1 Thursday, 10 January 2008
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 2.34 p.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you please
6 call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, and good afternoon, Your Honours. Good
8 afternoon to everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number
9 IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 This is Thursday, January 10th, 2008, and I welcome everyone from
12 Prosecution, welcome, Mr. Seselj, as well as everyone helping us. We're
13 starting a bit late because the previous hearing ended with 15 minutes --
14 with a 15-minute delay. But I believe that this hearing will be very
15 short, since the panel of three Judges has been set up. The President has
16 made an order pointing Judge Liu, Meron, and O-Gon Kwon, and this panel is
17 dealing with this problem at the moment, and since they have not made any
18 decision yet we cannot continue with the proceedings.
19 The next hearing will be next week, hoping that this panel will
20 have made a decision by then. I am announcing that we will be sitting in
21 the morning next week, which means that hearings will start at 8.30, not
22 9.00 a.m., but 8.30, and will end at 1.15 p.m. And not 1.45 p.m.. We're
23 moving the schedule half an hour up because two of my fellow Judges are
24 sitting on the Delic case, and I am sitting on the Prlic case. So when we
25 sit in the morning and then move on to a second hearing in the afternoon,
1 we need about an hour in order to get ready for the second hearing, which
2 is why we had to move the schedule up. We will be sitting in the
3 afternoon, on Thursdays we will finish at 6.30 p.m. and not at 7.00 p.m.
4 This was for logistics.
5 Mr. Seselj, you want the floor, you have the floor.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, I will say something now
7 that has nothing to do with the Madam Dahl's motion, something I only
8 touched upon on Tuesday. Even had this motion not been submitted, the
9 prerequisites have not been met for the hearing of Witness VS-015. I have
10 already mentioned that I have received only part of the transcripts of his
11 testimony in the Milutinovic et al. case. I have also learned that he
12 gave a statement to the Canadian Mounties concerning the events in the
13 former Balkans and that the Prosecution has his entire statement. I also
14 know that on the 13th of April, 1996, this witness testified via videolink
15 against the Skorpion group in Belgrade before the special court for war
16 crimes, but I only have the hearing of the 13th of April. I don't have
17 the 12th of April. The Prosecution has the testimony in its entirety in
18 Serbian, but they didn't want to deliver it to me. Whether they have the
19 statement made to the (redacted) in Serbian I don't know, but
20 they have to disclose this to me because they used that in other cases.
21 And they also have to submit and deliver to me the testimony in the
22 Milutinovic case. These are the minimum requirements that the Prosecution
23 has to meet for the witness to be heard here. These rules have been
24 upheld very strictly in the jurisprudence so far in other cases of this
1 If the Defence did not receive on time the entire transcript of
2 the testimony, the proceedings were interrupted until this was done. It
3 was easy to do in other cases because it could be disclosed in French or
4 in English which they can't do here and evidently they're not prepared,
5 but these are the minimum prerequisites for hearing the witness here.
6 I have other issues to raise before you if you have the patience
7 to hear me out I will be very brief. You promised me another additional
8 cell for storage of material. For a month I was swamped in material
9 because Madam Dahl disclosed to me ten enormous packages of material under
10 Rule 68(i) concerning the White Eagles, Arkan's men, and the Yellow Wasps.
11 For a month I couldn't get to my bed until my legal assistants took part
12 of this material to Belgrade, but I still have vast amounts of paper in my
13 cell; and I can hardly move around it. So I need an additional cell in
14 which to store the paper that I'm not currently using. The key can be in
15 the hands of the guards, and then I can ask them to unlock the cell for me
16 if I need to take something out of it or put something in. I have applied
17 in writing to the Registrar, and I was denied this.
18 Further -- furthermore, I'm still having problems with
19 photocopying the material because the Detention Unit is refusing to copy
20 materials for me, although they have sufficient staff to do it. I have
21 applied in writing to the registry and my application has been denied.
22 The warden has offered to copy materials himself outside his working hours
23 and for me to be accompanied by a guard to the -- to the photocopying
24 machine, or rather, for -- not for the --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: That I myself can
1 copy, not the warden. I myself can copy accompanied by a guard.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But that's a very expensive machine
3 and I'm not sure how to use it. Somebody came to the prison, took some
4 500 pages from me, took them to the Tribunal, photocopied them, and
5 returned them to me. The problem of photocopying in the prison, in the
6 Detention Unit, is very acute, and this is being done merely to obstruct
8 Furthermore, the Registrar recently in writing threatened my legal
9 advisor Aleksandar Vucic, saying that his accreditation could be taken
10 away from him which was issued in late 2006 because my legal advisor Vucic
11 spoke out in public together with a Defence witness. The Prosecution
12 wanted to turn this witness into a witness of their own. My Defence
13 witness speaks out in public in Belgrade and makes statements to
14 newspapers, whereas the Prosecution is treating him as a protected witness
15 because they want him to testify for them but he doesn't want to do that.
16 As my legal advisor delivered to the registry all the information
17 about that case, the registry desisted temporarily from removing his
18 accreditation, but they threatened me with having to pay all the
19 travelling expenses of my legal advisor so far and from now on. They
20 travelled about once a month and the Tribunal paid for their tickets,
21 their travelling expenses, and their hotels; and now I am being threatened
22 with having to reimburse the Tribunal for all this if it is, as they say,
23 it is shown that I have sufficient funds. And further I protest most
24 strenuously against your decision to issue several subpoenas bringing
25 Defence witnesses here to testify in the Prosecution case. These people
1 never agreed to being Prosecution witnesses. They were heard as potential
2 suspects, they were interviewed as potential suspects, but they contacted
3 my legal advisors and they -- they said -- they stated in front of a court
4 in Belgrade, and this is certified by the court, that they only wished to
5 be Defence witnesses. And it is the Prosecutor who prepares Prosecution
6 witnesses, and I prepare Defence witnesses. That is how it is in these
7 adversarial proceedings. And I am asking to have my right for Defence --
8 my right to defence to be upheld. I want the subpoenas to be withdrawn,
9 and I want you to stop maltreating these witnesses.
10 Madam Dahl visited one such witness at home in the presence of his
11 wife and children and there is a statement to that effect. That's the
12 extent of the extent of the pressure to which these Defence witnesses are
13 exposed. The pressure that was applied in previous cases is no longer --
14 can no longer be done because they can no longer threaten people with
15 indictments, as they cannot have any new indictments here so they can no
16 longer blackmail these people. That's why I demand that you withdraw all
17 these subpoenas, and allow me to prepare my defence case in peace, to stop
18 trying to rest away from me my Defence witnesses, and transform them into
19 Prosecution witnesses.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, on these items that
21 you have mentioned I think I can answer quickly. Regarding the additional
22 cell first. You're absolutely right, you are now in a very small cell or
23 in a small cell --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And hole had to be made in the
1 wall to have the adjacent cell available for a library and an office.
2 When I came to visit you I noticed this was not enough, and I told you so
3 in -- during a hearing. I had then request, asked the director of UNDU to
4 provide you with another cell where you -- that you could close -- that
5 you could lock, where you could put your documents; and I was told, Okay,
6 he would be given this additional cell. And you are just telling me that
7 this has not been done yet, so I will look into this as early as this
9 Second now, the photocopies of documents, I had anticipated what
10 you were -- what you have just told us. I knew that this was going to be
11 a problem. This is a case where there is a great number of exhibits.
12 You're just like me, from the old school. If I can say so, you like to
13 work with hard copies and not with documents on screen and you need these
14 hard copies. Then also when you are cross-examining you have to prepare
15 your documents. And of course you need to have several copies made of
16 these documents. At first the registry had provided for a case manager, a
17 person that was going to help you. This person who has been trained to do
18 this is still in Belgrade with your associates, legal advisors, since the
19 question linked to how your defence is going to be financed still hasn't
20 been settled. The registry is still awaiting for you to appoint one of
21 your advisors to be appointed as a lawyer and this hasn't been done yet.
22 So this is why you have to do your photocopies yourself. Of course, the
23 prison wardens are not going to make photocopies for you, that's
24 absolutely normal, I understand that, especially since if there is a
25 problem they would not want to be liable. So this is a problem and we
1 will meet together -- we will meet all together with my fellow Judges and
2 try and find a solution.
3 Now, regarding Vucic, regarding your associate Vucic, you told us
4 that he brought in a witness for a press conference, and there's problems
5 because of this. I don't know exactly the ins and outs of all this, but
6 right now we have submissions from Prosecution. You probably wrote
7 submissions yourself and the Chamber, the Trial Chamber, will decide. But
8 this question is connected to the fourth item that you've raised regarding
9 the subpoenas.
10 So what exactly is a subpoena? Generally speaking, when a witness
11 is called, Prosecutor will tell the witness, Please be here on such day at
12 such time, and the Victims and Witnesses Section does everything it needs
13 to do in order to make sure that the witness can be there on time. That's
14 how things go generally. However, from time to time, some witnesses tell
15 the Prosecutor, No, I just don't want to come and testify. In such a
16 case, and these cases are few and apart but they still exist.
17 Then the Prosecutor will write an ex parte motion to the Trial
18 Chamber in order to request the Trial Chamber-- to request from the Trial
19 Chamber an order, order for subpoena. So the subpoena -- the Trial
20 Chamber will give the subpoena telling the witness when he is supposed to
21 come, telling the witness that if he does not show up he will be possibly
22 under Rule 77, and this order is served, officially served, to the witness
23 by the police department of the witness's country.
24 When the witness is served with this writ he can take due note of
25 it and will say either, I will come or will not come or will say, I cannot
1 come because I am sick, for example, or because I'm a Defence witness and
2 not a Prosecution witness. So I know nothing of all this. So when there
3 are problems these subpoenas come back here and -- accompanied by the
4 position of the witness so we know exactly what the witness -- what the
5 problem of the witness is. It could be a witness who does not want to
6 show up, it could be a witness who does want to show up, could be a
7 witness that would like to show up subject to some reservations or
8 conditions. It could be a witness who says I am not a Prosecution witness
9 but I want to be a Chamber witness, I do not want to be a Prosecution
10 witness or it would be a witness who says I want to be a Defence witness.
11 And it's up to the Trial Chamber to decide. So this is my brief answer on
12 these four items that you raised.
13 Mrs. Dahl, do you have anything to say on all this, on any one of
14 these four items?
15 MS. DAHL: No, not on those four items. I think if we're going to
16 stand in recess, it's appropriate to do that. I would make mention only
17 of the full disclosure concerning the upcoming witness. For the record,
18 we disclosed both volumes of the Belgrade court testimony with receipt
19 number 104 on 11 --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Mrs. Dahl. In my
21 answer to Mr. Seselj, I forgot to mention the problem of Witness 15. If I
22 can sum up what the accused said. According to Mr. Seselj, this witness
23 was -- has already been heard by the (redacted)
24 (redacted). Mr. Seselj knows this, and he says, I want to know
25 exactly what was said during this hearing. I'm talking under his control,
1 so secondly, he also said that this witness was heard in the so-called
2 Skorpion case that was tried in Serbia, and the accused is telling us that
3 he wants to know what was said at the time in that case. And then he's
4 telling us that according to the rights provided to him in the Statute and
5 in the regulation he's supposed to get all this information. This is
6 supposed to be disclosed to him since Prosecution obtained these elements
7 already. When he was talking, I did take a look at Rule 66 and Rule 68,
8 and I told myself that it's true that he should have obtained these
9 documents because this is extremely specific, this is a very specific
11 Do you have an answer, Mrs. Dahl, to this?
12 MS. DAHL: Yes, his factual premise is incorrect. We disclosed,
13 as I began to say, under receipt 104 both volumes of the Belgrade court
14 transcripts on 12 April 2006 and 13 April 2006. We've also under receipt
15 number 87 disclosed both volumes of the Milutinovic testimony when we
16 started in session on Tuesday, and I heard Mr. Seselj's concerns. I
17 immediately checked to make sure that we had satisfied them, we did. I
18 learned of the (redacted) taking a statement. We do not have that.
19 I told Mr. Seselj about it as soon as I learned of it. I will make a
20 request for it and try to see what the statement was in reference to.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Seselj, obviously
22 regarding what happened in Belgrade, the Prosecutor has already disclosed
23 this to you. Regarding the testimony in the Milutinovic case, this has
24 also been disclosed, and then Mrs. Dahl is also telling us that she is
25 also discovering this issue of the hearing before the R. C. M. P. in
1 Canada. So as far as Canada, do you have any elements to tell us, to give
2 us? How do you know that there was this hearing? How did you learn this?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I wrote a submission to the
4 Prosecution once already, and I told them that they were submitting
5 incomplete transcripts to me. Ms. Dahl has this from me in writing. I
6 guarantee that the first day of this witness's testimony in the
7 Milutinovic case is missing, there's only the second day. If they have it
8 they can hand it over to me right now when we walk out of this courtroom.
9 So that's not a problem. Why would I be making problems concerning
10 something that would basically be senseless if it were not the case as it
11 is. And the date is the 13th of April when this witness was heard via
12 videolink. The 12th of April is not there. When I get this pile of
13 material from the Prosecutor or if I get boxes of it, in good faith I sign
14 the accompanying document and then I check the material. Several times I
15 wrote to Ms. Dahl what my objections were in terms of what was submitted
16 to me and what was not disclosed to me and what was in the English
17 language and so on and so forth. Ms. Dahl received many letters from me
18 like that. This is the manner in which the OTP operates. If they have
19 this in Serbian they can hand this over to me in 15 minutes, the first day
20 in the Milosevic [as interpreted] case and the 12th of April in the
21 Skorpions trial in Belgrade.
22 Further on, the Prosecution has, already in 2005, the statement
23 given by this witness to the (redacted). Now, how did I find
24 out about that? I read the Stenograph, or rather, the transcript of the
25 interview with Judge Dilparic, the investigative judge in Belgrade that
1 this witness had and the investigative judge asked him questions on the
2 basis of the content of the statement made to the (redacted).
3 It seems to me that I keep making these problems to the Prosecution
4 because I find things in their very own documents. So the investigating
5 judge from Belgrade got this material from the (redacted)
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The speaker is speaking too
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The problem will be resolved
24 very rapidly. Mr. Seselj tells us that he has actual proof that this
25 document exists because the witness was heard by an investigating judge,
1 and he's referring to the document that was in the possession of the
2 investigating judge from Belgrade and that you should have this document
3 since 2005. Maybe this document is lost somewhere in your archives, I
4 don't know, there's so many documents maybe. It's difficult to find it.
5 You say you do not have it, you may be right. I do not know this.
6 However, I believe you when you tell us that you don't have it. But until
7 next week you can maybe request to obtain this document through Belgrade
8 and this document can be faxed to you in a few seconds. It should not be
9 too difficult to obtain it.
10 Regarding the Milutinovic case apparently you only gave him
11 documents for the 13th of April, Ms. Dahl, and you're missing one date,
12 the day of the 12th of April.
13 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I disagree with Mr. Seselj's factual
14 recitation regarding what we gave him and when. We gave him a complete
15 set. I'm sorry that he can't find his copy. I will give him a duplicate
16 copy, but I have a notebook that has the materials in it right here. I
17 will give him the copy. I don't want to stumble on trifles at this point.
18 We do not have, as far as I know, a copy of the interview statement
19 (redacted). My understanding is that the witness was
20 interviewed by the police, and what happened after that interview is not
21 before me. I don't have it. The fact that the Belgrade court referred to
22 it doesn't mean that I have it also. I will see if I can get a copy. I
23 want to make sure, of course, if it's relevant that it's disclosed in a
24 timely manner. I told Mr. Seselj about it as soon as I learned about it.
25 I also have the set of the Belgrade transcripts here with me in court,
1 including both days. They are in the original language, and I am
2 gathering that Mr. Seselj's assertions about the Canadian documents are
3 found in there. Unfortunately, I don't read the Serbian language, so I
4 cannot check on the accuracy of his representations.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 So, Mr. Seselj, apparently the Milutinovic document should be in
7 your possession. Maybe you were not able to find them. Mrs. Dahl tells
8 you that she did disclose them to you and she also confirms to us that she
9 does not have (redacted) but that she will do her best to try
10 to communicate them or disclose them to you.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the investigating
12 judge from Belgrade --
13 MS. DAHL: Your Honour --
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 MS. DAHL: -- I need to go into closed session or private session.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session, please.
17 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.
21 Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I have no intention of
23 disclosing anything that was protected by decisions made by the relevant
24 factors of this Tribunal. This witness was interviewed in The Hague
25 twice, once in 2005, once in 2006 in the Tribunal. So the Tribunal is not
1 the place of relocation. As far as I know in these courtrooms of yours no
2 one was ever was relocated. When I was heard by investigating judges from
3 Belgrade, I was heard in one of your rooms here, that was in 2005. The
4 Prosecution cannot claim that they do not have this document.
5 Secondly, I think, Judge, for the sake of an experiment that it
6 would be best if Ms. Dahl were to show you now that indeed she does have
7 the transcript in the Serbian language dated the 12th of July, 2006,
8 because I was only submitted the transcript of the 13th of July so that
9 you and your colleagues can be assured that she indeed have this. If she
10 does have this, then it is right to assume that she sent it to me as well.
11 If she doesn't have to show it to me now --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I thought you were
13 talking to us about the 12th and 13th of April. You're talking to us
14 about the month of July is it April or July?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps the interpreters didn't tell
16 you this right. April was when the investigating judge came from Belgrade
17 to hear this witness, whereas the Milutinovic transcript is the 13th of
18 July. And in the beginning, you can see that the discussion took place on
19 the previous day because what is said to the person here by the Presiding
20 Judge Bonomy is - may I remind you that the solemn declaration you took
21 yesterday is valid today as well. So let Ms. Dahl show it to you in the
22 Serbian language now.
23 THE INTERPRETER: The speaker is speaking too fast again
24 interpreter's note.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Ms. Dahl, you
1 followed what Mr. Seselj just said. He said that when looking at the
2 document of the 13th of July we can find a very clear reference to the
3 previous day. He therefore draws the conclusion that there is another
4 transcript, the one of the 12th of July. So if you have it in B/C/S, we
5 can hand it to him. Since you have it apparently there's no problem that
6 this document be given to Mr. Seselj, right?
7 MS. DAHL: Like I said before I gave it to him, and I'll give him
8 another copy. We gave it to him before. And I read his correspondence to
9 me carefully to make sure I've satisfied his requests, and I don't have a
10 letter from him complaining about missing this particular transcript so
11 really we don't need to take up court time if you need a duplicate set,
12 I'm happy to give it to him, but we gave it to him the first time.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So Mr. Seselj you
14 will be handed this document shortly, the document of the 12th of July --
15 MS. DAHL: And, Your Honour, the Belgrade session we gave him the
16 two days as well and what I've just given the court officer is the
17 duplicate sets.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Seselj, you have
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Sir, Judge, this is the first time I
21 receive this. Now, this is the 12th of July. Never before did I receive
22 this. I didn't have time to check this, I didn't have time to read all
23 the documents because I was preparing for two other witnesses for this
24 week. It was only last Friday that I was told that this witness, VS-015,
25 would be heard this week. I can guarantee that this was never disclosed
1 to me.
2 As for this interview, again, I have one day and I don't have the
3 other day. Now I have it for both days. This was not submitted to me.
4 Let Ms. Dahl establish why it is that this was not submitted to me. Yet
5 another thing. Since you told me a few moments ago that the Registrar is
6 awaiting some information from me in order to decide on financing my
7 Defence, I have to tell you that I have no information left to give the
8 Registrar. All the information that I had, I provided to him in writing
9 in 2003. As for investigating the property of the members of my family
10 that changed over the past five years, that is something I am never going
11 to do. I submitted all the information on my property and that I have in
12 2003. As far as I'm concerned, I've met that obligation, I'm done with
13 that, let the Registrar do what he has to do now, and I simply am not
14 going to deal with this matter any longer.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Seselj, I fought for
16 hours, days, months on this topic so that you can get financing of your
17 Defence. I think that the solution is almost there. The one and only
18 stumbling point that may still exist is the following: The Registrar,
19 according to his mission and his responsibility, must prior to obtaining
20 payment verify that the three legal associates that you have, that at
21 least one of the three complies to Rule 45 of the Rules and Evidence. The
22 conditions of Rule 45 explain clearly the problem, and the problem is the
23 following: One of the three legal associates has to be a member of the --
24 of a bar association, any bar association. So that is the first
25 prerequisite. And then there's also the question of your lack of
1 resources, of course, but that was not an urgent matter or as urgent as
2 the fact that it was necessary that one of the three legal associates be
3 member of any bar association. So I should have received a letter
4 stating, Following your request I can assure you that Mr. X is a member of
5 the bar association in Belgrade with his lawyer's number, and that's all.
6 In that case the Registrar cannot stop you from getting the financing. I
7 already told you maybe five or ten times so far, I reiterate this today in
8 the presence of my colleagues who are fully aware of this problem.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I did that several times, the
10 last time in December 2006, I submitted even the curriculum vitae for my
11 legal advisor, lawyer Slavko Jerkovic. I know for a fact that the
12 Tribunal through its services vetted his information with the Chamber in
13 Belgrade, I know that for a fact. You dissuaded me from insisting that
14 financing go directly through Zoran Krasic because you did not contest
15 that he was my main legal advisor, and when I insisted that all three
16 legal advisors be paid equally, you agreed. The issue of legal advisors
17 and all the details of them has been resolved. The problem is in the
18 letter that the Registrar sent me in October of last year, saying that I
19 should inform him in detail about the property of my wife, my sister,
20 other members of my family, and to submit to him.
21 Furthermore, because I mentioned in one list of costs that I had
22 borne costs of sending an investigator to Macedonia and to investigate
23 certain machinations concerning the imposing of a stand-by lawyer. He
24 asked me for the passport of that person with the stamp confirming that he
25 really crossed the Macedonian border and the receipt from the hotel
1 somewhere on the lake of Ohrid where he stayed when he was doing that. I
2 believe that is ludicrous. It is a letter on five densely filled pages.
3 Look at that letter, and you will see what the registry is resorting to.
4 They are simply putting me in a situation when I am unable to meet their
5 requests because their requests are either impossible or senseless. So
6 that first problem has entirely been dealt with as far as legal advisors
7 are concerned. One of them is a legal advisor, member of the appropriate
8 professional Chamber, and there was the problem of financing, that was
9 also resolved.
10 As for information about my property, I provided it in detail in
11 late 2003. The investigators of the Tribunal had four years to verify it
12 and I have reliable information that they did verify it, they even
13 investigated the property of my family members, and they obtained
14 estimates from the competent authorities of Serbia. And for their needs
15 the competent authorities inspected the property on the ground, such as
16 the house of my mother, the house of my wife, et cetera, they've done all
17 that. The registry does not want to resolve the problem. Ask the
18 registrar if they have received the reports, if they had received the
19 reports of the competent authorities in Serbia and the Serbian police.
20 I am immediately informed from Belgrade of everything that
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Tomorrow, I will
23 meet with my colleagues. We will discuss this problem amongst us. If
24 there are no other questions or issues for today, I propose to see each
25 other next Monday -- next Tuesday.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Correction.
2 MS. DAHL: Your Honour, I did have another question.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.18 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 15th day of
5 January, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.