1 Thursday, 20 July 2000

2 [Status Conference]

3 [Open session]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 4.00 p.m.

6 JUDGE WALD: Madam Registrar, will you call the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: This is the case IT-98-34-PT, the Prosecutor

8 versus Mladen Naletilic, also known as Tuta, and Vinko Martinovic, also

9 known as Stela.

10 JUDGE WALD: Let me welcome the parties and the accused to our

11 Pre-Trial Conference this afternoon. I'll ask for the parties to declare

12 their appearances.

13 Prosecution.

14 MR. TERRIER: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Madam President.

15 The Prosecution is represented by Mr. Vassily Poriouvaev, Douglas

16 Stringer, myself Franck Terrier. Thank you very much.

17 JUDGE WALD: We'll have the appearances for General Naletilic and

18 Mr. Martinovic.

19 MR. KRSNIK: Good afternoon to all of you, especially you, Madam

20 President. I'm representing Mr. Mladen Naletilic, Tuta. My name is

21 Kresimir Krsnik, and Ms. Drenski Visnja is here with me as my colleague.

22 She's an attorney-at-law from Zagreb, as myself.

23 MR. SERIC: Good afternoon, Madam President. My name is Branko

24 Seric. I'm an attorney-at-law, I'm a member of the Croatian Bar

25 Association, and I'm representing Mr. Martinovic, Stela. Together with me

1 here is Mr. Zelimir Par, who is also an attorney-at-law, and he is here in

2 his capacity as my co-counsel.

3 JUDGE WALD: Welcome to all of you. Now, as you know, we are here

4 for a Status Conference pursuant to Rule 65 bis of our Rules. The last

5 Status Conference that we had was on the 16th of May. You had a lot of

6 work to do in the interim, and we have the results of some of that work.

7 I hope we will make more progress today. We still have the aim of getting

8 this case ready for trial, ready to go to trial, ready for trial in the

9 early fall. We will then have to see whether it can go to trial, but to a

10 great degree, how soon it goes to trial will depend upon the ease with

11 which we are able to get it ready for trial, and that means, I hope, some

12 further streamlining in the issues which will have to be tried.

13 I think that probably means that we will have one more Status

14 Conference in September, though I'm not -- haven't reached a final

15 conclusion about that, a final Pre-Trial Conference in October after the

16 Prosecution and the Defence's pre-trial filings pursuant to Rule 65 ter

17 are in. As you know, the date at which trial actually will begin will

18 depend not only upon the availability of the case to be ready for trial

19 but upon the availability of a Chamber to try it, and, again, I think the

20 likelihood of that happening will be greater if we have the case in shape,

21 ready to go to trial and if we have the cooperation of both parties in

22 getting the preparation down so that the key issues are ready for trial

23 and that we don't have to face a lot of immaterial or irrelevant issues.

24 So with that, I will begin. The first thing I plan to do is to

25 check and make sure that the pre-trial requirements under the Rules have

1 been essentially complied with.

2 In the first case, that would be the disclosure of witness

3 statements pursuant to 66(A)(ii). At the last Status Conference, the

4 Prosecutor said that all of the statements, that, the witness statements,

5 under 66(A)(ii) will be translated into B/C/S and disclosed to both

6 defendants by the end of June.

7 So I will ask you, Mr. Terrier, or your associates, if that's been

8 done.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.

10 MR. PORIOUVAEV: We have viewed the decision of the previous

11 Status Conference. By the end of May, we disclosed to Mr. Krsnik

12 statements previously disclosed to Mr. Seric. By today, we disclosed in

13 total 297 witness statements in B/C/S to both Defence counsels, taken from

14 179 witnesses by the OTP investigators, AID, and other local authorities

15 including from Germany and Denmark. One hundred eighteen witnesses were

16 interviewed more than once. All the witness statements have been

17 disclosed to the Defence.

18 Now we have 29 witness statements being translated into B/C/S.

19 What kind of witness statement do we have? Most of these witness

20 statements were obtained by some of the teams during the investigations,

21 and we got information about these witness statements from our database,

22 and our deadline for these witness statements to be translated is the end

23 of July.

24 We also have five witness statements in German. We have disclosed

25 them to Mr. Krsnik in German because Mr. Krsnik knows the German language

1 and his client also knows the German language. Now these five witness

2 statements are being translated for Mr. Seric. The deadline put for the

3 translations to be ready is the middle of August, because you know we

4 don't have translators from the German language here in the ICTY, and some

5 other interpreters from outside must be involved.

6 We also disclosed to the Defence the full report of our autopsy

7 expert whom we intend to call to the Court as an expert witness. That's

8 all.

9 JUDGE WALD: Thank you. Let me hear from both Mr. Krsnik first

10 and then Mr. Seric as to whether or not what we've just heard from the

11 Prosecution accords with their impressions of what has taken place.

12 Mr. Krsnik.

13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Madam President, to this date I have

14 received 256 witness statements from the Prosecutor, and today before the

15 beginning of this Status Conference I received further 16 witness

16 statements. I didn't have enough time to study the material. So that

17 would make the total of 272 witness statements, but these 16 that have

18 been received by the Defence only today.

19 I had a meeting with the Prosecutor 20 days ago, and some

20 additional witness statements were announced at that occasion, and I'm

21 still waiting for those. Thank you.

22 JUDGE WALD: Thank you. I gather that those that you're waiting

23 for are the 29 and the 5, is that correct, that the Prosecutor told us

24 about?

25 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Yes, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE WALD: All right. And Mr. Seric, what is your status?

2 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Madam President, I can only confirm

3 what the Prosecutor has stated. So far, their obligations have been

4 complied with in relation to the Defence of Vinko Martinovic.

5 JUDGE WALD: All right, thank you. That sounds as though we're on

6 a fast track here. And that by the middle of August, all of the witness

7 statements that you know about currently should be in the hands of the

8 Defence. That should not in any way impede our schedule to get all of the

9 pre-trial preparations in order within the first few months in the fall.

10 Let me move on. Rule 68 is simply a reminder to the Prosecution

11 of something I'm sure they're already much aware of, of their ongoing duty

12 to disclose exculpatory evidence as it arises in their review of their own

13 evidence. So I won't spend much time on that.

14 I'll move on now to any Defence requests that may arise to review

15 exhibits under 66(B). Now, at the last Status Conference I believe both

16 Defence counsels said they had no current plans to ask for discovery of

17 documents from the Prosecution under 66(B) which, of course, would require

18 them in reciprocity to allow the Prosecution to look at their documents as

19 well. I urged you at that time to think about that again since it

20 obviously might speed up the preparation of your case, though, of course,

21 it is ultimately your choice whether to do it or not.

22 We have a saying in my country that you can lead a horse to water,

23 but you can't make him drink. So it is in the end your choice, though it

24 could well speed up some of the preparation.

25 I don't know, do you have anything further to say on that, or do

1 you still retain your original position that you are not going to invoke

2 66(B) reciprocal disclosure?

3 Mr. Krsnik.

4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] For the time being, Madam President,

5 I abide by my original position, the one that I explained during the last

6 Status Conference.

7 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Likewise, Madam President.

8 JUDGE WALD: Moving on to expert reports under Rule 94 bis, again,

9 at the last Status Conference I remind you that the Prosecution said that

10 it anticipated submitting only one expert report about damage to religious

11 and cultural institutions, and I believe the Defence agreed that the

12 relevant portions, about 50 of the 400 pages, would be translated into

13 B/C/S.

14 Now, I'm now wondering whether that process has been completed,

15 and if you know when that report will be filed, officially filed with the

16 Court so that the Defence will have 14 days in which to decide whether or

17 not they want to cross-examine the report. Obviously, if you want to give

18 it informally to the Defence before that time, that's fine, too.

19 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Your Honour, these pieces of the report of the

20 expert have not been translated yet, and the deadline was also until the

21 end of July. I suppose that by the end of July we'll have them ready, and

22 of course, we'll disclose them to the Defence immediately.

23 JUDGE WALD: All right. Does the Defence have any later

24 additions? Do they plan to submit any Defence report, any expert reports?

25 I'm just reminding them at this point of the rule, the applicable rule.

1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] For the time being, no, Madam

2 President. The Defence will explain its reasons for this present answer

3 later on.

4 JUDGE WALD: The second part -- we have now covered our checklist

5 of things that had to be done under the rules. The next subject matter

6 I'd like to take up are optional methods with both sides that can shorten

7 or facilitate the trial and, accordingly, perhaps bring about the trial in

8 a shorter period of time.

9 The first area I want to discuss is the plans of either side to

10 avail themselves of Rule 71 bis which allows a video conference link.

11 Now, at the last Status Conference, the Prosecution indicated that it

12 hoped to use the video conference link for certain witnesses, primarily

13 those who didn't -- would not be used to identify the accused [sic], but

14 the Defence, of course, indicated it preferred live testimony on its side

15 here in The Hague; but you were going to discuss it further to see whether

16 or not the two parties could reach any agreement with respect to taking

17 either video conference or depositions for either party.

18 I wondered if you'd had those conversations, and whether you've

19 reached any agreement on that.

20 Mr. Terrier?

21 MR. TERRIER: [Interpretation] Madam President, what we are

22 interested as regards Rule 71 of the procedure is not so much the

23 possibility of a videolink, but the possibility of calling witnesses here

24 through the use of a Presiding Officer, the witness which would be heard

25 by the calling party, in this case first by the Prosecution and then by

1 the Defence. We think that in this provision, particular provision of

2 Rule 71, it is a way of alleviating the work of the Judges and a

3 possibility of trying to economise the time, the judicial time.

4 We spoke about this, this morning with Mr. Seric and Mr. Par. Our

5 meeting was indeed a very useful one. Mr. Seric and Mr. Par I think will

6 explain their position in a minute, and I was of the opinion that their

7 position was rather reserved in this stage of the preparation for the

8 trial. However, be that as it may, we managed -- we hope that we will

9 have a similar agreement with Mr. Krsnik.

10 And we agreed that we would meet again in September in order to

11 discuss all of the witnesses that we intend to call, in particular, on the

12 basis of the chart of witnesses that we communicated to the Chamber on the

13 18th of July. We will review every single witness. And we will try to

14 see whether it will be possible to call any of these witnesses before a

15 Presiding Officer who will be representing the Judges, or if it is

16 necessary to call each such witness before a Chamber sitting in a full

17 position.

18 We will examine this possibility, and we hope that it will be

19 possible for us to find an agreement also in respect of affidavits and

20 formal statements pursuant to the decision that was rendered by the

21 Chamber.

22 We contacted the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we

23 tried to find another solution which would be acceptable to the Judges of

24 this tribunal and which would also be acceptable to both Defence teams. I

25 hope that we will have such meetings in September with the Defence

1 counsel, and I think that at that time, we will be able to reach an

2 agreement.

3 JUDGE WALD: Just so I'm sure I understand you, Mr. Terrier, when

4 you're talking about possibly bringing witnesses here to The Hague to give

5 their testimony before a Presiding Officer, you're talking about basically

6 a deposition-type proceeding in Rule 70, right?

7 MR. TERRIER: [Interpretation] That is exact, Madam President.

8 JUDGE WALD: I just wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed

9 something.

10 It sounds as though you plan to meet, and I'll ask Defence counsel

11 their views on this in just a minute, you plan to meet with Defence

12 counsel early in September to see if you can work out both the deposition

13 and possibly some affidavit procedures under 94 bis; is that right.

14 MR. TERRIER: [Interpretation] Yes, that is exact.

15 JUDGE WALD: You may think is necessary to have a later Pre-trial

16 Conference, which I was reserving judgement about, in September after

17 you've had those meetings.

18 MR. TERRIER: [Interpretation] In my opinion, it would be prudent

19 to have this meeting with the Defence lawyers before the next Status

20 Conference.

21 JUDGE WALD: And do you think it's also, while I have you there,

22 prudent to do it before you are charged with your obligations under

23 Rule 68, whatever, to make your Pre-Trial filings?

24 MR. TERRIER: [Interpretation] Yes, Madam President.

25 JUDGE WALD: Let me hear from Mr. Krsnik and then Mr. Seric about

1 their views on this matter, on the matter of possible video and affidavit

2 testimony not only by the Prosecution but your own plans to use that. Go

3 ahead.

4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Madam President, the

5 Defence stands by the position that it exposed during the last Status

6 Conference. I'm glad that we have a good cooperation with our colleagues

7 from the Prosecution. We will indeed continue with that cooperation in

8 all respects except in those situations that can harm the interests of my

9 client.

10 When my client pleaded not guilty to all counts of the indictment

11 in accordance with legal regulations, the burden of proof rests with the

12 Prosecution. My client, and we believe that the principle, the principle

13 or adversarial system, can be honoured only if all the witnesses are

14 called here to testify and subjected to examination both by the Prosecutor

15 and the Defence. Especially, Madam President, the Defence has to insist

16 on that particular principle and that particular fact, because we have

17 information that a number of witnesses were examined and prepared by

18 various secret services. In the case of Bosniak Muslims, it would have

19 been by their secret services.

20 So we do not trust witnesses on the basis of sole witness

21 statements, and the only way for us to check to verify the truthfulness of

22 such witnesses is for them to be subjected to a proper cross-examination.

23 JUDGE WALD: Well, I think we all understand your position,

24 Mr. Krsnik, but of course I know that under Rule 70, under a deposition

25 procedure, you would have the right to be there and to cross-examine, and

1 the only difference would be that it would be before a hearing officer

2 rather than before the entire Court, but I don't think the Prosecution had

3 in mind, and certainly you would be able to object to that, doing away

4 with your right to cross-examination. As you know, you've had a recent

5 decision about how the Chamber feels about uncross-examined statements.

6 So I think you might think again before you confer with the Prosecution

7 about opposing a deposition-type technique.

8 Of course, while I'm on the subject, Rule 94 ter is a rule in the

9 Tribunal's rulings which does allow affidavits to be filed in conjunction

10 with a witness' live testimony, at which time the live witness may be

11 cross-examined to the extent feasible upon the entire subject, including

12 the affidavits.

13 This is something which obviously you may keep whatever position

14 you decide is in your client's interest, but it's definitely worth talking

15 about, I think, in September.

16 Mr. Seric?

17 MR. KRSNIK: Madam President. Sorry. Madam President, of course

18 I respect what you have just said. We have been thinking about it.

19 However, in the conversation with my client, and he's the reason why we're

20 all here, he insists that he be present at such an examination as well.

21 And I think that with this particular type of technique, I don't know

22 whether this will be possible. But if it is possible, I don't see that

23 there should be any problem.

24 JUDGE WALD: Well, this is something you definitely want to

25 discuss, and we will hear further by motion from the Prosecution if it

1 intends to go ahead with this.

2 Which brings me to the subject -- oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Seric. I

3 didn't mean to skip over you. Go ahead.

4 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam President. The

5 Defence of Vinko Martinovic also insists on direct hearing of all

6 witnesses of the Prosecution and of the Defence for reasons in addition to

7 those presented by my colleague, an important psychological reason that I

8 referred to at the previous Status Conference, and that is that this

9 International Criminal Tribunal is an authority in international legal

10 circles, and also in the states of the former Yugoslavia, that is, Croatia

11 and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

12 Most of these witnesses, I assure you, will behave quite

13 differently, because I'm familiar with the psychology of those people,

14 will behave in quite a different manner when they are heard in front of

15 their house, in front of their church, in the environment they come from

16 and in which they will return to in an hour's time, and quite differently

17 when they speak in such an authoritative institution as this Tribunal, and

18 especially if such a hearing is carried out in front of a presiding

19 officer. That is possible, but my client, Mr. Vinko Martinovic, insists

20 on being present. If that is possible, this could be discussed and even

21 agreed upon, but for the moment, the general position of Defence counsel

22 is to have direct adversarial system of examination and cross-examination

23 of witnesses.

24 JUDGE WALD: Well, you both raise an interesting possibility. I

25 certainly don't, myself, have the answer to whether or not we have any

1 precedent for allowing the accused to be present at the depositions, but

2 it is something which is worth looking into. We will look into it, and

3 I'm sure that you can talk about it when you -- Mr. Terrier, do you have

4 something you want to say?

5 MR. TERRIER: [Interpretation] Yes, Madam President. I think that

6 we are going to have these discussions with the parties. If we come to an

7 agreement, we will submit it for your approval. If we do not come to an

8 agreement, we will again refer to your ruling. But I would like to note

9 that Rule 71 is only the framework within which there are various

10 possibilities at our disposal, and in my opinion, nothing prevents, in

11 Rule 71 such as it is drafted now, for the accused to be present. There's

12 nothing to prevent it. And one could imagine that this might be the rule

13 or for a certain number of witnesses for which this could be granted.

14 So there are various possibilities pursuant to this rule. There

15 aren't many precedents. We need some imagination. But in any event, the

16 agreement or disagreement that we will reach, we will submit the results

17 of our talks to you, Madam President, for your consideration and

18 decision.

19 JUDGE WALD: Well, thank you, Mr. Terrier. I'm just delighted to

20 hear that degree of flexibility. I myself, in reading the Rule, did not

21 see anything that would prevent it, but I thought it perhaps wise to check

22 with people who had more experience with the past Tribunal precedents, but

23 I'm delighted to hear that the parties would not have any inherent

24 objection to that, and we should be able to work this out.

25 Now, the last area in this particular part that I wanted to talk

1 about is judicial notice pursuant to Rule 94. At the last Status

2 Conference, the Prosecution indicated it was considering asking the Trial

3 Chamber to take judicial notice of perhaps findings in other cases about

4 the existence of an international armed conflict which subsequently we

5 have learned from both of the defendants that they consider that to be a

6 disputed issue at the present time.

7 I don't know whether the Prosecution has made any further

8 decisions about that, and I may ask the Defence if it still adheres,

9 although I think I know the answer from your written filings. But the

10 question occurred to me that even if the Defence is contesting, and I will

11 ask them this, the international aspect of an armed conflict, are they

12 really disputing that there is an armed conflict at all?

13 What I am getting around to, I think, is asking, to begin with

14 Mr. Terrier, whether seeing the subsequent filings that both the Defence

15 parties have made about what they would agree to and not agree to in the

16 indictment, whether or not you have any firmer notions about whether you

17 will be submitting judicial notice motions, and if so, when.

18 MR. STRINGER: Good afternoon, Your Honour, Douglas Stringer for

19 the Prosecutor.

20 Yes, I think we intend to file a motion at some point asking the

21 Court to take judicial notice of facts which have been adjudicated in

22 previous cases here now. When we talk about the relevant cases that the

23 Trial Chamber would be looking to, there is a limited number of cases that

24 I think are the potential sources, the Blaskic case probably being the

25 most likely candidate for a source of possibly looking for adjudicated

1 facts coming out of other cases.

2 Now, that's a case which has only proceeded through the trial

3 level. There is no decision, obviously, that's come out of the Appeals

4 Chamber on that case. So in this respect, we're a little bit in a

5 different situation than the Kvocka case which I know is before this Trial

6 Chamber and in which there has been a decision on judicial notice.

7 JUDGE WALD: That was agreed.

8 MR. STRINGER: It was largely agreed, which I think that there

9 will not be significant agreement in this case.

10 JUDGE WALD: Doesn't look that way.

11 MR. STRINGER: In that addition, I think that some of the

12 adjudicated facts there had come out of the Tadic appeal, and so that

13 there had been an appeal. So I think that on the Bosnian Croat side or

14 some of the other cases were not as well developed or far enough along to

15 go too far down the road on adjudicated facts.

16 Now, we have, however, introduced the issue somewhat already in

17 the filing that was submitted --

18 JUDGE WALD: Exactly. Exactly.

19 MR. STRINGER: -- this week. We identified a small number of

20 witnesses, six, I believe, whose testimony from the Blaskic case we

21 propose to submit to this Trial Chamber. None of these witnesses know

22 anything about Vinko Martinovic or Mladen Naletilic. They have only

23 limited information about the events that occurred in Mostar as alleged in

24 this indictment, but they do provide evidence of other essential elements,

25 if you will, that have to be proven in this trial regarding the widespread

1 and systematic nature that relates to Article 5, crimes against humanity,

2 international armed conflict, et cetera.

3 Now, we are aware that this Trial Chamber has recently declined to

4 accept testimony in the Kvocka case of witnesses who testified in other

5 cases. I don't know the circumstances there, whether our situation is

6 different, but we had proposed or would intend to ask the Trial Chamber to

7 consider, and the parties as well, to consider whether there could be

8 agreement that the trial testimony of a certain limited number of

9 witnesses, both their direct testimony, their cross-examination, and of

10 course their answers in response to the questions that came from the

11 Judges, that that testimony be tendered in this case and be accepted by

12 the Trial Chamber. So that issue is one that is, in some sense, before

13 the Trial Chamber already, and it could be made or it could be put before

14 the Trial Chamber more formally in the form of a motion if that is how we

15 need to go. I think that we would confer with Defence counsel on it. We

16 would provide them with the testimony, give them an opportunity to look it

17 over and then to make a decision whether this is testimony that they might

18 be willing not to object to.

19 Also again looking under Rule 94, the Rule permits a Trial Chamber

20 to accept or to take judicial notice of not only adjudicated facts but

21 also documentary evidence from other proceedings, and it's the

22 Prosecutor's intention to attempt to make use of this part of the rule.

23 Our suggestion or our idea, if you will, is to take a number of documents

24 which were tendered in both the Blaskic and the Kordic cases, which

25 related to the issue of international armed conflict, the international

1 nature of the armed conflict.

2 In the Blaskic case, some 125 documents were submitted to the

3 Trial Chamber for its consideration. It took about an hour to do that.

4 So that this is a procedure which we think is useful in that it enables

5 the Prosecutor, certainly, to put evidence of International Armed Conflict

6 before the Trial Chamber in a way that's very expeditious and doesn't take

7 very much time. And we will be in a position to provide all of that

8 documentation to the Defence, should they wish to look it over, in

9 determining whether they would agree to that.

10 Now, I hasten to add that we are not going to start turning over

11 everything in terms of exhibits because there's been no request for that,

12 but these are documents which are essentially in evidence in other

13 proceedings anyway. I don't think that there's any great secret about

14 them, and we're willing to provide them to the Defence if it would assist

15 them in reaching their position on documentary evidence from other

16 proceedings which might be submitted to the Trial Chamber under Rule 94.

17 And so, yes, I guess that's a long-winded answer to your

18 question. We do hope to take use of judicial notice, although perhaps not

19 in a way that you'd envision, but in ways which might enable us to

20 streamline the case just a little bit.

21 JUDGE WALD: Let me ask you one more question, and then I'll ask

22 the Defence counsel for their views on this matter, and that is along

23 these two lines that you've just indicated, the witnesses' testimony,

24 transcript testimony, and the documentary evidence, do you envision doing

25 that by way of more formal motion, which I think probably you'll end up --

1 it will end up being better to do after discussion, obviously, with the

2 Defence counsel, but do you envision doing that after you've had these

3 discussions with them in early September or before?

4 MR. STRINGER: Well, the names of the six witnesses --

5 JUDGE WALD: Are in the filings.

6 MR. STRINGER: -- in fact were disclosed to the Defence, I

7 believe, in May. We sent some witness statements across, and in the cover

8 letter we identified these witnesses by name saying we intend to offer

9 their testimony from the Blaskic case. So they've known about this for

10 some six weeks or more, but I don't know whether any of them have gone or

11 have taken any measures to obtain the transcripts from the registry or

12 from another source. All of these witnesses testified in open session in

13 the Blaskic case. So they've had the names and they've certainly had the

14 means to acquire the testimony for some six weeks now. If they had any

15 difficulties, we're certainly willing to provide them with the transcripts

16 as well as any exhibits that would have come in during the testimony.

17 But certainly I think it will be necessary for these discussions

18 to continue in the context of the other discussions which will be taking

19 place in respect of depositions and possibly having formal statements

20 under Rule 94 ter.

21 JUDGE WALD: Okay, thank you, Mr. Stringer.

22 Mr. Krsnik and then Mr. Seric, do you have any immediate reactions

23 to what Mr. Stringer has said? Obviously, you'll be discussing this with

24 him, and obviously -- I think obviously after that they're likely to be

25 filing formal motions to which you will be entitled to reply. But you may

1 have some thoughts you wish to share with us on both the questions of

2 whether or not witnesses' transcripts from prior proceedings may be

3 admitted, and perhaps it's a little early until we see the form of the

4 document request, but he says you're going to discuss them informally.

5 Okay, Mr. Krsnik. Go ahead.

6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Madam President, first of all allow

7 me to respond immediately to the final part of the statement by my learned

8 friend Mr. Stringer. The Defence counsel came to this Tribunal a couple

9 of months ago, and of course, it was unable to follow the trial of

10 Mr. Blaskic which went on for a number of years.

11 It is for the first time that the Defence of Mr. Mladen Naletilic

12 has heard that a document has been sent which we have not received to this

13 day. So I understand that these are transcripts, and I would probably

14 need to guess which they are in order -- and look through 40.000 pages of

15 material to find them. However, I don't think that is very important just

16 now. What is important is that the appeals trial has not ended for

17 Mr. Blaskic, and we won't -- don't know yet what the judgement will be.

18 We will see at the end of that whether the international character of the

19 conflict will be confirmed. Of course, the Defence of Mr. Naletilic

20 cannot agree that it was an International Armed Conflict, and we will

21 present witnesses who will say that.

22 So at least for the present, there is no chance of an agreement

23 being reached between the Defence and the Prosecution regarding that

24 point. I wouldn't like to dwell on that any further. I think, Madam

25 President, you are -- understand the position of the Defence regarding

1 that issue.

2 JUDGE WALD: Yes, I do. But there were -- there were three

3 different aspects that Mr. Stringer talked bout. The first you've covered

4 as to whether or not you think that adjudicated facts under Rule 94 means

5 when the final stage of the adjudication has been completed, including the

6 appeal.

7 But he also talked about two other aspects: One, which is not

8 taking judicial notice of adjudicated facts, but simply allowing into the

9 trial record the transcript of a witness's testimony from a different

10 trial for consideration by the Trial Chamber, not, as I understand it, to

11 be a conclusive finding of fact. But this is something that --

12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] The Defence for the moment would not

13 agree to such transcripts becoming a component part of this file because

14 they were different circumstances, different charges, and the Defence does

15 not know to which facts those witnesses testified. And, of course, the

16 Defence would like to cross-examine such witnesses.

17 Therefore, our general position, Madam President, is that we

18 cannot agree with the proposal of the Prosecution regarding that

19 suggestion of the admission of transcript evidence.

20 JUDGE WALD: I understand your position. As I suspected, we may

21 end up with formal motions here, but that's the way the law is made.

22 Mr. Seric. Do you have anything to add to this discussion?

23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Madam President. I would like to

25 add a rather important point of the Defence of Vinko Martinovic, and that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 has to do with this question of International Armed Conflict. Vinko

2 Martinovic throughout the war was in Mostar. He didn't move anywhere

3 outside Mostar, nor did he know what was happening in the Lasva River

4 Valley or in Ahmici or elsewhere. Of course, he does now. All those

5 matters were dealt with at other trials. So he was exclusively

6 concentrated -- focused on the Defence of a confrontation line, and this

7 occurred after street fighting which could perhaps be described as

8 elements of a civil war, but certainly not as a part of an International

9 Armed Conflict.

10 So our position is the same as colleague Krsnik.

11 JUDGE WALD: I understand your opposition. I think it's not

12 appropriate for us to argue the merits of the case in the context of the

13 pre-trial proceeding here, but you certainly will have a chance to accede

14 to or oppose any motions. I think you've already made your point clear in

15 your response to what you would agree to and not agree to in the course of

16 the indictment. The merits will come later.

17 The last thing that I want to cover under this, again, and that is

18 whether or not the accused plans, either accused plans, to testify, to

19 make a statement pursuant to Rule 84 bis, and if so, when?

20 I understand, and you've made this clear in your filings, that you

21 are not under any obligation to make that decision at this juncture. I,

22 in my role as running this pre-trial proceeding, am simply trying to find

23 what small areas we can predict and what small areas we can agree upon.

24 So my question to both of you simply is whether or not you are in

25 a position to tell us at this point, simply because it will make planning

1 for the trial easier. If you're not, you're not.

2 Go ahead, Mr. Krsnik.

3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] For the moment, we cannot take a

4 position regarding testimony of my client. If in the course of the

5 preparations we do decide for us to testify in our own case, but that will

6 depend on the evolution of the proceedings, if we were to do that, then we

7 would use a lie detector.

8 JUDGE WALD: I'm not sure I understand that. Would you elaborate

9 a bit on your last point about the lie detector?

10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Well, my client insists -- of course

11 it is premature for us to take a stand on any facts because we know too

12 little, but if our client were to testify, my client and I are discussing

13 this, and of course if the Chamber agrees, then we would request a lie

14 detector as an instrument which could help in establishing the

15 truthfulness of his testimony.

16 JUDGE WALD: I agree with you, it's premature to discuss that

17 now.

18 My next point, I think, is also an obvious one, that the parties

19 should already -- it's not too early to be looking forward to the

20 pre-trial filings which will be required by Rule 65 ter.

21 Now, my tentative dates, and I want to listen to people, because

22 of your discussions which sound as though they will be quite fulsome in

23 the beginning of September, and I hope they will be arranged to take place

24 as early in September as possible, I hope that will allow -- or my

25 tentative notion is to have the Prosecution's filings be at the end of

1 September, say September 30th, followed by the Defence's filings, which

2 are much shorter but are required under the rules that you tell us a

3 little bit about your intentions at that particular juncture, that they

4 would come middle of October, around October 15th.

5 Now, the Prosecution, and I only repeat this, I know you can read

6 the rules for yourself, but because of the very extensive filings you just

7 gave us yesterday, I just want to make a point here that Rule 65 ter (E)

8 for the Prosecution requires a filing, a preliminary brief on the facts in

9 law, a statement of the points of law and fact that are disputed and

10 undisputed, a list of witnesses, and a list of exhibits, and any

11 anticipated objections by the Defence.

12 For the Defence, it requires that after trying to work with the

13 Prosecutor to reach agreement on any facts that might be undisputed after

14 the Prosecution's filings, they should prepare their own briefs. Which

15 will lay out any facts that are disputed or undisputed, why they disagree

16 very briefly with the Prosecutor's contentions under both.

17 I also want to point out that the Defence does have a requirement

18 under the rules to tell us as soon as possible if they plan to offer any

19 of the special defences which are in 67(A)(ii) which says that, "As early

20 as reasonably practicable, and at any event, prior to the commencement of

21 trial, we would need to be notified of the Defence of alibi and any

22 special defence, including diminished or lack of mental responsibility."

23 We've had trouble with that rule in some other cases about Defence

24 counsel thinking that perhaps they come upon something later on, and so I

25 want to draw it to your attention because although "as soon as reasonably

1 practicable" is a vague phrase, certainly it says, "In any event prior to

2 the beginning of the case," if you plan to -- the beginning of the trial

3 if you plan to raise any of those special defences.

4 Now, let me move on there to point out that at the last Status

5 Conference and in the Scheduling Order, I said we would go through the

6 indictment paragraph by paragraph to see if there were undisputed facts.

7 I don't think that that's going to be necessary now for the following

8 reasons: One, of course, is that both Defence counsel did file something

9 with us. They weren't particularly generous in terms of what was

10 undisputed, but they did let us know those parts of the indictment which

11 they disputed and which they didn't dispute.

12 But I do want to bring up two points on that, and the first one is

13 directed toward you, Mr. Krsnik, and your filing in response to the

14 scheduling order.

15 You've indicated, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your client

16 basically disputes everything in the indictment except for the personal

17 information. That's right, isn't it?

18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] That is correct, Madam President,

19 even the question of identity was questionable, because it was not

20 established by legally recognised methods. But I don't want to waste your

21 time. You see, many people in Herceg-Bosna used my client's name. So if

22 the Prosecution had abided by national laws and the laws of this Tribunal,

23 it would have had to produce photographs and other methods. But we will

24 leave that aside for the moment. The personal identity facts are admitted

25 but everything else is disputed.

1 JUDGE WALD: All right. Now, as I've said before, and I make this

2 remark again but it's only briefly, of course it's your right to put the

3 Prosecution to its proof, and I realise it's often a matter of Defence

4 strategy, but again I would point out that it's not always in the

5 Defence's interest to actively dispute every last jit a toddle [phoen] Of

6 the indictment, because us it's always possible that you lose focus on

7 what's important, and it makes the trial longer, it makes getting to trial

8 longer too. But after that caveat, I've got a few specific questions,

9 even in light of your very straightforward, as it were, filing.

10 I understand, for instance, that you're disputing even the date on

11 which Bosnia became independent and the international nature of the

12 conflict. But regardless of what you consider to be the legal

13 consequences or importance of the acts described in paragraphs 1 to 5 of

14 the indictment, I'm just interested, do you really dispute, for example,

15 that the United Nations admitted Bosnia and Herzegovina as a Member State

16 on the 22nd of May? You may disagree with why they did or whether they

17 should have done it, but do you dispute such things as this, the fact that

18 they did it?

19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Madam President, I hope you won't

20 think that I am not a serious person. I'll be very sincere. I do not

21 have much experience in this Tribunal. I arrived three months ago. I'm

22 only just familiarising myself with the rules of this Tribunal, with the

23 doctrines, with the way of thought, and allow me some time to grasp all

24 that. The Prosecution has a great advantage over me because they have

25 been here for many years, they have a large apparatus to assist them,

1 behind them. That is one point.

2 Secondly, for the present, I do not see what the intention of the

3 Prosecution is, how far they will go, what they will disclose and when.

4 If I knew what the Prosecution intends to do, I would take quite a

5 different stand because once I know all the facts, then I will be able to

6 take a position and abide by it. Because you see, Madam President, I

7 don't know whether this case will be limited to these two accused. I

8 don't know many other things. If I did, then maybe I would be able to

9 consider undisputed certain facts here that you have referred to.

10 Let me explain my position regarding the recognition of

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Of course there is no dispute over the date of

12 recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina and admission to the UN, but in the

13 course of the hearings I will explain why we dispute this, but I will

14 first wait for the disclosure of materials and the steps that will be

15 taken by my learned friends from the Prosecution.

16 I am being very frank and outspoken about this.

17 JUDGE WALD: I appreciate your candour. Let me just make two

18 points. The first is that I think -- and I'm jumping the gun here because

19 I was going to say it later, but you probably have not had the time, nor

20 have I, to appreciate the complete fulsomeness of the Prosecution's filing

21 yesterday. I think the Prosecution, I was going to compliment Mr. Terrier

22 and Mr. Stringer and their associates on what I thought was a very, very

23 goodwilled and complete answer to what the scheduling order directed. In

24 other words, he's given us two things that should be of immense defence in

25 knowing what they are preparing to meet.

1 One is a complete list of the witnesses with the summary of what

2 they're going to say relating it to the particular paragraphs and

3 statements, counts in the indictment, so that you can easily, through the

4 chart, find out who's going to testify about what and briefly what they're

5 going to say. You also have most of the more complete witness

6 statements.

7 But even, I think, more helpful to that was Annex 2 to the

8 Prosecution's filing, which gives you -- it gave me a more complete notion

9 than the indictment did of what the Prosecution considers all the facts

10 that it has to prove in order to prevail on this.

11 So I am trusting the Prosecution's good faith, which has been

12 evidenced, to say that if you read that Annex 2, you read all the things,

13 you'll see what they think is sufficient for them to make their case. I

14 would think by taking the time to go through that carefully, which I know

15 you will -- you haven't had time to do yet -- you should be able to sit

16 down -- and I urge you to do so -- with the Prosecution and see whether or

17 not, in that context of knowing what they say they are going to prove and

18 having a list of the witnesses and what they're going to say, you should

19 be able to find, I think, some areas that you will not find it necessary

20 to use up your own time, the Court's time, and the Prosecution's time to

21 prove. But I'm very hopeful that that will happen, and it was exactly why

22 I asked the Prosecution to do that, and I'm delighted that they did so in

23 such a forthcoming fashion. I think that will help you out considerably.

24 The second thing is you mentioned about not knowing whether there

25 were other people in the case. The indictment, in its present form, is

1 against two defendants only, and I certainly have no indication that there

2 are any more in the offing. Okay?

3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Well, Madam President, I do, I do

4 have certain indications in that respect, and I will tell you why I

5 believe that the Defence should wait. Of course, I don't wish to be

6 misunderstood by my (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted), and last time when I came here, I

11 discussed it with my colleagues here in The Hague, and I asked them

12 whether they knew what it was all about, and they told me --

13 MR. TERRIER: [Interpretation] Madam President.

14 JUDGE WALD: Yes, Mr. Terrier.

15 MR. TERRIER: [Interpretation] Madam President, we had certain

16 discussions with Mr. Krsnik.

17 And I apologise for interrupting you, Mr. Krsnik, but I to have to

18 say something at this point.

19 As regards the investigations that are being conducted by the OTP,

20 we did try to establish contact with a certain person. Today this is a

21 public hearing, a public session, and I ask myself if it is really

22 necessary to mention, in a public session, an investigation that we have

23 been conducting.

24 It is true that we did discuss the issue with Mr. Krsnik. We

25 spoke with him about the person that we wanted and tried to contact. I'm

1 not denying this contact, I'm just trying to say that this is not the

2 right place and moment to mention it and to bring it up.

3 JUDGE WALD: I agree with Mr. Terrier. I don't think this is the

4 correct form, in a public hearing, to bring this up, and I would remind

5 you only formally, Mr. Krsnik, that before any indictment could be

6 amended, I'm now going to speak about the formal process, it would have to

7 be approved. The amendment would have to be approved, at this stage, as I

8 understand it, by the Chamber that we're before. And believe me, I can

9 tell you that the closer a case is to trial and the more prepared we are

10 for trial, I would say the stronger would be your objections to any

11 amendment, but I don't want to hear about any of the specifics.

12 Let me ask you: Is the nature of what you just objected to,

13 Mr. Terrier, such that you want it redacted from the transcript of the

14 hearing?

15 MR. TERRIER: [Interpretation] Madam President, I think that this

16 would be a preferable move.

17 JUDGE WALD: Go ahead.

18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Madam President, I do object to

19 this. I don't see any reason for the redaction. The Prosecutor has

20 perhaps his own reasons. However, the summons in question was a public

21 document. It was brought publicly by his father. The father of the

22 person in question -- I don't know whether I am entitled to mention his

23 name or not -- came to my office, and it was a public thing. This is a

24 publicly known fact. I don't see why this should be a secret. I don't

25 think I'm disclosing here anything. I just wanted to give an example as

1 to our ignorance about what the Prosecution --

2 JUDGE WALD: I have your objection.

3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] -- is about to do.

4 JUDGE WALD: Let me pause for a minute.

5 Mr. Fourmy. Let me consult here awhile and see if there is any

6 practice in the Tribunal that I can draw upon.

7 [Trial Chamber and Senior Legal Officer confer]

8 JUDGE WALD: All right. Sorry. I think what we will do, taking

9 into consideration both of yours, we are only going to redact the name of

10 the person. That gives you enough substance for your example. We simply

11 will not have the name of the particular person in there.

12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Madam President, if you will allow

13 me, because I didn't finish my thought.

14 JUDGE WALD: Go ahead.

15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] So in their proposal the name of the

16 person surfaced, and apparently the Defence would have to accept that the

17 person it questioned was an associate, a close associate of my colleague.

18 That was an example of why, at this point in time, I am not ready to make

19 any representations to that effect.

20 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Mr. Seric, let me talk to you about your reply

21 to our instruction about telling which parts of the indictment you would

22 or would not agree upon. Let me just get your filing here. I had a few

23 questions.

24 Do you have that in front of you, the filing you made? Okay. So

25 we can follow it through together. I just had some questions about it.

1 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Madam President.

2 JUDGE WALD: There are a number of paragraphs which you didn't

3 write anything. Now, some of these paragraphs are about Mr. Naletilic,

4 and I understand that is not your client and so you have no reason to

5 comment on anything that affects only him. But there are a few paragraphs

6 that do concern your client, and I was not sure whether or not you meant

7 not to dispute them by not putting anything, so I'm going to read the

8 numbers of those paragraphs and you can clarify that for me. They are 1,

9 2, 4, 5, 6, and 13. You just tell me whether or not you mean to say

10 disputed, undisputed, whatever. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 13.

11 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Madam President, whatever has not been

12 highlighted or annotated is not disputed, and at least if you will allow

13 me, we had a meeting with my colleagues from the Prosecution this morning,

14 and we went through each of the allegations and analysed them in a very

15 constructive way, and we established all the facts that we considered to

16 be beyond dispute and all those that we think are in dispute, and this

17 tallies with what we have submitted to the Chamber pursuant to the

18 Chamber's order.

19 We have also submitted one copy of what you have, an English

20 translation, together with our comments and annotations. We have

21 submitted that document to the representatives of the Prosecution.

22 JUDGE WALD: Thank you. You've done a lot of my work for me.

23 Thank you very much. You've answered my next question which would have

24 been that some of the paragraphs seem to be partially but not completely

25 disputed, but I understand that your discussions have clarified that and

1 we don't have to do it here. I assume at some point we will receive a

2 copy of that. So thank you, that's --

3 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Madam President, I think that you

4 skipped my turn when it comes to the defence of alibi.

5 JUDGE WALD: I apologise. Please feel free.

6 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] So if you will allow me, please, to

7 state that this Defence team does not intend to offer the defence of alibi

8 or any other special defence pursuant to the relevant rules. I have to

9 state that once again, we did state it already, however, with your

10 indulgence, I need to repeat it because I think it is very important for

11 the procedure, especially in view of the general nature, general and

12 descriptive nature of the indictment which lacks specific places, times,

13 and ways in which the criminal acts were perpetrated.

14 So if during the presentation of the evidence by the Prosecutor we

15 come across a more specific charge with more specific description of time,

16 place, and the relevant act, the Defence does not exclude the possibility

17 to offer the Defence of alibi at some later stage. Thank you very much.

18 JUDGE WALD: As long as it's in compliance with the Rule, that's

19 fine.

20 I think that pretty much -- there are a few miscellaneous matters

21 here, but I'm delighted we're going to get out early from here. I just

22 want to mention them.

23 One, we have received the account of the medical examination of

24 General Naletilic which finds him fit for trial. Do you have any comments

25 to make on that, Mr. Krsnik?

1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] My only comment would be that this

2 report is contradictory in respect of the previous medical reports made by

3 a medical expert, and I'm talking about the Dutch doctors who were sent to

4 a Croatian hospital and medical doctors who were from the Croatian

5 hospital in question, and I wanted to ask you, Your Honour, to invite all

6 of the three experts in the month of September and try to have them

7 coordinate an opinion, because their opinions differ in some very

8 important respects.

9 In the last medical report, and I'm still studying it, I'm not a

10 medical doctor of course, so according to that report, my client would be,

11 for the time being, fit for trial. However, the true previous experts

12 from the Dutch hospital in Amsterdam and the experts from the Zagreb

13 hospital stated that he was not fit for trial.

14 So in view of his condition, I should like you, Your Honour, to

15 take this into account and to see if it will be possible in September or

16 in October to call medical experts here to state their position on my

17 client's fitness to stand trial. I think that this is very important, not

18 only from the aspect of the procedure, but also because of the state of

19 health of my client which is indeed very serious and quite unpredictable.

20 JUDGE WALD: I understand what you're saying, Mr. Krsnik, but I

21 must say, you and your client made a request for a medical exam, you also

22 wanted the General Naletilic's own personal -- or at least, a physician

23 that he trusted to be --

24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour, he's not a

25 General. He was never, he was never a General.

1 JUDGE WALD: Okay. All right. Mr. Naletilic, he did have his --

2 the physician that he requested be in attendance. And I think that there

3 comes a point in this process where we have to find an end to it. I would

4 point out that the earlier medical exams were made at a different time,

5 and also that at least some that I read talked about his ability to be

6 transported, et cetera.

7 I, for one, am satisfied that we have come to the end of this

8 line, barring, and I hope they will not happen, any further medical

9 complications. I would be glad to take this up with my colleagues, but

10 for myself, I would think that we will be able to run a trial which will

11 not be that troublesome for his health, and I would invite him to have

12 good health and to take his medicine.

13 Now, at the last status conference, Mr. Krsnik, you expressed some

14 concern that you were working by yourself, and that you needed a full team

15 that hadn't yet been approved, and you've been working with the Registry

16 on that. Now, I understand that you do now have a co-counsel, so that's

17 been settled.

18 You have a problem about a legal assistant, I think, you've

19 already brought to our attention, right? You can express it. Go ahead.

20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as you can see, I do

21 have a legal assistant here sitting by my side. Her trip was not paid by

22 the Tribunal because the Registry actually refused it. And there was an

23 offer made to an investigator to come to -- his travel expenses, the

24 travel expenses of the investigator were refused. They are here on my

25 expenses, that is, the expenses of the Defence.

1 I don't know how things will go on from now, but frankly speaking,

2 if the Registry continues to behave in this way, I will really have to

3 interpret it as an obstruction of the efforts of the Defence because I

4 really do need assistance of this kind.

5 JUDGE WALD: This is a matter which you are currently working with

6 the Registry on, right? That's the right channel for you to pursue,

7 Mr. Krsnik, and right now it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to

8 get in the middle of that dispute.

9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes. But in the interests of

10 justice and fairness, if I am prevented from having at every moment my

11 legal assistants and my investigator, then I have to inform the Chamber of

12 the problems that the Defence is having, and it is a very serious problem

13 for the Defence.

14 JUDGE WALD: I understand. You have informed us. The

15 negotiations are going on with the Registry, and that -- for the moment,

16 there are regular channels of appeal there, all of which have to be

17 exhausted.

18 At this juncture let me ask whether there is any other matter. I

19 will invite both accused to make any comment personally they wish to

20 either about their condition -- about their conditions of detention, but

21 are there any other legal matters that either the Prosecution or the

22 Defence counsel would like to raise?

23 Before you do so, I just like to reiterate, you have many things

24 to discuss. I'm somewhat encouraged by this conference, that you will be

25 discussing those things in early September, both the possible use of

1 depositions or judicial notice, the further exploration of whether there

2 are issues and whether there are facts that can go undisputed, and with

3 the hope that we can get to our pre-trial filings at the end of September

4 and mid-October, have a final pre-trial conference at the end of October,

5 which would make you ready for trial should a Chamber come along which can

6 try you.

7 Now is there anything else the Prosecution wants to raise?

8 MR. TERRIER: [Interpretation] No, Madam President.

9 JUDGE WALD: How about you, Mr. Krsnik?

10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes. On the 21st of January, 2000,

11 the Prosecutor submitted a request for additional protective measures in

12 accordance with Rules 54 and 75. This related to the Defence of Mr. Vinko

13 Martinovic, as if they were not disclosing the materials they should. But

14 now that the accused is in detention here, could those measures be lifted

15 and may I become familiarised with those documents? So I would also like

16 to have access to all the documents that they are receiving -- that is all

17 I have to say -- so that we can be familiar with each other's documents.

18 JUDGE WALD: Let me hear a response, if any, by one of the members

19 of the Prosecution team to Mr. Krsnik's objection and inquiry.

20 MR. TERRIER: [Interpretation] Madam President, if I understood

21 Mr. Krsnik correctly, he's referring to your Chamber's rulings regarding

22 the protection of certain witnesses. I don't know exactly which measures

23 Mr. Krsnik is referring to. Could he be more specific as to the

24 protective measures he's referring to?

25 JUDGE WALD: Go ahead, Mr. Krsnik.

1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] My learned friend Mr. Terrier, I'm

2 talking about the measures -- or rather, the Chamber that imposed measures

3 on the Defence, at your request, while my client was in detention in

4 Croatia. And your last filing -- I only have that last filing -- it is

5 the 21st of January, 2000, and that is what we received.

6 My request is very simple, that all the material -- all your

7 materials that were disclosed to the Defence of Vinko Martinovic should

8 also be given to me, that I should also have a copy of them.

9 MR. TERRIER: [Interpretation] As far as I know, that is the case.

10 That has been done. Those protective measures that were taken in relation

11 to the Defence of Mr. Martinovic and which were also verbally applied to

12 Mr. Naletilic do not prevent from Mr. Krsnik and the Defence of

13 Mr. Naletilic to have access either to witnesses or to documents. The

14 purpose was to protect those witnesses and those documents, but access was

15 guaranteed, and it has been provided to this day.

16 The same witnesses, the same documents, have been disclosed to

17 Mr. Krsnik and to Mr. Seric, and I don't think there should be any

18 difficulty at all in that respect.

19 JUDGE WALD: Thank you, Mr. Terrier. Is that --

20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I understand now. So we will

21 address this matter in mutual conversation with Mr. Terrier. Thank you.

22 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Seric, do you have anything you wish to raise?

23 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] No, not really, Madam President.

24 Though you have already expressed your position, Your Honour, when you

25 said that this is not the place for raising problems regarding expenses

1 and teams, but I would like to join Colleague Krsnik in saying that this

2 is a serious problem for the Defence, and there must be a regime of

3 fairness and reciprocity in the treatment of the Prosecution and the

4 Defence. I think this is a condition sine qua non for a fair and just

5 approach to this trial, unless this is addressed adequately, so that we

6 are on an equal footing with the Prosecution.

7 Please forgive me for referring to you. I have a great deal of

8 respect for you, but there are only the four of us here to defend the two

9 accused, and the two assistants are at our expense, so this is a serious

10 problem. And this is something that I have to draw your attention to,

11 Madam President, and I apologise for bothering you with this.

12 JUDGE WALD: Don't apologise. You have drawn it to my attention.

13 It is in the province of the Registry now, but I am aware of it, and I

14 will keep up-to-date on the progress.

15 Now, then, finally, and I'm happy we'll be able to be out of here

16 by 5.30, I would like to ask Mr. Naletilic if there is anything he would

17 care to tell us or any complaints he has about his conditions of

18 detention.

19 THE ACCUSED NALETILIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I should just

20 like to point out the difficulties that my attorneys are encountering. So

21 if it is necessary for me to be K21, I will renounce my counsel and

22 represent my own defence because I don't know how to deal with these

23 expenses. I must point out that I am no longer in a position financially,

24 in the kind of financial position I was three and a half or four years ago

25 where I had some savings to finance this, and I'm ready to say this with a

1 lie detector.

2 Therefore, if this Tribunal is not ready to pay the expenses of my

3 attorneys, then I am ready to be Kafka's K21, or let me be 22. I do not

4 remember that you were the Presiding Judge when I had my initial

5 appearance, but I was promised then that it is possible to use a lie

6 detector, and I quote the words used by His Honour the Judge, because I

7 think he said the reliability is 60 or 70 per cent.

8 However, as my condition of health is such, I have no proof now to

9 show whether it's good or bad, there are doctors to do that, but why

10 should I not be allowed to use a lie detector, and then even without

11 counsel, I would have greater chances in the Chamber and in relation to

12 the Prosecution to counter what is being said by witnesses against me.

13 So, either my attorneys should be paid adequately so as to be able

14 to represent me, or out of those 250 witnesses, perhaps 50 who the

15 Prosecutor consider to be the most important, allow me to respond to what

16 they say with the help of a lie detector.

17 That would be the substance of my suggestions. Thank you very

18 much.

19 JUDGE WALD: I have heard you loud and clear, Mr. Naletilic, and

20 although it may be premature, as your counsel will agree, I'm sure the

21 time will come when you will be able to bring the issue to a head. Thank

22 you.

23 Mr. Martinovic, do you have something, anything you'd like to say

24 at this juncture about detention or anything relevant?

25 THE ACCUSED MARTINOVIC: [Interpretation] No, I have nothing more

1 to say.

2 JUDGE WALD: All right, thank you.

3 Well, I think that I will just reiterate in closing, we have a lot

4 to discuss in early September. It sounds as though we should have another

5 Pre-trial Conference before I ask the Prosecution to submit their filings

6 at the end of September and the Defence mid-October. The exact date on

7 that I will -- we will inform you about, and perhaps you will tell us or

8 the Prosecution when you have set up your meetings with the Defence so

9 that we will make the Pre-trial Conference shortly thereafter.

10 Thank you all for coming and good evening.

11 --- Whereupon the Status Conference is

12 adjourned at 5:23 p.m.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25