151022ED

Page 40238

1 was in B/C/S, so I don't know even if he was able until now to check it.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Just to avoid that in the very end we find that the

3 expert has not received the materials but that not the available means of

4 pressure were applied and that at the very end we end up with empty

5 hands.

6 MR. LUKIC: And I -- I'm sorry for interrupting. I know that

7 this was sent to us in July and I think something was communicated but I

8 don't know what. So ...

9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But please pay proper attention to it, that

10 we don't suffer further delays in that respect.

11 Then, first of all, I'd like to deal with guidance on final trial

12 briefs. You would say perhaps a bit early; we do not think it's early.

13 In the Defence's motion which was dated the 23rd of September of

14 this year, the Defence referred to the filing of its final trial brief.

15 Now, while there are still a number of possible evidentiary phases prior

16 to such filing, the Chamber already indicates to the parties that it

17 expects them to be in a position to file their final trial briefs within

18 a number of weeks after the close of the evidentiary phase of this case.

19 Accordingly, work on the final trial briefs should have already commenced

20 and the parties are urged to direct their attention to this matter.

21 In relation to the content of the final trial briefs, the Chamber

22 stresses that the parties should include very specific references to the

23 evidence which allows the Chamber to identify the evidentiary basis for

24 every argument.

25 One last matter. The Chamber noted that both parties introduced

Page 40239

1 evidence regarding the Dayton Peace Agreement in 1995 and wondered

2 whether the existence of an armed conflict throughout the indictment area

3 and period is in dispute. The Chamber would appreciate if the parties

4 could address this issue through a stipulation either on the record or,

5 at the very latest, in their final trial briefs.

6 I'll now move to delivering an oral decision on the Defence

7 objection of the 7th of July of this year.

8 The objection of the 7th of July was that expert witness

9 Ewa Tabeau's evidence in relation to the bodies exhumed from

10 Jakarina Kosa is beyond the scope of the Prosecution's reopening in its

11 case-in-chief. The Defence objection and the submissions of the parties

12 can be found at transcript pages 36783 through 36785.

13 On the 22nd of August of 2014, the Prosecution requested the

14 reopening of its case in-chief in order to present evidence in relation

15 to the Tomasica mass grave. The Chamber granted the reopening in its

16 decision of the 23rd of October, 2014.

17 During Tabeau's testimony on the 7th of July, 2015, the Defence

18 objected to the Prosecution leading evidence in relation to the mass

19 grave at Jakarina Kosa.

20 The Defence submits that Tabeau's evidence in relation to

21 Jakarina Kosa is beyond the scope of the reopening. The Chamber

22 understands the Defence argument to be that the bodies exhumed from

23 Jakarina Kosa are not related to Tomasica and that the information

24 regarding these bodies was already available to the Prosecution in

25 November 2013, when Tabeau first testified. Therefore, according to the

Page 40240

1 Defence, the Prosecution should not be allowed to adduce this evidence

2 for the first time during the reopening.

3 The Prosecution submits that the bodies exhumed from

4 Jakarina Kosa were already identified in Tabeau's proof of death annex,

5 admitted as Exhibit P2797, and that the link between Jakarina Kosa and

6 Tomasica was set out in paragraph 30 of the Prosecution's motion to

7 reopen, which was granted in full by the Chamber in its 23rd of

8 October decision.

9 The Chamber notes that the bodies exhumed from Jakarina Kosa were

10 included in Exhibit P2797 in connection with the following

11 Scheduled Incidents in the indictment: A.6.1, A.6.4, A.6.6, B.13.1, and

12 B.13.2.

13 Exhibit P2797 was admitted on the 11th of November of 2013.

14 Accordingly, the Chamber finds that there is no merit in the Defence

15 argument that the Prosecution is adducing this evidence for the first

16 time during the reopening. The Chamber further notes that in

17 paragraph 30 of its reopening motion, the Prosecution stated that between

18 1993 and 1995 some of the remains in the mass grave in Tomasica were

19 removed and taken to a secondary grave in Jakarina Kosa and that DNA

20 confirmed the link between some of the bodies exhumed from the

21 Jakarina Kosa and Tomasica mass grave. Accordingly, the Chamber finds

22 that the link between Jakarina Kosa and Tomasica was contemplated in

23 paragraph 30 of the Prosecution's reopening motion, and because the

24 motion was granted in full, such evidence falls within the scope of the

25 reopening of the Prosecution's case.

Page 40241

1 The Chamber therefore dismisses the Defence's objection.

2 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.

3 I move to my next item which is an oral decision on the admission

4 of P7331.

5 During the testimony of Grujo Boric on 23rd of April of this

6 year, Exhibit Number P7331 was reserved for excerpts [Realtime transcript

7 read in error "experts"] from a previous interview of Boric conducted by

8 the Office of the Prosecutor between the 21st and the 23rd of April,

9 2004. This can be found at transcript pages 34625 to -626.

10 On the 18th -- 28th of April, the Prosecution submitted that

11 excerpts of that interview should, as a prior inconsistent statement, be

12 admitted for the truth of its content under Rule 89(C) of the Tribunal's

13 Rules of Procedure and Evidence. This is be found at transcript

14 pages 34714 to 34720.

15 On the 4th of May, the Defence objected to the admission of the

16 excerpts of the interview without providing reasons for its position.

17 This can be found at transcript pages 35076. I should say "page" because

18 it's only one.

19 On the 28th of August, the Prosecution advised the Chamber and

20 the Defence, by e-mail, that it had uploaded excerpts from the interview

21 into e-court under 65 ter number 32422a, and requested this document be

22 assigned to Exhibit Number P7331.

23 On the 21st of September, the Chamber set a deadline of a week

24 for the Defence to make any additional submissions, to which the Defence

25 did not respond.

Page 40242

1 The case law of the Tribunal holds that a witness's previous

2 inconsistent statement may be admitted for the truth of its contents when

3 it fulfils the criteria set out in Rule 89(C) of the Rules of being

4 relevant and of probative value. In determining whether a statement is

5 probative for the purpose of proving the truth of its content, the

6 Chamber may consider the content of the evidence and the circumstances

7 under which it arose. The Chamber hereby refers to its own guidance of

8 the 9th of July, 2012, on transcript pages 527 to 528, and to a decision

9 of the Trial Chamber of the 25th of April, 2005, in the case against

10 Limaj et al., I refer to paragraphs 17 to 21, paragraph 25, and 34, and a

11 decision of the Appeals Chamber of the 1st of February, 2008, in the case

12 of Popovic et al. There it is to be found in paragraph 31.

13 The Chamber having reviews relevant portions of Boric's

14 cross-examination by the Prosecution during his testimony on the 23rd of

15 April, 2015, notes that parts of the interview put to Boric are

16 inconsistent with his testimony. And this can be found on pages

17 34625 to -628, 34631 to -637, 34641 to -42, and 34683 to 34687.

18 With respect to the first criterion, the Chamber finds that the

19 excerpts of the prior interview selected by the Prosecution are relevant

20 to this case, in particular as they relate to meetings with the

21 Main Staff in 1993, contact between Boric who was the commander of the

22 2nd Krajina Corps and the accused, and the formation and composition of

23 Crisis Staffs.

24 With respect to the second criterion, the Chamber notes that the

25 interview was not conducted under oath. However, it was conducted by a

Page 40243

1 representative of the Office of the Prosecutor, it was recorded and thus

2 remains available for further review, an interpreter was used, and Boric

3 was informed of his rights and asked if he wished to have a lawyer

4 present. Boric confirmed, under oath during his testimony on the 23rd of

5 April, 2015, excerpts of the interview as truthful and accurate. This

6 can be found at transcript pages 34626 to -627, and 34650.

7 Furthermore, the excerpts of the interview contradicting his

8 testimony were put to him and the Defence had an opportunity to test his

9 knowledge about it during his testimony.

10 Based on the foregoing, the Chamber concludes that the interview

11 has met the requirements of Rule 89(C) of the Rules, and therefore

12 instructs the Registry to attach the document bearing Rule 65 ter number

13 32422a to P7331 and admits P7331 into evidence for the truth of its

14 content.

15 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: At page 16, line 22, the word "experts" appearing

18 in that line should be replaced by the word "excerpts," unfortunately.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ORIE: I hope everyone will understand having only two eyes

21 that I can't read -- no, no.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's not your mistake.

23 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, but I can't read the transcript and my own

24 text at the same time. And there's no suggestion that someone would

25 blame me for it.

Page 40244

1 Then I move to the last decision to be read. And that is the

2 decision on the admission of John Clark's report and annexes, a report

3 and annexes in relation to the exhumation of Tomasica mass grave and the

4 reopening of the Prosecution's case.

5 The documents were marked for identification on the 2nd of

6 July of this year bearing numbers P7443, P7444, P7445, and P7446.

7 On the 26th of August of 2014, the Prosecution filed a notice of

8 disclosure of John Clark's expert report and annexes pursuant to

9 Rule 94 bis(A) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, requesting their

10 admission into evidence. The Defence responded on the 22nd of December,

11 2014, objecting to the admission of the report and annexes and requesting

12 that John Clark be disqualified as an expert.

13 On the 18th of February, 2015, the Chamber delivered its decision

14 on John Clark's expertise, deferring its decision on the admission of the

15 expert report and annexes until the time of the witness's testimony.

16 This can be found at transcript pages 31932 to -933.

17 Witness Clark testified before the Chamber on the 1st and 2nd of

18 July of this year. Following the conclusion of Clark's testimony, the

19 Defence raised an objection against the admission of the expert report

20 and annexes, submitting that Clark had not been tasked either by the

21 Prosecution or by the Prosecutor's office in Sarajevo at the time he made

22 his observations. As the legal basis for this objection was unclear to

23 the Chamber, it gave the Defence one week to provide additional

24 submissions on this issue. And this can be found at pages 36749 to -752.

25 The Chamber notes that the Defence did not provide the additional

Page 40245

1 submissions it requested. As a result, the objection remains unclear and

2 is dismissed as a result.

3 With respect to the applicable law concerning expert evidence,

4 the Chamber recalls and refers to its 19th of October, 2012, decision

5 concerning expert witness Richard Butler.

6 The Chamber considers John Clark's report to be relevant to,

7 inter alia, the charges relating to the municipalities component of the

8 case and that the conclusions contained in the report fall within the

9 scope of Clark's stated expertise and qualifications. In this respect,

10 the Chamber also observes that during his testimony, the witness

11 recognised the limitations of his expertise and declined to draw certain

12 conclusions; for example, when it concerned the effect a bullet would

13 have on impact after it had travelled specific distances.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE ORIE: I made a mistake again, but it's good to be assisted

16 by two colleagues. Yes, the ... I repeat part of my previous sentence.

17 Where I said, for example, when it concerned the effect a bullet

18 would have on impact after it had travelled specific distances. This to

19 be found on transcript pages 36637 to -638.

20 The Chamber considers that John Clark's report may assist the

21 Chamber in understanding issues related to the evidence given on the

22 exhumation of the Tomasica mass grave-site and finds that it has

23 probative value for purposes of its admission into evidence in this case.

24 Accordingly, the Chamber admits John Clark's report and annexes thereto,

25 it's P7443, P7444, P7445, and P7446, into evidence.

Page 40246

1 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.

2 I now move to two remaining issues from the testimony of

3 Bosko Kelecevic. The first one deals with P7462.

4 On 13th of July of this year, P7462 was marked for identification

5 provisionally under seal pending the upload of an excerpt. This can be

6 found at transcript pages 37168 and 37169. On the 25th of August, the

7 Prosecution advised the Chamber and the Defence via e-mail that an

8 excerpt has been selected and uploaded into e-court under

9 Rule 65 ter number 7599a and requested its admission.

10 Mr. Lukic, that was on the 25th of August. Any objections?

11 MR. LUKIC: What I have in e-court is the full document so I

12 cannot follow that at all. I have 38 pages in both languages. So I

13 don't know what the excerpt is.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Any response to that, whether the newly uploaded

15 7599a ...

16 MR. TRALDI: The excerpt is 15 pages in B/C/S and that's uploaded

17 as 7599a. It is not yet assigned P7462 because we haven't gone through

18 the process that we're going through right now yet. So P7462 would still

19 give Mr. Lukic the whole document. But 7599a would give him the selected

20 excerpts.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because it has not been -- no instruction has

22 yet been given to --

23 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, is it P number or just --

24 MR. TRALDI: It's a 65 ter number.

25 MR. LUKIC: Oh, 65 ter.

Page 40247

1 MR. TRALDI: Yeah, 07599a and it is -- it's about 15 pages in

2 both languages.

3 MR. LUKIC: Is it in the e-court? I'm not getting anything.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- we have e-court as well. Let's see whether

5 it's there. You said it was 65 ter number 07599a.

6 Mr. Lukic, I find in e-court under this 65 ter number an excerpt

7 from stenographic notes on the 15th Session of the SDC held on the

8 10th and the 22nd of November, 1993, pages 1 to 8, and 15 to 21. And the

9 original is 15 pages.

10 Now --

11 MR. LUKIC: Can we get additional couple of days so -- I really

12 have to go through this. I was not able to locate or maybe a bit

13 confused by the numbers. I don't know.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 MR. LUKIC: Monday is fine if it's --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. Could we do the following. It's just

17 an excerpt of what the complete document, I think, was marked for

18 identification so you can now easily compare. You've had time since the

19 25th of August. We will admit it but we'll give you an opportunity to

20 revisit the matter by next Monday.

21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, hereby Madam Registrar is instructed to

23 replace the present document attached to P7462 by the newly uploaded one,

24 65 ter 07599a, and P7462 is admitted into evidence.

25 I move to the other remaining issue, which is in relation to the

Page 40248

1 testimony of Bosko Kelecevic which is about P7469.

2 On the 13th of July of this year, P7469 was marked for

3 identification pending the provision of a B/C/S translation. This can be

4 found at page 37202. On the 15th of July, the Prosecution advised the

5 Chamber and the Defence via an e-mail that a translation had been

6 uploaded into e-court under doc ID M000-3014-BCSDT.

7 The Chamber instructs the Registry to attach this translation to

8 P7469 and admits it into evidence.

9 And, as always, Mr. Lukic, you have an opportunity to revisit the

10 matter until next Monday. It's just a matter of translation.

11 I have another question. Earlier the previous document, that was

12 P7462, that was provisionally under seal pending the upload of an

13 excerpt, my question to the Prosecution is whether now, the excerpt being

14 there, whether there's still any need to have it under seal.

15 MR. TRALDI: Again, it remains -- it would remain tentatively

16 under seal for the same reasons as beforehand, and I'll check if there's

17 any update in that regard. But it's -- the reasons do not

18 change [Overlapping speakers] ...

19 JUDGE ORIE: Reasons do not change. Therefore, when earlier I

20 admitted P7462 into evidence, the status is that it is admitted under

21 seal.

22 I now to move to a remaining issue from the testimony of

23 Milutin Misic and it's about D1096.

24 On 20th of August of this year, Exhibit D1096 was admitted into

25 evidence. On the 26th of August, the Prosecution e-mailed the Defence

Page 40249

1 requesting that the handwritten title in the heading rows at pages 6 and

2 7 be translated.

3 On the 23rd of September, the Defence responded advising that the

4 complete translation had been uploaded into e-court under doc ID

5 1D26-1366.

6 On the 29th of September, the Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber

7 and the Defence confirming that it had no objections to the complete

8 translation.

9 The Registry is hereby requested to replace the current

10 translation of Exhibit D1096 with the revised one, of which I just

11 mentioned the number.

12 Next item deals with a remaining issue from the testimony of

13 Ilija Miscevic and it's about the replacement of D1247.

14 On the 22nd of September, 2015, the Chamber admitted into

15 evidence Exhibit D1247, excerpts of Witness Ilija Miscevic's testimony in

16 the Karadzic case.

17 On the 25th of September, the Chamber notified parties that this

18 document contained not only the testimony of Miscevic, but also other

19 excerpts which the Chamber did not intend to admit. In response, the

20 Prosecution uploaded the excerpts of Miscevic's testimony under

21 Rule 65 ter number 32840a. And the Defence, by e-mail, stated that it

22 did not object to D1247 being replaced by this document.

23 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the current

24 version of Exhibit D1247 with document bearing Rule 65 ter number 32840a.

25 I move now to remaining issue from the testimony of Dragisa Masal

Page 40250

1 and I have even a few of them.

2 During the testimony of Dragisa Masal on the 23rd of March, 2015,

3 D958 and D959 were marked for identification pending the provision of

4 B/C/S translations.

5 On the 22nd of September, the Defence advised the Chamber and the

6 Prosecution via e-mail that the translations had been uploaded into

7 e-court under document ID 1D26-1326 and 1D26-1338 respectively.

8 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to attach the

9 corresponding translations to D958 and D959 and admits them into

10 evidence.

11 Also remaining from the testimony of Dragisa Masal is the report

12 from the Los Angeles Times concerning the shelling of Sarajevo which was

13 marked for identification as P7233 on the 19th of March of this year

14 pending a verification of its translation.

15 On the 28th of August, the Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber and

16 the Defence stating that CLSS stood by the accuracy of its original

17 translation. On the 16th of September, the Defence was given a deadline

18 of one week to make any additional submissions with regard to the

19 admission of P7233. The Defence has not made any submissions.

20 Therefore, the Chamber admits P7233 into evidence.

21 I move to a remaining issue from the testimony of Bruce Bursik.

22 During the testimony of this witness, documents bearing 65 ter numbers

23 1D06082, 1D06096, and 25934 were used by the Defence with the witness.

24 Due to the length of the documents, the Chamber asked the parties to

25 agree on excerpts to be tendered in evidence. This can be found on

Page 40251

1 transcript pages 38903 to -907.

2 On the 27th of September, the Defence advised via e-mail that the

3 excerpts were uploaded into e-court under Rule 65 ter numbers 1D06082a,

4 1D06096a, and 1D06102. The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to

5 assign exhibit numbers to these documents.

6 And the Chamber wonders whether there's any objection against

7 admission.

8 MR. TRALDI: I don't think we're able to state a position at this

9 moment and we'll consult, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Could we do the same that, of course, the matter is

11 pending already quite a while, since late September, that it will be

12 admitted into evidence and that the Prosecution has an opportunity to

13 revisit the matter - it's mainly about excerpts - until Monday.

14 Madam Registrar, could you assign numbers.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D0682a receives Exhibit Number D1322.

16 Document 1D06096a receives Exhibit Number D1323.

17 Document number 1D06102 receives Exhibit Number D1324.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the first time you referred to the document,

19 you read it without a zero. You read 1D0682a which the Chamber

20 understands is a reference to 1D06082a.

21 D1322, D1323, and D1324 are admitted into evidence, and the

22 Prosecution has an opportunity to revisit the matter not later than next

23 week, Monday.

24 I move to a remaining issue from the testimony of Mile Dosenovic,

25 P7508.

Page 40252

1 On the 18th of August of this year, P7508, an information report,

2 was marked for identification because the Defence disputed the

3 determination of an elevation of a building as set out in the report.

4 This can be found at transcript pages 37977 through -979. The Defence

5 did not provide any further submissions despite its assurances that it

6 would come back to the Chamber at the end of that week, being the 18th of

7 September, 2015.

8 Mr. Lukic.

9 MR. LUKIC: Maybe it's too late now but we checked it later on.

10 I don't know why it's not --

11 JUDGE ORIE: You have until Monday to -- if you have checked

12 it you can --

13 MR. LUKIC: I think we do not have any objections anymore.

14 JUDGE ORIE: No objections anymore. That is then therefore also

15 considered and the Chamber hereby now decides to admit P7508 into

16 evidence.

17 I move to the next item which is a remaining issue from the

18 testimony of Velo Pajic.

19 During the testimony of this witness on the 20th of May of this

20 year, D1061 was marked for identification pending an English translation.

21 I refer to transcript page 35862.

22 On the 28th of September, the Defence advised via an e-mail that

23 it had uploaded the translation into e-court under doc ID 1D26-1430.

24 Any objections as far as the Prosecution is concerned?

25 [Prosecution counsel confer]

Page 40253

1 MR. TRALDI: Again, we'll just ask for a moment to consult,

2 Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll proceed as we often do.

4 The Chamber instructs the Registry to attach the translation to

5 D1061 and admits it into evidence. And the Prosecution has an

6 opportunity to revisit the matter not later than next week, Monday.

7 I move on to a remaining issue from the testimony of

8 Simo Tusevljak, and that is the replacement of Exhibit P7525.

9 P7525 was admitted on the 1st of September, 2015, during the

10 testimony of Simo Tusevljak. The B/C/S version of the document contained

11 more pages than the English version, and on the 3rd of September, the

12 Prosecution requested via e-mail that a corrected version uploaded under

13 Rule 65 ter 32976a be assigned to P7525. The Defence e-mailed on the

14 17th of September stating that it did not object.

15 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to assign P7525 to the

16 correct version of the document.

17 I now move on to remaining issue of the same witness, that is --

18 relates to the admission of P7527.

19 During the testimony of Tusevljak on 1st of September of this

20 year, P7527, an Official Note of an interview with Dusan Bilcar, was

21 marked for identification pending the provision of a complete

22 translation.

23 On the 3rd of September, the Prosecution informed the Defence and

24 the Chamber via an e-mail that an English translation had been uploaded

25 into e-court under doc ID 0105-8653-1-ET.

Page 40254

1 Mr. Lukic, any objections in this respect?

2 [Defence counsel confer]

3 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. The Chamber --

4 MR. LUKIC: I just reminded that our objection was actually that

5 it's not visible who composed this Official Note. There is no name.

6 JUDGE ORIE: I would have to go back to it.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] -- signed but there are --

8 JUDGE ORIE: But that is something different from a complete

9 translation and that was the reason why it was marked for identification

10 and -- Mr. Lukic, the one who could already raise the matter is the one

11 who can read the B/C/S version because that one was complete. It was an

12 incomplete English translation. So it's a bit unclear, unless you can

13 point at where you already made that objection at the time. I do not

14 fully understand why we should revisit that matter now.

15 MR. LUKIC: Can we --

16 JUDGE ORIE: We will leave it until Monday.

17 MR. LUKIC: Okay.

18 JUDGE ORIE: It remains on my pending issues list.

19 Mr. Lukic, you should revisit the matter within one week from

20 now. That means 17 minutes to 1.00 next week, Thursday. Well, if you

21 take until quarter past 2.00, no problem.

22 I now move to a remaining issue from the testimony of John

23 Russell, D1222. During the testimony of John Russell on 7th of September

24 of this year, D1222 was marked for identification pending the upload into

25 e-court of a revised photograph. On the 10th of September, the

Page 40255

1 Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber and the Defence indicating that the

2 original photo had been replaced with a revised version on e-court.

3 Mr. Lukic, unless you would have a problem with a new photo, then

4 the Chamber admits D1222 into evidence.

5 The next item is a remaining issue from the testimony of

6 Goran Krcmar. It's documents D1078 through 1080 marked for

7 identification.

8 On the 22nd of May of this year, the Chamber delivered its

9 decision on the admission of associated exhibits tendered through

10 Goran Krcmar. D1078 through D1080 were marked for identification pending

11 CLSS English translations. On the 17th of September, the Defence advised

12 the Chamber via e-mail that, one, translations for D1078 and D1079 had

13 already been uploaded into e-court and attached to the original; and,

14 two, the translation of D1080 had been uploaded under doc ID number

15 1D26-1322.

16 On the 22nd of September, the Prosecution advised that it had no

17 objections to the translations.

18 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the old

19 translation of D1080 with the new one, and admits D1078 through D1080

20 into evidence.

21 Mr. Traldi.

22 MR. TRALDI: If I could just correct or supplement a matter on

23 which I'd said we were unable to state a position earlier, about ten

24 minutes ago, I think, in today's session. The Chamber referred to

25 documents which had been marked for identification pending an agreement

Page 40256

1 between the parties on excerpts to be selected. Those are the ones that

2 have now been assigned Exhibit Numbers D1322, 1323, and 1324. And I

3 wasn't able to state a position at the time. I'm informed, however, that

4 those are not agreed upon excerpts but are the Defence's proposed

5 excerpts. The discussions remain ongoing and so we'd request that they

6 be marked for identification, not admitted at this time, to allow the

7 discussions that I understood to be contemplated to be completed.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll then check whether the excerpts and the

9 notice that excerpts were uploaded into e-court, whether they mentioned

10 that these were not agreed excerpts but excerpts selected by the Defence

11 only.

12 Now we can do two things. Either we wait for the Prosecution to

13 say what they would like to add or what they would like to be stricken

14 from the excerpts as uploaded by the Defence; and we could wait until

15 finally an agreement will be reached. At the same time, the Chamber is

16 not waiting forever on that. So it gives the parties the choice either

17 to come up with agreement in one week from now -- no, let me give you two

18 weeks. Two weeks from now you can agree on any excerpts. Otherwise, we

19 expect that the Prosecution will make a submission on what they wish to

20 have stricken from the excerpt or what they would like to have added to

21 it. Two weeks from now.

22 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, we would agree to have anything to be added but

23 we could not have anything stricken. It's from the transcripts.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if -- stricken means could be relevance. I

25 mean, the mere fact that the Chamber invited the parties to see what they

Page 40257

1 needed also means that if the parties agree, that the Chamber would

2 usually accept such a selection; but if your selection would still be too

3 broad and not agreed upon by the Prosecution, then the Chamber reserves

4 the right to either send you back and do the same again, or to urge you

5 to seek an agreement with the Prosecution.

6 Mr. Tieger.

7 MR. TIEGER: We appreciate that, Mr. President, and we'll abide

8 by that schedule and do our best to reach an accord without the need for

9 submissions. Although it -- well, we'll -- we'll cross that bridge when

10 we come to it within the two-week period.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, the Chamber has no idea why you couldn't

12 reach an agreement and is not interested to know that at this moment.

13 We'd like to look at the results.

14 At the same time, this means that the admission is hereby

15 reversed. Therefore, D1322, D1323, and D1324 now resume the status of

16 marked for identification pending further submissions by the parties and

17 we'll then finally decide on admission, whether or not on exactly the

18 same documentary basis.

19 I move on now to the -- let me see where I was.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE ORIE: I move on. English translation replacement

22 Exhibit P235.

23 On the 18th of February of this year, the Prosecution e-mailed

24 the Chamber and the Defence advising that a revised translation of

25 Exhibit P235 admitted under seal had been uploaded into e-court under

Page 40258

1 doc ID 0537-6633-A-ET.

2 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the old

3 translation of Exhibit P235 with a new one, and gives the Defence until

4 Monday to revisit that matter.

5 I move to my next item. Replacement of the English translation

6 for Exhibit P3919.

7 Exhibit P3919, a report from the Eastern Bosnia Corps Command,

8 was admitted into evidence pursuant to the Chamber's decision of the

9 11th of February of 2014. On the 30th of September of this year, the

10 Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber and the Defence advising that, one,

11 there was an error on page 2 of the original translation and that the

12 words "bodies" had been mistakenly translated as "corps"; and, two, a

13 corrected translation had been uploaded into e-court under doc ID

14 0113-0142-1-ET. The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the

15 previous translation of Exhibit P3919 with the corrected one, and gives

16 the Defence one week from today to revisit the matter.

17 I move to my next item. It concerns translation of

18 Exhibit P2365.

19 On the 22nd of April, 2015, during the testimony of

20 Branko Basara, the Defence indicated that they had concerns with the

21 revised translation of Exhibit P2365, Basara's handwritten history of the

22 6th Krajina Brigade. To be found at transcript page 34546.

23 The Prosecution understands that the Defence believes the word

24 "capture" should read "liberate."

25 On the 26th of May, the Prosecution e-mailed the Defence and the

Page 40259

1 Chamber requesting that the Defence confirm that this is the only concern

2 it has in relation to the revised translation. The Chamber understands

3 that the Defence has yet to respond. The Chamber gives the Defence one

4 week from today to respond so that the final version of the translation

5 can be requested from CLSS.

6 I move to the next item, which is B/C/S translation replacement

7 P997.

8 On the 20th of February of 2013, Exhibit P997, an UNMO daily

9 situation report, was admitted into evidence.

10 On the 10th of October of 2015, the Prosecution e-mailed the

11 Defence and the Chamber advising that at the time of admission only the

12 two first -- the first two pages of the exhibit were translated into

13 B/C/S and that the complete B/C/S translation was now available under

14 doc ID R008-6174-BCST.

15 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the previous

16 translation of Exhibit P997 with the complete one, and gives the Defence

17 one week from today to revisit the matter.

18 Next item is the English translation replacement of

19 Exhibit P2445.

20 This exhibit, a MUP request dated the 19th of August, 1994, was

21 admitted into evidence on the 3rd of October, 2013. On the 14th of

22 October, 2014, the Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber and the Defence

23 advising that, one, the signatory of the original English translation was

24 incorrect as it read Nikola Kesic rather than Nedjeljko Kesic; and, two,

25 a corrected translation had been uploaded into e-court under doc ID

Page 40260

1 B010-2423-0-ET. The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the

2 previous translation of Exhibit P2445 with the corrected one and gives

3 the Defence one week from today to revisit the matter.

4 I move to a matter remaining of the testimony of Ratko Adzic,

5 P6695.

6 P6695 was marked for identification on the 26th of August, 2014,

7 pending a verification of the English translation and a possible

8 agreement between the parties in this regard.

9 On the 27th of November, the Chamber was informed that CLSS had

10 verified the accuracy of the translation. The Chamber was subsequently

11 informed that no agreement had been reached by the parties. Considering

12 that CLSS has verified the accuracy of the translation, the Chamber

13 admits P6695 into evidence.

14 Another matter remaining from the testimony of Ratko Adzic,

15 P6698, which was also on the 26th of August, 2014, admitted into

16 evidence, and the Chamber invited the Prosecution to make additional

17 submissions with regard to possible discrepancies in the exhibit.

18 The Prosecution filed these submissions on the 10th of March,

19 2015, informing the Chamber of the proposed corrections and requesting

20 that replacement of the translation by a revised version uploaded under

21 doc ID 0302-0425-1.

22 The Defence did not respond. The Chamber instructs the Registrar

23 to replace the current translation with the revised version and gives the

24 Defence one week from today to revisit the matter.

25 I move to a matter remaining from the testimony of Boro Tadic.

Page 40261

1 On the 17th of December, 2014, P7015 was marked for

2 identification due to its length. On the 11th of September of this year,

3 the Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber and the Defence advising that it had

4 uploaded into e-court an excerpt of the document and invited the Defence

5 to suggest the inclusion of additional pages. The Defence did not

6 respond.

7 The Chamber instructs the Registrar to reassign Exhibit P7015 to

8 the newly consolidated document uploaded under 65 ter number 06616a,

9 admits Exhibit P7015 into evidence, and gives the Defence one week from

10 today to revisit the matter, if necessary.

11 I have still three items to go.

12 The first is a matter remaining from the testimony again of

13 Boro Tadic.

14 In the Defence's Rule 92 ter motion for Boro Tadic filed on the

15 6th of November, 2014, document bearing 65 ter number 1D02034, a book

16 entitled: "To forget about a crime is also a crime," was tendered as an

17 associated exhibit. However, the book was not admitted during the

18 witness's testimony.

19 Could the Defence confirm whether it maintains its request to

20 have the document admitted into evidence? Perhaps you might not be able

21 to immediately respond. We'd like to --

22 MR. LUKIC: We will not be able, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: One week, Mr. Lukic, you have to respond. And if

24 you finally would insist on tendering, then you are already hereby

25 informed that the Chamber would then invite you to upload an excerpt of

Page 40262

1 the original B/C/S version, which until now is 384 pages, that

2 corresponds with the English translation, which is only 14 pages.

3 We'll hear from you within a week. And if we do not hear from

4 you, Mr. Lukic, we'll consider the document to be withdrawn.

5 Semi-last item. Defence 92 bis motion for Aleksandar Vasiljevic.

6 On the 22nd of September, the Defence filed a Rule 92 bis motion

7 for Aleksandar Vasiljevic, to which the Prosecution responded on the

8 6th of October. The Defence then filed a request for leave to reply,

9 attaching its reply as an annex, and stating that the Rule 92 bis motion

10 is withdrawn. The Chamber understands that rather than actually replying

11 to the response, the Defence intends to give a notice that it withdraws

12 its motion. This withdrawal is hereby noted by the Chamber.

13 Last one. On the 14th of October of this year, the Defence

14 e-mailed the Chamber and the Prosecution with some suggested revisions to

15 existing translations for the following exhibits: P41, P2930, P4005,

16 P3794, P7260, and P7532.

17 The Chamber invites the Defence to contact CLSS to seek

18 verification and to inform the Chamber if revised translations become

19 available.

20 Mr. Traldi.

21 MR. TRALDI: Just to avoid any repetitive work on this, we've

22 forwarded the revisions to CLSS or the requests for revision to CLSS

23 already. There are two documents that we'll communicate with the Defence

24 directly about. One of which I think we've already sent an e-mail about.

25 JUDGE ORIE: So we can soon expect the final word on these

Page 40263

1 translations.

2 Is there any other matter either party would like to raise at

3 this moment?

4 Mr. Tieger.

5 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.

6 Last week on the 15th of October, I believe, the Defence filed a

7 motion to reinstate its previously filed 92 ter submission for

8 Witness GRM125. I don't know if the Court recalls the history of that,

9 but there was a filing of the 92 ter, a response by the Prosecution, and

10 then later on a subsequent motion to re-characterise the witness's

11 testimony as 92 bis filed which was rejected. I just wanted to note that

12 in light of those circumstances the Prosecution would, if permitted,

13 simply stand on its previous response to the original 92 ter motion.

14 That response was filed on December 1st.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Of what year?

16 [Prosecution counsel confer]

17 MR. TIEGER: Yeah, as you suspected, it was 2014. That's the

18 long history to the --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Now the history comes back to my mind, but,

20 therefore, the Chamber now will rely on the initial response to the

21 92 ter motion.

22 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. We would use this opportunity only

25 to inform you that although we are beyond our deadline on Ms. Subotic's

Page 40264

1 documents, I just want to inform you that I worked with Mr. Weber on a

2 daily basis to finalize and to -- actually we are trying to cut down as

3 much as possible the documents we will offer into evidence, trying to

4 concentrate them into one police file, instead of having, for example,

5 ten different documents from the same file.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Any idea when you will --

7 MR. LUKIC: I hope that after -- since I will leading Mr. Poparic

8 the next week, so most probably after he finishes, I will be able to

9 continue to work with that with Mr. Weber. So probably the end of the

10 next week we will continue. Whether we would be able to finish

11 everything, but --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Shall we put the deadline of the 20th of

13 November for that. That's a long -- a relatively long time.

14 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, I hope that we will finish by that time, yes --

15 JUDGE ORIE: But then we expect really to have a response --

16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE ORIE: -- final response. I am aware that you have quite a

18 few deadlines although not all of them that -- creating that much of a

19 burden.

20 Any other matter?

21 If not, we'll adjourn for the day. We will resume Monday, the

22 26th of October, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.

23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.07 p.m.,

24 to be reconvened on Monday, the 26th day of

25 October, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.