1 Friday, 3 June 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 JUDGE MORRISON: Good morning, everybody.
6 Mr. Robinson, I understand, has a matter to raise.
7 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President.
8 My thanks to the Trial Chamber for hearing us outside the
9 presence of the witness.
10 Mr. President, this is Dr. Karadzic's 50th motion for finding of
11 disclosure violation and a motion for the seventh suspension of the trial
13 As a result of the receipt yesterday of three transcripts and
14 seven hours of audiotape of two interviews, we are moving for the
15 suspension of the cross-examination of Dr. Treanor and the appointment of
16 a special master to supervise the disclosure process and to ensure that
17 all exculpatory material has been disclosed to us, and to resume the
18 trial only when it is safe to do so.
19 The facts are that Dr. Treanor testified on the day before
20 yesterday about the Variant A and B document, and testified that
21 Dr. Karadzic, in particular, was quite active in making sure that those
22 instructions were carried out, and he utilised an individual named
23 Jovan Cizmovic to go about the municipalities and ensure those
24 instructions were carried out, and that testimony took place between
25 pages 14027 and 14035 of the transcript of the 1st of June. And you know
1 that the Variant A and B document is central to the Prosecution's case.
2 It's their evidence that they claim there was a plan for expulsion of
3 Muslims from the municipalities long before the chaos of the civil war,
4 and so it's a very important issue in the case.
5 Now, after that testimony was given, we asked yesterday, by
6 written letter, whether the Prosecutor had interviewed Mr. Cizmovic, and,
7 if so, to disclose us those interviews. And yesterday afternoon, for the
8 first time, we received transcripts of two interviews with Mr. Cizmovic
9 conducted by Mr. Treanor's colleagues in the Office of the Prosecutor,
10 one in 2002 and another in 2009, in February, when Mr. Treanor was still
11 employed at the OTP. And in those interviews, they are extremely
13 The first interview in 2002, Mr. Cizmovic says, and this is at
14 the second transcript on the page 7, that he never heard about this
15 Variant A and B document, knew nothing about it. In 1991 or 1992, he had
16 never heard of it, and this was the first time he had ever seen a copy of
17 the document, when it was being shown to him in 2002. He explained, on
18 the third transcript, pages 4 and 5, that he had been appointed as a
19 legal expert. He's a lawyer in Banja Luka, and his job was to deal with
20 the referendum and the plebiscite that they were wanting to hold about
21 the situation in Bosnia. And he denied explicitly that he had anything
22 to do with going around to municipalities and carrying out instructions
23 of this Variant A and B.
24 But it's even worse, because in the interview of 2009, the
25 Prosecution investigators played Mr. Cizmovic the very same conversations
1 that Mr. Tieger played with Dr. Treanor, and they asked him, It looks
2 like, to us, that you're going around carrying out the Variant A and B
3 instructions. And this is at hour 2, minute 2 of the tapes, and I have
4 to say I've only listened to 2 hours and 15 minutes of the 7 hours so
5 far. But Mr. Cizmovic says:
6 "I didn't visit a single municipality, I didn't move from Banja
7 Luka. I have no idea about this Document A and B."
8 Now, the exculpatory nature of this evidence is clear. It
9 contradicts the evidence of Dr. Treanor, and it goes to the innocence of
10 Dr. Karadzic against the charge that he was distributing this plan to
11 expel Muslims back in 1991. And so we believe it's a clear violation,
12 and, in fact, an egregious violation of Rule 68.
13 I want you to think about, in your own jurisdictions, if you were
14 presiding over a drug case, and the police officer testified that they
15 had surveilled some individual, and they concluded that that individual
16 was delivering drugs for the defendant, and then it came out later that
17 they'd interviewed that individual and he said, No, I wasn't delivering
18 drugs, I was delivering milk, and that had never been disclosed to the
19 accused. I think you would order a mistrial in a case like that, because
20 it goes to the very heart of the case. That's how serious we think this
22 Now, Dr. Karadzic is prejudiced by this because it changes our
23 whole approach to the testimony of Dr. Treanor.
24 As you saw yesterday, Dr. Karadzic's approach has been to try to
25 take from Dr. Treanor the favourable things -- the things that fit his
1 theory of the case, and not to confront Dr. Treanor with issues of
2 reliability or integrity, but this goes very much to that. And I think
3 it would have changed our approach if we had known, because if
4 Dr. Treanor didn't know his colleagues had interviewed Mr. Cizmovic and
5 he had denied the very assertion that Dr. Treanor was making in court,
6 then his work is obviously sloppy, unreliable, and certainly not worthy
7 of a historian. What's more likely, in my opinion, is that he did know.
8 And if he did, that calls into question the very function of what he's
9 doing as a witness here, because what he would have done is made his own
10 assessment of the credibility of Mr. Cizmovic, perhaps decided that he
11 was not credible, and when he testified that, I conclude that Cizmovic
12 was delivering the A and B instructions and monitoring them in the
13 municipalities, he had made his own assessment that what Cizmovic had
14 said to the OTP was not credible. And that usurps your function, that
15 distorts the trial. What should have happened is Cizmovic can come and
16 testify, and you can evaluate his credibility, not Dr. Treanor secretly
17 deciding on his credibility, not disclosing to the Defence that he even
18 has this information, and presenting it as his conclusion that Cizmovic
19 was engaging in this activity.
20 And so we think that either way, this is an issue that would have
21 changed the way we approached the testimony of Dr. Treanor, and that, as
22 a result, we've been prejudiced by it.
23 And we still need -- Dr. Karadzic's hasn't even had a chance to
24 read this material or listen to any of the seven hours. We still need to
25 do that. And so we're asking for a suspension of the proceedings today
1 so we can have time to do that before resuming the cross-examination.
2 But this is actually not an isolated incident, and it's part of a
3 greater problem, and I think it's a problem that has to be addressed.
4 You know, there's been lots of violations of Rule 68, and almost
5 all of them have resulted from the Prosecution's decision to disclose
6 only the incriminating evidence before the trial and dole out the Rule 68
7 exculpatory material as the trial went on. And you gave them a dead-line
8 of the 31st of March to make all these voluntary Rule 68 disclosures, and
9 they made a lot of them. But this is a different issue. They finished
10 that process. They identified all of the exculpatory material and gave
11 it to us.
12 Now we find that there's material in their collection that's
13 exculpatory that they didn't find, that they didn't give it to us, and
14 it's not the first time.
15 On the 49th disclosure motion last month, we had a similar
16 incident. We asked if they'd interviewed some witnesses who were
17 deceased, thinking that down the road we would want to make a motion,
18 maybe, if there had been some useful information under Rule 92 quater,
19 and what we got astounded us because they had interviewed a person named
20 General Vlado Lizdek, and Vlado Lizdek was the commander of the brigade
21 whose mortars and guns were sitting north-east of Sarajevo where the
22 shell from the Markale incident is supposed to have come from, the first
23 one in 1994. He was the commander of those people who were in charge of
24 that shell -- of those artillery, and he told the OTP that not only did
25 they not fire any shells at the market or that day, but afterwards he'd
1 conducted an investigation and had determined that they had not fired.
2 And that information was withheld from us. We heard the whole story
3 about Markale. We never knew that the battalion commander had been
4 interviewed by the OTP and had given this exculpatory information. And
5 we found it just by accident, not by OTP disclosing Rule 68 material, but
6 because we had asked for information from him because he was a deceased
8 The same thing happened again in May with an interview of the
9 warden of the prison in Vogosca, Branko Vlaco. We asked the Prosecution
10 for information on a potential witness, an UNMO named Richard Gray, and
11 when they gave us the information, lo and behold, inside was an interview
12 of this guy, the warden of the prison of Vogosca.
13 You heard the testimony from two witnesses, Eset Muracevic and
14 another man named Music, that they were mistreated and witnessed
15 mistreatment by Mr. Vlaco at Vogosca. And at this interview, he said,
16 There was no mistreatment in this prison, I never mistreated anybody.
17 And that was withheld from us. We didn't get it in time for those
19 So we think that this shows that there's a systemic problem
20 within the Office of the Prosecutor, that they simply have not identified
21 all of the material that we're entitled to. And as a result of that, the
22 trial is not safe, it's unfair. It's an unfair trial, despite your best
23 efforts, if we don't have the exculpatory material that's in the
24 possession of the Prosecution. That's really elementary.
25 We don't think that in a case of this scope, and we've constantly
1 indicated that this is too big of a case, some of these incidents, a
2 sniping incident or a shelling incident, would be a whole trial in and of
3 itself in a national system, and we have hundreds of those. But, in any
4 event, the Prosecutor, in our view, is not capable of discharging his
5 disclosure obligations without some kind of supervision, and so we're
6 asking that the Trial Chamber appoint a special master, someone of the
7 capacity and stature of Lord Bonomy, to oversee the disclosure of the
8 Prosecution, to see what systems are in place to identify exculpatory
9 information, to ensure that all exculpatory information has, in fact,
10 been disclosed to the Defence, and then, and only then, to resume the
11 trial in a way which we can be sure that the conditions for a fair trial
12 are in place.
13 Now, I think that I want to say that my own view of Mr. Tieger
14 and the Office of the Prosecutor are that they have the highest integrity
15 and that they work extremely hard, but they can't manage a case of this
16 size. That's pure and simple, and it's been shown time and time again.
17 And so it's not their fault, but we need things in place that will ensure
18 that the trial is fair.
19 And so we ask you to suspend the proceedings today so that we can
20 prepare what we're going to do with Dr. Treanor, and then appoint a
21 special master, and resume the trial only when he can certify that all
22 exculpatory material has been delivered to the Defence.
23 Thank you.
24 JUDGE MORRISON: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
25 Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Let me endeavour to untangle some of the issues raised, and
3 address one at a time, and bring this pending motion and the submissions
4 back down to earth and to the level of the trial in a manner that can be
5 properly dealt with.
6 First, I want to separate two issues. Number 1 is the broader
7 issue that Mr. Robinson raised toward the second half of his submissions.
8 Those are, indeed, encompassed by a current motion that is pending.
9 Those are submissions properly brought in a formal filing, to which the
10 Prosecution can properly respond. As I mentioned, we are in the process
11 of responding to a motion embracing those same or similar submissions at
12 the moment, and this is not the proper forum for advancing those
13 submissions or for addressing at the moment. We are, as I say, in the
14 process of addressing the current motion, which encompasses those
16 Secondly, Your Honours, Mr. Robinson took the opportunity to
17 argue what he felt was the extent of the alleged exculpatory impact of
18 the information disclosed, using, in part, analogies to other cases.
19 I can assure you I could proffer an analogy which would put that in quite
20 a different context, for example, in the context of an organised crime
21 case or a racial violence group, in which the impact of such statements
22 by participants in the proceedings have a proper perspective. This is
23 not the place to do that. I would be more than happy to argue any impact
24 and effect of the statements by Mr. Cizmovic at the appropriate time,
25 within the context of the totality of the evidence.
1 Now, I separate that from the issue of disclosure, but it was
2 Mr. Robinson who chose to advance it almost in the form of a closing
3 argument, and so I make that point preliminarily before moving on to what
4 I think is the issue before us, and that's, pragmatically, what is a
5 Court to do in this circumstance.
6 Now, I was advised yesterday by Mr. Robinson that he wanted to
7 raise this matter with the Court, and he was concerned about the length
8 of the transcripts and the time it might take to review the material. I
9 would say two things about that. Number 1, it's a bit deceptive, because
10 those interviews involve questions and answers which are translated not
11 simultaneously, and so the amount of material actually covered is less
12 than it seems. But more importantly, we moved to seek to have a
13 transcript prepared immediately, and I am advised that a transcript of
14 the interview will be available by the close of business today, and we
15 will present it to the Defence.
16 With respect to the -- the real issue is what to do in the
17 present circumstance with Dr. Treanor. The scope of Dr. Treanor's
18 testimony encompasses much more than the specific factor raised by
19 Mr. Robinson. The interview that he has in his possession now addresses
20 the Variant A and B issue in a not voluminous way, which he's identified.
21 The availability of the transcript, which will be provided this
22 afternoon, will enable the Defence to quickly peruse that material to
23 determine whether it has similar implications.
24 We are benefitted, I think, under these circumstances by the
25 schedule. Dr. Karadzic would have been required to conclude his
1 cross-examination relatively shortly before the end of the day.
2 Under these circumstances, I would suggest the following
3 pragmatic approach to addressing this, and that is that we continue with
4 Dr. Treanor's testimony today, which would actually provide the accused
5 with more time than he was originally allotted, although he has been
6 requesting additional time, notwithstanding an approach to
7 cross-examination which has, I submit, not used his time effectively.
8 That would give the Defence more than ample time to review the materials,
9 and, when we resume on Monday, pose whatever questions to Dr. Treanor
10 that they consider the material may give rise to.
11 I would remind -- and, again, Mr. Robinson has moved into various
12 forms of submissions. Dr. Treanor was clear about the types of materials
13 he relied on, and the source material for his reports, and the extent to
14 which they represent an amalgam of the source documentation, that is, the
15 materials produced primarily by the participants in the proceedings,
16 themselves, contemporaneously by SDS, by RS, and so on. The Defence may
17 inquire about the significance, if any, of this interview, but I think it
18 should be clear that it doesn't implicate the thrust of Dr. Treanor's
19 scholarship, research, and analysis.
20 Mr. Cizmovic can be called, and I hope he will be called. We
21 look forward to addressing that issue at the appropriate time. But under
22 the circumstances, in light of the fact, in particular, that adjournments
23 are an exceptional remedy, as the Court has emphasised time and again,
24 it's incumbent on all of us to deal with this circumstance as
25 pragmatically and efficiently as possible. The approach that the
1 Prosecution has just suggested, I submit, balances the interests
2 appropriately and deals with this circumstance sufficiently, effectively.
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Robinson, would you like to come back purely
4 on the issue of whether or not part of the Defence concerns would be
5 ameliorated by the suggestion that we carried on with Dr. Treanor today,
6 but extended his testimony into Monday, giving the Defence team the
7 weekend to review the discrete information that relates to Dr. Treanor?
8 MR. ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, I believe, and I haven't
10 discussed this with Dr. Karadzic yet because we just received this
11 information and I just saw it last night, so what its implication was,
12 but I believe our whole approach to the cross-examination should be
13 different because of this. This is now a credibility issue, and we
14 should, in my view, reassess what our position should be with respect to
15 Dr. Treanor, not to continue on.
16 If I was cross-examining Dr. Treanor and I had this information,
17 I would grind him like a hamburger. And to have Dr. Karadzic continue on
18 to ask him all these questions that elicits favourable information, I
19 mean, maybe that's what he wants to do, but I think that we ought to have
20 the time to go over that and decide on what our approach ought to be, in
21 light of this evidence.
22 I also think - and I can't resist from commenting on what
23 Mr. Tieger didn't say - it's obvious that they're conceding now that this
24 is a violation of Rule 68. We shouldn't be the one to bear the burden of
25 that. That's a serious violation by the Prosecutor that they've
1 implicitly acknowledged. They don't seem very contrite about it. Now
2 you just want Dr. Karadzic to carry on, do the best he can. That's not
3 right. We should be in the position we would be in if we had this
4 information before the trial even started. And to carry on today,
5 I think, would be really unfair.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, Mr. Tieger, do you want to --
8 MR. TIEGER: Just quickly, Your Honour.
9 The submission is not that the Defence should be the ones to bear
10 the burden of any violation. The submission is --
11 JUDGE MORRISON: I understand that, Mr. Tieger. It doesn't
12 necessarily dilute the thrust of Mr. Robinson's point, but I understand
13 that that's not what the Prosecution is actually saying.
14 MR. TIEGER: And I would -- the last point I would make is that
15 this presupposes a great deal. Particularly, a number of -- a bit of
16 conjecture -- more than a bit of conjecture that flies in the face of
17 information received, and that is that somehow this is information that
18 should have been encompassed by Dr. Treanor's analysis or was encompassed
19 by his analysis and ignored, and so on. That can be presented by the
20 cross-examination, if the Defence so wishes.
21 And let's keep in mind also the reality of the fact that this
22 arises from conversations the accused had with Mr. Cizmovic. The
23 suggestion that somehow the position on what happened during those
24 conversations was unknown to the accused in any way, and that he, in the
25 absence of these interviews, fully accepted the position and, therefore,
1 simply proceeded to elicit from Dr. Treanor only that information which
2 was helpful to his case, is, I would suggest, not entirely founded.
3 JUDGE MORRISON: No doubt Mr. Robinson would say to that, and I'm
4 not inviting him to, that that, in itself, is a speculative response,
5 Mr. Tieger.
6 Well, this is not a matter which we're going to be able to deal
7 with on the Bench, and it's not a matter which we're going to deal with
8 in a few minutes. What I'm going to suggest is that we're going to rise
9 until -- at the moment until 10.00. And if we can reassemble before
10 that, we will. If we can't, we will send a message through to the
12 --- Break taken at 9.28 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 10.05 a.m.
14 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Robinson this morning raised a number of
15 issues which, on any analysis, are important issues, and it would be less
16 than frank to say that the Trial Chamber is disconcerted. However, those
17 submissions put the choices for the Chamber really into two broad
18 categories, dealing, first of all, with the discrete matters that relate
19 to Dr. Treanor, and, secondly, dealing with those matters of a broader
20 and more fundamental nature raised by Mr. Robinson. And I intend to,
21 with the unanimous consent of Chambers, make the following observations
22 and suggestions, and invite responses from both parties in due course.
23 So far as Dr. Treanor is concerned, we do not see any way that
24 his testimony can continue today. At the very least, it's going to
25 require an analysis of the material referred to by Mr. Robinson and an
1 analysis of the transcript that Mr. Tieger said would be available by the
2 close of business today. Patently, that's going to require, at the very
3 least, the weekend to deal with.
4 The broader issues raised by Mr. Robinson, we are not minded to
5 give any indication or ruling of today. Those are matters which should
6 be the subject of a written motion, in the same way that, although the
7 other disclosure violation motions have been put, give the Prosecution a
8 full opportunity to respond, and for a considered opinion to be given in
9 due course. Not least because, as again is self-evident, the usual
10 Presiding Judge, Judge Kwon, is not present at the moment, and it's
11 incumbent upon us to include him in any discussion or considerations of
12 the broader picture. That rather leaves what we do with the position as
13 it stands in this court at the moment.
14 The proposal is this: that Dr. Treanor's evidence be adjourned
15 for the time being, certainly for today. If possible, and this is what I
16 want to hear the parties on, we continue, nevertheless, with the
17 testimony of Mr. Neskovic in order to not waste any available time,
18 insofar as his evidence-in-chief is concerned, with his evidence being
19 concluded on Monday, irrespective of any determination of the position of
20 Dr. Treanor. We understand that court space is available today, either
21 in this court or, I think, in Court I.
22 On the assumption -- I shall be advised if I'm making a correct
23 assumption or not, that the Prosecution would be ready in the case of
24 Mr. Neskovic, being the next witness on the list. The real issue is
25 whether or not the Defence feel that they would be able to deal properly
1 and fairly with his evidence-in-chief, although that wouldn't require
2 cross-examination, certainly not today.
3 Mr. Robinson.
4 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President.
5 I think as a practical matter, we could sit here and listen to
6 someone's evidence without any problem and inconvenience, so we don't
7 have any objection to that, in principle. But we do feel that even we
8 don't know if this individual -- if there are materials which should be
9 disclosed to us that haven't been disclosed. But that can be an issue
10 for something that takes place after his direct examination.
11 And we stand by our motion to suspend the entire trial
12 proceedings, pending proper Rule 68 disclosure. But if the Chamber wants
13 to use today's time to hear the direct examination of that witness, it's
15 JUDGE MORRISON: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
16 That poses the question of whether or not we can do that from a
17 practical point of view, Mr. Tieger.
18 MR. TIEGER: I believe so, Your Honour.
19 I would indicate -- well, first of all, there's the
20 transportation issue. I don't think the witness was brought over.
21 Secondly, it may be useful to let the Court know this is a 92 ter witness
22 for whom there will be very few questions in examination-in-chief. So I
23 wouldn't -- I mean, I think -- and the 92 ter package, of course, had
24 been before the Defence for quite some time.
25 So in terms of timing, I think getting the witness over and
1 getting started is going to be a very -- I mean, it's not going to
2 involve a great deal of courtroom time from beginning to end of
3 examination-in-chief, and so I wanted the Court to know that in case that
4 bears in its consideration. And I wouldn't expect it to be more than 15
5 to 30 minutes, at most.
6 JUDGE MORRISON: I must have misheard. At some point, I
7 understood that it would be a two-hour session for examination-in-chief.
8 I've either misdirected myself or I've misheard. So it's not going to be
9 anything like that length?
10 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour, I certainly don't anticipate that.
11 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, in that case, this brings us on to a
12 subsidiary point.
13 Supposing we start with Mr. Neskovic today, would the Defence be
14 in a position to commence any cross-examination today of Mr. Neskovic?
15 MR. ROBINSON: No, Mr. President, I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE MORRISON: No, that was a request to which I think I
17 already knew the answer, but it had to be made, as you understand.
18 I'll just confer with my colleagues.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE MORRISON: From a pragmatic point of view, although the
21 wastage of court time is to be hugely regretted, we don't think it's
22 worthwhile bringing Mr. Neskovic for that period of time only today and
23 to have him then adjourned until Monday. It's probably better for the
24 witness to deal with the whole of his testimony on the same day, at the
25 same time, which leaves us in the position that we are going to have to
1 adjourn the proceedings until 9.00 a.m. on Monday morning, when we will
2 commence with Mr. Neskovic.
3 And we will consider again this afternoon the position of
4 Dr. Treanor. But as matters stand, Dr. Treanor will certainly not be
5 giving -- recommencing his testimony until the conclusion of
6 Dr. Neskovic. I'm sorry if that's going to inconvenience Dr. Treanor,
7 and I suspect it will, but at the moment we see no practical alternative.
8 When was Dr. Treanor due to -- I'm making the assumption - again,
9 I may be wrong - that he's flown here from the United States. Is that
11 MR. TIEGER: That's correct, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MORRISON: Do you know when he was proposing to fly back?
13 MR. TIEGER: No. I'd have to -- I'd have to check on that.
14 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, in any event, he would need to be here for
15 Monday, whichever course we followed, but I don't think we -- unless
16 either party has any alternative suggestions, I don't think we are left
17 with any alternative other than to adjourn for today.
18 Mr. Robinson.
19 MR. ROBINSON: No. We appreciate that, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Tieger, bearing in mind what we've
22 MR. TIEGER: Well, I was anticipating that -- I understand the
23 Court's ruling on this. I'm not -- it seems to me that one option would
24 be to complete Dr. Treanor on Monday if -- again, the weekend should be,
25 I would think, more than sufficient, and assuming that, indeed, as the
1 Court indicated, the transcript is provided.
2 JUDGE MORRISON: Somewhat hostages to fortune in making that
3 determination at the moment. Let me hear from Mr. Robinson.
4 MR. ROBINSON: Could we just have a moment to ask Dr. Karadzic.
5 [Defence counsel confer]
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Excellencies.
7 Thank you for your understanding.
8 I would like to say that the Defence really needs more time for
9 Dr. Treanor. We can cross-examine Neskovic on Monday, but we wouldn't be
10 prepared for Hanson on Tuesday. So it seems to me that we will need more
11 than just Monday for Neskovic, because we have been given five hours,
12 which means that we will have to cross-examine on Tuesday as well. We
13 cannot finish Dr. Treanor on Tuesday because we have one whole day,
14 pursuant to the standing decision by the Trial Chamber, and we hope that
15 we will be given even more time. He is one of the most important
16 witnesses. It is very difficult to make a distinction between his report
17 and the pre-trial brief. There are three documents concerning me, and
18 there are over 2.000 paragraphs and over 1.000 footnotes, so there's a
19 threat that these proceedings may be endangered if we finish Dr. Treanor
21 I can be prepared for Neskovic on Monday, but it is obvious that
22 his testimony will spill over on to Tuesday. But I am not going to be
23 ready for Hanson that fast. Please bear that in mind.
24 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry, Your Honour. But just very quickly, in
25 terms of the impact and timing, and I don't want to re-argue this thing,
1 but I think it's important to underscore two points.
2 Number 1, we're talking about a witness statement that's the
3 subject of this review. As we know, Dr. Treanor's -- Dr. Treanor doesn't
4 rely on witness statements, and that's not what his analysis is based on.
5 And, number 2, the cross-examination presumably had to be
6 prepared on the basis of -- I mean, the accused's position has been that
7 he contests the Variant A and B document. Mr. Robinson's argument about
8 the impact, the need for so much time, was predicated on the fact that
9 but for this interview, Mr. Treanor -- Dr. Treanor's position on
10 Variant A and B would have been accepted. And if that's the case, it
11 certainly flies in the face of the positions the Defence has previously
12 taken. It's obvious that they would have been prepared to contest that
13 aspect of his evidence, and this hasn't changed that.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, thank you.
16 Well, it seems to me that the best solution in an unsatisfactory
17 position all 'round is this: A decision has to be made. We make it now.
18 The case of Dr. Treanor will be adjourned, as far as today is
19 concerned and as far as Monday is concerned, because we are going to hear
20 the evidence of Mr. Neskovic starting Monday morning and concluding
21 whenever that concludes, be that Monday or Tuesday. In the meantime, I
22 would ask all parties to make -- and particularly the Defence, to make
23 every effort to be able to deal with Dr. Treanor as soon as --
24 immediately thereafter.
25 As I say, we have divided the submissions of Mr. Robinson into
1 their two constituent parts, and we're not making any determination until
2 the matters have been reduced to writing and properly argued by both
3 parties as to the broader picture. But certainly as far as either a
4 general adjournment is concerned or a person appointed as to oversee
5 disclosure, those are fundamental matters which are going to have to be
6 very carefully considered. But in the meantime, from a pragmatic point
7 of view, we'll get on as fast as we can. If it be the case that a
8 witness has to be recalled, then that will have to be faced and dealt
9 with on its merits in due course.
10 But we'll adjourn for today. 9.00 a.m. Monday morning,
11 Mr. Neskovic.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 10.22 a.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Monday, the 6th day of June,
14 2011, at 9.00 a.m.