⁴²

Tuesday, 30 October 2001

[Status Conference]

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: The first matter to deal with this morning is the preliminary motion or preliminary motions. We have taken the opportunity to consider all of them during the adjournment. All will be dismissed, and we shall give our reasons in writing shortly. Now, turning to the Status Conference, we will begin with the Prosecution. There are various matters to cover. We will then deal with matters which the amicus wants to raise, and finally, we will deal with the matters which the accused himself wishes to raise. Beginning then with the Prosecution. There are obviously various matters on which we would wish to be apprised. If I could summarise them briefly: Plans for any other indictments and any applications arising, the state of readiness of the Kosovo indictment, the trial estimate and the number of witnesses. We would also wish to confirm the various dates set and a date for trial. Also, exculpatory evidence in connection with that indictment.

We would -- then turning to Croatia, the state of disclosure of the supporting material, whether it's likely that there will be any further amendments, and again, the number of witnesses and a time estimate.

Madam Prosecutor. ⁴³

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. President and Your Honours.

In respect to the first question you asked, in fact, I'm glad that you asked me these questions. It makes my job easier knowing what it is you want to know yourselves. We will bring out the Bosnian indictment on Milosevic's responsibility next week. After having received the confirmation for that indictment, we will also present a written motion with reasons for the joining of the three indictments so that one trial can be held against the accused, Milosevic.

JUDGE MAY: You could do that within seven days if the final indictment is confirmed?

MS. DEL PONTE: Yes. Absolutely. We need a few days that we can present our request, yes, Mr. President.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] In respect of the Kosovo indictment, that is, the second amended indictment -- actually, the third indictment -- all of the supporting materials include eight binders. These -- six of these have already been provided - that was in 1999 - three binders with the June 2001 amended indictment attached to that. Therefore, there are two additional binders of exhibits which have not yet been translated into B/C/S but which we will give to the accused within the 30 days provided for in Rule 66(A)(i).

We consider -- in fact, we're sure that we will have a list of 228 witnesses to call to trial. One hundred and seventy-four will be asked to testify to the facts, whereas the others are experts. They're police ⁴⁴ officials or investigators, therefore witnesses who are called to testify about the political aspects that are relevant to the investigation. Of course, Mr. President, if we can apply Rule 92 bis, that would be of great assistance in shortening the witness list.

The exhibits which will be produced, we could say that we have got thousands of documents. Right now, Mr. President, I can tell you that we are going to produce 500 documents. One hundred and sixty-seven will be extracts of video recordings, 775 photographs, 50 charts and sketches, 30 maps on paper media, and an electronic map, 30 slides or other images showing movement, and about 21 reports, and hundreds of documents coming from the forensic police which will be produced during the presentation of the Prosecution's case.

As regards witnesses, we will, of course, also need protective measures, and I can imagine that we have, by now, identified 12 of them. As I already said yesterday, the problem is the Prosecution's application of Rule 68, that is, disclosure of exculpatory material for the accused, and in particular what regards -- the meetings with the Defence counsel for the accused.

Rule 65 ter (iv), which says that the Pre-Trial Judge shall ask for discussions between the two parties so that the Prosecutor can meet his or her obligations, I have a problem with this. I have no one with whom I can speak, and therefore I cannot discuss, as it says in this Rule, the questions dealing with preparing the case, and in particular I would say that I cannot discuss the review of all these documents falling under Rule 68. ⁴⁵ I could also tell you, Mr. President, that the expected length for the presentation of the Prosecution's case is estimated to take 170 days, that is, 170 days, considering that for the witnesses called to testify as to the facts, the rhythm might be three witnesses a day, whereas as regards the witnesses testifying to the various connections, annexes, we would have to account for two days for each witness and for the expert witnesses and for the investigators. These estimates, of course, depend upon how long the cross-examination lasts.

I think that I have answered all the questions that you asked me in respect of the Kosovo indictment.

Now, moving to Croatia, in respect of the Croatian indictment, the supporting materials are to be found in 11 binders. The English version may be disclosed immediately; the B/C/S version will be ready within the 30 days provided for by the Rules. For your information, we've got 3,000 pages in English which must be translated.

The witnesses called to appear will be 255; almost 200 will be asked to testify about the facts, and 55 about the connection between Milosevic and the crimes committed. The experts called to testify will be 12; the military, political sciences, constitutional law, finance, pathologists and other experts in exhumations, historians, and archaeologists.

The exhibits submitted represent approximately 90 documents, which can be considered as the essential documents. Nonetheless, we expect that the other documents that are now being translated will be added to the list of these exhibits. We also have additional evidence in the form of ⁴⁶ videotapes, photographs, and forensic reports which will also be submitted, of course, if necessary, and therefore we consider that this material has yet to be reviewed.

The expected length for the presentation of the Prosecution's case is 170 days, counting an average of three or four days for each fact witness and two to three days for the others. We also will have several witnesses for whom we are concerned in respect of security issues, and protective measures will be requested. To date, we have counted 20 witnesses for whom we are planning to ask for protective measures. As regards the documentation falling within Rule 68, we're working on that, and there, the same problem arises that we have for the indictment for Croatia. And of course we are asking for as much time in order to apply Rule 92 bis, Mr. President.

I believe that I have answered all your questions, Mr. President, but we are here to answer any other questions you would like to ask. Thank you very much.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you for that full report, and I would also like to thank the Prosecution for dealing so promptly with the brief which the amicus put forward, which was of assistance to the Trial Chamber. Now, dealing with the matters you have raised, you told us on the last occasion, Madam Prosecutor, that as far as the Kosovo indictment was concerned, you were now trial-ready. May I take that to be the position?

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. In respect of the Kosovo indictment, we are ready, ready for the trial, according to the indications which you gave to us. ⁴⁷

JUDGE MAY: What is the position with the Croatia indictment?

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] As regards the Croatia indictment, we need a few months. That means about four to five months.

JUDGE MAY: And can we anticipate any applications to amend that indictment?

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] No. I can tell you, Mr. President, that the two indictments will -- neither will be changed any more. It won't be amended, not the Croatia indictment, not the Kosovo indictment. It is definitive. We do not expect to touch anything further unless -- of course, I've got to leave a little bit of space for myself just in case there were extraordinary facts that come to light, but I do not think so, Mr. President.

JUDGE MAY: Just on one technical matter: You referred to hundreds of documents from the forensic police in relation to Kosovo. Are these exhumation reports and the like?

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Mr. President.

JUDGE MAY: Now, the dates which we have fixed in relation to Kosovo were a pre-trial brief and the witness disclosure by the 26th of November. I take it that you'll be in the position to meet those dates?

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Yes, we are in a position to respect those dates. I don't know whether the fact of the 30 days for the confirmation of the last indictment will raise a problem and whether we have to wait for those -- that time to be over. So it would be perhaps a week after the 26th, but yes, we are ready.

JUDGE MAY: I think the 30 days will be up on the 28th of ^{48 BLANK PAGE 49} November. We can review the position, but for the moment, stick to that date. If need be, we can look at it again.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE MAY: And the date of the Pre-Trial Conference was the 9th of January.

Now, Madam Prosecutor, I know that you have this application and it's one, obviously, that we'll have to consider in due course, but certainly as far as Croatia is concerned, and if your other indictment is confirmed, obviously in relation to all three - and that's a matter which the Trial Chamber will have to consider in due course when we've heard submissions upon it and considered the application - but in order to expedite matters, the Trial Chamber think it right to fix a date for the start of the Kosovo indictment in any event, and the date which we fix is the 12th of February. That will be a month after the Pre-Trial Conference. Of course, if that has to be reviewed in due course because of other events, it can be reviewed, but we think it right that this matter comes to trial as expeditiously as possible, and one way to do that is to fix a date for the Kosovo indictment in any event. If, as I say, your application or any other event causes us to review that, we'll consider doing so, but you can take that as the date to work towards as far as Kosovo is concerned. So that means having witnesses ready and the like.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. As I was saying, we are ready. I have one consideration only which I would like to express here. ⁵⁰ As the Prosecutor of this Tribunal, in respect of all those people who are in detention, I would not like the accused Milosevic to be given a preferential path. I have the chart of the detainees who are waiting for trial. I can tell you that we are ready, but as the Prosecutor of this Tribunal, I do not want it -- I would like it to be said that I would not like the accused Milosevic to be given special treatment in respect of the start of his trial as regards other detainees who are here and are also waiting for their trial to begin and are still in detention in Scheveningen.

It is this that I wanted to bring to your attention. But we are ready to begin with the next step, thinking about the motion that I have about -- that I'm going to raise about the Kosovo indictment. Yes, Mr. President, we are ready.

JUDGE MAY: Madam Prosecutor, as far as that matter which you raise, the Court, of course, is aware about the position with the other cases, and it's a matter for the Court to determine when cases should be tried, particularly having in mind how long people have been in detention. But another matter is cases being ready for trial, and some of your trial cases aren't ready for trial, as we know, but this one is. Shall we move to the exculpatory evidence? Rule 68, beginning there, puts an obligation on the Prosecutor to disclose to the Defence the existence of material known to the Prosecutor which in any way tends to suggest the innocence or mitigate the guilt of the accused or may affect the credibility of Prosecution evidence.

Now, that is a clear obligation on the Prosecution. And of ⁵¹ course, in the normal case where an accused is represented, the Rule to which you referred comes into play and there is a meeting between the parties to discuss the issues, and in particular, it may be Rule 68. Now, in this case, that cannot apply, and therefore, the Prosecutor must deal with the matter alone.

The approach which I suggest you take is to review the material using as broad a definition as you think right for exculpatory material, and if in doubt, disclose it to the accused but also to the amici, and they can make what you say think right of it.

But the Rules are clear on the obligation. Usually, as I say, with the Defence being represented, it may be that this matter can be dealt with by way of discussion and some indication of what is relevant and what isn't can be given to the Prosecution. But that's not so in this case. There can't be any meetings, and the Prosecution have got to exercise their own discretion.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I think that would be a very good alternative solution. We will show those documents. And as regards exculpatory materials, I would say that we could work with the amici curiae in respect of the fact that it's impossible to discuss matters with the Defence. And I'm talking there about exculpatory materials which don't raise any particular problems. That means that I'll even go -- I'm a little bit even ahead of your proposal, that I will go discuss matters directly with the Defence, that is, discuss exculpatory materials.

As regards the Croatia indictment, we have practically gathered ⁵² everything together. There are approximately 700 documents to be reviewed, and it would be good to be able to do that with the amici curiae. As regards our work on Croatia, that is not yet finished. We will have more or less the same numbers, several hundred documents that have to be looked at.

JUDGE MAY: The first, the 700 was in relation to Croatia. Is that in relation to Kosovo, the 700?

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Yes, for Kosovo.

JUDGE MAY: Well, no doubt that can be done.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the amici curiae were called as amici curiae for the Kosovo indictment. Of course I would like it also if the amici curiae could take care of the Croatian indictment.

JUDGE MAY: We'll be making that indication in due course, yes. Yes, that's obviously sensible.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Madam Prosecutor, I was interested in your estimate of the Prosecution's case for the Kosovo indictment, 170 days; and the Croatian indictment, I think you said pretty much the same number of days. Now, that's a total of 340 days for the Prosecution's case. We can presume that the Defence case would be perhaps something near to that. Maybe less, but I can't predict. The amici would also have an input where that is concerned.

Now, if we were to consider the indictment for Bosnia, that may be ⁵³ a little shorter, would it? Would that be shorter than 170 days, or are you in a position yet to say?

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in respect of the length of the indictment, I cannot be specific, but it's more or less the same length as the Croatian indictment. Maybe a little bit longer -- a little bit shorter, rather. But we're doing our best.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So, in effect, if those three indictments were to be tried together, we're looking at a total of about 500 days for the Prosecution case. That would mean that if there was a trial of all these indictments together, taking account of the time that the Defence would need to present its case, the case would run at least three years; isn't that right?

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] What you're saying is correct if we had three different trials against Milosevic, because the facts which we have and which we'll give you mean that these are separate trials. But if the trials -- if there could be one trial for the three indictments, of course we have witnesses who would be the same in all three trials. I'm not talking about the crime-base witnesses, but the most important ones, that is, those who are testifying about Milosevic as an individual, in respect of his own participation. For Bosnia and Croatia, we've got the same witnesses for all three episodes.

Now, regarding the crime base, we have a great many witnesses for the crime base. But if I were to have a Defence counsel to work with, I could be sure that I could be able to reduce the witnesses to a very, very large extent. Enormously, in fact. Because I told you, out of the 228 ⁵⁴ witnesses, 174 are testifying about the facts. Those are the crime-base witnesses. So I have no defence counsel, and I cannot discuss the problem with the Defence, but we would be able to carry out very, very important reductions within the list of witnesses if we did.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I certainly take what you say into account and hope that that could be done. In any event, we must await any application that you may make in relation to the other cases. Thank you.

MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay, are you dealing with the amici today?

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Let me say one or two things first.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: First of all, we will invite the Registrar to extend your brief to cover the Croatia indictment.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: The other matters we would wish to hear about are whether you anticipate filing any motions, any further motions, first of all on Kosovo, and then any preliminary motions in relation to Croatia.

MR. KAY: Yes. You've dealt with the first issue we were going to raise about the extension of the brief of the amici curiae. Secondly, in relation to the Kosovo indictment, as yet we have no motions extra to file. We will not, obviously, repeat the motions that we filed under Rule 72 in relation to the Kosovo indictment for the Croatia indictment, and we really have to wait till we've marshalled that material to see if there are any further supplementary motions that we might take ^{55 BLANK PAGE 56} pre-trial. As yet, we don't know about that concerning the Croatia indictment; that's not been something we've had time to digest.

JUDGE MAY: Besides Kosovo, are there any other motions you anticipate?

MR. KAY: Not at the moment, and none that occur. If they did, we would give notice to the Court, if they had any effects on the timetabling; but at this stage there are none that come to mind. Looking, really, at the issues as far as we're concerned, as the point was made yesterday, we're not Mr. Milosevic's Defence counsel so we won't be advancing, so to speak, a defence on instructions, which is an issue Your Honours would well understand, because we wouldn't have those instructions upon which to act and advance issues to the Court. That may have an impact on the length of the trial and any scheduling. We would, of course, be applying the order of the Court that appointed us in the first place, which we've been paying particular attention to because that's the very basis of our existence within this courtroom and that's what we would be following. In terms of the timing of the trial for the Kosovo indictment, the date given of the 12th of February was something at this stage that we don't see a problem with, because that's something we've had for a few weeks now, we've been able to look at. There's further material maybe to come, but again as far as the amici curiae are concerned, we're not acting here as Defence counsel in relation to the issues within that indictment. We're here with a distinct role of performance which we would follow.

JUDGE MAY: I think that point needs to be underlined again so ⁵⁷ that the accused should hear it. He's heard it before.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: But what you cannot do is put forward a positive defence case. You have a brief which is set out in the order. You can make submissions open to the accused.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: You can cross-examine witnesses, as appropriate. You can draw to the Trial Chamber's attention any exculpatory material - and perhaps we can come back to that - and you can act in any way which you consider appropriate in order to secure a fair trial. Now, that's an important role but it is a limited one.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: And what it does mean is that no positive defence, except one that can be gleaned from material which is provided to the Court, can be put forward.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: You're not in a position to call witnesses, not in a position to cross-examine on instructions. Only that can come from the Defence --

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: -- which means the accused.

MR. KAY: I'm glad Your Honour has raised this issue. From the common law jurisdiction, this is something that we're very familiar with and understand, because it's how the system works. We're here, really, to consider those issues and make points on behalf of the accused that can be ⁵⁸ properly made within the scope of our duty.

When the Prosecutor this morning - and I forgive her for it; it's obviously a technical slip - referred to us as Defence counsel, I want to make it quite clear, we're not Defence counsel and that's not the basis of our appointment. We're here as amici curiae within a specific terms of reference that we have to follow. We can't go outside that terms of reference because we're here, appointed by the Court. The accused, of course, may well advance issues on his own behalf and may well take a part in the proceedings if he so wishes, but that's a matter entirely for him. Particularly in the advancement of a defence case, that's something that the amici curiae are unable to perform on his behalf outside the scope of our appointment, because we do not have instructions as counsel appointed by him to follow his instructions. What we have done to date so far was follow issues that were raised by him, as we said yesterday at the Rule 72 hearing, that we felt could properly be put before the Court for consideration. But Your Honour is right to stress our role here, because it does have an impact on the conduct of the case. But looking at it, we think that the 12th of February would be a date that we would be able to work to. The scope of this task is becoming clearer to us by the day, and I think the reading of the Croatia indictment yesterday emphasised the scope of the task. We await to see the Bosnia indictment, and we are going to have to configure a team here to marshal the material and make sure that we are on top of the issues and can present them in accordance to our appointment in a way appropriate to the court order, but that is something ⁵⁹ we are considering amongst ourselves and we can get in hand shortly. The next matter I wanted to deal with, if Your Honour permits me to move on, is the disclosure of exculpatory material. There is no question here of the amici curiae not wanting to see the Prosecution for exculpatory material to be disclosed. I think there may have been a misunderstanding within the Prosecution team as to what we were interested in and what contact was made. It's quite clear within Your Honours' directions for the appointment of us that exculpatory material should be considered by us, and that is something that we would want to review and go through.

Again, that would be in the absence of instructions from the accused himself, but we would use our experience and judgement, and perhaps we could guide the Prosecution, as best as we thought fit, on the extent of the material to be disclosed to us, if we felt that there was material that hadn't been disclosed that should have been disclosed. But that's a matter we can't say about until we've reviewed at least the first tranche of disclosure.

JUDGE MAY: Can I invite you to deal with that as expeditiously as possible, because experience shows that with these documents, time is going to be taken. And since the time before the date set for trial is not extensive, we would invite you to get on it as soon as you possibly can.

MR. KAY: We most certainly will, which is why we are reviewing the scope of the team that we have, and we will be discussing matters with the Registry in a way to make the performance of our tasks easier, perhaps ⁶⁰ easier than they will be in the future unless we take some action now about it. But we have that very much in mind, and we're discussing it.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. KAY: As far as any other issues are concerned, if I may just consult with the other amici.

[Amici curiae confer]

MR. KAY: Mr. Tapuskovic would like to address the Court briefly on an additional matter, Your Honour, but for our part, I have nothing further to advise the Court upon unless you wish me to deal with any specific matter.

JUDGE MAY: No. Thank you, Mr. Kay. Mr. Tapuskovic, yes.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I would not have asked to speak had I not heard the comments by His Honour Judge Robinson.

A primary thing for all these proceedings before this Tribunal is something that I always believed in, and that is a fair and expeditious trial. The way in which the Prosecution has worked so far, as an amicus curiae, I must express, to put it mildly, dissatisfaction, because we first had the Kosovo indictment, which was the last event in the series of events in Yugoslavia, and I simply cannot believe that the Prosecution now needs another four or five months to prepare everything else that is needed in connection with the Croatia indictment, especially as we now hear that there will be a Bosnia indictment. If the Prosecution continues in this manner, though logic tells us that this should have been something ⁶¹ completed long ago, then we can expect this to be delayed further. So as an amicus curiae, I really must voice my dissatisfaction with such actions, because we will get involved in proceedings which can hardly be expeditious and effective, and thereby also one can ask how fair they can be.

It is true that, in all these indictments, many facts have been referred to, many events, and I must admit too that they emanate from the documents attached. But a very important fact that is not displayed in those documents is this criminal enterprise, and the Prosecution has not provided any evidence in support of that, this common enterprise. And I think that working in this way, we will not be able to meet the basic principle of the Statute of this Tribunal and that is to provide a fair and expeditious trial. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: These are all matters which we will have to consider when and if the joinder application is made. The Prosecution will be able to put forward their arguments on that occasion, and the Chamber will hear from the amici and then make a decision.

Is there anything for the amici now, anything else?

MR. KAY: No, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic, as you know, the Rules provide that you should have the opportunity to raise matters in relation to the status of your case and your mental and physical condition. You've heard what's been said about the timetable, about the Prosecutor's proposals. You've heard that there will be an application in due course to join these indictments. At ^{62 BLANK PAGE 63} this stage, it's not before the Court, we will have to address it in due course, but if there are any matters you wish to raise about the case and your condition, then this is your opportunity to do so.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to request from you to disqualify the Prosecutor for obvious reasons, among which I should mention only two.

The first we heard yesterday loud and clear when the Kosovo indictment was being read, that all the events took place between the 24th of March and the beginning of June. And the second reason is that the whole planet knows that it was precisely on the 24th of March that a criminal aggression by NATO was carried out against Yugoslavia and went on until the beginning of June.

It stems from the indictment, from what we heard, that NATO had not committed -- that NATO did not commit aggression against Yugoslavia but Yugoslavia committed aggression against itself and that the consequences are 78 days and 78 nights of bombing of Yugoslavia during which 22.000 tonnes of bombs were dropped on the country. And enormous casualties provoked were not the consequences of NATO aggression but, rather, the consequences of Yugoslavia's aggression against itself. This shows that we are not talking only about partiality or bias, because that would be a mild term. What we heard is worse than what we could hear from the enemy, that is, from the NATO spokesmen. So this is complete partiality. And if the Court can turn a blind eye to the fact that from the 24th of March until the first week of June this aggression took place, that there were a large number of victims, ⁶⁴ that 22.000 tonnes of bombs were dropped and that all this is being attributed to Yugoslavia, which committed a crime against itself instead of NATO doing it, then I think that even this court, which is an illegal one, must take those facts into consideration. And if it refuses to take them into consideration, then it becomes clear that this is no court but just a part of the machinery to commit a crime against my country and my people.

So if the latter is the case, if this flagrant bias and these facts which speak for themselves and ignoring this, such a flagrant act as this aggression, and if the Court will ignore these falsehoods presented by the Prosecutor, and if you are really a part of that machinery, then please read out those judgements that you have been instructed to read and don't bother me and make me listen for hours on end to the reading of texts written at the intellectual level of a seven-year-old child -- or rather - let me correct myself - a retarded seven-year-old. Don't bother me and read it out.

I think this has been a farce already. And after yesterday's explanations that we heard about the way that Yugoslavia committed aggression against itself and we see that the consequences of aggression do not exist for the Prosecution, then this whole thing becomes clearly a farce. And then please do what I suggest, and that will save you all your procedural difficulties.

A second point I wish to make, a warning I wish to make, is that this trial has a direct impact on inciting terrorism in Southern Serbia. I wish to warn you that these past few days and months, Albanian ⁶⁵ terrorists in the south of Serbia are slaughtering, killing, plundering, burning, and doing everything else exactly as they did in Kosovo. They have been given wings, for as -- unlike the previous administration, this one has proclaimed a war on terrorism. And the previous American administration knew that bin Laden was in Albania two years after their embassies were attacked, and they discussed that fact with me at the time.

So please do not incite terrorism in Southern Serbia, because people have suffered enough. And bear in mind that under that terror and under the auspices of the United Nations, 33.000 people have been chased out of Kosovo and Metohija, Serbs under the auspices of the United Nations.

JUDGE MAY: We've heard that, and now -- rather, we've heard what you've said. Is there anything you want to say about your physical and mental condition?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is that all that I have the right to say?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Then I request from the Court, since I have heard that the opposing party is insisting on me having no privileges regarding an expeditious trial, which I hear you plan to take some three years, I would like not to be discriminated against either in terms of the treatment I am being given. So will you please remove the cameras from my cell and remove the presence of your staff when my family members visit me, because the explanation given for the cameras ^{66 BLANK PAGE 67} are nonsense. Apparently, they're monitoring me so that I should not commit suicide, and I am saying here in this courtroom that I would never commit suicide. First of all, because I do not wish to do that to my family and my children; and secondly, I would never commit suicide because I must struggle here to topple this Tribunal and this farce of a trial and the masterminds behind it who are using it against people who are fighting for freedom in the world.

So please switch off those cameras and remove the staff, because this rule that can -- that envisages that this can be imposed for one month is being abused as this has been imposed upon me for four months through an abuse of power. So that is my request. I am not asking for any privileges but, rather, not to be discriminated against at least as far as these things are concerned.

As for the monitoring of telephone conversations, that's up to you, and you are free to continue. Surely, if my family is present, surely I don't need staff members attending because you can monitor my conversations anyway. So, please, if you can meet that request for me.

JUDGE MAY: You are not the subject of any discrimination at all, as you know well.

As for bringing your case to trial, that is the duty of this Court, and we will ensure that your trial is brought on expeditiously and is conducted fairly.

This hearing is adjourned.

--- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at 10.32 p.m.