130228ED

Page 9407

1 the behaviour of Mr. Mladic on the 18th of February. This is a statement

2 by the Chamber.

3 On the 18th of February, Mr. Mladic used abusive language once

4 the witness had left the courtroom and the Chamber was withdrawing for a

5 break. The language used, as was reported later by the Prosecution, was

6 extremely offensive, especially in respect of the witness that was giving

7 testimony, and of a kind to shock whoever may have heard it. Defence

8 counsel, as they stated in response to a question of the Chamber, had not

9 noticed the content of the words spoken but did not challenge the

10 accuracy of the wording as reported either.

11 It was not the first time that this happened.

12 The Chamber will vigorously protect the dignity of the courtroom.

13 No one should be exposed to abusive language by the accused or by anyone

14 else when that person is performing his or her duties in the courtroom or

15 watching the proceedings which are held in public. This extends to the

16 moments immediately preceding or following the formal course of the

17 proceedings when the accused is already, or is still, present in the

18 courtroom.

19 We have shown our determination to respond to such behaviour of

20 the accused by removing him from the courtroom under Rule 80. The

21 Chamber will continue in the same line and decide on a case-by-case basis

22 whether, and for how long, the accused will be removed in case of any

23 form of inappropriate behaviour or on any other appropriate remedy.

24 In addition to this, it may be a burden to those who have heard

25 any abusive language uttered by the accused to report in any detail what

Page 9408

1 they heard. It is further conceivable that a dispute arises as to the

2 words spoken, which may then lead to a further burden for those who feel

3 already offended by such behaviour of the accused. Since the Judges do

4 not understand B/C/S themselves, a need to verify any language brought to

5 its attention as having been abusive may therefore arise. The Chamber

6 has considered installing a microphone for that purpose, which would

7 record any word spoken by the accused and not caught by the official

8 recordings of the proceedings and therefore also not translated. Such

9 recording would exclusively be used for these verification purposes and

10 any permitted communication between counsel and accused would not be

11 recorded.

12 While the Chamber is at this moment not inclined to install such

13 a microphone, it may have to reconsider its position and possibly install

14 the microphone if a similar incident occurs.

15 Despite our instruction for the accused to communicate with

16 counsel in court only through short written notes, the Chamber has

17 tolerated very brief counsel-client communications at a low voice. The

18 Chamber finds no reason yet to change that practice. The Chamber repeats

19 that the accused should refrain from speaking in court at a volume

20 audible to others than Defence counsel in the courtroom.

21 The Chamber further states, not for the first time, that the

22 accused should refrain from any gestures or body language, including

23 silent laughter, which could be understood as an expression of approval

24 or disapproval of testimony of witnesses or the behaviour of other

25 persons. The Chamber further considers the repeated standing up by the

Page 9409

1 accused an undesirable -- as undesirable where it may be perceived as

2 intimidating. Finally, the Chamber emphasises again that inappropriate

3 communication with persons in the public gallery is not acceptable.

4 The Chamber finally expresses its confidence that the accused

5 will behave in such a way as to avoid the necessity of installing the

6 microphone it has envisaged.

7 And this concludes the statement of the Chamber on this matter.

8 I'll now continue with an oral decision on the Prosecution's motion for a

9 site visit.

10 On the 12th of February, 2013, the Prosecution filed its

11 "Proposal for Site Visit" in which it requests that the Chamber order a

12 site visit to locations in and around Sarajevo, Srebrenica, and the

13 municipalities. The Prosecution submits that the purpose of the proposed

14 site visit would be to assist the Chamber in contextualising the evidence

15 presented at trial. The Prosecution indicated in its motion that the

16 Defence did not object, and the Chamber notes that the Defence did not

17 file a response.

18 The Chamber notes that Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure and

19 Evidence gives the Chamber the possibility of exercising its function at

20 a place other than the seat of the Tribunal if authorised by the

21 President in the interests of justice. However, having carefully

22 reviewed the Prosecution's submissions, the Chamber considers that the

23 locations and landmarks referred to in the indictment can be sufficiently

24 comprehended from the evidence available to the Chamber at trial. The

25 Chamber therefore denies the motion, and this concludes the Chamber's

Page 9410

1 decision.

2 The Chamber will now deliver its decision on the admission of the

3 remaining associated exhibits in relation to Witness Rose.

4 In its Rule 92 ter motion concerning Witness Michael Rose of the

5 17th of December, 2012, the Prosecution tendered 36 associated exhibits.

6 Following the testimony of Witness Rose on the 18th of January, 2013, the

7 Chamber instructed the Prosecution to provide the Registry with a list of

8 the remaining associated exhibits that it still seeks to tender into

9 evidence and instructed the Registry to provisionally assign exhibit

10 numbers. This can be found at transcript page 7003. Such a list

11 containing a remainder of 30 associated documents was provided by the

12 Prosecution on the 18th of January. An internal memorandum filed by the

13 Registry on the 24th of January of 2013 assigned provisional exhibit

14 numbers to those 30 documents. On the 30th of January, the Registry

15 filed a correction to the internal memorandum, informing the parties and

16 the Chamber that due to a double assignment of three exhibit numbers,

17 these numbers have been replaced. Rule 65 ter number 03488 was

18 reassigned Exhibit P819 MFI'd, Rule 65 ter 07855 was reassigned

19 Exhibit P820 MFI, and Rule 65 ter number 08135 was reassigned

20 Exhibit P821 MFI'd.

21 Following the Chamber's approach as set out in the

22 22nd of November, 2012, oral decision with respect to Witness Tucker

23 concerning the admission of associated exhibits, the Chamber admits the

24 following ten documents currently marked for identification into evidence

25 as associated exhibits for Witness Rose: Exhibit P819, Exhibit P821,

Page 9411

1 Exhibit P761, Exhibit P763, Exhibit P772, Exhibit P774, Exhibit P779,

2 Exhibit P781, and Exhibit P784.

3 Exhibit P764 will be admitted pending its verified translation as

4 requested on the 7th of February, 2013, in court, at transcript pages

5 T-8272 through to 8273, and 8278. Until such verification is received,

6 the exhibit shall stay marked for identification.

7 With regard to the remaining associated exhibits tendered by the

8 Prosecution which were provisionally assigned exhibit numbers, the

9 Chamber denies admission into evidence without prejudice. The Registry

10 is requested to mark those documents as not admitted, and those documents

11 are P820 MFI'd, P758 through 760 MFI'd, P765 through P771 MFI'd, P773,

12 P775 and 776, all MFI'd, P778, P780, and P782 and 783. Again, they were

13 all MFI'd.

14 And this concludes the Chamber's decision on this matter.

15 I will now deliver the Chamber's decision on the admission of two

16 outstanding MFI'd documents tendered through Witness Thomas and on the

17 admission of the remaining associated exhibits in relation to said

18 witness.

19 First, with regard to Witness Thomas's amalgamated statement, the

20 Chamber recalls an informal communication from the Prosecution of the

21 22nd of November, 2012, in which it informed the Chamber and the Defence

22 that it undertook to redact the statement to remove references to

23 documents that it was not seeking to have admitted through

24 Witness Thomas. The Chamber admits this redacted version into evidence

25 and directs the Court Officer to replace the current statement in

Page 9412

1 e-court, currently MFI'd as P503, with the redacted version.

2 The second MFI'd document, P512, contains a series of maps

3 showing locations of shelling in Sarajevo that are cited in the daily

4 situation reports tendered as associated exhibits with Witness Thomas.

5 Following the issuance of this decision with regard to the associated

6 exhibits of Witness Thomas, the Prosecution is requested to revisit P512

7 to only reflect those maps linked to daily situation reports that are

8 admitted into evidence by this decision. Once the Prosecution has done

9 so, it should inform the Chamber and the revised MFI'd document P512 can

10 then be admitted into evidence.

11 The Chamber will now turn to its decision on the associated

12 exhibits of Witness Thomas. The Chamber has received and examined the

13 parties' submissions after it had set the deadline for submissions to the

14 27th of November, 2012, for the Prosecution, and to the 4th of December,

15 2012, for the Defence respectively. Both parties were informed about

16 these deadlines through an informal communication which is hereby put on

17 the record.

18 At the outset, the Chamber notes the Prosecution's submission

19 with regard to 13 daily situation reports enumerated in the comments

20 chart admitted as Exhibit P510. The Prosecution submits that those

21 situation reports were discussed with Witness Thomas in court and

22 requests their admission "through the witness." The Chamber notes first

23 of all that none of the reports listed in P510, apart from two documents

24 with Rule 65 ter number 10563 admitted as P511 and Rule 65 ter number

25 18762 admitted as P509, were in fact directly tendered through the

Page 9413

1 witness in court. Further, the Chamber could only identify one other

2 document from the comments chart, namely, Rule 65 ter number 10562, which

3 was shortly discussed with the witness. The Chamber will therefore only

4 consider the Prosecution's alternative request with regard to the

5 13 daily situation reports, which is their admission as associated

6 exhibits to the amalgamated statement of Witness Thomas, admitted as

7 P503.

8 Following the Chamber's approach used in the Tucker oral decision

9 of the 22nd of November, 2012, on the admission of associated exhibits,

10 the Chamber admits the following 19 documents into evidence as associated

11 exhibits of Witness Thomas, and I'll refer to them by their 65 ter

12 number: 65 ter 10022, 10028, 10550, 10553, 10560, 10561, 10562, 10566,

13 10568A, page 3 of 65 ter number 10571 only, 65 ter number 13786, further

14 13788, 13797, 13803, 13818, 14901, page 1 of 65 ter number 14964 only,

15 65 ter number 14965, and the last one, 65 ter number 19064.

16 With regard to the remaining associated exhibits tendered by the

17 Prosecution through Witness Thomas, the Chamber denies their admission

18 into evidence without prejudice.

19 The Registry is invited to assign exhibit numbers and the

20 Prosecution to upload the two documents partially admitted under a new

21 65 ter number.

22 This concludes the Chamber's decision.

23 The last item I'd like to deal with is the following: The

24 Chamber has given a decision on a camera which will constantly record the

25 accused in this case. In our decision it's stated that it extend to any

Page 9414

1 period when the accused is in the courtroom, even before the start of the

2 proceedings or after the proceedings are concluded, up to the moment

3 where the accused leaves the courtroom. The Chamber informs hereby the

4 parties and all those present in this courtroom that for very practical

5 reasons it may not always and often is not possible to switch off that

6 camera during the breaks.

7 Now, if the camera would still be active during the breaks, this

8 will not affect the accused, who will then have already left the

9 courtroom, but the Chamber informs all others in this courtroom that that

10 camera may still be active during the breaks. Not to say that the

11 Chamber is going to review anything of what is recorded on video during

12 the breaks, but the Chamber considered it appropriate to inform the

13 parties about it.

14 We will adjourn, and we will resume tomorrow, the 1st of March,

15 at 9.30 in the morning in this same Courtroom I.

16 Mr. Mladic apparently, although, wants to briefly consult with

17 counsel, which he is allowed to do at this moment. If there's any matter

18 outstanding, we can deal with it tomorrow, Mr. Lukic. Perhaps you'll

19 read the little note and then you inform the Chamber whether there's any

20 matter so urgent that it cannot wait until tomorrow.

21 Mr. Lukic, unless I hear otherwise from you, we will adjourn, and

22 you have an opportunity to consult with your client.

23 We adjourn.

24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.12 p.m.,

25 to be reconvened on Friday, the 1st day

Page 9415

1 of March, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.