1 Wednesday, 10 January 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [Pre-trial Conference]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Will the registrar call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
8 number IT-98-29/1-PT, the Prosecutor versus Dragomir Milosevic.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
10 And may we have the appearances for the Prosecution.
11 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour -- Your Honours. Good
12 afternoon. Appearing for the Prosecution, Mr. Stefan Waespi, on my left;
13 Ms. Carolyn Edgerton; Mr. John Docherty; our case manager, Ms. Jasmina
14 Bosnjakovic; and my name is Alex Whiting.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Whiting.
16 And for the Defence.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I'm
18 Branislav Tapuskovic, attorney-at-law from Belgrade here on behalf of Mr.
19 Milosevic. Branislava Isailovic attorney-at-law from Paris is my co-
20 counsel, and Ruzica Jovanovic is our legal assistant. That's our team,
21 Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Tapuskovic.
23 And may I inquire whether the accused can hear the proceedings
24 in a language that he understands.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated].
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Please know that the accused
2 answered affirmatively.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honour. It
4 was a slip of the tongue on my part. I said that I was here on Slobodan
5 Milosevic, whereas I really am here on behalf of Dragomir Milosevic.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Shades of the past, Mr. Tapuskovic.
7 I must let you know that the Bench that will be conducting this
8 trial is composed of Judge Antoine Mindua on my right, and Judge Frederik
9 Harhoff on my left.
10 This is a pre-trial conference, and its purpose is the usual
11 one of considering and deciding on matters that will ensure the smooth
12 running of the trial. To that end, there are a number of matters that I
13 would like to discuss this afternoon, and you have been apprised of them.
14 I must first mention that the Trial Chamber has rendered its decisions on
15 the indictment on the dates for the start of the trial and on the 65 ter
16 exhibit and witness list.
17 I turn next to the question of the time available for the
18 Prosecution case. In exercise of its powers under Rule 73 bis, the Trial
19 Chamber had earlier fixed the time of 212 hours for the presentation of the
20 Prosecution case. The Prosecution, in its motion for variation of the
21 witness list, clarified that their time related to the full examination of
22 a witness. The Chamber has been informed that a motion pursuant to Rule 92
23 bis will be filed in due course, and we understand that this motion will
24 cover most or all of the 92 bis witnesses.
25 And I am to say, Mr. Whiting, that the sooner this is filed the
2 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, we -- depending on what time we get
3 out of court today we're hoping to be able to file it today. If it's
4 later, then certainly by tomorrow morning, and it will cover many, though
5 not all, of the 92 bis witnesses, but certainly many of them.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: How many will it not cover?
7 MR. WHITING: I was hoping you would ask me how many would it
8 cover that's easier to answer and that is --
9 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, if I may, John Docherty.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
11 MR. DOCHERTY: We are anticipating in putting in 92 bis for
12 eight witnesses and 92 ter, meaning the witness will be here just for
13 cross-examination, on a further 20 witnesses with the motion that will be
14 filed either this afternoon or tomorrow morning.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: So that's a total of 20 --
16 MR. DOCHERTY: 28 --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- 92 bis -- 92 ter?
18 MR. DOCHERTY: That is correct, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Trial Chamber has reviewed the witness
20 summaries, and in relation to that there are a few matters that I would
21 like to raise. First, the Prosecution has indicated that two intercept
22 operators will be heard viva voce. So witnesses are 165 and 166, so that
23 they can authenticate and contextualise intercepts. It also intends to
24 call one of its investigators to testify as to the authenticity, chain of
25 custody, and methodology of the seizure of documents of the VRS. The
1 question that arises, Mr. Tapuskovic and Mr. Whiting, is whether there is
2 any dispute concerning the authenticity of these documents or whether the
3 parties are in a position to agree that the requirements as to authenticity
4 of the intercepts are met.
5 Perhaps it is more appropriate to hear from you first, Mr.
6 Tapuskovic, on this matter.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think it will
8 be difficult to give our position on this today. We did want to say
9 something about these documents today, the 65 ter documents that you have
10 admitted. There are now about 3.000 of those. I don't have the exact
11 figure. It has been a very short time, and we were really not able to
12 review all those 1.200 and 1.300 65 ter documents or identify them. We
13 don't know if all of them are there, if all of them have been disclosed.
14 We've been doing our best over the past several days to get there and to
15 see whether all the documents have been received and whether there are
16 still some documents that we haven't even looked at. As soon as we know --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, are you then saying that you
18 have not addressed this particular issue specifically?
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No. We don't know what the
20 documents are that the Prosecution are now addressing. There has been a
21 lot of discussion over the last few days about some confusion -- well,
22 probably we do have those documents, but I have not been able to identify
23 them. We have been using these documents for months, but up until this
24 point in time we have not really been able to take it all in. As soon as
25 tomorrow, or perhaps during the next break, we just might be able to
1 provide an answer to that query.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not sure I'm satisfied with that answer,
3 Mr. Tapuskovic.
4 But let me hear from Mr. Whiting on this.
5 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I think it's fair to say that there
6 has not been significant discussion on reaching agreement with respect to
7 the evidence for those three witnesses. We would be delighted to reach
8 agreement, we will take it up immediately with the Defence, sit down with
9 them, go over those witnesses and the documents that are to come in through
10 those witnesses and seek to reach agreement so that we could drop those
11 witnesses from our list.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Whiting. I expect both parties
13 to work immediately on this matter.
14 Mr. Tapuskovic, I -- following on Mr. Whiting's submissions, I
15 said that I expected both parties to work immediately on this matter and
16 report to the Trial Chamber the results of those discussions.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I can answer now. My colleague
18 has just informed me that we have already looked at those intercepts and we
19 are not challenging their authenticity. The first time around I wasn't
20 really able to answer, but here we have it all recorded on a list that is
21 in the possession of my assistant. And we will not be challenging the
22 authenticity of any of those intercepts.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well.
24 Then, Mr. Whiting.
25 MR. WHITING: It -- just so that we're careful and we know --
1 we're certain that we're talking about the same intercepts and that there's
2 no confusion, I would ask just for a couple of days to consult with Defence
3 counsel, make sure that we're all on the same page, but it sounds to me
4 like we're going to be able to drop those two witnesses.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Subject to your making sure that
6 you're talking about the same matter, we'll wait to hear from you as
7 quickly as possible.
8 I turn then to a number of witnesses in respect of which the
9 Chamber has determined that a reduction should be made. I refer first to
10 the shelling incidents of the 26th May 1995, the 28th June 1995, and the
11 28th August 1995. The Prosecution intends to call five, ten, and eight
12 witnesses respectively in respect of these witnesses. And I am to say that
13 the Chamber sees no need to call all of these witnesses or at any rate to
14 hear all of them viva voce.
15 Next, the Chamber notes the Prosecution intends to call several
16 police officers for single incidents. These incidents include the
17 shelling, incidents of the 8th November 1994, 24th May 1995, 26th May 1995,
18 and the 16th of June, 1995. And again, the Chamber sees no need to call
19 all these witnesses to appear in The Hague.
20 Next, the evidence of the witnesses W-20 and W-22 who are to
21 testify as to the shelling incident of the 1st July 1995 appears to be
22 cumulative. The Prosecution could call one of these witnesses to appear
23 live or call one live and one of them under 92 bis.
24 I turn next to two witnesses whom the Prosecution intends to
25 call to explain the structure of the ABiH, and the Chamber sees no need to
1 call both witnesses viva voce. One could be called live and one under 92
3 Finally, the Chamber finds that many witnesses are to be called
4 to testify as to the general situation in Sarajevo, including many police
5 officers who are to testify on several sniping or shelling incidents and
6 investigations into those incidents. The Trial Chamber sees no need to
7 call all of them or at any rate to hear all of them live. Another
8 example of a witness who is to testify under more general matters would be
9 Witness 139, Avdo Vatric. He is to testify on the tram network, the power-
10 supply to that network, and the effect of sniping on the running of trams
11 in Sarajevo. The Trial Chamber notes that there will be several tram
12 drivers to testify in this case, and they could possibly testify to these
13 matters as well.
14 In the light of those determinations, the Chamber sets the
15 number of witnesses to be called by the Prosecution at 104 but urges the
16 Prosecution to reconsider the number of witnesses to be called. The
17 Chamber also determines that the Prosecution will present its case in 180
18 hours. This reflects the time available for full examination of the
19 witnesses, that is examination-in-chief, cross-examination, re-examination.
20 This decision as to the hours available may be subject to reconsideration
21 once the Trial Chamber receives the Prosecution's application on the use of
22 Rule 92 bis and 92 ter for presenting evidence of witnesses.
23 Allowing some time for procedural matters and possible
24 unexpected delays, the Prosecution case should be concluded sometime toward
25 the end of April.
1 I take up next disclosure matters. Rule 66, at the last 65 ter
2 meeting, it was mentioned that the identities of all but one witness had
3 been disclosed. The remaining disclosure under Rule 66 and 68 had been
4 fulfilled. I am to ask whether the Defence has now been provided with the
5 identity of every witness.
6 The answer may come from either party but --
7 MR. WAESPI: Good morning, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 MR. WAESPI: Good morning, Mr. President. Yes, it's correct
10 that at the time of the 65 ter conference, there was one witness whose
11 identity had not been disclosed to Defence, that's witness W-46, and
12 unfortunately we still do not have the authorisation of that government,
13 but I can assure Your Honours we are working very, very hard to get the
14 name to the Defence. And I might add, like I did last time, that from the
15 65 ter description, it is obvious who the witness is, but we will get the
16 authorisation as soon as we can, Mr. President.
17 As you know, we were asking for leave to add 15 witnesses in
18 early December and, Your Honours, you granted us leave to add 12 witnesses.
19 Among these 12 witnesses, there are another three witnesses whom we are now
20 allowed to call, and again the same problem arises that the respective
21 government, they all belong to the same government, has not given agreement
22 to disclose the names to the Defence. These witnesses are W-155, W-156,
23 and W-157. And of two of these witnesses, the last two I mentioned,
24 witness statements are still outstanding. And we have discussed, of
25 course, Mr. President, the two witnesses W-165 and W-166, the two intercept
1 operators who have not yet been identified, but that's an issue hopefully
2 we can resolve by dropping them. That's the status as far as the
3 Prosecution is concerned. Thank you, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: What can you do, Mr. Waespi, about expediting
5 the securing of the government's authorisation?
6 MR. WAESPI: I think we have a record of, I don't know, half a
7 dozen, a dozen reminders, perhaps. And what we plan is to take it up
8 perhaps at a different level so that Defence has a chance to properly
9 prepare. Again, it is obvious from the position of these witnesses except
10 for one, except for W-157 who was not that senior. But the other were
11 fairly senior and there are public documents discussed in other cases. So
12 it's fairly clear who these witnesses are, but we aren't allowed to
13 disclose it to the Defence before we have authorisation, but we are doing
14 all we can, Mr. President, Your Honours, to expedite that. That's all I
15 can say.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Thank you.
17 Let me make a correction to the determination about the time
18 given to the Prosecution. The time remains the same, it's 180 hours, but
19 the calculation which we have made indicates that on that basis, the
20 Prosecution case should end early in April and not near the end of April,
21 as I said earlier.
22 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I may.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
24 MR. WHITING: Just briefly on that point, I just want to -- I
25 just want to record on the record our concern about having our case reduced
1 further. As Your Honours know, we not long ago reduced the case by a third
2 by order of the Trial Chamber and brought it down to -- I thought in my
3 head it was 220, but Your Honours say it was 212. And now it's been
4 reduced further. And as Your Honours know, there -- this case may be --
5 it's more complicated than it may first appear in this sense that we,
6 following along the way the Galic case was presented, we're going to be
7 presenting specific incidents that we're going to be seeking to prove
8 beyond a reasonable doubt and also we have to prove the campaign and some
9 of the general witnesses Your Honour made reference to are to that end.
10 And all I'm saying is that I'm concerned about whether we'll be able to
11 meet that. We will of course try. We'll be taking onboard all of Your
12 Honours' suggestions with respect to the case and calling witnesses 92 bis
13 and 92 ter and it may be that we'll be fine and come under 180 hours. It
14 may be that we'll be coming to Your Honours and seeking additional time,
15 but that's something we can take up at a different time. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. I just say that in the Chamber's
17 view, this is a relatively narrow case, relatively confined case which can
18 be concluded within the time-frame set.
19 I turn next to the question of translations and to ask Mr.
20 Tapuskovic -- yes.
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honour. I would
22 like to speak to you in French, and I shall be speaking French because I
23 belong to the Parisian Bar Association even though I am Serb by origin. As
24 far as disclosure of exhibits are concerned, we do have something to say,
25 if you will allow me.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please, certainly.
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] So, Mr. Tapuskovic and I, we are
3 concerned about the rights of our client, like all of you are in this
4 courtroom, I am sure. But I would like to say that we are the most
5 concerned as far as this issue is concerned.
6 We were working on an indictment which is quite a different
7 one to the one we are using now, and the indictment has been completely
8 changed on the 31st of January, 2006. The Prosecution disclosed a number
9 of exhibits pursuant to Article -- to Rule 65 ter, i.e., the pre-trial
10 brief of the Prosecution, including a number of documents. And until the
11 12th of December, we have been working with these documents. On the 12th
12 of December, you ruled on this issue and agreed to seeing the indictment
13 modified. The counts in the indictment are the same, but the indictment
14 otherwise is quite different. The numbering of the paragraphs is
15 different, and after the 12th of December two other rulings were handed
16 down, namely one on the 21st of December, 2006, which had to do with a 65
17 ter exhibit list and witness lists.
18 To best defend our client, we would like to be given so
19 consolidated batch of documents pursuant to Rule 65 ter (E), because our
20 case or our case file now looks completely different since you handed down
21 your ruling on the 12th of December, 2006, and following the two rulings
22 that were handed down on the 21st of December, 2006.
23 So our application runs as follows. We would like all these
24 documents to meet the requirements of Rule 65 ter (E). That is the first
25 application we made -- we are making --
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: What are the provisions in that rule to which
2 you make specific reference and on which you base your submission?
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Our submissions are based on
4 Rule 65 ter (E)(ii) because we don't have the full list of witnesses the
5 Prosecution wishes to call. And the second application which isn't quite
6 an application per se because the Prosecution has provided a consolidated
7 list of exhibits to meet the provisions of Rule 65 ter (E)(iii). And the
8 Prosecution indicated to us recently that all these exhibits would be
9 handed over to us, but that the latter would be to be vetted if they would
10 be disclosed before the 21st of December, 2006.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me see if I understand you. You're asking
12 the Prosecution -- you're asking the Chamber to rule that the Prosecution a
13 consolidated exhibit list, and the ground for that application is that the
14 indictment has changed, is that it?
15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely, Your Honour,
16 because the set of documents that is with the pre-trial -- the
17 Prosecution's pre-trial brief is no longer adopted. We don't have the
18 right set of documents that would correspond to the indictment as it is
19 amended now and according to the rules, and this is making our life really
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, with the benefit of my French-speaking
23 colleagues, I now have the point.
24 Mr. Waespi, it seems to be the -- or, Mr. Whiting, a question
25 of the correspondence of your exhibit list with the numbering in the new
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Excuse me. It's not the exhibit
4 list. The list is consolidated, I said that. Article 65 ter (E)(iii),
5 three little I's. So here we agree. We have the consolidated list you
6 plus the list of all the 65 ter exhibits. But as to the 65 ter (ii), two
7 little I's, this is the witness list here, and here we did not obtain the
8 documents that should come with all this. We don't have the entire list
9 that would have all the elements provided for in Article 65 ter (E)(ii) and
10 we would like to have that as soon as possible because that would really
11 make our life easier.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting.
13 MR. WHITING: Okay. As I understand it, the exhibit list is
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
16 MR. WHITING: It's a matter of the witness list and the 65 ter
17 summaries for the witnesses. And if I understand correctly, the problem
18 seems to be that because there's a new indictment with new paragraph
19 numbering and additional paragraphs, the 65 ter summaries for the
20 witnesses, to the extent that they refer to paragraphs in the indictment,
21 they refer to the old indictment and not the new indictment. Of course, to
22 the extent that they refer to counts, the counts did not change and so I
23 don't think there's a problem there, I think it may just be with respect to
24 paragraphs. Maybe if I could before responding see if that's correct -- if
25 I understand correctly.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can you confirm whether that is the correct
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. So my -
4 - yes, Mr. Whiting identified the problem correctly, that's exactly it,
5 that's one of the problems. I believe that Article 65 ter (E)(ii), double
6 I, I don't know how you say it.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Roman 2.
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Roman 2 is clear because it
9 states the following: That the list of the witnesses that the Prosecution
10 wants to call stating the name or pseudonym of each were we have that, we
11 have four names missing, a summary of the facts that the witnesses will
12 testify upon, we have new summaries and old summaries. Then the points of
13 -- the reference to the counts and to the relevant paragraphs in the
14 indictment, relevant paragraphs. And that exact is our problem. The
15 Prosecution is here to accuse and to prove what he's pressing, and we're
16 here to defend. That's the way it's supposed to be and not vice versa.
17 We're supposed to answer -- we are supposed to answer to whatever is
18 pressing -- whatever the Prosecution is pressing, but we have to know
19 exactly what he is pressing and according to what.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: So, Mr. Whiting, then, it's (E)(ii)(c) that's
21 at the heart of the problem.
22 MR. WHITING: Yes, I understand, Your Honour, and I appreciate
23 the issue. We can do revised 65 ter summaries for our witnesses that
24 address that issue so that the paragraph numbers correspond to the number
25 indictment. We've already done that, I believe, for the new witnesses, but
1 for the old witnesses I guess that has not been done. And I think if we do
2 that then we will have complied fully with the rule. I might say that the
3 new indictment, of course, was confirmed a month ago, and I would have been
4 grateful if the Defence counsel had raised this issue, if they considered
5 it to be an issue, earlier. We would have certainly acted upon it, but now
6 that it's been raised, we'll act to comply with it.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: On this specific question, Mr. Whiting, the
9 Prosecution is to make a revision such as to meet its obligations under 65
10 ter (E)(ii)(c) by next week, Friday.
11 MR. WHITING: That's fine, Your Honour, we will do that, if not
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
14 And then you have some other points.
15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just another thing.
16 So we asked all this on several occasions while we were corresponding with
17 the Prosecution. So with respect to the harmonious work atmosphere, we
18 asked this long ago but Mr. Whiting was not there unfortunately.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. Do you have any other points on this
20 issue in relation to disclosure, that is?
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes, thank you. So
22 another small item. I come from a different system. You're probably
23 familiar to the French system, of course, but in France, we -- there's
24 always an order called the closing order, the ordonnance de cloture, after
25 which you can no longer disclose the exhibits. I know that here the Rules
1 of Procedure and Evidence is different. There are other rules that apply.
2 But it does take into account the different jurisdiction and different
3 legal systems.
4 So we did read your decision on the new list of exhibits. We
5 had that recently. We're a bit surprised now because you received a motion
6 by the Prosecution, and we of course got it, too, and it was asking for the
7 admission of new exhibits; that really surprised us. Of course we will
8 answer in writing very soon, but we're surprised because if it goes on like
9 this, given the time that Prosecution has and the time that we will have
10 for the cross-examination, this might lead to problems. If we continue,
11 you know, putting forth new exhibits all the time without any deadlines, we
12 don't know where we're going, and this is -- this is a bit of a concern for
13 the fairness of the proceedings. So we decided to maybe suggest that you
14 could eventually possibly write an order, deliver an order, issue an order,
15 that would plan for a deadline. I mean, you come from the common law
16 system and I think you are less formal and you are more practically
17 oriented, of course, but it would be nice to make sure that we can have a
18 way of accepting the exhibits that the Prosecution didn't have earlier and
19 had in the last minute, but that's our motion. And of course we can write
20 it down if you would rather have it in writing.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting.
22 MR. WHITING: Your Honours, we would be happy to respond to such
23 a motion in writing, but I will say this. The Rules of the Tribunal deal
24 with this issue and this issue is dealt with in every case that appears
25 before the Tribunal. The -- there is no rule and there's typically no
1 order which cuts off, either in the Prosecution case or, for that matter,
2 in the Defence case because the same issue arises time again in the Defence
3 case, the introduction or motions to add new exhibits. The way it's dealt
4 with under the Rules is those motions can be brought before the Trial
5 Chamber and the issue is whether the -- whether there is prejudice to the
6 Defence, and that is how it's dealt with. But to enter a blanket ruling at
7 this point to cut off any possibility of such motions I think would not
8 serve the interests of justice. And I might add that such a rule might be
9 appropriate in domestic jurisdictions under certain types of rules where
10 the cases are -- are more contained, where they're more manageable. It is
11 just a fact of life that we all recognise at this Tribunal that these are -
12 - that these are big, complicated cases. As the case moves on, issues
13 start to become more defined were more clear that are in dispute, issues
14 that the Trial Chamber might be more focussed on that the parties are more
15 focussed on. And it happens -- it rises on both sides that material may
16 arise that at one point did not appear to be relevant, important or
17 necessary becomes more relevant. And it would be, in our view, unwise and
18 not in the interests of reaching a just result in this case of closing any
19 material coming before the Trial Chamber should that happen.
20 Now, of course I recognise that there are important matters of
21 the rights of the accused here, the rights of the accused to know the case
22 that is against him, to have notice, and so forth. And those will -- if we
23 seek to introduce a new exhibit, those weigh against us, I recognise that.
24 But that will not mean, in our view, that every single case -- every single
25 time it will be -- an exhibit should not be admitted. There will be
1 instances, we believe, where the exhibit is important and that there is no
2 prejudice to the Defence and so that it should come into evidence. The job
3 of everyone here is to get to the truth of the matter fairly to the
4 accused, and we think that that approach that has been followed in every
5 case is the correct approach.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Whiting.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, to the extent that you have made
9 a submission and wish a ruling on it at this stage, the Trial Chamber would
10 deny your application. The practice of the Tribunal has invariably been
11 not to establish a deadline for the production of exhibits. This is not to
12 say, Mr. Whiting, that you're free or that any party is free to try to
13 introduce an exhibit at any time during the trial. But Mr. Whiting is
14 correct that the determination of that issue is done on the basis of
15 prejudice, and in fact as you spoke I had intended to interrupt you and to
16 ask you what prejudice would you suffer if given enough time to examine the
17 exhibit. And once you are given enough time to examine the exhibit, the
18 question of prejudice diminishes.
19 So the ruling is that the application would be denied. I must
20 say additionally that it matters not whether I or any other Judge comes
21 from the common law system or the civil law system. We have an applicable
22 law in the Tribunal which we apply, and that is applicable irrespective of
23 the system from which a particular Judge comes. And I do wish to have that
24 clarified, and I hope you understand that. Thank you.
25 Now, let us proceed with the other matters --
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour, but we
2 still have problems with the disclosure, if I may --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please, yes, continue.
4 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Articles -- Rule 66 of the Rules
5 of Procedure provides in its Article 1(A) --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
7 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] -- (ii) in a language that the
8 accused understands, all copies of the statements of all witnesses that the
9 Prosecution will call as well as the transcript in an application of
10 Article 92 bis, Rule 92 ter, and Rule 92 ter quater. That's in Rule
11 66(A)(ii). That's a problem for us because for some new witnesses, we have
12 not yet received all their statements according to what is written in that
13 rule that I have just read. And it's extremely important in order to get
14 instructions from our client and communicate with our client. I believe
15 that that is why the Rule was written in the first place --
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can you identify the witnesses? Can you
17 identify the witnesses so that we can address the matter specifically with
18 the Prosecutor?
19 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] As of now, I can't tell you
20 specifically because we received in a very scattered fashion a number of
21 statements. We have a pseudonym. I don't want to unveil the identity of
22 witnesses, of course, because we were able to guess a few of those
23 identities, but we're not sure yet. And it's very hard for us to connect
24 one statement that had been received in a batch of documents with the
25 witness that is on the list because we don't have a name. We were able to
1 double-guess it, but it's not very legal. It's a bit of guesswork.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well.
3 I see Mr. Waespi. What is the position in relation to this,
4 because there is an entitlement under Rule 66 for the Defence to receive
5 these documents in a language that the accused understands.
6 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, you're absolutely
7 right and so is Ms. Isailovic. I tried to explain a few minutes ago that
8 in relation to these four witnesses, we simply do not have yet the
9 permission of the respective government to formally disclose these
10 documents linked to their real identity to the Defence, and that concerns
11 four witnesses. And we do our utmost to disclose -- to get permission to
12 disclose and to disclose these statements. Obviously, these witnesses will
13 not be called fairly early, but I guess towards the end of April, towards
14 the end of our case, because it takes a lot of time, there are a lot of
15 formalities involved with dealing with that. And as soon as -- as soon as,
16 Mr. President, we have these statements in the original language, we
17 disclose it. And as soon as it's translated, we disclose it as well into
18 B/C/S. Whether you call it scattered or so, we just do it as quickly as we
19 can. That's all I can say, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Just one correction. I think you
21 meant the early part of April, because I did say that the Prosecution's
22 case is expected to conclude the early part of April, not the latter part.
23 Now, Ms. Isailovic, you heard what was said, and what I can say
24 is this, that the Trial Chamber will ensure that the rights of your client
25 are protected, that is to say that it will ensure that you receive the
1 documents in a language which your client understands in sufficient time
2 for you to provide a response to it in court. If the Prosecutor is unable
3 to provide the document within a time-frame such as to ensure that you will
4 have enough time, the Trial Chamber will not admit it, it's as simple as
5 that, and the Prosecution must know this, that you have that obligation and
6 the Trial Chamber will see that justice is done in this matter.
7 Do you have other disclosure matters?
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] No. Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
10 Then I go back now to the other disclosure matters and to ask
11 whether the Defence has been provided with translations of all documents.
12 Is the Defence in a position to comment on that? Have you been provided
13 with translations of all documents?
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we obtained a
15 number of translations, but it's not a strict obligation on the
16 Prosecution's side. But I think we did communicate correctly with the
17 opposing party. But we really insisted on what is really provided for in
18 the procedure, in the Rules. As to the translation of the documents, we
19 did get a good number of them and we're doing our best. We understand,
20 absolutely, the Prosecution's problems with the CLSS, you know, the
21 translation office is -- has to translate a huge amount of exhibits. We
22 believe it's a lot of work and I'm sure we'll have to face exactly the same
23 problem when we will be having to translate our own exhibits.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
25 I turn next to agreed facts and adjudicated facts.
1 In May of 2006, the Prosecution made a proposal for list of
2 potentially nondisputed facts, and this matter has been discussed at two
3 Status Conferences. On the 2nd of November, last year, the Defence said
4 that it had not yet replied to the proposal of the Prosecution. The
5 Defence also said that in its pre-trial brief, it accepts some of the
6 suggested agreed facts. At the previous 65 ter meeting, the parties
7 indicated that they would continue their negotiations that very afternoon.
8 And so the question I have is: What progress has been made in the
9 negotiations on agreed facts?
10 Mr. Whiting first.
11 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, on this matter I'm going to defer to
12 Mr. Docherty. It's -- he's been handling it.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
14 MR. DOCHERTY: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours. The
15 Court set forth the history of this issue quite accurately. We sent a
16 letter to our opposing counsel on the 9th of May of the past year, 2006.
17 The Defence has indicated on a couple of occasions that they are
18 handicapped in responding to our overture because of needing translations
19 of 424 documents, which, although not strictly called for by the Rules, the
20 Prosecution nevertheless undertook to translate in view of their
21 identification by the Defence as particularly important. And I'm sorry to
22 say that the translation of those 424 documents became a story unto itself
23 which continues today. We have made significant progress in getting down
24 the 424 documents. I am informed that another batch of translations came
25 in yesterday or perhaps just this morning, and that as soon as we have time
1 to give them a brief check, those will be disclosed to the Defence.
2 So we are hopeful that in the near future, and I understand of
3 course that "in the near future" is a vague term, but this is not something
4 entirely within the Prosecution's control, the Defence will have the
5 information that it requires in order to respond to the Prosecution's
6 request that we agreed to approximately 360 facts which otherwise might
7 need to be the subject of court time.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do I understand then that of the 424 documents,
9 some have in fact been translated?
10 MR. DOCHERTY: A number have in fact been translated.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: A number. And have those been passed over to
12 the Defence?
13 MR. DOCHERTY: Other than the ones I referred to that have just
14 been received last night, yes, they have been disclosed. And the other
15 ones from last night I referred to will be disclosed today, depending on
16 what time court rises today.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
18 May I hear from the Defence.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Microphone not activated].
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the speaker.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Microphone.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon. These are
23 very important questions that we are facing at this moment. This list, or
24 rather, this proposal that the Prosecutor gave us in relation to facts on
25 which we are supposed to agree in order to facilitate your work primarily,
1 and as well as the work of all of the participants in the trial, that is to
2 say the Prosecution and the Defence, involves very complex subject matter
3 in view of the number of facts proffered. It is over 300 facts, and it
4 required a great amount of time so we had to work on this a great deal in
5 order to reach the status of agreed facts.
6 Now, what were the problems? As we were working on these
7 matters -- well, the dates aren't important now -- it was signaled that
8 there would be a change in the indictment, and in that situation the
9 indictment came in in a completely new form in terms of paragraphs, where
10 some things were explained very well, the Defence for the first time now
11 has an indictment in relation to which it can have a relationship of its
12 own in the full sense of the word. Now we are in a situation before such a
13 new indictment --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could Mr. Tapuskovic
15 please not touch the microphone with his paper.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, you're being asked not to touch
17 the microphone with your paper.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] In other words, I think that
19 it is indispensable for the Prosecution, at this point in time, to react to
20 this new indictment and to give us facts that we can discuss. Although it
21 may seem unacceptable or unconvincing, to a great extent these fundamental
22 explanations from the indictment that have to do with the paragraphs that
23 pertain to everything but the matters related to the indictment itself,
24 because nothing has changed there, so in this situation until we get a new
25 offer in that sense, we really could not do anything.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, are you saying that this
2 exercise, this whole exercise, needs to be restarted because the indictment
3 has been changed so fundamentally and the Prosecution must resubmit a new
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, no, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
6 Perhaps we haven't understood each other right. But what I was talking
7 about were 65 ter (H) matters. I was not talking about 94, Rule 94. I was
8 talking about facts that we were supposed to agree upon, hopefully agreed
9 facts, adjudicated facts. That is what I spoke of, actually, and in view
10 of the new indictment, I believe it is indispensable for the Prosecution to
11 make a new offer to us on the basis of which we could have further
12 discussions, because, please, indeed it is in our interest as well to not
13 discuss certain matters that we can agree upon beforehand.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me hear from -- is it Mr. Whiting or Mr.
17 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. Docherty, Your Honour. I am at a bit of a
18 loss, I confess, as to how to respond to that undertaking by Mr.
19 Tapuskovic. It appears that there is a linkage between the amendment of
20 the indictment and some infirmity in the list of proposed agreed facts
21 which has been furnished to the Defence. And I confess - and perhaps I'm
22 missing something - that I can't identify what that infirmity is. I have
23 the list of proposed agreed facts in front of me and I am not clear that
24 there is any linkage between these proposed agreed facts and the format of
25 the indictment. As I say, perhaps I'm missing something. I stand ready to
1 be educated.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, it is also my understanding
3 that the whole purpose of the exercise that we went through in reducing the
4 indictment, reducing the crime sites and the consequential amendment was to
5 clarify matters but you're saying in a sense they appear to have made
6 matters more difficult for you. Could you clarify specifically how or why
7 you would require the Prosecution to re-submit on this issue. Where is the
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there is no
10 ambiguity, but the indictment has been amended. For the most part, as for
11 the paragraphs in the indictment that go on to explain very important
12 things related to the charges themselves, this indictment is a new and
13 better one, a clearer one, and tells us more about the key issues,
14 something that we didn't see in the original indictment. The situation
15 being what it is, I don't think I should tire you pointing out the
16 differences that do exist because there are differences and there are quite
17 many of those. Given what the situation is, given all the explanations,
18 and given the way the new indictment is based, we must be given a new
19 offer, as it were, a new opportunity in terms of these agreed facts. Even
20 today, I believe, we can agree on a number of facts, I don't think that's a
21 problem at all, maybe even a considerable number of facts. But as far as
22 essential facts are concerned that regard the very charges raised against
23 Dragomir Milosevic, such as they're explained in this new indictment,
24 indeed what was tabled, what was offered back in May 2006 was simply
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think the best solution for this is for the
3 parties to get together and work on the agreed facts. I think when you
4 meet, Mr. Docherty, you will perhaps have a better understanding of what
5 the problem is, and then you should both report to the Chamber by next week
7 MR. DOCHERTY: Yes, Your Honour.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Microphone not activated].
9 [Interpretation] Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't think we're quite done
12 talking about the 94 (B), Rule 94 (B) facts.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, if you have other matters to raise, raise
14 them, Mr. Tapuskovic.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] As far as that is concerned,
16 Your Honours, I had several things to say, important things. Needless to
17 say, we studied carefully the position of the OTP in relation to this, and
18 one thing I can say is that I absolutely agree with the position put
19 forward by the OTP in their motion about the formal acknowledgement of the
20 adjudicated facts under Rule 94 -- 94 (B).
21 However, I'm greatly gladdened, if I may put it that way, by
22 the OTP's position expressed in that motion, where they said explicitly,
23 accordingly the adjudicated facts do not confirm the criminal liability of
24 the accused. I'm aware of that and this is something that was at work in
25 many of the previous trials before this Tribunal. It is the issue of
1 judicial economy. I have heard the OTP emphasis when they address this
2 issue that a balance must be had between judicial economy and the rights of
3 the accused and the right to a fair trial on the other.
4 It is my concern now that if these positions are not taken
5 into account, those expressed in the OTP motion and the relevant
6 reflections addressed in that motion, that just for the sake of judicial
7 economy this trial may prove not to be entirely fair. I am, on the other
8 hand, convinced that the Trial Chamber will do everything within their
9 power, despite the Galic sentence, the Galic judgement, to, if necessary,
10 deal with the issues that were raised in that trial and for those
11 principles to be fully upheld.
12 I understand the need to do everything in order to comply with
13 the need for judicial economy and to save our resources. I am, however,
14 convinced that the Trial Chamber will definitely take into account all of
15 the issues that I now just pointed out. I do, of course, believe that the
16 OTP motion is fully justified the way it's been put to us and there's
17 nothing more to say about that. Rule 94 is crystal clear. These issues
18 must be formally acknowledged.
19 I do have one thing to say about that, though, and this may be
20 food for thought. This is about agreed facts. The agreed facts under 54
21 and 55 in the OTP document. This is the term "campaign" and "sniping,"
22 these are two terms. In my understanding, these should not be agreed facts
23 or unchallenged facts. This is just a position, it's how they qualified
24 this, and I'm sure that the Trial Chamber will ponder this. I do not
25 think, however, at this point in time we can take that to be an agreed fact
1 and use it in a different case, something that was pondered and ruled upon
2 by this Chamber. So that's what I think about these two specific facts.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, the Chamber will overlook the
7 fact that you're out of time because your deadline expired on the 5th of
8 January, that's the deadline for responding. This is a very important
9 matter. It raises legal issues that need to be considered carefully. So
10 you must file a written response, and you are to file that response within
11 a week, by next week, Friday.
12 I turn next to expert witnesses. The Prosecution has notified
13 the Chamber and the parties that it intends to call five expert witnesses,
14 but we have only received the report of one expert.
15 Is it Mr. Docherty to explain what the position is in relation
16 to -- to the --
17 MR. DOCHERTY: It is, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
19 MR. DOCHERTY: I can -- what I can do is take them by witness
20 number in order and simply apprise the Chamber and the Defence of the
21 status of the various reports, if that's the best way to proceed.
22 Witness number 9 is an expert on ballistics or artillery and
23 mortars. A first draft report has been received and disclosed to the
24 Defence, a second draft has been received last week. It is being reviewed
25 by the Prosecution and upon conclusion of that review which will be
1 finished shortly. The report will then be disclosed to the Defence.
2 Witness number 128 is an expert on sniping. This expert has
3 appeared before this Tribunal before in the Prlic case. He did a report
4 relating to sniping incidents in the city of Mostar. That report, even
5 though it doesn't relate to Sarajevo, was disclosed to the Defence because
6 the report which this expert will do in our case is going to be very
7 similar in methodology and technique to the Mostar case. A draft of this
8 expert's report has been received. It is being revised. I anticipate
9 disclosing the expert sniping report within one week.
10 Witness number 3, a military and document analysis expert, that
11 report is done. It will be disclosed to the Defence early next week after
12 proofreading and final vetting by the Prosecution. And as the Court notes,
13 the report of witness number 8 has been completed and disclosed and
14 submitted for translation.
15 There are two experts, Witnesses 15 and 132 whose reports are
16 not in -- as near completion as those which I have just talked about.
17 Witness number 15 is an expert on air bombs, a type of weapon which we
18 anticipate hearing something about during this trial. We are awaiting that
19 report. The witness number 15 has explained to us that the report is a bit
20 lengthy which is why it is taking some time.
21 And witness number 132 is an expert on demographics who was
22 examining death record, hospital records, and so forth related to the
23 indictment period in Sarajevo. And that expert is working through those
24 databases, but as of yesterday was unable to give the Prosecution a
25 deadline by which that report would be received.
1 Let me assure the Court and the Defence, however, that what
2 Your Honour, Mr. President, said a little while ago is something that is
3 neither surprising nor troubling to us, which is that of course we cannot
4 make use of evidence as to which proper notice has not been received by the
5 Defence. We understand that, and we will, therefore, keep pressing to get
6 these expert reports done. We anticipate that in the end there will be no
7 problems, and that all of these reports will be timely completed, timely
8 translated, timely submitted.
9 Thank you, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Docherty.
11 Anything from the Defence on this?
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] What I can say is what is
13 precisely envisaged in Rule 94 bis as far as experts are concerned. It was
14 on the 5th of January that we received the expert report of W-8, expert W-
15 8. That was on the 5th of January, and we are adamant that the 30-day
16 deadline should be complied with from the day we received the expert report
17 to the day we are supposed to address the issue, unless of course the
18 Chamber rules otherwise, then we shall comply. And that is just about all
19 I have to say.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. The Chamber is not ruling
21 otherwise, Mr. Tapuskovic.
22 I turn next to the outstanding motions. There is a motion for
23 admission of documentary evidence with confidential annexes, and that was
24 filed on the 20th of December. The Defence has not yet responded, but the
25 deadline expired on the 8th of January, 2007, and the Chamber intends to
1 give its decision on this motion shortly.
2 Mr. Tapuskovic.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have not
4 noticed anything. We believe that we can accept this. We wrote nothing.
5 We take note of the existence of these documents, and they can be used in
6 this trial.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Tapuskovic. There is a
8 Prosecution notice pursuant to Rule 94 bis, disclosure of expert report of
9 Robert Donia filed on the 5th of January, 2007. The deadline for the
10 Defence response expires on the 5th of February, and the Chamber will issue
11 its decision in due course.
12 There's a Prosecution motion for the admission of a witness
13 written statement pursuant to Rule 92 ter with a confidential annex filed
14 on the 5th of January. Now, the deadline for the Defence response is
15 Friday, the 19 of January, but, Mr. Whiting, this witness is scheduled to
16 testify in the week of the 15th. So the question is this: The Defence has
17 until the 19th, next week, Friday. If the Defence is able to file its
18 response by Monday, the 15th, we could proceed, you know. If not, the
19 Prosecution must arrange for this witness to testify at a later stage and
20 ensure that there is a witness available to take his place.
21 So the first question then, Mr. Tapuskovic, is whether the
22 Defence would be able to file its response by Monday, the 15th of January.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We can tell you right away,
24 Your Honours, that we accept for that witness to appear as the first
25 witness in this trial.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
2 There is another witness that gives rise to the same problem.
3 This is the motion for the admission of witness transcripts pursuant to
4 Rule 92 ter filed on the 9th January, and the Defence deadline for response
5 is the 23rd of January, but this witness is going to be heard on the 15th
6 of January. And here again, if the Defence is able to file its response by
7 the 12th of January, we could proceed. If not, then the Prosecution must
8 ensure that there is another witness available to take his place.
9 Mr. Tapuskovic.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We would need very short time,
11 Your Honour. Maybe after the break we're able to answer that one.
12 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, is my
15 understanding accurate? Both witnesses will be facing the Chamber on the
16 15th, that is Monday; right?
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, this is the first witness, actually, the
18 one that we're dealing with now is the first witness.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] My understanding was there were
20 two requests. I granted my request to one of the requests.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The other request concerning
23 the other witness due to appear before the Chamber that same week but not
24 on that same day. That was my understanding.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: The witness that we're dealing with now, that
1 is the witness transcript pursuant to Rule 92 ter, in respect of that
2 witness you have until the 23rd of January. That witness, I understand, is
3 the first witness due to testify. So the question that I asked - and I'm
4 not putting any pressure on you at all because you have until the 23rd -
5 the matter really rests with the Prosecution. If you are not in a position
6 to file your response by the 12th of January, then the Prosecution must
7 find another witness because we will not tolerate any breakdown. What is
8 your position?
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we shall be
10 providing a response very soon, as soon as tomorrow.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
12 Now, we have to take a break because we have been here for an
13 hour and a half. We break for 15 minutes.
14 --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 4.08 p.m.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have a few more matters to conclude. Still
17 dealing with outstanding motions, there's a Prosecution motion for
18 protective measures filed on the 9th of January, and the Defence is to
19 respond by the 23rd of January. So the Trial Chamber will issue its
20 decision on this motion in due course.
21 Scheduling of witnesses. The parties are to provide a list of
22 witnesses every Thursday with the names of the witnesses they expect to
23 call the following week. The Prosecution will supplement that list with
24 all known prior statements of the witness that are relevant to the
25 proceedings. I hope that is clear.
1 I deal next with the presentation of documents -- yes, Mr.
3 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry, Your Honour, just to be absolutely
4 clear. The -- the statements -- does the Trial Chamber also want the
5 statements or are you contemplating that these statements are provided just
6 to the Defence? It's been different practice in different cases, so I just
7 wasn't clear.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: The intention is that the statements will also
9 be provided to the Chamber.
10 The parties are to provide a list of exhibits they intend to use
11 in court during examination-in-chief and cross-examination, and these lists
12 are to be available to the opposing party, the Registry, and the Chambers
13 no later than 48 hours in advance. But when the total number of pages
14 exceed 100, the list of documents must be provided no later than 72 hours
15 prior to the testimony of the witness. And I hope that is understood.
16 Now, are there any other matters to be raised by the parties?
17 Mr. Whiting.
18 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, just one that I think of and Mr.
19 Waespi apparently has something else that he would like to raise. Just,
20 again, to be clear with respect to the exhibits. I take it that those can
21 be provided to the opposing party, Registry, and Chambers through the e-
22 court, that is the Chamber does not require hard copies of those exhibits?
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I confirmed that they may be provided by
1 Is there a matter that the Defence wishes to raise in relation
2 to this question?
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know
4 whether I understood this right, but every Thursday the schedule for the
5 next week will be set. Is that right? That was my understanding of it.
6 That means that some of these witnesses that we would be directed to deal
7 with on a particular Thursday could be called already on the next Monday.
8 That is too short a period of time. I think that a bit more time is needed
9 for disclosing the witnesses that are to appear during the following week.
10 This is too short a period of time. Of course, that is my opinion and of
11 course we will abide by your ruling.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
13 MR. WHITING: Your Honours, I certainly appreciate what Mr.
14 Tapuskovic is saying and understand. It actually had been our intention to
15 try to give at least a week's notice -- at least a week's notice, if not
16 more, if not two week's notice for witnesses. So a witness who is called
17 on a Monday will be noticed to the Defence the previous Monday is our goal,
18 our aim. And that is what we will try to endeavour to do. I had
19 understood Your Honour's Thursday deadline to be the kind of final list and
20 the list that goes to the Chamber, but between ourselves, we will be giving
21 more advanced notice so they will have a chance to prepare. And certainly
22 if there is an instance where they believe they have not received enough
23 notice, that is something they can raise with the Trial Chamber.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll consider this matter.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber has considered this matter and has
2 determined that the list of witnesses should be provided at least one week
3 prior to the testimony. And where the Prosecution provides that list
4 before that time, then it should also at that time notify the Chamber as
6 There was another matter that you wished to raise?
7 MR. WHITING: No, I think we've resolved it. Thank you, Your
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We have come to a point in time
11 when I can raise any issue. Is that right, Your Honours?
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes, yes.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Having heard the submissions, we'll
11 hear you in private session and the previous submissions will be redacted.
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 256-257 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, we are in open session.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
10 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have no
12 matters to raise in relation to all these issues that you have mentioned.
13 My health is under consideration. I'm undergoing certain examinations,
14 medical examinations, they are in progress. I don't know the results yet.
15 So much for that. Everything else is fine.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Milosevic.
17 In that event, then, we'll adjourn until tomorrow when the trial
18 will commence with the Prosecution's opening statement at 2.15 in this
20 We are adjourned.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.27 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 11th day of
23 January, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.