Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 77

 1                           Monday, 19 January 2009

 2                           [Status Conference]

 3                           [Open session]

 4                           [The accused entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  This is the case

 7     IT-95-5/18 -PT, The Prosecutor versus Radovan Karadzic.

 8             JUDGE BONOMY:  Now good afternoon everyone.

 9             Mr. Karadzic, do I take it that you today again intend to

10     represent yourself?

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  Your conclusion is absolutely

12     correct.

13             JUDGE BONOMY:  I do that for two purposes:  To make sure you can

14     hear my in a language you understand and also to make sure that

15     representation is made clear.

16             I want to deal with the status of a number of outstanding matters

17     before we get to anything that might be controversial.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  Yes, I do understand you in my own

19     language.  And I am at your disposal to ensure that this conference

20     proceeds smoothly.

21             JUDGE BONOMY:  Thank you.

22             The first thing I want to mention is your application for

23     certification to appeal the decision on inspection and disclosure of

24     documents.

25             The Chamber has decided to grant that application, and the

Page 78

 1     written decision granting it will be filed this afternoon.  I've just

 2     signed it.  It is here, and I will pass it forward so that arrangements

 3     can made for that to be done.

 4             The decision on that appeal could have a bearing on your motion

 5     to interview a witness.  You've submitted one motion relating to one

 6     witness.  And because the views of the Appeals Chamber may be of some

 7     relevance to that issue, because you wish to interview the witness

 8     particularly in relation to your preliminary point about jurisdiction and

 9     the immunity undertaking you say you have, it seems to us that it would

10     be inappropriate for to us deal with that motion at this stage, and

11     therefore we will postpone consideration of that motion until your appeal

12     is dealt with.  And therefore the sooner you tender, file the appeal and

13     get it resolved, the sooner we'll make progress on other matters.

14             You have made a motion challenging the decision of the registrar

15     in relation to your application for what you describe as adequate

16     facilities and equality of arms; in other words legal and investigatory

17     assistance.  The Chamber has deliberated on that motion, and the decision

18     will probably be -- it certainly be filed this week.  It will be probably

19     be filed tomorrow.

20             The longest outstanding matter so far is your original submission

21     about immunity which you combined with a reference to your first

22     appearance and which you filed on the 6th of August.  It is not in the

23     form that you will now have been accustomed to as the form that is used

24     for filing documents here.  And you have asked the Chamber to postpone

25     dealing with that until you can conclude your efforts to secure evidence

Page 79

 1     to support the motion.

 2             Whatever happens here, today or in the next few weeks, you are

 3     going to have an opportunity to challenge jurisdiction and to have a

 4     decision taken on that at some point.  It might be that your own

 5     interests would be better served by withdrawing that application and

 6     tendering another one, which might put the matter in more up-to-date

 7     terms and set it out better for the purpose of advancing your argument.

 8     I don't suggest you do that at the moment.  It may be that you should

 9     await the outcome of the appeal that will follow from the decision I

10     mentioned earlier.  But you can take it that when you come to address

11     this issue, if it -- if indeed you come to address it ultimately, the

12     Chamber would be quite happy to accept a fresh submission rather than try

13     to use this one and amplify it in a way that doesn't necessarily explain

14     the case as clearly as you might otherwise do.

15             The next matter I wish to turn to is the question of the motion

16     to amend the indictment, and on that subject, I want to turn to the

17     Prosecution for clarification of certain issues before I hear your

18     submissions on that.

19             Now, can I have the appearances for the Prosecution, please.

20             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  Your Honour, for the Prosecution senior

21     trial attorney Mr. Alan Tieger and myself, Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff.  And

22     I have stood up because I am the one dealing with disclosure issues, and

23     I thought that your question may relate to this.

24             JUDGE BONOMY:  Yes.  Chamber notes that there was filed a notice

25     on the 14th of January stating that disclosure of material supporting the

Page 80

 1     motion to amend the indictment and the proposed amended indictment was

 2     completed on the 14th of January.

 3             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  That's correct, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE BONOMY:  And that date is the one that triggers the time

 5     that the accused has to respond to your motion.

 6             Now, the period since the last Status Conference has been taken

 7     up in this connection by the translation into B/C/S of a substantial

 8     number of transcripts in English of proceedings in other cases.

 9             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  Yes, Your Honour, that's correct.

10             JUDGE BONOMY:  What I'd like to know are two things.  First of

11     all, how that material was actually disclosed to the accused; in other

12     words, was it done periodically during that period of weeks, or was it

13     done only when the whole exercise was concluded?

14             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  Your Honour, we have disclosed the materials

15     in three batches.  However all three batches were disclosed this month,

16     not in December because we will actually almost -- yeah, at times 20

17     language staff working on this, and we had to merge their results in

18     something useful for the accused.  That's why we had three batches, one

19     on 7th January, one on the 12th of January, and one on the 14th.

20             JUDGE BONOMY:  Now in the overall context of the materials

21     supporting the motion and the proposed amended indictment, how

22     significant is this material?

23             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  I assume you don't want to hear all the

24     details.  I do have the schedule and the index, but what we can say in

25     the first batch that was about 1.900 pages.  We have basically three

Page 81

 1     insider witnesses, materials, testimonies from three insiders amounting

 2     to almost 1.000 pages.  They are definitely very significant.

 3             Then we have also in that first batch an overview witness for

 4     Srebrenica.  We have 14 crime-base witnesses and two witnesses who deal

 5     with exhumations but the three insiders with the thousand pages are

 6     definitely very significant.

 7             In the second batch which is almost 2.000 pages, we have four

 8     experts one military expert, two experts on historical and political

 9     background and one expert dealing with destructions and their testimonies

10     in previous cases.  That's also more than 1.000 pages.  In addition in

11     this batch, there is one insider witness related to Srebrenica, and one

12     insider witness related to -- again to Srebrenica with structure

13     information and seven crime-base witnesses.  And the third batch is only

14     roughly 700 pages.  And again one insider but only 26 pages insider

15     Srebrenica, one insider related to structure of 80 pages, and one

16     military witness from the former JNA, and one international witness

17     related to hostage taking, and five crime-base witnesses.  That is amount

18     that was provided as transcription of previous testimonies.

19             JUDGE BONOMY:  Do any of the experts that you referred to in the

20     second batch and the military witness in the third batch have a real

21     bearing on the issue of amendment of the indictment?

22             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  I can't really answer that.  Perhaps

23     Mr. Tieger can say that.  I mean the military expert relates to the

24     Krajina, to the ARK, and that is not new.  That is also in the first

25     indictment.

Page 82

 1             The military expert -- the military witness that I just mentioned

 2     in the third batch relates also to the previous cases related to the

 3     Krajina.  So it's also not a new -- a new project.

 4             JUDGE BONOMY:  Yeah.

 5             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  None of them basically are.  This one is

 6     actually -- let me just check - even somewhat related to the original

 7     indictment, the operating indictment.

 8             So I can't really say that they have a bearing on the amendment.

 9             JUDGE BONOMY:  And going back then to the -- or going to the

10     question of insider witnesses and particularly the thousand pages or so

11     you referred to in the first batch, do they relate to new issues, or do

12     these also relate to issues which featured before?

13             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  These are actually witnesses that have

14     testified either in Krajisnik case or in the Srebrenica cases, so it's

15     also not -- not new.  It is nothing related to the amendment.

16             JUDGE BONOMY:  Thank you.  That was very helpful.

17             Now, Mr. Karadzic, in my view this is the most important issue in

18     the case at this stage.  Progress has been hampered by the need to

19     translate such a vast volume of material, but we now have to determine a

20     time-scale for serious progress in the case.

21             Can I have any comments you wish to make in relation to the time

22     you consider you may require to adequately answer the motion to amend the

23     indictment?

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  Thank you.

25             And I'd like to thank you especially for raising the question of

Page 83

 1     the rate, the tempo at which we're proceeding and the disclosure

 2     procedure itself.  I have received about 67 transcribed tapes from about

 3     40 witnesses from about 30 cases.  They have all been translated with the

 4     exception of 23 tapes of some man called Theunens, those have not been

 5     translated, and we're waiting fort translation to be finished.

 6             However, the Defence will not be petty-minded in that respect,

 7     and we will be in a position to respond on time for the request to amend

 8     the indictment.

 9             Now, what the Defence is more worried about is the vast material

10     which was not disclosed successively so that it can be studied one after

11     another, but it came in bulk sometime in the middle of this month, and

12     this will upset matters, and you felt that very well by the very fact

13     that you raised this issue yourself.  But as a sign of goodwill, we're

14     not going to go into the fact that we need 23 Theunens tapes to be

15     translated, that we're still waiting for that.  And I do believe that we

16     can respond to the request to amend the indictment within the time limit,

17     and I think that limit is the 28th of January.

18             JUDGE BONOMY:  Thank you.  Can you clarify the point about these

19     other tapes which I assume are not part of the supporting material.

20             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  Yes, you're right, Your Honour.  This is

21     actually Rule 68(A)(ii), and it relates to a military expert.  We have

22     provided the documentation as far as we have it, the reports and the

23     English transcripts.  But for the production of the transcript in B/C/S,

24     that is not available yet.

25             So that is not related to the supporting material at all.  And

Page 84

 1     bethought it's helpful for the accused to get materials for witnesses as

 2     early as possible, even if the translations come -- the transcriptions

 3     come later.

 4             JUDGE BONOMY:  Mr. Karadzic, I'm grateful for explaining the

 5     position so clearly and acknowledging your ability to deal with this by

 6     responding by the 28th of January.

 7             Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, or it may be Mr. Tieger to deal with this, I

 8     don't know, but can you help me in -- from your experience of how

 9     frequently the Prosecution appeared to you to seek to reply to responses

10     to motions to amend indictments?

11             MR. TIEGER:  I'm certainly prepared to defer to

12     Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff on this Your Honour, but no, I couldn't claim to have

13     any handle on the frequency of that response.

14             JUDGE BONOMY:  Can you help any further or ...

15             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  I -- I can't really answer that.  I mean, we

16     always try to respond as soon as possible.  We do not -- in most cases we

17     never use the 14 days that we usually have for responses, and therefore

18     we can deal it as fast as possible.  It's hard to say in such an

19     important matter.  Sometimes it is an important matter, then we may need

20     the 14 days; otherwise, not.

21             JUDGE BONOMY:  Yeah.  Well, I think in a situation like this, 14

22     days would be excessive.  I think it should be easy to identify very

23     quickly whether a reply is necessary, and you as you know, you should

24     apply for authorisation to make a reply in advance and then the Chamber

25     could determine a time-limit for that, but I would hope that if any

Page 85

 1     question of replying arises, the whole exercise can be completed within

 2     seven days.  I can only give guidance on that at the moment because the

 3     question hasn't actually become a real one.  But should it do so, then

 4     please note that that is the view that the Trial Chamber has.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  May I be allowed to say thank you

 6     for your efforts to speed things up and for initiating this to begin

 7     with.  And it suits me, and with respect to the substance, I'm quite in

 8     favour of having the process speeded up but not at the expense of the

 9     Defence of course.

10             Now, as far as disclosure is concerned, apart from the material

11     that has been translated, I would like to point out some of the concerns

12     that the Defence has at this point.  The Trial Chamber on the 15th of

13     January of this year instructed the Prosecutor to provide a report every

14     30 days on how the progress made in disclosure.  Unfortunately, that does

15     not instruct the Prosecutor to inform me about the exculpatory material,

16     the disclosure of which has been questioned by third parties.  And I'd

17     like to inform you that the -- the Defence will ask you to give

18     certification for appeal to that, in the sense of having that element

19     included in the instructions given to the Prosecution with respect to

20     disclosure, and especially with respect to the agreement with Holbrooke

21     about immunity.

22             The Prosecution has not fulfilled all the instructions given by

23     the Trial Chamber in that respect.  I received information that they have

24     nothing further to inform me about, which they would be duty-bound in the

25     line of duty to inform me of, but they have not provided me with the

Page 86

 1     transcript of the conversation between Louise Arbour with General

 2     Wesley Clark.  Neither have they disclosed all the information about the

 3     interviews and conversations of the former president of Republika Srpska

 4     Biljana Plavsic allegedly because those three people were not present at

 5     the meeting with Holbrooke himself.  However I'm afraid that the

 6     Trial Chamber under estimates the corroborational value of all these

 7     documents.  That is to say the transcript undoubtedly exists, and we have

 8     heard testimony about that the Prosecution staff.  So it does exist, and

 9     it is it very important as to support to what I am stating, what I am

10     claiming.  And I hope that the Trial Chamber will not allow the

11     Prosecution to have any scope for creatively or to be lax in respect of

12     this question because all such matter is very important for the Defence.

13             So thank you for your suggestions to update the request with

14     respect to the Holbrooke agreement.  I will hold consultations with my

15     legal advisors on that issue.  I will probably do that very soon.

16                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

17             JUDGE BONOMY:  You've raised matters relating to certain

18     documents which I need to have in front of me.  If you'd give me a

19     moment, please.

20                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think I do have a letter from the

22     Prosecution that relates to this matter.

23             Do you have it, or should I ...

24             JUDGE BONOMY:  Just give me a moment until I get the material I'm

25     looking for.

Page 87

 1                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  One of the letters came in on the

 3     16th of January - that's the last letter - from Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.  It

 4     was on the 16th.  That was the notice of all those things that I have

 5     been talking about.

 6             I do have it here, if you want it.

 7                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

 8             JUDGE BONOMY:  Yes, if I could see the letter you're referring

 9     to, Mr. Karadzic.  Thank you.

10             What you're raising now is something I know nothing about.  This

11     is correspondence between you and the Office of the Prosecution, in which

12     you do what you did -- quite rightly, do you what you before we made

13     decision on your last request to order the Prosecution to disclose

14     material.  You apply to them for it.  If they refuse it, then you can

15     come to the Trial Chamber and ask the Trial Chamber to make an order.

16             Now are you at the early stage as I see it here, and if you want

17     to follow this up with a motion, then that is a matter for you.  But as I

18     read the answer, the statement is that the meeting that you are referring

19     to in 1996 was not attended by any of the three persons you referred to.

20     So on what basis you say that there is specific material in the hands of

21     the Prosecution in the form of a transcript is not clear to me.

22             But that's something you can raise, as I say, in a motion.  For

23     the moment it doesn't change the position in relation to the order that I

24     have already mentioned, and having been given leave to appeal, you may

25     consider that your best course of action is to get the appeal resolved

Page 88

 1     and then deal with these other matters, in light of what the Appeals

 2     Chamber decides.

 3             I'll return the letter to you.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  I would nevertheless like to raise

 5     a couple of important issues.

 6             First of all the Defence is trying to deal with all the issues

 7     without involving the Chamber.  When we are unable to do that, then we

 8     have it apply to the Chamber to do its job here.  There are very

 9     sensitive and dangerous things if the Prosecution fails to disclose what

10     is crucial for the Defence, and these are the materials whose disclosure

11     was banned by the third parties and materials which for some technical

12     reason such as for instance the transcript of the conversation between

13     Mrs. Arbour and General Clark cannot be disclosed because they did not

14     attend the meeting, then this is tantamount to efforts to obstruct the

15     Defence.

16             This transcript exists, and Mrs. Florence Hartmann testified

17     about the fact that the Prosecution is in the possession of the

18     transcript.  And in this transcript there are clear elements that

19     corroborate my arguments.

20             So even before I came here, before I raised this issue, before I

21     made this request and presented my view, a long, long time ago at the

22     time when Madam Arbour was the Chief Prosecutor, there were elements that

23     corroborated what I am saying.  So I face a danger here of being

24     obstructed by the Prosecution on two highly sensitive issues.

25             JUDGE BONOMY:  One thing, Mr. Karadzic, that you, I hope, have

Page 89

 1     learned from the decision we made on your application for disclosure is

 2     that the more precise the application, the more likely it is to succeed;

 3     and the more vague and general the application, the less likely it is to

 4     succeed.

 5             Now, at the moment you are making submissions that are very

 6     specific about a particular document that relates to a particular matter,

 7     and if you wish to challenge the Prosecution's refusal to disclose

 8     anything that relates to that, then the way to do it is to make a

 9     specific application to the Trial Chamber.  But, as I say, you may find

10     that doing so immediately may be a complicating factor and that timing

11     this properly may be to your advantage and that that sort of application

12     might better await the outcome of the appeal.  That simply underlines the

13     importance of getting the appeal underway and resolved as quickly as

14     possible.

15             You did make a passing reference there to -- to the order that we

16     made on disclosure perhaps not dealing adequately with Rule 68, but the

17     order we made on 15th January does specifically include references to

18     Rule 68 and was simply reflecting the undertaking that the Prosecution

19     gave to continue their search for Rule 68 material.

20             Now, this arose in the context of looking at the amendment to the

21     indictment.

22             Is there anything else you've got to say on the application to

23     amend the indictment?

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  Well, as regards Rule 68, what I

25     said had to do with the materials whose disclosure was not approved by a

Page 90

 1     third party.  That's what I was talking about.  And I would like --

 2     well --

 3             JUDGE BONOMY:  [Previous translation continues] ...

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  The order that you made about the

 5     30 day --

 6             JUDGE BONOMY:  [Previous translation continues] ...

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  As regards all the rest, I believe

 8     that the Defence be able to file its response to the motion to amend the

 9     indictment by the 28th of January.

10             Of course, this does not concern the preliminary ...

11             Also, as regards, you know, the transcript of the conversation,

12     that transcript exists.  I did not know that I would have to -- because I

13     don't know what the Prosecution has.  It would be proper for the

14     Prosecution to provide with me everything when I make a generalised

15     request.  In order to be more specific in my requests, I would have to

16     have access to what the Prosecution has, and I think that with a view to

17     having a fair trial, I think that the Prosecution should be generous here

18     and to disclose everything and not to ask me to fire shots from a sniper

19     rifle in order to hit something that I'm not able to see at all because I

20     don't know what it is that they have.  But I know this for a fact because

21     of what Mrs. Hartmann said, and I'm afraid that that would be tantamount

22     to efforts to cover up evidence, and that would really destroy all

23     credibility of this Tribunal and its proceedings.

24             JUDGE BONOMY:  It sounds, Mr. Karadzic, as though you consider

25     this to be extremely important evidence for the point you want to make,

Page 91

 1     and that simply underlines what is I said earlier.  Where you can make

 2     specific applications, you should do so.  I acknowledge that there are

 3     certain circumstances in which you have to be vaguer than you would be

 4     able to be in this case, and we take account of that in deciding what

 5     orders we can make.  But don't lose sight of the fact that a specific

 6     application has the best prospect of success.

 7             On the point you make about the Rule 68 material which may be the

 8     subject of the need for authority from a third party, if such material

 9     does exist, then the Prosecution has to consider carefully how it

10     proceeds, and there are circumstances in which their hands may be tied

11     because of the refusal of a third party to divulge material, and it

12     could, in fact, have a prejudicial effect on the Prosecution and force

13     them to take steps they wouldn't willingly take.  So these are issues

14     that may yet have to be explored further.

15             But one final thought on this:  Please never lose sight of the

16     fact that you can make application to other bodies and authorities and

17     states, other than simply the Prosecution for material.  And if you

18     consider materials held by someone else, as well as by the Prosecution,

19     or indeed material which the Prosecution doesn't have, then it is open to

20     you make application to those other parties or states for that material.

21                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

22             JUDGE BONOMY:  Yeah, I'm reminded of your reference which I

23     didn't realize was to the same material, but on re-reading it, I see that

24     it is.  You refer to -- in your reply to the Prosecution's response to

25     the motion for inspection and disclosure relating to the Holbrooke

Page 92

 1     agreement which is dated the 28th of November, you refer to an interview

 2     with Florence Hartmann on the 11th of October, 2007.  The other reference

 3     is to a claim by Wesley Clark that if you were brought to justice, you

 4     would allege a deal with Warren Christopher who presumably -- was he

 5     Holbrooke's boss at the time?  Is that Karadzic --

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  Yes, yes.

 7             JUDGE BONOMY:  [Previous translation continues] ... The Hague.

 8     Now what she says is that she has a transcript of the conversation, and

 9     Wesley Clark did say exactly what I quoted in my book, and it's been

10     certified by those from the ICTY present at the meeting.

11             I'm not so sure that that makes it's quite as clear as you have

12     been suggesting.  It's an allegation by Clark.  It doesn't seem to go

13     further than that on the face of it.  But you are right, that having made

14     that statement in your reply, you could read the Trial Chamber's decision

15     as extending to refusing that document, and therefore, you may consider

16     whether that also is an issue that you ought to focus in your appeal.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  Yes, well, you see it's like this.

18     That precise moment supports what I'm saying, General Wesley Clark wanted

19     to pre-empt my statement knowing that the agreement existed, and since

20     the American administration tried even during Dayton to obtain the

21     withdrawal of the indictment against me and General Mladic, and this is

22     something that Mr. Goldstone refused and said he would resign if that

23     happened, then those possibilities remained open to prevent my referring

24     to an agreement that existed.

25             Now, if we have dealt with issue, I would like to say something

Page 93

 1     about what awaits us, the Trial Chamber decisions and so forth.  First of

 2     all self-representation and the financing of my Defence under these

 3     conditions.  I don't want to say a single word against -- well, I have no

 4     disagreements with any of the employees of the Registry.  But we do have

 5     a misunderstandings with the rules and regulations, and I think they do,

 6     too, because the rules bind their hands.  Perhaps it is it commendable

 7     that the Tribunal is very flexible to changing the rules and regulations,

 8     and procedure is often changed, and there have been almost 50 amendments

 9     to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.  But I do believe that rules

10     regarding the financing and paying of the Defence is less important than

11     procedural issues, and I think that there would be scope there to act

12     differently.

13             I'm a doctor, I'm a physician.  Now as far as the facts go, I

14     know everything, and I'm quite convinced that everything will be done

15     well.  However, if two sets of laws continental and common law procedure

16     intermingle, then I have to have a large team of associates and advisors,

17     and following my logics, as I'm representing myself, I would need more

18     money, more money than if I were represented by counsel, so I don't think

19     that is a good solution.  On the other hand my investigators are being

20     asked in their filings and motions to explain what they spoke about with

21     their collocutors with respect to my Defence.

22             Now if that were the case, they were to disclose the strategy of

23     my Defence, so I would like the Registry -- I would like the

24     Trial Chamber to instruct the Registry to give up on claims of that kind.

25     If not, then we will have to ask the Trial Chamber once again not to

Page 94

 1     state their decisions about the contents of the discussions I have with

 2     my associates and the people I speak to in the preparation of my Defence.

 3     And we also expect a decision and resolution with respect to the talk

 4     with Alexa Buha.  He is not a witness -- he is a witness for the

 5     agreement with Holbrooke, the number one negotiator on my behalf, a

 6     representative the international community, not only the US

 7     administration, so it is not a matter for this trial or of this trial, so

 8     those are all impediments to my preparations for the trial, and I fear

 9     they will lead to delays.  I hope that there will not be any delays, but

10     the sooner we receive a full Defence team and complete equality of arms

11     and resources and facilities, the sooner we will be able to move forward

12     and provide an adequate Defence.

13             JUDGE BONOMY:  Well, I note what you say, Mr. Karadzic, but as I

14     told you earlier, the Trial Chamber has deliberated on your motion

15     already in relation to the costs of the engagement of legal associates

16     and investigators, and that decision will be in your hands in the course

17     of this week.  You will appreciate that there is Appeals Chamber

18     jurisprudence on the matter, and you will appreciate also that there is a

19     full Legal Aid scheme available if you chose to instruct counsel, and I

20     wanted to repeat the indication I gave you before, that subject obviously

21     to the agreement of counsel, there -- the Chamber is willing to

22     countenance a situation where you play an active role in conducting you

23     own Defence, albeit with counsel fully instructed to deal with matters of

24     law.

25             You have so far set your face against that, and I respect your

Page 95

 1     right to do so.  Whether it's wise is quite another matter.

 2             Now, I want to move on, then, to any other issues that remain

 3     outstanding, and the first of these is a Prosecution motion for judicial

 4     notice of adjudicated facts.

 5             Now, it seems to me that we're not in a position where we can

 6     deal with that until the indictment is resolved.

 7             Does the Prosecution accept that?

 8             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  Yes, Your Honour.  And, actually, in the

 9     light of the circumstances in which we are at the moment in the trial, we

10     also have hold back other similar motions for other municipalities.

11             JUDGE BONOMY:  Thank you.  Well, the Chamber will take no action

12     on that motion for the moment.

13             Now that completes, I think, a review of the outstanding motions

14     in the case.

15             Mr. Karadzic, are there other separate issues that you wish to

16     raise at all?

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  Yes.  Thank you for giving me that

18     opportunity.

19             Let me just add that, with respect to self-representation on my

20     part, I am afraid that it might appear as being pressure on me; that is

21     to say, if I accept to be represented, then payment will ensue at the

22     normal rate.  If I represent myself, I'll be given little resources and

23     punished that way, which means that there cannot be any equality of arms,

24     if that is the case, equal chances between me and the opposite party.

25             On the other hand, I have to present something here that I tried

Page 96

 1     to solve without the Trial Chamber, but unfortunately I was unsuccessful

 2     and it's this.  On the 2nd of December last year at 3.00 in the after --

 3     after midnight, 3.00 a.m., my family was stormed again by the

 4     international forces in Bosnia, mostly NATO forces, with very ludicrous

 5     arguments and insulting -- saying that they'd come to talk to my wife

 6     about the mental health of another accused who was not my wife's patient

 7     ever, and even had he been a patient of hers, would she have told them

 8     anything, because it's a privileged doctor/patient relationship.  But it

 9     was quite wrong to bring up the mental health of anyone.  It was quite

10     inappropriate.  And because of this very distorted explanation, the fact

11     that they stormed my family, and this happened before, it was designed to

12     upset my Defence.

13             Now, we tried to resolve this issue without the -- this courtroom

14     and this Trial Chamber, and we asked the high representative to tell us

15     who issued those orders, and we had previously received information that

16     no searches or freezing of resources or assets what came from this

17     Prosecution or this Trial Chamber, which means that somebody is doing it

18     off their own bat, and these are Gestapo methods that are used to instill

19     fear into children.  One of my grandchildren has his birthday on the 2nd

20     of December.  The OHCR said that he had nothing to do with that and that

21     we should contact the responsible authorities.

22             Now, we don't know which authorities those are.  Authorities that

23     control NATO in Bosnia-Herzegovina, NATO's action.  It appears there is

24     no control whatsoever, and that NATO can do whatever it feels like doing

25     over there.  And, to be quite honest, it is of lesser concern to me that

Page 97

 1     the world is under this kind of leadership and for -- reaching an abyss,

 2     I'm more worried about my family, because they are in this no-win

 3     situation.

 4             So I have to establish who the civilian control of this military

 5     force is and who it is who issued orders to have my apartment stormed in

 6     that way, especially since I have been here.

 7             So what are the reasons?  What are the reasons that make them do

 8     that, and what is the authority that enables them to storm into my

 9     family's home at 3.00 in the morning?

10             Now, I think that that is quite --

11             JUDGE BONOMY:  [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Karadzic,

12     let me stop you there.

13             Nothing in what you have said so far indicates any basis on which

14     I, as the Pre-Trial Judge in this case, could do anything.  Before this

15     is a matter for this Tribunal, there has to be some indication of a

16     prima facie basis for saying that these actions stem from something that

17     is the responsibility of someone at this Tribunal.

18             Now, if you tell me the link, then I will consider whether I

19     ought to hear you further on it.  But in the absence of establishing a

20     the prima facie basis for claiming a link, then it's beyond the authority

21     of this Tribunal to do anything about that, a matter in an independent

22     state.  I can sympathize with you, but I don't think that it is within my

23     power to do anything about it.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  They acted pursuant to orders from

25     this Court in search of the two remained accused who are still at large.

Page 98

 1     So that's the basis of it all.  They appeared over there in order to

 2     talk, allegedly, to my wife about the mental health of those people.  And

 3     then, en passant, they tried to requisition documents that I found it

 4     difficult to amass, relating to my assets and so on and so forth and with

 5     respect to the registry's decision to provide financial resources to me.

 6     So this is -- they refer to this Tribunal, because they are searching for

 7     two men, two fugitives, and within the frameworks of their searches, they

 8     found it necessary to attack my family.

 9             JUDGE BONOMY:  Sorry, I had not made any connection in what you

10     said earlier and still see no connection in what you said earlier between

11     the Tribunal fugitives and this conduct.

12             What is your basis for saying that they were seeking to detain

13     other accused who were fugitives from justice here?

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You're quite right.  I can well

15     understand that you can't understand this.  Nobody can.  Nobody can

16     understand why they see fit to storm into my family's home, my wife and

17     my family.  They weren't the forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina for me to deal

18     with them.  They are international forces, forces of the international

19     community, primarily NATO.  They came --

20             JUDGE BONOMY:  [Previous translation continues] ... what I'm

21     trying to see is what it is you're claiming is the link to the Tribunal.

22     Now, how -- what is your basis for saying this conduct has something to

23     do with the search for fugitives from here?

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  That's what they said.  That's

25     what they told my wife.  They said that they had come seeking information

Page 99

 1     about those two men, pursuant to instructions from this Tribunal.  That's

 2     why they are searching for them.  And they stormed into my house because

 3     they --

 4             JUDGE BONOMY:  [Previous translation continues] ...

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  -- decided to do so.

 6             JUDGE BONOMY:  Just one second.  And you say these were NATO

 7     forces.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  Yes, yes.

 9             JUDGE BONOMY:  And what communication have you had with NATO?

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Indiscernible] said that, their

11     spokesperson.

12             JUDGE BONOMY:  But what steps have you taken to complain to NATO?

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't complain to NATO.  I asked

14     the high representative of the international community, OHR, and his

15     office to see what all this is about, because they are a civilian power

16     in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  They are civilian control of everything that is

17     happening over there, and NATO is under some sort of civilian control.

18     That is to be assumed, that NATO acts on the basis of that.

19             JUDGE BONOMY:  Well, you explained that -- that you were told

20     that it was not done on the authority of the high representative and that

21     he had no knowledge of it, from what you just said.

22             So is your next port of call not NATO headquarters in Brussels?

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  I don't want to communicate with

24     the NATO pact but with its boss, the civilian authority.  Who is the

25     civilian authority over and above NATO?  Certainly they're not going to

Page 100

 1     accuse themselves, so I wish to take my troubles to the civilian

 2     authority of NATO pact.  If such an authority exists, I wish to refer to

 3     them.

 4             JUDGE BONOMY:  Well, at the moment, Mr. Karadzic, I doubt if

 5     there is any action that can be taken from here.  But if you consider

 6     that there is a matter that can be identified as the responsibility of

 7     any authority exercising or undertaking work related to this Tribunal,

 8     then you should make a filing explaining what it is you're complaining

 9     about, what you seek to be done, and attaching any documents that may

10     support the propositions that you advance.

11             But we're not going to make progress on this here, discussing it

12     in the courtroom.  These are matters which are best dealt with in

13     writing.

14             Now, is there any other matter that you wish to raise with me?

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]  Well, not for the moment.  But

16     this is a very important question for me, so that we can -- if we were

17     able to establish who the civilian authorities are, we'd ask them.  Why

18     did not they do what -- represent the Tribunal [as interpreted].

19             Now, I think that I have gone through all the other matters.  I

20     don't know what the Trial Chamber has decided with respect to the

21     equality the arms and the financing of my Defence, but development will

22     depend on that because I won't be able to retain prominent lawyers, very

23     prominent lawyers, and pay them by the hour unless I am given resources

24     to do that, and if I don't have their advice and counsel, then I really

25     will have to self-represent, and this will, of course, have an effect on

Page 101

 1     a fair trial, the semblance of a fair trial.  And NATO is really the

 2     great problem of the world, in general.  But as far as I'm concerned now,

 3     it is a problem for my family.  That's the immediate problem, and it's a

 4     world problem subsequently.

 5             JUDGE BONOMY:  Thank you very much.

 6             Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, any other matter you wish to deal with?

 7             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  No, Your Honour, nothing arises.

 8             JUDGE BONOMY:  Thank you.

 9                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

10             JUDGE BONOMY:  Well, it seems to me, Mr. Karadzic, that the team

11     you have at present assigned to you, to assist you, and you yourself, are

12     in a position, as you've indicated, to respond to the motion for

13     amendment by the 28th of January, and even if you feel that the decision

14     made about the resources available to you is not satisfactory, it's not

15     going to have any impact on the issue of the amendment procedure.  It

16     will have an impact at a later stage.

17             So I anticipate the amendment procedure going according to the

18     plan indicated by you and by the Prosecution and by me in that

19     discussion.  That would suggest that all the material necessary should be

20     in the hands of the Trial Chamber by the 4th of February.

21             I propose having another Status Conference around the time when I

22     expect that issue will be capable of being resolved.  I can't fix a firm

23     time at the moment because of the court schedule, which is fully occupied

24     on paper, as I see it.  We will need to make some arrangement to move a

25     case to fit in a Status Conference, but it will be around the 19th of

Page 102

 1     February.  The target date will be the 19th of February.

 2             That completes the work of the Status Conference.  The Court now

 3     adjourns.

 4                           --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at

 5                           3.22 p.m.