1 Thursday, June 27 2002
2 [Closed session]
12 Page 10631 – redacted – closed session
12 [Open session]
13 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session now. We still have the issue
14 of the report of Professor Zecevic. As far as the Chamber understands,
15 the confusion is about what is the report of Dr. Zecevic. Is that
16 everything, that means curriculum vitae and witness statements and OTP
17 Exhibits P3276, that is the report itself, and the supplemental
18 information sheet of the 22nd of November and a similar one of the 1st of
19 March. Because I do understand that the Defence takes the view that
20 whatever would relate in the four documents not being the report itself,
21 should be redacted as well, so as to take out any reference to subjects
22 other than the one on which the question -- on which the witness was
24 May I first ask Mr. Ierace or Mr. Stamp, is it just a report or
25 are all the five documents I just mentioned part of what is tendered by
1 the Prosecution?
2 MR. STAMP: May it please you, -- I beg your pardon.
3 Mr. President, Your Honours, it is all five documents which we
4 submit to the Court as a full statement pursuant to Rule 94 bis.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Since I did understand that the remaining problem is
6 in the redacting the other four documents, apart from the specific report
7 of the witness itself, I would then invite the parties again to see
8 whether they could agree on what parts of the other documents should be
9 redacted as well. But before inviting you to do so, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Since
11 Mr. Stamp knows this because I have written it, it is not just that. The
12 first page in question has to be reviewed and corrected in a sense that we
13 came before you for everything that interested other elements, that some
14 of these shellings should be redacted, some of the bombardments should be
16 Yes, we know that the attack on the Sarajevo TV building, which is
17 mentioned on page 1. I don't know whether Mr. Stamp would like to say
18 something. His microphone is on. Which is mentioned on the first page of
19 the document is also -- precisely something which was referring to air
20 attacks and we have decided that these are not the subject of this report.
21 And we find it on the first page. I think that indicate -- I put that
22 very clearly in the four lines where I said that the first page of the
23 statement also has to be redacted, since it is referring to an element
24 which has to be excluded.
25 This is actually just one line. It has to be done.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, is it a problem of malcommunication or is
2 there a problem of principle?
3 MR. STAMP: There might be a minor problem of principle.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And that would be?
5 MR. STAMP: It appears that the complaint about the first page and
6 we are not exactly sure the complaint is, but it appears to be a statement
7 that during the war, I was -- "during the world war, I conducted only two
8 investigations. One was the attack of the TV building on the 20th of
9 June, 1995 and the other was the investigation of the shelling of the
10 marketplace of the 5th of February, 1994." That is a reference to
11 something else which my friend seeks to redact.
12 To redact the brief statement that one of the investigations was
13 an investigation in 1995, that is all that is said, would really take away
14 from the context of the sentence and it really --
15 JUDGE ORIE: You mean that it doesn't give any information as
16 apart from that an investigation was done, which might relate to the
17 experience of the expert and gives no information as to what the
18 investigation resulted in or -- well, whatever, it's just indicated.
19 MR. STAMP: It is just a part of a sentence. If I may just --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed. I will ask Mr. Piletta-Zanin to
22 MR. STAMP: As I understand it, the issue of redactions arose
23 because the Defence indicated quite rightly that the report of, in respect
24 to the investigations of the 25th of January 1995, were not relevant to
25 the issues before this Court. And that was raised in respect only to this
1 part of the full report. In other words, only to the statement of the
2 27th of February 1996, which is one of the documents in the report.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. STAMP: That, all of that reference, has been redacted.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. If, as we
8 hear it from Mr. Stamp, this doesn't bring anything to the case. I
9 believe that this is an excellent reason to redact this. I am still
10 talking about the first page. Now the other objection which is much more
11 fundamental is if we are supposed to admit these documents as being
12 reports of an expert or a quasi-expert, the least of the thing it would be
13 to have these documents signed. Now you have seen it just like myself,
14 that these documents for a large part have not been signed. The only
15 document that we see signed are those that are witness statements, but the
16 rest of the documents have not been signed. Therefore, this is a problem
17 of principle. So this is a basic objection on the nature of what has been
18 produced by the Prosecution.
19 Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And the -- yes, Mr. Stamp.
21 MR. STAMP: Briefly. The complaint about the all the pages of the
22 documents being signed is irregular and I would submit, cannot be
23 reasonable deemed by this Court because it is not timely. It could have
24 been made, if it was important that every page be signed, a long time ago.
25 The only thing it is respectfully submitted, Mr. President, Your Honours,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 which comes in for consideration is the Defence objection made that the
2 references to the TV building investigation be redacted. It is now too
3 late to make a complaint, it is respectfully submitted that every single
4 page in an expert report or as it is described in the Rule, the full
5 statement of the expert be signed. If that issue would have been ordered
6 in a more timely way --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, thank you. I
9 don't think that we ever accepted on the principle these reports. I think
10 we already said that. If we are to say to the Prosecution that it has not
11 been signed and everybody can see that this has not been signed. This is
12 asking too much of the Defence. We cannot accept these documents. They
13 haven't been signed even if they come from an expert. An expert has to
14 sign his expert report. Otherwise, it's just a piece of paper, unsigned
15 piece of paper. And we believe that we cannot accept unsigned pieces of
16 paper even if this comes from an expert. This seems to be an obvious
17 question and I think the reason is obvious.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The original of the expert report itself, I see
19 signatures on every single page or is that not correct?
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Which documents are you
21 talking about, Mr. President?
22 JUDGE ORIE: I am talking about the document P3276, as it appears
23 in the original language. That is what starts with, "Elaborat." [phoen] I
24 see the bottom of each page I see a --
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Could you please give us an
1 ERN number, Mr. President?
2 JUDGE ORIE: It seems to be 02115533. It is the report itself,
3 "The Study of the Circumstances and Causes of the Massacre at Markale
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. What was
6 your question, please?
7 JUDGE ORIE: My question was that I see a signature on the bottom
8 of each page of the exhibit I just mentioned. It is the report --
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That is true --
10 JUDGE ORIE: The signatures were missing and I am wondering what --
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, but all of the
12 attachments that we have, for instance, four and five, have -- are not the
13 documents. It is about these attachments that I am talking about. These
14 are documents that on one hand are not linked to the report as such, in a
15 material way or even physically if I dare say this, and on the other hand,
16 they are very distinct from the report, the supplementary information
17 sheet. So I don't think we can admit that as being a report from an
18 expert. We have heard a quasi-expert and this is where our objection lie.
19 The way it has been presented, this is not acceptable for us and I believe
20 for your Chamber. That is why I said the other day, only over my dead
22 JUDGE ORIE: No would have been enough. But so we are just
23 talking about the signatures under the supplemental information sheets.
24 The Chamber will consider the matter and --
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I apologise.
1 We are also talking about the first page of the statements, since we are
2 saying anything that is linked regarding the agreement with the
3 Prosecution, with the attack that is mentioned in the document, the
4 Sarajevo TV Building. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, while we are in open session, might I
7 indicate that we have significant problems with the timetable in relation
8 to next week. Steps are being taken at the moment to fill some gaps. I
9 will update you later on today. In the meantime, two days ago I asked if
10 the Defence could inform us if they could have their artillery expert here
11 on the 10th of July and perhaps the 12th of July. I still have not heard.
12 I would be grateful if they could simply let us know that that that would
13 assist us in restructuring the timetable. Thank you
14 JUDGE ORIE: Can I inform the parties before giving an opportunity
15 to Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that we will not sit on the 12th. We will sit on
16 the 10th of July, but we will not sit on Friday, the 12th.
17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence agree
18 with the date of the 10th of July. If this is of course suitable for the
19 colleagues, since you just mentioned that the 12th of July we would not be
21 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I would be grateful if my learned
22 colleague could inform us of the availability of the expert on the 9th as
23 well, given the information which we have just received. Thank you.
24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we will check about
25 the 9th of July. The point is that the only thing that can be the problem
1 can be making sure that he comes regarding his transport because of the
2 summer period, when there are more problems to do with transport than
3 usual, to do with airlines. But in any case, the 9th and the 10th, it
4 seems that the Defence may accept this. Thank you.
5 MR. IERACE: Very grateful, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since
8 Mr. Ierace wanted to raise some matters that are linked to the answers,
9 could we please know when we are going to have the answers to the last
10 questions that we asked of the Prosecution on several occasions.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know what these questions are about. If
12 there is any remaining problem after the break, I would like to hear about
13 it. We will then turn again into closed session.
14 [Closed session]
12 Pages 10641-10726 – redacted – closed session
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
7 7.05 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday,
8 the 28th day of June, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.