1 Tuesday, 1 February 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 3.34 p.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Good afternoon to
10 May we have the appearances for this brief and formal sitting,
12 MS. KORNER: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Joanna Korner,
13 Belinda Pidwell, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution. However, I
14 don't think it's going to be as brief and as formal as Your Honours
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Slobodan Zecevic and Slobodan Cvijetic and
17 Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for Stanisic Defence this afternoon.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: Dragan Krgovic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. I believe according to the order of
20 business we will hear from the Prosecution. Ms. Korner.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, the matters I have to raise firstly
22 relate to a matter raised by Mr. Krgovic, but I believe on behalf of both
23 accused, in respect of the Ewan Brown footnotes. I don't know whether
24 Your Honours were -- an e-mail was sent by Mr. Krgovic to
25 Ms. Featherstone, I believe last Friday, about this. I don't know
1 whether Your Honours have been told, because if not, it may be as well if
2 Your Honours see the e-mail.
3 It was the 28th, which I believe was Friday, at 5.24.
4 Your Honours, we have got it in Sanction if Your Honours want to have a
5 look at it.
6 JUDGE HALL: Well, while we're trying to find it, it may perhaps
7 be useful if Mr. Krgovic would summarise for us what the issue is.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, shall I do it, because I'm on my feet.
9 May I say, Your Honours, we say it's moot because Your Honours already
10 made a ruling on this, but still. Your Honours, they -- the e-mail,
11 which is on behalf of the Defence of both Stanisic and Zupljanin, opposed
12 the admission into evidence of the additional footnotes which were sent
13 yesterday. Now, Your Honours will recall that at the time that Mr. Brown
14 was testifying, I indicated, I believe on two occasions, that we would
15 send a list of the footnotes which were on our 65 ter list which we
16 wished to be admitted, and indeed at the end, Your Honours, I mentioned
17 that, and Your Honours admitted these documents, and we sent a list
18 round, and that's caused the problem.
19 Mr. Krgovic states that:
20 "The documents which are the footnotes of Mr. Brown's report were
21 not announced by the OTP during his testimony. As a result, the accused
22 were not put on notice that these documents would be relied upon by the
23 OTP, and they had no opportunity to challenge the documents or
24 Mr. Brown's interpretation of them."
25 Your Honours, in fact, there was a few pages worth of discussion
1 before Mr. Brown commenced his testimony which starts at page 18623 and
2 continues through until 18626 where I asked which, as it were, system was
3 going to be followed about the admission of his reports, pointed out that
4 there had been different ways of that admission taking place and made it
5 absolutely clear that I could not deal with all the documents, paragraphs
6 and footnotes referred to in Mr. Brown's report, that I would be making a
7 selection and that we would be asking for admission of the report and,
8 obviously, the documents which are on our 65 ter list, which were in the
9 footnotes, which has been the same with each and every expert we have
10 called from Mr. Nielsen through to Mr. Brown.
11 Indeed, I specifically asked, and Your Honours may recall, that I
12 wanted to know if there was any objection to any of the part of the
13 report as not being relevant. Your Honours, that's at page 18624, line
15 "We rely on the whole report, and I'm going to try and highlight
16 various themes from it with Mr. Brown, but clearly if there was any
17 suggestion that any part of the report was not going to be admitted, then
18 I would want to be able to deal with that before the decision was made."
19 Regrettably, I added the words "If you see what I mean," which I'm rather
20 ashamed of.
21 "You see, that's the problem we have that I don't know whether
22 it's going to be suggested by the Defence that any part of the report is
23 not relevant or whatever in my examination-in-chief."
24 Indeed I repeated that at the next page, Your Honours.
25 So Your Honours, we made it absolutely clear that we were asking
1 for admission of all the reports and even though we didn't give a long
2 list of every footnote that was on our 65 ter list in advance, we gave
3 notice of the ones we intended to use with Mr. Brown and said that we
4 would be asking for the others to be admitted, which we suggest
5 Your Honours have already done. So this, in effect, I assume is an
6 application by both Defence counsel for reconsideration of Your Honours'
8 Your Honours, two footnotes in particular are mentioned, and I
9 think this must be a further in the alternative. If you don't accept the
10 submission that you should revise your order as to admission, then two
11 documents referred to in footnotes should be -- should not be allowed in.
12 Can I deal with one straight away, because, in fact, we accept
13 the Defence contention on this, and that is 65 ter 3327, which was
14 referred to in footnote 328. The Defence stated -- and perhaps we should
15 bring it up. Can we have up, please, 65 ter 3327.
16 Your Honour, regrettably this was mislabelled in our spreadsheet
17 containing the documents, and this is why the problem arisen, but it's
18 addressed from the 1st Krajina Corps, dated 7th of August, addressed to
19 the Serbian Republic of Krajina, minister of the interior. It was
20 suggested that came from the 1st Krajina Corps, Major-General Momir Talic
21 to Zupljanin. That is clearly an error. Now we've looked -- and we've
22 checked the original document. It is, as Mr. Krgovic points out, a
23 document which is apparently addressed to the Serbian Republic of the
24 Krajina, which is the RSK and not the ARK. And so therefore, we agree
25 that that document should not go in, and we withdraw that from our
1 application or the list of the documents admitted, and we'll cross that
2 one out.
3 However, the other one, Your Honours, is 65 ter 00842. Could we
4 have that one up, please, which is referred to in Mr. Brown's report at
5 footnote 573, and indeed is quoted from.
6 There Mr. Krgovic says, as he said before, because it's a
7 document from February 1993, it's outside the given time-frame of the
8 indictment. It's dated February 1993, but as Your Honours will see when
9 we go to -- it's a meeting attended by the writer Colonel Vojnovic, and
10 it's a meeting in Kljuc in February 1993. And if we go, please, to, in
11 the English, the second page. And I believe it's also in B/C/S, yes, the
12 second page.
13 You will see "The onset of the war in the Kljuc area." And there
14 is the Colonel's description of how matters began in Kljuc, which
15 Your Honours may feel just looking at the first paragraph is not only
16 admissible but highly relevant and probative. In particular:
17 "The fight against the Ustasha villains commenced on the 27th of
18 May, 1992, in the territory of the Velagici local commune, soon spilled
19 over to the area north of Kljuc. This happened in the predominantly
20 Muslim areas. Indeed, the Serbian Army, police and Serbian people
21 crushed and routed the genocide-prone Ustashas ..."
22 It then goes on to deal in the next paragraph with looting, which
23 is apparently accepted as having happened, and carries on for a further
24 two pages. And then if one goes on to the fourth page in English. And I
25 hope it's the same -- it says "Departure of the Muslims in the period
1 from May 1992." I hope it's the same in B/C/S. I think -- yes, it is.
2 Yes. To the 31st of January, 1993. I don't think there's going to be
3 any suggestion that the departure of the Muslims occurred wholesale in
4 1993. It starts there and goes on to the next page in English, please.
5 The same page in B/C/S.
6 Accordingly, Your Honours, we say February 1993 it may be, but
7 it's clearly dealing in detail with the events of 1992. It deals
8 extensively with a number of themes covered in Mr. Brown's report.
9 So, Your Honours, that --
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, on my screen on page 5, line 25, you
11 are quoted as saying that the wholesale departure of Muslims occurred in
12 1993. Was that a misspeaking or --
13 MS. KORNER: I said I don't -- I think something has been missed
14 out. I don't think there's going to be any suggestion that the departure
15 of Muslims occurred wholesale in January 1993.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
17 MS. KORNER: Yes. As you see, it covers the period up to the end
18 of January.
19 JUDGE HALL: Before I call Mr. Krgovic, let me -- do I correctly
20 understand your position to be that in terms of the second mentioned
21 document, the Chamber having made a decision the issue is moot unless the
22 counsel for Zupljanin is asking for reconsideration, but in any event the
23 relevance of the document is patent. And in terms of the first document
24 you joined the Defence in asking the Chamber to reverse its order
25 admitting it as having been improvidently made.
1 MS. KORNER: Exactly, Your Honours. We agree, having rechecked
2 that document, that we invite Your Honours to reconsider your order in
3 respect of that one document alone. We agree with the Defence
5 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
6 So, Mr. Krgovic, the only thing we need to hear you on is the --
7 your -- whether you're, in fact, asking for reconsideration of the order
8 admitting this last-mentioned document.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as far as I understand
10 Their Honours' ruling, and especially in light of the latter days of
11 trial that we had, in view of the ruling given by His Honour
12 Judge Harhoff, which had to do both with experts Nielsen and Ms. Hanson,
13 you admitted the expert report with the footnotes that had previously
14 been announced by the OTP. It was at a later stage, after the order was
15 issued, that the OTP sent out a list of all the documents which were
16 asked to be admitted. So my understanding of Their Honours' order is
17 that it applied only to the documents -- footnoted documents that we were
18 previously put on notice of.
19 Our objection had to do with the fact that at the time
20 Their Honours were making their ruling, the comprehensive list of
21 documents which the OTP sought to tender into evidence had not been sent
22 out to us. It was sent a day later. Hence, our application that we
24 As for the documents, the specific documents we referred to, they
25 were merely only an illustration to show why the documents should not be
1 admitted into evidence. Even the footnote that the Prosecutor agrees was
2 improperly interpreted by the expert because there the expert mistook the
3 RSK for the ARK, and that's why the OTP did not include that document in
4 their list, 65 ter list, and we did not examine the witness on this
6 The same went for all the other documents that we had not been
7 put on notice of. Had we known that the Prosecution would be seeking to
8 tender those two, we would have examined the witness on those as well.
9 So it is not a reconsideration of the order that is at issue
10 here. What we have here is the fact that what should be admitted into
11 evidence is only the expert report with the footnotes that we were
12 previously put on notice of, that were previously announced.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, with respect, I disagree.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, just one moment, please.
15 Mr. Krgovic, the documents are the footnoted documents you were
16 previously put on notice of. With do you mean by "previously put on
17 notice"? What notice do you mean? I think I know, but I want to know
18 for sure. How were you previously put on notice of some of the
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when the Prosecution
21 was putting together a list of documents that they were going to use with
22 the witness, we were given that list, and that was a list of footnoted
23 documents, and we took it to mean that these were going to be the
24 footnotes that they were going to use. And even Mrs. Korner confirmed
25 so. They asked for some of the footnoted documents even to be added on
1 the 65 ter list at a later date. And this served to us as an indication
2 of the course that the Prosecution was going to take.
3 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues]... I said in terms
4 that --
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
6 MS. KORNER: Sorry. That we would be -- here was the list of the
7 documents that I proposed THAT may be used with him, which I pointed out
8 I could not go through every single one and that we would supply a list
9 of all the other footnoted documents that are on our 65 ter list, and in
10 each and every case and right from the beginning when we discussed this
11 matter, it was left on the basis that what would be admitted into
12 evidence in the case were those documents in the footnotes which were on
13 our 65 ter and not those which were not. And Mr. Krgovic had every
14 opportunity to ask Mr. Brown about any documents in the footnotes which
15 were on our 65 ter, and indeed, he took that opportunity because he asked
16 about other documents. So we say this is a specious argument at best.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE HALL: So we will return to the -- we will consider this
20 and give a ruling when we next reconvene.
21 Was there another matter, Ms. Korner?
22 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I don't know when Your Honours
23 intend to reconvene. I'm hoping to close my case today. I mean, I
24 intend to close my case after. So with respect, is it not possible to
25 give a ruling straight away on this?
1 All right. Well -- but, Your Honours, can I make it absolutely
2 clear --
3 JUDGE HALL: The -- perhaps we are in a position to give a ruling
4 this afternoon, but not immediately.
5 MS. KORNER: Right. Well, Your Honours, can I now go into
6 private session, because I need to -- to discuss Your Honours' decision
7 in -- that you issued yesterday.
8 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
9 MS. KORNER: Or decision -- [overlapping speakers].
10 [Private session]
11 Pages 19294-19299 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, very briefly, all of
22 these facts that I have enumerated so far directly affect the ability of
23 the Defence to accurately assess the OTP case in order to present its
24 position under Rule 98 bis, as well as to prepare the Defence case.
25 Your Honours, what -- we are dealing here, first and foremost,
1 with the accused and the rights that have been guaranteed in Articles 20
2 and 21 of the Statute and that have to do with fair trial, equality of
3 arms, and proper time to prepare Defence cases. Unfortunately, I have to
4 say that these rights of the accused under the circumstances in which we
5 find ourselves nowadays are not upheld in their entirety. Given that it
6 is a duty of all Trial Chambers according to the Statute to ensure that
7 these fundamental rights of the accused are upheld at all times, I kindly
8 ask you to have this in mind, because I'm afraid that anything else is
9 prejudicial to the accused.
10 And to conclude, it is the position of both Defence teams,
11 Your Honours, that the facts that I have enumerated significantly change
12 the situation in which we were at the time when you made your ruling on
13 the deadlines and dates concerning the 65 ter motions and the beginning
14 of the Defence case. I assure you that Defence teams will not be able to
15 prepare their Defence cases properly in the time that is left given the
16 new circumstances and the new additional work that stems from these new
18 You will remember, Your Honours, that I emphasised several times
19 that Defence teams needed 60 days without any additional work, and I
20 underlined this a number of times precisely because of the experience I
21 have in the work before this Tribunal, that this is the time we need to
22 prepare our Defence cases. Therefore, I kindly request on behalf of both
23 Defence teams that you modify your ruling and you extend the deadlines
24 for 65 ter motions and move it to the 25th of March at the earliest.
25 Thank you.
1 I apologise. I said the 28th of March. Thank you.
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, just so I'm clear, it's the extension
3 of deadlines for the 65 ter that Mr. Zecevic is asking, but he's prepared
4 to give his decision on whether he's going to mount a Rule 98, as
5 ordered, by tomorrow.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: That's correct. I'm sure that the Trial Chamber
7 will not look favourably to my asking for extension on that as well. So
8 I will -- as promised, I will give it within 24 hours from closing.
9 Thank you.
10 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, the only thing we'd say is this:
11 Effectively, the only difference between the situation as it was when
12 Your Honours made the order is not so much the rulings on the documents
13 and -- on the bar table motion documents and the exhumations but the
14 question of the examination of the Banja Luka documents by counsel. It
15 has to be counsel, as Mr. Zecevic rightly says.
16 As far as we're concerned, and we expressed this view to
17 Mr. Krgovic, it seems to us that Mr. Krgovic is the person who would have
18 to be doing this, because it's really him who it affects, if it affects
19 anybody. His case will go second, and we pointed out that we had no
20 objection to a delay in his case for -- if he were to apply for an
21 extension of time to give us his 65 ter witness list.
22 In respect of Mr. Zecevic, can I put it this way: I think we'll
23 leave that to Your Honours to decide. We don't see why it changes
24 Mr. Zecevic's position, but we're not prepared, can I put it that way,
25 out of, I suppose kindness comes into it, to say that we object. I think
1 we'll leave that to Your Honours.
2 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: May I -- very shortly, Your Honours. I believe I
4 stated at least three facts, so to explain why we -- why we ask for this,
5 and this is a joint submission by both Defences.
6 On the -- on one thing, I explained to Ms. Korner, I appreciate
7 her willingness to help us, but as I explained to Ms. Korner, Stanisic
8 Defence and Zupljanin Defence are separate defences so we need to review
9 their documents before we start our Defence cases. Therefore it would
10 not be acceptable that the different Defences have the different dates
11 for the submission of 65 ter list. Thank you very much.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE HALL: So we would rise and resume at 5.30.
14 --- Recess taken at 4.25 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 5.18 p.m.
16 JUDGE HALL: We thank counsel and everyone else concerned for
17 being able to reassemble earlier than the indicated adjourn time.
18 In terms of the three broad -- broadly speaking issues which we
19 had retired to consider during the break, dealing firstly with the matter
20 of the footnotes to the -- that would have been admitted with the package
21 of Ewan Brown, as counsel have indicated, the -- one of them should not
22 have been admitted, and therefore the order of the Chamber is revised to
23 allow for the deletion of that, and in terms of the second document,
24 the -- to which Mr. Krgovic's has entered a reservation, if not an
25 objection, we agree with what counsel for the Prosecution has indicated,
1 that the Chamber having ruled on the matter, the document is so included,
2 and it is not a matter which the Chamber considers that it need or should
4 In terms of the second issue, that is the difficulties which
5 counsel for the Prosecution have indicated appear to have been occasioned
6 by the Chamber's ruling yesterday dealing with the Rule 66(C) motion on
7 Serbia, the issues discussed by counsel --
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, we're in open session.
9 JUDGE HALL: I'm sorry.
10 MS. KORNER: Do you think we ought to go into private session?
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Could we go into private session.
12 [Private session]
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE HALL: The third matter is the request by Defence counsel
5 for an extension of time beyond the order that we would have made in
6 December for the commencement of the case for the Defence, and we agree
7 that an extension is warranted if only because of the extended date by
8 which we are -- and the close of the Prosecution's case, which is roughly
9 a week, and the -- we have heard what Mr. Zecevic has articulated in
10 terms of the things that he is required to do, and we reluctantly accept
11 his estimate of what would be a reasonable time. And while we are not
12 wholly persuaded that that length of time is necessary, we do not think
13 his request is unreasonable. And therefore he is allowed until the 28th
14 of March, and we therefore thus vary the original Scheduling Order that
15 we would have made.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Judge Delvoie has pointed out that the
18 relevant date is the date by way he would file his Rule 65 ter motion.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, can we then -- I imagine Your Honours
20 will file a new Scheduling Order, but looking at the -- the original
21 dates, the Pre-Defence Conference was going to be held a week after the
22 65 ter submissions were filed. So that would be -- it was the 11th of
23 March they had to file the 65 ter documents. The Pre-Defence Conference
24 was originally on the 18th of March. So it would go -- all go one week
25 on and --
1 JUDGE HALL: I think so and certainly we would issue a revised
2 order to put it beyond doubt.
3 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honours, if Your Honours have nothing
4 further to say, I will then utter the magic words: That concludes the
5 case for the Prosecution. No.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: No. There is one small matter which Ms. Korner
7 forgot. It's 65 ter 839.
8 MS. KORNER: Oh, yes. You're quite right. Thank you,
9 Mr. Krgovic.
10 There is -- I knew it was too much to hope for. Your Honours
11 will recall there was a discussion last week and indeed an e-mail
12 traffic -- an e-mail traffic about 65 ter 839, which Mr. Krgovic
13 indicated appeared to be an amalgam of two documents, and we've done the
14 same checks as he has, and we agree that it does appear that in the --
15 the photocopying or whatever something's gone wrong and part of another
16 document has been photocopied with it. So we will, as suggested, I
17 believe, by Mr. Zecevic, only ask that the first page of 65 ter 839
18 become an exhibit, and we're making further searches to see if we can
19 locate the rest of that document.
20 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, so the document has already been exhibited.
21 MS. KORNER: Yes. No. Well, the court officer is shaking her
23 Your Honours, there was a discussion about two documents, 83 --
24 there was a document -- discussion last -- whenever it was -- 27th. And
25 I believe I made the application to add or to have exhibited two --
1 anyhow, Your Honour, it doesn't really matter. All I'm asking is that
2 65 ter 839, one page only, now be made an exhibit.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: First page. First page.
4 MS. KORNER: First page.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: That's correct.
6 MS. KORNER: First page only.
7 JUDGE HALL: And for clarity of the record when you say now be
8 made an exhibit, I'm still not clear on whether we are substituting or --
9 MS. KORNER: No.
10 JUDGE HALL: It has not been exhibited previously.
11 MS. KORNER: It has not been exhibited previously, but what we
12 tried to exhibit contained part of a document which had been exhibited
13 previously, which is why we're saying only the first page.
14 JUDGE HALL: So that -- so the order is now that it be exhibited.
15 MS. KORNER: Exactly. I can see the court officer looking
16 thoroughly mystified. Just order it to be exhibited.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Ms. Korner. The exhibit number
18 assigned will be P1802.
19 MS. KORNER: Right. And now can I say the magic words, please.
20 That concludes the case for the Prosecution.
21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Ms. Korner.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE HALL: So the -- yes, Mr. Zecevic.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, two matters, Your Honours. I would kindly --
25 sorry. I would kindly ask the -- the Trial Chamber to instruct the --
1 the Registry and the parties to provide the exhibit numbers for 92 bis,
2 92 quater, and law library documents which have been admitted but still
3 do not have the exhibit number in the e-court. That is one matter.
4 JUDGE HALL: Well, that is a matter which, as we understand it,
5 is in process according to the established systems of the Registry, and I
6 don't -- I'm not sure that any intervention by the Trial Chamber is
7 called for at this stage. Of course, if there is a problem, the Chamber
8 would, through the usual means, indicate to the Registry how they might
9 resolve any concerns that they have. In your view, is there something
10 further that we need do at this stage.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, it is a problem for us. It's a
12 logistical -- logistically, it enables the Defence to prepare the Defence
13 case, Your Honours, because the other --
14 JUDGE HALL: Sorry. Can I just hear from the court officer.
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, may I inquire as to whether the
17 Prosecution is aware of the difficulties in this regard, because the --
18 as we are advised, the -- what the Registry has to do is contingent on
19 the Prosecution doing what has to be done, and that step one hasn't yet
20 been completed and therein lies the problem.
21 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honours, as far as the documents for the
22 92 bis and 92 quater, we're just double-checking to make sure that
23 they're all there before we give the list to the Registry.
24 As far as the law library is concerned, I haven't the faintest
25 idea what the problem is there. That, I don't think, is anything to do
1 with us, is it?
2 [Prosecution confer]
3 MS. KORNER: Sorry. Your Honour, I gather that's down to us as
4 well, so we'll try to get this all done in the next 24 hours.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. The second -- the second
6 issue I just wanted to inquire with the Trial Chamber. Is my
7 understanding correct that the Trial Chamber expects us to notify the
8 Trial Chamber by e-mail whether we are going to instigate the 98 bis
9 proceedings or not tomorrow?
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: In the day of tomorrow -- in the course of
12 tomorrow, yes.
13 JUDGE HALL: And, therefore, the -- when we rise, the adjournment
14 will be taken to Thursday morning at 9.00.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I understood your order was going to be
18 they must inform us by noon tomorrow.
19 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] ... 24 hours from now.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours, but does -- just one --
21 just one other matter then. Does it mean that we are -- in case we do
22 not instigate the 98 bis proceedings, are we going to -- it is -- are we
23 going to sit on Thursday or not?
24 JUDGE HALL: Well, I would -- if it isn't done, then Thursday's
25 fixture would be vacated.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. I understand now. That is
2 exactly what I was -- wanted to know.
3 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
4 JUDGE HALL: So it is by -- we expect the indication by e-mail by
5 tomorrow at 5.30, not later than 5.30 tomorrow.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours. Thank you very much.
7 JUDGE HALL: So as I said, we take the adjournment until 9.00 on
8 Thursday morning, subject to what the Defence --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please. There has
10 been no interpretation to B/C/S.
11 JUDGE HALL: -- Stanisic case.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.36 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 3rd day
14 of February, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.