1 Wednesday, 29 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused not present]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone in and around the this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
9 everyone in and around the courtroom.
10 This is the case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus
11 Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
13 I'd first like to put on the record that two declarations of
14 waiver of the right to be present for both accused were received and were
15 filed. Therefore, we'll proceed in the absence of both accused.
16 The next item which does not appear on the agenda you may have
17 received is the matter of the draft medical protocol. It primarily
18 concerns the Stanisic Defence.
19 I don't know whether you want to proceed in open session,
20 Mr. Jordash, or whether you would prefer to proceed in closed session.
21 The first question is that since you've received it only very recently,
22 whether you want to make any submissions on what is still very much a
23 draft of a protocol which is considered in the context of exploring
24 possibilities. So there is no definitive status of it, but I do not know
25 whether you want to make any observations at this moment or whether you'd
1 like to delay that.
2 MR. JORDASH: May I delay that until tomorrow or Friday. I think
3 tomorrow --
4 JUDGE ORIE: We're not sitting -- if we finish today, we'll not
5 sit on --
6 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, no. And if I can make the submissions
7 by e-mail or by formal response.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps if you make a -- I don't know what the
9 content will be, but you can make it a confidential filing.
10 The reason why I pushed it -- we hoped, as a matter of fact, to
11 present it to you already at an earlier stage, but there were some
12 problems involved which -- which didn't allow us to bring it to your
13 attention any earlier. Important is that now you've seen the draft that
14 perhaps you already include that in any discussions you may have with the
15 Republic of Serbia
16 orientation it might assist, because you may have noticed that it's also
17 slightly different from the usual conditions.
18 Further, if you look at it, and without inviting you now to -- to
19 make further submissions, but if this finally would be adopted or a
20 similar thing would be adopted, then it might be -- in order to make it
21 work, it might be good if there would be a written waiver of
22 patient/doctor privilege, because in the system there's a monitoring
23 system in which we expect all doctors to give all information they have
24 if need be. Then, of course, especially if you're not in a position
25 which is still a possibility to give that waiver at that moment, then
1 it's -- I think it would be good to have already a written waiver in
2 advance. And I'd like you to consider that already, apart from any other
3 observations you may have.
4 MR. JORDASH: Certainly. Having quickly read it, I doubt we will
5 have any observations, but --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We will then -- we'll hear from you.
7 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd like to move into private session.
9 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
22 As the parties may be aware, there are some difficulties with the
23 functioning of Courtroom II, which requires some flexibility and some
24 adaptation by the Trial Chambers. Initially it looked as if we could not
25 sit next week Tuesday; that's the 5th. But the situation has now
1 changed, and we can sit on Tuesday the 5th, however, not in the afternoon
2 but only in the morning. Therefore, the 5th of October session will be
3 in the morning, not in the afternoon.
4 Any comments on -- then I move on to the next point, which is the
5 bar table motion.
6 The Stanisic Defence has indicated by -- in an e-mail of the
7 23rd of September, an e-mail addressed to the parties and to the Chamber,
8 that it will file a detailed written response to the bar table motion by
9 Friday, the 1st of October.
10 Is that still to be expected, Mr. Jordash?
11 MR. JORDASH: I think what we intended to say, and I think this
12 was -- we apologise for this, we intended to say that we would file a
13 response with the Prosecution by Friday.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's how I'd understood. And then your
15 response would be worked into the spreadsheet so that I think that we
16 would expect the spreadsheet to be filed not later than the
17 6th of October.
18 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I was going to ask for a slightly
19 longer period, but only by a few days. If we could have until Wednesday
20 next to file that response. There are a lot of documents, and there's
21 been a lot to go through on other issues, and we are running a bit late,
22 but we are on the way, and we can certainly have it done by Wednesday.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Wednesday would be the 6th of October?
24 Because the Chamber had on its mind --
25 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, we noticed that the Prosecution has
2 developed great skills in working in your comments in their spreadsheets.
3 If it's delivered in such a way that it's a matter of copying, then we
4 could still perhaps then have the spreadsheet being filed on the
5 6th of October, which was, as a matter of fact, the deadline the Chamber
6 had in mind.
7 MR. WEBER: Adam Weber on behalf of the Prosecution.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Weber.
9 MR. WEBER: That can be done. It would be helpful if the
10 spreadsheet could arrive with the Prosecution in the earlier portion of
11 the day, and it would also be helpful if we could get the
12 Simatovic Defence comments.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Noon
14 MR. WEBER: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, you indicated that you would finish
16 that job Friday. You'll have until Wednesday noon. And then the
17 Prosecutor will import all your comments into the spreadsheet.
18 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I haven't heard -- we haven't heard any
20 commitment from the Simatovic Defence.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, we
22 wish to do the same, to forward our complete submission by Wednesday,
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, working in two responses doesn't take
25 much more time than on response, does it?
1 MR. WEBER: It can be done.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but may I take it that you'll organise it in
3 such a way that you deliver your comments in the most -- I would say in
4 the -- in such a format that it will take as little time as possible for
5 Mr. Weber to work it into the spreadsheet?
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if the Prosecution receives it in a
7 similar table that we provided in a Word format, we can do it.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll proceed. And the Chamber sets a
9 deadline for the Defences to provide their information to the Prosecution
10 at Wednesday, the 6th of October, at noon. And we expect the table to be
11 filed on that same day.
12 The next item on my agenda is the report of Robert Donia. The
13 Defence wished to -- to make submissions on it.
14 Do you prefer to do that orally or in writing, Mr. Jordash?
15 MR. JORDASH: It would probably be most efficient to do it in
16 writing in the first instance. I had intended to indicate to the
17 Prosecution precisely which paragraphs we object to. They relate to one
18 chapter of the report, the "Conduct of War" chapter. And it may be, once
19 we've indicated that - and I could indicate that in the next half an hour
20 - that we may be able to come to an agreement and save court time.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So if there's no disagreement, you would prefer to
22 make your submissions in writing?
23 MR. JORDASH: The submissions -- either way, Your Honour.
24 They're very short submissions about relevance of excerpts relating to
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I also hear from the Simatovic Defence
2 what their position is.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I recollect
4 correctly, I don't think we had any objections in this part, hence I
5 believe this item on the agenda only has to do with the Stanisic Defence.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear then. I suggest the following: That
7 during the first break, Mr. Jordash, that you briefly confer with the
8 Prosecution, that you see whether the problems can be resolved. If not,
9 it will depend on the time available after the break whether we'll invite
10 you to make those oral submissions or whether we would invite you to make
11 written submissions. You say they'll be very short. Could you give us a
12 more precise indication of --
13 MR. JORDASH: Ten minutes, I think, from the Defence perspective.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ten minutes. And would that also mean that if we do
15 not find time today, and I would not convene another session tomorrow
16 just merely for this, that -- well, let's see, you're busy with the
17 bar table until Wednesday, that we could receive your brief submissions
18 not any later than next week Friday? Is that ...
19 Okay. So you try to seek a solution. We'll see whether we have
20 time today. If not, you'll have filed your submissions by
21 Friday, the 7th of October.
22 MR. JORDASH: 8th, I think.
23 JUDGE ORIE: 8th. Yes. Yes. Tuesday's the 5th. The 8th, yes.
24 By Friday, the 8th of October.
25 We now move into private session.
1 [Private session]
11 Pages 7507-7539 redacted. Private session.
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
3 The Donia report. Any agreement in that respect?
4 MR. JORDASH: No agreement as such. We've indicated the
5 paragraphs. And if there's time, I could make very quick general
6 submissions on -- on the report.
7 JUDGE ORIE: If you do not mind, we'll leave that to the end. I
8 see how quickly or slowly we're moving on. We have already a date set if
9 there's no time for the submissions.
10 MR. JORDASH: And we've spoken to Mr. Groome. We're quite happy
11 to do it by -- in writing as well.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Under those circumstances, the Chamber prefers then
14 to receive them in writing, not later than the 8th of October. That was
15 the -- yes. I know that that's a Friday.
16 Yes. Which reminds me that I don't think, as a matter of fact,
17 that the Donia report has received -- has been assigned a number. Could
18 the parties assist me in giving the 65 ter number. It has been filed as
19 an expert report, and to that extent it's part of the record, but it has
20 not received an exhibit number.
21 MR. JORDASH: 5396.
22 JUDGE ORIE: 5396. Madam Registrar, that should be a report by
23 Mr. Robert Donia.
24 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P1483, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: P1483 is marked for identification pending a
1 decision on admission.
2 We move on. The -- there is a missing document associated to
3 Mr. Deronjic's evidence, which is a pending issue. Now, I do not know
4 whether we have to move into private session for that or not, Mr. Groome,
5 but the Chamber would like to hear, as requested on the 22nd of September
6 by you, to hear oral submissions on the matter.
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I don't believe we need to be in
8 private session for this matter.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't know what you're going to say.
10 MR. GROOME: I don't believe so.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then you're invited to make your oral submissions.
12 MR. GROOME: Are we in open is session now, Your Honour?
13 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session at this moment.
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, 65 ter 1684 was part of the original
15 Prosecution 65 ter list filed on the 2nd of April, 2007. Despite the
16 fact that this is a 92 quater related exhibit associated with the
17 evidence of Miroslav Deronjic, it was inadvertently omitted from the
18 Prosecution 65 ter list filed on 1st of May, 2009. The corrigendum to
19 the 92 quater motion for Mr. Deronjic, which was filed on the
20 7th of October, 2009, lists 65 ter 1684 among the related exhibits. This
21 is purely a clerical error, and the Prosecution moves to reinstate the
22 document to its 65 ter list.
23 JUDGE ORIE: We are exclusively talking about adding it to the --
24 or re-introducing it to the 65 ter list.
25 Any objections?
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, given that a key
2 issue was not resolved in relation to 92 quater, anything in relation to
3 the witness that is requested under that Rule is something that we
4 strongly object to. Anything that has to do with the testimony that is
5 sought to be tendered cannot be dealt with in such a way. I believe our
6 objection should stand and that there be no admittance of the testimony
7 of those 92 quater witnesses. Anything that would be introduced through
8 that procedure is something that this Defence would object to.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What I do not fully see is how that justifies
10 not to add it to the 65 ter list. I mean, it would be an associated
11 exhibit, and it would, as an associated exhibit to be dealt with in close
12 connection with -- of course, the main issue. But we would have to do
13 it -- to go through the same route twice but then for a separate
14 document. So therefore it's not entirely clear to me, but -- I see that
15 you object against admission of the Deronjic evidence under
16 Rule 92 quater. That's clear. And this decision, I would say, is -- I
17 can't say fully unrelated to, but of course nothing is lost if it's added
18 to the 65 ter list where it will find a place close to -- to the Deronjic
19 testimony, and that's -- of course, will be considered in connection with
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, our position is that
22 of principle. Of course you are correct, but that way of introducing
23 anything that has to do with it -- well, I understand that this does not
24 prejudice your decision, but any kind of that type of procedure is
25 something we strongly object to on principle grounds. It is up to you to
1 decide whether that document will be reinstated onto the 65 ter list. I
2 just wanted to make our position clear for the record.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
4 MR. JORDASH: We -- we understand the concerns of the Simatovic
5 team. On the other hand, we also acknowledge what Your Honour has said
6 about there being no prejudice, and therefore we take no position.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The only prejudice possible is whether you
8 have got sufficient notice. Now, if we do not admit the evidence, that
9 is, of course, a totally different matter. The 65 ter list is there in
10 order to avoid surprises, and that's, of course -- that's the issue which
11 is now at stake, rather than anything else, and not a fundamental
12 discussion on admission.
13 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Leave is granted to add 65 ter 1684 to the
16 65 ter list without -- this in -- not in any way anticipates the decision
17 of this Chamber on the admission into evidence of the evidence given by
18 Mr. Deronjic under Rule 92 quater.
19 The next item is -- yes. That's -- that's the item I confused
20 earlier with -- the payment records.
21 The Chamber asked the Prosecution to file a completed spreadsheet
22 table by today, I think at noon
23 On -- to be filed on Tuesday. That was done. I've seen that. The
24 Stanisic observations are included now in that table.
25 There appears to be no response from the Simatovic Defence, so
1 therefore at this moment nothing is found in this chart as relation to
2 possible objections from the Simatovic Defence.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may. In the
4 accompanying submission, our learned friend stated our position which we
5 provided at page 5154 of the transcript. Our position vis-à-vis these
6 documents have to do with probative value. We will, accordingly,
7 argument our position in the procedure in the latter course of these
9 JUDGE ORIE: Do you mean to say that you do not object admission
10 at this moment, but that you'll -- at a later stage you will argue that
11 they are without probative value?
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which would be -- if they really are without,
14 it would be an admissibility problem as well, because we're supposed to
15 admit evidence which has at least some probative value. But you'd rather
16 say it has no weight?
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is difficult to
18 say at this moment. It is beyond dispute that they were received from
19 the state based on an RFA, and it is not in dispute that they are
20 authentic. It is therefore difficult to analyse it any further from this
21 position. I'm afraid I cannot argument our position objecting to their
22 admission right away. However, once we have studied it all, we will
23 appropriately deal with all the aspects of that matter.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This is all rather vague in terms of time.
25 Clearly, do you at this moment oppose admission, apart from whether that
1 you'll argue at a later stage that it's --
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And we find the position of the Stanisic Defence on
4 the chart by now? Yes.
5 Then I have a few more questions. I think that the chart now
6 exists of 56 exhibits in total, of which 25 have already exhibit numbers,
7 but there are still quite a number without. So before we'll deal with
8 the matter first, we have to get our administrative activities well
10 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I sent an e-mail to your legal
11 officers yesterday indicating that we'd like to develop our submissions
12 if we may, especially in light of the Prosecution's submissions in the
13 joint filing. We hadn't expected the Prosecution to put partisan
14 submissions in the filing above and beyond that which was in the table,
15 and we would like to address the issue of notice in relation to these
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think -- I can imagine that you're
18 specifically concerned about being blamed for now taking a position which
19 you supposedly had given up already at an earlier stage.
20 MR. JORDASH: Indeed.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That's part of it. How much time would you need?
22 MR. JORDASH: I think I could complete the submissions in ten
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ten minutes. We'll do hear this -- Mr. Weber.
25 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution would just ask leave,
1 then, to have the opportunity to respond to the submissions made by the
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I -- I put the ten-minute submissions on my
4 list. If we find time today, without violating the fundamental rights of
5 interpreters, transcribers, et cetera, you will have an opportunity to do
6 that. And then Mr. Weber can respond to that. If we do not find it
7 today, apparently I've prepared it that you're -- then you're invited,
8 since we're not sitting -- or most likely when we're sitting the 4th and
9 the 5th we might not find time to do these kind of things. And instead
10 of calling another session tomorrow, it's either ten minutes today or the
11 8th of October, that same Friday. But if you want until the 10th or
12 11th, then -- but apparently you have prepared for it already.
13 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. I would still, I think, prefer
14 to have the 10th or the 11th if we don't get to it today.
15 JUDGE ORIE: The 11th, Mr. Jordash, which is a Tuesday.
16 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if I may.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. WEBER: Just in terms of facilitating scheduling, the
19 Prosecution right now, based on the comments in chart and the expected
20 arguments by the Stanisic Defence, would also approximate 10 minutes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. So I have -- if we don't have
22 20 minutes left today, then we will leave it as it is.
23 MR. JORDASH: I was only -- I was leaping to my feet because I'm
24 responding to the Prosecution's submissions. And I don't want to be
25 overly technical about and insist upon --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's see. Most likely -- most likely we
2 find no time for it anyhow because we have this still long MFI list. And
3 then you can write, as long as you stay within the limits of the practice
4 direction for filings.
5 Let's be -- let's move on. The next item is the testimony of
6 Mr. Theunens, which I have on my list. He's now scheduled, as matters
7 stand now, the end of October.
8 The Prosecution has announced that it will timely provide B/C/S
9 audio files of the Theunens -- of the testimony he's expected to give in
10 the Sljivancanin case in order to be in compliance with Rule 66(A)(ii)
11 which imposes an obligation to provide the other party with statements of
13 It will take some time, you say. Could you give an indication,
14 Mr. Groome, as what "some time" means?
15 MR. GROOME: I don't know, Your Honour. It's a matter that's
16 outside of our control. We will speak with the director assigned that
17 day and see if it's possible to at the same moment create a copy that we
18 can then provide. The issue that I wanted to raise is it seems clear to
19 me that both accused speak English. I've spoken to the appeals counsel
20 on this matter. The Appeals Chamber has allocated one hour for
21 Prosecution and for Defence for questioning Mr. Theunens, and his
22 evidence relates to Vukovar and Ovcara, matters not concerned with this
23 case. So my question was whether the -- the Defence teams would accept
24 the English transcription, whether their clients would agree to read the
25 English in lieu of the tape, and we will, of course, pursue -- attempt to
1 get the tape as soon as we can.
2 The other possibility that occurred to me is that arrangements
3 could be made so that the two accused can actually watch the proceedings
4 via the videolink that's already established, and that way they could
5 also hear it in their own language prior to --
6 JUDGE ORIE: It seems a very practical solution, especially when
7 it's expected that the relevance of what Mr. Theunens will testify about
8 may be very limited for our case. And I do not know whether the other
9 parties share that view, but --
10 MR. JORDASH: I'm not sure we share the view that what
11 Mr. Theunens will say in that case will be of limited relevance. I
12 recall the Prosecution's position in relation to Vukovar being that the
13 indictment alleges forcible transfer in Vukovar. In fact, the
14 Prosecution have insisted, constantly insisted, upon leading evidence
15 relating to that.
16 Your Honours will recall the evidence led --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let's be very practical. You disagree with the
18 Prosecution in that respect. Now, if we're talking about solutions,
19 what -- would it be sufficient for two hours of evidence -- would you
20 prefer to have the your clients - and I'm also addressing Mr. Bakrac and
21 Mr. Petrovic - to have an opportunity for your clients to follow the
22 proceedings? And that would be possible in -- in B/C/S also or just in
23 English? I take it B/C/S would also be one of the channels that could be
24 received in the UNDU.
25 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Direct --
2 MR. JORDASH: Certainly, yes, please.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that on the 12th of -- 12th of October,
4 where we do not expect Mr. Theunens to testify any earlier than the very
5 end of October, what would you further need if a B/C/S transcript would
6 not be immediate -- B/C/S audio would not be available immediately?
7 MR. JORDASH: May I just inquire as to whether the position is
8 that the B/C/S tape would not be available before Mr. Theunens came in
9 this case, which is a full 13 days --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I take it that it will be there in a couple
11 of days but not on the 12th itself.
12 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I'm quite confident it will be
13 available before. I just -- I don't know how much time the two accused
14 would like to review it and then instruct their counsel, and that's why I
15 made this proposal.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. JORDASH: I don't -- I think the proposal seems to be a good
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: You will receive immediately the English version.
22 The accused will have an opportunity - this is to be organised, of
23 course, with the United Nations Detection Unit - to follow the
24 proceedings in Sljivancanin in their own language. And then as soon as
25 the B/C/S audio would be available, it could be provided, but then the
1 time pressure is less.
2 MR. JORDASH: Yes. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Petrovic, your position?
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is acceptable
5 for us as well, but I think that the tape would probably be available a
6 couple of days later, at least that is what happened in the previous --
7 in previous cases. So in this matter, I think that we don't expect to
8 have any major problems or objections.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's what the Chamber likes to hear.
10 We move on to the -- everything is said about this, Mr. Groome, I
11 take it?
12 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I just query whether the Chamber
13 wishes the Prosecution to explore that with the Detention Unit or will
14 the Chamber instruct the Registrar to make some inquiries?
15 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to ask the Registry to first explore
16 the possibility to inform you, and I think it can be dealt with. And if
17 they need your assistance, they'll let you know.
18 Mr. Jordash.
19 MR. JORDASH: May I also raise at this stage, in relation to
20 Mr. Theunens, that having got further into preparation for that witness,
21 I think our original estimate may have been somewhat conservative. I
22 think I said to Your Honour during the informal meeting that we would
23 require between five to ten hours of cross-examination time. I cannot,
24 having looked at the report further, imagine cross-examining Mr. Theunens
25 for less than around eight hours and more likely in excess of ten hours,
1 up to 15. I indicate that now. I've made inquiries with the Prosecution
2 about Mr. Theunens' availability the week after, and we await for the
3 results of that inquiry. I thought I'd better raise that so that there's
4 no --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would please keep the Chamber informed
6 about it. I think the first one who becomes unhappy is the boss of
7 Mr. Theunens rather than anyone in this courtroom, at this moment at
8 least. I'm not saying that that will remain the same.
9 And as always, Mr. Jordash -- first of all, it's good that you
10 already announce that this might be a witness which requires more time
11 than usual and to give an indication of that. Second, the Chamber always
12 carefully monitor how time in cross-examination is used in order to
13 finally determine how to proceed and how many time finally will be
15 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
16 Yes, Mr. Bakrac.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that it would
18 probably be useful to know what the estimate is from our team. I looked
19 at a large number of documents from the Croatian collection, which has to
20 do with documents that are being admitted through this expert, and I
21 think that the presenting of those documents will take a lot of time. So
22 our Defence will probably need between eight to ten hours also.
23 Of course, if it's still too early to be able to make some kind
24 of agreement and to work out things at this point in time, but if
25 Mr. Jordash were to cover the majority of the topics, then that would
1 shorten our time. But I would kindly ask that you reserve as much time
2 for our team as well.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It has two elements. First of all, whether
4 the Chamber grants such time for cross-examination. That's -- we can't
5 say anything about that at this very moment.
6 The second is that Mr. Groome should take this into account for
7 further scheduling and preparing for calling witnesses.
8 That's -- these are the two items. And you're more or less the
9 last one in line, Mr. Groome.
10 We move on. The first joint motion for admission of agreed facts
11 between the Prosecution and the Stanisic Defence which was filed on the
12 16th of February.
13 The Prosecution requests the admission into evidence of Annex A
14 to that motion. The matter has been further discussed. The
15 Stanisic Defence has filed the Stanisic Defence assent on the
16 22nd of February. The issue was further discussed in court on the
17 25th of May. And on the 2nd of June of 2010, the Chamber has declared
18 the crime-based part -- the Croatian crime-based part moot. That was
19 because most of the evidence was already admitted through Witnesses Pilic
20 and Strinovic.
21 Now, the Trial Chamber then invited for a joint filing, and the
22 Chamber would like to receive that filing -- well, let's see,
23 Stanisic Defence apparently is ready. Simatovic Defence has never
24 presented its position on the matter, although it's pending for quite a
25 long time.
1 When do you think you could provide your positions to the
2 Prosecution so as to prepare for a joint filing?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we're doing our
4 utmost. But in the coming couple of weeks, there's a whole lot of things
5 that we need to do, including meet our administrative obligations
6 vis-à-vis the secretariat relating to the end-of-stage report, but we
7 will kindly ask that this deadline be some seven days after the testimony
8 of expert witness Theunens. We are able to undertake that commitment,
9 that we will be able to meet this obligation of ours in that deadline
10 seven days after the testimony.
11 Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, first of all, we do not know exactly when
13 the testimony will be. Second, you both announced that you would take
14 considerable more time, well, let's say 20 hours in addition to the
15 Prosecution's time. We are close to Christmas if -- we have to cancel
16 the ordering of our turkeys for Christmas if it -- I had on my mind,
17 Mr. Petrovic, to grant three weeks. I'm willing to extend that so that
18 you have five weeks from now, which means that you have time to prepare
19 for Mr. Theunens, most likely, if he testifies at the end of October, but
20 at the same time we're for the going to wait necessarily until he has
21 finished his testimony, also in view of all the uncertainties. Five
22 weeks, would that do?
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Five weeks is sufficient, yes.
24 Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, I didn't ask you because agreed facts
1 you rather know them at the beginning of the trial rather than at the
3 Any comments in this respect?
4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just -- I just wanted to return to the
5 scheduling of Mr. Theunens. On that week that he's scheduled to testify,
6 the Court is scheduled to sit two days. The Prosecution would request,
7 given the new estimate, if it were possible for the Chamber to explore
8 having hearings for an additional two days. We are off -- there's a
9 UN holiday on the 25th, the Monday of that week, but if we were able to
10 sit for the remaining days of that week.
11 I do know Mr. Theunens does have the scheduling problems that
12 were discussed at length at our informal meeting. I know it will be his
13 preference to do this all in one week. We will, of course, explore other
14 options, but it would be very helpful if we were able to sit additional
15 hearings that week.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Now, just for my information, you scheduled
17 Mr. Theunens for how many hours again? Four hours, which I considered
18 certainly not too pessimistic.
19 MR. GROOME: That was our original estimate, and Your Honour will
20 recall we --
21 JUDGE ORIE: You reduced that --
22 MR. GROOME: We think that we will be substantially reducing
23 that. It depends on some of the negotiations with Defence with respect
24 to some of the exhibits.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then we have -- well, two times eight to
1 ten hours. Depending on how that would be, another 16 to 20 hours,
2 24 hours. 24 hours of evidence doesn't fit in four days. Even -- even
3 if we would agree to four days a week, whereas we actually did agree to
4 three days a week, we do not know -- there are quite a bit of
5 uncertainties, but I do not see how we could -- if we would grant the
6 request of the Defence, how we could fit 20 hours or more in one week,
7 because in our calculations, it's three and a half effective hours a day,
8 and if we are very efficient, we can make that close to four.
9 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I don't suggest that it would --
10 that there would be enough time to do his entire testimony. What I'm
11 simply saying, it was -- it would reduce the logistical problems he faces
12 if in that week that he appears we were able to make maximum use of the
13 time available. That would mean that he would have to request less time
14 the following week. I think that's -- if Your Honour recalls, his
15 concern was being away from his position more than one week at a time.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, we have -- we have several problems
17 there. First of all, the scheduling for the Judges in various cases.
18 That's one issue. We'll -- we'll consider it, Mr. Groome. But you also
19 are aware that where the medical experts have not said that four hours a
20 week would be impossible for Mr. Stanisic -- four days a week would not
21 be impossible for Mr. Stanisic, at the same time they said introduce that
22 gradually and slowly, and we announced that we would start with three
23 days a week. But we'll consider it. It's too early to really finally
24 form an opinion about it, but it's on the record.
25 Mr. Petrovic, you have noted your five weeks for the agreed
2 You were on your feet.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I thought that it
4 will be necessary for me to answer, but I thank you for the time
5 permitted, and we will do our best to meet our commitments in that time.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: There's one matter which still is to be put on the
10 record, and that is a request by the Stanisic Defence to be granted
11 additional time to respond to the 18th application to amend the 65 ter
13 In order to have everything clearly on the record, I'd like to
14 read from the e-mail exchanges.
15 On the 23rd of September, 2010, the Stanisic Defence mailed the
16 following message to Chambers staff:
17 "The Stanisic Defence would like to apply informally for a
18 two-week extension for our response to the Prosecution's 18th application
19 to amend its 65 ter list. The motion is sizable, complex, and requires
20 extensive work to understand its significance and impact on the trial
21 process. Currently, the Stanisic Defence is working at full capacity on
22 issues as far ranging as a 250 bar table motion and the Prosecution's
23 military expert report (500 exhibits) and have no capacity to deal with
24 the aforementioned application to add yet more evidence to the case
25 against the accused. Please would you advise whether this e-mail can
1 stand as our application to extend the usual time limits or whether we
2 need to file something formal."
3 On the 24th of September, Chamber's staff, upon instruction of
4 the Judges, answered by e-mail as follows:
5 "The Judges accept this as a filing and will, on Wednesday, the
6 29th of September, when the Chamber will hold a housekeeping session, put
7 it on the record. The Chamber would also appreciate if the other parties
8 could respond to this motion preferably before the 29th of September or
9 at the latest on the 29th of September. The Chamber will then consider
10 the motion and issue its decision."
11 Two weeks' extension. Any objections, Mr. Groome?
12 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Not -- may I take it also not from the
14 Simatovic Defence?
15 Then hereby the extension of time is granted as requested,
16 Mr. Jordash.
17 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: These were my agenda items. What I'd like to do is
19 now to move on to the MFI
20 Apparently not.
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just wanted to remind
22 you once again about Witness Kovacevic and the diary which should have
23 been provided. We don't have information whether the diary was given to
24 the office in Belgrade
25 I think the diary should have arrived some two or three weeks ago to the
2 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, I think that the latest information - I
4 think it was provided to the parties - was that where it was expected
5 that the diary would be delivered a couple of days late on a Friday that
6 when it was not received on that Friday that then the VWS tried to
7 contact the witness again and that then information was received that he
8 had left home and would be abroad or at least away from home for close to
9 two weeks. And we are constantly monitoring it, and VWS is active in
10 receiving further information. But I've got no further information for
11 you at this very moment.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you
13 very much.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If everyone's ready to start with the MFI list.
15 The first one, P18. I'd like to put on the record that in
16 relation to this BBC
17 Stanisic Defence has withdrawn its objections. Mr. Jordash, if we
18 understood you well?
19 MR. JORDASH: That's correct, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And that the Simatovic has not responded in --
21 within the time-frame that was set by the Chamber.
22 Under those circumstances, the Chamber admits P18 into evidence.
23 And the Chamber wonders whether, Mr. Groome, there is an update as to the
24 revised translation concerning, if you remember well, that somewhere I
25 think it was "Russian occupation" instead of "Turkish occupation."
1 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. The new translation is available.
2 It just needs to be organised between the Registry and Mr. Laugel with
3 respect to -- I believe it's uploaded.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It's uploaded?
5 MR. GROOME: It just needs to be replaced. Mr. Laugel informs me
6 that technically he needs -- the Chamber has to order it to be unreleased
7 or released back to the Prosecution so we can upload the corrected
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think it could have been uploaded under a
10 different 65 ter number, but let's -- the Chamber admits it into evidence
11 and grants leave to replace the original translation by the
12 newly produced one and allows all technical steps necessary to achieve
14 Then we move on. Next one is P51 on my list. The problem there
15 was that the -- as noted on the 1st of September, that paragraph 1 of the
16 English version of the statement given by Mr. Kovacevic did not contain
17 all the information which was found in the B/C/S version.
18 Has a new and full translation been prepared?
19 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, it has been.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Has it been uploaded, or is it the same problem?
21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, that's going to be the same issue for
22 all of or many of these remaining matters. It's ready. And once the
23 technical aspects are done --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Have you provided a copy to the other parties
25 of the new translation?
1 MR. GROOME: Mr. Laugel is checking that now, Your Honour.
2 Your Honour, perhaps if we could move forward and come back to
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, let's -- we move forward. I suggest the
5 following. It was just completing a translation. I would like to admit
6 into evidence the exhibit now with new translation and give an
7 opportunity to the Defence to ask the Chamber to revisit the matter
8 within two weeks if there's any problem with this new translation. If
9 that's agreeable, I see Mr. Jordash is nodding yes. Simatovic Defence is
10 still thinking about it. You agree as well?
11 Then P51 is admitted into evidence. The new translation can be
12 uploaded and replace the existing translation, and every technical step
13 needed for that is -- is given leave for being taken.
14 The next one, P378, is not to deal with at this very moment. It
15 relates to the Mladic diary indirectly. I will not deal with the matter
16 at this moment.
17 The next one is P79. But before dealing with P379, I would like
18 to move to P386, which is the analysis of the Main Staff of the VRS, a
19 document which was introduced through Witness Milovanovic, and it's one
20 in a series of documents. The Chamber has invited the parties to reduce
21 the size of what should be admitted from this document, and the Chamber
22 also expressed its awareness that there might be a need then to later
23 again widen the scope of the material contained in this document which is
25 Mr. Groome, have you, perhaps together with the Defence, defined
1 certain portions of this document?
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, this is my error. We have prepared a
3 reduced -- proposed reduced version of the document but in my error --
4 it's my oversight that I have not sent that to the Defence. I will send
5 that to them by tomorrow, and I apologise for the delay in this.
6 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I don't know if this assists at all,
7 but for us this -- this document, the whole of it is useful, and we can
8 foresee a situation where we're almost certainly going to ask
9 Your Honours to accept all of it in parts. And we would perhaps simply
10 say at this stage that if Your Honours could reconsider whether we can
11 just submit the whole thing now. I remember reading this in preparation
12 for this particular witness and wanting to rely upon a substantial amount
13 of it, even though I didn't put those bits to the witness, or many of
14 those bits to the witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, what's the size of the document? Of
16 course, the Chamber is a bit concerned about being flooded with --
17 MR. JORDASH: I think it's about a hundred pages, I think.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could I hear from the Simatovic Defence whether they
19 take a similar position.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we do take a similar position
21 as Mr. Jordash.
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, and in our review, we were only
23 recommending very minimal redactions. We, too, believe that much of the
24 document will be relevant --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you what remains of the hundred pages,
1 80, or 60, or --
2 MR. GROOME: I would have to check. I believe it's -- it would
3 be even less than the -- I believe it will more than the 80 is what --
4 JUDGE ORIE: More than the 80. Then the whole exercise seems to
5 be rather useless. Let's -- and there were no -- let me see.
6 I know now that the redaction seems to be unsuccessful. I now
7 move back to 379, which is a list of 11 intelligence reports, dated from
8 1992 to 1995, which is authenticated by the witness Manojlo Milovanovic.
9 Let me see. I think we just dealt with P386 as one of the
10 underlying documents for P379.
11 I do see that the OTP has withdrawn the application with respect
12 to some of the items covered by this list, but the list of intelligence
13 reports remains unaffected. Is that ...
14 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour. We still tender 379.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 Any objections?
17 P379 is admitted into evidence. P386 is also admitted into
19 We'll not deal with P395 at this moment.
20 P396 is a chart which lists 14 documents, being intelligence
21 reports. The -- one of the issues was whether all the underlying
22 documents were uploaded. I think that in June we established that that
23 was the case.
24 There has been some confusion about whether this was really
25 admitted or not. The transcript seems not to be fully clear. I hereby
1 order that P396 is admitted into evidence and that P396 consists of a
2 chart but includes attached documents to that chart. There was also
3 some -- therefore now also in e-court P396 should show that it is
4 admitted into evidence.
5 Madam Registrar, is this sufficient guidance for you? Yes. I
6 see it is.
7 Then P397. There is a -- there was a similar problem, some
8 confusion about whether it was admitted into evidence or not. It's a
9 chart listing 40 documents, again intelligence reports, which were
10 introduced through the witness Milovanovic.
11 Mr. Groome, can you confirm that, as uploaded in e-court, P397
12 now contains the chart plus the 40 attached documents?
13 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, I can confirm that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: P397 is admitted into evidence under seal.
15 The next item on the list is P444, which is a list of per diems,
16 per diem payments, which were made to the members of the RDB JATD over
17 various periods of times. That is the matter I think we dealt with under
18 earlier payment records received through RFA 1639.
19 Mr. Weber.
20 MR. WEBER: That is correct. It is -- it includes P444 through
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let me -- yes. You're right. Now let me just check
23 what we decided earlier when we discussed this matter. I think we asked
24 Madam Registrar to assign numbers to those exhibits which had not yet
25 received exhibit numbers, and further submissions to be made.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if it's for the purpose of just
2 assigning exhibit numbers marked for identification, I can send an e-mail
3 with a Word table chart to the Registrar for the assignment of numbers.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have not yet reached the stage where we can
5 finally decide on admission.
6 Then I move on to the next item on the MFI list, which is P512, a
7 chart with forensic documentation.
8 The issue there was that what is not found on P512 are the
9 exhibit numbers that are assigned to the documents. Is that --
10 MR. FARR: That's correct, Your Honour. And we have prepared a
11 version of P512 that does contain those exhibit numbers. That has been
12 uploaded as 65 ter 5795.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, one of the problems was, I think -- one
14 of the problems was that you can't just -- the original -- the signatures
15 will not be there in original any more. So what I suggest is that the
16 original chart as it was signed by the witness will now be accompanied by
17 the same chart with the additional information that is meanwhile
19 MR. FARR: That's precise --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. FARR: That's precisely what we've done, Your Honour. We
22 did -- on the chart that we modified, we also redacted Dr. Strinovic's
23 signature so it was clear that we weren't making any changes to anything
24 that had been signed by the witness. But now there's the version signed
25 by Dr. Strinovic and the version with the P numbers on it.
1 JUDGE ORIE: With the additional --
2 MR. FARR: Exactly.
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- numbers.
4 MR. FARR: Correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's me see. Now, this also relates to some extent
6 to P722 and following, where I understand there was an issue in relation
7 to -- for at least some of these documents and no English translation be
9 MR. FARR: That's correct. And in fact there are still a few, a
10 very few, that are outstanding. I believe there are three translations
11 that are still outstanding, a couple of translations that we've only
12 received partially for documents that were both English and B/C/S in the
13 original, and then a couple of documents that were just disclosed to the
14 Defence before court today.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I saw that. I think earlier today there was
16 still 40 missing, or something like. But apparently now that number is
18 Now, although there is a relation between P512 and all these --
19 all these documents, I think that nothing opposes admission of P512,
20 which is the just the chart with the signatures. If the parties would
21 agree, then it's hereby decided that P512 is admitted into evidence and
22 now contains the two versions of that chart. Therefore, leave is also
23 granted to add that one to P512, as it was earlier marked for
25 MR. FARR: Your Honour, before we leave this matter, could we
1 also ask if the Registry be authorised to unlock the underlying documents
2 as necessary to upload translations as they become available?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Leave is granted to -- to link the documents
6 in e-court, and therefore whatever technical measures that requires is
7 hereby granted.
8 Now, I saw this morning that there were still ten translations
9 outstanding. Could you indicate which out of those ten have now been
10 provided? I had on my list this morning 743, 774 are still missing.
11 801, 802, 816, 840, 859, 862, 867, and 914; that was my list as matters
12 stood this morning as we received it from the Stanisic Defence.
13 MR. FARR: Yes. As I understand things at the moment, the three
14 that remain were -- we still have not received the translation are P743,
15 the first one on the list, and then the last two, P867 and P914. We
16 disclosed translations today of P816 and 840. And as to the others, they
17 have been previously disclosed, although in some cases it's only a
18 partial translation.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, what I suggest is that you now prepare a
20 full list where 65 ter number and P numbers do appear, because then it's
21 easier to admit them into evidence, and it's also easier for the Defence
22 to formulate any objections.
23 As far as the translations are concerned, how much time would you
24 need after the last translation has been received to review them?
25 MR. JORDASH: Could we have a week, please?
1 JUDGE ORIE: A week after you have received the last --
2 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- of these, the three outstanding translations.
4 Mr. Farr, if we have not heard within a week, then you can ask,
5 on the basis of that list you have prepared, to -- and it might even
6 be -- that might even be on the basis of P512. I do not know exactly. I
7 don't have any clear recollection what have we find there. But that
8 within a week after that you address the Chamber and that we'll finalise
9 this matter so that finally all the medical documentation is in evidence
10 apart from any objections we have not heard about yet.
11 MR. FARR: Thank you, Your Honour. We'll do that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We have discussed P943 briefly. Mr. Jordash, you
13 were invited to include that in your observations. That's one of the --
14 one of the audio -- one of the intercepts.
15 Next one: P967. The Office of the Prosecutor earlier refrained
16 from tendering P967. It was to do something with something that happened
17 in the Martic case.
18 Do you intend to now tender P967?
19 MR. FARR: Your Honour, this is a document that was discussed by
20 Radoslav Maksic during the Martic case but not admitted during his
21 testimony because he was unable to authenticate it. We will tender it
22 from the bar table, I'm happy to make that application now, or we can
23 include it in a future written bar table motion.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If you could include it in the bar table motion so
25 that we have always clear charts on -- this is the document, that's the
1 relevance, that's the position of -- of the Defence teams, then if you
2 would include that.
3 MR. FARR: We'll do that, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: So to be included in a bar table motion.
5 Next item on my list is P972, report of the commission. We have
6 discussed it in length earlier today, so we don't have to decide on this
7 matter at this very moment. The same is true for P973.
8 Next one is P975 -- no. I can -- I can't deal with that right
10 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: We'll leave P975 for the time being.
12 Next one on the list is P979, where the Chamber expects the
13 Prosecution to provide further information on the document's provenance.
14 And I think, as a matter of fact, that the same is true for P1009,
15 because the two documents stem from the same collection.
16 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour. We have sent a Request
17 for Assistance to the government that provided them and we have not
18 received a reply yet.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Not received a reply. When did you send the
21 MR. GROOME: I don't know, Your Honour. I'd have to check that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Because we would prefer not to leave this pending
24 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. P1009 is -- the issue was raised
25 on the 20th of September. We will pursue it forthwith.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. GROOME: As soon as we have information, we'll provide it to
3 the Chamber.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The other one was pending a bit longer. But
5 could you please keep the Chamber updated about the -- well, let's say
6 within four weeks from now to see whether we -- whether you have received
7 any information.
8 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
10 Then the -- the next one is P996, which is an official note of
11 the 30th of March, 1993, signed by Dusan Orlovic.
12 The issue -- well, the conclusion the -- the Prosecution would
13 like the Chamber to draw is that the person who signed this document is
14 the same person, the witness -- and the document was introduced through
15 Witness JF-039, that it's the same person the witness spoke about during
16 his examination. But that does not follow from the answer of that
17 witness. Even if it would be possible to conclude this, it's unclear
18 what purpose the document serves, especially since the witness had
19 answered a question in relation to that already.
20 You have informed us, Mr. Groome, that the document is subject of
21 a pending application for protective measures. The Chamber decided that
22 we deny admission without prejudice. The document does not assist the
23 Chamber in understanding the testimony. That means that if at any other
24 moment for other purposes you want to tender that document, it's -- the
25 decision is without prejudice, but at this moment the admission is
2 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I'll revisit the issue with
3 respect to the identity and his ability to say it's the same person, but
4 part of the reason the Prosecution tendered it with this witness was that
5 this witness had given evidence about local police being circumvented and
6 reports being made directly to the Serbian DB, and the Prosecution was
7 advancing this by examining the addressee and --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, the Chamber has decided on the matter
9 without prejudice. If there is at any other moment you would like us
10 to -- not to review -- of course, you can always ask to reconsider the
11 decision, but the Chamber was thinking more in terms of other
12 circumstances where it becomes more clear in what way the document would
13 assist the Chamber rather than in relation to the testimony of this
15 I have dealt with P1009.
16 P1010, up to and including P1479 are Theunens documents, and they
17 will have to wait until Mr. Theunens has given his testimony.
18 I am looking at the clock. We have still the D exhibits to deal
19 with. I'm confident that we could do that in one hour, which would mean
20 that there's no 10 or 20 minutes left for other submissions.
21 We'll take a break. And we resume at 6.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 5.37 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 6.06 p.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We now deal with the D exhibits. First one on my
25 list is D3, official note of Emil Cakalic, which is a long-pending story.
1 We last dealt with it on the 22nd of June when the Chamber invited the
2 parties to make a joint filing.
3 Where are we at this moment?
4 Mr. Weber.
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution and the Defence did meet
6 to discuss this exhibit. There is substantial agreement. There's two
7 matters, and this is similar to the official notes that were discussed
8 earlier today. The Defence is tendering pursuant to Rule 89 the
9 official note that -- of Mr. Cakalic. Then the Prosecution is seeking to
10 have certain transcript portions from the Milosevic case also admitted.
11 Where we last left it was for the Simatovic Defence to check just
12 the small portion of the Milosevic transcript that the Prosecution also
13 wanted included and then get back to us.
14 The Prosecution, at this time, if the Simatovic Defence prepares
15 a joint filing, we will look at it and hopefully resolve it.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 Mr. Petrovic, your principal objection against admitting into
18 evidence official notes, a way of circumventing the Rules, is -- does
19 that apply here as well, or ...
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first I wanted to say
21 something concerning what my learned friend said. We responded on 1 July
22 precisely on what parts of the Milosevic transcript we were concerned
23 with. We identified the pages important to us from the Milosevic case.
24 I thought that matter was cleared. We sent an e-mail to Mr. Groome on
25 the 1st of July on that issue.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
2 MR. WEBER: There has been e-mail exchanges, and I believe that
3 there was just one portion of the Milosevic testimony that was not
4 included that the Prosecution also wanted included from that e-mail.
5 We're happy to discuss this and look at the e-mails, and I believe that
6 this can be resolved.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. You're close to a solution. You've got three
8 weeks to further discuss the matter and file a joint filing or file it in
9 good co-ordination and agreement with each other. If you have not
10 resolved this matter in three weeks, the first day after that -- let me
11 see. That is -- I look at my agenda. I haven't got my agenda. At the
12 earliest possibility after these three weeks, if you have not resolved
13 the matter, you're invited to meet me at 7.00 in the morning in my
14 Chambers where I can assist you in seeing whether we can overcome any
15 practical problems.
16 We'll wait and see what the Chamber receives in the next three
17 weeks. Of course, parties are still free to take their own positions,
18 but just to overcome any practical problems for this matter which is now
19 pending for almost a year without a clear explanation for that.
20 The next one is D25, the -- and D25 is under seal, as is D26.
21 Further submissions are expected by the Chamber. I think it was
22 after you would have had access to the relevant files. I'm not going
23 into too much details because the documents are under seal.
24 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, a member of the Prosecution team has
25 examined the file, and the Prosecution has no basis for believing that
1 the criminal file is anything other than what it purports to be.
2 The Prosecution withdraws its objection to the admission of this
4 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that it's ready. I take it,
5 Mr. Jordash, that you have no -- no, no. I don't know even who filed it,
6 who -- but both Defence teams are in agreement.
7 D25 and D26 are admitted under seal.
8 Next one on my list is D55, which is related to D56 and to be
9 considered together with D70 from -- these are all documents --
10 Yes, Mr. Jordash. Perhaps I give you the floor to further
12 MR. JORDASH: For reasons that I don't need to go into, it's
13 completely my fault that this hasn't been done. I can commit to doing
14 this and have it to Your Honours by Friday. I apologise for the delay.
15 JUDGE ORIE: By this Friday?
16 MR. JORDASH: By this Friday.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which is the 1st of October.
18 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And that is true for both D55, D fifty --
20 MR. JORDASH: -- six and D70.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- six and D70.
22 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That is on the record.
24 Then we have a list. A series of documents, D60 to D66.
25 Oral submissions have been made by the Prosecution in relation to
1 these documents. The Simatovic Defence at the time, which was on the
2 22nd of June, indicated that it was not ready to respond. And then we
3 invited the Prosecution to put brief submissions with regard to the
4 relevance of these documents, to put them in writing. And then the
5 Defence to respond in writing.
6 Where do we stand in relation to these documents which are mainly
7 background documents for the witness Sliskovic?
8 Mr. Weber.
9 MR. WEBER: As Your Honour has noted, we've stated our position
10 on the record orally. We can file this same submission in writing. It
11 is on the record and very clear.
12 With respect to the exhibits, the Simatovic Defence is the
13 proponent of it, so I'm not sure if they want to look at what our oral
14 submission was and then file it and we can respond.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I recollect
17 correctly, and -- we checked that on the agenda of the last session of
18 this type. Perhaps I wasn't all too familiar with the agenda then and
19 may not have seen it come in, but I believe you asked the OTP to submit a
20 written submit. I asked my learned friend Mr. Groome during one of our
21 meetings when I was to receive that submission. Mr. Groome promised it
22 would follow soon. Two weeks ago, we tried to remind the OTP by having
23 sent an e-mail, asking that we receive their position on these two
24 documents so that we would be in a position to reply. We still have not
25 received it.
1 If you are going to vary your order, we can go back to the part
2 of the transcript to see what Mr. Groome actually stated in his argument
3 and then to respond, but I believe your order was specific to the OTP to
4 submit a written submission and then we were in turn to reply.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I think that was our instruction, but I'll just
6 check that on the --
7 MR. GROOME: I accept that that was your instruction,
8 Your Honour. I apologise. And we -- if the Chamber will give us leave
9 until tomorrow afternoon, I will have a written submission.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Tomorrow afternoon.
11 How much time would you then need to respond?
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I hope not more than a
13 week. Seven days. I will also strive to do it even more quickly.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I set the deadline for it: 11th of October,
15 which is Monday, so that if you do not finally manage to do it next week,
16 then at least you have the weekend left to finish it.
17 We then move on to D69. That was a matter of translation. I do
18 understand that the Simatovic Defence has uploaded the translation into
19 e-court in -- on the 19th of July.
20 Mr. Groome, any problems as far as the uploaded translation is
22 MR. GROOME: No objection to the translation, Your Honour. And I
23 neglected to check whether we -- whether we had any other objection.
24 I -- I accept that the Chamber will -- may rule on it, and if I
25 feel the need to re -- ask the Chamber to reconsider its decision, I will
1 do that at the appropriate time.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Madam Registrar, the uploaded
3 translation, which is, if I'm not mistaken, is 2D01-0536, can be attached
4 to D69, and D69 is admitted into evidence.
5 We have dealt with D70, where we will receive further
7 D75, translation issue. Only an informal translation was
8 available when the document was introduced. The English translation is
9 now received, as we were informed on the 12th of July.
10 Any problems with this translation?
11 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, the English translation which
13 was received, do you have it or -- because I don't see immediately here a
14 65 ter number.
15 Have you received the English translation which should be linked
16 to D75? Could --
17 THE REGISTRAR: No, I didn't.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
19 MR. JORDASH: It is uploaded at 1D269.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the translation, or is that the document
21 itself? Because I have here 1D00269, but I -- I thought it was linked to
22 D -- to D75 and not to the English translation of that, but if you could
24 MR. JORDASH: It's the translation.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It's the translation.
1 Madam Registrar, could you confirm that.
2 THE REGISTRAR: It is the translation, Your Honours. I've found
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. You may link the
5 English translation to D75. And D75 is admitted into evidence.
6 The next item is D79, a letter from the SDA headquarters titled
7 "Information On Full Readiness of Connection and Following of SDA," date,
8 20th of September, 1991.
9 The OTP had this document on its list. The Simatovic Defence
10 used the document with Witness JF-002. The OTP questions the
11 authenticity of the document.
12 The Chamber would like to hear from the parties as soon as
13 possible as to whether the questions about the authenticity stand,
14 whether they stand or do not stand. That was, I think, what was asked
15 already, but we have not received any response to that. At least not as
16 far as I'm aware of.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I recollect well, it
18 was upon the Prosecution to check where the document --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the document was on the OTP 65 ter list, but I
20 think the document was produced in another case by a Defence team. We
21 asked for more information about it, also about the view of the
22 Prosecution, whether they would still challenge the authenticity.
23 MS. FRIEDMAN: We cannot provide any additional information
24 because, as noted, it was provided by a Defence team on a different case.
25 So we have no way to follow up on that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And did you receive it from that Defence team and
2 did then the Simatovic Defence take it from your 65 ter list, or did you
3 get it from the other Defence team? And what was the fate of this
4 document in the other case? Was there any challenge to the authenticity?
5 What -- we'd like to get more body on the subject so that we are better
6 able to ...
7 MS. FRIEDMAN: I do not know whether it was admitted in the other
8 case. I could look for that. So -- so could the Defence, and they are
9 the ones putting forth the document, but I can undertake that for
10 Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You had it on your 65 ter list, which means that you
12 considered it to be used as an exhibit, which at least suggests that you
13 would know something about the document. And now to challenge the
14 authenticity of a document which you once intended to use comes as a
15 little surprise.
16 MS. FRIEDMAN: Your Honours, I can repeat -- what I stated on
17 that day was that we were asked to provide the origin regularly for our
18 exhibits because that is the way to ensure the highest level of
19 reliability. So even when we tender something from our exhibit list, we
20 do provide information on origin.
21 Aside from that, the document is, I would argue, not directly
22 relevant to the witness anyway. It's not highly problematic for us. But
23 the origin is also uncertain.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's be -- let's be very practical. Either you
25 further explore the matter, and of course it's the Defence who tenders
1 this document and is expected, therefore, to respond to any challenge to
2 the authenticity. You could ask where the other Defence team got it from
3 or whatever.
4 Now, we can do two things: Either to explore the matter in
5 further detail and then I can set a deadline, because otherwise we'll be
6 in the same position in December and then in January, which is not what
7 the Chamber prefers to do. So either the Chamber receives further
8 submissions. Or in the alternative, if the Defence says, "Well, we're
9 not fully convinced on the authenticity yet, but we're not making --
10 we're not breaking our legs over it," then, of course, then the objection
11 would be gone. So either of the two. Either we fully explore it, or we
12 leave it behind us. And that is not only true for the Prosecution but
13 also the Defence.
14 If that is not only to -- for the Prosecution, but also for the
15 Defence. If you find the document important enough to -- to persist in
16 its being admitted, then you also have to further explore the background
17 of this document, which is of unknown source.
18 Is that clear? The deadline is two weeks from now. Yes?
19 If any of the -- yes. If we don't receive any further
20 information from either party, this might lead to a decision that the
21 document is not admitted.
22 I just don't want these matters which are not the most important
23 ones not to be kept on the MFI
24 important to pay attention to it or it's not important enough. And then
25 the party who still insists and has paid attention to it will have the
1 favour -- have the advantage of -- of having it in, or, in the other
2 case, not to have it in evidence.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with all due respect,
4 I'm afraid the onus of doing the research now lies with us. Unless
5 someone speaks out, if I understood correctly, it would not be admitted,
6 hence the Prosecutor, disputing the document in any case, have nothing to
7 do. On my behalf, I will contact the Defence team in the Samac case and
8 I will try to identify the counsel procuring it. I will do my utmost,
9 although I believe it is far easier for the OTP to access the exhibit
10 list on -- of that case.
11 I apologise again for perhaps speaking freely, but I'm afraid all
12 I can do is to try and research the source and what counsel procured it.
13 And then the Prosecution can check whether in the other case that
14 document was admitted or not. That is my proposal. And then that could
15 be done within two weeks.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And perhaps also whether the authenticity was
17 contested in the other case. That is, of course, important information.
18 That -- I'm not trying to put the ball on -- on your part of the -- of
19 the playground, Mr. Bakrac. I think the Prosecution has not been serious
20 enough in further exploring the basis for its challenge to the
21 authenticity. That's one. And the Defence has not seriously further
22 elaborated and researched what the source of the document is and,
23 therefore, positively contributing to a finding that it is an authentic
24 document. So both on the tendering side and on the challenging side more
25 serious attempt is needed. Otherwise, we are here again in a couple of
1 months from now, and then --
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour. You're
3 completely right. I can only reiterate, without contradicting your words
4 and without seeking an excuse, but the only source we have is the OTP's
5 65 ter list. If the Prosecutor puts a list -- a document on their list
6 and later on asserts that the document is not authentic, then that is
7 less than serious.
8 If we need to check each and every 65 ter document if the
9 Prosecution no longer likes the provenance of that document, then the
10 burden is entirely upon us.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's certainly not my position, that you have
12 to -- to verify the authenticity of all the documents you intend to use
13 and which appear on the -- on the Prosecution's 65 ter list. But once an
14 issue has been raised about authenticity and if it comes from a Defence
15 team in another case, then I think both parties should make a serious
16 effort. And then we'll see how this will end.
17 I return to D75. Yes. Could I just verify. We were talking
18 about the newly uploaded -- no. Let me see. It was not a -- yes.
19 Two English translations have been uploaded under number 1D269.
20 One is attached at this moment to D75; it may well be that that was the
21 informal translation which was the only one at the time and that the one
22 which is not attached now, is not linked, is the new one. Is that the
24 MR. JORDASH: Yes, that is the situation.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then, therefore, 1D269, which is linked, should be
1 separated from D75. And the other one, 1D269, which is not linked at
2 this moment, should then be attached to D75. Yes.
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move on to D81.
5 There was no translation available at the time the D81 was MFI
6 pending translation. We do understand that the English translation has
7 now been uploaded.
8 Could you confirm that the translation is uploaded under number
9 2D01-0643, Madam Registrar.
10 It's confirmed. The English translation under the number I just
11 mentioned can be linked to D81. D81 is admitted into evidence.
12 I move to D85 [Realtime transcript read in error "D81"], which is
13 the statement of Garaplija, dated the 6th of September, 1998, which was
14 tendered through Witness JF-002.
15 The Stanisic Defence wished to tender paragraph 15 of this
16 document. The witness said that the document is false and complete
18 Ms. Friedman, you dealt with the matter at the time. You -- we
19 did not have much time at that time to hear further objections. Would
20 you further -- would you wish to further elaborate, or is it -- is -- are
21 your words that -- that this is an out-of-court statement and that the
22 witness is -- that the person who gave this statement is not there to
23 affirm it and that the witness who testifies about it says it's
24 completely false and there's no indicia of reliability? That is what you
25 said. Do you want to add anything?
1 MS. FRIEDMAN: I would only add what was mentioned again earlier
2 today, that such statements may be reliable if there's a witness who can
3 attest to the indicia of reliability, as with the commission witnesses,
4 for example; but, yes, in this case there are no indicia of reliability.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is there anything the Stanisic Defence wants to
6 respond in this respect?
7 MR. JORDASH: I would ask the Trial Chamber to keep the matter
8 open, and we will conduct investigations to establish what it is the
9 Prosecution say is missing at this time. Obviously -- no, I'll leave it
10 at that. If -- if Your Honours would leave it open, we will do what we
11 can and report back to the Chamber if we cannot do anything more.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. Of course, we would not like to have
13 it -- I mean, it is apparently a serious challenge to this document, and
14 we are not going to give you forever to -- I want that list. Unless
15 you -- you can indicate what efforts you made and what you did and what
16 the response was and why you need more time, but let's give you -- four
17 weeks from now, would that do?
18 MR. JORDASH: Well, Your Honour, four weeks probably wouldn't be
19 sufficient. What we'd ask --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Six weeks? I mean, what I want to know is you
21 tendered this document --
22 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- through a witness. The witness says it's all
24 false and -- and then we do not know the person to -- we do not know who
25 wrote the statement, took the statement. Under those circumstances, at a
1 certain moment we have to make up our mind. Either you make a stronger
2 case for admission, or --
3 MR. JORDASH: Well, it was, I'm reminded, served as Rule 68
4 material. So the difficulty we've got is that it emanates from the
5 Prosecution files. That's the first thing. In order to investigate it
6 and substantiate it, provenance and its reliability, it may take some
7 time. And it may be that this only becomes something we can do during
8 the Defence case. That's why I ask Your Honours to keep the matter open.
9 It's something that we will -- as we look to call evidence to challenge
10 the witness --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I do not know yet whether there will be a
12 Defence case -- well, we'll see whether the -- no, no, because -- let me
13 say the following: If -- if material is disclosed under Rule 68 as
14 exculpatory material, it can all be fabrication lies. I mean, the
15 Prosecution is not there. If someone states for good reasons or for bad
16 reasons that all the accused are innocent and were in Canada at the time
17 when it all happened, then the Prosecution is under a duty to disclose
18 that material because the content of it is -- tends to -- to show the
19 innocence or at least less guilt of the accused.
20 That, of course, doesn't say anything yet about reliability,
21 authenticity of that document. There's a kind of a blind duty for the
22 Prosecutor to -- whatever what looks exculpatory, to immediately disclose
23 that. So I'm not really impressed by that, but we'll consider whether
24 we'll allow you more time, and that is almost indefinite time now --
25 MR. JORDASH: Well, I can -- I can certainly do -- do more. It
1 was served -- and I can do more within a short period of time because it
2 was served as the transcript from -- or a witness statement from a
3 particular trial in a particular place which has taken place with final
4 adjudication being -- having taken place. So I can provide that level of
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So -- so we'll consider how much time we give
7 you, and you're trying to meanwhile convince us already that you're
8 giving us a serious effort to see whether you can provide us with a
9 little bit more than the document itself, which is challenged as to its
11 MR. JORDASH: We can definitely -- in -- within a week or two
12 provide additional information.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We'll put that -- that's on the record that we might
14 hear from you within two weeks.
15 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: I earlier made a mistake referring to D -- there
17 seems to be a possible error in the transcript on page 82 where a
18 reference to D85 was transcribed as a reference to D81. Line 17. And
19 I'm always amazed that so little errors of this type exist.
20 We move on. D80 -- no. Let me see. D96. That is a map, a
21 hard-copy map, of Belgrade
22 a state security facility. It was marked for identification. There was
23 a problem with the probative value. It was suggested, more or less, to
24 perhaps get better material such as a Google Earth map. It is stuck
1 What's your position, Mr. Jordash?
2 MR. JORDASH: Our position is that the map, whether Google Earth
3 or the map that was originally put to the witness, is not necessary.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You withdraw that?
5 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, any problems in withdrawal of the map?
7 MR. GROOME: Then the Prosecution would tender that exhibit,
8 Your Honour. The Prosecution believes it is relevant to the witness's
10 If the Chamber will recall, it was put to that witness that he
11 had made a mistake about the existence of a state security building
12 there. And if you recall in the evidence of JF-095, I gave him the exact
13 same map. And if the Chamber were to compare the markings of where
14 JF-095 says he met me, it will correspond to where the witness said he
15 met Mr. Stanisic.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, well, of course you could withdraw the
17 document and then have it tendered by Mr. -- under those circumstances,
18 what are we going to do?
19 MR. JORDASH: Well, I don't think my learned friend is right
20 about that, but that's for another time, those submissions concerning
21 whether another witness corroborated that map or not. But putting that
22 aside, I think the original problem was that Your Honour felt that the
23 witness's evidence on that map was confused because the witness marked
24 two places, one in error and then another one purportedly in correction
25 of that error.
1 So the last position that Your Honours had taken was that that
2 map did not -- the witness had not testified clearly using that map.
3 But, I mean, if the Prosecution --
4 JUDGE ORIE: But if the Prosecution now thinks that there's
5 some -- some -- some value in having it. I mean, then you -- of course,
6 you later would argue that it could be purely coincidence because the
7 witness was confused anyhow. Is that -- well, whatever. But any
8 opposition? Otherwise, we'll --
9 MR. JORDASH: No. No.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then any Simatovic problem?
11 D96 is admitted into evidence. And the Chamber will later
12 consider the exact weight to be given to this.
13 Yes. I will not deal with D98 at the moment.
14 The next, which is a series of documents, is D100 plus D101,
15 D102, D105, D106, D110.
16 D100 has one specific issue which distinguishes it from the
17 others, that is, there was a translation issue which is only for this
19 Has the translation been verified?
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that it was
21 uploaded as 2D161.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but let me see what -- yes. There was an issue
23 about comrade and comrade general. Has now that been a full -- because I
24 noticed that at least -- and, of course, I did not know what the quality
25 of the remainder is, but I noticed that at least one word was not
1 translated. Has the -- has the -- and then we said would you please
2 verify the translation, whether it contains more errors than the one I,
3 with my limited knowledge of the B/C/S, could already identify. Has that
4 been verified?
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] If you give me five minutes, I can
6 then check that with our Case Manager, whether it was checked, whether a
7 corrected version was returned from translation. I can check that right
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Registrar informs me that there is one
10 document attached to D100 translation and another translation under the
11 same number not attached. Then I take it that we have to replace the
12 attached document by the newly-uploaded 2D161.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our Case Manager has
14 just informed me that the translation has been corrected and that it has
15 been checked, and that is the 2D161.
16 THE REGISTRAR: There are two translations with the same number.
17 Could you please specify, then, the document ID number. That would be
18 more clear.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I will try to do that. Just give
20 me a moment, please.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, you're hereby instructed to link
22 the translation, the corrected translation, and that's the one you
23 received the number of from Mr. Petrovic -- or do you have it already,
24 Mr. Petrovic?
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I can give you the number. So
1 that's 2D01-0842.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And that's the new translation which now can be
3 linked to D100, and the other one separated from it.
4 Now, there was -- there were other problems with D100, 101, 102,
5 105, 106, and 110. Let me see. Yes. Whether any extraneous parts of
6 the documents have been redacted from the B/C/S version; that's the first
7 question. Has that been done? I think it was put on your list sent to
8 you last Friday.
9 The second issue is whether the original has been received from
10 Croatian authorities. And the third question was that if so, whether the
11 Simatovic Defence wishes to tender the original document despite
12 outstanding questions in relation to the authenticity.
13 These were the questions we put to you in our ...
14 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: We have been unclear in our instructions to you in
16 the e-mail of last Friday. We'll leave, therefore, this whole series and
17 provide you with clearer instructions next time, but you're invited to
18 have a look at it already.
19 Then I move on to D112. A report of the Office of the Military
20 Prosecutor -- Prosecution, Banja Luka. Here again I think the
21 original -- we're waiting for the original to be tendered, Mr. Petrovic.
22 One of the problems is that these apparently are documents taken,
23 at least it looks like it is, taken from the book "The Homeland War," and
24 then you get the extraneous parts, that is, text which has got nothing to
25 do with the document you wish to tender. And -- so we are seeking
1 clarification. And, of course, we would rather have the original
2 documents rather than an extract of a compilation in the book.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour. We
4 requested those documents from the Croatian authorities, but we still
5 have had no reply. If the answer does not arrive within the next couple
6 of days, we will ask you for assistance then.
7 And my colleague Mr. Bakrac is reminding me that we need to
8 redact the existing version, that those parts of the document that belong
9 to another document should be removed, because we were reluctant to do
10 that, expecting that the originals would appear so that we don't need to
11 do the same job several times to redact the copy and then the original
12 document. But we cannot -- we can, of course, do this right away if you
13 instruct us to do so.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, we have to -- it's clear that this one
15 will not be resolved.
16 We move on to D118. Translation is missing. Mr. Bakrac, you
17 indicated that it would be an easy thing to do. Has the translation been
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we do have a
20 translation. This is 65 ter 2D236.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I tried to look on e-court just a few
23 minutes ago, and I couldn't see it. I haven't been able to study the
24 document yet, so before the Chamber decides on admissibility, I'd ask for
25 an opportunity to study it.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Madam Registrar, have you found at translation at least?
3 THE REGISTRAR: Translation is uploaded, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And can be linked to D118.
5 Mr. Groome, could we hear from you by -- let's say by the -- by
6 the end of next week whether there are any objections so that we can
7 decide on admission.
8 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record.
10 D120 is the same problem, Mr. Petrovic, excerpt from
11 "The Homeland War." Still waiting for the original. Is that --
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We're waiting
13 for the original. I apologise. Perhaps I missed something. Is this
14 also a translation problem, or is it that there is no original? I don't
15 have 120 as being on my list because there is a translation problem
17 JUDGE ORIE: I can't see immediately whether there is a
18 translation problem. Let me just see.
19 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I can assist.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. GROOME: I have it on my screen, and there's no translation
22 yet attached to this document in e-court.
23 JUDGE ORIE: There's no translation yet attached.
24 Mr. Petrovic, so apart from getting the original, you're also
25 seeking a --
1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour --
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that there is
3 a translation. It's 65 ter 2D188.
4 JUDGE ORIE: But it was not attached to the document then, I take
6 MR. GROOME: Not in e-court. So I'd ask for the same
7 opportunity. And I would point out it -- this does appear to be an
8 original document, not part of the book that we've been referring to.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Petrovic, if you would prepare -- of
10 course, you're still waiting for some responses. But here the issue of
11 original documents of not -- or not, at the time it was tendered, at
12 least according to my notes, it was not the original document, but it
13 was, again, one of the documents found in the -- in "The Homeland War"
14 book. Now if that has been -- if we now have an original document --
15 Mr. Groome?
16 MR. GROOME: I stand corrected. I must have put something in
17 wrong. It is the same book that we've --
18 JUDGE ORIE: It is the same book. Okay. A translation is there.
19 We're waiting for the original, for you to receive it, and then to tender
20 that original because that's the purpose of this whole exercise.
21 Yes. Earlier you also already indicated that you might seek an
22 order under Rule 54 bis, but that's not -- that was only recently. If
23 you need our assistance, don't hesitate to ask for it.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I do have some information about D121
1 that might resolve the matter rather quickly. D121 was tendered by the
2 Stanisic Defence on the 20th of September. It was a letter from a
3 hospital. I objected to its admission pending an opportunity to do some
4 investigation. I took advantage of having an investigator in the region
5 and asked him to stop by the hospital and speak with the doctor. While
6 it is a matter that still needs further investigation, I believe that
7 based on the conversation with the doctor, the Prosecution should now
8 appropriately withdraw its objection to admission of the letter. I am in
9 possession of a photo of the ledger page. It is being translated. As
10 soon as I have it, I will produce it to both Defence teams for further
11 action, if they deem such as necessary.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the objection therefore is withdrawn.
13 There was one other issue. You should talk with Mr. -- with the
14 person involved whether we could make this document public.
15 Mr. Jordash.
16 MR. JORDASH: He's been spoken to, and there's no objection to it
17 being made public.
18 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.
19 D121 is admitted into evidence as a public exhibit.
20 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: We have gone through all the outstanding MFIs. I
22 must reveal to the parties that I have on my agenda quite a number of
23 other matters which range from A to S, mainly minor matters of a
24 technical nature. I do not intend to call a session for that tomorrow.
25 We'll try to see to what extent we can resolve these matters out of
1 court. To the extent it's not possible, they'll be revisited at the next
2 housekeeping session or at any earlier moment which is appropriate.
3 Then we will not sit tomorrow. We adjourn, therefore, until
4 Monday, the 4th of October, at a quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon.
5 And, Madam Registrar, that would be in courtroom ... because Courtroom II
6 is not available yet. In the courtroom to be announced at a later
8 We stand adjourned.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.
10 to be reconvened on Monday, the 4th day
11 of October, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.