1 Thursday, 16 June 2016
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused not present]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.46 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honours. This is
9 case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 The Chamber received a waiver signed by Mr. Mladic that he waives
12 his right to be present in court today. I take it that that will be
13 filed if it is not yet.
14 MR. IVETIC: It will, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you. Therefore, we'll proceed in the
16 absence of the accused.
17 I move to another development, which is that the Chamber was
18 informed that the witness who was expected to be back at 9.30 this
19 morning left this country shortly after midnight and invites the parties
20 to make written submissions as to how to proceed under those
21 circumstances, and we'd like to receive those submissions by Friday,
22 close of business.
23 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, if we may, we already have other
24 filing deadlines for Friday, and this is a rather novel issue. Can we at
25 least have until Monday?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although you have some extra time perhaps
2 today, but the Chamber nevertheless is willing to give you until Monday
3 but then 9.00 in the morning, please.
4 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, if the deadline is changed that
7 would, of course, be for the Prosecution as well.
8 We just discussed for a second whether it would be appropriate to
9 first hear from the Defence and then from the Prosecution, but the
10 Chamber considers it appropriate that both parties give their input, not
11 necessarily the one responding to the other. And if there will be any
12 follow-up, then that's still possible.
13 Then I think under present circumstances -- but let me just
14 confer for a second with Mr. Registrar.
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, in the present circumstances, there's no need
17 for Russian interpretation any further. Therefore, the Chamber would
18 wish to thank the Russian interpreters for their assistance provided
19 during the last two days, and the interpreters are excused.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: I'll say a few more words about the present
22 situation, the absence of the witness. Then I'll deal with some rather,
23 perhaps to some extent, boring procedural matters. And at the very end,
24 the Chamber will say a few words about scheduling in the near future.
25 So let me start with Witness Demurenko. Under normal
1 circumstances once a statement is admitted, of course, the Chamber would
2 decide on the associated exhibits as well. We'll not do that at this
3 very moment, and the parties are invited to include in their written
4 submissions what to do with the associated exhibits, if they consider it
5 appropriate to receive any evidence at all. And then we'll deal with
6 that later.
7 Then quite a number - it's my estimate - that it will take some
8 35, 40 minutes to read most of the decisions. I'll try to do it not too
9 quickly. And I'll start with a decision on the Defence renewed bar table
10 submission in relation to 65 ter number 1D02597.
11 On the 18th of January, the Defence filed its fifth bar table
12 motion tendering into evidence, inter alia, the document bearing
13 Rule 65 ter number 1D02597, a bulletin from the Republic of Bosnia and
14 Herzegovina, which provides information about an alleged attack on the
15 20th of October, 1993 in Sarajevo.
16 On the 1st of March, the Prosecution responded not opposing its
17 admission, subject to the Defence providing a complete English
19 On 30th of May, the Chamber issued its decision, denying
20 admission without prejudice.
21 On the 10th of June, the Defence filed a renewed bar table motion
22 re-tendering the document with a complete translation.
23 The Chamber finds that the document is relevant to the Sarajevo
24 component of the case, observes that it is stamped, and considers that it
25 bears sufficient indicia of reliability and authenticity for the purpose
1 of admission.
2 The Chamber also considers that the Defence has set out with
3 sufficient clarity and specificity how the document would fit into its
4 case. Pursuant to Rule 89(C), the Chamber admits the document into
5 evidence and gives the Prosecution, if there's any remaining issue, a
6 week to revisit the matter.
7 I see that there's some -- that's perhaps about the complete
8 translation, which is not available for a long time to the Prosecution.
9 I can read face expressions. I see that there's at least some --
10 Mr. Tieger, Mr. Weber, Mr. Traldi, your faces are ...
11 MR. TIEGER: I appreciate that, Mr. President. I can't alert you
12 to a specific issue now. We'll rise if it's appropriate shortly.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As always, and since we are in court now, and
14 since the translation has been received only very recently, the Chamber
15 decides already on admission but allows the Prosecution to revisit the
16 matter within one week.
17 Mr. Registrar, for 65 ter 1D02597, what would the number?
18 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D2124, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: D2124 is admitted into evidence.
20 I now move to a decision on the Defence renewed bar table
21 submission as to Rule 65 ter 1D02541.
22 On the 18th of January of this year, the Defence filed its fifth
23 bar table motion tendering into evidence, inter alia, the document
24 bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D02541, a bulletin from the Republic of
25 Bosnia and Herzegovina, which provides information about the treatment of
1 Serbs in ABiH-held territory.
2 On the 1st of March, the Prosecution responded, opposing its
3 admission because only brief portions of the original were translated
4 into English.
5 On the 30th of May, the Chamber issued its decision denying
6 without prejudice the admission of this document.
7 On the 10th of June, the Defence filed a renewed bar table
8 submission re-tendering this document with a complete translation.
9 The Chamber finds that the document is relevant to the Sarajevo
10 component of the case, observes that it's stamped, and considers that it
11 bears sufficient indicia of reliability and authenticity for the purpose
12 of admission.
13 The Chamber also considers that the Defence has set out with
14 sufficient clarity and specificity how the document would fit into its
15 case. Pursuant to Rule 89(C), the Chamber admits the document into
17 The Prosecution, since the full translation is available only
18 since the 10th of June, has one week to revisit the matter if need be.
19 Mr. Weber.
20 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, on this one we have checked the
21 translation and it's acceptable to the Prosecution.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then the week is over for you. No further time will
23 be given to the Prosecution to revisit the matter.
24 Mr. Registrar, the number would be?
25 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D2125 Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: D2125 is admitted into evidence.
2 I now move to Rule 65 ter 12990a.
3 On the 18th of January, the Defence filed its fourth bar table
4 motion tendering into evidence, inter alia, the document bearing
5 Rule 65 ter number 12990, an extract from a book entitled "Wartime
6 Letters of Radovan Karadzic," published by the International Committee
7 for the Truth About Radovan Karadzic, in Belgrade, in 2004.
8 On 23rd of May, 2016, the Trial Chamber issued its decision
9 denying admission on the basis of insufficient indicia of reliability and
10 authenticity. The Chamber found that the document appeared to be a
11 reproduction of a letter type-signed by Radovan Karadzic, bearing no
12 official stamps or signatures, in a book extract that was neither sourced
13 nor named.
14 On the 8th of June of this year, the Defence filed a renewed bar
15 table motion requesting admission and uploading a new version of the
16 document, bearing Rule 65 ter number 12990a, which incorporates
17 information on the document's provenance.
18 On the 10th of June, the Prosecution responded indicating that it
19 no longer objected to the admission of the document.
20 The Chamber is satisfied that the newly uploaded version of the
21 document provides sufficient information on its provenance and finds that
22 it is relevant and of probative value for the purpose of its admission
23 into evidence. The Chamber also finds that the Defence has set out with
24 sufficient clarity and specificity how the documents would fit into its
1 The Chamber therefore admits the document bearing Rule 65 ter
2 number 12990a into evidence pursuant to Rule 89(C) of the Rules.
3 Mr. Registrar, the number to be assigned would be.
4 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D2126, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: D2126 is admitted.
6 I now move to 65 ter 1D05719.
7 On the 9th of June, the Chamber, in its decision on the Defence
8 motion to admit into evidence Subotic and Poparic's expert reports and
9 related documents, indicated that it would deny admission into evidence
10 of the document bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D05719, a photograph of a
11 monument. The disposition of the decision erroneously referenced the
12 document as being admitted into evidence. The Chamber clarifies that the
13 document is denied admission into evidence.
14 I now move to a renewed request for the admission of Rule 65 ter
15 number 1D05915a.
16 On the 2nd of June of this year, in its second Defence case
17 omnibus decision, the Chamber denied the admission into evidence of a
18 video bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D05915a without prejudice. This was
19 because the Defence had not provided the Chamber with a copy of the
21 On the 6th of June, a copy of the video was made available to the
23 On the 7th of June, the Defence filed a motion requesting that
24 the video be admitted into evidence. Given that the video was initially
25 tendered in a joint submission, the Chamber understands that the
1 Prosecution does not object to the admission of the video.
2 The video concerns alleged shelling incidents in Sarajevo as
3 charged in the indictment and contains clips from news reports. A still
4 from the video was put to witness Zorica Subotic in court on the 30th of
5 September, 2015. Under these circumstances, the Chamber admits Rule 65
6 ter number 1D05915a into evidence.
7 And, Mr. Registrar, what number would be assigned to this video?
8 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D2127, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: D2127.
10 I now move to D2022 and D2086.
11 On the 8th of June, the Chamber admitted these two exhibits into
12 evidence and instructed the Defence to upload into e-court English
13 translations that match the B/C/S originals of both documents.
14 On the 14th of June, the Defence informed the Chamber and the
15 Prosecution, via e-mail, that it had uploaded the revised translations
16 into e-court.
17 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to:
18 Replace the existing translation of Exhibit D2022 with the
19 revised and reduced translation uploaded under doc ID 1D31-1020; and
20 Replace the existing translation of Exhibit D2086 with the
21 revised translation uploaded under doc ID 1D31-1021.
22 I now move to the decision on Defence renewed bar table
23 submissions as to Rule 65 ter numbers 1D03471 and 1D05966.
24 On the 18th of January, the Defence filed its fifth bar table
25 motion tendering into evidence, inter alia, the document bearing Rule 65
1 ter number 1D03471, a document containing excerpts of information on
2 paramilitary groups operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Defence also
3 noted that the document, and I quote: "Appears to be an annex to UN
4 Security Council document."
5 On the 1st of March, the Prosecution responded not opposing its
7 On the 30th of May, the Chamber issued its decision denying
8 admission without prejudice on the basis that the document did not bear
9 sufficient indicia of authenticity and reliability.
10 On the 13th of June, the Defence filed a renewed bar table motion
11 re-tendering the document under the same 65 ter number as well as the
12 document bearing 65 ter number 1D05966.
13 The Defence submits that the Prosecution has confirmed that both
14 documents are official documents received from the UN. The document
15 bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D03471 is a preliminary version of the report
16 received from the UN Commission of Experts, and the document bearing
17 65 ter number 1D05966 is the public version of the report and a UN
18 Security Council document.
19 The Chamber finds that both documents are relevant to the
20 Sarajevo component of the case and further observes that the Defence has
21 demonstrated sufficient indicia of reliability and authenticity for the
22 purpose of admission into evidence. The Chamber also considers that the
23 Defence has set out with sufficient clarity and specificity how the
24 documents would fit into its case.
25 Pursuant to Rule 89(C), the Chamber admits both documents into
2 And, Mr. Registrar, invites you to assign a number.
3 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 1D03471 will be Exhibit D2128.
4 And 65 ter 1D05966 will be Exhibit D2129.
5 JUDGE ORIE: D2128 and D2129 are admitted into evidence.
6 And if there's any problem remaining, the Prosecution has one
7 week to revisit the matter.
8 I move to the Chamber's decision on Defence renewed bar table
9 submission as to 65 ter 1D02644.
10 On the 18th of January, the Defence filed its fifth bar table
11 motion tendering into evidence, inter alia, the document bearing Rule 65
12 ter number 1D02644, an ABiH statement from Nihad Hodzic dated 2nd of
13 November, 1993, concerning the alleged actions of ABiH forces in and
14 around Sarajevo during the indictment period.
15 On the 1st of March, the Prosecution responded opposing its
16 admission because the Defence only provided a partial English
17 translation. The Prosecution also noted that the statement related to
18 the document bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D02642, an ABiH special report
19 dated the 6th of June, 1993, which was admitted into evidence on the
20 30th of May as Exhibit D1792.
21 On the 30th of May, the Chamber issued its decision, denying
22 admission without prejudice.
23 On the 13th of June, the Defence filed a renewed bar table motion
24 re-tendering the document with a complete translation under the same
25 65 ter number.
1 The Chamber finds that the document is relevant to the Sarajevo
2 component of the case and further observes that it bears sufficient
3 indicia of reliability and authenticity for the purpose of admission into
4 evidence, including signatures. The Chamber also considers that the
5 Defence has set out with sufficient clarity and specificity how the
6 document would fit into its case.
7 Pursuant to Rule 89(C), the Chamber admits the document into
9 And invites you, Mr. Registrar, to assign a number.
10 THE REGISTRAR: That's Exhibit D2130, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: D2130 is admitted into evidence. And, as always,
12 the Prosecution has one week to revisit the matter if there's any need to
13 do so.
14 Next item is a decision on Defence renewed bar table submission
15 as to 65 ter 1D02958.
16 On the 18th of January, the Defence filed its fifth bar table
17 motion tendering into evidence, inter alia, the document bearing Rule 65
18 ter number 1D02958, a portion of a 13 August 1994 UNPROFOR report
19 concerning Sarajevo.
20 On the 1st of March, the Prosecution responded not opposing
21 admission, subject to the Defence uploading into e-court the entire
23 On the 30th of May, the Chamber issued its decision, denying
24 admission without prejudice.
25 On the 10th of June, the Defence filed a renewed bar table motion
1 re-tendering the complete version of the document under the same
2 Rule 65 ter number.
3 The Chamber finds that the document is relevant to the Sarajevo
4 component of the case and observes that it bears sufficient indicia of
5 reliability and authenticity for admission into evidence, including a
6 stamp, signature, and information regarding the author and recipient.
7 The Chamber also considers that the Defence has set out with sufficient
8 clarity and specificity how the document would fit into its case.
9 Pursuant to Rule 89(C), the Chamber admits the document into
11 And invites you, Mr. Registrar, to assign a number.
12 THE REGISTRAR: That's Exhibit D2131, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: D2131 is admitted into evidence.
14 Since the full version was only filed, I think, on the 10th of
15 June, if there's any need to revisit the matter, the Prosecution has got
16 a week to do so.
17 These were the rather administrative matters. I would now
18 briefly turn to scheduling.
19 As matters stand now -- of course, with the uncertainty of the
20 developments of today, but as matters stand now it seems that the
21 in-court presentation of Defence evidence is complete, again, with this
22 caveat, that we have two issues pending. The first is absence of
23 Mr. Demurenko today, and the other one is the submissions still to be
24 expected this Friday on another witness and whether and how we could
25 receive the evidence of that other witness.
1 You're on your feet Mr. Ivetic.
2 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. We're still expecting, I believe
3 two -- pardon me, two decisions from the Chamber as to documents that the
4 Chamber had ruled should be brought in through a witness. And depending
5 on the decision on those motions that we have filed, of course, those
6 witnesses in question might need to be called.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's -- we'll see how that further develops.
8 It's only -- I'm looking at the situation as it appears now, and as I
9 said before there are a few matters of uncertainty which may or may not
10 change the situation.
11 But however that develops, the Chamber will formally close the
12 Defence case once it has decided on all evidentiary motions, and that
13 includes the ones you referred to, and, of course, any follow-up would be
15 Once the Defence case has formally been closed, there will be a
16 possibility for rebuttal and rejoinder evidence to be presented, and the
17 Chamber will set the deadline for the final briefs in due course.
18 However, I wish to remind the parties that they were already
19 advised informally that the deadline could be the 1st of September, 2016,
20 and the Chamber has emphasised again and again that any delays in hearing
21 evidence in court should not be understood as that there was more time to
22 prepare for the final briefs, that the time should be used even if not
23 every evidentiary issue had been finally settled.
24 There is a fair chance that we would not have a hearing soon. Is
25 there any matter the parties would like to raise at this very moment?
1 MR. TIEGER: Well, Mr. President, we had considered raising the
2 timing and extent or duration of the closing arguments. I can tell you
3 we've had discussions with Defence about that noting, in particular, the
4 correspondence and guidance we relied upon in comparison with the
5 Karadzic case for determining the size of the final brief, and so we
6 settled on an agreed proposal for that.
7 And, well, one thing we can do, I suppose, is communicate
8 informally with the Chambers about that when the deadline for the final
9 brief is formally set. I think that's -- I'm seeing Mr. Ivetic nod. I
10 think he's -- it's just a question of how we communicate this to you, but
11 I think the timing would be more appropriate since it is linked to a
12 date, if we did so, after we had the date formally set for the deadline
13 of the final brief.
14 MR. IVETIC: I see no problem with identifying the time-period
15 between the actual filing date and -- that -- we can do that I think, and
16 then we can all do the math based upon the date, sure.
17 JUDGE ORIE: If you have agreed on it. Apparently I take it that
18 you have a number of days or weeks or months, I wouldn't think about
19 years, after the final briefs have been submitted. If you could inform
20 the Chamber on how many days or weeks or months that would be now already
21 so that we would have an indication by way of a joint submission.
22 MR. TIEGER: Happy to do so. The date we -- the date we selected
23 jointly or agreed upon was appropriate, working from the September 1st
24 date, was October 10th. In part, because of the day of the week on which
25 September 1st fell. But the idea was roughly five weeks.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. TIEGER: And in terms of the length of argument, we discussed
3 the fact that in the Karadzic case ten hours were allotted for each side,
4 but that was -- and -- but given the length of time we can sit on a given
5 day or in -- in continuity for each session, it's very clear that that
6 would encompass three courtroom days, and there's no way to -- whether
7 it's nine hours or ten hours or ten and a half hours, whatever it was in
8 that area, so we consider just to propose three days for each -- each
10 And, finally, with respect to rebuttal and surrebuttal. In
11 Karadzic, that was an hour and a half for each side, and we would also
12 suggest that there be at least one courtroom day in between the end of
13 closing and the commencement of rebuttal. But since rebuttal is an hour
14 and a half, obviously the rebuttal and surrebuttal would take place in
15 the same day.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I'm a bit confused. You said in Karadzic rebuttal
19 and surrebuttal one hour and a half. For each side we would also suggest
20 that there be at least one courtroom day in -- oh, between the end of the
21 closing and the commencement of rebuttal. So, yes, I do understand. You
22 do it on one day but you'd like to have one day in between the --
23 [Overlapping speakers].
24 MR. TIEGER: I say a courtroom day. Obviously if the closing
25 ended on a Thursday, then that would be -- that issue would be mooted by
1 virtue of the calendar days if it elapsed.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's clear.
3 Mr. Ivetic, we can consider this as a joint submission?
4 MR. IVETIC: You can.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay, is there any ...
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just have a look. One second, please.
8 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Any other matter?
10 MR. TIEGER: Mr. President, I'm advised that there is one
11 additional bar table submission that appears not to have been mentioned
12 in the course of the motions raised by the Bench so far, and that relates
13 to exhibit 1D032854 [sic]. I simply wanted to alert the Court to the
14 fact that we did not object to that.
15 MR. IVETIC: If I can ask to check that number. We don't have 1D
16 numbers that high, so ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, usually it is after the zero there are
18 following four digits.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just repeat the number, please.
20 [Prosecution counsel confer]
21 MR. TIEGER: 1D03284.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Now we are within the range of the numbers used
23 [Overlapping speakers] ... --
24 MR. TIEGER: [Overlapping speakers] ... because that's what I saw
25 on my screen as well.
1 JUDGE ORIE: It's hereby on the record that the Prosecution does
2 not oppose that motion. Most likely we'll then deliver a short written
3 decision on the matter, but that's hereby on the record.
4 Any other matter to be raised at this very moment?
5 Nothing. Then we will adjourn, sine die.
6 We stand adjourned.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 10.28 a.m.,
8 sine die.