1 Friday, 18 February 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
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 This morning, Judge Picard is unable to attend, due to urgent
14 personal reasons. The other Judges, Judge Gwaunza and myself, have
15 decided that it would be in the interests of justice to continue hearing
16 this case, so, therefore, we're sitting, the two of us, under
17 Rule 15 bis.
18 I'd like to inform the parties that we have time until 1.00
19 sharp, not one minute more. Let's try to get through all the
20 housekeeping matters which are on our desk as quickly as possible.
21 I hereby put on the record that the parties were informed on 11th
22 of February of this year that a housekeeping session would be held today
23 between 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. I would like to start, first, with the
24 items which are on the housekeeping e-mail which was sent on the 28th of
25 January and which was later filed on the record filing 1st of
1 February 2011.
2 The first item is about new versions or translations. The
3 Chamber received no indication that there is disagreement among the
4 parties in relation to these new versions, the versions which are found
5 in this e-mail, and, therefore, Madam Registrar is instructed to make the
6 necessary changes into -- in e-court. These are the numbers of the list,
7 starting with P442, last item on that list, P1666.
8 Madam Registrar, you are instructed to replace the old versions
9 by the new ones, as found on that list.
10 I move onto the second -- the third item on that list. That is,
11 uploaded versions of the Theunens document.
12 First of all, I'd like to ask whether the Prosecution has
13 uploaded the corrected version of the five documents mentioned. That's
14 P1013, P1016, P1025, P1090, and P1310.
15 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honours, we have, indeed.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then hereby the Registry is instructed to replace
17 the old versions by the corrected versions.
18 As far as P1090 is concerned, there was an additional issue about
19 the missing introduction and also about adding the years to the pages of
20 the excerpt of the chronology.
21 Has this been done as well? I'm talking about the report of the
22 Dutch Institute for War Documentation or the Dutch acronym being NIOD,
24 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. The document as you mentioned is
25 partially in Dutch. We -- the English translation was completed but
1 we're still awaiting the B/C/S translation. When it becomes available,
2 we will upload it under 65 ter 4245.1 and then we'll inform the Chamber
3 and the parties.
4 With respect --
5 JUDGE ORIE: The English translation is available to the parties.
6 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we will wait for the B/C/S version. If
8 that causes the Defence any problems, then the Chamber would like to be
10 I think that covers item 3 on the e-mail.
11 We move onto item 4. This is about revised versions of P1122 and
13 Have the revised versions been uploaded?
14 MS. MARCUS: Yes, they have, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, you are hereby instructed to
16 replace the old versions by the revised versions of P1122 and P1601.
17 I move -- if there's any matter in between where I move too fast,
18 please, do not hesitate to interrupt me.
20 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 With respect to P1601, the complete translation of this is still
22 pending. So the Prosecution will keep the Chamber and the parties
23 informed of the progress on this. I spoke too soon: P1122 in fact has
24 been uploaded and is ready for replacement.
25 JUDGE ORIE: So P1601 is not yet in a final version.
1 MS. MARCUS: That's correct.
2 JUDGE ORIE: When do you expect that this could be completed?
3 MS. MARCUS: We expect it the to be ready by Monday, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: If that causes the Defence any specific problems,
5 then the Chamber would like to be informed about it.
6 Then I move on to item 5. Item 5 is about unofficial and
7 non-corrected versions of prior testimony of Rule 92 quater witnesses. I
8 give one example of that, is P589. The Prosecution would look for a
9 better copy of the document. Was also a problem with legibility. Now I
10 do understand that for P589 another version has been found.
11 Is that correct?
12 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour. In fact for all those
13 listed in the weekly notification that we sent out, we have uploaded
14 replacement transcripts with the doc IDs as indicated. They are all
15 ready for uploading, including P589.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Has the -- where I earlier referred to 92
17 quater witnesses, some of them are also testimony of non-92 quater
19 Has the legibility problem been resolved by that as well,
20 Ms. Marcus?
21 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the Registry is hereby instructed to make
23 the necessary replacements and replace the old versions by the official
24 versions which are now received by -- from the Prosecution.
25 I move -- yes.
1 MS. MARCUS: Excuse me, Your Honour, I'm sorry, as the Chamber
2 requested we did look into additional ones other than the ones mentioned
3 by the Chamber. I just want to note that we found some additional ones.
4 We've included them in the weekly --
5 JUDGE ORIE: They're included. And Madam Registrar is
6 sufficiently aware of what are the ones added of those found on item 5 of
7 the e-mail.
8 Madam Registrar, you ...
9 THE REGISTRAR: I have the weekly update from the OTP.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is it sufficient perhaps after the break we'll
11 just compare the lists we have, the old -- the list the Chamber provided
12 being on item number 5 and then to see what other exhibit numbers were
13 replaced or at least new version was uploaded by the Prosecution so that
14 we have a full record on what is new now.
15 We'll do that after the break, compare the list. Perhaps you
16 could also see which ones in addition to what the Chamber asked for
17 are -- how many are there.
18 MS. MARCUS: I could do that immediately, Your Honour, if you --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
20 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
21 The additional up ones in addition to what the Chamber mentioned
22 will be P38, P39, P62, P63, P68, P104, P105, P296, P303, P356, P402,
23 P408, P491, P496, P510, P589 - we did mention that earlier - P -- that
24 would be it, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That would be it.
1 Those, in addition to the ones mentioned in the e-mail of the
2 28th of January.
3 I move on to the next item, which is a document marked by
4 Witness Todorovic.
5 Has 65 ter 113, because that was the document we were talking
6 about, has that been uploaded?
7 Ms. Marcus.
8 MS. MARCUS: Yes, it has, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, you are hereby instructed to
10 attach the uploaded document, 65 ter 113, to attach it to P1582.
11 Then we move on, item 7, which is about document P1698. We are
12 talking about the statement of Mr. Kojic, where the parties have made
13 submissions on the admissibility. We had the issue of - let me see -
14 whether the Defence objections remain. It was mainly about the
15 applicability of Rule 92 ter here.
16 Mr. Jordash, is there anything you'd like to submit and, if so,
17 if you could limit it to three minutes.
18 MR. JORDASH: I was hoping that we could file some written
19 submissions on it.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because I do understand that there's no
21 agreement between the parties as to the admissibility of the document.
22 When do you think you could file -- I would have given you an opportunity
23 here. It seems that it's mainly a matter of can it be admitted under
24 Rule 92 ter, is there any possibility of admitting it under 89(C). Did
25 you say I'd rather make written submissions then, of course, causes
1 further delays in knowing exactly what the evidence is. But, at the same
2 time, if you --
3 MR. JORDASH: Could we just move it to the back of the list and
4 then I'll have a look at it as we sit here and --
5 JUDGE ORIE: We put it at the back of the list. Let's see, that
7 MS. MARCUS: Excuse me, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MS. MARCUS: May I just note that we filed a written submission
10 on that matter also so --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I -- that's the written submissions dated 9th
12 February, 2001 [sic].
13 MS. MARCUS: That's correct.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That is an eight-page submission altogether,
15 Prosecution's further submission on the admissibility of P1698.
16 Yes, I'm aware. We are just seeking the response of the Defence.
17 Mr. Jordash, I put it at the end of the list.
18 Then I move to item 8 on the e-mail list. Item 8 is about
19 Witness JF-026. First is a letter to the Victims and Witness Section
20 which the OTP wanted to have that admitted. The OTP informed us that the
21 Defence would have no objections; is that accurate?
22 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: So then whenever Mr. Jordash speaks, Mr. Petrovic...
24 MR. PETROVIC: We have no objections either, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, then the letter to the Victims and
1 Witness Section, Madam Registrar, are you aware what the document is,
2 because I would like to invite you to assign a number to it.
3 THE REGISTRAR: I would like to hear the exact...
4 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, it's 65 ter 5879.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, have you identified the document?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, I did, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: If I look at it from a distance, it's in English
8 only at this moment; is that correct?
9 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, as far as I know, it's been translated
10 and uploaded in both languages.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Both languages have been uploaded, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Registrar, and then the number would
14 be ...
15 THE REGISTRAR: One moment, Your Honour. Apologies.
16 The number will be P2493, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: P2493 is admitted, under seal.
18 There was a related issue and -- because the parties wanted to
19 have a look at the VWS response to that letter. Have you had access to
20 it? The response of VWS.
21 MR. JORDASH: That was the recent one the one that we received
22 two days ago, I think?
23 JUDGE ORIE: I do not whether you received it. I think, as a
24 matter of fact, that the Chamber would have to give permission to release
1 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently my staff know what you received two days
3 ago, Mr. Jordash. They say it's a different one.
4 MR. JORDASH: I just realized that. We haven't seen the VWS
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. The parties wanted to have a look at it.
7 Madam Registrar, the Registry is permitted to share that letter with the
9 If that leads to any further problem or any further development,
10 the Chamber would like to be informed without delay.
11 The Prosecution tendered in relation to still the same witness a
12 media article which had not received yet an exhibit number. First of
13 all, would there be any objections against admission of that media
14 article, which is 65 ter --
15 MR. GROOME: 65 ter 5874.
16 JUDGE ORIE: 5874.
17 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: But before I invite the Defence to take a position
19 on that, I think the Chamber has invited the Prosecution to explain to us
20 the relevance of that media article.
21 MR. GROOME: Given that this witness's evidence was taken in
22 closed session, I believe it would be more appropriate that we do this in
23 private session.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
25 [Private session]
11 Pages 11233-12241 redacted. Private session.
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
1 We move to item 9 on the e-mail list of questions, relating to
2 P1605, an intercept.
3 On the 11th of February, the OTP has filed further details. Does
4 the Defence maintain its objections?
5 MR. JORDASH: Yes, we do.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You do.
7 Would you like to make short submissions in view of the latest
8 information or do you think that the matter has been sufficiently dealt
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 MR. JORDASH: Can I just have a very brief moment, Your Honour,
13 Your Honour, could we come back to that. I would be able to give
14 an answer to that --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's the item about intercepts where an audio
16 is missing. I'll put it, again, at the end of my list.
17 I then move on. The next one, item 10, under list of questions
18 which is about P1634, an unredacted version was in need to be uploaded.
19 Has this been done?
20 MS. MARCUS: Yes, it's Your Honour, it has been uploaded as 65
21 ter 2578.1.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's the list of call-signs.
23 MS. MARCUS: Correct.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then the unredacted version replaces the redacted
1 Madam Registrar, you're hereby instructed to replace it. And I
2 don't think there were any objections against the list of call-signs, as
3 such. Therefore, Madam Registrar, the number would be -- no, the number
4 we have already it's P1634. P1634 is admitted into evidence.
5 We move on to the next one. It's item 11 on the list of
6 questions. P1688, the important issue being what the provenance of that
7 document was.
8 Could I inquire with the Defence whether the objections against
9 P1688 still stand?
10 MR. JORDASH: Yes, they do, Your Honour. We -- I don't think
11 we've had... sorry. I beg your pardon. We've had an indication from a
12 Prosecution investigator dated the 9th of February, 2011, which says the
13 document -- or the document was obtained by a former OTP member of staff
14 from a disc containing RS MUP dispatches on the 27th of January, 2005
15 from the Croatian State Archives. But that is the sum total of the
16 indication as to origin. And the contents of the document are disputed,
17 as is the authenticity of the document, and we would submit that there
18 ought to be a further clarification of how it was obtained and the RFA
19 that gave rise to the request and the precise response.
20 The witness who testified about this document was not able to
21 advance the issue any further, simply remarking that based on what is
22 discussed in the document, the witness believes that it is authentic and
23 but then going on to say that the witness had not seen this information
24 previously. And I'm reading from the witness's comments on page 8.
25 Nothing the witness said, in our submission, changes the situation.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Are there any specifics as far as the
2 challenge to the authenticity is apart from what you just told us? Is
3 there anything in typewriters never being used by the authority which
4 supposedly has issued this document, or you know anything else which
5 would be a reason found in the document that it would not be authentic.
6 MR. JORDASH: No, it has certainly indications. It has a stamp
7 of the -- purporting to be a stamp of the Serbian Army of Krajina
8 Main Staff.
9 JUDGE ORIE: If you say on -- well, let's say on the face of the
10 document, there we do not find the reasons for our challenge to the
11 authenticity, but it's, rather that is we have insufficient detailed
12 information about how it was obtained, from whom exactly it was obtained,
13 what the chain of custody may have been before it ended up in the archive
14 were it was found. If you say, That's the type of authenticity challenge
15 we're making, not the other type I asked for, then --
16 MR. JORDASH: Certainly. What we would say is we challenge the
17 authenticity of the document. In order to be able to do that effectively
18 we require further information, so that we can conduct our own
19 investigations. At the moment to be told it comes from an archive
20 doesn't enable us to set out and do the relevant investigation.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we support the
23 position of Mr. Stanisic's Defence on this matter.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 We then move onto item 12 on the list, which is P1705, a clip
1 which is also contained in P2161.
2 To that extent, the portion is already in evidence, but for
3 purely practical reasons, the Chamber suggests that we would nevertheless
4 have it admitted as a clip, because it is far easier for future reference
5 not to refer to a lengthy video, but, rather, to refer in a focussed way
6 on a specific portion which has then its own exhibit number.
7 Any objections by the parties to that?
8 If not, P1705 is admitted into evidence; although the content
9 already contained in P2161.
10 I move onto item 13 on the list. D55, D56 and D70.
11 Mr. Jordash, I think it is a -- these are documents which were
12 originally provided by Mr. Stanisic. You would make further
13 investigations into the provenance of where Mr. Stanisic got them from.
14 Could you update the Chamber.
15 MR. JORDASH: We wrote to the national council to obtain the
16 documents afresh. We received a response in relation to D55 and there's
17 a new version uploaded as 1D1927. The correspondence indicating request
18 and response to and from the national council is uploaded at 1D1929.1.
19 1D1926, and 1D1928.1, and we await responses in relation to D56 and D70.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Which, Mr. Groome, leads me to ask you whether, now
21 limited to D55, there's any objection now knowing or at least having
22 another copy received through formal channels.
23 MS. MARCUS: Yes. Your Honour, last we heard there was no
24 translation of the response to D55. This is the first I've heard of the
25 documents that have been uploaded. So if Your Honours would give us an
1 opportunity to look at that, and if it has been translated then we can
2 certainly review it and get back to Your Honours in this session.
3 And we would, of course, maintain our objections to D56 and D70
4 until we hear further.
5 MR. JORDASH: That's right. We only received everything late
6 yesterday, and so we apologise for not letting the Prosecution know that
7 in advance.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which means that I think we leave all three of
9 them at this moment, pending -- Mr. Jordash, you will understand that the
10 Chamber, at a certain moment has to consider, and I'm now mainly
11 focussing on D56 and D70, whether we leave it on the MFI list or whether
12 we, in view of the stage we have reached in the proceedings, whether we
13 would, without prejudice, either invite to you withdraw them at this
14 moment or not to admit them, which, of course, leaves it open that if
15 there ever will be a Defence case you will have an opportunity to
16 reintroduce them. But, otherwise, we -- we might -- I might add to my
17 bad reputation of having long MFI lists.
18 MR. JORDASH: We understand, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: That's understood.
20 So D55 -- Ms. Marcus, perhaps it would even be possible to look
21 at the correspondence. Of course, the correspondence is related to D55,
22 but D55 is translated, is available in translation. So perhaps you will
23 have an opportunity to look at the correspondence with the assistance
24 of -- of a language assistant because the correspondence is not -- is
25 uploaded but is not tendered, is it, Mr. Jordash?
1 MR. JORDASH: That's right.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So it's just for your information at this
4 So if at all possible we'd like to hear from you about your
5 position in relation to D55 and the Chamber will then further consider
6 what to do with D56 and D70.
7 Then I move onto item 14. There is a revised version uploaded, I
8 do understand, of D118; is that correct?
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then may I take it that the revised version does not
11 meet any objection. Ms. Marcus.
12 MS. MARCUS: No objection.
13 JUDGE ORIE: No objection. Madam Registrar, you are hereby
14 instructed to replace the document originally uploaded and assigned
15 number D118 by the revised version, and D118 revised version is admitted
16 into evidence.
17 I move to item 15, the homeland war collection.
18 Mr. Simatovic -- Mr. Petrovic, the Simatovic Defence was invited
19 to upload revised versions of various documents which apparently were
20 taken from this book, a collection of documents. I add to this that
21 D103, which was one of these documents, is already admitted as an
22 associated exhibit to the Babic testimony. But the others, have revised
23 versions been uploaded?
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. They have been.
25 JUDGE ORIE: These are the originals. There was also an issue
1 about a revised English version of D103, but that may --
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my apologies. I need
3 to seek clarification.
4 The revised versions have been uploaded. By revised, we mean the
5 version from the book of documents, the Croatian Homeland War, where
6 parts of other documents were then removed from the pages where the
7 documents which were of interest to us also appeared. This has been
8 done, and, of course, accompanying translations have also been attached.
9 However, Your Honour, it seems to me that you're mentioning --
10 that you are referring to originals, but so far, we have not had access
11 to them.
12 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, that was -- this item was for
13 me split up in two questions. The first is the copies taken from the
14 book; and the second item was that I was supposed - and I'm reading now
15 from my paper - that I'm supposed to inquire whether the authenticity
16 dispute, that is missing originals, whether those authenticity dispute,
17 whether that remains.
18 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. The Prosecution maintains its
19 objection to the documents. We would like to see the originals. These
20 are all excerpts from a book, whether they're cut out from the book or --
21 or tendered through the book makes no difference to us; we would maintain
22 our objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Petrovic, you have suggested, if my
24 recollection serves me well, that they could then remain MFIs, up till
25 the moment that you could provide the originals rather than copies from a
1 book where we do not know whether they are fully in accordance with any
2 originals, whether any originals do exist.
3 Now, we are close now at the stage, and I'm telling you the same
4 as I told Mr. Jordash a minute ago, we are close to the end of the
5 Prosecution case. The Chamber would not like to have a long list of MFIs
6 which would be taken from the Prosecution's case to possibly a Defence
7 case. So, therefore, your suggestion that to -- to keep them as MFIs is
8 not very welcome to the Chamber. So there are a few options. Either you
9 withdraw them and, of course, have an opportunity to tender the originals
10 whether through a witness or as a bar table document at a later stage, if
11 there will be a later stage of the proceedings. Of course, the Chamber
12 could also at this moment decide to deny admission, because there is too
13 much uncertainty about whether originals corresponding with these
14 documents do exist and whether the -- whether the published documents are
15 the same as any originals, if they do exist.
16 What would be your preference? Because the Chamber would again
17 like to start as much as possible with a clean slate, if it comes to a
18 Defence case.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our preference would
20 that they retain the status that they have now. In other words, that
21 they be MFI'd. However we acknowledge your wish to try and wrap up as
22 many as issues as possible, so if you feel that this is inappropriate,
23 that they remain MFI'd, we can withdraw them and once we obtain the
24 originals we would then - and we are sure that they do exist - we would
25 then submit them for admission, either through the bar table or via some
1 witnesses, when the time comes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say you can withdraw them. Do you
3 withdraw them?
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, well, it is clear
5 what your preference is, so the answer would be yes, we withdraw these
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just to raise a purely practical aspect
9 of this. I would be concerned if perhaps one witness - and I don't know
10 that it is true but I'm willing to undertake this analysis - if the
11 witness were to say, when shown that document, Yes, the place mentioned
12 in line 2 was a place that I went to, that the Chamber -- if that is now
13 removed from the exhibit list and the Chamber has no sight of it the
14 Chamber might be able to understand the witness's evidence. I don't know
15 if that's the case for any of these, but perhaps, if the Chamber wishes,
16 the Prosecution will undertake to see whether it believes that any
17 particular one of these, despite being MFI'd are essential to the
18 Chamber's understanding of the witness's evidence.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see your point. That if ever reference is
20 made to these documents, to the content of it, that we might lose
22 What I would like to do under those circumstances as a matter of
23 fact is that you review the transcript, identify any portion where a
24 witness refers to a portion of those MFI'd documents and where the
25 relevant text of that document is not found in the words spoken either in
1 the question or in the answer, and then to - if you identify such
2 portions - then to agree with the Defence on what the relevant portion of
3 that document reads and then to make a joint submission so that we do not
4 lose evidence, that's clear, that's not the intention with which the
5 Chamber kindly invited the Simatovic Defence to withdraw.
6 Is that --
7 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
8 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then I put on the record what the result is.
10 The result is that D100, D101, D102, D105, D106, D110, D112, and
11 D120 are withdrawn by the Simatovic Defence without prejudice.
12 That the revised -- the new version of D103 should replace the
13 existing D103 as a document associated with the Babic testimony.
14 Madam Registrar, you are hereby instructed to replace the old
16 That being clear -- one second.
17 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I then move onto the next, which is item 16 on the
19 list of questions, the e-mail list: Provenance of the documents D139 and
21 Is there any progress made in investigating the provenance of the
22 documents? Until recently, we were informed that no progress was made.
23 I'm looking at the party which tendered D139, D146, the one being
24 a Pauk order and the other one being a -- I think both of them also came
25 from a potential Defence witness.
1 Mr. Petrovic, any further news on the matter?
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as relates to the
3 parties, we have not been able to make any advances. The positions
4 remain as they were of both parties. We've explained on a number of
5 occasions what the situation was with us, and in view of the people that
6 we thought we might call in as witnesses, and we will continue to work on
7 these matters, and we will see whether these people who now have the
8 status of people possessing potential information, whether that status
9 could be upgraded to witness status.
10 So that remains to be seen. But as for D146, we did discuss this
11 issue with our counterparts and this is a document where we have the same
12 interview or conversation but they appear to be different. At the top of
13 one of the pages, the addressee appears different in these different
15 So the D146 document that is at issue here has an ERN number
16 within the Prosecutor's collection of documents and that document has
17 been uploaded as 2D308.1, and we understood that to mean that our
18 counterparts from the Prosecution would agree to D146 being replaced by
19 2D308.1, so that, for the time being, this issue can be overcome, the
20 issue of the D146 exhibit, with the caveat that perhaps at a later time
21 we can revisit this issue but that, of course, would depend on the -- on
22 further developments and it may reappear via a witness that we call in to
24 So it was our understanding that the Prosecutor is prepared to
25 substitute D146 for 2D308.1.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. With respect to these two
3 documents, we did discuss them at the meeting, that's true. I think
4 there must have been some misunderstanding with respect to D146. Our
5 understanding was that the Defence was comparing the document they
6 tendered with another one as a way of supporting their assertion of
7 reliability. But if the Defence is actually saying that it is the same
8 document as we have, I'd like Your Honours to give me a few moments to
9 check that document and I will get back to you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. D146 being on the -- tendered through
11 Mr. Theunens, if I ...
12 Now, we discussed D146. About D139, do I understand that there's
13 no development there?
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour, no
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then I would also invite you perhaps to not leave
17 that on the MFI list, and without prejudice, to see whether we can empty
18 that list and see whether it reappears at any later stage of these
19 proceedings, if there will be any.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] We withdraw it, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: D139 is withdrawn by the Simatovic Defence.
22 I move onto item 17, where the Stanisic Defence was instructed to
23 either provide further details as to redactions or provide an unredacted
24 version of this document.
25 What I do understand that you asked for an unredacted version and
1 that the Serbian government was kind enough to send you a -- a new copy
2 just as redacted as the previous one.
3 MR. JORDASH: Precisely. And we wrote back to them and said,
4 well, if you want redactions, please apply for protective measures, and
5 we await their response.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Here the same question arises as whether we
7 should keep them -- I don't know what the next step would be, whether
8 even a more heavily redacted version would be -- I do not know. But it's
9 becoming a bit unfortunate to wait. I must admit, that I don't have a
10 clear recollection at this moment as to the content of the document. I
11 don't know how vital it is at this moment. Of course, every document is
12 important but how vital it is, whether you would consider to withdraw,
13 not having any further -- not any better version. I could have a look at
14 it in e-court if --
15 MR. JORDASH: I mean, I'm content that we withdraw it for the
16 moment. We will certainly seek its admission at a later time but I don't
17 think it's vital that --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if this is an later stage of these proceedings,
19 then you withdraw this without prejudice.
20 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
22 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour, just a technical question.
23 When we previously had documents that were withdrawn, the Chamber marked
24 them not admitted so that the number would be still there in the e-court
25 system. I'm just wondering whether we're going to continue doing that
1 for the same reason as what Mr. Groome raised for cross-referencing if
2 the document is ever previously mentioned.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, we're now entering the reign of the
4 technicalities. Withdrawn would finally result in marked not admitted.
5 Is that ...
6 THE REGISTRAR: That's correct, Your Honour. It remains in the
7 e-court but marked as not admitted.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then that concern seems to be dealt with.
9 We have then on the record at this moment that D160 is withdrawn;
10 therefore, not admitted.
11 The next one, item 18, D163 and P1075, MFI'd, revised versions.
12 Have we received?
13 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, the revised versions have been
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I think, then for the one, D163, is still
16 in need to be admitted, and the revised version -- does the revised
17 version cause any objections or any --
18 I do understand there where no objections against D163. D163 is
19 admitted into evidence.
20 Now, for P1075, I think that's one of the associated exhibits to
21 the testimony of -- the report of Mr. Theunens. So, therefore, the
22 Chamber will deliver its decision on the Theunens associated exhibits in
24 Therefore, at this moment the only thing that has to be done is
25 replace the old version of P1075 by a new one and the Chamber will then
1 decide in that other decision on admission.
2 Madam Registrar, you're hereby instructed for such replacement.
3 I move on. Item 19. D207, that should become a combined
4 document and uploaded as such.
5 Mr. Petrovic.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that has been done.
7 And it is now marked as 2D395.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And is -- because there's no change in the content
9 is admitted into evidence.
10 I have forgotten that we're sitting in the morning hours and by
11 usually we take a break at 30 minutes past the whole hour. I should have
12 been more attentive and I should have taken a break at quarter past 10.00
13 because we started at 9.00. I apologise for having ignored that.
14 And we take a break, and we resume at 11.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think there were a few leftovers from before the
18 break. The first one being - let me see - P1698, item 7 on the
19 questionnaire. I think we're still waiting for the position of the
20 Defence, in relation to the statement of Mr. Kojic. Or is that a matter
21 you asked for written submissions but you would consider, I think
22 Mr. Jordash, whether you'd be able to make any oral submissions.
23 MR. JORDASH: I'm almost there, Your Honour. But I was looking
24 also at the issue concerning P1605 over the break.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. Then we leave 1698, for a second, aside.
1 MR. JORDASH: I can report on the Prosecution motion to admit
2 P1605. We withdraw objections. We will advance further submissions or
3 evidence in due course concerning the veracity of the information
4 contained within but we accept that it crosses the admissibility
6 JUDGE ORIE: That is the newspaper article isn't it? No.
7 MR. JORDASH: It's the intercepted telephone conversation between
8 Martic and [Overlapping speakers] ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Yes, I have to find it.
10 Can you tell me which one is it on the list of questions?
11 MS. MARCUS: It's number 9, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Number 9. Thank you, Ms. Marcus.
13 Yes, that's the missing audio. As far as the Simatovic --
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we join the position
15 by the Stanisic Defence on this score. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then P1605 is admitted into evidence but I think it
17 should be admitted under seal. Is -- P1605 admitted, under seal.
18 Then let me see. D55. Ms. Marcus, I think we were waiting for
19 your position.
20 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. The Defence has provided the RFA
21 and the response to the RFA and the document that they received is,
22 indeed, the same. They received it from the Croatian State Archives.
23 This was in -- pursuant to a response to the -- to the Croatian
25 So the Prosecution withdraws its objection to the admission of
1 this document. I would add just one query, with leave of Your Honours,
2 with respect to P1688, to which the Defence maintains its objections
3 on -- which was a document received from the Croatian State Archives. I
4 just wonder if there's any -- any reason which might be relevant to this
5 document. As I said, we withdraw our objection because we're satisfied
6 that if it comes from the Croatian State Archives that it is authentic.
7 So we just query the Defence`s objection.
8 Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let's take it one by one. D55, you now received
10 another version of that, if I -- Mr. Petrovic. Oh, let me see. No, that
11 was Stanisic Defence.
12 D55, we have now the same document but from a different source.
13 Any -- is it exactly the same, including or whatever? Is there -- if it
14 is exactly the same, there's no need to replace the old one by the new
15 one. If there's, however, any slight difference...
16 MS. MARCUS: To us it appears exactly the same.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Exactly the same. So then there are no objections
18 against D55 anymore. D55 is admitted into evidence.
19 As far as D56 and D70 are concerned, Mr. Jordash, what about to
20 withdraw them for the time being and have them receive the status of
21 non-admitted, which you could then at any future stage...
22 MR. JORDASH: Yes. We agree with that, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. D56 and D70 ...
24 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I have to address you as well, Mr. Petrovic.
1 Because D70 was one of your documents.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We do agree
3 that they be withdrawn.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then D56 and D70, now being withdrawn, receive the
5 status of not admitted.
6 Then let me have a look. There was an issue about D146, which
7 was supposed to be the same or approximately the same as 2D308.1, and
8 that is item 16 of the list of questions. That is, the -- Ms. Marcus.
9 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. We observed the documents. We
10 noted that they are largely the same, but there are some differences. I
11 discussed with Mr. Bakrac over the break and I agree with his proposal
12 which was that we would replace -- 2D308.1, we would replace what's
13 uploaded as D146 with that one. In other words, that, with Your Honours
14 leave, of course, that 2D308.1 would become D146 and the Defence has
15 assured us that they would provide an updated translation, in fact, of
16 both the documents so that we could ultimately have the fully accurate
18 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that. Is there any objection
19 against admission?
20 MS. MARCUS: No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then, for now, what will be the new D146, that is
22 2D308.1, no objections.
23 Madam Registrar, you are hereby instructed to replace the
24 document which is uploaded, until now, under number D146 by the document
25 uploaded by the Simatovic Defence, 2D308.1. And that new D146 is
1 admitted into evidence.
2 For D139, the Pauk order, could we -- let me just check.
3 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
4 JUDGE ORIE: I am reminded that that has been withdrawn and is,
5 therefore, not admitted, so ...
6 So then, I think, that we were at ...
7 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
8 JUDGE ORIE: I finally return to the media article which was
9 related to Witness JF-026. 65 ter 5874, media article, the Chamber has
10 decided that it admits into evidence this media article.
11 Madam Registrar, had we assigned a number already? I don't think
13 THE REGISTRAR: No, Your Honours. The number would be P2494,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: P2494 is admitted into evidence. It can be a public
16 document, I think.
17 Then I wanted to resume item 20 on the list of questions. We
18 start with D209, up to D211. Any progress made in the -- among the
20 Mr. Petrovic.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that we can
22 say that some progress has been achieved. We met with the Prosecutor,
23 and the Prosecutor gave us some information on the provenance of the
24 document. The meeting took place on the 7th of February. Based on the
25 information received from the OTP, in the next couple of days, we will be
1 seeking from the government of Croatia to obtain these documents. At
2 that point, we will continue discussions between the parties.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Now we're talking about four documents in question
4 number 20. D209 -- yes.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm referring to
6 three documents: D209, D210, and D211.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When do you think the matter could be
8 resolved? Because if that would be a matter of months rather than days,
9 we would suggest a similar approach as earlier.
10 But if there's a realistic expectation that you could resolve the
11 matter relatively soon, then ...
12 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. We maintain our objection because
13 these are summaries of intercepts rather than the original intercepts,
14 and I agreed at the meeting that the Simatovic Defence would sent an RFA
15 to obtain the original intercepts, if I'm not mistaken.
16 JUDGE ORIE: The full intercepts, yes.
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, same question. We're not going to
19 leave MFI's forever. When do you think that ...
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, unfortunately, the
21 matter will not be resolved in the next couple of days, that's for sure.
22 Once the RFA is sent, the experience shows that the procedure takes
23 between several weeks and several months.
24 So we can state with certainty that it's not going to be resolved
25 in the next couple of days. We would like it to remain MFI'd. We know
1 what your position is, and if your position applies to these three
2 documents across the board, then we will withdraw them and as soon as we
3 receive a response from the Republic of Croatia, we will be re-tendering
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I understand this as a withdrawal. At any
6 time you can reactivate the matter once we have sufficient information.
7 But, especially at this stage of the proceedings, it should be perfectly
8 clear what the evidence is and what perhaps is in a further future
10 Therefore, D209, D210, and D211 are -- have now the status of not
11 admitted. The decision is without prejudice.
12 P1708 was --
13 MS. MARCUS: We discussed this with the Defence in our meeting.
14 We agree that the matter is now for the Chamber. It seems to me we all
15 agreed that the document can come in, but, of course, there's a dispute
16 that rains but as to how the document would be interpreted.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I do understand there is no objection
18 anymore against admission. If that is the case, P1708 is admitted into
20 I move to item 21 on the question list; D214, annexes to witness
21 statement of Witness JF-029.
22 I do understand that this is a new translation uploaded. If that
23 is correct ...
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that's correct.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll instruct Madam Registrar to replace the
1 existence -- the document which is now uploaded under D214 to replace
2 that with 2D394.
3 And then my question to you, Ms. Marcus, is whether there are any
5 MS. MARCUS: No objection, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then D214 as newly uploaded is admitted into
7 evidence under seal.
8 I move to the next question, number 21. Yes, there was some --
9 some unclarity as to whether the OTP wished to tender the associated
10 exhibits for Witness JF-026.
11 Ms. Marcus, I go through them in -- in a numerical order. 268
12 was one of them but that is now P1885. Then we have 287 up to 291. Is
13 that what you want to tender?
14 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: 293.
16 MS. MARCUS: Correct.
17 JUDGE ORIE: 414.
18 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then the next one, 416, being an associated exhibit,
20 but is already in evidence as P2144.
21 Then the next one, P1947, followed by P1993 --
22 MS. MARCUS: Sorry, Your Honour, perhaps 65 ter numbers rather
23 than P numbers [Overlapping speakers] ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I apologise, these are 65 ter numbers. I
25 correct myself in this respect.
1 Then the next one, 65 ter 2846 is already in evidence as D154. I
2 follow with the 65 ter numbers 3760, 4031, 5868, and 5872.
3 These, as far as I am aware, are the associated exhibits you had
4 not tendered but you intended to tender.
5 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then we learned from you that there would be no
7 objections. Let's verify that with the Defence. Any of these documents,
8 any objection?
9 I hear of --
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
12 Then, Madam Registrar, we have, at this moment -- I think these
13 are 13 documents. The ones I mentioned before. These 13 documents,
14 Madam Registrar, could you assign a range of numbers to them in the order
15 which is, by the way, the exact numerical order in which I mentioned
16 these documents. Could you tell us what the exhibit numbers, the range
17 of 13 exhibit numbers would be assigned to those documents?
18 THE REGISTRAR: This would be documents P2495, P2496, P2497,
19 P2498, P2499, P2501 -- P2500, P2501, P2502, P2503, P2504, P2505, P2506,
20 and P2507. Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: P2495 up to and including P2507 are admitted into
22 evidence, and the parties are invited to verify in e-court what exactly
23 appears under what number. But, again, it follows the order in which I
24 mentioned them earlier.
25 Is there any need to have them under seal?
1 Ms. Marcus.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, I would have to double-check, but I would say
3 yes. And perhaps then we could have a double look at it. But because
4 they're associated to [Overlapping speakers] ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: They are provisionally admitted under seal. And if
6 there's any document which could become a public document, we would
7 expect you to inform the Chamber on short notice.
8 We move on to -- do I also understand that these are the
9 associated exhibits you wanted to tender and no others?
10 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move to item 24 of our -- one second.
12 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's now clear for Witness JF-026.
14 Ms. Marcus, as far as Witness Stoparic is concerned, is there any
15 further associated exhibits you intended to tender, or have we dealt with
16 all the associated exhibits you had on your mind?
17 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, the associated exhibits for Stoparic
18 were already admitted as P1707, P1708 and P1709. There are no additional
20 JUDGE ORIE: There are no additional ones.
21 Then we move onto the next item, which is item 24 on the list of
23 I do understand that all parties agree that P1653 is a duplicate
24 of D28 and that, therefore, P1653 could be vacated.
25 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Hereby, P1653 is vacated.
2 Item 25. 25 is about the previous testimony of
3 Witness Stevanovic. We have received the portions that were indicated by
4 the parties and as we have previously set out, we'll not admit them but
5 we'll consider them when deciding on document P973.
6 And, therefore, the Simatovic Defence is invited to -- not only
7 to informally bring them to the attention of the Trial Chamber but to
8 file those portions so that they're on the record and that we can
9 consider them.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that this
11 has already been done. We made a filing within the time-limit stated.
12 The relevant portions have been uploaded, and I'll give you the D numbers
13 in a moment. The filing clearly refers to the D numbers.
14 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
15 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, what was apparently done is that you
17 filed and referred to numbers. What the Chamber would like you to do is
18 to file the text, the actual text, and not a reference to the numbers.
19 Because you refer to numbers under which it's uploaded, but we want the
20 text to be on the record. If it's uploaded in e-court, that's not on the
21 record yet. There are -- there are, of course, technical problems with
22 admitting them into evidence but, nevertheless, as often, the Chamber can
23 consider the content of -- as we often do, for example, if we're talking
24 about protective measures, we -- even without them being in evidence,
25 we -- we read the statements of investigators so we have information
1 available which is not evidence but which assists in taking decisions.
2 Here, a decision on admissibility.
3 Now, as a matter of fact, we have read them, so to that extent,
4 the Chamber is already in a position to decide. But we want the full
5 text of the documents you refer to and the portions you refer to, to have
6 them filed. So if you would just copy that text, attach it to a filing
7 so that it's clear what the content is, the Chamber has considered when
8 deciding on the admission of document P973.
9 Is that clear?
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. It will be done
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then I -- under those circumstances, we can already
13 decide on the matter because, as I told you before, the Chamber was in a
14 position to consult the text which will now be attached to -- will be
15 part of a filing, and the Chamber has decided that it admits P972 and
16 P973 into evidence, provisionally under seal.
17 The next one is question 26 on the list. P671 and P716. These
18 really are numbers to play a major role in future in a comedy of errors,
19 but I was referring to P671 and P716. These are two remaining intercepts
20 related to Witness JF-002.
21 I do understand well the Defence objections remain?
22 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Do you want to make any further submissions on the
24 matter or do you think that the matter has been sufficiently dealt with?
25 MR. JORDASH: I think both parties have advocated extensively on
1 the issue, and we don't wish to advance any further.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our objection remains
4 and there are no elements, as far as we're concerned.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
6 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber had considered the matter earlier and
8 since there are no new submissions - these are documents where the audio
9 are missing, although there are monitoring notes and there are
10 transcripts - the Chamber has decided that it admits into evidence P671
11 and P716.
12 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: P716, admission is an admission under seal.
14 I think we have gone through the list of questions which doesn't
15 mean that my -- we are yet at the end of my agenda. I would like to move
16 to other matters.
17 The next item. The OTP was requested on the 22nd of June of last
18 year to file a public summary of the testimony of Witness JF-006's
19 previous evidence. And, on the 18th of August, the Prosecution has
20 alerted the Chamber to the fact that, due to post-session redactions,
21 that nothing of the witness's testimony remained in public session. The
22 Chamber is satisfied with this explanation and does not expect a filing
23 of the public summary for Witness JF-006.
24 I move to the next item. On the 1st of September, the
25 Prosecution asked for a provisional redaction because they wanted to
1 investigate whether a mentioned person was a protected witness. I refer
2 to transcript page 6726. Meanwhile, it has been confirmed by the
3 Prosecution that there's no need for such a redaction; and, therefore,
4 the Registry is hereby instructed to make this portion - it's all found
5 on the same page - to make this portion public.
6 D143 should have been admitted under seal, where it was not. And
7 the Registry is hereby instructed to formally change the status of D143
8 into confidential, under seal.
9 I move to my next item. P2123. The Prosecution was supposed to
10 provide a revised translation of this document.
11 Has it been provided, has it been uploaded?
12 MS. MARCUS: Can I have a moment, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
14 [Prosecution counsel confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let me then already to keep you all busy already
16 tell you that the same question arises for D223 as far as the Defence is
18 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we have a revised translation of
19 P2123 and we're ready to upload it.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you please upload it.
21 And, Madam Registrar, you're hereby instructed to replace P2123
22 by the newly uploaded revised translation. The document was admitted
23 already into evidence. If the revised translation causes any problems as
24 far as the Defence is concerned, the Chamber would like to be informed
25 without delay.
1 I move onto now D223, where the Defence is -- was supposed to
2 have done the same, to provide a revised version of the document.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have uploaded it,
4 and it is 2D396.1 now.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, you are hereby instructed to
6 replace what is now under D223 by the newly uploaded 2D396.1. D223 was
7 already admitted. If it causes any concerns to the Prosecution, the
8 Chamber would like to hear without delay.
9 We had a few documents where there were more than one English
10 translations attached to these documents in e-court. The Prosecution had
11 been requested to identify which translation is the correct one, and I do
12 understand that this has been done, Ms. Marcus. Is that ...
13 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, the Registry is hereby instructed to
15 remove any translation other than the ones now identified as the correct
16 English translations.
17 We are talking about documents P1915, P1943, and P1107.
18 Madam Registrar, have you received sufficient information to --
19 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, indeed, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then that matter has been dealt with as well.
21 The next item on my list concerns 65 ter number 4263. The
22 Chamber had deferred its decision in relation to this document in the
23 Prosecution's -- which was contained in the Prosecution's first bar table
24 motion, and we deferred our decision on the 3rd of February of this year.
25 The issue was a seemingly wrong translation. It was the lists of
1 employees of the RDB where, at least, the first of the two lists the
2 translation did not show any years; whereas, it was clearly visible in
3 the original that a year -- or a range of years was present.
4 Ms. Marcus, my question to you is do you intend to provide a
5 correct translation?
6 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I'd have to check. But, of course,
7 my -- my instinct is, of course, we intend to provide a revised
8 translation but I'm not familiar with the issue. If you'd give me a
9 moment to check, I can get back to Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The two documents are quite similar and for the
11 second one there is a range of years. By the way, a rather wide-range
12 still. I think 1992, 1995 on the first one. But on the first one,
13 certainly the years which are found there in the heading of the document,
14 the heading being practically the same as for the second one, that the
15 years are not translated.
16 So I do not know whether there's any other thing wrong in that
17 translation, but, of course, it need -- there's need to revise it.
18 MS. MARCUS: We will provide a corrected translation,
19 Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When would do you that?
21 MS. MARCUS: We'll submit it and keep the Chamber informed.
22 We'll submit it immediately.
23 JUDGE ORIE: "Immediately" means?
24 MS. MARCUS: Today.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Today. Then I don't have to set a deadline. At the
1 same time, if you don't do it today, then, of course, you are in trouble.
2 Otherwise I would have given you till Monday or Tuesday. But we expect
3 it to be provided today.
4 The next one -- yes, let me check that one carefully.
5 Yes, my next item is about the Babic, the previous Babic
7 The Chamber received a filing dated the 4th of February. Before
8 that, on the 28th of January, the Prosecution has requested, through an
9 informal communication, that it be granted until that same 4th of
10 February to investigate it, whether Babic's testimony in the Krajisnik
11 case could you made a public exhibit. We granted that request, and the
12 submission of the 4th of February informs the Chamber that the testimony
13 in question could be public. But then another matter arose. The
14 Prosecution also asked to be granted leave to rectify the portions of the
15 Babic's previous testimony in the Krajisnik case, by the way, portions of
16 his testimony which had been admitted by the Chamber.
17 Now, there is an table in that submission and, of course, the
18 first question that came to the Chamber's attention where the numbering
19 apparently is incorrect, whether we looked at the portions the
20 Prosecution really intended to have admitted into evidence and whether we
21 decided on a proper basis on admission.
22 The Chamber, meanwhile, verified that, and that although the
23 numbers were incorrect, the material which was submitted to the Chamber
24 was the correct material. So the Chamber - and this is for the -- just
25 to inform the parties - the Chamber decided on the basis of the material
1 which was really at the basis of the Prosecution's request for admission.
2 So the change in the numbering does not bring any change in what the
3 Chamber considered and what the Chamber -- on what basis the Chamber
4 decided on admission.
5 By the way, there was one -- the Chamber, in that decision, made
6 a small mistake and that was in relation to an excerpt of a portion of
7 the testimony not covered by this correction. That is, the second
8 excerpt, which were -- the transcript pages T.3350 up to and including
9 3353, in the decision you'll find that we said that this is a transcript
10 of the 3rd of June, 2004, where it actually is the 2nd of June, 2004.
11 But apart from that mistake made by the Chamber, I would like to hear
12 from the Defence whether any additional submissions should be made.
13 Again, the substance of what was tendered, of what was considered by the
14 Chamber, and what the Chamber intended to admit into evidence is
15 unchanged. It's just wrong numbers.
16 MR. JORDASH: No comments, Your Honour. Thank you.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, no, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then I briefly read into the record what has now
19 been changed -- no, I rather refer to the filing of the 4th of February,
20 2011 under the title "Status notification for Babic materials, including
21 correction of transcript references," I refer to page 2 of that
22 submission containing a table and where the transcript references are
23 referred to, the transcript references as were found in the May 2007
24 motion, that -- where the Chamber decided that, on admission of the
25 portions of the transcript, that the correct transcript references are
1 found in the second column under the title: "Correct transcript
3 So these are now -- is the references to the portions of what was
4 admitted by the Chamber.
5 And, Madam Registrar, you're therefore, to the extent that the
6 wrong pages were uploaded, these are the correct pages. And perhaps I --
7 let me see whether it's clear enough.
8 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: The Registrar has to verify whether what is uploaded
10 into e-court are the correct pages or the wrong pages. She is hereby
11 invited to verify that and instructed to replace any uploaded portion of
12 the earlier testimony which does not correspond to the correct transcript
13 references as found on page 2 of the 4th of February, 2011 submission.
14 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Chamber staff confirmed that it was clear enough to
16 him. I hope the same is true for all others in this courtroom. If not,
17 please tell me.
18 Then I -- also the Registry is hereby instructed to make public
19 what the Prosecution submitted could be made public in that same 4th of
20 February, 2011 filing.
21 I -- we have to take another break. We can't go on for two
22 hours. And what we have still on the agenda is, first of all, the
23 remaining MFIs on the MFI list, and then I have one or two other items on
24 my agenda. I hope that we will be able to deal with that in 40 to 45
25 minutes. We really have to stop at 1.00 sharp. I'm -- if we would need
1 45 minutes, we could only do that with a bit of a shorter break, or to
2 give Mr. Stanisic a bit more time to return into the courtroom and
3 missing perhaps five or ten minutes of the hearing.
4 I would like to hear, Mr. Jordash, what would be preferred.
5 MR. JORDASH: Can I just quickly check?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
8 MR. JORDASH: Could we have a 15-minute break, please.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We will have a 15-minute break. But with the
10 indulgence of all others involved, we will stop a bit earlier then. But
11 I would like to start in 15 minutes sharp from now.
12 --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.17 p.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Next item on my agenda is remaining MFIs from the
15 MFI list. We have dealt with many of them but ...
16 The first one, P378. Has the Chamber well understood that the
17 Prosecution has prepared a translation and that it's uploaded.
18 MS. MARCUS: That's correct.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, you're hereby instructed to replace
20 the old translation by the new one as uploaded by the Prosecution.
21 Admission will be decided later in a decision on the Mladic bar table
23 Next one, P395. Clips from a video as shown to
24 Mr. Manojlo Milovanovic. It is again portions of P2160 and P2161. In
25 line with our earlier decision, separate clips do not disappear in the
1 whole of the video but will remain separate exhibits. P395 which was
2 waiting for another witness to be called is ready to be admitted.
3 Any further comments or objections? Then P395 is admitted into
5 Next one is a series of underlying documents to P512. It's
6 mainly forensic documentation. There was one objection against P911 and
7 P912, because of the indication contained in those that the victim may
8 have died from natural causes and hypothermia was mentioned.
9 Both Defence teams would still consider what to do, whether they
10 would maintain their objection.
11 MR. JORDASH: We don't maintain the objection.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then all of these, and I take it that you spoke on
13 behalf of both Defence teams, Mr. Jordash. Then the following exhibits
14 are admitted into evidence: P722; P740 up to and including P753, P765 up
15 to and including P775, P796 up to and including P798. P800 up to and
16 including P818, P824, 825, 826, 827, and P828, P836 up to and including
17 P916, P925, up to and including P931, and P933, 934, 935, 936, and P937.
18 All admitted into evidence.
19 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, may I just for the record indicate
20 that in relation to two of the autopsy reports, they related to two
21 victims. I think I can say that the victim's names in public. One is
22 Luka Bilaver and the other is Danica Razov. We withdraw our agreement to
23 those witnesses being victims of crimes committed as alleged in the
24 indictment. The autopsy reports reflect that those deceased died from
25 natural causes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I just mentioned that and you then you said did
2 not --
3 MR. JORDASH: We don't object to the admissibility of the report
4 but we --
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. It might even be good to have them
6 which enables the Chamber to better decide what the --
7 MR. JORDASH: Precisely.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- cause of death may have been, either on the basis
9 of this evidence or on any other. But we are alerted to at least the
10 forensics here, leaving it open, or even I don't know the details, but
11 even hinting at hypothermia as a possible cause of death.
12 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear. The next one is -- yes, P967. At a
14 housekeeping session in late September, the OTP indicated that this
15 document would be included in an upcoming bar table submission. Now it
16 seems not to be in any bar table submission, so, therefore, the Chamber
17 wonders what we should do with it.
18 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, could I have an opportunity to look
19 into that and get back to you, sir.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before 1.00, please.
21 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 P975, before the Chamber would decide on admission, we wanted to
24 read the document first. We've done so, and P975 is admitted in
1 Before I move to the next item on my list on the -- which is
2 P1522, I'd first like to give an oral decision.
13 [Private session]
11 Pages 11280-11286 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 So I'm dealing with 1626, 1642, and 1643 --
9 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I can, I think, assist to shortcut the
11 For the Stanisic Defence, we withdraw our objection to those
12 proposed exhibits.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then 1626 -- let me first hear whether the
14 Simatovic Defence joins in that? Or I don't know whether there was any
15 objection. I think it was only Mr. Jordash who said that you wanted to
16 look at the paperwork. Yes, that apparently is done. There was no
17 objection by the Simatovic Defence.
18 Then P1626, P1642 and P1643 are admitted into evidence.
19 P1628, I'd like to know whether Defence has now seen the
20 translation of this document and whether it has any objections against
22 MR. JORDASH: The situation is this, that there has been a
23 revised translation. However, the revised translation of the words,
24 "Arkan is embedded there," has simply been repeated. So there a dispute
25 on the record. When it was translated in the courtroom, the translator
1 said that those words in fact were, "Arkan has put himself there," which
2 is what our case is, that there -- that -- that the record reflects that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Apparently there's a dispute about the
5 MR. JORDASH: Between the translation in the court and the
6 official translation document.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What we usually do under those circumstances
8 is to ask CLSS to review the translation of the written document and
9 report to us what is the correct translation.
10 MR. JORDASH: I think, though that's been done and they've come
11 back with the same translation, which we dispute is the right
12 translation. On the basis of what our client has instructed, but also on
13 the basis of what has been translated in the courtroom when we asked the
14 witness to read the English version and had the translation done in the
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's exactly the reason why we usually do
17 not ask interpreters to translate written documents because that's done
18 in a second; whereas, the review of translations often require far more
19 research and detailed information.
20 We defer our decision and we'll give a decision ...
21 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Whatever the fate will be of finding out or not
23 we'll admit it or not, the translation should be replaced by the now
24 verified translation. Still not a reason, Mr. Jordash, to give up your
25 objections to it, but, at a certain moment we have to work on the basis
1 of a certain translation.
2 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. But I would like -- this is an
3 extremely important area for us.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It's on the record that your interpretation of that
5 document is not reflected in the translation as it has been reviewed
6 until now by CLSS.
7 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If that's on the record, then we'll later
9 decide on admission.
10 I move on. P1644. The Prosecution informed the Chamber in its
11 weekly notification that both Defence teams had withdrawn their
13 I do not hear any protest. Therefore, P1644 is admitted into
15 The next one on my list is P1666. The -- there was agreement
16 between the parties that if four words would moved from the document,
17 that the objections would not be maintained.
18 MR. JORDASH: The objections are withdrawn, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I don't know whether, then, the present
20 document is without the four words.
21 MR. JORDASH: It is without the four words.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It is. The only matter remaining, then, is whether
23 P1666 should be under seal or can be a public document.
24 MS. MARCUS: I can let you know within a minute, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
1 The next one is P1670. Same matter as we had before, an excerpt,
2 a small footage of the Skorpion videos. We take the same approach.
3 P1670 is admitted into evidence.
4 Next one is P1671, up to and including P1694, and P1696, up to
5 and including P1697; documents and photos on which Witness JF-029
7 I do understand that there are no objections apart from P1688,
8 and I think that Ms. Marcus has made -- no, I don't know whether it was
9 on this document.
10 If this is true, we'll separately deal with P1688 and admit all
11 the others into evidence, which means P1671, up to and including P1687,
12 and then P1689, up to and including P1694, and P1696, up to and including
13 P1697, are admitted into evidence.
14 P2106, the Chamber has -- admits this courtesy sheet under seal.
15 P2109, similarly, also is admitted under seal.
16 I now move to P2127, requesting a response from the Republic of
17 Serbia to RFA 1887A. The Stanisic Defence has objected to the tendering
18 but has not outlined its objections in the presence of the witness. Then
19 the OTP indicated in its weekly notification that the Stanisic Defence
20 maintains objections and will further consider the matter. We have not
21 heard the details of the objections.
22 Mr. Jordash.
23 MR. JORDASH: As I recall this issue, the Prosecution want to
24 admit the RFA to show the questions that were asked in relation to the --
25 a particular exhibit. But, in fact, what the Prosecution are seeking to
1 do is place a good deal of irrelevant material from the RFA in front of
2 Your Honours, including a list of -- or I should say, notably a list
3 running into 377 names, which are completely irrelevant to the issue at
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber will consider it.
6 I'm looking at the clock. It's two minutes to 1.00.
7 Unfortunately, we failed to complete the housekeeping session. There's
8 no way that we could continue this afternoon. The reason why we have
9 this housekeeping session today and why there's limited time is because
10 we wanted to meet the concerns expressed by the Stanisic Defence that
11 they would like to have it done as quickly as possible. That's the
12 reason why we did not wait until next week. The reason why we can't
13 continue, I have a firm commitment which I could not possibly change and
14 which starts in half an hour from now elsewhere in The Hague.
15 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
16 MR. JORDASH: I -- Your Honour, I don't know if this assists. My
17 plans have changed somewhat. I'm available all next week if that's a
18 concern for Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, of course, we tried to accommodate you. If
20 you are available, then I would like to invite you, I don't know what's
21 the case with the Simatovic Defence. We might not need the whole of the
22 team. There is limited material left. What we also could do is the
23 following: Is that you would meet with Chamber's staff, if you -- I
24 don't know whether you -- you're still here, Mr. Petrovic, next week, or
25 Mr. Bakrac.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour in keeping with
2 everything that has been said, both by the Trial Chamber and the Stanisic
3 Defence, we planned our time and our activities accordingly, and we have
4 planned to travel to Belgrade tonight, in keeping with that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest the following: To the extent
6 possible, please meet with Chamber's staff this afternoon. Perhaps two
7 Defence teams together so that could you go through the remainder of the
8 MFI list and the other items which were on my agenda. There were four or
9 five. Please identify to what extent both Defence team have a common
10 position. I could imagine that Mr. Jordash would be willing to present
11 on behalf of the Simatovic Defence whether they join in your positions.
12 We also could, perhaps this afternoon, try to find out whether
13 there are any matters on which we would need the specific input of the
14 Simatovic team for next week and see how we can, in a practical way,
15 proceed so that we have dealt with all matters by Monday, even in the
16 absence of Mr. Bakrac or Mr. Petrovic.
17 Of course, another solution would be to have a videolink for this
18 later next week. I have got no idea whether that's practically possible,
19 whether the costs involved would be an obstacle to doing that. I have
20 got no idea. But I would suggest that you would meet this afternoon with
21 Chamber's staff to see whether, for the limited number of issues
22 remaining, whether a practical solution could be found. Where we tried
23 to accommodate a wish which now turns out to be not a primary one, at
24 least plans have changed, we have sought a solution which, unfortunately,
25 worked out only for 85 per cent, although I want to praise the party for
1 the adequate preparation for today's housekeeping session.
2 Ms. Marcus.
3 MS. MARCUS: Just to inform the Chamber, I have been informed
4 that the Belgrade field office can arrange a videolink within 24 to 48
5 hours notice.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then ...
7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
8 JUDGE ORIE: With full appreciation of the performance of the
9 Belgrade office, I do understand that you need the job to be done on both
10 sides of the line and therefore I'm informed that if Belgrade can do it,
11 it does not automatically mean that it can be done or that The Hague
12 could meet what is needed for those purposes.
13 Is there a chance that you could meet today with Chamber's staff?
14 MR. JORDASH: Providing that, with Your Honours' leave, that my
15 legal assistant can attend instead of me.
16 JUDGE ORIE: For informal communications, I think that would
17 be -- of course, if it comes to final decisions, then of course I take it
18 that you would be consulted on it.
19 MR. JORDASH: I've already been consulted, thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that may be so, but
22 as far as we are concerned, we cannot really go beyond 1500 hours. We're
23 only available up until that time, approximately.
24 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: I'm convinced that until 1500 hours, the practical
1 arrangements could be resolved, not perhaps necessarily all the content,
2 but at least that we would know by then how we will proceed.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then I thank the parties very much. There may be
5 another session next week.
6 We adjourn, therefore, sine die.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.06 p.m.,
8 sine die