Case: IT-00-39-T

___________________________________________________________________________

NOTING its scheduling order of 26 April 2005, setting out the timetable for the trial and the judgement, which was modified by its order of 26 August 2005 pursuant to Rule 65 ter (G);

NOTING the Defence’s Motion for Extension of Time, filed on 26 September 2005, which requests an extension of time for the filing of Rule 65 ter (G) material from 26 September 2005 to 12 October 2005, as well as a further postponement of the start of the defence case from 3 October to 25 October 2005;

NOTING the oral submissions on the motion made by the parties on 28 September 2005, as well as the information given by the Registrar’s representative on the present state of legal-aid funding for the Defence;

NOTING that the motion was filed in the afternoon of 26 September 2005, the very day on which the Defence was meant to file the Rule 65 ter (G) material, leaving the Trial Chamber with no possibility to decide the motion for extension of time prior to the expiration of the filing deadline, and thereby forcing another delay;

NOTING the Defence’s submission that "It is absolutely natural and entirely to be expected that a defendant in Mr Krajišnik’s position will engage in occasional bouts of being difficult or even very difficult with his own Defence team, and he does";

NOTING the Defence’s submission that Mr Krajišnik is presently in arrears to his defence fund to the amount of $180,000 and that "It is unrealistic to suggest that such a significant shortfall does not have a significant detrimental effect on the preparation and presentation of Mr Krajišnik’s defence since the trial began. Of course it does";

NOTING that the Trial Chamber, after a meeting with Defence lead counsel on 23 August 2005, at which lead counsel stated that "it is possible that the date by which we can complete this task Si.e. filing of Rule 65 ter (G) materialC could be 1st of October. What I’m saying is that I don’t know at the moment for sure whether it will be possible by that date, but I am, as is my co-counsel on this, I am confident that we cannot do this job properly earlier than that", decided to grant the Defence a three-week extension of time (from 12 September 2005, which was the date set in the original trial schedule for commencement of the defence case, to 3 October 2005) to commence the defence case;

CONSIDERING that the period between the close of the Prosecution’s case on 22 July 2005 and the revised deadline for filing Rule 65 ter (G) material on 26 September 2005 gave the Defence sufficient time to further prepare its case, even taking account of the summer recess;

CONSIDERING, moreover, that the preparation of the defence case is presumed to have been an ongoing project, initiated well before the close of the Prosecution’s case, and that while the Defence has often complained that the time in its hands has been insufficient to assure Mr Krajišnik a fair trial, the Trial Chamber has denied the Defence’s formal motions for adjournment, finding that the trial has been fair in all respects, and in particular in relation to the time and resources allotted to the Defence;

CONSIDERING that it is not in the interests of justice that an accused who has never made his assessed contribution to his defence fund should be allowed to make good the "significant detrimental effect" of non-payment through repeated grants of additional time in preparation;

CONSIDERING that, as is evident from a letter Mr Krajišnik addressed to the Trial Chamber on 7 September 2005, the Accused, when it comes to remunerating certain "investigators" nominated by him, complains that it is his counsel who should make the disbursements on the Accused’s behalf, out of the legal-aid budget, a form of conduct which cannot be of assistance to the preparation of his defence case;

CONSIDERING the current state of preparation of the Defence team, as explained by Defence lead counsel in written and oral submissions;

FINDS that good cause for a further extension of time has not been shown;

DENIES the motion;

ORDERS as follows:

(1) Except as it relates to exhibits, the Defence shall file the Rule 65 ter (G) material by 3 October 2005 in the most complete form possible, on the understanding that the witness list may include references to as yet unnamed expert witnesses, or to witnesses who may finally not be called, and on the understanding that whatever the length of this provisional witness list the Defence shall conclude its case no later than 10 March 2006, as scheduled;

(2) A Rule 73 ter pre-defence conference shall be held on Thursday 6 October 2005;

(3) The defence case shall start on 10 October 2005, and the Defence shall inform the VWS, as well as the Prosecution, no later than Friday 30 September 2005 of the witnesses it wishes to call in the first week of the defence case;

(4) A recess shall be taken beginning Thursday 13 October 2005, with the defence case to resume on Tuesday 25 October 2005;

(5) Defence exhibits which cannot be provided to the Prosecution by 3 October 2005 in accordance with the Rules shall be provided to the Prosecution at the earliest opportunity thereafter, and in any case well in advance of the hearing of the witness through which a given exhibit will be introduced.

Done in English and French, the English version being authoritative.

___________________
Judge Alphons Orie
Presiding Judge

Dated this 28th day of September 2005
At The Hague,
The Netherlands