1 Monday, 28 February 2005
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 4.36 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, will you please call the case.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus
6 Momcilo Krajisnik.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 Good afternoon to everyone, after a long period in which there
9 were no hearings. As the parties may be aware of, Judge Hanoteau has
10 filed a certificate that he familiarised himself with the case. To the
11 extent that the parties would be surprised by Judge Hanoteau sitting to my
12 right and Judge Canivell sitting to my left, which is not something you
13 would expect, I would explain to you that the right ear of Judge Canivell
14 is far better than his left ear. So it is for practical reasons that we
15 are not acting in accordance with what we traditionally do.
16 I would first like to give Judge Hanoteau an opportunity to
17 address the parties.
18 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Judge Orie.
19 I wanted to say a few words, very briefly.
20 First of all, I wanted to tell you what an honour it is for me to
21 be here today, to be sitting here. I wanted to say as well that it is a
22 great pleasure for me to greet the Prosecutor as well as the Defence
23 counsel. It is also a great pleasure for me to be able to say hello to
24 those who work here. I've read the case file over these past few weeks,
25 and I've understood the level of effort that has been deployed here by
1 everyone in order for this Tribunal to be able to function properly. It
2 is a great pleasure for me to be able to work with you all.
3 Thank you very much for your attention.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Judge Hanoteau.
5 Today, we have mainly a housekeeping session. One second.
6 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: This housekeeping session will take approximately the
8 first hour of this afternoon's session. After the break, the parties will
9 be given an opportunity to give oral argument on the motion for
10 adjournment. The parties have received an agenda for this housekeeping
11 session, so I take it that we can go through it relatively quickly.
12 But before we start for the first item of the agenda, I would like
13 to turn to private session for a few moments.
14 [Private session]
11 Page 9545 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 9546 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session now again. We've reached
21 point 3 of the agenda, a decision to be taken on the cross-examination of
22 Witness 63. The Chamber has allowed, on the 10th of December, the Defence
23 to cross-examine Witness 63 on a small range of topics. The Defence has
24 informed the Chamber what topics they wanted to cross-examine the witness
25 on, that is, Trnopolje camp, the matters of access to that camp; Omarska
1 camp, an interview with the journalist, local SDS leaders, their actions,
2 positions and responsibilities, and attempts by Muslims to organise
3 military defence; and finally, as a last issue, the SDA involvement and
4 SDS arming of the population.
5 The Chamber decides that there will be, as was already decided,
6 there will be cross-examination on these issues, and the Office of the
7 Prosecutor is instructed to schedule for that cross-examination.
8 Then we come to a long list -- no, that's not a long list. The
9 translations to be provided by the OTP to the Chamber. The revised
10 translations are expected on P335, P237, P292.1, P330.1, P332, P333, P338,
11 P350.1, P428, P429A. I do understand that these translations can be
12 provided to the Chamber.
13 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour, they can be. In respect of 292.1,
14 however, I was reviewing those translations today, this morning, and in
15 respect to 292.1, KID 31469, in looking at the revision of the
16 translation, I concluded that additional clarification is needed, so we
17 are not prepared to submit at this point in time KID 292 -- I'm sorry,
18 Prosecution Exhibit 292.1 KID 31469. We will be able to do so in the
19 upcoming days.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
21 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, before we leave that particular topic, I
22 might just indicate in relation to P220 --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I did not raise that one specifically because I
24 was informed that the Defence was supplied with an unrevised version of
25 P220. That's the reason why I didn't mention it. Has this been settled
2 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, in respect of 220, we are prepared to
3 submit -- tender today, revised copies of P220.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But has the Defence -- because that was the
5 issue, had not been provided at an earlier stage with the revised
7 MR. HARMON: They were provided with a revised translation today.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Today.
9 Ms. Loukas, how much time would you need to review that revised
10 P220 --
11 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I checked with the case manager just
12 prior to coming into court and at that stage we hadn't received it. I
13 don't know if it's gone into the locker since we've been in court.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I say you would be ready in two days?
15 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: If there would be an earlier occasion, please tell
17 us. So from the list we had under agenda item 4, P220 is still pending,
18 and P292.1 KID 34169 is still pending. The others will be tendered. And
19 no objection from the Defence for those?
20 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour, there's just one further matter in
21 relation to that series of last numbers, and that's P292.1. It was
22 indicated in the various e-mails that went between the Trial Chamber, the
23 Prosecution, and the Defence, that we had in fact received a binder of
24 material relating to that on the 10th of February, 2005, and I can
25 indicate that we have not received that binder.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as I said, I take it that the parties will
2 communicate on P292.1 is still pending at this moment, as is P220. And
3 the others, no objections?
4 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. I just wanted to raise those two
5 parties, the P220 and the P292.1.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, may I intervene for a moment.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. HARMON: P292 is an exhibit of intercepted communications that
10 was already before this Court. There are other matters to be resolved in
11 respect of Prosecution Exhibit 292. We haven't touched upon those. Mr.
12 Kljuc is due to come back to finish his cross-examination, and it may be
13 that the best time to regulate the issues relating to 292, is at the
14 conclusion of his testimony.
15 JUDGE ORIE: So 292.1 will be pending -- both awaiting the
16 reappearance of Mr. Kljuc and any further discussions between the parties.
17 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then that means that P235, P237, P330.1, P332,
19 P333, P338, P350.1, P428, and P429A are admitted into evidence.
20 Then we have P252 as next on our list --
21 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I wasn't sure whether Your Honour had
22 meant to skip over item 4 on the agenda, or whether -- I just --
23 JUDGE ORIE: One of the things I was a bit worried about in the
24 beginning, and that's the reason why I asked the legal officer, is whether
25 we are working exactly from the same agenda, because I might have an
1 internal agenda in front of me.
2 MR. STEWART: That was simply why I asked, Your Honours, so that
3 we could just know where we are.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just check that we have the same agenda.
5 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we will not skip it, but I'll come to that at a
7 later stage.
8 MR. STEWART: Yes, certainly, Your Honour. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we could deal with it right away, having the
10 -- this is an amendment to the original agenda where number 4 is
12 I do understand that, although not full agreement, that, to some
13 extent, agreement was reached on the statement of Mr. Bjelobrk. The
14 Chamber would like to receive the redacted version of this statement, and
15 on the remaining issues, that is, those parties where the parties could
16 not agree, we'll give a decision in due course.
17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I comment on that. Before Your
18 Honours give a decision, we do have quite a quantity of material in
19 relation to this witness that was received from Mr. Krajisnik. Your
20 Honour may remember, in fact, it was originally provided direct to the
21 Trial Chamber, and the Trial Chamber very kindly gave it back to us
22 promptly. But, Your Honour, it's quite a lot of material, and we have not
23 so far been able to fully consider that material, so Your Honour may --
24 JUDGE ORIE: So you'd prefer for us to wait a while and not just
25 act on the basis of the agreed parts, but to give an opportunity at a
1 later stage for the Defence to add anything to the request.
2 MR. STEWART: Yes, please, Your Honour, because, although, of
3 course, we don't, and Your Honours won't want to leave things just on ice
4 for longer than necessary, there isn't any special urgency about this
5 particular matter. And we are grateful for that opportunity.
6 JUDGE ORIE: When do you think you could be finished with studying
7 the material you received?
8 MR. STEWART: Well, I -- because it's all in B/C/S, I'm not
9 personally going to be the one that's reviewing it first, Your Honour, so
10 I'm ever so slightly reluctant to give a firm timetable on that. It was
11 discussed this morning between myself and Ms. Cmeric and that raises other
12 practical issues as well.
13 Your Honour, may I simply ask that I perhaps can report back on
14 that by the end of the week, and then --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. STEWART: -- and then indicate to Your Honours where we are,
17 and perhaps we can consider how much time is needed. Would that be
18 acceptable to Your Honours?
19 JUDGE ORIE: That is acceptable to us.
20 MR. STEWART: Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then we go to the next issue of -- agenda item 5(a),
22 that is P252.
23 The Defence was supposed to give to the OTP the details of the
24 objections in respect of P252. Has this been done meanwhile?
25 MR. HARMON: Not that I'm aware of, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart?
2 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, the note -- I hope Your Honour
3 doesn't mind, the note that I made on my copy of the agenda when it said
4 the Trial Chamber was to remind the Defence, was that we are reminded,
5 Your Honour. I can't, really, I'm afraid, do more than say we are
6 reminded, therefore, and we will take care of it.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would it be possible -- I mean, it's a matter
8 of just drawing the attention to the objections in respect of the
10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it's a video, I understand.
11 JUDGE ORIE: It's a video --
12 MR. STEWART: But the problem is, again, we only have one person
13 who can watch the video in any sensible way, apart from seeing what's
14 simply moving on the screen, and it's quite a long video.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you report back, well, let's say - I
16 don't think it's a very urgent matter - three weeks, would that do?
17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, that's entirely acceptable. Thank you
18 for that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
20 Then we come to the next -- the next list, which is P347, P395,
21 P396, P399, P402, and P406.
22 The latest information we got is that the Defence had not yet
23 received the response of the OTP in relation to P395, P396, and P399, but
24 that the Prosecution would try to deal also with these exhibits not later
25 than the 28th of February.
1 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I can indicate that I was informed by
2 Ms. Cmeric, prior to coming to court, that we received those items today.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. How much time would you need to review them,
4 Ms. Loukas? Two days for the ...
5 MS. LOUKAS: Well, yes, Your Honour, in view of the fact that this
6 is material relating to Mr. Bjelobrk, I think it would be appropriate to
7 leave this material until the remainder of the Bjelobrk material that
8 we've already referred to is dealt with as well.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That means that you will report back by the end of
10 this week.
11 MS. LOUKAS: Correct.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, just so the roared is clear, it's my
14 understanding that three of the documents were submitted prior to today,
15 and three were submitted today, so all six were not received today. But
16 we accept --
17 JUDGE ORIE: No, but I think we just mentioned 395, 396, and 399
18 as the ones that the OTP still had to provide them. I didn't mention all
20 MR. HARMON: Fine, thank you.
21 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, those were the ones I was referring to. The
22 others had been received previously.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That's what I understood.
24 Then we have three documents, P419, yes, P427, and P458, where the
25 Office of the Prosecution was expected to submit revised translations,
1 that, at least, is valid for 419 and 458, and a new copy of P427 to the
2 Trial Chamber.
3 Are they available, Mr. Harmon?
4 MR. HARMON: They are, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections to the admission of these newly
6 provided documents? And I take it that they have been provided to the
7 Defence before?
8 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, 427 is an issue of replacing only an
9 exhibit that's in the record. It's not a question of a new translation,
10 it's replacing the B/C/S translation.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think I said that, revised translations. I
12 said at least that is valid for 419 and 458, and a new copy of P427.
13 MR. HARMON: Fine, thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, did you receive --
15 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, just in relation to that, Your Honour, we have,
16 of course, previously received P419 and P427, but as I understand it, we
17 have not received P458 as yet. And I think we're hoping to receive it
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you need time to review them. Then for
20 P458, we'll grant you an additional two days. Is that -- would that be
22 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I'm not entirely certain, I must say, Your
23 Honour --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Tell me how much you need.
25 MS. LOUKAS: I'd rather leave that for longer, for a week, in view
1 of the fact that, as our case manager, Ms. Cmeric, has a lot of matters to
2 attend to prior to --
3 JUDGE ORIE: So for 458, we'll receive your report at the end of
4 this week. And are there any objections against 419 and a newly submitted
6 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. I can indicate that we acknowledge
7 receipt of all of them. In terms of an overall confirmation that we have
8 checked all the translations, again, there may be some later time at which
9 a translation revision may need to be made. But at this stage, there are
10 no objections.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Then P419 and P427 are, in a new
12 revised edition, admitted into evidence, and we'll hear further reports on
13 P458 by the Defence no later than the end of this week.
14 Then item 6 on the agenda, translations of D29 and D32 to be
15 provided by the Defence. Are they available, Ms. Loukas or Mr. Stewart?
16 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. That's D29 and D32.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MS. LOUKAS: I can indicate that, yes, they are available, and I
19 have, in fact, got 12 copies of each.
20 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it, then, that they have not yet been
21 provided to the Prosecution?
22 MS. LOUKAS: As far as I understand, no, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would two days be sufficient for the
24 Prosecution to review them?
25 MR. HARMON: It will be sufficient, Your Honour. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then on P -- on D29 and D32, we'll hear within the
2 next two days from the Prosecution whether there are any further
4 And then we come to ...
5 MS. LOUKAS: That's D32, and this one is D29.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The numbers have been put on the documents, I take
7 it? Okay.
8 Then we come to agenda item 7(a), the Dzambasovic 92 bis package.
9 Is there a new version of this package available to be tendered, Mr.
11 MR. HARMON: I understand it has been provided to the registrar
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any -- I take it that they have been
14 provided as well to ...
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: The package provided was composed on the basis of an
17 agreement between the parties. May I, therefore, take it that there's no
18 objection against the 92 bis package as provided to the Chamber?
19 MR. STEWART: No, Your Honour, no objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you please inform us, since
21 the 92 bis material receives exhibit numbers now as well, what are the
22 exhibit numbers of this Dzambasovic package?
23 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
24 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the parties have been provided,
25 although no decisions have been taken yet, with the new list of the
1 exhibit numbers attributed to 92 bis material. I do understand that the
2 Dzambasovic package appears under numbers P526 and then P526A, B, C, et
3 cetera, up to and including P526M. If there is no -- if there are no
4 objections, then this 92 bis material is admitted into evidence.
5 The Chamber will receive a copy of the list made by the Registry
6 soon. If there's any need to comment on the way these exhibits are
7 described in that list, the Chamber would like to hear from the parties.
8 If there are no comments in that respect, then they are not only admitted,
9 but they will also appear on the list as you'll see the list.
10 Then the next item is 7(b), Prosecution Exhibit 281. The
11 Prosecution is expected to provide the redacted versions of P281 to all
13 MR. HARMON: We have just done so, Your Honour. We've submitted
14 that. And this, for clarity, should be under seal, given that this was a
15 protected witness.
16 JUDGE ORIE: P281, any objections by the Defence or --
17 MR. STEWART: No, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then P281 is admitted, under seal.
19 We move to our next agenda item, 7(c), which is Prosecution
20 Exhibit 65, well, to say it short, it's Treanor evidence, binder 9A, tab
21 103. A revised copy would be submitted to the Chamber by the Office of
22 the Prosecutor.
23 MR. HARMON: We're doing so now, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any objection to the revised copy of this
1 MR. STEWART: No, Your Honour. We have it already, and there's no
3 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, P65, binder 9A, tab 103, was already
4 admitted. But then the originally submitted document is replaced by the
5 revised edition and therefore is in evidence.
6 Agenda item 7(d), P465. There, also, the OTP was supposed to
7 provide the CD to all the parties.
8 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, we have the CD, and we've just provided
9 it to the registrar.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And the Defence has received it also?
11 MR. STEWART: I'm not absolutely sure we've received it, Your
12 Honour, but if we're receiving it now, we don't have a problem.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There's no problem. Of course, to assess a CD
14 on face value is not that easy because they look approximately the same.
15 But P465, the CD, is now tendered into evidence, this version.
16 Which brings us to agenda item 8, the three numbers that are
17 already for a long time on the list, that is, P200, P202, and P203.
18 The Office of the Prosecution was supposed to tender P200,
19 including revised translations. Has that been done?
20 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, let me report on 200, because there's
21 different elements in respect of Prosecution Exhibit 200.
22 In respect of 200-1, 200-8A, 200-8B, 200-9C, 200-27, 200-28, and
23 200-30, we're prepared to submit revised translations today.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Have they been provided already to the Defence
1 MR. HARMON: They have.
2 JUDGE ORIE: They have. Could we just -- because that's the first
3 short list under 8(a), are there any objections against these revised
5 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then the exhibits just mentioned, that is, all P
7 numbers, 200-1, 200-8A, 200-8B, 200-9C, 200-27, 200-28, and 200-30 are
8 admitted into evidence in their revised edition.
9 Mr. Harmon, I interrupted you.
10 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, in respect of 200-4, there was a
11 revision, I am told, by CLSS. We're prepared to submit the revision for
12 200-4. There was a memorandum that was prepared as well describing the
13 revision. I'm not sure what the Trial Chamber wishes to do in respect of
14 that memorandum.
15 JUDGE ORIE: What I did understand is that, on the 25th of
16 February, the Defence informed the legal officer that it does not intend
17 to pursue the translation issue any further.
18 MS. LOUKAS: That's correct, Your Honour, yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, I think the memorandum -- when the parties
20 agree that P200-4 is correctly translated, then nothing changes at this
22 Mr. Harmon.
23 MR. HARMON: With respect to 200-18E, the B/C/S version, it was my
24 understanding that a more legible copy was to be submitted. We're
25 prepared to submit a more legible copy today.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any objections against the new, more legible
2 version of P200-18E?
3 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour, there's no objection to greater
5 JUDGE ORIE: Sometimes, if you see more, Ms. Loukas --
6 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then the old P200-18E is replaced by the new, more
8 legible version.
9 Then I think we've finally come to P200-31. That was already
10 tendered by the Office of the Prosecution. I also understood that the
11 issue of incorrect translations were indicated in an e-mail on the 26th of
13 MS. LOUKAS: That's correct, Your Honour, and I have a copy of
14 that e-mail should that prove useful. But Ms. Javier is nodding her head.
15 I assume she has a copy of the e-mail.
16 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour. Due to an administrative error, we
17 did not address that issue. We're prepared to do so this week.
18 JUDGE ORIE: So we have dealt with all items under agenda item
19 8(a), but P200-31 is still pending so that the Prosecution has an
20 opportunity to review the objections made by the Defence in respect of the
21 translation of this document.
22 Then we move to agenda item 8(b). These are P202 and 203. Mr.
24 MR. HARMON: It's my understanding, in respect of these two
25 exhibits, Your Honour, that they have already been tendered. We are
1 asking for their admission into evidence in their entirety.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas?
3 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, there's no objection, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then P202 and 203 are admitted into evidence.
5 We move on to agenda item 9(a). We had not yet given any decision
6 on the admission of the exhibits related to the testimony of Mr. Radic,
7 and since there are no objections, as far as I understand, they are
8 admitted into evidence.
9 We move to agenda item 9(b). The previous interviews of Mr.
10 Radic, the Chamber has indicated that it would admit them, if tendered,
11 but we didn't receive anything until now. But I see that the Prosecution
12 is tendering these interviews.
13 MR. HARMON: That's correct, Your Honour. We're tendering the
14 English and the B/C/S versions of each interview.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We already indicated that we would admit them, if
17 Mr. Stewart, are there, nevertheless, any objections?
18 MR. STEWART: There are no objections, Your Honour. But I had put
19 into my hot little hands as I came into court a big pile of such items. I
20 thought that I was tendering them, but I don't really mind who tenders
21 them. I've got a big stack of Radic stuff here, if that helps anybody.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No, you're perfectly right. I overlooked
23 that. It was the Defence who is tendering them. It doesn't make that
24 much difference for the Chamber, as a matter of fact. But I now
25 understand that the Prosecution has provided them but that the Defence has
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 tendered them.
2 MR. STEWART: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And they are admitted into evidence.
4 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, I'd just like to get them off my
5 table, if I might. I've got a set here for myself, and I've got three
6 sets here which I assume are of practical use to the Trial Chamber.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. STEWART: So may I?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then we do get a double series of --
10 MR. STEWART: There are three sets, Your Honour, I understand.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps during the next break we could see, because
12 just as you want them --
13 MR. STEWART: You don't want them, Your Honour, I think is what
14 I'm hearing. So we'll sort it out, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If that could be sorted out during the break so that
16 we know. We need only one copy for each Judge and one copy for the
18 MR. STEWART: Yes, of course, Your Honour. We'll sort that out.
19 Might I just mention, while I'm on my feet --
20 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: In order to finalise matters, Madam Registrar will
23 assign them D numbers. Is there anything that you would say prior to
25 MR. STEWART: Well, it's something I just wanted to add, Your
1 Honour. There's a question, simply, about the way these interviews were
2 taken and the interpretation and provision of tapes. Your Honour may
3 recall this. What happened is, it was Ms. Korner who was interviewing
4 this particular witness, and, of course, when Ms. Korner speaks in
5 English, then she gets translated during the interview into B/C/S by the
6 interpreter and that's what the interviewee hears, and then, of course,
7 when the interviewee talks back into B/C/S, Ms. Korner gets what's
8 translated into English.
9 We would like to receive, and we understand there isn't any
10 objection in principle, all the tapes. We haven't had them all. There
11 are just some tapes still to come, as I understand it. That's what I'm
12 informed by Ms. Cmeric.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You mean not necessarily to be tendered but just for
14 the Defence to review.
15 MR. STEWART: Well, just for us to have the opportunity of --
16 well, hearing them, is the word, not look at them.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harmon, those tapes, are they ...
18 MR. HARMON: Well, I'm not aware of that issue, and I haven't
19 communicated with Mr. Stewart about that. But I will inquire and, if they
20 are available, then I will provide them to Mr. Stewart.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It at least allows the Defence and those who
22 are speaking B/C/S to review whether the English translation is correctly
23 reflecting what was said in B/C/S.
24 MR. STEWART: Indeed, Your Honour. But it sounds as if,
25 otherwise, Mr. Harmon and I are about equally briefed on this particular
2 JUDGE ORIE: So it does not reflect in any way the admission into
3 evidence, but the Defence will be provided with the audiotapes.
4 Madam Registrar, the D numbers to be assigned.
5 THE REGISTRAR: The transcript of the interview of 16 July 2001
6 will be Defence Exhibit D34, and the transcript of the interview of 28
7 July 2002 will be Defence Exhibit D35.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 We now come to agenda item 10, which is discussion of P424.
10 Let me start immediately with the question, that is, the date of
11 an interview where the Prosecution was able to contextually confine the
12 time frame of this interview. The Defence even had further ideas on -- is
13 it a matter the parties want to pursue?
14 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, the issue of what the date of the
15 interview is was raised by the Defence. In the communications, as I
16 understand it, the last communication that came to us was that the Defence
17 believed that the article could be further confined to the latter part of
18 1994, and -- I'm sorry, 1994. We agree with that, so we don't have any
19 additional issues on this.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Mr. Stewart.
22 MR. STEWART: That's wonderful, Your Honour, and I must say that
23 the correspondence, to which I was not a party, was a very entertaining
24 read and fills about two volumes on its own. But I'm extremely glad that
25 we have resolved this issue to everyone's satisfaction.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That means that the parties have now agreed
2 that P424 should be located, as far as time is concerned, in the latter
3 part of 1994, and that's now on the record.
4 We move to agenda item 11. We have requested the Office of the
5 Prosecution to provide us with detailed maps of the municipalities which
6 enables us better to follow much of the evidence.
7 Mr. Harmon.
8 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour, we are grateful to Sharon Inthol an
9 from the mapping unit who assisted us in preparing the next set of maps.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. HARMON: And there are two points I'd just like to bring to
12 Your Honours' attention.
13 The set of maps that you will be receiving do not include maps for
14 all of the municipalities identified in the indictment because we have
15 agreed, in our efforts to streamline this case, not to present evidence in
16 respect of those particular municipalities. So you will find what looks
17 like an abbreviated version of maps.
18 Second of all, in respect of Sarajevo, you will notice on page 25
19 that there is -- let me just pull this up for Your Honours. Let me refer
20 you, first of all, Your Honours, to page 3. You will see the Sarajevo
21 municipality and you will see a number of lines within the Sarajevo
22 municipality. Those are the lines that distinguish the boundaries of the
23 cantons. And if you turn, Your Honour, to page 25 of this set of maps,
24 you will see an enlarged version of the Sarajevo municipality with the
25 canton borders, and between pages 26 and 35 are the specific maps that
1 relate to each of the cantons.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I take it the Defence has seen the maps, and have no
4 MR. STEWART: Well, yes, we have, Your Honour, in the last 60
5 seconds or so --
6 JUDGE ORIE: If you need more time.
7 MR. STEWART: Well, to check that every place is correctly pointed
8 on the map would take a little time, Your Honour. But I was going to say,
9 on a more practical level, yes, we've seen them. They look very good,
10 Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Can we take the following course: As it stands now,
12 there is no objection. It hasn't been a matter of much discussion at this
13 moment, but if at any future moment, there would be any objection to how
14 the geography is presented on this map, that we'll hear about that and
15 then we'll take a decision at that moment. But at this moment, as
16 presented, as tendered, the maps are admitted into evidence but not until
17 Madam Registrar has given them exhibit numbers.
18 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I was just going to -- thank you for
19 that, Your Honour. I was just going to raise an extremely practical point
20 which we can pursue, if necessary, out of court. But I don't know what
21 the print run has been on these maps. We've given one to Mr. Krajisnik
22 and I have one here. Given that they are a useful tool, they are even
23 more useful if the active members of the Defence team, which means all the
24 Defence team, if the Defence team could have enough copies to have one
1 JUDGE ORIE: I see that Madam Registrar is ...
2 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
3 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that they're quite expensive, Mr. Stewart.
4 But we have a few copies. You could share with our legal officers for the
5 time being, until there are new ones. So we have some additional copies
6 available. Perhaps at this moment we could provide you, to start with,
7 one shared copy so that everyone can work, because that's the most
9 MR. STEWART: All contributions gratefully received, Your Honour.
10 Thank you.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 JUDGE ORIE: You'll get an extra copy now so that the Defence has
13 received three copies.
14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, thanks very much, indeed. That's of
15 great help.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then this was the last item -- yes, Madam Registrar,
17 you still have to attribute exhibit numbers to them.
18 THE REGISTRAR: The maps will be Prosecution Exhibit P527.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So P527 is then a series of maps, consisting of 39
21 I'd like to leave the issue of the motion for adjournment until
22 after the break. Is there anything the parties would like to address at
23 this moment?
24 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, there's just one short matter, Your Honour. It
25 was -- it's one outstanding matter that does not appear in today's agenda,
1 and that relates to the diary that was referred to in the transcript on
2 the 21st of October last year. That's the diary of -- Your Honour will be
3 aware. And as yet, as I understand it, the latest on that was that the
4 Prosecution were awaiting instruction from the Trial Chamber in relation
5 to this.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MS. LOUKAS: And the Defence has not, as yet, received a copy of
8 the diary.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll come back to that. I think it's a matter
10 of reviewing whether there are any specific personal aspects in the diary
11 which should not be -- should not be made public and are irrelevant for
12 this case. And it's good, Ms. Loukas, that we are not only reminding the
13 Defence now and then but that the Defence, and perhaps the Prosecution, is
14 reminding the Chamber as well, that it still has to address this matter.
15 We'll take care of that.
16 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Any other issue before the break?
18 MR. HARMON: None for the Prosecution, Your Honour.
19 MR. STEWART: Nor for the Defence, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd like to thank the parties for their very
21 efficient way in which they dealt with the matters we had on our agenda.
22 We'll adjourn until 6.00 so that we've got certainly not more than one
23 hour later. In this one hour, we should deal with the motion for
24 adjournment. I want to draw the attention already to the fact that, of
25 course, the motion as such is publicly available in writing, so therefore
1 there's no need to repeat the motion, except for a very short summary,
2 giving an impression of what we're talking about, so that the public, who
3 is not reading but is viewing and hearing, also know what we're talking
4 about. If there is any time left, I would like to give some guidance to
5 the parties, but I don't know if we'll find time for that, on the
6 application of Rule 89(F). And we still have to issue the decision we
7 spoke about in the beginning of this hearing in private session.
8 We stand adjourned until 6.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 5.37 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 6.03 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Defence has filed a motion for adjournment in
12 which it asks an adjournment for six months, which would mean that,
13 inclusive the summer recess, would restart late August. The second part
14 of the motion, or at least the second request, is to have oral argument on
15 the matter. That part is granted now, so, Mr. Stewart, you have the
16 opportunity to address the Chamber in relation to that motion. Please
18 MR. STEWART: May I stay straight away that you're largely going
19 to have the pleasure of hearing from Ms. Loukas on this particular
20 application today. I just need to mention, if I may, a couple of points,
21 one relatively minor, at least I hope so, one perhaps not quite so
23 The first point, Your Honour, is, simply, that in paragraph 15 of
24 our motion, we had said that, apart from Ms. Cmeric, the only previous
25 member of the Defence team who had been a B/C/S speaker was Mr. Jovanovic,
1 but it occurred to us later that we did have a part-time young man working
2 for us, Mr. Drazen Djukic. At one point he worked for us for something
3 like 40 days, or something over all, and he was a B/C/S speaker. We wanted
4 to get that on the record for accuracy. We don't suggest that -- he made
5 a significant difference at the time, but overall now it doesn't.
6 Your Honour, the second point is slightly less relatively
7 incidental, which is that Your Honours will have noticed that Ms. Cmeric
8 is not in court, and Ms. Loukas mentioned earlier that Ms. Cmeric was
9 about to leave the Defence team, and it is expected that she will finally
10 leave us next Monday. I regret this and will be sorry to lose Ms. Cmeric
11 with whom I have very much enjoyed working. The important point is this,
12 Your Honour, that neither Mr. Krajisnik nor I, as his lead counsel, are in
13 a position to prevent Ms. Cmeric from leaving. She's not in the same
14 position as counsel. She doesn't have to apply to the Registrar for
15 permission to leave the case. I should stress she has given me very fair
16 notice and warning. She's dealt with it, as I would have always have
17 expected from her, entirely professionally and fairly. So there is no
18 issue whatever there. But it is her decision to leave. And Mr. Krajisnik
19 cannot prevent her, and neither can I on his behalf.
20 It has this significance, Your Honour: That, of course, any
21 changeover of case manager is inevitably going to be disruptive, and that
22 is an element. It is not at the very heart of this application for a long
23 adjournment, but it is nevertheless going to be in the immediate future a
24 real difficulty for us.
25 Your Honour, I have not yet been able to make arrangements to
1 replace Ms. Cmeric. We thought we had managed to achieve such
2 arrangements in the last few days, but we haven't. That is going to be
4 But, Your Honour, as far as paragraph 17 of the motion is
5 concerned, where we say there have been and are problems over Mr.
6 Krajisnik's assessed contribution to his defence costs, but we say those
7 problems have not aggravated to any appreciable degree the difficulties to
8 the Defence team in The Hague in getting on top of this case. Your
9 Honour, that has to be of its very nature a professional assertion by us
10 as the Defence team, and it's, of course, qualified by any appreciable
11 degree, because it wouldn't be right and wouldn't be fair to suggest that
12 it has had absolutely no impact at all. But we do tell Your Honours as
13 conscientious as we can that it hasn't affected the matter so far to any
14 appreciable degree. But, Your Honour, we do just say that we do
15 recognise, and this is always a difficult thing for the client to
16 understand sometimes, that our duties to Mr. Krajisnik cannot interfere
17 with our overriding duty to be straightforward and honest with the Trial
18 Chamber. And at any point where any such assertion on our part ceases to
19 be correct, or might be misleading towards the Trial Chamber, then we
20 won't shrink from our duty in saying so. And, Your Honour, we must make
21 it clear that what we have said in paragraph 17 means what it says. But,
22 Your Honour, we're not able to say that for, for example, the period
23 during which we are seeking an adjournment, paragraph 17 would remain
24 true. And it is only right that we should discharge our duty to the Trial
25 Chamber by making that clear.
1 I don't believe -- I hope Your Honour won't expect me to go any
2 more into the matter, because to some extent it's the future anyway and I
3 don't know exactly what's going to happen. I don't even know exactly when
4 I'm going to get another case manager. But, Your Honour, I hope we have
5 discharged our duty as far as it goes today in giving Your Honours that
6 particular observation.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the Chamber appreciates your submissions in this
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honours, you'll hear no more from me for the
10 moment anyway.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Loukas, I do understand that you want to
12 address the Chamber in relation to the motion for adjournment. I have
13 looked at the clock. Perhaps I should have done that before Mr. Stewart
14 started, but, Ms. Loukas, how much time do you think you would need to add
15 or to summarise, to some extent, the motion?
16 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honours, I can indicate that, of course,
17 the Trial Chamber has allowed 35 minutes, I can indicate that I would come
18 in under that estimate, Your Honour. I would be thinking at around about
19 25 minutes, including about five minutes of photographs.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MS. LOUKAS: Depending on how long the photographs take.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MS. LOUKAS: But my aim is to come in at about 25 minutes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harmon, of course it's difficult for you to
25 forecast how much you'd need, or you, Mr. Tieger, not yet knowing what Ms.
1 Loukas is going to tell us. But would you have any idea on how much time
2 you would need?
3 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, before hearing about the
4 anticipated presentation, including the photographs, I would have
5 estimated approximately 10 minutes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. TIEGER: But I agree with the Court that it's a little
8 difficult to tell before hearing the presentation.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So that means that we'll be able to finish this oral
10 argument today, which the Chamber intended to do, but the Chamber always
11 first would like to know how much time the parties need.
12 Ms. Loukas, please proceed.
13 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
14 I would indicate, of course, at the outset that 25 minutes that
15 I've indicated doesn't include questions from the Bench, which would, of
16 course, alter that --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let's start, Ms. Loukas.
18 MS. LOUKAS: Now, Your Honours, there is one thing I wish to make
19 clear at the outset, and that, of course, is something that Your Honours
20 are more than aware of, but that is nevertheless important to state in the
21 public interest and for the benefit of the public, and that is, of course,
22 that a Tribunal under the auspices of the United Nations must apply the
23 standards of the United Nations. And, of course, there I'm speaking
24 specifically of the standard of the international covenant on civil and
25 political rights, and that is, of course, critical to the legitimacy of
1 the Tribunal.
2 Now, I don't propose to spend a lot of time on the law, Your
3 Honours. The law is clear under Article 21 of the Tribunal's Statute, and
4 of course that corresponds with Article 14 of the international covenant
5 of civil/political rights in relation to a fair trial. The fundamental
6 point is this: The right of the accused to have adequate time and
7 facilities for the preparation of his defence, that is the crux of the
8 issue today. And the facts in that regard, Your Honours, I would submit
9 are clear, that is, firstly, there is -- it cannot be cavilled with the
10 fact that this is an extremely complex case, an important case, an
11 extremely serious case. And it is a case, Your Honour, that involves a
12 massive volume of material that needs to be read and analysed. And our
13 basic Defence submission, Your Honours, is this: That we, as
14 conscientious, responsible, professionals put before the Trial Chamber the
15 fact that we cannot diligently pursue the Defence of Mr. Krajisnik under
16 the current timetable. The current timetable proposed by the Trial
17 Chamber and recorded in the minutes of the United Nations Security Council
18 meeting of the 18th of January this year make a fair trial impossible for
19 Mr. Krajisnik.
20 Now, the specific detail and the specific implications of that
21 statement, Your Honour, is contained at pages 6 and 7 of the written
22 submissions of the Defence. And, Your Honours, it's clear there that the
23 entire exercise of reading and analysing the relevant material has not
24 been completed, and we are already one year into the trial. The fact is,
25 and it's been clear when one reads the trial transcript, which of course
1 His Honour Judge Hanoteau has, that there's been significant attention to
2 this problem by the Defence. We filed a previous motion in July; we've
3 made a number of statements in court. But when one looks at the exercise
4 of effective preparation of cross-examination, Your Honour, it's quite
5 clear that, other than for crime-based witnesses where there has been
6 effective cross-examination, that has been at the price of sacrificing all
7 other work in the case that needs to be done. And, of course, with
8 witnesses that go beyond the crime base into the critical linkage area,
9 and this is the area, of course, in which the agreed facts process broke
10 down, the fact that we have not had a comprehensive reading and analysis
11 of the relevant and potentially relevant documents means that our
12 cross-examination, in the Prosecution case, is hampered.
13 The other aspect of that, of course, is the inadequately developed
14 defence strategy. Your Honours, again, with the baseline of not having
15 gone through all the relevant material, Your Honours, our defence is
17 Now, the next critical aspect is the Defence case. We have not
18 identified our Defence experts. We have not had adequate time to
19 interview witnesses as counsel in the former Yugoslavia. And another
20 critical aspect, Your Honours, the taking of proper and adequate
21 instructions from Mr. Krajisnik in relation to preparing an effective
22 defence is hampered by the fact that we, the Defence team, are not across
23 the documents. It's as simple as that. Your Honours, at every point of
24 those particular, specific implications of a fair trial, we are under the
25 minimum standard.
1 Now, Your Honours, lead counsel has asked me to place on the
2 record that he has actively discouraged finer legal research in an attempt
3 to deal with all the competing priorities that we must deal with.
4 Constantly, Your Honours, in our effort to ensure that we're doing
5 everything that we can do to present an effective defence for Mr.
6 Krajisnik, under every one of those headings, we end up in colloquial
7 terms, jack of all trades and master of none.
8 Your Honour, in these circumstances, it might be tempting to use
9 the scapegoat of blaming the Defence, but, of course, Your Honour, that is
10 no answer to a timetable-created or judicially-created or Security
11 Council-created ineffective defence and inadequate time for preparation to
12 blame the Defence. That, Your Honours, would be blaming the victim.
13 Now, Your Honours, the Defence is fully aware of the fact that we
14 are dealing with public funds. The international community has an
15 interest in ensuring fiscal responsibility for the use of these funds.
16 That is a given, and we don't argue with that. But it must never be
17 forgotten that the international community has an overriding and paramount
18 interest in fair trials. And if this trial is not fair, Your Honours, the
19 money is wasted and more money will have to be spent.
20 And, of course, Your Honours, justice is no mere mathematical
21 exercise, but there is an area in which mathematics does become relevant,
22 and that is the simple mathematical exercise of dividing up how much
23 material there is to be read and analysed and the time available to read
24 it. And, of course, in making those calculations, Your Honours, Defence
25 counsel would also need time to sleep and even down time, because, quite
1 frankly, if the Defence team is pushed to such a point where, like any
2 other human being, any other legal professional, where we become burnt
3 out, that is entirely counter-productive for justice.
4 Now, Your Honours, we have asked the Prosecution for their best
5 available information or estimate of the total quantity of hard copy and
6 electronic documentation that has been supplied to the Defence since the
7 case began, and of course His Honour Judge Hanoteau would be aware that,
8 prior to the current counsel coming into the case, it was previously lead
9 counsel who was removed from the case by the Tribunal due to his
10 disbarment in New York. A lot of that material that we received from the
11 previous counsel we did not receive until the end of November 2003, and
12 the trial started early February 2004. We have spent a lot of time
13 attempting to sort and sift through that material.
14 If one looks at, overall, what the Prosecution have put forward,
15 have disclosed, initially it was something like 15.000 documents. One
16 adds to that all the 92 bis witness statements and related transcripts.
17 One adds to that the viva voce witness statements and transcripts. And
18 one adds to that new witnesses that have emerged since the filing of the
19 pre-trial brief. The core collection is something in the nature of 8.000
21 Your Honours, I want to refer specifically to the annexes, and
22 prior to going to that, Your Honours, it might be an opportunity, just to
23 give Your Honours a visual example of the kind of issues we are dealing
24 with here. This should not take very long, but this is a representation
25 of the material that we have currently in our office January and February
1 of this year. The first series of documents are January 2005, and the
2 next series of photographs are February 2005. That is January 2005, Your
3 Honours, and I can indicate that that's -- and we can move on to the next
4 photo. I can talk through the examination of the photos. That is after a
5 lot of sorting of ill-sorted material that came from the previous counsel
6 in attempting to deal with the duplicates we also had. We can move on to
7 the next photo.
8 That's a rather tidier section that has been sorted.
9 This photo, I think, is taken in February, after a lot more
10 sorting had been achieved in relation to ensuring that we attempted to get
11 rid of duplicates and what have you that existed in the hard copies.
12 Sorry, that last one was January, Your Honours.
13 Mr. Stewart was the photographer.
14 MR. STEWART: I just know the numbering, Your Honours. The 700s
15 are January and the 900s are February.
16 MS. LOUKAS: And here we are, Your Honours, in February now,
18 So, Your Honours, that's just to give Your Honours a visual
19 interpretation of what we're dealing with, because often it's the case, in
20 oral submissions, or merely the presentation of numbers on our annexes
21 can't give a full picture of what we're attempting to deal with. That is
22 the hard copies. There are, of course, a whole series of CDs and what
23 have you, some of which, of course, are duplicates, but we have not been
24 able to perform that sifting exercise to ensure that we know what we're
25 dealing -- and the most critical aspect of this, of course, is that we
1 asked, prior to the trial commencing, that we could have the entire
2 Prosecution disclosure in electronic searchable format, but the
3 Prosecution, due to their own resource problems, of course, were not able
4 to provide that. And we, of course, in the time available, have not been
5 able to ensure that all this material has gone on Xylab, that particular
6 computer function.
7 But what I want to do is give a specific example here in relation
8 to our annexes, and that is that, if we are to leave aside the material
9 that's contained on the Electronic Disclosure Suite, which, if one comes
10 to some sort of sifting exercise in relation to that material, at one
11 minute a page, assuming we're dealing with four pages per document, it
12 would take ten years to sift through the entire general collection. But
13 I'm leaving the Electronic Disclosure Suite out of these submissions for
14 the moment.
15 The example I want to give is this: Say, for example, we want to
16 come to a low estimate of material that we just want to sift, one minute
17 per page, of 250.000 pages, leaving aside issues of audiotapes,
18 videotapes, and what have you, a sifting exercise of 250.000 pages takes,
19 at one minute a page, is 4.200 hours. Now, I hope my mathematics are
20 correct, Your Honour, because mathematics were not my strong suite at
21 university. But nevertheless, that amounts to something like 60 -- if
22 someone was doing that at 60 hours a week, that would take a person 70
23 weeks. Now, if you get four people doing that, full time, 60 hours a
24 week, that takes four months. That, Your Honour, is an example of the
25 massive scale of the problem that we are dealing with.
1 I want to make this point clear, Your Honours: This claim of six
2 months is not put forward as some sort of negotiating claim or some sort
3 of ambit claim or something for horse-trading. This is something that we,
4 as responsible, conscientious, legal professionals say that we need to
5 ensure that we can provide an effective Defence. Your Honours are not
6 interested and we are not interested in putting up some sort of
7 superficial show-trial defence. That's not what we want; that's not what
8 you want. Because the ability of the Defence to prepare its case is
9 affected by these problems, but not just that. The ability of the Trial
10 Chamber to try this case fairly and efficiently is ultimately affected by
11 these problems.
12 Your Honours, it's our submission that the Trial Chamber cannot
13 take any unwarranted risks with a fair trial. We make this point, Your
14 Honours: That when experienced counsel are telling the Trial Chamber and
15 the public that we ourselves are not presenting an effective defence, why
16 would we do that unless it were true?
17 And, Your Honours, one needs to look at the fact that I filed a
18 motion for withdrawal last October, giving specifically, in court, my
19 reasons due to inadequacy of time and the consequences that has for a fair
20 trial for Mr. Krajisnik, and Ms. Cmeric's resignation, in those terms.
21 The international community, Your Honours, has entrusted this
22 Tribunal with a task of trying persons charged with serious violations of
23 international humanitarian law, and the international community expects
24 the Tribunal to do so in accordance with the rights of the accused. The
25 fundamental point is that if the Tribunal is not given sufficient time and
1 money to do so by the international community, then the Tribunal should
2 not attempt to try those persons in a way which does not accord with those
4 Of course, it has been said by Judge Hunt in an appeals decision
5 that this Tribunal will not be judged only -- "this Tribunal will not be
6 judged by the number of convictions which it enters or by the speed with
7 which it concludes the completion strategy which the Security Council has
8 endorsed, but by the fairness of its trials." Others have said that this
9 Tribunal will not be judged by the number of convictions or the speed but
10 also by the fairness of its trial.
11 Whatever formulation Your Honours prefer, the fact is that nobody
12 in this courtroom wants the trial against Mr. Krajisnik to be part of that
13 spreading stain. This case will play a central role in shaping the legacy
14 and the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, and without a fair trial, that
15 legacy will be flawed, it will be stained, and it will be a legacy that is
16 not worth having.
17 Your Honours, we, the Defence, do not want that, the Trial Chamber
18 does not want that, and the international community does not want that.
19 Thank you, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Loukas.
21 Mr. Tieger, may I take it that you will respond? Please proceed.
22 MR. TIEGER: That is correct, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
23 Your Honour, it is correct that the central issue is whether
24 adequate time for preparation of the Defence has been provided. It's our
25 submission that that question was answered in September of last year for
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 two reasons: First, in the well-reasoned decision by the Trial Chamber
2 addressing the same issue; and second, because the time sought by the
3 Defence for adequate preparation on their own terms of that defence was,
4 through happenstance, provided. And let me retrace some of the backdrop
5 very quickly in order to explain that.
6 In December 2003 - and these issues are raised in the Court's
7 decision - the Defence sought a trial schedule that would include some 70
8 extraordinary non-sitting days between February 2nd and August 1st, 2004.
9 As it happened, between February 2nd and mid-July 2004, there were 75
10 working days during which no court hearings took place. Nevertheless, on
11 July 14th, the Defence made a formal motion for an extended adjournment
12 seeking adjournment until 4 October 2004. Although the specific number of
13 days weren't calculated, by my own calculation which I admit is
14 approximate, that entailed roughly 42 extraordinary days of adjournment in
15 addition to the scheduled summer recess. The Court denied that motion for
16 the reasons stated in its decision of September 21st. Nevertheless, the
17 Defence received the benefit of all the time which it had requested.
18 Since that request, there have been approximately 70 extraordinary
19 working days in which no court hearings took place, in addition to the
20 end-of-the-year or new year break. And of course that calculation
21 includes the time between Judge El Mahdi's announcement and today's
23 JUDGE ORIE: I do not correctly understand if you would like to
24 include the recesses -- you said in addition to.
25 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry, beyond -- right.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now it's clear.
2 MR. TIEGER: Yes. It's also important, I think, to look with --
3 look again at the issues raised by -- the specific issues raised by the
4 Defence in its motion for some clarity. That motion focused in particular
5 on the voluminous nature of the materials and their searchability, at
6 least as I followed the motion. And as the Court can see on pages 3 and
7 4, in connection with the nature or the volume of material provided, the
8 Defence outlines and enumerates approximately 200.000 pages of material,
9 103 video tapes, 351 CDs, 24.800 documents in the Krajisnik case
10 collection, 26.725 files in their hard disk.
11 Well, first of all, it's important to note for clarification that
12 those individual recitations represent essentially the same body of
13 material, and I'll attempt, in just a moment, to describe the history of
14 disclosure to identify where those collections came from.
15 A few other factors may be useful to note. For example, for a
16 variety of reasons, on various occasions, CD disclosures or DVDs
17 disclosures contained one or two documents which were disclosed in that
18 format for searchability.
19 But let me retrace very quickly the rough history of disclosure to
20 indicate both the providence of those documents and their relationship,
21 one to another.
22 As Ms. Loukas indicated earlier, the Prosecution disclosed to the
23 Defence team at the time that -- Mr. Brashich and Mr. Kostich who were
24 charged with the responsibility for that case, in excess of 15.000
25 documents, approximately 17.500 documents, is my understanding. In
1 addition to that hard-copy disclosure, eight CDs that were Xy-searchable
2 were disclosed. Now, Xy-searchable, although the Court may be familiar
3 with that vehicle, means that it's possible to type in a word and then
4 pull up all the documents that mention that particular word. Those CDs
5 were also made available to the Defence team when they took over for Mr.
6 Brashich and Mr. Kostich.
7 In addition, the Prosecution also provided an index to the
8 hard-copy documents. Now, that index had a description of the particular
9 documents, with such things as the date of the document, the author of the
10 document, the body which sent the document, and so on. So it would be
11 possible to go down the index and identify particular documents of
12 relevance and then relate them back to the CDs that were -- that could be
14 The Prosecution also provided a reduced or focused list of
15 potential exhibits or documents that reflected the most relevant or
16 significant documents in view of the Prosecution, the documents that would
17 be focused on by the Prosecution during the course of its case. And that
18 was provided with an index in 3-Ds so that the index could be
19 electronically searched. In addition, the index was hyperlinked, meaning
20 that if there was a document of interest to anyone viewing it, that that
21 document could be called up with simply the click of a mouse.
22 Now, the Defence raised some concerns about the fact that there
23 were eight CDs and therefore they had to search the CDs individually
24 rather than being able to type in a word and go immediately through all
25 documents. Our support people urged them to put the CDs into their hard
1 drive, and eventually the Prosecution offered to put the CDs into hard
2 drive and did so for the Defence. Those are the materials that are, in
3 fact, in the hard drive, the materials that were previously disclosed on
4 the CDs and were now then placed in the hard drive.
5 Now, the Xy-searchability function was lost when they were put in
6 the hard drive, they're not searchable that way, but the index still
7 existed. In addition, after that point, but actually prior to the July 14
8 motion, we made a request to have those documents put into the Krajisnik
9 collection in EDS, and EDS is word-searchable.
10 Now, I raise that because -- for two reasons: Number 1, to dispel
11 any impression of a cumulative nature of these documents, where the -- it
12 suggests that collections are added one on top of another rather than the
13 redisclosure, in different formats, in order to enhance retrievability or
14 searchability. And I also raise it because it's important to dispel any
15 impression that the review of these documents is done in the abstract or
16 is done out of a particular context. And it is possible to get the sense
17 that the review of these materials must be done as if the Defence came
18 upon this body of material one day and then had to review everything,
19 without any insight whatsoever into the relative significance, priority,
20 importance, or duplicative nature of any of those documents.
21 We, of course, begin with the fact that the Prosecution provided
22 the Defence with a pre-trial brief with respect to witness statements,
23 with 65 ters, with respect to individual witnesses who were called,
24 hyperlinked exhibit lists, and I think Mr. Treanor and Ms. Hanson are
25 among the best examples of that. All of Mr. Treanor's documents, which
1 provided at the outset of the case, a very significant and, in some
2 respects, nearly comprehensive insight into those documents of greater
3 significance with respect to those issues, were presented in an index and
4 were hyperlinked and were readily accessible.
5 But it's also important to bear in mind that, as the case
6 proceeds, not all the documents that were originally disclosed retain
7 their original potential significance for a variety of reasons. Number 1,
8 many of them have been explained; number 2, witnesses have been dropped;
9 number 3, issues have been refined. For example, although there has been
10 no significant movement between the Prosecution and the Defence toward
11 agreed facts on various issues, it is surely the case that the Defence has
12 made its own formulations and decisions about which issues remain
13 genuinely in controversy and which issues they intend to focus their
14 attention on. It's no longer the case that these documents simply exist
15 without any outlying significance that renders all the search vehicles
16 available as meaningful as they, in fact, are.
17 Your Honour, I'd like to make just a couple of points in response
18 to a few comments made by Ms. Loukas. I'm not aware that the projected
19 trial date is a reflection of the so-called completion strategy or any
20 outlying directives. My recollection is it is quite consistent with the
21 original estimations of this trial, and it's certainly consistent with
22 what, I believe, any objective observer would think as a reasonable period
23 of time within which to conduct such a case.
24 I would remind the Court that delays have a number of potentially
25 pernicious impacts on the administration of justice. Witnesses grow
1 weary, witnesses are lost, case managers are lost, personnel are lost.
2 The Prosecution, too, has suffered as a result of the length of the trial.
3 The reference to a ten-year period of time to review the general
4 collection material, I presume, is somewhat of a throw-away, and I think
5 should be treated as such. The fact that collection of documents from
6 other cases exist in EDS is not particularly relevant to this inquiry, and
7 I don't think should be treated as such, although it leaves a general
8 flavor of volume that I think is potentially misleading and should be
9 addressed. I'm not sure where Ms. Loukas came up with the figure of
10 250.000 pages, but I understood that they estimated 200.000 pages, B/C/S
11 and English, which I think reduces to a review of 100.000 pages. If the
12 Court wishes to engage in a calculation, I think that's a more fairer
13 place to begin.
14 JUDGE ORIE: To clarify the matter, Ms. Loukas, it's just my
15 recollection that 206.000 were mentioned in the motion. You mentioned
17 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour, I was giving it as an example of
18 when one takes into account the various formats that we have to look
19 through, an example of the sifting exercise that would have to be
20 performed to ensure that what's an important document, what's a duplicate,
21 what we need to be concerned with, a comparison of documents between B/C/S
22 and English, and just on the basis of one minute a page. That was the --
23 it was done as an air exercise.
24 JUDGE ORIE: The document you mentioned in the motion was slightly
25 smaller. It was 206.500.
1 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, it was 206.500.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And that would include two languages. Because to
3 this moment, I did understand your explanation of what it takes to deal
4 with them. But Mr. Tieger is talking about 200.000, two languages, and so
5 splits that up in two and says 100.000, and you went up from 206.500 to
6 250.000. That's what you mentioned, I think.
7 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour, because when one looks at the
8 material in the annex, firstly, we do concede, and I conceded for my
9 example, that a lot of what's contained on the hard disk is duplication.
10 We're not entirely sure that it's all duplication because we haven't gone
11 through the sifting exercise. And to ensure that we aren't missing
12 something does require something of a sifting exercise, not just through
13 the material that we've already got in B/C/S and English in hard copy in
14 our office, and of course there's the necessity to go through both English
15 and B/C/S just in terms of confirming translations and --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. The only matter I wanted to
17 clarify at this moment is that Mr. Tieger is talking about 200.000, where
18 I had 206 in my memory, which was 206.500, and we're all talking about the
19 same material.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
23 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, those are essentially our submissions.
24 As a minor matter, I would note that the estimate of the core collection,
25 I believe, is a case of adding two disclosures together, the original
1 estimate -- the original disclosure and then the subsequent one, which
2 included the original. So I think it's -- I think Ms. Loukas estimated
3 8.000, and I think it's closer to 55 or 60 per cent of that total, the
4 first disclosure and the second disclosure. Not a significant point in
5 light of my other comments.
6 But for the reasons mentioned, including the legitimate
7 expectations of both parties and the Court, and the objective time and
8 opportunities provided, the Prosecution opposes this motion.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Tieger. We have ten minutes left.
10 Let me first ask whether the --
11 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, might I make a couple of observations.
12 I absolutely do not do anything other than entirely endorse and support
13 what my co-counsel said. I should make that 100 per cent clear.
14 Put one comment, it was a forensic comment made by Mr. Tieger, but
15 as far as the loss of case managers because cases go slowly, Your Honour,
16 I have refrained, because she has made her own decision. But Ms. Cmeric
17 is not leaving because this case is going too slowly, she's leaving
18 because it's going too fast and she's leaving because there isn't an
19 adequate opportunity to prepare the case.
20 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, Mr. Stewart, I intended to give
21 a brief opportunity to respond, but first wanted to see if the Judges had
22 any questions.
23 MR. STEWART: My apologies, Your Honour. I didn't wish to be
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: I would, just for clarification matters, I would have
2 two questions. The first is to the Defence: The Hague team, what do you
3 exactly understand by The Hague team? We do understand more or less.
4 MR. STEWART: Yes, indeed Your Honour -- should I say straight
5 away, Your Honour, Ms. Loukas and I, through my left ear, are very
6 amicably agreed that I should deal with this question, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. STEWART: The Hague team, as it's constituted at the moment,
9 is myself at lead counsel, Ms. Loukas as co-counsel, Ms. Cmeric for
10 another week as case manager, and let us assume, notionally, that it will
11 continue to consist of a case manager when we find a suitable person to
12 take on that job. It consists additionally of Ms. Kelly Pitcher, who is a
13 full-time legal assistant with us, and will be with us for a few more
14 months. It consists of Ms. Catriona Vine, who is only with us until
15 Easter -- has been with us for a short time which, obviously, despite her
16 undoubted skills and experience, she's an English barrister so that goes
17 without saying, of course. But despite her skills and experience, that's
18 a short time. The case of course does limit the contribution that
19 anybody can humanly make. And we have a part-time intern, a very bright
20 young man, Mr. Kevin Afghani, but he's only with us for two days a week
21 because he's a full-time student. We do have Mr. Jovanovic in London,
22 doing his course at the London School of Economics. So he's, sort of,
23 part of The Hague team. And we have very -- again, with no disparagement
24 at all, we have very minor assistance, because of the time they're able to
25 give, from interns. So the permanent Hague team -- we hoped it would be
1 permanent -- but in Ms. Cmeric's case it isn't quite. But I call usually
2 -- we refer to as the core team has been myself, Ms. Loukas, and Ms.
3 Cmeric, and we do have Ms. Pitcher at the moment as well as a legal
4 assistant. We have consistently had at least one and, for quite a long
5 time, for several months, we had two full-time legal assistants. We have
6 Ms. Dixon, whom Your Honours may remember, and Mr. Jovanovic for a period.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us approximately, these legal
8 assistants, for how long you had them?
9 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, Ms. Dixon -- from memory, Ms.
10 Dixon, I think, was with us for about four or five months. I know the
11 material is in here, Your Honour, but it's going to be quicker, Your
12 Honour, if I give you a reasonable estimate.
13 But the position was, Your Honour, we did have, from the beginning
14 -- very early in the trial right through to now, we have always had at
15 least one full-time legal assistant, and for a period of about four months
16 or five months, I think it was, over the summer until he had to go to
17 London to start his degree course, we have Mr. Jovanovic as well, so there
18 was a period when we had two. There was also a short overlap period
19 between Ms. Dixon, as she was on the way out, and Ms. Pitcher as she was
20 on the way in, but that is just while they hand over and get used to each
22 JUDGE ORIE: This leads me to my next question: The remuneration
23 of The Hague team, does Mr. Krajisnik in any way contribute to that, in
24 financial terms?
25 MR. STEWART: No, he doesn't, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: He doesn't.
2 MR. STEWART: He doesn't. Perhaps, Your Honour, I can say,
3 because it is an important topic and I do understand that, and we
4 mentioned it in the motion, perhaps I can say this: First of all, Your
5 Honour, the whole question is a bone of contention between Mr. Krajisnik
6 and me. That has, I think, been pretty obvious. I won't go any more into
7 that, but it is, unfortunately. What happens is that I, as lead counsel,
8 allocate the funds coming from the Registry to fund The Hague team. That
9 is what I have done since the beginning of the trial. What I don't do is
10 allocate funds anywhere else. So The Hague team, I'm not suggesting it's
11 luxury, Your Honour, but The Hague team, we have been able to sustain at
12 that size. And although, more money, of course, Your Honour, can always
13 give rise to more resources, but as I think, perhaps, I've commented in
14 the past, the one thing that the projected budget and the allowed budget
15 would never have allowed us to do, for example, is to have three counsel,
16 which is a matter which would always have made a great difference, of
17 course, Your Honour, if we ever had that. But that would have been,
18 however one allocated the judgement, that would have always been
20 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is aware of the budget. We just wanted
21 to know the composition of the team in relation to remuneration. Thank
22 you for that answer, Mr. Stewart. I think I've got no further questions
23 at this moment for the parties.
24 Would you like to respond to what Mr. Tieger said?
25 MR. STEWART: Yes. First of all, I do find in relation to Mr.
1 Tieger's run-through, which is helpful in the sense that it makes it clear
2 what the Prosecution is saying, but Mr. Tieger's run-through of, well,
3 they provided this and they provided that and these files were there, is a
4 little difficult for me, Your Honour, because that's something which I
5 would like the opportunity to go through with Ms. Cmeric. Because one
6 thing struck me immediately. For example, When Mr. Tieger described the
7 Prosecution as urging the Defence to put the CDs on its hard disk and then
8 described as if we were babies - I don't mean he meant it offensively -
9 but if we were babies that didn't know how to do that. The Prosecution
10 came along and helped us to put the CDs on the hard disk. Your Honour,
11 that's not the way it is. My case manager knows how to put CDs on a hard
12 disk. I know how to put CDs on a hard disk. After all, I provided the
13 file of scanned photographs -- digital photographs that I handed over
14 today. We do know how to do those things. As far as I recall, what
15 didn't happen, although I wasn't involved with the nuts and bolt of Mr.
16 Carolyn [phoen] and Ms. Cmeric sitting down to do it, because that's not a
17 valuable use of lead counsel's time. It wasn't the CDs. They didn't come
18 over and show us like babies how to install our own CDs, they brought, as
19 far as I recall, their own set of CDs which was in an organised state
20 which we were having serious problems with, and it was that that was
21 installed on our hard disk.
22 So that one point about which I do have one piece of familiarity
23 indicates to me that the description -- I hope I'm right about that, Your
24 Honour, because I'm just recalling what I do know. But that leads me,
25 like a clock striking 13, to wonder about the other things with which I'm
1 not technically familiar, because I don't do these things if I can avoid
2 it because I have a case manager to do that, Your Honour.
3 First of all, I really would like the opportunity of going through
4 that with my case manager to be --
5 JUDGE ORIE: I don't think it's one of the main issues. I don't
6 believe that Mr. Tieger wanted to depict you as babies, at least as
7 electronic babies. At the same time, it's clear that if you say -- if you
8 come up with newly organised material and you put it on our computer, then
9 of course that's not the same as putting on a computer all the diskette
10 material. It's not the core of the problem.
11 MR. STEWART: It's an illustration of it, if I may say, Your
12 Honour, because it's this: The picture which comes across -- what I can
13 say without entering into the technicalities, the picture that comes
14 across of some source of organised, easy-to-manage, categorised material
15 is a picture which I simply don't recognise. I don't recognise it in
16 relation to the CDs. I didn't get eight CDs from Mr. Brashich, I got 50
17 CDs all over the shop with thousands of files on them. It doesn't match
18 at all the absolute -- and not just the literal picture that one sees on
19 the screen, but the actual knowledge I have of what is actually down there
20 at our office, at the Dutch bar. Because within every one of those files,
21 practically, is something that still needs organising.
22 For example, Your Honour, of the days available in this recent
23 break, since Judge El Mahdi retired, I have done an analysis of how we
24 have spent our time, and in my case, Your Honour, I have spent something
25 like 50 per cent of what you might call the discretionary time, if you
1 take away the unvoidable tasks, the things that have got to be done - the
2 92 bis responses, the motions, helping draft this motion, for example, all
3 the things which actually had to be done, motions for protective measures,
4 things like that, that had to be done according to deadlines, time tables,
5 had to be split between us - once you take away all those tasks and then
6 you go down to the discretionary tasks in the sense of having some
7 management ability to decide what do you do this/that day, what task do
8 you give priority to, as opposed to having the priority set for you, I
9 have spent something like 50 per cent of my time organising papers.
10 And what exactly I've been doing is, in a sense, not to the point,
11 although it would bear examination, but the essential ingredient of this,
12 Your Honour, is what I've been doing is stuff which I should have been
13 able either to do myself or have somebody else do on my behalf before the
14 trial even started. So here I am in -- and I came back for a couple of
15 days between Christmas and the new year and spent a couple of days just
16 physically going through stuff down at the -- at our office in the Dutch
17 bar, and I was doing things which should have been done, in any ordinary
18 case, could, should, and would have been done, months and weeks before
19 this trial even started, and we are still doing them.
20 And those hundreds of files that one sees down at our office are
21 not organised files. They're organised in the sense they're on the
22 shelves. But when you get into them, they are not organised. We have
23 done the first generation of organisation of that. And then there are
24 tens and tens and tens and tens of thousands of pages of documents. And I
25 haven't read many of them, I don't even know what they are, I don't have
1 enough B/C/S resources to find out what they are. I open a CD and I find
2 thousands of files without any real way of picking my way through them.
3 It is absolutely impossible. And that's why one loses a case manager,
4 because the position is hopeless.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Stewart, was this your response? I'm also
6 looking at the clock.
7 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I have one more -- it is an unusual
8 request or suggestion. Your Honour, a lot of information flows around
9 this building --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I first have to ask the interpreters and the
11 technicians whether they could ...
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand, since I hear no opposition
14 from the technicians and interpreters, but there are also outside services
15 beyond the control of this Tribunal.
16 MR. STEWART: I shan't be very long, Your Honour, at all.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
18 MR. STEWART: A lot of information flows around this building. It
19 does sometimes make us uncomfortable. We hope we're not paranoid, but
20 just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get
21 you. But, Your Honour, we are uncomfortable about -- I should say, and
22 I'll say it very briefly in open court, I have personally been subjected
23 to the most scurrilous attack by a former member of my team, with
24 untruthful allegations about how I spend my time when there's an
25 adjournment, how much work I do other than this case, of which I do
1 practically none, Your Honour. And we are so sensitive about this, and we
2 are so anxious about the picture that sometimes seems to get created, that
3 what I would like to do, Your Honour, is I would like to hand up,
4 confidentially, to the Trial Chamber and, of course, to the Prosecution -
5 we have no possible objection to their seeing it - I would like to hand up
6 schedules which I have prepared just showing where Ms. Loukas and I, who
7 are the only two counsel in the case, have been since Judge El Mahdi
8 retired, how long we've been here, and giving some indication of how our
9 -- we're not asking for special consideration from the Trial Chamber as to
10 our personal lives, and we don't wish to go into that, Your Honour,
11 certainly not publicly. But we are asking for it to be recognised and
12 seen in black and white how far we are at the limits of what we can fairly
13 be asked to contribute by way of professional work on this case, and have
14 it seen in black and white how our lives actually work and what we have
15 actually done, in case there is any information floating around this
16 building - and we do pick it up, Your Honour - any information which
17 suggests to the contrary.
18 At the very worst, these pieces of paper are harmless. Your
19 Honours can look at them and say, Well, so what? And that's the worst
20 that can happen. So since that's the worst that could happen, we would
21 like Your Honours to have these pieces of paper, and we would like Your
22 Honours just to see how it works.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, we have considered whether or not we'll
25 accept that. The Chamber comes to the conclusion that there's no need.
1 The rumours you are talking about are not rumours that reached the Trial
2 Chamber to the extent that we got information on what you did, neither
3 have we ever heard of any former team member.
4 On the other hand, if you'd like to prove what the Chamber is
5 willing to accept, that you're hard-working and spending time on the case,
6 then we will not keep you from doing it. But as you said already
7 yourself, the worst that can happen is that we say, So what? I mean, you
8 took that risk. There's no need for us to receive it. But if you'd
9 prefer to do it, we'll not stop you.
10 MR. STEWART: We would prefer it, Your Honour. What's absolutely
11 the worse that can happen?
12 May I pick out one point from it which Your Honours will see,
13 which is not -- there are aspects of it which Your Honours will see.
14 You'll see why it's confidential, apart from the fact that it mentions,
15 just in passing, it mentions a category which courts are always very
16 careful, which is people are not even legally adult. So that's -- all
17 courts are very careful in relation to those people, and we ask that as
19 But, Your Honour, one simple example. I was in court all day on
20 Monday, the 21st, if it was, of December. I went to London for two or
21 three days and I was in court all day. That was the first day in 2004
22 that I was in court in England. It was the first and only day. And it
23 also -- this schedule also gives just the very barest indication of the
24 tiny degree to which I, and certainly not Ms. Loukas, who gave up a
25 full-time job in Sydney, have been involved in anything else at all.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. STEWART: So I would like to hand it up, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: You provide it to us.
4 Mr. Tieger, there's not much time left, because of the other
5 interests in having this hearing finished. It's about transportation, as
6 you'll understand. Is there anything you'd like to add?
7 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour. Unless the Court has any questions,
8 there is no need.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Very well. We will conclude this hearing. The
10 Chamber will consider the matter. The Chamber will receive ...
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer].
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I understand that you'd like to
13 address the Court. You should be aware that, for transportation reasons,
14 we have to finish very quickly. So if you would like to address the
15 Court, I don't know whether you discussed with Mr. Stewart what you'd like
16 to say, but it's always wise not to surprise your own counsel.
17 Yes, please proceed.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, I will not surprise my counsel.
19 I have the following to ask of you, Your Honours: I have
20 submitted a request to the Trial Chamber, because I am concerned about my
21 defence, and I would kindly ask you to set aside a period of time for me
22 to address Your Honours. At one point we did hold these Status
23 Conferences, but there haven't been any recently, and I just wish to raise
24 the need for such a Status Conference to be held.
25 And I would also like to welcome the new Judge and thank him for
1 his kind words. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then, you're raising an issue which is not without
3 complexity, Mr. Krajisnik, because if you want to raise anything from the
4 recent past, you may know that the normal way of doing it, and the
5 appropriate way of doing it, is through counsel. I don't know whether,
6 meanwhile, you discussed the matters you'd like to raise with counsel.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to say that whatever both my
8 counsel stated here today, I endorse. I do not have anything to comment
9 -- to raise in relation to the services provided by my counsel. They are
10 very good lawyers. But what I have to say will be helpful both to you and
11 my counsel, because we seem to have this problem, both my counsel and I,
12 that we are unable to solve between the two of us. And that's why I need
13 to raise this matter to Your Honours. And this is a very complex matter
14 where I would need the assistance of this Trial Chamber.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Krajisnik, you have sent us a letter. This
16 letter has been sent back to you. The Chamber has not kept any copies of
17 this letter. Of course, I can't say that I have forgotten completely
18 about the content, because that's almost impossible. Is that the kind of
19 issue you'd like to raise?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, mostly so. But, in particular,
21 the matter that you mentioned today as regards my contribution to the fees
22 for my defence, and I would like to include that matter as well.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. From my recollection, that is a matter that was
24 also, to some extent at least, raised in the letter. Have you informed
25 Mr. Stewart about the content of the letter? Has he received a copy of
1 it? We don't have it anymore.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart is more or less kept
3 abreast of that. He is faced with these problems, just as I am. Nothing
4 of what I have to say is against my counsel, and I hope, and I believe,
5 that my counsel is aware of the contents of the letter.
6 JUDGE ORIE: My question was quite simple, whether he received a
7 copy of it or not, whether you sent him a copy, so that he is fully aware
8 of what was on your mind when you wrote the letter. Wouldn't it have been
9 wisest that you give him a copy of the letter, discuss it with them, then
10 see what remains, and then find a way to address the Chamber at a Status
11 Conference, or at least some time reserved for that aim? I mean, he'll
12 hear anyhow, if you address the Chamber, what you want to say, so
13 therefore ...
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, these matters have been
15 topical throughout the period. I did show the letter to my counsel, and
16 it was then forwarded to the Registrar. But if this is not the case, if
17 he hasn't seen the letter, I will certainly make sure that he does.
18 MR. STEWART: If I can simply help factually, Your Honour. Mr.
19 Krajisnik did very fairly indicate to me the main points in his letter, in
20 summary, but I haven't had the letter. And if Mr. Krajisnik has offered
21 to give me a copy of the letter, it would be gratefully received.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's do the following: Mr. Krajisnik, the Chamber
23 will consider the matter. But since you have offered to give Mr. Stewart
24 the letter, he might give you some advice or address the matter soon. So
25 at this moment, we will not take a decision on it, but soon we will deal
1 with the matter, if it has been brought to the attention of the Chamber in
2 the appropriate and the usual way.
3 We really have to stop now, because otherwise we are in trouble
4 with your transportation. We, meanwhile, received "Days in The Hague."
5 Mr. Stewart, that's almost a title of a novel.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
7 MR. STEWART: There's two novels, Your Honours, one for me and one
8 for Ms. Loukas.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, two novels.
10 The Chamber will consider the motion. It will take a decision,
11 most likely will give an oral decision relatively soon. That could be
12 tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. But, as we did with the July motion,
13 there certainly will be a reasoning in writing because the matter is too
14 important and it would not be appropriate to deal with it just in a short,
15 oral decision.
16 We'll also consider the matter raised by Mr. Krajisnik once the
17 Defence has further been able to review that matter.
18 For the time being, we'll continue tomorrow. Tomorrow, I take it,
19 Mr. Harmon, the OTP will call its next expert witness, Ms. Hanson.
20 MR. HARMON: That is correct, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00,
22 courtroom II.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.17 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 1st day of March,
25 2005, at 9.00 a.m.