Page 882
1 Wednesday, 25 July 2001
2 [Motion Hearing]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.31 p.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Will the Registrar call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Case number
8 IT-95-9-PT, the Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav
9 Tadic, and Simo Zaric.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: May we have the appearances.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Peter McCloskey for the Prosecutor, with Gramsci
12 di Fazio and Phil Weiner.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: For the Defence.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Igor Pantelic on
15 behalf of Mr. Blagoje Simic, and today with me is my learned colleague
16 from Houston. Allow him to present himself. Thank you.
17 MR. MURPHY: Good afternoon, Your Honours. My name is Peter
18 Murphy. I'm the legal consultant on behalf of Dr. Simic.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic for
21 Milan Simic.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
23 Attorney Novak Lukic, representing Miroslav Tadic.
24 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. I'm
25 Borislav Pisarevic for Simo Zaric.
Page 883
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. This is a hearing for the admission
2 of transcript evidence under Rule 92 bis. The transcripts are from two
3 cases: the Celebici case in respect of three witnesses, and the Tadic case
4 in respect of seven witnesses. We will begin with the Prosecution, and we
5 will deal with the transcripts individually. So I'll hear the Prosecution
6 in relation to the first transcript, Marie-Janine Cadic, and then I'll
7 hear responses from the Defence, and we move to the others in order. The
8 submissions should be very brief, because we already have the written
9 submissions.
10 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I
12 recently received a draft report from Robert Donia, our expert and
13 scholar, in the background of the conflict, and in that regard I have
14 noted in my recent review of the testimony of Drs. Greve and Calic that
15 much of the material is cumulative. And since Robert Donia will be here
16 to testify fully, I believe it's appropriate for me to withdraw the
17 transcripts of Dr. Calic and Ms. Greve. For that reason, there's no sense
18 in putting repetitive material in this case.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's very helpful.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: And I've spoken with Defence counsel just before
21 trial and given them an outline. In addition, we've looked more carefully
22 into the background of Mr. Muhamed Vejzagic and feel that he is not an
23 appropriate witness and would withdraw him at this time.
24 And also, as I think we mentioned in our motion, since Mr. Lukac
25 and Mr. Tihic will be witnesses in the case, as I reviewed their
Page 884
1 testimony, I decided it would be simpler to withdraw their testimony in
2 previous trials and just have them testify about the various points fully
3 so they can also be fully cross-examined by the Defence.
4 And in addition, after reviewing --
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you withdrawing Lukac and Tihic?
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.
7 In addition, after reviewing the Defence response and carefully
8 reviewing this Court's decision in the Sikirica case and the Trial Chamber
9 I's decision in the Tuta Stela case, especially in regard to the adequacy
10 of cross-examination of various transcripts, it is my view that the
11 cross -- there was no cross-examination of Mr. Doko, so that was
12 inadequate and we do not object to him being called to be cross-examined.
13 And in my view the cross-examinations of Mr. Kranjc and Mr. Selak did not
14 cover the points regarding international armed conflict, and therefore we
15 would not object to the cross-examination of those two witnesses either.
16 And therefore that leaves us only today with the testimonies of
17 Professor Gow, in both the Tadic case and the Celebici case, and my view
18 of that cross-examination indicates that he was questioned point by point,
19 and that was an adequate cross-examination, so I would be objecting to
20 cross-examination of Dr. Gow.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just to clarify something, Mr. McCloskey, you
23 have identified three witnesses in respects of whom you are not objecting
24 to cross-examination, Doko, Kranjc and Selak, but does that mean that you
25 would still like to have the transcript admitted? Because if that is so,
Page 885
1 then we will have to rule on the admission of the transcript.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, we would like that admitted and -- but due to
3 the simplicity of their witnesses, we shouldn't need any -- I don't --
4 well, a lengthy direct examination. So I would like those transcripts
5 admitted and counsel could cross-examine on the transcripts and that
6 particular area, of course.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Do you have anything more to say in
8 respect of the admission of the transcript of Dr. James Gow in both
9 Celebici and Tadic?
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President, besides that I believe he was
11 adequately cross-examined. His material is specific to international
12 armed conflict, and I think it would be a great time-saving device to
13 review his transcripts and not have him brought back to be cross-examined,
14 because he already has been.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Yes. Defence counsel? Yes.
16 MR. PANTELIC: I appreciate this very constructive approach from
17 our colleague from the Prosecutor bench. As I well understood, we are
18 going to be able to cross-examine Mr. Lukac, Mr. Tihic, Mr. Doko,
19 Mr. Kranjc and Mr. Selak. Is that right?
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Doko, Mr. Kranjc and Mr. Selak, yes.
21 MR. PANTELIC: And in addition to these three, Mr. Lukac and
22 Mr. Tihic.
23 JUDGE MAY: They are going to be called.
24 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, it's at page 11 of annex of Prosecutor
25 motion.
Page 886
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: The application is withdrawn in respect of those
2 so that they will be called as witnesses.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's correct.
4 MR. PANTELIC: They will be called as witnesses?
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. They will be called. They have been on the
6 witness list. They are critical witnesses for the Prosecution and it just
7 seemed not necessary to have their transcripts in in addition to that.
8 MR. PANTELIC: But Mr. Doko, Kranjc and Selak might be
9 cross-examined?
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you very much. First of all, Your Honours,
13 in order to be precise and brief, we have decided, as the Defence counsel
14 here, to argue a certain portion of this issue. Briefly, my colleagues
15 will go through certain important points related to the Rule 92 bis and
16 the spirit of this rule. I would give a very short submission, although I
17 was ready to give an expanded version, but thanks to our colleagues from
18 Prosecution, I will be focused only on the testimony of Dr. Gow. So if it
19 please the Court, I will ask for permission that my colleague will give
20 the additional submissions.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
22 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please go ahead.
24 MR. MURPHY: May it please the Court, I would wish to address one
25 very short point, which I anticipate may be relevant to each of the
Page 887
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 888
1 accused, but as far as the Prosecution witnesses are concerned, if I've
2 followed what has been said, I think is probably only relevant now to
3 Professor Gow, a witness whose purpose is to testify that an international
4 armed conflict existed, this of course being necessary proof in regard to
5 charges brought under Article 2.
6 Very briefly, Your Honours, my submission is this: That in the
7 state of the law of this Tribunal, as it now stands, including the recent
8 decisions of this Trial Chamber and the Trial Chamber I, the Defence is
9 entitled, as of right, to cross-examine any witness who has to deal with
10 the issue of international armed conflict.
11 Now, Your Honour, the basis of that submission is as follows:
12 Both in this Trial Chamber, in the Sikirica case, and also in the
13 Naletilic case in Trial Chamber I, the assumption, I think, was made that
14 the international armed conflict provision is only, as one court put it,
15 contextual; in other words, that is that it is to be proved only as a
16 prerequisite and is not a critical element of the charge against the
17 accused. And the court will recall that a distinction was made between
18 contextual matters, on the one hand and, on the other hand, matters which
19 are relevant to the accused's conduct or could be described as critical
20 elements.
21 As Trial Chamber I noted, however, Your Honour, in a footnote,
22 paragraph 11 of its opinion, in the Naletilic case, it is now in my
23 submission binding authority deriving from the Appeals Chamber in Celebici
24 that the element of international armed conflict is in fact an essential
25 element of offences falling under Article 2, and not simply contextual.
Page 889
1 Trial Chamber I sought to distinguish that by referring to the separate
2 opinion of Judges Hunt and Bennouna in that case. However, it seems
3 clear, Your Honour, in my respectful submission, that as far as the
4 principle of stare decisis is concerned, the opinion of the majority in
5 Celebici is binding upon this Trial Chamber and as such we must regard the
6 international armed conflict as an essential element or a critical element
7 of the Article 2 offences.
8 That being so, and of course, in parenthesis, the Celebici Appeals
9 Chamber was considering explicitly the issue of cumulative charging which
10 arises in the present case also because the Prosecution has not yet
11 elected which of the cumulative charges to pursue, and in my submission,
12 Your Honour, it is now the law of this Tribunal, until an Appeals Chamber
13 holds otherwise, that where a witness testifies as to international armed
14 conflict, that witness does so on a matter which is in fact a critical
15 element of the offence, and in those circumstances, we ought to be
16 entitled, as a matter of law, to cross-examine Dr. Gow.
17 Your Honour, that briefly is my submission.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Murphy, I think there is no gainsaying that
19 the international armed conflict is an essential element of the charge and
20 of the indictment, but the question that arises in relation to Rule 92 bis
21 is whether it goes to proof of a matter other than the acts and conduct of
22 the accused. I believe the contention of the Prosecution here is that the
23 international armed conflict element does not go to proof of a matter
24 relating to the acts and conduct of the accused, and as such it is
25 amenable to the Rule 92 bis regime. So as I said, I don't think there is
Page 890
1 any argument as to the essentiality of the international armed conflict
2 element, but the question is whether that essentiality would prevent,
3 would bar, the operation of Rule 92 bis.
4 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, yes, and I don't suggest that it bars
5 the operation of Rule 92 bis in the sense that the Prosecution would not
6 be entitled to introduce transcript from an earlier trial. That, of
7 course, is a separate issue. The issue which I address is simply whether
8 Dr. Gow should in any event be required to appear for cross-examination,
9 whether or not the Prosecution simply offers a transcript of his testimony
10 from the earlier trial or adduces further direct evidence from him in this
11 trial. My submission is that in this one particular case - and I don't
12 say this would extend to all cases in which Rule 92 bis were applied - I
13 merely say that in cases where the international armed conflict is in
14 issue, then the Defence would be entitled, as of right, to cross-examine
15 Dr. Gow in those circumstances.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: And that even if the cross-examination in the
17 previous trial had been adequate?
18 MR. MURPHY: Yes, even in that case. Although clearly, Your
19 Honour, it would be appropriate for the Trial Chamber, in its general
20 power to control the course of the proceedings, to require Defence counsel
21 to be relevant and not repetitive in the course of their
22 cross-examination. However, in this particular case, we feel that the
23 cross-examination of Dr. Gow in the earlier proceedings was not as
24 adequate as it should have been. Obviously that's a matter which may be
25 disputed, and Mr. McCloskey may take a different view of that. But in my
Page 891
1 submission, subject to the Court's power to restrain repetitive
2 cross-examination, we would be entitled to cross-examine Dr. Gow.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
4 MR. MURPHY: Unless the Court has some questions, that is my
5 submission.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
7 MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Very shortly, Your Honours. In our Defence motion
9 under "A," we raise the issue of whether it is proper for the pre-trial
10 Chamber to admit the transcript evidence at this time. As we understand
11 the Rules, Your Honours, a certain distinction exists within the wording
12 of the Rules between "a Chamber," as in Rules, for example, 74, 89, 91,
13 which, as we understand, has a broader sense and refers to any Chamber,
14 and the words "a trial Chamber" or "the Trial Chamber," in Rules, for
15 example, 85, 90, and 92 bis, which in our opinion refers to actually a
16 Trial Chamber which is actually trying the case --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Zecevic, would you stop, please. There is a
18 problem with the interpretation into French.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Could that be attended to, please.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. Would you like me -- would the
22 interpreter require me to --
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us ensure first that we have the
24 interpretation. It's now working.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: It's now working.
Page 892
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: So perhaps you would be good enough to repeat
2 what you said.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you. Actually, just for the purposes of
4 repeating: As we understand the Rules, a certain distinction of wording
5 exists between "a Chamber," as in Rules 74, 89, 91, which has, in our
6 understanding, a broader sense and refers to any Chamber, and the words "a
7 Trial Chamber" or "the Trial Chamber," as, for example, in Rules 85, 90,
8 and 92 bis, which in our opinion refers to the Trial Chamber which is
9 actually trying the case.
10 The pre-trial proceedings, on the other hand, are, in our opinion,
11 as per Rule 75 ter, under responsibility of the pre-trial Judge. This is
12 actually just an explanation why we are disputing the Prosecutor's
13 position from its motion that the word "a" in Rule 92 bis means "any."
14 Thank you.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Zecevic.
16 Mr. Pantelic.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honours. Just briefly, I will be focused
18 on the issue of whether the cross-examination of a witness was dealt
19 adequately in previous cases with regard to the Defence and the situation
20 in the current proceedings.
21 First of all, speaking of the issue of international armed
22 conflict in the Tadic case. It was in, I think, 1996. Now, after five
23 years, we have a completely new situation. Unfortunately, my learned
24 colleagues acting on behalf of Mr. Dusko Tadic at that time were not able
25 to come to inspect the archives of FRY military headquarters and the other
Page 893
1 sources. They were not able to inspect any significant document or to
2 have any substantial contact with the relevant witnesses from Republika
3 Srpska at that time. Due to this fact, and after carefully analysing all
4 this material provided by the OTP to us, on the page of 248, when
5 Mr. Orie, co-counsel at that time, was in a situation to cross-examine Mr.
6 Gow after the examination-in-chief, which was at least one day and a half,
7 he did this cross-examination for not more than ten minutes.
8 Substantially, nothing occurred, so we think that we should be entitled to
9 cross-examine Dr. Gow, referring to paragraph 4 of the Sikirica decision
10 rendered by this Honourable Trial Chamber.
11 In addition --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Which says what?
13 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry?
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Which says what?
15 MR. PANTELIC: Which says that, inter alia, whether the
16 cross-examination of the witness in the other proceedings dealt adequately
17 with the issues relevant to the Defence in the current proceedings. We
18 think that it was not the case in the Tadic case.
19 In addition, my understanding is that based on the jurisprudence
20 of this Tribunal -- I'm referring to the Appeals Chamber decision on the
21 interlocutory appeal in the Tadic case, as well as the appeals judgement
22 in the Tadic case and the first Tadic judgement, as well as the Kordic and
23 the Celebici. Briefly, at one time in the area of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
24 various types of conflict occurred, and it is necessary for each case to
25 examine the situation in this particular region.
Page 894
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 895
1 My understanding of the spirit of Rule 92 bis is the following: I
2 could agree very easily that if we have several cases related to one area,
3 for example, Prijedor, there is no need to cross-examine and to have a
4 repetitive appearance of the witnesses based on the procedural economy.
5 But in our case, in the Samac case, we actually don't have anything in
6 common with the other regions. Maybe - who knows? - further cases against
7 Samac citizens, maybe - some investigations are conducted now - maybe that
8 will be a case that, from our proceedings, in further proceedings related
9 to Samac area, certain portions of the proceedings might be adopted and
10 added. That was my understanding.
11 So briefly, that would be all, Your Honours. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I support everything
14 that my learned colleagues have already stated here orally and what our
15 written submissions have been, but I would just like to comment on one
16 submission that my learned colleague from the Prosecution pointed out,
17 that is, portions that should be used per Article 92 bis. In fact, this
18 Article addresses the evidence and is talking about evidence, transcript
19 evidence given by a witness which would be read out into the record. So
20 the Prosecution is pointing out certain portions which are marked with
21 "PE," and they have certain reference numbers attached to them. However,
22 they should be viewed in another context. Our submission is that these
23 attachments which, according to the Prosecutor, have the same probative
24 value as the transcripts should be exempt and should be treated
25 separately.
Page 896
1 There is a clear procedure how written documents may be used, and
2 that is in Rule 65 ter. The Defence can be shown these documents and we
3 can be asked what our position was in terms of their acceptability.
4 However, I don't know what my learned colleague's position is now. He has
5 just given up trying to introduce some of these transcripts, so I don't
6 know how that affects these other portions that are marked with "PE." But
7 my position is that these cannot be treated in the same way as portions of
8 the transcript, as set out in Rule 92 bis, especially in its section (D).
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Any other submissions from the Defence?
11 Mr. McCloskey, in reply.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. I'll try to go one at a
13 time. I've been spoiled in my last trial. I only had to respond to one
14 argument.
15 Regarding the first argument and the distinction between
16 jurisdictional and element of the crime, I think simply my response to
17 that would be: If this was a true distinction and that argument was
18 valid, that would render 92 bis meaningless and it wouldn't be usable in
19 any context. So I would disagree with counsel's view on that point.
20 Regarding the distinction between "a Chamber," "Trial Chamber,"
21 "Pre-Trial Chamber," the Prosecution is very happy to have this Chamber
22 decide this issue, and I think that is clear with the spirit of the Rules,
23 and it is unclear to me whether you're a Pre-Trial Chamber, a Trial
24 Chamber, or a Chamber, but clearly I think the spirit of the Rules and the
25 fact that it was listed as "a Chamber" in the Rule gives you the power and
Page 897
1 the jurisdiction to make this ruling and in fact is what the Trial
2 Chamber I did in the Tuta Stela case.
3 Regarding the adequacy of the cross-examination of Dr. Gow, we
4 have carefully gone over his testimony and have identified 14 points
5 regarding international armed conflict that were specifically questioned
6 during cross-examination, and it is my view that that is an adequate
7 cross-examination, and of course that's for Your Honours to decide.
8 The argument that international armed conflict must apply to a
9 specific region, this is a novel and a new argument by the Defence. It's
10 our understanding that international armed conflict would be a conflict
11 among countries and that there is no additional proof requirement that it
12 must be specifically involved with Bosanski Samac region, that with the
13 countries -- or the entities involved in the conflict, any places inside
14 those entities would involve it in the armed conflict for the purposes of
15 international armed conflict.
16 And regarding the argument about the exhibits, we are asking that
17 the exhibits related to the testimonies that we have asked to come in go
18 along with that testimony. In many cases, the exhibits are discussed in
19 the testimony, and without those exhibits, the context and the relevancy
20 of the testimony would be somewhat in doubt. And we have made a very
21 careful review of all the exhibits that we are asking for, and each one of
22 those exhibits, in our view, has to do with the area of international
23 armed conflict that the witness was testifying to.
24 And I think as Trial Chamber I did, in the Tuta Stela case, those
25 exhibits should go along with the witness’s transcript; otherwise, again,
Page 898
1 92 bis would be undercut because we wouldn't be getting the full value of
2 the witness's testimony.
3 Now, of course, if some exhibit was not on point or was more
4 prejudicial than probative or had some other problem, that may be another
5 matter. We didn't see anything like that, and counsel is not arguing
6 anything like that. So I think it makes sense that the exhibits do go
7 along with the witness transcripts.
8 MR. PANTELIC: May I, Your Honour? Just as a matter of
9 clarification, I was referred to Tadic case where it's clearly stated that
10 for each particular case is a matter of evidence and fact that each
11 specific region should be viewed in light of the nature of the conflict.
12 Of course, it's not the case that Bosanski Samac population, fighting
13 against Croatia, but speaking about the findings and rulings in relevant
14 judgments and jurisprudence of this Tribunal. Thank you.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: We will adjourn and resume at twenty minutes to four
17 to give a ruling in these matters.
18 --- Recess taken at 3.06 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 3.43 p.m.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: I give the ruling on the various applications.
21 The Prosecution has withdrawn its application for the admission of the
22 following transcripts: Transcripts in respect of: 1, Marie-Janine Cadic;
23 2, Muhamed Vejzagic; 3, Hanne Sophie Greve; 4, Dragan Lukac; and 5,
24 Sulejman Tihic. In the result, the Chamber need make no ruling in respect
25 of those transcripts.
Page 899
1 The Prosecutor has indicated that it has no objection to the
2 cross-examination of the following witnesses in respect of whom an
3 application for transcript evidence had been made: 1, Jerko Doko; 2,
4 Ludvik Kranjc; 3, Osman Selak.
5 These transcripts and the relevant exhibits are admitted subject
6 to cross-examination.
7 We are therefore left with the application to admit the transcript
8 of Dr. Gow from the Celebici and Tadic case. Let me deal first with the
9 legal arguments presented by counsel.
10 It was submitted that the Defence was entitled, as a matter of
11 right, to cross-examine any witness whose testimony relates to the issue
12 of an international armed conflict, the reason being that the issue was a
13 critical element of the Prosecution case. However, the criterion for
14 admission under Rule 92 bis is whether the evidence goes to proof of a
15 matter other than the acts and conduct of the accused, and this
16 notwithstanding that the evidence may be an essential element of the
17 Prosecution case. As the Prosecutor said in reply, if the Defence
18 argument were valid, Rule 92 bis would virtually be stripped of meaning.
19 It was also submitted that the phrase "a Trial Chamber" in Rule 92
20 bis meant that this Chamber would not be competent to rule on applications
21 under that Rule since it would not be the Trial Chamber trying the case.
22 The Chamber rejects this argument. The Chamber is satisfied that the term
23 "a Trial Chamber" means any Chamber, including one at the pre-trial
24 stage.
25 The Prosecutor opposed the cross-examination of Dr. Gow on the
Page 900
1 ground that there was adequate cross-examination at the two trials. The
2 Chamber follows the test that it set out in Sikirica to determine whether
3 a witness, whose evidence was admissible under Rule 92 bis (D), should be
4 recalled for cross-examination, and I read the test from that decision.
5 "The principal criterion for determining whether, pursuant to
6 Rule 92 bis (E), a witness should be required to appear for
7 cross-examination is the overriding obligation of a Chamber to ensure a
8 fair trial under Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute. In that regard, among
9 the matters for consideration are whether the transcript goes to proof of
10 a critical element of the Prosecution's case against the accused, and
11 whether the cross-examination of the witness in the other proceedings
12 dealt adequately with the issues relevant to the Defence in the current
13 proceedings."
14 That's the end of the quotation from Sikirica.
15 Against that background, I turn to Dr. Gow's transcript in
16 Celebici. The Chamber finds that Dr. Gow was extensively cross-examined
17 as to his opinion of the character of the conflict and the relationship
18 between the armed forces of Serbia and those of the Bosnian Serbs by all
19 four Defence counsel in the Celebici case. The Chamber finds that it is
20 proper to admit this transcript, and the transcript is admitted, along
21 with the relevant exhibits, without the witness being called for further
22 cross-examination.
23 I turn to the application in respect of transcript evidence of
24 Dr. Gow from the Tadic case. The Chamber finds that Dr. Gow was
25 cross-examined as to his opinion of the character of the conflict and the
Page 901
1 relationship between the armed forces of Serbia and those of the Bosnian
2 Serbs by Defence counsel in the Tadic case. This transcript is admitted
3 without recalling the witness for further cross-examination. Along with
4 the transcript, the relevant exhibits are also admitted.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is there any matter that anybody would like to
7 raise? The Prosecutor?
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: From the Defence? No.
10 In that event, the proceedings are adjourned.
11 --- Whereupon the Motion Hearing
12 adjourned at 3.52 p.m.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25