Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 640

1 Wednesday, 18th July 2007

2 [Status Conference]

3 [Open session]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.

5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Good afternoon to everybody.

6 May I ask Madam Registrar to call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honour.

8 This is case number IT-03-69-PT, the Prosecutor versus Jovica

9 Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

11 May I have the appearances on behalf of the parties, please.

12 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: Good afternoon, Your Honour. For the

13 Prosecution, Doris Brehmeier-Metz, accompanied by Klaus Hoffman, Gregory

14 Townsend, and Carmela Javier.

15 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

16 MR. JORDASH: For Mr. Stanisic, myself, Wayne Jordash, and

17 Anne-Marie Verwiel. Good afternoon.

18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

19 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. I

20 am Zoran Jovanovic, attorney-at-law, representing the accused Franko

21 Simatovic. Thank you.

22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic.

23 Welcome to this further Status Conference after the last one,

24 having been held on the 21st of March, 2007. The last Rule 65 ter

25 Conference was held by senior legal officer Linda Murnane yesterday, the

Page 641

1 17th of July, 2007. I would like to thank the senior legal officer for

2 all her support.

3 We actually don't need to deal with a lot of open issues, as the

4 following have been dealt with in the 65 ter Conference, but there will be

5 pending issues, disclosure, other pre-trial preparation, the date of next

6 meeting, and any other matters.

7 But before we go into these, I would like to hear about the health

8 of the accused.

9 Maybe go into private session for that purpose.

10 [Private session]

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 642











11 Page 642 redacted. Private session















Page 643

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 [Open session]

23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, we are back in open session.

24 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

25 As we are now going to the outstanding issues, in view of the

Page 644

1 preparation of the trial, I'm referring to the work plan. According to

2 the actual work plan, the case should be trial ready by next month. I'm

3 referring to, first, the order establishing a work plan of 19th of

4 January, 2007; then a decision on Prosecution motion for adjustment of

5 work plan of the 7th of May, 2007; and, lastly, the decision on several

6 applications to modify terms of the work plan and order, following a Rule

7 65 ter conference of the 31st of May, 2007.

8 The fact that the Tribunal is running at its full capacity, with

9 seven trials underway, should not keep us from aiming at the target to get

10 the case trial ready in the very near future.

11 As to pending motions, are there any comments? The entire list of

12 pending motions was discussed by Ms. Linda Murnane at the Rule 65 ter

13 Conference yesterday.

14 Do you wish to comment, please?

15 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: No, thank you, Your Honour.

16 MR. JORDASH: No, thank you.

17 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

19 Then, as to the disclosure issues, under preliminary questions on

20 disclosure, I would like to point out on the 25th of June, 2007, the

21 Prosecution filed a notification of compliance in response to the

22 Pre-Trial Judge's order of the 23rd of May, 2007, regarding re-disclosed

23 materials.

24 On the 11th of July, 2007, the Stanisic Defence responded to this

25 notice, stating that the Prosecution was not in compliance with the

Page 645

1 Chamber's order. The language of the order of 31st May, 2007 is clear.

2 The burden is on the Prosecution to show which materials have been

3 "re-disclosed." If this issue cannot be worked out between the parties,

4 the Defence may seek relief in the form of a written motion.

5 Going into the details, under Rule 66(A)(i), the supporting

6 material to the indictment, I can see no issues arising; (B), it would be

7 under Rule 66(A)(ii), witness statements, here we have outstanding

8 translations, but apart from that, no issues seem to be arising; (C), Rule

9 68, i.e., mitigating or potentially exculpatory material. The Defence

10 raised the issue of the Prosecution's noncompliance with the 11th of

11 March, 2005, decision on motion of Defence of Jovica Stanisic for variance

12 of protective measures pursuant to Rule 75(G)(i). The Prosecution

13 explained at the 65 ter Conference of 17th of July that it will give an

14 update on this matter during today's Status Conference.

15 Do you want to do that now, or I would like then also to ask when

16 the so-called Milosevic letters will be disclosed. This issue has been

17 raised many times now, and it's unclear whether this and the previous item

18 are one and the same issue.

19 Please, Ms. Brehmeier-Metz.

20 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Coming to the second issue raised by Your Honour, the so-called

22 Milosevic letters, as Your Honour is aware and as are the parties aware,

23 this is a problem of requesting consent from the U.K. government to

24 disclose these letters to the Stanisic Defence and the Simatovic Defence

25 as well. We are in contact with the U.K. authorities on this matter, and

Page 646

1 the U.K. authorities are aware of the urgency that lies behind all that.

2 However, unfortunately, we have not yet received a decision. The U.K.

3 authorities, as I understand, are in the process of making that decision;

4 and as soon as the decision will be delivered to us, I will, of course,

5 forward it to Defence and C.C. it to the Court.

6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. You may give them additional

7 information by referring to today's Status Conference, for example.

8 Please, proceed. I interrupted you.

9 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: I shall certainly do that, Your Honour.

10 As for the 11th March 2007 Milosevic decision, first of all, I'm

11 grateful for my learned friend for the Stanisic Defence of having pointed

12 out this problem to me in great detail and accuracy. I have to say that

13 the Prosecution team, all of the members of this team having come to the

14 case after this decision in Milosevic was made, were unfortunately not

15 aware of this decision. The decision having been brought to our attention

16 yesterday, we made it, of course, our habit to immediately check and try

17 and find out what happened in between.

18 And the breakdown and result of it is this: There is a number of

19 59 witnesses for the Prosecution in Milosevic that are on the

20 Stanisic/Simatovic Prosecution witness list as well. The material

21 relating to these witnesses was disclosed by the Stanisic/Simatovic team

22 to the Stanisic and Simatovic Defence, in the meantime either in

23 unredacted form or, if these are witnesses for which -- for whom delayed

24 disclosure is requested, in redacted form.

25 That leaves us with a number of 54 witnesses for the Prosecution

Page 647

1 in Milosevic whose testimony was given in private or closed session.

2 These 54 witnesses will, in the following time, have to be reviewed by the

3 Prosecution, and the decision whether or not to grant access or redact the

4 statements for the Stanisic and Simatovic Defence will have to be made in

5 due course.

6 The Milosevic decision is understood by the Prosecution to relate

7 to the Prosecution witnesses of the Milosevic case only. The Prosecution

8 does indeed submit that it is unable to request consent of witnesses that

9 appeared for the Milosevic Defence. If, however, the Prosecution is not

10 correct in its assumption, we would seek clarification from the Court as

11 to how to understand the Milosevic decision, in order to be able and react

12 correctly to this.

13 So for the time being, we are left with the number of 54 witnesses

14 with confidential material for the Prosecution. If the Prosecution is

15 informed that the Milosevic decision relates to Defence witnesses as well,

16 that would add a number of 52 further witnesses that appeared for the

17 Defence in Milosevic.

18 I should also like to point out in this respect that we are in

19 collaboration with the Registry in order to find out exactly which access

20 has been provided, in fact, to the Stanisic and Simatovic Defence for the

21 Milosevic transcripts, so as to know exactly what has been at their access

22 already. That is what I can say for the time being in relation to the

23 Milosevic order.

24 Thank you.

25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you very much.

Page 648

1 The Pre-Trial Judge will consider that, and we will deal with the

2 matter of the interpretation of that decision.

3 I suppose there are no further issues under Rule 68. Everything

4 has been already discussed.

5 Ms. Linda Murnane. Just a moment, please.

6 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I would just quickly go through the other two

8 Rules, and then ask the parties to comment on the disclosure issues in

9 general. I was thinking of Rule 66 (B), inspections on demand. I see no

10 issues arising, but I'm open to comments.

11 And then there is Rule 94 bis, expert reports. All Defence

12 notices under Rule 94 bis should be filed by 1st of August, 2007, with the

13 exception of the notice on the Tromp report, which is due on 8th of

14 August, 2007. The Rule 94 bis motions will be dealt with by the Trial

15 Chamber that will hear the case, but I'm certainly open to any comments of

16 the parties.

17 Who wants to comment on that?

18 MR. JORDASH: No, thank you.

19 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.

20 Mr. Jovanovic?

21 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour, except

22 for what I mentioned yesterday at the 65 ter meeting. The Defence already

23 submitted, after the Prosecution submitted its 65 ter motion. We have

24 already indicated that we wanted to cross-examine all expert witnesses at

25 the time when we were given just the summary of the reports. But the

Page 649

1 Defence would definitely -- will definitely be stating whether it intends

2 to cross-examine the experts or not by the deadline that has been

3 indicated.

4 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

5 Any other comments?

6 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: There's nothing from the Prosecution, thank

7 you.

8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

9 Now, as to other pre-trial preparation, here is the possible use

10 of Rule 92 bis or 92 ter evidence. The Rule 92 bis motions will be dealt

11 with by the Trial Chamber that will hear the case. No issues seem to be

12 arising. The same is true for 92 ter, and maybe also 92 quater. I'm not

13 remembering if we had any submissions under 92 quater.

14 Yes, there was something.

15 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: The Prosecution has filed all its motions

16 under 92 bis, ter, and quater that were intended.

17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes. Okay, thank you. Also quater.

18 Then, as to adjudicated facts, agreed facts, and stipulations on

19 the indictment, motions in that regard will be dealt with by the Trial

20 Chamber that will hear the case.

21 Are there any issues arising at the moment? I see noting "no."

22 MR. JOVANOVIC: No, thank you, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Comments?

24 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: No, thank you, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

Page 650

1 Now, the general question of the anticipated length of trial and

2 possible trial date.

3 There's no new information about the estimation of the length of

4 the trial, I guess.

5 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: Your Honour, no. As I said yesterday, during

6 the 65 ter Conference, the Prosecution is at the moment unable to say

7 anything other than has been said before in regard to the estimated length

8 of the Prosecution case.

9 We have filed motions under 92 bis, ter, and quater which, if

10 granted, would have considerable impact on the estimated length of the

11 Prosecution case. At the moment, the Prosecution intends to call 122

12 witnesses, or those are the witnesses in the witness list. If the motions

13 under 92 bis, ter, and quater were granted, that would leave us with the

14 number of 69 witnesses to be called either partially or in total, viva

15 voce, or for cross-examination. Of course, that would make considerable

16 impact on the estimated length.

17 And the other thing that is unknown to us for the time being is

18 whether we can actually, in view of the announced motion for

19 Mr. Stanisic's unfitness to stand trial, whether we can actually

20 anticipate a trial that will last five days a week for five hours or

21 whether there anything may change. That is something that cannot be set

22 possibly by the Prosecution for the time being.

23 So these are the reasons why, at the moment, I am unable to say

24 anything other than we have said before, five to six months for the

25 estimated Prosecution case.

Page 651

1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes, thank you. And that will be duly considered,

2 and it's a very important issue, of course, how much time per week can be

3 used for work if Mr. Stanisic is not completely fit.

4 Do you want to comment on that now?

5 MR. JORDASH: Only to repeat the point I made yesterday, which,

6 well, one, of course, it's an issue which will be decided in due course by

7 the Court in conjunction with expert testimony; but, two, as I mentioned

8 yesterday in relation to the length of the pre-trial period, when the

9 trial begins, how much preparation has been done by the accused, and where

10 we're at at that stage will certainly impact on his ability to be able to

11 sit full hours or not. So it is a difficult question at this stage to be

12 able to answer.

13 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

14 And Mr. Jordash, especially for your client, but for all of us, it

15 will be very important to know soon when the trial can start. But as Ms.

16 Murnane has explained to you, there are different possible scenarios.

17 Thank you.

18 Do you want to comment?

19 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps I should just indicate when we do have a

20 definite date, at that stage, we'll be indicating forthwith what our

21 application as regards to fitness will be.

22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: That is understood. Thank you.

23 The most probable window, if we are considering when the trial

24 could fit into the schedule of this Tribunal, what we are currently

25 looking at is the trial will start around early 2008, although several

Page 652

1 different scenarios are possible, as everyone knows who has to do with

2 this Court.

3 Most probably, we will need the date for the next meeting in the

4 format of a Status Conference, and this is my last point. Although no

5 further Status Conference was planned or is planned, according to the work

6 plan, given what was explained yesterday and what was discussed now

7 regarding the possible trial start, it is likely that there will be

8 another Status Conference within 120 days; that is, the first half of the

9 month of November.

10 Concluding, I would like to ask what of any other matters is

11 addressed.

12 Do you want to comment, please?

13 MS. BREHMEIER-METZ: Nothing further from the Prosecution, Your

14 Honour. Thank you.

15 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And from the Defence.

16 MR. JORDASH: No, thank you.

17 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

19 Maybe I could add that the last Defence notice on the

20 Prosecution's Rule 94 bis, expert reports, will be due on the 8th of

21 August. It is suggested that, at that time, the Pre-Trial Judge then can

22 report this case ready for trial. This may also facilitate the issue of

23 the outstanding Prosecution translations, which currently do not seem to

24 be a priority.

25 Thank you all, and I wish you a good summer period.

Page 653

1 The conference is adjourned.

2 --- Status Conference adjourned at 2.55 p.m.