1 Thursday, 21 November 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning to everybody. Please be seated.
6 Already yesterday, I announced the agenda for today. Is there
7 anything else we have to, maybe not only today but also the following
8 days? It's a long programme, but let me know in advance. Is there
9 anything special from the one or the other side?
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, good morning. Your Honours, I wanted
11 to raise -- I have a copy of what Your Honour said yesterday. The problem
12 that occurs to me. As I understand the matter, Your Honour wants to go
13 through each of the witnesses for which there are no summaries. And then
14 Mr. Lukic will orally tell us all what these witnesses are supposed to be
15 saying. Your Honours, the real difficulty is this: It's very difficult
16 to make a snap judgement as to whether or not we, for the Prosecution,
17 would wish to object on the basis of relevance if we're just hearing it
18 orally. And it may be on reflection that we might not object.
19 My application is this: That the rules require the Defence to
20 provide proper written summaries of all the witnesses they are going to
21 call. And a simpler way of dealing with it if I may respectfully suggest
22 that would be to order the Defence to comply with the rules and by
23 whatever -- by the end of next week, to provide us with proper summaries
24 of each of the witnesses they intend to call. That's the only suggestion
25 I make, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think you have read our orders, especially in
2 response to your motions. And we have seen in the past that this is not
3 an appropriate way, but we can't wait. We can't wait another week. We
4 have to have the final witness list. And on the basis of the final list,
5 we may ask -- we have to ask the Defence to prepare the necessary
6 informations as foreseen in Rule 65 ter (g) in writing, limited to the
7 remaining witnesses after this discussion. I know it's time consuming,
8 and I deplore, but the alternative would be to stay to a certain extent
9 this trial. And this is no possibility.
10 And therefore, we have to proceed this way notwithstanding that in
11 the one or other case when additional reasons may be given, we could
12 rethink our decision. And it's also true that the Prosecution might later
13 on, based on better information, tell us that the one or other witness is
14 not necessary or the testimony is not relevant. But this Tribunal and the
15 Chamber is under the obligation to speed up the proceedings and to cut
16 down the number of witnesses to be called on the basis of relevance, on
17 the basis of repetition, and other criteria well known in this Tribunal.
18 So therefore, we don't see any other way out than to proceed
19 orally because on the other hand, we are aware that it is extremely
20 difficulty for one Defence counsel together with one assistant, in the
21 absence of the other Defence counsel, to prepare all this foreseen under
22 65 ter (g) within one week. This is not a question already now or not a
23 decision what are the reactions of this Chamber to the noncompliance with
24 65 ter (g). And the Chamber already indicated earlier that the Defence
25 indeed had time enough to prepare the necessary under 65 ter (g). So what
1 we are doing is substituting that what normally should be done in writing.
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I hear what Your Honour says. I won't
3 take it further other than to say, of course, the Defence shouldn't
4 understand this to mean that they are not obliged to provide proper
5 written summaries. In other words, although we are going through it on a
6 quick basis, we must still be given the summaries well in advance and the
7 order of witnesses.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No doubt about this.
9 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
10 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours. I'm sorry really for
11 creating a lot of problems regarding these proffers or summaries. We are
12 ready to compose all these proffers, and hopefully it will be done by the
13 end of next week. But also we are ready today to go through the
14 witnesses. And on our meeting, 65 ter meeting from 18th of November,
15 2002, it was said this should be done by Monday, 25th of November. And
16 then yesterday it was changed for today.
17 I phoned my office and the office of Mr. Ostojic, and they tried
18 to do something, but our internet lines are down. So I got up this
19 morning at 4.00, but I wasn't able to connect or hook on the internet.
20 And that's the reason why we don't have at least partially those
21 proffers. I received five proffers last night, and I gave it to the
22 Prosecutors' office this morning.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think there's not the slightest doubt when we
24 went through the witnesses and come to the remaining number of witnesses,
25 it might be also easier for the Defence to provide proffers only for the
1 remaining witnesses on this list.
2 But let us first, if there is nothing else from your side in the
3 moment, let us start with the most serious pending motion, and that's the
4 one on mistrial. And here, as it was requested, the Trial Chamber had to
5 rethink what would be an adequate relief, that there is no prejudice for
6 the Defence at all. Having read, admittedly not in all and every detail
7 but in some parts, highlighting the importance for the one or, I
8 emphasise, the other side of these statements, these statements taken this
9 year, in April and in August, and to be cautious with my words, the
10 minimum the Trial Chamber has to state is the surprise that we were not
11 informed on these attempts to get additional evidence because in both
12 directions, it might have helped us and we would have decided, knowing
13 that these persons are ready to testify, to summon them ex officio.
14 But the case is going on, and therefore we have all possibilities
15 to cure what might be seen by the one or other party as a flaw by hearing
16 these witnesses. Therefore, as indicated yesterday, I want to ask the
17 Defence, do you want to present -- before mentioning names, let us please
18 go to private session.
19 [Private session]
13 Pages 9263-9271 – redacted – private session
16 [Open session]
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In a separate announcement, we were informed
18 that a plenary is not held as scheduled, or will not be held as scheduled
19 in the end of the December week, but already December 2 and December 3.
20 These two dates do not affect our case. But we have to proceed these
21 days, the entire week. We sit normally in the afternoon. This causes
22 problems maybe for the Friday of that week. And I may ask the registry
23 whether or not maybe the entire week, but especially that Friday, there is
24 the morning session possible in one of the three courtrooms.
25 THE REGISTRAR: I have requested this information, but I have
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 received no confirmation yet, Your Honour. I will inform you as soon as
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So in any event, we have the necessary courtroom
4 for four days, maybe then also the fifth day.
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I just ask, and I'm asking this also
6 for the purpose of the Brdjanin case of which this has an enormous effect,
7 does that mean all courts will not be sitting 2nd and 3rd, which is Monday
8 and Tuesday, but thereafter, on the Wednesday, Thursday, Friday?
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: That's correct. But as I said earlier, this is
10 the beginning of the day. I don't know what happens during the day. I'll
11 keep you informed as soon as I know.
12 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We received a list of six witnesses to be
14 scheduled these days. Maybe we need now under the changed circumstances
15 additional witnesses, and I think we can cooperate if it's not possible
16 for the Defence to prepare additional witnesses for this week.
17 May we please hear, and starting now, not in the order of the
18 final -- so-called final witness list, but in the order of your six
19 witnesses for December 2002. And as we -- as to the fact that we have to
20 mention the names, and I don't know whether protection is necessary or
21 not, to be on the safe side, let's please go into private session.
22 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Submission of the Prosecution, please.
14 MS. KORNER: After that dramatic fall of the desk, Your Honours,
15 could we simply ask, again we're going to ask for the full summary, but at
16 what period of time is it alleged that this man dealt with Dr. Stakic,
17 before or after the events of 1992, or during?
18 MR. LUKIC: He dealt with Dr. Stakic before, during, and after the
20 MS. KORNER: No objection, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Agreed.
22 Number 21, Goran Dragojevic.
23 MR. LUKIC: Mr. Dragojevic, Goran, was an ambulance driver. And
24 he was wounded on the first day of the attack on Prijedor, on the 30th of
25 May, 1992. He was sent to help the wounded people. He said that -- he
1 should say that he was not told whom to help, just to help to anybody who
2 was wounded at that moment. But that attackers on Prijedor, Muslim and
3 Croat forces, on the 30th of May, 1992, almost killed him. He was badly
4 wounded at that time, and he has severe consequences today. So he would
5 testify about the beginning of the attack on Prijedor city.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Submission of the Prosecution, please.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm going to say this: We don't dispute
8 if it helps the Court and the Defence, we don't dispute that people were
9 wounded during the attack on Prijedor. But other than that, that's all we
10 want to say. It's clearly relevant to part of the story. But as I say,
11 there is no dispute by the Prosecution that people were wounded.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In principle, before we decide, I have to add
13 that part of the question of the relevance or the principle of relevance
14 is that this Tribunal, Chamber, no doubt can treat something what should
15 be the testimony of a witness, that we can treat this as being true. And
16 living with this assumption of truth, we would not need to hear this
17 witness. But let's now decide on the concrete witness.
18 MS. KORNER: Just one other thing, Your Honour. Of course, in any
19 such -- the Defence must be aware of what we dispute and what we don't.
20 If they put it into Rule 92 form and give it to us, and then we can say
21 whether we would accept it or not. That may help speed matters up.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We are discussing now the witnesses for
23 December. Therefore, I don't think there is realistically a place --
24 MS. KORNER: In future.
25 MR. LUKIC: This witness testified in front of this Tribunal
1 before, so there is his transcript before.
2 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry. May I ask which case.
3 MR. LUKIC: I think Keraterm case. I'm not -- Keraterm case, I
5 MS. KORNER: Keraterm?
6 MR. LUKIC: I think so, yes.
7 MS. KORNER: All right.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So would it be in these terms necessary to call
9 the witness, or would it be sufficient to act on a 92 bis with this
10 transcript? Do you have additional questions specifically related to
11 Dr. Stakic?
12 MR. LUKIC: I think that it would be necessary to have this
13 witness in front of you, Your Honours. It wouldn't be long testimony, but
14 he would testimony that his cars were -- his car were clearly marked with
15 a red cross, and what happened on that day. So we heard a lot of
16 witnesses from the Prosecution side what happened on that day, how the
17 whole city was destroyed. And we think that we should hear a few
18 witnesses from the Defence about the same event.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted. May we then turn to number 30,
21 Dragoljub, Gruban.
22 MR. LUKIC: This is a neighbour, elderly neighbour, of
23 Dr. Stakic. His son was killed during the war, and he addressed Crisis
24 Staff to help him with the burial of his son and everything else relating
25 to this. So as we'll try to establish during our case, that the matters
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 of the Crisis Staff were only civilian matters, and mostly humanitarian
2 matters as well. We think that this witness will prove our standpoint and
3 will give the Chamber more informations what this Crisis Staff actually
4 dealt with. And he would probably support the statements of those six
5 witnesses we were discussing before. And also, he will testify about the
6 family of Dr. Stakic, himself, and he should give the testimony that there
7 is no any kind of nationalism neither with Mr. Stakic nor with his family,
8 that it was a partisan family from the Second World War, and not the
9 Chetnik family as some of the witnesses from the Prosecution side tried to
10 convince us.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask, since when is Mr. Gruban a neighbour
12 of Dr. Stakic, and he actually lives in Omarska. Correct?
13 MR. LUKIC: He is from Maricka; Dr. Stakic is from Maricka. It's
14 a neighbouring village, and he knows Dr. Stakic since he was born.
15 MS. KORNER: No objection, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted.
17 Ljuban Jankovic, number 39.
18 MR. LUKIC: Mr. Ljuban Jankovic is -- Dr. Ljuban Jankovic at the
19 same time; he is a doctor. He knows Dr. Stakic professionally. He met
20 Dr. Stakic before the war or at the beginning of the war. He knows what
21 kind of person he is; he knows how he dealt with his employees. He knows
22 what was his attitude towards Muslims, Croats, and any other non-Serbs.
23 He knows that Dr. Stakic enjoyed great sympathies wherever he worked
24 because he was a quiet and decent person, that he was not a well-known
25 person in Prijedor, didn't have any kind of influence on anything what
1 happened in Prijedor. And he was pushed aside by others in power in
2 Prijedor city at that time. He also knows what happened in Prijedor very
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask where exactly Dr. Jankovic worked?
5 MR. LUKIC: He was -- he worked in a medical centre in Prijedor,
6 together with Dr. Stakic.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before April 1992 or --
8 MR. LUKIC: He worked there before, during, and after.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
10 MS. KORNER: No objection, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted. Mico Kos, 45.
12 MR. LUKIC: Mr. Kos was also attacked on the 30th of May, 1992.
13 He was driving his car trying to reach his job, his place of employment.
14 And he knows the situation about the destruction of the old city, how it
15 went, who took part in that destruction, at what time, and what kind of
16 damage was on the old city after the first day of the attack, military
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Mr. Lukic, when demonstrating the relevance, it
19 can't be limited to neutral expressions like "he knows about the
20 situation, about the destruction." What would be the concrete
21 contribution of this witness?
22 MR. LUKIC: The same as the contribution of witnesses of the
23 Prosecution who testified about the same issue, about the same facts, only
24 we'll try to draw our picture in our way, as the Prosecution tried to draw
25 their picture.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But the difference is, no doubt, that the
2 Prosecution clearly demonstrated that from their point of view, it were
3 the Serbs and the other responsible persons mentioned in their pre-trial
4 brief and in the indictment responsible for that what happened there. And
5 you just are stating who took part. Is it your submission that there were
6 other participants in that destruction than those persons we heard in the
7 past on this?
8 MR. LUKIC: In our submission, it's very important what really
9 happened on that day, how big the destruction was on that very day, who
10 participated in the destruction. And also, we have a contradiction with
11 the witnesses from the Prosecution because some of them said that the
12 destruction was total on the first day; the others said the destruction
13 came later on, that their houses were burnt later on. So we think that
14 it's necessary to clarify when the destruction occurred, how big the
15 destruction was at what time, and who participated in that destruction.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The submission of the Prosecution, please.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I was going to ask exactly the same
18 question. Is the Defence calling a witness who's going to say that people
19 other than the army took part in the Serb -- the Bosnian Serb took part in
20 the destruction. Because if that's the allegation, fine. Otherwise,
21 what's the point of calling this witness?
22 MR. LUKIC: The point is that the Prosecution said during its case
23 that army and police took part in this; now they said only army. And
24 we'll also try to prove that paramilitary took part in it as well, or
25 estranged groups of soldiers.
1 MS. KORNER: Sorry, that's still not answering the question.
2 That's why I said we should have the summaries. By paramilitaries, do you
3 mean Serb paramilitaries or Muslim or Croat or Yugoslav?
4 MR. LUKIC: Whoever took part in that fight. We had Croat,
5 Muslim, and Serb fighters in that fight. If the damage was done during
6 the fight, we don't think that civilian organs can have any kind of
7 responsibility for it.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we won't pursue it today, but I would
9 like when we are given a summary --
10 MR. LUKIC: We can provide more detailed summary for this
11 witness. We'll provide for any witness actually, and we can provide for
12 this one more details.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we would like details who it is exactly
14 this witness will say took part in this attack. Other than that, Your
15 Honour, it's relevant, and we don't object.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It would be premature to strike this witness
17 from the list. The Defence is requested to give us in writing, and of
18 course also the OTP in writing, what concretely is expected will be the
19 testimony of this witness, who, in fact, in your opinion participated in
20 these destructions. And we have to emphasise at that it's not enough just
21 to say a witness will speak about the following events without
22 demonstrating that it's relevant and it would, in fact, be only relevant
23 if your submission would be that this witness would speak about
24 destructions by others than Serb forces. So therefore, we decide on the
25 admission of this witness for December when we have your statement in
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 writing. When can we expect this realistically?
2 MR. LUKIC: I have to speak with him again, but I hope I will do
3 it on the 27th or 28th of November, next week. I'm leaving on the 26th.
4 For more details, I cannot tell you what he is going to say. I have to
5 speak with him again.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On the other hand, we can't proceed as we did
7 last week, have witnesses out of the blue, and then we, for courtesy
8 reasons, accept their testimony even though the testimony is not relevant
9 for the case.
10 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I might ask my investigators to go and
11 speak with this witness again.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So if you can submit in writing a more concrete
13 description of the envisaged testimony no later than Monday, then we will
14 decide on this. Otherwise, this witness will not be admitted because
15 until now the relevance has not been demonstrated. So --
16 MR. LUKIC: Then I'll do it for Monday.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You have the possibility to do it until Monday.
18 Let's now proceed to Vladimir Makovski, number 52.
19 MR. LUKIC: This gentleman is a teacher of Dr. Stakic. He knows
20 his from his childhood. He knows his family. He treated -- Dr. Stakic
21 treated him as a doctor later on.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think you need not proceed. Admitted. I hope
23 I did not insult the Prosecution by not asking --
24 MS. KORNER: I know that Your Honour is interested in
25 socialisation, so I won't need to object. But could I ask again, please,
1 that we have a full summary of what he is likely to say.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This is the headline of everything we do.
3 Whenever we say let us hear this witness, then we expect a full proffer of
4 this witness and what this witness will tell us, all the informations
5 foreseen under 65 ter (g).
6 MR. LUKIC: And I have to say that this witness, the teacher, is
7 not a Serb.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But no doubt it's important.
9 This leaves us with minimum five, maximum six witnesses. As you
10 already told us, in April some of your witnesses will take no longer than
11 15 minutes, and you proved that is possible. So we need the one or other
12 witness in addition for this week.
13 MR. LUKIC: I will provide Your Honours with two additional names
14 by the end of this working day.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: By the end of this working day so that we can
16 discuss the relevance tomorrow. Then I think we can do the necessary in
17 December if we have two other relevant witnesses, maybe it's better to
18 have three or four in case we come to the conclusion that the testimony of
19 this witness is not necessary, because we take it already as the truth, we
20 assume it as being the truth, and therefore being not relevant for the
22 So please, give us three to four additional names, if possible,
23 until tomorrow.
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before we, then, go to the entire list, I think
1 it is better to have the break already now. The trial therefore stays
2 adjourned 10.40.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.09 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.41 a.m.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.
6 To conclude the question of witnesses for December, when can we
7 expect, Mr. Lukic, your updated list?
8 MR. LUKIC: By the end of this working day, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Excellent. So we can then discuss this
11 Let us now turn to the so-called final witness list of November
12 11. And once again, as to the fact that we have to discuss names and it
13 might be to serve the interests of protection of these persons, let's
14 please go into private session once more.
15 [Private session]
13 Pages 9287-9341 – redacted – private session
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
4 at 1.42 p.m., to be reconvened on
5 Friday, the 22nd day of November, 2002,
6 at 9.00 a.m.