1 Friday, 10 May 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Milan Simic not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Case number
8 IT-95-9-T, the Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav
9 Tadic, and Simo Zaric.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Prosecution, what is the position today?
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, if Your Honours please, I can report to you
12 what Mr. Weiner was informed of this morning. Unfortunately, he had a
13 commitment and can't be here at the moment. But he informed me that the
14 witness -- he had spoken to someone from the Victims and Witnesses Unit
15 who in turn informed him that this current witness had had a bad night of
16 it, had not slept, was not feeling well, but had assessed himself as being
17 suitable to continue with his evidence on Monday. He apparently was
18 visited by a doctor and also consulted with his doctor in the United
19 States, who has been treating him. He's got medicine with him and he took
20 some medicine. That's about all that I know of the situation, and I know
21 that the witness is not here at the moment. So that's all that I can tell
22 the Chamber. I wonder, has the Chamber not been informed by the Victims
23 and Witnesses Unit of developments, other than what I've just told you?
24 JUDGE MUMBA: No. We -- I was informed by the Registry that they
25 got the information that the witness was still not well enough.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: So I thought it's better to have it on record and --
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Formally adjourn.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: I -- that is certainly the Prosecution's
6 understanding. There's no question about that. And I'm relaying to you
7 what Mr. Weiner told me. I have no reason to doubt it, and certainly
8 yesterday after the Chamber adjourned he did not look like a well man.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: So I don't think there's any doubt that he's not up
11 to giving evidence today. However, happily, he apparently reports that
12 he's pretty confident that he'll be able to continue with his evidence on
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think he was exhausted a bit, so he
15 needed -- all he needs is some rest and medication. So we'll be ready on
16 Monday. In case he's not well enough, you will have another witness
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Oh, yes. Yes. We'll make -- yes. I'll ensure
19 that if there's any problem, we'll interpose Mr. Dagovic, who was
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, to complete with him. All right, then. I
22 wonder whether there are any other matters that any party wishes to raise
23 at this stage before we adjourn.
24 Yes, Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to avail
1 myself of this opportunity just to raise -- or rather, to request a
2 decision by the Chamber to enable our clients - and I'm speaking mainly on
3 behalf of my client. From the beginning of this trial, he addressed the
4 Trial Chamber only once, if you remember, and that was in relation to the
5 deterioration of his health. Although the Rule 65 bis relates to the
6 pre-trial stage, my client expressed his desire to address the Trial
7 Chamber with regard to the conditions of his detention and his current
8 conditions during trial. So if you allow the accused to address the Trial
9 Chamber now, I think it would be a suitable moment, because we have no
10 other business for today.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Tadic can go ahead and address the
12 Chamber, as his Defence counsel has intimated.
13 Yes. You can go ahead and speak from where you are standing.
14 THE ACCUSED TADIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Honours, I
15 will be very brief. About a month ago I addressed the Trial Chamber
16 regarding my health. The situation has improved a little. However, I
17 would need to undergo more thorough examinations, so I would kindly
18 request, if that is possible, to obtain some sort of time schedule for
19 this trial to see if I can make any appointments during possible breaks,
20 and possibly undergo these examinations in a different medical
21 institution, not in the Detention Unit. This is made difficult by the
22 fact that I don't know -- we don't yet have a definitive time schedule for
23 the trial, and I don't know if there are going to be any adjournments for
24 longer periods.
25 In addition to this, I would like to say that I will soon be 66,
1 and transportation is getting difficult for me. Those bulletproof vests,
2 this security clothing, is very heavy, and when I am bound and dressed
3 properly, I can barely enter the car with the help of the guard. And it
4 is still more difficult to get out. Since I know that there exist lighter
5 bulletproof jackets, I would like your kind assistance in obtaining one,
6 which would facilitate my getting into and out of vehicles. Otherwise I
7 have no problem in the Detention Unit. Everything is running its normal
8 course, and I should only like to say that I find it rather odd that this
9 trial is proceeding more slowly than other trials. Perhaps it is just bad
10 luck which caused several delays, resulting in the fact that we have been
11 here for almost eight months, and at the risk of repeating myself, I
12 should like to say that we have been in the Detention Unit for almost five
13 years now. We have surrendered voluntarily. We gave the OTP all the
14 interviews they requested. But still, the situation is as it is.
15 And almost all the Prosecutors have circulated through this case,
16 and perhaps even the Judges of this Tribunal. Thank you.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I would like to find out why you think the
18 medical examination you need should be in another institution, in a
19 different institution, as you say, not the Detention Unit. Is there any
20 special reasons that you have?
21 THE ACCUSED TADIC: [Interpretation] The reason is that more
22 complex examinations are usually conducted at the Bronovo hospital and
23 there you have to make an appointment well in advance. The doctor, my
24 doctor, told me that I have a large stone in my gallbladder, which is
25 causing complications, and my agreement with my physician is that I would
1 find out when we would have a break in the trial and fit in this
2 examination into that period. The examination itself would take six or
3 seven days. It was the physician who told me that more complex
4 examinations should be done at the Bronovo. At the Detention Unit it is
5 possible to handle only regular check-ups, the infirmary sort of thing.
6 That is all I can tell you from my limited knowledge.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. Yes. The Trial Chamber will look into
8 the matter and we'll give instructions accordingly.
9 Any other matters? Yes.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honours. I would be very grateful, I
11 mean, all of my colleagues, of course, from the Defence, if the
12 Prosecution can give us a rough schedule for the next week about the --
13 with regard to the names of the coming witnesses. Up to now we know that
14 possibly Mr. Esad Dagovic will come, or that's variant A, and variant B is
15 that maybe this witness will be recovered medically and he can proceed on
16 Monday. So in that case we have in fact only two names. If the previous
17 information from the Prosecution still stands, we have several names on
18 that list. I would like to hear the confirmation from the Prosecution
19 whether this previous list is still valid so that we can prepare our
20 cross-examination and our activities for next week, based on the previous
21 practice that for each coming week we have to have a schedule.
22 Another thing which might be of indirect influence to the words of
23 Mr. Tadic might be that we can hear from the Prosecution with regard to
24 the instructions and ruling of this Trial Chamber about the application of
25 Rule 92 bis and the further statements that the Prosecution will provide.
1 At what stage are these preparation now, and how the Prosecution sees
2 this, I would say, shifting between the regular way of testimony, so
3 witnesses, and the new approach with the application of Rule 92 bis.
4 Because my understanding is that the ongoing process from the Prosecution
5 side is that on the field they will collect certain number of witnesses, a
6 certain number of witnesses statements, in accordance with Rule 92 bis,
7 and then they will accordingly inform the Defence when these witnesses
8 will come for the cross-examination here.
9 In that sense, we might be in situation that after the last
10 witness on the list which we were provided a couple of weeks ago - I don't
11 know exactly the name, but in total there are five or six witnesses - we
12 might be in a situation to have a break in our trial proceedings, or maybe
13 the Prosecution will in the meantime prepare a certain number of witnesses
14 statements in accordance with Rule 92 bis and then be ready to proceed
15 with this way.
16 So generally, in this area, in this frame, I would like to see --
17 to hear from the Prosecution what they intend to do in that regard, if it
18 might assist this Trial Chamber also.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
20 MR. PANTELIC: -- In the proceedings. Thank you. Thank you, Your
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Maybe the Prosecution can reply to that as to
23 which witnesses are scheduled for next week and what is happening on the
24 reorganisation of the Prosecution evidence.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I will. Could I just have a moment to confer
1 with my colleague?
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
4 [Prosecution counsel confer]
5 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I'm grateful for your indulgence.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: As far as the forthcoming witnesses are concerned,
8 the list that is set out in my memorandum of the 24th of April, which I
9 sent to Ms. Atanasio and also to Defence counsel, still stands. So the
10 current witness is Witness E. Following that witness will be Hajrija
11 Drljacic and then -- oh, sorry. I forgot. Esad Dagovic, of course, to
13 JUDGE MUMBA: On Monday.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: On Monday.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: So will happen --
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Depending on the situation --
17 JUDGE MUMBA: What will happen is if Witness E is well enough on
18 Monday, we complete him.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: And then you'll call Esad Dagovic.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: And therefore you'll go back to the list.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: They've got the list. They can check it out. It's
24 then Hajrija Drljacic and then Witness C.
25 On Monday, though, one other issue arises and that's this: If
1 Defence counsel could give us an indication of how long they expect to be,
2 then it would be a loss easier for our witness Mr. Dagovic. He's been
3 here many times now. And if we can get an indication --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: You mean the cross-examination which is yet --
5 MR. DI FAZIO: I rather expect it won't be too long, but we'll get
6 a substantial portion of the afternoon left over for Mr. Dagovic. I
7 wonder if Defence counsel could tell us if they have other ideas.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: For the remaining cross-examination for Witness E?
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Because I don't want to bring Esad Dagovic here if
12 he's got five minutes to go on Monday afternoon. It's just not practical.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Maybe we can have an indication of how
14 far more time. Mr. Lukic?
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you mean the time
16 envisaged for Witness E, whom I have begun to cross-examine, it will not
17 take longer than half an hour.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. I believe not more
19 than half an hour of cross. Thank you.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
21 MR. PANTELIC: And as usual, less than half an hour.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Well, in those circumstances --
23 JUDGE MUMBA: That will be like after the break then we can
24 hear -- we can have Mr. Esad Dagovic for cross-examination to the limited
25 extent that the Trial Chamber pointed out. All right.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: As far as the other issue is concerned, my
2 colleague Ms. Reidy is set to go down to Bosnia next week and commence the
3 process of taking statements and so on. And we hope that towards the end
4 of the month they will start to come out the other end in proper form and
5 properly proofed and put into -- on paper and so on.
6 The Defence will have ample opportunity to have received the
7 statements in advance and ample notice. Once the statements are properly
8 done and in their completed form, we'll serve them on the Defence. And I
9 expect that they will have had them for some time before the witness
10 formally swears them.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Because like we discussed the last time that
12 you can bring the other witnesses like the group for -- the previously --
13 group 4.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Can you just bear with me for one moment, please?
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
16 [Prosecution counsel confer]
17 MR. DI FAZIO: I understand that there's some consultations going
18 on at the moment between Registry and the legal officers, or about to go
19 on, regarding the procedure to be adopted.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: The upshot is whatever the procedures are
22 concerned, the situation is this: Defence are going to have the
23 statements, they will have them in advance, and whether the statements are
24 formally processed according to the Rule at this point or that point
25 doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is they will have them in advance
1 and they won't be in a position to say we've only just received them. We
2 need time.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So the Trial Chamber expects that both
4 parties will prepare for the rest of the witnesses timely. Then we can
5 have a continuous hearing until we complete the Prosecution case.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: The Prosecution certainly hopes so and will do
7 everything it can to bring about a timely stream of statements coming
8 through. I am not in a position to make any guarantees about that.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Of course not. Yes.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: But I can assure the Chamber that we'll use our
11 best endeavours.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may, I have to raise this just
14 for the sake of having a clear picture here. According to the Rule 92
15 bis, if I correctly remember, it is a 14-day period which we're entitled
16 to before -- from the moment when we receive the witness statements.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: So -- well, I was referring to the words of my
19 learned colleague that we will get them -- well have enough time. So it
20 has to be 14 days, because we are entitled within the seven days to raise
21 objection to whether we can -- we will accept that or not.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but if you remember when the Trial Chamber was
23 giving instructions to the Prosecution, the Trial Chamber did say that
24 consideration will be given to the fact that this won't be new evidence,
25 for instance. The Defence has got summaries already. So when they raise
1 that -- when they raise anything by way of motion, orally or whatever,
2 depending on at what stage they get the statements and at what stage the
3 Prosecution hopes to call those witnesses, of course the Trial Chamber
4 will have consideration to the provisions of the Rule.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: I was -- I assumed that the Trial Chamber will have
6 a consideration of the Rules, of course, but I was just wondering whether
7 the Prosecutor is considering the Rules as well.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: That is just the thing which I wanted to clarify.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: There is no reason to doubt that the Prosecution is
11 doing the same.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: I just wanted to have it very clear. Thank you,
13 Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Okay.
15 Yes, Ms. Reidy.
16 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, with respect to that, given that, as my
17 colleague has said, I'm going down to Bosnia next week to take those
18 statements, I would like some clarity on how much notice time the Defence
19 are entitled to, because when this was raised on the 1st of May and the
20 14-day notice period was referred to by my colleague on when we could
21 actually have our first 92 bis witness, so to speak, the Bench had
22 indicated, as you've just repeated, that because of the peculiar way in
23 which these particular witnesses are being processed under 92 bis, that
24 they are not new witnesses, they're witnesses who the Defence have had
25 notice of, et cetera, and have had previous statements of, that that time
1 period in its full would not be applicable. Because we're in trial, et
2 cetera, the proposal had been made that shortly before witnesses come to
3 testify, that these statements that I would take next week, they will be
4 disclosed to Defence as soon as we returned, so as soon as possible, but
5 they would not actually go through the 92 bis certification procedure
6 until a few days before the witness comes to testify, because the witness
7 would come here and do that in front of a Registry officer while they were
8 here, otherwise we have to take -- well, I won't -- unless the Chamber
9 asks, I won't go into the complications of the other way. But that would
10 mean that the actual certified statement would be disclosed to the Defence
11 say, for example, maybe only 48 hours before the witness takes the stand.
12 Now, I see that no difference to -- you know, to the Defence hearing
13 testimony live here and they do the cross. But that is the proposal that
14 it be made. I believe it is a proposal which is being implemented in
15 another trial before this similar procedures being used in other
16 proceedings in other Chambers. I had spoken with the Registry about this,
17 and I had been told that currently there were negotiations going on
18 between the Registry and the -- through the legal officer to see whether
19 or not the Chamber had a specific time period in mind, if it wasn't to be
20 the full 14-day period, as set down in Rule 92 bis.
21 So I guess somewhat -- my thought is I thought that that would be
22 the way -- if it is going to be -- if we are going to have to give
23 complete 14 full days notice after certification of a statement from
24 one of these witnesses, then we will have to completely -- yes, we will
25 have to reschedule the witnesses as they stand and perhaps part of the
1 mission next week to take these statements.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Because previously we had indicated that it
3 would be advisable perhaps to reorganise the order of calling of the
4 witnesses so that even those experts who appear to be scheduled to come to
5 us the end of the Prosecution case can be brought forward.
6 MS. REIDY: Absolutely, Your Honour. And that is not the
7 problem. But even when we do that, and we bring our witnesses who the
8 Chamber is prepared to hear live, we may reach a stage where, well, then
9 we do have a gap, because --
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy, right now, when we look at the
11 confidential list that was given, we have one, two, three, four, five, six
12 and a half, E, and then another half of Esad, and then we have the group 4
13 ones, the expert, the one listed as number 18, and then we have 19 and
14 20. The Trial Chamber is not sure whether this has already been done.
15 That is a witness on international armed conflict. There are two,
16 actually, listed, expected where they're already subject of a 92 order. I
17 don't know whether this has already been done. Has this already been
18 done? Has the 92 bis statement been taken for 19 and 20?
19 MS. REIDY: Yes. They're not 92 bis statements, they're prior
20 testimonies from the Tadic case. So yes, they've already been admitted by
21 the Pre-Trial Chamber subject to cross-examination.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So we can have all these three, all
23 these three come forward. And then we remain with those where you may
24 have to go in the field and collect -- by the time -- if you're going to
25 do it next week, for instance, if one of you is going to go down next
1 week, for instance, by the time we finish these who are coming to give
2 evidence viva voce, obviously there will be enough time.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I understand what Your Honour --
4 THE COURT: The thing is, the Trial Chamber cannot give the time
5 to allow the Defence to look at the statements before they can object,
6 cannot decide on whether or not it will give the 14 days right now,
7 because we don't know when you'll be able to bring back these statements.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: I assume that the Defence, if they're given the
9 statement and it is identical in every respect to a sworn statement,
10 they're not going to ask for two weeks if they've been sitting on the
11 statement -- if they've already had it for some two weeks before. I
12 assume the Chamber would then use its powers to shorten the two-week
13 period. That's what I clearly understood on the last occasion.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: And that's what we intend to do. As the statements
16 are produced, give them to them, give them to the Defence, and that will
17 mean when the witness comes here just before, the same, very same
18 statement that they've been given and had for some time will be sworn and
19 hopefully that way the two-day -- sorry, the two-week period won't --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: May not be necessary, because this is just a way of
21 trying to cut down on the hours taken in examination-in-chief, for
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I appreciate that.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: And I'm sure the Defence do appreciate what we are
25 trying to do as a Chamber. But the Trial Chamber will give the
1 opportunity to the Defence to raise any issues they want to raise and then
2 the Trial Chamber will decide whether or not that statement contains
3 completely new evidence.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Absolutely, Your Honour. I was just -- I just
5 wanted to respond to this. By all means, we appreciate what the Trial
6 Chamber is doing and it is in our best interests and in the best interests
7 of our clients. But according to our experience over here during this
8 trial is that the fact is that most of the witnesses have not gone by
9 their statement which they gave in the 1994 to 1998. That is why we are
10 asking for this statement to be provided to us according to the Rule 92
11 bis. If these statements are exactly the same ones which we already
12 received, which were disclosed to us, then of course we will not have any
13 problem with that, of course. Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I think, Mr. Zecevic -- maybe I'm
17 misunderstanding you, but my understanding of what Ms. Reidy and Mr. Di
18 Fazio said was not that the statements taken in the field in Bosnia will
19 be the same as statements taken in 1998 or something like that, but
20 rather, if the statement that they bring back from the field in Bosnia and
21 the 92 bis is going to be exactly the same as the one which will be
22 formally sworn under the 92 bis process, then you're not being put at the
23 disadvantage in that being sworn, let's say, two days before the witness
24 comes into Court. So it's those two things are going to be identical, not
25 the 92 bis statement and some previous statement made in 1995 or 1998. At
1 least that's my understanding.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: That's the Prosecution's position precisely. Thank
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. It is obvious that I
5 misunderstood the Prosecutor. And according to what my colleagues say, we
6 do not have any problem with this situation as explained by Your Honour,
7 and the Prosecutor as well. Thank you.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: If I may raise just one very brief, other unrelated
9 to 92 bis statement, I'm happy to say.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: One of the witnesses is Ewa Tabeau. We, some
12 months ago, mentioned calling her, and there was some concern on the part
13 of the Defence that she would be called at that time because they needed
14 to conduct investigations. I believe that was the reason. I'd just like
15 to put it on record and let the Defence know that she is a witness who is
16 working here in the ICTY - The Hague, I should say, the OTP - and is
17 available, therefore, to be called at short notice. She may well be
18 called in the next two or three weeks. Now, I'd like the Defence to be
19 aware of that and not complain that they've been caught at short notice.
20 So I alert them to that fact. Please beware the fact that she might be
21 called at short notice, because she is someone who could be called easily
22 and quickly, working in the precincts of this building.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. But the point which -- that one
24 is -- the statement has already been served on the Defence under Rule 94
25 bis, isn't it?
1 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right. If they have any questions --
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, and then the days they're entitled to indicate
3 whether they want her to come for cross-examination have already expired,
4 and they've indicated that they want her for cross-examination, isn't
6 MR. DI FAZIO: I believe so, yes.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: So there's no question of another 14 days, is
9 Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, maybe it's better now to clarify all
11 these things, not to have the interpretation afterwards. So I do
12 apologise if my understanding was wrong about what the Prosecution said.
13 I will give you an example, and if I will hear the confirmation from the
14 Prosecution, then I will finish my submission.
15 Example is as follows: The Defence is in possession of the
16 numerous witness statements from period 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000,
17 number X. If these particular statements, witness statements, will be
18 certified according to the Rule 92 bis, only then the Defence will say,
19 "Yes, we are ready to proceed with the cross-examination, even with a
20 short notice of two days prior to the testimony," only then. If the
21 Defence, after reviewing these newly collected 92 bis statements from the
22 field, see that, for example, 10 per cent, 20 per cent, 40 per cent story
23 is expanded than it was previously in 1994, 1995, 1996, then the Defence
24 will ask for the two-weeks time period for notice and for reaction.
25 Because frankly, Your Honour, I cannot give you from the top of my
1 head now the examples. But, for example, with the last witness. He
2 didn't say anything about this absolutely innocent event about the certain
3 number of witnesses -- of defendants coming into Mr. Zaric's apartment, et
4 cetera, et cetera. I mean, it's innocent. It's nothing to this case.
5 But still, he mentioned that in his testimony, and then we tried to
6 cross-examine him.
7 I'm saying if we shall be facing the substantial number of
8 important interpretation of the events or part of testimonies of these
9 witnesses, then the Defence should be allowed, for this two-weeks period
10 time, for reaction. So I would really be grateful if the Prosecution can
11 explain or agree or confirm our understanding.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: It's not necessary to do that. Why don't we wait
13 for the Prosecution to conduct whatever investigations or whatever
14 collection of evidence they will do, and then when you see the statements
15 that will be provided, then you raise the matter. I'm sure the
16 Prosecution will know. They know what statements they already have
17 handed to the Defence.
18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. That's absolutely reasonable.
19 Thank you very much.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't think there is any more need for any more
21 debate about this.
22 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: So the Court will rise and continue the proceedings
24 on Monday, at 1415 hours.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.52 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Monday, the 13th day of
2 May, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.