1 Thursday, 17 March 2005
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.36 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
7 number IT-04-74-PT, the Prosecutor versus Jadranko Prlic, Bruno Stojic,
8 Slobodan Praljak, Milovoj Petkovic, Valentin Coric, and Berislav Pusic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 May I have the appearances. Prosecution first.
11 MR. SCOTT: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Kenneth Scott for the
12 Prosecution. I'm joined today by Mr. Vassily Poryvaev, Mr. Miguel Longone,
13 and our case manager, Denise Gustin.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
15 And for the Defence.
16 MR. SALAHOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
17 I'm Camil Salahovic, appearing today on behalf of Mr. Jadranko Prlic.
18 MR. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
19 I'm Berislav Zivkovic, on behalf of Bruno Stojic.
20 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. On
21 behalf of Slobodan Praljak, Bozidar Kovacic, attorney-at-law from Croatia.
22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, good afternoon.
23 I'm Vesna Alaburic, on behalf of Milovoj Petkovic.
24 MR. JONJIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
25 Tomislav Jonjic, attorney-at-law on behalf of Valentin Coric.
1 MR. SKOBIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. I'm Marinko Skobic,
2 attorney-at-law from Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina, appearing on behalf of the
3 accused Berislav Pusic.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
5 Yesterday, a 65 ter meeting took place. I'm briefed about what
6 has been discussed in that meeting. We have made a preliminary agenda for
7 today's meeting.
8 The first item I'd like to raise is the representation of
9 accused by counsel. I do understand that there are a few changes to be
10 expected. I do understand, Mr. Salahovic, that you might be substituted by
11 Mr. Karnavac; is that correct?
12 MR. SALAHOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is quite
13 correct. What I can say is that the registrar and OLAD have been informed.
14 Accordingly, Mr. Prlic got in touch with Mr. Karnavac, and I think that
15 they are about to complete their agreement. That's at least what was said
16 at the meeting yesterday.
17 JUDGE ORIE: So we'll further hear about that.
18 Then, Mr. Skobic, did I understand that you might become co-
19 counsel, a new lead counsel to be appointed?
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone, please.
22 MR. SKOBIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as concerns the lead
23 counsel, there will be changes in that department; that much is certain. I
24 have been involved with this case up to the point where legal assistance
25 was invoked, but then I invoked Rule 44(B). What I lack is the knowledge
1 of one of the working languages, which happens to be also the only
2 condition and requirement that I do not meet. In view of the present
3 situation that I should put myself on a Rule 45 list, I'm not able to do
4 that at the moment.
5 The accused, Mr. Pusic has been informed about this situation
6 and he will be taking legal steps to meet these requirements in due course.
7 Whether I will remain on the team as co-counsel or not is not something
8 that I cannot confirm at this point in time.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there's no need to clarify that at this very
11 Then I do understand, Mr. Zivkovic, that your position is still
12 not certain because -- also because of the language requirement; is that
14 MR. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that's quite
15 correct. It's precisely that requirement that I lack. Although I have
16 been able to furnish certain certificates regarding my foreign languages,
17 it is generally believed that I should take a test, which I will do on the
18 22nd of this month. I will be here next Tuesday to take the exam, after
19 which we shall review the situation. I'm certainly still hoping for the
21 JUDGE ORIE: As always, I wish you a lot of success. If you
22 have to undergo a test, whatever test it is, it's always good if it has a
23 good result, Mr. Zivkovic.
24 In general terms, I'd like you to -- because I do understand
25 that there are some changes from counsel that have been appointed by the
1 accused themselves, that many of the accused now moved to assignment of
2 counsel by the Registry. I also do understand, of course, that the first
3 matter that has to be established is that the accused are indigent, meaning
4 that they can't afford to pay counsel by themselves. Of course, that first
5 has to be established, and I'd like you to explain clearly to your clients
6 what the situation is, what requirements should be fulfilled, in order to
7 get counsel assigned by the Registrar, because any awareness of what such a
8 change would require at a later stage will not be accepted as a reason for
9 further delays. I mean, the accused, you can inform your clients perfectly
10 well on the present situation.
11 It's also their choice, finally, that you started -- at least
12 the ones who might leave, started as counsel appointed by the accused
13 themselves, and of course if you have new counsel assigned, that of course
14 brings some additional work. But that's, of course, all the consequence of
15 the choice the accused have made to start with one -- with privately-hired
16 counsel and then to move to the other system.
17 I just want to stress that the complications it could bring are
18 to be considered well in advance and should not create any delays in the
20 Any other matter in relation to representation of the accused to
21 be raised? I'm first looking at Defence counsel, but of course if --
22 MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: There's one issue, for example, if I say that all
24 the complications that might arise out of it should be considered well in
25 advance. For example, one could wonder whether the Registrar would be
1 willing to assign as co-counsel or even as -- in whatever position someone
2 who is related to one of the accused, one could even ask oneself whether it
3 is wise at all to have a family member in a Defence team, because it could
4 easily create conflicts of loyalties, professional duties and family
5 loyalties. And I just mention it at this moment without drawing any
6 consequences out of it, but it's still something that perhaps might be
7 given some more thought perhaps both by accused and counsel and by the
9 Any further issue in respect of representation? If not, then we
10 move to the second item on the agenda, that's pending and preliminary
12 I do see there is one motion pending, that is, a request by the
13 accused Praljak to have access to a summary of sensitive witnesses. We are
14 still waiting for a response from the Prosecution. I take it that once
15 that response is there, that we could, relatively quickly, deliver a --
16 issue a decision on the matter.
17 If there's no further -- if there's nothing to bring to our
18 attention in this effect, I'll move to the next one. These are the
19 preliminary motions. Of course, the preliminary motions, there are quite
20 many for six accused, and two or three for each of them. Ample time has
21 been given to respond to the motions because they are very often of a
22 rather complex nature.
23 Now, the Chamber needs a bit of time to deal with them because
24 preparing a decision, we hope that we'll deliver them somewhere mid-April.
25 But it's complex. We do not want to hurry and rush through them but to
1 give proper attention to these motions.
2 Is there anything to be raised about pending motions? If not,
3 then we'll move to the third agenda item, that's the pre-trial work plan.
4 I do understand that the pre-trial work plan has been provided to the
5 parties yesterday and that there was not that much comment on it. Well, at
6 least on the pre-trial work plan, under item 3, "Preliminary Motions", it
7 says, "Decisions by the 1st of April, 2005." I wouldn't say that the 1st
8 of April is Fool's Day and for that reason, the Chamber rather would not
9 issue decisions on that day, but perhaps it might be a bit misleading. As
10 I just said, it will most likely be in mid-April.
11 Any further comments on the pre-trial work plan? Nothing.
12 Then disclosure issues. I do understand that exculpatory
13 information has been disclosed for the Prosecution, the 11th of February,
14 close to 3.000 pages, and that a batch of witness statements has been
15 disclosed approximately one week ago. I also understand that the
16 Prosecution is still working on getting the consent to disclose Article 70
17 material, which would be five out of 70 witnesses.
18 MR. SCOTT: If I might, Your Honour. There are, I think, six
19 institutional providers --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. SCOTT: -- primarily governments, but some other
22 organisations that have to give their permission prior to some disclosures.
23 All those letters have gone out. We expect affirmative answers by most. A
24 couple have written back and one had requested more information, but it's
25 in process. We would hope that it would be completely covered in the next
1 30 days.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And will you do it step by step, that you
3 once you have a response from that agency, that you will immediately
4 disclose or --
5 MR. SCOTT: Sure.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there any disclosure issue Defence counsel
7 would like to raise?
8 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, perhaps just a clarification. You
9 mentioned that exculpatory disclosure contains some 3.000 pages. It was,
10 if I'm not wrong, 2.000-and-something documents, but in pages, it was
11 roughly 18.000 pages, just for the record to be clear.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's -- perhaps I had 2.700 pages, but that
13 might be that is a mistake. It should be documents, as far as I
15 Yes. Any further issue? Any further disclosure issue?
16 Then I'd like to turn in private session for one second.
17 [Private session]
6 [Open session]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although not directly under the heading of
8 disclosure, I do understand that some of the accused, perhaps all, would
9 like to seek further evidence which could support their case which might be
10 found in Croatian archives. I also do understand that the first attempt
11 has been made to obtain the material. If it comes to a moment that the
12 Defence counsel would feel that it is rather obstruction than cooperation,
13 what they meet, they always can address the Chamber. I cannot guarantee
14 you a positive result, but at least there is some experience with requests
15 from Defence counsel to a Chamber to assist in obtaining material from
16 Croatian authorities, and for the experiences.
17 Perhaps, Mr. Jonjic, if I look in your direction, I take it that
18 you would have sufficient experience in what can be done, to what extent
19 the Chamber can assist and where, sometimes also the limits are found. So
20 therefore, it's not up to me to direct you to one of your colleagues, but
21 perhaps in an exchange of experiences among the Defence counsel that you
22 could find relevant information. You always can address the Chamber on the
23 matter if needed.
24 Then if there are no questions about that, I would like to move
25 to the next subject and that is the protection of victims and witnesses.
1 I do understand that the parties will exchange their ideas on,
2 if I could call it that, the issue of whether there's any property in a
3 witness. I do understand that, even in the common law tradition, the issue
4 is not looked at exactly in the same way by the various varieties of common
5 law systems.
6 The Chamber would very much like to see that the parties could
7 enter into some kind of an agreement which would, on the one hand, give the
8 necessary facilities for the parties to approach potential witnesses and
9 not to be obstructed by formal positions taken by the other party, and at
10 the same time, in due respect for the fundamental rule for all counsel is
11 that, approaching witnesses is good, but finally, there should not be a
12 fight for the most welcomed truth to be given by a witness. So the parties
13 take the same position, that is, that a witness should finally come and
14 testify and assist the Chamber in finding the truth and not a fight on who
15 could best use the witness for winning its case, even if that winning would
16 not be -- would not find its very basis in the truth.
17 I'm saying this not because I've got any impression that it
18 needs specific attention by these parties, but it is not unknown that if –
19 experience has been obtained in other cases that even if someone appears to
20 be a good witness for one party, then suddenly that impression may change
21 after the other party has approached that same witness. Whatever you could
22 say under those circumstances is that, at least, it seems that such a
23 witness has a problem he should not have at that moment, that is, that
24 perhaps parties, whatever party it is, might try to pull him in one or
25 another direction where there's only one right direction.
1 Having said this, let me just consult for one second.
2 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
3 JUDGE ORIE: The next agenda item is whether there's any issue
4 whether --
5 MR. KOVACIC: I'm sorry, Your Honour, to interrupt, but I think
6 that it would be appropriate to react before you go on.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kovacic, please.
8 MR. KOVACIC: As you notice, there was a discussion, as you told
9 us you understood. However, we -- I personally entirely agree with that
10 approach. Of course that is the situation we are dealing with. But in
11 fact, the whole discussion was initiated by the incidence some of us
12 Defence lawyers were informed of on one way or another. And I have to tell
13 that I have a strong feeling that we have to find an appropriate mechanism
14 to balance all those interests and to get a fair approach not only in the
15 meaning of our approach, I mean the parties' approach to the witness, but
16 also from the aspect of the witness who may be approached wrongly and tried
17 to be pull on one or another side of the truth. This is exactly what we
19 The situation is Bosnia cannot be judged, I mean the current
20 situation in Bosnia cannot be judged, by the rules of a civilised society.
21 In a normal situation, when we are talking about an average person, when
22 somebody is approaching the witness and representing himself being some
23 kind of authority, some kind -- having some power behind him, being
24 representative of International Tribunal or local police or anything which
25 sounds like the institute or organisation, the witness is already to DMRIE
1 with the request, whatever the request may be.
2 On the other hand, when I am approaching such a witness as a
3 Defence lawyer, attitude is entirely different in most cases because the
4 witnesses in our countries, in Bosnia, particularly, they don't care for
5 the Defence. You are not important. You do not have a power. So
6 frequently I'm not even in a position to inform a potential witness - let's
7 not even say a witness but a person I want to interview in order to see
8 whether he can serve some purpose – I cannot inform him that there is a
9 mechanism that actually I can have him as a witness, whether he likes it or
10 not. I'm thinking on subpoena or other mechanisms.
11 So very frequently, we feel that we are in -- that the situation
12 for us, that there is a disadvantage for us because, of course, frequently,
13 both parties are approaching the same witnesses, for whatever reason;
14 either somebody mentioned the witness or we find he may know something. We
15 discussed that issue yesterday, and I won't bother further with it. The
16 idea is to find a mechanism.
17 I put two sentences on the paper this morning and gave it to the
18 Prosecution before this Status Conference. Unfortunately, there was no
19 time to meet, and I may inform you about our idea, if the Registry would
20 mind to give it to the Judge. But if it is not appropriate time, I would
21 file something next week on those lines. But on the other hand, I think it
22 is --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Has Mr. Scott received these lines already and has
24 he responded to them?
25 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour, I did receive them as I came into
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 the courtroom this afternoon, and for the reasons that I'll go into if the
2 Chamber cares to at this time, we are not in agreement. The Prosecution is
3 not in agreement.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then I do see that as a proposal which is not
5 agreed upon. There is a good rule that, as long as parties are still
6 negotiating on how to solve a matter, that the Chamber should not interfere
7 by expressing which is the position which is best; therefore, at this
8 moment, perhaps it's better for me not to look at the proposal made which -
9 - to which the Prosecution could not agree.
10 Of course, if the parties finally would not reach an agreement,
11 there's nothing wrong with addressing the Chamber either together or
12 separate, and of course at that moment, if you find, Mr. Kovacic, that your
13 proposal was good enough to be accepted but unfortunately not accepted by
14 the Prosecution, and if the Chamber would have to make any ruling on how to
15 deal with the matter, then of course we'd look at it. And if it's an
16 perfect proposal, of course, we would then follow that, unless there are
17 other perfect proposals and then we would have a difficulty in making up
18 our mind.
19 So therefore, what is the time range within which we could
20 expect a result whether -- what would be the time range in which we could
21 be informed about whether there's any result, yes or no?
22 Mr. Kovacic.
23 MR. KOVACIC: It's difficult to tell. I don't think there's any
24 room to negotiate further with the -- I don't think that there is too much
25 space to negotiate with the Prosecution. It's a simple proposal and they
1 said no. So the only source available to me is to file a motion next week.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. KOVACIC: I'll make it very simple.
4 JUDGE ORIE: If you make a proposal and the answer is no,
5 sometimes there happens that there comes a counterproposal.
6 Mr. Scott will there be any counterproposal?
7 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I don't believe there will, because the
8 Prosecution has looked into these matters and finds that there is no
9 current issue as far as we're concerned. The Defence position on this has,
10 frankly, changed a bit over the course of the last few days. The initial
11 concern, I use that word, was that there was some sort of pressure being
12 brought by the representatives of the OTP that was somehow, let's say,
14 JUDGE ORIE: That was not to speak with Defence counsel or --
15 MR. SCOTT: Not to speak with certain witnesses -- about
16 speaking with certain witnesses who might identify themselves with, for
17 example, the Defence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. SCOTT: I've investigated that. I've talked to all –-
20 either talked to myself directly or had other people in contact with the
21 people – all the people who have been in the field for the past several
22 weeks. We know of no instance in which there's been anything that I would
23 even consider approaching, let alone being misconduct or possibly
24 questionable, even approaching that. So the Prosecution is completely
25 unaware of any issue, and there not being an issue, we don't see the reason
1 for the need to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
2 As the Chamber -- as Your Honour said a few minutes ago, and the
3 Prosecution does feel strongly, that neither side owns a witness. They are
4 a witness to the truth. And it's not surprising at all that on a given set
5 of facts, on a given set of issues, a particular person who is in a
6 position to have personal knowledge might be of interest to both sides.
7 And we see nothing wrong at all with both sides being able to approach that
8 witness in order to seek the truth and to provide that witness, either as a
9 Defence witness or a Prosecution witness, to the Chamber, to assist the
10 Chamber in coming to the truth of the matter.
11 I don't think it's up for the Prosecution to tell witnesses they
12 shouldn't talk – "If the Defence counsel calls, you don't talk to them." I
13 also don't think it's up to us to do the same, and we haven't. It's up to
14 the witness to decide. So if we approach a witness, for example, if the
15 Prosecution approaches a witness, and in the course of the first few
16 minutes of conversation it comes out -- the witness may say, Well, by the
17 way, I was contacted by Defence counsel or a representative of the Defence
18 a few weeks ago and I've also agreed to talk to them, well, I mean so what?
19 Are you willing to talk to us as well? Well, of course I'm willing to talk
20 to you. I'll talk to whoever wants to talk to me. We see no problem with
21 that. It's the witness' decision. I don't see anything to be gained by
22 saying, "Well, Mr. Witness, you should call the Defence counsel first and
23 ask them if you should talk to us or not." It's not their decision and not
24 my decision. It's up to the witness to decide.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kovacic, would you like to -- we have now heard
1 that you couldn't expect a counterproposal because there's no issue. I
2 take it that you do not agree with that, otherwise there would be no need
3 to file a motion, which you announced to us, next week.
4 MR. KOVACIC: Yes, Your Honour, I do not agree with that. That
5 is the wrong interpretation. My final proposal after such discussion
6 yesterday, we reiterated because we accepted the arguments, the force of
7 the argument of the Prosecutor, so we changed -– basically, we changed the
8 approach and that is what I put on the paper. The only thing which we
9 asked, and of course it would oblige both parties, in the initial contact
10 of a potential witness, each party should ask the witness whether the
11 witness was previously contacted by the other party, the opposing party.
12 If the witness says, Yes, I was, then the only requirement would be, the
13 approaching party would inform the other party that he is approaching the
14 counsel and would provide opportunity to be present in a subsequent
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. KOVACIC: Nothing more than that. I'm not dividing the
18 witnesses as a property because that is their right to cooperate with me or
19 the Prosecution or with both. The only thing I'm asking, if you are
20 approaching a witness which was previously approached by me, or vice versa,
21 you should first ask a witness such a question in order to find out such a
22 fact and then give me the opportunity to be present.
23 JUDGE ORIE: What's the basis for that last claim?
24 MR. KOVACIC: The basis is what I told you. It's a difference in
25 culture, the state of mind of the witnesses we are dealing with. The
1 authority for them is something. If an authority is asking them, Well, was
2 it a sunny, nice day yesterday, he would say yes, despite of the fact that
3 there was rain.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Would that change if Defence counsel would be
5 present or if Prosecution counsel would be present if the other party --
6 let's say you approach a witness which has been interviewed before by the
7 OTP. Now, you asked the witness whether, at least a potential witness,
8 whether he has been approached before; he says yes. You give a call to Mr.
9 Scott and Mr. Scott says, Please let me be present. What would that change
10 in the --
11 MR. KOVACIC: There would be more balance. The witness would be
12 -- his statement would be more balanced. He would not be biased. He would
13 not try to please you. And usually they are trying to please the power,
14 the state, the government, the institution, not the private person, like an
15 attorney from Rijeka. That is the tendency. I'm not talking that that is
16 the rule. Of course, we are talking about statistics. But frequently that
17 is the case.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, would the witness not be confused if he
19 doesn't know anymore to please whom, if everyone is present?
20 Mr. Scott. Do you have any --
21 MR. SCOTT: My apologies, Your Honour, I didn't mean to interrupt
22 the Chamber. I thought Mr. Kovacic was maybe sitting down. I did want to
23 respond briefly.
24 Just on that point, Your Honour. And Your Honour, your point is
25 well taken. That's why I said a few moments ago, and this is not meant
1 with any ill will, but the nature of the Defence position has changed as
2 this matter has been discussed. First it was a matter of, Well, we want
3 notice of this. Then it became a complaint about, Well, we don't have the
4 same powers to compel witnesses and therefore we should apply to the
5 Chamber for relief. It's changed. And if there's an appropriate
6 situation, number one, if there is an appropriate situation where counsel
7 believes that a witness that they think is really important to their case
8 and the witness is not cooperative, then I suspect that if they can make
9 the adequate necessary shows, the Chamber will give them some relief if
10 they apply in the appropriate say. Now, that's a separate issue. That has
11 nothing to do with the OTP approaching a witness. That has to do with
12 council seeking whatever relief to talk to a resistant witness as they see
13 it, as they deem appropriate, and as the Chamber ultimately deems
15 The second one, Your Honour, and very briefly, just so there's no
16 misunderstanding here, Mr. Kovacic has said that many -- there is a
17 difference in the way that witnesses react by being approached by different
18 people. Let me assure the Chamber, as you probably know, Your Honour,
19 there are many people in the field, and it's been the experience over the
20 past 10 years, that when the OTP approaches people who, let's just say,
21 might identify themselves with the other side, with the Serb side or with
22 the Muslim side or with the Croat side, we also very, very often get an
23 extremely hostile reaction. They don't want to talk to us; in fact, they
24 slam the door in our faces, they curse at us, "I want nothing to do with
25 the OTP." So this is not a situation unique to one side or the other.
1 That is just, unfortunately, the reality of dealing with human beings on
2 the ground.
3 But we do not see any reason why one side should be given veto
4 power or consent or notice about who is meeting with whom, unless there's a
5 genuine protected witness situation. We're now talking about generally,
6 the witness situation generally. We're not talking about a very small
7 category, particularly, perhaps, of sensitive witnesses. But as to the
8 general witnesses, Your Honour, we don't see any reason why, if a witness
9 is willing to talk to either side -- and we've had that. We've had a
10 witness who said, I talked to the Defence last week, I'll talk to you
11 today, and if you come back, I'll talk to you again. I'll talk to whoever
12 wants to talk to me. Why do we then need to call the Defence and ask them
13 if it's okay with them. If the witness has already agreed, we have to plan
14 missions, we fly down to Sarajevo, we drive an hour and a half to Mostar,
15 wherever, and then we're going to meet a witness and the witness is going
16 to say, Oh, by the way, I spoke to the Defence last week and we have to say
17 -- according to what Mr. Kovacic proposed, should cease any further contact
18 with the witness and inform the opposing party.
19 So we are on a mission, we have been on the aeroplane, we've
20 spent the UN's money going down there. The witness is agreeable to talk to
21 us. It's not the witness' objection. Yes, Mr. Scott, I'll talk to you.
22 But there's a rule that says we have to cease all contact in order to
23 approach counsel. Well, the mission could be over, we come back to The
24 Hague, we've wasted a lot of money and effort.
25 I just don't see that there's any reason for these rules to be in
1 effect, unless there's been some genuine situation of abuse. And there's
2 been no indication of any abuse by either side at this point in time. And
3 if a witness is cooperative to either side, there's no problem with that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Have the parties considered to make a brief leaflet
5 indicating, in a language the witness understands, exactly what he should
6 know in that position. Just an informative sheet, if one meets with one
7 witness, then if the witness says, I've met with the other party, then to
8 say, Okay, for these specific circumstances, we have prepared - and we will
9 not give any further comment to it - we have prepared an information sheet
10 which informs you about your position under those circumstances. Very
11 often, balanced information is the first step to avoid further problems.
12 Of course, if you'd like to have this matter resolved by a ruling
13 of the Chamber, the only thing I can say is that you take care that I have
14 a solid legal document in front of me and not just a list of wishes and
15 requests. It's not an easy issue. Perhaps you could also look at the
16 experience obtained in other cases, because there have been cases where
17 arrangements have been made. Perhaps you should also look to what extent
18 these arrangements were always successful and really served the aim they
19 should serve. On this issue, it's not a matter of listing your wishes and
20 requirements and requests, but I want a thorough legal analysis for any
21 claim in this respect.
22 Is there any other matter in this respect you'd like to raise?
23 If not, then I'd like to move to the next agenda item, that is,
24 any personal or health situations of the accused. To the extent necessary,
25 you always can request to go into a private session if you want to raise
1 matters that are not to be discussed in public.
2 Mr. Salahovic, any issue in this respect as far as Mr. Prlic is
4 MR. SALAHOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have nothing to
5 raise that would be important. Mr. Prlic is feeling fine and his health is
7 JUDGE ORIE: Same question to you, Mr. Zivkovic, in respect of
8 Mr. Stojic.
9 MR. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Bruno Stojic's
10 health is very good. There are no problems whatsoever.
11 MR. KOVACIC: Same with me, Your Honour, my client is fine. Too
12 fine, actually.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Alaburic.
14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Same here, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jonjic.
16 MR. JONJIC: [Interpretation] The same applies to Mr. Coric.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Skobic.
18 MR. SKOBIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you know full well that
19 the accused Pusic was the only one to experience health problems; however,
20 he has been receiving medical attention throughout. His health is now
21 satisfactory, but he is still being minded by the doctors.
22 JUDGE ORIE: He's still suffering from his back pain, and I
23 remember that he had to stand most of the time and that was not -- but it's
24 not worse, it's -- he receives treatment.
25 MR. SKOBIC: [Interpretation] It's not worse, but it's no better
1 either. He keeps receiving treatment, he goes to medical sessions, but the
2 city of Zagreb has all the facilities required for his recovery. And I am
3 here referring to our medical institutions.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Skobic, for this information.
5 This was my last agenda item. Is there anything one of the
6 parties would like to raise?
7 Mr. Scott.
8 MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour, thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I see nodding six times, no. Then this concludes
10 this Status Conference. We stand adjourned.
11 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at
12 3.22 p.m.