1 Monday, 19 November 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
10 I've been informed that there were no preliminaries, which means
11 that - this is also to inform the public - that we'll move into closed
12 session and we will remain in closed session for quite a while.
13 We turn into closed session.
14 [Closed session]
11 Pages 5332-5404 redacted. Closed session.
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to deliver guidance and interim
2 instructions on tendering redacted transcripts and statements pursuant to
3 Rule 92 bis of the Rules.
4 On the 28th of September of this year, the Prosecution filed its
5 sixth motion to admit written statement and transcript in lieu of oral
6 testimony pursuant to Rule 92 bis. In its response of the
7 25th of October, the Defence argues that the Prosecution tenders redacted
8 versions of the transcripts and excludes parts that are crucial for
9 determining the reliability of the witnesses. The Defence submits that
10 verifying the redactions of the Prosecution imposes an excessive burden
11 on the Defence due to the time-consuming nature of this task and because
12 some of the testimonies were heard in closed session. Accordingly, the
13 Defence urges the Chamber to provide guide-lines on the use of redaction
14 in transcripts.
15 On the 1st of November, the Prosecution requested leave to reply,
16 which the Chamber granted on the 5th of November, 2012, and informed the
17 parties accordingly through an informal communication. In its reply of
18 the 1st of November, the Prosecution submits that admitting redacted
19 transcripts is in the interests of justice and in accordance with the
20 Chamber's guidance. The Prosecution urges the Chamber to adopt an
21 approach that is similar to the one it has taken in relation to
22 Rule 92 quater motions.
23 The Chamber draws the parties' attention to its decision on
24 Prosecution motion to admit the evidence of Witness RM266 pursuant to
25 Rule 92 quater, a decision of the 22nd of July, 2012. In paragraph 14 of
1 that decision, the Chamber indicated that Rule 92 quater does not require
2 that the witness's testimony should be tendered in its entirety. The
3 tendering party should only tender for admission the portions of a
4 transcript upon which it wants to rely, including any portions necessary
5 to contextualise or clarify those portions. The other party in its
6 response to the motion should add any portions it considers relevant to
7 the proper understanding of the witness's testimony.
8 The Chamber adopts the same approach in relation to those
9 redacted transcripts or statements that are tendered in accordance with
10 Rule 92 bis. The Chamber adds that the tendering party, although it is
11 allowed to select the portions of the evidence it deems relevant to
12 support its case, must abstain from the redactions that could result in
13 misleading presentation of the evidence.
14 Accordingly, given that the Defence has access to unredacted
15 transcripts and statements, if the Defence is of the view that the
16 Prosecution has excluded important parts of the transcripts in its
17 tendering, it is up to the Defence to indicate those relevant portions
18 and to seek their admission in its response should the motion be granted.
19 The Chamber has considered the burden the aforementioned
20 procedure places on the Defence and is of the opinion that also the
21 tendering of unredacted transcripts and statements would require the
22 Defence to thoroughly familiarise itself with all the documents.
23 Accordingly, any additional burden this procedure places on the Defence
24 is outweighed by considerations of judicial efficiency and the need to
25 ensure hearing within a reasonable time. If, however, the Defence is of
1 the opinion that the time allocated for the response is not sufficient to
2 verify the redactions, the Defence may seek an extension of time to
3 respond. In relation to the Defence's difficulties arising from closed
4 session testimonies, the Chamber notes that according to Rule 75(F)(ii),
5 protective measures are no bar to disclosure and this testimony should
6 have been disclosed to the Defence. In its reply, the Prosecution
7 confirmed that closed session testimonies are being disclosed to the
9 Thus, the Chamber instructs the Defence to file an amendment to
10 its response, if any, indicating portions of the redacted transcripts it
11 considers relevant and which it seeks to have admitted should the motion
12 be granted. The dead-line for this amendment is set as two weeks from
14 And this concludes the Chamber's guidance on the interim
16 Final matter the Chamber would like to briefly address is
17 scheduling of witnesses further this week. The Chamber has understood
18 that the Prosecution would prefer to have the gap which is the result of
19 one witness that could not be called this week to have it in the middle
20 of the week rather than at the end of the week. Ms. Marcus, is that the
22 Ms. Marcus: Maxine Marcus for the Prosecution, Your Honours.
23 Yes, yes, sir, that's correct.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now, if you would have asked us this at the
25 moment when it became clear that there would be gap or at the moment when
1 Chambers staff again verified which was done last Friday whether there
2 would be any chance that another witness would be called, if you would
3 have done it at that time we might have agreed to that. But the Chamber
4 has and the individual Judges have adapted their own schedule in the
5 expectation that evidence as scheduled for this week, that it would be
6 elicited that the witnesses would be called one after another. And
7 therefore, the Chamber would have great difficulties in allowing such a
8 gap apart from the risks which are involved in not sitting before we have
9 heard all the evidence of those witnesses. So the Chamber at this moment
10 is not inclined to follow your suggestion.
11 MS. MARCUS: I understand, Your Honour. Thank you. Could I
12 please just ask a follow-up question. With respect to -- I wonder if we
13 should possibly go into private session, please.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
15 [Private session]
11 Pages 5410-5411 redacted. Private session.
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day and we will resume tomorrow,
15 Tuesday, the 20th of November, at 9.30 in the morning in this same
16 courtroom, III.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 20th day of
19 November, 2012, at 9.30 a.m.