1 Monday, 26 June 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.18 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

8 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

10 The Chamber had in mind to examine one of the witnesses called by

11 the Chamber, but our latest information is that the witness the Chamber

12 called has not arrived. I take it that the parties were informed over the

13 weekend on late -- the last attempts to get in touch with the witness.

14 There was an e-mail from --

15 MR. STEWART: Well, we weren't, actually, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Oh.

17 MR. STEWART: But we took -- we simply took no news as no news.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 MR. STEWART: So it didn't cause us any problems. No -- but we

20 received an e-mail this morning, Your Honour. I've just been told in the

21 last few minutes of an e-mail.

22 MR. TIEGER: Correct. I -- that was the situation for us as well.

23 I took some pro-active steps to contact VWU at the last minute and found

24 out that the situation was as we understood it to be throughout. But as I

25 don't anticipate that the situation will necessarily arise again, but

1 perhaps as suggested by Mr. Stewart, impliedly, it would be helpful if we

2 were notified by VWS of the circumstances to the best of their knowledge

3 at the time.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. My information was that the last attempt to get

5 in telephone contact with that witness, that although the telephone was

6 answered by a male person, that the report was that the witness was not

7 there.

8 The Chamber -- because until now of course everything was -- we

9 have dealt with the matter in private session. At this moment the Chamber

10 wants to deal with the matter in open session. Because this Chamber,

11 after having heard witnesses called by the parties, has decided to call

12 some Chamber witnesses pursuant to Rule 98 of the Rules. And the first of

13 those witnesses is Branko Djeric, Prime Minister of Republika Srpska

14 during the indictment period.

15 The Chamber has attempted on various occasions to get in contact

16 with Professor Djeric, first by phone, then through mail. And Mr. Djeric

17 was either not available or refused any contact with the Chamber.

18 Finally, the Chamber issued a subpoena ad testificandum, which was

19 to be served on him by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The

20 Chamber was notified that Professor Djeric refused to receive the

21 subpoena, despite being orally notified by the state official that this

22 might cause the Chamber to start contempt proceedings against him,

23 pursuant to Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

24 The Chamber hereby verifies that Professor Djeric in fact did not

25 appear at the scheduled time and place and therefore has not met with what

1 he was asked to do in the -- or he was ordered to do in the subpoena. The

2 Chamber will now consider what measures it will take. But meanwhile, the

3 Chamber hereby lifts all confidentiality of the following documents

4 relating to calling Professor Branko Djeric as a Chamber witness: That is

5 the letter that was sent to him on the 17th of May; that is the subpoena

6 ad testificandum, dated the 8th of June; and the report by the state

7 official filed on the 20th of June. That's as far as the Chamber witness

8 is concerned, Mr. Djeric.

9 Any matter to be raised in this respect by either Defence or

10 Prosecution?

11 MR. STEWART: No. Thank you, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll try to use our time this morning in

13 dealing with housekeeping and procedural matters. But before I do so, I

14 was informed that the registry received this morning material from

15 Mr. Krajisnik. Of course we are now in a different stage.

16 Mr. Krajisnik, you are not a witness anymore who brings material

17 that he considers to be relevant, but you are now again the accused, who

18 should first consult with counsel before -- before delivering documents

19 to -- to the Chamber. I don't know whether you'd discussed this material

20 with counsel. If not, I'll return it to you so you have an opportunity to

21 do so. If you have discussed the material with counsel, then of course I

22 would like to hear why this un-Orthodox way of introducing this material

23 was chosen.

24 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I say we would be very grateful.

25 We have not had the opportunity. We would be extremely grateful if

1 Your Honour would do exactly what is suggested. Thank you.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, you have the other material,

3 everything to be given back to -- yes, Mr. Krajisnik. You would like to

4 say something about it? If so, please do.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I agree with your conclusion, but I

6 would like to inform you about something. It has to do with the Bileca

7 case and the tape that the Court personnel should have listened to. I

8 listened to it and I made a transcript, and on the basis of that you will

9 see that what the Prosecution said is not correct. I agree that I can

10 talk about this to Mr. Stewart, too. So the transcript is incorrect. I

11 have video footage here as well, and you've got the CD, too. And I've

12 provided other arguments as well, supporting what I said. That is why I

13 agree that I should discuss this with Mr. Stewart, but everything that I

14 have provided you with is correct. Thank you very much. And sorry for

15 having taken the floor.

16 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, could I just add that we -- on Friday

17 Mr. Krajisnik and I and Mr. Josse agreed that we would discuss this at the

18 UNDU today. We -- everybody in court has the same interest in getting

19 through today's business as soon as possible. From our point of view as

20 soon as we are through our business in court, we will then be able to go

21 and see Mr. Krajisnik.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we'll try and go through the pending issues

23 and the housekeeping matters as soon as possible. I take it if the

24 material Mr. Krajisnik sheds any new light on matters if you want to

25 introduce that, the Prosecution will be informed about that at earliest

1 possibility?

2 MR. STEWART: Yes, of course, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Then the parties have received an agenda, and I will

4 go through the items one by one, but the first one -- any problem?

5 MR. TIEGER: Does the Court recall or can the registrar assist us

6 in when the agenda was assisted. We're not aware of having one at the

7 moment.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, I do understand from our Legal Officer that it

9 was mailed to you on Friday, sent by e-mail Friday. It's, of course, a

10 very practical document. It's no --

11 MR. JOSSE: For what it's worth, we've got it.

12 JUDGE ORIE: You've got it?

13 Do we have another copy so that ...

14 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that the message was sent on the 23rd of

16 June and was addressed, apart from others, also to Mr. Tieger, Mr. Harmon,

17 Mr. Wijermars. It was sent at 3.56 p.m. I hope that this will not --

18 well, most of the issues of course are not new because they are pending.

19 Let's go through it. The first one on the agenda is the decision

20 on acts and exemplars related to an exhibit P340. I would rather delay

21 that for a while. The Chamber is thought it could give an oral decision

22 right away, but might take a couple of hours or even half a day more time.

23 Then the second item on the agenda is P1072. The issue here is

24 whether this document, which is a declaration on ethnic distribution of

25 selected names in BiH, population census 31st of March, 1991, a document

1 dated the 26th of January, 2006, whether there would be any objection to

2 have this document admitted without a B/C/S translation. It's mainly a

3 list, names, numbers, rather than anything else.

4 MR. JOSSE: No.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Then when there's no objection to this format without

6 a translation in B/C/S, the Chamber admits P1072 into evidence.

7 Next on the agenda, P1177A and P1177B, Nielsen source material.

8 It has been renumbered, but there's no formal decision yet that they are

9 admitted into evidence. That decision is now delivered, so these two

10 items are now in evidence.

11 Next item on the agenda is P1148, which is Karadzic notebook.

12 Only limited portions of P1148 have been the subject of examination. I'm

13 thinking Mr. Kecmanovic, 4th of April, 2006. The Prosecution has tendered

14 the whole of the notebook, and the Defence can make submissions so that we

15 can render a decision on admission after that.

16 Mr. Josse. I notice, by the way, that it was mainly pages 7, 8,

17 and 9 that were subject of questioning, and it was during the

18 cross-examination of Mr. Kecmanovic on the date I just mentioned.

19 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, we have two observations in relation to

20 this, and interestingly our arguments are, to some extent, foreshadowed in

21 what was said when the admission of this document was last discussed in

22 this Chamber at page 22560 of the transcript. Mr. Tieger very frankly

23 said: "The fact that we didn't refer to it repeatedly during the course

24 of the cross-examination is only an unfortunate reflection of an attempt

25 to meet the time constraints."

1 And let me immediately say, Your Honour, that of course the

2 Defence accept that. But the position has become clearer in that regard

3 because the Prosecution did not use it in the course of their

4 cross-examination of Mr. Krajisnik. And I dare say, my learned friend

5 will say the reason for that is time constraints yet again. Nonetheless,

6 it hasn't been used, and Mr. Krajisnik therefore has not had an

7 opportunity to deal with it, and it hasn't featured further in the

8 evidence in this case, save the pages Your Honour has referred to so far

9 as Mr. Kecmanovic is concerned.

10 Our second point is really the issue that Your Honour mentioned to

11 the parties immediately after the comments of Mr. Tieger that I have just

12 alluded to. Your Honour said: "First of all, for your information, this

13 Chamber does not start at 7.15, once we are out of this courtroom, to

14 start immediately to read the whole of the notebooks. And until now we

15 have focussed on the portions that were presented to us. We have quite a

16 lot of things to do."

17 And then Your Honour, with respect, very sensibly goes on and

18 suggests: Let's wait and see and wait whether the notebook is further

19 used in evidence.

20 Our concern is this: We are unclear as to what role, if any, this

21 notebook would play in this case if the whole of it is admitted into

22 evidence. Will it be the case that the Chamber would go away and read it

23 from start to finish and then consider it as part of the evidence in this

24 case as a whole? Or would it be that the Chamber would wait and see

25 whether the parties refer to it in the course of their final briefs and/or

1 closing arguments? Any guidance in that regard would be most helpful

2 because, Your Honour, we submit that realistically, unless the Chamber is

3 going to say: Well, it will be read from cover to cover if it's admitted

4 into evidence, then the safest and proper course is to leave things

5 exactly as they are at the moment and only admit into evidence those parts

6 that have been referred to during the cross-examination of Mr. Kecmanovic.

7 So our position is that we seek -- we invite the Chamber to rule that only

8 those parts that were put to the witness should be admitted into evidence.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

10 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Two things preliminarily. First, it's important to be clear on

12 what this document is. It's been referred to as the Karadzic notebook,

13 but what in fact is, is an account of the Cutileiro negotiations, a very

14 detailed account akin to a diary or a journal or even virtually a

15 stenographic note-taking at some portions of the discussions that took

16 place between roughly February 27th and March 18th. Now, although I want

17 to limit my analysis of its admissibility to the technical, legal points

18 at issue and not weave it into the general argument about the case, it's a

19 little -- this document became relevant because of the Defence emphasis on

20 the Cutileiro discussions and negotiations. Now here's a document, an SDS

21 document, which purports to be an account of those events which, in some

22 systems one might say paradoxically, the Prosecution seeks to admit for

23 the Court's benefit so it can see what happens during those discussions

24 and the Defence somehow shrinks from. So that's the starting position

25 with this document.

1 I accept, of course, that we were not able to get into a detailed

2 discussion and analysis of every point raised in the document. And to

3 some extent, that may limit the weight which the Court wants to give any

4 single individual excerpt from that diary. On the other hand, when we

5 looked at the diary to see -- or the journal or however we want to label

6 it, to see the extent to which it was corroborated, for example, by

7 accounts in the Bosnian Serb Assembly about what had just transpired in

8 the negotiations, and there was considerable overlaps. So where that

9 overlap occurs, clearly the Court will be benefitted if those points are

10 at issue. To the extent that there may be some point that has never been

11 the subject of any discussion or attention during the course of that case,

12 then the Court might have some reluctance about according it similar

13 weight.

14 But the most significant point is simply this: The Defence has

15 put the Cutileiro discussions in the forefront, for better or worse, of

16 different aspects of this case. Here's a document which bears directly on

17 that, which can be of considerable potential assistance to the Court. As

18 the Defence is aware, on many occasions in the past, we have attempted to

19 resolve any admissibility issues with them under the rubric of an effort

20 to bring as much useful information to the Court on both sides. And I

21 think this document falls squarely in that principle.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 Mr. Josse, one question. From the few pages that were dealt with

24 during examination of the witness, it seems that there are also, not only

25 specifically on those questions, just limiting ourselves to the pages.

1 It's, to some extent, also confirms, I would, the testimony of

2 Mr. Krajisnik and confirms even the position of the Defence in some

3 respects, I would say. Therefore -- and again, I emphasise -- I'm just

4 then reading the pages that were 7, 8, and 9 and not any of the others. I

5 do not know whether on any of the others there would be some exculpatory

6 evidence as well. I don't know. But have you considered that?

7 MR. JOSSE: We have.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. Then that's -- thank you. We'll -- yes?

9 MR. JOSSE: Could I just emphasise?

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

11 MR. JOSSE: We're not suggesting that it doesn't contain

12 exculpatory material.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 MR. JOSSE: But we maintain the stance that I enunciated a few

15 minutes ago.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber will further consider the matter

17 and we will give a decision. We're not going to do that right away

18 because we didn't know until now what exactly the position of the Defence

19 would be.

20 Then I move on to the next item on the -- next item on the agenda

21 that it's P1258 and P1259, photographic and video evidence of destruction

22 of property. We heard the objections from the Defence on the 12th of

23 June, and we heard some objections and some observations by Mr. Krajisnik

24 on the 21st of June. And I'll now deliver the oral decision.

25 With regard to the CD and photographic material of destruction of

1 property in 1992, the Chamber has heard from the parties and from the

2 accused, the concerns raised have been taken into consideration. The

3 Chamber hereby admits into evidence P1258, the photographic material, and

4 P1259, the CD. The Chamber reiterates the limited purpose of the

5 material, which is to serve as a visualisation of the destruction caused

6 during the conflict.

7 Next item on the agenda is Defence Exhibit D14, that is a news

8 article and a photo from Glas dated 23rd of April, 1992. No English

9 translation has been provided; however, the article was read into the

10 record in full. The first question is whether there are any objections

11 against admission without an English translation, keeping in mind that a

12 translation is on the record as -- well, we find it in the transcript at

13 this moment.

14 Any objection?

15 MR. HARMON: No objection.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Then I take it the Defence would have no objection.

17 MR. JOSSE: All right, sir.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Then D14 is admitted into evidence, even without an

19 English translation. And just for the record, I state here that the

20 translation -- that the article was read into the record on pages 2.921

21 till 2.924, and these are transcript pages.

22 We then move on to the next one, D127, D128. We are waiting, as a

23 matter of fact, for translations into English. When could the Chamber

24 expect to receive the translations?

25 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, what I'm about to say applies to item 7,

1 8, and 9 on the agenda.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MR. JOSSE: I'm deliberately putting it that way --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 MR. JOSSE: -- for obvious reasons. At this precise moment, we are

6 unable to access the TTS. The Chamber may be aware that there have been

7 fairly frequent difficulties with accessing this service, that is a

8 service which enables us to see the progress of translations that have

9 been sent to the CLSS. And therefore, I can't give an answer at this

10 precise moment in relation to any of those items. I am more than content

11 for the Chamber to set some sort of deadline which would allow

12 Mr. Sladojevic to tell the CLSS and would ensure that the matter is

13 reviewed relatively quickly.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. These are not very lengthy documents, D127,

15 D128. I mean they are just one or -- well, not any longer than three

16 pages. Because the Chamber would very much like to -- but I'm limiting

17 myself to 7 and 8. The Chamber would like to receive those ...

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would like to receive the translations

20 within the next ten days.

21 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.

22 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, excuse me.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 MR. TIEGER: I don't know if it's helpful or not, but with respect

25 to item 8 the Court may recall -- those are minutes of a particular

1 session. The Court may recall that the Prosecution obtained and submitted

2 the tape-recording of the -- that actual session. So I don't know if the

3 minutes are still of the same significance to anyone that they would have

4 been before.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we have to -- it's slipped out of my mind, as a

6 matter of fact.

7 MR. JOSSE: Me, too.

8 JUDGE ORIE: So -- quite honest. But we'll pay further attention

9 to that, and if that would change a need for a translation, then -- but

10 the tape-recording -- we're talking about a Presidency meeting?

11 MR. TIEGER: Right. The minutes were submitted to -- as I recall,

12 to support Mr. Krajisnik's claim -- or at that time Mr. Kecmanovic's claim

13 as -- and then subsequently Mr. Krajisnik's assertion in his testimony,

14 that the Bosnian leadership had at one point considered exchanges or

15 discussed exchanges. And then the issue had not come up subsequently on

16 the agenda. That was apparently reflected in -- although I haven't seen

17 the translation of the minutes, apparently reflected in some way in the

18 minutes. We obtained the actual tape-recording of that session, and

19 during the course of Mr. Krajisnik's cross-examination presented that and

20 it was admitted. So the portions of the Presidency meeting of that date

21 devoted to that issue. So those were available, both in B/C/S and in

22 English.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll have a look at that and might be so that

24 therefore there would be no need anymore to have that -- have this

25 material translated. We'll look into the matter.

1 Then as far as 9 is concerned, that's a document D171, which is

2 under seal. Here again the question arises whether -- it's a very short

3 document. It has been read into the transcript, so I wonder whether this

4 document could be admitted even without a translation. It has been read

5 into the transcript on transcript pages 22.798 up to 22.800. Here, same

6 procedure as we earlier had.

7 Does the Prosecution object admission without a translation?

8 MR. HARMON: We do not, Your Honour. Thank you.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Then D171 is admitted into evidence, taking that the

10 Defence has no objections either.

11 MR. JOSSE: Of course.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we have dealt then with agenda item 9.

13 We move on number 10, D174 and D175. These are Bosnian Serb

14 Presidency sessions, 2nd of August, 1992, and 28th of September, 1992.

15 Apart from translation issues, there was also a need to discuss the

16 provenance of the documents with Mr. Krajisnik after he had finished his

17 testimony. Could the Defence inform the Chamber about the present status

18 of those discussions and of translation.

19 MR. JOSSE: Translation is as before, same explanation as I gave a

20 moment ago.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 MR. JOSSE: So far as the discussions are concerned, frankly,

23 Your Honour, I had forgotten about this. This agenda was not in existence

24 when we went to the prison on Friday. I do want to specifically discuss

25 this with Mr. Krajisnik.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. You have an opportunity to do so and the

2 Chamber -- these are relatively -- again, relatively short documents, two

3 pages of the 21st Session and four pages of the 32nd Session. If a

4 translation could be provided within the next ten days, that would be

5 highly appreciated.

6 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Agenda item 11, additional documents from D14 --

8 MR. JOSSE: May I --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MR. JOSSE: I should have notified the Chamber of this by e-mail.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 MR. JOSSE: This is something we haven't forgotten about.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 MR. JOSSE: We are not relying on any of these documents.

15 JUDGE ORIE: So that's then finished.

16 Now we come to a -- not the easiest part. We come to the exhibits

17 tendered by the parties during Mr. Krajisnik's testimony. The parties

18 have received the list from Mr. Haider. I would like to go through it

19 page by page to see whether there are any problematic issues. The list

20 starts at P1180, first page goes up to 1185. Any objections or any

21 problems there?

22 MR. JOSSE: No.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Next page from 1185B up to 1188.

24 MR. JOSSE: No.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Next page, P1188 till P1194.

1 MR. JOSSE: No.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Then on the next page starting with P1195 we find

3 P1197, which is a document that, if admitted, should be admitted under

4 seal.

5 MR. JOSSE: That's the one I wish to address the Chamber about

6 that one --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --

8 MR. JOSSE: The Court might wish to go into private session.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps it's wise to do so. We turn into

10 private session.

11 [Private session]

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 26302 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 [Open session]

3 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

5 The result of what we discussed in private session was that a

6 decision on P1197 will be given, not at this moment but later.

7 Then we'll continue on that same page, P1198 up to P1200.

8 MR. JOSSE: No other difficulties.

9 JUDGE ORIE: No other difficulties.

10 Next page, 1201 up to 1207.

11 MR. JOSSE: No, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: No problems there. Then on the next page, starting

13 with 1207.1 we have P1212, which was admitted already, oral decision of

14 the 6th of June, from what I understand, so not something we have to

15 decide on anymore. Anything else on this page which goes up to P1214?

16 MR. JOSSE: No.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Then the next page starting at P1214.1 goes to P1221

18 and 1221 has no B/C/S translation yet.

19 Mr. Tieger -- and the same is, by the way, true for the first item

20 on the next page, page 8, P1222 also lacks a B/C/S translation.

21 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. I'll have to double-check on that.

22 The review of this material took place in the context of any possible

23 objections, and I'm afraid I just didn't look that the particular box to

24 see whether that issue had been resolved.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then we'll hear from you soon. Someone is

1 typing near to a microphone.

2 Then we move on. Anything else on page 8, which goes from P1222

3 to P1228?

4 MR. JOSSE: Yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

6 MR. JOSSE: Objection to P1226. The relevant part of the

7 transcript is page 25390. In short, in the context of this document

8 various names were put to Mr. Krajisnik. He readily accepted those names

9 in the context in which they were put to him. No further reference was

10 made to the document. In our submission, the document does not need to be

11 admitted into evidence, and indeed should not be admitted into evidence

12 because it was not further cross-examined upon at all.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

14 MR. TIEGER: Well, the extent to which a document is

15 cross-examined on is surely not the basis for its admissibility. The

16 subject at issue during the course of this aspect of the examination was

17 the existence of an operation of volunteer or paramilitary groups in

18 Sarajevo and the extent of such involvement. I don't need to go into

19 detail about Mr. Krajisnik's position on that because I'm sure the Court

20 recalls that. But a document which provides information about the

21 existence of such groups, the public praise and acknowledgment that they

22 received and doesn't go beyond that, is surely directly relevant to the

23 question of the accused's knowledge of whether or not such groups were

24 operating, the range of their operations, and the notoriety of such

25 operations. The weight the Court wants to give it, depending on the

1 extent it was emphasised during the cross-examination, may be another

2 matter. But it's clearly relevant and probative and appropriate, in my

3 judgement.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that the matter has been discussed so

5 that no new things came up and that the Chamber can decide on the basis of

6 the submissions, the oral submissions, until now, Mr. Josse?

7 MR. JOSSE: That's right.

8 JUDGE ORIE: We'll then decide on the matter and -- but first have

9 a closer look again at the document and the testimony of the witness in

10 relation to it. Anything else on page 8?

11 Then we go to the next page starting at P1229. There's no B/C/S

12 translation for P1229.

13 Mr. Tieger.

14 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, same issue. We'll see that it's

15 resolved as soon as possible. Apologies.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then --

17 MR. JOSSE: I have a feeling there is one in existence because

18 this is a document that I am objecting to, and I examined the transcript

19 last week in relation to this in some detail. And what happened was at

20 page 25409 to approximately 25411 Mr. Krajisnik was asked about the report

21 and said: "I don't know anything about the report or the bombardment."

22 From recollection, I then objected on the basis that there was no

23 B/C/S translation. One was then found, given to Mr. Krajisnik to read.

24 To be fair to my learned friend, what then happened was there was a break.

25 Immediately after the break a quite lengthy procedural matter was raised.

1 The Chamber might recall, there was the application by the Defence to have

2 the following day off because of Mr. Krajisnik's condition. And

3 cross-examination resumed at page 25418. And my reading of the transcript

4 is nothing more -- was asked about Mr. Krajisnik about this document. So

5 there are two points. First of all, a B/C/S translation was provided to

6 him, and therefore there must be one in existence. I say that to be as

7 helpful as I can. But secondly and more significantly, he wasn't really

8 cross-examined on the document, save for his answer, that he didn't know

9 anything about it. And in those circumstances, notwithstanding the

10 procedural break, in our submission it shouldn't be admitted into

11 evidence.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

13 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, in my submission Mr. Josse's submissions

14 just now provide the answer to the question of admissibility and to any

15 difficulties arising from the break in proceedings that he described. So

16 further cross-examination on a document that Mr. Krajisnik purports to

17 know nothing about seemingly would have served no purpose; secondly, the

18 answer to the admissibility and relevance and probative value of this

19 document lies precisely in what Mr. Josse just said that Mr. Krajisnik

20 claims to know nothing about a bombardment, which was the subject of

21 contemporaneous discussion which is reflected in this document, with a

22 number of figures, including political leaders outside of

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It clearly has value in the context of that

24 cross-examination and is an appropriate document for impeachment.

25 MR. JOSSE: My only observation is that that is a classic example

1 of the Prosecution continually adding to its case. And my learned

2 friend's submission illustrates that point.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

4 MR. TIEGER: It was a little breath-taking to the Prosecution that

5 Mr. Krajisnik would stand up in open court and say he knew nothing about

6 the shelling of Sarajevo. There's no way, given the submissions by the

7 Defence, the pre-trial brief, and I don't certainly blame my learned

8 friends in this case for that. They weren't here for the original

9 submission of the pre-trial brief, but this is an issue that arose

10 squarely during the course of the Defence case. It's a completely

11 appropriate response by the Prosecution to the position taken by the

12 accused and nothing more.

13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider the matter and will give a

14 decision on it.

15 Then the next items on the list are P1230A and P1230B. The

16 registry informs me that it has no possession of these video clips.

17 MR. HARMON: They are available, I'm informed, and we will give

18 them to the registrar today. Thank you.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we'll now proceed on the basis of the

20 assumption that the registrar will have this material in its possession.

21 Anything else on page 9, Mr. Josse, P1231 and --

22 MR. JOSSE: No.

23 JUDGE ORIE: -- 32, 33. Nothing else. 36 then we move to the

24 next page, page 1234, up to and including P1240. Any objections?

25 MR. JOSSE: No.

1 JUDGE ORIE: P1241 up to and including P1247?

2 MR. JOSSE: Yes, so far as P1243 is concerned --

3 MR. TIEGER: Excuse me for interrupting, but I can be of

4 assistance there before Mr. Josse continues.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

6 MR. TIEGER: P1243 is P529, tab 299, already in evidence.

7 MR. JOSSE: Thank you. That's helpful. And I therefore have

8 nothing else to say.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Anything else on this page, Mr. Josse?

10 MR. JOSSE: P1244, that was put to Mr. Krajisnik in small part at

11 page 25735. In our submission, only a small part was put to him. He had

12 no knowledge of the document. He was asked to interpret a small part of

13 it and couldn't assist. And this again is an exercise in further supply

14 of evidence by the Prosecution rather than proper cross-examination, in

15 our submission.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

17 MR. TIEGER: No, I couldn't disagree more, Your Honour. First of

18 all, it's a very small document, so there's not much in the way of the

19 document -- I mean, of the document to be put to the accused the most

20 relevant part of the document, insofar as I recall, was put to him. I

21 emphasise again it's a quite short document. Secondly, this is not an

22 attempt by the Prosecution to bolster its case through some circumvention

23 of or through some opportunity presented by cross-examination. It's a

24 direct response to what Mr. Krajisnik put during the course of his case,

25 and that is that he knew nothing about the camp system, that the only camp

1 that he later learned about was a secret camp. And during the course of

2 the Prosecution's cross-examination of the position put by Mr. Krajisnik,

3 we put to him that detention facilities for both alleged prisoners of war

4 and civilians had existed from the outset, that an exchange commission was

5 created early on for the purpose of ensuring that those civilian detainees

6 were removed from the territory of Republika Srpska to the other side,

7 that the increasing conquests and military successes of the VRS led to the

8 round-up of many more prisoners, and that those military successes led to

9 the need for the creation of more camps, and that that system was

10 widespread and pervasive enough that all -- that the top leadership of

11 Republika Srpska would have known about that.

12 This was a document reflecting the creation of the Batkovic camp

13 because of the increasing need for additional facilities as a result of

14 the Bosnian Serb military success. The fact that Mr. Krajisnik claims to

15 have no knowledge of it is a factor the Court will have to take into

16 account and weigh against all of the evidence presented by the

17 Prosecution. But in the context of the defence raised by Mr. Krajisnik,

18 this was and remains a perfectly appropriate impeaching document to

19 confront him with in the face of the positions he took during his

20 examination-in-chief.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse.

22 MR. JOSSE: Well, the speech the Chamber has just heard sounds

23 like an attempt at bolstering to us.

24 JUDGE ORIE: I was wondering whether we were already final

25 argument, but -- no, no, of course I'm not -- but perhaps, Mr. Tieger,

1 just small reference to its relevance for this and this and this reason

2 would certainly have done, I take it.

3 MR. TIEGER: Well, I'm sorry for having slightly overpassionate on

4 that, Your Honour, but it just seemed to me that -- well, I had to start

5 from scratch because I felt that the document was -- its relevance was

6 sufficiently obvious that if it wasn't I needed to start from the

7 beginning and place it in context.

8 JUDGE ORIE: That's as far as 1244 is concerned, the Chamber will

9 consider the matter and we'll give a decision. Anything else on this

10 page, P1245 up to 47 --

11 MR. JOSSE: No.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Whenever I am mentioning numbers, that would also

13 include the .1 versions and A and B versions as we find them on the list.

14 P1248 up to and including P1255.

15 MR. JOSSE: No, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Then the next page, page 13, P1256 and P1257. P1258

17 and 59. That's the photographic evidence and the CD earlier today. They

18 have been admitted into evidence. Then the two remaining items P1260 and

19 P1261, any objections?

20 MR. JOSSE: Yes, 1261 I discussed with my learned friend. I had

21 submitted that a number of -- much of this interview was highly

22 prejudicial and I think he has agreed that only those parts or that part

23 that was put to Mr. Krajisnik should be admitted into evidence. That's

24 certainly our submission. I understand the Prosecution are agreeable to

25 that.

1 MR. TIEGER: That's right, Your Honour. I have no objection to

2 that.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then do we receive the -- just a portion of the

4 interview or how are we going to know exactly what is and what is not in

5 evidence?

6 MR. TIEGER: I think that from the -- I mean, we can do -- there

7 are a couple of expedients. I don't think it's necessary to engage in any

8 formalistic redactions. There was only one portion to the best of my

9 recollection specifically referred to during the examination, and that, I

10 believe, is the portion we agree should be admitted and the rest of it

11 should be disregarded.

12 MR. JOSSE: Absolutely.

13 JUDGE ORIE: So then the decision would be that this will be

14 admitted into evidence, but limited to the specific portion dealt with

15 during the examination of the witness.

16 Another way of -- another way of doing it is that if Mr. Registrar

17 would make available this document to you and you just put on it the

18 relevant portions, then there could be no dispute whatsoever what is

19 evidence.

20 MR. TIEGER: That's fine.

21 MR. JOSSE: I'm happy with that.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's a practical way of dealing with it.

23 Then -- perhaps I should have taken a different course, but the

24 Defence exhibits were not -- the Prosecution exhibits were first on my

25 list. I therefore now give as a decision of the Chamber that Prosecution

1 Exhibits P1180 up to and including P1261 are admitted into evidence with

2 the following exceptions: P1197 is not yet admitted, still waiting for a

3 limited or reduced version of that document; P1212 was already admitted,

4 therefore does not fall within the scope of this decision; P1221 and P1222

5 are still pending, due to the fact that there's no B/C/S translation yet;

6 P1226 is still pending and not yet admitted; P1229 is waiting for a

7 translation, and therefore not yet admitted; P1230 -- and P1230A and

8 P1230B are admitted into evidence, but the video is -- clip still to be

9 provided today. Then we have P1243 is not admitted because it was already

10 in evidence and the number is therefore vacated. P1258 and -- now, let me

11 just see. P1244 is still pending and will be decided later. P1258 and 59

12 were already admitted into evidence earlier today. And P1261 is admitted

13 into evidence, but limited to the portion indicated on the document.

14 That's as far as the exhibits are concerned.

15 Yes.

16 MR. TIEGER: Just one point of clarification, Your Honour. The

17 Court mentioned that P1229 was still awaiting translation and that is --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes, that's the one where --

19 MR. TIEGER: But the Defence also raised an issue with respect

20 to -- they raised an issue of it independent of the translation.

21 JUDGE ORIE: It's not -- it's not -- that was only one of the

22 issues.

23 But it's still pending and we'll consider it in view of all the

24 submissions we received on the matter.

25 Now we go to the Defence exhibits. That's sometimes a bit more

1 complicated, especially since some of the material which was provided by

2 Mr. Krajisnik have been -- has been given numbers, whereas -- just

3 provisional numbers. And it might well be that we have to further discuss

4 how to deal with those documents, since they were not adopted by either of

5 the parties and since the Chamber has not, of course, received the full

6 index, at least not in an English translation and therefore could not

7 finally make up its mind whether the Chamber itself would like to have

8 some of these documents in evidence.

9 But let's start at the beginning. D183 -- I'm now going first

10 page, starting at D180 -- yes, Mr. Josse.

11 MR. JOSSE: Yes, I think D177 is the first document that was

12 admitted through Mr. Krajisnik, and it was the video clip of the Club 91

13 interview that was played in part.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that you are right that -- that that's

15 the first document, although a decision was given on it on the 6th of June

16 where --

17 MR. JOSSE: I do beg your pardon. I see that now. That applies

18 to 177, 178, and 179.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, to all three of them. So as a matter of fact --

20 MR. JOSSE: They're already in evidence. I'm grateful.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we start now or continue at D180. The first

22 page is D180 up till and including D186. I make the following

23 observations. D183 was admitted already by oral decision of the 6th of

24 June, so is therefore not pending at this moment, and the same is true for

25 D186.

1 Then for D184, we have no English translation yet I think. That's

2 what I find on my list, Mr. Josse.

3 MR. JOSSE: I see that, too. I fear that the best I can do is ask

4 for the ten days that have been granted in relation to other Defence

5 translations.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ten days are granted.

7 Then I find on the list that D185, that something would be

8 missing, that it's not in the hands of the registry. But I do understand

9 that it is -- Mr. Haider, is that correct? D185, a transcript of a

10 conversation between Momcilo Krajisnik and Nikola Koljevic.

11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

12 JUDGE ORIE: So I'd rather do all these page by page and give

13 decisions because it becomes more complicated at a later stage.

14 So the first page D180 up to and including D185 are admitted into

15 evidence, with the exception of D183, which was admitted into evidence

16 already, and with the exception of D184, due to the lack of an English

17 translation. And the last item on this page D186 was already in evidence.

18 But I've forgotten to ask whether there were any objections, but usually

19 Mr. Tieger ...

20 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour. Only with -- of course -- no,

21 not with respect to anything other than the document for which we have not

22 yet received a translation.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then on the next page. Page 2 goes from D187

24 up to and including D191. I make the observation that D90 -- D190 and

25 D191 are already admitted, oral decision of the 6th of June. Any

1 objections?

2 MR. TIEGER: No objections, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Then D187 up to and including D189 are admitted into

4 evidence.

5 On the next page, the -- D192B, D192C, D192D, D192E, and D192F are

6 already admitted into evidence, oral decision of the 6th of June, which

7 leaves two items, that's D193 and D194, both lacking English translations.

8 Mr. Tieger.

9 MR. TIEGER: I take it the Court is only asking about D193 and

10 194.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 MR. TIEGER: And it's the same position. I certainly don't have

13 any independent objection, beyond the fact that I don't -- haven't seen

14 precisely what that document's about in the absence of a translation.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, ten days you would like?

16 MR. JOSSE: Please.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Ten days are granted.

18 We are now on page 4. The first two items, that is D195 and D196

19 are already admitted into evidence, oral decision of the 6th of June, so

20 we don't have to deal with them anymore.

21 And now we come to a series, a series D197 up to D217, the letter

22 included. Yes. Here we have -- these are documents that were provided by

23 Mr. Krajisnik and from -- they have not been adopted specifically or --

24 yes, Mr. Josse?

25 MR. JOSSE: Yes, I see they bear my name. From recollection, I

1 was on my feet when they were examined in, albeit, Your Honour, and I mean

2 this fully, Your Honour helped me greatly in that regard. We had all of

3 these translated. There's no difficulty so far as the Defence are

4 concerned.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

6 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, I can do one of two things. I can

7 either note the time and try to struggle through these documents during

8 the break, but I, perhaps more accurately, should note that these are

9 documents which the Prosecution would ask for a little additional time to

10 consider. We have not looked through this list -- in particular these

11 documents. And we would like some opportunity to at least refresh our

12 recollection of the context in which they arose and the purpose for which

13 they seem to be introduced.

14 JUDGE ORIE: And my question is then whether the same would be

15 true for D224 through D235, which is the similar series.

16 MR. JOSSE: Well -- yes. Could I make this observation?

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 MR. JOSSE: Clearly the Chamber are trying to deal with this in as

19 pragmatic a way as possible, and I'm not seeking to be critical here, but

20 I -- if there is going to be objection to any of these, I -- the Defence

21 really would ask for advance notice.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

23 MR. JOSSE: I had the courtesy to sit down with my learned friend

24 and tell him in some detail what my objections were to his documents.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 MR. JOSSE: I would ask for the same, please.

2 MR. TIEGER: And we would be more than pleased to do precisely

3 that, and we did appreciate the opportunity to meet with the Defence. So

4 we --

5 JUDGE ORIE: I take it we have a similar series. We have D224 to

6 D235. We have D238 and D200 -- up till D248. We have D250 to D252.

7 These are all documents that are provided by Mr. Krajisnik himself. If

8 perhaps the parties would discuss whether there are any objections, apart

9 from any technical problems.

10 MR. JOSSE: I --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 MR. JOSSE: What I would do is speak briefly to Mr. Stewart at --

13 in relation to whether the Defence -- the Defence counsel adopt these, so

14 to speak. I'm bound to say, Your Honour, I was slightly surprised that in

15 relation to any of the documents that have been given numbers, Your Honour

16 suggested the Defence weren't asking for their admission --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- no, I think as a matter of fact, I -- when I

18 said they were not adopted, that I already withdrew that or intended to

19 withdraw that right away. It's not been very precise.

20 MR. JOSSE: I see Mr. Stewart is nodding his head. Could I

21 therefore say that everything that has been given a number we are seeking

22 the admission of.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's then clear, and we'll wait first for

24 the parties to sit together and see whether there are any objections.

25 May I then just leave that list for the time being. I note that

1 D231 misses an English translation, that D237 is already admitted, the

2 same is true for D230 -- I should have said D236, that's double pension

3 legislation, is already admitted. The same is true for D237, which is

4 also double pension legislation. We see that for at least some of the

5 documents in the range of D239 and following that English translations are

6 missing. So especially those documents which -- I think I should leave

7 the whole of the list then in the hands of the parties for the time being.

8 That would be up to and including D256.

9 Then -- yes?

10 MR. JOSSE: I've got a 257.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Then -- then I'm not -- then I'll try to find D257

12 during the break. Yes, I see that -- yes, that's an interview with

13 Mr. Izetbegovic.

14 MR. JOSSE: We would --

15 JUDGE ORIE: There's no English translation of that document yet

16 either, but we'll leave then everything in the hands of the parties at

17 this moment.

18 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.

19 JUDGE ORIE: And we'll hear from you approximately when it -- it

20 might depend a bit on how we proceed. Tomorrow might be a bit too early

21 or ...

22 MR. TIEGER: I, yeah, would ask for a little more time than that,

23 Your Honour, if possible.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's to see where somewhere this week, later this

25 week, find some time for dealing with these exhibits.

1 MR. JOSSE: I'm happy with that, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MR. JOSSE: If --

4 JUDGE ORIE: It's not --

5 MR. JOSSE: Happy with that if the Chamber finds the time.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course -- I'm thinking in terms of where we

7 have a few moments left to us when we are not examining any witnesses.

8 That's -- that's the issue, as a matter of fact, and to set a time now

9 with the risk of having to ask a witness to stay over a weekend or

10 something like that might not be the best thing to do. And therefore,

11 it's a bit vague but we'll deal with the matter later this week.

12 Then on my agenda I've got two more items. We had a late start,

13 so I think we can continue for a couple of minutes. First of all, the --

14 the statement or the letter, whatever we call it, of Mr. Karadzic. This

15 was received on the 29th of May, and it was -- translation was received on

16 the 15th of June. The Defence indicated that it would neither adopt nor

17 object to it, and the Prosecution opposed. And the Chamber has asked the

18 Defence to take a position as far as the objections of the Prosecution are

19 concerned.

20 MR. STEWART: Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart.

22 MR. STEWART: Yes. Our position hasn't changed, Your Honour. May

23 we say so far as 92 bis is concerned, without it probably being necessary

24 to go into it, although the formal requirements of 92 bis (B) may not have

25 been complied with, the provisions of 92 bis (C) would leave open the

1 possibility of at least argument on the technical procedural position.

2 But, Your Honour, in the circumstances it really doesn't arise because the

3 Prosecution's position is that they object to admission of this item. The

4 Defence's position is: We don't ask for admission, and in the

5 circumstances we suggest there's no -- there's really no possible reason

6 or justification for its being admitted.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The reason of course why the Chamber asked,

8 nevertheless the views of the parties on the matter because Mr. Krajisnik

9 seem -- wanted to offer this to the Chamber as a relevant document. The

10 Chamber has often been rather liberal in accepting documents from a

11 witness who brings relevant documents, and the Chamber of course is in a

12 position to say we nevertheless would like -- even though the parties

13 would not adopt it, that the Chamber could consider to admit it into

14 evidence. But before deciding that the Chamber would or would not, we

15 would like to hear specifically from the parties all the technical

16 aspects, including 92 bis, not only on matters of formality, but also on

17 matters of substance before we finally give a decision on whether or not

18 we would admit this document which has been brought to our attention by a

19 witness.

20 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour -- first of all, Your Honour,

21 Defence would be the last ever to object to our views being sought. So we

22 certainly have no criticism whatever in relation to that. Your Honour, so

23 far as the very last observation of Your Honour is concerned, perhaps we

24 might suggest if the Prosecution renew or reinforce or indicate their

25 objections on that basis, and then the Defence can add what we wish to add

1 in relation to that matter.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, is there anything else you would like

3 to -- or Mr. Harmon, anything else you would like to say about it?

4 [Prosecution counsel confer]

5 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, first, the document itself goes to the

6 acts or conduct of the accused. It would therefore, in our view, be

7 excludable under Rule 92 bis. The -- second of all, the issue of the

8 formalities, of course it doesn't fall within the issue of the formalities

9 of 92 bis, that's conceded by the parties. That leaves only 92 bis (C),

10 which is a statement which may nevertheless be admitted by a person who

11 can no longer, with reasonable diligence, be traced. I submit,

12 Your Honour, that under those circumstances there has to be some indicia

13 of reliability. In this case Mr. Karadzic has been a fugitive from

14 international justice in excess of ten years, and admitting a statement of

15 an international fugitive from justice would be a -- quite a, I think,

16 bizarre precedent. It is not something that we endorse. We think that

17 the rule should, in its totality, apply to circumstances where the

18 statement itself has some reliability. And under these circumstances,

19 it's our position it has none.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I'm in the odd position. I'm

22 simply not arguing for the admission of this statement at all,

23 Your Honour. But then just very, very briefly at risk that it's a tiny

24 bit academic. Your Honour, the question in those circumstances, however

25 offensive the OTP might find it and suggest it is, it's not Mr. Krajisnik

1 who is a fugitive from justice, and if in different circumstances evidence

2 were of relevance and significance to Mr. Krajisnik's case, then he's not

3 responsible for that difficulty. The technical position is -- and so far

4 as indicia, reliability are concerned, we suggest although it's not a

5 hundred per cent crystal clear from the language that ultimately one is

6 talking about reliability, that it is the statement of the person

7 concerned. And then the assessment of its actual reliability and

8 credibility as evidence is really the next stage once it's been admitted.

9 But, Your Honour, all my submissions being made now are really academic

10 because we're not asking for its admission.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand, because the witness who produced

12 this document may not be in a position to explain all the technicalities.

13 So more or less you're acting almost as amici.

14 MR. STEWART: I hope as amicus should be I'm being helpful and

15 being helpful as much as the Court requires from us this morning.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we have the last item on the agenda, that

17 is all other documents presented by Mr. Krajisnik. That is the documents

18 which have not been given a number yet and of which we have not a full

19 view of what is in there, although we know that many of these documents

20 are already in evidence by now. I suggest to the parties that we'll

21 continue working on it because those documents, as far as not adopted by

22 the parties to be introduced into evidence, the Chamber will have a look

23 at whether it considers that it would assist the Chamber in calling those

24 or having those documents in evidence on the request of the Chamber.

25 Before doing so, if we would like to have some of these documents into

1 evidence, we'll inform the parties so that they can make whatever

2 observations they would like to make before a final decision will be

3 taken.

4 Anything else?

5 MR. JOSSE: Could I just return briefly to the Defence exhibit

6 list?

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

8 MR. JOSSE: We are a little unclear as to whether the Chamber

9 requires B/C/S translations of D217 and D253 which are English-language

10 documents.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just find them. D217 you said and -- let me

12 first ...

13 MR. JOSSE: In fact, Your Honour, I'm working from a note that

14 Mr. Sladojevic provided me. I remember 217. Your Honour, in fact, has

15 already previously said that a B/C/S version is not necessary. I recall

16 this now.

17 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, I think that the deadline that

18 was given to the Prosecution to request a B/C/S translation has expired

19 without such a request.

20 MR. JOSSE: Yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore there's no -- there's no need anymore to --

22 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.

23 JUDGE ORIE: -- have it translated into B/C/S.

24 MR. JOSSE: But my inquiry does apply to 253.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 I think here we had the -- I think, as a matter of fact, this was

2 mainly about handwriting on it and small changes on the document, but --

3 MR. JOSSE: No, that's not my recollection. This is --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Elements of agreed principles, and one of the working

5 versions of the Cutileiro --

6 MR. JOSSE: No, the Dayton --

7 JUDGE ORIE: No, it was Dayton, Sarajevo; I do now remember. If

8 the -- I take it that the OTP is not that much interested in having a

9 B/C/S version.

10 MR. JOSSE: And Mr. Krajisnik indicated in evidence that he at one

11 point had it in his own language.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore, if the Defence -- the original is

13 English -- but if of course a B/C/S copy would be available, then of

14 course we -- not only working for the parties, but also this is a public

15 trial and therefore I'm always a bit hesitant to say we don't need

16 something. Although, of course, if an accused would understand English

17 then many of the documents would not need translation at all.

18 MR. JOSSE: I'll ask Mr. Krajisnik when I next speak to him if he

19 has his own --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but at this moment it's not therefore required.

21 MR. JOSSE: Thank you very much.

22 Yes, the final matter is D254. I had suggested in an e-mail to a

23 Legal Officer a way to proceed in relation to this. And, very sensibly,

24 the Legal Officer suggested that I should liaise with the Prosecution

25 about my suggestion.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

2 MR. JOSSE: No doubt they'll consider that and I'd invite them to.

3 JUDGE ORIE: It's the video of the interview with

4 General MacKenzie.

5 MR. JOSSE: As to whether in fact a full English-language

6 transcript of this is really necessary and justified.

7 JUDGE ORIE: I thought it was now included in the list of -- the

8 list you would discuss anyhow with the Prosecution.

9 MR. JOSSE: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: And if it would come up, and translation issues are

11 to be raised, we would hear from you.

12 MR. JOSSE: I have nothing else. Thank you.

13 JUDGE ORIE: From the Prosecution?

14 MR. TIEGER: Nothing, Your Honour. Thank you.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Nothing at this moment.

16 Then we will adjourn until tomorrow -- Mr. Registrar, I think it's

17 in the morning, 9.00, same courtroom?

18 THE REGISTRAR: Indeed, Your Honours.

19 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn until tomorrow.

20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 10.50 a.m.,

21 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 27th day of

22 June, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.

23

24

25