1 Monday, 13 December 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The Accused Simatovic not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone in and around the
7 courtroom. Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
9 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-03-69-T.
10 The Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 We have planned a housekeeping session for this afternoon. Last
13 week Friday the issue was raised whether the accused had to be present.
14 I think at that moment we expected that none of the accused would appear,
15 although we, of course, left it entirely in their hands, we just approved
16 in advance their absence. Now, I put on the record that Mr. Stanisic is
17 in court and that Mr. Simatovic is not present.
18 Mr. Bakrac, could I seek your confirmation that Mr. Simatovic is
19 not present because he preferred not to attend and, therefore, waived his
20 right to be present during this hearing?
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, you are quite
22 right, Mr. Simatovic is not present here today because he decided not to
23 attend today's hearing and waived his right thereto.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think it was on the basis of last week
25 Friday's transcript that no waiver form has been signed this morning. I
1 was consulted on whether there was any need to do so, but I don't think,
2 as a matter of fact under the present circumstances that we need any
3 further formalities. The request was there on Friday. Mr. Simatovic
4 doesn't appear. You have explained why he doesn't appear and that seems
5 to be it. Well, Mr. Stanisic has apparently chosen to appear.
6 MR. JORDASH: There's a very specific reason. Mr. Stanisic wants
7 me to address you on an issue relating to grant of provisional release.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. JORDASH: I'm in Your Honours' hands as to when I make that
10 very brief submission.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me consult with my colleagues.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, the Chamber decided that it would be
14 practical to hear you right away, and if, of course, I do not know what
15 you have on your mind at this moment, but if at any moment then later
16 today, Mr. Stanisic, if we are deal exclusively with housekeeping matters
17 would want to leave, then, of course, he is still free to do that. I
18 don't know what practical arrangements, as far as transportation is
19 concerned, are needed, but presence during housekeeping session, he is as
20 free as we said on Friday to attend or not to attend. At this moment we
21 are not yet at the housekeeping session. Please proceed.
22 MR. JORDASH: May we go into private session, please.
23 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session.
24 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of Trial Chamber]
11 Pages 10238-10241 redacted. Private session.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
23 Then the housekeeping session. First item on my agenda is the
24 Chamber's decision on making public portions of the testimony of
25 Witness JF-039. Witness JF-039 testified on the 14th and 15th of
1 September, 2010, with the protective measures of pseudonym and face and
2 voice distortion. During the first session on the 14th of September,
3 technical reasons prevented the distortion of the witness's voice and the
4 Chamber therefore proceeded to hear the witness's testimony provisionally
5 in private session.
6 The Chamber suggested that at a later stage portions of the
7 private session testimony could be made public. All this can be found on
8 transcript pages 7181 through 7183, and 7537.
9 On the 4th of October, 2010, the Prosecution submitted its
10 position as to which portions of the testimony could be made public. In
11 its filing, the Prosecution has indicated in yellow which portions of
12 transcript pages 7183 to 7207 should remain under seal to protect the
13 witness's identity. On the 6th of October, 2010, both the Stanisic and
14 Simatovic Defence stated they agreed with the Prosecution's submission.
15 This can be found on transcript pages 7876 and 7877.
16 Having reviewed the transcript of the first session of the 14th
17 of September, 2010, the Chamber agrees with the parties as to which
18 portions should remain confidential. The Chamber therefore instructs the
19 Registrar to keep under seal those portions of the transcript that are
20 highlighted in yellow in the Prosecution's filing of the 4th of October,
21 2010, and to lift confidentiality for the remaining portions reproduced
22 in the Prosecution's filing.
23 Since it is not possible to add voice distortion after a
24 recording has been made, the Chamber further instructs the Registry to
25 keep the video recording of the first session of the 14th of September,
1 2010, under seal. As the Prosecution did not read out a summary of the
2 witness's evidence for the public, the Prosecution is instructed to file
3 such a summary within ten days. And this concludes the Chamber's
5 The next item on the agenda, perhaps we, out of an abundance of
6 caution, go into private session. We are in private session, yes, as a
7 matter of fact then. Yes, we should have returned into open session when
8 I read that decision. Madam Registrar, could I hereby, is the Registry
9 instructed to -- let me just carefully check, to make public today's
10 transcript from page 7, line 23, starting at "then the housekeeping
11 session ..." Then followed with the first item on the agenda, to make
12 that public, up to the moment where I asked for private session for the
13 next item, which is the line we are at right now.
14 And could we move into private session. We are in private
15 session although virtually we are in open session, but it still has to
16 take effect if you have followed the instructions, Madam Registrar. We
17 are in private session at this moment. Could the Office of the
18 Prosecution inform the Chamber about the status, or at least the progress
19 made in relation to 65 ter 2888 which is the Todorovic plea agreement. I
20 think the last we did is that on the 5th of November, the Prosecution
21 expressed as its view that the documents should be admitted under seal
22 and that you would offer to prepare a redacted version for public
24 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. The Prosecution
25 submits as follows with respect to 65 ter 2888, which is P1578: Although
1 within this paragraph there are indeed witnesses who testified with
2 protective measures, the Prosecution is satisfied that in particular the
3 way the paragraph is worded including a sufficiently broad date range and
4 a number of locations where beatings took place, that the mere listing of
5 the names of these individuals would not reveal any of them as witnesses,
6 even by a process of elimination. The Prosecution therefore submits that
7 there is no reason for any portion of paragraph 3(c) to be redacted, and
8 therefore, in our submission, P1578 can be a public exhibit. Thank you.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: If I would have known all this, the whole exercise
11 of going into private session would not have been necessary because the
12 Chamber hereby changes the status of P1578 into a public exhibit and,
13 Ms. Marcus, it goes without saying that therefore a redacted version is
14 not needed.
15 Then the next item on my list is the submissions the parties are
16 expected to make in relation to Witness JF-026's witness statement and
17 perhaps here I'm doing exactly the same, we are in private session and I
18 would have asked for private session now, whereas the only thing I have
19 to do is to have the previous portion everything up to this moment has
20 now become public, apart from the portion where we discussed
21 Mr. Stanisic's provisional release. And then from this moment being in
22 private session, the Chamber is awaiting submissions (redacted)
11 Pages 10246-10247 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 I think the Chamber is also waiting for submissions on the
10 admissibility of the Theunens report and the related disclosure issue
11 which is still to be solved. Mr. Jordash.
12 MR. JORDASH: Could I indicate, and I apologise for this, but we
13 just haven't had the time to -- Your Honours, set us the task of
14 approaching the Prosecution expert and also whichever relevant employees,
15 ex-employees might be able to cast some light on the issue we wanted
17 JUDGE ORIE: What about 7th of January to make -- gives you some
18 time to manoeuvre.
19 MR. JORDASH: Well, my guess is that Mr. Theunens nor
20 ex-employees want to hear from me over Christmas, that's the problem.
21 Could we ask for a bit longer.
22 JUDGE ORIE: 14th of January.
23 MR. JORDASH: Yes, 14th of January. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I was just asking what your position was. I'll
25 consult with my colleagues whether --
1 MR. JORDASH: Oh.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: The dead-line is set for the 14th of January.
4 I think there was another matter of submissions on possible
5 conversion of portions of the testimony of Mr. Theunens from private
6 session to public session.
7 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps I can respond now that given the nature of
8 the testimony and how on one view marginal is we don't intend to object
9 to the Prosecution's position that it ought to remain in private session.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, that's then on the record. Anything you
11 would like to say in response? I take it not. You are happy with it.
12 Then ...
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Under the present circumstances, Mr. Bakrac, you
15 agree with Mr. Jordash?
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, we do.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that the Chamber, following the
18 Prosecution and since there are no objections from the Defence, the
19 Chamber decides that matters remain as they are.
20 Then we are at the point to start with the MFI list. Yes,
21 Mr. Jordash.
22 MR. JORDASH: Could I just indicate that I think both teams have
23 an application based upon the Prosecution's recent filing of the 10th of
24 December relating to the admission of excerpts from the Mladic notebooks
25 and the application in brief will be an application for an adjournment of
1 the commencement of the trial in the new year for a period of one month.
2 I only raise to my feet because if there are dead-lines to be set over
3 the next hour or however long with the MFI list or so on, Your Honours
4 might, I thought, appreciate having a heads-up on our application. I
5 used the words heads-up and I meant --
6 JUDGE ORIE: I'm reading a recent filing on the 10th of December,
7 that was last Friday.
8 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And I have -- and your application is ...
10 MR. JORDASH: For an adjournment of the commencement of the trial
11 in the new year.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Is that filed already or do you want to make this at
13 this moment orally?
14 MR. JORDASH: Well, we received the Prosecution motion only
15 today, we would like to, if possible, make it today, I don't think it
16 would take too long. It would -- probably five to ten minutes apiece
17 would do it, I think. It's pretty much what we -- the submissions we
18 made in relation to when the Prosecution applied to add the diaries to
19 their exhibit list, and it's based on the same factors as that but --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I have to admit, and I think that I'm
23 even speaking on behalf of my colleagues, that we haven't seen it, so
24 therefore even to decide on whether to allow you to make oral submissions
25 at this moment or to invite you to make any written submissions to be
1 filed as soon as possible, we'd like to briefly read the filing of the
2 10th of December first and then decide whether or not how to proceed in
3 relation to the intended request.
4 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, fortunately the dead-lines seem not to be
6 the major item for most of the MFI list, so therefore we'll start with
7 that. There may be some which the Chamber is not able yet to pay
8 attention to, there also may be some which the Chamber would prefer to
9 deal with after the break, so we have our own -- let's say our own
10 organisational structure in respect of this.
11 I go through the whole of the MFI list even if we don't deal with
12 it so that a everyone knows that there's still an exhibit marked for
13 identification pending. The first one on my list is P378, which I'll not
14 deal with at this moment. P395 we'll also not deal with at this moment.
15 The next one on my list is P535, a video-clip. The matter has been
16 discussed at earlier stages. On the 4th of October of this year, the OTP
17 has provided the Registry with a revised transcript because there were
18 some problems in audibility. So on the 4th of October, the Registry has
19 provided -- has been provided with the revised transcripts, and it is
20 about one page which should replace a page which is currently uploaded in
22 Madam Registrar, would you please replace the newly uploaded
23 page. Is it page or pages, Ms. Marcus? It's one page only.
24 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, it's two pages and it's ready to
1 JUDGE ORIE: It's two pages. And that would be -- yes, my
2 numbers here seem to be -- yes, have you received those pages,
3 Madam Registrar? Are you ready to replace them?
4 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, I am, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then you are hereby instructed to do so. Since now
6 the content of the exhibit has slightly been changed, any further
7 submissions to be made? I take it not from the Prosecution. Any further
8 submissions by the Defence? If not, then I think the video is ready for
9 a decision on admission. No objections. P535 is admitted into evidence
10 in its new version.
11 The next items on my MFI list are P557, up to and including P560;
12 and then P562, up to and including P567, which is a bundle of documents
13 comprising laws, decisions, and minutes of the government of the
14 SAO SBWS. Ms. Marcus, is it true that we are still waiting for the
15 Prosecution to provide a chart explaining relevance, a chart which would
16 then incorporate Defence comments?
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we intend to include these laws in
18 a bar table submission which will be handled as Your Honour has
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When could we expect the chart? Of course you
21 can only take responsibility for your part of it, but when could it be
22 sent to the Defence?
23 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, we are currently working very hard on
24 this and the rest of our bar table submission. I would say latest by
25 next week.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Latest by next week, which means that by next week,
2 Friday, it will have reached the Defence?
3 MS. MARCUS: Correct, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, whether or not we'll set a time-limit
5 on that, perhaps it's wiser to wait until after the break.
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please, we would be very grateful.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so for 557 to 560 and 562 to 567, a time-limit
8 for the Defence will be set but not after having heard or read your
9 submissions. It's clear, Ms. Marcus, the time-limit for the Prosecution
10 to provide it to the Defence, is -- it's the 24th of December, I think.
11 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The next MFI is P671, intercept monitor, and
13 related to that is P716, which is a transcribed intercept where it's
14 clear that there's no original audio recording. What is the latest
15 status as far as the inquiries with the B-H authorities is concerned,
16 Ms. Marcus?
17 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, on the 3rd of December, the Prosecution
18 received a response from the Bosnian authorities to its RFA requesting
19 they perform additional searches to try to locate the audio corresponding
20 to P671 MFI. The response states that the intelligence security agency
21 of BiH could still not find the requested audio after their additional
22 search and that it is hardly likely that they will find the audio. They
23 will continue their efforts and keep us informed. The Prosecution is
24 available to prepare additional submissions, should the Chamber so
25 request, on the admissibility of intercept P671 MFI and the related
1 monitor note P716 MFI, if the Chamber so wishes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I first have one question of you. If you
3 compare P671 with P716, we see that apparently in one of them names which
4 we recognise are used, whereas in the other one, although the text being
5 the same in other respects, that the names are different and might well
6 be coded names. Have we ever received an explanation for this
7 difference? It may be, then I apologise. If not, could you please tell
8 us what explains the one and which was the first one, which is the
9 original and which is the coded one?
10 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honours. The -- during the testimony of
11 the intercepts authentication witness, it was explained that the monitor
12 notes were simultaneous handwritten notes and the intercepts were the
13 original intercepts that we were tendering, and it was for that reason
14 that we were not generally tendering the monitor notes in a bulk. With
15 the audio missing from this particular intercept, we sought to tender the
16 monitor notes as corroboration of the transcript of the existence of this
17 intercept. Now, with respect to differences in how the -- in what is
18 noted in the monitor note versus the intercept transcript, with
19 Your Honours' leave, I would like to get back to you after the break
20 specifically on that particular issue and inform you further as to what
21 our position would be with respect to that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you'll see that it's mainly about names.
23 MS. MARCUS: Names, yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: After the break also the Defence will have an
25 opportunity to make further submissions on the admissibility of this one
1 intercept where the audio is missing. The one intercept which is
2 reflected in both the intercept monitor and in the transcribed intercept.
3 The issue, therefore, is whether we should wait or whether we should
4 decide on the matter already, and of course, it could always be that
5 further information may be received at a later stage, but at matters
6 stand now, we might not have a realistic expectation to receive on short
7 notice the audio.
8 Mr. Jordash.
9 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, would we be able to adjourn the
10 Defence submissions. I'd like to be able to speak to the Prosecution
11 about -- and see the letter that they sent to the Bosnian authorities and
12 also the Bosnian response. That would be the basis upon which I'd make
13 any further submissions.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Therefore, yes, it seems that we slowly
15 develop in a system of MFIs before the break and MFIs after the break,
16 but, well.
17 The next one is the underlying forensic documents to P512. The
18 latest information the Chamber received is that meanwhile the Prosecution
19 had uploaded all the necessary translations because that was the problem.
20 Could you confirm that?
21 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, my understanding is that there are a
22 few translations still outstanding.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that would be P742, P743, P859, P867, and
24 P914; is that correct?
25 MS. MARCUS: May I have one moment, Your Honour. Your Honour,
1 perhaps I could just give our Case Manager a few moments to double-check
2 that and we'll get back to you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The reason why I, on the one hand, says that
4 the latest information that all translations were uploaded and at the
5 same time come with a series of numbers of translations still missing,
6 that is because in the latest witness notification, it was announced that
7 all the necessary translation were uploaded, whereas, at the same time,
8 we receive information that there are still five missing.
9 Then I slowly move on. The next item is P943 which is an
10 intercepted conversation of Radovan Karadzic and Malko Koroman. I think
11 that it was an oversight that this intercepted conversation has escaped
12 the attention of the Office of the Prosecution when Witness JF-002
13 testified. The issue now is whether we should -- we would need, whether
14 we would require an additional statement from Witness JF-002 with respect
15 to the authenticity of the particular intercept, or whether the
16 dependence accepts, even without a further statement of JF-002, the
18 MR. JORDASH: We accept without a further statement. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] We accept that. Thank you,
21 Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that P943 is hereby admitted into
23 evidence. I leave alone for awhile P967 and then move on to P972 which
24 we'll deal with in relation to P973. P972, the report on the commission
25 for establishing the circumstances related to documentation requested by
1 RFA 1691, and P973, attachments to that same report.
2 I do understand that the last developments were that on the
3 29th of November, Mr. Bakrac has sent an e-mail to Mr. Groome where he
4 attached excerpts of the testimony of Stevanovic in the Milosevic case
5 and asked for comments after receipt of which the Simatovic Defence would
6 file the excerpts in accordance with the Chamber's instructions of the
7 29th of September, 2010. Therefore, my question at this moment would be
8 whether the Prosecution has already responded to the Simatovic e-mail?
9 MS. MARCUS: We have not, Your Honours, but we stand ready to do
11 JUDGE ORIE: And when would that materialise, Ms. Marcus?
12 MS. MARCUS: We could do that by the end of the day tomorrow,
13 Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, you'll get an e-mail by the end of the
15 day of tomorrow. And then we would like to hear from you, if possible,
16 how you intend to proceed on Thursday.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. That's
18 precisely what I was waiting for, namely the response. Second, when it
19 comes to time-limits, it has been our experience that you are always good
20 at gauging what the proper time-limits would be, so we'll wait for the
21 Prosecution's response and we'll then give our position.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Which is expected by Thursday close of business. It
23 might well be that you already express your intentions orally.
24 I leave P975 for the time being and move on to P979. P979 is
25 related to P1009. Ms. Marcus, I have one question for you: In one of
1 the latest witness notification, and I think it was the notification of
2 the 24th of November of this year, the Prosecution announced that it can
3 produce a different copy of the same document. Now, the document has
4 been used in the Theunens report as well, and, of course, it's the
5 intriguing question where the different version now comes from because is
6 there another version of the same document because I don't think that
7 we've seen it and we are now primarily talking about P979?
8 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, just for clarification, are you
9 requesting to see the other version or are you querying -- sorry, what is
10 the query, Your Honours?
11 JUDGE ORIE: The query is that there is an objection to admission
12 on the basis of authenticity. Now, if you come with a second version of
13 the document, it of course could shed some light on are both of them
14 authentic, is there one authentic, is one more authentic than the other?
15 So I just wondered what your position is also because in the Theunens
16 report, I think Mr. Theunens does not refer to two different versions of
17 that document but just deals with that document.
18 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I believe we are talking about a
19 document that may have received two different ERNs. That's what I
20 believe, but I will double-check that. I also call the Chamber's
21 attention to the fact that the information on the RFAs in connection --
22 how we obtained that document was reported to the Chamber and the
23 Prosecution reply on the Theunens exhibit. But I will look further into
24 it, Your Honours, and come back to you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The reason why I started with the two versions
1 is because I wondered what the difference between the two was, but if
2 it's only the ERN number, then of course it's -- of course, you would say
3 your information on the provenance of the document is in the Theunens
5 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Under those circumstances, I suggest to the parties
7 that P979, but also P1009, that we'll deal with them as a Theunens
8 exhibit and deal with them together with all the other Theunens exhibits.
9 We then have all the arguments in one document. Because we then come to
10 the long, long, list of underlying Theunens documents which now all have
11 received exhibit numbers. As the Chamber announced earlier, we are not
12 going to deal with them. We need some time to decide on admission of
13 each of them in light of the submissions made by the parties.
14 Then I think it would be time for the break. We resume at 4.00.
15 Mr. Stanisic, you are excused for after the break.
16 --- Recess taken at 3.31 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 4.12 p.m.
18 [The Accused Stanisic not present]
19 JUDGE ORIE: We restart relatively late, but you'll understand
20 that is because we have to consider quite a lot of things during the
21 break. First of all, for your information, Mr. Jordash, the verification
22 of the availability -- now, let's see. Let's go into private session for
23 a second.
24 [Private session]
11 Page 10260-10267 redacted. Private session.
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
17 The last thing we did in private session, which should have been
18 done in open session, is to ask from the parties their position on the
19 recently uploaded translations of underlying documents to P512 so as an
20 order to allow the Chamber to decide. The parties have committed
21 themselves to informing the Chamber by Friday, the 17th of December,
22 close of business of their positions.
23 MR. JORDASH: Could I just give Your Honours the 65 ter numbers
24 of the Seselj transcripts, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. JORDASH: The 12th of January --
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's what we did in --
3 MR. JORDASH: I'll leave it until we -- if we do go back into
4 private session.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 Then we move on from where we left off before the break, which is
7 at P1063. This document was used in cross-examination of Witness JF-026
8 and a part of the English translation was missing. The document was then
9 marked for identification pending receipt of a full translation, and then
10 the Prosecution indicated that this was one of the Theunens documents for
11 which they had translated only some parts relevant for the Prosecution.
12 And, Mr. Petrovic, you told us in court that you would resolve the
13 matter. Now the Chamber wonders whether the Prosecution and
14 Simatovic Defence have discussed, if not resolved the matter and how they
15 report back.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no, I don't think it
17 has been resolved, but we are on the way. Our Case Manager has sent a
18 mail with the number of pages pending translation, or rather, a proposal
19 for translation. There's about 20 pages that are of some significance to
20 us, three or four documents altogether. That's the latest I have on that
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
23 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Perhaps I could assist. We
24 apparently received a translation this morning and it is ready for
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Once it is uploaded we have now the full
2 translation. Then could we receive an indication from the Defence also
3 by this week, Friday, the 17th of December, close of business, whether
4 there's any objection against admission. The reason why we are not
5 dealing with this document in the usual way we would deal with the
6 Theunens -- the Theunens experts is because you have sought to use it in
7 the cross-examination of another witness, Mr. Petrovic, and that's the
8 reason why we put it apart and have separated it from the Theunens, the
9 other Theunens exhibits. Yes.
10 Therefore, the full translation now being available, is it a very
11 long document.
12 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, I just wanted to clarify, it's not
13 the full translation, it's only the translation of the portion
14 Mr. Petrovic used.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would that do, Mr. Petrovic? You don't need
16 context apart from the portion you used?
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in addition to the
18 parts that I used, in our mail sent to the Prosecutor we also requested
19 for the translation of the cover page and some other pages that would
20 enable you to understand the gist of the document. And if that has been
21 done, I believe that the translated portions will meet the requirements
22 of the Trial Chamber and it will also satisfy our needs.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, your incomplete translation, does that
24 cover the contextualisation Mr. Petrovic asked for?
25 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, we will check that and come back to
1 you very soon.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, we'd like to know that before Friday.
3 Mr. Petrovic, of course, is expected to respond on Friday, but whether
4 all the relevant portions have been translated, we'd like to know that at
5 an earlier stage.
6 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move on for the next item, let's see whether
8 we can deal with it in open session with all caution. P1522, the
9 Prosecution is expected to identify the pages it seeks to rely on for
10 context. Ms. Marcus, there were two reasons why you may have wanted the
11 whole of P1522 in evidence. The first is to provide context for
12 re-examination, and second to allow the Chamber to assess the consistency
13 of the evidence.
14 Now, we would like you to identify the pages of this evidence
15 which is needed for context.
16 MS. MARCUS: We will do so, Your Honours. I don't have it in
17 front of me now, but we will provide that to you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In order also to avoid that we have in
19 evidence thousands of pages which we might not want to look at at all.
20 Once you've made your selection, there will be an opportunity to further
21 make submissions on that. One second, please.
22 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, when could we receive it?
24 MS. MARCUS: By the end of the day tomorrow, Your Honour?
25 JUDGE ORIE: By the end of the day tomorrow is fine. I would
1 like the Defence to indicate still this week if tomorrow, Tuesday, you've
2 received it, whether you want to make further submissions on this matter
3 or whether you think that the matter is ready to be decided and we are
4 mainly talking about selection of portions of the evidence which is found
5 in P1522.
6 Then the next matter.
7 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Next items on my list are P1524 up to P1528. Now,
9 these documents were MFI'd because the Prosecution was opposing the
10 admission of D122 and D123, would seek admission of those documents if
11 D122 and D123 would be admitted into evidence. And I do understand that
12 in their submissions, and we are just verifying that, there may be even
13 other documents, two other documents that the Prosecution would seek to
14 have admitted, but only if D122 and D123 were to be admitted into
15 evidence. Therefore, we will not at this moment decide on the matter.
16 Just in order to refresh your memory, D122 and D123 are two
17 statements given by a witness and I think it would be wise to leave it to
18 that at this moment. If there are no questions in relation to that, the
19 next -- yes, Ms. Marcus.
20 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. I just wanted to verify with
21 regard to the translation, the pending translation that we submitted for
22 translation precisely the pages that Mr. Petrovic mentioned in the
23 e-mail, so he sent us an e-mail requesting certain pages. Those are
24 exactly the ones that we have prepared.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and we are at this moment talking about P1522,
1 isn't it? Yes.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that we
3 are talking about P1063.
4 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. You are right, Mr. Petrovic. Yes,
6 there the selection had already been made and you communicated this to
7 the Prosecution. Therefore, going back to P1063, which is the list of
8 peacetime military post offices, federal secretary for the people's
9 defence of 1992, whether there's any objection against admission since
10 now all the pages considered relevant by the parties have been
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.
13 MS. MARCUS: No objections.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
15 MR. JORDASH: I beg your pardon, Your Honour, I thought you were
16 address Mr. Petrovic.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I started doing that, now I'm addressing you on
18 P1063 because the Prosecution has now confirmed that the pages
19 Mr. Petrovic would like to see to be translated as well, that they have
20 been translated.
21 MR. JORDASH: No objection, Your Honour. Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No objection. P1063, the relevant portions of it
23 are translated and uploaded into evidence, is admitted into evidence.
24 Then the next one is the Theunens report, P1575. There was a
25 disclosure issue which prevented you from making submissions on the
1 admissibility, Mr. Jordash. Then it was suggested that you might want to
2 have a conference call. Where are we at this moment? What progress has
3 been made?
4 MR. JORDASH: I think this relates to the dead-line Your Honours
5 have given us in -- you gave us the dead-line today, and it's January the
6 14th. No progress has been made. We need to make some phone calls to --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I just wanted to know whether to be updated as
8 to whether there was sufficient progress made. So you'll be in a hurry
9 now to meet your dead-line.
10 I leave P1587 for the time being and the same is true for P1591
11 and P1594, but they are still on our list.
12 P1605 is an intercept. The Prosecution thought that the document
13 originated from the Ministry of the Interior but as we do understand, it
14 turns out that it did not. But you would further investigate on it,
15 Ms. Marcus. Any results of that investigation?
16 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, we have sent an RFA and we'll keep the
17 Chamber and the Defence informed as soon as we receive a response.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record.
19 The next item relates to P1620 up to and including P1624, then
20 P1628 up to and including P1633 ...
21 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: I misspoke and I restart. P1620, up to and
23 including P1624; P1629, up to and including P1633; P1635, up to and
24 including P1641; P1645, P1646, P1648, and P1650. If any of the parties
25 would have had any objections against admission, they should have
1 informed the Trial Chamber by the 3rd of December. On the 6th of
2 December, the Stanisic Defence communicated to the OTP and the Chamber
3 that it did not object to these documents. The Simatovic Defence has not
4 informed the Trial Chamber of any objections. Which means that P1620 to
5 1624, always the last number included, P1629 to 1633, P1635 to P1641,
6 P1645, P1646, P1648, and P1650 are admitted into evidence.
7 I move to the next one, P1626. The Stanisic Defence has asked
8 the OTP whether it could provide further information as to the provenance
9 of these documents. It was a dispatch of the IKM Trnovo to the Ministry
10 of the Interior deputy minister Bosnia-Herzegovina municipality of
11 Bijeljina, Pale police staff commander, Vogosca police forces staff,
12 Janja Special Police Brigades and it concerned combat activity. A
13 document signed by Borovcanin. Is there any submissions could you make,
14 Ms. Marcus, on the provenance of this document.
15 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, this document was seised by the
16 OTP from the RS MUP, from the archives of the RS MUP during a mission in
17 November and December of 2002.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then the next question is whether this satisfies the
19 Stanisic Defence as far as knowledge of the provenance of the document is
21 MR. JORDASH: Could you just seek clarification from the
22 Prosecution. Does that mean that it's not the subject of an RFA? I'm
23 not sure of the Prosecution procedures in this respect.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there may be a difference between what happens
25 in Republika Srpska and what happens in other republics because of the
1 presence of international armed forces and police forces.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. All I can say about that is that
3 an RFA usually implies by correspondence in an archive mission implies
4 that there was a mission to the RS archives. And that's my understanding
5 of where this document was obtained, during a mission by the OTP to the
6 RS MUP archives in November and December 2002.
7 MR. JORDASH: Our submission is we would like to see some
8 paperwork that which indicates a search mission, that which indicates
9 what was seised and an indication of this document being seised and by
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
12 MS. MARCUS: Yes, well, I'm not exactly sure what Mr. Jordash is
13 referring to in terms of paperwork. Perhaps he could specify exactly
14 what paperwork. The documents obtained from the RS MUP archives are
15 abundant, so perhaps if he specifies we'd be happy to make any particular
16 inquiries and respond.
17 MR. JORDASH: Well, I mean, as I've indicated a search record,
18 there must be a record of somebody or some entity attending and seising
19 documents and recording that the documents had been seised. And the same
20 way that the Prosecution insist we give them our RFAs to indicate the
21 same process.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
23 MS. MARCUS: I will make inquiries to see whether I can obtain a
24 more specific date or specific investigator's names, if that's what
25 Mr. Jordash is looking for. Perhaps we can corresponds and see what in
1 particular he is looking for and see if we are able to respond to that
3 MR. JORDASH: Well, it's just a search record. It's whatever is
4 the record of what is searched. Unless the Prosecution indicate that
5 it's a matter of people just seising boxes of documents with no records
6 arising, which is the point. I mean, we want to know --
7 JUDGE ORIE: There must be something because otherwise Ms. Marcus
8 wouldn't know that it was seised in that year and where. If you would
9 have a cup of coffee or tea and see how you would conduct a search and
10 what you would write down and then see what has been written down.
11 MS. MARCUS: We will discuss it. Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Coffee or tea, Ms. Marcus.
13 MS. MARCUS: Coffee, please.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's have a look at the next one. Next one
15 is P1634, there was a small redaction which was reported by the
16 Stanisic Defence. It is a list of call-signs used by Arkan's Tigers. Is
17 there any unredacted version that could be uploaded, Ms. Marcus, that was
18 the question?
19 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we are currently looking into this
20 and we would like to have a little bit of time to get back to the Chamber
21 and the Defence on that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have to wait. Could you give us any
23 estimate of time?
24 MS. MARCUS: By next week, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: By next week. Which means close of business this
1 Friday before the recess or would you say until the 20 -- what is it, the
2 24th of December?
3 MS. MARCUS: Close of business this Friday is fine, Your Honour.
4 Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then the next two documents are P1642 and P1643,
6 where again the question is whether the Prosecution could give any
7 information as to the provenance of these documents, both being combat
9 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. The Prosecution obtained the
10 P1642 from AID in Sarajevo on the 6th of March of the year 2000. And
11 with respect to 1643, the Prosecution obtained this document from the
12 Bosnian authorities on the 1st of May of the year 2000.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the Stanisic Defence who asked for
14 this information.
15 MR. JORDASH: We take the same position as we did in relation to
16 the last exhibit, which is we'd like to see some paperwork, please.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you said you obtained it from the AID in
18 Sarajevo, Ms. Marcus. Was it seised, was it -- what happened?
19 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. I understand that this was a
20 mission -- both of these were obtained through field missions by the OTP,
21 but I will endeavour to get more detailed information as with the
22 previous exhibit.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then they remain on the MFI list. I would
24 encourage the parties to help me and assist me in getting that list a bit
1 The next one is P1651 and P1652. Yes, I think that the
2 objections have been outlined in the Prosecution first bar table motion.
3 Yes, the Stanisic Defence has raised its objections on the 7th of
4 October, 2010, it's just for us now to decide the matter. That's clear.
5 P1658 will not be dealt with at this moment. Next one is P1666,
6 chart listing information on people referred to in the evidence of
7 Witness JF-029. There has been introduced through witness Ewa Tabeau.
8 There was an issue about that list. Mr. Groome indicated that he would
9 elicit the evidence on the last meeting on that list orally, Mr. Jordash,
10 and it was specifically in relation to this last meeting, I think, that
11 you had problems. We then decided to have the document MFI'd and then
12 wait and see what would happen in the examination by Mr. Groome.
13 My question to you is now whether your objection still stands?
14 MR. JORDASH: I spoke very briefly to Mr. Groome. It was an
15 extremely brief conversation at the end of the court day, and I think
16 Mr. Groome agreed to redact three words from that document which the
17 witness hadn't given oral testimony of, and providing that understanding
18 is correct, then I would be -- we would be happy to withdraw any
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, the offer is take off three words and --
21 MS. MARCUS: The Prosecution's submission is that it's four
22 words, but we agree. The words were -- can I -- is this in open session?
23 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session. I don't know what the words
25 MS. MARCUS: Maybe out of an abundance of caution.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
2 MR. JORDASH: I think it's fine. I am confident it's fine.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's then perhaps -- Madam Registrar, I think
4 we can return into open session and we apologise for ... now, we have
5 here the problem that it is a list which was signed by the witness, isn't
7 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honours. So the Prosecution --
8 JUDGE ORIE: There what we then would do is not to change the
9 document itself because then the meaning of the signature would change,
10 but to find the same solution as we had found somewhere else, I forgotten
11 about what, but to make a cover page to it with reference to both the --
12 no, with reference to today's transcript and clearly indicating what
13 words are now changed, what four words are either taken out or changed,
14 the Chamber is not aware of it. Mr. Jordash, you then have a look at it.
15 Once that is uploaded then you look at it and it will be admitted if you
16 agree with the redaction as found on that cover page.
17 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Clear, Ms. Marcus?
19 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then I take it this can be done in two days?
21 MS. MARCUS: No problem, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, could you please inform the Chamber
23 this week if only in an e-mail to Chamber staff that you had reviewed the
24 cover page and that there's no objection, we'll then put that on the
25 record and that takes less time in court.
1 MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honour.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Allow me to first mention a
8 document that you dealt with, and I apologise, but I omitted to give my
9 reaction to it, so before we turn to the D exhibits, if you could hear me
10 out for a minute. It has to do with document P535. It's a video, two
11 stills of which were dealt with. There was a translation issue which was
12 remedied. I only wanted to remind the Trial Chamber that one of the
13 problems that had to do with this video was that of translation. That
14 was resolved. The other problem was that the words that could be heard
15 are out of sync with the facial movements you can see on the video. We
16 have dispensed with the technical problem but what remains, and that's
17 the objection that I raised, is that there is no synchronisation of the
18 sound with the image. I don't know if this has any impact on the
19 admissibility of the exhibit but I wanted to raise this issue for the
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Petrovic, everyone who watches television
22 now and then knows that sometimes you see that the sound is half a second
23 behind what you see. Now, if that's the case, then you know already how
24 the lips will be moving because it's in accordance with what you've --
25 no, I would say that you know it already. No, you don't know because you
1 can't lip read.
2 If the sound comes later slightly or just before, in which case
3 of course then you would know how to expect the lips would move, then
4 there's usually no problem because for one reason or another we
5 apparently are able to follow. Now, if there's a serious contestation
6 that what is heard does not correspond, not even with the small delay or
7 just anticipating on what you'll see, if there's a real discrepancy, then
8 of course it needs to be thoroughly investigated.
9 What is your position? That there's a slight synchronisation
10 problem, or is there a problem which goes beyond that?
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think it's the
12 latter. I don't think that it's a slight synchronisation problem or
13 delay which is quite natural. If you will recall, these were two images,
14 or, rather, there's one audio recording accompanying two video recordings
15 and this is very important because what -- of what the videos depict.
16 From what we have in the record now it turns out that both those on the
17 one video and those on the other say the same thing that can be heard in
18 the audio. So that's where the problem lies, I believe. It's not just
19 synchronisation, it's more than that.
20 Mr. Groome did get in touch with the author of the film to which
21 the excerpts belong. I do have some information as to what the
22 individual said but that's not important. The important thing is what we
23 have in the record and what we do have now is something that has not been
24 synchronised or has not been made corresponding one to the other. That's
25 what I wanted to raise.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I can't say it's perfectly clear to me yet, but if
2 Mr. Groome has any additional information in relation to this matter,
3 Ms. Marcus, speak on his behalf.
4 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. In response to the
5 Simatovic Defence's queries on this, Mr. Groome did get in touch with
6 Filip Svarm and sought some additional information. As I think
7 Mr. Petrovic is aware, there was no additional information from
8 Mr. Svarm. He doesn't have the raw material from which the clips were
9 made. So the Prosecution's submission on this matter is that the Chamber
10 is able to view the video and determine whether it is satisfied that the
11 audio is real and whether it's synchronised accurately and that this is a
12 matter that goes to the weight that the Chamber will give to the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Now lies the problem, I hope you'll forgive me for
15 not having a clear recollection on that, were the words spoken in B/C/S
16 or in English?
17 MS. MARCUS: The words are spoken in B/C/S.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which might give us some problems in comparing
19 what we hear and see. I might give it a try, but ... is this matter
20 which was raised in court or out of court, Mr. Petrovic?
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] It was raised in court. Page 5736
22 of the transcript.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll have a look at it and.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 5736, that's the
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move on to the exhibit.
4 Ms. Marcus.
5 MS. MARCUS: I apologise, Your Honour, I would like to go back to
6 one issue in relation to JF-026. I would be happy to do that now or
7 later when we go into private session for another matter, if the Chamber
8 will grant me the --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps before we, let me see. Perhaps we do it
10 right away then, we don't forget it afterwards. We move into private
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 10285-10287 redacted. Private session.
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. The next one is D70.
18 D70 is similar to D55 and D56.
19 MR. JORDASH: Precisely the same, waiting a response. Our
20 inquiry was made on the 6th of October.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We'll then wait for further information. For D79, I
22 am informed that the OTP has sent an e-mail in which it announces that it
23 would withdraw its objection to D79.
24 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: D79 is admitted into evidence.
1 We move on to D85. The Stanisic Defence is supposed to provide
2 additional information on the provenance of this document. You are -- on
3 the 29th of September, Mr. Jordash, you are reported to have said:
4 "We can definitely, within a week or two, provide additional
5 information on the provenance of this document."
6 MR. JORDASH: And we did, Your Honour. We -- on the 11th of
7 October, we sent an e-mail to the Prosecution indicating the Rule 68
8 batch from which it came from and the context in which it was delivered,
9 i.e., it came from a trial and we indicated that to the Prosecution.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, having now received information as to
11 the provenance.
12 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I'd have to check into that and if I
13 could return to the Chamber, I would like to do so.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Within what time?
15 MS. MARCUS: Well, I can certainly get back to you today, I mean,
16 after the break in terms of our position.
17 JUDGE ORIE: After the break. Perhaps in itself a reason to take
18 the break now. I hope that we'll finish, I'm not quite certain we will,
19 I'll try to do my utmost best, but we first take a break until 6.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 5.34 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We briefly turn into private session.
23 [Private session]
11 Page 10290 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
4 I think next on the list is D98. First of all, the description
5 in e-court appears to be not fully accurate. B/C/S and English versions
6 of the document are dated 31st of May, 1991, where it appears in e-court
7 as 1995. But that's a minor matter. The Stanisic Defence is expected
8 still to provide further information regarding the authorship of the
9 document and --
10 MR. JORDASH: I think the Prosecution's position has changed.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
12 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour. We appreciate that the
13 source of this document indicates that it is authentic and we withdraw
14 our objection to its admission.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I think that Simatovic Defence has not
16 clearly expressed itself on it. Is there any objection?
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then D98 is admitted into evidence.
19 The next one is D100 and another one is D101, which have similar
20 problems. The -- you were instructed to look at D100, D101, D102, D105,
21 and D106 at the time and D110 as well, Mr. Bakrac. Let's start with 100,
22 101 and 102. The issues being first whether any extraneous parts of
23 documents have been redacted from the B/C/S version.
24 Mr. Bakrac.
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will check that
1 with my Case Manager. These are documents that we took over from a
2 Croatian book in respect of which we had sought the originals of the
3 documents from the Croatian authorities on two occasions, so the -- we
4 will use the recess to address the Chamber for possible assistance in
5 this matter since we have not received a response from the Croatian
6 authorities yet.
7 As for redactions, allow me to check this with my Case Manager
8 through e-mail. I don't have an exact recollection as to whether any
9 portions needed redacting.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I think what happened is you took those documents
11 from a book. Now, on those pages we find also parts of other documents,
12 and I think if I'm talking about extraneous parts, whether they have been
13 redacted, is that anything is removed which is not sought to be tendered
14 into evidence. That was the issue, Mr. Bakrac.
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, now I understand. I
16 apologise. Unless my colleague has seen to it, can we have by Friday
17 enough time to remove all the portions of the document we do not need?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that was the first question. And the second
19 question was whether the original has been received from the Croatian
20 authorities because they all appear to be official documents, whether --
21 have you asked for them?
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, we have sought
23 the documents. First we sent an initial request, I can give you the
24 dates as well, and then we sent them a rush note for these documents. We
25 do have exact references as to where each of these documents can be
1 found. We have not received any response from the Croatian government
2 and that's why my learned friend Mr. Petrovic and I have been
3 entertaining the idea of asking the Chamber for their assistance in
4 receipt of these documents.
5 JUDGE ORIE: When did you ask for the first time?
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Give me a moment, Your Honour. Can
7 I have time to check that and I'll let you know before the end of
8 business today?
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine, Mr. Bakrac, but it also leads to the
10 following observation: In many cases I've presiding over, housekeeping
11 sessions worked well. As a matter of fact, what we are doing now is not
12 working well. Therefore, the Chamber will seriously consider not to
13 spend hours and hours in court with often the result that the parties are
14 encouraged to do what they should have done already. I'm not saying this
15 is true in every respect but too often it is, I don't know yet but we
16 have to inquire into those matters. Therefore, the Chamber will most
17 likely proceed in the future in a different way where housekeeping
18 sessions are prepared in out-of-court meetings between perhaps even
19 Chamber's staff and the parties, so that we know exactly what is still
20 contentious and what needs attention in court. It takes me hours and
21 hours and hours to prepare these meetings. I would have been happy if
22 more answers would have been received rather than promises to do next
23 week what should have been done last week. And again this is not
24 general, sometimes it is as it is, but not in every respect everyone
25 seems to be fully prepared.
1 We move on to 101 then is the same, I take it, Mr. Bakrac?
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. It would appear
3 that 101, 102, 105, 106, 110, 112, 120, are all documents the originals
4 of which we are yet to receive, and as I said, I will inform you by the
5 close of business today about the date when we sent the request.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And also when you repeated the request, I do
7 agree with you as far as the numbers are concerned, Mr. Bakrac, which
8 leaves us to the numbers in between of those you mentioned. One is D103,
9 a letter from the SAO Krajina Petrinja municipality to Arkan. Is there a
10 clean English translation now uploaded?
11 Mr. Bakrac.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that my
13 colleague did upload the translation, but I have to check that with him.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Do you remember what had to be done, Mr. Bakrac?
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] If my memory serves me well, I
16 think that it had to do with the stamp from the Milosevic case. In other
17 words, there was a stamp from the Milosevic case which had to be removed
18 and a new version thus changed -- needed to be uploaded.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that was one of the three items in relation to
20 this document. The first being that the English translation, that's the
21 one you mentioned, still bore markings related to its status in previous
22 cases and they should be removed. Second, we noted that the English
23 translation does not reflect the fact that the B/C/S original is stamped
24 at the bottom. Third, is that we ask that the English translation would
25 be reviewed in full so if that -- if we revisit that matter, the Chamber
1 would appreciate if all three matters had been given attention to.
2 Then on this list apart from the ones you mentioned, we still
3 have D118. D118 is a letter addressed to Ratko Mladic. Initially, the
4 problem was that there was no translation, but the translation you
5 announced, at least, Mr. Bakrac, has been uploaded. So that should be
6 okay by now.
7 Then on the 29th of September, I said that earlier you also
8 already indicated that you might seek an order under Rule 54 bis but that
9 was only recently. If you need our assistance, don't hesitate to ask for
10 it. That's now two and a half, close to three months ago. There comes a
11 point where you don't have to ask for it anymore because we'll then
12 perhaps have decided on the fate of the document you have tendered.
13 On the 8th of October, the OTP has sent an e-mail stating that it
14 objected to the authenticity and that the Prosecution considered it
15 appropriate that you would make submissions on the provenance. Could you
16 tell us anything in this respect, Mr. Bakrac?
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, D118 was found by the
18 Defence on EDS. The accompanying information states that the OTP
19 received the document from the MUP of the Republic of Croatia.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, which raises the issue whether you still
21 object to the document?
22 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, to the best of my knowledge, we didn't
23 have information as to the provenance and I hope we wouldn't have made
24 that submission if we did know, but with Your Honours' leave, I would
25 like to just verify that information.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'd like to hear from you and Mr. Bakrac, and
2 perhaps you sit together, coffee or tea, and inform us within the next
3 few days.
4 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We now come to D122 and D123. I earlier indicated
6 that D122 and D123 that the Prosecution objected against admission, that
7 there are already five documents and I think we referred to them earlier.
8 I would have to find their numbers but I think it was just -- let me just
9 have a look. Yes, we were talking about P1524 and P1528 which the
10 Prosecution said it was not seeking to tender it, but if D122 and D123
11 were admitted that they would give background information which is
12 relevant for the assessment of the reliability of these statements.
13 In a submission dated the 3rd of November 2010, the Prosecution,
14 when making submissions on the admissibility of D122 and D123, listed
15 another seven documents which it would seek to be admitted into evidence
16 if the Chamber would decide that D122 and D123 would be admitted, and it
17 further informed the Chamber that it had recently received a biographical
18 note which it offer to give to the Chamber should the Chamber consider
19 that it would assist in its determination of the issue.
20 Now, I do understand that this biographical note that you would
21 offer that for us to look at before we finally decide on D122 and D123,
22 the P1524, up to and including P1528, and the seven documents which are
23 not tendered yet. Now, I also do understand that the Defence opposes the
24 Chamber to look at the biographical note, if I understood you well.
25 Mr. Jordash.
1 MR. JORDASH: I think the biographical note is a statement that
2 the witness gave. I don't have the exchange of pleadings in front of me,
3 but I think that the biographical note is a statement the witness gave,
4 and if it is the statement, a statement the witness gave in 1992, I
5 think, then it will be the subject of an application to recall the
6 witness which we will file in the next one or two days. So we don't
7 object to the Chamber seeing that statement if it is the same as the
8 biographical note, in fact we want the Chamber to see it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now, whether it's a statement or not, it is
10 announced in paragraph 18 of this Prosecution submission as a brief file
11 regarding the witness, saying where it comes from, and then which
12 includes a biographical note written by the witness in 1992. Now, again,
13 we haven't seen it, so we are not a party to a debate to how to
14 characterise this document.
15 MR. JORDASH: Well, I think the description by the Prosecution is
16 an interesting description. It's a statement. It looks no different to
17 any other statement, as far as we are concerned. It's probably in the
18 interest of the Prosecution to describe it as a biographical note because
19 it changes it from -- anyway, perhaps we shouldn't get into this debate,
20 but Your Honours should see it, in our submission. I think the
21 Prosecution agree with that, and it will be for Your Honours to
22 characterise it as you see fit.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then you said something about, let me just check.
24 MR. JORDASH: We are going to file an application to recall the
25 witness to put that statement or biographical note to him --
1 JUDGE ORIE: You would say irrespective of whether we look at it
2 at this moment in order to decide D122, D123, the other five and the
3 other seven documents, irrespective of that you would make an
5 MR. JORDASH: We don't submit that Your Honours need to see it to
6 decide this issue. It's a statement which, like other statements the
7 witness has given, fails to mention Red Berets, fails to mention Serbian
8 MUP. It's the same issue that rose arose during cross-examination. It
9 doesn't assist the Prosecution case, it -- conversely it supports the
10 position that the Defence advance on cross-examination.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Now I'm really confused because you say, You should
12 look at it, but we don't have to look at it to determine the matter
13 before us. Is that --
14 MR. JORDASH: I think it would be helpful for Your Honours to see
15 it. I don't think it's essential to decide this issue but it would be
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, Mr. Petrovic, do you think it would be
18 helpful for the Chamber to see what is announced in paragraph 18 of the
19 Prosecution's submissions on the admissibility of D122 and D123?
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we do.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll consider all 14 documents; that is D122,
22 D123, P1524 to P1528, and the seven documents listed on page 9 of the
23 3rd of November, 2010, submission.
24 And meanwhile, Ms. Marcus, you are invited to provide the Chamber
25 with the brief file which you mention in paragraph 18 of that 3rd of
1 November submission and I think that should, for the time being, receive
2 a number to be MFI'd. Do we have a 65 ter number for that document yet?
3 MS. MARCUS: I will look it up and provide it to you,
4 Your Honour.
3 When do you expect, Mr. Jordash, that you'll file your --
4 MR. JORDASH: Before the end of the January was our plan, in the
5 first few weeks of January. We would hope to file it --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, apart from the request you still wanted
7 to make, any objection against by the end of January?
8 MS. MARCUS: No objections, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Mr. Jordash, you are expected to
10 file a bar table motion including a chart, and I take it that you'll
11 provide it well in time to the other parties for their comments and to
12 have it filed not later than by the end of January.
13 D138 has to wait. D139, Mr. Petrovic, my notes tell me that you
14 had overlooked the issue of the provenance of that document and that you
15 would look into the issue and come back to the issue that is dated the
16 9th of November.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
18 JUDGE ORIE: We are talking about the Pauk order.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I think that we received the
20 document from a potential Defence witness, that's the note that I have in
21 respect of this document, and I think that we said at some point that the
22 document should be admitted as marked for identification until such time
23 as persons will appear that will be able to testify to it. If that's the
24 document we are discussing?
25 JUDGE ORIE: We are discussing D139, the Pauk order. So your
1 question whether that's the document we are discussing, that's the
2 question you should answer yourself. Because I indicated what I was
3 discussing, so whether we are discussing it depends on whether you have
4 the same document on your mind. But do I understand that you were
5 talking about the Pauk order as well?
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We are
7 discussing a document marked TG2 Pauk command signed by
8 General Mile Novakovic, and the ERN number is missing, the OTP number
9 that is normally there. The document is three paragraphs.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not going to verify this at this very moment but
11 I take it that we are talking about the same document.
12 Next one is D140. The issue was that the OTP would check where
13 the documents came from. We are talking about MUP of Republika Srpska
14 decision which was tendered by the -- or at least which the Stanisic
15 Defence wanted to tender. It apparently also was used with Mr. Theunens,
16 but you wanted to check where it comes from and then we'd like to hear
17 whether your objections stand.
18 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, we have verified that it comes from the
19 Prijedor collection. We have no objection. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: No objection. D140 is admitted into evidence.
21 D142, Mr. Groome just had seen the document and wanted to verify its
22 authenticity. What is the position of the Prosecution? It's an order by
23 Radovan Karadzic, 13th of June, 1995.
24 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, we note that Mr. Kirudja explicitly
25 said at transcript 9197, line 11, that he could only agree to one very
1 narrow aspects of that document which conformed to his recollection.
2 With that in mind, in that submission, we have no objection.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then D142 is admitted into evidence. The next one
4 is D146. Mr. Groome wanted to check the provenance of the document and
5 would possibly agree to its admission on the next day. Fortunately, it's
6 not written down what day he said that.
7 Ms. Marcus.
8 MS. MARCUS: We are still awaiting information, Your Honours. We
9 maintain our objection until we obtain further information from the
10 Simatovic Defence. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Simatovic Defence
13 is still in the process of checking the document. However, a document
14 with the same contents but sent to a different combat group is an OTP
15 document, the ERN being 01308-0230 [as interpreted]. So the same date,
16 the same reference number but it's sent to the command of the Serbian
17 Volunteer Guard detachment. The text is the same, but it's an OTP
18 document. My instruction for the same document but addressed to the
19 Serbian Volunteer Guard was for my investigator to find where we got the
20 document from. As soon as I get the information, I will convey it to the
21 OTP and then we'll come out with the information jointly to the Trial
23 JUDGE ORIE: We'll wait for that.
24 Next two documents, diary of a witness and an accompanying
25 document, D147 and D148, not all pages had been translated. We MFI'd the
1 documents in their entirety and until further consultations on what the
2 Simatovic Defence needs and what needs, therefore, to be translated.
3 Where do we stand in relation of these documents?
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, our initial idea was
5 to have the two diaries translated in their entirety in order for them to
6 show the nature of the work performed by the witness. However, we needed
7 to give a clear explanation to the CLSS for that. That's why we decided
8 to take out extracts of the documents and submit them for translation.
9 We have also submitted to the CLSS the documents which need to be
10 translated for the witness appearing tomorrow. So as soon as they
11 complete this priority translation, we will submit the excerpts of
12 diaries to the CLSS to be translated. As soon as we receive those, we
13 will inform both you and the OTP in order to see what their position is.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So the sum of it is that the selection you may want
15 to make has not yet been submitted to CLSS where you received further
16 indication that you would have to reduce the portion to be translated, a
17 matter which I think you could have expected in relation to such a
18 document. When will you give it to CLSS for translation, the selected
19 portions, Mr. Bakrac?
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that we will
21 do so tomorrow or perhaps the day after tomorrow when we expect the most
22 recent translations for the next witness to come, so we'll submit them on
23 Wednesday at the latest.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that.
25 D150, OTP to check provenance. Ms. Marcus.
11 Pages 10304-10306 redacted. Redaction Order.
25 D163, you have given no reasons, no clear reasons why you prefer
1 to have it MFI'd but it may be that you first wanted to have a further
2 look at the document.
3 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, we don't object to its admission, but
4 we -- the date -- the date in the translation needs to be corrected. It
5 states the 25th of June, 1992, but it should read 24th of June, so we
6 submitted a request for verification of the date to CLSS, otherwise we
7 have no objection to its admission.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is it written or is it the numbers --
9 MS. MARCUS: I believe that the date in the translation needs to
10 be corrected. I believe that the date in the translation says the 25th
11 of June, where it should read the 24th.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. That's it. I have a list of other
13 matters which --
14 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: I apparently have forgotten D155. Is the
16 Prosecution maintaining its objection and has the translation issue been
17 resolved? These are the two questions.
18 MS. MARCUS: We withdraw our objection, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Translation issues resolved.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't have any
21 annotations on my list that had to do with any translation problems, if I
22 overlooked something then I apologise. I know there was an objection
23 from the OTP regarding provenance and that was looked into, but I don't
24 have any translation problems on my list.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the translation problem was that there was
1 more translated than was found in the original document. I said the
3 "The translation is not only the page we find in the original,
4 but the translation also deals with handwritten text on the back of the
6 Now, that appears not, as far as I can see, in the original which
7 is uploaded which is a one-page document. As you may remember, the
8 original, the translation also dealt with what was found at the back of
9 that page. It's mainly taking out, I don't think as a matter of fact it
10 would be a reason at this moment not to admit D155. It is admitted into
11 evidence, but you should remove, Mr. Petrovic, the -- what is translated
12 but appears not in the original.
13 Mr. Jordash, yes, you still wanted to make an application, I know
14 it's very short, we allow you to use the remaining three minutes to start
15 to make that application and once we've heard the three minutes, we'll
16 decide whether or not we would like to hear more or whether we would
17 invite you to make further written submissions.
18 MR. JORDASH: On the 10th of December, 2010, the Prosecution
19 filed a motion for admission of excerpts --
20 JUDGE ORIE: We have read that motion.
21 MR. JORDASH: Previously, the Defence applied to adjourn the
22 testimony of Witness JF-054 and the trial itself. And in the decision
23 dated the 22nd of April, 2010, Your Honours inter alia stated that based
24 on the information you had received at that stage, the remedy requested
25 by the Defence was not warranted and the substance of that decision
1 suggested that we would have the latitude to apply in the future for an
2 adjournment based on the contents of the Mladic diary.
3 In our submission, that time is now given that Prosecution motion
4 for admission of the excerpts which require more than simply the Defence
5 to take on board and assimilate that evidence into its preparation, but
6 it requires now a full consideration of the diaries and associated tapes.
7 The diaries, I think, come to approximately 3- to 4.000 pages, and the
8 associated tapes number, I think, something like 120 audio and/or
9 video-tapes, all of which were seised at Mladic's house.
10 As yet, we just have not had the time to properly study this
11 material and to take appropriate steps to investigate it and thereafter
12 use the fruits of that investigation during the Prosecution case. And we
13 would ask the Trial Chamber now to provide us with that opportunity by
14 adjourning the trial from -- for four weeks, I beg your pardon. In our
15 submission that's a reasonable request. It simply isn't possible to
16 properly study 4.000 pages and 120 audio and video-tapes whilst trying to
17 conduct a defence and trying to deal with this very heavy trial.
18 I can say with absolute candour I've read, skim read the diaries,
19 nobody in my team has had the opportunity to listen to any of these tapes
20 and certainly no one on the team has had the opportunity to study the
21 Mladic diaries.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: In order for the Chamber -- we certainly need to
24 hear more about this, of course we also need to hear the response by the
25 Prosecution. The question is whether the parties are confident that the
1 time needed for that, of course, I do not know exactly how much time you
2 had on your mind, whether that time is still available in view of the
3 evidence we would hear. If not, then we would like to receive further
4 submissions in writing and also the Prosecution will not be given much
5 time to respond to that because it's clear that you could expect this and
6 we have seen similar issues in other cases. So therefore you certainly
7 will not be given until the 15th of January to respond, Ms. Marcus. That
8 may be clear. The matter should be resolved, I would say, preferably
9 before the recess and not during the recess.
10 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Because what would be the alternative solution.
12 Could the parties try to see whether they consider and commit themselves
13 to a use of time further this week in court such that we could hear those
14 submissions orally. If not, then they should have been made in writing.
15 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could we hear from the parties, preferably joint
17 submission, tomorrow.
18 MR. JORDASH: As to whether we should deal with this orally or in
19 writing it?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, whether you commit yourself to, as far as the
21 testimony of -- to be heard this week is concerned, whether we could not
22 at the expense of a witness having to fly back on the 17th and then come
23 back a couple of weeks after that and if that would be the outcome, then
24 you would be invited to make further written submissions.
25 MR. JORDASH: Certainly, we'll do that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: But the matter certainly deserves more attention
2 than is given to it until now.
3 MR. JORDASH: Grateful. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then we adjourn for the day and we will resume
5 tomorrow the 14th of December, quarter past 2.00 in this same
6 Courtroom II.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.
8 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 14th day of
9 December, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.