The transcripts of the trial of Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia. More…

  • [Open session]

  • [The accused present]

  • [Upon commencing at 10.03 a.m.]

  • Good morning. We'll take appearances first, please.

  • Good morning, Madam President, your Honours, opposing counsel. This morning for the Prosecution, the case manager Maja Dimitrova and myself, Brenda J Hollis.

  • Good morning, Madam President, your Honours. For the Defence today, myself, Courtenay Griffiths, with me, Mr Morris Anyah, Silas Chekera and Ms Logan Hambrick and we're also joined by our case manager Ms Salla Moilanen and also two of our legal assistants Mr Hawi Alot and Ms Kimberley Punt.

  • Thank you. Mr Griffiths, you're welcome back to the Court. We haven't seen you for a while and I hope you are feeling better.

  • I am feeling a lot better. Thank you very much.

  • Right. As you know, today is the day that the Defence was asked to close their case. However, we found last evening that the Defence filed one last motion. That's motion 1117. That's the Defence motion for admission of documents pursuant to Rule 92 bis, Prince Taylor and Stephen Moriba. The Chamber is inclined to expedite the hearing and decision of this motion, one way or the other. And, therefore, we - I would like to ask the Prosecution, Ms Hollis, are you able to respond to this orally? It's not a very profound issue.

  • We would be happy to, if we had had time to look at it. We received it about 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon and have - feel the need to look at some of the testimony which we haven't done yet. Now, we may be able, if we're not opposing it, to file something this afternoon. But we do need to look up some references in the testimony. So unfortunately I'm afraid I'm not able to do that at this time, Madam President.

  • Actually, we wanted to save you the trouble of filing. That's why I was alluding to oral arguments, one way or the other. Because really what we were thinking, if you don't oppose the motion, then there are no issues. And if you do oppose the motion, and there are two levels, as you will read in the motion, then we could hear your oral arguments and issue an oral decision. That way you don't have to spend time on filing anything.

  • And I would love to be able to accommodate you with that. But, as I said, we have not been able to look up the references yet, so we're not exactly sure of what our position is.

  • Ms Hollis, how much time do you reckon you'd require?

  • I think we should have certainly found the references and formulated our position by this afternoon. One of my staff is looking at it this morning, so by this afternoon we should certainly have done that.

  • By afternoon do you mean 12 o'clock or literally 2 o'clock?

  • Well, I think even perhaps by 1.30 or 2 certainly we should have been able to formulate our position.

  • Mr Griffiths, what are your views, supposing we heard oral arguments at 2 o'clock and then wrapped up everything?

  • We would be happy to accommodate that, Madam President, because, as you have rightly observed, the subject matter of this motion falls within a fairly narrow compass. It effectively deals with one real issue which we assumed could be resolved very quickly. I'm quite prepared to return to court this afternoon in order to deal with the matter orally, if that will expedite matters.

  • And I'll tell you what. Also I think the parties could use this time, we'll kill two birds with one stone, to examine the decisions, the two decisions that were filed early this morning which were the last decisions that were pending before the Trial Chamber. So this time could also be used to accommodate that.

  • Indeed, Madam President. And we have considered the two decisions and there is an application we would make in relation to both of them.

    Both judgments received are fairly substantial. One of them running to some 48 pages, that is the motion for contempt. Both are quite substantial, as I say, and refer to issues which we regard as being quite critical to the whole case against Mr Taylor. And we appreciate that there is a three-day time limit to appeal, and we are minded to appeal, but we cannot complete what will be a mammoth task in perusing these judgments in order to digest the detail of them in order to seek leave within the three-day time limit.

    So the application we would make, in light of what I've just said, is a decision by your Honours that we could file any motion for leave to appeal by Friday of next week, which is the 19th.

    Can I just add, that that would give us, in effect, five working days, excluding the Saturday and Sunday.

  • Ms Hollis, Mr Griffiths has made these preliminary remarks; they may or may not seek leave to appeal, but probably they're thinking to apply for leave to appeal, in light of our two decisions. Now, we would like to hear your views from the Prosecution side before we retire, because yet this is another matter that we could resolve very easily by an oral decision.

  • Thank you, Madam President. We oppose this application. The three days doesn't give any exception for decisions that a party may think are particularly problematic or complex. We don't think that the decision is complex. The decision on joint criminal enterprise was very complex but that was still a three-day period in which to seek leave to appeal. And the three days doesn't exclude weekends. We have routinely worked over weekends to meet the three-day limit. Were you to give them until the end of next week, that would not be five days, in fact, it would be seven days. And so it would be four days beyond the three-day limit.

    We do oppose it. We don't think that it is efficient. We don't think that it is required in the interests of justice. And we would ask that should they determine they're going to appeal, that they have to abide by the three-day limit.

  • We will adjourn to 2.30, 2.30 this afternoon, to consider all these outstanding issues. And we will expect the Defence to close their case then, formally. Regardless of any other incidental issues that may arise. Thank you.

  • [Break taken at 10.13 a.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 2.32 p.m.]

  • Good afternoon. Ms Hollis, I think we'll start with your - or the Prosecution response, oral response, to motion 1117.

  • Thank you, Madam President, your Honours. This Defence application under Rule 92 bis should be dismissed. First of all, they have not established that it is in the interests of justice to accept this filing outside of the deadline that was imposed by your Honours.

    Secondly, were your Honours to be disposed to accept the filing and consider it, the documents and the arguments do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 92 bis. In relation to the documents pertaining to Prince Taylor, not only are the - is the filing of these documents unjustifiably out of time, but it is unduly cumulative.

    As to the document relating to Stephen Jusu Moriba, this document addresses a Defence manufactured issued and is not relevant.

    As to Prince Taylor, filing outside the deadline, the Defence argues to you that they must file this application outside the deadline because of issues raised by the Prosecution after the filing deadline. However, in that same application they admit the reality and the reality is that the issue of the identity of Prince Taylor has been raised before, long before the last days of the Defence case. And even though it was raised before, the Defence chose not to call witnesses on that issue or to file a Rule 92 bis application in a timely fashion. So this last-minute filing after the deadline is not justified.

    In paragraphs 9 and paragraphs 13 of the application, the Defence acknowledge that the issue of the identity of Prince Taylor has been raised before. And at paragraph 13 they give you citations to earlier testimony in which this issue has been raised, including the testimony of Charles Ngebeh way back on 12 April of this year and they cite you to page 38718. Also the testimony of Fayia Musa, also known as Musa Fayia, again along time ago on 19 April of this year and they cite you to pages 39286, 39287. And also they cite you to the testimony of Isatu Kallon on 23 June of this year and they cite to page 43272, although the topic begins on page 43271.

    So it is an issue that has been raised much earlier in the Defence case and they have chosen not to address it at this time. It is therefore not justified that they be allowed this last-minute filing.

    You would please note if you look at the testimony of Fayia Musa, that his testimony on this issue is ambiguous and certainly allows for the Prosecution to continue to question on this issue. The Prosecution is not persisting in moving forward with unfounding propositions. And at page 39287 of the transcript of 19 April you will find the ambiguity in the responses of Fayia Musa as to Prince Taylor and whether Prince Taylor was the investigator for Charles Taylor. That is to say, the Prince Taylor who was an RUF member was the investigator for Charles Taylor. And he seems to indicate that he was, but again it is ambiguous and merited follow-up questioning by the Prosecution.

    So the issue has been before your Honours, the issue has been known to the Defence for some time, there is no justification for a late filing. The fact that the issue has been raised before also precludes the filing, in our submission, because it is unduly cumulative. There is already evidence on the record that deals with this matter and those same citations that the Defence gave you that I have mentioned to you just previously also have the witnesses indicating that there are two Prince Taylors and that a Prince Taylor with whom they spoke in relation to this case was a different Prince Taylor, except as I have noted Fayia Musa's somewhat confusing and ambiguous responses.

    There is jurisprudence to the effect that unnecessarily cumulative or repetitive evidence need not be admitted because it could affect the expeditious nature of the proceedings. And in that regard I am referring to the Prosecutor v Blagojevic and Jokic, that is an ICTY decision of 12 June 2003 at paragraph 20 and Blagojevic is B-L-A-G-O-J-E-V-I-C; Jokic, J-O-K-I-C.

    For those reasons, your Honours, we suggest that the application as to Prince Taylor be dismissed by your Honours.

    In terms of the application as to Stephen Jusu Moriba, this application should also be dismissed as again there is no justification for any filing at all actually, because this is a Defence-created issue and, further, the document at annex B does not establish that this Stephen Jusu Moriba is not Pa Moriba.

    But first of all let's look at whether in fact as the Defence tell you in their pleading this is an issue that has been raised by the Prosecution where we have suggested that Gbao Defence team witness assistant Stephen Jusu Moriba is the same as Pa Moriba who was an adviser to Foday Sankoh. There was no suggestion by the Prosecution and we certainly never mentioned this person's name in relation to his being a Gbao Defence team witness assistant. If you look at the citations that are given to you by the Defence, they simply do not support their application. None of those citations show you that we have suggested that these two individuals are one and the same, or that we have identified Stephen Jusu Moriba as a Gbao Defence team witness assistant.

    If you look at the citation for 3 November which was given to you by the Defence, pages 48554 to 48558, you see that all of the questions there relate to Yusef Dafae and Stephen Jusu Moriba. Nothing about Pa Moriba. Nothing at all. And if you look at that exchange about this confusion, Yusef Dafae or Stephen Jusu Moriba, you will note that the first question was posed by her Honour the Presiding Judge. So nothing there supports their argument.

    If you look at the 4 November citation which was obviously a typographic error, it's cited as 448701, there is no such page, but the Prosecution believes they are referring to 48701 where Jusu Moriba is mentioned, but he is mentioned on that page, if that is the page they're referring to, in relation to the witness's house burning down. Nothing about is he the same person as Pa Moriba.

    In fact, your Honours, the questions on 4 November, again we think it is page 48701, the only mention of him is between lines 19 and 23 where he says, "Stephen Jusu Moriba and myself, we built the houses." And they're talking about houses being burned down.

    The 5th of November is of import to your Honours. The pages that are cited there are pages 48897 to 48898 and the relevant questions on those pages begin at the bottom of page 48897 and they are questions, you will see that. They are questions. "Who is Pa Moriba?" And then the question:

    "Q. Is this the person you said was your adjutant?

    A. No, sir."

    There's no suggestion by the Prosecution that they are the same person. These are questions, and these are legitimate questions.

    On 8 November the Defence cites you to pages 48956 to 48960. If you look at those pages you will see there is no mention of Pa Moriba. Certainly no mention or suggestion that Stephen Jusu Moriba is the same as Pa Moriba.

    On 9 November, pages 49071 to 49072, in fact this is re-direct examination. This is not the Prosecution cross-examining this witness at all. It is re-direct examination and the witness is asked if they're one and the same person and the witness says that they are not.

    So if you look at the cites they have given you there is nothing to support what they say is the issue; the Prosecution suggestion that Pa Moriba and Stephen Jusu Moriba are one and the same person. And on that ground alone it should be dismissed as there is no issue to be addressed by this document.

    In addition to that, the document that you find at annex B is not relevant. It does not establish that Stephen Jusu Moriba is not Pa Moriba. In fact, the witness said he did not know what part of the Court Stephen Jusu Moriba worked for, so the email saying that Stephen Jusu Moriba worked for the Gbao Defence is of no relevance here because the witness himself said he didn't know what part of the Court this person worked for.

    So we suggest there is no relevance here to assist in any issue that has been raised because no issue has in fact been raised. On those grounds, Madam President, your Honours, we would ask that your Honours dismiss this application.

  • Thank you, Ms Hollis. Mr Griffiths, may I ask you to briefly reply. Thank you.

  • Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, we submit that this issue can be resolved quite simply and should, in our submission, have been approached in the light indicated by your Honours this morning that, given the narrow scope of this submission, that it could be dealt with equally swiftly and simply. Because the question at the bottom of this is quite simple: Do the Prosecution assert that the Prince Taylor who works as an investigator for the Defence team for Charles Taylor is the same Prince Taylor who was a member of the RUF? If they are not making that assertion, if they're not making that positive assertion, that matter can be dealt with quite simply.

    Equally, are the Prosecution suggesting that the Mr Moriba referred to in the course of the evidence of Mr Kolleh is the same individual as the other Moriba? And again, this matter could have been dealt with quite simply. The Prosecution could have got up and said, "We are not making such a positive assertion."

    However, it appears that the submissions made by Ms Hollis on behalf of the Prosecution seeks to leave this situation ambiguous. No doubt so that they can in due course exploit that ambiguity, when they could, if they so chose, clarify the matter now by a simple admission; that is not our position.

    That they have not chosen to do. Now we submit, put bluntly, that the submissions made by the Prosecution are the merest obfuscation.

    The question of timing in our submission is not material, it's not fundamental. We submit, frankly, this is another example of the Prosecution making to Defence witnesses positive assertions when they have in their possession inconvenient material which undermines the assertion they make. Because way back in - and I remind myself of the date - way back in 2006, December, Karim Khan, my predecessor as lead counsel for Mr Taylor emailed Mr Jim Johnson, sitting up there in the public gallery as we speak, and explained to him, sending along Mr Taylor's CV, who he was. So the Prosecution had that material in their possession when Mr Koumjian saw fit to make what the Prosecution must have known was an erroneous positive submission.

    Now in our submission it does not behove a Prosecutor who is supposed to behave as a minister of justice to behave in such an - and I say it bluntly - unethical way, making a positive assertion when they have in their possession, as with the Johnny Paul Koroma situation, material which undermines what they are suggesting.

    In our submission the matter is here quite simple. Do we meet the requirements of Rule 92 bis? Proposition one: This information does not go to proof of the conduct of the accused. Proposition two: It is not opinion evidence. Proposition three: It is reliable and it is capable of positive confirmation. And, finally, it's relevant to the purpose for which we have submitted it. It clarifies the situation, enables your Honours to discharge your important judicial function based upon positive and unambiguous facts. Those are our submissions.

  • Thank you. Ms Hollis, you don't have a right to go beyond the reply.

  • Madam President, once again, as it has done so many times throughout this trial, the Defence has seen fit to make serious allegations about the professionalism and ethical conduct of the Prosecution. It goes beyond their pleading, it goes beyond a proper reply, and we wish the opportunity to put our position on the record.

  • Ms Hollis, please. Please, just give me time.

  • [Trial Chamber conferred]

  • Ms Hollis, it normally would not be procedurally proper for me to allow you a say after the reply has come in. As you know, we started with a written motion 1117, I then asked you to respond orally and I asked Mr Griffiths to reply orally. Now, Mr Griffiths has spoken of unethical behaviour on the part of the Prosecution and only in relation to that will I ask you to respond, please.

  • Thank you, Madam President. We wish to state for the record our continuing dismay and objection to the characterisations such as this unethical conduct characterisation that the Defence have made about the Prosecution. In this case we are faced with two scenarios they base our supposed unethical conduct on. We are given a CV, which by the way is a document created by an individual, whatever is in it may or may not be truthful, we are given a CV to look at as to whether a person can be an investigator. Even if this person were, contrary to what they put in their manufactured CV, the RUF G5 - not G4 by the way which is in the motion and the email - G5 commander, that would not automatically preclude that person from acting as an investigator. To say that we had no objection to this person acting as an investigator does not say we are precluded from questioning witnesses as to the true identity of this Prince Taylor. We had the right to do so, we did so, there's nothing unethical about it and we object to that characterisation of our conduct. Thank you.

  • Now, as I indicated this morning after hearing the submissions from both sides, we will retire briefly and return with a ruling on this motion. We will also return with a ruling on an earlier oral motion by the Defence regarding the time limits for filing a potential leave to appeal motion.

    I have in mind 45 minutes. We should be back in 45 minutes. Thank you.

  • [Break taken at 2.57 p.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 3.47 p.m.]

  • Now, the following is the ruling of the Trial Chamber on motion 1117, that is the public with confidential annexes A and B, Defence motion for admission of documents pursuant to Rule 92 bis, Prince Taylor and Stephen Moriba. That's the title of the motion. Firstly, the Trial Chamber in the interests of justice and of an expeditious trial decided to hear an oral response to the motion and an oral reply today in view of the Trial Chamber's earlier order to the Defence to formally close their case today. The Trial Chamber before deems it appropriate initially to have waived the time limits prescribed under Rule 92 bis(C). Now, having said that, on the time of the motion, the Trial Chamber considers that the issues raised in the motion did arise during the testimony of the last Defence witness, DCT-102, who testified after the expiry of the deadline of 24 September, which deadline the Trial Chamber had ordered the Defence to have filed all outstanding motions. The Trial Chamber therefore finds that it is in the interests of justice to entertain this motion on its merits in these circumstances.

    Having considered the written submissions in the Defence motion 1117 and heard oral submissions in response and reply, we find that the documents sought to be tendered pursuant to Rule 92 bis do qualify for admission under that rule in that, one, they do not go to the acts - to proof of the acts and conduct of the accused. Secondly, they are relevant and, thirdly, their reliability is susceptible of confirmation. We therefore grant the motion and admit the documents as follows:

    The first document which is an email addressed to Courtenay Griffiths, "Dear Defence counsel," it's an email dated Tuesday November 9, 2010, this is written by Prince Lawrence Taylor, that email will be admitted as exhibit D-475.

    The second document, which is the curriculum vitae of Prince Lawrence Taylor, is admitted into evidence as exhibit D-476.

    The third document, which is an email dated 16 December 2006 and this is addressed from Jim Johnson to Karim Khan and the subject is "re Prince Taylor", that is admitted as exhibit D-477.

    And the last document is an email dated November 10, 2010. It's addressed to Terry Munyard from Scott Martin. That is admitted as exhibit D-478.

  • [Exhibits D-475 to D-478 admitted]

    Now I do realise that some of these - in fact all of these were filed confidentially. Does the Defence wish to have them admitted confidentially?

  • I think we request that merely the CV be filed confidentially, Madam President.

  • Very well. Madam Court Manager, I order that exhibit D-476 be filed confidentially.

  • And I'm helpfully assisted by Mr Anyah to this extent: The emails will of course bear our private email addresses, so I would ask that they be redacted.

  • Does the Prosecution have any objections to that?

  • No, we don't. Your Honours may consider a public with redactions, and then a confidential unredacted.

  • I'm certainly happy with that course.

  • Then, Madam Court Manager, in relation to the other three documents that I've just named, with the exception of D-476, I order that the public versions of the emails would have the email addresses of counsel redacted and I also order that confidential versions of the exhibits be kept bearing the sequel - for example, exhibit D-475 will have a confidential version, 475B. And 477 will have a confidential version 477B. And exhibit D-478 will have a confidential version that is not redacted, being 478B.

  • [Exhibits D-475B, D-477B and D-478B admitted]

    Which brings me to the second matter, which was the matter of a Defence oral request for extension of time to file possible leave to appeal motions after the closure of their case. This morning, as you'll recall, the Trial Chamber published two decisions; namely the decision on public with confidential annexes A to J and public annexes K to O, Defence motion requesting an investigation into contempt of court by the Office of the Prosecutor and its investigators. That was one decision. The second decision was the decision on public with confidential annexes A to D, Defence motion for admission of documents and drawing of an adverse inference relating to the alleged death of Johnny Paul Koroma. And it is in regard to these two decision that Mr Griffiths, lead counsel for the Defence, intimated to the Trial Chamber that the Defence is thinking of applying for leave to appeal and that when they do file such motions they would require an extension of time from the normal time required under the rules, which is three days from the date of publication, to effectively seven days. That's the application he made.

    Now, as a preliminary I just wish to point out that for the avoidance of doubt, the Chamber has in the interests of justice decided that the order we gave earlier on 24 September as being the date by which all Defence motions should have been filed is going to be relaxed in relation to these particular leave to appeal motions that you're thinking of giving. I thought I would say that for the avoidance of doubt so that you don't include that aspect in your motions.

    But, having said that, the Chamber has a majority view on your oral applications which I will ask Judge Lussick to give.

  • The Defence has made an oral application to extend the time allowed under Rule 73(B) for seeking leave to appeal. Instead of the three days allowed by the rule, the Defence wants seven days. And this application is opposed by the Prosecution.

    We, and when I say we I'm referring to the majority of the Trial Chamber, we will begin by saying that notwithstanding many complex decisions, the Trial Chamber has never before in our recollection had cause to extend the time in which leave to appeal can be sought. Although it certainly would consider doing so in an appropriate case.

    The present application, however, in our view, is not such a case. We do not see these two decisions as being so unique as to warrant a variation of Rule 73(B). The decisions in question do not go outside the matters raised by the Defence in their two motions, so the Defence should already be very familiar with the issues involved.

    We consider therefore that the time allowed by Rule 73(B) should be adequate.

    In short, the Defence has not satisfied us that circumstances exist which would justify a departure from the time allowed under Rule 73(B) and the Defence application to extend that time is accordingly refused.

  • I just wish to state that the Presiding Judge did dissent from that decision because, in my view, the grounds stated by Defence counsel in the morning did warrant some extension of time. The two decisions are quite bulky, plus the fact that the Prosecution in all fairness has ten days to respond to such a motion, and it would seem unjust to me that the makers of the motion for leave to appeal get only three days, of which two are weekend days, and for that reason I dissented.

    Now, having said that, I think there remains only one thing for us to hear which is the - just give me a moment, Mr Griffiths. Something has been brought to my attention.

    It's been brought to my attention by CMS that exhibit D-475, which is the email from Prince Taylor, contains his private telephone numbers. Would you like those redacted?

  • Yes, please. Can I put the matter globally that any detail contained on those emails which might identify any individual should be redacted.

  • But surely if the names are Prince Lawrence Taylor, that does identify the person.

  • Perhaps I should clarify further: In terms of telephone numbers or email addresses.

  • Very well. I will adjust my earlier order, Madam Court Manager, that the telephone numbers on any of the documents filed publicly should be redacted, but they should not be redacted from the confidential versions. That should cover it.

    Now, Mr Griffiths, we are ready to hear the formal closure of the Defence case.

  • Well, I'm grateful first of all to your Honours for dealing with such alacrity with the outstanding motions and I'm pleased to announce that is the case for Mr Taylor.

    However, before I sit down, I'd like to observe on behalf of the Defence and express thanks to all parties for their contributions in ensuring that the proceedings in the courtroom have ran as efficiently and smoothly as they have done. Because we are aware that time is not an unlimited resource and the trial should not be permitted to meander sluggishly along to a conclusion whilst witnesses, defendants even, and indeed victims, suffer the stress of delay. But I must say, in thirty years of practice, this is the first trial I've ever been involved in of this magnitude involving so much evidence in which so little time has been lost either through illness or any other matter and I think everyone ought to be commended for their efforts in ensuring that that was the case.

    I would also, in light of the comments I make, like to make clear that it has been accepted by us right from the outset that terrible crimes were indeed committed in Sierra Leone. We share concerns for the victims of these crimes and we want to make clear that differences between the parties in the courtroom should not be exploited as evidence that either party naturally assumes a morally superior position.

    On that note, that is the case for Mr Taylor.

  • Thank you. I know that according to the timeline outlined by the Court in the last scheduling conference, the next time we meet in court will be to hear oral arguments. But I think perhaps it's necessary for me to go through the timeline again because, from experience, it's not uncommon for lay people who are following these proceedings to imagine that once Mr Griffiths stands up to say he rests his case, judgment comes out the next day. This is not uncommon, so, at the risk of repeating myself, I will quickly go through the timeline of events.

    The formal closure of course was today, 12 November. A judicial recess follows, starting close of business Friday, 17 December that ends on Monday morning at the beginning 10 January 2011. Now final trial briefs will be filed by close of business, Friday, 14 January 2011. Written responses, if any, will be filed by close of business Monday, 31 January 2011. Oral arguments will be heard starting on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 starting with the Prosecution arguments. We will then hear arguments on Wednesday, 9 February from the Defence, followed by a day's hiatus, after which we will entertain responses from either party on Friday, 11 February, starting from 9 to 11 and from 11.30 to 1.30 respectively. That is the immediate timeline that follows.

    Now, having said that, I also wish to thank the parties for their cooperation throughout this trial which has lasted upwards of three years. It's been tremendous and I commend your effort. I want to thank the staff of the Trial Chamber, of CMS, and all the other staff that we never get to see, in the AV booths, the staff of WVS who handle the witnesses so beautifully. And the thing about this trial is it's incredible how WVS and the staff of the Registry have managed to ferry all these witnesses to The Hague from various parts of the world, and to keep them flowing without any major delays, and this I think as judges we would like to commend very much.

    So whatever remains of this trial, we have no doubt that we will continue to see this same kind of dedication and commitment, and we have observed the highest standards on professionalism from both sides. That I would like to underline.

    And with those words I'd like on behalf of the judges to wish you a restful break during the end of year recess. We would like to wish everybody a good rest and a safe return to the Court on Tuesday, 8 February. So the Court is accordingly adjourned to Tuesday, 8 February at 9 o'clock for closing arguments.

  • [Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.08 p.m. to be reconvened on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 at 9.00 a.m.]