Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 10188

1 Friday, 28 June 2002

2 [Closed session]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

Page 10189












12 Pages 10189 to 10271 redacted closed session














Page 10272

1 [redacted]

2 [Open session]

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can proceed, Ms. Reidy. We're now in open

4 session.

5 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

6 As I mentioned, Your Honour, there's three matters I'd like to

7 address the Chamber on and they all pertain to the remainder of the

8 Prosecution witnesses.

9 There was a memo filed on the 11th of June, which I understand

10 finally was distributed to the Bench. I'm afraid I directed it to the

11 Registry as opposed to the Senior Legal Officer, and it did set out how

12 the Prosecution envisaged the remainder of the witnesses, or the order in

13 which the remainder of our witness would testify.

14 Yesterday I filed another memo amending that, and I have now

15 understood that in fact it was only distributed today. So maybe I could

16 address that first, because it varies slightly the order of witnesses that

17 we had originally indicated.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I think address us on the order of witnesses as

19 you intend to call them now. Let's not go into the past.

20 MS. REIDY: I believe you -- I'm not sure if you have it in front

21 of you or not.

22 The next witness that we would call would be the witness who has

23 yet to finish her testify, Mrs. Jelena Kapetanovic. And she is here and

24 ready to testify and will be the first witness called on Monday morning.

25 When she is finished, the witness following that would be Osman

Page 10273

1 Jasarevic. Osman Jasarevic has a witness statement which was signed in

2 accordance with the 92 bis procedure yesterday, when he arrived in The

3 Hague, and I do want to address the Chamber on that further.

4 The Defence have had his unsigned statement for a number of weeks

5 now. I can't be specific, but at least a period of two weeks. And

6 yesterday, after the declaration, in accordance with Rule 92 bis (B)(i)

7 was signed, it was then handed over to the Defence. I have copies with me

8 here today, if the Bench would like me to move to have those admitted. But

9 I do want to seek further guidance from the Chamber on the Rule 92 bis

10 procedure. But he is here in The Hague and will testify after

11 Mrs. Kapetanovic has finished her evidence.

12 The next witnesses we would call would be both Mrs. Ediba Bobic

13 and Mr. Kemal Bobic. Because we've had to rearrange witnesses, when we

14 went to call them on Wednesday of this week, we were advised by the

15 witness unit that it wouldn't be possible to call them before Wednesday of

16 next week. That would be the 3rd of July. And I further learnt today

17 that there may be a visa problem. But we at the moment expect them to

18 arrive on the 3rd of July, the Wednesday. That means they would be

19 available to sign a 92 bis statement on the 4th of July and they could

20 perhaps begin to give some viva voce evidence on the 5th of July.

21 After that, the week of the 8th, we would have Mr. Kemal Bobic,

22 followed by Witness A, and followed by what is now Witness P. The Trial

23 Chamber then will not be sitting on the 11th and 12th of July.

24 We then propose that we would have a witness who will give their

25 testimony fully viva voce, but that would be by way of a video conference

Page 10274

1 link from the United States, and that permission to give that testimony by

2 way of video conference link has been granted by the Chamber.

3 Once that testimony is finished, there are three remaining

4 witnesses. One witness, Esad Mesic, another witness, Witness O, and

5 finally, Witness Q.

6 There is one witness, Faruk Vugdalic, who the Prosecution will now

7 not be calling. The witness has moved back to Bosanski Samac and has

8 indicated to us that he no longer wishes to testify, and we will not be

9 seeking to force him to testify.

10 We also have our demographer expert witness, Ms. Ewa Tabeau, and

11 we have, today, to continue to treat her a little bit as a floating

12 witness, to have her heard by the Trial Chamber when there is an

13 appropriate time so that we don't have a gap. We had hoped to do that

14 next week but, unfortunately, Ms. Tabeau is out of the country until the

15 5th of July.

16 So the order of witnesses is as per the memo. Unfortunately,

17 depending on how long the testimony of the first two witnesses is, we may

18 be in a position where there is no witness to testify, for example, on

19 Thursday, the 4th of July. I can only assure the Trial Chamber that we

20 have done everything physically possible to get witnesses here and to

21 ensure there would not be any need for a break in proceedings, but I

22 should advise you that we are, at the moment, in the position where the

23 witnesses would only physically arrive on the late afternoon of the 3rd of

24 July and could take the stand on the 5th of the July.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: If they arrive on the evening of the 3rd of July,

Page 10275

1 then they can testify on the 4th.

2 MS. REIDY: They could, Your Honour, if they were to be purely

3 viva voce. If part of their evidence were to be submitted by way of a 92

4 bis statement, the procedure would have to take place on the 4th of July,

5 and that means they wouldn't testify until the 5th of July. And maybe the

6 whole 92 bis procedure is something I would also like to address you on.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You did mention that one witness had a visa

8 problem?

9 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour. It's both -- I'm given this

10 information secondhand. Both of the Bobics have --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Not yet --

12 MS. REIDY: -- Bosnia-Herzegovina passports that require visas and

13 it seems their visas, while valid visas, I believe, until the end of 2004,

14 were issued -- I don't quite understand. They're issued -- older

15 passports, although they're still valid and they seem to have been

16 delaying their visa for a day or something. We still hope --

17 JUDGE MUMBA: That that'll come on time.

18 MS. REIDY: -- on time, but we have been warned that this is an

19 unforeseen problem because of the time when their passports were

20 originally issued. But as I said, they are valid passports until 2004, so

21 there shouldn't be a problem.

22 JUDGE LINDHOLM: You said that the statements taken down in

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina, according to Rule 92 bis, have been handed over to

24 Defence. Why haven't you handed them over to us? Or are you going to

25 hand them over now and think that we are going to read them during the

Page 10276

1 weekend?

2 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, as I said, the 92 bis statement was

3 signed just yesterday. We always knew that this was going to be a problem

4 when we were calling witnesses by way of 92 bis procedure because of the

5 fact we're mid-trial. I have the statements signed, I have been making

6 inquiries as to what was the appropriate manner in which to submit them to

7 the Bench because it's obviously in our interest that the Judges have as

8 much time as possible to look through and consult the statements. I have

9 copies with me now here. I am not clear whether the Bench would like us to

10 file by a motion the admission of these statements and then, with that, a

11 motion to request a variation in the 14-day time limit for those -- for

12 the admission of those statements into evidence.

13 And that was the second topic on which I wanted to address the

14 Chamber. And I have a written draft motion here which I've just given a

15 copy to Defence counsel before I came in. I can perhaps transform it into

16 an oral motion, if that makes it more expedient, or simply explain the

17 time frame to the Chamber and maybe you'd like to give some guidance or

18 instructions.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. What I wanted to know was, of all these listed

20 here under Rule 92 -- for Rule 92 bis, they are not coming or are they

21 going to come?

22 MS. REIDY: They are coming, and I've seen them. Of all of these

23 witnesses, they have now all been visited and I have myself met with them

24 and taken fresh statements. I have disclosed a number of those statements

25 to the Defence. There are three outstanding ones which --

Page 10277

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Let's take for those ones which are scheduled for

2 next week, for instance. Have they been given to the Defence?

3 MS. REIDY: Osman Jasarevic's unsigned statement was given and now

4 the 92 bis signed one was given. The one for Ms. Ewa Tabeau --

5 JUDGE MUMBA: When you say unsigned, you mean it's the same

6 statement except it wasn't formally signed?

7 MS. REIDY: That's correct, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: To have it properly reproduced and things like that.

9 MS. REIDY: Absolutely. I should also say, Your Honour, that when

10 the witness comes here, they do, before they sign this before the Registry

11 officer, they do read it over again in their own language, in B/C/S, and

12 there may be minor amendments. They may say I meant this or --


14 MS. REIDY: I think, for example, in Osman Jasarevic, maybe in

15 four places where he changed a wording of something, but the statement --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. So that the Defence would have to wait and

17 see the actual signed one to see that there are no material differences.

18 MS. REIDY: Yes. And they have, as I said, Mr. Jasarevic's

19 yesterday.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: So that do I take it, then, that for all these, the

21 statements, though not signed, have already been served on the Defence?

22 MS. REIDY: Not all of them, Your Honour. The outstanding ones

23 which I will serve on the Defence forthwith, if not tomorrow, over the

24 weekend, Mr. Kemal Bobic, Witness P, and Witness Q, and also one of Esad

25 Mesic. They're the last mission that have come back from, and they should

Page 10278

1 be, so the only one, Your Honour, which genuinely calls into question the

2 time limit may be that of Kemal Bobic because he would testify maybe eight

3 days after they get the draft statement, as opposed to 14 days after the

4 draft statement. Although I can say his statement that I took, I based as

5 closely as possible on his statement from 1994, so that there shouldn't be

6 very many material changes.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber is of the view that we will

9 deal with these statements as the witnesses come, because by then the

10 Defence will have the statements and they will be in a position to state

11 their opposition, rather than give a general ruling on all of them when

12 they are really -- not all the witness statements have been served, and

13 also, the formally signed ones to be compared to the ones you will be

14 giving to the Defence. So I think we will leave that to next week, since

15 we have this witness who is viva voce who is still continuing. So when

16 you are finished with giving the statements to the Defence and they've

17 indicated whatever, then we can deal with each witness statement one by

18 one and see whether or not the conditions are satisfied.

19 MS. REIDY: But would Your Honours like now, anyhow, me to submit,

20 obviously pending a decision, the statement that is 92 bis should the

21 Defence not have any objection to that witness continuing by way of, in

22 part, pursuant to Rule 92 bis, and then at least Your Honours will be in a

23 better position to rule on the motion, depending on what the Defence say?

24 I have them with me, and at least that way they're accessible to the

25 Bench.

Page 10279

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We can have them, yes.

2 MS. REIDY: Thank you. So I will submit those to the Senior Legal

3 Officer at the end of this session.


5 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Anything else, Ms. Reidy?

7 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour. I have one --

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic, I'll give you an opportunity. Yes.

9 MS. REIDY: The third matter, then, Your Honour, is to do with the

10 videolink witness, as we said, we propose for the week of the 15th of

11 July. This videolink would take place from Salt Lake City. The problem

12 with that is that there is an eight-hour time difference between Salt Lake

13 City and Den Haag. If the witness were to begin to testify, at Salt Lake

14 City time, at 8.00 in the morning, that would be 4.00 p.m. here in Den

15 Haag. As it is, we are scheduled that week to sit mornings, and I don't

16 think it's probably reasonable to expect a witness to testify at 1.00 in

17 the morning from Salt Lake, nor the registry to be there. So we'd like to

18 ask the Chamber for -- to move -- to change the sitting hours for that

19 week, if possible, to the afternoon, perhaps starting at 4.00 and going

20 through to 7.30, having so three hours with a half-hour break. That would

21 be with the witness starting at 8.00 in the morning Salt Lake City time.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy. So you are saying that the earliest

24 that this witness by videolink can give evidence, can start giving

25 evidence, according to our time here, is 4.00 p.m.?

Page 10280

1 MS. REIDY: That is if we say that 8.00 a.m. is a reasonable

2 starting time from Salt Lake City. We could see how much earlier a

3 witness could do that. The only hesitation I have about setting it

4 earlier is that this witness is testifying by videolink for health

5 reasons, because --

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes. It may not be possible for the witness

7 to start earlier than 8.00.

8 MS. REIDY: Exactly.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Okay. Because that will mean continuing

10 into the second day, because that will mean if we start at 4.00 p.m.,

11 that's up to 1900 hours. That gives us, I think, only three hours.

12 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour. I'm not trying to be a merchant of

13 doom, but on the evidence of a viva voce witness to date -- and we've

14 already discussed this. We're going to cut it down to the bare minimum --

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because this is what I was going to suggest,

16 that --

17 MS. REIDY: -- but it may last longer than a day anyhow. Between

18 examination-in-chief and cross, I can't imagine a witness finishing in a

19 day. But --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Because if you deal with this witness only getting

21 the evidence which other witnesses haven't given yet, if that is possible,

22 which I think it should be possible --

23 MS. REIDY: Absolutely, Your Honour. I think that's the approach

24 that we're taking. And my colleague Mr. Weiner will be doing

25 examination-in-chief.

Page 10281

1 JUDGE MUMBA: In which case we would have to start like on --

2 whatever date we start on, at 4.00, and then adjourn at 1900 hours and

3 then continue the next day again at 4.00; in the other hours, fill in the

4 other witnesses.

5 MS. REIDY: So you mean we should sit mornings and afternoons?

6 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. We can sit afternoons.

7 MS. REIDY: Okay. Sit afternoons and start at --

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Because you said if we start at 4.00 p.m. -- that is

9 starting with the witness, but the proceedings would start at 14.15 with

10 other witnesses. So as long as the other witnesses are available, then

11 we'll continue. We'll be breaking into those other witnesses and into

12 this witness, because of the time difference.

13 MS. REIDY: Okay, Your Honour. Then I will contact the remaining

14 witnesses and move them up a week, then, so that we --

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We will have to discuss this before we make

16 our final decision on the hours, because of other arrangements that were

17 made, since we are scheduled to sit mornings only for the month of July.

18 So we will be able to discuss this and perhaps be able to decide on

19 Tuesday morning --

20 MS. REIDY: That would be fine, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: -- as to the sitting hours.

22 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic. You wanted to raise something.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It's on the same issue. Just a couple

25 of words. I want to express my concern primarily.

Page 10282

1 About two months ago this Trial Chamber made a decision to

2 introduce these 92 bis statements. The Defence has now got working drafts

3 only for three witnesses, and in view of the application we've made -

4 sorry - we have received from the Prosecution this afternoon, I'm worried

5 that we will not get even draft versions in due time, in view of the

6 scheduled arrival of these witnesses. And now my learned friend is

7 telling us that they will get drafts over the weekend and that that will

8 be satisfactory for witnesses who are coming next week. And what concerns

9 me is that the Defence will be prejudiced to a considerable extent if we

10 don't get these drafts in time. We see that Hasan Subasic is scheduled

11 for the 15th of July, and we suggest that he be moved to the week before

12 that, to the 8th of July, with the proviso that the Prosecution provides

13 us in the meantime with all the drafts, whereas witness Kemal Bobic is

14 supposed to testify on the 5th to 8th of July and sign their [as

15 interpreted] 92 bis statements before that. What I'm trying to say,

16 basically, is that unless we get these drafts in time, the resulting delay

17 will put the Defence in a very difficult position.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well, Mr. Lukic.

19 MS. REIDY: Can I just assure the Trial Chamber that we will take

20 every effort to make sure that the Defence counsel have more than enough

21 time -- well, as much time as physically possible before the witness

22 comes. The witnesses for next week, they have already all of their draft

23 statements for, as I said, a couple of weeks. It is not possible to move

24 the videolink witness up to the 8th of July, for logistical reasons. We

25 coordinate with the US Department of Justice to facilitate this videolink,

Page 10283

1 and as I indicated to Mr. Novic, it's not possible to move that videolink

2 earlier.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Yes. We'll be able to give our

4 decision, I think, on Tuesday over the videolink as to the sitting hours,

5 and then the other matters for the statements, we'll be treating them as

6 they come and as they are given to the Defence counsel.

7 Our sitting on Monday will start -- we'll go back to the morning

8 sessions, at 0900 hours. If we have to change the sitting hours, the

9 parties will be given sufficient time, because there are times when

10 certain things happen with other Trial Chambers that we may have to swap

11 to the afternoon, but sufficient time will be given to the parties.

12 Otherwise, Monday, it's 9.00.

13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.

14 to be reconvened on Monday, the 1st day of

15 July, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.