1 Wednesday, 15 November 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [Witness appeared via videolink]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon. How do we know that we are
7 connected to our witness? There we go. Thank you very much.
8 May the witness please -- I beg your pardon. I just wanted to
9 remind the witness that you did take a declaration yesterday, ma'am, or
10 made a declaration yesterday, to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
11 else but the truth. I remind you that you're still bound by that
12 declaration to tell the truth today. Do you understand me?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 WITNESS: SMILJA AVRAMOV [Resumed]
15 [Witness testified via videolink]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, ma'am.
18 Yes, Mr. Whiting.
19 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Whiting: [Continued]
21 Q. Good afternoon, Madam. Can you see me and can you hear me?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I want to return to that Washington Post article by Joseph Nye.
24 The version we had yesterday is in as Exhibit 1024. I wanted to remind you
25 what you said yesterday about that article. You said twice that you had
1 the article in front of you when you wrote the report. You said that you
2 had the actual newspaper.
3 You told us that the quotation -- Madam, you told us that the
4 quotation in your report from -- the quotation in your report at page 4,
5 that, "Secession is not a legal category or a rule of international law,"
6 is contained in the actual newspaper, and finally you told us that you had
7 read the newspaper in its English version.
8 Now, over night, and thanks from our side goes to our intern, Ms.
9 Walker, we have obtained the original newspaper. It's in e-court now as
10 06051083 and the Registrar, there, has a copy of it as well. And there are
11 two pages, the first page shows just the article and the second page shows
12 the article on the page, and you can see that it's from the Washington
13 Post, December 15th, 1992. It's the article by Joseph Nye called "the
14 self-determination trap". The entire article is contained on that one
16 Now, Madam, I'm not going to ask you to read through the entire
17 article. I've checked it. It is identical to the version that we put into
18 evidence yesterday, and it does not contain the quotation that you
19 attribute to the article, that is, "secession is not a legal category or a
20 rule of international law." That is not contained in this article. Can
21 you explain how it's possible that that error is in your report?
22 A. There must have been a mistake that occurred, but I was unable to
23 find that part today, but therefore it is possible.
24 I would like to say one other thing. I don't understand why you keep
25 insisting on this point when, before that bit, I quoted the position by U
1 thant and that of the United Nations. While I suppose then that the United
2 Nations' view must be the most relevant one when discussing this subject
3 matter. That is why I consider all the extra discussion quite unnecessary
4 and superfluous.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. I don't know if you perhaps wish to challenge U thant's position.
7 Q. I'm focused now still on this article by Joseph Nye.
8 You also say in -- about this article, you say that he severely
9 criticises Clinton administration's "policies of new tribalism".
10 Now, the quotation, "policies of new tribalism" also does not appear
11 in the article. There is a reference to new tribalism and there is also no
12 criticism of the Clinton administration policies in the article. It is
13 simply recommending to the Clinton administration what approach it might
15 Can you explain for us how, if you had this article in front of you
16 when you were writing the report, how all of these errors could have been
17 made? How is that possible?
18 A. You are going overboard, sir. This was just one single mistake,
19 and not a fundamental one at that. And it is quite possible that -- please
20 allow me to finish -- in this book of mine which was published in 19 --
21 Q. Madam, please stop.
22 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Madam, could you answer my question? How is it possible? You
24 told us yesterday at the beginning of cross-examination that your work
25 ethic is to be precise and careful in your work. How is it possible that
1 in so many respects, you could describe this article incorrectly in your
3 A. In this book, I used not just this one article by Mr. Nye but also
4 many other writings of his.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Madam.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It has been translated and it is
7 quite possible --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please stop. We've got to finish with you and go
9 to the next witness. So please try to answer the question that's put to
10 you. You are not being asked a question about your book, you are being
11 asked a question about mistakes in this article. Try to answer that
12 question and don't tell us about your book.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is precisely what I'm trying
14 to do.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Don't talk about your book, then, talk about the
17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And to approach that issue, really, smoothly, Mr.
18 Whiting, you said you organised to have the whole issue of Washington Post
19 of December 15th of this year, or 1992, and so you -- this is just a clip
20 from, well, from which page, from which -- can we establish if this is part
21 of that edition, of that issue? And then if, yes, is that the only page
22 which was now found in this hurry? Was there anything on page 1 or on this
23 page, as we discussed it might have been part of a dossier on several
24 pages? Did you check that and can we see that? Can we see the whole
25 newspaper? We have only one clip here now, if I'm correct.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: But Mr. Whiting said the whole article is on one
2 page in this newspaper.
3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Which page is it, and of which newspaper, and so
4 and so on. I mean, this is just a paper clip. It's not a reliable --
5 MR. WHITING: Your Honour.
6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Please do it as thoroughly as possible.
7 MR. WHITING: Okay. Maybe I did it too quickly, but at the
8 beginning I indicated that on the second page of the exhibit, it says,
9 Washington Post, it indicates that it's the Washington Post Tuesday,
10 December 15th, 1992. The page number is a little hard to read, but it
11 appears to be A22.
12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I confess I don't see it.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Here it is on my screen.
14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Just a moment.
15 MR. WHITING: It's the second page of the document.
16 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes, now I see it. So it is a fax copy of a
17 whole newspaper page then?
18 MR. WHITING: Right. We did not get the -- we could not, in that
19 short time get the entire newspaper. We got this page.
20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: No, I can establish that is was the Washington
21 Post of Tuesday, December 15, 199 -- probably 2, A22.
22 MR. WHITING: Right.
23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: This is what I read here, and this is number
25 MR. WHITING: Right.
1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
2 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I think, Mr. Whiting, having regard to what
3 Judge Hoepfel had said we should get on the record the fact that the
4 article appears to be in its entirety on that page and there is no
5 semblance of continuation on any other page.
6 MR. WHITING: Yes.
7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: She has, by her answers, accepted that that is
8 the article itself.
9 MR. WHITING: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. And it's, of course,
10 my intention also to put the article into evidence.
11 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes, thank you.
12 MR. WHITING:
13 Q. Madam, I'll just put the question one last time. And if you
14 don't have an answer for it, then just we can leave the issue. Are you
15 able to explain for us, given that you told us you had this article in
16 front of you when you wrote the report, the report was written just some
17 months ago, I believe, how is it that you could make so many mistakes in
18 describing the article? How is that possible?
19 A. I had the article at the time when I was writing this book, and I
20 quoted it on page 155, and the precise definition or reference was A23.
21 And it was from this book that I took this article. The book was published
22 and you have it at the Tribunal. It was published back in 1997.
23 Q. Madam --
24 A. And this book, therefore, can be found at the Tribunal's
25 premises, and you can also see from where it was taken. Now, as for the
1 errors in quoting, well, I can't account for that. But at any rate the
2 reference in my book is A23.
3 Q. Well, Madam --
4 A. At the time, I worked abroad and wrote the book there as well.
5 Q. The reference to A23 is your reference. That's what you put in
6 the book, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Now, you would agree, would you not, that this is the
9 article that you're talking about. It's the same article, even though it
10 appears on A22? It is this article you're talking about in your report,
11 not some other article; correct?
12 A. I would have to examine the paper more thoroughly and I can't do
13 that on the basis of this photocopy. At any rate, in my view, these four
14 lines are not material for the main subject on which I drafted my
15 expertise. It is an error, but it is not relevant, and it has no bearing
16 whatsoever on my conclusion.
17 Q. Now, Madam, I just want to get clear on one thing because
18 yesterday, on two occasions, it's at 11098 and 11101, you told us that you
19 had the actual article when you wrote the report. Are you now saying that,
20 in fact, you did not have the article, but you had the book and that you
21 relied on the book?
22 A. I repeat: I did have the article, yes, at the time I was writing
23 this book. And this particular reference comes from the book.
24 Q. Why, then, did you tell us yesterday in your testimony on two
25 occasions that you had the article when you were writing the report? Why
1 did that happen?
2 A. Well, I'm stating today that I had the article at one time. This
3 is what I'm saying today as well.
4 Q. Well --
5 A. I used it for this book, as well as many other articles.
6 Q. So you're changing your testimony today?
7 A. No, I'm not, sir. I'm telling you again that I had the newspaper
8 before me when I was writing this and quoting this. However, this took
9 place when I was writing the book and then I took it -- I copied it from
10 the book at a later stage.
11 Q. Okay. Well the transcript will speak for itself on this issue.
12 MR. WHITING: Could these two pages be admitted into evidence,
13 please, Your Honour?
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which two pages?
15 MR. WHITING: The actual article that -- the two pages of the
16 actual article.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it two pages?
18 MR. WHITING: Right.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you. May the newspaper cutting,
20 whatever it is, the two pages of the newspaper be given an exhibit number?
21 They are admitted into evidence.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit number 1026.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
24 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Thank you, Madam, I have no further questions.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Whiting.
2 Mr. Perovic? Just a second, ma'am, just a second, ma'am.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I should like to say something if
4 you'll allow me.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a second. Mr. Perovic it is your turn to re-
7 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Re-examination by Mr. Perovic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Madam.
10 A. Good afternoon.
11 Q. Yesterday, during cross-examination by my learned friend from the
12 Prosecution, several questions from put to you concerning some
13 constitutional provisions, and I mean the 1974 SFRY constitution.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. There was mention of Article 3 of the constitution, as well as
16 Article 5 of the SFRY constitution from 1974. In Article 3 of the SFRY
17 constitution, states are mentioned as the then socialist republics of the
18 then SFRY. However, in Article 5 of the constitution, territorial
19 integrity and inviolability of borders are guaranteed. Hence my question:
20 Which borders are being referred to in Article 5 of the SFRY constitution?
21 Which borders were the subject of protection of this constitution?
22 A. International borders, as determined in international treaties
23 after World War II, and annexes to the treaties concluded post-World War II
24 in 1947. All the international treaties concluded or stipulated after
25 World War I were ratified after World War II, since the allies were the
1 same. There were only additional treaties for the parts where the borders
2 of the post-World War II Yugoslavia changed.
3 Q. Thank you. Article 5 of the SFRY constitution serves to
4 safeguard the borders of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia;
5 is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Can you please pause after -- Mr. Perovic, can
8 you please pause after a long answer because that takes a long time then
9 also to be translated. Thank you, Mr. Perovic.
10 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Hoepfel. I will
11 bear that in mind.
12 Q. Madam Avramov, the internal borders, that is the borders of
13 federal units, based on what you've just told us, were not internationally
14 recognised borders. These were not inter-state borders; is that right?
15 A. Yes. That's right. These were administrative borders which did
16 not even have an internal enactment delineating them. These borders --
17 INTERPRETER: There was a break in the videolink, the interpreter
19 A. Because every republic had its central party bodies as well as
20 regional party bodies. These internal borders coincided with party
21 borders. They have no significance whatsoever compared to international
23 Q. Thank you. Is it, therefore, fair to say that Article 3 of the
24 1974 SFRY constitution made a concession for political reasons to the
25 leaderships of individual republics when federal units were termed as
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Whiting?
3 MR. WHITING: That question, as were the previous several
4 questions, is leading.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Perovic?
6 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] I believe that it is an absurd
7 position that I should be able to suggest anything to the expert because
8 she presented all her findings in her report, and in her oral evidence
9 before the Trial Chamber. I'm quite certain of the fact that I cannot lead
10 her in any way.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may be allowed.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why do you ask your questions, Mr. Perovic, why do
13 you make statements to her and ask her to confirm them? Surely, and in any
14 case, if you said everything is in evidence why are you re-examining her?
15 I mean --
16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I must confess, Mr. Whiting, my recollection is
17 that an expert could be asked a leading question within the context of his
18 expertise, because by the very nature of his expertise, he could be led and
19 directed to the particular theoretical or philosophical statement.
20 MR. WHITING: This is --
21 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: If there is jurisprudence to the contrary or
22 practice as evidence of law to the contrary, then it's only a recollection
23 of mine.
24 MR. WHITING: I'm unable to cite to any jurisprudence or even
25 practice on this issue except for my own jurisdiction where one would not
1 be able to lead on, certainly not on conclusions from an expert. Perhaps
2 there is more latitude for leading to get the expert to a certain point,
3 but it seems to me these are asking for conclusions.
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: From the perspective of a conclusion on
5 particular points which are in issue --
6 MR. WHITING: Correct.
7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: -- there should not be leading, you're saying.
8 MR. WHITING: That would be our position, yes.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I would think the question could be allowed.
11 Mr. Perovic?
12 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Nosworthy.
13 Q. Madam Avramov, my question was: Was the term used in Article 3
14 of the 1974 SFRY constitution whereby federal units are defined as states
15 within the SFRY an ideological concession or a concession for ideological
16 reasons to the republics that then formed the SFRY? Please go ahead.
17 A. This article is a combination of -- yes, you're quite right -- of
18 ideological views of the matter. Look at the second part of the article
19 which speaks of the rule of the working people, which harks back to
20 internationalism to a wider broader community which does not just end
21 there. And this was a sort of copy of the Soviet model.
22 But let me remind you that in international practice, federal units
23 are termed differently. Whilst in Germany they are landen, whilst in
24 Canada they are provinces, while in the United States they are states, and
25 we know that the only state there is the United States of America under
1 international law.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 In connection with this issue, Madam Avramov, can Article 5 of the
4 SFRY constitution guaranteeing territorial integrity of the SFRY be seen as
5 derogating from Article 3 of the same constitution?
6 A. Never, in any -- never during any enactment or any public address
7 of the leadership of the SFRY been the issue of territorial integrity of
8 the SFRY called into question. And all the other enactments that were
9 passed were passed from the point of view of Yugoslavia as a single state,
10 and they all pointed to that direction. Therefore, there was supremacy of
11 federal laws in relation to republican laws, and the same went for the
12 federal courts and the republican judiciaries. There was nothing dubious
13 or anything that would call into question the fact that the only state
14 there was SFRY.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 In the course of yesterday's cross-examination, there was mention of
17 the opinion of the so-called Badinter Commission, several questions were
18 put to you on that subject. At the time which we've been discussing, not -
19 - or not even nowadays, Yugoslavia is not a member or has never been a
20 member of the European Union; is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In light of that fact, from the perspective of international law,
23 what sort of significance did the conclusion of the Badinter Commission
24 have for the fate of Yugoslavia?
25 A. After Badinter was presented as the future arbiter in this
1 matter, the Serbian delegation lodged a protest in the course of the
2 negotiations, challenging the legitimacy of this commission, because this
3 had not been envisaged in the Brioni declaration, particularly not an
4 attempt for the Badinter Commission to be taken as some kind of a judicial
5 settlement of the problem, or the whole issue, and for this arbitration,
6 this decision to be on the merits of the case. And we challenged the right
7 of Badinter to even discuss this whole issue at all.
8 Q. Thank you very much. Just a moment.
9 A. So there is ample -- this has been amply documented.
10 Q. In this regard, and in light of the fact that Yugoslavia was not
11 a member of the European Union, would the opinion of the Badinter
12 Commission have -- be binding for the then Yugoslavia, in your view as an
14 A. At that time, we strenuously objected to that and we did not
15 accept it, we as the delegation.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 And finally, in the cross-examination yesterday, the UN Charter was
18 mentioned. You presented your view that Article 1, paragraph 2, of the
19 Charter, and many other provisions of this charter, in fact protect the
20 territorial integrity of the member states of the United Nations
21 organisation; is that correct?
22 A. Yes. But what is not clear to me is why this is being made into
23 an issue since the final act of -- the Helsinki final act and the Paris
24 Charter all confirmed that.
25 Q. Just a moment. I want to ask you about that. In a way, the
1 Prosecutor brought into question the fact that the UN Charter protects, in
2 a very direct way. the territorial integrity of its member states. But my
3 question to you is whether you, as an expert --
4 MR. WHITING: Objection, objection that mischaracterised my
6 [B/C/S interpretation coming over the English channel]
7 MR. WHITING: We are getting B/C/S on the English channel.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] Sorry. Put what you
9 actually said so that Mr. Perovic can see what you said and be able to
11 MR. WHITING: My questions were directed at page 5 of the report
12 where it stated that the enactments of Croatia and Slovenia violated the UN
13 Charter, and the reference was then made to, I believe, Article 2, section
14 4, which talks about international violations of territorial integrity,
15 which would not apply since it is Croatia and Slovenia within the former
16 Yugoslavia. That's what the discussion was about. But to say that we
17 brought into question the fact that the UN Charter protects, in a very
18 direct way, the territorial integrity of its member states is a complete
20 It certainly does in Article 2, section 4, it does protect it from
21 international encroachment, and my question was what the basis was for her
22 assertion in her report.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Perovic? Any response to that objection?
24 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not sure I understood what my
25 learned colleague wanted to say. I remember quite clearly his questions
1 relating to the Charter and his insisting on the expert witness pointing to
2 the articles that directly protect the territorial integrity.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe, Mr. Perovic, if you can point us in the
4 transcript to the question exactly that you are referring to or the --
5 where you say he made the statement similar to what you have said, then he
6 can be able to respond to that too. Just point us to yesterday's
7 transcript, because I'm not able to remember the actual words used
9 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] At this point, I cannot really
10 quote you the relevant line, but it was one of the last questions during
11 the third part of our session yesterday, just as our session drew to a
13 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if it's of assistance, I did ask the
14 witness to point to all the sections that refer to territorial integrity
15 within the context of this question, though, but I never -- I never put
16 that we, as described by Defence counsel. Nor would I, it's not our view.
17 And I'm not sure why it's necessary to the question.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Perovic says it was towards the end of the
19 cross-examination yesterday, and I'm trying to -- are you able to get to
20 yesterday's transcript, Mr. Perovic, and look for it? It ended at page
21 11114. Actually, 11114 was -- we were giving an oral order at that stage.
22 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in order to avoid this
23 whole confusion, I will rephrase my question. I can ask it in a different
24 way and not even challenge what the Prosecutor said yesterday, not even
25 bring it into any question.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you wanted to do that, that's fine.
2 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation].
3 Q. Madam Avramov, among other things, the UN Charter was touched
4 upon and the way in which it actually protects the territorial integrity of
5 the member states of the United Nations organisation. My question to you
6 in this regard is the following: Do you, as an expert, know of the
7 existence of a single international instrument that would advocate the
8 territorial disintegration of member states of the UN or subjects under
9 international law; yes or no?
10 A. No. There is no such document, and I have to admit to you that I
11 was quite flabbergasted by the question that was put to me yesterday
12 regarding the UN Charter and the protection of the territorial integrity,
13 because I assume that my learned colleagues have read, have studied, the
14 statements of reason that are appended to the UN Charter to each of its
15 articles when it was adopted, and the same principle was reiterated in the
16 Helsinki final act and then in the Paris Charter. So this is something
17 that is totally indisputable.
18 Q. Thank you, Madam Avramov. I no further questions. Thank you for
19 your patience.
20 MR. PEROVIC: Your Honour, I would like to thank you. Our expert
21 witness wanted to say something, if you will allow her?
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Very briefly, ma'am.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very briefly. I just wanted to
24 make a quick correction. I was asked yesterday when I published the first
25 article on the Tribunal. I could not remember at the time, and then I went
1 through my notes and it was in May, 1994. It was published in the journal
2 of the Belgrade Law School. There is an abstract in English which is quite
3 extensive, so I will leave it here with you so that you can see the first
4 views of the Tribunal.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said more about this point in my
7 1997 book.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's been translated and you have
10 it here at the Tribunal.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, ma'am.
12 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] I have completed my re-examination.
13 Thank you very much, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Perovic.
15 Judge Hoepfel?
16 JUDGE HOEPFEL: No, thank you, Judge.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Judge Nosworthy.
18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: No, thank you.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ma'am we want to thank you very much for taking
20 time from your very obviously busy schedule. You are now excused and you
21 may now stand down. Once again, thank you very much.
22 Thank you, ma'am. You may stand down.
23 [Videolink ended]
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
25 Mr. Milovancevic?
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with the
2 completion of the examination of Professor Avramov, we've actually
3 completed our working day today. Our next witness, ex-military expert Mr.
4 Sekulic, arrived only today. We didn't have a chance to even talk to him.
5 So we would like to start our examination tomorrow.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: We will finish with him by the 20th or earlier?
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] And since now I have the
10 floor, I just wanted to ask to -- or to raise two issues.
11 The first issue is the following: We should bear in mind that the
12 site visit report has not yet been put on the record, and I just wanted to
13 remind you it hasn't yet been admitted into evidence, because of the
14 deadlines that we have ahead of us. And the second issue is the motion
15 that we filed with regard to the filing of the Parker Commission report, in
16 light of all the deadlines that we have ahead of us and all the tasks that
17 we have to complete by those deadlines, just to bear that in mind.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me just see what you're saying about the
19 Parker Commission. The motion you filed in connection with the Parker
20 Commission report, did you file it with this Chamber?
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Your Honour. We
22 filed it on Monday, to the Trial Chamber, and I merely wanted to remind
23 you, apologising for doing so, but we are doing it because of the deadlines
24 that we have, so that this whole issue can be resolved before the end of
25 the trial.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
2 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, we filed our response to the motion
3 this morning. We received the motion on Monday. We filed our response to
4 it this morning.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Parker Commission report?
6 MR. WHITING: Yes. It's a motion for access to certain
7 statements given to the Parker Commission into the death of Milan Babic.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Those statements given by whom?
9 MR. WHITING: By witnesses concerning the death. It's all set
10 forth in the motion from the Defence and our response.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: We will see it when we see it. I haven't seen the
12 motion yet. I haven't seen your response either.
13 Anyway, thank you very much, Mr. Milovancevic, for mentioning
14 those points. At least the point of the site report, the Chamber hadn't
15 forgotten that. The site report is still being worked upon. We are
16 waiting for the complete report to be finalized, and that will be placed on
17 record as soon as it is finalised. Thank you very much.
18 As regards the Parker Commission, as I've just said, I have --
19 I'm hearing of it for the first time today. I haven't seen your motion. I
20 haven't seen the response by the Prosecution. But I would imagine that it
21 will definitely be attended to in due course. Okay? Thank you very much.
22 Having answered those, let me just then deal with the motion by
23 the Defence on the request for leave for certification on the expert report
24 of Mr. Sekulic.
25 Again, it's going to be an oral decision because of the urgency
1 of the matter. The Trial Chamber is seized of a Defence request filed
2 today requesting the Trial Chamber to certify an interlocutory appeal of
3 its decision concerning the expert Milislav Sekulic, dated the 13th of
4 November 2006. The Trial Chamber notes the arguments of the Defence in the
5 motion. The Trial Chamber also notes the arguments of the Prosecution as
6 filed today.
7 Under Rule 73(B) the Trial Chamber has first to decide whether
8 the redaction of the expert report involves an issue which would
9 significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or
10 the outcome of the trial. Secondly, but only after having found that the
11 first prong of the rule has been met, the Trial Chamber has to determine
12 that an immediate resolution of that issue by the Appeals Chamber may
13 materially advance the proceedings.
14 The Trial Chamber finds that the first prong of the rule has not
15 been met, and even if the Trial Chamber would have found that the first
16 prong of the rule had been met, the Trial Chamber would not have granted
17 leave for certification as the Trial Chamber finds, particularly in light
18 of the late stage of the proceedings, that an immediate resolution by the
19 Appeals Chamber would not materially advance the proceedings. In this
20 regard, the Trial Chamber notes that the Defence was ordered to file this
21 report immediately after the summer recess, that is on the 14th of August
23 Thank you very much.
24 Tomorrow is Thursday, the 16th. The Court will then stand
25 adjourned until tomorrow at quarter past 2.00 in the same courtroom.
1 Court adjourned.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.06 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 16th day of
4 November, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.