1 Thursday, 23 July 2009
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 10.01 a.m.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honour. This is case number
7 IT-95-5/18-PT, the Prosecutor versus Radovan Karadzic.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you and good morning to everyone.
9 Mr. Karadzic, you appear again on your own. Can you confirm to
10 me, please, that you're hearing translation into your own language.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Lordship.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Can I have appearances, please for the
14 MR. TIEGER: Good morning, Your Honour. Alan Tieger,
15 Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff and Iain Reid for the Prosecution.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. I issued a fairly brief agenda
17 indicating the things that parties might at least prepare to deal with.
18 There may be other matters that will be raised once we've gone through
19 this. So I'll start at the beginning, and the first item relates really
20 to -- well, it may be that it's the Prosecution that can elaborate on
21 this for me.
22 The Chamber was invited to reconsider its decision about how
23 contact might be made by Mr. Karadzic and those working for him with
24 Prosecution witnesses and agreed to reconsider in light of the fact that
25 the parties themselves were more or less agreed on what was the
1 appropriate course to follow. So can I be updated, please, on what has
2 happened since that decision of the 15th of July.
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the procedures between the
4 associates, the Prosecution, and the victim witness section have been
5 established. There are liaison persons on all sides. The Prosecution
6 has received a list of 85 through the witness victim section, 85 priority
7 witnesses. For 70 of them the contact details were provided immediately.
8 To our knowledge the victim witness unit is contacting people in relation
9 to 15 witnesses, some details on the contacts had to be clarified.
10 Several RFAs were filed. So it's actually progressing.
11 In relation to the witness list for the 92 bis witnesses, I'm
12 also aware that the Defence has sent such a list to the victim witness
13 section and we are providing the contact details on a rolling basis.
14 It's actually working.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, can I just firm up some of the detail. The
16 70, I think you mentioned that were -- sorry, 85, was it?
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: 85 is the list of priority witnesses, mostly
18 insiders actually.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Laying aside the ones that had to be clarified,
20 have you a date for the transmission of the contact details to the
21 victims and witnesses section? Can you tell me when that happened?
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think it was actually on the same day or
23 the next day, but I'm not actually sure now.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: So are we talking about roughly a week ago that
25 this has actual -- was actually happening or was it at the beginning of
1 the week or -- of this week or what?
2 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I would not know that. I only know that it
3 was done immediately on the same day, actually, when we received the list
4 actions were taken.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Okay. And in relation to 92 bis witnesses, and
6 you talk about the details being provided on a rolling basis, has the
7 roll started to move?
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's starting actually today, yes, because
9 the witness unit is actually dealing at the moment with this other 70,
10 and -- yeah. There was -- the list had actually be changed because of
11 the withdrawals, and this -- so a new list had to be prepared. We
12 assisted the associate in doing this and it was then done.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
14 Mr. Karadzic, is there anything you wish to say on this subject?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just that we are ready the moment
16 we receive the necessary consent and all the details to get in touch with
17 witnesses so that either I can interview them here or my associates in
19 shall be no delay on our part. We will be ready. We have a lot of
20 associates who are working pro bono for the time being, but we hope to
21 settle that as well.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. While on the subject of witnesses, I
23 want to look at a number of matters associated with protective measures.
24 We are, as I think I indicated at the last Status Conference, in the
25 course of preparing a chart that records the Trial Chamber's
1 understanding of the protective measures which are actually in force from
2 whatever source and apply at present in this case. We think it's helpful
3 to resolve these issues before the trial starts. We acknowledge that
4 because there are so many and the whole issue is so complex there may yet
5 be inaccuracies in the chart, but if there are, I suspect they are very
6 few and very minor. However, the parties have an opportunity very
7 shortly to look at this chart and to make comments, and there will be an
8 order probably issued today which will give a dead-line for responding to
10 The -- yes. The likely date will be the 7th of August, so that
11 would be two weeks from now, but it's simply a question of checking this
12 against your own records. And while you may decide no comment is
13 necessary because it's completely accurate, it would be helpful to be
14 told that you had checked it and that you had found it so rather than
15 just leave us to await the expiry of the 14 days before taking any
16 further action, because we then propose making an order just containing
17 the final version, which of course will have to be altered and updated as
18 any other decisions are made not only in relation to applications that
19 the Prosecution might make for other reasons as the trial goes on but
20 also updated to reflect any application Mr. Karadzic may make for
21 protective measures for any witnesses he intends to lead and also to
22 reflect any modifications that are made, because I anticipate that he
23 will make applications to vacate or modify the measures for certain
24 witnesses. So it will be updated on a regular basis, but at least we
25 will not constantly have to go back and recheck the foundation for each
1 one if we're all agreed now on the terms of the chart.
2 At the last meeting, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, you gave an indication
3 that a certain number -- it was a limited number of witnesses had
4 indicated they longer requested the protective measures which had been
5 granted. I think there may have been only three, from memory, but there
6 were some.
7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, no application has been made to vacate any of
9 the protective measures that might have applied to such witnesses. Are
10 you intending to make such submissions?
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. I thought we did, but it
12 may have escaped my attention.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Nothing has been done so far, so it would be
14 helpful if that could be done forthwith, because it's again an
15 administrative matter that we ought to be able to resolve now.
16 Now, Mr. Karadzic, there has been an exchange of filings about
17 the protective measures for witnesses who have subsequently died. There
18 were two in particular, and you eventually withdrew your request to vary
19 these measures in light of the information given by the Prosecution, and
20 all of that will be reflected in the order which will accompany the
22 One of the other things you asked was that the Prosecution should
23 do the same exercise for any other witness who has since died, but you've
24 now been advised that there are no other witnesses who fall into that
25 category and therefore that seems to be an unnecessary request now. The
1 request was perfectly legitimate, but now that the position has been
2 clarified there will be no need for any action to be taken on it.
3 Now, of before I move off the issue of -- the broad issue of
4 witnesses and protective measures, is there anything else you wish to say
5 on that subject? I shall come later to the question of expert witnesses,
6 so lay them aside, but in relation to witnesses in general and protective
7 measures, do you wish to say anything further?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Lordship, and I hope I
9 shall never fail to file certain motions concerning protective measures,
10 because the Defence has a position against them. It's a principled
11 position, because we want this trial to be as transparent as possible,
12 and we hope that it will be so and that my rights will be protected in
13 the courtroom. And except for the victims, in relation to whose
14 protective measures I shall not take a stand, nobody else is entitled to
15 have protective measures, because I don't think that any harm came to
16 anybody who was involved in these trials, especially not Serbs, and I
17 have -- and I see no reasons, either be it for the representatives of the
18 international organisations or for insiders to have any sort of
19 protective measures. I hope that this trial can be a model for future
20 trials and that things need to be done properly, and for such broad
21 protective measures to be in existence, that really casts a shadow over
22 these proceedings.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you know from the last Status Conference
24 that the Trial Chamber is conscious of this as an issue. How to resolve
25 it is a matter which will be determined on a case-by-case basis as we
2 It's impossible to give effect to your general motion to vacate
3 protective measures, but in the order I've referred to earlier,
4 accompanying the chart, it is made clear that it's necessary to identify
5 the witnesses that are not victims that you seek to have a change made in
6 the protective measures for. So that's an exercise that you will have to
7 undertake. You may need assistance from the Prosecution to identify
8 exactly which ones are victims, but by now you've probably got enough
9 information to do that. I know it's a time-consuming exercise, but as a
10 result of that you'll be able to make individual applications for
11 alteration to the protective measures which I'm sure you appreciate you
12 have to justify. You know what the rules say about this. Where they've
13 been granted in the past, then you would need to demonstrate a reason why
14 they're not necessary now if the witness does not consent to them being
16 On a number of occasions at these Status Conferences you've made
17 the sort of comment you've made already. I'm not criticising you for
18 that, but we understand your general position about the situation being
19 different from what it was years ago and that in your view there is no
20 need for these measures, but any application you make will have to be
21 more specific to the individuals involved. I'm sure you realise that.
22 I turn now to a different subject, which is the impact of a
23 recent decision made on judicial notice of adjudicated facts.
24 When the first decision on judicial notice was made, the
25 Prosecution intimated the withdrawal of certain witnesses. There's been
1 no reaction as yet to the second decision. Can you indicate,
2 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, what's likely to happen?
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we will file a similar motion,
4 and we either do it today or tomorrow, and we will ask for the withdrawal
5 of ten and -- at least ten but probably more. The discussion has not
6 completed -- be completed yesterday, otherwise we would have done that
7 yesterday. But at least ten, most likely more, will also be withdrawn.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Are any of them experts?
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: To my knowledge, no.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: A significant body of the expert evidence relates
11 to the identification of victims at -- of the events at Srebrenica. You
12 don't envisage that the decisions that were made in relation to judicial
13 notice will affect the evidence you intend to present to identify the
14 victims or at least the number of victims?
15 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I understand the Court's point, and all
16 we can do at this stage -- first of all, I reiterate what
17 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff said. All we can do at this stage is to double-check
18 to ensure that that specific issue was distinctly considered in the
19 evaluation of whether or not witnesses could be placed on the reserve
20 list, and if it -- if it turns out that, in fact, the adjudicated facts
21 did not obviate, at least temporarily, the need to have those witnesses
22 considered, then that's simply the case. But if it turns out that for
23 some reason the evaluation was focussed on the witnesses themselves and
24 not the experts, then the concerns the Court raises may -- may turn out
25 to result in the reduction of some experts. We'll just have to check
1 that, and I can't say at this moment whether -- I can't confirm at this
2 moment that those experts were weighed against the adjudicated facts.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Tieger.
4 Well, it follows from that, Mr. Karadzic, that the possibility of
5 all the expert witnesses proposed actually giving evidence is a live
6 issue, and you have had ongoing discussions with the Office of Legal
7 Affairs and Defence here about the allocation of resources for the expert
8 witnesses that you propose, and you're miles apart on that issue.
9 Now, I would like to know, first of all, your view of the
10 situation as it now is.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I?
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Please.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you see, Your Lordship,
14 26 expert witnesses of the OTP were not seen in any other cases, and this
15 is yet another reason why this case is so voluminous. The witnesses --
16 expert witnesses of the OTP had huge resources, time and resource
17 allocation --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Let me interrupt you there. These witnesses have
19 mostly, if not all, given evidence in other cases.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But not all in the same case as in
21 my case.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I understand that, but they're -- yes.
23 Well, continue with what you have to say.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Therefore, they had huge resources
25 and opportunities to write their findings. Once again, I wish to
1 emphasise the rule on equality of arms and resources, and I simply cannot
2 allow for this issue to be neglected, nor can these experts allow
3 themselves to be less than professional and provide insufficient
5 What is important here, especially when it comes to the problem
6 that you raised, the identification of victims, my experts are all
7 professionals with reputation, university professors with long-standing
8 experience, and they simply cannot allow themselves to make their
9 findings on the basis of just some paperwork. They need to be supplied
10 with additional material, forensic material and so on based on which the
11 expert findings were written. To comment on these findings without that
12 could only amount to whether the findings were done in a proper way or
13 not. But to actually ascertain whether or not they're accurate, they
14 need to do much more work.
15 So I plead with you to make sure that this is done properly, as
16 the Defence is assuring you that most of the surprises in this trial will
17 come on the issue of identification of victims and so on. They think
18 that they have made some concessions due to the volume of this case, but
19 what is at stake here are the rules, and the rules here are wrong.
20 The Prosecution, in this case and in this institution, can do
21 what it wants, whereas my resources are limited, and it is impossible to
22 strike a balance, and it is impossible for me to reply to these findings.
23 This is the one of the most important aspects to establish the truth. I
24 cannot go as far as to say that the Judges in this institution made
25 erroneous mistakes, political decisions and so on, because the truth was
1 not established. We ask that the objective truth be established, and we
2 will show the entire situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina on very firm
3 grounds, and it is only after that that we can discuss and conclude
4 whether this Court is a political institution or not, but prior to that
5 we need to ensure all of these conditions.
6 The number of hours is a problem. There's nothing we can do in
7 the limited number of hours at our disposal.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: You have, of course, to bear in mind that experts
9 that you intend to instruct have also been involved in previous cases.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not all of them, Your Lordship.
11 Besides, I'm not sure that they had an opportunity to see all the
12 material, because some of the material had never been disclosed. What
13 they had were Prosecution experts' reports, and that is not enough. All
14 they can conclude based on that is whether the reports are well written
15 or not. They can't conclude whether they are correct or not.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: But if you take as an example Professor Dunjic,
17 he's given evidence on a number of occasions here, but in particular he's
18 given evidence in relation to Srebrenica, and he sat through all the
19 experts in the Popovic trial. Now, it can hardly be said he's coming to
20 this task with a blank sheet. He comes with -- with a great deal of
21 information, and he must know already where to look for the areas in
22 which there might be a genuine dispute.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't believe that Professor
24 Dunjic was satisfied in the previous cases with what he had been supplied
25 with by the OTP. However, this applies even more to Professor
1 Oliver Stojkovic who did not have any analysis of the documents referring
2 to the material at his disposal, and he could not conclude anything. If
3 you only look at how much resources did the 26 OTP expert witnesses have
4 at their disposal, you can grasp the extent of this disproportion.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I am surprised to hear you mention that. My
6 understanding was that the Prosecution experts were paid less than the
7 Defence experts for the work that they did. You seem to have a different
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What I am talking about is the
10 number of hours. I believe that their number of hours was virtually
11 limitless, and you can count those in months rather than in hours.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: But you have to bear in mind that they were
13 working at the grave sites, handling the remains of thousands of people,
14 doing a quite different job from an analytical exercise in the current
15 circumstances of the work that others had to do in dreadful
17 We have to bear -- you know, bring some sense of proportion to
18 this. And I recognise that you're going to have to have a greater
19 allocation of hours for experts in this field of pathology and forensic
20 science than possibly in any other case that has been here, but we still
21 have to bring a sense of proportion to bear on the issue. And it is
22 difficult for me to get a proper understanding of what is genuinely
23 necessary when very broad assertions are made about all that needs to be
24 done to check work, which in the first instance was done by professionals
25 of standing themselves and isn't just a work that has been cobbled
1 together in an unprofessional way.
2 Now, your experts are obviously entitled to comment on the
3 methodology of others. They're entitled to look at examples of what they
4 did, and perhaps by pointing to a number of examples may build a case
5 that undermines the expert, but it doesn't on the face of it seem
6 realistic to say that every post-mortem report ought to somehow or other
7 be analysed in the course of this yet again by an expert for the Defence.
8 So what I'm trying to identify or invite you to consider
9 identifying is what's realistic rather than asserting a right which is
10 unrealistic to examine the detail of every document.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Lordship, Professor Dunjic was
12 never provided with the reports of individual post-mortems. Professor
13 Stojkovic never received materials from the ICMP, and now I would like to
14 be less general and more specific.
15 This is the last ever opportunity for us to clarify what happened
16 in Bosnia
17 talking about the differences that can be numbered in the thousands of
18 victims, thousands, not tens. Creating a myth on erroneous facts about
19 Srebrenica can cost Europe
20 number of erroneous facts that they can turn the anger of the general
21 public against Europe
22 one expert was wrong about one case. We want to be absolutely sure who
23 was victim there and how many there were. If we miss that opportunity
24 now, Europe
25 This is not a matter of principle. That is matter of us trying
1 to establish the fact, and if we do that, I don't even care what the
2 Trial Chamber's decision will be about me. I just want to find the truth
3 and we can't do that based on examples and a sample. And this is the
4 least sacrifice that this court can do to allow my experts to see every
5 single piece of material, all the DNA
6 and then we will end up with the true list, the correct list of victims
7 which will differ by thousands in respect of what is believed at the
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's look at from the other side. We're talking
10 about events 14 years ago. Presumably you've been gathering material
11 provided by experts who have looked at this from the opposite point of
12 view, to try to establish that what is presented to the public is a myth.
13 Now, have you not already got that material together, your experts
14 identified who can present the argument that the genocide, the alleged
15 genocide did not occur and that it is all misrepresentation?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Until I arrived here, I did not
17 collect anything, because I had struck a deal with the international
18 community that I would not be indicted and brought to trial. And on the
19 other hand, my experts cannot rely on newspaper information. They need
20 to have the same material that the OTP experts were privy to in order to
21 be able to see whether the facts were established correctly and whether
22 the conclusions were established correctly. That's why my experts have
23 to focus on the same body of material that their counterparts had. This
24 is the only way. They must be able to see everything that the OTP
25 experts saw and then they will be able to confront them with their expert
1 views. Anything else would be incorrect vis-a-vis history,
2 reconciliation, the peoples involved, victims, and the international
4 All sorts of things are happening there. The graves are being
5 dug out. Bodies are being moved to Srebrenica in order to prove a point.
6 This is our last opportunity to establish the truth, and in that,
7 Srebrenica is a very significant point in case.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Let me clarify with the Prosecution just the state
9 of play so far as provision of material is concerned.
10 Who is dealing with this issue? Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, Dr. Karadzic
11 is indicating that there maybe material sought which has not been
12 provided. Can you help me on what exchanges have taken place about this?
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, there were quite some exchanges
14 about the materials that are actually not in custody of the Prosecution
15 which are actually with the experts or, rather, with the organisation
16 they work with, and we have actually proposed to have a meeting with the
17 associates to clarify a few things in relation to that. The Prosecution
18 cannot -- as this institution, this external organisation, is
19 independent, we cannot order them to do certain things. We can only
20 facilitate contacts. It's about the provision of 300 -- as far as I
21 understand it, 300 probes. It's about 300 probes that the Defence
22 experts want to do, and there seems to be -- this seems to be quite --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: What do you mean --
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Probing DNA
25 the real DNA
1 methodology of the Prosecution experts is correct, and there seems to be
2 a real -- first a matter of confidentiality of this information, which is
3 the position of that external institution, and the other issue is that it
4 would be very time-consuming, but that's something that we, as the
5 Prosecution, have no real input in. It's the between the Defence and
6 these external experts. But we try to facilitate it, and we have
7 proposed a meeting.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: But there must be some substance in the suggestion
9 that the Defence should be able to run some tests similar to those done
10 by the organisation you refer to with a view to checking the accuracy of
11 what was actually done by them.
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That's correct, Your Honour. We actually
13 have the same view, but it's a question of how many and -- but that's not
14 for us to judge. It's a rather a matter of the expert. How many probes
15 would you make to -- to -- would you have to do to establish that
16 methodology is correct? So whether it should be 300, I don't know. We
17 can't say that. It sounds to me quite a lot.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but you also sounded earlier as though you
19 were lying down to the idea that there's an issue of confidentiality here
20 and that you weren't perhaps asserting as a Prosecutor that in fairness
21 there is a point at which confidentiality has to be interfered with. I
22 mean, we're not talking about confidentiality in the sense of, I think,
23 affecting people -- people's current daily lives. We're talking about a
24 different type of confidentiality.
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's not a matter that -- that
1 Prosecution raises. It's actually a matter that the organisation
2 raises --
3 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that, but --
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: -- and we cannot actually -- we have -- we
5 cannot order them.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Why can't you influence them, persuade them? I --
7 it sounded to me as though you were accepting that that's their position
8 and we just have to accept it; whereas you're the person in control of
9 the -- the presentation of a case, and you know that if the Defence do
10 not have a fair chance of challenging that case that the evidence might
11 be excluded, and you've got quite a strong hand in explaining to one of
12 your providers or -- evidence providers or indeed a witness that certain
13 things have to be conceded in the interests of a fair trial.
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we actually did that. We had
15 conversations, and we actually did that, and it's not that this
16 organisation doesn't want to do it but they want -- they need to go back
17 to the victims' families from where the DNA was taken, because it was
18 taken under the premise that it would not be provided elsewhere. So they
19 have to go back. That's at least their understanding of their duties.
20 They have to go back to these providers of the DNA and confirm with them
21 that it can be provided to Dr. Karadzic, and that's -- that's the issue,
22 and if it is 300 probes, then it is quite a lot of work for them.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: I find it difficult to understand that a person
24 might consent to have material given to a Prosecutor and not realise that
25 the inevitable result of that must be that the Defence would have a
1 pretty strong claim at least for access to it. It seems a strange
2 situation if they've already consented to you having it.
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: But I can only comment to you what the
4 discussion was and that they need -- need to go back to the people
5 providing the DNA
6 JUDGE BONOMY: I hope you've checked the terms of the consent
7 that was originally given and are satisfied that this is absolutely
8 necessary, because it's clearly yet another thing that may well cause a
9 delay here. So this requires urgent attention.
10 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, is that the only area of
12 discussion about the provision of additional material?
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. That's -- the DNA is the
14 centre of the entire discussion.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Just remind me of the main point behind the use of
17 example, of identified victims and we're working largely on numbers
18 rather than individual identities.
19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That's --
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Does it have a big impact on the case?
21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: To our knowledge actually not, Your Honour,
22 because -- that's why we also were very surprised why it was focusing on
23 the DNA
24 to -- to us it was actually no doubt that the people in the mass graves
25 were actually the men and boys from Srebrenica. Therefore, we were
1 actually rather surprised that the DNA suddenly became such an important
2 point for Mr. Karadzic. That's why we actually thought the witnesses --
3 these expert witnesses were 92 bis witnesses; they wouldn't even have to
4 come, because -- I don't know. I see now to see that the position of
5 Mr. Karadzic is that the people in the mass graves are actually not the
6 boys and men from Srebrenica. I seem to understand that this is what the
7 Defence line would be, but that's -- that's new to me. I didn't actually
8 inspect that.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: When do you anticipate the meeting that you
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We have proposed it already last week, and
12 there was something holding it up. We have, therefore, not have made a
13 concrete appointment.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you saying the difficulty lies with the
15 provider or with the associates of Mr. Karadzic?
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We -- yeah. I would say the latter. I
17 mean, we have conversations -- rather, e-mail communication with the
18 associates about this meeting, but it never materialised to a particular
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
21 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It would actually already be helpful if the
22 associate would meet with us. There is not necessarily to have to be the
23 organisation there as well.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Karadzic, what do you have to say in response
25 to that?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With all due respect for
2 Mrs. Retzlaff, I can't agree that the Defence is a third party. The
3 Defence is the second inevitable party to these proceedings.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: The third party she's referring to is the ICMP and
5 not the Defence. She's saying that the -- they may need not to be
6 present when they first have a meeting, that that meeting should be with
7 one of your associates.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no. I believe that this
9 referred to the fact that they were DNA material providers, and they were
10 not prepared to disclose that to a third party, and the third party in
11 this case was Defence.
12 I can't understand another thing. The OTP gave those
13 institutions the task to carry out a job, and the owner of the material
14 is the OTP, not the institutions. I can't accept when I hear that the
15 OTP cannot have the material given back to them, and I really can't
16 understand how come the OTP offers only 300 samples to us. We want the
17 entire material, and we will take a random sample and choose 300, and if
18 there are major discrepancies among the 300, then we will broaden the
19 sample and continue the procedure.
20 Furthermore, I have an objection to the terms as used for boys
21 and men. I believe that this has to be clarified in writing. We have to
22 define what the term "boys" implies. We do not believe that a conclusion
23 can be made on a number. I believe that in criminal matters a body has
24 to be present. Here in several cases against the Albanians it was
25 concluded that without a body murder charges cannot be proven.
1 We have to establish the truth. When somebody died, whether they
2 died in 1992, 1993, or 1995; whether they were killed in combat or
3 whether they were killed as a result of executions. I believe that for
4 thousands of them we can assume that people's hands were tied, and based
5 on that we can assume that those people were executed, but this is a
6 generalisation which cannot be used to establish the guilt of an entire
7 people, not only one person. I'm talking about this approach. It is
8 hard to believe that they cannot disclose materials to us, that they
9 cannot obtain the materials from the company from which they commissioned
11 We are trying not to intervene through the Chamber, but in any
12 case, we can certainly not give up on our desire to establish the truth.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: First thing, though, seems to be a meeting which
14 attempts have been made to arrange and for some reason has not taken
15 place. Now, can you help me on that?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There were some meetings. I know
17 that there were some meetings. In the last month we received over
18 105.000 pages. We're grateful for that and we're working on that, but
19 that is not the entire material that we need. Very significant portions
20 are missing.
21 Unfortunately, if there are claims about primary, secondary, and
22 tertiary graves, then one DNA
23 figures mean nothing. We need to know the clear identity. My associates
24 will be available for the meeting, but the purpose of the meeting should
25 not be to avoid disclosing the material, and in that sense, I cannot
1 authorise my associates to accept such a meeting the purpose of which is
2 to ensure that we will not receive the material. The condition for the
3 meeting must be disclosure, full disclosure, and we shall abide by all
4 the rules concerning the protection of data and so on.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: It's a bit simpler than that, Mr. Karadzic. If
6 they don't cooperate in a reasonable way on your instructions with a view
7 to securing their objective, then the Court will have no sympathy for the
8 position you take. A meeting is being suggested. There are no
9 preconditions, as I understand it, although there may be a point of view
10 to be presented by the Prosecution and by the ICMP, but there's little
11 going to be achieved by taking firm positions before a meeting and then
12 allowing them to interfere with the meeting taking place at all.
13 Now, I'd like to understand, if you are willing to assist me,
14 where this line takes you in your defence. Is it purely a question of
15 numbers, that the argument based on DNA will be that the numbers have
16 been grossly exaggerated? Or is it some other number that were --
17 contained in the reports, allegations that -- or findings that people
18 were victims from Srebrenica that are inaccurate?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Everything in relation to
20 Srebrenica that has been presented so far is erroneous. There are people
21 coming up now, living people whose names are on the tombstones. In the
22 first elections, there were people who voted who had been listed as
23 missing and killed. There were people who fell victims in combat
24 throughout the entire period, and people who died in 1992 on 1993 were
25 later on portrayed as victims of massacre in Srebrenica. So everything
1 is contentious and everything needs to be established fact by fact.
2 There were huge combats in forests after the fall or liberation
3 of Srebrenica. These victims cannot be treated as victims of the
4 massacre. The civilian authorities in Srebrenica accepted the surrender,
5 and the military elements continued fierce fighting in order to break
6 through the Serbian lines and Serbian territories. So we do not have a
7 clear picture, and we may not allow for this to remain this way, because
8 so far we have not established the truth.
9 In addition to that, there are many people living abroad who were
10 listed as missing. So all of that needs to be established.
11 As for the sample that my experts will make from the entire DNA
12 material, the sample of 300 random sample materials, that will clearly
13 show what the situation is. This is of huge importance both for Serbian
14 and for the Muslim nation and for Europe
15 My associates are here -- or, rather they're here three days a month.
16 Only one of my associates is permanently in The Hague and the rest of
17 them live in other areas, and they're authorised to come here only three
18 days a month.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: But please try to assist me on the point I'm
20 trying to clarify. How does dip sampling the DNA tests help you to
21 establish that people died in fighting or combat or that their -- people
22 are living abroad who have been listed -- how does dip sampling DNA deal
23 with any of that?
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You see, Your Lordship, we are
25 convinced that there is a multifold exaggeration here. We wish to
1 establish exactly who perished and whose DNA was provided in order to be
2 able to say that, yes, this number of victims is beyond contention.
3 My experts know what they're doing. They saw summary reports
4 that mean nothing. All they can conclude is whether their grammar was
5 correct when writing those findings, but the truth cannot be established
6 that way. Our associates replied to the Prosecution, and they said that
7 they needed that material so that our expert Stojkovic could do his work.
8 Following that, the meetings would be more useful.
9 Such a number of victims is bandied about, and the material
10 provided is of a summary nature, and we believe that we cannot establish
11 the truth unless we're provided the entire material.
12 I have mentioned primary, secondary, and tertiary graves. One
14 we need to verify everything. We need to let that run through the
15 computer, through software, in order to establish what this is all about,
16 and you will see what the truth about Srebrenica will look like following
17 this trial.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: I must say I don't really understand very much of
19 this. You've just made an allegation that one DNA could have been
20 portrayed three times representing three people. What do you mean by
21 that? Are you saying that people are falsifying DNA results, the
22 professionals that did it in the first place? Or is this just a hopeful
23 assertion that you're making? I mean, what basis have you for this sort
24 indication, and what exactly does it mean?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Lordship, this is just a
1 possibility. It's a possibility that nobody can exclude at this point.
2 I'm not going as far as to say that somebody is doing this on purpose,
3 knowingly. We wish to examine this methodology and we wish to follow the
4 same method, the same path that was used by the experts of the
5 Prosecution, and only then we'll be able to say this is why it's wrong or
6 this is why it's accurate. At this point this is a possibility and
7 nobody can exclude it now.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: What can be said is that there's a willingness on
9 the part of the Prosecution to facilitate your request, and that can only
10 be fulfilled if your associate is instructed forthwith to arrange first
11 of all to meet with the Prosecution and, if necessary, to meet with them
12 and the ICMP. So I expect urgent attention to be given to that
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, Mr. Tieger just alerted me to
15 the last e-mail that we actually got from Mr. Sladojevic where he
16 addresses the reason why he couldn't have the meeting, and what he
17 actually says in this e-mail from the 21st of July, he says, "We will get
18 back to you as soon as OLAD has made a decision in relation to expert
19 hours to be authorised." This is his reason, claim, in the e-mail why he
20 hasn't met yet. So just to say that.
21 And one other point I would like to also clarify. The ICMP did
22 also not provide the DNA
23 give it to us and not to others. That was a misunderstanding.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Karadzic, I understand the point that
25 Sladojevic may have been making in that e-mail, but it's a misconception
1 that the meeting which has been proposed should not take place pending
2 the determination of the allocation of hours. They are two separate
4 I appreciate the work might not be capable of being done in the
5 way that you particularly want it done unless the appropriate allocation
6 is made, but that's no reason for holding up the negotiations to get the
7 material. So please instruct him that that meeting should take place
8 forthwith. Meanwhile, you know that I am going to take certain steps in
9 relation to the allocation of hours, and these will be to express for
10 OLAD my understanding of the situation that's emerged from this
11 discussion this morning, and in light of that, I am certain that there
12 will be some change to the allocation, but it's for them to decide what
13 the allocation is in the light of all the information that's provided to
15 In principle, it seems to me that an exercise that dip samples
16 the DNA
17 Prosecution are going to make use is a reasonable investigation for the
18 Defence to carry out, and the assessment must mainly concentrate on the
19 extent of that exercise.
20 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may, Your Lordship. I wish to
22 clarify something concerning the meetings. Namely, this is not an issue
23 of principle; this is a practical issue. Mr. Sladojevic has no business
24 in that meeting until he receives a report from Stojkovic as to what is
25 missing. And in order for Stojkovic to send a report on what is missing
1 he must receive the hours allocated to him for that purpose. So it's a
2 matter of substance, not a matter of us doing this to spite somebody.
3 It is in everybody's interest to do it as soon as possible, but
4 as soon as we have everything that we need for Stojkovic to say, "This is
5 what I'm missing," then Mr. Sladojevic can say in the meeting, "This is
6 what we're missing." There is no purpose in meeting unless some result
7 is going to be achieved.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Has Stojkovic not already had an allocation of
9 hours made to him?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that it has been just
11 resolved, but he needs time to review that and to inform Sladojevic about
12 what is missing.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: You see, your position now is different from what
14 I understood it a little time ago. Earlier you said -- or at least
15 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff said, and you confirmed, that you were seeking
16 300 examples. You would prefer to have the whole of the material, and
17 you would make the selection of the 300. But on either view, it was a
18 question of 300 samples.
19 Now, are you telling me that that's not what you want, that it's
20 not yet clear what you want? Because that's what you seem now to be
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no. Mr. Stojkovic has his
23 first task to review everything that has been disclosed and to say, "This
24 is what is missing." And it is then that Mr. Sladojevic will be able to
25 say, "This is what we're still lacking, will you please disclose that to
1 us." Once Mr. Stojkovic receives the entire material, then we will ask
2 for the entire DNA
3 material, the results. And out of all the available DNA, my team -- or,
4 rather, Mr. Stojkovic and Mr. Dunjic, will make a random sample of 300,
5 which is less than 10 per cent of the -- well, I don't know. Two and a
6 half thousand have been identified, and we hear numbers such as 8.000,
7 10.000 bandied about. Next year I'm sure it will be 15.000.
8 So they will make a 10 per cent random sample, and my team needs
9 to select this sample, not the team of the Prosecution. And if in that
10 sample there is no distortion, no deviation, then they will make one
11 conclusion; and if there is significant statistical deviation, then they
12 will ask for the entire material to be supplied in order to establish the
14 JUDGE BONOMY: That's how I understood your position to be and it
15 doesn't seem to me that Mr. Stojkovic needs to do anything for you to
16 have a meeting with the Prosecution, so I reiterate what I said earlier,
17 that I expect that meeting to make place forthwith.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I suppose that we will need one
19 week longer than the dead-line in August in order to provide the reply,
20 because not everything has been disclosed to us. The disclosure is not
21 complete. It's quite chaotic. And I do not want to blame the
22 Prosecution for that, but most likely those who work for them are faulty.
23 It is very difficult to classify that material. The material is quite
24 chaotic. Hundred and five thousand pages. We would need I don't know
25 how many days to go over that material.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Does that mean you intend to submit another
2 response to the motion for admission of the expert witness evidence under
3 Rule 92 bis?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, after we review everything,
5 but our dead-line is sometime in August, I think, and I think we will be
6 one week short in order to provide a complete answer. Our dead-line is
7 in August to reply concerning that issue.
8 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
9 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm regarding that, Mr. Tieger, as an application
10 to extend the dead-line for the response to the Prosecution motion for
11 admission of the evidence of eight experts by seven days, to the
12 20th of August. It presently is the 13th of August. Do you have
13 anything to say on that?
14 MR. TIEGER: In principle, Your Honour, I wouldn't ordinarily
15 object to a continuance. I would like to take a moment, however, to
16 consider the basis for that. I'm not aware that -- at least offhand,
17 that complaints about the provision of materials were previously made and
18 formed a basis for an application for continuance, but --
19 JUDGE BONOMY: But you do have the odd expert who is responsible
20 for literally thousands of pages of report. Haglund, for example, comes
21 in a five-volume series covering different sites, so there may be
22 substance in the suggestion that time is necessary to review this
24 MR. TIEGER: And I'm not rejecting it reflectively. My concerns
25 arise from simply the fact that we have been advised on a couple of
1 occasions, more than a couple of occasions, that materials weren't
2 provided and it turns out that they were. But in any event, I take the
3 Court's point. There's no -- there's no -- we don't object.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think that's really the point. It was the
5 chaotic provision this time, but that's --
6 MR. TIEGER: In any event, there's no objection, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Karadzic, I will extend the time for response
8 in the case of the motion for admission of the evidence of eight experts
9 from the 13th to the 20th of August as you request.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Lordship.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Apart from that motion, are there another 92 bis
12 motions to which you will make further responses, bearing in mind that
13 you submitted an omnibus response which indicated you were unlikely to
14 say any more?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Lordship, the omnibus motion,
16 I hope, can be used as grounds to postpone the decision on admissibility
17 until we are complete -- until we have completed our work. Otherwise, we
18 would just be burdening and introducing too much material into the case.
19 This is why we resorted to this omnibus response. For us to say that
20 something is acceptable we need to be sure whether there is something
21 that has remained unresolved, and our investigation and our discussion
22 with the witnesses will clarify that completely.
23 If the Prosecution objects to that, they can shorten the
24 proceedings and take these people from the 92 bis list and call them to
25 testify here live. If there is no time, then that's the avenue we should
1 take rather than wait for us to see whether we can accept something
2 without cross-examination; or we can respond individually for each
3 particular case, but in that case we will have 213 or 217 such responses.
4 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
5 JUDGE BONOMY: It's been drawn to my attention, Mr. Tieger and
6 Mr. Karadzic, that the date I was working on for the response to the
7 motion about eight experts was the date in the original order giving
8 dead-lines, that there is a revised dead-line of the 25th of August
9 already. So an additional week takes you to the 1st of September and not
10 to the 20th of August. So that extension gives you until the
11 1st of September.
12 As presently advised, the Trial Chamber is unlikely to make
13 decisions about the admission of evidence under Rule 92 bis during the
14 pre-trial phase. I anticipate that the 92 bis motions will be dealt with
15 when the Trial Chamber to conduct the case is assigned. The other
16 motions, however, that fall under 92 quater may be dealt with
18 Now, it follows from that, Mr. Karadzic, that if there were
19 circumstances in which you had additional material to respond in relation
20 to any of the 92 bis motions that you would be able to do so until a
21 decision had been made. At least you would be able to ask the Chamber to
22 accept further information up until the time the motion was determined.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Lordship.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Prosecution filed on the 17th of July a request
25 for reconsideration of the refusal by the Chamber to allow them to reply
1 to your response in the 92 quater motion about KDZ-198. Do you have
2 anything to say on the subject of whether the Trial Chamber should
3 reconsider that decision and allow the Prosecution to reply to the points
4 you made, which were a number of points about the reliability of the
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Lordship, if the Prosecution
7 believes this to be necessary, to have yet another paper, then we will
8 not object to that. We simply would not be opposed to that.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: We should probably have assumed that that would be
10 your position. It's consistent with what position you've taken in other
11 similar situations.
12 A decision will be issued allowing a reply. It will be filed
13 today. So -- and I assume the reply is ready and can come in tomorrow.
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. It can actually come in today.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we'll give you until tomorrow just in case.
16 Mr. Karadzic, the Prosecution have also submitted a motion asking
17 for an order that you return certain ex parte material. I think I need
18 to go into private session to deal with that in case we get into the
19 detail of it, in which case we would need to be doing it in private. So
20 I'm going into private session now. If it turns out that that's
21 unnecessary, we'll come straight back into open session.
22 [Private session]
11 Pages 372-373 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, we're back in open session.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, tell me what you mean by the batch number
8 that you need.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] An ERN number doesn't mean much
10 because I don't have a search engine. I don't have that software.
11 However, on CDs they are marked until batch 96. The last I received was
12 96 with -- containing some ICMP material. So if I were provided with a
13 CD number rather than an ERN number, it would be easier for me to find
14 it. Searching a hundred CDs is much easier than searching close to a
15 million pages, as you will appreciate.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, can you oblige on the first
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, it's the batch number 61, and you got
19 this on the 21st of April this year.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: And then in relation to the second and third
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, that's actually specified in
23 the motion. It's an item -- a filing that was provided by the registry
24 in error. So two ex parte items were provided in error.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the first one in paragraph 5 refers again to
1 a CD, but that won't be a CD with a number like the number you've just
2 given us.
3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour, because that's actually a
4 distribution from the registrar related -- but it should also be easily
5 to find because it's related to a particular motion.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you'll see there, Mr. Karadzic -- well, you
7 may not have this document with you, but we're talking about appendices
8 which were ex parte appendices accompanying the Prosecution's seventh
9 92 bis motion, and that relates to delayed disclosure of witness
10 identity, and that was -- now, do you keep -- do you keep motions in a
11 particular place so that you can go to it and find this one?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have a lot of papers. I gave
13 some to my associates. I will look for them. My associates will never
14 disclose anything confidential or ex parte. The matter with the
15 electronic batch 61, you consider it done. If I knew that number, I
16 would have returned the material on the first day. I will go and look
17 through my papers, but you can't even imagine how much paper I have.
18 Although I receive electronic material I still have a lot of papers.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Your associates have returned the material that
20 they got. It's only your copy that's in issue here. So please look for
21 that. That was the seventh 92 bis motion.
22 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, do you have a date when that was filed? Oh,
23 29th of May, I think. Yes. 29th of May it was filed.
24 Now, I really don't want to get into exchanging paperwork on a
25 subject like this. I note your assurance about the CD. I note what
1 you've said about the other two items. I'm going to order just now that
2 in the event that they are not all returned to the Prosecution by Monday,
3 that they should notify the Chamber, and the Chamber will deal with the
4 motion; but hopefully, the Prosecution will by Monday able to intimate
5 that these have been returned and that the motion can be withdrawn.
6 We've reached the stage, I think, where we do need to have a
7 break for the purposes of the management of the court. The only thing
8 remaining on this agenda is a discussion about Rule 90 -- sorry,
9 Rule 73 bis. Now, an order was issued yesterday with an annex or a
10 schedule attached to it. I just want to look at certain examples from
11 that and have a brief discussion about how they might be dealt with to
12 give some guidance on what's expected by the Chamber in response to this.
13 So we will adjourn now and resume at 12.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 11.35 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 12.02 p.m.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: I turn now to an order that was issued yesterday
17 which is designed to focus attention on the Pre-Trial Conference and any
18 other discussions leading up to the Pre-Trial Conference, and it reflects
19 concern that the volume of this case may be such that steps may be
20 required to limit the Prosecution case.
21 Now, there are a number of methods or means available to the
22 Trial Chamber to control the overall length of the case, but of course it
23 may turn out that that's not necessary depending on the way in which it
24 is ultimately presented; but the Trial Chamber needs to know before the
25 trial starts what's likely to emerge and how long and complex it is
1 likely to be.
2 There's already some basic information available which is
3 reflected in the order. We know that the Prosecution are talking about a
4 case which would involve examination-in-chief of Prosecution witnesses of
5 approximately 490 hours. We know that they have in mind, I think,
6 something like 560 witnesses, and we know that the case consists of a
7 number of episodes, and within at least one of these, there are clearly
8 distinct areas involving individual municipalities and events within
9 these municipalities.
10 So this order focuses attention on the various things that could
11 be done to ensure that the trial is not unduly lengthy and unduly
13 Now, the Trial Chamber has to rely to a significant extent on the
14 information that the parties can give to enable it to make an appropriate
15 decision, and there's no point in parties simply coming along with
16 entrenched views and not looking at options, because Rule 73 bis provides
17 a number of options, and what the Trial Chamber wishes the parties, but
18 most particularly the Prosecution in this instance, to do is focus
19 attention on all of these to the extent that they can see ways in which
20 they might be of assistance in ensuring that the trial is not only fair
21 but also expeditious.
22 Now, one of the things that may be done to reduce the scope of
23 the trial is either for the number of counts featuring in the trial to be
24 reduced or the number of crime sites featuring in the trial to be
25 reduced, and the order has attached to it various columns in a schedule
1 identifying the crimes that are charged in the indictment. Now, when I
2 say that this extends to 88 pages, it can readily be understood what
3 potential there is for the trial extending unduly in time or emerging as
4 unduly complex, and within that schedule alone some indication is given
5 of areas where there may be helpful clarification provided by the
7 I want to look at a couple of these. I'll just mention them at
8 the moment, because obviously the parties have to take time to digest
9 this and then to compose any response that they wish to make.
10 In the indictment there are a number of schedules, and one of
11 these is Schedule C, and Schedule C is simply a list of places which are
12 described as detention facilities. Now, within the indictment there are
13 allegations of killings, at least of conduct, rather, in these detention
14 facilities, and if I can focus on one paragraph of the indictment. Take
15 as an example -- if you have the indictment there, Mr. Tieger, it's
16 paragraph 60 and subparagraph (b), which refers to:
17 "Torture, beatings, and physical and psychological abuse during
18 and after takeovers in the Municipalities and in detention facilities in
19 the Municipalities, including those detention facilities listed in
20 Schedule C, as cruel or inhumane treatment."
21 Now, we already have a situation in relation to that paragraph
22 where the schedule is confined to identifying the detention facilities.
23 There's no reference to the personnel who may have been the subject of
24 the torture, beatings, and physical and psychological abuse, and on top
25 of that we then have the expression "including those detention facilities
1 listed in Schedule C."
2 Now, I can understand that the actual identification of
3 individuals may be achieved through the witness statements. I don't
4 think it's mentioned in the pre-trial brief, but no doubt the accused has
5 been given the statements of the witnesses who will speak to this and
6 therefore the case is disclosed in that way, but you have and it's a
7 frequent feature of the indictment, the words "including those detention
9 So, in the chart or the schedule attached to the order, the
10 assumption has been made by the Trial Chamber that that particular
11 paragraph is confined to those detention facilities that are mentioned,
12 and that at least as a starting point we might not expect evidence
13 relating to other detention facilities which are not mentioned.
14 Is that a fair assumption, or is that one you need to think about
15 and respond to in your written response?
16 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, first of all, I'm not going to reject
17 the opportunity to provide a more reflective response as the Court just
18 suggested, but I would simply note that I think paragraph 60(b) -- I
19 agree that the detention facilities -- well, I think by the very terms of
20 60(b) it does indicate that facilities beyond Schedule C were implicated
21 or there would be no particular reason to frame it in that way.
22 Nevertheless, as invited by the Court, I think digesting both the
23 concerns the Court has just expressed, and I gather will continue to
24 identify, is probably more prudent than offering an immediate reaction.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: You will appreciate there are 27 municipalities
1 mentioned, I think, in that schedule, and some of them that are
2 multi-detention facilities. Maybe they're not all mentioned. Let me
3 check. Yes, I think they are all mentioned in that particular schedule,
4 and there are multi-facilities in many of them.
5 Now, there's surely enough in there as a starting point for your
6 case, and you'll appreciate my concern if "including" is going to be
7 relied on as indicating more. And the reason I raise is it is not
8 because it just appears there but it appears, for example, in relation to
9 Schedule D which is to do with cultural property and -- or cultural
10 monuments and sacred sites, and you have general averments in the
11 indictment about looting of private and public property and damage to
12 private and public property, and when you refer to the public property,
13 you again have a reference to cultural monuments and sacred sites,
14 including, and then we have the ones which appear in Schedule D.
15 Now, it's again a very extensive list, and the assumption has
16 been made, and no doubt as you've indicated you'll respond in due course,
17 but the assumption is made that the case is to be confined to the ones
18 which have actually been identified.
19 MR. TIEGER: Yes. And I think the Court is also aware -- again,
20 thank you again for that, Your Honour. We will respond in due course.
21 I'll simply mention at this point the fact that -- I mean one of the
22 points I -- well, let me just say simply with respect to that the
23 widespread and systematic nature of what occurred during this period of
24 time is a factor for a number of reasons, not simply because of the term
25 of art but because it's a reflection of a pattern that reveals a great
1 deal about knowledge, command and control, notice, and so on, and so it
2 appears in the indictment and appears not only in this case but has
3 appeared in previous cases for a variety of reasons not necessarily
4 related to holding the accused specifically to account for each and every
5 crime he may be criminally responsible but for other evidential reasons
6 as well.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: But it's also, I think, widespread or systematic.
8 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: And of course, that distinction may also be
10 important to you, because if you focus too much on the widespread then
11 that's when you end up, I think, with something that could be out of
13 You know, as we get nearer to the trial in this case it becomes
14 clearer and clearer just how voluminous the material that's ultimately
15 been accumulated is, and no doubt that this trial, if it had taken place
16 12 or 13 years ago would not have included so much material, but we now
17 have to accept that we've got to a point where so much more is known and
18 is available and has to be addressed.
19 MR. TIEGER: I agree. And I also agree that there's a balance to
20 be struck. I would -- it seem -- since the Court raises the point, let
21 me say -- and I'm sure the Court appreciates this too and didn't mean to
22 suggest otherwise, the aggregation of materials over the course of that
23 period of time I think can only be considered as a good thing and a way
24 of better informing the Court of what happened so that a better decision
25 can ultimately be made. And as the Court expressed at the last Status
1 Conference, it's up to the parties to identify creative ways to ensure
2 that the maximum amount of information is made available to the Court.
3 Now, one of the ways, I think, the Court is focusing on at the
4 moment is let's separate the wheat from the chaff and let's focus on the
5 most important aspects and I understand that and we'll not enter into
6 this exercise without any prejudges. However, another way, and the
7 Prosecution, I think, has been vigorous about attempting to ensure the
8 maximum application of this mechanism, is through such means as 92 bis.
9 I mean, that is, in fact, one of the mechanisms devised by this
10 institution to ensure just that, that the maximum amount of information
11 gets to the Court so that the best possible decision can be made, and
12 it's made in a way that focuses precisely on nature of these cases, that
13 is, cases involving mass crimes, and the recognition that the principle
14 of oral testimony may in fact inhibit the receipt of the best information
15 under those circumstances. And it focuses on elimination of the acts and
16 conduct of the accused from 92 bis so that that can be focussed on during
17 the course of the oral presentation of evidence. And it is for that
18 reason, I think one of the extremely efficient mechanisms devised by this
19 institution to fulfil precisely the objective identified by the Court in
20 the last Status Conference, and we hope that that will be utilised to the
21 fullest extent in the course of this case, and we have done our best to
22 ensure that possibility. So we -- that's a recognition of our commitment
23 to that process as well.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: But it heralds for me -- it suggests to me that
25 you might be less keen on looking at how Rule 73 bis might be used, and
1 I'm coming to that view because you're pointing to things that are
2 already being done to -- with a view to cutting the trial down to size,
3 but you should not rely exclusively on what has been done already or
4 proposed already or what you think might be done in relation to these
5 motions. You must assist the Trial Chamber to reach the right conclusion
6 by being positive in your own approach to these possible means of -- of
7 controlling the trial that are in 73 bis.
8 Because you assist the Chamber by pointing out how a particular
9 method in there might be used, it doesn't follow that it will be applied
10 against what you see as your particular interest. There's nothing to
11 stop you telling the Chamber that you have no -- in fact, you're very
12 much against the use of a particular device, but if it is in the mind of
13 the Chamber, then here is how it might best be used to identify crime
14 sites, for example, that are reasonably representative of the indictment,
15 and it's that kind of assistance that the Chamber encourages you to give
16 so that the full panoply is available to it with all the supporting
17 information necessary to make the right decision.
18 MR. TIEGER: No. I understand, Your Honour, and we would
19 certainly recognise that 73 bis is another provision in the rules. We --
20 I wasn't merely mentioning it as lip-service when I said we won't enter
21 into this exercise with any pre-judgements. We understand our obligation
22 to assist the Court in every way and we will attempt to do so in this
23 particular exercise as well.
24 As the Court notes, we won't hesitate to alert the Court if we
25 think the -- a more limited application of that provision is more
1 appropriate. Similarly, we won't hesitate to alert the Court if we find
2 that there are areas where 73 bis does advance the objective of a fair
3 and expeditious trial in precisely the way the Court hopes. So I'm not
4 coming to any prejudgement on this at all.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: And remember in your deliberations on this that
6 the big problem for a Trial Chamber in applying 92 bis is dispensing with
7 cross-examination. The rules now allow, obviously, under a different
8 rule, 92 ter, the presentation of the bulk, if not all, of the evidence
9 in chief of a witness in writing, and cross-examination is often seen as
10 an essential part of a fair trial in relation to particular evidence, and
11 that will have a bearing on the decisions that are made under 92 bis. It
12 doesn't mean that the result will be the presentation viva voce in live
13 court time of all the evidence of a witness. It may have to be done a
14 different way, more constructively, the use of reports, the restriction
15 of cross-examination. All of these are available to the Trial Chamber as
16 well, but there will undoubtedly be some of your 92 bis applications to
17 which that approach is taken, and that's not to prejudge any of them. So
18 you cannot, I think, rely on a complete success on that front.
19 MR. TIEGER: I understand. I think a maximal success would
20 satisfy the Prosecution.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, just a couple of other examples to show you
22 our concern.
23 If you look at paragraph 68 where we're dealing with deportation
24 and inhumane acts, there the charge relates to both forcible transfer and
25 deportation. And then if you go to 74, we have reference to both
1 forcible transfer and deportation, and that's in relation to Srebrenica,
2 which is part of what's covered in paragraph 68. It's Srebrenica and the
3 municipalities. And then if you look at 75, there the reference is to
4 acts of forcible transfer with no reference to deportation.
5 Now, that may well be intended, but that's the sort of detail
6 that we invite you to pay attention to in assisting us to identify, in
7 case it's necessary, what is reasonably representative of the indictment.
8 And then if I can mention just another -- I think another two
10 In Schedule C, if you look at item number 26, and the reference
11 there to Planjo's house, and it was a detention facility at least from
12 August until December 1992. And if you go back to Schedule B and look at
13 number 19 of Schedule B, you'll see dates which extend beyond the period
14 that it's said to be a detention facility in Schedule C.
15 Now, we've highlighted a number of areas of concern in the
16 schedule just to -- I'm not suggesting that's a complete list, but where
17 we've identified particular potential inconsistencies in the scheduling
18 and in the pleading and the indictment so that you would comment on these
19 in particular.
20 And then just the final example. If you look at paragraph 60(f).
21 60(f) relates to forcible transfer or deportation from homes with the
22 municipalities and from Srebrenica. And then if you look at (i) and (j),
23 neither of these makes any reference to Srebrenica, and that may be
24 deliberate. And (j) also does not refer to private property in relation
25 to any of the municipalities, and that may be deliberate. But there --
1 you know, when you start looking very closely at compiling a complete
2 list of the crimes charged, you come across these uncertainties as a
3 Trial Chamber, because the Trial Chamber doesn't have the entire picture
4 at the moment that you have of the -- of the case. So these are reasons
5 for inviting you to provide the assistance that's called for in this
7 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, may I ask for a quick point of
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
10 MR. TIEGER: Perhaps I didn't read the order either as carefully
11 as I might have or certainly not in light of the Court's comments just
12 now, but it occurs to me that -- at least at the time I read it
13 initially, the kinds of clarification that the Court has just sought with
14 respect to paragraph 60 would not necessarily have arisen from the focus
15 indicated in the order, that is -- and I'm not -- my concern is not that
16 the Court didn't spell it out carefully enough for me in that particular
17 context. As I say, the problem may have been the way I read it, but I
18 just want to make sure that we are focusing on what the Court wants us to
19 focus on and don't respond with an insufficient submission.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: The way these tie together in that particular
21 example, Mr. Tieger, is that if you were looking for a number of crime
22 sites that included damage to private property, then it would appear that
23 in relation to both -- to all of the municipalities there doesn't appear
24 to be in that paragraph a reference to private property, and that may be
25 deliberate, but it's -- to avoid any misunderstanding, it's important to
1 look at exactly what is said and not to assume too much because of the
2 use of the word "including," although that doesn't arise here but it's an
3 example of how you can read more into a charge than the Chamber is doing
4 at the moment.
5 I've certainly found in the past that it's been perfectly
6 adequate to ignore the impact of the word "including" because of the
7 number and extent of the specified examples that have been referred to in
8 indictments in this Tribunal.
9 So while this is, as you rightly point out, focussed on
10 identifying ways in which the scope of the trial may be reduced, one of
11 these is reducing the number of crime sites, or, obviously, reducing the
12 number of counts, and part of the exercise, if that is to be done, is
13 ensuring that everyone is clear what the end result is, what's in and
14 what's out if that's what happens. So we took the opportunity of trying
15 to identify areas which could usefully be clarified at this stage.
16 Now, is there anything else you want to say on this order before
17 I ask Mr. Karadzic for comments?
18 MR. TIEGER: There is, Your Honour. Thank you.
19 The Court -- well, I've just committed myself, quite
20 appropriately, to ensuring that the Prosecution does the best job it can
21 in response to the Court's order. The Court mentioned earlier, "You'll
22 obviously need time to digest the material and compose a response." I
23 think the three weeks allotted under ordinary circumstances would be
24 appropriate, but I have to tell the Court we cannot -- the timing is such
25 that we can't fulfil our obligation here at this point, and the reason is
1 simply the court recess, because of the work plan, the dead-lines, the
2 anticipated commencement of trial after the court recess, this is a time
3 when various leaves were allotted to the team in this compressed period
4 of time, and the team is essentially disbanded. Even Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff
5 and I will be gone for limited periods of time, but we -- there will be
6 very little overlap, and certainly very little overlap with the core
7 members of the team during that period of time. That's not to say that
8 no work can be done, but at a minimum, I would ask that the Court extend
9 the dead-line at least two weeks beyond the point at which the team
10 re-assembles after the recess and that would mean August 31st.
11 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you Mr. Tieger. Anything else?
13 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour. I have one more matter to raise,
14 not directly in connection with this --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: I'll come back to that.
16 Dr. Karadzic, the order is mainly aimed at the Prosecution, but
17 the tradition in the Tribunal is to hear the Defence on issues like this
18 and not to confine it to the Prosecution. Is there anything at this
19 stage you want to say on the various things I've been discussing with
20 Mr. Tieger?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you for keeping the rule
22 audiatur et altera pars, and I'm going to take any such opportunity given
23 to me. From my point of view, any reductions in the indictment that you
24 have in mind, the best reduction would be to withdraw the indictment
25 completely, but I don't think that the OTP is going to do that.
1 Since I'm not defending myself from liberty, I would be inclined
2 to have the simplification of the indictment from the point of view of
3 general interest, the interest of the people who have already been
4 convicted based on some incidents and erroneously established facts. I
5 would like to have every incidence that happened during the civil war in
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina re-examined. If anything is reduced, I have already
7 spent significant time on any such things that may be excluded from the
8 indictment. There is nothing for me to say with respect to that.
9 As for what my learned friend said about the information that the
10 Trial Chamber needs, the Trial Chamber needs as much information as
11 possible, not unilaterally produced. That's why I'm very cautious with
12 regard to Rule 92 bis. The Trial Chamber needs as much information on
13 both sides, but correct information. I don't know how viva voce
14 testimony can muddle things up. It can only clarify things even further.
15 What I need -- want to do, is I want to call 92 bis witnesses and make up
16 for their interviews, and I may even be agreeable to not calling some of
18 I have seen your order, Your Honour, and I have noticed something
19 that gave me great joy. You yourself have noticed that there are
20 positions there to the effect there's several red ones killed, several
21 blue ones and it is not specified who killed whom and how many people
22 were killed. I'm not going to accept that without specifying and
23 clarifying who, when, how. You can't have an utterance somebody killed
24 somebody else. I am in favour of re-examining every incident. I know
25 that some people have been sentenced to a life -- to life in prison
1 because of a -- the Markale incident, and I intend to prove that they are
2 not guilty. I am not against a broad indictment as long as the Defence
3 is permitted to produce any piece of evidence they want.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the Defence will be allowed to produce and
5 lead relevant evidence and the criminal responsibility of others may not
6 be relevant in the circumstances of your trial. What is relevant is
7 whether the incident took place and perhaps how it took place, but the
8 extent to which you may examine the evidence that was led against
9 individuals is another matter. The incidental effect, of course, of
10 proving that -- or demonstrating that an incident happened in a way
11 different from that found before would reflect on individuals who have
12 been convicted, but do not expect that you will be retrying other cases.
13 That's not the function of this trial.
14 Now, Mr. Tieger, the extended period that you request to respond
15 will be granted so that you ensure that a thorough job is done. There's
16 no point in rushing this job. And the Pre-Trial Conference, when
17 scheduled, will undoubtedly be after the 31st of August, although
18 possibly not long after it. The important thing is that this is
19 available for any discussions that take place in the context of the
20 Pre-Trial Conference, that is, leading up to it or actually at that
22 Now, that completes the items I had identified. Is there
23 anything else, Mr. Tieger, you wish to raise?
24 MR. TIEGER: Just quickly, Your Honour. It's a matter that I
25 raised at the previous conference, and I raise it again because it seemed
1 to be implicated by some of the comments at today's session. It seems to
2 me a good deal of additional information about the accused's position in
3 relation to events at Srebrenica was adduced. That is the kind of
4 information that I would have expected to receive in compliance with the
5 65 ter order. I believe last time there was reference to the -- to our
6 review of the Defence pre-trial brief and what we considered to be a
7 failure to comply with Rule 65. I believe at that time the Court did not
8 have a -- had not had an opportunity to review the submission, and I
9 would simply renew our position that the Defence pre-trial brief did not
10 comply with Rule 65 ter (F). And there is some inconsistency clearly in
11 any suggestion by the Defence that the Prosecution may not be focusing on
12 fundamental issues when there's a failure to comply with a rule which is
13 intended to advance just that objective.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Remind me what you suggested might be the remedy.
15 MR. TIEGER: Well, I didn't suggest a particular remedy at the
16 time. If I recall the Court's words in general, it was that the Court
17 would take the opportunity to review the submission, make its
18 determination and issue an appropriate order. Presumably if it was found
19 not to be in compliance, there would be an order to submit a pre-trial
20 brief that, in fact, did fulfill the requirements of 65 ter (F).
21 JUDGE BONOMY: The other possibility is that the Prosecution are
22 allowed, as and when it occurs, to lead evidence that they perhaps
23 dispensed with when some particular issue is specifically challenged
24 without notice from the pre-trial brief.
25 If your anxiety is that there's a lack of reassurance that it
1 might be safe to take a bold course in relation to certain witnesses,
2 then perhaps that's a more appropriate form of relief in this instance.
3 MR. TIEGER: That's -- well, first of all, that's one aspect of
4 the Prosecution's concern. Another one is perhaps more -- arises more
5 directly and more obviously out of the provisions of 65 ter (F), and
6 that's a matter of focusing energy, resources, effort on the particular
7 areas of concern and dispute. So there's also a resource issue in
8 addition, but I appreciate what the Court's saying. And I also recognise
9 that the Court may be considering exactly what a suitable remedy might
11 I trust, in any event, that the Court is not surprised that I
12 would raise this, is presumably aware of even if I don't articulate fully
13 the ramifications of a -- a pre-trial brief that essentially circumvents
14 the requirements and objectives of 65 ter (F) and the -- the various
15 permutations or the various consequences that has during the course of
16 the case. We'll obviously try to deal with it. It's not ideal. To the
17 extent the Court can -- will consider and can craft a suitable remedy, we
18 would urge the Court to do so, and as issues arise during the course of
19 the case as a result of any problems arising from that deficiency, we'll
20 bring them to the attention the Court and see what can be done
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
23 Mr. Karadzic, you heard this submission the last time, that the
24 pre-trial brief that you submitted is inadequate in that it does not
25 explain the basis on which you challenge material to be presented by the
1 Prosecution. Mr. Tieger is asking the Trial Chamber to do something
2 about it.
3 Can I have your comments?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Lordship. Despite all
5 the sympathy I have the opposing side, it is not my intention to do their
6 job for them. Even the practice direction issued by the ICTY earlier
7 this year does not make it necessary for me to do what Mr. Tieger wants
8 me to do, and I can quote that in English:
9 "[In English] It should be noted that since the burden is on the
10 Prosecution to prove the case, the accused is under no obligation to
11 agree to the narrowing of the issues in dispute and may simply refuse to
12 agree to any facts."
13 JUDGE BONOMY: What is it you're referring to?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm reading a quotation from the
15 manual on developed practice. [In English] That is a manual of developed
16 practice -- practice that has been issued earlier this year.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, there's a difference in refusing to agree
18 facts and a narrowing the issues in dispute and stating what is the basis
19 on which you put issues in dispute.
20 The rule that Mr. Tieger refers to requires you to state in
21 general terms the nature of your defence. Well, you've given a very
22 general indication of that. Then the matters with which you take issue
23 in the Prosecutor's pre-trial brief, and then thirdly, in the case of
24 each of these matters the reason why you take issue with it.
25 Now, he rightly points out that you didn't undertake that
1 exercise at all, and therefore you didn't comply with what the rules say
2 you should do, and by doing that you admit nothing. You agree to
3 nothing. So your reasons so far for not doing it doesn't actually
4 persuade me.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that should I be more
6 precise concerning details and so on, I would be doing the Prosecution's
7 job. It is up to them to prove their allegations. I presented a very
8 general position. I'm looking forward to this trial where we will be
9 able to examine and scrutinise each detail, but for me now to guide them,
10 to provide guidance for them, I have no duty to do that, and I don't
11 think it would be rational.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that simply is a repetition of what you've
13 already said, which doesn't really help me because it doesn't answer the
14 criticism made. I will have to consider this with my colleagues and
15 decide whether there is any action we ought to take at this stage.
16 Now, I think that completes what Mr. Tieger has to raise. Is
17 there any other matter which you wish to raise, Mr. Karadzic?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Lordship, at this stage when I
19 have 1 million pages of material, 270 days of witness examination, CD and
20 video material that I need a lot of time to go over, I cannot be more
21 specific in response to the pre-trial brief of the Prosecution. I would
22 use up my ammunition for nothing. So at this particular stage when I
23 have such voluminous material, I cannot be more specific than I was.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: That's a much better reason than you've given so
25 far. What view my colleagues take of that I can't say at this moment.
1 Now, is there any other matter you wish to raise?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, not in relation to these
3 issues. I have something to raise in relation to other issues if I may.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, I would like to
6 inform that my advisor, Mr. Sladojevic, is prepared to meet today, to
7 meet any time, but the result of that meeting will be nothing but a
8 social one because we still do not have what Dr. Stojkovic requires. So
9 that's something we can settle right away. I think that Mr. Sladojevic
10 will always meet with the opposing side whenever he's expected to do
12 I would like to inform you --
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Just stop there. I mean, that's very encouraging,
14 and I don't accept that such a meeting will achieve nothing, because it
15 will continue to advance the case for your obtaining some of the material
16 at least, if not all, to carry out the appropriate analysis. It may be
17 that you will be able to devise a way of identifying a selection of the
18 material without necessarily having it all in your hand at the moment. A
19 satisfactory way of working out how to identify a sample, a
20 representative sample. So that meeting would not be pointless and simply
21 social, and I encourage you to ensure that the meeting does take place
22 either today or tomorrow. And, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, I hope you will do
23 your best to ensure that.
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Actually I see here an e-mail from
25 Mr. Sladojevic making a proposal, but I know that we also want to speak
1 to him on another issue, so I will have to check, and I'm actually
2 already doing this, whether all people are in house so that we can deal
3 with the two open issues.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much. Now you've got something
5 else, Mr. Karadzic?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have two or three brief matters.
7 First of all, I'd like to inform you that our correspondence is in
8 progress. We're expecting response from several governments.
9 Unfortunately, some governments, not just that of Bosnia and Herzegovina
10 but some of the older states as well, they perceive cooperation with the
11 Tribunal as cooperation with the OTP only. We try to avoid motions where
12 we ask the Chamber to order such cooperation. We used a letter to
13 High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina to influence the government
14 in Bosnia and Herzegovina to start cooperating with the Defence and
15 disclose material that they are duty-bound to disclose. There will be
16 more material, even more sensitive material, but they refuse to cooperate
17 even when it comes to innocent material.
18 Now, as for Minister Bildt, Minister Bildt has still not met with
19 my advisor --
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Before you go into that, you know that in each
21 instance where you have submitted a motion for a binding order in
22 relation to any state that our practice has been to invite that state to
23 respond to us, and the Prosecution so far have taken the position that
24 they have no position on this. It seems to us realistic to give the
25 states in question 14 days to respond, but we are acting on these motions
1 as quick as we possibly can, and if there are any others they will
2 receive the same treatment.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you for that. Some countries
4 have replied, some haven't, and some replied saying that they would
5 cooperate with the Prosecution only and that's quite unusual for us, and
6 we will keep insisting. This was just a first wave of our requests to
7 these governments, because this case can be clarified only if the
8 countries that support this material and all countries that were on the
9 ground back then provide everything that is in their possession.
10 Now, as for Minister Bildt, my advisor travelled to Stockholm,
11 and Mr. Bildt did not have time to meet. It was scheduled for yesterday
12 in Brussels
13 hour of Mr. Minister Bildt's time to resolve some crucial matters
14 concerning which he certainly has information. Minister Bildt, while he
15 was High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, required everyone to
16 fully cooperate with The Hague Tribunal. Therefore, he should be under
17 that obligation as well. The position of the UN is to be as
18 accommodating as possible, and my advisor is scheduled to be in Geneva
19 examine some important documents there. I simply am concerned that all
20 of these postponements will affect the beginning the trial. We need to
21 have the material in order to come up with a proper defence.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm extremely concerned to hear that the meeting
23 proposed by Mr. Bildt has not taken place, and I will instruct inquiry to
24 be made about the reason. I will invite him to indicate what the problem
25 is, and hopefully we can resolve this.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He announced that he would see my
2 advisor in August in Brussels
3 again if necessary.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: I understood when we made an earlier order in a
5 decision in this case that a meeting had been arranged I think for about
6 the 14th of July, and I'm extremely disappointed that that has not taken
7 place, and August, while it's almost upon us, is another possible five
8 weeks away because it could be any time in August. So I will inquire
9 what the problem is and endeavour to resolve it.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that we're talking about
11 a date in mid-August, and if you are disappointed, you can only imagine
12 how disappointed I am.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Now, you have something else?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, not for the time being,
15 Your Lordship. Thank you.
16 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Karadzic, I know your position on everything
18 being conducted in public, and largely that has been respected, but there
19 are undoubtedly benefits to be had from meetings that take place between
20 the Prosecution and your associates. Now, they take place in private, as
21 you -- as you know.
22 I think there are circumstances in which I could assist the
23 progress of this case and the production of material that you require by
24 participating in meetings of that nature. These meetings can include you
25 and indeed on two -- is it one? I can't remember. On one or two
1 occasions we've had such a meeting and then published the outcome.
2 I intend that there should be a further meeting in connection
3 with the preparation of this case in the week beginning the
4 17th of August, probably the morning of the 20th of August, but I suspect
5 that the best form of meeting then would be one in private attended also
6 by at least one of your associates. I think that would be in your
7 interests. So I invite you to give thought to authorising one of your
8 associates to attend such a meeting along with yourself. You might even
9 authorise it without your own attendance, but I'm not encouraging you to
10 do that. You ought to play a full part in any meeting that takes place
11 in connection with the case.
12 So give thought to that, and we shall communicate the final date
13 and suggested time much nearer the time.
14 I have again found this meeting to have been productive, and I
15 think that following upon it certain issues which were clarified today
16 can be resolved, and I hope that all of that will prove beneficial in
17 ensuring the fairly early start of this trial. I have nothing more to
18 say on the likely date of the trial. The indication given the last time
19 is that it is likely to start in September, and that remains the
21 The Status Conference is now adjourned.
22 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned
23 at 1.06 p.m.