1 Monday, 14 April 2008

2 [Pre-Trial Conference]

3 [Open session]

4 [The accused Simatovic entered court]

5 [The accused Stanisic not present]

6 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber had set this afternoon as the

8 hearing in which we would have the Pre-Trial Conference and the opening

9 statements. But you would have received some documentation from

10 Dr. Falke and the Registrar. This relates to the accused who, as you

11 will see, is not present in court.

12 Dr. Falke's letter of the 11th of April, says that the decline in

13 the psychiatric state of the accused has abated; however, he remains

14 highly depressed. And then he says, "Due to the beginnings of mental and

15 physical factors, I suggest it is unlikely that he will recover within

16 the next week. And therefore I would like to advise that he does not

17 attend court next week due to this decline."

18 The Chamber had, as you will recall, required the Registrar to

19 establish in the UNDU a video conference link. When the Chamber did

20 that, what it had in mind was that in the event that the accused whose

21 illness one can now describe as persistent, was not able to attend court,

22 he would be able to participate in the proceedings by video conference

23 link from the UNDU.

24 You have the Registrar's submission on that, and in short, the

25 Registrar indicates that the registry would be unable to provide a

1 two-way interactive VTC system by Monday, the 14th of April, 2008. I'm

2 looking at the conclusion. Earlier, he indicated that that could be

3 provided and would be provided by the 28th of April. He says that the

4 registry would be able to provide live video feed to the UNDU without

5 private and closed sessions.

6 You would also have received the form from the UNDU which is

7 headed "Absence from court due to illness." It says that on the advice

8 of his lawyer, Mr. Stanisic did not sign the form and Mr. Stanisic

9 doesn't want to make use of the videolink room. The doctor confirms that

10 he has examined Mr. Stanisic and he also confirms that he has observable

11 symptoms which indicate that he may feel too unwell to attend.

12 As I've said before, this is not the first time that we have been

13 met with a disruption of the proceedings on account of the illness of the

14 accused, indeed it's becoming like a recurring decimal, if you divide 20

15 by 6, you end up with a recurring decimal, and this is what the illness

16 of the accused amounts to in this case.

17 The Trial Chamber has considered the matter. We note that the

18 full video conference link will not be in place until the 28th of April.

19 And we take the view that it would be better to begin the proceedings

20 when the full video conference link is in place because that, in our

21 view, will provide the accused with the best opportunity to participate

22 as fully as possible in the proceedings.

23 We also, in our order, had indicated that it would be open to the

24 Defence to have one of the Defence counsel present at the UNDU with the

25 accused, and this is certainly possible. The registrar indicated quite

1 properly that that person would be -- have to be someone who is subject

2 to the rules, I think it is Rules 44 and 45, but I don't see a problem

3 with that.

4 So the Chamber is of the view, and we would invite comments from

5 the parties on this, that rather than proceed with the Pre-Trial

6 Conference and opening statements today, in the absence of the full video

7 conference link system, we would adjourn the proceedings until the 28th

8 when the registry will have that system in place and when the accused

9 will be in as good a position as we are able to provide him to follow the

10 proceedings and indeed to participate in the proceedings.

11 May I ask whether the Prosecution or the Defence would like to

12 comment?

13 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution does not have that last

14 document that you referred to with respect to the -- we have Dr. Falke's

15 report from last Friday but do not have that last document that you

16 referred to.

17 We will be guided by the Chamber's decision on this matter, but

18 would just ask the Chamber has it considered the possibility that with

19 respect to the Pre-Trial Conference, that as many matters that may be

20 raised in that, there's no requirement that they be decided prior to the

21 commencement of trial, that they be deferred until we have this two-way

22 videolink and then with respect to the opening, I would submit that it's

23 not an occasion where participation by the accused is expected. He

24 certainly would want to be able to see the opening that we intend to

25 deliver, but I don't believe that the two-way videolink is essential for

1 us to proceed with the opening, and I guess what I would suggest to the

2 Chamber is perhaps considering the possibility of doing a shortened

3 Pre-Trial Conference, proceeding with the openings today and tomorrow,

4 and then waiting until the 28th for the calling of witness.

5 The Prosecution is ready today. Their first witness is in the

6 building. We're ready to give the opening today but of course we will be

7 guided by the Chamber but there might be a way to expedite proceedings.

8 I also note that there is a request for certification that's been -- was

9 filed on Friday. It's also possible that during this hiatus until the

10 registrar is able to put this facility in place, that also that could be

11 resolved so that on the 28th we begin in earnest with the calling of

12 evidence and proceed hopefully expeditiously from that point forward.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: So that, Mr. Groome, then, in your submission,

14 the absence of the accused from the proceedings today should not stand in

15 the way of the Pre-Trial Conference and, an abbreviated one, you say, and

16 the opening statements.

17 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. There's nothing that we have from

18 Dr. Falke saying that Mr. Stanisic is too ill to watch the proceedings on

19 the videolink that is available today, that is the one-way videolink

20 where he'll be able to hear everything we say and see all the exhibits.

21 We have no intention of at any time asking for private session during the

22 opening so it would all be available for him to view today and tomorrow.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Knoops.

24 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, it's not about watching the videolink

25 conference or the sessions through videolink, it's about participation.

1 First, we submit, Your Honour, that the ruling Your Honours gave

2 on last Wednesday clearly in paragraph 15 ruled that we're dealing with

3 the derogation from a very important right.

4 Your Honours have set certain conditions which should be met in

5 order to meet and to accept that derogation. We observe that the

6 conditions which are predicated for the derogation are not met today. In

7 that regard, Your Honour, we would say that it's not correct what the

8 Prosecution is saying that the accused is able to see all the exhibits

9 even today simply because in paragraph 10 of the registrar's submissions,

10 you will note that: "The courtroom video stream to the UNDU will not be

11 available when a video exhibit is being played in court."

12 At paragraph 8: "The registry is unable to provide LiveNote

13 transcript and e-court document display."

14 The form of LiveNote transcript is of course essential to have a

15 two-way communication and e-court documents is clearly relevant to show

16 the accused the exhibits which apparently will be used also during the

17 opening statement.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but how vital will that be if the accused

19 doesn't see an exhibit during the opening statement?

20 MR. KNOOPS: Well, then, he would not have a full participation

21 as Your Honours had in mind. And I believe that --

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, everything is relative. Everything is

23 relative. I mean he needs to have as much participation as possible

24 during the trial, the trial proper.

25 MR. KNOOPS: But if the technical conditions to meet the

1 conditions of Your Honours' ruling are not met, it's our submission that

2 it would be a further derogation of the primary derogation from the right

3 to participate and above that, there are other deviations from

4 Your Honours' ruling when looking into the information the registry has

5 given us, there's simply not the possibility for the Defence team to

6 communicate with the defendant effectively in order to inform the Court

7 for all reasons.

8 It's our submission that Your Honours already has held that the

9 opening statement is at least an essential part of the trial. In the

10 second place, there is clear medical evidence again that even for the

11 videolink participation, there is no possibility for the defendant, other

12 than simply to watch it maybe, but not to participate, we, on the basis

13 of the current medical evidence which we cannot ignore, unfortunately, as

14 Defence, we simply cannot guide the Chamber on any questions which they

15 will put at us during the Pre-Trial Conference.

16 And it may be, of course, questions of law but it may be

17 questions of fact such as time for cross-examination and other --

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Current medical evidence Mr. Groome has

19 submitted that there is nothing in it that indicates that the accused is

20 unable to follow the proceedings.

21 MR. KNOOPS: We refer to the evidence which was delivered last

22 week in this courtroom. I believe that also the letter of Dr. Falke of

23 Friday is a clear indication that it's unlikely that the accused will

24 recover within the next week, so this week, referring again about

25 declination of his health situation. As a result --

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: But what of that is in relation to his attending

2 court? But if -- but I would tend to see attending court as being

3 different from following and participating in the proceedings from the

4 UNDU itself.

5 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honours, it's our submission that if we would

6 continue today with even the Pre-Trial Conference and the opening

7 statement, it would again be a derogation from the derogation which is

8 allowed by the Court in the ruling of last Wednesday, apart from the fact

9 that Dr. Falke confirms the highly depressive situation of the accused.

10 So we, as Defence, are not put in a position inform the Court properly

11 with any instructions on any of the issues which might arise during the

12 Pre-Trial Conference. And this is the medical evidence we have to -- we

13 cannot ignore. As a result, both the situation of the accused today, and

14 the fact that the derogation conditions are not met, we submit that there

15 is no reason for us -- for the Court to continue before at least the 28th

16 April.

17 We also observed, Your Honour, that the registry's submission in

18 its submission of last Friday refers in paragraph 8 --

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Does that mean that you take the view that on

20 the 28th of April, the derogation conditions would be met when we have

21 the full videolink?

22 MR. KNOOPS: My submission is, Your Honour, that on the 28th of

23 April, the derogation condition would be met insofar as there is a

24 two-way interactive VTC system on this date. But still, on the basis of

25 the ruling of Your Honours in paragraph 8, "The registry observes that it

1 will be unable to provide LiveNote transcript and e-court document

2 display and should the Chamber deem these additional functionalities be

3 necessary, this may imply additional time for installment."

4 The ruling of your Court is that one of the Defence team members

5 could be present with Mr. Stanisic in the detention centre and in order

6 to fulfill the mechanism the Court had in mind, we believe that also the

7 observation of paragraph 8 of the registry's submissions is relevant.

8 So we are not saying that on the 28th of April, the Pre-Trial

9 Conference could take place on the basis of this document. What we

10 submit is that on the 28th of April, there is a two-way interactive VTC

11 system in place which is at the minimum required, we believe, for the

12 start of the case, including the Pre-Trial Conference. On top of that,

13 we say that at this moment, there is ample evidence that the Defence has

14 no way to participate during the Pre-Trial Conference because we

15 confronted with the medical evidence cannot force the accused to

16 participate or to attend the videolink conference, not to speak about the

17 lack of any instructions we have at this moment on the basis of the last

18 document of Dr. Falke. And Dr. Falke, of course, not specifically

19 addressing the videolink, it's fair to say that his document has of

20 course ramifications on the level of participation of Mr. Stanisic during

21 any videolink conference.

22 I therefore strongly contest that simply the issue of watching a

23 video conference should meet what the Chamber has in mind. Therefore, on

24 this second argument, we also believe that it would be against the

25 rationale of that ruling to even continue today with the Pre-Trial

1 Conference.

2 As to the opening statement, we still stand to our position that

3 this is part of the trial proceedings and it's so fundamental that any

4 form of prejudice is not required for the defendant to show. I submit

5 also that on the current medical situation, the defendant is not able to

6 provide those instructions which enable him or the Defence to participate

7 during those two situations.

8 And at Your Honour's question whether on the 28th of April, all

9 the conditions are met to start with the video conference proceedings as

10 envisioned by the Chamber, we don't know. We observe that Your Honour

11 have held that for instance when it concerns witnesses, the defendant

12 should have the possibility to see at all times the face of the

13 witnesses.

14 Now, if Your Honours would look at the registry's submissions in

15 paragraph 10, in the third line, "The accused will be shown the video,

16 however, he will be unable to simultaneously be able to see the image of

17 the witness."

18 And in our view, this would still not comply with the condition

19 your Chamber has set in the ruling. Namely, that the accused should see

20 the witness "at all times." So therefore, we cannot say to the Court

21 that on the 28th of April, all the conditions, and that's for the Court

22 to decide. At the minimum, we can say that today, those conditions are

23 not met, and we submit that any allowance to continue with the case would

24 again be a further derogation and then it's the question what is the end

25 of the gliding scale we are on. Is there a further derogation that will

1 say, well, just give a copy of the opening statement to the accused and

2 the exhibits, he can be received later in copy.

3 Our question is: What is the border of the derogation which has

4 been allowed by the Chamber last Wednesday? We submit that continuing

5 today would be already a derogation from the derogation of this right to

6 be present in court. Thank you.

7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour.

8 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Groome. Perhaps you would like to comment

10 on the absence of LiveNote transcript from the system that would be

11 available to the accused.

12 MR. GROOME: You're speaking with respect to the -- on the 28th?

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes. Yes.

14 MR. GROOME: It's my belief that Mr. Stanisic has always said

15 that he doesn't speak English. If he does speak English and would wish

16 to have it, I would support the registrar trying to accommodate him and

17 give him that.

18 With respect to the e-court, I believe it would be important for

19 him to be able to look at exhibits when we're using them in court, but I

20 would also submit that until such time as that capacity is in place, the

21 Prosecution will undertake to deliver either to the Defence or the

22 detention unit, a hard copy of any exhibit that we would intend to use,

23 the day before or whatever time the Chamber would find reasonable to

24 deliver him a binder of anything that would come up on e-court.

25 I would like to, if I may, Your Honour, address some of the other

1 points that were raised by Mr. Knoops.

2 One is with respect to the video conferencing and the opening.

3 It is not the Prosecution's intention to use e-court during the opening.

4 Several weeks ago when we were about to make our first attempt at

5 opening, we spoke with the director about using -- we do intend to show

6 exhibits and we do intend to show some video clips. They are all in

7 PowerPoint and according to my information from the director who was --

8 we were working with at that time, all of this will be broadcast in the

9 same way not only to all of us here in the courtroom but to the people

10 downstairs in the lobby, to the gallery and across the web to the greater

11 public.

12 It's my submission, and maybe we have to check with the director,

13 if this is not possible, but it's my understanding that Mr. Stanisic

14 today would receive the very same feed that is going to be sent out

15 generally which would include not only everything that we say during the

16 course of our opening, but all of the exhibits and all of the video and

17 whatever demonstrative aids we seek to use during the opening.

18 Now, with respect to the Pre-Trial Conference, I would note that

19 for most of the Pre-Trial Conference that dealt with pre-trial matters in

20 this case, both Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic waived their right to be

21 present and allowed the business to be conducted in their absence. I

22 believe that this is largely because Mr. Knoops and Mr. Jovanovic are

23 both the original attornies on this case and after so many years are

24 fully familiar with their client's position on various matters pending

25 before the Chamber.

1 I've suggested to the Chamber that that we deal with as few

2 issues as necessary to -- in the Pre-Trial Conference but in the event

3 that we -- the Chamber feels it must make some decisions, the Prosecution

4 would not oppose Mr. Stanisic addressing the Chamber on those issues once

5 the two-way videolink is set up and the Prosecution would not oppose the

6 Chamber reconsidering any of the decisions it would make today if it

7 thought that it needed to do is in the interests of justice.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Knoops.

9 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, may I just briefly comment on the

10 observation of my learned colleague, Mr. Groome.

11 First, it's not about, we believe, the language skills of the

12 accused. If Your Honours have in mind that one of the Defence team

13 members may sit with the accused in the UNDU, of course that lawyer

14 should have access to LiveNote. That is the essence. That is the only

15 way how a two-way interactive system, in our view, would work.

16 Secondly, with respect to copies if the Prosecution would

17 administer hard copies to the accused, the problem will still be that the

18 accused could not at that moment see the face of the witness at all

19 times.

20 Thirdly, with respect to the waivers, indeed, the accused, both

21 of them signed waivers while on provisional release. Those conferences

22 related to every time Status Conferences and I believe this is -- when it

23 concerns the nature of such a conference different from a Pre-Trial

24 Conference. But on top of that, we were every time able to confer with

25 the accused beforehand on the topics of the agenda we got beforehand and

1 we were adequately and knowledgeably informed by the accused to

2 participate.

3 In this situation, the Defence is hampered that it lacks those

4 well-informed instructions to participate at the Pre-Trial Conference due

5 to the situation as described by Dr. Falke in his letter on Friday.

6 So in our view, this is something different from the situation as

7 we encountered during the Status Conferences. Thank you.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber has considered the submissions of

10 the parties and we take the view that it is more convenient to await the

11 28th when the full video conference link system will be established, to

12 have the Pre-Trial Conference and the opening statements.

13 I stress that nothing in this ruling should be taken as an

14 indication of the Chamber's agreement with any of the submissions made by

15 Mr. Knoops.

16 The Chamber does, however, wish to deal with another matter, and

17 the Chamber wants to be sure that what it says will be passed on to the

18 appropriate authorities. Notwithstanding the Chamber's decision that the

19 proceedings will be adjourned until the 28th of April, the next report of

20 the doctor, that's Dr. Falke, should indicate whether the accused is well

21 enough to attend court the following week, even though there will be no

22 court. The Chamber considers it important to be informed by Dr. Falke

23 whether were there to be court, the accused would be in a position to

24 attend it in the forthcoming week, the 21st to the 25th.

25 Secondly, in all future reports where the doctor indicates that

1 the accused's health prevents him from attending court, he must provide a

2 more detailed explanation than has been his custom as to the aspects of

3 his health condition that accounts for his advice that the accused should

4 not attend court.

5 The Chamber gives this as an example: In his letter of the 11th

6 of April, the doctor says that "the accused remains highly depressed and

7 that due to the combination of mental and physical factors, it was

8 unlikely that the accused would recover within a week."

9 It would be helpful to the Chamber to be told what there is in

10 the condition of the accused's depression or indeed in the combination of

11 mental and physical factors that makes the accused too unwell to attend

12 court in those circumstances. So the Chamber wishes to have a more

13 detailed explanation from the doctor as to why the accused is unable to

14 attend court in those cases where he advises that he's not well enough to

15 attend court.

16 Mr. Groome.

17 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just in line with that, could I just

18 also request that Dr. Falke in an earlier correspondence to the Chamber

19 expressed his reservation about providing the Chamber with the reports of

20 the underlying specialists. It would be the Prosecution's submission

21 that for the Chamber to be able to conduct the proceedings and to have

22 the most information about Mr. Stanisic's health, that it would be

23 necessary for the Chamber to have those underlying reports excluding

24 whatever reports by the psychiatrist may involve therapeutic

25 conversations but clearly, the reports of visiting gastroenterologists or

1 any other specialists that may work with Mr. Stanisic and advise Mr. --

2 Dr. Falke, it would be the Prosecution's submission that the Chamber

3 should also have the direct reports so it can make the best assessment of

4 his health.

5 Your Honour, I would ask with respect to the 28th, these false

6 starts do take their toll on our ability to have the cooperation of

7 witnesses. I would appreciate if the Chamber could give us at least two

8 or three days after we actually begin the opening to have the witness

9 travel rather than have witnesses travelling here and then having to send

10 them back. I think it's the expense that it incurs for the Tribunal and

11 the inconvenience to the witness that it might be very useful and helpful

12 to be able to only have that witness travel once we actually begin our

13 opening which might mean a delay of a day or two but it certainly would

14 be helpful in our ability to retain the cooperation of the witnesses.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: You said three days.

16 MR. GROOME: If we have three days from the day we open, I think

17 the opening is probably going to go into the second day, then if we had

18 that it would be we would lose the third day and we would have the

19 witness here ready to testify the fourth day of the week.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Your colleague was standing before you. Yes,

21 Mr. Jovanovic.

22 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. The

23 Defence has one request to make of the Trial Chamber in view of the fact

24 that we now have the possibility of continuing the trial on the 28th of

25 April. Both the accused and certain team members are Orthodox and as the

1 calendar is the Gregorian calendar which makes the Orthodox Easter fall

2 on the 27th of April, and the 28th of April would be Easter Monday. So

3 the Defence teams would like to ask that we continue with the trial on

4 the 29th of April so that we don't have to travel to The Hague on Easter

5 Monday and Easter day itself, in fact. Thank you.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Knoops.

8 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, just one small observation with respect

9 to the suggestion of my learned colleague, Mr. Groome, as to the

10 reporting by Dr. Falke and the potential opportunity to disclose the

11 underlying reports of the specialists.

12 I recall from the previous letters of Dr. Falke, especially the

13 first and the second one that from his side reservation exists to

14 disclosure of such reports simply because the other reports as referred

15 to by Mr. Groome are reports from the treating experts or treating

16 doctors. It might be helpful that Dr. Falke could be consulted first

17 whether that would bring those physicians any problems. Otherwise, an

18 alternative could be that Dr. Falke will simply summarize the main

19 conclusions of the underlying reports in his note to the Court.

20 Otherwise, those doctors might not be anticipating that their reports

21 will be disclosed simply because they expect to be only the treating

22 experts. This will also put them in a potential difficult position

23 according to the medical standards under Dutch law which have, of course,

24 their restrictions as to the disclosure of medical reports.

25 So I think without consulting Dr. Falke on this issue, we might

1 arrive at another medical problem in terms of the reporting duty of

2 treating doctors. So my suggestion would be that if the Court considers

3 this suggestion of the Prosecution valid, then Dr. Falke will be

4 approached first by the Chambers about this possibility, considering his

5 previous standpoint on this matter. Thank you.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: May I remind you that we are not governed by

7 Dutch law in this court.

8 I should say, though, that the Chamber will take the night to

9 consider the two submissions made by the Prosecution as well as the

10 submission made by Mr. Jovanovic and we'll inform the parties in a ruling

11 tomorrow.

12 If there is nothing else to be raised by any of the parties --

13 may I ask, Mr. Groome, in relation to the certification request, how soon

14 the Prosecution will be in a position to comment.

15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, we've already begun our discussions

16 about it and I think if we do not file something today, it will be early

17 tomorrow morning.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much.

19 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, may I briefly --

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

21 MR. KNOOPS: My very last remark with all due respect. With all

22 due respect for the Chamber, I refer to the paragraph -- to page 42 of

23 the report of the Honourable Judge Parker, a report to the president,

24 death of Slobodan Milosevic where Judge Parker in his recommendation 13

25 quotes: "The issue involving the operation of existing Dutch laws

1 concerning the confidentiality of medical information relating to a

2 patient." So with all due respect, I believe that it should be of some

3 concern for the Chamber that before requiring Dr. Falke to disclose the

4 underlying reports from Dutch treating experts or physicians, in light of

5 the recommendation of Judge Parker in number 13, that this does raise a

6 potential dilemma for those treating Dutch experts in terms of the

7 confidentiality of medical information. Therefore, I raised -- I pointed

8 to the Dutch law, of course I know that Your Honour is not bound by Dutch

9 law, but when it concerns the release of medical information, the report

10 of Judge Parker observes that this might be a problem in future cases and

11 therefore this recommendation was made by him.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Groome.

13 MR. GROOME: If I may respond. The document that I was referring

14 to was Dr. Falke's correspondence on the 28th of March which he raised

15 some reservations about providing that information. I think there would

16 be two reasons why. One would be under 34(D), he expresses the desire to

17 keep as much confidentiality for Mr. Stanisic as possible.

18 This case is different than others in that Mr. Stanisic placed

19 his health at issue and we've already heard an awful lot about his health

20 so I think that the continued progress of his treatment and his

21 progression back towards better health is something that's already been

22 put an issue. It is an issue it will remain an issue for the course of

23 the trial.

24 Secondly, I think that the other reservation that seems to be

25 implicit in his correspondence is that if such medical information,

1 there's a risk of it being misunderstood by lay people. I would submit

2 that after the extensive hearing that we've had, we probably in fact know

3 more than Dr. Falke between the difference the Mayo Clinic Scale and the

4 Heidelberg Scale for pouchitis. I mean, we have been well educated now

5 in the medical condition of Mr. Stanisic, and I don't believe that there

6 is any possibility that having access to the current report of the

7 gastroenterologist carries with it any risk that that report will be

8 misinterpreted by the Chamber or any of the parties.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Knoops, one needs to be very clear about

10 this.

11 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour --

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm telling you that you need to be very clear

13 about this. I am very clear in my own mind as to the relationship

14 between Dutch law and the governing law of the Tribunal in this matter.

15 It is Dutch law that must put itself in a position so as to

16 conform with the requirements of the Tribunal. That applies not only to

17 Dutch law, but to every other country. And this, by virtue of Article 29

18 of the Statute, and the fact that the Statute was adopted by the

19 Security Council in particular, pursuant to Chapter 7 of the

20 United Nations Charter, the enforcement section. Of course one may have

21 regard to particular difficulties that doctors may experience, but let me

22 tell you this: There should be no difficulties experienced by them

23 because Dutch law should have put itself in a position so that there are

24 no difficulties. And that's my view on the matter.

25 We are adjourned until the 28th of April.

1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.08 p.m.,

2 to be reconvened on Monday, the 28th

3 day of April, 2008.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25