1 Wednesday, 3 October 2001
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 4.30 p.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the Registrar call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Case number
8 IT-00-39 & 40-PT, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik and Biljana
10 JUDGE MAY: May I have the appearances.
11 MR. HARMON: Good afternoon, Judge May. My name is Mark Harmon.
12 Assisting me today is Mr. Alan Tieger.
13 MR. BRASHICH: Deyan Brashich for the Krajisnik defence. Good
14 afternoon, Your Honour.
15 MR. PAVICH: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Robert Pavich for the
16 Pavich defence, accompanied by Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan and Mr. Peter
18 JUDGE MAY: The purpose of this hearing is a Status Conference in
19 this case to monitor progress.
20 Mr. Harmon, if we could deal with the outstanding issues, or
21 Mr. Tieger. I don't know who is going to deal with it. Really, the
22 matters around which this hearing revolve are ensuring that we are as far
23 as possible on track to at least have the Prosecution case ready and the
24 matters which have to be disclosed, that the documents which are still
25 subject to translation are at least identified as far as possible so that
1 the Trial Chamber can give what assistance it can in that respect, and
2 then to fix a timetable for the start of the case, if possible.
3 Let me begin by saying this: that there is an issue at the
4 moment. It's not for resolution, but can I make it plain to the
5 Prosecution that in the final brief due on the -- now on the 31st of
6 October, the Trial Chamber will expect that the Prosecution case is put in
7 full in respect of the linkage of the accused to the various counts in the
8 indictment. A mere general statement of the Prosecution case, for
9 instance, the background and the law, while relevant, is not the core
10 issue now. The core issue is to explain how it is that the Prosecution
11 say that each of these accused is guilty on each count. The Defence
12 should understand that so that they can prepare their case, and of course
13 the Court should understand it in order that it can conduct the case. The
14 theory of responsibility, I think it is referred to, in some quarters, and
15 that should be plain.
16 Now, turning from there to matters of translation and disclosure.
17 Can we begin by the exhibits?
18 As I understand the position at the moment, there are just over
19 2.000 exhibits which have been identified. As I also understand it, most
20 of those have been translated but not all. It would be helpful to know
21 roughly how many are untranslated in order that we can perhaps approach
22 the Registry to try and see if more resources can't be made available in
23 order to have translation completed.
24 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, in trying to collect this data for this
25 Status Conference, I have been informed that the number of exhibits that
1 have been disclosed to date are 2.574, 209 of which remain untranslated.
2 JUDGE MAY: Let me just get that, 2.574 disclosed. Yes.
3 MR. HARMON: And that is only of the exhibits that have been
4 disclosed thus far. There have been another large number of exhibits that
5 have been identified and are in the queue for translation, and when we
6 receive those exhibits back from the Language Service Section, it's our
7 intention to disclose them upon receipt, and in that respect, we have been
8 engaged in that process as was promised at one of the earlier Status
9 Conferences, that is, when we receive from the Language Service Section,
10 we will disclose immediately. And we have made disclosures to the Defence
11 on December the 5th, 7th, 12th, 24th, and 26th, and it is our intention to
12 continue to making disclosures upon receipt of translated documents.
13 JUDGE MAY: Now, what sort of figure are we looking at here of
14 documents which are untranslated?
15 MR. HARMON: The number -- the figure I was given, the number of
16 documents that have been identified at this point as additional documents
17 are 2.801, and of that lot, 504 have been translated.
18 JUDGE MAY: These are all documents on which you intend to rely;
19 is that right?
20 MR. HARMON: Correct.
21 JUDGE MAY: So we are looking at a figure of 2.500 or so
22 untranslated documents.
23 MR. HARMON: By the current data available to me, that's correct.
24 Now, I can tell Your Honour - Mr. Tieger can expand on this - we
25 have taken efforts in-house to try to alleviate the problem that is
1 obviously inherent in not having translations. Some of these documents we
2 are prepared -- we have requested from the Language Service Section that
3 they give us only draft translations at this point in time, given the fact
4 that the Language Service Section drafts are quite accurate. That will
5 permit us to get more documents in the English language to the Defence,
6 and we will follow up with final translations after the 31st of October.
7 So that's one way we anticipate being able to increase the number of
8 translated documents that we can pass to the Defence.
9 JUDGE MAY: An issue arose about the core documents. Now, when
10 you disclose, on the 31st of October, your final list, which I anticipate
11 will be disclosed then, those core documents should be identified. I
12 think you've identified 400 and there are another 400 to be identified.
13 MR. HARMON: Yes. In respect of the actual number, we have had a
14 discussion previously. The number 800 is a number I inherited when I came
15 on the case at the conclusion of the Krstic case and the number of core
16 documents will be decided, obviously by me and by members of my trial
17 team, but we will be able identify what we consider to be core documents
18 in our 31 October final pre-trial brief.
19 JUDGE MAY: The next issue is videos. The original figure we had
20 were 20 videos, none transcribed, as I understand it, or translated. Now,
21 Mr. Harmon, can you tell me the latest position in regard to these video
23 MR. HARMON: Yes, I was informed by Ms. Featherstone that I would
24 be getting this inquiry at 2.00 this afternoon, and unfortunately the
25 person who is involved with running the video aspect of this pre-trial
1 preparation is in New York and unavailable to me. I can't give you any
2 numbers, but I'm prepared to give Your Honours a written submission with
3 regard to any question you may have about videos, upon his return, which
4 will be next week. What I can tell you is that, first of all, in terms of
5 getting translations of those videos from the Language Service Section,
6 it's a very onerous task. First of all, we have -- we, the Office of the
7 Prosecutor, have to go through those and prepare draft transcripts of
8 those. Then we have to take those transcripts and submit those
9 transcripts to the Language Service Section with the video. So it's a
10 two-step process. The end product, of course, is a final transcript from
11 that particular video selection.
12 We are prepared to make available to the Defence, if we haven't
13 already done so, a master reel with all of the video clips that we have
14 identified thus far. The benefit of that is, one, it will assist them
15 right now to view these video clips. The clips are in a language the
16 accused understand, and we will try to get the translations of the videos
17 upon which we intend to rely as soon as we can. We have -- I've asked my
18 assistant -- and he's not here so I don't know if this has been provided
19 to the Defence, but we have also prepared an index with an identification
20 of the video, as I recall, the date of the video and a very short summary
21 of what it is, to accompany any video reel that we provide to the Defence.
22 So we are trying to give them as much information as we can, that
23 we have at our disposal, now, but the actual, finalised transcripts in
24 trial form will not be ready by the 31st of October and obviously will
25 take a position in a line in the queue with every other document.
1 JUDGE MAY: Given the cumbersome nature of the process, it may be
2 sensible to review the videos and to see how much use they really are.
3 Videos are very interesting in cases, one finds, but they don't really add
4 a great deal to things. So it may be helpful to do that, and perhaps you
5 can let us have a written submission on it in two weeks.
6 MR. HARMON: That would be fine. Just so you know, we have
7 already done the first review process. In other words, we have gone
8 through the video archives that we have and we have selected from those
9 archival materials that we have a preliminary selection. It is that
10 selection that we are providing. We have already provided to the Defence,
11 or we will be providing to the Defence, in other words, our selection.
12 So, yes, I can give Your Honour a written submission on the status of the
13 videos in two weeks.
14 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Next, turning to the -- to matters arising
15 from witnesses, and in that connection, there seem to be three or four
16 issues. The first, again, is the translation issue.
17 Now, the figures which I have are a total of 337 potential
18 witnesses, of whom something in the region of 240 have been translated,
19 but in fact, when it comes to the number of witness statements, I
20 understand the vast majority have been translated. Is that correct?
21 MR. HARMON: I've been handed the latest statistics by my
22 assistant who is in charge of developing these statistics, and there are
23 approximately 1.200 witness statements, including previous testimony
24 before the Tribunal. Approximately 860 of those have been translated.
25 I'm informed that the 860 translations are witness statements. It does
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 not include previous testimony before the ICTY. And in that regard, we're
2 prepared to give audio cassettes of the previous testimony. If it's a
3 Bosnian-language speaker, I will provide that to the Defence in B/C/S.
4 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, that seems a sensible start. I'm just
5 going to make an inquiry.
6 [The Court and Senior Legal Officer confer]
7 JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Harmon, what we will do is this: that we
8 will take this translation problem up with the Registry and see if some
9 priority cannot be given, as this case must come on, and at the moment,
10 this is holding it up.
11 I am reminded that in some cases, in the case of the videos, to go
12 back to that, the Senior Legal Officer has identified some which have
13 translations because we've had them in other cases, and perhaps we can --
14 when you're looking at that, you can review it.
15 As for the other translations, we must see what other resources
16 can be made available to try and expedite matters, and we'll have in mind
17 the suggestion of audio cassettes, and in fact, perhaps you can make those
18 available on a voluntary basis, and it may expedite matters to some
20 MR. HARMON: We're prepared to do that.
21 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. The next issue about witnesses is the
22 question of redactions. Now, I know that some applications have been
23 made. At the moment, until there are orders, of course, unredacted
24 statements should be disclosed. So it's a question of making the
25 applications for the redactions that you want.
1 MR. HARMON: We have made -- we filed applications in every case
2 that we have identified a witness who testified previously under a
3 pseudonym, and we're awaiting the decisions in those particular cases.
4 Once we get those decisions we will turn over to the Defence unredacted
6 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Next, the Rule 92 bis statements. Now, I
7 understand the position there to be that 156 witnesses have been
8 identified as potentially candidates for such testimony. I think the best
9 we can do in that regard is that it's not possible, as I understand as has
10 been suggested, for the Trial Chamber to give any sort of indication. The
11 Rule clearly reads that it's the party that's got to produce the
12 statements and then the Trial Chamber rules. That means that the work has
13 got to be done, and I think the best that one could do to expedite it will
14 be for a date for conclusion so that the Trial Chamber, which is going to
15 conduct this case, will be in a position to decide. And it's a matter to
16 which we can return, but I would anticipate next year, early next year
17 would be the date for a final conclusion, which would give you three or
18 four months to get it done.
19 MR. HARMON: I can give Your Honour some current information. The
20 majority -- the majority of these 92 bis witness declarations, we have
21 prepared missions to collect and on the condition that we receive, and I
22 expect to receive, the full cooperation of the Registrar in identifying
23 and nominating Presiding Officers to assist us. We could collect the
24 majority of these 92 bis declarations by the 21st of December of this
25 year. Now, obviously that -- when I say "the majority," there will be
1 some people who fall through the cracks, who we simply are unable to
2 locate or will have difficulties meeting with us, and there may be a small
3 percentage that go beyond the 21st.
4 Now, those are -- the majority of witnesses are located in Bosnia,
5 and we've already prepared the missions, we've organised the missions,
6 it's been staffed, and we expect, as I say, to complete the majority of
7 witnesses whom were found in Bosnia by that date.
8 That leaves a smaller number of witnesses for whom we're seeking
9 92 bis declarations, but they're scattered over 11 different countries,
10 and in that regard, we will endeavour to also complete those by the 21st
11 of December. But as I say, that depends upon everything working in sync.
12 We have had some discussions with the Registrar's office about the
13 nomination of Presiding Officers, and all of what I have said in the time
14 schedule that I'm now presenting to Your Honour depends upon the
15 nomination of these Presiding Officers to accompany the missions that are
16 now -- have been identified and will embark.
17 We intend to start these missions, I might add, on the 8th of
18 October, preliminarily to go into the field, and we intend to start taking
19 these 92 bis declarations on the 15th of October. So we have a full
20 programme, a full agenda, an ambitious agenda that we hope to complete
21 successfully by the 21st of December.
22 JUDGE MAY: Very well. The final matter, I think, on this topic
23 is the question of experts. As far as experts are concerned - again, I'll
24 be told if I am correct about this - I understand that 2 of the 11
25 intended expert witnesses' statements or reports have been disclosed. The
1 remainder are in various stages of preparation. Is that the latest
3 MR. HARMON: That is correct. We filed two 94 bis declarations
4 regarding the exhumations at Brcko on the 1st of June, 2001 and the
5 Defence replied by saying they wished to reserve their right to
6 cross-examine the experts who have been identified in those submissions.
7 On the 25th of July, 2001, we filed the expert statements of three
8 additional expert witnesses. Those three additional statements related to
9 14 exhumations that were conducted by the Bosnian authorities and are
10 relevant to our indictment. Now, those reports were in B/C/S when we
11 filed those expert statements. In other words, they were in a language
12 the accused understood. But on the 30th of July, those filings were
13 rejected. I'm not sure whether it was by the Trial Chamber or whether it
14 was by the Registrar, but we were not permitted to complete those filings,
15 and we were advised that what those filings lacked were an English
16 translation of the statement of the expert and colour photographs as
17 opposed to the black and white copies that we submitted with our report.
18 When we received that information on the 30th of July, we
19 immediately submitted for English language translation the expert reports
20 and we made a request to the Bosnian authorities for colour copies of the
21 black and white photographs that we had submitted.
22 I can report to Your Honour now that we have received the
23 translations for 5 of those 14 reports, but we have not yet received the
24 colour photographs. We are prepared to file the five reports, translated
25 into English and B/C/S, now, to be followed by the colour photographs when
1 we receive the colour photographs. And as to the remaining nine reports
2 that we still await translations, we can only file those when we receive
3 the translations. So --
4 JUDGE MAY: These are all exhumation reports?
5 MR. HARMON: That is correct.
6 JUDGE MAY: I don't know what issue could arise about them, but
7 I'll investigate that with the Defence. We will also investigate this
8 question of the filing. I can't understand why it's necessary to have
9 coloured photographs as opposed to black and white.
10 MR. HARMON: Well, we agree with you on that, Judge May.
11 As to the other expert reports, I can report that those are in an
12 ongoing process of being prepared, and obviously, as Mr. Tieger said at
13 the last conference, we will file those upon receipt, unless there is a
14 sensitivity, a particular sensitivity, that is relating to the particular
15 report, in which case we will abide by the terms of the rule and file them
16 21 days before the expert is -- will be testifying.
17 JUDGE MAY: At the last provisional release hearing, Mr. Tieger
18 told the Trial Chamber that you were making every effort to be ready in
19 February. Do I understand that to be the position?
20 MR. HARMON: We are continuing in that effort, and Mr. Tieger was
21 absolutely right.
22 JUDGE MAY: So as far as readiness is concerned, may I take it
23 that as far as you can see at the moment, you would be ready for trial in
25 MR. HARMON: I would say, obviously, with the problems that we
1 have in translations, it's contingent upon getting all of the documents
2 that we need prepared, and all of the declarations that we anticipate for
3 purposes of 92 bis available, and all of the expert reports that are
4 currently in the process of being finalised. If all of those -- if we hit
5 on all of those cylinders, then, yes, but given the problems that -- the
6 bottleneck caused by language service difficulties, that are quite obvious
7 to us, and felt by us, and the competing needs of other major cases,
8 that's the one -- those are the reservations that I have. But we are
9 endeavouring to meet any order of this Court in good faith.
10 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
11 MR. HARMON: May I add one additional piece of information for
12 Your Honour? We have reviewed and continue to review our witness list,
13 and, for the record, we will withdraw at least one witness from our
14 witness list and I will state, that is a witness who has been identified
15 as KRAJ 242 who was found on page 166 of our provisional pre-trial brief
16 submission. Thank you.
17 JUDGE MAY: I turn to the Defence. Perhaps we could deal, first
18 of all, with the issue which has been raised about expert reports, and
19 then come on to talk about timing.
20 As far as the exhumation reports are concerned, are there issues
21 which rise about -- arise about these exhumations which you may want to
22 cross-examine about?
23 MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, the Krajisnik Defence has filed a
24 reservation of rights. I have not, as of today, spoken to a forensic
25 expert to decide whether or not cross-examination would be necessary, and
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 that is the reason why I reserved the Krajisnik's Defence's right to do
2 so, but anticipate that before the end of the year, I would be given
3 guidance by such an expert to do so. I had raised the issue of hiring an
4 expert with the office of the legal aid, OLAD, and I have not had an
5 answer as yet as to the ability to retain the services of such an expert.
6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Pavich, are you in a similar position?
7 MR. PAVICH: Yes, Your Honour. I think that once we have received
8 the final brief, pre-trial brief, of the Prosecutor, we will be in a
9 position to make a final decision. We are simply reserving our right at
10 this point, and it's quite possible there will be no issue.
11 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Very well. Well, if that matter could be
12 addressed by the Defence as soon as possible. We don't want witnesses
13 brought here unnecessarily when, in fact, there's going to be no dispute
14 about what they say.
15 I'll hear any points which the Defence want to raise, but the
16 Trial Chamber want to raise various matters. The first, really, consists
17 of the question of a timetable. This case should be brought on for
18 trial. This has been said numerous times, but it must still be in mind.
19 The position at the moment is that the finalised Prosecution
20 pre-trial brief is due on 31st of October. Under the original timetable,
21 which allowed -- which was for the 31st of August, the Defence pre-trial
22 briefs were due on the 30th of November. That was one month after the
23 finalised brief.
24 Now, are the Defence going to ask for more time to produce
25 pre-trial briefs or are they content with the date of the 30th of
1 November? Are they going to ask for more time? It would be useful to
2 know, and if so, when, so that we can try and timetable the rest of this
4 Mr. Brashich.
5 MR. BRASHICH: Yes, Your Honour. I'm mindful of Your Honour's
6 comments with regard to the final pre-trial brief. The Krajisnik defence
7 filed with the Plavsic defence a joint-position statement as to the state
8 of the final pre-trial brief as it now exists. It would be upon receipt
9 of the final pre-trial brief that would give us an indication of a
11 The other matter which would affect the filing of the Defence
12 pre-trial brief would be the completion of the translations.
13 During the Chamber's questioning of the Prosecution, the way that
14 I did my arithmetic, is that we have 2.574 translated, more or less,
15 exhibits. We have outstanding 2.500, roughly. Now, if it has taken from
16 the date of my client's arrest, which was April of 2000, to today to
17 translate 2.574 documents, then I take it it's going to take roughly the
18 same amount of time, a year and a half, to get the balance of the 2.500.
19 JUDGE MAY: I suspect that's not been the problem. I expect the
20 problem has been identification earlier on.
21 MR. BRASHICH: ... Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MAY: Anyway, that sort of timetable, obviously, isn't
23 acceptable --
24 MR. BRASHICH: I understand, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MAY: -- and it must be -- it must be hurried up.
1 MR. BRASHICH: Based on the hurrying up that Your Honour refers
2 to, that would have a bearing on the time that we would be ready to be
3 able to file the Defence pre-trial brief.
4 JUDGE MAY: At the moment, what I have in mind is that you should
5 have the three months, which was the time originally allowed, which would
6 take you until the 31st of January.
7 Now, I recognise that there may still be difficulties about
8 translation, but subject, of course, to those being overcome, I would -- I
9 would have that date in mind.
10 MR. BRASHICH: Could I have --
11 JUDGE MAY: One at a time.
12 MR. BRASHICH: Could I have a moment to speak to Mr. Pavich so
13 that we do not end up in disagreement in open court?
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course.
15 [Defence counsel confer]
16 MR. BRASHICH: We have agreed to agree, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MAY: What are you agreed to agree on?
18 MR. PAVICH: We have agreed that Mr. Brashich will allow me to
19 address the Court.
20 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
21 MR. PAVICH: Your Honour, I think that much will depend upon the
22 product that the Prosecutor is able to create by 31 October. The more
23 useful the final pre-trial brief, the more expeditiously we'll be able to
24 respond to it. From our point of view, we would much rather have a
25 pre-trial brief that is helpful to us and to the Court, that is produced
1 regardless of whether it's 30 October or 30 November, rather than getting
2 a pre-trial brief that may be of little help to us and to the Court
3 because of the time constraints and because of the problems that the
4 Prosecutor has already identified.
5 So from that point of view, we would be, I think, in a much better
6 position if the Prosecutor is able to give us a pre-trial brief on 30
7 October or perhaps somewhat later than that if the final product can be
8 more helpful. I think it would be ultimately much more expeditious for us
9 to perhaps give the Prosecutor, if the Prosecutor feels it would be
10 helpful, a bit more time than we would be in a position, I think, to
11 respond much more quickly and in the long-run, I think we'll all get to
12 the end point a bit more quickly.
13 And I would like Mister -- if the Court please, Mr. O'Sullivan to
14 raise a couple of the logistical and technical points that I think support
15 what I'm saying.
16 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, I'll address these points because
17 I'm a little more familiar with the disclosure than Mr. Pavich.
18 In listening to what's been said today, of course we've identified
19 numbers of documents, 2.500 documents, but of course the important thing,
20 it seems, is the number of pages those documents represent, and that is,
21 of course, also true for the 460 statements, the number of pages which
22 will impact on the date at which translation is completed, which will
23 impact on, I would say, the Prosecution's ability to file this meaningful
24 pre-trial brief, which has the ripple effect of impacting on the date for
25 our Defence pre-trial brief, not to put aside the videos that must be
1 transcribed and translated.
2 Since we're in a Status Conference, and if I can make a request
3 through Your Honour to the Prosecution, there is some confusion in the
4 disclosure that we've had so far because of the fact we've had the
5 so-called core documents, the 392 core documents which were disclosed in
6 July that have an index. We now have an index of some 2.500 documents
7 now, and if it's at all possible to get one master index from the
8 Prosecution, that would greatly assist us.
9 If I can give you one example. We looked through the August 31st
10 disclosure. We come to a document that says "Already provided." Well, we
11 have to search around quite a bit where that is, and it's just not a very
12 convenient or efficient way to work. And I know that in the last 65 ter
13 conference held by Mrs. Featherstone, I believe there was an attempt there
14 to -- for us to find out, based on the minutes that I've read, to what
15 extent the core documents from July are also contained in the August 31st
16 disclosure. And things like that would assist us greatly in working
17 through these documents at this point, so when we get the final product
18 we'll be up to speed and land with our wheels spinning, as it were.
19 One final --
20 MR. BRASHICH: Could I interrupt you, Mr. O'Sullivan? And I take
21 the blame for this, Your Honour.
22 We were talking about the already-provided, omitted. I attended a
23 Rule 65 ter conference solo, without the Plavsic defence. I spoke to
24 Mr. Tieger, and he explained to me that these documents were not omitted
25 but this was an internal method of keeping their documents sequential and
1 that he would provide us with a list which would not have the documents
2 omitted. They were, in fact, all disclosed.
3 Mea culpa, I did not give this information to the Plavsic
4 Defence. I should have and I apologise. As I said, I apologised to the
6 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
7 Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan?
8 MR. O'SULLIVAN: The final matter that we discussed at the last
9 Status Conference was the issue of reciprocal discovery which we have
10 triggered and which we are in the process of working with the Prosecution
11 on, and today we have sent a request to the Prosecution, which we think is
12 the first step of the ongoing process of providing specificity of what it
13 is we are seeking, which we submit is material to the preparation of our
14 case. As Your Honour knows, we have put our motion in abeyance in an
15 attempt to work with the Prosecution on this matter, and as I said, we
16 have a letter into the Prosecution, and I think we can hopefully continue
17 to work with the Prosecution on this.
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, any cooperation is to be encouraged.
19 Having heard what's been said, I think it right to fix this timetable: To
20 put the pre-trial briefs for the Defence back to the 31st of January; to
21 fix a Pre-Trial Conference now for the 21st of February, which is a
22 Thursday, with a view to starting a trial in the week of the 8th of
23 April. That week is selected because it is, in fact, the week after
24 Easter. It is six months from now. And every effort should be made to
25 start the trial then. There may be difficulties, if it's not started
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 then, of getting a Trial Chamber to hear it.
2 Now, one understands the difficulties which all parties are
3 facing, but it's important that there is a timetable so that everyone is
4 working towards a time for the start of the trial. There may come a time
5 when the amount of Prosecution material has simply to be cut down, and if
6 that is not done by the Prosecution, it will have to be done by the Trial
7 Chamber, and if matters are not ready on time, eventually the Trial
8 Chamber will have to determine to exclude them. That time has not come
9 yet, but it may come in due course. Likewise, although the Trial Chamber
10 recognises the difficulties which the Defence have in the present state of
11 disclosure, nonetheless, every effort must be made to press this case
13 Now, having announced those dates, I of course will hear any
14 submissions that are made. I fully understand that if material isn't
15 ready, there may be difficulty keeping to them, but it is intended that
16 those should be the dates. I would add this: That it would be sensible
17 to have one further Status Conference while this Trial Chamber is in its
18 present composition, which would be the 7th of November, which would be
19 the next Status Conference.
20 It would be sensible for the new Trial Chamber to have a Status
21 Conference either before the recess in December or early January. I don't
22 know if anyone has any submissions about that or indeed about any of the
23 other dates which have been suggested.
24 Mr. Harmon, as far as the Prosecution is concerned?
25 MR. HARMON: No, I have nothing, Your Honour. Thank you.
1 JUDGE MAY: Does it make any difference to you whether it's the
2 middle of December or the beginning of January? I'm sorry, the recess, as
3 I remember, starts about the 15th of December. I will be reminded. There
4 is a Plenary. It starts on the 17th, but there is a Plenary for three
5 days. I think the last available date will be the 12th of December.
6 Alternatively, the 9th of January, the week of the 8th, 9th of January.
7 MR. HARMON: We are -- Judge May, we are at your disposal, we are
8 here, we are available to meet any conference or Pre-Trial Conference or
9 Status Conference that the Court thinks is appropriate.
10 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
11 MR. BRASHICH: With regard to the Krajisnik Defence, in light of
12 Christmas on January 7th, I would urge the first week of December, Your
14 MR. PAVICH: The Plavsic Defence has the same schedule. Christmas
15 is 7 January so it would be either 9 or 10 January, or in December, Your
17 JUDGE MAY: Well, the most convenient might be December. The week
18 starts, the relevant week, starts on the 10th of December. Tuesday, the
19 11th of December.
20 There is a matter I want to raise with the Senior Legal Officer.
21 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
22 JUDGE MAY: I've raised with the Senior Legal Officer whether it
23 would be sensible to fix a date now for the next meeting. Rather than do
24 that, what I shall invite the parties to do is to remain here and discuss
25 with her the -- a suitable date for the next Rule 65 ter meeting.
1 Now, unless there are any other matters, the Court will adjourn.
2 Anybody? Anybody want to raise anything?
3 Court will rise.
4 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at
5 5.20 p.m.