Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 18768

 1                           Thursday, 29 March 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused not present]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 6             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 8             This is case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic

 9     and Franko Simatovic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             Before we continue with the MFI list, the Chamber was informed

12     that the Prosecution would like to address the Chamber on a matter which,

13     I understand, is not directly linked to the housekeeping session.

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

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, we find ourselves in not an easy position,

16     because if we say no, then we would have to schedule another meeting, if

17     it's an urgent matter.  At the same time, the waiver of the accused to be

18     present, of course, was given in the understanding that we would deal

19     with housekeeping matters.

20             Now, I suggest that we first go into private session and that

21     we'll then invite Mr. Groome to explain why he thinks that the matter he

22     wants to raise can be dealt with in the absence of the accused.

23                           [Private session]

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 18769











11 Pages 18769-18776 redacted. Private session.
















Page 18777

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13                           [Open session]

14             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

16             Back to the MFI list.  I think we were at D689.

17             The OTP had objections on the provenance of the document.  Apart

18     from that, that if the Chamber would decide that the document would be

19     admitted, that the Prosecution would like to tender another document for

20     context because the two documents - so that's D689 MFI'd, and 65 ter

21     1D05298 - would be closely related.

22             Could I have an update.  We start with the provenance.

23             MR. JORDASH:  We're still waiting for the National Council.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the matter remains unresolved at this moment.

25     We have dealt with D690, we've dealt with D691.


Page 18778

 1             We then come to D692.  Translation.  The Simatovic Defence was

 2     waiting for a translation.

 3             Has it -- is it there, Mr. Bakrac?

 4             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the translation is

 5     still pending.  We will upload it as soon as we get it.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Matter, therefore, not resolved.

 7             D693, we've dealt with that one.

 8             D694, we've dealt with that one as well.

 9             D696, provenance.  Stanisic Defence would provide further

10     information.

11             MR. JORDASH:  Same as the previous issue.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, not resolved.

13             D697, provenance concerns expressed by the OTP.  The Stanisic

14     Defence has provided information about the source.  We were informed that

15     you're not satisfied with the information and that you would want to see

16     the original, Ms. Marcus; is that correct?

17             MS. MARCUS:  That's correct, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Any way that the Stanisic Defence could provide an

19     original?

20             MR. JORDASH:  We, again, have made a request to the

21     National Council and are waiting for them.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, we'll -- the matter is still pending.

23     We're not very successful in shortening the MFI list in this way, but ...

24             D698.  I do understand that the statements by Ivanovic is now

25     part of the bar table submission, Mr. Jordash.

Page 18779

 1             MR. JORDASH:  That's right.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, we can deal with it in two ways:  Either to

 3     hear from the Prosecution there are no objections and then admit and then

 4     it should be taken out from the bar table submission, or if you still

 5     have objections, and we earlier suggested that -- that we accepted that

 6     you need more time to determine what your position was, Ms. Marcus.

 7             Where are we at this moment?

 8             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I don't have our submissions from the

 9     bar table motion in front of me, but I will get that and I can then, if

10     Your Honours want to come back to this, I can tell you what our position

11     was in the bar table motion with respect to this document.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Another way of dealing with the matter is, in

13     the bar table motion it has -- is it identified as the same as D698?  It

14     is.  So, therefore, if we leave it as it is now, a decision on the

15     bar table motion will resolve the matter anyway.

16             Then we'll leave it for the time being, and a decision will be

17     given on this document in a written decision on the bar table motion.

18             D746.  I do understand that this document was under seal, but I

19     also understand that it can be made public.

20             Mr. Bakrac.

21             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the translation has

22     been uploaded as 2D1080.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, any further objections?

24             MS. MARCUS:  No, Your Honour.  And it can be made public.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  It can be made public.  Which means that D746 is

Page 18780

 1     admitted, not under seal, but as a public document.

 2             D748.  This is one of the documents originating from

 3     Mr. Stanisic.

 4             Mr. Bakrac, have you meanwhile received a copy from the -- an

 5     original or an official copy from the Republic of Serbia?

 6             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt.  I think we

 7     dealt with the this issue yesterday, if I'm not mistaken, and we were

 8     still pending -- it was still pending.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Still pending.  Then I -- yes, I struck only from my

10     list the matters which I touched upon yesterday and which were resolved,

11     but please correct me when it was clear already yesterday that the matter

12     was still pending.

13             I move to D749, which is an intercept.

14             I do understand, Mr. Bakrac, that you tendered this intercept for

15     the purpose of establishing how complex the process was, not for the

16     content of this specific document.

17             The Prosecution wanted to see the original copy, if I have

18     understood it well.  Where are we at this moment?

19             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we -- you are right.

20     Our Defence, with regard to this document, as well as the previous one,

21     as well as D750, and D751, has submitted a request to the

22     National Council, and their reply is still pending.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             Ms. Marcus.

25             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  With respect to D749 MFI, just to

Page 18781

 1     add, there were other problems with this document.  It was incomplete.

 2     The second page of the English translation says there are reception

 3     errors due to poor hearing and it's impossible to determine the

 4     participants of the conversation.

 5             So there are a number of problems.  Perhaps the original will

 6     resolve that.  That's what our hope is.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, I do understand that it's not in any way

 8     the purpose of tendering this document to rely in any way on the content,

 9     which also means that who is speaking is not that important.  But it's

10     mainly to demonstrate that processing this material was rather complex.

11     Therefore, I wonder to what extent these last observations are very

12     relevant in view of the purpose for which the document or the intercept

13     was tendered.

14             MS. MARCUS:  I understand Your Honour's point.  I think the

15     additional point from this was that it came from the collection of the

16     accused, so that's where we -- that was the starting point.  So if

17     Your Honours would like and we can consider what would happen, as

18     Your Honours have ordered us to prepare this chart, we can consider what

19     would happen if we don't get an original and then give you our position

20     in that part, that chart.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then you reconsider that.  But, still,

22     attempts are made to get hold of the original.  Which is true for D749,

23     for D750, and D751.

24             D753, as I understand, is also dealt with in the bar table motion

25     by the Stanisic Defence and is known in that motion as D753 MFI.

Page 18782

 1     Mr. Jordash, I -- is identified as such?

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll decide on admission for D753 in our

 4     decision on the bar table motion.

 5             For D757, where the Prosecution was waiting for information on

 6     provenance, we have been informed that there's no update on that, and

 7     therefore the matter stands.

 8             And the same would be true -- no, no, let me not hurry too much.

 9             For D761, the document was presented and was unsigned and in

10     B/C/S.  The witness through which this document was introduced,

11     Mr. Djukic, stated that he left a copy of the English version at his home

12     and presumed that that was a signed copy.  The Chamber then invited the

13     witness to bring a signed copy of the letter.

14             Is there any update on the production of a signed English copy of

15     the letter?

16             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence has had the

17     document translated.  However, we still do not have the original signed

18     by the witness.  With your leave, we will try and contact the witness

19     during the next break and we will ask him to personally provide us with a

20     signed version.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, unless the Chamber would like to see

23     the signed version, the Prosecution is satisfied with the witness's

24     assertion, and we have no objection to the documents.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.  Under those circumstances ... the

Page 18783

 1     translation has been uploaded, Mr. Bakrac?

 2             Could you give the doc ID for the translation.

 3             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  The translation

 4     has been uploaded under 2D1211.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, can you live with an unsigned

 6     English -- without a signed English copy of the letter?  Would you object

 7     against admission if that ...

 8             MR. JORDASH:  No, I wouldn't.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Under those circumstances, where all the parties see

10     no obstacle to admission, the Chamber decides that D761 is admitted into

11     evidence.

12             We move onto D76--

13             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, sorry.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             MR. JORDASH:  Before we do, I misspoke.  D753 is in the Stanisic

16     bar table as 1D3611.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So, therefore, not identified under this

18     number.

19             Nevertheless, I suggest that we deal with the document in the bar

20     table motion, and that perhaps when deciding on the bar table motion and

21     if we would decide to admit, to notice in the decision on the bar table

22     motion that this document is also known as D753 MFI'd, and so if we

23     decide to admit, that no new number has been assigned, but the admission

24     would be under this number, D753.

25             Then the next one, D-- oh, let me see ... D762.  There was still

Page 18784

 1     a translation issue.  The title of the list which still require

 2     translation.

 3             Is there any translation now, Mr. Bakrac?

 4             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  We do have a

 5     translation:  2D1215.  This has been uploaded.  Both the original and the

 6     translation have been uploaded as 1215, 2D1215.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Then apparently nothing opposes the admission of

 8     D762.  I'm looking at the other parties.

 9             D762 is admitted into evidence.  I have no note that it should be

10     under seal, Mr. Bakrac.  Is that correct?

11             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we move on to D764.

13             The Prosecution was waiting for information about the provenance.

14     Has this been provided?

15             MS. MARCUS:  No, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  It has not been provided.

17             Any reason for that, Mr. Bakrac?

18             MR. JORDASH:  Oh, I think that's my --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, it's -- I'm sorry.  It's -- for me, D764 is a 2D

20     document, but it may well be that it originates from the

21     Stanisic Defence.

22             MR. JORDASH:  Could I just have a moment, please.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             MR. JORDASH:  For some reason this seems to have slipped through

25     the net and we haven't as yet even written to the National Council, but

Page 18785

 1     we'll do that forthwith.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then that matter remains unresolved.

 3             We move on to D765.  Translation.  Is the translation there,

 4     Mr. Bakrac?

 5             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  It has been

 6     uploaded as 2D1214.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             Ms. Marcus, the OTP reserved its position until it had received a

 9     translation.

10             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  We have no objection.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No objection.

12                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, the number you just refer to is the

14     number under which the document was uploaded.

15             Madam Registrar has difficulties in finding a translation under

16     that number.  But apparently it's there, because Ms. Marcus has given up

17     any objections.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  It has been released now, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  It's now been released.  Then, since there seems to

20     be no objections from the Stanisic Defence, D765 is admitted into

21     evidence.

22             D768 is a series of photographs which were uploaded initially not

23     as a complete series, but a selection.  The Chamber suggested that we'd

24     like to have a look at all the photographs.

25             Have all the photographs been up loaded meanwhile?  And I think

Page 18786

 1     it was -- I have -- I think it would be the Stanisic Defence to do so,

 2     because it's their exhibit.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  It hasn't been yet, but ...

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you take care that it -- it's -- the complete

 5     series will be uploaded.

 6             Could I already inquire with the other parties - it's just

 7     photographs - whether there would be any objection.  I take it that you

 8     had access to these photographs.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  From the Prosecution, Your Honour, we have no -- I'm

10     sorry, Mr. Bakrac.  We have no objection, provided that all the

11     photographs taken during the police seizure are uploaded.  And I just

12     would point out that the surrogate sheet should read "Stanisic Defence"

13     rather than "Simatovic Defence."  Other than that, we would have no

14     objections to the whole collection.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac.

16             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, I would

17     like to apologise to Ms. Marcus for interrupting her.

18             We have no objection to the admission of the photos.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  And we have to wait for the upload of the full

20     series.

21             D777 is the Gallagher statement.  The statement where the Chamber

22     understands that the Office of the Prosecutor did not raise any 92 bis

23     objection.  I do not know exactly whether -- I take it that the statement

24     was taken for the purposes of this Tribunal, but if all parties would

25     agree that it could be admitted under Rule 89(C) and that any attestation

Page 18787

 1     under Rule 92 bis would not be necessary, the Chamber would positively

 2     consider admission under Rule 89(C).

 3             MS. MARCUS:  That's acceptable to us, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Both Defence teams.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

 6             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Acceptable.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  D777 is admitted into evidence under Rule 89(C).

 9             We also briefly touched upon D783 yesterday and D784 and there

10     was no further information about the origin.  Has that changed overnight?

11     Apparently not.

12             MR. JORDASH:  No.  Sorry.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we leave that as it is.

14             What I noticed is that in relation to many respects that there

15     are outstanding requests for originals to be sent, et cetera, et cetera.

16     Wouldn't it be wise to make a list of all those documents you have been

17     seeking to be provided with originals, or at least official copies, make

18     that list and then perhaps ask for an order by this Chamber that these

19     documents with a proper description be provided within a certain

20     time-limit?  Because we can wait and wait forever, and I think that might

21     speed up the proceedings.

22             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.  Although, to be very fair to the National

23     Council, I think they are -- we are bombarding them with various

24     requests, and they're responding very well.  And --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  But we could express our appreciations for their

Page 18788

 1     quick responses and nevertheless point at the urgency of specific

 2     documents where we cannot further decide on admission, and that we could

 3     invite them to give priority to those.  You still can do this in a polite

 4     way.  I mean, I'm not blaming the National Council for anything.  I'm

 5     urging them to provide us with what we need with priority, and then

 6     whatever remains is at least not the primary concern of this Chamber.  Of

 7     course, we would expect them to condition to co-operate, but --

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- but on many issues where we have to establish

10     that we just can't move on because there's no response yet.

11             MR. JORDASH:  Certainly.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps if we prepare such a list - and that could

13     be -- I think it's mainly the Defence at this moment, but there may be

14     matters pending with the Prosecution as well - we could even add in a

15     special column when a copy was requested, which, I think, explains that

16     perhaps in main instances they're not slow.

17             Is this a suggestion?  Could we then -- could, with some

18     priority, could the parties make a submission asking for such an order.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Certainly.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  One of the series

22     of reasons for which we requested the break that we were granted was to

23     consolidate all that.  We wanted to see what was pending, what we need to

24     request, what needs to be requested urgently, whether we should seek your

25     assistance.

Page 18789

 1             So, yes, this is acceptable.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's try to do it this way.  And, of course, the

 3     parties will certainly be aware that if we finally do not get -- well,

 4     that the parties who are tendering documents of which the provenance or

 5     the authenticity is -- is still to be established, then, of course,

 6     there's always a risk that the Chamber will, after having considered all

 7     of the submissions of the parties, will deny admission of those

 8     documents.  I'm not saying that we will.  If not for all of them, the

 9     information has been received, but that's -- of course, that remains

10     uncertain, and it's preferable to have the relevant information in and,

11     therefore, to remove obstacles to admission, rather than to remain in a

12     situation where admission is still uncertain.

13             Of course, finally the Chamber will decide: We'll admit, or we'll

14     not admit.

15             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.  May I just say one thing, which

16     is that if Your Honours are going to take the -- a view on documents

17     which have been provided by the accused and take a view of those

18     documents as a particular category, then we would appreciate being able

19     to make more detailed submissions, because we would submit that that

20     would raise certain issues concerning the burden of proof and the

21     presumption of innocence, and we would like to develop those submissions

22     if that's an approach that Your Honours have -- will take, or may take.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, what we asked is, for quite a lot of

24     documents, to -- to find out exactly what's to redact the documents,

25     whether the documents of which it's only or primarily known that they

Page 18790

 1     originate from the accused.  We have sought further submissions on those,

 2     because objections were always there from the OTP.  We have those charts,

 3     and, of course, we would like to have detailed submissions on the

 4     document itself, but nothing prevents you, Mr. Jordash, from filing

 5     submissions and giving your views on whether it should be dealt with as a

 6     special category or whether there's any merit in objecting to documents

 7     primarily because they originate from the accused.  Of course, you're

 8     free to do so.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  I'm raising it at this point just because of the

10     chart, and I'm not as yet totally clear as to the approach that's going

11     to be taken with the chart that Your Honours have ...

12             JUDGE ORIE:  -- suggested.

13             MR. JORDASH:  -- suggested.  So I'm raising it really just for

14     guidance purposes, that I might understand if the chart process is going

15     to be one that is advanced and then if it is, then obviously we'll be

16     able to make submissions at that point.  I just didn't want to miss out

17     the opportunity to make those more detailed submissions, if necessary.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And --

19             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, one second.

21             If you say you don't want to miss out the opportunity to make

22     those more detailed submissions, would you like to do that before you

23     even fill in the chart or after you would fill in the chart or waiting

24     our guidance as whether you should fill in the chart at all?  I'm not

25     fully understanding.

Page 18791

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Well, I think that just the very suggestion of a

 2     chart for me raises the issue.  And it concerns the Defence.  Because the

 3     chart supposes that Your Honours are likely to take a somewhat or

 4     slightly different approach by the documents produced by the accused.

 5     And --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, no.  I think then that's a wrong understanding

 7     in this sense.  That we have a kind of a standard objection on that

 8     basis, so I would say it's rather the Prosecution who makes it a

 9     category, and whether we would agree with that or not is a second matter.

10     But I would say especially the fact that a similar objection is raised in

11     relation to documents originating from the accused, we'd like to have

12     that category as -- whether it's a category or not, but at least to

13     decide as much as we can on the basis of the individual documents which

14     are more or less characterised by the Prosecution as being as a special

15     category.

16             So asking for a chart is mainly to have a focussed approach on

17     what seems to be a similar objection to certain documents.

18             MR. JORDASH:  And -- and, in fact, I mischaracterised things.  It

19     is the Prosecution who are taking the approach and raising a different

20     approach.  And Your Honours, I can see, have responded to that but

21     wanting to understand more.  So I'm not suggesting anything other than

22     that.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if you -- let's -- let's be brief.

24             If there's anything you would like to submit either opposing or

25     supporting that this category on whomever's behalf is now dealt with in

Page 18792

 1     the chart, please do it as quickly as possible.

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Well, the problem -- sorry to detain the Court.

 3             But I think it's the Prosecution who've raised the issue but they

 4     haven't developed it.  Their response has been, It's produced by the

 5     accused.  I think they haven't perhaps said it explicitly, but he has a

 6     self-serving reason to produce and fabricate documents.  But they haven't

 7     developed it at any stage during this trial further than that.

 8             If that's the position, if that's what the Prosecution want to

 9     say about it, then we can respond to it, but it might be helpful if the

10     Prosecution develop that argument somewhat and actually detailed what

11     they say should be the precise approach.  Do they say that these

12     documents should be excluded, for example?  Or do they just say that the

13     documents will ultimately cross the admissible threshold but less weight

14     should be given to them.  That might be useful.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

16             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

17             One way that we could deal with this -- well, first just in

18     response to the last point.  These are the documents tendered by the

19     Defence.  It's the Prosecution's position that when the Defence tenders a

20     document, it's up to them to demonstrate reliability.  We pose the

21     objection and then they have to show why that document should be found

22     reliable.

23             That said, the Chamber has requested positions as to each

24     document.  Perhaps one idea is that in the MFI chart for documents having

25     been received by the accused there could be one more column where the

Page 18793

 1     Defence gives its response -- or -- to -- or reply, I guess, to our

 2     position that we state in there.  We could add one more column, since all

 3     that's in here is the additional information, when the accused received

 4     the document.  The Prosecution could set out its position in that column

 5     and the Defence could give a response.  That would be with -- on a per

 6     document issue.  And then to the extent that the Defence has

 7     additional -- additional broader submissions with respect to the

 8     collection of the accused regarding why they feel it should be reliable

 9     in spite of the objections, they can set that out and we'll be happy to

10     do that in a separate written submission.  That's --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, I do understand that Mr. Jordash's problem is

12     the following.  That if, let's assume the Stanisic Defence would not be

13     able to say anything more than, It comes from Mr. Stanisic, or, He

14     received it but he doesn't know exactly when and from whom, then, of

15     course, the Prosecution would take a position, say either it doesn't look

16     similar to other documents or ... so to test the authenticity or

17     reliability.  Of course, that's close to each other.  But it could also

18     be that the Prosecution says, Well, since it comes from the accused and

19     we do not know anything else, we are not wanting to rely on that.  I

20     think that there Mr. Jordash would like a further explanation as to, if

21     it comes from the accused and if the Prosecution says for that reason

22     mainly we do not want to rely on it, not having any other reasons, that

23     Mr. Jordash considers it important to have a further explanation as to

24     why a document coming from an accused is considered primarily as not

25     being sufficiently reliable to be admitted.

Page 18794

 1             Mr. Jordash, is that --

 2             MR. JORDASH:  That's exactly right, Your Honour.  May I just add

 3     one thing.  There's obviously a difference with a particular document.  A

 4     document which is not contentious, produced by the accused, may fall into

 5     one category, and so on and so forth.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  But it's exactly that category where there's not

 7     more to be said other than, It comes from the accused, we do not want to

 8     rely on it.  Why it is that you do not want to rely on a document, mainly

 9     on the basis that it originates from the accused.  That's what you are

10     seeking the Prosecution to further explain.

11             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

13             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, we can do that.  And I will

14     undertake that we will do that in this column, this Prosecution column.

15     It may not be brief.  It says brief.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

17             MS. MARCUS:  It may not be brief.  But we will -- we will try our

18     best to be succinct and not repetitive.  And perhaps after that if

19     Mr. Jordash still has questions, we can discuss how to proceed after

20     that.  If that pleases the Chamber.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Can I --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And if that would be an additional column, I think I

24     emphasised already yesterday that this is a suggested format, and if the

25     parties consider it wise to change it slightly, and this is such a

Page 18795

 1     suggestion, then, of course, they're perfectly free to do so.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  Can I just add, just for

 3     clarification:  If I understood correctly, the documents that the Defence

 4     has pending with the Government of Serbia would basically be the same

 5     list as would appear on these charts combined; right?  It's either a

 6     redaction issue or an issue where you're trying to get the original,

 7     where we have it only from the collection of the accused.

 8             So my first point on that is that there aren't any Prosecution

 9     documents that fall into that category.  So from your perspective, that

10     wouldn't be a joint -- a joint submission.  But also that the list on

11     here, these two combined, would match that list.

12             Just -- did I understand correctly?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And may I then take it that it's relatively

14     easy to prepare such a list for the Serbian government.

15             One of the things we want to avoid is that after six weeks from

16     now we find out that there is no response and meanwhile we have sat back

17     and have not followed an alternative approach, which is:  If no other

18     document comes up, what are we going to do?  How strong are the

19     objections?  So that we, on two parallel tracks, try, first of all, to

20     get the unredacted documents, or, first of all, get more information

21     about the origin of the documents that originate from Mr. Stanisic.  And

22     at the same time, that we think already about, if we are not successful

23     in getting more information or in getting the unredacted copies, what

24     would be our approach, what would be the approach of the parties, so that

25     the Chamber doesn't have to invite the parties to do this in six weeks

Page 18796

 1     from now and then give another six weeks.  And then, of course, we still

 2     have to decide on these matters as well.

 3             Is that clear?

 4             Then I have nothing more on my MFI list.  I think --

 5             Mr. Bakrac.

 6             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think I still owe

 7     you something from yesterday; an explanation in relation to two exhibits,

 8     and maybe additional three exhibits, D674 and D675.  We had a problem in

 9     our system.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes.  D674, Your Honours, in the

12     system should be uploaded under 65 ter 2D192.2.  That's the B/C/S

13     version.  And the English version again:  2D192.2.  The B/C/S version has

14     ID number 2D02-1432.  And the English version, its ID number is

15     2D01-4434.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  This is the administrative part of it.

17     Madam Registrar will look into it, I take it.

18             The other matter was whether the English translation included a

19     stamp on the first page of the 674.

20             And for D675, whether the English translation included

21     handwritten annotations on the first page of the document.  Because that

22     was the issue which ...

23             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.  I can confirm

24     that the translations include that as well.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, is everything clear as far as you

Page 18797

 1     are concerned?

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  It is, Your Honour, if it mean that then another

 3     translation which was a problem which was uploaded under the document

 4     ID 2D012808 then shall be removed from the exhibit.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  All the rest is skipped from these documents,

 6     Mr. Bakrac?

 7             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I think nothing opposes admission of D674

 9     and D675.  I hear of no objections.

10             D674 and D675 are admitted into evidence.

11             Any other matter?

12             MS. MARCUS:  I'm afraid, Your Honour, there are a few that I

13     still have on my list.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I rescheduled all my meetings this morning.  I

15     can't do that forever.  How much time would you need, Ms. Marcus?

16             MS. MARCUS:  It pertains to eight documents, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's go through them very quickly and let's try to

18     see whether we can --

19             And I first ask Mr. Jordash:  Do have a short list or a long list

20     after that?

21             MR. JORDASH:  We have a very short list.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  A very short list.

23             Ms. Marcus.

24             MS. MARCUS:  The first document is P992, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  P992.

Page 18798

 1             MS. MARCUS:  This was a question of the status as being under

 2     seal or public.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  The Chamber stated on the 12th of December that

 5     Serbia requested protective measures --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see.  You said P992.

 7             MS. MARCUS:  P992.  It's not on the MFI list, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Let me --

 9             MS. MARCUS:  It was admitted, but this is a question of its

10     status.  And as far as we are aware, the Chamber ordered that it would be

11     provisionally put under seal, but as of a few days ago, it still does not

12     appear as under seal in e-court.  If I'm not mistake, Your Honour.

13                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

14             MS. MARCUS:  I've just informed by my colleague that it is in

15     fact under seal as of now.  Okay.  Then I apologise.

16             So the next one is P2995.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, P2995, I do understand, is -- that will be

18     denied once we have dealt with D456.

19             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  I just noted, upon reviewing

20     yesterday's transcript, that we didn't do -- nothing was actually done to

21     P2995, which I think Your Honours said could be vacated, but it wasn't

22     actually vacated on the record yesterday, so I just wanted to not leave

23     that.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Then it's hereby vacated.

25                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

Page 18799

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I have to correct that.  It will be vacated as

 2     soon as D456 is not any further MFI'd.  And we're waiting for that, and

 3     it's only after that that we'll vacate P2995.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  Understood, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 5             The next issue is with respect to P3042.  That is also not an

 6     MFI.  But the Chamber had a question about the pagination of this

 7     document.  The B/C/S -- they were all out of order.  So what the

 8     Prosecution has done is we have put the B/C/S pages in order.  Now, the

 9     ERN range will now not be in order, but the pages are in the proper

10     pagination.  That B/C/S version can be uploaded.  It is 65 ter 6442.  I

11     believe it should be -- that should be replacing the other B/C/S version

12     that was admitted as P3042.  And the English translation is being

13     reordered, and we will let the Chamber know when that one can be attached

14     as well.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let's wait until we have that all completed.

16     But I do understand that the B/C/S version of P3042 has been rearranged,

17     the content not being changed apart from the order, and we have now

18     irregular ERN order.

19             But, Madam Registrar, 65 ter 6442 may now replace the document

20     which is, until now, under P3042.

21             And we'll wait for the English translation to be --

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, I just noticed that 6442 is a B/C/S

23     version with an English translation attached to it already.

24             MS. MARCUS:  I think the English translation has not yet been

25     reordered.

Page 18800

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then we'll wait until you have finalised the

 2     matter, and then Madam Registrar will replace the new - then verified -

 3     B/C/S and English versions -- no, will then replace the old ones with the

 4     new - then verified - B/C/S and English versions.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 6             The next one is P3097 MFI.  Your Honours will recall this is the

 7     document that, according to the Chamber's decision, can be attached to

 8     P1075, because that was the document that was inadvertently severed.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MS. MARCUS:  We were asked to combine it, and it's -- the

11     combined version has been uploaded as 65 ter 4236.1, so I believe that

12     that can be now P1075, and P3097 could be vacated.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  P3097 is hereby vacated.  The -- under -- the

14     document underlying P1075 can be now replaced by 65 ter 4236.1.

15             Madam Registrar, you're instructed to act accordingly.

16             Ms. Marcus.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, the next issue pertains to Defence

18     exhibit D200.

19             With respect to D200 and D201, these were -- they're not MFI'd

20     either, but the issue was the -- to ensure that the quotation marks in

21     the translation match the B/C/S original.  Now, the Simatovic Defence did

22     circulate their -- in the chart, they circulated uploaded versions, where

23     I presume this has been resolved.  We didn't discuss it yesterday, I

24     think, so I just thought we could resolve that as well.  I have the

25     numbers in front of me.  Or Mr. Bakrac can give them.

Page 18801

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I must -- let me see whether ...

 2             One second, please.

 3                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

 4             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may assist.

 5     D200 ...

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, I do understand that there are problems

 7     remaining.  I have nothing to rely on to resolve any matter.  I've done

 8     it until now.  But I'm not used to work in the blind without having

 9     prepared for what the problem is, what the possible resolution is.  So,

10     therefore, I suggest that you would then introduce the matter in such a

11     way that I'm able to prepare, first of all, because otherwise the Chamber

12     will take decisions or will make moves which it has not seriously

13     considered in advance.

14             So I would suggest that we would stop dealing with matters which

15     are not on any agenda, and that's the reason why we always distribute the

16     full MFI list prior to that.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  So just so I understand, these

18     are matters which are not part of MFI's.  I only had four -- [Overlapping

19     speakers] ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I would have minded you to do it if you would have

21     sent me a list:  I want to deal with this, this, this, this, and this.

22     And then I would have looked at the document, I would have looked at the

23     history of whether there was any problem, yes or no, so that I can

24     meaningfully respond and deal with the matter.

25             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.

Page 18802

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  But I feel such responsibility for it that I can't

 2     just, certainly not on the basis of my memory, deal with those matters.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  No, I understand, Your Honour.  This was in the

 4     chart that we circulated on Wednesday the 21st.  But if you're -- I

 5     understand you didn't receive the responses until Tuesday, so I'm aware.

 6             Is there a different format that Your Honour would like us to use

 7     for informing the Chamber in advance next time we have ...

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I will think about that.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I can't respond to that immediately.

11             MS. MARCUS:  Would Your Honour like me to just mention the four

12     documents that -- just on the record, so we know which ones I have?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that might be good.

14             MS. MARCUS:  Okay.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And it will not take us much time, perhaps, after

16     the -- after the -- the pause in April.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Okay.  The first -- the first two I just mentioned,

18     that's D200 and D201, which was just a replacement of the translation for

19     quotation marks.

20             Then next one was D396.  If you just give me one moment.  This

21     was also simple a matter of ensuring -- that was the same issue,

22     Your Honour, that there were quotation marks in the B/C/S but not in the

23     translation.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  But we're now missing the numbers.

25             MS. MARCUS:  D396.

Page 18803

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  D396.  Yes.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  And the last one, Your Honour, was D419.  That, I

 3     believe, is an MFI that we didn't discuss.  Unless I missed it,

 4     Your Honour.

 5                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't have it as an MFI on my list.  We'll check

 7     whether -- what went wrong there either in our administration or in ours.

 8             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             Mr. Jordash.

11             MR. JORDASH:  Just one thing, Your Honour.

12             D391, a new version has been uploaded under 65 ter 1460.1.

13     That's all I have.  The issue was that ...

14                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand D391, now a new version has been

16     uploaded, and I instructed Madam Registrar yesterday already to replace

17     the old version by the new uploaded versions.

18             And do you have the -- yes.  You have given us the 65 ter number

19     under which it has now been uploaded.

20             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  That is then on the record.

22             Any other matter?  Not.  Stanisic Defence.

23             The Chamber would like to hear if there later appears to be any

24     problem in relation to what we dealt with in private session at the

25     beginning in the absence of the accused.  Apart from that, as I said

Page 18804

 1     yesterday, the waiver of the accused to attend the housekeeping session

 2     was considered to extend also to today's session.

 3             If there's any matter about that, the Chamber fully acknowledges

 4     that being present at your own trial is a fundamental right, and we do

 5     not want in any way to bargain with that.  So, therefore, any problems

 6     should be brought to the attention of the Chamber immediately.

 7             We adjourn.  And we will resume on Tuesday, the 1st of May, 2012,

 8     at 9.00 in the morning in this same courtroom, II.

 9             And I would like to thank the parties and all those who are

10     assisting for the patience they've shown yesterday and today.

11                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 10.28 a.m.,

12                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 1st day

13                           of May, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.