bikavac incident.  12 of them are to provide their

16     evidence in court, including three witnesses who will provide evidence in

17     rebuttal of the alibi defence.  Again, the Trial Chamber expects the

18     Prosecution to streamline the evidence of these witnesses so as to

19     minimise any accumulation of evidence.  20 witnesses are to testify on

20     both acts charged in the indictment, as well as acts not explicitly

21     charged.  This is so-called background evidence.  Of those 20 witnesses,

22     nine are to testify exclusively in relation to acts not charged in the

23     indictment.

24             Now, the language used in the indictment with respect to the

25     crime of persecutions shows that the crimes with which the accused are

Page 202

 1     charged are those that have been described explicitly in the indictment.

 2     The Trial Chamber takes the view that paragraph 4 of the indictment lists

 3     the underlying persecutory acts exhaustively, consequently no finding of

 4     guilt will be made against the accused for crimes constituting

 5     persecutory acts not explicitly listed in the paragraph -- in that

 6     paragraph.  It is true that evidence regarding non-indicted crimes may be

 7     relevant to a number of issues, for example the existence of an armed

 8     conflict, the question of a widespread and systematic attack on a

 9     civilian population and possibly the issue of discriminatory intents on

10     the parts of the accused, but it does not appear to the Trial Chamber

11     necessary that so many witnesses are called to testify exclusively on

12     these non-indicted crimes.  Their evidence will be cumulative to the

13     evidence presented by witnesses called to give evidence regarding the

14     crimes described in the indictment.  The Trial Chamber will therefore

15     only allow three of these witnesses to testify.

16             The Prosecution will be allowed to present the evidence of 45

17     witnesses.  Bearing in mind the possibilities for reduction of

18     examination-in-chief that I have just mentioned, it is in the interests

19     of justice that the Prosecution present its evidence within 60 hours.

20     This amount of time reflects the time available for examination-in-chief

21     of the witnesses.  Generally each accused will be allowed 60 per cent of

22     the time for examination-in-chief for its cross-examination, but

23     applications may be made for an extension of that time.  Allowing some

24     time for procedural and administrative matters, the Prosecution case is

25     expected to conclude on Thursday, the 9th of October.

Page 203

 1             I turn next to pending motions.  We have a number of motions, and

 2     the decision on those motions will be given in a timely manner.  There

 3     is, however, one motion that I'd like to mention.  It is the

 4     Prosecution's sixth motion for protective measures filed on the 27th of

 5     July.  We could dispose of this matter, Mr. Alarid.  We are awaiting a

 6     response from Milan Lukic.  It is due on the 11th of July, but if you are

 7     in a position now or later today to let us know what your position is, it

 8     could be disposed of.  The Defence of Sredoje Lukic has notified the

 9     Chamber that it will not respond.

10             MR. ALARID:  We would not be objecting to the protective

11     measures, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thank you.  On the 65 ter witness list, the

13     Prosecution has listed a number of witnesses with their full name as well

14     as a pseudonym, but no protective measures have been granted to these

15     witnesses, so I have to ask the Prosecution to clarify whether it intends

16     to apply for those measures.

17             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, it would depend upon the specific

18     witness, if I could have an opportunity to review the witnesses that the

19     Chamber specifically referring to, I would be in a position later on

20     today to address the Chamber on which of those witnesses we will be

21     applying for protective measures.  There is a motion that we are filing

22     later on today, I'm just reviewing a draft this morning, where we will be

23     seeking protective measures for several additional witnesses, perhaps

24     that will resolve the question that the Chamber is posing.

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, well, it may very well do that.  Thanks.

Page 204

 1             In light of the many changes to the witness list, the Trial

 2     Chamber will order the Prosecution to file a new and comprehensive

 3     witness list in accordance with the Trial Chamber's decisions on the

 4     list.  The list is to contain the full names of the witnesses, with the

 5     correct spelling.  Insofar as witnesses are seeking or have been granted

 6     protective measures, this information is to be included in the witness

 7     list, including the exact date that such measures were sought or granted.

 8             The parties are to provide a list of witnesses every Thursday,

 9     and the Chamber will issue a more detailed order in relation to this

10     matter.

11             I want to deal with the notice required in relation to alibi

12     witnesses.  This is a matter that concerns you, Mr. Alarid.  Rule 67

13     provides that the Defence must notify the Prosecutor of its intent to

14     offer the defence of alibi.  If it does, the notification must specify

15     the place or places at which the accused claims to have been present at

16     the time of the alleged crime and the names and addresses of witnesses

17     and any other evidence upon which the accused intends to rely to

18     establish the alibi.

19             The Prosecution has for some time now been complaining that you

20     have not provided sufficient notice and, indeed, the Pre-Trial Judge has

21     ordered that more specific information be provided.  I'm now going to

22     order that the Defence of Milan Lukic provide, by the 18th of July,

23     that's next week Friday, the following information:  The place or places

24     at which the accused claims to have been present at the time of the

25     alleged crime, that's the first thing; secondly, the names and addresses

Page 205

 1     of witnesses, that is to say the witnesses whom you intend to call to

 2     substantiate the alibi; and thirdly, any other evidence on which you're

 3     going to rely to substantiate the alibi.  And you are to do this in

 4     relation to the following incidents:  The Drina River incident the 7th of

 5     June 1992; the Varda factory incident of the 10th of June 1992; the

 6     Pionirska Street incident, the 14th and 15th of June 1992; the Bikavac

 7     incident, the 27th of June 1992; the Uzamnica barracks incident, August

 8     1992 to October 1994; and you're also to provide notice in relation to

 9     Mokra Gora.  You are to say how that exhibit relates to alibi in relation

10     to the individual incidents alleged in the indictment and also to

11     identify any witnesses that you intend to call in this respect.

12             This is a requirement of the rules.  And it is therefore a very

13     good reason.  If it is not provided, adverse consequences may flow from

14     that.  Mr. Groome, you're on your feet?

15             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour, there are several matters related

16     to alibi which I must raise with the Chamber.  Firstly some of the

17     reasons why the rule is there is not only to give the Prosecution an

18     adequate opportunity to investigate the alibi, but it's also to put the

19     accused on record as to where he is.  The Chamber now has ordered that he

20     must provide alibi by notice by July 18th but that puts me in the

21     position now of opening and actually calling a witness to the Drina River

22     incident and giving Mr. Lukic an opportunity hear this testimony,

23     cross-examine this testimony and then after the fact fashion an alibi as

24     to where he was that best conforms to what he believes the Chamber will

25     find credible about this witness.  I believe that is manifestly unfair to

Page 206

 1     the Prosecution, and I'm going to request at the very least that the

 2     Chamber before I give the opening, ask Mr. Alarid to go into the back

 3     with Mr. Lukic and at least with respect to the Drina River, at this

 4     stage he must -- he must know where he was, he must know the name of the

 5     person who he says he's was with.  He's identified him as a Muslim person

 6     who he knows.

 7             So I'm asking the Court to require him, before I open, before the

 8     first witness of the Drina River testifies here today, to at least state

 9     on the record where he was, the name of the witness and as much of the

10     information that he has with respect to the witness's address that he

11     has.  So at least there is some memorialization of what his case is prior

12     to the taking of evidence.

13             Your Honour, I also wants to address the Chamber with respect to

14     the timing of alibi witnesses.  In the conferences we have been told that

15     there are about 50 alibi witnesses that the Defence of Milan Lukic

16     intends to call.  The Chamber has just issued an order that all of the

17     alibi evidence must be called by the Prosecution during its direct case

18     and that direct case will be limited to four alibi witnesses and the case

19     will conclude on October 9th.  That means that the Prosecution must

20     investigate in excess of the total number of witnesses now the

21     Prosecution is going to be allowed to call in its case in chief,

22     investigate those witnesses and somehow come up with whatever rebuttal

23     prior to the close of our case on October 9th.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Groome is kindly asked to slow down for the

25     translation, thank you.

Page 207

 1             MR. GROOME:  I apologise.  I also suggest that that is manifestly

 2     unfair.  If we are to arrive at the truth at the conclusion of this trial

 3     the Prosecution must have a fair opportunity to investigate this alibi

 4     thoroughly, the first step is to have adequate notice of it and then

 5     the -- is the ability to investigate it and then to call witnesses in

 6     rebuttal.  The Chamber referred to other cases in the Tribunal with

 7     respect to its position that all of the alibi evidence should be called

 8     in the Prosecution chief.  The one case that I am familiar with, the

 9     Vasiljevic case, in which alibi was the central issue, that was not the

10     case, Your Honour.  In fact the Prosecution called was permitted to call

11     a significant number of witnesses in rebuttal after it heard the Defence

12     witnesses, and I would suggest to the Court that requiring the

13     Prosecution to call all of its alibi witnesses prior to the calling of

14     the Defence witnesses testifying to alibi puts us in the impossible

15     position of trying to guess at what those witnesses are going to say,

16     attempting to rebut it before it's made and then also gives those

17     witnesses the absolutely unfair advantage of being able to digest all

18     that the Prosecution witnesses have said, identify the gaps in those --

19     that rebuttal evidence and then craft an alibi testimony that fits neatly

20     within that and I believe that is not going to result in a truthful or

21     accurate fact-finding process and is unfair to the Prosecution.

22             JUDGE ROBINSON:  The Chamber's decision was actually based on the

23     decision of the Appeals Chamber in Delalic et al where it set the

24     standard for rebuttal evidence.  In that case, the Appeals Chamber found

25     that evidence going to a fundamental part of the Prosecution case must be

Page 208

 1     led during the Prosecution's case in chief.  And the presence of the

 2     accused during the incidents in relation to which a notice of defence of

 3     alibi has been entered is a fundamental aspect of the Prosecution's case.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid, two matters.  First, in relation to

 6     the witness, the specific witness, to which the Prosecutor made

 7     reference, you would be in a position, would you, to provide the name of

 8     that witness?

 9             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour, I believe we've done better than that

10     and that's why I'm sort of confused at the continuing request of the

11     Prosecution at this point.  In a formal pleading, we did not summarise

12     the statements, instead we got notarised statements in Serbian and

13     actually had them translate by my case manager to the best of his ability

14     into English, and we provided both those statements along with the

15     unredacted names.

16             Of course, the statements themselves put the alibi witnesses and

17     Milan Lukic in a place in time so that -- that's why I'm confused as to

18     what specificity do I need to when the statement itself is the best

19     evidence of the information.  It is the witness.  For Mr. Groome to ask

20     me to go talk to my client and have him disclose these things is

21     basically an affront to an accused's right against testifying against

22     himself because essentially my statements before the Court become my

23     client's testimony before the Tribunal.  Instead, we provided the actual

24     witness statements which were notarised and attested to, and I think they

25     are very clear in terms of the time, place and circumstances of their

Page 209

 1     contact with Mr. Milan Lukic in relation to the times of the allegations.

 2     I'm really confused as to the reference to Mokra Gora because I had to go

 3     back and look at our statements and see if one of the witnesses placed

 4     him at Mokra Gora, which I understand is a mountain or a hill top near

 5     Visegrad, and we could not find any reference to it so we are not sure if

 6     this is just some confusion on the part of the Prosecution, but I didn't

 7     find in my materials reference to Mokra Gora.

 8             JUDGE ROBINSON:  The legal officer?

 9                           [Trial chamber and legal officer confer]

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Groome, as I understand it, Mr. Alarid says

11     he transmitted to you statements from persons and these statements

12     contain all the relevant information that you require.

13             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I think we are confusing two issues

14     here.  The confusing disclosure and notification.

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Please sit, Mr. Alarid, one person on his feet

16     at a time.

17             MR. GROOME:  Rule 67 talks in very explicit terms about the

18     notification which the Prosecution is entitled to.  Yes, on Monday, this

19     past Monday, Mr. Alarid transmitted several statements.  I would note

20     that none of those statements, none of those statements, deal with the

21     Drina River so at this stage, the Prosecution has no notification about

22     where Mr. Milan Lukic says he was and who he was with with respect to the

23     Drina River, nor does it have any statements.

24             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Never mind that.  Are you saying, Mr. Alarid,

25     that the Prosecution is in possession of statements which you have

Page 210

 1     transmitted to them, never mind when you transmitted it, whether, under

 2     67 or some other rule, are you saying that they have statements which

 3     provide this information?  Because I'm looking at the substance.

 4             MR. ALARID:  Yes, Your Honour, we have --

 5             JUDGE ROBINSON:  If so, well, please identify the date when you

 6     supplied that, and they will us what it relates to.

 7             MR. ALARID:  Your Honour we supplied four statements actually

 8     approximately three weeks ago and those were the first four we submitted

 9     them as soon as we got them.  I believe at least one of those statements

10     did cover the Drina incidents.

11             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You believe?

12             MR. ALARID:  Well, I don't have the statements in front of me,

13     Judge, so in terms of the actual issues, in terms of that, I felt that

14     they covered that week in general of June 7th.  Other than that, Your

15     Honour, we've been providing our statements when we have been getting

16     Mr. Rasic and Mr. Lakcevic have been in Bosnia meeting with witnesses.

17     In reference to the 50 names that Mr. Groome ultimately referenced to,

18     those were the 50 names we had achieved with meetings with the client so

19     this still needed follow-up due diligence which we are in the midst of.

20     I can't underscore enough how difficult it is to be preparing a defence

21     when the attorney for multiple murder case has been on board for four

22     months and regardless of Mr. Yatvin's participation, his was primarily 11

23     bis proceedings and then the attorney-client relationship broke down

24     really for a year going on a year and a half.  Then when Mr. Sulejic was

25     appointed, quickly as I got in the relationship broke down; and I think

Page 211

 1     the Trial Chamber is aware of the circumstances and that again provided

 2     difficulty because of course an attorney should be present during

 3     statements of any witness.  And that's where Mr. Lakcevic came in, and

 4     we've had him working on it very diligently; but I can't underscore

 5     enough that I haven't even interviewed these people personally to

 6     basically give the follow-up, I guess, due diligence if you will for the

 7     Court's benefit.  We are really running as fast as we can.  I think we

 8     are an at an extreme disadvantage.  If the Prosecution claim they are in

 9     disadvantage it is only because as we exercise our due process rights we

10     are way behind in this matter and I just don't know --

11             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I'm going to give you an opportunity to show to

12     the Court the statements that you say were provided to the Prosecution.

13             MR. ALARID:  Yes, sir.

14             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Which covers the Drina River incident:

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid, I mentioned earlier that you appear

17     to be well resourced, so have one of your assistants start investigating

18     this matter so that by the time we break, you will be in a position to

19     provide the Court with those statements.

20             MR. ALARID:  Judge, just in speaking with Ms. O'Leary as you were

21     conferring with the Chamber, we would be able to do that.  We've e-mailed

22     them in PDF format to the Prosecution, as a matter of fact with a note

23     passed to me the two that were delivered actually on Monday deal with the

24     Drina incident, and we could e-mail you the statements in total.  It's

25     not a problem.

Page 212

 1             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.  Now, Mr. Groome also raised the question

 2     of the time to call the alibi rebuttal witnesses and his submission is

 3     that these witnesses should more properly be called after the Defence has

 4     presented its case of alibi.  I cited an Appeals Chamber decision in

 5     Delalic, but I'm bound to say that I'm -- Mr. Groome's submission has

 6     some logic to support it.  Although Delalic deals with the standard for

 7     rebuttal evidence, it may be that what Delalic is speaking about is

 8     rebuttal as it is set out, I believe, in Rule -- I think it's 85.

 9             It seems to me that Rule 67, dealing with alibi defence, is of

10     its own kind.  It is sui generis and when it says the Defence must notify

11     the Prosecutor of the alibi and provide specific information, it appears

12     to me to be only logical that the Prosecutor should rebut that evidence,

13     and normally you rebut evidence after it has been presented, not before.

14     And I'm wondering if Delalic that I have cited actually goes to that

15     point.  Delalic speaks of evidence going to a fundamental part of the

16     Prosecution case as being evidence that must be led during the

17     Prosecution's case in chief.  But this is not a fundamental part of the

18     Prosecution's case.  It only arises as a part of the Prosecution's case

19     because the Defence is raising alibi.  Otherwise, the Prosecution would

20     not be dealing with this matter at all, and I'm wondering if Delalic can

21     be distinguished in that way.  Are you in a position to assist us, first

22     Mr. Alarid and then Mr. Groome.

23             MR. ALARID:  I understand your point and I think that the root

24     problem of the situation is problems with counsel, the ability to get on

25     the real meat and bones of the investigation at a late start which in

Page 213

 1     terms of course I understand Mr. Groome's position of disadvantage

 2     because he feels that he should have been doing this maybe months ago.

 3     And on an order of principle, I agree with him.  He should have been

 4     doing this months ago.

 5             But on the same token, with the Trial Chamber's sort of soft

 6     start position and the Prosecution's references to our ability to become

 7     prepared as the trial proceeds, I think the same argument goes to them.

 8     We are not presenting these alibi witnesses in a vacuum, a name and a

 9     place, and then we give them no information.  We've given them sworn

10     statements so I don't think it's completely relevant to argue that we are

11     going to be able to fashion our alibi after hearing the testimony because

12     in giving a notarised statement, it does limit the wiggle room a witness

13     might have in addressing those kind of concerns of forming the alibi

14     after the fact.  We haven't done that.

15             We are really just giving them the information as soon as we get

16     it because we feel disadvantaged but we understand their need to know

17     alibi early because I do agree with Delalic in that the alibi evidence

18     should be presented during the Prosecution's case in chief, the reason

19     being that they should present all evidence of modus operandi the

20     opportunities to commit the crime; and the opportunity to commit a crime

21     if you're talking about a single day then they should have anticipated

22     that, I think they named the witnesses that can show where Mr. Lukic may

23     have been on that day assuming they can prove that; so we are not talking

24     about an extended period of time.  I mean, in terms of one of the alibis,

25     if you just want to go towards the Uzamnica barracks, August 92 to

Page 214

 1     together 1994, we can show Mr. Lukic was in prison during a period of

 2     time of that extended range; and so if you think about him being in jail,

 3     well, that's easy enough recognition but he doesn't need to not present

 4     his evidence in a Prosecution case in chief even if we present him with

 5     some prison documents which we are attempting to get interest Belgrade

 6     right now if we can present those prison documents he does not need to

 7     call his Uzamnica barracks witnesses?  I think it's important that the

 8     Prosecution's case proceeds because it is in the interests of our case

 9     that we just get to the end of this, I don't think delay in this point is

10     going to help anybody.  If the Court is forcing us to trial as is we are

11     all in the same boat and should proceed.

12             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, we want to do the right thing.  Can you

13     distinguish Delalic, Mr. Groome?

14             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.  I think Delalic is talking about

15     a situation where let's say the Defence in the pre-trial brief of the

16     defendant or the accused is that he did not have command responsibility.

17     Well Delalic says okay the Prosecution you knew that prepare that and

18     incorporate that into your -- the presentation of your direct case.  Your

19     Honour, at this stage the Prosecution does not even have a proper

20     pre-trial brief from the Defence.  It has no pre-trial brief, no alibi

21     Defence, we have -- we are guessing.  Case in point.  Mr. Alarid has just

22     said that they are looking for jail records with respect to Uzamnica.  In

23     all of the filings that have been made related to alibi, as far as I

24     could decipher, there has never been an alibi raised with respect to

25     Uzamnica.  Just the other instances which the Chamber has mentioned

Page 215

 1     earlier today.  So this is the first time now that I am hearing that an

 2     alibi Defence is going to be raised to the last set of charges on the

 3     indictment.

 4             In terms of a logical, just pure logic, Your Honour, if I were --

 5     I have to prove a negative with the alibi.  Witnesses will come, will

 6     give sworn evidence about seeing these two men at the times and places

 7     related to this indictment.  Alibi is very different in that I have to

 8     prove that they were not where they say they were.  So if they say they

 9     were in Obrenovac or they say they were in Belgrade I have to investigate

10     and try to gather evidence that shows that they could not have been

11     there.  With respect to the statements that they say were provided, that

12     may tell me where those witnesses say they were, but they do not provide

13     me the information that's clearly, clearly required under Rule 67 and

14     it's very simple information.  It's for Mr. Alarid to state on the record

15     after consultation was his client where he says he was, who he says he

16     was with, and the names and addresses of the people he says he's with.

17     It's a notice requirement.

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You're moving now from a position of principle.

19     You now seem to be saying that if you have sufficient information from

20     the Defence on alibi, you would be able to prepare your case and to

21     present it in chief.

22             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I still think the Chamber is -- should

23     not require the Prosecution to provide a rebuttal in the case in chief

24     and I think this one example, I think, may clarify the point.  The

25     Defence has no obligation to present a case.  We all agree to that.  So

Page 216

 1     we could spend, when I finally hopefully get some notification of where

 2     Mr. Lukic says he is, if it's 50 witnesses that are going to provide this

 3     information, it's conceivable that I could come up with another 50

 4     witnesses to rebut that; so that means in the Prosecution case would be

 5     doubled, I would call those witnesses and that at the conclusion of the

 6     Prosecution case, Mr. Alarid could make the strategic decision that it's

 7     in his clients's best interests not to proceed with the alibi, not to put

 8     forward his witnesses.  He's under no obligation to do that and not only

 9     have we wasted an awful lot of time, but again we haven't gotten any

10     closer to the truth of what happened.

11             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Can I ask you, regardless of when the Defence is

12     to present -- sorry, when the Prosecutor is to present its rebuttal of

13     the alibi, whether, in chief or following the Defence case, what would

14     your submission be as to the consequence of the failure of the Defence to

15     provide the information that is required by Rule 67?

16             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I believe the remedy is that the

17     Defence can be precluded from introducing that -- the witnesses and

18     introducing the documents that they may seek to rely if they fail to give

19     notification, I think Mr. Lukic always has the opportunity to take the

20     stand and say, I was not there, I was somewhere else.  I don't think that

21     that's an appropriate remedy to prohibit that.  But clearly, if Defence

22     counsel fail in their obligations to notify about the evidence that they

23     intend to put forward, that the remedy would be precluding.  I would also

24     point out Your Honour that yesterday in two decisions that the Chamber

25     has issued, the Chamber has taken the view that the deadline set in the

Page 217

 1     work plan are binding on the parties, and the Chamber has rigorously

 2     applied that to the Prosecution with significant impact on the

 3     Prosecution case.

 4             All of the requirements to provide alibi notice, it's very

 5     comparable, there is a great parity between the issues here and have been

 6     dictated by a work plan and consistently that work plan has not been met,

 7     the deadlines have not been met, and in some cases no extensions were

 8     sought.  The deadlines came and passed and then the Court in the status

 9     conference issued new deadline as the Chamber has done today, issued a

10     new deadline to the Defence of Milan Lukic.

11             It's the Prosecution's position that equality of arms also

12     applies to the Prosecution.  That fairness of the trial also applies to

13     the Prosecution.  And that it is unfair to require the Prosecution to

14     somehow guess at what the Defence evidence related to alibi is going to

15     be, anticipate it, investigate it and produce it in court under rulings

16     that the Court has made today and limiting us to --or requiring us to

17     conclude the case sometime in the first week in October.  I believe that

18     it is manifestly unfair to require the Prosecution to conduct the trial

19     in that way.  I think the way to remedy that is to require the Defence

20     to, as soon as possible, and today, before I open, with respect to the

21     Drina, simply state where Mr. Lukic was, who he was with, and as much of

22     the address as he knows.  I accept the Chamber's order for the July 18th

23     with respect to the rest of them.  The rest of the alibis, but I think

24     before any evidence is called with respect to the Drina River incident,

25     it's imperative that we at least have notification as required under Rule

Page 218

 1     67.

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Give us an example as to how you say the Defence

 3     will be able to tailor its alibi defence, if you were to open on the

 4     Drina before this information is provided.

 5             MR. GROOME:  For example, Your Honour, let's say right now there

 6     is this kind of vague assertion that Mr. Lukic was not in Visegrad at the

 7     time.  These crimes occurred late in the day.  Let's say the Prosecution

 8     was required in our investigations found a witness that said, Well at

 9     noon I saw Mr. Lukic in the centre of town having a cup of coffee.  I

10     produce that witness, as required by the Court in our direct case, the

11     witness, the Defence witness now in the -- in the --or Mr. Lukic or one

12     of his witnesses, can simply say, "Well, he was there until the morning

13     of the 7th and it was sometime in the afternoon that he left for

14     Belgrade" or Obrenovac or wherever he is now saying he was.  It permits

15     the Defence to tailor their evidence to what is introduced during the

16     Prosecution case.

17             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thank you.

18             All right.  We are going to take a break shortly, but I wanted

19     Mr. Alarid to give us his submissions on the question of the consequence

20     of the failure of the Defence to provide information required by Rule 67.

21     You have heard the Prosecution say that the consequences that you would

22     be precluded from leading that evidence, if you don't provide the

23     required information under Rule 67.  That's a very serious consequence.

24             MR. ALARID:  Well, at risk of sounding flip, I think that would

25     be an outrageous remedy because in a totality of the circumstances

Page 219

 1     situation, given the history of counsel, and I think the obvious ability

 2     to prepare this case, whether the problems were caused by the client,

 3     counsel or a combination, I don't think that there can be any situation

 4     that's more difficult on an accused, when you don't get to choose your

 5     own attorney.  Often times, when I'm hired by a private client, the

 6     relationship that I build with that client is essential to the effective

 7     preparation of a case and quickly, if the clients is unhappy with me in a

 8     private situation, that's easily remedied.

 9             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Mr. Alarid, you're making an entirely different

10     points.

11             MR. ALARID:  Well, but it is --

12             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Your points relates now to the state of your

13     preparedness.  That's not what I'm talking about.

14             MR. ALARID:  Well, but it is --

15             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I'm saying as a matter of law, if the rules

16     require you to provide the Prosecutor with specific information of alibi

17     as to where the accused said he was on a particular day, the names of the

18     witnesses who can substantiate that alibi and any other relevant evidence

19     to substantiate the alibi, what is the consequence of the failure to

20     provide that?  Why should you be allowed to lead the evidence?  This has

21     nothing to do with the fact that you came into the case late.  If you

22     wish to apply for more time in which to provide it, then we can hear that

23     application.  But please understand that that is not an answer to the

24     question which I have asked.

25             MR. ALARID:  And I didn't mean to digress, Judge.  I just feel

Page 220

 1     that it is relevant only because when -- I think that I've in good faith

 2     provided the information as quick as it's come to me.  That's --

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             MR. ALARID:  And so it's been given as quick as I've received it.

 5     And I think it is absolutely the most destructive of decisions to exclude

 6     evidence because the defendant is always entitled to put on a defence.

 7     He may not be required to testify, he may not be required to put on a

 8     shred of evidence but he's entitled to put on his defence and if the

 9     first time an investigator -- because the contrary is this:  Do I go to

10     all my witnesses and say, the first time an investigator from the

11     Milan Lukic team or any team has ever talked to me is June of 2008

12     related to crimes of 1992 and these are people that had to be located in

13     the mountains in towns they've moved, the same problems the Prosecution

14     had except they've had a dozen years to put this case together, and I've

15     had all of really productive time, eight weeks.

16             And so from an eight week perspective, I mean, I have single

17     victims, single murder cases that take two years that, you know, it takes

18     time to investigate and find the defences and we are doing this all in

19     the confines of eight weeks.  And I think that alone from an equity of

20     arms, equality of arms perspective lends at least the tolerance of the

21     Court because at this point in time the Prosecution has really the

22     benefit of all its preparation, to refute us, they have almost unlimited

23     resources on which to contradict our alibi assuming that they feel they

24     have something that contradicts it, they have a lot of staff that can

25     research their files to quickly bring into place someone that says they

Page 221

 1     were drinking with Mr. Milan was drinking coffee at noon that day but in

 2     terms of that, like I said, I think the Prosecution would have more of a

 3     case had I only given a name, an address and a brief summary.

 4             But the fact that I've given sworn notarised statements with

 5     facts that place Mr. Lukic in I think a time and place at best as we can

 6     at this juncture is more than sufficient at least to preserve the right

 7     to put on a Defence because then the alternative is that we would simply

 8     be the victims of the accusations of the Prosecutor in a vacuum; and I

 9     think there is an absolute risk of injustice if that were to occur.

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  In the jurisdiction in which you practice when

11     you're not here is there a requirement for notice of alibi?

12             MR. ALARID:  Absolutely, Your Honour, absolutely.

13             JUDGE ROBINSON:  And what is the consequence if that notice is

14     not provided?

15             MR. ALARID:  There is a consequence if the alibi was known to

16     counsel and was not timely provided because just in this jurisdiction,

17     the Prosecution is entitled to investigate and coordinate its resources

18     to contradict an alibi if available, so I think the Prosecution in a

19     vacuum is correct in saying that is a possible consequence and so I can't

20     in good faith not concede that; but if an alibi just becomes known to the

21     Defence under the normal course of representation, normally the Court

22     would allow for that if it were in the interests of justice, and I --

23             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You're not saying that that is the case here?

24             MR. ALARID:  Well, I do believe it is because there is nothing

25     I've done that is obstructionist at this point, and I think it would be

Page 222

 1     hard for the Court to find even obstructionist behaviour on the part of

 2     the clients when you cannot have counsel you can fully comply with at

 3     that time.  Right now, we've done everything we can --

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thank you, Mr. Alarid.

 5             MR. ALARID:  Yes.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  The legal officer.

 7                           [Trial chamber and legal officer confer]

 8             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I understand that the statements to which

 9     Mr. Alarid have referred have in fact been provided.  They have been

10     provided electronically to the Chamber and to the Prosecutor.  We are

11     going to take a break and have a look at those statements, and when we

12     return, we'll give our ruling on the various matters that have arisen.

13             Mr. Groome did you want to say anything?

14             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I have one of the statements here, and

15     I was going to point out to the Chamber what I believe Mr. Alarid is

16     referring to but perhaps it's not necessary.  The Chamber is going to

17     read the decisions themselves.  Your Honour, I just would make the

18     observation that this crime happened 16 years ago.  It was one of the

19     first indictments ever issued.  Clearly Mr. Alarid in his first interview

20     with Mr. Lukic must have said you say you weren't there, where were you?

21     This whole matter could be resolved in a manner of minutes by simply

22     Mr. Alarid saying, My client says he was here, and he was with these

23     people.  It's a very simple matter, but I'll trust the Chamber to revolve

24     it in the way it sees best.

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  We are adjourned for half an hour.

Page 223

 1                           --- Break taken at 10.12 a.m.

 2                           --- On resuming at 10.44 a.m.

 3             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I give the Chamber's ruling on two matters.  The

 4     Chamber reaffirms that it will follow the decision of the Appeals Chamber

 5     in Delalic.  Accordingly, the Prosecution will lead its alibi rebuttal

 6     evidence in-chief.

 7             As to the information that has been provided with regard to the

 8     first incident, the Drina River, the Chamber has had an opportunity to

 9     read some of the statements to which Mr. Alarid made reference.

10             The view that we take is this:  The Defence is required to give

11     notice of certain matters.  The Defence has proffered certain

12     information.  The adequacy, the sufficiency, of that information will

13     ultimately be a matter for the Chamber to decide at the end of the day

14     when it comes to consider whether to accept or reject the defence of

15     alibi.  The Chamber, therefore, does not see the evidence provided or any

16     lack of information provided as a ground for precluding the admission of

17     that evidence.  As I said before, at the end of the day, the Chamber will

18     evaluate the evidence, and naturally the information that has been

19     provided as to where the accused was or the lack of information that has

20     been provided as to where the accused was and the witnesses to

21     substantiate the alibi will be matters for us to consider.

22             We'll therefore proceed on those bases.

23             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, if I ask for a clarification, Your

24     Honour?

25             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes.

Page 224

 1             MR. GROOME:  With respect to the Chamber's order on the 8th of

 2     May 2008, directing the Milan Lukic to answer three specific questions,

 3     does this order today make that earlier disposition null and void?

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  You'll have to remind us what it was.

 5             MR. GROOME:  On the 8th of May the Chamber directed that with

 6     respect to the Drina River incident, that the Defence answer three

 7     questions that were put forward in the Prosecution motion.  The questions

 8     were -- the reading from the decision, the Drina River incidents 7th of

 9     June 1992 notice paragraph D as requested in the Prosecution motion

10     paragraphs 15(A) to (C), so they were directed to answer that.

11     Paragraphs 15 A to C read as following:  The following clarification is

12     required from the accused.  A, where was Milan Lukic at all times on the

13     7th of June 1992 and with whom?  B, what is the name and current postal

14     address of the nominated Muslim witness?  C, what other physical or

15     documentary evidence, if any, it is intended that the Defence for

16     Milan Lukic will rely upon to establish this alibi?

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Yes, the Defence is still to comply with the

19     information, with the requirement, but the sufficiency of the information

20     is a matter for the Chamber to determine.

21             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, then I apologise for my confusion.

22     Then I don't understand how I can -- how do I -- what do I investigate?

23     I've looked through the statements, there is this vague description that

24     three days after the 4th of June there was a car trip somewhere with some

25     people.  We know that the person who gave the statement says that at

Page 225

 1     least some part of that day they were in the car with Milan Lukic.  But

 2     where does Milan Lukic say he is?  That's what I need to investigate.

 3     That's only part of what's -- that I'm obliged to investigate.

 4             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Then your submission will be that the alibi has

 5     not been established.  That will be your submission when you come to make

 6     your submissions.  The information which they have provided does not

 7     establish alibi.  That will be my submission, if I were the Prosecutor.

 8             MR. GROOME:  But I must make that the evidence related to the

 9     evidentiary basis for that submission must all be dealt with in the

10     Prosecution case before this witness ever arrives to give evidence in the

11     case.  So I'm put in the position of guessing about many of the details

12     which, in fairness, the Prosecution must have an opportunity to

13     investigate.  And all of that can be cured simply by Mr. Milan Lukic

14     stating, answering the questions that were ordered by the Chamber on the

15     8th of May and I'm not seeking to have Mr. Lukic himself go on the

16     record.  His counsel, as his representative is bound or directed by the

17     order to state that.  I'm simply asking that today, before the first

18     Drina witness testifies, that Mr. Alarid state that information on the

19     record.

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I don't understand your difficulty.  If I were

22     the Prosecutor, I would consider that I'm in a favourable position.  You

23     have nothing to rebut.  He has not provided the things which are required

24     by the rules so what is there to rebut?  And that would be my submission.

25     But we haven't reached that stage, Mr. Groome.  We haven't reached the

Page 226

 1     stage for that submission.  As I said, at the end of the day, we have to

 2     assess the adequacy or the lack of adequacy of the information provided

 3     by the Defence.  This is an adversarial system.  And you will have a

 4     chance to make your submissions on the basis of the information that has

 5     been provided by the accused as required by the Rules.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE ROBINSON:  I need to make one thing clear.  If, of course,

 8     the Defence were to provide additional evidence of alibi during its case,

 9     I mean, evidence that it has not given notification of, and it is allowed

10     to do that by the rules, then of course the Prosecutor would be entitled,

11     properly entitled, to rebut that after the Defence case.

12             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, again to clarify, so it's the order of

13     the court that by the 18th of July, the Defence is to provide -- is to

14     comply with the order of the 8th of May providing information and if it

15     doesn't then the Court will take that into consideration when it comes it

16     time to --

17             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Of course, otherwise we will never start the

18     trial.  We'll forever be making orders for them to provide this

19     information as required by the rules.  So they must provide it by the

20     18th as ordered by the Chamber, and if they don't, then the consequences

21     that flow as a matter of law will flow.

22             Now, we were near the end, I believe, of the Pre-Trial

23     Conference, and I am to ask whether any of the accused has anything to

24     say, and I put the question first to Mr. Milan Lukic.  Mr. Lukic, do you

25     have anything to say in relation to this?

Page 227

 1          THE ACCUSED MILAN LUKIC: [Interpretation] No, I do not, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thank you.  And I put the same question to

 3     Mr. Sredoje Lukic.

 4             THE ACCUSED SREDOJE LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your

 5     Honour.  I also have nothing to say.

 6             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Thank you.  And does any of the -- the counsel

 7     have anything additional to add?  Yes, Mr. Cepic?

 8             MR. CEPIC:  Your Honour, with your leave if we could go to

 9     private session, please?

10             JUDGE ROBINSON:  Private session.

11                           [Private session]

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 228

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19                           [Open session]

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session.

21             JUDGE ROBINSON:  There being no other matters to discuss, the

22     Pre-Trial Conference is adjourned.

23             We will resume in half an hour.

24                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.02 a.m.,

25                           to be followed by opening of trial proceedings.