1 Friday, 25 June 2004
2 [Pre-Defence Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 3.10 p.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon. This was a conference called
7 because of what seemed to be a growing list of problems with the
8 preparation of the case for the next stage of proceedings. The advice
9 I've had today suggests that there has been some significant change in
10 some matters of significance in the last 24 hours.
11 What I might do is just call through the matters that seem to have
12 needed attention yesterday to ensure where we're at with each of them.
13 Firstly, there was the need to finalise the Defence witness list.
14 As I understand it, that was done yesterday. That's the position, is it,
15 Mr. Petrovic?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, Your Honour. We
17 submitted our list of witnesses yesterday, witnesses that the Defence will
18 call to testify in our case. Thank you.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Summaries of the witnesses. I see summaries have
20 been provided today. Are they now complete, Mr. Petrovic?
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the summaries in
22 relation to the first group of witnesses about to take the stand next
23 week, hopefully, have been forwarded to the OTP. They were submitted, if
24 I'm not mistaken, on the 22nd. And this morning we have submitted all
25 summaries in relation to all the witnesses that the Defence would like to
1 call during this trial. The summaries have been submitted, estimated time
2 of testimony length, the way in which these witnesses will testify, as
3 well as the estimate of total time that the Defence believes the
4 examination-in-chief of these witness will take. This estimate is given
5 at the end of our list, the list that was forwarded today, in addition to
6 which the counts of the indictment that each of the witnesses will be
7 testifying about have been enclosed as well as the paragraphs, the
8 specific paragraphs of the indictment that their respective testimonies
9 will be in relation to.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Now, Mr. Petrovic, the times estimated
11 for each witness, do they take account of time for cross-examination?
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. The times
13 estimated are in relation to the examination-in-chief, whereas the total
14 number, if I'm not mistaken, it is 34 hours and 45 minutes, this does not
15 include the time that it will take the OTP to cross-examine these
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Now, there was an outstanding expert
18 report yesterday, but one seems to have been filed today. Is that all of
19 your expert reports now filed?
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, all five of them
21 have been filed. All of them in English.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. And the exhibits, I see a list has
23 been -- well, I'm -- we have a list filed the day before yesterday. I
24 understand that you have provided copies of some of them to the
25 Prosecution today. Is that correct?
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in relation to the
2 list of exhibits that you have in front of you, copies of all documents
3 have been filed in B/C/S. Copies of a lot of these documents have been
4 filed in English also. According to information that I received from the
5 interpretation and translation services unit of the Tribunal, a large
6 amount of documents, primarily documents related to the JNA, will have
7 been translated by Monday, and it is on Monday that the translations will
8 be submitted to the OTP. The group of documents that you have before you,
9 Your Honour, are documents in relation to the Croatian side. These are
10 also being translated, and it is during the next week or the week after
11 that these will also get translated eventually and be submitted to the
13 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps I could ask Ms. Somers. Have I correctly
14 understood the position with respect to those issues and whether there's
15 anything you wish to raise about them?
16 MS. SOMERS: First of all, good afternoon, Your Honour. The
17 sequence of events I think is correctly represented. The dropping on the
18 Prosecution of exhibits today, some of which will have to be used for next
19 week, presumably, is a great problem for us. Certainly the description, I
20 would hate to use the word "summary" as is contemplated in 65 ter (G)
21 inasmuch as that is a reference to facts, while there are in a few or in
22 some of these summaries which are really just a different format of the
23 previous versions, very little fact that would assist the Prosecution in
24 trying to cross-examine is contained. The general reference is assertion,
25 insight, activities, but not what is contained in the assertions, what
1 facts, what activities, et cetera, et cetera. So the vagueness puts us in
2 a very difficult, if not impossible situation to know where things will go
3 so we can be ready for cross.
4 The review of the exhibits will take time to study them, to know
5 how they apply, and beyond that, if the Chamber's question is: Does it
6 represent the time line of events? Yes. Its impact is quite a serious
7 concern for us. As the Chamber of course knows, generally speaking the
8 Defence has the benefit of statements with much more information well in
9 advance, generally. We don't have that. And in order for us effectively
10 to conduct a cross-examination, we need to have the time frame of 65 ter
11 give us that -- that benefit.
12 Additionally, we had made a request I which think the Chamber is
13 aware of. It was through correspondence, I believe, copied to the Chamber
14 of enough identifying information. I think the J and B number may have
15 been provided but it doesn't help us because we don't have a database that
16 links that in. So date of birth, father's name, place of birth is at the
17 minimum what is required to distinguish John Doe from John Doe. And it is
18 a problem for us in that we do not have all of that information. So we
19 are finding ourselves last minute trying to determine if perhaps
20 information we have on a John Doe is the same John Doe.
21 That is pretty much the state of play, and I did file in the
22 motion to compel the relief sought. I think it's going to put us in a
23 very difficult position to be able to move forward in the Chamber's time
24 frame. We have tried informally as was directed to get this information
25 without success. New that we have much of it, the ability to assimilate
1 it adequately, to be able to put the matter to the witness while on the
2 stand is very problematic.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may. First of
5 all, what I'd like to say is the following: What the Defence have filed
6 is, in our understanding, in compliance with Rule 65 ter (G). Having read
7 the submission by my learned friend and colleague, I didn't find it
8 difficult to take all the documents and go through them. The OTP
9 submission pursuant to 65 ter (G), their summaries, the summaries they
10 provided, which are much more terse than the ones that we have actually
11 submitted. I have them in front of me now, and there are summaries that
12 only consist of as much as a handful of sentences, and now I have my
13 learned friend and colleague complaining about this or that not being
15 I'm not convinced that the Defence has an obligation that the OTP
16 does not have to file our witness statements. There are no such
17 statements. The Defence took no witness statements. It's as simple as
18 that. There's no obligation for the Defence to take witness statements.
19 Anyone who looks at these summaries can see for themselves. There are
20 summaries that contain much more information than the summaries submitted
21 by the OTP on the 12th of December last year.
22 As for the time frame, Your Honour, we used informal channels
23 almost two weeks ago to submit and file a list of witnesses that we
24 believe was relevant at the time. In view of the fact that it was on the
25 22nd in the afternoon that we received the ruling of the Trial Chamber
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 pursuant to Rule 98 bis, and it was only on the 3rd of this month in the
2 morning that we received a complete ruling on the 98 bis, we did whatever
3 we could to file everything that was expected of us as soon as possible.
4 I must point out something else, too, Your Honour. All these
5 persons who are mentioned in these documents and persons from our witness
6 list are persons who have been referred to repeatedly in this courtroom.
7 All these are persons that anyone who studied and examined these events is
8 familiar with. If you look at their names, and I can elaborate on a
9 name-to-name basis, if you'd like me to. I can tell you exactly who and
10 when referred to these persons here during this trial, even by the OTP.
11 These are no new names, at least in 90 per cent of the persons concerned.
12 These are no new events or new names being referred to and brought up.
13 These are all things that we have referred to during this trial, and their
14 names were mentioned directly are indirectly even from the witness stand.
15 There's nothing new there. There's no surprise being sprung on the OTP.
16 There's no novelty involved, really. Anyone who studied this case knows
17 who these persons are, knows who the company commanders are, and is
18 familiar with all the names being referred to in our summaries and the
19 remaining documents that we have filed if that's what it takes. We can go
20 through them on a name-to-name basis and discuss.
21 However, any claim that someone is not prepared to cross-examine
22 someone may perhaps be an accurate claim, but what is the reason? The
23 reason is not that the Defence team has failed to file something in a
24 timely fashion. This claim can only be accurate if someone has failed to
25 study the case, relying perhaps on a single witness and what this witness
1 may or may not say once put on the stand. That is my case. Thank you,
2 Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
4 Ms. Somers.
5 MS. SOMERS: May I have just a moment, please. There was no
6 suggestion that statements from the Defence are the issue. The convenient
7 is that the Prosecution is obligated to provide the statements and
8 generally well in advance does so. So whatever the level of summary, the
9 fact is the Defence has a very good idea of exactly what the witness is
10 going to be asked about long, long in advance.
11 Secondly --
12 JUDGE PARKER: Well, that's the nature of the burden carried by
13 the Prosecution, I'm afraid, rather than some fault in procedures being
15 MS. SOMERS: Not challenged. However, in terms of equality of
16 arms which is a concept which is well put among the Chambers, the -- the
17 fact that what is the burden on the Defence should have at least some
18 meaning for preparation. Whether or not a person is mentioned a hundred,
19 one, or a thousand times during the course of the case in chief is not the
20 issue. The question is what is it about the person that the Prosecution
21 needs to research until the person knows -- until the Prosecution is aware
22 that that person is in fact going to be called as a witness, the
23 background of the individual, points for credibility are impossible to
24 know. We are not dealing necessarily with running a search on someone
25 who -- about whom information is readily accessible. It is a process, as
1 the Chamber knows. We are dealing not necessarily with the facility of a
2 domestic jurisdiction. It takes a lot to find out about witnesses.
3 And of course on matters of credibility or credit, that is very
4 important, so we need obviously to have the information sufficiently in
5 advance to be able to handle that.
6 The -- the concept of facts, I mean, yes, a name can be mentioned,
7 but what is it? What aspect about a particular witness will be pursued by
8 the Defence is not necessarily something that could be in the crystal ball
9 in front of the Prosecution. And having said that, for us to be ready on
10 Monday is just about impossible given the background to these particular
11 points that I've raised.
12 JUDGE PARKER: I've taken the trouble myself to look at the
13 Prosecution's compliance with the requirement to provide summaries and
14 compared it with what has now been provided, and I have to say that
15 Mr. Petrovic isn't very far wide of the mark if it comes to summaries.
16 I'm very conscious that in addition, there is a separate and distinct
17 obligation on the Prosecution to provide the Defence with statements or
18 proofs, but if one is comparing summary to summary, I think you will well
19 understand that there's force in what has been put by Mr. Petrovic.
20 I might say that if one approached the question of what is a
21 summary of evidence afresh, without the experience of what has happened in
22 this and many other trials, one might expect something more than is to be
23 found in what the Defence has provided, and a very great deal more in what
24 was to be found in what the Prosecution provided. But if one has regard
25 to what seems to be the general practice in the Tribunal, it's difficult
1 to say that the summaries now provided are a failure to comply with the
3 I well know how important it would be for the Defence to be in a
4 better position to cross-examine -- I should say for the Prosecution to be
5 in a better position to know how to approach its cross-examination if it
6 had at least an outline of the main points to be made by a witness, but
7 that is not, I think, the function and requirement of the Rules. The
8 Prosecution has to accept that when it comes to cross-examine a witness,
9 the witness may be introducing evidence of which the Prosecution has no
10 knowledge and has had no notice. So the burden is a heavier one than lies
11 on the Defence in this respect, because if the Defence is taken by
12 surprise by some material aspect of the Prosecution evidence, there has
13 been a non-compliance with the Rules by the Prosecution which provides a
14 more sure foundation for some remedial action by the Trial Chamber.
15 The identification of witnesses, I see, can be a problem, but from
16 what I saw of the witness list, many of these are former military people
17 who held some rank of significance in the armed forces, so that it's not
18 as though you're going to be confronted, for the most part, by people who
19 simply come out of nowhere. These are people who were on stage, as it
20 were, although they may not have been the centre of your particular
21 attention in preparation.
22 It's fair to say, though, that what has been done, Mr. Petrovic,
23 falls in time, in particular, significantly short of what might normally
24 be expected, and it has undoubtedly presented problems for the Prosecution
25 greater than ought to have been. This was anticipated when we adjourned
1 some weeks ago, and the Chamber urged the parties and received from each
2 of them an assurance that there would be informal cooperation to avoid the
3 sort of situation that has occurred. It's a particular disappoint to me
4 that very little has happened until the last few days. I know that you
5 say, "Well, we didn't have the 98 bis decision," but the preparation of
6 the Defence case didn't need to stand still until the 98 bis decision was
7 delivered, which appears to have been the course that has been followed.
8 My assessment on balance is that the case should proceed next week
9 as planned. I do recognise that there could well be, with a particular
10 witness or over a particular issue, a real problem caused by the short
11 notice, a problem greater than the Prosecution should be asked to carry.
12 Should that occur in respect of any particular witness and if the Chamber
13 is satisfied of that at the time, then there will, could I say, be a clear
14 basis upon which the Prosecution could seek to have the whole or part of
15 its cross-examination deferred at least until the end of the witness that
16 follows to give more time.
17 Now, do not take from that that it can be expected that there will
18 be a deferment of all cross-examinations virtually as a course. It will
19 be a matter of assessing the circumstances and seeing whether that course
20 becomes necessary in the view of the Chamber, so that you may find it
21 difficult to persuade the Chamber in a particular case that there is
22 really justification for the adjournment. But if the Chamber is
23 satisfied, that, in my present assessment of the matter, ought to provide
24 a means of allowing the Prosecution reasonable opportunity to overcome the
25 sort of problem that could well loom as we go through the evidence.
1 A consequence of that, Mr. Petrovic, or two consequences of that
2 occur to me immediately. There may be more. The first is that some
3 Defence witnesses may well need to wait in The Hague longer than might
4 otherwise have been expected. The second is that you may need to have the
5 next witness ready earlier than you expected if there is a matter which
6 justifies deferral in part or whole of the cross-examination of a
7 particular witness. So that will have to be borne in mind as you proceed.
8 Now, clearly the occasion for this will diminish as the case
9 proceeds, because time will have run by then, although that naturally will
10 mean that the resources of the Prosecution will be under pressure.
11 I think that's all I can say about those matters at the moment,
12 Ms. Somers, unless there's something more that you seek to raise.
13 MS. SOMERS: I wanted to ask Your Honour. You raised a point
14 about possibly some -- I think you raised a point, at least I inferred it,
15 that perhaps some form of point summary might be of assistance. In other
16 words, if some Chambers do, we did not always --
17 JUDGE PARKER: I was merely reflecting back on what I would have
18 loved at times that I have prosecuted.
19 MS. SOMERS: At times --
20 JUDGE PARKER: What I would loved to have had my hand before I had
21 to cross-examine. You will pardon a Judge for reflecting back.
22 MS. SOMERS: No. I reflect back to other days as well.
23 JUDGE PARKER: There were times I had been defendant and felt I
24 hadn't been given a proper deal either.
25 MS. SOMERS: We all share that experience, but I would say under
1 the circumstances perhaps if the Chamber is minded it might be helpful to
2 have at least a point summary of the areas of inquiry which I don't think
3 is terribly burdensome inasmuch as in different Chambers we've had to do
4 it as well. And a day -- at least a day in advance of it would be
5 helpful. Again it varies from Chamber to Chamber but perhaps it might
6 alleviate the circumstances and avoid unnecessary delays. It would direct
7 us perhaps a bit better, and for all parties it might be a better -- or a
8 helpful solution, and we would be very grateful for it.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, a suggestion has been put forward
10 which may help minimise any possible need for delay in the dealing with
11 the witness and therefore ease some of the consequential problems that
12 could arise for you.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, unfortunately I find
14 that what my learned friend and colleague has put forward would amount to
15 no more than they already have in these summaries. What my learned friend
16 and colleague refers to has been done on their part, as we can remember,
17 and it's important to note when that document was delivered. It was on
18 the 16th of January this year, which is a full month after the beginning
19 of the trial.
20 So I must say again the document I'm referring to is the OTP
21 indictment proofing chart, which is really what my learned colleague is
22 expecting to have. It was forwarded on the 16th of January. And we had
23 begun on the 15th of December.
24 Therefore, Your Honour, we shall do our best could comply with
25 whatever rulings you may make, but we can't be sure that this will
1 necessarily be useful to the other side since the subjects we are about to
2 tackle are very narrow and restricted. Our view of our defence case is to
3 focus as narrowly as we can on a specific development, and there is only
4 one true development, and all these witnesses will be speaking about will
5 for the most cases be focused on that one development. Therefore,
6 anything beyond that would be inopportune in our view. However,
7 Your Honour, we are in our hands and we shall comply with whatever you
8 decide with a view to expedite these proceedings and bring them to a
9 speedy end.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Can I put this to you Mr. Petrovic: My viewing of
11 what has been provided by the Defence by way of summary leaves me with
12 very little understanding of what a witness is going to speak about.
13 There is an indication that the witness may give an account of his role on
14 the 6th of December, or words to that effect, but no indication of what
15 the witness was doing on the 6th, how his evidence will be material to the
16 events, at what points his witness -- his evidence will differ from other
17 evidence in the case. They are the matters, as you will well understand,
18 upon which the Prosecution would prefer to concentrate and leave all
19 others aside. That will save time for everybody. That's just the
20 material matters.
21 Now, your summary doesn't summarise that evidence at all. It
22 merely, as it were, gives a heading of what the witness might be talking
23 about but doesn't summarise at all what it is the witness is going to say
24 in the evidence.
25 Now, I've heard you say that you have no witness statements from
1 any witness. I will make no observation about that at this point, but you
2 certainly must have an idea what it is the witness is going to speak
3 about, and it certainly must be within your capacity, I would think within
4 a few minutes dealing with each of the witnesses, for example, you expect
5 to call in the coming week to give some indication of the nature of the
6 evidence that witness is going to give which you see to be material to the
8 Now, I think that would go quite a long way to helping the
9 Prosecution cope with the problem that has now been set for them by the
10 shortness of notice and the nature of the summaries that you have
12 Could I ask you to attempt to deal with that matter forthwith?
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if that is your
14 request, we shall try to comply with that request to the best of our
15 ability. This is all I can say. Furthermore, I assume that this is only
16 in relation to the first couple of witnesses. As for the remaining
17 witnesses, I believe the OTP has ample time to obtain whatever information
18 they deem necessary.
19 This proposal of yours, Your Honour, with all due respect, I think
20 means more than our obligation under Rule 65 ter in relation to summaries.
21 The practice that I am familiar with, I may be mistaken, but the practice
22 that I am familiar with does not make any such requirements. However, if
23 that is your decision, if that is your request, we are prepared to compile
24 some -- something like that in relation to our first witnesses. However,
25 facing the workload that we are and that we are likely to be facing over
1 the following weeks, this is an extra burden being placed on our
2 shoulders. We have a three-men Defence team dealing with all the
3 problems, the passports, looking at the citizenships of our prospective
4 witnesses, taking care of all the procedures, getting witnesses
5 photographed for their passports, compiling all these documents, all this
6 paperwork. All this red tape is something that we have to deal with, and
7 we are a team of three men.
8 We are not complaining about this. That is not our intention by
9 any means, but we would not like any burden being placed on us that is not
10 strictly within the rules. However, if that is what you require,
11 Your Honour, we shall do our best to comply with this request. Thank you
12 very much again.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Can I indicate to you, Mr. Petrovic, that my
14 understanding of what I'm requiring is to urge you to make a part
15 compliance with the requirement to provide a summary. I have accepted and
16 you've heard what I've said about the nature of the summaries provided to
17 you. It must be observed, however, that not only did you have a summary
18 and not only did the Chamber have a summary but that there was provided in
19 addition effectively a full statement or proof. A summary was merely
20 something to be read in conjunction with the full statement so that you
21 had no doubt, having read that evidence, what it was that you were going
22 to have to deal with.
23 Now, the Prosecution has no right to be in that same position, but
24 that then places greater need for a reasonable compliance with the
25 obligation to provide what is truly a summary rather than simply, as it
1 were, a head-note of what the evidence might be.
2 Now, we could debate all day every day exactly what might be
3 compliance with an obligation to provide a summary. Views as to that
4 would differ from case to case, from witness to witness, and could well
5 differ from Trial Chamber to Trial Chamber. I don't see that what I'm
6 putting to you is in any way requiring you to go beyond the requirement of
7 the Rule, and in fact, as I've indicated, I think I may be allowing you to
8 get away with something that falls short, although by no means as far
9 short of compliance with the Rule as that which is presently being done.
10 I'm doing that in the hope that it will enable the Prosecution to prepare
11 adequately for its task in addition to the preparation that their whole
12 familiarity with the case must have ensured.
13 So that's the obligation that I'm asking, that you measure up to
14 in a better way than at the moment. It will be essential that something
15 be provided even today in respect of the first witness and that as soon as
16 possible you deal with the following witnesses.
17 The obligation is not going to stop after just one week's
18 witnesses because of the nature of what you have presently provided as
19 summaries. Now, I'm not suggesting you provide an exhaustive outline of
20 what each witness is going to give, but I think you can readily appreciate
21 that if you were being truly offered a summary of a witness's evidence,
22 you would expect at the end of reading it to have some idea of the main
23 points which that witness is going to speak about and the nature of where
24 that evidence may be significantly different from anything else that is
25 known or entirely new to the case. And that's the sort of thing that's
1 quite missing at the moment and leaves the Prosecution simply without any
2 idea of what it is that must be faced.
3 So have I made my expectation clear?
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE PARKER: And I add that I don't think it will take a great
6 deal of time if you do know what it is you're calling the witness for.
7 You will be able to give a very brief indication of that in short time on
8 your part so as not to impede heavily into the many other obligations that
9 I well appreciate you have.
10 Now, there are a couple of other matters, I think. You sought ex
11 parte the issue of a witness subpoena, Mr. Petrovic. It may be done ex
12 parte. Can I indicate that a witness subpoena will issue.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE PARKER: You want to call one witness by videolink. Until
15 we see who it is and why, I can't really presume to deal with that at the
16 moment, so that we'll have to wait until you've made a -- at least a brief
17 formal application.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I have already
19 announced my intention to do so to your colleagues.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers, is there some matter that is
21 outstanding from your point of view?
22 MS. SOMERS: It is on the -- Your Honour, it is on the issue of
23 exhibits, and we have -- we've been served with copies of them. Now, the
24 Rule doesn't necessarily indicate the linkage of particular exhibits to
25 particular counts.
1 JUDGE PARKER: No.
2 MS. SOMERS: If -- and -- you know, I wish we could extract it a
3 little bit more.
4 JUDGE PARKER: If I can be two paces ahead of you.
5 MS. SOMERS: I understand. The point many I'm raising is because
6 of the timing of them I've got 85 exhibits I've got to wade through. And
7 some may be self-evident; some may not. Because some, they will be cross.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Most of them tended to shout.
9 MS. SOMERS: Some I haven't seen; I just got them.
10 JUDGE PARKER: I'm a day ahead of you. I'm sure I'll not find it
11 hard to see what each one is dealing with and see how they fit into the
12 picture. Some I wouldn't pretend to know.
13 MS. SOMERS: If there is such a question, if we can indulge, then
14 perhaps if in a summary it might be indicated that a particular exhibit in
15 the point summary that may be provided of a particular -- it may be relied
16 upon that would be helpful.
17 JUDGE PARKER: The description of each intended exhibit is
18 generally quite fulsome. In that area, I don't think there's much room
19 for complaint.
20 It's quite obvious from the number of witnesses and the time
21 needed for their examination-in-chief that we will be needing to be very
22 conscious of time as the case progresses, and I would ask counsel to keep
23 that in mind. The 98 bis decision may have had the advantage of helping
24 to focus attention on what seems to be some of the more material issues,
25 and that may help both counsel teams to be more directed and relevant in
1 the areas that are explored both in the evidence in chief and
3 If there's no other matter -- there is. Mr. Petrovic.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in view of the nature
5 of that issue, can we please go into closed session for a moment, please.
6 Rather, private session. This is one of the witnesses from our list who
7 has a peculiar problem, and this is something I would like to bring up.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. Private session.
9 [Private session]
12 Page 6784 – redacted – private session.
12 Page 6785 – redacted – private session.
12 Page 6786 – redacted – private session.
12 Page 6787 – redacted – private session.
1 --- Whereupon the Pre-Defence Conference
2 adjourned at 4.08 p.m.