1 Monday, 4 October 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus
8 Momcilo Krajisnik.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 A lot of housekeeping matters today. Let me start with one of
11 the issues raised by the Defence, which was sitting in the afternoon in
12 order to give more opportunity to visit the accused in the morning hours.
13 We will sit in the afternoon in the week starting Monday, the 18th of
14 October, for that whole week. And then in addition to that, Tuesday, the
15 26th of October. I have the court schedule, including the courtrooms,
16 here for the parties. The court schedule for November is not yet final.
17 There's only one thing that has been scheduled in accordance with the
18 request of the Defence, that is, that the week starting the 8th of
19 November, which is only a four-days week because the 12th of November is
20 a UN holiday, but that week we'll also sit in the afternoon.
21 Madam Registrar, I have a copy of a fax sent to me available for
22 the parties where the information is. No, it's not a fax; it's an
24 Next on our agenda is the admission of pending exhibits. Madam
25 Registrar, you've distributed the updated list.
1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think as far as Prosecution exhibits are
3 concerned, we start with P111. Madam Registrar, if you could please
4 guide us through the list.
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P111, conclusions of the
7 Crisis Staff of the Serbian municipality of Sanski Most, dated 4 June
8 1992. P111.1, English translation.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Since there are no objections --
10 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MS. LOUKAS: In fact I had registered an objection --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MS. LOUKAS: -- in relation to, in fact, the exhibits
15 provisionally marked 111 to 113.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MS. LOUKAS: And my objection was registered back on the 25th of
18 May, 2004, at pages 2848 and 2849. That's where I raised objections in
19 relation to the questions of provenance, and I wanted to hear from the
20 Prosecution in relation to further information on that question.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, do you have any supplementary
22 information for the Defence?
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I don't recall what we discussed the
24 last time. I should point out with regard to Exhibit 111, that same
25 document was also marked as Exhibit number, I think, 189, that Mr. Harmon
1 showed to Witness 628. And it was our position -- as I understood the
2 Defence objection was that this was a Crisis Staff -- minutes of a Crisis
3 Staff meeting. There was no seal or no signature on the document.
4 However, we argued that that went to the weight of the evidence. The
5 Court could look at that document, see the numbering, see if the
6 numbering fit in with the numbering on other Crisis Staff documents
7 before and after that date and also the testimony of both Witness 628 and
8 Mr. Karabeg about the content of those particular items. We believe we
9 gave the Court enough reason to admit the documents and take into fact
10 the absence of a seal and a signature as something that would go to the
11 weight of that evidence.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MS. LOUKAS: I would indicate, Your Honour, just in relation to
14 the question --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please speak -- yes.
16 MS. LOUKAS: I would indicate, Your Honour, in relation to the
17 question relating to P111 and P189, they in fact appear to be slightly
18 different documents in the sense that it appears that the text is the
19 same, but Your Honour will note that there's underlining on one and no
20 underlining on the other, and there appears to be some sort of a smudge
21 on one and not on the other which may look like a stamp or not, but you
22 certainly can't tell from the photocopy that we have. So, Your Honour,
23 in essence, of course, in substance, the documents, in terms of text, it
24 appears identical, but there are differences between the two documents,
25 and I think that should be noted as well whilst we're dealing with this
1 question of exhibits.
2 But nevertheless, I've heard what Mr. Hannis had to say in
3 relation to this question, but I maintain my objection.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And is it generally your position that if a document
5 -- if there's no signature, if there's no -- let's see. The other matter
6 was the -- no seal and no signature, does that exclude a document unless
7 it's introduced by the author or whatever other way? Should it then be
8 excluded from evidence, in your view?
9 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. I'm not positing that position.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Why, then, specifically here?
11 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, in relation to these documents, I
12 have registered my objection. I have indicated that further information
13 should be forthcoming from the Prosecution in relation to the question of
14 provenance. That further information has not been forthcoming and I
15 maintain my objection. It is for the Prosecution, Your Honour, to prove
16 their documents and it's not a question of whether the Defence accepts or
17 otherwise. The onus is on the Prosecution.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Hannis, you said we should compare it, I
19 think. What we have in -- let me just have a look.
20 Ms. Loukas, 111, isn't it true that there is a written statement
21 of Jutta Paczulla who says: I've seen the original and this is a copy.
22 I compared them. And that she inspected the original that was given to
23 her by the agency for information and documentation in Bihac, and that
24 she returned the original to this body. What more do you think the
25 Prosecution at this time should --
1 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, just in relation to that
2 question, that, of course, was noted on the occasion that I registered my
3 objection, but the mere fact that a document has a stamp from AID,
4 particularly when questions have arisen in relation to documents emerging
5 from AID, I would submit in and of itself is not an adequate answer to my
6 questions in relation to provenance.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis.
8 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, again, we think if you look at the
9 contents of the document and consider it in conjunction with the
10 testimony of Mr. Karabeg and Witness 628, as well as some of the 92 bis
11 testimony of other witnesses from Sanski Most, we think the Court can
12 satisfy itself that this document is what we purport it to be, that is,
13 the minutes of a Crisis Staff meeting in Sanski Most on that date in June
14 1992. In addition, the fact that there are some slight differences
15 between those two versions, we think is also further evidence that's
16 consistent with testimony you've heard from I believe it was Mr. Hidic
17 from Bosanski Petrovac, as well as Mr. Karabeg, in talking about how,
18 generally, Municipal Assembly documents and documents in the government
19 organs at the municipal level at that time, in 1992, before they had
20 computers and before they had copying machines, often times multiple
21 copies of the same minutes or the same order would be typed up, sometimes
22 on different machines by different people. So that accounted for slight
23 variations between documents reporting the same thing, same order or same
25 I don't know if -- I don't have in front of me the citation to
1 the transcript portions where those two witnesses talked about that
2 general procedure, but I believe that is in evidence in this case.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, if there are no further submissions on
4 those documents, then the Chamber will decide soon, finally, on
6 That was -- you made your objections, Ms. Loukas, P111 up to 113,
7 isn't it?
8 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour. The objections
9 cover 111 to 113.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we don't have to ask Madam Registrar to
11 read the other documents at this moment. Then the next one on the list
12 is P189.
13 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. That's associated.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Together with 111, 112, 113, we'll deal with 189,
15 which is, of course, related to that.
16 The next one, Madam Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P200, two bundles of documents containing
18 35 tabs, under seal.
19 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, I invited Madam Registrar to read all
21 the exhibits in relation to one and the same witness. If there's any
22 objection, please say so, but I'll then ask Madam Registrar to finish her
23 reading and then we'll hear what exactly your objection would be.
24 MS. LOUKAS: I might indicate, Your Honour, prior to Ms. Philpott
25 reading out the exhibits, Your Honour may recall on the last occasion the
1 Prosecution and I indicated that that was a situation which the
2 Prosecution was to make a selection in relation to the documents and then
3 forward the selection to me so that I could indicate what the Defence
4 approach would be. As I understand it from Mr. Hannis, that selection
5 has not as yet been made.
6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, that's correct. I have to apologise to
7 the Court and Defence counsel on this. This was Mr. Resch's witness, and
8 since he left, I've taken up the responsibility for going through that
9 binder and making those deselections. He left me some information, but,
10 Your Honour, I haven't gotten to do that yet. I still need to do that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: How much time do you think you would need for that?
12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I think during the week we have off
13 next week, I should be able to complete that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that means that Ms. Loukas will receive her
15 information by not later than the -- I think it's the 15th, that's a
17 MR. HANNIS: That Friday, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The 15th of October. And then Ms. Loukas, how much
19 time would you need to then prepare your position in respect of
21 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I don't think very long at all.
22 I think -- of course, we'll be back in court on the 18th, but I'm sure
23 I'll find some time that weekend to do it.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
25 MS. LOUKAS: Defence lawyers don't need sleep.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, keep awake, Ms. Loukas. You know when -- you
2 have to sleep in order to keep awake.
3 Then we'll -- P200 will be dealt with in the week starting the
4 18th of October.
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, could you -- are there further
7 selections to be made? Because I see there are two more binders in
8 relation to Witness 633, that is, P202 and P203. Have other selections
9 to be made, Mr. Hannis?
10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I believe most of those selections
11 pertain to Exhibit 200.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. HANNIS: The 202 and 203 were basically a register with a
14 list of cases and I don't think that needed as much attention, but it
15 ought to be dealt with at the same time.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it depends. Whatever is ready at this moment,
17 we'll try to get rid of that.
18 Ms. Loukas, is there anything you still expect from the
19 Prosecution in relation to 202 and 203?
20 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, in relation to that, whilst I
21 take on board the fact that it's important that we deal with as many
22 exhibits as we can at this point, I think, in view of the fact that the
23 selection has yet to be made, it's best that we keep those exhibits --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Together.
25 MS. LOUKAS: -- in a global aspect.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So 200, 202, and 203, these are all together four
2 binders and one binder for translations.
3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that 201, I didn't mention
5 that. So all these binders, we'll deal with that in the week starting
6 the 18th of October. Then 201.
7 THE REGISTRAR: 201, Order dated the 1st of June, 1992 by the
8 commander of the 6th Partisan Brigade on establishing discipline in the
9 units of the brigade during combat operations, and that exhibit is marked
10 under seal, and P201.1, English translation.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Since there are no objections, 201 is admitted into
12 evidence. Madam Registrar, could we continue with 217 and could you
13 Please read out all the exhibits related to Witness 565.
14 THE REGISTRAR: P217, Photograph of garages Sanski Most; P218,
15 photograph of inside of the garage Sanski Most Betonirka, where the
16 witness was detained; P219, CD containing a clip relating to Manjaca
17 camp --
18 MS. LOUKAS: That's the matter, Your Honour, in which an
19 objection has been registered, 219.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And could you briefly remind us. I have not
21 reread. I have to apologise.
22 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I registered an objection. That was a
23 matter relating to a video from CNN, and I objected on that basis. There
24 was also outstanding matters in relation to the transcript. They were
25 dealt with on the last occasion that we had a housekeeping day, as it
1 were, on the 3rd of September. But in relation to this question, there's
2 the outstanding objection in relation to CNN video clip coming in as
3 evidence. And I understand that I've subsequently received an e-mail
4 from Mr. Gaynor indicating that the Prosecution presses the tender on the
5 basis of television coverage, international television coverage that was
6 available at the time. But I nevertheless maintain my objection in
7 relation to evidence coming from CNN, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Just CNN or from every broadcasting --
9 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I won't admit to having any biases for or
10 against CNN.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No. You say BBC would be just as bad.
12 MS. LOUKAS: But, Your Honour, no, I do -- my objection of course
13 is not strictly limited to CNN.
14 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, no.
15 MS. LOUKAS: But in the circumstances, Your Honour, I do
16 nevertheless maintain my objection in relation to video clips or footage
17 of that nature.
18 JUDGE ORIE: In general? You would -- of course, we have
19 different aspects of that. The first one, of course, the content, which
20 I can imagine that the Defence would fear that there's manipulation of
21 whatever kind. The second issue, as raised, as I do understand, by the
22 Prosecution, is that at least this was covered by public broadcasting,
23 which means that, true or not true, at least people were in a position to
24 look at it; which of course is, as such, could be a relevant fact. And
25 then my next question would be: How about the press, not television but
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 newspaper articles, magazine articles? Would you take a similar
3 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I take a case-by-case approach to
4 matters of this nature, of course. But as a general observation, Your
5 Honours, the first aspect that Your Honour raised in your comments in
6 relation to potential manipulation of news sources is, of course, the
7 fundamental basis for my objection. The second aspect, of course,
8 that -- the nature of public broadcasting and the fact that there was
9 coverage available, of course, does not mean that that international
10 coverage was at the time available to Mr. Krajisnik. So that --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that goes to weight. That goes to weight
12 rather than to admissibility. Because in order to establish that someone
13 had access to public coverage, at least you should establish that there
14 was coverage, and of course then the second question is whether someone
15 had access to that. So therefore, then, you have left the realm of
16 admissibility, it seems, and you've gone to whether the evidence would be
17 sufficient to establish what you want to establish.
18 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. But perhaps a sort of halfway
19 house might be a level of provisional admissibility, subject to whether
20 or not any further evidence emerges from the Prosecution that may in any
21 way ensure that that weight -- that evidence may have any weight.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, going back to the first question, which
23 is, well, whether or not something happened. Well, let's just assume
24 that witnesses told us that there are three sheds or, well, whatever, and
25 then on a video you see three sheds. Would that -- of course, with all
1 risk of manipulation and you have to be very cautious in accepting that
2 what is shown on the video clip is true. On the other hand, it could
3 have some -- it could support oral evidence given in this court. It
4 could -- but would you nevertheless say that it's under all circumstances
5 inadmissible or ...
6 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour, I don't, and I've made that clear.
7 Your Honour, the situation is that I've made my objection. The
8 Prosecution have put forward their position. Your Honour, in essence, I
9 have no further submissions to make on the question, and it's subject to
10 a ruling from Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll carefully reread what you said at
12 earlier occasions on these exhibits and we'll give a decision.
13 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that there's no further submissions to be
15 made by the Prosecution.
16 MR. GAYNOR: No, Your Honour. We made some submissions on the
17 3rd of September.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll decide once having reread the 3rd of
19 September submissions.
20 Then, Madam Registrar, the -- I think we went through this
21 witness now. So P217 and P218, where there no objections that they are
22 admitted into evidence.
23 And we next move to our next witness, next witness being
24 Mr. Egrlic. Madam Registrar.
25 I made a mistake. I thought that we went already through the
1 video and dealt with all the exhibits, but there's still P220. Madam
3 THE REGISTRAR: P220, under seal, first book of witness's diary,
4 and P220.1, under seal, English translation.
5 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objections, P217, P218, and
6 P220 and the translations, are admitted into evidence.
7 Madam Registrar, next witness, the exhibits related to the
8 witness Egrlic.
9 THE REGISTRAR: P221, map of Kljuc.
10 P222, map of villages in Kljuc.
11 P223, announcement by MBO and SDA that Muslim residents of Kljuc
12 shall stand under no obligation to serve in units of the reserve of the
13 JNA, dated 21 September, 1991. P223.1, English translation.
14 P224, public statement by Kljuc SDA regarding political, security
15 situation in Kljuc municipality, dated 21 September 1991. P224.1,
16 English translation.
17 P225, radio Kljuc broadcast, including announcement by the
18 municipal board MBO Muslim Bosniak organisation, dated 17 September 1991.
19 P225.1, English translation.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, just going back to 220.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MS. LOUKAS: That was the matter in which there was this
23 outstanding issue of the quotation marks. On the last occasion we had a
24 housekeeping day, that was the 3rd of September, that was a matter in
25 which it was the question of the -- not the admission of the whole diary,
1 but a portion, I think, the day before and the day after and what have
2 you. So it's not a question of the whole diary coming in, and as I
3 understand it, what went in was not the entire diary, but the selected
4 pages that Mr. Gaynor and I agreed on.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Gaynor.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Exactly. That's correct. We agreed on the pages
7 which should be admitted and those pages were tendered to the registrar.
8 So the --
9 JUDGE ORIE: So the selection -- then first of all we should
10 check the ERN numbers, whether they relate to selected pages. Because
11 now we have the selection of some 26 pages, it seems, ERN pages, at
12 least. And that is already the selection? Or is that the full of --
13 MR. GAYNOR: No. The B/C/S version was about four or five pages.
14 ERN numbers of those pages are in the record of the 3rd of September.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Madam Registrar, then we should make P220 --
16 it should receive other numbers, other ERN numbers, the selected ERN
17 numbers. And apart from that, it should then read to be "A selection of
18 the first book of witness diary, under seal." Is that --
19 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. The selection is agreed. What's not agreed is
20 an issue relating to the insertion of quotation marks in the English
21 translation by CLSS. And you'll remember we consulted with CLSS as to
22 whether they stood by the inclusion of those quotation marks and they do.
23 So I believe the Defence still maintain their objection to those
24 quotation marks.
25 JUDGE ORIE: So then the first thing we'll do is to, on the list,
1 introduce new ERN numbers for the selection, to change the description in
2 selection of first book of witness, and then we'll give a decision on the
3 quotation marks.
4 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. Just in relation to the issue of
5 the quotation marks: Your Honour, I've received the e-mail from Mr.
6 Gaynor in relation to the approach adopted by CLSS, after we were in
7 court on the last occasion, on the 3rd of September, in relation to
8 housekeeping matters. I've of course consulted with Ms. Cmeric on this
9 issue, who is, of course, our expert on matters of this nature. The
10 position of the Defence is this, Your Honour: Whilst the -- and of
11 course, this is not, I think, one of the --
12 JUDGE ORIE: It's not one of the core issues of this deal.
13 MS. LOUKAS: It's not a deal-breaker, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MS. LOUKAS: But, Your Honour, the point I would make is this:
16 There have been insertion of quotation marks into the English version
17 that don't appear in the B/C/S version. The interpreters, the
18 translators indicate that they feel it might be helpful in terms of the
19 reading of the particular document. Whilst the at the same time, Ms.
20 Cmeric has been through the B/C/S version and there are portions of the
21 diary, of course, matters that are in quotes. But this just happens to
22 be a particular portion that is not in quotes. And in those
23 circumstances, Your Honour, I maintain my objection.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You say you could not make any distinction any more
25 between parts with quotation marks in the original -- well, of course,
1 they do appear in the translation, and other parts of the document where
2 the quotation marks do not appear in the original, would a italics be a
4 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I don't think I have a problem with
5 italics. I'll just confirm with Ms. Cmeric.
6 [Defence counsel confer]
7 MS. LOUKAS: No, we don't have a problem with italics, Your
9 JUDGE ORIE: It seems that the parties could agree that in order
10 to make a clear distinction between where quotation marks appear in the
11 original and where quotation marks do not appear in the original, that
12 those quotation marks added by CLSS would now be in italics, so that a
13 clear distinction in the translation exists. Well, I'm not a mediator,
14 but at least the problem seems to be solved, but of course you have to
15 now prepare those four or five pages, quotation marks.
16 MR. GAYNOR: That's not a problem. I'll do that, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
18 MS. LOUKAS: That was a very successful mediation, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we get new ERN numbers. Madam Registrar,
20 have you got them already? Okay. We'll deal with that perhaps later
21 today or ... Description changes, ERN numbers are changing, and we
22 receive a new copy with italics rather than quotation marks.
23 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then nothing opposes admission any more.
25 Madam Registrar, next witness. I think you read already the first up
1 until 225. Is that correct? Then would you please continue, 226 up to
2 -- this witness. Perhaps do it page by page, because it's a very long
3 list of exhibits. We have P225. You've read that. So we're now at the
4 bottom of this specific page. Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: P226, Decision confirming previously adopted
6 decision regarding the Kljuc municipality joining the Banja Luka
7 community of municipalities, dated 1st of December, 1991. P226.1,
8 English translation.
9 P227, Official statement from MBO re: Arming in Kljuc
10 municipality, dated 21 September 1991. P227.1, English translation.
11 P228, Order from meeting of presidents, SAO Krajina, by Radoslav
12 Brdjanin, establish units for front line, mobilise TO, move civil defence
13 into TO and the TO into war units, dated 29 October 1991. P228.1,
14 English translation.
15 P229, Announcement by the municipal board of MBO and the town's
16 board of SDA, Kljuc, regarding resident instructions, issued by SDS,
17 dated 31 October 1991. P229.1, English translation.
18 P230, information on plebiscite dated 7th of November, 1991.
19 P230.1, English translation.
20 P231, joint announcement from MBO SDA condemning the policies
21 leading to conflict, dated 24 December 1991.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we stop here, Madam Registrar, because
23 otherwise it might be too much and not -- because there are another two
24 pages for this witness.
25 No objections, Ms. Loukas? Then P221 up to and including P231,
1 as just read out by Madam Registrar, are admitted into evidence. Well,
2 perhaps it would have been wise to have included 231.1 for the English
3 translation of 231. That is admitted into evidence as well. And we'll
4 now continue with 232.
5 THE REGISTRAR: P232, Radio Kljuc broadcast of Hronika regarding
6 the report from the joint public forum of SDA and MBO, dated 16 January
7 1992. P232.1, English translation.
8 P233, Handwritten diary referring to various meetings of SDS and
9 other matters during the period 5 February 1992 through to 29 July 1992.
10 P233.1, English translation.
11 P234, Handwritten and signed minutes of the 6th meeting of SDS
12 Kljuc, held on 18 February 1992. P234.1, English translation.
13 P235, Handwritten and signed minutes of the 8th meeting of SDS
14 Kljuc, held on 29 April 1992. P235.1, English translation.
15 P236, Order by the chairman of the council for national defence,
16 dated 5 May 1992. P236.1, English translation.
17 P237, Order for general mobilisation ARK, dated 04 May 1992.
18 P237.1, English translation.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I thought I'd wait for Ms. Philpott to
21 go through a whole series of them prior to indicating. First of all, in
22 relation to P235.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MS. LOUKAS: There was a translation issue in relation to that
25 particular document.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It appears already on the list.
2 Has the Prosecution provided a new translation?
3 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I believe that Mr. Margetts did provide
4 that correct version, but I haven't been able to consult with him this
5 morning to confirm that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: What is in the hands of Madam Registrar appears at
7 least the original ERN number. I do not know whether if a corrected
8 version is made, whether it keeps its old ERN number or whether it gets a
9 new ERN number.
10 MR. HANNIS: It doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that
11 that's the corrected one, Your Honour. I would have to double-check with
12 Mr. Margetts. I seem to have a vague recollection that he did come up
13 with that the next day, but I didn't talk with him yet this morning.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you could please seek confirmation of
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: A quick forensic investigation shows that the
18 handwriting on the sticker is the handwriting of the registrar who was
19 sitting on the day that the exhibit was presented to the Court and not of
20 the registrar who sat the next day. So would you please find out. So
21 that's a reason not to give a decision yet on 235.
22 Ms. Loukas.
23 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. Also there's translation issue in
24 relation to P237, firstly in relation to paragraph 4 and paragraph 5.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could Ms. Loukas stand closer to the
1 microphone, please.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, the interpreters have difficulties
3 following you if you're --
4 MS. LOUKAS: If I move across. Yes. Yes, Your Honour. So
5 there's an issue in relation to the translation of 237. Ms. Cmeric has
6 had the opportunity to go through these documents and compare them. And
7 I think I might state at this point more generally, Your Honour, we
8 reserve the question of translation objections because of, of course, Ms.
9 Cmeric has not had the opportunity to go through every document at this
10 point. And in terms of the time that we have available to us, and I just
11 want to put that marker there, that there are outstanding translation
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MS. LOUKAS: But specifically, in relation to 237, the
15 translation of the second line on paragraph 4 and that second-last word
16 in paragraph 5, according to Ms. Cmeric, there are translation issues
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MS. LOUKAS: And also --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Were they raised already? I hope you -- do forgive
21 me for not having every detail in my mind.
22 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. I can indicate that, for example,
23 the issue with P235, that was raised in court.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's also clear from the list.
25 MS. LOUKAS: P237, I don't think that was raised in court, but
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 Ms. Cmeric subsequently noticed the issue there.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MS. LOUKAS: I can also indicate, just going ahead, Your Honour,
4 that there is a translation issue in relation to 242 and 252.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. 242.
6 MS. LOUKAS: And I think the --
7 JUDGE ORIE: And 252. Yes. If there's any translation issue
8 that arises at a later stage, then the Chamber would appreciate if it
9 would be communicated with the Prosecution so that the parties could see
10 whether there's any issue or not. And of course, I also take it that
11 minor mistakes will remain there. I mean, even interpreters are not
13 MS. LOUKAS: I appreciate that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore, of course, I also take it that if any
15 translation issue is raised, that it should go to something of some
16 relevance and importance.
17 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, indeed, Your Honour. For example, though, that
18 issue in relation to, say, 252, as I understand it, goes to that issue
19 that's already occurred and it is a significant issue, this issue of
20 mopping up versus cleansing and what have you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MS. LOUKAS: So it is of significance, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand.
24 MS. LOUKAS: But what we can do, of course, Your Honour, with
25 translation issues is that Ms. Cmeric can prepare a list and forward it
1 to the Prosecution so that these --
2 JUDGE ORIE: So if you can solve it, fine; if not, the Chamber
3 will decide.
4 MS. LOUKAS: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So apart from 235 and 237, the other exhibits on
6 this page, that's 232 up until and including 234 and 236 are admitted
7 into evidence.
8 Madam Registrar, next page, 238 and following.
9 THE REGISTRAR: P238, Order by Branko Basara, 6th Partisan
10 Brigade commander to the commander of 5th infantry battalion that men
11 from other battalions be transferred to other battalions in the region.
12 P238.1, English translation.
13 P239, Public announcement Kljuc Crisis Staff that the public
14 security station has changed uniforms of the police officers, dated 8th
15 May 1992. P239.1, English translation.
16 P240, Kljuc Municipal Assembly review of Muslims who were
17 employed at executive positions in Kljuc, dated 26 June 1992. P240.1,
18 English translation.
19 P241, Ruling by the War Presidency of Kljuc Municipal Assembly
20 regarding relief of duty of the president of Executive Council of Kljuc
21 municipality, dated 21 July 1992.
22 P242 --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, I think that you still have to read
24 241.1, the English translation. I think it's not on the transcript yet.
25 THE REGISTRAR: P241.1, English translation.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And then since objections are raised in respect of
2 242, we do not have to deal with that at this moment, and we continue
3 with 243.
4 THE REGISTRAR: P243, Decisions of executive committee of the
5 Kljuc Municipal Assembly on the level of payment of taxes and extent of
6 validity of federal and public relations, dated 12 May, 1992. P243.1,
7 English translation.
8 P244, Minutes of meeting with presidents of municipalities and
9 military commanders, dated 14 May 1992. And P244.1, English translation.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that there are some question marks in
11 relation to the English translations on 238 and 244.
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, just as the parties sometimes have to go back
14 and find out what exactly was the case, Madam Registrar was not in court,
15 our Madam Registrar was not in court that day, so she'll find out about
16 the numbers. But apart from the question marks, I take it that the
17 parties will accept that once the final numbers are found, they will be
18 filled in, but the documents as such will be admitted into evidence.
19 That would mean 238 up to and including P241; then P243 and P244. The
20 Chamber will give a decision later, once the parties have exchanged their
21 views on the translation of P242 on that exhibit.
22 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to 240, Your Honour, there is an
23 objection in relation to that document.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And that objection was?
25 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, that was a document in relation
1 to a witness that Mr. Stewart was dealing with. But that's a document
2 that the Defence would require further information in relation to
3 provenance and authenticity. Of course, I take on board that the
4 approach from the Prosecution would be that's a matter that goes to
5 weight rather than admissibility, but nevertheless, I do object to that
6 particular document.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Margetts is not there, so, Mr. Hannis.
8 MR. HANNIS: Nothing further to add at this time, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then where I said 240 was admitted into
10 evidence, this decision will be reviewed whether it needs any -- whether
11 it is a correct decision, yes or no, in view of the objection expressed.
12 We'll come back to that at a later stage.
13 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, we continue now on the next page
15 with 245.
16 THE REGISTRAR: P245, statement of Omer Filipovic to Kljuc SJB
17 dated 29 May 1992. P245.1, English translation.
18 P246, material in handwriting which speaks about the preparations
19 for ethnic cleansing of Kljuc, dated 10 June 1992. P246.1, English
21 P247, order issued by the Kljuc municipality defence command,
22 dated 28 May 1992. P247.1, English translation.
23 P248, report in relation to structure and tasks of Kljuc civil
24 defence, dated 1st of May, 1992. P248.1, English translation.
25 P249, list of prisoners for exchange, compiled by Samac Serbian
1 municipality, dated 29 June 1993. P249.1, English translation.
2 P250, report of the public security station, Kljuc dispatch, 25th
3 September 1992. P250.1, English translation.
4 P251, Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of the
5 Interior, Sarajevo, Banja Luka security services centre, Kljuc public
6 security station, report on the work and activities of the Kljuc public
7 security station during the combat activities in the municipality, dated
8 July 1992. P251.1, English translation.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, just in relation to the last series
11 read out by the registrar, Ms. Philpott. There's an objection in
12 relation to document 246. And again, that's a matter relating to a
13 witness that Mr. Stewart was dealing with.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I then take it that we can read the line of
15 that objection in the transcript of the 28th of July.
16 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. I don't think an objection was
17 registered at the time, but this issue of the exhibits was left
18 outstanding, and I'm -- the objection is indicated in relation to that
19 document. It's a document that has comment at the beginning, and it's a
20 sort of handwritten list in B/C/S. And again, Your Honour, it's an
21 objection in relation to provenance. We would require some further
22 information in relation to that from the Defence perspective.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Ms. Loukas, if there's an objection, you
24 mentioned that at the time and we deal with that immediately if it should
25 banned from the courtroom and not be shown to the witness. And
1 otherwise, issues like translation, et cetera, that they can be raised at
2 a later stage. So new introduction of objections two months later is not
3 in accordance with the practice in this courtroom. And I do not know
4 whether the Prosecution would have any response to the objection made.
5 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I can indicate, Your Honour, that the two last
6 objections that I've indicated, I think it's 240 and 246, were in
7 relation to a witness that Mr. Stewart was dealing with.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MS. LOUKAS: The documents have subsequently been reviewed and
10 the objection is put forward today. I appreciate what Your Honour said
11 in relation to the usual procedure, but nevertheless, Your Honour, my
12 obligation at this point is to ensure that the objection is made.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Hannis.
14 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, with regard to 246, I sat in with
15 Mr. Margetts during that witness. I believe there was some objection or
16 discussion about that one, but I thought that Mr. Margetts then asked
17 some further questions of the witness that dealt with matters relating to
18 the provenance of that document. I'd have to --
19 JUDGE ORIE: So what you say, it's still of some use to check the
20 28th of July transcript. Yes. We'll do that.
21 And as far as the provenance is concerned, of course, I have
22 not -- I could try to find it in my computer, but that might take too
23 much time at this very moment. As far as the provenance is concerned,
24 Mr. Hannis, would there be any additional information? Because what I
25 see at this moment, as far as the provenance is concerned, is that the
1 manuscript was found within documentation of Kljuc public security
2 station, and then it says what -- that's on the cover page of the
3 document. And then any further information --
4 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I believe that was something we
5 received from AID and that was information that this supposedly was found
6 in the police station in Kljuc. I believe Mr. Egrlic was asked some
7 questions about whether he recognised the handwriting on that document.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
9 MR. HANNIS: -- Mr. Kondic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Clue will be in the 28th transcript. So we'll then
11 concentrate on that. That was 246. Ms. Loukas, any further objections
12 on that page?
13 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour, not in relation to that last series
14 of exhibits.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then admitted into evidence are Exhibits 245,
16 247 up until and including 251. When the original is admitted into
17 evidence, the translation is also admitted into evidence.
18 Madam Registrar, we'll then continue with -- not with 252 and
19 252A, because that is a -- there is an issue of translation, I think it
20 was. Ms. Loukas, 252, 252A, and 252A.1. Just not to miss anything, I
21 see that 252 is a television clip. It's not CNN, but it's TV Banja Luka.
22 Is there any objection against the introduction of this?
23 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I'm just going to consult briefly
24 with Ms. Cmeric, because again this was a witness that Mr. Stewart was
25 dealing with and that I wasn't.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. My question here is translation only or
2 also ...
3 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, just in relation to 252, there was just
4 an issue in relation to translation, and I think the translation issue
5 was raised at the time.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have noted that. But that's all, and it's
7 not -- Banja Luka TV here is not something to --
8 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- object to as public television coverage is.
10 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. That's a matter -- as I indicated,
11 that's a matter that Mr. --
12 JUDGE ORIE: It's translation only.
13 MS. LOUKAS: -- consulted in relation to the issue of the
14 outstanding exhibits and there's no objection raised in relation to that
15 particular exhibit.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Translation only. Is there any problem with
17 the transcript as such? Sometimes we have the problem of the subtitling
18 being translated. I don't know whether there's any -- we'll check that
19 in the transcript of the 29th of July.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I've consulted my expert on translation
21 issues, and apparently there isn't. Is that correct?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Just translation. Then we continue, Madam
23 Registrar, with 253.
24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
25 THE REGISTRAR: P253, under seal, pseudonym sheet for Witness
2 P254, map of Biljani area in Kljuc, titled "Biljani overview."
3 P255, official note issued by the MUP, ordering the mopping up of
4 Sanica, dated 10 July 1992. P255.1, English translation.
5 P256, order issued by the Kljuc command assigning combat
6 operation tasks to its military units in the area, dated 9 July 1992.
7 P256.1, English translation.
8 P257, exhumation report. P257.1, English translation.
9 And those are all the exhibits for KRAJ 188.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections, Ms. Loukas? No. Since I do not
11 hear any objections, the exhibits P253 up until 257 -- up to and
12 including 257 are admitted into evidence, and unless I make any specific
13 reference to translations -- so that's the dot 1 versions -- not to be
14 admitted, they're always included in the admission. Madam Registrar,
15 we'll continue with P270.
16 THE REGISTRAR: P270, ICTY witness statement dated 8 June 2001.
17 P270.1, B/C/S translation.
18 P271, record of witness interview, High Court in Sarajevo, dated
19 23 August 1995. P271.1, English translation.
20 P272, order of the Crisis Staff of the Pale municipality, listing
21 telephone lines to be disconnected, dated 7 May 1992. P272.1, English
23 P273, letter from Dr. Radovan Karadzic requesting an inventory of
24 all vacant housing facilities dated 19 July 1992. P273.1, English
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Any objections in
2 relation to that?
3 MS. LOUKAS: No, not to the last series, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then P270 up to and including P273 are
5 admitted into evidence, including translations.
6 Madam Registrar, 274 and following, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: P274, audiotape of broadcast on Serb Radio Sanski
8 Most. P274.A, transcript of Exhibit P274. And P274A.1, English
10 P275, photograph of corridor of SUP building in Sanski Most.
11 P276, photograph of cell in SUP building in Sanski Most.
12 P277, record of the identification of the body of Efendi Emir
13 Seferovic. P277.1, English translation.
14 And P278, record of release of Nadim Biscevic from Manjaca war
15 camp. P278.1, English translation.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas any objections to the exhibits introduced
17 through witness Biscevic.
18 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour, not to the last series that we've
19 just gone through.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then P274 up to and including P278, including
21 translations, where applicable, are admitted into evidence.
22 Madam Registrar, the next one would be the series for Witness
24 THE REGISTRAR: There's one pending exhibit for Witness 623. It
25 is Exhibit P281, under seal. It's the witness statement of 2002 and
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 2003, signed 01/11/03, under seal. And P281.1, the B/C/S translation,
2 under seal.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas.
4 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. That was the witness that
5 Mr. Stewart was dealing with. As I understand it, I think that both Mr.
6 Hannis and Mr. Stewart were meant to come up with a sort of redacted
7 version of the statement that incorporated the paragraphs sought to be
8 included by both the Prosecution and the Defence.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Hannis.
10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, this second statement, there were only
11 about 10 or 12 paragraphs that the Prosecution was requesting be
12 considered that were referenced in his 2004 statement.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. HANNIS: I was waiting to hear from Mr. Stewart as to which
15 paragraphs he wanted in addition to that. He had sent me an e-mail, but
16 I don't have any further confirmation if there were any additional
17 matters after the testimony was completed.
18 JUDGE ORIE: From what I remember is that there were certain
19 paragraphs Mr. Stewart would like to have included because he wanted to
20 cross-examine the witness on those parts. Could we find out -- I don't
21 think it's a very difficult exercise - whether the paragraphs mentioned
22 in Mr. Stewart's e-mail would still be the ones he would like to be
23 included. Once that's done, the Chamber would very much like to receive
24 a copy of that statement, which contains only those paragraphs either one
25 party or the other party would wish to have in evidence.
1 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour, just in relation to that, I do
2 recall that Mr. Stewart handed up the copy of that e-mail that indicated
3 the relevant paragraphs, but it appears that Mr. Hannis was waiting to
4 hear from Mr. Stewart and Mr. Stewart was waiting to hear from Mr.
5 Hannis. There seems to have been something of an impasse.
6 JUDGE ORIE: This is an excellent morning to exchange views, I
7 would say.
8 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So the Chamber -- I take it that redacted version
10 could be provided this week. I mean, it's just a black marker, I think,
11 that should be used intensively. And so 281, we'll deal with that later
12 this week, once the parties -- once the Prosecution has provided the copy
13 containing the parts deemed relevant by both Prosecution and Defence.
14 Then, Madam Registrar, we are moving to our next series.
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: I think that the series of exhibits introduced
17 through the witness Kljuic, we should not deal with them, because
18 cross-examination is still pending. So the next one would then be the
19 series of exhibits starting with 303A, introduced through Witness 048.
20 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. Regarding the point that
21 you just raised with regard to Mr. Kljuic, that's also true for Mr.
22 Biscevic, who still has to be dealt with in cross-exam.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do agree with you. I have overlooked that.
24 MR. HANNIS: His begin with 274, I believe.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's 274 up until 270 -- what we could do,
1 and perhaps -- I'm trying to get this list shorter. Ms. Loukas, I
2 suggest that we give a decision, but if in cross-examination anything
3 comes up which would cast a different light on the decision on admission,
4 we could still review that and see whether what was provisionally
5 admitted in evidence at the end of the examination-in-chief, that it's
6 either finally is or -- is excluded -- not admitted at the very end.
8 MS. LOUKAS: That seems sensible, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then, Madam Registrar, then we start with
10 this proviso with Exhibit P291.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P291, witness statement dated 18 April
13 2001, 23 May 2001, 5 December 2002. P291.1, B/C/S translation.
14 P292, binder of intercept transcripts, B/C/S and English.
15 P292A, CD of intercepts.
16 P293, map, ethnic structure of BiH according to settlements,
17 according to the first results of 1991 census.
18 Exhibit P294A, photograph.
19 Exhibit P294B, photograph.
20 Exhibit P295, Mazowiecki report dated 28 August 1992.
21 P296, Mazowiecki report dated 17 November 1992.
22 P297, Mazowiecki report dated 27 October 1992.
23 P298, Glas Srpski Banja Luka, 8 December 1992, European "NO".
24 P299, Mr. Okun's demographic data, dated 1991.
25 P300, video clip, Biljana Plavsic and Arkan.
1 P301, CD of clip from the 34th session of the People's Assembly,
2 27 August 1993.
3 P301A, English transcript of P301.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas.
5 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I can indicate in relation to
6 that last series of exhibits that there are, in fact, no pending
7 objections. But there is just one matter in relation to 292. That, of
8 course, is the binder of intercepts. And the question there was, of
9 course, that there would be no witness comments and that they should be
10 excluded, the actual commentary aspect of the intercept list. And I
11 think Your Honours were going to hand back the document with their
12 comments, and I think the Prosecution were going to come up with a
13 document that didn't have the comments.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. From what I remember, Mr. Hannis, the issue
15 was whether the witness could be presented with the list of intercepts,
16 including his comments to that. And whatever comment he would have, he
17 could do that without consulting the previous comments he gave and were
18 put on paper. So therefore, we -- I don't know whether a copy has been
19 already been presented to Madam Registrar without the --
20 MR. HANNIS: I don't think that's been done yet, but I'll check
21 with Mr. Harmon on that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No further issues, Ms. Loukas?
23 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. That was the only issue pertaining
24 to that last series of documents, exhibits that were just dealt with.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then admitted into evidence is P291. Not admitted
1 into evidence yet is P292, awaiting a new version of that document by the
2 Prosecution. Admitted are, then, P292 [sic] up to and including P301,
3 under the proviso that if anything comes up in cross-examination of
4 Witness Kljuic that would cast a different light on the admissibility of
5 these exhibits in evidence, that the Chamber will then, upon request of
6 either party, pay attention to that matter.
7 Then, Madam Registrar.
8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Just in order to clarify a potential source of
10 confusion. I said P292 is not admitted, awaiting a new version of that
11 document by the Prosecution. That was the written list with the comments
12 of the accused -- of the witness which should be taken out.
13 Then 292.A, which is the CD of the intercepts, is, however,
14 admitted, because that's without comments.
15 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. The outstanding question is
16 purely in relation to the comments.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And therefore, that appears on page 33, line
18 21, where it reads at this moment in the transcript "P292 up to and
19 including P301." That should read: "P292.A, up to and including P301."
20 So it's only P292 that is not yet decided.
21 Madam Registrar, we now move to Witness 048.
22 THE REGISTRAR: P303A, BiH agency for research and documentation,
23 sector aid, Bihac witness statement dated 31 March 1998, under seal, and
24 P303A.1, English translation, under seal.
25 P306, declaration of witness identifying voices of the
1 participants of intercepted telephone conversations, dated 29/09/04,
2 under seal.
3 P306A, intercept transcript dated 24/06/1991.
4 P306B, intercept transcript dated 05/06/1991.
5 P306C, CD of intercepts.
6 And P307, draft report on the work of the Municipal Assembly and
7 War Presidency from 01 January 1992 to 20 April 1993. And P307.1,
8 English translation.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Ms. Loukas.
11 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. These, of course, the exhibits
12 remaining from the witness that was dealt with just last Friday, the
13 witness I was dealing with. I registered my objections on Friday
14 afternoon just before we concluded for the day. And of course, they're
15 at pages, in terms of the LiveNote, the last two or three pages of the
16 transcript. And they basically relate to the draft nature of the report
17 provisionally marked P307 and the -- and of course, there was the issue
18 that the actual conversations, Your Honour, are there merely for voice
19 identification, and I objected in relation to the question of personal
20 knowledge and what have you. And I won't mention the names, as the
21 witness was subject to protective measures.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MS. LOUKAS: And of course, there was the --
24 JUDGE ORIE: That was about P306 and P307. Is that correct? No.
25 There were others as well. Yes. P306A,B, and -- well, it's -- let me
1 just see. Yes. The only -- 303A is the only one, I think, where no
2 objection were raised. Is that correct? Agency for research.
3 MS. LOUKAS: Well, no, Your Honour. I think there was -- first
4 of all, prior to the witness commencing, I did object in relation to the
5 Bosnian statement when we had that issue of 89(F) and what have you.
6 Then the -- it basically comes I think down to three outstanding issues.
7 It's a question of the draft nature of the report under 307, the question
8 of the voice identification of individuals of whom the person has no
9 personal knowledge, and the question of the Bosnian statement objection
10 that I indicated before the witness commenced. So it comes down to --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have to reread the transcript from last
12 Friday and then give a decision on that. So no decisions are yet taken
13 on the admission of exhibits introduced through Witness 048.
14 We'll have a break soon. I would like to start after the break
15 with the reading out of the 92 bis summaries, and I would then like to --
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: But before doing that, perhaps we could finish
18 before the break with the exhibits. I've forgotten the Defence exhibits.
19 MS. LOUKAS: -- Defence object to exhibits.
20 JUDGE ORIE: They're smaller in number, but not --
21 MS. LOUKAS: I can indicate, Your Honour, I'm noting the time. I
22 don't think that we could get through the outstanding issues in relation
23 to the Defence exhibits.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We've got four only. I do not know what -- whether
25 there are a lot of objections. It's D12, 13, 24, and 25.
1 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, the only one I recall having an
2 objection to previously was D12.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. HANNIS: That was a draft of witness statement of Mr. Karabeg
5 that he never signed. I raised that objection at the time it was
6 introduced. But I didn't object to him being asked questions about it,
7 and I think that was discussed in testimony. I don't have a strong
8 position one way or the other. I just don't think it's necessary. And
9 since he did not sign it, those parts that he didn't talk about in his
10 testimony haven't been adopted by him.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then the others, 13, 24, 25?
12 MR. HANNIS: No, no objections to the others.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, on D12, we'll later decide.
14 Could you please read out D13, 24, and 25.
15 THE REGISTRAR: D13, typewritten information sheet dated 07 March
16 1992. D13.1, English translation.
17 D24, order to carry out the decision of the Presidency of the
18 Republic of BiH, dated 29 April 1992. D24.1, English translation.
19 D25, pages 10625 to 10631 of the trial transcript of case
20 IT-99-36, the Brdjanin case.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Since there are no
22 Further objections, D13, D24, and D25, including translations,
23 are admitted into evidence.
24 Then after the break I would like to start with the reading out
25 of the 92 bis summaries, then give the parties an opportunity to make any
1 further submissions on pending motions. That's videolink, where we
2 received already the written response by the Defence. Adjudicated facts,
3 where I said something about that last Friday. And if there's any need
4 to say anything further on the certification of appeal of the decision on
5 protection of Witness 623, then I'll hear from the -- although I did
6 understand, although it has not been said in this courtroom, that the
7 Prosecution would refrain from a response.
8 MR. HANNIS: That's correct. I don't know what we said before,
9 but that is correct.
10 JUDGE ORIE: That's off the list then anyhow. Then we'll adjourn
11 until 11.00. Yes, Ms. Loukas.
12 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. Just before Your Honours leave
13 the Bench, I would indicate that there are some further outstanding
14 issues in relation to the Defence exhibits that we can deal with after
15 the reading of the 92 bis summaries or just prior to the reading of the
16 92 bis summaries.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if we're dealing with exhibits, let's try to
18 finish them as far as possible. So perhaps then we'll first give an
19 opportunity to Ms. Loukas to deal with the exhibits.
20 And then, of course, the other issue still to be discussed is the
21 issue of the dossiers, where the Prosecution would come up with, I would
22 say, a more -- not a too abstract approach, but just to see what kind of
23 documents they would like to introduce.
24 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, just a quick request. If we could
25 address the dossier issue after we deal with the Defence exhibits, I
1 would greatly appreciate that. I don't believe it will be lengthy --
2 JUDGE ORIE: You would prefer to first deal with the dossiers and
3 then to deal with the pending motions?
4 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, I take it that there's no
6 objection to this changing the order.
7 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. I'm always happy to indulge Mr.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll adjourn until 5 minutes past 11.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 11.13 a.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, since we changed the order, you're
13 invited to first address your matters in relation to the exhibits.
14 MS. LOUKAS: In relation to the Defence exhibits?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the dossier issues, which of course has got to
16 do something with exhibits as well.
17 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're invited to ...
19 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, as I understood what was occurring with
20 the dossier issue was the Prosecution were going to outline the various
21 categories that they -- and they were going to flesh out in a bit more
22 detail what they were seeking, and then we would be able to respond.
23 Depending on what emerges from the Prosecution once this subject is
24 detailed, Your Honour, I doubt very much that the Defence would respond
25 today. I think we'd have to take that on board and -- rather than give
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 it a knee-jerk reaction at this point, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Tieger, you see that my invitation to Ms.
3 Loukas is passed to you now.
4 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour. It's important, I think, to
5 observe that dossier concept was broached earlier and accepted earlier,
6 on March 12th, at a Pre-Trial Conference. The Prosecution announced,
7 after having discussed it briefly with the Defence prior to that, that it
8 would be submitting dossiers.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- Pre-Trial Conference on March 12th,
10 where we --
11 MR. TIEGER: 65 ter.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
13 MR. TIEGER: Now, I will note that the record of that particular
14 65 ter will reflect that I was not personally present, but I had an
15 opportunity to review Mr. Harmon's notes --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. TIEGER: -- both immediately after that session and yesterday
18 as well. There was nothing, of course, particularly remarkable or
19 revolutionary about the Prosecution's proposal; self-propelled exhibits,
20 without benefit of or need for an individual witness through whom they
21 were adduced has been part of this institution for years now. It took
22 place in the Blaskic case, in the Kordic case. It was recently approved
23 in the Milosevic case.
24 If the concern -- so let me backtrack a bit and say I do not
25 understand there to be any objection conceptually to the idea of
1 dossiers. There was none expressed at the time of the 65 ter. We moved
2 forward to creating those dossiers. I recall personally discussing the
3 fact that the dossiers were moving forward with the Defence and no
4 objection was raised. I therefore presume that the only issue at the
5 moment is what specifically may be in the dossier.
6 The generic answer to that question is simply documents of the
7 type which we have already seen. We had an excellent opportunity during
8 the course of our review of the pending exhibits today to see precisely
9 the kind of exhibits that the Prosecution anticipates will be in the
10 dossier. So without going into the kinds of specific categories - and
11 those obviously could be relatively endless - I think the exercise in
12 which we engage today provides both the Court and the Defence with a
13 useful example of what we can expect to see in a dossier.
14 We understand that there may be particular documents that are
15 submitted through the dossier to which the Defence may object for one
16 reason or another, and obviously the Defence will be given an opportunity
17 to carefully review the dossier submissions for precisely that purpose.
18 But I emphasise again that the dossiers, in concept, were not objected
19 to, and there is no basis for objection that I can see. And I want to
20 assuage the Defence, if it has concerns, that the dossiers would somehow
21 be moved into evidence without a reasonable opportunity for them to
22 review the individual documents, individual dossiers, to determine
23 whether or not there was an objection to particular documents.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me just try to understand you. You said
25 that today we have seen an example, although you didn't want to
1 categorise them, that is, decisions of crisis staffs or requests from the
2 Crisis Staff to a certain authority, either to cut telephone lines or to
3 re-install the water supply. Well, whatever. You're referring to this
4 kind of mainly, well, municipal governance, or -- is that --
5 MR. TIEGER: I think most of the dossiers we anticipate will
6 relate to particular municipalities. So the dossier would consist of
7 documents of precisely the type that the Court mentioned related to that
8 particular municipality. Those would include Crisis Staff documents,
9 directives from that particular municipality, directives that had a
10 bearing on the operations of that particular municipality, military
11 documents and so on. We also anticipate the possibility of thematic
12 dossiers that might be of assistance to the Court, for example, a dossier
13 that aggregated propaganda documents. But again, each dossier would have
14 its own theme, if you will, and all documents that were relevant to that
15 particular theme and that advance the Court's understanding would be
16 compiled and presented through that dossier.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps not only the exhibits we dealt with
18 this morning are exemplary, but perhaps the objections to the exhibits
19 are exemplary as well. Provenance was one of the issues raised a couple
20 of times this morning, also in relation to documents on which there
21 appear to be a signed indication of the provenance of that document, that
22 it was received from a certain agency and the original was still there
23 but a copy was received. So there we have some clue as far as the
24 provenance is concerned. How do you think you'll deal with that issue?
25 Because I take it that just putting documents on our table and say:
1 Well, they look very much alike, so therefore just accept them. How are
2 you dealing with the provenance? Do we get information about that? Do
3 we get statements signed about the provenance, or ...?
4 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I neglected to mention that particular
5 issue during my acknowledgment of the 65 ter. That issue was indeed
6 raised and discussed during the 65 ter, when the Prosecution advised that
7 it would be submitting, along with the documents, an index to those
8 documents, which would include information about the provenance of those
9 documents. So at the time the dossier concept was first broached and
10 approved by all parties, that was considered to be part of the submission
11 that would be anticipated.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, we now see that the issue is dealt with
13 on two different levels. The first one, the conceptual level; the second
14 one, I would say the technical level. And it's already indicated by Mr.
15 Tieger that there would be a third level, that is, objection against one
16 particular exhibit or for reasons unknown yet. I don't know whether
17 you're in a position to respond at this moment.
18 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I will give a preliminary
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MS. LOUKAS: Mr. Tieger, of course, referred to the 65 ter in
22 March, where I think it was accepted by Mr. Stewart as a concept in
23 general terms, in principle, that would be acceptable. Of course, we
24 don't have a transcript of that particular 65 ter, but in broad terms --
25 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether we have a transcript or not.
1 MR. TIEGER: No, there is no transcript, but of course there's a
2 tape, and I'm hoping that Ms. Loukas is not questioning the
3 contemporaneous notes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: To start with, I don't think she intended to say
5 that. I was just -- I understood this to be something you could not
6 easily review over the weekend, Ms. Loukas.
7 MS. LOUKAS: Precisely, Your Honour. In fact, never let it be
8 said that I would be in any way questioning the contemporaneous notes.
9 But my only point is this, and I think what I said was that it was
10 accepted by Mr. Stewart as a concept in general terms, in principle, that
11 would be acceptable.
12 Of course, we don't have the transcript, and that's a side-issue
13 I want to raise. I think, Your Honour, it would be useful, I think up to
14 a point we did have -- transcripts were automatically received of the 65
15 ters. I think we have something now of a backlog in relation to those
16 and I think it would be useful for all parties if we could have
17 transcripts of the remaining 65 ters, informal meetings that we've had
18 between the parties. It would be appropriate, in my submission, that we
19 receive the transcripts of the --
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think that's --
21 MS. LOUKAS: That's a side-issue.
22 JUDGE ORIE: At several occasions we have discussed whether a
23 full transcripts should be made because it requires a transcriber to be
24 present and I think that the parties often agreed that we would say we
25 have the tape whenever it's needed. And this might be a moment to find
1 out exactly what has been said, not because one party doesn't agree with
2 the other, but just to know what was said.
3 MS. LOUKAS: And as I've already --
4 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore, as I can imagine, even with the
5 assistance of the Chamber, that someone would listen to the tape,
6 identify the relevant part, and that that part is either on an audiotape
7 or otherwise transcribed. So that we know exactly what has been said at
8 that moment.
9 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. But as I've already indicated,
10 the Defence accepts that there was a general discussion of that nature on
11 that day and obviously I don't think any of us could be in a position to
12 indicate specific details without the transcript. But there is -- there
13 was a generalised discussion of that nature and there was an acceptance
14 in principle. So that's the first point.
15 The second point is this: Just in relation to the discussion
16 that occurred late in Friday's session. I indicated that, on page 77 of
17 that day's transcript, that it might be useful if Mr. Hannis or a member
18 of the Prosecution team were to produce a list of the categories of
19 documents that are being proposed. And Your Honour, of course, then
20 invited the Prosecution to avoid that the discussion today occurs on too
21 abstract a level.
22 Just in relation to that, Your Honour: Mr. Tieger has, of
23 course, helpfully this morning indicated orally what again the broad
24 outlines would be. And of course, they appear to go beyond matters of
25 municipal governance and include documents of a military nature and also
1 dossiers of a thematic nature across the case.
2 As I've indicated, in principle, the Defence does not have an
3 objection to this particular aspect, but I must raise again the fact that
4 the Defence is already labouring under severe time constraints in terms
5 of inadequate preparation time for the trial overall. So I think we
6 would have to reserve this question in terms of the amount of documents
7 we're talking about, in terms of the time that we have available to deal
8 with the sort of documents we're talking about. Your Honour, they are my
9 preliminary observations. In principle, it's not a concept that the
10 Defence is opposed to, but I think it has to be taken on board that we
11 are in a situation where we are labouring under severe time constraints.
12 So if we're served with, you know, thousands of pages of documents and we
13 have to agree the next day whilst we're still struggling under the time
14 pressures of dealing with the fire-fighting exercise of the trial
15 schedule, along with the outstanding issues of 92 bis and what have you,
16 there's in fact, Your Honour, a limit to what a small Defence team can
17 achieve, as compared with the numbers of people available to the
18 Prosecution in assisting them with the production of these documents.
19 We have human limits, Your Honour, as to what we can achieve on a
20 small -- with a small team and limited time. And I do make that point.
21 We know that there are many thousands and thousands of documents in this
22 case, and I guess the basic point is the Defence team has human elements
23 in terms of time available.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand.
25 Two issues have been raised: Time, which you can't respond to at
1 this moment, I take it, Mr. Tieger; quantity. What about quantity? If
2 you are preparing these dossiers, do you have any idea on whether we get
3 three binders full of propaganda or would you select the most important
4 ones and come up with 30 pages? What do you have in mind?
5 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, regardless of what we had in mind
6 previously, I certainly understand that the Prosecution is being invited
7 to be attentive to the concerns expressed by the Defence and by the Court
8 throughout the pendency of the case. I think there's no doubt that there
9 are, as the Court is aware, many, many, many documents relevant to each
10 of the individual municipalities and relevant to a couple of themes that
11 we've already discussed. I hear the Court as urging the Prosecution to
12 be as selective as reasonably possible, trying to balance the information
13 which the Court needs to make an appropriate decision with the various
14 constraints impacting the case. I don't know that it's helpful for me at
15 this point to provide the Court with an estimate of, for example, the
16 number of pages, the number of documents, the number of binders that
17 could be expected for any given municipality, and I do expect that they
18 would vary. Surely a document-rich municipality is one for which the
19 Court would expect the Prosecution to produce more than for one that did
20 not generate that kind of material. On the other hand, I hear the Court
21 as urging the Prosecution, nevertheless, to be selective within those
22 individual categories as well.
23 I appreciate that's more of a conceptual answer than a specific
24 one, but perhaps the best way to address it would be for the Prosecution
25 to submit its first dossier, see where the objections, if any, lie,
1 determine whether or not, in light of the size of that municipality, the
2 relative significance of that municipality, the size of the dossier
3 appears appropriate.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, first of all, it seems, Mr. Tieger, as
5 if you are able to mind reading where you said that you understood that
6 the Prosecution is being invited to be attentive to the concerns
7 expressed by the Defence. That was certainly on our mind.
8 The second thing I'd like to say is the following: If we have a
9 document-rich municipality, whether or not you should then also produce a
10 significant higher number of documents is still to be considered, I would
11 say. It depends on the importance of those documents. We have a similar
12 issue was dealt with with the adjudicated facts of last Friday. Of some
13 camps we do know far more detail. It's not always necessary then to use
14 that detail in presentation of a case. Sometimes you might know from 20
15 prisoners exactly how much weight they lost, which is, of course, more
16 information than perhaps from another camp. But that does not
17 necessarily mean that these individual data on the loss of weight is that
18 important that it should be presented.
19 I think your suggestion that you should slowly start to introduce
20 these dossiers after having reviewed their content with in the back of
21 your mind the observations made by the Defence and the observations I
22 just made, might be a good approach, because I do not hear any objection
23 against the concept. I'll ask to identify the relevant portion of the
24 March meeting so that the Chamber is also fully aware of what the parties
25 at that time said, apart from to what extent a 65 ter meeting always in
1 all its details binds the parties. But we'll look at that.
2 Ms. Loukas, I think we provisionally dealt with this issue.
3 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. I've made my preliminary
4 observations. I think everybody --
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- knows what the next steps are, yes.
6 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I think that the next topic in the
7 agenda, therefore, is the question of Defence exhibits.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Defence exhibits. Other than those still
9 pending on the list.
10 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. Now, the first aspect is D7 on
11 the exhibit list.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MS. LOUKAS: What occurred there was that during the
14 cross-examination of Mr. Treanor, a particular map was submitted in
15 association with the question of the Cutileiro plan. The map was then
16 replaced in the exhibit as the Prosecution had served upon us their map.
17 Now, what occurred then was that I think there was a discussion between
18 Mr. Tieger and Mr. Stewart, and Mr. Tieger can correct me if I'm wrong,
19 and it was of course the fact that Mr. Treanor had been cross-examined on
20 the first map. So it becomes, I think, abundantly clear that what should
21 be in the exhibit is copies of both maps and one can become 7A and the
22 other can become 7B. I think 7A would be the original map that was
23 tendered and was used to cross-examine Mr. Treanor. And then 7 -- no?
24 Is it the other way around?
25 [Defence counsel confer]
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honour. I think it would be that --
2 sorry, Your Honour. I'm just confirming which one is 7A and which one is
3 7B. 7A I think would be the current exhibit, which is, of course, the
4 map that was provided by the OTP.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, do we have ERN numbers on them?
6 Because I --
7 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, there are.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I can easily identify what ERN number D7 now has and
9 then you could indicate to us which one should then be 7A and 7B.
10 MS. LOUKAS: Precisely, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I have D7 at this moment, the copy in the hands of
12 the registrar bears last four digits 4000 as an ERN number.
13 MS. LOUKAS: That's correct, Your Honour, and that would be D7A.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That would be D7A then.
15 MS. LOUKAS: And then D7B does not have an ERN because that was
16 the document that we produced.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I perhaps -- and which has not been
18 admitted into evidence. Could I just have a look at D7B, then, so to see
19 whether it comes ...
20 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. That was, of course, the document
21 that Mr. Treanor was cross-examined upon, and therefore the relevance of
22 ensuring that both maps are within that particular exhibit.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I certainly remember the two maps. As a
24 matter of fact, the difference is that D7, which then will become D7A, is
25 more or less by hand dividing the territories and giving the keys also in
1 handwriting on a pre-existing map; whereas the other map, from what I see
2 in the B/C/S, already specifically refers to this map as a Cutileiro map
3 and which is produced not by further design on an existing map, but seems
4 to have been created as a Cutileiro map. At least, that's what it says.
5 Any objection?
6 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour. I think that's an appropriate way
7 to proceed. I would simply note by way of small amplification that --
8 and I believe this recollection is accurate - at the time the documents
9 were first tendered, there was some discussion about the provenance. The
10 Defence indicated candidly they had secured some of the documents off of
11 the Internet. They asked us if we had some documents that could assist.
12 We searched and found some documents that had been produced to the OTP by
13 Mr. Cutileiro, including the map and we presented them to the Defence.
14 The Defence then substituted that map. Our only concern was that, as Ms.
15 Loukas indicated, that Mr. Treanor had been asked questions about that
16 first map and it seemed like it should not disappear from the record.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So whatever the provenance of that map
18 provided by the Defence may be, there's no objection against admitting it
19 into evidence, although with these provisos, these cautions, I would say,
20 from Prosecution side, as D7B. Madam Registrar, D7 will then be D7A, and
21 -- yes, Mr. Krajisnik.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, Your Honour. The map that
23 was put forward by the Prosecution is a Muslim map. It is not
24 Cutileiro's map. It's a mistake. I do apologise for having to
25 intervene, but that's what I wanted to say. It is a version of a Muslim
1 map. It is not Cutileiro's map, the one provided by the Prosecution.
2 And I do apologise once again. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I think it's a map which was introduced
4 through Mr. Treanor. I am not aware of the existence of any Muslim or
5 Serb or Croat or whatever kind of maps. I know that some maps are
6 created by persons with a certain nationality or ethnicity. This might
7 be of relevance for interpreting the data on this map.
8 But I do understand that, Ms. Loukas, that Mr. Krajisnik at least
9 opposes against this map as depicting a Cutileiro plan, and of course
10 then we have to consider at what stages. But --
11 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I would indicate in relation to
12 that, and of course further evidence will emerge, but as I understand it,
13 there's a question of what was a proposed Cutileiro map, what was the
14 proposal that came from the Bosnian Serbs, what was the proposal that
15 came from the Bosnian Muslims, and what was the proposal that came from
16 the Bosnian Croatians. But of course they're matters that will be
17 cleared up further in evidence. But at this stage --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. Could we -- but is it the
19 position of the Defence that the map, well, let's say with the
20 handwritten legenda on it, that that is a map as introduced by Mr.
21 Treanor, a map used during the Cutileiro --
22 MS. LOUKAS: No, in fact --
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- exercise, or is it something that comes from --
24 MS. LOUKAS: Well, no. The distinction is this, in fact, Your
25 Honour: D7B is the map that was actually used by the Defence in
1 cross-examining Mr. Treanor.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MS. LOUKAS: 7A, D7A, is the map that the Prosecution produced.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. But both parties claim that
5 these maps are in whatever relation with I would say the Cutileiro
6 exercise, then. Is that -- is there any dispute about -- well, whoever
7 drafted them and in what stage of the negotiations they were used or
8 introduced by whom is perhaps still uncertain. But is there any
9 disagreement as these two maps having played a role at least during the
10 Cutileiro exercise?
11 MR. TIEGER: No disagreement as to 7A, Your Honour. As to 7B,
12 again, I related its provenance. I don't know what role it played during
13 the Cutileiro discussions. It was the document to my recollection that
14 was presented to Mr. Treanor. Therefore, it has relevance in these
15 proceedings. I should also add that I believe 7A, which was the
16 subsequent document chronologically, was presented and discussed during
17 the course of Mr. Okun's testimony, so it's also imbedded in these
18 proceedings, I think.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, I'm a bit hesitating at this moment
21 because it seems that Mr. Krajisnik has some additional information for
22 the Chamber of which, of course -- I do not know whether it's more
23 appropriate to invite him to address the Chamber directly, which usually
24 in procedural matters is not a thing we do. But I leave it up to you
25 whether you want to respond first or whether you want to --
1 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, at this stage I don't propose to
2 say anything further. It appears that Mr. Krajisnik does want to
3 indicate something to the Trial Chamber. So at this stage I don't wish
4 to say anything.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Krajisnik, I'll allow you to address the
6 Chamber, but at this moment we are not discussing the content of this
7 evidence. We're just discussing at this moment the request of the
8 Defence, and you've heard the Prosecution, that the Prosecution agrees
9 that the other map should be in the record as well. So we're not at this
10 moment in a discussion as to what is the right map or what's the wrong
11 map or who drafted it rightly or wrongly, but just the issue at this
12 moment is whether, on our list of exhibits, this second map should also
13 appear. So that's the issue. Please tell us what you would like to tell
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I really do apologise most
16 profoundly for having to ask for the floor. I would just like to assist
17 the Trial Chamber, in actual fact. Every side put forward its proposal
18 before Cutileiro: the Serbian, the Croatian, and the Muslim side. And
19 Mr. Cutileiro just provided one map, a single map, and it is this map
20 here. Now, the proposal that we've just heard from the Prosecution is
21 one of the versions put forward by the Muslim side. I just wanted a note
22 to be taken of that.
23 So please, I do apologise for asking for the floor. I know it's
24 not the done thing. But I just wanted to prevent you going down the
25 wrong road. It's difficult to retrace one's steps after that. And there
1 is evidence. All the papers published the map and you can look into it.
2 So that's what I wanted to bring to your attention and I do apologise
3 most profoundly for taking the floor and taking up your time. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: No problem. You have drawn your attention, as was
5 already done in cross-examination, that there might have been more maps
6 used during the Cutileiro exercise, and as indicated by Ms. Loukas, it's
7 a matter of presenting further evidence on who exactly, when, et cetera.
8 So that's -- if it goes beyond the cross-examination of Mr. Treanor and
9 if it goes beyond the cross-examination of Mr. Okun, of course, if it
10 ever comes to that, there will be a stage in these proceedings where the
11 Defence presents its case and where ample opportunity will exist on the
12 presentation of further evidence on the Cutileiro exercise, which of
13 course the Chamber is aware is one of the important issues, it seems,
14 until now for the Defence.
15 Madam Registrar, I now hand over to you, if you haven't got a
16 copy yet, then the second map, which will be D7B. Yes.
17 Any further issues on Defence exhibits? Apart from the list
18 of --
19 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I just noted in D8, I think
20 there's a translation pending, and we're just wondering what the status
21 is in relation to D8. And we can inform the Chamber that we have, in
22 fact, the English translation, and we can tender that. We have seven
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do I understand that you did not only put the
25 question, but also answered the question? Is that --
1 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, indeed, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, if that's something you could do more
3 often, then that would be great.
4 MS. LOUKAS: It's something of an internal Socratic method, Your
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the translation is there and can be -- has
7 the Prosecution already received a copy of the translation? No. Could
8 we provisionally, unless the Prosecution comes back with any complaints
9 about the translation, could we provisionally now admit it as D8.1.
10 Madam Registrar. And if you would then perhaps read out what it is a
11 translation of.
12 MS. LOUKAS: I can indicate, Your Honour, that it is the official
13 translation that we've received --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MS. LOUKAS: -- from CLSS.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you know sometimes --
17 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed I do, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: D8.1 is the English translation of pages 101,
20 102, and 103 of book written by Alija Izetbegovic, entitled "Memoirs."
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
22 Any other issues in relation to your exhibits?
23 MS. LOUKAS: The next topic we come to, Your Honour, in terms of
24 the Defence exhibits, relates to D12, D13 and D14. Mr. Hannis indicated
25 this he was registering I think an objection of sorts in relation to D12.
1 JUDGE ORIE: D12 only, yes.
2 MS. LOUKAS: What remains outstanding in terms of that particular
3 witness, of course, is the material in relation to Mr. Adil Draganovic.
4 Mr. Hannis and I have discussed this. I have the bundle of material that
5 was provided by the Prosecution that -- Your Honours may recall that when
6 I was cross-examining this particular witness, the Prosecution made a
7 suggestion which seemed eminently sensible in the circumstances, that we
8 present that material to the Chamber. So we do have that material, and
9 I'd be seeking to tender that material in relation to that particular
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Is that related in any specific way, then, to -- do you have any
13 suggestion for the numbering? Should we just give it a separate number
14 or should we make it D13 or D14? You said I haven't got the total list
15 here, but ...
16 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I had wondered about that, about
17 where precisely we might insert it. I suppose it could become 14B or
18 something of that nature, or 12B. Because we don't want to sort of have
19 this material outside the series of exhibits relating to this particular
20 witness. That's the problem.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then perhaps D14. If we would renumber D14 to
22 be D14A, and then to have this material D14B. Is that acceptable, or am
23 I then creating links which are without any foundation?
24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I understand what you're trying to
25 accomplish. I don't have an objection to that. It seems to me it's more
1 related to Mr. Karabeg's statement in D12 than it is to D14. But either
2 way is fine with me.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Shall we then more or less -- we could
4 also -- we could then keep D12 as it is and make this D12A, perhaps.
5 Yes, Ms. Loukas. D12A.
6 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. These are the documents in
7 question, that I've been anxious to unload for some time now.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll take some of the burden off your
10 Any further issues in relation to Defence exhibits?
11 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please put on your microphone.
13 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honour. There's just another issue in
14 relation to this particular witness, and that is that there was some
15 questioning in relation to a question of a diary that was to be produced,
16 and thus far, I think this was back in -- the 24th, 26th of May, around
17 this period. Of course some time has passed since then and we've
18 received no notification as to this outstanding diary.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis.
20 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I checked on that yesterday. The diary
21 has arrived. In addition, Mr. Karabeg I believe testified that he had
22 made some notes with regard to a particular meeting that was with his
23 diary. I understand from the investigator's report that he has found the
24 diary but he said he did not found the notes.
25 We have the diary. As I understand there was so the issue, some
1 concerns about personal matters in the diary and what we had proposed at
2 the time was when we received it was to give it to the Court to see if
3 there were any personal matters that either of the parties should not see
4 and if you identified anything that was relevant to the issue, then you
5 could let under the circumstances know, we would make the translations,
6 give it to the Defence and submit whatever portions were necessary.
7 JUDGE ORIE: When it the diary arrive.
8 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I don't recall. We've had it for some
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then if it was your plan to give it to the Court,
11 then it could have arrive soon after that moment.
12 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Well let's try now to get things on the right
14 path. If you would -- have you any idea on how many pages there are?
15 MR. HANNIS: I don't recall, Your Honour. I had the ERN range in
16 the e-mail, but I don't recall how many pages it was.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll receive that soon and see whether
18 it's -- with what precision we could check in the in the diary whether
19 personal matters are involved.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Now there's just one final outstanding matter in
21 relation to this particular witness, Your Honour. That was -- as part of
22 the questioning I referred this particular witness to evidence that he
23 had given in a previous trial, and Your Honours asked for the relevant
24 pages. And again, this is a matter I discussed some time ago with Mr.
25 Hannis. Rather than just giving the page, there's a tiny bit of context.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 So there's an additional page as well so that the matter is not taken out
2 of context, Your Honour.
3 So I can indicate I have copies of the relevant portions that --
4 copies of the previous transcript that I referred the witness to.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Questions were about -- so it's not evidence,
6 but it's just to -- should we mark it for identification? So this is the
7 statement the witness is confronted with? Mr. Hannis, I see you're on
8 your feet.
9 MS. LOUKAS: I actually cross-examined on statements that --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay.
11 MS. LOUKAS: -- from the previous transcript.
12 MR. HANNIS: No. I have no objection if Your Honours want to
13 mark it as an exhibit. I would suggest D12B, if it's necessary.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Prosecution has seen the selection made by the
15 Defence and --
16 MR. HANNIS: Not recently, but I have seen it.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. And there's no objection to that.
18 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, just in relation to the suggestion made
19 by Mr. Hannis, I think that -- I think the decision was that material
20 relating to Mr. Draganovic would come under 12B, so perhaps it would be
21 more suitable for this transcript to come under perhaps 12C. I think we
22 already have a 12B. -- 12A.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, you're the only one who knows
24 whether we have a 12B or not.
25 MS. LOUKAS: I think Ms. Philpott with her usual efficiency will
1 sort out that particular problem with the A,B, C.
2 JUDGE ORIE: We have not, but of course we have now on our desk
3 the Draganovic material, and it might be suitable to make that 12B. And
4 then this would be 12C. And again, Ms. Loukas, I'm very bad in numbers.
5 99-36 is what case.
6 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, that's Brdjanin and Talic, Your Honour, the case
7 against Mr. Brdjanin and Mr. Talic -- the late Mr. Talic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Madam Registrar, then the selection of the Draganovic material
10 would be under 12B. No objections. Therefore we admit it into evidence.
11 And then the pages 6071 and 6072, and the pages 6159 and 6160 of
12 the Brdjanin and Talic case, which is the testimony of Mr. Karabeg in
13 open session, are admitted under 12C.
14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'd better leave it to Madam Registrar, because I'm
16 making a mess out of it. 12A, B, and C will be now newly introduced by
17 Madam Registrar only, and there will be no C.
18 THE REGISTRAR: D12A will be the material relating to Mr.
20 And 12B will be the pages from the Brdjanin trial, 6071, 6159,
21 and 6160.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, I hesitate to interfere, but I have
23 four pages, and I just mentioned four. You come to three. I think you
24 missed 6072.
25 THE REGISTRAR: 6072. Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: The four pages under 12B.
2 Any further issues?
3 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. Just in relation to D21. That
4 was, in fact, an exhibit from the Defence that was actually withdrawn at
5 the time because the Prosecution had a copy in their binders. But, of
6 course, there's still the remaining question in relation to these
7 particular exhibits of this particular witness in relation to P200, as to
8 a selection being made. So if as part of the selection this document
9 isn't included then we would have to reinsert it into the Defence
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MS. LOUKAS: So there's just that remaining issue which we need
13 to --
14 JUDGE ORIE: D21 should be reinserted if P200 would not contain
15 this document any more after the selection is made.
16 MS. LOUKAS: In fact, Your Honour, it's P200, tab 32 that we're
17 dealing with in that particular instance, to give it more specificity.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any further issues.
19 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to D26, and this is the last matter
20 pertaining to Defence exhibits, Ms. Cmeric noted that a copy was required
21 from the Defence in English in relation to this particular document, and
22 we do have those copies now to submit to the Court.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And that will then be D26.1, I take it.
24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, if that's the English, I think that
25 would be D26 --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's the original, yes.
2 Madam Registrar, it looks as if here the English is the original
3 one. It's the -- at least I see the statement signed.
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that at this moment we have the
6 English, so we're waiting for the B/C/S version rather than ... I do
7 think that, because Madam Registrar says me that that's the case.
8 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. It was indicated in the list that
9 it was English copy was requested, but we have both, in any event.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps Madam Registrar, could you please check in
11 the ...
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Both copies are there already. So we should just
14 then check on the list whether they're both registered as such. Ms.
15 Loukas, there's another pleasant surprise that you've done already what
16 you intend to do.
17 MS. LOUKAS: [Microphone not activated] Sorry, Your Honour. Of
18 course, it's never a surprise, but it's just I think that the list we
19 received on the 29th of September said that it was required. So Ms.
20 Cmeric, with her usual efficiency, matching Ms. Philpott's usual
21 efficiency, have managed to produce the desired result.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And you said it was the last issue to be raised in
24 respect of --
25 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Your Honour, at this stage I think the -- at
1 this stage we've dealt with the -- as many outstanding issues as we can
2 in relation to both the Prosecution exhibits and the Defence exhibits.
3 And I think the next topic is 92 bis summaries.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MS. LOUKAS: There is one matter I'd want to raise in respect of
6 that, and it might be, in view of the topic, appropriate to go briefly
7 into private session.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We'll turn into private session.
9 [Private session]
11 Page 6621 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 6622 redacted. Private session.
14 [Open session]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, we can proceed with the reading of the
17 summaries, if you wish.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and please do so at such speed that the
19 interpreters and the transcribers are still able to follow you.
20 MR. GAYNOR: Certainly, Your Honour. The first witness is
21 Witness 219.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps before we -- I explain just briefly for the
23 record that these are summaries of written statements of witnesses who
24 have not testified viva voce but whose statements are admitted into
25 evidence and therefore can play a role in determinations this Chamber has
1 to make. And for the purpose of public being aware what happens in this
2 trial, short summaries of these statements are read.
3 Please proceed, Mr. Gaynor.
4 MR. GAYNOR: The first witness is Witness 219.
5 "The witness and others were taken to the army barracks in Brcko
6 on 6th of May, 1992. The women and children were separated and taken
7 away. The men, aged 15 onward, stayed behind. Only Muslims and Croats
8 remained in the barracks. The following day, more people were brought
9 into the barracks. Again, the women and children were separated and
10 taken elsewhere.
11 On 7th May 1992, the witness was taken with others to clean the
12 centre of Brcko town. There were men in uniform around, but otherwise
13 the town was empty. The witness and the others were split into groups to
14 clean the SUP building.
15 In front of the SUP building, Goran Jelisic lined up three men
16 from the witness's group and beat them with a baton. He took the men
17 into the SUP police station. Minutes later, two of the three men raced
18 out of the police building. A shot rang out from inside the building,
19 then some policemen and Jelisic raced out of the police building. A
20 policeman caught one of the men and turned him over to Jelisic. Jelisic
21 shot the man in the back. One of the soldiers said to Jelisic, "Adolf,
22 that's your 52nd today." The other man who had run away was also caught.
23 Jelisic asked the witness about the Green Berets, the ZNGs, and
24 the HVO, and cursed the witness's mother. Jelisic hit the witness on the
25 head and neck with a baton and pointed his gun at the witness.
1 The witness was made to carry two dead bodies out of the SUP
2 building. The witness and others were later lined up in the street and
3 forced to sing, while Jelisic conducted with his baton."
4 Your Honours, Mr. Hannis will read the next two.
5 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Your Honours, the next witness is KRAJ
7 "The witness describes executions by Serb police of Muslim
8 civilians that took place outside the SUP building in Brcko on or about 6
9 May 1992.
10 On 4 May, the witness was arrested by Serb soldiers and taken to
11 a mosque. There were up to 200 men in the mosque, between the ages of 18
12 and 60, and they were guarded by men wearing uniforms of Arkan's
13 soldiers, White Eagles, and other groups. Detainees at the mosque were
14 interrogated, and asked questions such as where they lived and what party
15 they belonged to. One detainee tried to escape from the mosque and was
16 shot in the back by one of Arkan's soldiers.
17 The witness and 15 others were moved to the military barracks in
18 the middle of Brcko town. Most of the men moved to the barracks were
19 from Brcko Novo, Mujkici, and Meraje. The next day, the witness went to
20 clean up glass around the SUP building. While the witness cleaned, Goran
21 Jelisic questioned him about the SDA, young Muslims, and the ZNGs. The
22 witness and others were then taken into the SUP building for
23 interrogation. Jelisic beat the witness on the head and shoulders with a
24 baton during the interrogation.
25 While in the SUP building, the witness heard gunfire outside.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 The two soldiers guarding the witness ran out of the room, and the
2 witness ran after them. The witness was later told by men who were
3 outside that Hasan Jasarevic had tried to escape from the building but
4 was caught and killed by Jelisic.
5 The witness loaded the bodies of three murdered detainees into a
6 refrigerated truck. One of them had been castrated.
7 Jelisic introduced himself and gave them his nickname, "Serb
8 Adolf." He ordered the witness and other men to form lines in front of
9 the SUP entrance and sing Serb national songs.
10 The witness saw Jelisic take a man down a small side-street. A
11 shot was heard. Jelisic returned from the side-street alone. A
12 refrigerated truck later drove to the street where the man had been
13 taken. The witness saw a detainee come out of the building with a
14 bandaged hand. He moved slowly, limping on one foot. Jelisic beat the
15 man on the shoulders with a baton and told him this was the last time he
16 would see his town. The witness saw Jelisic take the man down the same
17 side-street and heard gunfire. The witness also saw Jelisic take a third
18 man down the side-street and heard gunfire."
19 The next witness, Your Honour, is KRAJ 212.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly make a break for the interpreters.
21 Thank you.
22 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. KRAJ 212.
23 "The witness provides evidence of the targeting of prominent
24 members of the Bosniak community in Brcko by Serb forces.
25 On 5 May 1992, the witness was detained at the Laser Bus Company
1 in Brcko. Goran Jelisic, together with other members of the Bosnian Serb
2 forces, arrived and began to threaten and intimidate the group as they
3 searched for members of a particular, well-known, Muslim family. The
4 witness was taken to the Luka detention camp on 8 May, where he believes
5 up to 1.000 men were detained. Killings in Luka camp were frequent and
6 brutal. Further, persons with the last name of Ramic and Causevic were
7 often called out and killed. These families were known to be active
8 members of the SDA.
9 The witness described the removal of dead bodies or corpses from
10 Luka. He was asked to carry bodies on five occasions to a dumping area
11 adjacent to the administrative offices in the camp. On each occasion he
12 saw approximately 20 bodies piled in this area. One morning, he saw two
13 persons in a refrigerated truck come to Luka to collect the corpses and
14 drive them away.
15 A police inspector from the SUP interrogated the witness at Luka.
16 The witness was asked whether he was a member of the SDA, who was in the
17 SDA, and whether he had family in the Bosnian army. Because he didn't
18 give the interrogators any information, the witness was told he would
19 never leave Luka. The witness remained at Luka until July, when he was
20 transferred with all the other detainees to the Batkovic camp in
21 Bijeljina, where he remained until November 1992, having obtained his
22 release by paying 2.000 Deutschmark."
23 Mr. Gaynor will read the next two, Your Honour.
24 MR. GAYNOR: The next witness is Witness 215.
25 "The witness describes the murder of a man and the mistreatment
1 of herself in Brcko in May 1992.
2 On 1st of May, 1992, the day after the bridges were blown up in
3 Brcko, the witness was stopped by police and ordered to return home. On
4 the same day, she heard intense shelling coming from parts of Brcko town.
5 Several days later, the witness and others were met by soldiers
6 dressed in camouflage uniforms, armed with rifles and knives, and
7 displaying the Serbian tricolour on their sleeves. The soldiers spoke
8 with Serbian accents and said they were Seselj's men.
9 One of the soldiers struck a Serb man for hiding with Muslims.
10 One soldier observed that the man was hiding while the soldiers came to
11 fight for a Greater Serbia.
12 A soldier shot the man in the temple with front of the witness
13 and a child. After killing the man, the soldier who killed him racially
14 insulted the surviving Muslims.
15 The Muslims were then detained in a house. Soldiers discussed
16 what to do with the civilians. The options discussed including taking
17 the young women to brothels, separating the young boys from the women, or
18 taking them to Luka. Later, the witness saw the bodies of several people
19 who had been killed."
20 The next witness is from Sanski Most and is Witness 481.
21 "The witness gives evidence about the destruction of residential,
22 religious, and cultural property in Hrustovo and Vrhpolje; the rounding
23 up of civilian non-Serbs for transfer to camps and detention facilities;
24 beatings and the killing of a number of men in Kenjari on or about 27th
25 of June, 1992. He also provides details about the Detention Centre known
1 as Krings Hall in Sanski Most and the removal of non-Serbs from the
3 The shelling and attack of Hrustovo and Vrhpolje started at the
4 end of May 1992, by the 6th Krajina Brigade, commanded by Basara. The
5 mosque was targeted, and houses were burned and looted. There were large
6 numbers of soldiers in the villages. Many civilians were killed or taken
7 to Manjaca.
8 The village of Kenjari was surrounded by troops on the 27th of
9 June, 1992. The villagers were rounded up and the men were separated
10 from the women. A number of men were taken to Dujo Banovic's house; the
11 witness describes the killing that took place there.
12 The witness went to Tomina, where he joined other Muslims that
13 had been displaced from Hrustovo and Vrhpolje. Serbs drove this group of
14 refugees to Krings Hall in Sanski Most. The witness describes the
15 inhumane conditions at the camp, including inadequate space and sanitary
16 facilities, insufficient food, and no medical facilities. He describes
17 beatings there, including the beating to death of one detainee.
18 The witness was released from the Hall on the 4th of August,
19 1992. He left Sanski Most on 18th August 1992 on a convoy that went to
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.
22 We have two more items on our agenda. Any further submissions in
23 relation to the videolink motion? We have received the Defence response.
24 Is there any need, Mr. Hannis, to further respond to that?
25 MR. HANNIS: Mr. Hannis. Nothing further, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm sorry. Then the issue of adjudicated facts,
2 which was addressed briefly last Friday; that might take a bit more time.
3 But of course, if you'd say: No, we perfectly understand what the
4 Chamber seeks and we've made up our mind to make new proposals. But
5 otherwise we should have the break first.
6 Mr. Gaynor.
7 MR. GAYNOR: I can outline very briefly the Prosecution's
8 position about this now or after the break, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It also depends on how much it would take, how
10 much time it would take.
11 MR. GAYNOR: It will take about a minute or two.
12 JUDGE ORIE: A minute or two. Has the Defence any outspoken
13 position in relation to ...
14 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, just in relation to this, of
15 course, we were awaiting to hear what the Prosecution had to say before
16 we could finalise our response. In the circumstances, Your Honour, I do
17 have some other matters that need to be dealt with after the break.
18 JUDGE ORIE: So then let's perhaps have the break now and deal
19 with the remaining matters after the break.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. And when one looks at of course what occurred
21 last Friday afternoon, Your Honour invited the OTP to file a
22 substantially reduced list of proposed adjudicated facts, and of course
23 before the Defence can in essence respond to that, we need to know what
24 the Prosecution --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course I do understand that you cannot
1 already respond to such a list, a new list.
2 We will adjourn until 5 minutes to 1.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 1.01 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, may I invite you first to express the
6 position of the Prosecution on the issue of the adjudicated facts.
7 MR. GAYNOR: I'll take care of that, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Gaynor, then.
9 MR. GAYNOR: First of all, Your Honour, we've read what Your
10 Honour said on Friday and we will indeed review the adjudicated facts. I
11 just want to clarify before I make a couple of points whether Your Honour
12 wishes us to review the two pending motions for adjudicated facts or the
13 two pending motions plus the adjudicated facts of which Your Honours have
14 already taken judicial notice.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, we have two motions already decided
16 upon on adjudicated facts. The whole exercise of making the adjudicated
17 facts more manageable and more, well, I mean, if we have to refer always
18 to 873 for a detail here or to 255 for a detail there, that would not
19 make much sense if we would leave out the already large number of
20 adjudicated facts admitted into evidence in the earlier decisions.
21 So the Chamber would then have in mind to reorganise the whole of
22 it. But of course, the adjudicated facts already admitted into evidence
23 are there, so it's not to reconsider whether or not in another form these
24 facts could be admitted into evidence. But it would not make much sense
25 to have the half dealt with in the new way and the earlier part in the
1 old fashion.
2 MR. GAYNOR: So we'll review the entirety of the adjudicated
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And so to make them -- to reduce the size
5 considerably, make them more manageable, and to leave out a lot of
6 matters that have -- are not really of probative importance for the case
7 as a whole.
8 MR. GAYNOR: We'll do that, Your Honour. I just want to bring
9 Your Honours' attention to an inherent difficulty with adjudicated facts.
10 We see it as our duty as faithfully as possible the fact found by the
11 Trial Chamber. We don't see that we have any liberty to summarise a set
12 of 10 or 20 facts into let's say a three-line sentence. So that's part
13 of the reason why --
14 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. And I can imagine that you would
15 need some more guidance. On the other hand, I do understand that if in
16 other judgement that it is established that -- well, let me give a
17 similar example. If five detainees lost anything between 20 or 25 kilo
18 or that there are five precisely recorded facts that there was no soap,
19 there were no showers, et cetera. Then, with all respect for the
20 faithful following of facts established by other Trial Chambers, of
21 course, it would be a bit silly not to say, well, a couple of detainees
22 or a number of detainees lost considerable weight.
23 And there could even be another solution, that we make a -- well,
24 let's say a working set of adjudicated facts based on the precisely
25 stated adjudicated facts. So that in court we could say: Well, there's
1 no need to go into any detail on how much detainee X, Y, or Z, in
2 addition, lost, because there's sufficient evidence on this camp, loss of
3 weight, because we have established that a couple of detainees lost
4 considerable weight. You understand what I mean? Because otherwise if
5 you want to refer to the adjudicated facts, which makes, for example, new
6 evidence superfluous or repetitious, then we would have to say: Well,
7 it's in 753, detainee X lost 22 kilos. And we then have in 789, we have
8 another detainee who lost 18 kilos. That's not a very practical way of
9 doing that.
10 Perhaps even the parties could sit together, perhaps together
11 with one of the legal officers of the Chamber, to see how we can make
12 them -- a reduced list more manageable. You understand approximately
13 what I mean.
14 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. If I can just raise one point. I think we
15 have two options. One is to seek out redundancy in that existing facts,
16 that is, a fact which is unnecessarily repetitious of an earlier fact.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They can take that out.
18 MR. GAYNOR: In which case we could take that out and that would
19 be a relatively easy operation to carry out and totally
20 non-controversial, I would imagine, with the Defence.
21 However, if Your Honours are inviting us to make a summary of
22 numbers of facts and to summarise that in one paragraph, that would
23 probably, I would, result in an extraordinarily huge amount time -- with
24 the Defence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: When we are trying to get a practical solution for
1 the problems, it should not be the entry to creating more problems.
2 MR. GAYNOR: Exactly.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, one of the suggestions might also be that
4 you make a working document, you say it's still the adjudicated facts
5 that are in evidence, but if we refer to that and that and that we call
6 that so-and-so-and-so. Until now, of course, not a lot of attention has
7 been paid anyhow to the adjudicated facts by the parties because we have
8 not -- I would say not dealt extensively with some of the municipalities
9 where the largest numbers of adjudicated facts are situated.
10 But if you would say, well, we cannot find a working solution
11 together with the Defence -- so apart from taking out whatever is
12 repetitious, then I think one of the legal officers of the Chamber might
13 be of assistance to find a solution.
14 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Your Honour. We'll --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Most likely, that will be Mr. Acquaviva.
16 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, any further submissions in respect of
18 the adjudicated facts?
19 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. We've now heard the response from
20 the Prosecution to Your Honour's invitation in relation to adjudicated
21 facts, and again, subject to time availability, the proposal in relation
22 to potential meetings with the representative from the Trial Chamber will
23 be taken on board, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then what else was on our -- let me just
25 check. I lost my agenda. I notice that you have some other issues, Ms.
1 Loukas, you would like to raise. You'll have an opportunity to do that.
2 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Your Honour will recall when I was dealing
3 with a witness on the 24th of September, 2004, that there was an
4 additional matter that was contained within the witness's evidence that
5 did not appear in any of the previous statements. I discussed the matter
6 with Mr. Gaynor and we agreed that this portion had not been in any way
7 dealt with in any of the previous statements. And as we were subject to
8 time restraints at the time, we agreed that that concession could be made
9 and we could inform Your Honours in relation to that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Was that a closed session witness? I think it was.
11 Or private session?
12 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. It was open session, as I recall.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you then please repeat what it was that did
14 not appear. Of course, we can look it up, but for the transcript --
15 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, it actually appears on page 23 of the
16 transcript on the 24th of September, 2004. And the question was: "Did
17 he say that he was speaking on behalf of himself, on behalf of the SDS,
18 or on whose behalf was he speaking?" And the answer was, "He said he was
19 speaking on behalf of the body he represented, the Municipal Board of the
20 SDS and the Executive Board of the Municipal Assembly of Kalinovik and
21 all the institutions that come under the Executive Board itself." It's
22 that particular --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Where he did not indicate a similar spokesmanship in
24 his statement.
25 MS. LOUKAS: Correct, Your Honour.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 JUDGE ORIE: That's then on the record.
2 As the parties have seen,the court schedule is not yet complete
3 up to the end of the year, but since one of the questions on the
4 Prosecution list was what would be our last day to sit in December --
5 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. And also what week, I think it
6 was, that we would not be sitting in November.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that's on a note. Did I put that on
8 the list? No. Most likely, that will be the week of the 13th, if that's
9 a Monday, until the -- no. It should be then the 14th, I take it. Yes.
10 No. Let me just --
11 MS. LOUKAS: The 12th is a Friday. So that would be the 15th.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The 15th. Most likely we'll not sit in the week of
13 the 15th of November up until the 19th, which is then the Friday. That's
14 as far as scheduling goes at this moment. That would be the week we're
15 not sitting. The Chamber intend to sit, well, just until the recess, and
16 of course the last Friday before the recess will be the 17th of December.
17 And as indicated, the Chamber intend not to restart until the 17th of
18 January, which is one week after the recess has finished.
19 MS. LOUKAS: So, Your Honour, I think that leaves, of course, the
20 question of the videolink motion.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MS. LOUKAS: I think there's also the question of ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: I think that you could expect a decision either
24 tomorrow or the day after tomorrow on the videolink motion.
25 MS. LOUKAS: In relation to that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MS. LOUKAS: I think there's also the question of the additional
3 information that was received in relation to --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but we should deal with that in private
6 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. That's why I didn't mention
7 it, but --
8 JUDGE ORIE: I have it on my mind to turn into private session
9 for that reason.
10 MS. LOUKAS: -- averted to it. Your Honour --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Not at this very moment, but later.
12 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. So that leaves a couple of other
13 matters from the perspective of the Defence. There's also the question
14 of the timing for the return of Witness 526.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MS. LOUKAS: Mr. Kljuic, who's not subject to any protective
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Hannis, do you have any idea when you
19 intend to recall Mr. Kljuic for cross-examination?
20 MR. HANNIS: As I recall, Your Honour, he told us he could make
21 two or three days available in mid-or late November and we would wait and
22 see which week we would be off.
23 JUDGE ORIE: From the 20th of November.
24 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The 22nd is the week where -- a Monday when we'll
2 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, so the expectation the week of the 22nd
4 of November.
5 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. And I think that there
8 was a question of the delivery on the Trial Chamber -- on its decision on
9 the Defence motion in relation to KRAJ 623.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You can expect a decision either tomorrow or
11 the day after tomorrow. It will be an oral decision.
12 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Just as the other one will be an oral decision,
14 the --
15 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, there's just a couple of other matters.
16 Firstly, Mr. Stewart has I think emailed the Prosecution in relation to
17 getting an update in relation to the amount of hours that have been used
18 thus far by the Prosecution and what's pending. So I place that on the
19 record, that we need a response to that at some point soon.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Time used as you may have noticed, the
21 Chamber, or rather Madam Registrar, also keeps a very precise time
22 record. So if there's any need for information, I'll not invite her to
23 give all the -- the way we deal with it, but if any information is needed
24 from there, please ask us and we'll see what we can do for you.
25 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour. The other aspect is that we
1 also are seeking from the Prosecution a scheduling update. At this
2 stage, I think the schedule that we received takes us up to the 29th of
3 October. I think that schedule is dated the 10th of September. So we
4 really need to have a scheduling update.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, when do you think you could --
6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we were sort of awaiting some of these
7 decisions. We'll try and give them an update tomorrow or Wednesday.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, you'll get new information soon.
9 MS. LOUKAS: The other aspect, Your Honour, is of course that --
10 JUDGE ORIE: It's as if you're cross-examining me, Ms. Loukas.
11 The word "of course" always come from your mouth, if you put a question
12 to -- yes, please.
13 MS. LOUKAS: It's only because I'm inviting a "yes" answer, Your
15 In relation to 89(F), there's been quite some use of 89(F) in the
16 proceedings thus far, and the Defence would like to place a marker down
17 in relation to the question of the use of 89(F). Firstly, when one looks
18 at the information that was received by e-mail from, I think, Mr. Zahar
19 in relation to the issue, it basically outlined a procedure that, in
20 essence, has not been followed by the Prosecution. The brief description
21 that was given was that the OTP will identify what it considers to be the
22 important aspect of a witness testimony, which parts the witness will be
23 examined, the OTP will also identify the part of the statement that will
24 be completely skipped over and those that will be merely read onto the
25 record. The Defence will be notified of the proposed approach. And
1 various other procedural matters that were indicated there. And this
2 e-mail of the 12th of March, 2004, the Defence does want to place on the
3 record in relation to that that we have not been favoured generally with
4 that approach that was outlined by the Trial Chamber, and the Defence
5 does wish to put down a marker that we would expect that the procedure
6 that was outlined thereby by the Trial Chamber be followed in relation to
7 89(F). That's the first aspect, the aspect relating to the procedure.
8 And secondly, from the Defence perspective, we would submit an
9 overuse of the 89(F) procedure generally in the Prosecution case and
10 we're putting down a marker here in relation to further use of 89(F) in
11 relation to witnesses of one might put at the higher level of the
12 dimensions of evidence that we have to face. And Your Honour, I just
13 want to put that marker down, that it's clearly a situation whereby if
14 one looks at, for example, the Appeals Chamber decision on 89(F) more
15 generally, and of course the dissent that Judge Hunt went into, he refers
16 to the fact that the question of discretion on the part of the Trial
17 Chamber and the fact that the majority decision did not in fact deal with
18 the question of -- yes, the majority Appeals Chamber decision does not
19 address the issue of discretion. And I think that's a matter that needs
20 to be obviously more fully formulated.
21 So it's basically those two markers. Firstly, the question of
22 the fact that the Trial Chamber did outline a procedure to be adopted in
23 relation to 89(F) as at the 12th of March. It appears not to have been
24 adopted in a wholesale manner, as one would have anticipated. And
25 secondly, as a matter of substance, the Defence is concerned at the
1 excessive use of 89(F) in witnesses who go to -- if one put might it, the
2 more -- the aspects of the case that do go to acts and conduct of the
3 accused or matters more proximate to the accused. So in those
4 circumstances, Your Honour, I think there need to be a marker put down by
5 the Defence in relation to both the procedural aspects of 89(F) and also
6 the substantive issues relating to 89(F).
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Hannis, before I give you an opportunity
8 to respond to that, if you want to do that immediately, I make one
9 practical observation, that is, to identify in a statement the parts you
10 would like to examine the witness further on is quite easy. You split up
11 the statement in parts A and parts B, or parts E, for examination, and
12 parts N for non-examination. So therefore, it doesn't take a lot of work
13 to do that. If you have to make up your mind, it's easily put there in
14 such a way that the other party could easily understand what may be the
15 subject of your examination. But that's the practical matter.
16 But, of course, I say this in relation to the procedural
17 complaints by Ms. Loukas, and of course the other matter is the
18 discretion of the Chamber and the -- what Ms. Loukas called the excessive
19 use of 89(F) and of which I can imagine that another party would say the
20 abundant use of 89(F). Please proceed.
21 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. First of all, with regard
22 to the procedure, as I recall, we understood Mr. Zahar's proposal as
23 simply that: a suggested procedure for us to use. In our practical
24 experience, what we initially envisioned as marking parts of the
25 statements as the ones that we wanted to further examine on, giving those
1 to the Defence to see if they had any comments on, getting back doesn't
2 work in real life when victims and witness has time and money pressures
3 about when this witness can come. And when we talk to them we find out
4 often times that things in the statement maybe aren't the way that they
5 seem to be and we found that that procedure at least in our experience
6 wouldn't work very well. I do hear what the Court is saying and I hear
7 the Defence complaint that perhaps we're using 89(F) too much. But in
8 the end, the witness is here and can be cross-examined on matters that go
9 more to the core or acts and conducts of the accused. It's been a
10 learning experience for us and I know at one time Your Honour commented
11 that you would have expected the original projected time of four hours,
12 if we used 89(F) to be more in the nature of two hours instead of the
13 three hours I took with one witness in particular.
14 But every sentence, every paragraph opens up a new question when
15 we go through their statement and it's hard to predict in advance which
16 ones will require further follow-up.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, the marker is there, put there by the
18 Defence. The problem is that if a witness arrives and if changes have to
19 be made in the portions on which the Prosecution intended to examine the
20 witness and the portions it would just satisfy itself by reading out the
21 statement, of course, there's one risk. If you assess the necessity of
22 further examination in advance and you have to adjust that assessment at
23 a later stage, I can imagine that the Defence would object for making
24 changes at such a late stage. On the other hand, if we leave them
25 without any information, they might concentrate on the wrong parts.
1 So therefore, I invite the parties to further -- perhaps together
2 then with Mr. Zahar to find a solution for this problem which is mainly a
3 practical, procedural problem. Yes? Mr. Hannis is nodding yes. Your
4 nodding is not yet on the transcript, Ms. Loukas. I don't know whether
5 it's yes or no.
6 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I can indicate that I'm happy to meet
7 with the Prosecution and Mr. Zahar.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
9 MS. LOUKAS: On issue. What remains, therefore, Your Honour, of
10 course, is - and I hesitate to use the word "of course" - what remains is
11 that we have outstanding submissions to be made in terms of 92 bis, quite
12 a number of witnesses to be dealt with. And of course, the parties had a
13 meeting with a representative from the Trial Chamber, Mr. De Hemptinne in
14 relation to that and I did indicate in relation to that meeting that in
15 view of the time constraints under which the Defence team is operating,
16 that meeting the 92 bis schedule as outlined at that meeting will be a
17 course of quite some difficulty. And I wanted to place that on the
18 record as well, Your Honour. We're struggling at this time to meet the
19 exigencies of the current court schedule, let alone adding a timetable in
20 relation to 92 bis that may, well, in my submission is not realistic in
21 all the circumstances. And I wish to place that on the record as well.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, of course, 92 bis statements are usually
23 in relation with viva voce testimony and not always, but mainly they are,
24 and it's of some importance to deal with them to the extent possible
25 together and not to deal with the 92 bis statement on municipality X,
1 where the viva voce evidence has been heard six months prior to that
2 moment. So therefore, I wouldn't say that the Chamber would not be
3 willing to accept some flexibility, but certainly within limits. Of
4 course, the limits further to be determined. But I noticed you have put
5 on record now that you're struggling with that. And I might invite Mr.
6 De Hemptinne to further speak with you.
7 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. It's just that -- and I think
8 whereas the Defence in general, both Mr. Stewart and I, have placed on
9 record on a number of occasions that, in view of the size of our Defence
10 team and what we have to confront in terms of the magnitude of the
11 material in the case, and of course it is still a fundamental issue in
12 relation to the equality of arms, in essence. So I think what I do need
13 to place on the record at this stage, as a last matter of housekeeping,
14 as it were, is that I'm proposing to file a motion to withdraw, Your
15 Honours, on the basis that the Defence has had inadequate time to
16 prepare, woefully inadequate time has been granted, and in those
17 circumstances, cannot provide an effective defence in the time that's
18 been made available, and all the implications that that carries for a
19 fair trial for Mr. Krajisnik. And I consider that it is my professional
20 obligation to file a motion to withdraw, and I wish to place that on the
21 record as well, Your Honours, that I am proposing to undertake that
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I don't think it's a subject on which
24 the Prosecution would like to respond at this moment, apart from that
25 might be something you would not intend to respond on anyhow.
1 Ms. Loukas, you indicated that you'll file such a motion. Then
2 of course the Chamber will have to consider that motion.
3 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. When I find time in amongst
4 all the other --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that would be the ultimate consequence of
6 having insufficient time, not even finding the time to file a motion to
7 withdraw. At the same time, I think it goes without saying that whatever
8 the decision will be, that the Code of Conduct and the Rules of the
9 Tribunal impose obligations on counsel even if they have expressed their
10 wish to withdraw.
11 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. And of course it's not --
12 that's why I foreshadowed it now, Your Honour, because it's not an
13 indication that I would make lightly, it's certainly a matter of which
14 I've consulted widely and noted the Code of Conduct, and that's why I say
15 I consider that it is my professional obligation to file this motion,
16 both in terms of protecting the interests of Mr. Krajisnik and his right
17 to a fair trial, and in terms of my professional obligations.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, we'll receive that motion and
19 we'll deal with it.
20 Mr. Hannis.
21 MR. HANNIS: One last matter, Your Honour. I wanted to inquire
22 about the schedule tomorrow. I understand --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll say something about that at the end of
24 this session. But before we do that, we have one other issue we should
25 deal with in private session. We'll turn into private session for the
1 next, well, approximately seven to ten minutes.
2 [Private session]
11 Page 6649 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 6650 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 6651 redacted. Private session.
16 [Open session]
17 JUDGE ORIE: We're in open session again. We're close to the
18 conclusion of today's hearing. Tomorrow we'll start at 11.00. I'll just
19 try to verify.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: I start hesitating about my own time schedule for
22 tomorrow. Let me just see whether I can ... I'll sort that out
23 immediately when I leave the courtroom at this moment. The reason for a
24 late start, whether it's 10.30 or 11.00, is that the Dutch head of state
25 will visit the Tribunal tomorrow and that the Judges have some duties
1 during the first hours of the day. I'll let you know within the next
2 hour whether we'll start at 10.30 or 11.00.
3 Then, if there's no other issue to be raised at this moment,
4 we'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, time still to be indicated, where
5 we'll have one break time still to be determined. And we'll then
6 continue until a quarter to 2.00. Yes, it's in Courtroom I.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
8 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 5th day of
9 October, 2004, at 11 a.m.