120823SC

Page 31

1 Thursday, 23 August 2012

2 [Status Conference]

3 [Open session]

4 [The appellant entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.29 a.m.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, everybody.

7 Madam Registrar, could you call the case, please.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honour. This is case number

9 IT-05-87/1-A, the Prosecutor versus Vlastimir Djordjevic.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

11 Could I have the appearances, starting with the Prosecution,

12 please.

13 MR. WOOD: Yes. Good morning, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning.

15 MR. WOOD: Kyle Wood for the Prosecutor today, along with

16 Christine Dahl and our case manager Colin Nawrot.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you very much.

18 And for the Defence?

19 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

20 Veljko Djurdjic, a co-counsel for the Defence.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

22 Before we proceed, I want to make sure that Appellant Djordjevic

23 is able to follow the proceedings in a language that he understands. I

24 see him nodding. Thank you.

25 This Status Conference is called in accordance with Rule 65 bis

Page 32

1 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal. Rule 65 bis (B)

2 requires a Status Conference to be convened within 120 days after the

3 filing of a notice of appeal and thereafter within 120 days after the

4 last Status Conference. Purpose of such status conferences is to allow

5 any person in custody pending appeal the opportunity to raise issues in

6 relation thereto, and that includes also submissions regarding the mental

7 and physical condition of the person.

8 In the present case the parties filed notices of appeal way back

9 on the 24th of May, 2011, and the first Status Conference was held on the

10 30th of May, 2011. The second, third, fourth Status Conferences were

11 held on the 21st September 2011, 16 January 2012, and 11th May 2012

12 respectively. Today's Status Conference being the fifth in this case was

13 scheduled by an order issued by me on the 10th of July, 2012.

14 I would like to, first of all, inquire into the status of the

15 detention conditions and the health situation of appellant,

16 Mr. Djordjevic.

17 Mr. Djordjevic, if you have any concerns in relation to the

18 conditions of your detention or your state of health, I would like to

19 invite you to raise them now. And if you prefer, as I have advised you

20 on previous occasions, this discussion can take place in private session

21 if you so wish.

22 THE APPELLANT: [Interpretation] Everything is in order. Thank

23 you very much.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Before we turn to any issue that the

25 parties may wish to raise, I would like to briefly set out the procedural

Page 33

1 history of this case. I should note here that with the exception of the

2 Scheduling Order issued on 10th July 2012, there have been no orders or

3 decisions issued in this case and no filings by the parties since the

4 last Status Conference which, as I said before, was held in May of this

5 year. Therefore, the procedural history I am about to summarise will

6 essentially be the same as that summarised during the last

7 Status Conference. And the parties will of course already be aware of

8 all this information. However, it is important also that the public also

9 be made aware of the background of this case, and for that reason I will

10 repeat the information here today.

11 On 11th March 2011, the parties were granted an extension of time

12 of 60 days to file their notices of appeal. Both parties filed their

13 respective notices of appeal on 24th May 2011. The Prosecution presented

14 two grounds of appeal and Djordjevic presented 19 grounds of appeal. On

15 the 27th of May, 2011, the Djordjevic Defence filed a motion requesting

16 an extension of time and word limit in respect of its appeal brief. At

17 the Status Conference held on the 30th of May, 2011, I extended the

18 dead-line for filing appeal briefs by seven days, that is, up to 15th

19 August 2011 and this was for both parties. In addition, I granted the

20 Djordjevic Defence an extension of up to 15.000 words for its appeal

21 brief and granted the Prosecution the same extension in respect of its

22 brief and response. Both parties filed their appeal briefs on 15th

23 August 2011.

24 At the Status Conference held on 21st September 2011, the

25 Djordjevic Defence requested an extension of time of 15 days for the

Page 34

1 filing of its reply brief as well as an extension of the word limit by

2 6.000 words. I granted both parties an extension of time up to the 26th

3 of October 2011 for the filing of the briefs and reply and also granted

4 the Djordjevic Defence team an extension of up to 3.000 words.

5 Both parties filed their response briefs on the 26th September

6 2011 and subsequently filed their reply briefs on the 26th of October,

7 2011.

8 The Prosecution subsequently filed a public redacted version of

9 its appeal brief on 17th August of last year, and on the 30th of

10 September of last year, the Djordjevic Defence filed its public redacted

11 version. This was later withheld, pending determination of a

12 confidential motion filed on the 24th of November, 2011, by the

13 Prosecution in which it requested the redaction of certain information

14 from Djordjevic's appeal brief. The Djordjevic Defence filed its

15 confidential response to the motion on the 7th December of last year, and

16 the Prosecution filed a confidential reply on the 9th of December, 2011.

17 I issued a confidential decision on this matter in my capacity as

18 pre-appeal Judge on the 20th of January of this year. In that decision I

19 granted the Prosecution's motion in part and ordered, inter alia,

20 appellant Djordjevic to file a new public redacted version of his appeal

21 brief, incorporating one additional redaction. Pursuant to that

22 decision, Djordjevic re-filed the public redacted version of this appeal

23 brief on the 23rd of January, 2012. Both parties filed public redacted

24 versions of their response briefs on the 30th of January of this year.

25 The Prosecution filed its public redacted reply brief on 8th February and

Page 35

1 Djordjevic filed a notice of reclassification of his reply brief on 9th

2 February of this year.

3 Finally, on the 7th of March, 2012, President Meron issued an

4 order replacing a judge in this case. Pursuant to that order

5 Judge Khalida Rachid Kahn was assigned to the Bench in place of

6 Fausto Pocar. That concludes the part on the procedural history.

7 I come to the next item on the agenda, namely, issues raised by

8 the parties. And at this point I would like to ask the parties whether

9 they have any other issues that they would like to raise starting with

10 the Prosecution. Ms. Dahl or --

11 MR. WOOD: Nothing from the Prosecution.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

13 For Appellant Djordjevic.

14 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence has

15 nothing either at this point in time.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you very much.

17 Unless there is anything that the Appellant Djordjevic himself

18 wants -- wishes to raise, I can bring this Status Conference to an end.

19 THE APPELLANT: [Interpretation] I have nothing to raise. Thank

20 you.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

22 This concludes today's Status Conference. I would like to thank

23 the parties for their attendance as well as the recorders, interpreters,

24 and Registrar, and staff. The next Status Conference will be called

25 within the 120-day time-limit that I referred to before. Thank you and

Page 36

1 good morning to everybody.

2 --- Whereupon the Status Conference

3 adjourned at 9.41 a.m.