Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 9543

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

Page 9544

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]

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 9545











11 Page 9545 redacted. Private session.















Page 9546











11 Page 9546 redacted. Private session.















Page 9547

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

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

Page 9548

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

Page 9549

1 meanwhile?

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

6 translation.

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.

Page 9550

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.


7 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, may I intervene for a moment.


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

Page 9551

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

11 included.

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

Page 9552

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 --


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.

Page 9553

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

9 translation.

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.

Page 9554

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.


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

19 six.

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,

Page 9555

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

18 today.

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

21 sufficient?

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

Page 9556

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

5 427?

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.


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.

Page 9557

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

3 objections.

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.

10 Harmon?

11 MR. HARMON: I understand it has been provided to the registrar

12 already.

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

Page 9558

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

12 parties.

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

25 exhibit?

Page 9559

1 MR. STEWART: No, Your Honour. We have it already, and there's no

2 objection.

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

25 before?

Page 9560

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

4 translations?

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

21 moment.

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.

Page 9561

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

4 legiblity.

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

12 January.

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.

23 Harmon.

24 MR. HARMON: It's my understanding, in respect of these two

25 exhibits, Your Honour, that they have already been tendered. We are

Page 9562

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

16 tendered.

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

Page 9563












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 9564

1 tendered them.


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.


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

17 Registry.

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

24 that?

25 MR. STEWART: Well, it's something I just wanted to add, Your

Page 9565

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

Page 9566

1 issue.

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.


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.

Page 9567

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.


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

Page 9568

1 relate to each of the cantons.

2 JUDGE ORIE: I take it the Defence has seen the maps, and have no

3 objections?

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

25 each.

Page 9569

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

8 important.

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

20 pages.

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,

Page 9570

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.


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

Page 9571

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

17 proceed.

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

22 trivial.

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,

Page 9572

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

Page 9573

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

3 difficult.

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.

Page 9574

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

8 respect.

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.


21 MS. LOUKAS: Depending on how long the photographs take.


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.

Page 9575

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.


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

Page 9576

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

Page 9577

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

16 undermined.

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.

Page 9578

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

Page 9579

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

20 documents.

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

Page 9580

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,

17 finally.

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

Page 9581

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.

Page 9582

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

Page 9583

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

3 rights.

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

Page 9584












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 9585

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

22 proceedings.

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.

Page 9586

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

Page 9587

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

13 searched.

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

Page 9588

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

Page 9589

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

Page 9590

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

16 250.000.

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.

Page 9591

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.


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

Page 9592

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

24 importunate.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 9593

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.


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

Page 9594

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

21 other.

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.

Page 9595

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

19 impossible.

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.

Page 9596

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

Page 9597

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

Page 9598

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

Page 9599

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

Page 9600

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.

Page 9601

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

18 well.

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.

Page 9602


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

Page 9603

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

Page 9604

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

Page 9605

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.