Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 315

1 Friday, 20 September 2002

2 [Status Conference]

3 [Open session]

4 [The accused Krajisnik entered court]

5 [The accused Plavsic not present]

6 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.

7 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the Registrar call the case.

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

9 IT-00-39 & 40-PT, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik and Biljana

10 Plavsic.

11 JUDGE MAY: The appearances.

12 MR. HARMON: Good morning, Judge May. My name is Mark Harmon,

13 appearing for the Prosecutor. Appearing with me, to my right, is

14 Mr. Thomas Hannis, and to my left, Ms. Carmela Annink-Javier.

15 MR. BRASHICH: Good morning, Your Honour. Deyan Brashich, along

16 with Nikola Kostich, for the Krajisnik defence.

17 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Eugene O'Sullivan and Peter Murphy appearing for

18 Biljana Plavsic.

19 JUDGE MAY: This is a case which is listed for a Status Conference

20 today, the purpose being to get this matter ready for trial, to fix a date

21 for a Pre-Trial Conference, and generally to hear what the state of

22 preparedness is of the various parties. A date for trial, it had been

23 hoped, could be fixed in November. That looks as though it may not be a

24 possibility, in which case I have in mind a Pre-Trial Conference in

25 November with a view to a trial starting in January. That would be the

Page 316

1 current programme. I understand there are difficulties in preparation of

2 this case, it's not yet ready, so two more months will be available for

3 preparation time.

4 It may be best if we start with the Prosecution, and I'll hear

5 from Mr. Harmon on the state of preparation there. I should say that I've

6 read the transcript of the 65 ter conference with the Senior Legal Officer

7 yesterday so I have some idea of the various issues that were raised there

8 and some of which can be resolved today.

9 MR. HARMON: Judge May, there are three principal issues, I think,

10 that need to be addressed at this point that impinge on the readiness of

11 the case to proceed to trial. The first is the issue of adjudicated

12 facts. The Prosecutor's Office, as Your Honour knows, through the history

13 of these proceedings, has endeavoured to reduce the size of this trial and

14 the length of this trial by utilising tools that are embedded in the Rules

15 to reduce the size of this trial. Under Rule 94, adjudicated facts, we

16 submitted, over two years ago, the first set of adjudicated facts to the

17 Defence. That was on the 21st of September, 2000, when we submitted 537

18 proposed adjudicated facts. We followed that up on the 14th of December,

19 2000, by filing an additional 33 proposed adjudicated facts. And on the

20 10th of December, 2001, we submitted to the Defence 408 additional facts.

21 And our final submission of adjudicated facts to the Defence was on the

22 28th of March, 2002, when we submitted 384 proposed adjudicated facts.

23 The Plavsic Defence has responded, a long time ago, giving us

24 their position on each of those facts. The Krajisnik Defence has

25 responded to 380 of the proposed 1.363 adjudicated facts, and as Your

Page 317

1 Honour knows, this has been a subject of discussion on numerous

2 occasions. In reviewing my notes, on the 10th of May Status Conference,

3 you ordered the Defence to reply to the -- all of the adjudicated facts by

4 the 30th of May. On 31 July, the recent 65 ter conference, it was agreed

5 that the adjudicated facts on behalf of the Krajisnik Defence would most

6 likely be concluded by the end of August.

7 Now, the consequence of not having a response by the Krajisnik

8 Defence is that we have deferred filing a motion in respect of those

9 adjudicated facts under Rule 94(B) because we anticipated that we would

10 have closure on an agreement on those facts.

11 My point is that we have not been able to conclude that aspect of

12 the Pre-Trial effort to reduce the size of this case, and we are now

13 confronted with either an agreement that those -- that the Defence will --

14 in the Krajisnik case, will conclude its analysis of the remaining

15 proposed adjudicated facts or we will file a motion to have the Court make

16 a determination under Rule 94(B). So that's the status of the efforts

17 that have been ongoing for over two years on the adjudicated facts.

18 The second Rule that we have tried to use, and we have used with

19 vigour, is Rule 92 bis, and in that respect, our witness list, which was

20 submitted to the Trial Chamber with part of our pre-trial brief,

21 identified approximately 406 witnesses, and we have identified 212 of

22 those witnesses as 92 bis witnesses; in other words, 52 per cent of our

23 witnesses.

24 We have reached agreement with the Plavsic Defence on a

25 significant number of those witnesses for 92 bis. They have agreed to

Page 318

1 accept the written evidence. There are some outstanding issues that need

2 to be resolved with the Plavsic Defence in respect of those witnesses, and

3 we have not reached agreement on any of the witnesses in respect of the

4 Krajisnik Defence.

5 The third issue that relates to pre-trial preparation has been

6 expert reports, and we, Your Honour is well aware, have filed our expert

7 reports well in advance of the time that normally is required for filing

8 of expert reports. I think we have filed our first expert reports

9 relating to exhumations in 2001; I don't have the exact dates, but a long,

10 long time ago. And the court is aware of the history of this analysis by

11 the Defence of these reports; some were filed in English, others were

12 filed in B/C/S. The net result of the filings in respect of the reports

13 in B/C/S was that an expert, a joint Defence expert, was appointed to

14 analyse the reports in B/C/S, in an effort to find a resolution and

15 hopefully an agreement that these would not be contested at trial.

16 Unfortunately, the conclusion of the expert that led the Defence to -- led

17 the Defence to agree that none of these reports would be accepted, that

18 every autopsy report in those expert reports would be the subject of an

19 examination and a cross-examination. Well, not wishing to leave the

20 matter at that state of affairs, the Defence and I engaged in further

21 discussions. Those discussions revealed a fundamental concern of the

22 Defence, and that was were the incidents that were described in the

23 indictment linked to the exhumation reports that -- of the experts that

24 had been filed by us under Rule 94?

25 With that issue now being addressed to the Prosecutor, I

Page 319












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 320

1 endeavoured to and then filed with the Defence, on the 9th of September of

2 this year, a chart, a concise chart, listing the exhumations and the links

3 between the exhumations and the events that are described in the

4 indictment. That has been submitted to the Defence. That has been

5 submitted to Ms. Featherstone.

6 I'll give you an example of what I mean and what is included in

7 this chart, Mr. President. The first incident that is revealed in the

8 linkage chart relates to exhumation reports of Professor Wright and

9 Dr. Hunt in respect of the Brcko exhumations. Both of those testimonies

10 have been accepted previously in the Jelisic trial. The links and the

11 events that are described in those particular exhumation reports relate to

12 events that are contained in the Plavsic/Krajisnik indictment, and the

13 links linking the event to the bodies that were found in the ground and

14 that were exhumed is described in this chart. And the link, one of the

15 principal links, between the events that were described in -- and I'll

16 relate the scheduled incidents in the indictment: A.5.3, A.5.4 and B.4.1.

17 Those are three separate events that took place in Brcko. The bodies that

18 were exhumed in the mass grave were -- I'm sorry. The victims from those

19 events were linked to the mass grave as a result of a schedule of bodies

20 that were given to us by the Serbian authorities, saying -- it's a list

21 saying these are the bodies that were found -- these are the bodies that

22 were put in these graves. So these are the Serbian authorities themselves

23 giving us the list of the victims who were put in this grave in the

24 ground. Those bodies and those names relate back to the three incidents.

25 So we have very clear linkage to the events in the indictment and

Page 321

1 the exhumations that were conducted by the experts. And you'll see, if

2 Your Honour hasn't seen a copy of this, that each of those expert reports

3 is described in it, and the event and the killing that is listed in the

4 indictment is listed by incident, and on the right-hand column are the

5 links, including the names of the witnesses and the physical evidence that

6 link the grave to the event.

7 So at this point in time, I know the Defence has just received

8 this on September the 9th, and I am hopeful that there will be a

9 resolution on this, but I do think, Mr. President, given the history of

10 this, that it would be important to try to set a date by which we could

11 have a decision by the Defence on whether or not they are prepared to

12 accept these exhumation expert reports.

13 Those are the three principal areas, Judge May, that have involved

14 us over the past year and a half or two years in these proceedings, and in

15 an attempt to get the length of the trial reduced, I --

16 JUDGE MAY: Because if these aren't going to be accepted, they

17 will have to be proven in the normal way.

18 MR. HARMON: We're prepared to do that, Judge May. This is just a

19 tool to make it easier. It seems to me -- it's our position, the

20 Prosecutor's position, that this should not be a matter of contest, but

21 that's not -- it's up to the Defence to make those decisions, not to me.

22 We're prepared to prove everything in these exhumations.

23 JUDGE MAY: It may be that it's a straightforward matter which

24 should be capable of agreement, one would imagine. But if it's not

25 agreed, as often happens, then I'm afraid it must be proved in the usual

Page 322

1 way.

2 MR. HARMON: We're prepared to do that.

3 JUDGE MAY: As for the adjudicated facts, I'll hear what

4 Mr. Brashich says. The position is that there has been a response on a

5 third or so, roughly, but it may be that the remainder will have to be

6 dealt with by way of ruling. There do seem to be a substantial number. I

7 don't know if it's possible to cut that down for the Trial Chamber to look

8 at.

9 MR. HARMON: We may do that in the course of filing our motion.

10 JUDGE MAY: I think it may be the simplest course, for you to file

11 a motion, realistically. This matter has been going on long enough.

12 MR. HARMON: Fine.

13 JUDGE MAY: Let me deal with the 92 bis point, the statements

14 under that Rule. You say you've reached agreement as to none with the

15 Krajisnik Defence.

16 MR. HARMON: They have filed their objection to the -- all of the

17 92 bis statements that we have.

18 JUDGE MAY: All of them.

19 MR. HARMON: All of them. That's my recollection, and it's based

20 on the fact that the statements deal with the acts or conduct of the

21 accused and therefore are not subject to 92 bis. But I will defer to

22 Mr. Brashich, who has taken the position and can articulate it more so.

23 In the respect of the Plavsic defence, we've reached an agreement on many

24 of these statements, and have over the past six months or one year that

25 we've been involved in exchanging correspondence.

Page 323

1 JUDGE MAY: Again, that may simply have to be a matter which is

2 ruled on.

3 MR. HARMON: Right.

4 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Brashich, matters susceptible to agreement, the

5 Court would encourage you to agree, if you can, what it is possible to

6 agree. Of course you have the right to contest matters. The Defence

7 always do. But a trial of this scope, one would think there must be some

8 matters which can be agreed in order to shorten it and get to the real

9 issues, which may be totally different.

10 MR. BRASHICH: Yes, Your Honour. I'm mindful of that fact. But

11 to take the points raised by Mr. Harmon on an inverse basis: The Defence

12 agreed to use a joint expert witness. We further agreed that that expert

13 witness would deal with the documents in B/C/S. After the review by the

14 expert, I consulted with him for a number of hours as to what he found at

15 fault with the expert witness report. Based on Dr. Dunjic's advice to me,

16 we took the position -- and if I do not heed the advice of our own expert

17 in the particular field, I would not be serving Mr. Krajisnik very well.

18 It was based on Dr. Dunjic's advice that the Prosecution's expert witness

19 reports are wanting. I then told the Prosecution briefly what Dr. Dunjic

20 had counselled the Krajisnik Defence, and that is a result of the chart

21 which came into being on September 9th and got into our hands on the 12th

22 or 13th of September. We have not been able to consult with Dr. Dunjic in

23 the meantime. I will follow Dr. Dunjic's advice and do whatever is proper

24 within the scope of the advice given.

25 With regard to the 92 bis statements, I disagree with the position

Page 324












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 325

1 taken by the Plavsic Defence. I find a number of the statements going

2 directly to the guilt or the acts of my client, and the 92 bis statements,

3 as constituted at this present time, are specifically referenced to counts

4 in the indictment. Now, if the 92 bis statements are totally without the

5 scope of the indictment, perhaps I would agree to let them in, but when

6 they have been noted as supporting the allegations against my client in

7 specific paragraphs of the indictment, then I will not agree to their

8 introduction into evidence.

9 With regard to the adjudicated facts, Your Honour has read the 65

10 ter conference transcript. The Defence is overwhelmed with the amount of

11 material that we have had to face. We are short of resources, and we

12 physically, and because of resources, could not and did not get to

13 agreeing or disagreeing with the adjudicated facts.

14 Now, that particular issue, the adjudicated facts, I had asked

15 Mr. Kostich to address, and, again, as you ever read the transcript, he is

16 at this present time without hours to address that particular issue. As

17 the Court well noted, should we not be able to get to that task prior to a

18 Pre-Trial Conference or well in advance of that Pre-Trial Conference, then

19 the Court would have to rule on those 1.300 some odd adjudicated facts.

20 One of the issues, Your Honour, is, of course, that this is not

21 only a matter for counsel to pass upon, but each and every adjudicated

22 fact would have to be discussed with the client.

23 The other problem that we are faced with, Your Honour, is that

24 these adjudicated facts are pregnant with innuendos and rather subjective

25 interpretations of rulings made by this Trial Chamber or other Trial

Page 326

1 Chambers. So to parse the subjectivity and the intrusion of the

2 Prosecution's point of view is a lengthy and time-consuming task,

3 especially in light of the other tasks that the Defence is being charged

4 with, including preparation of our case.

5 Now, as Your Honour well knows, people forget, people get lost,

6 and people die. That is the case with General Talic. So we have

7 undertaken, well in advance, knowing that in a year and a half or whenever

8 the Defence is called upon to put up its own evidence, that we have to be

9 ready and that we do not lose it in the meantime. So our task has not

10 only been preparation to meet the Prosecution's evidence but to look far

11 ahead to our own affirmative defences.

12 With regard to the adjudicated facts, I will again defer to

13 Mr. Kostich, and I know that only one attorney per side but he has assured

14 me -- I'll withdraw that. I will speak on behalf of Mr. Kostich. He has

15 indicated --

16 JUDGE MAY: I will hear Mr. Kostich if you prefer he speaks on the

17 matter because, clearly, if it can be resolved, as much as can be resolved

18 as possible by agreement, the better for everybody.

19 Mr. Kostich, ignoring - and I'm sure you will strike out those

20 parts which you claim are innuendo or incorrect assertions - but

21 concentrating on those matters which may be susceptible of agreement, do

22 you think it's going to be possible to come to some further agreement or

23 is it the position that you can get no further? It would certainly be

24 helpful if you could make a good-faith attempt to get further on this

25 issue. It would assist the trial, from everybody's point of view.

Page 327

1 MR. KOSTICH: You've indicated you've read my comments and

2 Mr. Brashich's comments from the 65 ter. That has not changed. However,

3 I appreciate the Court's concern in this area. What I will do is,

4 regardless of what will happen in regard to the matter dealing with

5 resources, the motion that's pending and so on, I will endeavour

6 nevertheless to put this particular project at the top of the list, and I

7 personally think that within approximately - today is the 20th - I would

8 say that within the next 30 days, we can get a response to Mr. Harmon,

9 OTP, just by doing it, and perhaps doing it in that fashion, I will

10 endeavour to do that. It is of great concern. So I will do that, Judge,

11 regardless of what occurs with regard to the other aspects of this matter.

12 JUDGE MAY: Well, thank you.

13 Now, Mr. Brashich, the exhumation reports, I haven't followed the

14 position here. You have your expert. He has asked for the originals of

15 the report. Do I understand it right?

16 MR. BRASHICH: No, Your Honour. The issue is, according to

17 Dr. Dunjic, is the exhumation reports are not autopsy reports. There is

18 no date of death, time of death, noted. This is one of his concerns, as I

19 recall. Again, this was quite sometime ago, and I would have to refer to

20 my notes of the meeting with Dr. Dunjic in Belgrade, but he had a list, a

21 punch list, of problems that he had with the exhumation reports as such.

22 I generally told Mr. Harmon as to those concerns, and that is when the

23 linkage chart was produced. But it had nothing to do with the -- whether

24 they were original or not reports.

25 If I recall, according to my notes, there was also some issue as

Page 328

1 to colour photographs, but I believe that that was resolved. I just don't

2 have my notes in front of me, Your Honour, on that issue.

3 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Harmon, it looks as though we are not

4 going to get very much further. The sensible course may be for the matter

5 to be prepared for trial, and it may be that during the course of the

6 trial, some further resolution could take place. It really is a matter

7 which should not be subject of lengthy evidence before the Trial Chamber,

8 one would hope. It may be that the concerns which Mr. Brashich has

9 ventilated can be brought to the attention of the Trial Chamber in due

10 course and the evidence could be tailored in such a way that Dr. Dunjic

11 can give the views, the witness could be - a witness, one would hope -

12 could be cross-examined on these particular aspects of the case.

13 [Microphone not activated] If there is no agreement, there is no

14 agreement.

15 MR. HARMON: In order to try to resolve this case as well, Judge

16 May, I have invited the Defence to give me specific objections that relate

17 to these exhumations so I can go back to the experts and say, "This is an

18 objection. What say you?" And we could be involved in that kind of a

19 dialogue. Unfortunately, I have never received any specific objections

20 and therefore I am immobilised in terms of proceeding further.

21 JUDGE MAY: Let us proceed on that avenue. It seems the sensible

22 one. And I'll raise it with Mr. Brashich.

23 Mr. Brashich, I was going to raise it myself, but Mr. Harmon

24 already has. Is there any reason why you can't send to the Prosecution

25 the concerns which your expert has about these reports? It may be that

Page 329












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 330

1 they could be answered. It may be they can't be. But at least it would

2 be possible to open a dialogue to see if there may be a simple answer, if

3 one thinks of a difficulty, rather than having a witness brought here to

4 give evidence to answer, "We don't know," or, "If there is an answer, I

5 could just go and get the document," it would seem the sensible course is

6 for you to put the concerns in a practical way to the Prosecution to

7 resolve this. This is a matter of expert evidence, and it's outside the

8 normal run of evidence, and it really should be, since it's between

9 experts, susceptible to being dealt with before the trial and in a way

10 which doesn't cause a lot of experts to have to come to give evidence

11 unnecessarily.

12 What I would have in mind would be to order something in the form

13 of a list of interrogatories, or if you have questions or issues have been

14 raised, for you to serve that on the Prosecution within the next ten days

15 or so. For instance, it may be possible to extract part of what

16 Dr. Dunjic has written to you to send to them.

17 Now, I trust that that is a matter that can be pursued.

18 MR. BRASHICH: I want to make it very clear, Your Honour, that I

19 do not have a written report from Dr. Dunjic. I did not ask for a written

20 report from him, and my communications with him with regard to his review

21 of the Prosecution's expert witness reports was oral, and I only took some

22 partial notes during that meeting. Therefore, what I am going to request

23 of the expert witness, Dr. Dunjic, is to give me a wish list of the

24 problems that he finds with the expert witness reports as now

25 constituted.

Page 331

1 I cannot speak to him -- I cannot speak for him, whether that can

2 be done within ten days. I myself cannot respond properly, since I am not

3 qualified to do so.

4 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Well, Mr. Brashich, how long do you think

5 it would take to get this report from him?

6 MR. BRASHICH: I will try and contact Dr. Dunjic by telephone this

7 afternoon and send a memo to chambers, if he can do it within 10, 15, 20

8 days, whatever the doctor advises.

9 JUDGE MAY: What I would order is that it be done within 21 days.

10 MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, I know that you can order that it be

11 done within 21 days. I have no control over Dr. Dunjic.

12 JUDGE MAY: Well, I'm sure Dr. Dunjic would wish to cooperate.

13 This is a trial which has gone on for a very long time. I have no doubt

14 he's a busy expert, but nonetheless, I'm sure that he would wish to

15 cooperate, and three weeks should be sufficient. He has told you what his

16 concerns are. It's simply a matter of listing them.

17 MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, I'll pass the order on, in writing, to

18 Dr. Dunjic.

19 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

20 Yes. Now, that, I hope, will enable some progress to be made on

21 that. We have -- the matter of the adjudicated facts you've heard about,

22 the Defence response. The matter of the Rule 92 bis statements I think is

23 out -- it will be a matter for the Trial Chamber. We have to resolve

24 that.

25 Now, I noticed there were two other matters at the conference

Page 332

1 yesterday which were raised. One was a matter to objections to individual

2 pieces of evidence; for instance, the qualifications of experts and the

3 admissibility of intercepts. Those matters, I'll hear what anybody wants

4 to say about it, if they want to raise it, but it seems to me they are

5 much more appropriately dealt with within the context of the trial itself,

6 that the Trial Chamber which is dealing with the matter will have a far

7 better grasp of the case inevitably, having heard some of the evidence.

8 MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, the concern that the Krajisnik Defence

9 has is that in one of the particular submissions that we have made, I

10 footnoted our reservation that in points of evidence, it might be better

11 for the actual Trial Chamber to rule upon these issues. However, saying

12 that, there are certain issues which I think should be resolved before

13 trial, such as the intercept communications. That has the Chamber -- the

14 Chamber has to pass upon foreign law that should be briefed. That should

15 not occur during trial, because it will come to a dead stop.

16 The same thing with regard to our motion, which is now in

17 abeyance, with regard to the five-hour documentary, "The Death of

18 Yugoslavia." Mr. Kostich and I have viewed that particular documentary.

19 There is a host of translation problems. We are attempting to resolve

20 that well in advance of trial, because if we don't resolve that in advance

21 of trial, we are going to play the tape, and every three or four minutes

22 Mr. Kostich and I will object, it will have to be rewound because what

23 Mr. Milosevic said was not translated in the voiceover or it was

24 mistranslated, and I can see wasting five to ten trial days just on an

25 issue such as that.

Page 333

1 So I think that the Trial Chamber is correct in its position that

2 a lot of rulings on evidence should take place during trial. However,

3 mindful of the problems that we are faced with in a trial of this

4 magnitude, certain things which could derail the trial should be properly

5 addressed prior to trial, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE MAY: Well, I'll alert the Trial Chamber, obviously. That

7 is a matter for it, and we will consider it and give our ruling on those

8 matters.

9 MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE MAY: Now, as far as this hearing is concerned, the one

11 matter I want to raise is the question of a timetable, but it may be we

12 can leave that until later. I have in mind a Pre-Trial Conference on the

13 14th of November. That is the date which has been identified. But there

14 may be other matters which counsel want to raise before I rule on that.

15 I'll start with the Prosecutor.

16 Yes, Mr. Harmon.

17 MR. HARMON: The proposed date of the 14th of November, Your

18 Honour, I'm weighing in relation to the adjudicated facts and the

19 resolution of the adjudicated facts, which is, by Mr. Kostich's statement,

20 30 days from now he would attempt to bring closure to that subject. That

21 would bring us to about the 20th of October. That leaves us little time

22 to analyse - between the Pre-Trial Conference - to analyse the submission

23 of Mr. Kostich and prepare a motion that would have to be ruled on, I

24 think, by the Trial Chamber, as presently constituted, and I think that

25 would impact on the trial and the possible length of the trial. I think

Page 334












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 335

1 the adjudicated facts is an important issue that needs to be resolved

2 finally before we can have a meaningful Pre-Trial Conference. And so, as

3 I say, working back to the date of 20 October, when Mr. Kostich says he

4 could complete his work, leaves us precious little time to prepare the

5 motion, have a hearing on the motion, get a decision on the motion, and

6 then, based on whether the trial has been significantly shortened, have

7 meaningful information from which to project a proper trial date.

8 JUDGE MAY: Well, it may be that that is an issue which can't be

9 resolved, but we must do everything we can to get this matter on to

10 trial. Putting things off is not going to assist. It may be that there

11 will be issues still to be resolved even at the Pre-Trial Conference, in

12 which case we'll have to deal with it as best we can.

13 MR. HARMON: We will wait for Mr. Kostich's answer and be guided

14 accordingly. We may be filing a motion after the 20th of October,

15 depending on the results of that discussion. Thank you.

16 JUDGE MAY: As far as the Defence are concerned, are there matters

17 which they wish to raise?

18 MR. BRASHICH: No. There's only one matter, Your Honour, and that

19 is the pre-trial brief which is due on the 30th. As you know from the

20 transcript of the 65 ter conference, my computer system crashed on August

21 14th, Mr. Kostich's computer system crashed somewhat thereafter, and two

22 disks which were specifically dedicated to the pre-trial brief failed. I

23 was somewhat paranoid as all of these coincidences having occurred, but

24 then there was a very large article in the New York Times Sunday Magazine

25 which explained coincidences, so I've lost my paranoia. But we might be

Page 336

1 seeking a 10- or 15-day extension of time within which to file the

2 Krajisnik Defence brief, Mr. Kostich and I working most of this afternoon

3 and all day tomorrow on that issue. Seventy per cent of the material

4 which was lost, not the pre-trial brief but general material in the

5 Krajisnik case, has been retrieved from the hard drive. So I think, if

6 we're lucky, we'll hit September 30th deadline. If we're not lucky, Your

7 Honour, we're going to have to seek leave for a 10- to 15-day extension.

8 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan.

9 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes. We have nothing specific to add at this

10 time. Subject to what Mr. Brashich just said, it's our position that any

11 briefs from the party should be filed on the same date.

12 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll fix the Pre-Trial Conference for the

13 14th of November, at 2.30, I think is the time we have the courtroom

14 available.

15 Mr. Brashich, are there any matters you wish to raise in relation

16 to the conditions of detention of the accused?

17 MR. BRASHICH: No, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. The case is adjourned.

19 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at

20 10.16 a.m.