1 Tuesday, 1 April 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning to everybody. Please be seated.
6 May we please hear the case number.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. This is case number IT-97-24-T, the
8 Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And the appearances, please.
10 MS. KORNER: Joanna Korner, Nicholas Koumjian, assisted by Ruth
11 Karper, case manager.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And for the Defence.
13 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Branko Lukic for the
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
16 We have a long day before us with difficult exercises. We
17 prepared ourselves long into the evening yesterday based on the presents
18 given to us by the Defence. Let's follow the order of Rule 85. Doing so,
19 we would start with the question whether or not evidence has to be ordered
20 by the Trial Chamber. Is it necessary to go into closed session on the
21 question that was discussed yesterday? I think it's appropriate. Let's
22 go into private session.
23 [Private session]
12 Page 14895 – redacted – private session
12 Page 14896 – redacted – private session
8 [Open session]
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then Rule 85(vi). Any relevant information that
10 may assist the Trial Chamber in determining an appropriate sentence if the
11 accused is found guilty on one or more of the charges in the indictment."
12 We received the report requested by the Defence from Mr. McFadden,
13 chief of the detention Unit. Any objections against the admission into
14 evidence of this document?
15 MR. LUKIC: It's not a lengthy one, but no objections, Your
16 Honour, on our side.
17 MS. KORNER: No objection.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then the next available Defence --
19 THE REGISTRAR: D128.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: D128, admitted into evidence, D128A.
21 It's my understanding, Mr. Lukic, that you can translate this to
22 your client.
23 Is there any other request for additional information under Rule
24 85(vi)? This is apparently not the case. We have already received a
25 number of documents, especially character witnesses, under 92 bis
1 statements by members of the family. I think we can be satisfied with
2 this if need may be. Let's --
3 Mr. Koumjian, please.
4 MR. KOUMJIAN: There is one additional document that we had
5 promised, which was to provide the Court with the sourcing of the
6 Prosecution documents that have been admitted since the close of the
7 Prosecution case, and we do have a list prepared by Mr. Inayat. We've
8 entitled it "List 9," showing the source of those documents that came in
9 from the Prosecution since the close of the Prosecution case in chief.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do you tender --
11 Mr. Usher, could you please be so kind and distribute.
12 MR. KOUMJIAN: Apparently there were a few documents that were
13 admitted, Ms. Karper reminds me, before the close of the Prosecution case
14 but after the preparation of list 8, and they're also included on list 9.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think in the past we also gave these lists an
16 exhibit number, so it would be only consequent.
17 Any objections, Mr. Lukic?
18 MR. LUKIC: No objections, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then this document would be S43 ...?
20 THE REGISTRAR: 7, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S437A.
22 Then before we come to this difficult exercise going through
23 document by document, let us please continue in the order of Rule 85.
24 Once again the question in the direction of the Defence, in Rule 85 para C
25 it reads, "If the accused so desires, the accused may appear as a witness
1 in his or her own defence." And under Rule 84 bis a statement of the
2 accused would be possible. Is there any intention to do so under Rule 84
3 bis or under Rule 85(C)?
4 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour. We don't have those intentions at
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then let us try to find the
7 appropriate date for the closing arguments. The parties had agreed in the
8 past that the sequence foreseen in Rule 86 should be changed and therefore
9 we should first of all hear the oral closing arguments and then also based
10 on this and emanating from questions arising from these arguments, the
11 final brief.
12 We are a little bit ahead of our schedule. The rejoinder phase
13 was scheduled until Friday this week. May I ask as to the fact that the
14 Prosecution may present first a closing argument. First, do you want to
15 present a closing argument and would you be ready to present this closing
16 argument Friday, April the 4th?
17 MR. KOUMJIAN: No. We would like additional time, especially to
18 make -- well, the make the argument as helpful to the Trial Chamber as
19 possible. I don't think we'd be ready this Friday.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What would be your realistic perspective?
21 MR. KOUMJIAN: Well, I think we're now scheduled for the following
22 Friday. Is that correct?
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: April, the 11th.
24 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think that's the earliest we could do it.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We discussed it yesterday, came to the
1 conclusion this would be the latest possible, but then we would be in
2 agreement, so let's envisage April, the 11th of April for the closing
3 arguments of the Prosecution.
4 Then it would follow that the Defence may make a closing argument.
5 Is it your intention to make such a closing argument?
6 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. We -- our intention is to make
7 closing arguments.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would you be prepared to present your closing
9 arguments the following Monday; that would be the 14th of April?
10 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, we would be prepared.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then let's fix it the 14th of April, 9.00.
12 Is one day per party enough?
13 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. But we would anticipate rebuttal to the
15 Defence argument.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All right. This would be the next step. You
17 would need a day in between, or would you be prepared to respond
18 immediately the next day; this would be the 15th?
19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, we could respond immediately.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then may I ask the Defence: In return,
21 you'll respond the 16th of April?
22 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then what about the final brief?
24 Previously it was envisaged to have this final brief ready April the 17th.
25 But may I hear your point of view when it could be ready.
1 Please first the Prosecution.
2 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I've asked some others that are
3 working on that for their views. Obviously because of the Easter break,
4 it's not really something we want to do, to have it after the Easter
5 break, but we probably would obviously present a better product if it's --
6 if we have more time. I don't know what the Defence views are on that,
7 but ...
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we first hear the Defence views on this.
9 MR. LUKIC: I think that could be a joint motion for both parties.
10 The Defence would like to have also additional time if possible.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Easter -- Christian Easter here in the
12 Netherlands, this would be Monday, the 21st of April. Would it be
13 sufficient for both parties on the 28th of April, giving the opportunity
14 to both parties to respond no later than the 2nd of May. If the parties
15 so want, we could state that the final brief should arrive Monday, the
16 28th of April and any written submissions on legal issues would be taken
17 into account when arriving no later than Friday, the 2nd of May, end of
18 office hours; this would be 5.30. Would this be appropriate?
19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Well, Your Honour, I think we hope that we would
20 give our complete legal submissions on the 28th, and I understand,
21 obviously, the Defence is going to present a different view, but I don't
22 think it will be necessary for us to rebut that. Our position will be
23 complete on the 28th, unless the Trial Chamber had specific questions we
24 could then re-address.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: There should be a possibility that emanating
1 from these briefs in fact there would be the need to discuss the one or
2 other issue or that a party may want to respond. But it's only a
3 possibility and it would be only taken into account everything what
4 arrived -- what would arrive until May the 2nd.
5 What is the view on this by the Defence, please?
6 MR. LUKIC: I think that we can deal with this after the final
7 briefs and that we can arrange with the Prosecution if it's necessary to
8 have this possibility on the 2nd of May, because we think also that on the
9 28th of April we will have the final brief ready and final.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then the Trial Chamber, after having discussed
13 briefly, hereby orders that the final brief arrives the 28th of April no
14 later than 17.00 -- 17.30 in the afternoon, Monday, the 28th April.
15 And then as mentioned before - and it's for the parties to discuss
16 this - if need may be, additional remarks or responses on legal issues --
17 solely on legal issues would be taken into account for the judgment
18 arriving Friday, the 2nd of May, no later than half past 5.00.
19 I want, finally then, to give the hint that following the response
20 given by the Defence, it would be the right of Dr. Stakic in person to
21 give a final statement. The last word should always be for the accused.
22 Therefore, if Dr. Stakic so wants, in agreement with counsel, then he has
23 this opportunity, the 16th of April, immediately after the response given
24 by the Defence.
25 Anything else to be discussed before we come to this exercise of
1 going through all the documents? This seems not to be the case.
2 Then let's start. We have before us hopefully all, an entire set
3 of lists, where we have the 65 ter number of the documents. The documents
4 from 1 to 470 we have already the comments given by the Prosecution. We
5 have not yet comments by the Defence. Can we agree that in those cases
6 where the Office of the Prosecution had no objections, then without
7 further adieu and without any comments given by the Defence and, in
8 addition, we don't have any problems with the document, that this be then
9 admitted into evidence but not immediately given a exhibit number, but I
10 would kindly ask Madam Registrar to follow this exercise and give the
11 exhibit numbers and then later to distribute a list of the then exhibit
12 numbers based on the 65 ter number given by the Defence.
13 Can we proceed this way? I can't see no objections. So let's
14 start with 1 to 7 -- 1 to 6. This was already admitted into evidence.
15 The Defence wanted to provide an English copy of the entire book numbered
16 2. What about this? Is it available? This would be the book "Who
17 Defended Bosnia?"
18 MR. LUKIC: Would it be too late if we provide this translation
19 the next week, Your Honour? Because even my case manager abandoned me, so
20 I couldn't find this morning --
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If there are no --
22 MR. LUKIC: -- the translation.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Prosecution can live with this? No
25 MS. KORNER: No objection.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then the OTP was kind enough to offer five
2 chapters of book number 6. This would be the book "Tricky Strategy by
3 Sefer Halilovic."
4 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, they're available and will be
5 distributed later today.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. I go through all the numbers, and
7 please may the parties correct me if I am wrong. Number 7 was already
8 admitted as SK8.
9 Document 8 and 9 are admitted into evidence.
10 Document number 10, you were missing a translation. We have only
11 the text in B/C/S, apparently an article from Kozarski Vjesnik. One can't
12 read it, 8 or 9 August 1991. I don't know which part shall be tendered,
13 and therefore I can't ask in the moment whether this document is available
14 in the archives or database of the Prosecution.
15 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we gave to the Defence -- or when they
16 came to look at the newspaper, all translations of the ones they selected
17 that we already have. So if Mr. Lukic doesn't have the translation, then
18 we don't have it either.
19 MR. LUKIC: To solve the problem, we can withdraw this document.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Document number 10, withdrawn.
21 Document number 11, already admitted under the number D72; 12,
22 already admitted SK21; 13, admitted into evidence; 14, admitted under
23 SK22; 15, admitted into evidence.
24 16, may we hear the comments. There were objections by the
25 Prosecution to this document, Kozarski Vjesnik of 13th of September, 1991,
1 a newspaper article about a crime committed in the Zagreb area. We can't
2 see any relevance for the moment.
3 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, from this document it's obvious that the
4 man is from Prijedor and is buried in the Pasinac cemetery in Prijedor.
5 So although killed in Croatia, we think that it had some impact on the
6 local commune, especially that -- because at that time there were no
7 fightings in Prijedor area.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Our general approach was and is that we would
9 admit such kinds of documents on events happening outside Prijedor
10 municipality; therefore, having may be an impact on that what happened in
11 Prijedor, this would be admissible. But as to the fact that it's dated
12 September 1992 -- 1991, we can't see the relevance and therefore not
13 admitted into evidence.
14 Document 17 is already admitted under SK9; 18, already admitted
15 under SK9; the same is true for 20 -- for 19. 20 is already admitted
16 under D83; 21, admitted into evidence; 22, already admitted under SK11;
17 23, already admitted under SK10; 24, already admitted under D84; 25,
18 already admitted under D85. 26 is moot as to the fact that it's the same
19 document as 25. Correct, Mr. Lukic?
20 MR. LUKIC: That's correct, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 27, admitted into under; 28, admitted into
22 evidence; 29, already admitted under D71B.
23 30, would you please comment on the relevance, Mr. Lukic.
24 MS. KORNER: We can't object to that, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We know, but we took the liberty also to ask for
1 the relevance of the documents.
2 Mr. Lukic, please.
3 MR. LUKIC: This article only reflects as a general claim
4 something that many witnesses testified in this case, that the 5th
5 Partisan Brigade was in Slavonia in October 1991, so it's just as a
6 background information. It doesn't touch the core issue.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Not admitted into evidence, we can't see the
9 relevance for the concrete case.
10 31, admitted into evidence; 32, 33, admitted into evidence; 34,
11 already admitted under D73; 35, 36, admitted into evidence; 37, already
12 admitted under SK36; 38 through 40, admitted into evidence; 41, admitted
13 into evidence.
14 Then 42, we can't see the relevance. Mr. Lukic, please.
15 MR. LUKIC: I remember this one. It's also just a background data
16 about the situation in the health institutions in Prijedor area.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: November 1991, on drug abuse. The Trial Chamber
18 held this was -- is not relevant for this case. Not admitted into
20 Two other documents we would have the same problems, because it's
21 a relatively long time before the events in Prijedor November 1991.
22 Comments from your side?
23 MR. LUKIC: The only thing that these documents show the situation
24 in 1991 and the situation only deteriorated in the future, going closer to
25 spring and summer 1992.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Document 43, admitted into evidence.
3 44, saboteurs apprehended by Bosanski Novi police. What about the
4 relevance, please?
5 MR. LUKIC: This document shows that already in 1991 there were
6 some terrorist actions in the region of Autonomous Region of Krajina. I
7 think that this shows that even in 1992 the situation was pretty much
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence; same is true for
11 document 45.
12 46, there was an objection by the Prosecution to the relevance.
13 We would share this view in principle. May I hear your comments, 28
14 November 1991, foreign currency black market in Prijedor.
15 MR. LUKIC: This is also back-up information about the situation
16 in the Prijedor area. It doesn't touch the core issue. It only shows
17 that legality was not observed at that time already.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Here we agree with the view taken by the
19 Prosecution; therefore, not admitted into evidence.
20 47, 48, admitted into evidence; 49, already admitted under D86;
21 50, already admitted under D87.
22 51, admitted into evidence; 52, we had some problems with the
23 lower production of wheat because of bad weather, December 1991.
24 MR. LUKIC: We think that this shows not bad weather but that many
25 people were absent on the front lines and shortages in fuel distribution,
1 so it does not touch the core issue but shows that even the shortages of
2 food was expected next spring and summer.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then admitted into evidence. This was document
6 53, already admitted under D88; 54, admitted into evidence.
7 55, there was an objection to the relevance, and we would share
8 this view. A murder of a Serb living in Croatia, document 55.
9 MR. LUKIC: We mentioned many witnesses in -- not many but several
10 witnesses during -- mentioned this family, the Zec family, a pretty
11 wealthy family from Zagreb who is actually from Prijedor area and they
12 were buried in Prijedor area as well, and being killed in 1991, that also
13 had a great impact of -- on Prijedor municipality. So we thought that
14 it's pretty important to show this incident.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: They were buried in Donja Dragotina.
16 MR. LUKIC: That's right. That's Prijedor municipality, Your
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In this case we agree with majority, with the
20 objections of the OTP, not admitted into evidence.
21 56, admitted into evidence; 57, admitted into evidence; 58,
22 already admitted under D89.
23 59, Madam Registrar we had a problem to find it, but we believe it
24 was already admitted into evidence.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, if you give me a minute to check, I
1 will come back to this.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. We would also be extremely grateful if
3 Ms. Karper could assist and see on the database whether or not this
4 document -- the document was already admitted into evidence.
5 So let's leave 59 open for a moment. We have to come back to
7 60, admitted into evidence; the same is true for 61 through 63; 64
8 is already admitted as S6; 65 through 67, admitted into evidence; 68
9 through 72, admitted into evidence; 73, already admitted as SK13; 74
10 through 80, admitted into evidence.
11 Then once again, the same problem; we are convinced that document
12 81 is already admitted into evidence but we didn't find the D number.
13 This is a Santours advertisement.
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Ms. Karper has checked, and document 59
15 is SK40.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: SK40. Thank you very much.
17 And 81?
18 MS. KORNER: She's checking.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This was on late Friday afternoon when we saw
21 Then 82, already admitted as S83.
22 MS. KORNER: 81 is D-something -- 76.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: D76. Thank you.
24 Then 83, admitted into evidence.
25 84, there's no translation and the photos are not clear. So in
1 essence we can't see the meaning of this document and this entire page.
2 If the Defence could assist us or decide to withdraw, this would be
4 MR. LUKIC: We have a translation, Your Honour, and we can provide
5 it during the break. So maybe you can --
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can you tell us which part of this entire
8 MR. LUKIC: The title of the whole page is "Picture; story from
9 the Prijedor front." So all pictures are actually one set.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry to -- sorry to say that we can't really
11 see something on these photos, and it doesn't assist us.
12 MR. LUKIC: It's about dugout in some village named Kahrimanovic,
13 where Becim Mejdujanin [phoen] was hiding at that time allegedly.
14 Photographs of Ustasha minister, Andrija Tukavis [phoen] found there, war
15 map, if it's visible.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Fortunately they are not -- we have already two
17 copies and they are not legible.
18 May I ask the Prosecution, what's the basis for their agreement
19 with this document.
20 MS. KORNER: I don't think there's any rhyme or reason to any of
21 this, Your Honour. I think we must have worked out that it was relevant.
22 We only object on the grounds that we think are proper, and we couldn't
23 think of any reason to object to that.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We can see now that a translation is available.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
2 85 through 87, admitted into evidence; 88 through 94, admitted
3 into evidence; 95 through 105, admitted into evidence.
4 106, you will share the view of not -- non-relevance.
5 MR. LUKIC: This document -- this document shows that every nation
6 in the former Yugoslavia thought about creation of new states and asked
7 for borders to be revised, and it's one day before the referendum in
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the text is issued by a Croatian National Party.
9 So if they claim that Serbs wanted to create state inside Bosnia or to
10 keep Bosnia inside Yugoslavia, we think that it's necessary to show that
11 other political parties had similar views at that time.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We could argue on the basis of tu quoque, but
13 here we decided to state that there is no relevance for the concrete case;
14 therefore, not admitted into evidence.
15 MR. LUKIC: But Judge -- Your Honour, it's not tu quoque, because
16 it's not a crime to express political views.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: [Previous interpretation continues] ... sense,
18 but there -- I think it's undisputed that there was similar movement in
19 other regions of the former Yugoslavia. It's not contested. So
20 therefore, not admitted into evidence, 106.
21 107, 108, admitted into evidence.
22 109, do you have some problems?
23 MR. LUKIC: The Prosecution objected to this evidence.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.
25 MR. LUKIC: And the date is the very date of the first day of
1 referendum in Bosnia-Herzegovina and shows the example of attack on the
2 JNA, Yugoslav National Army about roadblocks and about European Community
3 monitors trying to solve the problem. So it shows already at that time
4 there were problems, there were fights, and the European Community
5 monitors involved in the whole process. So of course --
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
8 110 would be the next one. Sarajevo Radio-TV occupied. We can't
9 see any relevance.
10 MR. LUKIC: Oslobodjenje paper is from Sarajevo and it mostly
11 deals with the events from Sarajevo. So all we wanted to achieve through
12 these articles is to show the overall situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 Very few articles from Oslobodjenje deals with Prijedor area. It's
14 Muslim-controlled papers already at that time, and we tried through
15 Muslim-controlled papers to show from their view what the situation in
16 Bosnia is. We didn't want to lean on any Serbian source. So having this
17 late translation, we couldn't present those evidence to the witnesses, but
18 we think that having the whole picture in front of us, it would be much
19 easier to understand all the events happening in Prijedor area as well.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We came to the conclusion that the mere fact
21 that Sarajevo Radio-TV was occupied was not and is not relevant for our
22 concrete case; therefore, not admitted into evidence.
23 111, we have problems with the content of the document because we
24 have before us only two pages in B/C/S.
25 MR. LUKIC: This is just propaganda material, so we can withdraw
1 this document. There is nothing crucial in it.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 111, withdrawn.
3 112, death at the barricades, 1st of March, blockade near Turbe.
4 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, it's the second day of referendum in Bosnia, and
5 some barricades were already in place all over the Bosnia and on one of
6 them on the second day of referendum two men were killed, not in Prijedor
7 area, outside Prijedor area, but we think that it shows the overall
8 situation in Bosnia where at that time almost all roads were already
9 blocked or unsafe to travel on.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Not admitted into evidence because not related
12 to the concrete area.
13 113, and a number of following documents we had a problem. If you
14 could, please, explain where the village of Drvar is located.
15 MR. LUKIC: 113 actually shows -- explained in the
16 Muslim-controlled newspapers that there were irregularities, something
17 irregular, during that referendum. And it's mentioned in this article
18 that two men were captured with the forged papers and forged decisions.
19 And during our case we claimed that there were some irregularities during
20 this, the whole procedure.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you please explain where -- we were really
22 interested in where Drvar and Bosansko Grahovo is located.
23 MR. LUKIC: West of Prijedor municipality.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is it in the municipality or without?
25 MR. LUKIC: Outside the municipality.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Outside the municipality.
2 MR. LUKIC: Different municipalities, yes. Bordering Prijedor
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Therefore, not admitted into evidence.
6 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, sorry, one correction: They do not border
7 Prijedor municipality. My mistake.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Not admitted into evidence.
10 MR. LUKIC: I withdraw this document.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Withdrawn.
13 MR. LUKIC: Through 150, which consists of 15 various documents
14 when they are translated but actually only three pages, I think, from the
15 newspapers, Oslobodjenje, I just wanted to show the situation in
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina one day after the referendum.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But all related to Sarajevo and Kosija Kupres
19 MR. LUKIC: That's right. And we think that this shows complete
20 chaos in Sarajevo at that time one day after referendum, and we think that
21 it also shows that the referendum created a lot of problems all over
22 Bosnia and that there were -- there was resistance all over Bosnia to its
23 implementation and acceptance, and it's not -- that it was nothing
24 specific for Prijedor area.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: As to the fact that not related to Prijedor
2 municipality, not admitted into evidence.
3 116, 117, admitted into evidence.
4 118, new street names in Livno. We can't see the relevance.
5 MR. LUKIC: The names in Livno were changed -- actually, the names
6 of the recognised people from World War II were changed into Croatian
7 heroes from the same war, actually, who fought on the other side, so --
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This happened in Livno; therefore, not admitted
9 into evidence.
11 MR. LUKIC: This article deals with the propaganda through
12 Oslobodjenje papers that was the support that was given by Oslobodjenje
13 papers to the referendum. And obviously being read all over the Bosnia,
14 this propaganda had impact on Prijedor area as well.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We can't see any relevance for the concrete
16 case; therefore, not admitted into evidence.
17 120, admitted into evidence; the same is true for 121, 122.
18 What about 123?
19 MR. LUKIC: We think that this document is an important one
20 because through the Muslim papers it gives the analysis from a dozen
21 foreign sources quoted. So we have Russian sources, German, Spanish
22 sources quoted about the situation, how the foreigners saw the situation
23 in Bosnia at that time.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We came to the conclusion that these foreign
25 views are not relevant for the concrete case; therefore, not admitted into
2 124, related to Sarajevo only; therefore, we can't see any
4 MR. LUKIC: This also talks about the moving of the population.
5 Many people from Sarajevo came to Prijedor or to Banja Luka area. It
6 means before anything happened, any conflicts erupted in Prijedor area.
7 So we think that this document talks about people from Prijedor. Maybe
8 they will be citizens of Prijedor in a few days.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It was on the march on Pale, and admittedly we
10 couldn't identify anything related in this article to Prijedor, and
11 therefore 124, not admitted into evidence.
13 MR. LUKIC: We can withdraw this document.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay.
15 126 through 131, admitted into evidence.
17 MR. LUKIC: It's not even in our interest to have this document,
18 but we wanted to show how SDA felt toward JNA. So we can withdraw one --
19 this one, if Your Honours don't think that there is any relevance.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 132, withdrawn.
21 133, once again on Drvar; therefore, we can't see any relevance.
22 MR. LUKIC: This is also one of three or four articles regarding
23 the same men. Later on we'll see that these men were taken to Croatia for
24 investigation, although arrested in Bosnia.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It has nothing to do with our concrete case;
1 therefore, not admitted into evidence.
2 The same, and our impression is true for the next, on the
3 kidnapping of residents of Bosanski Novi, 134.
4 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, I thought that you already ruled on 134.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No.
6 MR. LUKIC: The same situation with previous one so --
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's withdrawn?
8 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, withdrawn.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 135, admitted into evidence.
10 136, atomic bomb in the city centre of Jajce.
11 MR. LUKIC: That's right. Also, is outside of Prijedor territory
12 and talks only about the preparation of Territorial Defence of
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Therefore withdrawn?
15 MR. LUKIC: No, it's not. You have to rule on this one.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Not admitted into evidence.
17 137, admitted; 138, admitted.
18 139, we have problems. It's on Mostar.
19 MR. LUKIC: This was a meeting of all intellectuals from -- I
20 think from all over the Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that was one of the
21 efforts to solve the problems in Bosnia.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. But it's, first of all, related to Mostar.
23 Mostar is Croatian. We couldn't find any relevance for the concrete case.
24 And therefore, not admitted into evidence. 139, not admitted.
25 140, admitted into evidence.
1 141, once again Drvar; therefore, we can't see any evidence.
2 MR. LUKIC: Withdrawn.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 141, withdrawn.
4 142, police bring reservists under control in Kljuc. We cannot
5 see the relevance for the concrete case.
6 MR. LUKIC: Withdrawn.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay.
8 143, report from Sarajevo.
9 MR. LUKIC: Yeah. This is --
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objection by the Prosecution. And we share the
12 MR. LUKIC: This is a Sarajevo papers mentioning Green Berets, so
13 we thought only because of that it was relevant. Otherwise, we agree
14 there is nothing in connection with Prijedor area.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Withdrawn or you want a ruling?
16 MR. LUKIC: Rule, please.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Not admitted into evidence, 143.
18 144, admitted; the same is true for 145.
19 146 creates a real problem because it's missing. We were told it
20 would be the same as 147, but 147 is also missing.
21 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, that's right.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Withdrawn?
23 MR. LUKIC: There is no document at all.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it's moot, if you want to put it this way.
25 MR. LUKIC: Yes, that's moot.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 147, 148 moot.
2 149, Sarajevo --
3 MR. LUKIC: Only one correction, Your Honour. I think 146 is moot
4 and 147 stays because there was a document in.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No. I -- at least, in our stamp collection --
6 MR. LUKIC: You are right. 148 stays.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, 148. All right. 148, admitted into
9 149, related only to Sarajevo; therefore, we share the view of the
10 Prosecution on non-relevance.
11 MR. LUKIC: I don't see the objection by the Prosecution in my
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Oh, sorry. Sorry. You are right. It was our
14 opinion. Could you please explain what would be the relevance of this
15 article on Sarajevo and on the war in Croatia.
16 MR. LUKIC: The Defence claimed during the trial that there were
17 some Mujahedins in Bosnia even before the spring and summer of 1992, and
18 here we have the clear sign of it from the Sarajevo newspapers, on the
19 11th of March, 1992.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence; the same is true, 150.
22 151? We can't see the relevance.
23 MR. LUKIC: Withdrawn.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 151, withdrawn.
25 152, admitted; 153, admitted; and then 154 through 157, admitted.
1 158, reports by Austrian media on the war in Croatia. Here we can
2 absolutely not see any relevance.
3 MR. LUKIC: But we heard at that time in the Prijedor area there
4 were more than 10.000 refugees from Croatia. So we think that this
5 article transferred there Austrian media shows the reason why these people
6 fled, not only because they lost jobs, their jobs, but also they were in
7 danger already in 1991.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's not only second, it's third-hand
9 information, a compilation of different newspapers, quotations out of
10 context; and therefore, not admitted into evidence.
11 159, admitted; 160, admitted.
13 MR. LUKIC: Those are the same four men arrested in Drvar; so
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 161, withdrawn.
16 162, admitted; 163, admitted.
17 164, National Guard Corps member in Bosanski Brod. I don't see
18 any relevance for our concrete case.
19 MR. LUKIC: Only that the article is written one day before
20 slaughter in Sijekovac. So we had some testimony which show that the
21 Croatian army was in that area. But it's not relevant for this case,
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So you withdraw?
24 MR. LUKIC: Withdrawn, yes.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 164, withdrawn.
1 165, admitted; and the same is true for 166 through 173. 174 was
2 admitted the 25th of March, but we don't have the correct number.
3 THE REGISTRAR: It will be marked -- it is marked D92/174.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. D92/174? So it's D92. Okay.
5 Then 175, we would like to have it in a language we understand.
6 We have only an article from Oslobodjenje, the 28th of March, 1992 without
7 any translation. And we don't know which article should be admitted.
8 MR. LUKIC: Withdrawn.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 175, withdrawn.
10 176, admitted.
11 177, admittedly we don't know where the village of Neum is
13 MR. LUKIC: Neum is in Herzegovina, far away from Prijedor.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So, therefore, we can't see any relevance.
15 MR. LUKIC: Only showing the overall situation in Bosnia, that
16 there were heavy fights in March in between JNA and paramilitary
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But as to the fact that it's in fact, as you
19 stated, far away from Prijedor, not admitted into evidence.
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 178, I just received a translation. There was
22 no objection by the Prosecution. On the international attempts.
23 Therefore, admitted into evidence, 178.
24 179, we think it's outside of the geographical scope. On the
25 other hand -- yes, please.
1 MR. LUKIC: It's outside of the Prijedor area. It only shows that
2 Green Berets were active in March 1992.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So we can't see the relevance because outside of
4 area. Do you want a decision?
5 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Not admitted into evidence.
7 180 was withdrawn because the same as 173.
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 181, already admitted. But unfortunately, we
10 don't have the exhibit number.
11 MR. LUKIC: It's D80, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: D80. Thank you.
13 182? We have problems. It's a summary of Deutshe Welle. It may
14 be interesting, but not relevant. Do you want a decision or you want to
16 MR. LUKIC: A decision, please.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Not admitted into evidence, 182.
18 183, admitted into evidence; 184, admitted into evidence.
19 185 is not legible.
20 MR. LUKIC: This visit of Mr. Izetbegovic is mentioned in one of
21 the books, so only as a make-up exhibit, but it talks about something
22 which has already been admitted.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So therefore, we can -- you can withdraw this
24 not legible document; correct?
25 MR. LUKIC: Withdrawn. Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 185, withdrawn.
2 186, admitted into evidence; 187, admitted into evidence.
3 188, problems. Once again, Turkish newspaper on Green Berets.
4 MR. LUKIC: Here we have remarks by the, we think, reliable Muslim
5 newspaper, transferring the opinion of Turkish papers about Green Berets,
6 claiming that there are Islamic commanders and Green Berets were operating
7 in Prijedor area as well.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. But no reference is made in this article
9 to the area of the fourth amended indict. Therefore, not admitted into
11 MR. LUKIC: But Your Honour, when it's, for example, mentioned
12 Islamic organisation which is active on the whole territory of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina, even if it's seated in Sarajevo, it does have impact
14 on the whole Bosnia.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I remember we carefully went through this
16 document because we were alerted that it might be, but we came to the
17 conclusion that it's not relevant finally.
18 Then 189, this document has no -- let me see why there is no date,
19 189. There is a date? 31st of March, 1992. It's in Livno; outside of
20 area. What about this document, 189?
21 MR. LUKIC: That is true. It's outside of the area of Prijedor.
22 We think that it shows the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Because outside the area, not admitted into
25 190, admitted; 191, admitted; 192, admitted into evidence.
1 And now it's time for a break. The trial stays adjourned until
2 five minutes past 11.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.
6 Let's continue. 193.
7 MR. LUKIC: Withdrawn.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any more gifts?
9 194, also withdrawn?
10 MR. LUKIC: No, it's not objected. I think that you will admit
11 this one.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's wait a minute. Leaflets in Croatia.
13 Defence forces not to disarm, distributed in Ljubuski, created to Croatia,
14 only --
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: By majority, admitted into evidence, 194.
17 The same is true for 195 through 198.
18 What about 199? Here we had extreme problems.
19 MR. LUKIC: Withdrawn.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I wonder whether the Prosecution saw the
21 relevance on this document.
22 200. Here we have six exhibits under one and the same exhibit
23 number. Therefore, we need some clarification from the Defence.
24 MR. LUKIC: Actually, we asked the CLSS to translate the whole
25 first page, and I think that some of this has already been admitted from
1 this document. I read, "Hundreds of dead and wounded on Kupres."
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, that's right. So can we work here with
3 200-1, -2, and so on. "The right to rebellion," I don't think that we
4 have read it.
5 MR. LUKIC: No, we hadn't.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This would be 200-1.
7 "Shooting the unarmed" would be -2. "Concern about BH" would
8 be -3. And then the next one, could you assist us, what was the exhibit
10 THE REGISTRAR: D120.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: D120.
12 And then "Cease-fire order," this would be then 200-4. Admitted
13 into evidence under these numbers.
14 201, admitted.
15 202, not legible, and the Prosecution stated not relevant.
16 MR. LUKIC: It was really not legible, so we withdraw this
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 202, withdrawn.
19 203, curfew imposed in Sarajevo. I think it's not relevant,
20 imposing of a curfew. Therefore, not admitted into evidence.
21 The same is true for the next document, 204, Sarajevo University
22 cancels lectures.
23 205, admitted; the same is true for 206, 207, 208.
24 209, republic at the crossroads. It's once again foreign press on
25 BiH, this time the French press, and consequently we would not admit this
1 into evidence. So therefore, not admitted.
2 Then "Sarajevans flee city," also related to Sarajevo only, not
3 admitted. No relevance.
4 211, already admitted as D77.
5 212, another Crisis Staff in another municipality. We have to be
6 consequent with our rulings. We stated that Crisis Staff and Crisis
7 Staffs are not always the same and it depends on the municipality.
8 Therefore, not relevant, not admitted into evidence, 212.
9 213, unreliable ranting journalist. We can't see the relevance.
10 Any comments from your side, Mr. Lukic?
11 MR. LUKIC: At that time this incident involved the president of
12 the Presidency of then-Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mr. Alija
13 Izetbegovic, who actually dealt with the -- this guy who wanted to blow up
14 this dam. So fortunately, nothing happened. It was -- it has never
15 happened that he blew up that dam, so ...
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: However, we can't see relevance for the concrete
17 case before us; and therefore, not admitted into evidence.
18 Whereas, 214 is admitted.
20 MR. LUKIC: This is also the same.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The fighting.
22 MR. LUKIC: Act by Sabanovic and conversation with somebody from
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Therefore, the same decision; not admitted.
25 216 through 219, admitted.
12 Blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts. Pages 14927 to 14945.
1 And 220, those were refugees from BiH to Slovenia. I can't see
2 the relevance.
3 MR. LUKIC: As the Prosecution correctly found, they were
4 documents, 220, 235, 240 -- 242 and 248 deal with refugees, and all of
5 these numbers mentioned in those articles deal with the refugees from
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina prior to conflict in Prijedor municipality, and that's
7 exactly what many of the witnesses brought here by the Defence claimed,
8 that many people left Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Prijedor area as well.
9 So we think that all those documents are in support of the testimony, some
10 of the witnesses testified for the Defence.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted. 220, admitted.
12 221, Sarajevo blockade. We can't see the relevance.
13 MR. LUKIC: Withdrawn.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
15 222 through 224, admitted; 225 was already admitted as D78; 226
16 through 234, admitted; 235 through 240, admitted.
17 Problems with 241, fighting in Bosanska Posavina.
18 MR. LUKIC: This article shows and is in concert with the military
19 documents admitted in this case, and it shows the military actions by the
20 Croatian forces advancing through Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it's stated here
21 that the fights are around Derventa, Modrica, and these cities are
22 approximately 50 kilometres inside Bosnia -- Bosnian territory.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: How far away from Prijedor municipality, please?
24 MR. LUKIC: 100 kilometres.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And already --
1 MR. LUKIC: But they were moving from --
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The 22nd of May, 1992.
3 MR. LUKIC: And actually, that fights cut off Prijedor area from
4 the rest of Republika Srpska and Yugoslavia. And because of these fights,
5 later on fights for corridor were engaged.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, 241.
7 242 through 244, admitted.
9 MR. LUKIC: Here we have attacks on JNA.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In Tuzla.
11 MR. LUKIC: It's near Tuzla area, so toward Serbia.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yeah. But, therefore, we can't see the
13 relevance for the concrete case; not admitted into evidence.
14 246, dealing with Sarajevo only. Also here we have problems with
15 the relevance.
16 MR. LUKIC: All we wanted is to show another Crisis Staff. But
17 you ruled in the previous case; so withdrawn.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. 246, withdrawn.
19 247, Brcko.
20 MR. LUKIC: Through this document we wanted to show that
21 mopping-up operations are normal, acceptable, and common during the
22 operations, and these mopping-up operations were undertaken against Serb
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We stay with our decision. We can't see the
1 relevance of this document. Therefore, not admitted into evidence.
2 248, admitted into evidence.
3 249, here we can't see what is the relevance.
4 MR. LUKIC: Withdrawn.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 249, withdrawn.
6 Then 250 through 259. In our files they are missing.
7 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, this is a set we haven't actually
8 been through before. We have all of them up to 255. We don't have an
9 exhibit for 256, but the rest we do have.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Unfortunately, we continue now, following 249,
11 with 260.
12 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, we have them. Not that it helps
13 you much, I know.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can Madam Registrar assist us. Thank you.
15 So we have no comments on this until now. What about 250?
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, can I say -- I'll deal with them all as
17 a group because they're all the same thing, 250 to 255 are all about
18 Croatia, and then 255 is in fact into Bosanski Brod, but the rest is
19 Croatia. So for what it's worth - because I know Your Honours will make -
20 we query the relevance.
21 MR. LUKIC: It's not -- sorry, I have to --
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.
23 MR. LUKIC: I appreciate Ms. Korner's knowledge about Bosnian
24 geography, but it's not -- 250 is Bosnia. Odzak is in Bosnia. Novo Selo,
25 251, is in Bosnia. 252 is Bosnia.
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, what I said was it's all about Croatia,
2 and that is what it's all about, the Croatian army. And not the mention
3 that none of these municipalities, as far as I know, are next to Prijedor.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It reads "Croatian Defence Council, Republic of
5 Croatia, independent --"
6 MR. LUKIC: Croatian Defence Council is Bosnian Croats army.
7 Croat army is army from Republic of Croatia. Croat Defence Council is
8 Bosnian Croat army.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But what is the relevance for our case, please?
10 Let's go step by step. 250, Croatian --
11 MR. LUKIC: We can deal as a group, as Ms. Korner mentioned. And
12 I'll leave it to you, Your Honours, to decide. You know that we had first
13 six witnesses from Bosanski Brod area, and these documents were introduced
14 in relation to their testimony. We wanted to show that there was no plan
15 on Serbian side at that time to start the war but the war started with the
16 entrance of the Croatian army into Bosnia-Herzegovina on the 3rd of March,
17 1992. And these documents only support the testimonies of those first six
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But as stated previously, the first six
20 witnesses would have not been admitted on the witness list if we would
21 have known before that these were primarily tu quoque witnesses.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Therefore, these documents, 250 through 259, are
24 not admitted into evidence.
25 Then we have 260, this is a -- we can't understand --
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, well, I was going to say we don't know
2 where this book of -- we assume it was from Prijedor Hospital, but we
3 don't know. There's nothing to indicate where 260 and 261 either come
4 from or to what they relate.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It was also our question. We have -- we read
6 "Civilian register, admissions registry." But from where it stems, that
7 is the question. And second, we have to take care. There's something
8 like data protection as well.
9 MR. LUKIC: I have these documents closed, but it's obvious that
10 this is Prijedor municipality from the names of the streets and villages.
11 From the first page it's Kozarusa, Zarko Zgonjanin at 48. This is
12 Prijedor municipality.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. But what kind of register is it? It reads
14 on the cover page "Civilian register."
15 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
16 MR. LUKIC: I tried to get the information from my client. This
17 is a book in which everybody has to be registered upon arrival to the
18 medical centre.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But what do you want to prove with these
20 documents? And also, please, take into account that we have the names,
21 personal data, and their illness. What's the purpose?
22 MR. LUKIC: This document we received from the OTP, so we didn't
23 check what kind of data we have inside. But what we want to show is that
24 everybody was -- everybody received medical attention in Prijedor, whoever
25 reported, no matter of the nationalities, and from this document it's
1 obvious that all nationalities received medical help during the dates I
2 mentioned here. It's from --
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And this would be relevant for which count of
4 the indictment?
5 MR. LUKIC: It talk about genocide, about --
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I think if Mr. Lukic insists, it's part
7 of the allegation in general under genocide or persecutions that there was
8 insufficient medical treatment and the like for non-Serbs, so I agree with
9 Mr. Lukic that it's relevant.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Then these documents in B/C/S, ERN
11 numbers, and part P numbers. Therefore, these two documents, admitted
12 into evidence based on the declaration that apparently it's from the
13 Prijedor -- a list of patients from a Prijedor hospital. Correct? Both
15 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Ms. Sutherland always keeps an eye on
16 the proceedings, informs us that it's almost certainly part of the
17 Prijedor collection if it has a P number on it. So it would have been
18 seized by the OTP.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And all during the relevant period of time, and
20 therefore admitted into evidence. This is also true for the documents 262
21 through 26 -- no, sorry, 262 is already D66; 263 is already D67; 264 is
22 already D68; 265 is already D69.
23 266 is missing.
24 MS. KORNER: Yes. We don't have an exhibit there either.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What about moot?
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, moot.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 267, admitted.
3 268, missing.
4 MS. KORNER: Also missing with us.
5 MR. LUKIC: Moot.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 270, we have to go into some details.
7 MS. KORNER: 269, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 269.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we object to that on the grounds of
10 relevance, on the basis it's about not giving a car to a combat unit in
11 1995 or the charges in 1995. And we object, while I'm on my feet, to 270
12 because it's linked to it.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. This is what I just wanted to explain,
14 because it's annexes with 270. So we came to the same conclusion, not
15 relevant for the concrete case.
16 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, if I may.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, please.
18 MR. LUKIC: All I wanted to show is that the army had a legal
19 right to confiscate and mobilise. Nobody could object. If you object,
20 you to go prison. And there is never a single document like this with the
21 powers on the side of the Crisis Staff or Municipal Assembly. So the only
22 power capable of mobilising moving properties or real estate was army and
23 only army at the period of war activities. So we think that --
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No doubt this is your conclusion. This is here
25 related now to Banja Luka, and it shows that 269, it's a military court,
1 and 270, also military court.
2 MR. LUKIC: Yes. Even -- even though persons, as you can see, are
3 civilians. They were tried in front of the military court. A lady didn't
4 want to give them her jeep.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The first reason is it's absolutely out of that
6 period of time.
7 MR. LUKIC: Out of the period of time, but the same rules. The
8 rules never changed. And we couldn't get, because of our limited
9 resources, any -- any verdicts from -- relating to 1992, but there was no
10 military court in Prijedor area. Banja Luka military court covered
11 Prijedor area as well.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I know.
13 MR. LUKIC: So --
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's -- this is absolutely undisputed,
15 and it's also undisputed that this court worked. The question is only on
16 which cases.
17 MR. LUKIC: If it's undisputed in this case that only military had
18 the power to mobilise and could prosecute for refusal, then it's not
19 necessary. But we think that it has to be shown during this case that the
20 military had the power to mobilise and had power to prosecute if somebody
21 refuses to give any goods or real estate.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Anything in response?
23 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Ms. Korner, please. Your
1 MS. KORNER: It doesn't show anything of the sort. It deals with
2 somebody not giving a car to a combat unit in 1995. As far as I'm
3 concerned, though, Your Honours are clearly making your own decisions
4 about what you consider to be relevant, and I don't think there's any
5 further thing that I can add.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Both documents are not admitted into evidence
8 because out of time and area.
9 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, if I may. Didn't we agree that the area
10 is the same?
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We stated this was in Banja Luka by the Court
12 and we agreed that it's -- that Prijedor also is covered by -- or in the
13 jurisdiction of Banja Luka, but absolutely out of time. And please
14 understand that I can't comment further your arguments.
15 271, admitted; 272, admitted.
16 273, it's once again a question of the relevance of military court
17 judgments. There was an objection both to 273, 274, 275, 276 for the same
19 MR. LUKIC: These judgments show that there was no free movement
20 for anybody. Nobody could simply leave military unit or leave the
21 country. So we think that it shows during the wartime everybody's
22 freedoms are limited up to certain point. So all rules applied, no matter
23 if somebody comes from Banja Luka, Prijedor, or some other area.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We discussed it lengthily yesterday, but came to
25 the conclusion that already the fact that these were decisions of 1995
1 shows the non-relevance of the documents 273 through 276; therefore,
2 not --
3 MR. LUKIC: The verdicts are from 1995, but as you can see, he's
4 guilty -- somebody is guilty because he left in November 1992.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, we are aware of this. Deserted November
6 1992. This was 273. The other one was on a desertion in 1993. But we
7 came to the conclusion that it's not relevant for our concrete case before
9 277, however, admitted.
10 278, here we have some problems. What kind of document is this?
11 Is this the same kind of document, the same kind of certificate as we had
12 it in S12?
13 MR. LUKIC: Yes. Obviously it's issued by the Red Cross, as well
14 as S12. It's signed by the same person, it claims here, Pero Curguz, also
15 Slobodan Kuruzovic on the other side. And it was providing housing for a
16 Muslim gentleman.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
18 279, may we ask where Trebinje is located.
19 MR. LUKIC: It is located the farest as possible in
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina from Prijedor, but this instruction comes from the SDA,
21 the same party ruling in Prijedor area as well before the conflicts.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Now we are -- this document is from 20th of
23 January, 1993; therefore, we came to the conclusion out of area and out of
24 time. Not admitted into evidence.
25 However, 280, admitted; 281, already admitted as S138.
1 282, dated 1999; therefore, we can't see the relevance of this
3 MR. LUKIC: This document also shows that something was mobilised
4 by the army and later on there was a -- it was -- the damage was recovered
5 through the judgment. And in this case, the car was taken from Gagula
6 Franjo, who is obviously a Croat, issued in 1999, and the court granted
7 his request.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Not admitted because absolutely out of time
9 limit area.
10 283 is missing, at least with us.
11 MS. KORNER: It's not. I'm sorry, we've got it. And we don't
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
14 284, admitted; 285, admitted.
15 286, missing.
16 MR. LUKIC: Moot.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 287, problems with the relevance. And here, I
18 think without any further discussion, 287, 288, not admitted into
20 289, Croatian.
21 MR. LUKIC: Not Croatia. SDA Bosnia sending its members to
22 Croatia for military training for a future war.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, from Sarajevo.
24 MR. LUKIC: From Bosnia. This is the centre. So somebody from
25 Prijedor can come to the centre and be sent as a police officer to be
1 trained in Croatia.
2 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, it doesn't actually say - I'm
3 sorry, I can't let that go through - this is for a future war. The date
4 is the 11th of July, 1991. All it says is it's sending them for training.
5 Don't see anywhere in there the words "future war."
6 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry, that was my conclusion. It's not in the
7 evidence. So I withdraw that part.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So we didn't see any relevance; therefore, not
9 admitted into evidence.
10 290, admitted.
11 291, we have some problems with because apparently this document
12 was compiled in February 2000 and sent to a Mr. Simic. We don't
13 understand the reason of this document.
14 MR. LUKIC: Some Prosecution witnesses claimed that Muslims did
15 not hold any positions in important organisations in Prijedor
16 municipality. That --
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But this is related apparently to the period
18 when Muhamed Cehajic was still president of the municipal assembly. I
19 think this is not -- absolutely not disputed what we can read here, in the
20 period before the takeover.
21 MR. LUKIC: Exactly. The Prosecution witnesses claimed that
22 Muslims before the takeover didn't hold any positions that everything was
23 in the hands of Serbs. You can find it in testimonies of several
24 witnesses brought here by the Prosecution.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before the takeover?
1 MR. LUKIC: Before the takeover.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: [Previous interpretation continues] ... about
3 this --
4 MR. LUKIC: If you remember, Mr. Murselovic said that Muslims
5 could not work in a state companies, could not be directors, and that's
6 why they had their private enterprises. But we claim that it's not true
7 and that this document shows that places in state companies are equally
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Prosecution, please.
10 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, as Your Honour has already pointed
11 out, I don't know very much about this, the detail of this case, but I
12 don't recollect any suggestion that prior to the takeover Muslims were
13 being discriminated against or prior to the events. But Your Honour, we
14 don't object if Mr. Lukic wants this document in.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But it's -- yes. Who has written this document?
16 MR. LUKIC: I can explain why -- Mr. Simic. This document was
17 used in Omarska case, and it was public document, so I just took it from
18 this -- that case.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Admitted into evidence.
20 The same is true for 292, 293.
21 294, it seems to be once again the same as S12. Correct?
22 MR. LUKIC: Regarding 292 --
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We are now with 294 already.
24 MR. LUKIC: Sorry.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, 294; 295, admitted into
2 296, missing in our collection. Admitted into evidence.
3 297, already admitted as S251; 298, admitted.
4 299, I don't know why, but I have the comment Prosecution was kind
5 enough to provide a translation.
6 MS. KORNER: I don't know if Your Honours had it, but we have
7 got -- we have got a translation but only a part of the full document has
8 been put in for some reason. It's to do with the no camps aspect. And
9 the full document is a letter from Drljaca to the CSB saying, "On the 24th
10 of August, there are no camps, prisons, or collection centres," and with
11 it -- and that's part of that letter but, again, not the full document, is
12 the Stanisic document, but there's a number of other documents attached,
13 so there's only one page. Now, I don't know what Your Honour wants to do
14 about that or what the Defence wants to do about that, but we have got the
16 MR. LUKIC: We can put into the evidence the whole document, of
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. I have nothing on 299 before me;
19 therefore, it's difficult to decide.
20 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, can I -- can I hand -- when I
21 looked through this and saw there was no document, I recognised it because
22 it's been put in in the Brdjanin case, and so I got our translation.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think the relevance can't be disputed;
25 What about the translation, Madam Registrar? Madam Registrar,
1 could I please have a translation of this -- a copy of the translation.
2 Thank you.
3 300 to 302 are missing in our collection.
4 MS. KORNER: Again, Your Honour, we have them. They're Drljaca.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 300 I have just received.
6 MS. KORNER: No objection to anything.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
9 Related to 302, does the Prosecution have a translation?
10 MS. KORNER: There isn't a translation there and we don't appear
11 to have got one yet, but I'm sure we have a translation somewhere. And
12 Ms. Karper is going to check that right now, and we'll provide that this
13 afternoon if we've got it. And it's clearly relevant.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So the three, admitted into evidence, with the
16 proviso that we kindly ask the Prosecution to give Madam Registrar a
17 translation of 302.
18 303, admitted; the same is true for 304.
19 Once again, in our collection the following are missing, 305
20 through 307.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, again, we have got them all in our
22 collection, but I should point out that 305, the Defence have just put the
23 letter in and not the report that it deals with. So it's up to them, of
24 course. The report is on the paramilitary organisations.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: By Mr. Zupljanin and by Mr. Kovacevic, and
1 Zupljanin and Drljaca and during the period of time; therefore, admitted
2 into evidence.
3 308 was already admitted into evidence as D101.
4 309, unfortunately once again missing.
5 MS. KORNER: We have the B/C/S, Your Honour, but not the
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Madam Registrar, description, it reads, "OTP can
8 provide translation." And if Defence could please explain, because it's
9 extremely illegible, what it's all about.
10 MR. LUKIC: It's official note composed on 27th of May, 1992
11 regarding military organisations of Kozarac population, and listed 11
12 names who were allegedly part of this military organisation.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To these notes, to the best of my recollection,
14 wasn't there a standing objection by the Prosecution?
15 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour. To notes supposedly made of
16 interrogations; in other words, what persons who were interrogated in the
17 conditions that Your Honours know about are alleged to have said. This is
18 somewhat different, I think. But I'm not altogether sure we do have a
19 translation. Oh, we do. Your Honour, we'll get the translation again for
20 this afternoon, and that will assist.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And you don't object?
22 MS. KORNER: I don't know, Your Honour, because I haven't seen it.
23 But if it's just a list of people who allegedly have weapons, then no, I
24 don't object. But what we object to is where what people said under
25 interrogation is put forward as evidence of the truth.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So therefore, for the first time we have to
2 wait. I can't decide on the admissibility if we don't know what it's all
4 310, admitted; 311, admitted.
5 312 through 314, objections and now just this moment arriving
6 here. These are those official notes. Could you please --
7 MS. KORNER: These are the ones to which we object, Your Honour,
8 for the reasons stated.
9 MR. LUKIC: We withdraw -- we withdraw single and each evidence we
10 offered concerning the statements of other persons. So whenever we find
11 one like that, Your Honours can consider that it's withdrawn.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So 312 through 314, withdrawn.
13 315, already admitted under 258B-2; 316, already admitted under
14 S265; 317, already admitted under D100; 318, already admitted under S275.
15 Then we have the combat reports. There were no objections by the
16 Prosecution; correct?
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we don't object to any of them at all.
18 Some are already exhibited, but that takes care of --
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And --
20 MS. KORNER: -- everything up to 308.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 319 to 325, admitted.
22 326 was missing. We have it now before us. Also admitted.
23 327, admitted; 328, already admitted under S345.
24 331 through 334, admitted; the same is true for 335 and 336 and
25 337 through 341.
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I just -- I'm sorry, may I interrupt
2 for one moment.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please.
4 MS. KORNER: According to our records, at least the way they were
5 passed to me by Ms. Karper, 328 is already Exhibit 341 and 330 is 345.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask Madam Registrar to cross-check those.
7 So we can check those later. They are admitted into evidence.
8 The same is true for the documents 342 through 350.
9 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honour. By our records, 342 is already
10 Exhibit S359; 343, S355; and 345, S352; 350, S356.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clarification. That's right.
12 251 through 355, admitted. It should --
13 MS. KORNER: 351, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It should read 351, yeah.
15 356, admitted under D110 already; 357, already admitted under
16 D112; 358 through 362, admitted; 363, already admitted under D51.
17 364, we had a problem because this document was not dated.
18 MR. LUKIC: 364, Your Honour?
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 364, apparently it's only a question with the
20 translation because in B/C/S it reads "14th of June, 1992." Correct?
21 MR. LUKIC: Yes, it does, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
23 MR. LUKIC: We have this date on the English version as well.
24 MS. KORNER: We do, Your Honour, yes.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Maybe we have another translation, because we
1 don't have any date on it. We have just a circle.
2 MS. KORNER: Is it not headed "3rd Light Infantry Brigade
3 command"? Ivan Goric's - Kovacevic's - elementary school 14th of June,
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. There's no date. There's a circle.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honours does have a different -- I think Your
7 Honours maybe got the -- if the Defence put in first a draft. There's a
8 revised -- does it say "revised translation" in the right-hand corner?
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No.
10 MS. KORNER: Then Your Honours have got a different version. I
11 don't know what -- Mr. Lukic presumably has the revised version, so
12 perhaps he could provide Your Honours with a copy.
13 MR. LUKIC: I probably kept the revised version and gave to Their
14 Honours the first one.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No doubt it was deliberately done.
16 So if we could, please, receive the revised version. But we need
17 no further discussion on this.
18 Then 365 through 367, admitted; 368, already admitted as D111.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, 366 is already S360.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
21 MS. KORNER: And 370, while I'm on that page, is admitted as S357
22 and 357-1.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then 369, admitted; 371 through 374,
24 admitted; the same is true for 371 through 384 and 385, 386, 387.
25 Then we have once again 388, this official note. My understanding
1 is that you withdraw this, Mr. Lukic, 388?
2 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 388, withdrawn.
4 389 through 395, admitted.
5 MS. KORNER: 393, Your Honour, is S363.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. 396 through 404, admitted; 405, we
7 believe that it -- it's already admitted, but we didn't have a number. If
8 not, we can leave it open. In any event, admitted.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, S426.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
11 MS. KORNER: That's 405 apparently.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. Thank you.
13 406 through 409, admitted; and the same is true for 410 through
14 413; 414 was already admitted as D126.
15 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, 410 is already S254; 411 is already
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 415, admitted; 416, already admitted as D127;
18 417 through 422, admitted. Let me just see. 423 was a problem.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, if I can remind Your Honours, we
20 objected to 423 to 7 on the basis they're outside the indictment period.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. Yes. Therefore, we came to the conclusion
22 it's in a chronological order, and this one, starting with 423 through 429
23 are outside of the period covered by the fourth amended indictment and
24 therefore not admitted into evidence.
25 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, in fairness, I ought to say that
1 428, the 6th Krajina Brigade bulletin, is within the indictment period --
2 or, I'm sorry, it's just outside it but it relates to events within the
3 indictment period. So we didn't object to 428.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Well, 428 admitted into evidence.
5 And what about 429?
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we objected to that because it deals
7 with reports on petty crime and an attack in 1993. So we ask what the
8 relevance is.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Does the Defence want to comment on this?
10 MR. LUKIC: Just one second, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You're referring to 429, information on armed
12 attacks on the Omarska police station, but --
13 MS. KORNER: In 1993, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In 1993, yes. Therefore, out of the area as
15 relates to time. Mr. Lukic, you agree?
16 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Only we think that before this -
17 only we do not have the documents - there were some misunderstandings in
18 between police and army and they -- but yes, it is outside of the time
19 period from the fourth amended indictment.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So you withdraw 429?
21 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. 429, withdrawn.
23 430, admitted; 431, this once again official note. Therefore,
24 withdrawn; correct?
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I don't think we -- I should say, it's
1 slightly different. It's -- it goes to, I think, punishment by the camp.
2 This is Sikirica reporting on Zigic.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right.
4 MS. KORNER: So we didn't object to it. In other words, he's
5 asking -- he's suggesting that as Zigic beat somebody to the point of
6 exhaustion together with his friends, that the military should --
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's quite clear. Admitted. 431,
9 432, this is now an extremely difficult document, and I want to
10 hear first the comment on this document by the Prosecution.
11 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we haven't objected to it. There are a
12 number of these types of so-called criminal charges laid against so-called
13 Muslim insurgence. I think Your Honours are perfectly capable of judging
14 the validity of that. They certainly are relevant in the sense that they
15 relate to persons and to the time of this indictment. So the same goes
16 for the next document.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Absolutely. Therefore, admitted into evidence,
18 432 and 433, which seems to be an annex to 432.
19 434, admitted; 435 --
20 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour, that one we do object to, actually.
21 We can't see the relevance of a security report on Mr. Mujadzic in 1994.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Wait a minute. There was something --
23 MS. KORNER: 434 this was.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. But it wasn't related to -- we have
25 another date here. Let me just see. No. This was a typing error here in
1 our own report. Therefore, it's really out of the period of time.
2 Mr. Lukic? We can't see the relevance.
3 MR. LUKIC: It's mentioning the war operations in Prijedor area,
4 so that's why we thought it's under -- close to the end of the document on
5 the second page. "We have found out from a number of sources that he was
6 the only person to have at his disposal financial resources in both dinars
7 and foreign currency. During war operations in the Prijedor area, Mirza
8 was illegally transferred to the area controlled by the Muslim
9 authorities." And Mr. Mujadzic also confirmed this part of the report in
10 his testimony.
11 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, in those circumstances, we withdraw the
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
14 435 through 438, admitted.
15 439, unknown origin. Could the Defence please be so kind and
16 explain this document. What is the source and --
17 MR. LUKIC: Our source is, at least on the translation, there is
18 an ERN number. So we probably got this document -- there is on B/C/S
19 version an ERN number as well.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: A P ERN number. On the English I can't see any
21 ERN number.
22 MR. LUKIC: ERN number on the English version is 00635457.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted.
24 438 -- no, 440, admitted; 441, admitted.
25 442 through 445, admitted, even though there's also no origin.
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we did object to 444, I think, on the
2 basis that we didn't know what the list related to at all. It's one of
3 our documents; and that's for sure.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for --
5 MS. KORNER: It's just a list of persons. It's clearly some sort
6 of information, but we're not sure what it is or what it's said to be
7 relevant to or even what the date is.
8 MR. LUKIC: We withdraw this document.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 444, withdrawn.
10 445, admitted.
11 446, criminal charges from the security station with a lot of
12 handwritten amendments, but I can see no objection from the side of the
13 Prosecution. We had similar examples in the past. Therefore, 446,
14 admitted. The same goes for 447 through 458.
15 452 was already admitted under D53.
16 453, did I understand you correctly, Mr. Lukic, that also this
17 document would be withdrawn?
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 453, withdrawn.
20 The same goes for 454?
21 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But here we can't proceed this way because it
23 was already admitted as D54.
24 And 455, withdrawn?
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I think that's different, because I've
1 marked it as all right, that we didn't object.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Date and place, 1993.
3 MS. KORNER: Can I just --
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And Banja Luka.
5 MS. KORNER: 455 -- this is 455 we're talking about?
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, this is one of these charges documents.
8 It's not one where it's alleged to have been a confession.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But our problem was that it was dated 8 November
11 MS. KORNER: Yes. It goes -- it goes back to -- oh, no, it
12 doesn't, actually, I'm sorry. Your Honour is quite right.
13 MR. LUKIC: May 1992. It says in reasons -- statement of reasons,
14 in May 1992.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: There are several documents. We have the -- the
16 first one, subject, Muharem Hopovac et al., and then report.
17 MR. LUKIC: Criminal report is referring to May 1992.
18 MS. KORNER: Yes, in the statement of reasons, Your Honour, that's
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So therefore, admitted.
22 MR. LUKIC: Withdrawn.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Withdrawn.
24 457, November 1993, and the acts allegedly committed were also in
25 November 1993. But in July 1992 -- okay. In the middle it states --
1 okay. Therefore, admitted.
2 458, missing. It's two pages in B/C/S.
3 MR. LUKIC: Withdrawn.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Withdrawn, thank you.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I think that must be withdrawn, because
7 that's another one of the --
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do you agree? Another statement.
9 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, withdrawn.
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's withdrawn.
11 What about 460?
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we don't object to that. I think
13 that's -- again, it's a -- it's a court ruling rather than a so-called
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Admitted.
16 MS. KORNER: And Your Honour, if it assists, for the remainder up
17 until 470 -- I'm sorry, 469, they're all these official notes of
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All right. So --
20 MR. LUKIC: Except for 464.
21 MS. KORNER: Except for -- I'm sorry, except for 464. Quite
22 right. I agree with that.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Step by step, please.
24 460, admitted; 461, withdrawn; 462, withdrawn; 463; withdrawn;
25 464, admitted; 465, withdrawn; 466, withdrawn; 467, withdrawn; 468;
1 withdrawn; 469, withdrawn; 470, withdrawn.
2 What about 471?
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we don't object to 471 to 474 inclusive,
4 although we do seem to have an awful lot of medical documents which don't
5 take matters much further, but we don't actually object.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: From our point of view, all the documents from
7 471 through 509 be admitted into evidence, but we have to discuss 485.
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we don't object to that, save for 475.
9 We didn't have a translation. I don't know whether Your Honours did, but
10 we didn't.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG(redacted)
12 (redacted) But also 479 is available in your collection?
13 And 497 was missing in our collection and 499 was missing in our
14 collection. But to be discussed, this would be 485. And because we don't
15 know, is this once again related to Prijedor Hospital? And to a certain
16 extent it's not legible. So how can we find out that -- at the end, the
17 last page, it reads, "This exhibit contains handwritten lists of patients
18 in Prijedor Hospital during 1992." So the entire bundle 485, just to be
19 quite clear, there are no objections by the Prosecution?
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, there aren't. And it's almost certainly
21 seized by the OTP because it's got the Prijedor collection number.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then all these documents, including 509,
23 admitted into evidence.
24 And I think it's really well deserved to have a break now. The
25 trial stays adjourned until 2.00.
1 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.35 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.06 p.m.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good afternoon. Please be seated.
3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I was just alerted that one document was
5 missing, and this was number 329. It's not on the list. But I have it
6 before me. It's a regular combat report. And in line with the previous
7 decisions, no doubt this has to be admitted into evidence.
8 When we proceed now with the following documents, having not been
9 commented on by the Prosecution, I would ask document by document for
10 comments from the side of the Prosecution. We continue with document
11 number 510.
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we query the relevance because the date
13 is the 23rd of May, 1991.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Mr. Lukic?
15 MR. LUKIC: Withdrawn.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Accepted, withdrawn.
18 MS. KORNER: No objection.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
21 MS. KORNER: No objection.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
23 Then 513. What's the origin and who is Milos?
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I can -- I can tell you this from the
25 Brdjanin case. Milos was an operative of what was known as the DSB, the
1 state security service, in Banja Luka. We have a number of the reports in
2 the Brdjanin case. And we don't object.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Defence confirms? Because --
4 MS. KORNER: They know.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think when the Prosecution is already
6 testifying, then also the Defence should have the right to testify.
7 MS. KORNER: Well, I was going to say, Your Honour, that that was
8 testimony, and I'm trying to help the Defence because we don't object.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay.
10 MS. KORNER: But we can call evidence.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No. We shouldn't do this. Thank you for your
14 MS. KORNER: No objection.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
17 MS. KORNER: No objection.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
19 516, once again our friend Milos. The situation is difficult.
20 "The Serbian reserve policeman was killed from behind yesterday in
21 Prijedor. Immediately afterwards a relative of his killed four Muslims,
22 3rd May."
23 MS. KORNER: There's no objection -- I'm sorry, Your Honour. Can
24 I make clear there's no objection from here until 520.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay.
1 MS. KORNER: And 520 only because there's no document.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let me just state admitted until 518; 519 is
3 already admitted as S204.
4 520 is also in our collection missing.
5 MR. LUKIC: Moot, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Declared moot.
7 521, the origin, please. In B/C/S, one can read that it was a B
8 document dated the 31st of May, 1992. This does not transpire on the
10 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honour, it's from the radio station, I
11 think, but not from Prijedor -- I think it's from the Banja Luka radio
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But it's on Prijedor, so --
14 MS. KORNER: But it's dealing with Prijedor events. Your Honour,
15 again can I just assist to this extent: We object to nothing between 521
16 and 535.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then let's proceed. Admitted documents 521
18 through 523.
19 We'll like to know what about 524? Who created this document?
20 Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: We received the document from the OTP, Your Honour,
22 and we don't know the original source.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Crisis Staff Donja Ljubija. Okay. But
24 there are no objections; therefore, admitted.
25 Then 525, admitted; 526, admitted.
1 527, what about the origin of this document?
2 MR. LUKIC: Also received by -- from the OTP, and we don't know
3 the original source.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And what is the purpose of this document?
5 MR. LUKIC: The list contains Muslim names with armament beside
6 the names.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the period of time? We can read "datum"
8 celpak Prijedor, but no datum -- no date can be seen. So, therefore, I am
9 extremely hesitant. May I --
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it came -- it was on our 65 ter list.
11 We have some difficulty in working out where it came from, but it does
12 look as though it was seized in Prijedor by the OTP. I'm not quite clear
13 why it has slightly different numbers, but it certainly was one of our
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But nobody knows the period of time it is
16 related to?
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we don't object, although it doesn't
18 state what the period of time is. It seems pretty self-evident that it
19 appears to be a list of armed Muslims.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.
21 MS. KORNER: And therefore seem to relate to 1992.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 528, once again Milos, admitted into evidence;
23 the same is true for 529 through 534 and then 535 and 536.
24 537 would be missing.
25 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honour, when we get to 536 -- I put a
1 query by that.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Let's hear.
3 MS. KORNER: It's the committee for genocide against the Serbs set
4 up in 1993. Without, as far as I -- I'm just going to check the document.
5 As far as I can see, much specific relevance -- I'm sorry, I'm just going
6 to get it out.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The 7th of May, 1993.
8 MS. KORNER: The question is: How far does it take anybody in
9 this case? I mean, they're all linked, 536, 537, and 538. And I have an
10 objection to what's stated in the list in respect of 537 and 538 "Shows
11 that nothing in could be ordered to the army and police by civilian
12 bodies." In our respectful submission, it doesn't show anything of the
13 sort. That's why I'm raising queries in respect of those three documents.
14 Oh, and I'm sorry, 537, as I think Your Honours said, no document.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 536, may I hear your comments, Mr. Lukic,
17 MR. LUKIC: Actually, my comment has already been said by
18 Ms. Korner. That's exactly what we are aiming to show, that nothing could
19 be ordered by civilian organs, police and army, and we think that the same
20 rules apply to 1993 and 1992, as we heard --
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's on 1993, but the evaluation of the evidence
22 is for the Judges, and we understood your point. Admitted into evidence.
23 537, it's missing.
24 MR. LUKIC: Moot, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All right. 538?
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I think it's missing because it's
2 exactly the same document as 538. That's what I wrote. Or it seems to be
3 from the description.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Then 538, the Prosecution is contesting
5 the relevance. The Defence?
6 MR. LUKIC: The same reasons as with 536, executive board of
7 Prijedor municipality asked, as before, about formation of this
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Dated the 7th of May, 1993. Admitted into
11 Then 539. The Prosecution, please.
12 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry. No objection.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: October 1993. Admitted into evidence.
14 540 and 541 would be missing.
15 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we've got nothing for 540 but we do have
16 a document for 541.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So 540 would be moot?
18 MR. LUKIC: Moot, Your Honour, yes.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. 541?
20 MS. KORNER: No objection to that and to the following document.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, 541.
22 542, admitted into evidence.
23 543 through 546 are missing in our collection.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we have -- we don't have 543 but we do
25 have 44 to 46 and we don't object to 44 to 46.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So 543 would be moot?
2 THE REGISTRAR: I have a B/C/S version, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would you be so kind and if the usher could show
4 this document to Mr. Lukic.
5 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, Your Honour, we have -- I'm sorry, I
6 should say no translation for 543.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have nothing at all.
8 If this could be shown to the Defence so that we have an
9 explanation on 543.
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we've got a translation for that, which
11 we did give to the Defence and we can supply at some stage, but it is
12 relevant and we don't object. I mean, we have supplied it. If they've
13 lost it, we'll supply another copy.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please take care that we receive another copy.
15 It's Prijedor, September 1992. Admitted into evidence.
16 544, July 1992, 1st Krajina Command, admitted into evidence, 544;
17 545, September 1992, admitted into evidence; 546, Drljaca, 1st July 1992,
18 admitted into evidence.
19 547 -- when do you have the next objection, please?
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, 549 only because we think it's a
21 duplicate of 448 and 449.
22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So 547 admitted into evidence; 548 already
23 admitted as S349; and 549, you stated it's a duplicate of what?
24 MS. KORNER: It looks as though it may be a duplicate of 448
25 and/or 449.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Mr. Lukic, do you agree?
2 MR. LUKIC: Can I have one second to check it, Your Honour?
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
5 It does have different ERN numbers, and it appears to me that it's
6 different, a different document.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I agree it's a different document, but I
8 think the names and everything are the same.
9 MR. LUKIC: I don't know. Maybe Ms. Korner has a different
10 document, but ...
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I can see maybe --
12 MR. LUKIC: 549 is a much longer document than 448.
13 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I don't want to waste any more
14 time. I mean, I'm perfectly happy to have it admitted.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, 549.
16 Then 550 through 560 in our collection missing.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we have 550, 551. We don't have 552,
18 but we have 553 and then nothing.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So let's start with 550.
20 MS. KORNER: There's no objection.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
23 MS. KORNER: No objection.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
25 552? There's nothing.
1 MS. KORNER: We don't have a document.
2 MR. LUKIC: Moot, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 552 is crossed out.
5 MS. KORNER: No objection, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence.
7 And then that's the end of the collection.
8 Do you have anything else? May I ask both parties. 554?
9 MR. LUKIC: I just want to state for the record that numbers 554,
10 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, and 560 are moot.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
12 Then we come to the collection we already discussed. 561, already
13 admitted as D98; 562, already admitted as D97; 563, admitted as D117, but
14 Office of the Prosecutor and the Bench, we don't have copies at the
16 Copies will be distributed, Madam Registrar.
17 564, admitted as D116; 565, this is only in English and there's no
19 MS. KORNER: We have a -- we have a B/C/S version of that, Your
20 Honour, here, which we can hand in.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And what would be the source of this document?
22 MS. KORNER: I don't have the faintest.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It seems to be out of context. Part of the
24 manual for the JNA. Would this be correct? Following the English
1 MS. KORNER: Well, it's certainly some sort of manual, Your
2 Honour. I'm not sure that it's --
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But maybe Mr. Lukic can help us out, because we
4 have the cover sheet of this book before us. If you could read, please,
5 the cover sheet, then we know what it's about.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The first page says "The Federal
7 Secretariat for National Defence." "Rule." "Information activity of the
8 armed forces."
9 THE INTERPRETER: We're sorry, Your Honours. This does not make
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The title is "Rule." And under that
12 it says, "Information, intelligence security of the armed operations -- of
13 the operations of the armed forces."
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And it's dated 1976?
15 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And what can we read there, [B/C/S spoken]?
17 It's confidential or secret or --
18 MR. LUKIC: Secret.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Secret.
20 And then you want to have admitted into evidence only paragraphs
21 163 through 166; correct?
22 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, because those rules apply to the
23 questioning of prisoners of war.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And may I ask you once again: This is identical
25 with the JNA manual?
1 MR. LUKIC: I have to admit that I haven't read the whole JNA
2 manual, so I don't know whether this part is from that one.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. We'll have a look. It's in the public
5 566, another manual for the work of commands and staffs, and it's
6 a draft, where objection to the relevance. It was printed in Belgrade by
7 the military press, 1983. And as far as I can see, it's only available in
8 English at the moment. We have a KO ERN number, so it seems to be from
9 Kosovo? All right?
10 Who can assist the Bench on the content of this document?
11 MS. KORNER: All I can tell Your Honour is that Your Honour says
12 it comes from Kosovo. That's as much as we can do at the moment.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the party tendering this document? Can you
14 give some additional information?
15 MR. LUKIC: I'm afraid we don't have any further information, Your
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay.
18 MR. LUKIC: We received it from the Prosecution in this form
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the parties are in agreement that we admit
21 this into evidence only in English?
22 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, for the moment -- we're seeing if we can
23 get some information about it, but ...
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But for the moment, I think it's not necessary.
25 And so, therefore, admitted into evidence. This was 566.
1 Then 567 was admitted D118.
2 568, I don't have this document before me.
3 MR. LUKIC: It's not readable, you said, and it's the same as
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S --
6 MR. LUKIC: S21.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. And we've confirmed by the Registry?
8 It seems to be more or less a guessing game.
9 MR. LUKIC: There is some difference on the seal, I guess, but the
10 content -- no?
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Unfortunately, we can't see anything, and
12 there's no ERN number. Wait. But based on the last digits, apparently it
13 seems to be the same. All right. So already admitted as S21.
14 Document 569 was already admitted into evidence as D119B-1; 571
15 was admitted as D119B-2; 572, admitted as D119B-3.
16 Then 573, we needed some explanation on the meaning, importance,
17 and the relevance of this map. You explained that it was on the number of
18 inhabitants in Biscani, Ljubija, Prijedor, but it's not indicated at what
19 point in time.
20 MR. LUKIC: Moot, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. 574 and -- 574, I don't have it
22 before me. It's nothing in my collection. It's only in B/C/S. The
23 translation is missing.
24 MR. LUKIC: We are promised that we will have that translation
25 tomorrow, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We rely on you. Admitted as 574B with the
2 remark that A is missing. It's from Sarajevo, 28 April 1992, apparently
3 an order issued to all municipal assemblies.
4 MR. LUKIC: This document deals with the exchange of prisoners.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections? May I ask the Prosecution, any
6 objections, 574?
7 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So admitted as such.
9 Then 575 was admitted under D125.
10 576, here we wanted to hear some comments whether --
11 MR. LUKIC: Ask I have one minute with Dr. Stakic?
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, please.
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
14 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
15 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, we tendered these documents without
16 consulting with Dr. Stakic because of the time limits, and I just
17 confirmed with him that none of these signatures on these documents are
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can I hear some comments?
20 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, who's giving evidence now, can I
21 say? It's a bit late now to put in a document without checking that it's
22 Dr. Stakic's signature or not. It's a bit late now to get handwriting
23 evidence over this one.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's fair enough that Mr. Lukic states
25 that none of these signatures on these documents are Dr. Stakic's. I
1 think this is a fair --
2 MS. KORNER: Normally, Your Honour, it should be the defendant to
3 give evidence to that extent, not counsel.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I asked for the purpose and -- of this document,
5 and it was me; therefore, please blame -- put the blame on me. I asked
6 counsel whether it's a submission that these signatures would be the one
7 of Dr. Stakic, and so the answer was "It is not."
8 Then what's now remaining? What's the probative value of these
9 three documents?
10 MR. LUKIC: The only probative value now is that it's obvious that
11 the documents could be signed by others, not only by alleged signee.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. I can hear no objections.
13 MS. KORNER: Well, I mean, Your Honour, I mean, this is the point.
14 I mean, I don't know why I bother to object. I actually don't know nor do
15 I see what the relevance of these documents are, not signed by the
16 defendant? What are they supposed to say?
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's common knowledge that signatures
18 can be a fake, so --
19 MS. KORNER: But Your Honour, I'm asking what the relevance is.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. And therefore, I just wanted to state
21 vis-a-vis Mr. Lukic that we need no evidence for the fact that forgery
22 exists in this world.
23 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I don't know whether -- it's not
24 whether a forgery exists. I think Mr. Lukic is to demonstrate what is the
25 relevance to this case of this document allegedly not signed by
1 Dr. Stakic.
2 MR. LUKIC: The relevance, we think, is that somebody can sign
3 instead of you even not putting for somebody.
4 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour, then I really do object. There's
5 not the slightest evidence of that. You cannot simply put something in,
6 state through counsel it's not his signature, without any evidence at all.
7 It's also well known, if we're all going to give evidence about this, that
8 some people sign deliberately in a different manner from which they
9 normally sign. So, I'm sorry, no, I do object to that. There should be
10 evidence if that's what the purpose is.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We believe that we have to be fair and
13 consequent we asked counsel to confer with the client whether or not it
14 would be the submission that this document would be signed by Dr. Stakic
15 in person, and now it's only consequent when he states that it's in fact
16 not the signature that we admit these documents into evidence.
17 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, may I just make one small point on
18 this. We can, if necessary, call evidence to show that in the Brdjanin
19 case, Brdjanin in a document that he was obliged to sign for the court
20 deliberately signed in a way that was not his normal signature. Your
21 Honour, it is in our submission quite wrong and negates any idea why an
22 accused gives evidence that it is sufficient in this court for an accused
23 to give instructions to say it's not my signature and for that to be taken
24 as evidence of that fact. It's not evidence, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The burden of proof is with the Prosecution.
1 The Prosecution --
2 MS. KORNER: But we didn't put the document in.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: That's right. You put -- you have put a number
4 of documents from a number of periods of time in, and we accepted this and
5 we accept now this document with the additional explanation by Defence
6 counsel. I think we shouldn't go in further detail.
7 MR. LUKIC: Just one thing, if I may.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.
9 MR. LUKIC: These documents are signed in 1992 or --
10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It reads 1995.
11 MR. LUKIC: 1995, not recently. So it's not done purposefully
12 and ...
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So we take into account the document with the
14 additional explanation by counsel.
15 579 was already admitted under D120; 580 was already admitted
16 under D121; 581, already admitted under D122; 582, already admitted under
18 Then we come to the question of document 583. And here -- it's a
19 document signed by a liaison officer, and the content would be, Mr. Lukic?
20 Because we don't have any English version of this. Do we have it already
21 on the transcript?
22 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. It's been read out already.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If you could just repeat what it states. To the
24 best of my recollection, it was a -- please.
25 MR. LUKIC: That's from Ministry of Justice from RS, from
1 bureau -- liaison actually bureau with the International Tribunal in Den
2 Haag. I will read in B/C/S so you can receive the proper translation.
3 [Interpretation] "Regarding your enactment number 02/1-773-31/02,
4 concerning your request by the enactment of the general staff of the
5 Republika Srpska army, internal number 03/2155-2, dated 12 February 2002,
6 we hereby inform you of the following: We quote, `We hereby inform you
7 that the appointment of military commanders and their deputies in military
8 units which were stationed in Prijedor municipality during the period from
9 1991 to 1992 was dealt with according to the chain of management and
10 command in the army. Here above indicates that Mr. Milomir Stakic as the
11 president of the Municipal Assembly and the Crisis Staff of Prijedor
12 municipality during the aforementioned period could not have influenced
13 the appointment and nomination of military commanders and their deputies.'
14 Liaison Officer Zoran Cvetkovic."
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This was the document I mentioned yesterday.
16 MS. KORNER: And for your information, Your Honour, it was
17 Ms. Sutherland who dealt with it, and neither myself or Mr. Koumjian, so I
18 hope Your Honour will forgive both myself and Mr. Koumjian, not knowing
19 what you were talking about.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, may I just read what you're stating. My
21 sincere apologies.
22 But let's come to the subject matter of the question before us.
23 MS. KORNER: It's objectionable. It's objectionable because this
24 man doesn't know, is a liaison officer, is in no position to give this
25 information. It's a hotly disputed issue in this case. And the right
1 thing to do would have been to call him and subject him to
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I take the liberty to state that it was just
4 that what I stated yesterday.
5 MR. LUKIC: Knowing what we decided in regard with the statement
6 of Ms. Biljana Plavsic, we withdraw this document.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.
8 584 was already decided as not admitted; 585 was withdrawn.
9 So this would mean that we would be able now to come to the second
10 reading. We have to come back to document 309. A translation was
12 Then for document 2, the Defence mentioned that we would get the
13 copy of the whole book only later, and then it was a question of the five
14 chapters of book number 6.
15 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Ms. Korner, please.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour said you only required one copy of the
18 chapters of the Halilovic book, so that's what we provided. No doubt your
19 legal officers can have a lot of fun reading it.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I hope that you are -- agree that also the
21 Judges have the right to read it. Yes?
22 Anything else missing, may I ask, Madam Registrar, on the list of
23 missing documents or other documents with problems?
24 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. For the record, I was asked to
25 confirm that number 328 is indeed S341. I double-checked. And number 330
1 is S345.
2 We still have to rule on the admission of D55. We admitted the
3 report by Mr. Corin relating to those two -- to the statute, but the
4 actual statute of which we have two different copies needs to be dealt
6 And for S430, we need a final translation from the OTP.
7 MS. KORNER: Well, on the last, I'm told that was submitted
8 yesterday. Sorry. It was submitted for translation yesterday. Sorry.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So when could we receive the final translation
10 of S430?
11 MS. KORNER: We'll have to speak to the CLSS about it.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: When you mentioned the report by Mr. Corin, it
13 was J33? Because on the transcript it reads D55.
14 THE REGISTRAR: This report pertains to the Exhibit number D55,
15 which has not been admitted because we had the first excerpt submitted by
16 the Defence and then the OTP provided a copy of the whole statute and the
17 two documents presented discrepancies.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think we already came to the decision that we
19 should admit both copies because they are different. The one with one --
20 with the cover page "Statute," and the P number 0020412 would be D55, and
21 the other one, the other copy of the same document, would be D55-1.
22 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, D55 was seized from the municipal
23 assembly building in Prijedor.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All right.
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we also have a translation for the
1 Defence, number -- the document number 302.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Anything else on problematic documents?
3 THE REGISTRAR: No, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Are there any other issues to be discussed, any
5 other --
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, the Defence Exhibit 566, although it was
7 submitted by the team that deals with the Kosovo matters, and that's why
8 it's got the K number, it does not necessarily mean that it's a Kosovo
9 document, but it is from the document to do with the JNA in general.
10 That's all we can say.
11 Your Honour, the only other issue that I wish to raise is what
12 Your Honour mentioned this morning, and that is Dr. Stakic having the last
13 word. And you won't be surprised in the light of what I've just objected
14 to. Your Honour was saying this, we don't imagine it will carry much
15 weight. But the Rules don't allow for Dr. Stakic --
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, I don't want to repeat this. Ms. Korner,
17 we have stated this since the beginning of the case. And to be honest,
18 slowly I am losing my patience. What you stated just a minute before,
19 this was unheard. There were so many statements given in writing by
20 members of the Prosecution on evidently -- evidently false submissions,
21 and I had to do the necessary to prove the contrary, and there was no one
22 apology through -- throughout the entire year. And I will not allow that
23 in a courtroom where I preside a Prosecutor denies the right of an accused
24 to have the last word, and this is my last word on this.
25 MS. KORNER: All right. I understand that. But Your Honour, for
1 the reasons that Your Honour is aware of, I wish to make it clear there's
2 an objection to which Your Honour has overruled.
3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You know that there is already a case, the case
4 of Kunarac appeal, where the Appeals Chamber decided to grant the last
5 word as a human right. And if you want to deny human rights of an
6 accused, then you are wrong in this room.
7 MS. KORNER: No. Your Honour, I want the Rules of Evidence to be
8 complied with that are part of this court. That is what I want.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: There are higher rights, higher-ranking rights
10 than our fragmentary Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and those are human
11 rights, and you should be aware of this.
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I am well aware, as Your Honour is, of
13 human rights. There are rules which are designed for trials at this
14 court. If Your Honour wishes to have those rules changed, then of course
15 Your Honour is in a position to do so. But those are the rules, and they
16 are not being complied with.
17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Ms. Korner, do you want to make the statement
18 that the Appeals Chamber presided over by the President of this Tribunal
19 ruled and decided against the law?
20 MS. KORNER: I --
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Decided against the Rules of Procedure and
22 Evidence deliberately?
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I --
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is this your statement?
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, what I am saying is that situation was a
1 different situation which pertains in this court now.
2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: My statement is a final one. It is unheard that
3 in a court, in a tribunal, tailor-made and designed to protect human
4 rights, the Office of the Prosecutor by senior legal officer denies human
5 rights of the accused.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that is an outrageous suggestion. I am
7 not, by the way, a senior legal officer. I am a senior trial attorney.
8 It is an outrage to suggest that. But as Your Honour knows, I have
9 throughout this case been concerned with the fact that the rules laid down
10 by the Judges of this Tribunal are not being followed.
11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You had already once made the experience that
12 the Appeals Chamber had to decide that your submissions were frivolous
13 ones. You can repeat this.
14 Are there any other real issues to be discussed?
15 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then let's come back to the calendar in order
17 that we have all the possibilities exhausted related to the courtrooms we
18 need and, on the other hand, to give place for other cases to be heard.
19 I think we came to the conclusion that the closing arguments by
20 the Prosecution would be given on Friday, the 11th of April. Therefore,
21 we would not need a courtroom until this day. The closing arguments given
22 by the Defence would follow, the 14th of April, Monday. The response to
23 this, the 15th; the response to this and the last word, the 16th of April.
24 And let us, please, make, if need may be, for maybe additional questions
25 the 17th of April, that is, Thursday. So we would need the entire week
1 from 14th to 17th. Friday would be a holiday.
2 And then for the purpose of a final brief, of course we don't
3 know -- we don't need any courtroom. And then we have to decide and find
4 out when a judgment can be ready.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I can't see that anybody else wants to take the
7 floor; therefore, I declare today's hearing closed. And the trial stays
8 adjourned until we hear the closing remarks.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
10 3.15 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday,
11 the 11th day of April, 2003.