1 Thursday, 7 June 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused not present]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is the case IT-03-69-T, The Prosecutor versus
10 Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 First of all, I establish that the accused are not present in the
13 courtroom. They -- during the last hearing, they have waived their right
14 to not be present and even expressed a wish not to be present. I do
15 understand, nevertheless, waiver forms will be provided soon. I would
16 say that is in addition to the waiver already expressly given and in line
17 with the experience.
18 I start with my agenda.
19 First, the scope of this session.
20 On the 30th of May, through an informal communication, the
21 Prosecution requested a delay of this session or a deferral of dealing
22 with issues related to personnel files.
23 On the 31st of May, 2012, the Chamber staff informed the parties
24 that the session would be held this week and that the Chamber would
25 consider dealing with any issues at a later stage, if necessary. Hence,
1 we will wait what comes up today and then see how to resolve it.
2 Which means, Ms. Marcus, that if you shout PF, for personnel
3 files, that is giving notice that you consider that to be a matter which
4 you would like to be deferred and then we'll see what we will do.
5 MS. MARCUS: Understood, Your Honour. Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So PF is the code for personnel files.
7 I move to my next item lifting confidentiality.
8 The parties have indicated that the confidential status of the
9 following exhibits can be lifted, and I will try to read them as slowly
10 and clearly as possible: P1480, up to and including P1482; P3034; D374;
11 D376; D377 [Realtime transcript read in error "D3777"]; D379; D384; D385;
12 D390 through D392; D397; D399; D400; D401; D406; D407; D417; D419; D423
13 [Realtime transcript read in error "D432"]. And the same goes for the
14 following transcript portion: Transcript page 17067, line 14, through
15 17069, line 5.
16 The status of the above-mentioned is changed to public.
17 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there is a small error in the transcript. D377
19 appeared with one seven too much, and another one, D423 seems to appear
20 as "D432." I take it that will be corrected and it may well be that I
21 misspoke. Important is the accuracy of the transcript.
22 Next item on the agenda revised translations.
23 The parties have informed the Chamber that revised versions of
24 Exhibits D200, D201, and D396 are available and I'm talking about
25 translations. The Registry is hereby instructed to replace old with
1 revised versions for these exhibits.
2 I move to the next item: Simatovic bar table motions.
3 On the 24th of May, 2012, the Chamber set a deadline of noon on
4 the 4th of June, 2012, for any Defence filings seeking to tender
5 materials for admission into evidence. On the same day in court, the
6 Simatovic Defence indicated that it was seeking an extension of this
7 deadline. This can be found at transcript pages 19.804 through 19.806.
8 On the 29th of May, 2012, the Chamber informally communicated an
9 instruction to the Simatovic Defence to file a written request by the
10 30th of May, 2012 and shortened the response time to noon on the
11 1st of June, 2012.
12 On the 30th of May, 2012, the Simatovic Defence requested an
13 extension of three weeks to file a final bar table motion of
14 approximately 500 documents. The other parties did not respond.
15 On the 1st of June, the Chamber denied the Simatovic Defence's
16 request and informed the parties of this decision through an informal
18 Whatever was done by informal communications is, of course,
19 hereby put on the record.
20 In denying the request, the Chamber considered that, in relation
21 to 350 of the documents it sought to tender, the Simatovic only
22 identified and qualified them by referencing that they had been on its
23 Rule 65 ter list. For a further 110 documents, the Simatovic Defence
24 noted only that they had been selected based on the report of a dropped
25 military expert witness. Thus, the Chamber concluded that most, if not
1 all, of these documents had been on the Simatovic Defence's Rule 65 ter
2 exhibit list or were otherwise known to it for a long time. The
3 Simatovic Defence had ample opportunity during the one-year long Defence
4 case to process and tender documents through witnesses in court or from
5 the bar table. This year-long period included two adjournments of four
6 weeks each granted at the request of the Defence. Thus, absent reasoned
7 explanations to the contrary, the Chamber found that the Defence could
8 reasonably be expected to tender any remaining documents which form a
9 significant part of its case shortly after the end of the hearing of its
10 last witness.
11 Finally, in relation to the 50 documents not yet in the
12 possession of the Defence, the Chamber considered that a party may seek
13 to re-open its case if the legal test for such re-opening is met.
14 On the 5th of June, 2012, the Simatovic Defence requested
15 reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification to appeal the
16 Chamber's decision of the 1st of June, 2012. The Chamber has now put its
17 decision on the record and provided its reasons. The Simatovic Defence
18 has seven days to amend its request for reconsideration or certification,
19 if it so chooses. The Chamber instructs the Simatovic Defence to notify
20 the Chamber and the parties if it does not seek to amend its request.
21 The parties will have two weeks to respond from the date of this
23 I move on to my next item on the agenda which is a request for
24 variation of protective measures.
25 The Chamber hereby puts on the record that on the 17th of May of
1 this year, the Stanisic Defence in an informal communication requested
2 leave to provide the two doctors of Mr. Stanisic, for the purpose of an
3 upcoming examination, the confidential reporting medical officer and
4 specialist reports of the past two years. This request was granted on
5 the 25th of May, also through an informal communication.
6 I move to the next item on my agenda: Deferred documents from
7 bar table decision.
8 There were ten excerpted documents in a recent bar table decision
9 where the chamber deferred its decision on admission. The Chamber sought
10 further clarification on the 31st of May, 2012, but did not receive any
11 information from the Stanisic Defence so far.
12 Could we hear from the Stanisic Defence now? The issue being
13 whether the whole documents of these excerpts are available to the other
14 parties and I am referring to 1D00380, 1D00379, 1D00372, 1D01893,
15 1D00373, 1D00370, 1D00374, 1D00375, 1D00376, and 1D00381.
16 Talking from my memory, these are excerpts where often just at
17 paragraph 5 appears often. I think it's about Serbian terrorism and the
18 question is: Are the full reports available of these and have they been
19 disclosed to the other party?
20 MR. JORDASH: This is an issue which has arisen on many different
21 occasions. But are they with the Defence, no. Have they been available
22 to the Prosecution, yes, is the simple answer.
23 Following the Rule 54 hearing in, I think, December of 2011, the
24 Serbian government indicated that the full annual reports were available
25 for both parties to inspect. The Serbian government was not willing to
1 release those documents to the Prosecution or the Defence but made them
2 available if the parties so wished to go and see them. The Defence did
3 so. We selected the excerpts and we indicated to the Prosecution that we
4 were only selecting excerpts and the reports were, as the Serbian
5 government had indicated, available to the Prosecution.
6 I'm not sure if they went to see them or not, but they are
7 available to them and have been for five months.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I have to be very careful whether we
9 are -- these are the numbers - I have to check that - whether these are
10 the yearly reports or whether these are the reports for shorter periods
11 from certain -- covering certain areas - we could check that - because I
12 think that there are two categories, but --
13 MR. JORDASH: I -- I think they ought to be, I think, from the
14 annual reports because that was what we had problems with obtaining until
15 the Rule 54 hearing.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let me check just one ...
17 I'm just randomly trying to find ...
18 Yes, I see, for example, I just took one, that's paragraph 5 of
19 that report, Serbian extremism and terrorism, for example.
20 Ms. Marcus, would you agree that at least the Prosecution would
21 have had access to these reports in its -- in their entirety?
22 MS. MARCUS: I would agree with that, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then I think we can -- we'll move on,
24 and we'll further consider this.
25 Then I move on to my next agenda item which is the OSCE report.
1 The Chamber had previously asked the parties for a document that was an
2 OSCE report which Witness Corbic mentioned during his testimony. This
3 report -- no. I prefer, as a matter of fact, to leave this until after
4 the first break. But the report is available. Has it been uploaded in
6 MS. HARBOUR: No, Your Honour, it has not been uploaded in
8 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any way you can upload it in e-court
9 because I do understand that the report is 100 pages long, and it might
10 be that where the Chamber was seeking to have that report in evidence,
11 that looking at it, perhaps only smaller portions are relevant.
12 So, therefore, is there any way that you could upload it into
13 e-court so perhaps even during the next break we could have a look at it?
14 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, yes, we can do that. I send an
15 electronic version to the Chamber's staff at his request.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then I have seen, as a matter of fact, that a
17 small portion of that was on my desk, mainly the index, the table of
18 contents. And I might want to -- the Chamber might want to have a look
19 at it a bit closer look before we say all 100 pages are in because we are
20 inclined to admit, and the question then remains in whole or in part,
21 that OSCE report.
22 Mr. Jordash.
23 MR. JORDASH: I just want to indicate for the record that we
24 object to the filing of any of that report for very similar reasons that
25 we object to all new evidence which is, one, that we haven't had the
1 opportunity to deal with this report effectively through the Prosecution
2 case and we are presuming it is going to be in support of the Prosecution
3 case; and, secondly --
4 JUDGE ORIE: But, Mr. Jordash, isn't there a misunderstanding. I
5 think during the testimony of Mr. Corbic the Chamber has shown interest
6 and invited both parties to see whether they had a copy of this report
7 available because the Chamber would consider whether it would like to
8 have it in evidence which is not presenting new evidence by the
9 Prosecution but triggered by Mr. Corbic's testimony, the Chamber is
10 considering whether or not we'd like to have that in evidence.
11 So therefore I didn't ask the Prosecution to make any selection
12 or -- but we -- the only thing we asked the parties, Do you have the
13 report, could you show it to us so that the Chamber can consider whether
14 it can use the report. Perhaps primarily also for testing the -- the
15 credibility and reliability of the witness.
16 So, therefore, I'm a bit surprised by your response.
17 MR. JORDASH: The effect is still the same. If --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But are you saying Prosecution time is over
19 now, but the Chamber's time to invite the parties to provide whatever
20 information the Chamber would consider to seek to have in evidence and,
21 again, I only said we are inclined to accept into evidence, it would be
22 the Chamber exhibit.
23 MR. JORDASH: Well, the effect on the accused may well still be
24 the same. It matters not whether the incriminating evidence comes in
25 through the Prosecution's request or through the Chamber's request.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether it is
2 incriminating [Overlapping speakers] ...
3 MR. JORDASH: [Overlapping speakers] ...
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... incriminating?
5 MR. JORDASH: Well, I read the report and there's nothing that I
6 can see that assists the Defence. The point is that at this stage we
7 don't know what the Chamber wants the report for.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any authority for in the case law that
9 if a Chamber seeks to have something in evidence, even if the Chamber, at
10 that moment, is neutral on whether it supports a Defence witness or
11 whether it challenges the -- that the Chamber would be -- would not be in
12 a position to seek that evidence at any stage of the proceedings? Even
13 if the effect -- again, I do not know what the effect is. Apparently you
14 know better. Is there any authority for this position? I thought, as a
15 matter of fact, that your initial objection was against the Prosecution
16 now providing evidence which they should not do at this stage anymore. I
17 explained to you that that is in my view not the situation.
18 Do you have any authority for the Chamber being barred after the
19 Prosecution's case to seek any evidence which may or may not be
20 disfavourable to the accused? What about Chamber witnesses? What is
21 their -- are we not allowed to hear the evidence of Chamber witnesses if
22 there is a possibility that it might be disfavourable to the accused?
23 I'm seeking any authority for that.
24 MR. JORDASH: There is no authority for it, and there is no
25 authority against it either. The position, as far as I'm aware, is that
1 the Defence has a fundamental right to be able to challenge evidence
2 which is used to convict him. That's the authority that I rely upon, and
3 there's a huge body of jurisprudence in support of that.
4 But I'm not going to press the point. If Your Honours consider
5 that it is fair to call evidence which is, in the end, to be used to
6 incriminate the accused without the accused having an opportunity to
7 rebut that evidence, then I'm not going to press the point.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Have you asked for an opportunity to rebut that
10 MR. JORDASH: That's what I was doing just then, why I was
11 indicating an objection to the evidence.
12 JUDGE ORIE: But seeking an opportunity to rebut evidence or to
13 object against admission, because admission in itself would be unfair
14 anyhow, is not the same isn't it?
15 MR. JORDASH: The first step is to object to the evidence and
16 then I don't need to seek to rebut it. The second step is if Your Honour
17 admits it then we would appreciate an opportunity to know the potential
18 use for that evidence and then consider our position as to whether we
19 apply to the Chamber to -- to -- to call evidence to rebut that evidence.
20 And that, in my submission, is a general principle which applies to all
21 of the Chamber's potential witnesses or evidence that the Chamber decides
22 it's going to call after the parties have called their case.
23 That, in my submission, is a basic principle.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We're not there. The Chamber first would like to
25 have it uploaded in case it would seek to have it in evidence as a
1 Chamber exhibit. And we'd first like to have a look at it.
2 But I do understand, and I should have known, as a matter of
3 fact, I saw the table of contents this morning, so must be somewhere.
4 Thank you. But if it could be uploaded, and if it's needed that it's
6 Thank you, Ms. Harbour and Mr. Jordash.
7 Then next on my agenda is that should read a statement on the
8 admissibility of redacted documents marked for identification.
9 I'll deliver this statement from the Chamber on the admissibility
10 of redacted documents marked for identification.
11 During the housekeeping session of the 28th of March of this
12 year, the Chamber instructed the parties to express their views on the
13 admission of two categories of documents that are currently marked for
14 identification: One, documents containing redactions; and, two,
15 documents received from the accused.
16 The Chamber's staff distributed a sample format for these joint
17 submissions to the parties.
18 On the 11th of April, the parties filed a joint submission
19 regarding documents marked for identification that have redactions or
20 whose provenance is unknown. The parties explained that the second
21 category of documents was modified to reflect the reality that not all
22 documents missing provenance information necessarily came from the
24 On the 16th of April, the Stanisic Defence filed an addendum to
25 the joint submission. And on the 23rd of April the Prosecution filed a
1 request to reply to the Stanisic defence addendum, attaching its reply to
2 the request.
3 On the 26th of April, through an informal communication the
4 Chamber granted leave to reply -- leave to the Prosecution to file a
5 reply and accepted the attachment to the request as the reply.
6 The Chamber will address the second category of documents marked
7 for identification received from the accused or whose provenance is
8 unknown in a separate statement.
9 The Chamber starts by noting that there are no longer any
10 objections to the admission of documents D456, D462, and P3063.
11 I would like to hear from the Simatovic Defence whether the
12 revised translations of D456, D462, and P3063 have been uploaded.
13 Mr. Petrovic.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Your Honours,
16 Your Honour, I believe the translation do exist. As far as I
17 can ... yes, Your Honour?
18 JUDGE ORIE: These are the revised translations?
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, these are
20 translations as received from the translation service.
21 Now I really cannot say whether they are revised or not, but
22 there was a problem with those documents; for example, for D456. A
23 response was awaited from the Prosecution that was clarified in the
24 meantime. I do not have anything noted here that there was a problem
25 with the translation. Perhaps that's our mistake. I apologise in that
2 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that I might have made
4 a mistake that it was just a matter of translations being available and
5 not revision of translations.
6 Ms. Harbour, is that what you can confirm?
7 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour.
8 The issue with D462, as we left it at the last housekeeping
9 session, was an issue of the translation being available, and I wanted to
10 clarify whether your request or your question about revised translations
11 pertained to translations of the unredacted files. And if that is the
12 case, I don't think we're -- we have quite gotten there yet.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: We'll deal with this one after the break so that I
17 have another opportunity to check. From what I just learned, is that it
18 was -- the translation had to be revised because of the original now
19 being unredacted.
20 Is that correct? But we'll deal with it after the break. I'll
21 just make a note.
22 MR. HARBOUR: Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MS. HARBOUR: When we do get to dealing with the issues with the
25 redacted and unredacted files, I have a brief background that I would
1 like to make -- background submissions that I would like to make to just
2 give everyone an overview of some of the issues that we've encountered
3 which I think will make it go smoothly if we -- if I give those before we
4 launch into discussions of specific documents.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, would you suggest to do it now?
6 MS. HARBOUR: If Your Honour would wish, that would be fine.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps that would be a good idea.
8 MS. HARBOUR: As we indicated in our informal e-mail of the
9 30th of May, we've encountered a number of unexpected hurdles in
10 processing the unredacted JSO files. And to ensure that replacing
11 admitted portions of the redacts files with unredacted files in e-court
12 would go smoothly, we've tried to address these hurdles.
13 But, just as a quick summary, the scans we received from Serbia
14 for this batch of documents were of much lower quality than the batch
15 that we received with redactions and the batch that had been tendered
16 into evidence with the redactions. They're much harder to read. Many
17 pages are upside down or side ways, and several of the files were
18 received in a different order than the files previously received and the
19 files that are in evidence. There are also a few -- a small number of
20 substantive differences in the files; namely, on some occasions, the
21 files included an extra page or two, and in some instances isolated
22 documents from one individual's file were located in someone else's file.
23 To deal with some of the technical issues, we printed and scanned
24 the documents to process them rather than processing the digit images and
25 having the digital images stamped. After this process was complete we
1 determined that in some cases this process had decreased the legibility
2 and pages that were legible in the digital form had become illegible. In
3 an attempt to protect the legibility of the pages that are legible in the
4 digital form, we're working with our evidence unit to reprocess some of
5 these files.
6 We've redoubled our efforts to resolve any outstanding technical
7 and administrative efforts with respect to these files and we have been
8 able to resolve most, but not all, of the issues that impact the MFIs for
9 today's housekeeping session. And because of the issues inherent in the
10 documents received we're going to suggest that instead of replacing the
11 redacted documents with the unredacted documents in evidence, as I think
12 all of the parties and the Chamber had originally anticipated, we're
13 going to suggest that we keep the redacted files in evidence and
14 introduce as a separate exhibit either the entire unredacted file or the
15 pages from an unredacted file that correspond to redacted pages and the
16 redacted file.
17 There are several benefits of this which can I discuss in greater
18 deal when we talk about specific documents but one of them is that all of
19 the redacted files can be public. Some have been tendered as
20 confidential exhibits out of an abundance of caution, but we've now
21 verified that they can be public; whereas the unredacted files can not
22 be. So this will result in us effectively having a public redacted
23 version of these files. And, in addition, this will protect the
24 evidentiary value of the documents and protect the evidentiary record
25 where certain page numbers were referred to on the record that may be
1 different now or where certain pages may not be legible in the unredacted
2 files that are legible in the redacted files.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Harbour.
4 Any need to add anything to that, Mr. Petrovic, or Mr. Jordash?
5 Now in the beginning no one was on his feet, now you both are.
6 MR. JORDASH: I'd like to, if I may, just very briefly. I have
7 listened to what the Prosecution have just said with a great deal of
8 concern. The issue as presented by the Prosecution as an administrative
9 one but is plainly not an administrative one, because the contents of
10 those so-called personnel files may well go to the heart of the case
11 against the accused. If at one stage, and if I understand this correctly
12 this is what the Prosecution are saying, one stage they receive a
13 so-called personnel files with certain documents contained within it.
14 Now they receive the -- the -- the same so-called personnel files but
15 with other documents in it, both from the same source: The Serbian
16 government, via, according to the Prosecution, BIA.
17 So what we have now is the Prosecution attempting to reconcile
18 that problem as an administrative problem when, in fact, it is a forensic
19 problem because they present these personnel files to you, the Court, as
20 an accurate reflection of a factual and legal scenario; i.e., this is the
21 personnel files belonging to X, you can be satisfied that these documents
22 were in this file and these reflect a member of a special unit which was
23 supervised by the accused. They then receive a personnel file with
24 different documents and instead of presenting evidence which clarifies
25 why this later file has different documents, they set their evidence unit
1 to sorting out the disparity or discrepancy.
2 In our submission, that is not really satisfactory. We have
3 complained throughout this trial that these are not personnel files,
4 first of all; secondly, we put forward to the Court that these files may
5 well have been tampered with. In fact, from the first accused's
6 perspective have certainly been tampered with. At the close of the case,
7 the Prosecution present this situation which, in our submission, goes to
8 the heart of those issues. And just, if I may just complete this
9 submission, if these issues had been before the Court at the beginning of
10 the case, if the personnel files had been presented as part of the
11 Prosecution case, these are the types of issues which the Defence would
12 had a chance to challenge, adjudicate, or have adjudicated, call evidence
13 concerning the contents of these files, and so on. We've been deprived
14 of that opportunity. And this situation now presented by the Prosecution
15 is another prejudice to the Defence which we cannot, at this stage,
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it was my understanding, but please correct me
18 whether I'm wrong, Ms. Harbour, when you sought to be provided with
19 unredacted versions of documents you had, that you then received not only
20 the unredacted versions apart from how legible and whether electronic or
21 not, but that sometimes even other elements were added to that. Is it
22 your intention to remove anything that you received in addition to what
23 you had and what you sought to be provided in an unredacted form so as
24 not to add anything to what you sought to be admitted into evidence.
25 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, yes. That is the -- absolutely the
1 intention. On very few occasions there were substantive differences, an
2 extra page or a page misplaced in a file, on very few occasions. And
3 certainly when we upload and tender, or if Your Honour would allow for an
4 additional exhibit, we would not include any documents that do not match
5 exactly with the documents that are currently in evidence. However,
6 there is still a very kind of widespread issue of ordering. Many of the
7 page numbers are out of order. So while the pages for the most part are
8 the same pages they are not in the same order, which is one technical
10 And another issue that I would just like to point out is that all
11 of these documents have been disclosed to the Defence and, of course,
12 they are more than welcome, and I would even perhaps encourage them to do
13 a comparison of any unredacted versions of redacted files that are
14 currently in evidence to make sure they are satisfied that it is the
15 exact same evidence with the exception of the redactions removed.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so to that extent, Mr. Jordash, where you were
17 afraid that anything would be added, apart from the fundamental
18 discussion you have raised not for the first time, but if now in this new
19 round of receiving unredacted documents if anything would be extra, not
20 asked for, if I understand you well, that -- that will be discarded
22 MR. JORDASH: Well, there's two problems, as I see it.
23 The first problem is this: Which is the correct file? The one
24 that the Prosecution received earlier on in the proceedings or the one
25 that the Prosecution received now, with the additional documents in it?
1 On what basis do the Prosecution say that the first file received and
2 tendered is one that Your Honours should rely upon as reflecting the
3 personnel file in relation to that particular individual.
4 The second problem, as I see it, is that we don't know and the
5 Court doesn't know the difference between the first and the second
6 because the Prosecution's evidence unit is resolving the discrepancy
7 behind closed doors.
8 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that everything you received legible
9 or not legible, electronic or not electronic, that you have disclosed
10 that to the Defence, so that if this raises an issue as to whether the
11 personnel file -- to the -- to the documents which we were presented with
12 as the personnel file that if now the unredacted version suddenly raises
13 entirely new questions: Is this the personnel file or is a forgery or is
14 there -- that at least the Defence has an opportunity at this moment to
15 look at it.
16 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, sorry for interrupting.
17 Yes, everything has been disclosed. And, in addition, I would
18 like to correct the record. Our evidence unit is certain not
19 manipulating evidence in any way. When I referred to the evidence unit,
20 I simply referred to restamping the documents, hopefully in a more
21 legible form. They're not changing the order which is why we end up with
22 some order issues. We are rotating pages and trying to -- we are
23 rotating pages when they were given to us upside down.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you'd say you are saving, as a matter of fact,
25 musculature of Mr. Jordash. It's a--
1 MS. HARBOUR: Exactly, we're --
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]
3 MS. HARBOUR: We're preserving errors that may have been in the
4 documents that -- received from Serbia because that's how they were
6 MR. JORDASH: I understood the --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps a cup of tea or a cup of coffee so that you
8 understand exactly what Ms. Harbour says the evidence unit is doing at
9 this moment. And then see what problem then remains. Because, may I
10 take it, Mr. Jordash, that you would have no strong objections against
11 having to turn your head for every next page to read it; that that is not
12 something that is worrying you very much.
13 MR. JORDASH: It -- I -- I -- I'm not suggesting that the
14 evidence unit manipulated and I haven't suggested that. But as I
15 understood it, the Prosecution were saying that they were reconciling the
16 second version of the file by ensuring it was the same as the first
17 version of the file.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there's -- of course, there's an inherent
19 problem. If we have a document consisting of five pages with some
20 redactions here and there, and if the Chamber says, We would like to have
21 those documents in an unredacted form, and then you receive seven pages,
22 although the redactions removed, what I do understand what you are doing
23 is to identify which are the five pages which were in unredacted form
24 first, and then remove the others, but giving Mr. Jordash, providing him
25 with all seven pages, a full opportunity to check whether those two extra
1 pages raise any issue as to authenticity of the original five that were
2 presented to the Chamber.
3 Is that how I have to understand the reconciling exercise?
4 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, our evidence unit is not conducting
5 any of this reconciling evidence -- or, exercise. They are simply
6 stamping the evidence in the way that it was received. And if there are
7 extra pages, there are extra pages. And those documents go into our
8 system as received. When I proposed removing the documents, I was
9 referring to the process of us as the Prosecution team on this case
10 removing those before uploading them into e-court so that the unredacted
11 file would match the redacted file in e-court.
12 JUDGE ORIE: What you would then discuss with Mr. Jordash over a
13 cup of cafe or a cup of tea would be, Look, Mr. Jordash, for this
14 document we received more and we are inclined to remove the extra pages
15 so that Mr. Jordash if it raises any concern could say, Well, don't do
16 that, I would prefer to have them in addition to the ones already in.
17 But this is not a matter we should, I think, at this moment take any
18 further in this -- in this session because you first have to look at it
19 and Mr. Jordash must have an opportunity to see what are you doing and to
20 understand what you are doing. I think I understood most of it but
21 perhaps not fully, but the first one we should understand.
22 Yes, Mr. Jordash.
23 MR. JORDASH: We would appreciate a statement from the
24 Prosecution saying what the difference is because -- and the reason I'm
25 putting it in this way is that the sooner we know, the sooner we, the
1 Defence, will know whether we need to investigate what has happened here.
2 Because if there is evidence that the files even at this stage are being
3 altered, and I put it neutrally, that goes to the Defence position that
4 the files are being stored in a place where they can be altered. And so
5 if the Prosecution can put together a brief statement saying, These are
6 the discrepancies in terms of addition or admitted documents, we are one
7 step forward and can make that decision and time is, of course, of the
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour said that it's only in a few instances
10 that the substance was deviating from what was originally there, so not
11 turning pages up/down, et cetera, not removing redactions, but really
12 addition pages or something. And I think Mr. Jordash would highly
13 appreciate if you could identify those and to say what happened to extra
14 pages or -- well, whatever.
15 I take it that all the technicalities like turning pages upside
16 down is not the main problem. Redactions removed is also not a main
17 problem but any other changes in the substance, that is what Mr. Jordash
18 would like to know.
19 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour. We've conducted a review of all
20 of the documents that are currently MFI'd so that we can deal with those
21 today, and as we get to those I will let all of the parties and the
22 Chamber know if there is an issue. And --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Not -- for the Chamber not at this moment. I would
24 leave it to the parties at this very moment because you still have to
25 decide what to do with this addition material, isn't it.
1 MS. HARBOUR: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So, therefore, let's make up your mind, tell
3 Mr. Jordash, let Mr. Jordash make up his mind, and then come to the
4 Chamber if we need to be informed about it.
5 MS. HARBOUR: Yes. And for the larger, you know, extent -- to
6 the extent that there are personnel files that are not in evidence and
7 have not been used, those have all been disclosed so if Mr. Jordash would
8 like to conduct a comparison of those, then he is able to do so.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Well, this was code PF, isn't it, and we
10 dealt with it in the context of D456, D462 and P3063. But I should say
11 this triggered this discussion.
12 The issue that may remain is the translation of the unredacted
13 copies. So this is PF'd, to say so.
14 Then I move on to the next one and please tell me if it is a PF
15 item as well because then I will move on anyhow. The next one is D463.
16 Prosecution stated that it would request an unredacted version. Have you
17 received an unredacted version, Ms. Harbour?
18 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour, we've received unredacted
19 versions for this and for all of the outstanding redacted the personnel
21 JUDGE ORIE: And about translations.
22 MS. HARBOUR: Well we disclosed this to the Defence, and I
23 believe that since it is their exhibit it would be up to the Defence to
24 procure a translation that matches the unredacted file.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you allow me to
1 say that after the break when we do the checking.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll hear from you of a the break.
3 MS. HARBOUR: I would just note, since we've just discussed this,
4 that of the documents that we will -- that have been MFI'd this is the
5 one that has an extra page.
6 JUDGE ORIE: D463.
7 MS. HARBOUR: D463, yes, the unredacted file the Prosecution
8 actually tendered as P3130 through Dejan Plahuta, so that has already
9 been tendered and it has the substantive difference of one additional
10 page which is the first page in P3130.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please repeat your last half line,
12 "And it has the substantive ..."
13 MS. HARBOUR: The substantive difference of one additional page
14 which is the first page in e-court of P3130. And as I am observing that
15 this was a document that we tendered, the unredacted file, I would like
16 to correct my previous assertion that it should be the Defence's
17 responsibility to provide the translation for the unredacted version. We
18 will provide that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You'll provide. And when will you provide that?
20 MS. HARBOUR: We've requested all of the translations. We've
21 received most of them back. I can check at the break to determine
22 whether this particular one has been uploaded yet.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please do so.
24 Then I move on.
25 The Prosecution does not object to the admission of D291 provided
1 that the version on e-court is replaced with 65 ter 1D1950.1. That is
2 well understood.
3 If so, then the Chamber instructs the Registry to replace the
4 current D291 MFI'd with 65 ter 1D1950.1.
5 Has the English translation been uploaded of this document which
6 now replaced D291.
7 Mr. Petrovic? It was your document.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe it's a 1D
10 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, it's a 1D document, yes. Well, it doesn't
11 necessarily mean that ...
12 Mr. Jordash, could we hear from you after the break.
13 MR. JORDASH: It's been uploaded, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And it's the correct translation matching the --
15 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: The -- the document with 1D0950.1 --
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- and not the old version.
19 MR. JORDASH: No, it's the new version.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, would you please attach the
21 English translation. And then D291 is admitted in evidence.
22 Any need to have it under seal? I don't remember whether it was
23 MFI'd under seal. So, therefore, it's then admitted under seal as well.
24 I move on. The Prosecution does not object to the admission of
25 D465 as it realised, and I am summarising, that what appears to be
1 redactions thereon was actually highlighted text. The Chamber directs
2 the Simatovic Defence to upload into e-court a copy of D465 of which the
3 highlighted text is legible. The Chamber instructs the Registry once the
4 Simatovic -- has done this to replace the current copy of D465 with the
5 newly uploaded version. And, now, before I then decide on admission, was
6 what was highlighted translated?
7 Could I ask the parties? Because if it was -- if it looked as
8 redaction then you usually find it in translation also as redacted.
9 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, when I checked yesterday still no
10 translation had been uploaded so I'm not aware whether that was
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that is correct.
14 The translation is not in yet. It was handed in for translation a long
15 time ago, and we are expecting it any day now.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. A long time ago is when?
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we'll check that too
18 and let you know.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then I move on. D356. Prosecution no longer
20 objects to admission, at least not on the ground of redactions in that
21 document but, still, challenges the authenticity.
22 Due to this ground and the fact that the document was obtained
23 from the accused Stanisic, the Chamber deems it appropriate to address
24 this document in its separate oral decision.
25 MS. MARCUS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, could you clarify, please,
1 which document you're talking about.
2 JUDGE ORIE: D357 [sic].
3 Moving to D464 the Chamber notes that this document does not
4 contain any redactions and we'll therefore decide on this document
6 And this concludes the statement in relation to the admissibility
7 of redacted documents which were marked for identification.
8 I move onto the next item on the agenda, which is MFIs with
9 provenance concerns.
10 The Chamber will now deliver its statement on the admissibility
11 of documents marked for identification which were obtained from the
12 accused or whose provenance is unknown and, to the extent possible, its
13 decisions on the admission of specific documents.
14 During the housekeeping of the 28th of March of this year, the
15 Chamber instructed the parties to express their views on the admission of
16 two categories of documents that are currently marked for identification:
17 One, documents containing redactions; and, two, documents received from
18 the accused. A sample format for these joint submissions was distributed
19 to the parties by the Chamber's staff.
20 On the 11th of April, the parties filed a joint submission
21 regarding documents marked for identification that have redactions or
22 whose provenance is unknown.
23 On the 16th of April, 2012, the Stanisic Defence filed an
24 addendum to the joint submission, and on the 23rd of April the
25 Prosecution filed a request to reply to the Stanisic Defence addendum
1 attaching its reply to the request. Until now, the report is the same as
2 for the previous statement.
3 On the 26th of April, through an informal communication, the
4 Chamber granted leave for the Prosecution to file a reply and accepted
5 the attachment to the request as the reply.
6 The Chamber reiterates at the outset that it has brought
7 discretion under Rule 89(C) in determining the admissibility of evidence.
8 The fact alone that a document was obtained from the accused or has not
9 been authenticated by the National Council will not necessarily render it
10 admissible. Evidence need only exhibit sufficient -- the evidence need
11 only exhibit sufficient indicia of reliability to be admissible.
12 The Chamber may deem a document to have probative value on the
13 basis of inherent properties of the document, such as its appearance,
14 including stamps, format or signatures and/or the content of the
15 document, and/or the existence of related evidence, including evidence
16 corroborating the content or the format of that document.
17 However, the admission into evidence does not, at this stage of
18 the case, in any way constitute a final and binding determination as to
19 the authenticity or trustworthiness of the documents sought to be
20 admitted. Such factors are to be considered at the later stage in the
21 case when the Chamber evaluates the probative weight to be attached to
22 this evidence in the context of the entirety of the case.
23 The Chamber will address each of the MFIs with provenance
24 concerns in turn.
25 Start with D757. This document was addressed in the Chamber's
1 seventh decision on the Stanisic Defence bar table motion of the
2 17th of February, 2012, a decision which was filed yesterday, the 6th of
4 D293, this document was admitted into evidence on the
5 30th of May during the testimony of Defence witness Radivoje Micic.
6 D784, the Prosecution withdrew its objection to this document on
7 the 31st of May of this year. The Chamber, therefore, admits into
8 evidence D784.
9 Madam Registrar, could you assist me in knowing whether there's a
10 need to have it admitted under seal.
11 There's no need to have it under seal.
12 D508. The Prosecution does not object to D508 given its
13 uncontroversial nature and indicia of reliability. Therefore, D508 is
14 admitted into evidence but under seal.
15 I move to D696 and D697.
16 The Prosecution withdraws its objection to these documents, in
17 light of the National Council's representation that it has records
18 thereof. The Prosecution further notes that the documents appear to bear
19 official stamps and signatures. The Prosecution requests, however, that
20 the handwritten notes in the document should be disregarded. The Defence
21 does not oppose this request.
22 The Chamber therefore admits D696 and D697 into evidence but will
23 disregard the handwritten notes contained therein.
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: I move to D56, marked not admitted.
1 While Defence witness DST-34 identified the stamp on this
2 document as that of the Federal Secretariat of the Interior of the
3 Republic of Serbia, and the signature as that of the federal secretary of
4 the interior, Petar Gacanin, the National Council has indicated that it
5 is not in possession of the document. Despite the prima facia indicia of
6 reliability on the face of the document, the National Council's response
7 weighs heavily against its authenticity, and the Chamber therefore denies
8 the admission of this document.
9 I move to P3080. The Chamber observes that this document lacks
10 any official stamp or marking. Defence witness, Gvozden Gagic recognised
11 some of the names in the list but did not confirm that there were, in
12 fact, suspended from the police force.
13 Before I move on, I'd like to inquire with the parties whether
14 any response has been received from the National Council.
15 MR. FARR: Your Honour, unfortunately, due to an oversight, we
16 just sent our RFA this week. We asked for a response within seven days
17 due to the lateness of our request. But, no, we have not received a
18 response yet.
19 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider during the break whether
20 it would already decide, which would mean under the present circumstances
21 non-admission because of late request for verification.
22 MR. FARR: Understood, Your Honour.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will not wait until after the break.
25 This failure to seek in a timely way the position of the National Council
1 leads the Chamber to deny the admission of P3080.
2 I move onto D304, D305, D306, D308, D309, D310 and D311.
3 The Chamber observes that these documents lack official stamps or
4 markings. Only three of the documents appear to identify their authors.
5 While Defence witness DST-034 provided some but generalised observations
6 about these documents, he did not authenticate them. The Chamber is
7 aware that there was a pending request for authentication with the
8 National Council.
9 Any result from that request?
10 No response.
11 MR. JORDASH: We asked them to respond by the 4th of June, but we
12 received no -- no response so far.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then under those circumstances, the Chamber denies
14 admission for lack of sufficient indicia of reliability. Therefore, it's
15 now marked, not admitted.
16 D330. This is a document which describes the general conditions
17 faced by Serbs in Croatia. The Chamber observes that this document lacks
18 official stamps or markings and its author is unknown. While Defence
19 witness DST-043 confirmed the contents of this document, he did not
20 authenticate it. There is a pending request for authentification.
21 Any result?
22 MR. JORDASH: The same as the previous one.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber, also in relation to D330, denies
24 admission for lack of sufficient indicia of reliability.
25 I move on to D362, documents signed by an individual who appears
1 to have been killed in 1994. While Defence witness
2 Nebojsa Begorevic [phoen] addressed this document, he did not
3 authenticate it. There is a pending request for authentification.
4 Any results from that.
5 MR. JORDASH: Same as before.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then the decision is that the Chamber denies
7 admission for the lack of sufficient indicia of reliability.
8 D365. This appears to be a reproduction of a TO instruction in a
9 book. There is a pending request for authentification with the
10 National Council. The Prosecution has further stated that this document
11 was obtained from one of its then-perspective witnesses. When Defence
12 witness Nebojsa Begorevic was shown this document, he stated that he was
13 unsure of having received this TO instruction.
14 Is there any further knowledge of the provenance of this document
15 available to the parties, particularly, for example, about the book in
16 which it was reproduced? And, of course, another question would be
17 whether the National Council would have responded to a -- any request or
18 given any information.
19 MR. FARR: Your Honour, at the moment I don't have any further
20 information, but if the Chamber would like us to, the Prosecution would
21 be happy to look into this matter further and see if we can provide any
22 further information.
23 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would that take? Because I do
24 understand that you received it from one of your perspective witnesses
25 who then apparently was not called to testify.
1 Is that ...
2 MR. FARR: That's my note as well, Your Honour. I don't have
3 personal knowledge of who that is.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then, you're closer to this Tribunal at this
5 moment than the National Council, so perhaps matters could be resolved
6 during the break, and that's a different situation. Under those
7 circumstances, we'll not yet decide on the admission of D365. But we'd
8 like to hear from you after the break, or after the next break.
9 I move onto D394. The Chamber recalls that Defence witness
10 Milenko Lemicic's opinion was that this is an authenticate SDB document,
11 although he was unfamiliar with its contents. The document does not
12 contain any official stampings or signatures and there are various
13 handwritten notes and marks therein. There is a pending request for
14 authentication with the National Council.
15 Any response received?
16 MR. JORDASH: No response received.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Despite a lack of response by the National Council,
18 the Chamber admits D394 into evidence. The Chamber has considered that
19 this document bears sufficient indicia of reliability for it to be
20 admissible, particularly in light of Defence witness Milenko Lemicic's
21 testimony in relation thereto.
22 D394 is admitted into evidence, under seal.
23 I move onto D425.
24 The Chamber notes that the original B/C/S document of D425 is
25 identical to 1D02416, which is subject of the Stanisic Defence bar table
1 motion, albeit with a slightly different English translation.
2 1D02416 is therefore deemed withdrawn from the bar table motion,
3 and we'll deal with it in relation to D425.
4 Defence witness Radenko Novakovic stated that he saw this
5 document for the first time and considered that this document was
6 probably written by the analytical administration and found it to be an
7 excellent analysis of the VJ. The document lacks any official stamps and
8 it does not contain a copy number. There is a pending request for
9 authentication with the National Council.
10 Any response?
11 MR. JORDASH: No response.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then the Chamber denies admission for lack of
13 sufficient indicia of reliability. The status of D425 is therefore
14 marked not admitted.
15 D689, a document which describes the socio-political situation in
16 the area of Vukovar. The Chamber notes that this document bears no
17 stamps indicating that it is an official state security report. Defence
18 witness Aco Draca was questioned regarding the second paragraph of this
19 document, and he agreed that this paragraph was accurate. He was not
20 asked to authenticate the document however. There is a pending request
21 for authentication with the National Council.
22 Any response to that?
23 MR. JORDASH: No response.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then D689 is -- admission is denied for lack of
25 sufficient indicia of reliability.
1 I move onto D357. This document does not bear any official
2 stamps or signatures. Furthermore Defence witnesses Radenko Novakovic
3 and Jovan Dimitrijevic were questioned on this document but had no
4 knowledge thereof. Moreover, the National Council has indicated that it
5 is not in possession of this document.
6 The response of the National Council and the lack of other
7 indicia of reliability weigh heavily against the document's authenticity.
8 D357 is therefore denied admission.
9 D366. This document contains an order of
10 Lieutenant-General Tomislav Simovic to Martic and Kojic to implement a
11 cease-fires on the 18th of September, 1991. It appears to bear official
12 stamps. Defence witness Dusan Knezevic confirmed that such a cease-fire
13 did take place. The Stanisic Defence indicated that it would lodge a
14 request for authentication with the National Council.
15 Has such a request been made, and is there any response to it?
16 MR. JORDASH: A request has been made and is outstanding.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Despite the lack of a response by the National
18 Council, the Chamber considers that the document bears sufficient indicia
19 of reliability and therefore admits D366 into evidence.
20 D535. This document is unsigned and bears no stamps indicating
21 either transmission or receipt.
22 Has there been any response from the National Council?
23 MR. JORDASH: No response.
24 JUDGE ORIE: This document which is said to be a letter from the
25 accused Stanisic but is unsigned and bears no stamps indicating either
1 transmission or receipt, the Chamber considers that it lacks sufficient
2 indicia of reliability to be admitted. The Chamber, therefore, instructs
3 the Registry to mark D535 as not admitted.
4 D748, 749, 750 and 751. The parties have not indicated whether a
5 request for authentication is pending with the National Council in
6 relation to these documents. When presented with D748, Defence witness
7 Mladen Karan commented that that was the first time he had seen it. He
8 was not questioned, however, on D749, 750, and 751.
9 The Chamber notes that the documents lack any stamps or
10 indication of authorship. D749 is alleged to be an intercept of a
11 conversation between two BiH army officers. The document indicates that
12 there were reception difficulties resulting in the non-transcription of
13 portions of the intercepted conversation.
14 D750 further lacks an English translation, and both D750 and D751
15 contain handwritten notations.
16 The Chamber further notes, however, that D749 appears to be from
17 a publication of the third department of the 7th Administration and not
18 from the 8th Administration, as the joint submission indicates, but --
19 this is what the Chamber observed. Based on this, that is, that D749
20 appears to be from a 7th Administration publication, the Chamber
21 considers that this document bears sufficient indicia of reliability to
22 be admissible and admitted D749 into evidence. The Chamber, however,
23 denies admission of D748, D750, and D751 for lack of sufficient indicia
24 of reliability.
25 I suggest to the parties that we take a break first and that we
1 resume at 11.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: I revisit a few matters we dealt with before the
7 But, Ms. Marcus, you're on your feet.
8 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, with your leave I'd like to just put
9 one thing very briefly on the record. This is with respect -- just a
10 very brief clarification of the discussion that we had earlier regarding
11 the personnel files processing. We will, of course, meet with the
12 Defence and that's not a problem. I just want to clarify there are two
13 separate issues.
14 One issue is the processing of the evidence unit and the other
15 issue is what the team is doing to resolve the outstanding matters for
16 this case.
17 For the evidence unit what was done was that the files as
18 received were printed and then ERNed. When we looked at that, that
19 resulted in some problems, among which was the -- the legibility problem.
20 In order to resolve that, we are going to ERN the digital version. We're
21 not changing anything. We're not removing, switching anything. The one
22 additional thing that will be done which is appropriate in our
23 understanding, according to the protocol, is flipping the upside down
24 pages, just spinning them. That's it.
25 So if Mr. Jordash would like to have a copy of the digital
1 version on a CD as received we can provide that to him immediately, if
2 that would be of assistance. That is what's happening with the evidence
3 unit. Okay.
4 Completely apart from that, we have some files admitted, some
5 parts of files, some documents from files and much of that is some of
6 those pages were admitted redacted, as we all know. We need to cross
7 reference with respect to those individual documents for the purposes of
8 this -- these proceedings to identify which page is the unredacted
9 version so that that can be put into evidence.
10 That is the cross-referencing exercise that the team is doing to
11 resolve the issue of some documents having been admitted redacted.
12 Now, we are not doing a complete and entire cross-referencing
13 exercise with respect to the spire personnel file's collection. It is
14 open to Mr. Jordash certainly to do that. We will be able to give
15 specific information to the Chamber, hopefully some today, but maybe not
16 all today, with respect to those documents that are in issue in this
17 trial, not with respect to the whole collection.
18 I just wanted to make sure that we didn't confuse the evidence
19 processing aspect with what the Prosecution team is doing.
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
22 MR. JORDASH: I'm -- in -- in the dark. Perhaps it's me, but
23 the -- the sole issue is whether later files -- different in composition
24 to the earlier files. Secondly, are the Prosecution going to write a
25 statement to indicate that to save the Defence from having to spend hours
1 and hours going through the files, trying to work out what, in our
2 submission, we ought to be informed of by the Prosecution. We're not
3 asking the Prosecution to do that in relation to the whole body of the
4 files which have not been admitted but to the evidence that has been
6 Why, in our submission, should we, the Defence, have to do that
8 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
9 MS. MARCUS: With --
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is not seeking any further submissions
12 on the matter, Ms. Marcus.
13 If, after a cup of tea or coffee, questions remain, then, of
14 course, we'll consider whether or not to further hear any submissions on
15 the matter.
16 I return to a few matters from before the break.
17 First, we had the excerpts. That was -- I apologise for having
18 to read them again: 1D00380, 1D00379, 1D00372, 1D01893, 1D00373,
19 1D00370, 1D00374, 1D00375, 1D00376, and 1D00381, to say it short, the
21 Ten documents, Madam Registrar, would you please assign number --
22 a range of numbers for these ten documents.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Documents will receive numbers starting with
24 D1120 up to and including D1129, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
1 Mr. Jordash, any need to have them under seal, excerpts?
2 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then D1120 up to and including D1129 is admitted
4 into evidence, under seal.
5 Then OSCE report, we deal with that after the next break. I'm at
6 page 58 out of 103. I need more time.
7 D463, revised English translation.
8 Is it there yet?
9 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, the Prosecution tendered as P3130 the
10 unredacted version of this file in the context of the witness
11 Dejan Plahuta. And the translation corresponding to that unredacted file
12 is, indeed, available in e-court and it is listed as the same 65 ter
13 number as the MFI'd document which is 6507. I can read the doc ID out if
14 it would assist the Registry or I can transmit it electronically later.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, what would you prefer, to be read
17 THE REGISTRAR: I would prefer to have a number on the record,
18 Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 So please read it out.
21 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, it is 0682-3846-ET.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And then nothing opposes admission. I think we have
23 now unredacted and unredacted [sic] translation.
24 MS. HARBOUR: I think we would need to ask the Simatovic Defence
25 to verify that the redacted translation is the proper one. I know it was
1 pending at the last housekeeping session, but as for the unredacted
2 translation, yes, we just discussed that. And I just -- for full clarity
3 of the record I did say this earlier today but this is the one document
4 on the MFI list of the PF, the personnel files, that has one additional
5 page in the unredacted file. And since I tendered that separately
6 through Mr. Plahuta, I did tender the entire unredacted file including
7 that page and that's included in the translation.
8 JUDGE ORIE: So that is not something which you received and is
9 now somewhere -- it's now put on the record clearly, the additional page.
10 MS. HARBOUR: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It didn't slip it in but it is now part of the
13 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour, that was the intention.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And that's included in the translation. And that's
15 the -- the translation is without any redactions remaining in the
16 translation or ...
17 MS. HARBOUR: That is correct, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One second, please.
19 Therefore, P3130 is admitted into evidence, under seal.
20 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 D365 provenance info. Do you have any?
23 MR. FARR: Your Honour, can we move into private session, please.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
25 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
25 I asked you about -- I started about D463, and then you responded
1 in relation to P3130. That is, because --
2 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, D463 is the redacted version of the
3 file that was tendered by the Simatovic Defence.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MS. HARBOUR: And we separately had tendered the unredacted
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So P3130 is -- is -- is same content as what
8 is found in D463. Is that --
9 MS. HARBOUR: With the exception of the page that I indicated.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MS. HARBOUR: And it is our submission, Your Honour, and I leave
12 it in your hands, but it is our submission that for these personnel files
13 at -- it may be expedient to have both the redacted and unredacted file
14 separately admitted.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We will further consider it.
16 Everything clear, Mr. Petrovic?
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] We do not object, Your Honour.
18 But, of course, when we are talking about personnel files it's a totally
19 different subject we will not broach today. But on a technical level,
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. I think I came to D764. That is a
22 document which bears a signature. It -- but it is containing official
23 stamps. The Chamber understands that there -- no request for
24 authentication has been made yet with the National Council regarding this
25 document. Defence witness Aco Draca was questioned briefly on this
1 document but he did not make any comments thereon. Defence witness
2 Petar Djukic confirmed the content of three paragraphs of this document
3 but did not authenticate the document itself.
4 The Chamber recalls that this document details the level of
5 combat readiness of the RSK Army's 11th corps. Defence Petar Djukic
6 confirmed three paragraphs of the document concerning the number of
7 soldier in the corps, the subordination in June 1995 of Boca's Battalion
8 to the corps' command and a detachment of PGM in Erdut in June 1995.
9 The Chamber considers that these are significant elements of this
10 document, and therefore the Chamber concludes that his document bears
11 sufficient indicia of reliability. The document, therefore, is admitted
12 into evidence but the Chamber will disregard handwritten notations and
13 marks in this document and the document is admitted under seal.
14 I move on to D783, document without official stamps.
15 Witness Sir Ivor Roberts was shown this document and he neither
16 authenticated it nor confirmed any of its contents. The Stanisic Defence
17 indicated that it would lodge a request for authentication with the
18 National Council.
19 Any response received, Mr. Jordash?
20 MR. JORDASH: We have no further information, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No further information.
22 Anything else to be said about it, apart from that there's no
23 response from the National Council?
24 In the absence of any further information, the Chamber denies
25 admission of D783.
1 I move to D687. Prosecution has indicated in the joint
2 submission that it is conducting inquiries to whether former
3 UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali received this letter.
4 Any update on that?
5 MS. MARCUS: The RFA is still outstanding. We will inform the
6 Chamber as soon as we hear a response.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In the absence of any further information, the
8 Chamber decides not to admit D687. Admission is denied.
9 That concludes the statement and the conversation with the
10 parties and some decisions on the admission of documents marked for
11 identification which were obtained from the accused or whose provenance
12 is unknown.
13 I now move on to the next item of my agenda. That is, a decision
14 on the Stanisic Defence motion to compel the production of Prosecution
15 exhibits for the testimony of Mr. David Browne.
16 On the 8th of November [sic] of this year the Stanisic Defence
17 filed a motion seeking an order, pursuant to Rule 54 of the Tribunal's
18 Rules, to compel the Prosecution to produce the military notebooks
19 written by General Ratko Mladic, for the purpose of using them in court
20 during the testimony of expert Witness Browne.
21 On the 22 February, the Prosecution responded, requesting that
22 the Chamber deny the motion to compel.
23 The Simatovic Defence did not file a response.
24 On 15th of March, the Chamber decided to deny the motion to
25 compel and informed the parties through an informal communication to be
1 put on the record at a later stage, as is done by now.
2 In reaching its decision, the Chamber considered that the
3 Stanisic Defence sought, and was given, access to inspect and examine the
4 original notebooks through expert Witness Browne. These examinations
5 were documented in the Browne expert report.
6 The Chamber also considered that the expert Witness Browne was
7 called pursuant to Rule 94 bis(B)(ii) of the Rules to be cross-examined
8 by the Prosecution. In this respect, the Prosecution's wish to
9 cross-examine the expert did not indicate any need to have the notebooks
10 produced in court, as the purpose was to challenge the conclusions
11 contained in the Browne expert report. The Prosecution did not dispute
12 the physical condition of the notebooks.
13 Furthermore, the Chamber considered that its personal observation
14 of the notebooks would not assist it in better understanding expert
15 Witness Browne's testimony or his expert report. The Chamber considered
16 that the observations of the physical condition of the notebooks and the
17 conclusions based thereupon, which are contained in the Browne expert
18 report, were easily comprehended by the Chamber's review of the expert
19 report itself or would be through expert Witness Browne's testimony.
20 Finally, the Chamber considered that should it have determined a
21 need to physically observe the notebooks during or after expert
22 Witness Browne's testimony, the Chamber retained the right to reconsider
23 and to order, proprio motu, pursuant to Rule 54 the production of the
24 notebooks for the Chamber to inspect them.
25 The decision on the motion is hereby put on the record, including
1 the reasons.
2 If I said, which is possible in the beginning, that the motion
3 was filed on the 8th of November, then it has been a mistake, because the
4 motion was filed on the 8th of February. Just to make that clear: That
5 the decision was, on that motion, filed the 8th of February, 2012.
6 The next sub-item on my agenda is to deliver the Chamber's
7 decision on the Stanisic Defence submissions regarding the Prosecution's
8 responsibility to state its case regarding the Mladic notebooks filed on
9 the 5th of April, 2012, pursuant to the Chamber's instruction of the
10 30th of March, an instruction which was communicated to the parts via an
11 informal communication.
12 As a preliminary matter, the Chamber notes that the
13 Stanisic Defence requested a written decision. The Chamber considers
14 that the parties have an equal possibility to request certification to
15 appeal or reconsideration of any Chamber decision, without distinction,
16 as to whether that decision is an oral decision or a decision in writing.
17 The Chamber sees no particular rationale for this request; therefore,
18 opts to issue an oral decision on this matter.
19 In its submissions, the Stanisic Defence argues that it has not
20 been provided with consistent notice of the Prosecution's case with
21 respect to the Mladic notebooks. In particular, the Stanisic Defence
22 submits that the Prosecution's position is unclear and has shifted
23 throughout this case in relation to whether the notebooks were
24 contemporaneously written, whether they have in any way been altered or
25 had portions removed, and as to how and by whom the notebooks have been
2 Given that excerpts of the notebooks have been admitted into
3 evidence and that Mr. Mladic is listed as a member in the alleged joint
4 criminal enterprise with Mr. Stanisic, the Stanisic Defence submits that
5 the Prosecution should identify with precision its position in relation
6 to the notebooks in order to ensure a fair trial and the proper
7 administration of justice.
8 In its response filed on the 19th of April, 2012, the Prosecution
9 requests that the Chamber deny the motion. The Prosecution submits that
10 its position in relation to the notebooks has not shifted and that there
11 is no legal obligation for it to provide its position in relation to a
12 theory advanced by the Stanisic Defence as a part of its case.
13 The Chamber recall its decisions of the 10th and 11th of March,
14 2011, in which it found each admitted excerpt of the notebooks to be
15 relevant and deemed them to have probative value to the present case. It
16 further recalls that the Prosecution met the requirement that it, and I
18 "Be able to demonstrate, with clarity and specificity, where and
19 how each document fits into its case."
20 In relation specifically to the contemporaneous nature of the
21 notebooks, the Chamber recalled that in its 10th of March, 2011,
22 decision, it stated that it, and I quote again:
23 "Will cautiously and continuously assess all evidence that comes
24 before it that may contradict the apparent contemporaneous nature of the
1 Further, the Chamber notes that it is the Stanisic Defence's case
2 that the notebooks are unreliable and that they were not
3 contemporaneously written, have been altered to implicate Mr. Stanisic
4 and/or have had portions omitted. In this respect, the Chamber also
5 notes that the Stanisic Defence did not raise arguments as to
6 reliability, or file a response at all, to the Prosecution's motion for
7 the admission of the notebook decided upon in the Chamber's decisions of
8 10th and 11th of March, 2011.
9 After careful consideration of the parties' submissions, prior
10 motions and the trial transcript, the Chamber does not find that the
11 Prosecution's position is either unclear or that it has shifted in
12 relation to the notebooks. The Chamber considers that the Prosecution is
13 not obligated to indicate its position regards the Stanisic Defence
14 theory or interpretation of evidence discovered only after the start of
15 the trial. In this same respect, the Prosecution is not obligated to
16 indicate its view on the Stanisic's Defence's exploration of the
17 circumstances surrounding the search and the seizure of the notebooks.
18 In relation to ensuring a fair trial, the Prosecution's trial
19 strategy of whether and how to respond to the Defence's case does not
20 inhibit the Defence from pursuing its theory of the case or impact its
21 ability to present evidence in support thereof.
22 Finally, the Chamber will continue to carefully consider all
23 evidence put before it, by all parties, in relation to the notebooks.
24 And the Chamber, therefore, denies the Defence motion.
25 I now move to --
1 MR. JORDASH: Sorry to interrupt.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. JORDASH: I don't know if this is helpful or not, but I just
4 wanted to react immediately to the Chamber's note that it is our case
5 that the notebooks are unreliable and they were not contemporaneously
7 That is our position in relation to when Mr. Mladic implicates
8 others. It's not our position generally. I just wanted that to be
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, at least, there is unreliability -- this
11 was a decision. It is good that you have put this on the record as the
12 position of the Defence, but, of course, it cannot change the reasons of
13 the [Overlapping speakers] ...
14 MR. JORDASH: [Overlapping speakers] ... no, no, and I'm not
15 seeking to. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear.
16 JUDGE ORIE: That is you have not contradicted the finding of the
17 Chamber in this respect but you have refined it. That's how I understand
19 Then we move to -- if I could say so, the favourite on the
20 agenda, my favourite item, which is remainder of MFI list.
21 If I say the remainder, we're talking about residual MFIs,
22 because, of course, in the oral decisions a few MFIs have been dealt with
23 already and the bar table decisions, of course, have dealt with some as
25 So I would say take a deep breath and we start with P2995.
1 The OTP submitted that P2995 was an excerpt of D456, MFI'd. And
2 now I have to look at my other list. That's the position of the
4 MS. HARBOUR: Yes. I believe on the 29th of March, 2012, which
5 was the last housekeeping session, we left the discussion with the fact
6 that P2995 would be vacated as soon as D456 was not any further MFI'd.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And now I'm -- the unredacted version of D456
8 is now uploaded in the B/C/S version. And there was no translation in
9 English yet. But the matter has been resolved under one of the previous
10 agenda items, I think. Let's have a look.
11 No. One second, please.
12 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think D456 has not been resolved yet so we
14 leave it for the time being, as such.
15 Next one. P3077. The -- Mr. Jordash, you objected to the
16 admission. The Chamber, on the 28th of March, said that it would need to
17 develop further thoughts on your objections. The Chamber has done so,
18 and the Chamber admits P3077 into evidence.
19 Then, I have P3121, which is a PF.
20 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, I --
21 JUDGE ORIE: It looks --
22 Yes, Ms. Harbour.
23 MS. HARBOUR: Before we move on to the next one, I know that this
24 morning you had mentioned P3063, which is also an MFI. And I just wanted
25 to inform the Chamber that the unredacted version and corresponding
1 translation of that file have been uploaded, and they're uploaded as
2 65 ter 6348.1.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Now I have to find -- you said P306 ...
4 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Therefore, P3063, which we dealt with together
6 with D456 and D462 when you made your observations, is now available in
7 unredacted form and a full translation of this unredacted copy is
9 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, the full translation of P3063
11 may replace the translation of the previous redacted version, and P3063
12 is admitted into evidence, under seal.
13 Then let's move on. I think 3121 and P3122, P3125, P3126 up to
14 and including P3140, P3141, P3143, P3146, P3157, they are all personnel
15 files, and you'd like to deal with them now or would you like to deal
16 with them at a later stage?
17 I already make one observation, that I do understand that the
18 Prosecution withdraws P3157, which is in this series. E-mail, 24th of
19 May of Ms. Marcus.
20 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
21 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: And earlier we admitted 3130 so that's out of that
23 range as well.
24 I noted that these are all under the PF code. Do we deal with
25 them now or would you ...
1 MS. MARCUS: Sorry, Your Honour, the Plahuta files and the
2 Milosevic files are different from each other, so I think with respect
3 Plahuta files -- one moment. Can I have one moment, please.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 [Prosecution counsel confer]
6 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour for the Milosevic files there is
7 nothing. There are no technical issues whatsoever. Those are isolated
8 documents. The whole PF issue is not triggered by the Milosevic-related
9 exhibits. So those are 12 documents so there's nothing barring --
10 JUDGE ORIE: And they are under what numbers; that is 3146 up to
11 and including 3157?
12 MS. MARCUS: Correct, with the exclusion of 3157 --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MS. MARCUS: -- because we don't seek to tender that one. But,
15 yes, 3146 through --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Which means 11 remain. Because this range now
17 covers 11 documents. The 12th was 3157. If I'm not -- if I'm correct in
18 my mathematics.
19 MS. MARCUS: I think I better double- check that, Your Honour --
20 JUDGE ORIE: 46 up to and including 55 makes ten. Add one,
21 you're at 56. That makes 11. 57 would have been the 12th.
22 MS. MARCUS: I don't doubt your math for one moment, Your Honour,
23 but I think there might be something missing. If I could just have a
24 minute to double-check this because the number I had of the documents we
25 sought to tender was 13.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which does not ...
2 MS. MARCUS: Minus the one which would be 12. So if we could
3 move on to the Plahuta documents.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Unless -- yes, now the other one is -- yes. I mark
5 them as 11 or 12 with a question mark and then leave them.
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Today I'm -- my mind is on numbers rather than on
8 names. The Plahuta files, you were thinking of - let me see - 3121, to
9 start with.
10 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me see. I think the issue was -- no. Let
12 me see. For these files, I would indicate that the Chamber will decide
13 on these documents in a separate decision, a decision on the Stanisic
14 Defence motion for the exclusion of specified Prosecution exhibits
15 admitted during cross-examination or, in the alternative, various other
16 remedies to ensure an effective Defence, a motion which was filed on the
17 29th of May. And I think that would cover all of the Plahuta files.
18 MS. HARBOUR: That is correct, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move on. The 11 or 12, we'll re-visit those
21 Then I'm at P3159. Yes. That is a document where the parties
22 agreed that the signature on the document is not Mr. Stanisic's
23 signature. I think that objections, therefore, do not exist any longer,
24 and the document can be admitted into evidence. However -- under seal.
25 However, there's one other matter. Do the parties also agree on if it's
1 not Mr. Stanisic's signature, whether it is the signature of another
2 person, for example, Mr. Tepavcevic, or is there no agreement on whose
3 signature it is?
4 MR. FARR: Your Honour, our position is that it does appear to be
5 the signature of Mr. Tepavcevic and the Chamber could reasonably conclude
6 that, but in the absence of more conclusive information we are not
7 prepared to agree to that. We think it is something that should be
8 assessed in the light of other examples of his signature in the record.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You would not be surprised if someone would draw
10 that conclusion --
11 MR. FARR: Exactly.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- although you find that it's not for you at this
13 moment to ...
14 Okay. Then we leave that as it was. P3159 is admitted into
15 evidence, under seal.
16 I move to P3164. Submissions were made by the parties on
17 25th of May and the 28th of May, both by e-mail. The parties were to
18 formally file their submissions which you'll find as an instruction on
19 the 29th of May, 2012, transcript. Prosecution has filed its submissions
20 on the 30th of May.
21 Has the Defence already filed formally its submissions?
22 MR. JORDASH: No, we haven't filed formally our submissions.
23 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
24 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: There was an instruction that you should file it for
1 the completeness of the record.
2 MR. JORDASH: I think we missed that. I apologise. And we'll do
3 that right away.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. The Chamber, on the basis of those
5 submissions, although the Defence one still to be formally filed, but, of
6 course, the Chamber has read what you stated in the e-mail submission,
7 has decided to admit into evidence P3164.
8 D228. I think that -- this is about source material of
9 Milan Milosevic's report. It was marked not admitted, but then the
10 Registrar was asked to provisionally assign numbers to the list of source
11 material of the report that the Simatovic Defence intends to tender into
13 I will keep that on my list for a second and move onto D241. The
14 OTP has objected to the admission of this document. The Prosecution has
15 concerns about provenance but I'm now talking about June 2011. Then the
16 Stanisic Defence informed the Chamber also in June - 24th of June - that
17 the exhibit is still subject to further decisions.
18 24 November last year the OTP still objected on provenance and on
19 the basis of redactions.
20 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, I don't have the full history of the
21 document in front of me as you do, but I do know that our last -- when we
22 last discussed this document on the 28th of March, 2012, the only
23 outstanding issue was for the Stanisic to provide a translation to match
24 the unredacted version.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is what happened in March, 28th of March,
1 the unredacted version now replaces the current redacted copy, and that
2 we were waiting, at the time, for a translation of the unredacted copy.
3 Is that translation of the unredacted copy, is that uploaded
4 and ...
5 MR. JORDASH: Yes, it is, as 1D01143.1.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
7 Madam Registrar, I think the unredacted is already the current
8 version in the original. The translation which was the translation of
9 the redacted version may now be replaced by the translation of the
10 unredacted version, apparently the number Mr. Jordash just mentioned.
11 And D241 is now is admitted into evidence.
12 Madam Registrar, should that be under seal?
13 It is admitted under seal.
14 I think that the same applies to D244. Has the translation of
15 the unredacted copy been uploaded as well, Mr. Jordash?
16 MR. JORDASH: Yes. As 1D1414.1.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the same report would also apply to D247.
18 Could you give the number of the full translation.
19 MR. JORDASH: 1D01409.1.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the translations attached to D244
21 and D247 may be replaced by now the translations of the full unredacted
23 And D244 and D247 are admitted into evidence, under seal.
24 We move onto D271. Let me see ...
25 Which is a chart. I think the main problems were with the
1 underlying documents of the chart rather than with the chart itself.
2 Therefore, I think D291, which was one of the underlying
3 documents we dealt with in the decision on the redacted MFIs. And let me
4 just check whether all the underlying problems have been resolved.
5 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One of the underlying documents is not
7 admitted in evidence; that's D277. But the Chamber admits into evidence
8 under seal D271, but the Chamber will disregard any comment on underlying
9 documents which were not admitted into evidence, and as far as can I see
10 at this moment that is only D277.
11 I move onto D276. Translation issue. Is there, meanwhile, a
12 full English translation? It is a document dated the
13 22nd of January 2000 "Politika, Arkan's dossier."
14 MR. JORDASH: Yes, it has been uploaded as 1D1604.1.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the translation attached until now
16 may be replaced by the new translation just announced by Mr. Jordash and
17 D276 is admitted into evidence, under seal.
18 D277, excerpts of a DB report, and we'll deal with that in
19 relation to a motion which was filed on the 4th of June of this year.
20 I move onto D301. Again, a chart. It was MFI'd at the time
21 because the underlying documents were not dealt with yet. On the
22 28th of March, at the housekeeping sessions we were still awaiting
23 resolution of underlying documents. We want to have this from our list.
24 Therefore, the chart is admitted, under seal, as Exhibit D301, and the
25 Chamber will disregard any comments on underlying documents which were
1 not admitted into evidence.
2 I move onto D319. That is a video and an English translation was
3 not available at the time.
4 Is it there now?
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, you may attach the English
7 translation to D319.
8 And just for our understanding, D319 is part of a longer video,
9 if I understand well, known under number 2D178.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I do understand that D319 is known as 2D178.1.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that there
13 may be some confusion here. Could you please give me a moment.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the document is
17 JUDGE ORIE: Now I am getting confused because I have a different
18 number. Let me check first.
19 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may be of
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, we are apparently talking about
23 different numbers, as far as the document is -- the video is concerned.
24 I'll do the following. I'll tell you what I had on my mind, and
25 even on my list. I'll verify, because on the basis of the transcript of
1 the 28th of March, it looks as my number being not the correct one,
2 Mr. Bakrac gave us the numbers 872.1, .2, and .3, and that is 2D872.
3 Madam Registrar, are clips of videos uploaded under numbers 872
4 and -- D -- 2D872.1, .2, and .3?
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Most likely my reference to the number was wrong.
7 Mr. Petrovic, I do understand that 2D872.1 is an English
8 translation of a video-clip that the same is true for 871.2 and 87 -- no,
9 I'm misspeaking again and again.
10 The same is true for 2D872.2 and 2D872.3. So the transcripts of
11 the translations are there but Madam Registrar informs me that the
12 videos, the clips themselves, have not been made available to the
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] If I may explain, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 2D872.1 was played in the
17 courtroom, and a surrogate sheet was provided in addition to the video
18 and also a translation. That is D319 so I would just like to restrict
19 myself to that. I wouldn't want to go into the rest of the story.
20 This is what we would like to have admitted.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then D319 being a video-clip uploaded under
22 number 2D872.1 with a transcript -- with an English translation of a
23 transcript is admitted into evidence.
24 Now, the other clips which were not assigned numbers, that is the
25 .2 and the .3, you do not insist on that to be pursuant [Overlapping
1 speakers] ... as evidence.
2 D319 we have dealt with and is admitted.
3 We move onto --
4 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
5 JUDGE ORIE: To the extent the English translation of D319 is not
6 yet attached, Madam Registrar is instructed to attach the translation to
7 this exhibit.
8 We move on. D360. Yes. There, the Prosecution's objections
9 were withdrawn, and we were awaiting for the uploading of an unredacted
10 copy and English translation.
11 Mr. Jordash.
12 MR. JORDASH: Uploaded, as 1D01156.1.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's the English translation of the unredacted
15 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And has the unredacted version replaced the previous
17 redacted version?
18 MR. JORDASH: Could we just have a moment for that, please.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: I hear from Madam Registrar that everything is okay,
22 that the unredacted version and the corresponding translation are in
23 e-court. D360 is admitted into evidence.
24 Madam Registrar, need to have -- under seal.
25 We move onto D361. Similar report. D361 is -- if the unredacted
1 copy and the corresponding translation are uploaded, which is the case,
2 is admitted into evidence, under seal.
3 D375. Unredacted copy and translation are uploaded. D375 is
4 admitted into evidence, under seal as well.
5 D382. The original document, Mr. Petrovic, has that been
6 received and uploaded? Hadzic Special Ilok Unit information report. You
7 were awaiting for the original from the Croatian government.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Microphone not activated]
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Would you activate your microphone.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that
12 document was requested from Croatia but it falls in the group of
13 documents that we are still awaiting. At least I think that is the
14 document, and it has still not been received.
15 JUDGE ORIE: D382 is denied admission because an original could
16 not be produced.
17 I move to D388, which is a chart. The chart is admitted into
18 evidence, under seal. Comments on underlying documents which have not
19 been admitted into evidence will be disregarded by the Chamber.
20 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Since there's none of them not admitted, we'll
22 not disregard anything at all.
23 I move now to D424 up to and including on our list, D443. I'll
24 mention the numbers one by one because it's not an uninterrupted range.
25 It's D424, D427, D430, D432, D435, D436, D437, D440, and D443.
1 The Prosecution has withdrawn objections to any of these
2 documents. Is that true?
3 MR. FARR: That's correct. There was a technical issue remaining
4 with respect to D436. On the 31st of May, at transcript pages 20.009 to
5 20.010, we noted that the quality of D436 is poor and we asked the
6 Defence whether they have a better available version and if not whether
7 verification -- whether the Defence could request verification of the
8 translation of the last paragraph on page 1 of the B/C/S original after
9 the word "Visegrad" since that could contain relevant information.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe this is a
12 Stanisic Defence document.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash. Yes, it's a 1D document, yes.
14 MR. JORDASH: We don't have a better copy. We can, of course,
15 request verification, if that's a sticking point. Of the translation, I
17 MR. FARR: We would appreciate that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: How much time do you think that would take,
19 Mr. Jordash? Because you may have noticed that we don't want to the have
20 MFIs long-standing on the list so that even -- that we would have to deal
21 with it after the Judgement whether to see they're still MFI'd or not.
22 MR. JORDASH: Well, we can put the application in to TTS today.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although I think it was requested already
24 earlier, isn't it? And if we take action now, that's ...
25 MR. JORDASH: We --
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... whether the Prosecution
2 indicated that they had requested authentication only yesterday because
3 they had forgotten. This led to non-admission of the document.
4 Now, again, one or two days is -- is fine, or if you sit together
5 with your language assistants and see whether it can be resolved or
6 whether it can be, then I would still have the patience for that,
7 but [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 MR. JORDASH: [Overlapping speakers] ... we don't have language
9 assistants but the Prosecution do, so perhaps they do -- I mean, we would
10 be happy to accept whatever their language assistance has to say about
11 the matter.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I also could put the question to you, Mr. Farr.
13 The outstanding problems, do you think that they -- they are such
14 that you do object without having the knowledge, or would you rather seek
15 the assistance of Mr. Jordash or from whomever, to see whether it can be
16 resolved and live with it, as matters stand now.
17 Because on my list it says that on the 31st of May, the
18 Prosecution has withdrawn its objection to admission, which means perhaps
19 still some work to be done but on a document which is admitted into
21 MR. FARR: That's correct, Your Honour. We have withdrawn our
22 objection. Perhaps the -- and we're happy for it to be admitted
23 regardless of what this would yield. Perhaps the best approach is for
24 the document to be admitted now. We'll investigate with our translators
25 whether they're able to make out any more of the document, whether they
1 would suggest any revision, and, if so, we could bring that to the
2 Chamber's attention with an application to replace the translation if it
3 appears necessary.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll proceed as suggested.
5 I read the range of documents where I said I'll mention the
6 numbers one by one because it's not an uninterrupted range that's
7 approximately one or two pages ago. All the documents I mentioned there
8 are admitted into evidence, all under seal.
9 I move onto D454. Has the surrogate sheet been uploaded into
10 e-court, Mr. Petrovic?
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then nothing -- there's no further obstacle to
14 D454 is admitted into evidence.
15 D459. Has a translation been uploaded?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour.
18 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, we don't see the surrogate sheet for
19 D454 in e-court.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, I just wanted to raise that.
21 I would need a number under which the surrogate sheet [Overlapping
22 speakers] ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. Petrovic.
24 THE REGISTRAR: [Overlapping speakers]
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: By the way, I forgot to say that it's a video under
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 2D879.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I see that it is uploaded under this number. D454
6 remains admitted but under seal.
7 I move to D459. I think you said, Mr. Petrovic, that a
8 translation had been uploaded and --
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, you may attach the translation to
11 the document.
12 D459 is admitted into evidence, under seal.
13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
14 JUDGE ORIE: The issue is whether D454 which is, in my
15 administration, under seal, whether that really needs to be under seal.
16 It's the video of Muslim refugees from Bosnia living in Razanj [phoen] in
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I don't think so, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then there is a mistake in my administration.
20 D454, now for the third time, remains admitted but not under
22 Ms. Harbour.
23 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, D459 --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MS. HARBOUR: -- is another one of these files issued code PF,
1 and it does not need to be confidential, under seal, because it's a
2 redacted version. So that can be public.
3 And the Prosecution disclosed the unredacted version to the
4 Defence on the 17th of May, 2012, and, as stated previously, we would
5 suggest that the unredacted version or the two pages corresponding to
6 redacted pages in the redacted version be admitted as a separate exhibit.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll deal with that technical aspect later.
8 D459 I now understand there is no need to have it under seal. It
9 was admitted into evidence and remains admitted into evidence.
10 We have to deal with some of these matters anyhow,
12 Then next one D464. Translation was missing.
13 Mr. Petrovic.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe we
15 discussed this earlier today, and that this is that group of documents
16 where the Prosecution was supposed to request unredacted versions, and we
17 concluded that the translation D464 is available. It's 2D167.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, I had as the only issue that
19 translation was missing. If the translation is there, are you
20 [indiscernible] it's a letter. Or are you -- I don't even have any
21 objections on my -- on my record but that may be incomplete.
22 MS. HARBOUR: No, Your Honour, that's correct. I just wanted to
23 put on the record previously this document had been discussed as if it
24 were redacted. In fact, it doesn't have any redactions.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then, since there is a translation now which may be
1 attached to D464.
2 D464 is admitted into evidence, under seal.
3 D475 --
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- is a translation, at least a fuller translation
6 than there was earlier.
7 Has that been uploaded?
8 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Has that translation been uploaded Mr. Jordash, I
10 must say, because it's his document.
11 MR. JORDASH: Yes, it has. It has been uploaded as 1D05252.1.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, that translation may be attached to
13 D475, which is admitted under seal.
14 I think we should take a short break, and we'll resume at five
15 minutes to 1.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
18 [B/C/S on English channel]
19 JUDGE ORIE: I think that the -- it's good not to hear my own
20 voice and a better voice in another language but -- so we are back on
21 track now.
22 I think the Prosecution still owes the Chamber further provenance
23 info about D365.
24 MR. FARR: Your Honour, after reviewing the statement it's our
25 position that it doesn't further authenticate the document. There's no
1 indication as to what this book is that these pages are from and the
2 entire book is not attached. It's just these two pages that are attached
3 to the statement. We don't feel that it clarifies the picture so we
4 maintain our objection.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Any further comments on D365 in view of --
6 MR. JORDASH: The only other comment I would make is whether the
7 document is -- or the position advanced by the document is contentious is
8 a relevant consideration, and I understood that there wasn't really a
9 dispute about this issue.
10 JUDGE ORIE: If that's the case then we --
11 MR. FARR: Well, Your Honour, this a -- purports to be a copy of
12 a Serbian law, and I think that there -- there is some dispute about the
13 precise time at which various laws were applicable; in addition, I think
14 with a document that is an official document of the Republic of Serbia
15 that can be obtained through normal channels, that's -- that's the best
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before or after the Judgement, Mr. Farr.
18 That's ...
19 Mr. Jordash, yes, yes. Now starting seeking legislation is --
20 Mr. Jordash, if it's --
21 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: There are two options, I think. Either the parties
23 agree that it is a piece of legislation not in dispute, although the
24 parties do not agree on when it was applicable or when it was in force,
25 or -- and then, of course, we could look at it, but it has very limited
1 probative value.
3 MR. JORDASH: May we have a moment. I think, actually,
4 Mr. Theunens may have confirmed this piece of legislation. I would just
5 need to check his report.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I hope he didn't rely on the same book without
7 knowing the provenance of the book.
8 MR. JORDASH: Probably something even less reliable.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I leave it there for a while.
10 Yes. The Chamber has now looked at the OSCE report. Factual
11 information in that report refers to 1992. As far as 1993 is concerned,
12 there's little or no factual information in the report, especially 1993
13 seems to deal with -- mainly with other matters and gives a very brief
14 and very general description of the situation in the Kosovo and Sandzak.
15 The Chamber - and that was one of the reasons - was unable to
16 find in this document reference to Muslim terrorism, and that was part of
17 the context in which the witness Mr. Corbic referred to this report. The
18 Chamber is not inclined to seek it further, to have it in evidence, on
19 the understanding that this document at least this document - I'm not
20 talking about any other documents or reports which may have been -- may
21 have been drafted and presented - that at least this document does not
22 confirm what the witness said.
23 If the parties -- however, especially, of course, I'm looking at
24 the Defence, if the Defence would consider that we have overlooked
25 something and that this report really supports Mr. Corbic's -- his
1 testimony, and that what he said, possibly could be found in the report
2 is in there, then have you an opportunity to draw our attention to that.
3 But, under those circumstances, at this moment, the Chamber is
4 not seeking to have the OSCE report in evidence.
5 If that is clear to the parties, I would like to move on.
6 D519. The OTP wanted to have the coaching scene included in the
7 video. The last report was that - that's housekeeping session March -
8 that D519 could be admitted once a copy given by the Stanisic Defence to
9 the Registry.
10 Has the Registry received the video?
11 There are -- I do understand there were two videos now with the
12 Registry. One with sound and one without. There's no transcript. So,
13 therefore, only the video without sound would be admissible, because
14 otherwise we would need a transcript.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Registry did receive a video but
16 there is no transcript uploaded in e-court.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And is it -- is that a verse without sound, because
18 then you can't make a transcript.
19 Could the Prosecution --
20 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, I'm not able to speak to whether the
21 video has sound, but our withdrawal of our initial objection is based on
22 the fact that the video would have sound and that the transcript and
23 translations would also be in evidence.
24 THE REGISTRAR: I'm not sure whether the video is with the sound
25 or not, as the video that I was provided with the number by the
1 Defence -- with the number -- under the number D519, and -- but in the
2 e-court we don't have even surrogate sheet uploaded by the party as well.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
4 MR. JORDASH: We can upload the transcript today, Your Honour, if
5 that's acceptable.
6 MS. HARBOUR: That's acceptable, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: That's acceptable. And there would be no objection
8 any further, also not about broader portions or smaller portions. That's
9 all resolved then.
10 MS. HARBOUR: Right. Of course, assuming that the transcript
11 matches the version that we have agreed on and also the translation.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I suggest that we is admitted into evidence
13 this video and that we invite Madam Registrar to report if within the
14 next 48 hours the Defence has not uploaded a transcript, and if the
15 Defence uploads a transcript, the Registry is hereby instructed to attach
16 this transcript to this exhibit.
17 Madam Registrar, is this over-asking, or is it acceptable for
19 THE REGISTRAR: It is acceptable, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: D519 is admitted into evidence.
21 D552. Translation was not present. Have the translation been
22 uploaded, Mr. Jordash?
23 MR. JORDASH: I think the answer is yes. And it's 1D05067.1.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then nothing opposes admission anymore, I think.
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The document together with the translation has
2 been uploaded.
3 D552 is admitted into evidence. Would it need to be under seal?
4 Yes, it would. Therefore, admitted under seal.
5 D553. Same report? Is the document now in e-court together with
6 the translation attached to it?
7 MR. JORDASH: Yes, it's at 1D05100.1.
8 JUDGE ORIE: D55 --
9 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, 1D05100.1.
10 JUDGE ORIE: D533 is admitted into evidence, under seal.
11 D557, which is an underlying document for the Corbic chart.
12 MR. JORDASH: Uploaded as 1D05101.1.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The translation now being available at D557 is
14 admitted into evidence, under seal.
15 D560 is the chart which was presented with the witness, a chart
16 which should be under seal, if I understand well.
17 I do understand that all objections have been resolved and that,
18 therefore, D560 is ready to be admitted under seal.
19 Ms. Harbour.
20 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, the objections were resolved and we
21 agreed with the Simatovic Defence in court on the 28th of March, 2012,
22 that several changes and redactions would be made to the chart before it
23 would be admitted, and I'm not aware of whether a new chart has been
25 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the redacted version would be
1 2D910.1. Is that the one which is in e-court at this moment?
2 Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. And that was replaced pursuant
4 to Chamber's order of 28th of March this year, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then may I take it that the translation is
6 now also reflecting the redactions? Because to have a redacted version
7 in evidence and the translation still to be the original is -- I have not
8 checked it, but ...
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then D560 is admitted into evidence, under seal.
11 D612. There were minor issues about translation. Has a
12 translation -- a corrected translation been uploaded, Mr. Petrovic?
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for D612, what I have
14 marked here is that we're still waiting for the translation.
15 So, at this moment, there is no translation.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then admission -- D612 is marked not admitted.
17 Next is a series of three, D619, D620, and D621. For all of
18 these, there are two B/C/S versions uploaded and the Registry and the
19 Simatovic Defence would try to sort that out.
20 Has that been done? Mr. Petrovic.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that that has
22 been done, but my colleague from the Registry is going to say whether
23 that is indeed the case or not.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: I confirm it was resolved, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then D619, D620, and D621 are admitted into
3 Should they be under seal, Madam Registrar? Not.
4 Therefore, they're admitted as public exhibits.
5 D643. A few issues with the full transcript of the video would
6 need to be uploaded, including a translation.
7 Has that been done?
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. As 2D979.2.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, I have on my list that the -- that
10 there seems to be agreement that the Chamber would not rely on the
11 narrator and that is understood.
12 Is there anything else you would like to say in this respect.
13 MS. HARBOUR: The only additional issue is that I note that
14 there's not a surrogate sheet for the video in e-court.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, one will be uploaded.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then D643 is admitted into evidence.
19 And Madam Registrar, you're hereby instructed to inform the
20 Chamber if not - within 48 hours from now - a surrogate sheet has been
21 uploaded into evidence.
22 D649. I do understand that initially the Prosecution needed more
23 time, that there was an issue about two documents with the same MFI
24 number but everything apparently has been resolved.
25 Any further comments from the Prosecution? Any objections?
1 MS. HARBOUR: No further comments, Your Honour. I believe the
2 decision at the last housekeeping session was that D649 would be admitted
3 and D667 would be vacated.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I come to that.
5 D649 is admitted into evidence. No need to have it under seal.
6 Then before -- I immediately now jump to D667. The Chamber was
7 informed that the Simatovic Defence would withdraw this exhibit.
8 Therefore, it was marked, and it's now marked not admitted.
9 I then go back to D666. Transcription of entire video was what
10 we were ...
11 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
12 JUDGE ORIE: D666. We were waiting for -- first of all,
13 transcription of the entire video.
14 Mr. Farr.
15 MR. FARR: Your Honour, the transcription has been requested and
16 is in progress but it's not complete yet.
17 In addition, the Prosecution has selected the particular clips
18 that we would reply on. I can read those time codes into the record if
19 the Chamber would like, or we could deal with that in some other way.
20 And just to remind the Chamber, both parties wanted additional
21 portions of the video in evidence and the Prosecution undertook to have
22 the transcription and translation done, even though this is a Defence
24 JUDGE ORIE: But I think we needed the transcription of entire
25 video. That's what was discussed in March.
1 Now you say, We have transcribed portions that we're interested
2 in, and then were we supposed to admit, then, the video tendered by the
3 Simatovic Defence but on the basis of a selection by the Prosecution?
4 MR. FARR: Your Honour, we haven't completed transcription of our
5 selections either. If the Chamber feels that it would be best to have
6 the entire video in evidence, we don't have an objection to that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: But we would then need, first of all, to wait for
8 the full transcription.
9 How long is it? I mean, we're talking about -- this was
10 discussed late March. We're now early June. What ...
11 MR. FARR: Your Honour, I could make an inquiry as to what the
12 expected date for the completion for this project is and revert to the
13 Chamber very shortly, I believe.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, it was your document, it was your
15 video. Where are you?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we had to deal with
17 what had been agreed upon about transcribing the entire video and I think
18 that that was up to my learned friends. So I think that once that has
19 been done, I think that we can take the next step.
20 If you allow me, I would just like to deal with the previous
21 document briefly, D643, if you so allow me, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I'd first like to deal with this one first.
23 We'll check whether it was for the Prosecution to -- to provide
24 that transcript. I do not know whether that was that clear.
25 Even if it originates from the Prosecution, that doesn't mean
1 that the Prosecution necessarily has to prepare it so it be ready for --
2 for admission. That's a matter ...
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that was my
4 understanding. That was our understanding. If this is an oversight on
5 our part, I truly apologise, but I think that that is what had been said.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We'll check that.
7 Apparently Mr. Farr has started working on the portions he
8 considered to be relevant and not on the full -- still also with a bit of
9 a surprise, if the Chamber asks for a full transcript, why would you
10 start working only on portions?
11 MR. FARR: Your Honour, I've just gotten a message that we were,
12 in fact, encouraged by the Chamber to make selections, and perhaps the
13 parties were encouraged to agree on particular excerpts.
14 JUDGE ORIE: When was that? Was that on the housekeeping session
15 in March?
16 MR. FARR: Yes, in the March housekeeping session, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And the parties were invited -- I have not checked
18 the transcript of the 28th of March. The parties were encouraged to meet
19 and discuss the selection of certain portion?
20 MR. FARR: Your Honour, the transcript reference - I'm just
21 checking - it is 18.761.
22 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
23 JUDGE ORIE: It is clear from the transcript that the Prosecution
24 was supposed to provide a translation, and the parties -- where it was
25 only a suggestion to Ms. Marcus:
1 "You might each consider to further find agreement with
2 Mr. Bakrac."
3 That was what I said, addressing Ms. Marcus. And it was not an
4 invitation to both parties.
5 Under the present circumstances, we leave it as it is. I'm
6 looking at the clock. So it remains -- D666 remains MFI'd.
7 I'm looking at the clock. Under normal circumstances I would
8 suggest that we would -- because we'll not finish within the next 20
9 minutes. I'll deal with a few very urgent matters. And we have to
10 schedule a continuation soon. I can tell you that it's not possible this
11 afternoon, neither will it be tomorrow, which is a pity, but agendas are
12 fully booked.
13 Therefore, it should be somewhere early next week to finish. And
14 I'm now looking at the parties. For next week, Monday, in the afternoon,
15 is that a possibility?
16 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
19 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, that would not be a problem for
20 the Prosecution.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Defence.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I know that the
23 agendas are very busy, but I would like to ask on behalf of our Defence
24 if it is possible to schedule this session for another day, a bit later,
25 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, if possible.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Let me explore. Tuesday: Any problem for the
3 MS. MARCUS: No problem, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
5 MR. JORDASH: No problem, Your Honour.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: We will conclude this housekeeping session on
8 Tuesday, the 12th, starting at 3.00 in the afternoon, if a courtroom is
9 available. But that seems to be no major problem these days.
10 There are a few matters which I would like to bring to your
11 attention before we adjourn. One of them -- let me just have a look.
12 Yes. One of them is closure of the Defence case. There are a
13 few pending requests in relation to evidentiary matters as part of the
14 Defence case, and they are: One remaining decision on the
15 Stanisic Defence bar table motion of the 17th of February, 2012; any
16 remaining MFIs, not decided upon today, and there will be quite a few for
17 next Tuesday; contextualising documents tendered by the Stanisic Defence
18 in relation to P3008 and P3009. These documents have not really been
19 MFI'd until now and will be dealt with in the Chamber's decision on the
20 Stanisic Defence motion for exclusion that did not have the formal MFI
21 status at this moment.
22 The second, the Stanisic Defence motion for adjudicated facts
23 which was filed on the 1st of June; The Stanisic Defence motion for
24 admission of prior testimony and interview of one witness, a motion filed
25 on the 4th of June; the Simatovic Defence's first and second bar table
1 motions of the 1st and the 4th of June; the Stanisic Defence's second and
2 third additional bar table motions, filed on the 4th of June; the
3 Stanisic Defence motion for admission of documents into evidence through
4 the bar table of documents that were denied admission without prejudice,
5 a motion which was filed on the 5th of June.
6 These are pending requests related to evidentiary matters as part
7 of the Defence case.
8 The Chamber clarifies that it had set a deadline of the 4th of
9 June 2012, at noon, for any remaining evidentiary motions for the Defence
11 One Simatovic Defence motion and two Stanisic Defence motions
12 were filed after this deadline. The Simatovic Defence motion and one of
13 the Stanisic Defence motions mainly relate to documents which had been
14 denied without prejudice in earlier decisions. As such, the Chamber
15 accepts that these motions relate to an ongoing issue and we will
16 consider them, despite the late submission.
17 The Stanisic Defence's second additional bar table motion was
18 filed after the deadline and does not relate to documents which had been
19 denied without prejudice on an earlier occasion. In addition, the motion
20 does not comply with the Chamber's guidance on submitting bar table
21 submissions, as it does not include the comments of the other parties.
22 As a result, and considering specifically that the Stanisic Defence had
23 ample opportunity to tender documents during the one-year long Defence
24 case and has failed to show good cause for not complying with the
25 Chamber's deadline, pursuant to Rule 127, the Chamber summarily dismisses
1 the Stanisic's Defence's sector additional bar table motion, filed on the
2 4th of June, 2012.
3 As a general matter, the Chamber will not consider any further
4 motions presenting evidence as part of the Defence case. Should new
5 evidentiary issues arise - for example, provenance information for
6 documents which have been denied admission - the tendering party may seek
7 the Chamber's permission to address that issue.
8 Then final briefs and closing arguments scheduling.
9 The Chamber, having heard the parties' submissions on the timing
10 of the further scheduling hereby sets the following deadlines:
11 Final briefs are to be submitted by the 21st of August, 2012.
12 Closing arguments in this case will be heard between the 11th and
13 the 13th of September, 2012. The Prosecution is allotted four hours to
14 deliver its closing argument; and the Defence teams will each have two
15 and a half hours to deliver their closing arguments.
16 There will then be one hour for Prosecution rebuttal arguments
17 and one hour in total for rejoinder arguments. The Defence teams may
18 divide their time for closing arguments amongst themselves as they see
19 fit. If they cannot agree on it, the Chamber will rule on the matter.
20 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: One of the pending issues I apparently had forgotten
22 to mention is the second Stanisic Defence motion for adjudicated facts
23 filed on the 1st of June, 2012. My apologies for this error.
24 I'd further like to draw the attention of the parties to the
25 guide-lines the Registry has sent to the parties -- and I'm trying to
1 find a copy.
2 Madam Registrar, perhaps you could assist me by referring to the
3 date by which you sent this guidance to the parties.
4 THE REGISTRAR: It was today, Your Honours, at 10.35 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is Registry instructions related to the
6 Chamber's decision of the 23rd of August, 2010. The Chamber invites the
7 parties to carefully read these instructions, and the Chamber instructs
8 the parties to abide strictly to those instructions.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 MR. FARR: Your microphone, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I intended to already read the Chamber's
14 decision on proposed rebuttal expert witnesses. I will do that on
15 Tuesday, but in order to remove any uncertainty, the last lines are the
16 Chamber denies the Prosecution's request for leave to present the
17 aforementioned rebuttal evidence and that is the rebuttal evidence
18 which -- in relation to the report of Mr. Browne, two experts, from the
19 Netherlands Forensic Institute.
20 So that motion is denied. I will read the reasons in -- on
21 Tuesday into the record.
22 Yes. Then we had the -- the 11 or 12 discussion. I do
23 understand that the initial series were 13. That one of these documents
24 had already been dealt with elsewhere or was not -- and therefore with 12
25 remaining. One was then withdrawn, and we have now 10 left.
1 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour. Yes. It was the one
2 that was admitted through the other witness that I have lost track of.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then P3146 up to and including P3156 are admitted
5 into evidence; these ten documents.
6 Madam Registrar, do we need them under seal? I have to check
8 It does not appear here that they ...
9 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Some of them are. We'll further specify that on
11 Tuesday. They're admitted into evidence, provisionally under seal, but
12 we'll further specify which ones have to remain under seal next Tuesday.
13 One final observation. When the Chamber says that the Chamber
14 will disregard any comments contained in charts if the underlying
15 document is not is admitted into evidence, that is restricted to comment
16 on that document. If, in the comment, there is substance which is not
17 commenting on the document but is independent from the document to be
18 considered as relevant evidence, the Chamber may use that but we'll
19 disregard any comment which comments on the document.
20 Is that clear to everyone?
21 Unless there's any extremely urgent matter to be raised now.
22 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, thank you. It's only the question of
23 the request to extend the response time to the bar table motions. If --
24 I have a very brief oral submission or I'm happy to file it or send it by
25 e-mail as Your Honour prefers.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I prefer it to be sent by e-mail. Members of the
2 Chamber have commitments elsewhere and therefore would not want to go
3 over the usual time.
4 And if the Chamber has made up its mind on the matter or if the
5 Defence wants to further respond to that, then we would like -- would it
6 be possible to receive any responses by tomorrow, noon? Would that be --
7 if it is immediately now sent by e-mail.
8 MR. JORDASH: No problem.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so if there is any need to further response to
10 what will be sent by e-mail by Ms. Marcus this afternoon, we will put
11 everything on the record at a later stage, we expect a brief response by
12 tomorrow noon.
13 If there are no other matters at this moment which we urgently
14 have to address, we adjourn for the day and we'll resume on Tuesday, the
15 12th of June, and now -- I think I said 3.00. And that, most likely,
16 will be in this same courtroom, II.
17 We stand adjourned.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.42 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 12th day of June,
20 2012, at 3.00 p.m.