Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 9805

 1                           Friday, 29 January 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good morning to everybody in and around the

 6     courtroom.  Mr. Registrar, will you please call the case.

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

 8     everyone in and around the courtroom.

 9             This is case number IT-04-81-T, the Prosecutor versus

10     Momcilo Perisic.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  Could we have appearances for

12     the day starting with the Prosecution, please.

13             MR. HARMON:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

14     counsel, everyone in the courtroom.  Mark Harmon, Dan Saxon,

15     Barney Thomas, and Carmela Javier for the Prosecution.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

17             And for the Defence.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.  Good

19     morning to all the participants in the proceedings.  Today, on behalf of

20     Mr. Perisic, we have Chad Mair, Tina Drolec, Boris Zorko,

21     Gregor Guy-Smith, and Novak Lukic.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Lukic.  We were sitting

23     today pursuant to Rule 73 ter to determine what has to be determined

24     before we start the Defence case.

25             Mr. Lukic, I don't know whether you want me to go ahead or if we

Page 9806

 1     will just tell you that we have seen some of your filings which seem to

 2     be differing very vastly from what we were promised in the beginning.  I

 3     don't know whether you'd like to address the question of your list of

 4     witnesses, the question of the length of the case.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I can give you some submissions in

 6     relation to the list of witnesses.  You are probably referring to the

 7     framework that you asked me about in November of last year concerning the

 8     length of the case.  I suppose that's the drift of your question?

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The drift of my question, I think on more than one

10     occasion the Defence promised us that the case is not going to be any

11     more than four to five months.  Looking at the number of witnesses and

12     the hours that we think are calculated into your submissions, you seem to

13     be going far beyond four to five months.  Almost a year.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will now present our

15     position in relation to the list and the length, that is to say, the

16     hours required.  You asked me on both occasions before the close of the

17     Prosecution case and before the start of the key preparations for Defence

18     about how long our case would last.  I gave you an approximation, and you

19     confirmed and assuaged my fears that this was indeed a framework.  This

20     was a framework that we arrived at before we started specifically

21     preparing for the Defence and preparing witnesses.  What I can tell you

22     at this point is that the list of witnesses has been envisaged, not in

23     terms of the number of witnesses, but in terms of the hours required for

24     witnesses as a list which now goes vastly beyond the announced length.

25             Now, why did we decide to exceed the number of hours required for

Page 9807

 1     our witnesses?  At the start of the intense preparations of the Defence,

 2     which was sometime in November through to today, we established that

 3     there existed a large number of documents admitted in the course of the

 4     Prosecution case about which not a word was uttered in the courtroom.  In

 5     my view, this is a rather peculiar situation which places the Defence

 6     into a position where we are -- well, I wouldn't say bearing the onus or

 7     the burden of proving facts, but we have to present facts.

 8             Our position, even before Mr. Randall through whom more than

 9     1.500 documents were admitted directly in the courtroom and then even

10     more later on through the bar table submissions, led the Defence into a

11     position where we need to call a number of witnesses because of the

12     documents that are already part of the case file.  When we started

13     preparing our witnesses, working with our witnesses, we spent a great

14     deal of time analysing documents with them, and this is what I am afraid

15     of, that is to say that our examination-in-chief will have to shed a

16     great deal of light on these documents.  Of course it will be up to you,

17     Your Honours, to decide ultimately whether a question or an issue is

18     relevant or not.  Our position is that certain facts only need to be

19     discussed.  The Prosecutor led a great deal of documents that were

20     admitted, and, in our view, they only need to be discussed.

21             Mr. Harmon produced a list which was far longer in terms of ours

22     than what was ultimately spent with the witnesses, so I can't tell you

23     this is indeed the number of hours we will spend with the witnesses, but

24     our estimation based on the situation as it is now is that we need as

25     many hours as we stated.  Of course it will be up to you to decide how

Page 9808

 1     many hours we are allocated, and we will have to adapt our Defence to

 2     that.

 3             At any rate, the frame, the time-limits that we presented at the

 4     time changed because in the meantime through discussions with these

 5     people we realised that there were a great many issues we have to discuss

 6     with them.

 7             You will see, yourself, on the list of the witnesses we filed

 8     what sort of names these are and how often these names are mentioned in

 9     the document.  I don't think that there can be anything more significant

10     in terms of foundation for these witnesses to be heard.  If you believe

11     that a witness should not speak to a document that this individual

12     signed, then this is really a decision for the Trial Chamber to make, if

13     you think that the document speaks for itself.  There are witnesses we

14     are calling that the Prosecution withdrew from their list because we

15     simply believe that they need to speak about facts.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

17             Mr. Harmon.

18             MR. HARMON:  I have no comments to add to what Mr. Lukic has

19     said.  The fact of the matter is we presented our case in the form that

20     we did.  We have other issues that we'd like to discuss with this Court.

21     But as to what the Court decides in respect of Rule 73, we don't have any

22     submissions on that, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, but you have filed a motion which, I think,

24     impacts on the 73 ter decisions.

25             MR. HARMON:  Yes, Your Honour, well, we have filed a motion, and

Page 9809

 1     that's -- I said we had other submissions, Your Honour, but not --

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Would you like to move on to those submissions so

 3     that we put them on the table.

 4             MR. HARMON:  I'm happy do so if the Court please.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.

 6             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, we have received the Defence list of

 7     witnesses.  We have, yesterday, filed a motion seeking compliance with

 8     Rule 65 ter G.  In our submission, we make clear that, first of all, the

 9     Rule requires that there be facts that are at the core of the submission

10     in respect of witnesses.  Let me just pull the Rule.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We have the Rule.

12             MR. HARMON:  A summary of the facts on which each witness will

13     testify.  When we reviewed this submission of the Defence, it was clear

14     to us and we made a submission in that we reviewed it very carefully,

15     there were some facts.  There were facts as to, in most cases, as to the

16     identity of the witnesses, who they were, what they had done, not in all

17     cases.  There were principally, however, a description of the topics.

18     The witness will testify about this, he will testify about this.  And in

19     our view, in order to properly prepare, we need to know the facts about

20     which these witnesses are going to testify.  I don't need to reiterate

21     our submission, Your Honour, but we've made it clear that we've viewed

22     this as insufficient, inadequate to enable us to prepare for proper

23     cross-examination.  In one case there is a witness who will testify, I

24     think, up to 15 hours, and there's not a single fact other than

25     identifying who he is, as to what this witness will testify to.

Page 9810

 1             So we -- our submission is that we request that we receive a

 2     proper submission in compliance with the Rule, that the submission be

 3     factual, that it be factual as to the witnesses who have been identified.

 4     And that will enable us to do our preparations properly.  It will enable

 5     there to be a fair trial, and it will enable it to be an efficient trial.

 6     Because if we have witnesses who come in to testify and we don't know the

 7     facts about which they are going to testify, we may be in a position

 8     where we request that there be an adjournment so we can prepare

 9     adequately, having heard the facts for the first time about which the

10     witness will testify.  That's why we have made our submission to the

11     Court.  In our view, the -- a proper 65 ter summary should be provided to

12     the Prosecution next week.

13             The Defence, the last witness who testified in this case was

14     Mr. Selsky, he testified on the 25th of January.  Previously, the

15     previous witness was the 4th of November.  This document that has been

16     prepared by the Defence, they've had plenty of time to identify the facts

17     about which these witnesses will testify.  And, therefore, we leave it to

18     the Court to determine, one, whether this is in compliance with

19     Rule 65 ter G; and if the Court deems it's not, then it's our submission

20     that a proper factual summary should be submitted to the Prosecutor by

21     next week.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic, do you have any response to that

23     objection to your 65 ter list?

24             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  Yesterday we

25     received the filing and to the extent possibly we will give our

Page 9811

 1     submissions now.  Though, admittedly, we have certain difficulties

 2     because certain sources that Mr. Harmon relies upon in the filing were

 3     confidential and we couldn't review them.

 4             Firstly, we believe that we met our -- the requirements under

 5     Rule 65 ter G.  The Prosecution stated that they were in the dark in

 6     relation to the facts, that they need to prepare for witnesses, well, I

 7     don't think so.  I think that their position is much better even if we

 8     consider what the position of the Defence in relation to these witnesses

 9     is.

10             Now, why do I say this?  A number of witnesses that the

11     Prosecution seeks additional summaries for were witnesses officially from

12     their list.  A number of witnesses who were on their earlier lists, with

13     a number of these witnesses, they conducted interview in relation to this

14     specific case.  The Defence, in dealing with these witnesses, is in a

15     situation where they had an interview with the Prosecution which haven't

16     yet seen.  And I do hope that Mr. Harmon will inform us about that today.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I am sorry, I am sorry, Mr. Lukic.  I don't think

18     that kind of argument is acceptable at all.  You have now decided to call

19     these witnesses.  You have decided they are coming to tell this Court

20     certain facts.  You've got to tell the Prosecution and tell the Court

21     what facts you want to elicit from them.  Not the facts that the

22     Prosecution intended eliciting from them at the time when they had them

23     on their witness list.  You've got to tell us what you are going to

24     elicit from them.  You your not necessarily going to elicit from them

25     what the Prosecution elicited.  Tell us your reasons for calling them.

Page 9812

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I believe that we presented the

 2     reasons.  What prompts Mr. Harmon to state that this isn't sufficient is

 3     the fact that he believes that he wasn't given enough information about

 4     the facts to prepare for cross-examination.  We believe that based on the

 5     information we provided Mr. Harmon with, he has sufficient information to

 6     enable him to prepare for cross-examination of these witnesses.

 7             Let me make one other point that you are familiar with,

 8     Your Honours.  The number of witnesses of the Prosecution called here, we

 9     were informed of the facts that these people would testify to shortly

10     before their appearance in the courtroom.  These were proofing notes that

11     we received several hours earlier, you saw that with Mr. Selsky when we

12     were given proofing notes shortly before.  We were in the same position

13     where we had to wait for the start of the examination of a witness before

14     we could receive information for cross-examination.  I think we provided

15     sufficient information.  I don't think we are duty-bound to provide them

16     with witness statements.

17             We believe that based on the information the Prosecution was

18     given, they are able to prepare themselves for the examination.  Of

19     course we will be proofing witnesses upon their arrival here, and we do

20     have the duty to provide the Prosecution with proofing notes.

21             I've found a decision in the Dragomir Milosevic case which is

22     relevant to this issue.  Bear with me, Your Honours.  This is the

23     decision of the Trial Chamber of the 26th of June, 2007, on this specific

24     issue where the Trial Chamber held, under 1, that the Defence was

25     duty-bound to provide information for witnesses under Rule 65 ter list

Page 9813

 1     [In English] "And not later than" -- the date was 2nd of July, 2007.  And

 2     in paragraph 2:  "Further information on the expected testimony of each

 3     witness as soon as possible after having spoken with the witnesses and

 4     before the witness testified."

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do I understand you, Mr. Lukic, to be saying that

 6     right through the Prosecution case you had never been provided with

 7     Rule 65 ter E(ii) summaries?

 8             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let me find it.  No, no, no.  We

 9     received summaries from the Prosecution, but shortly before the witness

10     appeared in the courtroom, we would receive proofing notes with

11     completely new facts that went beyond the summaries.  That's when we were

12     confronted with these issues.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's an issue you take up with your colleague at

14     the point when he confronts you with a witness whose summaries he has not

15     supplied.  I don't remember the Defence ever complaining about that.  And

16     we are not talking here about proofing notes, we are talking here about

17     65 ter G obligations.  And that's all I'm talking about.  And I don't

18     that think it is important -- necessary to belabour this point, but it is

19     also important that a decision is rendered very quickly on this issue.

20     How soon can the Defence file their response to the objection by the

21     Prosecution?

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] A moment, Your Honour.  Mr. Guy-Smith

23     will have to take over.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you, Your Honour.  That should work.  I'm

Page 9814

 1     having some difficulty in my left ear, so I'm trying to regulate the

 2     sound.

 3             With regard to the specific question that you've asked, How long

 4     will it take, I need to step back for but a moment.  I have your specific

 5     question in mind and will respond to your specific question.  It is our

 6     view that based upon the requirements of the Rule 65 ter G, that we have,

 7     in fact, supplied summaries of the information that those witnesses will

 8     be providing.  We are not under the law required to submit witnesses

 9     statements.  And anything that we do supply, we supply in the context.

10     And I think it's important to recognise the context of the continued

11     privilege of self-incrimination that potentially exists in any

12     proceeding.  With this in mind, considering that there has been a, what I

13     would call a generic attack, and quite frankly, as far as I can tell,

14     conceptually, what I consider to be really a matter of wanting specific

15     witness statements.  We are in somewhat of a conceptual bind which

16     requires -- which requires an analysis of the information --

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm sorry, Mr. Guy-Smith.  I'm going to interrupt

18     you.  You are not answering my question specifically.  My question

19     specifically, and you didn't articulate very clearly, was:  How soon can

20     you respond in writing to the objection.  You can put what you are saying

21     in writing.  You seem to have it on --

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Within writing, I am sorry.  In writing, that can

23     be done by Tuesday.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Let's -- I think we'll have to do that and

25     sort that problem out and render a decision on the 65 ter G list of the

Page 9815

 1     Defence.  I'm not quite sure whether, until that has been resolved, we

 2     are in a position to talk about the length of the case and the number of

 3     witnesses that are to be called.  I heard what you said this morning --

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Understood.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic, I must admit, I'm not convinced.  I

 6     didn't understand what you are saying.  Insofar as it impacts on the

 7     length of the case and the number of witnesses particularly in relation

 8     to what you had indicated sometime earlier.

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If I might, in that regard, I have reviewed the

10     transcripts, and I think that we were perhaps a bit bold in our

11     appreciation that things could be done in a shorter period of time.  To

12     be of some assistance to the Court for its consideration in the future,

13     because obviously this issue is going to arise again, and I can think of,

14     for example, one particular witness and one particular set of documents

15     that exists is going to be necessary to go through each of the documents

16     that was presented by the Prosecution.  It's unfortunate, but it will be

17     necessary because it deals with a critical part of this case with regard

18     to a position the Prosecution has taken in terms of the liability of our

19     client.

20             That was something that I think previously we had not foreseen

21     because we did not appreciate both conceptually as well as factually that

22     kind of a situation.  In large measure, Your Honour, we have, I think,

23     been not too terribly over-broad in terms of the amount of time that we

24     think is needed for the presentation of these witnesses so that you have

25     available to you a full and complete record upon which you can make a

Page 9816

 1     determination fairly, judicially, and objectively about all the facts and

 2     circumstances that surround questions that you will be presented with.

 3     Most of the witnesses who are on the list are witnesses who, I think,

 4     obtain important positions, who are at -- not necessarily the pinnacle

 5     but certainly in the higher echelons of those institutions that will

 6     directly affect your determinations.

 7             Now, obviously, as time goes on, and by that I mean between now

 8     and the time that you make a decision, you'll make a determination of

 9     what information you deem necessary for your decision.  But I can assure

10     you that this is actually, and it's curious, strange in a particular

11     fashion and doesn't seem this way, that this case is an astoundingly

12     document-heavy case.  It's not self-evident from the way much of what has

13     occurred here would seem, but it is.  You are going to have to grapple

14     with not only portions of but entire sessions of such things as a

15     Supreme Defence Council in order to have an appreciation, a true

16     appreciation of issues concerning a knowledge, intent, attitudes,

17     policies, and in that regard it's going to require the explication of

18     certain witnesses.  So I'm saying that as a prefatory remark for purposes

19     of an understanding of why you see the time that you see, and for nothing

20     more than that.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I understand.  The unfortunate thing, we are

22     getting into a lot of detail.  Let me, sort of, point out one or two

23     things here.  The calculations, as we look at the filings by the Defence,

24     are that the Defence is asking something between 249 and 311 hours of

25     direct examination.  At the end of their case, the Prosecution had used

Page 9817

 1     177 hours.  Okay.  Now, the practice in the Tribunal is to sort of

 2     compare; and of course it's not a mathematical calculation, it's some

 3     kind of proportional kind of thing.  We observe also that there is a very

 4     minimal use of 92 bis, 92 ter, 92 quater by the Defence.  Very few.  And

 5     also that there is a bit of -- quite a lot of overlapping of evidence

 6     amongst the witnesses.

 7             And we ask you to look at that and simply because there's still

 8     this motion before us, we are not going to rule on this before today, but

 9     we would like you to try and look at how you think you can reduce your

10     hours, reduce your number of witnesses, quite a lot of witnesses who are

11     going to come and talk about the same topic, you know.  And I am not

12     quite sure whether there is any need for that many witnesses on the same

13     topic.  I'm just pointing out those --

14             MR. GUY-SMITH:  We will take your comments into account during

15     this period and see what, if any, modifications we can make.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Right.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  One last point I would like to raise with the

19     Defence, that the Chamber would be loathe to granting a very long

20     postponement pending resolutions of objections and motions on objections

21     and other things.  The Chamber would like to start with the Defence case

22     as soon as possible.  And some time in December, on the 5th of December

23     to be precise, the Defence, over the signature of Mr. Guy-Smith,

24     submitted a list of the initial witnesses that they intend calling to the

25     Prosecution.  There are about -- about ten of them or so.  Provided that

Page 9818

 1     the summaries of these witnesses are either to the satisfaction of the

 2     two parties, is there any way we can begin to hear them ASAP while we are

 3     resolving other issues?  Of course if the Prosecution is objecting to

 4     their summaries, there's nothing we can do until we solve that motion.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, our intention was

 6     to start the presentation of our case, not with all of the individuals

 7     from this group, but with certain individuals.  In the meantime, we

 8     withdrew two of the individuals from the groups.  You can see that they

 9     are not on the official list, so the total now is eight individuals.

10     What our intention is, in relation to the first two or three witnesses,

11     is to call -- two or three weeks, to call two or three witnesses from

12     this list.  The problem is, however, that some of these individuals

13     testify in other cases.  One of them has just testified in other case,

14     and I can't call him right away.

15             At any rate, our intention is that in the course of the first two

16     to three weeks of our case, to call the witnesses from the list.  And

17     then should the Trial Chamber decide in the meantime that the summaries

18     in relation to these witnesses should be supplemented, then we will do

19     so.  And I do agree fully with the fact that the Defence case should

20     start as soon as possible, and I informed Mr. Harmon accordingly.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The only thing, of course --

22             Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I believe they have objected to all of our

24     viva voce witnesses but one, I believe.  So I don't know whether or not

25     we are going to be able to obtain any traction in terms of the thoughts

Page 9819

 1     of the Chamber in that regard because of the pending situation that we

 2     are in unfortunately.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:  But we will endeavour to do what we can in the

 5     time allotted.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  Okay.  It looks like at this

 7     stage then we can only say we'll be getting your response by next Tuesday

 8     and take it from there.  I don't know whether the Prosecution will want

 9     to reply or depend on what response they get, and the Chamber will have

10     to render its decision.

11             You seem to be ready to stand up, Mr. Harmon.

12             MR. HARMON:  I have some other issues to address with the Court,

13     but I want the Court to conclude this first.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Thank you so much.  Well, I guess that

15     concludes this part of the discussions, and we'll take it from what

16     response we receive from the Defence.

17             Yes, Mr. Lukic.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one other technical

19     matter.  We are ready, of course, to meet any decision by the Court.  But

20     once such a decision is made, we only ask for a reasonable amount of time

21     to make sure that we are able to bring that witness here.  Indeed I

22     cannot call the witness the very next day, and we need to prepare some

23     proofing notes.  So we would at least need a general framework within

24     which we would be allowed to move.

25             And another technical matter, I suppose we will go through a

Page 9820

 1     number of witnesses rather quickly and for some of them safe conduct will

 2     be sought, I suppose the Chamber is prepared to render such decisions

 3     rather quickly.  I know that you cannot rule on that now, but we have to

 4     keep in mind that such situations will crop up, and we will simply

 5     require a couple of days before we bring such witnesses in.  I don't know

 6     what Mr. Harmon's position will be in such a case because he initially

 7     requested two weeks before a witness appears.  Hence we don't know what

 8     his position will be once you say the list is now complete and the trial

 9     will start as of that date.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You are talking logistics.  Can I suggest that

11     once the Trial Chamber has rendered its decision on the objection by the

12     Prosecution, we schedule another conference, another -- a continuation of

13     this conference.  Just to look at those --

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Completely.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Harmon, you had other things to raise.

16             MR. HARMON:  I do, Your Honour.  In reviewing the Defence

17     submissions, there appear to be two persons identified as experts.  I

18     would ask the Court to consider a Scheduling Order as to when those

19     expert reports need to be submitted to the Chamber and to the

20     Prosecution.  Second of all, there are a number of witnesses who are

21     identified as 92 bis and 92 quater witnesses.  I make the same

22     submission, I think there should be a Scheduling Order as to when those

23     motions will be submitted to the Chamber.  We need to consider the

24     submissions ourselves.

25             Lastly, there is the guide-line one which was applied in our case

Page 9821

 1     and which we applied in the course of our presentations and that is that

 2     a list of witnesses and an order of witnesses be supplied to the

 3     Prosecution two weeks in advance of calling the witnesses.  So the

 4     guide-lines which we applied, we will insist on being honoured and

 5     respected as well.  So those are three issues that I just put before the

 6     Trial Chamber for its consideration.

 7             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:  With regard to those three issues, as I

10     understood what you had said previously, it would seem appropriate to

11     raise those matters at our next meeting rather than respond to them at

12     the very moment.  I can make some quick off-the-cuff responses with

13     regard to each of the matters raised by Mr. Harmon, but I think we are

14     involving ourselves in the very kind of hearing that we were going to put

15     off until we have resolutions so we can do this all at once.  But

16     whatever the Chamber desires in that regard.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  In fact, thank you very much, you are very right,

18     Mr. Guy-Smith.  I guess what Mr. Harmon was doing was just to alert the

19     Defence to the fact that you've got 92 bis and 92 quater witnesses on

20     your list, expert witnesses, and that there is a guide-line on a list of

21     witnesses two weeks in advance so that, just to say, bear that in mind.

22     So I don't think you need any -- need to respond.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Fine.  We had these matters on our potential

24     agenda whenever we reach those issues.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Indeed.  Thank you so much.  Anything from the

Page 9822

 1     Defence that they would like to raise?

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I don't believe so, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 4             MR. HARMON:  Nothing further, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, it doesn't look like we can adjourn to a

 6     specific date.

 7             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Does not seem as if we can.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Well, the Court stands adjourned to a date

 9     to be determined.  Court adjourned.

10                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 9.43 a.m.