1 Thursday, 29 March 2012
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone. Madam Registrar, would
7 you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honour. This is case
9 IT-09-92-PT, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Could I have the appearances. Prosecution first.
12 MR. GROOME: Good afternoon, Your Honour. I am Dermot Groome. I
13 am here with Peter McCloskey, Roeland Bos and Janet Stewart for the
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
16 For the Defence.
17 MR. LUKIC: Good afternoon, Your Honour. I'm Branko Lukic
18 accompanied by Mr. Milos Saljic, Milenko Dundjer and Nenad Petrusic.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic. And I see Mr. Mladic is
20 present as well. This is the seventh Status Conference in this case, and
21 as with the previous Status Conferences, any guidance or any decisions
22 that will be announced, they have been deliberated and adopted by the
23 Chamber as a whole.
24 The purpose of this, as it was for all the other
25 Status Conferences, is to monitor the progress made with regard to
1 pre-trial work and preparing for trial.
2 Earlier this week I presided over a Rule 65 ter meeting with the
3 parties during which we discussed certain pre-trial matters in more
4 detail than this Status Conference is -- conference allows for. I move
5 to the first subject which is pre-trial planning and preparation for
7 On the 9th of March of this year, the Defence filed a motion
8 requesting a time and word limit extension for its pre-trial brief. On
9 the 12th of March, the Prosecution responded and did not oppose the
10 request. On the 14th of March, through an informal communication, the
11 Trial Chamber granted a time extension for the filing of the Defence
12 pre-trial brief until the 3rd of April, 2012, and a word limit extension
13 to 20.000 words, and that decision is hereby put on the record.
14 In light of its decision to grant the time extension for the
15 filing of the Defence pre-trial brief, the Chamber now announces several
16 new deadlines. First, pursuant to Rule 65 ter (F) and Rule 73 bis, the
17 previously set date for the Pre-Trial Conference, which was the 17th of
18 April of 2012, must be adjusted to provide for a three-week interval
19 between it and the filing of the Defence pre-trial brief. The
20 Pre-Trial Conference will therefore be held on the 24th of April of 2012
21 at 9.00 a.m.
22 Second, at the 6th of October Status Conference, the Chamber set
23 the deadline for the Prosecution to complete its Rule 68(i) disclosure in
24 relation to the Defence pre-trial brief at 30 days from the filing of
25 that brief. As the pre-trial brief is now due on the 3rd of April, the
1 Prosecution's Rule 68(i) disclosure in relation to this filing is
2 accordingly moved to the 3rd of May.
3 Further, as the Pre-Trial Conference has been moved back a week,
4 the Chamber considers that it would be helpful to schedule a final
5 Rule 65 ter meeting to discuss any outstanding issue with the parties.
6 The Chamber therefore informs the parties that a Rule 65 ter meeting is
7 now scheduled for the 17th of April, the exact time to be communicated at
8 a later date by the Registry.
9 In relation to this meeting, the Prosecution is instructed to
10 file a final pre-trial report by the 11th of April. Given the shorter
11 than usual period of time between Rule 65 ter meetings, the pre-trial
12 report need only address those issues that require ongoing updates or
13 where there have been new developments since the last report.
14 Have the parties any questions in relation to the scheduling
15 issues I raised?
16 MR. GROOME: Not from the Prosecution, Your Honour.
17 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry for asking you at this moment regarding
18 this Scheduling Order, but is it possible to make closer this 65 ter
19 meeting scheduled for 17th of April and Status Conference on the 24th?
20 It would be easier for us to have only shorter window since we have to be
21 here and work on the case and go back.
22 JUDGE ORIE: You mean the 65 ter meeting closer to the
23 Pre-Trial Conference, not a week in between but closer to the 24th?
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: We'll consider that, Mr. Lukic. Of course, you'll
1 understand that we have to look at many things like the Judges' agenda as
2 the availability of courtroom, interpreter. I mean, we have to consider
3 it, but before we do so, Mr. Groome, would you have any concern in making
4 it later than the 17th of April?
5 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. We'll be available whenever the
6 Chamber sets a date.
7 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now -- Mr. Lukic, I do understand that you
9 want to shorten the window of your presence here in The Hague. Now, the
10 24th is a Tuesday. Would it meet major objections if we still would have
11 it before that weekend?
12 MR. LUKIC: Whatever you can make on this issue, Your Honour. It
13 would be better if it's Monday so we have -- can be here for only two,
14 three days, but if necessary, we can be here on Friday.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may understand that of course the Chamber
16 needs some time in between as well. I mean, it's not that we can deal
17 with all those matters without sufficient time in between to -- to
18 further prepare for the next step. But I'll consider it and -- together
19 with my colleagues and we'll let you know as soon as possible, even if
20 this would be through an informal communication.
21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then any or matter in relation to these scheduling
23 issues? If not, I'll continue.
24 On the 23rd of February, the Chamber instructed the Prosecution
25 to file a corrigendum to its Rule 65 ter (E) filings by the 2nd of March,
1 2012. On the 2nd of March, the Prosecution filed the corrigendum which
2 contained corrections to its witness list, the reference tables and its
3 exhibit list.
4 In relation to the exhibit list, the corrigendum states and I
6 "The Prosecution has identified exhibits which were inadvertently
7 not included on the exhibit list."
8 Annex C to the exhibit list contains 123 additional exhibits the
9 Prosecution seeks to add to the exhibit list.
10 Mr. Groome, the Chamber finds that a corrigendum filing is not
11 the correct matter in which to add exhibits to the exhibit list. In the
12 interests of expeditiousness, the Chamber has decided to interpret the
13 corrigendum as a Prosecution request for leave to add these 123 exhibits
14 to its Rule 65 ter (E) exhibit list, and the Defence therefore is
15 instructed to file a response to the request within two weeks from today.
16 Any comments on what I just said? Also perhaps, Mr. Groome, on
17 how we interpreted your corrigendum.
18 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I accept that that is a reasonable
19 interpretation, and if the Chamber so wishes, the Prosecution would be
20 prepared to make more detailed submissions explaining why those documents
21 were not on the original list that was filed in early, mid-February.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first see what objections will be raised and
23 if they are such that the Prosecution would consider that it would have a
24 better explanation to rebut those objections which it did not give
25 because it considered the filing just the corrigendum in which it was
1 free to add to the exhibit list, then we'll see how to proceed and
2 whether we give you an opportunity perhaps if you request for such an
3 opportunity to further explain.
4 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No further comments from the Defence, I see.
6 Now, as was set out in the Scheduling Order, the trial in this
7 case will begin on the 14th of May, 2012, with the Prosecution's opening
8 statement. The Chamber now sets the deadline for the Prosecution to
9 inform the Chamber of the amount of time it will need for its opening
10 statement to the 20th of April.
11 As agreed in this Monday's Rule 65 ter meeting, this same date,
12 April the 20th, is also the new deadline for the Defence to notify the
13 Chamber if it will also make an opening statement and whether Mr. Mladic
14 wishes to make a statement before the presentation of the Prosecution's
15 case. That notification was to include the amount of time required for
16 any such statements.
17 At last month's 65 ter meeting and Status Conference, the
18 Prosecution's Rule 65 ter (E) filings were discussed in relation to the
19 amount of estimated time for its Rule 92 ter viva voce and expert
20 witnesses. At the 23rd of February Status Conference, the Prosecution
21 was reminded of the Chamber's 10th of November, 2011, guidance, in which
22 the Chamber limited the time for examination-in-chief of Rule 92 ter
23 witnesses to 30 minutes, to be increased only exceptionally and with the
24 Chamber's leave after a showing of good cause for a specific witness.
25 For Rule 92 ter witnesses, the Prosecution's average estimated time is
1 one hour, which includes the time required for the attestation in court,
2 reading of the witness's statement summary, and the examination-in-chief.
3 While I stress that nothing is carved in stone yet, the Chamber
4 now provides the parties with its general assumptions as to the amount of
5 time for cross-examination of witnesses.
6 For the cross-examination of such Rule 92 ter witnesses, the
7 Chamber assumes an average time for cross-examination of 2.5 hours. This
8 number is, of course, dependent on the volume of the documents introduced
9 through the witness and the overall scope of the 92 ter materials.
10 For the cross-examination of viva voce witnesses, the Chamber
11 estimates the time needed for cross-examination to be approximately
12 60 per cent of the time used for examination-in-chief.
13 In the interests of a fair and expeditious trial, the Chamber
14 will monitor the conduct of examination-in-chief, cross-examination, as
15 well as any re-examination. And further, the parties should keep these
16 time estimates in mind, and if already anticipating deviations from them,
17 the parties should indicate this to the Chamber no later than two weeks
18 before the expected start of the witness's testimony.
19 For Rule 94 bis witnesses, Mr. Lukic, the Chamber requests that
20 you indicate the estimated cross-examination time in the respective
21 Defence notices under Rule 94 bis to the extent possible, of course, at
22 this time. However, you may also file revised estimates for these expert
23 witnesses, again, no later than two weeks before the expected start of
24 their testimony. As you have already filed your notices for proposed
25 experts Philipps and Butler, please provide the estimated
1 cross-examination time two weeks before their testimony should they
2 indeed be called.
3 And I immediately add to this, Mr. Lukic, that this is not in any
4 way an indication of the Chamber's position in relation to your
5 objections to these two witnesses and their proposed expert reports. We
6 are still considering those but do not think that we should refrain from
7 already preparing for practicalities in case we might not honour your
9 At the Rule 65 ter meeting, the parties discussed the
10 Prosecution's expected witness order for the first part of the trial,
11 which is to say until the summer recess. The Chamber hereby instructs
12 the Prosecution to notify the Chamber and the Defence of its expected
13 witness order until the summer recess by April the 13th, 2012.
14 In relation to that notification, at the 65 ter meeting the
15 parties also discussed the Prosecution's 65 ter (E) (i) and (iii)
16 submissions which will address any admissions by the parties and
17 information about whether the authenticity of exhibits is challenged by
18 the Defence.
19 Mr. Groome, at the 65 ter meeting you proposed linking
20 discussions with the Defence on these matters to the Prosecution's
21 publication of its order of witnesses. The Chamber therefore instructs
22 the Prosecution to make its first Rule 65 ter (E)(i) and (iii)
23 submissions by the 27th of April. This will give the parties time to
24 discuss possible agreement on the exhibits the Prosecution seeks to
25 tender through those witnesses who are expected to be called in the first
1 part of the trial and also discuss -- to discuss any admissions in
2 relation to those witnesses' expected testimony. So it's the first
3 submissions, the submissions which of course are now detached from the
4 pre-trial brief but are in the Rules described in the same paragraph
5 should deal with the first batch of witnesses until the summer recess.
6 Any comments or any questions in relation to the matters I just
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, there is one issue that I would like to
9 raise with the Chamber. The Chamber again has reaffirmed its directive
10 that the Prosecution with respect to 92 ter witnesses would be limited to
11 30 minutes. When the Prosecution developed its presentation of evidence
12 for this case, it considered that many of the witnesses that it will call
13 to the witness stand have an abundance of evidence that is directly
14 relevant to this case. Some of these witnesses were internationals who
15 spent several years in the region and have many observations and much
16 evidence to provide the Chamber.
17 When the Prosecution developed its witness list, it considered
18 that while these witnesses could be called viva voce, doing so would
19 require days of evidence, of leading their evidence, and we used as an
20 indication of how long their evidence would take to lead live prior cases
21 in which they have testified in which the evidence took that long.
22 The Prosecution considered that 92 ter was an appropriate
23 mechanism to use to allow the witnesses to provide the evidence directly
24 relevant to Mr. Mladic, meetings they had with Mr. Mladic or direct
25 observations they made of Mr. Mladic as well as other members of the
1 joint criminal enterprise, but yet allow the more efficient entry into
2 evidence of the bulk of the remainder of their evidence in written form.
3 The Chamber's directive seems to preclude that possibility, and
4 the Prosecution would appreciate the Chamber explaining the rationale for
5 that and it may require the Prosecution to revisit whether or not it can
6 call these witnesses 92 ter, and I think it would most certainly result
7 in an additional time being needed to lead that evidence viva voce.
8 I think that would be unfortunate, because I think there is a
9 very efficient way of allowing a witness with such an abundance of
10 evidence to provide it in a way that is useful to the Chamber, can be
11 fully cross-examined by the Defence and significantly reduce the time
12 that's spent in court leading that evidence.
13 Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'll consider this with -- together with my
15 colleagues. When we decided to allow for 30 minutes
16 examination-in-chief, we have considered the practice in many Chambers in
17 this Tribunal, and we have balanced, of course, the advantages of hearing
18 viva voce evidence and to read evidence from statements. It is a rather
19 complex matter. I'll again discuss it with my colleagues on the basis of
20 the submissions you just made, and then we'll give it the appropriate
22 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour. It would also be helpful
23 for the Prosecution to know precisely what the Chamber means when it says
24 "good cause." Traditionally the only test of admission into evidence has
25 been relevance. Now this new concept of good cause as applied to
1 decision such as this, it is an unknown or relatively unknown concept in
2 the jurisprudence, and it would be very helpful for the Prosecution to be
3 able to have a better understanding of what the Chamber considers what
4 might, for example, be good cause that we could better plan our -- the
5 present of our case.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We'll include this in the follow-up. I promised we
7 would give it.
8 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Any other matter? Mr. Lukic.
10 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
11 What the Defence would like you to reconsider is the right for
12 our cross-examination of viva voce witnesses, although we have only
13 seven, I think, at this moment, but usually in previous trials when I --
14 where I took part we had the equal amount for cross-examination as the
15 Prosecution had in their direct examination. So if possible, I'll kindly
16 ask Your Honours to reconsider and give us the same amount of time as the
17 Prosecution has for their chief.
18 JUDGE ORIE: We have -- Mr. Lukic, we have determined the
19 60 per cent on the basis of quite a variety of practices before various
20 Trial Chambers, including issues like is there one accused or are there
21 more accused in that case, what time was granted and what time was used.
22 So we did quite a bit of statistical analysis. So therefore, if you
23 would wish to give further information on the -- I would say the basis
24 you refer to other cases where you say it was a hundred per cent, I know
25 of other cases which used a hundred per cent. I also know of other cases
1 which used 60 per cent. I know of cases where 105 or 110 per cent was
2 used with three cues. So we did quite some research. If you would like
3 to add any data or if you would like to add any arguments why 60 per cent
4 would not be sufficient, you're invited to file that as -- or to
5 communicate that to the Chamber most likely in a filing as quickly as
6 possible so that we, when considering your request, that we have all
7 relevant information available. And, of course, as the Prosecution would
8 have any specific information which would assist the Chamber in deciding
9 whether or not to grant an extension of time which would be 66 per cent
10 of what we had on our mind, yes, now, because from 60 to a hundred, that
11 is two-thirds to be added, 66 per cent. If the Prosecution has any such
12 information, it's also invited to -- to inform the Chamber, because when
13 we're talking about cross-examination, we're not only talking about
14 cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses but Defence but also about
15 cross-examination of Defence witnesses if they'll ever be called, if
16 there will be a Defence case, cross-examination by the Prosecution.
17 Could we say that if you have any further thoughts to be brought
18 to the Chamber's attention that we'd like to see them within a week from
20 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Groome?
22 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. Can I simply say that while I
23 appreciate that time limits are an essential part of the work that we do
24 here, I think the best practice has always been the Judges sitting at the
25 trial making informed decisions about what the time that was necessary
1 for a full exploration of the witness's evidence and so the Prosecution
2 would never oppose any reasonable request for time to do that and defer
3 to the Chamber in what precise amount of time would be necessary to have
4 such an exploration.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When I say 60 per cent of the time, I would
6 like to refer to what I said earlier, is that these are general
7 assumptions we are considering at this moment, which are not yet carved
8 in stone. And in relation to the 92 ter witnesses, I already indicated
9 that it would, of course, also depend on the volume of the documents and
10 through the overall scope of the Rule 92 ter materials. Whatever our
11 guidance will be in terms of numbers or percentages, the Chamber will,
12 and that was the next thing, I would say, is that we'll closely monitor
13 the way in which both examination-in-chief and cross-examination or
14 re-examination is conducted. If that is very efficient, to the point,
15 and focused, and if it's clear that more time would be needed, then of
16 course we'll seriously consider that, because -- but what we're doing
17 here is for planning purposes, for scheduling purposes, to try to find a
18 basis on which we can work.
19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. And if I can address one
20 more issue.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
22 MR. LUKIC: Regarding 92 ter witnesses.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. LUKIC: I think that this time-frame for cross-examination is
25 having in mind limited number of documents the Prosecution can introduce
1 through that witness, and we hope that if there are more documents
2 introduced that we'll have the extent of time for cross-examination for
3 that witness.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, the number of documents to be used
5 also depends on how we are going to deal with bar table motions and what
6 documents will be introduced directly through witnesses, which is of
7 course the preferred way of receiving documents. I think I hinted
8 already at that when I said that the number is, of course, dependent on
9 the volume of documents introduced through the witness and the overall
10 scope of the Rule 92 ter materials that alluded already to the matter you
11 apparently wanted to bring to our attention.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then I move on. At the 23rd of February
14 Status Conference, the Chamber instructed the Prosecution to refile its
15 Rule 92 bis motion in relation to Witness RM057 by the 2nd of March. On
16 the 2nd of March, the Prosecution re-filed the motion, requesting
17 provisional acceptance of the unsigned statement until the Prosecution is
18 able to secure the witness's declaration. On the 16th of March, the
19 Defence filed its response opposing the motion and requesting an
20 extension of the word limit for its response. The request to exceed the
21 word limit was granted by the Chamber through an informal communication
22 on the 21st of March, and that decision is hereby put on the record.
23 On the 23rd of March, the Prosecution filed an a motion request
24 leave to reply to the Defence's response. The Chamber hereby grants the
25 request for leave to reply.
1 In relation to this same motion, in its response, the Defence
2 objected to the general practice of provisionally admitting unsigned
3 statements until a declaration can be obtained.
4 In relation to provisional acceptance of Rule 92 bis witness
5 statements without the witness's declaration as a general practice, the
6 Chamber informs the parties that this will be addressed in the Chamber's
7 decision on the Prosecution's motion. We'll deal with that then.
8 On the 17th of February, the Prosecution filed a motion
9 requesting the admission of evidence of a witness pursuant to Rule 92
10 quater and submitted an annotated transcript which indicated those
11 portions of the transcript upon which the Prosecution plans to rely. The
12 Prosecution also proposed a similar procedure for future Rule 92 quater
13 motions. At the 23rd of February Status Conference in relation to
14 Rule 92 quater motions, the Chamber informed the parties that for future
15 motions the Prosecution should not tender entire transcripts or prior
16 testimony with annotations but only tender those portions upon it will --
17 upon which it will rely.
18 On the 15th of March, 2012, the Defence filed its response. On
19 the 22nd of March, the Prosecution filed a motion seeking leave to reply
20 to the Defence response, and the Chamber hereby grants the request for
21 leave to reply.
22 Further, in its response, the Defence stated that it opposes the
23 transcript annotation procedure suggested by the Prosecution as well as
24 the Chamber's subsequent guidance to the parties for future Rule 92
25 quater motions. The Chamber informs the parties that the Chamber will
1 address this issue, including the Defence's objections to its guidance,
2 in its decision on the motion.
3 Mr. Groome, if you would not mind, I would like to deal with
4 the -- no. You apparently want to raise a matter.
5 MR. GROOME: I rose simply to inform the Chamber that the
6 Prosecution is in the process of finalising a detailed submission on some
7 of the guidance that the Chamber has provided and some of the potential
8 problems that the Prosecution believes exists in that guidance. We
9 expect to file that on Monday. I just wanted to let the Chamber know
10 that that was coming in the event that it wanted to receive that before
11 it finalised its decision on this matter, and this is one of the issues
12 that we do make submissions regarding.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, is that -- would that be part of the
14 reply you asked leave for or would it be a separate submission?
15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, we have put together or we are
16 finalising a comprehensive submission in which we believe some of the
17 guidance the Chamber has given with respect to 92 bis, ter, quater, the
18 number of exhibits, the bar table motions cause conflict and when
19 considered together creates some problems that the Prosecution wants to
20 bring to the Chamber's attention. So it does deal in part with this.
21 Some of these issues may also be touched upon in the reply. The focus of
22 this -- the -- the -- this submission is the interaction of the different
23 guidances provided by the Chamber.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It may well be then if it's an extensive
25 submission that the Defence would like to make further submissions on the
1 matter. Let's first wait and see what we receive on Monday, and we know
2 that apart from the usual responses and replies there will be a
3 submission which deals with several matters relevant for some of the
4 pending motions.
5 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then I return to the response by the Defence on the
7 motion we just dealt with. In that response, the Defence requested that
8 should the Prosecution motion be granted, that it then be permitted to
9 make a submission on those portions of the transcript it would also
10 wanted admitted. This was also discussed at the Rule 65 ter meeting and
11 the Chamber now puts on the record that the Defence has until the 5th of
12 April to file a submission identifying those portions of the transcript
13 it would like to have added if the motion would be granted.
14 This instruction again, Mr. Lukic, is not to be understood as in
15 any way to anticipate on the decision the Chamber will give, but it's
16 mainly given for very practical reasons, so that we don't lose time at a
17 later stage if a decision on the motion would be A or B.
18 Then finally, Mr. Groome, at the Rule 65 ter meeting you stated
19 that you would clarify the issue of the missing curriculum vitae by
20 today. However, this matter is, as we see, also addressed in your reply.
21 As the request for leave to reply and reply were filed together and
22 before the Rule 65 ter meeting, does the Prosecution have any further,
23 any additional information it would like to put on the record in relation
24 to this issue other than what is already contained in your reply?
25 Now, I do understand in the reply you mainly refer to having
1 disclosed the CV, which of course is not exactly the same as having that
2 same CV attached to a motion. I just make this observation before I give
3 you an opportunity to further address the matter.
4 MR. GROOME: The only additional piece of information I would
5 wish to provide the Chamber is that in light of the fact that Lukic --
6 Mr. Lukic has been unable to find the copy of the document in a prior
7 disclosure, we have re-disclosed it today to him. So Mr. Lukic now has
8 possession of another copy of that document.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, for the Chamber, of course, it is
10 important that we have a CV attached to a motion if it's relevant to
11 that, because whatever you disclose to Mr. Lukic is not necessarily then
12 known to the Chamber.
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, we will file a supplement to our reply
14 with permission of the Court that attaches that document, if that's
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether we call it a supplement or
17 corrigendum, but at least so we have received that CV -- we have received
18 that in relation to the motion.
19 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. We will do that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Lukic, having heard that whether
21 re-disclosed or disclosed for the third time that you have available the
22 CV, the Chamber would like to receive any further comments on that CV by
23 the 5th of April.
24 MR. LUKIC: But the Prosecution has provided us with the missing
25 CV by way of e-mail on 27th of March, 2012, and the Defence does not
1 intend to make any additional submissions relatively to the Rule 92
2 quater motion arising out of the CV. The arguments as presented in our
3 responsive filing of 15th of March, 2012, remain valid and we continue to
4 stand on those submissions and seek the relief identified therein. As
5 permitting, this witness's testimony via Rule 92 quater would unfairly
6 prejudice the rights of Mr. Mladic to confront the evidence against him
7 and have a fair and due process. Just because Mr. Mladic is among the
8 last accused at the dock does not mean that his rights should be abridged
9 or that he should not have at least the same fair chance that prior
10 accused had to confront the evidence against them.
11 That's all we have on this issue, Your Honour, and we are not
12 going to file anything additional.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I gave this time limit because earlier you
14 said, We can't comment on the CV because we haven't got it. Now, that
15 apparently you have received it. You do not feel any need to further
16 comment on the CV but your objections against admission pending and are
17 the same, and you have underlined them a minute ago with some further
19 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. We'll consider that in deciding the
22 The -- at the 23rd of February Status Conference, the Prosecution
23 raised concerns in relation to the Chamber's guidance on associated
24 exhibit limitations and made a proposal regarding bar table submissions.
25 I alluded to that earlier already. The Prosecution proposed that it be
1 entitled to submit a bar table motion at the conclusion of each
2 individual component of its case rather than near the end of its case
3 presentation in its entirety. The Defence stated that it has no
4 objections to the current guidance and suggested no changes, and the
5 Chamber has informed the parties that it would consider their proposals.
6 The Chamber has considered it and even reached a conclusion,
7 Mr. Groome, but the question which now arises is whether it would be
8 wiser for the Chamber to wait for your submissions of next Monday before
9 I give you what we thought to be the appropriate solution, having heard
10 the submissions until this moment.
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, our submissions planned for Monday do
12 not include the timing of bar table motions and would have no impact on
13 the Chamber's decision.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then I can proceed.
15 After having considered the suggestions and submissions by
16 Prosecution and Defence, the Chamber informs the Prosecution that its
17 proposal to submit bar table motions at the close of its presentation
18 related to individual components of its case is acceptable as long as the
19 motion fully complies with the Chamber's already-announced guidance on
20 bar table submissions.
21 In that regard, and to some extent I perhaps revisit that matter
22 slightly, in that regard I remind the parties of that guidance in which
23 the Chamber stated, and I quote:
24 "Any bar table submission should be filed at a late stage of each
25 party's case when it is clear to the tendering party that the relevant
1 documents were not and could not have been tendered through any witness."
2 Of course, where I said the late stage of the party's case has
3 now to be understood at -- at the close of the presentation related to
4 individual components of the case.
5 In this same respect I also remind the parties of the Chamber's
6 stated preference to have documentary evidence tendered in court through
7 witnesses who can provide the proper contextualisation. To the extent
8 the Prosecution can demonstrate that a specific component of its case is
9 coming to a close and that the documents could not have been tendered
10 through any witness, the Chamber will consider the Prosecution's bar
11 table submissions.
12 Mr. Groome.
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, when the Chamber uses the phrase "could
14 not have been tendered through any witness," does that include the
15 Chamber's guidance setting the -- the limit of five exhibits with respect
16 to the admission of exhibits with respect to witnesses, particularly, I
17 think, 92 bis witnesses? The Chamber had set a limit such as five
18 exhibits. Would that be incorporated into the concept of "could not have
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that may play a role. I'll further discuss
21 this with my colleagues, but could not, of course, we have to make a
22 difference between viva voce witness where such a limit does not apply,
23 92 ter witnesses, 92 bis material. We will consider and give you further
24 guidance on what should be understood by "could not." It could also be
25 that -- there are of course many factors such as none of the witnesses
1 called could be used to introduce this document, although it is related
2 to the subject matter of that witness, but he might not be aware of that
3 document in any case. So I think there are -- there may be a variety of
4 circumstances, and we'll consider whether the one you just mentioned
5 would be one of them, a variety of circumstances which might lead to the
6 conclusion that a document could not be introduced through a witness.
7 MR. GROOME: Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber notes that on the 19th of March, the
9 Prosecution filed a motion seeking a word limit extension for its
10 upcoming submissions on the presentation and tendering of evidence.
11 Perhaps a small question, Mr. Groome. That is -- that is the
12 same or not the same of what we could expect on Monday?
13 MR. GROOME: That is the same motion.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That is the same motion. Yes. Yes. You say
15 motion. It was a motion seeking to extend the word limit for what you
16 called a submission, not necessarily a motion. I also understood that
17 what we can expect on Monday is a submission rather than a motion.
18 MR. GROOME: Well, Your Honour, we will be seeking relief, and
19 the relief that we will be seeking is to have a detailed hearing with all
20 the parties present to discuss some of these issues. The Prosecution
21 takes the position that it is time very well spent to flesh out all of
22 the issues related to how the Prosecution and the Defence will present
23 their case prior to the start of the trial. We believe that it will
24 result in a more efficient trial. It will result in a body of evidence
25 that will put the Chamber in the best position to adjudicate this
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As you may have noticed, the Chamber also
3 wants to clarify many procedural issues before the start of the trial.
4 At the same time, the Chamber wants to avoid that we enter into a rigid
5 system where we have no -- no manoeuvring space anymore. So we have to
6 try to find a balance then.
7 That's clear, Mr. -- the -- I started with the motion you filed
8 seeking a word limit extension. On the 21st of March, two days after
9 this motion was filed, the Chamber informed the Prosecution through an
10 informal communication that the request for a word limit extension was
11 denied, and that decision is hereby put on the record.
12 Now, in light of the upcoming written submissions from the
13 Prosecution, the Chamber will not make any more statements at this moment
14 on the matters raised in this context at the last Status Conference until
15 it has received the party's written submissions.
16 Finally, I'd like to remind the parties that at the 23rd of
17 February Status Conference, the Chamber set the deadline for the
18 submission of the agreed facts progress report to the
19 27th of April, 2012, and from that date onwards on the last working day
20 of every other subsequent month.
21 As a clarification for the parties, there's no need to submit a
22 joint agreed facts progress report before the April Rule 65 ter meeting.
23 I move on to the Rule 73 bis (C) decision.
24 On the 19th of March, the Chamber staff sent an e-mail to the
25 parties listing certain questions to be discussed at Monday's Rule 65 ter
1 meeting in relation to its upcoming Rule 73 bis (C) decision. For those
2 in the audience and following these proceedings from outside the
3 courtroom, I'll briefly explain that Rule 73 bis (C) provides that after
4 having heard from the Prosecution, the Chamber shall determine the number
5 of witnesses the Prosecution may call and the time available to the
6 Prosecution for presenting its evidence.
7 At the Rule 65 ter meeting, the Prosecution made its submissions,
8 which I now briefly will review.
9 The first issue discussed was in relation to why certain
10 witnesses were proposed as Rule 92 ter witnesses as opposed to
11 Rule 92 bis witnesses. The Prosecution stated that it intended to give
12 consideration to the Chamber's view that perhaps these witnesses could be
13 dealt with through Rule 92 bis. However, the Prosecution also informed
14 the Chamber that a number of the listed witnesses are testifying in
15 relation to crime base incidents and often are the sole remaining
16 survivors of these incidents.
17 The second issue discussed was in relation to the purpose of
18 calling Prosecution investigators primarily to explain and evaluate
19 documentary evidence. The Prosecution submitted that these witnesses
20 would be necessary in case that the Defence challenges certain evidence,
21 mainly dealing with videos and books compiled by the Prosecution staff.
22 These witnesses would, if needed, testify to the chain of custody of the
23 original materials and the manner in which these materials were assembled
24 into the aforementioned videos and books.
25 Finally, the third issue discussed was in relation to the number
1 of witnesses listed to give evidence on intercept communications and
2 Count 11 of the indictment, the UN hostage issue.
3 In relation to the intercept communications, the Prosecution
4 clarified its intention to call a few supervisors of the intercept
5 records and that it will only proceed to call the remainder of the
6 intercept operators if it believes it necessary to meet its burden of
7 proof. In relation to the UN hostages, the Prosecution recalled that its
8 pre-trial brief sets out over 200 hostages in various locations.
9 Accordingly, the Prosecution has proposed four hours of court time for
10 the more central witnesses, but will then rely on Rule 92 bis statements
11 for 11 additional witnesses to establish all the hostage situations at
12 the different locations.
13 Have the parties any questions or any comments related to the
14 Prosecution's Rule 73 bis (C) submissions?
15 Mr. Groome, if you would start.
16 MR. GROOME: The only other observation or submission I would
17 make, Your Honour, that occurred to me after our meeting earlier this
18 week that -- for example, that for the documents that the Prosecution
19 investigators were likely to deal with in their evidence and likely the
20 same with respect to intercept evidence, that the Chamber might want to
21 consider the benefit of allowing exceptionally in those circumstances the
22 Prosecution to file a bar table motion seeking admission of such
23 documents. And at the beginning of the commencement of that part of the
24 case if that issue could be litigated, as it were, in paper, if the
25 Prosecution received a decision in which it believe it was no longer
1 necessary to call those witnesses, the Prosecution would then proceed to
2 remove those witnesses from the witness list. So there maybe some
3 advantage, at least in that case, of reversing the order of when bar
4 table motions can be made.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And this perhaps adds another category to
6 documents that could not be introduced through witnesses. They could,
7 but preferably would not be introduced through witnesses. That's then a
8 kind of separate situation.
9 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, do you want to raise any matter, do you
11 have any comments, or already respond on what the Prosecution raised? I
12 would imagine you would need more time to prepare, but please tell me.
13 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. We would like time to address the
14 issue, and only as I mentioned in our 65 ter meeting on Monday, the
15 Defence is never in favour of 22 [sic] bis statements unless it has the
16 chance to cross-examine the witness. So probably it will be something
17 that we'll have to address at a later stage and in light of your guidance
18 that we should provide how much time we need for any 92 bis witness if
19 allowed to cross-examine them.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although, of course, we were primarily
21 interested in 92 ter. But if you say if we do not accept this witness to
22 be a 92 bis witness, then at least to tell us what time estimate you
23 would have for cross-examination you consider necessary.
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And you would not mind looking at the transcript
1 that I add 70 to the 22 bis so that we are on 92 bis. Yes. Mathematics
2 has always been one of my favourites. So 70 is added there to the 22 bis
4 Any further matter in relation to this? Perhaps I should add one
5 word. To the extent you have -- you may have understood the questions by
6 the Chamber, Mr. Groome, as questions steering matters in any way, that's
7 not what the Chamber tried to do. Sometimes raising questions cause the
8 respondent to think over again what apparently the one who put the
9 question considered worth of being thought of or again. The Chamber, of
10 course, is not telling any of the parties how it should present its case,
11 although, of course, it is still supervising the presentation of evidence
12 in a general sense under the Rules.
13 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour. The Prosecutor appreciates
14 that that's what the Chamber intended, and the Prosecution always stands
15 ready to provide any information the Chamber wishes regarding the
16 presentation of its case.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
18 We move on. Next item, disclosure.
19 On the 20th of February, 2012, at the sixth 65 ter meeting, the
20 Chamber instructed the Prosecution to include in its recertification
21 notice of compliance with respect to Rule 66(A)(ii) disclosure any
22 resolution of the concerns raised by the Defence in its correspondence of
23 the 12th of February related to potential noncompliance with
24 Rule 66(A)(ii).
25 On the 23rd of February, 2012, at the sixth Status Conference,
1 the Chamber instructed the Prosecution to file this recertification
2 notice on the 12th of March of 2012, but to date, no filing has been
4 At this past Monday's Rule 65 ter meeting, the Prosecution
5 explained that its Rule 66(A)(ii) review is linked to its Rule 68(i)
6 review for which it had received an extension until the 2nd of April, and
7 which it thought applied also to the Rule 66(A)(ii) recertification
9 The Chamber accepts the Prosecution's position in relation to the
10 recertification notice, and this filing may be made on the 2nd of April.
11 However, in relation to addressing the Defence concerns raised on the
12 12th of February at the Rule 65 ter meeting, you suggested, Mr. Groome,
13 that you would first attempt to resolve this by today's
14 Status Conference. Therefore, is there anything you would like to report
15 at this moment as to the resolution of this matter?
16 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. The Prosecution has had several
17 productive meetings this week with the Mladic Defence team.
18 With respect to the disclosure of prior statements of witnesses,
19 Rule 66(A)(ii) material, the Prosecution has worked with the Mladic
20 Defence to identify missing materials, and Mr. Lukic was in fact correct
21 in noting the absence of the disclosure of some of these documents. They
22 are primarily translations of documents that had been provided. They
23 number in total approximately 900 documents.
24 Today we have processed those -- approximately 75 per cent of
25 those documents and have disclosed them today. For technical reasons
1 there remain 25 per cent of those documents still to be processed. That
2 is being done, and we expect that we will complete that process within
3 the next several weeks.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If no such progress would have been made, the
5 Chamber would have instructed you, Mr. Groome, to -- to include a report
6 on the status of those concerns in an annex to the 2nd of April
7 recertification notice. I'm a bit hesitant to do that at this moment,
8 but I first address Mr. Lukic.
9 Mr. Lukic, do you think that the prospective of resolving the
10 last 25 per cent are such that the Chamber could refrain from instructing
11 Mr. Groome to include a specific report on those concerns in its 2nd of
12 April filing, or do you say, No, the real problem will arise in the last
13 25 per cent; therefore, we'd like the Chamber to follow what it was
14 inclined to do.
15 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I cannot say that the Prosecution is not
16 working diligently trying to solve the problems, but -- and I cannot
17 confirm the percentages because we just got some materials from the
18 Prosecution. And if you bear with me, I prepared our position on this
19 issue, or if you want me, we can file it in writing in a couple of days,
20 whatever you would like me to do. To raise it now or --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps it would be best if you have prepared it
22 that I invite Mr. Groome to make it part of the 2nd of April filing.
23 Apparently there's no agreement on whether it's 75 per cent resolved, yes
24 or no.
25 What I also could suggest, most likely we'll not be able to
1 finish in this first session, to see whether the parties could reach a
2 joint approach on whether to use another two or three weeks to -- in --
3 in the confidence that the matter will be resolved or whether the parties
4 would say, Let's make separate filings on it in the days to come. And of
5 course if you would not agree on the approach, then of course the Chamber
6 would instruct the parties whether or not to file something or whether to
7 orally submit matters.
8 Is there -- is this a suggestion which --
9 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just a very short observation. To date
10 the Prosecution has disclosed approximately 144.000 individual documents.
11 With the translations of those documents, it's about 250.000 documents
12 altogether, and Mr. Lukic has identified some missing documents. So
13 rather than to take this as an indication that the system is not working,
14 I think this is a very strong indicator that the system is working.
15 Mr. Lukic and his team are verifying what we say we disclosed, where
16 there have been omissions. He's now bringing them to our attention very
17 soon, and we are, in most cases, resolving them in the very week that
18 the -- it is brought to our attention. For technical reasons 25 per cent
19 of these particular set of documents will take some additional time. So
20 I just want to make clear that it's the Prosecution's view that
21 disclosure is always labour-intensive and sometimes difficult process,
22 but I think that it is working well and the Prosecution certainly
23 appreciates the diligence with which Mr. Lukic is verifying that we have
24 provided everything that we say we have provided and giving us an
25 opportunity to -- to fill the gaps where they exist.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, perhaps having listened to Mr. Groome who
2 says, Well, the system is working pretty well but perhaps not for the
3 last half a per cent, and as soon as we hear from Mr. Lukic that
4 something is missing we immediately try to resolve that matter, I do not
5 expect much from an annex to be attached to the 2nd of April filing, but
6 perhaps it would be wiser to first listen to you and to hear what in your
7 view the problems are before we take any further steps. So I invite you
8 to make any oral submissions on the matter at this moment.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And could you give us an indication as to how much
11 time you'd need for that.
12 MR. LUKIC: Five, six minutes probably.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Five, six minutes. Please proceed.
14 MR. LUKIC: Thanks. A new Rule 66(A)(ii) spreadsheet was
15 provided by the Prosecution on or about 14th of February, 2012. This
16 spreadsheet corrected the error of the previous spreadsheets which lacked
17 ERN for many of the materials so disclosed. However, since that time we
18 have raised with the Prosecution additional problems; namely, that we
19 still cannot locate all the statements of the witnesses, particularly in
20 B/C/S, even when reaching -- searching by ERN through the various methods
21 that have been shown to us and advised to be used. Further, we have the
22 problem that transcripts were not fully disclosed to us. This is a
23 problem particularly for the proceedings before the state court of Bosnia
24 and Herzegovina. As in those cases the transcripts are --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please read more slowly.
1 Thank you.
2 MR. LUKIC: I will slow down.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You -- please do so.
4 MR. LUKIC: So in the cases dealt with before the state court of
5 Bosnia and Herzegovina, transcripts are not publicly -- publicly
6 available or readily obtainable, and unless someone has prepared
7 transcripts for specific purposes, the standard practice is for only an
8 audio recording in lieu of written transcript to be provided. Likewise,
9 insofar as we have not been provided access to private closed-session
10 materials from the ICTY cases we cannot readily locate the transcript
11 said to be disclosed to us by the OTP. They have not disclosed to us any
12 specific transcripts.
13 I'm talking before reviewing those materials we received today.
14 This is written before this Status Conference, and I didn't have time,
15 and I didn't have the possibility to review the materials we received
16 today. And the problem with this is two-folded. First, private and
17 closed session -- sessions are not included, and second, the amount of
18 B/C/S transcripts is very limited. So B/C/S translation of the
20 Under Rule 66(A)(ii), the obligation is up on the Prosecution to
21 disclose statements in the language of the accused. In this case our
22 client does not speak English, and he needs B/C/S transcripts. We cannot
23 at this time confirm if audio materials or video materials have been
24 provided by the OTP, because they have not identified for many of the
25 transcripts any ERN by which we may locate the same among the voluminous
1 disclosure that have been given to us by the Prosecution.
2 As such, we consider at this point that the Prosecution has not
3 fully complied with Rule 66(A)(ii).
4 Your Honour already raised that the Prosecution didn't file the
5 additional report on 12th of March, so that's -- we have to wait for that
6 one as well.
7 The purpose of Rule 66(A)(ii) is to enable the Defence to
8 confront witnesses with all their prior statements and transcripts. The
9 provision is of fundamental importance to the accused's right to a fair
10 trial. It is an essential element of Rule 66(A)(ii) that the disclosure
11 occur within a specific time limit so as to provide adequate time and
12 resources for the accused to examine the material and prepare its case.
13 In the instant case, we still do not have the materials and would ask as
14 follows: The commence -- (a), the commencement of trial be postponed and
15 not scheduled until the Prosecution has completed its obligation under
16 Rule 66(A)(ii) in their entirety. And (b) order that no witness by the
17 OTP may be called less than 90 days prior to the Rule 66(A)(ii)
18 disclosure having been completed in full, and we believe this is in line
19 with the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, especially the Karadzic case,
20 where it said that cumulative effect of multiple disclosure violations
21 resulted in an order that the Prosecution not be allowed to call any
22 witness affected by late disclosure for a period of approximately 90 days
23 to give Defence time to prepare.
24 It is decision on accused 18th to 21st disclosure violation
25 motions from 2nd November 2010 at paragraph 43.
1 Mr. Mladic is not asking for any special treatment, just to what
2 he's entitled to under the Rules and to be treated fairly and have the
3 same rights and abilities to prepare for trial as other accused have had
4 before him.
5 Your Honour, this is what we had on this issue. Thank you for
6 listening to us. And I say this is all under the reserve that we have to
7 check the materials we received today from the Prosecution.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that. May I take it that you'll review
9 that material as soon as possible so as to know whether it in any way
10 effects the position taken by the Defence.
11 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could we say that -- and perhaps it would also be
13 wise to inform the Prosecution about that, because they'll file on the
14 2nd of April a motion, make submissions. Perhaps it would be where we
15 suggested that perhaps any report on this matter should be attached to
16 that one. I think it would be good for them to know as soon as possible
17 whether what you receive today changes and to what extent changes your
19 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, as you heard from my -- my learned
20 friend Mr. Groome, it is pretty voluminous material, and we have this
21 pre-trial brief due on Wednesday.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thanks to your extension of our time limit. So I'll
24 try to involve as many team members as possible, but we are basically
25 working on the pre-trial brief right now.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. LUKIC: So I cannot promise that it will be done before the
3 end of the next week, but then it would be too late for a motion.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Unless Mr. Groome would spend a separate
5 submission on specifically addressing what -- what you said today and
6 also including any change in your position possibly by the end of next
8 Mr. Groome.
9 MR. GROOME: Four quick points, Your Honour, just in response to
10 Mr. Lukic. Lest there be any confusion about whether or not the
11 Prosecution has diligently complied with its responsibilities under
12 Rule 66(A)(ii), I inform the Chamber that on the 3rd of October, 2011,
13 four months before the Prosecution filed its witness list, it provided
14 most of the prior statements of the people it intended to place or
15 provisionally believed it would place on its witness list. I think this
16 is unprecedented in that the Defence has been provided Rule 66(A)(ii)
17 material prior to the identification of a witness in a witness list.
18 Two, with respect to the materials from the courts of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina, I would point out that the Prosecution has disclosed
20 all 66(A)(ii) material that we are in possession of. The Prosecution
21 does not understand its obligation under Rule 66(A)(ii) to require it to
22 go to the courts of Bosnia and to inquire whether witnesses have
23 testified there and to secure that testimony. The Prosecution's
24 obligation is limited, as we understand our responsibility, to materials
25 in our possession.
1 Thirdly, Your Honour, with respect to the provision of
2 audiotapes, Mr. Lukic is expressing a preference for B/C/S transcripts of
3 prior testimony. Again what is in the Prosecution's reasonable
4 possession are audiotapes of a witness's prior testimony here before the
5 Tribunal. The B/C/S transcriptions are not routinely made. The
6 Prosecution believes that it fulfils its obligation under Rule 66(A)(ii)
7 by providing audiotapes of those prior testimonies. We do not understand
8 our obligation under Rule 66(A)(ii) to require us to secure B/C/S
9 transcribers to go through the testimonies from previous trials and
10 transcribe for the purposes of disclosure.
11 And finally Mr. Lukic has expressed some frustration or
12 difficulty with respect to finding transcripts in that they do not have
13 ERN numbers. I believe Mr. Lukic will recall that Ms. Stewart earlier
14 this week explained the special file names that are assigned to
15 transcripts. They are not given evidence numbers. They are given a
16 different name or under a different coding system which essentially is
17 the case number, the date, and the page number of the transcript, and I
18 believe that problem has already been corrected.
19 Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: If I may summarise. I do not think that Mr. Lukic
21 expressed concerns about the diligence with which the Prosecution made
22 efforts to meet its obligations under Rule 66(A)(ii), and even might
23 appreciate that the Prosecution started very early. I think what he said
24 is that since it's not complete, that causes us problems.
25 There are two other matters, whether Rule 66(A)(ii) would extend
1 to anything which is not in the possession of the Prosecution or not yet
2 in the possession of the Prosecution, and the question whether disclosure
3 of audio material would meet the obligations under Rule 66(A)(ii) are
4 legal matters which we'll look at.
5 The last issued raised, the fourth one, was of a rather practical
6 nature and referred to efforts by Ms. Stewart to assist in resolving the
8 The Prosecution is now, I take it, well aware of the position
9 taken by the Defence. The first thing that should happen is that,
10 Mr. Lukic, that you, as soon as possible, inform the Prosecution whether
11 what you received today changes in any way your position, and then we'll
12 wait for the further submissions. And we are aware that if Mr. Groome,
13 if the Prosecution, would include, which it is instructed to do if it
14 goes beyond what was said today, if the Prosecution then would include
15 further submissions on this matter in its 2nd of April filing, and if
16 you, Mr. Lukic, would then present any further submissions not later than
17 by the end of next week. Is that -- I see you're agreeing with that.
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the Chamber will then further consider
20 that matter.
21 One second, please.
22 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm reminded, Mr. Lukic, that your initial
24 complaints were put in an e-mail but were never formally filed, and now
25 since it looks as if we get real litigation on the matter, you are hereby
1 also instructed to file, apart from what you would like to add in the
2 present situation, also to file the initial e-mail you had sent so that
3 we have a full record.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any other matter in relation to this? If
6 not --
7 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I'm sorry, I was just informed if it's
8 possible to have a short break.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. LUKIC: Mr. Mladic needs --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's take the usual break now. I don't think that
12 we'll need more than 45 minutes to one hour after the break. We'll take
13 a break and we will resume at 10 minutes past 4.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 4.11 p.m.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I resume.
17 Mr. Lukic, I instructed you to formally file the e-mail which
18 introduced this whole issue. Could you do that by the end of this week?
19 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, we can do that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then I move on.
21 On the 28th of February, 2012, the Prosecution has filed a motion
22 requesting that the Chamber vacate the 12th of March, 2012, deadline for
23 its Rule 68(i) disclosure and proposed an alternative disclosure
24 procedure. On the 5th of March, the Defence filed a response opposing
25 the motion and the proposed alternative disclosure procedure. It further
1 submitted that should the motion be granted, the commencement of the
2 trial date should be delayed.
3 On the 6th of March the Chamber informed the parties through an
4 informal communication that it denied the Prosecution's alternative
5 disclosure procedure but granted a fixed time extension of three weeks
6 from 12th of March, 2012, until the 2nd of April. The Chamber denied
7 without prejudice the Defence's request for delaying the start of the
9 And this decision is here placed on the record.
10 Now, in relation to this decision, the Chamber calls the
11 parties's attention to its approach of requiring that disclosure be
12 completed by a specific date as opposed to rolling deadlines throughout
13 the course of the trial.
14 On the 23rd of March, the Prosecution filed a request for
15 reconsideration of the Chamber's decision, and in light of the fact that
16 the current deadline is the 2nd of April, the Chamber considered it
17 appropriate to shorten the defence response time so as to be able to hear
18 from the Defence before the deadline expires. At the 65 ter meeting, the
19 Defence explained that it would be unable to respond before the 4th of
20 April, which is of course after the current deadline of the 2nd of April.
21 Therefore, the Chamber puts on the record that the Defence
22 response is due by the 4th of April and hereby grants an extension of the
23 Prosecution's 2 April Rule 68(i) disclosure deadline until such time as
24 the Chamber issues its final decision on the request for reconsideration.
25 The Chamber informs the parties that it aims to have a final decision
1 issued as soon as possible after the response is filed.
2 At the 23rd February Status Conference, the Chamber announced
3 that the Electronic Disclosure System, known as EDS, that submissions in
4 relation to that system were now closed and that it would issue a
5 decision on the matter in a week. The Prosecution requested that any
6 decision be postponed to allow for further negotiations between the
8 The Chamber instructed the parties to report to the Chamber if a
9 decision was still needed, and if so, on which outstanding matters. On
10 the 2nd of March, 2012, the Defence filed a report indicating that there
11 were certain ongoing unresolved issues and maintaining its earlier
12 requests for relief. On the 16th of March, the Prosecution filed its
13 response to the Defence report, reiterating its position that the
14 Defence's requests for relief should be denied.
15 Now, these filings were all discussed at the Rule 65 ter meeting,
16 and I will briefly summarise what seemed to be the unresolved issues.
17 First, the issue of identifying meta-data in the EDS and the
18 parallel hard disk disclosure. The Prosecution takes the position that
19 there is obligation to provide this under the Rules. The Defence does
20 not assert that this is necessarily required by the Rules but stresses
21 the degree to which its work is frustrated without this meta-data
22 information. In relation to this, the Prosecution offered to arrange a
23 training session for the Defence staff at the Belgrade field office on
24 search techniques and other alternatives to using meta-data to locate
25 documents. The Prosecution is to provide an update on this training
1 meeting today.
2 Mr. Groome, could you inform us.
3 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. If I can just correct one thing
4 the Chamber said. Although the Prosecution rejects any notion that it is
5 required to provide such data under the Rules, it has endeavoured to do
6 so and continues to endeavour to do that because it does appreciate that
7 it does facilitate the preparations of the Defence.
8 With respect to training, earlier today I met with Mr. Lukic, and
9 he is still considering whether this is necessary. We are ready to
10 respond quickly at any time to assist Mr. Lukic in making sure that his
11 staff has any training that we can provide or any technical advice we can
12 provide how to most efficiently navigate and search the materials
13 disclosed by the Prosecution.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
15 Any further comment, Mr. Lukic?
16 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I would just briefly stress that our
17 team does not need training, because I have several team members who have
18 been using EDS for six, seven, or even ten years. What we were
19 complaining about is the lack of this meta-data, because even if we find
20 300 documents at once listed without meta-data, we cannot use that. So
21 the training is not necessary. What we need is possibility to
22 meaningfully search the documents put into EDS. And I was offered by
23 Mr. Groome to use their -- to see if we can use their office in Belgrade
24 only in terms of speeding up the search because they have different
25 transmitting system.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'll come to that in a second. I would like to
2 refer now to the --
3 MR. LUKIC: Training -- training we don't need.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say this in a very firm way. I do
5 understand that you have troubles in achieving what you want to achieve
6 without the meta-data, and I do understand that the offer for training is
7 that by using alternatives to this, that you might achieve, if not all,
8 then at least part of what you're seeking anyhow.
9 Now, I do not know to what extent you have discussed the content
10 of that training. If I'm offered training on a certain matter, I'd first
11 like to know exactly what the training was about before I can conclude
12 that I do not need it. I don't know to what extent this has been
13 explored and to what extent, if only partially, it would help out whether
14 meta-data are not complete yet. But before saying that I can't learn
15 anything more, I'm usually hesitant to do that. This is just an
16 observation. I don't know in what detail the content of the training was
18 MR. LUKIC: We'll take your advance -- advice and see if we can
19 learn anything else.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. LUKIC: What I would like to add is that while creating EDS
22 system, I was consulted how to advance it, because I was using ZyLAB even
23 before that, and I was trying to solve the problem of the technicians of
24 ICTY had how to search numbers or how to search Cyrillic, and I have then
25 at that time -- maybe they developed something I'm not aware at this
1 moment, but what I'm telling you is really what we need is just meta-data
2 and then we will be perfectly capable of searching all the documents in
3 the EDS.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was not suggesting, Mr. Lukic, that you are
5 not an expert or close to an expert in the system. The only thing I was
6 saying is that before refusing an offer for further training, I would
7 always explore exactly what it could bring me or not, and I again have no
8 opinion about this, whether you have explored that. I just made that
9 observation. And it may well be that it's superfluous and that you did
10 everything you would possibly be expected to do before saying, We don't
11 need it. I leave that alone. The only thing I'm trying as always to
12 seek to what extent the Chamber, sometimes by just putting questions, can
13 assist the parties in resolving problems.
14 I think that the meta-data, of course, a lot of work is done on
15 that already, and I did not understand the Prosecution to offer the
16 training replacing further work on the meta-data, but, rather, to assist
17 the Defence in perhaps being able to move on if not perhaps in the most
18 perfect way.
19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Then -- yes. I'll now come to the second issue, which was the
22 slow speed of the -- yes, Mr. Groome. I see you're --
23 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I'm just standing up to
24 report. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: To report on the offered --
1 MR. GROOME: You had asked us to investigate a suggestion I had
2 made at the 65 ter meeting and report today, so I was just -- I thought
3 you were going to invite me to make a report.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes -- no, please do so.
5 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I've agreed in meetings with Mr. Lukic
6 today that we will conduct a test regarding the speed of the EDS when
7 remotely accessed --
8 JUDGE ORIE: I'm sorry to interrupt you. I wanted to introduce
9 the speed issue separately, so I interrupted Mr. Lukic, and I'm going to
10 interrupt you as well but give you an opportunity, because the second
11 issue which was discussed was the slow speed of the EDS via remote
12 access. The parties agree that this is not within the Prosecution's
13 control and also that the EDS speed is significantly slower via remote
14 access as opposed to within the Defence rooms in the Tribunal. And in
15 relation to this, Mr. Groome, you had proposed that perhaps the Defence
16 could explore whether it's possible to have access to a computer in the
17 Belgrade field office and, if so, co-ordinate this through the Registry.
18 Mr. Lukic, you were invited or you are invited to explore this
19 issue with the Registry, and I'd like to receive any updates on these
20 matters. And that apparently you were about to give, Mr. Groome.
21 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour. And just so the Chamber
22 fully understands the issue, the Belgrade field office of the ICTY relies
23 on a direct satellite link and not on the local internet provider. So
24 Mr. Lukic and myself have agreed to the following: The Registry does not
25 have extra computers which -- which Mr. Lukic can test the -- the speed
1 of the -- the satellite link. The Office of the Prosecutor does have
2 some spare computers down there, and I have arranged for Mr. Lukic to
3 conduct a testing of both systems by running the same search from the
4 internet terminal in his office and running that very same search on the
5 internet terminal in the field office. If Mr. Lukic finds that there is
6 a significant increase in speed such that it would assist him in using
7 the EDS system through the Belgrade field office, I have agreed to
8 explore with the Prosecutor and the Registrar the possibility of making a
9 permanent computer and work space available to the Mladic Defence team,
10 one that would respect the confidentiality of Defence preparations and
11 would likewise be isolated from OTP and Registry files.
12 So if Mr. Lukic after conducting such a test believes there's
13 such a benefit, all he need do is inform me and then I will explore the
14 matter further, and we can arrange for this test in a day or two. So I
15 would simply ask Mr. Lukic to advise us when he would like to conduct
16 this test.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, any further comments on this?
18 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I move to the third issue which was
20 discussed in this context, which is the summary information contained in
21 the EDS short description of the Mladic case-specific EDS indexes.
22 During the discussions at the Rule 65 ter meeting, the Chamber instructed
23 the Prosecution to file a report at the end of April as to the resolution
24 of this issue, and the Chamber hereby puts that instruction on the record
25 and further instructs the Prosecution that the report should address:
1 (1) whether the collections and related indexes are complete, (2) whether
2 the summary information has been sufficiently augmented upon completion
3 of the collections and indexes, and (3) if not complete when it is
4 expected to be completed.
5 That was the third issue. I don't think that there will be any
6 need for comments, but ...
7 Then I move to the final issue. The final issue being
8 Mr. Mladic's access to the Electronic Disclosure System in the
9 United Nations Detention Unit.
10 According to an informal update received from OLAD on the
11 23rd of March, this issue is now resolved, and Mr. Mladic now has secure
12 access from a computer in the UNDU. And, Mr. Lukic, you're unable to
13 confirm this at Monday's 65 ter meeting. Can you now confirm that that
14 matter has been properly arranged?
15 MR. LUKIC: Technically, yes; but in practice, no. Since
16 Mr. Mladic hasn't received any training yet, and he was just telling me
17 an hour ago that the technician who was -- who is in charge actually of
18 training him would be away until the 11th of the next month. So before
19 that date he wouldn't be able to start receiving any kind of training.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]
21 MR. LUKIC: And he would be able to use that computer and share
22 with others and would be able only to use it maybe couple of hours a day
23 depending on the schedule. So it is something that is still in practice
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I think it was considered to provide
1 additional training to Mr. Mladic anyhow. I think we then should further
2 explore when that training could take place, by whom it would be given,
3 and, of course, then we would further have to explore the availability of
4 the computer. I can imagine that it requires some arranging between
5 various detainees. But the technical part, then, has been completed.
6 MR. LUKIC: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't expect the Prosecution to be able to
8 say much about training of Mr. Mladic on -- in computer skills, but ...
9 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I think it would be very inappropriate
10 for us to have anything to do with that, so I would like to state on the
11 record that we couldn't have anything to do with that kind of training.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No, no, I was not even thinking of you
13 providing that training but even to be able to say anything about the
14 problem in itself, perhaps apart from that if Mr. Mladic would need
15 training, that you would applaud if he would receive it, but that's a
16 kind of very sweeping general statement which doesn't assist greatly.
17 Then I take it that this will be further explored with OLAD.
18 Have you taken initiatives already in that direction, Mr. Lukic?
19 MR. LUKIC: I just learned from Mr. Mladic that there are some
20 impediments regarding this training. I would try to see with the UNDU
21 management if they can allow me to spend maybe an hour or two tomorrow
22 with Mr. Mladic showing him basics and probably somebody else would be
23 able to show him much more. Of course, he will be needing a translator
24 at the same time, because everybody else who is using this system in the
25 UNDU speak English, so for Mr. Mladic who doesn't speak English would
1 also be very difficult to use the system.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say apart from training, language issues
3 may arise as well.
4 One second, please.
6 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the practicalities of what has now been
8 technically prepared need further attention and not to forget about the
9 language issue.
10 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Lukic, the Defence report maintains the
12 relief requested in its prior submissions on these issues. Now, in light
13 of the Rule 65 ter meeting discussions and the fact that Defence made
14 three submissions in addition to its 2nd of March report, the Chamber
15 requests that you specify exactly what relief you are requesting and
16 whether you seek a decision by the Chamber or wish to continue
17 negotiations with the Prosecution. And I'd like to give you an
18 opportunity to explain that now. So not further to argue why you need it
19 or why it's reasonable, but what subject matters -- on which subject
20 matters you seek relief in a decision by the Chamber and on what matters
21 you think that continuing negotiations with the Prosecution or with OLAD
22 would at this moment the most appropriate way to proceed.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. We would maintain all our
24 requests emphasised in those four motions, especially in the motion
25 from -- filed on 9th of February, 2012. Basically it comes to -- again
1 we have to come back to meta-data, to have all meta-data disclosed. And
2 we discovered that having the documents only in the EDS and through ZyLAB
3 would allow only the team members that work with ZyLAB to be able to
4 search the documents. For example, we wouldn't be able to give any
5 document to an expert witness in the format we have. So, again, the
6 Defence, although the Prosecution has completely different view -- but
7 the Defence would prefer to have the documents in tiff or pdf format to
8 be able --
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]
10 MR. LUKIC: -- to give it to the witnesses and the potential
11 witnesses and to expert witnesses.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now, your request to have it either in tiff or pdf,
13 help me because my recollection might not be complete in that. Had you
14 asked for that in the motions, the submissions you made until now, or is
15 it a new matter you're raising?
16 MR. LUKIC: We did -- give me one second.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, my staff confirms that you did. So it was
18 just -- I hope you understand that my recollection does not always serves
19 me well enough and then I just ask assistance to refresh my memory, but
20 that apparently is not new. Yes, any other relief you would like to --
21 meta-data, pdf and tiff format for --
22 MR. LUKIC: Either or. Or if they have half in pdf, half in
23 tiff, we would accept that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that you do not need them in
25 both formats.
1 MR. LUKIC: No.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, anything else remaining?
3 MR. LUKIC: That's it on this topic.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's this on this topic, because I do understood
5 you also asked for Mr. Mladic to have access to the EDS from the UNDU,
6 and that, of course, has been technically resolved so that relief is not
7 requested any further, although there is a remaining training problem and
8 availability problem.
9 MR. LUKIC: Yes. And if we have pdf or tiff format, we would be
10 able to provide the documents to Mr. Mladic, then he would be able to use
11 and search all the documents on his convenient time. Unlike -- and not
12 only during the time period he would be allocated that one computer they
13 have in UNDU.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say he would then not need access to
15 EDS for doing that job.
16 MR. LUKIC: Probably not.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. That's what you wanted to bring to our
18 attention as far as remaining relief is concerned. If you would give me
19 one second, please.
20 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Just to clarify matters, Mr. Lukic. In the 9th of
22 February filing, you requested re-disclosure of all the material. Is
23 that still a relief you are seeking?
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes. Yes, we need all the materials.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. On -- on the basis you -- you set out.
1 Then second, postponement of the start of the trial until all the
2 meta-data issues have been resolved, that also stands?
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that clarification.
5 MR. LUKIC: Mr. Groome, any comments in relation to what I just
6 discussed with Mr. Lukic?
7 MR. GROOME: Only that Ms. Stewart informs me that presently
8 there are -- many of the documents are in tiff form. Many are in pdf
9 form. There are some documents in Word form and I believe that's as a
10 Word document, and I believe that's the material that causes Mr. Lukic to
11 make this application to have re-disclosure. And just to remind the
12 Chamber that the present regime of second disclosure was done in full
13 consultation with the Defence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No further comments, Mr. Lukic?
15 MR. LUKIC: If I recall correctly, I think that batches eight --
16 seven and eight have those multi -- multipage tiff or multipage pdf
17 format documents disclosed to us. Otherwise, anything prior to that was
18 only in the single-page tiff format which cannot be used as a document.
19 Only you can utilise it through utilising ZyLAB or EDS.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Any technical comments on that? I must say
21 single-page tiff documents ring a bell to me. Getting one page and then
22 unable to look at the rest, that is something that is very familiar to
24 MR. GROOME: We would need to time to verify that, but at present
25 I have no basis for contradicting what Mr. Lukic said. Ms. Stewart does
1 inform me that beginning of that batch, a different format was used to
2 facilitate uploading the documents into ZyLAB at Mr. Lukic's request, I
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If there are no further comments on this,
5 then I'd like to move to the final issue in relation to disclosure is the
6 material within the tracking unit files.
7 Mr. Groome, at the Rule 65 ter meeting you stayed that disclosure
8 of this material was scheduled to be concluded this week, and my question
9 is, although the week is not over yet, whether disclosure is now
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, today the Prosecution has disclosed all
12 of the documents in this category of documents. I would ask Mr. Lukic to
13 review what has been disclosed today as soon as possible and we'll
14 address any problems he perceives as quickly as possible, but it is our
15 belief we have fully disclosed everything in this category.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that information. Mr. Lukic, if
17 there are any remaining issues, then you'll know how to approach
18 Mr. Groome.
19 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then I move on to the adjudicated facts.
21 On the 28th of February this year, the Trial Chamber issued its
22 first decision on adjudicated facts. In this decision, it instructed the
23 Prosecution to file an amendment to its witness list within two weeks of
24 the filing of the decision in relation to time estimates for witnesses
25 whose evidence is to be adjusted and to indicate which witnesses will be
2 On the 13th of March, the Prosecution filed it's submissions on
3 amending its witness list in light of the Chamber's first decision on
4 adjudicated facts in which it stated that the Prosecution is not in a
5 position to amend its witness list and that it will defer any decision in
6 this regard until the Chamber issues a decision on the rebuttal evidence
8 The Chamber accepts the approach outlined in the Prosecution's
9 filing to defer amending its witness list until a decision on the
10 rebuttal evidence procedure is filed. However, the Prosecution should
11 expect a shortened deadline of no more than a week after the filing of
12 the Chamber's decision. I further stress that the Prosecution should
13 already be preparing now instead of beginning to work on this after the
14 filing of the decision.
15 Any questions or comments in relation to the adjudicated facts?
16 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution has already begun its
17 analysis, but I don't want the Chamber to underestimate the amount of
18 work that that involves. For each adjudicated fact may be the product of
19 the evidence of several witnesses, maybe dozens of documents. It's
20 really a very time-consuming and detailed process of -- of sorting out
21 what evidence can be safely withdrawn in reliance on it, and of course if
22 we get that wrong, we could find ourselves at the end of the trial having
23 failed to meet our trial burden. So it's a task that we take very
24 seriously. We've already begun the process and one we will do as
25 diligently and carefully as we can. And of course we will always strive
1 to meet deadlines imposed by the Chamber, but I do want the Chamber to
2 fully appreciate the amount of work that's involved and this is all in
3 addition to the many other tasks that we are engaged in in preparing for
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently.
6 Perhaps I should have said I'd further like to stress that the Chamber is
7 fully confident that the Prosecution had already begun by preparing now
8 and that the Chamber would not have thought of the Prosecution beginning
9 to work on this only after the filing of the decision. That might have
10 been a more positive way of sending exactly the same message. There was
11 no misunderstanding about what kind of work it takes to deal with those
13 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then I move on to the agreed facts.
15 On the 16th of March, the parties have filed their fifth joint
16 submission on the progress of negotiations on agreed facts which
17 contained all those facts to which the parties have agreed and also an
18 update on negotiations regarding potential agreement about certain facts
19 relating to the Defence's alibi notices. This report was discussed at
20 Monday's -- this Monday's Rule 65 ter meeting, and at that same meeting
21 the parties also discussed possible agreement in relation to the Philipps
22 expert report.
23 In relation to the possibility of agreement upon facts relating
24 to the Defence's alibi notices, the parties were instructed to resume
25 negotiations. I now inform the parties that these negotiations should be
1 addressed in the parties' joint agreed facts submissions which are due
2 for the 27th of April of this year.
3 Mr. Groome, also in relation to this same issue, the
4 Prosecution's Rule 67(B)(ii) alibi rebuttal notice which was filed on the
5 16th of March includes 14 new witnesses and 32 documents that the
6 Prosecution seeks to add to its Rule 65 ter (E)(ii) lists. At page 2 of
7 the notice it states that each witness will cover one of five categories.
8 The Chamber is particularly interested in three of these categories,
9 specifically Mladic's travel to or from Belgrade, Mladic's
10 presence/whereabouts in Belgrade, and Mladic's presence in Belgrade
11 during the noticed period.
12 Mr. Groome, the Chamber wonders to what extent these new
13 witnesses and the additional evidence of witnesses already on your
14 witness list relate to matters that the Prosecution would otherwise be
15 willing to agree to. Therefore the Prosecution is instructed to inform
16 the Trial Chamber by the 27th of April whether it maintains its rebuttal
17 alibi notice request for additional of these witnesses and documents to
18 its witness and evidence lists or whether some may, in fact, no longer be
19 needed in light of the agreed facts negotiations.
20 MR. GROOME: We will do that, Your Honour, but if I could express
21 some of the difficulties that maybe the Chamber did not fully appreciate
22 when it gave us that deadline.
23 The alibi essentially is that Mr. Mladic attended some meetings
24 and was present at a wedding, and the Chamber gave us 29 days to
25 investigate that. The alibi centres around this wedding that took place
1 some 17 years ago. The Prosecution understands as one of its most
2 important functions to make sure that the Chamber has before it credible
3 and reliable evidence to be able to accurately adjudicate issues related
4 to this. We have done our best. We have tried to identify the witnesses
5 that we believe are necessary for this, but I must say I'm not confident
6 that we have identified all of the relevant evidence as yet. For
7 example, I can informed the Chamber that we have come across a video of
8 Mr. Mladic in the VMA hospital dated the 16th of July in which he appears
9 in his uniform as opposed to his suit, but his wife appears to be in the
10 same dress she appears in the wedding pictures and seems to have the same
11 floral corsage on her dress that she is wearing at the wedding.
12 I don't know whether this has been an inadvertent -- Mr. Mladic
13 has simply forgotten about this, but the Prosecution, again, in trying to
14 make sure that we do have all of the evidence necessary so that the
15 Chamber can make accurate finds with respect to this is still continuing
16 to investigate helicopter logs, travel logs, and doing our best to
17 investigate all of this. Certainly we will not call any evidence about a
18 matter with which we -- there's agreement or with which there's a
19 judiciously noticed fact, but I must impress upon the Chamber that it --
20 I'm not sure that before the 27th of April we will have been able to
21 fully investigate this event 17 years ago. Of course with all the other
22 things we are doing, we are doing our best to do so and we will keep the
23 Chamber informed about our progress.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's see how far you can come and of course this
25 deadline is set, and if you would seek an extension showing good cause to
1 say we have been able to explore this and this and this but not yet that
2 and that and that or we are still waiting for -- to find three or five
3 witnesses, then of course we would consider that.
4 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: In relation to the Philipps expert report,
6 Mr. McCloskey, you were to meet with the Defence's staff to see if there
7 was any potential agreement on the charts and lists contained in the
8 expert report. Has such a meeting taken place, and could you give any
9 information about progress that may have been made?
10 MR. GROOME: As it transpired, it was myself and Mr. Lukic who
11 spoke about it. And I think it's probably more appropriate for Mr. Lukic
12 to restate his position rather than having me do it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then we are now at a third person involved.
14 Mr. Lukic, we await your comments on observations.
15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Regarding Mr. Philipps, the
16 Defence stands by its position that Philipps is not qualified to be an
17 expert under Rule 94 bis. The reports authored by Philipps are not
18 appropriate under Rule as expert reports, that the same are erroneous,
19 unreliable and not credible. We believe that jurisprudence of the
20 Rule 94 bis and expert reports have certain standards that have to be
21 followed, and we would direct your attention to the case law of
22 Blagojevic and Jokic where it's -- and, for example, on their judgement
23 from 17 January 2005 at paragraph 27, and also there is jurisprudence on
24 Milutinovic where portions of expert testimony excluded but beyond the
25 direct knowledge and expertise of the witness.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- Mr. Lukic, you're now addressing a matter
2 which I invited you to ignore for a moment.
3 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You remember what we said during the 65 ter meeting;
5 that is, irrespective of whether you expect -- or whether you accept
6 Mr. Philipps as an expert, is what we find in the tables could
7 nevertheless be true or not true. And of course I asked you to focus on
8 that primarily, because if you would agree on the accuracy of the tables
9 irrespective of whether they were made by Mr. Philipps or a housewife or
10 whomever, if the outcome is correct, if you could agree on that, then of
11 course you could even leave any further discussion about the qualities of
12 Mr. Philipps apart. That's what I asked you to focus on. Would you
13 preferably first address that matter.
14 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, Mr. Philipps was proposed to be an
15 expert witness, so we cannot go beyond that. We have to address that
16 issue first. And we don't want to take the path that can lead us to the
17 practice that persons not qualified as experts could be -- or their work
18 could be accepted as expert work. If --
19 JUDGE ORIE: It misses the point I made, Mr. Lukic. If someone
20 who is not knowledgeable by chance produces a chart which would reflect
21 the composition of certain army units, and if you say you have -- you're
22 not qualified to do that, but by chance the result is accurate, then it's
23 not accepting the work of the expert any more, but then it comes down to
24 agreeing on the accuracy of a chart and then you strike out that it was
25 made by Mr. Philipps or by your next door neighbour or by the grocery
1 shop at the corner, and then you agree on what facts are contained in
2 there, and that's what I asked you to focus on.
3 MR. LUKIC: With all due respect, Your Honour, we cannot confirm
4 anything done by Mr. Philipps, and we do not have the obligation to do
6 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not talking about obligations. I invited you --
7 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- to look at the accuracy of a chart and to forget
9 about who produced it. If it's accurate in your view, and if it's
10 accurate in the view of the Prosecution, you could agree on the accuracy
11 of a chart. That is what we asked you to do, and from what I hear now is
12 more or less that you say, I don't want to look at it in this way.
13 MR. LUKIC: Bear with me for a second, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 [Defence counsel confer]
16 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, if you allow us, we would use help of
17 Mr. Petrusic, who is more an expert on that issue like Mr. McCloskey, and
18 he would check the charts, but we cannot do it before the next -- next
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey, you'll still be there after next
21 Wednesday, isn't it?
22 Then I suggest that Mr. Petrusic and Mr. McCloskey sit together,
23 look at the chart, forget about who produced them, and see whether it
24 accurately reflects what it says it reflects.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And then to see to what extent you could agree.
2 Perhaps you agree on 90 per cent but not on the last 5 per cent or not at
3 all. I'm not suggesting anything. But that is specifically what I asked
4 you to do in your conversations with the Prosecution. And I understand
5 that on from the middle of next week you'll give it a try to do that.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 Then may I take it that we'll then receive any -- an update on --
9 on whatever results from these conversations in the agreed facts progress
10 report, which is -- is due for the 27th of April.
11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 Mr. Petrusic I take it has now better understood what we
14 discussed during the last 65 ter meeting where, of course, he was not
16 Then I'd like to move on unless there are any further comments on
17 this matter.
18 MR. LUKIC: With your leave, Your Honour, can I consult --
19 consult with my client for one or two minutes?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. If it assists you, I've got two more
22 pages to go, that's it.
23 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. We can continue.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
1 I move on to the expert reports.
2 On the 20th of February, the Defence has filed its
3 Rule 94 bis (B) notice and objection in relation to the witness Philipps
4 and his proposed expert report.
5 You also may notice, Mr. Lukic, that earlier I dealt with agreed
6 facts, and now I'm dealing with expert reports. That's not the same
7 category exactly, and I think the discussions are to take place perhaps
8 based on charts which by chance resulted from someone working on
9 something which you considered not expert work, but I now move to the
11 The Defence filed its Rule 94 bis notice and objection in
12 relation to Witness Philipps and his proposed expert report. On the 23rd
13 of February, the Chamber instructed the Prosecution to file the proposed
14 expert report, and that is what the Prosecution did on the
15 24th of February.
16 On the 6th of March, 2012, the Defence filed a supplemental
17 notice to the original Rule 94 bis notice and objection in relation to
18 Witness Philipps in which the Defence stated that it may file additional
19 notices. On the 7th of March the Chamber informed the parties that the
20 Defence has until the 26th of March to file any additional notices,
21 following which the Prosecution has two weeks to respond.
22 Also on the 7th of March, the Prosecution requested the Chamber's
23 permission to file a single response to all the Defence's Rule 94 bis
24 notices regarding Witness Philipps, and on the 9th of March, through an
25 informal communication, the Chamber informed the Prosecution that it
1 could file a single response to the multiple defence notices. That
2 decision is hereby put on the record.
3 At the Rule 65 ter meeting, the Prosecution was instructed to
4 file a corrigendum to its pre-trial report by the end of this week. The
5 corrigendum is to update the category "status of reports," that column in
6 Annex C of the report, and make directions in relation to
7 Witness Dean Manning and that instruction is hereby also put on the
9 Finally, also at the Rule 65 ter meeting, the Prosecution
10 informed the Chamber and the Defence that the expert report of witness
11 General Dannatt is expected to be finalised on the 23rd of April and
12 filed shortly thereafter.
13 Mr. Lukic, perhaps unnecessarily, but I remind you that the
14 Defence 30-day notice deadline begin running from the date of filing of
15 that report.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Any comments or questions in relation to expert
18 reports? If not, I move to the next item on my agenda, which is an
19 invitation to the parties and to the accused, Mr. Mladic, to address the
20 Chamber on any additional matter.
21 Mr. Groome.
22 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour. This relates to disclosure.
23 On the 19th of September, 2011, the Prosecution on its own initiative
24 filed a first Prosecution report on pre-trial preparations. The Chamber
25 will recall that in paragraph 2 of that submission the Prosecution
1 considered that filing such reports would assist the Pre-Trial Judge in
2 discharging your responsibilities under the Rules, and particularly
3 Rule 65 ter (B), an oversight of the disclosure of materials under
4 Rule 66 and 68. The Chamber will also recall that in paragraphs 7 to 32,
5 the Prosecution set out in a very detailed and transparent way the
6 procedures that we would follow to discharge this most important duty.
7 In any -- in addition to the objections raised by Mr. Lukic, the
8 Prosecution recognises it has an independent obligation to disclose
9 potentially exculpatory material. As the Appeals Chamber in the Karemera
10 and Bralo cases has reminded us, it is one of our most important
11 functions and it is an independent obligation. We are bound to discharge
12 this duty irrespective of whether Mr. Mladic -- the Mladic Defence
13 demands materials or complains about the way in which we conduct our
14 reviews. We have also done this in a detailed and transparent way so
15 that the Chamber may, irrespective of any complain, that the Defence
16 advise the Prosecution whether it is of the view that we are complying
17 with the -- in our disclosure practices with the Rules and the relevant
19 To date the Trial Chamber has not directed the Prosecution to
20 amend its review procedures. We understand this to be an affirmation
21 that we are discharging our responsibilities in a way consistent with the
22 Rules and jurisprudence -- and jurisprudence. If we have misinterpreted
23 this, it would be helpful for the Chamber to make its views known before
24 we complete this review process which now is in its final weeks.
25 Obviously should the Chamber find any significant fault in the
1 way we have conducted our reviews, we will have to change our review
2 procedures, and we will have to adapt our work accordingly. Knowing this
3 prior to discharging the legal consultants and reviewers specifically
4 hired for this project would be most appreciated by the Prosecution.
5 Thank you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome. It will not come as a
7 surprise to you that I will not immediately respond to this, and I think
8 you were quite optimistic that you thought that I would recall
9 paragraphs 7 to 32 of a certain submission. I think I have a relatively
10 well overview, but I would really first have to re-read that, then
11 discuss it with my colleagues and with the Chambers staff, and then we'll
12 consider what response will be given to the observations you just made.
13 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If any. I repeat that because you had said you
15 would appreciate to have it affirmed by the Chamber. Of course, we will
16 first have to consider whether we can affirm it, yes or no, and whether
17 it would be for us to affirm it or -- but again I have to re-read a lot
18 of materials. I have to re-read your submissions and then to think about
19 it, and then you'll finally know whether and in what way the Chamber
20 responds to what you just said.
21 MR. GROOME: We appreciate the Chamber's consideration of the
22 matter. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any other matter, Mr. Groome?
24 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, any matter to be raised in addition to
1 what we have discussed today?
2 MR. LUKIC: The members of the Defence team have nothing else to
3 add. Maybe Mr. Mladic would like to address the Court.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. He was the next one. I said that -- that I
5 would invite the parties and the accused, of course.
6 Mr. Mladic, is there anything you'd like to add or to raise which
7 is appropriately be raised at a Status Conference? If there's anything,
8 please proceed.
9 If you prefer to remain seated, I would not object to that. I
10 leave it to you.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would not like to be ironic. You
12 did put it rightly here that I am seated in the courtroom. The security
13 can sit down, and I would like the camera to zoom in on me. I will not
14 be making any gestures. I merely want them to see that I'm alive.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, there are standing instructions for what
16 is on what camera. There are six cameras here. One of them certainly is
17 upon you. I think everyone who has followed these proceedings knows that
18 you are alive.
19 Please proceed.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, I did tell you earlier
21 that time is endless, and I did make a graph that I gave to Mr. Petrusic.
22 He hails from the mount of Romanija where I spent the better part of my
23 life during the war defending, as far as I was able to, the mount of
24 Romanija as well as the other mountains, the Knin area and beyond, all
25 the way to the VMA; and as the gentleman said, how come I was wearing a
1 uniform in the VMA? And since I am in the courtroom, I will sit down so
2 that the security need not be on their feet, and can you please tell me
3 how many minutes do I have at my disposal to speak because I do have some
4 observations to make, some of which you may like and others perhaps not,
5 and then I will sit down and speak in detail, because I'm interested in
6 the truth and nothing but the truth. I am not defending myself, and I am
7 the one who knows my own mind the best, and I want all those who gave
8 some -- whatever sort of statements, who liked me or disliked me to be
9 called here either by telephone or by videolink or in writing in a
10 language that I am familiar with. I would like all these to be given to
11 me, because I received those two indictments from the Prosecution. I am
12 a person of advanced age, nearly 70. I was born on the
13 8th of March, 1943. That was another thing that I wanted to correct.
14 There was an error.
15 You said that you were a good mathematician, and I immediately
16 calculated 70 plus 22, that's 92, and then if you deduct, you get to 41.
17 Perhaps I could be granted 41 minutes to speak, and if need be, you can
18 interrupt me.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, first of all, the security acts in
20 accordance with their instructions. That's what they're going to do and
21 they're happy to stand if that's in their instructions. That's point
23 Second, you may have noticed that matters like receiving all the
24 material was, although perhaps in a very technical way, part of our
25 discussions today and of last Monday.
1 Now, the time you would need depends very much on whether you can
2 be focused on matters which are appropriately raised during a
3 Status Conference. Therefore, I would suggest try to be focused.
4 Clearly indicate what matter you want to address and then do it as
5 efficiently as possible. We will follow what you say and then I would
6 say if you could finish in -- well, let's say in 15 minutes, that would
7 be appreciated. If that's not possible, I would grant you 20 minutes, as
8 long as you keep focused on what is appropriately raised in a
9 Status Conference.
10 You may proceed.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I do agree 20 minutes,
12 and, lads, you can sit down. Thank you very much, Mr. Orie.
13 I made a note of what I'm about to say to you. Firstly, time is
14 running away for both you and I. I am in no hurry. The only question
15 remains of who is going to be the first one to join the one up there.
16 I will not be attacking those who are prosecuting me.
17 Mr. Wilkomski [as interpreted], perhaps, a Pole; or Mr. Groome, is he of
18 Germanic origin; and you, according to the information I have, you're a
19 Dutchman, I have nothing against that. I appreciate the fact that you
20 were born, that you are alive and that you represent this Tribunal that
21 was set up by the UN Security Council. Whatever the circumstances
22 involved, I will not be going into that. Both you and I are interested
23 in the truth, and where it comes to the truth, I need to raise certain
24 issues for reasons of my health.
25 First of all, my right side of the body is numb. I still have
1 not regained my full feeling for the right leg and hand, and that's why
2 it's difficult for me to handle the mouse. It's true that I was given,
3 as Mr. Lukic said, in room number 7 an hour or an hour and a half to work
4 on the computer, but I'm still unable to access the system.
5 Mr. Yaqub [phoen], who I think is some sort of an expert, will be away
6 until the 11th of April. I settled the matter with Mr. Petrov, who is a
7 native of Bulgaria and is a representative of this Tribunal, as well as
8 with Mr. Kennedy. I wrote a request, and he told me that another expert
9 would be assigned to me. I also asked for an interpreter because what am
10 I to do with somebody who is knowledgeable about it if don't know
12 I have a password that was given to me for that machine, and this
13 is the password that only I and you and perhaps your superior Ban Ki-Moon
14 can be aware of. Let me mention him as well whom has rewarded you as
15 Judges and the Prosecutor as well, whereas those who are defending me are
16 not really boasting with the pay they get. They are silent on the matter
17 which means that things aren't that good. But let us proceed. You say a
18 fair trial and I am all for it. You can prosecute me and convict me to
19 your liking. Am I guilty? Am I innocent? And to what extent? That is
20 all in your hands.
21 What am I complaining of? Statistics. You, not you personally,
22 but those who established the Tribunal, they also established the
23 procedure; i.e., what the guard will look like, what the Judge will look
24 like, what the Prosecution will wear, what my lawyers will wear, what the
25 staff will look like. I suppose they come from the Registry. And this
1 gentleman here as well.
2 I can have no influence over that, and nor can my Defence. Your
3 procedure is something that everybody's supposed to adhere to. I know
4 that I am in prison. I know that I was given the permission to go to
5 room number 7, but I am not -- I have not been trained to work on the
6 computer. I have my password, but if I give it to my -- to the
7 interpreter and to the policeman who was helping me get my way with the
8 computer, then I -- they changed the password and they get me -- they
9 give me a new password the following day. But I am very slow, and I've
10 only been given an hour or 45 minutes in certain intervals, and because
11 of my health condition, it takes me very long to read one page. For
12 instance, this one page I took the whole day to write. So I need to have
13 an opportunity of not an hour and 45 minutes, but more. Can I be allowed
14 in that room number 7 to train myself at the expense of my sleep time?
15 There are various colleagues there from Seselj to others, Croats,
16 Muslims, Albanians who are there with me, but I need to have time enough
17 to read these documents.
18 You've given me the indictment on several occasions. Mr. Lukic,
19 Mr. Saljic all brought the indictment to me, but it takes me time to read
21 Everything that has been adjudicated, it may be the best in terms
22 of your legal profession that I know nothing of. It may be the
23 Holy Scripture, perhaps even more than that, but I will not accept
24 anything that's been adjudicated, X, Y, Z, in any other part of the
25 world. I am at trial here. Do not deny Lukic of anything. Do not
1 interfere with him.
2 Mr. Groome and Mr. McCloskey and their team, they can swamp us
3 with whatever they want.
4 Mr. Groome, if you want me, I can tell you about the wedding, and
5 I can tell you what sort of underwear I was wearing at the VMA, and you
6 can't possibly know that without me. And you have no right to exert
7 pressure on my wife or my family.
8 JUDGE ORIE: One second. I try to assist you in keeping focused.
9 The issue of time available on the computer and additional training, we
10 discussed earlier that that would be further explored, and that's what's
11 going to happen. That's one.
12 Second, adjudicated facts. You said you opposed to anything, to
13 accept any adjudicated fact. Well, that's more or less what Mr. Lukic
14 said in his response to the Prosecution's motion. So therefore, what
15 you're telling us now has been -- I'd say has been clearly expressed by
16 Mr. Lukic and doesn't need any further consideration apart from that to
17 the extent the Chamber has decided on the motion which until now was in
18 two decisions that apparently Mr. Lukic is seeking to appeal those
19 decisions and the Prosecution will respond to that. We'll deal with
20 those matters in an orderly legal procedural matter. And if you say but
21 it's you that all defined what the rules are here, I can tell you that
22 that is true for all the legal systems in the world, that it's the --
23 those responsible for the system, they adopt the rules, and those who are
24 in that system in whatever position, Prosecution, Defence, accused,
25 Judges, they will have to abide by those rules.
1 Could you please then move on to your next subject.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Judge, I would not like to
3 appear incoherent. Let me just say that on the 16th of July, 1995, and
4 the VMA and me wearing the uniform, can I just be allowed to say
5 something about it? Can I clarify this issue so that it's easier for
6 you, the Prosecution, and my soul?
7 From what I remember --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there. I said you can address
9 whatever you want what can be appropriately be addressed during a
10 Status Conference. At a Status Conference, the content of evidence or
11 potential evidence is not to be discussed. I even would stress that by
12 explaining now how it all was, we find ourselves in the situation that we
13 are discussing potential evidence, that you're giving a statement where
14 you might even create prejudice for yourself. I would advise you to seek
15 the advice of Mr. Lukic whether or not to further expound on those
16 evidentiary matters. I can assure you that the issue of whereabouts in
17 the context of an alibi will be fully explored and litigated as far as I
18 can see it now, apart from those portions where, apparently, the parties
19 seem to agree on your whereabouts.
20 Mr. Lukic, I'll give you an opportunity to consult with your
22 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. Please proceed, Mr. Mladic.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Mr. Orie. Once I start
1 going, I have a tendency to raise my voice, but this is due to my medical
2 condition, so please forgive me.
3 I know that this could be irritating, so please feel free to
4 criticise me for that.
5 Now, as for the number of witnesses, there was some mention of
6 that, and I am insisting that all potential witnesses, as well as those
7 who had given statements, and I accept that they appear here so that I
8 can have an opportunity whether the person is a male or a female, whether
9 he is a foreigner or a national of my country, whether he was a member of
10 UNPROFOR, et cetera. Glory be to all of those who lost their lives and
11 appeared before the God, but I am not accepting any written statements.
12 The only evidence that I accept is something that is to be said here in
13 the courtroom, whether it being complimentary or whether it be criticism
14 of myself. So I would like to hear everyone, Croats, Muslims, Albanians,
15 because throughout the whole of my life, I worked with soldiers from
16 across Yugoslavia, from Slovenia to Macedonia. I spent 30 years as a
17 commander in Macedonia. You can find an enormous number of people who
18 know me, just like the medical team knows everything about me, the team
19 at that scanned me from head to toe.
20 Now, let me draw a parallel here.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let me briefly respond to what you just said. I do
22 understand that you would wish every witness to appear before this Court.
23 Now, to what extent that will happen depends on various matters. The
24 parties will present their case in the way they deem it fit to present
25 their case. Now, if a party suggests that we could do on a certain
1 matter with a written statement, then that party proposes to receive that
2 evidence in the form of a written statement, then the other party will
3 respond to that request, and finally the Chamber will decide, first of
4 all, whether such a written statement will be accepted or not, and
5 second, whether even if the evidence is presented in the form of a
6 written statement, whether that witness still has to appear for
7 cross-examination, to be cross-examined by the other party.
8 These rules apply both to the Prosecution and to the Defence. I
9 think it's clear on the record that you would wish every piece of
10 evidence to -- introduced through viva voce evidence.
11 Could you please move on to your next subject.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, what is viva voce? Oh,
13 it means live. Okay.
14 Now, on to another topic. The Socialist Federal Republic of
15 Yugoslavia is no longer. The FRY also doesn't exist any more. The
16 Commonwealth of Serbia and Montenegro doesn't exist any more. All the
17 burden lies now on Serbia and the Serbian people and Republika Srpska and
18 us, Serb detainees. It's one and the same people and it's one and the
19 same land only divided by the River Drina.
20 What I might object when it comes to Mr. Lukic, that he's using
21 the term the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Now, what is that? That
22 does not exist. If he had said the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina that
23 would be all right in line with the Dayton Accords. The Prosecutor's
24 office of the State of Bosnia-Herzegovina does not exist. There may be a
25 Prosecutor's office of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is a
1 coalition of Croats, Herzegovinians and Muslims. This is a fact.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I again interrupt you. If you are not happy with
3 the terminology used by Mr. Lukic, please discuss it with him. It's not
4 a matter for the Chamber at this moment to deal with. Could you please
5 move to your next subject.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was those gentlemen who first
7 used the term the State of Bosnia-Herzegovina. War crime against peace
8 was committed against the SFRY, but I'll leave it at that. I will come
9 back to this issue when the time comes.
10 Now, I'm wondering why we, the detainees from Republika Srpska
11 such as myself, don't have an opportunity to be visited by officials from
12 Republika Srpska. Truth to tell, some people are coming from Serbia, and
13 I'm referring to Consul Brkic. This is our country. This is our land.
14 We are one people. And, therefore, I would kindly ask for permission for
15 visits to be paid by the officials who are in power in Republika Srpska
16 at the moment, because in my eyes that is a proper state.
17 Following the Dayton agreement, no matter how much I participated
18 in the creation of Republika Srpska, I am not requesting or demanding
19 anything. Let them just come over and visit me. I learned from the
20 media that they are at each other's throats. I was watching on Hayat TV
21 that there was a group of Serb fighters, another group of Muslim
22 fighters, and a third group of Croat fighters, and they went on strike
23 against everyone. Now, if this gentleman is seeking evidence, why
24 doesn't he call Divjak from Belgrade? He's an expert. I want to
25 question him. He killed officers, JNA officers, on Dobrovoljacka street.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, you invited me to interrupt you when you
2 raised your voice. That's what I'm doing at this moment. You started
3 with a matter which is appropriately raised during a Status Conference,
4 that is that you have some difficulties with the -- who is allowed to
5 visit you, yes or no. Now, that is a matter which is not within the
6 competence of the Chamber. It has no direct impact on the proceedings.
7 Nevertheless, it's hereby on the record, and this means that the
8 Registrar who is responsible for the UN Detention Unit, that you may
9 address him on the matter. Mr. Lukic knows how to do it. It may be a
10 complicated matter in terms of statehood or not. I totally stay out of
11 that. Your request and your wish is clearly on the record and will be
12 considered by those competent to deal with it.
13 Next subject, please. May I remind you that we are at about the
14 20 minutes, so if you would please try to finish within the next five or
15 six minutes.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Five minutes. Thank you. I'm
17 grateful for the six minutes as well.
18 What I'm interested in is freedom and peace. I don't want you to
19 give me freedom. I want to fight for it, because I would like to go and
20 live in Belgrade, the capital of the Serbian nation, as a free man. I
21 would like to go back to my wife, my son, my daughter-in-law, and my
22 grandchildren, even if I have to go and live on the alms. I don't want
23 any humanitarian aid provided to me by the US embassy, just like those
24 villains who brought me here. And now I'm publicly demanding that the US
25 General Wesley Clark be summoned here to testify against or for me.
1 Never mind. He was in at least 14 states and at least 16 wars.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You invited me to interrupt you when you raised your
3 voice. I do it again.
4 You are now entering again the matter of who should appear on
5 whoever's behalf as witnesses before this Court. That is a matter which
6 is not appropriately raised in a Status Conference. Would you please
7 move to your next subject.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Since I
9 have four minutes left, let me ask you this: Do I have the right at a
10 Status Conference to be at least present when Mr. Groome and
11 Mr. McCloskey are discussing issues with my Defence lawyers? I would
12 like to clarify some things for them and save them effort of travelling
13 to Macedonia or wherever. They don't need to investigate whether I
14 attended that wedding. I attended hundreds of weddings in my life. And
15 with this I would like to finish. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mladic. You -- if you give me one
18 Mr. Mladic, the type of meetings which are held prior to this
19 Status Conference are called Rule 65 ter meetings. It is mainly a
20 meeting between the parties. They are often called and organised by the
21 senior legal officers, or it's not even necessary that one of the Judges
22 is present, although I thought it wise to attend those meetings, and the
23 Rules specifically say that:
24 "The presence of the accused is not necessary for meetings
25 convened by the senior legal officer."
1 And these are what we call the 65 ter meetings. Now, if there is
2 any matter which you would like to be introduced at such a 65 ter
3 meeting, you of course can instruct Mr. Lukic to raise these matters, and
4 we heard today that some of the matters that are of your concerns were
5 actually raised by Mr. Lukic. If there is any matter that you feel
6 uncomfortable to have them discussed in your absence, you could ask
7 Mr. Lukic to tell those present at the 65 ter meeting that he would
8 prefer to deal with a certain matter during the Status Conference in your
9 presence, and I take it he'll then discuss it with you and ultimately
10 will take care that final discussions are not held between the parties
11 without you knowing about it or without you being present during such
13 This is a short, perhaps rather technical answer to your -- to
14 your observations.
15 Mr. Mladic, you said that is what you wished to say and to finish
16 with. Thank you for your comments.
17 If there's no other matter to be raised, I would adjourn, and --
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one minute.
19 JUDGE ORIE: One minute, Mr. Mladic, on a matter appropriately
20 raised during a Status Conference.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Since you explained this nicely to
22 me, I would like to improve my relationship with this Court, with all
23 people involved. In the future, I'm going to rise when you enter, I will
24 bow, and I will sit down when you tell me. Not because I respect you so
25 much, but because I would like to take part in this as an accused, and I
1 would like to do that in a fair manner. All you're going to get from me
2 is the truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mladic. It did not remain unnoticed
4 when I entered the courtroom that everyone rising, you did not. I did
5 not comment on it. I left it entirely to you, but it's highly
6 appreciated that you say that you will join all the others in standing
7 when the Judges enter the courtroom. It's appreciated.
8 We adjourn, and I have to -- the next Status Conference will take
9 place --
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn until the 24th of April, the next
12 Status Conference, time and courtroom to be specified by the Registry at
13 a later stage. We stand adjourned.
14 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned
15 at 5.49 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,
16 the 24th day of April, 2012.