Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 382

 1                           Wednesday, 17 December 2008

 2                           [Judgement]

 3                           [Open session]

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

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon to

 7     everyone in the courtroom.  This is case number IT-04-84-R77.4, the

 8     Prosecutor versus Astrit Haraqija and Bajrush Morina.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.  I see that Mr. Haraqija

10     is present, as is his counsel, Mr. Khan.  Same for Mr. Morina and

11     Mr. Dieckmann; and Mr. Saxon is present on behalf of the Prosecution.

12             The Trial Chamber is sitting today to deliver its Judgement in

13     the case of The Prosecutor versus Astrit Haraqija and Bajrush Morina.

14     For the purposes of this hearing, the Trial Chamber will briefly

15     summarize the procedural history of the case, the applicable law, certain

16     submissions of the parties, and the Chamber's findings.  We would like to

17     emphasise that this is but a summary and that the only authoritative

18     account of the Trial Chamber's findings is the written Judgement which

19     will be made available at the end of the session.

20             I start with the procedural history and the indictment.

21             The indictment against Astrit Haraqija and Bajrush Morina was

22     filed by the Office of the Prosecutor on the 8th of January, 2008, and

23     was confirmed on the 12th of February, 2008.  It alleges that, in

24     July and August 2007, the accused, acting on their own initiative or at

25     the request of others, incited or committed contempt of the Tribunal by

Page 383

 1     having knowingly and wilfully interfered with the administration of

 2     justice by interfering with a protected witness in the case of the

 3     Prosecutor versus Haradinaj et al.  The protected witness will be called

 4     Witness 2 for the purposes of this Judgement.

 5             The indictment alleges that the accused knew that Witness 2 was

 6     an important witness in the Haradinaj et al. case.  It further alleges

 7     that in early July 2007, Astrit Haraqija, then Minister for Culture,

 8     Youth and Sport, instructed Bajrush Morina, who knew Witness 2, to

 9     organise a meeting in order to persuade Witness 2 not to testify against

10     Ramush Haradinaj.  The indictment alleges that although Astrit Haraqija

11     initially planned to travel with Bajrush Morina to meet Witness 2,

12     eventually only Bajrush Morina met him.

13             According to the indictment, on the 10th and the 11th of July,

14     2007, Bajrush Morina and Witness 2 had two meetings, which were recorded

15     by the police, in which Bajrush Morina pressured Witness 2 not to testify

16     against Ramush Haradinaj.  As an official of the Ministry for Culture,

17     Youth and Sport at that time, Bajrush Morina required permission for his

18     trip abroad.  According to the indictment, the expenses were paid by the

19     ministry.

20             Based on the foregoing, the Prosecution has charged

21     Astrit Haraqija with one count of contempt of the Tribunal, punishable

22     under 77(A)(iv) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal,

23     or, in the alternative with one count of incitement to contempt of the

24     Tribunal, punishable under 77(A)(iv) and (B) of the Rules, and

25     Bajrush Morina with one count of contempt of the Tribunal punishable

Page 384

 1     under Rule 77(A)(iv) of the Rules.

 2             The trial was conducted from the 8th of September, 2008, to the

 3     11th of September, 2008.  During the trial, the Trial Chamber admitted

 4     39 exhibits into evidence.  It also received evidence from a total of

 5     five Prosecution witnesses and four witnesses for the Haraqija Defence.

 6     Astrit Haraqija also made a statement pursuant to Rule 84 bis and

 7     testified as a witness.  Counsel for Bajrush Morina did not call any

 8     witnesses.

 9             I will now move to the relevant law as applied in this case.

10             Despite the Statute's silence on contempt of the Tribunal, it is

11     firmly established that the Tribunal possesses an inherent jurisdiction

12     to prosecute and punish contempt.  This inherent jurisdiction derives

13     from the Tribunal's judicial power to ensure that its exercise of the

14     jurisdiction given to it by the Statute is not frustrated and that its

15     basic judicial functions are safeguarded.

16             Both accused are charged pursuant to Rule 77(A)(iv) of the Rules.

17     This provision provides that:

18             "The Tribunal, in the exercise of its inherent power, may hold in

19     contempt those who knowingly and wilfully intensive with its

20     administration of justice, including any person who:

21             "(iv) threatens, intimidates, causes any injury or offers a bribe

22     to, or otherwise interferes with, a witness who is giving, has given, or

23     is about to give evidence in proceedings before a Chamber, or a potential

24     witness ..."

25             A "threat" is defined as a communicated intent to inflict harm or

Page 385

 1     damage of some kind to a witness and/or the witness's property, or to a

 2     third person, and/or his property, so as to influence or overcome the

 3     will of the witness to whom the threat is addressed.

 4             "Intimidation" consists of acts or culpable omissions likely to

 5     constitute direct, indirect, or potential threats to a witness, which may

 6     interfere with or influence the witness's testimony.

 7             "Otherwise interfering with a witness" encompasses acts or

 8     omissions, other than threatening, intimidating, causing injury or

 9     offering a bribe, which are capable of and likely to deter a witness from

10     giving full and truthful testimony or in any other way influence the

11     nature of the witness's evidence.  The person otherwise interfering with

12     a witness must have acted willingly and with the knowledge that his

13     conduct was likely to deter or influence the witness.

14             In the alternative, Astrit Haraqija is also charged with

15     incitement to commit contempt of the Tribunal pursuant to Rule 77(B) of

16     the Rules, according to which any person who knowingly and wilfully

17     encourages and/or persuades another person to commit any act described in

18     Rule 77(A) of the Rules shall be subject to the same penalties as one who

19     commits the act.

20             The requirement of corroboration, I will now turn to the question

21     raised by the Haraqija Defence whether evidence relating to the acts and

22     conducts of Astrit Haraqija in Bajrush Morina's suspect interview that

23     was admitted into evidence requires corroboration; and if so, whether the

24     corroborating evidence may originate from the same witness.  If the

25     answer to both questions is in the affirmative, then the Trial Chamber

Page 386

 1     must also consider the extent to which its findings may permissibly rely

 2     upon a statement which has not been subject to cross-examination.

 3             The Appeals Chamber has confirmed the principle that a conviction

 4     based solely, or in a decisive manner, on the depositions of a witness,

 5     whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined

 6     either during the investigation or at trial, constitutes an unacceptable

 7     infringement of the right of an accused to a fair trial.  The right to

 8     confront witnesses applies to depositions made against an accused, both

 9     by regular witnesses as well as co-accused.  Therefore evidence of a

10     witness who has not been subject to cross-examination will require

11     sufficient corroboration by significant evidence if relied upon to

12     establish a conviction.

13             As the Rules and the Tribunal's jurisprudence are bereft of any

14     case which deal with the requirements in relation to corroborative

15     evidence, the Trial Chamber analysed the approaches taken by several

16     national jurisdictions in that respect.  As the Trial Chamber is not

17     bound by any national rules of corroboration, it did so only in looking

18     for guidance.

19             From the analysis that can be found in the Judgement, the

20     Trial Chamber concluded that while some jurisdictions require that in

21     order to be used as corroboration, the evidence must come from a separate

22     and independent source, others take a less technical approach, requiring

23     only that the corroborating evidence link a defendant with the commission

24     of the crime, but not necessarily originate from a different source.

25             Mindful of its duty to apply rules of evidence which will best

Page 387

 1     favour a fair determination of the matter before it and are consonant

 2     with the spirit of the Statute and the general principles of law, the

 3     Trial Chamber determined that, in order for a piece of evidence to be

 4     able to corroborate non-cross-examined evidence, it must not only induce

 5     a strong belief of truthfulness of the latter, i.e., enhance its

 6     probative value, but must also be obtained in an independent manner.

 7     Rejecting a technical approach to this issue, the Trial Chamber held that

 8     corroborating evidence might include pieces of evidence that, although

 9     originating from the same source, arose under different circumstances, at

10     different times, and for different purposes.  Such evidence would indeed

11     meet the requirement of sufficient corroboration, which is aimed at

12     preventing an encroachment of the rights of the accused.

13             I will now address the Trial Chamber's findings in relation to

14     the responsibility of Bajrush Morina.

15             The Trial Chamber heard evidence establishing that Bajrush Morina

16     contacted Witness 2 on July the 2nd of 2007, and subsequently travelled

17     to meet him on the 10th and the 11th of July.  During the meetings,

18     Bajrush Morina told Witness 2 that he had been sent by Astrit Haraqija to

19     ask Witness 2 not to testify against Ramush Haradinaj in order to save

20     Haradinaj.  Bajrush Morina also told Witness 2 that other witnesses who

21     had testified in the Haradinaj et al. case before the Tribunal were

22     subsequently killed.

23             The Trial Chamber found that the evidence consistently shows that

24     Bajrush Morina knew that Witness 2 was about to testify in the Haradinaj

25     et al. case.  The Trial Chamber dismissed the submission by the Defence

Page 388

 1     that the Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

 2     Bajrush Morina's conduct was likely to dissuade Witness 2 from giving

 3     evidence.  Although the conduct of Bajrush Morina took the form of

 4     amicable advice and was staged in a friendly atmosphere, it was clear

 5     that Bajrush Morina's words were intended and could only be understood as

 6     a strong and unequivocal call on Witness 2 to refrain from testifying in

 7     the Haradinaj et al. case.  In the Trial Chamber's view, such behaviour

 8     constituted intimidation, an interference of a nature proscribed by

 9     77(A)(iv) of the Rules.  Bajrush Morina's failure to dissuade Witness 2

10     from testifying was immaterial for establishing Bajrush Morina's

11     responsibility.

12             Likewise, the lack of motive alleged by the Defence could not

13     have an impact in this case.  Just as the existence of a motive to commit

14     a crime is in itself of minimal, if any, probative value, that the

15     accused has committed it, the absence of a motive cannot disprove facts

16     established through reliable evidence.  The absence of a motive may,

17     however, call for further exploration of the convincing potential of the

18     evidence before establishing that the crime was committed and that the

19     accused committed it.  In the present case, however, the evidence was

20     strong and convincing.

21             The Trial Chamber therefore found that Bajrush Morina's conduct

22     constituted contempt of the Tribunal purpose to 77(A)(iv) of the Rules.

23             I will now move to the Trial Chamber's findings in relation to

24     the responsibility of Astrit Haraqija.

25             The Trial Chamber first addressed the Prosecution's submissions,

Page 389

 1     that, on the 2nd of July, 2007, Astrit Haraqija met Bajrush Morina at

 2     cultural event in Peja and instructed him to organise a meeting with

 3     Witness 2.  While the evidence was not conclusive, the Trial Chamber

 4     found that the date and place of such a conversation is immaterial for

 5     Astrit Haraqija's responsibility and subsequently turned to the question

 6     whether it had been established that Astrit Haraqija directed

 7     Bajrush Morina to interfere with Witness 2.

 8             The Trial Chamber recalled its findings that Bajrush Morina's

 9     conduct constituted contempt of the Tribunal.  Whereas Astrit Haraqija's

10     involvement follows most directly from Bajrush Morina's suspect interview

11     and the intercepts of the meetings between Bajrush Morina and Witness 2,

12     the Trial Chamber found that it was also established by the totality of

13     the evidence.  The Trial Chamber was mindful that most pieces of evidence

14     ultimately originated from Bajrush Morina.  However, it considered them

15     to be independent from the suspect interview, as well as from each other,

16     since they arose under different circumstances, at different times, and

17     were generated for different purposes, as is explained in more detail in

18     the Judgement.

19             In addition to regarding the different categories of evidence as

20     sufficiently independent from each other and thus being capable of

21     corroborating the suspect interview, the Trial Chamber also found that

22     there was a higher -- a high degree of consistency throughout the entire

23     evidence regarding Astrit Haraqija's involvement.  Moreover, the

24     Trial Chamber found that the evidence negated the alternative scenario in

25     which Bajrush Morina would have consistently implicated Astrit Haraqija

Page 390

 1     under all circumstances and at all times when the incriminating evidence

 2     was generated.  Moreover, Astrit Haraqija's diary and other travel

 3     commitments did it not contradict the evidence concerning

 4     Astrit Haraqija's involvement, since they do not contain any commitments

 5     on the relevant dates, which would be capable of raising a reasonable

 6     doubt as to Astrit Haraqija's participation.

 7             Finally, considerations of an alternative motive for

 8     Bajrush Morina to meet with Witness 2 in order to interfere with his

 9     testimony also did not raise a reasonable doubt as to Astrit Haraqija's

10     responsibility.  The Trial Chamber found it highly unlikely that

11     Bajrush Morina would have undertaken the trip on his own, considering his

12     personal and financial background.  Astrit Haraqija, on the other hand,

13     had become involved in the Defence of Ramush Haradinaj in the context of

14     his political position within the Democratic Alliance of Kosovo, the LDK

15     and the coalition government under Haradinaj.  Furthermore,

16     Astrit Haraqija had repeatedly expressed discontent and lack of

17     understanding with respect to the trial of Kosovars, such as

18     Ramush Haradinaj, before this Tribunal.

19             In conclusion, the Trial Chamber was satisfied that the only

20     reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence in its totality,

21     considering its mutually corroborating linkages and the circumstances as

22     a whole, is that Astrit Haraqija knew that Witness 2 was a witness in the

23     Haradinaj et al. trial before the Tribunal, and instructed Bajrush Morina

24     to call on Witness 2 with the specific task of interfering with his

25     testimony.

Page 391

 1             Although Astrit Haraqija did not personally meet or interact with

 2     Witness 2, the Trial Chamber found that the evidence established beyond a

 3     reasonable doubt that Astrit Haraqija, knowing that Witness 2 was about

 4     to give evidence before the Tribunal, exercised his influence over

 5     Bajrush Morina, who accepted Haraqija's authority and followed his

 6     directions.  Therefore, the Trial Chamber found that Haraqija's conduct

 7     formed an integral part of Bajrush Morina's criminal conduct and thus

 8     constitutes contempt of the Tribunal, pursuant to 77(A)(iv) of the Rules.

 9             I will now turn to the Trial Chamber's considerations of the

10     sentences to be imposed.

11             The Trial Chamber noted in respect of both accused that the

12     intimidation of witnesses is particularly grave among the possible ways

13     of interfering with the administration of justice.  This assessment of

14     gravity also took into account the importance of ensuring that the

15     atmosphere of trials before the Tribunal allow for the proper

16     administration of justice by protecting witnesses from interference.

17     Therefore, the Trial Chamber did not further consider the particular

18     situation, which the Trial Chamber in the Haradinaj et al. case faced, in

19     securing witness testimony in an atmosphere that many witnesses perceived

20     to be unsafe as an aggravating circumstance.

21             As an aggravating circumstance, the Trial Chamber found that

22     Astrit Haraqija abused his high position in the structure of the

23     government to put pressure on an employee of his ministry.

24             As mitigating circumstances for Bajrush Morina, the Trial Chamber

25     considered his good character, the absence of a prior criminal record,

Page 392

 1     and his family situation.  The Trial Chamber also considered the fact

 2     that, in committing the contempt of the Tribunal, Bajrush Morina was

 3     pressured by Astrit Haraqija and that Bajrush Morina was reluctant to

 4     carry out what Astrit Haraqija had told him to do, and apologised for his

 5     behaviour to Witness 2.

 6             As mitigating circumstances for Astrit Haraqija, the

 7     Trial Chamber considered his good character and his involvement in

 8     inclusive and conciliatory political projects as well his family

 9     situation.

10             I will now read the relevant part of the disposition of the

11     Judgement.

12             Mr. Haraqija, would you please rise.

13             I do it at the same time, Mr. Morina, would you also please rise.

14             Pursuant to the Statute of the Tribunal and Rules 70 and 77 bis

15     of the Rules, the accused Astrit Haraqija is guilty of contempt of the

16     Tribunal, Count 1, punishable under 77(A)(iv) and Rule 77(G) of the

17     Rules.

18             Astrit Haraqija is hereby sentenced to a single sentence of five

19     months of imprisonment.  Astrit Haraqija has been in custody for 36 days

20     and pursuant to Rule 101(C) of the Rules he is entitled to credit for the

21     period of time he has been in custody towards service of the sentence

22     imposed.

23             The accused Bajrush Morina is guilty of contempt of the Tribunal,

24     Count 1, punishable under 77(A)(iv) and Rule 77(G) of the Rules.

25             Bajrush Morina is hereby sentenced to a single sentence of three

Page 393

 1     months of imprisonment.  Bajrush Morina has been in custody for 36 days.

 2     Pursuant to Rule 101(C) of the Rules, he is entitled to credit for the

 3     period of time he has been in custody towards service of the sentence

 4     imposed.

 5             The registrar is take measures necessary for the enforcement of

 6     the sentence.

 7             This concludes the deliver of the Judgement, which will now be

 8     made publicly available.

 9             The Chamber stands adjourned.

10             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, if it please, Your Honours, two short

11     matters with your leave.  Firstly we're grateful for the judgement.

12     There is a right of course articulated in Rule 77(J), a right of appeal.

13     Your Honour, that is, of course, not before Your Honours, but given the

14     Christmas recess, I wonder if in court we could get the agreement of the

15     Prosecution, just for the record, that there will not an objection should

16     we wish to extend that 15 days to start from the new term in the new

17     year.  That's the first matter.  It's quite discrete, but it may expedite

18     matters when we do file an application under Rule 127 for an extension of

19     time.

20             Your Honour, I'll deal with the second matter, with your leave,

21     after my learned friend Mr. Saxon has responded.

22             MR. SAXON:  Your Honour, the Prosecution does not agree with the

23     proposition of my learned friend, and believes that the appropriate

24     procedure at this point would be file a motion that can be addressed

25     properly.

Page 394

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  If you allow me, Mr. Khan, for the -- the -- this

 2     Trial Chamber, of course, I observed what you were asking from Mr. Saxon,

 3     that is to have on the record his position in relation to the matter you

 4     raised.  You will understand that a Trial Chamber is of course not in a

 5     position to extend any time-limits for filing appeals.  And therefore,

 6     it's on the record, but that's all that can be said at this moment.  And

 7     I will not engage in any discussion at this moment to what extent

 8     time-limits, in relation to appeals are of public order and not easily to

 9     be changed under Rule -- I think it is it Rule 126 bis or 127 bis.

10     That's being put on the record so that you have no expectations, you

11     could not rely on this Trial Chamber allowing you to raise at the matter

12     at any later stage as to the results of your efforts.

13             MR. KHAN:  I'm grateful and, Your Honour, we don't have

14     expectations.  I think we're quite reasonable in that regard.

15             The 15 days, of course, does expire on the 2nd of January, but we

16     will make the application in the usual way.

17             Your Honour, the other matter is this sentence of course and this

18     judgement has profound implications for the client.  He has previously

19     been granted provisional release by Your Honours.  There is, in my

20     submission, a -- a gap in the Rules regarding the precise procedure that

21     should be adopted now.  Rule 65, I -- I believe, makes it very clear

22     beyond any doubt that the Appeals Chamber itself can grant provisional

23     release, but it can only grant provision release when it is seized of a

24     matter.  It will not be seized of a matter until a notice of appeal is

25     filed.  We have 15 days to file that notice of appeal.

Page 395

 1             Your Honour, as a generally principle of law, in my submission,

 2     that a decision should be rendered effective.  They should not be

 3     rendered negatory or devoid of meaning.  Given the time my client has

 4     served in custody thus far, and given the five-month sentence that has

 5     been imposed and the one-month gap, or thereabouts, that is enforced upon

 6     the client due to no fault of his own because of the Christmas recess, we

 7     ask -- it is my submission that Your Honours do have inherent power under

 8     Rule 65 to grant provisional release pending an application to the

 9     Appeals Chamber.

10             Your Honour, if we do not have recourse to Your Honours for

11     justice, we do not have recourse at all in a manner that would make an

12     appeal as to the sentence and this -- and I pause there.  This is the

13     highest sentence for contempt, as far as I'm aware, that has been --

14     imposed by this Tribunal in its existence.

15             So, Your Honours, it is my principal submission that Your Honours

16     are empowered, not necessarily under Rule 54 only, but even by the terms

17     of Rule 65, to grant provisional release pending appeal.  Your Honour,

18     that is my principal application.  Perhaps if my learned friend can

19     respond, I may reply to whatever options he has.  But in a nutshell, if

20     we do not have such a right, in effect any appeal would be rendered

21     devoid of meaning and substance.

22             MR. DIECKMANN:  Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Dieckmann.

24             MR. DIECKMANN:  For the Defence of Mr. Bajrush Morina, I would

25     like it join the submissions of my learned friend.  Just for the record.

Page 396

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Dieckmann.  Mr. Saxon.

 2             MR. SAXON:  Your Honours, the Prosecution in no way wants to deny

 3     a particular procedural right to the Defence.  But having said that, we

 4     leave it in the Trial Chamber's hands to determine whether the Chamber

 5     can take jurisdiction over this matter at this time.

 6             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, I'm most grateful for that indication.

 7     In that regard then, the submissions that have been addressed and

 8     accepted by Your Honours previously are relevant in my submission;

 9     namely, that the trial in this case in which the alleged contempt or in

10     which the contempt was committed, according to Your Honours' finding, is

11     ceased.  Mr. Haraqija has been previously granted provisional release and

12     there's not been a whisper, there's not been an allegation whatsoever

13     that he has breached any term of the provisional release in the months

14     that he has been free.  In those circumstances and given how -- how

15     Draconian in many respects the sentence -- or how great the impact the

16     sentence is on the accused, it is my submission that the margin of

17     discretion must err in the side of his being granted a provisional

18     release pending appeal.

19             Your Honours, unless I can assist you further, those are my

20     principal submissions.  Mr. President, if you or Your Honours do have

21     questions, I would be delighted to try to address them; but certainly

22     there has been no difficulty with UNMIK in policing the conditions that

23     have been previously imposed.  If the appeal is not successful, and

24     Your Honours have very candidly, even from the summary Judgement read

25     out, acknowledged that this is a novel area of law regarding

Page 397

 1     corroboration.  The authorities are not in conformity as to the weight

 2     that should be given, and in those circumstances, I would ask that --

 3     Your Honour, in those circumstances I would ask that the application be

 4     granted.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             MR. KHAN:  I'm grateful.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Khan and Mr. Dieckmann, you have raised the

 9     issue of a gap in the rules.  The gap between the Trial Chamber and the

10     Appeals Chamber.  You have addressed us, and I understand your

11     submissions, and may I take it that Mr. Dieckmann also joins in those

12     submissions, that all circumstances still are as they were before.  There

13     is, of course, one difference that there was a judgement now, but I'm

14     confident that you have not ignored that.

15             You have suggested that in this gap that this Trial Chamber would

16     have competence, would have jurisdiction to still decide on requests for

17     release, but let me refrain from saying whether it is provisional or not

18     because there is a judgement, although it still might be appealed, but

19     that we have competence to do so.  We'll consider that.

20             If the answer would be in the affirmative, then, of course, we

21     will rule on your request, on your application.  However, a gap has

22     always two sides.  The Trial Chamber is the one side; the Appeals Chamber

23     is the other side of the gap.  And who would fill it in, if either of

24     them would fill in a gap or whether that gap is there for good reasons,

25     is still to be seen.  Now, the Trial Chamber advises you that just in

Page 398

 1     case we might feel -- we might determine that we're not competent to deal

 2     with the matter, not to ignore and not to neglect the other side of the

 3     gap because if we would not be competent to rule on the matter, then most

 4     likely at whatever stage it will be the Appeals Chamber.

 5             So therefore don't forget the Appeals Chambers in this respect.

 6             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, I'm most obliged and with your

 7     indulgence, two points.  It is my respectful submission that at the

 8     moment, at this present moment, there is -- well, the gap only arises

 9     later on when the Appeals Chamber is seized of the matter.  At this

10     moment, the only Court that is seized of this matter is Your Honours.

11     It's this Trial Chamber.  You're no longer -- you're still not functus of

12     this case.  The written judgement still has not been distributed to the

13     parties, and that was in relation to my principal submission.  But

14     Your Honours, your point is well taken that in the event that we're not

15     successful in relation to our primary submission, of course, we are alive

16     to possible remedies to the Appeals Chamber, but the Appeals Chamber has

17     to be seized of the matter.

18             Your Honour, the second point --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Khan, if you would please be very brief because

20     it is quite exceptional that we start this kind of matters during a

21     session where a Judgement is delivered, but under the special

22     circumstances, I and the Chamber allowed you to do that.  So be very

23     brief.

24             MR. KHAN:  Your Honours, I will be extremely brief.  Your Honour,

25     there has been cases where suspended sentences have been imposed by a

Page 399

 1     Trial Chamber but this Court.  And I think in those circumstances, the

 2     Trial Chamber -- and it's not been a matter of controversy, as far as I'm

 3     aware, have still been there to police that suspended sentence.

 4     Your Honour, the second option, of course, for Your Honours is to grant a

 5     stay of execution for the enforcement of a sentence pending any appeal.

 6     So there are two procedural devices available --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Under which Rule?

 8             MR. KHAN:  Well, Your Honour, that's your inherent powers.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Inherent powers.

10             MR. KHAN:  I mean, that's your inherent powers.  I mean, Your

11     Honours, of course, are intimately familiar with the whole scheme of

12     these Rules, and the way that they were drafted is to deal with the

13     readily anticipated matters that come before Your Honours.  Contempt

14     matters, of course, are a subspecies of that, as it were, but I would ask

15     that Your Honours do give the most anxious scrutiny to these two

16     procedural options that I have attempted, however feably, to articulate.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We will consider the matter.

18             Finally, I would like to apologise to you, Mr. Dieckmann.

19             MR. DIECKMANN:  No worries.  Thank you, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  The Trial Chamber stands adjourned.

21                           --- Whereupon the proceedings adjourned

22                           at 3.05 p.m.