Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 11116

  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

Page 11117

  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

 15   page. 

 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

Page 11118

  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

 14   take.

 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

Page 11119

  1   in so many respects, you could describe this article incorrectly in your

  2   report?

  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

 16   article.

 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.

Page 11120

  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

 24   L6051084.

 25             MR. WHITING:  Right.

Page 11121

  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

Page 11122

  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

Page 11123

  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.

Page 11124

  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-

  6   examine.

  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

Page 11125

  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

 18   notes.

 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

 22   borders.   

 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

Page 11126

  1   states?

  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

Page 11127

  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

Page 11128

  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

Page 11129

  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

 13   expert?

 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

Page 11130

  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

  5   question.      

  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

 10   answer.

 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

 19   mischaracterisation. 

 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

Page 11131

  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

  8   yesterday.

  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

 12   close.

 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.

Page 11132

  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

Page 11133

  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?

Page 11134

  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.

Page 11135

  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

Page 11136

  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

 22   2006.

 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.

Page 11137

  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.