Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8635

1 Tuesday, 20 February 2001

2 [Status Conference]

3 [Open session]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.04 p.m.

5 [The accused entered court]

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated.

7 Let me propose the following, that is, that we continue with the

8 agenda I gave yesterday, and perhaps I should give more opportunity to

9 speak to the Defence of Radic because that is our next case. Just a

10 second, please.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We have in front of us the

13 reports of expert witnesses for the accused Kvocka [as interpreted]. The

14 Prosecutor agreed to the admission of two reports without cross-examining

15 the witness. In view of Rule 94 bis (C), the Chamber will, therefore,

16 admit the reports as exhibits, as part of the evidence in this case,

17 without calling the witnesses in question to testify before the Bench. So

18 that is one of our rulings.

19 Still regarding the Defence of Mr. Kos, yesterday we resolved the

20 problem, that is, the issue, of protective measures. The witness who was

21 supposed to come and in respect of whom video conferencing was requested,

22 we will organise that at the same time, so we will have an opportunity to

23 hear the witness in that way. The protective measures which were

24 requested in respect of that witness, I think that the Kos Defence still

25 requests these protective measures even in case of videolink.

Page 8636

1 I should like to hear them on this issue, if necessary, at least

2 to confirm what I have just said, and in order to be clear on what kind of

3 protective measures are being sought. Can the Kos Defence please notify

4 the Chamber of that issue?

5 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, Your Honour. Perhaps we should go into

6 closed session to --

7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] How much time do you think you

8 will need?

9 MR. O'SULLIVAN: No more than a minute or two.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just for the benefit of the

11 public which is following, as you can see, our proceedings, we will go

12 into a private session for just a few minutes.

13 [Private session]

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 8637













13 Page 8637 redacted private session













Page 8638

1 (redacted)

2 [Open session]

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We are in public session. As

4 regards the request made by the Kos Defence relating to the Detention

5 Unit, we will see to it that the appropriate measures are taken so that

6 the Defence can receive the information requested. The accused Radic, I

7 believe it's a priority, because next week we will be hearing the case in

8 defence of Mr. Radic.

9 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I said next week. No?

11 The week after. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for drawing my attention to

12 the calendar. Yes, you're quite right.

13 Still pending is the issue of expert witnesses. We have heard the

14 position of the Prosecutor, so I think that it is up to the Chamber to

15 issue its ruling now.

16 I don't know whether the Prosecutor, Ms. Somers, has anything to

17 add to the response. Yes, Ms. Somers, let us hear you. Do you have any

18 good news to tell us?

19 MS. SOMERS: On the expert witnesses for the Radic Defence, yes,

20 Your Honour, Mr. Fila and I have, as to the witness Kecmanovic's

21 statement, pursuant to the Chamber's urging us to find perhaps a written

22 means of addressing it as opposed to live cross-examination, we have

23 agreed in writing and have submitted a copy to the Chamber just to know

24 about it, that we, as the Prosecution, maintain our non-acceptance. But

25 rather than have cross-examination, we will submit our own expert report

Page 8639

1 in refutation of their report, and hope that that would suit the Chamber's

2 concerns over time, and I think Mr. Fila agrees that that might be as

3 good.

4 On the other two -- the psychiatric reports, we, of course, have

5 not changed our position on. We will seek cross-examination of both

6 experts. And on the report of Mr. Beatovic, Dr. Beatovic, we also would

7 seek to challenge that and cross-examine. But we did try, where we could,

8 reach the accord, which will save a fair amount of time, I believe.

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Ms. Somers.

10 Mr. Fila, do you wish to add something to the issue of expert

11 witnesses?

12 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, due to the problems with

13 translation, I agree with Ms. Somers that instead of hearing Professor

14 Kecmanovic, the Prosecution submits their written objections. If that is

15 what has just been stated, then we have an agreement on that, because I

16 have received a somewhat different translation.

17 As regards to other experts - I don't know their names by heart by

18 now - as well as Mr. Beatovic, it is the position of the Defence that

19 there is no need to call them to testify, the reason being judicial

20 economy, not that I would have any special objections to their testifying

21 here in Court. In our system, these testimonies would be considered only

22 in relation to sentencing, and in view of the relevant provision of your

23 Statute, you have an obligation to take into account the practice of

24 sentencing before domestic courts. That is not the case in our system.

25 For example, as regards Ms. Najman, the Chamber ordered that a

Page 8640

1 Dutch expert be appointed, and they managed to find an agreement. As

2 regards Professor Beatovic, again mindful of the judicial economy, I chose

3 him, because in the Kunarac case he was heard as an expert witness. He

4 was examined by the Prosecution and his testimony is on the record. I

5 have nothing against that portion of his -- of the record being made part

6 of the evidence in this case. I do not wish to contest any of that. So

7 that would solve the problem. That was the reason why I elected him as

8 our expert witness, because he has already been used for that purpose and

9 he has already been cross-examined, and things will move faster. If my

10 learned colleague insists on calling them, then I have nothing against

11 it. Thank you.

12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Fila. Your suggestion

13 is quite welcome.

14 Ms. Somers, do you have anything to say in response to this

15 suggestion of Mr. Fila? He chose one expert witness because he has

16 already testified in another case on more or less the same issue. I view

17 the Office of the Prosecutor as one and single institution. Do you have

18 anything to say in response to this suggestion of Mr. Fila?

19 MS. SOMERS: I do, Your Honour. I have something to say. Perhaps

20 in the other case the first admission of the psychiatrist was not the one

21 that he made in our case, which was that he did not follow procedure,

22 which suggests that it is a fundamentally-flawed examination, and

23 therefore I would request in this instance, irrespective of what may have

24 taken place in another Chamber, because that apparently was not a concern

25 there, we would have to examine him on his methodology and the procedure,

Page 8641

1 which, by his own admission, was not standard, was not followed.

2 The other psychologist, we have indicated we challenge on the

3 basis -- on a number of bases, among them bias, and would ask the

4 opportunity -- albeit I don't expect to have to extensively cross-examine,

5 nonetheless cross-examination, I think, is appropriate. We have set the

6 grounds out in our response.

7 On Dr. Beatovic -- I'm sorry. Perhaps -- was it Dr. Beatovic? I

8 thought it was a psychiatrist that was referred to in the other case, in

9 Kunarac. I may have misunderstood the use of it. I was referring to Dr.

10 van den Bussche. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding on my part.

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I thought it was about

12 Professor Beatovic, because you said it was irrelevant. But Mr. Fila

13 suggested that in addition to admitting the report, that we also admit or

14 tender the record of his testimony and the record of his

15 cross-examination. That is what I wanted to hear you on, your opinion on

16 that suggestion.

17 MS. SOMERS: Yes, but I hope the Chamber doesn't mind that I did

18 inform it as well as the bases for our wishing to cross-examine the

19 psychiatrist. I think that also should be a matter for the Chamber to

20 know.

21 The statement of Dr. Beatovic, we maintain, is irrelevant, purely

22 irrelevant. However, if the Chamber is going to consider it, we would

23 want to -- even though the Office of the Prosecutor is an integral

24 organisation, there are different aspects of a witness's testimony which

25 may be sought by one Prosecution team in a given case that may vary in

Page 8642

1 another case, and we would ask to have an opportunity as to the points

2 that we think need to be challenged, to have a quick but opportunity to

3 cross-examine.

4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Somers, I am not going

5 to give you any guidelines for your work, it's not my task here. But in

6 my capacity as a Presiding Judge and a Judge of this Tribunal, we have to

7 balance the objectives and have in mind the resources that we have for

8 that. We really need to know what is the objective of calling one

9 particular witness in view of the overall case. If it is, indeed, very

10 important that we should call him for the purposes of the case, then of

11 course we will call the witness to testify.

12 But I don't need a definite answer at the point, and I think that

13 we can move on with our next issue which is mentioned on the agenda that

14 we gave yesterday.

15 There is a request made by the Radic Defence for certain witnesses

16 to produce medical documents. The issue is under deliberation by the

17 Chamber and we will probably make our ruling shortly.

18 Still regarding our yesterday's agenda, the Zigic Defence, I think

19 we have all of the requests to that effect and they are pending, they are

20 being considered by the Chamber, and we will make a ruling.

21 I think that as far as our yesterday's agenda is concerned we have

22 covered all points, all issues.

23 We received a number of new requests or motions recently, and I

24 should perhaps give the floor to Mr. Fila to argue his motion for

25 protective measures. I don't know whether you need a private session, or

Page 8643

1 do you think you can argue the motion publicly?

2 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I refrain from

3 mentioning the names, I think I can address the issue in public, and the

4 names are not necessary.

5 The witnesses in question are witnesses who have not requested

6 protective measures on a prior occasion, except for the one who is a Serb

7 and who requested safe conduct here and back.

8 However, I must say that there is a leakage of information from

9 this Tribunal. People happened to learn about things, about testimonies,

10 which is then inevitably followed by a number of threats and various kinds

11 of trouble. You will remember the issue which we had in the Blaskic

12 case. All of a sudden, names of witnesses become publicly known. I am

13 absolutely sure that this cannot happen at this level here, at the level

14 of the participants here in the proceedings; however, we should try to

15 find out how such leakages are possible. That is the reason why certain

16 witnesses, all of a sudden, decide to request protective measures.

17 The situation has changed from this past Friday, and that is the

18 subject of my motion. I kindly request the Chamber to grant this request

19 for protective measures because these witnesses have explicitly told me

20 that they would not come here if they are not granted protective

21 measures. They are all non-Serbs, victims who were detained in the camp

22 and who are willing to put a nice word here before the Chamber on behalf

23 of Mr. Radic. That is why they are requesting these protective measures,

24 and these are the grounds for my motion.

25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Fila.

Page 8644

1 Before I give the floor to Ms. Somers, I need to ask two questions.

2 When you say that information leaks from this Tribunal, I don't

3 know whether you are referring to public sessions or private sessions.

4 Also, the list which you mentioned, I wanted to know whether it was a

5 confidential list or not.

6 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I really don't know. Yes,

7 it was a confidential document, but I don't know how it became known. We

8 also come to learn the names of Prosecution witnesses, I have to be honest

9 about that; but how such things become known, I really don't know.

10 Whether these people talk in public, in cafes, at home, whether this is

11 due to a lack of conscientiousness on behalf of certain individuals, I

12 don't know.

13 For example, a witness of mine recently received a telephone call

14 on behalf of someone who introduced himself as counsel for the accused

15 Radic and who told him that he didn't need to come.

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] When you say that they talk in

17 cafes, at home, is it here, in The Hague, or over there?

18 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] No, not here, over there.

19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Fila.

20 We will see if there is anything we can do about it.

21 Ms. Somers, any comments, reactions, or suggestions in respect of

22 this motion?

23 MS. SOMERS: On this particular motion, Your Honour, we do not

24 oppose the protective measures, as we know them, that are suggested. Of

25 course, the matter of safe conduct is in the Chamber's hands and is really

Page 8645

1 not for us to comment on. But as to the measures, as long as it's an open

2 session, we think there's no objection.

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Ms. Susan Somers.

4 Your reservation was on condition that these hearings be held in public

5 session. What exactly did you mean by "an open session"?

6 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, if I understand correctly --

7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We are talking about protective

8 measures here.

9 MS. SOMERS: Right. And within the context of open session, a

10 pseudonym, distortion, absolutely no problem, no problem at all. Anything

11 else would be in the Chamber's hands. It's not something addressed to

12 us.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The Chamber is going to review

14 the matter and make a ruling certainly before you begin your case,

15 Mr. Fila.

16 For the Radic Defence, are there any other questions? I think

17 not. Yes, there are. Documents. But I've already told you that that is

18 under review, so please go on.

19 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes, there's no problem. I don't want

20 to spoil your week by telling you about my problems. I'll keep them to

21 myself. Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think, with respect to the

23 Radic Defence, we have no other issues to address.

24 I think that we still have a question which I forgot to mention

25 for the Zigic Defence, and that is the question of a witness that the

Page 8646












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.













Page 8647

1 Zigic Defence would like to call in his two-fold capacity as a witness of

2 fact and as an expert witness.

3 Could you, Mr. Stojanovic, explain that for us? What is the Rule

4 that you are relying on for this?

5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, thank you.

6 I think that we would be saving on time and resources for the

7 Tribunal because this is one of the leading doctors of the general

8 hospital in Prijedor who personally treated Zigic's wounds; that is one

9 point.

10 The second is that one of the leading physicians of that hospital

11 also had insight into the treatment of one of the dead in Keraterm whose

12 death is attributed to our client. This is a person who has the knowledge

13 of an eyewitness, on the one hand, and on the other, he has the expertise

14 of medical knowledge.

15 In our first revised list, we did suggest a medical expert

16 witness. This one would just stand in place of that former medical

17 expert. So he would not be an addition, but instead of the expert Dunjic,

18 we would have this person as the medical expert. So I think that it would

19 be useful and helpful, and it would save time.

20 We have submitted our request to the Registry. They have told us

21 that we should notify the Chamber about it. It is rather important that

22 we have a ruling quickly, because if it be granted, then the expert

23 witness could start working immediately. In any event, this same person

24 has been proposed anyway as an eyewitness and, in our judgement, he will

25 have to come anyway.

Page 8648

1 If I may add, his finding as an expert witness and his statement

2 as an eyewitness do not coincide in every respect.

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, for me to be

4 able to understand better what you are telling us, when you say that this

5 expert witness is also a fact witness, the facts that he observed, were

6 they facts that have to do with the observation of a patient or some other

7 facts? In other words, the facts that he observed, are they facts related

8 to a patient of his, of a particular patient?

9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] To make myself quite clear, I can

10 say that it is a physician who personally treated Mr. Zoran Zigic. He

11 amputated his finger, in fact.

12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but why not call him as an

13 expert witness? He observed this and he has his opinion, and that's it,

14 that would be it. That would mean that he would have to produce a report

15 in accordance with Rule 94 bis.

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we accept your

17 suggestion gladly on condition that you make such a ruling. His presence

18 as a fact witness was on our list as a reserve, but we would prefer, in

19 fact, to bring him as an expert witness. If the Chamber were to accept

20 him as an expert witness, he would be deleted from the list of fact

21 witnesses.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Another question for you,

23 Mr. Stojanovic, before I give the floor to Ms. Susan Somers, because there

24 are many things at stake here.

25 We also have your request of the 15th of February for protective

Page 8649

1 measures. Could you give us an idea primarily with respect to the grounds

2 for protective measures and the grounds for a videolink so that we can

3 hear the views of the Prosecutor after that?

4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I think that we suggested

5 protective measures for four witnesses, if I'm not mistaken. Four or

6 five -- no, sorry, five. Four of them are of Muslim ethnicity, and they

7 personally feel, as they told us, that they would be at risk if it were to

8 be learnt that they were testifying here for somebody charged for crimes

9 against Muslims. All of them are, today, living in the Republic of

10 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

11 Also, and this may be more a problem for the Victims and Witnesses

12 Unit, they also requested dislocation. This is something that may be

13 discussed later should the Chamber, by decision, grant such a

14 possibility.

15 The fifth witness is not of Muslim ethnicity. According to his

16 own assurances, he is prepared to mention certain names or certain persons

17 who committed some of the crimes of which Mr. Zigic is charged; however,

18 those persons are at liberty and, as far as we know, in his vicinity. So

19 that is the reason why he has requested protection from public knowledge,

20 that such statements should not become a matter of public knowledge.

21 Thank you.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. But, Mr. Stojanovic, the

23 reasons for the video conference?

24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I think that for one witness, the

25 reason is rather simple. He simply doesn't dare fly, get on an

Page 8650

1 aeroplane. If necessary, we can consult a psychiatrist about this. But

2 if he were not to fly, it would take several days for him to come here and

3 get back again. That is the reason for one witness.

4 For the second, I must say quite openly that he was mentioned on

5 two Tribunal indictments and he does not feel quite safe coming into this

6 courtroom. The former main Prosecutor, Ms. Louise Arbour, withdrew

7 further proceedings against him, but I think if one were to put oneself in

8 his position, one might understand his fears of appearing in this

9 Tribunal. You have his name; there is no secret about it.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. We need

11 to speed things up a little because we have to finish at 3.00, as I have

12 said.

13 Ms. Susan Somers, these matters that were discussed -- also, I

14 didn't ask Mr. Stojanovic to comment on the motion for the production of

15 documents and manuscripts, that is, the motion of the 13th of February,

16 2001, and the points having to do with protective measures.

17 So, Ms. Susan Somers, you have the floor.

18 MS. SOMERS: As to, Your Honour, the issue of the physician

19 appearing in an expert capacity, we do object. This particular physician

20 is intimately involved, factually, in the defence of the Zigic case. The

21 essence of expert testimony is impartiality, neutrality, objectivity, and

22 I submit to this Trial Chamber it is virtually impossible for this

23 individual to present an objective, impartial, and neutral line of

24 testimony. Therefore, I think the only capacity in which he could appear

25 and submit to full cross-examination that would be meaningful would be as

Page 8651

1 a fact witness.

2 Working slightly backward, a motion for production of documents

3 and manuscripts I don't believe I have seen. Oh, I see. It's on the

4 latter part. I'm sorry. I thought it was a separate document. If I can

5 take a minute and review it, I will certainly look at this. If this in

6 any way is supposed to substitute for 66(B), we'll have to look at that,

7 because that, of course, would have its own very specific language. But

8 let me just look at that in a moment, if I may.

9 On the issue of a witness who was formerly an indictee appearing,

10 that is a matter fully within the control of my counsel opposite. I could

11 only indicate that it was my understanding at the time of withdrawal of

12 indictments that the reasons were not going to issues of probable cause.

13 They had other concerns attached to them. So I cannot address anything

14 other than it is a judgement call by Mr. Stojanovic, and whatever measures

15 he deems appropriate to seek from the Chamber would have to be really in

16 his court to determine.

17 If I -- may I have just a moment to review the request on the

18 documents, and then ...

19 [Prosecution counsel confer]

20 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

21 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, on issues of original signatures on

22 documents, I am not clear what document the Prosecutor has in the evidence

23 vault that would indicate whether it is a copy or an original. If I may

24 be permitted to check, I will do that. At this point, I don't know

25 whether it really is literally an original original, or a certified copy.

Page 8652

1 Excuse me.

2 [Prosecution counsel confer]

3 MS. SOMERS: Mr. Saxon has indicated that it's possible that, as

4 this concerns a former witness, perhaps the Witness Unit may have a

5 document with the handwriting sample on it, because of requirements for

6 signing for various aspects of travel reimbursement or travel documents,

7 and that may be an alternative. But I shall check, certainly, and see

8 what the status of our document is.

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The question is that the Zigic

10 Defence needs signatures to be able to make a comparative study. So to

11 know whether the signature in that document is the real signature, I have

12 to have a document with the real signature that is recognised as a real

13 signature, and that is what the Zigic Defence has asked, if I understood

14 them correctly. I didn't give him the floor about this because I thought

15 you had read the request. In any event, we have a written request and you

16 can respond in writing, and the Chamber will rule.

17 But I have a question for you, Ms. Susan Somers. This question of

18 a doctor who examined the accused Mr. Zigic, whether he should come as an

19 expert witness or a fact witness, you have told us your opinion. But if

20 he comes in his capacity as fact witness, would you admit that, being a

21 physician, that he can also be examined about his opinion and not simply

22 in the strictest sense regarding information? What is your position about

23 that?

24 MS. SOMERS: It would depend on what opinion is being called for.

25 Normally treating physicians would indicate: I did A -- the patient came,

Page 8653

1 I did A, B, or C, released the patient with the following instructions.

2 To project into the future would require, I think, quite an establishment

3 of credentials, and I'm not sure that above and beyond what the physician

4 did as a treating physician would be appropriate to inquire into.

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So this is a comment rather like

6 the one I make. Everyone is referring to his own system. In my system,

7 if a witness of fact is considered qualified to give an opinion on facts,

8 he can be asked about those opinions. If, for example, a party produces a

9 witness, being a qualified doctor with specialisation possibly, one might

10 agree to ask him about things which are not merely information but which

11 can fall under the category of expertise, opinion, qualifications, and so

12 on. Do you understand my point?

13 MS. SOMERS: I do, Your Honour, and I think that the Chamber does

14 this with witnesses, for example, from the police, asking questions based

15 on -- I hate to call it expertise, but experience, experiential

16 background. And I think that there is a certain latitude that is

17 afforded, but -- one perhaps can't exactly define it, but one knows it

18 when one sees it, has been exceeded, and I would assume that we would be

19 able to make our appropriate objections if the Chamber -- or if the line

20 of questioning, in our judgement, went beyond what would be appropriate.

21 But yes, of course this happens all the time.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I give the floor to

23 Mr. Stojanovic now to respond, because I didn't start out with you. So if

24 you could, rather quickly, tell us your opinion, because we have to

25 complete this Status Conference in 12 minutes' time.

Page 8654

1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I shall be very brief, Your

2 Honours. I think that it is a fact that -- that the fact that this doctor

3 treated Zigic personally is a great advantage for an expert opinion. In

4 any event, we feel that questions that may be addressed to him may be

5 divided into a section relating to the actual injury; and the second part

6 could be his expertise, his assessment of the intensity of pain suffered

7 by Zigic and what his physical capability was after that injury for a

8 certain given period of time. And another subject which is purely within

9 the area of expertise is the characteristics of the injuries of Emsud

10 Bahonjic, a person who succumbed, according to the indictment, to the

11 beatings of Zoran Zigic and who was admitted to that hospital twice during

12 his detention and about which there is the appropriate documentation.

13 Thank you.

14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. We have another

15 request from the Kos Defence which coincides, up to a point, with another

16 request of the Zigic Defence and which affects the position of Witness R.

17 We still do not have the response of the Prosecutor. We are aware of the

18 arguments with respect to Zigic. We will now only take Kos, in two or

19 three words, so that the Prosecutor may respond orally and the Chamber may

20 rule very quickly after that. Who would like to speak on behalf of the

21 Kos Defence?

22 Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan.

23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, I have very little to add to what

24 Your Honours have before you within the motion. The essence of our

25 request is that this is relevant evidence and there's a basis for

Page 8655

1 admitting it, and we respectfully request that you do so.

2 MS. SOMERS: If I may simply inform the Chamber --

3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, are you able

4 to say something?

5 MS. SOMERS: I just now received this from the Kos Defence, and if

6 the Chamber would permit us to review it, although I -- my initial

7 reaction is that it flies in the face of the Chamber's ruling about

8 statements, and I cannot --

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me for interrupting.

10 Would you prefer to respond in writing, Ms. Susan Somers?

11 MS. SOMERS: If the Chamber would indulge us, I think it would be

12 better. Thank you.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We would like to clean up the

14 table regarding rulings by the Chamber, and that is why I have asked you

15 for your response.

16 I think that's all. Is there anything else on the part of the

17 parties?

18 Yes, Ms. Susan Somers.

19 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, this may be a bad time because of the

20 Chamber's time constraints, but at some point there were several exhibits

21 which were raised for admission earlier and just have not been ruled on.

22 Would it be better to tack this onto the end of another hearing? Because

23 there are something like -- about eight, one of which we were minded of

24 yesterday kindly by Mr. Krstan Simic. I can read the numbers out if it

25 would help, and then if the Chamber wishes ... 3/173, 3/174, 3/175, 3/176,

Page 8656

1 3/177, 3/178, 3/179, and 3/181.

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We have another seven minutes,

3 more or less. Mr. Simic, does that have to do with you? I think it

4 does. Do you have a position regarding these documents already?

5 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. In fact, I

6 received this filing from Ms. Somers today, and I will respond in

7 writing. But I would like to remind you of something that I omitted to

8 mention and which we consider to be very important. That is the question

9 of affidavits. We have tendered them, as prescribed by the Rules, and we

10 feel that they should be admitted without cross-examination, because we

11 underline that they are a specific type of testimony and that

12 cross-examination should be an extreme exception.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Simic, we're going to

14 talk about those documents on another occasion, once you have exchanged

15 filings.

16 With regard to affidavits, I think that I said yesterday that this

17 motion was under review, so perhaps this week or next week a ruling will

18 be made.

19 The Chamber said that it would make rulings at the end of each

20 Defence case, but, as you know, the Prosecutor always has seven days after

21 the appearance of each witness. When the Chamber said that it would

22 render its ruling afterwards, it always means after those seven days, that

23 is, seven days after the last day of your case. So you will have your

24 decision in due time.

25 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 8657

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers.

2 MS. SOMERS: Just confirming that the Chamber has our filed

3 response, that would be it.

4 Your Honours, may I make inquiry very quickly, so that we don't

5 let this go by the board, on the dates for videolink? Just so we can line

6 up all the -- any personnel who may be necessary. If possible, perhaps at

7 the first opportunity when we return from whenever we return from, we

8 could just not let that disappear. I think it's going to be important for

9 timing. Plus, also to have some exhibits sent, perhaps, along if they

10 need to be presented, if they're not terribly visible here, copies of

11 exhibits.

12 Thank you, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, that's fine.

14 We have worked well, we have completed our work six minutes ahead

15 of time, and today we didn't mistreat the interpreters. So it's not

16 always that we treat all the interpreters badly.

17 We will stop there. We won't be seeing each other for a long time

18 now, and we will come again on the date that you are familiar with, at

19 9.20. So I wish you success in your work.

20 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned

21 at 2.56 p.m.





Page 8658












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.