1 Wednesday, 18 January 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
6 everyone in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
11 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner,
12 Tom Hannis and Sebastiaan van Hooydonk for the Prosecution this morning.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Ms. Monika Marekova, appearing for
15 Stanisic Defence this morning. Thank you.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic,
17 Aleksandar Aleksic, Marti Sleister, Gillian Kelly, and Olivia Oprea,
18 appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
20 Well, the -- I notice that there was some oblique query as to the
21 provision in the rules for what was described to the parties as an
22 administrative hearing. But, of course, it goes without saying that it
23 is a part of the inherent responsibility of any Court to seek to
24 efficiently manage its business and to the extent that the views of
25 counsel are of assistance in that management exercise, we convene this
1 hearing. Call it an administrative hearing or choose which term you wish
2 but it is -- as I said, it arises out of the inherent responsibility of
3 Courts to manage how it does its work.
4 And we are grateful for the input of counsel in terms of the
5 matters which they indicated through the legal officers they would wish
6 us to -- seek to resolve today.
7 And the first matter on the agenda which would have been
8 circulated to you is that the Trial Chamber informs the parties that of
9 the three motions of which it is currently seized, that is the
10 Prosecution motion to admit new material for the CHS; the
11 Stanisic Defence motion to tender into evidence documents received from
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina; and the Stanisic Defence motion seeking admission of
13 document 820D1. The Chamber anticipates that these matters would be
14 dealt with in the course of this week and the week following.
15 The next item which we address is the joint submission by the
16 parties on documents with MFI status. And let me say at the beginning
17 that we are grateful for the work that counsel have put into the joint
18 report, thus minimising such particular attention as the Chamber
19 otherwise themselves would have had to bring to the resolution of this.
20 On the 15th of December, the Chamber had requested the parties to
21 review the 53 documents on the trial record with MFI status to file a
22 joint submission. The Chamber received a joint position informally by
23 way of e-mail on the 16th of January stating in essence that barring
24 16 documents, the parties have abandoned their requests for the admission
25 of 37 documents marked for identification. The Trial Chamber directs the
1 parties to file their respective notices to that effect containing the
2 provisional exhibit number assigned to those 37 documents in relation to
3 which they no longer request admission and directs the Registry to mark
4 them not admitted.
5 Of the remaining 16 documents, the following 12 documents are
6 admitted into evidence, since the opposing party no longer objects to
7 their admission: 1D66, 1D202, 1D369, 2D32, 2D39, 2D93, 2D94, P124, P1036,
8 P2370, P2382, and P2405.
9 Additionally, Exhibit P2405 is placed under seal.
10 Of the final four documents, the admission of 1D655 and 1D656 was
11 denied by the Chamber in its decision of the 15th of September of 2011,
12 wherein, at paragraph 21 it found that, and I quote:
13 "The Trial Chamber having previously admitted a representative
14 number of such documents will not receive further materials which are
15 repetitive, add nothing new and have limited or no probative value."
16 No new submissions meriting reconsiderations have been made
17 since, and hence, the decision stands.
18 Of the last two documents, P171, was shown to Aleksandar Krulj on
19 28th of October, 2009, although, at that point, the Prosecution did not
20 seek to have the document admitted. And this is at page 2211 of the
21 transcript. It was later put to Goran Macar, who was unable to speak to
22 the event narrated therein. And P911 was also shown by the Prosecution
23 to two witnesses: Vitomir Zepinic and Goran Macar, neither of whom could
24 speak to the contents. And the reference are to transcript pages 5820 of
25 the 29th January, 2010, and 23133, of the 11th of July, 2011.
1 Considering that the Prosecution did not utilise the opportunity
2 it had to seek the admission of these documents through the bar table
3 motion it moved at the close of its case in-chief, the Chamber directs
4 the Registry to mark these documents not admitted.
5 I would now invite Judge Harhoff to deal with the next three
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you --
8 MS. KORNER: Before you move on to the next topic, I wonder if
9 Mr. Hannis certainly wishes to address you on those two documents if that
10 is at all possible. In fact, the idea was that we were going to put in a
11 written motion, but I think Mr. Hannis wants to say something about that.
12 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Hannis.
13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 With regard to P171, which is the "Glas" newspaper article
15 reporting about Mico Stanisic being present in Trebinje on the
16 1st of April, it's the Prosecution's position that Mr. Krulj did confirm
17 that Mr. Stanisic was in Trebinje on that day. Although he took issue
18 with the article insofar as it describes that event as being a review of
19 the special police and he claimed there were no special police or no
20 special police unit in Trebinje, he did not disagree with Mr. Stanisic
21 being present and having spoken about the formation of a new RS MUP on
22 that day.
23 It's the Prosecution position that that didn't become so
24 pertinent or relevant until during the Defence case, when the Prosecution
25 introduced the exhibit concerning the 1st of April dispatch from the
1 joint MUP BiH which was signed by Mr. Delimustafic and all the other
2 members of the joint BiH MUP, except for Mico Stanisic. And it's our
3 argument that this document is relevant because it helps explain, in
4 part, why Mr. Stanisic would not have been present at the
5 1st of April meeting, and signing of the document that was issued on the
6 1st of April because, we say the evidence shows, he was in Trebinje on
7 the 1st of April. And that did not come up during the Prosecution's case
8 and before the time we filed our bar table motion. It was only during
9 the Defence case.
10 With regard to P911, which is a state security report about the
11 events on the 2nd and 3rd of March, 1992, concerning the barricades that
12 were erected, Your Honours did note that that was shown to Mr. Zepinic
13 and Mr. Macar, but it was also shown to Dragan Andan, and Mr. Andan
14 confirmed that to the extent that he was aware of some of those events,
15 it was consistent with what he knew. And in the written submission I
16 intended to make to Your Honours, I wanted to show that much of what is
17 contained in that report is also confirmed by intercepted telephone
18 conversations which are in evidence, and we think it corroborates those
19 conversations and those conversations corroborate the report itself. And
20 I would like you to consider taking that as a document that sort of
21 completes the story about those events. We think there is no issue that
22 it is authentic. It was addressed to the Presidency and several
23 high-ranking members of the government. And I would put more detail
24 about that in a written submission, but, at this point, that's what I
25 have to say.
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE HALL: Procedurally, Mr. Hannis, the -- well, first of all,
3 the -- although we would have heard everything would you have said,
4 obviously it takes some time to digest this and put it into the -- get an
5 understanding of it in the context of what has passed, having -- well,
6 you have indicated that you intend to flesh this out in a written motion,
7 so having regard to the decision that we announced earlier on the record,
8 should this be treated procedurally as an application to reconsider that
9 decision to the -- where we said earlier that they mark not admitted; or
10 should we revoke that decision as having been improvidently made.
11 Or how should we proceed?
12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I would request, perhaps, if you could
13 suspend your decision until I have an opportunity to file something in
14 writing, and I can do that by Friday if that's --
15 JUDGE HALL: So ordered.
16 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, I'm aware of your decision that
19 you just gave, but does that mean that -- that the -- that the order --
20 or the decision on Exhibit 1D655 and 656 is also suspended until we would
21 have the opportunity to -- to address the -- if we choose to that, should
22 we be given the opportunity to file a written motion for reconsideration
23 of your decision or suspend your decision until you hear our position
24 on --
25 JUDGE HALL: I think that would be the prudent course,
1 Mr. Zecevic.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. I understand.
3 JUDGE HALL: So, for the record, the like order of suspension is
4 made in respect of the earlier -- the decision announced earlier in
5 respect of 1D655 and 1D656.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I just ask for clarification on
8 Given that Mr. Zecevic has already had these documents denied,
9 whereas we hadn't applied for them before, would we still get an
10 opportunity to respond, and obviously Mr. Zecevic or Mr. Krgovic to our
11 motion likewise?
12 JUDGE HALL: I would have thought that goes without saying.
13 Because when Mr. Zecevic rose, I thought he was going to ask for the
14 opportunity to respond and I already had my answer prepared that he --
15 that that would happen as a matter of course.
16 So correspondingly --
17 MS. KORNER: Yes. And, Your Honours, in the interests of
18 efficiency we are perfectly prepared to say that we will -- that the
19 responses should be within seven days of each others' filing of the
20 motions so that we can finally dispose of those matters.
21 JUDGE HALL: Would it be too optimistic to ask for even an
22 abbreviated --
23 MS. KORNER: Three days?
24 Your Honour, we're happy with 72 hours, three days.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: 72 hours is acceptable for us as well.
1 JUDGE HALL: So ordered.
2 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, just to make sure, your motion would
4 be a reconsideration motion, wouldn't it?
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Of course, Your Honours, yes.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
9 We have a few further issues to address. One relating to the
10 video exhibits; one to the law library; and one to the status of the
11 transcripts of the testimony of Stevan Todorovic, and I shall address
12 these three points.
13 In relation to the video exhibits, the Chamber was informed on
14 15th of December, 2011, that some videos admitted into evidence were not
15 working properly. The Chamber was to receive an update on this matter,
16 and we take it that there are no more outstanding issues between the
17 parties with regard to video exhibits admitted in this case.
18 Is this a correct understanding? Can I ask the parties?
19 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: And the Prosecution?
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm not sure what not working properly
22 means, whether it means not playable or whether there was some error in
23 the videos under the exhibit, because I'm not aware of any problems of
24 playing the videos.
25 But any issues that remain between the Defence and us and the
1 Registry about what videos have been tendered, I believe are all
2 resolved. But I just wasn't clear on what you meant by "not working
4 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, if I may be of assistance. I believe
6 Ms. Korner was not present at the time when this issue appeared, and,
7 indeed, there was problems with the possibility of playing some videos.
8 But everything has been resolved. Yes.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. This is very comforting. And I thank
10 the parties.
11 You see, the issue was that the information we got was that the
12 Chamber -- the videos weren't working properly and we never received any
13 further information so that's why we just wanted to --
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that escaped my attention as well. But
15 as Mr. Zecevic says it is all resolved, I won't go any further into it
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Thank you very much.
18 Let me move on to the next issue, the law library.
19 On 15th of December, 2011, the Chamber was informed that the
20 translations of eight documents contained in the law library had still
21 not been uploaded into e-court. The Chamber was to receive an update on
22 this matter by the 13th of January, 2012.
23 And could I ask what the current situation and status of this
24 issue is?
25 MR. ZECEVIC: May I address Your Honours?
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, the situation is as follows. Out of
3 eight, seven -- seven translations were received, five were uploaded,
4 two are uploaded as we are speaking, because they were received
6 There is only one, I believe it is L84, which is still pending,
7 and we have got the assurances from the CLSS that the translation of L84
8 will be made available either today or tomorrow. And immediately upon
9 that it will be up loaded in the e-court.
10 Therefore, there is only one still pending, as we speak right
11 now, L84, and we intended to inform the Trial Chamber by -- and the
12 parties via e-mail that the matter has been ultimately resolved.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I would like to thank the -- to
16 Mr. Sebastiaan van Hooydonk for his cooperation on this matter. Thank
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks. This is good to know that there is no
19 more issue pending regarding the law library.
20 Let me then address the third issue; namely, the status of the
21 transcripts of the testimony of Mr. Todorovic.
22 The Trial Chamber notes that the transcripts of
23 Mr. Stevan Todorovic in the Simic trial are currently admitted in this
24 case as public exhibits, 1D606, and 1D608 through 1D618. However, some
25 of these transcripts contain matters which were discussed during closed
1 or private sessions. The Registrar is therefore directed to change the
2 status of these exhibits from public to confidential.
3 And, in the meantime, the Stanisic Defence is requested to upload
4 public redacted versions of those transcripts not containing any private
5 or closed session discussions and to inform the Registry and the Chamber
7 These public redacted versions are then to be become public
8 exhibits, and the Registrar is requested to assign exhibit numbers to
9 them and circulate a memo with the new numbers. Therefore, both the
10 confidential and the public redacted versions of these exhibits will be
11 in evidence.
12 The parties are kindly requested to refer to the public redacted
13 versions of these exhibits in their final briefs as much as possible.
14 On a similar matter, the Trial Chamber notes that, pursuant to
15 the Trial Chamber's oral order of 15th December, 2011, the Prosecution
16 has now uploaded the public redacted versions of Predrag Radic's
17 testimony in the Krajisnik case. These public redacted versions are to
18 be admitted into evidence and the Registrar is kindly invited to assign
19 exhibit numbers to the public redacted versions of Exhibits P2097, P2098,
20 and P2103 -- excuse me, 2100.
21 Ah, right. So all together, let me repeat the numbers just in
22 case there's any misunderstanding.
23 It's P2097, P2098, P2100, and P2103; all together four documents.
24 Thank you.
25 MS. KORNER: So Your Honour, just to confirm, it is the same as
1 with the Todorovic transcripts; namely, there will be two versions, one
2 redacted, one unredacted.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Indeed.
4 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Judge.
6 Judge Delvoie.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. I will address three further issues.
8 First of all, rejoinder.
9 Pursuant to Rule 85(A), the Chamber directs the Defence to file
10 their respective motions seeking to present evidence in rejoinder, if
11 any, by Wednesday, 25th of January, 2012.
12 Any immediate indication of both Defences' intentions are
13 welcome, of course.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
15 There is a matter which I wanted to raise with Your Honours about
16 the -- the potential rejoinder case.
17 In December, immediately upon the decision of the Trial Chamber
18 to hear the rebuttal testimony of the witnesses, we requested
19 documentation from both Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Republic of Serbia;
20 namely, we requested the archives and specifically the orders of the
21 6th Motorised Brigade from Doboj in period January till May 1992.
22 Unfortunately, we -- we are still expecting to receive these
23 documents. We -- we sent number of urgencies, as can you imagine,
24 because we wanted to have that before the witness comes. Ultimately, we
25 decided to carry on the cross-examination without these -- these
2 However, the latest that I know is that we were told that
3 probably this week we will receive the documentation from
4 Republic of Serbia. And we don't have any information from
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's still pending.
6 So if that -- if the -- if the documentation is, indeed,
7 received, we will -- based on what we receive, we might be asking for --
8 that -- that either some of the documents or perhaps a witness be called
9 in a rejoinder case.
10 But that is as far as I can -- I can inform the Trial Chamber at
11 the moment.
12 What my concern is, Your Honours, is that in case we don't
13 receive these documents until the 25th, which is the deadline for our
14 motion, I would like to -- to ask for -- for the guidance from the
15 Trial Chamber. Should we -- should we at that point request another time
16 for -- additional time for filing our motion for rejoinder or ...
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: I think, Mr. Zecevic, that asking for a further
20 delay, a short further delay would the best course of action. By the
21 25th of January.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours, and I appreciate.
23 Thank you very much.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I just say something on -- on that?
25 Mr. Cvijetic -- actually, for safety's sake, Your Honours, can we
1 just briefly go into private session, please.
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
3 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
23 Time and length of final trial briefs.
24 The Chamber has decided to grant the parties four weeks from the
25 closing of the evidence to file their respective final briefs. The
1 Prosecution's final brief shall not exceed 100.000 words. And the final
2 briefs of the Defence will not exceed 60.000 words each.
3 The closing arguments will be heard two weeks after the filing of
4 the final briefs.
5 Thank you.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, on -- on the last matter, the length,
7 Your Honours, we have tried obviously to work out quite carefully how
8 much we need. Your Honours, we're very conscious of the fact that,
9 particularly given the changes there have been in Chamber's staff, that
10 the more assistance that we can possibly give to the Trial Chamber and to
11 Chambers staff on how we put the case legally and factually may really
12 help them.
13 Your Honours, by comparison, can I put it this way. In the
14 Perisic case, which had one accused, and no allegation of joint criminal
15 enterprise, they were given a word limit of 100.000 words. We've got two
16 accused and allegations of joint criminal enterprise. We would therefore
17 respectfully request that you grant us 175.000 words. Which it works out
18 roughly, we think, at 400 pages. Perisic, as I say was a hundred -- it
19 was 300 pages but which effectively amounts to 100.000 words, which is
20 perhaps one of the more recent final briefs.
21 As I say, obviously we can keep it within that limit but -- we
22 can keep it within any limit that Your Honours direct, but we think it
23 would be of more assistance if we can perhaps give some more information.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I have an application of our own
25 concerning the time envisaged and the length of the final briefs.
1 Your Honours, we do not believe that four weeks is -- is enough
2 time for -- for us to file our final brief after the close of evidence.
3 The reasons are many, but basically it -- it is a fact that the charges
4 against my client encompass 20 municipalities, five CSBs, and a huge
5 number of SJBs; plus the MUP at the seat.
6 In all fairness, I believe, due to the fact -- I understand that
7 this is a joint trial, but the fact is that -- that the accused Zupljanin
8 has got only eight municipalities or the Krajina municipalities in his
9 indictment. Therefore, it doesn't seem, at least to us with all due
10 respect, it doesn't seem right that the both -- both accused will have
11 the same amount of words for their final briefs, because, Your Honours,
12 we have to address another four CSBs, plus the MUP at the seat in our
13 final brief.
14 Therefore, we would -- we would kindly request that -- that --
15 that the Trial Chamber grants us at least 100.000 words for our final
16 brief, and we will kindly ask that the -- that the time will be extended
17 to six weeks after the close of the evidence for filing of final briefs.
18 Thank you very much.
19 JUDGE HALL: Why six weeks, Mr. Zecevic?
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, we believe that -- that, after the
21 closing of the evidence, based on -- on the -- on the amount of material
22 which is available in this case, the exhibits and the transcripts, as
23 well as the number of people that we have for drafting the final brief,
24 we came to the conclusion that we would need at least six weeks.
25 We calculated that, and I want -- if Your Honours want me, I can
1 go into detail and explain -- and explain the procedure. But we have --
2 we have --
3 JUDGE HALL: No, that wouldn't be necessary. It's just that the
4 Chamber, having indicated four weeks, we wanted a sense of why you -- you
5 wanted to expand that by 50 per cent. That's all.
6 But I hear what you've said.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Yeah. And, Your Honours, if any of the Chamber
8 witnesses will -- will appear eventually, it will also require a lot of
9 preparation for us, plus the analysis of the testimonies of -- of these
10 witnesses at the very end, as an additional burden for us in -- in the
11 time when we are -- when our time is running for the filing of the final
12 brief. And that is an additional reason why I think we -- our request is
13 a reasonable one to have six weeks for filing of the final brief.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, you do realise that the closing --
15 the closing of the evidence is potentially -- will potentially not be
16 before mid or end of April. And, in the meantime, there will be not that
17 much of sitting weeks.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I -- I appreciate Your Honours, Your Honours,
19 because I wasn't aware of the ...
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment, please.
21 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Well, let's -- let's be conservative and say
23 beginning of April.
24 Would that change your position?
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, I wasn't aware of -- of the --
1 of the time that you -- that was -- that was planned by the
2 Trial Chamber.
3 However, I must -- can I say this. I appreciate that there is --
4 there is a gap in the proceedings between, let's say, next week, and --
5 so basically from the 1st of February until the -- until the coming of
6 the witnesses -- until the testimony of the -- of the Chamber's
8 However, Your Honours, there are two matters which -- which are
9 also pending. There is our response to CHS POD, which is 200.000 words,
10 as I already announced to the Trial Chamber; and there is the preparation
11 for the -- for the -- for the Chamber witnesses. Therefore, it -- it
12 does change, but I'm afraid that at this point in time, I would not be
13 able to say. Perhaps, perhaps Your Honours is right, and then if we will
14 have four weeks after the full closing of the evidence somewhere in
15 April, that would enable us to finalise the final brief. But, at this
16 point, Your Honours, I'm -- this is what I can, unfortunately, inform
17 Your Honours at this point.
18 Thank you.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I, before Mr. Krgovic addresses
20 you, just support that for this reason. I had forgotten about
21 Mr. Zecevic's mega-motion on the CHS. And I agree with him, that the
22 preparation for Chamber's witnesses will occupy, obviously, lawyers'
23 time. And unlike the Defence, I think we now have less lawyers working
24 because, as Your Honours know, two lawyers left shortly before Christmas.
25 So I may support Mr. Zecevic's application on this, that it be
1 six weeks rather than four. And I forgot to say, when I was addressing
2 Your Honours on the length, that one of the matters we have to address in
3 our final brief are the crimes in the municipalities, because none of
4 them are stipulated to at all. Otherwise, what would have been short
5 sections on the municipalities need to be addressed now fully because of
6 the -- the fact that we can't get agreement that they actually happened.
7 But, on the six weeks, we would support Mr. Zecevic's
9 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
10 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, you were about to rise to say that you
11 didn't need the permitted 60.000 words in respect of your case.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. Unfortunately,
13 I will have to add on to what Ms. Korner said.
14 When it comes to the Zupljanin Defence and the word limit, just
15 like the Prosecutor, we need to deal with the databases in each
16 municipality. The events for which my client is charged in each
17 municipality were quite debated at length during the trial, so we have to
18 deal with that in our final brief, in order to respond to the
19 Prosecutor's view of the crime base in each municipality.
20 In addition to that, we have to deal with general matters, such
21 as the joint criminal enterprise, and the general context. So, that
22 means that, in addition to the charges that specifically pertain to
23 Mr. Zupljanin, we also have to deal with events in municipalities which
24 involve us more than Mr. Zupljanin [as interpreted] as well as the
25 context, and the events that led to these unfortunate events in Bosnia
1 and Herzegovina.
2 I will not ask for 100.000 words. I think that 90.000 will be
3 enough for us, Your Honours, based on the topics that have been covered
4 so far.
5 I fully support Mr. Zecevic and Ms. Korner when it comes to
6 six weeks that are needed for preparing final brief after closing of
8 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, I thought you were -- you didn't have
9 anything to add in respect?
10 MS. KORNER: No, thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE HALL: We have seen from the e-mail traffic that there are
14 two matters and, indeed, Ms. Korner has already alluded to this orally in
15 court that she wishes to raise. But there are any other brief matters
16 which counsel wish that the -- the context in which I'm asking that is
17 that we propose to rise now and return in an hour. Because the -- we --
18 we -- we are going to consider what counsel have recently said about the
19 time-limits and the -- the word limits and the time for filing final
21 We will discuss this over the break and return in an hour.
22 But are there any other matters other than the two issues to
23 which Ms. Korner has alerted us that counsel wish to raise before we
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I know that Mr. Zecevic also has a
1 separate -- so there are, in fact, three or four matters between us to
3 But can I just mention in connection with the final brief and
4 then the oral submissions.
5 Practice seems to vary somewhat, but in many cases recently,
6 particularly the leadership cases, there has been a final address by
7 counsel on behalf of their respective sides, as it were, and then a
8 separate hearing where, if the Judges have any matters that they wish
9 us -- counsel on both sides specifically to address, either on the law or
10 factual matters, there's a separate hearing as opposed to, as it were,
11 questions being fired during the closing addresses.
12 We discussed this at our meeting about the MFI documents and I
13 think all three counsel would respectfully suggest that the better, more
14 helpful practice, if I can put it that way, is to have a separate
15 hearing, the Judges having provided through the legal officers any
16 questions or matters that they wish to have specifically addressed.
17 Because, obviously, final addresses are more of a general overall view
18 and, if I can put it that way, is more for the public to understand what
19 each side is saying.
20 And so I don't know whether Your Honours have considered that
21 matter, but we would respectfully suggest that should Your Honours have
22 any specific questions, that that would be the -- the more productive way
23 of dealing with it.
24 JUDGE HALL: Well, I'm grateful for your explanation, Ms. Korner,
25 because I confess, that when I saw this inquiry, I was at a loss as to
1 what it -- it intended to address. I now understand. Thank you.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, both of the matters which I wanted to
3 raise with the Trial Chamber today are fairly short. Perhaps I can -- if
4 it pleases the Court I can do it right now --
5 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Yes, please.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, the first matter, it is just the
7 matter of -- actually, I would like the instruction from Trial Chamber
8 or, actually, to check if I understood correctly.
9 It is my understanding that -- that CHS POD time-frame for the
10 Defence response will be -- will be decided at the time when Your Honours
11 will decide on the pending OTP motion for adding some additional proof of
13 Is my understanding correct on that point?
14 JUDGE HALL: Well, logically, Mr. Zecevic, I think it must be so.
15 Because the -- it is only when you would have had the benefit of -- of
16 seeing the -- what the OTP is permitted to do, in terms of the decision,
17 that you would be able to formulate your own position.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, that is correct, Your Honours. I share that
19 view also, and I just wanted to clarify with Your Honours that I'm not
20 mistakenly taking -- taking a position which -- which is not the one
21 which the Trial Chamber is taking.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: But, if I may, Mr. Zecevic, that would not
23 prevent you from working on your answer, of course, for those sections
24 that are -- that are not subject to eventually any change due to the last
25 OTP motion?
1 MR. ZECEVIC: I can assure Your Honours that we are working
2 around the clock on that.
3 JUDGE HALL: The second matter.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
5 And the second matter, I believe we would need to go in a
6 private session.
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
8 [Private session]
11 Pages 26681-26686 redacted. Private session.
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I don't know if Your Honours are going
6 to give any rulings on the matters that -- in relation to the final
7 briefs. If not, then I'm afraid that we need to go back into private
8 session for the first, and, indeed, most of the matters I want to raise.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: On the final briefs, the Trial Chamber decided to
11 grant for the OTP 120.000 words; for the Stanisic Defence, 80.000 words;
12 and for the Zupljanin Defence, 60.000 words.
13 So, for the Zupljanin Defence, the first decision stays as it is.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yeah. And the -- the time after the close of the
16 evidence to prepare the final briefs stands for the moment, and we will
17 see what happens when we know about rejoinder and Chamber witnesses.
18 Thank you.
19 JUDGE HALL: We will go into private session, as the last matter
20 Mr. Zecevic raised, before we hear from Ms. Korner.
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 26688-26723 redacted. Private session.
10 [Open session]
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE HALL: And we will return in 30 minutes to wrap up this
14 matter. [Microphone not activated].
15 --- Recess taken at 12.36 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 1.13 p.m.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE HALL: We have heard counsel for the Prosecution on the
19 oral application for reconsideration of our decision in respect of
20 three witnesses whom they had sought to call in rebuttal, and, having
21 heard nothing new and reminding ourselves and counsel that -- of the
22 standard that, for reconsideration, a clear error of reasoning has to be
23 demonstrated or the particular circumstances justify a reconsideration in
24 order to prevent an injustice, we are not persuaded that we should
25 reconsider our decision and our decision stands.
1 Are there any other matters before we take the adjournment, which
2 will be an adjournment sine die.
3 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours only this: In part of his
4 argument, Mr. Krgovic prayed in aid cross-examination that he had
5 conducted of Mr. Radulovic, we've checked, and the cross-examination does
6 not include the matters Mr. Krgovic said it did.
7 Would that make any difference to Your Honours' ruling on our
9 JUDGE HALL: The short answer is no.
10 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
11 Then, Your Honours, the only other matter is this. Having looked
12 at the quantity of material in relation, in particular, to one potential
13 witness that Your Honours are thinking about, I said, rather
14 optimistically, I think we could get it to Your Honours by tomorrow.
15 Would Your Honours -- in fact, Your Honours gave us a dead-line of next
16 week but we're anxious to get it to you as soon as possible, but we would
17 hope to get it to you by Friday at the latest.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
19 And if there are no other matters, we stand adjourned.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.17 p.m.,
21 sine die.