Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 1

1 Thursday, 2 June 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

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

5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Court Deputy.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number

7 IT-01-48-T, the Prosecutor versus Sefer Halilovic.

8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

9 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. After the untimely

10 resignment of Judge Szenasi, the President of this Tribunal assigned

11 Judge Mumba as a Judge in this proceedings. Judge Mumba began her

12 function last Monday and she will not be able to attend this hearing, so

13 in accordance with the Rule 15 bis, the remaining Judges decided to

14 continue our proceedings.

15 This hearing is in accordance with the decision on the parties'

16 request regarding the deposition evidence of one witness rendered by this

17 Trial Chamber on the 12th of May, 2005. In general, the Trial Chamber is

18 reluctant to grant the recalling of a witness who has provided testimony

19 by way of deposition for the reason that a party has failed to ask

20 questions which may prove important to its case. However, the Trial

21 Chamber believes the witness is an individual mentioned in the allegation

22 of paragraph 10 of the indictment and as such could have specific unique

23 knowledge as to that particular allegation in the indictment and his

24 evidence in this respect may prove to be pivotal evidence in this case.

25 So we decided to ask him some questions.

Page 2

1 The purpose of questioning by the Judges will be limited to the

2 allegation in the paragraph 10 of the indictment, and after that both

3 parties may raise some questions, but also in the scope of the paragraph

4 10 of the indictment.

5 Well, could we connect with the witness, please.

6 [Witness testified via videolink]

7 JUDGE LIU: Good morning, Witness. Can you hear me?

8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters can't hear the witness.

9 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We have some technical problem.

10 Good morning, Witness. Can you hear me?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can. Very well, in fact,

12 Your Honour. Good morning.

13 JUDGE LIU: Good morning. Would you please make the solemn

14 declaration in accordance with the paper Mr. Usher is showing to you.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

16 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.


19 [Witness answered through interpreter]

20 JUDGE LIU: Well, before we have the questions, I would like to

21 remind you the Rule 90(E).

22 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I'm sorry. It's been indicated to

23 me that the accused, Mr. Halilovic, cannot hear anything at the moment.

24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

25 MR. MORRISSEY: In particular, he's unable to hear Mr. Karic.

Page 3

1 JUDGE LIU: Well, I have been advised that there's some technical

2 problem at this stage, so we have to take a break for about 10 minutes,

3 and we'll resume at 20 past 9.00.

4 --- Break taken at 9.09 a.m.

5 --- On resuming at 9.34 a.m.

6 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, I believe that I have to apologise to

7 you for the delay. Are you ready to continue?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am ready.

9 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Halilovic, can you hear the proceedings in a

10 language that you understand? No?

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I hear the

12 interpreter, but I do not hear the witness.

13 JUDGE LIU: I see. Maybe there's some problem with the channel?

14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

15 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Let's try it again, to see whether you could

16 hear him or not. If not, please let us know as soon as possible.

17 You may sit down, please.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, at the very beginning I have to remind

20 you the Rule 90(E) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, that you have

21 the right to object to making a statement which may tend to incriminate

22 yourself. But that Trial Chamber may, however, compel you to answer the

23 question. That testimony so compelled shall not be used as evidence in a

24 subsequent prosecution against you for any offence other than the forced

25 testimony. Do you understand that?

Page 4

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Your Honour, I

2 understand completely.

3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

4 Questioned by the Court:

5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, could you please tell us your full

6 name, please.

7 A. My name is Vehbija Karic.

8 JUDGE LIU: And when do you think you were born?

9 A. I was born on the 21st of April, 1938 in Podgrad, municipality of

10 Pale.

11 JUDGE LIU: And were you in the Yugoslavia People's Army at the

12 very beginning?

13 A. Yes. I was a member of the Yugoslav People's Army. I was an

14 officer. I was a colonel by rank in the former JNA.

15 JUDGE LIU: And when did you join the ABiH?

16 A. I became a member of the ABiH on the 8th of April, 1992, after I

17 left the JNA.

18 JUDGE LIU: And when did you --

19 A. On that day I joined.

20 JUDGE LIU: And when did you retire from the army?

21 A. I retired in late May 1996.

22 JUDGE LIU: And with what rank?

23 A. With the rank of army brigadier of the Army of Bosnia and

24 Herzegovina.

25 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. During which time have you been in

Page 5

1 Grabovica? Could you give us the date of arrival and departure, if

2 possible.

3 A. This was at the beginning of September. I will look up the exact

4 date in my diary. In early September 1993.

5 JUDGE LIU: And what's the departure time? Or how long did you

6 stay in Grabovica?

7 A. How long did I stay in Grabovica? I was there less than an hour

8 with a group of people who looked around the -- we were there on two

9 occasions expecting the arrival of the units from Sarajevo. We decided

10 to accommodate those billets because Jablanica was overbooked by refugees

11 from Prozor and that part of Herzegovina. We had problems with

12 accommodation, so we decided that some of those units should be billeted

13 in Grabovica. Rifat Bilajac was with me at the time, as well as Zicro

14 Suljevic, Namik, and we went around to see the inhabitants of the

15 village, asked them whether they had enough space in their houses to

16 receive a number of soldiers for a brief period of several days. They

17 told us that there was no problem, that they would accommodate them in

18 one room. These were usually elderly people, husbands and wives. There

19 were also some younger people from Konjic who had come to be with their

20 relatives, but mostly all of them agreed.

21 After that, the units were billeted there. After 24 hours, after

22 one night spent in Grabovica by those units, we came to see them the next

23 day to see if there were any problems, and so on and so forth. So I was

24 there on two occasions with a group of people from the inspection team

25 when we went to review the situation regarding their accommodation, the

Page 6

1 accommodation of the units. I think that this was on the 7th or the 8th

2 of September, this second time, after one night in Grabovica, after they

3 had spent one night in Grabovica.

4 JUDGE LIU: Yes. In your answer, you said that "So we decided

5 that some of those units should be billeted in Grabovica." Would you

6 please be more specific to tell us who are "we." Are they members of the

7 inspection team?

8 A. Yes, precisely, members of the inspection team. Rifat Bilajac,

9 Zicro Suljevic, I myself, and Namik Dzankovic went to see if it was

10 possible to billet the troops there the day before, and then after

11 spending one night there - I think that this was on the 8th in the

12 morning, on the 8th of September -

13 JUDGE LIU: And how about --

14 A. -- when we visited.

15 JUDGE LIU: I'm sorry. How about Mr. Halilovic? Did he go there

16 with you?

17 A. Mr. Halilovic? No, he didn't. He wasn't in Jablanica at the

18 time. He was somewhere out in the field. And we did that without his

19 physical presence, which was normal and in keeping with the idea of

20 billeting the troops for the forthcoming operation, when we were

21 coordinating the combat activities.

22 JUDGE LIU: Did you meet -- did Mr. Halilovic involved in the

23 decision of billeting the soldiers in Grabovica?

24 A. I think that he found out about it indirectly and that objective

25 was to billet the people so that they could rest after arriving from

Page 7

1 Sarajevo following a march, which was quite tiring. These people needed

2 to be accommodated. And in general, the area in Jablanica was overbooked

3 with refugees and we didn't have much logistics resources. We didn't

4 have accommodation in tents or bivouacs. As far as the measures that

5 some other army might have taken which would not be in such dire

6 circumstances as we were concerning materiel and logistics, in order to

7 accommodate troops outside of inhabited areas, we had to do it this way.

8 Before that, we got the consent of the inhabitants that there would be no

9 problems and that they agreed to billet the people. To this very day I

10 am not sure whether Sefer Halilovic knew or not about this minor detail,

11 but we were the ones who were actually considering this problem. Those

12 days he was absent, he was touring, he was in Sarajevo, Konjic, and in

13 other places in the area of preparation of troops for the forthcoming

14 operation.

15 JUDGE LIU: And during your stay in Grabovica, in your testimony

16 you told us that you stayed one night there. And where did you stay that

17 night in the village?

18 A. I didn't say that we spent the night there but that the troops

19 were billeted on the night of the 7th and the 8th in the village of

20 Grabovica. These were units of the 9th Mountain Brigade and a part of

21 the 10th Mountain Brigade as well as a smaller group from Solakovic's

22 battalion. We billeted them there. We were there in conversation the

23 day before the troops were going to arrive. I think that this was on the

24 7th. Before the troops arrived, we talked with the inhabitants of

25 Grabovica and reached an agreement with them that they had nothing

Page 8

1 against receiving this number of soldiers to spend the night there, and

2 then we returned to Jablanica, where we continued with our activities.

3 The next day, on the 8th --

4 JUDGE LIU: In the --

5 A. -- we as a group went to visit. We as a group went to visit

6 Grabovica. We were driven by Huso Alic. Rifat Bilajac, Zicro Suljevic,

7 I was there, my son with there as an escort, and Namik Dzankovic as

8 security officer were in this group. This was the inspection team. We

9 stayed with the inhabitants and we were in conversation with them, the

10 ones who had received soldiers to stay the night with them, and we asked

11 the soldiers if they had rested well, how they felt, if there were any

12 problems.

13 After an hour, in our view there were no problems. The soldiers

14 were received well. They were in a good mood. They had slept well after

15 a tiring march to reach that place. Some of them were actually fishing.

16 Some had lit a fire and they were barbecuing something around those

17 fires. In any case, the mood was as if it was a picnic. There were no

18 problems at all. And after about an hour, we returned to Jablanica to

19 continue with our further activities.

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes. In your testimony, you said that "There were

21 units of the 9th Mountain Brigade." Is it 9th Mountain Brigade or 9th

22 Motorised Brigade?

23 A. The 9th Mountain Brigade, commanded by Celo.

24 JUDGE LIU: Well, you -- in your testimony, you also said that

25 you had an opportunity to talk to the soldiers, if they had rested well.

Page 9

1 Do you know who are those soldiers and which units they were from?

2 A. It is hard for me to answer if I know which soldiers they were

3 because when we saw them, they happened to be in the yard in front of the

4 house where they happened to be, and we would stop as our group -- as a

5 group, this group that was in the vehicle. We would stop and for a

6 moment we would ask them if they had a rest, if they slept well, if there

7 were any problems, was everything all right. Everything was all right.

8 And then we went on from house to house, so that then we actually went to

9 the yards of all the inhabitants asking if there were any problems.

10 There were none. I don't know if these were only soldiers of the 9th

11 Brigade or the 10th Brigade - I can't really say, but both were in that

12 particular area - who came up to us or whom we approached and had this

13 contact with.

14 JUDGE LIU: Did you see or meet Mr. Halilovic during your stay in

15 Grabovica?

16 A. No. No. Halilovic wasn't with us in Grabovica, not when we went

17 to see if it would be possible to billet the troops there or afterwards.

18 He wasn't in Jablanica during that particular period, those few days.

19 JUDGE LIU: Now I will pass the questions to Judge El Mahdi and

20 Judge El Mahdi will continue to ask you some questions.

21 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.

22 [Interpretation] Witness, I would like to ask a few questions from you

23 concerning your deposition. You said that Mr. Halilovic - I quote you --

24 [In English] "found about it indirectly." [Interpretation] And you speak

25 of the question of the troops being billeted with civilians. So could

Page 10

1 you explain your answer, if you please. What do you actually mean when

2 you say he was indirectly made aware?

3 A. As part of our previous contacts with Halilovic, I remember that,

4 amongst other things, we talked about the question of billeting the units

5 coming from the area of Sarajevo. Those people needed to be accommodated

6 so that they could rest. I cannot say. I'm not sure if it was said in

7 his presence at the time that these people would be billeted in the

8 village of Grabovica because a number of the fighters we accommodated in

9 Gornja Jablanica in some prefabricated houses or huts, also with the

10 civilian population, and there were no problems at all.

11 And specifically when the crime happened on the 9th -- of the 8th

12 to the 9th of December, when we informed Halilovic about it the next day,

13 on the 10th, even though Namik Dzankovic told him about it in Jablanica

14 once he returned from the field on the 9th in the evening, it's possible

15 that he understood then that a part of the 9th and 10th Brigade units and

16 those of the Independent Battalion were billeted in the village of

17 Grabovica. We thought that this was normal. The people needed to be

18 accommodated. This was not something that was done by force, forcibly

19 billeting these people into somebody's -- in somebody's apartments. We

20 asked the people if they wanted to receive them. The houses were usually

21 larger, occupied by one or two elderly people as a rule. There were also

22 barns. There were other farm buildings. And there was no problem facing

23 us. We asked them properly would it be possible to accommodate these

24 people, and they all agreed to that, without a problem.

25 So I personally think that Sefer found out about this event

Page 11

1 specifically, that the units were billeted in Grabovica, only after

2 learning about an information about the crime that occurred in the night

3 between the 8th and the 9th of September.

4 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. I'll put to you another

5 question: This question of billeting of the troops, was that within the

6 purview of the inspection team?

7 A. Once we left Sarajevo, when we received our assignment to

8 coordinate combat operations and some other activities relating to the

9 subordination of the commands of the 4th, 3rd, and 6th Corps, felt it was

10 normal, since we were out in the field anyway and we were given these

11 assignments, that it was normal also to deal with the billeting issue of

12 the people who were going to be placed at our disposal.

13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] What was the role of the leader

14 or chief of this inspection team? Were you responsible for taking

15 decisions without his agreement, without his consent?

16 A. Well, the authority to coordinate combat operations and do our

17 job regarding coordination in the Neretva 93 operation from the point of

18 view taken at the time, which was before the crime occurred and before

19 the units did what they did against those civilians who had put them up

20 in their own homes and gave them an opportunity to rest, it would have

21 been logical to expect that nothing like that would happen, particularly

22 not with people who had arrived from Sarajevo. The syndrome that

23 prevailed in Herzegovina among the fighters - because this had been

24 preceded by a series of clashes between the HVO and our army - did not

25 apply in Sarajevo. In Sarajevo there was still an atmosphere of unity

Page 12

1 between us and the HVO. Even less could we have expected to see this

2 done by troops who had been brought in from Sarajevo. They were not

3 encumbered with the deteriorating relations in Herzegovina as it were,

4 and this was definitely not something that we could expect.

5 Even as we speak, I still believe it was perfectly natural for us

6 to find accommodation for those people, since we were the inspection team

7 in charge of coordination. This was an issue that -- that it was down to

8 us to deal with. We weren't only meant to coordinate combat operations

9 but also to create the prerequisites in order to have any sort of

10 coordination at all, to bring the units there and to get them ready for

11 any upcoming combat operations. Even as we speak, I still believe that

12 was the natural thing to do.

13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. But it was another

14 question I was asking from you. My question related to the

15 responsibilities, the competencies of the inspection team and the duties

16 and competencies of the chief of this inspection team. And a decision,

17 if it belongs to the competence of this team, was it logical or did it

18 conform to military necessities if it was taken without the approval or

19 without the knowledge of the leader of the team? That is, you took this

20 decision by yourself without putting him on notice, without letting him

21 know?

22 A. Your Honour, we, as an inspection team, believed at the time that

23 it was perfectly logical that a number of tasks, given our experience and

24 our knowledge as long-serving officers in a more general context were to

25 be assumed by us and that there was no need to go and look for Sefer, who

Page 13

1 wasn't present when the units arrived. We needed to put them up, and the

2 general idea was to find accommodation for the units, to give them an

3 opportunity to rest so that they could be ready for the upcoming combat

4 operations. We did not see this as an act of insubordination, and this

5 was certainly no slight to his position as the Chief of Staff of the

6 Supreme Command.

7 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Very well. Now, another

8 question: Were you aware of any complaint during your stay or passage in

9 Grabovica?

10 A. You mean as a group as we were touring the area?

11 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] No, when you were in town, when

12 you were going through Grabovica, when you were in Grabovica. Because if

13 I understand you well, you went twice to Grabovica, on two occasions. So

14 for the moment I'm talking about the second time. Was there no complaint

15 made by the citizens or by the troops concerning the behaviours or the

16 relationship between the troops and the citizens of the city?

17 A. Your Honour, there were no complaints or negative connotations.

18 It was a run-of-the-mill situation where we asked the soldiers whether

19 they'd had a good rest, and the same applied to the locals. There was no

20 friction, no negative atmosphere. There was nothing for us to be

21 concerned about. We would go from house to house. We would meet a group

22 of soldiers each time who happened to be in front of a given house. This

23 was --

24 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Do you have -- you have yourself

25 discussed the matter with inhabitants, with the citizens of this town?

Page 14

1 A. Yes. I personally discussed the matter with the locals and with

2 the soldiers. I asked them whether they'd had a good rest, whether there

3 were any problems. There was no sign of friction, no sign of discontent.

4 It all seemed perfectly normal. An hour later we completed our visit and

5 we drove back to Jablanica believing that there was no cause for concern,

6 that everything was all right. There were no problems whatsoever. At

7 least, there hadn't been up to that point.

8 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Right. Now, you're speaking

9 about this as if it had been a necessity for the troops to be billeted in

10 this city, in this town, that there was no other solution or possibility.

11 Was that true? Was it the case?

12 A. If we had known, if we had been able to assume that this would

13 happen, we would never have allowed it. Even if the soldiers had to

14 sleep rough.

15 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] No. First of all, did this

16 happen before the incident? Did it happen that the troops would be

17 billeted with civilians of another ethnic group, or was it the very first

18 time that this happened?

19 A. There were Croats in Jablanica, Croats who lived there at the

20 time in and around Jablanica. Specifically, the inhabitants of Grabovica

21 were consulted. They behaved in a natural way and thought it was all

22 right to put the soldiers up. We, as an inspection team, faced an

23 insurmountable difficulty, given the number of refugees in the area,

24 Jablanica being absolutely overcrowded with refugees flooding in from the

25 surrounding areas where Muslims had previously been expelled from their

Page 15

1 homes. So they all converged in Jablanica, which as a result was heavily

2 overcrowded. Had it not been for this situation, we certainly would not

3 have remained adamant that these soldiers should be accommodated in

4 Grabovica. We simply lacked logistics to do anything else. We had no

5 tents, no equipment, nothing we could use for these soldiers to set up

6 camp. On the other hand, they needed rest after a long and strenuous

7 march and we couldn't just let them sleep rough with no roof over their

8 heads. And this is what led us to decide to find accommodation for them

9 in Grabovica.

10 But one thing is certain: We never expected that what eventually

11 happened would ever happen.

12 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] This is my last question. It

13 has to do with -- do you remember when you made your decision to billet

14 the troops in Grabovica, was this decision forwarded by whatever means to

15 the chief of the inspection team? Was he informed?

16 A. Knowing that the units from Sarajevo would arrive and knowing

17 their numbers, which was about 200 men, having got in touch with the

18 Municipal Staff in Jablanica, having been aware of the situation there,

19 that Jablanica was overcrowded and that accommodation was short, several

20 days prior to their arrival we concluded that we should go to Grabovica.

21 We concluded that we should try and find a solution together with the

22 local inhabitants, to ask them to put the soldiers up for one or two

23 nights so they could get a rest before the operation commenced.

24 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] And the chief of this inspection

25 team, was he made aware of this decision? Was he told?

Page 16

1 A. Your Honour, Your Honours, Honourable Chamber, I can't say that

2 he was informed specifically about this one decision, because the person

3 we are talking about, the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command, Sefer

4 Halilovic, was outside Jablanica at the time. He wasn't present. But it

5 was very much in keeping with the overall idea, and as a team we had to

6 deal with it. We believed we were not doing anything that was not

7 allowed. This was part of our competencies, that we were a team meant to

8 coordinate combat operations and deal with certain problems. I'm not

9 sure I'm making myself perfectly clear, am I?

10 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] No. The question is to know

11 whether according to the military structure a leader of a team is

12 normally put on notice of any decision which is made within the team.

13 Isn't it the case?

14 A. That is certainly the case. However, this is a minor detail

15 which after the incident was transformed into something really important,

16 after the crime had occurred. But as we were still preparing the

17 operation, there was no way we could know what would happen to the people

18 in Grabovica and we had no time to go round and try to track down the

19 chief, who was elsewhere going about his own business. This was a

20 routine matter for this to be set up.

21 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Witness.

22 Thank you.

23 A. [Previous translation continues] ... that's happened.

24 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 17

1 JUDGE LIU: Well, are there any questions by the parties at this

2 stage?

3 Yes, Ms. Chana.

4 MS. CHANA: May it please Your Honours. Just a few questions.

5 Examined by Ms. Chana:

6 Q. Good morning, Mr. Karic. I'm Sureta Chana. I'm counsel for the

7 Prosecution. I'll ask you a few questions, if I may.

8 In -- in response to Their Honours' question --

9 A. Good morning to you.

10 Q. -- to you in respect of billeting of the soldiers, did Sefer

11 Halilovic ever tell you not to billet the soldiers with civilians?

12 A. We didn't discuss this matter in detail at the time. We tried to

13 carry out our tasks in keeping with the general idea and with the order

14 that had already been written. We believed that it was a routine matter

15 that we had to deal with. When I say "we," I mean the inspection team.

16 We didn't think it necessary to go back to the chief for every single

17 thing, for every little thing, because he was elsewhere. He was not in

18 Jablanica.

19 Q. Yes. But what about before the soldiers went to Herzegovina and

20 the meeting that you alluded to when His Honour Judge Liu asked you that

21 you had a meeting before about the billeting of the soldiers with Sefer

22 Halilovic?

23 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours -- sorry. Perhaps -- I'll let

24 my friend finish the question before I object.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

Page 18


2 Q. What was discussed at this meeting when it did come to billeting

3 of soldiers? Because it's an obvious question which would have been

4 raised. Could you tell us?


6 MR. MORRISSEY: All right. Well, perhaps before the witness

7 answers, I object to that.

8 Your Honours, the leave granted by this Chamber is very confined

9 to specific matters. That's what we're all prepared for here. This

10 question offends in two ways: First of all, the witness has given

11 general evidence concerning this matter; but secondly, it doesn't concern

12 paragraph 10 of the indictment. Your Honours have given us a very

13 precise range for our questions. I'll be bound by it too, of course.

14 But my learned friend is. And to go to the content of meetings on

15 previous occasions seems to me and in my submission is plainly outside of

16 the leave that you have granted. So I object to that question.

17 JUDGE LIU: Well, I also have some problem with this question,

18 that is, about that meeting. It's not specific enough. You know, which

19 meeting you refer to in this situation.

20 Ms. Chana.

21 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, in response to your question, you said

22 -- he said there was a meeting where these things were discussed, and I

23 was just trying to clarify. And perhaps I could ask the witness: Was

24 there such a meeting? Because he did say that before there had -- this

25 had been discussed. This -- this is in response to your question.

Page 19

1 Your Honour, I'm merely asking questions which arise out of Judges'

2 questions.

3 JUDGE LIU: Well, I'll give you some leeway in this aspect and to

4 see how far we could go.

5 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honours.

6 Q. Mr. Karic, was this ever discussed, the question of billeting

7 soldiers when they would reach Herzegovina, at any meetings prior to the

8 soldiers leaving from Sarajevo?

9 A. I understand your question. There were a number of practical

10 matters that we had to deal with. One of them, as I've mentioned, was

11 the matter of finding accommodation for the units, of creating propitious

12 conditions in Jablanica for the troops to rest. We, as the inspection

13 team, were every day at the forward command post. This is what we used

14 to call it at the time, and this was at the hydro power plant in

15 Jablanica. There was a building there. And before we arrived, the

16 Municipal Staff used to be in that building. They gave us two offices to

17 use so that we could go about our daily tasks. It was in those offices

18 that we were in touch on a daily basis. We knew that there were units

19 arriving from Sarajevo and we made the decision. If Sefer was there or

20 if he was not there several days previously is not something that I can

21 say, but we believed this to be a perfectly natural decision at the time.

22 That was what we believed before the crime happened.

23 Q. Yes. Nevertheless, Mr. Karic, the question is really quite

24 simple. Was this discussed, the billeting of the soldiers, prior to

25 their billeting with Sefer Halilovic?

Page 20

1 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honour, there's two objection. That

2 wasn't the question. If you look and see what was asked before, it

3 wasn't that. And secondly, my friend is not to cross-examine. Now, Your

4 Honours granted some leeway, but I'd submit this has now gone far enough.

5 An answer has been gained to the question. It's clear what the sense of

6 that answer is. Now, I'd submit that's enough and I object to this

7 question on specific and general grounds.

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Chana, you could ask a question for the

9 clarification concerning this witness's testimony of that meeting, but

10 not a kind of umbrella question trying to seek some evidence before the

11 billeting of the soldiers in Grabovica.

12 MS. CHANA: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. Perhaps I'll put it this way, Mr. Karic: Did Sefer Halilovic

14 ever ask you where the soldiers were to be billeted when they reached

15 Grabovica?

16 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, just a moment. I --

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

18 MR. MORRISSEY: I want to -- that question. If the witness could

19 just excuse me.

20 This question has got an assumption built into it which is not

21 legitimate given the evidence of the witness. The question asks -- the

22 question presumes that Sefer Halilovic knew that these troops were going

23 to Grabovica. If you see there the specific word "Grabovica" is used.

24 Now, the evidence of this witness is quite clear about that, and this

25 question is illegitimate because it's got a presumption built in that's

Page 21

1 not only one that the witness hasn't agreed to but it's one that the

2 witness has positively said is not correct.

3 JUDGE LIU: Yes. But, however, the witness has already answered

4 that question. We'll adjust, you know, these questions and answers,

5 taking into consideration of your objections.

6 MR. MORRISSEY: As the Court pleases.

7 JUDGE LIU: You may proceed, Ms. Chana.

8 MS. CHANA: Yes.

9 Q. Mr. Karic, would you please answer that question.

10 MR. MORRISSEY: He has.

11 JUDGE LIU: As I said, he has already answered that question.

12 You'll find it in the transcript.

13 MS. CHANA: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

14 Q. Now, in response to Judge Liu's question, you -- you said there

15 was -- soldiers had been billeting in Gornja Jablanica with civilians

16 prior to these soldiers being billeted in Grabovica. Was Sefer Halilovic

17 aware of this billeting in Gornja Jablanica, to your knowledge?

18 A. In principle, yes, to the extent that he would have had to know,

19 being the head of the team. We had to find accommodation somewhere, and

20 I told you about the area being overcrowded, about Jablanica being

21 overcrowded, and I've explained why.

22 Q. Were there civilians in Gornja Jablanica?

23 A. There were civilians residing there, refugees too, locals.

24 Wherever we could, we used the area to find accommodation for elements of

25 the 10th Brigade, Caco and Topalovic's -- Caco Topalovic's brigade in the

Page 22

1 Gornja Jablanica area. This was perfectly natural to have people rest

2 for a night or two so they didn't have to sleep rough, and there was no

3 problem with that at all.

4 Q. So is it your evidence, Mr. Karic, that you were not ordered by

5 Sefer Halilovic in any way, manner, or form to billet these soldiers?

6 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours, again that's cross-examining.

7 Again, it's been answered on numerous occasions. And this is not

8 permissible, in my submission.

9 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I believe that this question has been asked and

10 answered.

11 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honour.

12 Q. I will -- I will now take you to another subject, Mr. Karic. You

13 said you went to Grabovica on one day before and one day after. Now, can

14 I ask you: When you went to Grabovica after the soldiers had already

15 been billeted there, where is it that you went, location-wise?

16 A. As I said a while ago, the composition of the group was what it

17 was, and I told you also who drove us to Grabovica, where the previous

18 day we had consulted the Croat inhabitants and had obtained their

19 approval to have the soldiers billeted there. We visited all the houses,

20 starting with the ones next to the railway station and those just across

21 the bridge near the Grabovica hydro plant, and the last houses were the

22 last houses in the village, several hundred metres down the Neretva

23 River.

24 Q. Did you ever have a meeting with the soldiers as a group, or was

25 it just individual -- going to individual houses?

Page 23

1 A. If I understand you correctly, the soldiers were never lined up.

2 We believed that this was perfectly natural. We were a group. We were a

3 inspection team. We went around together. We inspected houses and we

4 visited all the groups of soldiers who had spent the night there and who

5 were in the yards in front of the houses. We also talked to those locals

6 who had offered their hospitality. We talked to both, and neither seemed

7 to have any problem at all. Everybody seemed happy, the soldiers and the

8 local residents alike.

9 An hour later, roughly speaking, we visited the last house and

10 the last group of soldiers that were still around, after which we drove

11 off to Jablanica.

12 Q. Mr. Karic, I want to be quite clear about this. Are you saying

13 you just -- you visited groups of soldiers, or was it one meeting with a

14 -- with a group of soldiers?

15 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, that is a second try, I would say a

16 third try, at the same issue.

17 JUDGE LIU: Well, I don't think the witness answered that

18 question.

19 MR. MORRISSEY: Well --

20 JUDGE LIU: We -- here we just want to know -- I believe the

21 Prosecution wants to know whether there's a get-together of the soldiers,

22 whether the witness addressed the soldiers or not.

23 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours, look, if it assists the Trial

24 Chamber, I won't object to it, frankly.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Thank you very much.

Page 24

1 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honours.

2 Q. Mr. Karic, did you address the soldiers as a group, one big

3 group?

4 A. There was no particular address. This was a normal, human,

5 soldierly talk. We greeted the groups that were in front of the houses

6 that had stayed there, that had spent the night there, that were resting,

7 sitting outside. It was nice weather. I recall that it was sunny. And

8 we went like this from house to house, from group to group. But there

9 was no gathering of soldiers or any kind of meeting, or there was no

10 particular address to the group. We had -- I had people from the

11 inspection team together with me, Zicro Suljevic, Rifat Bilajac, Namik

12 Dzankovic. We didn't separate. We walked together shoulder to shoulder

13 from group to group, from house to house. We didn't encounter any

14 problems that would intrigue us so that we would go into any kind of

15 meeting that would call for resolution of any kind of problem. There

16 were no questions either. Everything was normal. Everyone was

17 satisfied, one side and the other. And I am repeating this. Who knows

18 how many times over can you not believe honourable people who spent their

19 whole lives in an honourable way who were with me shoulder to shoulder,

20 than some asocial types who provided statements that I said that if there

21 were any problems, you can kill them and throw them into the Neretva

22 River. Two or three asocial drugged persons are believed who [as

23 interpreted] committed those crimes and not people who went with me, who

24 are honourable generals of this army and have for their whole working

25 lives lived honourably as men. This is something that I am surprised at,

Page 25

1 that I wonder about.

2 Q. So you do not make any such utterances as you have just alluded

3 to in your answer, that people who do not give hospitality, you can kill

4 them.

5 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours, again, I object. Firstly,

6 he's made that absolutely clear. Absolutely clear.

7 Secondly, it's cross-examination, once again. And so I object.

8 JUDGE LIU: I think this issue is very clear --

9 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE LIU: -- Ms. Chana. Maybe you could ask a question to make

11 sure Mr. Halilovic was not with the group.

12 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour. I believe Judge El Mahdi asked

13 that question, but I will certainly ask it again.

14 Q. Mr. Karic, was Sefer Halilovic present at this time that you were

15 going from this group to group of soldiers in Grabovica?

16 A. No, Sefer was not present. He was not in Jablanica on that day.

17 He was in the northern part of Herzegovina, somewhere in Konjic,

18 Buturovic Polje. In any case, he was outside of Jablanica, outside

19 Grabovica. I said which people were with me on the two occasions,

20 without Sefer.

21 [Prosecution counsel confer]

22 MS. CHANA: That will be all from me, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

24 Mr. Morrissey, do you have any questions to ask?

25 MR. MORRISSEY: No, Your Honour. The Prosecution's covered the

Page 26

1 legitimate areas I can ask questions about. I have nothing further.

2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

3 Well, I understand that there are some documents used in the

4 deposition procedures and they have not been admitted into the evidence.

5 Are there any documents to tender at this stage?

6 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, the -- some of the documents which were

7 used in the deposition have already been tendered, except for the diary

8 and the transcript of the -- of the witness. The others are already

9 exhibits, Your Honour, and we are not seeking to tender the diary and the

10 transcript of -- has already been tendered, of the deposition. I think

11 that's already been agreed.

12 JUDGE LIU: Yes. So at this stage there are no documents to

13 tender.

14 MS. CHANA: If you could give me one moment, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

16 [Prosecution counsel confer]

17 MR. MORRISSEY: While the Prosecutor is doing that, Your Honour,

18 could I just mention that in your order you requested the registrar to

19 assign an exhibit number to the transcript of this document, which I

20 believe has been done already. But it may have to be formally done in

21 court.

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.

23 THE REGISTRAR: The number for the deposition will be 444.

24 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

25 Ms. Chana.

Page 27

1 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, the other was the transcript of his OTP

2 interview that was alluded to in the deposition, and we would now seek to

3 -- that's the only document which is not in evidence, which is MFI P1 --

4 sorry, MFI P2, the transcript of the interview given to the OTP, and we

5 would seek to tender that.

6 JUDGE LIU: Yes. But as a general rule, if we have the

7 opportunity to have this witness in life, the previous statement will not

8 be admitted into the evidence.

9 [Prosecution counsel confer]

10 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, this was a special situation. If you

11 look back at that deposition, there was -- there was a time when this

12 witness made many statements which were in conflict with his prior

13 statement. And rather than impeach him at that time to save time and

14 rather than use him as an adverse witness, they introduced his earlier

15 statement, and it was a matter to save time and it was also a matter

16 related to this witness's health, which we all know that there is a

17 problem related to his health, without getting into that matter.

18 And as a result, that statement should be admissible, either that or the

19 -- this should be allowed to -- this hearing should remain open and let's

20 use him as an adverse witness. Which would be foolish because of the

21 health considerations, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE LIU: Any comments on that, Mr. Morrissey?

23 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I'll restrain the comments to those

24 concerning the use of the document, and I'll leave for a later time and I

25 will raise at a later time when it's not in such a hurry the impropriety

Page 28

1 of the submission that has been made and the way in which it was made.

2 At the moment, this document was not put to the witness at the

3 time. It's not relevant. The witness has given evidence in a deposition

4 and here.

5 Furthermore, Your Honours made a ruling on this question in terms

6 of how matters were to proceed here. The Defence made submissions about

7 the use of these documents and -- in those. And in my submission, it's

8 implicit in -- in that ruling that you will see his -- watch the

9 deposition and -- and -- and then have limited questions here.

10 The using of these interviews, attended as they were with all

11 sorts of considerations, is a dangerous thing to do at any time. It's

12 particularly dangerous and offensive to try to do it with a witness who

13 was not put as an adverse witness, but, on the contrary, who was called

14 by the Prosecutors to prove part of their case and was led and put before

15 the indicting Judge.

16 There are a large number of objections to this. If it's not

17 sufficient to deal with it now on the basis of which I've -- I've heard,

18 then I would seek to be able to put all this into a motion.

19 But the short answer is probably the one that Your Honour raised:

20 There's nothing special about this situation at all. The Prosecutor had

21 every possibility to put that to Mr. Karic at the time, chose not to.

22 The conduct of that deposition was absolutely disgraceful in all respects

23 by the Prosecution, which I'll amplify if needs be. And they shouldn't

24 now be permitted to get this document into evidence at the last gasp, as

25 they now try.

Page 29

1 So I submit you can deal with it quite easily at this point. But

2 if Your Honours are in any doubt about it, then we'd seek leave to file a

3 motion about it.


5 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, just one brief comment.

6 A. This was -- this issue was in fact raised at the deposition at

7 page 76. And the presiding officer at that time said that it would be a

8 matter for the Trial Chamber. That's on page 76. So this was sent to

9 this Trial Chamber from the presiding officer at the time of the

10 deposition.

11 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. It seems to me that we are not

12 in the position at this stage to make a ruling concerning with this

13 document. If there are any supplementary comments or information for the

14 tendering of this document and for the objection of the tendering of this

15 document, the parties will file a motion to this Trial Chamber by next

16 Monday. It is so decided.

17 Well, Witness, thank you very much indeed for giving your

18 testimony. The Bench --

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE LIU: The Bench wishes you a speedy recovery and to take

21 good care of yourself.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE LIU: So the hearing is over. We'll take a break. And we

24 will resume at quarter past 11.00.

25 [The witness's testimony via videolink concluded]

Page 30

1 --- Recess taken at 10.42 a.m.

2 --- On resuming at 11.15 a.m.

3 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that we could have some time to deal

4 with some housekeeping matters, especially with the admission of the

5 documents.

6 The first matter I would like to say is about the proposal made

7 by the Prosecution for the tendering of the interview with the accused in

8 2001. And at this stage the Trial Chamber is considering whether to

9 admit it or not, taking into the account the objections filed by the

10 Defence.

11 This Bench requests the Prosecution to indicate the parts of the

12 interview which are relevant to the present case which they seek to have

13 admitted into the evidence, since we found that this interview is

14 extremely long and some parts are not entirely relevant to the present

15 case. And also to the extent possible, to indicate which paragraphs of

16 the indictment those parts are in support of.

17 The Prosecution shall submit the above-mentioned information by

18 Thursday, 9th of June.

19 The next issue will come to the specific documents tendered from

20 both sides. The first document is MFI 221, a document submitted by the

21 Defence. That is a report by Namik Dzankovic sent to the military. I

22 would like to know about any objections to the admission of this document

23 by the Prosecution.

24 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, just very quickly, I believe that

25 document is already in evidence, that it was just mistakenly placed on

Page 31

1 the list.


3 MR. MORRISSEY: Could I just confirm that that's correct. Your

4 Honours, we think MFI 215 and MFI 2 -- MFI 215 and MFI 221 are the same

5 document, and since they are the same document, the Defence would not

6 continue to press for 221 to be admitted.

7 Now, Your Honours, that's subject to one small reservation, which

8 we can deal with later, if necessary. I'll just flag it now. We don't

9 have to do anything about it.

10 If it turns out that the translation of the two is different,

11 then we'll refer the matter back to CLSS to decide on any -- on any

12 difference. I don't believe there are material differences. And if we

13 find a difference, we'll seek to reopen the matter. Meanwhile, we're

14 happy, since they're the same document, not to push ahead with asking 221

15 to be admitted.

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

17 MR. WEINER: That's fine, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Thank you very much.

19 So the next issue is the document 256 and 264, both documents

20 tendered by the Defence. And I see no objections from the Prosecution.

21 MR. WEINER: That's correct, Your Honour, no objection.

22 JUDGE LIU: So these two documents are admitted into the

23 evidence.

24 The next issue is about 375, tendered by the Defence. And we

25 would like to hear from the Prosecution about their view on that.

Page 32

1 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, that's a document that concerns

2 propaganda. It was published by the HVO for Bosnian troops, as the Court

3 recalls. Kate Adie is the witness that was shown the document. She had

4 never seen it. She was not aware of it. And she did not follow or

5 implement it. There was no evidence as to its authenticity. There's no

6 evidence as to who received it, whether it was ever sent out or whether

7 it was ever implemented. There's no evidence that it was intercepted by

8 the other side, the ABiH army, that it was sent up to their line, that

9 the accused saw it, or that anyone in the command saw it. There's no

10 evidence that it was followed. Therefore, there's a question as to its

11 authenticity. There's a question as to its relevance and materiality.

12 It was not implemented or it was not used in this case, and it has no

13 relevancy to this case. As a result, we oppose the document.

14 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Mr. Morrissey?

15 MR. MORRISSEY: It's not one of our better ones, Your Honour. We

16 say it's relevant because of the way that the crime scene was -- unfolded

17 and we say that it's chain -- the chain of custody is that it came from

18 the Croatian State Archive, so that it would not normally be a document

19 that could be proved through any of these witnesses.

20 But the matters that my friend has pointed to are all relevant

21 ones for you to consider. Frankly, here in the end Ms. Adie did not

22 adopt that document, nor did she find it of particular significance to

23 herself. So in these circumstances we offered it for tender at the time,

24 but I have to say that the Prosecution -- what the Prosecutor said are

25 entirely relevant matters for you to consider.

Page 33

1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. So this document is not

2 admitted into the evidence.

3 The next three documents are documents 390, 415 we mentioned

4 before, I believe, as well as 419. Those documents were tendered by the

5 Prosecution, so I would like to seek the views from Mr. Morrissey.

6 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, just to be clear, we are dealing now

7 with two transcripts, one with -- between the accused and Vahid

8 Karavelic, and the other between the accused and Ramiz Delalic.

9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, I believe so.

10 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry, but I'm told that 415 is -- is

11 different. That's -- that's one of the MUP reports. I apologise for

12 that.

13 Could I just indicate about the transcripts, that the Defence

14 has -- we've spoken to the Prosecutors and we're taking the view that

15 we're not opposing each other's transcripts effectively, that we don't

16 argue against that. Therefore, I withdraw any reservations which I

17 previously put on the record -- well, perhaps I'll put it another way.

18 I had indicated I wanted to reserve my position about the

19 Karavelic and -- and Ramiz Delalic transcripts. Can I indicate that we

20 do not oppose those being tendered into evidence because the Defence are

21 seeking to tender documents as well of exactly the same sort and

22 provenance.

23 As to 415 -- can I just confirm that's one that Your Honours are

24 now concerned with, 415?

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I believe that is a MUP report.

Page 34

1 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Well, Your Honours, we -- we maintain our

2 objection to 415. That, again, falls into the category of MUP reports

3 upon which the Defence find themselves embarrassed because we don't know

4 who made it, when, whether the information is reliable. It's never been

5 suggested for one second that Halilovic saw this MUP report. And as with

6 most of those MUP reports, the Prosecutor didn't try to establish that

7 Sefer Halilovic saw that document. So that we oppose it -- we continue

8 our opposition to that document.

9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

10 Ms. Chana.

11 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE LIU: Do you want to -- to make a reply?

13 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour. This MUP report is no different

14 than other MUP reports which have been entered into evidence, Your

15 Honour. This particular MUP report was shown to Delalic in respect of

16 the information contained therein, which was about the criminality of the

17 9th Motorised Brigade. And there is no difference between this MUP

18 report which -- and a lot of the others which were admitted through

19 Jasarevic, who said this is operative information. Your Honours of

20 course will look at the weight such documents will carry, and that is up

21 to Your Honours' discretion. But for admissibility, Your Honour, I feel

22 it's -- the Prosecution submits it's relevant and probative and it should

23 be admitted as -- as a MUP report.

24 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. The Bench believes that this

25 document has some relevance to our case, and also it has some probative

Page 35

1 value for this document, so we decided that it is admitted into the

2 evidence, as well as the document 390 and 419. So those three documents

3 are admitted into the evidence.

4 The next batch of documents is the document 424, 425, and 428.

5 The document was tendered by Mr. Morrissey through the witness Delalic.

6 I understand there are some objections from the Prosecution. At this

7 stage, are there any things to add from the Defence?

8 MR. MORRISSEY: No, Your Honours. Could I just indicate this:

9 That this morning, not knowing how Your Honour wanted to proceed, we

10 filed a motion concerning these documents. I can put the argument orally

11 here. We don't require that -- and I'll put exactly what's in the

12 motion. It's short. It's short.

13 The issue with those letters was that they were -- the Defence

14 wished to lead them in evidence as a spontaneous reaction by those in

15 Sarajevo. The fact is documents like that are usually not admitted, and

16 in these circumstances, if the Prosecutor was prepared to consent to them

17 being admitted from -- I mean, they're documents from the bar table, Your

18 Honour. That's the reality about them. If the Prosecutor consents to

19 them being tendered, then they can be tendered. If the Prosecutor

20 maintains their position, that unfortunately for us is the end of the

21 question at this stage.

22 So if the Prosecutor consents, I'm happy; and if not, I think

23 Your Honours have no -- no option but to -- to refuse to admit them.

24 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

25 MS. CHANA: The Prosecution maintains its objection to these

Page 36

1 three documents, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Therefore, these three

3 documents are not admitted into the evidence.

4 But I have to say that this decision is without prejudice to the

5 future introduction by the parties if - if - we find it relevant to our

6 case through future witnesses in the Defence case. It is so decided.

7 The next documents are two documents, that is, documents 431 and 434.

8 Those two documents are tendered by the Prosecution through the witness

9 Bakir Alispahic.

10 Mr. Morrissey, are you in the position to -- to say your position

11 on that?

12 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honour -- sorry, would Your Honour just

13 give me one moment?

14 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

15 MR. MORRISSEY: It's best to deal with these now, if possible.

16 If you'd just give me one moment, Please.

17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.

18 [Defence counsel confer]

19 MR. MORRISSEY: We object to both, Your Honours. The first one

20 is -- the first one is 431. That's the document concerning the alleged

21 massacre at Klis, K-l-i-s.

22 Now, this was a poisonous document. The Prosecutors in that --

23 the information in that document is that Halilovic ordered Ramiz Delalic

24 to go and massacre and rape and burn a particular village. The

25 Prosecutors did not put that document to Ramiz Delalic, didn't ask him

Page 37

1 about it. Instead it comes to Mr. Alispahic. He considered it. He said

2 it was unreliable.

3 Now, it's just a piece, in the Defence's submission, of poisonous

4 gossip that is so far from anything to do with the case and so far from

5 reality that the -- that the Chamber should simply dismiss it as being

6 too remote to be of any assistance to you. It's not a document that

7 could ever have been shown to Halilovic.

8 Now, the Prosecution may from time to time show documents which

9 are supposed to have put Sefer Halilovic on notice. So if there was a

10 report about Caco and the 10th Brigade or Celo and the 9th Brigade which

11 was shown to Halilovic. Of course that's relevant for the Prosecution to

12 lead, even if they can't prove where it comes from or what weight it had.

13 And such evidence, I believe, was led or at least a small portion of such

14 evidence was led.

15 But this document could never have been shown to Halilovic. It

16 involves Halilovic. It says Halilovic is the author of the killings. No

17 one suggests it was shown to him, and common sense reveals that it

18 couldn't have been. Therefore, as well as being poisonous and

19 prejudicial, it's just irrelevant to these proceedings.

20 There's a further issue that it lies way outside of the

21 proceedings. Your Honours, we would be here until 2009 if we had to deal

22 with every allegation made by Ramiz Delalic against Sefer Halilovic.

23 Murdering the commander in chief is one. But this one didn't come

24 through Ramiz Delalic. It's just a document that we shouldn't have to

25 deal with and we'd ask that Your Honours cut this unwelcome guest out of

Page 38

1 the trial at this stage.

2 As to the next -- and perhaps I should say this, too, Your

3 Honours: That my learned friend Ms. Chana would confirm this, that

4 although in court here Mr. Delalic wasn't confronted with that document,

5 my learned friend Ms. Chana can indicate to you whether or not he was

6 confronted with it, as Ms. Chana would, as a matter of fairness, have

7 been obliged to do and I'm sure she will confirm that she did confront

8 Mr. Delalic with it during that interview. And of course, you know, has

9 you can imagine -- I won't say what's in it. The Prosecutor can tell

10 you. But I mean, this -- anyway, I've said what I've had to say about

11 that, Your Honour. And I'll become verbose as I already have on the

12 topic.

13 The next one, 434, we object to that for a different reason.

14 That is the document signed by Mr. Mujezinovic, a witness who the

15 Prosecution withdrew after having moved this Court strongly at a late

16 stage to include. Now, Mr. Mujezinovic is said to be the author of this

17 document, although he's not here to prove that he was. But it's a

18 document dated in -- in October. It's after Grabovica. And it's

19 concerned with Halilovic's own allegedly bad behaviour. It's not

20 relevant.

21 The Prosecution is not allowed to throw mud at Halilovic and to

22 cast aspersions on his character. They may lead evidence before the

23 crimes that he was on notice or, if they had any such evidence, they

24 might be allowed to lead evidence after the crimes that he covered up the

25 crime or that he failed to do something that -- that the Prosecution says

Page 39

1 he should have done. But to lead evidence that he was vain, self-

2 promoting, and wanted the media to cover him well, is irrelevant, and

3 it's prejudicial. And by "prejudicial" I don't mean harmful to him.

4 There's a lot of prejudicial material in trials that hurts the accused.

5 That's not prejudicial. That's just evidence. This is prejudicial

6 because it creates a bad atmosphere about Halilovic which is irrelevant

7 and which is hard to find. Because it means that we have to go back and

8 call evidence about -- well, from -- I suppose from newspaper editors or

9 -- I don't know where you turn, frankly. But we shouldn't have to meet

10 that. It's just outside of what the Prosecution is entitled to prove,

11 and it has -- it has a prejudicial effect with no probative value.

12 That's relevant not just to weight. It's relevant to whether you add it

13 to the trial record here and put us in a position where we have to decide

14 do we extend the trial fighting these sort of allegations or do we not.

15 So in my submission, you can leave that one out on that basis.

16 There is a further reason, of course: that Mr. Mujezinovic could

17 have been brought here and wasn't. Now, the Prosecutor is entitled to

18 make a decision about Mujezinovic. The Chamber has already indicated the

19 rules you'll apply when the Prosecutor makes the decision. Frankly, the

20 Prosecutor has to run its own case. We well, understand that. But when

21 you take Mr. Mujezinovic out, you can't, then, put in his documents,

22 unless by consent. And with this one here, we do not consent.

23 Those are my submissions about those two documents.

24 JUDGE LIU: Any reply from the Prosecution?

25 Yes, Mr. Re.

Page 40

1 MR. RE: Yes. Your Honour, briefly, on 431, the first one. Mr.

2 Morrissey rightly points out that it's prejudicial, like -- well, that's

3 the idea of a Prosecution case, to produce prejudicial evidence against

4 the accused. We clearly aren't relying upon an allegation in there in

5 relation to Mr. Halilovic's personal participation in the alleged events

6 in Klis, and Mr. Alispahic made it quite clear he couldn't comment on

7 that.

8 It's not quite correct, as my learned colleague said, that --

9 Defence colleague said that it was -- had no reliability. Mr.

10 Alispahic's evidence was it was at the lower end of reliability because

11 it was a first -- it was a first source which had to be corroborated by

12 any others. But the -- the parts about this -- about this particular

13 document we rely upon are to show that soldiers from Sarajevo had been

14 there before and had been brought back and had been brought back because

15 of bad behaviour, and that was something that was known to those who

16 should have known. Mr. Alispahic, the Minister of the Interior, knew

17 about it. And if he knew about it, it is so unlikely that the army

18 command, Mr. Halilovic as the Chief of Staff, would not have known about

19 it, that it would be almost virtually impossible for them not to know

20 about these troops being brought back for bad behaviour.

21 Now, Mr. Alispahic's evidence was that some of it, some of the

22 information, was true but he wasn't going to go into any specifics. So

23 it's just a -- a document that is broadly corroborative of other evidence

24 about the reputation of those particular brigades. We put it -- we put

25 it no further than that. So that's that one.

Page 41

1 The second one is 434. That, in our submission, is in the same

2 category as the other MUP reports. Mr. Morrissey again raises the issue

3 of Mr. Mujezinovic. Well, had we known before today that the Defence was

4 not objecting to the intercepts going into evidence, Mr. Mujezinovic

5 would not have been on our witness list. He was on our witness list to

6 -- primarily to prove the authenticity of the intercepts. It was when we

7 decided only to rely upon those brought -- those to which Mr. Karavelic

8 and Mr. Delalic were participants in the conversation who could prove

9 them anyway, that we wouldn't rely on the other intercepts. But then it

10 was the Defence who decided to pick and choose the intercepts that they

11 liked to put in and we kindly didn't -- didn't oppose their own tender of

12 intercepts. So that -- the Mujezinovic issue, in our submission, is

13 entirely a red herring.

14 But what this document goes to show is basically the view of Mr.

15 Halilovic -- which is held by those who were investigating his conduct at

16 the time, which is corroborated by the evidence already led in this case.

17 Mr. Hodzic was his own journalist, who almost -- it would appear on the

18 evidence Mr. Halilovic's personal journalist who was following him or

19 covering -- covering large aspects of Mr. Halilovic's own activities.

20 We've heard evidence the Defence introduced it about pictures of Mr.

21 Halilovic being on a police station. There's been evidence of Sefer

22 Halilovic badges.

23 So all this goes towards the mens rea or the motivation of Mr.

24 Halilovic in bringing the soldiers from Sarajevo to assist in his own --

25 to assist his own desire to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the --

Page 42

1 the Bosnian Presidency and the command, and there's evidence of that in

2 numerous documents. There are a number of document which is have been

3 tendered, as to the view of the security services as to what Mr.

4 Halilovic was doing. So it's another broadly corroborative document

5 which goes to Mr. Halilovic's mens rea at the time.

6 But I mean, these two documents aren't, I add, make-or-break

7 documents for the Prosecution case.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE LIU: Well, after consultation with Judge El Mahdi, I came

10 to the conclusion that the document 431 is not admitted into the evidence

11 since we believe that the evidence in that document is far remoted from

12 the case we are hearing now, and we are not quite sure whether this

13 document could assist us or not.

14 As for document 434, it is admitted into the evidence, and we

15 have admitted many MUP reports in this aspect, and the Benches are

16 composed of professional Judges, and they could see whether some

17 materials in it is relevant or not. It is so decided.

18 As for the document 438, 439, 440, 441, 443, and 244, these are

19 the documents tendered by the Defence. I believe there are no objections

20 from the Prosecution.

21 MR. WEINER: Excuse me, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

23 MR. WEINER: Number 244 isn't on the list. We -- we have no

24 objections to the others, 438, 439, 440, 441, and 443.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes. The document 444 is a conversation between

Page 43

1 President Tudjman and Izetbegovic.

2 MR. WEINER: No objection.

3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. These documents are admitted into the

4 evidence. It is so decided.

5 In the filings from the Prosecution, there are some documents the

6 Prosecution would like to tender through the bar table which appeared on

7 the 65 ter list; that is, document 36, 37, 56, 85, 124, and 135.

8 Mr. Morrissey.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Your Honours, the -- the matter -- the

10 question of tendering documents from the bar table arises in this way:

11 It's a convenient device that's sometimes used to save the calling of

12 witnesses, if the parties agree. If the parties don't agree, it's not

13 part of the system. It's not part of the -- the principles of evidence

14 at this Tribunal or in -- or in any system that I'm aware of for obvious

15 reasons: testability, reliability, and so on.

16 Now, with respect to these documents here, we think document 36

17 that the Prosecution wants to tender is already in evidence as Exhibit

18 406. And I'll just confirm that -- I'll give the Prosecutors a chance to

19 look. But this seems to us to be a note dated the 1st of September

20 concerning an inquiry by members of the inspection team back to those in

21 Sarajevo and it was tendered through another witness. It might have been

22 tendered through Mr. Karavelic, I think. But anyway, we think it's

23 Exhibit 406. So perhaps that could be checked.

24 Likewise, we think that document 56 is also in evidence. That's

25 the Zuka order, the battle -- sorry, I shouldn't say "Zuka." We're

Page 44

1 getting into the nicknames here. We think that's the Operation Vrdi 93

2 order, the battle plan drafted by and issued by Zulfikar Alispago on the

3 11th of -- of October. We think that's in as Exhibit 273. If the

4 Prosecutor could perhaps just check those. We -- we might be wrong, but

5 we think that's the case; we think both of those are in.

6 Now, the other documents we object to. We think they should be

7 dealt with by way of -- of a short motion, which we've almost finished

8 drafting. They're not documents which -- one of them -- one of them is a

9 document we could deal with now, and the other three are not, I think.

10 Document 37 is -- is an order said to be from Arif Pasalic. Again, it

11 hasn't been shown to any witnesses. It hasn't been shown to have played

12 any part in this case. It shouldn't be admitted.

13 I want to foreshadow that later today a motion is going to be

14 filed by the Defence that you, the Chamber, reconsider your admission of

15 a number of documents. It's finite in nature. They are, I think -- if

16 you'd just excuse me a moment. I can foreshadow what they are here.

17 Just while that's found, Your Honour, I can indicate broadly

18 speaking it's six documents that were said to come from the 4th Corps

19 down in Mostar to the IKM, and it's -- and the exhibits are P111, 112,

20 113, 114, 115 and 121. So they're all documents coming from the 4th

21 Corps, allegedly, up to the IKM.

22 At the time they were tendered, they were tendered en masse as

23 part of a large bundle of documents with the third witness, Salko Gusic.

24 And at the time, Mr. Gusic made it absolutely plain he'd never seen them

25 nor was he able to say anything about them. But at the time, the

Page 45

1 Prosecutor indicated to you - and we'll put this in the motion - the page

2 reference is something I was looking for this morning. I recall it well,

3 and I have in the past found the page reference. I just haven't got it

4 today. So it will be in the motion this afternoon. But the learned

5 Prosecutor indicated to you at the time that there would be further proof

6 of these documents.

7 Now, at the time, I have no doubt that was said in good faith and

8 that it was intended there would be, but as events proved, there wasn't.

9 Never were those documents shown to another witness. As far as I can

10 see, they were shown initially to Gusic because he was a person who --

11 through whom other documents were being put, and frankly the Defence did

12 the same thing. I make no criticism of my learned friend Ms. Chana at

13 the time for doing what she did and it was appropriate for her to say to

14 the Court, "Well, we'll give you more," because she needed to give you.

15 But as events proved, the Prosecution did not do so.

16 And therefore you'll receive a short motion asking that those

17 documents, although they have been admitted, be withdrawn and that you

18 reconsider that decision because of the way things worked out. Because

19 in the end there was no witness called, although there's plenty of

20 witnesses who could have been called, dealing with the 4th Corps. Now,

21 it's true that the commander of the 4th Corps at the time, Arif Pasalic,

22 although this may be sounding as if it's coming from the bar table - I

23 think it is in evidence as well - is deceased. But there are plenty of

24 other 4th Corps officers, including those who gave OTP statements, one

25 named Budakovic. The Prosecution disclosed a statement from him. So

Page 46

1 they have 4th Corps people if they need them. They have reasons for

2 their decisions. I don't criticise those decisions. But now those

3 documents have become moot and in my submission we'll -- well, we'll move

4 a motion if we've got any merit in our argument, you can rule on it, Your

5 Honour. And we'll do it very shortly.

6 It may be, therefore, that in dealing with the Prosecutor's

7 document 37 here, this Pasalic order, the same principles would apply; in

8 other words, if you're prepared to admit those other documents, then it

9 would be hollow for us to continue our opposition to this one. We'll

10 continue it formally of course just for record purposes frankly, but we

11 would object to all of those documents being tendered.

12 But there is another -- another issue with document 37, and that

13 is that it -- it's a bar table document. The other ones at least were

14 touched by a witness, even though he know nothing about them. His from

15 fingerprints are -- or at least he saw them in those days when they were

16 using the Hollywood device. Then it was shown to him. I'm not sure if

17 he touched the document, Your Honour.

18 But in any event, that's the opposition to that.

19 The other three are in a different category. 85, 124, and 135

20 are all documents purporting to be from Mr. Halilovic or recording in

21 some form things that he said.

22 Now, I say at first you don't tender things like that from the

23 bar table. Let it be quite clear, we do not consent. It's questionable

24 whether such documents can be led in the Prosecution's case in any form

25 or whether they have to wait for the Defence case. Your Honours have

Page 47

1 already got a lengthy motion concerning the OTP interview of Mr.

2 Halilovic, and the way you deal with the problems in that motion will

3 largely dictate how you deal with what I have to say here.

4 Therefore, what I propose and what I submit should happen is that

5 we file another short motion to be annexed effectively to that one

6 adopting the arguments rather than repeating everything that's there,

7 because many such things apply. And Your Honour can deal with it there.

8 There are objections of substance and there are objections of form. We

9 don't want things to be led from the bar table.

10 Can I say, Your Honour, that that seems to be the best way to

11 deal with it because otherwise I'll -- I feel myself ready to make a

12 speech, and it's best if we keep that confined a short number of pages,

13 with a short time line, which we'll abide by. We think we could give

14 that to the Prosecutors today, because of course we've prepared something

15 along -- something to meet the 1996 statement in the past, and we can

16 deal with that today. So --

17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

18 Well, since -- yes, Mr. Weiner.

19 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, if we're going to -- would you like us

20 to address those issues now or do you want us to wait for the documents

21 -- the memo from the Defence?

22 JUDGE LIU: I believe the best way is to wait till you see the

23 memo from the Defence. Then you are in the position to make a very

24 concise reply.

25 MR. WEINER: All right. I would just like to address one issue

Page 48

1 on that, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.

3 MR. WEINER: Counsel began by saying that there is no tendering

4 documents from the bench. Every week in this Tribunal documents are

5 tendered from the bench or from the bar table, every week. In Galic,

6 "Decision on the Admission Into Evidence of Documents Tendered From the

7 Bar Table By the Prosecutor," 11 September 2002 concerns the tendering of

8 documents from the bar table.

9 Decision, Prosecutor versus Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, "Decision

10 on the Admissibility of Certain Challenged Documents and Documents For

11 Identification," and that's 16 July 2004. In that case hundreds - we're

12 not talking about one or two - hundreds of documents were tendered from

13 the bar table. And at one point during that case the Prosecutor moved to

14 tender approximately 1.000 documents, which were a total of 3.000 pages,

15 from the bar table, of which a number of them were objected to, and

16 that's why these decisions had to come. And in that case, at page 22 it

17 states - and I'm just reading paragraph 15, the first few sentences:

18 "The first question arises is whether the admission of a document without

19 its purported author or another individual who can testify to the

20 document being called as a witness constitutes in itself a violation of

21 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. As already stated by the Chamber in

22 its previous section of this decision, the jurisprudence of the Tribunal

23 is clear on this matter. There is no principle of blanket prohibition on

24 such documents."

25 We will respond in writing to any of their claims; however, I --

Page 49

1 I think it should be clear on the record the jurisprudence of this

2 Tribunal is that documents may be tendered from the bar table. Thank

3 you.

4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

5 I believe that this Bench has no disputes with the positions from

6 the Prosecution, but the very issue is what's the criteria for the bar

7 table practice. Since both Judge El Mahdi and I are from the civil-law

8 legal system. Personally speaking, we don't have a problem for that.

9 But, however, there must be some criteria for the admission of the

10 documents through the bar table. This is the very issue that we have to

11 deal with.

12 As for the specific documents, I believe that since the document

13 65 and document 56 has been admitted into the evidence through the

14 witnesses, so those proposals are moot, I believe.

15 As for the other four documents, 36, 85, 124, and 135, the

16 Defence has already promised us to file a very concise motion, and I hope

17 they could do that as early as possible, so probably could do it before

18 next Monday. And the Prosecution also have time to reply, I hope. How

19 about next Thursday -- before next Thursday. Yes, so that the Bench will

20 be in a better position to deal with those two -- those issues at that

21 stage. Yes.

22 Are there any other documents that the parties would like to

23 mention?

24 Yes.

25 MR. RE: Could I just very briefly say something in relation to

Page 50

1 document 135, which is Mr. -- the statement Mr. Halilovic gave to the

2 Prosecutor in 1996. We wish to make it very clear -- we understand the

3 Defence is filing a motion opposing its admission into evidence, and this

4 is being done basically on the last day of trial, when the -- the

5 statement has been on our witness list for some years and we have always

6 intended to tender it from the bar table in accordance with the

7 jurisprudence of this Tribunal, as Mr. Weiner has just very eloquently

8 led Your Honours to.

9 We would flag to the Defence before they file it that they would

10 have extraordinarily cogent reasons to resist the tendering of a written

11 statement by the accused some years before the matter was being

12 investigated, voluntarily made, after seeking legal advice, and signed

13 and made over a number of days and signed. There would have to be some

14 fairly extraordinary reasons for them to oppose admitting into evidence

15 the witness -- the accused's own voluntary account of what he says

16 happened at the time when no suggestion has ever been made in these

17 proceedings, unlike the record of interview in 2001, which they have made

18 some allegations and the interview with Bosnian State Security in 1993.

19 Nothing has been said in these -- in the filings, in the pre-trial brief,

20 or in court, or to any witnesses casting any doubt on the authenticity or

21 the reliability of Mr. Halilovic's account to the OTP in 1996. We say

22 it's very late in the day and there's got to be something which is

23 absolutely extraordinary at this particular point to be in that filing.

24 So we just ask the Defence to bear that in mind in whatever they file

25 before the Trial Chamber.

Page 51

1 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours --


3 Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

4 MR. MORRISSEY: I need to respond to that.

5 If Mr. Re has a witness that will indicate that all of those

6 things he has said are true, he may ask you for leave to call that

7 witness. But it's not for the Prosecutor to assert that these things are

8 done voluntarily or to assert any of the facts made there.

9 In this case, the Prosecution have not called an expert. You

10 know why. They -- because they're not calling an expert, it's not

11 sufficient for Mr. Re to say from the bar table that -- that these facts

12 exist which you should presume when considering the document.

13 It's the very evil of tendering things from the bar table that

14 you don't know where this document came from, who wrote it, how it came

15 about. And it's a practice that we resist because if it starts here,

16 where does it stop? Perhaps the Defence will just bring along 500

17 documents and tender them from the bar table too. Your Honours would

18 resist that, and this is a trial where witnesses give evidence and

19 documents are tendered in a proper way to allow you to scrutinise them

20 and to analyse them properly.

21 Now, the Defence is not contending for any blanket prohibition on

22 tendering things from the bar table. We'll put this in the motion. I

23 don't want to argue it twice. But I want to say clearly that my friend's

24 assertions here are not evidence, and there's a place where evidence

25 comes from; it's right there, and it can be given -- the evidence can be

Page 52

1 given from there. But, Your Honours, the Prosecutors have never called

2 or sought to call an investigator, because they know what will happen if

3 they do.

4 So for those reasons, it's not for the Defence to provide

5 extraordinary material; it's for the Prosecutors to show why this

6 document is admissible and why it is that you should accept that a piece

7 of paper has some probative value in the absence of any other matters.

8 In addition to that, I'll just comment that we have sent a lot of --

9 there's been a lot of correspondence with the Prosecution about this

10 document here. For them to say it's being done at the last minute is a

11 hollow complaint, but only if Your Honours are concerned about the issue

12 of timing will I dress it. And I'm not going to unless called upon to do

13 so.

14 So that's the response to what my learned friend Mr. Re says.

15 And Your Honours, we'll undertake to file as quickly as we can

16 and give Your Honours a chance to read it. We'll keep it as short as we

17 humanly can, yes.

18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

19 MR. RE: I must place on the record we -- object again to what my

20 learned friend has said: "The Prosecutors have not sought to call an

21 investigator because they know what will happen if they do so."

22 We entirely reject that suggestion. This is the first we have

23 ever heard that there was any -- any doubt cast upon the integrity of

24 that particular investigator who wasn't connected with the investigation

25 of Mr. Halilovic later. It's entirely separate to the allegations they

Page 53

1 have made against other investigators. We had no indication that the

2 document -- the statement was objected to, that there would be any

3 requirement to try and track down someone who took the statement nine

4 years ago, a document which is signed.

5 And we ask the Defence to withdraw that allegation or

6 alternatively to put some evidence before the Court to substantiate it.

7 They can't just say, "We know what will happen if we call the

8 investigator." Well, we don't. We haven't contacted the investigator.

9 We had no need to do so. It's a statement signed by the accused.

10 MR. MORRISSEY: If I could be very --

11 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Morrissey, there will be

12 no end for these disputes. We understand that there are different views

13 between the two parties concerning with those documents, and we

14 understand that the parties will file their motions voicing their

15 reasons. And we noticed that the positions of both parties are very

16 clear, and it is registered in the transcript. And we'll consider the

17 positions of the parties when we are considering the commission of those

18 documents. So let's come to an end for this debate at this stage.

19 The next issue is about the 98 bis filings. Mr. Morrissey, are

20 you now in the position to inform the Bench whether you are going to file

21 a 98 motion -- 98 bis motion at this stage?

22 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, the Defence does not seek to

23 activate that process. We're not going to file any such document.

24 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much indeed. The reason I ask you is

25 that we -- if -- if you want to do that, we have to make some

Page 54

1 arrangements, you know.

2 And I want to stress at this stage that the resignment of Judge

3 Szenasi and the replacement by Judge Mumba, in the view of this Bench,

4 does not constitute an obstacle for any motions filed by the parties.

5 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Well, Your Honours, I can indicate that I

6 hear what Your Honour says. Your Honour was good enough to indicate that

7 on -- on the other occasion. The Defence finds itself in a real-world

8 situation. We've taken the decision. We're not going to trouble you

9 with such a submission. And that's what I have to say about it at this

10 point.

11 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Thank you.

12 Well, the next issue is about the timetable, that we are

13 expecting the Defence to file their 65 ter filings on the 13th of June.

14 On the 17th of June we'll hold a Defence conference. And before that

15 there might be a 65 ter Conference, maybe not in this sitting, and the

16 Defence case will start on the 20th of June with the opening statement by

17 the Defence counsel.

18 Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

19 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, we agree with that -- that

20 programme. It's -- it's obvious that it's a very tight schedule, but can

21 I indicate that we've -- today co-counsel has gone to commence the work.

22 He left this morning with an investigator. So we'll just simply do our

23 best. We'll keep the Prosecution advised and the Chamber advised of

24 delays or troubles that we anticipate. But this trial really proved that

25 if you set a strict schedule, we can stick to it. It actually helps us.

Page 55

1 So we expect to meet those and we're going to do all we can to do so.

2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. I would like to say that this

3 Bench appreciates very much the effort by the Defence to speed up the

4 proceedings of this case, and we thank you very much for your cooperation

5 in this aspect.

6 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I'm grateful, Your Honour.

7 Your Honour, Your Honour's reference to the possibilities of a 65

8 ter Conference is one that we agree with and we think that it should be

9 scheduled shortly before the -- the conference on the 17th of June, so

10 that we had in mind the 15th or 16th of June, subject to the Prosecutor's

11 convenience as well, of course. Those are dates which would suit us.

12 Our work is going to be a work in progress at all times, and it may be

13 that we have -- have a -- a larger than necessary list on the 13th

14 because we'll put -- we'll do everything we can to put -- to go larger

15 rather than smaller, and at a later time if we have to cut people, if we

16 need to. It means that a shortage of surprise witnesses anyway, so it

17 will help us from that point of view.

18 But we may be in a position to give more information even from

19 the 13th to, say, the 16th. So yes, we -- we support that. Our own

20 preference is for the 16th, but we'll be available when -- when the Court

21 says.

22 JUDGE LIU: I thank you. I think that date could be settled

23 after consultations between the parties as well as with the Chamber at a

24 later stage.

25 And the last matter on my agenda, that I have to warn both

Page 56

1 parties we might sit a week into the summer recess. It all depends on

2 the 65 ter filings from the Defence on the 13th of June and the -- but at

3 this stage I just send warning signals, you know, to the parties so that

4 it could be in the transcript, in the record.

5 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, we're grateful for that indication.

6 It -- it would be to everyone's benefit if the Defence case could be

7 finished or very close to finished by that time. And that seems to me to

8 be an achievable outcome. So we would be prepared to sit in. And it

9 would also help the Defence because if the evidence in the case is

10 substantially concluded by then, then the break that comes along can be

11 effectively working time.

12 Now, that has implications for -- for our staff as well, in terms

13 of our ability to fund them and pay them. So we would be very grateful

14 for that a happen.

15 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

16 Are there any other matters that the parties would like to bring

17 to the attention of this Bench at this stage?

18 Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

19 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, yes, there are. There's a number of

20 matters that I have to raise now. Perhaps if I could list them and then

21 I'll go to the substance.

22 First of all, we want to raise the issue of the list of alleged

23 victims of the crimes. Then we want to raise some issues concerning the

24 electronic discovery suite. After that, we want to raise an issue of

25 some letters which are outstanding between the Defence and Prosecution,

Page 57

1 although I hasten to say that an important one of those was answered last

2 night.

3 Fifthly, I want to raise an issue of the procedures concerning

4 provision of material to be used in cross-examination by the Prosecutor.

5 And last of all, I want to raise some issues concerning Rule 68.

6 That's the agenda, if you like, of Defence matters at this point.

7 Your Honours, as to the first, the list of alleged victims, it --

8 the 98 bis procedure can have its uses for the -- I imagine for the

9 Chamber because it helps you to -- to encapsulate where the Prosecution's

10 case is up to, and we also would be assisted by that. But at least a

11 list of those who can be proved to be murdered could now be -- be led.

12 It seemed to me that -- again, it's not a 98 bis point. Again, we're not

13 putting such an argument now. But it seems to me that there are some

14 people who clearly couldn't be proved and there are some who on the

15 evidence now clearly could be said to -- at least there's a case that

16 they were murdered. So that the Prosecutor might be able to provide

17 that. And that's the first matter I wanted to raise.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, Mr. Weiner.

19 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, you asked me to provide it. I have

20 drafted the document in relation to Grabovica, as we know, between Kate

21 Adie and Mr. Zelenika. Everyone was photographed deceased in Uzdol. But

22 I have drafted it. I sent it to the team members. We've had a full team

23 this week. I've sent it to the other team members. It will be filed

24 either late today or tomorrow morning.

25 It appears that everyone but, I think, six -- there is proof

Page 58

1 against all 26 -- 26 or 27, I think 27 of the victims have sufficient

2 proof. Six of them have not been proved -- proven. But the Court will

3 get that either today or tomorrow morning.

4 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I think in that list you could indicate the

5 evidence supporting --

6 MR. WEINER: That's already done, Your Honour. I have including

7 the trial cite. The day of trial when each of the statements were made.

8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. I believe that that will

9 greatly facilitate the Defence case, as well as the Chamber.

10 Yes.

11 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you. I'm grateful for that indication.

12 JUDGE LIU: And another list that I believe this Bench required

13 to the Prosecution, that is, the chart of the chain of commander in the

14 ABiH.

15 MR. WEINER: [Microphone not activated]

16 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, Please.

17 MR. WEINER: Excuse me?

18 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, Please.

19 MR. WEINER: Oh, I'm sorry. We will provide that to Your

20 Honour.

21 JUDGE LIU: When?

22 MR. WEINER: I'll speak with our military analysis unit, but

23 within the week.

24 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much indeed.

25 You may proceed, Mr. Morrissey.

Page 59

1 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, just with respect to that chart, I

2 should say the Defence would -- would want to be heard about that in the

3 future because a chart produced by the Prosecutor's military experts the

4 Defence will no doubt say is wrong. And -- and would -- would want to

5 cross-examine somebody upon it if such a chart was to be produced.

6 But, however, there may be a simpler way to do it than to go to

7 the military expert. There is, in fact, in evidence a chart that was put

8 there Mr. Karavelic. That chart is a little difficult to read. And you

9 may recall that both the Prosecutor and myself had some difficulty in

10 focussing on the broken lines as opposed to the hard lines there. Now,

11 that chart might be amenable of graphic improvement so that it can be

12 done in a way that all of us can understand without changing the meaning

13 or adding any Prosecution or indeed Defence hopes.

14 Your Honours, there's -- just one little stroke of a pen can

15 change everything. So we -- you know, what we would like is that -- is

16 that perhaps that could be the basis. And we couldn't object to that.

17 If it's a military expertise from the Prosecutors, we would object to it,

18 Your Honours.

19 But perhaps I can speak to my friend about that and we'll see if

20 we can reach some common ground. If we can't, we'll come back to you.

21 Your Honours, the next issue I wanted to raise was concerning the

22 EDS, electronic discovery suite, and the disclosure that occurs on it.

23 Now, it's occurred in recent cases not this one but the Limaj case and

24 other cases that there have been some controversy of the operating of

25 this system. It has got some real problems with it. And those problems

Page 60

1 are not to be raised by the Defence when a nasty document suddenly jumps

2 up at the last minute, because at that time the witness is already there;

3 the Chamber is obviously aware that the document exists, and there's a

4 temptation to use it and to want to see it. And therefore the Defence

5 really want there to be some clear rules of engagement and rules by which

6 we proceed in the using of such material.

7 Now, what has happened in some previous cases and what happened

8 in the Limaj case quite recently is that at a very late stage when a

9 witness came to give evidence material prejudicial to that witness was

10 disclosed to the Defence, very late. It was said at the time by the

11 Prosecutors - and the Defence is not entering into a good-faith analysis

12 about all this - that it just happened that they found it at that late

13 time.

14 But the EDS system, Your Honour, is just very difficult to use

15 from the Defence point of view. We find ourselves constantly unable to

16 find documents on it. I don't know and I don't presume that Your Honour

17 has a great in-depth knowledge of how that system works, but my

18 understand is as follows:

19 The EDS system is a storage facility onto which data that the

20 Prosecution has in its possession is placed. It has two categories that

21 are able to be searched: There's a general category; and then there's a

22 case-specific category. There are various ways in which that -- that

23 database can be searched by both the Prosecutors and the Defence, and on

24 that database is to be found -- are to be found many documents.

25 The Prosecution have said in other cases, and it may be their

Page 61

1 position here, that they discharge discovery obligation by placing on the

2 EDS material that comes into their possession. And one can see from the

3 Prosecutor's point of view that they handle many documents and that they

4 -- although they are well resourced, they might not be well enough

5 resourced to hand deliver every document to the Defence, and we accept

6 that there's some need for facility of that nature to exist.

7 But the difficulty is that it's very hard to search - and the

8 Defence experience is that it's hard to search. The Prosecutors say, as

9 I don't know whether they will in this case - I suspect they will - that

10 they don't have any problems to search and they can search. But our

11 experience is that it is a absolutely nightmare. As a test you can have

12 that document in front of you. You can try and find that document that

13 you know exists, that you have the ERN numbers for, and you can't find

14 it. In other occasions, you can do find it. So it's an unpredictable

15 tool and it's very difficult.

16 But further, the Defence simply does not have the resources to

17 constantly check this -- this electronic discovery suite. We cannot do

18 it. I can say it no plainer than this. The breakdown of the hours that

19 we work is already relatively outrageous. We work hard. The staff I

20 have work very hard. They cannot do that. We do not have the resources

21 to look at it. We are not going to look at it. We can't. We can't do

22 our job and do that.

23 And therefore what is needed is for the Prosecutor to indicate to

24 us -- they don't have to provide us with paper copies of the documents

25 but they have to give it an indication when they are updating that system

Page 62

1 in a way that concern it is Halilovic case.

2 All we need from the Prosecutors is an indication, "Today we

3 placed these document numbers," and a short description of those

4 documents, "on the EDS. They need to tell us what's gone on there,

5 because we can't check, and we know -- we suspect that there's -- we have

6 a suspicion that by shaking tree, thing wills fall down. We think there

7 be material. We think that a lot has gone on now that we've reached this

8 stage.

9 What we want -- and we're going to move a motion to the effect --

10 we've written to the Prosecutors. And we're going to move a motion to

11 the effect that unless the Prosecutors agree to what we put in the

12 letter, we'll move the Tribunal to make some rules about this. You don't

13 have to give the Defence everything they want but we need some rules to

14 indicate what's going on, because otherwise we will not be in a position

15 to know what the Prosecution has put on the EDS. We cannot monitor it

16 like policemen, so we need to be told what's going on.

17 And it's very important that we say it now so that the

18 Prosecution has time to respond rather than to say it as a time later

19 when we look like we're hiding behind a fig leaf because we're

20 embarrassed about a particular witness being shown his -- a film of him

21 committing crimes or whatever it be that that happens. And so we need to

22 know these things in advance. And we don't want to be put in the

23 position of troubling the Tribunal with people who shouldn't be called,

24 people who are -- you know, about whom there's dreadful material.

25 So I indicate that, that we are going to move a short motion

Page 63

1 concerning the EDS and the rules to be applied, unless the Prosecutors

2 and I can come to an agreement over this -- this topic. I flag it now.

3 They can say what they want here, of course. I've mentioned it so they

4 can respond. But I'm not asking you to rule but I have to put it on

5 record now at this time.

6 JUDGE LIU: Well, any response?

7 MR. WEINER: Very brief, Your Honour.


9 MR. WEINER: Defence filed a letter to us. The letter will be --

10 a response to their letter on this matter will be filed today.

11 Mr. Sachdeva has been working on it and indicated it will be

12 completed before the day's over.

13 JUDGE LIU: Well, I see. What's the contents of that? Is there

14 any agreement?

15 MR. WEINER: I haven't seen the letter.

16 Mr. Sachdeva.

17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.

18 MR. SACHDEVA: Your Honour, may it please you. There are some

19 issues in the letter that we will not agree with in terms of obligations,

20 disclosure obligations under Rule 68.

21 JUDGE LIU: That's the theoretical issue?

22 MR. SACHDEVA: Exactly. But in terms of informing the Defence

23 when collections are placed on the EDS, as I understand it that is an

24 OTP-wide issue that is being dealt with at the moment. And at this stage

25 the Prosecution will obviously endeavour to inform the Defence when we

Page 64

1 have placed collections on their specific disclosure suite index. That

2 will be done, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. I hope that after this sitting

4 both parties could meet on this issue and try to prevent any filings from

5 the Defence, because we have been troubled, you know, with all those

6 motions.

7 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, we'll -- we will meet with the

8 Prosecutors and we'll try to resolve our differences in a way that

9 doesn't involve the Tribunal in further work. And we acknowledge that

10 there has been a number of filings. We have to say that if you don't

11 file, then we inflict upon the Tribunal --

12 JUDGE LIU: No, no, no. I'm not depriving your right to file

13 anything. I mean that before any filings, the parties should meet

14 together, try to solve it, you know, off the court. If there's, you

15 know, a major problem that you could not solve, we are ready to give the

16 assistance to the both parties.

17 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

19 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I'm grateful for that indication.

20 And next of all, there are some -- some outstanding requests and

21 letters that we have with the Prosecution. I'm grateful to my learned

22 friend Mr. Weiner who responded to me last night concerning some aspects

23 of the 1996 Halilovic statement which is the subject of a motion. But

24 there are still a couple of matters that are of importance, and the ones

25 I want to raise here concern the witness Ramiz Delalic, that there are

Page 65

1 statements that plainly exist and plainly are out there somewhere and

2 they still haven't been provided to the Defence, and we don't know what's

3 happening with those now, so we need -- we need some sort of answer to

4 that -- that query. So what's outstanding is -- is, if you like, notes

5 of the investigators and -- and the statements themselves.

6 I should hasten to say that we have been provided with some

7 material and we're grateful for the effort that has so far been made, but

8 on the face of things it's quite clear there still are outstanding

9 materials, and so that we need the Prosecutor to tell us what the

10 progress is on those matters.

11 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Chana.

12 MS. CHANA: May it please Your Honours.

13 In respect of Mr. Delalic's -- what is referred to as "previous

14 statements," the -- the Defence had noted through some investigation and

15 reading of the transcripts of this -- of the statements that somewhere

16 it's stated that there was a 1996 statement. Now, I have already spoken

17 to the Defence about this at length. I have taken the trouble, Your

18 Honours, to ring up the two previous investigators to see if there was

19 any written statement which emerged from the discussions. I have not

20 come to any conclusion because it appears that there isn't one. And I've

21 given the details to the Defence in respect of that, and I'm willing to

22 put it also in a -- in a letter so that --

23 So for us -- for them to now say that there is a previous

24 statement, there simply -- we do not have one in our databanks. I think

25 we can confirm that always subject to a caveat that gets thrown up to us.

Page 66

1 But there simply -- whatever has been disclosed in respect to Delalic.

2 Your Honours, I also looked into the -- any notes of the

3 investigators, and to that end, although there was a Rule 70 internal

4 documentation of mission reports which the investigators made after they

5 came back, I even disclosed some of those to the Defence, some of the

6 notes that they had taken.

7 So I have in all good faith, Your Honour, made my investigations

8 into this. Of course, I cannot say that they've been absolute. There

9 never is such a thing. But whatever I could find, even to the extent of

10 what I said, lifting Rule 70 and disclosing to the defence some of the

11 notes.

12 It's not a happy situation for the Defence, and I do appreciate

13 that. But as of now we do not have any other statements given to the

14 OTP. If there were contacts made between Delalic and investigators here,

15 we have no further records of it that we can hand over to the Defence.

16 That is the position of the Prosecution with respect of this.

17 Your Honours have a lot of the -- of matters to deal with, and to

18 -- and I think it would be important to put an end to certain issues.

19 And I would like to sort of say that perhaps this might be the time to

20 end this particular issue of Delalic. Wherever it falls, that's where

21 it's fallen. And the Defence will simply have to accept it to the extent

22 that these are the inquiries and these are the fruits of the inquiries

23 which have been hand over to the Defence.

24 JUDGE LIU: Well, it seems to me that there is not much things to

25 fall after shaking the trees on this matter.

Page 67

1 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, the Defence draws a distinction

2 between the individual Prosecutors and the Prosecution as an institution.

3 We are very grateful for the efforts made by Ms. Chana, and we accept

4 fully that they were made in good faith. What she has put to you about

5 providing us with working notes in an attempt to assist us is entirely

6 accurate, and certainly we are not suggesting that Ms. Chana is behind

7 anything strange that might have happened to this statement.

8 The fact remains we have statements that were taken. There's

9 clear evidence that statements exist, that somewhere they're out there.

10 There's evidence from Mr. Delalic himself that he made a statement to the

11 -- to the OTP.

12 The question of where it is remains a live one because the --

13 there seems to be two possibilities arising out of it that: Perhaps Mr.

14 Delalic was just lying and there was no such statement; or perhaps a

15 subsequent investigator at some stage has interposed himself into the

16 picture. No other explanation appears to -- possible at this point.

17 The Prosecution's good-faith inquiries raise troubling questions.

18 That's the reality. But, Your Honours, all that my friend can do is make

19 the inquiries that she makes, and I acknowledge that there's a certain

20 point at which she can only look once or twice or three times at a

21 particular set of documents. We do not ask you to order her to do more.

22 The Prosecution have clarified the position in court as best they can.

23 It's not the end of the matter. Ramiz Delalic is not going to go away in

24 this trial, I can assure everyone of that.

25 But in any event, my learned friend can't be compelled to do more

Page 68

1 than what she has now subjectively done. I think she's right to say she

2 has done all she can. We'll -- we're going to make further inquiries of

3 the Prosecutor, however; there's no question about that. However, that

4 seems to put an end to that matter from the Chamber's point of view for

5 today.

6 The next matter concerns the provision of material to be used by

7 the Prosecutors in cross-examination to the Defence. Now, the

8 Prosecutors are in a different position to the Defence at all times.

9 This Chamber made a decision on the 9th of May, 2005 at which it was

10 said, "The disclosure of material and information by the Prosecution is

11 fundamental to the fairness of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The

12 Trial Chamber therefore endorse it is view that in order to avoid a

13 possible prejudice to the accused, which might result from the

14 Prosecution introducing documents in the cross-examination of a witness

15 which the Defence had never had the opportunity to review, the Prosecutor

16 must bona fide disclose to the accused -" and I'm leaving a passage out

17 there - "to the accused at the earliest available opportunity and at the

18 latest prior to cross-examination any new material it wishes to submit to

19 a Defence witness in cross-examination in order to give the accused due

20 notice."

21 Now, that is another aspect of the same matter I raised with the

22 EDS. Experience shows that it simply isn't enough to place these things

23 on the EDS. These things have got to be explicitly disclosed.

24 If they are on the EDS, we will be satisfied with a short note

25 and an ERN number. These matters in any event ought to be raised with

Page 69

1 the Prosecutor. As I've indicated, I'm going to discuss with them these

2 matters later. We may need to come back to the Tribunal about that at a

3 future time, but it's to be avoided if we can. So I raise it now. I

4 indicate it's an issue, but we may be able to resolve that. If we can't,

5 however, Your Honour may need or the Tribunal may need to put time limits

6 on that ruling of yours, whether you're going to say 48 hours before, 24

7 hours before, or some other figure. You may be called upon to adjudicate

8 that if we can't agree with the Prosecutors as to a suitable time limit.

9 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I believe we'll have the 65 ter Conference as

10 well as the Defence conference in the future. That might be a good time

11 if you want to bring to our attention on this matter after consultations

12 with the Prosecution.

13 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, Your Honour. And of course, it -- it

14 of course has to be noted the Prosecutors can't really do much until they

15 know who we're calling, and we acknowledge that that's a burden for them.

16 So there's nothing they can do today.

17 Finally, the issue of Rule 68 obligations has to be faced in

18 exactly the same context. Now, it's always said it's an ongoing

19 obligation, which it is, of course. But we are now at the end of the

20 Prosecution case, and it's high time that the Prosecutors indicated in a

21 thorough way what the situation is. Should material arise concerning,

22 for example - and I use this just as an example - Ramiz Delalic, then the

23 Defence is placed in a position where we haven't used that in

24 cross-examination, and the sooner we have it, the better. So that we ask

25 the Prosecutors to -- to make a special effort now, rather than have

Page 70

1 things arise throughout the trial, throughout the presentation of the

2 Defence case.

3 History shows that in some trials the Defence case is provided

4 with a great deal of relevant material to Prosecution witnesses too late

5 during the Defence case. That -- of course it's an ongoing obligation.

6 Sometimes the Prosecutors do find something at a late stage. What we're

7 asking now is that they look very hard now so that belated material does

8 not arise.

9 And in particular I would ask that the Prosecutors indicate now

10 -- so that they are satisfied that they have performed a thorough search

11 and that there is no more Rule 68 material in their possession.

12 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.

13 MR. SACHDEVA: Your Honour, just briefly in response to that.

14 The Prosecution continually does update its searches of all materials

15 in-house, so whenever something that arises that is Rule 68 or

16 Rule 66(B), we will, of course, disclose that to the Defence. This is

17 common policy within the OTP. Thank you, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE LIU: I see. I believe this matter is also a subject

19 matter for the parties to discuss. Now we have seen that this issue is

20 flagged in the transcript. So if there's any problem in this aspect, the

21 Bench is ready to help both parties to solve this issue.

22 Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

23 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, that terminates the list of matters

24 that I had to raise.

25 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

Page 71

1 As Mr -- yes, Mr. Weiner.

2 MR. WEINER: We have one issue of a document that was never given

3 an exhibit number.

4 Mr. Re.


6 MR. RE: It's MFI 162. Our case manager had just alerted this to

7 us. It wasn't on the list that the court deputy provided to us a few

8 days ago. It's simply a photograph that was shown to a witness Katica

9 Miletic on the 9th of February by the videolink. You may recall we put

10 this on the -- the ELMO and tried to show her, and it didn't actually get

11 an exhibit number. It's at page 20 to 21 of the transcript. So we just

12 seek an exhibit number for that.

13 JUDGE LIU: I believe that it is already admitted into the

14 evidence.

15 Mr. Morrissey?

16 MR. MORRISSEY: I -- I can't recall that specific one. I haven't

17 reviewed that transcript.

18 If the document was shown to the witness and if she -- and if she

19 was asked questions about, I -- might I just trouble the Prosecutor to

20 provide me with a hard copy of it? I could just look at it to see if

21 there's any --

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

23 MR. MORRISSEY: -- anything ...

24 Your Honours, I think this is one of the documents that was --

25 one of two documents, that this was shown and then another one was marked

Page 72

1 and each was tendered. I don't have any objection to this. I believe --

2 I think it's in evidence too, Your Honour. But if it hasn't been given a

3 number, I don't -- I don't take it that the Prosecution are tendering it

4 now. They're just seeking that it be given a number, and I don't oppose

5 that.


7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, I just checked the database, and I

8 see that 162 is a photo. Can I see the photo. But it has not been

9 admitted. So just to -- to confirm.

10 JUDGE LIU: So we'll make a decision that this document is

11 admitted into the evidence, and the -- and the number will be assigned to

12 it.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Well, Your Honour, I think the number is 162, so

14 it's just a matter of admitting it.

15 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Thank you.

16 Well, as the Defence counsel said, we are now at the end of the

17 Prosecution's case and as the practice of other Trial Chambers, at this

18 stage or around the time for the 68 bis filings of the Defence, the

19 Prosecution is requested to submit a proofing chart. In this proofing

20 chart, they have to indicate the evidence as to each paragraph in the

21 indictment.

22 Now, since the Defence counsel give up their right to activate

23 their 98 bis procedures, in the view of this Bench the Prosecution still

24 have to file a proofing chart to summarise their case. So at this stage,

25 I hope that the Prosecution could file it before the 13th of June, which

Page 73

1 might be helpful for the Defence to prepare their case. It is so

2 decided.

3 Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

4 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honours. I'm grateful for that

5 indication.

6 And might I just say that one thing that would speed up the

7 trial, I imagine greatly, is that if the Prosecutors are able in that

8 proofing chart to indicate where a document is relevant to a particular

9 -- I imagine that's probably part of it anyway, but it's the Defence plan

10 in this case - and I think that's been obvious from the start - to put as

11 many documents and as much of our case as we can through the Prosecution

12 case. And we will double up our documents with the Prosecution to a

13 significant extent. And if the Prosecution are able -- the more specific

14 the Prosecution are about the documents they use and the relevance of

15 those documents, the more focussed we will be able to be about the

16 documents that we put in.

17 But as I indicate, we've put in a lot of documents here. The

18 Prosecution have been very patient in many ways with us in that -- that

19 endeavour. But we will save time if that's done. So I mention that.

20 JUDGE LIU: I believe that's the usual practice in the submission

21 of this proofing chart.

22 Yes. I think that's all for today's hearing, and the hearing is

23 adjourned.

24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.38 p.m.,

25 to be reconvened on Monday, the 20th day of

Page 74

1 June, 2005 sine die.