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

  • Good morning. Ms Hollis, I note some changes of appearance on your Bar.

  • Yes, Madam President. Good morning, Madam President, your Honours, opposing counsel. Appearing today for the Prosecution is myself Brenda J Hollis, Maja Dimitrova and Rachel Gore who is an intern in our office.

  • [Open session]

  • [The accused present]

  • [Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.]

  • Thank you, Ms Hollis. Mr Griffiths?

  • Good morning, Madam President, your Honours, counsel opposite. Representation today is myself Courtenay Griffiths and my learned friend Mr Morris Anyah. Madam President, whilst I am on my feet can I mention one other matter?

  • There is an oral application which we would like to make at some stage today and we are anxious that it not disrupt the smooth flow of the proceedings, so we wondered whether your Honours would indicate when would be an appropriate time to raise that matter so as not to inconvenience the witness. We have informed counsel opposite that such an application would be made orally today.

  • This is in relation to a Rule 92 bis application, is it, Mr Griffiths?

  • Madam President, yes.

  • Ms Hollis, would you have any problem dealing with that now?

  • Not at all, Madam President.

  • Thank you. Perhaps we can deal with it as a preliminary matter before I remind the witness of his oath. Mr Griffith, please proceed.

  • Mr Anyah will be making the application, your Honour.

  • Thank you, Mr Anyah. Please proceed.

  • Good morning, your Honours. Good morning, Madam President. May it please the Court, the Prosecution filed a motion two days ago, 2 July, in respect of the prior testimony of witness TF1-141. The CMS number for the motion is 550. The motion itself is not necessarily long in length. I think it is about nine pages long, but it comes with annexures which number approximately, in our count, 580 something pages.

    As your Honours are well aware, the provisions of Rule 92 bis (C) requires us to register, or submit any objections to the notice rather, within five days of service and so we have, by that computation, somewhere about Tuesday next week if we were to accept that service was perfected yesterday, 3 July, when we received a CD-ROM containing the motion from the CMS. Your Honours, we are making this application by virtue of how short of a time frame we have to respond to the motion. We would ideally need at least two weeks from the date of service to complete our response and to do an adequate job on behalf of our client.

    I did send an e-mail late last evening to counsel opposite, advising them that we would be making this application this morning. In my e-mail to counsel opposite I specified the date of 16 July as being the date when we would respectfully seek to submit our response.

    I have just spoken with our Case Manager before coming into court and that is when I discovered that the service on us was perfected by way of a CD-ROM and not by virtue of a hard copy of the motion itself. I am reluctant to start a course of practice whereby we accept service as being perfected when it is served on us electronically and I believe your Honours have spoken on this issue previously in respect of The Hague sub-office indicating that service is only perfected when hard copies are received by the parties.

    So, in sum and substance, we come before you and respectfully request two weeks from the date service of the hard copies are made on us for the filing of our response to the Prosecution's notice under Rule 92 bis in respect of TF1-141. Thank you, Madam President.

  • Thank you, Mr Anyah. Ms Hollis, your reply. I do not have my [microphone not activated]. Sorry, my learned colleague Justice Lussick has assisted me with a copy.

  • Thank you, Madam President. The Prosecution would note that the Defence were provided unredacted copies of all of the statements and prior testimony of this witness on 15 February of this year. The motion does not add anything to those materials, but it does redact certain portions of those materials. We did provide hard copy of all of the annexes to the CMS when we filed the motion yesterday. The Prosecution takes no position on the Defence application.

  • Thank you, Ms Hollis. Allow me to confer, please.

  • [Trial Chamber conferred]

    In the circumstances of the case we find the application a reasonable one and will permit the extra time, as requested by counsel for the Defence to consider their response to the 92 bis application. We draw the parties' attention to the provisions of Article 13(B) of the Practice Direction on dealing with documents in The Hague sub-office and time will run from the service of the hard copy in accordance with Article 13(B). When I say the extra time as requested by counsel, that is two weeks from the date of the service of the hard copy.

  • We are most grateful, Madam President, your Honours.

  • Thank you, Mr Anyah. If there are no other preliminary matters I will remind the witness of his oath and we will proceed with his testimony. No.

    Mr Witness, you recall that on Wednesday you took the oath to tell the truth. That oath is still binding on you and you are obliged to answer questions truthfully. You understand?

  • Yes, I have understood.