¹⁸¹²⁴

Tuesday, 25 March 2003

[Open session]

[The accused not present]

--- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: The accused is not present. On the 18th of March, he did not attend the trial, and the medical report from the Detention Unit's medical officer stated that his blood pressure was increased. It was recommended that he rest for a few days and that there be a consultation with the cardiologist.

On the 19th of March, the cardiologist reported that, in his opinion, the dosage of medication received by the accused had to be increased in order to keep his blood pressure under control. However, the accused had so far refused to follow this advice. This was confirmed in a report from the medical officer which stated that the accused had refused to take the extra medication and was unable to attend trial this week. That was the position. I understand there's been no change in the situation, and we'll hear submissions as to how we should proceed.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, we had heard some additional material, perhaps informally, that led to the possibility of the accused changing his position, but of course the position may be as blunt as stated by Your Honour. There's the possibility that he might change his position on receiving other and different medical advice, and I don't know what the information coming to the Chamber is about that. As things stand at present, he representing himself, his ability to attend is an absolute prerequisite of the trial. I have given thought ¹⁸¹²⁵ to the possibility -- or we've all given thought to the possibility of installing electronic communication, telephone or video, with the Detention Unit, but that doesn't get over the problem that he is said to be unfit to attend and, therefore, would be of either limited or no utility.

The position cannot be allowed to continue long or indefinitely where the accused, by his own decision, renders himself incapable of attending court, but for the time being, we have no specific proposals to make. The Chamber knows what the alternatives --

JUDGE MAY: One possibility would be for a warning to be issued to him that unless he takes his medication, the trial will proceed without him, because he cannot be allowed to choose whether he makes himself fit or not and render himself effectively unfit for trial.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, that's a course we would support, providing he's been given the chance, as a warning would give him, to reconsider his position.

I am aware that his associates are, as ever, present in the public part of the court. The terms upon which they are engaged may or may not render them susceptible to being summoned before the Court for the purposes of ensuring that such a warning is given at the greatest degree of proximity to the accused by communicating directly with his associates. That's something the Chamber may wish to consider. May I say that for the timetable of this week, there are particular problems to which I'll turn after the following observation. Having heard of the position today, we'd reconsidered, Mr. Groome and I, ¹⁸¹²⁶ the provisions on depositions, Rule 71. It seems to us that again, they provide only limited or possibly even no solution to the problem because under Rule 71(C), the other party shall have the right to attend the taking of the deposition and cross-examination of the person whose deposition is being taken.

I suppose, on reflection, the Chamber could take a deposition from witnesses - for example, the witnesses who are coming by way of videolink evidence - saying that the accused had the right to attend in the same way as he has the right to attend the rest of the trial but declined to exercise his right wilfully, by wilfully refusing to take medication that would enable him safely to do so. But nevertheless, Rule 71(C) does afford him the right to attend the taking of the deposition. With those observations - and I may, if my colleagues think of other things I should say, seek leave to come back - may I tell you what the particular practical problems for this week are, and they are pretty serious. First, as you will know, arrangements have been made for two videolink -- video-conference link witnesses to be heard from [redacted], one today, one tomorrow, and we forecast it would be possible for them both to be heard within one sitting day tomorrow if that seemed a sensible course.

JUDGE MAY: How are we to achieve that without the presence of the accused?

MR. NICE: Well, subject to the presence of the accused. I'm just saying for timetable problems.

Obviously a huge amount of time and significant quantities of ¹⁸¹²⁷ money has already gone into arranging that, not just by the Office of the Prosecutor but also by Registry.

The Chamber knows that General Marinovic is available this week and has taken certain steps which the Chamber may be aware to make himself available this week, but he simply will not be available, as I understand it, hereafter for a very considerable period of time. Again, I can make further telephone inquiries and confirm that position, or have those telephone inquiries made.

It was because of his particular problem that I pressed informally through the usual channels Registry to make the video-conference facilities available in [redacted]on Thursday of this week rather than Friday to allow for mishap in the equipment or something of that sort, but they explained that it wasn't possible, if [redacted]witnesses were taken today and tomorrow, for the equipment to be in [redacted]on Thursday and, therefore, the time and facilities have been planned for Friday of this week, which is, as it were, the very last day.

By one means or another, it is extremely desirable that that witness is available to be heard. The Chamber wanted to hear him. No doubt the amicus will have some questions for him, and we know that Mr. Tapuskovic asks questions which are closely allied, it would appear, to the interests of the accused and can reasonably be expected, if it's he who would be to cross-examine, to explore the evidence with the accused's interests in mind.

So our particular concern is to have General Marinovic heard this week at the latest. ¹⁸¹²⁸ Can I just check the note that I received from my colleagues?

JUDGE MAY: Let me see if I've got the application right. So you're asking for General Marinovic to be heard. Which day would you be asking for him to be heard?

MR. NICE: The present arrangements are that he should be heard on Friday because I couldn't advance it to Thursday. Everything is likely to change, depending on the state of health of the accused and the decision the Chamber makes.

May I, incidentally, before I do anything else, ask that the site of the other video-conference link witnesses, the geographical site, be redacted from the transcript. I shouldn't have mentioned it, and it's not necessary. By identifying even the site, there could be some associated risk.

So back to General Marinovic.

JUDGE MAY: So let me just get this right. Are you applying -- you seem to be saying that even if the accused is unfit, you would ask us to hear that witness that day.

MR. NICE: Yes. If the Chamber gives the warning it has given or has announced a consideration of giving.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, consideration, of course.

MR. NICE: Then Friday is a day we would very much like him to give evidence. We would have preferred Thursday to allow for mishap, but Friday would do.

The Chamber will know, I think, the reason why it has to be then and no later, and it's not something that needs to be gone into any ¹⁸¹²⁹ further here.

JUDGE MAY: I'm just thinking about Friday. He would be on first thing, I take it.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Because it may not be possible to sit beyond 12.00 on Friday.

MR. NICE: The Chamber will recall his original position was that he might only be able to manage an hour. My estimation is that he would be able to -- probably would be able to manage a couple of hours before tiring, and he's very enthusiastic about contributing insofar as he can to these proceedings. If we were able to sit 'til 12.00, that would give us two sessions, and I would have thought that would be enough, given that I'm not going to ask him very much by way of examination-in-chief, just really a couple of questions.

JUDGE MAY: The question is this: If the accused one way or another is not fit, because clearly if he takes the medication but he is still unfit, we will not be able to go on, but you would still ask us to hear General Marinovic in those circumstances.

MR. NICE: If there's any way under the Rules that we can hear him in part in the absence of the accused, reserving the position that he may subsequently, if he is fit and the accused is fit, be subject to cross-examination by the accused, then yes.

JUDGE MAY: And as for the rest of the week, you talk about Thursday, and you've got a video-conference lined up for then, have you?

MR. NICE: No. Video-conference for today and tomorrow have been ¹⁸¹³⁰ lined up, with Thursday the travelling day for the equipment, because the Registry weren't anxious -- the problem is the Registry weren't anxious to have videolink operative in site A on one day and operative in (redacted) on the following day because of the problems of moving it from one to the other.

JUDGE MAY: We have -- we have, then, a witness today available but who could be available presumably another day. Not the same --

MR. NICE: Could be available tomorrow, for example.

JUDGE MAY: Not in the same position as the general is.

MR. NICE: Not in the same position as the general, although there is a technical problem about that witness that we must address separately, but I don't believe that's an insoluble problem.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We may need to think about this. Is there anything else you want to say?

MR. NICE: Not at the moment, no. And the issue of trial without the accused's presence is something we'd, I think, want to give a little thought to.

JUDGE MAY: Of course.

MR. NICE: But swiftly and having discussed it not only within our own team but also within the office generally.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Well, I make these following observations as points that the accused perhaps would make. Health issues are very difficult and complicated, Your Honour, and it is not unusual for a patient to find himself in conflict with doctors over medication, and this is by no means ¹⁸¹³¹ an uncommon occurrence, particularly with heart patients, patients who have increased blood pressure. Side-effects of the drugs may have particular effects that make the patient feel very uncomfortable and cause difficulties in the conduct of their everyday life. So I would make this observation: That it should be not a situation where one jumps to conclusions that there is non-cooperation with the doctors for any sinister reasons. And it may well be that this is a position where doctors and patient have to spend time together discussing matters to try and find a balance in his treatment. For a man given his physical condition, he is in exceptional circumstances.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay, we have to consider this trial. Nearly 40 days have been lost due to his illness, and at some stage the amici are going to have to consider how the trial is to be finished in those circumstances.

MR. KAY: This can't be a situation of blame on the accused, and I must stress that so far as I am able to on his behalf.

JUDGE MAY: Well, except for this, that he has elected to defend himself, and if he is unfit to do so, a Trial Chamber must decide what steps to take. It cannot be that the trial is brought to a close because of his unfitness to defend himself.

MR. KAY: He's an accused in a unique position, with a unique position in relation to all the events relating to the formation of this Tribunal. The issue of him defending himself is something that one can readily understand, and his desire to deal with events on his own behalf as well as this trial. ¹⁸¹³² In those circumstances, it being a right that is entirely available and open to him, we submit that, even given those weaknesses that he has concerning his health, that that is an issue that the Court has to respect. And given the pressures of this particular case, it is not surprising that a man in his condition will on occasion experience health problems.

I have no need to remind the Court that we made these observations right at the start of this trial on the issue of joinder.

JUDGE MAY: Well, and we ruled on it.

MR. KAY: Those who have ruled against this Trial Chamber have to bear the consequences. The Prosecution were well aware of the observations that the amici were making concerning the stresses and strains of a full trial of three indictments on an accused. Not only on the issues of manageability but on the issues of coping generally. And this is an issue that was flagged up well in advance. In those circumstances, our submission is it is very wrong to attribute blame to it at this stage to the accused. Understanding is needed for his medical condition, and it's by no means --

JUDGE MAY: He is refusing to take his medication. If he were -- as recommended. If he were prepared to take it as the doctors recommend and render himself fit, of course the position would be different. But since he's refusing to do so, the Trial Chamber must consider that position. It's not the same position as we were in before. In the same position as we were in before it was not suggested that he had contributed in any way to his unfitness, but now that suggestion must be made. ¹⁸¹³³

MR. KAY: Our submission is that this may well bear far closer examination. As I said at the start, it is not unusual for patients with a heart condition, blood pressure problems, to be in this kind of position concerning the effects of medication prescribed by doctors. It can also be a confidence issue in relation to the doctors themselves.

JUDGE MAY: He is in detention. He is in a different position to a patient who is not in detention. And the question is, should he or should we second guess the doctor's opinion? I mean, that seems to be what you're inviting us to do.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Kay, if you can make any observation to this: According to the report - I have it with me now - it is a report from the staff of the Detention Unit, and as to the reason why the accused is refusing to take the increased medication, it says that the accused had explained that he had previously taken the higher dosage medication which caused him to feel drowsy and incapable of performing any tasks relating to the preparation of his defence and subsequently was not willing to put himself in that state.

The doctors who recommended the increased dosage must have been aware of this situation. Do you think I am right in guessing so?

MR. KAY: Well, I haven't seen a copy of the report, but Your Honour has spoken out exactly what was going through my mind, that the effects of higher dosage causes drowsiness, has side-effects in the ability of the patient to perform day-to-day tasks let alone deal with a case of this magnitude. And it's to be expected, as I said, that there will be conflict between doctors wanting to bring the blood pressure down ¹⁸¹³⁴ and the side-effects on the patient. And the patient is attempting to deal with the issues of this case with those side-effects, and in my submission, one must respect his judgement on this if it is supportable by medical opinion. And I'm no genius in medical affairs, it didn't take much for me to understand that the side-effects of higher dosage drugs would have an effect on his mental capacity.

JUDGE MAY: Well, we don't know that. That's merely your supposition.

MR. KAY: Well, it's as good as anything from the experience of someone of my age, which is of only tender years, I know, but we all have perhaps had experience of dealing with people with heart conditions. What I do say, though, is that there can be a tendency to blame the accused in a situation such as this without fully understanding his own concerns, and merely increasing the dosage to bring down the pressure has with it side-effects that he is unwilling to accept because he has to deal with the case thereafter.

I don't think --

JUDGE MAY: Well, one obvious course would be to obtain a report to see whether there are any side-effects, to see what the truth of that matter is. We can resolve that.

MR. KAY: Yes. I think caution needs to be the order of the day when considering the effects of this upon the future conduct of the trial. Is certainly seems from what we have heard that, unfortunately, plans for later on this week in relation to his participation in this trial are probably ill-founded, that they will not work out. The effects ¹⁸¹³⁵ of these tablets obviously would take a period of time to produce any noticeable effect. It's not an instant cure.

JUDGE MAY: The application is that we hear the general, and you may know the reasons for that, for the urgency of that.

MR. KAY: Yes. Rule 71 is quite clear in the fact that the deposition, be it taken via videolink - which I don't think is expressly provided for within the Rule, but we may need to look at that - it gives the right of an accused to attend in the taking of the deposition. So when the deposition is taken in chief, he be present for that and - so conjunctively - cross-examine the person whose deposition is being taken. This is an entire process that requires him to be present for that procedure. In our submission, it would be quite wrong to divorce his participation to a later stage to permit cross-examination. It is an unfortunate fact that -- that this has happened in this trial with this witness for the Prosecution at this time, but there's nothing we can do or say about that beyond the fact that he should be present if that is a procedure that is to be adopted. It may be better to, in view of the costs involved with the videolink, that this aspect of the trial perhaps be shelved for a later time when the Prosecution have a more stable feel concerning the conduct of the case. And by that I mean the normalisation of the accused's health.

It's a very risky time, in our submission, to make these kinds of plans given his present circumstances, and perhaps it would be far better that this technology be used when there is a more normal state of affairs for the accused. ¹⁸¹³⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: You would be submitting, Mr. Kay, that the effectiveness of his cross-examination could be -- could be hampered if he were to cross-examine not having been present during the examination-in-chief?

MR. KAY: Yes. On the wider point despite -- I've mentioned the linking of the two issues within sub-rule (C) of Rule 71. In our submission, it is essential for a witness [sic] to be present and hear evidence being taken so that he is able to -- we've had a number instances, checking of the translation, issues concerning language, but not only that, actually hear how the evidence comes out and unfolds. It is a world apart from just reading it on paper to have the actual hearing of the evidence.

On another issue, whether the amici should take over cross-examination of a witness, I can speak on Mr. Tapuskovic's behalf on this matter. It would be quite impossible for us to do that without instructions from an accused.

JUDGE MAY: Well, not quite. You could effectively act as Defence counsel, and this may be a matter sometime we have to consider, on this basis: You have no instructions, of course, but you would be in position of standby counsel. You would be able, as you do, to take points on the credibility, to take points on the statement. Mr. Tapuskovic is always doing that. You could -- inconsistencies. You could do all that, of course, couldn't you.

MR. KAY: But it would be without the instructions of the accused, and in our submission, that hampers this Trial Chamber's work rather than ¹⁸¹³⁷ helps it, and I make that as a very broad observation as to the function and purpose of this trial. At the end of the day, very little good will come out of the fact if such a role is taken by others rather than the accused himself, and that's a position that the amici have been quite consistent in advising the Court. We will, of course, do whatever we are told to do, but as it stands at the moment, we certainly make this observation quite strongly to this Tribunal as to the nature of this trial if that route is gone down.

I don't think there are any other matters that I need deal with.

MR. NICE: Can I make a couple of points? Would it be sensible to have a hearing tomorrow on medical evidence, the better to inform the Chamber? The Prosecution has been advised over the last few months by a very senior medical expert. I don't know if he is available tomorrow, but he might be. And the preparer of the report and the person who authored the other report, who we haven't seen, who speaks of drowsiness, might be available, I don't know, tomorrow. And if we can have a hearing we would all be that much better informed.

JUDGE MAY: We don't know whether the other doctors are available.

MR. NICE: No.

JUDGE MAY: And so we go on in this way without resolving these issues. We had in mind, as I said, obtaining a further report on the side-effects of this medication. Clearly that's an issue that should be addressed.

You say you've got some expert, have you?

MR. NICE: Yes, a very considerable expert. ¹⁸¹³⁸

JUDGE MAY: No doubt. I say some expert.

MR. NICE: An expert of considerable stature. I don't even know if he is in the area this week, but if he is, I forecast that he might well make himself available to the Chamber tomorrow because he's been very willing to assist us.

JUDGE MAY: Well, is he in a position to put a report in on the various matters we are considering?

MR. NICE: I don't know whether he can get that done in writing at the time. I can investigate.

But an early hearing of the medical issue or the evidence about it would inform the Chamber, and all of us, and enable the Chamber the better to deal with the possibility it's already raised, the issuing of a warning.

Can I return for this purpose to the possibility of requiring the associates to cooperate if it's within the terms of the arrangement between them and the Chamber that they should do so. There's another reason why I have to come back to in a second.

As to General Marinovic, at the very least, could his evidence be taken this week and be subject to such cross-examination as the amici in their role as friends of the Court can be prevailed upon to undertake, thus preserving the evidence under Rule 54, if under no other Rule, an ultimate decision on its admissibility being made later. This possibility, as Mr. Groome helpfully reminds me, always being a possibility for the Chamber. But that way, at least, we get the evidence preserved and guard against one particular possibility. ¹⁸¹³⁹ There's a separate -- unless there's anything more that you want me to touch on or that I can usefully touch on on the question of health, those would be our submissions, but the earlier we can have a hearing about the medical issues or we can see all the material gathered together, the earlier it's going to be possible for us to take a view as to what representations we should make about trial in the absence of the accused and the earlier it's going to be possible for the Chamber to make a decision about issuing a warning and the date of effectiveness of such a warning should --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I think it would be within the right of the Prosecution to submit a report from the kind of medical expert that you have mentioned, because the issue has been raised. And in my view, that is a prior issue that has to be resolved before the Chamber can take any step, that is, the side-effects of the higher medication, because the accused makes the claim that, if you listen to what Judge Kwon read from the report of the deputy commanding officer, he makes the claim that it makes him feel drowsy and incapable of performing any tasks relating to the preparation of his defence. That's a very, very serious matter. So I think that's a prior issue that has to be determined. And if you have medical expertise on that issue, for my own part I think it would be welcome. It may be that we will have to have a hearing on it. We haven't addressed that issue yet. But I certainly believe that a medical report from an expert of your choosing on this question would be helpful.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, the terms of the report from the deputy commander is something I've only just heard of in the detail ¹⁸¹⁴⁰ provided by Judge Kwon. If we could possibly have sight of that report, unless there's any reason to the contrary, we would be grateful. And I'll commission the preparation of a report --

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll get you a copy and the amici and everybody else.

MR. NICE: So I'll deal with that as soon as I can.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. And you can show it to your expert. Now, unless there's anything -- we will consider the position in a moment about the -- how we should proceed immediately, and we'll also consider the suggestion of a hearing which may have something to recommend it.

MR. NICE: Can we keep in touch with your legal officer as to availability and prospects of reports and so on.

JUDGE MAY: We haven't got that far.

MR. NICE: I realise that.

JUDGE MAY: Are there any other matters you want to deal with? Because there's something I want to deal with which has nothing to do with it, which is to announce a ruling in relation to some of the 92 bis applications we've done.

MR. NICE: There is a wholly discrete procedural problem in relation to videolink witnesses --

JUDGE MAY: Let us deal with that in a moment, but let me deal with a 92 bis application remaining (redacted) witnesses. It's an oral ruling, apologies to the interpreters that they don't have it. It is brief. ¹⁸¹⁴¹ The Trial Chamber has considered argument in relation to the following witnesses: C-1088, 1092, 1112, 1127, 1159, 1221. All these statements and attachments to them will be admitted under Rule 92 bis (A) since they are all cumulative of evidence already given about (redacted) and meet the criteria for admission under the Rule. The following will only be admissible with cross-examination: C-1092, 1112, 1159, 1221. This is because their evidence raises significant issues about the activities of the JNA or resistance to it. These matters are very much in dispute, and the accused should have the opportunity to cross-examine on them.

In relation to the other two witnesses, C-1088, C-1127, the Trial Chamber rules by majority, Judge Robinson dissenting, that their statements should be admissible without cross-examination since in the case of C-1088, the evidence deals chiefly with damage and the evidence about other matters is not significant enough to require cross-examination. And in the case of 1127, the evidence is merely cumulative of much other evidence given about the old town and, in the circumstances, not requiring cross-examination.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We shall order that there will be a hearing as to the medical issues. We will hold that hearing either tomorrow or the day after, as appropriate for witnesses to attend. If you could have your expert prepare a report and to make himself available, it would be useful to hear from him too.

MR. NICE: I'll see what I can do. ¹⁸¹⁴²

JUDGE MAY: Or her. And we will then review the position further.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, two short points, one that I overlooked making earlier, just for you to have in mind when considering the possibility of evidence being given here in the absence of the accused. I think that there are in place arrangements whereby this trial is shown publicly in any event on television programmes or the like, so it's probably the case that the accused would be in a position to see these hearings, insofar as they're not in closed session, from his prison accommodation in any event. Even if they are not available publicly, it may be comparatively easy, I don't know, to ensure that he can see things as they're being broadcast here. That perhaps can be looked into if necessary.

The second point relates to a video-conference link witness, and since it's always possible that things will accelerate beyond our present expectations this week, I must mention it now. It's something that would ordinarily be easier for me to mention in closed session, by think I can identify the problem in open session to avoid any of the problems of closed session in the absence of the accused.

Where a witness is granted voice distortion as well as facial distortion, it is not possible for there to be a broadcast of the proceedings publicly. I've explored this, or we both have explored this with the technical staff this morning, and it isn't possible. We've considered with the staff and with the video -- I beg your pardon, with the interpretation booths whether one can suppress the original voice of the witness and simply put out by way of broadcast the same words in the ¹⁸¹⁴³ mouths of the interpreters. That isn't possible either. The Chamber might think that with such a witness it's placed in this unfortunate position of either having to have closed-session testimony, because that's the only way the evidence could be given - and this is something that happened once, as I recall, in the Kordic case - or obliging the witness to surrender his protection of voice distortion already granted, or obliging the Prosecution to do without the evidence altogether.

We've been giving urgent thought to this, and it seems to us there is a way around this technical problem which, as I understand it, is incapable of resolution otherwise. And the way or ways around it are as follows: One, that the hearing should be in closed session but that, subject to any particular necessary redactions, a transcript could be produced immediately thereafterwards because the evidence as spoken would be, under the ruling of the Court, evidence that should not be in closed session.

Alternatively, and I've asked the technical staff to consider this: It might be possible, the evidence having been given in closed session, for there to be a delayed transmission which would only have the original language spoken by someone else other than in the voice of the witness, and thereby the Chamber would meet its duties of ensuring a public trial by a delayed broadcast which would have questions and answers, the answers not being distorted but being in the voice of an interpreter.

That technical possibility has only recently been raised by me ¹⁸¹⁴⁴ with the technical staff, and I don't know whether there is a solution along those lines that's possible. That's a problem that may arise and could arise as early as this week, in theory.

JUDGE KWON: How long?

MR. NICE: Well, as long as it would take for the necessary delayed broadcast by the technical people to be prepared. If I can explain --

JUDGE MAY: Who would give the answers?

MR. NICE: Well, the answers would be an interpreter. Can I explain? And if I get it wrong, it will be down to me. The problem arises because once a witness speaks, his voice is part of the recording and part of the record and part of the general transmission, and it's not possible to arrest it at that stage even if, for example, here the words heard were not the distorted words but the words of the interpreter. One can imagine circumstances where you have a witness speaking, a distorted voice, you suppress the distorted voice, you let the language speaker simply reproduce the words and the words go out. That's not possible because the output always contains in some form the actual voice of the witness. If I've got it wrong, it's my mistake, my limited understanding of technical matters.

But I've raised with them the possibility that if you have the whole hearing in closed session and then for the record make, I don't know, another video and on that video you do not have the voice of the witness but you only have the voice of the interpreter repeating his words, then that might meet our obligation of a public trial. The ¹⁸¹⁴⁵ alternative is simply a written transcript.

Having fed you the problem, as it were, and having asked the technical people to look into possible solutions, there's nothing else I want to say about it at the moment.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We will consider the position about the general's evidence. Would it be possible to have it on Thursday if --

MR. NICE: So far as the general is concerned, definitely. I say definitely; he's anxious to have it.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. NICE: Whenever this week, yes.

JUDGE MAY: Unless there are any other matters. We understand that Mr. McCormack will be joining us before long.

MR. KAY: Yes, at some stage. There is, of course, an order from the Trial Chamber for an opinion on a particular issue that was given to him. I think there was a date set with that.

JUDGE MAY: We understand he's -- he's due, it may be next week. You may not have heard that.

MR. KAY: I thought he was coming this week, but I've been in e-mail contact with him, and I know that there was a week when he couldn't make it for health reasons. But there is a -- I'm not quite sure what the position is over the date for the opinion. I had advised him to write a letter to the Trial Chamber to extend the time.

JUDGE MAY: Well, that may have to be revised.

MR. KAY: Yes. ¹⁸¹⁴⁶

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn this hearing. We will notify the parties when the next hearing will take place.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 10.00 a.m., sine die