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

  • [TAY07MAY07_MD]

  • [The accused entered court]

  • [Open session]

  • [Pre-trial conference]

  • Whereupon commencing at 9.45 a.m. PRESIDING JUDGE: Please call the case. MS IRURA: The Special Court for Sierra Leone is sitting in open session for a pre-trial conference pursuant to Rule 73bis in the case of the Prosecutor versus Dankpannah Charles Ghankay Taylor, case no. SCSL-03-01-PT. Justice Julia Sebutinde presiding. PRESIDING JUDGE: I hope this microphone is working; yes? Thanks. I would like to welcome everyone to this pre-trial conference held pursuant to Rule 73bis of our Rules of Procedure and Evidence in preparation for the Charles Taylor trial scheduled to begin on 4 June 2007. I also wish to apologise for a late start of about 15 minutes. This was due to a technical problem in the booths, I believe. That is why we started late. The first thing we will do, before we get into the agenda, is I understand we need to swear some interpreters. I understand some of them have not taken this oath, but I think it would be good if all of them would because, for this trial, this trial, this is a new trial and the interpreters have not taken an oath for this trial. So could I request the interpreters. MR KHAN: Your Honour, whilst that is being done, I wonder if I could ask the leave of the Court for my client to be given leave to wear some sunglasses. As is apparent, he is suffering from an eye infection. With this light he is in quite some discomfort. I wonder if for today he could be granted leave to wear sunglasses so he is not in discomfort. PRESIDING JUDGE: Mr Taylor, I am sorry to hear you are not feeling well, but I think that would be fine. [Interpreters: Edward Foday, Abdul Gassama, Joseph Bundor, Sylvester Wright sworn]

  • For the record, we will take the appearances please. Starting with the Prosecution.

  • Madam President, Your Honours, appearing today for the Prosecution is the Prosecutor, Steven Rapp. With me is the senior trial attorney, the leader on the case, Brenda J Hollis, and also Leigh Lawrie, who is an associate legal officer with the team. Thank you very much.

  • Thank you, Mr Rapp. Could we take appearances from the Defence please.

  • Your Honour, Karim Khan, for Mr Charles Ghankay Taylor, assisted today by my learned friends Mr Avi Singh, Ms Carolyn Buisman, who sits on the table behind. Along with us is also an intern who is leaving today, Ms Rachel Browning.

    Your Honour, those are the appearances for today.

  • Your Honour, Charles Jalloh for the office of the Principal Defender. With leave of this Court, I should like to note for the record that the Principal Defender regrets he cannot be here at this pre-trial conference. As Your Honours would be aware, he would typically attend such meetings in respect of the various accused before the Special Court consistent with this mandate under Rule 45.

    In addition, I wish to note that Mr Taylor had requested recently to have meetings with Mr Nmehielle, the Principal Defender. Because of confidentiality and privilege in respect of Mr Taylor, I am not at liberty to elaborate on the various reasons why, but I wish to note that for reasons well beyond the control of the Principal Defender, and over his strongest possible objection, the Principal Defender's trip was cancelled. Thank you.

  • I probably wish to recognise also the presence of our legal officer, Mr Simon Meisenberg, and also the presence of our Chief of Court Management, Ms Elaine Bola-Clarkson, then Mr Michael Adenuga, from the Registry, the Hague office, and Ms Rosette Muzigo-Morrison, also from Court Management, and Rachel Irura, who is part of the Registry, I think. Yes? Okay.

    Now, the first thing we will do is to adopt the agenda; that is the published agenda, the agenda that we published on 26 April, plus the additional items that were filed pursuant to the Prosecution submission of additional agenda, agenda items on 2 May, and the joint filing of additional items, also on 2 May.

    Now, if I may probably ask, before we adopt this agenda, and I am looking at the document entitled "Prosecution submission of additional agenda items," that is document 231, there are some agenda items that we really do not understand the way they are framed and I will probably ask the Prosecution to elaborate. Item number 2 says: "Matters relating to the indictment," and you have certain matters there that we do not understand if they are really properly pre-trial matters or matters that should be the subject of a formal application. That is one.

    The other is item number 3, use of video link during the proceedings.

    We know that some decisions have been made with regard to a prior application on this subject matter and we are just wondering what could possibly be the point of this agenda item in this conference. So if you could please throw some light on item number 2 and item number 3 before we include them on the agenda.

  • Thank you, Madam President. As to item number 2, the first part of that item is simply to put the Court and the Defence on notice that as to the language in count 5, which indicates "any other form of sexual violence," in order to avoid any issues of duplicity, the Prosecution will not be going forward with any evidence regarding that language. Rather, it is the position of the Prosecution that any evidence which would be relevant to that language, "any other form of sexual violence" will also be relevant to count 6, "outrages upon personal dignity," which has been pled in the alternative or in addition to the other charges.

  • Ms Hollis, are you saying that the Prosecution intends to file an amendment to the indictment?

  • Your Honour, certainly we are able to do that. It is the Prosecution's position that, having given notice that we will not go forward on that language, would not necessarily require an amendment to the indictment.

  • And the use of the video link, could you throw light on that item?

  • Yes, Your Honour. This is simply again a matter of notice regarding the possibility that there will be a time during this trial, either with the Prosecution or perhaps with the Defence, where an individualised request for video link may well be made. And in light of the Registry's submission that it would take six months to be prepared to provide video link testimony, we felt it appropriate to raise this notice, if you will, so that the Registry would be aware that they should, in fact, put in place the preliminary planning and procedures to enable this to occur in a timely fashion, should it be requested.

    We have also, Your Honour, sent a letter to the Registry indicating the same possibility, so that they are on notice that this may be required during the trial, so that they can take whatever preliminary steps are necessary to prepare themselves for this eventuality.

  • Ms Hollis, maybe at this stage I will not say this but I will just leave the items on the agenda, and when we get to the various items we will then make our comments accordingly. I have to give the Defence an opportunity to address on each of these as well.

    So for now, we will adopt the agenda as originally published, plus the additional items that were submitted by both parties.

    I also want to draw to your attention one preliminary housekeeping issue; that is the sitting hours for today. We were supposed to start at 9.30 and we shall go on until 11.00. This is the proposed schedule and I will hear any objections, if you have any.

    We propose to sit from 9.30 to 11.00. Then we will have a 30 minute break, from 11.00 to 11.30. We will reconvene at 11.30 and meet through until 1.00. We will have a lunch break of one-and-a-half hours, from 1.00 to 2.30 or 1430 hours, and we will have -- sorry, what did I say? Yes, a lunch break from 1.00 until 2.30. We will reconvene at 2.30 and close at 4.00. That is 1600 hours. That is what we propose to do.

    Now, in the event that we do not cover all the items of the agenda today, we hope to continue tomorrow. I understand this Court hall has been booked tomorrow with the same time schedules as today and we hope that we shall be through by tomorrow morning, at least. So if there are any questions or clarifications regarding the schedule, I would like to see those or hear those. None. So it is acceptable. That is how the timetable will be.

    Now, the first item on the agenda, and we have asked this question many times but I will give you an opportunity; really, we are inquiring, first of all, whether the Prosecution team is fully formed and who the members of your team will be.

  • Madam President, Your Honours, yes, the Prosecution team is fully formed and I have provided the list of the members to the Registry, but let me just read it out. The members are: Brenda J Hollis in the position of senior trial attorney, an attorney from the Bar of Colorado, USA; Wendy van Tongeren in the position of trial attorney, from the Bar of Ontario, Canada; Mohamed A Bangura, a trial attorney from the Bar of Sierra Leone; Nicholas Koumjian, who is joining the Special Court tomorrow or Wednesday, from the Bar of the State of California, USA, trial attorney; Ann Sutherland in the position of trial attorney from the Bar of South Australia, Australia; Shyamala Alagendra in the position of trial attorney, from the Bar of Malaysia; Alain Werner in the position of trial attorney, from the Bar of Geneva, Switzerland; Leigh Lawrie, a solicitor from the Bars of Scotland, England and Wales, a legal officer; and Maja Dimitrova in the position of case manager. Thank you, Your Honours.

  • Thank you, Mr Rapp. Mr Khan, do you have a full team yet for the Defence?

  • Your Honour, we are working towards it. In fact, one of the matters, to go back to the comments of my friend Mr Jalloh, was that my client had wished to speak to the Principal Defender because he had concerns about the level of support and assistance that was given to him by the Registry.

    Your Honour, I will be very brief. The client's view, and if one compares this case in scale and in nature to that of Slobodan Milosevic, he had been granted by the ICTY a Queens Counsel of the English Bar, Steven Kay; a very senior lawyer from Belgrade, Branislav Tapuskovic; a Professor Michael Wladomiroff of the Dutch Bar, a very eminent lawyer; a Professor Timothy McCormack; as well as a co-counsel, Gillian Higgins. That was for an accused who did not have a legal team that did not have to take instructions from their client and did not have to support or supervise investigations.

    Compared to that, the concerns of my client is that he is being short-changed and has simply a legal team of two counsel that have rights of audience.

    Your Honour, unfortunately, because the travel request of the Principal Defender was not approved, Mr Taylor has not had the opportunity of seeking clarification about the level of support given by the Court.

    There has been discussions between myself and the Registry. The Principal Defender has been kept fully informed and there has been quite sisyphean efforts on our part to get a Queens Counsel on board. I have approached 12 or 13 senior members of the English Bar. I have approached members of the Canadian Bar. This case, in my view, does merit the most senior member of the Bar and one, of course, welcomes my esteemed colleagues on the Prosecution and they have a properly sized team. I don't say it's inappropriate, a properly sized team for a case of this complexity.

    But, Your Honour, because of these difficulties, I still do not have a full team. A decision has been made because, of course, we are preparing for trial, to appoint a co-counsel. I have alerted my learned friends for the Prosecution and your legal officer of that person's name. I can't announce it today because this individual is a member of the English Bar. He has previously been instructed in another matter before the Special Court and it's only a matter of courtesy to Trial Chamber I who have to endorse a decision of the Principal Defender that there is no conflict, and I need that waiver and that consent of Trial Chamber I before his name can be formally announced. But, Your Honours, attempts are being made to get the team fully on board. At the moment I do have two legal assistants with me in court. We have a pro bono legal assistant who working without funds, totally free of charge, in Liberia. That is the extent of our team. There is currently a co-counsel, Roger Sahota. He is not going to be continuing once trial starts. He has another matter in the ICTY. He will either work as pro bono lawyer or he will leave the team, but, Your Honour, this will not be an issue, so far as I am concerned, that affects the start date of trial, but it's a matter that I bring to the attention of the Court, both to ventilate the concerns we have about the level of resources vis-a-vis the Prosecution and, of course, to reinforce the comments of my friend Mr Jalloh about the concerns of my client that he has not been able to speak to the Principal Defender who may have been able to clarify matters about the level of support that the Court has given.

  • Yes, I appreciate that, Mr Khan. Thank you very much.

  • So for now, do I understand it is yourself?

  • And you are awaiting a decision to appoint a co-counsel?

  • And then you have two legal officers assisting you? And that is your team?

  • Yes. And a pro bono legal assistant as well who is working without remuneration in Liberia.

  • Okay. Thank you. Mr Khan, I have been asked to request you to speak a little slowly next time because I think the interpreters are trying hard to catch up with you.

  • Your Honour, I will do that. I was just extremely sensitive to the fact I perhaps spoke too much when I was last before Your Honour and I didn't want to outstay my welcome on this occasion.

  • Let us just be mindful of the interpreters because they have to get a proper record for the Sierra Leone audience in Freetown.

    Thank you.

    Mr Khan, on this issue of your team, or team for the accused person, and the inability of the Principal Defender to attend this, this is a matter that you have spoken for the record, but there is really nothing that the Chamber can do because this is a matter between yourselves, the Principal Defender and probably the administration in the Special Court but, nonetheless, we have noted this and we hope that at the earliest opportunity, you can iron out this difficulty. Thank you.

    The next item on the agenda has to do with the disclosure obligations at this stage of the parties. We just want to inquire whether the Prosecution has actually complied or completed its disclosure obligation. This is now, we are looking at 60 days before the trial start date, which fell due on 4 April 2007 and we just want assurances that this has been complied with pursuant to Rule 66(A)(ii).

  • Your Honour, it is the Prosecution's position that we have complied with Rule 66 requirements, as well as Rule 68 requirements and, in addition, we have complied with the requirement under Rule 93(B). It has to do with disclosure of evidence relating to similar pattern of conduct.

  • Thank you, Ms Hollis. Does the Defence have any comment on this?

  • Your Honour, in relation to Rule 66(A)(ii), I accept that generally the Prosecution is in compliance. As a matter of record, the last batch of disclosure of witnesses, that the Prosecution seeks to rely upon, was sent out on 3 April but it was actually received, and we have a receipt here, on 5 April. Your Honour, it's a day late but I am not making any point at all about that.

    Your Honour, we do have concerns about the experts but perhaps I can deal with that a bit later.

  • That is okay. We have an item on experts later.

    Now, we are actually going to look at the pre-trial conference filings, the Rule 73bis filings by the parties, and to hear from the parties whether there are any procedural issues, and I am not alluding to substance, but procedural issues arising out of the pre-trial brief.

    First of all, I would like to hear from the Defence, if you have any procedural issues arising out of the Prosecution pre-trial brief?

  • Your Honour, I do apologise. In relation to point 3 of the agenda, of course the disclosure that Your Honours wish to be clarified were 66 A2, 68 and 94bis and, of course, 94bis deals with the experts. I wondered if Your Honours wished me to deal with that now or perhaps hold off until a bit later.

  • No, I think this is 94bis. Sorry, I had rather skipped that.

  • It is to do with experts reports. And the disclosure. Of course Rule 94bis does not give an actual timeframe for disclosure but merely encourages the Prosecution to file these reports as early as possible, I think those are the words used, as early as possible after obtaining the reports.

  • Indeed.

  • So with that in mind I would hear the Defence.

  • I am grateful. Your Honour of course is quite correct about the scope of the rule. It does state that consistent with the presumption of early disclosure, and a cards on the table approach, which is expected of the Prosecution, experts' reports are disclosed to the other side; namely the Defence, as soon as possible.

    My learned friend Ms Hollis has been exceptionally kind and as a courtesy has provided me with a provisional list of the order of witnesses in this case.

    Your Honour, out of the first ten witnesses, six purport to be experts. Your Honour, it's in relation to those experts that the Defence say that we have been prejudiced and that the Prosecution disclosure leaves something to be desired. Beth Vann, who is provisionally, tentatively the eighth witness that the Prosecution may seek to call, is an expert regarding whom the Defence have not got a report at all. What we do have, of course, are reports, an article dated January 2002 and a report in another matter dated January 2000, but, Your Honour, if the Prosecution is seeking to rely upon an expert in relation to the case against my client, it's only right and proper, in my respectful submission, that that report be obtained and given to us now. It seems rather regrettable that with trial so imminent, so many of these witnesses have been disclosed so late in the day. Your learned sister, Judge Doherty, on the last occasion, did direct the Prosecution to disclose witness statements as soon as possible; the experts' reports as soon as possible.

    In relation to Ian Smilie and Corrine Dufka, again, we only got the reports in April 2007. Steven Ellis, who is the first witness at the moment that the Prosecution wish to call, prepared a report purportedly dated 5 December. It was received by us on 12 February 2007. It doesn't appear, from what I have seen, despite the Christmas gap, the few day holiday period, why the two-month delay between 5 December and 12 February can be justified; why was this not disclosed to the Defence as soon as possible, in accordance with the rule?

    Your Honour, there are three witnesses, TFI-150, TFI-326 and TFI-358 as detailed in the pre-trial brief of the Prosecution, that, rather curiously, the Prosecution seek to put forward as confidential experts and withhold their identity.

    Now, the statements, in fact, that we have are redacted. Two of these three witnesses are in the first ten that the Prosecution seeks to call; one is the second witness and one is the seventh or eighth witness. It seems to be, if not churlish, rather unfair.

  • Sorry, Mr Khan, are we still speaking about expert witnesses?

  • Indeed, Your Honour. In the pre-trial brief there are three witnesses TFI-150, 326 and 358 that the Prosecution purport are not fact witness; they seek to put them forward as confidential expert witnesses, protected witnesses.

    Now, in relation to these witnesses, these experts, purported experts, we have redacted statements, not a report, and it seems to be a commonsense view, in my respectful submission, would compel to the conclusion that the Defence cannot instruct an expert when we don't know the identity of the person the Prosecution is putting forward on the other side -- not as a fact witness where the normal 42-day rule would apply, but as a purported expert.

    These are matters, Your Honour, that the Defence have concerns about and that we put forward to your attention at the moment in relation to 94bis.

  • Thank you, Mr Khan. I really would invite comments from the Prosecution in answer or reply.

  • Thank you, Madam President. In terms of the disclosure of expert reports, in general, the first expert that the Prosecution will call, that complete report has been disclosed to the Defence. In terms of Ms Dufka, there was a report that was disclosed to the Defence. There may be some updates to that report. We are working with Ms Dufka, given her schedule, to ensure we get those updates in a timely fashion and those will be provided as soon as we get those reports.

    In terms of the delay with Mr Ellis's report, the report was received at about the time of the Christmas break. The Prosecution team, as I understand it, required time to review the report to determine if additional areas are needed to be covered and, as a result of that review, the report was not disclosed until in February.

    Of course, the last possible date for disclosure of an expert report is 21 days before they testify. We are, though, endeavouring to provide those as soon as we have them.

    In terms of Ms Van, the two reports that she co-authored, and which will be a basis for her testimony, were disclosed to the Defence; one of them was disclosed last year, one of them was disclosed very recently this year.

    We do anticipate with Ms Van that there will be a further clarification, or report. We are awaiting that. We are again working with her and her schedule to get that as soon as possible and as soon as we have it, we will provide it.

    In terms of the experts who have been given TF numbers, these are experts who, for one of the experts, a condition of his testimony is that it will be in closed session with the use of a TF number.

    As for the other two, until very recently, their position has been that they would testify using a pseudonym in closed session. They have recently indicated to us that they are prepared to testify using their names in open session. That requires a motion to Your Honours to rescind protective measures that are in place and that protective measures motion, the rescission, has been prepared to be submitted to Your Honours.

  • This is different from the motion pending before the Chamber?

  • It's an additional motion?

  • Thank you, Ms Hollis. All I need to probably say at this stage, after hearing from the Prosecution, is they appear to be doing their best, as far as these expert reports are concerned, and it's correct that the legal requirement under the rules is for 21 -- the disclosure is required 21 days prior to the witness appearing in Court.

    So this has to be a balance between as soon as possible, and the 21 days; somewhere in between the Prosecution is supposed to disclose these reports.

    We appreciate the difficulty, or the practicalities of acquiring these reports. It's not reports that already exist but they are probably being worked upon as we speak and at this stage, all I can say to the Prosecution is to try and really observe the requirements of Rule 94bis, which is as soon or as early as possible. That's all I can really encourage the Prosecution to do.

  • Your Honour, I'm most grateful. I think I should say for the record, my reading of 94bis is different. The 21 days does not refer to the disclosure; it refers to filing before the Trial Chamber. That is relevant because that is the trigger point for the Defence to object to those experts or to agree those experts.

    The controlling rule consistent with the cards-on-the-table approach, the disclosure as soon as possible, is earlier. They must disclose to the Defence, the opposing party as early as possible.

    Your Honour, the practical difficulty in my submission is this: As a matter of procedure law, it's my respectful submission that the Defence is entitled to have an expert sitting alongside me when I cross-examine an opposing party's expert. It is not possible to instruct an expert, number one, until I know the identity, and I got that in April with the pre-trial brief for the vast majority of witnesses and secondly, until I got a report, because there is nothing to prepare, no expert worth his salt is simply going to waltz into The Hague and seek to advise me on areas to impugn a Prosecution expert or to agree a Prosecution expert.

    So, that is the reason why, in my submission, the as soon, as early as possible is such an important restriction on the Prosecution because it must be viewed in context with the right of the Defence to instruct an opposing expert so that we can properly decide well in advance of the 21 days if, in fact, an expert is in dispute.

    I can't form that view; I can't put my finger up in the wind and decide am I agreeing with this expert or am I disagreeing with him. I am not an expert on diamonds and in these areas.

    So that is the compelling reason, in my respectful submission, why the Prosecution should disclose reports as soon as possible and in the event -- we only have the reports now. In due course, these experts should be put back until the Defence have had a chance to instruct opposing experts and be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not these reports are in dispute or not. Your Honour, that is all I have to say on the matter, with your leave.

  • Thank you, Mr Khan. I entirely agree with everything that you have said. I am sure the Prosecution has also heard and will ensure that before they call a witness their report has been disclosed as early as possible. It will help these proceedings to run smoothly, if we respect these disclosure obligations, really, and avoid as much trial by ambush much possible.

    Ms Hollis.

  • Just one comment on that, Your Honour. We, of course, are aware that we need to provide these as soon as we can so the Defence will be prepared. However, we cannot put the cards on table until we have the cards ourselves. As I indicated earlier, we are endeavouring to get those reports. Indeed, for the first session witnesses, the Defence already have some for of report, even though additional reports may be provided.

    Thank you, Your Honour.

  • Okay. We have to move on to the next item on the agenda, which is number 4. Which was matters arising first of all, from the Prosecution pre-trial brief; is there any comment on that? From the Defence?

  • Your Honour, no. It was read with interest. I am grateful for the efforts my learned friend has put into it.

  • Thank you. The joint filing by the Prosecution and Defence on admitted facts and law, actually, the title is "Joint filing by Prosecution on admitted facts and law," but actually I think it is admitted facts. The content is admitted facts alone. But, in any event, are there any comments that either party would like to make, or we take these as we find them?

    Ms Hollis?

  • Just one comment, Your Honour. There is one matter of law that the Defence and I and the Prosecution agreed upon. That is, as to the definition of "civilian." The others are considered by us to be facts but that one is considered by us to be a point of law.

  • Thank you, Ms Hollis.

  • Your Honour, I agree and there is nothing extra to add at this time.

  • Okay. Since we are doing pre-trial briefs, I want some comments on the Defence pre-trial brief. I want to invite Justice Doherty to make a comment on the Defence pre-trial brief.

  • Actually, Mr Khan, it is a point of clarify only; it is not pertinent really to comment. I would clarify paragraph 17 of your pre-trial brief, the last sentence in that paragraph in which it says, "The Trial Chamber had determined that the introduction of prior criminal acts of Mr Taylor would be inadmissible," et cetera. There is a citation there, that refers back to paragraph 14, but I cannot find that citation. I would be grateful if you would clarify that one.

  • Your Honour, not to delay matters, perhaps if you are in agreement, I can send a letter out to the Prosecution and to the Trial Chamber in due course with the exact footnote reference.

  • Thank you, Mr Khan. Could I also remark that the annexure of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, annexure C is extremely difficult to read. The foot notes and the paragraphs are mixed up together. I am referring to annexure C.

  • Right.

  • You, of course, are entitled to cite it. I am not questioning that. I am just remarking that the way it is printed is extremely difficult to read because the footnotes and the paragraphs are mixed up together and you hop from one thing to the other.

    Perhaps I could refer you to the practice direction of this Court on the filing of authorities, Article 7.d for future use.

  • Your Honour, I am much obliged. I'm grateful.

  • Does the Prosecution have any comments on the Defence pre-trial brief?

  • No, Madam President, we do not.

  • Thank you, Ms Hollis. There was an item that we requested the Prosecution to file, and that was a statement of contested matters of fact and law. This has not come by way of a definite or distinct filing. If you look at the -- Ms Hollis, if you remember in the scheduling order we had -- one of the documents the Chamber had instructed the Prosecution to file was a statement of contested matters of fact and law, and this arose out of Rule 73bis.

    However, we note in your pre-trial brief, the Prosecution brief, you say that everything, other than the admitted facts, is in issue. And so we will take that that is the position. We will take it that that is the position; yes?

  • That's correct, Your Honour. I apologise for not having a separate filing on that but indeed everything, except for the agreed facts and the one matter of agreed law, is in dispute in this case.

  • Is there any comment from either party on the witness list filed by the Prosecution?

  • We have no comment, Your Honour.

  • Mr Khan?

  • Your Honour, no, but in relation to the last item, it's correct to say the Defence have put the Prosecution on notice that there are, other than the matters agreed, they are put to strict proof, although of course from the pre-trial brief, if one looks, for example, at the forms of participation, superior responsibility in many areas we have accepted the legal standard. For example, with some areas we have given some caveats or clarifications but, of course, Your Honours will be aware of the Defence position on the law but it is properly detailed in the Defence pre-trial brief.

  • This brings us to the Prosecution Exhibit list. I think we have already heard comments, I would imagine, on this. The Exhibit list. No, no, that was the expert reports. The Exhibit list, could we hear comments on that, if any?

  • Madam President, the Prosecution has no comments on the list.

  • Your Honour, nothing from the Defence at this moment in time.

  • Thank you. This brings me to the issue of motions pending, or anticipated, as we look forward to the trial. Presently, I think there may be two motions, if I am not mistaken; one from the Defence and one from the Prosecution, that are pending.

    I am wondering there are, for instance, motions that would pertain to Rule 92bis, that's for documentary evidence in lieu of oral testimony. We've got one pertaining to protective measures and I think we are expecting another, according to Ms Hollis, and then there is the Rule 94 motions for judicial notice, et cetera.

    Could we hear, particularly from the Prosecution, what plans you have, if any, for motions like this; when do you intend to file motions like this?

  • Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, earlier I did misspeak. The protective measures motion that is before you now does pertain to the two expert witnesses as well as other witnesses, but those two are included in that motion.

    In addition to that, the Prosecution does intend to file a motion seeking judicial notice and to file a motion seeking admission of documentary evidence and we hope to file those motions on Friday, the 11th.

  • Thank you, Ms Hollis.

    Mr Khan, does the Defence envisage any motions at this stage, before the trial, that is?

  • Your Honours, yes, there will be some motions in due course, one definitely, taking issue with the Prosecution experts. Of course that will be done once the Prosecution file those experts before the Court.

    Your Honour, in addition, I alerted, just before Court sat, my learned friends that there will be an additional motion for Your Honour's consideration to allow the accused to give an unsworn statement from the dock. As Your Honours are aware, in the ICTY there is Rule 84bis which states that after a Defence opening, if any, an accused may give an unsworn statement from the dock.

    Your Honour, of course, the Special Court Rules were adopted initially mutatis mutandis and then a subsequent amendment from the ICTR Rules. There is no equivalent provision in the ICTR. It is a matter, in my view, within your sovereign discretion as controllers of this case and Rule 54. I will be filing a motion on that that in due course.

    The other motion I will be filing and, in fact, it's going to be with the Principal Defender but it may come in some shape or form to Your Honours' consideration is that under the Rules of the Court, that advocates with standing must have five years' call. I am going to be putting an application to the Principal Defender to allow, at least at the moment, my learned friend Mr Singh, who is a member of the Californian Bar as well as the Indian Bar, to have limited rights of audience on the condition that either me or my co-counsel is present. It would help to take some of the burden off our shoulders and use our limited resources as effectively as possible. Your Honours, that is a matter for the Principal Defender. Your Honours may be consulted and it may come before Your Honours in due course.

    Your Honours, those are the only matters at this stage.

    Your Honour, I do apologise. There is one additional matter which is quite important. The Defence also, and I am not sure of the timing, affidavits are being obtained at the moment and will be filing a motion for protective measures for Defence witnesses. Your Honour, my learned friend Mr Rapp, in fact, in his various press conferences recently, has stated that the Prosecution is anticipating relocating most of its witnesses, which is fine. It's a matter of course for the Defence and their resources. The Defence finds itself practically in an extremely perilous position on the ground. One of the principal reasons are that the only sanctions left in Liberia are no longer timber, they are no longer diamonds, they are linked to people that have what is rather nebulously termed an association with Charles Ghankay Taylor. His Excellency Kofi Annan, of course, has talked very briefly, and now there has been silence, about the fact that due process of the UN requires any pernicious and Draconian decision to be reviewed in the court of law.

    Now, the difficulty for the Defence is numerous individuals, and affidavits are being obtained by my friends, are unwilling to speak to the Defence and their stated reason is that they are petrified of having travel bans imposed upon them and having their assets frozen by the Security Council because they are associated to the defence of Charles Taylor. What makes that more Draconian is there is no mechanism in the international legal order at the moment in play to review for those individuals to go before a judicial body, or even an administrative body, to review whether or not those travel bans are appropriate and justified. There are individuals who have been on travel bans for years and years, and they protest that these are totally uncalled for, but the short of it and the nub of it is that this Security Council intervention, which is non-reviewable in a court of law, is having a very severe impact, and has had a very severe impact, on the ability of the Defence to get witnesses in order to investigate this case in the manner required.

    Your Honour, it's a difficult issue because it impacts on the Security Council, but Your Honour will be seized of a motion in due course that in relation at least to witnesses that are named Your Honours will be requested in due course to grant some form of relief so that those individuals should not be targeted by the Security Council, or the powers that be, in due course because that, in my respectful submission, would amount to witness intimidation, whether it comes from a group or a party or even as august a body in the international legal order as the Security Council of the United Nations. Your Honour, that is an additional matter that will be before Your Honours at some point.

  • Thank you, Mr Khan. I am sure we will deal with that when we have a tangible motion before us.

    I now want us to look at the trial schedule that is scheduled to begin on 4 June and, in principle, once the trial begins, the Trial Chamber will sit for five days a week, except of course on official court holidays and during the court recess, when the Court will not sit.

    Now, for practical purposes, and in order to accommodate the ICC staff working for the Special Court during the trial, Trial Chamber II will adopt the ICC calendar, Court calendar, and observe the ICC official holidays and the ICC Court recess, instead of those normally applicable to the Special Court in Freetown. The official holidays and the recesses are published on the ICC Court website and can easily be found there.

    Just a minute. I think if you look in your folders, under tab 4, there has been provided --

  • Except to the Defence, Your Honour.

  • I beg your pardon. I beg your pardon.

  • Your Honour, not at all. Your Honour, I am grateful. I have it to hand now.

  • At least for the year 2007, we have all the public holidays outlined there, throughout the year up to Christmas and beyond; then we have the public holidays and I think the official court recess is somewhere in there. It's starting from the fourth page. We have the spring, summer and winter recesses and we plan to observe these dates here at the ICC for this trial. Plus of course the official holidays and maybe the public holidays as well, as they fall due.

    Now, more importantly, are the sitting hours, that we observe. Now, I note that in the joint filing by both parties, the parties were suggesting certain sitting hours. The mathematics of it didn't seem quite right. If I can just find my documents.

    Now, in the joint filing there is a proposition that you make under number 2 or A2, court sessions, but these work out to be 27 hours per week. I don't know who sat down and did this mathematics but it appears to us that they work out to be 27 hours.

  • Your Honour, mathematics was never our strong suit; it wasn't the Prosecution.

  • Who is the culprit for this mathematical error; might it be the Defence?

  • Your Honour, I take responsibility for it. It is from the Defence.

  • More importantly though, we wish to draw to your attention, sometime in the past, if you look under tab 4, we consulted on the possible sitting hours at the ICC. As you know, we hire this courtroom and much of our schedule is dictated by the schedule of the ICC and the ICC staff that work for us. So we were given two options; the options that appear under tab 4, the first option and the second option, and we had chosen the second option.

    Incidentally, the person who wrote this e-mail, or someone then from Court Management, doesn't have mathematics as their strong point either, because they worked out a schedule of 22 hours a week but actually they work out to be 24; 24 hours a week. 24, 26.

  • Madam President, Your Honour, as I see the first schedule anticipates a five-day week, does it not, and four one-and-a-half hour sessions per day which looks like six hours a day and a total of 30 hours a week, which would be a good amount of work. We would be happy to do 30 hours a week and make progress in the case.

    From the Prosecution point of view, I should note that our concern is we would like to be able and we believe that in order to meet the 18 month guideline in terms of the presentation of this case, and looking at the hours, that we would like to have 25 hours of sitting time, and if we were to go with option two, rather than to close at 4.00 each day, if we were to extend that until 4.30, but then there not to be an afternoon break, in other words, the afternoon were to be a two-hour session, the morning would be two one-and-a-half hour sessions, we would be able to do 25 hours a week and would not have difficulty with the schedule here at the ICC.

  • Are you suggesting, Mr Rapp, if you are looking at option two, which is actually what the Chamber had adopted, or have adopted tentatively, your afternoon would start at 2.30, and go through until 4.30 without a break?

  • That's correct; in order to obtain 25 hours and also to close the day by 4.30 which we understand is the preference of the ICC that they didn't want us sitting beyond 4.30 in the day, otherwise they may have overtime needs.

  • Mr Khan, you are on your feet; you want to comment on the sitting hours of the day?

  • Your Honour, I don't have an objection to option two, if Your Honours were minded to adopt it. My comment is in relation to the second paragraph, after the timings, about Defence lawyers not having the opportunity to consult with the accused after court as security are not available. Your Honour, it is my understanding that when we sit in court, the ICC detention unit would allow us, on court sitting days, to meet with the accused at Scheveningen until 8.00 p.m. With that caveat I wouldn't object to that but we would require consultation with the client, either here or at the detention unit, after court whenever needed.

  • Are you saying, Mr Khan, that you have no objection to sitting until 4.30 every day?

  • Your Honour, in frankness, my preference in these circumstances would be 4 p.m. The preference for the longer sitting was based upon the presumption that it would give Friday as a day to do legal research preparation. If we are sitting five days a week, from our perspective, it would be more conducive given that many of us don't live in Voorburg and have to get back to the office, and in order to prepare for the next day's sitting to finish at 4. And so that by the time one has taken dinner and got home or to the office, in the end, we will have two or three hours probably minimum work, probably much longer than that, but I would ask in those circumstances for the second option to be the preferred option from the Defence point of view.

  • What was the parties' suggestion with regard to a Friday, or one day, to do in-house research et cetera et cetera? That is non-sitting time. How do you propose we make up for that day, in sitting hours?

  • Your Honour, the first proposal of course is predicated upon every day longer sittings, with Friday off as a day in which the parties of course could do preparation. Do, if there is further late disclosure, or if there are other witnesses that need to be prepared by both sides, Friday, Saturday, Sunday could be a long weekend for preparation. In addition we anticipated that if there were legal motions that arose during the course of proceedings Your Honours, at Your Honours' discretion, could schedule a particular Friday as a Friday for legal arguments, but it one that the Prosecution would not have to worry about in relation to scheduling witness's attendance and flights and the rest of it. That was my understanding. I don't know if that's helpful or not.

  • You see, with the mathematical errors contained in the parties' proposal it is difficult for us to envisage, if we were persuaded to grant Friday for in-house work, we just want to understand how many hours a week we would be actually sitting.

  • Yes.

  • If we want to be persuaded to depart from the arrangement in option two, that is on the file, and rather consider the option by the parties, we need to understand how many hours you think we are going to work.

  • Yes. Well, Your Honour, in fact, the proposal before Your Honours doesn't disadvantage the court, in my submission; in fact, it's more generous. Under this proposal of a four-day week, the Prosecution requested 25 hours every week in order to call evidence. The proposal before Your Honours by the parties details 27 hours so, in fact, it would be two hours less than the hours detailed therein and as a matter of Your Honours' discretion you decide to cut any time necessary the proposal that is before Your Honours. It's not a proposal requiring additional hours to be put in; it's a proposal requiring hours to be taken out.

  • Hours to be taken out of sitting time and being put into the in-house research et cetera et cetera; is that what you mean? Mr Khan? Microphone, please.

  • Your Honour, perhaps I am missing the plot here but I think that proposal, with the Fridays, was just reallocating the hours -- I think it's paragraph 4 -- a total of 22 hours. Your Honour, perhaps if you give me a moment. Let me just consult on this issue.

  • Mr Rapp?

  • Your Honours, I did consult with the Defence in regard to this. I understand that this alternative proposed by the Defence, and that we have suggested, and admittedly I think we came along with an extra quarter hour per day, certainly could be modified to provide basically from 9.00 until 10.45 morning session with a 15-minute break. 11 to 1300 hours and then an hour-and-a-half break for lunch, beginning at 1430 and continuing to 1600 and having a 15-minute break and then 16.15 until 17.30. Basically that would provide for six-and-a-half hour day. We are picking up an extra hour-and-a-half basically by starting a half hour earlier than any of the options that are suggested on say option 2 as proposed, as the Trial Chamber was suggesting. We are cutting the breaks from a half hour to 15 minutes and then we are sitting longer at the end of the day. So that is how we pick up the time that allows us to still sit 26 hours but to have Fridays available for work or, if necessary, for sessions of witnesses, if we haven't been able to sit the 25 or 26 hours or for arguments on motions if the Chamber invites such. So that is basically it. It does, however, require very long schedules on those four days. There may be some difficulty with this institution sitting after 14.30 but I think it would be useful for us, in terms of that having Fridays, and certainly time for the Defence to consult with their client and for other matters to be taken up.

  • In other words [Microphone not activated].

  • Understanding that there will be times, because there will be difficulties with witnesses or other things that happen in the schedule, we will need some of that Friday but the important thing for the Prosecution, the critical thing is that we have 25 hours a week to hear evidence and if we can do that in four days and then have that flexible Friday to hear evidence if we haven't had 25 hours, or to meet the Defence with their client, or to hear argument, then I think we can have a more productive use of our time.

  • Thank you, Mr Khan. It is 11.00 now and I think it is time for a break and during this break here we will consult on this issue and after the break we will make a ruling on the exact time we will sit on. So we will now adjourn for half-an-hour. Thank you.

  • [Break taken at 11.10 a.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 11.32 a.m.]

  • We have been debating the sitting hours again, and since then we have established a number of facts.

    The earliest court can begin to sit is 9.00, that's a fact, and the latest that the court is allowed to sit, by the ICC administration, is 4.30 in the afternoon. We cannot sit beyond 4.30, so we had to work within that schedule to then try and accommodate the needs of the parties and to put in all the various comfort breaks. And also, of course, to optimise the sitting hours per week that we are required to sit.

    Now, we have come up with a schedule that looks like this: We want to meet the parties somewhat halfway to be able to give you not a full day off, in view of the fact that we cannot sit beyond 4.30 but rather to give you a half day off. This will be in keeping with the practice we have had in Freetown, where we would take a Wednesday afternoon. It is not really off but it is for doing in-house work so I don't wish to be misunderstood, we are not giving you a holiday. Please redact the record; it is not a day off. It is a half day in-house, research, motions, all the things that one does outside of the courtroom. We were thinking of doing this on a Friday afternoon. The Chamber would appreciate it, the parties would appreciate it, and at the same time we want to maintain a 26-hour working day, at least, 26 hours. Sorry, 26 hour working week.

    Now, the schedule would look something like this: We would sit from 9 in the morning until 10.45, that is one-and-three-quarters hour. We would then take a 15 minute midmorning break up until 11, sorry, from 10.45 until 11. We would re-sit at 11.00 until 1.00; that is two hours. We would take a lunch break from 13.00 to 14.30, which is one-and-a-half-hour lunch break. We would resume at 2.30 and sit through until 4.30 without a break. That is two hours exactly. So that would give us a total of five hours and three quarters a day, times four -- right. We will sit four days a week like that and on Friday we would sit from 9.00 until 13.00. That is 1.00 with the usual 15 minute break, so that would give us a total of 26 and three quarters hour a week. You would then be able to use Friday, from 13.00 until the close of the day, for in-house, and this is what we propose. I would ask Mr Rapp to say if that's acceptable?

  • Madam President, Your Honours, that is very acceptable to the Prosecution, thank you.

  • Your Honours, it is indeed, the only very small comment is that of course the longer the day is of course it's somewhat difficult for the Defence given the more limited resources to rotate but, Your Honour, it's fine.

  • Well, the Judges don't have an option to rotate. We sit here and we do appreciate that we, too, do rather have a long day but we are required to work a minimum number of hours a week.

  • Your Honour, it was just in reference to the Prosecution's request to have 25 hours and, of course, Your Honours have exceeded it. That, of course, with the limited resource of the Defence puts more burden on the Defence because we have less people to do the same job.

  • With these hours, would you have an option that you want to suggest?

  • Your Honour, I would prefer, in fact, in these circumstances, a shorter day.

  • That ends when? How would your day look?

  • Well, Your Honour, I will be totally flexible. The main requirement would be to cut an hour and -- one-and-three-quarters hour from the end period of the day. It's the end period that concerns me not the intervening breaks. I am not so concerned about the intervening breaks. It would be at the end of the day, when we have to go to the detention unit and see the client, that I would be more concerned about.

  • When would you like the court to end at the end of the day?

  • Your Honour, half-an-hour before, so instead of 4.30, 4.00 p.m.

  • You realise that that would bring the sitting week to 24-and-three-quarters hours, and not 26, if we did that, and still kept our Friday afternoon, because the initial schedule was to keep a five-day working week according to the hours that you suggested. That was the option that the Judges suggested.

  • But, Your Honour, the figure of 26 seems to be unrequired, as it were. The Prosecution have asked for a minimum of 25 hours so I don't see why --

  • I don't think it is up to the Prosecution either. There is an established minimum number of hours that this Court is supposed to sit; that would be 26 hours.

  • Well, Your Honour, I go back to my earlier remarks. If that is how the Court is minded to schedule its sittings then of course we will comply with it but Your Honours did ask for my preference and my preference was for a shorter day, 4.00 instead of 4.30, but I have no additional comments, Your Honour.

  • Mr Rapp, would you object to ending at 4.00 and still keeping our Friday afternoon reserved for in-house?

  • In the view of the Prosecution it's important to have the maximum time possible for presentation of the evidence. This institution is available here to us until 4.30 hours. That is relatively early in the day to adjourn and we prefer to stay in session until 4.30. I think often it will happen even with the 26-and-three-quarter hour period that with difficulties in scheduling and breaks and everything, it may be difficult to reach 26-and-three-quarters hour during the week. We think that the schedule that the Judges have proposed is one that makes the maximum use of this institution but also gives people the Friday afternoon off, so we would object to any change in the schedule.

  • Okay. I think we will, to wrap this up, we will keep the schedule that I have read out which begins at 9 and ends at 4.30 every day except for Friday when we begin at 9 and end at 1.00 with the breaks that I have named and we will see how it goes. If we think there is need to review we have that flexibility. We can review the sitting hours later, if we think there is a need to do that. Thank you.

  • Your Honour, I am most grateful. Your Honour, perhaps I can read into the record as well, the clarification to Her Honour Judge Doherty's inquiry arising out of footnote 22 of the Defence pre-trial brief at page 7.

    Your Honour, the footnote, in fact, is broadly correct. It says: ibid paragraph 14. And the footnote it is referring to is the footnote cited in paragraph 14, namely, the Prosecutor v Bagosora, 18 September 2003. Your Honour, the same applies, in fact, to footnote 22. It also applies to the footnote set out in paragraph 14, namely, the Bagosora case. I hope that helps, Your Honour.

  • Sorry, could you repeat the dates of the Bagosora case?

  • Your Honour, it's footnote 18 of the Defence brief, page 6.

  • Mr Khan, my problem was the prior criminal acts of Mr Taylor; what prior criminal acts of Mr Taylor?

  • Your Honour, I do apologise. I thought Your Honour was referred to ibid paragraph 14, but it was the footnote.

  • I was. That is why I was trying to find out what prior criminal acts of Mr Taylor were in issue?

  • Your Honour, no. The footnote refers to general propensity or disposition. I take Your Honour's point but the footnote, of course, is perhaps not so eloquently, elegantly drafted, but it refers to the holding regarding general propensity and disposition but Your Honour's point of course is well made.

  • Now, the start date, the trial start date remains, until now, Monday, 4 June at 9.00. It will now be 9.00, it will not be 9.30 any more. At 9.00. And this is, of course, subject to our decision on the pending Defence motion requesting the reconsideration of our joint decision on their earlier motion on adequate times and facilities, adequate facilities and adequate time for preparation.

  • Your Honour, it's not a motion of course for reconsideration, it's an application for certification for leave to appeal.

  • I do beg your pardon, Mr Khan. Definitely, I have got my notes wrong. The time set for the start trial date was contained in our decision on the Defence motion requesting reconsideration of joint decision on Defence motion, on adequate facilities and adequate time, dated 23 January. That is when we set the date. There is a pending motion by the Defence applying for leave to appeal against that decision, and the trial start date will be subject to the outcome of that application but, otherwise, it remains, until and otherwise and until it has been varied, it remains 4 June at 9.00.

    The witness sequence, no, no. On that day, of course, we have decided, or whichever date the trial begins, that we will start with opening statements; an opening statement by the Prosecution.

    Now, we note from the Prosecution submission of added agenda items, you talk of Defence statement but this obviously does not arise, and I think Rule 84, each party may make an opening statement before the opening of their own case. We don't expect the Defence, under that rule, to make a statement as at the beginning of the opening of the Prosecution. You understand what I'm saying? The rule, although the Prosecution included that on their item of agenda, seeking clarification as to the length of the statement, this will not arise in the case of the Defence. Ms Hollis?

  • Yes, Your Honour. We raised that matter simply because it is the practice in some jurisdictions that should the Defence wish to make an opening statement following the Prosecution opening statement the Trial Chamber has the discretion to allow that. So we simply raise that to determine if indeed that would happen.

  • This has not been the practice and, under our Rules, which I think are very clear, each party makes an opening statement when their turn comes, at the beginning of their case. And that is the practice that we have had in the past. That is the practice under the Rules and that is the practice we wish to observe.

    As to the length of the opening statement, could maybe the Prosecution, could you give an indication at this stage? Are you able to indicate how long the opening statement would be?

  • We would anticipate an opening statement of about four hours, divided between myself and Ms Hollis.

  • I think that would be good because we could then, because of the tapes that run for two hours, we could divide this statement into two sessions, if you like, with a break in between; an earlier session and a latter session, so that would be fine. Four hours, then.

  • I would note, Your Honours, that the time division between us may not be exactly 50/50 but certainly it would be possible to break the tape at some other point.

  • That is okay. As long as we don't exceed two hours per session, that is what we were requested not to do.

  • Thank you very much.

  • The other matter, maybe, is when the trial next resumes for actual witnesses, when the Prosecution eventually decides to call their first witnesses. The practice in the past before this Trial Chamber has been, and the practice we found very helpful, is for the Prosecution to keep indicating their witnesses in batches and to give -- to circulate these lists of witnesses that they intend to call in groups of 10 or more, 10 or 15, and the order in which they intend to call the witnesses. This, I think, would be very helpful to the Chamber that is managing the case but also to the Defence, and to make sure that these -- the witness sequence, or the witness order, call order, is circulated in very good time; well in advance.

    Now, the parties really have to agree on this and I want to call on Mr Khan to indicate what you would consider good time for these witness lists, call orders, to come in.

  • Your Honour, I'd ask that the Prosecution do it in two stage, if Your Honours were so minded.

    The first that on a session-by-session approach they give to the Defence, and perhaps Your Honours as well, a provisional list of the witnesses that they intend to call in that session. Of course, that will be subject to logistics and other unanticipated matters that may be relevant to particular witnesses, but that would be supplemented with a final list two weeks before the testimony of a witness. So at least two weeks in advance would be the very minimum that I would request. Longer of course is better, but a very minimum of two weeks before the witnesses are called would be my request. I hope that would be a reasonable position to take.

  • The Prosecution?

  • Your Honour, we have, in fact, already provided the Defence with a provisional list for the first session, and we certainly would be able to do that. We also would be able to provide a final list in most instances within two weeks subject, of course, to logistical issues that we are not aware of that could change that list. But we should be able to comply with the Defence request in that regard.

  • I appreciate that, Ms Hollis. So then every two weeks prior to the witnesses that are called we would expect a firm witness call order to go out for the witnesses to be called in a week, maybe. I don't know, in two weeks. Depending on how far you are able to project.

    What we have been doing in the past is we would provide a list say from Monday till Friday, these are the witnesses we intend to call from Monday through to Friday and you would produce the witness list and call order two weeks prior to the week in which you are going to call them for the entire week. That is how I understand the parties have agreed.

  • And we can certainly comply with that, Your Honour.

  • Perhaps a very small clarification; in the event that logistical changes are forced upon the Prosecution, any supplementary witnesses come from the witnesses included in that session. It just makes life easier. I don't think that would be a problem.

  • In fact, that could be a problem since we don't know what logistical issues might come up. Witnesses who are ill, we do have some order in which we wish to present our evidence, so those may be factors that would indicate we could not always bring them within that session. However, I anticipate that most of the time we should be able to do that because that would be our planning anyway.

  • I think the important issue that Mr Khan is raising here is that in the event that the scheduled witnesses cannot, for one reason or another, attend there always are reserve witnesses, or should be reserve witnesses, and he is saying that these reserve witnesses ought to be the witnesses on your list anyway, that you've already circulated, because it is only fair to the Defence that they have adequate notice of these other witnesses that may step in. If they do not have adequate notice we are still going to run into problems with a request to adjourn. So I think that is what he is trying to say.

  • Yes, Your Honour, and, as I said, most of the time we should be able to do that. However, we cannot determine exactly what issues may come up that would preclude that, in certain instances, but I think for the most part that would be in keeping with our planning as well.

  • It's okay, Ms Hollis. We also would like to point out the obvious: That is, when examining witnesses, that we expect that it will be one team member from the -- if there is a witness standing, it would be the one team member from the Prosecution, I imagine, that would examine this witness and if --and on the Defence side we would expect cross-examination by the one individual. We would not expect more than one counsel from either side to examine a witness. Do you have any problems with that?

  • No, Your Honour, no problems at all with that.

  • Okay. So that the parties have agreed to that as well. There will be other issues regarding the practicalities of tendering exhibits in court, and I think this will be addressed. I think we will have a session where we are going to deal with trial management itself, in as far as tendering of exhibits, photocopies being circulated because, of course, as you know, this is not -- our proceedings are not on Livenote, at least as far as I know, so we cannot have these exhibits on our screens. We will have to do it in hard copy form, the way we have always done it in our Court and, therefore, that will entail, in order to save time, it may entail photocopying these exhibits in very good time and circulating them also in good time so that everybody is on the same page when these exhibits are tabled in court. And there, I will need to hear from the parties at an appropriate stage, but let me just look at my agenda again. Maybe this is a good time to actually speak about these issues of trial management. We are envisaging, for instance, issues of tendering of exhibits; issues of interpretation.

    First of all let me say, when the Prosecution is circulating their lists of witnesses, it will be very helpful if, with each witness, you would indicate the language that the witness will speak because that will help Court Management to arrange the relevant interpreters, and to make sure that on that morning, or that afternoon, the relevant witness, the relevant interpreter is ready.

    So the name of the witness, the pseudonym, the language, and basically the time, the average time that the witness will be expected to testify, are matters that will be specified in your disclosure to the other side, and to the Chamber. It's very important.

    The other thing that we need to agree upon is the time required for circulating the intended exhibits, and this will be uniform, whether it's from the Defence or from the Prosecution, we will agree. I just want to hear from the parties, probably from the Prosecution first. No, no, from the Defence, how long do you suppose you would require notice of these exhibits; two days, maybe?

  • Your Honour, of course we need disclosure of exhibits now, definitely before the commencement of trial. If Your Honour is talking about exhibits being tendered through specific witnesses, again, one would hope that the Prosecution know what they are using each witness they have included on their pre-trial brief for, so it should be readily anticipated which witnesses on their list are going to tender which exhibits. So given their state of preparedness in this case and that they have been ready for trial for many months, and the evidence and exhibits have been disclosed and the pre-trial brief is before Your Honours, I don't see why that can't be given right now. I would say, for the sake of argument, within the next one week. Your Honour, it doesn't appear to be a matter which requires a great amount of consideration, given that the exhibits have been disclosed already. They know what exhibits they are relying upon. It shouldn't be a great deal of difficulty to know which of their witnesses are going to tender which exhibits. I don't think it's a matter that has to wait until the trial starts.

  • Would it be practical to suggest -- and I am putting this question to the Prosecution -- when you are tendering or submitting your list, disclosing your list of witnesses, your batches of witnesses, during the call order, would it also be practical to require that any exhibits you intend to tender for that week also be photocopied and circulated at the same time; would that be practical?

  • Yes, Your Honour, we should be able to do that. Again it would be subject to the same caution I had before. Issues may arise that may change it but for the most part that certainly should be something we should be able to do, two weeks before that one week period.

  • Okay. That is good then because what would happen is we would each have a little file before us of everything that is going to happen that week, including the prospective exhibits that we would then just have to refer and admit or otherwise as their circumstances require, so we will expect to see the actual copies of these intended exhibits on our files two weeks prior to the batch, to the witnesses appearing. Thank you.

    There is an item on the agenda that is very briefly referred to by the parties as Livenote being a preferred mode, I think, of record keeping. There is not much else that is said on the agenda and we don't know -- in the Special Court we haven't used Livenote before and we don't know what facilities are available here, at the ICC, but we could hear either from the Chief of Court Management as to what is possible. Could we hear from the Chief of Court Management of Sierra Leone, please.

  • Madam President, if I may respond instead of the Chief of Court Management.

  • Mr Michael Adenuga, please.

  • Before I talk about Livenote, Your Honours, if you permit me, on the question of filing of exhibits, if I may go back to that issue, when the parties are providing the copies, if they could please supply 15 copies so that we can serve them on the legal officers, the Chambers and all of the parties.

    Now, concerning the issue of Livenote, although the Court is sitting in The Hague, we remain an integral part of the Special Court in Freetown where Livenote is not possible. At this late stage it's too late to discuss it with the International Criminal Court. The negotiations are far gone and nearing completion. It will be too late to reconfigure Courtroom II to accommodate Livenote. There are logistical difficulties. There are huge financial implications. I understand it will cost about 150,000 US to install the Livenote.

    Furthermore, the stenographers recruited by the Special Court for these proceedings are not trained at all for the use of Livenote. It's a very complicated and sophisticated process. Those are all my points.

  • Thank you, Mr Adenuga.

    Mr Khan, you wanted to say something, because to me this issue is moot now. Livenote. Did I see you wanted to say nothing?

  • Well, Your Honour, if it's moot, there is no point. If it's not moot, there may be merit in my submissions.

  • I think it's moot from what we have been told.

  • Then, I have nothing to say.

    Your Honour, on a related matter it seems, not just for environmental reasons, but 15 copies of all the exhibits seems to not only cause great environmental damage but put an inordinate amount of work on an already difficult situation for both parties. I know in the ICTY the common practice is exhibits that are sought to be tendered by any party are copied, where necessary, for the interpreters and that may not be a huge issue in this case as many documents perhaps -- well, in addition for the interpreters, one for the Registry and one for each of Your Honours.

    Your Honour, 15 copies given the amount of documents in this case may take one legal assistant a full-time job doing nothing other than staying at the photocopy machine. As an addition to that, I do ask that the Registry of the Special Court seeking to facilitate both parties ensures there is a photocopier here at the ICC building that both parties can use because, of course, things come up during the course of trial and irrespective of the weather being inclement or clement, we can't be expected to run over to the satellite building, as it is called, or sub-office, to photocopy a piece of paper so I ask that a very good photocopier is made available to both parties here in the ICC building.

    Your Honour, an additional matter, and I don't put it further at this stage, is that attempts be continued, if they haven't already started, to ensure that in addition, of course, to a room for Your Honours that a room is set aside for both my learned friends for the Prosecution and one for the Defence where we can keep files during the currency of proceedings and hang our robes up at the end of the day and adjourn to have legal conferences as matters arise in the course of trial. That really is a very basic request and one hopes that it will be accommodated.

  • Are you saying right now you are generally in the corridor?

  • Your Honour, at the moment we use the cafeteria. The coffee is very good but there are no hooks for one's robes.

  • Well, Mr Adenuga, I just want to understand, 15 copies are required for who exactly?

  • Your Honours, I do have the breakdown. It's for the legal officers who will be three in total. There will be a copy for each of the --

  • If you could specify legal officers for what? For who?

  • I have just been corrected, Your Honour. Initially it was to be three legal officers and now I have been told the copies will now be about eight: One for the legal officer; one for each of the parties.

  • Chamber legal officer or what?

  • Chamber legal officer, Your Honour; one for each of the parties; one for each of the Judges; one for the Court Management section; one for the interpreters; and one for the stenographers.

  • So that works out to be something like nine, nine copies? So then we won't need 15, we will just need nine copies of each documentary Exhibit? Definitely I agree with Mr Khan that there is need for a photocopier and, Mr Adenuga, on behalf of the Registry I hope that this can be provided. We don't want to hear the B word.

  • I will avoid the B word, Madam President. I will use our best endeavours to procure the equipment.

  • Mr Adenuga, again on behalf of the Registry we would urge you to take note of the request made by Mr Khan, and I think probably they also pertain to the Prosecution counsel; really a robing room for counsel is a basic necessity. Whatever your budget may be, it is a basic necessity and really, I don't see how they can be expected to operate sitting in the cafeteria. Do you have any comments for us on this?

  • I share Your Honours' concerns and the concerns of all the parties but the ICC have very limited accommodation as well, but as I speak, we are still working very hard to at least obtain conference facilities or storage facilities for all of the parties.

  • Did I not understand the agreement between the Special Court and the ICC to include at least one room, one room that counsel could use, whether they are Registry or counsel, at least one room that the ICC was obligated to give us for our usage.

  • Yes, Your Honour. They have not refused to give us the facility and they are working on providing us with rooms for the parties. It's just that they have difficulty with the accommodation at the moment and at the moment they are unable to accommodate us. The minimum they will provide us with is somewhere to at least store our files. For the parties they are working to have accommodation for the Prosecution, the Defence and the Judges.

  • But can we have some kind of guarantee that at the time the trial begins these decisions would have been taken and that these facilities will be available?

  • Your Honour, with respect, I am not in a position to give a guarantee as to what the ICC will provide but I can agree that we will have a decision, a final decision well before the start of the trial.

  • I just have one question for the Prosecution, based on the additional agenda filed by the Prosecution. If you look at paragraph 2(b) of the Prosecution additional agenda, it says that paragraph 30, relating to count 11, Masiaka, Bombali District (Masiaka is located in Port Loko District), can I assume that you will merely foreshadowing an amendment to the indictment?

  • That is correct, Your Honour. We simply wish to note this matter here at the pre-trial conference in case either Your Honours had questions or the Defence had a question about it, but this would be, in our view, a technical amendment which we would proceed with.

  • I understand. Thank you.

  • And, of course, Ms Hollis, your earlier comments on that item number 2, matters relating to the indictment, stand with regard to count 5. You said you were putting us all on notice regarding counts 5 and 6 but that you had no intention of formally amending the indictment to reflect these changes.

  • That is correct, Your Honour. As to the language that is specified from count 5, we simply wish to notify the Court and counsel that we do not intend to put any evidence towards that language so that at the end of our case we will not argue for any finding relating to that language.

  • Thank you, Ms Hollis. I want to recognise Mr Khan and if you could say something.

  • Your Honour, most grateful. I can say for the record there will not be any objection by the Defence to the proposals put forward by my learned friend, Ms Hollis. However, Your Honour, I would, with respect, echo Your Honour's earlier comments that the correct form would be by way of formal amendment to the indictment. My learned friend has conceded that there is an issue of duplicity or at least potential duplicity in count 5. It behoves a diligent and capable Prosecutor, as my friend is, to not only put us on notice of that but, of course, if that's the case, if it's accepted by the Prosecution that there is potential duplicity in the indictment, formally amend it and I can say for the record there is no objection to the Defence to that second amended indictment if it's limited to the two aspects detailed in the draft agenda.

  • Ms Hollis, we -- first of all for the record, I don't think Ms Hollis used the word duplicity. I didn't hear that. She used different terminology, but I would have to agree with Mr Khan that the normal way of amending an indictment, if you think you need to make changes in it, is to actually amend the indictment. If you think there is something irregular about it or a count that you wish to drop, the regular way is to actually amend the indictment, to apply to amend the indictment and drop the count rather than to leave the count in its current form in the indictment and somehow agree that no evidence will be called. Why do we want to depart from the regular way of doing things?

  • Your Honour, we would not be dropping a count, because count 5 is sexual slavery and any other form of sexual violence, so we would not drop count 5. We would not proceed on the language that was highlighted. However, we certainly take Your Honour's point and will, as we prepare the amendment regarding Masiaka, will certainly take that point under advisement at the time we file our motion.

  • Thank you, Ms Hollis. Now again, on the additional agenda items for the Prosecution, there is -- you said that you were putting us on notice of the fact that occasionally you may apply for a witness to testify via video link. I suppose you are saying you are putting the Registry on notice because there is nothing that the Trial Chamber can do to facilitate the Court. We ourselves depend on the Registry to support the trials, but it is not our jurisdiction, if you like, to order the Registry as to what facilities to put in place and so we are still wondering, this item being put on the agenda, we don't quite understand why it is on our agenda for the pre-trial conference.

  • Your Honour, we put it on the agenda simply, if you will, to formalise before Your Honours but primarily, as you say, before the Registry that this type of evidence is a real possibility in this case so that they will be on notice and hopefully will take all advance steps necessary so that should an occasion arise, that a witness needs to be called by video link they will have done all of this preliminary preparation so that we do not have to wait six months in order to be able to have access to this type of evidence which is allowed in the Rules. So it is merely, perhaps, an overabundance of caution on our part that we wish to raise it formally in this pre-trial conference, understanding that we are not asking Your Honours to take any action but to formally put the Registry, the Court on notice that we foresee this as a real possibility so that advance work should be done to allow for this type of evidence at such time as a motion would be filed.

  • I would imagine, though, Ms Hollis, that you have already taken up this issue with the Registrar or Registry, formally requesting for this equipment to be installed.

  • We have provided a letter.

  • Surely you are not depending on this notification to trigger into action the facilities that you require.

  • No, Your Honour, we have provided a letter to the Registry indicating this. I might say that from early last year we had discussed with the Registry our anticipation that this type of evidence would likely be required in this case so we have filed a letter with them re-emphasising our belief that this may be a modality that will have to be used in this case.

  • Your comments are noted, Ms Hollis. Thank you.

    The other outstanding matter that I see, on the Prosecution agenda items, comes under item 5 and you refer to the use of demonstrative aids and exhibits during your opening statement; could you address us on this issue?

  • Madam President, Your Honours. During an opening statement, of course, it's common for the Prosecutor to indicate what the evidence will show in the case. However, of course, whatever is said or shown during the opening statement is not evidence. It would need to be admitted later.

    Our concern was that although we have not yet made the selection, there may be portions of video broadcast materials, either audio or video that we may wish to present during the course of the opening statement. We wish to avoid dispute during the opening statement. We do not believe that there is really any genuine question of the admissibility of those items at an appropriate point in the proceeding and, indeed, as Ms Hollis indicated we will be filing a motion, probably by this Friday, asking that some documents, including video material, be admitted but, of course, it's not necessary that material be admitted when one is making an opening statement, so we would like to clarify this issue in terms of our ability to use audio or video material in the opening without a prior decision of Your Honours. If it's necessary for us to have a prior decision or to raise this issue with the Defence beforehand, we will do that. We just wish to make sure that we move forward in a way so that we can avoid disputes or objections during this presentation.

  • Mr Rapp, would the use of these aids somehow impact on the time, the duration that you've indicated of four hours?

  • Absolutely not. We are talking about maybe one or two minute segments that could be played and shown on the video system. We still have to work out the technical details and I understand that it's possible there will not be any as we review the technical issues of whether we can do that in this courtroom, but it wouldn't add anything to the session and we would be providing the Defence -- they would certainly be items that we had already disclosed but we would also be indicating to the Defence what we would be presenting before we do so.

  • Mr Rapp, just so that I can understand, these exhibits that you are talking about, they would be demonstrative of evidence that you are going to call during the case; they wouldn't be evidence in themselves? Is that correct?

  • I understand they could be demonstrative in the sense that we could provide a chart or a graph -- I don't anticipate a PowerPoint kind of presentation -- but that kind of thing that would not, in fact, be an Exhibit; it would merely demonstrate or illustrate our argument.

    But additionally, one could have a video clip, a speech by the accused, for instance, broadcast internationally or a clip from the war, from the taking over of Freetown on 6 January 1999 that we could use to illustrate our opening, understanding that later, during the course of the trial, we would be offering that Exhibit through a witness.

    Now, I mean I understand that would be the normal route. I would anticipate however, as Ms Hollis indicated, that with these items we will include them in this motion to admit documentary material which is possible Your Honours would rule on before the opening of the trial. If it is viewed as necessary, Your Honours, that that be ruled on before they could actually be displayed, that would be the decision. We obviously wouldn't use them but, as a matter of practice, certainly in the tribunal where I worked beforehand, it was not uncommon to put video and other items before the Court as part of the argument and those were not as yet admitted in the case.

    So it's a question just of what the practice should be here. Notice sufficient or do we need to have them admitted before displaying them in this opening statement?

  • Mr Khan?

  • Your Honour, with respect, in my submission it's a very simple issue: It's quite normal for documents to be conditionally admitted or admitted de bene esse. There wouldn't be an objection by the Defence if my friend wished to include video portions in the opening with the proviso that in the event that evidence is not properly admitted by a witness or by order of the Trial Chamber, it is excluded later on, and it's conditionally admitted simply as part of an illustrative guide to assist the Prosecution in their duty to inform you as to the parameters of their case.

    Your Honour, while I am on my feet, of course, one of the most terrible things to do is to interrupt an advocate particularly on their opening speech and, of course, I don't anticipate it will be needed at all with the Prosecution team that sits across the room from us. However, it is not, of course, unknown, in the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Your Honours will be well aware with the, if not infamous, the well-known opening speech of my learned friend's predecessor, Mr David Crane, the hounds of hell, dogs of war speech, as it its known and, of course, the Defence counsel in that case did rise and did object and that objection was sustained by His Honour Judge Thompson. So moderate language, of course, lack of staying of one's hands when it comes to overly emotive language, of course, is the order of the day. It's that type of opening that I am sure that my learned friends will put before Your Honours and that type of opening, of course, one would hope and not call for any objection by the Defence. Of course it is the last thing I would want to do. I hope that helps.

  • I think moderate language is what we an are in favour of. That is on both sides, normally. We don't expect emotive language from either side and we hope that from start to finish this will be observed and, of course, including common courtesy from both sides, common courtesy from the Bench to the Bar and across the Bar as well. That is the minimum that we can require.

    Mr Rapp, you were on your feet?

  • Well, I thank my learned friend for his comments. Certainly that has been our guide and will be our guide in the presentation of argument, that language that isn't accurate or is exaggerating or overly emotive will be avoided and additionally, in terms of this exhibit issue, I appreciate the suggestion, we will make an offer for certain things to go into evidence absolutely by motion, but we will also include in that a request, as my learned friend suggests, that certain matters be conditionally admitted as an alternative to permit them to be used in opening statement with an understanding, of course, that if there is a failure of proof as to those items that they would not be considered by Your Honours in your deliberations. Thank you.

  • Are there -- it would appear to me that we've actually come to the end of our agenda items and this is where I ask for any other business. If the parties think that I have overlooked something that is important at this stage to address in preparation for the trial, I would really appreciate an indication. Whether from the Registry, Court Management or even the parties. Mr Khan, please.

  • Your Honour has ordered or has suggested that the matter is moot but relating to the Livenote issue the reason I was bold enough to stand again on the issue arises out of point 2 of the Prosecution agenda.

    Your Honour, it's irrelevant, really, what the Prosecution said at the moment. It's not at critical issue. My note says that my learned friend Ms Hollis said before the Court that in order to avoid an issue of duplicity, they are not going forward with that language. But, Your Honour, be that as it may, it does perhaps raise the issue of what happens in Court if there is a divergence of opinion of record between the parties. Your Honours, of course, are the ultimate deciders as to what is part of the record and one can always play back the tapes. It's my view, however, that properly considered the argument that facilities are not available in Freetown and therefore should be withheld here, or cost implication is rather meanly spirited because, of course, we have numerous difficulties here that are not occasioned in Freetown. I don't see why an advantage that is here, which is Livenote, is not extended to the parties. The cost is well worth it. It saves Court time, it helps all the parties, it would help Your Honours to read what is said. Sometimes counsel is speaking too fast. Sometimes a witness's accent is difficult to discern. It's immensely useful, in my respectful submission, to have recourse to a written transcript that appears on the computer screens. My understanding was that the software did not require a separate operator. It was the stenographer, that you simply plugged into the stenographer machine and it relayed it. But, Your Honour, be that as it may, the memorandum of understanding -- and Your Honours, of course, can make any order and direct the Registry, but Article 8 of the memorandum of understanding and I read it to you - I don't know if it's before Your Honours - is entitled "Administrative and Logistical Services" and paragraph 8 states: "That at the request of the Special Court, the ICC shall" - shall - "provide administrative and logistical services to the Special Court including (a) access to ICC information technology facilities subject" - this is the caveat - "subject to compliance with ICC information technology protocols, policies and rules, in particular, with respect to the use of external applications and installation of software. The ICC is hooked up, as I understand it from my discussion with the Registry, to Livenote. It's used in the case of Thomas Labanga. All that is required is some cost for the Special Court to put its hand in its pocket for this worthy cause to give an extra two or three licences, whatever is required; it may be one license. I don't know the technical side but, in my submission, it would repay dividends; it would save Court time; it would save writer's cramp, avoid that issue; save paper; and I think it's an immensely useful device. I think when both parties are in agreement from their experience that it's useful, I would ask that Your Honours give it the most anxious scrutiny in deciding whether or not you think this resource should be extended here notwithstanding the fact that it's not available in Freetown, particularly given all the other disadvantages we suffer from and the fact it is available in this courtroom. It simply requires some licences, perhaps, to be issued. Your Honour, that is my submission on the issue and I do apologise for speaking again on a matter that was considered moot and I am grateful to Your Honour's indulgence.

  • Mr Adenuga, you are on your feet?

  • Yes, Madam President, if I may clarify briefly. I share my friend's submissions on the immense benefits on the Livenote system. Although my friend has just addressed one point out of the three or four that I mentioned concerning the finances and the logistics, there are other issues there. Madam President, although it's available in this particular courtroom, the courtroom allocated to the Special Court is courtroom number II which is completely configured to Special Court of Sierra Leone requirements and networked to the Special Court network. Livenote is therefore not available in that particular courtroom.

  • Yes, but Mr Adenuga, surely the Special Court, this configuration you are talking about is our choice, isn't it? If we decided for instance, that we would like and we appreciate Livenote, the reconfiguration could be done, couldn't it?

  • I agree, Madam President, but again there will be huge financial implications and we have already entered into a particular agreement which we will be changing at the last moment since this Court is configured to be ready in about two weeks.

  • I think we would like you, Mr Adenuga, to look into this rather, through you, the Registry to seriously consider Livenote. You say that there are serious budgetary implications but you have not considered the fact that having Livenote would save time and therefore money at the end of the day. Every time we adjourn to go back into the transcript, to find our feet where we are what the witness said yesterday or this morning it's time. It's time taken, and really, I think it's up to the Court and the managers inside the Court to determine whether you are going to save your pounds or your pennies, you see. So could you probably look into this, this issue of Livenote and report to us at the earliest, as to really whether you can't reconsider, reconfiguring the Court to accommodate Livenote.

  • Yes.

  • It's a request the parties have made and the Trial Chamber agrees it's advantageous if it absolutely a cannot be done well, then it cannot be done.

  • We will look into it, Madam President, as you have indicated. I only add one caveat which is that the parties were consulted when the arrangements were being done and this is just a very late request. The Prosecution was consulted; the office of the Principal Defender was consulted. It may be difficult to accommodate at this late stage but I note your concerns, Your Honour, and we will follow up and review further.

  • I wish the Chamber had been consulted; it wasn't.

  • Your Honour, with respect, this was a matter again taken at The Hague working group in Freetown and there was a representative of Chambers at the meeting.

  • Your Honour, there is nothing I can usefully add but I will say for clarification, of course, the Defence is not and has never been invited to be part of this working group. I know the Prosecution have; the Defence were excluded. But we were told a long time ago about what we needed, I think it was well before Christmas and one of the first things I asked for was Livenote. So it has been before the Registry for six months but definitely from before Christmas.

  • I think that is all we can -- we can only conclude and request Mr Adenuga to look into it and to put our concerns before the administration, the Registry regarding this issue and then see how it goes but that is without prejudice to the trial taking off as we have scheduled. I don't think there are any other matters.

    Ms Hollis?

  • Very briefly, Your Honour, if I could just clarify. As to the fourth item on the Prosecution agenda, if I could simply clarify and verify my understanding now as to the second session.

    My understanding is based on the judicial recesses that you have adopted that we would be back in Court on 13 August and that we would sit until 14 December; is that correct, Your Honours?

  • Yes, Ms Hollis, that is correct.

  • Thank you, Your Honour.

  • Before we wind up on this pre-trial conference, I just wish to say a few comments regarding the very first item I think that Mr Khan drew our attention to and I am saying this for the benefit again of Mr Adenuga.

    The Defence have expressed some pretty serious concerns regarding the fair trial rights of Mr Taylor, and that is his right to consult the Defence Office with regard to his representation. Now, we feel helpless as a Trial Chamber, we can't make any orders but we have taken note seriously that there is a bottleneck somewhere.

    Now, my only concern or our concern is that this bottleneck does not translate into a delay in the trial due to the fact that Mr Taylor's Defence team has not been able to be organised in time, or his co-counsel has not been found due to a delay somewhere, because of someone who has taken certain decisions that have been translated into a denial of Mr Taylor's rights.

    This I want to emphasise: I do not want to hear afterwards that, as a result of some decision taken somewhere, Mr Taylor is not in a position to start trial. This would be very, very unfortunate, if it did happen, and I would like you to translate this to the people concerned. I do not know all the facts but the people concerned to, at the earliest opportunity, ensure that this blockage is unblocked. This bottleneck is unblocked, overcome and that the Principal Defender is able to communicate with Mr Taylor in order to straighten out his Defence team. You see, that would be my closing statement from the Chamber.

  • Thank you, Your Honours. I will convey your concerns.

  • There being no other -- just a moment, please. Simon. Okay. I want to thank you very much. I think we have done pretty well. We have finished earlier than we had thought we would and I wish you all well and hope to see again on 4 June at 9.00. Proceedings are adjourned until then. Thank you.

  • [Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.40 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 4th day of June 2007, at 9.00 a.m.]