Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 511

1 Monday, 12 November 2001

2 [Pre-Trial Conference]

3 [Open session]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.41 p.m.

5 [The accused entered court]

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, ladies and

7 gentlemen; good afternoon to the technical booth, to the interpreters, to

8 the Registry. I also greet the parties.

9 Madam Registrar, can you please call the case.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-PT, the Prosecutor versus

11 Stanislav Galic.

12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Ierace, can you please

13 introduce the people who are with you.

14 MR. IERACE: Good afternoon, Your Honour. To my left I have

15 Morris Anyah, to my left, Chester Stamp, who are members of the trial

16 team, and Edel Guzman, the case manager.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Madam Pilipovic, can

18 we have the appearances for the Defence.

19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. The

20 Defence of General Galic is today represented by myself, Mara Pilipovic,

21 and my colleague, Mr. Stephane Piletta-Zanin.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Good

23 afternoon, General Galic. So we are meeting today to continue with the

24 Pre-Trial Conference. As you know, last week we already had our agenda;

25 however, we know that the Prosecutor promised to make an effort in order

Page 512

1 to look again at the witness list following our recommendations.

2 We were dealing with the other issue, that of exhibits. Does the

3 Prosecutor want to mention changes that might have an impact on our

4 agenda? Are we going to hear the Prosecutor as to possible results or are

5 we going to carry on with our agenda, meaning by that that we would take

6 up our second item, so look at exhibits from the point of view of the

7 Trial Chamber. I'd like to know what Mr. Ierace thinks about this.

8 MR. IERACE: Your Honour, I would be grateful for the opportunity

9 to update the pre-trial Chamber and my learned friends on progress that

10 the Prosecution has made since last Thursday on reducing the number of

11 witnesses overall and also in relation to 92 bis. Your Honour, at the

12 appropriate time, I would also appreciate the opportunity to make some

13 general observations in relation to the exhibit list which I think Your

14 Honours will be grateful to know. They impact directly on the timetable.

15 Your Honour, in relation to the efforts by the Prosecution since

16 last Thursday, I can now indicate that the Prosecution has deleted from

17 the list of 217 witnesses, 29 witnesses. In addition to that, 16

18 witnesses who previously we proposed to call to give evidence in the

19 proceedings, we now propose as 92 bis, that is, Rule 92 bis witnesses. If

20 ultimately the Trial Chamber agrees to that proposal, then clearly that

21 will be 16 witnesses who will not be required to give evidence, and

22 therefore the time estimate in relation to them will be obviated.

23 I also remind Your Honours that there are 22 witnesses proposed

24 for coming under Rule 92 bis, which are yet to be ruled upon. Presumably

25 that will happen with the Trial Chamber.

Page 513

1 In relation to those original 22 92 bis witnesses, the time

2 estimate for the Prosecution case, which was contained in the filing

3 documents for the 65 ter summaries, included those 22 92 bis witnesses.

4 In other words, that original time estimate has to be clarified downwards

5 if those 22 witnesses are accepted as 92 bis witnesses.

6 Your Honours, the estimate also now has to be adjusted downwards

7 in order to accommodate the observations made by this pre-trial Chamber

8 last Thursday in relation to expert witnesses. For example, one of those

9 experts was marked down for ten hours in the 65 ter summary, that being

10 Rick Butler. So in relation to that witness alone, the estimate comes

11 down by ten hours, given that now his report can be tendered and that will

12 be his evidence in chief.

13 Additionally, there are seven witnesses in respect of whom there

14 have been discussions between the Defence and the Prosecution as to who --

15 as to which party should call them. Those witnesses are Colonel Zarkovic,

16 Major General Lugonja, Major General Sladoje, Milenko Indic, Major General

17 Lizdek, and Kovacevic. I will have some discussions with the Defence in

18 due course as to which party should call those witnesses. I understand

19 from early discussions that my friend would prefer that she call them.

20 Your Honours, that is the update in relation to witnesses. I am

21 grateful for the additional time which we have been afforded to further

22 refine the list. It may be that in the course of the next few weeks there

23 are some further deletions as we examine the list and the need to call

24 each of those witnesses.

25 Would this be a convenient time for me to make some observations

Page 514

1 in relation to the exhibit list?

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but Mr. Ierace, we might

3 possibly deal with this first, and we will deal with the exhibit list

4 later on. I might give you the floor later on, but in relation to each

5 question, and then you may make your comments, if you don't mind.

6 Let's take up the second item on the agenda, as established for

7 this Pre-Trial Conference, and this was precisely that of the exhibits.

8 There may be a need, Mr. Prosecutor, for changes to be made, especially

9 if, as you pointed out, you changed the number of exhibits. Initially

10 when we started this Pre-Trial Conference, the Prosecutor had submitted a

11 list of 5.107 exhibits, of which 4.978 had been dated and ordered

12 in -- chronologically ordered from 1984 to 2001. The exhibits aimed at

13 giving a detailed description of events in Bosnia before, during, and

14 after the siege of Sarajevo.

15 It is possible to order the exhibits in ten main categories. This

16 is a way of organising them, and parties, of course, may have either

17 criteria that they rely upon, but we use these criteria, and I suggest we

18 use them to start with.

19 A first category was that of communications between international

20 authorities. There are many exhibits falling under this category. The

21 second category, that of communications between Serb

22 authorities; third category, communications between Serb and international

23 authorities, including minutes of meetings; fourth category, press

24 clippings and video footage; fifth category, circulars and military

25 regulations; sixth category, witness statements; seventh category, medical

Page 515












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 516

1 reports; eighth category, expert reports: military, population,

2 ballistics, and any other expert reports already mentioned at our last

3 meeting; ninth category, Prosecutor's exhibits. What do we mean by that?

4 We mean those exhibits as prepared by the Prosecutor or coming from the

5 Prosecutor, for instance, photographs, maps, letters, et cetera. And

6 there is another category reserved for anything not falling under the

7 other nine categories already mentioned, so that would be miscellaneous,

8 as it were.

9 The exhibits only have meaning if they are examined in their

10 context, in their background, so it is necessary to specify the type of

11 the exhibits submitted by the Prosecutor for his case, depending on the

12 dates of the exhibits.

13 The first exhibits date back to 1984, 1988, and 1990, The

14 circulars and military regulations applicable in Yugoslavia.

15 Those dating back to 1991 deal with the political background in

16 Bosnia, and more specifically, in Sarajevo.

17 Exhibits dating back to 1992 deal, generally speaking, with the

18 military situation in the area of Sarajevo. Many exhibits are telegrammes

19 exchanged between international military authorities and Serb military

20 authorities, or else there are reports made by international military

21 people to their superiors regarding the military situation prevailing

22 around Sarajevo, as well as the consequences of the armed conflict on the

23 inhabitants of the area of Sarajevo.

24 Those of 1993 keep referring to the military situation, to the

25 political situation too, in Sarajevo and around Sarajevo, on a daily

Page 517

1 basis. Some of them are exchanges between Serb and international

2 authorities or else between international authorities. They also are

3 minutes of meetings on attempted negotiations by international authorities

4 towards ceasefire agreements.

5 The exhibits dated 1994 are similar to those from 1993. Some of

6 them are military reports on the military situation in Bosnia and in

7 Sarajevo, whilst others are press clippings or footage showing the

8 political and military situation in Central Bosnia; others show civilian

9 casualties and a limited number of exhibits refer to General Galic.

10 Exhibits dated 1995 contain medical reports regarding the victims

11 of the siege of Sarajevo and reports mentioning information related to

12 the Sarajevo siege.

13 Exhibits of 1996 include a lot of photographs, including

14 photographs showing the positions of marksmen during the siege of

15 Sarajevo, as well as graveyard locations; others concern the accused

16 directly.

17 Some of the exhibits dated 1997 and 1998 are also documents

18 mentioning the promotion received by General Galic, and other exhibits of

19 the year 1997 are medical reports regarding the victims of the conflict

20 from 1992 to 1995.

21 The exhibits for the year 1999 mention damage inflicted during the

22 conflict, the 1992 to 1995 conflict. Those exhibits of the year 2000 are

23 Prosecutor's letters, and the exhibits dated 2001 are photographs.

24 There are also many exhibits that are not dated. Generally

25 speaking, they are medical reports, or medical documents, witness

Page 518

1 statements, military reports, reports on orders for various types of

2 equipment necessary, further conduct of the conflict. There are expert

3 reports, combat orders, and film footage.

4 Let us mention four types of comments. The Chamber notes that the

5 number of exhibits that the Prosecutor intends to submit is very large.

6 The Chamber wonders if something cannot be done in order not to have such

7 a flood of documents. Looking at the exhibit lists, one can see that a

8 large number of exhibits do not have a direct bearing on the charges

9 against General Galic but that instead they make it possible to establish

10 the political and military background, context of Bosnia during the

11 siege of Sarajevo. Once it has been established that the siege of

12 Sarajevo took place in the framework of an armed conflict, would it not be

13 suitable for the Prosecutor to only adduce, or submit, rather, those

14 exhibits that have a direct bearing on the part played by General Galic in

15 the events of the Sarajevo siege?

16 Let me take an example. If you want to determine whether General

17 Galic is guilty or not, is it necessary to know that during the siege of

18 Sarajevo, there were conflicts between the Croat and Serbs forces or that

19 the attack on Srebrenica was being prepared? Generally speaking, should

20 we not try to aim at some kind of equilibrium, balance, between the number

21 and types of witnesses and the type and number of exhibits? So this is my

22 very first question, Mr. Prosecutor. Maybe we can get a first reaction

23 from you. We've got another three comments to make, but to make your life

24 easier, maybe you might want to respond to this first comment already

25 now. Please proceed.

Page 519

1 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Your Honour. Indeed, Your Honour, since

2 last Thursday, the Prosecution has reduced the number of entries on the

3 exhibit list from 5.108 to approximately 3.180. That process was partly

4 facilitated by the filing by the Defence of its pre-trial brief which for

5 the first time made clear to the Prosecution what was and was not in

6 dispute.

7 The Prosecution has removed from the exhibit list the documents

8 which on the version filed are described as unsourced. Those documents

9 related in a large part to events elsewhere in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The

10 relevance of those documents in part was to demonstrate the significance

11 from the perspective of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps and it's leadership of

12 maintaining engagement with the forces of the government of

13 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's now apparent from the content of the Defence

14 pre-trial brief that an explicit objective of the forces under the command

15 of General Galic was to retain, was to keep, pin down, so to speak, the

16 75.000 troops of the Bosnia-Herzegovina government.

17 The list has also had taken from it a number of articles which

18 were published in the local Sarajevan newspaper, Oslobodjenje. They

19 have been removed. So together, those documents constitute 1.103 entries,

20 which have been taken out.

21 There have been a number of other documents also removed,

22 following the opportunity we had for further perusal and again in

23 particular, in light of the Defence pre-trial brief.

24 I would like to make some observations at this point in relation

25 to the balance of the document. Your Honours will note that occasionally

Page 520












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 521

1 there is a reference to a collection of documents rather than one

2 particular document. An example of that in the filed exhibit list is item

3 5068 which is described as "Over 2.000 documents received from the Defence

4 pursuant to Rule 67."

5 Although that collection numbers some 2.000 documents, they are

6 listed as one entry, because the Prosecution has not yet had the

7 opportunity to sift through those documents and determine which, if any,

8 will be exhibits in the Prosecution case. The reason for that lack of

9 opportunity is two reasons. Firstly, the backlog with the Translation

10 Unit. The documents are either still waiting to be translated or have

11 just been translated. And secondly, that the flow of documents continues

12 to come, and I don't mean that by way of criticism of the Defence.

13 Your Honours, translation of the items on the exhibit list does

14 continue to be a problem for us. A recent judgement in the case of Tuta

15 Stela made clear that there must be translations of exhibits available,

16 certainly by the time that they are tendered if not by the time that they

17 are entered on the exhibit list at this stage. It's, I think, widely

18 known and understood within the Tribunal that, for whatever reason, at the

19 moment the Translation Unit has more work than it can handle, and thus all

20 parties - the Prosecution, the Defence, and even the Trial Chamber - is

21 experiencing extreme difficulties in having this work translated.

22 Since the exhibit list has been so drastically reduced from the

23 version which was filed on the 1st of November, it's not possible for me

24 at this stage to indicate with precision how many documents on it await

25 translation, but I can assist the Trial Chamber with some approximate

Page 522

1 figures. Documents and videos and the like, which require translation

2 from B/C/S to English, number approximately 2.100; from English to B/C/S,

3 there are approximately 1200 entries. I will be able to give more precise

4 figures once we have an opportunity to assess the list following the

5 recent major deletions from it. Our most recent inquiries from the

6 Translation Unit indicate that the current capability of translating

7 documents from B/C/S to English is around 10 to 15 documents per week.

8 Clearly that rate is unacceptable from the perspective of this trial,

9 which is due to commence on the 3rd of December. One hopes that if we

10 carefully prioritise the items on the exhibit list, that at least we will

11 achieve the position whereby when we tender an item, it has been

12 translated and the translation has been disclosed, hopefully some weeks

13 before that point.

14 Your Honours, by way of assistance in relation to the -- some

15 other issues, I should say, to do with the exhibit list, the Prosecution

16 still has to disclose some items which are on the exhibit list. That

17 situation comes about because ultimately of the sheer size of this case,

18 the Prosecution resources have been in a large part, if not primarily,

19 directed towards meeting its reciprocal disclosure obligations, and I

20 remind Your Honours of the statistics which I gave at the last Status

21 Conference in that regard, the sheer enormity of that task. Therefore, it

22 happens that having finished project X, as it was known, there still

23 remain a large number of items which are to be disclosed. The best

24 estimate I can give as to when that will be achieved by is by the end of

25 the month. That is assuming that the documents are burned on to CDs and

Page 523

1 those CDs are made available to the Defence.

2 There are approximately, and this is only an estimate, some 1900

3 entries to be disclosed. I will be able to give a more accurate estimate

4 again once we have collated the list following the reduction on it by

5 2.000 entries.

6 Your Honours have mentioned -- Your Honour has mentioned the

7 number of items in the list which could be described as military

8 communications to various parties. There are some 531 documents described

9 as UNMO documents, that is, documents generated by the UN Military

10 Observers and some 460 documents generated by UNPROFOR. That gives one a

11 total of some 1.000 such documents. The Prosecution intends to call some

12 analysts who will provide in due course an expert report in relation to

13 that material. I mention that at this stage so as to give some comfort

14 both to Your Honours and to the Defence that in due course they will

15 receive a report which will in effect distil the contents of those

16 documents into a more readily accessible form of information and

17 evidence. In other words, someone will go through those various documents

18 and distil from them the propositions which in the Prosecution case are

19 significant. I say that at this stage to avoid the Defence, if it so

20 chooses, to save the time it would spend in going through them one by one

21 and perhaps await the reports which will make clear what is relevant and

22 what is not relevant from them. I also note that of the 3.180 entries

23 which the second version of the exhibit list will contain, that accounts

24 for one-third.

25 Your Honour, as to when the Prosecution will be able to file the

Page 524

1 revised exhibit list, my best estimate is Thursday, that's the 15th of

2 November. We're in the process at the moment, having broken it down to

3 sections which have been processed by various members of the team, of

4 reassembling it, and I anticipate that will be done by Thursday or Friday

5 of this week.

6 Your Honour, finally, I wish to make this observation: Last

7 Thursday Your Honour asked me if I thought that an adjournment of these

8 proceedings was appropriate in view of the Defence application that the

9 proceedings should be adjourned pending the Appeals Chamber deciding

10 whether it would give leave to appeal to the Defence. My response was

11 that the Prosecution took the view it was not appropriate to adjourn for

12 that purpose. It was open to this Chamber to consider its position once

13 the Appeals Chamber has ruled on the question of leave to appeal.

14 However, having said that, as Your Honours will have observed from the

15 progress that has been made by the Prosecution in the last four days in

16 terms of further refining the Prosecution case, in a significant way, to

17 make it more easily understood by both the pre-trial Chamber and the

18 Defence, it follows that if there is an adjournment of some weeks, that

19 time will ultimately quiet clearly produce a more smoothly running and

20 shorter Prosecution case, and it will also produce a case which is more

21 easily understood by the Defence; in other words, it will impact on their

22 ability to assimilate the material with which they are being presented.

23 Your Honours will be aware that the Prosecution, and indeed the

24 Prosecution together with the Defence, indicated some four or five weeks

25 ago that if the trial was to commence on or about the 9th of January, both

Page 525












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 526

1 sides were confident that they would be ready. Your Honours, the response

2 from the pre-trial Chamber, having considered carefully that proposal, was

3 to require us to be ready by the 3rd of December, and we will be ready by

4 the 3rd of December to open, to call our witnesses. There will, however,

5 be the discomfort of late disclosure of some aspects of the exhibit list

6 and the late availability of translations of exhibit list items.

7 Thank you, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I believe you have covered our

9 comments and remarks. I had told you that we had basically four comments

10 to make. So I'm not going to add more comments right now. I'm going to

11 take up what you said.

12 Mr. Ierace, you mentioned a reduction in the number the exhibits,

13 moving from 5.180 to 3.180. So my first question will be this: How many

14 documents, how many witness statements, as far as you can assess, do you

15 have in that figure of 3.180? Because we said that there was one

16 category, namely, those witness statements that were in the list of

17 exhibits. So how many, approximately, documents of that type do you still

18 have in that figure of 3.180 exhibits?

19 [Prosecution counsel confer]

20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I could formulate my question

21 differently. Of course, if you have an answer, I'll take it.

22 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Your Honour. I've conferred with my

23 friends at the bar table. I'm not aware that there are any witness

24 statements in the exhibit list except for a few 92 bis type witness

25 statements, and I think there are only one or two of those. It was not my

Page 527

1 intention to place the statements of witnesses that the Prosecution

2 proposed to call in the exhibit list; however, I suspect, on reflection,

3 that I understand why Your Honour has that understanding. Where a witness

4 has attached to their statement photographs, maps, and so on, then those

5 items have been placed on the exhibit list, because in due course, they of

6 course will be tendered by the Prosecution. If there is a reference to a

7 witness statement in the description, then I should explain that the entry

8 does not refer to the statement itself, only the annexes to the statement.

9 Your Honour, whilst I'm on my feet, Your Honour has given ten

10 categories, and I should of course say that if the pre-trial Chamber

11 wishes the entries on the exhibit list to be placed into ten such

12 categories, then one must allow for the necessary time to do that.

13 Perhaps one approach would be for us to file the revised exhibit list and

14 then in due course prepare ten lists of the contents of exhibit lists

15 under those headings. If Your Honours thought that that would assist the

16 Trial Chamber in coming to terms with the contents.

17 There may be an alternative way of achieving the same objective,

18 in other words, of categorising the entries so as to make the exhibit list

19 as a whole more manageable and understandable, and perhaps Your Honours

20 would allow me at some convenient time a short adjournment so I can confer

21 with my fellows and perhaps develop a proposal for Your Honours' further

22 consideration.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So what you've just said,

24 Mr. Ierace, gives rise to two comments. First comment: We used these 10

25 categories just for the sake of our analysis. You do not need to

Page 528

1 restructure, reorganise your exhibit list on the basis of the ten

2 categories outlined. You can structure the list as you wish, depending on

3 your case. Second comment: You know it is the practice in many cases to

4 ask for witness prior statements to be admitted into evidence, be they

5 Defence or Prosecution witnesses. As we experienced it in our cases, we

6 do not think it is necessary to proceed in that way, but it is possible

7 for parties to use all witness prior statements made to the OTP or to

8 Bosnian authorities. Parties can use those statements to clear up a

9 possible contradiction arising from examination and cross-examination more

10 generally in the testimony of a witness, to test credibility. Parties can

11 use them. But they do not need to apply for the admission of those

12 statements, because if you, say, use part of a witness statement,

13 automatically that is going to be mentioned in the transcript. So there

14 is no need to tender the whole statement. It's going to just give us more

15 work here in the courtroom. It's more work for the registrar, because

16 they need to have a long list of documents; it's more space in the

17 archives, you know, that sort of thing. So think about this. Think of

18 this suggestion made by the Chamber. Parties can use witness statements

19 for their own sake, but they do not need to seek their admission. So this

20 is just a suggestion I make to you.

21 Second thing, dealing with translation problems, as you mentioned

22 them. I do understand the whole issue of translation, but let's be

23 creative, of course, without prejudice to the rights of the accused,

24 without prejudice to the fairness of our trials. We do have to seek the

25 most efficient and effective solution. And I'm going to make a suggestion

Page 529

1 to you which we have tested already in other cases. Let us imagine that

2 the Prosecutor serves the Defence with a book of, say, 200 pages. This is

3 nothing but an example, of course. So for his case, the Prosecutor is

4 only going to use two or three pages out of the 200. The book is

5 relevant, of course, for the Prosecution case, but only as far as a couple

6 of pages are concerned. So is it absolutely necessary to have the whole

7 book translated? And this applies also to any major document. If the

8 Prosecution has a document of several hundred pages. And what I say to

9 the Prosecutor applies to the Defence, of course. It goes without

10 saying. If the Defence wants to serve the Prosecution with a book but

11 there are only two or three relevant pages in it, I really believe we can

12 avoid having the whole book translated. How shall we go about it? Well,

13 the party using these couple of pages will need to send the document to

14 the party, the other party, so that it prepare itself for the

15 cross-examination, but will specify that only two or three pages will be

16 used for the cross-examination of the witness or for the

17 examination-in-chief.

18 You know that the Prosecutor could receive a document from the

19 Defence in B/C/S. As far as I know, the Prosecutor does have a lot of

20 people working in his office who do speak B/C/S very well and who would be

21 in a position to translate those couple of pages. And if the party says,

22 "I'm going to use two or three pages but I need to know the context they

23 find themselves in," no problem. You just turn to that person who speaks

24 B/C/S and ask for the context. Same for the Prosecutor, who sends a

25 document in English to the Defence. There's one thing you know. Defence

Page 530












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 531

1 counsel are in exceptional circumstances authorised to represent an

2 accused, only exceptionally, if they do not speak B/C/S or one of the

3 official languages of the Tribunal. But if that be the case, the counsel

4 needs to have a co-counsel who necessarily will speak one of the languages

5 of the Tribunal. So the same could apply. In other words, if you were to

6 receive a document in English, and it being specified that only two or

7 three pages are going to be used, and if you are concerned to know what

8 context those two pages are in, there is bound to be in the Defence team a

9 person who reads or understands one of the languages used in the

10 Tribunal. That person can therefore translate for the purpose of a

11 cross-examination those pages and establish the context as well. Take

12 B/C/S or English, depending, put the version on the ELMO in the courtroom,

13 and you've got interpreters in the courtroom as well, and they will

14 straight away translate the text. Even for the accused, for everybody

15 present in the courtroom. And to be of further assistance when it comes

16 to translation, when you do serve the document, you could also give it to

17 the interpreting booth so that the interpreters can have the text on

18 paper. But one thing is certain: Interpreters will always have the text

19 in front of them, on the ELMO, for instance.

20 So please be aware of this. I think one thing is not negotiable.

21 One thing is certain. The accused must be provided with all the documents

22 that were at the basis that were used to draft the indictment. Anything

23 else is negotiable. You mentioned the Martinovic/Naletilic decision, Mr.

24 Ierace, indeed. But of course given this reality parties can operate, but

25 of course without prejudice to the rights of the accused and to the

Page 532

1 fairness of the trial, it is necessary to do it that way. I don't think

2 there is any major prejudice, because the Rule would apply to both parties

3 equally, and we know that counsel can very well handle the situation. If

4 the document is a long one, but only some pages of it will be used, it is

5 possible for both parties to prepare themselves from either the

6 examination-in-chief or the cross-examination.

7 So we were talking about 3.300 documents that have to be

8 translated for the Prosecutor. If you go along with what I've just

9 suggested - and I keep emphasising that it must be fair for both parties -

10 if you could agree as to the way of proceeding, you will release a lot of

11 resources and will save a lot of resources if you were in a position to

12 agree on this position. I do not think it is fair to impose on the

13 International Community that we all represent here, it is not fair to

14 impose on it an additional cost that we could reasonably avoid.

15 I'll give you the floor, Mr. Ierace, and I'll give the floor to

16 the Defence counsel as well, so that you can react to what I've just

17 suggested, and which has been tested in other cases. Of course, the last

18 straw was to interrupt the trial, because we had to wait for a

19 translation, but we should not just remain in the realm of theory. We

20 should be more practical and cooperate. And I can sense from the outset

21 in this case that there is a fair degree of cooperation between the

22 parties, and we've got to remain in this good spirit to proceed

23 accordingly. Of course, if there was a problem, a break, of course that

24 would be serious, but it's not the case. Sorry for repeating myself, but

25 I think that we reached a situation where the situation is either to go

Page 533

1 along with my suggestion and would be to proceed whilst being fair to the

2 accused and to the trial, or else we'll never reach the deadline.

3 So Mr. Ierace, what is your view on this, to solve the problems of

4 translation?

5 MR. IERACE: Your Honour has proposed various ways in which the

6 lack of translation facilities could be overcome. I'm aware that some of

7 those ways have been employed in other cases, and the Prosecution has no

8 difficulty with utilising those various methods. Thank you, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Pilipovic.

10 I see. It's Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] In order to respond to the

12 principle, but first of all I wish to thank this Tribunal most warmly for

13 the effort made to reorganise, in a sense, and restructure this list of

14 witnesses, and I'm all the more grateful as the task is not an easy one.

15 I also wish to thank the Prosecution for the considerable effort they have

16 invested, and if I understood correctly the current state of affairs, they

17 still don't know which exhibits have a probative value and which do not,

18 and we are told that after some two years. But we have to be practical,

19 and our reaction is exactly the same as that of the Chamber. How we can

20 simplify and economise on the resources of the International Community by

21 not doing things that are completely useless. Let us systemise things

22 first. First we have PC material. I hope I will not be misunderstood,

23 but anyway, a whole pile of documents, and I think that the two don't

24 cohabit. They should be separated. And I would suggest that we see

25 whether the Prosecutor can produce a very simple document. I'm talking

Page 534

1 about this O21, 0010108 and 00CL [as interpreted].

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that

3 the numerical references have not appeared correctly on the transcript, so

4 would you please check. I think there's some confusion there.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I don't quite

6 understand what you mean.

7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think that the numbers that

8 you mentioned of the disks did not appear on the transcript.

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Does that mean that we can't

10 work on them?

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No. It just means that you

12 should repeat the numbers, if you could.

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Oh, excuse me. Yes. Of the

14 disk that we received from the Prosecution on the 2nd of October has the

15 number 0210010A, and I have it in my hands. And also GPX00CL.

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Those are the two CDs. Allow me

17 to interrupt you. Perhaps you could make that suggestion directly to the

18 Prosecution, because the Chamber doesn't have those documents.

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I would be glad to provide the

20 Chamber with copies, Mr. President. It's rather important to show us to

21 what extent the task is difficult for the Defence and then we will address

22 the question of translation, if necessary. Perhaps I could give the Madam

23 Registrar or someone else what exhibit I am referring to which is one in

24 so many others. Who should I give it to?

25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] To the Registry.

Page 535












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 536

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'll be glad to do that. I

2 have some consternation, Mr. President, because I really do not see in a

3 Tribunal of this importance, when all of us wish to save the funds of the

4 International Community, what is the weight of such an exhibit? And

5 before I address the question of translation, I think that we must, much

6 more systematically, select all these exhibits and speak about them only

7 then.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Perhaps, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, your

9 suggestion is a reasonable one, but I don't know whether this is the right

10 moment to raise it. Maybe there's another way of doing it, and I should

11 like to make a suggestion to you. For the moment, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you

12 have I think to bear two things in mind. The first is: What is your

13 opinion regarding the suggestion I made regarding the practical way of

14 overcoming the problems of translation? And the other point: If the

15 Defence is already in a position to tell us which are the exhibits whose

16 authenticity they contest. Before giving you the floor, let me say

17 something else. As you know, Rule 65 ter makes it incumbent upon the

18 Prosecutor to file its pre-trial brief together with a list of witnesses,

19 a list of exhibits. It is true that the Prosecutor filed its pre-trial

20 brief without a list of witnesses and without a list of exhibits, which

21 put the Defence in the situation you described last week. That is, you

22 had little time to read the list of witnesses and the list of exhibits.

23 But the position of the Chamber is identical to that of the Defence,

24 because we received it at the same time as you. We know one thing now,

25 and that is a point that needs to be considered and which I wish to

Page 537

1 address with you, and that is linked to the question of the adjournment of

2 the trial or not to wait for the ruling on the appeal of the Defence, and

3 that is that we are quite convinced that it is not possible, and I would

4 say permissible, for this pre-trial stage to last two years, and we

5 clearly have to begin this trial as soon as possible. Because if we don't

6 begin, the date that I gave you, then the trial -- we might need a lot of

7 time to find the next trial date, and this is not due to less -- lack of

8 diligence on the part of the Chamber that the trial has not started. It

9 is not the responsibility of the Chamber. But what is the responsibility

10 of the Chamber is to do everything, and I must apologise for the

11 authoritarian way I have adopted by saying we are going to open this

12 trial, even if the parties request more time. Therefore, the position of

13 the Chamber is that we're going to leave this case in a condition ready

14 for beginning of trial.

15 As for the appeals ruling, that is something additional to the

16 heart of the matter, and then the Trial Chamber can easily accept the

17 ruling and start again. But there is still work to be done before the

18 beginning of trial. The parties are not just going to sit around and wait

19 until the date comes for the beginning of trial. They have to continue

20 working and preparing, and even then, of course, they will not have

21 finished their work. They will have to continue working. You know very

22 well that even after a trial begins, the preparatory work which is ongoing

23 continues right through until the end.

24 So Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I understand your suggestion, but I think

25 that this work of triage, of selection of documents, is a job that the

Page 538

1 Defence can begin to do in order to achieve the first objective, that is,

2 to see which documents can -- on which translation can be saved. Then the

3 second group is the group of documents whose authenticity is contested by

4 the Defence. Because these are two really important aspects for

5 organising this chapter of exhibits. And as I am saying, this can be done

6 directly between the parties, because after all, the Chamber only has a

7 list of the exhibits, not the exhibits themselves. So I must say, with

8 all due respect, that it would be a waste of time for the Chamber to

9 analyse each and every exhibit. We just have the list. After that, for

10 the Trial Chamber, yes, they can look at the documents themselves. But to

11 have those documents, we need to organise them first, because otherwise --

12 I'm sorry for saying this, but if there are so many documents that the

13 Prosecutor has given to the Defence and should be thrown into the

14 wastepaper basket, and the other way around, we have to make a selection,

15 otherwise we will be throwing a lot into the wastepaper basket.

16 So the practical suggestion I have made goes a bit beyond the

17 question of translation. That is one question. And the other is whether

18 you may be able, perhaps in two or three weeks, to communicate to us which

19 of the exhibits whose authenticity you are contesting.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well, I want to thank you once

21 again, Mr. President, because we can agree with you on many points, first

22 of all on the need to be rigorous and to reorganise things properly.

23 Ms. Pilipovic will react to the second point.

24 As to the first point, personally speaking, because I am

25 personally involved in this, I think that your suggestion in principle is

Page 539

1 an interesting one. Why is it interesting? For many reasons, but let me

2 first mention two things. Firstly, that, as you reminded us, there is the

3 absolute rights for the accused to have access to essential documents in a

4 language that he understands.

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Sorry for interrupting you.

6 You mean essential documents?

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I agree with you. What I

8 mean is that in part today some of these documents have not yet been

9 provided to the accused. I stop here for the first point.

10 And as to the second, unfortunately so, I gave you this document

11 as a bit of a humorous thing, but it is not humorous at all, as long as

12 the Defence do not know exactly what is on this hard disk, on this CD. If

13 there are a couple of examples like this one, which I am a bit ashamed to

14 show you, but I didn't produce them, I'm not in a position to tell you

15 what the state of affairs is as long as the Prosecution has not sorted

16 things properly. It is unacceptable. It is nearly reprehensible. I was

17 going to say that, but I'll withdraw that. It is not acceptable for

18 documents to be produced whilst they've only been produced through

19 automatic scanning, because if it was not the case it would be even more

20 serious.

21 Ms. Pilipovic is going to meet the second point.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Pilipovic.

23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understand that you

24 expect an answer from me to your second question regarding the revision of

25 the exhibit list of the Prosecution. As far as I have been able to

Page 540












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 541

1 understand, the Prosecution, my learned friends, believe that it would be

2 sufficient for them to have two or three weeks to revise those documents,

3 review those documents, upon which the Defence would be served with that

4 document, and then the Defence would have to state whether it contests the

5 authenticity of those documents or not. I expect that you will give my

6 learned friends opposite sufficient time and that the Defence, pursuant to

7 Rule 65 ter, will be served and will be able to respond regarding those

8 whose authenticity we contest. In that situation, it would be possible

9 for the Trial Chamber to be as effective and efficient as possible. Of

10 course, that decision is in your hands.

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Madam

12 Pilipovic. There were some other observations I wanted to make. I think

13 that we are now in a situation when there is an enormous risk of

14 repetitiveness of documents. There was an exchange of documents.

15 Documents have been communicated by the Prosecution to the Defence, and

16 vice versa. What may happen is that there's a duplication of documents,

17 and we may find ourselves in a situation of having an exhibit with one

18 particular exhibit number and the same exhibit with a different exhibit

19 number, and I think this effort of reorganisation must take care to

20 identify a repetition of documents, that is, the same document bearing

21 different numbers. Again, we will have to throw them into the wastepaper

22 basket, and we are in that way too risking wasting energy and effort.

23 What I think that we should do, and we always did in our Chamber,

24 is, after having selected all those documents and after having an

25 indication from the Defence which of the documents they contest, we could

Page 542

1 organise a complete file of Prosecution exhibits which would be marked for

2 identification by the Registry. For now it would be the Prosecution

3 exhibits. After that it will be the Defence exhibits. And the Registry

4 would mark those exhibits so that when a party is presenting its case, it

5 will say, "I now wish to discuss document which has such-and-such a

6 number," and then immediately the other party and the Judges know which

7 document is being referred to and there is no need only then to pick up

8 the document, ask the usher to show it to the Registry, for the Registry

9 to mark it for identification, to distribute it in the courtroom,

10 et cetera, et cetera. This is not a tailorist version of work, but

11 certainly a way of saving time, and the parties will have more time to

12 prepare because they will have a whole file containing all the exhibits,

13 with all the appropriate numbers, before them, those that are not

14 contested. And then the Chamber might already rule on their admission.

15 But I don't think we are really working under a system in which documents

16 could be admitted, no. The system might allow it, because, as you know,

17 the Tribunal system regarding the admission of documents is not strictly

18 common law; that is, all the documents need to be verified, because the

19 documents will be -- are not going to be submitted to a jury who are

20 non-professional here. It is the Judges that decide. And that is why as

21 soon as the question of authenticity has been overcome, there is nothing

22 further to do regarding admission, because the Judges from the holisitc

23 point of view, which is to say that all of the documents have to be seen

24 in their integrity and it is up to the Judges to judge their probative

25 value, and since that is so, there's no point in discussing their

Page 543

1 admissibility. What I consider to be important is to know what is the

2 position of the Defence, or the other way around. During the Defence case

3 the Prosecution position regarding authenticity. As soon as authenticity

4 is not contested, the document could automatically be admitted into

5 evidence.

6 I think I have lost from sight another matter that I wish to draw

7 your attention to, and that is avoiding duplication of documents either on

8 the side of the Prosecution or the document that may have been received by

9 the Prosecution from the Defence.

10 A third point that I wish to share with you is the question of the

11 Prosecution has told us that they have some other documents to communicate

12 to the Defence, and I think that all these matters need to be borne in

13 mind for future communication. That is, ongoing communicating, duplicate,

14 is this document really important? could I first discuss it with the

15 Defence to see whether the document can be served without waiting for the

16 translation unless it is really a crucial document for the case. I think

17 there are documents that are of essential importance, and in that case the

18 matter cannot be negotiated. But there is a whole pile of other documents

19 that are quite peripheral regarding the actual key of the case, and in

20 this area I think there is a large field of cooperation between the two

21 parties.

22 I find it most commendable, and I think we should highlight that

23 too, that Mr. Prosecutor, you have made a list of documents, linked them

24 together, so that we have a view of the whole. I think it is also

25 important to speak with the Defence, because maybe the Defence -- I think

Page 544

1 mention has been made of an analyst, which is close to an expert witness,

2 but we stick to the term "analyst." The Defence may also wish to have

3 an analyst in order perhaps to respond. When we're dealing with expert

4 witnesses. And the other party needs to respond through the

5 cross-examination, we have permitted the presence of an expert witness in

6 the courtroom who does not take the floor but who can give suggestions for

7 the cross-examination. This applies to the Prosecution case and also when

8 the Defence case's turn comes. This expert will not take the floor but

9 just make suggestions for the cross-examination, and I think this is

10 always possible. And if we can save time, if we can proceed quickly, at

11 least in this Chamber that was our practice, and maybe the Chamber which

12 will take over will accept this procedure.

13 To summarise all this, let me say two things: I think that what

14 we should do, and what is reasonable to do, is to take the trial date and

15 to make a timetable for the different stages of the preparation of the

16 case, because of course that will not be over when the trial begins. It

17 goes on after that. But still, there are things that we can do. So we're

18 going to fix a date for the Prosecution to present a revised list of

19 exhibits, taking into account all the small suggestions we have made here,

20 that is, make a selection, indicate the essential documents, which means

21 the documents that need to be translated, because if you give priorities

22 to the translation section and if you ask them for a few things, you will

23 get it from them. But if you ask the Translation Service to translate

24 everything, you will not get the essential documents, nor the others. And

25 also perhaps allow the Defence to respond and to express its position

Page 545












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 546

1 regarding the authenticity of documents. As soon as we have that

2 document, with the cooperation of the Registry, we perhaps will be able to

3 mark all those documents for identification. The files could be

4 distributed to the Defence and the Judges of the Chamber so as to have a

5 common code of communication, if I can call it that. As soon as a

6 document is mentioned, we know which document we're talking about.

7 Another point is that in my opinion, we will not consider

8 adjourning the proceedings. We will do everything so that the trial can

9 open on the date envisaged, and taking into account this idea of

10 continuous preparation, it is in the interests of justice and also in the

11 interests of the rights of the accused that the trial begin under the best

12 conditions. As you know, and as I have already said, there are elements

13 that can be presented at the beginning of the case, and after that we will

14 have a long break. So it's always possible to make up for lost time in

15 the meantime. If we lose this chance of December 3rd, we may have to wait

16 a year or longer, and that I would not like to put the Chamber that will

17 take over in a difficult situation. I want you to understand that well.

18 I would like to complete my mandate with completing the preparation of the

19 case for the opening of the trial, but, of course, under the best possible

20 conditions. We must bear in mind that the first days of this case will be

21 opening statements, very generalised matters, so we will not enter into

22 the case during the first few days. So we'll have more time after that,

23 and along these lines of continuous preparation, I think this is quite

24 feasible.

25 I think I have covered, more or less, the points I wish to

Page 547

1 address, but in my notes I see there's another point. I would like the

2 parties to consider what we said regarding the translation of documents,

3 and I think this could also apply to the expert reports. That was the

4 Rule we applied in one of our cases in which the expert reports -- only

5 the conclusions of those reports were translated. Because there's often

6 little sense in translating thousands of pages of text when we know that

7 it is the conclusions of the experts that are important. And I would like

8 the parties to consider this possibility. Do we really need to have

9 translated all the reports in their entirety, or would it be possible for

10 us to have only the conclusions translated? That is a question I leave

11 with you, with the added information that this is what we did in another

12 case, because the parties agreed and the suggestion was accepted. And

13 once again, this is a way of speeding things up and saving resources.

14 There may be some other suggestions which I would like to make,

15 but I think that in the decision that we will render in writing, I may

16 make an annex of the suggestions of this Chamber which are the result of

17 experience and which I would like to submit to the parties so that they

18 might think them over and discuss them, but the decision regarding those

19 suggestions would be left to the Trial Chamber. That is to say that if

20 the parties agree with a particular suggestion, you can convey that to the

21 Trial Chamber and tell them that the previous Chamber made this suggestion

22 and we agree with the first, second, and third of those suggestions, or

23 you can say that you don't agree and that you don't accept the others, for

24 instance, the other suggestions, and then the Chamber will take whatever

25 position it deems fit.

Page 548

1 But just to give you an example of what such a suggestion may be,

2 I think that for the good conduct of the case, one should have a small

3 rule, and that is that the cross-examination cannot, except exceptionally,

4 exceed the time of the examination-in-chief. I think this can be a good

5 rule, and this can apply to both parties; that is, when the Prosecution

6 conducts its examination-in-chief, the Defence will have an equal amount

7 of time for the cross-examination, but also this applies the other way

8 around. The Prosecution will be limited in its cross-examination during

9 the Defence case.

10 To give you another example, there are so many questions raised in

11 connection with protective measures. Today it is the turn of the

12 Prosecution; tomorrow it will be the Defence. Very often, the parties

13 require closed session, for instance, and we realise that protective

14 measures should be coordinated with the right of the accused to have a

15 public hearing and at the same time to protect the victims. So I think

16 there's no point in asking for a closed session if a witness is given a

17 pseudonym, facial distortion, and voice distortion, whereby the witness is

18 protected while at the same time the public in the gallery can hear the

19 testimony. Because, as you know, closed session does not allow the public

20 in the public gallery to hear the testimony. And we can use this method,

21 I would say, to establish a balance between the right of the accused to a

22 public hearing and the right of the victims to protection, and I think

23 that the parties should abstain from requesting closed session hearings if

24 a pseudonym is attributed, voice distortion and facial distortion is

25 given, because thereby the public character of the hearing is preserved.

Page 549

1 The public can follow and hear the witness. That is simply to give you

2 these two examples. I use those two as examples to give you an idea of

3 some very practical suggestions that we extracted from our experience and

4 which we should like to leave with you for your consideration and for your

5 mutual discussions. If you agree, you will let the Trial Chamber know; if

6 not, also the same applies.

7 I think now I have covered all the observations I wish it make,

8 and so we will come to the third point, and that is other matters which

9 the parties wish to raise, any matters that you had in mind before and

10 anything that may have cropped up today.

11 Mr. Prosecutor, do you have any additional matters to address?

12 MR. IERACE: Your Honour has indicated that you propose to set a

13 timetable for the further tasks to be done, and that will include the

14 further disclosure of items on the exhibit list. The effect -- the

15 inquiries which the Prosecution has made as to when that can be done by

16 way of a compact disk suggests the end of the month, and that's assuming

17 that all of the intermediate steps occur without any unforeseen

18 difficulties.

19 So far as filing the amended list of exhibits is concerned, as

20 I've earlier said, I expect that we can comply with that certainly by the

21 end of the week.

22 Your Honour mentioned duplication of some of the items. The

23 Prosecution took advantage of the last few days to check the exhibit list

24 for duplications, and some were discovered and were eliminated. My friend

25 on the other side has handed to Your Honour two pages which he says were

Page 550












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 551

1 printed from the contents of a compact disk that was handed to the Defence

2 by the Prosecution on the 2nd of October. That compact disk did not

3 relate to the exhibit list. It contained documents which the Prosecution

4 made available by way of reciprocal disclosure. I am somewhat mystified

5 by the two documents which have been handed over, because they appear on

6 their face to have no relevance to the Defence case, which is the purpose

7 of reciprocal disclosure; and secondly, and more curiously, they don't

8 contain ERN numbers. So far as I am aware, all material which the

9 Prosecution makes -- which the Prosecution discloses to the Defence

10 contains an ERN number.

11 While Your Honour has been talking, we have obtained a copy of the

12 compact disk in question and we're checking it. I would be very grateful

13 if my friend make available the ERN numbers for those two documents or

14 clarify if whether the follow copies are blow-ups of the page or give us

15 any further information so we can locate where they were taken from on the

16 compact disk

17 Your Honour, finally, if this be the last opportunity for us to

18 appear before you and your fellow Judges, Judge Riad and Judge Wald, I

19 would like to convey on behalf of the Prosecution in the case of Galic our

20 gratitude and thanks for your assistance and the assistance of your fellow

21 Judges in readying this case for trial. Thank you.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,

23 Mr. Ierace. The information that you have requested of the Defence, I

24 think that the Defence can provide you with that information after the

25 hearing.

Page 552

1 Any additional matters before we adjourn, Ms. Pilipovic?

2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that we have

3 had a very fruitful hearing today, but the Defence wishes to raise a few

4 more matters which we believe to be very important for the purposes of

5 this case.

6 First of all, the Defence would like to have the Chamber's

7 permission to call all of the witnesses with whom the Prosecution has had

8 interviews, that is, the witnesses who were members of the Sarajevo

9 Romanija corps, the witnesses in respect of whom my learned colleague has

10 already notified the Chamber, the witnesses whose statements we are

11 dealing with here. Those witnesses have been interviewed by the OTP, and

12 they include five members, ex-members of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, and

13 the Defence should like the Chamber to give the permission to call them as

14 their witnesses should the Prosecutor decide not to call them, as well as

15 other witnesses with whom the Prosecutor has had interviews but has not

16 included them in the witness list.

17 The second matter which we wish to address before the Chamber is

18 the issue of Prosecutor's pre-trial brief and unscheduled sniping

19 incidents and witnesses relating to those incidents. We should like to

20 hear the Prosecutor as to the meaning of scheduled and unscheduled

21 incidents. What is it that the Prosecution means by that? So as to make

22 it possible for the Defence to prepare themselves and so that General

23 Galic can be given a fair trial.

24 And the third matter which we would like to raise before the

25 Chamber and in respect of which we expect a decision by the Chamber: We

Page 553

1 should like an obligation to be imposed upon the parties that names of

2 witnesses be provided to the other party eight days prior to the hearing.

3 So we should like that obligation to be imposed on both parties, that the

4 minimum deadline be eight days. That is, that the opposing parties should

5 be informed of the names of witnesses eight days before the date that

6 those witnesses are scheduled to testify.

7 So those would be the issues that I wanted to address for the

8 purposes of having a well-prepared trial in this case. And also at the

9 end of my submissions, I should like to express my gratitude to this

10 Chamber for the work that it has done on this case and also our gratitude

11 for very useful suggestions, both for the Defence and for the Prosecution.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if you allow

13 me, I'd like to stress very briefly first of all what my colleague has

14 just said, but I also wanted to draw the attention of this Trial Chamber

15 to the technical problems that will crop up if we don't give ourselves the

16 opportunity to have a quiet appraisal. I raised a very small issue, an

17 incident, earlier on. There was a reason to it, and you can see that it

18 sort of unleashes a series of micro incidents that may become, in a few

19 weeks' time, macro non-events. What do I mean by that? Already,

20 already, the quality of the documents which we have received from the

21 Prosecutor is being challenged. Why? Because there is no ERN number. I

22 mentioned just a few examples by selecting a few exhibits. There's no ERN

23 numbers because they're just selected for the sake of it. But what's the

24 purpose of producing exhibits if they don't have any numbers marked and

25 they can't be found again? That's all.

Page 554

1 We've just told you, Mr. President, that everything is fine with

2 the Prosecution. They have a technique by which they can trace back

3 exhibits through the help of a specialised assistant, and that should

4 eventuate by the end of the month if all goes well. And you said that

5 maybe we would need our own assistant in order to proceed in the same

6 manner. There may be a miracle in a couple of hours' time, but if there

7 is not, what do we see? We might find ourselves in a position where the

8 Defence, three days or three working days or even less before the trial

9 begins would not have received to date the list of finally-selected

10 exhibit after two years, and this is none of our responsibility. So

11 therefore, how could we possibly start the trial, even if admittedly we'll

12 have some time afterwards, whereas the Defence will not have been able to

13 even open Prosecution documents. I seem to understand they were not all

14 correct, on top of that. So we do plead, formally so, and repeat our

15 application of last time, based on 65 ter (N), we ask formally of this

16 Chamber that an additional time period be made available so that both

17 parties can carry out their work. Thank you very much.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. We have worked

19 somewhat longer than reasonably expected. We really tried our best to

20 finish on time, and the interpreters have worked now for quite a while.

21 But I think five more minutes will be enough for us to finish, and I think

22 they will be happy if they don't have to come back after a break. So I

23 think we should try and finish now.

24 As regards the issue that has been brought up by Madam Pilipovic,

25 I should like to tell you that we would really like to see the list of

Page 555












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 556

1 Prosecution witnesses and to see it structured and reduced. And in view

2 of such reductions, I think that we will have a reserve list of witnesses

3 which may at some later stage be called by the Prosecutor, if necessary.

4 I'm not going to say that we're not going to take into account all

5 of the effort that has been made by the Prosecutor to reduce the list of

6 witnesses. But, Madam Pilipovic, I don't know if we can respond, if we

7 can grant your request to call all of the witnesses that have been

8 included in the Prosecutor's list. Why? Because we are still at the

9 Prosecution stage of the proceedings, and you will have to prepare

10 yourself for the cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses.

11 If there are witnesses on the Prosecution list of witnesses who

12 are not going to be called but witnesses in respect of whom the Defence

13 would like to call them, the witnesses that the Defence deems important

14 for their case, well, in that case you can have -- you can prepare a list

15 of such witnesses and we will take into consideration that request.

16 Because you have to -- we have to have a different perspective on things

17 as well, because the Prosecutor is not going to call -- the Prosecutor is

18 going to call his witnesses and then the Defence will have an opportunity

19 to call their witnesses. And during the Prosecution case, the Defence

20 will be able, of course, to cross-examine their witnesses. And once the

21 Defence opens its case, they will be able to call their witnesses and the

22 Prosecutor will cross-examine Defence witnesses.

23 I think that the Prosecutor will be glad to provide you with the

24 response to your question regarding scheduled and unscheduled incidents.

25 I think that you can have contact concerning that particular subject

Page 557

1 matter, and I hope that you will be able to inform the Chamber of that

2 exchange.

3 As regards this other matter which was mentioned by Madam

4 Pilipovic, namely, the disclosure of a witness list eight days prior to

5 the hearing, thank you very much for that suggestion, Madam Pilipovic. I

6 think that we are on the same wavelength as regards this topic. That is

7 exactly one of the suggestions that I wanted to include in our decision.

8 There are others, of course, which are the result of our experience. For

9 example, the lack of contact, decision, the possibility of requesting a

10 lack of contact with witnesses who have already started their testimony.

11 That will also be one of our suggestions. And those suggestions will

12 concern both parties in the same way.

13 As for the fourth issue which was raised by Mr. Piletta-Zanin, let

14 me repeat the expression that you used, micro events which might lead to

15 macro non-events, in particular, when it comes to the list of exhibits. I

16 think that we can also have it the other way around. But I think that it

17 is necessary for us to discuss and I think that the parties should try to

18 reduce such list and to focus on the merits of the case, which can always

19 be a topic of the exchanges between the parties, and during such an

20 exchange the parties can perhaps agree on what they disagree, at least.

21 Of course, we have this historical context of the case. That is something

22 that can be agreed upon. It has already been discussed in a number of

23 cases. And I think that you should focus your attention to the details

24 and the facts that concern this particular case. There are a number of

25 things that we already know, a series of elements and a series of facts

Page 558

1 that can be presented to the Chamber without necessarily calling

2 appropriate witnesses. I'm referring to the general context of the

3 conflict and so on and so forth. We should concentrate ourselves to the

4 essentials of the case, that is, the responsibility of this particular

5 accused in a story which is more or less familiar to all of us by now. So

6 this is an effort that can be made by all of us.

7 The Prosecutor has already tendered a number of similar documents

8 in a number of other cases, but we have to concern ourselves with the

9 specific responsibility of General Galic in the overall context of these

10 events which are already familiar to all of us.

11 Before we adjourn, I should like to give an opportunity to General

12 Galic to take the floor. I don't know whether General Galic wishes to

13 tell us anything regarding conditions of detention and condition of his

14 health.

15 General Galic, you have the floor.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour,

17 for the time, and I should also like to express my gratitude for this --

18 for the fact that I was always able to express myself before this Chamber,

19 especially in regard to the conditions of detention.

20 Speaking of my condition now, I must say that I have had some

21 problems with my health recently, some examinations involving x-rays will

22 be soon done, including a CT, and we will see what the results are. I

23 have some minor problems with walking. As for other general conditions of

24 my detention, they are as usual. I don't have anything in particular to

25 say except to add -- except to say one more time that I should like to

Page 559

1 thank this particular Chamber for all of the work and the attention that

2 it has paid to my case and my condition in particular.

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, General

4 Galic. I hope that your health will improve. I wish you all the best.

5 Before we adjourn, I would like to say that it has been a pleasure

6 to work with you in the preparation of this case. The pre-trial phase has

7 had several special -- has known several special events, several special

8 situations which we were not always able to control. But once again, I

9 should like to express my appreciation for the cooperation that you have

10 demonstrated in this case, the cooperation that I hope will be very useful

11 for the future. We also have Mr. Piletta-Zanin here in this case now, and

12 I hope that he will be able to provide you with very useful and precious

13 help and assistance in this case.

14 I also would like to just tell you that I will continue paying

15 attention to what is happening with this case. I will remain in a certain

16 way seized of this case in the future as well, and I thank you once again

17 on behalf of Judge Wald as well, who is absent. Thank you on behalf of

18 Judge Riad. Thank you once again, all of you, technicians, interpreters,

19 and the person of the Registry.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

21 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at

22 4.30 p.m.