1 Thursday, 29 March 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused not present]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
8 This is case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic
9 and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Before we continue with the MFI list, the Chamber was informed
12 that the Prosecution would like to address the Chamber on a matter which,
13 I understand, is not directly linked to the housekeeping session.
14 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, we find ourselves in not an easy position,
16 because if we say no, then we would have to schedule another meeting, if
17 it's an urgent matter. At the same time, the waiver of the accused to be
18 present, of course, was given in the understanding that we would deal
19 with housekeeping matters.
20 Now, I suggest that we first go into private session and that
21 we'll then invite Mr. Groome to explain why he thinks that the matter he
22 wants to raise can be dealt with in the absence of the accused.
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 18769-18776 redacted. Private session.
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
16 Back to the MFI list. I think we were at D689.
17 The OTP had objections on the provenance of the document. Apart
18 from that, that if the Chamber would decide that the document would be
19 admitted, that the Prosecution would like to tender another document for
20 context because the two documents - so that's D689 MFI'd, and 65 ter
21 1D05298 - would be closely related.
22 Could I have an update. We start with the provenance.
23 MR. JORDASH: We're still waiting for the National Council.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then the matter remains unresolved at this moment.
25 We have dealt with D690, we've dealt with D691.
1 We then come to D692. Translation. The Simatovic Defence was
2 waiting for a translation.
3 Has it -- is it there, Mr. Bakrac?
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the translation is
5 still pending. We will upload it as soon as we get it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Matter, therefore, not resolved.
7 D693, we've dealt with that one.
8 D694, we've dealt with that one as well.
9 D696, provenance. Stanisic Defence would provide further
11 MR. JORDASH: Same as the previous issue.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, not resolved.
13 D697, provenance concerns expressed by the OTP. The Stanisic
14 Defence has provided information about the source. We were informed that
15 you're not satisfied with the information and that you would want to see
16 the original, Ms. Marcus; is that correct?
17 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Any way that the Stanisic Defence could provide an
20 MR. JORDASH: We, again, have made a request to the
21 National Council and are waiting for them.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, we'll -- the matter is still pending.
23 We're not very successful in shortening the MFI list in this way, but ...
24 D698. I do understand that the statements by Ivanovic is now
25 part of the bar table submission, Mr. Jordash.
1 MR. JORDASH: That's right.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now, we can deal with it in two ways: Either to
3 hear from the Prosecution there are no objections and then admit and then
4 it should be taken out from the bar table submission, or if you still
5 have objections, and we earlier suggested that -- that we accepted that
6 you need more time to determine what your position was, Ms. Marcus.
7 Where are we at this moment?
8 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I don't have our submissions from the
9 bar table motion in front of me, but I will get that and I can then, if
10 Your Honours want to come back to this, I can tell you what our position
11 was in the bar table motion with respect to this document.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Another way of dealing with the matter is, in
13 the bar table motion it has -- is it identified as the same as D698? It
14 is. So, therefore, if we leave it as it is now, a decision on the
15 bar table motion will resolve the matter anyway.
16 Then we'll leave it for the time being, and a decision will be
17 given on this document in a written decision on the bar table motion.
18 D746. I do understand that this document was under seal, but I
19 also understand that it can be made public.
20 Mr. Bakrac.
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the translation has
22 been uploaded as 2D1080.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then, any further objections?
24 MS. MARCUS: No, Your Honour. And it can be made public.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It can be made public. Which means that D746 is
1 admitted, not under seal, but as a public document.
2 D748. This is one of the documents originating from
3 Mr. Stanisic.
4 Mr. Bakrac, have you meanwhile received a copy from the -- an
5 original or an official copy from the Republic of Serbia?
6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt. I think we
7 dealt with the this issue yesterday, if I'm not mistaken, and we were
8 still pending -- it was still pending.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Still pending. Then I -- yes, I struck only from my
10 list the matters which I touched upon yesterday and which were resolved,
11 but please correct me when it was clear already yesterday that the matter
12 was still pending.
13 I move to D749, which is an intercept.
14 I do understand, Mr. Bakrac, that you tendered this intercept for
15 the purpose of establishing how complex the process was, not for the
16 content of this specific document.
17 The Prosecution wanted to see the original copy, if I have
18 understood it well. Where are we at this moment?
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we -- you are right.
20 Our Defence, with regard to this document, as well as the previous one,
21 as well as D750, and D751, has submitted a request to the
22 National Council, and their reply is still pending.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Ms. Marcus.
25 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. With respect to D749 MFI, just to
1 add, there were other problems with this document. It was incomplete.
2 The second page of the English translation says there are reception
3 errors due to poor hearing and it's impossible to determine the
4 participants of the conversation.
5 So there are a number of problems. Perhaps the original will
6 resolve that. That's what our hope is.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I do understand that it's not in any way
8 the purpose of tendering this document to rely in any way on the content,
9 which also means that who is speaking is not that important. But it's
10 mainly to demonstrate that processing this material was rather complex.
11 Therefore, I wonder to what extent these last observations are very
12 relevant in view of the purpose for which the document or the intercept
13 was tendered.
14 MS. MARCUS: I understand Your Honour's point. I think the
15 additional point from this was that it came from the collection of the
16 accused, so that's where we -- that was the starting point. So if
17 Your Honours would like and we can consider what would happen, as
18 Your Honours have ordered us to prepare this chart, we can consider what
19 would happen if we don't get an original and then give you our position
20 in that part, that chart.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then you reconsider that. But, still,
22 attempts are made to get hold of the original. Which is true for D749,
23 for D750, and D751.
24 D753, as I understand, is also dealt with in the bar table motion
25 by the Stanisic Defence and is known in that motion as D753 MFI.
1 Mr. Jordash, I -- is identified as such?
2 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll decide on admission for D753 in our
4 decision on the bar table motion.
5 For D757, where the Prosecution was waiting for information on
6 provenance, we have been informed that there's no update on that, and
7 therefore the matter stands.
8 And the same would be true -- no, no, let me not hurry too much.
9 For D761, the document was presented and was unsigned and in
10 B/C/S. The witness through which this document was introduced,
11 Mr. Djukic, stated that he left a copy of the English version at his home
12 and presumed that that was a signed copy. The Chamber then invited the
13 witness to bring a signed copy of the letter.
14 Is there any update on the production of a signed English copy of
15 the letter?
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence has had the
17 document translated. However, we still do not have the original signed
18 by the witness. With your leave, we will try and contact the witness
19 during the next break and we will ask him to personally provide us with a
20 signed version.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
22 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, unless the Chamber would like to see
23 the signed version, the Prosecution is satisfied with the witness's
24 assertion, and we have no objection to the documents.
25 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Under those circumstances ... the
1 translation has been uploaded, Mr. Bakrac?
2 Could you give the doc ID for the translation.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The translation
4 has been uploaded under 2D1211.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, can you live with an unsigned
6 English -- without a signed English copy of the letter? Would you object
7 against admission if that ...
8 MR. JORDASH: No, I wouldn't.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Under those circumstances, where all the parties see
10 no obstacle to admission, the Chamber decides that D761 is admitted into
12 We move onto D76--
13 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, sorry.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. JORDASH: Before we do, I misspoke. D753 is in the Stanisic
16 bar table as 1D3611.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So, therefore, not identified under this
19 Nevertheless, I suggest that we deal with the document in the bar
20 table motion, and that perhaps when deciding on the bar table motion and
21 if we would decide to admit, to notice in the decision on the bar table
22 motion that this document is also known as D753 MFI'd, and so if we
23 decide to admit, that no new number has been assigned, but the admission
24 would be under this number, D753.
25 Then the next one, D-- oh, let me see ... D762. There was still
1 a translation issue. The title of the list which still require
3 Is there any translation now, Mr. Bakrac?
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We do have a
5 translation: 2D1215. This has been uploaded. Both the original and the
6 translation have been uploaded as 1215, 2D1215.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then apparently nothing opposes the admission of
8 D762. I'm looking at the other parties.
9 D762 is admitted into evidence. I have no note that it should be
10 under seal, Mr. Bakrac. Is that correct?
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move on to D764.
13 The Prosecution was waiting for information about the provenance.
14 Has this been provided?
15 MS. MARCUS: No, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: It has not been provided.
17 Any reason for that, Mr. Bakrac?
18 MR. JORDASH: Oh, I think that's my --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, it's -- I'm sorry. It's -- for me, D764 is a 2D
20 document, but it may well be that it originates from the
21 Stanisic Defence.
22 MR. JORDASH: Could I just have a moment, please.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. JORDASH: For some reason this seems to have slipped through
25 the net and we haven't as yet even written to the National Council, but
1 we'll do that forthwith.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then that matter remains unresolved.
3 We move on to D765. Translation. Is the translation there,
4 Mr. Bakrac?
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. It has been
6 uploaded as 2D1214.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 Ms. Marcus, the OTP reserved its position until it had received a
10 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. We have no objection.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, the number you just refer to is the
14 number under which the document was uploaded.
15 Madam Registrar has difficulties in finding a translation under
16 that number. But apparently it's there, because Ms. Marcus has given up
17 any objections.
18 THE REGISTRAR: It has been released now, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It's now been released. Then, since there seems to
20 be no objections from the Stanisic Defence, D765 is admitted into
22 D768 is a series of photographs which were uploaded initially not
23 as a complete series, but a selection. The Chamber suggested that we'd
24 like to have a look at all the photographs.
25 Have all the photographs been up loaded meanwhile? And I think
1 it was -- I have -- I think it would be the Stanisic Defence to do so,
2 because it's their exhibit.
3 MR. JORDASH: It hasn't been yet, but ...
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could you take care that it -- it's -- the complete
5 series will be uploaded.
6 Could I already inquire with the other parties - it's just
7 photographs - whether there would be any objection. I take it that you
8 had access to these photographs.
9 MS. MARCUS: From the Prosecution, Your Honour, we have no -- I'm
10 sorry, Mr. Bakrac. We have no objection, provided that all the
11 photographs taken during the police seizure are uploaded. And I just
12 would point out that the surrogate sheet should read "Stanisic Defence"
13 rather than "Simatovic Defence." Other than that, we would have no
14 objections to the whole collection.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, I would
17 like to apologise to Ms. Marcus for interrupting her.
18 We have no objection to the admission of the photos.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And we have to wait for the upload of the full
21 D777 is the Gallagher statement. The statement where the Chamber
22 understands that the Office of the Prosecutor did not raise any 92 bis
23 objection. I do not know exactly whether -- I take it that the statement
24 was taken for the purposes of this Tribunal, but if all parties would
25 agree that it could be admitted under Rule 89(C) and that any attestation
1 under Rule 92 bis would not be necessary, the Chamber would positively
2 consider admission under Rule 89(C).
3 MS. MARCUS: That's acceptable to us, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Both Defence teams.
5 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Acceptable.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: D777 is admitted into evidence under Rule 89(C).
9 We also briefly touched upon D783 yesterday and D784 and there
10 was no further information about the origin. Has that changed overnight?
11 Apparently not.
12 MR. JORDASH: No. Sorry.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then we leave that as it is.
14 What I noticed is that in relation to many respects that there
15 are outstanding requests for originals to be sent, et cetera, et cetera.
16 Wouldn't it be wise to make a list of all those documents you have been
17 seeking to be provided with originals, or at least official copies, make
18 that list and then perhaps ask for an order by this Chamber that these
19 documents with a proper description be provided within a certain
20 time-limit? Because we can wait and wait forever, and I think that might
21 speed up the proceedings.
22 MR. JORDASH: Yes. Although, to be very fair to the National
23 Council, I think they are -- we are bombarding them with various
24 requests, and they're responding very well. And --
25 JUDGE ORIE: But we could express our appreciations for their
1 quick responses and nevertheless point at the urgency of specific
2 documents where we cannot further decide on admission, and that we could
3 invite them to give priority to those. You still can do this in a polite
4 way. I mean, I'm not blaming the National Council for anything. I'm
5 urging them to provide us with what we need with priority, and then
6 whatever remains is at least not the primary concern of this Chamber. Of
7 course, we would expect them to condition to co-operate, but --
8 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour --
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- but on many issues where we have to establish
10 that we just can't move on because there's no response yet.
11 MR. JORDASH: Certainly.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if we prepare such a list - and that could
13 be -- I think it's mainly the Defence at this moment, but there may be
14 matters pending with the Prosecution as well - we could even add in a
15 special column when a copy was requested, which, I think, explains that
16 perhaps in main instances they're not slow.
17 Is this a suggestion? Could we then -- could, with some
18 priority, could the parties make a submission asking for such an order.
19 MR. JORDASH: Certainly.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. One of the series
22 of reasons for which we requested the break that we were granted was to
23 consolidate all that. We wanted to see what was pending, what we need to
24 request, what needs to be requested urgently, whether we should seek your
1 So, yes, this is acceptable.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to do it this way. And, of course, the
3 parties will certainly be aware that if we finally do not get -- well,
4 that the parties who are tendering documents of which the provenance or
5 the authenticity is -- is still to be established, then, of course,
6 there's always a risk that the Chamber will, after having considered all
7 of the submissions of the parties, will deny admission of those
8 documents. I'm not saying that we will. If not for all of them, the
9 information has been received, but that's -- of course, that remains
10 uncertain, and it's preferable to have the relevant information in and,
11 therefore, to remove obstacles to admission, rather than to remain in a
12 situation where admission is still uncertain.
13 Of course, finally the Chamber will decide: We'll admit, or we'll
14 not admit.
15 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. May I just say one thing, which
16 is that if Your Honours are going to take the -- a view on documents
17 which have been provided by the accused and take a view of those
18 documents as a particular category, then we would appreciate being able
19 to make more detailed submissions, because we would submit that that
20 would raise certain issues concerning the burden of proof and the
21 presumption of innocence, and we would like to develop those submissions
22 if that's an approach that Your Honours have -- will take, or may take.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what we asked is, for quite a lot of
24 documents, to -- to find out exactly what's to redact the documents,
25 whether the documents of which it's only or primarily known that they
1 originate from the accused. We have sought further submissions on those,
2 because objections were always there from the OTP. We have those charts,
3 and, of course, we would like to have detailed submissions on the
4 document itself, but nothing prevents you, Mr. Jordash, from filing
5 submissions and giving your views on whether it should be dealt with as a
6 special category or whether there's any merit in objecting to documents
7 primarily because they originate from the accused. Of course, you're
8 free to do so.
9 MR. JORDASH: I'm raising it at this point just because of the
10 chart, and I'm not as yet totally clear as to the approach that's going
11 to be taken with the chart that Your Honours have ...
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- suggested.
13 MR. JORDASH: -- suggested. So I'm raising it really just for
14 guidance purposes, that I might understand if the chart process is going
15 to be one that is advanced and then if it is, then obviously we'll be
16 able to make submissions at that point. I just didn't want to miss out
17 the opportunity to make those more detailed submissions, if necessary.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And --
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, one second.
21 If you say you don't want to miss out the opportunity to make
22 those more detailed submissions, would you like to do that before you
23 even fill in the chart or after you would fill in the chart or waiting
24 our guidance as whether you should fill in the chart at all? I'm not
25 fully understanding.
1 MR. JORDASH: Well, I think that just the very suggestion of a
2 chart for me raises the issue. And it concerns the Defence. Because the
3 chart supposes that Your Honours are likely to take a somewhat or
4 slightly different approach by the documents produced by the accused.
5 And --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, no. I think then that's a wrong understanding
7 in this sense. That we have a kind of a standard objection on that
8 basis, so I would say it's rather the Prosecution who makes it a
9 category, and whether we would agree with that or not is a second matter.
10 But I would say especially the fact that a similar objection is raised in
11 relation to documents originating from the accused, we'd like to have
12 that category as -- whether it's a category or not, but at least to
13 decide as much as we can on the basis of the individual documents which
14 are more or less characterised by the Prosecution as being as a special
16 So asking for a chart is mainly to have a focussed approach on
17 what seems to be a similar objection to certain documents.
18 MR. JORDASH: And -- and, in fact, I mischaracterised things. It
19 is the Prosecution who are taking the approach and raising a different
20 approach. And Your Honours, I can see, have responded to that but
21 wanting to understand more. So I'm not suggesting anything other than
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you -- let's -- let's be brief.
24 If there's anything you would like to submit either opposing or
25 supporting that this category on whomever's behalf is now dealt with in
1 the chart, please do it as quickly as possible.
2 MR. JORDASH: Well, the problem -- sorry to detain the Court.
3 But I think it's the Prosecution who've raised the issue but they
4 haven't developed it. Their response has been, It's produced by the
5 accused. I think they haven't perhaps said it explicitly, but he has a
6 self-serving reason to produce and fabricate documents. But they haven't
7 developed it at any stage during this trial further than that.
8 If that's the position, if that's what the Prosecution want to
9 say about it, then we can respond to it, but it might be helpful if the
10 Prosecution develop that argument somewhat and actually detailed what
11 they say should be the precise approach. Do they say that these
12 documents should be excluded, for example? Or do they just say that the
13 documents will ultimately cross the admissible threshold but less weight
14 should be given to them. That might be useful.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
16 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
17 One way that we could deal with this -- well, first just in
18 response to the last point. These are the documents tendered by the
19 Defence. It's the Prosecution's position that when the Defence tenders a
20 document, it's up to them to demonstrate reliability. We pose the
21 objection and then they have to show why that document should be found
23 That said, the Chamber has requested positions as to each
24 document. Perhaps one idea is that in the MFI chart for documents having
25 been received by the accused there could be one more column where the
1 Defence gives its response -- or -- to -- or reply, I guess, to our
2 position that we state in there. We could add one more column, since all
3 that's in here is the additional information, when the accused received
4 the document. The Prosecution could set out its position in that column
5 and the Defence could give a response. That would be with -- on a per
6 document issue. And then to the extent that the Defence has
7 additional -- additional broader submissions with respect to the
8 collection of the accused regarding why they feel it should be reliable
9 in spite of the objections, they can set that out and we'll be happy to
10 do that in a separate written submission. That's --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I do understand that Mr. Jordash's problem is
12 the following. That if, let's assume the Stanisic Defence would not be
13 able to say anything more than, It comes from Mr. Stanisic, or, He
14 received it but he doesn't know exactly when and from whom, then, of
15 course, the Prosecution would take a position, say either it doesn't look
16 similar to other documents or ... so to test the authenticity or
17 reliability. Of course, that's close to each other. But it could also
18 be that the Prosecution says, Well, since it comes from the accused and
19 we do not know anything else, we are not wanting to rely on that. I
20 think that there Mr. Jordash would like a further explanation as to, if
21 it comes from the accused and if the Prosecution says for that reason
22 mainly we do not want to rely on it, not having any other reasons, that
23 Mr. Jordash considers it important to have a further explanation as to
24 why a document coming from an accused is considered primarily as not
25 being sufficiently reliable to be admitted.
1 Mr. Jordash, is that --
2 MR. JORDASH: That's exactly right, Your Honour. May I just add
3 one thing. There's obviously a difference with a particular document. A
4 document which is not contentious, produced by the accused, may fall into
5 one category, and so on and so forth.
6 JUDGE ORIE: But it's exactly that category where there's not
7 more to be said other than, It comes from the accused, we do not want to
8 rely on it. Why it is that you do not want to rely on a document, mainly
9 on the basis that it originates from the accused. That's what you are
10 seeking the Prosecution to further explain.
11 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
13 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we can do that. And I will
14 undertake that we will do that in this column, this Prosecution column.
15 It may not be brief. It says brief.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
17 MS. MARCUS: It may not be brief. But we will -- we will try our
18 best to be succinct and not repetitive. And perhaps after that if
19 Mr. Jordash still has questions, we can discuss how to proceed after
20 that. If that pleases the Chamber.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MS. MARCUS: Can I --
23 JUDGE ORIE: And if that would be an additional column, I think I
24 emphasised already yesterday that this is a suggested format, and if the
25 parties consider it wise to change it slightly, and this is such a
1 suggestion, then, of course, they're perfectly free to do so.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Can I just add, just for
3 clarification: If I understood correctly, the documents that the Defence
4 has pending with the Government of Serbia would basically be the same
5 list as would appear on these charts combined; right? It's either a
6 redaction issue or an issue where you're trying to get the original,
7 where we have it only from the collection of the accused.
8 So my first point on that is that there aren't any Prosecution
9 documents that fall into that category. So from your perspective, that
10 wouldn't be a joint -- a joint submission. But also that the list on
11 here, these two combined, would match that list.
12 Just -- did I understand correctly?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And may I then take it that it's relatively
14 easy to prepare such a list for the Serbian government.
15 One of the things we want to avoid is that after six weeks from
16 now we find out that there is no response and meanwhile we have sat back
17 and have not followed an alternative approach, which is: If no other
18 document comes up, what are we going to do? How strong are the
19 objections? So that we, on two parallel tracks, try, first of all, to
20 get the unredacted documents, or, first of all, get more information
21 about the origin of the documents that originate from Mr. Stanisic. And
22 at the same time, that we think already about, if we are not successful
23 in getting more information or in getting the unredacted copies, what
24 would be our approach, what would be the approach of the parties, so that
25 the Chamber doesn't have to invite the parties to do this in six weeks
1 from now and then give another six weeks. And then, of course, we still
2 have to decide on these matters as well.
3 Is that clear?
4 Then I have nothing more on my MFI list. I think --
5 Mr. Bakrac.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think I still owe
7 you something from yesterday; an explanation in relation to two exhibits,
8 and maybe additional three exhibits, D674 and D675. We had a problem in
9 our system.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes. D674, Your Honours, in the
12 system should be uploaded under 65 ter 2D192.2. That's the B/C/S
13 version. And the English version again: 2D192.2. The B/C/S version has
14 ID number 2D02-1432. And the English version, its ID number is
16 JUDGE ORIE: This is the administrative part of it.
17 Madam Registrar will look into it, I take it.
18 The other matter was whether the English translation included a
19 stamp on the first page of the 674.
20 And for D675, whether the English translation included
21 handwritten annotations on the first page of the document. Because that
22 was the issue which ...
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. I can confirm
24 that the translations include that as well.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, is everything clear as far as you
1 are concerned?
2 THE REGISTRAR: It is, Your Honour, if it mean that then another
3 translation which was a problem which was uploaded under the document
4 ID 2D012808 then shall be removed from the exhibit.
5 JUDGE ORIE: All the rest is skipped from these documents,
6 Mr. Bakrac?
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I think nothing opposes admission of D674
9 and D675. I hear of no objections.
10 D674 and D675 are admitted into evidence.
11 Any other matter?
12 MS. MARCUS: I'm afraid, Your Honour, there are a few that I
13 still have on my list.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I rescheduled all my meetings this morning. I
15 can't do that forever. How much time would you need, Ms. Marcus?
16 MS. MARCUS: It pertains to eight documents, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let's go through them very quickly and let's try to
18 see whether we can --
19 And I first ask Mr. Jordash: Do have a short list or a long list
20 after that?
21 MR. JORDASH: We have a very short list.
22 JUDGE ORIE: A very short list.
23 Ms. Marcus.
24 MS. MARCUS: The first document is P992, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: P992.
1 MS. MARCUS: This was a question of the status as being under
2 seal or public.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MS. MARCUS: The Chamber stated on the 12th of December that
5 Serbia requested protective measures --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. You said P992.
7 MS. MARCUS: P992. It's not on the MFI list, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let me --
9 MS. MARCUS: It was admitted, but this is a question of its
10 status. And as far as we are aware, the Chamber ordered that it would be
11 provisionally put under seal, but as of a few days ago, it still does not
12 appear as under seal in e-court. If I'm not mistake, Your Honour.
13 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
14 MS. MARCUS: I've just informed by my colleague that it is in
15 fact under seal as of now. Okay. Then I apologise.
16 So the next one is P2995.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, P2995, I do understand, is -- that will be
18 denied once we have dealt with D456.
19 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. I just noted, upon reviewing
20 yesterday's transcript, that we didn't do -- nothing was actually done to
21 P2995, which I think Your Honours said could be vacated, but it wasn't
22 actually vacated on the record yesterday, so I just wanted to not leave
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then it's hereby vacated.
25 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: No, I have to correct that. It will be vacated as
2 soon as D456 is not any further MFI'd. And we're waiting for that, and
3 it's only after that that we'll vacate P2995.
4 MS. MARCUS: Understood, Your Honour. Thank you.
5 The next issue is with respect to P3042. That is also not an
6 MFI. But the Chamber had a question about the pagination of this
7 document. The B/C/S -- they were all out of order. So what the
8 Prosecution has done is we have put the B/C/S pages in order. Now, the
9 ERN range will now not be in order, but the pages are in the proper
10 pagination. That B/C/S version can be uploaded. It is 65 ter 6442. I
11 believe it should be -- that should be replacing the other B/C/S version
12 that was admitted as P3042. And the English translation is being
13 reordered, and we will let the Chamber know when that one can be attached
14 as well.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's wait until we have that all completed.
16 But I do understand that the B/C/S version of P3042 has been rearranged,
17 the content not being changed apart from the order, and we have now
18 irregular ERN order.
19 But, Madam Registrar, 65 ter 6442 may now replace the document
20 which is, until now, under P3042.
21 And we'll wait for the English translation to be --
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, I just noticed that 6442 is a B/C/S
23 version with an English translation attached to it already.
24 MS. MARCUS: I think the English translation has not yet been
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll wait until you have finalised the
2 matter, and then Madam Registrar will replace the new - then verified -
3 B/C/S and English versions -- no, will then replace the old ones with the
4 new - then verified - B/C/S and English versions.
5 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
6 The next one is P3097 MFI. Your Honours will recall this is the
7 document that, according to the Chamber's decision, can be attached to
8 P1075, because that was the document that was inadvertently severed.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MS. MARCUS: We were asked to combine it, and it's -- the
11 combined version has been uploaded as 65 ter 4236.1, so I believe that
12 that can be now P1075, and P3097 could be vacated.
13 JUDGE ORIE: P3097 is hereby vacated. The -- under -- the
14 document underlying P1075 can be now replaced by 65 ter 4236.1.
15 Madam Registrar, you're instructed to act accordingly.
16 Ms. Marcus.
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, the next issue pertains to Defence
18 exhibit D200.
19 With respect to D200 and D201, these were -- they're not MFI'd
20 either, but the issue was the -- to ensure that the quotation marks in
21 the translation match the B/C/S original. Now, the Simatovic Defence did
22 circulate their -- in the chart, they circulated uploaded versions, where
23 I presume this has been resolved. We didn't discuss it yesterday, I
24 think, so I just thought we could resolve that as well. I have the
25 numbers in front of me. Or Mr. Bakrac can give them.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I must -- let me see whether ...
2 One second, please.
3 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may assist.
5 D200 ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, I do understand that there are problems
7 remaining. I have nothing to rely on to resolve any matter. I've done
8 it until now. But I'm not used to work in the blind without having
9 prepared for what the problem is, what the possible resolution is. So,
10 therefore, I suggest that you would then introduce the matter in such a
11 way that I'm able to prepare, first of all, because otherwise the Chamber
12 will take decisions or will make moves which it has not seriously
13 considered in advance.
14 So I would suggest that we would stop dealing with matters which
15 are not on any agenda, and that's the reason why we always distribute the
16 full MFI list prior to that.
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. So just so I understand, these
18 are matters which are not part of MFI's. I only had four -- [Overlapping
19 speakers] ...
20 JUDGE ORIE: I would have minded you to do it if you would have
21 sent me a list: I want to deal with this, this, this, this, and this.
22 And then I would have looked at the document, I would have looked at the
23 history of whether there was any problem, yes or no, so that I can
24 meaningfully respond and deal with the matter.
25 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: But I feel such responsibility for it that I can't
2 just, certainly not on the basis of my memory, deal with those matters.
3 MS. MARCUS: No, I understand, Your Honour. This was in the
4 chart that we circulated on Wednesday the 21st. But if you're -- I
5 understand you didn't receive the responses until Tuesday, so I'm aware.
6 Is there a different format that Your Honour would like us to use
7 for informing the Chamber in advance next time we have ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: I will think about that.
9 MS. MARCUS: Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I can't respond to that immediately.
11 MS. MARCUS: Would Your Honour like me to just mention the four
12 documents that -- just on the record, so we know which ones I have?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that might be good.
14 MS. MARCUS: Okay.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And it will not take us much time, perhaps, after
16 the -- after the -- the pause in April.
17 MS. MARCUS: Okay. The first -- the first two I just mentioned,
18 that's D200 and D201, which was just a replacement of the translation for
19 quotation marks.
20 Then next one was D396. If you just give me one moment. This
21 was also simple a matter of ensuring -- that was the same issue,
22 Your Honour, that there were quotation marks in the B/C/S but not in the
24 JUDGE ORIE: But we're now missing the numbers.
25 MS. MARCUS: D396.
1 JUDGE ORIE: D396. Yes.
2 MS. MARCUS: And the last one, Your Honour, was D419. That, I
3 believe, is an MFI that we didn't discuss. Unless I missed it,
4 Your Honour.
5 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: I don't have it as an MFI on my list. We'll check
7 whether -- what went wrong there either in our administration or in ours.
8 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 Mr. Jordash.
11 MR. JORDASH: Just one thing, Your Honour.
12 D391, a new version has been uploaded under 65 ter 1460.1.
13 That's all I have. The issue was that ...
14 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand D391, now a new version has been
16 uploaded, and I instructed Madam Registrar yesterday already to replace
17 the old version by the new uploaded versions.
18 And do you have the -- yes. You have given us the 65 ter number
19 under which it has now been uploaded.
20 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That is then on the record.
22 Any other matter? Not. Stanisic Defence.
23 The Chamber would like to hear if there later appears to be any
24 problem in relation to what we dealt with in private session at the
25 beginning in the absence of the accused. Apart from that, as I said
1 yesterday, the waiver of the accused to attend the housekeeping session
2 was considered to extend also to today's session.
3 If there's any matter about that, the Chamber fully acknowledges
4 that being present at your own trial is a fundamental right, and we do
5 not want in any way to bargain with that. So, therefore, any problems
6 should be brought to the attention of the Chamber immediately.
7 We adjourn. And we will resume on Tuesday, the 1st of May, 2012,
8 at 9.00 in the morning in this same courtroom, II.
9 And I would like to thank the parties and all those who are
10 assisting for the patience they've shown yesterday and today.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 10.28 a.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 1st day
13 of May, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.