1 Tuesday, 8 September 2009
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.14 p.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good afternoon. Could you call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, and good afternoon, Your Honour. This
8 is case number IT-95-5/18-PT, the Prosecutor versus Radovan Karadzic.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Can I have the appearances.
10 MR. TIEGER: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Alan Tieger,
11 Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff, and Iain Reid for the Prosecution.
12 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I take it that you are appearing on
13 your own. Can I confirm that you are following the procedure in the
14 language you understand?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I represent
16 myself. I have my associate standing by.
17 JUDGE KWON: In the public gallery?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, they are following the
19 proceedings on the internet.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Well, the new composition of the Trial
21 Chamber in this case was announced during the course of last week, and I
22 take it that the parties have been informed of it. I would first like to
23 express my thanks, and that of the Trial Chamber as well, to the previous
24 members of the Trial Chamber, judges Bonomy, Ian Bonomy, Christoph
25 Fluegge and Michele Picard. And in particular I would like to thank the
1 Presiding Judge, Lord Bonomy, for his exemplary and dedicated work during
2 the past year in preparing this case for trial.
3 At the last Status Conference on 20th of August, Judge Bonomy
4 noted his view that this case is now ready for trial. The purpose of
5 this status conference is to discuss some of the remaining issues as we
6 proceed to the trial phase, particularly the proposals made by the
7 Prosecution for reducing the size of the trial itself.
8 However, before turning to that issue, I would like to mention a
9 few of the pending motions. First there are a number of motions for
10 binding order against several government. I noted, Mr. Karadzic, that
11 you withdrew your motion with respect to Jordan very recently, and I'd
12 like to draw your attention to the similar situation in respect to
13 several countries. First Norway
14 July -- your motion was filed on the 8th of July, but 3rd of September
15 Norwegian government filed their response stating that it had forwarded
16 the documents relevant to the motion directly to you. So I'm wondering
17 whether you wish to withdraw your motion on this -- in this regard as
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to express my
20 gratitude to the government of Norway
21 would be good and it would speed the proceedings up if the government
22 cooperated immediately without any decisions by the Trial Chamber or
23 immediately thereafter. The Norwegian government was kind to send
24 everything, however, in Norwegian, the translation is pending, and only
25 then we will be able to see whether the documents are complete. If they
1 are indeed complete, we will withdraw the motion and if not, then we will
2 reply in writing.
3 JUDGE KWON: Very well, Mr. Karadzic. Is the same true with the
4 cases of Turkey
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Turkey replied and said that
6 they were not in the possession of the requested documents, and in that
7 sense we will withdraw the motion but we will continue our investigation,
8 and then if we are convinced that the documents exist and that we may be
9 of assistance to the government of Croatia with submitting the documents
10 to us, we will address the Chamber again. As far as Belgium is
11 concerned, the Belgian government did send several documents in French
12 and in Flemish, and we are awaiting the translations thereof. If we
13 assess that the documents are complete, we will withdraw the motion, if
14 they are not complete, on the other hand, we will reply in writing to see
15 what can be done in that respect.
16 In any case, the examples of Norway and Belgium
17 when it comes to the cooperation with the Tribunal.
18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter correct herself, the name of
19 the country was not Croatia
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope that the other countries
21 will follow the examples.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Instead of Croatia it should read Turkey
23 Thank you very much.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Karadzic. I take it you are hereby
25 withdrawing your motion with respect to Turkey?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE KWON: As parties are well aware, the Chamber has received
3 a number of similar binding order motions from Mr. Karadzic. In relation
4 to some of these, the Chamber has yet to hear from the state concerned.
5 In relation to others responses have been received and the Chamber is
6 considering what course of action to take in relation to them.
7 So these matters necessarily take time. So it would be very
8 helpful, Mr. Karadzic, to know how many more such motions you anticipate
9 filing in the coming days and weeks, recognising of course that you
10 cannot predict exactly what kind of voluntary cooperation you are likely
11 to receive from states.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that the number of states
13 is not going to go up. However, the number of documents will. I am
14 afraid we are talking about very sensitive papers, especially when it
15 comes to some bigger states such as Great Britain, Germany, and France
16 and, of course, Bosnia-Herzegovina. We spoke to the minister of defence
17 of Bosnia-Herzegovina who promised that they would honour all my requests
18 and that they would send us everything. I'm not going -- I don't think
19 that the number of states is going to go up, however, the documents open
20 new perspectives and point to some new documents; therefore, we will be
21 forced to request from such countries as some very sensitive documents.
22 We promise that we will respect all the requirements of Rule 70 in order
23 to encourage those states to submit the documents to us.
24 JUDGE KWON: Very well. I will deal with another motion from the
25 accused, that is accused motion for extension of time to respond to the
1 fourth motion for judicial notice of adjudicated facts filed last Friday.
2 Mr. Karadzic seeks an extension to January 2010 to respond to
3 this latest motion for judicial notice on the basis of the volume of work
4 involved. I wonder whether you are in the position to answer the
5 question, given the urgency of the matter. The original dead-line was
6 due today, am I -- if I'm not.
7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: You are correct, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the Prosecution does not oppose
10 an extension of time given the fact that it is a complex motion.
11 However, in the past we did have similar situation with such motions and
12 the requested four months is actually what we oppose. We think it should
13 be a significantly shorter period, something like a month or six weeks.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff. Very glad to see
15 you at the courtroom again. The Chamber discussed this matter, and --
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I be heard on a matter, Your
18 JUDGE KWON: Of course.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It took the Prosecutor a lot more
20 time to collect or to decide on the 900 adjudicated facts, and I'm asking
21 for much less in order to study all those facts. We are especially
22 concerned with this case because the appeals admitted that in that case
23 there was no adequate defence present, and if I were to accept
24 adjudicated facts in the Krajisnik case knowing that Krajisnik did not
25 have adequate representation and to do it within a month, I believe that
1 my request was really very modest when I asked for the postponement until
2 January. And you can see how long it took the Prosecution after the
3 Krajisnik case was completed to decide on what adjudicated facts to
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, as I said, the Chamber has discussed
6 this matter, and come to a conclusion to grant your motion in part, but
7 not all of it. So your motion is therefore granted in part, and you have
8 until 30th of November, 2009, to file your written response to the motion
9 for adjudicated facts.
10 One final matter I would like to discuss or raise is the -- is
11 accused's submission filed yesterday with respect to his response to
12 Prosecution's Rule 92 bis motion, actually relating to expert witness.
13 In this submission, Mr. Karadzic sets out his reasons for attempting to
14 file his response to the Prosecution Rule 92 bis motion expert witness in
15 B/C/S rather than English or French, the two official languages of the
17 The Chamber notes that -- before I go further, I would like to
18 ask Mr. Tieger whether you are in the position to make any observation
19 with respect to his motion or submission.
20 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, we have reviewed it. I can
21 render some preliminary observations about it but depending on what we
22 might hear today would be our inclination to file a written response to
23 what we consider to be a -- rather than a -- it's a response by the
24 accused to which an independent motion seems to have been included.
25 But in short, it's our preliminary response is that the court's
1 earlier order concerning the issue of the accused understanding of the
2 English language embraced writing and drafting, in fact writing and
3 drafting was explicitly referred to in the order, and the reasoning that
4 accompanied it. The order also acknowledged the obvious, I think, which
5 is that a self-represented accused's drafting skills may be inferior to
6 that of a trained lawyer but that's part of the process of
7 self-representation, and it appears that whatever the accused regards as
8 his relative levels of proficiency between his native tongue and English,
9 this falls within the same principle; that is, both are sufficient, one
10 may be regarded by the accused as superior, but that doesn't give rise to
11 a right to use the language of preference rather than the appropriate
13 And in any event we would note with respect to this particular
14 motion that multiple extensions have been granted. This matter has been
15 on the agenda for a great deal of time. We would also note that one of
16 the accused's associates who is capable of writing in English has been
17 responsible for dealing with the appropriate experts during the course of
18 that period. So while it's not our intention to force the Court to
19 reject this particular motion on the basis of timing, there has been good
20 accommodation on both sides with respect to timing and submission issues
21 and exigencies as they have arisen, but that's a different matter from
22 the motion raised by the Defence, which we do oppose and for the reasons
23 stated, and for other reasons which we would -- which we would develop in
24 a written submission if the Court found necessary.
25 Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you Mr. Tieger.
2 Mr. Karadzic, would you like to respond to this?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Excellence, you see my
4 language is Serbian and that's the language that I understand best.
5 However, owing to the fact that in legal matters I'm being assisted by my
6 advisor, Mr. Robinson, and some other reputable experts, spanning the
7 globe from Australia
8 and Norway
9 principal matters I've' never insisted for them to be in the Serbian.
10 Nobody can bound me to send documents in a language which is not my
11 mother tongue. However, I have tried to save everybody's time that would
12 be required for the translation of all the documents and I submitted them
13 in English.
14 However, besides the transcripts, I was supposed to receive all
15 the other documents in my own mother tongue and the dead-lines were
16 supposed to start running when I received the English version of all the
17 documents. I have a lot of associates in the field who do not speak
18 English, and they are not required to speak English. I need everything
19 in Serbian. I will have to listen to and read the transcripts in order
20 to be able to grasp the real meaning of what the witnesses said. And
21 there are 273 days of witness testimonies in question which I have to
22 listen to. This is not a matter of principle. This is not my being
23 obstinate with regard to my own mother tongue. This is a very practical
24 issue. Even if the motion had been translated, I would not dare
25 translate such sensitive matters such as the expert opinion by Dusan
1 Dunjic who actually surmised six or seven Prosecutor's experts.
2 If you expect for me to speak English as my mother tongue, then I
3 would have to renounce my own mother and search for another mother. I
4 would like my rights with regard to my mother tongue to be restored and
5 everything to be submitted to me in Serbian save for the transcript which
6 is covered by the Trial Chamber's decision. I'm not insisting on any
7 principles. I have to sends all the documents into the field and my
8 investigators have to show them to common people and that's the only way
9 I can be fully prepared to mount my defence.
10 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber has considered this matter as well. The
11 Chamber notes that in his submission, the accused submitted that, I
13 "Because he has the assistant of a legal advisor who is a native
14 English speaker, Dr. Karadzic has been able to file pleadings in English
15 during the course of the pre-trial proceedings. However, there are
16 circumstances such as in the instant response where the assistance of his
17 legal advisor may not be available. In such a case, Dr. Karadzic has no
18 alternative but to make filings in Serbian."
19 On that basis, the Chamber is inclined to accept this particular
20 filing. However, Mr. Karadzic, I must stress the Chamber views this as
21 an exceptional situation. This should not be considered as a
22 precedential ruling. Should similar exceptional circumstances arise in
23 the future, nevertheless, it would be helpful if you could alert the
24 Registry to the issue when the document is filed and provide an
25 explanation in one of the working language as to why it is necessary for
1 you to file in B/C/S.
2 I'm sure I can expect your cooperation in this regard.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Excellency. So far we
4 have cooperated on every matter, we haven't missed a single dead-line.
5 We even tried to complete everything before the stated dead-line.
6 JUDGE KWON: Very well, thank you.
7 The next matter I would like to discuss is the potential
8 application of Rule 73 bis to this case. And the Prosecution's
9 submission pursuant to Rule 73 bis D filed on 31st August this year. The
10 Chamber is grateful, Mr. Tieger, for this very helpful submission from
11 the Prosecution, and the Chamber has been analysing it very carefully.
12 We have noted that primary focus of the Prosecution has been to
13 propose the reduction of its time for examination-in-chief of its
14 witnesses from the original estimated 490 hours to 293 hours. It has
15 done this by placing some of the witnesses who are on its Rule 65 ter
16 list into the category of so-called reserve witnesses. It has also
17 converted some viva voce witnesses into Rule 92 ter witnesses or further
18 decreased its time estimate for examination-in-chief of it's Rule 92 ter
20 Indeed, it seems that with the exception of two witnesses, the
21 Prosecution proposes to bring all of its witnesses as Rule 92 bis, ter,
22 or quater witnesses.
23 Finally, as an additional proposal, should the Chamber consider
24 that its other efforts to reduce the length of its case do not suffice,
25 the Prosecution has proposed to remove 8 municipalities in their
1 entirety. And for some other municipalities, the Prosecution also
2 proposes a reduction of incidents. However, despite the apparently
3 sizeable reduction of incidents proposed by the Prosecution, it states
4 that should the Chamber order it not to lead evidence relating to these
5 incidents, this will only reduce the time for -- time for the oral
6 presentation of its witnesses by 23 hours.
7 This illustrates the effect of having so many proposed Rule 92
8 bis, ter and quater witnesses. It also demonstrates that the crime sites
9 chosen by the Prosecution for removal were the least significant of its
10 case in the sense that they had not planned on bringing many witnesses
11 for those municipalities in any event.
12 So, Mr. Tieger, I hope that this was a proper summary of your
14 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, I fully appreciate that it was --
15 the Court was attempting to canvass the submission as accurately as
16 possible, and I certainly wouldn't quibble about various aspects. I
17 would quickly note with respect to the last observation by the Court, I
18 think the relationship between the reduction in time and the reduction in
19 municipalities is not necessarily a reflection of the number of witnesses
20 the Prosecution anticipated, it would be called for that particular
21 municipality and thereby a reflection of that municipality's
22 significance, but a reflection at least in large measure of the
23 Prosecution's effort to utilise the means available in the rules to
24 present witnesses in the most efficient way, and that's 92 bis, and
25 that's typically reflected in the crime base and the municipalities, and
1 I think that is as much as anything else a reflection of why there is
2 perhaps a lower reduction of hours based on a substantial reduction of
3 crime base and municipalities as reflected in the proposal. But as
4 noted, the Court canvassed a lot of information and I think that was a
5 generally -- I would also note that although the Court noted the number
6 of hours, I would underscore that there were a total of 62 witnesses
7 reflected in those proposals as being relegated to the reserve list. And
8 I think that is quite a substantial number.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Before going into the detail, I would
10 like to emphasise at the outset that it is the Chamber's view that the
11 case should be manageable so that the Prosecution case should be
12 concluded in one year's time, with a Defence taking roughly the same
13 time, which means taking into account various breaks including
14 potentially the need for a Rule 98 Bis decision, potential rebuttal and
15 rejoinder evidence and the time for deliberation and judgement drafting,
16 the case should be concluded in 30 months or 2 and a half years, and even
17 in the worst scenario should in no way be extended over three years at
19 Having said this, using the figure provided by the Prosecution,
20 i.e., 293 hours in case of no reduction, which I will refer to today as
21 the first calculation, or 270 hours in case of the reduction suggested by
22 the Prosecution, which I will refer to as the second calculation, the
23 Chamber has calculated the total number of hours that will be needed to
24 finish the Prosecution case.
25 However, such a calculation is based on a number of assumptions
1 and approximations. Firstly, for the viva voce witnesses, although there
2 are only two remaining, we estimated that pursuant to the ICTY manual,
3 the accused will use 60 per cent of the Prosecution's estimated time for
4 examination-in-chief for his cross-examination. So that will be two
5 hours in total.
6 Secondly, regarding the 223 Rule 92 ter witnesses, although it
7 may be a very conservative calculation, we have allocated time for the
8 cross-examination by the accused equal to the time estimated by the
9 Prosecution for their examination-in-chief. This will amount to 265
11 Thirdly, as for the remaining 203 proposed Rule 92 bis witnesses,
12 I don't take it that, Mr. Tieger, you are expecting that all of them are
14 MR. TIEGER: No, I think that possibility was foreshadowed by
15 Judge Bonomy in a earlier Status Conference.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Without making any comment as to the
17 likely determination of those motions, for the purpose of our calculation
18 only we have assumed that only 50 per cent of them are granted, which
19 would mean an additional 100 Rule 92 ter or viva voce witnesses for the
21 So we have allocated half an hour or 30 minutes for
22 examination-in-chief of each of them, and one hour for each of their
23 cross-examination by the accused. This will amount to 150 hours in
24 total, 50 hours for examination-in-chief, and 100 hours for
1 Finally, pursuant to the same manual, we have also added an
2 additional 20 per cent of the estimated hours of examination-in-chief by
3 the Prosecution, for examination by the Chamber, and other administrative
4 matters. This will amount to 69 hours. So, therefore, we come to a
5 conclusion that the Prosecution case will take 779 hours in total in case
6 of the first calculation.
7 In case of the second calculation, assuming that there will be
8 some reduction in the number of Rule 92 bis and Rule 92 ter witnesses, it
9 is the Chamber's calculation that the Prosecution case will take
10 approximately 725 hours.
11 Now, before we come to calculate how long it will take to
12 conclude the case in terms of calendar time, it is of importance to draw
13 our attention to the realities that this Tribunal is facing.
14 First, because the Tribunal has only three courtrooms which are
15 being shared by various Chambers, the hearings are taking place under the
16 so-called shift system, i.e., morning shift and afternoon shift, each
17 shift sitting only four hours and 45 minutes per day. However, for
18 various reasons on the part of the interpreters, court reporters, and
19 audio visual unit, we have to take a break of 20 to 30 minutes every 90
20 minutes, and the statistics of the Tribunal tell us that actual time for
21 hearing evidence is in average 3 hours and 30 minutes per day.
22 Therefore, our calculations are based upon 3 and a half hours effective
23 trial hours per sitting.
24 Second, if we assume that we start this trial in October, the
25 Tribunal will then be simultaneously conducting seven or eight trials in
1 only three courtrooms, which means that each Trial Chamber or Trial
2 Section can only sit four days per week at the maximum until the time
3 when some of the currently ongoing trials such as Gotovina or Djordjevic
4 would not require court sittings anymore.
5 Moreover, due to the fact that two of the Judges on this bench,
6 including myself, are currently sitting on two cases at least up until
7 the Christmas recess, we can only sit three days per week.
8 Having gone through this exercise, it is apparent to the Chamber
9 that in case of the first calculation, this case, if we assume that the
10 Defence case will take this same amount of time as the Prosecution case,
11 this case may run up until the end of 2012 and in case of the second
12 calculation, the case may be concluded about two months earlier than
14 However, given that these calculations have been based upon a
15 very conservative estimate and there is always a likelihood of slippage
16 due to various reasons, it is evident that further reductions are
17 warranted as a necessity for the manageable conduct of fair and
18 expeditious trial.
19 However, in this regard, I wish to make something very, very
20 clear. The operation of Rule 73 bis is intended to ensure trials that
21 are both fair and expeditious. If a Chamber considers that reduction of
22 trial is necessary and fixes a number of crime sites or incidents
23 concerning which evidence may be led by the Prosecution, or indeed
24 directs the Prosecution to select counts upon which to proceed, this does
25 not imply that crime sites -- those crime sites or counts that are
1 removed from the scope of the trial are of lesser importance or suggest
2 any determination as to the responsibilities of the accused on those
3 charges. However, reductions in the scope of the trial may be necessary
4 to ensure that justice is done fairly in an expeditious manner. The
5 accused might still be prosecuted on those charges by this Tribunal or by
6 a domestic court following the completion of the trial immediately to
8 In conclusion, the Chamber not only welcomes the proposals made
9 by the Prosecution in its submission which would result in the effective
10 removal of eight municipalities from the scope of the trial and a number
11 of individual crime sites or incidents, but also invites the Prosecution
12 to propose further reductions before the Chamber makes its final decision
13 on the matter.
14 In this regard, I will now pursue with you, Prosecution, whether
15 such a reduction is plausible. So first thing I'd like to raise with
16 you, Mr. Tieger, is, for example, the Prosecution might want to consider
17 the opportunistic killings alleged to have taken place at Srebrenica as
18 set out in schedule E. So I wonder whether you can tell us now what the
19 definition of opportunistic killing is now, and how significant it is or
20 material to this case?
21 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I believe as previously related in
22 again at an earlier Status Conference, the opportunistic killings were
23 contrasted with the organised killings which are more specifically
24 enumerated in the schedules. And those are -- the significance of those
25 particular killings I would urge at this point, without drawing the kind
1 of line in the sand that the Court was indicating we might be inclined to
2 do at first blush, was reflected in the inclusion of those opportunistic
3 killings, in so far as I am aware, in all previous cases addressing
4 responsibility for the crimes in Srebrenica in 1995.
5 They -- in light of the backdrop of the events in Srebrenica, the
6 level of foreseeability of these killings, notwithstanding the label
7 which has been given them, for lack of a better word, is of such a level
8 that their significance, I think, is considerably greater than might be
9 the case with other foreseeable aspects of -- or foreseeable consequences
10 and killings related to other forcible transfer or deportation efforts.
11 Again, that doesn't mean that we are unprepared, at any juncture,
12 frankly, to consider any suggestion by the Court, but I can assure the
13 Court these matters were given considerable attention at the time they
14 were placed in the indictment during the course of our 73 bis reviews,
15 and as I mentioned before, in the context of the earlier cases in which
16 responsibility for Srebrenica has been addressed.
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. You are now not supposed to give me a
18 final answer to all of the question. I said they are examples. So what
19 I meant is that the opportunistic killing as a foreseeable consequence
20 may be relevant and may be material and significant to those accused who
21 were not accused -- indicted for any killing charges for genocide,
22 extermination, murder, but to the accused who were indicted for genocide,
23 the significance may be less. So consider -- I would appreciate if you
24 consider that matter further.
25 Next matter I would like to raise and wish you to consider in
1 terms of reducing further the size of the indictment is related to
2 alleged shelling and sniping incidents in Sarajevo. You did in part, but
3 in particular, I would like to raise in particular whether the
4 Prosecution really considers it necessary to litigate again the shelling
5 of Markale as alleged in schedule G(8) of the indictment. So my
6 understanding is that there's a controversy as to who or which party did
7 the shelling.
8 My question or invitation is based upon my observation that the
9 matter has been adjudicated in other cases, and that unless you have
10 evidence that the accused himself did the shelling or directly ordered
11 it, it may well be the case that the accused just relied upon the reports
12 of his subordinates, lacking any direct knowledge.
13 So you may consider this or if there's anything you would like to
14 respond, you may do so.
15 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour. Given the Court's comment a few
16 moments ago in response to my earlier remarks, happy to hear the Court's
17 suggestions and consider them in due course upon completion of the
18 Court's enumeration of the suggestions.
19 JUDGE KWON: My final point is the further reduction with respect
20 to so-called ethnic cleansing charge, i.e., the municipalities. For
21 example, in para 38 of the indictment, which is related to the first
22 genocide charge, you just -- you enumerated only 10 municipalities, two
23 of which, I take it, have been taken out in your recent submission. And
24 at this moment I can't remember where I did, but I remember once having
25 read somewhere amongst various municipalities about 10 to 12
1 municipalities have great significance or strategic importance to the
2 Prosecution's case.
3 So I'm wondering whether Prosecution is minded to limit the size
4 of the case to 10 to 12
5 So these are suggestions for consideration at this stage, and I
6 would like to hear your views on this later on, and so I wonder whether
7 you can make a submission by 18th September. And I could give
8 Mr. Karadzic until 30th of September to make any written submission he
9 may wish on this entire proposal.
10 In this regard, the Chamber is not minded to indicate which
11 municipalities are to be led and which are not, so I will leave it -- the
12 Chamber will leave it in the hands of the Prosecution. Pursuant to
13 73 bis D, we are inviting to fix the number of the municipalities to 10
14 to 12.
15 Finally then, we'll turn to the next agenda, Mr. Karadzic's
16 submission on the commencement of trial. And I received -- the Chamber
17 received the Prosecution's response to it. So the Chamber is ready to
18 give its ruling, unless there's anything urgent from the parties to raise
19 at this moment?
20 Mr. Karadzic, the Chamber noted your submission on commencement
21 of trial. However, there are a number of things that I'd like to say
22 about it, although it does not seem to have been filed as a motion at
23 this stage.
24 Firstly, your premise is a trial on all of the crime sites and
25 counts currently in the indictment. As you can tell, the Chamber is
1 minded that trial will be reduced in size and that a number of crime
2 sites or counts will not form part of it. This will have an impact on
3 your submission. Another premise of your submission is that we will
4 proceed on a five-days-per-week sitting schedule at trial, which clearly
5 we cannot, as I have already said.
6 Putting those aside, I must say that the Chamber is not convinced
7 by a number of the assertions and claims that you make in your
8 submission, or that the period of extension that you claim you need would
9 be warranted even if the size of the trial were to remain the same.
10 By the time this trial actually starts, if we assume that it will
11 start sometime in October, you will have been in the custody of this
12 Tribunal for more than 14 months, being assisted by a significant number
13 of paid and unpaid legal advisors and assistants. The Registry has been
14 very flexible and accommodating in paying for a number of your assistants
15 and investigators, that is greater than that envisaged by remuneration
16 scheme for self-represented accused.
17 The fact of how many assistants you receive has been continuously
18 demonstrated throughout the pre-trial period by the volume of motions and
19 requests that you have filed, which I am confident in saying has exceeded
20 what is normally the case. I'm not suggesting that you do not have the
21 right to make any submissions or applications you deem appropriate, but
22 merely that you are clearly well assisted by many hard-working people and
23 are yourself actively engaged in your defence. I'm also aware that
24 Judge Bonomy has urged you on several occasions to devote your resources
25 to actual preparation for trial and trust you have done so.
1 Nonetheless, the Chamber has considered all that you have
2 submitted on this matter in determining when the trial should start. It
3 has decided that the appropriate date is 19th of October, 2009, although
4 a formal Scheduling Order will be issued closer to that time. And in
5 order to prepare most effectively, a pre-trial conference will be held on
6 6th of October, 2009, which will also be the subject of a further
7 Scheduling Order.
8 I think I exhausted all the items I noted down for the agenda for
9 today, and I will hear from the parties anything they want to raise.
10 Mr. Tieger or Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellence, may I be heard,
13 JUDGE KWON: I'll come to you, Mr. Karadzic.
14 MR. TIEGER: We have one matter to raise in private session, Your
15 Honour, briefly.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll go into private session.
17 [Private session]
11 Page 457 redacted. Private session.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, we are back in open session.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we are back in open session.
7 Mr. Karadzic, it's now for you to make any submission.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellence. This
9 is a significant moment in the whole proceedings, and I would like to say
10 a few words primarily concerning 93 bis because a lot depends on that.
11 What Prosecutor has proposed so far, not taking into account your
12 proposal, does not assist the Defence. It only assists the OTP when
13 preparing their case. I'm wondering whether perhaps the OTP should
14 rather have no hearing at all but rather to sends me mails containing the
15 opinions of people about me. Fortunately enough, you announced that
16 there would be at least 100 witnesses viva voce. If there is a single
17 municipality with a single incident that took place there which is
18 included in the indictment, then the Defence has to cover the entire
19 municipality because the incident was not isolated. It happened within
20 the framework of the developments in the entire municipality.
21 On the other hand, I have been charged with systemic approach to
22 the entire crisis and that systemic approach was the origin of all the
23 crimes. Even if the OTP has left out some of the municipalities from
24 their case, I will have to reinstate them into my case to show whether my
25 approach was indeed systemic or not. The fact is that some
1 municipalities have already been excluded, and I really need to look at
2 them to show what was happening over there.
3 Your Excellence, I started with preparing for 45 municipalities.
4 I wasted a lot of time preparing some of the municipalities by the
5 alphabetical order. Now they have been reduced to 27 and they can
6 further be reduced to maybe 11 or 12. However, the drastic reduction of
7 the Prosecution case does not mean a proportional reduction in the
8 Defence case.
9 Furthermore, the need on the part of the Defence to deal with one
10 witness does not depend on how much time the Prosecutor needs to spend
11 with that Defence. It depends on how much the Prosecutor wants to file
12 through that witness, how many events they want to cover and confirm
13 through that particular witness.
14 I have to say, Your Excellence, that I have embarked on this work
15 with a lot of enthusiasm. It is true that I have a lot of assistants who
16 are all very reputable and expert people. But they are experts. I have
17 to deal with the factual side of this case. Even if I was represented by
18 Defence counsel, I would still have to invest a lot of work because
19 nobody knows so well as I do what was really happening there.
20 Giving due respect to this Trial Chamber, I have behaved
21 restrictively and conservatively and I asked for 10 months. I didn't ask
22 for 16 hoping that I would be given 10. I did not behave as if on a
23 market. I asked what I really wanted. Let me tell you what I wish.
24 I want this trial to be exemplary, to be done well. I don't want
25 it to be a patchwork or makeshift trial. It is not just me, it is the
1 entire region and the three peoples in the Bosnia-Herzegovina that need
2 to know the truth. All the three peoples are embittered and embittered
3 people cannot reach reconciliation. I don't see how somebody can be
4 happy over there if somebody who is not guilty is convicted, and those
5 who are guilty remain at large laughing in our face in the shadow of the
6 decisions reached by this Tribunal.
7 In order for this trial to be prepared well and in order for it
8 to develop well, the Defence has to be developed well before the
9 proceedings even start. I hope that you will not allow the OTP to turn
10 this courtroom into a camera obscura with a lot of protective measures or
11 92 bis witnesses or 92 ter witness, some 20 of them so far. The Defence
12 case has already been led to know that it will not be given much room and
13 that doesn't stand any good chance.
14 I have to say, Your Excellence, that my first and foremost crime
15 would be if I accepted for this trial to be a makeshift trial through
16 which we will run quickly. That would be my first and foremost crime
17 because I would offend many others. I know about Markale --
18 JUDGE KWON: If you are raising the issue of delaying the
19 commencement of trial, I want to remind you that it has been ruled
20 already. So could you be brief on your submission.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, I cannot be ready
22 for the beginning of the trial. Should I embark on a trial that I'm not
23 ready for? My time has been spent on dealing with the overload of
24 information I have received from the OTP, an overload of material. And
25 out of 40.000 documents, I do not know which ones will not appear, I have
1 to deal with all of them. They have 26 expert witnesses. I have to work
2 on all of them. My experts have to do the same. They have to prepare
3 cross-examinations, from the first one to the last witness. With the
4 first witness, I need to know what I can expect with the last witness.
5 So I kindly ask that you accept my position. I cannot be
6 prepared. This is not an average or any average trial. Average trials
7 here had two years for preparation, and this is by no means an average
8 trial. This is the most complicated and the most voluminous trial in
9 this Tribunal.
10 How can I be ready to start with the trial in a month's time when
11 I have had so many hindrances so far? I have had 45 municipalities
12 thrown on me, 500 and something witnesses, I don't know how million
13 pages, 40.000 documents, all of those go beyond anybody's ability, any
14 Defence's ability. No matter who had worked with me would not have been
15 able to cover this amount of material. And if I were to embark on a
16 trial under those circumstances, what chances do I stand to defend
18 This is why I ask that you revisit this issue, revisit the
19 situation after the OTP amends the indictment - and this will be either
20 the 4th or the 5th amendment of the indictment - and then in light of
21 that and in light of our arguments, I ask that you reconsider the issue
22 and make a new ruling bearing in mind that I received the greatest amount
23 of material in May and that I continue receiving various material.
24 JUDGE KWON: I will cut you there. You will have had 14 months
25 by October this year and an additional two months from the point when
1 previous Judge Lord Bonomy declared that this case is ready for trial.
2 And more than that, during four, five months -- three to four months, the
3 Chamber will be sitting only three days per week. I think that's more
4 than sufficient. This has been ruled and I will not revisit this issue
6 Is there anything else you would like to raise, Mr. Karadzic?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, if there is nothing else, I
8 will not go back to this issue, but I have to tell you, I did not have 14
9 months. The greatest amount of material was received by me in May and to
10 this day, I do not know how my indictment reads. How am I to know what
11 is the case against me? How am I to understand it? This is a huge
12 volume of material. So I ask that we wait for the new indictment and for
13 our response to the indictment and then for the Trial Chamber to
14 reconsider the matters at that point. Otherwise, this will not be a
15 proper trial and this will not be something that this Tribunal or this
16 Chamber or anybody else could be proud of.
17 They spent 10 or 12 months with minor things. They ambushed me
18 with huge amounts of material that was not that important, and to this
19 day I do not know what is the indictment against me. I do not know what
20 is the case against me.
21 JUDGE KWON: Rest assured, Mr. Karadzic, the Chamber will do its
22 utmost to ensure that you will have a fair and expeditious trial.
23 Mr. Tieger, there is one thing further I wanted to tell you, is
24 that when you file the submission with respect to Rule 73 bis, could you
25 please try to reflect the situation of witnesses. By reducing certain
1 municipalities, you will -- for example, you will drop which witnesses,
2 total number will be such. So could you do that?
3 MR. TIEGER: Of course, Your Honour. We'll do so.
4 JUDGE KWON: And after having seen that motion, the Chamber may
5 also consider whether to apply the total time-limit during which
6 time-period the Prosecution should present its examination-in-chief.
7 That will be the subject matter of the pre-trial conference.
8 At the pre-trial conference, we also have to discuss the way the
9 trial is to be conducted in light of the self-representation of the
10 accused. So each party is invited to make any submission on that matter.
11 Unless there's anything further to be raised, the hearing is now
13 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at
14 3.24 p.m.