Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 6884

1 Tuesday, 9 April 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and just outside this

6 courtroom. Would you please call the case, Madam Registrar.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Case Number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus

8 Stanislav Galic.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much.

10 The Defence started to cross-examine the witness yesterday.

11 You're ready to resume?

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. However,

13 before we do so, the Defence deems that it is necessary to make the

14 following commentary and to raise some issues with regards to the conduct

15 of the procedure and with regards to the evidence. The Defence deems it

16 necessary to do so at this present moment for the simple reason that the

17 way the documents are communicated is definitely a handicap and it is a

18 violation of essential rights reserved to the Defence in order to conduct

19 a fair trial.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. President,

22 Your Honours, thank you for handing us the floor. You have indicated to

23 us yesterday that it would be good that if we have a problem with regards

24 to the reading, the legibility of the documents, that is communicated to

25 us by the Prosecution, to inform your Chamber within 48 hours. We shall

Page 6885

1 attempt, try, to follow that rule, although it is not always possible to

2 see where the problem is when we have 40.000 documents. It is not always

3 easy to see where the problem will be. We can't always know ahead of time

4 if a document is not well photocopied or if it is badly translated.

5 This being said, Mr. President, Your Honours, we would like to

6 draw the attention of your Chamber to three documents. I will first talk

7 about a mail, a letter, that we had sent on the 25th of July, 2001. When

8 I say that we have sent this letter, I am talking about the Defence, of

9 course, because your humble servant, myself, was not working this case

10 yet. So it was a letter sent to my honourable colleague, Mr. Mark Ierace.

11 There was an annex to this letter and it was four pages representing

12 lists. I do have copies of these lists and I will hand them to you.

13 Those were lists of documents that the Defence were deeming not to be

14 enough legible.

15 I will first read on the last page, on page 7 of this concerning

16 the item, illegible documentation. It is written in English. The

17 following document: 0026-8535, 20026-8586. Those are very precisely

18 these documents that we have examined yesterday, the certificates which

19 were subjected to, most likely, some kind of scratching of the date. So

20 we have seen that it was not very legible, and we can see that it says

21 that this has not been addressed, this problem has not been addressed at

22 the time. We have reiterated on many occasions, and we have asked the

23 Prosecution to hand out, to hand us, to communicate to us, very clear

24 copies. We have done it on the 8th of October, 2001, by sending them a

25 letter. I will also hand you and show you this document so that you may

Page 6886

1 take possession of it, read it, and in this letter, we have underlined all

2 the problems linked to the quality of the material that we receive. Some

3 motions were then submitted with regards to military documents, for

4 instance. It was said that these orders and that these instructions,

5 these military documents, would be sent to us and put to us in our

6 mailbox. It is the mailbox that the Defence has here in this Tribunal.

7 We are talking about the 8th of October. At the time, we were talking

8 about a delay of a few days, 12th of October, 2001, and you have only --

9 you have seen that only last week have we received one-third of this

10 documentation, or actually we were told that it can be handed out,

11 delivered, and it was done, and I thank the Prosecution. But it was only

12 in the month of April 2002. And after that -- or rather, only after that

13 we have cross-examined witnesses.

14 On the 4th of January, 2002, Mr. President, I intervened once

15 again, and when I say "I," I mean the Defence. The Defence asked once

16 again the Prosecution the following: We were telling them since the

17 medical documents are illegible and that even some documents are not

18 included, I thank you, of wanting to submit to you, but we cannot accept

19 them. So we have reiterated this on many occasions. We have asked the

20 Prosecution on many occasions. Maybe I would like Mr. Stamp to intervene

21 at this point. Or maybe I should let Mr. Stamp, rather, answer.

22 JUDGE ORIE: I understand that this correspondence is not directly

23 dealing with documents we could expect today or tomorrow or the day after

24 tomorrow?

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It corresponds to those

Page 6887

1 documents. It also corresponds to some other documents, but it's

2 basically with regards to these documents. If I may continue,

3 Mr. President.

4 In the month of December, 2001, your humble servant asked for a

5 meeting between the Defence and the Prosecution to say the following:

6 That given this very bad quality of copies, documents, we have noticed,

7 and you will certainly remember because I did raise the issue before this

8 Chamber, the search engines or this way -- the search system was not

9 effective, and I tried to -- I attempted to show your Chamber that we

10 should maybe look and search differently. But the problem was not there.

11 The problem was with regards to the quality of the copies that we get, the

12 documents. And the Prosecution told us that what they should do is to

13 communicate to us hard copies, paper copies, and that for the rest, for

14 all the other, computer support was only an additional support, that they

15 were not -- it was not necessary for them to hand it to us. So we were

16 only talking therefore about hard copies, about paper copies.

17 But what is the reality of the fact? And it is the following:

18 That since 1991, as of the beginning of this year, we have been asking

19 clear copies that are legible and available. It was refused to us, and

20 you have seen the quality of the documents that we have received. The

21 following question is asked -- is raised, therefore, in law, and it is the

22 following: Is the Prosecution -- has the Prosecution fulfilled its

23 obligation with regards to Article 65 ter, 65(f), I believe, to

24 communicate at least six months before the opening of the trial documents

25 on which they wish to base their Defence. We have -- or the Prosecution,

Page 6888

1 rather. We have a computer system that cannot work. And when we have

2 documents, when we receive documents that are in such poor quality, and

3 you have seen it yesterday; we have called it a "black box" often here in

4 this trial. I believe that the logical deduction is the following: By

5 delivering what they knew being a black box at the time, the Prosecution

6 was not fulfilling his obligation, that is, to deliver, to submit the

7 documents in question. And he was doing it fully knowing that they had

8 legible documents within their possession and which is something that we

9 were able to see now, yesterday. Since we have documents that are

10 perfectly legible that were submitted yesterday by the Prosecution,

11 whereas the documents that the Defence had received at the time was

12 completely illegible. We, therefore, ask that these documents should not

13 be considered as being documents that are disclosed on the regular basis

14 to the Defence, and this is why we deem that all these documents should be

15 excluded, therefore, not be admitted as evidence.

16 Mr. President, this is a formal conclusion on our behalf, and to

17 support this, I will hand the usher copies. We also have some copies for

18 the Prosecution, and we are talking about something that happened a long

19 time ago. Therefore, we shall hand them the three correspondences, these

20 three letters that I have handed to them, and I must say that these

21 letters have not received an answer. Thank you.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, would you like to respond now or -- ?

23 MR. STAMP: Briefly, just to say, (a), when it comes to medical

24 documentation and what the Defence has referred to specifically, we did

25 everything, perhaps more than even necessary, to send various missions to

Page 6889

1 various places to try to obtain the best copies available. We invited the

2 Defence to have a look at the copies that are in our vaults because some

3 of the documents could not be photocopied or were not photocopied in an

4 ideal -- with the legibility being ideal. That is all I would like to say

5 at this moment. My friend, in this submission, as it were, has referred

6 to a history and to a variety of letters which he has sent. And he has

7 said that we have never answered. He has said that we have refused to

8 give them legible copies. There are documents relevant to this

9 submission. It would be impossible for me to answer without having a look

10 at all the documents relevant to what he has said, and to give the Court a

11 precise answer, to assist the Court in coming to an assessment of this

12 submission which my friend has raised this morning. So if I could perhaps

13 be given some time to look into some of the specific allegations or

14 statements that he has made and to respond to it, I'd be very grateful.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp, I'll give you some time. But that

16 doesn't keep me off from making observations: The first is that sometimes

17 the documents in your possession are badly legible as such. By copying,

18 you can't make them any better legible than they are. Nevertheless,

19 yesterday, we got the impression that, by copying, you can make them less

20 legible. And we could expect from both parties that if they provide the

21 other party with copies, that the copy should not be less legible than the

22 documents in the hands of the other party. And at least we got a clear

23 indication yesterday that that is what has happened, and that shouldn't

24 happen, of course. You can't make them any better as they are, but you

25 can make them worse, and I would say that is not acceptable.

Page 6890

1 The second issue I'd like to make an observation about is that, if

2 there are complaints about the legibility of documents, in writing, I

3 expect parties to respond to that. I don't know whether it has been done

4 or not. It has now been alleged that you did not respond. If that's

5 true, that's not the way it should be done.

6 The third observation I'd like to make is that as has been

7 stressed by you yesterday, Mr. Stamp, and that if the Defence finds that

8 the copies as they are provided are unsatisfactory, that of course your

9 last resort is to inspection of the documents in the hands of the

10 Prosecution. That could finally perhaps not solve the problem, but at

11 least clarify whether there are any better legible copies.

12 And the fourth observation I'd like to make is that if there's a

13 disclosure obligation, if it's not fulfilled, that it's not an automatic

14 consequence that all documents not disclosed in -- either in proper time

15 or in proper quality, will have to be excluded. The Chamber will have to

16 decide on what the legal consequences will be of any failure or temporary

17 failure to fulfill disclosure obligations. It could, for example, be that

18 extra time should be granted to one of the parties to be better able to

19 prepare for the presentation of their case after they have had an

20 opportunity to inspect the documents or the copies of these documents.

21 These are just some general observations I'd like to make.

22 We would like to hear from the Prosecution in response to the

23 specific correspondence given to the Chamber by the Defence. If one of

24 the documents appearing in this correspondence turns up today or tomorrow,

25 the day after tomorrow, would you please then indicate that clearly so

Page 6891

1 that we do not wait, so that we know that it has become urgent at this

2 very moment. Otherwise, I would say that within one or two days,

3 Mr. Stamp, I expect that the Prosecution will be able to give a response

4 to the submissions made by the Defence.

5 Then, if there's another issue at this moment, then I'd like to

6 hear it.

7 MR. STAMP: No other issue. Before I sit down, before the

8 cross-examination resumes, may I indicate that we will respond to every

9 issue that the Court has raised, as fully as we can.


11 MR. STAMP: However, in respect to the inspection, may I just

12 announce through the Court that we have invited the Defence to inspect on

13 many occasions, and the invitation is still open. I know the Court is not

14 sitting on Friday, so perhaps the Defence would like to use that

15 opportunity, or perhaps in the afternoons. Through the Court, I again

16 invite the Defence to inspect whatever documents that we have which they

17 are not satisfied of the legibility of the copies. It is just an

18 invitation. Thanks, Mr. President.


20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Two

21 observations: Firstly, we will have to, in fact, inspect some of the

22 documents which I mentioned earlier, which are partly found in this

23 correspondence, and we have received clear indications yesterday here that

24 they are underlined in blue on the last page of the correspondence of July

25 2001. And the second point which seems essential to be raised is the

Page 6892

1 following, is I am waiting once again. And what I am waiting for is that

2 before I am able to be efficient and to cross-examine this witness, I am

3 waiting for Mr. Stamp to answer to the following question: How is it

4 possible that they may have incurred some scratchings on these documents

5 or that one attempted to perhaps cross out some dates. So this

6 information seems to be extremely useful before I begin the

7 cross-examination.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Could you give any indication, Mr. Stamp, I mean,

9 whether it's formally introduced or not, to respond to the question of --

10 well, we noticed yesterday that there seemed to be entries of other dates

11 in these documents. Have you any -- could you give Mr. Piletta-Zanin any

12 clue on what could explain? I don't know, it's not a formal explanation.

13 MR. STAMP: Mr. President, I would not like to comment on that

14 without having precise knowledge. The documents are the best

15 representation of what we have in our evidence vault. They are free to

16 inspect it. The issue was raised, and the Court expressed some concern.

17 It is our position as prosecutors, indeed, our duty to try to proceed in a

18 manner which will please the Court. And therefore, we have undertaken to

19 give precise answers. It might well mean that we will have to call more

20 witnesses than we intend, to explain certain things. But the issue,

21 having been raised by the Defence, we will do what is necessary to clarify

22 it.

23 I cannot, however, see how it is that the cross-examination of my

24 learned friend might be hampered in respect to a witness who did not make

25 these documents. The witness did not make these documents. The witness

Page 6893

1 can only say these are the documents. These documents were signed by

2 Dr. Dobraca. The issue has been raised and we will do whatever necessary

3 to clarify it. I would not want to speculate an answer at this moment, if

4 it pleases you.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I think what could be expected

6 from the Defence at this moment is to conduct its cross-examination as far

7 as possible. But I am fully aware, and this Chamber is fully aware - we

8 discussed the matter - that a lot of questions are still there. And if at

9 a later stage it would become relevant to recall this witness because of

10 what then has become clear, which is unclear now, then of course the

11 Defence should have an opportunity to do so. On the other hand, this is

12 not a free -- this is not to say that under whatever circumstances, the

13 witness could be recalled in order to resume any cross-examination. But

14 as I indicated, that if that would become relevant on the basis of what we

15 learn later on on these documents, so that you're not able to

16 cross-examine on these relevant aspects the witness, of course the Defence

17 should have an opportunity to recall that witness. But, for example, if

18 it's cross-examination on parts of the documents that are fairly legible

19 or other kind of information, then, of course, that would be different.

20 You might have noticed that this Chamber is not very happy to

21 receive documents, to see documents on which we find clear indications

22 that there have been multiple entries on certain questions, and I'm

23 specifically referring to the lines 2 and 3 of the form which was used.

24 I'll now give you the opportunity, after having said this, to resume the

25 cross-examination of the witness, unless there's any specific remark you'd

Page 6894

1 like to make.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'm terribly sorry. I thank

3 the Chamber for this observation. The Chamber will have noted the Defence

4 was not particularly happy to receive these documents as well. But this

5 being said, I have two observations, the first being the following: We

6 know very well, Mr. President, that when one cross-examines or examines a

7 witness, something called current might be -- might exist. When we call

8 it current, by this I mean that when the witness comes back, the witness

9 might prepare himself in a different way, and the circumstances are

10 different in which this witness is recalled. And whatever he may say at

11 that time, the truth, truth will not be said the same way, will not be

12 given under the same circumstances as it was given during the -- his first

13 examination. So if the Defence proceeds this way and if they hand us

14 documents that are "scratched out," one must say that the Defence was

15 handicapped by this.

16 And the second point that I wish to raise is the issue of a

17 translation. We have examined during the night various translations, and

18 it is true to say that these translations correspond to a form. They are

19 mechanical, if you will. But it appears that these translations have

20 three problematic issues, if you will. The first is the title and the

21 nature of the document. In English, it is defined as being a post-mortem

22 record. I am not quite certain that the description given of this

23 document in Serbian is the same thing. The two titles in Serbian and in

24 English do not correspond. And the second issue is that apparently on the

25 translation, we would see, and I say "would see" because, of course, we

Page 6895

1 all lose our Latin, if you will. We are all lost. We seem to see two

2 signatures. On the translations, we can see the appearance of two

3 signatures: Firstly, the first one being the one belonging to the head of

4 the service, the institution, the institute for forensic medicine, and the

5 second one is the doctor whose name was mentioned on a few occasions.

6 This is one observation. And the last observation that I wish to

7 raise, Mr. President, is that you have deciphered very clearly 80 per cent

8 of the stamp that was in the original documents, whereas in the

9 translation, we see the following signature and stamp of the institute,

10 whereas the stamp which appears on the original document is not the stamp

11 of the institute. It is the stamp of the university, the medical faculty

12 of Sarajevo, but it is not a stamp belonging to the forensic institute.

13 We are, therefore, worried, and once again we reiterate that there is

14 probably a translation problem. It is not another document with another

15 stamp that was given to the translation department. Those are documents

16 that were written in January of 1995. Thank you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for your observations, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

18 Let me first respond to the latter part. It's quite clear that if an

19 interpreter indicates that it's the stamp of the institute, of course,

20 that's an interpretation but not a linguistic interpretation but just an

21 interpretation of what the stamp is. It's not a matter of translation as

22 such.

23 Then you said that the Defence is handicapped in cross-examining

24 the witness and would be handicapped if the witness would be recalled. I

25 think this Chamber is fully aware of that problem, and that even a lapse

Page 6896

1 of time could influence the -- and even to some extent handicap the

2 Defence. If I can say it in general words, life is not without

3 handicaps. It is not a matter of whether you are handicapped, but it's a

4 matter of whether it would make this trial an unfair trial. I think

5 that's what's always, not in the back of our minds but even in the front

6 of our minds. So we'll -- we are fully aware of that problem, and of

7 course we'll have to assess what it actually means for the Defence under

8 these circumstances.

9 Then, could you resume the cross-examination of the witness.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I would gladly do so,

11 Mr. President.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, would you --

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But I believe that my friend,

14 Ms. Pilipovic, will continue, will resume, and I may have maybe some

15 questions at some point.


17 [The witness entered court]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated, Mr. Suljic.

19 I'd first like to apologise that we kept you waiting for 40

20 minutes. We had to deal with some procedural issues so that caused the

21 delay.

22 Then, may I remind that you're still bound by the solemn

23 declaration you gave yesterday. Now Ms. Pilipovic will resume the

24 cross-examination.

25 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.

Page 6897


2 [Witness answered through interpreter]

3 Cross-examined by Ms. Pilipovic: [Continued]

4 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Suljic.

5 A. Good morning.

6 Q. Yesterday, we discontinued our examination at the point where you

7 told us that you had arrived at the Markale market with your team. You

8 also told us that some UN observers were also there. Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Can you please confirm for us that there were stalls at the

11 Markale market that were undamaged and that the goods that were on these

12 stalls were not scattered around?

13 A. I cannot confirm that.

14 Q. As far as you remember, were there any such stalls there?

15 A. I don't remember.

16 Q. Can you please tell us who in your team was the first to notice

17 the flight stabiliser, the tail-fin, rather?

18 A. I'm not quite sure. It may have been the crime scene technician,

19 but I'm not sure so I can't really answer your question.

20 Q. Were you personally present at the site where the tail-fin was

21 located?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Before the location of the tail-fin was identified, did anyone

24 clear the area where the tail-fin was?

25 A. No.

Page 6898

1 Q. Can you please describe to us the area on the market where the

2 tail-fin was.

3 A. The market was strewn with goods and other items that were sold

4 there. There was quite a lot of blood and human body parts. The tail-fin

5 of the projectile was located in front of one of the stalls. It was

6 buried into the asphalt and concrete surface. Around the tail-fin itself,

7 there were some other items scattered around.

8 Q. Did any members of your team clear the ground around the area

9 where the tail-fin was? I think I already asked you that question, but do

10 you remember?

11 A. When the tail-fin was found, the area around it was cleared, as

12 that would make it possible to determine on the basis of the imprint of

13 the shrapnel, the shell shrapnel, the direction from which the projectile

14 had come, and other elements important for the ballistics experts and the

15 crime scene technician.

16 Q. Can you please tell us who pulled out the tail-fin?

17 A. Since the UN members also attended, were present at the

18 investigation, I would think that the tail-fin was pulled out by one of

19 the UN members.

20 Q. Was this moment when the tail-fin was pulled out photographed or

21 filmed in any way? Can you please tell us that?

22 A. I'm not quite sure, but I do believe that it was.

23 Q. Could you please confirm whether there were any shrapnel at the

24 Markale market?

25 A. Yes.

Page 6899

1 Q. Can you please tell us whether any members of your team picked up

2 the shrapnel, the fragments?

3 A. The fragments were gathered in the shops that were in the

4 vicinity. The fragments had entered the shops through glass windows and

5 doors, and also some were pulled out from the facades, just as the

6 shrapnel that were found there on the actual market.

7 Q. Could you please tell us who took the tail-fin, if it was taken

8 anywhere, and where it was taken to and what about the shell shrapnel?

9 Were they also taken somewhere, and do you have any knowledge as to where

10 they are now?

11 A. The tail-fin and the shrapnel were handed over for further

12 processing to the crime scene technicians. And after the processing, they

13 were submitted together with the final report to our service, that is, the

14 war crimes and genocide section.

15 Q. Can you please tell us, since you have told us that this was

16 submitted to your section, where are they now, I mean the shell shrapnel

17 and tail-fin?

18 A. After the completion of the whole procedure, all the investigative

19 procedures and after the submission of the criminal report or complaint,

20 the entire case file with all the evidence is submitted to the service,

21 where it is filed.

22 Q. Can you please tell us where is -- where are the files or the

23 archive, and whether the shell shrapnel are still in those files?

24 A. The archive or the files of the CSB, the Security Services Centre,

25 was located in the same building where we were. At the time, it was the

Page 6900












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 6901

1 building called "DPO" building. Later on, the services were relocated to

2 the same building where they were before, in the Misiribina Street, and

3 all the documents were transferred there. I don't know what happened

4 later and where the archive and the files are now, where all the documents

5 and all the evidence are now.

6 Q. Were you present at the time when the direction from which the

7 shell had flown in was determined?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Can you please tell us on the basis of what did the ballistics

10 expert determine the direction from which the shell had come in?

11 A. Both the ballistics experts and the UN representatives used the

12 same method. The ballistics experts applied the usual methods to

13 determine the direction from which the shell had come in, using the

14 pendant and the compass, the rule, and -- the ruler, and perhaps some

15 other devices. But these were the basic elements they used to determine

16 the direction from which the shell had come in.

17 Q. You told us that when you were drafting your final report, you

18 spoke to the eyewitnesses.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Can you please tell us who gave you the information that the

21 persons that you talked to were, in fact, eyewitnesses of the incident?

22 A. The persons who sustained minor injuries and who reported came to

23 the Kosevo Hospital, were interviewed about the circumstances where they

24 were injured, at what time, and what, in fact, happened on that day at

25 that time.

Page 6902

1 Q. The persons that you spoke with who sustained minor injuries, what

2 did they tell you at what time they were injured?

3 A. As far as I remember, all the persons confirmed that they were

4 injured at the time that corresponded to the time when the projectile

5 exploded at the Markale market, and they all confirmed that the injuries

6 they sustained were caused by the shrapnel from the projectile that

7 exploded at the Markale market.

8 Q. Can you tell us what was the time?

9 A. I think it was sometime around noon. I can't be more specific

10 about the time.

11 Q. You mentioned the eyewitnesses who sustained minor injuries and

12 whom you interviewed. Can you please tell us, on the basis of what

13 information did you contact other eyewitnesses and what did the other

14 eyewitnesses tell you?

15 A. As for the eyewitnesses who sustained extremely serious injuries,

16 we were unable to contact them at that time. But we did contact persons

17 whom we assumed would have the information about the direction from which

18 the projectile had come in. We conducted such interviews after receiving

19 the report from the ballistics expert about the direction from which the

20 projectile had come in.

21 Q. So you confirm that after the ballistics expert determined that

22 the shell had come in from the direction of north-east, that you went to

23 people who lived in that part of the city and asked them whether they had

24 heard the shell come in and at what time?

25 A. Yes.

Page 6903

1 Q. Can you please tell us, how did you decide which people to talk

2 to? What was the criteria? What led you to these people?

3 A. I don't remember any more.

4 Q. Can you please tell us what these people told you, what they had

5 heard?

6 A. All these people -- most of these people who were in their

7 apartments at the time or just outside their houses, they stated that they

8 had heard at the specified time the shell being fired, the sound of the

9 shell flying over and the explosion, which was followed by a plume of dark

10 smoke from the location of the city centre and the Markale location,

11 according to their testimony.

12 Q. Can you confirm that all these people that were interviewed were,

13 in fact, the people who are lay persons, who have never been in contact

14 with any shells? And did they not confirm to you that they were not

15 present when shells were fired?

16 A. Since this was the second year of the war, all the citizens had

17 quite a lot of experience and quite a lot of knowledge of the shells and

18 projectiles so that these citizens, in fact, had already seen the

19 explosions of projectiles.

20 Q. According to you, on the basis of the sound that follows the

21 firing of the shell, is it possible to determine the direction from which

22 it was fired on the basis of the sound?

23 A. If you hear the moment of the firing and the explosion of the

24 shell that follows later on and if you hear the sound of the projectile

25 flying over your head, you can assume from which direction the shell had

Page 6904

1 been fired, more or less. And you can see where it exploded.

2 Q. You told us that after that, you went to the morgue.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. In your statement given to the investigators of the Office of the

5 Prosecutor, on page 2, Document 0303-9928, last paragraph, you stated that

6 you used the hospital register. Is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Yesterday, in the course of the examination in chief, you stated

9 that in the admissions section of the Kosevo Hospital, that persons were

10 admitted to the hospital there, and that you obtained the name, the full

11 name, the time of admission and other personal details, from there. Is

12 the hospital registry and the book of admissions one and the same

13 document, according to you?

14 A. In the admissions of the Kosevo Hospital, there is a book, a

15 logbook, where records are kept of all the patients that have been

16 admitted to the hospital. In the course of the procedure to determine the

17 identity of persons who did not have any ID on them or persons who -- for

18 whom we did not know the exact time of their admission to the hospital, we

19 used this registry in order to determine these facts which may have been

20 registered there.

21 Q. Can you tell us, in the hospital registry that recorded the names

22 and the time of the admission of the persons to the hospital, what was the

23 time that was listed there? Because you said that this time that was

24 recorded there made it possible for you to determine who it was that was

25 brought in from the Markale market.

Page 6905

1 A. The time of the admission of the injured persons was approximately

2 immediately after the explosion of the projectile at the Markale market.

3 Q. Can you please tell us what time it was? Was it noon, 1.00,

4 quarter to 1.00, 1.15?

5 A. I can't be more specific about the time because I don't really

6 remember.

7 Q. If you told us that you had arrived at the Markale market about an

8 hour after the explosion, in your official report, you stated that you had

9 been notified that around 13.20, and that the on-site investigation began

10 at 13.30.

11 A. As for the time frame, the times when specific activities were

12 taken, all this is recorded in my official report, and I maintain my

13 previous statements. But right now, I cannot be more specific because I

14 no longer remember them exactly. I don't remember those times exactly.

15 Q. If I tell you that your official report states that on the 5th of

16 February, 1994, that you were notified at around 13.20, would that,

17 according to you, be the time when you were actually notified?

18 A. If that is stated in the official report, then it must be the

19 time. It is the time.

20 Q. In relation to that point in time, 13.20, can you tell us when did

21 the incident take place? Did you find out at a later date how much time

22 had elapsed from the incident to the time when you were notified?

23 A. In my statement, in my testimony yesterday, I stated that from the

24 incident -- from the time of notification to the time when we gathered the

25 team, that it took us about 30 to 45 minutes. And I think that it was the

Page 6906

1 time that it took us to set up the team and to go out to the scene of the

2 incident.

3 Q. If we take into account the time that it took you to set up the

4 team, the team, and the time that it took you to get there, could we agree

5 that the incident then took place after 12.00 on that day?

6 A. The time when the incident happened and the time that we arrived

7 at the scene, these times are recorded in the official report. And I

8 still abide by what I have said there.

9 Q. So you confirm to us that the time when you were notified was, in

10 fact, the time when the incident happened?

11 A. No.

12 Q. If you were notified at 13.20, at what time, according to you, did

13 the actual incident take place?

14 A. If you insist on my giving you a specific time, I would like you

15 to give me the report because then I would be able to continue answering

16 your questions.

17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence can

18 provide the witness with his official report. And since the criminal

19 complaint also lists the time as being 12.30, I would like to -- the

20 witness to state the actual time after being shown both the official

21 report and the criminal complaint. Both of these documents can be shown

22 to him.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed. But at the same time,

24 Ms. Pilipovic, I remind you that the witness testified that the exact

25 times are not in his recollection any more, but in the report. So if you

Page 6907

1 want him to repeat what's in the report, I mean, we can read what is in

2 the report. But if there's any contradiction or you would like to raise

3 any issues, please proceed.

4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did quote the time

5 from the official report of the witness, and now I have given the witness

6 the criminal complaint where a different time is listed. And I would now

7 like the witness to be quite specific as regards the time.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could I please be given the official

9 report, too?

10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Mr. Suljic, since you now have both the official report and the

12 criminal complaint, could you please tell us at what time the incident

13 happened?

14 A. The incident happened at around 12.30.

15 Q. Thank you, sir. Can you please tell us at what time you arrived

16 in the hospital? How much time has elapsed between the incident and the

17 time when you arrived at the hospital?

18 A. I was in the hospital in the afternoon, after the completion of

19 the on-site investigation.

20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since the witness

21 told us that he had inspected the hospital registry and that on the basis

22 of the data contained therein he made a record of the victims, the

23 casualties, the Defence would now like to show the witness an extract from

24 the protocol submitted to the Defence -- disclosed to the Defence by the

25 Prosecution so that the witness can confirm whether this was the format

Page 6908

1 that was contained in the book or the protocol that he used to take the

2 data. I have prepared a sufficient number of copies for all of us. If

3 this is what the witness had used, and depending on his answer, the

4 Defence would have some additional questions for him regarding these type

5 of documents.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, do you intend to tender this document

7 in evidence? Yes. Has it been pre-numbered?

8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I did not mark this

9 document because I don't know whether we want to tender it into evidence

10 before the witness confirms whether he is familiar with this type of

11 document at all and whether this is, in fact, the type of document that he

12 used to note down the information about the persons admitted or brought to

13 the Kosevo Hospital. Depending on his answer, we would then provide the

14 number for this document.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. On the other hand, you sometimes might

16 take the risk. If we would have to wait until the witness has testified

17 that he knows the document or he recognises his signature, I mean,

18 pre-numbering becomes totally impossible. Perhaps you could take the risk

19 next time. The only thing that could happen is that it's not tendered and

20 that the number, of course, is of no value any more. Please proceed.

21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Q. Mr. Suljic, do you recognise this document?

23 A. I cannot confirm that the protocol at that time looked like this.

24 In fact, I don't remember any more what columns there were in the protocol

25 at that time.

Page 6909

1 Q. So Mr Suljic, you cannot confirm to us that the hospital registry

2 or the book of admissions of the Kosevo Hospital, on the basis of which

3 you obtained your data was, in fact, in this format and that it contained

4 this information?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Witness, do you see -- on the left-hand side of this document in

7 the lower left-hand corner, do you see the name of Stanic Zeljko?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. If I were to tell you that the Defence has a document that we were

10 all able to see yesterday, that's the list provided to us by the

11 Prosecution, the list of the injured persons, persons who were admitted to

12 the Kosevo Hospital, on page 0026-8624, it's a document that's missing a

13 page in the middle. You confirmed to us that there's a page missing. It's

14 Prosecution Exhibit P2366. And if I told you that Stanic Zeljko is

15 recorded here under number 112 as a person that was injured at the Markale

16 market, would you confirm to us that you used the data here in front of

17 you in this protocol to enter the names of the person of -- who were

18 injured at the Markale hospital [sic] on the list?

19 A. I cannot confirm that I used the protocol in this form to identify

20 the persons injured at the Markale market.

21 Q. Can you confirm whether in this hospital protocol or registry,

22 that the time was also noted down?

23 A. As far as I remember, the time of the admission of the patients

24 was noted.

25 Q. Was the time of the scheduled surgery also noted, or just the time

Page 6910

1 of the admission?

2 A. The actual treatment for the patient, I don't remember that item

3 being contained in the protocol.

4 Q. You told us today that from January 1994, you worked for the

5 section for the investigation of war crimes and genocide.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Can you please confirm to us when was the section established and

8 for how long did it operate?

9 A. I don't know exactly when the section was established, but in May

10 1995, when I left the CSB, the section was already -- was still

11 functioning.

12 Q. As a member, as an employee of the section for the investigation

13 of war crimes and genocide, did you receive any reports and did you

14 investigate any war crimes against citizens in Sarajevo committed by

15 members of the BH army?

16 A. The military prosecutor's office was in charge of the personnel of

17 the BH army and the military security service was also dealing with that,

18 so it was not in our jurisdiction.

19 Q. Was it in your jurisdiction to determine or to investigate war

20 crimes against persons living in Sarajevo committed by members of

21 paramilitary formations operating in the town of Sarajevo?

22 A. We had jurisdiction only over the civilians living there, and any

23 armed military formation would not come under our jurisdiction.

24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may just

25 consult with my colleague for a moment.

Page 6911

1 [Defence counsel confer]

2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

3 questions, and I would now like my colleague to take over.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

6 After consulting my colleague, we decided to hand this document as well as

7 the following document. We would like to present this document to the

8 witness. And there are other questions I wish to ask this witness, but

9 before I do so, before I begin this new line of questioning, I would like

10 to know if the Prosecution, since they have invited us to express our

11 opinions, or they have more or less invited us to go and inspect the

12 documents, would they be able to give us an original of one of the

13 documents. I would like to obtain the original of 0026-8737, which is one

14 of these documents that was handed to us in an illegible version and,

15 yesterday, in a legible version.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Are the originals available, Mr. Stamp?

17 MR. STAMP: We have some available, and we are sending for them.

18 I'm very happy that my friend has taken advantage of our invitation to

19 inspect.

20 So perhaps we could continue with his cross-examination. They

21 have been sent for, the document that he asked for.

22 JUDGE ORIE: So Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if it's there, it will be in

23 the courtroom soon. Please proceed. Perhaps if you have any other

24 subject to touch upon.

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very

Page 6912

1 much. We can begin by examining these famous medical documents. I would

2 like to show the witness, Mr. Usher, please, all the medical documents

3 such as they were tendered yesterday by the Prosecution. It's

4 Document 3061.1, and the questions will follow.

5 JUDGE ORIE: May I assume that you want to have the B/C/S version

6 to be presented to the witness?

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. It basically comes to

8 the same thing but, yes, we may show the witness the B/C/S version. And

9 we will work together with the English text there. Regarding the document

10 we wish to present the witness with, I believe it bears number D91.

11 Cross-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:

12 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, do you recognise the documents that were

13 shown to you just now?

14 A. Yes, from my personal experience, I am familiar with this kind of

15 document.

16 Q. Very well. Witness, could you please read out loud in the Serbian

17 language the heading of this document, or that is to say, what do we see

18 right after the words "izvod protokola," so that the interpreters may

19 translate that as we go along, please.

20 A. "Extract from the protocol of the examination/post-mortem of the

21 dead bodies."

22 Q. Thank you. Witness, since you just told me there probably is a

23 register of autopsies somewhere, since what you have before you is only an

24 excerpt from that register. Is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

Page 6913

1 Q. Thank you. Witness, did you yourself see -- have you ever seen

2 such a book, such a logbook or a register?

3 A. Yes, I have had the occasion to see such a protocol.

4 Q. Witness, would you kindly look at the first document that we were

5 handed, document bearing the mark 535. Do you have this document before

6 you?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 Can you tell us, what do you read in the section "date of birth"?

10 Is there something following the words "date of birth"?

11 A. No. It is unfilled. It is empty.

12 Q. Same thing goes for the second line where we see in the Serbian

13 language "date of examination." Is there a date, in fact?

14 A. No, there is no date.

15 Q. Thank you. Witness, since the examination registers and the

16 autopsy registers exist and you have seen them, could you tell us when

17 were the autopsies carried out, on what date?

18 A. I don't know which autopsies you are referring to.

19 Q. Very well, Witness. I'm referring to each of the autopsies that

20 were undoubtedly carried out for each of the patients that are listed in

21 the document that you have before you bearing mark P3061.1 in its

22 translated version.

23 A. I cannot confirm the correct date of the autopsy of the deceased

24 citizens because some citizens died on the spot, whereas others died

25 following the injuries. And I do not know when the autopsies were carried

Page 6914

1 out on those bodies.

2 Q. Thank you. Witness, as an investigator, had you seen at the time

3 these documents that you have before you right now?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Is it the first time you see these documents?

6 A. No.

7 Q. When had you seen these documents for the first time, please?

8 A. I had seen these in the office of the chief of the department, on

9 his desk. I don't recall when exactly.

10 Q. Can you tell us the year?

11 A. I know that it was after the on-site investigation, but I do not

12 know when exactly. However, I do know that I have had the occasion to see

13 them once before.

14 Q. Very well.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, could you please find a suitable

16 moment.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This is exactly what I wanted

18 to tell you. I believe that this is the right time to make a break. And

19 in the meantime, I'm certain that we will receive the original of this

20 document which will enable us to work in a precise, detailed, and

21 sufficient way so that we can resume the cross-examination of this

22 witness.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, may I also remind you as far

24 as the time limits are concerned, as I indicated yesterday, I see that in

25 approximately seven minutes, one hour will be used. And would you please

Page 6915

1 keep that in mind.

2 We'll adjourn until 11.00.

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: Tempus fugit.

4 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

5 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, thank you. We

8 all know that unfortunately, as I said earlier, tempus fugit, time flies,

9 and I was just informed that Mr. Stamp, that the documents that I

10 requested to obtain in their original version would be available. They

11 are available.

12 Mr. Stamp, would you kindly show us these documents or should we

13 wait for these originals? Could you communicate to us the originals right

14 now?

15 MR. STAMP: If it please you, Mr. President, Your Honours. If the

16 document and if I am correct in saying that my friend has asked

17 for 0026-8737, it is here. It does come from within a batch of documents.

18 I don't know whether he wants the specific page of it or if he wants the

19 batch. However, I could tender to him this particular page through the

20 usher. I don't know if the Court would like to see it before.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin -- will you please show it to Mr.

22 Piletta-Zanin.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is a

24 perfect example of either a total misunderstanding or of something else.

25 What I asked earlier is, clearly, is to get one of the documents --

Page 6916

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me just see whether -- it was my

2 understanding that you were asking for 0026-8537.

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [In English] Exactly that, sir.

4 JUDGE ORIE: What I see now, it is in the transcript, because I

5 see that it's a totally different document. Let's just check in the

6 transcript.

7 MR. STAMP: It is, if I may assist, at page 27, line 8 to 9. It

8 is 837 on the transcript so there might have been some error. If it is

9 8735, I think that is the conclusion. Because when my friend was asked

10 for the document, we were wondering --

11 JUDGE ORIE: It was also my understanding that it is one of these

12 documents out of this set.

13 MR. STAMP: That is what I thought. I thought I had to give the

14 number that is required. I asked for the full set to be brought.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, would you

16 please ask the Prosecution to bring us the whole set and we will choose

17 ourselves, select ourselves.

18 JUDGE ORIE: First, Mr. Usher, could you please return the other

19 document to -- yes, please return it to the Prosecution, to Mr. Stamp. Do

20 we now have -- that is 537, the last digits?

21 MR. STAMP: Here it is.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you please, Mr. Usher, give it to Mr.

23 Piletta-Zanin.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe,

25 having asked earlier for an original, I get one. Thank you very much for

Page 6917












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 6918

1 it. But this is a copy, this is not an original once again. I will work

2 from this copy. I thank Mr. Stamp infinitely and I beg you, Mr.

3 President, to be kind enough to be lenient towards me because if I may

4 misread something, it will not be my fault as this document is not as

5 legible as I would have wanted it. You see the date that is on this

6 document, which is the date on which the post-mortem examination or,

7 rather, the autopsy was carried out, corresponds most likely to --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, could we just have an opportunity

9 to have a glance at the document without your explaining in the presence

10 of the witness all the problems that might arise from it.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Of course.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you. With your

15 kind leniency, Mr. President, I will proceed. Thank you once again. We

16 still do not have the original. We do have a copy, however, and I will

17 return these documents to the Prosecution. I thank them for their kind

18 cooperation, and now I would like to get to submit --

19 MR. STAMP: May I just say that what we had produced is the

20 original of what we have in evidence.

21 JUDGE ORIE: We understood that you would give it as original

22 as it is in your hands.

23 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I

Page 6919

1 would like to ask more questions, Mr. President, with regards to the

2 document D91. This is a document comprised of a few pages and not only of

3 one page, the page that we have tendered earlier. This is an A-3 format

4 page that we will hand out to parties right now with the help of the

5 usher, and these are all pages marked D91. I believe that we have a

6 sufficient number of copies for all parties. Thank you.

7 We are therefore talking of a document marked D91.

8 Mr. President, Your Honours, I believe that we all have these

9 documents for us. May I presume --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 Q. Witness, you have before you a copy of a document comprised of a

13 few pages. It is probably the admissions book for patients admitted in

14 the Kosevo Hospital. Would you kindly, Witness, go to the page which at

15 the top right-hand corner bears the number 604. Do you have this

16 document?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Witness, do you see on this page, at the bottom of the page, on

19 the last line which is almost in the middle of the page, under

20 "operacija," can you see the following words: "otisao UNPROFOR -

21 om," "went to the UNPROFOR."

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Very well. I did not listen to the translation at the same time,

24 but would you please reread this sentence so that we can understand the

25 sentence and that it is translated so that it can go into the transcript?

Page 6920

1 A. "Went with the UNPROFOR."

2 JUDGE ORIE: May I just -- the line has been read now twice and

3 the first time it was translated "went to the UNPROFOR," and second time

4 the translation was "went with the UNPROFOR." As far as I understand it

5 was the same words that were translated. Could the booth verify --

6 perhaps you spell out, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, exactly, because I do understand

7 that the booth now has a copy. You have been literally spelling out the

8 words that you just read and the words --

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely,

10 Mr. President. Nevertheless the sense is the same -- the meaning is the

11 same.

12 Q. Witness, could you please slowly reread those words "otisao

13 UNPROFOR - om" and so on, so that the interpreters may record these words

14 for the transcript?

15 A. "Went with the UNPROFOR."

16 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. President, without the rest of the sentence,

17 it is a bit difficult. It could be very ambiguous. It is an ambiguous

18 way because we don't know if it is the ablative, the generative, the

19 dative.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much for your clarification.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] For the booth, there isn't

22 anything else, and this is the question I wanted to ask the witness.

23 There is nothing else following these two words.

24 Q. But these two words or this sentence, does that mean that the

25 patients went either escorted by the UNPROFOR, they went to the UNPROFOR

Page 6921

1 to be hospitalized there? And I am talking about the patients that went

2 to the PTT hospital. Would that be a possibility? Can this be the case?

3 A. I really don't know what this sentence is supposed to mean.

4 Q. Very well. Witness, were there some patients who were in such a

5 critical state that they had to be transferred to the UNPROFOR hospital

6 which was, if I am not mistaken, the PTT hospital?

7 A. I don't know.

8 Q. Very well.

9 A. But I know that some patients went to the UNPROFOR hospital which

10 was located in the PTT building.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, may I just ask for a

12 clarification. The translation says: "Witness, were there some patients

13 who were in such a critical state that they had to be transferred to the

14 UNPROFOR hospital?"

15 It is my recollection, but I am listening at the same time to

16 some French and to some English, was that exactly what you wanted to ask,

17 the critical stage of the patients or...

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No. In fact, the question was

19 answered. It is not the critical state that really preoccupied me but the

20 fact that these patients were transferred to this make-shift hospital of

21 the UNPROFOR, and the answer was given

22 JUDGE ORIE: What was exactly your question? That was not

23 clear to me. I mean, the transfer is clear --

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, my question was

25 -- we will see it later. Allow me just a few questions and we will see

Page 6922

1 it later. Thank you.

2 Q. Witness, please go to the next page. Do we see the same wording

3 for the two patients or for one patient? There is also here the

4 wording "gone with the UNPROFOR by the UNPROFOR." Is that the same

5 wording we find on this document as well?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Witness, on this list, on this page, since we see that there are

8 some patients that were transferred to the UNPROFOR hospital, should we

9 not say -- and I would like to draw your attention to the stamp on the

10 right-hand side of the document. Should we not infer, therefore, that

11 this is the admissions book of the hospital in question, or an excerpt

12 from the book?

13 A. I can confirm that on the right-hand corner we see a stamp saying,

14 "clinical centre of the University of Sarajevo, official institution,"

15 and I don't know if this is indeed the stamp of the Kosevo Hospital.

16 Q. Witness, when you carried out your investigation, you did not find

17 any other stamps? You did not see any other stamps belonging to the

18 Kosevo Hospital other than the one we see here?

19 A. When we were establishing the list of the dead and wounded, we got

20 in contact with the people who were in charge of the protocol, and they

21 were the ones who would give us the data stemming from the protocol that

22 was just in front of them

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, may I ask you something? You have

24 drawn the attention of the witness to the entry on the bottom of the page,

25 last three digits 604. And then you talked about another one or two

Page 6923

1 patients on the second page of the document where the stamp appears. But

2 is that another patient or is it exactly -- aren't these three entries

3 about the same? I mean, I see no difference. If you look at the entry

4 just above the one on the first page, you will see that it is exactly the

5 same as the entry above. So just in order to avoid any confusion, you are

6 talking about one patient on the first side and one or two patients at the

7 second page. Isn't it all the same?

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. No. This

9 witness stated earlier that he was not certain that this is indeed the

10 logbook from the hospital, the Kosevo Hospital. What we would like him to

11 confirm to us is whether this book with these new documents that he has

12 before him has the stamp of the hospital. And I am not talking about one

13 patient, but as a general rule, I would like to know if this is

14 the book which refers to --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But nevertheless I do understand what you want

16 to ask the witness. But in your questioning, it is more or less

17 implicated that, the second page, there is two entries and I am certainly

18 pronouncing it wrongly, but "otisao UNPROFOR" would be about a different

19 patient compared to the first page, the bottom of the first page. And I

20 see from the handwriting at this moment, from the name of the patient from

21 the entry just above it, I cannot identify that there is a second -- well,

22 let alone a third patient involved. Of course, it is all collated.

23 That's what we clearly see. Therefore, we found it repetitiously.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I quite agree

25 with you, but this is how we received these documents. This is what they

Page 6924

1 look like. Sometimes some names are overlapping and I -- excuse me for

2 it.

3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... You talked

4 about another patient and I wondered whether it was not about the same

5 patient. That is the only thing I want to be clarified.

6 Please proceed.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] My distinct apologies,

8 Mr. President. You were quite right, and I do appreciate your precision.

9 Q. Witness, I would like you to tell us, and we will see comparing

10 with page two, the page that ends with number 604 -- I would like you to

11 look at the left column and tell us if you can confirm as we are noticing,

12 that there is a number in this left column, that the numbers actually

13 follow logically from 355, going down to apparently what seems to be an

14 increasing number. Do you notice this as well?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Can you read out loud what is the heading of this column so that

17 we can obtain the interpretation?

18 A. Last name, first name.

19 Q. No, no, no. That is not the one. I am talking about the column

20 with figures, please.

21 A. Number.

22 Q. Thank you. Witness, could you please look at the date right next

23 to the number 355. What is that date?

24 A. 5/02, 1994.

25 Q. Is the time 1300 hours?

Page 6925

1 A. This is what it looks like.

2 Q. Thank you. Now, let's go to the end of this document. Please go

3 to the last page or, actually, correction, look at the bottom of this same

4 page.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Witness, could you please read out loud the date that appears

7 right next to the number 383.

8 A. 6/02.

9 Q. What is the date appearing right after the number 382?

10 A. 6/02, '94.

11 Q. And right next to the number 381?

12 A. 502/94.

13 Q. Witness, on how many occasions between 365 and the entry 381, how

14 many entries do you see? If I tell you that there are 26 entries, does

15 this seem a possibility, if you calculate and count everything?

16 A. Yes. If I count it, this is what it looks like.

17 Q. Very well, Witness. Let's examine now the quasi-original document

18 bearing the mark 537, and I must tell you that I must take it

19 into memory.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have to memorise it,

21 Mr. President, because I do not read it well. This is the only document

22 that we have; therefore, I would like the usher to submit this document

23 to the witness.

24 Q. Witness, I would like to show you this document. Witness,

25 could you tell us, what is the date of this document? What do you see in

Page 6926

1 the left-hand corner?

2 A. 31st of January, 1995.

3 Q. Thank you. Witness, would you please tell us, do you see under

4 the item "date of autopsy," do you see -- under "date of examination and

5 autopsy", do you see "date?"

6 A. There is something written down, but it is illegible.

7 Q. Witness, if I tell you that we can read some figures quite

8 clearly, would you agree with me to say that we could eventually read the

9 digits 2 and 9 and that they follow one another?

10 A. With regards to item 2, I cannot read what is written on this

11 document.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, would you be kind

13 enough to give me this document, this original.

14 Q. Witness, if I tell you that it is quite possible to read the

15 following date, 15th of March, 1993, we read 993, would you please agree

16 with me as regards to the year?

17 A. I could not confirm this.

18 Q. Are you, however, able to read something, to make out something?

19 A. Something is written down, but I cannot read what it is.

20 Q. Very well. Witness, do you know with regards to this document

21 when -- at what date the autopsy was carried out?

22 A. No, I do not know.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that we

24 will ask that this original be -- Mr. President.

25 Q. Witness, is it possible that no autopsy was actually carried out

Page 6927

1 on those bodies? I am talking about the medical and technical meaning of

2 this word.

3 A. I believe that this type of affirmation is impossible.

4 Q. Witness, you told us that you had access to the register of

5 autopsies. Can you tell this Chamber how do you recall this register

6 looked like from memory?

7 A. This logbook was carried out by Dr. Dobraca. He was the one

8 entering the data. He had with him registers, books, that appear to look

9 like a logbook. And he would enter the data regarding every autopsy.

10 All the autopsies were mandatory for each dead body, and the extract of

11 the protocol was to be handed out at the request of the next of kin or

12 the official institution, the official institution. So all these details

13 linked to various autopsies would be handed out from Dr. Dobraca. We

14 would receive them through him. He would transmit these documents after

15 the on-site investigation.

16 Q. Thank you. Witness, with regards to this register, the original

17 register in which all the autopsies are entered, do you know from memory

18 if the date of birth of the person that was being subjected to autopsy was

19 entered? Do you know if the date of the autopsy and the age of the person

20 was entered?

21 A. I don't know what kind of data that kind of logbook contained.

22 When I was carrying out my work, we would always put down and establish

23 the identity of the people who were dead and the way they died, in a

24 different way. But we obtained details regarding the cause of death of

25 the person. This is what we would ask Dr. Dobraca to send us.

Page 6928

1 Q. Very well, Witness. But you have stated that you have yourself

2 seen the register in question, the original register, in which all the

3 autopsies were entered. Can you tell the Chamber, what did that book look

4 like? Was it a big format? Is it a format that looks like this A3 format

5 that we have reproduced, or did it appear looking differently?

6 A. From what I can recall --

7 Q. Yes, can you do so? Can you tell us?

8 A. From what I can recall, there were two, possibly three books in

9 which Dr. Dobraca would enter the said details. They were a different

10 format. I do not know how to describe to you the format of these books.

11 Q. You mean that each of these three books had a different format,

12 like Russian dolls, for instance?

13 A. Dr. Dobraca was entering the details. Under which protocol,

14 however, I do not know. I don't know what regulations he followed. But

15 I do know when we received the information stemming from him, we would use

16 that documentation as a basis.

17 Q. Very well, thank you. Witness, what was the colour of these

18 books? You may not remember the format any longer, but do you remember

19 the colour?

20 A. I do not remember what colour they were.

21 Q. Witness, what was the form, if you have see it? If you have seen

22 it yourself with your own eyes, if you have seen the document, an autopsy

23 document, what was the shape of that autopsy document? Were those forms?

24 Was this a text that was dictated?

25 A. No, I don't remember.

Page 6929

1 Q. You have no memory of that, very well.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have one

3 last question for this witness. And afterwards, I shall consult my

4 colleague about one document.

5 Q. Witness, when you saw these excerpts that we talked about earlier,

6 so excerpts from autopsy registers, did you notice that apparently one

7 would systematically scratch out or modify the date on those documents?

8 A. What document are you talking about precisely?

9 Q. I said "systematically", which means that this was applied for all

10 the documents that we have under our eyes and that were produced in

11 Serbian and translated into the English language. On Serbian copies, we

12 can see that the date was modified, it was scratched out, then a new date

13 was entered.

14 A. I did not participate to the drafting of those documents,

15 therefore, I cannot tell you about them.

16 Q. No. Witness, you have stated earlier that you were able or you

17 have seen previously these documents in the office of your superior; is

18 that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. So when you saw these documents, you must have seen them in the

21 Serbian language; is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Did you notice at the time that those documents had areas that

24 were scratched out and that somebody tried to change the date on those

25 documents?

Page 6930

1 A. I did not have the occasion to sift through these documents. I

2 didn't examine them. But I must -- I do remember that they were on the

3 desk of my immediate superior.

4 Q. Witness --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, what is it you want to establish?

6 I think it is clear to everyone in this courtroom, especially to the

7 Chamber, that you want to establish -- come to your point. If it is just

8 to establish that there are entries hardly legible and other

9 entries better legible and that they might overlap and this would require

10 an explanation or whatever the consequences would be, if that is what you

11 want to establish, I think there is no further need. If there is anything

12 else you want to establish, please come to your point.

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you have

14 intervened so, therefore, I will not ask the question. But if this

15 witness had told me -- I cannot do it any more. I cannot ask him the

16 question. But If he told me, "No I am absolutely certain that when I saw

17 these documents and they had no traces of any scratching out," I would

18 have asked further questions. I could have been able to ask more

19 questions because then we would have been able to establish that at some

20 point these documents were not scratched out and then that later the date

21 was scratched out. But then since now we've talked about it, the witness

22 heard our comments, these questions have no

23 impact whatsoever.

24 I have no further questions, Mr. President, for this witness. I

25 do have one question about the way this document will be

Page 6931

1 treated. I would like that the document that is before the witness, I

2 would like that this document be filed this way, in this original format,

3 because I personally can read the date of 1993 for the date of the

4 autopsy, which seems to be very clear. It does not appear in any other

5 copy, and this is why I would like to ask that this document be tendered.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I am aware that you did not ask

7 the witness the question, but you also explained that it was because of my

8 intervention that it had become totally useless. Could you tell us what

9 question you had in mind that you did not ask the witness so that we can

10 better assess what the Chamber should think about your complaint.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, of

12 course. Gladly.

13 JUDGE ORIE: What question would you have liked to --

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I wanted to know if this

15 witness had seen all these documents in question previously and, secondly,

16 if after having examined all the documents on his boss's desk, would he

17 have noticed that all of these documents were tampered with - I don't

18 really want to use the word "tampered" - but would he have noticed that

19 the date would have been scratched at some point or not. And I wanted to

20 know whether if he had noticed that some passages were scratched out,

21 whether he seen it on every document or just on some documents, and then I

22 would have asked him if he remembered under which circumstances he was

23 able to see these documents on his boss's desk so that we can put into

24 time when these modifications would have occurred.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. Then you indicated you

Page 6932

1 had one last question on another subject. Let me just have a look. You

2 said there is one question about the way this document will be treated.

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, I said that I had one

4 other issue to deal with and it was the way this document will be dealt

5 with, how we are going to deal with this document. I wanted to ask your

6 Chamber to accept this document in this format because some dates are

7 quite legible on this document only.

8 JUDGE ORIE: That is number 537, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I believe so. The date

10 corresponds, but it is 26-8537, yes. Mr. President, I would just

11 like to use this as an example because we could do the same thing for each

12 of these documents and if the Defence is not doing it and not proceeding

13 this way, it is because we wanted to be efficient and we want to save

14 time. But what I say for this document is also equal for all the other

15 documents coming from this set of documents. Thank you.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE ORIE: May I then just ask you one additional question

18 on this issue, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. The document with the last three digits

19 537, am I right when it is my recollection that that is the only document

20 of which the witness yesterday told us that this was not someone who was

21 on the list of the deceased? I am also looking to Mr. Stamp. I don't

22 know whether my recollection is right

23 MR. STAMP: You are quite right, Mr. President.

24 JUDGE ORIE: So, of course, if you want to use this as an

25 illustration of something, I would say autopsy reports of those supposed

Page 6933

1 to have died in this shelling, I think it is the only one of which the

2 witness clearly testified that it was not on the list of the deceased. I

3 am just bringing it to your attention since there are a lot of other --

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. President, I

5 perfectly agree with you. We are very lucky to have the originals in this

6 room, what we call originals, in this courtroom. I would like to be able

7 to ask another question with regards to, for instance, the document 574.

8 We will see that the same problems occur once again.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. 574.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] So it's 534. It is the first

11 document. We can go on to document 536, which is immediately after that.

12 If I may ask Mr. Stamp --

13 JUDGE ORIE: The Defence would like to tender for totally

14 different reasons this document. Would you object if no further questions

15 would be put to the witness? I mean, we can ask the witness a lot of

16 things about this document. I do understand that it is -- the evidentiary

17 purpose of it would be, as far as the Defence is concerned, to demonstrate

18 that about the kind of entries we find in these documents. Of course, it

19 would take another ten minutes to go with the witness through the

20 document, which is perhaps not of great assistance to --

21 MR. STAMP: If it is a point that on the face of these documents

22 that we have, there appears to be some correction to some dates --

23 JUDGE ORIE: I disagree on that.

24 MR. STAMP: Indeed. It is self evident, I think, Mr. President.

25 You said so earlier.

Page 6934












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 6935

1 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, it is in the transcript but there will be

2 no evidence of this fact established between the parties of which any

3 other Chamber, for example the Appeals Chamber, could take notice of.

4 Would you object if -- of course, we still have to consider first of all

5 the admission of the whole -- let me just -- in the transcript it reads

6 that, page 48 line 10, that I disagree on that which I do not remember to

7 have said. So we agree on that, of course.

8 So therefore we have to consider first you are tendering the whole

9 lot of documents and we now have, I would say, an opposing tendering the

10 Defence first objecting against the admission into evidence for the

11 purposes you use it and asking the admission of one document for totally

12 other purposes, that is, to leave some visible trace of what the problems

13 with these documents might be. Would you object against that? I would

14 just like to know before even deliberating and considering the matter.

15 MR. STAMP: If what is asked is that the Prosecution concedes or

16 agrees that there appears to be corrections in respect of certain dates,

17 we agree to that, on these documents, on the batch. The question of

18 admissibility raises certain procedural and evidentiary questions. Is it

19 a question of admissibility or a question of weight? I would submit that

20 this is not an issue as regards to admissibility. It is an issue as

21 regards the weight that the Court would deem fit to apply to these

22 documents. The Court would have, of course, at the relevant time have

23 consider how much weight --

24 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand, Mr. Stamp. But if the Court - I'm

25 stressing, if the Court - would not admit the lot of documents, and

Page 6936

1 therefore there would be no document left in the hands of the Court and of

2 the Registry then, and if subsequently as we heard today,

3 Mr. Piletta-Zanin is tendering one of these documents for totally

4 different purposes, would the Prosecution object? I would just like to

5 know.

6 MR. STAMP: We would. We would object.

7 JUDGE ORIE: And for what reason would you object?

8 MR. STAMP: If he proposes to tender the document to prove

9 anything which is truth of anything on that document, then we would

10 propose to the Court that if the document can prove its contents, then

11 similarly all of those documents could be accepted as evidence in proof of

12 the contents. Perhaps I should rephrase it. We perhaps would not object,

13 but we could certainly have to raise the issue as to the probative value

14 of all of the documents, if one could be selected to say that there is

15 some probative value in that one.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I think that the Prosecution sought to have

17 these documents admitted because of the content --

18 MR. STAMP: Indeed --

19 JUDGE ORIE: -- of the documents. While I do understand the

20 Defence would seek the admission of one example of it, not in order to

21 establish whether it is true or not what's in there, but just that the

22 document as such shows, well, let me say, multiple, partly illegible

23 entries, and therefore is a document like the others, like at least many

24 of the others which might have been -- at least, have been changed,

25 altered, whatever, so that there is at least some example of what the

Page 6937

1 Defence seeks to establish. Of course, that is a totally different

2 issue. That is rather a procedural issue than a matter of content of the

3 documents. Would the Prosecution, nevertheless, object against admitting

4 for these evidentiary purposes, but exclusively for these evidentiary

5 purposes, to have one example in the hands of the Court and the Registry

6 and available to --

7 MR. STAMP: No, we would not object if one document was selected

8 from the batch for that purpose if the Defence wanted to do that. But we

9 would add the caveat that we still tender to the Court and ask that all be

10 received in evidence.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, it would only be -- I mean, if all the

12 documents are admitted into evidence, 534, whatever other would be there

13 as well. So there would be no need to decide upon the additional request

14 from the -- or the -- I would say the subsidiary request. I think that is

15 clear now.

16 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as regards to

18 this issue, I would now like to go on --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, perhaps it was not very wise of me

20 to raise the issue in front of the witness. If you would submit anything

21 that could be dealt with after the examination of the witness has been

22 concluded, I would rather leave it.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No.

24 JUDGE ORIE: No, okay, please proceed.

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Mr. President.

Page 6938

1 We have seen perfectly legible copies, and we would like the Office of the

2 Prosecutor to submit to us these medical reports, the autopsy reports

3 ending with numbers 45, 46, 57, 60. Let me repeat that for the

4 transcript: 45, 46, 57, 60, and 85, because we would like to see some

5 other elements, such as the date, and these texts are much more legible

6 than any of the copies that we have received so far. So could we please

7 call upon the Office of the Prosecutor to provide us with this document in

8 the same form that we -- that they have given us the documents number

9 ending in number 37.

10 JUDGE ORIE: It is not quite clear to me the numbers as ending

11 with the numbers 45, 46, and then it is 560. I think that's --

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, no. It is always the same

13 basis. 002685, so I am giving you just the last digits, 45, 46, 57, and

14 860 and 85. So I am always referring just to the last two digits.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think it is, then, for you, Mr. Stamp, to

16 re-examine the witness, if there is any need to do so.

17 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.


19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have to apologise,

20 Your Honour. I did not express myself quite clearly. What I wanted to do

21 is in light of what has been happening here in order to make everything

22 clear, I wanted to have these documents so that I can show them to the

23 witness right now, so that we can see these documents that we have never

24 been able to read them at all. We want to see them now.

25 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... the documents in

Page 6939

1 order to demonstrate what type of entries, multiple, double, whatever way.

2 We went through Document 37. You want to put similar questions in respect

3 of the ones you just --

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, for a very simple

5 reason. You have just mentioned it yourself. The document that ends in

6 37 seems to be referring to one person, a person that was not killed at

7 the Markale. So we have an interesting event here. I would like to ask a

8 few questions pertaining to the persons who, according to the opinion of

9 the Prosecutor, were at the Markale.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE ORIE: Before responding to you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, let me

12 first ask one question to Mr. Suljic.

13 Mr. Suljic, you might have the feeling that you are almost lost in

14 these procedural issues. Do you have any knowledge of the entries,

15 especially dates, on the excerpts of the autopsy registers as they have

16 been shown to you? Do you have any knowledge in the way the entries were

17 made, whether they were ever changed?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no knowledge as to how the

19 data was entered into these documents or if any modifications were made at

20 any point.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Suljic.

22 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, we have no problems to finally have one or a

23 couple of examples of these excerpts which indicate quite clearly what the

24 problem is so that we have, apart from on the transcript, debates or the

25 debates between the parties and the observations of the Chamber about it.

Page 6940

1 But the Chamber feels that it is not necessary, in view of the answer just

2 given, to ask any additional questions to the witness in that respect.

3 So, therefore, unless you indicate whether you should do it in the

4 presence of the witness --

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have understood

6 your view. But in order to be able to prepare, if we are to face the same

7 situation again, could we again ask some questions? We would like the

8 Prosecution to provide us with these extras that I have just mentioned,

9 that is 45, 46, 56, 60, and 85 to enable the Defence, who will see them

10 clearly for the first time, to even try to defend the interests of His

11 Excellency General Galic.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Is the Prosecution willing to -- since I saw hardly

13 any difference in the quality of the copy we just saw and the copy that

14 had been provided to us previously, is the Prosecution willing to give,

15 just to inspect, those numbers the Defence asked for?

16 MR. STAMP: 45, 46, 60, 85, yes.

17 JUDGE ORIE: I think you missed one as a matter of fact. Let

18 me just...

19 MR. STAMP: For the time being, we have 45, 46, 60, and 85. We

20 will get 57. Here is 57.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you once again.

22 Mr. President, unfortunately, I have to announce at this time that there

23 will be some additional questions regardless of the additional questions

24 asked by the Prosecution, because it is quite legible on this documents

25 that the date when the accident purportedly happened is 1993, 9-3. So

Page 6941

1 that would be before the February, 1994.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Could we just inspect the documents just given

3 to you so that the Chamber can see whether there is any difference in

4 legibility.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] For us, there is one. You

6 can see that on document 85 and on document 57.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just look at these two documents. Just

8 have a look.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will retire for just one moment in

11 order to have a better opportunity than here in this courtroom to

12 consider the matter. We will adjourn, but just for a couple of minutes.

13 --- Break taken at 12.08 p.m.

14 --- On resuming at 12.23 p.m.

15 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered the matter before it.

16 We have established that the witness, Mr. Suljic, could not authenticate

17 the documents, the excerpts of the autopsy reports, and the Chamber

18 decides that these documents cannot be admitted in evidence without

19 authentication. At the same time, the Chamber would like to have for the

20 record admitted two examples, just as a matter of demonstration of what

21 the Defence argued as far as the entries of dates are concerned. And

22 since the Defence indicated that 85 and 57 would be good examples, those

23 will then be admitted at this moment.

24 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, could you indicate whether you have any

25 questions to Mr. Suljic on any other item, apart from the documents?

Page 6942

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, no further questions. I

2 just wanted to give you, as regards to documents that you deemed to be

3 good enough to be admitted, I would like to have them admitted. I can

4 even turn them upside down. It wouldn't help you much because they're

5 totally illegible, but I don't know how much use they would be to you, but

6 I would like to have them admitted.

7 JUDGE ORIE: I think the Chamber has paid proper attention to

8 the fact and has expressed itself on the quality of the copies previously

9 provided to the Defence. The Chamber has also expressed itself on the

10 opportunity the Defence has to inspect the documents in the hands of the

11 Prosecution, and the quality of the copies shown by the Defence is such

12 that it would be almost impossible to detect the type of problems we now

13 have established there are. We don't need any evidence on that and I

14 don't think that that is in dispute since I --

15 MR. STAMP: As to the quality of the copies, we have not

16 accepted what the Defence has said. And it was indicated that perhaps in

17 respect of these issues we could look into our records and perhaps address

18 the Court precisely and in full in regards to what was raised. But may I

19 ask the Court if I can enquire and have a look at those copies that my

20 learned friend has waived --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Could we do the following? The Defence has asked to

22 have that admitted into evidence as well. There is no witness that has

23 accompanied these documents themselves. If the parties would try to see

24 what they could agree upon as far as the quality is concerned, we will not

25 give a decision on that. We just have given a decision now on the

Page 6943

1 admissibility of the documents tendered by the Prosecution, the two

2 documents 57 and 85 that have been tendered by the Defence. Let the black

3 box discussion first be between the two parties, and whenever it becomes

4 relevant to the Chamber, we will find out.

5 Yes, Madam Registrar, could I just return these documents.

6 They come from the Prosecution. They are nevertheless tendered by the

7 Defence, and I think for the completeness for the original files of the

8 Prosecution, they might perhaps be first returned to the Prosecution and

9 then perfect copies made. Yes. So if you would please first return them

10 to the Defence. Defence will then return them to the Prosecution. That

11 is the -- the black copies could be done out of the courtroom.

12 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I returned the copies to who gave them to

13 the Chamber, but I expect that they will finally be returned to Mr. Stamp,

14 to the Prosecution, and could you, during the break, take care that of

15 number 85 and 57, such copies are made that best demonstrate what you

16 wanted to demonstrate and which demonstration the Chamber has accepted.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will hand

18 this to the lead counsel, lest the documents should be lost.


20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, just one more

21 thing. I am now a victim of the blue box syndrome. I am very sorry. My

22 computer has just given up the ghost. I hope this is just a temporary

23 thing. I would now like to ask the technical service to provide me some

24 assistance.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, let me first just ask you, is there any

Page 6944

1 need to re-examine the witness?

2 MR. STAMP: On just one or two points. It won't be very long.

3 JUDGE ORIE: We can do that after the break then.

4 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, one or two questions in re-examination, would

5 that go even without your computer functioning at this very moment,

6 because I would like to finish the witness?

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, it is not a problem. I

8 will be using other monitors, so if it is necessary.

9 JUDGE ORIE: If the interpreter services, if you would agree to go

10 on for five minutes, then we could finish this witness by now. I see some

11 nodding.

12 THE INTERPRETER: No problem, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much.

14 Mr. Usher, could you please lead the witness into the court

15 again.

16 MR. STAMP: In the interim, I'm wondering if my learned friends

17 could let us have the batch of documents which they are complaining about,

18 if they don't object.

19 JUDGE ORIE: The documents --

20 MR. STAMP: The batch of medical documents --

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] You mean all the documents

22 that were mentioned? All the documents mentioned in the memo dated 25

23 July 2001, my dear colleague, because obviously we have three pages and we

24 don't have them here with us. It is a full complete list and you would

25 need a cart to bring them in. So which documents specifically do you

Page 6945

1 mean?

2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... This exchange of

3 views can be done during the break between the parties. You are just

4 filling up the moment where we were sitting idle.

5 Yes, Mr. Usher, would you please lead in Mr. Suljic.

6 Please be seated, Mr. Suljic. Mr. Suljic, the Defence has

7 informed the Chamber that they had concluded their cross-examination. You

8 will now be re-examined by counsel for the Prosecution.

9 Mr. Stamp, please proceed.

10 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.

11 Re-examined by Mr. Stamp:

12 Q. You said that the register of protocol that the doctor used when

13 he did his post-mortem, he made notes in that register or protocol?

14 A. Yes, Dr. Dobraca kept records of all the autopsies that were

15 carried out.

16 Q. Those notes or records, were they done by hand? Did he write them

17 by hand?

18 A. I think that the records had to be kept by law, and in his

19 register, he entered them by hand.

20 Q. Thank you. You said that the persons who were injured and taken

21 to Kosevo Hospital suffered injuries of varying degrees of seriousness.

22 Some serious, some not so serious. That is correct, is it?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And some of them would have had to have operations and some not,

25 depending on how serious the injuries were?

Page 6946

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And I take it that some of them had to have emergency operations?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Now, the Defence showed you a document which I think was marked

5 D91, and it was put to you that there were approximately 26 entries

6 between entry 354 on the first page and entry 382 on the last page.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Take a look at the first page of the document.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. The last column to the right, what does that say in print at the

11 top? Could you read it, please.

12 A. "Results of the surgery comment."

13 Q. And if you count the columns from right, go to the sixth column,

14 what does it say at the top of that column in print?

15 A. "Person performing surgery."

16 Q. And in that column, there are names of doctors?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. The column for person performing the surgery and the surgery, if

19 you have a look at those columns on each page - I think I may lead

20 here - would you agree with me that all those columns are filled out

21 except in respect to the patient who was transferred to the UNPROFOR

22 hospital?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And I take it that this document would reflect persons, 26 persons

25 on whom emergency surgery was conducted?

Page 6947

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And, therefore, it follows that this document would not reflect

3 the totality of the wounded persons that were transmitted from Markale to

4 Kosevo Hospital?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Meaning yes, that it would not reflect the totality?

7 A. Yes, this document reflects only a part of the patients that were

8 admitted and treated.

9 Q. Thank you very much.

10 MR. STAMP: I have nothing further, Mr. President.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stamp.

12 I have one question which is in addition to the questions in the

13 re-examination of Mr. Stamp, Mr. Suljic.

14 Questioned by the Court:

15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you also read for us the third column from

16 the left, what it says at the top.

17 A. "Last name, first name."

18 JUDGE ORIE: I am saying from the left. I meant to ask you

19 the third column from the right.

20 A. Anesthesiologist or person providing anesthesia."

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And do you see that this column, with only one

22 -- a couple of exceptions, that means as far as I can see there are only

23 two exceptions, always indicates a name of the anesthesiologist?

24 A. Yes.

25 JUDGE ORIE: I have no further questions.

Page 6948

1 Mr. Suljic, this concludes your testimony in this Court. I know

2 you have come a very long way from Sarajevo and we might have taken a lot

3 of your time. It is very important that those who have been present at

4 the time, who have been present at the place where the events took place

5 of which the accused is charged with, that they come and testify in this

6 Court, that they answer the questions both of the Prosecution and Defence

7 counsel and of the Judges. So thank you very much for having come to The

8 Hague, and I wish you a safe journey home again.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 [The witness withdrew]

11 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn until five minutes past 1.00.

12 --- Recess taken at 12.44 p.m

13 --- On resuming at 1.06 p.m.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I was informed that the Prosecution would like to

15 address the Chamber, but in closed session.

16 MR. STAMP: Indeed. Indeed, we would.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Would we then -- yes, please, Mr. Stamp.

18 MR. STAMP: I was wondering if we could deal with the issue of the

19 exhibits in respect of the last witness, and then we could move on to

20 that, if it is convenient for the Court.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any relation between what you want to submit

22 to the Court and --

23 MR. STAMP: No, there is not.

24 JUDGE ORIE: There's no relation. Then perhaps we first deal with

25 the documents so that it's still fresh in our minds.

Page 6949

1 Madam Registrar, would you please guide us on those documents that

2 have not yet been decided upon, to deal with those first, yes.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P2366, list of 67 persons killed in

4 the massacre at Markale market compiled by the CSB Sarajevo on 17 February

5 1994.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I am

8 very happy that the Prosecution mentioned this particular document

9 because once again, and once again I must reiterate, this document is

10 filled with mistakes, and now I will talk about mistakes which makes our

11 work more and more difficult. Whether this is done in a deliberate way or

12 not, I do not know, but some of the elements are missing. They were not

13 translated.

14 JUDGE ORIE: One moment, please.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the Chamber has not noticed any

17 questions to the witness in view of the -- of any mistakes, so -- but if

18 you want to point out --

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Gladly, Mr. President.

20 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to point at concrete inconsistencies

21 because whether there are mistakes or not, I do not know. What you might

22 bring under our attention is whether there are any inconsistencies, you

23 could do it now. Could you tell us how much time it would take,

24 otherwise, we could perhaps ask you to prepare it in writing. But if you

25 can do it briefly --

Page 6950

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I can do it now,

2 Mr. President, if you will. As always, I will be very brief.

3 Mr. President, if you take --

4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do not have the

5 translation on channel six. I can't hear the interpretation.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have the same problem, General Galic? Yes?

7 And it is not functioning again.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It is fine, thank you. I am

9 terribly sorry, Mr. President.

10 Extremely briefly, if you read [B/C/S phrase], if you take the

11 instruction that is under 623 which corresponds to the fifth page as the

12 document appears in its order, and if you compare it to the translation

13 which would normally appear under 7801, we can see that there is a digit

14 mistake. We can see that number 7801 do not correspond to 623. This is

15 undoubtedly an inversion of pages. This is only one detail. But what is

16 really -- did you find it, Mr. President? Did you find the page and those

17 numbers? 623 is on the fifth page. That number appears on the 5th page

18 so fifth page from the beginning of the document. It was translated in

19 the English language and we can read number 7801 as the last page.

20 JUDGE ORIE: This is the same observation that was made already

21 during the explanation. I remember that the change of pages has been --

22 in the translation has been discussed. 782, yes.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Not only this, Mr. President,

24 but this is no doubt an inversion of pages. But what is really worrisome

25 here is that in the translation or, rather, in the original, and I am

Page 6951












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 6952

1 talking about 623, 624 and others, I can see that at the end of the

2 sentence, at the very end of the document, at the very bottom of the page,

3 that sentence was never translated somewhere, no matter what the order is,

4 no matter what the number of pages that appears on the page. But I don't

5 know what is the reason for which this sentence was never translated. The

6 text is there, and for a change, it is quite legible. We will not accept

7 any longer that each time the Prosecution shows us --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please read what is written there. It

9 seems to me that it might be the source or something. Could you read it

10 in the original language or ask Ms. Pilipovic to do it.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] On what page, Mr. President?

12 JUDGE ORIE: 63, bottom line, what you were just referring to.

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I will read. "CSB Sarajevo

14 Department for Genocide and War Crimes on the day of..." And so on

15 and so forth. The date is 17 February.

16 JUDGE ORIE: At least it is clear what is missing, Mr.

17 Piletta-Zanin. Is there any other inconsistency or any other objection as

18 far as the content is concerned which would oppose against admission into

19 evidence?

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This is an objection that is a

21 formal one; it is an important objection. The second objection is to the

22 effect that this is a list and this list does not prove anything else

23 other than the fact that there is a list, and this is all. So once again,

24 these documents are incomplete, to our mind. Thank you.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

Page 6953

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE ORIE: The objection against the admission to evidence of

3 Exhibit P2366 is denied. The part of the translation lacking is not such

4 that it should oppose against the admissibility of the evidence. As far

5 as the probative value of the documents is concerned, the Chamber will

6 have to establish what probative value it finally has.

7 Madam Registrar, the next document would be?

8 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P2366.1, the English translation.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is admitted as well.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P2365, report bearing ERN number

11 0026-8315. Exhibit P2365.1, English translation.

12 JUDGE ORIE: They are also admitted into evidence.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3061, medical documentation.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is as we decided is not admitted into

15 evidence, and the same as well as for the translation that is P3061.1

16 [Real-time transcript read in error "P361"].

17 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D91, photocopied pages from protocol book

18 in B/C/S.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence. We have not yet received the

20 final copies to be tendered for the sole evidentiary purpose of

21 establishing the issues in respect of the entries of dates. We will

22 receive them, I think, soon so that we could admit them into evidence, and

23 would you please pre-number them, Ms. Pilipovic or Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

24 Having dealt with the documents -- yes, please.

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, only for the transcript,

Page 6954

1 I wanted to note that on the transcript the number is erroneously

2 entered. It is not P361, but P3061.1.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, I see it is, yes. I found it. I see

4 that it is a mistake in the transcript. Yes.

5 Then we will now turn into closed session in order to given an

6 opportunity to Mr. Ierace to bring to the attention of the Chamber what he

7 would like. I see that we are in private session now. We are now in

8 closed session.

9 [Closed session]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

Page 6955












12 Page 6955 redacted closed session.














Page 6956












12 Page 6956 redacted closed session.














Page 6957












12 Page 6957 redacted closed session.














Page 6958

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [Open session]

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we are in open session again.

13 Please, Mr. Ierace, proceed.

14 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, before we call the next witness, I

15 wish to raise briefly the issue of legibility of certain documents which

16 concerned the Trial Chamber this morning. Mr. Piletta-Zanin has handed to

17 us two documents, which I identify by the ERN numbers. They are 0026-8585

18 and 0026-8537. I make the observation that legibility of documents -- I

19 notice my friend is on his feet.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Did you want to interfere?

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am really sorry, but I have

22 to say that the English transcript on page 66:7, what I have said in

23 French is the following: "The truth becomes poisonous." That is what it

24 says in the transcript. But I actually never said this. What I said is

25 the exact opposite. I never said that the truth itself is poisonous, but

Page 6959

1 that the truth that is hidden becomes poisonous. So I cannot accept that

2 some words are put into my mouth, the words that I never said.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I do understand that you ask your

4 words to be translated properly.

5 Please proceed.

6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President --

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] You have my limitless

8 gratitude.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that you were

11 referring to -- not to 66:7 but to -- well, your response to --

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] What I meant was page 65,

13 line 7.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I must have it totally different. It is my

15 recollection where you told about the truth and the poison. Put it this

16 way. I can't find it immediately nor or --

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct.

18 JUDGE ORIE: -- or somewhere else.

19 Yes, Mr. Ierace, please proceed.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] In order for Mr. Ierace to be

21 able to continue, since we are talking about these documents, could we

22 please have our originals back because we don't have them any more. The

23 Office of the Prosecutor now has our originals, and if we have to express

24 our view, we will have to have them in our hands. These are the documents

25 that we have just handed over to the Prosecution a moment ago.

Page 6960

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, it took you seven lines to ask the

2 documents back.

3 Could the documents be returned to Mr. Piletta-Zanin so that he

4 can respond or, at least, when he responds.

5 Mr. Ierace, please proceed.

6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, perhaps I will come back to that in a

7 minute. Firstly, might I complete placing on the record the second ERN

8 number, that's 0026-8537. Mr. President, no doubt the Trial Chamber is

9 concerned that the legibility of documents is an issue which arises now

10 almost daily. It is important for the Prosecution to understand

11 thoroughly how it comes to be that certain documents are illegible.

12 Mr. President, with that in mind, I respectfully request the

13 Defence, through the Trial Chamber, to provide the Trial Chamber with a

14 full and accurate explanation of how they came by the two documents which

15 they have handed to the Prosecution. In other words, it would assist us

16 in our internal enquiries if the Defence could indicate whether the two

17 documents which they have handed to us are the exact same hard copies

18 which they say they received from the Prosecution, or are they a

19 photocopy; if so, was the photocopy made by the Defence; or are they a

20 print-off of an electronic version of these two documents.

21 Mr. President, when they were handed to the Prosecution, we

22 understood that they were copies for us, and since we have had them, we

23 have placed some pen markings on them. If my friend --

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would be very

25 happy to receive the autograph of Mr. Ierace

Page 6961

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, please proceed.

2 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. There has been a pen mark

3 of "35" placed on one of the documents. So Mr. President, that is my

4 first request.

5 My second request is that the Defence indicate with precision how

6 many versions of these two documents they have because, as you will be

7 aware, Mr. President, from time to time, the Prosecution has provided

8 copies of documents on more than one occasion, for instance, initially by

9 way of disclosure and later by way of copies of documents which are to be

10 tendered. Therefore, I would be grateful for that. If it transpires that

11 the two pieces of paper handed -- which were handed to the Prosecution

12 this morning are print-offs of a CD provided by the Prosecution, then the

13 Prosecution would be grateful to have access to that CD which we have

14 provided to them at some previous stage so that we can make our own

15 enquiries in relation to the legibility of these documents on that CD.

16 Finally, Mr. President, I understand that my friend this morning

17 complained that these two documents were typical of the legibility of the

18 entire batch from which they came, that is, the post-mortem reports which

19 are 0026-8533 through to 0026-8596. If my friends say that that batch of

20 documents was given to them in hard copy form and are all in similar

21 condition, I would be grateful to have the same explanation and to have

22 access to those hard copies.

23 Mr. President, I believe that if the Defence responds to this

24 request, it will enable us to more quickly provide the Trial Chamber with

25 an explanation on this issue of legibility.

Page 6962

1 Mr. President, whilst I am on my feet, the witnesses to be

2 called after the next two are due to leave Sarajevo this afternoon at

3 about 3.00. I understand that the weather is very poor, unseasonably

4 poor. In Sarajevo this afternoon, there is snow falling. It may be that

5 those witnesses do not leave Sarajevo this afternoon, in which case, it

6 may be that tomorrow there is a period of time when we will not have

7 witnesses to call. We will prepare our response in relation to not only

8 the legibility issue but also the outstanding translation issue in respect

9 to the witnesses Trto and Kundo to be given tomorrow conveniently, if

10 there is a lapse in the calling of witnesses.

11 Mr. President, for that reason, I would be grateful if my learned

12 friends could give their explanation by, or shortly after, 9.00 tomorrow

13 morning so that we can incorporate that into our response. Thank you.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ierace.

15 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, thank you. But

17 the Defence will perhaps be even faster than what is required of us by the

18 Prosecution. We will say a few things as regards to documents that we

19 have received and the documents that I want to have back, regardless of

20 the fact that they bear your autograph. All these documents, we received

21 them in the form of the hard copy. So these were photocopied documents

22 that were placed in black binders, and we received them in December 2001.

23 This is the last version that we are using. So this is not a computer

24 print-out because, as I have already explained to Mr. Ierace himself, that

25 the computer system is not functioning any more. When the copies used for

Page 6963

1 scanning of this data and placed on the CD are of very poor quality, the

2 scanner does not see anything and we all fall victim to the black box

3 syndrome. Despite the fact that we do have these assets at our disposal,

4 we are not using them. We received this in the form of the hard copy

5 sometime in December 2001, and I hope that now in April 2002, I hope that

6 I will be given back the three originals that are now in the hands --

7 still in the hands of the Prosecution. Thank you.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, may I ask you

9 one question? You earlier indicated that you received bad copies. Now I

10 heard a -- I heard one line which makes me ask this question to you. You

11 said the December 2001 binders, that is the last version, and you are

12 using those. Are there any earlier versions of exactly these documents

13 you are complaining about provided to you by the Prosecution?

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I was not here, but I am

15 told that, yes, but -- they were, but they were not of any better quality.

16 They may have been either of the same quality or even worse. So what we

17 requested after the year 2001, after December 2001, we keep reiterating

18 it. It is very difficult to work on the basis of these copies. We keep

19 on asking them please supply us with better copies. We can -- sometimes

20 we cannot specify the document because this is a very big problem that

21 concerns the whole of the documents. We always reiterate the same

22 request, and we will continue to do so. Thank you very much.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.

24 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I understand from Mr. Piletta-Zanin's

25 response that he is saying quite clearly that the two sheets of paper

Page 6964

1 which he provided to the Prosecution this morning are the exact same

2 sheets of paper which the Prosecution provided to the Defence on the 1st

3 of December, 2001. Unless I hear anything to the contrary, I assume that

4 to be the case. As I understand it, the Defence was provided with hard

5 copies of these documents, apart from on the 1st of December, 2001, on the

6 6th of April, 2001, and on the 8th of June in the year 2000. I would be

7 grateful if my friends could provide to us through the Trial Chamber by

8 9.00 tomorrow morning their copies of these two documents from those two

9 disclosures. This is important, Mr. President, because it is an issue

10 which arises regularly. It is important that, in the interest of saving

11 time, we make the relevant enquiries so that we can understand why it is

12 that the Defence complains of legibility in some cases, where we are, at

13 this stage, able to provide more legible versions. Thank you.

14 JUDGE ORIE: You may be aware, Mr. Ierace, that in order to

15 prevent these incidents to happen at the trial, the Chamber has ordered

16 the parties to complain about illegibility, at least to complain about

17 illegibility within 24 -- within 48 hours after they receive the list of

18 the exhibits to be used, and not to wait until we are confronted with it

19 at trial itself.

20 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I have to

22 say that I am now put against the wall by the Prosecution because I have

23 until tomorrow morning at 9.00 to make a complaint and I don't have this

24 material at hand. It is also possible - I don't know whether it is

25 probable - but it is possible that the Defence has already destroyed this

Page 6965

1 material. Why? We have 40.000 to 50.000 copies of hard documents. It is

2 a whole wall of binders. If we have to keep all the double and triple

3 copies that are illegible, then we will have to find another apartment for

4 all these documents. It is highly possible that the first copies, the bad

5 copies, have already been destroyed. I don't know whether it is a fact,

6 but it is a possibility. Thank you.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE ORIE: We have been confronted with badly legible copies of

9 documents. We asked for an explanation, but we did not invite the parties

10 to spend 60 per cent of the trial time on battles on whether this document

11 was exactly in April or in June or in December provided. If the quality

12 of the copies that have been shown to the Prosecution and to the Chamber

13 is a quality which has been provided by the Prosecution, even if it would

14 be last December, and irrespective of whether at an earlier stage some

15 better copies have been provided, I mean, they might be destroyed;

16 Ms. Pilipovic says they are not any better. If this was the quality

17 provided in December compared to the quality of the documents that have

18 been presented as evidence in this Court, then there is only one

19 conclusion possible. I am saying "if," if that is that the quality was

20 not sufficient and that it was -- and that there were better copies

21 available.

22 This Chamber does not want to spend all the time to solve

23 problems from the past, but we would like to concentrate to prevent

24 problems in the future. That is the reason why we have ordered, if there

25 is any problem as far as illegibility is concerned in documents, that will

Page 6966

1 be tendered into evidence, that it will be reported immediately and the

2 parties will seek to clarify the issue and, if not, the Chamber will

3 interfere. If the parties could sit together and could see whether either

4 to compromise or not to continue to battle on what happened 6 months ago,

5 8 months ago, 12 months ago, then we will not investigate thoroughly

6 whether there has ever been a good copy or not. It is really useless to

7 do so. Unless it is bothering the Defence at this moment, and of course

8 we have also listened to the Defence express to be handicapped, and we try

9 to find a solution to see what was not legible, whether there was any

10 additional time needed, and that is the way we will approach it. But we

11 would like to prevent this.

12 If the parties think it is really necessary to fight the battle

13 over the April version, June version, December version, to the bitter end,

14 they should do it in writing. If there is any further complaint, it could

15 be written down. It could be brought to the attention of the Chamber. It

16 could be responded by the other party also in written form, so that we use

17 our time in court to hear the presentation of the case and that we will

18 spend usually the afternoons in reading how the battle between the parties

19 in this respect develops.

20 Of course, as soon as the fairness of the trial is at stake,

21 we will pay proper attention to that as we always have done. But at the

22 same time, let's solve the problems and try to refrain from digging up

23 problems. If you want an example of that, if it would be true that

24 these badly legible copies have been provided to the Defence in December,

25 of course it would be very difficult for the Defence always to compare

Page 6967

1 exactly to see whether these new copies are better legible or not better

2 legible and we could start a fight on whether it was appropriate or not to

3 destroy the earlier copies and not keep them in order to demonstrate that

4 they were just as badly legible. I mean, that brings us nowhere. So

5 therefore, if there is a need to fight this battle, we would rather read

6 about it in the afternoon instead of spending our time on it in the

7 morning.

8 We will adjourn until tomorrow 9.00, same courtroom. And of

9 course, unless there is some additional issue to be raised, but I look at

10 the clock and I also look at the interpreters' booth.

11 Mr. Ierace.

12 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, my friend has requested that the two

13 documents he provided to us be returned immediately. I would be grateful

14 to have the opportunity to have them overnight or at least for another

15 hour or so, so that we can make copies of these two documents for our own

16 inquires.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, two

19 things: The Defence, of course, appreciates the fact that the parity of

20 the parties is being brought into question by this method of work; and

21 secondly, let me answer you, I will be in a way perhaps stripped naked if

22 I am not given back these documents that are not in the possession of the

23 Prosecution. I will be very happy to photocopy them once they are given

24 back to us and then provide them with the photocopies. But I do believe

25 that it will be very good for them to return them to us now.

Page 6968












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 6969

1 JUDGE ORIE: Would it be a suggestion that the copies will now be

2 given to the Registry, the Registry will provide copies to Mr.

3 Ierace and the originals will be returned to Mr. Piletta-Zanin. No other

4 issues? Yes.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Limitless gratitude.

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

7 1.54 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,

8 the 10th day of April, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.