Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 12203

 1                           Monday, 4 July 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon to everyone.

 6             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  This is case

 8     number IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and

 9     Franko Simatovic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             I would like to deal with a few matters which we can deal with in

12     open session.  First, the Stanisic motion for the admission of written

13     evidence of Witness DST-035 and related exhibits pursuant to Rule 92 ter

14     which was filed on the 28th of June, the Prosecution has filed an urgent

15     response for that.  First request was postponement of cross-examination.

16     We had the weekend anyhow in between.

17             Mr. Groome, what's the position in relation to the postponement?

18             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I am prepared to start and finish my

19     cross-examination today.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you very much.  And can we then also -- so

21     that matter is moot.

22             You also asked as an alternative for bifurcation, that is moot

23     then as well, I take it ?

24             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  And then you asked that we would order the Defence

Page 12204

 1     to submit timely any 92 ter statements.  I would prefer to leave that for

 2     a second.  I think the message is relatively clear and unless Mr. Jordash

 3     would like to say anything about it at this moment.  You asked for leave

 4     to reply.  Now, two out of the three requests are declared moot.  Do you

 5     insist on the reply for the third one?

 6             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, we would like the application to stand,

 7     please.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll then discuss -- but may I take it that

 9     the postponement of cross-examination, the bifurcation, that you don't

10     need to answer to that anymore?

11             MR. JORDASH:  There may be -- I can't remember it off the top of

12     my head precisely how each paragraph is formed, but there may have been

13     more general remarks we made.  In addressing those arguments we would ask

14     Your Honours to take into account when looking at Defence disclosure

15     generally.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but bifurcation is not needed anymore.

17     Postponement is withdrawn by Mr. Groome.  So what you would like to do is

18     to make some general submissions on when submissions are considered to be

19     made timely.

20             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  We will discuss whether -- I will discuss with my

24     colleagues whether your request for leave to reply will be granted, yes

25     or no, and most likely we'll inform you this afternoon.

Page 12205

 1             Then as far as documents are concerned in relation to DST-051,

 2     Mr. Groome, you wanted to consider whether or not to oppose against D271

 3     up to and including D91.  Have you further considered that and could you

 4     tell us what your position is?

 5             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour, perhaps if I could work my way

 6     down the list.  Your Honour, the first number that I had from the list

 7     that I received from the Registrar was 272.  I'll inform myself about 271

 8     during the break, if I can start at 272.

 9             Your Honour, with respect to D272, I do not understand the

10     translation so I preserve substantive objections until DST-035's -- I'm

11     sorry.  DST-035's comments are not helpful in assessing the admissibility

12     of the document.  His comments summarised the substantive content of the

13     document and adopts them as his own.  So I'm going to ask someone to look

14     at that translation.  I had trouble understanding its import.

15             With respect to D273, with respect to the provenance of the

16     document, it is unknown who the author is.  It is a document without any

17     name or department.  I would appreciate some information with respect to

18     the source of the information contained in the document.  Again,

19     DST-035's comments on the chart do not address authorship or authenticity

20     and simply reiterate the contents as if they were well-established facts.

21             With respect to D274, the Prosecution does not object to the

22     provenance of this document.  There is no translation of the document.  I

23     preserve our right to object to its relevance and substance once I am

24     able to read what is in the document.

25             With respect to D275, the Prosecution has no objection to the

Page 12206

 1     admissibility of this document.

 2             With respect to D276, this is a partial translation of a

 3     newspaper article.  The Prosecution objects as to relevance.

 4             With respect to D277, this is a curious document.  It purports to

 5     be official yearly reports of the State Security Service.  I note that in

 6     the originals on e-court pages 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, there is a particular

 7     phenomenon.  Typed in the heading of the document is the word "excerpt"

 8     which would indicate that someone has taken a decision to only allow us

 9     to see the portion of the report which they want us to see.  It is also

10     then followed by an excerpt which appears to have been re-typed on a

11     different typewriter by someone from some other document, perhaps the

12     original.  The Prosecution would appreciate some additional information

13     with respect to the provenance of the document, who made the decision

14     regarding what portions of the document would be shown to the Chamber,

15     and what criteria was used, and how can we be sure that it was done

16     accurately.

17             If we look at DST-035's comment chart, it appears that he is

18     speaking about another document.  I also note that the chart we received

19     from the Court Officer indicates that 1D377 has been assigned the number

20     D277 MFI, while the Defence exhibit indicates that it is D265.  The

21     original is 14 pages and while the translation appears to attempt to

22     follow the original in the pagination, I note that it is -- only has nine

23     pages.

24             Finally I note that while DST-035's comments state that 1D377

25     describes surveillance of Arkan's house, I cannot find his name in that

Page 12207

 1     document anywhere and believe the witness must be referring to another

 2     document.  I believe what has happened here is that the witness has

 3     looked at D265 which is 1D00037 and that his comments relate to that

 4     document.  So the first complete row on page 2 of DST-035's comments

 5     appear to need some correction.

 6             With respect to D278, DST-035 recognises this material as

 7     material he participated in the preparation of, and therefore the

 8     Prosecution has no objection to the provenance or admissibility of this

 9     document.

10             Your Honours, with respect to D279 to D290, these are documents

11     related to the commission.  There are no translations provided yet.  We

12     preserve our objection as to the provenance of these documents and we

13     also reserve our objection on other grounds until there is a translation

14     that we're able to read.

15             And finally, D291 is also -- I'm sorry, D291, I note that the

16     document appears to be a redaction and we would ask what is known about

17     that redaction and whether Mr. Jordash has an unredacted version for our

18     review.  Thank you, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Groome.

20             Mr. Jordash.

21             MR. JORDASH:  I don't wish to comment on much of what Mr. Groome

22     has said, but I do for the record want to, if I may, comment on the issue

23     of redactions and excerpts.  My investigator and consultant had an

24     appointment with the National Council last week concerning this issue.

25     Unfortunately, they continue to maintain that they will not disclose full

Page 12208

 1     annual reports of the state security.  They maintain that excerpts is all

 2     that we will receive.  And they maintain that the redactions will

 3     persist.  And I haven't as yet had a full opportunity to speak to

 4     Mr. Stanisic, but I know that his view is that we should file a motion

 5     forthwith and that is our preliminary intention.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  You mean a motion for the Chamber to order the -- to

 7     be provided with the full unredacted version?

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, the --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MR. JORDASH:  -- the lack of co-operation we're receiving from

11     the National Council is getting worse and I think we're left with little

12     choice.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  If I put everything together, first, when I

14     started saying 271 up to 291, of course 271 itself is the chart, so the

15     first document we start with on the chart is D272.  If I listened well,

16     there are two documents against which there's no opposition to be

17     admitted, that would be D275 and D278.

18             MR. GROOME:  That's correct, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  D275 and D278 are admitted into evidence under seal.

20     All the others are MFI'd under seal, Madam Registrar, if I'm -- if I --

21     if my recollection is serving me well.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  That's correct, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that.

24             Then we had documents -- I think it was P1412 and 1D3449.  I

25     think P1412 were once on a Prosecution list, although they have not

Page 12209

 1     been -- it has not been MFI'd.  Any position in relation to these

 2     documents?  At least I remember for 1D3449, the parties said that they

 3     would check during the break - I don't know what break that was - to

 4     discuss the matter.  For these two documents at this moment, Mr. Jordash,

 5     do you still tender them and have your conversations with the Prosecution

 6     led to any further result?

 7             MR. JORDASH:  In relation to 1D3449, I think my learned friend is

 8     going to cross-examine on it.  That was where we left our conversation.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MR. JORDASH:  And then I'll make a decision at that point whether

11     to apply to tender it.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13             MR. JORDASH:  In relation to 1412 --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll just check, was that a --

15             MR. JORDASH:  It's the 22nd Session of the Supreme Defence

16     Council minutes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but 1412, was it the 65 ter number or P exhibit

18     number?

19             MR. JORDASH:  65 ter number.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  65 ter number, P or D?

21             MR. JORDASH:  Neither.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  65 ter --

23             MR. JORDASH:  65 ter, Your Honour, yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  That's 65 ter Prosecution document 1412.

25             Yes?

Page 12210

 1             MR. JORDASH:  If the Prosecution would consider the position in

 2     relation to bar tabling it because I don't think the witness has

 3     commented on it.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

 5             MR. GROOME:  I would have no objection to it being admitted from

 6     the bar table, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Then most likely after the break -- we'll have a

 8     look at it because documents to be bar tabled, of course, we would like

 9     to know what we admit into evidence before we --

10             MR. JORDASH:  I --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  -- so we'll check on 65 ter 1412, whether to admit

12     it as a bar table document, and 1D3449, we'll further see whether the

13     Prosecution uses it during the cross-examination.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Would it assist Your Honours if we sent a brief

15     summary of what we particularly rely upon and what we were seeking to

16     rely upon in relation to this witness and 1412?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if you would do that it certainly would assist

18     and is highly appreciated by the Chamber.

19             Then we have P2984 which is a document which was admitted as an

20     excerpt.  I think the parties have now agreed to have the entire document

21     tendered, but not the whole of the document is yet -- is not yet

22     translated.  Is that correct?

23             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, that is correct.  So under that file in

24     e-court there are still the four pages.  Mr. Laugel has uploaded a full

25     version of the document under 65 ter 6208.1 and this -- now we have

Page 12211

 1     received 18 pages of the translation back.  Once Mr. Laugel has obtained

 2     all the translation, we will inform the Chamber and the Chamber can make

 3     the necessary orders.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I then suggest the following, that the full

 5     version of P2984 will replace the excerpt which was admitted and that we

 6     change the status of the now entire document to marked for identification

 7     under seal, and that once we have received the translation in full that

 8     we will then again decide on admission.  If that is agreeable to the

 9     parties, then we would proceed.

10             Mr. Bakrac, as always, if you intervene we are glad to hear your

11     voice.

12             Then something had to be checked, but this is perhaps not a

13     matter to be discussed in open session, on 2D865 which might oppose

14     admission.  If the check has a positive outcome, then we could -- then we

15     could proceed with it.  If it needs further discussion, then I'd rather

16     do that in closed session.

17             Had to do something with contempt.  Please think about it and we

18     reserve that for a later moment.

19             Then the -- I'll come back later to that.

20             Finally, in relation to 1D2460, I think the problem was that it

21     was not uploaded in e-court.  The first question therefore is:  Is it now

22     uploaded?

23             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, I think is the answer, and we're just

24     checking -- yes, it is.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 12212

 1             Mr. Groome, are you already able to tell us whether there's any

 2     objection against admission?

 3             MR. GROOME:  I'm unable, Your Honour.  I'd ask that I do that

 4     after the first break.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  You're invited to do so.

 6             Then I think it's time to go into closed session, and for the

 7     public gallery to know that we'll remain in closed session for the

 8     remainder of the afternoon.

 9                           [Closed session]

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 12213











11 Pages 12213-12293 redacted. Closed session.















Page 12294

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10                           [Open session]

11             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

13             We adjourn for the day and we will resume tomorrow, Tuesday, the

14     5th of July, quarter past 2.00 in Courtroom 2.

15             We stand adjourned.

16                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,

17                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 5th day of

18                           July, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.