Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 17133

1 Thursday, 10 March 2005

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, I'm having a

6 problem with my screen. I have a document. We have documents of the 16th

7 Corps.

8 We won't waste any more time. We shall begin. I have nothing in

9 front of me, but I'll behave as if I had.

10 Mr. Registrar, will you please call the case.

11 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

12 IT-01-47-T, the Prosecutor versus Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

14 The appearances for the Prosecution, please.

15 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon,

16 Your Honours, Counsel, and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the

17 Prosecution, Matthias Neuner and Daryl Mundis, assisted by Andres Vatter.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can we have the appearances for

19 the Defence now, please.

20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. President.

21 Good afternoon, Your Honours. On behalf of General Enver Hadzihasanovic,

22 Edina Residovic, counsel; Stephane Bourgon, co-counsel; and Muriel Cauvin,

23 legal assistant.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25 The appearances for the second Defence team, please.

Page 17134

1 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.

2 On behalf of Mr. Kubura, Rodney Dixon, Fahrudin Ibrisimovic, and Nermin

3 Mulalic, legal assistant.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On this day, the 10th of March,

5 2005, I bid good afternoon to all those present: The representatives of

6 the Prosecution, of the Defence, Generals Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, and

7 all others present in this courtroom.

8 I have learnt that Courtroom II will be free tomorrow morning

9 because a trial there has been suspended and adjourned until next Monday,

10 which means that the courtroom is free. The question arises, therefore,

11 whether the Defence and the Prosecution would have no problems if we held

12 our hearing tomorrow morning.

13 The Prosecution.

14 MR. MUNDIS: We have no objections.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the Defence? Will you have

16 time to prepare your witness?

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we shall do our

18 best, and we agree that we begin tomorrow morning.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judges were wondering over

20 something, and it seemed to us that during the Prosecution case the

21 Prosecution witnesses were seen by the Defence, so we were wondering

22 whether your witnesses meet the Prosecution before appearing in court.

23 [Defence counsel confer]

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon has understood.

25 Perhaps he can give me an answer.

Page 17135

1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I wasn't following

2 the question you put to me.

3 We did meet with witnesses at our request, and those were mostly

4 international witnesses. We never encountered a witness from the

5 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the exception of the first or

6 second witness, whom we saw for five minutes in the witness room with your

7 permission. The Prosecution has not shown any interest in meeting our

8 witnesses. The Prosecution has spoken to some of them before in

9 preparation of their case when they stated that they would be Defence

10 witnesses, and then the Prosecution did not call them as their witnesses.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for this explanation,

12 which is quite clear now.

13 If there's no need for the Prosecution to be present, then it's

14 not necessary.

15 Mr. Registrar, is it possible to hold the hearing tomorrow

16 morning?

17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That being settled, we're

19 happy, because as you know, we were fierce partisans of Friday-morning

20 sessions.

21 Secondly, the Defence has given us their list regarding the

22 scenarios indicating the name of each witness. Does the Prosecution have

23 this document and what do they say?

24 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. We did in fact receive a

25 copy of that document from the Defence. At this point in time, we don't

Page 17136

1 have anything to say in response to the document. We -- we may seek your

2 leave to address Your Honours on that document in the near future or we,

3 of course, will most certainly address that document during our closing

4 arguments and in our final trial brief, but I don't believe we'll be

5 making any comments prior to that point in time. If we choose to do so,

6 we'll seek Your Honours' leave in order to -- to be permitted to do that.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Should I take it, then, that as

8 far as the Prosecution is concerned, if this document is given an exhibit

9 number, there is no comment on the part of the Prosecution?

10 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, our position would be that it -- that

11 perhaps it should be filed, as with the -- the written filings that the

12 Hadzihasanovic Defence filed with respect to the witness, but our view is

13 that it should not be categorised as "evidence," because it -- in our

14 respectful submission, it's not evidence. It's simply a -- attorney work

15 product that was compiled in order to assist the witness with creating the

16 scenarios for purposes of the litigation in this case. And our view would

17 be it's not evidence.

18 Again, Your Honour will recall when this issue came up earlier in

19 the week one of the indicators that we expressly requested be provided was

20 the precise page numbers and dates of the testimony so that we could

21 pinpoint with some degree of accuracy exactly where it is the witnesses

22 testified about the matters that were then reflected in the maps produced

23 by the witness this week. I understand the Trial Chamber specifically

24 requested simply the names and the scenarios. But -- but our view,

25 Mr. President, is that this is not evidence and it shouldn't be treated as

Page 17137

1 evidence. We have no problem with it being treated as a filing or as some

2 kind of a pleading, but -- but our position is that this document is not

3 evidence. It is certainly perhaps some kind of reflection as to where the

4 information came from, but without any specifics, our view is that it's --

5 it's not in any way evidence. It's simply something that was created by

6 the Defence.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I had difficulty following what

8 you were saying.

9 Exhibit 25, which is the table prepared by the witness, and the

10 15 scenarios with the distances, the heights, the differences in

11 distances, and his conclusions, observation possible, possible, not

12 possible, et cetera. This document which the Defence has tendered, what

13 is it in your view? Is it a Defence exhibit? What is the nature of that

14 document?

15 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, you'll -- you'll recall that in

16 the -- the Defence filing with respect to this witness our initial fax

17 letter to them was provided. Our position has been that this is the type

18 of evidence that an expert produces. That is, he's provided with certain

19 information and then based on his expertise produces some kind of report

20 or analysis of the information.

21 Certainly the chart that the witness produced is or can be

22 considered evidence in the sense that this witness, who had some expertise

23 that the average layperson doesn't have, is now before Your Honours. Our

24 position, however, that the chart on the top whereby the Defence indicates

25 which witness testimony those specific points that the expert or the

Page 17138

1 witness was provided with in order to undertake his analysis is not

2 evidence. In other words, the fact that Witness X may or may not have

3 indicated where he was when he testified that he saw something at a

4 different place, that -- that's in -- that's already in evidence. That's

5 trial testimony. It's reflected in the transcripts. If the Defence can

6 tell us on this date this witness said he was on Strmac and looked at

7 Cukle, for example, we have no problem with that. Again, it's not

8 necessarily -- the -- the chart is not evidence. It's part of the

9 Defence's position. It's their argument. But simply indicating that some

10 witness was the basis for these points without telling us where or what

11 day and what page, our -- our respectful view is -- is of no value

12 whatsoever.

13 And again, our position is that the parties - that is, the

14 Defence or the Prosecution - isn't in a position to be in effect creating

15 evidence such as that. And that -- and simply that the cover page is not

16 evidence. The underlying sheet that the witness produced is already in

17 evidence. But our position is that that front page, at least, is

18 certainly not evidence. It might reflect the evidence. But in the -- in

19 its current state, without being more precise, it has little or no value,

20 in our respectful views.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will give the floor to the

22 Defence.

23 If I understand well, the position of the Prosecution is that the

24 witness who testified should not have been a fact witness but more of an

25 expert witness. However, due to the fact that he was a fact witness, if a

Page 17139

1 document is produced, it should be produced by an expert witness.

2 Whereas, this particular document was produced by the Defence.

3 In this connection, my personal opinion would be as follows: We

4 are in a mixed type of procedure, common-law and continental law. In

5 continental law, when there is an expert report which is drafted by an

6 expert who is independent of the parties, the expert is informed of the

7 question of a technical nature and he would in that case be given 15

8 scenarios and he would also be given statements of witnesses related to

9 those scenarios, and the expert in continental law would then have

10 prepared this table, which is under tab 25, and he would have placed a

11 column with the names of the witnesses. And during the testimony of the

12 expert, the Chamber would have that table with the names of the witnesses.

13 That is the comment that I would make.

14 Certainly in common law in the strict sense of the word, that is

15 not possible, but I was saying that we are in a kind of hybrid system, a

16 combined system.

17 So, Mr. Mundis. And after you, I'll give the floor to the

18 Defence.

19 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the procedure works virtually the

20 same way that Your Honour has just described it in the common law, and one

21 of the requirements is that the expert's report or his testimony be done

22 in such a transparent way so that everyone knows precisely what the

23 witness based his or her conclusions on.

24 All we have now -- and it would be the same in the common law.

25 The expert would be provided with the actual transcript testimony of the

Page 17140

1 witnesses.

2 What we have in this case is the Defence simply informed the

3 witness, the expert if you will, for lack of a better term, "Can you see

4 from Strmac to Cukle?" Now, our point becomes the fact that, for example,

5 as indicated on the chart with -- the witness Jandric testified about

6 that. We need to know exactly where Mr. Jandric says he was. The fact

7 that he was somewhere on the Strmac mountain or hill, which is a large

8 feature, as is clear from the map, that's our precise concern with this,

9 Mr. President, that -- that -- until the Defence can say, "On this page,

10 this line, he said I was at this point on the mountain," in our respectful

11 view, this entire exercise has some flaws in it.

12 And so the simple fact that they said, "This witness said he was

13 on this mountain," which is a large thing, looking at, again, Cukle, for

14 example - there's Upper Cukle, Lower Cukle, Strmac has two elevation high

15 points, as we explored with the witness - the simple fact that he said

16 Jandric said he was on Strmac and looked at Cukle. That's our problem.

17 That's our concern with this. And the simple fact that they've informed

18 us which witness testified about that without telling us where in the

19 transcript that came from, that's been our problem all along,

20 Mr. President, with respect to this exercise.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for the additional

22 explanations you have given.

23 Now to elucidate the Judges, what can the Defence tell us, as you

24 have been following the debate.

25 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Good

Page 17141

1 afternoon, Your Honours.

2 Mr. President, I think that there may be a confusion in the

3 arguments presented by the Prosecution. Regarding the question, to use

4 the term used by my learned friend, "the exercise itself is faulty," I

5 would come to that at the end. But the first point I wish to make is the

6 question of whether the witness was an expert or not.

7 It was decided by the Chamber as a fact witness, so he did not

8 testify as an expert witness.

9 Having said that, a week prior to the appearance of the witness

10 in court, we informed the Chamber that there had been some discussion

11 between the Prosecution and us to agree on the modality so that everything

12 should be clear for everyone. I met with my colleague, who gave me a list

13 of questions, to which the Defence answered in the most objective and

14 clearest possible manner so that there should be no confusion. Those

15 questions were put. There were no comments by the Prosecution regarding

16 that filing. That is the first point, the question of the status of the

17 witness.

18 Secondly, what we would like or are asking to tender today - on

19 this point I agree with my colleague - it does not constitute evidence.

20 It is just information that we wish to give to the Chamber so as to

21 facilitate their work. If the Chamber is interested in reviewing and

22 applying the conclusions of the witness to the source from where the

23 conclusions came - that is, the testimony of certain persons who appeared

24 before this Chamber - they can do so. So it is not evidence. It is

25 simply to facilitate our work.

Page 17142












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 17143

1 We asked the witness to carry out observation from point A to

2 point B, and his conclusion is that you couldn't observe things from point

3 A to point B, and it is useful for the Chamber to know whether this can

4 apply to one of the -- to the testimony of one of the Prosecution

5 witnesses.

6 Also, we explained to the Chamber, as we did in our written

7 submissions, that -- why we never gave the witness the nail of the person

8 and the evidence; it's simply because we wanted him to carry out a

9 technical exercise. And during the Prosecution case, also there was an

10 effort to submit drawings of damages that didn't -- were not

11 contemporaneous. So we had to witness who analysed distances. And during

12 our closing arguments, we will be able to refer to them and argue them, as

13 my learned friend has mentioned.

14 If the Chamber wishes to have the details at this stage - that

15 is, that Witness X was standing at such-and-such a place - then that

16 exercise would become evidence, and that is what we wanted to avoid, not

17 to provide those details, because that would be making arguments prior to

18 the closing argument. So we're giving the Judges the sources. And if the

19 Chamber feels it's useful to go and look, that's fine. If the Chamber

20 will wait until the end, when they hear the closing arguments, it is up to

21 the Chamber to decide. They're absolutely independent and it's up to them

22 to decide what they will do with it. But it is not evidence.

23 Regarding the exercise as such, my learned friend from the

24 Prosecution during the first day of testimony contacted me and said that

25 there were problems regarding the relevance of the conclusions, and it was

Page 17144

1 then that he asked me about the sources, and I provided him with the

2 necessary information as to where the practical instances submitted to the

3 witness came from.

4 The question of shortcomings, I think my learned friend can

5 always argue that, as we will do in our closing argument for our part. In

6 our view, there are no shortcomings. The witness said he took -- he stood

7 at the most favourable position, regardless of whether he was on one

8 summit or another. The witness took the most favourable position. So as

9 far as we are concerned, there's no problem. But the Prosecution is free

10 to argue that the witness's conclusions are not good.

11 All we wish to do at this stage is to facilitate the work of the

12 Chamber. If a witness said, "You couldn't see from Strmac to Gornji

13 Cukle," then go and check with what a certain witness said.

14 So we have had a lot of argument and a lot of debate, which I

15 don't think is necessary.

16 Finally, one of the reasons why the witness did not appear as an

17 expert was a question of budget. We don't have a budget for an expert

18 witness. We don't have the means provided to engage an expert witness.

19 And I explained to my colleague that that was one of the reasons, and we

20 don't have the funds envisaged by the Tribunal's Statute for this.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The parties agree,

22 however, that this document is not evidence. But if you're asking it to

23 be given a number, that's the problem. If you're asking DH2060 for this

24 document, the Prosecution can say, "Wait a minute. Then That is

25 evidence." Are you asking for it to be given a number or not?

Page 17145

1 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. All we

2 would like is to add this information to an existing number, wherever it

3 may be practical. There were 15 practical cases, as explained by the

4 witness. The number is DH1978, I think. And we would simply like to add

5 this document to that document. Because if one wants to use a document

6 from this number, then this will be very helpful.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you simply wish that we add

8 it under 1978.

9 And the other Defence attorneys? Have they any additional

10 clarifications to give? No.

11 Mr. Mundis, have you understood? The Prosecution is asking just

12 one thing -- or rather, I'm sorry, the Defence. The Defence. They don't

13 want a new number. It is not evidence. They just want this document to

14 be added to the documents under 1978. So there'll be no new number. And

15 it will not serve as evidence, just simply to help everyone; you as well.

16 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, with all due respect, I -- I believe

17 that if it's appended or added to a currently existing exhibit, then

18 it's -- then it's part of the evidence. I would again make just a -- a

19 suggestion on a way at of this. Perhaps my learned colleagues could file

20 a one-sentence filing saying, "This is an annex to our filing of,"

21 whatever date they filed the methodology of the expert report and simply

22 say, "Attached is an annex which is a supplemental information pursuant to

23 the modalities that they explained to us in their earlier filing. This

24 could simply be an annex to that. They could either put it in or file an

25 additional sentence indicating that this should be attached to this

Page 17146

1 earlier filing. It's just my suggestion. But I don't believe that we ever

2 add anything to exhibits once the witness has left, particularly something

3 the witness wasn't aware of. The only thing I'm aware that ever gets

4 added to an exhibit is a translation that might be forthcoming or revised.

5 But I don't believe we should be adding things to exhibits, particularly

6 when the witness wasn't aware of any of that information, and it then

7 becomes part of the exhibit.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecution is suggesting a

9 solution, and that is for the Defence to make a filing of a few lines

10 saying, "Following Exhibit 1978, we are submitting a list of witnesses

11 corresponding to the scenarios," and simply to clarify things and not as

12 evidence, at a certain stage, at some point.

13 But the Prosecution wishes to be reassured, and it would like a

14 filing.

15 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

16 The best solution would be on the document itself to make a note

17 on the piece of paper itself, the one that we wish to tender. But this is

18 just to facilitate things.

19 My learned friend is suggesting that we add this document to the

20 filing on modalities. We feel that that is not possible because in that

21 filing we specified that this was an important phase for us, that the

22 witness did not have this information.

23 If the Chamber goes back a little. When the witness completes

24 his testimony, we simply wish to indicate scenario number 1 refers to

25 such-and-such a witness.

Page 17147

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, we seem to be using

2 a lot of time.

3 Rest assured this helps in advancing the procedure.

4 The Judges will spend a lot of time discussing the matter and

5 we'll tell you what is the most suitable solution, because the matter is

6 of some importance after all. We will deliberate on this later.

7 We shall now go into private session because I have something

8 else to add.

9 [Private 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 17148

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 [Open session]

7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In open session, the CLSS in

9 accordance with the request of the Chamber in a memo dated the 3rd of

10 March reviewed once again the question of the translation of the

11 word "odnosno" appearing in Exhibit P662, and the CLSS in their memo,

12 which you have, confirmed that this term should be translated by the

13 words "in other words."

14 That's it. That is what they're telling us.

15 Mr. Dixon, we've come to the third memo. You're not going to ask

16 us for a fourth. But I give you the floor.

17 MR. DIXON: Your Honour, certainly not. I'm not going to ask for

18 any further request to be sent back to the CLSS. I think we've come to

19 the end of the road in this regard, and we do wish to thank them for the

20 work that they've undertaken.

21 However, I do wish to use the opportunity to -- to indicate that,

22 in my submission, the primary question which we have raised still has not

23 been answered, and -- and that is, we have said all along this word can be

24 read in two ways. It can be read "in other words" or it can be read as to

25 mean "and." So it can read: "The 7th Brigade and the Mujahedin."

Page 17149

1 The CLSS have indicated that it can only be read in one way. In

2 our view, with the greatest respect to them, this is an incorrect

3 interpretation of the word. And we will therefore have to, as

4 Your Honours have suggested, take this matter further and discuss it with

5 experts in the field. And as part to have case for Mr. Kubura, we may

6 decide to call an expert witness to clarify that point.

7 We would, in addition to that, Your Honours, request that if this

8 memorandum is now to be made an exhibit, which I'm sure it does need to

9 be, that we attach to it a copy - and I have extra copies here - of the

10 dictionary definition. This definition is referred to in the memorandum.

11 It's the Buljas [phoen] dictionary. And in that definition, which is

12 partly quoted in the -- the memorandum, it quite clearly says in the

13 examples that are set out under the word that "odnosno" can mean "and."

14 And I referred to these on the last occasion, your, they're examples 14

15 and 17, 8 and 9, aunt and cousin. And you'll see if Your Honours have a

16 look at this document how the examples show that the word can be read to

17 mean "and" as well.

18 And in our view, seeing it has been referred to in the

19 memorandum, the -- the dictionary definition, but only partly quoted, we

20 do believe that it would only be fair that it be attached to this

21 memorandum and become part of the exhibits so that Your Honours can see

22 the full dictionary definition of the word.

23 The one final thing I -- I do wish to say, Your Honours, is that

24 I have been listening for the word "odnosno" when it has come up a few

25 times during the -- the trial, and it has, in fact, been interpreted - I

Page 17150

1 don't know if Your Honours have heard this - in both ways. I've heard it

2 interpreted as "in other words," but identify also heard it interpreted

3 as "and." For example, a few days ago: "1993 odnosno 1994," it was

4 interpreted as "1993 and 1994." So once again, that lends support to our

5 argument.

6 I know Mr. Mundis will probably say these are all submissions

7 which we can make in our closing argument, which we will. The memorandum

8 from CLSS is only one part of the evidence and we will be able to make

9 submissions on that. But I thought it important now to point out and it

10 might come up again in the future, that this word is interpreted by those

11 in the interpretation booths in both ways and it may well be that we will

12 in our case in calling a witness seek to confirm that through additional

13 testimony.

14 But, Your Honours, my only request now is that if it is to be

15 made an exhibit, can the full dictionary definition please be appended to

16 the memorandum. I have additional copies here. With the assistance of

17 the usher I can hand those to my learned friend, Mr. Mundis, and to

18 Your Honours, of course.

19 Thank you, Your Honours, for the opportunity to address this

20 matter again.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll show the dictionary

22 definition to the Prosecution.

23 The Defence would like us to attach this document to the memo.

24 In this document, you will all note that -- that "and" also appears as a

25 possibility.

Page 17151

1 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, we have no objection to this. And

2 again, our position has always been, as reflected in the previous CLSS

3 memos, that the word "odnosno" needs to be taken in its proper context.

4 And of course my learned friend pointed out, the example of "1993 odnosno

5 1994" and clearly that would be an example where in the context of that it

6 would be the word "and" used, because you wouldn't normally say "1993 in

7 other words 1994." So clearly in the exact example he's given, the use of

8 context is important. And we've always said that.

9 CLSS, with respect to this document, has reviewed the issue, and

10 in the context indicates the -- the translation as they have now

11 re-revised it. So we certainly have no objection to the -- to the excerpt

12 of this dictionary being appended to the 3 March 2005 CLSS memo, and I

13 presume, as with the other memos, that it be given a Court Exhibit number.

14 We have -- we have no problem with that, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll give the floor to the

16 Defence. I myself have noted that several witnesses have used this word,

17 and I was tempted to ask them to explain the word, but that would mean

18 entering a discussion on grammar, and that was not why the witness came.

19 I noted that Madam Residovic also used the word very often. I

20 was going to ask her to tell us what she means when she uses it. You have

21 the floor.

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we agree with the

23 arguments provided by our learned friend Mr. Dixon.

24 I also wanted to add that each time that we ask the witness a

25 question, especially when he's enumerating things and he says "odnosno,"

Page 17152












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 17153

1 then I remember this document.

2 What you noticed yourself is also the best confirmation of our

3 claim, that the word "odnosno" is frequently used in different contexts

4 with a different meaning, and the drafter of the document, or the person

5 who is speaking would be in the best position to explain then in what

6 sense the word was used.

7 In the case of this specific document, the Court has several

8 options: He has -- they have heard the witnesses. They will also hear

9 different interpretations. But we would like to have this attachment

10 together with the interpretation by the translation service along -- under

11 the same exhibit number.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I would now like to

13 the registrar to give us the number for the note from the translation

14 service and a number for the excerpt from the dictionary.

15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Regarding the memo from the

17 translation service from March 3rd, 2005 and the copy from the dictionary

18 provided by Mr. Dixon, could you please give us a number.

19 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. That will be

20 Exhibit of the Court C11.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. And now we can

22 press all the buttons to have the blinds down and so that we could bring

23 in the witness and move into closed session.

24 [Closed session]

25 (redacted)

Page 17154











11 Pages 17154-17210 redacted. Closed session.















Page 17211

1 (redacted)

2 [Open session]

3 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, we are in

4 open session.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was saying that if there are

6 no special issues to address this evening, we will adjourn and resume work

7 tomorrow morning at 9.00. Thank you.

8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.56 p.m.,

9 to be reconvened on Friday, the 11th day of

10 March, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.