Live: ICC First Status Conference on FPRRD’s crimes against humanity case

Added: 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]s um which um mandate that we really should um start this trial as soon as possible which is basically um the the health of your um late client.

[00:00:14]Um and I appreciate the interpretation for I'm going to come to that in a moment but um all right Mr. I've I've got your your non submission >> for the avoidance of of of being uh unclear.

[00:00:29]Um if the start date is going to be this year, then Mr. Nichols and his team are going to have to do a little better.

[00:00:37]>> Uh yes, we'll we'll we'll come to that.

[00:00:39]Right. Um yes. Uh Miss Msina, your your submissions are it should start as soon as possible. I've got that.

[00:00:48]>> Thank you, Madame President.

[00:00:50]30 seconds of your time. I don't have to stress the obvious here. Victims would like this trial to start tomorrow.

[00:00:57]That's as simple as such. However, after the submission of the parties, we had further consultation with our clients.

[00:01:04]They are amenable to start this trial.

[00:01:08]30 of November seems to them at the moment still a reasonable period of time. January 2027, no, for them it's too long. and going to what my learn colleague was saying. Well, we can start the trial already in November and witnesses who can speak English. This will allow to continue to start and continue the trial and solve the issue of interpretation starting in June January 2027. Thank you very much.

[00:01:39]>> Yes. Okay, Mr. Disan, this is the same problem that arose um in Al Rakman that um you don't have interpreters ready as yet um to deal with uh the two languages that are apparently going to be spoken by some of the witnesses.

[00:02:00]However, as we did in Al Rakman, um, and as Masida has, uh, Miss Masida has pointed out, um, it is possible to start the trial with witnesses who only speak English. And my understanding is that it's not as complicated as finding interpreters as it was in the Alraman trial in a a language that was um, only spoken in a small part of Sudan.

[00:02:28]Um because presumably um as court proceedings in the Philippines are all in English, there must be interpreters there. Um and um equally field interpreters who can be trained more speedily, I would have thought, than was possible in the Alraman trial.

[00:02:53]>> Madam, >> Mr. Dome, thank you, Madam President.

[00:02:55]Yes, I take note of what you've just uh clarified in addition to what my colleague Miss Mida just said.

[00:03:04]Indeed, there are a number of uh items we need to look at here. Who are we interpreting for specifically? We're interpreting for the witnesses today. We have a number of witnesses for which uh we know that they will testify in English. We have been warned that there are some witnesses that will be speaking in two other languages, languages of the Philippines. So, we need to find, if possible, interpreters who could speak these two languages.

[00:03:38]That's very important for us. To date, we do not have knowledge of who these witnesses are.

[00:03:46]So as you have just said we're going to try and recruit people principally from the field that is field interpreters but of course we do have to train them because field interpreters working out in the field work in the consecutive or in whispering shushage form. But we are going to be using simultaneous interpret interpretation. So they need to be prepared and trained not into English fine but into the other languages such as Tagalog those languages that are used in the Philippines. But of course it is important also for the witnesses and for the population that outreach is conducted with regard to the trial that is ongoing in the H. So it is important for those out in the Philippines to be able to follow the trial that is ongoing here in the Hague. This is something that we are always attentive to, but it is not our top priority. Our top priority is the language of the accused and the languages of the witnesses.

[00:04:56]And this is why with regard to what has just been said, yes, were we to go ahead with the opening statements, if you wanted to have these at the end of November or at the end of the year.

[00:05:14]Yes, indeed. We could find solutions for interpretation for a number of hearing days for those opening statements. But if we're talking about bringing witnesses to testify on a regular basis, then we need to be properly equipped in terms of interpretation booths.

[00:05:38]and that is why we would like for the trial to commence at a later date. I'm also very aware of the fact that we will need to adapt the hearings according to other criteria that you will determine yes or no to do with the accused and this will enable us to save time. So for example, if we have shorter hearings, we would maybe be able to improve the training terms and time, but that would only apply to maybe a month or a month and a half in terms of time. So for us, it would be better to start after a six-month period. That is to say, six months after today.

[00:06:28]It's not. Um well, as I say, um we're going to consider all these matters.

[00:06:32]We'll give um the date that we propose to start at at the end of the status conference um orally, and we've heard all the submissions.

[00:06:42]All right. Uh can we move then please to the next item on the agenda unless there's anything anybody else wants to say? No. And that's the number of witnesses.

[00:06:56]Um you um the prosecution, Mr. Nicholls, um it's paragraph six. Um thinks that you want to uh the prosecution intends to call 60 to 70 witnesses.

[00:07:16]um including uh approximately 31 insider witnesses.

[00:07:26]Is that right?

[00:07:29]>> Yes, your honor. I think uh >> I'm looking at paragraph six submissions.

[00:07:35]>> Yes. Um I think we can rely on our submissions for this question unless you have any other uh followup.

[00:07:44]>> No. Um yes. Well, only only this while while we're on the topic of witnesses.

[00:07:50]Um, we'll set the number of hours at a later stage, but and can I say to um all parties, we will do the same um as I think most trials do now, and that is you'll just be given an overall figure as opposed to timing for every witness.

[00:08:10]Um but um there is one thing um what emerged as a problem in the last trial of al-Rahan was the fact that witnesses to the same incident were called months apart. Um as a result of which um discrepancies and things which could have been resolved had it had they been spotted were not spotted.

[00:08:38]Um and uh if we say as I think we'll have to given what the registry says that we're going to start the trial earlier but they won't have their interpreters ready until the new year and you deal with them in English. Uh you deal with those who can give evidence in English rather.

[00:08:59]Um, what I would still, what we would all still like is for you to try and call all the witnesses to the same incident consecutively.

[00:09:13]Um, it makes life very difficult afterwards. Is that is that something that that will I don't expect you to answer that straight away, but I think it's something you you we'd like you to consider.

[00:09:24]>> Well, of Thank you, your honor. Yeah, of course we would want to do that. Um, without rehashing the last trial, it was the interpretation that threw that off because we had to just choose whoever could speak the standard Arabic at the time or in English. Um, I think it will be less of an issue in this case because the case is different in that it's not sort of three big incidents with many witnesses for each of those.

[00:09:49]>> It's a lot of incident.

[00:09:50]>> It's a lot of little incidents which are fairly discreet which rely on fewer incident fewer witnesses per incident.

[00:09:57]So uh we will try to do that. If I could just go back to the um translation not not to uh complain but we we did raise this early in order to try to get a head start. Um we sent a notice on 13 March I believe of the languages. Um I my understanding is that it nothing can happen until after confirm the confirmation decision but I just wonder if it can be speeded up because uh 6 months is a long time not just for the courtroom presentation but but some of the feedback uh that we received that that my friends representing victims would know better is that um as as as Mr. Dubisan said, uh, there's a lot of interest in this case in the Philippines and having it not broadcast, I know that's not the main point and we don't always do that, but it'd be much much better uh for the population and the victims and people interested in this case if it could be broadcast in Tagalog or the other languages. So, if we start with all English-sp speakaking witnesses, that will require us to jump around a bit, although we will try to keep it as coherent and and focused as possible on the particular incidents. Um, but it but it means at the start of the trial that some people won't be able to follow um as as well as they should. And uh that would be a shame. um that that would be I think part of what we try to do here is make this accessible to the uh population in for the situation in question. So if there's any way to speed that up that would be be excellent.

[00:11:38]>> Yes. Well, as I said to Mr. Don, my understanding is that the the um the court system in the Philippines operates in English and if there is real interpret I I may say I was quite surprised. I I rather was under the impression and have been told by people who come from the Philippines that that most people that did speak English, but I'm told that's what you all tell me that's wrong. But certainly the court system must therefore have um ready and trained simultaneous interpreters.

[00:12:10]>> Uh yes, your honor. I I have to say it was um not something we had foreseen um until we heard after the confirmation hearing and and got this feedback. Um but it's also likely that um some of the population from which a lot of the victims in this case were drawn do not speak English. It may be that most people do but I I again defer to my friends but that the that some of the poorer community where many of the victims are from uh do not do not have a good command.

[00:12:44]>> Yes. All right. Um there's one other thing I mean it will be um specified in the conduct of proceedings but um I note that a lot of these um the witness evidence is in the form of um suspect interviews right um can I make it clear straight away as I say it'll appear in the conduct proceedings where there are lengthy interviews which wander all over the place in terms of topics and whatever.

[00:13:23]Um before the witness is called, the chamber will expect to have a breakdown in schedule form of the topics which are to be gone through the witness in the order of which they are to be gone through.

[00:13:40]um with a reference in a column to the pages in the actual interview because as I say our experience certainly my experience from the last trial was that um as so often happens in such interviews topics were returned to over and over again. So can I make that clear right away?

[00:14:06]>> Absolutely your honor we expected that.

[00:14:08]Um, we've discussed how to do that best and we plan to do that. Um, I would say that affects um in in the most part five witnesses especially. Um and so we uh intend to provide very detailed summaries and and we'll put them in the format that the court um we will create those schedules and we will also take care with the summaries for those insiders with lengthy transcripts.

[00:14:42]>> Right. Um and and the other the last thing is and and I think that's a general comment um it really is incumbent as I say in particular because of this case because of the health um of um the accused that we we the evidence is kept to the minimum possible um and the chamber would not expect to hear from witnesses all saying the same thing and um I know Mr. Haynes objects to it and I'll come back to that but we'd expect as much use of of of um uh rule 683 and um 682 B I think it is um as possible.

[00:15:31]>> Yes, we would plan that. Uh that that is something I was going to address. We we would like to I mean the experience of the last trials has seemed to work well.

[00:15:40]Um I think the juristp prudence I won't go into it now to check is >> there is no unfairness whatsoever in using 683. There's it's available to both parties. It makes things more efficient in every way. Uh and and we intend to use it in terms of um the length and and how much the witnesses need to testify. I think that that may be something where we can cut that down. Some of these facts may not be in dispute about a particular murder.

[00:16:11]Um that that may we may be able to narrow it to the uh issues in dispute which would make the testimony much shorter if the actual fact of this murder or this incident is is not in dispute and we're talking about linkage etc. So we we may be able to speed it up.

[00:16:28]>> Yes. Well, I'll come back to that when we come to your um documentary. Uh yes.

[00:16:32]Right. Um Mr. Haynes or Miss Gibson?

[00:16:36]Nothing to add about that.

[00:16:38]>> Right. Uh, Miss Mazina, anything?

[00:16:42]>> No, Madame President. Thank you.

[00:16:44]>> All right. Right. Next, then the next topic is um Oh, well, I suppose I may as well deal with it here. Yeah. Um, sorry, before I move on, Mr. I meant to say the defense did say you should provide at the earliest possible time a provisional pro provisional witness list. Uh can I say I agree with that?

[00:17:09]>> We we agree too.

[00:17:10]>> Yeah. Right.

[00:17:11]>> We'll do that 5 months in advance. The provisional witness list. It's already the list from confirmation obviously.

[00:17:16]>> Yeah.

[00:17:16]>> But we will provide an updated one um 5 months in advance which I think is what was requested.

[00:17:23]>> Right. Thank you.

[00:17:25]Um okay. uh expert witnesses. Um you seem to be sorry Mr. N you again then. Um you seem to be calling an awful lot.

[00:17:38]Um uh on the face of it um I think all we want to say at this stage about it um is this that um we're going to propose I think um that there is a deadline of the 24th of August to provide a a list of your experts um and uh their reports if possible. Um it would be helpful if again as in the Alraman trial um defense and prosecution could agree on on on the nature and and yeah well I see MS want to say something in a moment um at the moment it seems to me it's the defense and prosecution but um could agree on the nature of the experts to be called.

[00:18:33]Um but um I will say this um firstly if if the these are going to be experts that are not on the registry list um you should inform the registry um as as soon as possible who you want to because more checks are being done these days on on on expert witnesses.

[00:18:57]Um so it's really important that the registry is given advanced notice.

[00:19:02]Um second uh if objection is going to be taken by and this applies to experts called on by both sides to um either the expert uh and the the expertise of the particular expert or the content of the report. Again, that must be um notified to the trial chamber well in advance um of the expert to be called um and if there's going to be any legal argument about it um particularly involving a void then that must be um notified as early as possible and I say that applies to both sides. Um, Mr. Haynes, anything you want to say about that at the moment?

[00:19:57]>> Um, just a couple of things and and and I do hope Mr. Nichols will forgive me if we are holding a conversation across the courtroom. It it it's merely the fact that we haven't had the opportunity to have a lengthy conversation as he's already alluded to. I just wondered whether the prosecution experts have yet been instructed how far advanced their reports are and whether he's confident they could be served by the 30th of September of this year.

[00:20:24]>> Oh, well, we had in line uh earlier than that actually.

[00:20:28]>> I I'm I'm grateful for that. The note I made was the 30th of September.

[00:20:33]>> I thought I said the 24th of August.

[00:20:34]>> 24th of August. Yes.

[00:20:36]>> Yeah, I did. Mr. Nichols.

[00:20:41]>> Yes. Um we have instructed some of the experts they are underway on their reports. Um I think we will we will definitely be able to meet the 24th for the list which um will likely be narrower than what we're looking at here. Part of it depends on some things in the works. Um, as far as the provision of the reports, I that it's hard for me to say that may be difficult for for some of them, the 24th of August. Um, but uh we will um >> well, I think >> follow follow your orders. I as I could say, we're it it's moving. We have instructed the experts they are working. I need to I need to check essentially um and I I think we could meet that very likely for uh the most kind of important reports but there may be a couple there's a couple things where we're waiting on outside parties. Um and uh I I leave it there I think.

[00:21:57]>> Yeah. All right. Uh yes, Miss Massi, you wanted to say something?

[00:22:01]Uh yes or honor actually was the same question that uh my colleague posed to the prosecution about if the expert were already instructed or not for one very simple reason some of the expert are also interesting for us. So we were thinking of a joint instructions um to save time of court maybe we will lace with a prosecution and see what what what can be done yet. Thank you so much.

[00:22:26]>> Yeah. Um all right and I'll say one other thing about experts at this stage again it will be it will appear in the conduct of proceedings but um that is this if um the uh side who's not calling the expert intends uh to show documents during the course of a cross- examination to an expert. they must be provided to the expert in advance of the hearing. Um as I say that will appear in the conduct of proceedings.

[00:23:04]Um right um uh the next item is anybody want to say anything else on that? Um does the reg Mr. Dubris want to say anything about experts other than obviously >> Mr. As you indicated and rightly so, we currently have a vetting system which is much more advanced to circumvent any problem. So, it would be worthwhile to be informed of experts uh ahead of time so that through through these three ways of vetting an individual, we can get from A to B. Thank you.

[00:23:42]Next, uh the use of um AVL um um the answer I mean I don't think I need to say anything else about Mr. Hay um you say it should remain limited and subject to prior judicial authorization.

[00:24:00]What did you do during COVID?

[00:24:04]>> Stayed at home.

[00:24:05]>> Yes. And did everything on AVL?

[00:24:08]>> Yeah. Um I I I mean I do have one I I hope helpful observation and and that is of course the big difficult big difficulty with AVL in this case is is the time difference.

[00:24:20]>> Yes.

[00:24:20]>> Um ever since uh the 15th of May my phone pings regularly from 4:00 in the morning onwards and you can't get anybody after 4:00 in the afternoon. Um, and I think it's going to apply both to those who appear on a video screen and those who are brought here who are going to need, I think, a couple of days of climatization to the new time zone they're in. So, I think that that is going to be a practical problem with AVL um in in terms of hearing people who are on the other side of the world. Um, please don't pay too much attention uh to what appears in the submission document. you will notice its proximity to the date of my assignment.

[00:25:03]>> Yes. Um can I say um that uh I agree with I mean that is I was going to raise that anyhow, Mr. Nichols. It's going to be really difficult if if they are um testifying from the Philippines because we'll be sitting at something like 6:00 in the morning, won't we?

[00:25:21]>> We'll have to work that out, your honor.

[00:25:23]Um in uh my last job before here, there were sometimes video links that where I was present and it started late at night in the other uh jurisdiction. Um we will we're cognizant of that and uh we will only apply for video link when it's impossible to get the person here.

[00:25:45]Um so it it will be as limited as we can make it because we would rather they be here. there there may be some witnesses who just can't for reasons.

[00:25:55]>> Yeah. All right. Well, I I as I say, I don't think there's anything else that needs to be said about that. Um it you don't need judicial authorization. Um you can subject to um the timings. Um you can just to make that arrangement.

[00:26:13]Um other documentary evidence is the next item.

[00:26:19]Yes. Um now um let me just go through that. Um the uh you say you're currently the OTP is currently in the process of determining the overall um yes you've got 619 items on a minute paragraph 13.

[00:26:57]Oh yes, it's um yeah, it's the speeches.

[00:27:01]That's right. I query with you.

[00:27:05]um 197 speeches seems to me on the face of it and uh uh without um it's probably not the right word but it seems to me too much particularly if they all say the same thing. Um, and I think you need to consider fairly carefully whether you need all 197.

[00:27:34]>> We're definitely not going to intend to play all those in court. We we'll go through them. These are the these that will be narrowed. That was, I believe, meant and Mr. Jeremy may need to help me here in a minute, but that was meant that's sort of the universe at the moment. And there sort of um we we will make careful selections. We we don't intend to to introduce I'm sure all 197 of those. Right. Um now the point which is made in the defense submissions um is um this question uh of whether documents need to be um submitted uh need to be go onto the court record through the submission or admission system.

[00:28:38]Um, I'll I'll I'll let Mr. Haynes um address us on this, but it the submission system of evidence getting onto the record is now um courtwide. I think all trial chambers accept that's a way of doing it.

[00:29:02]However, as an as a result of the experiences in our last trial where there was a whole lot of in our view unnecessary and irrelevant evidence that was dumped into the court record through largely um the admission of um uh large very large documents.

[00:29:32]even though a witness had only spoken as to one page or even worse through the bar table motion. Um this chamber is going to um try and find um a fine line between the two systems um uh which um uh we haven't quite worked out and but will appear in the conduct of proceedings. But one of the the the the things that um we have in mind is that where documents are relied upon heavily by either party to the proceedings um and considered to be important and I take into account the argument mounted um on behalf of Mr. Haynes, which has been said on many occasions, um that it makes it very difficult to know at the end whether the chamber will find the document to be persuasive or unpersuasive or even admitted at all.

[00:30:50]And so I think we are going to say um just so that you have advanced warning that where a particular document is said to be um important we are going to um say that we will decide on admission or not at that stage when it's presented.

[00:31:10]But as I say, what I'm anxious to avoid is wholesale, as I say, dumping of um documents through the bar table motion.

[00:31:20]Um videos of visits to the country did not seem to help the chamber much in its last case.

[00:31:31]Um so that's really all um that I want to say at this stage, unless there's anything else. Oh yes. Um I'm sorry.

[00:31:39]There is one other thing.

[00:31:41]Um uh uh if if you're going to want to introduce uh um evidence from open sources, which includes Facebook or any other social media platforms, um then um we want to know if you're just going to put them in or whether you're going to be calling expert evidence um in in and I when I say open source I mean other I mean material that is not directly attributable to a witness or anybody who can speak about it.

[00:32:24]>> Okay, that's understood. We'll we'll look at that.

[00:32:26]>> Yeah.

[00:32:27]>> Thank you.

[00:32:28]>> Yes, Mr. Haynes, anything you want to say?

[00:32:30]>> Uh no, thank you, your honor.

[00:32:32]>> All right. Um Miss Mina, anything you want to say?

[00:32:38]>> No, thank you.

[00:32:39]>> All right. Um, I take it the registry has no observations on this. Uh, all right. Um, well, rule 68 we've more or less dealt with. Um, I think um, I think we'll leave it to the parties to see what agreement can be reached on on on 68. Um, as I say, and as Mr. Nichols says um uh it's quite a 683 is quite a a good way of of getting the evidence in. Um um and yes and we encourage the parties to discuss that really.

[00:33:30]Um oh well I suppose um the only thing Mr. Nicholls, are you are you would you be using rule 683 for the any of the article 55 witnesses or trying to?

[00:33:47]>> Yes, that's possible.

[00:33:49]I think so.

[00:33:54]>> Yeah. All right. Well, I think we'll see where we we get to that. Mains, I don't expect any sufficients on that at the moment.

[00:34:02]Um, agreed facts.

[00:34:05]next. Um happy to see that everybody is um going to talk about this still.

[00:34:14]Um and um the only I mean we encourage as I've already said we really encourage agreed facts. There must be quite a lot in this case because it's a matter of public record. uh what um the accused um said um or or did um or in some stages in some senses. Um the only question um I I see that um Miss Mida the um you submit that um the uh legal representative victim should have a say on this.

[00:34:58]Um the the the the a the article actually talks about um prosecution and defense.

[00:35:07]Um I think if you want to obviously you should be supplied with potential agreed facts. Um but I think if you want to address us um or or if you want to make submissions on it, you'll have to apply for leave.

[00:35:24]>> Uh thank you Madame PM. I am guided if I have can I have one minutes on this issue?

[00:35:31]>> Yes.

[00:35:31]>> Thank you very much. Um first of all two things very briefly. One it has been court practice to allow victims to notify the chamber if they have or they have not any matter to raise in relation to agreed facts raised by the chamber.

[00:35:49]And second in deciding the chamber shall take into account also the interest of the victims. So on that basis we submitted already that we should at least give an opportunity to have a say on whether or not the agreed facts agreed by the parties may raise an issue for the victims. It remains of course entirely with the parties to discuss. We don't want to be involved in that, but we simply request the notification of agreed facts just to check whether or not this may have an impact on the interest of the victims and eventually raise that with the chamber and it's something that can be done in a very uh quick way if I can also make this point if we are notified of the agreed facts it will take for us not more days to verify whether or not the interest of our clients are indeed concerned. Thank you.

[00:36:45]>> Well, you say that's been the practice.

[00:36:48]I mean, you quote what I you you don't actually say which case it was, but I am assuming from the date that it was Lubanganger in your footnote 12 um paragraph 10. Um but what you rightly say that rule 69 which deals with that apart from saying it's the prosecution and the defense it's for the chamber to decide whether uh the chamber may consider such an alleged fact as being proven unless the chamber is of the opinion that a more complete presentation is required in the interest of justice. in particular the interests of the victims.

[00:37:32]So before we even get to that, we have to decide whether it's it it if work's satisfied that um something is proven.

[00:37:40]Uh then it's for us to decide before um and it's only if we take the view that we need more information or more complete presentation um that that the victims come into it.

[00:38:00]Well your honor with all due respect sometimes the chamber may not be aware of facts or circumstances that the legal representative are aware of because we maintain the direct contact with the victims. So in this sense for us the notification is important because we can confront what the parties have agreed with what the views and concerns of the victims are. And second going back to the um practice of the court uh in the Abdalaman case uh we notify twice our agreement uh in the pre at the pre-trial stage. Um can remember now the filing I'm looking behind me someone can find that uh at pre-trial in the Abdul Arman there were already a list of agreed facts and if my memory is still good I hope so. uh in both cases there is a filing of the legal the then appointed legal representative notificate um notifying the chamber about no position of the agreed facts reached by the parties so it's not an ancient practice of the court it's a practice has been prolonged in a number of cases before the court I leave it to the discussion of the chamber but I wanted to make the point because particularly in this case. It's important for victims to be fully appraised of what's going on. Victims are very interested in this case and for them it has an impact if a fact is already agreed or not agreed. Thank you.

[00:39:41]>> Yes. Well, we we'll take that um your submissions under consideration. Um yes, thank you. Unless there's anything else on that um before uh yes, Mr. just I think in in in the last trial I I think agree with your honor that the defense and I agree what and and the prosecution agree what they can and then the LRVs are notified that this agreement has taken place and we submit them. But I think that's where that's where it ends. Um >> well my my impression but um I hear what Miss Mida said. Um I I just think it would be unfortunate um where there to be intervention um when um facts which have been agreed uh between the defense and prosecution who are the parties to this trial. Um and with the lordable view of increasing the efficiency um I I I would be reluctant to see it being derailed at any stage.

[00:40:46]But as I say, we'll return to you on that, Miss Msa. Um, all right. Finally, before we take the break, um, languages, I think we've really discussed that, hadn't we? Except the only thing that, um, uh, Mr. H I was slightly surprised to see was that um you wanted um interpretation for your lay client uh who as I understand it as president of the Philipp ex-president of the Philippines an ex lawyer in the Philippines speaks fluent English um he he won't need interpretation right thank Um yes uh unless there's anything else on interpretation. I think we've actually discussed that um uh already.

[00:41:42]Anybody else want to add anything? No.

[00:41:45]All right. It seems to me um because we're then coming on to disclosure um which will be slightly longer I think. Um uh we'll take the break at the stage and sit again at 11:00.

[00:42:04]All right, we Whatever.

[01:31:49]We are back in open station. M president, >> thank you very much. um disclosure by the defense uh of any um defenses in accordance with rule 7980 and at the moment I understand um there are none.

[01:32:06]Is that right?

[01:32:10]>> Yes. I've I've never known how you could have an alibi to a JCE.

[01:32:14]>> No. Well, um yes. Um in the uh conduct of proceedings, we'll deal with um disclosure in respect of um cross-examination um uh of witnesses um uh uh disclosure which must be made in advance but um I don't think we need to do that. Um right.

[01:32:45]Uh okay. Um trial briefs I think was the next um uh Mr. Nichols the OTP says uh it would it uh two months before I think the start of trial. Uh you say the 30th September if it happened to be the 30th of November. Yeah.

[01:33:13]Um and uh yes uh the defense um Miss Haynes, you have the option, although there's something I'm going to add in a moment, uh but you have the option of of of a pre-trial brief as it were at the be after the prosecution or before you begin your case. And I rather assume that you want to do it before you begin your case.

[01:33:47]>> Uh well, whenever I deliver it, it'll say these are not crimes against humanity. You can have it now if you want.

[01:33:54]>> Well, thank you very much. But there is however um there's an added extra um uh thing that I want to say about um ruling that I want to give about um this um which won't surprise Mr. Nicholls nor I imagine you Mr. Hannes. Um, given your jurisdiction, um, article 643 of the Rome Statute says that the trial chamber shall confer with the parties and adopt such procedures as are necessary to facilitate the fair and expeditious emphasized conduct of the case.

[01:34:37]Regulation 54 which deals with status conferences.

[01:34:43]This the first status conference says that the trial chamber may in accordance with the statute and the rules issue any order in the interests of justice for the purposes of the proceedings on interalia the following issues.

[01:35:02]And two of the issues that are um gerain to this point are H the issues that the parties propose to raise during the course of the trial and p the defenses if any to be advanced by the accused.

[01:35:21]Uh, the trial chamber is of the opinion that it would assist the fair and expeditious conduct of this trial, which I referred to in my opening remarks this morning, for the defense to provide a document before the start of trial, which sets out first the matters uh which the prosecution are proposing to lead in evidence with which the defense takes issue.

[01:35:52]Second uh sets out in general terms the nature of your defense and that means going further than saying these are not crimes against humanity.

[01:36:05]Um uh Mr. Haynes we do not expect you to provide the complete detail of the defense at that stage.

[01:36:16]The provision of this document does not preclude you from raising further issues at a later stage if those become evident to you in the course of investigations.

[01:36:29]Nor does it encroach upon your right to file a pre-trial brief.

[01:36:35]And we therefore propose to order you to provide this document one month before the start of trial.

[01:36:46]So, is there anything you want to say about that?

[01:36:50]>> No, we'll comply with that, of course.

[01:36:52]>> Thank you very much.

[01:36:55]Um, yes. Uh, and then I think unless there's anything Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, Miss Mercedi, yes. As far as the victims are concerned, um you you may uh file a brief. Um I I assume it will be before you if you decide to call um any evidence uh as to the views and concerns of the victims.

[01:37:30]Uh yes madame president our position at the moment we are still finalizing our internal uh discussions but our position will be to file the pre-trial brief before the start of the trial.

[01:37:42]um >> as it was in the Abdaman case. I again if my recollection is is okay this morning I believe the prosecution find one month after the Lerv filed and then the defense file in the Abdman case we are of course open at any order of the chamber we will comply no problem at all thank you >> that's fine uh I I honest I rather thought that in um the um in the arkund case that the defense filed before they started to call their evidence. But I may be wrong.

[01:38:22]>> I think dear honor, there was a choice for the opening statements.

[01:38:27]>> Uh if there was a choice of doing the opening statements for the LV as well >> at the start of the trial or once we will request to submit evidence if ever we will request that.

[01:38:42]>> I think this was the option. Yeah.

[01:38:43]>> Um, >> well, I'll I'll check I'll check that over. We're going to have a break before we deliver various oral rulings and we'll check what that was.

[01:38:52]>> Thank you very much.

[01:38:52]>> Yeah.

[01:38:54]>> Um, pre-trial motions.

[01:38:57]Um, yes. uh the officer of the prosecutor uh says 30th of October if the start date is the 30th of November.

[01:39:14]um the defense um effectively going back to the um the question on the start date um is a I'm going to come on to that separately I think but a determination of Mr. of the accused uh fitness to stand trial.

[01:39:39]Um >> yeah, I mean do you want about deadline for the filing of of of motions?

[01:39:49]>> No, we'll comply with whatever order you make in that regard, your honor.

[01:39:53]>> Uh Miss Massi, you're the same. Are you?

[01:39:55]>> Same as well, your honor.

[01:39:56]>> Right. Thank you.

[01:39:59]Um okay. Okay. Well, that brings us on to opening statements which we've more or less had a discussion of it. Um, we'll come back with the hours um at that stage. Um on the question of um victims participation uh yes um I think uh what we'll say there that um the defense invites the deadline um for applications by the victims to participate 30th of September 2026.

[01:40:45]Um, and CLV request until the end of the CI case or at least until the close of the prosecution's evidence. Um, I think we're going to go as we did in in the Al Rakman case say that it's going to be the end of the prosecution's evidence um unless there's any objection to that.

[01:41:05]Mr. their hands.

[01:41:06]>> Um perhaps a slightly different observation um and and that is going back to the point that's still in the air as it were as to the parameters of the case as a whole. If this case does involve 49 incidents and 73 deceased, then even uh allowing for multiple dependents, one would expect the number of participating victims to be in the low hundreds and not the high thousands.

[01:41:37]And uh Miss Gibson and I have had recent experience of the harm that can be done in admitting uh thousands of victims to participate in proceedings only for them to find out in the reparations phase that none of them fall within the um ambit of the convictions if any. So I I would hope there'd be some careful analysis on the part of those assessing these applications as to whether they fall within the ambit of this indictment as it is currently pleaded because it's doing victims no favors uh to allow thousands and thousands of them to believe that they might receive compensation at the end of the day when that is unlikely even at this stage. The other observation I would make which comes from my experience in the Bember case is that multiple applications throughout the trial process overwhelm the defense because we have to look at them and nobody else does. Um, and we have to review them at a time when we're cross-examining other witnesses or presenting our own case. And so I I I I would invite you to consider whether or not that uh given the the the potentially relatively low number of victims who do qualify to participate in this case, whether that shouldn't be done before the trial starts.

[01:43:07]>> All right. Um I Well, Miss Merced, yes, first of all, we are and then I think I'll go to the registry.

[01:43:15]>> Uh thank you, U Madame President. Just very briefly, I want you to recall that at the request of a pre-trial chamber, the prosecution indicated that the number of incidents is are only indicative of a victimizations and they are not to be considered an exhaustive list of potential victims. This was confirmed by the docu by the decision confirming the charges and therefore I suspect and these are our assumption at the moment that a high number of victims will manifest themselves for trial and our assessment is done by of course uh having contact with the affected communities and we can already indicate that a number of victims already entering in contact with us to manifest their willingness to participate in this trial.

[01:44:11]Second, your honor, if the prosecution is going to add new incidents, then at that point in time, victims will need time in any case to continue to manifest themselves for trial. So pro end of a prosecution case seems to us as in previous cases the most reasonable deadline in order to effectively grant the right of victims to participate in this trial. Thank you.

[01:44:41]>> Right. Um does the registry have any observations to make on this >> Mr. Dubis? We are completely in agreement with this position which is also yours. I could also ask Mr. Ambach to give you extra information if you so require.

[01:45:04]>> Mr. Um the only point I would have to add to uh what the legal representative has already submitted which is also part of what we uh submitted in our own uh filing as to the uh scope of the case is that the burden on the defense and the prosecutor in terms of the uh analysis of applications would be minimal if one were to follow the ABC approach that we have proposed to continue from pre-trial into trial whereby by only the unclear forms would come to the analysis of the parties and the final decision by the chamber which as we also submit would be minimized uh the to the later stages of trial which was obviously also a part part motivating our suggestion that one were to continue the possibility of victims to come forward until the end of the evidence hearing. Thank you.

[01:46:03]Um right well we we certainly approve the the the um ABC approach. I mean I think that's now standard through um all all trial chambers. Um so really the the submission of the registry and and um uh the victims represented rather um is it should be the end of trial.

[01:46:28]defense say cut off date and prosecution didn't say anything really I suppose on this um all right it's one of the ones we'll give a a ruling on um when we've dealt with all other matters um uh witness preparation um a lot of this will be dealt with as I say in the conduct of proceedings uh document which we'll issue as soon as um practicable um yes uh the uh uh the um the prosecution uh uh can uh have the same witness preparation protocol um as it had in Abdul Rahman.

[01:47:12]Um there is um and the the adoption of the protocols used uh for preparation, familiaration, familiarization and vulnerability will apply as well.

[01:47:26]However, there's one matter I want to mention because of what happened in the Al Rahman trial.

[01:47:33]Um the uh proceedings were delayed one morning because the uh witness who was due to appear that morning had requested during the 24-hour, if I can put it, quarantine period um before they give evidence to speak to the office of the prosecutor because he had remembered something or wanted to change something And that request um was not transmitted until the morning that the witness was due to testify when he did give new information and as a result there was a delay accordingly.

[01:48:19]Um if that is what a witness requests and it matters not whether it's a defense witness or a prosecution witness or somebody called by the CRV then um notwithstanding the 24-hour quarantine period that request should be immediately transmitted to the uh party calling the witness and unless there is good reason why they should not speak to the witness witness, they should be allowed to speak to the witness uh and obviously make a note and provide it to the nonalling party. Um but I it it was a lengthy delay which was unnecessary um and um in my view need not be repeated.

[01:49:11]Um right. Um unless there's anything else on any of that. Um it's um standard. Um right. The sitting schedule for trial. Now this does bring me on um to um the fitness of the accused. Mr. s um as you rightly pointed out and and and you filed um a motion to that effect um the finding of fitness related to the confirmation proceedings and the chamber uh is obliged to make a separate finding on that issue.

[01:49:57]Um and you very sensibly propose um that um the three um gentlemen who examined him um for the purposes of the confirmation proceeding should be reinstructed to re-examine him. And we propose um to uh make that order hopefully either today or tomorrow.

[01:50:26]Um you also uh ask that they be made available for um questioning. Um I think we will I mean the first thing to say it makes sense because uh these uh three experts um examined him uh for the purposes of um the confirmation proceedings. Therefore, they don't have to go back over all the background that was taken on the last um occasion as regards having them um uh brought for uh any questioning by um the parties. I I I rather think we'll wait and see what the reports say before we make such a decision.

[01:51:16]>> I agree, your honor.

[01:51:18]>> Thank you very much. Um, in that case, as I say, we'll um I I only hope that they can um carry out the assessment with um some speed. Um so therefore um at the moment it's a bit difficult to set a schedule for trial until we've had a a an up to-ate report. But it it seems to be that um because of his age and and um uh uh potentially um medical problems um there there will have to be a day off and I see the suggestion is that it's in the middle of the week. Um but as I say I'm reluctant um at this stage without further reports and without an assessment made by the experts of of of to to set a schedule. So I propose to adjourn that until um we find out what the situation is unless anybody thinks differently.

[01:52:25]No I'm taking silence ascent.

[01:52:30]Um uh the uh representatives of the victims finally um uh uh uh want a secure and private remote room. Um I think you have to take that with the registry. I mean if that if they can arrange that that's fine by the trial chamber. Um it's not really a matter for us. Um and um the final matter was the suggestion by the prosecution of an alternate judge. Um I don't think um that really is necessary.

[01:53:05]Um all right. Uh are there any other matters? We're going to adjourn and and I suppose we could we could try and do it before just to go through the rulings we're going to make. Um just give me a moment.

[01:54:09]Um, I'm reminded, Mr. Nich, I should have asked you if you've got anything to say about the experts um, examining him.

[01:54:18]>> Uh, well, you've made your decision. So, um, no.

[01:54:23]And, uh, we would have, but, you've made your decision. Um >> it didn't occur to me that that that you were going to object but um >> we had some it no we we we accept that.

[01:54:34]Um the one point I would make uh very briefly is we would hope that your honors would instruct the experts. Um we would not agree with um the defense's proposed letter of instruction. in its entirety.

[01:54:52]>> Yeah, I forgot about that.

[01:54:53]>> Some of the >> points we feel we we would >> yes >> take issue with but >> uh so we think your honor your honor should do the instruction according to the test from Struggar and Hudzitch and Bagbo. Um and so appreciate the trying to save time and be helpful but we would not agree with this letter going as is.

[01:55:14]>> That's right. Uh all right and and and in fact um quite rightly of course people are going to be concerned with the registry. Is there anything you want to say on that Mr. Dubon?

[01:55:26]>> Mr. Dubis.

[01:55:29]>> No I believe that to find experts that are immediately available and who know the interested party. I think that this is the best solution and today I do not believe that they will deviate very much from the previous recommendations.

[01:55:49]>> Well, yes, we'll have to see what what they say um rather than anticipating it.

[01:55:54]Okay. Um yes, Mr. Haynes. All right. So, you they don't the prosecution much doesn't much like your letter. So I think we will the chambers will write uh uh >> we were only trying to be helpful.

[01:56:07]>> Yes. Thank you. Um all right. Yes. I'm sorry I forgot about that. Uh uh all right. Uh what we're going to do is um adjourn until 2:00. Um just so that we can take time to consider um the various matters being raised. Before I do that, however, can I just say one last thing?

[01:56:29]um which really has no bearing or impact on the case or how it will be conducted.

[01:56:36]But for the purposes of transparency, knowing that there is public interest um in in this case um I should say and this is uh myself um speaking rather than on behalf of my fellow judges.

[01:56:53]Um uh the I it's probably well known that the uh the the world and the pool of uh international criminal lawyers and judges is a limited one.

[01:57:16]Um and it is therefore probable that judges and council will have met um before um the this case or during other cases or possibly at conferences or even social events.

[01:57:39]In this case, as it so happens, I know council on both sides.

[01:57:46]Um, as far as Mr. Nicholls is concerned, apart from the fact that both he and Mr. Jeremy appeared as prosecution council in uh, the case of Al Rakman.

[01:58:01]Uh, Mr. Nicholls and I worked together now over 20 years ago.

[01:58:08]um as councel at uh ICTY.

[01:58:15]Um Mr. Haynes and Miss Gibson I have Mr. Haynes I've known though not in a professional uh way in the same way as Miss Nichols for almost as long and Miss Gibson for less time.

[01:58:32]Um we have um uh met and as I say are likely almost certainly to meet again at um seminars and social functions.

[01:58:47]Although it's not possible to predict that with any certainty. The one thing it is possible to say with certainty um there will be no discussion whatsoever um of this case uh between parties and the judges at any such functions.

[01:59:09]Um and as I said already, it has no impact on the way that this case will be conducted or any rulings um that may be made by this chamber in respect of submissions made by all sides.

[01:59:27]So thank you very much and we'll adjourn until uh 2:00.

[01:59:34]All right.

[04:14:10]Please be seated. We will Yes. Um just before um I give the various rulings um one thing I did miss out was really to do with um items relating to victims. Firstly, uh the VPRS and mapping report.

[04:14:43]Um uh and uh the question of household forms as opposed to individual ones um as well as um victims um in pre-trial.

[04:15:03]Now we had in mind and I just want to hear at this stage if there's any objection um to make various orders um uh uh really for the the VPRS to file a report including the possibility of having a mapping report and household forms. Um the main V uh the main mapping report to be filed 30 days after the article 74 judgment.

[04:15:40]Uh I see Mr. Ambeck indicating ascent I think is a polite way of putting it.

[04:15:47]Um, >> and um, next we were going to uh authorize the use of household forms uh, in addition to individual application forms unless there's an objection.

[04:16:03]If there isn't, then we'll we'll authorize it. If there's an objection, we're not going to make a ruling and you can make submissions from my side.

[04:16:13]>> U, thank you, Madame President. As far as we are concerned, we would prefer to maintain the individual and >> As far as we are concerned, we would prefer to maintain the individual form and the household form so that victims can choose which one because on occasion some victims would like not to complete a household form because some members of their family may not be aware of what happened.

[04:16:42]>> Right? So we would prefer to maintain both options. Thank you very much.

[04:16:46]>> Right. Um well is there any objection to to this? If No, I see Mr. H shaking his head. I see M. Nichols shaking his head.

[04:16:54]Right. Uh then we will um authorize the use of both forms. Um uh Mida.

[04:17:02]And finally, we were going to order that the victims who participated in the pre-trial um proceedings are authorized to continue participating in the trial proceedings. Any objection to that? No. Okay. Well, then we make that order as well.

[04:17:23]um we didn't mention but I'm going to mention now this that um pursuant to regulation 37 um of the uh regulations of the court uh we're going to limit uh parties participants and registry in their written submissions to 12 pages which is what we did in our ramen.

[04:17:57]Um, if you for some reason want to add to that limit uh you must uh apply for permission uh and explain why. Um uh as far as um uh further submissions are concerned, we're going to hold two more status conferences.

[04:18:21]Um we would prefer that unless there is something that needs urgent resolution um submissions are made at those status conferences so that they can if at all possible be dealt with orally um but as I say there's something really urgent um then um of course you can file um a submission right it was brought to my attention next before I deal with the rulings is that um I wasn't altogether clear this morning um about the question of protocols to be used. So I'm going to now read out what we say about protocols.

[04:19:06]As a general rule, the chamber will use the protocols that are already in place in the chamber's manual during the course of the trial by the 15th of June.

[04:19:22]Right. I hope that uh yes, sorry. Um and I forgot to say that the cutoff no I was about to say that actually but anyhow um uh the uh the cutoff date uh for any applications from the victims uh to participate in the proceedings is the end of the prosecution's presentation of evidence.

[04:19:54]Um and uh we will follow the ABC participation approach.

[04:20:01]Right.

[04:20:02]Um, as far as the fitness, the assessment of the fitness of the accused to stand trial, um, what we decided to do is that, um, in the light of the short discussion, it would be preferable if the parties could liaz together and prepare a proposed joint letter of instruction.

[04:20:29]Um uh we we were going to do it ourselves but then we thought that you might then want to object. So it's probably simpler if the two of you can uh come to an agreement. Uh we would like that please by uh Friday of next week uh which is the uh uh actually no I think we said a week today. What's a week? 3rd of June. Yeah.

[04:20:56]>> Yeah. Sorry my fault. Not Friday. uh Wednesday the 3rd of June.

[04:21:01]Um and registry, we would be grateful please if you could contact the experts immediately um to check on their availability and um let us know by the end of the week. Um that's the three experts who saw him before.

[04:21:20]Right. As regards first of all the then to the decisions we've come to the start of trial. We are prepared to exceed to the prosecution's application of the 30th of November as the start of trial.

[04:21:38]Um the uh trial will run on a daily basis until the judicial recess um or thereabouts.

[04:21:52]Um, we have to wait for the report on the accused fitness and they will specifically be asked to if they find him fit to stand trial about uh the proposed sitting. The chamber would obviously like to sit um subject to witness problems um 5 days a week. Um but we note the recommendations that were made for the confirmation uh hearing. Um and so it may well be that um we'll have to adjust it if we have to have a day uh for the accused not to be um in court um each week. it that doesn't necessarily mean it won't be a sitting day because we can use that day to deal with any um administrative matters um or any legal arguments that um uh uh are due to take place subject of course to the accused waving his right um to be present.

[04:23:12]Um so effectively at the moment as I say subject to what reports we get uh it it should be taken by uh all uh parties participants and the registry that we will be sitting continuously until the recess uh at Christmas.

[04:23:34]Um we very much also urge the registry to make the necessary arrangements so that for the opening statements at the end of November there can be interpretation.

[04:23:47]um even if if there isn't a a a sufficient pool of interpreters um for witnesses um uh I think it's important that opening statements can be understood um by um those in the Philippines, right? Uh so the deadlines for the prosecution in the leadup to trial um uh the prosecution provisional list of witnesses and evidence by the 29th of June its trial brief final list of witnesses and and ev and and list of w evidence relied upon in the trial in the trial 31st of August August which is 3 months before the trial and the same deadline that is the 31st of August applies if you wish to add new incidents uh plus the list of experts and uh appreciating the difficulty sometimes in getting experts to provide reports um we would like as many reports as are available And if a report isn't available, then at least a summary of what it is expected that the expert will be saying in his report.

[04:25:17]Any evidence disclosed or to be added to the list of evidence after that date is strongly discouraged and will be subject to the chamber's authorization.

[04:25:30]good cause to be shown with a full explanation for the reason um for the delay.

[04:25:39]Um simply a reminder that disclosure um of exculp exculpatory evidence and rule 77 should be done on a rolling basis.

[04:25:52]Um, after our discussion this morning, review your evidence to make sure that we avoid having repetitive, irrelevant or over luminous um, evidence and um, as already discussed um, the um, witnesses interviewed under rule 55 the the schedules that we discussed and and which are familiar to you from the Al Rakman is um as far as pre-trial motions are concerned um if there is any issue that needs resolution um before the start of the proceedings pursuant to 100 rule 1341 and two again cutoff date 31st of August um I'll give you the dates of the status conferences in a moment um but we will deal with them more um I hope then uh and of course obviously if it's urgent that's a different matter and it should be filed as soon as possible. Uh the dates for the next status conferences um between now and the summer recess are the 23rd of June and the 14th of July.

[04:27:16]Um the um as indicated this morning um the defense's indication of issues and defense uh to be provided by the 30th of October.

[04:27:35]Uh the uh legal representative of the victim's trial brief 28th of September.

[04:27:46]Um, as far as gre agreed facts are concerned, we're not going to set a deadline, but we will review the position at each of these status conferences. Um, and we echo or repeat our hope that um, you can reach a substantial number of agreed facts.

[04:28:05]Um having considered Miss uh Msida's representations um the uh LRV can receive notification of what facts have been agreed and can make submissions on this which the chamber will consider.

[04:28:27]Um as far as the conduct of proceedings is concerned um I've mentioned some matters it it it there will be other matters dealt with uh in that effectively it will be the um it's intended that it will very much be the same model as that in the Alraman case which also models the model one in the chambers manual. Um but if anybody wants to suggest amendments to it um they must do so um by Friday the 5th of June. So in other words next Friday.

[04:29:09]Um I mentioned this morning that um we were thinking of trying to find a balance between the submission and admission uh process. Um but I'm reminded it it it it I think that the the the conduct of proceedings and indeed the chambers's manual uh states that um where there are documents which the chamber or the parties consider are important ones. It it it can be um whether or not it will be admitted can be dealt with at the time uh that the document is tendered. Um but I I I really do emphasize we don't expect to be drowned in in um uh documents.

[04:30:02]Uh so those are the rulings unless anybody thinks I've missed anything out that I said I'd give a ruling on. Um and unless there are any other matters that concludes to do the status conference.

[04:30:15]Nobody got any other matters? No. Right.

[04:30:17]Yes. Thank you all very much.

[04:30:20]All right.