1 Friday, 22 June 2007
2 [Pre-Defence Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 [French on English channel]
9 JUDGE BONOMY: This is the pre-Defence conference in the case. We
10 will try to approach the various issues in logical sequence. There is an
11 application by the first accused, Mr. Milutinovic, for the admission of
12 certain exhibits. There has been a response and a reply, and we are in a
13 position to deal with that. One thing is causing us a little concern,
14 Mr. O'Sullivan, and that is the basis on which the letter from Svilanovic
15 is admitted. You suggest that it is admitted or ought to be admitted
16 under Rule 89(F) as well as (C).
17 Now, that doesn't strike us as an immediately obvious way of
18 admitting it, and I understand why you're maybe thinking that way because
19 it doesn't, on the face of it, fit either 92 bis or 92 ter, so you're
20 giving 89(F) a very wide interpretation. Is that right?
21 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, we certainly could proceed under 92 bis.
22 We proposed 89(F) just to alleviate the need to go off and have the
23 representative go off and swear that he would declare that under 92 bis
24 that that's his statement, he adopts it. We --
25 JUDGE BONOMY: The other problem we have with what you say is that
1 we wouldn't be concerned about the lack of formality if this was being
2 admitted as a matter of consent, but there is opposition from the
3 Prosecution. We've decided in principle that it should be admitted. It's
4 a question of how we do it. And as you rightly point out, whether it goes
5 to the merits or goes to mitigation, it's got to be presented in the
6 course of the trial anyway, and, therefore, it may be that in light of
7 that Mr. Hannis's opposition has evaporated. If it has, then it could be
8 admitted of consent under 89(C).
9 Mr. Hannis, do you want to deal with that?
10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I have know objection to doing that with
11 regard to this particular exhibit, but I don't want to establish a
12 precedent for other statements.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we'll look at each one, obviously, on its
14 individual merits, but the result of the decision we take is that it comes
15 in as a -- effectively as a statement by that individual and, therefore,
16 can be a considered - for what it's worth - both in relation to the truth
17 of its contents and anything else.
18 MR. HANNIS: I understand.
19 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
20 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't want to make a meal of this, but bearing in
21 mind the point that's just been made by Mr. Hannis about not setting
22 precedents, nevertheless, it's quite wise to be as careful as possible in
23 not setting at least the wrong tone. One other way of doing it - it may
24 actually be neater - is to regard it as a statement submitted under 92 ter
25 where the right to cross-examination has been waived, and that might set,
1 in fact, a precedent for the future that might be better as the vagueness
2 of 89(C).
3 MR. HANNIS: I agree. I think I would prefer that, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
5 Are you happy with that, Mr. O'Sullivan?
6 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: In that event, both 1D687, I think it is rather
8 than 688, and 1D167 [Realtime transcript read in error "1D687"] will be
9 admitted, the former of these in terms of Rule 92 quater. We should
10 formally also allow the reply that was tendered, although the point made
11 in that we had already considered.
12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, I believe you did -- you said 1D688
13 and 1D687 --
14 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no.
15 MR. O'SULLIVAN: -- because there was a mistake --
16 JUDGE BONOMY: 1D687 rather than 688. I think there is a mistake
17 in your numbering, and the other one is 1D167.
18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: There is --
19 JUDGE BONOMY: I see the transcript's wrong.
20 MR. O'SULLIVAN: There was a mistake in my cover page of my
21 original application.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Okay. Well, that's the mistake I'm talking
23 about. So the two documents to be admitted are 1D687 and 1D167.
24 MR. O'SULLIVAN: No.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: No?
1 MR. O'SULLIVAN: No.
2 If I can be of assistance.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry. It's the wrong mistake.
4 MR. O'SULLIVAN: 1D688 and 1D687. Thank you.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: The documents to be admitted are 1D688 and 1D687.
6 I'm sorry for that confusion.
7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
8 JUDGE BONOMY: We now turn to the presentation of the Defence
9 cases. There has been an assumption, I think, throughout that these cases
10 would be presented according to the order in which the accused appear on
11 the document; and if that's what parties anticipate doing and are content
12 to do, then we will not interfere with that. So no voices raised in
14 There, as far as we can see, is only one witness in common, apart
15 from the experts, on the witness lists. The only one identified is
16 Muharem Ibraj.
17 Mr. Ivetic, do you doubt that?
18 MR. IVETIC: Well, we would have thought that there were two in
19 common. We've got one in common with the Sainovic Defence, as well. I
20 believe the one, Mr. Ibraj, who was mentioned, I believe that the
21 Lazarevic Defence will be calling him, and we will not. In that case, we
22 will be removing him from our list.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that.
24 MR. IVETIC: With respect to Muharem Ibraj, the Lazarevic Defence,
25 I believe, will be calling him, and we will remove him from our list. So
1 that duplication is being taken care of in that manner.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: There are some cases where some consideration has
3 been given to how you lead the evidence of a witness who is presented in
4 common by more than one accused. We don't need to get bogged down in
5 that, I think, if there only are two who fall into that category.
6 If you're content that if he's your witness as well as someone
7 else's that you examine in chief rather than cross-examine, as has
8 apparently been the practice here in the past, then we don't need to say
9 any more on the matter. It's in any event not in the interests to anyone
10 to cross-examine a favourable witness, except to the extent necessary.
11 The position in relation to the experts we consider when they give
12 evidence, if any issue arises, and we would expect parties to raise it if
13 there was a matter of concern in relation to how that evidence was
14 presented since it's common to a number of the accused, in fact, possibly
15 in fact of all the accused.
16 Mr. Hannis.
17 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we will be filing some objections
18 concerning some of the experts. And we would, if it's possible, like to
19 know where in the order of the presentation of witnesses the experts might
20 be appearing.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. O'Sullivan, can you supplement the information
22 we have?
23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Are you referring to the common witnesses?
24 JUDGE BONOMY: I think --
25 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Common experts.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: I think, Mr. Hannis is talking about all the
2 experts, common or otherwise.
3 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, to deal with the common experts, our idea
4 was to have them testify at the end of the Defence case, after the sixth
5 accused. As for the Milutinovic Defence and our constitutional expert, he
6 would testify first.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, are you content with the postponement
8 of the common witnesses to the end of all cases?
9 MR. HANNIS: Yes, I am, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: But you may have a problem with the very first
12 MR. HANNIS: I may because we anticipate filing an objection
13 concerning him, first of all, testifying as an expert, and that may have
14 an effect on the timing of the rest of the case.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the sooner you do it, the sooner we'll be
16 able to deal with the issue and hopefully clarify the matter.
17 We have a view about the point at which an accused himself should
18 give evidence in his own best interest. We appreciate that there are no
19 rules which absolutely restrict the freedom of any accused to decide at
20 what stage in his evidence -- of the presentation of his case he will give
22 But it seems to us that the evidence of any accused is likely to
23 carry more weight if it's given right at the beginning of his case, rather
24 than given later in the light of everything else he's heard. He's the one
25 witness who sits in court throughout all the evidence and, therefore, is
1 in a privileged position when it comes to presenting his evidence. But we
2 simply invite you to give careful thought to that. The decision in the
3 end will be yours. Although, we could interfere with it, we are unlikely
4 to do so. We simply give warning that, as we see it at the moment, it's
5 likely to be more impressive if given at the beginning.
6 Every accused counsel has the right to make an opening speech. We
7 will eventually come to the really knotty problem here of time. One way
8 of gaining more time for the presentation of each case - and you can take
9 it there will be some -- some restriction on the time suggested will have
10 to be found - one way of gaining time would be not to have opening
12 Now, again, it's your right to make them. It's for you to decide
13 whether they're really of any value; and bearing in mind that everyone
14 will inevitably make a closing submission, I have to question whether in
15 all cases an opening speech is of value. Now, we can come to that and you
16 may have time to consider it because we will need to schedule opening
17 speeches as of today.
18 For the moment, can I find out from you, first of all,
19 Mr. O'Sullivan, whatever happens, do you intend to make an opening speech?
20 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you give me an indication of the likely length
22 of that?
23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: It would be less than one hour.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Petrovic.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yes, we intend to
1 give an opening statement, and it will not take longer than half an hour.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, likewise, we intend to
4 give an opening statement. As for the estimate, around one hour.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Aleksic.
6 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I believe we will not be having an
7 opening statement, unless Mr. Ackerman decides otherwise, in which case it
8 will not be dramatically longer than the estimates given by Mr. Petrovic
9 and Mr. Visnjic.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to ask for
12 a clarification. When speaking of an opening statement, do I understand
13 you right that they come before each individual Defence case or is that an
14 opening statement that is to be given before the beginning of the entire
15 Defence case?
16 JUDGE BONOMY: In view of the lack of -- well, the fact that there
17 are almost no witnesses presented in common, we think that you should make
18 your opening speeches immediately before you present your own case. So
19 yours will be after you've heard already four defence cases.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] By your leave, Your Honours, I
21 discussed this yesterday with my client. If this can save us some time,
22 let me follow the example of Mr. Pavkovic's Defence and say that most
23 likely we will not be having an opening statement; but should we decide
24 otherwise it will be very brief, not longer than half an hour.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
1 Mr. Lukic -- Mr. Ivetic.
2 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, at this point, we do intend to make an
3 opening statement, and it will be sometime approximately between an hour
4 and an hour and a half, at the most.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.
6 We turn now to the 65 ter filings. A couple of matters arise.
7 Mr. Bakrac, you have used a description of a witness as 5D1, which
8 makes the witness sound like an exhibit, but presumably what's behind that
9 is the possibility of a pseudonym for this witness.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think we put a
11 pseudonym SD1.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, it's SD. I assumed the S was a 5 because of
13 the practice that we have. That gives rise --
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] At any rate, it is probative, but
15 it's not an exhibit. It's a witness.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: You will require to make an application. In fact,
17 an application should have been made before now to rectify this. So how
18 quickly will that be done? Indeed, these protective measures require to
19 be authorised by the Court, including the use of a pseudonym.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Monday, at the latest.
21 Is that all right?
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Yes. But it is a matter of urgency. That's
23 all we wanted to say. Thank you.
24 Mr. Ivetic, you have a number of witnesses described as PJP
1 MR. IVETIC: That's correct. I believe the total number is six,
2 if I'm reading my list correctly. We've been trying to ascertain who was
3 the commander of two -- of some particular "cetas" or units during the
4 relevant time-period. We have submitted, some time ago actually, a
5 request to the government authorities in Serbia to give us an official
6 declaration or information as to the identities of these persons.
7 Unfortunately, we have not received back formal response to that.
8 We hope to get that actually any time now. We don't know what would be
9 taking that long to get that response, but once we do we can present that
10 information to the Prosecution. And we've tried to identify the specific
11 units involved so that at least the Prosecution has some forewarning of
12 the type of individual that would be called.
13 And, again, we -- at this point, we don't know until we find out
14 who these individuals are, obviously, we have not spoken to them, so we
15 don't know necessarily if all six will still testify. But we believe we
16 have pin-pointed that they might -- given their position might have
17 relevant information relating to the case. But without knowing who they
18 are and without speaking with them, we can't be certain that they will
19 actually be called to testify at this point in time.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, on that point?
21 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we're satisfied that they're making an
22 effort to get those things as soon as possible. While on the subject,
23 there was one other on the Lukic list, number. 108 There are two
24 individual's names as either/or one of those two will come; and if there's
25 any additional information we can have about that, we would appreciate it.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
2 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I can give additional information as
3 soon as I see which order they were listed in. The first individual
4 Heinemann-Gruder Andreas is the one that I have been in contact with and
5 who will be the one that remains on the list, I guess. So Christian Wolf
6 Paes can be removed from the list.
7 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
8 JUDGE BONOMY: As you know, Mr. Ivetic, we were fairly flexible
9 with the Prosecution witnesses about whom there was some uncertainty in
10 relation to identification, and we will take the same approach on the
11 understanding that you're making every effort to identify these witnesses
12 as quickly as possible and give information to the Prosecution. There
13 will have to be some formal intimation of their identity when it's
14 discovered. You can check with court officer at the time you have that
15 information, whether it's simply a matter of e-mail or whether you need to
16 make a filing in relation to it.
17 The rule we made at the outset of the case about identifying
18 witnesses who will be called in the immediate and near future will
19 continue to apply and; therefore, on a Thursday, we would expect the
20 accused who's case is being presented at that time to tender a list
21 similar to that that the Prosecution tendered of the witnesses for the
22 following week. And we expect a monthly intimation in advance of the
23 witnesses, and that should be as close as possible to the order in which
24 they're likely to be led.
25 We see significant potential difficulties for the Defence in
1 scheduling witnesses who are likely to be here for a short time. The
2 Prosecution were not particularly good at scheduling witnesses and having
3 witnesses available to fill any gaps that might arise unexpectedly. Gaps
4 in the schedule are entirely foreseeable. They are not unforeseeable.
5 I appreciate that you don't have limitless resources behind you to
6 bring witnesses on a speculative basis that they might be taken within a
7 certain time, but there will be occasions in the presentation of the
8 Defence case when you will have to have a number of witnesses present.
9 The more witnesses that you're likely to be leading at any time,
10 the greater the possibility that one of them will not be able to give
11 evidence or that there will be a gap in the schedule. It's a vicious
12 circle that you will have to somehow or other cope with.
13 In the end, we did not have to make the decision about the
14 Prosecution case, whether we would hold the time lost against them, but
15 the time lost was a very significant factor and would have eaten up, more
16 or less, the balance of the time that was allocated to the Prosecution if
17 it had all been charged to them. So it's a big issue, and the bigger the
18 case you're presenting, then the more significant the problem.
19 I think we will have a significant debate about the time that
20 you're likely to require to present your cases. Before we turn to that
21 issue, is there any other matter that we can deal with fairly speedily
22 that any counsel has to raise?
23 Mr. Hannis.
24 MR. HANNIS: There is one matter with a particular witness on the
25 Sainovic list. They propose to call General Vasiljevic back; and as I
1 understand it, it's only regarding the diary excerpt. I'm opposed to
2 making him travel back here, Your Honour, for that. I'm willing to sit
3 down with Mr. Fila or Mr. Petrovic and speak to the witness on the phone.
4 If it is only regarding that issue, it is something, I think, we can
5 probably resolve without him having to return.
6 But I think it is unduly burdensome on him to make him to return
7 again, when he was here for a week. I realise it relates to something
8 that was submitted after he left, but still it seems to be a very tiny
9 issue that we ought to be able to resolve without requiring him to attend.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Petrovic.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we're certainly
12 prepared to consider this proposal, but it could be perhaps supplemented
13 by adding that the right solution would be to have Vasiljevic give a
14 statement under 92 ter. And should that be acceptable for the opposing
15 side then it could be admitted into evidence. This could probably be the
16 most efficient way to solve this problem, and we will discuss this both
17 with Mr. Hannis and with Mr. Vasiljevic.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. It would be helpful
19 to do this quickly, sooner rather than later, because your case is going
20 to be on fairly quickly, and there is a court recess between now and the
21 presentation of these cases. So there is a limitation on the time
22 available to deal with certain things, but thank you for your cooperation.
23 Well, in the event that there is no issue to be dealt with
24 speedily, we'll move to the question of timing. All I want to say about
25 it at this stage is that when we left the Prosecution case, we thought
1 that there was a fair prospect of the evidence in the case being completed
2 somewhere between December and March on the basis of the submissions that
3 were made to us. The anticipated or estimated time now suggested, if used
4 in the same way as the Prosecution used time, would suggest a Defence case
5 that could last in excess of two years. So there is a problem to be
7 Perhaps the first thing to find out is from Mr. Hannis, and that
8 is, in general, what proportion of the time taken in chief do you
9 anticipate will be necessary in cross-examination?
10 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, that's hard for me to estimate.
11 At this point, we haven't -- we have no statements of any witnesses. They
12 all are proposed to be live witnesses. I don't know whether that will
13 make my cross-examination time longer or shorter, not having a statement.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: You do have fairly extensive 65 ter summaries for
16 MR. HANNIS: Yes. Many of them are quite detailed, and we do
17 appreciate that. I guess I had anticipated that, you know, our time on
18 cross-examination would be following the same general rule that you
19 followed in the Prosecution case, that we would be allowed an equal amount
20 of time to the time spent on direct.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Thank you.
22 Mr. O'Sullivan, the first question we have in mind is that -- is
23 that of the accused whose case is not being presented. Is it likely, in
24 relation to a significant number of witnesses, that other Defence counsel
25 will have questions for these witnesses?
1 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I think, in all likelihood, there will be
2 cross-examination by the co-accused of certain witnesses, surely. Our --
3 I see on your agenda you ask the order of cross-examination. We would
4 propose having the other accused have the opportunity to cross-examine the
5 witness first, following the indictment, before the Prosecution.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. We were more concerned there with the order
7 in which the Defence cases would be presented.
8 It may be that Mr. Ivetic can help a little further.
9 Do you envisage cross-examining many witnesses from the other
11 MR. IVETIC: I don't know about many. There are definitely some
12 that, based upon the summaries, I would probably cross-examine, but I
13 don't envision lengthy cross-examinations at this stage, based upon the
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, in that case, we know what each accused
16 estimates will be necessary. If the Prosecution have equivalent time to
17 cross-examine, then we can double that estimate, and something will have
18 to be taken into account for cross-examination by co-accused and general
19 administrative problems that will inevitably arise. It's a substantial
21 And I turn to Mr. Hannis first of all for his comments on how
22 we're going to deal with this.
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I was thinking about that. In some
24 cases, cross-examination by the co-accused may reduce the amount of time
25 of cross-examine I have, but I can also envision knowing how we lawyers
1 are that it may increase the time that I have for cross-examination.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
3 MR. HANNIS: It's --
4 JUDGE BONOMY: But you understand the starting point for this
5 debate, assuming the -- it's in excess of 500 hours that has been
6 estimated for the evidence in chief of the Defence witnesses, plus the
7 experts who are rather unspecific at the moment.
8 Now, we have to live in the real world, I'm afraid, and we have to
9 be realistic about getting this case completed, while at the same time
10 giving an adequate opportunity to the Defence to present their case. Now,
11 it's just impossible to allocate that length of time. It's not wrong to
12 say that if it was utilised the way it was during the Prosecution -- you
13 had 170 hours of evidence, and that took nine months. And if you take
14 that approach and multiply -- do the arithmetic in relation to over 500
15 hours, you can see where you very quickly come to two and a half years.
16 On the other hand, if the time is used absolutely efficiently and
17 none is lost, then roughly half the time proposed -- in fact, a little
18 less than half the time proposed would get us to, perhaps, March.
19 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I see the figures for the time used,
20 and, yes, we did use 169 hours. I see that almost 150 per cent of that,
21 236 hours, was spent on Defence cross-examination, and about a half of our
22 figure, 80 hours, was court questions and administrative matters. I
23 don't -- I think it will be the rare witness where we'll -- well, it may
24 be the rare witness where we're asking to have more than equal time for
25 cross-examination, and I think in many cases we'll spend less time than
1 equal time on cross-examination.
2 We do understand that we can probably make our point without
3 having to cover every single question that has been asked of a witness on
4 direct. And Mr. Stamp and the rest of the team and I will try to make our
5 best efforts to be efficient in that regard and make good judgements.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
7 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
8 JUDGE BONOMY: I think the best approach to submissions from the
9 accused is to start at the highest level and work down to the lowest. So,
10 Mr. Ivetic, we'd like to hear from you first of all.
11 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honour, we were actually working to get
12 the total number of hours. For some reason, the copy I have here does not
13 have the total hours for our witnesses. I can report that we --
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Yours is about 184.
15 MR. IVETIC: 184. And that, again, includes individuals that we
16 are not at this point certain will actually testify.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: But it is longer than the whole Prosecution case.
18 MR. IVETIC: I grant that, and I think we were aware of that at
19 the time we filed the submission. One caveat to that is that I believe we
20 still think we can finish our case, as we have been saying from day one,
21 in three months. That would be approximately 66 working days. The
22 problem we have is that there is some degree overlap with some of our
23 witnesses, where at this point in time we are not sure that all witnesses
24 will come to testify -- will be able to come to testify.
25 So we do have some overlap built into our witness list to try and
1 cover all the facts and areas that we need to cover. So there -- we might
2 not need -- as a matter of fact, we are pretty confident we will not need
3 the 180-odd hours that are specified.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Even using that time efficiently, though, it would
5 take in excess of six months rather than the three months that you are
6 talking about. Can I ask you a rather different question, which will give
7 you an indication of one possible way of dealing with this. Is there any
8 reason why, in relation to the question of individual criminal
9 responsibility, we should expect any of the cases to be longer than
10 others; or on that issue, ought we to expect that the cases will be
11 roughly of a similar length?
12 MR. IVETIC: I don't know. I can only speak for our case. I
13 don't know about the co-accused.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: You know the case overall. Do you see any
15 particular reason why one accused would need more time than any of the
16 others to deal with the question of individual criminal responsibility?
17 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. We are the only police defendants
18 in the case. There are three army defendants and two political defendants
19 who theoretically could -- I don't know to what extent they've been able
20 to divvy up the responsibility of covering all the geographic and
21 time-periods that are covered in the indictment and by the evidence that's
22 been led by the Prosecution.
23 But we feel as the only police witness [sic], we an awful lot of
24 ground to cover. And, indeed, with our witness list, we've tried to cover
25 all of the SUPs that cover the various municipalities in Kosovo-Metohija
1 and have tried to cover the time-periods that are relevant to the
2 indictment. So, in that sense, we think we do have a little bit more work
3 to do in defence than -- than any of the individual other accused, and I
4 think that the number of witnesses we have on our list shows that, albeit
5 that we do have some duplication built into our witness list.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: The reason we're asking -- the reason we're asking
7 these questions is that it may be necessary to make a decision about this
8 now rather than later. It was easier in the Prosecution case to wait and
9 see how things were going, rather than make a decision about time at the
10 beginning, but it's important here that we're fair among each -- among the
11 accused, as well as fair in dividing the case between Prosecution and
12 Defence. One reason, perhaps, for not doing it, of course, is that the
13 shorter estimates are the earlier ones; but I think to avoid any
14 difficulty, there may be good reasons for making an order about the
15 timing, always bearing in mind that we have to take account of
16 developments later.
17 Now, there isn't any understanding among you, is there, that one
18 accused rather than the others will take on the issue of crime base? Is
19 it just that it's more important to your case that we see you dealing with
20 that to a greater extent than others?
21 MR. IVETIC: Correct. We see it being more important to our case
22 at this stage.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.
24 Mr. Bakrac.
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we tried to assess our
1 time for examination-in-chief, and we've come to the figure of 122 hours,
2 and that would be the optimal variant. I do believe and hope that the
3 time in the end of examining each and every witness will be shortened
4 towards the end of the case and throughout. We do not share Mr. Ivetic's
5 problem, or rather, Defence of General Lukic. Although, you will hear two
6 Defence cases before we go in terms of the accused from the military, and
7 having in mind that there were 30 brigades directly subordinated to the
8 Pristina Corps from the armed forces which dictates to us that we bring
9 forth the witnesses we foresaw according to what was specified in the
11 We might consider an option to take evidence from some other
12 witnesses in some other form, for example, according to Rule 92 bis,
13 should we realise that we would be short of time to present the entire
14 case viva voce. And as Mr. Ivetic specified for their Defence case, I too
15 believe that ours should not take longer than two months -- excuse me,
16 three months.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, if cases continue at that length, you know,
18 you're very quickly at two years. Three months here is not three months.
19 Out of 52 weeks in the year, the court only sits for a maximum of 44.
20 There's been no effort, as far as we can tell, made to make use of the
21 provisions for presentation of evidence in writing. There must be plenty
22 of scope for that. There's no indication of a significant number of
23 witnesses under Rule 92.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as I've mentioned, we
25 will discuss a possibility with our client to offer certain evidence
1 pursuant to 92 bis. I tried to do some calculation. Five working days,
2 times four hours a day, which is 20 days per month equals to 80 hours per
3 month. In three months, that is 240 hours. So 120 witnesses, together
4 with cross-examination, amounts to 240 hours. That was what we based our
5 calculations on.
6 I'll try to shorten that time, but as I've said that would be in
7 the best-case scenario. I can foresee that certain witnesses can be
8 shorten by an hour or so and then the amount would be brought down to a
9 number which would enable us to complete our work in three months at the
10 most, perhaps even shorter.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: If we decided on a global figure for the
12 presentation of the whole Defence case, would that give rise to great
13 difficulty among you in trying to agree how it should be divided?
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do not believe that
15 that should be a problem. Until now our cooperation was good; however,
16 you started with the most voluminous Defence cases. So, at first, it
17 might appear humongous; but as we move along, I foresee that it will be
18 shortened with each new case. Perhaps we can move along those lines.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. You can sit down.
20 Mr. Aleksic.
21 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in this phase of the
22 proceedings, we tried to shortened our list which originally comprised 40
23 witnesses. We managed to bring the figure down to 14, one of which is
24 General Pavkovic himself. And for his examination-in-chief, we foresaw 15
25 hours. We will bear in mind the remarks you uttered this morning at the
1 beginning of the conference as regards the testimony of the accused. It
2 would have more weight in -- should each of the accused testified after
3 the opening of their case. It was our position that General Pavkovic
4 should testify last, and we might not need 15 hours for his
5 examination-in-chief, first and foremost, because he gave a detailed
6 interview, a statement, to the OTP.
7 As far as the other witnesses go, I believe that our Defence case
8 will not commence before the 1st of October, according to some estimates.
9 Therefore, we will have time to work on it between now and October to try
10 and shorten the time, for example, down to 60 hours or so. In any case,
11 we will endeavour to be more efficient during that period in order to
12 bring down the number of hours needed for examination-in-chief.
13 As you were able to observe, all of our witnesses are from the
14 command of the 3rd Army, apart from two or three people who come from
15 other units. We tried to be as concise as possible, and we will continue
16 to do so in order to bring the figure even further down.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
18 Mr. Visnjic.
19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we stated our position
20 in writing in terms of the amount required in our brief. The only thing I
21 can add is that we've computed the time for some witnesses which should be
22 less than if they were going to give their testimony viva voce. Some of
23 the 92 bis [as interpreted] witnesses might have to appear viva voce
24 because we will seek to have a number of documents admitted through those
25 witnesses. And should that be the case, we might need even more time than
1 had originally been planned in the brief. However, that does not remove
2 the possibility that there be certain corrections made to the time needed.
3 I see in the transcript in line 22 -- sorry, page 22, line 11, I
4 think I said Rule 92 rather than 92 bis. What I actually had in mind was
5 92 ter. We will have a combination of that and viva voce with several
6 witnesses, as regards that type of testimony.
7 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there, in fact, Mr. Visnjic, any indication that
9 there will be 92 ter witnesses in your 65 ter list?
10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, but I think we'll
11 work on that.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it was something that you were required to do
13 by this stage.
14 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour.
15 However, when we discussed that a few months before -- a few months
16 earlier about the break needed between the close of the Prosecution case
17 and the commencement of the beginning of the Defence case, I think I
18 mentioned we will use 92 ter with some of our witnesses, although the
19 pause at that time was foreseen at three months.
20 During the time given, we physically were unable to process a
21 sufficient number of witnesses by using that rule. Therefore, we will be
22 forced, I think, to move some of the witnesses from the viva voce to 92
23 ter option, and that's why we provided a number of comprehensive summaries
24 by way of introduction and to warn the OTP as to the type of information
25 these witnesses will testify.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] There's just another couple of
3 things I wanted to mention.
4 As regards our position concerning the testimony of General
5 Ojdanic, who is also only the witness list, I can tell you right now that
6 the entire case was structured in the way that General Ojdanic should
7 appear the last. When we planned the entire case, we wanted to introduce
8 a significant number of documents through other witnesses, which in turn
9 were seeking to shorten the examination-in-chief of General Ojdanic, while
10 at the same time allowing the OTP to cross-examine. What I can tell you
11 now, that should General Ojdanic, indeed, testify in his case, he will
12 appear last.
13 There was another thing I wanted to say about the proposed
14 shortening of time. It is our position that there are certain teams,
15 Defence teams, that will need more time, and first and foremost teams of
16 General Lukic and Lazarevic's Defence. However, we will abide by your
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you saying that a global period of time for the
19 presentation of the case would be capable of division by agreement? I'm
20 not --
21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I suppose we are able to reach an
22 agreement on that, unless we fail; then it would be up to the Bench, if
23 you want to direct us in that regard.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
25 Unless you have something in particular to say, Mr. Petrovic, we
1 don't really need to hear from you.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. It's all there.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: And, Mr. O'Sullivan, the position is the same.
4 That's not to say that what you propose will necessarily be accepted in
5 its entirety; but if it's modified, it will be to a limited extent. And
6 any modification, as we've always said, will be subject to variation if
7 good cause can be demonstrated for giving it.
8 We will retire at some stage to consider this issue further.
9 Is there -- you've already made submissions on it, Mr. Hannis.
10 I'm assuming you've said all you want to say on that question.
11 MR. HANNIS: Just one question I had, I guess, in terms of
12 preparation and planning our time. If you could give us an estimate of
13 how much time you would allow for cross-examination by co-accused in
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Speaking for myself for the moment, that's one I
16 think we would need to decide in the light of experience, and we've got no
17 experience to go on at the moment.
18 Mr. Petrovic.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by your leave, I do
20 have something to ask of you, and it pertains to our Defence case which
21 should come second. In view of your decision on the length of each of the
22 cases, we would kindly ask that a precise date be set for the commencement
23 of the second Defence case. I know it's increasingly difficult with the
24 third, fourth, and so on; but if there is an estimate of how long the
25 first Defence case should take by Milutinovic team, then perhaps we might
1 be forewarned.
2 If they are able to say it will be -- it will last one or two
3 weeks, including cross-examination, then we can plan the commencement of
4 our case, precisely for the reason mentioned by you today, which is not to
5 save time to save time. If we know we go on the 19th of August, we will
6 bring our witnesses for the 19th of August. Unless we are given the
7 precise date, we would find ourselves in a situation to secure the
8 presence of witnesses here from one day to the next. Therefore, I would
9 kindly ask that we try and go for a specific date so as not to waste any
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
12 Because we will be sitting during what's the normal court recess,
13 the opportunity is immediately available to sit for longer hours. And in
14 the early stages, we will be endeavouring to sit on the schedule that
15 found us in court from 9.00 to 3.30, the first two weeks for sure, because
16 that is recess, probably longer. But inevitably, that opportunity will
17 disappear fairly soon, I suspect.
18 We're also likely to -- not to sit one Monday per month, which was
19 what happened latterly in the Prosecution case. There will be a one-week
20 break in -- probably in October. We may be able to give you a date for
21 that today. The winter recess is likely to be as formally announced - I
22 offhand don't know when it is - but it's likely to be, is it, the three
23 weeks or so that are fixed by the Tribunal.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: If it pleases the Court. Can we shortly go into
2 closed session. I would like to raise an issue with what you were just
3 talking, and we need to go into closed session for that, as it concerns
4 the health of one of our witnesses.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.
6 [Private session]
11 Page 12836 redacted. Private session
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
22 Finally, on this question of timing, can we anticipate the greater
23 use of Rule 92 for the presentation of some evidence or is the decision to
24 use 92 going to depend on the extent to which we restrict the hours
25 available for the presentation of the Defence case? Could you deal with
1 that, Mr. Ivetic, please, first of all.
2 MR. IVETIC: We definitely can use 92 bis or even ter. The main
3 problem we had was with the number of witnesses. We were unable to
4 interview them in as great detail as necessary to get statements done
5 within the time-period that we had, the little over, I guess, it was
6 approximately a month that we had for preparations, given first locating
7 the witnesses and then talking with them to find out what they remember,
8 and then going into deeper discussions with them.
9 It was just impossible to generate proper 92 bis or ter statements
10 for the Prosecution during the time-period that we had, so that's why our
11 list is devoid of any -- we just put everyone as a viva voce for this
12 point with the aim of when the time came between -- well, before the
13 commencement of our case, that we would make a determination and present a
14 portion of them as 92 bis statements, especially some of the witnesses
15 that are scheduled to be for very limited -- limited scope.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic, our lack of generosity in the time for
17 preparation of the Defence case, that theme is becoming a bit of a cracked
18 record. We know your position on that, and it doesn't need to be repeated
19 at every opportunity. The only question we have to address at the moment,
20 or that we require you to address, is the extent to which you anticipate
21 that Rule 92 can be used.
22 MR. IVETIC: Well, we anticipate it can be used because our list,
23 as you indicated, has approximately 180-odd some hours listed for our
24 witnesses. Based upon our estimate and our anticipation, as we said, we'd
25 like to finish the case in three months, which by our accounts gives us
1 about 130-odd hours of direct and the Prosecution equal time for cross,
2 and we think that can be done.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: A lot of your estimates are quite short, where an
4 hour for some cases, half an hour.
5 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Is that because you anticipate some of these being
7 92 ter witnesses?
8 MR. IVETIC: Some of those, yes. Probably most of those that are
9 half an hour would be the ones that we can designate for 92 bis.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: There are also witnesses who have given evidence
11 before at this Tribunal, but no hint, I think, in any of the lists that
12 any transcripts will be tendered. For example, is Stevanovic on your
14 MR. IVETIC: Yes. He is on our list.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: General Delic is another. There's a few --
16 MR. IVETIC: Delic is not on our list.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: No. He's on another list. There are a number of
18 witnesses that have been here before --
19 MR. IVETIC: That is correct.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: -- but no hint that transcripts will be used to
21 expedite matters. Can we expect any reference to transcripts in due
23 MR. IVETIC: That hasn't been considered, to be quite honest, Your
25 JUDGE BONOMY: One of the disappointments in the Prosecution case
1 was the failure to, perhaps, edit the transcripts to fit the particular
2 circumstances of this case. And I'm not suggesting that you just throw
3 transcripts at us, but selective transcripts may well assist you.
4 MR. IVETIC: Yes. The only one that comes to mind that you
5 mentioned was Stevanovic, who we have down for one hour.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well --
7 MR. IVETIC: We would want to use some transcripts. But the
8 problem with the transcripts from the Milosevic case is that often times
9 they're rather voluminous, and, in my opinion, some of the matters that
10 are discussed are not properly brought out. So it might confuse everyone
11 if we have to read 30 hours of testimony to get something that could be
12 presented either in a 92 bis statement or live in a much shorter
13 time-period much more relevant to this case which is, of course, somewhat
14 different than the case that was before Mr. Milosevic.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
16 I have one other matter to deal with, but that is all on the
17 subject of timing, unless any counsel has anything else to say on it.
18 The final matter to mention at this moment is the question of
19 translations. We've greatly appreciated the efforts that have been made
20 to find innovative ways of dealing with the translation problem, and we're
21 grateful to counsel for that. We are alert to the difficulty and are able
22 to assist where problems can be identified. I think our intervention does
23 assist in expediting the process. We can, I think, help identify where
24 priorities lie in a way that perhaps you can't yourselves in dealing
25 directly with the translation service.
1 So we urge you to be ever-vigilant on that problem. We do not
2 want the absence of translated material to be a major disruptive factor,
3 and it's much more important now. The further on you get in a case, the
4 less time you have to resolve translation issues. So they become even
5 more urgent. So please enlist our assistance, as required, to deal with
7 Unless there are any other issues that anyone wishes to address,
8 then we would propose adjourning. We will resume at 11.00 and deal with
9 such matters as we can deal with.
10 --- Recess taken at 10.13 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 11.10 a.m.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry we took a little longer than anticipated,
13 but these are not easy matters to resolve quickly.
14 Mr. Zecevic.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, to be of assistance to the Court, if I
16 may make a quick submission on the issue of interposing the witnesses, if
17 it pleases the Court.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, first of all, interposing the witnesses in our
20 Defence case will really destroy the structure of our defence, as we have
21 structured it. On the other hand, the interposing would really make not
22 that much difference, because if we calculate -- roughly calculated, it is
23 one hour per day. So, basically, in three days, we will be finishing with
24 these two witnesses, and then still there would be another week and a half
25 to -- that we will have to probably sit in only in the mornings. Sorry.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: No. As we said, earlier, the decision to interpose
2 a witness could only be made in the context of the circumstances at the
3 time. The only point that emerges for decision at the moment is the
4 number of witnesses you need to have available. Now, the sad news you've
5 given us about one of your witnesses suggests to me the distinct
6 possibility that on the first day of the trial there could be a problem,
7 and you would have to have your other witnesses available to deal with
8 that problem.
9 And, indeed, in light of what you've told us, it may be that
10 Mr. Petrovic should have his witnesses there on day one also. You only
11 have three witnesses, and we would not like to see a significant
12 disruption right at the beginning.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: So we will make decisions of the nature you're
15 raising with us only at the time, and the guidance we give you now is to
16 have your witnesses available just in case we need to deal with them in a
17 different order. We would hear your arguments for and against that at the
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
21 And as far as you are concerned, Mr. Petrovic, rather than insist
22 on your witnesses being here on the first day of the trial, the best
23 indication I can give you is that your case would not begin before the 8th
24 of August. But the you may be better informed than we are at that stage,
25 because if it's clear that Professor Markovic will be giving evidence,
1 then you could make a judgement. We wouldn't fault you for making a
2 reasonably based judgement. But you are in a difficult position, I think,
3 and I can't give you any clearer indication than that.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may, by your
5 leave, I wish to raise a few points. You have certainly seen that the
6 people on our list of witnesses were high-ranking people and still are
7 high-ranking people. And, therefore, they have many official and personal
8 responsibilities. Therefore, it's very difficult for us to leave them in
9 the dark.
10 When we planned our Defence case, we contacted our colleagues and
11 kept in mind their estimated length of their presentation of their cases,
12 and that amounted to about two weeks. Therefore, when we spoke to our
13 witnesses and asked them to set aside some time to come and testify before
14 this Tribunal, we always indicated that this would be after the 19th of
15 August, and that is the time they agreed to. So any change in this might
16 put us in a situation where due to their professional and official
17 obligations and prior commitments, they might be unable to come and
18 testify here.
19 Also by your leave, to the best of my knowledge, the usual
20 practice before the Tribunal in cases with more than one accused is to
21 respected quite strictly the order of presentation of cases. I may not be
22 fully conversant with the entire jurisprudence, but as far as I know the
23 order has always been respected. I even know of a case where there were
24 proposals put forward to reverse the order, but the Chamber accepted the
25 arguments of the Defence and rejected such a proposal. Therefore, I feel
1 there should be a clear distinction between the Sainovic Defence case and
2 the Milutinovic Defence case.
3 Also, I am not saying this will actually be the case, but
4 potentially there is a possibility that the two Defence teams present
5 contradictory evidence, and this will put the Sainovic Defence in a
6 disadvantage. In the Mrksic case, there was also an idea put forward to
7 change the order because of the illness of a counsel, but the Trial
8 Chamber accepted the objections of the Defence and rejected this proposal.
9 We would not like to be in a situation where we are unable to meet
10 our obligations or where the rights of our clients are put in question.
11 They should have the right to present their case. Thank you.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Two matters, Mr. Petrovic. One, if any accused can
13 demonstrate that altering the order in which the cases are presented would
14 cause prejudice, then the Court would give effect to any measures
15 necessary to eliminate or otherwise reduce the prejudice. And that may be
16 demonstrated by the particular way in which you've structured your case
17 because of the order in which the Defence cases will be presented.
18 On the other hand, the fact that you are the second accused and
19 Mr. Milutinovic is the first accused is a matter of pure chance. And by
20 the same token, as you suggest that you would be prejudiced if there were
21 contradictions between the two cases by coming second, then he's obviously
22 prejudiced by coming first. So general propositions of that nature won't
23 weigh very heavily with the Court, but particular submissions relating to
24 actual prejudice will.
25 Now, it was unwise, if you were aware of the problem that
1 Mr. O'Sullivan may have with a witness, it was unwise of you to reach the
2 agreement you have reached with your witnesses. For example, if
3 Mr. O'Sullivan's principal witness is ill for a significant period of
4 time, it's unlikely, unless there's a good reason for it, that we would
5 sit back and twiddle our thumbs until he recovered.
6 You have Mr. Sainovic as a witness. You didn't indicate when he
7 would give evidence, and I don't fault you for that, but there's a
8 distinct way of occupying any necessary time in the first week if it
9 should come available. But you would be very unwise not to warn your
10 witnesses of the need to be available in the second week and even possibly
11 earlier as I indicated to you.
12 I can give you no better indication than that. You have a number
13 of witnesses. Hopefully you can make arrangements with them that will be
14 suitable. You know very well that the Prosecution did not manage to lead
15 the case in the order of evidence that they would ideally have liked; and
16 in the real world, that's a problem we all have to deal with on a daily
18 The Trial Chamber is going to make an order determining the amount
19 of time available for the presentation of the Defence case, and it will
20 involve a significant reduction of the estimated time presented indeed the
21 Rule 65 ter submissions. Before we finally decide this, does anyone else
22 wish to make any further submission? Very well.
23 We consider that there is a significant scope for endeavouring to
24 have exhibits admitted without these exhibits being spoken to by
25 witnesses. There is a huge number of exhibits proposed in the Defence
1 case, and some effort has to be made by a number of means to secure the
2 admission of the necessary documents as expeditiously as possible. They
3 might be admitted by agreement, for example; they might be admitted as the
4 result of the determination of a motion for admission of documents from
5 the bar table, as has happened; they could be admitted in the context of a
6 92 ter statement rather than explored with the witness. And your
7 ingenuity will, no doubt, find other ways of obtaining their admission.
8 We recognise that sometimes presenting documents on a
9 free-standing basis may not give the Trial Chamber the ideal picture. So
10 while encouraging you to seek ways of having exhibits admitted without a
11 witness speaking to them, we also encourage you to tender, insofar as you
12 can, any necessary explanation. And 92 ter is obviously one way of doing
13 that, but the there are others. A motion from the bar table can
14 adequately explain the purpose for which the exhibit is tendered and the
15 relevance to the case.
16 We also consider there is substantial scope for the presentation
17 of the evidence of a considerable number of witnesses through the various
18 parts of Rule 92 that we have been discussing, and we encourage you to
19 make use of that. The very fact that there are a number of ways of
20 presenting evidence in writing at this Tribunal means that it's open to
21 the Trial Chamber to restrict the time necessary for the presentation of
22 the case.
23 Before we broke, the estimates for completion of the evidence
24 ranged between December of this year and March of next year. We thought
25 that trying to complete the evidence in this case by March of next year
1 was a very reasonable approach to it, and we had the impression that that
2 was the general approach of counsel also. So that's been in our minds as
3 a reasonable target, and we have reflected on it today and we still
4 believe it's a reasonable target.
5 To achieve it, but using every hour that would be available, would
6 allow about 580 hours. Once you make allowance for potential
7 cross-examination by co-accused, for administrative matters, bearing in
8 mind that we've become much more efficient at reducing the time spent on
9 administrative matters, you're talking about somewhere less than 500 hours
10 remaining, and that has to be divided between Prosecution and Defence.
11 And we see no reason why the Prosecution should not have the same time to
12 cross as the Defence have in chief. So, in the end, we see the maximum
13 time that could be allocated to the Defence for the presentation of your
14 cases, and this is a global figure, as 240 hours.
15 You can also see, of course, that if that was equally divided,
16 that the first two accused would have spare time, a significant amount of
17 spare time. So this is not intended to indicate an even division of the
18 time among the accused is expected; however, we do believe that the
19 indications given this morning provide a basis for confidence that you can
20 reach agreement on the division of this time. And we encourage you to do
21 that. Of course, if you can't, you much approach us to see if we can
22 resolve it, but not on the basis that the only solution is more time. As
23 in the case of the Prosecution, however, we wish to make it absolutely
24 clear that where there is justification for increasing time in any
25 circumstances, then we will give serious consideration to increasing it,
1 but there must always be a cause for doing so.
2 We don't think it would necessarily assist you to give any more
3 information to you about the basis on which we've arrived at that figure.
4 I think that's as complete a picture as in the overall context of this
5 case as we could give, and we hope it's some guidance that will enable you
6 to reach agreement.
7 We intend not to sit one Monday per month, as we had been
8 requested before, and that will, I think, to bring a measure of regularity
9 to our practice, would be the first Monday. So the first one would be, I
10 think, it's the 3rd of September. The week beginning Monday, the 8th of
11 October, we will not sit.
12 The sitting schedule will show sittings from 9.00 till 3.30 in the
13 early stages, and as regularly as we can find that time, always on the
14 understanding that there will be shorter sittings, the standard half-day
15 sittings of an equivalent number, as again we were requested to arrange.
16 But it's now going to be much more difficult to have a regular basis of
17 alternate weeks, for example, of that scheme because of the number of
18 cases that will be in active trial during the period from August onwards.
19 The first two accused will be required to tender lists of
20 witnesses in accordance with the earlier orders we made, in view of the
21 potential difficulty facing the first accused. Thereafter, we expect you
22 simply to follow the routine that was followed in the conduct of the
23 Prosecution case.
24 It is impossible to give dates at this stage for the commencement
25 of any of the other cases that could be regarded as having any certainty
1 about them, but you have all demonstrated throughout a distinct
2 willingness to cooperate with each other in identifying how things should
3 be done in general and when things should be done. And, therefore, we
4 rely on you as a group of responsible Defence counsel, along with
5 Mr. Hannis and his team, to identify dates as best you can with a view to
6 ensuring that all time is efficiently used.
7 These are, I think, all the matters that the Trial Chamber
8 requires to deal with at this stage, unless there is anything any counsel
9 wishes us to address.
10 Mr. Hannis.
11 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, you indicated that they first two
12 accused should submit those list of witnesses. Can you indicate what date
13 by which they should file that?
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Give me a moment.
15 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 JUDGE BONOMY: We discussed -- yes. We discussed the monthly
18 lists as being required by the 30th of July, but these lists are such that
19 the position's already pretty clear to you, Mr. Hannis. I don't think
20 there's much of an issue here. And as far as the order of the witnesses
21 is concerned, then the normal practice was the Thursday before the Monday
22 on which the witness at the earliest would be led. So that must be about
23 the 2nd of August, is it?
24 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: So you will get a weekly list, starting from the
1 2nd of August; and, I think, for the avoidance of doubt, we should require
2 an earlier monthly list from both first accused.
3 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. And as I recall, it seemed to me
4 that we were required to file two months in advance. We were supposed to
5 file, before the end of August, the list for September and October.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
7 MR. HANNIS: No?
8 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm being told one month. You must just have been
9 very generous.
10 MR. HANNIS: I'll check, Your Honour. And I agree, we have a
11 fairly good picture of what the first month will be between the first two
13 JUDGE BONOMY: I think you may be right, though, in spite of what
14 I'm hearing from in front, because if it's the end of the month, it's not
15 really very helpful to get the on the 30th of July the one for August,
16 except in this case you still have a good number of days before the
17 evidence begins, but that's different in other months. Whatever the rule
18 was, and that will be confirmed by e-mail later today, will continue to
19 apply during the Defence case.
20 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
21 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, just one additional thing. There were
22 the two pending motions for provisional release. I don't know if Your
23 Honours were going to take that up now, but it was on the agenda.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: The motions for provisional release are being dealt
25 with in writing, and that is what will happen in relation to those which
1 are outstanding.
2 Well, thank you very much for your assistance. We now adjourn
3 until the 6th of August.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.35 a.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Monday, the 6th day of
6 August, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.