Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 18526

1 Wednesday, 16 May 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, kindly quality case,

6 please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is

8 case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Jadranko Prlic et al.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, registrar. Today we

10 are Wednesday, the 16th of May, 2007. I would like to welcome all the

11 people present in the courtroom, the representatives from the Prosecution,

12 Defence counsel, as well as all the staff members present in the

13 courtroom.

14 The Trial Chamber is going to hand down two oral decisions. The

15 first one relates to the tendering of evidence relating to Witness C --

16 Witness CO. As we have not settled this matter, yet, the Trial Chamber is

17 handing down an oral decision on the tendering of evidence relating to

18 Witness CO that came to testify on 6th and 7th of December, 2006.

19 The Prosecution submitted a request with a view to tendering some

20 of their evidence on the basis of its list, IC 00165. The Trial Chamber

21 has agreed to admit Exhibit P 04484 on the grounds that it is -- it

22 contains some relevance and probative value. The Trial Chamber would like

23 to specify that Exhibit P 0360 [as interpreted] -- let me repeat, P O

24 three, hundred and sixty [as interpreted] -- P 03160 and P 09285 have

25 already been admitted on the 11th of December, 2006, and 14th of December,

Page 18527

1 2006. The Trial Chamber notes that Defence teams have not asked for the

2 tendering of any evidence as regards Witness CO.

3 Second decision, oral decision handed down on the 14th of May,

4 2006, relating to the application made by Mr. Prlic with a view to having

5 more time to conduct the cross-examination of a particular witness.

6 At the hearing of the 15th of May, 2007, Karnavas -- Mr. Karnavas

7 asked for extra time which was granted by the Trial Chamber so that he

8 could conduct the cross-examination of a witness on the grounds that this

9 witness, according to him, and I'm quoting him, "is important to his

10 case."

11 After having deliberated today, the Trial Chamber would like to

12 remind all and everyone of the following: At the hearing of the 14th of

13 May, 2007, it granted four hours to the Prosecution so that it could

14 conduct its examination-in-chief and five hours to Defence teams so that

15 they could conduct their cross-examination. One hour was granted to the

16 accused Prlic, given that the testimony relates to his responsibility.

17 Secondly, the Trial Chamber would like to recall that pursuant to

18 its decision of the 12th of July, 2006, it allowed for the possibility to

19 review on an exceptional basis - let me emphasise on an exceptional

20 basis - the assessment of the lengths of time of the cross-examinations in

21 light of testimonies of witness to come to testify in court.

22 In this particular case, the Trial Chamber has realised that -- or

23 realised that Mr. Karnavas did not submit any exceptional reasons which

24 would substantiate the granting of additional time for him to conduct his

25 cross-examination and thus sees no reason why it should review or go back

Page 18528

1 on its decision, decision relating to extension of time. Therefore, the

2 Trial Chamber feels that the cross-examination of the witness should

3 proceed as was planned initially. However, the Trial Chamber invites

4 Mr. Karnavas to set forth at the end of his cross-examination -- if

5 necessary, to set forth those exceptional reasons which he feels would

6 substantiate additional time.

7 Lastly, the Trial Chamber has acknowledged the fact that

8 Mr. Karnavas intends to file a written motion seeking severance. The

9 Trial Chamber would like to remind the parties that this issue has already

10 been addressed when the Trial Chamber ruled on the matter during a Status

11 Conference on the 1st of July, 2006 [as interpreted].

12 We are now going to proceed with the cross-examination. If after

13 the allotted time Mr. Karnavas feels that he has not had enough time, in

14 that case he will set forth those reasons, exceptional reasons, for which

15 he wishes to have extra time. In that case, the Trial Chamber will rule

16 on the matter. This, of course, will be assessed in light of the

17 questions put and the answers provided.

18 On line 10 of page 3, this is not the 1st of July, 2006 but 1st of

19 July, 2005. There was a mistake there.

20 As far as severance is concerned, I would like to remind you that

21 the Trial Chamber has already settled the matter, but nothing prevents

22 Defence counsel from filing a new written motion if it feels there are new

23 elements.

24 Now, as far as additional time is concerned and given the constant

25 litany on a fair trial for a number of days now, the registrar on the 10th

Page 18529

1 of May, 2007, at 3 minutes past 4.00, gave us time allocation and

2 breakdown. This chart mentions that the Prosecutor has had for its

3 examination-in-chief and for additional questions 207 hours and 90

4 minutes. This chart specifies that Defence teams have had all in all 234

5 hours, i.e., 30 hours more than the Prosecution, and according to our

6 calculations Mr. Prlic's Defence counsel has had 47 hours and 58 minutes,

7 just about 48 hours. Now, if you divide 48 out of 207, you realise that

8 Defence counsel 1D has had a great amount of time.

9 Notwithstanding these figures, I would like to indicate that

10 procedural matters have taken up 146 hours. The registry was unable to

11 give me the breakdown per Defence counsel or per lawyer on the basis of

12 these 156 hours, but we have every reason to believe that some time has

13 been taken by Prlic's Defence counsel.

14 So to conclude and in light of the figures, Defence -- the Defence

15 teams has had enough time as compared with the time allocated to the

16 Prosecution, has had enough time for its cross-examination.

17 We shall consider the questions put this afternoon and decide

18 thereupon whether it's necessary -- necessary to grant more time. The

19 Trial Chamber I believe has granted a degree of flexibility, and given the

20 interest of some of the questions put by Mr. Coric's Defence counsel, we

21 did grant extra time. Also, Mr. Praljak has had some extra time, and more

22 time than what had been planned.

23 We shall now ask the usher to bring the witness into the courtroom

24 so that we can resume the cross-examination, and we shall move into

25 private session. I would like you to kindly drop the blinds, please, and

Page 18530

1 I shall give the floor to the registrar. Maybe he has a number -- a few

2 IC numbers to give us.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours, we have a few numbers to

4 be assigned to Witness BC, who is currently on the stand. They are

5 documents tendered by the Defence for Mr. Praljak. The first is a video

6 extract relating to the kidnapping, which will be assigned IC number 557.

7 The second video extract referencing the UN convoy will be given IC number

8 558, and a chart listing the explosion in East Mostar will be IC 559. And

9 we have objections from the previous witness, Mr. Finlayson, and the

10 objections are -- arise from the cross-examination of Mr. Stojic, and that

11 will be assigned IC number 560. Thank you.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, registrar. We can

13 move into private session [as interpreted].

14 [Closed session]

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 18531











11 Pages 18531-18663 redacted. Closed session















Page 18664

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.18 p.m.

5 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 17th day

6 of May, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.