Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5136

1 Thursday, 26 April 2001

2 [Pre-Defence Conference]

3 [Open session]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.

6 JUDGE HUNT: Call the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number

8 IT-97-25-T, the Prosecutor versus Milorad Krnojelac.

9 JUDGE HUNT: I think that we are incarcerated in this courtroom

10 for the rest of this trial. We may be able to get out of it at some

11 time.

12 Now, there are a number of outstanding motions. There's -- we've

13 made six orders for safe conduct for Defence witnesses, and there's one

14 that's outstanding.

15 Is there any objection to that one, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff?

16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE HUNT: That order will be made. You'll have to have some

18 paper for that one.

19 The next one is the application for videolink testimony in

20 relation to three witnesses.

21 Is there any problem, from the Prosecution's point of view, in

22 relation to those?

23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE HUNT: Well, those orders will be made. Well, they are

25 made.

Page 5137

1 And in relation to the particular dates, Mr. Bakrac, you'll have

2 to give us two weeks' notice, because it takes that amount of time for the

3 audio-visual people to get the place set up.

4 There is also a problem that Montenegro has a variable security

5 risk. It changes, apparently, fairly regularly, and there will have to be

6 some assessment of the risk involved even in the capital of Montenegro.

7 So you should keep in touch with the legal officers to let us know when

8 you're thinking of it so that we can get another assessment from the

9 security people, but we do need at least two weeks' notice from the

10 audio-visual people's point of view.

11 Protective measures. There are two witnesses there. One needs

12 voice distortion. What's the Prosecution's reaction to those?

13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we just would like to know from

14 the Defence counsel what is the reason for voice distortion, because the

15 witness in question has actually testified already in the Kunarac case and

16 on this occasion he had only image distortion. We just want to know

17 what -- why this is now different.

18 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Bakrac.

19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, good morning, first and

20 foremost, to you and to our learned friends of the Prosecution.

21 As for this witness for whom we seek voice protection is

22 concerned, I can say that it is true that he testified earlier on in a

23 different case, in the Kunarac case, without voice distortion. However,

24 we found out from him that subsequently he found out that in addition to

25 facial distortion, voice distortion may be sought as well.

Page 5138












12 Blank page to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and the English transcripts.













Page 5139

1 The reason he mentioned for asking for such protection is the fact

2 that he travels every day, he says, to Sarajevo. He has frequent contact

3 with Muslims from Foca, and he is involved in the repair of houses, of

4 Muslims whose houses are still in Foca.

5 He says that his voice is a very characteristic one. I didn't go

6 into all the details concerning the characteristics of his voice, but he

7 says that a large number of Muslims from Foca could recognise his voice

8 precisely because of the practically everyday contacts he has with them,

9 so this could affect his work, his business, and also his living

10 conditions in Sarajevo.

11 JUDGE HUNT: Do you know whether any of his Muslim clients or

12 associates have ever mentioned to him that they heard his voice over the

13 television in relation to the Kunarac case? That would be a better way of

14 looking at it, rather than what he believes.

15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour. Of course,

16 they didn't say that to him, but he is afraid that it might happen, that

17 since he has everyday contact, they could recognise his voice. He doesn't

18 know the extent to which TV, radio, technical devices in general can

19 change a voice, but he -- his concern is that the change cannot be that

20 great so that in direct conversation with him, they may put two and two

21 together, that that's the voice that they heard while he testified and

22 that they heard it on television, through the electronic media, that is.

23 JUDGE HUNT: It's good to see an advocate who has to argue to the

24 contrary of what he's argued in relation to every witness the Prosecution

25 has put up for this, but I suppose having granted it to the Prosecution,

Page 5140

1 we should grant it to your client -- your witness as well. I hope you

2 feel comfortable in making the arguments.

3 Those orders will be made.

4 Now, all of the Defence binders have been delivered, I understand.

5 We haven't -- oh, I see them there. We will worry about those later.

6 We've now got the lists. They should have been filed. I gather you did

7 give them to the Prosecution, and they're far more important for this

8 purpose than we are, but now that we've got them, we can see them.

9 There's one thing I want to raise with you, though, Mr. Bakrac. A

10 number of those witnesses that you propose to call are said to give

11 evidence about such things as the war events in Foca in April 1992. What

12 particular type of evidence are we going to get? Is it to deny that there

13 had been an attack by the Serbs upon the Muslims, or is it to assert that

14 the Muslims also attacked the Serbs? Can you tell us?

15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first and foremost I

16 wish to apologise to you for the delay in submitting motions according to

17 Rule 65 ter (G). We had some problems with fax communications and with

18 the computers. When we last met in this courtroom, I took it upon myself

19 to submit all these papers to the Prosecutor before the actual deadline,

20 and that's what we tried to do.

21 However, since this material is so voluminous, we didn't manage to

22 send all of it to the OTP and to the registrar as early as we wished to.

23 We thought it would be better to hand this all in here in The Hague rather

24 than send it earlier on.

25 So I wish to apologise to you once again if this caused any

Page 5141

1 difficulty.

2 As for your question related to these witnesses, the Defence does

3 not have any witness which would exclusively testify about the war

4 conditions. It is primarily acquaintances of the accused who will be

5 testifying. They will be character witnesses, et cetera.

6 As for the general circumstances, these witnesses would not deny

7 the fact that there was an armed conflict. However, viewed from a

8 different aspect, they would try to show and prove to the Court what the

9 nature of the conflict was or, rather, to prove and show that the other

10 side was arming itself too, and that it was just a question of days as to

11 when the conflict would break out. That is to say that the Muslim forces,

12 the Muslim units were established and armed even before the 8th of April

13 when conflict broke out.

14 So these are the circumstances that they would testify to very

15 briefly. They will not take up too much court time about this, but they

16 do not deal with such matters only. They also testify to certain facts

17 related to the accused.

18 JUDGE HUNT: I understand that, and I'm very pleased we're not

19 having somebody being called solely for this purpose, but I am still

20 puzzled as to what the relevance of it is.

21 If it's not going to take very much time, I suppose it's quicker

22 to let you give the evidence, but at some stage you're going to have to

23 explain to us what is the relevance of it.

24 The fact that the Muslims may have been arming themselves in order

25 to attack the Serbs does not prevent there having been an attack upon the

Page 5142

1 Muslim civilian population. It's perhaps a little less cut and dried than

2 it was in the Foca case, but it's very difficult to see how it is

3 relevant. It doesn't deny that there was an attack upon the Muslim

4 civilian population the fact that some Muslims had armed themselves.

5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree fully. For the

6 most part, all the Prosecution witnesses accepted that the Muslims had

7 been arming themselves, but the Prosecution witnesses mostly said that the

8 Muslims in Foca were not armed and that they were taken aback by the

9 attack, et cetera, et cetera. However, there is material evidence that

10 shows the preparations for such a conflict on the Muslim side took place

11 even -- even a year before the conflict actually broke out. So these

12 witnesses are supposed to testify, in relation to our case, that a vast

13 majority of those persons who were detained did take part in the fighting,

14 were armed, and that part of the civilian population, which in their

15 opinion was not armed, left Foca voluntarily.

16 JUDGE HUNT: You mean it is your case, is it, that those people

17 who were detained in the KP Dom were prisoners of war and not merely

18 civilians?

19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. That is what these

20 persons claim; these persons who we will call in as witnesses. There were

21 a lot of persons who were civilians but who also had weapons and took part

22 in fighting.

23 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Well, that will be an interesting argument.

24 You did obtain from a few of the Prosecution witnesses that they had had

25 weapons in the building or in their house which they used for hunting and

Page 5143

1 things. I don't see that that makes them a non-civilian for the purposes

2 of Article 5, but, anyway, that's a matter we may have to debate later on.

3 Now, the next question: Documents. How are you getting on with

4 the Prosecution in obtaining agreement to the authenticity of your

5 documents?

6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with our learned friends

7 from the Prosecution we discussed the question of documents, and I think

8 we went through two-thirds of the documents involved. Since this is a

9 large quantity of documents, the Prosecution did not manage to go through

10 absolutely all of them.

11 We tried to find a way on agreeing with -- concerning these

12 documents. We have not taken any definite stands in this regard though.

13 We are going to tender into evidence all the documents that we are

14 submitting. I imagine the Prosecutor will object to the authenticity of

15 some of these documents, but we are going to present our arguments in this

16 respect.

17 So we haven't really got a definite stand with regard to the

18 rejection of documents that are proposed by the Defence.

19 JUDGE HUNT: Are you still talking about them? I'm trying to see

20 whether we can save some time during the hearing. That's the real point

21 of the question.

22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yesterday we finished

23 our discussions. The Defence is quite willing to meet after this

24 conference with the Prosecution once again to end up any unfinished

25 business that may have remained from yesterday, and we could try to save

Page 5144

1 up time in this way. But the Defence believes that all the documents that

2 we have submitted are relevant in our opinion, and authentic in our

3 opinion, too.

4 I must say, Your Honour, that even if we look at this quantity of

5 documents that we are submitting to the court, we would have had three

6 times as many had we included those whose authenticity is a bit doubtful,

7 that is to say, where we cannot ascertain who the author of these

8 documents is.

9 We really tried to present only that which we consider relevant

10 and substantial. I have at least two or three more binders of other

11 material that we could have submitted, but we thought that there is

12 already ample evidence with regard to these facts and that there was no

13 need to be snowed under. We tried to choose what was relevant to our

14 case.

15 JUDGE HUNT: I'll come back to the Prosecution on that in a

16 moment. Looking through your lists of witnesses, I saw no reference to

17 one of the witnesses that we discussed at the end of the Prosecution case,

18 and that was the person who's now your legal advisor, I think, that had

19 been your investigator. What's happened to him?

20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, until now I answered

21 your questions, and I waited courteously to answer all your questions, and

22 then to bring up this subject; however, now that you've brought this up,

23 the Defence made an omission. We were so rushed, and we did not include

24 in our list of witnesses Mr. Milenko Dundjer, precisely the person we had

25 been referring to as the person who had been an investigator for the

Page 5145

1 Defence team before the trial began, the person who compiled these

2 documents and for whom we sought permission to be called in as a witness.

3 We would like to explain through Mr. Milenko Dundjer most of these

4 documents that we will be tendering into evidence, and I do apologise. Is

5 it sufficient if we just add Mr. Milenko Dundjer to the list of witnesses

6 by way of this transcript? Because through him we would like to bring in

7 the documents, to introduce the documents that were compiled earlier on.

8 JUDGE HUNT: Have you got some sort of a statement from him that

9 the Prosecution could have a look at to see whether they need time? I

10 assume you will be calling him first, would you?

11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We haven't got a

12 statement because we thought that it would be sufficient to deal with this

13 as the OTP had done. Mrs. Thapa was indeed on the list of witnesses, and

14 that's probably the reason why we omitted Mr. Milenko Dundjer. We did not

15 have any statement from Ms. Thapa, and I believe there's no need to take a

16 statement from Mr. Milenko Dundjer. We talked to the Prosecution

17 yesterday and today, and the Prosecutor will correct me if I'm wrong, but

18 I don't think that they asked for any additional statement.

19 This person would be testifying according to the same principle

20 according to which Ms. Thapa testified, in order to introduce certain

21 documents, and we'd like to call in Mr. Milenko Dundjer to do the same

22 thing immediately after the opening statement.

23 JUDGE HUNT: I haven't even had a chance to ask the Prosecution

24 about that, but I'll come back to that one as well.

25 Now, the next matter, how long do you expect your case to take?

Page 5146

1 And I'm not trying to pin you down, I'm trying to see how far ahead we

2 have to plan.

3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to ask you

4 for your understanding in advance with regard to an estimate concerning

5 the length of our case, the presentation of our evidence. We have a

6 problem, actually. The Defence has tried and succeeded, I think, in

7 bringing half of our witnesses all in a sequence, so that is May. I'm

8 sure that we will need two weeks for our witnesses and then perhaps part

9 of this third week, and then we'll ask for a break, and then I think we'll

10 require an additional two or three weeks, and then we will have presented

11 our case in its entirety.

12 Our witnesses will be taking about an hour and a half or two, two

13 and a half at the longest. I don't know how long the cross-examination of

14 these witnesses will be, but we would like to propose this kind of

15 timetable. Half of the witnesses who can come in now can be heard in

16 succession, and then we get a week off, and then again we hear the

17 remaining witnesses one after the other, and then we would kindly ask for

18 yet another week so that the accused could take a rest and decide, and he

19 will have decided by the first break whether he will testify himself.

20 So then once we've called all our witnesses, we would like to

21 request an additional week of rest for the accused, and then we could call

22 the accused as a witness, and that would end the Defence case.

23 JUDGE HUNT: So there's now some doubt as to whether you're going

24 to call the accused. You had told us originally you would be calling him.

25 I'm just curious to know where we're headed there as well.

Page 5147

1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that it is

2 almost certain, but please give us time until the first break to decide on

3 this. The Defence wanted to talk to the accused once again, and I think

4 we may have an answer for you by the end of next week, or rather, the

5 other week, but I expect the accused to testify. In that case, we would

6 appreciate it if we could get a week off after all the witnesses, and we

7 would round up our case by having the accused testify himself.

8 JUDGE HUNT: But I should warn you, Mr. Bakrac, that whilst there

9 is no obligation upon you in relation to any order in which you call your

10 witnesses, if you call your client, the accused, last, there will be a

11 very fair comment that will be open to the Prosecution that he sat and

12 he's heard what everybody else has said, and that his evidence has been

13 designed to fill in the holes, or something like that.

14 It is the usual course in most criminal jurisdictions that I'm

15 aware of for the accused to be called first so that no such comment can be

16 made. But provided that you understand that such a comment may well be

17 made, it's a matter for you when you call him.

18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I come from a legal

19 system in which the criminal procedure involves the compulsory testimony

20 of the accused first and foremost. However, the Defence believes it has a

21 counter-argument to a possible objection that could be raised by the OTP

22 and that is the interview that the accused gave the Prosecutor before the

23 trial and before the Prosecution case was presented.

24 When the time comes, you are going to make a parallel between what

25 the accused said in his interview before he knew what the Prosecution

Page 5148

1 witnesses would say. That is to say that the accused already gave an

2 interview to the Prosecutor, and the Prosecutor tendered this into

3 evidence, and we did not oppose that.

4 We believe that his additional testimony will only clarify certain

5 matters. In the opinion of the Defence, it will not bring into

6 contradiction anything that the accused said before the trial to the

7 Prosecution.

8 JUDGE HUNT: I am only raising it so that you are aware of what

9 may happen. I am not asking you to declare your position at all. Of

10 course, sometimes it has been known for the accused to deny the truth of

11 what he told the police or the Prosecutor in the interview before the

12 trial and that's when this sort of problem really does arise.

13 Now, the last thing I want to say, and both parties will be

14 concerned about this, if the evidence is still running in the -- I think

15 it's the second week of July, from memory it's the week commencing the

16 9th of July, that is the week when The Hague is inundated with people who

17 wish to attend the Jazz Festival across the road at the Congress Centrum,

18 and the Victims and Witnesses Section find that it is absolutely

19 impossible to arrange accommodation for the witnesses.

20 The Judges usually, and on this occasion, have already scheduled a

21 Judges' meeting that week for the Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, because

22 we realise that no trial can ever really take place during that week. So

23 when you are thinking about breaks and everything, if the trial is still

24 running that week, there will be no hearing.

25 Right. Well, thank you. Is there anything else you would like to

Page 5149

1 raise at this stage, Mr. Bakrac?

2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, precisely in connection

3 with evidence, I just wanted to inform you of the following: We have

4 given a list of witnesses for the first and second week. I don't know

5 whether we will manage, actually. I do apologise in advance to you if we

6 did not estimate this properly. The witnesses will come in one after the

7 other, but when this will finish, I have no precise idea. We have 12

8 witnesses, and Milenko Dundjer is the 13th, and possibly two other

9 witnesses, Dr. Dobrilovic and Dr. Vladicic will manage to come for the

10 first group.

11 So we have 13 group [sic] that may come successively, and then we

12 have Milenko Dundjer, an investigator, and four other witnesses who are

13 arriving already on this Saturday. And I think that since our first week

14 is shorter - we have only three days in court because Monday is not a

15 workday - I think that will be sufficient. We have planned eight

16 witnesses for the next -- the week after that. They will come on the

17 following Saturday. So we would like to have ten witnesses successively,

18 and they should be in The Hague already by the following Saturday.

19 After that, we would kindly ask for an entire week off so that the

20 other witnesses could all come in and again testify one after the other,

21 because it's difficult to put them all together due to family reasons, et

22 cetera.

23 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Bakrac, obviously the pattern of the rate that we

24 travel at will become apparent after a few days. So if you have to adjust

25 your arrangements, it's up to you. We certainly wouldn't stop you from

Page 5150












12 Blank page to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and the English transcripts.













Page 5151

1 doing so. But the Prosecution may be long-winded, although they're not

2 usually, or they may be very short. So you can adjust your witnesses as

3 you need them. And if you have any problems, let us know. Obviously the

4 Victims and Witnesses Unit have to be given fair warning to get their

5 travel arrangements sorted out. But we will understand, obviously, if

6 things slow down or speed up unexpectedly.

7 If you have 13 witnesses and perhaps another four, that's 17

8 witnesses, you may be running hard to finish those in three weeks, but we

9 shall see how we go.

10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I'm so sorry. I

11 don't know whether we've understood each other. We have 13 witnesses now

12 and possibly two more. So that would be a total of 15. Five witness or,

13 rather, four, plus Milenko Dundjer in the first week. As for the second

14 week, we would like to bring in eight witnesses. Possibly we might have

15 two more witnesses, two doctors, coming in with this group. So that would

16 be the 13 -- that would be the first group, 13 plus 2.

17 JUDGE HUNT: You did mention that you had put in a list of

18 witnesses. I haven't seen that. Is that with the folders? We've got

19 your general list with the description of what each witness will give, but

20 we haven't got a proposed order of witnesses. Is that something you've

21 already handed in?

22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we supplied the Victims

23 Unit with that, and we decided yesterday with the Prosecution that by

24 tomorrow at the latest, when we're quite certain that everything is in

25 order with respect to passports and that the witnesses are on their way,

Page 5152

1 that we will give the schedule for the first week tomorrow, and I think

2 that the Prosecution agreed to that.

3 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Well, the way in which the Prosecution gave you

4 a list and us a list for the witnesses for the next week, we would

5 appreciate the same from you. So by the end of each week if you could

6 provide a list to the Court, to the Registry, for the Prosecution and for

7 us as to the witnesses you propose or expect to be able to call the

8 following week and the order in which they're called, that would be a

9 help.

10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence will try to

11 be as correct and proper in their conduct as the Prosecution has been with

12 respect to supplying us with the schedules for the weeks to come. We

13 shall do our best, do our utmost to do that equally well as the

14 Prosecution has been doing it. And I do take this opportunity in thanking

15 the Prosecution for supplying us on time with all they needed to. And

16 when we know that the witnesses are ready to leave and are on their way,

17 we shall supply the Prosecution with the information.

18 It is not vital for the first week who will go first, and perhaps

19 the Prosecution could be allowed to choose the order for our witnesses.

20 We're even ready to cooperate in that way. As I say, the order isn't that

21 important for us.

22 What is important is that the witnesses are here, that they come

23 to The Hague, and as to the order, we can always agree upon that with the

24 Prosecution. If they would like to see one witness come before another,

25 that would be fine for us. Thank you.

Page 5153

1 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much, Mr. Bakrac.

2 Well, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, I'll leave that particular offer for you

3 to consider and you can discuss that with Mr. Bakrac later.

4 This legal assistant/investigator, is there any problem that you

5 have from him not being on the list?

6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour. And it is our understanding

7 that Mr. Dundjer will actually speak about the exhibits, and if this does

8 not exceed actually his evidence, then we wouldn't need any advanced

9 statement or summary of what he has to say.

10 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then, we formally will have to grant leave

11 because the Rules now require it.

12 We'll grant leave for the accused to add Mr. Milenko Dundjer to

13 the list of witnesses.

14 Now, we've got the report from the accused's doctor. We haven't

15 yet received the report from the Prosecution's doctor.

16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I thought we filed it, but just I have to

17 check.

18 JUDGE HUNT: If you would so that we make sure we've got it. You

19 had originally discussed whether you needed to file it in your case, and

20 we said no because the defendant bore the onus of proof. So it isn't yet

21 an exhibit, but if you could check up on that.

22 And whilst I am thinking of exhibits, you had to produce a letter

23 that you received from the Missing Persons Commission witness. Remember,

24 you wanted leave to produce that after the end of your case, and we

25 granted you that permission.

Page 5154

1 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think we have already filed -- we have

2 already filed this additional list. I think you are speaking about the

3 list of the witness Masovic.


5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And we have already filed this list on the

6 5th of April, and we thought that maybe the Defence counsel would want to

7 say something in regard of this additional exhibit.

8 JUDGE HUNT: Well, it hasn't been made an exhibit yet, but that's

9 what I wanted to do. Unfortunately, I didn't bring my list in.

10 What number are we up to? Yes. It was filed on the 5th of

11 April. It just has never reached me anyway.

12 Have you seen this, Mr. Bakrac? We may as well dispose of this

13 while we can.

14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, the Defence has

15 seen it.

16 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection to entering it as an exhibit?

17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence does have

18 some objections to make. We -- I think we will try in the time that we

19 have, and I think we do have the time, that is to say, Mr. Masovic

20 provided us with a list where, in general terms, it states the source. At

21 the end of the list, as well, there is an example where, for a certain

22 number of individuals, next to the source we see a name and surname. Now,

23 if this has been computer processed or done from the files, I don't see

24 why we can't have this for all the other people, the actual source, and

25 who it is.

Page 5155

1 If you take a look, if you have the list in front of you, Your

2 Honour, it is page 25 and 26, and on those pages we have an example where,

3 with the source, we have the name of the person who is the source, and I

4 don't see why we can't have that for all the other people as well. I

5 don't think that would involve any -- a great deal of work. We would just

6 have to add this in the column so that we could know exactly who is

7 asserting that the person was last seen in the KP Dom.

8 And that is our objection, and I think that is in line with our

9 agreement, that Mr. Masovic should do that where he can.

10 JUDGE HUNT: May I suggest that you discuss this with the

11 Prosecution. I do remember this being raised, and I thought Mr. Masovic

12 said it could be done, and the fact that he's been able to do it for the

13 example, it is curious that he hasn't done it in the rest of the document.

14 But if the two of you discuss it, if it can be dealt with between you,

15 then it should be, if not, then we'll have to worry about it. But I have

16 not seen it before. No doubt there will be a copy sent to me eventually.

17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it was actually our

18 understanding, and Mr. Masovic said that also - at least it is what I

19 remember - he was actually tasked to give this general list and, only

20 after inspection of Defence, would find out the details in relation to

21 specific cases where you have doubts, because it is a certain amount of

22 work because Mr. Masovic has this specific information, not in the

23 computer, but has to return to the actual files and has to search the

24 files and get this information from the written documentation, and that is

25 an amount of work.

Page 5156

1 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then, that seems reasonable. But if you --

2 when you are discussing matters later on today, perhaps, with the Defence,

3 you can ask him to nominate those about which there is some doubt, and

4 then we can worry about it then.

5 Now, authenticity of documents, how are you getting on with that,

6 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff?

7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We have identified, let's say, about a third

8 of these documents where we have some doubts in relation to authenticity,

9 and we would need some additional explanation as to the source, how the

10 document was found, and who may have compiled the document, and we think

11 that we will get some of the information directly from Mr. Dundjer, and

12 maybe then our objections or our doubts are actually solved.

13 We also provided to Defence counsel a list of mistakes that we

14 found in the translation of the documents, and we also had discussed

15 certain documents in relation to the Miljevina mine where the Prosecution

16 would actually stipulate to Defence counsel's argument and would not

17 actually need the exhibits entered into evidence.

18 And we think it's easier to do it in the presence of Mr. Dundjer

19 when the specific document is discussed. It would be easier to then make

20 an assessment and say we object or don't.

21 JUDGE HUNT: All right. You've explored it between the parties

22 out of court as far as you can, then, have you?

23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Well, then, that seems a very sensible

25 suggestion, but we're going to have documents all over the place. If you

Page 5157

1 challenge the authenticity, we really can't make them an exhibit until

2 it's either proven, their authenticity is proven, or you accept it. So

3 perhaps we may have a series of minor cross-examinations as each document

4 comes up, it seems to me the best way of dealing with it, so that we can

5 then say that will be an exhibit or it will not be an exhibit until some

6 further evidence is given.

7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. I think that's a very good

8 suggestion. I was also thinking about how to do it because we will have

9 to ask Mr. Dundjer directly in relation to the source of certain documents

10 and how he got them, and then it would be solved.

11 JUDGE HUNT: It's rather like the common law procedure of having a

12 voir dire, a Latin phrase pronounced in the French way, which means

13 nothing, but lawyers seem to understand it.

14 All right, then. Well, is there anything else that the

15 Prosecution wants to raise at this conference?

16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Just a second.

17 [Prosecution counsel confer]

18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Ms. Kuo just informed me that our position in

19 relation to our expert was actually that we wait for the rebuttal case to

20 do that. Now, I wonder, do you want us to file it nevertheless now? We

21 can do so because it's available and it's translated.

22 JUDGE HUNT: Have you given it to the Defence?

23 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE HUNT: Well, that's all. We don't want to read it until it

25 goes into evidence.

Page 5158


2 JUDGE HUNT: That was my concern. Is there nothing else?

3 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE HUNT: Very well, then. We'll start the Defence case next

5 Tuesday, and we'll wait to see how the witnesses are going, at what rate

6 that they're going at before we determine precisely when we'll have a

7 break. Both parties are free to talk to the senior legal officer or the

8 legal officer about that when you see yourselves some pattern emerging so

9 we can at least give everybody some notice that we'll take a break to

10 allow the Defence to catch up on their preparations.

11 Well, that's all. We'll adjourn in just a moment.

12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

13 JUDGE HUNT: We'll adjourn now. Thank you.

14 --- Whereupon the Pre-Defence Conference adjourned

15 at 10:15 a.m.