1 Friday, 23 April 2004
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 11:50 a.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: I apologise for the delay, because I did not think
6 there was some technical problems. Anyway, this is a Status Conference,
7 the subject is to do with 65 ter filings by the Defence counsel of
8 Mr. Blagojevic. We appreciate the effort made by Defence counsel to
9 submit new 65 ter filings; however, as I mentioned before we are not quite
10 satisfied with this new filing because we see very few improvements
11 compared with the last one. Are there any changes or suggestions for
12 changes by the Defence counsel at this moment? Mr. Karnavas.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. I should
14 note that my last filing was almost contemporaneous to the Court's initial
15 remarks, and hence there were not significant changes. However, we take
16 to heart the Court's concerns and we certainly want to make the Court
17 satisfied. So just to bring everybody up-to-date, and I can be corrected
18 by my colleagues if I misspeak. But after the opening statement, the
19 parties met, my recollection was two plus hours. It could have been less.
20 It seemed to me like three hours, but I would say at least two hours where
21 I was asked numerous questions regarding specific individuals on the list,
22 and I was providing them with a verbal supplementation on any particular
23 witness that they had in mind. I also noted at that time that certain
24 decisions had been made with respect to shifting some of the viva voce to
25 92 bis. I also indicated that there was one witness who was initially
1 scheduled for 92 who was being shifted to viva voce.
2 Now, there is a reason for that, and the reason for that is
3 because this individual was the head of the rocket platoon, and I must say
4 that having looked at the Court's findings in the 98 bis ruling that some
5 significance had been placed on members of the Bratunac Brigade firing
6 rockets --
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, it appears Mr. Karnavas is using this
9 situation to be able to argue his case and argue his witnesses. This
10 is -- I have restrained from trying to argue my case or respond, but this
11 whole problem with him providing 65 ter and proofing notes is allowing him
12 to get up and argue his case. It just -- it's unnecessary. And now he's
13 responding to your Rule 98 motion, which I would love to respond to your
14 Rule 98 motion, but I don't think it's really the place or the time to do
15 it. This is happening with each one of his witnesses. He gets a little
16 chat about the witnesses before they testify. And you don't want to hear
17 from me about each of his witnesses after his chat. So I would ask him to
18 try to restrain himself with his argument.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour --
20 JUDGE LIU: Well.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may just briefly respond.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: I think I have been in the trial long enough to
24 know that there is going to be a question from you as to why this person
25 is being shifted from 92 to viva voce.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, of course.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: So anticipating the question you're going to ask
3 me, I thought I would take the initiative to answer the question, and I
4 can't do it unless I put it into context.
5 JUDGE LIU: Could you tell me the number of this witness --
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE LIU: -- in your 65 ter filings.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: That's number 38. It's not quite clear yet because
9 of the -- this particular witness, as I understand, has some health
10 problems at the time, at the moment. But in light of our concerns and
11 having -- again and I don't want to argue my case and I won't. But as you
12 might recall the timing of it, the decision came out on the 98 bis just
13 about when we were preparing our supplemental 65 ter, and we already had
14 filed one. And so obviously I think it would be malpractice if I didn't
15 look into the Court's reasoning and try to make some adjustments so that
16 in the final decision you would have all the information available to make
17 the final decisions. So hence that's why with this particular individual
18 it would appear that we might be shifting - I underscore might be
19 shifting - from 92 to viva voce. And I explained this. Mr. McCloskey
20 wasn't there when I explained to his colleagues --
21 JUDGE LIU: Do you want to hear our comments on this witness?
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Pardon?
23 JUDGE LIU: Do you want to hear our comments on this witness at
24 this moment?
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, Your Honour, I don't -- I would suspect
1 that -- and again, I wouldn't want to presume, knowing what the Court has
2 in mind or in its mind, but I would suspect that based on the limited
3 nature of the information in the 65 ter pleading that the Court is
4 concerned that this witness, at least at this time, with this information,
5 should not come viva voce. And I would assume that the Court is --
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, not only that -- well, judging from the contents
7 in the 65 ter filings, we even don't think it's necessary for him to be a
8 92 bis witness, because we need the additional information. There is no
9 details in the 65 ter filings. So based, I must say, based on your
10 filings we have serious doubts whether we should have it at all or not.
11 This is our concern.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand all of this, Your Honour. And I
13 don't -- again, if I am repeating myself, I apologise. But we were not
14 given a sufficient amount of time to supplement this particular filing in
15 light of the timing when the decision came out, when we had to present --
16 start presenting our case, and all the other logistics that are involved.
17 And so it's not that I am -- and as you might note, co-counsel in this
18 case is in the field meeting with other witnesses, taking other 92 bis
19 statements. And so if I were given some additional time and pointed --
20 and if the Trial Chamber wished with these additional numbers. If the
21 Trial Chamber pointed out which particular witnesses it wished for me to
22 supplement, I could do that, especially in light of the fact that next
23 Friday we have off. And I can have it over the following weekend. And
24 frankly, it's a Herculean task with witnesses coming in, me prepping them,
25 writing the proofing notes so that the Prosecution won't be complaining.
1 So I just don't have the time.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think you have enough time. We have an extra
3 long break after the Prosecution's case. And before we come to the
4 specific witnesses, would you tell us some good news, that is you changed
5 some live witnesses into the 92 bis witnesses.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. You want the actual names?
7 JUDGE LIU: No. I just want the numbers because we don't know the
8 protective measures.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Oh, the numbers themselves.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: All right. Okay -- and again, this is tentative.
12 One would be number 43 -- there are several that come under the category
13 of Bratunac Brigade military police. We are significantly reducing that
14 number -- well, maybe not significantly. I'll just stick with reducing.
15 I don't want to -- I believe number 45 is another witness. There is
16 number 21. There is 20. So 20 and 21. I believe, I believe, number 23
17 as well. And again, I apologise for not being quite as assertive, because
18 I don't like to make these decisions -- I mean, the decisions have been
19 made but everything is shifting at this point. We're still trying to
20 figure out logistically how we can accommodate the time period yet put our
21 case, and of course, make sure that things don't get lost in the 92 bis
22 land, which I must say I don't feel comfortable with this particular
23 procedure. I know it exists, but I don't feel comfortable with it. So to
24 me, I would like to have as few 92 bis as possible and as many viva voce.
25 I'm just being honest, but I'm being realistic as well, knowing that the
1 decisions rest with you.
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Let's come to the specific witnesses in that
3 list. I would like to share our views with you.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay.
5 JUDGE LIU: Let's come to the witness number 9. I believe that
6 you mentioned about this witness before concerning with the mobilisation
7 of the private bus.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: That's correct.
9 JUDGE LIU: Are you with me?
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, I am. Yes, I am, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Do you think that witness is necessary because
12 from -- again, I have to say that based on your filings we didn't see any
13 relevance to this case. Don't you think that the private buses or some
14 other transportation means owned by other units were used for that
15 transportation, there is no doubt about it.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
17 JUDGE LIU: So what's the purpose on that?
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. The purpose, Your Honour, is that first of
19 all we went -- okay. We started from the general and now we're going to
20 the specific. We started with, for instance, how the process works for
21 mobilisation and then -- now you have a particular individual who was --
22 who had a bus and his bus was actually mobilised. So now we have a
23 concrete example of that process. That's number one.
24 Number two, because it was his bus, he was given the opportunity
25 to drive the bus. Again, we see the rules in practice. Number three,
1 this particular individual was a member of the Bratunac Brigade at the
2 time. And because he was given -- his bus was being mobilised and was
3 given the opportunity to drive that bus, without getting any authorisation
4 from anyone, drove the bus. Because it was his private property. And
5 while -- and this individual ended up going to Potocari, he will describe
6 what he saw and what he did, including, including, at one point in time
7 where he was assisting certain individuals get on the bus and taking them
8 to safety, all of which, all of which, in my opinion, defy or contradict
9 parts of the Prosecution case that members of the Bratunac Brigade were
10 there in Potocari committing heinous crimes. So I think this is a
11 concrete example. I thought it would be necessary for us to see the
12 actual rules in practice. And again you have a member of the
13 Bratunac Brigade who is there and we're trying to explain how he got there
14 and what he's doing. Because the Prosecution's case has been that there
15 were members there and is placing a certain significance. So we're trying
16 to show that some, yes, were there and what they were doing.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes. And should we come to private session?
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, again counsel is arguing the case for
20 the Prosecution, suggesting my case is this and my case is that. He's
21 flat out wrong and he's misstating the facts. And I know you're trying to
22 get something to base your decisions on here, but it's appropriate to do
23 it in a different fashion than this because I would prefer not to stand up
24 at all in this hearing, if I can help it. There are certain things that
25 aren't even contested that he's saying are contested and that is not
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think we just want to get a rough idea of the
3 contents of this witness's testimony, which should be included in the 65
4 ter filings. But since we don't have any latest supplementary filings, so
5 we have to make the best use of that.
6 But, Mr. Karnavas, would you please try to avoid any direct
7 mentioning of the Prosecution's case. Just tell us the testimony of this
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour. Well, directly, no, but
10 indirectly I have to in order to show you how --
11 JUDGE LIU: I understand that. I understand that. Let's come to
12 private session, please.
13 [Private session]
12 Pages 8115 to 8122 – redacted – private session.
19 [Open session]
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Well, Mr. Karnavas, I will draw your attention
21 to witness number 27.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Number 27 is the commander of the 4th Battalion.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: He's up there by the Zvornik area. And there have
2 been some -- it's tough for me not to argue against their case or what I
3 believe their case is. And I think it's necessary to hear from this
4 individual as to what his orders were subsequent to the fall of
5 Srebrenica, because we see that the column leaves and is heading in that
6 direction, what his engagement was. We know that there was an order to
7 search the terrain, but with respect to the 4th Battalion that order was
8 slightly different. So --
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, yes. The problem on our side is that if we are
10 going to hear this witness, including the witness number 26, we need more
11 information about their activities.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well.
13 JUDGE LIU: Because from your 65 filings, it leads up to nowhere.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: I was just being very general, Your Honour. But if
15 you tell me which numbers, and I will provide those -- that additional
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Number 26, 27 we need more detailed information.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay.
19 JUDGE LIU: And as for witness 25 --
20 MR. KARNAVAS: He's being switched over, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: To 92 bis.
23 JUDGE LIU: Okay. I haven't been informed about that.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: I hadn't got to that yet, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE LIU: Okay. And number 19.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Number 19?
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Number 19?
4 JUDGE LIU: 19, 1-9.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: I thought I had just indicated, Your Honour, that
6 he would be coming next week. And briefly if I could just -- since he's
7 coming, I can give you an update.
8 JUDGE LIU: Is he the legal officer?
9 MR. KARNAVAS: No, number 19 is the individual who -- this is --
10 number 19 is the individual that was there --
11 JUDGE LIU: Oh, yes.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: So --
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I think we have some problems with the numbers.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm looking at the latest -- I didn't mean to
15 confuse the Trial Chamber, but when I filed my -- when I filed the April
16 7 pleading, the amended one --
17 JUDGE LIU: Oh, yes.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: So we could work off of one set of numbers as
19 opposed to referring to the first and the second.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I'm talking about the person who is a legal
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. The legal officer --
23 JUDGE LIU: We just don't know the relevancy of his testimony to
24 this case.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, the relevancy of his case is -- I believe
1 there's been some testimony presented by the Prosecution with respect to
2 his activities on July 12th or July 13th. He was also -- his office was
3 right where the military police are situated of the Bratunac Brigade. And
4 so this gentleman is going to be testifying with respect to what orders he
5 had received, particularly received an order from Colonel Beara. He's
6 going to be talking about questioning certain individuals that were
7 brought there to him to be questioned. And he's also going to be talking
8 about -- he's also going to be talking about having a walk with
9 Colonel Beara on the night of the 13th, where he just walked into town
10 with him. And also, in light of his position as a lawyer and later on
11 subsequent and working on a commission for the return of abandoned
12 property, he is going to be providing us with an analysis of the law on
13 that commission that was set up, demonstrating that laws were in place,
14 that abandoned property was not permanently abandoned, but rather there
15 was a process for refugees to temporarily move in, hence the argument that
16 because of the civil war there was anticipation by virtue of the
17 legislation --
18 JUDGE LIU: That issue relevant?
19 MR. KARNAVAS: It's relevant to the ethnic cleansing argument,
20 Your Honour, that the attack on Srebrenica was for purely ethnic cleansing
21 purposes. I think it's vital to at least know that there was a process in
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Again, that's not the Prosecution's argument, just
24 to clarify the record.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: I don't know what their argument is, but I don't
1 want to be facing closing argument and not have laid the foundation to
2 demonstrate that there was a process in place, that simply because
3 somebody left his home that they were not entitled to get that home back.
4 And if a legislation existed prior to the attack on Srebrenica, it clearly
5 demonstrates that by the people that were engaged in these activities on
6 both sides, that it was understood that at some point they would have the
7 legal right to move back in. And I think there is some precedent, I
8 believe coming out of the -- trial.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes. And how about witness number 32?
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think he's got different numbers. I think we
12 have different numbers.
13 JUDGE LIU: Oh, really? I think this is the April 8th --
14 MR. KARNAVAS: April 8th --
15 JUDGE LIU: No, April 7th filings.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
17 JUDGE LIU: Witness 32.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, I can -- this is --
19 JUDGE LIU: We need more information.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, I can provide more information. I can give a
21 verbal right now, if you wish, or I can provide more information later.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I object to all this verbal stuff.
23 His chance to get the facts and the issues is better argued written. It's
24 a record for you. This is a shot, but getting it verbally is impossible
25 to respond to. It's not really helpful to keep track of -- there's too
1 many people.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm trying to be helpful, Your Honour. That's what
3 I'm trying to do.
4 JUDGE LIU: Let us first of all identify those witnesses that we
5 are not satisfied with your filings.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE LIU: Number 34. Number 41. I believe this witness is
8 essentially looking to impeach the testimony of Mr. Nikolic, which seems
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, he needs to clear his name. He's been
11 accused of killing six people; the Prosecution is arguing that. They
12 brought in their witness, Momir Nikolic, to say that. As you might
13 recall, I had urged the Prosecutor at the time to bring this individual
14 in. I wasn't allowed. I had also suggested that I might be present at
15 Momir Nikolic's sentencing so that I could at least question this
16 individual when he was being questioned. And as I understand he wasn't
17 questioned -- or he was questioned rather severely and cross-examined, and
18 his character for truthfulness was put into jeopardy as a result of that
19 vigorous cross-examination. I think I'm entitled to have my record with
20 respect to those six individuals that Momir Nikolic claims this individual
21 killed, because obviously he's a deputy commander or deputy chief of the
22 military police, which falls directly under the commander's responsibility
23 in a sense. And so -- and you know, of course I also want to establish
24 the motive. We have clear motive for Momir Nikolic. I am not through
25 prosecuting Momir Nikolic for his credibility. And again I think this
1 needs to come in. I don't think the gentleman was given a fair
2 opportunity in my opinion to present his full picture as to how it fits
3 into our case when he testified the last time. He was questioned, but he
4 wasn't questioned by us. So we do have a right to bring this witness in
5 in order to establish especially the motive, because again I want to
6 have -- I want to show the clear motive, the mind, the mind of the --
7 perjurious mind of Momir Nikolic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well -- yes, Mr. McCloskey.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: "The perjurious mind of Momir Nikolic." This --
10 we might be able to work out some sort of stipulation that this person
11 would deny that he killed these six people. I have no -- I mean, I don't
12 know why we need to bring him up if we can also mention the fact that he
13 also corroborates the critical story of going up and down the road calling
14 Muslims down from the woods. So we might be able to solve that. He did
15 give a police report to the MUP where I think he basically states that,
16 and we may be able to agree that that comes in under some form of 92 bis.
17 But this allegation of six people, that's something we can agree with. I
18 don't think that's a big problem.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: If the Prosecutor is conceding that Momir Nikolic
20 lied, a false testimony under oath, about those six individuals, that
21 Mr. Petrovic allegedly killed, then that would satisfy me.
22 JUDGE LIU: Well, that's something to be discussed between the
23 parties after court.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE LIU: The next witness is witness 42, which we found that
1 his testimony overlaps with the previous one.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. I'll provide more information on number 42,
3 Your Honour.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
5 And as for the witness number 41, the parties argued a lot. I
6 hope you could solve this problem out of Court, and I believe that he gave
7 the testimony in the Milosevic case. Right?
8 MR. KARNAVAS: He gave testimony, Your Honour, in the
9 Momir Nikolic's sentencing.
10 JUDGE LIU: Could we admit his statement as 92 bis?
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honours, I wish I could. This is why I was
12 trying to -- I don't mean to be disputatious, but I think not all the
13 questions for the defence were asked. He was viciously cross-examined,
14 not by one of the Defence lawyers, but both of them. Both of
15 Mr. Nikolic's Defence lawyers took a shot at the gentleman. Now, I
16 will -- in light of the Court's concerns, I will give it some enormous
17 consideration to see if I can provide with a 92 bis statement that would
18 supplement his testimony, which I would also be asking to come in. And I
19 think that's -- I think I'm offering some sort of a middle ground here.
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, you could discuss it with the Prosecution after
22 And as for the witness 45 and 46, we found the testimony of those
23 two witnesses are redundant. Can you consider putting one into 92 bis at
24 this stage?
25 MR. KARNAVAS: 45 I believe, Your Honour, will be 92 bis.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Thank you very much. And witness 59 and
2 60, we believe those two witness's testimony are redundant in light of the
3 witness 28.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may have a moment, Your Honour. Okay -- well,
5 Your Honour, if I might say one word on this. Any witness -- any name
6 that is mentioned by the Prosecutor in the indictment and any member of
7 the Bratunac Brigade that might be -- might have been identified by the
8 Prosecution in the video footage, I believe it would -- it's my intention,
9 my intention, to bring them in -- at least that's what I would like to.
10 Because I think the Prosecution has made a large argument, a significant
11 argument, as to what they were doing, why they were there, and so on and
12 so forth. And I think bringing some of them in and not all of them may
13 not be sufficient. I don't want there to be any doubt in the
14 Trial Chamber's mind. In other words, I'm going beyond a reasonable
15 doubt. I want to go beyond any doubt that those individuals were not
16 doing anything improper. And that's why I want to give the Trial Chamber
17 an opportunity to see them and to hear their testimony and to give the
18 Prosecutor every opportunity to question them.
19 JUDGE LIU: We have to avoid the cumulative testimony of those
20 witnesses, if they are testifying about the same thing. You know, there's
21 other channels that we could use.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may, Your Honour. Today we had a witness that
23 testified somewhat similar to the previous gentleman. The previous
24 gentleman's credibility was attacked, as it should be under
25 cross-examination. By bringing in a second witness from a different
1 angle, a different point of view in my opinion gives the Trial Chamber a
2 better understanding as to whether one or both are telling an accurate
3 picture, what portions to believe or disbelieve. So that is the purpose
4 of doing this, not to accumulate or to drag this trial out longer than it
6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
7 Mr. McCloskey.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, just to let the Court and
9 Mr. Karnavas know, the Prosecution is certainly open to Rule 92 bis for
10 these sorts of witnesses. And though I haven't seen a 92 bis statement
11 yet, that will be the tell of all. And unlike what Mr. Karnavas is
12 suggesting, while there are many, many Bratunac Brigade soldiers in
13 Potocari - I think the video speaks for itself - most of them are not
14 directly committing crimes. There are people that are putting people on
15 buses. We're not suggesting, for example, this person that was just
16 mentioned, who I think is sitting on a tank, is committing some crime. If
17 there's a simple 92 bis statement where he wants to come in and say: "I
18 was in Potocari. I saw nothing. I did nothing. Nothing happened," I
19 mean, that's something we can live with because that's a repetitive theme
20 of these witnesses which in some cases I don't even need to cross-examine.
21 But we're not slandering these individual privates that are down
22 there in Potocari. As you know, the theme of this case is there are large
23 numbers of soldiers and commanders from the Bratunac Brigade there with
24 their eyes open and their ears open. And the Bratunac Brigade is close
25 by. But this is not -- these aren't attempts to say that these soldiers
1 are actually committing crimes. I'm not going to say that unless I have
2 evidence. And as this Court knows, when I have evidence, you have seen it
3 generally already. So I am open to reasonable 92 bis denials of see,
4 hear -- hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil. But a whole series of
5 soldiers coming up and saying that is truly a waste of time.
6 JUDGE LIU: I hope Mr. Karnavas could take into consideration the
7 suggestions from the Prosecution.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, Your Honour, I dare say with the greatest
9 respect, with the greatest respect, I cannot. I heard two words that
10 cause me some anxiety: "Directly" and "actually." They weren't directly
11 committing crimes so that leaves the possibility for indirectly committing
13 JUDGE LIU: We're not going into the details, but here we offer
14 our suggestions for you to consider.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE LIU: For you to consider.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand. And I thank you and I thank the
18 Prosecutor for the suggestions. I don't think a 92 bis statement has the
19 same value as viva voce statement. I don't think they would readily admit
20 that. I don't think any lawyer that wants to be persuasive would agree
21 that a statement called has the same value, persuasive value, as viva
23 JUDGE LIU: We are not discussing about the value of those
24 witnesses at this moment. I understand what you are saying but that's not
25 subject matter.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: I should restrain myself, Your Honour. Bring it
4 on, Mr. Karnavas. If he has more witnesses like he's had in the last two
5 weeks, bring them all on.
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, I think these are the comments we
7 had for the live witnesses. Since your co-counsel is doing the 92 bis
8 statements, I just offer some comments on those 92 bis witnesses for your
9 consideration. And I believe that witness number 7, I don't think the
10 information is specific enough in the 65 ter filings. If you want to
11 introduce this witness as a 92 bis, we need more specific information.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE LIU: Number 8, number 8, we found that no additional
14 information provided.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes. If I may comment --
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, you have the opportunity to comment on that when
17 you are submitting your 92 bis filings at a later stage.
18 Number 30, 3-0, we believe his testimony overlaps with number 24.
19 The 65 ter filings did not describe activities or the orders of the
20 witness. We don't know about his whereabouts. We need specific
21 information on that. Number 37, it appears to us the testimony of this
22 witness overlaps with 36, witness number 36. Number 45, you just offered
23 to introduce this witness through 92 bis. We believe that his testimony
24 is redundant in light of witness 46. There is no description of what the
25 witness observed and heard on the night of 13th of July or of his trip to
2 Number 47, no additional information provided. Number 48, we
3 believe it is repetitive of the two other witnesses, number 29 and number
4 30. Number 49, no additional information provided. Number 50, we believe
5 that his testimony is redundant in light of the testimony of number 43.
6 Number 52, we found that there is a lack of the additional information in
7 his testimony. Number 53, we believe his testimony is redundant in light
8 of 46. Number 55, we have serious doubts about admitting the statement of
9 this witness through 92 bis because we believe that it tells us nothing,
10 nothing described in that -- in the 65 ter filings. Number 56, we doubt
11 about the relevancy of his testimony. Number 57, we believe his testimony
12 is redundant in light of 43 and 54. Number 59, as I said that we believe
13 that his testimony is cumulative with 65, 60, 40, 43, and 28. Number 60,
14 redundant in light of 28. Number 62, redundant with 28. Number 68,
15 cumulative in light of witness 22. Number 73, redundant in light of the
16 witness 74.
17 Well, I have to say that those suggestions were arrived by us on
18 the 65 ter filings because we really did not see the statement of those
19 witnesses. I believe that will be the next step. We offer our opinions
20 and concerns at this stage with the sole purpose to help the Defence team
21 to prepare the 92 bis statements. It will take some time for the Defence
22 to submit their filings concerning of the 92 bis witnesses, and it will
23 take some time for the Trial Chamber to read and study those statements.
24 So, Mr. Karnavas, when could we have that 92 bis filings? You
25 could just give us an approximate time frame.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Right. We have several -- I don't know the exact
2 number, I believe it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of 19 statements
3 given for translation that are being -- we should have them any day now.
4 And then some additional statements will be coming forward. So as soon as
5 the first batch of the statements are translated, I was going to file the
6 first portion. And then when we have -- and then while the other ones are
7 being translated, at least the Trial Chamber would have the first ones.
8 And then the ones that are about to come, hopefully shortly thereafter.
9 So that way you have the statements themselves and you can decide whether
10 you're going to disallow a witness or not.
11 The 92 bis statements are short, they're very concise, two to
12 three pages. They get to the heart. They answer all the questions that
13 the Trial Chamber has requested, and though I don't want to make any
14 excuses, one of the reasons some of the 92 bis statements are rather terse
15 and maybe not as informative is because I was under the impression that
16 you would have the statement itself and after reading it you would make
17 that value judgement whether it was sufficient or not.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
19 As for the 65 ter filings, Mr. Karnavas, since we are not, as I
20 said before, quite satisfied with your filings, are you going to make a
21 new one or make some supplement to these filings?
22 MR. KARNAVAS: I take it by the nature of the question, it's an
23 invitation for me to do so, and so I will.
24 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
25 When are we going to have that?
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Well --
2 JUDGE LIU: Because the trial is going on at the same time.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand, Your Honour. I understand. I didn't
4 have seven years for preparation, but I was hoping that I would buy some
5 time since we have a free day next week. But I sense the Court has a
6 certain urgency that it would like it as early as next week. So I'll
7 try -- I'll try to get something done on these particular ones that you've
9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
10 Are there any other matters that the parties would like to raise
11 at this stage? Mr. Karnavas?
12 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Your Honour, just -- no.
13 JUDGE LIU: Mr. McCloskey.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just briefly. I hope we can get proofing notes as
15 well. We didn't get proofing notes from the last witness and it really
16 didn't resemble the 65 ter summary.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: So I hope we can continue to get that.
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes, that is a legitimate request.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: I did indicate that he was going to be testifying
21 pretty much as to the proofing notes earlier. I should also note that for
22 instance -- since we're going to be at this route, with Jole Nikolic, I
23 find out on the 11th-and-a-half hour that they haven't transcribed a
24 statement, part of the statement, where he talks about the most critical
25 aspect for five years. I don't stand up and complain, though I think I
1 have every right to. It did complicate us, our situation, our proofing
3 JUDGE LIU: Well --
4 MR. KARNAVAS: We're doing the best as I can, Your Honour. As I
5 recall I was getting proofing notes as I was walking into court on days.
6 I didn't make a fuss because occasionally I would get a phone call being
7 told what was on the proofing notes.
8 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, even if it is true, tu quoque could not
9 justify your position.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Touche.
11 JUDGE LIU: Mr. McCloskey?
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Nothing, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Stojanovic, please.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I know that this
15 Status Conference is devoted mainly to the Defence case for
16 Mr. Blagojevic, but I ask Your Honour's leave to address you on two issues
17 and I ask that this be in private session.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we'll go to private session, please.
19 [Private session]
12 Pages 8139 to 8143 – redacted – private session.
15 [Open session]
16 JUDGE LIU: If there is nothing else, the hearing is adjourned.
17 --- Whereupon the Status Conference
18 adjourned at 1.12 p.m.