Page 206

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.

Page 207

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

Page 208

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

10 moment.

11 Then I do understand, Mr. Zivkovic, that your position is still

12 not certain because -- also because of the language requirement; is that

13 correct?

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

20 best.

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

Page 209

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

19 future.

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

Page 210

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

8 Chamber.

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

11 motions.

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

Page 211

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 --


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

Page 212

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

14 understand.

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]

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 213

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

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.

Page 214

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.

Page 215

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

18 felt.

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

Page 216

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

Page 217












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 218

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

Page 219

1 said no. So the only source available to me is to file a motion next week.


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,

13 improper.

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.


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

Page 220

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

Page 221

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

15 interview.


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

Page 222

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

Page 223

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

14 appropriate.

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.

Page 224

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

Page 225

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

Page 226

1 matters that are not to be discussed in public.

2 Mr. Salahovic, any issue in this respect as far as Mr. Prlic is

3 concerned?

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

6 good.

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

Page 227

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.