Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 15049

          1                 Friday, 25th February 2000

          2                 [Open session]

          3                 [The accused entered court]

          4                 [The witness entered court]

          5                 --- Upon commencing at 9.40 a.m.

          6            THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

          7  Case number IT-95-14/2-T.  The Prosecutor versus Dario

          8  Kordic and Mario Cerkez.

          9            JUDGE MAY:  Let the witness take the

         10  declaration.

         11            THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare that I will

         12  speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

         13  truth.

         14                 WITNESS:  ALHAJI DIMITRIJE KAMARA

         15                 Examined by Mr. Nice:

         16       Q.   Can you tell us, please, your full name?

         17       A.   My full name is Alhaji Dimitrije Kamara.

         18       Q.   You work here in the Office of the Prosecutor

         19  as a language assistant.

         20       A.   No.  I work as a translator.

         21       Q.   Translator.  Sorry.  Born where?

         22       A.   I was born in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

         23       Q.   And then I think you spent several years away

         24  and returned to Yugoslavia to complete your education

         25  when you were what age?

Page 15050

          1       A.   When I was 15.

          2       Q.   You are, therefore, fluent in what's now

          3  called B/C/S, but which can be called by various names,

          4  but it's the language of the area.

          5       A.   Definitely so.

          6       Q.   Working here as a translator, did you have

          7  dealings with two tapes of conversations between people

          8  on telephones?

          9       A.   Yes, I had.

         10       Q.   The first tape, 2801.1, produced by a witness

         11  and then to the Chamber via investigators and one of

         12  the lawyers on the team, that was originally translated

         13  by the official translation department of this

         14  institution; is that correct?

         15       A.   That is correct, yes.

         16       Q.   Subsequently, the witness produced another

         17  tape which he brought with him to the institution,

         18  2801.4, and were you, as notified to the Chamber,

         19  sitting in court when the first track, or the first

         20  conversation of that tape was played to the Chamber?

         21       A.   I was.

         22       Q.   And as was explained to the Chamber, were you

         23  there following what you could hear on the then only

         24  official translation?

         25       A.   That is correct, yes.

Page 15051

          1       Q.   The Chamber decided that the exercise of

          2  listening to the whole of the tape was unrealistic,

          3  given the problem suffered understandably by the

          4  simultaneous translators -- interpreters, and the

          5  matter was adjourned, that further inquiries should be

          6  made; is that correct?

          7       A.   That is correct.

          8       Q.   Have you since then done two things in

          9  relation to these two tapes?  First, did you listen to

         10  both tapes with the original translation to hand to

         11  check if the tapes were identical in content or not?

         12       A.   I did.

         13       Q.   By that method, what was the result that you

         14  discovered?

         15       A.   There was no doubt in my mind that both of

         16  the tapes are exactly the same.

         17            MR. NICE:  Your Honour, incidentally, this

         18  morning, I hope not too late, I alerted -- probably too

         19  late, I alerted Ms. Featherstone by telephone to the

         20  desirability of bringing those earlier transcripts in

         21  with you, and I don't know if you've got them with you

         22  or not.

         23            JUDGE MAY:  I have mine, yes.

         24            MR. NICE:  As I recall, as I went through

         25  that tape with you, I attempted to annotate it as to

Page 15052

          1  where the numbered conversations began and ended, and

          2  since there's been an addition to the transcript, it

          3  may be that the Chamber would want to have the earlier

          4  versions with it.

          5       Q.   Mr. Kamara, did you thereafter become

          6  involved to a limited degree in the negotiations, or

          7  attempted negotiations, between the lawyers, sitting in

          8  on certainly one meeting with Mr. Stein and

          9  Mr. Lopez-Terres?

         10       A.   Yes, and there was also an interpreter from

         11  the Defence present.

         12       Q.   And I think on that occasion, you did

         13  listen -- all of you listened to all or part of one or

         14  both of the tapes?

         15       A.   We did, yes.

         16       Q.   On that occasion, were you able to hear on a

         17  tape some sounds that have been referred to as being on

         18  one tape but not on the other?

         19       A.   I remember hearing a sound, yes.

         20       Q.   Had you noticed those sounds when you had

         21  listened to either tape before?

         22       A.   I had not, no.

         23       Q.   But following that, was it apparent to you

         24  that there was the possibility for further

         25  clarification of one passage of the tape which you

Page 15053

          1  judged to have been incompletely translated?

          2       A.   Yes, there was a portion of the tape that had

          3  not been fully transcribed.  It was written as "not

          4  clear" or something like that, but there was a part

          5  that could be made out, yes.

          6       Q.   Did you then translate that additional

          7  passage of the tape?

          8       A.   I did.  I transcribed it into B/C/S first and

          9  then translated it into English.

         10       Q.   Right.

         11            MR. NICE:  Now, the Court, I hope, has the

         12  additional transcripts that were provided.  And what

         13  may be helpful, it would be simply and swiftly to run

         14  through the start and the stop points of the

         15  conversations on the new version -- right.  Thank you

         16  very much.

         17            The new version is 2801.A, with serial number

         18  913915 on the first page, and if that can go to the

         19  witness.  Everybody else has already had these

         20  provided.

         21            So can I hand that --

         22            THE INTERPRETER:  Excuse me.  The

         23  interpreters do not have either of the versions by

         24  now.  Could we please have some?

         25            JUDGE MAY:  The interpreters do not have the

Page 15054

          1  new version.

          2            MR. NICE:  That's very much my failing.

          3  Yes.  When I come to the relevant passage, I'll ask the

          4  witness to put it on the ELMO.

          5            The Chamber will recall that because of the

          6  initial interest in the very first conversation between

          7  Kordic and Blaskic, which was the first conversation

          8  transcribed, that conversation is a separate small

          9  transcription and there has been no need to change

         10  that.  Therefore, we pick up on this document, 2801.A

         11  at what is and was originally notated at conversation

         12  number 2.

         13       Q.   So that running through this latest document,

         14  for the avoidance of any doubt, if we start at the top

         15  of what is page 1 of this exhibit, Mr. Kamara, is that

         16  conversation 2, and it starts at the top of page 1 and

         17  it runs on to six lines down to page 2?

         18       A.   Yes.

         19       Q.   So conversation 3 begins at line 8 of page 2

         20  and runs on to line 17 of page 3?

         21       A.   Yes.  Line 16 of page 3.

         22       Q.   Line 16.  So line 18 is the beginning of

         23  conversation 4.  That conversation goes over to page 5,

         24  and line 1 of page 5 has the end of that conversation

         25  with Blaskic saying, "Bye," and line 3, that's the

Page 15055

          1  giving of conversation number 5.

          2       A.   Yes.

          3       Q.   Conversation number 5 runs through to

          4  page 10, where it ends at line 14.  Conversation 6,

          5  picking up at line 16.

          6       A.   Yes.

          7       Q.   That conversation ends, I think, at the foot

          8  of page 10, and at the top of page 11 we have the

          9  beginning at line 2 of conversation 7.

         10       A.   Correct.

         11       Q.   That ends at the foot of page 11, and

         12  conversation 8 begins at the top of page 12.  Slightly

         13  ambiguous in that the very first line on page 12 says

         14  "Bye," "Hello," but in any event, there's a new

         15  conversation there.

         16       A.   Yes.

         17       Q.   Conversation 8 goes on some two and a half

         18  pages to page 14, where it ends at line 8, with

         19  conversation 9 beginning at line 10.

         20       A.   Yes.

         21       Q.   Conversation 10 goes on to page 18 -- it's a

         22  longer conversation -- ending at line 25.

         23       A.   Yes.

         24       Q.   And conversation 10 beginning at line 17 --

         25  27?

Page 15056

          1       A.   Line 27, yes.

          2       Q.   All right.  We're now in the territory of the

          3  passage of the tape which you found it could be better

          4  dealt with.  We may not be quite there yet but we're

          5  getting there.  Is that right?

          6       A.   Yes.

          7       Q.   Now, if we just compare -- if I just compare

          8  this.  At page 18, which we're on at the moment, line

          9  27, that's the beginning of conversation 10, and it

         10  goes over, as we see, to page 19, and to something that

         11  then says "Side B."  Then from side B we go on for a

         12  little bit.

         13            Was there anything else on side A that needed

         14  adding to or is the balance of side A correct as

         15  originally --

         16       A.   The balance is correct, yes.

         17       Q.   Right.  But we can see that conversation 10

         18  begins at line 27, and that that side of the tape ends

         19  at line 5 on page 19.  Was that one conversation at

         20  that stage or more or can't you say?

         21       A.   It was.  It was one conversation.  The line

         22  and -- it was a very poor tape.  The quality was very

         23  poor, but I think I can say, yes, that it was one

         24  conversation.

         25       Q.   Then on page 19, when we change sides, and

Page 15057

          1  the first thing transcribed is that, "The line is very

          2  bad," were you able to form a view on whether this was

          3  the continuation of the conversation or not?

          4       A.   It was impossible to say because of the

          5  quality of the tape.

          6       Q.   Right.  But whatever was being said at the

          7  beginning of side B, it appeared to end at line 24?

          8       A.   Yes.  It ended at line 24.

          9       Q.   Right.  So that what starts at line 26 is a

         10  new conversation, and depending on whether the first

         11  bit is counted as its own conversation or part of the

         12  previous conversation, then this, at line 26, is either

         13  number 1 or number 2 by way of fresh conversations on

         14  this side.  Is that fair?

         15       A.   Exactly.

         16       Q.   In the original transcription, how much had

         17  been found of this?

         18       A.   I think only four lines had been transcribed

         19  in the original transcription.

         20       Q.   And this was, on page 19 of the earlier

         21  transcription, marked as "inaudible"; is that correct?

         22       A.   That's correct.

         23       Q.   And you, by listening what, once or more than

         24  once?

         25       A.   Well, twice.  The first time at the meeting

Page 15058

          1  with the Defence counsel and the second time by myself.

          2       Q.   And you were able to decipher how many lines

          3  that we see on page 19 as fresh lines of transcription

          4  and translation?

          5       A.   From number 7 to number 24, and from

          6  number 26 to number 7 on page 20.

          7       Q.   Those, therefore, reveal something of a

          8  conversation, whether from the previous side or not,

          9  from line 6 to line 24, and then from line 26,

         10  conversation 1 or 2, however we describe it, of this

         11  tape, going over to line 7 on page 20?

         12       A.   Exactly.

         13       Q.   Is there then a break in the conversation so

         14  that what starts at line 9 is conversation 2 or

         15  conversation 3, however described, of that tape?

         16       A.   Exactly.

         17       Q.   Then in accordance with the earlier

         18  transcription, that conversation goes over to page 26,

         19  where we have the end of that conversation at line 6,

         20  and it picks up at line 8 with the next conversation,

         21  which can be numbered 3 or 4.  That conversation goes

         22  over to page 31, where at line 32 the conversation

         23  ends, and at line 34, we have the start of what is

         24  either conversation 4 or 5.  Correct?

         25       A.   Yes.  Correct.

Page 15059

          1       Q.   That takes us to the end of the tape.  Sorry,

          2  I said I was going to put that on the ELMO.  I didn't

          3  and I should have done.

          4            This reveals, for those who also have the

          5  index on the tape box, some difficulty in understanding

          6  exactly what happens as between the end of side A and

          7  side B, the author of the index having got to 11

          8  conversations on side A and 3 conversations on side B.

          9  Yes?

         10       A.   Yes.

         11       Q.   But as you've explained, save by careful

         12  listening, it plainly wasn't possible for the official

         13  translators to decipher a whole conversation although

         14  there was one there?

         15       A.   Exactly.

         16       Q.   What you discovered by the additional careful

         17  listening, does that affect at all your decision that

         18  the two tapes are identical in content?

         19       A.   No.  The two tapes are identical in content.

         20       Q.   Thank you very much.  You may be asked some

         21  further questions.

         22            MR. SAYERS:  Mr. President, let me just

         23  object to this witness being put on because we have not

         24  had the two weeks' notice that was required by the

         25  Scheduling Order entered earlier on in this case.  In

Page 15060

          1  fact, we've had about one day's notice.  But I just

          2  want the objection to be stated for the record, I'm not

          3  going to belabour the point, and I'll do my best to

          4  cross-examine in short order.

          5            JUDGE MAY:  Well, if there's any matter which

          6  you say is a cause of prejudice to you, you can draw it

          7  to our attention.

          8            MR. SAYERS:  Thank you.

          9                 Cross-examined by Mr. Sayers:

         10       Q.   Now, Mr. Kamara, there's no question in your

         11  mind, I take it, therefore, that there are not 11

         12  conversations on side A of this tape, there are

         13  actually 10?

         14       A.   Yes.

         15       Q.   All right.  And equally, there's no question

         16  that there are not three conversations on side B of the

         17  tape, but, depending on how you count the first one,

         18  there are either four or five, aren't there?

         19       A.   Yes.

         20       Q.   You are not a tape-quality expert or a

         21  technical expert with respect to the actual process of

         22  recordation or anything like that, technical aspects of

         23  tape-recording; is that fair to say?

         24       A.   It is, yes.

         25       Q.   You are simply a translator.  I don't mean to

Page 15061

          1  belittle your position, but you are a translator, a

          2  language expert, rather than a technical expert;

          3  correct?

          4       A.   I'm a translator, yes.

          5       Q.   And there was no question in your mind that

          6  you could see significant differences in the tape

          7  quality between the various conversations on tape side

          8  A and tape side B; isn't that correct?

          9       A.   That is correct, yes.

         10       Q.   You have no explanation for the variation in

         11  that quality, do you?

         12       A.   No.

         13       Q.   And you're saying, sir, that when you

         14  listened to the taped conversation that I think gave

         15  the initial translators difficulty, and forgive me

         16  while I just flip through this on my feet here, but I

         17  believe this was on page 19, is that correct, page 19

         18  of the exhibit that you have in front of you.

         19       A.   Page 19, yes.

         20       Q.   Side B.  The original translators who heard

         21  that could not translate it, could they?  They said

         22  that the tape quality was so poor that the conversation

         23  there was basically inaudible; isn't that right?

         24       A.   Well, first of all, I would like to say that

         25  the original tape was most probably done by a language

Page 15062

          1  assistant, because language assistants are the ones who

          2  transcribe tapes into B/C/S, and these are translated

          3  by translators into English.  And whether the tape

          4  quality was so poor or whether it was due to human

          5  error, I wouldn't be able to say at this moment.

          6       Q.   You don't know whether it was done by a

          7  language assistant or a translator, do you?

          8       A.   I can assume because, as I said --

          9       Q.   But you don't know, do you, sir?

         10       A.   No.

         11       Q.   But at all events, whether it was a language

         12  assistant or a translator, they were employees of the

         13  Office of the Prosecutor, weren't they?

         14       A.   Definitely.

         15       Q.   Definitely.  And --

         16            MR. NICE:  That needs correcting, of course.

         17  As I'm sure Mr. Sayers will recall, the interpreters

         18  who work here work for the institution as a whole.

         19            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.  Be careful, Mr. Sayers.

         20  You must be accurate.

         21            MR. SAYERS:  I apologise for that, Your

         22  Honour.  That was my mistake.

         23       Q.   But the point is, sir, that the first

         24  translators that worked for the institution couldn't

         25  hear it, but you say you could, right, and hear it

Page 15063

          1  sufficiently well to be able to translate it.

          2       A.   Well, I wouldn't say that they couldn't hear

          3  it.  They might have heard it but deemed that it was of

          4  very poor quality and not of any significance.

          5            MR. SAYERS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I

          6  have no other questions.

          7            MR. NICE:  Only one thing arising, or two

          8  things arising.

          9            JUDGE MAY:  Just a moment.

         10            MR. NICE:  I'm so sorry.

         11            JUDGE MAY:  Mr. Kovacic, I take it you've got

         12  no questions.

         13            MR. KOVACIC:  No, sir, we don't.  Thank you.

         14            MR. NICE:  I'm sorry.

         15                 Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

         16       Q.   The difference in quality, are you able to

         17  say whether that's a difference in the tape quality or

         18  a difference in the quality of the sound that was being

         19  tape-recorded?

         20       A.   The difference in tape quality.

         21       Q.   Why do you say that?  Because we have lots of

         22  references in the conversation to people saying there

         23  was a poor line, and matters of that sort.

         24       A.   Yes, the line was very bad.  The line itself

         25  was very bad.

Page 15064

          1       Q.   Right.  So what are you saying?  You're not

          2  an expert, but what are you saying about the tape

          3  quality?

          4       A.   It depends on the very tape -- because these

          5  tapes were recorded on maybe two different machines, or

          6  the same machine, and the head could have been dirty,

          7  or something like that, and that could have affected

          8  the quality.  But that's just an assumption of mine.

          9       Q.   I see.  So no expertise, an assumption.  And

         10  what are you saying about the differences; within parts

         11  of each tape that there are differences or between the

         12  two tapes?

         13       A.   No, there are no differences between the

         14  tapes.

         15       Q.   Since you've been asked about the difference

         16  between language assistants and translators, what is

         17  the difference?

         18       A.   The difference is translators [sic] are

         19  general staff, they are G-level staff, and translators

         20  are P-level staff, and translators go through much more

         21  rigorous testing before being employed.

         22       Q.   You said translators are general staff.  Did

         23  you mean --

         24       A.   Sorry.  Language assistants are general

         25  staff; translators are professional staff, and they go

Page 15065

          1  through much more rigorous testing before being

          2  employed.

          3       Q.   But the policy of the institution in relation

          4  to the transcription of tapes generally is that they

          5  are transcribed by?

          6       A.   If the tapes are in B/C/S, then they're

          7  translated by language assistants, and then translated

          8  by translators into English.

          9       Q.   Thank you.

         10            MR. NICE:  Nothing else arising.

         11            JUDGE MAY:  Mr. Kamara, thank you for

         12  coming.  That concludes your evidence.  You are free to

         13  go.

         14                 [The witness withdrew]

         15            MR. NICE:  I was hoping that we might next

         16  deal with the outstanding village binders.  Mr. Scott

         17  and Mr. Lopez-Terres are coming down to deal with that;

         18  I hope they'd be here immediately, but that they be

         19  here any second, I'm sure.

         20            While I'm waiting for them, can I deal with a

         21  couple of administrative matters.  First, and I don't

         22  mind mentioning this in the presence of the defendants,

         23  I think today is the return date for the production of

         24  materials --

         25            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.

Page 15066

          1            MR. NICE:  -- and I'm not sure how we're

          2  going to deal with that.

          3            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.  We have it in mind.

          4            MR. NICE:  Thank you.

          5            There is now in place, I think, an

          6  arrangement for the taking of videolink evidence from

          7  three witnesses next Wednesday.  I'm hopeful, indeed,

          8  that we can accomplish three witnesses in the single

          9  day.  It may be necessary, of course, to have a full

         10  day, and one's always got to have a certain anxiety

         11  about the technical side of things going wrong, because

         12  it sometimes breaks down.  Obviously, I'll be dealing

         13  with witnesses in as compact a way as I can by the

         14  production of summaries which they will acknowledge and

         15  so on.

         16            I'm asked to have in mind at least the

         17  possibility that there may be the need, for one reason

         18  or another, to extend into Thursday, when it's known

         19  that His Honour Judge Robinson wouldn't be available,

         20  and I've been asked to at least give consideration to

         21  the possibility of the Chamber, if necessary, dealing

         22  with that evidence by just two of its members, if there

         23  is an accidental spillage over.  So I mention it now

         24  rather than the matter arising later.

         25            Then the only other outstanding matters until

Page 15067

          1  we can deal with the village witnesses and exhibits is

          2  just to notify you that in relation to the taker of the

          3  statement of the deceased witness, we've had a couple

          4  of inquiries which we've been able to respond to, and

          5  we're going to be told next week if that witness is

          6  required, and if not, she won't be called.  She's only

          7  available on a couple of days next week.

          8            I think Mr. Lopez-Terres is in a position to

          9  deal with the binder of Novi Travnik, if that would be

         10  convenient.

         11            JUDGE BENNOUNA:  Excuse me.  What do you mean

         12  exactly by "deal with the binder"?  That means what?

         13  Because I would like to know the l'ordre du jour.  The

         14  problem of dealing with the binder exactly, what are

         15  the questions concerned there?

         16            MR. NICE:  In each case, we have to be sure

         17  that there is agreement about what material is in and

         18  is not being objected to in the binder, because the

         19  binder then becomes part of the record of the hearing,

         20  that's all, and it's better for these things to be

         21  dealt with --

         22            JUDGE MAY:  The binders should be in court.

         23  Are they in front of us?  Perhaps Judge Bennouna would

         24  like one.

         25            Mr. Lopez-Terres, let's deal with Novi

Page 15068

          1  Travnik.  I've got the index.  There's mention of a

          2  report, you haven't included that, obviously; there's

          3  the census and the videos, which have already been

          4  tendered; the statements, which presumably you're not

          5  going to try and argue should be admitted; then we come

          6  to the transcripts.  Now, you'll have to help.  These

          7  are the -- I'm looking at number 5, transcripts, these

          8  are the Kordic witnesses?

          9            MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Yes.

         10            JUDGE MAY:  So they won't be in the binder,

         11  presumably.

         12            MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] It's an

         13  inventory of all the exhibits referring to the facts

         14  committed in the municipality of Novi Travnik,

         15  including exhibits concerning our case and which are

         16  only there as a reminder.

         17            JUDGE MAY:  Then turning to the exhibits,

         18  most have already been tendered --

         19            MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Under the

         20  category, paragraph 6, maps, there is Exhibit 1960 and

         21  1962, which, until now, have not been presented to your

         22  Chamber, and they do not appear to us to be

         23  indispensable, in view of the large number of maps that

         24  we have seen, to tender these new maps.  They are there

         25  simply as part of the inventory because we have tried

Page 15069

          1  to be as exhaustive as possible and to identify all

          2  those documents.

          3            As regards the maps, I think that the Office

          4  of the Prosecutor is no longer going to request that

          5  they be admitted.

          6            On the other hand, regarding Category 7,

          7  there are several documents which have still not been

          8  admitted.  There is 7.1, 7.2.

          9            Regarding 7.2, we have the first order,

         10  signed by Anto Valenta.  We have had no reaction of the

         11  Defence regarding their position on this document.  The

         12  same applies to document 137 a little further on in

         13  this paragraph, an ECMM report.  Then there is a

         14  document relating to Vlado Juric, Exhibit 201.  Exhibit

         15  241, 243 on which again we have no reaction from the

         16  Defence.

         17            As regards Exhibit 326, we have decided no

         18  longer to include it in this document, the more so as

         19  the witness mentioned in connection with this exhibit

         20  is a witness that we are going to call to testify

         21  before you shortly.

         22            As regards Exhibit 396, that is also -- no

         23  ruling has been made, as well as 577, 1035, 1148, 1208,

         24  1151, 1263.  We have still not received any comments

         25  from the Defence regarding these documents.

Page 15070

          1            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.  Very well.  Mr. Sayers,

          2  I'll turn to you first.  We have, in these binders, on

          3  the whole, following the Tulica decision, admitted the

          4  exhibits.  Is there any reason in this case why we

          5  shouldn't follow the same practice?

          6            MR. SAYERS:  No, Your Honour.  I don't

          7  understand the comment made by the Prosecution that

          8  there's been no reaction from the Defence.  I thought

          9  that we had provided copies of our objections to the

         10  Prosecution with respect to each of these binders in

         11  the format that we've regularly used throughout this

         12  case, specifying the precise basis of any objection

         13  that we do make to particular documents.  Naturally,

         14  most of them have either been admitted already or a

         15  substantial number of them.

         16            THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Sayers, could you slow

         17  down, please.

         18            MR. SAYERS:  But there are objections to the

         19  following documents, Your Honour -- may I just inquire

         20  if our objections have actually been handed up to the

         21  Court.

         22            JUDGE MAY:  No.

         23            MR. SAYERS:  They have not?

         24            JUDGE MAY:  We haven't got those.

         25            MR. SAYERS:  Well, it seems a sensible course

Page 15071

          1  to have additional copies of these templates made and

          2  distributed to the Trial Chamber.

          3            JUDGE MAY:  It certainly would be, but let's

          4  try to get on so we don't waste any time.

          5            MR. SAYERS:  I can state the objections very

          6  simply.

          7            JUDGE MAY:  Yes, state them.

          8            MR. SAYERS:  With respect to Z1960, we had

          9  not been provided with that document.  With respect to

         10  Z2612.2B, we objected to that document because there is

         11  no foundation for it and no authentication.

         12            With respect to tabs 7.1 through 7.4, these

         13  are untranslated documents.  We have not received any

         14  translations of them, and we are not, frankly, in a

         15  position to evaluate whether there would be an

         16  objection until we get the translation.

         17            With respect to -- and I'll simply say --

         18  recite the documents to which we have specific

         19  objections.

         20            JUDGE MAY:  This is Novi Travnik.

         21            MR. SAYERS:  Yes.  The objections that we

         22  have are just to a few documents other than this, Your

         23  Honour, and I'll just recite the Z numbers.  Z2407.1, a

         24  lack of authentication; the same thing for Exhibit

         25  Z653.1; and the same things for Exhibit Z243, lack of

Page 15072

          1  authentication.  Exhibit Z345 has been provided to us,

          2  and, finally, Exhibit 1208 contains -- we object to

          3  that on the grounds of lack of foundation, lack of

          4  authentication, and multiple levels of hearsay.

          5            With respect to the other documents, as I've

          6  said, they're either admitted already or we have no

          7  objection to them.

          8            JUDGE MAY:  Thank you.

          9            MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours,

         10  fully respecting the principled position expressed in

         11  your decision on Tulica, the Defence of the second

         12  accused in most cases has no objection to the list of

         13  exhibits in the index on Novi Travnik.

         14            There are a few minor objections such as, for

         15  instance, in relation to Exhibit number 1208, where in

         16  the Croatian version a part of the text is illegible

         17  relating to the Vitez Brigade.

         18            As regards the other documents, with a few

         19  objections of irrelevance, but, of course, that is for

         20  the Trial Chamber to judge, the Defence counsel of the

         21  second accused has no objections.

         22            JUDGE MAY:  Thank you.

         23            Mr. Lopez-Terres, is there anything you want

         24  to say?

         25            THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

Page 15073

          1  Microphone.  I'm sorry.

          2            MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

          3  Mr. President, you will remember that during the

          4  testimony of a witness from Novi Travnik in September

          5  last year, we produced a number of documents which were

          6  police reports entitled "Official Reports."  Those

          7  documents were admitted by your Chamber, and the

          8  Defence at the time contested their authenticity or

          9  validity.  I wish to indicate to the Chamber that in

         10  the course of last year January, we identified a

         11  certain number of people whose names appear on those

         12  police reports, and statements were taken from those

         13  persons who confirmed the truthfulness of the facts

         14  reported in those reports.  The statements appearing in

         15  the Novi Travnik binder that has been produced to you

         16  are, in many cases, the statements of those persons.

         17            So we find ourselves in the following

         18  situation:  We have the official documents of the

         19  police authorities in Novi Travnik, indicating the

         20  names of the plaintiffs.  The Defence contested those

         21  documents.  We then went on to interview those

         22  plaintiffs, but if we produce those statements, we

         23  would be violating the Tulica decision.

         24            Therefore, unless there is an objection on

         25  your part, and I doubt that you will accept those

Page 15074

          1  statements as such, but we thought that we would

          2  proceed in regard to those persons by the means of

          3  affidavits, as we have done quite recently with others,

          4  and that is why those statements appear in the binder.

          5            We would then be in the second stage of

          6  authentication of those reports.

          7                 [Trial Chamber confers]

          8            JUDGE MAY:  We can rule on these matters, and

          9  we'll rule in the way that we have already.  Of course,

         10  as I've said, the witness statements are not

         11  admissible, as we said in the Tulica decision.

         12  Affidavits, of course, will be another matter.  We'll

         13  consider them when they're produced.  As far as the

         14  exhibits are concerned, clearly if there are problems

         15  about translation and also non-provision, they should

         16  be cleared up, but subject to that, we propose to admit

         17  the exhibits.  We have done it in the past.

         18            The objections in terms of lack of

         19  authentication and the like goes entirely to the weight

         20  to be given to the exhibits, if any, and that's a

         21  matter for us when we come to consider the case as a

         22  whole, but it does not prevent their being admitted.

         23            So we'll admit the exhibits, not the

         24  statements or the transcripts.

         25            Can we deal with another one now.

Page 15075

          1            MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] I can

          2  refer to the binder on the municipality of Vitez, which

          3  obviously includes Stari Vitez, which is covered by the

          4  same binder.

          5            JUDGE MAY:  And now have the Defence

          6  objections.  Perhaps you could just go through it,

          7  please, Mr. Lopez-Terres.

          8            MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] First of

          9  all, regarding the exhibits, that is, documents,

         10  paragraph 10.  We have reviewed the various documents

         11  from 221 until the next page, and we have noted the

         12  positions of the Defence, which are not always

         13  unanimous.  There are some documents with which

         14  Mr. Kordic agrees, others that only Mr. Cerkez agrees

         15  with, and vice versa.  There are cases when both of the

         16  accused agree with the admission of those documents,

         17  have no objection, in other words.

         18            So we have a list with all those objections

         19  noted.  I can go through the list, which might take a

         20  bit of time.

         21            JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Perhaps it

         22  would be better to go the other way round; that is, to

         23  refer to those that are objected to.  That would be

         24  quicker.  Which are the problems that remain to be

         25  addressed by one or other party?  I see that there are

Page 15076

          1  many cases where it says it is not in the binder.  So

          2  if you've updated the binder, there's no problem.

          3  Perhaps it would be better to focus on substantial

          4  objections if there are any.

          5            MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] There

          6  seems to be a number of documents on which the Defence

          7  of Mr. Cerkez has not stated its position, so we don't

          8  know.  Is it implicit admission or rejection?  For

          9  Exhibit 221, for example, 429, 547, the accused Kordic

         10  had no objection, but we have no information from the

         11  Cerkez Defence.

         12            JUDGE MAY:  Can we just go through the index

         13  so that we can understand fully what is being sought to

         14  be admitted.

         15            The index begins with paragraph 1, paragraph

         16  2, and paragraph 3, referring to various transcripts,

         17  and I take it that there's no question of trying to

         18  admit those, that you're merely putting that there for

         19  the inventory, as you put it.

         20            MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Indeed,

         21  Mr. President.

         22            JUDGE MAY:  Then we go to 4, and we get to

         23  the exhibits, some of which have already been tendered,

         24  some not, and again, you have listed those under the

         25  locations, and you've distinguished between those which

Page 15077

          1  have been tendered and those which haven't.  On the

          2  second page, the only ones not tendered to start with

          3  are some photographs.  I can't imagine there's much

          4  objection to them.  But then there is -- yes.  They're

          5  all photographs.

          6            On the third page, the Vitez exhibits not

          7  tendered, again, photographs, a plan, various other

          8  matters there.

          9            Then we get to the documents which you've

         10  listed, many having been tendered, some in the

         11  outstanding exhibits which you have noted in each

         12  case.

         13            You're asking, Mr. Lopez-Terres, for all

         14  these documents to be admitted, those that haven't been

         15  already?

         16            MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Yes.  That

         17  is our position, Mr. President.

         18            JUDGE MAY:  It may be simplest to hear from

         19  the Defence next and then we'll call on you again,

         20  Mr. Lopez-Terres, to answer.

         21            MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Once

         22  again, many of them have been admitted by both accused,

         23  but for some documents, as I have said, we only have

         24  the reaction of the accused Kordic and for others we

         25  have no reaction at all.

Page 15078

          1            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.  Well, thank you.

          2            Mr. Sayers, can we deal, first of all, with

          3  the exhibits, as they're called, photographs and

          4  plans?  Is there any objection to any of them?

          5            MR. SAYERS:  We have stated objections, Your

          6  Honour, to the photographs or some photographs.  As you

          7  quite correctly point out, if there were -- if we knew

          8  what they were of, obviously there would be no

          9  objection.  It's a little difficult for us to imagine

         10  what the probative value of these photographs is when

         11  the Court has no idea, for example, with respect to

         12  Z2002 on page 2 of the exhibits.  Apparently this is a

         13  new photograph of a dead body; whose we don't know.

         14  When it was taken we do not know.  The circumstances

         15  under which the person depicted died we don't know.

         16            So we've just objected on lack of

         17  authentication and lack of foundation grounds, but of

         18  course it's for the Court to decide whether that

         19  exhibit has any probative value on any point.

         20            JUDGE MAY:  Let's deal with that

         21  immediately.

         22            There are some of these photographs --

         23  Mr. Lopez-Terres, some of these photographs appear not

         24  to be in the binder.

         25            MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Perhaps

Page 15079

          1  these are photographs which have already been

          2  produced.  I think this binder contains all the

          3  documents that are outstanding.

          4            JUDGE MAY:  Well, perhaps that's something

          5  you could sort out.  Would you look at that over the

          6  adjournment and check, make sure either that they've

          7  been presented before or that they are available and

          8  copies distributed.

          9            JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation]

         10  Mr. Lopez-Terres, we have seen many photographs.  We

         11  don't have them all in our mind, of course.  They have

         12  been shown here in the Chamber to respond to the

         13  objection of Mr. Sayers.  For instance, let us take the

         14  example that he gave, the photograph of a body on the

         15  road.  If it has already been produced, perhaps it

         16  would be sufficient to attach a reference, because

         17  obviously a photograph out of context has absolutely no

         18  meaning.

         19            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.

         20            Going on to the documents, Mr. Sayers.  We've

         21  now got your document which sets out the objections.

         22  Is there anything you want to add to that?

         23            MR. SAYERS:  Not really, Your Honour.  I

         24  think the objections are self-explanatory.  As you can

         25  see, we've not objected to most things, and the only

Page 15080

          1  documents to which we have objected are the ones which

          2  we genuinely felt lack-of-foundation and

          3  lack-of-authentication objections were appropriate.

          4            But once again, it's a matter for the Court,

          5  obviously.  The weight to be accorded to those

          6  documents is absolutely within the province of the

          7  Court.

          8            JUDGE MAY:  Mr. Mikulicic.

          9            MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour,

         10  regarding the photographs that were mentioned, the

         11  Cerkez Defence does not object to them being admitted.

         12  Of course, it is up to the Trial Chamber to assess the

         13  importance and probative value of those exhibits.

         14            The Cerkez Defence would like to draw your

         15  attention to a number of examples, for instance,

         16  Exhibit 2158, it is a layout of the Vitez Hotel, the

         17  Defence objects because simply we don't know who is the

         18  author of that layout and what is the source of that

         19  document.  Also document 2204, which speaks about the

         20  strength of combat units and where mention is made of

         21  Cerkez, the Defence would like to obtain the original

         22  document to be able to take a position on it.  Document

         23  2208, a list of victims by ethnicity, again, we don't

         24  know the source, nor what it is based on.  And we have

         25  no objections regarding the rest of the exhibits.

Page 15081

          1            As a matter of principle, the Defence objects

          2  to the admission of press reports because the probative

          3  value has already been ruled upon by this Trial

          4  Chamber, of such a document.

          5            JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation]

          6  Mr. Lopez-Terres, I think that all these matters could

          7  be resolved if there are references attached to the

          8  documents, and this would take care of the observations

          9  made by Mr. Mikulicic.  I think it is a good practice

         10  and a way of authenticating things by indicating the

         11  references.  So if we have references to these exhibits

         12  at the bottom of the page of the relevant document, I

         13  think that would address the concerns expressed.

         14            MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] We shall,

         15  indeed, proceed with the authentication, and we shall

         16  do all that we can in order to establish and include

         17  the source of these documents.

         18            JUDGE MAY:  We shall admit these documents

         19  for the same reason as we admitted the documents in the

         20  Novi Travnik binder, but the authentication which has

         21  been mentioned and the source in relation to those

         22  binders, Mr. Mikulicic, who specifically asks for

         23  source, that should be attended to.

         24            MR. NICE:  Can we move then, while

         25  Mr. Lopez-Terres makes way, I hope, for Mr. Scott, to

Page 15082

          1  the Ahmici binder, which is, I think, very

          2  straightforward.

          3            JUDGE MAY:  My reading of it, correct me if

          4  I'm wrong, is that it refers to witnesses who've

          5  already testified --

          6            MR. NICE:  Correct.

          7            JUDGE MAY:  -- so we don't need anything from

          8  them.

          9            MR. NICE:  And 1, 2, and 3 of the -- sorry, 1

         10  and 2 of the witnesses who've testified in other cases

         11  have been ruled in; witness 3, I think, has been

         12  withdrawn by us; witness 4 is subject to a subpoena;

         13  witness 5 is accepted on behalf of Kordic, but we await

         14  a position to be stated on behalf of Cerkez.  I'll come

         15  to her in a second, without using her name, of course.

         16            On the exhibits, the list of exhibits all

         17  have already been produced and, therefore, are not

         18  reproduced, save for Exhibit 1, which we can find at

         19  the end of the binder.  Number 2 is not there.  Sorry.

         20  Thank you.  Number 1 has already been produced, and

         21  it's number 2 that's in the binder.  I'm grateful to

         22  Ms. Verhaag.  Coming from the same source.  Otherwise,

         23  the list of exhibits are simply a matter of history.

         24            The binder then contains the transcripts to

         25  be admitted, as already so decided, save that towards

Page 15083

          1  the end there's Witness F in the Blaskic case, as I

          2  say, accepted on behalf of Kordic, not yet announced so

          3  far as Cerkez is concerned, and part of the

          4  justification for her being allowed, as it were, to

          5  give evidence by transcript is made out by the medical

          6  report that follows and explains her present position.

          7            JUDGE MAY:  Would it be convenient to deal

          8  with her transcript now?

          9            MR. NICE:  Yes.  I don't know.  It may be

         10  that there's no objection at all.  We were simply

         11  waiting for a result.

         12            JUDGE MAY:  If we go to the transcripts, what

         13  number is she?

         14            MR. NICE:  If you haven't got tags on them,

         15  in the bottom right-hand corner -- the fifth witness,

         16  then, if they've got tags on them.  The fifth witness.

         17            JUDGE MAY:  Number 37 in the schedule of

         18  transcript witnesses that we were given, perhaps,

         19  Mr. Kovacic, you could tell us what the position is.

         20            MR. KOVACIC:  That was exactly the issue,

         21  Your Honour, I mentioned a couple of times, because I

         22  thought that I'm obliged to give that information.  So

         23  it appears that it is the proper time.

         24            We have been given by your order time to

         25  study the witnesses under items 25, 34, 37, and 39 --

Page 15084

          1            JUDGE MAY:  Could you just deal with 37 now,

          2  please?

          3            MR. KOVACIC:  Okay.  Number 37, we will not

          4  object to have the transcript tendered into the case.

          5            JUDGE MAY:  Thank you.  So 37 can be added to

          6  the list of transcripts.

          7            MR. NICE:  In which case, I think that the

          8  whole of this binder is now agreed.  I don't think

          9  there's any outstanding objection.

         10            JUDGE MAY:  You mentioned, amongst the

         11  exhibits, number 2.

         12            MR. NICE:  Yes.

         13            JUDGE MAY:  "Inclusion from death

         14  certificates."  Has that been admitted?

         15            MR. NICE:  I don't think it's challenged, and

         16  you will find at the end of the binder is the summary.

         17            The Court will see it's a document that

         18  summarises, or if you like, concludes, but really

         19  summarises, the effect of the death certificates and

         20  therefore renders the material more accessible.

         21            JUDGE MAY:  Can you tell us where it comes

         22  from?

         23            MR. NICE:  It comes from, I think, the same

         24  source --

         25            JUDGE MAY:  As 1583?

Page 15085

          1            MR. NICE:  I'm sorry.  In-house, it's an

          2  in-house summary.

          3            JUDGE MAY:  Okay.

          4                 [Trial Chamber confers]

          5            JUDGE MAY:  Is there any objection to this

          6  document?

          7            MR. SAYERS:  As you can see from our list,

          8  Mr. President, there was a lack-of-authentication and a

          9  lack-of-foundation objection.  We have no idea where

         10  the document came from.  But since it appears to be

         11  generated by the OTP, and assuming that it's accurate,

         12  then obviously our concerns are addressed and the

         13  objection would be withdrawn.

         14            JUDGE MAY:  Thank you.

         15            Do you want to say anything, Mr. Kovacic?

         16            MR. KOVACIC:  We have about the same

         17  position, Your Honour.

         18            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.  Thank you.  Very well.  It

         19  will be admitted.

         20            MR. NICE:  Thank you very much.  That, I

         21  think, concludes that binder.  I'm sorry I was

         22  uncertain about one or two matters, and I have to speak

         23  for the efficient -- as a mouthpiece for the person who

         24  prepared this particular one, I fail in the efficiency

         25  that she would bring to the task.  But there it is.

Page 15086

          1  She doesn't have right of audience.

          2            If Your Honour will just give me one minute

          3  while Mr. Scott catches his breath.

          4                 [Prosecution counsel confers]

          5            MR. NICE:  I am reminded that there are

          6  still, in relation to transcripts, outstanding

          7  decisions from --

          8            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.  Let's deal with the binders

          9  and then come back to the transcripts.

         10            MR. NICE:  I think there are no more binders

         11  to be dealt with at the moment.  There's one more to be

         12  dealt with --

         13            JUDGE MAY:  Kiseljak.

         14            MR. NICE:  Kiseljak, and I gather that's not

         15  quite ready -- it hasn't yet been copied or something.

         16            JUDGE MAY:  Very well.  Let's move on for the

         17  moment.

         18            MR. NICE:  That's the only outstanding

         19  binder.

         20            On the transcript witnesses, we are awaiting

         21  responses from Mr. Kovacic on 25, 34, and 39.

         22            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.  Well, let's deal with them

         23  next.  Numbers 25, 34, and 39, are those the numbers?

         24            MR. NICE:  I think so.

         25            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.

Page 15087

          1            Yes, Mr. Kovacic.

          2            MR. KOVACIC:  Exactly the numbers you have

          3  mentioned, Your Honour, according to earlier discussion

          4  about the transcripts, 25 -- I'm talking about the

          5  numbers from the transcript list -- so 25, 34, 37,

          6  which we just mentioned, sorry, and 39, we do not

          7  object to have those transcripts tendered in the case.

          8            Should I also now inform the Court about

          9  witness number 10, which was in the group to be agreed

         10  by the parties or negotiated by the parties?

         11            JUDGE MAY:  Let us just deal with those

         12  three.  There being no objection to those three

         13  transcripts, they can be added to the list.

         14            And then there were the matters, yes, which

         15  were for discussion --

         16            MR. NICE:  Mr. Scott will deal with number

         17  12, and I think number 10 is unresolved, but it may be

         18  that Mr. Kovacic wants to add something to whatever the

         19  present state of today is.

         20            JUDGE MAY:  Mr. Kovacic, shall we begin with

         21  number 10.

         22            MR. KOVACIC:  Number 10, Your Honour, we

         23  oppose to have this transcript introduced in our case

         24  directly.  We would like to hear that witness directly,

         25  we would like to cross him.  If you want me to explain

Page 15088

          1  in a short way, I, of course, will.

          2            JUDGE MAY:  Is number 10 not a witness that

          3  you're seeking to call?

          4            MR. NICE:  We are seeking to call him at the

          5  moment.

          6            THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

          7  Microphone.

          8            MR. NICE:  Yes, we are seeking to.

          9                 [Trial Chamber confers]

         10            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.  Well, we think he's a

         11  witness that should be called rather than the

         12  transcript read, for the same reasons we gave last

         13  time.

         14            MR. NICE:  Yes.  Obviously if I'm unable to

         15  succeed in securing his attendance, I may have to

         16  return to the application but we'll proceed on the

         17  basis that we'll try and get him.

         18            JUDGE MAY:  I would not encourage it.

         19            MR. NICE:  Number 12, Mr. Scott can deal

         20  with.

         21            MR. KOVACIC:  If I just may, the situation

         22  just dramatically changed now.  I don't have to oppose

         23  to that witness, obviously, because --

         24            JUDGE MAY:  Number 10.

         25            MR. KOVACIC:  For number 10, right.  Because

Page 15089

          1  the Prosecution will bring them.

          2            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.

          3            MR. KOVACIC:  Then we have another problem.

          4  We, just this morning, received a batting order list, a

          5  Prosecution list where there are witnesses which by the

          6  Prosecution will be called in the next two weeks, and

          7  that witness is not on that list.

          8            JUDGE MAY:  They're trying to call him.

          9  We'll have to see how it happens.

         10            MR. KOVACIC:  It's confusing.

         11            JUDGE MAY:  At the moment the transcript we

         12  rule inadmissible, and I've told them that they're not

         13  encouraged to make further applications.  If they want

         14  the witness, they must call him.

         15            Yes.  Can we go on to 12, please.

         16            MR. KOVACIC:  Thank you.

         17            MR. SCOTT:  May it please the Court, Your

         18  Honour, the position -- the Prosecutor's position or

         19  the status, perhaps I should say, concerning number 12

         20  is the Cerkez Defence is agreeable to the entire

         21  Blaskic transcript being admitted with no redactions or

         22  deletions.

         23            The Kordic Defence has requested a number of

         24  deletions.  We -- the Prosecution, is not agreeable to

         25  those deletions.  We think the full transcript should

Page 15090

          1  come in as did a number of transcripts last week, even

          2  if it is over certain Defence objections.  We believe

          3  that the matters, the objections raised go at best to

          4  credibility or weight, that there was cross-examination

          5  of this witness in the prior case, and the transcript

          6  of number 12 should be admitted in its entirety.  We

          7  are not agreeable to any deletions.

          8            JUDGE MAY:  There was some possibility of

          9  calling that witness, Mr. Scott.  What's the position?

         10            MR. SCOTT:  It does not appear, Your Honour,

         11  that he is likely to appear.  He's not expecting to

         12  appear.

         13            JUDGE BENNOUNA:  No.  Because I think we

         14  dealt with this one.  What is the reason he's not going

         15  to?

         16            MR. SCOTT:  Your Honours, this raises matters

         17  from the ex parte several days ago.  He's simply -- for

         18  these purposes I can only tell the Court that he's

         19  unwilling to appear.

         20            JUDGE BENNOUNA:  Yes.  Okay.

         21            JUDGE MAY:  I think it was mentioned in open

         22  court.  This was the witness that Mr. Kovacic

         23  mentioned, who was the policeman.

         24            MR. SCOTT:  Yes.

         25            JUDGE MAY:  Who had not received promotion.

Page 15091

          1            MR. SCOTT:  That's correct, Your Honour, and

          2  he's very angry about that, and he's not willing to

          3  come to The Hague at this point.

          4            JUDGE BENNOUNA:  Did you try another way, by

          5  videolink or -- no?

          6            MR. SCOTT:  Not at this time, Your Honour.

          7            JUDGE BENNOUNA:  No?

          8            MR. SCOTT:  In our judgement, any further

          9  efforts would be futile.

         10            JUDGE MAY:  Yes, Mr. Sayers.

         11            MR. SAYERS:  I'm sure the Court has in mind

         12  the previous discussion regarding this witness.  We

         13  attempted to accommodate the Prosecution by agreeing to

         14  the admission of this transcript so long as the parts

         15  that are specific, the specific testimony that he gives

         16  about Mr. Kordic, are deleted, and in the absence of an

         17  agreement to that effect, we are simply not willing to

         18  agree to the admissibility of this transcript.

         19            JUDGE MAY:  You better remind us of your

         20  argument.

         21            MR. SAYERS:  This witness -- I won't mention

         22  his name -- he was the TO commander in Stari Vitez.

         23  The Court indicated that it felt that his testimony was

         24  significant.  Our position is that the witness

         25  essentially perjured himself on a number of occasions,

Page 15092

          1  and we informed the Court that we did not accept any of

          2  his testimony.  Bearing in mind the Court's earlier

          3  observations regarding matters of weight and things of

          4  that variety, we were prepared to reconsider the

          5  objection, but we're not prepared to reconsider the

          6  objection in so far as this witness gives specific

          7  evidence about our client, and apparently that's

          8  unacceptable to the Prosecution.

          9            It's about, I think, four pages of testimony

         10  in a very substantial transcript that we objected to,

         11  and the Prosecution's not amenable to our suggestion

         12  that those passages be deleted.  They're the only

         13  passages that deal with our client specifically, I

         14  believe.  But in the absence of such an agreement, I

         15  believe we are entitled to confrontation rights for all

         16  the reasons previously articulated, Your Honour.  Thank

         17  you.

         18                 [Trial Chamber confers]

         19            MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, if I might, before

         20  the Court rules, just respond very briefly.

         21            Your Honour, the problem with the deletion

         22  that Mr. Sayers says, properly so, that he has offered

         23  to make, that's a little bit like saying, "We agree to

         24  all the evidence as long as you take everything bad for

         25  us out."  I understand that, coming from his position,

Page 15093

          1  from where he sits, but it doesn't offer much to the

          2  Prosecution to say that, "We'll agree to the transcript

          3  as long as you take anything about our client out of

          4  the transcript."

          5            Your Honour, this particular witness, and the

          6  particular part that Mr. Sayers objects to, and I'll

          7  again speak in relatively general terms, regards or

          8  concerns, the Court may recall a conversation with the

          9  accused Mr. Kordic on one end and several people who

         10  were at the other end, and which another witness has

         11  described how he held the phone out and several people

         12  in the room could hear Mr. Kordic, allegedly hear

         13  Mr. Kordic on the other end.

         14            This witness's story or description of that

         15  event, which again is the only part of the transcript

         16  that Mr. Sayers objects to, is broadly consistent with

         17  that story, that it did happen, that there was a phone

         18  call.  It did happen.  There are some discrepancies in

         19  details.  Those discrepancies on details can be fully

         20  raised in any argument by the Defence.  They can attack

         21  the credibility.  They can say the stories are

         22  inconsistent, it goes to weight, it shouldn't be

         23  regarded as true, et cetera, but it is broadly

         24  consistent with testimony of at least, I think, two

         25  other witnesses who touch on the existence of this

Page 15094

          1  phone call.  So there is corroboration in the record

          2  that this event occurred.

          3            As to the differences in details, Your

          4  Honour, again we submit that it goes to weight.  The

          5  Court, last week, admitted a number of transcripts,

          6  frankly, over Defence objection because, in the Court's

          7  view, they did not go to matters that were absolutely

          8  fundamental to have in court, cross-examination, and we

          9  submit the same as concerning this witness, Your

         10  Honour.

         11            JUDGE MAY:  If we were against you, I'm not

         12  saying we are for the moment, we haven't yet considered

         13  it, but would you want the rest of the transcript in

         14  without that portion?

         15            MR. SCOTT:  Well --

         16            JUDGE MAY:  Or perhaps we could leave that

         17  matter for you to decide.

         18            MR. SCOTT:  I guess we'd want to make a final

         19  decision, Your Honour.  If that's the Court's position,

         20  I guess we'd have to make one last final assessment.

         21            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.  Well, we'll consider that.

         22                 [Trial Chamber confers]

         23            JUDGE MAY:  We've thought about this, and we

         24  think that this witness comes within the category of

         25  those who give significant and important evidence, at

Page 15095

          1  least as far as this conversation is concerned, which

          2  would require his presence and cross-examination on the

          3  point, and it would not be right, in those

          4  circumstances, to rely purely on the transcript.

          5            In those circumstances, we are not going to

          6  admit this transcript unless there are some other

          7  matters which are not particularly in dispute.

          8            MR. NICE:  I think our position -- we've been

          9  discussing it while the Court's been making its mind

         10  up -- our position is that we would seek to put in the

         11  balance of the transcript subject to the pages

         12  identified in the latest letter by Mr. Sayers and

         13  subject to our having one last effort to see if we can

         14  persuade the witness.  If that's -- that means it's in

         15  subject to, as it were.

         16            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.  Subject to the objected

         17  part.

         18            MR. NICE:  We can, in due course, add that to

         19  the binders of transcripts if it's appropriate, taking

         20  out the objected passages.

         21            MR. KOVACIC:  Your Honour, if I may add.  If

         22  that part of the transcript is admitted, then we are in

         23  a different picture, because you remember that events,

         24  what was here presented by --

         25            JUDGE MAY:  We're not going to admit that

Page 15096

          1  part.

          2            MR. KOVACIC:  But the idea, if I understood

          3  correctly, the latest idea of the Prosecutor is that he

          4  might omit this part which is disputed by the Kordic

          5  Defence.  Then probably you can decide to have the

          6  transcript introduced but without that part.

          7            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.

          8            MR. KOVACIC:  But that changes my position

          9  then, because my client was also mentioned being

         10  present on that meeting.  So it puts him in a different

         11  shape, I guess.  I mean, I'm a little bit caught off

         12  guard on that, I have to admit, but --

         13            JUDGE MAY:  Consider the position and

         14  consider it with the Prosecution.  If necessary, you

         15  can refer it back to us --

         16            MR. KOVACIC:  Yes, sir.

         17            JUDGE MAY:  -- once you've found out what

         18  they want to do.

         19            MR. KOVACIC:  Thank you so much.

         20            JUDGE MAY:  Can we deal with the -- oh, no.

         21  It's 11 o’clock.  We'll adjourn now.

         22            MR. NICE:  There are a few more witnesses to

         23  be dealt with specifically from the transcript list.

         24  I'm going to go and see if I can physically lay my

         25  hands on the affidavits or copies of the affidavits

Page 15097

          1  so-called that we've obtained so that we might deal

          2  with the remaining affidavit witnesses.  Mr. Scott can

          3  then deal with exhibits generally, and I'd like to

          4  touch on the question of videos before we adjourn

          5  today.

          6            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.  We too would like the

          7  batting order for the next two weeks.

          8            MR. NICE:  Certainly.

          9            JUDGE MAY:  We'll adjourn until 20 past

         10  today.  We'll come back rather early.

         11                 --- Recess taken at 11.02 a.m.

         12                 --- On resuming at 11.27 a.m.

         13            MR. NICE:  Mr. Scott will deal with a couple

         14  of witnesses in detail.

         15            JUDGE MAY:  Number 21, 26, and 38, am I right

         16  in those numbers?

         17            MR. SCOTT:  Yes, Your Honour.  There is one

         18  other additional matter to raise with the Court.

         19            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.

         20            MR. SCOTT:  Concerning number 26, Your

         21  Honour, that witness will now testify live, so there's

         22  no transcript issue at this juncture.

         23            Concerning number 38, we have communicated,

         24  in this instance, to the Defence that we are agreeable

         25  to only a very small number of pages.  In fact, I think

Page 15098

          1  the pages submitted by the Prosecution, in round

          2  numbers, is something like ten pages of transcript, a

          3  very limited portion of this witness's Blaskic

          4  testimony dealing specifically with one village in the

          5  Lasva Valley.  There is no specific reference in that

          6  excerpt to either of the accused.  So we proceed to

          7  offer that portion of the transcript in lieu of calling

          8  that witness.

          9            JUDGE MAY:  All right.

         10            MR. SCOTT:  I don't know if it is the Court's

         11  pleasure to take the Defence's response right now or to

         12  continue through the other --

         13            JUDGE MAY:  Let's deal with them one by one.

         14            Number 38.

         15            MR. SAYERS:  Yes, Mr. President.  I received

         16  a letter late yesterday concerning witness number 38,

         17  and the position articulated by the Prosecution was

         18  that they only wanted a limited portion of his direct

         19  examination.  They informed us that they had redacted

         20  materials relating to Mr. Kordic specifically, but the

         21  very first passage that we looked at contained a

         22  reference to Mr. Kordic.  So that's a matter of

         23  concern.

         24            The Court will have in mind that this witness

         25  was originally intended to be called live, we had

Page 15099

          1  prepared for him, and then we were instructed that he

          2  was not going to be called; and then subsequently, the

          3  Prosecution wanted to add his transcript to the list of

          4  transcripts to be admitted into evidence; and now they

          5  only want a piece of it to be admitted into evidence.

          6            Then the letter that we received says as

          7  follows:  "We have not identified any cross-examination

          8  to include because we have been extremely narrow in

          9  designating the direct testimony.  We do not believe

         10  that it is fair or appropriate for us to include only a

         11  handful of pages than have the entire cross-examination

         12  included."

         13            It seems to me, Your Honour, that this falls

         14  exactly within the scope of your earlier ruling, that

         15  bits and pieces of transcripts can't be added, it's

         16  either all or nothing.  We have, in principle, no

         17  objection to the admission of this witness's testimony,

         18  provided the passages that relate specifically to

         19  Mr. Kordic, and there are only a few of them, are

         20  deleted.  Otherwise, we would like to have the witness

         21  present for cross-examination on those issues, as we

         22  were prepared to cross-examine him just a few weeks

         23  ago.

         24            That's the position.

         25            JUDGE MAY:  If the reference to your client

Page 15100

          1  were excluded, would you have any objection to the

          2  transcript going in in the redacted form the

          3  Prosecution seek to put it in?

          4            MR. SAYERS:  Well, just for context, Your

          5  Honour, this witness gave about 200 pages of testimony,

          6  and I believe only ten pages are offered.  With the

          7  Court's permission, I'd have to go and take a look

          8  specifically at those pages.  I have not had the

          9  opportunity to look at the specific passages that the

         10  Prosecution wants to have added.  And I can update the

         11  Court on Monday morning, first thing, if that's

         12  acceptable.

         13            JUDGE MAY:  Although it's right, it's a

         14  matter of principle, that we should have all the

         15  testimony in, I mean, it may be with that amount, a

         16  saving of 190 pages would be welcome.

         17            MR. SAYERS:  To all of us, Your Honour, yes.

         18            JUDGE MAY:  You're not in a position to deal

         19  with that, but you want the reference to your client

         20  out.

         21            MR. SAYERS:  Correct.

         22            MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] We did not

         23  object to the admission of this witness, but it is also

         24  our position -- actually, we slightly differ.  I think

         25  that the testimony should be admitted as a whole or not

Page 15101

          1  at all.  And when I say "as a whole," I mean the direct

          2  examination, the cross-examination, and all parts of

          3  the transcript.

          4            JUDGE MAY:  Why do you say that, Mr. Kovacic,

          5  in this particular case?

          6            MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] It seems to me

          7  that, out of a total of some 200 pages, and if at the

          8  end, we admit some 20 pages, then that is certainly out

          9  of context, and one doesn't get the whole picture if

         10  you just read the 20 pages.

         11            JUDGE MAY:  This is so in this case, is it?

         12            MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] That is what it

         13  looks like to me because on the basis of what I have

         14  just heard, on the outcome of these discussions.

         15            MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, I'm not going to

         16  belabour the point, but I must say that this kind of

         17  back and forth is not helpful.  The Kordic Defence

         18  objected to the transcript; it was on the chart that

         19  they did some weeks ago.  They objected; we responded

         20  by attempting to delete the objectionable material; and

         21  then we come this morning and, to some extent, are

         22  taken to task for only offering a part of the

         23  transcript which is directly responsive to the Defence

         24  position.

         25            So I object to that basic taking of position

Page 15102

          1  here.  We've tried to be exactly responsive to the

          2  dialogue that's gone on in this courtroom over the past

          3  ten days.  And we earlier represented to the Court that

          4  we'd make a good-faith effort to limit the testimony of

          5  this particular witness to that particular item which

          6  was not cumulative concerning a particular -- in large

          7  measure, a particular village, Kazagici, and that's

          8  exactly what we did.  And we --

          9            JUDGE MAY:  Sorry to interrupt --

         10            MR. SCOTT:  No.  That's fine, Your Honour.

         11            JUDGE MAY:  -- but is there reference to

         12  Mr. Kordic in it?

         13            MR. SCOTT:  There is some reference and

         14  that's the part we've taken out.

         15            JUDGE MAY:  You've taken that out?

         16            MR. SCOTT:  We've taken that out.  And no

         17  reference, as I know, to Mr. Cerkez.  So I don't

         18  understand the objection.

         19            JUDGE MAY:  No reference to Mr. Kordic, no

         20  reference to Mr. Cerkez.

         21            MR. SCOTT:  No, Your Honour.  That's

         22  correct.

         23                 [Trial Chamber confers]

         24            JUDGE MAY:  Well, we accept what Mr. Scott

         25  says about this.  It's right that there was one part

Page 15103

          1  which was of importance.  We do not want to overburden

          2  the record in this case which is overburdened enough as

          3  it is.  We will admit the ten pages.

          4            MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honour.  It

          5  leaves two, then, witness matters before Mr. Nice deals

          6  with the affidavit.

          7            Number 21, which is also outstanding -- and

          8  I'll pause for everyone to refer to the list -- who

          9  will now come and testify live.  So that is not a

         10  transcript issue.

         11            The final matter, Your Honour, to raise in

         12  this regard, and we alerted the legal officer to this

         13  and a copy of the same letter went to Defence counsel,

         14  we do have one final proposal on this matter, Your

         15  Honour.  We had earlier, the Court will recall,

         16  withdrew, as part of this process, the transcript of

         17  number 42, which again I will pause.  We had withdrawn

         18  that completely voluntarily, Your Honour, when the

         19  Court had requested, some weeks ago, to see if we could

         20  go back through the transcripts and possibly eliminate

         21  a few.  Again, mindful of the President's comments just

         22  now not to burden the record more than necessary.

         23            That decision was made, Your Honour, as so

         24  many decisions at this point in the case, on the basis

         25  of rolling information as to the availability of other

Page 15104

          1  witnesses.  We withdrew number 42 completely on the

          2  notion or premise that another witness would come live,

          3  which in our view, frankly, would have been a better

          4  witness on this issue and, therefore, we withdrew

          5  number 42.

          6            As the Court knows, there's been virtually

          7  day-to-day if not hour-to-hour contact with many of

          8  these witnesses over the past ten days.  The particular

          9  witness that we had hoped to call in this particular

         10  regard, I don't know that his name was particularly

         11  sensitive but, on the other hand, there's probably no

         12  reason to spread it on the record, it would be -- I'm

         13  just seeing if there's a document that the Court has in

         14  front of it.  If the Court still has the chart that was

         15  used some days ago, the categories of the dead and

         16  unwilling argument.  I'm not sure we need to get

         17  heavily bogged down in this, but -- so the record is --

         18  well, at least that the Court is more advised, it was

         19  one of the Category D witnesses.  The witness was

         20  number 9.

         21            We had proposed to call witness number 9 on

         22  that list in place of the transcript of number 42.

         23  Number 9 -- I will say Mr. H -- is now no longer

         24  desirous of coming to The Hague.  Because of that, Your

         25  Honour, we have reconsidered the state of the evidence

Page 15105

          1  on the points covered or to be covered, and in lieu of

          2  pressing Mr. H further, we simply think we can

          3  accomplish the same and, in fact, we can accomplish it

          4  with one less live witness over the next two weeks, by

          5  instead renewing our offer of the transcript of number

          6  42.  That's our position.

          7            I am reminded, Your Honour, if it's a factor

          8  in the Court's thinking, that a subpoena did go out

          9  to -- as been applied for to Mr. H, but we're not sure

         10  the effect -- what the ultimate effect of that might

         11  be.

         12            Simply put, Your Honour, the Prosecution

         13  seeks to simplify the matter at this juncture by using

         14  the transcript of number 42 in lieu of the other

         15  witness.

         16            JUDGE MAY:  Very well.  That's the

         17  application.

         18            MR. SCOTT:  Yes, Your Honour.

         19            JUDGE MAY:  We have the Defence position set

         20  out, the objection being, on behalf Mr. Kordic, a

         21  question of credibility because the witness lied under

         22  oath, which was demonstrated during cross-examination.

         23  The witness, as you say, should, therefore, be called

         24  live.  He gives evidence about Kiseljak and Rotilj and

         25  about two of the HVO units.  He gives no direct

Page 15106

          1  evidence as far as either of accused is concerned.

          2            Anything you want to add to that?

          3            MR. SAYERS:  Just one point, Mr. President,

          4  and that is that apparently the exhibit with which the

          5  witness was confronted on cross-examination was

          6  sealed.  We have not seen it.  If the Court is of a

          7  mind to permit the introduction of this transcript,

          8  then we would certainly like to see the exhibit.

          9            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.

         10            MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] We have no

         11  position because these are witnesses outside the

         12  indictment for Mr. Cerkez.

         13            JUDGE MAY:  Mr. Scott, is there any

         14  difficulty about the sealed exhibit?

         15            MR. SCOTT:  No, Your Honour.  We think that's

         16  a fair request and we can provide it to counsel.

         17            JUDGE MAY:  All right.

         18                 [Trial Chamber confers]

         19            JUDGE MAY:  In our ruling on the transcripts,

         20  we set aside a category which we call generally

         21  "Village Witnesses."  This witness comes into that

         22  category, and we shall admit the transcript.  The

         23  sealed exhibit must obviously be provided, produced,

         24  and the objection relating to credibility relates to

         25  weight and that would be a matter for us to determine.

Page 15107

          1            MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honour.

          2            MR. NICE:  Before I turn to the next topic of

          3  affidavits, I'm sure the Court will appreciate that a

          4  lot of the sorting out that we've been attempting over

          5  the last couple of weeks is sorting out to ensure that

          6  every element of the confirmed indictment is covered by

          7  an on-the-ground witness but that not too much material

          8  is provided for each of those individual on-the-ground

          9  crimes.  We hope indeed that we would have covered

         10  every such element.

         11            If by any reason there is a shortfall,

         12  through oversight or through some event that happens at

         13  the very last minute in relation to witnesses we're

         14  expecting to call, I observe simply in advance that

         15  it's always going to be open to the Trial Chamber

         16  itself, under Rule 98, to request us to produce more

         17  evidence in relation to such particular topics.

         18            The affidavit witnesses, the Chamber will

         19  remember, were listed at the foot of the list of

         20  witnesses headed "Argument on Dead and Unwilling."  If

         21  the Chamber has that list, I can inform you that we

         22  have now what we loosely term affidavits in respect of

         23  the following witnesses:  Numbers 14, 17, 20, 21, 22,

         24  and 23.

         25            Before I turn to the format of the affidavits

Page 15108

          1  and just so I don't forget the point, because it's a

          2  general institutional matter for no doubt this Chamber

          3  and other Judges to consider in due course, we've

          4  finally achieved what we wanted and what the Chamber

          5  rightly from the beginning of this trial was

          6  encouraging us to look at under its Rules.  It's, at

          7  the moment, necessary to do that because of the

          8  arguments raised about not necessarily evidence raised

          9  about investigators' statements, arguments we reject.

         10            The exercise has brought terrific cooperation

         11  from the local Judge, as you can hear, but it is

         12  extremely time-consuming.  Obviously more

         13  time-consuming as is anything at its pilot stage, the

         14  first time it's attempted and achieved, but it's a very

         15  time-consuming exercise.

         16            Now, I have before me the product of the

         17  recent mission to get these affidavits.  I can't make

         18  them available in their present form to the Defence,

         19  because in each case, as you would expect, the Judge

         20  has obtained not just the name but the addresses of the

         21  witnesses concerned, and that is material that

         22  typically does not go to the Defence.

         23            That apart, I think the documents could be

         24  shown for their general format to the Chamber, although

         25  again the name of individual witnesses is probably

Page 15109

          1  something that shouldn't be put on an ELMO.

          2            So I'm in this position:  If the Defence

          3  don't object at this stage, I could simply show to Your

          4  Honour and Your Honour's colleagues the precise format

          5  of these documents, and then in due course, I hope over

          6  the weekend or within a couple of days getting, with

          7  the Chamber's leave, the redacted versions served on

          8  the Defence excising the addresses of the witnesses,

          9  but at least you'll know straightaway the format of the

         10  documents that we've produced.

         11            Mr. Guariglia, who was the lawyer who

         12  attended, with an investigator, and a Judge, is here to

         13  explain the process that was gone through and not as a

         14  witness but I hope from counsel's row, and I'm going to

         15  ask the Chamber to say in principle, subject to any

         16  arguments, and of course subject to production of

         17  redacted and translated versions of these documents,

         18  that they may be admitted.

         19            The first step, therefore, is whether the

         20  Chamber's prepared to see these, as it were, ex parte,

         21  but in court because of the references to addresses.

         22            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.  I don't see how we could

         23  possibly determine the matter without hearing what the

         24  Defence have got to say about it, but no harm in our

         25  seeing them.

Page 15110

          1            MR. SAYERS:  Just as a matter of principle,

          2  Your Honour, it seems to me that if in the Trial

          3  Chamber sees them then we should to, and the Trial

          4  Chamber should see them at the same point that we do,

          5  when they've been reduced to a form for everyone's

          6  consumption, shall we say.

          7                 [Trial Chamber confers]

          8            JUDGE MAY:  We're concerned about the notion

          9  of seeing these documents without the Defence having

         10  seen them, but speaking for myself, I would like to see

         11  the format in which they are without seeing any of the

         12  details.  Can you perhaps describe it and then we'll

         13  hear exactly how they were taken?

         14            MR. NICE:  Yes.  I think probably without --

         15            THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please,

         16  Mr. Nice.

         17            MR. NICE:  Rather than do it secondhand, I

         18  think the best thing is Mr. Guariglia, who is a lawyer

         19  within the Office of the Prosecutor and who is of grade

         20  to have rights of audience, rights of audience explains

         21  it to you.

         22            JUDGE MAY:  Yes, but I'd like you to work out

         23  how we can see on the ELMO the relevant parts which

         24  will indicate what the authentication or whatever it is

         25  is.

Page 15111

          1            MR. NICE:  Very well.  I think if I can find

          2  one witness who is unlikely to have selected any form

          3  of protection, I'll just deal with that.

          4            With the usher's cooperation -- sorry.

          5                 [Trial Chamber confers]

          6            MR. NICE:  With the usher's cooperation, I

          7  will lay two sheets on the ELMO for a witness who, I

          8  understand, expressed no desire for protection, and

          9  Mr. Guariglia will be able to assist you with what

         10  happened.

         11            MR. GUARIGLIA:  Your Honour, what you see is

         12  a statement taken by an investigative judge in the

         13  Cantonal Court in Zenica, pursuant to a request for

         14  assistance made by the Office of the Prosecutor,

         15  channelled through the Ministry of Justice, and treated

         16  by the investigative judge and by the Cantonal Court in

         17  Zenica, under the applicable provisions in the domestic

         18  law dealing with international assistance and

         19  cooperation.

         20            The procedure was very simple and

         21  straightforward, although long and time-consuming.

         22  Witnesses were summoned by the national authorities,

         23  pursuant to the applicable domestic provisions, and

         24  then appeared before the investigative judge in the

         25  Cantonal Court in Zenica.

Page 15112

          1            There, witnesses were shown, by the

          2  investigative judge, their previous statement given to

          3  investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor for the

          4  purpose of confirming that those statements were their

          5  statements, confirming their signature in those

          6  documents, and confirming further the accuracy and

          7  truthfulness of the contents of those documents.

          8  Witnesses were shown either the French or English

          9  version of the statement, which is the one that they

         10  had previously signed, for the purposes of confirming

         11  their signature, and they were also shown versions of

         12  their statement in their language, for the purposes of

         13  confirming the truthfulness of their contents.

         14            Witnesses were invited to make any

         15  corrections, amendments, that they wished to, and two

         16  of them, to my recollection, made some minor amendments

         17  that were placed in the record by the investigative

         18  judge.

         19            What you have on the screen before you is the

         20  record of that hearing before the investigative judge

         21  in which witnesses confirmed the documents that were

         22  shown to them, and if they wished to make any

         23  amendments, those amendments, those corrections, were

         24  placed in this very document that you have before you.

         25            JUDGE BENNOUNA:  Excuse me.  The person

Page 15113

          1  concerned was assisted by somebody?  Was the person

          2  concerned, the witness, assisted by somebody, or was he

          3  or she alone?

          4            MR. GUARIGLIA:  Your Honour, the witness was

          5  on his or her own before the judge.  Our presence in

          6  the courtroom, as well as the presence of a translator,

          7  this was for the purposes of -- since there had to be

          8  documents that had to be shown and identified and

          9  confirmed by the witness that were not in his or her

         10  language, we were there and the interpreter was there

         11  in order to allow the documents to be shown and

         12  explained to the witness and to the judge, although the

         13  judge already had the documents in advance as

         14  attachments to our request for assistance.

         15            One thing that I want to make clear to Your

         16  Honours is that before the witness was shown the

         17  documents, in order to make a statement as to their

         18  accuracy and truthfulness, the witnesses were

         19  identified by the investigative judge, and they took an

         20  oath to speak the truth, pursuant to the applicable

         21  domestic provisions, and they were warned about the

         22  applicability of the national provisions dealing with

         23  perjury if they failed to speak the truth in front of

         24  the judge in the Cantonal Court in Zenica.

         25            Finally, the document that you see before you

Page 15114

          1  was signed -- all of them were signed by the witnesses,

          2  with the exception of one who was illiterate, and she

          3  had to sign with a cross, but then it was also placed

          4  in the record by the investigative judge, all documents

          5  were signed by the investigative judge and then further

          6  authenticated with the seal of the Cantonal Court in

          7  Zenica, which is the seal that you have here at the

          8  lower end of the document.

          9            Can we have the other sheet of paper,

         10  please.

         11            There is finally a third document, Your

         12  Honours.  It is a document certifying the turnover of

         13  all certified copies of these statements to me and to

         14  Mr. Terry Cameron from the Office of the Prosecutor,

         15  and that is also certified with the seal of the court,

         16  all of these documents.

         17            JUDGE MAY:  Can we see the top of the

         18  statement?  We've seen the bottom.  Can we see the top

         19  of it?  There must be a first page.

         20            MR. NICE:  The typed sheet is the first

         21  page.  If we look at the typed sheet, that's the first

         22  page which has the name -- the other sheet, please.  It

         23  has the name, and it's the bottom bit that has the

         24  address that I've turned over.

         25            JUDGE MAY:  I see.

Page 15115

          1            MR. NICE:  That's the first sheet of A4, and

          2  then the second sheet is the statement itself.

          3            MR. GUARIGLIA:  Basically, Your Honours, that

          4  was the procedure that we took.  It proved to be very

          5  efficient, although, as I already said,

          6  time-consuming.  The national authorities were

          7  extremely cooperative, and in the end, we managed, with

          8  their assistance, to collect a number of these

          9  statements.

         10                 [Trial Chamber confers]

         11            JUDGE BENNOUNA:  Mr. Nice, I think you are

         12  aware of Rule 94 ter.  That means that the affidavit is

         13  admissible only as far as it is a corroboration of --

         14  it's given to prove a fact, first, and it is a

         15  corroboration of the testimony in lieu of a witness.

         16  Is it the case for this evidence?  Do they correspond

         17  to the Rule 94 ter?

         18            MR. NICE:  So far as is possible, they do.

         19  The regime of 94 ter is arguably unworkable in this

         20  case, I think, because of its detail, arguably

         21  unworkable generally, but that's for another place and

         22  another time.  But, yes, these witnesses were chosen on

         23  the grounds that, so far as possible, they amount to

         24  corroborative material.

         25            JUDGE BENNOUNA:  On facts.

Page 15116

          1            MR. NICE:  Yes.

          2            JUDGE BENNOUNA:  Thank you.

          3            MR. NICE:  I hope that adequately explains

          4  the present position.

          5                 [Trial Chamber confers]

          6            JUDGE MAY:  Looking at 94 ter, the Defence

          7  have seven days in which to object once the affidavits

          8  are served.

          9            MR. NICE:  Yes.

         10            JUDGE MAY:  Well, we'll have to hear those

         11  objections.

         12                 [Trial Chamber confers]

         13            MR. NICE:  Subject to comparatively minor

         14  corrections and amendments, the affidavits confirm the

         15  accuracy of the OTP statements, and we would ask for an

         16  abbreviation of time.  Frankly, we would ask for a

         17  substantial abbreviation of time because they've been

         18  on notice from the service of this document, at the

         19  very latest, and from, indeed, earlier documents months

         20  ago, that these affidavits were going to be sought,

         21  because, indeed, in the amended overview of our

         22  witnesses, pursuant to the general inclination of the

         23  Court to indicate its favour of affidavits, we

         24  identified those witnesses that we would seek to deal

         25  with by affidavit.

Page 15117

          1            The things come as late as they do simply

          2  because of the intractable problem, until recently, of

          3  finding any document that could merit the description

          4  "affidavit" or "formal statement," and the Chamber

          5  will recall that there has been, and maybe there still

          6  will be, root-and-branch objection by the Defence on

          7  the grounds that no document can qualify as an

          8  affidavit or formal statement.

          9            But they've been on notice that we want these

         10  witnesses dealt with in this convenient way for

         11  months.

         12                 [Trial Chamber confers]

         13            JUDGE MAY:  When are the Defence going to get

         14  these documents?

         15            MR. NICE:  I can't, as you know, impose

         16  priorities on translation.  I will do my best to ensure

         17  that these documents are translated, if not by the

         18  official translation unit, by a language assistant for

         19  a draft translation, if that's the only thing I can

         20  achieve, in a few days.  But I can't make promises; I

         21  don't have those resources.  It will be -- it's

         22  obviously --

         23            JUDGE BENNOUNA:  Excuse me.  You just said

         24  that they received the statements.  They are just a

         25  reproduction, these affidavits are a reproduction of

Page 15118

          1  these statements.  The statements were translated.

          2            MR. NICE:  They've had the original

          3  statements, which are verified by these affidavits, for

          4  months or years.  And further, I'm just going to find

          5  the document --

          6                 [Trial Chamber confers]

          7            MR. NICE:  Can I just amplify it --

          8            JUDGE BENNOUNA:  Is it the same?

          9            THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone to Judge

         10  Bennouna, please.

         11            MR. NICE:  Yes.  Let me just finally make the

         12  position.  On the 10th of November, the Chamber will

         13  remember, in response to a request, I think, initiated

         14  by His Honour Judge Bennouna, we provided a list of

         15  statements identifying those which should be by

         16  affidavit.  I can't say that all these are exactly on

         17  that list, but I think all, or the majority of them

         18  are.

         19            The statements that are effectively being

         20  offered in evidence have been with the Defence for

         21  months or years because they are the OTP statements.

         22            The affidavit statements, and in particular,

         23  the one we looked at, and I can just put it back on the

         24  ELMO with the usher's assistance, because I think I

         25  understand it to this degree, only contain a few

Page 15119

          1  corrections in a few places, and although I don't --

          2                 [Trial Chamber confers]

          3            MR. NICE:  For example, if you look at this

          4  same affidavit, you can pick up the format of a

          5  correction -- and this was one, I think, of the two

          6  affidavits where there were any corrections -- and if

          7  you look about halfway down the screen, you'll see some

          8  references to what we know to be "ERN" or something

          9  numbers; five lines down, you'll see 00793565.

         10            Now, at that point of the statement, as I

         11  understand it, the witness was making a correction or

         12  amplification of what he'd said before, and so this

         13  witness had a few amplifications or matters of detail

         14  to correct, but otherwise he was adopting his original

         15  statement.  Now, these corrections or amplifications

         16  will have to be translated and made available, and I'll

         17  do that at the earliest possibility.  But as I

         18  understand it, there was no significant or radical

         19  departure of any kind from the earlier statements, and

         20  the Defence have been on notice since November that

         21  these witnesses were witnesses we hoped to deal with in

         22  this way.

         23            JUDGE MAY:  Clearly, the earlier that this is

         24  served, the better.

         25            MR. NICE:  Yes.

Page 15120

          1            JUDGE MAY:  There has been notice.  We have

          2  heard what the Prosecution say about the matter, and we

          3  have now in mind how the affidavits were taken.  But we

          4  can't rule until we've heard what the Defence have to

          5  say.

          6            Speaking for myself, I would be minded to

          7  shorten the period that you'll get, since you've had

          8  the statements for some time, but we'll rule on that

          9  when these matters are served.

         10            MR. NICE:  Thank you very much.  That leaves,

         11  I think, as a substantial issue for today, the position

         12  on outstanding exhibits.

         13            As the Chamber knows, we have been concerned

         14  to achieve -- I'll come back to that in 30 seconds.

         15            One other thing about affidavits.  The

         16  Chamber will recall that in relation to the Novi

         17  Travnik binder, Mr. Lopez-Terres spoke of statements

         18  taken by the ICTY in relation to cross-examination that

         19  went to the suggestion that recorded crimes may not

         20  have been committed, I think, so dealing with some

         21  detailed matters that were raised in

         22  cross-examination.

         23            He said that we'll get affidavits if we can,

         24  and it is possible that we will get them within a

         25  fortnight.  It seems to me equally possible that they

Page 15121

          1  may be outstanding on the day when we're required

          2  formally to close our case, and I simply say that if

          3  they are outstanding at that stage, we would

          4  nevertheless seek to have them put in out of time.

          5            We've only just known of this process of

          6  affidavit, and it wouldn't have been possible to have

          7  dealt with them any earlier.  But if I give notice of

          8  that now, then it can't be said I haven't thought of

          9  it.  And it's really a peripheral matter.  I would have

         10  thought, frankly, that the crimes might themselves not

         11  have been challenged, but apparently we've been put to

         12  proof that they --

         13            THE INTERPRETER:  Would you slow down,

         14  please, Mr. Nice.

         15            MR. NICE:  Exhibits.  We've been attempting

         16  two things with the exercise on exhibits, handled

         17  substantially by Mr. Scott.

         18            On the one hand, we have to ensure that all

         19  potentially relevant exhibits are before you in a

         20  library form, although you won't be referred to

         21  everything, of course not, at the end of the day, but

         22  we don't know now what the issues are.  We know

         23  something of the issues from the cross-examination, but

         24  until we hear Defence evidence, we can't know what the

         25  real issues are, and it's important that exhibits we

Page 15122

          1  can produce are available.

          2            On the other hand, we don't want to weary you

          3  by any further extended production of exhibits that

          4  needn't be dealt with in that way, and so we've

          5  collected them, served them, and listed them.

          6            Our application is that all those documents

          7  should be admitted in evidence, subject to good reason

          8  to the contrary; obviously weight being a matter for

          9  later determination and in the light of argument.

         10            What's happened is that there's been a

         11  response by the Defence.  Mr. Scott has collated, for

         12  your assistance, and all our assistance, the objections

         13  by categories, and I'll ask him to deal with it.  But

         14  our basic position is that subject to quite specific

         15  attacks on specific documents, that really documents

         16  should go in at this stage -- I think Your Honour said

         17  something about many documents really speaking for

         18  themselves -- and matters of detail to be resolved more

         19  when they arise than in the generality at this stage.

         20            I'll leave Mr. Scott to deal with that, and

         21  with your leave, I will withdraw for a few minutes,

         22  because I may want to say something about videos before

         23  we separate today, and I may need to speak to somebody

         24  else outside of court about that.

         25            MR. SCOTT:  If they haven't been already, if

Page 15123

          1  I can ask the usher's assistance to provide this

          2  one-page chart, I suppose.

          3            What this represents, Your Honour -- and

          4  before starting any further treatment of it, let me

          5  explain it.  This is a review of the first

          6  approximately 150 pages of an exhibit list.  It is not

          7  complete in the sense that the exhibit list goes beyond

          8  page 150, but for purposes of this morning's

          9  presentation and to give the Court an overall feel, if

         10  I can say that, for the overall situation where we are

         11  at the moment, I felt we probably would not get more

         12  than 150 pages into these items in the time allowing in

         13  any event, but I think this makes the points that the

         14  Prosecution would hope to make about these outstanding

         15  matters, Your Honour.

         16            What we have done is go through the various

         17  correspondence and exchanges with the Defence and

         18  indicated in rough categories the nature of the

         19  documents being objected to.  I will come -- well, I'll

         20  come to it now.

         21            The nature of the vast majority of these

         22  exceptions or objections -- and I would say that only

         23  the very smallest number of variation, in fact, I think

         24  in the first 100 pages, you could count them perhaps on

         25  one hand -- the objections are to lack of foundation or

Page 15124

          1  authentication.  They are not necessarily to such

          2  things such as relevance or that they are material or

          3  immaterial.  But the vast majority, I would say

          4  something like 95 per cent of the objections go to lack

          5  of foundation or authentication as stated in the

          6  materials provided to us by the Defence.

          7            I'm going to come back to the first category,

          8  Your Honour.  If I can take the list somewhat out of

          9  order.

         10            There is a category about the middle of the

         11  chart.  One is "BBC," the Court will see, and the other

         12  is "Other Media."  These are various either newspaper

         13  articles or newspaper summaries, Your Honour, put out,

         14  in the instance of the BBC, obviously, by the BBC.  We

         15  think this evidence, Your Honour, is entirely relevant

         16  to the Court.

         17            We remind the Court, as the Court knows well

         18  by now, the accused Mr. Kordic was a public figure.  He

         19  was, among other things, a political figure.  He was --

         20  I think, even in his own trial brief considered himself

         21  something as a press spokesperson on behalf of the

         22  Bosnian Croat entities.

         23            It is obvious and logical in the process of

         24  carrying out those functions, he made, in the course of

         25  two years or so, a number of public statements, whether

Page 15125

          1  they were by press release, press conference,

          2  statements to journalists, et cetera.

          3            Your Honour, we think it's highly relevant,

          4  as would be the case with any public figure, that this

          5  information, their statements, their public statements,

          6  their statements to the press are indicative and

          7  relevant to not only their personal positions but also

          8  the positions of the entities that they represent.

          9            We understand that there is a hearsay aspect

         10  to this, as with any press material, and the Court can

         11  certainly take that into consideration as to weight.

         12  We would certainly not argue to the contrary.

         13            All of us probably in the courtroom, Your

         14  Honour, have had various dealings or experiences with

         15  the press in one fashion or another, professionally or

         16  otherwise, and I think we can all make judgements

         17  accordingly.

         18            But these are the recorded statements or the

         19  statements of, in particular -- not always, but

         20  particularly Mr. Kordic, making various statements

         21  about the HVO's position or about the HVO policy, about

         22  certain acts or events in Central Bosnia, and we think

         23  they should be admitted for their -- and considered for

         24  their weight, Your Honour.

         25            In regard to the BBC summaries, I don't

Page 15126

          1  think, Your Honour, I don't even think the Defence

          2  would say, I hope, that there's any reason to believe

          3  that they were somehow falsified or manufactured in

          4  some way.  They are what they say they are.  And as to

          5  the rest of it, Your Honour, we believe it goes to

          6  weight.  We think that these two categories of

          7  material, subject to those conversations, should be

          8  allowed.

          9            As to moving down the list, Your Honour,

         10  there are still -- there were still a few, eight -- the

         11  Court will see from the format of the chart the

         12  individual exhibits are listed by number, and then the

         13  first number in each box is simply the number of items

         14  in that box.  Obviously some of them, it's very

         15  evident, but some of the larger categories such as the

         16  first one, we've indicated that there are 155 exhibits

         17  in the first category.  I should have probably

         18  explained that earlier.

         19            Going back to ECMM, there are some eight

         20  outstanding documents at least in the first 150 pages

         21  of the list.  Here again, Your Honour, we see no reason

         22  why, given the amount of ECMM material that's come into

         23  the case -- we think for good reason, we think entirely

         24  reliably, the Court has heard from many ECMM witnesses

         25  firsthand -- we see no particular reason why these

Page 15127

          1  exhibits should be doubted in terms of their

          2  authenticity or foundation any more than the others

          3  that have come into evidence.

          4            The same can be said, Your Honour, for the

          5  UNPROFOR or BritBat documents in the next category.

          6  Some approximately 38 items, again in the first

          7  150 pages of the list.  We'd make the same -- these are

          8  milinfosums, statements or reports from the main

          9  headquarters in Kiseljak, again, all the materials that

         10  the Court has seen time and time again in the course of

         11  the past ten months.  We simply see no reason, Your

         12  Honour, and no specific reasons have been tendered by

         13  the Defence, why these particular 38 documents are less

         14  reliable than the others that have been admitted.

         15            Very quickly, Your Honour, the other

         16  international documents, there are objections to a

         17  document indicating the European Community's

         18  recognition of the independence of Croatia.  It's not

         19  clear to us why that's objectionable.  There's also a

         20  document indicating the Republic of

         21  Bosnia-Herzegovina's succession to the Geneva

         22  Conventions.  I'm not sure why that should be

         23  objectionable.

         24            There are 13 items of videotape, Your

         25  Honour.  Again, the videotape basically speaks for

Page 15128

          1  itself, in the absence of some specific indication that

          2  a particular tape has been falsified or manufactured in

          3  some way.  Other than that, Your Honour, the tapes

          4  basically speak for themselves.  They show what they

          5  show.

          6            As an example, if it's a press conference by

          7  Mr. Kordic, the Court can look at the tape itself.  It

          8  looks like Mr. Kordic.  It sounds like Mr. Kordic.

          9  Absent some allegations specifically and support that

         10  that was somehow falsified, Your Honour, which there's

         11  been no suggestion of that to date, then again, the

         12  evidence should come in subject to, I guess, further

         13  attack, specific attack if the Defence cares to,

         14  sometime between now and the close of the entire

         15  evidence.

         16            Finally, just on that one specific other

         17  miscellaneous item, the Narodni List, that is a matter

         18  of public record, legislation, if you will, or notice

         19  of governmental business.  It's not clear to us why

         20  that should be objectionable.

         21            That then takes us back, Your Honour, to the

         22  top part of the chart.  There are approximately 155

         23  outstanding or objected-to exhibits in this category,

         24  which we've characterised essentially HVO, HDZ,

         25  Herceg-Bosna, or Bosnian-Croat documents.  There is no

Page 15129

          1  specific indication as to any of these -- well, strike

          2  that.  There are a very small number, literally, I

          3  think, maybe three or four, where something might be

          4  said beyond simply lack of foundation.  But there's no

          5  specific reasons as to why these documents should be

          6  viewed as unreliable.

          7            The Court well knows from other litigation

          8  before the Court concerning binding orders in that

          9  matter that the Prosecution has a limited ability, if

         10  any, to bring to you an HVO custodian of record,

         11  someone who could come and say, "I was a high official

         12  with the HVO and here's our documents."  The Court

         13  knows that in the past several years, no official has

         14  come forward to produce such documents to this Court.

         15            Nonetheless, the documents have been gathered

         16  in the course of the Prosecutor's investigations from a

         17  number of different sources, and we simply again

         18  submit, Your Honour, that at this point in the trial,

         19  they should come in, subject to any further specific

         20  attack the Defence may care to make in the Defence

         21  case, or at some other time if it can make it specific

         22  other than -- as opposed to a general showing.

         23            That leaves us with two relatively small

         24  categories, Your Honour, at this particular stage, in

         25  terms of the HV or HDZ; that is, the political party in

Page 15130

          1  Croatia as opposed to Bosnia, or to Republic of Croatia

          2  documents.  I suspect, Your Honour, in fairness, that

          3  that number will grow as we get beyond the first

          4  150 pages, especially as to international armed

          5  conflict.  So again, I don't want anyone, especially

          6  the Court, to be confused that this represents a total

          7  figure.  This is the first 150 pages, and I suspect

          8  there will be more Croatian documents, many more,

          9  before the process is completed.

         10            That's our position, Your Honour.  We think

         11  that objections as to foundation or authenticity,

         12  absent some specific showing that a particular

         13  document -- there are some articulated grounds for

         14  thinking that some particular document has been

         15  falsified in some way.  We certainly expect the Court

         16  to hear that, but there's no such allegation as to

         17  these documents, and we think they should be admitted,

         18  Your Honour.  Thank you.

         19            MR. SAYERS:  Mr. President, speaking for

         20  myself, this discussion takes us a little by surprise,

         21  if I may say so.  I thought we were dealing with the

         22  village binders today, and we had prepared to deal with

         23  those, but apparently we're not going to deal with all

         24  of those today.  Instead, the Prosecution prefers to

         25  deal with the matter of exhibits.

Page 15131

          1            I might also point out that we were told at

          2  about 9.30 last night that the Prosecution was going to

          3  have a witness here from the Agency for Investigation

          4  and Documentation about whom we had never heard before

          5  and who's not on the witness list.  So we spent some

          6  time preparing as best we could for that too.

          7            Just thinking on my feet with respect to the

          8  matter of exhibits, let me just say this:  As I

          9  understand it, there are six batches of exhibits that

         10  have been supplied to us and, I guess, to the Court as

         11  well.  There are many thousands of exhibits in those

         12  batches.  We have prepared and filed with the Court a

         13  response to each one of these batches.  The responses

         14  are fairly detailed.  They speak for themselves, Your

         15  Honour.

         16            I've not seen this document that was handed

         17  to us before, but just taking a look, as one example

         18  from the UNPROFOR documents, which we generally do not

         19  object to, looking at Exhibit 313, if you turn to our

         20  responses to batch one on page 4, there's no objection

         21  to Exhibit 313.  So I don't know that it makes -- I

         22  mean, if that's representative of what we see on this

         23  list, and I don't know the methodology that's been used

         24  in selecting particular exhibits to put on this list,

         25  but if that's representative, it doesn't seem to make a

Page 15132

          1  whole lot of sense going through these things until

          2  we've had the opportunity to verify that, in fact,

          3  these materials are objected to.  That one, and I just

          4  chose it at random, is not.

          5            If I could just address the particular topics

          6  here.  Once again, just thinking on my feet.  With

          7  respect to the HVO documents, the HDZ, HZ HB documents,

          8  our general policy has been not to object to those

          9  documents that are signed and when they're in a format

         10  that is broadly consistent with other documents of the

         11  same type.  We do object to documents that are not

         12  signed, documents generated by who knows who and who

         13  knows when and who knows whether they were, in fact,

         14  generally generated within the time periods that they

         15  appear to have been.  I think our lack of foundation

         16  and lack of authentication objections with respect to

         17  those are valid.

         18            But I must say, and I don't know exactly how

         19  to address this, I mean, these are document-by-document

         20  objections, and I would imagine that that's the last

         21  thing that the Court wants to do, to go through these

         22  mass of documents --

         23            JUDGE BENNOUNA:  Can you wait?

         24                 [Trial Chamber confers]

         25            JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Sayers,

Page 15133

          1  you yourself have just received this list which has to

          2  do, in fact, with the objections that you made as we

          3  went along.  Perhaps you don't have the details of

          4  those objections document by document.  This is a list

          5  where documents are grouped into categories.  Wouldn't

          6  it be more practical, perhaps, to have from your side a

          7  table, at a certain point in time, which would,

          8  category by category, remind us of the nature of your

          9  objections, and then we can rule on the basis of that

         10  table.  This way, we're talking in general terms.  We

         11  cannot make any practical conclusions.

         12            So if you could provide a kind of

         13  retrospective similar to that made by the Prosecution.

         14  I personally, of course, cannot remember, and I must

         15  say fortunately, because if my memory wasn't selective,

         16  I don't know where we'd be.  So you have your own

         17  memory registered somewhere in a computer from which

         18  you could derive a table and then we could discuss it.

         19            I don't know whether you agree with that

         20  suggestion of mine or whether you wish to deal with the

         21  matter now.

         22            MR. SAYERS:  Well, Your Honour, I certainly

         23  respect what you say, but I thought we had done that.

         24  We had actually provided the Court with a very detailed

         25  list.  The list is in numerical order.  We have

Page 15134

          1  rearranged the documents that were delivered to us in a

          2  higgledy-piggledy, hodge-podge fashion by the

          3  Prosecution.  I'm the first to confess.  I have

          4  absolutely no idea what logic underlies the numbering

          5  system that the Prosecution uses, but whatever logic it

          6  is, there is a systematic -- there's a sequential

          7  numbering, and we've actually filed that with the

          8  Court, the Z numbers.  Z4 is the first exhibit --

          9            JUDGE MAY:  Does it cover all the documents

         10  which the Prosecution are seeking to admit?

         11            MR. SAYERS:  There are two categories of

         12  documents, as I understand it, Mr. President.  The

         13  first is the batches of outstanding exhibits that are

         14  general in nature that have been delivered to us, and

         15  we have responded to all of those, yes, Your Honour.

         16  Then there's a second category dealing with

         17  international armed conflict documents, and we have

         18  responded to all of those as we were required to do by

         19  the Court.

         20            I'm sure the Court has in mind that we were

         21  required to go through each of these exhibits and

         22  produce our position with respect to each of them.

         23            JUDGE MAY:  Well, time is getting on.  We'll

         24  have to consider this over the weekend.  It may be that

         25  you will wish to respond to this document, the most

Page 15135

          1  recent one, in a general or a particular way.  It's a

          2  matter for you whether you do or not.  The suggestion

          3  is that you might like to look at the categories, see

          4  how accurately you say the objected documents are set

          5  out, and if you wanted to say anything about the

          6  categories, say it.

          7            MR. SAYERS:  We will certainly do our best,

          8  Mr. President, but I hope the Court bears in mind, as

          9  the last two weeks this case comes to a close, the

         10  preparation obligations upon us are tremendous, and the

         11  last thing that -- well, actually, let me just make one

         12  point in 30 seconds, if I may, along those lines.

         13            It can't -- I think it's fairly obvious to

         14  everybody what's going on here.  We're being deflected

         15  with just short-notice matters.  It seems to me that it

         16  would be helpful for everybody if we knew exactly, in

         17  an organised and logical way, what it is that we're

         18  supposed to deal with, when we're supposed to deal with

         19  it, so that --

         20            JUDGE MAY:  Well, look.  We have some

         21  sympathy with the position you are in, but what is

         22  happening is that you have a list of witnesses.  If we

         23  think you're being treated unfairly, we shall say so,

         24  but there are pressures on everybody to get this case

         25  finished --

Page 15136

          1            MR. SAYERS:  Absolutely.

          2            JUDGE MAY:  -- and we must ask everybody to

          3  respond.  If the timetable is not what it was said to

          4  be then, of course, if you need more time on a point,

          5  of course you shall have it.

          6            MR. SAYERS:  I appreciate that, Your Honour,

          7  and I won't belabour the point.  I think the point's

          8  been made.  But we'll give some thought, if we can,

          9  over the weekend to the preparation of a category list

         10  like this and see if it's feasible and update the Court

         11  on Monday.

         12            JUDGE MAY:  Thank you.  We will consider the

         13  matter.

         14            Mr. Kovacic, unless there's anything to say,

         15  we will consider the matter.  If need be, we'll ask for

         16  further argument and then we'll rule on it.

         17            MR. KOVACIC:  But I understand that we'll

         18  have opportunity on Monday to say what we think about

         19  that approach.

         20            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.

         21            MR. KOVACIC:  Thank you.

         22            JUDGE MAY:  Yes, Mr. Nice.

         23            MR. NICE:  It's quite right we have a witness

         24  here who is a witness who would be in a position to

         25  deal with the generality of the process of transmission

Page 15137

          1  of large quantities of the documents to us.  Indeed, I

          2  think that the method he would describe would be

          3  broadly similar to the method the same person would

          4  describe if giving an account of how documents are

          5  produced pursuant to a court order from the body he

          6  represents.  The problem, of course, is if there's a

          7  challenge to the authenticity of some specific

          8  document, in the nature of things, you've got to

          9  possibly move from that witness back a generation or

         10  back a couple of generations.

         11            His evidence will, of course, be admissible

         12  under our Rules because it's not excluded on any

         13  grounds of hearsay, but in the nature of things, he can

         14  give general useful evidence.  He's actually available

         15  today, but it may be that it's too early to call him,

         16  but he will, of course, be available to be called in

         17  due course.

         18            JUDGE MAY:  Yes.  Now, what's the --

         19            MR. NICE:  Probably not that witness today

         20  then but he'll be available for later.  I quite

         21  understand everybody is under pressure at the moment.

         22  We've done our best to serve documents as early as we

         23  can.  The sequential numbering system, by the way, is

         24  chronological, as we explained at the beginning, so far

         25  as possible.

Page 15138

          1            Now, videotapes are another category.  I

          2  think Mr. Scott was dealing with them, while I was out

          3  of the room, to some degree, but there's been

          4  negotiation between the parties -- can I hand in

          5  schedules that are already, I think, available in a

          6  present form.  I've already sent the present form to

          7  the Defence, but copies for them, just in case they're

          8  not and for the Chamber.

          9            The reality of the difficulties of the

         10  videotape material available to us comes from various

         11  sources, sometimes arrives in the form of a

         12  compilation, sometimes arrives as a single feature.

         13            Where something arrives as a compilation,

         14  although it might be desirable in a perfect world to

         15  break every element of the compilation down and to

         16  serve a single four-hour tape with two minutes on it

         17  for ease of reference, it's beyond our resources to do

         18  that.

         19            The consequence is that there have been

         20  difficulties, which we quite understand, in being sure

         21  that videos are correctly identified by numbers and

         22  that where transcripts exist, for example, if there's

         23  an example of only one segment of a compilation, the

         24  balance of the compilation not being relevant, why

         25  there's sometimes, I think, difficulties in associating

Page 15139

          1  the transcript with the appropriate part of the

          2  compilation.

          3            There's been a lot of negotiation between the

          4  parties, and I think leading to a substantial measure

          5  of agreement as to what is what.

          6            If you look at this list, this is, I think,

          7  the irreducible minimum that the Prosecution would seek

          8  to have available as exhibits.  Some, I think, for

          9  reasons that Mr. Scott may have touched on effectively,

         10  produced themselves, but we don't seek to take a lot of

         11  your time with the remaining videos.

         12            The format of the document is, I hope,

         13  clear.  If we look at the first sheet, the second entry

         14  relates to a video that was produced by the named

         15  witness through the identified advocate on the

         16  particular date.  That takes care of those next few.

         17            The remaining ones haven't been played for

         18  the time being, but we would want them to be produced

         19  as part of the exhibits in the case for later

         20  reference, if necessary.  We might seek to trouble you,

         21  before the close of our case, with playing

         22  number 255 -- I think it's 255 -- but none others on

         23  that page.

         24            On the second sheet, you'll see that 50 per

         25  cent of them have already been produced and, again, we

Page 15140

          1  wouldn't seek to play the tapes to you of the others

          2  probably.  We might ask you to have a look at one or

          3  two transcripts of press conferences.  I need hardly

          4  say that press conferences, once you've seen one,

          5  you've seen them all in terms of format, and what's of

          6  materiality is not the people sitting around the table

          7  in the television studio but what is said.  So there

          8  will none to be played, I think, from the second

          9  sheet.

         10            On the third sheet, I think the first three

         11  are likely to be produced by the first witness on

         12  Monday morning, and number 1 -- towards the bottom of

         13  the page, 1428, is one we might seek to play to you.

         14            The next sheet, nearly all have already been

         15  played, as you can see, and I don't think we're going

         16  to trouble you at this stage, save to produce them with

         17  playing them.  Likewise for the last sheet.

         18            So that, subject to one or two bits of

         19  fine-tuning, is our final position on videos.  We've

         20  asked them to be produced, a few more to be played, but

         21  otherwise, that's it.  I hope that's a swift way of

         22  getting through that as a problem.  There may be

         23  objections, there may even be objection to the notion

         24  that they don't produce themselves, but I think, for

         25  the most part, they do.  They certainly produce

Page 15141

          1  themselves as to the participants, and if there's any

          2  question about the date, because the item doesn't date

          3  itself, well, then the Chamber can take that into

          4  account as a matter of weight.

          5            JUDGE MAY:  Very well.

          6            Mr. Sayers, is there anything you want to say

          7  about this?  I mean, we have to consider this,

          8  presumably, with the other exhibits.

          9            MR. SAYERS:  Precisely.  We had prepared a

         10  list of the outstanding videotapes -- I do not know

         11  whether this has been filed with the Court; if it has

         12  not, then we will -- and this sets out all of our

         13  objections.

         14            JUDGE MAY:  Very well.  We'll consider those

         15  too.  Perhaps you could let us have that document as

         16  soon as possible.

         17            MR. SAYERS:  Yes, Your Honour.

         18            JUDGE MAY:  Yes, Mr. Nice.

         19            MR. NICE:  I think that's probably as far as

         20  I can go today, I'm sorry to say.

         21            We have, as the Chamber will see, made good

         22  use of this week, because by and large administrative

         23  matters have now been swept aside -- not swept aside,

         24  but they have been dealt with or they are in the

         25  process of being dealt with.

Page 15142

          1            Despite the reduced time available to us,

          2  below what we had forecast and until very recently

          3  known about, I'm hopeful that we can get through all

          4  the witnesses that we wish to get through.

          5            On Monday, we have a full day, for sure;

          6  indeed, I think we're going to have full days Monday,

          7  Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week.  But what I will

          8  attempt to do is to take the witnesses, for example,

          9  starting with Landry, as briefly as I can in chief,

         10  getting them to adopt, so far as is permissible and

         11  necessary, the balance of any summary as an accurate

         12  narrative of matters broadly covered elsewhere, and

         13  that should, I hope, enable us to deal with those two

         14  witnesses on Monday, probably not even spilling over

         15  into Tuesday.  That's my hope.

         16            JUDGE MAY:  Yes, Mr. Sayers.

         17            MR. SAYERS:  Your Honour, Mr. Stutt and

         18  Mr. Landry are going to be substantial witnesses.

         19  Mr. Landry, for example, testified in Blaskic for about

         20  five days.  Now, we don't intend on spending anywhere

         21  near that amount of time, but I should alert the Court,

         22  I think, of all the witnesses that are lined up from

         23  here on in, to the end of the Prosecution's case, those

         24  two will probably be the most substantial from the

         25  cross-examination perspective.  Everyone else, as far

Page 15143

          1  as I can tell, will be relatively short, but not those

          2  two.

          3            JUDGE MAY:  Very well.  We'll adjourn now

          4  until Monday morning.  I'll return the Rules to the

          5  legal officer, please.

          6                 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

          7                 12.43 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,

          8                 the 28th day of February, 2000, at

          9                 9.30 a.m.