Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 525

1 Thursday, 12 January 2006

2 [Status Conference]

3 [Open session]

4 [Accused not present]

5 --- Upon commencing at 12.04 p.m.

6 JUDGE KWON: Could the Registrar call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. This is case number

8 IT-03-69-PT, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. May I have the appearances?

10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Good day, Your Honour. For the Prosecution,

11 we have Marek Michon as a new TA on the case. Case manager, Janet

12 Stewart, and my name is Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff.

13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mrs. Uertz-Retzlaff.

14 For the Defence, please.

15 MR. KNOOPS: Good morning, Your Honour, Mr. Geert-Jan Knoops for

16 the accused, Mr. Stanisic.

17 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour, my name

18 is Zoran Jovanovic, attorney from Belgrade, and I represent the Defence of

19 Mr. Simatovic. Thank you.

20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I read from the website of ICTY that this

21 should mark the first proceedings in this institution so I would like to

22 take this opportunity to wish you all a very happy new year.

23 Since the last Status Conference dated 29th of September last

24 year, there have been certain though not much developments in the case.

25 First, a joinder motion was denied on 10th of November. Was it appealed,

Page 526

1 Mrs. Uertz-Retzlaff?

2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour, we did not appeal it.

3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. And the Prosecution's second amendment of

4 the indictment of this case it was allowed by the Chamber decision on 16th

5 of December and the Prosecution filed its amended indictment on 20th of

6 December and there have been a request from the Defence for certification

7 for appeal on 21st. And yesterday, the Trial Chamber issued its decision

8 on the variance of protective measures as the Chamber sees the Milosevic

9 case. I understand the Defence should have received them. I see them

10 nodding.

11 And there are some -- a couple of pending motions. One is a

12 temporary modification of the provisional release conditions for the

13 Accused Stanisic, and we are waiting for the government's assurances. And

14 then the request from the Defence for certification for appeal against the

15 decision of an amendment of the indictment is being considered by the

16 Chamber, and the Chamber will make its decision in due course.

17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, in relation to this issue I

18 would like to mention something.


20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: You may have noticed that the Prosecution did

21 not respond to this motion.


23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Actually, at the time, first of all, almost

24 nobody was there, everybody was on vacation.


Page 527

1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: But, of course, there was here a person in

2 charge and correctly this person felt that there was no need to respond to

3 this motion because all the argument that is we had given that actually

4 supported the decision had been given in the previous filings so there was

5 no need. The only two things I would like to mention because

6 Mr. Jovanovic raised it in his motion for certification, we still don't

7 have the Stoparic statement that was given to the Belgrade district court

8 investigative judge.

9 JUDGE KWON: That is C-063.

10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes and we have requested it and we will

11 receive -- we were assured that we will receive it very soon but we still

12 do not have it. And in relation to Mr. Knoops' submission we don't have

13 the full transcript of the Skorpion video. It's in the pipeline and as

14 soon as we have it we will disclose it. That's what I wanted -- want to

15 mention in relation to the certification. I mean, I reject the

16 allegations that we did violate our disclosure obligation. We can only

17 disclose what we have in hand and in our possession, and therefore we did

18 disclose what we have.

19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff. That should have been

20 noted by the parties and also, it will be noted by the Chamber as well.

21 And if the Trial Chamber rejects -- only if it rejects the Defence

22 motion for certification or later Appeals Chamber confirms the amendment

23 of the indictment, there will be needed a further appearance pursuant to

24 the Rules. So in that case, would the Accused be able to come to The

25 Hague? Are you in the position to answer that question?

Page 528

1 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, my humble

2 submission is that in the event -- in the unfortunate event the

3 certification would not be granted or when granted the Appeals Chamber

4 would not allow the appeal our preference is this the initial appearance

5 for the accused Mr. Stanisic could be conducted by means of a videolink.

6 JUDGE KWON: It should be further appearance not initial

7 appearance.

8 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, further appearance. You're correct,

9 Your Honour, thank you. This is our submission. Also in light of his

10 current medical condition, I was myself from the 28th until the 30th in

11 Belgrade. I've spoken with his medical team and his situation has

12 aggravated since the submissions we made to the Honourable Trial Chamber

13 several months ago. In this light, we anticipate the filing of a motion

14 on the fitness to stand trial earlier than expected. As Your Honour may

15 know, we have filed a motion in which we have notified the Chamber and the

16 Prosecution on the current medical situation of Mr. Stanisic substantiated

17 with a detailed medical report. During my interviews with his medical

18 team over Christmas, it turned out that the situation again has aggravated

19 and, if the Chamber wishes, we -- sorry, we can file an updated verse on

20 the medical status in due course.

21 But in light of his current medical condition and also in view of

22 the practical its of a potential return to The Hague for a further

23 appearance, we humbly submit that it could be considered to have this

24 further appearance being conducted through a videolink and we are familiar

25 with the practice of this Court that it has been conducted before in a

Page 529

1 case, in the Plavsic case where the guilty plea of the accused was

2 conducted through a videolink. So this is the standpoint the Defence in

3 the case of Mr. Stanisic for the event that the further appearance should

4 be conducted in due course after the decisions your Honourable Trial

5 Chamber is going to make on the certification, presuppose the

6 certification would be denied or the Appeals Chamber would eventually deny

7 the appeal.

8 JUDGE KWON: I take it from your submission that there would be no

9 problem for the Accused to appear for the purpose of the further

10 appearance through video or telephone link.

11 MR. KNOOPS: That's correct, Your Honour. The Accused is able

12 physically and mentally to attend a further appearance through the

13 videolink as proposed.

14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Mr. Jovanovic, can I hear from you on

15 this point. You take the same position?

16 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Yes,

17 absolutely the same position. I think that it would be far more practical

18 and less costly and let me just also mention that quite recently a

19 videolink was established between the district court in Belgrade, the

20 department for war crimes, with the Court in Sarajevo so I think that all

21 the technical conditions set in place and I think it would be superfluous

22 now to change the decision on provisional release although it would be

23 necessary if the Accused were to be returned to The Hague and then to

24 Belgrade. So the accused Franko Simatovic is in good health but I think

25 it would be far better if that were to be done on the basis of videolink

Page 530

1 or some such link.

2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic.

3 Can I ask Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff whether the Prosecution has any

4 opposition to having a further appearance through videolink?

5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the Prosecution, of course,

6 would prefer to have the Accused both here to attend the further initial

7 appearance and -- but if such an application is being made for videolink

8 in particular for Mr. Stanisic for health reasons, nothing can be done

9 against this but I would rather like to see such an application in

10 particular then also a confirmation by a doctor confirming that he's not

11 able to travel because that's the point, whether he's able to travel to

12 The Hague or not. And not so much that he is in bad health. I mean

13 that's for sure but whether he's able to travel or not. If such an

14 application is made and such a documentation is provided we would, of

15 course, not object against it.

16 JUDGE KWON: So that means that you're objecting to having a

17 further appearance in case of Mr. Simatovic, not even for the sake of

18 judicial economy.

19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: If Mr. Stanisic is not able to travel here,

20 then I would rather say --

21 JUDGE KWON: I take it Mr. Simatovic is very healthy.

22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: He is able to travel, yes, so I think he

23 should be here.

24 JUDGE KWON: So that when necessary, the Chamber will consider the

25 matter but I would encourage the Defence to file their motion if they wish

Page 531

1 to have the further appearance to be conducted through video or telephone

2 link.

3 And I think I exhausted the points I noted down so I would like to

4 ask the parties if there is any further issues to raise at this moment.

5 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff?

6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE KWON: From the Defence? Yes, Mr. Jovanovic.

8 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Your Honour, I assume that you have asked the Defence to give a written

10 submission about an appearance of the Accused so we are going to wait for

11 your decision and then we will put in our demand for a videolink, of

12 course, if your decision is such and ruling is such that it rejects the

13 Defence's request to appeal. The second thing that I would like to say is

14 that if the Chamber rejects the certification submission by the Defence,

15 there is a deadline for launching a request and this was on second amended

16 indictment and the date was the 20th of December, and this means the 20th

17 of January. We received an additional statement by C-063 Witness, on the

18 12th of January pursuant to Rule 66. I don't know if that is additional

19 supportive material so in the case -- in case you should reject the

20 Defence's request we would like to know when the deadline for an appeal of

21 the decision is set.

22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic. The Defence of

23 Mr. Stanisic are requested for that kind of somewhat sort of stay in their

24 motion so I don't think there is any reason to treat differently. So that

25 will be considered by the Chamber in its decision on the request for

Page 532

1 certification for appeal. So the both -- speaking for myself, both the

2 Accused will be treated in the same manner. If that pleases you. Is

3 there any more -- any points, Mr. Knoops?

4 MR. KNOOPS: I'm not sure whether my learned friend has finished

5 his submissions in this regard but --

6 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I just have one more point to

7 raise but it is quite a different matter. The Prosecutor informed the

8 Defence or rather the OTP informed the Defence that Milan Martic's trial

9 has gone ahead and that during that trial evidence will be presented which

10 will -- some of which will be exculpatory pursuant to Rule 68 with respect

11 to Stanisic and Simatovic. The OTP said that it would be disclosing to

12 the Defence those materials which are to be presented in private closed

13 sessions and that the Defence should pay attention to the evidence that

14 will be tendered during the public open sessions.

15 I think that this once again in a way is pushing the ball into our

16 court pursuant to Rule 68 and I don't think it is practical for the

17 Defence to follow a trial that might last for even a year, up to a year,

18 and to wait to see whether some material will crop up which comes under

19 Rule 68 with respect to the Accused Stanisic and Simatovic. If the OTP is

20 ready to go ahead with Martic's trial, and I'm sure it stands trial ready,

21 in view of the fact that it is continuing on the 17th of January I think

22 that the Prosecution at this point in time knows which material could come

23 under Rule 68 already now and thus disclose to the Defence in the trial of

24 Stanisic and Simatovic and the Defence will certainly take an active part

25 and follow the proceedings because it is relevant for its trial too. But

Page 533

1 I think that at this point in time the OTP could be in a position to

2 inform the Defence about the list of witnesses, list of exhibits, which

3 could be disclosed to the Stanisic and Simatovic Defence pursuant to Rule

4 68. So other wise, we would have to wait for months perhaps and follow

5 the trial for months before any material crops up or before we ourselves

6 find something that might be exculpatory and come under Rule 68.

7 JUDGE KWON: I don't think I followed you in full. What the

8 Prosecution said to the Defence, as I understand it, is that a possible

9 exculpatory material evidence may be led in Martic case so the Prosecution

10 asked the Defence of Mr. Simatovic and Stanisic to pay attention of the

11 public part of the proceedings. Am I right in so understanding? Can I

12 hear from the Prosecution?

13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. And I think I can actually

14 clarify something for Mr. Jovanovic. Mr. Jovanovic at the moment we have

15 no idea what will be Rule 68 in the Martic trial because the Rule 68

16 material will come from the Defence in the Martic case and we don't know

17 what they will present in their cross-examinations or later in the Defence

18 case. So what we have so far exculpatory materials related to Martic that

19 you have already got because the cases are related. What we will do is,

20 of course, when the Martic trial is running, each witness that is also a

21 witness in your case here, you will get the transcripts according to Rule

22 66(A). You get them complete because that's our obligation under Rule

23 66. But under Rule 68 because it's a public trial we do not provide you

24 with those public sources, but what we do, we provide you with Rule 68

25 materials that come in in private or closed session because you don't have

Page 534

1 access to it. And that's what we will review for you and provide to you,

2 but in relation to the public sources it's your own responsibility and we

3 have alerted you that there may be something coming up. Whether it does,

4 we don't know.

5 JUDGE KWON: I think it clarifies the matter.

6 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. All I didn't

7 understand was that the OTP meant the Defence material in Martic's trial.

8 I thought it was material relating to Rule 68 in the Martic trial which

9 might possibly be exculpatory with regard to the accused Stanisic and

10 Simatovic. So if they know what material they have in their disposal then

11 I had expected that to be disclosed, but of course I will actively follow

12 the proceedings as I do all other proceedings relevant to our trial as

13 well.


15 MR. KNOOPS: In this sense I would support the submissions of my

16 learned colleague that it's our view that if the interpretation of the

17 letter of the Prosecution of the 11 January 2006 is as such that it has

18 fulfilled or will fulfill its obligations under Rule 66 and/or 68 by means

19 of putting the Defence on notice for the Martic trial, even the public

20 sessions thereof, we believe and I think this is also the argument of

21 Mr. Jovanovic that this is not fulfilling the obligations under the Rules

22 as such. You cannot simply say to the Defence in every case, you can

23 follow the trial yourself and find out what is 66 and/or 68. So I, on

24 behalf of the Defence of Mr. Stanisic, would like to stress that although

25 we are appreciative of the letter of the Prosecution and that we are put

Page 535

1 on notice that the trial will take place and will potentially result in

2 exculpatory evidence, we still believe that the Prosecution has not

3 fulfilled its obligations by merely putting Defence on notice to fulfil

4 the obligations under Rule 66 or 68. That is the point the Defence would

5 like to make. Beforehand I think the Prosecution is able to provide for

6 instance the Defence in the Stanisic case and the Simatovic case with an

7 overview of, for instance, the exhibits and their witnesses under Rule 66

8 they are seeking to admit in court, and our point is that we as Defence,

9 we can timely anticipate the filing of these documents in our case instead

10 of waiting until the trial will progress for months and perhaps a year and

11 we are simply then too late in our pre-trial preparations based on the

12 documents which will emerge from the Martic trial, and I think this is the

13 right moment to stress this position of the Defence in the case of

14 Mr. Stanisic that we don't believe that the Rules should be interpreted in

15 that sense.

16 JUDGE KWON: No. What I understand from the Prosecution

17 submission is somewhat different. What the Prosecution had already in

18 their possession should have been disclosed either in 66(A)(i) or (A)(ii)

19 or 68. What they have -- what the Prosecution had in mind is that the new

20 evidence emerging from Martic case, from the Defence case, will be

21 disclosed and if it is a public document and they will not provide for --

22 specifically for that. I think that's as simple as that.

23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, and that is the usual

24 practice here. The Prosecution does not disclose under Rule 68 the public

25 open source material. That's -- but we have informed you that there may

Page 536

1 be something upcoming, and whatever a witness says who is also a witness

2 in your case, that, of course, you will receive as Rule 66(A) material.

3 But I don't see any obligation that we have to provide you with the --

4 give you an outline of the Martic case. I mean, you can have this --

5 everything is in public hearings and you have the witness list in the

6 Martic case. That's all public documents that you can easily get from the

7 Internet.

8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. It might be a bit too early to raise this

9 but by the amendment a crime base has been added and all the disclosure

10 has been done or not, only the supporting material has been disclosed.

11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, only the supporting

12 material so far but there isn't actually much else to disclose as far as I

13 see. There isn't really that much added. So --

14 JUDGE KWON: And I assume that pre-trial brief should be amended

15 or newly filed, and anything you will make a comment on that?

16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. What we are actually at

17 the moment doing is preparing the final pre-trial brief, dropping the

18 crime bases that were dropped and adding the Srebrenica part and we also

19 will provide the final witness and exhibits list. It will take I've

20 discussed it with my colleague who is actually doing it and as the

21 Stanisic and Simatovic trial team is a small one, we think we will have it

22 in two months, if that's acceptable for anyone. We would file it in two

23 months.

24 JUDGE KWON: And that is only after the certification is rejected

25 or the Appeals Chamber confirms the Trial Chamber's decision.

Page 537

1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Actually I can say we will file -- of course,

2 if it is not granted we don't need to file anything new, but if it is

3 granted it's still the two months from now. So let's say in month there

4 is a decision, a further month and we file, so it's not that we start

5 doing the work in -- starting only after the decision. We are actually in

6 the process putting it together.

7 JUDGE KWON: And the scale of the case or length of the trial,

8 number of witnesses can be dealt with at the next Status Conference.

9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, but I can say it will not be more than

10 now because we are dropping something and we are adding something so it

11 will basically be the same.

12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Some witnesses should be changed.

13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE KWON: Any other points to raise?

15 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise if

16 I've been going on and on, but quite simply we did not have a 65 ter

17 meeting before this Status Conference so we could not present some of our

18 arguments. Related to C-063 and the statement of that witness that my

19 colleague stated just now, that this was not received although it was

20 taken by the investigating judge from the Belgrade court for war crimes, I

21 think it's a rather important statement.

22 I simply cannot believe that after so many months, that I told the

23 OTP that this statement exists, and at the Status Conference the OTP said

24 that practically the Defence assisted them in disclosing relevant

25 materials, discovering relevant materials. I think this is a very

Page 538

1 important statement, and I also presented that in the request for

2 certification of appeal too. So again, if the Defence's request is

3 rejected, I still think it is very important for this statement to be

4 attached to the second amended indictment. How should I put this? It's

5 strange that there are these ongoing comments about the good cooperation,

6 intense and very good cooperation between the war crimes department in

7 Belgrade and the OTP and both offices of the Prosecutor have said that.

8 It's quite unbelievable that they haven't managed to receive this one

9 statement in months. The Defence, we work in cooperation after all, we

10 asked the commission for cooperation with the ICTY to get this statement

11 but I told the OTP that the statement is where it is so I would kindly ask

12 my learned friends to insist on it. If that is not sufficient material

13 for the actual request for certification of appeal, could it please be

14 taken into account when they make their preliminary objections to the

15 amended indictment? Thank you.

16 JUDGE KWON: If it is -- something is important for the Defence,

17 it is as important to the Prosecution as well. So I think Prosecution

18 will be doing its best to get the material, and just note for that -- I'm

19 speaking for myself, whether there is a prima facie case or not is not a

20 matter to be considered in -- in the motion for this -- for the request of

21 certification for appeal. But that's -- having said that, I think there

22 is no further issues.

23 Mr. Knoops, do you have anything to raise?

24 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, Your Honour, sorry. In the absence of a 65 ter

25 Conference, I beg your indulgence for three points I would like to raise.

Page 539

1 One has to do -- the first two points have to do with disclosure and one

2 issue with the filing of a potential motion.

3 Your Honour, the Defence has noticed that the B/C/S versions of

4 the expert reports in the Milosevic case, from Mrs. Borrelli, Neilsen, and

5 Tunents [phoen], apparently are not on the JDB, and we -- our legal

6 assistant went with the Registry searching through these JDB and we were

7 not able to find the B/C/S versions of the three expert reports in the

8 Milosevic case. So perhaps the Prosecution is able to verify whether this

9 is indeed correct.

10 JUDGE KWON: Could you identify the items again.

11 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.

12 JUDGE KWON: One of them is Mr. Tunents.

13 MR. KNOOPS: Tunents? Expert report of Mr. Tunents, the expert

14 report of Mr. Neilson.

15 JUDGE KWON: Nielsen?

16 MR. KNOOPS: The expert report of Mr. Borrelli. We have the

17 English versions but not yet the B/C/S versions and we were not able to

18 identify them on the JDB.

19 JUDGE KWON: Did you say those were from the Milosevic case.

20 MR. KNOOPS: Yes, from the Milosevic case, Your Honour, that's

21 correct.

22 JUDGE KWON: I'm afraid I don't remember the last two, Neilsen and

23 Borrelli.

24 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.

25 JUDGE KWON: That can be checked by the Prosecution.

Page 540

1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think Neilsen, I'm not really sure that

2 it's from the Milosevic case but I'm sure he testified in the Krajisnik

3 case so -- but I can't be sure. But I think he only testified in

4 Krajisnik case and Borrelli, Borrelli I'm also not sure whether that's

5 Milosevic or Krajisnik, but --

6 JUDGE KWON: That may be the reason why the Defence was not able

7 to find it JDB but I don't know.

8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: But we will also now see where to locate

9 that.

10 JUDGE KWON: The Prosecution will pay attention to that and then

11 second thing?

12 MR. KNOOPS: The question whether the Prosecution is able to

13 disclose if that's the case any additional reports or documents filed by

14 the national council regarding the activities of the Serbian DB. Some

15 months ago we have filed a list with search terms to the Prosecution I

16 think prior to one of the Rule 65 ter Conferences and we were not able to

17 detect any documents filed from the national council on the Serbian DB and

18 one of our main questions is whether the Prosecution is in the possession

19 of such documents and, if so, whether these documents could be disclosed

20 and these relate specifically to the activities of the Serbian DB in 1991,

21 1995.

22 JUDGE KWON: I don't follow what the national council is regarding

23 the activities of the Serbian DB. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, do you follow

24 that?

25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I actually don't know what body that should

Page 541

1 be. In relation to the search terms we have already before the Status

2 Conference today Your Honour we have discussed that we need to meet and

3 discuss certain issues, the Defence and Prosecution, and one of the issues

4 that we actually need to discuss, and my colleague who is in charge of

5 disclosure has alerted me to this, the Defence provided us with a list of

6 search terms but it's basically a list of issues and it's very difficult

7 to search what you want to us search. In the way you formulated, it's not

8 possible. If you ask for certain issues, you can't use the search term --

9 the issue is a search term and then we find it all now. We will have to

10 discuss how we can find the things that you would like to have to certain

11 issues and that's a point that we need to discuss.

12 As far as I know, what we have on the Serbian DB was disclosed, I

13 mean, when it was a Rule 68 was disclosed, and we have to continue further

14 searches.

15 JUDGE KWON: I would like to indicate to the parties and in

16 particular to the Defence that Status Conferences is not the only time to

17 communicate with the parties so I would like to encourage to you

18 communicate with the Prosecution to find that's -- an appropriate way much

19 disclosure. Can I ask the what is the last point?

20 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm grateful for the answer

21 of the Prosecution, thank you. Last point, Your Honour, is just an

22 information for Your Honours and the Prosecution that already indicated in

23 my first submission this -- during the Status Conference that the Defence

24 is anticipating the filing of a motion on the fitness to stand trial of

25 the Accused Mr. Stanisic far earlier than indicated in our motion which

Page 542

1 was dealt with by the Trial Chamber, our last motion on this issue,

2 Your Honour, based on the latest medical information. As Your Honours may

3 remember, and also the Prosecution, we have indicated in that earlier

4 motion the intention to file a concrete release from the Chamber once the

5 trial schedule would be at stake. Yet it is our belief now, as matters

6 stand now, to pursue with filing of such a motion earlier and I hope Your

7 Honours that we can inform the Chamber in due course when this filing will

8 be made, in which filing we will request the Chamber for a hearing of

9 three or four medical experts on this issue and I endeavour to file that

10 motion in February, if time allows me, and the reports are received by

11 then.

12 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber will consider whenever it is filed.

13 MR. KNOOPS: Of course, but I thought it would be appropriate to

14 inform Your Honours about the intention of the Defence because it will

15 mean a slight deviation from the announcement made in the earlier motion

16 in this regard.

17 Thank you very much for your patience.

18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, for your information. The Chamber will be

19 on alert but you will bear in mind that the points ordered by the previous

20 Chamber's decision that a specific condition of the Accused may be a --

21 confidential but whether he's ill so as not to stand fit to the trial, is

22 it -- I think it's a public matter. There should be a good cause if it is

23 to be in -- it is to be dealt with in confidential way.

24 Anything else? I noted no -- none.

25 The hearing is now adjourned.

Page 543

1 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at

2 12.41 p.m.