1 Monday, 27 November 2006
2 [Pre-Trial Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-03-67-PT, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 May I have the appearances. Prosecution, first.
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Good morning, Your Honours. For the
12 Prosecution today, Mr. Dan Saxon, Ms. Melissa Pack, and my name is
13 Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff, and as usual we are coming together with our
14 case manager, Ms. Ana Katalinic.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
16 For the Defence. I see that Mr. Seselj, who is self-represented,
17 is not present. Therefore, I would first like to know whether stand-by
18 counsel is present. I see you are present, Mr. Hooper, accompanied by
19 Mr. O'Shea and accompanied by ...
20 MR. HOOPER: Ms. Lea Kulinowski, who is our case manager.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Hooper.
22 We've just established that Mr. Seselj is not present.
23 Mr. Registrar, could you update, inform, the Chamber about the reasons of
24 the absence of Mr. Seselj.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours. Good morning.
1 This morning I was informed by the acting Deputy Registrar, Mr.
2 Robin Vincent, who was also reliably informed by the commanding officer of
3 the Detention Unit, Mr. Tim McFadden, that Mr. Seselj does not want to
4 attend today's proceedings. There has been no change in his circumstances
5 in the fact that he continues to refuse food supplied by the Detention
6 Unit, as well as medication. It's reported to me that his condition has
7 grown weaker since last Friday, when he was observed. But apart from
8 that, there has been no change to his day-to-day routine. He continues to
9 drink water, and he has not been observed eating. Apart from that, he
10 does not want to attend today's proceeding.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that information, Mr. Registrar.
12 Before we continue, I'd first like to inform the parties about the
13 new composition of the bench. Like Judge Hoepfel was assigned to the case
14 pre-trial and then after the Secretary-General had approved his assignment
15 to the Seselj case, it was then assigned to this case on the 31st of
16 October. Similarly, Judge Stole has been assigned for the pre-trial stage
17 of these proceedings by the President of this institution. I think it was
18 last week, Friday, that the Secretary-General approved or, as a matter of
19 fact, assigned Judge Stole also to the Seselj case, and this will be
20 confirmed, I understand, before the start of the trial today by the
21 President of this institution assigning Judge Stole to the Seselj Bench.
22 So, therefore, this moment, he is still here on the basis of his
23 assignment pre-trial, but will not start the trial until the President
24 Pocar has signed an order noting his approval by the Secretary-General
25 assigning Judge Stole to this case.
1 The Chamber has not received any submissions in relation to the
2 invitation to the accused to make submissions, which was filed and served
3 on the accused in his own language on the 22nd of November, 2006. The
4 Chamber is also not aware of any request for an extension of the deadlines
5 set by that invitation.
6 Since the accused is not present here, the Chamber cannot receive
7 any oral submissions in respect of what has been raised in this invitation
8 either. But whether or not the accused has responded to the invitation by
9 the Chamber, the Chamber and I should now consider, in view of the
10 accused's conduct, whether the accused's self-representation should be
11 terminated and whether stand-by counsel, or counsel, I'd have to say, be
12 imposed permanently.
13 Unfortunately, the accused is not here to make any further
15 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, does the Prosecution want to make any
16 submissions in this respect, or would you prefer to leave this to the
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we have made our position clear
19 since a long time, that we think that counsel needs to be assigned to
20 guarantee a proper trial here. We think -- and most recently also made a
21 motion confirming this position.
22 We think it should be permanent counsel; otherwise, we would have
23 to face situations like the one we find ourselves in over and over again.
24 That's actually all I need to add to all the arguments that we have
25 been -- that have already been made in the filings. So we are -- we
1 actually would also request that the permanent assignment of counsel and
2 not temporary, as we had the last few days.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, the Chamber will have to
4 ignore for the time being the last motion because it has not been
5 translated and therefore the accused is not aware of the content of that
6 motion. So, therefore, any arguments set out in that motion where the
7 accused had no opportunity to respond will, at this moment, not be
8 considered by the Chamber.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, given that situation, I would
10 like to add, then, just a very brief remark.
11 In the motion that we filed and will now be ignored, the
12 Prosecution has actually provided jurisprudence on the fact how hunger
13 strikes and the like were considered in international law in this tribunal
14 and in national law, and all the -- basically, these kinds of
15 jurisprudence came to the result that hunger strike in the form as it is
16 conducted here was considered to be obstructive. That's all I wanted to
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hooper, since you're not activated at this moment
19 as stand-by counsel, I'm not going to ask you at this moment to make any
20 further submissions. That would need a decision, to invite you to take
21 over, because the last time we decided for you to take over was just for
22 the purposes of that Status Conference. If you'd like to respond to what
23 I just said, you have an opportunity to do so.
24 MR. HOOPER: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 First of all, may we extend our congratulations to Judge Stole on
1 his elevation to the Bench of the International Criminal Tribunal for the
2 former Yugoslavia.
3 Coming to the matter at hand, we would feel it not inappropriate
4 for the Bench to invite a view from us as stand-by counsel as to the
5 appropriate modalities for assignment of counsel. And I say no more at
6 the moment.
7 [Pre-Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hooper, the Chamber, but really very temporarily,
9 decides to activate you to take over as counsel and to submit what you'd
10 like to -- what you'd like to submit in relation to imposition of counsel.
11 If you want to talk about modalities, fine, these kinds of matters, I
12 think it may be clear enough to you that especially these kinds of
13 matters, you are in a situation which is not an easy one. That means you
14 are under a duty now to assist the Chamber in reaching decisions from a
15 point of view most favourable to the accused. Please keep that in mind
16 and make whatever submissions you'd like to make.
17 MR. HOOPER: Well, essentially, what I'd like to say is merely a
18 reflection of a debate that's taken place between myself and my co-counsel
19 this morning, and it really concerns this: It's the question of the
20 modalities that concern us. I say "concern us." It's a matter that
21 perhaps does merit being raised, and it's essentially to deal with --
22 deals with this: That so far, reference to Dr. -- by the Chamber, to Dr.
23 Seselj, and I'm thinking here of the recent Status Conferences that have
24 been held, has concern and been really directed by way of warning to him
25 as to the temporary assignment of stand-by counsel to take over his case.
1 And that in the Trial Chamber's written order, dated the 22nd of
2 November, 2006, the Chamber has issued a warning in line with the Appeals
3 Chamber decision, essentially, of the 20th of October of 2006, has issued
4 a warning relating to the imposition of counsel, which is perhaps -- well,
5 obviously a more specific and general imposition. And we merely raise,
6 this morning, for your consideration, whether there should be, if that is
7 the path that the Chamber feels should be followed, a further warning to
8 the accused this morning, which he could respond to either this morning or
9 tomorrow or such time as the Chamber would feel, in those circumstances,
10 is appropriate.
11 Those are all the matters that we have to raise.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Hooper.
13 The Chamber will adjourn at this moment. We'll consider the
14 present situation as far as representation by counsel or
15 self-representation is concerned, whether temporarily or on a more
16 permanent basis.
17 We stand adjourned, and the parties are invited to remain
18 stand-by. We'll take not more than -- at least the parties should take
19 not more than 10 to 15 minutes. Of course, whether the Chamber has then
20 reached a decision yet or not yet is still to be seen, but the parties
21 should remain on stand-by from 25 minutes to 10.00.
22 --- Break taken at 9.21 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 10.10 a.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: The Trial Chamber will now render an oral decision on
25 the accused's self-representation, and the written reasons for this
1 decision will follow soon, although, I'll give abbreviated reasons
2 already, now.
3 On the 22nd of November, 2006, following the accused's failure to
4 appear at a Status Conference, the Chamber invited him, and I quote, "to
5 make submissions regarding the recent conduct or any decision the Trial
6 Chamber might take on the question of his legal representation," to be
7 made no later than Friday, the 24th of November, 2006.
8 The Chamber did not receive a response from the accused to its
9 invitation. The accused has also failed to appear before this Chamber
10 today to make any oral submissions on the matter. The Chamber, in
11 accordance with the terms of its invitation to the accused, understands
12 this as a waiver of his right to be heard on the matter.
13 The Chamber has considered the conduct of the accused, in
14 particular in the period since the Appeals Chamber's decision of the 20th
15 of October, 2006. The Chamber has also considered the warnings that have
16 been issued by the Chamber during the Status Conference of the 8th and the
17 22nd of November, 2006, and by the Appeals Chamber in the aforementioned
18 decision. The Chamber has also considered that the accused persists in
19 not taking food, requiring the Trial Chamber to reconsider some of its
20 decisions. The Chamber also considered that the accused persists in being
21 absent from the proceedings.
22 The Chamber finds that the accused's self-representation in the
23 course of the period since the 20th of October, 2006, has substantially
24 obstructed the proper and expeditious conduct of the proceedings, and
25 finds further, that permanent assignment of counsel to represent the
1 accused in accordance with paragraph (I) of the Trial Chamber's order of
2 the 25th of October, 2006, is at this point justified. Therefore, the
3 Trial Chamber instructs stand-by counsel to permanently take over the
4 conduct of the Defence from the accused, pursuant to paragraph 5(I) of the
5 Trial Chamber's order of the 25th of October, 2006. The Trial Chamber
6 orders that the accused's participation in the proceedings, henceforth,
7 will be through counsel, unless, having heard from counsel, the Trial
8 Chamber determines otherwise.
9 The Trial Chamber further requests the Registry to appoint Mr. Van
10 der Spoel as independent counsel, to take any necessary action in relation
11 to an appeal against this decision, and to report to the Trial Chamber by
12 tomorrow whether and how it has acted on this request.
13 Mr. Hooper, I'll not address you any more as stand-by counsel, but
14 I'll address you from now on as counsel, and we'll continue with the
15 Pre-Trial Conference.
16 I'd first like to go into private session, Mr. Registrar.
17 [Private session]
11 Page 826 redacted.
1 Before the Chamber decides on the matter, I'd like to hear from
2 the parties whether any additional submissions are to be made. The last
3 submissions were by the Prosecution, so perhaps, Mr. Hooper, I invite you
4 to make any further submissions, the Chamber now having received an
5 unredacted version giving the name, the place where the physician
6 practices, and it is a signed, or at least there is what could be
7 considered as a signature under this certificate.
8 MR. HOOPER: We have no further submissions to make.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, may I then take it, or Mr.
10 Saxon, that there are no further submissions to be made?
11 MR. SAXON: Nothing further, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 [Pre-Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will now deliver its decision.
15 The Chamber, having considered the submissions of the parties, has
16 decided the following: Rule 71 bis provides that, and I quote, "at the
17 request of either party, a Trial Chamber may, in the interests of justice,
18 order that testimony be received via video-conference link."
19 The Chamber notes that this Tribunal has found, on several
20 occasions, that a party suffers no material disadvantage by examining a
21 witness via videolink. An early decision to that effect was rendered in
22 the case of The Prosecutor versus Delalic and others, on the 28th of May,
24 In the present case, the Chamber considers that the physical
25 condition of the witness, as indicated by the Prosecution, provides a
1 strong ground for the witness to be allowed to give testimony via
2 videolink. Therefore, it is in the interests of justice to hear Witness
3 VS-053 via videolink. The testimony of Witness VS-053 is scheduled for
4 the 8th of December, 2006.
5 Before we continue, the Chamber went into private session because
6 it could not anticipate what matters would be raised in this respect. The
7 Chamber invites the parties to inform the Chamber on whether they consider
8 that what we heard until now, in private session, could be made available
9 to the public. Not necessarily to be done immediately but ...
10 MR. SAXON: The Prosecution submits that what we have just heard
11 in private session can be made available publicly, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hooper.
13 MR. HOOPER: Yes, we agree.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll deal with that later. We'll
15 continue now in private session in relation to the request for
16 video-conference link for Witness VS-1141.
17 At the Status Conference held on the 22nd of November, 2006, the
18 Chamber also dealt with the Prosecution's motion filed on the 16th of
19 November, 1996, to hear the testimony of Witness VS-1141 via videolink, in
20 accordance with Rule 71 bis. The testimony of Witness VS-1141 has been
21 scheduled for the 8th of December, 2006. The motion has not yet been
22 translated and provided in translation to the accused.
1 During the Status Conference, temporarily-assigned counsel argued
2 that the Prosecution did not sufficiently prove that the witness is unable
3 to travel to The Hague to testify, and that a doctor should visit the
4 witness to see if he's capable to come to the Tribunal and give evidence.
5 At the Status Conference on the 22nd of November of this year, the
6 Prosecution was invited to provide the Chamber and the Defence with an
7 update on the reasons for the witness not being able to travel to The
8 Hague to testify. As far as the Chamber is aware, the Prosecution has not
9 filed any further submission regarding this issue. Therefore, Mr. Saxon,
10 you're invited to provide an update on the matter, and the Chamber notes
11 in this respect that it was stated on the Status Conference of the 22nd of
12 November that an investigator and a lawyer were meeting the witness on
13 that same day. Could you please update the Chamber.
14 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. I misspoke slightly at the
15 Status Conference of the 22nd of November. I thought that a lawyer and
16 investigator were meeting with the witness on that day. That was
17 incorrect. An investigator from our office and a lawyer met with a
18 witness on the following day, Thursday, the 23rd of November. The
19 investigator and the lawyer have since returned to The Hague, and the
20 Prosecution is planning on submitting another declaration drafted by the
21 investigator to the Chamber today regarding the most recent conversation
22 and up-to-date information regarding this witness. And we would
23 respectfully ask that the Chamber hold its decision on this matter in
24 abeyance for one more day until the Chamber can read this most recent
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hooper, any response to this request?
2 MR. HOOPER: We'd invite the Prosecution to get a doctor to this
3 witness and to provide and furnish the Court with medical evidence of his
4 incapacity to travel.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, we do not know what his submissions will
6 be, whether this will report any earlier doctor visit.
7 Mr. Saxon, is it ...
8 MR. SAXON: As of the 23rd of November, Your Honour, no, the
9 witness has not seen a doctor, and the purpose of providing another
10 declaration is for the investigator to explain, according to the witness,
11 why not.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, the Chamber will have to wait and
13 see whether we could take a position, even without any medical
14 certificates on the matter. But you asked for one more day, and that one
15 more day is granted.
16 MR. SAXON: Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll return into open session.
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
21 During the closed session, the Chamber dealt with two confidential
22 motions. One of the issues discussed was testimony via video-conference
23 link for Witness VS-053. That part of the transcript will be made
24 available to the public.
25 We'll now move on.
1 [Pre-Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will deliver a decision on the expert
3 witness Riedlmayer.
4 On the 23rd of May, 2006, the Prosecution filed its submission of
5 the expert report by Andreas Riedlmayer. The filing has been translated
6 and was served on the accused on the 4th of October, 2006. According to
7 Rule 94 bis, the accused has a 30-day time limit to file a notice
8 indicating whether he accepts the expert report -- the expert witness
9 report or if he wishes to cross-examine the witness, and if he challenges
10 the qualifications of the witness as an expert or the relevance of the
12 On the 22nd of November, 2006, the accused filed his response
13 stating that he did not accept the expert report, that he wished to
14 cross-examine the expert witness, and that he challenged the
15 qualifications of the witness as an expert, and the relevance of the
16 entire report. In addition, the accused requested additional time to file
17 a notice under Rule 94 bis (B), since the report was provided to him on
18 the 4th of October, 2006, during a time when counsel was assigned to him,
19 and that this therefore made it unclear from when the 30-day limit should
20 be calculated.
21 The Chamber considers that the response provided by the accused is
22 sufficient for the purpose of Rule 94 bis, under (B), as far as the
23 non-acceptance of the report and the wish to cross-examine the witness are
24 concerned, and therefore decides that the expert witness, Andreas
25 Riedlmayer, shall be called for cross-examination.
1 If any further submissions in writing are requested -- if the
2 Defence would like to make any further submissions in writing in relation
3 to the reasons why Mr. Riedlmayer does not qualify as an expert witness,
4 the Defence will have 14 days from today to file any additional
6 The next item on the agenda is the response to motions and new
7 deadlines. There are a number of pending issues at this moment and new
8 deadlines will need to be set for responses by the Defence now that
9 counsel has been assigned. The Trial Chamber will issue a written
10 decision in the next few days setting new deadlines for the Defence to
11 respond to Prosecution motions.
12 At this point, I'd like to ask the Defence to inform the Chamber,
13 as soon as possible, if it would like the Trial Chamber to consider
14 submissions made by them during the period of assigned counsel from the
15 21st of August to the 20th of October. Not necessarily to inform the
16 Chamber today. But perhaps by tomorrow, Mr. Hooper, you could inform this
18 Then, finally, I come to one of the purposes of our Pre-Trial
19 Conference, pursuant to Rule 73 bis, under (C). The Pre-Trial Judge,
20 after having heard the Prosecutor, will determine, first, the number of
21 witnesses the Prosecution may call, and, two, the time available to the
22 Prosecutor for presenting evidence.
23 As the parties were informed at the Rule 65 ter conference on the
24 20th of October, 2006, the Prosecution will be allowed to call 102
25 witnesses and will have 81.5 trial hours to present its case. I'm
1 referring to the transcript of the Rule 65 ter conference of the 20th of
2 October, page 22.
3 The Chamber would like to know whether there are any other matters
4 the parties would like to raise at this Pre-Trial Conference.
5 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. The first item relates to
7 the witness order. I would like to make an oral request.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We have been informed that the witness --
10 that the Defence is not in a position to deal with the Witness VS-054 as
11 planned to be the second witness, and has asked him to be moved back to
12 next year. And to fill the court time most efficiently, we therefore
13 would request to move forward the witnesses Paulic, Katic and Klajic.
14 They were actually listed to testify in the period from the 13th to the --
15 the 13th to the 15th of December, but we think they can actually fill that
16 slot for the Witness VS-054. We may be a bit too optimistic, because it
17 may be that we are not as fast in the pace of this trial as we hope we
18 will be. Therefore, the position is to have, after Mr. Balacevic,
19 Ms. Paulic, Ms. Katic, and Ms. Klajic. However, what we need to keep at a
20 particular day, that's the videolink, so that only those of -- of those
21 three that I just mentioned would be called before the videolink. And
22 also, we need to keep the Witness VS-017 in his position because he needs
23 to be concluded. So we would only interpose those of the three that
24 really fit before the videolink and before Witness VS-017.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would have a decision on this request by
1 tomorrow, would that be timely enough, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff?
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: But, of course, before even considering to deliver
5 Mr. Hooper, any submissions to be made in respect of the request
6 just raised by Madam Uertz-Retzlaff?
7 MR. HOOPER: No, thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then the Chamber will consider the matter and most
9 likely will come with a decision tomorrow.
10 Any other matter?
11 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the Prosecution has one matter it would
12 like to raise regarding Prosecution expert witness Ewa Tabeau. There is
13 a -- at least a possibility that Dr. Tabeau could testify this year, by
14 the 13th of December. And an issue has come up as to whether, if she does
15 testify this year, the exact scope of her evidence. She has provided an
16 expert report on the migration of non-Serbs from Hrtkovci, and that is why
17 we have called Dr. Tabeau early in this case. However, she has also
18 provided an extensive report regarding the migration of non-Serbs from
19 certain municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
20 And we communicated with the Defence on Friday and raised the
21 issue of whether the Defence would be in a position to cross-examine
22 Dr. Tabeau fully on all of her evidence should she be testifying on the
23 12th or perhaps the 13th of December. And we are still awaiting a
24 response from the Defence on that.
25 One option, obviously, would be to call Dr. Tabeau and have her
1 testify about all of her expertise during one testimony. Another option
2 might be to call Dr. Tabeau once regarding her expertise relating to
3 Hrtkovci and to ask her to testify again in 2007 related to her expert
4 report on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Another option also might be, that my
5 colleague suggested to me today, is that all of her direct evidence could
6 be provided this year on both of her expert reports; the cross-examination
7 related to Bosnia and Herzegovina be held in abeyance until sometime next
9 We simply want to present this issue to the Chamber now so it is
10 aware of it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Has the Defence already made up its mind in respect
12 of this, or would you rather ...
13 MR. HOOPER: Well, there will be difficulties in respect of
14 delving into reports that were not seen as relevant to this case until a
15 few days ago. That's the problem that's posed. And the third option
16 that's been suggested, that is, that all her evidence be given in chief
17 and she be held back for cross-examination to a later time, certainly
18 would seem an option, the favoured option.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could there be a possibility that the parties could
20 exchange further views this afternoon and see whether they can agree on a
21 certain course of action, and the Chamber will then consider whether it
22 can follow the suggestions jointly made by the parties, if there would be
23 any solution reached by them together.
24 We'll then hear from you tomorrow, first of all, whether there is
25 any agreed and favoured option; and second, if not, we'll further hear
1 from the parties before determining the matter.
2 [Pre-Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Any other matter, madam Uertz-Retzlaff?
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, there is one final matter,
5 and that relates to a trial binder, map binder, for the trial. In the
6 cases before this Tribunal, such binders are tendered in the very early
7 stage of the proceedings. We actually have today here, in the courtroom,
8 these trial binders with the maps that are of interest also already in the
9 opening statement, and we wonder whether we should provide the trial
10 binders now so that everyone can have it in front of them, not only on the
11 screen. That's up to you. We have the trial binders for Your Honours,
12 you Judges, and for the legal officers and also, of course, for the
13 Defence. But we can hand it out today or a later date, whenever you like
15 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections, Mr. Hooper, that in anticipation of
16 them being used, that they are already distributed?
17 MR. HOOPER: No, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: This is my first e-court, and the start is now with a
19 hard copy to start with. So then please distribute the hard copies of the
21 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, any other matter?
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hooper, any other matter to raise?
24 MR. HOOPER: I take it these don't come with magnifying glasses.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I think some of them are quite detailed.
1 MR. HOOPER: Some are big enough to read.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Some are not. We'll see how they are used. That's
3 one of the advantages, perhaps of e-court, that you can magnify matters on
4 your screen. But I have not gone through it all.
5 If there's no matter to be raised, then, we'll conclude this
6 Pre-Trial Conference, and have a break of approximately half an hour. So
7 we'll resume at 11.15 and then we'll have the start of the trial and,
8 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, you're going to be invited to make your opening
10 This concludes the Pre-Trial Conference. We'll adjourn until
11 quarter past 11.00.
12 --- Whereupon the Pre-Trial Conference adjourned
13 at 10.44 a.m.