1 Thursday, 5 October 2000
2 [Pre-Defence Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 3.41 p.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good afternoon to all of you;
7 good afternoon, Office of the Prosecutor, the Defence; good afternoon,
8 General Krstic.
9 Madam Registrar, can you call the case, please.
10 THE REGISTRAR: This is case number IT-98-33-T, the Prosecutor
11 versus Radislav Krstic.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. We are
13 here today for a Pre-Defence Conference envisaged in Rule 63 ter of the
14 Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
15 We should first of all like to consider the points raised during
16 the Status Conference of the 27th of September this year. In accordance
17 with Rule 65 ter (G), the Defence has submitted a list of witnesses and a
18 list of exhibits which it intends to offer in the course of the
19 proceedings. A certain number of remarks were made by the Chamber and the
20 Prosecutor regarding those lists, and the Defence pledged, in accordance
21 with those comments, to comply with the provisions of Rule 65 ter (G) by
22 the 4th of October, at the latest.
23 Concerning the list of witnesses, the Defence took it upon itself
24 to specify the status and function held by the witnesses which it intends
25 to call, and specifically when those were members of the army of Republika
1 Srpska, VRS, at the time of the facts. It also pledged to specify the
2 counts in the indictment to which the testimony of the witnesses will
3 refer. The Prosecutor also expressed the wish to be supplied with
4 summaries, more detailed summaries, so that it might prepare adequately
5 for the cross-examination.
6 The Chamber noted regarding the latter point that the Prosecutor,
7 unlike the Defence, does not have any witness statement. The Chamber,
8 therefore, insisted in the name of the principle of the equality of arms
9 on the necessity of the Defence complying as best it can to the provisions
10 of Rule 65 ter (G), which the Defence accepted to do.
11 As agreed, the Defence filed yesterday a completed list which
12 specifies the rank and the positions held by military men who will be
13 called as witnesses; also, the counts of the indictment to which the
14 testimony will refer, and to a certain extent, the details regarding the
15 contents of some of the testimonies.
16 The question that now arises is, in the first place, to see
17 whether the Prosecutor is satisfied with the level of precision provided.
18 Mr. Harmon, you have the floor.
19 MR. HARMON: Good afternoon, Mr. President; good afternoon, Your
20 Honours; good afternoon to my colleagues for the Defence.
21 I received this document this morning. I was away yesterday, but
22 it had been presented to my office yesterday and it was reviewed by both
23 my colleagues and by myself.
24 The answer to your question is that I am not satisfied in some
25 particulars, and with the Court's permission, I will identify those areas,
1 particularly, those witnesses where I believe there is not full compliance
2 with Rule 65 ter.
3 It has been our position in the past that merely identifying the
4 topics about which a witness will testify and not providing the facts
5 relating to that topic does not constitute full compliance with Rule 65
7 In respect of Witness 22 and Witness 4, the summary that was
8 provided to the Trial Chamber on the 14th of September, first starting
9 with Witness 22, if the Trial Chamber has a copy of that document before
10 it, the summary of Witness 22 is found on page 17. In the new submission
11 that was filed on the 3rd of October, Witness 22 is found -- the summary
12 is found on page 19. A comparison between the two summaries which, in the
13 respectful submission of the Prosecutor, are topical submissions are
14 virtually identical; there are no significant changes.
15 In respect of Witness 4, and I direct the Court's attention to
16 page 4 in both the 14 September pleading and the 3 October pleading where
17 both summaries and submissions of the Defence are indicated, again I
18 believe a comparison of the two reveal that what is contained is a topical
19 summary, one; two, a summary that is virtually identical in the two
20 submissions. And it is our respectful submission that the Trial Chamber
21 find, (1) that these are virtually identical submissions; (2) that they
22 are not factual submissions but topical submissions and that they do not
23 comply with the Rule 65 ter.
24 In that respect, Mr. President and Your Honours, we will be
25 requesting that there be full compliance with the Rule, that is, that
1 factual submissions be made in respect of those two witnesses, that they
2 be made within five days, and that a failure to provide to the Office of
3 the Prosecutor a complete factual summary of the testimonies of those
4 witnesses will result in an order by this Chamber permitting the Office of
5 the Prosecutor to identify -- I'm sorry, to interview those witnesses
6 prior to their taking the stand and testifying.
7 Now, let me direct the Court's attention to other areas where the
8 Office of the Prosecutor is not satisfied, and I will start with
9 Witness 9, the summary that is found -- his summary is found on page 8 of
10 the most recent submission by the Defence, and I direct the Court's
11 attention to the third paragraph in that submission, the last sentence.
12 If I may be permitted to read that. The sentence reads as
13 follows: "The witness will testify in the movement of General Krstic
14 during the Operation Zepa until the end of this operation in late
15 July 1995."
16 Now, that's the topic about which this witness will testify, and
17 from the Prosecutor's point of view, it is an important potential
18 testimony because it identifies the locations of General Krstic and where
19 he was and at what time he was at the various locations is an important
20 and perhaps relevant consideration to any judgement that will be rendered
21 in this case. Therefore, the Prosecution would request in that regard
22 that there be facts that are submitted in respect of that particular
23 portion of the summary, the topical summary, that has been submitted to
24 this Chamber and to us.
25 Now, I have two other examples that I will comment on, and both of
1 those examples are found in the summary and the submission of the Defence
2 in respect of Witness 14.
3 My first comment is directed to a portion of the Defence
4 submission found on page 13, and it is the third complete paragraph from
5 the top of page 13 and it reads as follows: "The witness will testify on
6 the takeover of duty of the commander" -- I'm sorry. Let me start that
7 again: "The witness will testify on the takeover of duty of the commander
8 of the Drina Corps between General Zivanovic and General Krstic."
9 Now, that's the topic about which he'll testify, but the facts
10 that will support that topic are not included in that summary under
11 Rule 65. And clearly, as the Court knows, when General Krstic became the
12 commander is a fundamental issue that the Court will have to decide in
13 making any judgement in this case.
14 So the Prosecutor's Office is requesting that there be a factual
15 summary that will develop this topic about which this witness intends to
17 Turning to the paragraph directly above the paragraph which I have
18 just read, it reads: "The witness will testify on the presence of
19 General Zivanovic at the command post Vlasenica after the fall of
21 Again, the topic is identified but the facts are absent. The
22 facts such as the date, the time, the circumstances are, in fact, missing,
23 and this is not very helpful for us in terms of permitting us to prepare a
24 proper cross-examination.
25 Our request in respect of those paragraphs and these two witnesses
1 that I have identified are the same, that within five calendar days, the
2 Defence provide to the Office of the Prosecutor and to the Trial Chamber
3 factual summaries that relate to the paragraphs that I have identified,
4 and, further, that in the absence of a proper submission, proper factual
5 submission, the Office of the Prosecutor be permitted to interview these
6 witnesses prior to their testifying before the Trial Chamber on these
8 The next point -- and I will say for the record I've had an
9 opportunity to talk to my colleagues from the Defence on this next point
10 -- in fact, all of the points I've raised with Your Honours and I'm
11 raising now. I explained to the Defence that in respect of Witnesses 8,
12 10, 11, 12, 13, and 17, the submission -- the most recent submission of
13 the Defence identifies, and I quote, "This Infantry Battalion," without
14 identifying which specific Infantry Battalion each of these individuals
15 was a member of.
16 Now, I have been informed by the Defence now of that particular
17 Infantry Battalion, and I would ask that for the record, they identify the
18 Infantry Battalions to which these individuals belong. They're prepared
19 to do so, and then we will have a fully developed record in respect of
20 this point that we are raising.
21 Now, in many of these instances, Mr. President and Your Honours,
22 there is no rank provided for these individuals, and our request is that
23 in order to fully flesh out the biographical data that would permit us to
24 prepare for this examination, the rank of these individuals, if it is
25 known and if it is available to the Defence, that information be provided
1 to us.
2 My last comment is directed to a portion of the Defence submission
3 in respect of Witness 18, and I am referring to page 16 of the most recent
4 submission. About two-thirds down on that page for Witness 18 is found
5 the following sentence, and it relates to General Mladic, and I quote:
6 "He will testify about the arrival of General Mladic and his
7 speech delivered to the soldiers."
8 Now, the role of General Mladic, as the Trial Chamber is aware, is
9 something that is very important in this case. While I understand that
10 Witness 18 will testify about a speech, I don't know if this speech bears
11 on the issues before this Trial Chamber or is a speech, for example, that
12 would merely be a speech saying to his subordinate troops, "Good job,
13 you've done an excellent job," or something to boost their morale. My
14 request is that that topic be developed in a factual sense in order to
15 comply with Rule 65 ter.
16 Those are my remarks, Mr. President and Your Honours, in respect
17 of this most recent submission by the Defence. Thank you.
18 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Harmon, I followed you for the most part, but I
19 did have the following question:
20 As to Witness 4, who is only going to testify, I gather, about the
21 events leading up to the events here; namely, until the fall of
22 Srebrenica - apparently he's not going to testify, as far as I can see,
23 about the period or the events that we're most concerned with - do you
24 really need that same level of detail? I understand your later points;
25 they're critical. But we've heard all kinds of testimony about all the
1 events that lead up. I just want to know how specific you need that kind
2 of background testimony.
3 MR. HARMON: My answer is it's less important, Your Honour, than
4 the other items that I've mentioned. However, to the extent that specific
5 locations are mentioned, I do have information about events that took
6 place in respect of locations, I would like to have those locations, for
7 example, identified. I may wish to present those contradicting facts to
8 the witness. But in answer to your question, in the general sense, it's
9 less important than the other items.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] It seems that we have at least
11 three groups of remarks that were given by the Prosecutor. We should, of
12 course, also like to hear the view of the Defence regarding the remarks
13 that were made by the Prosecutor.
14 Mr. Petrusic, I think that during the last Status Conference we
15 somehow mentioned the possibility to discuss these issues in a theoretical
16 manner, but I do not wish to have a theoretical discussion at this point.
17 However, there is one thing that needs to be clarified and made specific
18 before you give us your response. If we say that it is enough for the
19 Prosecutor to say that the witnesses will come to testify about paragraph
20 such and such of the indictment, it is also possible for the Prosecutor to
21 tell the Defence that the witness in question will come and testify about
22 the relevant paragraph.
23 So as regards Rule 65 ter and its provisions, subrule (G) - yes, I
24 think that that is the relevant provision - the provision speaks about the
25 summary of the facts on which each witness will testify. I think that the
1 wording "summary of the facts" refers to circumstances; what the witness
2 is actually going to talk about, when the events happened, why, where, and
3 so on and so forth. So I believe that the facts have to be specified in
4 terms of description of the events. That is something that I wanted to
5 say before Mr. Petrusic gives his response.
6 So what is the view of the Defence, Mr. Petrusic?
7 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours; good
8 afternoon, Mr. President.
9 The Defence is not going to engage in any theoretical discussion.
10 We will try to be as specific as possible in our response to the comments
11 that were made by the counsel for the Prosecution. I think that once our
12 arguments have been entered into the record things will be sufficiently
14 As regards Witness 4, the Defence will probably forego his
15 testimony during this case because in the meantime it has obtained certain
16 documents which might substitute the testimony of the witness. And the
17 documents of course will be made available to the Prosecutor as soon as
19 As regards the comment which was made in respect of Witness 14 and
20 the paragraphs referred to by my learned colleague from the Prosecution, I
21 shall like to note for the record that the witness will be speaking about
22 the fact that the takeover of duty between General Zivanovic and General
23 Krstic, the duty of the commander of the Drina Corps, took place on the
24 20th or the 21st of July, in the vicinity of Han Pijesak.
25 Secondly, as regards the second remark which was made in respect
1 of this witness, the Defence will clarify the matter by saying that the
2 witness will be speaking about the fact that General Zivanovic, on his
3 command post in Vlasenica -- that he was at his command post in Vlasenica
4 also on the 13th, the 14th, and also after the 15th of July.
5 Likewise, the Defence will also try to respond to the comment
6 which was made in respect of Witness 9 by stating the fact that the same
7 witness was in charge of security of General Krstic, that he was actually
8 chief of his security personnel; that on the 13th of July and later, until
9 the 2nd of August, General Krstic's whereabouts were within combat lines
10 in the theatre in Zepa, in the area of Zepa; that he travelled to those
11 lines by car as far as it was possible in view of the inaccessibility of
12 certain portions of the terrain.
13 As regards the testimony of Witness 18 and the comment made in
14 respect of that witness, we should like to say that that witness will
15 testify about General Mladic's address to the group of soldiers, amongst
16 whom was also the witness, one day after the fall of Srebrenica. The
17 witness will also say that General Mladic told him that they would
18 immediately be going to Zepa.
19 I can accept the remark of my learned colleague made in respect of
20 Witness 22. The Defence did not have contact with that witness. However,
21 we have information to the effect that the witness in question was heard
22 as a witness in the case which is before the Public Prosecutor's Office in
23 Banja Luka. And also bearing in mind facts that have so far been heard
24 during the proceedings, that is, that the witness in question is an
25 officer of Republika Srpska, in particular the officer of the Drina Corps
1 or was an officer of the Drina Corps during the relevant times, and also
2 bearing in mind the fact that his name was mentioned on a number of times,
3 the Defence believes that for the purposes of ascertaining the truth and
4 all the relevant facts, his testimony would be relevant for this
5 particular case.
6 I must admit that his testimony, for the time being, is somewhat a
7 mystery for the Defence at this point in time. But I also must say that I
8 believe that every individual, especially an officer of the Drina Corps
9 whose name was mentioned on a number of occasions so far in this case,
10 would probably have a lot to say in terms of facts in respect of almost
11 all of the counts of the indictment and the paragraphs of the indictment
12 in general.
13 Lastly, when this comes to the identification of Witnesses 8, 10,
14 11, 12, 13, and 17, I should like to ask the Trial Chamber to move into
15 private session for this part of the debate.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Judge Rodrigues, please.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I apologise. Mr. Petrusic, you
18 are asking a private session because you will be mentioning the identity
19 of potentially protected witnesses or persons. Is that the reason for
20 your request?
21 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] The reason I'm applying for a
22 private session is only for the purposes of identification of the unit to
23 which they belonged.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well then. We'll move into
25 private session for a while.
1 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Petrusic, you may
15 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this has been more
16 or less our position regarding the comments that were made by the
17 Prosecutor. I don't know whether this is enough for the Prosecutor and
18 the Chamber. If not, we still have the possibility which was mentioned by
19 Mr. Harmon, that is, that within the next five days, working days, we
20 disclose the relevant document, we provide the relevant documents.
21 However, we believe that we have fully complied with the provisions of
22 Rule 65 ter (G).
23 I owe you an apology, Mr. President, an apology to both the
24 Chamber and my colleagues from the Prosecution, because we have certain
25 difficulties when it comes to the technical side of this procedure. We
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.
1 have provided you only with numbers of witnesses, but in the meantime, the
2 Registry has been provided with a full copy of the document, including the
3 names of witnesses whom we intend to call.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
5 Mr. Petrusic.
6 I should like to hear the position of Mr. Harmon once again. The
7 question that is before us is the following: Are the documents
8 sufficient, the documents that are before us, including the information
9 that we have just heard, or do we still need a time period of five days
10 for additional information so that the Prosecution may be able to
11 appropriately conduct its cross-examinations?
12 Mr. Harmon, can we hear you once again, please.
13 MR. HARMON: Yes, thank you. And thank you to my colleague.
14 Certainly in respect to Witness 4 where my colleague says they
15 will probably forego the testimony, we need additional guidance. Do they
16 intend to forego the testimony of that witness? In which case, there is
17 no need for a factual summary.
18 If they do intend to proceed with the testimony of Witness 4, then
19 we would request an additional summary that is in compliance with
20 Rule 65.
21 In respect of the last submission of my colleague, that is, the
22 units to which Witnesses 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 17 belong, we're satisfied
23 with that submission and would not request any additional submissions by
24 the Defence.
25 In respect of the comments of my colleague relating to Witness 18,
1 if the substance of the speech by General Mladic is as described by my
2 colleague, we will not require and do not require any additional
4 In respect, however, of Witness 14, the two items that have been
5 described and commented upon by my colleague, and in respect of Witness 9,
6 we believe that additional factual summaries -- a more robust factual
7 summary is required for us to adequately prepare our cross-examination,
8 and we would make a request for an additional factual summary within five
10 I believe that addresses all of the comments. Perhaps not. On
11 Witness 22 -- if I may have just a minute. Witness 22, we believe that an
12 additional factual summary must be submitted, and we would make a request
13 that that submission be prepared within five days. Thank you.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] As far as I can understand, in
15 respect of Witness 22 and Witnesses 9 and 14, it seems that Mr. Harmon is
16 requesting additional information, additional facts, and a more robust
17 summary. As regards Witness 4, if he is going to be called, additional
18 facts are also necessary. As regards Witness 18, if the content of the
19 speech is confirmed, then the Prosecutor will not need any additional
21 I think that your task has been significantly facilitated,
22 Mr. Petrusic. As regards Witnesses 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 17, the
23 Prosecutor seems to be happy with the additional information that you have
24 just provided; I don't think that you have any additional work to do.
25 Do you wish to comment, or do you still accept the delay of five
2 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Petrusic. As
4 regards this item, I believe that we have already agreed. Mr. Petrusic,
5 you have been granted an additional five days to supply the Prosecutor
6 with the information he requested.
7 There is one more item on the agenda that needs to be discussed,
8 and that is the list of exhibits. Concerning the list of exhibits, the
9 Defence has not submitted to the Chamber any new list. During our last
10 Status Conference, the Prosecutor deplored the insufficiency of
11 information contained in the list. In his opinion, the information was
12 not sufficient enough for him to be able to authenticate the documents
13 that were contained, as is required by the provisions of Rule 65 ter
15 The Chamber wishes, therefore, to know whether the parties have
16 been able to meet and discuss this particular issue, and whether they have
17 been able to reach an agreement. The Defence took it upon itself to
18 provide the Prosecutor with sources that they intend to use. This is just
19 a preliminary issue, preliminary question. Let me first of all find out
20 if you have managed to reach an agreement before the Status Conference.
21 Afterwards, we have three items to discuss: Has any additional
22 information been provided, and is it sufficient? Did the Prosecutor
23 request any documents containing relevant sources, and have such documents
24 been provided? Are there any disputes as regards authenticity of the
25 documents which are contained in the list of the Defence? So these are
1 the issues that the Chamber believes need to be addressed so that the case
2 can properly be prepared.
3 Let me first of all give the floor to Mr. Visnjic, and then after
4 that to the Prosecutor, if you agree with that Mr. Harmon.
5 Mr. Visnjic, how come we still don't have the list of exhibits?
6 That is the first question, and that is why I gave you the floor.
7 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as regards the
8 exhibits, the Defence respected the dynamics of the submission of exhibits
9 that was used during the case for the Prosecution. There are certain
10 documents which we termed as key military documents, and the Defence does
11 not have such documents. We were provided those documents from the
12 Prosecutor within a certain period of time which was acceptable by both
13 parties. So the Defence will be using the same documents, that is, the
14 military documents, during its case, and they will be provided to the
16 As regards the documentation, we provided the list of books,
17 titles of books, that the Defence will be mentioning during their part of
18 the case, and we do not have any other specific or special exhibits as
19 regards that area. We will be using the exhibits that were already
20 tendered by the Prosecutor during the presentation of their evidence.
21 As regards photographs, any photographs that we might use, if we
22 are going to use them, they will be tendered into evidence prior to the
23 testimony, as it was done by the Prosecutor. However, I think that there
24 will be very few. We didn't specifically discuss this issue with the
25 Prosecutor, because we believed that we had already reached an agreement
1 regarding documents. I don't know if my learned colleague Mr. Harmon has
2 anything else to add. We are ready to hear him on that.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. We have heard the
4 Defence. The Defence is at your disposal. You may take advantage of it,
5 Mr. Harmon.
6 MR. HARMON: Thank you, Mr. President. As I explained earlier,
7 the Defence and the Prosecution have an agreement in respect of key
8 military documents, and I'm satisfied by the terms of that agreement that
9 we will have sufficient time in which to determine authentication issues.
10 I can't comment on any authentication issue at the moment because
11 I have not been presented with any single document. I confirm certainly
12 what my colleague has indicated to the Chamber, that shortly before we
13 commenced this proceeding, my colleagues handed to me a list of books, the
14 titles of books that they intend to rely upon in their submissions, and I
15 have that. And they have indicated to me that they will be assisting me
16 if I need the translation of that document, which is in B/C/S, and I thank
17 them for that.
18 Certainly if they're going to rely upon the documents that have
19 been presented by the Office of the Prosecutor, we will have no objection
20 to the authentication of any of those exhibits. We believe they are
21 authentic in the first instance. That's why we offered them.
22 I have no comments in respect of the photographs because, as I
23 understand, there will be very few. And to the extent that my colleagues
24 wish to divulge those before they are tendered into evidence, we are
25 certainly available to see them.
1 In respect of the situation that we had in the presentation of the
2 Prosecution evidence, we did make prior disclosure of photographs, at
3 least of some photographs, to the Defence, but again, I think throughout
4 this procedure the parties have respected the equality of arms principle
5 and will continue to do so during this proceeding. Thank you.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So, Mr. Harmon, can I conclude
7 from what you've said that there's no problem regarding this item of a
8 list of exhibits?
9 MR. HARMON: That is correct, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good. Very good. Thank you.
11 There is perhaps another minor point. Is the Defence in a
12 position today to indicate more or less when, on what date, you will be
13 able to submit the expert reports? If you have any indication of that,
14 Mr. Visnjic.
15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as we stated earlier
16 on in our case, we will be presenting the findings of two expert
17 witnesses, a pathologist and a military expert.
18 Immediately prior to leaving, I received a draft of the report by
19 the pathologist, and I assume that in the course of next week, we will
20 receive the final report which we will have translated immediately.
21 I think that the report of the military expert will be ready
22 within a period of ten days. And all that remains for us to do, which I
23 consider to be a problem, is the problem of translation. But I will be
24 having a meeting immediately after this conference with the registrar so
25 that I hope we will be able to overcome that problem.
1 As we reported earlier, we will submit the pathologist report
2 immediately to the registrar in the Serbian version, and, of course, once
3 the translation is ready, we will be disclosing it in English as well. As
4 for the military expert, his report will be disclosed 21 days prior to his
5 testimony, as provided for by the Rules. Thank you.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Visnjic.
7 Mr. Harmon, have you any comments to make?
8 MR. HARMON: I have none, Mr. President. Thank you.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. I think there's also
10 the question of timetable. As you know, six weeks for the Defence case
11 divided into two sessions were stipulated in the schedule, and this is
12 actually equal to 25 hearing days. At our Status Conference, I said 30.
13 I hesitated between 30 and 25. It is true that it is a question of six
14 weeks, but there are a few days when we will not be sitting, so that in
15 reality, it will be 25 days of hearings.
16 According to the list of witnesses submitted in accordance with
17 Rule 65 ter (G), the Defence envisaged some 23 days required for the
18 examination of the 25 witnesses they intend to call. Mr. Petrusic now
19 tells us that it may not be 25 but 24.
20 Is the Prosecutor able to indicate the time he thinks he will need
21 for the cross-examination of those witnesses and, of course, the
22 cross-examination of the accused? Have the parties had occasion, time --
23 had occasion to discuss the possibility of reducing the time needed?
24 The Chamber believes that once there is testimony, and I must
25 concede to Mr. Petrusic what he said at the last Status Conference, but
1 even if there is some repetition, the Chamber may cut it short or the
2 Chamber may speed things up. We already know this. This is an optimistic
3 forecast, of course. Perhaps we might be able to shorten a little the
4 time that you have envisaged. But regardless of that, I would like to
5 know whether the time that you have planned, whether that is an optimistic
6 or a pessimistic forecast. Were you generous or more restrained in your
8 So I'm going to ask Mr. Visnjic or Mr. Petrusic about this and
9 then I'll come to the Prosecution and the time they need for the
10 cross-examination. And, of course, the other question: Whether the
11 parties have done anything in terms of trying to shorten the time needed
12 for the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination.
13 We spoke at the previous Status Conference of the need to contact
14 Madam Registrar. She indicated her availability and readiness to help in
15 facilitating in whatever way possible the process of dealing with exhibits
16 and wasting as little time as possible.
17 So, Mr. Petrusic, was your estimate an optimistic or a pessimistic
18 one? If I can put it that way.
19 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would say that I
20 could group the witnesses into three categories when it comes to time.
21 The Defence, for one group of witnesses, and I will list them, 8, 10, 11,
22 12, 13, and 17, the Defence will indeed try to shorten the time for their
23 testimony then envisaged, and it will indeed be shorter, so that my
24 learned friends from the Prosecution will probably also not need long for
25 the cross-examination.
1 Then comes the second group of witnesses which includes officers
2 of the army of Republika Srpska, the officers of the former Drina Corps.
3 They will be reduced to realistic frameworks of the estimated time, and of
4 course we will do our best during the examination not to abuse the time
5 allotted to us by the Chamber.
6 Finally, I would say that the Defence, in quotation marks - please
7 don't misinterpret me - will not save time when it comes to the testimony
8 of General Krstic. Of course, I'm not saying that we will waste time, but
9 simply we consider this testimony to be of key importance. After all, he
10 is the accused in this case, and the Defence is duty-bound to respect
12 Therefore, to sum up, my forecast is an optimistic one, and in any
13 event we will certainly fit within the time of six weeks to conclude our
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
16 Mr. Petrusic.
17 Mr. Harmon. Excuse me, Mr. Harmon.
18 JUDGE RIAD: Excuse me. What would be a realistic framework of
19 time? You said for the second group it would be a realistic framework of
20 time. What do you term "realistic"?
21 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] It is the time envisaged in our
22 submission, that is, the time that we have estimated already in our
23 brief. If necessary, I can look it up and give you an example.
24 JUDGE RIAD: That's okay. Thank you.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon, if you please.
1 MR. HARMON: Mr. President and Your Honours, if indeed the
2 calculation is that of the 25 days that the Court envisions hearing the
3 remainder of this case, 23 of those days are devoted to the direct
4 examination of the Defence witnesses, I can say with great confidence that
5 we will take more than two days to cross-examine these witnesses. I
6 envision perhaps a three-day cross-examination of General Krstic. And in
7 respect of the witnesses in the categories that have been identified by my
8 colleagues, certainly depending on the rank and the position of the
9 witness, perhaps but it's not necessarily certain, the examination will be
10 more extensive. In respect of the officers of the Drina Corps, I think
11 the examinations of those witnesses will be robust, but certainly an
12 examination within an eye toward efficiency.
13 When we get to the first category of witnesses, that is, 8, 10,
14 11, 12, 13, and 17, since those witnesses appear to be quite repetitious
15 in the subject matter about which they will be testifying, I can envision
16 diminished amounts of time required for the cross-examination of those
18 But I will say that I do believe without any reservation that our
19 cross-examination of these witnesses will take at a minimum two weeks,
20 that is, all of these witnesses. I say that and I'm in the realm of pure
21 speculation, because I haven't heard the testimonies of these witnesses
22 and it's difficult to make proper calculations based on the witness
23 summaries that we have been provided. But I think it's a fair assessment
24 that at a minimum the Prosecutor will require two weeks.
25 That's our submission, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] That means that our estimate was
2 extremely optimistic in the final analysis.
3 For the moment, perhaps we should leave things as they stand, and
4 after the first week we will perhaps be in a position to say what is, in
5 fact, going to happen and whether we need some additional time. We would
6 choose either to convene additional sessions, for example, in the
7 afternoon, so as to be able to abide by the schedule, because as you know
8 the Chamber has other cases in its programme; or we will review the whole
9 schedule of the Chamber to allot more time so as to have normal
10 conditions. For the moment, we will keep our schedule as it stands.
11 After the first week, perhaps we will be in a position to review the
12 conditions and to make the necessary adjustments in the schedule.
13 There's another matter connected to the timetable, but before
14 talking about that, I should like to confer with my colleagues, if you
15 don't mind.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So the second point that I
18 should like to address with you is the actual working hours, daily working
20 As you know, we have been working with our working hours beginning
21 at 9.30, going on until 2.30 in the afternoon, 2.30 p.m. There have been
22 many requests from several sides to have a longer break in order for
23 people to be able to have lunch. People were complaining that the
24 President was harassing people working in the chamber, making them work
25 during the lunch hour. I wish to say that the President was very much
1 aware of this because he needs that time too.
2 So what we have decided, and what we would like to propose to you
3 and also to communicate to you, is that we're going to begin at 9.20 and
4 finish at 3.00. I think such a timetable has already been distributed; I
5 believe so but I will check with Madam Registrar.
6 Before doing that, I would like to say the following: There will
7 be a half-hour break, the first break, and the second break will be of one
8 hour, which means that previously we had four hours of sitting, effective
9 four hours; now we will have more time. We'll have four hours and ten
10 minutes, and the advantage also being that we will be able to have lunch.
11 So I think this is quite fair to adopt a timetable which will not only
12 allow us to have lunch and eat but also to work more.
13 So as I have told you, this is both a communication and a
14 proposition. So I'm going to ask Madam Registrar to see whether such a
15 timetable has already been communicated and distributed.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. The timetable was distributed, I believe,
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I would like to hear the
19 reaction of the parties.
20 Mr. Harmon, are you satisfied by having a little time for lunch?
21 MR. HARMON: We are, Mr. President. My staff is as well. Thank
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And the Defence. Mr. Petrusic?
24 Mr. Visnjic?
25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we are satisfied with
1 this timetable, but we would like to draw the attention of the Chamber to
2 the fact that during the testimony of General Krstic, we might need to
3 adjust the timetable a little in view of his health. So we might perhaps
4 suggest that we have a couple of brief breaks within the global timetable
5 you have proposed. So that applies only to the time when General Krstic
6 will be called to the stand.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. We will bear that in
8 mind, and you were quite right drawing our attention to this, because we
9 were going to consult General Krstic, but you spoke on his behalf. We
10 have the necessary information, and we'll act accordingly.
11 There is one thing that we need to do. Due to engagements
12 accepted earlier, instead of beginning these hearings on the 16th of
13 October, we're going to begin on the 18th [as interpreted].
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Judge Wald tells me that there
16 seems to be a problem with the transcript. What I said was that we're
17 going to begin the hearings for the Defence to begin its case on the 16th,
18 the 16th of October, but the timetable we were discussing is not going to
19 come into force on the 16th but on the 18th, which is to say that on the
20 16th and the 17th, we will be working from 9.30 until 2.30 p.m., according
21 to the same timetable we had before. After the 18th, after the 18th, we
22 will be beginning with the new timetable, which means that we will begin
23 hearings at 9.20 in the morning and concluding at 3.00 p.m. in the
24 afternoon. Is that clear now?
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] To be even more precise, on
2 the 17th, the 17th, we will not finish at 2.30 but at 2.00 p.m. Someone
3 has just reminded me of another commitment we have.
4 So to sum up, on the 16th, we will be sitting from 9.30 until
5 2.30 p.m.; on the 17th, we will be sitting from 9.30 until 2.00 p.m.; on
6 the 18th, we will begin with the new timetable, which means the sittings
7 begin at 9.20 and finish at 3.00 p.m.
8 So I think that now it's clear, and I think that we have no other
9 matters to address except if the parties have anything else to communicate
10 or to observe, or to raise regarding the opening of the Defence case, the
11 opening of this stage of the proceedings, I must add. Mr. Harmon, is that
13 MR. HARMON: [Previous translation continues] ... the Chamber, Mr.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Petrusic.
16 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] The Defence has nothing more to
17 raise either, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Fine. So that ends the
19 Pre-Defence Conference. We wish you success in your work in the meantime,
20 for almost another week, and then we will meet again here on the 16th of
21 October. So good evening to you all.
22 --- Whereupon the Pre-Defence Conference adjourned
23 at 4.53 p.m.