1 Tuesday, 25 May 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.43 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone. Madam Registrar, would
6 you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. Good afternoon. This is
8 case number IT-03-69-T. The Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 We have quite a lot of procedural issues to deal with. First of
12 all, we usually do not mention that, but the Chamber has received the
13 most recent medical report about Mr. Stanisic which was dated the 25th of
14 May. I do see that both accused have chosen to be present, although, as
15 I said before, the Chamber does not insist on their presence, at the same
16 time appreciates the presence during these housekeeping sessions.
17 I would first like to put on the record that following last
18 Wednesday's hearing, that there were further informal communications
19 about the scheduling of witnesses for this week and that on the 20th of
20 May, the Chamber informally communicated to the parties that the initial
21 schedule of witnesses should be maintained with the addition of a session
22 on procedural issues which was scheduled for today and now takes place.
23 The first thing I'd like to do is to give the reasons for
24 protective measures for Witness JF-017. Because the Chamber would like
25 to deliver the reasons for its decision granting protective measures for
1 Witness JF-017. A decision which was delivered before the commencement
2 of the witness's testimony on the 3rd of March, 2010 and as can be found
3 on transcript page 3832. On the 19th of January, 2010, the Prosecution
4 requested pseudonym and testimony in closed session or, in the
5 alternative, pseudonym and face and voice distortion to be granted for
6 Witness JF-017. On the 2nd of February, the Stanisic Defence opposed the
7 motion submitting that it is based only on the subjective fear of the
8 witness. And the Simatovic Defence did not respond to the motion.
9 The Chamber has set out in previous decisions the test it applies
10 when considering whether to grant protective measures. In this respect,
11 the Chamber refers the parties to the reasons for the decision to grant
12 protective measures for Witness C-1118 on transcript pages 3690 through
14 Witness JF-017 is an ethnic Hungarian who lives in a small
15 community with many Serbs among whom is a next door neighbour. The
16 witness resides in the same village in which he or she lived in at the
17 time of the events described in his or her testimony. The evidence
18 provided by the witness concerns inter alia, the witness's closest
19 relatives who are victims of one of the incidents charged in the
20 indictment. According to the witness, there are many individuals from
22 in the area who are still moving freely around the area where the witness
24 Taking into account these circumstances, and balancing the risks
25 that the witness and his or her family may face after him or her
1 testifying before the Tribunal, and the accused's right to a public
2 trial, the Chamber considered that protective measures should be granted.
3 The nature of Witness JF-017's testimony makes him or her easily
4 identifiable for his or her neighbours and those familiar with the events
5 in the witness's village in 1991 and 1992. Therefore, the Chamber
6 considered that face and voice distortion would not is sufficiently
7 protect the witness's identity and ordered, pursuant to Article 20 of the
8 Tribunal's statute, and Rule 75 of the rules that Witness JF-017 should
9 be referred to by pseudonym in all public proceedings and filings and
10 that the witness should testify in closed session. And this concludes
11 the Chamber's reasons.
12 Next on my list is a decision to be delivered in private session.
13 No, let me just check, one second.
14 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
16 [Private session]
11 Pages 5268-5269 redacted. Private session.
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
19 The Prosecution has proposed on the 16th of February, 2010, a
20 series of facts they agreed upon, at least. The Stanisic Defence
21 assented to those facts on the 22nd of February, 2010, and the Chamber
22 wonders whether the Simatovic Defence also assents to the proposed agreed
23 facts as presented which the Prosecution on the 16th of February.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as Defence has
25 mentioned on several occasions and as you know, already our situation is
1 rather specific. We have not managed to fulfill the requirements. We
2 have not managed to check to the full extent and to shape a position on
3 what has been requested from us. Unfortunately I have to repeat that
4 once again, we have been trying to catch up with our Stanisic Defence
5 team colleagues, but to this moment we have not been able to do that. It
6 would be the easiest thing to do, to say, yes, we agree. However, our
7 position is that we have to obtain the elementary body of information in
8 order to be able to present our position without prejudicing
9 Mr. Simatovic's rights.
10 From the previous Defence team, we have not obtained material.
11 Obviously, the material was disclosed a long time ago, but the previous
12 Defence team has not provided us with either any analysis or any writings
13 that would concern this proposal by the Prosecution or some others that
14 we will deal with later. We have not been able to find any of those and
15 our professional attitude that we are trying to build with regard to the
16 protection of Mr. Simatovic's interests does not allow us to form a
17 position without proper information.
18 I'm not sure, Your Honours, that you will be happy with what you
19 have just heard, however, this is the position that we are in, and we
20 cannot inform you differently at this point.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, of course, the Chamber doesn't urge you
22 to seek an easy way out, and the happiness of the Chamber is not the
23 first thing we consider. Could you give us any indication as on what --
24 in what period of time you think you could discuss the matter with the
25 Stanisic Defence and to finalise your position in this respect.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
2 avoid a situation in which I would inform you, yes, we are going to do it
3 within a month and then to be put in a position to explain yet once again
4 to the Trial Chamber why we were not able to do it. The best I can do at
5 this moment is to tell you that within the next few months we are trying
6 to -- we are going to try to deal with the situation. I'm sure that you
7 appreciate that we are in the courtroom daily, that we are preparing for
8 the Prosecutor's witnesses, and that we deal with other things as best as
9 we can. However, the ongoing proceedings prevents us to work on this in
10 a continuous way, but what I can do is solemnly promise that we will be
11 able and we will do our best to resolve this issue within the next few
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's not enough for the Chamber, Mr. Petrovic. We
14 can't force you into any agreement, but of course, the Prosecution must
15 be aware what it has to prove and what it doesn't have to prove. One
16 second, please.
17 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, the Chamber doesn't require you to
19 agree to any fact. At the same time, what the Chamber expects from the
20 Defence that it will, within a reasonable period of time take its
21 position and we'll further look at the proposed facts to see what would
22 be reasonable or not as far as time is concerned. But to say, well, in a
23 couple of months that could be anything between three and six months, I
24 take it, that's not the basis on which we can proceed. If you would say,
25 we do not agree, we have looked at it, that's fine. But what the Chamber
1 expects you to do is to look at it and we'll further, perhaps even after
2 the break, deal with this matter. Mr. Hoffmann.
3 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, very briefly, being aware of the
4 situation of the new Simatovic Defence, we have met with the Defence in
5 the fall of last year and followed up by a number of meetings and
6 exchanges of correspondence on the matter. We have offered then and we
7 can reoffer that to provide also the Simatovic Defence with a list of
8 victims, that's the bulk of the agreed facts, concerning the identity of
9 the victims. Such list could include a reference to the relevant
10 exhumation, autopsy reports, and the same if that would be easier for the
11 Defence to check whether they can agree or not. But I must say that also
12 in the past years it has been a number of time on the record in the
13 discussion, for example, if the six people that were killed near Trnovo.
14 It has been raised by a number of judges in this case already with both
15 Defence teams and the accused whether these things are really challenged,
16 that is the identity of those people. And in light of the fact that in
17 due course we will see a number of expert witnesses coming to testify in
18 this case about those events, about the identity, about the exhumation of
19 victims, we would certainly ask the Defence to look closely especially at
20 the facts regarding the victims in very due course because it could save
21 a lot of time and possibly also some of the exhibits if there would be an
22 agreement on the identity of the victims. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Petrovic.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by your leave, I
25 understand the difficulties that this poses, both for the Trial Chamber
1 and for our learned friends from the Prosecution. I would like to
2 suggest it that we should present our views on most of the facts by the
3 end of June, and if there's anything that we do not have a position on by
4 that time then it should be considered that it is beyond our powers to
5 form an opinion. Since our learned friends from the Prosecution have to
6 plan their case, they are perfectly allowed to consider that we are not
7 able to form a position, and we are going to try to form a position on as
8 many of the facts and issues as possible.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, when do you intend to present that
10 expert evidence?
11 MR. HOFFMANN: I have to check the exact schedule, but I think
12 part of it starts already next week and then the beginning of June.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We'll further consider the matter.
14 The next item I'd like to address is the reasons, and the Chamber
15 will now communicate, the reasons for its decision granting protective
16 measures for Witness JF-008. A decision which was delivered on the 17th
17 of February, 2010. This ruling can be found on transcript page 3556.
18 On the 29th of January, 2010, the Prosecution requested pseudonym
19 and face and voice distortion for Witness JF-008. Neither the Stanisic
20 nor the Simatovic Defence teams responded to the Prosecution's motion for
21 protective measures. On the 17th of February, 2010, the Prosecution
22 indicated that the witness no longer deemed voice distortion necessary
23 for his testimony. This amendment to the Prosecution's request can be
24 found at transcript page 3554. On that same day, the Chamber granted
25 Witness JF-008 face distortion and pseudonym, and this is located on
1 transcript page 3556.
2 The Chamber has set out the test it applies when considering
3 whether to grant protective measures in previous decisions. In this
4 respect, the Chamber refers the parties to the reasons for the decision
5 to grant protective measures for Witness C-1118 on transcript pages 3690
6 through 3692.
7 Witness JF-008 fears that his and his family's safety would be at
8 risk without protective measures in place, particularly given the media
9 attention paid to the Stanisic and Simatovic case. The witness is a
10 Bosnian Croat who lives in a small village in the Republika Srpska where
11 the majority of the population is Serb. The witness asserts that, as an
12 ethnic minority, he is in a vulnerable position because there are ethnic
13 tensions in his community. Furthermore, the witness contends that he
14 experienced difficulties at work following his public testimony before
15 the War Crimes Section of the court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The
16 witness also submits that members of his community treated him
17 differently after this testimony. Although these circumstances may not
18 rise to the level of threat, the Chamber acknowledged the risk that the
19 witness's testimony before the Tribunal, should it become public, could
20 lead to more serious consequences.
21 In light of these circumstances, absent any objections from the
22 Defence, and balancing the right of the accused to a public trial and the
23 need to protect the witness, the Chamber decided that protective measures
24 should be granted. And this concludes the reasons for the Chamber's
1 The next item on the agenda is that the Chamber would like to
2 hear any submissions by the Defence on the Prosecution's request to
3 convert Stanisic provisional release-related filings to a public status.
4 Mr. Jordash.
5 MR. JORDASH: Could I just very briefly speak to my client?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. JORDASH: Sorry for the delay.
8 [Defence counsel and Accused Stanisic confer]
9 MR. JORDASH: We were under the impression it was public. The
10 only objection we would have to it being made public, if we are wrong
11 about that, is if there was information concerning Mr. Stanisic's family.
12 The same objections that we made previously concerning the medical
13 reports being made public, that would be our position.
14 Yes, looking at the 19th of March, 2010, Defence motion for
15 provisional release, it's public. We've certainly filed ours public.
16 That was our understanding.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, it was a Prosecution's request.
18 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I believe there was an addendum to
19 that, I'm just trying to call it up now, an addendum to that, that we
20 thought that the practice to date had been that such matters had been
21 dealt with publicly, and that's why we've requested in our response that
22 it be made public. I'm just trying to call that up now. We raise it,
23 Your Honour, in our second addendum to the Prosecution response filed on
24 the 26th of March, 2010. Perhaps Your Honours, if we can come back to
25 this, I'll get the specific items that we should be made public.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll hear from you preferably after the break.
2 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Simatovic Defence, any position in this respect? I
4 see you are nodding no, Mr. Petrovic, that's now on the record.
5 Then the next item on my agenda is a statement the Chamber would
6 like to deliver with regard to trial procedures for the present case.
7 On the 9th of June, 2009, the parties filed the first joint
8 submission regarding agreement on trial procedures. On the 27th of
9 August, 2009, after further discussions among the parties, the
10 Prosecution filed a second joint submission regarding agreement on trial
11 procedures. On the 1st of September, 2009, the Prosecution filed a
12 corrigendum to the second joint submission which also contained the
13 assent by the Stanisic Defence. And as far as the Chamber is aware, the
14 Simatovic Defence has not assented to this agreement.
15 Although the agreement filed on the 1st of September, 2009
16 contained a few outstanding matters, the trial in the present case has
17 since proceeded and the Chamber understands that the parties have found
18 solutions, some on an ad hoc basis, to such problems and questions that
19 have arisen. On occasion, the parties have also turned to the Chamber to
20 resolve specific problems. Although the Chamber will not formally adopt
21 any general agreements on trial procedure between the parties, it
22 welcomes a continued discussion between the parties to resolve specific
23 matters that might come up during the proceedings, and when no agreement
24 can be reached with regard to such specific matters, the parties may
25 address the Chamber for a solution. And this concludes the Chamber's
2 I will now deliver a statement by the Chamber concerning Exhibits
3 P176 and P177. The transcripts of previous testimony of witness Sulejman
4 Tihic in the Simic case and in the Milosevic case. The exhibits were
5 tendered on the 3rd of February, 2010.
6 On the 4th of February, the Chamber admitted P176 and P177 into
7 evidence and invited the parties to come up with a solution on reducing
8 the volume and repetitive nature of the exhibits in question. This can
9 be found on transcript page 3258.
10 On the 19th of February, 2010, the Chamber strongly urged the
11 parties to come up with an agreement to reduce the size of the exhibits
12 by the 15th of March, 2010
14 On the 15th of March, the Prosecution requested an extension of
15 time to file its submissions. On the 19th of March, having heard of no
16 objections from the Defence, the Chamber granted the request and informed
17 the parties accordingly through an informal communication.
18 On the 15th of April, 2010, the Prosecution filed a submission
19 setting out the positions of the Prosecution and the Stanisic Defence
20 that the entirety of the material in question should remain in evidence.
21 The Prosecution added that there are certain portions of the exhibits
22 that they will not be relying on. In the Prosecution's submission, both
23 parties agree that reducing the evidence could complicate matters and
24 lead to additional lengthy litigation. The Simatovic Defence has not
25 indicated its position with regard to the matter.
1 In light of the parties' common position and the risk of further
2 litigation on this matter, the Chamber accepts that the entirety of P176
3 and P177 remains in evidence. The exhibits are currently marked for
4 identification in e-court and the Chamber reaffirms that Exhibits P176
5 and P177 were admitted into evidence on the 4th of February, 2010, and
6 hereby instructs the Registry to change their status accordingly. And
7 this concludes the Chamber's statement.
8 The next item I'd like to briefly discuss are the MUP ID cards in
9 relation to Vasilije Mijovic. The Defence on the 13th of April sought to
10 tender the RSK MUP ID cards for Mijovic, and the Prosecution then offered
11 two additional ID cards for Mijovic. The Chamber asked the Prosecution
12 to gather all Mijovic IDs and make a bar table submission in the proper
13 format in relation to them.
14 The Prosecution has sent an e-mail on the 6th of May to say that
15 the Defence have agreed on the admission of both 65 ter 5280 and 65 ter
16 5281, and have requested the Chamber to make a formal decision on
17 admission. Now, since the documents relevance and contexturalisation
18 have been discussed during Witness's JF-036's testimony, the Chamber will
19 exceptionally not insist on requiring the usual bar table format.
20 Madam Registrar, could you assign numbers to 65 ter 5280 and 65
21 ter 5281.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. 65 ter 5280 will be
23 Exhibit P00488; 65 ter 5281 will be Exhibit P00489.
24 JUDGE ORIE: P488 and P489 are admitted into evidence.
25 The next issue I would like to deal with is Prosecution's 15th
1 motion for leave to amend its Rule 65 ter exhibit list, and the Rule 65
2 ter witness list. The motion was filed on the 13th of April of this
3 year. The Prosecution sought to add seven documents to its Rule 65 ter
4 exhibit list and to add two witnesses to its Rule 65 ter witness list.
5 However, the two proposed witnesses have not been named. The Chamber has
6 not received any Defence response to the motion, nor in any way did the
7 Chamber receive any indication of any objections. First of all, I'd like
8 to verify whether that's the case. Time has already expired for making a
9 response, but I just want to make sure that we didn't miss anything.
10 MR. JORDASH: That's the case, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we leave to the
13 Trial Chamber to assess the request by the Prosecution.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber will grant leave to the
15 Prosecution to add the documents as request to the 65 ter witness list.
16 These are seven documents. However, the Chamber asked the Prosecution to
17 identify the proposed witnesses and allow the Defence 14 days to respond
18 after the proposed witnesses have been named because we don't know who
19 they are. Mr. Groome.
20 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, a member of my staff is meeting
21 with the Serb authorities today down in Belgrade, and that is one of the
22 topics that is being discussed, so I should be able to identify those
23 people in short order.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Your expectations are because otherwise it
25 remains on our pending issue list forever. Two weeks, would that -- do
1 you think you could identify them in two weeks from now?
2 MR. GROOME: We are scheduling a video conference between myself
3 and a senior member of the Serb government the week after next, so if we
4 could say three weeks, Your Honours, I will have had that video
5 conference and finalise identity.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We expect new information from you in three weeks
7 from now.
8 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then the next item I'd like to deal with is an
10 update on Witness B-1244. On the 17th of May, the Chamber asked already
11 for an update and you then, Mr. Groome, requested one day to refresh your
12 memory. This is a matter which is pending already for quite awhile. On
13 the 30th of November 2009, the Chamber urged the parties to come to an
14 agreement on certain facts. Then there was a joint report filed on the
15 18th of December, but that joint report did not directly deal with
16 Witness B-1244. Then finally, the Chamber is not aware now where we
17 stand in relation to Witness B-1244, which, of course, is important in
18 order to know whether there will be any need that any further evidence be
19 presented on the matter.
20 MR. GROOME: Hopefully I can assist the Chamber in informing the
21 Chamber about what the Prosecution believes to be the issue with respect
22 to B-1244. The correspondence of the 27th of October 2009
23 the Chambered on the 17th of May 2010 was a letter from the Prosecution
24 informing the Defence of additional potential Rule 68 material with
25 respect to the Witness B-1244. All this material was deemed potentially
1 exculpatory as the material referred to the witness's involvement in the
2 crimes in Bosanski Samac. In that context the Prosecution indicated that
3 if the Defence wanted to propose an agreed fact regarding the witness's
4 role in the events in Samac, the Prosecution would consider and most
5 likely agree as there is no general dispute about the role this witness
6 played. It should be noted that the Prosecution has listed the
7 respective ICTY plea agreement of this witness on its exhibit list at 65
8 ter 2888.
9 This correspondence does not relate to agreed facts with regard
10 to the crimes in Bosanski Samac and the wider evidence of Witness B-1244.
11 As the witness also gives or gave substantial linkage evidence, the
12 Prosecution did not have the expectation that the Defence would agree to
13 respective facts that would render the pending motion under 92 quater for
14 this witness moot.
15 The Prosecution would like to note in this context that only the
16 Stanisic Defence so far has agreed to the -- I'm sorry, that's going back
17 to another issue, Your Honour. So that is our understanding of the
18 issue, that it relates to the role that B-1244 played in Bosanski Samac,
19 and the Prosecution is prepared to agree to any reasonable fact proposed
20 by the Defence.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The ball is on the side of the Defence again, I
22 think, where the Prosecution says we are willing to agree on any
23 reasonable -- that's, of course, the issue may be what is reasonable and
24 what is not reasonable. Is there any proposal to be expected in this
25 respect from the Defence soon so that the matter can be resolved?
1 MR. JORDASH: Could we have seven days, please?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, seven days enough for you as well?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Seven days for the proposal or seven days to inform
5 the Chamber about the outcome?
6 MR. JORDASH: For the proposal, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber then would like to -- if we give
8 you 14 days, then there may be a chance that not only the proposal which
9 will be delivered by the Defence in seven days, but that not only that
10 proposal is available, perhaps even a resolution of the matter.
11 So the Prosecution is expected to quickly respond to any such
12 proposal and the Defence is then requested to further engage in
13 discussions on the matter and the Chamber would like to receive a report
14 within two weeks from now. Let's say the first session after two weeks
15 have elapsed since today, so that could be a couple of days more.
16 Then before we move to the MFI list, I would like to deliver, and
17 before we have a break, I would like to deliver the Chamber's reasons for
18 its decision granting protective measures for Witness JF-015, which was
19 delivered on the 8th of March. And this ruling can be found on
20 transcript page 4017.
21 On the 6th of September, 2007, Witness JF-015 was granted
22 pseudonym. On the 14th of October, 2009, the Prosecution requested the
23 further protective measure of closed session for the witness. The
24 Stanisic Defence opposed this request on the 25th of November, 2009
25 after the Chamber on the 11th of November, 2009, had ordered the lifting
1 of the ex parte status of all the annexes to the Prosecution's motion and
2 granted further time to respond.
3 In its response, the Defence argued the lack of any objective
4 basis for Witness JF-015's fear. On the 8th of March, 2010, the Chamber
5 granted Witness JF-015 the protective measure of closed session. The
6 Chamber has set out in previous decisions the test it applies when
7 considering whether to grant protective measures. In this respect, the
8 Chamber refers the parties to the reasons for the decision to grant
9 protective measures for Witness C-1118 on transcript pages 3690 through
11 Witness JF-015 fears that he or his family will be harmed in
12 reprisal for co-operating with the Tribunal if it will be publicly known
13 that he is a witness. The evidence provided by the witness concerns
14 incidents occurring in the area where the witness lived at the time and
15 still lives. He argues that his evidence implicates people including
16 former members of Arkan's Men, who have access to the area where he
17 lives. Moreover, he points out that some of the local Serbs who
18 committed crimes together with Arkan's Men are living in the same area.
19 The nature of Witness JF-015's testimony makes him easily identifiable
20 for those familiar with the events about which he testified. Considering
21 all these circumstances, and balancing the risks that the witness and his
22 family may face after testifying before the Tribunal and the accused's
23 right to a public trial, the Chamber granted the requested protective
24 measures. And this concludes the reasons for the Chamber's decision.
25 We'll now have a break. After the break we'll start with the MFI
1 list and then I have another five items on my agenda. We'll resume at
2 ten minutes past 4.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 3.37 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 4.22 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Two issues remained from before the break. The
6 first one was the change in status of provisional release matters. The
7 urgent request by the Defence was public. Prosecution's response, 22nd
8 of March, was confidential. The Stanisic application for leave to
9 request the reporting medical officer to respond to the Prosecution's
10 response was confidential. Then we have correspondence with the host
11 state which is usually remains confidential, so I don't know whether you
12 were seeking to have that -- to give that a public status as well,
13 Mr. Groome.
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I did look into the matter over the
15 break. Your Honours are correct that the Stanisic Defence, that they're
16 original filing was public. The Prosecution originally filed its
17 response confidentially. This was in error. I think that precipitated
18 then additional confidential filings by not only the Stanisic Defence but
19 also in our addendums so, Your Honour, having reviewed it, I believe that
20 three filings should be changed. One is the Prosecution response to
21 urgent Stanisic Defence motion for provisional release filed on the 22nd
22 of March, 2010.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. GROOME: The addendum to Prosecution response to urgent
25 Stanisic Defence motion for provisional release filed on 22nd of March,
1 2010, and the Stanisic Defence application for leave to request that the
2 RMO address the Prosecution response to urgent Stanisic Defence motion
3 for provisional release filed on the 23rd of March, 2010.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I still have the Prosecution's response
5 to the Stanisic application for leave to request the RMO to respond to
6 the Prosecution's response dated the 25th of March.
7 MR. GROOME: That should also be public, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Also be public. These are then the four we
9 identified. Could I, under those circumstances, hear from the Defence.
10 It was apparently by mistake that the Prosecution started filing matters
11 confidentially. The only thing that would then remain confidential would
12 be then the correspondence with the host state, which is more or less
13 standard, but is from what I understand usually kept confidential.
14 MR. JORDASH: If I recall correctly, I think everything that
15 concerned Mr. Stanisic's family was dealt with in court in a private
16 session and didn't figure in the pleadings, if that's the case --
17 JUDGE ORIE: So what you would like to say is that you do not
18 oppose against making it public, but you invite the Prosecution to review
19 that material and perhaps you would -- the Chamber will do that as well
20 to see whether there's any reference to Mr. Stanisic's family.
21 MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would there be any general reference to family
23 situations or problematic or not, or details?
24 MR. JORDASH: A general reference to solving family problems
25 would be, I think, fine by the accused, but anything giving details would
1 be a problem.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we know where we are and, Mr. Groome,
3 you are invited because you triggered it all to check then also whether
4 there's any reference to what Mr. Jordash --
5 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have the filings here and I'll
6 discuss them with Mr. Jordash and certainly by tomorrow I think we can
7 get back to the Chamber.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That would be great.
9 Then, Mr. Petrovic, I have had another look at the proposed list
10 of agreed facts where you said you would need a couple of months or less.
11 I think we have two kinds of proposed facts. The first is a description
12 of, if I could say so, events, on a certain date Serb civilians were
13 arrested or were executed or were taken or were -- that's, I would say, a
14 small a(i), when I say small that's wrong because it is A(i), A(ii).
15 That is about SAO Krajina; A(ii), SAO SBWS; and A(iii), Bosnia and
17 or, if I would say it in a more neutral way, persons are identified by
18 name, by gender, and by date of birth. That is a rather long list split
19 up in sections, the last section being Q which deals with events in
20 Vukovici. Then we also have a list of victims or at least persons where,
21 at least the Stanisic Defence does not agree for, I don't know what
22 exactly the basis is for that, are there no victims or are the dates
23 wrong, or whatever, but at least that is in Annex B which is called "list
24 of victims not subject to agreement."
25 Now, what I would like to know from you is where exactly is your
1 problem? Is it the identification of persons, I don't call them victims
2 at this moment, but is it about the persons or is it about the events
3 because persons seem to be, apart from how they finally arrived where
4 they were found, but identification of persons is a rather technical
5 matter. Where is your problem?
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our problem is this:
7 Nobody on our Defence team has investigated all those things. This is a
8 terra incognita for us, and we are trying to deal with situations, with
9 people, we are trying to establish links between them and to establish to
10 an acceptable level what information is available to us to form our
11 position. Somebody may have done that over the past six years, somebody
12 may have done it, but we are not the ones who have done it and we don't
13 know if anybody did.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, I take it that if the Stanisic Defence
15 makes a distinction between persons, they even agree to the first list as
16 being victims, I'm not yet at that point, but apparently they make a
17 distinction between the persons' identification even within certain
18 municipalities, which they do accept and which they do not accept, which
19 suggests that they have carefully and diligently looked at what is the
20 basis for the identification. Now, usually that doesn't go person by
21 person, but you find a number of bodies and that they are examined by
22 pathologists or -- and then reports are there, usually a series of
23 reports. And then that is mainly a very technical matter.
24 Have you discussed, because you said you don't know whether
25 anyone did so during the last six years, have you discussed with the
1 Stanisic Defence on what basis they made this distinction and on what
2 basis they agreed with the lengthy lengthy lists of what they accept even
3 to be victims but what they did to check the identity of the persons
4 which I at least assume were found as corpses? Have you checked that
5 with the Stanisic Defence?
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have discussed
7 things with them only in principle. We have never tackled the issues in
8 any concrete manner starting with the lists that are before you.
9 However, with all due respect, we believe that they did their job
10 conscientiously; however, their work, and I emphasise I believe they did
11 it professionally, their work cannot be used as the basis for us, for us
12 to do in the same way, to act in the same way. It is not a reliable
13 resource. It is very difficult to adopt a common position between two
14 different Defence teams. What may have motivated them, does not
15 necessarily have to motivate us.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just talking about the identification of corpses
17 which is really a very technical matter. Is this corpse found and
18 identified as Mr. A, born on that date, I don't know. It may well be
19 that there's DNA identification for many of them, I'm looking at the
20 Prosecution. Then of course the next question is, who did the DNA
21 identification. Were these Croatian pathologist or Canadian or were they
22 well qualified. I take it, but perhaps I'm wrong, that this has been at
23 the basis of the Stanisic Defence agreeing on that.
24 Mr. Jordash, is that -- that's what I would expect, as a matter
25 of fact.
1 MR. JORDASH: It was on the basis of exhumation reports.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Exhumation reports, and I take it that you have
3 looked at the qualifications of those who did the identification and by
4 what methods that was done.
5 MR. JORDASH: Yes, looking at the exhumation reports and taking
6 what we considered to be realistic for Mr. Stanisic.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Realistic --
8 MR. JORDASH: In terms of our Defence strategy.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do we have to understand that you accepted a
10 certain risk of wrong identifications, or did you say no on the basis of
11 the qualifications of those who did the DNA reports? These are usually
12 done in series and not -- you don't have one expert for victim A and one
13 expert for victim B but you usually have a kind of a system which was
14 applied to one exhumation and then for another exhumation you would
15 verify that again whether it was -- whether the method described is, in
16 principle, an acceptable reliable method and whether it was done by
17 qualified experts and whether the recording of it would meet the usual
18 and normal standards.
19 MR. JORDASH: That's the sum of it, Your Honour, yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Are you willing to share that -- the way in
21 which you reviewed the long list because apparently with some series you
22 did not agree, and we found them in Annex B. Yes, Mr. Hoffmann.
23 MR. HOFFMANN: Just for the record, I wanted to clarify one thing
24 about this filing and maybe that hasn't been clearly set out by the
25 Prosecution and the Stanisic Defence in this joint submission. The
1 second annex, Annex B, where there are a number of victims where there is
2 no agreement between the Stanisic Defence and the Prosecution, those
3 names actually have not even been put forward to the Stanisic Defence
4 because we said for those there remains some questions marks which we
5 said it's not professional to ask the Defence to come to an agreement.
6 So I just want to clarify that these names in the Annex B have never been
7 actually part of the discussion. We said ourselves, those are -- those
8 remain for -- to be proven at trial. So in fact, in other words, that
9 the Stanisic Defence has agreed to any victim identity that we put
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you have done that on the basis, as I just set
12 out, it is the usual check of the reliability of that information.
13 MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honour, yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Petrovic, what now do you intend to do
15 within the next -- I'm talking about this, about nothing else at this
16 moment, I'm not even talking about victims, I'm just talking about
17 identification of persons. What do you intend to do what you can do in
18 three months what you couldn't do in two weeks. And just identification
19 of corpses.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, what we are trying
21 is to establish at places where all those things happened whether those
22 people have ever been found. We are trying to shed some light on the
23 events that resulted in dead bodies. Without shedding light on one set
24 of things, we cannot accept the other set of things. In other words, we
25 will not be dealing with the DNA identification whether it was done
1 professionally or not, but to put it simply, those two things are
2 inseparable for us. We are trying to shed lights on the events -- by
3 shedding lights on the events we are elucidating all the elements
4 including which bodies were found or which people were subsequently
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, again what happened to the persons who
7 were found is not something, that's more or less the beginning, I would
8 say, that's Annex A(i) I, II, III, that describes what happened to them.
9 What then followed, if you take out the word victims, would you be
10 willing to agree that bodies that were found and examined by expert A, B,
11 or C, were identified on the basis of DNA as being Mr. A, B, or C? I'm
12 not asking you whether you could agree on how those corpses ended up at
13 that place but just about the identification.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, what I can say at
15 this moment is the following: Our approach so far has been as I have
16 just explained in answering your previous question. The most I can do at
17 the moment is to promise you that we will try to approach things in the
18 isolated way, the way you have just suggested. At this moment, however,
19 I cannot change our position on that because it simply wouldn't be
20 appropriate at this moment in light of what our duty is. We can't look
21 at things in isolation completely, but I don't think that this is the
22 same approach. I do agree that this is the simplest approach. If we
23 were to adopt this approach, then we would deal with the matter very
24 quickly. However, in my view, things are not as simple as that. There
25 is a whole context present, and we cannot do things in an artificial way.
1 We will take your suggestion into consideration, however, and we are in
2 your -- entirely in your hands with regard to this matter.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, whether you are entirely in our hands is --
4 what I'd like you to do is to sit together with the Stanisic Defence,
5 Mr. Jordash, you are willing to share the information on which you based
6 your agreement, and to see where the real dispute is. Again, I'm not at
7 this moment primarily - that may be the next step - focusing on what
8 events caused corpses to end up in a certain grave, but what I want to
9 avoid is that we spend ages and ages on going through evidence which is
10 primarily focusing on identification of corpses that were found at a
11 certain place because we would have to receive all the paperwork of that
12 and without any agreement that would take us a lot of time, and that may
13 not be the real dispute in this case, whether the body found in grave A
14 is the body of Mr. X, Y, or Z, or when he was born.
15 Therefore, I suggest that you seek to share the relevant
16 information with the Stanisic Defence, that you do that within the next,
17 well, let's say, 14 days. Report to the Chamber, again primarily now on
18 the identification of bodies, and I'm not yet talking about whether they
19 are victims or not. That's another matter. And then report to the
20 Chamber exactly on what basis you challenge the identification of those
21 corpses and if you have any difficulties in doing that, and to inform the
22 Chamber. Then the Chamber is unfortunately forced to find out exactly
23 where the dispute is and as may be known from other cases, I would rather
24 not spend time in court on that.
25 I would then invite you and the Prosecution at 7.00 in the
1 morning in this building and then find out in detail what dispute there
2 is about all of these names so that we know where the problem is and
3 where there is not a real problem.
4 Mr. Hoffmann, you would like to make it 7.30 in the morning or --
5 MR. HOFFMANN: No, 6.00 is fine with me. I just wanted to make one
6 additional note as we had talked about the upcoming witness, I just
7 wanted to confirm that JF-043 and JF-045 are actually supposed to testify
8 next week. Those are expert witnesses that deal with the Croatian crime
9 base victims.
10 And the additional note I wanted to make is I think in the past
11 we had a number of crime based witnesses already testifying in case about
12 certain victims. As far as I recall, we never had any substantial
13 challenge from either Defence team including the Simatovic Defence on the
14 evidence that was led with those crime based witness on the identity of
15 number of victims, and we would submit that both with the crime based
16 witnesses, that we heard in the past, as well as with the upcoming expert
17 witnesses, the Defence needs to be prepared in any event, not just in six
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, the response by Mr. Hoffmann is if you
20 don't agree to the facts, they'll produce the evidence, and if you want
21 to challenge it, you have to do it now, you don't have the time to do
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I understood that
24 and I also understood your instructions, and we will inform you as you
25 have instructed us in two weeks as to what steps we have taken.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now, Mr. Hoffmann said that he would start with
2 the Croatian bodies. Could you first focus on, and you'll certainly be
3 able to find them because they are in the schedules, could you first
4 start with making up your mind as to any of the part B to part Q of Annex
5 A to the motion, the focus on the Croatian places. And perhaps if you
6 start with them, that you could already deal with them, well, let's say,
7 in one week, so that we don't lose time in court -- again, if there are
8 serious reasons, fine, no problem, if you have doubts as to the
9 qualifications of the experts or if you have doubts as to whether certain
10 graves were fabricated or are -- then please tell us so that we know what
11 is in dispute, and the dispute most likely is not that from these long
12 lists of names, that apart from mistakes that may have been made, that
13 there are serious problems with the identification overall. If that's
14 the case, we'd also like to hear that so that we know what to focus on.
15 Is that clear?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then is there any way that you would communicate
18 with the Prosecution on the Croatian corpses in a week's time?
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then if this creates any further problems, then
21 we'll hear from you and the Prosecution. Mr. Groome.
22 MR. GROOME: Just to reaffirm that, in our last witness
23 notification, many of the documents the Chamber is referring to have been
24 set out by 65 ter number, so the large volume of documents is listed in
25 last week's notification, and the Prosecution would be prepared to meet
1 with the Simatovic Defence Friday to preliminarily discuss these issues
2 or any time proposed by the Simatovic Defence.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And you are able to link those documents to the
4 lists we find here or parts of lists we find here?
5 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, these are the underlying.
6 JUDGE ORIE: B to Q.
7 MR. GROOME: These are the underlying documents for some of these
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, you will get the assistance in
10 identifying the documents which apparently have served as a basis for
11 these identifications. Mr. Groome will point you in the right direction.
12 So you have now both the Stanisic Defence and Mr. Groome and that is, I
13 take it, will result in -- not in per se agreements, but in losing time
14 in court on matters where there's no real dispute. For the Chamber, most
15 important is to find out where there is a real dispute, a real challenge
16 about the identification of these bodies.
17 Then I'd like to proceed with the MFI list. We might not be able
18 to deal with all the items on it, but at least let's give it a try and
19 see how far we come.
20 The first one on my list is P18. That is the BBC interview with
21 Vojislav Seselj. The Prosecution has submitted that it had been unable
22 to create a joint spreadsheet with the Defence and then provided its
23 spreadsheet containing the Prosecution's comments on the exhibits. Any
24 comments from the Defence in this respect?
25 MR. JORDASH: Nothing to add to our earlier comments. Thank you.
1 If it assists, we took the position that the video, as it stands, should
2 not be admitted. I don't know if Your Honours want me to develop that,
3 but that was our position when we saw the Prosecution proposals.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And it's not that you -- do you have any
5 objections against specific portions, or is it just that you say whatever
6 has not been -- is it just that you object against the admission of the
7 whole of it or parts of it, or?
8 MR. JORDASH: We took the position that a large part of it was
9 not relevant or we didn't understand precisely what the Prosecution
10 wanted it for. We understood in relation to bits, but not the whole
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Petrovic.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you allow me, I
14 share the position of Mr. Jordash's, and let me just repeat the two
15 positions that we took earlier. The first one was that this video was
16 produced at the time when Seselj was in the political fight against the
17 then-political regime, so it was highly politically motivated. Seselj
18 was even arrested at the time and so on.
19 And the second position is, that if we want to hear Seselj's
20 position, and this is obviously what the Prosecution is seeking to
21 accomplish, then we have Seselj, he is available, and anyone who wants to
22 hear what his opinion of certain matters is can actually have him come to
23 testify before this Trial Chamber. So these are our two positions that
24 we would like to maintain and that your decision should actually be --
25 take them into consideration.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I think the Chamber ordered a filing of
2 the spreadsheet dealing with several portions and what -- to split up the
3 relevant portions and that the Prosecution explained what the relevance
4 is perhaps in a bit more detail and then to receive the response by the
5 Defence why they considered it not to be relevant, as you said,
6 Mr. Jordash. Now the Chamber doesn't fully understand why that is not a
7 possibility, to split it up and -- because sometimes, some portions were
8 shown, others were not, to split it up in portions and to hear from the
9 Prosecution what they think is the relevance of it, and to hear from the
10 Defence why they think it's not relevant. But until now, apart from an
11 overall statement, we don't have that on specific portions. And as you
12 said, Mr. Jordash, some parts you do understand for the relevances or at
13 least why the Prosecution seeks for it to be admitted. If now the
14 Prosecution sets out what in their view the relevance is of these
15 specific portions, you could respond to that, and Mr. Petrovic could do
16 the same, isn't it?
17 MR. JORDASH: May I just briefly take instructions. I apologise.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 [Defence counsel and Accused Stanisic confer]
20 MR. JORDASH: Yes, we could respond, and we would respond. If
21 Your Honours want us to respond to specific points then we can do that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And perhaps you sit together because if you
23 say this portion we consider not to be relevant, then perhaps the
24 Prosecution could specifically address the relevance of that portion so
25 that because otherwise the Chamber has to decide we can admit, we cannot
1 admit, if we would admit, we would be at least without your comments on
2 it. And, of course, if you think, well, the Chamber will not admit it,
3 so therefore, let's refrain from any comments, then, well, there's a
4 procedural risk involved in that, which I do not have to explain to you.
5 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I'm not in any way anticipating on how
7 that risk would -- I mean, but the Chamber prefers if the Prosecution
8 considers elements, portions, and they may state all, then we'd like to
9 know exactly why do you consider this portion to be relevant, that
10 portion to be relevant, and that portion to be relevant, and then you can
11 state why you do not find it relevant. And then we have also better
12 guidance both for admission, and if it would be admitted, we would have
13 better guidance for the evaluation of the evidence. That is, we are
14 warned about certain matters you would like to draw our attention to.
15 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, could you share in that approach?
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wish to assure you
18 that we have goodwill, and I totally agree with you that the issue of
19 relevance is really what we should discuss here. However, there is
20 another matter that is more important and above this, and that is that
21 this entire story about the video is, in fact, an attempt to introduce
22 the testimony of that person through the back door, as it were. So we
23 can discuss here whether the conditions have been met for admission of
24 this document or not, and I believe that if we take the procedural
25 standpoint that the Prosecution will always be able to show that there is
1 relevance and that this should be admitted and the Trial Chamber can
2 admit it. But the point here is that the testimony of that person is
3 what the Prosecution is seeking to accomplish here through the back door,
4 as it were.
5 So it's not a formal point, it is not a procedural issue purely,
6 it is more than that. It is whether this testimony will be admitted in a
7 way that to us seems impermissible where we have this person available to
8 testify. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, would I agree with me that this video
10 is not created for the purposes of this Tribunal, and to that extent, is
11 a contemporary document, contemporary documents which are often admitted
12 into evidence, and you state that this -- that the Prosecution seeks this
13 to be admitted as the views of Mr. Seselj.
14 The Chamber understands that it reflects the words spoken by
15 Mr. Seselj at the time, whether true or not is a totally different
16 matter, and that's, of course, the difference with hearing Mr. Seselj as
17 a witness, that he would then be under an obligation to tell the truth.
18 But this is not testimony. This is a contemporaneous document in which
19 one, and it may well be for political reasons, for whatever reasons, has
20 expressed himself in the way that he did.
21 So, therefore -- but even that, no problem, general comment on
22 the video should not be admitted because it would violate rule so and so
23 and so because there's an obligation to hear the witness and have an
24 opportunity to cross-examine the witness on the matter. That would be,
25 valid or not, would be your view on the matter as a general observation
1 which we would then be fully aware of as well because we would then
2 consider what kind of document it is, what place is there to be given to
3 the document or to the video in law of evidence, and then we would
4 consider that. And that's both for general comments and comments on
5 portions the Chamber would like to be informed in detail about the
6 position of the Defence.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, your last comment you
8 began with a question, whether this document was perhaps created for the
9 purpose of it's being used before this Tribunal. It is -- of course, no
10 one can know why something was created, but it is a big question what the
11 motivation of that person was at that point in time, and it might even
12 have been what you have mentioned. All right, I will not dwell on this
13 any further.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, the only thing I wanted to draw the
15 attention to is that often a distinction is made between documents or
16 videos or statements which were sought by this Tribunal, perhaps I should
17 have been clearer on that, and apparently here. If there's any reason to
18 believe that the BBC did it for specific purposes, then that is a matter
19 that could then be clarified. Or if the Prosecution has invited the BBC
20 to do it or whether it was in the back of the mind of Mr. Seselj, then of
21 course, if the Prosecution doesn't call him as a witness and if there's
22 any case to answer, you could call Mr. Seselj as a witness to find out.
23 That's all evidence which can be considered and which will be heard. The
24 only thing I intended to say is that unlike statements taken by
25 Prosecution staff for the purposes of using them in evidence before this
1 Tribunal, that that is a category which is different from contemporaneous
2 documents, documents which were not primarily produced for the purposes
3 of this Tribunal. That's what I wanted to say and what is on the back of
4 the mine of everyone, if there's any reason to clarify that, but in the
5 technical sense, it's not a document which was produced for the purposes
6 of this Tribunal.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, of course I agree
8 with your position, and we will set out our position as you have
9 instructed us and then based on that, you will be able to make your final
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Petrovic, since I know that you'll be very
12 busy for the next two weeks with the victims list or the list of corpses,
13 what about, and that gives some time to breathe as well for Mr. Jordash,
14 what about receiving your comments in -- by the end of June so that we
15 have -- you've done the work already, Mr. Hoffmann, but that we have a
16 specified list of items with comments on relevance or any general
17 comments so that the Chamber will be better able to decide whether or not
18 to admit P18 in its entirety or whether we should partially admitted it
19 or whether we should deal with the matter step by step when portions are
20 played in court.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we will give you our
22 position, whatever it may be, within the time-framework that you've
23 indicated. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then I hope that we don't have to spend
25 so much time with all of the items on my MFI list.
1 There's one specific issue about Turkish or Russian, again what
2 we see under the video and whether that reflects what was said. We had a
3 similar thing with another video.
4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I know we've requested if, I don't
5 believe we've received verification response back.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, but that's an item to be clarified in relation
7 to P18 as well?
8 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, Your Honour, yes, it is.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, then we hope to find that as well. I will
10 leave a couple of numbers out. I move to P107. What I left out, as a
11 matter of fact, is a lot of video-clips, which are still on our -- no, we
12 have proofing notes under P53, I'll not deal with them. Then we have
13 P54, I'll not deal with them. Certificate of a volunteer in units of SAO
14 SBWS. We have video-clips P55, 57, 58, I'll not deal with those at this
15 very moment. P107.
16 The authenticity was questioned by the Simatovic and the Stanisic
17 Defence. Then the OTP has provided further information as to the way in
18 which this document was obtained. And then I think the Chamber expected
19 the Defence to again consider its position in relation to the new
20 information received. Then there also seems to be another issue that is
21 P260 is to some extent related to P107. What the Chamber would like to
22 know is what the present position of the Defence is.
23 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour, could I just have a moment.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I think our position is, as it was at
1 the time, we maintain the objection and leave it to Your Honours to
2 decide. The position, I think, was that we didn't accept that the
3 Prosecution's attempt to establish authenticity actually took the matter
4 much further. If Your Honour recalls, there was a lengthy discussion
5 about the issue in court, and we challenged the response by those who
6 sent the document to the Prosecution, and we maintain the position that
7 it didn't take the matter any further in terms of establishing
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I think there was a -- no, apparently also
10 the fact that P260 has been admitted into evidence is not something that
11 has changed your position in any way.
12 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, no. It didn't take the matter any
13 further, as I recall. It was a response which didn't lend any additional
14 corroboration to the original document.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear.
16 Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'd just like to add
18 this: This is the unsigned document, and I believe that in our
19 discussion, we mentioned that in P260, there was no explanation, if I
20 recall correctly. The explanation from P260 was not actually in keeping
21 or it did not correspond the -- what was said in P107, so we retain the
22 same position as we had then.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear. The Chamber will decide on the
25 Then the next one is P148. The Chamber has considered the
1 objections and admits P148 into evidence without requiring further
2 verification of the authenticity under Rule 89E. The objections to the
3 authenticity are not such that the Chamber considers it within its
4 discretion a thing to do, that is, require verification.
5 I move on to -- I will not deal with P150 yet. P155. P155, the
6 Chamber has decided to admit it into evidence under seal. Then we have
7 P156 up to and including -- many of the following are doubles, that is
8 redacted and unredacted versions. On the basis of a decision on redacted
9 version of exhibits, it will be clear that the Chamber at this moment --
10 I'll come back to that at a later moment, that the Chamber will not admit
11 into evidence redacted versions but only unredacted versions and then
12 under seal, which means -- and now we have a very practical matter
13 whether the Prosecution, perhaps you can think about this once you've
14 heard what the core will be of our decision on redacted, unredacted
15 versions, I'll give you information about that. Perhaps I could do it
16 right away. One second, please.
17 Yes, we have considered this matter which is more or less an
18 administrative matter of whether to admit public redacted copies of
19 documents into evidence in addition to the unredacted originals. The
20 Chamber would prefer to avoid admitting the same document into evidence
21 twice, once as an unredacted original and once as a public redacted copy
22 and under two different exhibit numbers. The Chamber, therefore,
23 proposes the following solution: That the Chamber will admit the
24 unredacted original document under seal, and in order to have a public
25 redacted copy on the record and available to the public, that the Chamber
1 will instruct the tendering party to submit a public filing attaching the
2 public redacted copies at the end of the Stanisic and Simatovic trial
4 The Chamber would then further instruct the tendering party to
5 provide the other parties with a public redacted copy for use in court
6 during the trial, so it will not be filed yet, but it will be made
7 available, the redacted copy already to the other parties for use at
9 A written decision on the Prosecution motion for admission of
10 redacted copies of confidential exhibits as public exhibits, which was
11 filed from the 25th of January, will follow and will set out the
12 consequences of the approach, which I just outlined. System, therefore,
13 is only unredacted copies in evidence, redacted copies to be prepared
14 immediately and to be shared with the other parties so that we can use
15 them, but they will be all filed at the very end of the case.
16 Yes, Mr. Groome.
17 MR. GROOME: Just two questions for clarification, Your Honour.
18 So in that event, would the Defence then refer to the under seal exhibit
19 when they are looking at the public redacted version on the screens that
20 the record would just be clear that they are really referring to the
21 under exhibit seal since it would be technically a different document? I
22 guess what I'm saying, Your Honour, we won't give MFI numbers to the
23 redacted version that we prepare and give to them, we'll just use the --
24 and the second question, Your Honour --
25 JUDGE ORIE: That brings me to the following question, that is,
1 what the Prosecution -- we can do two things. We can -- let's just, for
2 example, focus on P156, which is the redacted version of P157. Now, you
3 can take your time to think about it, you can either withdraw them, or we
4 can by other means vacate the numbers. That's -- the logical consequence
5 would be that you withdraw tendering those documents.
6 MR. GROOME: It seems so, Your Honour, and I just want to just
7 check out whether there are any technical implications for e-court,
8 obviously we have to have some number to call them up.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps best is to wait until we have the written
10 decision on the 25th of January motion there and then to finalise it.
11 Meanwhile, I'll give decisions on the admission into evidence of the
12 unredacted copies which will all be admitted under seal.
13 MR. GROOME: Because this has implications for the discussions
14 ongoing this week in Serbia
15 proceed with the litigation regarding what should be redacted but --
16 JUDGE ORIE: That is -- what I just read out to you is to be
17 understood as in general terms how we deal with redacted and unredacted.
18 What finally should be redacted or not is another matter. That, of
19 course, is not directly linked to the system we adopt.
20 MR. GROOME: Okay. I understand. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then P157 is admitted into evidence under seal.
22 P159 is admitted into evidence under seal. P161 is admitted into
23 evidence under seal. I suggest that we have a bit of an early break for
24 reasons unknown to you but known to me.
25 We will have a break of half an hour and we'll resume at five
1 minutes to 6.00 and hope to finish after the break with the remaining
2 MFIs and what remains on my list. We take a break.
3 --- Recess taken at 5.22 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 5.58 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Petrovic, I hope you have
6 not misunderstood me that you think that you shouldn't look very
7 critically at all the proposed facts on which the Stanisic Defence has
8 already agreed. For example, if I would find under Annex A, section F in
9 Dalj a victim described who was born in 1857, I would also have a very
10 critical look at such an agreed fact. So I hope you didn't misunderstand
11 me that you should adopt whatever others --
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I understood you
13 very well, and we will do our job in keeping with our obligations as
14 Mr. Simatovic's counsel.
15 JUDGE ORIE: But at least if you would raise an issue here, the
16 issue would be clear.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then I move on, P176 and P177 have been dealt with
19 earlier today. P179, a written decision will follow. P345, there were
20 issues about both authenticity and probative value. The Chamber has
21 considered them. The issue of relevance was withdrawn by the Stanisic
22 Defence. The Simatovic Defence has maintained its objection on the basis
23 of both authenticity and also objected to the Prosecution relying on the
24 document to prove a link between -- to prove a link with Mijovic, the
25 Chamber has considered it, admits P345 into evidence as the matter is
1 related to weight rather than to admissibility.
2 P378, there were two issues. The first is the tendering of any
3 underlying documents, and we are talking about a chart containing
4 information about diary. There was an issue of translation. A new
5 translation has been provided and the Registrar is instructed to upload
6 the new version unless there would be any objections against the new
7 translation. The Chamber will not decide yet on admission because the
8 underlying documents are not tendered, and the chart is not very relevant
9 without the underlying documents.
10 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour. The only thing I would
11 note is that we did ask that it be placed provisionally under seal to
12 give Serbia
13 informed us that they will not be seeking any protective measures so the
14 Chamber would --
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record, so if we would finally admit
16 this document and the underlying documents, then I take it is because
17 that's what you are talking about under seal about the underlying
19 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's on the record. We'll decide once the
21 underlying documents are tendered. The same is true for P379, a list of
22 11 intelligent reports. There are also new translation was uploaded and
23 the Registry is hereby instructed to replace the existing translation
24 with the new translation. Doc ID of the new translation is 0675-4621
25 EDT. And admission of P379 is also waiting for the underlying documents.
1 There are a few other documents, P380, P382, P384, P385, P386,
2 and P387. There there's no problem with the translation because they
3 also have to wait a decision to admit them or not to admit them as to
5 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if I could point out with respect to
6 those documents, one of the -- the Chamber had invited the Prosecution
7 and the Defence to get together and to again come up with a chart of
8 relevance. I will undertake that. But I do want to note for the record
9 that the documents that you are referring to are all documents from what
10 is marked as 379 for identification, but there are some discrepancies
11 between that chart and the MFI list that we produced from ringtail, so I
12 will get together with the Registrar in the next few days and see can we
13 identify those, but there seem to be some mistakes with respect to what
14 is identified in ringtail as to the documents related to 379.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the Chamber welcomes any attempt to correct
16 administrative mistakes. We'll not deal with them at this moment. One
18 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar just informed me that P386 has been
20 admitted already. I have to verify that it was still appearing on my
21 list, but already for the parties to be informed. P395, I think, has to
22 wait for a witness still to be called. Then in relation to P396, the
23 Office of the Prosecution has asked for it to make an oral application
24 and the same would be true for P397; is that correct?
25 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then you have an opportunity to make that
3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, on the 28th of April, 2010 just prior
4 to the commencement of Mr. Jordash's cross-examination of General
5 Milovanovic, I elicited from the witness some foundational information
6 regarding charts he filled out during his review of two binders. One
7 binder contained 14 documents, and one binder contained 40 documents.
8 With these two binders, the Prosecution attempts to put before the
9 Chamber, in an efficient way, some evidence related to reports that were
10 received by Mr. Stanisic and the state security department related to
11 events in Bosnia
12 directly relevant to the Chamber's adjudication of the indictment in this
13 case. The Prosecution seeks to do two things with these documents.
14 First, with respect to the set of 14 documents the witness
15 reviewed, now marked as P396 for identification, the Prosecution seeks to
16 adduce 14 documents specifically addressed to Mr. Stanisic or the state
17 security service. It is the Prosecution's case that these 14 documents
18 are a mere sample of the larger set of documents sent to Mr. Stanisic.
19 Further, that by having this representative sample in evidence,
20 the Chamber can assess in general terms the frequency of such reports and
21 the level of detail they contained. So with respect to these 14
22 documents, the Prosecution tenders not only the chart filled out by
23 General Milovanovic, but the 14 documents referred to by 65 ter number in
24 that chart. All of these documents have been provided by the government
25 of Serbia
1 security service. We have combined them into a single exhibit so that
2 should the Chamber admit these documents and prefer that they bear a
3 single exhibit number, such can be done. I note that the different dates
4 on the documents still allow them to be distinguished within a composite
5 exhibit if necessary.
6 With respect to what is now marked as P397 for identification,
7 this is a chart recording General Milovanovic's assessment of a binder
8 containing 40 documents. His conclusion regarding these documents is
9 that 39 of them are authentic and one, designated as number 39 on the
10 list, was of such a poor quality reproduction that he is unable to make a
11 determination as to its authenticity. The chart he filled out with his
12 assessment contains some basic information regarding the date of the
13 document, its author, and to whom it was addressed. Again, all of these
14 documents have been provided from the government of Serbia, from its
15 state security archive. If the Chamber does admit P396 marked for
16 identification and its underlying 14 documents as a sample of the types
17 of information sent to Mr. Stanisic, the Prosecution does not consider it
18 necessary to tendering these additional 40 underlying documents but
19 simply the information regarding the date and addressee contained on the
20 chart as verified by General Milovanovic.
21 As General Milovanovic pointed out himself with respect to the
22 substance of these documents, at transcript page 4485:
23 "Their contents neither incriminates or exculpates Mr. Jovica
24 Stanisic." The Prosecution is, of course, prepared to tender the 40
25 underlying documents if required to do so. So the Prosecution would
1 tender both of those.
2 And, finally, Your Honour, in a related manner, if you recall,
3 General Milovanovic produced a handwritten letter that -- and it may not
4 be necessary to admit this into evidence as he has read the entire text
5 of the letter into the record at transcript pages 4483 to 4485 but I did
6 want to bring that to the attention of the Chamber should the Chamber
7 consider it necessary to have the actual letter written in his hand
8 tendered as an exhibit or admitted as an exhibit in the trial. Thank
10 JUDGE ORIE: Does the Defence already want to respond or?
11 MR. JORDASH: If I may, just briefly. We agree with the
12 Prosecution's submission in relation to P396. We disagree with the
13 Prosecution's submission in relation to 397 insofar as we submit that the
14 faulty document should be exhibited for the same reason as put forward in
15 relation to P396. They demonstrate the type of information which
16 Mr. Stanisic was receiving or may have been receiving, and as such, we
17 would like to make submissions in due course as to the paucity of that
18 information based upon the contents of P397.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It's not entirely clear to me, Mr. Jordash, you say
20 396, that is the chart plus the underlying documents which are attached
21 should be admitted. And do we understand -- do I understand you well,
22 did you say 397 should be admitted with all the 40 underlying documents
23 attached to it?
24 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes, it's the contents which
25 demonstrate the detail that was being communicated.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic. Mr. Petrovic, is there anything you
2 would like to submit?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Does this mean that you agree with Mr. Jordash or
5 that you agree with Mr. Groome?
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] This means, Your Honours, that we
7 do not have a particular position on that matter and we leave it in your
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, any problem in following the suggestion
10 by Mr. Jordash apart from the paper spent on it?
11 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour, just one clarification. There is
12 one document that General Milovanovic could not authentic. Is
13 Mr. Jordash agreeing that despite that, that document should also be
15 MR. JORDASH: No, I'm not.
16 MR. GROOME: My only final question to the Chamber would be,
17 would the Chamber wish us to prepare -- if the Chamber adopts that
18 proposal, would the Chamber wish us to prepare single exhibits containing
19 a composite of all of the documents underlying?
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, the Chamber does not insist on providing
22 separate exhibit numbers to all of them, so P396 would be the chart with
23 14 documents attached to it, and then P397 would also be a chart and then
24 39 documents to be attached to it. P397 has already been uploaded in the
25 way you have described it with attachments?
1 MR. GROOME: 396 has, Your Honour. 397 has not.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, I misspoke. So P396, no reason for any
3 protective measures in relation to the underlying documents?
4 MR. GROOME: I believe there is, Your Honour. These are all
5 documents from the government of Serbia.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So P396 should be admitted into evidence under
7 seal, that is a chart listing and 14 documents attached. Whereas, you'll
8 then upload a new P397 with 39 documents to be attached.
9 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And in view of the positions of the parties,
11 the Chamber will then admit P397 with -- including the 39 documents under
13 MR. GROOME: And, Your Honour, then the final matter is the
14 handwritten note. Since it relates to those 40 document, the Chamber may
15 find it expeditious for us also to combine that into P397 or again since
16 it's all read into the record, maybe the Chamber decides it's not
18 JUDGE ORIE: I don't think it's necessary to have it included in
19 the evidence. It's in the record.
20 MR. GROOME: Well, then the only other thing that I would ask
21 since it is an original document provided, the Chamber should -- how
22 would it be disposed of or.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then, if you make that part of P397 that would be
24 fine, and could you inform Madam Registrar as soon as you've uploaded it,
25 and the Chamber will then be informed about it so, we have an opportunity
1 to verify what is uploaded and what we find we have admitted.
2 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'll stay away from P426 at this moment. P444
4 to P468. That is a large series, will be bar tabled. 25 documents per
5 diem, JATD payment lists. I then come to P473. A written decision will
6 follow on the admission of P473, and that will be a decision in which
7 also P179 will be dealt with.
8 Then I move on to D3. D3 is an Official Note of Emil Cakalic.
9 The authenticity was contested. On the 19th of February the Chamber has
10 instructed the parties to sit together and see whether admissions of
11 portions of the Milosevic transcript could remedy the objections. I
12 think we have not heard since then from the parties.
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just as a preliminary matter, I was
14 unable to check earlier today, but I'm not sure whether the person you've
15 mentioned had protective measures.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then should be redacted.
17 Now, is it true that a proposal has been sent by the OTP but that
18 the Defence has not responded yet, is that the situation where we find
19 ourselves in at this moment?
20 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. The Prosecution made a specific
21 proposal on the 2nd of March, 2010.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we hear from the Defence whether they
23 have already considered the proposal.
24 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just to correct the record, because
25 there was an objection by the Simatovic team that the correspondence was
1 simply sent to the Simatovic Defence, particularly Mr. Bakrac.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at this moment I do
4 not have information about that. It is very possible that we have not
5 stated our position on that, and I apologise both to you, Your Honours,
6 and to our colleagues, but I do remember the document. I remember that
7 we discussed the document in great detail at the last housekeeping
8 session, and I believe that the arguments that we presented on that
9 occasion do not call for any interpretations. However, we adhere to what
10 we stated at our housekeeping session which was held in February.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Now, let me try to understand you. Do you say that
12 your position is unchanged, or?
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, unfortunately, I need
14 a couple of minutes. It was our oversight that we did not state our
15 opinion in writing. We thought that what was stated orally last time was
16 enough. If you would allow me a couple of minutes, I would be able to
17 come back to the issue after consulting my documents.
18 MR. GROOME: Your Honour --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me be clear. I think that it was on the 19th of
20 February during a housekeeping session that we instructed how to proceed
21 and how to exchange your views, so now to say that it's still the same,
22 that of course, was expected to have some follow-up.
23 Mr. Petrovic, if you could provide Mr. Groome an answer within
24 five days from now and we'll hear from the parties.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, Mr. Hoffmann has been able to confirm
1 that Mr. Cakalic did not have any protective measures in the Milosevic
2 case, so.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then the request for redaction can be withdrawn.
4 Mr. Petrovic, you inform the Prosecution and then the Chamber
5 will be informed about it.
6 Then I'll not deal with D13 at this moment. D14 under seal. I
7 think, first of all, that a new English translation has been uploaded,
8 and the Registrar is instructed to replace the old translation by the new
9 one. The position of the Prosecution was that they -- that there were
10 some doubts as to the probative value of that document and that no weight
11 should be given to the document, and if it would be admitted, that the
12 Prosecution would like to tender two annexed documents.
13 Does the Chamber understand, Mr. Groome, that if you are allowed
14 to tender these or if you -- if these two documents would be tendered and
15 then would be admitted, that you would have no further objections any
16 more to D14 in itself?
17 MR. GROOME: I must confess that D14 did not come up in our
18 search of ringtail. It looks like it's a court document related to
19 Mr. Lazarevic. Is that the document that?
20 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: There seems to be a mistake in e-court where it's
22 recorded as already being admitted, which apparently is a mistake, and
23 that's -- which may have caused you -- if you -- the issue is that if you
24 want to tender two related exhibits and then perhaps not object any more
25 against D14, then of course, the Chamber would have to verify whether
1 there are any objections against you to related exhibits by the Defence.
2 MR. GROOME: Can I have until tomorrow to refresh my memory, Your
3 Honour, on this?
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. And perhaps if you already seek
5 information from the Defence whether there would be any objection to the
6 exhibits you have on your mind. Then we move on -- yes.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yes, I have checked
8 the document. We will have an objection. There's no link between the
9 documents. They don't have any link with D14. D14 is an independent
10 document, self-explanatory. It does not need any further explanation or
11 being annulled by other documents offered by the Prosecutor. I don't
12 want to embark on any further analysis, but it boils down to what
13 normally is seen in the documents that the Prosecutor tenders into
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann.
16 MR. HOFFMANN: Just very briefly without repeating the arguments,
17 I just wanted to refer to the Prosecution's submission on D14 of 29 March
18 of this year where we have set out the additional documents and why they
19 should be admitted.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that was a confidential submission on the 29th
21 of March from what I.
22 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now, apparently the issue is whether -- if a
24 question is answered in a negative sense, whether that's the final answer
25 to that question or not. That apparently seems to be the issue. The
1 Chamber would like to, of course, have a look at these two other
2 documents before it can decide on whether they are related or not.
3 Mr. Petrovic, if you would like to make any further submissions
4 apart from the ones you've just made, then -- but perhaps, Mr. Groome, it
5 was not on your list, you are not fully prepared, perhaps if you briefly
6 discuss it with the Defence if you would provide the Chamber with a copy
7 of the two documents so that we know what we are deciding upon. Yes.
8 MR. HOFFMANN: The documents are attached to that filing, Your
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then I missed that and we'll -- my request,
11 therefore, is moot. We'll have a look at the filing.
12 Then I move on. D14 remains on the list for the time being.
13 D34, there is -- there was an issue of the Prosecutor providing related
14 documents to D34, and once those documents were received, then the
15 Simatovic Defence would explain the relevance of D34 and knowledge of the
16 documents provided by the Prosecution.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by your leave, we
18 had correspondence with our friends from the Prosecution, and we are
19 talking about D34, which is an a ID of a person. We agreed for that
20 document to be admitted and not only the one that we tendered into
21 admission through a witness, but also the other two that Mr. Hoffmann
22 tendered into admission, so I believe that we have managed to reach an
23 agreement on those documents.
24 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we earlier discussed the ID cards. We did that
1 before we started with the MFI, which also suggests that there's no
2 objection anymore against admission of D34.
3 MR. HOFFMANN: No, Your Honours, there's actually in our view no
4 link between the documents that were tendered at the earlier session and
5 this particular document. At the time being, we did object on the note
6 of relevance. This document, and that's -- we would also ask that the
7 date in e-court be corrected, the actual date of the document is from
8 1998, so years after the indictment period, which is why we had an issue
9 with the relevance of that document, but I note that, as I said, in
10 ringtail, the document date is still incorrect.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but.
12 MR. HOFFMANN: But the objection to relevance stands.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Stands. Which means, Mr. Petrovic, that you have an
14 opportunity to explain further the relevance if you want to add anything
15 to what you submitted before.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, when talking about
17 the relevance, let me say that a number of persons have been mentioned in
18 this case. Those who belong to different formations in different times.
19 Their affiliation to different formations is something that the
20 Prosecutor wants to use in order to annul the differences between the
21 work engagement of those people, as if those people had belonged to the
22 same entity between 1991 to 2000. Our goal is to demonstrate that
23 different people in different time-periods had occupied different
24 positions, had different functions, and different affiliations; hence,
25 the relevance of this document and many other documents.
1 The Trial Chamber has to have the appropriate picture and has to
2 have the appropriate information showing that some people during certain
3 periods of time belonged to one formation and then again during other
4 periods of time they belonged to other formations, and this is very
5 relevant to demonstrate what the roles were of the people whose name
6 comes up in this courtroom very often and who are linked with the
8 And that is why I believe that this reason is not relevant and is
9 not enough to help you reach a decision. We would like things to be
10 amended in the way we have just explained now and it -- the way it was
11 explained by us before.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, any --
13 MR. HOFFMANN: Very briefly, I think if we talk about documents
14 in relation to other persons, those documents that are normally part of
15 the evidence here are documents that deal with the indictment period at
16 least in part. They may go beyond the period, but this document only
17 says that Mr. Mijovic was employed in May 1998 in the MUP of Montenegro.
18 I still don't see how this particular document sheds any light on the
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours. Your Honours.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, you have an opportunity to say
23 something, but I'll first tell you that D34 is admitted into evidence.
24 So I don't know whether there's any need to make further submissions.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then I move on to D40, that's the Karadzic/Abdic
2 declaration, and we were waiting for the OTP to investigate where the
3 original was. Mr. Groome.
4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, we were able to find a copy of it in a
5 Gazette, so it was an officially-Gazetted announcement. I provided that
6 information to the Defence the day that it came up, and the Prosecution
7 has no objection to D40 being admitted into evidence.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, has it been uploaded?
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that it
10 has been uploaded onto the system. For the document to be admitted, all
11 it takes is your decision. As soon as we received it, we uploaded it and
12 now it is only a technical -- the matter of a technical nature for the
13 document to be admitted.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you inform the Chamber that
15 D40 now has an original in the B/C/S language uploaded?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I can assist. Its 65 ter number
17 is 2D010481.
18 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
19 MR. HOFFMANN: If I can assist, Your Honour, I think the original
20 from that Gazette is actually uploaded under D40.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar confirms that the -- an original
22 Serbian version is uploaded. D40 is admitted into evidence. D53, an
23 English translation was missing, meanwhile, the Chamber has been informed
24 that the English translation has been uploaded. D53 is admitted into
25 evidence, and I take it that the English translation has found its way
1 into Exhibit Number D53.
2 D54, an English translation was also missing. The Chamber
3 understands that an English translation has not yet been provided.
4 Mr. Petrovic.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that the
6 translation is still pending. Just a moment, please bear with me.
7 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the translation may
11 be found under 65 ter 2D116, if I'm not mistaken, if my information is
12 valid. I'm talking about D54.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could we have 65 ter 2D116 on our
14 screens so that we can have a look at it. Could we look at a little bit
15 further down to the -- in the English translation. Yes, the stamp is
16 translated there as well. Yes, it seems that we have a translation now.
17 D54 --
18 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, D54 now is admitted into evidence. We go back
20 for a second to D53. Mr. Petrovic, the English translation for D53,
21 could you give us the 65 ter number for that because Madam Registrar is
22 unable to attach the translation to the original.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Your Honours.
24 Could you please bear with me.
25 MR. HOFFMANN: If I can assist, Your Honours, it's 2D115.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, 2 --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I had it on my list, it's 2D115. Now everyone seems
3 to agree. Madam Registrar, you found it? No further problems? Yes.
4 Then D53 is admitted into evidence, and D54 is also admitted into
5 evidence since both are now translated.
6 In relation to D55 and D56, these documents were tendered by the
7 Stanisic Defence. There was an issue about whether the witness had any
8 knowledge of this document. The discussion on the origin of this
9 document was still ongoing, and the Chamber would like to be informed
10 about whether there is still any dispute about the origin of the document
11 and whether there's any objection against admission.
12 MR. HOFFMANN: According to our information, I think only D55 is
13 pending for admission, while D56 was already admitted. As for D55, the
14 question on the authenticity stands, and as far as I recall, on 13 May
15 when the document was brought up, the Defence indicated that they would
16 investigate where the accused who initially provided this document to the
17 OTP even before he was indicted but when he was investigated and
18 interviewed as a suspect witness when he provided that where he got that
19 document from. And because it is undated, unsigned, unstamped, and we
20 only have the information provide by the accused, who may have had an
21 interest in providing certain documents, we had an objection which still
22 stands until we hear from the Defence about the origin of that document.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, any further information which would
24 convince the Prosecution to give up its objection or to stick with it?
25 MR. JORDASH: The entire information first, Your Honour, that we
1 may be mistaken, but D56 hasn't been admitted but is MFI'd along with
2 D55. That's.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That's what my list tells me as well.
4 MR. HOFFMANN: That's correct. I think we missed it because
5 actually in ringtail if we look for D56 we don't even find any entry at
6 this moment, which is why it wasn't appearing on other list, but I
7 checked the record, it was marked for identification on 13 May of
8 transcript 4898.
9 MR. JORDASH: And the second point I can address briefly, we
10 haven't as yet clarified with the client as to the origins of the
11 document, the problem we have is we have documents in Belgrade and the
12 client here, and so it's difficult for the client to remember everything
13 or remember the filing system set up in Belgrade.
14 JUDGE ORIE: But it seems that he wants to speak to you,
15 Mr. Jordash.
16 MR. JORDASH: I didn't realise, thank you.
17 [Defence counsel and Stanisic accused confer]
18 MR. JORDASH: The simple answer, Your Honour, is, and one which
19 we undoubtedly will repeat is that the document came from within the
20 service. Mr. Stanisic remained with the document after he left the
21 service, and it may be that we cannot take the matter much further
22 despite the Prosecution's objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Unless there are any originals still with the
24 service and that could be --
25 MR. JORDASH: What I can --
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- verified. Often documents are stored and at the
2 same time if you have a private copy of it, often there's a copy
3 somewhere else.
4 MR. JORDASH: Certainly. What I can do is ensure that we check
5 for the original, and in the absence of finding the original, check with
6 the national council as to whether an original exists and come back to
7 Your Honours in due course.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we leave D55 and D56 as they are.
9 D58, there was a translation missing. Has that translation
10 meanwhile been produced and uploaded, Mr. Petrovic?
11 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, if I just may, at one point on D56
12 and also D58, I think they are completely not uploaded yet in e-court, so
13 we have not even the original as it seems. And I think D56 was, in fact,
14 handed out in hard copy, but if we search for both D56 and D58, I don't
15 see any record in ringtail.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Now, D58 is a 2D document, whereas D55 and D56 are
17 1D. There's a first Defence team documents. Now, it may well be that
18 everything is missing in e-court, but.
19 MR. HOFFMANN: If we are talking about exhibit numbers, I think
20 we have no 1 or 2D exhibits, we just have D Exhibits.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No, I know that, but I can see on my list whether it
22 comes from the Stanisic Defence or the Simatovic Defence. I have the
23 impression that D55 and D56 were tendered by the Stanisic Defence whereas
24 D58 was -- now, D55 and D56 still if they are not uploaded or D56, then
25 it will be done, I take it.
1 MR. JORDASH: It will be done by the end of the week. I
2 apologise for that oversight.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. D58. Is there nothing uploaded there?
4 Nothing. Mr. Petrovic, before we even can discuss -- further can discuss
5 admission of D58, please take care that both the original and an English
6 translation are uploaded.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't have
8 information about that here, however I'll try and establish what the
9 whole thing is about, and of course, we'll abide by your words.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We have not yet completely dealt with the whole of
11 the MFI list, but we have eight minutes left, and there's one urgent
12 matter which I would like to raise in private session. We move into
13 private session.
14 [Private session]
11 Pages 5329-5335 redacted. Private session.
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. We adjourn and we
24 resume tomorrow, the 26th of May, quarter past 2.00 in Courtroom II.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.11 p.m.
1 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 26th day of May,
2 2010, at 2.15 p.m.