1 Thursday, 3 October 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.36 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case
9 number IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 The Chamber was informed that the Defence had a short preliminary
12 matter -- the Prosecution, yes. I'm looking at the Prosecution. That
13 the Prosecution wanted to raise a matter.
14 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Your Honour. It will be very brief so I think
15 the witness could even be brought in but first ...
16 JUDGE ORIE: I have a few other things before the witness can be
17 brought in.
18 MR. TRALDI: I think will be best addressed once we've gone into
19 closed session for that purpose.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll wait for that.
21 What I'd like to do is first to deliver two decisions on behalf
22 of the Chamber. The first one is -- the Chamber will deal with the
23 Defence notice, objection and motion to bar Witness Riedlmayer from
24 testifying as an expert which was filed on the 7th of June, 2013.
25 The Prosecution responded to the motion on the
1 18th of June, 2013.
2 With regard to the applicable law concerning expert evidence, the
3 Chamber refers to its decision concerning Richard Butler, filed on the
4 19th of October, 2012.
5 With regard to Riedlmayer's expertise, the Defence submits that
6 Riedlmayer should be disqualified as an expert and the Prosecution should
7 be barred from presenting his evidence. However, both parties
8 acknowledge that Riedlmayer is an expert and the matter in dispute is
9 limited to the exact scope of his expertise and whether his report goes
10 beyond that scope. The Chamber is satisfied that Riedlmayer is an expert
11 who can assist the Chamber on matters related to the destruction of
12 cultural monuments in Bosnia-Herzegovina. As for the exact scope of
13 Riedlmayer's expertise, the Chamber considers that this can be explored
14 during the examination of the witness in court.
15 Similarly, as for any arguments related to the content and
16 methodology of the Riedlmayer report, the Chamber considers that such
17 matters should be addressed during the examination of the witness. The
18 Chamber defers its decision on admission of the report to the time of the
19 witness's testimony. With regard to the Defence request to cross-examine
20 the witness, the Chamber notes that he will be called to testify and the
21 Defence will therefore have the opportunity to cross-examine him.
22 Based on the foregoing, the Chamber decides that
23 Witness Riedlmayer may testify as an expert witness and denies the
24 Defence request to bar the Prosecution from presenting his evidence.
25 This concludes the Chamber's decision on the Defence notice,
1 objection, and motion to bar Witness Riedlmayer from testifying.
2 Next decision I'll deliver is a decision on the Prosecution's
3 24th emotion to admit evidence pursuant to Rule 92 bis. This decision
4 will be delivered orally. That is not the new practice of the Chamber so
5 therefore it is exceptional.
6 The Chamber, as I said, will now deliver its decision on the
7 Prosecution's 24th Rule 92 bis motion, filed on the 3rd of April, 2013.
8 In its motion, the Prosecution tendered the evidence of five witnesses.
9 The Defence responded on the 16th of July, 2013, opposing the motion in
10 relation to four witnesses. On the 22nd of July, the Prosecution
11 requested leave to reply to the response and submitted a more legible
12 version of one of the tendered statements. Considering that the motion
13 covers five witnesses, the Chamber grants the Prosecution's request to
14 exceed the word limit in its motion. The Chamber is further satisfied
15 that it is assisted by the reply and therefore grants the requested leave
16 to reply.
17 The Chamber refers to the parties' filings for their submissions
18 and the Chamber's previous Rule 92 bis decision of the
19 19th of October, 2012, for the applicable law.
20 The Chamber will now analyse whether the proffered documents meet
21 the requirements of Rule 89(C) and 92 bis.
22 First, having reviewed the proffered documents, the Chamber
23 considers them to relate, inter alia, to alleged sniping and shelling
24 incidents in Sarajevo as well as to alleged ethnic violence in Grbavica
25 in 1992. As you such, the Chamber is satisfied as to the evidence's
1 relevance vis-a-vis the indictment. The Chamber further considers that
2 the statements appear to be internally consistent. The Defence's
3 objections that two witnesses provide speculative testimony relate to
4 small parts of the evidence; hence, do not affect the documents'
5 probative value to such an extent as to require exclusion or that the
6 witnesses be called for cross-examination. The Defence's submission as
7 to inconsistencies in Witness Beslic's evidence goes to the weight to be
8 given to the evidence at a later stage. Accordingly, the Chamber finds
9 that the proffered evidence is of probative value as required under
10 Rule 89(C). No, I said -- yes, 89(C).
11 Second, the Chamber notes that the proffered documents do not
12 concern the acts and conduct of the accused.
13 Third, the statements of the witnesses are either accompanied by
14 the required attestation pursuant to Rule 92 bis (B) or were attested to
15 by the witnesses in prior Tribunal proceedings.
16 Fourth, the proffered documents are of a cumulative nature with
17 respect to the evidence of witnesses who have already testified before
18 the Chamber, as well as generally consistent with adjudicated facts of
19 which this Chamber has taken judicial notice. The proffered evidence
20 concerns crime-base evidence.
21 Fifth, in relation to the associated exhibits tendered in the
22 motion, the Chamber is satisfied that as the documents were discussed by
23 the witnesses in their written evidence to such an extent that their
24 non-admission would decrease the probative value of the written evidence,
25 they form an inseparable and indispensable part of the statements or
1 transcripts to which they are associated. The Chamber is further
2 unconvinced by the Defence submission that Witness Zaimovic's notes are
3 in essence unofficial medical records which require cross-examination to
4 test their reliability. The point raised by the Defence, again, related
5 to the weight to be given to the evidence and not its admissibility.
6 Lastly, the Chamber notes that some portions of Witness Hajir's
7 statement are very general conclusions by the witness that do not assist
8 the Chamber. As such, the Chamber decides that these portions, namely
9 paragraphs 14 and 59, should be redacted.
10 For these reasons, the Chamber finds that the proffered evidence
11 is admissible pursuant to Rule 92 bis. The Prosecution has tendered
12 limited portions of the transcripts from previous cases, which supplement
13 the evidence in the witness statements. The Chamber finds that the
14 tendering of this transcript evidence complies with the Chamber's
15 guidance on this matter. Accordingly, the Chamber grants the motion and
16 admits the following into evidence:
17 For Witness Beslic: The statement of the 30th of January, 2007,
18 and related attestation, as well as the excerpts of his testimony in the
19 Dragomir Milosevic case as specified in Annex A of the motion.
20 For Witness Gavrankapetanovic: The statements of 11 of October,
21 2001, 13 December 2001, and 17th January, 2002, plus the related
22 attestations, as well as the excerpts of his testimony in the Galic case
23 and the three associated exhibits, all specified in Annex A to the
25 For Witness Hajir: The redacted statement of 25 February 2010,
1 plus the table of concordance, as well as the excerpts of his testimony
2 in the Karadzic case and the three associated exhibits, all specified in
3 Annex A of the motion.
4 For Witness Zaimovic: The statement of the
5 26th of February, 2010, as well as the excerpts of her testimony in the
6 Karadzic case and the two associated exhibits, all specified in Annex A
7 of the motion.
8 For witness RM141: The statement of 5 February 2011, as well as
9 the excerpts of the witness's testimony in the Karadzic case and the two
10 associated exhibits, all specified in Annex C of the motion. The
11 statement and the first associated exhibit listed in Annex C are admitted
12 under seal.
13 The Registry is hereby requested to assign numbers to the
14 documents admitted into evidence and inform the parties and the Chamber
15 of the numbers so assigned.
16 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
17 For the testimony of the next witness, we move into closed
19 [Closed session]
11 Pages 17796-17880 redacted. Closed session.
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
6 Madam Registrar informs me that the number P2367, which was just
7 assigned to 65 ter number 02839, that we don't need that number because
8 that -- this same document has already been admitted into evidence under
9 number P2443. Therefore, the number can be -- the number 2 -- no. I'm
10 now making a mistake.
11 65 ter number 02839, which was assigned P2443 today, there is no
12 need to admit it twice because the same document is already in evidence
13 as P2367, and therefore P2443 is vacated.
14 I'll try to be as quick as possible. First, I put on the record
15 that the Chamber earlier this morning delivered a decision in
16 closed session in which leave was granted to add a document, document
17 65 ter 30316, to the Prosecution's exhibit list.
18 Then next item. On the 26th of April of this year, the
19 Prosecution sought to add 23 documents to its Rule 65 ter exhibit list.
20 The documents relate to Witness Andras Riedlmayer. Having reviewed the
21 documents and in light of the fact that the Defence had not opposed the
22 Prosecution's request, the Chamber finds that it's in the interest of
23 justice to have them added and therefore grants leave to add them to the
24 Rule 65 ter list.
25 Last item as far as I am concerned: Decision on Defence request
1 for an extension of time to respond. On the 1st of October, 2013, the
2 Defence filed a request for an extension of 30 days in which to respond
3 to the Prosecution's 38th 92 bis motion, citing the length of the
4 proffered witness statement. The Chamber notes the Prosecution's
5 standing submission that it will not object to any reasonable requests
6 for extensions. The Chamber grants an additional 30 days in which to
7 respond setting the new dead-line of the 31st of October, 2013. And this
8 concludes the Chamber's decision.
9 All other matters which are on my list are not urgent and
10 therefore I'll not further test your patience. We have a non-sitting
11 week next week. We will not sit tomorrow. We therefore adjourn until
12 Wednesday, the 16th of October, 2013, at 9.30 in the morning in
13 courtroom III.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at, 2.26 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 16th day
16 of October, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.