1 Tuesday, 22 February 2005 2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 10.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, is the accused
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 [The accused entered court]
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call the
10 case, please.
11 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
12 Case number IT-98-29-1/PT, the Prosecutor versus Dragomir Milosevic.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we have the appearances
14 for the Prosecution, please.
15 MR. STAMP: Yes, Mr. President, if it please you. My name is
16 Chester Stamp, and I appear on behalf of the Prosecution.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we have appearances for the
18 Defence counsel, please.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I am
20 Branislav Tapuskovic, attorney from Belgrade
21 General Milosevic.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would like to greet the
23 Prosecution, Mr. Stamp, who I have the pleasure of meeting again, Defence
24 counsel who is from Belgrade, as he has just said, and I greet the accused,
25 General Dragomir Milosevic.
1 I would like to ask the accused to rise and to tell me whether he
2 is receiving the interpretation of what I am saying.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have not been receiving any
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I will repeat what I
6 have said. Could you please stand up and tell me if you're receiving the
7 interpretation of what I've been saying in your own language?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not receiving interpretation at
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I think the accused
11 is listening to the right channel now. If you can hear what I'm saying,
12 would you please stand up and tell me whether you're receiving the
13 interpretation of what I am saying.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, now I am receiving
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You may sit down,
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This hearing is taking place
20 pursuant to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which provides that 120
21 days after the Initial Appearance of the accused, it is necessary to hold a
22 Status Conference.
23 The purpose of this hearing is to meet the accused, the parties,
24 and to raise various issues that are contested or that are in dispute. As
25 far as this pre-trial -- as far as the Status Conference is concerned, we
1 are holding this Status Conference to organise exchanges between the
2 parties, to ensure that we can prepare rapidly for the trial. This is the
3 purpose of the Status Conference.
4 In addition, this meeting, and the meetings, the hearings, that we
5 will subsequently have, will be dedicated to examining how we are
6 progressing, and also to give the accused the possibility of raising issues
7 that concern his health or the conditions in the Detention Unit.
8 The Pre-Trial Judge, who has certain duties, according to Rule 65
9 ter, his mission is to coordinate exchanges between the parties in the
10 course of preparation for trial. And I must ensure that there are no
11 unjustified delays. As the Pre-Trial Judge, I should carry out all duties
12 pursuant to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
13 We must set a schedule for work and indicate to the parties the
14 obligations that must be fulfilled by the parties. I must also request
15 that the parties meet to discuss all issues that have to do with
16 preparation of the case, and in particular, I must ensure that the
17 Prosecutor can carry out his obligations under Rule 65 ter. The Pre-Trial
18 Judge must also invite the Prosecutor to file, at a date which I will
19 subsequently set, the final version of the Prosecution's pre-trial brief
20 concerning each count in the indictment. Similarly, a list of exhibits
21 must be filed. At that point in time I will ask the Prosecution to provide
22 me with a list of witnesses and with a list of exhibits as well, in
23 preparation for trial.
24 But as you are aware, the Prosecution, pursuant to 11 bis, Rule 11
25 bis, has forwarded to the President of the Tribunal a motion to defer this
1 case to the authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Following this motion,
2 dated the 31st of January, the President designated a Chamber on the 1st of
3 February, 2005, a Chamber composed of three Judges, in order to determine
4 whether the indictment should be referred to the authorities of Bosnia-
5 Herzegovina, pursuant to Rule 11 bis.
6 The procedure that involves referring the case to the judicial
7 authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina arises from Resolution 15134 of the
8 Security Council, according to which when a case concerns low-ranking
9 accused, the judicial authorities in the accused's country may put that
10 accused on trial. But the Tribunal in The Hague
11 case, must ensure that the conditions for a fair trial have been met in the
12 country from which the accused comes.
13 Within the framework of this procedure, another group of three
14 Judges must deal with this issue of deferral. But this is quite a recent
15 issue. The Judges have amended the Rules of Procedure quite recently,
16 since 11 bis has been amended. Rule 11 bis has been amended, and according
17 to the Rule, the Rule provides that the Chamber, dealing with Rule 11 bis,
18 only has exclusive competence as far as the referral is concerned.
19 Everything else is dealt with by the Chamber to which I belong.
20 I wanted to point this out to the parties to ensure that there were
21 no ambiguities concerning the role of the various Chambers, the composition
22 of various Chambers. This could cause certain problems if we don't bear in
23 mind principles of governing competence. The Chamber concerned with Rule
24 11 bis only deals with the issue of deferral. Everything else is to be
25 dealt with by the Chamber to which I belong, and it is part of my
1 competence within the framework of certain duties that I have to perform.
2 This is what I wanted to point out to the parties.
3 Whether it's the Defence or the Prosecution -- both the Defence and
4 the Prosecution have filed a number of motions which I will deal with
6 The Defence has filed a motion on the 3rd of February, 2005,
7 pursuant to Rule 72, which concerns a preliminary motion based on an error,
8 a formal error, in the indictment. According to the Defence's submissions,
9 the following is the case: When the accused appeared at the Initial
10 Appearance, he was informed of the indictment, dated the 24th of April,
11 1998, which concerns Stanislav Galic, the accused Stanislav Galic, whereas
12 there was an indictment dated the 26th of March, 1999
13 subsequently filed against Galic and the accused who is present here,
14 General Dragomir Milosevic. As a result, the accused was not provided with
15 the right indictment, was not informed of the right indictment. That is
16 the problem that the Defence has underlined.
17 When I read these submissions, I asked myself a certain number of
18 questions to try and determine what had actually happened. I'll render a
19 written decision, but I'm already in a position to tell you that,
20 initially, there was an indictment that concerned Mr. Galic and the accused
21 Dragomir Milosevic. At a later date, the Prosecution filed a motion
22 concerning Mr. Galic, a motion to amend.
23 On the 26th of March, 1999, as a result, there was an indictment
24 which concerned Mr. Galic, but there was also an indictment on the 26th of
25 March, 1999, which concerned Dragomir Milosevic. When we compare the two
1 indictments, they are the same, they are identical. The charges are the
2 same, the charges have not been amended.
3 So how is it possible that the 1998 indictment was provided,
4 whereas reference should have been made to the indictment dated the 26th of
5 March, 1999? On one hand, I have noted that the member of the Prosecution
6 wasn't Mr. Stamp at the Initial Appearance. The member of the Prosecution
7 at the Initial Appearance wasn't Mr. Stamp. He wasn't present, apparently.
8 In addition, the Judge at the Initial Appearance who, perhaps, was
9 aware of these amendments was Judge Orie, who was the Presiding Judge in
10 the Galic case. So could he have known that there was the indictment dated
11 the 26th of March, 1999? Whatever the case, it seems that when the accused
12 was asked whether he was entering a guilty or innocent plea, the 1998
13 indictment was referred to. But the charges are the same, the charges have
14 not been amended. That is the situation. And as I have been provided with
15 a written motion, I will soon be rendering a written decision with regard
16 to the issue. There are certain other issues that were raised in this
17 motion. Certain legal issues were raised and I will address them in good
19 Apart from this motion, the Prosecution, on the 14th of February,
20 2005, addressed me, filed a motion, in order to suspend all acts of
21 procedure that aren't indispensable; for example, submissions and orders,
22 pursuant to 65 ter. As far as -- this also includes the pre-trial brief
23 with the exception of the pending motion. The Prosecution asks me,
24 requested, to suspend certain non-essential proceedings because the
25 Prosecution says that there is this motion which is based on 11 bis, on
1 Rule 11 bis.
2 I will soon be rendering a written decision with regard to this
3 motion that I can now provide the party with some preliminary information.
4 If I suspended the deadlines and the Prosecution's obligations to prepare
5 its pre-trial brief, wouldn't we be risking -- wouldn't this pose a risk
6 for the accused? His case might be extended for no good reason, because,
7 according to Rule 11 bis, the case might not be referred to Bosnia-
8 Herzegovina. In this case, this Chamber would be competent to judge the
9 case. So this motion causes substantial problems, and naturally, the
10 Defence must express its position because there's a double risk, firstly,
11 with regard to the motion granted on Rule 11 bis. We don't have any
12 deadlines and we don't know when the competent Chamber will be sitting. We
13 don't know how much time they will require. And in addition, this is a
14 unique group that is dealing with 11 cases.
15 I don't know what the position of this case is, I don't know in
16 which order it appears. I believe the Chamber will go case by case.
17 Perhaps it will be examined in one month, in two months, in six months, I
18 don't know. If this case is examined in six months, this could cause
19 prejudice to the accused, if everything is suspended while the Chamber is
20 deliberating and examining the issue, whereas our Chamber is fully
21 competent, pursuant to Rule 65 ter, and may request that the 65 ter
22 obligations be carried out.
23 I'll be rendering a decision on the issue, but naturally I will
24 first wait for the Defence to state its position.
25 Before I address certain other issues, is there anything the
1 Prosecution would like to say? Mr. Stamp, is there anything you would like
2 to say with regard to the issues I have just raised? And later I will give
3 the floor to Defence counsel.
4 MR. STAMP: The Prosecution will, of course, await the written
5 decisions that you have indicated you will render in respect to the motions
6 that have been filed.
7 However, since the issue as to the two -- as to the indictment
8 filed on the 28th of April, 1998, as compared to the redacted indictment in
9 respect to the accused Dragomir Milosevic singularly, that was filed on the
10 -- filed in March 1999, I think the issue and the facts surrounding that
11 has been addressed in the Prosecution's written motion filed in respect to
12 the Defence Rule 72(A) motion.
13 However, having regard to what has been stated in the Defence
14 motion, I think I should ask for a clarification from the Defence, through
15 the Court, of course, when the Court invites him to do so. As indicated,
16 the accused had originally been indicted with the co-accused Stanislav
17 Galic. The cases do not overlap in time, neither in respect to the
18 incidents charged. There is a huge amount of material which is solely and
19 exclusively relevant to the accused Galic. They are completely relevant to
20 the accused Milosevic. It had been understood by me, and it might well
21 have been because of the fact that I spoke with learned Defence counsel
22 through interpreters on the occasions when I spoke to him, that he was not
23 interested in the material which was wholly relevant to the accused
24 Dragomir Milosevic and related exclusively to the accused Stanislav Galic.
25 And I think that is the -- that is what is indicated, I think, in the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Defence motion. But I don't think it is absolutely clear. It now appears
2 that the Defence may be saying, and I may have misunderstood, that they are
3 interested in all the material, including the material that is not relevant
4 at all to the accused Milosevic. If that is so, we will, of course,
5 disclose all of this material, but I wish that to be absolutely clear.
6 Thank you very much, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stamp.
8 Before I give the floor to the Defence, the Prosecution raised an
9 issue that I wanted to address later on, but we might as well address the
10 issue immediately.
11 The Prosecution, within the framework of the procedure that governs
12 our Tribunal, has two obligations: The Prosecution must disclose to the
13 Defence all the material that is incriminating; this is a legal obligation
14 that the Prosecution has. But the Prosecution has another obligation which
15 does not exist in countries that have the continental system, because in
16 those countries there's an investigative judge who deals with the case.
17 But the Prosecution must also provide the Defence, in our case, with all
18 exculpatory materials. If the Prosecution believes that a document might
19 be beneficial for the accused, the Prosecution must provide this document
20 to the Defence. Naturally, sometimes it's difficult to make a distinction,
21 but usually the Prosecution must disclose to the Defence all the material
22 that is relevant.
23 Mr. Stamp, representing the Prosecution, has just stated that he
24 fails to understand the Defence's position with regard to the documents
25 that concerned the accused Galic, exculpatory and culpatory documents
1 included. And the Prosecution would like to know whether the Defence
2 counsel would like to have all this material at its disposal. That is the
3 situation. So I will now give the floor to the Defence, to hear what your
4 position is.
5 MR. STAMP: Before my friend proceeds, with your leave, Mr.
6 President. I would just like to indicate that I was referring specifically
7 to the confirmation material, and thereafter any other material that might
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what we will hear.
10 You may take the floor.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will
12 try to be as brief as I can and only present the essential aspects of what
13 I already addressed in my motion. I will try not to repeat any of the
14 points made already in the motion.
15 At the outset, I can say I believe I fully understand what you have
16 said, Your Honour. That happens to be my understanding of the entire
17 problem, the problem that we are dealing with. In view of the two parallel
18 procedures that are underway, mutually dependent but not in a direct kind
19 of way, everyone has to do their own job. I think that was your
20 explanation, and that happens to be my conviction too. These two things
21 are not necessarily related.
22 Even more importantly, your Trial Chamber, the Trial Chamber led by
23 you at this point in time, will keep on working as though there was no Rule
24 11 bis motion, and in compliance with Rule 65 bis and Rule 65 ter, saying
25 that all measures must be taken for the case to go to trial as soon as
1 possible, especially in view of Rule 66, which says that the names of all
2 witnesses must be given ahead of time which the Prosecutor intends to call,
3 to appear at trial, and most importantly for us, the stipulations under
4 Rule 68.
5 There is no dispute, therefore, that this is how the Chamber sees
6 this issue. I would just like to briefly address what the Prosecutor,
7 Carla Del Ponte, on the 14th of February, 2005
8 asking that all non-essential proceedings be suspended. I think this may
9 have been a mistranslation, because the Prosecutor said non-essential and
10 not unnecessary, as the translation ran.
11 It is my deepest conviction that this Trial Chamber should proceed
12 as though it will finish the task that is has been entrusted with. We are
13 still far from a stage where we could talk about the pre-trial brief and
14 the list of witnesses at the pre-trial stage. Therefore, I have no need to
15 speak about that now. But as for all the other essential preparations, we
16 must carry them out, assuming that this Trial Chamber will eventually deal
17 with the case at trial stage. So much for what Carla Del Ponte has
18 proposed us.
19 For this other problem in relation to the indictment, the
20 indictment dated the 26th of March, 1999
21 Milosevic which was amended in relation to the one dated 1998, as the
22 accused's Defence counsel, it was only after my Rule 11 bis motion that I
23 found out about this new amended indictment, whereas the accused, Dragomir
24 Milosevic, himself has not received a copy of the indictment to this very
1 Most importantly, as his Defence counsel, just in order to be fair,
2 the indictment should have been translated. It's very difficult for me to
3 address the indictment until my client has seen a translation. It has not
4 been translated or signed. It bears no date and no signature.
5 Your Honours, as I said in my motion, when the accused Galic was
6 tried - the first instant sentence has already been passed in that case -
7 Galic had this indictment when he first appeared before the Court. I'm
8 asking myself, How is it possible for Galic to have the indictment and be
9 able to enter a plea? Once the trial began, it had already been
10 translated, whereas our indictment has not been translated to this very
12 This stirs a lot of confusion, even in the head of the accused
13 himself, I must say. If you read carefully, the transcript of the
14 accused's Initial Appearance, you will see that at one point in time, even
15 Judge Orie used the word "confusion," saying that this might lead to
16 confusion. There is a lot of confusion there. In essence, I am not trying
17 to make the Chamber's work any more difficult here, I am -- we can be sure
18 that the accused would plead the same. But these are two different time
19 periods, and the incidents referred to are quite different. Therefore,
20 these two indictments may be related, but there is a crucial point at which
21 they part ways. This is August 1994. That's when the responsibility of
22 one accused stops and that of the other begins. This is a highly sensitive
24 The problem is will I be speaking any further documents, or rather,
25 any documents related to the Galic case. Of course, I'm not sure what the
1 OTP's interpretation was of my motion. I certainly am renouncing on
2 things, incidents, and dates that the accused Milosevic has nothing to do
3 with. But there are general issues at stake there that are very important.
4 And let me say something else. Coincidentally, I acted as amicus
5 curiae in the Milosevic case, and I am aware from details during this
6 period of time that are essential to the accused. I will seek from that
7 Trial Chamber, the Trial Chamber in charge of the Milosevic case, to be
8 forwarded everything that I might find of interest as Defence counsel for
9 Dragomir Milosevic. There are plenty of other things that I can discuss
10 with the OTP, without necessarily bothering you with these details.
11 If there's still time, I ask leave to say something else later in
12 relation to my preliminary motion. You have seen my preliminary motion,
13 and you have seen that I was adamant about one thing: First and foremost,
14 Galic did not use, take advantage, make use of his right to object, or he
15 was late, which I think is very important. It's up to you to decide after
16 the OTP have submitted their own position. It's an undisputed fact that
17 during those events, there was a permanent state of armed conflict. My
18 conviction is, if there was a permanent state of arm conflict during these
19 critical incidents, at the time of these critical incidents, the indictment
20 should tell us who the participants in that armed conflict were. Quite
21 unlike what we find stated in their response.
22 I didn't get the motion directly. I received a translation from
23 Belgrade that there were no civilians taking part in the conflict, but
24 everything that was done was done against the civilian population. If you
25 have a statement in the indictment that there was a state of armed
1 conflict, then the indictment must also ascertain who the parties to the
2 conflict were, especially in view of the point in time when the accused
3 Milosevic's responsibility begins, which is the 10th of August, 1994, in
4 circumstances that were very different from what they used to be back in
6 At this point in time, I believe this is all I wish to raise, and I
7 thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 I'll give the floor to the Prosecution again, but there is
10 something I would like to be informed of. Your client, General Dragomir
11 Milosevic, when he arrived in The Hague
12 was he arrested and did he come here after having been arrested? If that
13 was the case, if the latter was the case, he must have been informed of the
14 arrest warrant that was issued in 1998, quite certainly. Could you provide
15 me with any clarifications?
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't believe that
17 is in dispute. He arrived of his own free will, accompanied by the justice
18 minister of Serbia. That's my impression, at least. At any rate, I think
19 it is beyond dispute that he surrendered of his own free will and appeared
20 here, which I pointed out in my clarification in relation to the Rule 11
21 bis motion. There is no shadow of a doubt that he would have been prepared
22 to surrender even earlier, but no one was interested. I will not be
23 explaining this now. However, this time, when he came to town, he came of
24 his own free will.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for this information.
1 I'll give the floor to the Prosecution. Before me, I have the
2 transcript of the Initial Appearance of Mr. Galic, the 29th of November,
3 1993. It was Judge Riad who was present at the Initial Appearance, and at
4 the Initial Appearance, the Initial Appearance was based on the indictment
5 of 1999, which had been translated into Mr. Galic's language. Defence
6 counsel has told us that the amended indictment of 1999 has not even been
7 translated into the language of the accused. All I have is a document in
8 English before me, and I don't have this document in the accused's
9 language. It is, nevertheless, an essential guarantee that the accused
10 must be provided with the indictment in his own language. That is a
11 minimum request.
12 Mr. Stamp, what could you tell us about this issue, although it
13 appears that the charges concerned are the same?
14 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour. The circumstances surrounding
15 the latter redacted indictment, that is, the indictment dated the 19th of
16 March, I think, was explained in -- were explained in the Prosecution's
17 response. The redacted indictment was filed as a result of the order of
18 the Court, and the purpose of the redacted indictment was to protect the
19 integrity of the original indictment of the 24th of April, 1999
20 to protect the integrity of the sealing procedure.
21 Thus, if the accused, Dragomir Milosevic, was apprehended before
22 his co-accused, information related to the key accused would not be
23 revealed. The redacted indictment is not a new indictment, it is not an
24 amended indictment, it is just an indictment -- a redacted indictment in
25 which the name of the other accused has been removed. And any reference to
1 the other accused is removed, and the counts are renumbered so that they
2 relate only to the accused Dragomir Milosevic. The accused is not severed
3 from the original indictment. The original indictment is still operable,
4 and the accused was properly pleaded and brought before the Court on the
5 original indictment which was translated into his own language.
6 The original indictment, notwithstanding some initial confusion,
7 was quite clearly explained to the accused at his Initial Appearance. It
8 was -- the relevant parts were read to him at his Initial Appearance, and
9 he entered a plea, having acknowledged that he understood everything that
10 was relevant to him.
11 So I would invite the Court to consider the Prosecution's response.
12 What we're asking is that, in future, subsequent to these Rule 72 hearings,
13 we, for the sake of convenience, convenient reference to the counts, could
14 use the redacted indictment as was used in the Galic case. However, at
15 this moment, the operable indictment is still the indictment of -- that was
16 signed and confirmed in April 1998.
17 There is not much I could say in respect to what my friend has said
18 regarding the Prosecutor's motion of the 14th of February, except to
19 underscore that the motion is based on the resources available to the
20 Prosecution, which is really very thin nowadays, having regard to the fact
21 that we are doing six trials at the same time. So I'd ask the Court to
22 have due regard to that in considering whether or not non-essential
23 proceedings could be suspended pending the determination of the Rule 11 bis
25 The issues in respect to the conflict, the parties to the conflict
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 have been addressed in the Prosecutor's response to the Defence Rule 75
2 motion, and there is not much I can add, except to reiterate that, in
3 respect to a non-international armed conflict, or an allegation that does
4 not involve an international armed conflict, it is not necessary for the
5 Prosecution to name the parties. May it please you, Your Honour.
6 Finally, before I sit, I will take it, based on what my friend has
7 said, that he does not, or he does not need to have the material which
8 exclusively deals with the incidents and matters which Stanislav Galic was
9 charged and tried.
10 Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you, Mr. Stamp.
12 While the Prosecution was speaking, I had a look at both
13 indictments, and one can see in the English version that - it must be the
14 case for the B/C/S version too - that originally there was an indictment
15 containing the name of Mr. Galic, and beneath it there was Dragomir
16 Milosevic's name. Galic above and Dragomir Milosevic below.
17 Then it said the Prosecution, the Tribunal's Prosecutor, et cetera,
18 and then it says Stanislav Galic and Dragomir Milosevic. What happened?
19 Galic was deleted and only Dragomir Milosevic remained at the top, to the
20 right. Stanislav Galic was deleted, and the name Milosevic remained.
21 Given the confidential character of the document at the time, in
22 paragraph 5, reference was made to the accused. In the 1998 indictment,
23 reference was made to the accused Galic and then to the accused Milosevic.
24 The paragraph concerning Galic was deleted and only the paragraph
25 concerning Milosevic remained. And paragraph 6, which is the Milosevic
1 paragraph in the 1998 indictment, became paragraph 5 in the 1999
3 Why was this not signed? You raised the issue a minute ago. It's
4 true that, in 1998, the indictment was signed Louise Arbour, the
5 Prosecutor, on the 14th of April, 1998
6 subsequent date, it wasn't deemed necessary to have the indictment signed
8 Naturally, I'll have to state my position with regard to this
9 issue, but that is how the issue of the two indictments arose.
10 As far as the second issue is concerned, Defence counsel has stated
11 that they would like to have all the material, including the Galic material
12 and Slobodan Milosevic material. That's what the Defence has confirmed. I
13 will also render a decision with regard to this issue.
14 Would you like to -- would the Defence like to take the floor
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is not my
17 intention here to cause any further complications. I fully agree that the
18 essence of the case has suffered no prejudice at all. The accused Dragomir
19 Milosevic, and I have spoken to him on a number of different occasions, has
20 no essential objections between the differences between the two
21 indictments. But there are some other differences too. At any rate, this
22 indictment too -- rather, he must be allowed insight, he must be allowed to
23 inspect the indictment. As Defence counsel, I understand what the case is
24 about, but I think he too should have a right to compare the two. You have
25 been able to compare the two versions in view of the fact that you know
1 both languages, whereas he only knows the Serbian language, and he should
2 be entitled to have a look, to inspect the documents.
3 I talked to him, and he said he would have no objections. I
4 believe that this is definitely an omission and an error. It's been so
5 long we received -- we have this situation, to date, has still not been
6 translated, and I believe this matter should have been dealt with some time
7 ago. This is an obvious matter, and I don't think we should waste any more
8 time on that. It will be up to your decision, Your Honour. Eventually, we
9 shall see what that decision will be. Also in relation to the preliminary
10 motion regarding the indictment, I'm sure that a solution that will be
11 found. And it is up to you to accept or reject the motion, of course.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As I have already
13 said, I will rule on the issue that has been raised.
14 Very briefly, I would like to address the issue of disclosure.
15 According to Rule 66, the Prosecution must disclose to the Defence all the
16 documents that fall under Rule 66. I know that you have disclosed 22
17 binders, but if I render a decision, according to which it's also necessary
18 to disclose Galic material, there will be more than 22 binders.
19 Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic, you may take the floor.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may be of assistance, Your
21 Honour. Those 22 binders, I got them on the 7th of January, as early as
22 that. Those are the confirmation documents, and I received them in good
23 time. There is one error, however. I believe it should be easy to
24 correct. The exact number is not 22 but rather 21 binders. At any rate, I
25 received those documents already.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Defence has
2 received the binders.
3 I mentioned Rule 68 a minute ago. The Prosecutor must disclose to
4 the Defence any exculpatory material, or any material that affects the
5 Prosecution's evidence.
6 The question arises as to the effect of Rule 11 bis. It would seem
7 that, according to Rule 11 bis, in the Ademi/Norac case, the Prosecutor at
8 the hearing that was held, stated that the Prosecution had the obligation
9 of providing documents that fell under Rule 68.
10 Mr. Stamp, your colleague from the Prosecution adopted a position
11 in the Ademi/Norac case and stated that the Prosecution, regardless of Rule
12 11 bis, had to provide all the material that fell under Rule 68.
13 Mr. Stamp, you may take the floor.
14 MR. STAMP: The Prosecution's obligation under Rule 68 arise at any
15 -- right through the proceedings. However, as regarding specific orders
16 with respect to deadlines at this point in time, we would still ask that
17 they be postponed nonetheless. I must confess that I am -- may I put it
18 this way: I would respectfully ask that they be postponed pending the
19 decision in the Rule 11 bis motion. However, we will attempt to serve on
20 the Defence all Rule 68 material which we are aware of. However, we would
21 ask that the Court does not, at this point in time, make an order which
22 involves any deadlines in that regard.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I will be rendering
24 my decision. But regardless of the written decision, it seems
25 extraordinary to me that one might suspend this obligation or postpone it
1 given that there might be exculpatory material, material that might be
2 fully exculpatory. There is a serious problem there, and I will address
3 the issue in a written decision, because one should not forget that the
4 accused is in detention. This is something that should also be taken into
5 consideration when considering the necessity of proceeding expeditiously.
6 That concerns the Rules 66 and 68. Now, there are other issues I
7 would like to raise, issues concerning the health of the accused and the
8 conditions in the Detention Unit.
9 General, could you please rise and tell me whether you have any
10 problems with your health. Is there anything you would like to tell me
11 about your health, very briefly? Are you in perfect health, or do you have
12 any problems?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you
14 for asking. My answer is very clear: My health condition is very good,
15 nor do I have any complaints about the conditions prevailing at the
16 Detention Unit.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As far as detention
18 conditions are concerned, you have just said that there are no problems.
19 You should be aware of the fact that if you do encounter any problems, you
20 should inform us of the fact immediately. You should either inform your
21 lawyer. I'll read out Rules 84 to 88 to you.
22 You may, at any point in time submit a request or complaint to the
23 person in charge of the Detention Unit. If your request is not granted,
24 you may contest the response and refer to the President of the Tribunal.
25 You may also have access to someone from the outside who may come to pay
1 you a visit and meet you in the absence of the person in charge of the
2 unit. If there are any problems, don't hesitate to mention the problems to
3 your lawyer or to the person in charge of the unit, of the Detention Unit.
4 But so far you are telling us that there are no problems, that
5 everything is fine. Is that correct, General?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you for saying all these
7 things, Your Honour. I confirm that everything is all right, everything is
8 in perfect order.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I have another
10 question. Do family members visit you, or are you isolated?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am not isolated. My wife came to
12 see me recently. (redacted) they have not come over to
13 see me so far. All in all, I am certainly not isolated. But I will be in
14 touch if I require anything further.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I believe that you
16 have access to a telephone as well. You can phone your wife and your
17 children, in accordance with the rules that have been established. As far
18 as telephone communication is concerned, you have no problems there either?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There are no problems. The only
20 problem at this point in time is how I feel. I am sure you understand,
21 this is not the place or the time to discuss this. Therefore, my answer to
22 you is: Everything is perfectly all right.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, General. I have fully
24 understood you. You may sit down now.
25 Before we adjourn, are there any other issues that either of the
1 parties would like to raise?
2 Mr. Stamp, I'd give you the floor, if you like.
3 MR. STAMP: Mr. President, no further issues.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
5 Mr. Tapuskovic, are there any issues you would like to raise?
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
8 Very well. We will now adjourn. As I have already said, I will
9 soon render the decisions that concern the pending motions. I will be
10 acting expeditiously and without prejudice. To the decision concerning the
11 11 bis procedure, it is now February. We will take stock of the issue at
12 the beginning of June, unless a decision has been rendered regarding Rule
13 11 bis by that time. So a hearing will be scheduled for the beginning of
14 June, and I believe that this case could be rapidly prepared and it should
15 be possible to ensure that the accused can stand trial very soon, either
16 here or in his own country.
17 Thank you, and I will be rendering my decisions, I will be
18 providing you with further information in the course of the month of June.
19 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at
20 11.00 a.m.