1 Wednesday, 29 May 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.36 a.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning to everybody in and around the
6 courtroom. Mr. Registrar, could you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Registrar. Just before
10 we go into closed session to let the witness in, let me -- let the record
11 show that we are sitting pursuant to Rule 15 bis, Judge Orie is held up
12 in traffic. There are roadblocks in town and he'll probably join us in
13 10, 15 minutes, so when he does come, we will take a short break to let
14 him in.
15 We thought we might as well -- could make good use of this time.
16 May the Chamber please move into closed session. And may the
17 witness be brought in, please.
18 [Closed session]
11 Pages 11686-11759 redacted. Closed session.
8 [Open session]
9 MR. LUKIC: In transcript we have P1496, did we discuss 1496 or
11 JUDGE ORIE: We discussed 1496 because we will deal with 1486 in
12 a minute but in open session, that is related to Witness Ruez.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in open session.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
15 I'd like to deal with P1486, Mr. Lukic. I think it was the
16 second page which needed --
17 MR. LUKIC: It's uploaded. We saw it and we have no objections.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then P1486 is admitted into evidence. P1488.
19 MR. LUKIC: No objections.
20 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. P1488, which corresponds with
21 65 ter 4281, is admitted into evidence as well.
22 MR. LUKIC: Only if I can correct myself. I responded on 1496
23 thinking we are discussing 1486. So it's maybe better to ask my
24 colleague Stojanovic about 1496.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I dealt with it in private session --
1 MR. LUKIC: Private session. Maybe at the end --
2 JUDGE ORIE: If he says it doesn't change anything, then that can
3 be said in open session. Otherwise if there is more to be said about it,
4 then we have to return into private session.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will be prepared
6 the day after tomorrow to talk about it in private session. I am now
7 just checking the pages that will go in in this form.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I think I earlier said if there is any need to
9 revisit the matter, then you may come back to it. Otherwise it remains
10 as it is as this very moment.
11 Having dealt with that, a few other matters.
12 First, testimony of Cornelis Nicolai. On the 2nd of May of this
13 year, the Defence objected to the admission of the ICTY statement of
14 Cornelis Nicolai, numbered P1165, MFI'd, along with 15 associated
15 exhibits, numbered P1166, MFI'd, through P1180, also MFI'd, all the
16 numbers in between as well, respectively, pending further debate by the
17 parties upon the conclusion of the witness's testimony.
18 At the conclusion of the witness's testimony, there was no
19 further debate on admission. The Chamber has considered the Defence's
20 objections enumerated in their response to the Prosecution's Rule 92 ter
21 motion dated the 2nd of April, 2013. However, the Chamber finds that
22 disputed portions of Cornelis Nicolai's statement should not be excluded
23 on the basis as given by the Defence.
24 The Chamber further considers that associated exhibits P1166
25 through P1180 all form an indispensable part of Mr. Nicolai's statement
1 and therefore the exhibits should not be excluded from evidence. The
2 Chamber admits exhibits P1165 through P1180 into evidence.
3 I move to my next subject, which is about the status of
4 Witness Oric. The Chamber notes that per filing of the 3rd of May of
5 this year, the Prosecution requested the change of status for Witness
6 Mevludin Oric from 92 ter to 92 bis, tendering his ICTY witness
7 statement. On the 8th of May, the Prosecution refiled the motion to
8 amend the Rule 92 status for Oric and tendered excerpts of Oric's
9 testimony from the Popovic case instead of the ICTY witness statement.
10 The Defence did not object to this status change. However, the Chamber
11 has not received a response from the Defence by the deadline of the
12 22nd of May, 2013, on the merits of the Prosecution's application. Now,
13 given the particular circumstances, the Chamber, and I must add
14 exceptionally, wishes to confirm with the Defence that indeed it did
15 intend not to respond.
16 MR. LUKIC: Unfortunately I have to check this with Mr. Ivetic.
17 So I don't have the answer right now.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you would please do that and then inform the
19 Chamber at earliest possibility.
20 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then next item on my agenda. Last week on the
22 23rd of May, regarding MFI P1467, which was the diary of Witness
23 Mirko Trivic, the Prosecution identified 35 pages from it. According to
24 the Prosecution, Mr. Lukic had indicated that he would see if he has any
25 additions or objections, and the Chamber wonders whether the Defence is
1 already in a position to inform the Chamber of its position regarding
2 P1467 now MFI'd.
3 MR. LUKIC: I would prefer to do it tomorrow as well.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then you have a to-do list of at least two items for
5 tomorrow, Mr. Lukic.
6 Finally, I will deal with the following matter.
7 Yesterday, the Defence has requested that in addition to the
8 medical officer who the Chamber has invited to appear in court on the 4th
9 of June, 2013, to answer questions about the recommendation of the UNDU's
10 medical service to reduce the trial sitting schedule from five to four
11 days a week, that the Chamber should also hear the two Defence experts
12 who have previously examined the accused.
13 It asserted that not only should these two experts be heard, but
14 they should be allowed to pose questions to the medical officer on the
15 topic of the accused's health. The Defence moreover requested that
16 pending a decision on the reduction of the trial sitting schedule, that
17 we'd continue to sit for four days a week in the month of June. The
18 Prosecution does not oppose the proposal to also hear the two Defence
19 experts but points out that it has already scheduled witnesses for the
20 month of June on the premise that we will sit for five days a week.
21 The Chamber notes that by its confidential decision of the
22 13th of March of this year on the modalities of trial, it found that the
23 report authored by the said Defence experts provided an insufficient
24 medical basis supporting a reduction of trial schedule from five to four
25 days a week. The Chamber therefore sees no reason why it should hear the
1 Defence experts on this same topic again.
2 Neither does the Chamber find that these experts have standing to
3 ask questions to the medical officer. If the Defence wants to consult
4 with these experts in order to prepare the formulation of their
5 questions, they are, of course, free to do so.
6 The purpose of inviting the medical officer to court is to allow
7 the Chamber to obtain the information underlying the recommendation made
8 by the UNDU's medical service to reduce the sitting schedule from five to
9 four days. Only having received this information will the Chamber be in
10 a position to consider which, if any, further steps it needs to take
11 before deciding on the Defence request for the said reduction in sitting
13 Bearing in mind the witness scheduling complications that may
14 arise from reducing the sitting schedule in June, as pointed out by the
15 Prosecution, the Chamber shall continue to sit five days a week for at
16 least the first three weeks in June. The Chamber is inclined to consider
17 whether to sit four days in the period thereafter pending a final
18 decision on the Defence request for a reduction in sitting days, and also
19 considering other factors not related to the Defence request, and it will
20 notify the parties thereof as soon as is practicable.
21 That is the statement and the decisions by the Chamber.
22 Any questions about it or is it clear? Because we are already
23 beyond 2.15. We will adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow, not
24 continuing the -- hearing the evidence of the present witness but,
25 rather, hear the evidence of the next witness, and we will resume
1 tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning, on this Thursday, the 30th of May, 2013,
2 in this same courtroom, III. We stand adjourned.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.18 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 30th day of May,
5 2013, at 9.00 a.m.