1 Thursday, 14 November 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [Pre-Trial Conference]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 [The accused Plavsic not present]
6 --- Upon commencing at 2.33 p.m.
7 JUDGE MAY: Let the Registrar call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-00-39 & 40-PT, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik and Biljana
11 JUDGE MAY: Appearances, please.
12 MR. HARMON: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your
13 Honours. Mr. Brashich, Mr. Kostich. My name is Mark Harmon, representing
14 the Office of the Prosecutor. Appearing with me to my right, Mr. Tom
15 Hannis and Ms. Magda Karagiannakis. To my left, the case manager,
16 Ms. Carmela Annink-Javier.
17 MR. BRASHICH: Good afternoon, Your Honours, Dan Brashich and
18 Nikola Kostich for the Krajisnik Defence.
19 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. This is the Pre-Trial Conference in this
20 matter. The position is this: Before we go any further, this Trial
21 Chamber is engaged in another matter and therefore will not be in a
22 position to try this case. It means that in due course, it will have to
23 be assigned to another Trial Chamber. I refer to the trial of course of
24 Mr. Krajisnik. We will invite the President to do that. Therefore, any
25 orders we make at this conference are to some extent going to be subject
1 to those of the Trial Chamber which will in due course try the case, and
2 will be in many ways in a better position to judge matters than we are in
3 a preliminary way. However, the rule bids us to set the number of
4 witnesses the Prosecutor may call and also to determine the time
5 available. It seemed to us on considering the matter that determining the
6 time available may be a task which is realistically not one which we can
7 perform, although we propose to make orders in relation to the number of
8 witnesses, and that may assist in setting the time.
9 There are, as we are aware, outstanding a number of issues in
10 relation to admissibility. There is the whole question of the
11 admissibility of evidence under Rule 92 bis, which has been before us. We
12 will make orders in relation to that evidence, but they will be subject to
13 review by the Trial Chamber. The position being this: That all the
14 rulings as to admissibility, including those under Rule 92 bis, should be
15 made in our view by the Trial Chamber actually trying the case. That
16 Trial Chamber will be in a much better position to judge matters, having
17 heard evidence and cross-examination, the trial having started, they will
18 be in a better position than a Chamber which has heard no evidence and has
19 merely got the various written pleadings to go on, to weigh the various
20 matters related to admissibility and to accord them the necessary weight.
21 It will also be the position that the Trial Chamber trying the case will
22 have the issues clarified before it further than we have at the moment.
23 So therefore all pending motions in relation to admissibility,
24 they include the admissibility of, for instance, the intercepts, they
25 should be dealt with by the Trial Chamber.
1 We have in mind, in approaching this case, first of all to
2 indicate a start date for the trial, if not precisely, in general terms,
3 and also, as I said, to indicate, where necessary, the number of
4 witnesses, and the approach which we have in mind in relation to the
5 number of witnesses is to adopt the approach which we took in Milosevic,
6 dealing with similar facts to these, where there were a large number of
7 municipalities involved or a large number of incidents and it was a
8 question of how best, given the time available, to approach the calling of
9 evidence in relation to them. And we came to the conclusion in that case,
10 we have in mind for this case, to indicate a broad number of witnesses who
11 would be called per municipality, live, plus a number who could be called
12 under Rule 92 bis, although, as I said in this case, that would have to be
13 subject to the review or decision of the Trial Chamber as to whether those
14 witnesses should be called live or not or called for cross-examination or
16 It would then, if this -- we were to order this regime as we did
17 in Milosevic, it would then be a matter of the Prosecution to make its
18 selection of which witnesses it wished to call, live, which under Rule 92
19 bis. There being a large number of municipalities in this case, it's not
20 possible at least at this stage to go into detail, at least at this
21 conference. We'll hear submissions, but we have in mind making a more
22 detailed scheduling order setting out how we propose that our orders
23 should be given effect.
24 But before we come to that, it may be sensible to hear whether
25 there are any submissions or any matters which -- other matters which we
1 should be dealing with. Perhaps I could turn to, having dealt with
2 witness statements, untranslated documents, there are applications for
3 admission of documents untranslated as of the 1st of July. Those again
4 seem to be appropriate to be dealt with by the Trial Chamber which will be
5 in a better position than we are to weigh up the various factors in
6 relation to admissibility.
7 The other matters which we have to deal with are exhibits. There
8 do seem to be a very large number indeed, over 11.000, of which some 2.000
9 have been identified as core documents. We have in mind in relation to
10 them to say that the core documents will be admitted, but given the huge
11 number of other documents, they should only be admitted with leave but we
12 will hear direct evidence about that one -- sorry, submissions about that.
13 On relation to expert reports, we would wish to hear from the
14 Defence about what their expert, Mr. Djunic has been doing. He's
15 apparently been paid money for a written report, and there has been no
16 sign of it. Now, we may be wrong about that, but we want to consider what
17 he's been up to hear about that and decide what orders should be made.
18 There is outstanding the matter of adjudicated facts. That's a
19 matter which I believe is to be addressed by the 21st of November. We
20 will -- obviously can't deal with that today but we can make an
21 appropriate order in due course on that.
22 Mr. Harmon? I should have mentioned the date. You'll be ready in
23 mid-February, I understand.
24 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you very much. We will be
25 ready by mid-February, assuming we get orders in due course prior to
1 Christmas on the outstanding motions, because it will be then we will be
2 in a position to make adjustments in the light but having considered that,
3 having considered a variety of other elements, some of which I was
4 unaware, that is the requirement that witnesses now in the Netherlands
5 require a new passport, those elements, I think, are in the process of
6 being discussed and being arranged and I think by mid-February we would be
7 ready. Thank you.
8 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you. As for the other -- while you're on
9 your feet, the other matters I mentioned, I don't know if you want to
10 address them or indeed any other matters you'd like to address.
11 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, of course we will await the decisions
12 of the Trial Chamber on the 92 bis applications, because it will be based
13 on those decisions that we can make a reasonable plan, a trial plan, and a
14 proper order of proof, so until we see the decisions in -- from the
15 Chamber on that particular issue, which Your Honour has indicated would be
16 in due course, we will make sufficient plans and deal appropriately with
17 the decision and make all the necessary adjustments to meet a trial date
18 in mid-February.
19 In so far as other matters, I know Your Honour has been fully
20 apprised by Ms. Featherstone of the matters that remain outstanding, and
21 those matters were discussed at the Rule 65 ter conference. Your Honour
22 has mentioned one, which is the expert reports, and Dr. Djunic's work and
23 as Your Honour is aware, not only from Ms. Featherstone and the minutes of
24 those meetings, but we have endeavoured for a considerable period of time
25 to try to find a resolution on the issue of expert reports relating to
1 exhumations. It is our position that that really is not an issue that
2 needs to be litigated. It would be more properly discussed and resolved
3 and we've attempted to find out what Dr. Djunic's specific objections are
4 to the exhumation reports that have been submitted to him, and indeed, I
5 understand he's in The Hague this week. I have even volunteered to meet
6 with him personally to hear his objections. I would be prepared to meet
7 with him at any time to address his concerns. As Your Honour is aware, in
8 the course of trying to resolve the matter of the expert reports, the
9 Defence raised a situation, an objection, saying that the -- their concern
10 was that the exhumation reports were not linked to the specific events,
11 the crimes, in -- identified in the schedules so in response thereto, my
12 staff prepared what we called a linkage chart which was very precise. It
13 linked the scheduled events to the witness statements and other disclosed
14 material, and I have never been fully informed of what the objections are
15 to that particular chart other than the allegation that it was
16 superficial, but that is a chart that was presented to Ms. Featherstone as
17 well for her examination.
18 There was -- there is an outstanding issue on video clips that is
19 a long-standing issue. The Defence, as Your Honour may recall, undertook
20 to translate and prepare transcripts of video clips for which there were
21 no transcripts. They complied in part with that, and they were to advise
22 the Office of the Prosecutor sometime ago as to which of the video clips
23 had not been properly or had not been transcribed. We have never received
24 an answer to that effort.
25 Other than that, Your Honour, I think that addresses the
1 outstanding matters that are before the Trial Chamber. There is nothing
2 further to add at this time. Thank you.
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Brashich?
4 MR. BRASHICH: Yes, Your Honour. With regard to some of the
5 issues that have been raised, and I'll take first the expert witness
6 reports reviewed by Dr. Djunic. I have read the requirements of Rule 94
7 bis and the Defence has fully complied with that Rule and has put at issue
8 the expert witness reports and we again demand cross-examination.
9 Dr. Djunic was paid for his work in reviewing the expert witness reports
10 in B/C/S. That was the brief that was given to him by me. He was not
11 retained to make a written submission with regard to those expert witness
12 reports but to give guidance to the Defence in interpreting the forensic
13 witness reports. It is the position of the Krajisnik Defence that it is
14 not for us, Pre-Trial, to educate the Prosecution with any defects that
15 its expert witness reports may contain. That is a matter which is left
16 for trial. However, as I have tried on a number of other occasions, and
17 with regard to other evidence, I have endeavoured to resolve issues, if
18 possible, either by motion or by consent. Those issues which I think
19 would be very time consuming on a trial -- of trial time. With that said,
20 we had taken the linkage chart and I again say that it is, in my mind,
21 superficial because it mixes something which is forensic and something
22 which is a fact yet to be established at trial.
23 Dr. Djunic cannot pass upon testimony of a witness who has not yet
24 testified, whom he does not know and cannot pass upon that within the
25 scope of his review, and again I stress that this was only a review.
1 JUDGE MAY: What has he done for his 11.000 dollars which I
2 understand he's been authorised?
3 MR. BRASHICH: I will let Mr. Kostich speak to that. He has been
4 in contact, has met, as well as I have, at lengthy conferences, pointing
5 out problems with the exhumation reports, but he has -- Mr. Kostich has
6 reviewed the linking chart with Dr. Djunic and he can report to you the
7 outcome of that consultation.
8 MR. KOSTICH: [Microphone not activated]
9 JUDGE MAY: Use the other one.
10 MR. KOSTICH: Your Honour. My consultations with Mr. Djunic were
11 many-fold. One of the things that he had to do is to spend an inordinate
12 amount of time in reviewing, literally, I would say, thousands and
13 thousands of pages. I have not counted them, Judge, but they are three
14 feet or four feet worth of materials. He's gone through all of that. He
15 has gone through a number of other matters concerning some other reports.
16 I also reviewed the linkage chart with him. I can tell you -- the linkage
17 chart has about 19 items on it. As far as the item number 1, which deals
18 with the Brcko exhumations, he felt that there was a shortcoming, having
19 to do with certain parts of that report and there were I think 60 or 70
20 sketches of bodies and so on, and what he requested were individual
21 autopsy reports in order to give us a full opinion. He could not obtain
22 those, either they are not available or for whatever reason we could not
23 supply them with those. So one part of his opinion could not be given.
24 He was dissatisfied as to that.
25 Items 2 through 19 were done by other authorities in the
1 Federation. They were court individuals, investigators, investigative
2 judges. Those were in B/C/S. Those were of extremely great length. He
3 had spent with me sometime discussing those. I can tell you, and I want
4 to be fairly moderate in what I tell you, that he was completely
5 dissatisfied with the work that was done during those exhumations, in
6 terms of every aspect of the work, both in terms of the autopsies -- well
7 first of all the exhumations, number 1. The anthropological, as well as
8 the autopsies. He was dissatisfied with the identification procedures.
9 He made some comments about standards that would be applied in those
10 situations. He was very unhappy about those standards. And for that
11 reason, his advice to the Defence team was that he really could not accept
12 the findings in those reports, either in regard to the cause of death, the
13 time of death, and the identification of the bodies. And that was
14 rendered to us during the consultations. So on all these issues, judge,
15 our expert is dissatisfied.
16 JUDGE MAY: When you say dissatisfied, has he put pen to paper at
18 MR. KOSTICH: I don't know, judge, because Mr. Brashich handled
19 that part of it.
20 MR. BRASHICH: I'm sure that he's literate and can put pen to
21 paper. However it was my specific instruction that I did not wish to get
22 a written report.
23 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Brashich, I don't know if nothing is in writing
24 how you're going to go on with this. How you're going to cross-examine.
25 You better get him to put something in writing otherwise you're not going
1 to be able to cross-examine these witnesses. Also he has this sum of
2 money and there ought to be something in writing to show for it. That
3 will be a matter for the Registry to consider.
4 MR. BRASHICH: Yes, Your Honour. I've taken your comments under
5 advisement but, again, I want to make it very clear that we have fully
6 complied with the provisions of the expert witness Rule.
7 To go on and move on to another matter, Your Honour, I would seek
8 a clarification. Perhaps I misheard. Is this Chamber, which is not going
9 to hear this case, admitting en masse the 2.000 some core documents? Is
10 that the ruling of this Chamber?
11 JUDGE MAY: Subject to objection, which you take during the time
12 when they are admitted.
13 MR. BRASHICH: Either they are admitted or they are not admitted.
14 JUDGE MAY: They are admitted to -- subject to -- you can object
15 if you want when they come to be called in the usual way. What we are
16 trying to do is to reduce the number which should be available for
18 MR. BRASHICH: Could it possibly, so the record is clear, be a
19 better approach, Your Honour, that the Prosecution be limited to 2.000
20 core documents and then those 2.000 core documents will be dealt with by
21 the Trial Chamber that will try this case and then I will have an
22 opportunity of -- to object? At least this is the practise in the
23 jurisdiction from which I come from.
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes. I mean whichever way we word it, you will have
25 the opportunity to object. There is no question of that.
12 Blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts. Pages 355 to 358.
1 MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 A clarification, Your Honour, with the Court's ruling that it will
3 make rulings and issue orders which would be then subject to, if you want
4 to call it that, review by the actual trying Trial Chamber, with regard to
5 requests for certification for appeal, could I make an oral motion that
6 the right to make a certification for appeal for your -- for this Trial
7 Chamber's orders be stayed until the Trial Chamber that will try this case
8 either adopts your ruling or amends it?
9 JUDGE MAY: Well, what appeals have we got at the moment? Are you
10 appealing anything at the moment?
11 MR. BRASHICH: No, what I'm saying, Your Honour, if tomorrow this
12 Trial Chamber rules on 92 bis applications, if the Defence feels aggrieved
13 by your order, I have a specific period of time within which to seek
14 certification. However, you have said, Your Honour has said, that this
15 order could be either adopted or amended, amplified by the Trial Chamber.
16 What I'm suggesting, Your Honour, by my oral application is that the time
17 to seek certification will not commence to run until such time as the
18 actual Trial Chamber adopts Your Honour's ruling or modifies it.
19 JUDGE MAY: This is a hypothetical matter.
20 MR. BRASHICH: I understand that, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MAY: If at any stage you want to appeal one of our rulings,
22 then you can add that to the application, but it's ruling in a vacuum at
23 the moment.
24 MR. BRASHICH: I'm just asking for the time within which to file
25 certification to be extended
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Brashich, when you -- when or if you want to
3 appeal an order that we've made, you can apply to us for an extension, if
4 you want to, for time. But at the moment, we are not going to rule in a
5 vacuum on that matter.
6 MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Again, a clarification, Your Honour, with regard to the 92 bis, I
8 believe Mr. Harmon might have misspoke. That is deferred to the new Trial
9 Chamber, am I correct, the 92 bis motion?
10 JUDGE MAY: The 92 bis motion will be. We shall word our order
11 about witnesses in this way: That the Prosecution will be able, it will
12 be for them to select their witnesses, to call a certain number of
13 witnesses per municipality, live. They will also have leave to call a
14 certain number, subject to Rule 92 bis, but that ruling will be subject to
15 the decision of the Trial Chamber as to whether those witnesses are called
16 live or not.
17 MR. BRASHICH: I understand, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MAY: The Trial Chamber could then rule whether they be
19 called live -- sorry, whether they be admitted, I should say, rather than
20 called under Rule 92 bis, whether they be admitted subject to
21 cross-examination, live, as we did in Milosevic with a great number of
22 witnesses, or whether they be called live. It will be a matter for the
23 Trial Chamber to determine.
24 MR. BRASHICH: I understand, Your Honour. As you are aware,
25 having read the Rule 65 ter conference, the issue on the video as to the
1 death of Yugoslavia is now moot. The Defence has withdrawn that motion
2 and has reserved its right to deal with that problem with the new Trial
3 Chamber. The last thing which I have on my -- it's not a wish list, it's
4 a list -- is the video clips which proves an old adage of the United
5 States army, never volunteer. The individual who had been transcribing
6 and could identify that, is not available at this present time. I have
7 consulted with Ms. Featherstone, senior legal adviser, and we will try and
8 resolve this particular matter in some fashion, Your Honour.
9 Excuse me, Your Honour.
10 [Defence counsel confer].
11 MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, my co-counsel also asks me for a
12 clarification from the Trial Chamber as to the adjudicated facts. The
13 adjudicated facts motion again is being deferred to the new Trial Chamber?
14 JUDGE MAY: The position about that is, I think haven't yet seen
15 your response. You were due to respond by the 21st of November.
16 MR. BRASHICH: That's correct, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MAY: If you do that, we will consider the position. It may
18 be that we will defer it, but we will consider the position in light of
19 your response.
20 MR. BRASHICH: Finally, Your Honour, the intercept motion is also
21 going to be deferred.
22 JUDGE MAY: Deferred, yeah.
23 MR. BRASHICH: Could I suggest, Your Honour, that that -- that's
24 one motion that perhaps this Trial Chamber should actively undertake to
25 decide. The Krajisnik Defence is aware that a like motion has been made
1 in the Milosevic case and the response by the Prosecution in the Milosevic
2 case, in one or two foot notes, refers to the legal arguments made by the
3 Krajisnik Defence. Perhaps it would be of sound judicial economy that
4 this Chamber decides both motions, since the arguments and the issues, at
5 least from what I see, and of course I do not participate in the Milosevic
6 case, are the same.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Brashich --
9 MR. BRASHICH: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: While the intercept question could be seen as a
11 purely legal question which could be decided by the Pre-Trial Chamber
12 before the trial, for my part, I think it is a matter that would be better
13 dealt with by the Trial Chamber in the context of the evidence as a whole.
14 So I concede, yes, it could be dealt with as a purely legal matter, but I
15 think it would be better dealt with by the Trial Chamber.
16 MR. BRASHICH: Judge Robinson, as most often happens, when I hear
17 Your Honours speak I change my mind and I agree with you.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
19 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Would that all arguments were settled so
21 The other matter, Mr. Brashich, which I should have raised with
22 you is this: That the Prosecution are going to be ready in mid-February.
23 Can we hear from you, if you anticipate you could be ready or would be
24 ready at that time? We understand you wanted early January to be avoided.
25 It would be.
1 MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MAY: We said mid-February.
3 MR. BRASHICH: I think that we can accommodate and be ready for
4 that date, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Krajisnik you want to say something?
6 MR. KOSTICH: Your Honour I was just still agreeing with
7 Mr. Brashich and what he told Judge Robinson.
8 JUDGE MAY: It's behind you. Mr. Krajisnik wants to say
9 something. Let him say something. Yes, Mr. Krajisnik?
10 THE ACCUSED: Krajisnik [Interpretation] First of all, I would like
11 to say that I'm sorry that this Trial Chamber is leaving this case, won't
12 be trying the case, although over the three years that I've spent here, I
13 didn't have the luck that you solve some of the requests put forward by
14 our Defence counsel and placed before you, but I had the profound
15 conviction that I can prove my defence that I'm not guilty before this
16 Trial Chamber, and so, as you are leaving, at the end, I should like to be
17 allowed to say a few words here and now today.
18 As far as I can see, the trial should begin sometime in
19 mid-February. The Prosecution has, in an ambitious way and so has my
20 Defence, put forward this, and as a layman, I'm not able to say in a
21 competent manner whether everything will be trial ready by mid-February
22 but I -- what I should like to ask you would be to make a positive ruling,
23 a positive decision, at this final outset, and that is to enable my
24 Defence counsel to engage a greater number of investigators and
25 consultants which the Registrar need not pay. They can be paid from other
1 fund so that in the short space of time that we have left, we make up for
2 lost time previously. That is one request that I should like to make and
3 I do ask you to accept it.
4 My second request is the following: As the witnesses who are
5 potential witnesses, might I say, are either in the forests or are -- have
6 gone underground, it is difficult to come by those witnesses. There are
7 secret indictments so people are afraid and my Defence team have their own
8 family members. So they don't need to be paid but may they please be
9 allowed to stay on the Defence team? Because people are very unwilling to
10 make statements to people they don't know but they would be willing to do
11 so to family members of my defence team. And my third request is as
12 follows: May be allowed to have a co-counsel, just like all teams have a
13 foreign Defence counsel, an American or somebody from the U.K., and may I
14 have a co-counsel from Republika Srpska who would coordinate all the work
15 to be done, who would be able to contact the authorities and I would have
16 the right to have telephone communication with this co-counsel. I took it
17 upon myself to write a letter and make a request. This was because of my
18 impotence. I felt that all the other clients do have the right to do so
19 and that there was a misunderstanding that arose. I have no criticisms to
20 make. The only thing that I should like to ask you would be to let me
21 have all the means available to prove in this short space of time that I
22 am not guilty, and you will see in the trial to come that I am not guilty
23 indeed. But never mind about that, what is important for me is to prove
24 to the Court, to the Tribunal, that I'm not guilty and I won't be able to
25 do this unless I'm given all the means at my disposal to go into all the
1 details. I wish you every success in your future work and I'm sure you'll
2 be able to deal with the cases you are dealing with most successfully.
3 Thank you once again for allowing me to speak, to have this opportunity.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE MAY: We will consider the requests made by the accused.
6 As for the other matters, what I've said we would do is to fix a
7 date for trial, which we do for mid-February. We can't fix a more precise
8 date than that at the moment. Meanwhile, we shall in due course recommend
9 the President to assign a new Trial Chamber to this case.
10 We are not in a position to -- we've come to the conclusion -- to
11 review or to make an order setting up any kind of time limit for the
12 Prosecution. That will be a matter for the Trial Chamber trying the case.
13 However, we have, as I indicated earlier, reviewed the number of
14 witnesses who should be available to the Prosecution. We have in mind
15 that as far as the municipalities are concerned, that there should be 89
16 live witnesses and 176 witnesses to be called under Rule 92 bis, all live,
17 if the Trial Chamber so determines.
18 As to the remaining category of witnesses, we have noted in
19 relation to the international witnesses that of the 19 listed, four relate
20 to the co-accused, and therefore could be excluded, and of the 15
21 remaining, we take the view that 13 should be called live, two under Rule
22 92 bis or as I said earlier, live, if the Chamber so determines. As for
23 the 22 general witnesses or miscellaneous witnesses as they are called, we
24 take the view that 7 should be called live and 15 under Rule 92 bis.
25 There are, it seems, 15 experts who should be called live. And that makes
1 a total for the Prosecution of 124 live witnesses, 193 under Rule 92 bis
2 or live if the Trial Chamber so determines. The Prosecution to make its
3 own selection, of course. And as the Rules provide, the order may be
4 varied on application to the Trial Chamber.
5 Mr. Harmon, we didn't hear you on the subject of the exhibits.
6 The suggestion was that of your 11.217, we reduce them to 2.000 or so,
7 however many the core documents are and you would have to apply for leave
8 to call any more. Would you care to address us on that matter?
9 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, we are satisfied with that ruling.
10 Thank you.
11 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will make the ruling in those terms.
12 I should say that this order which I've given today will be put
13 into written form and the written form will be, of course, the applicable
14 order, rather than what I've said today.
15 Unless there are any other matters which anyone wishes to address
16 us on -- the Senior Legal Officer?
17 [Trial Chamber and senior legal officer confer]
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Brashich?
19 MR. BRASHICH: Again, Your Honour, it's been a long two days and
20 my mind is fuzzy. Regardless of the wording, is it the ruling of the
21 Court that the 2.000 -- the Prosecution will be limited to the
22 2.000-some-odd core documents and then only by leave of the new Trial
23 Chamber can additional documents come in?
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes. That will be the ruling.
25 MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MAY: The hearing is adjourned.
2 --- Whereupon the Pre-Trial Conference
3 adjourned at 3.19 p.m.