Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 47

1 Friday, 20 July 2001

2 [Open session]

3 [Pre-Trial Conference]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.30 p.m.

6 JUDGE HUNT: Call the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-32-PT, the Prosecutor versus

8 Mitar Vasiljevic.

9 JUDGE HUNT: The appearances for the Prosecution, Mr. Groome.

10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, for the Prosecution, Dermot Groome,

11 Frederic Ossogo, and Sabine Bauer.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

13 JUDGE HUNT: You had better say it again. They didn't get the

14 appearances.

15 MR. GROOME: For the Prosecution, Dermot Groome, Frederic Ossogo,

16 and Sabine Bauer.

17 JUDGE HUNT: For the Defence, Mr. Domazet.

18 MR. DOMAZET: Your Honour, Vladimir Domazet, counsel for the

19 accused Mitar Vasiljevic, and Bosko Ristic, my legal advisor in this team.

20 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.

21 Mr. Vasiljevic, are you able to hear the proceedings in a language

22 which you can understand? You have to press your button for the

23 microphone to come on.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I can, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much. Sit down, please, sir.

Page 48

1 This is the Pre-Trial Conference held in accordance with the

2 Rules. The first of the matters which I think we should deal with is the

3 amendment to the indictment.

4 Now, Mr. Groome, it is basically a reformulation of the

5 indictment, is it not, although in a more confusing form, in which you

6 have reduced the number of charges and you have, in two cases, reduced the

7 periods to which existing charges relate? Is that so?

8 MR. GROOME: That's essentially it, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE HUNT: I'm glad you accept my description of it as a more

10 confusing form.

11 MR. GROOME: I don't necessarily agree with that, Your Honour. It

12 does conform to the current guidelines now for the Prosecution.

13 JUDGE HUNT: I wish they would go back to doing things in a

14 chronological order. Usually the charges should come at the end of an

15 indictment, I would have thought.

16 MR. GROOME: The counts now are arranged in chronological order on

17 the indictment.

18 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, but you put all of your charges at the beginning

19 and then you tell us what the case is about after the charges. It seems a

20 little irrational. But nevertheless, it's not invalid.

21 There are a couple of matters, though, that concern me. First of

22 all, you asked for an order in relation to the existing indictment. You

23 want leave to withdraw the charges 7 to 10 in the original indictment.

24 Why do you want to do that? Because if you get leave to amend, this

25 amendment replaces the existing one, which becomes irrelevant.

Page 49

1 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, Your Honour?

2 JUDGE HUNT: If you get leave to amend your indictment, this one

3 is going to replace the existing one and the existing indictment becomes

4 irrelevant.

5 MR. GROOME: In the amended indictment, we withdraw the counts

6 dealing with the Bikavac incident as to this accused only.

7 JUDGE HUNT: But why do you need to do that if you are replacing

8 the original indictment with a new one which does not include those

9 charges.

10 MR. GROOME: Perhaps it's my -- unaware of this practice of the

11 Tribunal, Your Honour, that is the way that I understood the rules to

12 require me to achieve this result, which was to amend the indictment and

13 to withdraw those counts against Mr....

14 JUDGE HUNT: Well, if you simply wanted to withdraw those counts

15 as far as Mr. Vasiljevic was concerned, then we wouldn't need a new

16 indictment. But we do have a new indictment, and what does concern me are

17 the words "without prejudice." A very American phrase, but I think I do

18 know what it means. It means you can reinstate them at any time.

19 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the only condition that I would foresee

20 making an application to reinstate them is if during the course of the

21 trial we were to -- evidence were to be made known that the whole incident

22 with the hospital was a fraud perpetrated on the Court. If evidence was

23 adduced that that was a fraud, I probably -- I would -- may be making an

24 application to reinstate that charge. As there is no evidence of that, I

25 do not anticipate applying to reinstate that charge for any other reason

Page 50

1 other than the one I've just describe.

2 JUDGE HUNT: I'm waiting for the translation to finish. I'm

3 sorry. You speak so quickly. I think you've lost some of the

4 interpreters.

5 But it's wrong, if I may say so, to have something hanging over

6 all of our heads, that you can reinstate something at the drop of a hat or

7 the drop of a word. If you want to amend an indictment during the course

8 of a trial, you may make that application, but I don't understand why it

9 should remain in some document which now becomes irrelevant with a

10 description "without prejudice."

11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the only reason that is in there, so

12 that jeopardy doesn't attach to that charge. If the charge is dismissed

13 with prejudice, we could be in a situation possibly, and I'm saying this

14 is a very remote possibility, that we could discover that this entire

15 hospital situation was a fraud perpetrated on the Court but would be

16 powerless to do anything about it. That's why I'm asking it to be

17 dismissed without prejudice in that event.

18 JUDGE HUNT: Let's get our phraseology straight. Nobody is

19 dismissing anything. You are replacing the old indictment with a new one,

20 and the fact that the new indictment does not include a count against

21 Mr. Vasiljevic in relation to this other house burning incident does not

22 mean it has been dismissed. You are not asking for it to be dismissed.

23 You are simply asking for the whole indictment to be replaced. There is

24 no prejudice to the accused at all. But if something happens during the

25 course of the trial and you want to then charge this accused with that

Page 51

1 second house burning incident, you may make an application to amend the

2 current indictment to add his name to that particular count or those

3 counts, and that application will be dealt with on its merits as to the

4 state of the proceedings, et cetera.

5 So I still don't understand why it is we have to deal at all with

6 the previous amendment of a previous indictment when we are replacing it

7 with a new one.

8 MR. GROOME: Given the Court's statement just now, the portion of

9 the motion that says "amended" -- or "without prejudice" is no longer

10 necessary. The Court explains what mechanics the Court would like me to

11 do to achieve this result. We're just simply trying to withdraw counts

12 against Mr. Vasiljevic in advance of trial. We are trying to make the

13 indictment more easily understood and to correct some factual problems

14 that were in the indictment that were brought to the attention of the

15 Court last August.

16 JUDGE HUNT: Well, let's have it clearly noted in the transcript

17 that by seeking to replace the original indictment with this amended

18 indictment, you do not acknowledge that the charge against this accused in

19 relation to the second house burning incident has been dismissed, and I

20 would be very happy to acknowledge that that is so. So you are not under

21 prejudice. But it's not fair to anybody, including the Trial Chamber, to

22 have something hanging over our heads in case one word is said during the

23 course of a trial, and all of a sudden we're facing three extra charges.

24 That's all I'm concerned with.

25 MR. GROOME: I would agree to strike that phrase from the motion.

Page 52

1 JUDGE HUNT: Well, I don't think that you should get the first

2 order at all, but second one, subject to what Mr. Domazet has to say, can

3 be made and that will take its place.

4 Well, now, Mr. Domazet -- oh, I'm sorry. Before I go to you,

5 there is one other addition matter in this new indictment and that's the

6 words "in concert." Now, I think we're going to have to understand

7 exactly what it is you mean by that. I'm told that in the recent

8 conference before the Senior Legal Officer, you said that you needed it in

9 order to show that Mr. Vasiljevic is a co-perpetrator. Is that right?

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

11 JUDGE HUNT: Well, now, this is a phrase which seems to have crept

12 into the jurisprudence of this Tribunal from the civil law, this

13 "co-perpetrator." It is about as intellectually stimulating and -- but

14 completely useless from a practical point of view as the common law's old

15 distinction between felonies and misdemeanors, but it has crept into the

16 jurisprudence of the Tribunal.

17 It's been described by the Appeals Chamber as another name for

18 common purpose, because as I understand it, and I am happy to be corrected

19 by any civil lawyers present, there is a distinction in the civil law

20 between somebody who is an accessory because he aids and abets and

21 somebody who is a co-perpetrator because he shares the purpose of the

22 principle perpetrator. In other words, its common purpose.

23 Now, if that's what you want to make it, let's have it clear. I'm

24 not concerned about the wording of the indictment, but I am concerned that

25 we understand what it's about.

Page 53












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and the English transcripts.













Page 54

1 Now, are you seeking to -- you don't have to keep on standing up

2 and sitting down.

3 Are you attempting to show by those words "in concert" that

4 Mr. Vasiljevic shared the purpose of whoever it was who actually killed

5 the persons or who murdered them in the house?

6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would submit that the case is not a

7 common purpose case. I think it was a common purpose case we wouldn't

8 have made a motion to withdraw Bikavac. All we're saying --

9 THE INTERPRETER: The counsel is requested to mind the

10 interpreters. If you can just pace yourself a little bit more slowly.

11 Thank you.

12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, all that we're trying to convey by that

13 word is that Mr. Vasiljevic was not acting alone. He didn't commit the

14 crimes at the river by himself, he didn't commit the crimes in Pionirska

15 by himself. To give a very clear example, in the indictment it's charged

16 and the evidence will be adduced at trial that Mr. Vasiljevic shone a

17 flashlight on some of the victims as Mr. Milan Lukic shot them. It is our

18 position that the two of them working together, acting in concert, caused

19 the injury to the person who was shot. That is all we mean by it. And we

20 are not going to be introducing any of the arguments for liability under a

21 common purpose theory.

22 JUDGE HUNT: Well, I'm not sure that we even understand each

23 other's language here. It may be an American proposition that I just

24 don't understand. But in the case of somebody who shoots -- let's take

25 the Drina River incident. Let's assume that there are a number of people

Page 55

1 with guns and they shoot and they kill these people, five people. Nobody

2 knows who fired the shot who actually killed a particular person. Now,

3 the law is not so silly as to say unless you can establish who did the

4 act, then you must find everybody not guilty. What you say there is that

5 they were acting together with a common purpose to kill that person. It

6 doesn't matter which one of them did it. And they are sentenced upon the

7 basis that they are as guilty as each other. Now, is that the sort of

8 thing you are thinking about?

9 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I caution to use the word "common

10 purpose" because it introduces a whole lot of other concepts that I think

11 are not relevant to this case.

12 JUDGE HUNT: No, it doesn't, it doesn't, unless you want to rely

13 upon the extended common purpose, and that's why, if you wanted to, you

14 would have to plead it properly. But if you simply want to say, "We don't

15 know which one actually killed the person" or "Each of them were doing an

16 act towards it with the same purpose of killing those people," then you

17 are relying upon a basic common purpose. It's a very simple concept.

18 MR. GROOME: Under that definition of common purpose, we are

19 proceeding with that theory.

20 JUDGE HUNT: So that the words "in concert" are merely to

21 demonstrate that they are each as guilty as each other even though one of

22 them may not have actually done the act which caused the death of the

23 person killed.

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

25 JUDGE HUNT: Right. Well, now we understand each other.

Page 56

1 Well, now, Mr. Domazet, what do you say about the amendment to the

2 indictment?

3 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the amended indictment

4 does not include the charges against my client for the incident at

5 Bikavac. If my understanding is correct of what Mr. Groome said, it is an

6 admission of the fact, at least for now, that Mr. Vasiljevic at that time

7 was in a hospital in Uzice. However, according to the Defence, his stay

8 at the hospital also encompasses the Pionirska Street incident, as we set

9 out in our Pre-Trial brief, but this is something that we will argue in

10 the Court.

11 JUDGE HUNT: But Mr. Domazet, your understanding is, if I may say

12 so, an incorrect one. All that Mr. Groome is saying is that at this

13 stage, they do not believe that they can prove beyond reasonable doubt

14 that your client was involved in this second house-burning incident. It's

15 not an admission of anything, except that they can't prove it beyond

16 reasonable doubt at this stage.

17 So I don't want you to feel that you have got some particular

18 advantage out of this which the Trial Chamber subsequently will tell you

19 is wrong. So far as I can see it, your client is not in any way

20 disadvantaged by this amendment, because it removes the charges relating

21 to the second house-burning incident, it reduces the period in which two

22 of the charges are alleged to have been committed, or crimes charged

23 alleged to have been committed, and it also reduces the particulars of

24 persecution that were originally pleaded against your client. So you are

25 facing less than you would otherwise be facing under the existing

Page 57

1 indictment. Now, if you can tell me there's some other prejudice or there

2 is any prejudice in that, I'll be very interested to hear it.

3 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, indeed not. Of

4 course, I also understand that in the amended indictment, the criminal

5 responsibility of Mr. Vasiljevic has been reduced not only in terms of the

6 Bikavac incidents but also in terms of the period of time, and in that

7 sense I acknowledge that this is a more favourable or at least less

8 damaging indictment than the previous one.

9 I may have misunderstood Mr. Groome, because I thought that I

10 heard him say something about some hospital log books, and if it is

11 somehow determined that they were incorrect, then potentially they could

12 reinstate the charges should something like that be established during

13 trial.

14 JUDGE HUNT: Not quite. Not quite. What I have said to

15 Mr. Groome is that if something happens during the course of the trial

16 which demonstrates that they may have now a case beyond reasonable doubt

17 on the second house-burning incident, the Prosecution can apply to -- or

18 to replead the charge against your client, but that would have to be

19 considered by the Trial Chamber at the time and in the circumstances in

20 which this arises. It may well be that the Trial Chamber would take the

21 view that rather than proceed with that charge in this trial, it should be

22 proceeded with in the trial against the other two accused. I wouldn't

23 like to promise you one way or the other, but no Trial Chamber faces with

24 equanimity a huge explosion in the number of issues that have to be

25 determined. I can assure you that for those of us who have practised at

Page 58












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and the English transcripts.













Page 59

1 the bar, the prospect of anybody having to face a new charge being laid in

2 the middle of a trial seems to me to be inherently unfair. But

3 nevertheless, if there was some very minor matter that had to be amended,

4 it's a different situation. But the prospect of your client facing in

5 this trial an additional charge such as that is a little remote, and I

6 won't put it any higher than that.

7 But that's not the point. I mean, if you want this charge against

8 your client to be retained, then I'll listen to what Mr. Groome says. But

9 at the moment, your client is not disadvantaged, and I can assure you the

10 Trial Chamber will not permit him to be disadvantaged by anything that

11 happens during the course of the trial, in the sense that he will have to

12 face some additional charge during the course of that trial, unless it is

13 something which can be done consistently with a fair trial.

14 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that I

15 understood you clearly, and let me reiterate that my client has not been

16 disadvantaged by this amended indictment and I have nothing against this

17 substituted indictment, if that was the gist of your question.

18 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much.

19 Well, now, before we lose sight of it, you wanted to amend one

20 word in count 17, Mr. Groome. You want the word "violence" instead of

21 "violation," do you?

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

23 JUDGE HUNT: Well, the best way to deal with that would be to

24 attend in the -- or have somebody attend in the Registry, and I'll grant

25 leave for them to make the amendment in red ink, and then notice can be

Page 60

1 sent out to the parties that it has been done.

2 Very well. I grant leave to the Prosecution to file an amended

3 indictment, the one which is attached to the motion of the 12th of July.

4 I grant leave to the Prosecution to amend the word "violation" in count 17

5 to "violence." That, of course, is not a count which Mr. Vasiljevic is

6 facing. And I think that I should, for a matter of more abundant

7 precaution, pursuant to Rule 82(B), order that Mr. Vasiljevic be tried

8 separately on that indictment. Do you see any problem with that,

9 Mr. Groome?

10 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE HUNT: Right. Well, now, the next matter, the videolink

12 testimony. Is the witness that you seek to have her evidence taken by

13 videolink one of those for whom you seek protective measures?

14 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE HUNT: Is there any objection to the order sought that this

16 witness' evidence be taken by way of videolink, Mr. Domazet?

17 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would prefer to see

18 this witness here, but if the reasons for his [as interpreted] inability

19 to come to The Hague are justified, I would be left with no other choice

20 but to agree to the videolink testimony.

21 JUDGE HUNT: It happens to be a female, not a male, but that

22 doesn't matter. The reasons given there are, in my view, sufficient,

23 unless there's something you want to put on that particular issue. I

24 should hasten to add: I've seen an awful lot of witnesses now on

25 videolinks, both here and in my home country, and I see no disadvantage.

Page 61

1 They're usually perfectly well done. Sometimes when they are from a very

2 remote place there is a problem with the timing, but it is a perfectly

3 adequate way of seeing a witness and judging that witness's credibility.

4 It has its disadvantages in that it is very expensive and any documents

5 that have to be shown to the witness have to be taken by the court deputy

6 who attends so that they can be shown to the witness more easily.

7 Very well, then. I shall make that order. It will have to be in

8 writing, and it will of course be a confidential order because of the name

9 of the witness.

10 Now, the next one, the further medical examination. Is there any

11 objection to that, Mr. Domazet?

12 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. No objection to

13 that.

14 MR. GROOME: May I say one thing on that, Your Honour?

15 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, certainly.

16 MR. GROOME: It seems the doctor will be in The Hague on another

17 matter for the Tribunal on August 15th. I would be proposing that he

18 personally speak with the person in the detention facility who will do the

19 X-ray or conduct the examination and we arrange it that way.

20 JUDGE HUNT: I hope this time he tells him what angle he wants it

21 taken at.

22 Very well, then. I order that a radiological examination (X-ray)

23 of the accused's lower left and right legs be conducted. The films of

24 these X-rays are to be provided to the Office of the Prosecutor for

25 comparison by an expert of their choosing. The Office of the Prosecutor

Page 62

1 is to make the X-ray films available to the Defence for examination by any

2 Defence expert upon request.

3 The Registrar is directed to appoint an expert qualified to take

4 an X-ray film of the accused's legs. The Registrar is directed to notify

5 the Prosecution as soon as the expert has been nominated and to direct the

6 experts that no new X-ray should be taken until they have been briefed by

7 the Prosecution's expert or by a member of the Office of the Prosecutor

8 regarding the way in which the X-ray is to be taken.

9 Upon completion of the examination -- I'm sorry.

10 Mr. Groome, I'm not quite sure why you need the fourth order if

11 you've got the first one. They seem to be contradictory. You see, in the

12 first order you require the X-rays to be provided to the OTP rather than

13 by the Registrar sending it off to the doctor.

14 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. We would move to strike paragraph

15 four.

16 JUDGE HUNT: All right. I will not make the fourth order sought.

17 The next matter, the Rule 92 bis matters. Now, what you intend by

18 this, is it, that you will simply tender these pages that you nominate

19 from the witness's evidence in the Krnojelac case and any other pages that

20 are nominated by the Defence, and then you will add to the evidence in

21 chief and the Defence will be entitled to examine the witness on all of

22 the material including this written material.

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

24 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Have you got any objection to that,

25 Mr. Domazet?

Page 63












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and the English transcripts.













Page 64

1 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, is this Witness Amor

2 Masovic?

3 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. The Missing Persons Bureau man.

4 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Right. Right. We agree to this

5 procedure.

6 JUDGE HUNT: Will you be able to nominate the pages from the

7 transcript that you want to be tendered at the time that these pages are

8 tendered? Not now, but will you be able to inform the Prosecution so

9 there can be no problem about that?

10 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, Your Honour. I can

11 inform the OTP directly, because I myself received these transcripts only

12 a few days ago, so that I need some time to study them and to notify the

13 other side.

14 JUDGE HUNT: Well, except for a somewhat alarming propensity to

15 express legal views, the witness's evidence was fairly straightforward, as

16 I recall it in the Krnojelac case.

17 I think I should make the order subject to any ruling that the

18 Trial Chamber may make as to admissibility, just in case there is some

19 problem that arises at the trial.

20 I'll make an order that the Prosecution will be entitled to

21 tender, subject to any ruling of the Trial Chamber as to relevance, pages

22 4209 to 4216, page 4220, page 4222, and pages 4227 to 4228 of the evidence

23 given by Mr. Amor Masovic in the trial of the Prosecutor versus Milorad

24 Krnojelac between the 20th and the 22nd of March of this year, and that

25 the Defence may require the Prosecution to tender any further pages of

Page 65

1 which notification is given to the Prosecution, again subject to any

2 ruling by the Trial Chamber as to relevance.

3 The next matter, protective measures. Mr. Domazet, I understand

4 that you are opposing that.

5 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes. I did oppose that, Your

6 Honour.


8 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Because it seems to me that these

9 protective measures which pertain to almost all of the witnesses, all but

10 one of the Prosecution witnesses, if I understood it correctly, I believe

11 them to be, on one side, unnecessary; and on the other side, I believe

12 that this, in a way, impedes the Defence of the accused, Mr. Vasiljevic.

13 Should the Court accept the protective measures in their proposed

14 form, I'm afraid that in addition to that, if there truly is a danger of

15 witnesses being recognised by local population in Visegrad, then I'm

16 afraid we would have the same consequence even despite the protective

17 measures, because even now in Visegrad, most of the inhabitants know the

18 faces of those who had survived these incidents, and through the testimony

19 which will be available to everybody but simply will not reveal the name

20 and the facial features of witnesses, will be enough to enable everyone to

21 recognise the identity of the witnesses. So I believe that the Defence

22 may be blamed for revealing the identity of witnesses.

23 I am, in principle, against closed or private sessions, but I

24 think that if you believe that there is a danger which threatens these

25 witnesses, then it would be better for them to testify in a closed

Page 66

1 session.

2 Should the Court decide to approve these measures in their

3 proposed form, then I would like to at least accept those witnesses from

4 this measure who are not threatened, who live far away from Visegrad and

5 have no intention of returning back there. And based on what I saw in the

6 record, there are witnesses that fall into this category. However, we,

7 naturally, defer to the Court to decide on whether it will adopt or

8 approve these measures, in what scope and with respect to what witnesses.

9 I would further like to add that there are several important

10 witnesses seeking protective measures who previously appeared either on

11 television in Bosnia-Herzegovina or gave statements to the press using

12 their full name. So this is another reason why I believe that some of the

13 witnesses are well known to the general population.

14 JUDGE HUNT: But can you tell me just how does it impede the

15 Defence? Is it simply that you have some fear for being blamed for their

16 recognition? Is that the only matter that you put forward?

17 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes. Among other things, yes. That

18 with respect to myself, my Defence team, and to the family of

19 Mr. Vasiljevic, I believe this to be true, because there was a problem

20 pertaining to one witness which claimed that -- who claimed that he had

21 calls, received telephone calls from the wife of the accused, Vasiljevic.

22 This witness lives quite far away from her. The wife of the accused,

23 Vasiljevic, claims this not to be true. We are unable to determine what

24 the reality or the real situation was. So on one hand, we are afraid of

25 being exposed to these kind of problems in the future.

Page 67

1 On the other side, once the Prosecution finishes its case, the

2 Defence will propose its own evidence and its own witnesses which we will

3 use to contradict the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses, and I'm

4 afraid that we will then be in a situation where it will be difficult to

5 verify the allegations of witnesses if they are granted these protective

6 measures.

7 JUDGE HUNT: If they were heard in private -- in a closed court,

8 you'd have even greater difficulty, wouldn't you? I don't understand that

9 last point.

10 If you were asserting they should give evidence in open court,

11 that's one thing, but if you are saying there shouldn't be protective

12 measures and that they should give evidence in a closed court, I don't see

13 how checking up on allegations are going to be in any way affected. In

14 fact, you would be far worse off if they gave evidence in a closed court.

15 Have I misunderstood your point?

16 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] You did not misunderstand me, Your

17 Honour. You understood me properly. I am aware of that problem as well,

18 and there is that problem that you mentioned with respect to closed

19 sessions. And because of that, I support or am in favour of open sessions

20 and I am in favour of not granting any protective measures. I am in

21 principle against closed sessions, but I just brought it up because I

22 wanted to say that in this case I thought this would be a better option.

23 But personally, I am against closed sessions.

24 Despite the fact that in the Prosecution's brief there are a lot

25 of arguments of general nature, especially those which pertain to the

Page 68












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and the English transcripts.













Page 69

1 situation in the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina and even in Banja Luka,

2 which in fact is quite far away from Visegrad, I believe that if those

3 arguments were to be accepted, that that would bring us to a situation

4 where all of the trials held here in The Hague would have to grant

5 protective measures to all witnesses because these arguments that were put

6 forward by the Prosecution apply to the entire territory of Bosnia and

7 Herzegovina. As far as Visegrad itself is concerned, a lot of Bosniak

8 Muslims returned to that city, and I did not hear of a single incident

9 lately that would justify the fears that any of the witnesses would be

10 exposed to certain negative aspects due to their testimony. I naturally

11 cannot exclude the possibility that Milan and Sredoje Lukic, who are at

12 large right now, could do something, but I don't think that they

13 would -- they are quite far away, and I don't think that they would be in

14 a position to create any trouble. However, this is something that I

15 cannot assess or I cannot affirm at this moment.

16 JUDGE HUNT: If you say they are quite far away, I think the OTP

17 would be very interested to know just where they are so they can be served

18 with the indictment. If you do know where they are, you might like to

19 tell the OTP.

20 The fact is, according to the material before the Trial Chamber

21 now, they are in and out of the place from time to time, they are causing

22 trouble, and all of these witnesses, whether they live there or not, have

23 got relatives who live there and who would clearly be at some risk if they

24 or their relatives were known to be giving evidence against your client.

25 That's the problem. There's no suggestion against your client

Page 70

1 personally. The matter in relation to the threat by his wife has been

2 denied, and so far as I'm concerned, I would not take it into account, but

3 the remainder of the material is clearly a justification for fears on

4 behalf of these witnesses that there will be some form of retaliation

5 against them if it is known they have given evidence.

6 Although the motion does promise a copy of the United Nations

7 Human Rights Commission report, it didn't include it, but I have read that

8 in other cases, and the position in a number of towns, including this one,

9 are anything but happy for those who are returning to live there.

10 Now, is there anything in relation to the particular terms of the

11 order which is sought, which is an appendix, appendix D to the motion,

12 that you would object to?

13 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I have no

14 objections to the terms which are put forward in appendix D, and I do

15 understand the matter that you have raised concerning the other two

16 accused, although I have to say that I did see in some of the material

17 that one of the witnesses, a female witness, mentioned that she had seen

18 one of the two. Despite the fact that I tried to investigate, I really do

19 not possess any information as to their whereabouts, and I also have

20 serious doubts as to the veracity of that particular segment of that

21 witness' statement. So I don't personally believe that any of these two

22 accused show up from time to time in Visegrad or its surroundings.

23 However, this is secondary to our case here right now. I understand the

24 fear, or the danger, the possible danger, the concern, for the safety of

25 the witnesses from that area, but I can't say anything as to that, because

Page 71

1 I don't know anything about the other two accused.

2 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, I think it was probably a somewhat

3 unguarded statement by you that they were far away, and perhaps I should

4 not have taken you up on it. Nevertheless, the Tribunal's Statute

5 requires the proceedings to be held in public, and both it and the Rules

6 make it abundantly clear that good cause has to be shown for them to be

7 heard other than in public, and that where protective measures are sought

8 which do not render it unfair to the accused, that those protective

9 measures should be granted. I propose to make an order in the terms of

10 appendix D to the motion of the 11th of July.

11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, may I be heard just briefly?


13 MR. GROOME: Since filing this motion, we have, in the interests

14 of expediting the trial, withdrawn five of these people as witnesses. I'd

15 like to indicate them to the Court so they're not part of this order.

16 JUDGE HUNT: But you may want to refer to them during the course

17 of the case. Is there any need to --

18 MR. GROOME: There is a possibility. Well, then we can leave them

19 on.

20 JUDGE HUNT: It would be best to have them on the list. I'll be

21 coming to the list of witnesses in a moment. The OTP does have the

22 hospital records. I remember them being described to me during the course

23 of one of these many applications as being laden with nine years' dust

24 when they were brought in. Has anybody been through them, other than the

25 experts, to see whether there is such information as the time in which

Page 72

1 this person of the accused's name was admitted?

2 MR. GROOME: There is information regarding the time, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE HUNT: What time is it?

4 MR. GROOME: I'm not able to say off the top of my head.

5 JUDGE HUNT: Well, it's going to be a rather important issue, I

6 would have thought.

7 MR. GROOME: Extremely important.

8 JUDGE HUNT: Now, in relation to the matters raised in the

9 pre-trial briefs, Mr. Domazet, is there any real dispute about the

10 consequences of the fire and of the shooting, such as the identity of the

11 witnesses or that they're dead? I'm not asking for an admission, I hasten

12 to add, but I'm just asking: Is there any real dispute? Are you

13 intending to lead evidence disputing that these people named in the

14 indictment were involved in the shooting or the fire and that they are

15 dead?

16 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for the time being, the

17 Defence has no information of that nature concerning the victim, so I

18 don't have information about the persons listed as dead being in fact

19 alive. Now, whether all of those people died as a result of this fire,

20 the Defence does not know at this moment, nor do we have any evidence

21 concerning this.

22 JUDGE HUNT: What I am suggesting is that those issues could be

23 established by the Prosecution in a less formal way. In Krnojelac, what

24 was done was the investigator prepared a special statement indicating the

25 information which he had obtained and indicating the sources from which he

Page 73












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and the English transcripts.













Page 74

1 had obtained it, such as families, people to whom these persons would have

2 been expected to be in touch, and that they had not been in touch, that

3 sort of thing, and that the investigator is then called with this new

4 statement, subject to cross-examination and subject to any requests at a

5 later stage by the Defence should they actually find evidence which

6 contradicts the material which the investigator has obtained. Now, would

7 you have any objection to such a means of proof being adopted in this

8 case? It does not constitute any form of an admission by you, but it

9 saves calling an immense number of witnesses who are unlikely themselves

10 to be cross-examined.

11 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] If I understood you correctly, Your

12 Honour, instead of hearing a large number of witnesses who would testify

13 about these circumstances, we would, in fact, bring in a report of the

14 investigator which was compiled based on the interviews conducted, and so

15 on. I personally have nothing against this procedure.

16 JUDGE HUNT: I think, if I may say so, it's a very sensible course

17 to take, because it will save an immense amount of time.

18 Mr. Groome, is there any way in which that can be done?

19 MR. GROOME: I'll explore that, Your Honour. I'm not sure that

20 it's necessary. Most of the victims in the fire were related to one of

21 the survivors of the fire, and she will be able to give that evidence

22 herself about not having seen them since.

23 JUDGE HUNT: Well, that will certainly save a lot of time. I have

24 not seen the statement, and I don't want to see the statements, but this

25 sort of thing sometimes takes an immense amount of time. If there is any

Page 75

1 need for you to call somebody else, I suggest that you and Mr. Domazet

2 discuss the matter, and obviously you should get some form of an

3 agreement.

4 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Now, the next matter, Mr. Groome, the

6 widespread attack upon the civilian population.

7 You have an enormous number of witnesses there. Why are they all

8 necessary? You have got witnesses who are going to give evidence on other

9 issues who can also speak about this. You have something like 18 other

10 witnesses called solely on this issue. Why?

11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, there must be some misunderstanding.

12 All of the witnesses that are being called have to do directly with their

13 testimony about the accused's conduct in the crimes he's charged or

14 testimony about their observations of him at a time which he claims he was

15 in the hospital. There are only three witnesses that will testify about

16 matters other than that and that is regarding this area of Slap, which is

17 north of Visegrad, where many of the victims floated down the river and

18 were recovered there.

19 JUDGE HUNT: I'm not dealing with that. I'm sorry. I'm dealing

20 with the issue of persecution, widespread attack on the civilian

21 population.

22 MR. GROOME: Well, Your Honour, you have just said that I have 18

23 witnesses that are just testifying about that.

24 JUDGE HUNT: I am going down your list of witnesses that's

25 attached to your pre-trial brief.

Page 76

1 MR. GROOME: Is that the informal copy, Your Honour?


3 MR. GROOME: We've reduced the original number by 14.

4 JUDGE HUNT: That may be so, but there seems to be 18 who are on

5 persecution only. I may be adding them up wrongly, but there seems to be

6 an enormous number.

7 Now, I've power to limit the number of witnesses you call, and I

8 won't allow them unless I know that they are all necessary.

9 I understand it's a very difficult thing to decide in advance how

10 many witnesses you are going to need, but it seems to me, having seen a

11 few of these trials now, that this is an issue which is never really

12 disputed. Sometimes the detail is disputed because they say something

13 that wasn't in their statement to the investigator, but the usual issue is

14 one which I'll have to raise with Mr. Domazet about, "Well, they weren't

15 the only ones and the Muslims were attacking the Serbs as well," and I

16 don't see why we need so many witnesses who like to tell us their whole

17 life story, who are brought here at immense expense, and who feel they

18 have to tell us everything, whereas really their evidence is of very small

19 compass and usually of a number of incidents they have seen.

20 Now, why do we need all of this?

21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, in the meeting that we had in advance of

22 this Pre-Trial Conference, we did strike some names off of that list. Not

23 only are these witnesses going to establish the background of what

24 happened in Visegrad but also Mr. Vasiljevic's connection to those

25 events.

Page 77

1 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. I understand. I started off by saying I can

2 understand you will want to get evidence from them, but you have a large

3 number, and I won't stick to the number of 18 in case I have made a

4 mistake, but you have got a large number who are shown simply as

5 persecution, which would seem to be about the widespread attack upon the

6 civilian population.

7 MR. GROOME: Is the Court referring to the 92 bis witnesses as

8 well?

9 JUDGE HUNT: No. I am referring to your "Revised Pre-Trial Brief,

10 Informal Copy."

11 MR. GROOME: But in the tally of witnesses, we do have seven

12 witnesses that we propose to put testimony in via 92 bis that are for

13 persecution and background.

14 JUDGE HUNT: Are they in this list?

15 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, and they're indicated by 92 bis.

16 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. All right. Well, then they won't take time up,

17 but what about the rest of them?

18 MR. GROOME: Perhaps if we could speak to specific witnesses I can

19 address the Court's concerns.

20 JUDGE HUNT: Well, if you start at number 25, after Mr. Masovic.

21 MR. GROOME: Mr. Poljo will testify regarding the Slap area and

22 what -- and his observations about what happened there. I expect he

23 probably, at this point, will be less than a day.

24 JUDGE HUNT: You might tell me what Slap is. I've only seen the

25 name. There's nothing in the pre-trial brief to tell me what it is. What

Page 78












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and the English transcripts.













Page 79

1 is it?

2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, downstream from Visegrad is this area

3 called Slap where the Drina takes a very sharp westward bend, and many of

4 the victims from Visegrad were dumped off the bridge or into the river and

5 were collected there. They were then buried there. Mr. Poljo and one

6 other witness will testify about what they did when they retrieved the

7 bodies out of the river and will testify about their observations of the

8 bodies.

9 We are still in the process of trying to identify those bodies.

10 We do know that they came from Visegrad. We have identified some of them

11 now, and they are relevant to the case. One in particular is not a victim

12 in the case, but he will prove to be very relevant regarding some of the

13 issues raised by the Defence. There will be two witnesses regarding this

14 area called Slap.

15 The next witness that is [redacted] and the Prosecution

16 proposes to introduce a videotape that was shown on Serbian news in which

17 [redacted] appears,and he is in a truck belonging to the JNA army. He

18 will testify that just after that truck pulls away with him and other

19 Muslims collected by the JNA across the bridge, the old bridge in

20 Visegrad, and in front of his truck was another JNA truck and that Milan

21 Lukic and some of his men came and removed some of the Muslim people on

22 that truck off the JNA truck. He will not identify the accused or testify

23 that the accused was there - he's unable to say that - but again it shows

24 the connection between Milan Lukic, the JNA, and the wider conflict.

25 [redacted]. He

Page 80

1 will be able to discuss the general background. He will testify about an

2 incident which he was in the room of a JNA command centre, and the

3 Generals did not realise he was there and talked about ethnic cleansing

4 and pointing to areas on the map and saying that these areas had been

5 cleaned and referring to villages that he was aware had previously

6 experienced ethnic cleansing in the days before.

7 JUDGE HUNT: My initial thought is to say to you: Why don't you

8 pick your best five of these witnesses and see how they go? Have

9 arrangements made for the others to be brought in if necessary.

10 I'm not going to suggest that the Trial Chamber will say to you,

11 "You have proved your case," but it will be very obvious to you, will it

12 not, from the nature of the cross-examination as to whether their evidence

13 has been accepted and whether that will prove the case.

14 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. That would be agreeable.

15 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Well, then, what I suggest to you is that

16 you should inform the Victims and Witnesses Section that you may have to

17 call some others, so they have all the arrangements made for visas and

18 things. And then if you feel, after your best five witnesses purely on

19 the issue of attack upon the civilian population have not turned out too

20 well, well, then, we will allow you to add some more.

21 But this sort of thing goes on and on and on and on, and no matter

22 what Trial Chambers say by way of guidance, it never ever seems to get

23 through. And I'm not criticising the Prosecution office. It has certain

24 problems with its obligations to these people and the promises they've

25 made to them about letting them come here to tell their story, but you

Page 81

1 cannot, in this day and age and in the situation in which this Tribunal

2 now finds itself, allow this to be some sort of truth and reconciliation

3 commission. We have to conduct criminal trials, and we cannot afford to

4 allow an unlimited number of witnesses to come along to give their

5 evidence because somehow they have been promised that they will be given

6 that opportunity.

7 So what I suggest to you is you pick your best five on that issue,

8 solely on that issue of civilian attack upon the population, and then

9 after you've called them, we'll discuss whether you feel you need some

10 more.

11 MR. GROOME: That's agreeable, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Now, Mr. Domazet, your pre-trial brief

13 goes into great detail about attacks by the Muslims upon the Serb civilian

14 population. Can you tell me what its relevance is, please?

15 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I thought that it was

16 necessary to describe the situation, especially around Visegrad from the

17 outset, that is, from the end of 1990, because in the Prosecution's brief,

18 the period taken into account is from the arrival of the Uzice Corps in

19 April of 1992 and on. So I believed that the period which preceded it

20 should also in some way be -- cast some light on.

21 JUDGE HUNT: How does it do so? That's the issue. What is its

22 relevance? Does it show some justification for the Serb attack upon the

23 Muslim population in some way?

24 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] No. I do not want to say that, nor

25 to justify any side in the conflict, because I think that this was an

Page 82

1 armed conflict of two parties. But if we were only to look at the

2 Prosecution's allegations, it would seem that there was no good reason for

3 the initial conflict, for the erection of the first barricades which both

4 the Muslims and the Serbs erected in and around Visegrad. And from the

5 evidence that I collected, this is what comes out. And I was only trying

6 to limit myself to documentary evidence. These are only written documents

7 for now, and perhaps one witness who researched Visegrad and vicinity in

8 regard of these events on behalf of a committee, and I think that he may

9 show up here perhaps.

10 Perhaps I have -- it may seem that I have given it more space in

11 the brief than it really warranted, and I will take that criticism.

12 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, I still am puzzling as to what its

13 relevance is. You've got some 20 incidents there. Now, let's assume that

14 they did occur, that the Muslims were attacking the Serbian civilian

15 population. The fact that there's an armed conflict is a little

16 irrelevant to this issue, because that's a conflict between two

17 non-civilian bodies of people.

18 The whole of this particular charge or these charges based upon an

19 attack upon the civilian population is the fact that they are civilians

20 and, therefore, non-combatants, and the charges are based upon an

21 assertion that there was an attack upon the Muslim civilian population.

22 That probably did happen, only because we've heard cases relating to all

23 three ethnicities. That probably did happen in many places where the

24 Muslims did attack the Serb population, but it seems to me to be totally

25 irrelevant to any issue that we have to determine in this case. We're not

Page 83












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and the English transcripts.













Page 84

1 concerned terribly much about barricades being set up and some

2 disadvantages which ensued from that. What we are concerned with in this

3 case is that there were, one assumes, physical attacks upon the Muslim

4 population, a dispossession of their houses, and a moving of them out of

5 particular areas.

6 Now, that is what an attack upon the civilian population usually

7 consists of. As I've said here, I don't have the statements, the

8 indictment is singularly bereft of any detail of this, but if that is the

9 nature of the Prosecution case, how do we disbelieve that it happened

10 because other Muslims might be attacking other Serbs who happen to be

11 civilians? This is not a case of retaliation, or if it is, it won't help

12 you. In fact, it will establish motives which I think would be

13 detrimental to your client's case. Reprisals -- there was some dispute in

14 the law about whether that's permissible, but even where it has been held

15 to be permissible, it certainly doesn't fit the circumstances of this

16 case.

17 Now, we are, as you readily accept, not here to determine who was

18 at fault for the commencement of these disputes, and the fact that the

19 Muslims attacked the Serbs before these events doesn't strike me as being

20 relevant in any way to whether we can determine that there were attacks by

21 the Serbs upon the Muslim civilians.

22 What I suggest to you is this: Before the trial, I'd like to have

23 in writing from you a precise statement not just of what you believe is

24 fair or what you may believe happened, I want a statement, a legal

25 statement, as to precisely what issue it goes to in the case.

Page 85

1 I recognise that the Prosecution does tend sometimes to give what

2 it calls background evidence which is similarly irrelevant, and if there

3 is an objection taken we'll consider it. But this doesn't even have, so

4 far as I can see, the pretense of some relevance in the case. So you

5 better put that in, and we'll have perhaps a short meeting about a week

6 before the trial commences and we'll see what you've been able to

7 produce. But I should warn you that on the face of it, its relevance is

8 less than impressive.

9 You may like to read the Kupreskic judgement, by the way, the

10 Trial Chamber judgement, in which they deal with this issue quite

11 extensively from about paragraphs 510 through to 536.

12 Now, Mr. Groome, why do we have all of these Common Article 3

13 charges? What do they add to this except multiplication?

14 MR. GROOME: Until the Court rules that those Article 3 charges

15 are lesser includeds of Article 5, the Court could find that we did

16 not -- could find him guilty of those Article 3 charges and yet not of the

17 Article 5 charges.

18 JUDGE HUNT: I'd like to know how. It just strikes me as a rather

19 surprising submission. But you may like to consider it. If you think

20 that there is something which you would be disadvantaged by not having

21 them in, by all means, I'll be very happy to hear you, but I'd like you to

22 consider whether they are really necessary in a case such as this. When

23 you have a -- I hope Mr. Vasiljevic won't be upset by this, but when you

24 have what is really a smaller fish case, it seems to be quite unnecessary

25 to use them at this stage of the Tribunal's history in order to prove

Page 86

1 things for other cases.

2 Right. Now, there is some problem, I understand from the Senior

3 Legal Officer, about the agreed facts. Has there been any progress on

4 that, Mr. Groome?

5 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I had asked Mr. Domazet to correct

6 me if I'm wrong. Mr. Domazet had taken the proposed facts that had been

7 translated into the accused's language, and the accused has spent a day or

8 more with them and has made some corrections and has struck out some of

9 the proposed admissions. We received that back this morning, and I just

10 received a few minutes before this conference a copy of a rough

11 translation of what has now been agreed by the accused himself. I'd be

12 happy to give the Court a copy of that.

13 JUDGE HUNT: Well, I'd rather you had a precise agreement before

14 we started getting drafts, but if you are discussing it, I'll leave it as

15 it stands.

16 MR. GROOME: It is agreed at this point, and it just is a matter

17 of getting an official translation from the accused's language into

18 English.

19 JUDGE HUNT: Well, perhaps once you've got it, then you can file

20 it and we'll be right.

21 MR. GROOME: Right.

22 JUDGE HUNT: The other thing, whilst you're on your feet: Is

23 discovery now complete?

24 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, except for one or two pages of

25 notes of our recent discussions with witnesses. They're being typed up,

Page 87

1 and Mr. Domazet will have them by the end of today and they will be

2 submitted for translation.

3 JUDGE HUNT: And whilst the office of the Prosecution might think

4 that I'm obsessed with some issues, how is the Rule 68 exculpatory

5 material searching going on?

6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I think the Prosecution has demonstrated

7 throughout the course of the preparation for trial -- we've handed over a

8 number of documents and witness statements to Mr. Domazet on an ongoing

9 basis. We have no additional Rule 68 material in our possession now that

10 Mr. Domazet hasn't already received months ago.

11 JUDGE HUNT: No, but the point I was seeking to make is: Is the

12 searching still going on?

13 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. The searching has been completed.

14 JUDGE HUNT: Has been completed?

15 MR. GROOME: Yes.

16 JUDGE HUNT: You have no more material you can search through?

17 MR. GROOME: No.

18 JUDGE HUNT: The 92 bis, the other 92 bis statements, what's

19 happening about those? Has there been some order made? You've got a list

20 of 92 bis witnesses, but I've only made an order in relation to one.

21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, an application has been submitted to the

22 Registrar to make arrangements to have an officer, a Presiding Officer,

23 appointed for the purpose of obtaining those 92 bis statements.

24 JUDGE HUNT: I see. Right. Now, there are a few things arising

25 out of the Prosecution's informal pre-trial brief that I just want to

Page 88












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and the English transcripts.













Page 89

1 raise with you. In paragraph 8, you say, "This charge," this is the third

2 count, "is based upon the totality of the criminal acts committed by the

3 accused, Mr. Vasiljevic, on discriminatory grounds against the Bosnian

4 Muslim inhabitants of Visegrad." Now, you've only charged him with two

5 offences. Are there some other offences you're going to prove in relation

6 to the third count?

7 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE HUNT: So we can assume that those are the two separate

9 incidents: the shooting in the river and the burning of the first house.

10 MR. GROOME: That's correct.

11 JUDGE HUNT: Now, you do say in your original pre-trial brief

12 under the legal submissions that you propose to prove some criminal

13 offences which he has committed in order to establish that he was not in

14 hospital when he says he was. Is this still part of the Prosecution

15 case?

16 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE HUNT: Have they been identified in any way? They're not in

18 the pre-trial brief.

19 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour, we haven't identified them in the

20 pre-trial brief, other than to say that the witnesses will testify about

21 seeing Mr. Vasiljevic at a certain time and place and will describe what

22 he was doing. Some of those will include criminal acts.

23 JUDGE HUNT: Well, the principles that you state, so far as I'm

24 concerned, are entirely correct, that you can establish matters which we

25 don't take into account in sentencing if we get to that stage. But you

Page 90

1 are entitled to show conduct which happens to be criminal if you want to

2 prove it for some other purpose. But is it all stated in the statements

3 which the Defence have now?

4 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE HUNT: That's all right. As long as there's proper notice

6 for it.

7 Yes. The last paragraph of this informal copy, you talk about

8 in-court identification procedure. I should draw your attention to what

9 was said in the Kunarac judgement about that at paragraph 562. In that

10 case, we held that it has no positive probative value. In other words, if

11 somebody can't identify the accused in court, that is a negative probative

12 value which may be important; not always, but may be. But whilst the

13 in-court identification would be permitted because it's something which

14 you would expect a witness to be able to do, I should emphasise that so

15 far as the Trial Chamber in Kunarac was concerned, it has no positive

16 probative value. Because you can imagine coming to Court - and we

17 probably will be incarcerated in this shoebox - they will come into Court

18 there and they'll see Mr. Vasiljevic sitting over there as the obvious

19 accused, and the quality of the evidence of identification is really nothing.

20 Right. Well, now, those are the matters that I wanted to raise.

21 Does either party want to raise any matter at this stage?

22 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE HUNT: How about you, Mr. Domazet?

24 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, except -- I don't

25 know if I understood this correctly, but we're not to discuss the

Page 91

1 submission of the Prosecution of the six witnesses pursuant to 92 bis,

2 which I just happened to receive now, today, that is. If we are, I would

3 have an objection in regard of the first of the witnesses listed therein.

4 JUDGE HUNT: You do understand that at this stage all the

5 Prosecution has done is to seek the appointment of a Presiding Officer to

6 actually take the statement. You would have the right to have that

7 witness brought in for cross-examination, so that it's a means of

8 shortening the evidence in chief really. So if you have a basis upon you

9 wish to challenge something, you are no worse off by the fact that the

10 witness will be giving a written statement. Hopefully, where there is no

11 real dispute with the material, the witness' statement will simply be

12 tendered. But the Rule is very clear. 92 bis is very clear. You have

13 the right to seek to have the witness brought in for cross-examination,

14 and in order to have that done, all you have to demonstrate is that you

15 have a valid basis for objecting to or criticising or refuting some of the

16 evidence in that statement. It's not before me at the moment. I haven't

17 even seen them.

18 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE HUNT: Well, now, from a practical point of view, the

20 Tribunal, of course, goes on vacation, summer vacation, in two weeks'

21 time. I myself am taking an extra week's vacation before that, so I'll be

22 away after the end of next week. I'll be back for the last week of

23 August, so if there are any matters that you want to raise at that stage,

24 I suggest that you organise between the two of you and the Senior Legal

25 Officer to have it listed before me, as the pre-trial Judge, in that last

Page 92

1 week of August.

2 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Well, we look forward to seeing you back

4 here. As I say, I suspect we'll be in this courtroom. And it I think is

5 the 12th of September - anyway, it's a Monday - that the trial will

6 probably be listed, and it will be before myself and two ad litem Judges,

7 whose identity, I'm afraid, I do not yet know. Thank you for attending.

8 I'll now adjourn.

9 --- Whereupon the Pre-Trial Conference

10 adjourned at 3.52 p.m.