1 Status Conference
2 (Open session)
3 JUDGE CASSESE: We will now move to the
4 pre-Defence conference to be held under Rule 73 ter.
5 Now, we have a list of issues which I
6 discussed, of course, with the Trial Chamber. We will
7 go through these various issues, but if I have skipped
8 or forgotten any matter, please tell me.
9 First of all, the date of opening of the
10 Defence case. We have already agreed that this will be
11 the 30th of November, and we will be sitting for three
12 weeks until the 18th of December except probably for
13 the 3rd and 4th of December because we have a Plenary
14 Session of the Tribunal. If we can sit at part of
15 those days, we will let you know. We may be needed for
16 the Plenary Session, so it is likely that we will not
17 be sitting on the 3rd and 4th of December.
18 Then when we resume in January, probably on
19 the 11th of January, until we come to the end of the
20 Defence case. However, we will take a few days off on
21 the 18th through the 21st of February -- sorry, first
22 of all, the 29th of January through the 1st of
23 February, then 18th of February through the 21st of
24 February, and we may have to skip one or two days in
25 January because Judge Mumba and I are likely to sit on
1 Tadic for three or four days in January. But we will
2 let you know in November, as soon as we start with the
3 Defence case. At that stage, I hope that we know when
4 we are sitting on Tadic in January.
5 Now, as for the timetable, we want to stick
6 to our present schedule, 9.30 to 12.30, 2.00 to 5.00 in
7 the afternoon; however, we think we should take the
8 Wednesday afternoon off as well as the Friday afternoon
9 off. Otherwise, the pace is too -- I mean, it's really
10 exhausting both for the parties and the Tribunal. So
11 two afternoons off, Wednesday and Friday.
12 So much for the calendar. We will come back
13 to some more precise data when we reconvene on the 30th
14 of November.
15 What is now more important is to set the
16 deadlines for Defence filings. As you know, that in
17 73, Rule 73 ter (B), there's a list of requirements.
18 Now, we would like to ask the Defence to file by the
19 13th of November a few things, and in some cases, when
20 these filings are for the Trial Chamber, we can wait
21 until the 20th of November. So we would like to say
22 that probably the Defence should turn over to the
23 Prosecution some particular documents or exhibits or
24 witness statements two weeks before the beginning of
25 the Defence case whereas, if need be, we can wait until
1 one week before the beginning of the Defence case. But
2 I think the Prosecution needs at least two weeks before
3 the commencement of the Defence case.
4 Now, this applies, first of all, to
5 admissions concerning matters that are not in dispute.
6 We very much urge the Defence to file those admissions
7 so that we can narrow down the matters which are in
8 dispute. It's very important. Admissions as to facts
9 or legal points that are not in dispute.
10 Secondly, a statement of contested matters.
11 If you wish, you can have just one document or two
12 separate documents: one concerning matters that are
13 not in dispute, another concerning matters that are
14 indeed in dispute.
15 Thirdly, the Defence should submit a general
16 brief -- actually, each Defence counsel is called upon
17 to submit a general brief setting out the main points
18 of his or her defence, the main points. So outlining
19 the defence for each particular accused.
20 Number 4. We also need a list of witnesses
21 for each accused, including witnesses for any possible
22 sentencing. You know that under our new rules, the
23 parties are requested to submit, and I quote from Rule
24 85(A)(vi) "any relevant information that may assist the
25 Trial Chamber in determining an appropriate sentence
1 if, if the accused is found guilty on one or more of
2 the charges in the indictment."
3 We now have, as you know, under our new Rules
4 of Procedure, we have combined the two phases which
5 previously were separate, distinct. So the Defence may
6 wish to take into account this request to call
7 witnesses for sentencing.
8 List of exhibits. Again, they should be
9 served, as all the other documents, on the Prosecution
10 by the 13th of November. As for the Trial Chamber, we
11 can wait until the 20th of November. It is for the
12 Defence to decide. You may find it easier and more
13 convenient or expedient for you to simultaneously serve
14 those documents on the Prosecution and file them for
15 the Trial Chamber.
16 Now, these documents should be submitted in
18 All right. So we would also like to know --
19 this maybe we can know today -- roughly how many
20 witnesses will be called by each Defence counsel. I
21 understand from Counsel Pavkovic that roughly 80,
22 roughly speaking, 80 witnesses will be called by the
23 various Defence counsel, but it would be interesting
24 for us to have a rough idea of how many witnesses per
25 counsel or per indictee will be called.
1 By the way, the exhibits which I just
2 mentioned a minute ago should be, of course, provided
3 in their original form with a translation into English.
4 We have also discussed the question of
5 examination of witnesses. I know that Counsel Radovic
6 said one or two days ago that he intends to call some
7 witnesses together with Counsel Slokovic-Glumac. We
8 would prefer to have a list of witnesses per indictee
9 or per counsel so that we know which witnesses are
10 called by, say, Counsel Radovic, then Counsel
11 Slokovic-Glumac, and so on. Of course, each counsel
12 may be interested in examining a witness called by
13 another counsel, and you will be allowed to do so, of
14 course if the witness called by the other counsel is
15 relevant to your own client.
16 We suggest the following order: First of
17 all, examination-in-chief by the Defence counsel
18 calling the witness; then cross-examination, if any, by
19 the other Defence counsel; then, number 3,
20 cross-examination by the Prosecutor; and then, 4,
21 re-examination by the Defence counsel calling the
22 witness but only by the Defence counsel who has called
23 the witness.
24 Yes, Counsel Radovic?
25 MR. RADOVIC: Mrs. Glumac and myself are in a
1 specific situation. I say this because you have now
2 announced the rules that cross-examination is -- only
3 the counsel who has called the witness has the right to
4 it. A number of witnesses, since they are brothers and
5 some of their relationships are the same and their
6 histories are the same and many facts are the same of
7 their lives, so we can't avoid, Mrs. Slokovic-Glumac
8 and myself, have the same witness. We can't avoid it.
9 And we ask the Court for us to share the witness, to
10 have the same witness, to offer the same witness at the
11 same time. Then there is no need for
12 Mrs. Slokovic-Glumac to do the cross-examination
13 herself. And that the same witness be called by me and
14 by her. It is best to process this witness at the same
16 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Slokovic-Glumac?
17 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: I would just like to
18 add, we have the identical defence on all the counts.
19 The accused, since the emphasis is on the 16th, they
20 were together all that time. So taking this into
21 account, we have the same defence and the same
22 situations, and therefore we believe that -- I believe
23 that we could share the witnesses. In view of their
24 movements, all the witnesses for the 16th are the same;
25 they didn't separate on that day at all. They were
1 together all the time. And our defence is identical.
2 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. I will consult with my
3 colleagues. My feeling is that you may call the same
4 witnesses but only one of you then will be entitled to
5 re-examine the witness after the cross-examination by
6 your colleague, cross-examination by the Prosecutor,
7 and then only one of you will re-examine the witness.
8 Yes. We rule that you will be allowed to
9 present just one common list of witnesses, and so one
10 of you may then examine in chief the witness, the other
11 one may cross-examine the witness. Then we will have
12 cross-examination by the Prosecution, then only one of
13 you may re-examine the same witness. All right.
14 Whereas for the other Defence counsel, we
15 will apply the rules I announced before; namely,
16 Counsel Pavkovic, for example, decides to call 20
17 witnesses. He will examine in chief his witnesses, but
18 another counsel may feel that he has to cross-examine
19 one of those witnesses. Then the Prosecution will
20 cross-examine the witness and then only Counsel
21 Pavkovic will be allowed to re-examine that particular
22 witness. All right?
23 I very much insist that you should please
24 comply with Rule 94 bis concerning expert witnesses so
25 that if you comply with that Rule and you present in
1 advance all the relevant documents to the Prosecution
2 and we can avoid calling the expert witnesses, really,
3 we save a lot of time. This is Rule 94 bis. So
4 remember, 14 days. All right. So you know those
6 As for the merits. I also want -- going back
7 to the, what I called before "legal brief," I wonder
8 whether you could, for the sake of narrowing down the
9 issues, the legal and factual issues in dispute, first
10 of all address, in your legal brief, the question of
11 persecution, the legal notion of persecution, as well
12 as the legal issue of accumulation of charges. This
13 will be in response to the Prosecution's brief which,
14 as you will remember, addressed both issues. Notion of
15 persecution -- they also took the opportunity to
16 discuss whether or not culmination of charges is
17 admissible before our Tribunal.
18 There is also one particular matter which
19 needs to be clarified. We would like to know from you
20 whether you dispute that on the 16th of April, 1993, a
21 massacre was carried out in Ahmici.
22 Now, regardless of whether or not the accused
23 were involved -- this is a different matter -- but the
24 basic issue, because if this issue is not in dispute,
25 of course, this would facilitate the task of the
1 Tribunal. We would like simply to know from you what
2 you dispute about the objective facts happening in
3 Ahmici on the 16th of April, '93.
4 I have gone through my notes. I wonder now
5 whether there are matters which I neglected, whether
6 either the Defence or the Prosecution would like to
7 raise any matter?
8 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, just one point.
9 As far as dates are concerned, the dates you mentioned
10 earlier, if I understood well, under the 13th of April,
11 the document number 125 should be handed to the
12 Prosecution -- I'm sorry, I'm sorry, the 13th of
13 November, yes. Am I right?
14 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.
15 MR. TERRIER: By the 13th of November, these
16 documents will be handed to the Prosecution by the
17 Defence, and on the 20th of November to the Judges.
18 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. This gives the Defence
19 four weeks, so you would have four weeks to file
20 admissions concerning matters that are not in dispute,
21 (1); (2) statement of any contested matters of all the
22 various contested matters, actually; (3) the general
23 brief outlining the defence for each Defence counsel;
24 (4) the list of witnesses; and (5) the list of
25 exhibits. All this by the 13th of November.
1 Now, as you know in Rule 73 ter, it is
2 provided that the Defence may be requested by the Trial
3 Chamber to submit a summary of the facts on which each
4 witness will testify, but you may wish to submit the
5 actual statement. It's for you. You may submit a
6 summary, but also to be fair to the Prosecution because
7 the Prosecution submitted not a summary but the actual
8 statements of all the witnesses they then called, so I
9 would urge you also to submit -- but you are not bound
10 to do so because under Rule 73 ter, you are only bound
11 to submit a summary of the facts. But then if it is a
12 summary, it should be fairly accurate, not a three-line
13 summary, because again, we must be fair to the
14 Prosecution. They must be in a position to
15 cross-examine the witness.
16 MR. TERRIER: Regarding this point,
17 Mr. President, we would like that the summary of the
18 witness statements, or the witness statements
19 themselves, include the identity of the witness, the
20 date of birth, and the name of the witness's father,
21 which is very important for us so that we can check the
22 identity of the witnesses.
23 I would also like for you to confirm that the
24 date of the 13th of November is the date on which we
25 have to receive these documents and not the date on
1 which these documents will have to be sent from Zagreb,
2 for instance.
3 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. This is a Friday. So
4 by noon, for instance, the documents will have to be at
5 the Tribunal, here.
6 MR. TERRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Radovic?
8 MR. RADOVIC: We acknowledge that this is the
9 date by which the Prosecution must receive it. We will
10 ask the Registrar to allow us travel expenses to come
11 to The Hague because we don't trust the post office.
12 JUDGE CASSESE: We insist also on the order
13 of the witnesses, so we will start with the witnesses
14 called by Counsel Radovic and Slokovic-Glumac, then we
15 go through all those witnesses and then start with the
16 following -- the witnesses to be called by counsel for
17 Vlatko Kupreskic.
18 Counsel Slokovic-Glumac?
19 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Relating to the order
20 of witnesses. We will have some problems here.
21 Concerning the notion of persecution and the facts that
22 we have to state starting from the general conditions
23 in the Vitez municipality, the Vitez Brigade, the
24 problems that existed earlier in that area, we'll try
25 to give a rounded picture of the events at that time in
1 that area. It will be a bit problematic because the
2 general witnesses will be presented by myself, they
3 will be called by myself and my colleague, for all the
4 other counsels.
5 Do we have to make such an order because the
6 Prosecution did it too? He went first through the
7 facts and the witnesses related to persecution. Could
8 we do the same thing? We will go through the same --
9 through the witnesses for persecution relating to all
10 the facts that we want to prove relating to that act,
11 and then we will go to the individual guilt and counts
12 for the accused. This will make matters easier for us
13 and make our description of the situation easier.
14 The Prosecution used the same method. They
15 didn't use the first accused, the second accused, but
16 then he took the list of witnesses for the notion of
17 persecution, for instance, et cetera.
18 JUDGE CASSESE: That means that you would
19 call witnesses on Count 1, persecution, first of all,
20 and then on the various counts concerning your clients,
21 but on behalf of all of the Defence counsel, so then
22 afterwards, we would not start with other witnesses on
23 persecution called by other --
24 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: That's right, that's
1 JUDGE CASSESE: We feel it would be more
2 economical if you could start with Count 1,
3 persecution. You call witnesses on Count 1 but,
4 legally speaking, also the other counsel are entitled
5 later on to call witnesses on Count 1 before calling
6 witnesses on counts relating to their own clients.
7 However, if you could deal with all those
8 witnesses on Count 1, it would be by far more
9 economical for the Defence case. Of course, this is an
10 agreement which must be reached by the various Defence
11 counsel because, in a way, you would be speaking on
12 behalf of everybody on Count 1. You see? You have a
13 right -- I mean, the other legal counsel have a right
14 to call witnesses also on Count 1.
15 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: I thought, when I
16 proposed this, that we include all the other counsel in
17 that part, that we present evidence concerning Count 1,
18 and our other colleagues too, so that we hear this
19 evidence before the other counts because we have many
20 points in common, before we start with the
21 individual -- other counts because this is how the
22 indictment is composed. Count 1 relating to all and
23 the acts of the individual accused are not specified
24 within that count.
25 JUDGE CASSESE: So therefore there would be a
1 list -- yes, sorry.
2 MR. TERRIER: I do understand the reasoning
3 behind this proposal, but I think we should -- there
4 should be a special treatment for Mr. Papic charged
5 under the first count, that is the count of
6 persecution. We did actually start with Mr. Dragan
7 Papic and then we studied the various geographical
8 areas of Ahmici.
9 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Pavkovic.
10 MR. PAVKOVIC: Mr. President, our idea was,
11 and you will say if it is good or not, but since the
12 indictment contains, under Count 1, persecution, and it
13 also charges all the accused with it and that on the
14 counts of 2 then the crimes are specified as to the
16 We thought we would call in five or ten
17 witnesses who would speak on Count 1, that is
18 persecution, and each one of us would then examine one
19 or perhaps two or even perhaps three witnesses in
20 relation to Count 1. When we complete this, then we
21 shall proceed to individual acts pursuant to the
22 indictment, colleague Radovic, colleague
23 Slokovic-Glumac, and so on and so forth. That was the
24 idea, and we thought that it might be acceptable to the
25 Tribunal as well.
1 JUDGE CASSESE: We appreciate this effort by
2 Defence counsel to try to be economical. Yes, we can
3 accept the idea that then you would produce a list, a
4 joint list, as it were, of a certain number of
5 witnesses who would be addressing only Count 1, but
6 each witness should not be examined by various counsel,
7 only, say, if I understood Counsel Pavkovic correctly,
8 each counsel would examine two or three witnesses, so
9 the same witness will be examined in chief only by one
10 counsel. Then there would be cross-examination and --
11 yes, yes.
12 On the other hand, the Prosecutor is right,
13 we should -- I mean, then since Dragan Papic is only
14 accused on Count 1, of course, Counsel Puliselic should
15 play a major role, it is for you to decide, but this is
16 also an area where Counsel Puliselic might wish to
17 state his views. Then, after that we would move on to
18 other counts, and we would then stick to the rules we
19 decided, but we would not go back to Count 1. We would
20 forget about Count 1. We would move on to other
22 Yes, Counsel Radovic and then Mr. Puliselic.
23 MR. RADOVIC: I have a practical question.
24 We shall submit to the Court the names and all the
25 other particulars of our witnesses; however, there are
1 also secret indictments, we shall need also protective
2 measures for some of our witnesses. Should we apply
3 for these immediately when compiling the list of
4 witnesses, or when? Perhaps before we begin to examine
5 the witnesses so as to avoid any problems if they
6 refuse coming to The Hague unless they are issued
7 guarantees, and only after they are issued guarantees.
8 So when should we apply for the protective measures of
9 free entry and free return?
10 JUDGE CASSESE: There are various means of
11 handling this matter. The Court may issue safe
12 conducts, or we can resort to a video link so they can
13 be examined and cross-examined while staying in their
14 place without coming here.
15 Now, you should then ask the Court as soon as
16 possible for protective measures, and then we will
17 decide on those protective measures. One of the
18 protective measures being also that we issue safe
19 conduct, if need be.
20 MR. RADOVIC: Yes, that is what would suit us
21 best to begin with. Of course, examining one in the
22 courtroom is the best way, and besides, I am not really
23 a particular supporter of all these modern gadgets that
24 are applied.
25 JUDGE CASSESE: We agree with you, Counsel
1 Radovic, not because we hate modern technology, but I
2 agree on the substance, namely, that it is much better
3 to have the witness here in court instead of in a far
4 away place.
5 All right. So you can ask for protective
6 measures as soon as possible. You will file your
7 request with the registry, and then we will decide on
8 the matter in due time.
9 Going back to the witnesses. Counsel
11 MR. PAVKOVIC: Mr. President, if I may, just
12 one thing. You said that our learned friend Puliselic
13 might have to say something, but as regards this
14 general part, rather, the context or the persecution,
15 Count 1, we think that the order in which the witnesses
16 should be called should be a matter to be decided by
17 the Defence, and we thought that, as we had said, each
18 one of us would examine one witness and then, at the
19 end of that general part, if Mr. Puliselic has only one
20 count, that is his client has, then perhaps he should
21 be the one to follow immediately after the general part
22 with his list of witnesses so as to complete completely
23 with Count 1 and then to proceed with those specific
25 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. We think it's a
1 judicious and sensible suggestion, so we then will
2 start with Count 1, with this pool of witnesses as it
3 were, and then we will move on to Counsel Puliselic,
4 his list of witnesses, and then we start with Counsel
5 Radovic and Slokovic-Glumac. So, in a way, we are
6 changing our proposals, but I think you are right, it's
7 more appropriate.
8 I wonder whether the Prosecution has any
9 suggestion? Would you feel that it's appropriate?
10 Any other matter? All right. So we can
11 adjourn now.
12 Yes, Counsel Krajina, sorry?
13 MR. KRAJINA: I'm sorry, but I have a
14 question, if I may, Mr. President, to hear what the
15 Chamber thinks about it, and I'm referring to physical
16 evidence, notably the documentation such as various
17 certificates, decrees, rulings for one's ability to
18 serve the army or whatever, or some certificates of
19 political organisations, whether accused were members
20 or not, passports so when the frontiers were crossed on
21 various days and so forth, and I'm asking when will
22 these documents be authenticated?
23 Because if the Chamber decides that these
24 documents need to be verified, then the witnesses
25 should know that and we should know that we also have
1 not only to call in the witnesses but people who would
2 be verifying or authenticating those documents, that is
3 if we're talking about seals and stamps in passports,
4 we would be duty-bound to bring the person who stamped
5 those passports to confirm that this was done. If it
6 is a particular medical certificate, then we should
7 evidently call in the doctor who did this or that to
8 avoid that at the time, when a particular piece of
9 evidence is being addressed, that we only then have to
10 look for such witnesses which would only, of course,
11 prolong the whole procedure.
12 That was my question. Thank you.
13 JUDGE CASSESE: I will ask the Prosecution to
14 state their views. I think probably the best way to go
15 about this matter is to try to give the Prosecution, as
16 soon as possible, the relevant documents, and then if
17 they don't challenge the authenticity of those
18 documents, there will be no problem, as it happened
19 with the document produced by Counsel Pavkovic about
20 this telephone -- I think it was Counsel Pavkovic --
21 the telephone list and so on, so we ask the Prosecution
22 to tell us whether they were contesting the
23 authenticity of this document. There was no
24 challenge. So it's been admitted into evidence.
25 So to save time, I would urge you, as I say,
1 to turn over to the Prosecution as soon as possible the
2 various exhibits you would like to produce so that they
3 have enough time to verify the authenticity of those
5 MR. KRAJINA: Thank you, Your Lordship. We
6 have submitted a major part of these documents to the
7 Prosecution already and have done this long ago, but if
8 there are still some which we have not submitted,
9 handed over to the Prosecution, we shall do that. But,
10 of course, we have already handed over most of the
11 documents which have to do with our future witnesses.
12 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Susak and then
13 Counsel Slokovic-Glumac.
14 MR. SUSAK: Your Lordship, I only have one
15 question. The Prosecution was planning to call in some
16 witnesses and then decided not to, and the Defence
17 meets with tremendous difficulties when it tries to
18 find those witnesses, so I wanted to hear what have you
19 decided. To call in those witnesses as witnesses for
20 the Court or I have already heard of some cases where I
21 shall evidently have to resort to that particular
22 method, that is, I will meet with serious difficulties
23 when trying to find some witnesses who were scheduled
24 as witnesses for the Prosecution and the Prosecution
25 simply decided not to call them.
1 JUDGE CASSESE: You may remember that Counsel
2 Krajina has already submitted an application to the
3 effect that we should call four, now three witnesses as
4 Court witnesses, and we did comply with this request.
5 You may wish to submit an application to this effect,
6 and we will decide. We will, first of all, hear from
7 the Prosecution, and then we will decide. This would
8 be Prosecution witnesses who have not been called by
9 the Prosecution and that you would --
10 MR. SUSAK: In this particular case, they
11 will become witnesses for the Defence -- no, rather,
12 Court witnesses because we simply have no access to
13 them, and I should like to have the Court, the Chamber,
14 call them in as witnesses.
15 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, but could you, as I say,
16 submit an application giving reasons why you think they
17 must be called by the Court in the interests of
18 justice? I assume they are Muslims, so it's more
19 difficult for you to call them, but, in addition to
20 that, I wonder whether you could supply the reasons.
21 MR. SUSAK: And they are in different towns
22 and some other reasons too. Thank you very much, Your
23 Lordship. I merely wanted to confirm what I already
24 knew about Mr. Krajina.
25 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Slokovic-Glumac?
1 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: There is just one more
2 thing. We have already tried to adduce some evidence
3 or tender some documents, proposing to admit them as
4 evidence, and this refers to documents which were
5 already used in the Blaskic case, that is, most of
6 these documents have been confirmed by witnesses and
7 have been authenticated by various witnesses in the
8 Blaskic case and we shall also be needing them in this
9 particular case. We do not know if we have again to
10 have each individual document authenticated once again,
11 when they were authenticated by individual witnesses in
12 the Blaskic case, would also apply to this Chamber.
13 That is, may we tender in evidence some evidence, some
14 certificates, which were admitted and authenticated by
15 another Chamber in another case? Do we have to repeat
16 the whole procedure? Do we have to bring in a witness
17 every time we need the authentication and for the
18 purposes of cross-examination and so forth? We shall
19 be needing quite a number of documents from that
20 particular case, so we should like to know what is your
21 view on this matter.
22 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, Mr. Terrier?
23 MR. TERRIER: Yes. On this matter, which is
24 of great importance, and it will be quite frequent
25 since the massacre in Ahmici is one of the main
1 elements that is discussed as far as the criminal
2 responsibility of General Blaskic is concerned, during
3 these proceedings I mentioned a decision that was made
4 by General Blaskic and his counsel as far as the
5 massacre in Ahmici was concerned. So maybe there were
6 a number of statements that were mentioned during the
7 Blaskic case.
8 However, I think we should remain as free as
9 possible and the Judges should remain as free as
10 possible in order to assess the value of one statement
11 or one document in this case in particular. I think
12 there is no direct communication between the Blaskic
13 case and this particular case; however, I am not
14 against it. We can use in this Defence case documents
15 or testimonies -- of course, the Judges will decide
16 which procedure we will have to follow -- but we could
17 use testimonies and documents used in the Blaskic
18 case. For instance, let me talk about the documents
19 and their authenticity.
20 One thing is to contest or admit the
21 authenticity of one document; another thing is to give
22 meaning, a particular meaning or weight to a document
23 or a testimony. I'm referring particularly about death
24 certificates. It is one thing to prove that a death
25 certificate was issued by the competent authority and
1 another thing to assess or to affirm that this document
2 is saying the truth.
3 If we consider that the authenticity of a
4 document has been admitted in the Blaskic case, then it
5 could be admitted in this case; however, the parties
6 should -- and the Judges -- should remain free to give
7 a specific meaning and a specific weight to this
8 evidence. However, I think that it would be useful for
9 you to adopt a very specific attitude on this question
10 because I think this question will become more and more
12 JUDGE CASSESE: Of course, we are not bound
13 by any determination or evaluation made by another
14 Trial Chamber. It is for us to decide. But, in
15 practical terms, anytime a document is produced in
16 Blaskic is also produced here by Defence counsel, it
17 should be turned over to the Prosecution. If the
18 Prosecution does not contest the authenticity of that
19 document, we would admit it into evidence, whatever the
20 decision by the other Trial Chamber.
21 As for the testimonies, of course, made in
22 Blaskic, we can accept only those testimonies of
23 witnesses who come here to testify in court because, I
24 mean, as such, the transcript is of no great value.
25 So therefore, as I say, I would urge the
1 Defence to turn over to the Prosecution, as soon as
2 possible, all those documents which have already been
3 tendered in the Blaskic case so that we can speedily go
4 about this matter whenever they are produced here for
5 our case.
6 Yes. Also, when the Prosecution receives
7 those documents, it should try to decide on this matter
8 as soon as possible and tell the Defence so the Defence
9 may decide whether or not to call witnesses. Again, in
10 the interests of an expeditious pace of our
11 proceedings, it is better to -- I see the point made by
12 the Defence counsel. If the authenticity is not
13 contested by the Prosecution, of course, you don't need
14 to call witnesses to authenticate those documents.
15 All right. Mr. Terrier?
16 MR. TERRIER: Of course, Mr. President. A
17 few moments ago, you said that you would welcome
18 suggestions as far as the sites to visit are concerned
19 during your visit in Ahmici. Would you like to hear
20 the suggestions?
21 JUDGE CASSESE: Are we finished with all the
22 questions related to the Defence case, the second phase
23 of the Defence case, so to speak?
24 No matters? Defence counsel don't want to
25 raise any -- all right. So we close then the
1 pre-Defence conference under Rule 73 ter and we quickly
2 move on to our on-site visit.
3 Yes. I understand some Defence counsel
4 insisted that we should go from point 6 -- have you got
5 the annex? This one? Annex 2.
6 First of all, I was expecting -- before we
7 take up this matter of where to go -- I was hoping to
8 receive requests from the parties about the points on
9 the itinerary from where they would like to make
10 observations relating to this Defence case so that it's
11 not done on the spot. We should know in advance at
12 what particular point a particular Defence counsel or
13 the Prosecutor would like to raise an issue.
14 You know now the setting and the purpose of
15 this visit. It's not an informal visit. It is
16 something very formal and it is a judicial sitting, in
17 a way. Elsewhere, but by the Court with the parties.
18 You could maybe put in requests by tomorrow -- what
19 about by 10.00? If you have any particular requests
20 concerning points where you would like the Court to
21 make particular observations?
22 We know, for instance, about the request put
23 in by Counsel Krajina about the visibility and so on.
24 We will there decide what to do about your particular
25 request, the visibility from the house of Vlatko
1 Kupreskic up to the area of the woods.
2 Mr. Terrier?
3 MR. TERRIER: No, I have no other questions
4 or suggestions.
5 JUDGE CASSESE: I was told that -- I
6 understand Counsel Slokovic-Glumac insists that we
7 should try to walk from point 6 to yellow line, through
8 a wood. Is there a path?
9 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Yes, Your Honour, there
10 is a footpath there from point 6 to the houses at
11 Kupreskici. It leads through the forest. It's not a
12 forest, in fact. There are a few trees and there is no
13 problem going along, walking along the path. People
14 live there. It is passable and quite clear. It is
15 marked as a forest, as a wood, but there are few trees
16 there. It would be essential to go on that -- along
17 that path. We had agreed to walk through this area,
18 but it has been omitted in this proposal. But this
19 part is very important, this area is important for us.
20 This is part of our defence.
21 JUDGE CASSESE: We will ask -- because, you
22 know, this plan has been approved by SFOR. We need to
23 ask SFOR whether they give the okay about this short
24 walk from 6 to M, to the group of houses, J, M, D --
25 all right. We can put it off.
1 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: If that is not
2 possible, then we could -- we should approach it from
3 point 6 so that we see this valley from point 6, to
4 approach it as close as possible. This is a small
5 valley with a few trees. We will propose this in
6 writing. We wrote it in our first proposal. We are
7 repeating this request.
8 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. No other
9 outstanding matter concerning the on-site visit?
10 Anyway, if you have any suggestions or
11 requests, could you please put them in by tomorrow at
12 10.00 so that we may consider them before we leave on
14 All right. We can adjourn now. Yes, Counsel
16 MR. KRAJINA: Excuse me. Very briefly. If I
17 understood you correctly, our proposal, you spoke about
18 it; you said you would decide about it. I don't have
19 to repeat it tomorrow. You will decide on the spot
20 about it.
21 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.
22 MR. KRAJINA: Thank you.
23 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. All right. We
24 will adjourn now.
25 --- Whereupon proceedings adjourned at
1 5.50 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,
2 the 30th day of November, 1998, at
3 9.30 a.m.