The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, pursuant to her authority under Article 18 of the Statute of the Tribunal charges :

with CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR as set forth below:

BACKGROUND:

1. Sarajevo is the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina and is situated on an east- to-west axis along the Miljacka River valley in central Bosnia. The city is dominated by steep surrounding mountain slopes. To the east there is a dense city centre making up a residential and commercial old town which spreads up the adjacent hillsides. There are new municipalities with commercial development and extensive residential accommodation on more open ground to the west. The city traces its history back nearly two thousand years. Before 1992, Sarajevo was a flourishing multi-ethnic community and a cultural and economic centre in the former Yugoslavia. A 1991 census indicated that the city and immediate surroundings had a population of some 525, 980, with an ethnic composition of 49.3% Muslim, 29.9% Serb, 6.6% Croat, 10.7% describing themselves as Yugoslav and 3.5% other groups. Sarajevo accounted for 11% of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

2. Shortly after Bosnia and Herzegovina was internationally recognised as an independent state on 06 April 1992, armed hostilities broke out in Sarajevo. Even before the conflict began, armed forces supporting the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) and elements of the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA), including units of the 4th Corps of the 2nd Military District, occupied strategic positions in and around Sarajevo. The city was subsequently subjected to blockade and relentless bombardment and sniper attacks from these positions. Much of the bombardment and sniping was from positions in the hills around and overlooking Sarajevo, from which the attackers had a clear, detailed and commanding view of the city and its civilian population.

3. On or around 20 May 1992, after a partial withdrawal of JNA forces from Bosnia, the 2nd Military District was effectively transformed into part of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS - “Vojska Republika Srpska”). As part of this transformation, the 4th Corps, 2nd Military District, became the Sarajevo Romanija Corps with its headquarters in Lukavica Barracks just to the south west of Sarajevo.

4. (a) For forty-four months, the Sarajevo Romanija Corps implemented a military strategy which used shelling and sniping to kill, maim, wound and terrorise the civilian inhabitants of Sarajevo. The shelling and sniping killed and wounded thousands of civilians of both sexes and all ages, including children and the elderly.

(b) The Sarajevo Romanija Corps directed shelling and sniping at civilians who were tending vegetable plots, queueing for bread, collecting water, attending funerals, shopping in markets, riding on trams, gathering wood, or simply walking with their children or friends. People were even injured and killed inside their own homes, being hit by bullets that came through the windows. The attacks on Sarajevo civilians were often unrelated to military actions and were designed to keep the inhabitants in a constant state of terror.

(c) Because of the shelling and sniping against civilians, the life of every Sarajevo inhabitant became a daily struggle to survive. Without gas, electricity or running water, people were forced to venture outside to find basic living necessities. Each time they did, whether to collect wood, fetch water or buy some bread, they risked death. In addition to the sheer human carnage that the shelling and sniping caused, the endless threat of death and maiming caused extensive trauma and psychological damage to the inhabitants of Sarajevo.

THE ACCUSED:

5. STANISLAV GALIC was born the son of Dusan, on 12 March 1943, in Goles village, Banja Luka Municipality. He has held the rank of Major General in the Bosnian Serb army (VRS). He assumed command of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps on or about 10 September 1992 and remained in that position until about 10 August 1994, during which time, the forces under his command and control conducted a campaign of sniping and shelling against the civilian population of Sarajevo.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS:

6. The Sarajevo Romanija Corps formed a significant part of the VRS under the ultimate command of Ratko MLADIC, the Commander of the Main Staff and Radovan KARAD@IC, initially President of the Presidency of the Bosnian Serb administration in Bosnia and Herzegovina and, subsequently, as President of the “Republika Srpska” and designated Supreme Commander of its armed forces.

7. By 10 September 1992 the Sarajevo Romanija Corps controlled all the Bosnian Serb territory around Sarajevo, including established confrontation lines and artillery positions.

8. STANISLAV GALIC, during his period as Corps Commander of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, was in a position of superior authority to approximately 18,000 military personnel, formed into 10 brigades.

9. As Corps Commander of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, STANISLAV GALIC demonstrated his authority and control over forces comprising and attached to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, inter alia, by participating in negotiations and the implementation of a heavy weapons total exclusion zone (TEZ), controlling access of UNPROFOR and other UN personnel to territory around Sarajevo and, in particular, heavy weapon sites.

10. STANISLAV GALIC bears individual criminal responsibility for planning, instigating, ordering, committing, or otherwise aiding and abetting, in the planning, preparation or execution of the campaign of shelling and sniping against the civilian population of Sarajevo and the acts set forth below by the forces and persons under his command, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal.

11. STANISLAV GALIC also bears individual criminal responsibility as a Commander of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, responsible for the conduct of subordinates in respect of whom he was in a position of superior authority. STANISLAV GALIC is responsible for the acts and omissions of his subordinates, knowing, or having reason to know, that the subordinates were about to commit such acts, or had done so, failing to take reasonable steps to prevent such acts, or to punish the perpetrators thereof. By failing to take the actions required of a person in superior authority, STANISLAV GALIC is responsible for the acts and omissions set forth below pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal.

12. At all material times relevant to this indictment, an armed conflict existed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.

13. Wherever a crime against humanity, a crime recognised by Article 5 of the Statute of the Tribunal, is charged in this indictment, the alleged acts or omissions were part of a widespread or systematic or large scale attack directed against a civilian population.

14. Wherever a violation of the laws or customs of war, a crime recognised by Article 3 of the Statute of the Tribunal, is charged in this indictment, the acts or omissions were directed against civilian persons.

15. All Counts in this indictment allege the totality of the campaigns of sniping and shelling against the civilian population but the scale was so great that the Schedules to the individual groups of counts in this indictment set forth only a small representative number of individual incidents for specificity of pleading.

16. At all relevant times, STANISLAV GALIC was required to abide by the laws or customs governing the conduct of war.

CHARGES:

From about 10 September 1992 to about 10 August 1994, STANISLAV GALIC, as Commander of Bosnian Serb forces comprising or attached to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, conducted a protracted campaign of shelling and sniping upon civilian areas of Sarajevo and upon the civilian population thereby inflicting terror and mental suffering upon its civilian population.

By his acts and omissions, STANISLAV GALIC is responsible for:

COUNT 1: Violations of the Laws or Customs of War (unlawfully inflicting terror upon civilians as set forth in Article 51 of Additional Protocol I and Article 13 of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949) punishable under Article 3 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

Between 10 September 1992 and 10 August 1994, STANISLAV GALIC, as Commander of Bosnian Serb forces comprising or attached to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, conducted a coordinated and protracted campaign of sniper attacks upon the civilian population of Sarajevo, killing and wounding a large number of civilians of all ages and both sexes, such attacks by their nature involving the deliberate targeting of civilians with direct fire weapons. Specific instances of these attacks include, by way of representative allegations, those matters set forth in the First Schedule to this indictment.

By his acts and omissions, STANISLAV GALIC is responsible for:

COUNT 2: Crimes against Humanity (murder) punishable under Article 5(a) of the Statute of the Tribunal.

COUNT 3: Crimes against Humanity (inhumane acts-other than murder) punishable under Article 5(i) of the Statute of the Tribunal.

COUNT 4: Violations of the Laws or Customs of War (attacks on civilians as set forth in Article 51 of Additional Protocol I and Article 13 of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949) punishable under Article 3 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

Between 10 September 1992 and 10 August 1994, STANISLAV GALIC, as Commander of Bosnian Serb forces comprising or attached to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, conducted a coordinated and protracted campaign of artillery and mortar shelling onto civilian areas of Sarajevo and upon its civilian population. The campaign of shelling resulted in thousands of civilians being killed or injured. Specific instances of this shelling include, by way of representative allegations, the matters set forth in the Second Schedule to this indictment.

By his acts and omissions, STANISLAV GALIC is responsible for:

COUNT 5: Crimes against Humanity (murder) punishable under Article 5(a) of the Statute of the Tribunal.

COUNT 6: Crimes against Humanity (inhumane acts-other than murder) punishable under Article 5(i) of the Statute of the Tribunal.

COUNT 7: Violations of the Laws or Customs of War (attacks on civilians as set forth in Article 51 of Additional Protocol I and Article 13 of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949) punishable under Article 3 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

Date: Signed:
Louise Arbour
Prosecutor

B. Procedural History of the Case

771. An indictment against Stanislav Galic and Dragomir Milosevic was confirmed by Judge Antonio Cassese on 24 April 1998. Judge Cassese ordered that copies of the arrest warrants be transmitted to the Prosecution and to the International Stabilization Force (“SFOR”)²⁴⁸³ and that there be no disclosure of the indictment and supporting material until such time as the two Accused had been arrested or until otherwise ordered.²⁴⁸⁴ On 15 March 1999 Judge Cassese granted leave to the Prosecution to redact the indictment and deliver to the Registry a separate indictment naming only Stanislav Galic, for transmission to the Prosecution and to SFOR.²⁴⁸⁵ On 17 March 1999 Judge Cassese rendered an order to vacate in part the Order for Non-Disclosure dated 24 April 1998, to take effect upon the detention or arrest of one of the Accused and in respect of the documents relevant to that accused.²⁴⁸⁶ On 2 November 2001 Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia ordered that the Order for Non-Disclosure filed on 24 April 1998 be vacated in full.2

772. The indictment attached in Annex A was filed on 26 March 1999 and charges the Accused with seven counts under Articles 3 and 5 and Article 7(1) and 7(3) of the Statute for his participation in a campaign of sniping and shelling against civilians in Sarajevo from September 1992 to August 1994.

773. Two schedules which “set forth a small representative number of individual incidents for specificity of pleading”²⁴⁸⁷ are annexed to the indictment. The First Schedule refers to sniping incidents allegedly committed against civilians by forces under the command and control of the Accused. The Second Schedule lists a number of shelling incidents allegedly committed against civilian targets by forces under the command and control of the Accused.

774. Stanislav Galic was arrested by the SFOR on 20 December 1999 and was transferred to the United Nations Detention Unit on 21 December 1999.²⁴⁸⁸ The Defence, on 7 April 2000, filed a motion for provisional release pursuant to Rule 65 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence. After hearing the parties,²⁴⁸⁹ the Trial Chamber denied the motion on the grounds that the Accused failed to demonstrate that, if released, he would not pose a danger to a victim, witness, or other person and would return for trial.²⁴⁹⁰

775. On 23 December 1999 the Registrar appointed Nikola Kostich as temporary defence counsel for the Accused,5 and then, on 16 June 2000, as lead counsel.6 The Accused made a request dated 3 October 2000 but filed on 25 October 20007 to have his counsel withdrawn and replaced by Mara Pilipovic, on the ground that the Trial Chamber had repeatedly admonished his counsel, Kostich, for the quality of his work and had issued him a warning for his conduct on 10 July 2000 pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules. In a Decision of 16 November 2000, being effective on 24 November 2000, the Registrar, acting pursuant to Article 20 (A) (i) of the Directive on Assignment of Defence Counsel, withdrew Kostich as counsel and appointed Mara Pilipovic as the new lead counsel.²⁴⁹¹ On 8 October 2001 he appointed Stéphane Piletta-Zanin as co-counsel as of 2 October 2001.²⁴⁹²

776. A motion on the form of the indictment, filed by Defence counsel Kostich on 7 April 2000²⁴⁹³ was rejected by the Trial Chamber on 11 May 2000 on the ground that it was not submitted within 30 days after disclosure of the Prosecution under Rule 66(A)(i), as required by Rule 72(A)(ii) of the Rules.²⁴⁹⁴ The Prosecution filed two revised schedules to the indictment on 10 October 2001 whereby it deleted ten incidents and added five incidents with respect to the First Schedule, and deleted one incident with respect to the Second Schedule.²⁴⁹⁵ The Defence argued that that the revised schedules were to be regarded as amendments to the indictment which it should be entitled to challenge through a preliminary motion on the form of the indictment.²⁴⁹⁶ The Trial Chamber deemed that only one added incident to the First Schedule (incident no. 1) constituted an amendment to the indictment and rejected this incident on the ground that it was not submitted on time and that it would go contrary to the sound administration of justice to accept an amendment to the indictment at that stage of proceedings.²⁴⁹⁷ The Trial Chamber nevertheless recognized that that incident 1 could be used as evidence corroborating a consistent pattern of conduct.²⁴⁹⁸ Seized of a Defence request for leave to appeal the Trial Chamber decision, a bench of three judges of the Appeals Chamber refused the Defence’s application for leave to appeal on the ground that the issue at stake was not of a general interest for the development of international law. The bench noted however that the Trial Chamber has erred in the exercise of its discretion when the Trial Chamber did not find that any alteration made to the indictment, including its annexes, necessarily constituted an amendment, which could not be made without leave being granted²⁴⁹⁹ and suggested that, should the Accused demonstrate that the amendments made disrupted the preparation for his defence, the Trial Chamber must either prevent the Prosecution from leading evidence on the newly added incidents, or adjourn the trial until the Accused has had adequate opportunity to investigate the new allegations.²⁵⁰⁰
     2. Stages of the Proceedings

     (a) Pre-Trial Stage

777. On 22 December 1999 Judge Florence Mumba, Acting President, assigned the Galic case to Trial Chamber I, composed of Judges Almiro Rodrigues (Presiding ), Fouad Riad, and Patricia Wald.²⁵⁰¹ Judge Rodrigues was assigned as the pre-trial judge.²⁵⁰² The initial appearance was held on 29 December 1999 and the Accused pleaded not guilty to each count charged in the indictment.²⁵⁰³

     (b) Preparation of Prosecution case

778. Pursuant to Rule 65ter (E) (i), the Prosecution filed a provisional pre-trial brief on 20 February 2001²⁵⁰⁴ and a final pre-trial brief 23 October 2001.²⁵⁰⁵ A list of 217 Prosecution witnesses was filed on 29 October 2001,²⁵⁰⁶ and a corrigendum to the witness list was filed 2 November 2001.²⁵⁰⁷ A confidential list of Prosecution exhibits was filed on 01 November 2001,²⁵⁰⁸ and a revised list of exhibits was filed on 15 November 2001.²⁵⁰⁹ A Pre-Trial Conference, as required by Rule 73 bis, was held on 8 and 12 November 2001.²⁵¹⁰

     (c) Change in Composition of Trial Chamber

779. The mandates of Judges Rodrigues, Riad, and Wald ended on 16 November 2001 and on 23 November 2001 the President assigned the case to Trial Chamber I, composed of Judges Liu Daqun, Presiding, Alphons Orie, and Amin El Mahdi.²⁵¹¹ On 30 November 2001 the President assigned Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia as the ad litem judge to the case and confirmed that Trial Chamber I, Section B, would be in charge of the case and would be composed of Judges Orie, presiding, El Mahdi, and Nieto-Navia.²⁵¹²

     (d) Stipulated Facts

780. A confidential list of stipulated facts, submitted by the Prosecution on 26 October 2001, was signed and filed by both parties on 4 December 2001.²⁵¹³ Following the Pre-Trial Conference, the Trial Chamber, in a decision dated 16 November 2001, requested the parties to submit a joint document on stipulated facts which would state all the agreed points, “including those contained in the document on stipulated facts submitted by the Prosecution on 26 October, those agreed during the (Pre-Trial Conference( and other new points which the parties may consider of relevance to this trial.”²⁵¹⁴ The parties however did not submit such document. The Trial Chamber made another attempt to urge the parties to reach agreement at the end of the Prosecution case and after reading the Defence’s Motion for Judgement of Acquittal submitted on 2 September 2002. The matter was first raised by the judges on 20 September 2002 during a status conference. The presiding judge, acting as a pre-trial judge pursuant to Rule 65ter (I), also convened the parties for a meeting to discuss the matter. A decision was then rendered, on the basis of what was said during the Pre-Defence Conference and the meeting with the presiding judge, and the parties were requested to submit a joint document setting out all agreed points reached by the parties.²⁵¹⁵ However, the parties once again did not submit such document.

     (e) Preparation of Defence Case

781. After the first stage of the Prosecution case had closed, and pursuant to Rule 65 ter, the Defence filed a provisional exhibit and witness list on 2 August 2002.24 Final lists of Defence witnesses and exhibits were filed on 19 September 2002. The Pre-Defence Conference was held on 3 October 2002 in accordance with Rule 73 ter.²⁵¹⁶
     3. Trial Stage

782. The Trial commenced on 3 December 2001 and lasted 223 days. The Prosecution case lasted 127 days and ended on 2 August 2002. The Defence filed a confidential Motion for Judgement of Acquittal pursuant to Rule 98 bis on 2 September 2002, where it requested that Stanislav Galic be acquitted of all charges.46 After hearing the parties, the Trial Chamber entered a Judgement of acquittal on those parts of the indictment concerning sniping incidents nos. 7, 12, and 19. The Trial Chamber denied the rest of the motion.²⁵¹⁷

783. The Defence case started on 7 October 2002 and lasted 96 days. The Prosecution was allowed to call one witness in rebuttal on a specific issue.²⁵¹⁸ The oral request made by the Defence on 24 March 200328 to recall an expert witness in rejoinder was denied²⁵¹⁹ and no evidence was adduced in rejoinder. The Defence submitted its closing brief on 22 April 2003.²⁵²⁰ The Prosecution filed its closing brief confidentially on 23 April 2003²⁵²¹ and a public version thereof was filed on 28 April 2003.²⁵²² The closing arguments were heard pursuant to Rule 86 from 6 to 9 May 2003.²⁵²³

784. Overall, 171 witnesses were heard, five Rule 92 bis witness statements were admitted, as well as 15 expert reports. All expert witnesses were heard in court. A total of 603 Prosecution exhibits, 651 Defence exhibits, and 14 Chamber exhibits were admitted into evidence. 32 documents were marked for identification.

     (a) Issues Related to Witnesses

785. The Prosecution called 120 witnesses, of whom 27 were granted protective measures by the Trial Chamber under Rule 75. The Defence called 51 witnesses, 26 with protective measures.

     (i) Protective measures

786. The Prosecution filed 17 motions for protective measures pursuant to Rule 75.²⁵²⁴ The Defence filed two motions for protective measures.²⁵²⁵ The Trial Chamber requested additional information from the Defence in relation to certain witnesses on 19 November 2002. On 27 November 2002 the Defence filed a “Confidential Brief Regarding Protective Measures”. Several requests for protective measures were also made orally by both parties during trial and protective measures were ordered both orally and in written decisions.²⁵²⁶ The protective measures granted by the Trial Chamber included the use of pseudonyms, face and voice distortion, and closed or private session. In some instances, prior to orally granting protective measures, the Trial Chamber heard in closed session, directly from the witness, the reasons for which he or she had made the request.

     (ii) Rule 70

787. On 22 January 2002, the Chamber rendered a confidential decision²⁵²⁷ on the “Prosecution Confidential Motion for Protective Measures for Rule 70 Witnesses and Documents”, filed on 29 October 2001.²⁵²⁸

     (iii) Video-Link

788. On 14 January 2002, the Prosecution filed a “Confidential Motion for Testimony with Protective Measures via Video-Conference Link” for ten witnesses and, subsequent to the Trial Chamber’s oral request of 24 January 2002, filed confidential supplementary information to that motion on 25 January 2002. An additional “Motion for Two Witnesses to Testify Via Video-Link” was filed on 31 January 2002, which concerned two witnesses. By written decision of 12 February 2002 dealing with both motions²⁵²⁹ the Trial Chamber granted the motions in respect of six witnesses and ordered additional information to be provided in respect of four witnesses. The motions were denied in respect of two witnesses. In total, six witnesses testified via video link from Sarajevo for the Prosecution. The Defence filed a confidential motion on 12 October 2002 for evidence to be heard from four witnesses via video link.45 The Trial Chamber granted the motion in respect of two witnesses. One of them was eventually unable to testify for medical reasons and the other was heard via video link from Sarajevo.

     (iv) Summons

789. The Trial Chamber, upon the request of the Prosecution, confidentially ordered a person to appear as witness on 18 April 2002. The person did not appear. The Defence confidentially submitted a “Request for Witnesses Summonses” on 9 January 2003, in respect of five individuals who were present in Sarajevo as international staff during the conflict. The Trial Chamber denied the request on 19 March 2003, considering that the Defence did not exercise the diligence that could be expected in respect of witnesses of significant importance to its case.²⁵³⁰

     (v) Safe Conducts

790. The Defence requested an order for safe conduct in respect of ten witnesses. The Defence withdrew its request in respect of two witnesses and eight orders for safe conduct were issued by the Trial Chamber.²⁵³¹

     (vi) Concerning the Possibility of the Accused as Witness

791. The Defence first announced in its witness list submitted on 19 September 2001 that Gen. Galic may testify at the end of its case, but reserved its final decision. On 22 January 2003 the Trial Chamber orally ruled that the Accused, if he so decided, was to testify before the expert witnesses called by the Defence were heard, and that in such case the Defence should provide the Prosecution at the earliest opportunity with a detailed survey of subjects the Accused would testify about.²⁵³² The Defence asked for a certification to appeal this ruling, claiming that to compel the Accused to testify before the expert witnesses were heard infringed upon his fundamental rights under Article 21(4) of the Statute.²⁵³³ On 4 February 2003, the Trial Chamber denied the certification to appeal its oral decision on the grounds that the oral decision did not prevent the Accused from freely deciding whether to testify or not and that Rule 90(F) authorizes the Trial Chamber to exercise control over the order of hearing witnesses and presenting evidence. The Trial Chamber further found that the oral decision did not involve an issue that would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial for which an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber could materially advance the proceedings.²⁵³⁴ The Accused did not testify.

     (vii) Expert Witnesses

792. Overall, 16 expert witness statements were submitted by the parties according to Rule 94bis of the Rules. A series of issues arose in this context and 15 reports were eventually admitted.

793. Regarding the expert witnesses called by the Prosecution, the Defence requested the Trial Chamber, on 13 March 2003, to render a decision instructing the Prosecution to file the expert witness statements within a prescribed time limit before calling them to appear before the Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber ordered the Prosecution to file the expert witness statements by 25 May 2002 and requested the Defence to inform the Trial Chamber of whether its accepts the statement within 30 days of filing. The Trial Chamber further requested the Defence to indicate as soon as possible the estimated length of each cross-examination it intended to conduct and ordered the Prosecution to respect a time-limit of at least 45 days between the filing of the expert witness statement and the appearance of that witness.²⁵³⁵

794. Both parties expressed their wish to cross-examine all expert witnesses presented by the other party and all of them were heard in court. The parties, in most cases, contested that the witnesses qualified as expert witnesses. These contests lead the Trial Chamber to specify on several occasions what it considered an expert witness.²⁵³⁶ The Trial Chamber, after putting questions to a witness called by the Prosecution as an expert in sniping, orally ruled that he did not qualify as an expert. The witness concerned was heard as a regular factual witness on certain topics and his statement was not admitted.²⁵³⁷

795. The Defence also objected to the admission of an expert report submitted by the Prosecution on the ground that the Prosecution failed to provide the Defence with the correct version of the report.²⁵³⁸ The Prosecution recognized that the Defence was mistakenly provided with an earlier rough draft and submitted the final version of the statement, in both Hungarian and English, on 19 July 2002, 10 days after the witness came to testify.²⁵³⁹ The witness was for that reason recalled on 25 July. While recognizing that this situation was highly inconvenient for the Defence, the Trial Chamber took into account that the final English version contained only two additional pages compared to the version first disclosed to the Defence, and that the witness was recalled for cross -examination. The Trial Chamber concluded that the possible disadvantageous situation in which the Defence was put had been remedied, and admitted the statement.²⁵⁴⁰

     (viii) Rule 92 bis Statements

796. On 12 and 18 April 2002 the Trial Chamber partially admitted into evidence the statements of two deceased persons in accordance with Rule 92 bis (C), to support testimony concerning shelling incidents nos. 2 and 5²⁵⁴¹ (“the First Decision”) and sniping incident no. 11²⁵⁴² (“the Second Decision”). The Trial Chamber granted the Defence certification to appeal on 25 April 2002, which the Defence lodged on 2 May 2002. The Appeals Chamber dismissed the appeal against the Second Decision but considered that the Trial Chamber failed to determine whether the evidence in question was so pivotal to the case that it would be unfair to the Accused to admit it in a written form with respect to the First Decision.²⁵⁴³ The Trial Chamber, having received the submissions of the parties,²⁵⁴⁴ found that the statement concerned was not so pivotal to the Accused as to prevent its being admitted. It however excluded those parts of the statement concerning the burning of the National Library, an event situated outside the time-frame of the indictment. The statement was therefore partially admitted on 2 August 2002.²⁵⁴⁵

797. On 6 June 2002 the Prosecution filed an application for admission of 21 statements under Rule 92bis. The Defence opposed the admission of all statements.²⁵⁴⁶ After hearing the parties²⁵⁴⁷ the Trial Chamber rendered a written decision whereby it admitted portions of two witness statements without cross-examination and of three witness statements provided that the witnesses concerned were called for cross-examination and rejected the admission of the remainder of the statements. The Trial Chamber also admitted five witness statements in full provided that the witnesses concerned were called for cross-examination.²⁵⁴⁸ After the decision was rendered, the Prosecution reviewed its application and called one witness for cross-examination.²⁵⁴⁹ The Prosecution later applied for the admission of two additional Rule 92bis statements.²⁵⁵⁰ This was rejected by the Trial Chamber.²⁵⁵¹

     (b) Issues Related to Disclosure and Documentary Evidence

     (i) Order for Production of Documents

798. On 18 March 2002, midway through the Prosecution case, the Prosecution filed confidentially and ex parte an application for an order to the Republika Sprska (“RS”), Bosnia and Herzegovina, for the production of documents concerning Stanislav Galic. Additional submissions were filed on the matter on 12 April 2002.²⁵⁵² The Prosecution thereby requested the Trial Chamber to order RS to produce a series of military documents. The Trial Chamber granted the request on 19 April 2002.²⁵⁵³ In a hearing of 31 July 2002 and in a request of 1 August 2002²⁵⁵⁴ the Prosecution requested the Trial Chamber to direct RS to provide further information on the chain of custody of the documents received by RS on 26 July 2002. It however withdrew its request on 1 November 2002.²⁵⁵⁵

     (ii) Reciprocal Disclosure

799. The Defence utilized the reciprocal disclosure mechanism set forth under Rules 66(B) and 67(C).²⁵⁵⁶ At the status conference of 7 September 2001 the Prosecution explained that 380,000 documents comprising some two and a half million pages were examined in this context, and that 2,525 were eventually disclosed. The Prosecution announced that an additional 900 documents were to be disclosed to the Defence in the near future.²⁵⁵⁷ Later during the trial, the Defence requested that it be provided with all documents of the ABiH 1st Corps within the possession of the Prosecution and intercept tapes of General Galic.²⁵⁵⁸ The Prosecution replied that it should not disclose to the Defence orders and reports which did not pertain to the armed conflict in Sarajevo during the indictment period but that it would check the material identified by the Defence to confirm that it does not touch upon Sarajevo at the time-period covered in the indictment. The Prosecution further stated that it did not possess any tape of intercepted conversations involving the Accused.²⁵⁵⁹

     (iii) Notification during Trial

800. The Trial Chamber requested that the parties make notification seven days in advance of the witnesses to be called as well as a list of potential exhibits to be tendered through each witness. When examining witnesses, the Parties were ordinarily granted equal time for examination-in-chief and cross-examination within a time limit set by the Trial Chamber. As a general rule, after hearing oral submissions from the Parties in relation to the admissibility of evidence, documents were admitted by oral decision of the Trial Chamber after completion of the witness’s testimony.

     (iv) Documentary Evidence Admitted from Bar Table

801. A number of documents were admitted from the Bar Table at the end of the Prosecution case as well as at the end of the Defence case. The opposite party each time submitted its objections and comments in writing, upon which the Trial Chamber rendered a written decision.²⁵⁶⁰

     (c) Issue of Visit to Sarajevo

802. On 14 July 2000, the Prosecution filed a motion for the Trial Chamber to travel to Sarajevo and its immediate surroundings in Bosnia and Herzegovina some time after the filing of the Parties’ pre-trial briefs but prior to the start of the trial. Four status conferences were held to discuss the matter.²⁵⁶¹ On 7 September 2001, after the pre-trial Chamber issued a scheduling order requesting the Parties to reach an agreement regarding the so-called Travel Protocol, the pre -trial Chamber announced that the issue of an on-site visit should be addressed to the new Trial Chamber that would be hearing the case.

803. Trial Chamber I, Section B, when considering the matter in July 2002, asked the Parties to inform the Trial Chamber of their respective positions in relation to the possible on-site visit. Discussion between the Parties and the Trial Chamber focused on several issues including whether the visit should be considered part of the trial, whether it should be a silent visit, the practicalities of an on-site visit, and whether the Accused should be present during the visit.

804. Both Parties agreed that an on-site visit should take place and that the on -site visit should be part of the trial. The right of the Accused to be tried in his presence and to defend himself led the parties to the position that the on-site visit should only take place in the presence of the Accused, unless the Accused waived his right to be present. In December 2002 the Parties re-submitted their views regarding the possible on-site visit, and the Trial Chamber noted that while it had initially agreed on a visit conducted without the Accused, the Defence had now reversed its position and insisted that the Accused be present during such a visit.

805. In a decision dated 4 February 2003, the Trial Chamber agreed that “in principle an accused should be present during an On-site Visit” but was of the view that “ the presence of the Accused in Sarajevo during a visit by the Trial Chamber would pose a considerable security risk for the Parties and the accompanying staff”. The Trial Chamber also concluded that it would be virtually impossible to guarantee the safety of the Accused during the visit, considering the charges brought against him, his former position in the VRS, and the locations to be visited. The Trial Chamber noted that the purpose of an on-site visit was for it to become better acquainted with certain locations in Sarajevo and its surroundings. It however found that those places were described by witnesses, that photographs and maps of the locations were shown, that videos were played during trial, and that “such visualization was of substantial assistance to the Trial Chamber in its process of adopting an image of the terrain”. The Trial Chamber considered that denying the motion of 14 July 2000 did not affect the Accused’s rights nor did it affect the Trial Chamber’s ability to decide upon the case against the Accused. Consequently the Trial Chamber denied the motion.²⁵⁶²

     (d) Amicus Curiae

806. On 3 March 2003 a “Memorial Amicus Curiae Submitted Pursuant to Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence” was filed by Francisco Forrest Martin, President of the Center for International Human Rights Law in Coral Gables, Florida. Noting, inter alia, that the parties did not make any submissions on its admission, the Trial Chamber did not find it necessary for the proper determination of the case to admit the brief and rejected the application for leave to submit it.²⁵⁶³
     4. Motion to Disqualify Presiding Judge

807. On 23 January 2003, the Defence filed a “Request for Withdrawal of Judge Alphons Orie, Presiding”, before Trial Chamber I, Section B, whereby it claimed that Judge Orie had to withdraw from the Galic case as a result of his confirmation of the amended indictment against Ratko Mladic on 8 November 2002, in which Mladi c is charged with crimes related to the case against Stanislav Galic. The request was redirected to Judge Liu Daqun, Presiding judge of Trial Chamber I, pursuant to Rule 15(B) of the Rules. Judge Liu Daqun dismissed the request principally on the basis of the fundamental difference that exists between the judicial functions of a judge who confirms an indictment and a judge who sits at trial. He also pointed out that the request was not submitted in a timely fashion since it was filed two -and-a-half months after the amended indictment against Ratko Mladic was confirmed.²⁵⁶⁴ The Defence then filed a request before Trial Chamber I, Section B, to obtain certification to appeal this decision.²⁵⁶⁵ Trial Chamber I, composed of Judges Liu Daqun, Presiding, El Mahdi, and Orie, noted that no procedure for appeal of decisions taken by a Presiding Judge under Rule 15 (B) of the Rules was envisioned in the Rules and referred the matter to the Appeals Chamber.²⁵⁶⁶ In the meantime, the Defence also filed before the Appeals Chamber a “Motion to Suspend Proceedings and Make Further Submissions” on 5 March 2002. The Appeals rendered a decision on 13 March 2003, where it deemed that the appeal was to be lodged with the Bureau, according to Rule 15 (B) of the Rules²⁵⁶⁷ and referred the request to the Bureau. With respect to the motion to suspend, the Appeals Chamber considered that such application was to be made directly before Trial Chamber I, Section B.²⁵⁶⁸ The Defence filed its “Request to Suspend Proceedings” before Trial Chamber I, Section B, on 24 March 2003. The Bureau rendered a decision on 28 March 2003 in which it denied the motion to disqualify Judge Orie.²⁵⁶⁹ As a result, Trial Chamber I, Section B, denied the request to suspend trial on 1 April 2003.²⁵⁷⁰ On 3 April 2003, the Defence again filed before Trial Chamber I, Section B, a Request for certification to appeal the decision rendered by Judge Liu Daqun on 3 February 2003, arguing that the Bureau was not the appropriate authority to deal with a request for disqualification.²⁵⁷¹ On 10 April 2003 the Trial Chamber declared that it was incompetent to deal with the request.²⁵⁷²
     5. Late disclosure of Material

808. In August 2003, the Prosecution disclosed material pursuant to Rule 68. On 1 September 2003, the Defence filed a “Response to Material Additionally Disclosed by the Prosecution Pursuant to Rule 68 of the Rules”, claiming, inter alia, that some documents, disclosed by the Prosecution after the end of the proceedings pursuant to Rules 67(D) and 68 of the Rules, were “exculpatory” in nature. On 1 October 2003, the Trial Chamber ordered the parties to make submissions on the matter. The Trial Chamber, upon review of the material disclosed, has admitted only one of the documents, and that only for a limited purpose (see the introduction to “ General Remarks on Terminology and Evidence”).

809. On 18 November 2003, the Prosecution disclosed additional material pursuant to Rule 68. The Defence did not react. The Trial Chamber refrained from taking a decision regarding this material.

 

Indictment	The Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, 26 February 1999
Schedule 1 and 2 to the Indictment	Revised Schedules 1 and 2 to the Indictment filed on 10 October 2001
Decision on the Motion for Acquittal	Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Decision on the Motion for the Entry of Acquittal of the Accused Stanislav Galic, 3 October 2002
Response to Acquittal Motion	Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Prosecution’s Response to the Submission of Stanislav Galic under Rule 98bis, 16 September 2002
Motion for Acquittal	Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Motion for Judgment of Acquittal under Rule 98bis on Behalf of the Defendant General Stanislav Gali c, 2 September 2002
Defence Pre-Trial Brief	Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-PT, Pre-trial Brief of the Defence Pursuant to the Rules 65ter(F), 29 October 2001
Defence Final Trial Brief	Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Defence’s Final Trial Brief, 22 April 2003
Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief	Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-PT, Prosecutor’s Final Pre -trial Brief, 23 October 2001
Prosecution Final Trial Brief	Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Prosecution’s Final Trial Brief, 23 April 2003

Akayesu Trial Judgement	Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement, 2 September 1998
Kambanda Sentencing Judgement	Prosecutor v. Jean Kambanda, Case No. ICTR 97-23-S, Sentencing Judgement, 4 September 1998
Kayishema Trial Judgement	Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement, 21 May 1999

D. Maps

The two maps below are not authoritative and do not necessarily reflect any finding of the Trial Chamber; they are attached exclusively in order to assist readers to better orient themselves. Map 1 is a portion, reduced in size, of a map admitted into evidence as Exhibit C2, originating from the SRK. This Map shows confrontation lines in the wider area of Sarajevo (“CPK” being the cyrillic form for “SRK” and “1.K” identifying the ABiH 1st Corps). Map 2 is a reduced copy of a large map, parts of which were presented in Court to witnesses to mark certain positions. This Map shows the narrower Sarajevo area; topographical and geographical data have been added.