1 Monday, 9 September 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [Status Conference]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning, everybody. Please be seated.
7 Today the intention is to have a Status Conference in the truest
8 sense of this word. We'll say to find out what is the status of our case
9 and come back to all the still-open issues. I have three or four pages of
10 bits and pieces to be addressed. And in addition, the intention is, in
11 order to proceed as expeditious as possible, to prepare the admission of
12 additional documents which, of course, can't be done in the framework of a
13 Status Conference. But prepare it by attaching numbers, hearing
14 objections, and then in a package solution, to transfer the decisions of
15 this Status Conference as regards the admission into evidence of
16 documents, yes, as a package into the hearings by the way of just making
17 reference to this Status Conference, and to have the transcripts of this
18 Status Conference as an attachment of tomorrow's hearings.
19 As to the fact that in all likelihood, Judge Fassi Fihri will be
20 not available throughout the entire week, we have to plan how to proceed.
21 My intention is to use the two remaining days under Rule 15 bis, first of
22 all, for the upcoming witness from abroad. And I hope that we can start
23 immediately tomorrow morning with this witness. And I learned, please
24 correct me if I am wrong, that it would be take about two hours to hear
25 this witness. Is this correct? Two days.
1 MR. KOUMJIAN: Correct.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Two days. Wishful thinking.
3 MR. KOUMJIAN: I hoped that it would finish a bit early, and if
4 so, I would suggest finishing Mr. Sebire, if that happens.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What about the presence of Mr. Ostojic? Will he
6 be here on Wednesday?
7 MR. LUKIC: Mr. Ostojic promised that he will come when necessary.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And when there is a promise, he will no doubt be
9 here. So indeed, that would be an excellent solution, because correct me
10 once again if I'm wrong, Mr. Sebire is prepared to leave the country by
11 the end of the week?
12 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, I believe the 15th or something like that, he
13 is scheduled to leave.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So we should envisage to hear Witness -- what
15 was the number -- 33 tomorrow, and then proceed with Mr. Sebire. And then
16 we have to find out how to proceed. I'll let you know as soon as possible
17 when we can proceed. But we have to take into account worst case, this
18 would be that it takes some other days, maybe even during the next week,
19 before Judge Fassi Fihri is coming back. And my idea would be to
20 continue, nevertheless, with witnesses from abroad, then in the form of
21 taking depositions under Rule 71. I think this would be a feasible
22 method, and this would allow all participants to be present and to
23 cross-examine this witness. But as mentioned, only in case and not to be
24 delayed and to avoid unnecessary expenses for witnesses coming to
25 The Hague from abroad which could be heard then. But it can be discussed
1 later, only that you know what the intention is.
2 But, let me invite you, first of all, some general observations to
3 this envisaged proceedings for the next two or three weeks. Anything by
4 the OTP?
5 MR. KOUMJIAN: As to the schedule, Your Honour, we just would
6 appreciate, if there was any change in the schedule for our next witness
7 from abroad, who I believe is scheduled to testify next Monday, that we be
8 notified as soon as possible because he has a very busy schedule and has
9 blocked off particular days. That's Mr. Vulliamy.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. Would there be any objections to proceed
11 with this witness under Rule 71, and the Trial Chamber would then appoint
12 one of the permanent Judges, this would be in all likelihood me, myself,
13 as a "presiding officer" for that purpose? And then introduce this into
14 the hearing as foreseen under Rule 71. Any objections?
15 MR. LUKIC: No objections from our side, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
17 MR. LUKIC: There would be no --
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: From the OTP, any objections?
19 MR. KOUMJIAN: I don't see any at the present time. You just hit
20 me with the idea. I haven't really considered it. But I don't
21 see -- nothing comes to mind. I'm not complaining, but I don't see a
22 reason why we would object.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Problems when they are upcoming, there's always
24 a way to overcome. And I think Rule 71 would be the most appropriate
1 Today's Status Conference, as you heard, is -- there is no
2 intention at all to discuss substantive law issues or factual issues. The
3 time is ripe for this status after -- by the end of the Prosecutor's case,
4 and indeed, as you can see from the updated schedule, it is still
5 envisaged to discuss in how far it's possible to streamline the case, both
6 as regards the facts whereby the OTP already now it can be said, for
7 whatever reasons so ever, we didn't manage to bring the necessary
8 evidence, and it should be really concentrated, then, on the core issues.
9 The intention of these deliberations, no doubt, is that we once again
10 avoid unnecessary battlefields with long, long files where the parties
11 seem to agree. And this could be as regards facts from the side of the
12 Defence, if I understood the messages from the side of both Dr. Stakic
13 himself when asking, for example, asking for not cross-examining the one
14 or other witnesses which has already been taken into account and is laid
15 down in our files as a real good sign of cooperation, that it would be
16 really helpful that during these hearings, notwithstanding an in-depth
17 discussion on the question whether the link has been established and
18 whether there is a responsibility and, in concreto, a criminal
19 responsibility of Dr. Stakic that we shouldn't discuss questions of the
20 crimes committed in that territory as such.
21 So therefore, already from this factual basis, both the motion
22 under 98 bis and, no doubt, also the answer on this and the decision on
23 this can be abbreviated. And with the same appellate function, we want to
24 discuss the same matters as regards legal issues. Here, we should really
25 concentrate on core issues which, no doubt, as regards genocide, the
1 question of the necessary intent, the core element of crime of this
2 offence, and that we concentrate on other issues, the applicability of,
3 say, the Geneva conventions in the concrete case, vis-a-vis a civil
4 person. And such problems as pointed out already earlier by the Defence.
5 And when I mention this, the basis for this is that I stem from a legal
6 system where it's mandatory to give some judicial hints in order to avoid
7 surprises. And two core issues, if - emphasise "if" - the Trial Chamber
8 would come to the conclusion that with respect to the one or other offence
9 the necessary mens rea has been established during the Prosecutor's case,
10 that we have to discuss whether this is in the scope of foreseeability,
11 the one or other incident, and I have to direct the intention of both
12 parties to two special issues and that is the incidents in Room Number 3.
13 I want to draw the attention, especially of the Defence, to the fact that
14 as regards Room Number 3, it doesn't go without saying that this Chamber
15 comes to the same conclusions another Trial Chamber has come to alia in a
16 previous case because it might be that in this other case, the reason why
17 Room Number 3 has not been included, put it this way, could be more or
18 less based on technical intentions in this special case. So therefore,
19 the evaluation of whether or not there is a responsibility, individual
20 responsibility, as regards the incident in Room Number 3 on both days
21 should be discussed in depth.
22 But the same is true, and this goes in the direction of the Office
23 of the Prosecutor, please take care that it doesn't go without saying that
24 the incidents at Mount Vlasic are immediately within the scope of the
25 foreseeability, and it has to be discussed, without doubt, whether or not
1 there could have been a deviation from, if any, from a criminal plan. So
2 I think these should be the core issues we have to deal with when we have
3 to address 98 bis. And the so-called deliberations, indeed, should
4 facilitate these proceedings, abbreviate the proceedings, and no doubt
5 abbreviate the motions and the decision. And you should never give up the
6 hope, maybe at the end of these deliberations, we could come back once
7 again to the question whether or not the parties couldn't reach an
8 agreement as foreseen in the rules. But it would be premature to discuss
9 these issues in the framework of a Status Conference dedicated to formal
10 issues, first of all.
11 Any observations to this long introduction? I can't see any. So
12 let's leave it with this for today.
13 Let me now start all these bits and pieces. As regards Witness Z,
14 we are still expecting the originals of Exhibits S290, 292, and 293. Of
15 course, this takes time. But in addition, it is necessary that we can
16 introduce or make use of former statements that we know the source -- that
17 we know something more about the sources. We have, for example, from this
18 statement evidently stemming from about 1994, taken somewhere in Germany,
19 we need the original. We can't work with a, yes, with the English version
20 only when we don't have the German one. And in addition, one question
21 remains open: That is, what about the notes? Where do they stem from?
22 What have they to do with Witness Z?
23 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, they have nothing to do with Witness Z
24 in the sense of what we are presenting as evidence to the Court. And
25 there seems to be some confusion. Neither of those statements, none of
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 the written statements, are offered by the Prosecution as evidence in line
2 with Your Honours' earlier clear rulings that the Court is relying upon
3 the oral evidence of witnesses at trial and not prior statements. The
4 only reason the Court received those is because Your Honour requested
5 them, that anything we give to the Defence we give to the Chamber for
6 review. We are required by the rules to give all prior statements to the
7 Defence. They are not evidence. They are not offered as evidence. And
8 as regards to the German statement, we don't have it in German. We're not
9 offering it in evidence, either the English or the German. So I don't
10 know if there was -- if there was a confusion about what we were giving
11 those to the Chamber for, but we are not giving those statements to the
12 Chamber as evidence.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please recall that as regards one very special
14 incident mentioned by Witness Z, that is, whether or not Dr. Stakic at
15 that time wore a uniform or not, reference was made also by the Chamber to
16 this formal statement. To that extent, that it seems to be -- I have to
17 be cautious, it seems to be that already in 1994 Witness Z mentioned this.
18 So it's part of the transcript, and it's part of the hearing of this
19 witness. But it can only be included, especially for the purposes of a
20 judgement, if we have the basis of this, and it should be no problem at
21 all to trace where this document comes from. It can't come out of the
23 MR. KOUMJIAN: We know exactly where it came from. We, I
24 believe -- well, I know we would have some record of it. I believe we
25 received it from the commission of experts. But again, we do not have the
1 German statement. We were not offering the statements as evidence. The
2 witness did answer regarding her prior recollections or statements
3 regarding the uniform. But we can't provide something we don't have. Is
4 Your Honour saying that we have to contact the German authorities? It's
5 not part of the evidence that we're presenting. Moreover, the notes that
6 you referred to are notes that are written in English that have not, to
7 our knowledge, been read back to her. We don't know who took those notes.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. I think, no doubt, we can forget about
9 these notes, but it could be, no doubt, helpful or even mandatory to make
10 use of all, if you would, please, read up once again the transcript of
11 Witness Z, that we can make use of this part when we have these -- the
12 original statement in German as well. So I would ask the OTP to try to
13 find out whether these documents are available or not because I didn't
14 want to make a problem out of this complex in the presence of the witness
15 and in the very limited remaining time. But indeed, it is a problem that
16 such documents are presented more or less out of the blue.
17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Would Your Honour prefer that we don't present
18 those documents? It's not our intention that they be admitted. She did
19 not have a chance to review or adopt that document. And that's a problem.
20 If we're presenting documents that could have a statement that she could
21 explain in Court at a later time when she hasn't had an opportunity to
22 explain that.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I had the impression that counsel of the OTP,
24 Ms. Sutherland, wanted to explain this at the end of the day, but for the
25 special time limitations, it was already later than 7.00, I didn't want to
1 hear any further explanations. So I hope to obtain an explanation on this
2 today. So I mention it, and I hope that it will be possible to obtain the
4 As regards Mr. Sebire, what about a new table? Would this be
5 feasible until Wednesday?
6 MR. KOUMJIAN: He's working on it. He has been working on it all
7 weekend, and we hope it will be ready on Wednesday.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the list, the updated list of missing
9 persons, is it now available, because no doubt it should form part of
10 Column 1 of this table to be expected?
11 MR. KOUMJIAN: It has not yet been received.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What about the title for the annexes to this
14 MR. KOUMJIAN: We have it to distribute.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May it be distributed.
16 May I hear the exhibit number of this report, if there is already
17 any, that we can have this as an attachment to this report.
18 MR. KOUMJIAN: We believe it's 281.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is it confirmed, 281? Then let's mark it
20 provisionally, as mentioned before, we will confirm this in the hearing,
21 during the hearing, as 281-1.
22 MR. KOUMJIAN: I believe we have a -1.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, S281-1 is the annex number 16 already.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: A. Then let's continue with -2. Please don't
25 tell me already there's a -2.
1 MR. KOUMJIAN: Apparently there's a 2 and a 3. I think we need to
2 make it -4.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. I don't have an updated list.
4 Then finally, the Defence asked Mr. Sebire to provide an answer to
5 the question of the 261 gravesites that were exhumed, how many were mass
6 graves and how many were individual graves. Will this also be feasible to
7 identify by tomorrow or by Wednesday?
8 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm not sure by Wednesday. It's a matter of simply
9 reviewing all 261 because Mr. Sebire indicated he did not have a record of
10 it. But just to clarify the question, is "mass graves" defined as a grave
11 with more than one body?
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To be honest, I haven't found yet a definition
13 of "mass grave," a mandatory definition.
14 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think his report, he distinguished between graves
15 with - I could be wrong - but more than five bodies and less --
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think we should leave the definition for
17 Mr. Sebire, and maybe this word has been used earlier, no doubt, in this
18 Tribunal. And we should stick to former definitions which I can't quote
19 from the top of my head.
20 We shouldn't forget one additional question, and I want to put
21 this today, in order that Mr. Sebire is prepared for these questions: We
22 have numerous reports by United Nations or, for the purposes of
23 United Nations Security Council, for example, prepared by Ms. Greaves in
24 the Prijedor report, and by Professor Cherif Bassiouni. And from this we
25 know that there have been numerous exhumations conducted before and on
1 behalf of the United Nations, on behalf of the International Red Cross,
2 and also by and on behalf of nongovernmental examinations. As far as I
3 understood, Mr. Sebire's report, he is making reference only to those
4 reports -- exhumations conducted by official authorities in the entities
5 or in Croatia or in Yugoslavia, but not to these United Nations, NGO, or
6 International Red Cross based exhumations. What about this? Have they
7 been included? Will they be included? Have they been taken into account?
8 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm not aware of NGO exhumations in the area of
9 Prijedor. They may have funded the state authorities, or provided
10 assistance. But Mr. Sebire is the expert. He can tell us. I don't
11 believe they are.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: He can assist us in this. And if there was no
13 such exhumation in the area of Prijedor, he may let us know. But please
14 recall that he mentioned also that there were exhumations conducted
15 related to Prijedor but not in the municipality of Prijedor. Therefore,
16 we should take these exhumations mentioned in several United Nations
17 reports, Security Council reports, we should take this into account, not
18 to be confused.
19 As regards Mr. Inayat, the Chamber had asked Mr. Inayat to go
20 through the sourcing for the documents in the Stakic case, ascertain
21 whether any of those from the organisation AID have been allegedly
22 indicted for fraud were connected with the provisional documents to the
23 ICTY. Will this be delivered before we hear Mr. Inayat once again, or
24 what about this? And in addition, there is the request by the Defence to
25 provide the IIF for Exhibit 39, the famous variant A and B document.
1 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, first, as to Mr. Inayat, my
2 understanding was that he had completed his testimony, so my suggestion is
3 in regards to that question, which the Court put to him and he agreed to
4 answer and I know he is working on that, that he simply provide a 92
5 statement from him and it will cover that. And he will provide that
6 shortly. And again, the only task that he has been given is to review the
7 documents presented in this case to see which ones, if any, have come from
8 five individuals. As for the IIF, it's not our practice, we don't want to
9 make it a practice, that we give out an internal document like that. In
10 regards to the specific variant A and B, we actually want to provide the
11 Court with much more detailed information, and that is the testimony of
12 Mr. O'Donnell where he went through the -- all of the documents of variant
13 A and B which were obtained by the Tribunal and the source of those
14 documents, if I quote a number, I would be guessing, but I know there's
15 more than seven, I think there's seven or more various copies of this
16 document have been received by the Office of the Prosecutor. It's all
17 contained in the testimony of Mr. O'Donnell who testified in the Bosanski
18 Samac case and was subject to cross-examination on that point. We are in
19 the process of offering his testimony under 92 bis. And the Court is
20 aware that there was a ruling in that case regarding the authenticity of
21 that document.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. I think the Defence is aware of this as
24 Finally, the request of the Defence as regards an index of
25 documents received by the OTP from the agency for identification and
2 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, the investigation of the Office of the
3 Prosecutor is not public, and until evidence and documents are presented
4 in court, we don't believe that the Court, Chambers, and Defence should be
5 looking at our documents. The specific documents that we received and
6 presented in this case, we have provided the index to the sourcing
7 document through Mr. Inayat. In fact, we went beyond that in this case,
8 far beyond it, and we provided about 2.000 pages regarding seizures of
9 documents, an index of the seizures of documents, including documents we
10 didn't provide. The Defence never invoked reciprocal discovery. We have
11 given the Defence a lot of documents, and we haven't received one from
12 them. We certainly don't think it's a good practice and we don't intend
13 to give out sources of documents that we have not used and will not use in
14 this case. But we have complied with -- Mr. Inayat has provided in the
15 sourcing an indication of the source of each of the documents that we have
16 presented in this case. If more documents come up that we intend to
17 produce, again, Mr. Inayat will provide the source of those documents.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I hear the observations to these points by
19 the Defence.
20 MR. LUKIC: First of all, I would like to tell the Chamber,
21 actually to Your Honour, that it wasn't 2.000, it was 3.019 pages. We
22 asked to have it in electronic version, but we got it in hard copy so it
23 was pretty hard to handle.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For the protection of first, the Chamber decided
25 not to request a copy of this.
1 It's not, please correct me, but we don't think that it would be
2 of assistance for the Chamber.
3 MR. LUKIC: It's a huge pile of papers, and just index, so I don't
4 think that it would be of any assistance to the Chamber.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And what about the other issues mentioned just
7 MR. LUKIC: Regarding AID documents and the providers of these
8 documents, I think that it would be of an immense assistance, both to the
9 Chamber and to the Defence, to see whether those documents were received
10 and obtained from persons allegedly committing the crimes of fraud.
11 And regarding those IIF forms, I think that it can be marked as
12 confidential and then Chamber and the Defence would be able to review them
13 and have access to them. I don't know whether Your Honour wants anything
14 else from the Defence.
15 One more thing, we are not able to follow the transcript because
16 all our monitors are dead. So if possible...
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have already asked for this, and the same is
18 true for me. No Livenote. No transcript. I don't know, what about the
19 Office of the Prosecutor?
20 MR. KOUMJIAN: We have our monitors working.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: As usual.
22 MR. LUKIC: That's right.
23 MR. KOUMJIAN: We could turn it off to make it fair.
24 I don't know if anyone has tried. Ms. Karper has suggested
25 pushing the computer button underneath the desk to turn it on.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No. It's completely dead, and the same is true
2 unfortunately for Livenote. Hopefully it will be available in printed
3 form for us as soon as possible.
4 During this Status Conference, I don't want to make rulings on
5 these issues. But as regards the IIF for Exhibit 39, it would be, indeed,
6 in the interests of justice to know, even if it's under seal, to find out
7 from which source, and as we heard, sources these documents were, indeed,
8 obtained. And it would help if we could identify where documents were
9 found, and to be honest, I'm more than surprised that, for example, we
10 never received, as it would be the state of art, a list of documents found
11 in the former office of Dr. Stakic. So therefore, especially for these
12 purposes, and the burden of proof, especially to establish the necessary
13 link, it would be helpful, especially for this extraordinary important
14 document, to have not as a rule but as an exception in this case at least
15 the information where these documents were found. It would be helpful.
16 MR. KOUMJIAN: That's extremely reasonable, and, Your Honour, I
17 believe that that has been provided. The IIF form is what Mr. Inayat uses
18 to create his sourcing. So the source of Exhibit 39 is in, I believe,
19 list 1 from Mr. Inayat. And also in the testimony that will be proffered
20 from Mr. O'Donnell, testimony that we intend to offer by 92 bis. There's
21 an extensive discussion of the source of not only this particular copy of
22 the variant A and B but all of the copies, where they were obtained from,
23 and a lot of cross-examination on those issues.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this, indeed, can be of some necessary
25 assistance for the Defence and the Chambers. Just for the transcript, I
1 can see now Livenote being really live and not Deadnote. And also the
2 transcript is working. Also the same is true for the Defence. I see
3 nodding. And Dr. Stakic, you can follow also -- okay, thank you. This
4 was accepted by nodding.
5 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just to clarify, Ms. Karper asked me to clarify for
6 the record that the exhibit that was mentioned as Exhibit 39 is actually
7 numbered SK39 because it came in during Mr. Donia's testimony.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this.
9 Then, once again, coming back to Mr. Sebire's testimony, normally
10 the rule applies that the Judges know the law, judex novit curia, but as
11 regards law from abroad, this principle is not applicable as you can find
12 it in several international conventions on information of laws from other
13 countries. And on this basis, indeed, it would be not only helpful, but
14 it seems to be mandatory for a better understanding of the column
15 indicating which individuals were named in a court certificate declaring
16 them dead which were and which are the prerequisites under the law in
17 Bosnia and Herzegovina to declare these individuals to be dead.
18 Can we maybe receive this applicable law?
19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, Your Honour. The law in question is the law
20 of administrative procedure beginning in Article 60 of the law of Bosnia
21 and Herzegovina, through Article 73. I have a translation of that, but
22 first let me explain two things: The source of this is actually taken
23 from a book that was published in 1989. So it was the law at the time the
24 book was written of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
25 That is the same law that is in effect on this issue today, but I don't
1 have a copy of the statute book. I know that from the judge who has been
2 providing these certificates of death.
3 Our main point was that the Defence, Mr. Ostojic, said that there
4 was a law that required families to make an application for declaration of
5 death. We will submit to Your Honours the sections. There has one
6 revision that has to be done, so I'm not prepared to do that right now, in
7 the translation. Because the translator erroneously translated SRBH as
8 Serbian Republic, as opposed to Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
9 But it's our position that -- it's very difficult to prove the negative.
10 Nothing in this section, clearly nothing requires it as mandatory. If the
11 Defence has a section that indicates that it's mandatory, then they can
12 provide it to the Court.
13 But I'll have this ready -- it was sent for revision last week to
14 CLSS and it should be available very shortly.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We are in the advantageous situation to have a
16 specialist from the law in the courtroom. May we hear some observations
17 on this issue by you, Mr. Lukic, please.
18 MR. LUKIC: This law does not regulate the procedure in front of
19 the courts. It's a law which regulates the procedure in front of the
20 administrative bodies. And there is a law on - I don't know whether I'm
21 able to translate it properly. It's a law on nonissue procedure.
22 THE INTERPRETER: The English equivalent would be taking a
23 deposition outside the court, or an ex parte hearing.
24 MR. LUKIC: I wouldn't agree with none of these. It's in front of
25 the Court, but only it's nonissue procedure, so nothing is in issue in
1 that procedure. It's taken by the judge with the parties present.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can you quote a source where we can find this?
3 MR. LUKIC: Actually, we tried to locate that law during the
4 weekend, but something was wrong with the electronic reading of Cyrillic
5 in our computer. So we will try to obtain it this week.
6 MR. KOUMJIAN: I can assist counsel by giving him a copy just for
7 his reference of the law we have for him to review. And while I agree
8 that it's a procedure where, pretty much as Mr. Lukic stated, that the
9 court, in other words, take a deposition of the person, there's no adverse
10 party present. If you look at the articles in this law, it clearly
11 indicates the court is involved. The first article in the procedure for
12 declaring missing persons dead and proving death, the Court will decide on
13 declaring missing persons dead and on the proof of death. And it goes on
14 to describe the procedures that the Court has to go through in order to do
15 that. And also sets the responsibility for the expenses for this
16 procedure on the party seeking to have the declaration issued.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So as regards these legal facts, no doubt the
18 burden of proof is with the OTP. But indeed, it could be helpful if we
19 could obtain the necessary source, if not even the text, by the Defence.
20 MR. LUKIC: The articles seem to look proper, but the name of the
21 law, I doubt that is properly translated. I will check this because this
22 law is not meant to be used in front of the courts.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this dispute can be settled between
24 parties. And please, let the Chamber know during the hearing what is the
25 result of your investigation as regards this law.
1 Then may I ask, what about now the formal supplementary report on
2 statistics provided by Madam Tabeau?
3 MR. KOUMJIAN: The demographic report of Ms. Tabeau is,
4 specifically the sections dealing with a statistical analysis of number of
5 persons dead and missing in 1992 is now prepared and will be filed with
6 the Defence and the Court today. We just received that information.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. The progress evidently can't be
9 Then what about the draft report from the in-house expert on the
10 interrelationship between the documents allegedly having been signed by
11 Dr. Stakic?
12 MR. KOUMJIAN: That is prepared. We're providing it today. We
13 are providing it in English, and we rely upon the CLSS for the
14 translation. It was just provided for the Defence on Friday, and we have
15 it ready to distribute to the Chambers today.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. May we ask the usher to distribute
18 MR. KOUMJIAN: The Defence has a copy.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask, what would be the next exhibit
21 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibit S295, Your Honour.
22 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, it has not yet received an ERN number.
23 So for purposes of record-keeping on future cases, could we provide it
24 informally now or agree to substitute the ERNed copy when that is
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. No doubt, we can do this, but for
2 maintaining the order we receive these documents, provisionally this
3 document should be marked as S295. And I can see there is a summary
4 description related to this. And I take it that this is an attachment,
5 and therefore, in order to facilitate references to this document, this
6 attachment should provisionally be marked S295-1.
7 Are there any objections by the Defence as regards this document
8 as such? No doubt, I think it's envisaged that we will hear Mr. Corin in
9 court for the purposes of also cross-examination, or what is the plan?
10 MR. KOUMJIAN: We're proffering the report. Unless the Defence or
11 court wish to hear Mr. Corin in court, he's available if that's required.
12 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I tried to go through this document.
13 It's necessary for us really to have it translated to be able to -- not
14 only check it with Dr. Stakic, but obviously there is a huge effort
15 involved in preparing this document. And for us, it's almost impossible
16 to check all those numbers. So after receiving this document, I think
17 that we'll have to engage several people to go and to try to check all
18 these numbers and documents. So that's -- because we don't have in our
19 team too many English-speaking people, I think that we would need to have
20 it in B/C/S to be able to proceed accordingly.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. I think it's only fair, and it's also
22 necessary that Dr. Stakic himself can go through and understand this in
23 order to assist Defence counsel as regards this report. Is it already
24 ordered that this document be translated?
25 MR. KOUMJIAN: No. The document was just prepared Friday, and I
1 don't know how long CLSS will take to translate it. I think what
2 Mr. Lukic was pointing out, it's a weighty document in some ways more than
3 one. Sometimes I think we need an English translation of it in some
4 parts. It's difficult. It's very detailed.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But it's already in the possession of CLSS with
6 some priority, because no doubt this document has to be discussed and if
7 necessary there should be a cross-examination during the Prosecutor's
8 case. I take it that will be provided by the OTP as soon as possible, but
9 no doubt, this document is tendered. And therefore, it should be admitted
10 into evidence that we know what -- or how to make reference to this
11 document. And therefore, I think it's ready for admission into evidence
12 tomorrow within the framework of the envisaged package solution.
13 I think the next issue will be a similar difficult one. We
14 learned from the handwriting expert that, no doubt, discussion on the
15 relationship, not only the relationship between the documents but also the
16 assistance of a typewriting expert, can be helpful. Do we have any
17 further expectations or in-depth or updated expectations, when can we have
18 this document and how to work with these documents, taking into account
19 that by the end of September, the Prosecutor's case will be concluded?
20 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you, Your Honour. I wanted to raise this.
21 Your Honour had raised the issue of an examination quite some time ago.
22 The documents are now with the Dutch forensic lab, and they had told me
23 before that the analysis for the typewriter, to use one word to cover a
24 multitude of printing mechanisms, could be done I think they told me
25 mid- or late October. We can ask that be done. But we don't see, we
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 don't expect it to be part of the Prosecution case because we're not
2 alleging any facts that would be assisted by this analysis. We're not
3 alleging that all the documents were prepared on one typewriter or one
4 printer. It is obvious that multiple printing mechanisms were used or
5 machines. And actually, it is quite expensive. So my question to the
6 Court is, does the Court find this necessary? We do not allege that the
7 documents all came from one machine, and we don't see the fact that the
8 report will end up saying that they came from various machines to have any
9 probative value.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I hear the observations by the Defence on
11 this additional expertise?
12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. We think that it would be for sure
13 of probative value for this case because we are -- our position is that
14 those documents are not made at one place, and it may help to show that
15 somebody else, maybe even later, created those documents.
16 MR. KOUMJIAN: Again, we do not say that all of them came from one
17 machine. The analysis will not say the location where documents were
18 made. What we are going to say is they were made with different machines.
19 We don't have a machine to compare any of these documents to. So there's
20 no comparison, just between the documents. They come from different
21 machines. We would stipulate that various machines are used. But if the
22 Court would find it helpful, the Dutch labs are prepared to do it. But it
23 won't be ready during the Prosecution case, and we don't find it necessary
24 during the Prosecution case to present that.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can we agree on this basis, that we ask the OTP
1 and this Dutch lab to continue on this avenue, and we expect this to be
2 obtained somewhat later, after the conclusion of the Prosecutor's case?
3 Can you agree?
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes, we can, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then let's proceed this way. Of
6 course, no doubt, when the parties come to agreement in this case, this
7 exercise can be stopped immediately and it can save costs.
8 And then I would ask the Defence, what is now actually, and please
9 give some additional remarks as regards the -- the probable testimony of
10 Biljana Plavsic in this case. Until now, we only heard that it may be
11 helpful, but of course this is not the necessary test to be applied to
12 summon Madam Plavsic.
13 May we hear whether or not we can expect a written motion on this
15 MR. LUKIC: First of all, we thought that we might be able to have
16 possession of the written transcripts of the interviews of Ms. Plavsic,
17 because we thought that there might be something, according to the Rule 66
18 of the Rules of Procedure and -- 68, sorry, of the Rules of Procedure and
19 Evidence. And we cannot say whether there is anything or not before we
20 saw the transcripts of those testimonies or interviews. So when my
21 co-counsel, Mr. Ostojic, mentioned "helpful," he thought about Rule 68.
22 But we cannot say anything more specific before we saw those transcripts,
23 if permitted. So for now, we don't know whether we are going to call
24 Ms. Plavsic to testify or not.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any observations by the OTP, other than this
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 would be a fishing expedition?
2 MR. KOUMJIAN: That's certainly true, but first of all, as I
3 stated before, I believe we've complied with all of our Rule 68
4 obligations in this case, although we continue to review everything we
5 have. As regards to the Defence allegation that there is material from
6 various people that the Prosecutor has or might have talked to that they
7 think so, we don't discuss that in public. Your Honour, if Your Honour
8 requires that the Prosecutor tell the Defence who we have or have not
9 talked to, then you're destroying our ability to offer individuals
10 confidentiality. And so all I would say again is Rule 68 we have complied
11 with and there is no basis for the Defence request under any other rule
12 for any additional material.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. So in conclusion, it remains as it
14 was said already earlier, 28 August, that the remark "something might be
15 helpful for the Defence," it is not enough for ordering that something may
16 be disclosed or even that it be mandatory to summon ex officio a witness
17 during the Prosecutor's case. And this is a problem right now, no doubt,
18 that during the Defence case, it's the right of the Defence, if they so
19 want, and they see a realistic chance to summon also Ms. Plavsic.
20 This brings me to another issue. I mentioned already earlier that
21 it could be necessary to obtain the information whether or not the one or
22 other accused in other cases pending before this Tribunal should be
23 summoned ex officio under Rule 98. It could be necessary under earlier
24 rulings stating that we have to exhaust all the necessary means under the
25 rules to obtain evidence. Therefore, I can tell the parties that we
1 discussed already in the framework of a Status Conference in the case
2 Prosecutor versus Mrdja with the Defence counsel of Mr. Mrdja whether or
3 not Mr. Mrdja would be prepared to testify voluntarily. And I emphasise
4 "voluntarily" because it's the position of the Chamber that even though
5 there seems to be another possibility under Rule, I think it was, 90,
6 under Rule 90 to compel a witness to answer a question, even though the
7 statement might tend to incriminate the witness. I don't want to enter,
8 as a Chamber, I have to emphasise, the Chamber does not want to enter this
9 very fragile, thin ice of Rule 90(E) because we would have to go into a
10 very, very detailed analysis whether or not under human rights standards
11 this is a possibility to compel a witness to testify against himself. So
12 the basis can only be a voluntarily statement. And as regards Mr. Mrdja,
13 I expect during the week a written answer by the Defence counsel whether
14 or not Mr. Mrdja is really prepared to testify voluntarily.
15 The question is now what to do with other accused, for example,
16 Mr. Brdjanin, Mr. Talic, Mr. Gruban and others. If both parties declare
17 to the transcript, and this then be incorporated into tomorrow's hearing
18 transcript, that from their point of view it is not necessary because from
19 the outset, nothing can be expected from such an exercise, the Chamber
20 would believe it not be necessary to ask Defence counsel or the other
21 accused in other cases whether or not they want to testify in this case.
22 Can this be agreed as a common basis? I see nodding by the OTP.
23 What about the Defence?
24 MR. LUKIC: It can be agreed, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then the Chamber will refrain from
1 any further request, notwithstanding that it might be that during the
2 case, there is a different approach by the one or other accused, in
3 another case, and no doubt we won't hinder a witness from testifying
4 voluntarily in this case if this person so wants. So I think this is
5 enough as regards this.
6 Then I got from the registry a list - hopefully I'll find it -
7 containing additional documents and problems related to documents. This
8 was S242. It was stated earlier that colour copies would be needed. What
9 about this?
10 MR. KOUMJIAN: We believe we provided them on the 26th of August.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May the registry please crosscheck.
12 217. It reads that this was not formally admitted. May I please
13 know, what about this document? What's the content of the document, 217?
14 THE REGISTRAR: It's an OSCE report that was introduced during
15 James Mayhew's testimony. If Your Honour wants to review it.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, could I please see it.
17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Our understanding is that was pending because the
18 Defence reserved their right to object. That was 217.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, right. I remember. It was already
20 tendered the 17th of July when we heard the witness of Mr. Mayhew.
21 May we hear the observations by the Defence today? Could it be
22 given, please, to the Defence that the Defence now knows what we are
24 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, our team is forced to divide the work to
25 be able to follow as much as possible this many documents. And I know
1 that Mr. Mayhew was cross-examined by my co-counsel Mr. Ostojic. If it's
2 not of urgent importance, I would ask the Court to wait for Mr. Ostojic so
3 he can express the position of the Defence relating to this document.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Fair enough. We leave it open.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: As a reminder, we have to decide on this.
7 I just learned it is confirmed that colour copies were distributed
8 the 26th of August as regards Document S242.
9 Then what about S210, index of photographs, there should be an
10 updated version marking -20 and -21 as confidential.
11 MR. KOUMJIAN: We'll work on that. Thank you.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
13 As regards S227B, we asked for a better copy of the results of the
14 census. Would it be possible?
15 MR. KOUMJIAN: That particular document, we don't have a better
16 copy of, but I'll try to see if we have another copy of the census under a
17 different ERN number that might be a better copy.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. So it's marked open.
19 As regards Document S184, we requested copies where we also could
20 read the bottom lines of these documents -- of this document.
21 MR. KOUMJIAN: The copy that we have in evidence, in the evidence
22 unit, also is cut off from the bottom line. So we do not have a better
23 copy of that.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Defence is satisfied with this explanation?
25 MR. LUKIC: If it's the best the Prosecution has, we believe them,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 and we have to work with that kind of copy.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then this is resolved.
3 S157-1, there a final translation would be expected.
4 MR. KOUMJIAN: We'll check with CLSS if the final translation is
5 done yet.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Document S254 was already admitted, but with the
7 additional request that the readable part of the stamp on this document be
9 MR. KOUMJIAN: We've neglected to submit that for translation. We
10 will try to do that, if it's helpful.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's helpful. Thank you for this.
12 Then S267A, B-1 and B-2. It's only provisional admitted until the
13 original is provided to the Defence.
14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Those are documents that are with the Dutch labs,
15 so if we're proceeding with the analysis of the printers, they -- it's not
16 available. I think if counsel wants to arrange to go out to the lab and
17 sit down and look at it, that can be arranged.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can the Defence live without this walk to the
19 lab, and on the basis of the submitted documents?
20 MR. LUKIC: Yes, we can, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then for the purposes of tomorrow's
22 package solution, this will be finally admitted into evidence under the
23 numbers provisionally attached to this document.
24 Then finally, before the break, what about S273? We found that
25 this document was not readable, and we requested for a readable B/C/S
1 version. Is this possible?
2 MR. KOUMJIAN: That's the same situation; the document is with the
3 lab. As Your Honour saw in some of the documents that Mr. ten Camp
4 testified about, the copy that we call the original, the copy that we have
5 on some of them is very poor. Others are actually originals, and others
6 are copies that were seized.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can we take it that the Defence comes to the
8 same conclusion as regards the former document?
9 MR. LUKIC: No, we can't, Your Honour, because unreadable we
10 cannot accept. We should know what's in the document.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think in this case, indeed, we had, if I can
12 recollect correctly, there were some pages indeed included unreadable, and
13 I don't believe that here it can be a problem to obtain copies from this
15 May I just have a look on this document, please. Yes. Right. I
16 think it's only a question of bad photocopies taken in the preparation.
17 If you have a look on the B/C/S document, already the cover page
18 apparently it was laid on the copying machine, yes, the wrong side. And
19 the same is true for the second-next page and the third-next page. I
20 don't know what's wrong there, but indeed, one cannot read these pages.
21 And it might be that only the request for a better copy from the lab will
22 assist us.
23 MR. KOUMJIAN: The lab won't be able to give you a better copy,
24 but the problem -- actually, I don't think there is a problem. I think
25 the ERN numbers or the copies that we have, someone did two-sided copies
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 of a one-sided document. If you look at it, that's pretty clear because,
2 for example, the first page is the cover page. If you turn it over and
3 see the next page that we have, it has simply the back of that. If you
4 look, you can see -- through the page you can see the first page. You can
5 see the numbers, 4, 3, are on the back. In other words, each page of the
6 document was ERNed, with the front and back, although the printing was
7 only on the front. The next page is actually page 1, and you see that's
8 in very good condition. The following page is the back of page 1. You
9 can see upside down the print, and you can see the number again upside
10 down. Page 2, the same thing.
11 So the printing on pages 1, 2, 3 is very clear. What you see as
12 the bad copies is just the back of the page where the printing is showing
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So indeed, it seems to be a mistake conducted by
15 copying. If the usher could be so kind and present 65 ter number 416,
16 which is S273, to the Defence, maybe we can agree that indeed these wrong
17 copies can be deleted from this document, and then we have the entire
18 document in a readable version.
19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just to be clear, I think the evidence unit did
20 scan and put an ERN number on the backs of the documents because there is
21 a notation handwritten which shows through, which is 012-001, on the first
22 page, and on the second page, 002. So someone probably from -- I don't
23 want to speculate, maybe during the seizure, they wrote in pencil on the
24 back of each page, and that's why the back pages are also scanned and
25 given ERN numbers. But the printing is on the front.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the document as such is on the front pages,
2 and this, from my perspective, is readable. And therefore, may I hear
3 comments by the Defence on this issue.
4 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I don't know if it's mixed some other
5 way, but page 2 is not actually upside down, the next page. It's
6 completely different, if I was able to read it correctly. So the
7 explanation my learned friend gave us is not correct.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the parties to confer during the break
9 or later discussing this issue that we can come at the end of today -- by
10 the end of today to a conclusion on this. Until further notice, this is
11 left open.
12 It's now time for a break. Following immediately after, the time
13 immediately after the break, I want to turn to List 7. I mention this now
14 already in order that all parties have List 7 present for the proceedings
15 after the break. And the Status Conference stays adjourned until 11.30.
16 --- Recess taken at 11.01 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 11.32 a.m.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I take it for the record, that the appearances
19 have changed with the Office of the Prosecutor.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that's right. It's Joanna Korner
21 appearing. Your Honour, very briefly, and only I hope in the interests of
22 making sure that there's no future problem over today's procedures, my one
23 concern is, having -- I have been watching this, that a number of
24 decisions are being taken which really could be called decisions in
25 respect of trial. I'm as anxious as Your Honour and everybody else not to
1 lose any time because of the unfortunate illness of Judge Fassi Fihri, but
2 I don't want there to be at a later stage a technical appeal taken on the
3 basis that we've used up one of the days for what effectively is a
4 hearing. Your Honour, therefore I would simply ask that the Defence say
5 on the record that they are content that this Status Conference does not
6 count as a hearing in the absence of Judge Fassi Fihri. That's all.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. I think it was made quite clear, but no
8 doubt I could, and I even should have asked the Defence explicitly whether
9 there are any objections against this procedure introducing these
10 preparations of a decision to be discussed with Judge Vassylenko this
11 afternoon, and then on the basis of this, to incorporate this in
12 tomorrow's hearing.
13 This is the intention. Are there objections?
14 MR. LUKIC: No objections, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And I thank you for this.
16 MS. KORNER: And Your Honour, the other matter is this: And I
17 simply raise this -- as you know, last week I was here because I wished to
18 raise a number of matters that Your Honour had discussed, one of them
19 being the question of these deliberations. Obviously, I can only do that
20 with the full Trial Chamber, but I merely want to have it on the record
21 that there are two or three matters that I would like to raise and discuss
22 with Your Honours once the Trial Chamber is complete again.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We are fully aware of this, and we are extremely
24 grateful to know that we have the lead counsel of the OTP always watching
25 us. Shouldn't we call you "Big Sister," always present in this Tribunal?
1 MS. KORNER: Actually, Your Honour, it was quite by chance having
2 foolishly inquired last Friday, or last Thursday, when General Talic went
3 ill why it was necessary to have a full day taken up by court maintenance,
4 the result has been that Court 3 today does not work mechanically and
5 that's why I wasn't in court and I was able to watch. But Your Honour, I
6 am grateful, Your Honour, for hearing me.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We appreciate. We are fully aware of this. And
8 it should be, as I stated earlier this morning, this substantial part of
9 the status, this should be discussed in the presence, in doubt, of the two
10 other Judges of this case.
11 MS. KORNER: Yes. Thank you very much, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
13 May we, on this basis, turn now to List Number 7, please. For the
14 record, it should be noted that Defence -- lead counsel of the OTP has
15 left the courtroom.
16 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, before we turn to List 7, I just want
17 to inform the Court that I conferred with Defence counsel and figuring out
18 the mirror images that 273, Exhibit 273, the pages that appear to be
19 illegible are simply the back of the printed pages.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is it agreed by the Defence?
21 MR. LUKIC: Yes, with the help of my learned friend, we cleared
22 this matter. And that's right, Your Honour, it was just a copy of the
23 wrong side of the document, or upside down.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Therefore, also S273 is ripe for the
25 admission into evidence in the framework of a package solution to be done
2 So if we can turn now to List 7, let me first ask the OTP: We
3 recently received this table called "authorship of decisions, orders,
4 conclusions and other documents." Am I correct that List 7 is prepared
5 for the purpose of tendering the documents named here as 65 ter documents
6 in this table? I don't know, because it's not marked on my -- on the
7 actual copy before me whether this document has already an exhibit number.
8 MR. KOUMJIAN: I don't believe it has. And for purposes of
9 reviewing and triple checking that document, I'd rather not give it an
10 exhibit number at the moment. But, yes, these are the documents that only
11 had 65 ter numbers on that document that you just named, the gazetted
12 versus nongazetted documents.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. But I think it would be of assistance,
14 even though the OTP might substitute this document later, that we know why
15 we have this List Number 7 that this document, gazetted or not gazetted,
16 given a provisional exhibit number. What would be the next available?
17 THE REGISTRAR: S296, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S296.
19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just for the Court and counsel, I'm particularly
20 concerned with the information on that chart regarding original and I've
21 instructed someone to double check that because we're not sure what the
22 source was and what the definition of "original" was that was used in that
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Help us out: Will there be an investigator of
25 the OTP giving us some remarks on this document?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. KOUMJIAN: Well, we're going to double check that. Actually,
2 it will be done by personnel of the Office of the Prosecutor who -- I've
3 asked him to go to the Dutch labs and review the documents that either are
4 here or at the labs to see if they do appear to be originals in the sense
5 of having been the very first signed copy or first prepared copy of the
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Observations by the Defence as regards these
8 tendered documents, and in addition is there any necessity to
9 cross-examine the author of this document? Mr. Lukic, may I hear, as
10 regards now only for the order S296 we received this earlier? No, it's
11 not the first one. That we have the basis why we have List 7, Mr. Lukic,
12 this document forming the basis of List 7 should be marked now. This was
13 the purpose.
14 MR. LUKIC: We don't have any objections to the list.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So then provisionally marked as S296 in order to
16 have it in the framework of our package solution for tomorrow.
17 Then we start with List Number 7. List Number 7 should then
18 receive provisionally S297. I can see no objections against the list as
20 And then let's turn now to the contents of this list. First, 65
21 ter number 44. Objections?
22 MR. LUKIC: In line with our previous objections, Your Honour,
23 yes, we do object on authenticity of this document, because there is no
24 signature, no date, no number of this document.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For the reasons given earlier on similar
1 occasions, the intention is to admit this document as S298A and B
3 Document 47.
4 MR. LUKIC: Same objection as for S298, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If there are any observations to be made with
6 respect to the document we are discussing, please let us hear also from
7 the Prosecutor's side.
8 MR. KOUMJIAN: No, Your Honour. I don't have any, but just to
9 remind, in general, all of these -- these are documents that we did not
10 think were particularly relevant to the case, but they were decisions of
11 the Municipal Assembly or Crisis Staff that are simply contained in that
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. The purpose is to have these documents to
14 allow us to work with this compilation we have on this table. I think it
15 wouldn't be possible to work with a table without admitting into evidence
16 the underlying documents.
17 So Document 65 ter Number 47 would then provisionally be marked
18 299. Yes, I just received a helpful hint by the registry that apparently,
19 there is a discrepancy in this Document 47. If you have a look in the
20 English version, it concludes with Article 10. And in the B/C/S version,
21 it concludes with Article 36. This document will only be provisionally
22 marked, but not admitted into evidence before we have the entire document
23 translated into English. Thank you for this hint.
24 Then 65 ter number 50, which would be provisionally 300,
25 Exhibit Number 300. There we have, in fact, two separate documents, one
1 concluding with Article 9, and then separate to this a statement of
2 reasons. So the document as such would be provisionally S300, and the
3 statement of reasons, 300-1, 300-1A and B correspondingly.
4 Observations by the Defence, please.
5 MR. LUKIC: The same objections, and obviously, this is also only
6 a draft. And it's clear -- it's not clear who should have signed this
7 document because statement of reasons is only the continuation of the
8 previous document.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Therefore, on purpose, this separate approach
10 indicated by saying that there is a -1 document. It might be two
11 different documents. And indeed, it doesn't go without saying that this
12 statement of reasons is part of Document 65 ter Number 50. But we might
13 go later into details of these documents if necessary.
14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, sorry to interrupt, but --
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, please.
16 MR. KOUMJIAN: I would propose the following. I think that these
17 documents most of them are not relevant to our case, and rather than
18 putting them because they are in the chart, I propose taking them out of
19 the chart. It would seem to make more sense. For example, the last
20 article is a press release by Dr. Karadzic. And the purpose of this
21 particular chart was to look at decisions that we were attributing to
22 Dr. Stakic to see if they were published in the Gazette or had other
23 indicia that they had been -- that was the main purpose, to see if they
24 had been published in the Gazette or if they were in the document we have
25 been calling the confirming document which is a decision adopted by the
1 Municipal Assembly affirming certain Crisis Staff decisions. We can
2 continue if Your Honour believes it's appropriate, but in looking at
3 these, it seems to make more sense in the chart regarding what has been
4 gazetted or not, what has happened in the Gazette, would be more user
5 friendly and more relevant if we took out those decisions that are not of
6 particular interest to this case.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Respectfully --
8 MR. KOUMJIAN: Excuse me, that 844 is not on the chart, and
9 apparently I had added that for another reason. So I take that back.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, now I'm totally confused. What are you
11 discussing now? 65 -- we are still with 65 ter number 50.
12 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm sorry, apparently I misstated earlier when I
13 said List 7 are only documents from the chart. Because the last two
14 documents did not come from the chart. They were submitted for other
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So this is true for 65 ter number 47 and 50.
18 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm sorry, I mean the last two articles on List 7,
19 that would be 65 ter numbers 166 and 844.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. I think we still have the following
21 problem, and therefore, on purpose, I started with this tendered table on
22 the authorship of decisions gazetted and nongazetted. The intention was
23 to include the documents mentioned there in our list of exhibits. And
24 apparently, if you have a look on page 2 of 16 of this table,
25 provisionally marked as S296, already the first one, this is 43, has never
1 been tendered. What about this document? May I ask that we stick to the
2 purpose of this exercise. Please read the first line of this document,
3 and there you will find 65 ter number 43, decision of the Prijedor
4 Municipal Assembly on proclaiming abandoned property the property of the
5 state. I can't find it on List 7.
6 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. It has an S number. That's one of the
7 problems with the document that you're talking about. It's not really
8 complete and ready to be submitted. It's S192 for 65 ter number 43.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S192.
10 The next on this table would be 44, and we had provisionally 298.
11 The next would be 45. It has already an exhibit number?
12 MR. KOUMJIAN: 193.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 193. Then we have on List 7, 47. It was
14 provisionally marked 299 with the reservation that we need the entire
15 English translation.
16 Then 48.
17 MR. KOUMJIAN: S194.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 49.
19 MR. KOUMJIAN: S195.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then finally we are where we are on List 7
21 now, 65 ter number 50 which would be 300 and 300-1.
22 So to conclude this, we heard the objections. But for the reasons
23 given earlier, that we are able to work with these documents if necessary,
24 it will be admitted into evidence. If not, the Bench decides in another
25 direction this afternoon. So this would be 300.
1 Then let's come to 51.
2 MR. LUKIC: Same objections as previously, Your Honour. No
3 signature, no date, no number.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If we have a look on the B/C/S version, please,
5 following the alleged signature "Dr. Milomir Stakic," there follows
6 another page --
7 MR. LUKIC: If I may assist, that page should be only before the
8 previous one because it's marked number 3 and 4.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And it's ERNed in the wrong order. So the
10 document, the page starting -- ending with 897 goes before 896. Thank you
11 for this.
12 This would be, then, 301. And the intention is to admit this into
14 This would be followed by 65 ter number 52.
15 MR. LUKIC: Here we have --
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have two pages in B/C/S, and only one in
17 English. May I hear some comments by the OTP. What is what?
18 MR. KOUMJIAN: I just see that the second page is completely out
19 of order on the ERN. So it's apparently -- the English is a translation
20 of 0023898.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So we can delete the next page, right?
22 MR. KOUMJIAN: Excuse me, let me check that. That can't be
23 correct because I see the names are different.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right.
25 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm sorry, they are the same names. Yes.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Gruban, Nada; Ostoja, Skrbic; Miljena, Jelisic
2 [phoen]. Yes, right. So can we agree that we can delete the following
4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So the honourary objections by the Defence.
6 MR. LUKIC: Obviously both documents are drafts, no signature, no
7 date. Only the one with the ERN number ending with 898 is later draft
8 with the included names. And on the later page, there are only lines, as
9 we have in our possession.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right.
11 MR. LUKIC: But we do object to this document as well.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This would be, then, S302A and B
13 correspondingly. This would be followed by Document Number 53. Once
14 again, there are two B/C/S documents and only one English translation.
15 Once again, the same question: What is what?
16 MR. KOUMJIAN: The English is obviously a translation of 0023899.
17 And we would withdraw 892.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Defence?
19 MR. LUKIC: The same objections as previously, only here we can
20 see two documents in B/C/S with different names and --
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For these reasons, the OTP withdrew the page
22 ending with 492. If you compare the name, this has nothing to do with
23 this document we have in English before us.
24 MR. LUKIC: The title of the decision is the same. We have
25 different names underneath.
1 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think that's correct. One appears to be
2 a -- they appear to be different drafts, but we only have the translation
3 of the one page, and the chart refers to the English-language translation.
4 So I would withdraw the second page ending in 492.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But wouldn't -- I think the Defence will object
6 against this procedure because it will be -- or there could be some
7 probative value as regards the status of these documents being a draft or
8 not a draft.
9 MR. LUKIC: Because we think these two documents - I'm sorry for
10 interrupting, Your Honour - but we think that these two documents show
11 that a draft can be changed and that we cannot rely on drafts.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think that's fair enough. And for these
13 purposes, indeed, we should insist that the ERN number 0039492 goes as
14 303-1B, and we would kindly ask the OTP to provide us with a translation
15 of apparently similar or the same document we have here before us.
16 So the intention is to admit these documents, 303 and 303-1 into
17 evidence expecting that we receive an English translation of 303-1B into
19 Then the next one would be 91 called "Four Prijedor Municipal
20 Assembly decisions." May we hear from the OTP, please, why these four
21 documents were tendered simultaneously.
22 MR. KOUMJIAN: Well, they are translated in order. It appears to
23 me that the B/C/S, Your Honour, is also four documents simultaneously. I
24 don't know if these are pages out of the Gazette. It does not appear to
25 be pages out of the Gazette. So apparently the B/C/S document includes
1 four pages, four different decisions, typed together.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Therefore, this entire document including four
3 alleged decisions should go under 304A and B correspondingly.
4 Remarks by the Defence, please.
5 MR. LUKIC: We already had a situation like this where we have two
6 signees for one decision. In the middle, we have allegedly Dr. Stakic,
7 and then on the bottom after the reasons is municipal public revenue
8 administrator of Prijedor, so obviously draft.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But you agree that on the last page on B/C/S
10 indeed it's written on one and the same page ending with ERN number 579.
11 MR. LUKIC: Yes, we do, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Therefore, the intention is to admit this
13 document within the framework of the package solution as S304.
14 The next one on the table as well as on the list is 184, 65 ter
15 number 184. And here, we have apparently the statement of reasons on a
16 separate page. Correct, in B/C/S?
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, that's right. But we have the same
18 objections as previously.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Therefore, the intention is to admit into
20 evidence the decision as such as S305, and the statement of reasons as
21 305-1A and B correspondingly.
22 Next on the table is 107, also on List number 7.
23 MR. LUKIC: Same objections, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For the same reasons, 306, and the statement of
25 reasons, 306-1A and B correspondingly.
1 Then 65 ter number 448. Here we have a decision and one
2 conclusion. Which document shall be tendered? Listed is only the
4 MR. KOUMJIAN: I believe that -- I think it's just the four pages.
5 448 is just the four pages ending in 03003183 in the English. And I think
6 the next is a separate document. And the next document is a separate
7 document that was not on the exhibit list, so it has no 65 ter number.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then let's first turn to 65 ter number 448 as
9 such. Objections?
10 MR. LUKIC: Same objections as previously, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then it's the intention to admit this into
12 evidence under 307.
13 Then the not 65 terred document called "conclusion." We can see
14 it on List 7 without 65 ter number, but on the basis of the ERN number,
15 it seems to be the document mentioned in List 7. These conclusions
16 stamped, but apparently with a not legible signature. May we hear
17 comments by the OTP? Was this document included in the expertise of the
18 forensic handwriting expert?
19 MR. KOUMJIAN: No, it was not.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What's the basis of this, a copy, or a "real
22 MR. KOUMJIAN: I don't think we've even sourced -- we don't have
23 the source of this because it was not on our exhibit list. Just to
24 explain, the person who put together the chart was also asked to
25 put -- list all Crisis Staff decisions that we had in the OTP. And this
1 is a Crisis Staff decision, but it was not on the exhibit list. We can
2 source it. In fact, now we'll have a new List 7, and Mr. Inayat can
3 easily determine the source of it. But I can't represent now what the
4 source of this document is.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it would be helpful. It was a request
6 by the Defence to have a view on all decisions. And this would be one of
7 those. And may we ask the OTP to source this document and to present the
8 best possible original in court. For the purposes of this document on the
9 authorship, this document will provisionally be marked as S308A and B
10 correspondingly. Are there objections by the Defence?
11 MR. LUKIC: We have nothing after 448, 65 ter, or S307. So...
12 MR. KOUMJIAN: Perhaps Mr. Lukic can look at my copy. There was a
13 blank page, and then these two pages appear.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If you want, you may discuss this document with
15 your client.
16 MR. LUKIC: Do you want me to discuss it now?
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.
18 [Defence counsel and the accused confer]
19 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, maybe we can wait until the Prosecution
20 give us the best copy. But Dr. Stakic does not see his signature on this
21 document and doesn't remember this document.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. No doubt, it was already requested. And I
23 think the OTP agreed that it should be sourced and the best possible
24 original should be provided in the courtroom. But nevertheless, the
25 intention is only for the purposes that we have the document marked as
1 such to attach number 308A and B correspondingly.
2 Then yes, the next one on the table would be 65 ter number 57,
3 which appears on List 7. Once again, a decision, and separately a
4 statement of reasons. Objections?
5 MR. LUKIC: The same objections, Your Honour, the authenticity of
6 the document.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. The intention is to admit this into
8 evidence as S309, and the statement of reasons, 309-1, both A and B for
9 the English and the B/C/S versions.
10 65 ter number 61.
11 MR. LUKIC: The same objections, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The intention is to admit this into evidence as
13 S310A and B.
15 MR. LUKIC: Same objections, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 311A and B.
18 MR. LUKIC: Same objections, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 312.
21 MR. LUKIC: Same objections, Your Honour. And here, we also have
22 two signees, alleged signees.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. Here we have the statement of reasons on
24 the same page, on page 5. Therefore, this entire document 66 needs only
25 one exhibit number, and this will be 313A and B.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Then consequently, 457. I have the impression that the English
2 translation does not correspond with that what we have before us in B/C/S.
3 May we hear some observations by the OTP, please.
4 MR. KOUMJIAN: I disagree. I have to check and see where
5 the -- I'm not sure if we have the wrong English or the wrong B/C/S.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Or it appears, if you have a look on the last
7 two pages, somebody has written "same as previous" or what should it be?
8 MR. KOUMJIAN: I believe the B/C/S we seized -- I'm sorry, it
9 appears to be multiple copies of the same document. And they were simply
10 seized together, so they have the same ERN number. And I see it does
11 appear to deal with the same subject regarding.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: "Majora Zorana Karlica."
13 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: As the intention would be to attach 314, and the
15 first copy -1, and the second copy, -2. Objections?
16 MR. LUKIC: Actually, Your Honour, I have three copies attached,
17 but it seems that it's the same document. And also, draft and alleged two
18 signees. Also, reasons on a separate sheet.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Therefore -- thank you for this. The intention
20 is to have the English translation as S314A, and then in B/C/S, B-1, B-2,
22 The next missing document on the table would be 65 ter number 245.
23 And by surprise, also on List 7, we have 65 ter number 245. And here we
24 have attached in B/C/S, a document which seems to be crossed out. But in
25 Cyrillic, there seems to be the document but with additional handwritten
2 MR. KOUMJIAN: I don't think that the two documents are the same.
3 It's not simply a matter of Latin and Cyrillic. I don't think the first
4 one --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 MR. KOUMJIAN: Sorry. I believe these are two separate documents.
7 It could be that one is the back page of the other, because the ERNs are
8 in sequence. But I don't think it's a matter of one just being written in
9 Latin and the other in English. Obviously they are different texts.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I believe if one can read the Cyrillic text and
11 the English text explicitly mentioning that something was crossed out,
12 that the ERN number 0020987 appears to be the basic document translated
13 into English.
14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Correct.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections?
16 MR. LUKIC: First of all, yes, you are right, Your Honour, the
17 translation is a translation of the document P0020987. The other attached
18 document has nothing to do with this.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can we agree that ERN number 0020986 be deleted?
20 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then the remaining document --
22 MR. LUKIC: We just object to the authenticity, the same
23 objections as previously.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. For the same reasons, the intention is
25 to give this document Exhibit Number S315.
1 The next on the table would be 65 ter number 281, but I would be
2 surprised if the OTP couldn't give us the exhibit number already attached
3 to this document, or registry. 65 ter number 281.
4 MR. KOUMJIAN: It's S4 -- excuse me, 176.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 176, thank you.
6 What about 297? On the table, it reads: "Non E." I don't know
7 what it stands for.
8 MR. KOUMJIAN: It's S215. Excuse me, 250.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then 65 ter number 46.
10 MR. KOUMJIAN: S158.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 65 ter number 55.
12 MR. KOUMJIAN: S196.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 63.
14 MR. KOUMJIAN: S197.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then we come to the next listed document;
16 this is 65 ter number 320, summary of conclusions. Alleged, as one can
17 read, "Crisis Staff War Presidency." Objections?
18 MR. LUKIC: Authenticity, Your Honour, and it's not clear whether
19 both those bodies were operating at the same time.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For the same reasons given previously, the
21 intention is to have this document 65 ter number 320 as Exhibit S316 and B
23 Yes. Thank you for the hint given by the registry. Apparently
24 there are two B/C/S versions. What about this? When you can see the
25 mistakes on the last page, for example, it seems to be a copy from the
1 same document with the "at" line, page 2 and 3, the same time.
2 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. Appears to be --
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Once again, two documents found at different
4 places. And therefore, with different ERN numbers. Therefore, the first
5 B/C/S version would be -1B, and the second -2B.
6 What about 65 ter number 341? Is it already S-ed?
7 MR. KOUMJIAN: S259.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then the next following also on the list is 385,
9 65 ter number 385.
10 MR. LUKIC: The same objections, Your Honour, as previously, and
11 we also have two signees allegedly on this document, and the reasons are
12 on a separate sheet.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right. For the given reasons, the intention is
14 to give the English document 65 ter number 307. As far as the decision as
15 such is concerned, the statement of reasons, 317-1. And the same is true
16 in B/C/S, S317B and -1B.
17 Then we have a document without any 65 ter number before us. May
18 we hear what's about with this document.
19 MR. KOUMJIAN: It's a National Defence Council document actually
20 found at the Prijedor health centre in October 2000.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Defence may discuss the B/C/S original with
22 Dr. Stakic.
23 [Defence counsel and the accused confer]
24 MR. LUKIC: We object to the authenticity of this document as
25 well, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then this document with the ERN number 03048407
2 to be found on the list without a 65 ter number, the intention is to admit
3 this document as S318. May I ask, was this document included in the
4 handwriting examination?
5 MR. KOUMJIAN: No, it was not.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we ask also here for the best possible
7 original, and in case there would be an original signed with ink, that we
8 obtain a colour copy of this document, please.
9 Then 65 ter number 166. May we hear the reasons for this document
10 apparently or allegedly signed by Mr. Brdjanin?
11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. These -- to repeat, these last two documents
12 are not on the chart. The principal relevance of this document is found
13 in paragraph 2 of 65 ter number 166 in which the ARK Crisis Staff
14 indicates the Crisis Staffs are now the highest organs of authority in the
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have numerous B/C/S documents attached,
17 apparently from the -- well, I don't know. Is it Official Gazette?
18 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, it's from the ARK Gazette, the Gazette of the
19 Autonomous Region of Krajina. And the only decision at issue is number 12
20 which starts on page 00388981 and continues on to the next page.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections?
22 MR. LUKIC: We object to the relevance in this case, and we don't
23 know whether Mr. Brdjanin signed those documents or not, although they are
24 published in an Official Gazette.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For reasons given earlier, this document will go
1 as S319A and B correspondingly; but in the Cyrillic and B/C/S version,
2 only number 12 on page 9 and 10 of the B/C/S version.
3 And then we have 65 ter number 844, public announcement allegedly
4 by Dr. Radovan Karadzic from 4 April 1992. Objections?
5 MR. LUKIC: Just can't confirm the signature of Dr. Karadzic, so
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The intention is, then, to admit this document,
8 65 ter number 844, as Exhibit Number S320.
9 This concludes List Number 7. Allegedly, there shall be a List 8.
10 This is right?
11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Unfortunately, definitely there will be List
12 Number 8. There may be additional lists. List Number 8, I know, for
13 example, there will be documents that Your Honours just got this morning
14 that are not on the exhibit list. And presuming the Court will --
15 apparently there's one more to be added. We have a few more documents.
16 And I should inform Court and counsel that I expect today -- we
17 received last week a videotape of an interview with the accused by German
18 television, and that's being translated this afternoon. I expect to
19 receive - the interview is in B/C/S - the translation this afternoon.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What about the Bench? Is there also a copy
21 available for us?
22 MR. KOUMJIAN: Well, nothing is available yet. But that is a
23 matter I do intend -- well, I'll review it, but I anticipate I'll probably
24 be requesting to --
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's only on -- the request would be on the
2 MR. KOUMJIAN: The videotape, we do not yet have copies. It
3 arrived last week in a different format, and I think we have one copy at
4 the moment. And just started, I think, Friday working on the translation
5 of that document.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. It's fine. But please, disclose it and
7 provide it as soon as possible that we can take it into account as soon as
9 Then I interrupted during the last hearing Mr. Koumjian when he
10 asked for a pseudonym for 65 ter number 16. Correct?
11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, we would be requesting that, or the witness
12 would be.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What would be the next one? Should we start
14 with Alpha or? No, to be serious, what would be the rule how to proceed
16 THE REGISTRAR: We could proceed with Pseudonym AA.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: My intention was to make a reservation that we
18 can start -- if any, that Defence witnesses would start with DA. But this
19 is not an obstacle if we indeed start today with AA. So pseudonym for 65
20 ter number 16 would be Witness AA. And there was a motion as regards
21 additional statements with respect to Witness AA.
22 Are there any objections by the Defence concerning this submission
23 by the OTP?
24 MR. LUKIC: We don't have objections, Your Honour. So this
25 witness can be admitted as 92 bis.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think we 92 bis'd this witness already in the
2 past. It's only to have these additional statements admitted, and the
3 intention -- I have to discuss this this afternoon with Judge Vassylenko.
4 The intention is to admit these additional statements under Rule 92 bis as
5 part of the testimony of Witness AA.
6 This would conclude my agenda for today. May I ask --
7 MR. KOUMJIAN: Sorry, if we can go back to that, the witness --
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: AA.
9 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, AA. I think the Court had previously
10 indicated it would accept a 92 bis statement, and this is the formal
11 presentation. But I do notice that the submission includes a diary by the
12 witness, or more of an agenda, with some handwriting in the agenda.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right.
14 MR. KOUMJIAN: And it's not fully translated. I think it would be
15 a tremendous burden to do so. Reading the statement, there's only a very
16 brief minor reference to the agenda, or if we call it a diary. But is
17 that necessary to include or to be admitted into evidence and to
18 translate? It seems not to be to me.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the Defence for comments.
20 MR. LUKIC: There's no such request on our side, Your Honour. So
21 it's for the Bench to decide whether they --
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We leave it with that part of the statement
23 translated into English. Is this agreeable for the OTP?
24 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
1 Then within the package solution of tomorrow, only this part
2 translated into English will be admitted.
3 May I ask now before coming to the -- to questions of scheduling
4 whether or not there are any other issues to be raised during the Status
5 Conference by the parties?
6 MR. KOUMJIAN: I was asked to double check that the exhibits for
7 Witness Z or Z are under seal. She testified in closed session.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I see Madam Registrar nodding. This means that
9 they are indeed under seal. And no doubt, when the documents will arrive
10 as promised, please, let us know immediately. And in case it's a question
11 of real originals, please let us have immediately colour copies of these
13 MR. KOUMJIAN: And Your Honour, you requested today the full
14 translation of S299. That has arrived.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May it be, please, distributed.
16 Anything else by the OTP?
17 MR. KOUMJIAN: No, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What about the Defence?
19 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, we would only like to know when exactly
20 we can expect the translation of the documentation, analyst.
21 MR. KOUMJIAN: I don't know the answer to that. That will be done
22 by CLSS. Actually, part of registry will request it from them.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It would be of assistance if the OTP could
24 request some priority for this evidently difficult-to-understand document.
25 So in order to prepare for a possible 98 bis motion, it should be in the
1 hands of the Defence no later than by the end of the week.
2 May I ask now, as foreseen in the rules, not only for this
3 purpose, Dr. Stakic himself, do you want to make any statements? Do you
4 have any complaints as regards the conditions in the Detention Unit, or do
5 you have any health problems?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. At
7 present, I do not have any objections as to the conditions at the
8 Detention Unit. Likewise, my health is also very good. Thank you for
9 inquiring. Thank you for your care and interest.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. You may be seated, please.
11 The parties may have seen from our scheduling order that until
12 now, we have not yet foreseen a date for a pre-Defence conference. This
13 may be part of wishful thinking of the Judges that maybe a pre-Defence
14 conference will not be necessary at all because the parties come to an
15 agreement. But nevertheless, I invite the parties to discuss this issue
16 what they regard as more appropriate. If necessary, a pre-Defence
17 conference should take place as soon as possible after we have received
18 the motion, the answer, and the decision. That would bring us to a date
19 near the 17th or the 21st of October; or, in order to have -- to give the
20 possibility, first of all, for the Defence to prepare their case, that we
21 have a longer break immediately before the start of the Defence case.
22 This would bring us to a date close to the 8th of November. So therefore,
23 these two options should be discussed by the parties, and please let us
24 know during the hearing tomorrow or the day after tomorrow what or where
25 priority would be given.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Any other observations? I can't see any. Then, let's call it a
2 day. And this concludes the Status Conference of today. We will proceed
3 with the hearing tomorrow, 9.30, starting with the confirmation what has
4 been prepared today in this Status Conference. Thank you.
5 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned
6 at 1.00 p.m.