[ Confidentiality lifted by later order of the Chamber ]
1 Tuesday, 24 March 2009
2 [Closed session]
3 [Rule 65 ter Conference]
4 [The accused entered]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.36 p.m.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, everyone and a thank you to both
7 parties for attending this afternoon. This is not like a hearing in
8 court, and standing up for the Judges coming into this sort of meeting is
9 not necessary. The whole idea is that everyone should feel as
10 comfortable as possible in this environment, if that means taking your
11 jacket and your tie off, then that you should do.
12 The first thing I think it's appropriate for us to deal with this
13 afternoon is the identification of everyone who is in the room. The
14 Prosecution are familiar with all the Judges of the Tribunal.
15 Mr. Karadzic, you've encountered me, and you've encountered Judge Flugge
16 on one occasion already. We also have with us Judge Picard today, and we
17 also have two of the legal support team, the other two young ladies here
18 who I work with, the Trial Chamber, Ms. Davidson on my left who is the
19 most senior of the two, and Ms. Hinek who is behind. And they will be a
20 regular feature of any meetings of this nature; or a Status Conference,
21 for example, you'll have seen both of them in court at your previous
23 Can we now hear from the Prosecution who represents them this
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, the Prosecution to my right we have the
1 trial attorneys Ms. Sutherland, and Mr. Nicholls. They are also new to
2 you, and to everyone here. And to my left is the case manager, Mr. Reid,
3 and I'm Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Mr. Karadzic, you had reservations
5 about coming to this meeting, and because of that we thought it
6 appropriate to set out -- or at least discuss how we might proceed in
7 future in dealing with the management of your case and the preparation of
8 your case for trial. We had already, prior to that, decided that the
9 three judges should attend this meeting. In future cases that will not
10 always happen. It's not generally the case. It's normally the case that
11 only the pre-trial judge, who in this case is myself, would attend, but
12 this is a case with many issues involved. It's a large case. It's only
13 right that we should set a course initially that everyone contributes to
14 any orders about how we proceed will not be made today. They will be
15 made in a transparent context in court. There will be a
16 Status Conference on the 2nd of April. But this meeting gives an
17 opportunity for everyone involved to express their views on how we might
18 best achieve the objective of a fair and expeditious trial which is our
19 obligation to you.
20 The initial order of the 19th of March confirming this meeting,
21 actually describes the purpose of a Rule 65 ter meeting in fairly clear
22 terms. The order provides that Rule 65 ter paragraph D establishes a
23 framework for meetings to be held regularly between the parties in order
24 to discuss practical matters of trial preparation under the supervision
25 of the pre-trial judge and/or the senior legal officer of the Chamber.
1 These meetings are generally conducted in private and do not form part of
2 the trial process, rather they are for the purpose of effective trial
3 preparation in a context where the parties are encouraged to discuss
4 matters freely without risk to the safety of witnesses by inadvertent
5 reference to confidential material. A transcript will be kept and
6 provided to you and to the Prosecution.
7 Normally these meetings take place with counsel and not with the
8 accused, but in this case because you represent yourself, these meetings
9 have inevitably to involve you.
10 Now, what I think you will find this afternoon, I hesitate to
11 predict too much because I don't have a very clear picture of how much
12 information will emerge; but what I think you'll find is that we will
13 both obtain useful information for our respective purposes in making
14 progress in this case. That you will not be obliged in any way to commit
15 yourself to something about which you have any reservations. That will
16 only take place in a public setting. And you will have the opportunity,
17 yourself, to raise matters subject to our supervision with the
19 They may wish to ask matters of you. I suspect on this first
20 occasion that there's unlikely to be much raised by them of you that we
21 would authorise or oblige you to deal with. But there will come a stage
22 where we will, I think, expect mutual cooperation to everyone's
23 advantage. But later that's further down the line in the course of
24 preparations for the trial.
25 Now, before asking the Prosecution to comment, if they wish at
1 all, on how we should proceed in future; can I ask whether you wish to
2 make any comments about how we ought to conduct these meetings and how
3 they might be related to the Status Conferences which will occur from
4 time to time in the courtroom in a formal setting?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I would like
6 to say that I don't mind meeting with this distinguished company; but
7 until I am declared to be an innocent and free man, any socialising
8 outside of the public eye could only be to my prejudice, I could not
9 benefit from it at all. I think that the public is a very important
10 element of my Defence, and I'm convinced that I may not deviate from
12 I came here not only out of good manners and the respect that I
13 have for you. I also came here to hear what's going to be said here, but
14 I will not present my positions, my views. I will leave that for a later
15 date once I have studied the transcript, and I will present my views in a
16 public hearing.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff is there anything you wish to
18 say on the first item on the agenda?
19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I only want to mention that the Prosecution
20 would really appreciate these kind of meetings because we can not -- we
21 have no Defence counsel with whom we can sit together and discuss
22 practical matters, not substantive matters but practical matters; and we
23 hope that this forum here would be an opportunity to basically engage in
24 these practical matters with Mr. Karadzic in person.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's return to that subject at the end of the
1 meeting once you see what, if anything, can be achieved by this exercise.
2 The second item that we identified was clarification of
3 arrangements for the disclosure of material relating to expert witnesses.
4 And the Prosecution have already provided a list of experts which is
5 helpful but raises a very large number of questions in the minds of the
6 Judges on which we would like some clarification, and I'd be surprised if
7 it hasn't raised a lot of questions in your mind as well, on which I hope
8 we can actually get some clarification.
9 In three cases now, the Prosecution have filed a formal notice
10 with a view to triggering the period of 30 days that you have in which to
11 answer or to challenge these reports. The three are, in case you are in
12 doubt, Christian Nielsen, Andras Riedlmayer, and Kathryn Barr; and I will
13 deal with these three first of all. And deal with them separately. And
14 the first of these is Christian Nielsen.
15 Now, the Trial Chamber at the moment only has the notice along
16 with this summary list produced by the Prosecution. Once we are clear
17 what documents are to be relied on for the purpose of the trial, and that
18 may change following this meeting, hopefully, the Trial Chamber would
19 benefit from having these documents. Now, you've got obligations to the
20 accused, but you don't have any obligations towards us at this stage in
21 that regard, unless we make an order. We'd rather not do that, and we'd
22 rather simply request that when a document that is going to be relied
23 upon as evidence in the trial, and that applies to expert reports,
24 statements, and curriculum vitae, then we would like to have a copy.
25 Now, do you have any objections to giving us copies at this stage?
1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Absolutely not, Your Honour. Actually, our
2 plan was to as soon as we have a reaction to -- from Mr. Karadzic whether
3 he wants to cross-examine these people, we actually had intended to then
4 file the report with the Trial Chamber. But we can easily also always
5 attach it already to the notice.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I think it would be helpful but that's
7 because we are concerned about the final format in which you present this
8 material. It is -- just to stray a moment more widely into the list,
9 it's very disturbing to read about a witness in respect of whom there are
10 29 reports and addenda, and that awaited translations amount to 1.226
11 pages. That for us is horrific information, and therefore seeing that
12 would provide some -- perhaps some reassurance when you tender the
13 notice; but perhaps as we go through this today, these figures may change
14 and if in fact we all agree at the end that it's best that you give us
15 the documents once it's clear whether they are going to be challenged,
16 then so be it. But I suspect it will probably be better to have the
17 information earlier.
18 In any event, if we can look at Christian Nielsen, where your
19 summary suggested that there were three reports. You have in fact
20 produced two, and you presumably have had everything translated now so
21 that the part of the summary that refers to 12 pages awaiting translation
22 is, I assume now redundant.
23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We still have -- no, no, that's right for
24 Mr. Nielsen we have everything translated, sorry.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: And the reports and addenda now total two rather
1 than three; is that correct?
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, because one of these reports that we
3 originally had in mind is actually completely included in another one.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, we've tried to understand, without obviously
5 having the documents, how they fit together; but they are called A and B
6 in your paragraph 1 of the notice. And A is a report prepared for the
7 case of Krajisnik updated for the case of Mico Stanisic, and that update
8 is 29th February, 2008
9 prepared for the case of Stanisic and Simatovic but dated the 30th of
10 July, 2004, so somewhere in the middle of the compilation of the other
12 Now, at first blush that doesn't look like the most consistent
13 and helpful way of presenting this material. Can you elaborate on how
14 this is being done and why in particular we do not see here a report
15 prepared for the case against Radovan Karadzic.
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, first of all both the Krajisnik
17 case and the Mico Stanisic case relate to 1992 and that's why this
18 reports -- these reports concentrate on this. While Stanisic, Simatovic
19 relates to later date as well. So that's why we have two different
20 reports here. That's for the later years; B is for the later years. And
21 why we did not ask for a new report, it's just a matter of time. The
22 expert is no longer working in the Office of the Prosecutor. He has very
23 limited time, and, therefore, we couldn't ask him to prepare an entirely
24 new report.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: So are you convinced that there isn't even cutting
1 and pasting you can do with this to put it together in an even more
2 coherent form for everyone that is clearly aimed at relating directly to
3 the case against this accused which is plainly a combination of cases
4 against other accused?
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: If we do a cut and paste, we would actually
6 have the -- Mr. Nielsen have to adopt this. But what I think is, rather,
7 a more practical approach is if we for instance say we want to relate
8 only on section A, C, and D of the report, is that perhaps a way forward?
9 If we say we don't want to rely on all of this report but on sections
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Speaking for myself, I'm getting even more
12 concerned that you haven't -- in all the time that's been available, been
13 able to get the expert who is going to have to come here and give his
14 evidence, or at least have it presented in a form that he is satisfied
15 with. You haven't got him to take the parts of the report that are
16 relevant directly to the case that you are dealing with here, put them
17 into one report for this case and present it to us in a comprehensive,
18 coherent form. I've encountered this before, and I'm trying to avoid
19 encountering the problems that go with this again.
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, there is one issue though. The
21 Mico Stanisic is actually one when you get the pre-trial brief, he is one
22 where we basically claim whatever this man did and whatever relates to
23 him relates equally to Mr. Karadzic because he was a subordinate to
24 Mr. Karadzic. At least de facto. And therefore the entire Mico Stanisic
25 report is actually also applies to Mr. Karadzic. And it's the same with
1 Mr. Krajisnik. Only in relation to Stanisic, Simatovic, that's a
2 different issue. But in relation to the number A, it entirely relates to
3 Mr. Karadzic as well.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, what I think you might consider doing in
5 relation to this is to let us have the documents that are referred to in
6 this notice immediately following this meeting, and provide us with a
7 short note, if it's appropriate, of the areas of these reports to which
8 you intend to confine your case, because it sound as though that's what
9 you are doing. So this in fact is a statement that you are giving us
10 material, you are not actually going to rely on at the time of the trial.
11 You are going to confine yourself to certain elements of it; is that
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That's correct in relation to the report B.
14 Because the report B has actually a lot of details. I mean, we want to
15 rely at this moment on both reports.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that. But should we not be entitled
17 to a document properly prepared for this case which are confined to the
18 elements of the investigations that the experts have done that relate
19 directly to this case?
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: What we feared was when we want an addendum
21 from Mr. Nielsen, this would cause a much greater delay than providing
22 those two reports that he has already done and basically, as for
23 instance, for the report B, relate a lot to actions of Stanisic,
24 Simatovic not related to Mr. Karadzic, that's in particular the Croatia
25 section in that report B. If we would have asked Mr. Nielsen to
1 reconstruct this addendum just fitting for the Karadzic case, this would
2 take him another two months, and that's why we thought it's much faster
3 and most expeditious to provide these two reports that already existing.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Let me ask you then, how is it you expect judges
5 presented with the material which they are at the moment not familiar
6 with at all, to do that same exercise in less than two months? In fact,
7 we'll be hoping to do it much more expeditiously than that. Why should
8 we be faced with the task of doing it and not the expert himself?
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: You are correct, but the problem is when the
10 expert tells us, I need another two months to do that, that was our fear,
11 that you would then say no, that's not possible; but we cannot force the
12 expert to give it to us in a week or two. That's our conflict we find
13 ourselves in.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's one way of viewing it, which may well
15 be correct, but a cynical person might think that perhaps lack of
16 preparation and organisation may have contributed to that situation.
17 Would it be unreasonable to think that there may have been some element
18 of that involved?
19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I don't know what to say to this.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Mr. Karadzic, do you have any comment
21 to make on this particular subject?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you allow me, and with all your
23 leave and with all due respect, I would leave my comments for a public
24 hearing. So far I have been satisfied with how the things are
25 progressing and therefore I have no objections.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that point of view. And you are
2 entitled to that. You will not have unlimited scope just to make a show
3 in public in light of what may have emerged here. Anything that happens
4 in public will be with a purpose and an aim that is forensic and not any
5 other. And therefore, one of the things you may seek to do here, without
6 in any way inhibiting the opportunities you will have in public, will be
7 to seek any additional information you want on the subject, and please
8 bear that in mind each time we deal with one of these.
9 Just give the Judges a moment to -- for a brief -- in fact I
10 think what we may do in light of -- no, I think the best plan might be to
11 go through the three that have already been notified, then I think we'll
12 have a short adjournment and discussion among ourselves before we
13 continue with the meeting.
14 Mr. Karadzic.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All I wanted to say was that
16 regardless of my need for everything to be done in public because I see
17 the public as my ally in this particular case, that the issue of expert
18 witness is a hugely important witness -- question. There are 26 of them
19 and some of them are really would be a treat. I won't like to disqualify
20 any of them before the trial because they will provide an excellent
21 opportunity to the Defence to show what is being done. So such a hugely
22 important issue such as expert witness, I don't want to be stifled in
23 private meetings. I hope you understand my point of view.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, the second one that's been notified, and
25 that's Andras Reidlmayer. Now, there the notice, the summary indicated
1 that there would be five reports or addenda, and one statement; and we
2 have I think five in total; is that correct? Including a database.
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's actually four.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Four. So three expert reports and a statistical
5 addendum. Now, does that mean there is no statement to follow?
6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I don't really understand. What do you mean
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, in your summary, this summary list, against
9 Reidlmayer you say that you would be producing five reports or addenda
10 and one statement.
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That relates only to disclosure. That's not
12 what we filed. It's showing what is disclosed and what is still to be
13 translated. It has nothing to do with actual reports.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you. Now, there is plainly --
15 perhaps plainly stating it too high, it would appear that there may be
16 some overlap between B1 and C, it's not complete overlap but some of the
17 municipalities are the same.
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, that's correct, there is overlap.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there a difference between the reports or is it
20 genuinely repetition?
21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The reports rely in relation to monuments
22 and buildings that are discussed, that's why -- and looking at our
23 schedule D when we want to cover all the sites in schedule D, we had to
24 provide all these reports, otherwise, it would not be complete. And with
25 Mr. Reidlmayer, it's the same issue of preparing an additional, a focused
1 Karadzic report would actually take more time than looking at those
2 reports just at the sites.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: So in the report prepared for the case of
4 Krajisnik when compared with the report prepared for the case of Seselj,
5 will we find identical language relating to the same buildings?
6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think so, yes but I cannot be a hundred
7 per cent sure because I didn't compare them, so.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: And in relation to number a, which is -- well,
9 which relates to Bosnia-Herzegovina and selected municipalities, and C,
10 which again relates to Bosnia-Herzegovina but non-Serb cultural heritage
11 and certain municipalities, is it possible there's also overlap there?
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Definitely.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. And just one final question I have on
14 this one, the fourth item, number D, the underlying database, compiled by
15 Andras Reidlmayer and which his reports are based, what is the general
16 nature of that?
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Mr. Reidlmayer has actually compiled a
18 programme covering all his findings, so what he usually would do, he
19 would have this programme available in court and if there is a question
20 to a particular site, he can immediately call it up and we would see it
21 on the screens, and he could answer particular questions directly --
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, sorry, I didn't catch the first part of
23 that, can you tell me again.
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: He has his -- he has a particular database
25 covering all these sites, and he can call it up in court.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: And the third one now, the notice relating to
2 Dr. Kathryn Barr, who is a handwriting expert. Now, can you help us by
3 indicating how this evidence fits into the case?
4 MR. NICHOLLS: I can address that, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Nicholls.
6 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you. Ms. Barr is, as you say, a handwriting
7 expert and in the previous Srebrenica trials she has analysed handwriting
8 which appears in an important exhibit in our submission which is the
9 Zvornik Brigade duty officer notebook. Without going into the substance,
10 it's a notebook written by various -- written and drafted by various
11 members of the Zvornik Brigade at different times that they were on duty.
12 And it is essentially an exercise in authenticating this exhibit, which
13 has been challenged in the past, as well as indicating which officers of
14 the Zvornik Brigade were on duty in performing various actions at
15 different times during the height of the murders in the Zvornik area.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: And do the different dates demonstrate the history
17 of the obtaining of samples, or ...
18 MR. NICHOLLS: No, Your Honours. The different dates I think is
19 that as issues arose, a different part of the book would be analysed.
20 I'm just waiting for the translation. In addition, Ms. Barr has analysed
21 vehicle logs, gasoline logs, and items of that nature seized from the
22 Zvornik Brigade, and I believe the Drina Corps, to authenticate the
23 handwriting of different officers and different individuals on those
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there any overlap among these reports?
1 MR. NICHOLLS: No, Your Honour, I believe not. You can see they
2 are quite short. The first one I can see by the English ERN range is
3 approximately seven pages. That's the report of Dragan Jokic of 2003
4 dated 16 July. Next one in the notice B, is about six pages. So this
5 is, I would think, fairly non-controversial evidence. It's different
6 parts of one big exhibit and other exhibits to authenticate that the
7 people who we say wrote on these exhibits or signed these documents in
8 fact did so.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Mr. Karadzic, I think we will adjourn
10 briefly just now. Before we do, is there anything you want to ask or say
11 about the matters that we've been discussing so far?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, thank you very much.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: If you'll excuse us, we'll be probably no more
14 than 20 minutes. Say we'll resume at 3.30. Someone will make sure that
15 you're comfortable meanwhile, once we withdraw.
16 --- Recess taken at 3.10 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 3.30 p.m.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: We are missing one -- she's not returning. Maybe
19 this is an appropriate time then to record that the first liaison
20 officer, Jelena Gurduvic, was present during the first part of the
21 meeting and has now left and that the Registry court deputy present is
22 Yaiza Alvarez and has been since the beginning of the meeting.
23 I want to return just briefly to a question on which I think we
24 are not clear on the moment and that is the exact nature of the database
25 of Mr. Reidlmayer, can you tell me again, please, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, how
1 that differs from the reports themselves.
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The database that Mr. Reidlmayer has does
3 also include a lot of photographic evidence. That's the key -- that's
4 the main difference as far as I remember. I haven't looked, I must
5 admit, I haven't looked at the database. It's a long time ago that I saw
6 it, therefore, I think that the key difference is the amount of
7 photographic evidence that he has on the database.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: What we would like you to do then, in relation to
9 these three experts is to now give copies of all the documents referred
10 to in these three filings to the Trial Chamber with a note of the parts
11 of the documents on which you do not intend to found in the trial. Are
12 you able to do that fairly expeditiously?
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think so.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Obviously we want to have a chance to look at
15 these documents before the Status Conference, and it may be that we would
16 want to react in some way, but we would only do that obviously in the
17 course of the status conference.
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The only problem that I see when we have to
19 produce that before the Status Conference, we are already under enormous
20 pressure because of the interims pre-trial brief, so to get this in
21 addition, would cause a problem; but I will actually have to regress
22 later on in relation to this interim pre-trial brief and if we -- one of
23 them would be an extension of time of one week for the interims pre-trial
24 brief if that would be acceptable, then I think we could manage. But if
25 we have to produce the pre-trial brief on the 30th, I don't think we can
1 manage that.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: So it's not simply a question of giving us
3 electronic copies of the various documents and identifying in them the
4 parts that you don't intend to refer to?
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The problem is only that we now would have
6 to -- we can produce the electronic version, even a printed version; but
7 to review it again and see which -- exactly which parts we would not want
8 to rely, on is a bit of a tricky issue. Because just as an example, the
9 number B for Nielsen, we cannot say just generally we are not relying on
10 anything that relates to Croatia
11 JCE with an over-arching JCE with Milosevic in there, with
12 Jovica Stanisic in there. So there is JCE related evidence that actually
13 is based on Croatia
14 between what is necessary, what is not necessary. So we have to go
15 carefully through that report B for Stanisic, Simatovic, and distract
16 these JCE related passages. So that's why it's just going through the
17 reports again.
18 For Reidlmayer it would be easier, but for Stanisic, Simatovic
19 for Nielsen reports it would be -- it would take quite some time. And
20 unfortunately for people that deal with these expert reports and filings
21 are also the ones that are drafting the interims brief.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Two out of three is not bad, so you can produce to
23 us, please, the material in relation to Barr and Reidlmayer with a note
24 on the parts on which you don't intend to rely. Please give us the
25 material in relation to Nielsen. We would prefer all of them in
1 electronic form so that we can do the printing ourselves as necessary;
2 and we can only ask you to use your best endeavours in relation to
3 Nielsen. But I think you can take it that the subject of how you are
4 compiling and putting together the material in relation to these experts
5 is not a dead issue and is likely to feature in the discussion also at
6 the Status Conference. To what extent will become clear as we proceed
7 through this list you gave us of the experts.
8 The very first one on your list was a Jose Baraybar, in respect
9 of whom there are said to be in existence 14 reports and addenda and two
10 statements. Now, are you able to indicate to us how you are likely to
11 produce the material in relation to him? Is that again, Mr. Nicholls?
12 MR. NICHOLLS: It is, Your Honour. Yes, Your Honour, I think I
13 can say that again this -- these reports and examinations various times
14 are all related to different parts of the Srebrenica portion of the case.
15 We will need to find out whether they are accepted. In many ways, again,
16 it may not be a contested issue, as these are scientific reports.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: But are these individual reports relating to
18 different grave-sites?
19 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Does that mean overlap is unlikely?
21 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour. As regards to, I believe I can
22 say with confidence, with regards to all of the Srebrenica scientific
23 reports, the pathological reports, and anthropological reports, there is
24 not overlap. Because of the nature of the way the investigation was
25 conducted over time, different mass graves examined at different times by
1 different experts, different graves discovered at different times, and
2 the nature of primary and secondary graves, throughout the time different
3 reports by different experts have been created but they do not overlap.
4 In other words, we don't have two expert reports which concern a grave at
5 Cerska or Lazete 2 with overlapping evidence.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Are we still on track then for Baraybar,
7 John Clark, Christopher Lawrence, and Freddy Peccerelli all to the
8 filed by the 1st of April?
9 MR. NICHOLLS: I've now found my correct notes. Baraybar, yes,
10 1st of April. Lawrence
11 1st of April, with one translation issue. And I hope I haven't missed
12 one. Clark
13 JUDGE BONOMY: When you say one translation issue, the indication
14 was there was a substantial amount to be translated for Haglund.
15 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, and if I can take a moment to explain that.
16 Dr. Haglund attached to his report the individual autopsy reports which
17 form the basis of the report. In the previous Srebrenica cases, those
18 have not been translated. For all the experts, there were individual
19 reports per body, per skeleton examining what was found in that numbered
20 grave, so there was a huge amount of individual reports for these
21 experts. Most of the experts, with the exception of Haglund, did not
22 attach those and make them part of their report. So with all those
23 experts, the underlying individual reports for each body or set of
24 remains in a mass grave are disclosed, of course, but they don't form a
25 part of the body of the report. I would hope that we don't need to
1 translate into B/C/S these, over 1500 pages of individual reports which
2 Haglund attached. We haven't done so for the others, which were not
3 attached and they haven't been previously. These individual reports
4 follow a format explaining the clothing found on this particular victim,
5 the personal effects, whether he had a watch or tobacco, things like
6 that. So they are rather simple and follow that format, and that's
7 perhaps something that Dr. Karadzic can comment on, whether he -- if he
8 wishes, whether he insists on each and every one of these being
9 translated. They haven't been in other cases.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: He has made it clear, that's the sort of thing he
11 won't comment on today, so there's no point in my raising that with him.
12 But in relation to Haglund, you referred to 11 reports and
13 addenda and eight documents, I presume they are additional documents
14 which comprise the 940 pages yet to be translated. Now, are you saying
15 that they are in a position to be disclosed in English?
16 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour, these are the annexes to the
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you should make that disclosure if you
19 haven't already done so, I would suggest, and --
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We have done the disclosure.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: So disclosure as you would have it at least for
22 these various persons that you've mentioned, will be achieved before the
23 Status Conference. The other one you didn't mention was
24 Freddy Peccerelli who seems to be also an anthropology.
25 MR. NICHOLLS: That's correct, Your Honour, there's a similar
1 issue, although the outstanding number of pages is less than that for
2 Dr. Haglund. Mr. Peccerelli also attached to his report extensive
3 materials which are not -- which often are not attached as part of the
4 body of the report, so it's the same situation but a smaller number of
5 pages; and our position would be the same that it hasn't been translated
6 in the past and we hope not to be required do so in this instance.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: You should meanwhile follow the same course if you
8 haven't already done so. I can't remember now if you mentioned
9 Richard Wright or not.
10 MR. NICHOLLS: I believe I did, Your Honour, that should be ready
11 for the 1st of April.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Perhaps we should just finish with -- no, in fact,
13 I think that does complete the pathology-related material.
14 Another category -- sorry, I think you should give the
15 Trial Chamber also electronic copies of all of these materials now.
16 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: The next category of expert is referred to as
18 military analyst. Number 3 is the first example, and then there are
19 other examples at 17, 19, and 24. Now, there may be no objection to you
20 corroborating some of your evidence, but can you help me on the need for
21 four military analysts.
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, these analysts do not basically
23 overlap. They cannot be excluded that in all of them there may be a
24 reference to Supreme Command or something like that. However, they all
25 have very distinct topics. Mr. Brown for instance will speak about the
1 military events in the ARK. And while Mr. Phillipps will speak and his
2 report will relate to the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. Mr. Butler who is one
3 of the -- it is actually the 26 Rule 70 witness who has now been cleared
4 so I can use his name; Mr. Butler will deal with Srebrenica; and
5 Mr. Theunens will deal with the JNA VRS paramilitary structures all over
6 but except for those particular regions I just mentioned. So there is no
7 overlap between those. There's also a General Vegh that's number 24, he
8 is actually the command and control expert who actually was a top
9 military commander. So there is no overlap of these.
10 We have actually considered, and that's why we actually have
11 added Mr. Phillipps at a later date, we have actually considered whether
12 Mr. Theunens would be our overall expert and could address all these
13 topics but that would mean that he would get familiar with all these
14 particular military scenarios and that would take a lot more time than
15 having the experts that have already dealt and have all the knowledge on
16 these particular war theatres, it's better to have them also instead
17 Mr. Theunens adopting everything and having to get up to speed in all
18 possible matters.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Are we going to see the same scenario that there
20 will be a report prepared for one case and then a supplementary report
21 for another case before the Tribunal and the use of parts of each of
22 them, is that going to be a feature of this part of the case as well?
23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. That's -- the -- as you
24 can see, some of these experts are currently producing addendums
25 specifically relating to the role of Dr. Karadzic in this, but they would
1 -- these would actually be addendums to previous reports, so we would
2 tender the previous report plus the addendum. But what we could of
3 course do is we could specify whether we would not want to rely on
4 certain topics. For instance, just as an example, Mr. Theunens has, of
5 course, done an extensive military report in the Milosevic case which
6 deals a lot with Croatia
7 comes to the mission of the JNA on how it changed over time, that is of
8 course important for the JCE aspects, but other aspects and details would
9 not be needed. So we could actually identify those sections.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: It is going to be helpful, I think, to the
11 Trial Chamber at the Status Conference if you can really explain to us
12 what is so difficult for your experts in using their electronic versions
13 and taking out the bits that don't relate to this case and compiling a
14 version of the report, using the material they already have, that relates
15 directly to this case. We -- in our discussions and also in our debate
16 with you this afternoon we are all finding it difficult to understand why
17 that cannot be done.
18 You know from your own experience how difficult it is to keep
19 control of the massive number of documents that will be a feature of this
20 case, and it seems almost a scheme designed to complicate the case to
21 have large numbers of reports rather than to try and consolidate the
22 knowledge and information available to the experts into one. So we will
23 undoubtedly again return to that subject at a later stage.
24 Now, moving through your -- yes, I think in relation to the
25 military analysts, as you make a submission in terms of Rule 94 bis, you
1 should also give us copies of the documents that are referred to in the
3 Now, the next category you refer to is Dr. Johan De Koeijer,
4 forensic document expert. Now, does he do something different from
5 handwriting analysis?
6 Mr. Nicholls.
7 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour, thank you. He does,
8 Your Honour, this is I believe again a fairly simple and not very
9 controversial report that he has prepared. It is principally analysing
10 marks on paper. So it's not handwriting, but there is a particular,
11 again, military document from the Zvornik Brigade that he has gone
12 through and is able to forensically show that that document has been
13 altered. That entries on the document were erased, and that above them
14 different entries were written in.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, from the number of reports, et cetera,
16 referred to there, he has done this on more than one occasion. When you
17 come to notify the accused of the report that's being relied upon in this
18 case, will that refer to one report, or will it be again a series of
20 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honour, I believe we are going to be relying
21 on two reports. The one that I'm afraid I don't remember the content of
22 both of them completely. One is a roster showing who was on duty, and
23 where they went that day, again related to Srebrenica, the other I will
24 have to check. But it will be two reports.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Again we'll have that by the 1st of April?
1 MR. NICHOLLS: That should be no problem, Your Honour. And we
2 will disclose this to the Chamber as well then.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Okay. Now, the only other one I think I've not
4 addressed so far on this page is Berko Zecevic.
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: This is actually a ballistic expert, one of
6 the two.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: The other one is Richard Higgs.
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, yes. And the difference between the
9 two is Mr. Zecevic will only deal with the shelling Markale 1, while
10 Mr. Higgs will deal with all other shellings. In addition to the
11 shelling Markale 1, Mr. Zecevic will also deal with air-bombs. These are
12 the two subjects that he will deal with.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: I suppose a related subject might be sniping,
14 number 23.
15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: On the second page.
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, that's the expert who
18 deals with all sniping incidents that we have in that schedule.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: And that's Sarajevo
20 discrete from the other two?
21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, yes. He is actually the only sniping
22 expert. The other two is also Sarajevo
23 JUDGE BONOMY: The picture again should be clear by the
24 1st of April because we should have at least Mr. Zecevic's material.
25 Going over the page, we have two demographers, numbers 13 and 18.
1 And I expressed concern before about the extent of the material here, so
2 what is the subject matter?
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Ms. Tabeau has actually -- is in the process
4 of preparing new reports for the overall Bosnia, for Sarajevo
5 Srebrenica. We will rely on these new reports.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Done for this case?
7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. And in relation to the others, it's
8 just disclosure.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: And it does say that these reports relate to three
10 separate subjects, Sarajevo
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Displaced persons, yes. Internally
12 displaced persons. That's the change in the demographics all over
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, what about Brunborg.
15 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honour, Mr. Brunborg is preparing a report on
16 Srebrenica missing persons and identifications. We are expecting his
17 report for this case. It's -- he did -- it's essentially an update based
18 on new identifications which have been made of missing persons. We are
19 expecting that on the 9th of April, and it will then need to be
20 translated. He is working on that report now.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: The 9th of April may not be unrealistic, but I
22 notice the first date the 1st of May for Ms. Tabeau in a situation which
23 can only be rejigging of information that she's long had. That does not
24 sound a realistic date.
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We have actually discussed the possibilities
1 of producing reports as soon as possible, and that's what she can do.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you have in your mind a date for this trial?
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, we actually thought the trial would
4 start before the summer break. That is what thought.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: And you still think on that basis, the 1st of May,
6 for the production of this sort of material is realistic when much more
7 urgent material and material that's likely to form an earlier part of the
8 case is likely to require concentration at that time. You'll have to
9 produce a great many statements which we'll come to in a moment, the
10 accused has to have time to digest the contents of these and work on
11 them, and here we have material which should be capable of fairly ready
12 presentation that could be dealt with in a more leisurely fashion when he
13 has the time to do it rather than all in a rush at the last minute.
14 So I think we are all agreed in saying to you that it would help
15 to alert expert witnesses to the concern of the Chamber that the
16 reworking of already available material should be done more quickly than
17 some of the time-scales you've given us. Some I expect are absolutely
18 okay. But others we are concerned about.
19 Now, we move to a different area, but there are a number of --
20 well, they are not directly related, but we are into territory which is
21 rather different from the territory we've been looking at so far, and we
22 start with a historian at number 14. There's another one at number 22.
23 Can you assist us with an indication of why we should need historians at
24 this stage in the case?
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Actually, these historians, they deal with
1 very concrete subjects. This is why we have not -- that's why we have
2 two. Mr. Donia deals with two topics, that's the origin of the RS. It's
3 putting historical context to developments in Bosnia. And it's actually
4 starting a long time before the war. So he has really -- is looking at
5 the origins of the RS and the underlying streams.
6 And the other topic he has is the historical context related to
8 with organs, organs of the RS on the republic level, and their actions
9 and development -- the historical context but very actually very close to
10 the outbreak of the war, and during the war. That's the difference
11 between the two.
12 There's definitely perhaps a bit of overlap, but not particularly
14 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Then we have what is described as
15 Crisis Staff analysis by Ms. Hanson.
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, she will actually deal with the organs
17 involved in the crimes on the local level and the context and their
18 development. That's her topic. While, Ms. -- yeah, that's it.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, in relation to these three experts, are we,
20 again, going to find that they have given evidence in earlier cases and
21 that we are going to be expected to make use of the material that was
22 produced for the other cases?
23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Actually, Ms. Hanson is preparing an
24 entirely new report. Mr. Donia is producing a supplemental report which
25 is actually a -- he is pulling all the material that relates to this case
1 from his previous reports into a new report and adds things. That's
2 actually what you yourself would prefer.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: He is actually doing this at the moment.
5 And Mr. Treanor is also preparing three new reports, I think. Two,
6 sorry, two new reports. At the moment maybe Ms. Sutherland can help me,
7 I don't know how much we want to rely also on previous reports or whether
8 he pulls it all together.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Sutherland.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, Mr. Treanor is doing an addendum to
11 the Krajisnik report and also a new report dealing with the Serb
12 leadership and Dr. Karadzic.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. We are almost there, I think.
15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Mr. Thompson is preparing a new report.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: What is the nature of his expertise?
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think he is a sociologist. He is a
18 sociologist. He has already provided a propaganda report in the
19 Krajisnik case, and he actually looks at the messages and themes coming
20 from the Bosnian Serb leadership and what -- how -- how this message
21 would be received by an audience, by the targeted audience. That's his
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Is that an area of expertise that's already been
24 accepted at the Tribunal?
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, I do recall that we had a propaganda
1 expert in the Milosevic case, Slobodan Milosevic case, and we also had a
2 propaganda expert in the Seselj case. And of course in the Krajisnik
3 case, Mr. Thompson himself.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
5 MR. NICHOLLS: Excuse me, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
7 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry to interrupt your thoughts. Before we move
8 on, I see that because Mr. Butler was not cleared before, you don't have
9 the information for him on number 26.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: We'll come to these two before we -- 25 and 26
11 before we finish.
12 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Torkildsen is said to deal with financial
15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Mr. Torkildsen will address matters that
16 relate to the support provided by the SFRY and the FRY to the Bosnian
17 Serb leadership and the army. He has a very concise, small issue to deal
18 with and it relates basically and we need this evidence for the JCE aspects.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you. And that leaves the final
20 two, one who has now been identified, that's number 26. Now,
21 Mr. Nicholls, what do you say -- want to say about Mr. Butler?
22 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honour. Just before we moved on,
23 he is preparing an addendum to his previous Srebrenica reports. He has
24 done a report on the events in Srebrenica in July 1995 and at some period
25 before and after July 1995 regarding the events that are pertinent to
1 that part of the indictment.
2 He has also done reports on the structure of the VRS, the
3 Army Republika Srpska, different levels, the Main Staff, corps and
4 Brigade which we intend to introduce. However, he has not worked for the
5 Tribunal for some time. He works and lives in United States. And we
6 have asked him to prepare and addendum based on new material which has
7 been received, new documents since he was here. And all of his previous
8 reports, I believe, are relevant, and we would rely on them, but I -- the
9 addendum will not be ready by 1 April, and we, I have to say, do not
10 expect that addendum until sometime in May.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: You've indicated 31st of May, and that would
12 undoubtedly concern us.
13 Now, have you an identity yet for the 25th on the list?
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, we do, Your Honour. The problem is
15 still that the outstanding Rule 70 clearance, but we expect it to reach
16 us tomorrow.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: It's a surprising subject to be the subject of
18 Rule 70.
19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That's true, but it's Rule 70 protected
20 witness nevertheless, and but we have actually already agreed with the
21 provider, and we think we received the okay tomorrow.
22 There's one correction I have to make in relation to number 20,
23 Mr. Thompson. The date is wrong, it has to be 31st of April, not May.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, there is one other that did concern us and
25 that is number 23, Mr. van der Wijden, and the 15th of May, that seemed a
1 long way away for what he was reporting on.
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We will check that. I don't know why it is
3 scheduled for the 15th of May. I can't say right now. (redacted)
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honours, if I may just add in relation to
8 Mr. Treanor, I said that he was doing an addendum to the Krajisnik report
9 that deals with 1992, the addendum is in fact covering the period 1993,
10 1994, 1995.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Karadzic, is there anything
12 you want to say on the subject of expert witnesses or to raise with the
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would also like to leave that for
15 a public hearing, and I fully trust your assessment as to the opportunity
16 and the possibility for the Defence to deal with such a huge volume of
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. I'd now like to deal with another
19 aspect that was referred to in your response to our inquiry,
20 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, about disclosure, and you identified another category
21 of witness that was international witnesses, of which you said there
22 would be 60. In replying, though, between dealing with experts and
23 moving on to the international witnesses, you made reference to the
24 disclosure of materials for two witnesses other than experts. Do they
25 fall into this group of 60 international witnesses?
1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour. They are actually
2 specific. These are two -- how shall I put it, they are not really
3 experts both, but they have dealt with medical experts. Actually, the
4 ones that we have listed and just discussed. And they dealt with the
5 exhumation reports, and on the Bosnia
6 actually give evidence on exhumations not related to medical, the medical
7 expertise in it. And the other one is -- is related to Srebrenica, it's
8 Mr. Manning who was actually our investigator who dealt with
9 investigations. In other cases, in fact, those two have testified and
10 have relied and produced expert reports of these experts that we just,
11 the medical experts that we just have discussed, and these medical expert
12 then actually had not been called.
13 So we would actually wish to hear from Mr. Karadzic at some point
14 in time whether he really -- whether we really need to call all these
15 forensic experts, or whether we can deal with their evidence in the
16 context of having Mr. Masovic and Mr. Manning address the mass graves and
17 then introduce these kind of findings through them.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Can we move then to the international witnesses.
19 You initially indicated that for 17 you were subject to Rule 70
20 restriction. Has that changed?
21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we have actually produced also
22 a document for everyone present here similar to the one for the experts,
23 and we can distribute it. It shows the current situation with the
24 international witnesses. Two for you. So you can actually see in this
25 schedule where we stand with these witnesses, and we have also indicated
1 what the topic of their testimony is. And currently we have only three,
2 is it three, three witnesses for which we don't have Rule 70 clearance
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, I missed what you said there about
6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, clearance. According to the current
7 situation, we have only three international witnesses for which we are
8 awaiting clearance. For everyone else we have received the clearance.
9 As you can see, we have 50 -- for 50 experts we have disclosed all
10 materials in English, and for ten witnesses, we still have a few items
11 not disclosed because we are awaiting clearance. You can see two -- when
12 you look at the document, the pages 1 to 7 first item relate to those
13 where we have disclosed the English completely, and the rest, the next
14 page, deals with where we have some outstanding disclosure to do in both
16 JUDGE BONOMY: What percentage of these witnesses have given
17 evidence before on the same topic more or less?
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Quite a significant number have given
19 testimony. Those dealing with hostages, you can see in the topic line
20 where we have hostages, these are witnesses that have not testified yet.
21 They actually relate only to these hostages, and that was never a topic
22 here in the Tribunal. But most of the others have given testimony in
23 actually some cases in particular, the Sarajevo Galic case and
24 Dragomir Milosevic case.
25 THE COURT: Where a pseudonym is referred to, has the issue of
1 protective measures already been dealt with in another case?
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: These are witnesses that have protective
3 measures or for which protective measures will be sought.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Some of them relate to hostages?
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. That's correct. It's actually the --
6 these were previous Rule 70 witnesses and the provider has actually
7 requested that these witnesses will have -- should have pseudonym, so.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, if you intend to rely upon them, then
9 there's no real reason why you should not make fairly early application
10 for protective measures.
11 Thank you for providing that very helpful list. It may give rise
12 to questions in due course, but on the face of it it does provide
13 considerable assistance to the Trial Chamber.
14 The note I was referring to earlier, the e-mail exchange also
15 referred to other witnesses; and you indicated that you had disclosed
16 most material in relation to other witnesses and where you hadn't, then
17 the statements were mostly available. Has the situation changed at all?
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: In relation to the other witnesses, the
19 situation has not changed because we were disclosing the internationals.
20 However, within the -- until the next disclosure report, we think we will
21 have disclosed 80 of these other witnesses, and our intention is actually
22 to disclose all weeks after the filing of the witness list as the latest.
23 The problem is our limited resources. Therefore, we just have to do it
24 step after step.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: You probably know by now you are not going to get
1 a great deal of sympathy, certainly speaking for myself, about applying
2 limited resources to this case. So I think one message you may wish to
3 take back from today's meeting is the intensity with which this case is
4 being prepared and the expectation that the resources necessary to meet
5 the Trial Chamber's expectations will be provided.
6 Now, the -- what do you anticipate being the overall total of the
7 other witnesses?
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: At the moment on our witness list we have
9 490 witnesses, but that includes the experts and the internationals.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but you've -- they account for about 90, and
11 you've told us you've disclosed 80 others, so that's 170, so not far
12 short of 300 short. Are you seriously expecting to lead 460 witnesses?
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour, actually a huge amount of
14 these witnesses we actually intend to produce in written format, 92 bis,
15 and we are currently preparing these motions.
16 And there's also one other issue, at the moment we don't know how
17 many adjudicated facts we will -- will be accepted by the Trial Chamber.
18 So in the moment when we have an adjudicated fact accepted, we can drop
19 the witness standing against this adjudicated fact. These are all on the
20 witness list under the --
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you know of any case in which an adjudicated
22 fact has been admitted into evidence before the trial started?
23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I can't answer that.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: I mean, you'll appreciate the problems of the rule
25 into which we will not go into detail just now and we will have a proper
1 discussion of this in open forum or alternatively in written submissions
2 in relation to your motions; but you must appreciate the Trial Chambers
3 have struggled with adjudicated facts because it's very difficult to know
4 what other evidence might be given in the case that has a bearing on the
5 fact, the adjudicated fact even when admitted is only a presumption which
6 is rebuttable. A Trial Chamber could spend an inordinate amount of time
7 analysing the facts that you've already tendered because there are a
8 number of legal requirements before they are even open for consideration
9 as adjudicated facts, and one has to question the value of the exercise.
10 I appreciate the sentiment behind it, and I would be first in the
11 queue of those asking Trial Chambers to please not revisit issues that
12 have been adjudicated before in cases and in proposing acceptance, it
13 would be a complete and utter waste of time to do otherwise; but it's
14 very difficult within the jurisprudence of this Tribunal to take judicial
15 notice of adjudicated facts, if at all possible, before the trial starts,
16 very difficult.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I know that in the Perisic case,
18 the Trial Chamber took judicial notice of facts relating to Zagreb
20 large number facts over 800 have been accepted at this stage by the
21 Chamber pre trial.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: In Mico Stanisic?
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Facts of what nature? Not that the grass is green
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Background facts, facts relating to the crimes.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Actual crime-based evidence?
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, this is presumably on the basis that the
5 Prosecution will lead no more evidence about it, but the Defence may yet
6 challenge it; is that it?
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm not -- I don't know in relation to
8 Mico Stanisic what --
9 JUDGE BONOMY: 800 facts have been.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Approximately.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Does that apply to the conjoined trial of Stanisic
12 and Zupljanin?
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: I think the decision was December 14th, 2006, so
14 it may have been before Zupljanin was brought into custody. But over a
15 number of different municipalities and dealing with background and armed
16 forces and such and so forth, and the political parties. And in the
17 Perisic case, there was the adjudicated facts for Srebrenica -- sorry, I
18 misspoke, in relation to Sarajevo
19 in relation to Srebrenica because there was agreed facts in relation to
21 JUDGE BONOMY: That's interesting. Thank you. Now, of the 300
22 or just under 300 witnesses whose statements may not have been disclosed,
23 are the statements actually available?
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I would say most of them are available, yes.
25 But there are still a few witnesses where we don't have statements, and
1 actually, one of them is here even listed in this list, I think here we
2 have also one ... Yes, for instance number 56 when you see here, we are
3 in contact with this gentleman, but we don't have a statement yet. And
4 there are a few other -- others where we don't have a statement.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: But I'm referring to the others who are not on any
6 of these lists. The almost 300 that you referred to earlier, what is the
7 position with statements for them?
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We should have these statements, yes. For
9 some of these witnesses, we do not have yet filed the protective measures
10 motion because for some of them we actually do still speak with the
11 witnesses about; and as soon as we've done that, we can disclose them.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: But my question really relates not so much to
13 disclosure but availability of these statements. If we ordered you to
14 disclose statements of all these witnesses in seven days, would you be
15 able to do it?
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: You would simply disclose what you have, but the
18 question is roughly, I mean, are there a lot of them where statements are
19 going to filter through later in the process between a 65 ter notice
20 submission and the actual start of the trial?
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, with respect to crime-based
22 witnesses, no, there is another category of witnesses and that is the
23 insider witnesses and there is still follow-up in relation to those
24 witnesses. But with respect to crime based, those are available and can
25 be disclosed. It's simply a matter of getting that job done. We
1 prioritize the experts and internationals first, and now we are turning
2 to the other witnesses.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Ms. Sutherland.
4 That completes item 5. The Chamber's reviewed the outstanding
5 motions, but has not identified any particular administrative issue that
6 would be appropriate to discuss here. Is there anything you have to
7 raise -- we will come to your question about the pre-trial brief shortly.
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Perhaps the only issue, the -- yesterday, I
9 think, yesterday we got this motion Karadzic extension of time for
10 Rule 70 motion regarding alleged Holbrooke agreement. The Prosecution
11 would not oppose this, I don't know whether you want this in writing
12 filed, otherwise it's perhaps it's enough that we declare it here.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: I think it's enough, that you do so, and we will
14 consider the motion in the light of that. Thank you for that. Are there
15 any administrative issues, Mr. Karadzic, in relation to any of the
16 various motions that are now pending that you wish to raise with us here?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, not much that I would like to
18 point out today. I just wish to reiterate why don't you look at my
19 resources and what resources I have available. I don't have a team, a
20 Defence team set up yet, and I'm wondering how is that going to look once
21 the material starts pouring in. You have a motion concerning equality
22 of arms and resources, and we are waiting to see what you are going to
23 rule regarding that.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. I think following your own lead, this
25 is not the place for a discussion of that nature today in view of the
1 attitude you've taken, which I understand, I'm not at this moment meaning
2 to criticize, and I would rather in view of what you said earlier, have
3 that discussion in open court in the Status Conference insofar as its
4 necessary. But it may be that if we have another meeting of this nature
5 with the experience of today, you may feel more comfortable in engaging
6 more broadly in discussion. I'm simply asking you to reflect on that;
7 I'm not suggesting you have to change your mind just now for one moment.
8 The seventh item on the agenda was to discuss in general terms
9 what plan will be required under Rule 65 ter (D)(ii) if I can explain
10 Mr. Karadzic, the pre-trial judge should establish a plan of work for the
11 preparation of the case leading up to the trial. It would have been
12 pointless trying to do this much before now, because of the delay in
13 dealing with the amendment to the indictment. And there are other
14 obstacles currently in the way of dealing with this too including
15 outstanding business which is subject of attention in the
16 Appeals Chamber, and also the motions that we have to deal with. But we
17 do intend to produce a work-plan and hopefully can do so certainly if not
18 before the Status Conference, immediately after the Status Conference.
19 I need to find my copy before I can -- yeah. Yeah, I think one
20 date I would invite your comment on, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff; we have in mind
21 at the moment ordering full disclosure of statements insofar as that has
22 not been done by the end of April. Would you be uncomfortable with that?
23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The only problem that I see is the B/C/S
24 transcripts. We can disclose whatever we have, the statements and
25 everything, the statements and the transcripts, but if it comes to -- if
1 you would order us to disclose the B/C/S transcripts, we would have -- I
2 don't think we could do that because we have actually calculated and
3 looked at what we would have to -- which figures we would have for the
4 experts, for instance. For the experts, we have 8.000 pages
5 transcriptions of which we have done 25 per cent. For the international
6 witness it's 13.000 pages transcripts, and for the other witnesses we can
7 only say that it's also a considerable amount. And although we have a
8 group of 15 transcribers working, it's something of six to ten months if
9 we would have to do that, and that we could not manage to do until the
10 end of April. Everything else, yes.
11 And I recall that there is a -- there was a mechanism in place in
12 the Seselj case that dealt with transcriptions, and they were actually
13 only to be produced some very short period before the witness actually
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's plainly a matter that will have to be
16 dealt with at the Status Conference. So I think we will probably
17 postpone the production of the work-plan until after the
18 Status Conference, but you can take it that we will also be aiming at a
19 final pre-trial brief and lists, a significant period before any
20 Pre-trial Conference; so we are not talking about the basic six weeks in
21 this case. We'll be working for lists earlier. But you are well on the
22 way, obviously, to providing lists and having had the useful discipline
23 of preparing an interim pre-trial brief, you will be well on the way to
24 produce that also.
25 But we will have some discussion of that at the Status Conference
1 before these dates are fixed.
2 Now, Mr. Karadzic, is there anything you want to say on the
3 subject of a work-plan, and in particular just the two subjects we've
4 mentioned under that heading, that's the dead-line for witness
5 statements, and when a full list of witnesses and exhibits from the
6 Prosecution should be submitted?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you for giving me this
8 opportunity. For the time being, I would just like to say that your
9 decision to draw up the plan after the Status Conference, at the
10 Status Conference which I've had an opportunity to review all the
11 possibilities available to both the Defence and the OTP and see where we
12 are exactly in this whole jungle of material.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. And the final item on this agenda is
14 the matter that the Prosecution asked to be added, which was discussion
15 of the filing of the interim pre-trial brief. Now, you'll remember that
16 at a previous hearing, I ordered this, it's not something that is always
17 done, but it was done with the objective of setting out as clearly as
18 possible at an earlier stage what the Prosecution theory of the case
19 against you is, and what the material is that they will be relying on.
20 And indication has been given that they are finding the dead-line
21 of the 30th of March tight, was it 31st of March, tight. In keeping with
22 your earlier position, this is perhaps something you think ought not to
23 be discussed at this meeting. Is that your position, or are you happy if
24 we hear from the Prosecution the basis on which they seek that additional
25 time? The alternative is to ask them to make an application in writing
1 and we would deal with that.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If this not going to be the subject
3 at the Status Conference, I have no objection to hearing that, but I
4 cannot express my view today. It is customary that once the OTP applies
5 for certain delay for a certain -- for a number of days, the Defence had
6 no objection to that, and I also see that OTP does not generally object
7 to any flexibility extended to the issue of dead-lines. However, this is
8 a more serious issue than some motion, and if this is going to be
9 discussed at the Status Conference, then I can give you my final view.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: The trouble is the Status Conference is after the
11 dead-line, that's why it's being raised today. The dead-line, is it the
12 30th or 31st.
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: 30th.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: 30th of March, and the Status Conference is the
15 2nd of April. But if you do not want it dealt with just now, then we
16 will instruct a written submission.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Will I have a right to reply to
18 that written submission?
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but you would -- if the submission is made
20 tomorrow, you would have until Thursday only to respond, so you would
21 have 24 hours to respond to it.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then in that case, I would kindly
23 ask for the extension of time for my reply. Anyway, it would be better
24 if I had that in writing, and I would do that best to provide a timely
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, we require, you if
2 you want to insist on this application, to make it by written motion; I'm
3 sure you could even secure a late filing today. But the 30th is Monday,
4 so a decision would have to be made on Friday, so the earliest realistic
5 response is end of close of business on Thursday, I am afraid. That
6 would have to be the position, Mr. Karadzic, but we'll deal with that
7 transparently as you require in terms of a written submission and a
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Ms. Sutherland just mentioned whether it
10 would be a possibility to make an oral application now and have
11 Mr. Karadzic deal with it in writing? But we also can make a filing.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: It should be done in writing.
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: There is yet another issue. It's not just
14 the request for one week extension, and we will do that today. The other
15 thing is we actually also would want -- want to file a request extension
16 of the word limit, because for three reasons. We have seen the Krajisnik
17 appeal judgement, and seen in how many details actually the Trial Chamber
18 -- or rather the Appeal Chamber wants these matters, in particular JCE
19 matters be dealt with. We have immediately responded to this, and we
20 have substantially added to these details and are adding these details to
21 our interims pretrial brief. However, that really means that we cannot
22 -- we cannot --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Let me stop you there. That also has to be done
24 in writing.
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Okay. Good.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there any other matter you wish to raise,
2 Mr. Karadzic?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, thank you very much.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff?
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, thank you.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: As we indicated in the previous order, it's not
7 normal for the transcript of the Rule 65 ter meeting to be made public,
8 but we are content, if you wish, to order that this one be public. It's
9 a matter for you. If you wish it to remain in the normal form as a
10 confidential filing, then so it shall remain. If you wish it to be
11 public, then we will order it to be public. What is your preferred
12 course of action?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Every stage of this business I care
14 about the public very much, and in this particular instance, I would like
15 this to be public.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, is there any part of it that
17 would require to be redacted?
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I don't know whether we mentioned any
19 witness now who has actually -- would have protective measures. Could we
20 see it first and then give our position.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: That's a perfectly reasonable request, that the
22 Prosecution see the transcript and direct our attention to any part that
23 perhaps, for sound reasons, ought not to be public; and what I think
24 we'll do is order that you have the -- you are clear about the position
25 by, well, when will the transcript be available, that's the first thing.
1 MS. ALVAREZ: Tomorrow morning.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: So by Friday of this week so that it's available
3 for the Status Conference. You look as though you wish to say something
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that only Mr. Butler's
6 name has been mentioned, if the protective measures are going to be
7 applied to him, otherwise I didn't notice any other names.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: You are probably right, but experience tells us
9 that it does no harm to check; and for the sake of two or three days, I
10 think caution is the appropriate course.
11 I think I speak for the Trial Chamber in expressing our gratitude
12 to the parties for their assistance they have given. I hope that
13 you've detected a flavour of the way in which we would like the pre-trial
14 work to proceed and the cooperation we hope that parties can give each
15 other to try to minimize the pointless examination of material that
16 really is not in issue for the purposes of what is a serious trial on
17 clearly identifiable and identified issues.
18 So I make these remarks obviously subject to any clarification
19 that eventually merges from the indictment, but we all know that this is
20 at least one case before the Tribunal where there are four discrete
21 subject areas and albeit they raise in some instances complex, legal
22 issues, the subject matter is clear; and I hope the parties see that
23 there would be considerable benefit for everybody in ensuring as clear a
24 presentation of this case as possible and to that extent -- for that
25 purpose, cooperation among the parties is really essential.
1 So thank you and we will see all of you again on the 2nd of April
2 when again we shall sit as three judges so that any decisions that need
3 to be made can be made expeditiously.
4 --- Whereupon the Rule 65 ter Conference
5 adjourned at 4.54 p.m.