Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 18656

 1                           Wednesday, 28 March 2012

 2                           [The Accused Stanisic and Simatovic not present]

 3                           [Open session]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.12 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

 9     IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             I establish that the accused are not in the courtroom.  They have

12     waived their right to be present today.  Usually a waiver form follows,

13     but it's perfectly clear on the transcript that they waived their right,

14     so whether or not there's a waiver form is not essential at this moment.

15             The Chamber received yesterday the Stanisic Defence submissions

16     in relation to the chart which arrived, I think, at 3.00 in the

17     afternoon.  We were able to digest most of it.  However, the Simatovic

18     Defence material came in so late that I was just unable to digest it, but

19     we'll proceed anyhow.  Then finally yesterday evening a consolidated

20     chart was received.

21             One of the, I would say, simple old-fashioned problems is that I

22     make my notes on a hard copy of the chart and I can't just transfer all

23     these notes to another chart.  That's the reason why apart from what

24     we'll do in the future, that's the reason why we'll still take as a

25     starting point for the MFIs the MFI list as produce by the registrar.

Page 18657

 1     But we are not there yet.  Let's first go through the agenda which

 2     contains a lot of other items to start with.

 3             I have dealt with number 1.  That's the absence of the accused,

 4     which is hereby on the record.

 5             Second, I think as a matter of fact I dealt with most of it, that

 6     is, the initiative taken by the Prosecution on the 21st of March, a

 7     submission aiming at streamlining the housekeeping session, which

 8     contained an invitation to the Chamber to order the Defence to submit its

 9     position on all pending matters, an increased efforts to deal with

10     housekeeping matters out of court, and a system of dealing with MFIs

11     closer to the witness's testimony.

12             Ms. Marcus, you may have noticed that we did not order the

13     Defence to fill in the Prosecution's chart, although as I said before,

14     submissions were received in line with your suggestion yesterday.  The

15     problem, of course, is that it came all rather late, but we considered

16     that input to the extent possible.

17             Then as far as dealing with MFIs out of court is concerned, the

18     parties are encouraged to prepare outstanding matters to such an extent

19     that the Chamber has everything it needs before it in order to come to a

20     decision on admission, and the Chamber also seriously consider dealing

21     with matters that only require a Chamber decision through a written

22     decision after the housekeeping session.  So we take your suggestions

23     very seriously.

24             As for changing the system, of course we are at a very late stage

25     of the present proceedings, but the Chamber, even for the time remaining,

Page 18658

 1     would very much appreciate it if the parties took more proactive role in

 2     raising outstanding matters closer to the witness's testimony as opposed

 3     to waiting until the next housekeeping sessions, and that could take the

 4     form of raising such matters at the end of a witness's testimony and the

 5     Chamber may also consider then scheduling extra sessions if needed.

 6             I move on to my next item on the agenda, which is the

 7     Stanisic Defence bar table motion.

 8             On the 17th of February, the Stanisic Defence filed a bar table

 9     motion, and at an earlier stage, on the 3rd of February, 2011, it had

10     already filed such a motion comprising 13 documents.  Over the course of

11     the last year, the Stanisic Defence stated a number of times that its

12     consolidated motion would also include the tendering of the initial 13

13     documents.

14             Now, the 17th of February, 2012, motion does not seem to cover

15     two out of the 13 initial documents.  I do understand that the

16     Stanisic Defence will reconsider whether or not D129, which is one of

17     them, should be added or what to do with that, but there's another one

18     which is doc ID 1D1951, which is also -- does not appear in the new

19     consolidation -- consolidated motion.

20             Now, the Chamber wonders whether the Stanisic Defence has made up

21     its mind already in relation to D129.

22             MR. JORDASH:  May we just have a moment, please, Your Honour.  If

23     I can look at that in the next hour and alert Your Honours to our

24     decision.  I'm not sure exactly what happened there.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And as far as 1D1951 is concerned, we did not

Page 18659

 1     receive any signal that you noticed that that one also got lost in the

 2     consolidated bar table motion.  Do we have to understand that its

 3     withdrawn or ...

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Again, could I let Your Honours know in the next

 5     hour?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please.

 7             Then I move on.  The next item is the Simatovic motion for

 8     additions to its Rule 65 ter witness list.

 9             Mr. Bakrac, could you inform the Chamber about the mode of

10     testimony of these five witnesses?  I'm not saying that your request will

11     be granted.  We've seen the Prosecution's response by now, but how do you

12     intend to present them, as viva voce witnesses, as 92 ter witnesses?

13     What's on your mind?

14             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for the time being,

15     they will be viva voce.  If the time allows and if the conditions are in

16     place in April, we will call our witnesses pursuant to Rule 92 ter.  At

17     this moment, they are being planned to appear as viva voce witnesses.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  The Chamber encourages the -- the

19     Simatovic Defence, which has not a great track order in terms of 92 ter

20     witnesses, to -- to see whether it can prepare statements which makes it

21     easier for all of us to prepare for hearing that testimony.

22             Next item on my agenda is lifting of confidentiality.  In

23     relation to the testimony of Witness Bogunovic and Witness DST-063, the

24     Chamber received informal communications of the parties on whether

25     certain portions and related exhibits can be made public, and as a result

Page 18660

 1     of these submissions, the Chamber lifts confidentiality of the following,

 2     I start with the exhibits:  P2452, D338 and D339, D345 up to and

 3     including D350, D354 and D355, D357 up to and including D359, D362, D364,

 4     and for Witness DST-063, D390 up to and including D392.

 5             Transcript:  Page 13276, line 19, up to page 13279, line 5.

 6     And -- and this is the last one, transcript page 13222, lines 8 to 17.

 7             As a point of general clarification, whenever the Chamber lifts

 8     the confidentiality of transcript portions, such orders include orders to

 9     lift the confidentiality of the corresponding audio-visual recordings

10     unless otherwise indicated by the Chamber.

11             I move on to my next point.  The Chamber would very much like to

12     know, and I'm talking about the existence or non-existence of an armed

13     conflict, would very much like to know whether there's any dispute

14     between the parties on the existence of a state of armed conflict in

15     Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina at all times relevant to the crimes

16     charged in the indictment, as per paragraph 19 of the indictment.

17             Could the Defence clarify it's position to the Chamber.

18             MR. JORDASH:  No dispute.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  No dispute, which I take it means that you do not

20     challenge the existence of --

21             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, exactly.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  -- such a state of armed conflict.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Exactly.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  No dispute would also be that you agree that it did

25     not exist.


Page 18661

 1             MR. JORDASH:  The former, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             Mr. Bakrac.

 4             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Our position is the same,

 5     Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 7             Then, Ms. Marcus, I take it that you agree with the Defence in

 8     this respect.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  That's clear.

11             For the next item I'd like to move into private session.

12                           [Private session]

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 18662

 1   (redacted)

 2                           [Open session]

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 5             The next item on the agenda is the possible recall of

 6     Witness Novakovic.  The Chamber would very much like the Prosecution to

 7     indicate whether it will seek a recall of Witness Novakovic.  We

 8     understand that until now, the determination depended on the receipt of a

 9     request for assistance.

10             Ms. Marcus.

11             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  This is quite regrettable.  There

12     is one very large request for assistance which is still outstanding.  We

13     are -- I assure Your Honours, that we are in constant discussion with the

14     authorities in Serbia over this.  There is apparently some bigger issue

15     about this.  If the Chamber would like more information I can do that

16     confidential either in filing or in closed session.  The bottom line is

17     that we need -- we haven't received the response, and we are truly in a

18     situation where our position as to the recall of that witness is

19     dependent upon the material we receive in that response, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, of course.  The situation cannot continue

21     forever.  The Chamber would want to set a deadline, and I do understand

22     that you're dependent on an answer to your request for assistance.  Now,

23     perhaps the fact that there's a deadline may encourage the

24     Republic of Serbia to respond to your RFA.  The deadline we'll set is the

25     1st of May, which means another five weeks approximately.


Page 18663

 1             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, if you feel halfway that it's -- it's not going

 3     to happen, then, of course, the Chamber could also issue an order, and

 4     perhaps as soon as it becomes clear to you whether or not there is a

 5     realistic expectation that you'll receive it - of course there's always a

 6     expectation whether or not - but as soon as you find that without the

 7     assistance of the Chamber you would not move forward with sufficient

 8     speed, then of course you always can address the Chamber and we could

 9     support your request.  And we left it until now mainly to the

10     Prosecution, but we're not going to wait forever.

11             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  We are trying to avoid that

12     but we will seek involvement if necessary.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, at the same time if you see at a certain moment

14     that it's unavoidable, ask for it then right away rather than to drag the

15     matter along until June, July.  That's not what the Chamber would like to

16     happen.

17             MS. MARCUS:  We fully agree, Your Honour.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I move on to Rule 54 bis motion of the

19     Stanisic Defence, which was filed the 25th of October, 2011.

20             Mr. Jordash, the Chamber would like to invite the

21     Stanisic Defence to withdraw or, if you still seek an order, to file an

22     updated motion which takes into account progress which was made since the

23     Rule 54 bis hearing, and we'd like to receive such a message or either

24     withdrawal or update by the 13th of April.

25             MR. JORDASH:  Certainly.  It's -- it's likely to be a withdrawal,

Page 18664

 1     because we've -- we've -- I think we've had really good co-operation

 2     since that time.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I leave that to you, but the Chamber would like to

 4     know where we are at this moment.

 5             The next item on my agenda is revised versions of exhibits.  The

 6     Registry is hereby instructed to make the necessary changes for P1289,

 7     P1307, D434, D391, P1044, P61, P2532, P673, and P974.  The parties are

 8     instructed to advise the Registry about the exact doc ID numbers of the

 9     revised versions, and if there's any doubt, a memo should be filed in

10     which it is clearly indicated what now the new versions of these exhibits

11     are.

12             Madam Registrar, is that clear, or do you need any further --

13             THE REGISTRAR:  It is clear, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

15             I move on to and deal with document D56.  D56 was withdrawn at

16     the end of the Prosecution's case because the necessary information about

17     its provenance wasn't there.  Now, it later was re-tendered, although the

18     provenance information still was not available.  The Chamber is puzzled

19     by first the withdrawal for reasons of lack of information about

20     provenance and then to re-tender it without any further information about

21     provenance.  Could the parties -- and let me -- to be quite honest, I

22     don't know whether it's -- I take it that it's a 1D -- exhibits.  Could

23     you update the Chamber?

24             MR. JORDASH:  Well, we -- our position is that I think that's

25     from the -- the Accused Stanisic, and I think that's why the Prosecution

Page 18665

 1     object.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  We would say -- sorry.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll spend more time in the MFI list on any

 5     documents provided by Mr. Stanisic.  The puzzle here, of course, was

 6     withdrawal and then re-tendering where it seems that the Defence

 7     apparently had drawn conclusion from the lack of information and then

 8     nevertheless re-tendered it.  That is --

 9             MR. JORDASH:  I'll look into that because I don't understand why

10     we would withdraw that because it's been our position that just because

11     it's tendered or just because it came from the accused, it doesn't --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, perhaps I should clarify this.  The

13     Stanisic Defence withdrew it, but then of course then the Simatovic

14     Defence that re-tendered it or re-tendered it or tendered it on behalf of

15     its defence.  So it's a 1D withdrawal followed by a 2D tendering.

16             MR. JORDASH:  And I think that might be looking at -- because -

17     and I'm surmising - the original document that we have in front of us has

18     an ERN number 02129691, which suggests that in the intervening period the

19     Simatovic team found it on -- from the Prosecution's collection.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  If that is the case, I do not know whether the

21     Prosecution assigns ERN numbers to documents which it has but where it

22     still has doubts as to its provenance.

23             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, this -- this document has a long

24     history, as Your Honours know.  I had not included it in this chart

25     because I thought it was actually a moot issue by this point, but I do

Page 18666

 1     have it in internal notes.  The reason it had an ERN was because it was

 2     given by Mr. Stanisic to the OTP during a suspect interview.  So D56 MNA

 3     has an ERN on it for that reason.  That doesn't change our concerns about

 4     the -- the origin of it, and what we -- we just noted -- I just note that

 5     it wasn't contained in the bar table submission of the Stanisic Defence

 6     either.  So as far as we're concerned, we're in precisely the same

 7     situation that we were originally; that is, we maintain our objection.

 8     There's been no additional evidence of reliability or authenticity.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Now objection against the document being tendered by

10     the Simatovic Defence, because the Stanisic Defence has not revisited the

11     document after it has withdrewn -- withdrawn it.

12             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

13             MR. JORDASH:  The reason I'm hesitating is because I cannot

14     believe that I would have withdrawn it simply because the Prosecution

15     objected to it because it came from the accused, because we obviously

16     don't accept that as a position.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Please look into the matter.  The puzzle has

18     been put on your table, Mr. Simatovic, and Mr. Bakrac, and you,

19     Mr. Jordash, you have added a bit to the puzzle that you don't understand

20     what appears on the record that you have withdrawn it.  Perhaps we would

21     even receive a joint effort together then again for both Defence teams.

22             I leave it for the time being there.  And again, we'll -- I'll

23     deal with the documents which were provided by Mr. Stanisic at a later

24     stage.

25             Some of the documents used with the Witness Draca and Djukic have

Page 18667

 1     not been admitted into evidence but I think were tendered.  The first is

 2     1D05293.1, which consists of Croatian intercept summaries.

 3             Madam Registrar, could we already provisionally assign a number

 4     to this document.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  The number will be D782, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  D782.

 7             The second is 1D05455, which is a Croatian intercept in relation

 8     to the 12th of November, 1994.  That would receive number?

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Number D783, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And the third one is a -- is 1D05458, which is a map

11     related to the testimony.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  This will be number D784, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections by the Prosecution?

14             MS. MARCUS:  No, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Then -- and no objections by the Simatovic Defence.

16     D782, D783 and D784 are admitted into evidence.

17                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  As a surprise, quite exceptionally, Madam Registrar

19     made a very small mistake; that is, to assign numbers which were assigned

20     already.

21             Madam Registrar.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, I will repeat again 65 ter numbers

23     with the numbers that will be assigned instead of those first listed.

24             So document 1D5293.1 will be D784.  Document 1D5455 will receive

25     number D785.  And last document was document 1D5293.  That will receive

Page 18668

 1     number D786, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, I am a bit puzzled by the last number, because

 3     I think I read 1D05458, map related to testimony of the witness.

 4     Madam Registrar, that's what I read, but --

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes.  That was then in the transcript.  So 1D5458

 6     will receive number D786, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  D784, D785, and D786 are admitted into evidence, and

 8     what I earlier said about D782, D783, and D784 is not valid anymore.  We

 9     find it on page 12, line 8, in the transcript.

10             I move on to 65 ter 5603.1, which is an excerpt from the Mladic

11     diary.

12             Now, the Chamber noticed that this excerpt is also covered by the

13     bar table motion in which it seeks all of the Mladic diaries to be

14     admitted into evidence.  Nevertheless, in order to avoid confusion and in

15     view of the fact that we have admitted now and then smaller portions of

16     that Mladic diary, the Chamber would prefer that even if it would be a

17     double repetition finally to have this specific excerpt, that it would be

18     separately admitted into evidence.

19             Is there any objection by any of the Defence teams against the

20     admission of this excerpt of the Mladic diary?  I hear of no objections.

21             Madam Registrar, 65 ter 5603.1 would receive number?

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Number P3117, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  P3117 is admitted into evidence.

24             The next item is document 65 ter 6320, which is a special report

25     on UN hostage-taking.  The OTP wanted to bar table documents 6320.  It

Page 18669

 1     relates to Witness Helgers.  The Stanisic Defence initially indicated

 2     that it would have no objections, but in a filing of the 21st of March,

 3     it looks as it changed its position.

 4             Mr. Jordash, could you explain.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, I think there might have been confusion.  I

 6     think it's my fault.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it comes a bit as a surprise.  I think you

 8     objected against it because it was new evidence.  At the same time, the

 9     document contains information about what -- what seems to be, at least an

10     element of the Defence case, that Mr. Stanisic was involved or actively

11     involved in the release of hostages.  So I was a bit confused.

12             MR. JORDASH:  Right.  I -- I thought that the Prosecution were

13     seeking to tender D -- sorry, to -- can I just clarify.  Were the

14     Prosecution seeking to enter 65 ter 6320 in court and at that point we

15     had a discussion and an argument as to the -- whether -- whether --

16     whether the Prosecution ought to be, and we -- we at that point disagreed

17     and then later conceded?  If that's the position, then I think this can

18     be cleared up quite quickly.

19             MS. MARCUS:  That's essentially my recollection, Your Honours.

20     It was initially on the Stanisic Defence list for that witness.  That was

21     why we didn't tender it.  Then as the testimony ended and we saw that it

22     hadn't been tendered, we then sought to tender it.  So they were from the

23     Stanisic Defence 65 ter list.  In other words -- sorry, the 65 ter that

24     we prepared combined is just a compilation of several documents that were

25     divided up on your list.  So -- but they -- they emerged from your list.

Page 18670

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I do remember that it was a report and there was

 2     some correspondence.  The report, I think, explaining how the released

 3     had happened, a letter, I think, signed by Mr. Stanisic.  That -- it's --

 4     it's a combined document containing several items.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  They were one document.  Somehow

 6     they ended up as two or three on the Stanisic list.  We simply put them

 7     back together.  That's, I think, what happened.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes.  Now, the document was not used in court,

 9     from what I understand.  It was finally only bar tabled perhaps at the

10     end of the testimony.

11             If you give me one second.

12                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, you see what happens if information

14     reaches us late.  We do understand that in a filing of the 21st of March,

15     that you expressed that there were no objections, but that in the e-mail

16     that was received yesterday that there suddenly the objections appear

17     again.  But if it's clear that there are no objections and if the OTP

18     still wishes to bar table that document, then we'll proceed.

19             MR. JORDASH:  But the confusion in my mind is that in court we

20     were discussing, as far as I recall, the admission of additional excerpts

21     from the video, and now we're talking about documents.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We're now talking about the document.

23             MR. JORDASH:  And I remember making a concession about the

24     videos, but -- the excerpt from the video showing the hostages being

25     coached, but I not remember making a concession about these documents,

Page 18671

 1     and I -- I -- perhaps we made a later concession, but having reviewed the

 2     position yesterday, I think we maintain our objection, or we have an

 3     objection to -- to the three documents.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  On what basis, Mr. Jordash?

 5             MR. JORDASH:  On the basis that the Prosecution have raised an

 6     issue late in the day, the issue being that throughout this trial we

 7     didn't appreciate that it was the Prosecution's position that, one,

 8     Stanisic's release or assistance in releasing the hostages was to be

 9     relied upon as proof of acting in concert to a criminal -- to -- to

10     further criminal purpose; and, two, we didn't appreciate that they were

11     going to argue that Stanisic had no humanitarian concern.  So to suddenly

12     start introducing evidence at this stage to prove that fact is to -- is

13     to raise an issue and to seek to rely upon fresh evidence somewhat late

14     in the day, and we're prejudiced and cannot now meet that without further

15     admission of evidence ourselves.  We -- we -- we didn't object to the --

16     sorry, to --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  This very much comes down to the interpretation

18     of -- of the documents, isn't it, even where the Prosecution may rely on

19     those documents to say that there were no humanitarian concerns, I do not

20     know to what extent, but from what I again saw yesterday, it could take a

21     different position as well.  So it's -- it's mainly facts which

22     apparently allow for more than one interpretation as almost always.  So

23     therefore, if the Prosecution would tender a photograph of a car in order

24     to prove that the car was red, where the colour of the car on the

25     photograph is at least not a clear red, then you could say, We should

Page 18672

 1     stop that because they want to introduce evidence at a later stage.  You

 2     could also take the position if you closely look at these photographs and

 3     therefore look at the facts, you can see that the Prosecution in no way

 4     proved that it was a red car, but -- I hope you understand my comparison.

 5     And therefore, I'm wondering to what extent these documents would not be

 6     such that it could be understood as to --

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  -- serve both interests and is mainly factual and

 9     allows the Chamber, which would have to do otherwise on the basis of the

10     remaining evidence, if you would not allow this one.  So I'm not in any

11     way -- how do you say it?  I'm not in any way eluding to a certain

12     position, but I try to understand on what exactly the objection is

13     exactly based.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, I withdraw my objection.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I hope that it's clear on the record that

16     [overlapping speakers] that it was not your --

17             MR. JORDASH:  No, no, I appreciate it --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] position.

19             MR. JORDASH:  And I want to be sensible about this and not detain

20     the Court on issues which --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And I also did not anticipate in any way on how we

22     will understand and how we will interpret these.

23             MR. JORDASH:  No, no, and I understand that and I hear that, and

24     I'm not relying upon any implied assertion.  I just want to move the

25     issue on and don't take the point.

Page 18673

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then, Madam Registrar, had we already

 2     assigned a number?  Yes, we --

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  No.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  No, we have not.  Could you please assign a number

 5     to 65 ter 6320.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 6320 will receive number D788,

 7     Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm looking at you, Mr. Bakrac.  If there are no

 9     objections, and apparently they are not, D788 is --

10             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, no.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  D788 is admitted into evidence.

12             On the 1st of February of this year during the testimony of

13     Witness Aco Draca, the Simatovic Defence requested that the Chamber go

14     into private session because of safety concerns for the witness.  The

15     request was granted and, after further discussion, the Chamber informed

16     the parties that it would consider whether to lift confidentiality on

17     those portions of the transcript.  In this respect, I refer you to

18     transcript pages 16764, line 13, through 16769, line 16.

19             Mr. Petrovic, at the time, explained that the witness might have

20     been at risk, and he gave the reasons for that.  The Chamber then asked

21     the witness about any specific concerns he may have had in relation to

22     individuals he mentioned.  The witness told us what happened during the

23     war, but he also told us but -- that he had neither seen nor heard

24     anything since then on the matter.

25             Unless the parties have urgent and compelling reasons to oppose

Page 18674

 1     the intention of the Chamber, the Chamber is inclined to lift the

 2     confidentiality.

 3             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you allow, my

 4     colleague Mr. Petrovic, as you have said, questioned this witness.  I was

 5     not present in the courtroom, but I have information what that was about.

 6             You are right that Witness Draca did not see the persons he

 7     mentioned after the war, but he has information that they are in Serbia.

 8     Our Defence is still concerned.  Even though he has not seen them, we

 9     remain concerned that if mention of these persons became public there

10     could be a possibility that they might come and look for our witness and

11     possibly create an unpleasant situation for him.  So we still remain in

12     the position, though we are at your hands, that this part of his

13     testimony should remain unavailable to the public so as to ensure the

14     safety of both him and his family.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, before the Chamber decides, any further

17     comments by Prosecution or Stanisic Defence?

18             MS. MARCUS:  Only to say, Your Honours, that without any actual

19     concrete basis, it's -- it's a little bit -- it's -- it's very

20     speculative.  Of course, we're the last ones that want to put anybody at

21     risk, of course, but -- but it doesn't seem like there -- there's much

22     basis for it, but I leave it to the Chamber, in the Chamber's hands.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Stanisic Defence, no position?

24             Mr. Bakrac, the Chamber considers that the concerns expressed and

25     the lack of a concrete basis, that the mere possibility that something

Page 18675

 1     would happen does not meet the threshold for keeping the relevant

 2     portions of the transcript confidential, and therefore the portions I

 3     referred to before, that is T 16764, line 13, through 16769, line 16, the

 4     confidentiality of that portion of the transcript is hereby lifted.

 5             I move on to Rule 90(H)(ii) in relation to Witness Pelevic.

 6     During the testimony of Witness Pelevic, the Stanisic Defence objected

 7     that the Prosecution had violated its obligations under Rule 90(H)(ii).

 8     The Chamber then put further questions to the witness who stated that he

 9     was aware of the Prosecution's case.  The Chamber also instructed the

10     parties to further discuss the objection to see if there are areas of

11     possible agreement.  The Stanisic Defence then e-mailed a set of

12     questions to the Prosecution to which the Prosecution responded.

13     Subsequently, the Stanisic Defence stated that it was not seeking a

14     ruling on its objection but may move to have certain portions of the

15     cross-examination stricken at a later stage.

16             Mr. Jordash, the Chamber hereby sets a deadline,

17     13th of April, 2012.  If the Stanisic Defence wants to pursue this issue

18     further, it is instructed to file a motion by that date.  If no motion is

19     filed by that date, the Chamber will consider the matter closed.

20             MR. JORDASH:  Understood.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I now move to provisional protective measures for

22     documents provided by the Republic of Serbia.

23             I'll first read a decision.

24             The Chamber will now address two requests by the

25     Republic of Serbia for protective measures.  On the 1st of February,


Page 18676

 1     2012, Serbia requested provisional protective measures in relation to 17

 2     documents provided to the Stanisic Defence.  Specifically, Serbia

 3     requested, first, that if these documents are used in court, they be used

 4     in provisional closed session; and, second, that if they are tendered for

 5     admission into evidence, they be provisionally placed under seal.  Upon

 6     notification, Serbia would then provide a reasoned request for protective

 7     measures.

 8             On the 5th of February of this year, the Prosecution informally

 9     communicated to the Chamber that it did not oppose Serbia's request.  The

10     Stanisic and the Simatovic Defence have not responded to Serbia's

11     request.

12             As per the ongoing practice in the present case, the Chamber

13     expects the parties to request provisional private session when using any

14     documents in court which are subject to a pending or prospective request

15     for protective measures and to request, when tendering such documents,

16     that they are provisionally placed under seal.  The Chamber instructs the

17     parties to continue to apply this approach, including with regard to the

18     17 documents listed in Serbia's filing of the 1st of February, 2012.  The

19     Chamber further instructs the parties to notify Serbia in case of the

20     in-court use or tendering of any of these documents.  The Chamber invites

21     the Republic of Serbia to file reasoned requests for protective measures

22     upon receiving such notification from the parties.

23             On the 15th of March, 2012, the Republic of Serbia requested the

24     same provisional protective measures in respect of two further documents

25     provided to the Stanisic Defence.  As per the ongoing practice in the

Page 18677

 1     present case, the Chamber instructs the parties to apply the same

 2     approach to these two documents as to the aforementioned 17 documents.

 3     The Chamber also invites Serbia to file reasoned requests for protective

 4     measures upon receiving notification from the parties.

 5             This concludes the Chamber's decision on Serbia's requests of the

 6     1st of February and the 15th of March, 2012, and the Chamber hereby

 7     instructs the Registry to inform the Republic of Serbia of this decision.

 8             The -- in relation to this, the Chamber instructs the parties to

 9     file no later than two weeks after the closure of the presentation of

10     evidence in this case submissions identifying those exhibits and

11     transcript portions that were put provisionally under seal.  These

12     submissions should include the reasons for the provisional

13     confidentiality, and this should include any documents which appear on

14     memos of the Registry where it is indicated that documents often,

15     documents related to a chart, are provisionally put under seal.

16             I move on.  I -- we have a document without a MFI number, which

17     was 2D1017.1, a video of the funeral of General Bratic.

18             Due to technical problems, the Registry did not receive for a

19     period of time the right clip.  Now, I do understand that meanwhile this

20     video has been provided to the Registry.

21             Madam Registrar, could you confirm that.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour, that is correct.  It was

23     provided yesterday.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, which is relatively late, but better than

25     never.  Could you assign a number to that video.


Page 18678

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 2D1017.1 will receive number D789,

 2     Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Are there any objections against admission of this

 4     video?

 5             MS. MARCUS:  No, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, I interpret your silence as that there

 7     are no objections.

 8             D789 is admitted into evidence.

 9             The next item on my agenda is access to public exhibits.

10             On the 24th of January, the Bosnian government requested access

11     to all documents publicly admitted in this case between the

12     9th of June, 2009, and the 23rd of January, 2012.

13             On the 23rd of August, 2010, the Chamber had set out that it

14     would rule on such requests for access to public exhibits on a

15     case-by-case basis.

16             The request of the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina has led

17     the Chamber to reconsider its approach in order to honour the public

18     nature of the trial best.  While also ensuring that protective measures

19     are safeguarded, the Chamber has decided to change its practice

20     concerning requests for access to public exhibits as follows:

21             1.  Once a request is received by the Registry, the Registry will

22     distribute it among the parties.

23             2.  The parties then have an opportunity to review whether any of

24     the requested documents' public status is in need of a change.  If so,

25     the party should submit an application to the Chamber for a status

Page 18679

 1     change, and this is preferably to be done within two weeks of being

 2     provided with the request.  I'll later comment on this time limit.

 3             3.  In the absence of any such application, the Registry shall

 4     make the relevant documents available to the applicant.

 5             And this practice shall also apply to the Bosnian government's

 6     request of the 24th of January, 2012, and it furthermore shall apply to a

 7     request made on the 23rd of March, 2012, by the SENSE agency with regard

 8     to P2532.

 9             Having said this, I can imagine that especially the request of

10     the 24th of January, which covers a couple of years of public exhibits,

11     that the parties may have some difficulties in reviewing all of those

12     public exhibits on a need to change the status.  Although two weeks would

13     be the time which would be considered to be sufficient under normal

14     circumstances, the Chamber invites the parties to submit any requests for

15     a variation of the two weeks in view of this very bulky request.  The

16     Chamber considers that there may at this moment be some other priorities

17     as well, rather than to review a long list of public documents.  At the

18     same time, as I said before, we want to honour the public nature of the

19     trial, so therefore any suggestion how to deal with that, to deal with it

20     in batches, for example, say we'll deal with the first 300 after two

21     weeks, then in the next week we'll review another 200, it doesn't take

22     much, much time.  It's -- but we can imagine that a couple of thousand

23     documents to deal with that in two weeks might be too much.

24             On the other hand, P2532, which was the second request by the

25     SENSE agency, might not even require two weeks to make up your minds as

Page 18680

 1     to whether the status is in any need of a change.

 2             Is this sufficiently clear and are the parties aware of what is

 3     required from them at this moment on the basis of the two requests that

 4     were made?

 5             Yes.  I see Ms. Marcus is nodding yes.

 6                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, these documents are already public.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but they are not accessible --

 9             MR. JORDASH:  Right.  Okay.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- yet.  So it's practically making them available.

11     And of course what happens now and then is that until now the system was

12     that we would consider requests on a case-by-case basis, but as a rule

13     they would be made accessible after the case was over.  That was also in

14     order to avoid any mistakes as in respect of a need for protection which

15     appeared only later in the case.  That is a possibility.  Now, as I said,

16     the Chamber has changed its approach but nevertheless want to be -- wants

17     to be very cautious about possible needs for protection.  And that's the

18     reason why we will give access to it upon a request as a rule but that we

19     first would like to hear from the parties whether there's a need to

20     change the status from public in anything else.

21             MR. JORDASH:  No.  I understand.  Thank you.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And could you please consider the time you'd

23     need for that job.  It's not a very exciting job, perhaps, but that's the

24     price we have to pay for balancing the public nature of the trial, which

25     is of course the principle, and the need for protective measures.

Page 18681

 1             Then, Madam Registrar surprises me again by making two small

 2     errors in one day.  That has not happened over the last couple of years.

 3     All of us, we did, but she now joins us.

 4             The number which was assigned to document 1D5293.1, should not be

 5     D784, but instead the number should be D787.

 6             Then next item on my agenda.

 7             Mr. Bakrac, could you tell us anything about disclosure of prior

 8     statements of the five new witnesses you'd like to have added to your

 9     65 ter list and which you may call?  Are there any prior statements?

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 18682

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3             Now, you at least interviewed some of your prospective witnesses.

 4     I'm a bit surprised that you're not even allowed to take notes, which

 5     is -- but -- I mean, would you have to rely on your memory only?  Are any

 6     statements ever taken by anyone else which are known to you?

 7             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first of all, I would

 8     like to clarify my earlier statement.  When I said we weren't able to

 9     take any notes, I referred there only to one specific person.  I name

10     that person in my previous statement.  With one person we haven't had any

11     contact, and for the three remaining witnesses, we took notes, or we

12     actually prepared only brief versions of what they might testify about.

13     We did not have time to take full statements, but we will do that during

14     the break that we've been granted.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, irrespective of what finally the Chamber will

16     decide on adding witnesses to your 65 ter list, wouldn't it be wise to be

17     as transparent as possible to the Prosecution so that they know, more or

18     less, even before they receive any formal statements or any further

19     statements you may have taken that you already inform the Prosecution in

20     detail about what possibly or likely would be the subject matter of their

21     evidence, which might avoid a lot of problems in the future, perhaps even

22     problems that would influence the decision of the Chamber?

23             Ms. Marcus --

24             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your

25     permission --

Page 18683

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Perhaps, Ms. Marcus, before I give an

 2     opportunity to you, I first give an opportunity to Mr. Bakrac to comment

 3     on what I [overlapping speakers].

 4             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my apologies.  With

 5     all due respect, I believe that we included together with our request to

 6     have the 65 ter list amended that we provided the summaries of topics

 7     that witnesses would be testifying about.  If that is not sufficient, of

 8     course we will do our best to expand the summaries and also to take

 9     statements in accordance with 92 ter Rule, but I believe we have already

10     submitted the summaries with our request.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Including summaries of the evidence of witnesses you

12     have not ever interviewed yet, which of course raises some question

13     marks.

14             Ms. Marcus, is there anything you'd like to add what I just said?

15             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, only to reiterate what we said in our

16     response which we filed on Monday, which is that witness statements are

17     described, actually at least for the two witnesses in -- in the motion

18     itself, in paragraphs 2 and 7 of the Defence motion, and that's what

19     particularly alerted us to this.  But it does appear that for those

20     witnesses who have been interviewed, we would have more than a summary.

21     We would actually have, if -- if only a draft, we would have some kind of

22     a statement.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It may also influence your position on the

24     motion.  Of course, you've responded to the motion, but further

25     developments on the matter.

Page 18684

 1             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Bakrac, I think the message is clear.

 3     With such a late request, try to do everything to -- to avoid stronger

 4     objection from the Prosecution by providing them with as much information

 5     as they would need anyhow if the Chamber would allow you to call those

 6     witnesses after having them added to the 65 ter list.

 7             That matter having been --

 8             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I have two items left on my agenda.  Number 20

10     is any other matter.  Number 21 is MFI list.  I leave 21 until after the

11     break.

12             Any other matter at this moment to be raised knowing that we'll

13     go through the MFI list anyhow?

14             MS. MARCUS:  Nothing for the Prosecution, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Nothing for the Simatovic Defence, nothing for the

16     Stanisic Defence, I see.  Then we'll take a break, and we'll resume at

17     11.00.

18                           --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  If everyone takes a deep breath, I'll now proceed to

21     the MFI list.

22             We start with P2979, the "Vreme" article.  The main issue being

23     that the Stanisic Defence opposes admission for, if I could summarise it,

24     it being new evidence.  The objection to admission is denied.  Prejudice

25     has not been sufficiently demonstrated, and I immediately add to this

Page 18685

 1     that even if it is admitted, the Chamber still has to consider the

 2     appropriate weight to be given to it also considering that it's a

 3     newspaper article.

 4             P2995.  I'd leave that, because it's a duplicate with D456.  If I

 5     say duplicate, that's not correct.  It is an excerpt of D456.  We'll deal

 6     with the matter in relation to D456.

 7             Ms. Marcus.

 8             MS. MARCUS:  My apologies for interrupting, Your Honour.  Before

 9     we move on to P2995, can we finish on the previous one, just because we

10     have uploaded a complete translation.  That's for P2979 --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see --

12             MS. MARCUS:  -- before we leave that.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             MS. MARCUS:  And then maybe if it's -- if it's going to be

15     admitted, we could -- we could admit with Your Honours' leave.  So the --

16     the doc ID that we've uploaded it that -- that is the -- again the

17     complete translation of P2979.  The doc ID is 0680-2610-ET, and so with

18     Your Honours' leave that can be attached to P2979 as it's admitted.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, is this sufficient information for

20     you when we have given leave to have the new and complete translation to

21     replace the old one?

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honours, it is.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then P2979 is admitted into evidence.

24             I dealt already with P2995, which means that this being an

25     excerpt of D456, we'll deal with that document when we are discussing

Page 18686

 1     Defence MFI'd documents.

 2             The next one is P3008, and I'd like to deal with that together

 3     with P3009.  The document -- both documents are supposed to be reduced to

 4     the portions that were shown, possibly with any additional pages for

 5     contextualisation.

 6             First of all, has that job been done?

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Just one moment, please, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the Stanisic Defence had time until the

 9     1st of December to make any request for adding pages for

10     contextualisation.  I don't know whether they --

11             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, if I'm not mistaken, we tendered

12     certain excerpts.  So what we tendered, I think from our position was

13     what was going to be admitted along with excerpts by the

14     Stanisic Defence, if I'm -- if I recall correctly.

15                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me -- I do understand that the Stanisic Defence

17     has suggested some additional documents to be -- to be admitted for

18     contextualisation but not to add them to this exhibit number but to make

19     them separate exhibits.

20             MR. JORDASH:  Whatever is administratively easier, I think,

21     Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  We'll deal with that on the basis as you have

23     suggested.  And the same is true for P3009, and of course if you add any

24     documents, separate documents, it doesn't make any difference whether you

25     do it to contextualise P3008 or P3009.

Page 18687

 1             There was another objection in relation to the -- if I could say

 2     the -- the Prlic appeal threshold, new evidence.  No prejudice has been

 3     sufficiently demonstrated to honour that objection, and therefore P3008

 4     and P3009 are admitted into evidence.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Excuse me, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             MS. MARCUS:  I believe that we were -- that we were to upload the

 8     excerpts, that -- that P3008 and -9 as admitted were the whole file, but

 9     we were to upload the excerpts, and I have -- if that's correct, I have

10     65 ter numbers for the excerpts.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's what I said in the beginning --

12             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, I'm sorry --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  -- to reduce the size --

14             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and I misunderstood you where you said -- okay.

16     So we have for 3008 and 3009.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  We have now new ID numbers.

19             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, yes, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  That the excerpts used with the witness should

21     replace now the whole of the document.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, that was -- it was my error, in

23     fact.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             MS. MARCUS:  So 65 ter 6240.1 is -- can be uploaded for P3008.

Page 18688

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And replaces then what was originally uploaded.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  And 65 ter 6241.1 can be uploaded to replace

 3     P3009.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And, Madam Registrar, you may replace these new

 5     excerpts -- you may replace the old complete documents by these new

 6     excerpts under those same numbers.  Any further questions or is it clear

 7     to you?

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  It's clear, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             Then I move to the next one, P3029.  Here we have the -- this is

11     in -- let me now see what ...

12             P3029 is, I do understand, a duplicate to P3038 and therefore can

13     be vacated.  At the same time, the OTP wants two additional portions of

14     65 ter 6271 to be added to a related exhibit which is P3041, which is not

15     MFI'd but is already in evidence.

16             Now, these additional pages, do you want to have them admitted

17     separately or would you like to add them to P3041, which would then be

18     re-uploaded in its new version.

19             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I think for cross-referencing, it would

20     be ideal to have it in one document.  I must confess I believe that the

21     additional portions have been uploaded with a separate 65 ter number.

22     Whichever the Chamber sees better, we can upload it together as one new

23     65 ter and inform Your Honours in a few minutes, or we can admit it

24     separately.  Admit the additional portions separately.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't know which of the solutions would create

Page 18689

 1     most of the problems in any future stages of these proceedings, if any,

 2     but let's then -- if you would add the two additional portions to P3041,

 3     re-upload that in its new version and then we'll instruct once you've

 4     given the new doc ID, and we'll then instruct Madam Registrar to replace

 5     the old version of P3041 by the newly uploaded one.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  We will do that.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  So we'll hear from you.

 8             P3032 can be taken from the list as marked, not admitted.

 9     Madam Registrar, the status would therefore be MNA.

10             I move to P3056.  There were some objections by the

11     Simatovic Defence.  I do understand, Mr. Bakrac, that there are no

12     further objections against admission, which means that --

13             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  -- P3056 is admitted into evidence.

15             I have to go back for a second to P3029, and I apologise for

16     that.  What I did not address yet, Mr. Jordash, what -- that there was

17     also a new evidence Prlic threshold objection there.  Would that be on

18     the adding of the two additional portions of 6271?

19             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, I think that's right.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We have considered that, and the decision in

21     that respect, so we still have to wait for the new document to be

22     uploaded, but the decision in that respect is that no prejudice has been

23     sufficiently demonstrated and that therefore that objection is denied.

24             I now move on to -- yes, to P3063.  An unredacted copy has yet to

25     be provided with the republic -- by the Republic of Serbia.  I'd like to

Page 18690

 1     use this document to give some general instructions to the parties.

 2             There is a long-standing history of redacted copies being

 3     provided by the Republic of Serbia.  There have been a lot of requests to

 4     provide unredacted copies.  We left that mainly in the hands of the

 5     parties in their negotiations with the Republic of Serbia, but we are

 6     coming close to a point where to the extent unredacted copies have not

 7     been provided, and many have been provided as we'll find out later, that

 8     we'll have to make up our mind as whether the redactions are such that

 9     they oppose admission, yes or no.

10             Another category of documents where there have been objections

11     consistently made are the documents provided by Mr. Stanisic.

12             The Chamber would like to receive joint submission by the parties

13     in which they express their views on -- in relation to every single

14     document.  I mean, you can take a kind of a principled position, We do

15     not accept redacted copies.  If, finally, we do not have unredacted

16     copies, then the question remains again whether the redactions really

17     oppose admission, yes or no, and that could cannot be answered in general

18     terms but depends on is it just one name which is redacted or is it a

19     redaction of half a page?  So therefore the Chamber has prepared a simple

20     format for joint submissions on redacted MFIs and also a sample format

21     for joint submissions on MFI documents having been received from the

22     accused.

23             This may be distributed to the parties.  It's -- it's not in

24     order to discuss it but to prepare for a final resolution of these two

25     categories of documents.

Page 18691

 1                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Again, it's -- it's a sample format.  If you'd

 3     consider that it would need some changes, the Chamber would like to be

 4     informed about it because of course we have drafted it on the basis of

 5     what the Chamber thinks it needs to decide these matters.  And we'd like

 6     to receive such a joint submission within two weeks from now.  Of course,

 7     every party can already start discussing it.  You can divide the labour

 8     as to -- and whether the intensity of the redaction is low, medium, or

 9     high, but it shouldn't cause great problems.

10             Is this clear?  And this would be, I think, valid for P3063, and

11     I used that as -- for introducing these instructions to the parties.

12             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Obviously the Prosecution

13     has a lot of experience with Word tables so I don't think that would be a

14     problem with that.  The only comment I would make with respect to today

15     is that to the extent on the matter of documents received from the

16     accused, we have already expressed our view on that in -- and we are

17     ready to express that view.  We've express it had in the chart.  For

18     those documents, I don't think we would have any additional submission.

19     If Your Honours prefer for it to be transferred from the housekeeping

20     chart onto here, we're happy to do that.  In other words, I recognise for

21     the redactions there's an additional question the Chamber is asking:

22     What happens if we don't ever get the unredacted version?  I appreciate

23     that.  But for those documents where we've already expressed our view as

24     of this point with respect to those documents received from the accused,

25     with respect, I believe those documents could be determined in this -- in

Page 18692

 1     the context of this housekeeping session.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll have a further look at that.

 3             I now move on to 3077, which I take it that the Chamber would

 4     need to develop further thoughts on that, so I leave that for the time

 5     being.

 6             P3080, that was a provenance issue.  The Chamber understands that

 7     the Stanisic Defence now takes the position that it is unable to give

 8     further details of origin.

 9             Is that the situation?

10             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Then if that's the case, it will be dealt with in

12     the format as suggested by -- the sample format as suggested by the

13     Chamber.

14             I move on to P3083.  We do understand that there's now an upload

15     which is completed and which meets the wishes of all parties, that

16     there's no further Stanisic objection, that there's no further Simatovic

17     objection, and that therefore nothing opposes at this moment admission

18     any further.  I hear no further comments.

19             Under the present circumstances, Madam Registrar, you have

20     received now the -- the precise format of the video uploaded -- or

21     provided to you, I should say.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then P3083 is admitted into evidence.

24             P3085.  There was an issue as to how many pages would be

25     tendered, whether that would be all five of this document or just the

Page 18693

 1     pages 1 and 5.  Apart from that, there was no English translation

 2     uploaded in e-court, although now it -- the translation issue apparently

 3     has been resolved.  There still remains the question whether it's all

 4     five pages or pages 1 and 5.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  It's only pages 1 and 5, Your Honours, and they have

 6     been uploaded as 65 ter 0693.1.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?

 8             Madam Registrar --

 9             MR. JORDASH:  No.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the answer's no for both Defence teams.

11             Madam Registrar, you may replace the old version by the pages 1

12     and 5 that have been uploaded as 693.1, 65 ter.  And P3085 is admitted

13     into evidence.

14             P3086, P3087, P3088, P3089, and P3090 are not further sought to

15     be admitted, and therefore, Madam Registrar, these documents are now

16     marked not admitted.

17             I move and to P3097, which is a list of members of the

18     State Security Service that received awards during the Kula ceremony, as

19     well as lists of JATD members.  The issue was whether this was an

20     attachment to P1075, because the Stanisic Defence, I do understand now,

21     takes the position that it should have been attached to P1075; is that

22     correct, Mr. Jordash?

23             MR. JORDASH:  That's correct.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, what are we going to do?  Are we going to

25     attach it, although late, to P1075, or are we going to decide on

Page 18694

 1     admission under a separate number?

 2             Ms. Marcus.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honours.  Our preference is that it be

 4     attached.  I have submissions on it if Your Honours would like to hear

 5     that.  But, yes, it's part of the same document.  It's part of the same

 6     ERN range.  It was a mistake that it was separated into two documents.

 7     We do apologise for that.  In our submission I would explain how the

 8     different indicia of it being an attachment of that document if that

 9     would assist the Chamber.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I think if everyone agrees that it's best

11     placed as an attachment to P1075, then we could proceed on that basis.

12             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, I think I misspoke.  That's not our

13     position.  Our position is that we're not satisfied as yet that it should

14     be or was attached to that document, and we would appreciate a better

15     explanation from the Prosecution.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Under those circumstances, Ms. Marcus.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  P3097 MFI is Prosecution

18     65 ter 4929.  The Prosecution moved to add this document to its 65 ter

19     exhibit list in the seventh motion to amend that list of the

20     2nd of October, 2008.  The ERN is the -- this document is the second part

21     of P1075, which was 65 ter 4236.  The ERN full range is 0214-1322 to

22     0214-1334.

23             As stated in the 21st October, 2010, Prosecution submission of

24     the chart of exhibits associated to the Theunens report, in relation to

25     P1075, this document, meaning the full ERN range, was provided to the OTP

Page 18695

 1     by a high-ranking VJ official on the 22nd of November, 2001.  The

 2     Prosecution does not know why the document was severed, and this was

 3     inadvertent.  As stated on page 22 of the seventh motion to amend the

 4     exhibit list with respect to 65 ter 4929, that is P3097 MFI, this

 5     document is "a list of members of the DB that received awards during the

 6     Kula ceremony as well as lists of JATD members referred to in

 7     65 ter 4236."

 8             Furthermore, I note that in P1075, under item 5, the lists

 9     contained in P3097 MFI are described.  For example, the words under

10     item 5 in P1075 "special daggers in an oak box for courage, six persons;

11     and for services, seven persons," those words correspond to e-court

12     page 5 in English, and page 4 in B/C/S, of P3097 MFI, which have two

13     lists, one for courage with six persons listed and one for merits with

14     seven persons.

15             As another example, the names in the last paragraph of P1075 are

16     all on these lists, Milan Letica, for example, is described in P1075 as

17     having been "liquidated," and in P3097 MFI Mr. Letica appears on the

18     "list of dead members."  That's at e-court page 8 in English and page 7

19     in B/C/S.

20             The Prosecution agrees that P3097 MFI should have been tendered

21     as part of P1075, and we apologise for the inexplicable severing of the

22     full ERN range.  If the Chamber requests, the Prosecution will seek leave

23     to re-open its case to tender this document into evidence.

24             Thank you.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.


Page 18696

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Might -- might we know who the high-ranking VJ

 2     official is -- or was?

 3             MS. MARCUS:  Can I request private session, please?

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

 5                           [Private session]

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 18697

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11                           [Open session]

12             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

14             Ms. Marcus, a few lines ago you said, "and furthermore with

15     respect to the other documents," which is not very clear to me at this

16     moment, you were referring to --

17             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  I apologise.  This was -- the

18     other document is -- is P3041 to which we were to add 65 ter 6271.2 so

19     that they would be together -- so that they would be together admitted as

20     P3041.  We have, in fact, combined the document.  It's been uploaded as

21     65 ter 6271.3.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.  You may replace the existing

23     document under P3041 by the now combined document uploaded as

24     65 ter 6271.3.

25             Having done all this, P3029 is vacated.


Page 18698

 1             We'll finally decide on P1075 when we have received the new

 2     65 ter number for the combined document, and we'll then also be able to

 3     vacate P3097.

 4             We move to the D exhibits.  We start with D129.

 5             Mr. Jordash, we dealt with that already in the first part --

 6             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- of our discussions and you said within one hour,

 8     and that's now.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  We inadvertently left it off the bar table.  The

10     Prosecution have kindly agreed that we can tender it pursuant to the bar

11     table without objections, and we do so, apply to tender it, I beg your

12     pardon.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now I'll discuss with the staff whether --

14     it's now on the record that you want to tender it as a bar table

15     document, D129.  Also that there's no objection against it.  So I think

16     we could separately have it bar tabled orally and not try to get it into

17     any written bar table motions.

18             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, please.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Then since I do not hear of any objections by the

20     Simatovic Defence, D129 is admitted into evidence.

21             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  There is another one I referred to earlier,

23     Mr. Jordash, which was 1D1951, where we wondered whether that was

24     withdrawn or inadvertently missing from the bar table motion.

25             MR. JORDASH:  It's withdrawn because it's a duplicate.  I haven't

Page 18699

 1     got the corresponding duplicate, but it's withdrawn.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then it remains known under the doc ID and

 3     not in any way assigned any number.  I mean, it's not -- it has not

 4     received any exhibit number, and therefore the status is neither MFI'd

 5     nor admitted.  It's non-existent in the evidentiary section.

 6             For D130, D150, D159, D -- no.  These three documents will be

 7     dealt with in the bar table motion, as I understand it, Mr. Jordash.  Is

 8     that correctly understood?

 9             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes, thank you.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, it will be decided in a decision on the

11     bar table motion which covers these three documents.

12             D241.  The -- there were two issues.  The first was provenance.

13     The second was redactions.

14             The Chamber understands that the Stanisic Defence has provided to

15     the Prosecution information concerning the RFA, and further that an

16     unredacted version is now available.  Then, of course, the question

17     remains whether there's any objection.

18             MS. MARCUS:  No objection, Your Honour, except that we request

19     that the translations should match the unredacted versions.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  That's always for whatever unredacted versions we'll

21     see passing by in the next one or two hours that the translations, of

22     course, have to correspond with the new unredacted versions.

23             Now let's see where we are.  Mr. Jordash, has the unredacted

24     version been uploaded?

25             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

Page 18700

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there a corresponding full translation now?

 2             MR. JORDASH:  No, they haven't.  We're working on the

 3     translations ourselves, so --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Which means that for D241 -- first of all, could you

 5     give us the doc ID for the unredacted version.

 6                           [Defence counsel confer]

 7             MR. JORDASH:  It's the same 65 ter as the untranslated document

 8     but with a .1 added corresponding.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Madam Registrar, you -- leave is granted to

10     have the original redacted copy of the 241 be replaced by the now

11     unredacted version which is known under the same doc ID with the addition

12     .1.  However, the translation still has to be uploaded, which corresponds

13     with the new version, and therefore that's the only remaining issue now:

14     Upload of a corresponding translation.  Apart from that, nothing opposes

15     admission.

16             I think, as a matter of fact, that the same may be true for D244,

17     the information about the request for assistance has been made available.

18     The unredacted version is now available, if I understand the information

19     well.

20             Is it also true, Mr. Jordash, that the unredacted version is

21     uploaded under the same number as the redacted version with addition .1

22     and that there's no full translation corresponding now with the

23     unredacted version available.

24             MR. JORDASH:  That's correct, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  In that respect the report for D244 is the

Page 18701

 1     same.  The only remaining matter -- may I also take it that there are no

 2     objections, Ms. Marcus.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  That's right, Your Honour.  And the same is true for

 4     D247.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, for D247 we have exactly the same report,

 6     unless, Mr. Jordash, you tell me there are differences.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  No, it's the same.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the only remaining matter is uploading the

 9     corresponding translation after which the document will be admitted into

10     evidence.

11             D271 is a chart with the comments of a witness on documents to be

12     tendered as evidence with that witness.  The fate of D271 depends on what

13     happens with the underlying documents.  The underlying documents are --

14     let me go through them.  The underlying documents are D272 up to and

15     include D291, and the ones which have not yet been resolved are the

16     following:  First, D276, Politika, Arkan's dossier dated the

17     22nd of January, 2000.  The problem was that a full English translation

18     was missing.  I do understand that it's available.

19             MR. JORDASH:  It is.  It's pending upload and we'll do that this

20     week.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, there also was missing at the time a

22     B/C/S original in e-court.  Is that available in e-court meanwhile?

23             MR. JORDASH:  It is.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So therefore we are waiting for the uploading

25     of the full English translation, and then you have seen that translation

Page 18702

 1     already, Ms. Marcus, or ...

 2             MS. MARCUS:  No, Your Honour.  We haven't seen it, but as soon as

 3     that's done we have no other remaining objections.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You say whatever the translation says, you

 5     accept if it's a -- then therefore the only thing that still opposes D276

 6     is the uploading of the English translation.  After that, the document is

 7     ready for being admitted.

 8             Now, the other unresolved underlying document was -- I was just

 9     informed, and I go back to D276 that the B/C/S is not uploaded into

10     e-court.

11             MR. JORDASH:  It's uploaded under 1D01604.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, are you able to confirm?

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  So then the only remaining matter is

15     uploading the full English translation and then the document is ready for

16     being admitted.

17             D277.  The Prosecution was seeking additional information on the

18     provenance of the document, information about who made the decisions

19     about what portions would be shown to the Chamber and what criteria were

20     used and how we can ensure that it was done accurately.

21             The information as we were informed has been provided,

22     Ms. Marcus.

23             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  The information has been

24     provided, but it just heightens, in a way, our concern.  Apparently, the

25     excerpts were selected by the BIA, and the Stanisic Defence has stated

Page 18703

 1     that they might select further excerpts to be filed in a supplemental bar

 2     table motion.  I would just reiterate that our opposition to this

 3     document remains.  This opposition is based on a similar position we took

 4     in relation to 1D380, which was tendered through the Stanisic Defence's

 5     bar table motion.  Namely, the Prosecution objects to the tendering of

 6     selected excerpts of larger Serbian DB reports because it appears the

 7     Defence would like to make broad conclusions based on these types of

 8     documents which may not be supported if the Chamber was able to view the

 9     entire report.  As such, excerpts of these DB reports are potentially

10     misleading, have low probative value, and are not reliable in their

11     present form.  The Prosecution also seeks to review the full document and

12     requests additional excerpts, where necessary, to provide context to the

13     excerpts submitted by the Stanisic Defence.  The Prosecution requests

14     that the Stanisic Defence acquire the entire document to the extent they

15     already have it, since they indicated they may be selecting additional

16     excerpts.  We would like to view that entire document so that we can also

17     select any portions we deem relevant.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

19             MR. JORDASH:  I think the -- it's our submission the Prosecution

20     approach is wholly at odds with the disclosure regime, and we would

21     submit the following:  What -- we'd ask certain questions which

22     demonstrate our position.  First of all, have the Prosecution, during

23     their case, sought to admit parts of larger documents?  The answer is

24     that is yes.

25             Two --

Page 18704

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I immediately then -- do you mean to say that

 2     they have sought to admit parts of larger documents without disclosing

 3     the content of the whole of the document to the Defence?  Is that what

 4     your question is about?

 5             MR. JORDASH:  No.  My question is that -- if I can summarise.

 6     The -- our position is that the Prosecution are entitled to seek to admit

 7     documents in support of their case or part documents in support of their

 8     case, and that's what they've done.  We, the Defence, are equally

 9     entitled to do the same and we have no obligation.  In fact, I'll go

10     further than that.  We are not permitted to disclose documents or parts

11     of documents which do not support our case.  We are ethically bound not

12     to do that.  If the Prosecution say that we have admitted documents which

13     support our case only or parts of documents which support our case only,

14     we accept that.  That's what our ethical obligation is.  If the

15     Prosecution suggest that there are documents or parts of documents which,

16     in fact, would remove the probative value of our evidence, then they are

17     entitled to find that material and then in the usual way apply to admit

18     it, if the Rules of disclosure allow that admission.  We cannot expected,

19     the Defence, to find documents or parts of documents which support our

20     case and then find documents which -- or parts of documents which don't

21     support our case and then apply to admit that material.  It would be

22     completely against our ethical obligations.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I think I understand what your submission is,

24     Mr. Jordash.  What the Prosecution does at this moment is say that

25     there's such a risk of the excerpts or the portions shown to mislead that

Page 18705

 1     without any possibility to verification of -- of possibly misleading

 2     selection, we oppose admission.  That's how I understand the

 3     Prosecution's position.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  That's correct, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And I do understand that if a document contains both

 6     exculpatory and inculpatory elements, that the Defence would wish to

 7     select the exculpatory elements and leave out any inculpatory

 8     information.  At the same time, they may risk under those circumstances

 9     that the selection is not admitted.  I'm not saying whether it will or

10     not, but at least that there's a possibility that on the basis of the

11     objection that the Chamber would say, Yes, we are unable to verify

12     whether this gives a picture which is appropriate.

13             Let me give you an example.  If there is a report in which it

14     says that debtor A has always fully paid his debts, and if later in the

15     report it is said that this is true for the period up 1984 and then after

16     that he never paid a penny of what he was indebted, then of course, if

17     you select the line, he always pays his debts, it may be rather

18     misleading.  And I think that's the kind of discussion we find ourselves

19     in.

20             MR. JORDASH:  But I don't think we are in that discussion until

21     the Prosecution -- I accept the logic of Your Honour's comments, but

22     we're not into that discussion until the Prosecution points out evidence

23     or material which would lead one to a reasonable at least prima facie

24     decision that there is other material there which suggests that the

25     material we seek to admit provides a misleading picture.  At the moment,

Page 18706

 1     all we have is the Defence seeking to adduce exculpatory material and the

 2     Prosecution saying, But there must be evidence which contextualises that

 3     and shows that it's not in fact exculpatory.  Otherwise what we're

 4     dealing with is the Defence suggesting innocence and the Prosecution

 5     saying, Well, hold on a second.  We know your clients are guilty,

 6     therefore, there must be material in the remainder of document which

 7     demonstrates that.  It's assertion but without precision.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Apparently the discussion is then whether by

 9     presenting a selection of documents whether without giving the full

10     documents, whether the burden is upon the Prosecution to say that there's

11     other evidence which would contradict it and please come up with it or

12     whether that would be true if you present the full documents.  If the

13     Prosecution then would say, But we don't believe it because there must be

14     other evidence, that here it's clear that a selection was made and that

15     there's no possibility to verify whether the selection reflects the gist

16     of the document.  That apparently is the problem.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Well there has been a possibility because the

18     Prosecution have known -- first of all, the Prosecution has investigated

19     this case a long time before we did.  Secondly, we've indicated our

20     position on this from a long time ago.  We've always said, and of course

21     we would always say, But it's not our job to find evidence which

22     "contextualises Defence in exculpatory evidence."  So it's entirely a

23     matter for the Prosecution to go and seek that.  Equally, it's our

24     responsibility when the Prosecution adduce evidence for us to go and seek

25     evidence to rebut that.  I don't think the situation is any different to

Page 18707

 1     the Prosecution admitting documents to incriminate and providing us with

 2     the basis of then leading to the logical position that we, the Defence,

 3     need to try to rebut that.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, at least they give access to any document they

 5     want to use in its entirety to the Defence.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  But if the Prosecution are burdened to prove their

 7     case, they must do that.  We, the Defence, don't have that burden.  But

 8     even if we did, the Prosecution have the same access to these documents

 9     as we do.  In fact, they have better access because they have a better

10     relationship with the prevailing government.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, could you specifically respond to the

12     last observation that you have equally access to these documents, so why

13     don't you look for yourself what the entirety of the document tells us.

14             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, we don't have the document.  We can --

15     if the Chamber so orders, we can submit a request for the document.  The

16     question that -- that this all boils down to from the Prosecution

17     position is that this is about the tendering of a document into evidence.

18     So this is about a Defence document that they wish to tender into

19     evidence.  For their documents that they wish to tender, they have the

20     burden of proving that the documents are reliable, just like with any

21     other document that they have the burden.  It's not the Prosecution's

22     obligation to show that the document is unreliable.  It's to us to object

23     if we don't find sufficient indicia of reliability in that document and

24     to -- for the Defence to affirmatively prove, as they do with all their

25     documents, that a document is reliable.  Without a way for the Chamber or

Page 18708

 1     the Prosecution to review where these excerpts came from the indicia of

 2     reliability are not sufficient, in our submission, for the excerpts to be

 3     admitted.  That's the focus of the objection, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, one final one minute.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  But -- but that -- that is not what we're talking

 6     about here.  Time and time again during the Prosecution case and the

 7     Defence case, the Prosecution have said, We obtained this document from

 8     the Serbian government.  Therefore, it crosses the reliability threshold.

 9     These documents are clearly from the Serbian government and therefore

10     cross that threshold.

11             MS. MARCUS:  But, Your Honour it's a piece of a document

12     received.  Your Honours have made the point.  That's why I haven't

13     repeated the point.  We have never tendered an excerpt of a document

14     without showing the entire context of that -- that that excerpt was taken

15     from and the Defence is most often given an opportunity to select their

16     excerpts also from that document.

17             MR. JORDASH:  But, sorry, just to -- if I may.  We told the

18     Prosecution this was our position many, month ago.  We simply -- and

19     these are specific types of documents which are annual reports with have

20     a huge amount of material in them.  We simply cannot do more than say to

21     the Prosecution, This is our position.  You should use your resources to

22     go and find these documents and look at them.  We are not hiding

23     anything.  There isn't incriminatory evidence in these documents.  We've

24     looked at them.  But --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Why then --

Page 18709

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Because -- because to obtain them, to copy them

 2     from the -- first of all, because the Serbian government doesn't want to

 3     release the documents as a whole.  That's always been their position

 4     because the annual reports of the state security clearly are of a very

 5     sensitive nature to the Serbian government.  That is why we applied for

 6     Rule 54 order.  That is why we came to an agreement with the Prosecution

 7     and the Serbian government that we would go and look at the documents.

 8     At that point in time, we said to the Prosecution, We are not going to be

 9     able to get you whole of the documents.  You must go and have a look at

10     them too.  We're not hiding anything.  The Prosecution have chosen not to

11     do that.  The Prosecution have chose instead to object, making what are

12     effectively implied assertions that we're hiding something.  And we

13     haven't.  We've said, Go and find it and we'll deal with you are

14     producing contextualising evidence if, indeed, you find that.  This is a

15     complaint without substance, in my submission.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the issue is clear.  The Chamber will -- I

17     don't think there will be an agreement among the parties on this matter

18     and the Chamber will consider it and decide.

19             Yes.  I think we now move to D279, decision on approval of

20     operational process on Miljkovic.  Provenance was the issue.  I do

21     understand that the request for assistance has been provided.  If that's

22     true, are there any objections, Ms. Marcus?

23             MS. MARCUS:  No objection.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Also no objections from the Simatovic Defence.  D279

25     is admitted into evidence.  Any need to have it under seal?  No.  Then

Page 18710

 1     it's a public exhibit.

 2             D291, there was an issue with redactions.  The last I read is

 3     that meanwhile an unredacted version has been provided.  Is that

 4     accurate?

 5             MR. JORDASH:  It is, and the case is the same with the

 6     translation.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  The case is the same with the translation, which

 8     means that the -- Ms. Marcus, that having now received the unredacted

 9     version, any further objections apart from a missing translation?

10             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, it appears that there's still a

11     redaction on the last page of the document.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And is that such a redaction that would --

13             MS. MARCUS:  It's the same type of redaction, Your Honour, that

14     generally we all oppose.  So it's a very similar one.  It's only one

15     remaining but it is a -- it is still.

16             MR. JORDASH:  If there is a redaction, and we accept there is,

17     it's -- the response from the Serbian government is that it's a permanent

18     redaction and there's nothing that they can do about it.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

20             MS. MARCUS:  I propose that we look at this in the context of the

21     Chamber's instructions.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Okay, then we're waiting for a corresponding

23     translation of the almost unredacted document, and it's on the record

24     that the government of Serbia says that it cannot remove the redaction

25     anymore.

Page 18711

 1             This also means that not all of the matters of underlying

 2     documents have been resolved in relation to D271, which means the fate of

 3     D271 now depends on how we resolve D277 and D291, and the others, to the

 4     extent not resolved, it's a pure technicalities in relation to

 5     translations.

 6             I move on to D293.  I do understand that, Ms. Marcus, the

 7     Prosecution would like to see the RFA in relation to this document.  And

 8     our latest information is, Mr. Jordash, that you're still waiting for

 9     what exactly?

10             MR. JORDASH:  Waiting an answer from the national council,

11     Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You'd say this is a RFA which you have not

13     received the response on yet.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Indeed.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, which -- this enables us to take the matter any

16     further at the moment.

17             D301 is a chart, and the fate of this chart depends on the fate

18     of the underlying documents D302 up to and including D311.

19             Let's start with D302.  There was an issue.  The OTP expressed

20     concerns about this being a statement of an other individual not called

21     to testify, but also understand that the objections are not further

22     upheld by the Prosecution.  Is that -- or is it that we -- that you are

23     still waiting for further submissions by the Stanisic Defence?

24             MS. MARCUS:  One previous moment, Your Honour.

25                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

Page 18712

 1             MS. MARCUS:  We have no further objection Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  No further objections.  D302 is admitted into

 3     evidence.

 4             D303 it is together with -- let me take it one by one.  D303, the

 5     issue was provenance.  I do understand that the provenance info has been

 6     provided.  Ms. Marcus.

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  We withdraw our objection to D303 and D307.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  D303 is admitted into evidence.  D307 is

 9     admitted into evidence as well.

10             Now, for D304, our latest information is that no provenance info

11     has been provided yet.

12             MS. MARCUS:  That's correct, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which means that we can't -- that the

14     Prosecution still objects admission.

15             MS. MARCUS:  Correct, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  We can't take this any further at this very moment.

17             D305 is still waiting for provenance info, and therefore the

18     Prosecution is still objecting.  At the same time, I do understand that

19     apart from admission, that there is a corrected English translation for

20     this document uploaded.  Is that true, Mr. Jordash?

21             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, it is.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then could you give us the number under which the

23     corrected English translation is uploaded.

24             MR. JORDASH:  It's already attached in e-court, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  It's already attached in e-court.  Madam Registrar,

Page 18713

 1     therefore the corrected English translation then replaces the original

 2     English translation but the document still remains MFI'd.

 3             D306, no further information as to provenance.  Therefore,

 4     unresolved.  Then the same would be true for D308, for D309, and for

 5     D310, and D311.

 6             I hear of no comments.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I -- this means that the fate of D301 is still

 9     awaiting a solution of most of the underlying documents.

10             I move to D319, a video showing Milan Babic and Milorad Pupovac.

11     The issue was that no CD was ever given for -- to the Registry.

12     Therefore, the video, although being shown, apparently is not in the

13     system.

14             Now, I do understand that this video was re-tendered on the

15     15th of December, 2011, with Witness DFS-014 and that the OTP then

16     objected to admission due to the heavy editing of this video.  But

17     whatever the objections are, the first very technical matter is whether

18     the material is available in the system.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  It was provided to the

20     Registry.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So that has been resolved.

22             Now, as far as the objections are concerned, do they still stand,

23     and what is the position of the Simatovic Defence?

24             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, from the Prosecution perspective our

25     view is that we've made all our submissions on the record and that the

Page 18714

 1     decision is in the Chamber's hands.  We do maintain our objection for the

 2     reasons that we've already set out.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac.

 4             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we remain in the same

 5     position which is already on the record, and we agree with our learned

 6     friend that the decision is upon us.

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  The decision is to

 8     be yours.

 9                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  When I earlier said that the technical problem had

11     been resolved, this may be true for providing the electronic version of

12     the video, but I do understand that an English translation and perhaps

13     also a surrogate sheet are still not in the system.  So for us to decide

14     the matter without having access to a translation of what is said is not

15     easy, Mr. Bakrac, or are we supposed not to listen to it and only to look

16     at it?

17             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you allow me, I see

18     that we are near the break, so I would inform you after the break.  Let

19     me just check, and we will enter int into the system, whatever we can do

20     on our part.  We will resolve the technical problem, but here my

21     colleague is telling me that we have already done that and that it has

22     been uploaded, everything.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Include an English translation?

24             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, including the English

25     translation, Your Honours.

Page 18715

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, are you able to confirm that an

 2     English translation is attached to this video.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, I cannot see it in e-court.  I need

 4     reference to the number -- under which number it was recorded.

 5             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] 872.1, 2, and 3.  2D872.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, can you confirm that the English

 7     translation was uploaded?

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, I'm not completely certain.  There

 9     are several English translations under number 1, 2, and 3.  Which one is

10     to be attached to the document?

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps that is a matter to be resolved during the

12     break, because the Chamber would be hesitant to pick and choose an

13     English translation out of a multiple-choice situation.

14             I suggest that we take a break, and that we resume at 10 minutes

15     to 1.00.  I don't know whether we'll be able to resolve anything in this

16     morning's session.  If not, we'll have to consider to continue this

17     afternoon for hopefully not more than a half or three-quarters of a

18     session to get through the whole of the list.

19             We resume at ten minutes to 1.00.

20                           --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 1.02 p.m.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I resume where we left before the break.  That was

23     about the English translations to D319, if I'm not mistaken.  Has the

24     matter as whether English translations have been uploaded and how many

25     has there been resolved?

Page 18716

 1             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the outcome is not

 2     optimistic for the time being.  There is a technical problem; namely, we

 3     have uploaded the English translations but under 1D number we have three

 4     video-clips and three translations.  So we have to have another look to

 5     see whether they have been submitted to the Registry separately, so I

 6     would ask for this issue to be technically resolved at the first

 7     following session, or that is to say, by the next time we have a hearing

 8     the problem will be technically resolved.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's the technical aspects and then of

10     course the heavy editing remains, but that is then for after we have seen

11     translations.

12             I move on to D330.  Provenance.  Any update in relation to D330

13     where the Stanisic Defence was to provide provenance info?

14             MR. JORDASH:  We've made the request and are waiting for the

15     national council.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which means that it will not bring us any

17     further at this moment.

18             D357.  There provenance was an issue as well.  Now, I do

19     understand that the Stanisic Defence has been informed that the national

20     council has no copy of the document involved?

21             MR. JORDASH:  That's right, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, there also was a 54 bis issue which is

23     usually related to sensitive documents.  I was asking myself to what

24     extent -- is it just the order to a state or is there any sensitivity

25     issue related there, because if you don't have a copy of the document, it

Page 18717

 1     may be difficult to raise any sensitivity or security issues.

 2             MR. JORDASH:  We have a copy of the document.  We attempted to --

 3     sorry, I'm not clear what Your Honour's asking me.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, 54 bis is an order which often -- order to a

 5     state which often includes matters of state security concerns, et cetera.

 6     Now, does this play a role, or is it mainly that you asked for -- that

 7     you just want a copy and that no concern about state security has been

 8     raised in this context?

 9             MR. JORDASH:  I don't think we've had any issue raised about

10     state security.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  It's about redaction.  Well, of course, redactions

12     are often related to state security, but in seeking an unredacted copy,

13     whereas the redaction usually is linked to a state security issue, that

14     the answer was, We don't have the original document.  Now, is that

15     document redacted in a similar way as many other documents --

16             MR. JORDASH:  No.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  -- because then it's different.

18             MR. JORDASH:  I don't think there's any -- well, there must be a

19     redaction, but I -- I -- there's a small redaction in the top left-hand

20     corner.  It looks like a name or something like that.  It's -- it's one

21     inch long, that's it.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, okay.  Then we can't take it any further at

23     this moment, and it may finally appear on the joint submission on -- on

24     redacted documents.

25             I move on to D360.  I do understand that the information about

Page 18718

 1     provenance has been provided and that meanwhile an unredacted version is

 2     provided as well.

 3             Translation, a corresponding translation already being -- been

 4     uploaded?

 5             MR. JORDASH:  We haven't as yet translated the document.  So

 6     we're in the same position as the earlier one.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Same position.

 8             Is the Prosecution already in a position to tell us whether on

 9     the basis of what is now known that it would still object or whether it

10     would not object any further?

11             MS. MARCUS:  We withdraw our objection, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Objections are withdrawn.  So the one and only

13     remaining issue for D360 is to have an unredacted copy and a

14     corresponding translation in the e-court system.

15             D361 seems to be similar, that is, provenance clear now,

16     redaction -- unredacted copy available.  As far as objection is

17     concerned, Ms. Marcus?

18             MS. MARCUS:  Same position, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Same position.  Which means that for D361, the only

20     remaining problem is an unredacted version uploaded with a corresponding

21     translation.

22             D362.  Provenance inform.  Has it been provided meanwhile?

23             MR. JORDASH:  Still pending with the national council.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Still pending.  So we can't take it any further at

25     this very moment.

Page 18719

 1             D364.  The -- I do understand that the Prosecution has no further

 2     objections against admission.  The Chamber raised an issue that the

 3     temporal and geographic scope of the instruction was unclear.

 4             Any further observations to be made.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, unfortunately we have not been able to

 6     gather any additional information about the origin of the document.  It

 7     is in our collection but the information entered there is -- it simply

 8     says it's unknown.  So we don't know where it came from.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Does that mean that you do not object, although the

10     source is unknown or comes from your own system?

11             MS. MARCUS:  We don't object because of how the document looks on

12     its face, not because it came from our system, but we don't object

13     because of the document itself.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then the observations I made in respect to

15     this document concern weight rather than admissibility.  In the absence

16     of any further objections, D364 is admitted into evidence.

17             D365.  Same report as D362, Mr. Jordash, waiting for --

18             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We should try to speed that up in one way or

20     another.

21             D366, same report, Mr. Jordash?

22             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  It will not take us any further.

24             D372 is a chart, and the fate of this chart seems to depend on

25     D375 where we do understand that for D375 an unredacted copy has now been

Page 18720

 1     provided and that the -- what's the position of the OTP?

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, we have no further objections either

 3     to D375 or to D372 as a consequence of the former.  Obviously there's

 4     still the translation of the redaction -- redacted document issue that's

 5     pending, but in our view D372 can be admitted if the Chamber would like

 6     to do so.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  D372 is admitted into evidence.

 8             D375.  The only remaining issue is that the unredacted copy, once

 9     uploaded, is accompanied by a corresponding translation.  Nothing else is

10     in the way of admitting it.  The description, by the way, in D375, it

11     starts "Official Gazette Serbia."  That may need some reconsideration

12     whether these first three words are accurate or not.

13             I move on to D382.  Any update?  It is a document which is

14     tendered by the Simatovic Defence, although it originates from the

15     Stanisic Defence.

16             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are waiting to

17     receive the original from the Croatian government.  As soon as we have

18     it, we will upload it.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You know, Mr. -- Mr. Bakrac that if you need

20     any support by the Chamber in order to achieve better results with

21     whatever government, don't hesitate to ask us.

22             I move to D388, which is a chart, and its fate may depend on

23     D394, which is one of the underlying documents.  Provenance info still

24     from the national council.  Is it there, Mr. Jordash, or not?

25             MR. JORDASH:  Not yet.

Page 18721

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Not yet, which means that D388 and D394 remain on

 2     our MFI list.

 3             Then I have a chart and underlying documents in the range of D424

 4     up to D443, but D424 is the chart, but the underlying documents may

 5     determine the fate of this chart, the underlying documents being D425 up

 6     to and including D445.

 7             Let's deal with the individual underlying documents.  The first

 8     on this chart is D425.  Provenance problems apparently were raised.  Any

 9     solution for that?

10             Mr. Jordash.

11             MR. JORDASH:  Could I just have a moment, please.  The -- the

12     objections are there -- sorry, our position is outlined at D424.

13     Those -- that position details a number of submissions which were part of

14     a -- submissions on the 21st of March, page 52 of the chart.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I am ...

16                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And now I'm supposed to look at filings and

18     submissions of yesterday and et cetera.  I'm not easily confused, and I'm

19     not saying that I am yet but coming close to it.

20             425, we understand that the provenance issue has not been

21     resolved because you have no further information.

22             MR. JORDASH:  That's right.  We're waiting for the national

23     council.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So that is not resolved.

25             D427, we do understand that the Prosecution has no further

Page 18722

 1     objections in relation to provenance but that relevance remains an issue

 2     and also that it was not on the 65 ter list of the Defence.

 3             Ms. Marcus, is that it?

 4             MS. MARCUS:  That's correct, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, whether it was or not on the 65 ter list, of

 6     course you link that to relevance.  What's the specific concern about the

 7     relevance?  It's about comments or ...

 8             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I would have to check to be able to

 9     answer this further in court.  I know it was contained in the response we

10     filed on Friday, the 23rd of March.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I suggest the following:  That in order not to

12     lose too much time that we would, for the time being, suspend our

13     discussions on D424 and underlying documents and that we move on and see

14     whether perhaps this afternoon we are more successful in dealing with

15     that one.

16             The next one then on my list would be D449, which is a request to

17     be admitted in the service.  The objection against admission is this is

18     one out of 375 files and that the 375 files would give the context and

19     the parties would try to find a balanced solution for that.

20             Now, Ms. Marcus, is it still the Prosecution's position that it

21     should be all that 375 to be admitted, or is there any agreement about

22     finding a fair balance between only one or 375 requests to be admitted?

23             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I believe that this D449 is one

24     document that was contained in the whole of that personnel file tendered

25     by the Stanisic Defence in the bar table motion.  So then we withdraw our

Page 18723

 1     objection if the whole file is in, and I know that we did not object to

 2     the tendering of the entire file in the context of the bar table motion.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, can you confirm that -- I have -- let

 4     me read what I have on my note.  That there was an objection to admission

 5     in isolation.  It's one of 375 files which give context.  Does that mean

 6     that all the remaining files are requests to be admitted into service by

 7     other persons, or I can't imagine that one person requests to be admitted

 8     375 times.  Could I --

 9             MR. JORDASH:  I think the 375 files refers to the totality of all

10     the personnel files obtained by the Prosecution.  So to that extent, that

11     number and that issue doesn't impact on this issue of whether one

12     document from one file should be admitted or the whole file consisting of

13     five pages.  But in relation to the 375 files, what's happened so far is

14     that the Prosecution on -- during the case, the Prosecution and the

15     parties have applied to admit various portions or various personnel files

16     and the Stanisic Defence has responded to that in the second bar table

17     and selected a number of additional files which we thought supported our

18     position, which I won't go into now.  I don't think it's strictly

19     relevant.  I haven't as yet read what the Prosecution's response is to

20     that, but I think we are nearing a final agreement as to what should be

21     in evidence.

22             In relation to this point, we -- we maintain our position that

23     one page was used from this personnel file with this particular witness

24     to demonstrate format.  The Prosecution now seek, as I understand it, to

25     add five -- sorry, four other pages not for format reasons but for other

Page 18724

 1     reasons which would seem to be an odd approach to move from former to

 2     content with an argument that the content was necessary to contextualise

 3     the former point, which is, as I understand it, not is -- is somewhat

 4     contradictory.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, the entire personnel file for this

 7     individual was tendered by the Stanisic Defence as 65 ter 1D5312.  So

 8     D449 is one page of 65 ter 1D5312.  I actually think we're arguing over

 9     nothing.  We do not oppose the admission of the entire file as tendered

10     by the Stanisic Defence in their bar table motion - by the way, referring

11     to relevance much beyond just formatting - and so therefore it's in the

12     Chamber's hands.  If the Chamber wishes to vacate D449 insofar as it is

13     an excerpt of the whole file, which is 65 ter 1D5312, we have no problem

14     with that.  If for the sake of cross-referencing, as we've done

15     otherwise, the Chamber would like to admit D449 as an excerpt of that

16     larger file.  We have no problem with that.  The only caveat I would put

17     on the record is that if the excerpt is admitted and if the Chamber does

18     not admit, in spite of both parties agreeing on admission -- if the

19     Chamber decides not to admit 65 ter 1D5312, then we would probably file

20     for that to be admitted in a rebuttal bar table motion.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

22             MR. JORDASH:  Well, if it's in a bar table motion, then we

23     obviously don't object.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then let's be very practical.  Could it be

25     verified that the whole of the file in relation to this person has been

Page 18725

 1     uploaded as 65 ter 1D5312?

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, it has.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I'd suggest the following solution:  That

 4     the document uploaded, D449, which is an excerpt, will now be replaced by

 5     65 ter 1D5312, that we decide on admission now.  If it's part of your bar

 6     table submission, Mr. Jordash, you would agree.  Prosecution has --

 7     Prosecution has just expressed as its view that it would not oppose the

 8     whole of the file of which D449 is now an excerpt to be uploaded and that

 9     the problem would be resolved by that.

10             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  I fully agree.  I just want to

11     mention since we're -- appear to be disposing of the issue right now that

12     we added a comment in our response to the bar table motion in respect of

13     a last page of the file but that was just a mistake.  We see that the

14     document that's uploaded as 65 ter 1D5312 is properly and appropriately

15     the whole file.  I just wanted to make sure --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

17             MS. MARCUS:  -- that we put that piece on the record.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  That's now on the record.  That document is now

19     replacing what was earlier found under D449.  And D449, new version, is

20     admitted into evidence.

21             I move on to a chart, D45 -- let me just have a look.

22             I now move on to documents related to D451 -- no.  Let me

23     just ...

24             I'll take them one by one.  D452 is a chart, the fate of which

25     depends on the underlying documents -- the underlying documents found in

Page 18726

 1     a different range.  D541 to D558.  There were three documents remaining

 2     there which were objected to, which is D552, D553, and D557.  Objections

 3     were based on redactions.  Now, I do understand that unredacted versions

 4     of D552, D553, and D557 have been provided.

 5             In this situation, Ms. Marcus, are there any further objections

 6     to D552, D553, and D557?

 7             MS. MARCUS:  No further objections, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Which means that all of the documents underlying the

 9     chart found in D452 have now been resolved, and therefore D452 seems to

10     be ready for admission as well.

11             MS. MARCUS:  The only exception I would add, Your Honour, is for

12     D443, where we maintain our objection to reliability.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  D443 is not on my list of underlying documents for

14     D452, because the range of underlying documents is D541 through D558.

15                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  We come to 443 soon, Ms. Marcus, but as matters

17     stand now --

18             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, other than that, Your Honour, I think all the

19     other underlying documents can be admitted.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which also means that nothing opposes the

21     admission of D452.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Well, there is the one under -- the one underlying

23     documents, D443, Your Honour.  But I'm happy withdraw the objection to

24     the chart and we can deal with the underlying document separately.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't have that one on my list which appears in a

Page 18727

 1     memo sent on the 29th of November by our court officer, which gives

 2     pre-assigned exhibit numbers pursuant to the Trial Chamber's oral

 3     decision dated the 28th of November.  There I do not find the number you

 4     just mentioned, and I understand that this is the range of underlying

 5     documents covered by D452.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I actually think I made a mistake.  I

 7     think I had the wrong note here.  It seems that D443 is part of the other

 8     chart for the other witness that Your Honours has said we will talk about

 9     afterwards.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             MS. MARCUS:  That's for D424.  So I apologise.  There's nothing

12     blocking admission right now.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I usually do express myself and the parties

14     how exceptional mistakes are, Ms. Marcus, but the same thought, as with

15     our court officer, came to my mind.

16             Let me then -- which means that D541 through D558 are admitted

17     into evidence with three small exceptions; that is, D552 still needs a

18     corresponding translation to the unredacted version.  The same is true

19     for D553 and D557.  So those three still have to be finalised.  All the

20     others are admitted into evidence definitely.  It also means that D452

21     and the expectation that such a corresponding translation will appear

22     sooner or later is admitted into evidence as well.

23             I now move to D454, a video.  The first issue is whether there's

24     any information about the source, source of the video.  Has this been

25     clarified, Mr. Bakrac?

Page 18728

 1             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes.  To speed things

 2     along, I would like to say that we have corresponded with the OTP, and I

 3     can see that they have given up on their objection, at least judging by

 4     their list.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  That's correct, Your Honour.  We would just request

 7     that there be some way in the record to reference what portion -- so

 8     there's no time code.  There's no indication of -- of which portion it

 9     was.  We dropped our objection because it's apparently open-source

10     material and so we -- that's the reason that we dropped our objection.

11     So we don't object to the portion that was played in court being

12     tendered.  Perhaps there is some way to indicate what exactly it is.  The

13     record is difficult to follow in terms of what -- what it's a piece of,

14     et cetera, and which piece.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Bakrac, could you help us out.

16             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  This is from

17     39:46, to 42:06 seconds.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that the part that was played?

19             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  This was the part

20     that was played in the courtroom.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And a broader version has been provided to the

22     Registry or was it limited to the portion played?

23             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, only what was played in

24     the courtroom.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, have you received a video which you

Page 18729

 1     managed to get into the system?

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, yes.  The video was received,

 3     although the surrogate sheet in e-court is still missing.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Then D454 will be admitted once the surrogate sheet

 5     has been uploaded into e-court.  Perhaps that could be done --

 6             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I move on to D455, personnel file of Mr. Simatovic.

 8     I do understand that it -- that everything is now uploaded, including

 9     translation, Mr. Bakrac.

10             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections from the Prosecution or the

12     Stanisic Defence?

13             MS. MARCUS:  No, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  D455 is admitted into evidence.

15             I now come to D456, which is related to what we earlier

16     discussed; that is, P2995.  The problem there was that -- let me have a

17     look.  That there was no unredacted version.

18             Is there an unredacted version meanwhile?

19             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, this document is part of that issue

20     that we spoke about before, the one very large remaining RFA response

21     that we are still waiting for.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I do understand, however, that the translation

23     issue which was also pending has been resolved.  Is that ...

24             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Which means that the English translation, 2D882, is

Page 18730

 1     now attached whereas the matter remains further to be resolved.

 2             I move to D458.  Apparently a translation was missing.  The OTP

 3     had an English translation.  The Simatovic Defence wanted to verify the

 4     translation.

 5             Any further comments, Mr. Bakrac?

 6             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the translation is

 7     2D886.  That's how it has been uploaded, under that number.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, is a translation uploaded under

 9     that number?

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour, it is.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  D458 is admitted into evidence under seal.

12             It's a quarter to 2.00.  Madam Registrar, could you inform us, we

13     hope to move on this afternoon so as to finish the -- our discussion of

14     the MFI list.  At what time could we restart this afternoon,

15     Madam Registrar?

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, we can restart after regular break.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Quarter past 2.00.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honours.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I suggest to the parties that we take ample time for

21     lunch and that we start at 2.30.  We'll take a break and we'll resume at

22     2.30.

23                           --- Recess taken at 1.49 p.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 2.33 p.m.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume with the MFI list.  We have dealt with

Page 18731

 1     D458.  We now move to D459.  There was a translation missing.  Has it

 2     been meanwhile uploaded, Mr. Bakrac?

 3             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, it was uploaded.  I apologise

 4     for a moment.  My mistake.  No.  We are still waiting for the

 5     translation, and the moment we receive it, it will be uploaded,

 6     Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  No decision there on D459, but we couldn't

 8     come to any decisions anyhow at this moment unless I have explained why

 9     only two Judges are sitting here.

10             Judge Picard is for urgent personal reasons unable to continue

11     sitting for a short period of time.  That would be no longer than this

12     afternoon.  And the -- Judge Gwaunza and myself have determined that it

13     would be in the interests of justice to continue to hear this case, and

14     that's the reason why we are sitting at this moment under Rule 15 bis.

15             Ms. Marcus, you were on your feet.

16             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Yes.  I've invited

17     Mr. Weber to come to the courtroom just to deal with D424 MFI and the

18     underlying exhibits to that if -- if Your Honour -- just in terms of

19     juggling team obligations if Your Honour would be willing to deal with

20     that, then Mr. Weber could perhaps be excused after he deals with -- with

21     those matters.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll move back to 424.  Mr. Weber, 424 is a chart,

23     and the fate of the chart most likely depends on the fate of the

24     underlying documents.  I would like to go through them one by one.  The

25     first one still outstanding, D425.  It -- from what I understand is that

Page 18732

 1     the provenance concerns are still remaining.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Thank you for

 3     accommodating our request.

 4             That is correct.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Which means that -- Mr. Jordash, is there anything

 6     you could add as far as the provenance is concerned?

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Nothing that hasn't been said in the submissions

 8     and the chart.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The chart.  Let me just look at the

10     consolidated ...

11             MR. JORDASH:  I can summarise the position, Your Honour, is that

12     it's the problem -- or the problem as the Prosecution see it a documents

13     supplied by Mr. Stanisic, but nonetheless we had that document before the

14     witness.  The witness commented on it, and those comments with the

15     explanation that they came from Mr. Stanisic we say amply assist in

16     crossing the admissibility threshold.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You'd say -- I think, as a matter of fact, it

18     would appear on the list of documents coming from Mr. Stanisic, so that

19     the Chamber finally will decide on the matter.

20             I have, meanwhile, the consolidated --

21             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, if I could just make one note for the

22     reference with respect to that later consideration.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please.

24             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution would note that with respect to the

25     witness that provided these comments, he was a former employee of the

Page 18733

 1     State Security Service, and he did indicate that he'd never seen the

 2     document before.  The Prosecution's position was that this witness who

 3     was in a position to authenticate such things was unable to and that we

 4     just provided that information for further consideration, and we do

 5     maintain our objections as to the reliability and authenticity of the

 6     document.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  As a matter of fact, to some extent this was

 8     already clear on the record where the OTP took the position that the

 9     witness only thought that the document was authentic.

10             It's not my intention to fully litigate now again all those

11     matters.  If there's anything you'd like to add at this moment,

12     Mr. Jordash, you may do so.

13             MR. JORDASH:  If a witness thinks a document is authentic and is

14     in the position of being able to recognise format and other identifying

15     features that, in our submission, amply crosses the threshold.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Okay.  Mr. Weber, D427, it seems that there's

17     no further objection as far as provenance is concerned, but relevance and

18     the document not being on the 65 ter list appear to remain.

19             MR. WEBER:  That's correct, Your Honour, and I do see that the

20     Chamber did address this one briefly earlier.  To further the Chamber's

21     earlier query with respect to our maintaining our relevance objection,

22     the Prosecution would note that the document itself describes an event

23     which occurred on the 10th of June, 1991.  The Prosecution does agree

24     that the witness's comments do indicate would provide some minimal

25     relevance in relation to this event, so we ask that our relevance

Page 18734

 1     objection, it goes in tandem with the fact that we were not provided with

 2     notice of this event, the significance of this event, what this

 3     event relies -- what the Defence relies upon this event for, so we do

 4     maintain both the notice objection and also the relevance objection, not

 5     appreciating how the Defence may rely upon this event.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll consider the matter, and we'll decide on it.

 7     We're not going to take it any further at this very moment.

 8             430.  It seems that the only remaining issue is that it was not

 9     on the 65 ter list.

10             MR. WEBER:  Correct.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Then may I take it that the Defence would like to

12     make an application to have it added to the 65 ter list and then being

13     admitted?

14             MR. WEBER:  Well, in tandem with that is a notice objection based

15     on its substance and what they're relying on it for.  So the Prosecution

16     with respect to nine documents that were not on the Defence's 65 ter list

17     we opposed, and this is one of them.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Notice objection being that you were unaware -- now

19     this is already a while ago that have you been able to look at the

20     substance at this moment, and does that cause you any specific concerns

21     apart from the general observation that if it's not on the 65 ter list

22     that you would know about it before?  I mean, I'd like to focus on

23     substance rather than formalities.

24             MR. WEBER:  Of course.  The Prosecution in terms its notice

25     objection views the potential prejudice as occurring between when the

Page 18735

 1     document was disclosed and when the witness testified, which was a very

 2     close window.  We have been able to further review these documents and

 3     the Chamber was very kind to extend a further deadline with respect to

 4     the Prosecution notifying as to whether or not we recall the witness as a

 5     potential solution maybe for these nine documents.  The Prosecution would

 6     be willing to either notify the Chamber along with whether or not we're

 7     recalling the witness, whether or not we maintain our notice objection to

 8     it with the understanding that if we do decide not to call the witness

 9     that we would be waiving our objection to the nine documents.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  That's then -- Mr. Jordash.

11             MR. JORDASH:  May I just add -- add this, that on the

12     13th of October, 2011, in relation to Corbic, the Prosecution did

13     indicate that they didn't object to D430 and 427 just for your -- sorry,

14     432.  So that's 430, 432.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

16             MR. WEBER:  I see that this is addressed in the chart, this

17     specific e-mail correspondence.  That would be our position.  I can read

18     it if Your Honour would like.  It says --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there an objection remaining then?

20             MR. WEBER:  Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then, Mr. Jordash, I'm a bit confused.  You

22     said there's no further objection, whereas the Prosecution tells us that

23     the e-mail indicates that there was further objection.

24             MR. JORDASH:  Well, the e-mail that they sent us on the 13th of

25     October in relation to Corbic was that D430 and 432 were not objected to,

Page 18736

 1     and now in relation to Novakovic apparently there is an objection to

 2     those same two documents.  That's the point I'm noting -- notifying the

 3     Court of.  And D437, I'm told as well, falls into that category.  And the

 4     only other thing I would add is that we still have not had any

 5     identification of prejudice.  We've had an assertion of late notice which

 6     is accepted.  We have not had any identification of notice of what the

 7     prejudice is.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 9             MR. WEBER:  To reconcile first the discrepancy over the e-mail, I

10     see our notes before us indicate that the 13 October 2011 e-mail was

11     intended to withdraw the Prosecution's objection as to authenticity,

12     still remaining the notice objection.  So hopefully that reconciles that

13     matter.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry to interrupt, but that's not what the e-mail

15     says.  It says the Prosecution has no objection to the admission of --

16     and then it says the Prosecution does not object to the following

17     underlying documents and then has a list.

18             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, if that was our mistake, at this time we

19     do maintain -- we do not have any objection to authenticity.  We do

20     maintain an objection as to notice.  At this time unless the Chamber

21     really would like me to repeat a lot of lengthy submissions that were

22     made during the course of the testimony as to the prejudice that occurred

23     in relation to the late notice of documents and topics that were not

24     discussed --

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 18737

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll not decide on the issue at this very moment.

 2             The -- at the same time, I must express that sending an e-mail

 3     that you do not object to admission and then to say, Well, this was a

 4     mistake, is not the kind of accurate approach of serious matters which

 5     the Chamber expects the parties even to adhere to in their mutual

 6     communication.

 7             431.  No remaining objection is what my notes tell me.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Correct.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  D431 is admitted into evidence.

10             D432.  Only remaining is that it was not on the 65 ter list.

11             MR. WEBER:  Correct.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Any specific prejudice which you could explain to us

13     in five words?  Well, make it ten.  Prejudice which still exists.

14             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, again this was a document that was

15     provided immediately before the testimony of the witnesses discussing

16     events in July of 1991.  I've articulated with respect to analogous

17     situation.  The Prosecution is still not -- not sure and not aware of

18     what the relevance to the Defence case is with respect to this and we

19     were not provide an opportunity at that time to investigate as part of

20     the witness's notices -- notice what these events really related to and

21     what the witness's knowledge may have been between the disclosure of the

22     documents and when the witness testified.  That would be a short

23     explanation.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It does not directly address prejudice which

25     still exists, but --

Page 18738

 1             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution was not afforded the

 2     opportunity to address that with the witness based on the late

 3     disclosure.  Again, if we decide not to call the witness, we would be

 4     withdrawing our objection or seeking to address these matters further.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then for 435, I have a similar report.  I

 6     take it that that's the same.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  436 idem.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  437 idem.

11             MR. WEBER:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  438, my notes tell me that there are no further

13     objections.

14             MR. WEBER:  Correct.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  438 is admitted into evidence.  I'm just wondering

16     whether there's any need to have it under seal or not.  If not --

17     Mr. Jordash, I'm also addressing you, because it's tendered by the

18     Stanisic Defence.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Could we just have ten minutes to check that,

20     please.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Madam Registrar, we should provisionally keep

22     it under seal until we have heard from Mr. Jordash.

23             D440, notice again 65 ter, Mr. Weber, the same report?

24             MR. WEBER:  Yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  D443, the same report as well?

Page 18739

 1             MR. WEBER:  Correct.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  That's it for this list.  Mr. Weber, then if you

 3     would like to leave, of course you are free to do so.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Then --

 6             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, excuse me.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             MR. WEBER:  There is -- my partner reminded me that there is

 9     still the issue of D424, which is the comments chart.  The Prosecution --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  424 is the --

11             MR. WEBER:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  As I said before, is dependent on the fate of the

13     underlying documents and therefore remains MFI'd until other matters have

14     been resolved.

15             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, can I request one brief moment to

18     confer before we move on.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please do so.  Meanwhile, I'll try to find

20     where we were.

21                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

22             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, if the Prosecution could just please

23     place on the record that it still maintains its objections to the

24     comments themselves and --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that anything new, Mr. Weber or --

Page 18740

 1             MR. WEBER:  No, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Then if there's no need to repeat that.  We'll first

 3     look into the underlying documents and then, of course, the next step

 4     would be whether the comment given on them, whether that would be an

 5     obstacle to admission.  It's on the record.

 6             I think we -- the last one we dealt with is 459, no further

 7     decision taken.  Then we move on to D461.  Translation was missing, has

 8     been uploaded meanwhile, Mr. Bakrac.

 9             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.  2D897.

10     That's the number that it has been uploaded under.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then D461 is admitted into evidence because

12     there were no further objections by the Prosecution or the

13     Stanisic Defence.

14             D462.  The translation that was missing seems to have been

15     uploaded now, but the redaction is still an issue, Mr. Bakrac.  Is that

16     correctly understood?

17             MS. MARCUS:  Perhaps I could assist, Your Honour.  This is

18     another one of those redacted files that we're waiting for.  So it's --

19     it's -- we'll inform the Chamber as soon as we receive it.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Therefore no decision on D462 at this moment.

21     But is it true that the translation issue is -- has disappeared?

22             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  The translation

23     has been uploaded as 2D895.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And it is the Prosecution who is seeking the

25     unredacted version, Ms. Marcus.  And isn't it true that the same applies

Page 18741

 1     to D463?

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And there the translation issue, has that been

 4     resolved, Mr. Bakrac?

 5             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  It has been

 6     uploaded as 2D896.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So that problem is resolved, but the

 8     redactions are still outstanding.

 9             D464, same report as far as the Chamber is aware of.

10             MS. MARCUS:  Correct, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  So translation being there but the redaction issue

12     remaining.  And the same would be true for D465, isn't it?

13             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for D464, the

14     translation has been uploaded as 2D167.  When it comes to D465, the

15     translation is still pending.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  So for D465, both the translation and the redaction

17     issue have not yet been resolved.

18             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I move on to D475.  There's an objection due to an

20     incomplete text and hand markings.

21             Mr. Jordash, I think the Chamber is still waiting for a response

22     to that objection.  It's a "Times" Article about hostages.

23             MR. JORDASH:  We are in the process still of trying to obtain the

24     full document.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Therefore, no progress made yet.

Page 18742

 1             Then we move on to the next one, which are the associated

 2     exhibits related to -- and they're under seal, associated to a witness

 3     statement.  First D505 to 508.  The Chamber understand that for D505,

 4     D506 and D507, information about the origin has been provided.  First, is

 5     that correct?  Second, does that cause any objections to be not further

 6     sustained?

 7             MS. MARCUS:  We have no further objections, Your Honour, to D505.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  D505 is -- is admitted into evidence under seal.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  I think it can be public, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Can be public.  Yes.  NATO Press Service.  It seems

11     that -- D505 is admitted into evidence.  D506 -- as a public document.

12             D506, Ms. Marcus.

13             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  No objections to either D506 or D507,

14     Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  D506 is admitted into evidence.  Mr. Jordash, I take

16     it there is no reason to have it under seal.

17             MR. JORDASH:  No, there is no reason, and the same for D507.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then D507, as I said already, is admitted into

19     evidence and so is D60 -- no, I said -- I made a mistake.

20             As I earlier said, D506 is admitted into evidence, and so is

21     D507, both as public exhibits.

22             D508, there seems to have been no further information as far as

23     provenance or origin is concerned.  Ms. Marcus, is that true?

24             MS. MARCUS:  That's correct, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Your objection then stands?

Page 18743

 1             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, any chance that we receive any further

 3     information as to this handwritten list of names and room numbers?

 4             MR. JORDASH:  I'm still waiting for the national council --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  -- to come back to us.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we leave it for the time being as it is.

 8             I now move to D519, which was a video of two persons chained to a

 9     bridge.  I do understand that the parties have reached an agreement as to

10     what portion should be in that video so as to satisfy both parties and

11     that therefore nothing opposes admission.  Is there a finally agreed

12     version with the registrar?

13             MR. JORDASH:  Not yet, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Not yet.

15             MR. JORDASH:  We can have it there by tomorrow, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So D519, nothing further opposes admission

17     apart from that it's not yet in the hands of the Registry.

18             I move on to associated documents to witness -- D535, up to and

19     including D54.  Let's start with the first one.  D535.  I do understand

20     that there's no further information yet as to provenance or origin.

21             MR. JORDASH:  That's right, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And you're waiting for a response, Mr. Jordash?

23             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Which means that we'll not decide on matter.

25             D536.  I do understand that the origin is the UN web site.

Page 18744

 1             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, we have no objection to D536, D537,

 2     D538, D539, D540, D541, D542, D543, D544 --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  If you could just -- I have to change from list.

 4     You said D541 is okay, and D542, -43, 544.

 5                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, D541 is among a series I think we dealt

 7     with when we were dealing with D452.  On that list there are only three

 8     which were objected on the basis of redactions.  I think they were all

 9     admitted into evidence with the exception of the three where the

10     unredacted version was still in need of a corresponding translation, and

11     I'll take you to where this was dealt with.

12             Ms. Marcus, you'll find it on page 71, line 2, of the transcript

13     where I said D541 through D558 are admitted into evidence with three

14     small exceptions, that is, for D552, D553, and D557, where corresponding

15     translations to the unredacted versions are still to be uploaded.  So I

16     think we dealt with the documents you drew my attention to.  Would you

17     agree?

18             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I will confess to a bit of confusion.

19     I think that I referred to documents D540, 541, 542, 543, rather than

20     552, but maybe I made a mistake, Your Honour.  Perhaps the best is to go

21     one by one and I'll respond.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  No, it's the series which is found in an internal

23     memo sent by the court officer on the 29th of November.  The range is

24     from -- and I'm talking about the associated exhibits to the chart, the

25     range is from D541 up to and including D558, and we dealt with all of

Page 18745

 1     those.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Okay, Your Honour, yes.  I do apologise.  Perhaps

 3     then as Your Honour calls up the documents I can respond, because

 4     obviously I have some duplications in my chart.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, what we -- let's go back to where we

 6     were, which is that you told us that there were no objections further to

 7     D536 through D540.

 8             MS. MARCUS:  Correct, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And therefore D536 through D540 are admitted into

10     evidence.  Since not -- okay.  Then we have dealt with D541 through D558.

11     We did that, because it was triggered by D452.

12             I see a nodding yes.

13             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  By the way, let me express clearly that no one

15     is blamed for being confused now and then with this kind of

16     administrative matters.  I protect myself against any confusion I will

17     show or have already shown.

18             We move on to D560.  Let me have a look.  There were four

19     categories of -- no.  One second.  Let me have a look.  First of all, I

20     do understand that for the chart found in D560, that an agreement has

21     been reached on redactions in which the -- redactions in related --

22     related to the objections raised by the Prosecution in view of knowledge

23     of the witness, personal information included in the chart, whether or

24     not the witness adds any relevant information.  All those objections seem

25     to have been resolved - is that correct? - which would require that a new

Page 18746

 1     version of D560 would have been uploaded.

 2             Mr. Bakrac.

 3             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, let me assist.  A new

 4     version has been uploaded, both the redacted proposal by the OTP in

 5     English as well as the redacted B/C/S version.  They have been uploaded

 6     as 2D910.1.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, the new version of D560 may replace

 8     the old version, the new version the redacted version.

 9             Now, that's the chart.  We then move to the underlying documents.

10     I received information that the Simatovic Defence has withdrawn D572.

11             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  We agree that

12     this document does not possess the necessary degree of relevancy.  We

13     agree that this document D572 should be admitted into evidence.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  It should not be admitted into evidence, I take it.

15             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct.  Should not be

16     admitted into evidence.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  May I -- may I then take it that it has been removed

18     from the chart so that the comments of the witness and in relation to

19     that document also have been removed?

20             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we are just checking.

21     If you can bear with me, please, for a moment.

22             Your Honour, it is in the table, and if -- with your leave, we

23     will redact that document as well, and then we will subsequently submit

24     a -- the redacted version if either you or Registry do not have a better

25     proposal.  We will submit a subsequent redacted version of the previous

Page 18747

 1     document which is a table, D560.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, because it doesn't make much sense to receive

 3     in evidence the comment of a witness on a document which is not in

 4     evidence.

 5             Then second, we do understand that D606 in this series is vacated

 6     because there's a duplicate of P3057.

 7             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, I think it would be wise to keep the comment of

 9     the witness, because it is comment on a document which, although under a

10     different number, is in evidence.  Therefore, D606 is vacated, but the --

11     one could even consider whether it would be better to redact the chart in

12     such a way as to refer to the document as P3057.

13             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] This is precisely what I was going

14     to propose.  As far as we are concerned, this is acceptable.  Since the

15     D572 is being vacated, then we can also replace the number.  Maybe we

16     could mark this document as a P document just as you proposed.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now the third category is the category where

18     no further objection seems to exist.  That is D581, D586, D599, D600, and

19     D607.

20             MS. MARCUS:  Correct, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  The documents I just referred to are admitted into

22     evidence, and let me just verify with the parties whether there's any

23     need to have them admitted under seal.

24             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes.  They should be

25     admitted under seal, especially now that they have been redacted.

Page 18748

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  They are admitted, all under seal.

 2             Now we have another series of documents where either the

 3     translation was in need of revision just on itself or whether the -- an

 4     unredacted version has now become available and, therefore, requires a

 5     corresponding translation with this new version, and therefore the --

 6     either the -- only the translation if there is no redaction issue, or

 7     both the original and the translation should be -- should replace the

 8     previous versions.  This is -- this applies to D561 up to and including

 9     D571, D573 through D580, D582 through D585, D587 through D598, D601

10     through D605.

11             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, you're right.  We

12     have uploaded them all in the system, and they have their corresponding

13     65 ter numbers followed by .2.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And have the translations already been uploaded

15     which correspond to the new version?

16             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes Your Honour, they have been.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  All to be admitted under seal, Mr. Bakrac?

18             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the entire list of documents I referred to

20     earlier which started with D561 and ended with D605 are, as it seems to

21     be ready, to be admitted into evidence, Ms. Marcus, unless you have

22     any --

23             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I just have one --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  -- objections.

25             MS. MARCUS:  -- additional point, a very brief point.  We

Page 18749

 1     completely agree with what the Chamber has said.  With respect to a few

 2     of these documents, in the original version there are quotation marks

 3     around code-names, whereas in the translation, those quotation marks are

 4     absent.  This is a matter that we raised in court at page 15594.  This

 5     issue pertains to the following exhibits:  That's D589, D590, D592, to

 6     D596, D598, D601, and D603.  Once that is corrected, then all other

 7     objections are --

 8             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this has been corrected

 9     already, and we have quotation marks around the code-names.

10             MS. MARCUS:  We accept the assertion of Mr. Bakrac and no further

11     objections.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore the documents which I refer to some 28 to

13     30 lines further above, starting with D561, ending with D605, to the

14     extent not excluded in my listing are admitted into evidence under seal.

15             And I move to D609, excerpt of a book authored by the witness.

16     No further objections as we understand, Ms. Marcus.

17             MS. MARCUS:  That's correct, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  D609 is admitted into evidence.

19             D612.  Translations were to be corrected.  Any further

20     objections, because I do understand that these corrected translations

21     have been uploaded; is that correct, Mr. Bakrac?

22             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is correct.

23     However, a translation is still pending for D612.  The others have been

24     uploaded and they have their corresponding 65 ter numbers followed by .2.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And you are now referring to D613, D614, D615,

Page 18750

 1     and D616, and D617, Mr. Bakrac?

 2             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  Let me correct

 3     you.  I don't think that we have D615.  So this doesn't apply to D651

 4     [as interpreted].  The list also implied documents D620 and D621.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me go one by one.  612 no final translation yet;

 6     therefore remains MFI'd.  D613 translation now corrected; therefore, 613

 7     is admitted into evidence.  D614 is the same report, also admitted into

 8     evidence.  D615, I understand no translation available yet, Mr. Bakrac?

 9             MS. MARCUS:  No, Your Honour.  I believe that D615 does not even

10     exist on the list.  The following document is D616.  That may be our

11     mistake.

12                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, I do understand that you're working from

14     a list which is slightly different from the list I'm working with.  D615,

15     which is on the MFI list, there was a -- it seems that this one is not

16     part of the agreement you reached with the [overlapping speakers].

17             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  D615 is a

18     separate document.  It doesn't belong to this group.  By mistake it was

19     MFI'd.  I don't think that there were any objections to its admission.

20     If I'm mistaken, my learned friend Ms. Marcus is going to correct me.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, the armoured trained crew of the Krajina

22     express, any objections?

23             MS. MARCUS:  No objection, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  D615 is admitted into evidence.

25             No need to have it under seal, Mr. Bakrac?

Page 18751

 1             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  And D16 and D -- no.  I made a mistake.  D616 and

 3     D617, after the translation has been corrected no further objections from

 4     the Prosecution?

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Correct, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  D616 and D617 are admitted into evidence.  No need

 7     to have them under seal, Mr. Bakrac?

 8             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  No, Your Honour.

 9     No need.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, I move to the next series, a series of

11     three documents --

12             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I apologise for interrupting you.

15     In my records, it says that D621 and D620 have also been MFI'd.  The two

16     documents have been translated and uploaded.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let me -- I wasn't there yet.  I was just

18     saying that I take you to the series, the next three, which is D619,

19     D620, and D621.  For all those three documents, it was established that

20     two B/C/S versions existed, and that the Simatovic Defence and the

21     registry would sort out which was the one to remain.

22             Mr. Bakrac.

23             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  Please bear with

24     me for a moment.  Let me check.  I believe that D620 and D621 have

25     received the new translations.  Let me just check whether that's also

Page 18752

 1     correct for D619.

 2             Your Honour, with your leave I would like to check this

 3     subsequently.  We're in no position at the moment to provide you with the

 4     correct information at this time.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, because uploading a new translation where there

 6     are two B/C/S originals which may not be exact the same but at least two

 7     B/C/S versions might not resolve the problem.  We wait for further

 8     reports on these three documents both in the relation to the B/C/S and

 9     the translation.

10             D641, a video-clip.  We understand that there are no further

11     objections by the OTP.  Video-clip showing Arkan giving orders.

12             MS. MARCUS:  One brief moment, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

15             MS. MARCUS:  No objections.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  December 641 is admitted into evidence.

17             D642, also a video.  We understand there are no further

18     objections either.

19             MS. MARCUS:  Correct, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  D642 is admitted into evidence.

21             D643.  There was an issue of having a broader portion admitted

22     for contextualisation.  Has there been any agreement between the parties

23     on the broader portion of the video to be covered by D643?

24             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, from our view I don't think there is a

25     dispute.  I think we agree.  Our position was that the entire 60 seconds

Page 18753

 1     that was played would be admitted, along with a transcript that would

 2     need to be provided for the entire 60 seconds.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And --

 4             MS. MARCUS:  So in other words, the transcript I think that was

 5     attached originally only covered half of the portion that was played.  So

 6     as long as the transcript matches the --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  So the broader portion of the transcript rather than

 8     the video --

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- has the full 60-second covering transcript been

11     uploaded, Mr. Bakrac?

12             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have not uploaded it

13     because we do not rely on the conversation.  We rely on the video without

14     any text.  Maybe this solves the problems.  This is how I understood my

15     colleague Ms. Marcus.  I thought that they didn't have any objections.

16     However, if there's still the need to upload the rest of the transcript,

17     we will be only too happy to do that.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, I also understand that the

19     Simatovic Defence does not rely on the narrator which appears in this

20     video.

21             Now, Mr. Bakrac, if you say, Well, we do not rely on certain

22     portions, that is fine, but sometimes that is exactly the reason why

23     another party would seek that to be admitted for contextualisation,

24     because it adds something which you might not be interested in but which

25     might provide context.

Page 18754

 1             Ms. Marcus, what's your position at this moment.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, we would prefer for the completeness of

 3     the record for the whole transcript to be admitted.  We understand that

 4     the Simatovic Defence doesn't rely on the words of the journalist, but in

 5     our position the transcript should match the video that was tendered.

 6             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in that case, with your

 7     leave, of course, we'll do that.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  We're waiting for a full transcript of the 60

 9     seconds that were played.  And, Ms. Marcus, have you formed already an

10     opinion on when that's done whether there's any objection?

11             MS. MARCUS:  There are no objections, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  So it's the pure technicality of providing a full

13     transcript, which keeps us off from admitting at this moment.

14             D645.  I do understand that there are no further objections,

15     Ms. Marcus.

16             MS. MARCUS:  Correct, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  D645 is admitted into evidence.

18             D647, which is a redacted document.  First of all, has the full

19     translation been provided?

20             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  It has been

21     provided, and it has been uploaded as 2D901.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Ms. Marcus, the Chamber understands that

23     although it is a redacted document that you nevertheless not object to

24     admission; is that correct?

25             MS. MARCUS:  That's correct, Your Honour.

Page 18755

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Then D647 is admitted into evidence, although under

 2     seal.

 3                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, I do understand that not only a full

 5     translation is uploaded but even two translations.  If they are the same,

 6     then of course we could compare them.  Then it's of course no problem

 7     whatsoever.  But to be honest, I'd like you to --

 8             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  At the time when

 9     our witness Pelevic testified only one page was uploaded.  Now we have

10     uploaded the entire file.  That's why you have that situation.  First we

11     only updated one page that was presented to the witness and now we have

12     uploaded the entire file.  I apologise.  It was not Pelevic, it was

13     Witness Dimitrijevic with whom we discussed that page.  And for the

14     purpose of his testimony, we uploaded that one page.  After the

15     Prosecution's objection, we uploaded the entire file.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now does the entire file include the page

17     which you previously had uploaded the translation?

18             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  The short translation of one page can be detached.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour, I will just repeat the numbers

21     so that we are clear.  So the translation uploaded at the ID document --

22     document ID 2D012678 can be detached while the translation uploaded under

23     number 2D014416 remain as the translation of the document D647.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, which was admitted into evidence under seal.

25             Mr. Bakrac, the 30th of May, 2011, motion for a Rule 54 bis order

Page 18756

 1     includes this document.  May I take it that you'll consider this request

 2     in that respect to be moot?

 3             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, you're right.

 4     That request has become moot.  We saw that document in its non-redacted

 5     version, and we are fully satisfied with the document being admitted in

 6     its redacted version, so our request as per Rule 54 is now moot and the

 7     document can be withdrawn.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, you are hereby instructed to inform

 9     the Republic of Serbia of this document not further be part of the -- the

10     motion of the 30th of May, 2011.

11                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand it was all that was in the motion,

13     and therefore that the whole motion is moot.

14             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  You're absolutely

15     right.  And if you may give me an opportunity, I would like to go back to

16     619, that is D619, D620, and D621.  D619 is now 2D -- Your Honour, these

17     are three documents which were originally uploaded from the Croatian

18     book, and then subsequently we uploaded their originals.  We have the

19     translations of the originals of the documents that we received from the

20     Croatian government.  We have just checked that.  Maybe we can resolve

21     this issue which has remained pending or maybe we can deal with it at a

22     later stage.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Do I understand you well that you say for D619,

24     D620, and D621 that you originally uploaded an original B/C/S version --

25     well, a B/C/S version which was taken from a book and that you later

Page 18757

 1     uploaded the same document not taken from that book but in its original

 2     version and that the corresponding translation now relates to the

 3     original.

 4             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, you're right.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So what then has to be verified or perhaps has to be

 6     done is to see that the book version, not the original one, should be

 7     removed from e-court.

 8             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we will see about that

 9     with the Registry.  We will see whether we can remove that or whether we

10     have to seek assistance in that sense.  We would not trouble you with

11     that any further.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I expect you to resolve this matter still this

13     week with Madam Registrar, because it's purely administrative.

14                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

16             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I just wanted to put on the record that

17     with respect to D619, 620, and 621, we have no remaining objections

18     either, just so that only the technical issue would be remain, in our

19     view.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Ms. Marcus.

21             I move on to the next one, which is D649.  There is a problem

22     related to D649 and D667.

23             It seems that document 2D527, which was tendered by the

24     Simatovic Defence, received two numbers.  First, D649 on the 19th of

25     January through Witness Dimitrijevic, and then again on the 25th of

Page 18758

 1     January, 2012, but then number D667 through Witness Pelevic.  In both

 2     cases the documents were MFI'd.

 3             Now it seems that under this 65 ter number more documents were

 4     uploaded.  One to which the number D667 was assigned seems to be the most

 5     accurate, having an original documents and a translation resembling one

 6     discussed in court.

 7             The other one, which was assigned number D649, seems to be some

 8     unrelated translation of some other document but with the same 65 ter

 9     number.

10             If it was the intention of the Simatovic Defence that both

11     documents were tendered -- that it was seeking to tender and to have

12     admitted both documents, they can remain as they're now uploaded under

13     one 65 ter number, but if only one of them was intended to be tendered

14     and admitted into evidence, then one needs to be vacated.  But before

15     that, the documents need to be re-uploaded under one number.  So either

16     split in tow documents with each its own individual doc ID, or vacate the

17     649.  We do understand that the Prosecution has no objection to D667 to

18     be admitted.  Ms. Marcus, is that correct?

19             MS. MARCUS:  Correct, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

21             Mr. Bakrac, what will be the path you're following?

22             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it was our mistake.

23     We readily admit that D667 is where 2D527 should be.  That is the

24     document we want, but by mistake, we also uploaded under the same number

25     D667, the 65 ter number 2D572, which means we just turn the numbers.

Page 18759

 1     That should be a different piece of evidence.  We will make sure that we

 2     split the two documents and resolve the problem of erroneous uploading.

 3                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  You, then, Mr. Bakrac, would have to re-upload the

 5     two documents, provide the doc IDs to Madam Registrar, and then we'll see

 6     which document receives what number.

 7             Ms. Marcus, even if it's split up in two documents, no objections

 8     against admission once the administrative matter has been resolved?

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Correct, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Then we'll wait until this matter has

11     been technically -- be resolved --

12             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Likely we will have two new exhibits after that.

14             D650.  I do understand that the Prosecution claims it needed more

15     time to consider any objections, but that meanwhile no objections further

16     exist.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, correct.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which means that D650 is admitted into

19     evidence.

20             Any need to have it under seal Mr. Bakrac?

21             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Then D650 is admitted as a public

23     document.

24             The next series, D656, 657, 665, and 666, are all videos.  Do I

25     understand the position of the OTP correctly when I say that D656, D657,

Page 18760

 1     and D665 meet no objections?

 2             MS. MARCUS:  That's right, Your Honour.  The only point to add

 3     with respect to D656 is that the entire clip tendered, in our view, would

 4     include 41 minutes, 49 seconds up to 43 minutes, 58 seconds.  This

 5     corresponds to the uploaded transcript.  If that is confirmed to be

 6     what's being tendered, then we do not have any objections to that, and no

 7     objections to D657 or 665.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, could you confirm that what was --

 9     what's in the system corresponds to the uploaded transcript.

10             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  [Microphone not activated] facing a similar problem

12     as we saw before that parts of the words spoken are not appearing in the

13     transcript.

14             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] What was played, say, has already

15     been transcribed, so we also have the transcript of it.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  So then D656, D657 and D665 are admitted into

17     evidence.  There is one issue.  Madam Registrar, earlier the number D665

18     was provisionally assigned, although you had not received the video

19     itself.  Has that been corrected?

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  The video has been received

21     now.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the decision remains as I pronounced it.

23             Next one, D666, also a video of the celebration of the

24     anniversary of the SDG.  There may have been a similar problem as we saw

25     earlier that not all of the text is described.  Ms. Marcus, is that --

Page 18761

 1             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, actually, for this video our position,

 2     and it seems that the Simatovic Defence has agreed with us, we would like

 3     the whole footage of that ceremony to be admitted, not just the portion

 4     with the witness's speech but the entire video.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So that's therefore a broader portion of, as a

 6     matter of fact, the entirety for contextualisation.

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, the entire video rather than the clip

 9     you have selected.

10             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we don't have any

11     problems with that.  I hope that my esteemed colleagues from the

12     Prosecution will not misunderstand me.  I believe then it's upon the OTP

13     to have the rest of the text transcribed.  Am I not right?

14             JUDGE ORIE:  There's a question, Ms. Marcus.

15             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  We can submit it for

16     transcription.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And therefore it remains MFI'd.  There is no

18     disagreement as to whether D666 but then the entire video can be admitted

19     into evidence, but we are waiting for the transcription of the full

20     video.

21             Now, Ms. Marcus, I've got no idea how much that is, if that's

22     another one or two hours.  You might even consider to further find an

23     agreement with Mr. Bakrac to be happy with a little bit less of

24     contextualisation and saving a lot of human resources.

25             MS. MARCUS:  We will certainly consider it, Your Honour.

Page 18762

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Okay.  Then we'd like to hear from you as soon

 2     as possible.

 3             D667, we have dealt with that already in the context of D649.

 4             D674.  Any translation yet?  Translation of the stamp was

 5     missing.

 6             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm checking this now.

 7     I believe it has been resolved, but -- yes.  Yes.  2D192.2.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the corrected translation.

 9             D674 is admitted into evidence.

10             D675, a handwritten annotation on the first page was not

11     translated.

12             Mr. Bakrac.

13             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Already translated, Your Honours,

14     and uploaded, 2D198.2.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  D675 is admitted into evidence.

16             D687, the OTP objects to the authenticity.  It is a letter from

17     Fikret Abdic to Boutros Boutros-Ghali dated the 7th of October.

18             Ms. Marcus.

19             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, we maintain our objections especially

20     in light of the developments with respect to the other letters from Abdic

21     where we found the signed original to be the one that was in the

22     possession of the accused.  We are conducting inquiries with respect to

23     that letter.  There are two other -- so there are two other similar

24     letters that have been admitted, D755 and D756.  Depending upon the

25     results of our inquiries, we may move to have those vacated, but at the

Page 18763

 1     moment we would just maintain our objection to D687 pending the results

 2     of our inquiries.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I don't know in what direction your inquiries

 4     go, but the first thing that comes to my mind in relation to this

 5     document would be let's check the archives of the UN, because

 6     Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali was employed by the UN, isn't it, in a rather

 7     high position.

 8             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  We're -- we will -- we will be

 9     sending inquiries.  We've already sent some inquiries with respect --

10     there are three letters in total and we can keep the Chamber informed.

11     But we do have grave concerns about -- about -- this situation

12     exemplifies the concerns we have with the collection of the accused

13     without a great deal of further evidence of authenticity and reliability.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but the author of the letter is known, the

15     addressee of the letter is known, the date of the letter is known.  I can

16     imagine that it should be possible to verify whether that letter ever

17     reached the addressee.

18             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, we'll do that.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  That's appreciated.  We'll leave it for the time as

20     it is.

21             D688, information about the provenance was provided as we

22     understand.  An unredacted version of the document is now available, as I

23     under.  Any further objections?

24             MS. MARCUS:  No, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Bakrac -- no.  Mr. Stanisic --

Page 18764

 1     Mr. Jordash, the unredacted version, has it been uploaded?

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, under .1 of the original e-court.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, has a corresponding translation already been

 4     uploaded?

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Not yet, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Then that's the only thing that keeps us off from

 7     admitting it into evidence.  We're waiting for that corresponding

 8     translation to be uploaded, after which D688 may be admitted under seal.

 9             Mr. Bakrac, the court officer draws my attention to the fact that

10     D674, that a translation is attached, but apparently a translation of two

11     documents and that the same would be true for D675.

12             I am afraid that we are unable to finish the remainder of the MFI

13     list in this one session.  It would just cause too many problems and we

14     might make mistakes at the end.  Therefore, I suggest that we take a

15     relatively short break, that is --

16                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand that it was not foreseen that we

18     would continue this long and that it was the communication about -- that

19     we would continue this afternoon and for how long we would continue that

20     that communication was not what it should have been.

21             I therefore suggest that unless we have some very easy ones to

22     deal with those, but skip a few others.

23             D690, I do understand that there are no further objections.

24             MS. MARCUS:  Correct, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  D690 is admitted.  D690 is admitted into evidence.

Page 18765

 1     Same report for D691.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  D691 is admitted into evidence.

 4             D693, the same report?

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Correct, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  D693 is admitted into evidence.

 7             D694, admission pending inspection of the original by the

 8     parties, the military booklet of Gagic.  Any objections?

 9             MS. MARCUS:  No objections.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  D694 is admitted into evidence.

11             I move to D757.  Information on provenance was expected.

12     Ms. Marcus, received any such information?

13             MS. MARCUS:  Not yet, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Not yet.  Therefore, no decision will be taken.

15             I move to the last ones, D783, the RDB Valjevo Official Note.

16     Origin meanwhile been verified?

17             MS. MARCUS:  Not to my knowledge, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Not yet.  D784, same report?

19             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we leave it to that and not further.

21             There is one short message I would like to read before we

22     adjourn, and we have two or three pages left of the MFI list with which

23     we have to deal at a later stage.

24             I deliver a short statement on the filing of final trial briefs

25     pursuant to Rule 86(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Page 18766

 1             Having considered the current witness schedule, the Chamber

 2     informs the parties that they should prepare for the filing of final

 3     trial briefs before the summer recess.  As the current witness schedule

 4     contains some uncertainties, this provisional timetable for the final

 5     briefs may have to be amended, but the parties should still prepare to

 6     file those briefs before the summer recess.  The Chamber will provide

 7     further details on precise dates for filing the final trial briefs at a

 8     later date.

 9             We'll adjourn for the day.  Madam Registrar, the next session

10     scheduled ...

11                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

12                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I suggest that we continue tomorrow at 9.00 and

14     finish the MFI list, because otherwise it would have to wait for a whole

15     month and which is not desirable.  It will be a relatively short session

16     tomorrow.

17             Any objections by the parties?  I'm not asking for an applause,

18     but I'm asking whether there are any objections.

19             MS. MARCUS:  None from the Prosecution, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Silence is to be understood as approval, Mr. Jordash

21     and Mr. Bakrac.

22             MR. JORDASH:  Approval may be a strong word, Your Honour, but no

23     objections.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.  If anyone would think that -- may I

25     take it that the waiver to be present would extend for the housekeeping


Page 18767

 1     session if we deal with nothing else tomorrow, that it would extend to

 2     that as well, and if there's any reason to further verify that, that

 3     action will be taken.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Certainly, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we -- we'll adjourn until tomorrow,

 6     the -- Thursday, the 29th of March, 9.00 in the morning in this same

 7     Courtroom II.  We stand adjourned.

 8                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.12 p.m.,

 9                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 29th day

10                           of March, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.