1 Monday, 28 November 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
8 This is case number IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus
9 Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 We'll continue today with the housekeeping sessions and I will
12 first deal with a few follow-ups from last Thursday. First, I think it
13 was announced that the revised B/C/S version of P1050 would be available
14 I think already on that Thursday. Is it there?
15 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. It's uploaded as 65 ter 267.1.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Since the document was already admitted, the revised
17 B/C/S version may now replace the old one. And, Madam Registrar, you are
18 instructed accordingly.
19 We briefly move into private session.
20 [Private session]
11 Pages 15148-15149 redacted. Private session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
25 It seems, Mr. Jordash, that the issue of a disputed translation
1 of the words, [B/C/S spoken], seems to have been resolved with CLSS.
2 CLSS agreeing with the Stanisic Defence. May I then take it that the
3 Stanisic Defence withdraws its request and then, of course, the Chamber
4 would not require any further submission under Rule 33(B) from the
5 Registry. Mr. Jordash, is it moot?
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes, if that seems to be the easiest way to deal
7 with things.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the request is withdrawn, the request for
9 further verification of the translation and the Chamber for the same
10 reason doesn't require any 33 (B) submissions from the Registry anymore.
11 Madam Registrar, that is on the record hereby. Then I note that
12 CLSS has provided a revised translation for P1628, and I already did put
13 on the record last week that P1628 was vacated, so we should really speak
14 about P2545, and the Registry is instructed to replace the old English
15 translation of P2545 with the revised one. Just to make sure, has that
16 translation, that revised translation been uploaded?
17 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then the instruction stands.
19 Next on my agenda is to continue with the MFI list.
20 Mr. Jordash.
21 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, there are some document which we think
22 were missed out along the way and they start with D245.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look. D245.
24 MR. JORDASH: There were five documents, D245, D248, D249, D250,
25 D251, and D271 needed to be tendered by us.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Let me have a look -- yes, Ms. Marcus.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, I believe we did deal with this last week and
3 the -- we requested further information about provenance for all of those
4 except D271, which is the chart, yes.
5 MR. JORDASH: We've sent provenance on each one.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest that we check this during the first break,
7 that you seek to agree on where we stand in this respect, and that I'll
8 then hear from you, and that is D245, you said, Mr. --
9 MR. JORDASH: D245, D248, D249, D250, and D251, and D271 to be
10 tendered, and most of them were sent to the Prosecution on the 3rd of
11 July, or re-sent on the 3rd of July.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. JORDASH: And in relation to -- sorry, Your Honour. In
14 relation to D271, I can inform Your Honour, this doesn't depend upon the
15 Prosecution's agreement, I don't think. The document --
16 JUDGE ORIE: I think the issue was whether the -- if we have
17 dealt with all the underlying documents, that -- and if there are
18 objections or if some of these documents have to be taken out, that then
19 the chart should be amended accordingly, and that's, therefore, it's the
20 last one.
21 MR. JORDASH: A corrigendum cover page has been uploaded as
22 1D04899.1. It's released in e-court and can be attached to 271 with the
23 underlying issues having been dealt with.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
25 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we've reviewed the corrigendum and
1 we agree that that resolves that issue of the typo in the -- in the
2 chart. So from our perspective that can be attached. We do maintain
3 that we would like all the underlying documents to be resolved first
4 before the chart is admitted.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, therefore, Madam Registrar, you are instructed
6 to upload the new cover page, the corrected corrigendum cover page and no
7 decision has yet been taken on admission of the chart.
8 Then I think we had dealt with the last one is D293 and,
9 therefore, we are now at D301. I think here we are in a similar
10 position. We first have to deal with the underlying documents before we
11 can finally decide on the chart D301. Underlying documents are D302, and
12 I go through them very quickly. Any objections against D302?
13 MS. MARCUS: One moment, please, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The series of underlying documents runs from D302 up
15 to and including D311, and there were two where there was a translation
16 issue, but let's first focus on objections.
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. We have a bit of a submission on
18 this document. At the time that it was tendered we objected because it
19 was the statement of another individual who wasn't called to testify.
20 Now, the Defence made arguments about that in court, that's with respect
21 to D302. We note first that the Defence did initially object to the
22 admission of the Kojic statement when it was tendered on the 10th of
23 December. According to the list of pending issues compiled by the
24 Prosecution during the Prosecution case, the Defence maintained its
25 objection at a meeting between the parties on the 7th of February, 2011.
1 The Defence only withdrew that objection after the Prosecution filed a
2 detailed written submission about its admissibility and reliability on
3 the 9th of February, 2011.
4 In that submission, the Prosecution argued that the Chamber
5 should proceed with caution when admitting a hearsay statement under
6 Rule 89(C) [Realtime transcript read in error "90(C)"] due to the
7 inability to cross-examine the witness, but we provided detailed reasons
8 why this particular statement was authentic, relevant, and reliable.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could I first ask you to -- I see that "hearsay
10 statement under Rule 90(C)" but I think I heard ...
11 MS. MARCUS: 89.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I think you said 98 but whatever it is 89(C).
13 MS. MARCUS: My apologies. We argued, among other factors, that
14 the Kojic statement was reliable due to the fact that it was firsthand
15 and that its contents were not subject to failures of perception or
16 memory. It was the individual's own statement about his own position in
17 the MUP during 1991. The Prosecution would request the Defence to
18 explain the authenticity, relevance, and reliability of this five-page
19 statement --
20 JUDGE ORIE: You are now talking about D302.
21 MS. MARCUS: D302, yes, Your Honour, in the same way as those
22 submissions were made before. So we are awaiting those submissions from
23 the Defence.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Are you able to make those submissions
25 immediately, or, Mr. Jordash, otherwise we'll leave it --
1 MR. JORDASH: No, I can't make them immediately. But I would say
2 only this for the record, that if -- the Prosecution's chronology is
3 correct, but we haven't accepted, just for the record, that the Kojic
4 stent is reliable. So just for the record. But we'll make our
5 submissions on this. In relation to relevance, we would say it's
6 obvious, but we'll make submissions about reliability, this statement on
7 the face of it, is -- cannot be distinguished from the Kojic statement
8 and if that's admissible, so is this. But we'll make detailed
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll hear from you. Then we move on to D303.
11 Any objections?
12 MS. MARCUS: With respect to D303, all the way up to and
13 including D311, we are awaiting information about provenance.
14 JUDGE ORIE: To be provided by the Stanisic Defence.
15 MR. JORDASH: That's not completely accurate. 303, I think the
16 Prosecution are waiting for information. 304, that's correct; 305 ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: There was an incorrect English translation in
18 relation to D305. Has that been --
19 MR. JORDASH: Yes, that's been uploaded under 1D02395.1.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the issue of provenance is still there
22 MR. JORDASH: That document, we've told the Prosecution, was
23 received from the accused. We've made a request from the
24 National Council to see if we can obtain that document.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I think we had -- Ms. Marcus extended the
1 issue from D303 up to and including D311, which would mean that the
2 provenance is still apparently is not settled or not satisfactorily.
3 MR. JORDASH: They are all from the first accused and we've made
4 the request to the National Council.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so we'll wait for an answer on all of those.
6 There was one other translation issue which was D310 was the missing
7 English translation, but I think that was only housekeeping session
8 filing, so has that English translation been uploaded?
9 I should look at you, Mr. Jordash.
10 MR. JORDASH: Can I just have a moment, please.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest that we continue anyhow because for other
12 reasons the document is not yet ready for admission, so take your time to
13 check whether the missing English translation has now been uploaded. And
14 D302, being the chart, and D303 up to and including D311, they remain on
15 the MFI list.
16 We move on --
17 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour, apparently the translation is
18 attached to 310.
19 JUDGE ORIE: That is now attached so that -- Ms. Marcus.
20 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. I just wanted to resolve some
21 issues we just spoke about five minutes ago, unless you want me to hold
23 JUDGE ORIE: If you can briefly do it.
24 MS. MARCUS: Very briefly, yes. With respect to D245, D248,
25 D249, D250 and D251. These are all from RFAs, so we drop our objection
1 to admission.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that D245, D248, D249, D250, and D251
3 are all admitted into evidence. And as far as I can see, there's no need
4 for protection, or is there?
5 MR. JORDASH: I think it's best that we check those. They are DB
6 reports so there may be material --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then all the numbers I just mentioned are
8 provisionally under seal. Let me see whether in those series there's
9 still -- I'll check that during the next break whether there is any other
10 matter related to those documents outstanding.
11 Then we move on to D319. There were two issues. First
12 Prosecution was trying to look into the origins of the video and could
13 not provide a response, can you now, Ms. Marcus.
14 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. According to the information we
15 were able to find out, this video footage is from a documentary created
16 by Pavle Vranjican and Mr. Vranjican created a compilation of various
17 film footage which all seem to originated in the Yutel archive. The
18 Prosecution is concerned that even though the underlying footage appears
19 to be authentic, it has been clearly cut and edited. The parts showing
20 Pupovac and the parts showing Babic and the others take up a different
21 amount of the screen indicating that it's not one continuous video. It
22 would be very difficult to accept that this video depicts Babic and other
23 members of the Knin political elite laughing at Pupovac's speech and
24 walking out of the hall as stated by the presenter. With respect --
25 that's with respect to the first clip. With respect to the second clip,
1 again it appears to be authentic film footage, but we submit with respect
2 to that clip that the Chamber should give it very little weight due to it
3 being the comments of an unidentified person who sounds as though he is
4 speculating about much of what he says.
5 With respect to the third clip, it is again an unidentified
6 soldier. The date of 29 September, 1991, does appear on the footage, but
7 there is no basis for the introductory shot which says that this took
8 place in Glina. The Prosecution submits that if the Chamber decides to
9 accept that third portion for admission, it should give very little
10 weight to the conclusions drawn by the presenter.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, for clips 2 and 3, you said don't give
12 much weight to it. The first one, is that to be understood as a
13 objection against admission or just as a caveat?
14 MS. MARCUS: That's an objection against admission, Your Honour,
15 for the first clip.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At this moment D319 is one exhibit, isn't it?
17 Any further response? Mr. Petrovic.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the assertions of my
19 learned friends are unfounded. If we look at the first part, it is
20 obvious that it's always the same room, the same time, and the same
21 participants. One part may have been clipped out, but it is clearly the
22 same event being filmed by a camera. The remarks of my learned friend
23 may be -- portend as to the weight that should be given to that evidence.
24 In our mind --
25 JUDGE ORIE: The second and third clip, apparently there's no
1 objection against admission, and the Chamber will start from that point
2 of view. Ms. Marcus -- I take it that you would argue that there's
3 nothing against admission of the second and the third clip?
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then what remains in dispute is the first clip.
6 Mr. Petrovic has given his view, Ms. Marcus.
7 MS. MARCUS: I have no reply, Your Honour, other than to repeat
8 what our position is, Your Honour, and we maintain that with respect to
9 the first clip.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] If I may, I would like to add one
13 sentence. One of the crucial pieces of evidence of the Prosecution, the
14 film titled "Unit" consists of two hours of edited clips showing footage
15 with different people from different periods and it seems to me that the
16 objection is really inappropriate when it is obvious that all is about
17 the same event filmed for one broadcast. Whereas in contrast, the other
18 piece of evidence is a compilation of various things par excellence.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
20 MR. JORDASH: I would like to, at some stage, join in this
21 argument but I thought that what we were doing is discussing
22 admissibility, so I would respectfully ask that the Prosecution restrain
23 from making submissions as to weight until it's appropriate to do so,
24 until we can all engage in the process.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, until now I understood it mainly to be
1 that there's no objection against admission and you would urge the
2 Prosecution that if they do not really object, that they should refrain
3 at this moment from commenting on the weight to be given.
4 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's not spend too much time on that. What
6 we'll do -- you wanted to respond, Ms. Marcus.
7 MS. MARCUS: Just one brief point, Your Honour, which is that
8 with respect to the "Unit" video, we do not rely on the words of the
9 presenter, we said that repeatedly. This is a very different situation
10 where the words are the presenter are the portion we feel we contest and
11 the conclusions are not -- that the presenter draws are not conclusions
12 that we believe can necessarily be drawn from the footage.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think the best we can do is have a look at it
14 and see to what extent we are convinced both on the basis of the text and
15 on the basis of what we see, whether we would admit or not.
16 Now, there was also another matter, Mr. Petrovic, I think an
17 English translation was there to be uploaded. Has that been done?
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, both the English
19 translation and the accompanying paper that goes with the translation.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Do you mean the surrogate sheet? Or ...
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So those issues then have been resolved. We'll
23 first have a look at it, Ms. Marcus, and then once we've decided about
24 the first clip, then we also know whether we have to make a separation
25 between the -- between the three clips depending on whether we'll grant
1 your objection, yes or no. D319, therefore, remains on the list of
2 documents or in this case video marked for identification.
3 I move on to D327. Ms. Marcus, I think that D327 is the chart of
4 comments on exhibits. It will depend on the underlying documents, I take
5 it, whether you object or not. Is that still your position?
6 MS. MARCUS: We actually dropped our objections to the remaining
7 underlying document, that was D328 and D329. We, therefore, drop our
8 objection to the admission of the chart as well.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, they are already admitted under seal as a
10 matter of fact. So, therefore, D327 is admitted under seal. I move on
11 to D330. Let me have a look. You were seeking additional information,
12 Ms. Marcus, on the provenance. Have you received such information?
13 MS. MARCUS: Not to my knowledge, Your Honour.
14 MR. JORDASH: It's the same position; from the client, we are
15 seeking information from the National Council.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that remains on our list for the time
17 being. Could we urge the National Council to or could you perhaps inform
18 that the Chamber would very much like to have these matters resolved and
19 once you would need our intervention, Mr. Jordash, don't hesitate to seek
21 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move on to D331. There on the 19th of July,
23 the -- it was said that the Prosecution still needed to discuss the
24 document with the Stanisic Defence. On my list it's unclear what exactly
25 you would like to discuss. If it's provenance, then we might get to a
1 similar position, but I just don't know.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. We have no objection to this
3 document being tendered from the bar table.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then, D331 is admitted into evidence. We move to
5 D332. That is an Official Note of the SR Krajina SUP Knin. The issue
6 here is whether D332, marked for identification, is the same as D98 which
7 is already admitted. First of all, Mr. Petrovic, has the
8 Simatovic Defence received the original?
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The original
10 has been uploaded as 2D535.2.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And are you sure that it's not the same as
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise, I need
14 to check that. I don't have it readily available. I don't have that
15 information readily available. I have to check.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Would you then, please, verify that to start with.
17 Would you then have a look at the translations, the translations are more
18 or less the same, but not exactly, so if you have any preference for the
19 one or the other translation, again it's only minor differences, and none
20 of them apparently affecting the meaning of the document. Could you then
21 choose, inform the other parties of your preferred translation, and then
22 finally, if it's one document to have it most likely then the
23 translation, the preferred translation attached to D98. If there are
24 different documents, then, still, I think if the original text is the
25 same, it would be preferable to have also the same translation. But if
1 you could please verify this and then inform the Chamber. I can't say
2 that the list is quickly getting much longer.
3 Apart from that, Madam Registrar, at least D332, whether it
4 stands or not, should be replaced by the original, to replace the copy
5 which was uploaded until now. Let me just check, Mr. Petrovic,
6 whether ... Yes, you have given the number to Madam Registrar, the
7 number under which the original was uploaded, so may I take it,
8 Madam Registrar, that replacing the copy which was initially uploaded by
9 the originals causes no problems.
10 Then I have a series of four documents. That is D357, D360,
11 D361, and D362. The issue was whether the Prosecution maintains its
12 objection, but I have to add to that that for D360 and D361 the final
13 solution of what I briefly call the 54 bis issue may at this moment be an
14 obstacle to -- yes, Mr. Jordash.
15 MR. JORDASH: I think that's right.
16 JUDGE ORIE: That's right, but that is not true for D357 and
18 MR. JORDASH: 362 are from the client, again to be requested from
19 the National Council. And in relation to 357, the issue is one of
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There was -- I have got on my list that the
22 Prosecution wanted to check the original RFA, but if you received it from
23 your client, Mr. Jordash, then I take it that there's no --
24 MR. JORDASH: No, it's both issues, actually, redactions and we
25 need to receive it from the National Council if they have it.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that means that all four, two for the
2 54 bis reasons and the two others, that is D357 and D362 still waiting
3 for further information about the provenance. I'm not very successful in
4 shortening my MFI list, but I'm still -- I do not give up my hope.
5 The next one is D363. Mr. Jordash, the objection was relevance.
6 Could you please explain to the Chamber what the relevance is. I think
7 it was a lot of press clippings or a report on what appeared in the
9 MR. JORDASH: It's a Croatian media summary summarising certain
10 reports from UN Commission for Human Rights, and a number of other issues
11 such as speeches given by persons such as the parliamentary speaker,
12 Tomcic [phoen], on Dayton Accords. Actually, I'm --
13 JUDGE ORIE: It's summarising media, what appeared in the media,
14 and the question is to what extent that is relevant.
15 MR. JORDASH: Could I have five minutes. I do apologise,
16 Your Honour. I just want to check this before talking off the top of my
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Five minutes are granted. You might even have to
21 wait until after the break, Mr. Jordash.
22 D364. There, the issue was that the witness was not able to
23 provide much context for the document which was an instruction on
24 admission of volunteers to the JNA. I, in court, noted that the temporal
25 and geographical scope of the instruction was at least unclear, and the
1 Stanisic Defence asked the document to be marked for identification while
2 it clears up the question raised by me and perhaps the objection raised
3 by the Prosecution.
4 MR. JORDASH: My understanding was that the Prosecution had
5 removed their objection to this.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then my question remains temporal/geographical
7 scope. I see here the Stanisic Defence asked that the document be MFI'd
8 while it clears up the questions raised by Judge Orie. That's what I
9 find on my list. There was, as far as I see, there was no objection
10 against the document to be marked for identification. It's not entirely
11 clear to me whether there also was no objection against admission.
12 MS. MARCUS: We drop our objection at this stage, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Jordash, any answer to my question
14 temporal and geographical scope, or do you want another five minutes?
15 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, could I have another five minutes. I do
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that makes ten.
18 I move on to D365. Instruction on the acceptance of volunteers
19 in the TO. Apparently taken from a book and listed as attachment number
20 7. Here again the Stanisic Defence asked that the document be MFI'd
21 while it cleared up the document's origins, and the Prosecution did not
22 object to marking it for identification. No objection against admission
24 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, this one, this document seems to be a
25 retyped document, not the original or not an image of the original, so
1 given that this is a law, it appears to us that the Defence should be
2 able to obtain the original document rather than one that's been typed
3 up, so that the cross-referencing, et cetera, the original law we
4 wouldn't object to, to the admission, of course.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
6 MR. JORDASH: We will write to the National Council to try to
7 obtain the original.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I hope that this is not becoming five months
9 instead of five minutes to resolve, but -- and that also then if you
10 receive it in that way, then also the question marks to what it was
11 attached as attachment number 7 then may disappear as well.
12 I move on to D366, again origin.
13 MR. JORDASH: Prosecution have withdrawn their objection. We
14 provided evidence of provenance.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, if that's the case ...
16 MS. MARCUS: I'm not aware of us withdrawing our objection, but I
17 take Mr. Jordash at his word, it might have happened in an e-mail
18 communication that I'm not ...
19 MR. JORDASH: From Mr. Farr on the 18th of August.
20 MS. MARCUS: Fair enough. My apologies.
21 JUDGE ORIE: D366 is admitted into evidence.
22 I move on to D367. It was MFI'd but the first thing was that the
23 translation had to be uploaded. It has been uploaded. Now, any
24 objections still standing, Ms. Marcus, in relation to the origin?
25 MR. JORDASH: Mr. Farr, 18th of August, 2011, no objection.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then I take it that you'll partially accept
2 Mr. Jordash's submissions, Ms. Marcus, and, therefore, D367 is admitted
3 into evidence.
4 D368. It was MFI'd because there was no B/C/S translation. It
5 has been uploaded now and as far as I am aware of, there were no
6 objections. The same is true for D369. No comments? Then D368 and D369
7 are admitted into evidence.
8 D372, again, is a chart. The underlying documents are found in
9 D374 up to and including D394 although there's one exception, that is
10 that D382 was - that's a Hadzic special Ilok unit information report -
11 was not one of the underlying documents. It was a document tendered by
12 the Simatovic Defence.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honour, this is
14 a 1D document that we used and my learned friends from the Stanisic team
15 informed us that they requested from the Croatian state to identify
16 documents including this one, and that the application has already been
17 submitted or is about to be submitted. I'm not sure. In any case, this
18 is the information that I received from my colleagues.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now --
20 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: I made a mistake when I said that the underlying
22 documents went up to D394 because the list is by far shorter. The first
23 underlying documents being D374, D375, and D376, objections were about
24 provenance. Do they still stand?
25 MS. MARCUS: D374, we have no further objections to that
1 document. For D375 we are still awaiting provenance information and also
2 there are redactions in that document. And D376 we are awaiting
3 information as to provenance.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
5 MR. JORDASH: We agree with that except 375 where we sent
6 provenance to the Prosecution on the 22nd of August, and a reminder
7 e-mail on the 23rd of November, but the redaction issue is still
9 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that only D374 can be admitted into
10 evidence and is hereby admitted into evidence.
11 We move on to D380. Partial translation has been -- now the full
12 translation has been uploaded. I think it was, it was part of the
13 housekeeping session filing. Then the objection against provenance was
14 still there.
15 MR. JORDASH: We've sent that -- the origin on the 23rd of
16 November. Waiting for a reply from the Prosecution.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
18 MS. MARCUS: I'll just check that information and then I'll bring
19 our submission.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please keep track of the numbers
21 exactly so that I'm not lost later on.
22 Next, D382 marked for identification pending the original
24 Mr. Petrovic or Mr. Jordash, I think you tendered it,
25 Mr. Petrovic, but it might well be that it was a document which was
1 provided by the Stanisic Defence. Is the original document there,
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I believe that the original has
4 been uploaded as 1D351.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, can you confirm that.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Please bear with me for a moment,
7 Your Honour. I would like to verify.
8 Your Honour, no, I apologise, I believe that we discussed the
9 document just a while ago on page 21 and I said that this was the
10 Stanisic Defence document and that they would request the original from
11 the Croatian government. Page 21, line 7, we are talking about the same
12 document here.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think I referred to it earlier when I made
14 that mistake. So we still have to wait for an answer to that question.
15 D388, chart. Let's first perhaps move to the underlying
16 documents which are still disputed. That is D393, D394. Any objections,
17 Ms. Marcus?
18 MS. MARCUS: No objection to D393, Your Honour. With respect to
19 D394, I believe we are still awaiting information on provenance. I hope
20 I'm correct.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Can you confirm that, Mr. Jordash.
22 MR. JORDASH: Yes, provided by client, waiting for
23 National Council.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. D393 is admitted into evidence and D388 has to
25 wait until we have resolved D394.
1 Next chart, D410 with underlying documents D412 up to and
2 including D421. There were no objections against admission from what I
3 am aware of, but there was an issue of possible duplicates, and the
4 question arose whether D417 might be the same as P2412.
5 MR. JORDASH: It is the same.
6 JUDGE ORIE: It is the same. So, therefore, D417 is vacated, and
7 D412 up to and including D416 and D418 up to and including D421 are ready
8 to be admitted. Ms. Marcus, any --
9 MS. MARCUS: I had one comment on one other duplicate.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You have found another duplicate.
11 MS. MARCUS: I believe that D419 on the chart is already in
12 evidence as P2733. Okay. Sorry, D419 is already in evidence as D458, I
13 believe. And there are two other documents which are excerpts of that
14 larger personnel file. This is again the issue that I raised on
15 Thursday. Those other excerpts are admitted as P2733 and P2734. What I
16 wanted to ask, Your Honour, again, as I believe I mentioned on Thursday,
17 that we would be greatly assisted, I think all the parties would be
18 greatly assisted by some kind of a cross-referencing mechanism when a
19 document -- when an exhibit is being vacated as discussed on the record
20 with that exhibit number, I don't know if this is possible with a vacated
21 exhibit, maybe a surrogate sheet to be uploaded saying that this document
22 is now this other document, but in order -- in terms of searching for
23 documents, et cetera in the record it makes it much more difficult.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I see your point, that whenever reference is need
25 one document, this certainly would be true for, let's have a look, I
1 think we found one other duplicate today. I think that was D332,
2 although it still had to be finally verified whether the documents are
3 exactly the same.
4 Madam Registrar, is there a possibility that instead of vacating
5 numbers for being duplicates that we replace the exhibit by a surrogate
6 sheet saying that this document was admitted or under a different number?
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, it is possible but in addition to
8 that, for each document that is vacated, it's named, marked "not
9 admitted" and there are still place with additional details with all the
10 information what happened with this documents are included. So it is
11 possible to trace it even without uploading a surrogate sheet.
12 JUDGE ORIE: If that is the case, if the reasons are clearly
13 appearing in the e-court exhibit list or the list marked "not admitted,"
14 we do not have to take any additional action.
15 Now, Ms. Marcus, you say that D419 is the same as D458, if I
16 understood you well, but D458 is not yet admitted into evidence. So
17 perhaps we later at D458 we establish that it should not be admitted
18 because the same document was already admitted under a different number
19 and then it appears there.
20 MS. MARCUS: That's fine, Your Honour. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: What -- let me check whether that was the, you said,
22 comments. Yes, then about the excerpts, Madam Registrar, could I ask you
23 whether if looking at P2733 and P2734 in relation to D419 that it is
24 sufficiently clear to those who will later consult the -- let me keep
25 that one short.
1 Ms. Marcus, would you have an opportunity to briefly discuss with
2 Madam Registrar how to resolve your technical issue, whether the existing
3 system does already resolve it or whether any additional action is there
4 to be taken, in which case the Chamber would like to hear from you.
5 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll wait for the outcome of that
8 I said earlier that I was ready to admit D412 up to and including
9 D416 and D418 up to and including D421. I hereby admit those documents
10 into evidence. Do they have to be under seal?
11 MR. JORDASH: No. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: None of them under seal. D423.
13 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'd forgotten that since there are no problems
15 anymore with the underlying documents that we should also admit D410
16 which is the chart for which the admitted documents ...
17 MR. JORDASH: I think, perhaps, sorry, I misspoke. D420 should
18 probably be under seal. It contains a list of names which we need to
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Marcus, one of the reasons why I asked --
21 also why I asked is that you referred to larger personnel files,
22 et cetera, and personnel files often are admitted under seal. Anything
23 you would like to add in relation to what should be under seal and not?
24 MS. MARCUS: Some -- in the case of some, the issue has been
25 discussed and resolved, but I would check on this, Your Honour, and get
1 back to you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. For the time being, D420 is now placed under
4 I move on to D423. It was MFI'd because there were errors in the
5 translation. Has a revised translation been uploaded?
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes, it has. Under 1D05054.1.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then the revised translation replaces the originally
8 uploaded translation, and Madam Registrar is instructed accordingly.
9 Now, inadvertently this document was announced as already
10 admitted on the 2nd of September, 2011. That was too early, but now
11 there is no reason not to admit. Therefore, it has the status of
12 admitted into evidence with the 28th of November, 2011 date as being
14 Next --
15 MS. MARCUS: Excuse me, Your Honour. My apologies. D423 is an
16 excerpt from D457. Again, we have this issue, which I think will repeat
17 again: It is one subset of a personnel file and the entire file has now
18 been admitted as D457.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now, we can make -- perhaps sometimes it's
20 simpler just to have both of them in evidence. It's now on the record
21 that the one is part of the other, but it might create here and there
22 some problems. I now move to the next chart and underlying documents
23 being D424 up to and including D445. Let's start with the underlying
24 documents. D425; authenticity pending inspection of RFA responses. That
25 was the issue, and then further reliability, Ms. Marcus.
1 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, if I'm not mistaken, all these exhibits
2 are part of a pending motion, in fact, because of the, I guess because of
3 the number, and because of the substance of our objections, we filed our
4 objections, so I'm actually not prepared to discuss them one by one here
5 but I would certainly do that if Your Honour so requests.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then let's then only -- deal only with those who
7 require perhaps -- or could I say that the ones which were not objected
8 to at an earlier stage, that we can admit those, and if there are any
9 other technical issues, I, therefore, jump to D433 where there was no
10 objection, as far as I understand, and, therefore, can be admitted.
11 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, before we move on, I think it was 410
12 was just overlooked a moment ago.
13 JUDGE ORIE: 410. I think I started doing that and then I think
14 that I corrected myself, if I'm not --
15 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I think that's what happened.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- mistaken.
17 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: To the extent that there's any unclarity, when I
19 went back to D410, that it was admitted, then it's here by clear on the
20 record that it was. D429 is admitted into evidence. D433, similarly, no
21 objections, from what I understand and, therefore, admitted into
22 evidence. D -- I think I dealt with that one already. I did. Page 28,
23 line 5. One second, please.
24 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please go a tiny little bit back to D429.
1 It's on my list that there were no objections there, and, therefore,
2 ready for admission.
3 MS. MARCUS: I believe that's correct, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then D429 is admitted into evidence. I move to
5 D434. There was an issue of whether the -- whether the unredacted
6 version of this document, a CRD Uzice Official Note on informative talks
7 with sources referred to about kidnapping of citizens of the
8 Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, of Muslim nationality citizens being
9 kidnapped, whether the unredacted version is uploaded.
10 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Has it also been carefully -- has it been released?
12 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Has it been verified whether the unredacted version
14 is really identical to the one that was initially uploaded?
15 MR. JORDASH: Just checking that, Your Honour. Your Honour, I
16 wonder if that could be checked while we have a break.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Five minutes for that document. If it is identical,
18 we'll then admit it into evidence.
19 MR. JORDASH: It is identical.
20 JUDGE ORIE: It is identical. Then D434 is admitted into
21 evidence. And the original uploaded should replace the initially
22 uploaded version. Then I ...
23 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. JORDASH: Sorry to interrupt, may we take a break?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me say the following: I would not mind
2 that we take a little bit of a shorter break but that Mr. Stanisic would
3 already be excused so that we have one hour and a half so that we can
4 move on, it's -- of course, I am aware that the accused have earlier
5 waived their right to be present. If that would be true for the next ten
6 minutes, I would go on for ten minutes and have a bit of a shorter break.
7 MR. JORDASH: I'm sure that's fine, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So if you, Mr. Stanisic, or -- and/or
9 Mr. Simatovic would already would like to start their break, please do
10 not hesitate. We'll not deal with anything else then the housekeeping
11 session and the MFI list. And then I intend to resume at 10 minutes past
12 4.00 then.
13 [The accused stand down]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then the last one from the underlying exhibits which
15 seems to create no problems is D445. I think that's ready for admission,
16 Ms. Marcus, unless you disagree? D445 is hereby admitted into evidence.
17 I then move on to D448. Information on origin was the reason why
18 it was MFI'd.
19 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, before we move on, we can drop our
20 objections to a number of the other documents if that would be helpful.
21 The ones we passed up now. I could put on the record which ones we drop
22 our objections for.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you do it one by one, I'll admit them into
25 MS. MARCUS: Yes, one by one, Your Honour. D246.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, that's quite a bit back. D246.
2 MS. MARCUS: These are still underlying the chart that
3 Your Honour was just dealing with.
4 JUDGE ORIE: But all mine start with D4 and then numbers. Is it
5 not 426?
6 MS. MARCUS: Maybe it's 426.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Which would be more likely in view of the sequence
8 of numbers.
9 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, perhaps I should check that because I'm
10 being told by my colleague that it's actually both. Let me then say we
11 drop our objection to D426, that's certain, but I have that listed as a
12 separate document.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and is admitted into evidence.
14 MS. MARCUS: D428.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
16 MS. MARCUS: D439.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
18 MS. MARCUS: D441.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
20 MS. MARCUS: D442.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
22 MS. MARCUS: And D444.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
24 I would have one question in relation to D444, the objection was
25 that the witness's comment didn't make sense, that has changed since
1 then? It was because the -- the comment referred to 1D5062 which
2 discusses the reasons that the witness was, himself, paid a per diem and
3 as it was raised at the time that the witness does not appear on these
4 lists so, therefore, the comment was unclear. That was the objection at
5 the time. Everything is now clear because absence of objections and
6 leaving the Chamber with matters of unclarity is -- so you may revisit
7 the matter if you wish to do so.
8 MS. MARCUS: Yes, please, Your Honour. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: But if you waive your objections or if you -- then
10 at least the result should not be that the Chamber is left with the
12 I move on to D448, further information on origin. Any update?
13 MR. JORDASH: Objections are withdrawn. Withdrawn on the Friday,
14 October 7th from Mr. Weber.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If that is the case, nothing should at this moment
16 keep us off from admission into evidence. D448 is admitted into
17 evidence. Now, I by mistake had already earlier admitted this document
18 in evidence, although that didn't appear in e-court because there it was
19 already corrected, but the formal date of admission now is today.
20 D449, that is one out of 375 files which give context. The
21 parties were invited or would attempt to agree on finding a balance
22 between the document and the -- those files would give context to that
23 document. As far as I understand it, the Defence relied on the document
24 on the form only, so as to demonstrate that the witness was also
25 unfamiliar with this sort of document. Have the parties reached any
1 agreement on a balanced approach?
2 MR. JORDASH: I don't think so. I think the Prosecution position
3 which remains unexplained is that they want the whole personnel file.
4 I'm not sure how that relates to form which was the focus of the
5 discussion with the witness.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's the reason why I raised the matter, I
7 referred to what you intended to demonstrate with the document.
8 Ms. Marcus.
9 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Mr. Jordash is correct that our
10 position is that the entire file for the complete context should be
11 admitted. For further details on that, I would appreciate a few minutes
12 then I'll come back to the Chamber.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. For equality of arms I'll grant also five
15 D450, that was the issue with the witness had who testified
16 through videolink and the witness had his own copy with him, and it was
17 this document which was provided to the witness which was used during the
18 videolink. One of the things that had to be done is whether the uploaded
19 copy is -- as far as the content is concerned, the same as the one
20 provided by the witness during the videolink conference.
21 MR. JORDASH: I think it's in Madam Registrar's hands.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Whether it's the same? I think there were signed
23 and unsigned copies.
24 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I've got the two copies before me. They
2 are not exactly the same although it seems that there is -- that the
3 content is the same. However, some -- the copy uploaded in e-court bears
4 on every page the signature of the witness and initials whereas the one
5 used by the witness only bears his signature on the cover page, on page
6 14, and on page 15, but there seems to be no content -- difference in
7 content, if the parties would agree on that, then I would suggest that
8 D450 is replaced by the 92 ter signed copy.
9 Now, before I make any mistake, I think the signed copy is
10 uploaded, Madam Registrar, or is it the unsigned copy? The right one is
11 uploaded and it is the one with the signature of the witness and initials
12 on each and every of the 15 pages in B/C/S. This matter being
13 resolved -- yes, what then remains, Mr. Petrovic, is that you should file
14 a public summary. I apologise, it's Mr. Jordash. He was sitting
15 relaxed, smiling that Mr. Petrovic would -- no, Mr. Jordash, the task is
16 for you to file the public summary.
17 Then the next one, and that's the last one we'll deal with before
18 the break, that is D452. That is the chart, the list of RDB documents,
19 reports on which the -- on which the witness gave his comments. The
20 Prosecution had received the document only two hours before court. We
21 have dealt with all the underlying documents. Therefore, Ms. Marcus, any
22 objections? This is only the chart itself. Again the underlying
23 documents, I think that's all done already.
24 MS. MARCUS: I take Your Honour's word on that. If that's the
25 case then we have no objection to the chart.
1 JUDGE ORIE: D452 is admitted under seal. I'm looking at the
2 clock. I have still some ... Some 15 documents and one chart with
3 underlying documents. We'll try to deal with them in, if possible, in 45
4 minutes after the break. If the accused would prefer to have a longer
5 break, I would have no problems. We could invite them back into the
6 courtroom if they would prefer so after we've dealt with the MFI list.
7 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I'm just floating this as a possible,
8 I'm just conscious of our next witness sitting in a small room outside,
9 and conscious of the length of the MFI list. I'm wondering, well, one of
10 two things. One, whether the witness should return to his hotel for
11 awhile, or, two, whether the MFI list to be adjourned until the witness
12 is finished, which would be on Wednesday.
13 JUDGE ORIE: One of the problems is that I'm not there on
14 Wednesday, and although I have full confidence that my colleagues would
15 even do it with less mistakes than I do, it would require quite a bit of
16 preparation, I am afraid. I think it's reasonable to assume that --
17 perhaps we could do that. If we resume at 10 minutes past 4.00, we would
18 then have anything between 5.00 and 5.30 then to first take this second
19 break, because we had a relatively long session, and then the witness
20 would then be back by let's say a quarter to 6.00, that might give him
21 some fresh air.
22 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And then -- let me just check with my colleagues.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and we'll resume at a quarter past
2 --- Recess taken at 3.53 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 4.19 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Just to come back to a few matters before the break,
5 we extensively discussed the version used by the witness in -- during
6 videolink evidence, that's D450, which was the right version, et cetera.
7 I may not have been clear enough, but D450 is admitted into evidence.
8 Then another matter, Mr. Jordash, if I were a lawyer, I would say
9 that I had made no mistake, but -- well, I am a lawyer, but for D452,
10 that is the chart, I said we had dealt with all the underlying documents.
11 Now, that is true and not true. What is true, that we dealt with them by
12 not dealing with them because they were not tendered. Therefore, we have
13 dealt with everything needed underlying documents but there was none
14 because none have been tendered as far as I understand. They have not
15 been assigned numbers, so there's nothing to deal with, unless you would
16 be inclined to tender them now.
17 MR. JORDASH: I am so inclined.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And in that case, I would suggest that you -- that
19 Madam Registrar prepares a list of assigning numbers to the documents
20 found in the chart. This, of course, may have its effect also admission
21 of the chart itself, so we'll change the status of D452 in marked for
23 MR. JORDASH: Yes, D452, the chart -- MFI chart, there are now no
25 JUDGE ORIE: No, but that was after I said that we had dealt with
1 all the underlying documents and if he refers at all, I think we should
2 do it completely and give an opportunity to the Prosecution to make up
3 its mind as far as objections against the underlying documents which you
4 intend to tender --
5 MR. JORDASH: I was about to move to that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but before we do that, Mr. Jordash, I would
7 like to put on the record that apparently both the accused have followed
8 my invitation, well, not invitation, but have taken advantage of the fact
9 that we were dealing with the MFI list only and therefore are not present
10 in court at this very moment.
11 MR. JORDASH: Yes, that's right.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar will prepare that and then new
13 numbers will appear next to the MFI list and new numbers will appear for
14 D452. I meanwhile had a look at the marked non-admitted exhibit data as
15 they appear in e-court, and I think that the column "additional details"
16 provides sufficient information so as to avoid any confusion as where a
17 document had disappeared.
18 Then I would like to move on. We were at D454. The issue was
19 that the source of the video and when it was produced was unclear and,
20 Mr. Petrovic, could you give further information, what was the source of
21 the video.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we would like to have
23 this piece of evidence MFI'd until the arrival of our witness who will
24 explain things. We will then offer the document again and, therefore, I
25 would like to wait with this document until a moment in the future when
1 the witness arrives.
2 JUDGE ORIE: What witness would that be? Would that be the one
3 who produced the video or would it someone appearing in the video so as
4 to know what we can expect? Because if it was someone appearing on the
5 video, that person might not be fully able to tell us how the video was
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, according to the
8 information that is available to me at the moment, that person can
9 explain the origin of the video-clip, who took it, how it was preserved
10 and how did it land in our hands. He will explain how the video was
11 created and the chain of custody of the material. It is possible that he
12 himself made some of the parts of the video-clip, but I would refrain
13 from providing further comment. We still need to discuss the details
14 with the witness and I would hate to mislead any of the parties to the
15 proceedings to false conclusions.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Now, since we have received your witness list and
17 the -- provisionally the possible pseudonyms, could you tell us which DFS
18 number this witness appears under?
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will be able to do
20 it in a minute or two. The list of pseudonyms is new to me. I'm going
21 to look at it and in a couple of minutes I'll be able to come back to you
22 on that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. I expect your initiative in that
25 We move on to D455, translation missing but there was no
1 objection of the OTP. Has the translation meanwhile been uploaded? I'm
2 looking at you again, Mr. Petrovic, because it was a 2D document.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise, please
4 bear with me for a moment. Let me have a look. It has not been
5 uploaded. The situation is the same with D456, D488, D489 through D495.
6 Have we gave the materials to the translation service, the translations
7 have not been returned to us. As soon as they are, the translations will
8 be uploaded. In other words, we provided the translation services with
9 the originals of the document. I apologise, the record doesn't reflect
10 what I just stated; with your leave, I would like to repeat.
11 Document numbers are D455, D456, D458, D459, D461, D462, D463,
12 D464, and D465, they have not been translated yet.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And these are numbers a bit different from the
14 ones you gave a second ago, but ...
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that we
16 have a problem with translation. What is now on the record reflects the
17 true situation.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Both series of numbers are reflected on the
19 record, but the recent one. I'll go through them one by one to see
20 whether there are any other problems, but perhaps I meanwhile ask you,
21 Mr. Petrovic, whether you have been able to identify the witness by DFS
22 number who will tell us about the video?
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I can give you his name,
24 Your Honour. He will testify in a open court. Witness Pelovic [phoen].
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record. Then we'll be patient until
1 he appears.
2 D455 was a translation issue only. D456, of course there was a
3 translation issue but redactions may play a role there as well, and I do
4 understand that this may be one of the documents which will be further
5 discussed by the Stanisic Defence with the Republic of Serbia.
6 Mr. Jordash, is that correct? It was one of the documents, I think,
7 covered by the 54 bis discussion.
8 MR. JORDASH: Then, yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then D458, there was only a translation, and,
10 of course, once the translation is there we'll hear from the Prosecution.
11 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour, D456 is -- they are Simatovic
12 documents. In fact, I think they may be Prosecution documents.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Not necessarily if the Simatovic Defence has
14 tendered the document, that does not mean that it's necessarily also from
15 the -- but I leave that open, the only thing I want to raise now is that
16 there was a redaction issue there as well. Whomever is in contact with
17 whatever government is invited to deal with it. Ms. Marcus.
18 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we -- I believe that that this is
19 part of our discussions with Serbia and I was going to note for the
20 Chamber's information that we will -- Serbia has agreed to provide an
21 unredacted version of this and we will keep the parties informed. Can I
22 make one more brief comment on D456, which is that the description of the
23 document, it seems -- the description says -- well, maybe this should be
24 in private session if the document will be under seal.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's -- for me it's a document which, if it
1 comes to admission, will be admitted under seal.
2 MS. MARCUS: The first name, Your Honour, the first name is a
3 nickname and I think it should be replaced with the proper full name. I
4 doubt there would be any objection from the Defence on this. It's just
5 that the description doesn't have the correct first name.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's on the record hereby. Then,
7 Mr. Petrovic, has the redacted document been sent to CLSS or an
8 unredacted copy?
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] According to my information, what
10 has been sent was a redacted copy but I will verify that as well.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then please sent an unredacted copy to
12 CLSS once it is available.
13 I move on to D458. There it is again a translation which is
14 missing as said before, is not there yet. For D459, the translation is
15 missing, but there's also a need that the Prosecution and the Defence
16 agree on what portion should be uploaded.
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. As far as I know for D459 we
18 don't object to the admission and we are only waiting for the
19 translation. That was our position, I believe, on that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although there was some discussion about, I
21 don't know, it's part of a document which part I have a note here that
22 the translation is missing and pending upload of an agreed portion, so I
23 do not know whether you have agreed on what should be uploaded yes or no.
24 MS. MARCUS: I believe Your Honour is referring to is there was
25 some debate at transcript page 14579 about whether the entire file was
1 contained in the document, and then I believe this was resolved. We
2 checked it at the time and we stated on the record at T-14625 that, in
3 fact, the entire file is contained in that document. That may have
4 resolved the issue of portions, et cetera.
5 JUDGE ORIE: If that's the case, then the only remaining issue is
7 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt, I wanted to go
8 back to D458, please.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
10 MS. MARCUS: We have a translation of this which I think that
11 would maybe facilitate matters, that we've uploaded the translation of
12 D458 as 0608-7982-ET, that can solve the translation problem. I would
13 note that this translation includes the entire document of D458 with the
14 exception of two pages containing photocopies of business cards and an
15 invitation to a baptism. If the Defence agrees with those pages being
16 excluded, we can have our translation attached to the document. I would
17 also note that I believe earlier we discussed D458 would be replaced with
18 D419. I believe that's what we said earlier today because it's the
19 identical document, but the translation that I just offered is valid for
20 either, since it's the same document. I would also put on the record
21 that underlying D419 or D458 are the following Prosecution exhibits which
22 are excerpts, that's P2733, P2734, P2735, P2736, and P2678.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest that you verify the translation of D458
24 and D419, being the same, Mr. Petrovic, because it's your exhibit,
25 therefore, it's up to you to see whether you can live with that
1 translation. I take it that it causes no problems. And that you also
2 verify whether you agree that the documents just mentioned by Ms. Marcus
3 are excerpts of D419 aka D458, and then deal with a matter in a more
4 consolidated fashion. Now, just I -- Ms. Marcus.
5 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, it does seem that there appears to
6 be some confusion. When we discussed D419 earlier today, what I
7 understood the Chamber to say was that since the entire file is in
8 evidence as D458, but since D458 was not yet admitted and we hadn't
9 reached that number yet, that D458 would later be vacated, but I think
10 that probably was actually not correct, may have been my error. In fact,
11 D419 is an excerpt of D458. So what I just said just now is also not
12 correct, I do apologise for that, it is a little bit confusing. D458 is
13 the full file. D419 are excerpts of the file.
14 JUDGE ORIE: As are P2733, P2734, P2735, 36 and P2678.
15 MS. MARCUS: Yes. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: So perhaps under the present circumstances I would
17 leave it as it is so as for everyone not to start searching where to find
18 it. Although the additional information column is very good, I
19 nevertheless perhaps prefer at this moment to leave matters as they are,
20 and it's now clear on the record that D458 contains the content of all of
21 the other exhibits now mentioned.
22 Then I move on to, let me see where I was, I was at -- I think I
23 was at D461.
24 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, once you have checked the translation
1 of -- which was offered to you of D458, then, of course, I would expect
2 you to upload that or attach that to D458.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move on. We were at D461. I do understand
5 that there were no objections, but translation is still missing. D462,
6 translation still missing, but there also is a redaction issue,
7 Mr. Petrovic, perhaps you could keep that in mind and see whether you can
8 get hold of an unredacted version and have that been sent for
10 Ms. Marcus.
11 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, this is also part of our
12 negotiations as well, so we will be happy to keep the Chamber informed
13 when we received the unredacted version.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. For D463, would that same comment be true?
15 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then we leave that as it is as well. Then D464,
17 translation missing but also -- no, is there any redaction issue there?
18 I don't see it, but then we are still waiting for the translation without
19 further comments.
20 D465, translation is missing as well. As you explained to us,
21 Mr. Petrovic, which means that we are now at D467. That is, again, a
22 chart and we have to look at the chart first to see whether there's any
23 objection to admission.
24 Now, there are -- there's one issue, the -- the B/C/S version of
25 the chart should be replaced because there's a revised one, Mr. Petrovic.
1 I do understand that the revised B/C/S version is uploaded as 1D05258.1;
2 is that correct?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that this
4 is correct; however, that my friends from 1D Defence will have more to
5 say about that, it concerns them.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you are right. I'm not here to divide the work
7 between you. Mr. Jordash, the revised B/C/S version I just mentioned?
8 MR. JORDASH: That is correct.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Has been uploaded?
10 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Hereby Madam Registrar is instructed to replace the
12 existing B/C/S version into the revised B/C/S version I just mentioned.
13 I would then go through the list of underlying exhibits. I start with
14 D468. There was an objection against the document, grounds of
15 authenticity, but no objection against the comment.
16 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, yes, Your Honour, the Prosecution drops
17 its objections to Exhibits D468 through D474, and D476 through D504. We
18 maintain our objection to D475 because the text of the document is
19 incomplete and we note that D482 appears already to be admitted.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then in order to avoid any mistakes go through that
21 list, D468 is admitted into evidence, D469 admitted, D470 admitted, D471
22 admitted, D472 admitted, D473 admitted, D474 admitted, D476 admitted,
23 D477 admitted, D478 admitted, D479 admitted, D480 admitted, D481
24 admitted. Madam Registrar, D482 was already admitted?
25 THE REGISTRAR: No, it was not, Your Honour. That was a mistake.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then -- well, to be admitted twice is less
2 cumbersome than not being admitted at all. Apparently there is a mistake
3 somewhere. D482 is admitted into evidence. The same is true for D483,
4 D484, D485, D486, D487, D488, D489, D490, D491, D492, D493, D494, D495,
5 D496, D497, D498, D499, D500, D501, D502, D503 and D504.
6 Ms. Marcus, since you have objected to D475 because the text
7 being incomplete, and hand markings, is this sufficient to also still
8 oppose the admission of D467? One of the underlying documents for the
9 reasons I just mentioned still objected to.
10 MS. MARCUS: Just one brief moment, Your Honour. With respect to
11 this witness, there still appears to be some confusion as to some
12 potential overlap between 92 ter associated exhibits that were tendered
13 in the motion but not in court and there may be some overlap between some
14 of the documents in the comments chart but that may be just an
15 administrative matter, I don't see any reason to maintain our objection
16 to the chart, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then D467 is also admitted into evidence and
18 the parties are invited to check -- and D467 is admitted under seal. Has
19 the Stanisic Defence verified on any duplicates? That is, associated
20 exhibits and exhibits appearing in the chart?
21 MR. JORDASH: No, I don't think we have. I'm not sure -- could
22 we have a moment, please.
23 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
24 JUDGE ORIE: I'm reminded that we gave instructions already how
25 to deal with the matter in close co-operation with the Registrar. The
1 Chamber waits whether that report requires any further action.
2 Ms. Marcus.
3 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, just on those documents, the
4 additional associated exhibits, as they come in, we'd appreciate them
5 being MFI'd, we have some objections to some of them and no objections to
6 others. I can put that on the record now, if you like, Your Honour, or
7 we can do that when they are tendered, with exhibit numbers.
8 JUDGE ORIE: These are not the ones on the chart but they are
9 associated exhibits?
10 MS. MARCUS: Correct.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Do I -- they have not been assigned numbers yet, did
13 MS. MARCUS: We have them as 65 ter numbers, right.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, the first step to be taken is that
15 provisionally numbers are assigned and then they will appear on the MFI
16 list as associated exhibits. At the same time, care should be taken that
17 they do not appear both in -- both in the chart and as an underlying
18 document of that chart, and then again on the associated exhibits. So
19 they can be left out if they already appear here and practically all of
20 them already being admitted into evidence.
21 We'll wait for that list. Has it been checked, Mr. Jordash,
22 whether there's any need to have any of the underlying documents under
24 MR. JORDASH: Yes, there's a number that should be under seal, I
1 JUDGE ORIE: And that is number ...?
2 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, could I just have a moment, please. I think
3 we'll need a few more moments if I can, please.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I move on to D519 where there was a
5 disagreement on whether broader portion should be tendered and admitted,
6 mainly the OTP takes the position that it opposes admission of the video,
7 which shows two persons chained to a bridge without admission of at least
8 also the coaching scene which is related. Any objection against a
9 broader video including the coaching scene?
10 MR. JORDASH: Yes, there is an objection. We've accepted that
11 they are two separate videos as we suggested. We've accepted that the
12 witnesses -- the hostages were coached, and in light of that acceptance,
13 the video must be to -- that the Prosecution want to add must be for
14 another reason other than to prove that coaching, so it's not a proper
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, from a legal perspective in terms
18 of conclusions that can be drawn, I'm not sure what can be done with a
19 statement of the Defence. It's incomplete evidence. So part of the
20 evidence is tendered, I hear the Defence submission, I appreciate that,
21 but the other part of the evidence is not tendered, so in terms of the
22 evidence that's on the record, it's an inaccurate record of the evidence.
23 This was a Defence document. The other video that we are seeking to add
24 was on the list of the documents that the Defence intended to tender
25 through the witness. It's 65 ter 1D5153. And frankly I'm at a loss to
1 understand why there would be any objection from the Defence at tendering
2 this additional video. If you want to cut it to the segment that is only
3 about the coaching, I've noted down the time-codes, we are happy with
4 that as well, I think for the completeness of the record, it must be
5 admitted with D519.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ask first, the coaching, is the coaching of
7 the same persons that appear on the video chained to the bridge?
8 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Having considered the matter, the Chamber, where the
12 Stanisic Defence apparently does not deny that there was coaching but to
13 that extent agrees with the Prosecution, but where the Chamber although
14 there's readily available material to look at at what took place as
15 coaching because there's the only thing we know at this moment, that
16 there was coaching, the Chamber would like to have that information
17 available, and, therefore, invites the Stanisic Defence to add the
18 coaching and whether that's a separate video or not, it's about the same
19 persons, apparently to add the coaching portion to the video which was
20 tendered into evidence. And the Chamber also invites you, Mr. Jordash,
21 to agree with Ms. Marcus or with the Prosecution on what exactly is the
22 coaching section in order to keep it to that. Yes.
23 Ms. Marcus, I think you offered that you knew exactly what the
24 time-frame was for the coaching.
25 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Again within 65 ter 1D5153, the
1 time -- the portion commencing at 41 minutes 20 seconds and ending at
2 41 minutes 55 seconds.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, could you have a look at it and see
4 whether that is more than what you considered to be the coaching section.
5 If it is the same, then add it to D519, so replace the or add to the
6 existing exhibit this portion. Is there a translation to the coaching
8 MS. MARCUS: It is in both languages, it's going through an
9 interpreter into English, but we can double-check if there's any portion
10 that still needs to be translated. I will double-check that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I then take it that this matter will be
12 resolved within not more than a week, is that reasonable?
13 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then the last issue, Mr. Jordash, if we are
15 not mistaken, you announced that a UN report on hostage taking would be
16 tendered but finally was not tendered. Therefore, also no number is
17 assigned to it so, therefore, we wonder whether that was your intention?
18 Whether you still know -- it might not appear in your MFI list because if
19 not tendered, it doesn't appear there because there's no number.
20 MR. JORDASH: I'll need to check on that and I need to reread it,
22 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, my staff tells me that where you
24 announced that you would tender this UN report, that at the same time the
25 Prosecution wanted to bar table the same document. Is that correct,
1 Ms. Marcus?
2 MS. MARCUS: I'll take it that that is correct.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that --
4 MS. MARCUS: I'll have to check, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because without numbers we are lost.
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes. Well, we'll check. I mean, we will object to
7 the Prosecution bar tabling it.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Wouldn't it be a good idea that on outstanding
9 matters which are easily be resolved, that you make a short filing, short
10 submission, say this, this, this, so that, for example, this one that you
11 say Stanisic Defence tenders, UN report on hostage taking, et cetera, and
12 then the 65 ter number to it, so that we have -- can go quickly through
13 it where you give us the information we still need in a summary format.
14 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
15 MS. MARCUS: That's fine, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll see whether we really can shorten
17 this list of MFIs.
18 I'm through my list, is there any matter you would still like to
19 raise? Ms. Marcus.
20 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. I have a number of
21 follow-ups based on the Chamber's request during this session, shall I --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you always give me an opportunity to find
23 the item in the list.
24 MS. MARCUS: I will do my best, Your Honour. Starting with
25 Prosecution MFIs, we were asked about Exhibit P3029. We were asked when
1 it was uploaded and we can inform the Chamber and the Defence that this
2 65 ter 6272.1 and the additional excerpts, 65 ter 6271 were uploaded in
3 B/C/S on the 7th of October, and in English on the 10th of October. That
4 was in response to a question from the Chamber after the Defence said
5 that it had just been uploaded the night before.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I have that, just let me have a look. You said
7 that was under P30 -- yes, you said you sought an opportunity to inspect
8 the contents before admission. The next issue was whether there was any
9 further portion needed for contextualisation. Yes. And now you say that
10 it's uploaded.
11 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. These were the documents that we
12 sought to tender, the additional portions that we sought to tender last
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you are referring to last Thursday.
15 MS. MARCUS: The question was whether or not those could be
16 tendered and the Defence had said it was just uploaded, and the Chamber
17 requested us to say when it was uploaded, but I think those documents
18 have not been admitted.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No, they are not. They are still MFI'd.
20 So you've uploaded them?
21 MS. MARCUS: Yes, sir.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Which is in addition to what -- no, it was
23 Prosecution -- you had not been notified, Mr. Jordash. Now, they have
24 been uploaded. Any objections? Five minutes?
25 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Next --
3 JUDGE ORIE: This is typically one of those where I expect that
4 they can be dealt with in a very short submission. P3029, no further
5 objections or objections based on. So that's -- I would try to deal with
6 many of the leftovers as soon as possible. I interrupted you,
7 Ms. Marcus, perhaps I shouldn't have done that. Please proceed.
8 MS. MARCUS: No, Your Honour, perhaps many of them on my list are
9 responses to the Chamber's queries today. If you prefer us to file that
10 in a submission we can do so.
11 JUDGE ORIE: It depends for this one because the Stanisic Defence
12 doesn't give a response we can't finalise it. But if you have any
13 information which could lead to a decision, you are invited to bring to
14 our attention.
15 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. Yes, then P3032 is the next
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MS. MARCUS: We were requested to provide origin information.
19 This document is an open-source document. When it arose in court on the
20 13th of October, 2011, we stated that we had found it in an Internet
21 search and we are still in the process of trying to find out who
22 originally took the statements. We have not been able to find out who
23 originally took the statements.
24 JUDGE ORIE: So that is still unclear. May I take it that the
25 Defence would like to reserve its position until it has received this
1 additional information?
2 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
4 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. With respect to D253, the Chamber
5 asked us whether we have a problem with the document being admitted even
6 though it starts on page 9 of the fax, and we do not have an objection to
7 that. Pages 1 to 8 are the fax cover from the ICTY Belgrade field office
8 and the English version of the RFA response cover letter so we have no
9 problem with that.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] If I may just follow up since it's
13 about this document. My learned friends gave us the translation of this
14 document on Thursday and it's uploaded under number 00860.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat the latter number
16 he mentioned.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could you repeat again the last number you refer to.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 2D00860.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that now apparently both issues have
20 been resolved.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Both translation and the first eight pages where
23 there's no objection.
24 Madam Registrar, the translation may be attached to D253, the
25 translation just mentioned by Mr. Petrovic, and the document is admitted
1 into evidence in the absence of any further objections. Does it need to
2 be under seal, Mr. Petrovic?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that this is
4 about the correspondence between the OTP and the Belgrade office, so
5 perhaps the OTP should state their opinion.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, I do not find anywhere any reference to
8 MS. MARCUS: I'll have to check, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: It's dated the 9th of August, 2006, Republic of
10 Serbia BIA, document signed by Nikola Bajic.
11 MS. MARCUS: If it's a document coming from Serbia through an RFA
12 then perhaps it's best to keep it under seal for the moment, pending the
13 opportunity of Serbia to apply for protective measures.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Provisionally is D253 admitted under seal.
15 Yes, next, please.
16 MS. MARCUS: D376 and D380 which had the same issue. I mean,
17 those two had the same issue as each other. There was an e-mail that the
18 Defence said they sent to us with provenance information. We found that,
19 we thank them, we are satisfied and we drop our objections.
20 JUDGE ORIE: D376 is admitted into evidence. D380 is admitted
21 into evidence as well. Which means, by the way, if my recollection
22 serves me well, that you had no objections against 374, it was admitted,
23 D376 is now admitted as well and D375 remains on the list; is that
25 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Which also means that we cannot finally decide on
2 the chart because there's still some of the underlying documents
3 outstanding. Therefore, D372 also remains MFI'd.
4 Next one.
5 MS. MARCUS: D366 and 367.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MS. MARCUS: The Defence, the Stanisic Defence stated that my
8 colleague had dropped the objections in an e-mail but there was some
9 miscommunication on this. We talked about it during the break and in
10 fact we had not dropped the objections to those in the e-mail. However,
11 with respect to D367, during the break, the Defence provided us with
12 provenance information so that's no problem. But with respect to D366 we
13 must request that it be converted back to MFI because the origin is from
14 Mr. Stanisic and we object to documents coming from Mr. Stanisic without
15 the original being sought.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Any comment, Mr. Jordash?
17 MR. JORDASH: That's correct.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then D367, Madam Registrar, which is admitted
19 remains admitted. D366 which was admitted is now back to the status of
20 being MFI'd.
21 Ms. Marcus.
22 MS. MARCUS: Yes. I was asked with respect to D444.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MS. MARCUS: To clarify our objection, and how because we
25 objected to the comments in the chart --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, I didn't ask you, but I just wondered.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MS. MARCUS: Our objection was related to the comments in the
5 chart but we did not object to the underlying document being admitted.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. So we'll then revisit this matter when
7 it comes to -- to the admission of the chart itself. The chart being
8 D424. Let me see what the status is of D424 because -- because similar
9 matters were there in relation, for example, in one other document which
10 appears in the chart but was already admitted as P1288, where also the
11 comment in the chart was objected to rather than the document. And that
12 is true, I think, for quite a number of these documents which were
13 already admitted where you objected to the comments.
14 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And was this part of your filing already or I must
16 admit that I had not seen them, but --
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. We explained our objections in
18 court at transcript, I think it was the 4th of October, transcript 13919
19 to 13922, and we also included those in -- I believe we included them in
20 the submission.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll have a closer look at it and I take
22 it that you, Mr. Jordash, where these -- these are objections to the
23 comments rather than to the documents that you may wish to respond to
25 MR. JORDASH: Well, I mean, we would respond at the appropriate
1 time which we would say is the closing, they go to weight. If a witness
2 was to say something which the Prosecution didn't like, then it would be
3 an issue for them to make submissions at the end of the case about the
4 weight to be given to the answer. Once it's there, it's there.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
6 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I think it's best for us to stick to
7 the -- if there are going to be further submissions on this in court then
8 we can prepare that, if Your Honour so requests. I'm not prepared to
9 argue the --
10 JUDGE ORIE: We have here a list of documents where you say we
11 have no objection to these documents being admitted and many of them
12 already being admitted, but we have -- we have problems with the comment
13 given because it's illogical as you said earlier. Now, if a witness in
14 court gives an illogical answer, you cross-examine that witness on it but
15 it's not a reason to strike his answer, so in that respect where you have
16 objections against the comments, what should be the appropriate
17 procedural remedy? Apparently not non-admission of the document because
18 you do not oppose the admission of the document, you only oppose the
19 answer given by the witness.
20 MS. MARCUS: I understand Your Honour's question, I'd appreciate
21 the opportunity to consider this and put it either at the soonest
22 opportunity either in oral submission or in additional written
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, did I phrase the procedural matter you
25 raised well enough?
1 MR. JORDASH: Absolutely, yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll leave that open.
3 Any other comment, Ms. Marcus?
4 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honours. With respect to D420.
5 JUDGE ORIE: D420, yes.
6 MS. MARCUS: We were asked whether it should be under seal, and
7 we do suggest that it be under seal.
8 JUDGE ORIE: D420 is from now on under seal.
9 MS. MARCUS: But may I add to that, Your Honour, that it -- the
10 matter was -- this matter of this document was not addressed in the
11 Chamber's invitation to Serbia, so although it does appear on the face of
12 the document that it would likely contain at least some names of active
13 members and should, therefore, be under seal, so we would put it in the
14 Chamber's hands as to who should ask, whether it's for the Chamber,
15 perhaps to invite Serbia on this document or for the Defence since it's
16 their document but this any case at the moment I don't think Serbia is
17 seized of this question.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Although the Chamber considers the public character
20 of the trial very important, this seems to come down to such a detail
21 that we for very practical reasons refrain from taking any further steps
22 and have the document and it was D420, under seal.
23 Ms. Marcus, I'm looking at the clock, how much more time would
24 you need?
25 MS. MARCUS: I have nothing further.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Nothing further.
2 Any other matter, Mr. Petrovic?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I kindly ask you to
4 grant me five minutes to give you some information about a document as
5 you instructed me a short while ago.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Which document is that?
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] D98 and D332, Your Honour. The
8 situation with these documents is rather unclear, and basically these
9 are -- these two documents are the same. D98 contains the original
10 document and a good translation of the document, whereas D332 includes
11 the same document as a photocopy from the collection of Croatian
12 documents and with D332 there is a translation of the photocopy from the
13 book. We submitted the original document received from the Republic of
14 Croatia, which is 2D535.2, which is an original document. However, it
15 differs from the original and could in D98 in the stamp in the upper
16 right-hand corner, which was placed there by the relevant authorities of
17 the Republic of Croatia who stamped it when they were -- before they sent
18 us this document. So that this last document, 2D535.2 is actually the
19 most genuine, but it doesn't have a translation because this stamp placed
20 by the Croatian authority is as yet untranslated.
21 I believe that this may be confusing, but I'm awaiting your
22 instructions, Your Honours. I hope I was able to explain it clearly
24 JUDGE ORIE: It is clear enough to me. Second question was
25 whether you preferred one or the other translation? I suggest that the
1 parties agree that the stamp put there by the Republic of Croatia is
2 exclusively a stamp related to the delivery of the document or the --
3 indicating its source and that all parties can live without a translation
4 of that stamp. Agreement?
5 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's agreed. Now, the only thing you still have
7 to do, Mr. Petrovic, is to find out which of the two translations you
8 find the better one and we'll then focus on D -- let me just see. And
9 could you repeat which one --
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] D98, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's the one with the stamp but the original
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. That's a
14 document without a stamp. The original document with a valid
15 translation. I believe that it would be best for all of us to use
16 exclusively D98 in the future and that would be best.
17 JUDGE ORIE: D332 is vacated as being as far as the content is
18 concerned a duplicate of D98, and if you would prefer to have the
19 translation of D98 to be replaced by the other translation, Mr. Petrovic,
20 we'll hear from you.
21 Any other matter?
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I don't think that's necessary,
23 Your Honours. And we don't have any further matters.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then it's not replaced.
25 Mr. Jordash.
1 MR. JORDASH: A number of matters, if I may, which are related to
2 the time that Your Honour gave me in large part.
3 In relation to P3029 and the Prosecution's proposition that
4 65 ter 6271 should be added, we object. The Defence put part of a file
5 to the witness Novakovic --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, sorry to interrupt you, I'm looking at
7 the clock. Could you -- apparently this is a continuation of a debate,
8 if I could say so, which needs an answer then from the Prosecution. I
9 would then rather at this moment that you include that in short
10 submissions on the leftovers to say so and then that we do not let the
11 witness wait any longer and that we have -- there's only, if we take a
12 break now we have only 50 minutes for the witness and I think it would be
13 fair also for the witness to be heard. Unless there's any matter which
14 you say it can be resolved by five words immediately.
15 MR. JORDASH: Only one. We don't proceed with D363.
16 JUDGE ORIE: D363. That was relevance of the UNLO in Zagreb,
17 that means D363 is no longer tendered and, therefore, is withdrawn and
18 has status marked not admitted because you withdrew it.
19 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Clear. We'll take a break. We will resume at ten
21 minutes -- if possible, 20 minute break, would that do? I'm also looking
22 at the Registry. We had a bit of a longer break earlier. Twenty minutes
23 then. Then we'll resume at a quarter to 6.00 and then I expect the
24 accused to be back and the witness to be standby to be examined.
25 --- Recess taken at 5.26 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 5.48 p.m.
2 [The accused entered court]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I reserved five minutes for you at the
4 end of this hearing, and I'd like you to strictly stay within that
5 time-frame. Are you ready to call your next witness?
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be brought into the courtroom.
8 Just to be sure, Mr. Jordash, no protective measures?
9 MR. JORDASH: No, thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And the 92 ter statement.
11 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Grekulovic. Before you give
14 evidence -- I'll start again. Can you hear me in a language you
15 understand? Can you hear me in a language you understand,
16 Mr. Grekulovic?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I can.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules of Procedure and
19 Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration. The text is now
20 handed out to you by the usher. Could you please make that solemn
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
23 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Grekulovic. Please be seated. First
25 of all, our apologies that you had to wait for awhile. We'll continue to
1 hear your evidence today for approximately a little bit over one hour and
2 then tomorrow, and then if that's not enough time then the day after
3 tomorrow. Mr. Grekulovic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Jordash.
4 Mr. Jordash is counsel for Mr. Stanisic.
5 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
6 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 WITNESS: SRDJAN GREKULOVIC
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Examination by Mr. Jordash:
10 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Grekulovic.
11 A. Good afternoon.
12 Q. You have a file at the side of you which I know contains
13 exhibits. Perhaps it would be safer if the file was removed for now and
14 if we want you to look at an exhibit, it can be brought up on the screen.
15 Thank you. Could we have, first of all, your full name and date of birth
16 for the record, please.
17 A. Srdjan Grekulovic. I was born on the 20th of November, 1962.
18 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, 1D05266.
19 Q. What you are going to see, Mr. Grekulovic, is a document which
20 purports to be your statement. Would you have a look at it and confirm
21 whether this is your statement?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And if we look at the bottom right-hand.
24 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps if we could enlarge the B/C/S copy.
25 Q. Do you recognise -- it's very faint, do you recognise your
2 A. Yes, these are my initials.
3 Q. And were you interviewed, as it says on the front of the
4 document, on the 15th of September, 2011, and the 4th of October, 2011?
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I take it it was a mistake that you
7 wanted to ask whether it was his signature, his name, because the
8 initials are of the other persons present.
9 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: But that's understood. Please proceed.
11 MR. JORDASH:
12 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review this document before you
13 came to court and make any clarifications or amendments you wished to
15 A. I had an opportunity to read it. I did so, and I signed it.
16 Q. And during the process of it being compiled, did you have an
17 opportunity to read it and clarify and make any amendments that you
18 wished to make?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And what you have said in this statement is in accordance with
21 the truth?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And if you were asked the same questions in substance, you would
24 give the same answers?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. JORDASH: May I tender this, please.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER: No objection.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be ...?
5 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be D522, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: D522 is admitted into evidence.
7 MR. JORDASH: And may I tender the associated documents with this
8 statement, those that have not been exhibited before.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Have you provided Madam Registrar with a list for
10 numbers to be provisionally assigned?
11 MR. JORDASH: 1D05139, 1D05138, 1D01607, 1D05134, 1D05133,
12 1D05136, 1D05137, 1D05131, 1D05132, 1D05130, 1D05135. And the documents
13 I've just identified were not on the 65 ter list but were disclosed in
14 May of 2011. We hadn't had the opportunity to review them at the time we
15 filed our 65 ter list.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, first 65 ter list.
17 MR. WEBER: Prosecution has no objection to the addition of these
18 documents to the Stanisic Defence 65 ter list.
19 JUDGE ORIE: They are all -- leave is granted to add them to the
20 65 ter list. As far as admission is concerned?
21 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution has no objection to any of the
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then all these documents are admitted into evidence.
24 Madam Registrar, would you please tell me the numbers in the same
25 sequence that is -- I'll just read the last four digits. 5139 which is
1 in full 1D05139.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Will receive number D523, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence. 5138.
4 THE REGISTRAR: D524, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted. 1607.
6 THE REGISTRAR: D525, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted. 5134.
8 THE REGISTRAR: D526, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted. 5133.
10 THE REGISTRAR: D527, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: 5136.
12 THE REGISTRAR: D528, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted. 5137.
14 THE REGISTRAR: D529, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: 5131.
16 THE REGISTRAR: D530, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: 5137, am I mistaking, it's running from my screen
18 that's the reason why ... let me see. We have had 5133, 5136, the next
19 one is 5137.
20 THE REGISTRAR: That will receive D529. 5131, D530.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then 5132.
22 THE REGISTRAR: D531, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: 5130.
24 THE REGISTRAR: D532, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And D5135.
1 THE REGISTRAR: D533, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: All admitted under the numbers mentioned. Please
4 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour. Could we have on the
5 screen, please, 1D05275.
6 Q. Which is a map, Mr. Grekulovic, and would you have a look at it
7 and confirm whether the locations marked are those that are most relevant
8 to your testimony?
9 MR. JORDASH: I hope Your Honours have been given a paper copy.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We've received it.
11 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is Doboj, Teslic,
13 Mrkonjic Grad, Banja Luka, Prijedor, Novi Grad and Sanski Most.
14 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, may I tender this, please, as an
16 MR. WEBER: No objection.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: 1D5275 will receive number D534, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
20 MR. JORDASH:
21 Q. The evidence we've just discussed is now before the Court,
22 Mr. Grekulovic, so we don't need to repeat what is in your statement or
23 in the documents, but I want to ask you a few questions just to clarify
24 and I won't be long.
25 MR. JORDASH: Could we have, please, on the screen
1 Mr. Grekulovic's statement which is now D522.
2 Q. Let's go straight to paragraph 6, and the meeting that you had
3 with Radovan Stojicic in late August of 1995. Before this meeting, were
4 you aware of the agreement reached between the Republika Srpska
5 government and the Serbian government about the provision of Serbian
6 police forces to the Republika Srpska.
7 A. I did not know that.
8 Q. Do you recall the words used by Badza concerning the object and
9 purpose of the agreement?
10 A. I remember that he said that he needed some 400 police officers
11 from the Special Police Units to extend assistance to the MUP of
12 Republika Srpska in their policing works because they had a lot of
13 refugees and a lot of security problems and that I had to go together
14 with those men to the Republika Srpska to the locations that I previously
15 mentioned in view of the fact that General Obrad Stevanovic was absent
16 from the Republika Srpska, he had been re-assigned to carry out some
17 tasks in Slavonia.
18 Q. Do you recall what was said about refugees or the significance of
20 A. It was said that the unit had to go there to help the Ministry of
21 the Interior of the Republic of Serbia in dealing with the security tasks
22 pertaining to the work of the ministry. It was also said that those men
23 had to see that Serbia did not turn their back on the population that had
24 fled from the area of the Republic of Serbian Krajina and the population
25 of the Republika Srpska.
1 Q. Remember to take a little pause between sentences. I think you
2 speak quite fast and what you are saying is being translated.
3 What was said, if anything, at that meeting about the detention
4 of deserters? How did that fit into your crime prevention activities?
5 A. We were told that we would be helping the police of the
6 Republika Srpska in bringing in deserters to the units because those men
7 were armed and they were prone to disrupting public law and order, they
8 were prone to crime. That's why they were supposed to report back to
9 their units and another reason was to boost the efficiency of the units.
10 Q. Were you told anything at that meeting or did you learn anything
11 subsequently about whether the Republika Srpska Bosnian Serbs were
12 engaged in offensive or defensive operations or a mixture of the two at
13 the time?
14 A. I saw it only later when I entered the area. It was mostly a
15 mixed operation but it was primarily a defensive operation.
16 Q. Looking at paragraph 11 of your statement, there's a number of
17 documents referred to. We don't need to turn to them at this point but
18 within some of these documents there's mention of an operation called
19 Kosovska Bosa. What was that operation? Mr. Grekulovic?
20 A. The name of the operation was Kosovski Bozur, the Kosovo Peony.
21 Q. Thank you. What was that operation? What was its object and
23 A. It was an operation that was permanent in nature. The objective
24 was for the police of the Republika Srpska and the military police with
25 the help of the police from Serbia to permanently work on bringing in
2 Q. Turning to paragraph 15, please, I want to just quickly try to
3 clarify the structures that you found when you arrived, or rather, the
4 structures that you fell within. You say at paragraph 15 that there was
5 a joint staff which was set up in Banja Luka in order to defend the area.
6 What was your men's relationship to that joint staff?
7 A. My men assisted the regular police at the Security Services
8 Centre in Doboj, Banja Luka and Prijedor. There were operative staffs
9 there headed by chiefs of security centres. I was in the operative staff
10 in Banja Luka together with Pecanac. The staff at the ministry level, I
11 know that it was headed by Minister Kovac. I'm not aware of the entire
12 composition of the staff, I don't know who all of its members were.
13 Q. So which was superior, the operative staff or the ministerial
14 staff? Perhaps that's an obvious question, but just so we are clear.
15 A. The ministerial staff was superior. The staff at the ministry
17 Q. And who -- so Kovac commanded the ministerial staff?
18 A. You are right.
19 Q. And who commanded the staff at Banja Luka?
20 A. Mr. Pecanac. He was the chief of the Security Services Centre.
21 Q. Let's turn to paragraph 18, please.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, is there any way to clarify what joint
23 staff it actually was. I mean, what was joint, what kind of units? Was
24 it only MUP survey units or was it only the special anti-terrorist unit
25 and -- it's unclear joint staff of what.
1 MR. JORDASH: Certainly, I'll clarify that.
2 Q. Which kind of staff fell within -- fell underneath the
3 ministerial staff? Let's deal with that first.
4 A. At the ministry level there were all the three operative staffs
5 at the level of the Security Services Centres. What I'm saying is that
6 the three operative staffs were under the ministerial staff.
7 Q. And what did the operative staffs consist of? Were they all
8 consisting of the same or were they different?
9 A. Every operative staff had as their members chiefs of security
10 centres. For example, the head of staff or the Chief of Staff was the
11 chief of security. Members of the staff were the chief of crime
12 prevention services at the security service centres. The chief of
13 police, the chief of traffic police, the chief for logistics, the
14 commander of the Special Police Unit, and the officer of the police unit
15 from Serbia.
16 JUDGE ORIE: It's still for all the services mentioned, I do not
17 know whether it's from Serbia or from Republika Srpska.
18 MR. JORDASH: I was going to clarify that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. JORDASH:
21 Q. Where did your men -- no, let me break this down a bit.
22 Banja Luka, were the men who fell within the operative staff from Serbia
23 or the Republika Srpska or a mixture of both?
24 A. What I have just told you, all the officers were from the
25 Republika Srpska. Only one officer, the officer that was of the unit
1 that was in the area, that was deployed from the Republic of Serbia was
2 actually from the Republic of Serbia.
3 Q. And was the situation the same or different in the operative
4 staff of Prijedor and the operative staff of Doboj?
5 A. Absolutely the same.
6 Q. Were there men, the officers -- sorry, those, the rank and file
7 of the police officers sent from Serbia divided amongst the three
8 operative centres or what was the situation?
9 A. They belonged to the 3 operative centres. That's how they were
10 divided. And depending on the current operations of the police in each
11 of the cities, their numerical strength would either be increased or
13 Q. What do you mean by depending on the current operations of the
14 police in each of the cities? What did it depend upon concretely?
15 A. I'm talking about police operations: Increased traffic control,
16 stepped up control at the check-points, the control of catering
17 establishments, operations to arrest a larger number of people, and in
18 more general terms all sorts of police operations that are normally
19 carried out in urban areas, for example, raids as well.
20 MR. JORDASH: Is that clear, Your Honour, or would you like me
21 to --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if the witness wants to tell us that dependent
23 on the operations there were more or less, then it's clear. However, if
24 it has any other meaning, I would say it goes without saying that if
25 there are more intensive operations that you need more people. To say
1 that it gives a lot of information, no. If I have to understand the
2 testimony like that.
3 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I don't follow Your Honour's criticism.
4 JUDGE ORIE: "Depending on the current operations of the police
5 in each of the cities their numerical strength would either be increased
6 or decreased," which means if you have more operations, you have more
7 men, if you had less. And then the witness explains that it's about
8 police operation, increased traffic control, stepped up -- what he says
9 is if police tasks were more intense, we needed more people. I mean, I
10 would say that it doesn't give a lot of information apart from if you
11 need more people, you have more people, if there are less needed, you
12 have less.
13 MR. JORDASH: I'll try.
14 Q. What kind of police operations were you engaged in --
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's one of the things the witness said already,
16 traffic police, et cetera, et cetera. What I'm interested in if it has
17 any further meaning than if the more intensive operations, when did
18 operations - and could you give us an example - more intensive.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, an intensive operation was,
20 for example, Kosovski Bozur which was on-going and intensive in all
22 JUDGE ORIE: And what was the -- what was the operation about?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was about bringing in deserters
24 and military conscripts.
25 JUDGE ORIE: How many people took that out of the 400?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was done in the territories of
2 all the centres. Let me put it this way: Everybody was engaged
3 depending on what they were doing, whether they were patrolling, whether
4 they were doing searches or something else, so that people from all the
5 centres were engaged.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's not an answer to my question. My question
7 was how many of the 400 people that were sent there were involved in
8 bringing in deserters and military conscripts? Or did all of them do it?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Everybody did it but the numbers
10 varied from day-to-day. For example, on one day you could have 200 with
11 100 resting. On the following day you would have 150, which means that
12 they all took part but not all at the same time.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And do I now have to understand that, for
14 example, patrolling and check-points and searches, was that all focused
15 on bringing in deserters or did you also perform police duties which were
16 not directly related to that?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. There were also police
18 tasks that weren't only about this, but every police task in -- starting
19 from patrolling a territory, manning check-points, or doing traffic
20 control, if you come across a deserter, you bring him in.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I see that.
22 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
23 MR. JORDASH:
24 Q. Let's try to break that down a bit more, what you've just said.
25 "Every police task in -- starting from patrolling a territory, manning
1 check-points or doing traffic control, if you come across a deserter you
2 bring him in." Did you have planning or briefing meetings whereby
3 instructions were passed to the police officers who were operating in
4 these three locations?
5 A. Yes. Each operative staff and each police station planned their
6 activities in the context of carrying out these tasks and there was
7 regular informing about that through the process of reporting.
8 Q. And were the police officers given priorities? What were those
10 A. One of the priorities was the implementation of measures that
11 were part of the Bozur operation. That was one priority, but at any
12 rate, when you carry out police tasks in the field, there are also other
13 duties apart from that, namely controlling motor cars, their passengers,
14 inspect catering facilities, and surveil public places.
15 Q. And for you what was the object of -- what was the purpose of
16 arresting the deserters? What were you achieving in your mind?
17 A. What was achieved was that they were not leaving their units,
18 thus reducing their combat readiness. And secondly, they weren't making
19 trouble in towns.
20 Q. What do you mean trouble in towns?
21 A. Well, they didn't disturb public law and order, they didn't
22 commit criminal offences, they didn't get drunk, they didn't engage in
23 fights or do anything else that adversarially -- adversely affects
24 security in any given place.
25 MR. JORDASH: Thank you. May I just take instructions, please.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
2 [Defence counsel and accused Stanisic confer]
3 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
4 Q. Are you able to look back now and assess what impact, if any,
5 these 400 police officers had on the situation of law and order in the
6 locations that you mentioned?
7 A. From today's vantage point, I'm certain that there was an
8 influence and that the police officers went about their duties
9 professionally. By doing that, they made a significant contribution to
10 the safety and security of citizens and that safety and security being at
11 a satisfactory level.
12 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, 5611, which is
13 one of the so-called Mladic diaries.
14 Q. I just want to ask you if you can clarify the situation in terms
15 of refugees. Before we -- that comes to the screen, let me ask you
16 during the time you were there what was the situation in terms of numbers
17 of refugees and whether they increased or decreased during the time you
18 were there, and whether you are able to say anything about numbers?
19 A. Well, I really couldn't comment on the numbers. There were many
20 refugees. I only know that while we were going from Bijeljina to
21 Banja Luka and Prijedor that we had a hard time moving on because of the
22 long columns of refugees, but I don't know the exact number. I know that
23 many stayed in the RS.
24 Q. Let me just clarify this, please. When you were going from
25 Bijeljina to Banja Luka and Prijedor?
1 A. Well, I don't know. It was in early September. I don't know the
2 exact date but soon after the fall of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.
3 Q. And who had a hard time moving because of the long columns of
5 A. We did because we were moving in the opposite direction.
6 Q. You mean you were moving on one occasion or a number of occasions
7 or what's the situation?
8 A. No, no, I'm referring about that one day when we entered and were
9 travelling to Banja Luka.
10 Q. And did the situation improve in terms of -- well, let me be
11 specific. Did the number of refugees increase during the time you were
12 there or increase -- decrease or increase?
13 A. Well, in Banja Luka it increased because after that the citizens
14 of Sanski Most and Mrkonjic Grad also left their towns and came to
15 Banja Luka so that the total numbers increased.
16 Q. And by the time you left, are you able to say anything about the
17 situation then?
18 A. You mean when I returned to Serbia?
19 Q. Yes, by the time you and your men left to return to Serbia, what
20 was the situation with refugees as far as you could tell?
21 A. There were really very many refugees. A large number. The
22 situation had calmed down because the Dayton Accord was already signed,
23 but many refugees stayed in the RS.
24 Q. When you say many refugees, are we talking tens, hundreds,
25 thousands? What are we talking?
1 A. Well, I don't know, but I think it must have been thousands. We
2 are talking about thousands.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. JORDASH: I've got nothing further for you, Mr. Witness.
5 Thank you.
6 Thank you, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
8 Before I give the Simatovic Defence an opportunity, when you are
9 talking about refugees, are you talking about Serbs seeking refuge in
10 Republika Srpska, is that what you are talking about?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that's what I'm talking
13 JUDGE ORIE: And at what time in -- what point in time do you put
14 the Dayton Agreement?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, when the agreement was signed
16 there had already been a cease-fire, a truce. There were no more combat
17 activities and the situation was far better.
18 JUDGE ORIE: So when you are referring to the Dayton Agreement,
19 you are referring to the period immediately prior to that which had
20 already its effect on hostilities; is that how I have to understand your
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, all activities preceded the
23 Dayton Accord. The refugees from Sanski Most and Mrkonjic Grad had
24 arrived before the Dayton Accord. Once the latter was signed, there were
25 no more combat activities and no more new refugees.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, is it you or will it be Mr. Bakrac who
2 cross-examines the witness? It's you, Mr. Bakrac?
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I'll do it, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Grekulovic, you'll now be cross-examined by
5 Mr. Bakrac. Mr. Bakrac is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
7 Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:
8 Q. Good evening, Mr. Grekulovic.
9 A. Good evening.
10 Q. I only have a few questions for you. Here is my first question:
11 How long did you stay in Banja Luka in 1995, or in Bosnia in general?
12 A. I think around 47 days, thereabouts.
13 Q. During those 47 days in that territory, did you ever see
14 Franko Simatovic?
15 A. No, I didn't.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, the first two questions, the answers do
17 already appear in the statement, isn't it? 47 is 46 to 47, never seen
18 Mr. Simatovic is in the statement. Please proceed, but preferably in
19 addition to what we have already read. Please proceed.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
21 Q. I wanted to lay a foundation for the following question: Namely,
22 did you hear from anybody in the field that Franko Simatovic was present
23 in that territory?
24 A. No, I didn't.
25 Q. Thank you, witness. In paragraph 18 you mention
1 Mr. Dragan Filipovic, a member of the State Security Service of the
2 Republic of Serbia. During the proofing with today's date, you said that
3 Mr. Filipovic was some sort of liaison between the MUP forces that had
4 been sent there to control crime and the headquarters of the Serbian MUP
5 in Belgrade; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. When you say a sort of liaison, does that mean that
8 Mr. Dragan Filipovic had -- was in radio communication with cryptographic
9 protection in Belgrade?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
11 MR. WEBER: I'm going to object. I don't believe Mr. Bakrac is
12 accurately quoting the proofing note that we made today.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then please make a literal quote, Mr. Bakrac. If
14 there's any discussion about the accuracy of a quote, make it a literal
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Well, if I understand correctly, you stated that Filipovic worked
18 with another DB operative, one Dujovic and that they were some sort of
19 liaison between the MUP of Serbia and the forces that had been deployed
20 to assist in crime enforcement in Belgrade?
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
23 MR. WEBER: The quote that I have is that Filipovic also worked
24 with another DB operative Dujovic, who was some kind of liaison between
25 the Serbian MUP police forces sent to help control crime in Belgrade.
1 The modification is on who Dujovic is.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, I asked you to quote literally, is
3 Mr. Weber more literally quoting than you were, because there seems to be
4 a difference between the two.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree that Mr. Weber
6 quoted correctly in English, but let me first ask the witness if he gave
7 his proofing statement in English or in Serbian.
8 Q. Did you utter that statement in English or in Serbian?
9 A. In Serbian.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I never received the
11 Serbian version. This proofing note and the witness's statement I
12 understand them this way, but we can now clarify it with the witness.
13 Did he mean that both Filipovic and Dujovic were some sort of liaison or
14 maybe only Filipovic or again only Dujovic. Am I allowed to put this
15 question to the witness, Your Honour?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ... Let me -- first, totally different
17 question. Who took the proofing statement? Is that, was it you, was
18 it --
19 MR. JORDASH: It was me, with Ms. Dobrota.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the statement was translated to you?
21 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And this what we see in an e-mail exchange on
23 which the Chamber was copied, and I read it later so that it will be in
24 the -- on the record, was it just as simple as in this one line or was
25 there any further discussion on the matter?
1 MR. JORDASH: There was further discussion on the matter and --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently the issue here is, and I'm -- witness, do
3 you understand the English language?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Would you take -- could you take off your earphones
6 for a second.
7 What apparently seems to be the difference between the two
8 versions is that as you read it in English here, the DB operative Dujovic
9 is described as some kind of a liaison between the Serbian MUP police
10 forces sent to help control crime and Belgrade, whereas in the
11 questioning of Mr. Bakrac apparently some attention is paid to or at
12 least is suggested that not only Mr. Dujovic but Mr. Filipovic had a
13 similar function. Is that well understood, Mr. Bakrac?
14 MR. BAKRAC: Yes, yes, Your Honour, because the sentence started
15 "that Filipovic also worked with another DB operative" and then
16 explanation who, "who was some kind of liaison," et cetera, et cetera.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. BAKRAC: And for me it's really unclear, my understanding is
19 that the both of them working as liaison officer.
20 JUDGE ORIE: That does not follow logically from the language
22 MR. JORDASH: Then it's my fault entirely, I can tell you what
23 the witness told me, the witness told me --
24 JUDGE ORIE: First, Mr. Weber is on his feet as well, it's a bit
25 of --
1 MR. JORDASH: I was on first, I think.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I know that, I know that. I asked you
3 something, isn't it? What I wanted to ask Mr. Weber is whether he
4 objects to you now giving a kind of -- because that's apart from hearsay,
5 of course, we are entering at this moment we are trying to find out to
6 what extent what we read here what it means apart from asking the
7 witness, Mr. Jordash is offering at this moment to explain because I
8 asked him whether it was just this one line or whether there was more,
9 that he explains to us how he understood the conversation. Is there any
10 objection to proceeding in this way, Mr. Weber?
11 MR. WEBER: Yes. Any relevant information should have been
12 included in the proofing note with respect to who this individual Dujovic
14 JUDGE ORIE: But apparently the proofing he note is here unclear
15 and to say that it should have been in there is nice but doesn't resolve
16 the problem, isn't it?
17 MR. WEBER: Correct. The Prosecution is receiving late notice.
18 The Stanisic Defence decided not to lead this evidence as part of their
19 examination. It is now coming up with the co-accused examination and the
20 Stanisic Defence wishes to add information into the proofing note which
21 is unknown to the Prosecution. What we would suggest is the following:
22 Is that whatever the Stanisic Defence has as further information in
23 relation to this conversation or this proofing, that in relation to this
24 matter, that they write it down, that they send us a proofing note, we'll
25 look at it and if the Simatovic Defence, after we look at it, wants to
1 conduct further examination, then both parties are on notice of what this
2 information is.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: We will proceed as follows: We'll allow Mr. Jordash
5 so tell the Chamber how he understood the conversation and to what extent
6 it is well or less well reflected in the one-liner, then we'll after that
7 ask the witness to put his earphones on and finally I may ask some
8 questions in relation to what is here and then the parties can put
9 further questions to the witness.
10 Mr. Jordash, before I invite you to do what you intended to do
11 already, has the witness ever read this line?
12 MR. JORDASH: No.
13 JUDGE ORIE: No. Was it your impression that he had any
14 understanding of the English language?
15 MR. JORDASH: No.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Not at all. Then please tell us how you understood
17 the conversation which led you to write down these two lines, or which
18 led the Stanisic Defence to write down these two lines, because I cannot
19 I am not allowed to take you as the author without further information.
20 MR. JORDASH: The witness's response came in relation to
21 questions I was asking him about Filipovic.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And that is paragraph.
23 MR. JORDASH: 18.
24 JUDGE ORIE: 18.
25 MR. JORDASH: And what he meant when he said that Filipovic had
1 co-ordinated the activities of the forces of the MUP of Serbia. The
2 witness said in fact that what Filipovic was doing was acting as some
3 form of liaison and when the witness needed some assistance, he would
4 speak to Filipovic or if he needed to consult, he would speak to
6 JUDGE ORIE: Consult whom or assist in what? If that was --
7 MR. JORDASH: Assist in -- if, for example, the Serbian MUP
8 police officers needed further supplies such as food or cigarettes, they
9 would speak to Filipovic, and if they had queries about the use of those
10 forces in crime prevention, they would also speak to Filipovic, and he in
11 that role played a liaison role with Belgrade. And then the witness
12 mentioned Dujovic and said that Dujovic was a subordinate of Filipovic.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. JORDASH: That was the sum total of the conversation.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please put on your earphones again.
16 Yes, can you hear me again?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us what Mr. Dujovic's task was?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] His task was, in my view, to be a
20 link between myself and Mr. Filipovic. To be more precise, he acted as a
21 liaison officer.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Liaising between you and Mr. Filipovic?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. He was with me all the time.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And why would he liaise with Mr. Filipovic, on
25 what kind of matters?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He mostly made sure that the units
2 carried out the tasks for which they were deployed in the first place.
3 He also made sure that all the tasks were being carried out in a
4 professional manner.
5 JUDGE ORIE: You are talking about he. My question he was why
6 Mr. Dujovic would liaise with Mr. Filipovic, so "he" is unclear and could
7 refer to Mr. Dujovic or Mr. Filipovic. Are you telling us that it was
8 Mr. Dujovic who was mostly made sure that the units carried out the tasks
9 for which they were deployed? Is that your testimony?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The two of us did that, but he was
11 that link between me and Mr. Filipovic because I didn't have permanent
12 contacts with Mr. Filipovic.
13 JUDGE ORIE: What was he liaising about? Was it about the
14 weather forecast? Was it about uniforms? Was it about operational
15 matters? Was it about logistical matters? What kind of matters -- on
16 what kind of matters he liaised between you and Mr. Filipovic?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mostly this was about logistics.
18 Whatever I needed from Belgrade went through Mr. Dujovic and I believe
19 that it also went through Mr. Filipovic.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, did Mr. Dujovic then directly relay --
21 liaise between you and Belgrade or was the next step left to
22 Mr. Filipovic? Who would be in touch with Belgrade, Mr. Dujovic or
23 Mr. Filipovic?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't be able to tell you who
25 communicated with Belgrade. However, if I needed anything, I would
1 communicate with Mr. Dujovic.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you do not know who finally got in touch
3 with Belgrade, whether that was Mr. Dujovic, himself, or whether it was
4 Mr. Filipovic?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. I was in no position
6 to know that. I only know that I contacted him.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Unless he would have told you Belgrade told me A or
8 B or Belgrade will send this and that, so that you were in no position to
9 know that depends on what he told you, isn't it?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. And that concerns
11 the logistics part because I didn't have anything to do with Belgrade. I
12 couldn't communicate with Belgrade because all the lines were down.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although it's not an answer to my question,
14 but could you please tell us logistics about what? Was that about
15 vehicles? Was that about food? Was that about ammunition? What kind of
16 logistics are you referring to?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For example, I asked them to
18 provide food because there was not enough food for my men, and I also
19 asked for cigarettes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And what about ammunition?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not need ammunition. We were
22 not involved in any combat. We had our own personal weapons and the
23 ammunition that we brought with us.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then vehicles?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We used those vehicles that we
1 brought with us.
2 JUDGE ORIE: No need for spare parts or any other parts needed?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was no need for that. I
4 relied on the MUP of the Republika Srpska for fuel.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now anything else apart from food and
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not request anything. The
8 only thing that I did not have enough of was food and cigarettes. I had
9 everything else.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, I'm looking at the clock. I promised
11 five minutes to Mr. Jordash. First of all, would you have further
12 questions on this matter?
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one with your
14 leave and then --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Strictly leave it to that, leave is granted.
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Grekulovic, did you hear from Mr. Dujovic perhaps since you
18 said that you didn't have any direct communication lines with Belgrade,
19 did you hear from Mr. Dujovic if Mr. Filipovic has a protected line with
21 A. No, I don't know how they communicated -- communicated with
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, that was
25 my one question. And tomorrow I will need another 15 minutes with your
2 JUDGE ORIE: I was just about to ask you that. Another 15
3 minutes tomorrow.
4 Mr. Grekulovic, we have to conclude for the day. We'd like to
5 see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00 in this same courtroom,
6 Courtroom II, and I hereby instruct you that you should not speak with
7 anyone about your testimony, whether that is testimony that you gave
8 already today or whether that's testimony still to be given tomorrow or
9 the day after tomorrow. Is that clear to you? So not to speak or not to
10 communicate in any other way about your testimony. Then you may follow
11 the usher and we'd like to see you back tomorrow.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, do you want to address us in open
14 session or private session.
15 MR. JORDASH: Open, please.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
17 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours will probably have seen the medical
18 report from today, the 25th of November, 2011.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I haven't seen it yet, to be quite honest.
20 MR. JORDASH: There's nothing in there that I think hasn't been
21 in there before, but there is at paragraph 7 reference to a telephone
22 conference of the 3rd of November, 2011, between Dr. Van Geenan at the
23 Bronovo hospital and two foreign doctors, Dr. Chan and Dr. Tarabar and
24 their decision that Mr. Stanisic's medication had to be changed.
25 Your Honour will see in that paragraph that the first two,
1 [indiscernible] of that medicine have to be taken under medical
2 supervision of Dr. Van Geenan at the Bronovo hospital or the JMC. It's
3 still not clear when this will take place. By changing the medication,
4 the complaints will probably diminish and the physical condition will
5 improve. I wanted to raise the issue of the delay in giving Mr. Stanisic
6 that treatment. It's been some time. Apparently there is a delay
7 concerning biopsy reports from a clinic in Leiden, nonetheless we are not
8 clear as to why there's this long delay, and it's of real concern to
9 Mr. Stanisic obviously. It's of real concern to this Stanisic Defence.
10 It is almost impossible -- it feels almost impossible to try to obtain
11 information beyond these quite sparse reports that we receive on a weekly
12 basis, which frankly do not assist in helping Mr. Stanisic and certainly
13 don't assist me in trying to speak to Mr. Stanisic about the current
14 problem or problems.
15 At the same time, we have at paragraph 4, sorry, paragraph 14,
16 the following: "The above taken in consideration, I cannot explain
17 Mr. Stanisic's claim that he is more tired than before and is not able to
18 visit court in the present frequency."
19 While it seems in my respectful submission that there might well
20 be a good explanation for that, that he has been recommended treatment on
21 the 3rd of November and he still has yet to have it, and that treatment,
22 according to the doctor, would diminish or would probably diminish his
23 physical ailment. There's a very good reason.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Maybe, maybe not, I mean, I'm not a doctor, but what
25 I do understand is you have two specific questions, why did it take so
1 long. That's the first one. And the second is, could this delay have
2 caused what Mr. Stanisic tells us that he is unable to visit court at the
3 present frequency, could any link be between the two, is that -- that's
4 how I understood your --
5 MR. JORDASH: Yes. On top of that, Your Honour, I've been
6 instructed by Mr. Stanisic to assist him in trying to obtain information
7 from his treating doctors. I have approached the commander of the UNDU
8 and I've been told that somehow sitting down with Mr. Stanisic's treating
9 doctor would interfere with the client/patient relationship. I'm seeking
10 clarification from OLAD as to why that would be and why Mr. Stanisic
11 hasn't got the right to ask somebody to assist him with obtaining
12 information about his own medical condition, especially in light of the
13 fact that his English is not by any stretch --
14 JUDGE ORIE: This is a third matter, why are you not allowed to
15 receive, together with Mr. Stanisic, the information he is seeking and
16 you have no access to?
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes. And it's an on-going problem. In terms of
18 obtaining information. I really feel as though I have to face
19 Mr. Stanisic every day and say I'm not sure how to help you because I
20 just cannot get the information that I need. Neither can he, more
22 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not giving you any answer to any of the
23 questions what explanations could be or not, but the Chamber will inquire
24 into the matter and I leave it to that and usually if we inquire into
25 something, then we do it rather intensively.
1 MR. JORDASH: Yes, thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You can count on the Chamber in that respect.
3 Another matter is the, that first medication has been given now
4 or is still to be given soon, has any appointment been made for that?
5 MR. JORDASH: As far as we know no appointment has been made.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I see Mr. Stanisic is nodding no, so that
7 appointment still has to be made.
8 MR. JORDASH: That's when paragraph number 7 also confirms is not
9 clear when this will take place.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We'll pay proper attention to the concerns you have
11 expressed, Mr. Jordash, were these the three major matters?
12 MR. JORDASH: Yes, thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll adjourn and we resume tomorrow,
14 the -- let me see, Tuesday, the 29th of November, 2011, in this same
15 Courtroom II at 9.00 in the morning.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.
17 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 29th day of
18 November, 2011 at 9.00 a.m.