1 Wednesday, 21 March 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic, we thought that yesterday we had heard
6 all the submissions on the question of Mr. Coo's evidence, and I've just
7 been handed what's called Sreten Lukic's additional submission objecting
8 to the introduction of Coo documents from the bar table."
9 Now, what does this relate to?
10 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, this relates to basically memorialising
11 objections that we would make orally with respect to exhibits that are now
12 being tendered through Mr. Coo. The final list was received at 7.00 in
13 the evening of the exhibits that were still in play with respect to
14 Mr. Coo upon reviewing the submission by Mr. Ackerman on behalf of General
15 Pavkovic --
16 JUDGE BONOMY: How do these differ, though, from the situation we
17 were in yesterday where we had submissions on behalf of the accused
18 Pavkovic --
19 MR. IVETIC: These are not on that list.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: -- on behalf of Sainovic --
21 MR. IVETIC: These are not on that list, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry?
23 MR. IVETIC: These objections are not objections that are on that
24 list. These --
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but why didn't you object at the same time as
1 everyone else?
2 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honour, we were in the midst of doing
3 everything else --.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
5 MR. IVETIC: -- and we couldn't be certain that the -- that there
6 would be 400 exhibits that everything was covered. Now with the 100 -- or
7 excuse me -- 200-or-so-odd exhibits, we --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Ivetic, the Trial Chamber has spent
9 hours, I assure you, on this, hours --
10 MR. IVETIC: We have too, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: -- at various stages and we thought that yesterday
12 when we were spending a great deal of time on it, we had everybody's
14 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honour, it wasn't until 6.30 in the
15 evening that the Trial Chamber advised us of it's decision that it was
16 going to be treating the Coo submission as a motion for admission of
17 evidence and that all responses would be treated as responses, so that --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: But that didn't change the situation at all. These
19 are things we would have expected you to see, whether Coo was -- or
20 whether his report was going to be in evidence or whether it was going to
21 be regarded as a motion for the admission of documents.
22 MR. IVETIC: And we made the general objections when we made our
23 oral objections previously. These are just specifically tying them to
24 specific exhibits within -- so that we don't have to keep objecting every
25 two minutes during the direct examination they want to introduce documents
1 into evidence, so they're --
2 JUDGE BONOMY: I have prepared myself for this morning. I've
3 identified the documents to which objection was taken, and I take it that
4 these are additional to the ones that have been objected in the
5 submissions by Messrs. Pavkovic and Sainovic.
6 MR. IVETIC: They are not on that list; however, at least one -- I
7 think at least one of the documents was discussed yesterday and Your
8 Honours brought it to the attention of the Prosecution, so you may have
9 some of these documents already on your list depending on how it was
10 prepared. I know that there is one document that was the one that
11 unsigned, blank, not yet completed, a draft for some sort of an ambush
12 plan that we did discuss yesterday, which I don't know how it came into
13 discussion since I don't find it on the objections that were filed by the
14 other defendants.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: And this is confined, is it, to the latest list of
16 exhibits that the Prosecution seek to actually tender?
17 MR. IVETIC: That is correct, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sainovic -- sorry. Mr. Fila, I wonder if you
19 can assist with one matter. In paragraph 9 of the submission which you
20 made, while the submission challenges a large number of media reports, it
21 identifies two in particular, one relating to the documentary which
22 included the interview of Goran Radosavljevic and the other was an
23 interview of Blagoje Grahovac. Are both of these now removed from the
24 Prosecution's list, as far as you can see?
25 MR. FILA: Yes.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
2 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] They are no longer there, and I would
3 like to thank Mr. Hannis because this is now a moot subject.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, a number of items have been produced as
5 the result of requests for assistance. It would appear that some of the
6 material is simply presented without either the request or the response
7 being submitted. Now, that may be okay. I just want to be clear that
8 you've taken account of the possibility that in some instances the
9 position can only be fully explained as if either the RFA or its response
10 is there.
11 MR. HANNIS: I had intended to ask Mr. Coo about that live as to
12 the nature of the response -- of the request for assistance.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
14 Now, do you have some other comment to make, Mr. Hannis?
15 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, I wanted to address a few remarks
16 before we had the witness come in, and in light of the e-mail last night I
17 wanted to make sure my understanding was correct.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I'm going to deliver a decision at this
19 stage --
20 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: -- and if you want to await that, you can then seek
22 clarification if something is not --
23 MR. HANNIS: I will, I'll wait.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: There is a Norwegian or Norse expression which
25 comes fairly close to describing the events surrounding the process of
1 getting to the point of hearing Mr. Coo give evidence, and that is a saga.
2 I need not go into the detail of that at this stage, save to indicate,
3 as I've already done in part, that a very considerable effort has been put
4 in by the Trial Chamber and support staff to try to make the production of
5 material by Mr. Coo a meaningful exercise and not simply an exercise of
6 tendering everything and anything that might have the remotest bearing on
7 the trial and leaving it to be sorted out later. Parties should know
8 clearly that what they may have to answer is material which has a genuine
9 bearing on the issues in this trial.
10 Having considered the report yet again, we have decided that it
11 should not be admitted as part of Mr. Coo's evidence. The interests of
12 justice militate against that, and therefore by applying Rules 92 ter and
13 89(F) we refuse to allow that process to supplement his evidence. And
14 that's largely because it still contains expressions of opinion that he is
15 not qualified to give, either because they are matters for the Court or
16 for an expert. It would be impractical to try to fillet the report by
17 deleting these items and -- at this stage in the proceedings.
18 In any event, the comments he can make, generally speaking, add
19 little to the documents themselves now. The Prosecution's principal
20 concern at this stage is to secure the admission of a large number of
21 documents about which Coo appears able to confirm the source and
22 authenticity, relevance and probative value. And by using these
23 expressions, I mean their prima facie authenticity, relevance, and
24 probative value.
25 Until I received Mr. Lukic's submission, I thought only a limited
1 number of these had been put in issue by the Defence. It now appears that
2 a larger number than we anticipated are put in issue.
3 The Trial Chamber already has written submissions from both sides
4 on all the documents. The report should be filed as part of the motion --
5 or as the motion for admission of the documents, as suggested yesterday by
6 Mr. Ackerman. Now, that requires no alteration of the document except its
7 status, and it's a purely administrative exercise. It will not form part
8 of the record of proceedings as we consider them ultimately at the stage
9 of 98 bis or final judgement.
10 The effect of our decision today is to require the Prosecution to
11 present any evidence they wish that goes beyond the submissions for
12 admission already made by leading Mr. Coo viva voce. We think, subject to
13 any objection that may be taken that it would be in order to introduce
14 through him the provenance report as a short-cut, and on the face of it,
15 also to introduce his February 2007 statement if you have that in mind.
16 It's the report that's the issue here and not these two documents, as I
17 understand the position. And if anyone from the Defence thinks otherwise,
18 they should say so before we start.
19 Having heard the evidence, the Trial Chamber will issue a written
20 decision determining the actual admission or rejection of the various
21 exhibits that the Prosecution now tender finally. And that decision will
22 be issued as soon as possible after the completion of the evidence, but by
23 that I mean very quickly. It will be issued this week; whether it's
24 tomorrow or Friday is the only question.
25 That's what I intended to say, Mr. Hannis. Does that answer your
1 questions or do you have something else to ask?
2 MR. HANNIS: It answers many of them, Your Honour, but I still do
3 have something to say, if I may, before Mr. Coo comes in.
4 With regard to the reports, they have been put into e-court now
5 and they have exhibit numbers. So for purposes of identification I just
6 wanted to state on the record what those were.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: What do you mean the reports?
8 MR. HANNIS: The -- Coo's report, part 1, part 2, and the
9 addendum --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: These should be removed from e-court.
11 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: And they should become part of a submission to the
13 registry in support of the admission of the documents from the bar table,
14 as was suggested -- or at least -- just let me think about this a little
16 Since they are submissions in support of the admission of these
17 documents, not strictly from the bar table, nevertheless they are a part
18 of material which should not be in the process here but should be re-filed
19 with the registry as a motion in support of your -- the admission of these
21 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. I wondered about referring to
22 their numbers, P2858, 59, and 60, parts 1, 2, and the addendum, and having
23 them marked, not admitted, but then they are -- they become the
24 Prosecution's submission for the --
25 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I understand. The proper course to follow is
1 to have them re-filed as a motion for admission of these documents.
2 MR. HANNIS: Okay. We will do that.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: So it's a written -- essentially, it's a written
4 filing just like that made by Messrs. Ackerman, Fila, and Ivetic now in
5 support of their case resisting submission, and you would make the same
6 document available as a filing in support of the actual admission. And we
7 will confine consideration to the documents that you now seek to have
8 admitted and we will take account also in making our decision of the
9 evidence you lead from Mr. Coo, including the provenance report and the
10 statement of February 2007.
11 MR. HANNIS: Okay. I had --
12 JUDGE BONOMY: And they can both have exhibit numbers and will be
13 part of the process, the trial process -- the evidence, rather, in the
14 trial for us to consider.
15 MR. HANNIS: The provenance report does have an exhibit number of
16 2845 and the witness statement is now 2861.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
18 MR. HANNIS: One thing that doesn't yet have an exhibit number is
19 the Excel spreadsheet that I e-mailed to you and the parties last night
20 which has 193 items listed. These are the ones that we are seeking
21 admission for, reduced from the original provenance report list.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, just live me one second.
23 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
24 JUDGE BONOMY: That document should be filed along with the report
25 as part of the motion.
1 MR. HANNIS: Okay. All right.
2 And then for purposes of our discussion today, I should tell Your
3 Honours and the parties that I went through that list of 193 this morning
4 and I identified I think five that we will drop from the list, and I can
5 announce that now so that we don't have any further discussion about
6 them. Number 3 is P986, a constitution. We're not going to pursue that
7 because there's a version of the constitution already in as part of the
8 agreed facts under P856. Item number 9 on the list Criminal Code of the
9 Republic of Serbia, that was previously admitted as an exhibit -- I'm
10 sorry, Your Honour, I have a list of numbers on mine but yours don't.
11 I'll just read the exhibit number. Exhibit Number 1023, we're no longer
12 seeking to admit; 1031 and 1064 was on the list but that was admitted I
13 think by your decision yesterday, according to my notes.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: I think I must have been saying it had already been
15 admitted yesterday. Is that the position?
16 MR. HANNIS: Maybe that's -- maybe that's correct.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think anything was admitted yesterday. I
18 think it was simply confirmed that two items had already been admitted.
19 MR. HANNIS: Was it yesterday Your Honour announced the decision
20 on bar table submission number 2.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, I see, yes.
22 MR. HANNIS: I think it was --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: You're referring to a different process. Yes.
25 And the final one?
1 MR. HANNIS: That's it, Your Honour, I believe. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
3 JUDGE BONOMY: I've only got four: 986, 1023, 1031, 1064.
4 MR. HANNIS: 1020 as well, Your Honour. That was previously
5 admitted on the 10th of October.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: And I think one item I overlooked, there is
7 attached to the notification of Mr. Coo's evidence another list of
8 exhibits to be tendered which is in addition to I think the main list. Is
9 that correct?
10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I think all of those now are covered.
11 Either they've already been admitted or they are ones that are attached as
12 an appendix to his witness statement.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: In fact, the only ones that matter are VJ General
14 Staff collegium minutes, because the first three are the report and the
15 fourth one is the provenance report and the fifth one is the statement of
16 the 27th of February.
17 MR. HANNIS: But if you go beyond past the VJ collegium minutes,
18 there are some other minutes beginning with --
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, yes. Sorry.
20 MR. HANNIS: -- 2801, but those are attached to his statement, and
21 we will be seeking to tender those as well. I indicated that in the
22 e-mail that we sent last night I think.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. But these are then additional to the list of
24 190 or so minus five that you've now given us?
25 MR. HANNIS: Yes, these are in addition to the 188 now remaining
1 on this list.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. So is that it?
3 MR. HANNIS: Well, yes, Your Honour. I had proposed putting his
4 provenance report in, his witness statement pursuant to 92 ter, but I can
5 lead him live about that if --
6 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no. The provenance report, I'm suggesting to
7 you would be admissible 92 ter.
8 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: And I saw shake -- nodding heads from the Defence.
10 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: And the statement itself.
12 MR. HANNIS: Likewise?
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
14 MR. HANNIS: That's what I propose.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
16 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's perfectly acceptable.
18 So we can now have Mr. Coo -- sorry, no. Mr. Ackerman.
19 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, very briefly. The Coo 65 ter document
20 and your ruling, there is some tension between the two of them and I'm
21 satisfied that Your Honour has noticed that and that his testimony will be
22 in accordance with your ruling today --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. We followed --
24 MR. ACKERMAN: But there is tension there.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: We followed your invitation yesterday to treat it
1 as a motion, conscious of the possibility that there is tension between
2 looking at material for one purpose and being sure that you exclude it
3 from your mind for another purpose, but we thought that your suggestion
4 was an admirable way of making clear the distinction --
5 MR. ACKERMAN: I agree with that, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: -- and removing the point of confusion that would
7 otherwise have existed, and everyone seemed to accept that was
8 appropriate. Mr. Hannis didn't, I acknowledge, because he still
9 considered that the report was a better way of doing it -- of presenting
10 the evidence, but I'm -- I was hoping that this was a very transparent way
11 of ensuring that the evidence was confined to the evidence.
12 MR. ACKERMAN: No question about that and I think I've probably
13 been misunderstood again, which seems to happen to me a lot; it's probably
14 my advanced age. But in any event, Your Honour, the 65 ter filing that
15 says -- the Prosecution tells you what they're going to elicit from Coo
16 tends to be in conflict with your ruling and I don't want to make a big
17 argument about that at this point. I just wanted to point out that I had
18 noticed that too.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: But what do you mean by -- what is the conflict
20 you've identified if it's not what I've just mentioned?
21 MR. ACKERMAN: There's a 65 ter filing where they give a summary
22 of what it is they are going to elicit from Coo, and they say that he will
23 describe the organisation, operations, and conduct of the forces of the
24 FRY and Serbia that were active in Kosovo during the time-period relevant
25 to the indictment, will demonstrate the widespread and systematic nature
1 of their operations, detail the structure and function of the VJ and MUP
2 forces present in Kosovo, the command and control of the VJ forces in
3 Kosovo, the unity of command, uninterrupted chain of command and
4 functioning system of discipline --
5 JUDGE BONOMY: But if you are successful in keeping out things
6 that it is said a witness is going to speak about, then the success of
7 your opposition will be reflected in the restricted nature of his
8 evidence. Inevitably the 65 ter will then be out of line with it, but as
9 soon as I leave court after having heard his evidence, this goes in the
11 MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. Thank you. I understand that --
12 JUDGE BONOMY: It's not part of my thought process when it comes
13 to looking at the evidence.
14 MR. ACKERMAN: I want to sit down, Your Honour.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Petrovic.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise for taking the floor.
18 At this point I would kindly seek an explanation as far as I understood.
19 By your decision, the statement by witness Philip Coo has been entered
20 into evidence as 2861. I would like to say that there is an addendum to
21 this statement which I can't see in the e-court, but in its essence the
22 addendum is something that we have discussed on many occasions. It seems
23 to me that pages from 5 through 10 of the statement actually is the report
24 and not what was your idea when you decided to admit his statement for
25 other reasons, and this is what I wanted to draw attention to.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: What I'm referring to as his statement is a
2 document which is only four pages followed by an appendix; it's not the
3 addendum to the report. And the decision we've made did not admit the
4 report; it invited Mr. Hannis to withdraw the report in its two parts and
5 the addendum from e-court and re-file all three as part of his motion in
6 support of admission of these various documents.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is exactly the
8 explanation that I was seeking. Thank you very much.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
10 Please bring Mr. Coo in now.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Coo.
14 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: We -- it won't surprise you to know we had a few
16 continuing administrative issues to sort out in relation to your
17 evidence. I think we're now ready to hear it, so could you please make
18 the solemn declaration to speak the truth by reading aloud the document
19 which will now be placed before you.
20 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
21 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.
23 Mr. Hannis will be the first to examine you.
24 Mr. Hannis.
25 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
1 WITNESS: PHILIP COO
2 Examination by Mr. Hannis:
3 Q. Good morning, Mr. Coo. I know you've testified in this building
4 before, and because we both speak English will you try and help me
5 remember to leave a pause between my questions and your answers and vice
6 versa for the sake of the interpreters and the court reporter.
7 A. I will.
8 Q. Can you tell us your name for the record, please.
9 A. It's Philip Coo.
10 Q. And how are you currently employed?
11 A. I'm employed by the Office of the Prosecutor as the head of the
12 military analysis team.
13 Q. How long have you worked for the OTP?
14 A. For almost eight years now.
15 Q. When you started, what was your position?
16 A. I began as an intelligence analyst in the same section.
17 Q. When did you get promoted to your current position?
18 A. I became the acting head of the section in August 2004, and act --
19 and the head of the section in January 2005.
20 Q. And prior to joining the OTP, can you tell us what your work
21 experience was and in particular any military service.
22 A. Before joining the OTP, I was an intelligence officer in the
23 Canadian Army for ten years and had a variety of appointments during that
24 ten years.
25 Q. Now, in connection with your evidence for this case I want to
1 refer you to two documents. The first one is a provenance report that you
2 prepared. It's dated the 14th of February, 2007. Have you had a chance
3 to look at that before coming to court today?
4 A. I have.
5 Q. And are you satisfied that the information contained in that
6 document is true and accurate to the best of your information and belief?
7 A. Yes, I am.
8 Q. And can you attest to the Court today that that is your evidence
9 and you would give the same answers if you were asked questions about it
11 A. Yes, I can.
12 Q. Also, did you prepare a document entitled "Witness Statement of
13 OTP Military Analyst Philip Coo" dated the 27th of February of this year?
14 A. I did.
15 Q. Likewise, did you have a chance to review it before coming to
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. And same question: Are you satisfied it's true and accurate, it
19 amounts to your declaration, your evidence in this case, and you would
20 give the same answers if you were asked questions about its contents?
21 A. Yes, I am.
22 MR. HANNIS: With that, Your Honour, we would tender those two
23 items. The provenance report is Exhibit P2845, the witness statement is
24 Exhibit P2861, pursuant to Rule 92 ter.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
1 MR. HANNIS:
2 Q. Mr. Coo, in the course of your work in connection with this case,
3 we all know that you prepared a report that had two parts and an addendum,
4 which now is going to be treated as the Prosecution's submission to admit
5 exhibits selected therefrom and related thereto. I want to ask you in
6 general about the document-collection process related to this Kosovo
8 First of all, can you tell me when OTP began collecting documents
9 relating to the Kosovo conflict.
10 A. To my knowledge, the collecting began immediately upon the entry
11 of KFOR into Kosovo after the end of the period of NATO bombing in June
12 1999. I had joined the OTP in -- at the end of May 1999, and presumably
13 they had done some collecting prior to that but not that I was involved
15 Q. Okay. And who was involved in that process beginning in June of
17 A. A large number of people within the OTP, investigators, lawyers,
18 and analysts. I was involved in some of the missions to collect documents
19 in Kosovo.
20 Q. And you mentioned missions, so how was that collection process
21 done, physically speaking?
22 A. Once the Serb forces had withdrawn from Kosovo, the members of the
23 OTP followed KFOR in there and visited a variety of sites looking for
24 documents. The sites included VJ facilities, MUP facilities, and
25 municipal offices and a variety of other official buildings.
1 Q. And where did it take place? You say "Kosovo." Was it limited to
2 one area of Kosovo?
3 A. It was all over Kosovo, to my awareness. I can't say that it
4 included every municipality, but as far as I know, they covered most of
6 Q. And in broad terms, what kinds of evidence or documents were
7 collected in that process?
8 A. We collected a number of VJ documents, documents belonging to the
9 Military Territorial Organisation from the Pristina Military District, MUP
10 documents from MUP buildings, documents from the temporary Executive
11 Council, a civilian body in Kosovo; and a miscellany of other types of
13 Q. In addition to proactively going out and collecting documents, did
14 the OTP investigators involved in this process also have materials given
15 to them?
16 A. Some investigators did in -- during the conduct of their
17 investigations were given documents. I think this was a relatively small
18 number, and I'm not aware of the details. Some of the details are evident
19 in the way that the evidence is registered in our evidence unit.
20 Q. And over approximately what time period did this physical
21 evidence-collection process in Kosovo extend from June 1999?
22 A. The -- the bulk of it occurred in the summer of 1999, in
23 July -- late June, July, and August, and missions continued through the
24 rest of 1999 and into 2000, by which time the number of buildings or
25 locations to exploit was declining.
1 Q. So in addition and subsequent to this process, what other methods
2 were employed to try and obtain documentation about that conflict?
3 A. We drafted requests for assistance to various states, but in
4 particular to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its successor states
5 asking for specific categories of documents.
6 Q. This is an acronym that we used a lot during the course of this
7 trial, RFA, does that stand for request for assistance?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. And can you tell the Judges a little bit about how that process
10 works in general terms.
11 A. The -- the investigation team or trial team associated with a
12 particular case identifies the types of information it thinks that it
13 needs and drafts an official request sent to the state on behalf of the
14 Prosecutor requesting that they provide the information or the documents
15 in question. In some cases we have to try to figure out what types of
16 documents they would have -- not in every case did we know the specific
17 types of documents, so in some cases the requests were relatively broad.
18 Q. And do you know how the process works once the request is drafted
19 and sent out from the OTP? Do you know where it goes and how it's
21 A. Once it's drafted, I believe it goes to the -- through the embassy
22 in The Hague to the -- to Belgrade. This is in particular to requests
23 going to the former Yugoslavia or Serbia. The request goes to Belgrade,
24 where they send it to the appropriate organisation and if they have the
25 document or the information requested, hopefully -- and they have provided
1 those documents in the forms of official responses, which work their way
2 back through the same pathway back to the OTP.
3 Q. Are you familiar with a body called the commission for cooperation
4 with The Hague in Serbia?
5 A. I have heard of that body, yes.
6 Q. Okay. Do you know of the nature of its involvement in this
8 A. I believe it's a coordinating body, through which our requests for
9 assistance and their responses pass.
10 Q. In addition to trying to obtain materials pursuant to the RFA
11 process, have you or other members of the investigating team from the OTP
12 engaged in missions to archives in Serbia?
13 A. We -- we have. We managed to get archive access in -- arranged in
14 late March 2006 to the archives in Serbia. These included the MUP and the
15 VJ. That archive access was actually followed up by mission to the VJ and
16 the MUP archives in May and June 2006.
17 Q. Had there been attempts prior to 2006 to try and get physical
18 access to those archives?
19 A. There had been a number of attempts, and a number of times we put
20 in RFAs that we could facilitate the provision of material if they would
21 allow us access to archives because sometimes the responses to requests
22 for assistance were that our requests were overly broad.
23 Q. Did you participate in any of these archive missions yourself?
24 A. I participated in the first archive mission in June -- late
25 May/June 2006 and a second archive mission in August 2006.
1 Q. And to where did you go on those occasions?
2 A. On the first mission we went to the MUP archive, although I
3 hesitate to call it an archive. It was a -- we were shown to a collection
4 of documents that we had been told had been compiled expressly for the
5 purpose of consolidating all documentation that the MUP had in connection
6 to Kosovo in 1998/1999, and the MUP told us that the collection was called
7 the dossier KiM or dossier Kosovo and Metohija.
8 Q. And you say you hesitate to use the term "archive." Why is that?
9 A. This wasn't the archive for all of the Ministry of the Interior in
10 Serbia. It was a collection, and we had been told by the person heading
11 the archive at that time -- correction, by the person responsible for the
12 dossier KiM that the collection had been put together on the order of
13 General Sreten Lukic in 2001.
14 Q. And who was the person who told you that?
15 A. If I remember correctly, it was a Colonel Milan Petrovic, who is a
16 MUP officer.
17 Q. Can you give the Court a general description of what this
18 collection consisted of.
19 A. It's in a -- the collection, Your Honours, is in a relatively
20 small room. At a rough guess it's probably 20 square metres. The
21 documentation is arranged in ceiling-height cupboards around the
22 perimeters of the room. They have an electronic log of the documents. We
23 were allowed to peruse the log and the documents themselves. They had a
24 staff of I think about five people managing the collection, and it's
25 located in the Serbian Ministry of the Interior building in Belgrade.
1 Q. And the information you were told was that this was the complete
2 collection of MUP documents concerning Kosovo and Metohija?
3 A. We were told that that was the idea behind the collection. There
4 was some missing -- in our view, some missing documents were documents
5 that we would have expected to have seen in there which weren't.
6 Q. Can you tell us what was missing that you would have expected to
7 have been in that collection.
8 A. We were expecting to see references or documentation covering, for
9 example, operations by the special police units or PJP. We were expecting
10 also to see daily reports produced by the MUP staff in Kosovo. We already
11 had a few of those that we'd collected in Kosovo in 1999 and were looking
12 for the remained of them, but we didn't find those when we reviewed the
13 registry -- the dossier.
14 Q. Did you inquire of the personnel that you were dealing with there
15 about the absence of those particular types of documents?
16 A. We did, and we were told, not specific to these documents, but
17 generally in regard to missing documents that it was possible that some
18 documentation remained in the Secretariats of the Interior, or SUPs, which
19 had been moved out of Kosovo and into parts of southern Serbia.
20 Q. Subsequent to that time, did you make any attempts to try and
21 locate those type of documents in the SUPs or obtain them from the SUPs
22 through RFAs?
23 A. We did a follow-up mission in August, primarily to review more MUP
24 documentation and this mission was to address these -- to address the fact
25 that we didn't believe that the dossier KiM was -- represented all the
1 Kosovo-related documents. We asked to be shown any other -- or be allowed
2 to review documentation in any other departments of the MUP, and on that
3 mission in August 19 -- August 2006, we were taken around various
4 departments within the MUP in Belgrade where we were shown a very small
5 number of remaining documents pertaining to 1998 and 1999.
6 Q. Did you on this mission locate any of those types of documents
7 that you had expected to find in the collection?
8 A. We didn't find anything along the lines of the daily reports of
9 the MUP staff or any documentation connected to PJP operations. What we
10 found were primarily administrative-type reports and a very small number.
11 These weren't -- these weren't archives of the departments that we were
12 shown to. We were generally shown binders -- a small number of binders or
13 folders containing documents.
14 Q. Now, subsequent to that did you make any inquiries about the
15 existence of such documents and where they might be?
16 A. It hasn't been pursued to my knowledge further than that because
17 we were told that we'd been provided everything that they have and shown
18 everything that they have in relation to Kosovo.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Does that mean there have been no RFAs since March
21 THE WITNESS: There were RFAs, Your Honour, but not, to my
22 knowledge, since August 2006, save for a couple of very specific ones but
23 not connected to these MUP documents.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
25 MR. HANNIS:
1 Q. And in that answer you're referring to RFAs regarding MUP
2 documents. There have been other RFAs?
3 A. There have been. There was one RFA connected to MUP documents
4 after August 2006, but that was -- that was merely part of the process we
5 have to go through for requesting documents, which is when we see
6 something in an archive or in a MUP office that we'd like, we then have to
7 come back here and draft an RFA requesting it.
8 Q. I don't recall, Mr. Coo, if you were aware or had seen any
9 pleadings that had been filed in this case by the Lukic Defence concerning
10 their efforts to obtain documents from the MUP.
11 A. I have a vague recollection of one, I think.
12 Q. Do you recall whether that one indicated that they had received
13 any materials that you had previously sought and not been able to obtain?
14 A. I don't remember.
15 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to the VJ, did you partake in an archive
16 mission to the VJ in 2006?
17 A. We did in part of the same mission in May/June 2006. After we'd
18 finished reviewing the dossier KiM in the MUP building, we went to the VJ
19 Military History Institute archive in Belgrade. This was located in a
20 temporary location, in the basement of the military high school after its
21 previous location -- because its previous location had been bombed during
22 the NATO bombing period.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. This resembled what we expected of an archive.
25 Q. And could you explain what you mean by that answer. In what way
1 was it different than what you described about the MUP?
2 A. It had the contemporaneous registers of archive holdings, and it
3 had the -- it was the complete collection or seemed to be the complete
4 collection of all VJ and JNA documentation, we were told, since 1945, but
5 we were interested in 1998/1999 and it seemed to have what we were looking
6 for, for the most part.
7 Q. Okay. Thank you.
8 I want to, before I move on to some questions about other types of
9 information -- or other sources of documents that are on the list of
10 documents that the Prosecution is proposing to tender, I want to ask you
11 about your witness statement. There is an appendix attached to that
12 including a number of documents that are now marked as Exhibits 2801
13 through 2813 as well as some other items that had already been tendered or
14 had numbers. That regards VJ collegium minutes.
15 These documents are documents that were most recently received?
16 A. That's correct, Your Honour. The VJ collegium minutes were
17 received I think in late 2005/2006 in response to an RFA. It took a while
18 to get these translated.
19 Q. And in the heading to that appendix you indicate that the items on
20 this list in the appendix that start with the ERN of K053 were ones that
21 were selected from your archives missions in the summer of 2006?
22 A. That's correct, and they took until the end of October 2006 to be
23 handed over to us.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, these don't appear on the annex that I
25 have to the statement, but they do appear on the 65 ter list.
1 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. I think at the time his statement
2 was prepared on the -- was it the 27th of February? - they had not yet
3 received an exhibit number. I can advise the Court now on the record what
4 those exhibit numbers are or provide another document. What I propose --
5 JUDGE BONOMY: You've just given them, but the ones I have on that
6 list all have exhibit numbers in the 900s.
7 MR. HANNIS: The ones that do have numbers --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, none of them don't.
9 MR. HANNIS: Is that -- I may be looking at a different --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: It's an administrative matter, but it's to ensure
11 that nothing is omitted here by oversight.
12 MR. HANNIS: Can I ask Your Honour what the first document you
13 have on the list is. Is it a war diary?
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
15 MR. HANNIS: Does it have an exhibit number?
16 JUDGE BONOMY: It doesn't, but all the VJ collegium documents --
17 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: -- minutes do have exhibit numbers.
19 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: And I thought that's what your question was
21 confined to.
22 MR. HANNIS: No, Your Honour, I am referring to the ones that an
23 ERN of K053 which start from the third item on the list were items that
24 were recovered during the archive mission. Do you see the third item, the
25 MUP staff meeting of 16 February 1999 has a ERN of K053-4095.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
2 MR. HANNIS: I was referring to those.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Just give me a second.
4 MR. HANNIS: But what I propose to do, Your Honour, is attach the
5 appendix to my list of what is now 188 items and include it with the
7 JUDGE BONOMY: I've misunderstood your question now that I re-read
8 it. You are saying the collegium minutes do have numbers and the others
10 MR. HANNIS: Correct.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry.
12 MR. HANNIS: No problem. Thank you.
13 Q. And in your appendix, Mr. Coo, you do list some remarks about the
14 relevancy of those items and you explain the provenance, so I'll ask you
15 nothing more about that now. With regard to your provenance report, there
16 were originally, I think, 400-some items on that list. We've now reduced
17 it to 188. And the last column in that report is entitled: "MAT
18 comments" what does MAT stand for?
19 A. That's the military analysis team.
20 Q. Okay. And these are your comments about where these documents
21 came from and comments about the authenticity. Is that correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. They appear to break down into five or six general categories, and
24 let me ask you about that. You do describe this in your provenance
25 report. A number of them are received pursuant to RFAs; correct?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. There are a few official documents such as gazettes or decrees.
3 There are a number of items listed as being acquired during the document
4 exploitation mission to Kosovo. Is that the first thing you were telling
5 us about how these documents were collected?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Okay. And then there are some unofficial or public sources, such
8 as media reports, newspaper items, et cetera.
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Have I -- and you also mention web sites. Let me ask you about
11 the web sites. The two that I recall you obtained documents from are what
12 you described as the official VJ web site and the official MUP site. Can
13 you explain to the Court a little bit about that. How did you find the
14 official VJ web site, when did that happen, and what information do you
15 have to give the Court some assurance that it is what it purported to be?
16 A. I don't recall, Your Honours, how I first became aware of the web
17 sites, but I felt that they were the official web sites or I had no reason
18 to believe otherwise because the information on them appeared to be
19 corroborated by other documentation that we had. It was relatively
20 innocuous for the most part. References to, for example, the mandate of
21 the VJ derived from the constitution, diagrams of the rank system, and
22 another link to press releases.
23 Q. Was this web site in English?
24 A. It had both English and VJ -- sorry, B/C/S.
25 Q. And you downloaded those items that are on your list of documents
1 that were used in connection with preparation of your reports?
2 A. That's correct. I saved electronic copies and printed off hard
4 Q. Okay. You may have stated this in your answer, but did the
5 information -- the contents conform with other information you had from VJ
6 documents or from VJ witnesses that you may have interviewed?
7 A. Yes, they did.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Coo, if we look at the web site -- these web
9 sites today, are they in any different form, generally speaking, from the
10 form in which you initially discovered them and have subsequently looked
11 at them?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, they've changed. They're now the
13 Army of Serbia. I looked yesterday and it's the Army of Serbia web site.
14 I couldn't find -- and I asked a B/C/S speaker to see if they could find
15 any archived information from the time I checked, and they couldn't.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: And so far as the MUP archive is concerned, is it
17 any different from what it was before -- the MUP web site?
18 THE WITNESS: The same goes for the MUP web site, too, Your
19 Honour, it's now slightly different. I didn't check it yesterday. I had
20 checked it a few times after I downloaded the information, and at those
21 times it still contained the same information --
22 JUDGE BONOMY: I think these addresses ended ".yu." Has that
24 THE WITNESS: When I typed in "VJ" I think, Your Honour, it was
25 vj.yu yesterday. It remained vj.yu but automatically directed me to the
1 new Army of Serbia web site, but I can't be certain about that.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
3 MR. HANNIS:
4 Q. And with connection to the MUP web site, the documents you
5 downloaded from there, did the content likewise show itself to be
6 consistent with other information you had from other MUP documents or
7 interviews of MUP witnesses?
8 A. Yes, it did.
9 Q. Was there anything to indicate to you that the information
10 obtained from the web site was incorrect?
11 A. Not the information I reviewed, Your Honours.
12 Q. And again, the nature of the documents from the web sites that you
13 have included in your report, what types of matters does that relate to?
14 Is that information about any operations that were conducted, for example?
15 A. They did have, from my recollection, some references to
16 operations. I don't believe I downloaded that information. The type of
17 information I downloaded were references to the mandate of the VJ, the
18 descriptions of its structure, and the roles of different types of units
19 and one or two press releases or press statements. And with the MUP web
20 site, I downloaded similar information but also including references to
21 the -- the information they had on the number of MUP killed or wounded in
22 Kosovo in 1998 and 1999.
23 Q. Now, one other general area of documents or provenance for
24 documents on your list are several that are identified as having been
25 received by the Prosecutor, Mrs. Del Ponte, from either Zoran Djindjic or
1 General Pavkovic in July 2002. What can you tell us about that?
2 A. I wasn't involved directly in this but was told around the time
3 that -- by the investigation team leader dealing with Kosovo at that time
4 that General Pavkovic had given a collection of documents to the
5 Prosecutor on a visit that she had to Belgrade in 2002. Prime Minister
6 Djindjic was handed part of this package by General Pavkovic, according to
7 the written note taken at the time by the Prosecutor's political advisor.
8 The other package, I believe, according to the note was handed later the
9 same day directly by General Pavkovic to the Prosecutor.
10 Q. And you've reviewed most or all of those documents that were
11 received on that occasion?
12 A. Yes, I have.
13 Q. And in terms of the -- their appearance and regularity, do you
14 have any comment you can make to the Court about that?
15 A. As far as I can tell, they looked like official VJ documents,
16 primarily operational reports, such as orders issued in 1998 and 1999.
17 Also included in the package was a large document known as the -- the war
18 diary of the 3rd Army forward command post. And finally I think the --
19 the only other document falling outside the VJ operational reports
20 category was the minutes of the Joint Command covering July to October
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Had General Pavkovic been indicted by then?
23 THE WITNESS: I don't believe he had. He had just finished as
24 Chief of the General Staff at that point.
25 MR. HANNIS:
1 Q. Thank you. Now I want to ask you about some of the RFAs. I think
2 there are four or five different RFA numbers in the list of documents in
3 your provenance report. One number that appears quite often is 0119 and
4 in some places it has a letter after it such as E or F and sometimes
5 there's a reference to VJ combat reports. Can you tell the Court what
6 that request for assistance was and to whom it was addressed?
7 A. Your Honours, this was the -- essentially the original request to
8 Yugoslavia and its successor states aimed at getting VJ documentation.
9 There were a series of refinements to the original RFA 119, hence the
10 lettering from A to F I think, and these refinements reflected both an
11 increase in our knowledge about the types of documentation that the VJ was
12 producing, but also the refinements were connected to 54 bis proceedings
13 in the Milosevic case and the -- the assertions from Yugoslavia or Serbia
14 that our requests were too broad. So in response to this, we attempted to
15 refine the requests.
16 Q. Another one is 0174. Do you recall what that's for? At least a
17 couple of them make a reference to Joint Command.
18 A. That RFA dealt specifically with documentation of the Joint
19 Command which we were seeking in, I believe -- or since 2002.
20 Q. Now, while we're talking about that, can you tell us what your
21 experience was in trying to obtain Joint Command documents. Did you have
22 any difficulty in that process?
23 A. It was quite a torturous process. We first requested the
24 documentation in 2002. The response, I believe, to that request was that
25 the Joint Command ceased to exist after October 1998 and the documentation
1 had been destroyed by NATO bombing. We subsequently came across -- we had
2 additional information to believe that this wasn't the case because we --
3 we believed that NATO bombing wouldn't have destroyed Joint Command
4 documentation being produced during the NATO bombing period itself,
5 because those documents wouldn't have been handed in to the archive, which
6 had allegedly been bombed in Belgrade.
7 So we continued pushing for a better response. At some point
8 we -- we were provided with a 17 April 1999 General Staff suggestion
9 directed at the 3rd Army. That suggestion cited a Joint Command order of
10 the 15th of April, 1999. I believe we requested that 15 April Joint
11 Command order specifically and with no success. We then inserted the
12 reference to this Joint Command order into a bigger request for I think
13 about 75 or so VJ documents, and the response to that request included the
14 15 April Joint Command order.
15 We then proceeded to use this 15 April Joint Command order as
16 evidence that the documentation had not been destroyed by NATO bombing and
17 continued to press through 54 bis proceedings in Milosevic and through
18 RFAs for the provision of Joint Command documents.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I would indicate that the 17 April 1999
21 suggestion from the General Staff is Exhibit P1487, already in evidence,
22 and I don't have a reference to the 15 April Joint Command order but I
23 believe that is also in evidence already.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
25 MR. HANNIS: But I need to check that one.
1 Q. A couple of other RFA numbers, if you can tell us, 309. There are
2 a number of documents that appear on the list related -- or identified as
3 responses to that one.
4 A. I don't recall what the subject was. I -- it might have been MUP.
5 Q. Yeah, a number of them do appear to make reference to MUP.
6 Another number is 1016 and there's a reference to VJ brigade reports.
7 A. I think 1016 was drafted in response to documentation that was
8 provided in the Defence phase of Milosevic through Defence witnesses, but
9 I'm not positive.
10 Q. A higher number would indicate that that was later in time?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Now, the remaining category or body of documents are ones that are
13 listed as having been either received by an investigator from the OTP - I
14 think there are a handful of those with no further information - and the
15 ones as listed as having been recovered during the document exploitation
16 mission and -- or acquired during a post-war OTP document exploitation
17 mission to Kosovo, oftentimes with no further details. Can you tell the
18 Judges any other general considerations you took into account in
19 connection with those documents to satisfy yourself about their
20 reliability and suitability to be included in your initial report.
21 A. Your Honours, I looked for official stamps, signatures,
22 indications that an official format was being followed. I also looked at
23 the contents of the documents and, as often as possible, tried to group
24 documents with similar information or corroborating information together
25 in my report. And generally, these were acquired independently of one
1 another. I couldn't see any -- in any of the documents acquired in the --
2 through these two means from witnesses -- correction -- from individuals
3 handing them to investigators or from members of the OTP collecting
4 documents from various facilities in Kosovo. I couldn't see any
5 indication that -- to suggest that these were forged or had been tampered
6 with. For the most part, the information in these documents was quite --
7 quite mundane or innocuous and didn't strike me as the type of information
8 that anyone intent on misleading us would bother forging.
9 Q. Did --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Are there any being tendered that you harbour some
11 doubt about?
12 THE WITNESS: I can't think of any, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
14 Mr. Hannis.
15 MR. HANNIS:
16 Q. And does that go for as well -- I think there are about two or
17 three as -- listed as having been received or obtained at the UCK
18 headquarters, perhaps received from somebody from the KLA. Does that fact
19 alone give you cause for concern about the authenticity of those
21 A. It would give me normally cause for concern, but I believe -- I
22 can't remember exactly what documents those were. I don't believe that
23 those were the documents that had the information of a kind that would be
24 forged or intended to mislead. The only document I'm aware of that anyone
25 thought might be a forgery was a list with, I believe, an introductory
1 sentence saying: Names of Albanians to be liquidated, and as far as I'm
2 aware that wasn't used -- that definitely wasn't used by me and hasn't
3 been an exhibit in this case.
4 Q. Yes.
5 MR. HANNIS: I can confirm to the Court that document has not been
6 presented in our case.
7 Q. All right. And did you also look at these documents based on your
8 knowledge or experience of other known VJ and MUP and political documents
9 with an eye to the form and style of how they were prepared?
10 A. I did. A lot of these -- although a lot of these documents were
11 incorporated into my original Milosevic report before we had the number of
12 documents that we do from, for example, the VJ archive, nonetheless I
13 think the -- the format of most of these documents corresponded to the
14 type of format you would expect of, for example, a military order or a
15 military daily combat report. They had the types of subheadings that I
16 would expect that I've seen in the Canadian Army's and other armies'
17 combat reports.
18 Q. And with the passage of time which -- I take it you've had a
19 chance to look at hundreds or thousands of additional documents that the
20 provenance is well-known. Is there anything to indicate that those
21 documents discovered in the document exploitation mission are not
22 authentic because they're different in form or style?
23 A. Nothing to my knowledge, Your Honour.
24 Q. One other general area that there are a handful of documents, a
25 few that were presented as Defence exhibits in the Milosevic case. I
1 think most of them on our list are ones that were brought in by
2 then-General Delic. Are you satisfied as to the authenticity of those?
3 A. The ones that I've used -- that I did use in my report, as far as
4 I can tell, appear to be authentic.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 A. There are hundreds of others that I haven't really reviewed.
7 Q. All right. Thank you.
8 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I have no more questions for Mr. Coo.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Hannis.
10 Mr. O'Sullivan.
11 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Can we have a very short break to discuss -- in
12 fact, it may help us reduce our questions down to a minimum?
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, we can break now and begin again at quarter
14 to, I think, if that's convenient.
15 Mr. Coo, the usher will escort you from the court and show you
16 where you should wait while we have the break.
17 [The witness stands down].
18 JUDGE BONOMY: We shall resume at 10.45.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.21 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. O'Sullivan.
23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, we will follow the indictment, and I
24 have no questions.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
1 Mr. Fila.
2 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Same here, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
4 MR. VISNJIC: No questions, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ackerman.
6 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, we have no questions.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No questions, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.
10 MR. IVETIC: No questions for this witness, Your Honour.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the saga has ended, Mr. Coo.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Your evidence is complete; thank you for coming to
15 give it. You're now free to leave the courtroom.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have another
20 proposal or submission. I have already agreed about that with Mr. Hannis,
21 but we waited until the last moment for some translations; however, the
22 CLSS let us down. Still, we would like to tender three records of senior
23 staff meetings of the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia. Those are
24 3D557, 3D558, and 3D559. Those are senior staff meetings of the 3rd
25 December 1998, 6th January 1999, and 28th January 1999. The first
1 exhibit, 3D557, a senior staff meeting of the 3rd December, has been
2 translated and it's in the system. The second exhibit, 3D558, the senior
3 staff meeting of the 6th of January, we only have the original in B/C/S
4 and we are expecting a translation from the CLSS. And the third exhibit,
5 3D559, the senior staff meeting of the 28th of January, has an original in
6 B/C/S in the system and we are expecting the translation, the deadline was
7 yesterday, and we hope we will get it today. We believe that the CLSS is
8 also snowed under, but we hope that we will get the translations of these
9 two exhibits before the end of this day.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
11 Mr. Hannis, your position on these?
12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I had discussed that with Mr. Visnjic.
13 We have no objections. A number of these are already in. As we
14 indicated, Your Honours, finding the most relevant bits sometimes is not
15 always easy, but I think, often times oftentimes it's necessary to read
16 the whole meeting to get a sense of it.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: The effect of introducing these, though, at this
18 stage with your consent is that they form part of the picture we'll be
19 looking at in 98 bis? You accept that?
20 MR. HANNIS: I do.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. Well, we'll admit the first one, 3D557, and
22 the other two will be marked for identification pending translation. You
23 should file a note, Mr. Visnjic, when translated.
24 Mr. Hannis, I should have asked you to clarify the position with
25 these exhibit numbers of the documents attached to Mr. Coo's statement. I
1 know you gave us a list of 2803, I think, to 2813, but can we be clear
2 where they start.
3 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, what I intended to do was attach that
4 list of those that we wished to tender along with the list of 188.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: That's going to be a supplement to the report; in
6 other words, a qualification of the report when it's filed as a -- as part
7 of the motion for admission of the document?
8 MR. HANNIS: Yeah, I was just going to identify it as a separate
9 list and identify it as having come from the appendix to Witness Coo's
11 JUDGE BONOMY: But if the 2803 is the third item there the report
12 written by MUP staff member Pesic, if that's the case, does that mean that
13 the first two don't have exhibit numbers, two war diaries, or do they have
15 MR. HANNIS: They do have numbers, Your Honour. The first -- the
16 first seven items on the list will be 2801 through 2807, then there is
17 Exhibit P2591 already admitted --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Hold on.
20 MR. HANNIS: And after 2591 we would resume with 2808
21 consecutively through 2813.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
23 MR. HANNIS: Which would then take Your Honour I hope to P941.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
25 MR. HANNIS: Which is already in evidence on the 22nd of January.
1 P939 that was already admitted, as well as 938, 935. The following
2 page --
3 JUDGE BONOMY: So -- but hold on again. 941 you say has already
4 been admitted, is it?
5 MR. HANNIS: Umm --
6 JUDGE BONOMY: It doesn't say so in the document.
7 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. Did I say 941? I have a note that it was
8 admitted on the 22nd of January.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
10 MR. HANNIS: I'm having -- yes, that's what it indicates in
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I've also tried to go
14 through them. It's also one of the senior staff meetings. I have it
15 noted that 5941 [as interpreted] should have been admitted through Philip
16 Coo, not through an earlier decision. I'm sorry. For the record, P-941.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: We will check when we are reviewing it.
18 You then say that the next few have been admitted, that's down to
19 935. 933 --
20 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, on page A-5 at the top, 933 --
21 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm on A-4 at the moment but -- but 939, 938, and
22 935 bear to be admitted.
23 MR. HANNIS: That's what my notes indicate, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: 933.
25 MR. HANNIS: Is not.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh.
2 MR. HANNIS: That's one that we will include on this list.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: And then 932, 931, 929, 28 --
4 MR. HANNIS: Stop there.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: They have all been admitted and then 25 and 22 have
6 yet to be admitted?
7 MR. HANNIS: Correct.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, what is the next surprise you have in store
9 for us, Mr. Hannis.
10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I looked outside before I came in. I
11 did not -- I see Mr. O'Sullivan. He's going to let my surprise out.
12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes. One small matter to advise the Chamber that
13 yet the Milutinovic Defence and Mr. Hannis met and we anticipate filing a
14 further joint submission on stipulations which may come tomorrow, we
16 JUDGE BONOMY: In -- is that stipulated by everyone?
17 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I'd have to check on that.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
19 Yes, Mr. Hannis.
20 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, if we're still on administrative things,
21 there's one other matter I wanted to bring to the Court's attention
22 relating to some documents we had just received yesterday from the Office
23 of the Prosecutor -- excuse me. The day before yesterday, these documents
24 came. We filed a notice for judicial notice and I don't know if that's
25 made it into the system yet. This relates to information -- official
1 investigative information received --
2 JUDGE BONOMY: I have seen this document --
3 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
4 MR. BONOMY: -- Mr. Ivetic.
5 MR. IVETIC: Just wanted to make sure.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: We do have it.
7 MR. IVETIC: And I don't know whether the Prosecution needs to
8 respond. I just want to make sure that they were aware of it and they
9 asked for time, if they needed, to relating to Mr. Protic's testimony.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: It would be very helpful, Mr. Hannis, to have an
11 instant response to that. I don't mean this minute, but if it was
12 possible -- I'll give you a -- well, if it was possible to respond by
13 tomorrow morning, it would be helpful.
14 MR. HANNIS: We'll try and do that --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand it may not be. I'm not making an
16 order to that effect.
17 MR. HANNIS: We'll try and do that, Your Honour. I would indicate
18 to you I anticipate that we will object to the request that you take
19 judicial notice of it.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. All right. Thank you.
21 And Mr. Visnjic.
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm a bit lost but I
23 would like the Prosecution to assist me if they may. Are the following
24 numbers tendered: 936, 930, 934, and 937? Have they been tendered or
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Give me the numbers again, Mr. Visnjic, sorry.
2 Just take them slowly. The first one.
3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] The first number is 936.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't see it among the list here, nor is 930
5 there, nor is 934, nor 937. They don't appear to be tendered at this
7 MR. HANNIS: That's correct, Your Honour, we have not tendered
9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] In that case, Your Honour, we would
10 like to tender these exhibits --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's a matter --
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] -- just once again --
13 JUDGE BONOMY: That's a matter you should deal directly with
14 Mr. Hannis on, and if you reach agreement, you should tender them with a
15 very brief written filing and do it today.
16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: That -- and they will only be admitted if it's by
18 agreement of the Prosecution.
19 MR. VISNJIC: Yes.
20 [Defence counsel confer]
21 MR. VISNJIC: Mr. Sepenuk wants to say something.
22 MR. SEPENUK: Just as a final precaution, Your Honour, we would
23 just like to keep the record open as a follow-up to what Mr. Visnjic just
24 did. There may be just a few exhibits, a handful, and there may not be,
25 but just want to make absolutely certain that all the exhibits that should
1 be tendered are, and if we could have till the end of the day on that or
2 at least till -- part of the day, we would appreciate it.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the filing that you tender can deal with
4 those and any others that you can persuade Mr. Hannis to agree to.
5 MR. SEPENUK: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
7 Mr. Hannis, where do we go from here?
8 MR. HANNIS: Well, out into the sunshine for an hour, I hope. No,
9 Your Honour, we -- I did want to bring a couple of matters to your
10 attention. There was an additional witness -- well, there were three
11 additional witnesses that we had hoped to present to you but we have not
12 been able to. One of them was Mr. Lilic. Mr. Stamp was going to file
13 something with you tomorrow indicating the status regarding our efforts to
14 do that for informational purposes and whatever action we might seek to
15 take in the future or request of the Court. Just wanted to bring that to
16 your attention. We had also hoped to have Mr. Byrnes and General Clark
17 here. Your ruling allowed it to be possible for Mr. Byrnes to come, but
18 because of urgent personal matters we were not able to get him here before
19 the close of our evidence. And General Clark, as you know, our filing on
20 the appeal is due today, so we'll be filing something on that, and if it's
21 appropriate we'll file something --
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. We thought it was due yesterday.
23 MR. HANNIS: I know, I've seen the draft this morning, Your
24 Honour, so I know it did not get filed yesterday but we will advise the
25 Court of that. And with the same you allowance that Mr. Sepenuk requested
1 to check the status of all the exhibits that we think are in and be sure
2 that they are in, at this time, Your Honour, we would rest.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, well, "rest" not in the formal sense, I take
4 it, because there's nothing we can do until -- if there is an appeal in
5 Clark and if the Appeals Chamber are prepared to take the view that it's
6 in time, then there's nothing that we can do until that has been resolved.
7 I mean, that effectively stymies the 98 bis process.
8 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I wasn't secure about how the Court
9 would proceed in light of that matter pending, whether we would go forward
10 with the 98 bis --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, how can we? We would be delighted to if you
12 can demonstrate to us how it can be done.
13 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I thought that perhaps you would proceed
14 that way, and if the ruling came out a certain way, the Prosecution would
15 make an application to re-open its case and present General Clark.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: I see. I see.
17 MR. HANNIS: But --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: What happens if someone has been acquitted by
20 MR. HANNIS: Well, that's the Prosecution's loss.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Hmm.
22 MR. HANNIS: But in terms of the Defence presentation of 98 bis, I
23 hope that I would not be presenting General Clark or Mr. Byrnes as
24 witnesses who would subtract from the Prosecution's evidence. So the fact
25 that they came after the 98 bis wouldn't result in any unfairness to the
1 Defence in that regard.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. O'Sullivan, on the question of whether it's
5 possible to proceed with a 98 bis hearing with an outstanding appeal that
6 would lead to a further witness being led.
7 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, this is certainly a matter that I think
8 should be discussed among my colleagues, because as you pointed out, this
9 does lead to a potential problem, and one that requires more thought than
10 I can give it here.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: It probably is to the Defence advantage; on the
12 other hand, the test for re-opening the case at first blush couldn't be
13 met by succeeding in an appeal when you already have in mind the calling
14 of the witness. I thought the re-opening test was that you couldn't
15 foresee leading that witness at the time of the trial. So I wonder -- I
16 mean, have you thought this through completely, Mr. Hannis?
17 MR. HANNIS: No, Your Honour, I have not.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, in that case, this will require to be
19 discussed later. Now, we are going to sit tomorrow, whatever happens. It
20 may only be briefly, just to deal with anything outstanding that we can
21 deal with, but if there are to be submissions made on this, perhaps they
22 should be in the third session later or -- is that long enough for you to
23 think about it or do you want to make these submissions tomorrow morning?
24 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Perhaps tomorrow morning, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: If it was easy to have the 98 bis hearing, you
1 would be pushing at an open door; but I was surprised, I have to say, that
2 that was thought to be feasible.
3 Anyone have any other matter to raise at this stage? We will sit
4 then at 9.00 tomorrow. I don't expect we'll be in court for much of
5 tomorrow, but you may have to be available depending on what we try to
6 determine in the course of tomorrow. For example, we may need to give
7 thought to this question, and rather than leave it hanging I think we
8 would want to make a decision if we could so that further procedure is
9 clear, including possibly the date at -- on which the Defence case will
11 So we'll adjourn now and resume at 9.00 tomorrow.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.09 a.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day of
14 March, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.