1 Thursday, 27 January 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.15 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
6 everyone in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Good morning to
10 everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
11 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours, Joanna Korner,
12 Thomas Hannis, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours, Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Eugene O'Sullivan for Stanisic Defence this morning.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours,
16 Dragan Krgovic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Notwithstanding the reservations
18 I expressed when we last sat about convening for no apparent purpose, we
19 thought it nevertheless useful to meet this morning according to the
20 order for adjournment as a matter of convenience and courtesy to counsel
21 and also for the benefit of the accused who would have heard the -- that
22 we were reconvening in the course of this week, but counsel have been
23 alerted that we are not where we thought we would have been two days ago,
24 and counsel also would have seen the notification by e-mail last evening
25 that we are seeking to set a new date for the close of Prosecution's case
1 and to that end, it is intended that when we take the adjournment today
2 that we reconvene on Tuesday in the afternoon, by which time the
3 outstanding decisions, which are -- the close of the Prosecution's case
4 being contingent upon those coming out, would have been released.
5 Yesterday, the Chamber received a request from the Prosecution to
6 admit three further documents. I assume that the Defence has begun to
7 consider this and the question that I would first ask is whether you're
8 in a position to respond at this point.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if it is the three
10 documents related to the payroll list for the special detachments from
11 Banja Luka, yes, we are ready to respond.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, first of all, just that we be
13 completely correct, it refers to document 65 ter 14, 65 ter 15, and 65
15 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
16 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct but that is -- the mail that we got
17 refers to these three documents, where 65 ter 14 is a part of the bar
18 table motion already. So we should be talking about the two documents,
19 I think, 65 ter 15 and 65 ter 839. But I hear --
20 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, this is really a problem when
22 this was done, in my opinion, quite improperly, by sending an e-mail. We
23 need to know exactly what the Office of the Prosecutor wants to have in,
24 and not to mention that this is 11th hour for this kind of application.
25 So I think what Your Honours should do is instruct the Office of the
1 Prosecutor to properly prepare a motion, attach the document, and then we
2 can respond to this. I mean, very short motion. It doesn't have to
3 explain anything more than it has in the e-mail, but with the e-mail, the
4 problem is there is always a mistake in numbers and I have three
5 documents which were printed for me by my staff, now it appears those are
6 the wrong documents now.
7 MS. KORNER: If Your Honour reads the --
8 MR. ZECEVIC: I really don't --
9 MS. KORNER: The reason that we didn't put it into a written
10 motion was because we thought we were going to be closing our case today
11 and we didn't think that it was helpful to have another outstanding
12 written motion. I will read the e-mail as it was sent. Leaving out
13 the -- it was addressed to Ms. Featherstone:
14 "Please notify the Trial Chamber that in selecting documents on
15 our 65 ter list to put in through Ewan Brown, three were omitted by
16 mistake, 65 ter 15 (the covering letter to that document is 65 ter 14
17 which went with the document as part of the bar table motion, by
18 mischance we missed out the actual document that was with the covering
19 letter), 65 ter 839, and 65 ter 1583."
20 In my view, it could not be clearer. But as Your Honours have
21 now told us that we will not be finishing today, we will put that into
22 writing immediately after the Court session ends and we will attach the
23 documents, all of which are relevant, we say, one of which in particular
24 deals with an issue that arose through cross-examination of Mr. Brown,
25 namely the so-called volunteers.
1 JUDGE HALL: Well, the issue of procedural propriety apart, is
2 there any misunderstanding, and I address this to the Defence, as to what
3 the documents are? I am not forgetting what Mr. Zecevic indicated about
4 apparent confusion in numbers, but having heard Ms. Korner, is it clear
5 now as to what the application is about?
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, it is, Your Honours. I'm sorry, I missed one
7 document, and it's true, it's been also printed out for me but I didn't
8 have the time to see it. If you give me some time, I might be able to
9 give my -- our position on this.
10 JUDGE HALL: By tomorrow?
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Definitely. I was thinking in the course of this
12 session, I would be able to do that.
13 JUDGE HALL: Well, better still.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
15 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm going to consult
17 with Mr. Zecevic and we are going to bring forward our joint position on
18 the document during this session.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Does the Prosecution intend to respond
20 to the application on the part of the accused Stanisic for provisional
22 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, yes, but we can't do that until we've
23 heard from the Defence, and I'm going to ask Your Honours to -- invite
24 Your Honours to ask the Defence today whether they propose to make an
25 application under Rule 98 bis. It's our submission that the rulings on
1 the documents cannot affect the overall position as to whether either
2 accused intends to make such an application. The reason I say we can't
3 do it until after that is because the position is different. There is an
4 Appeals Chamber ruling on what has to be -- that the accused has to show
5 in order to apply for provisional release, if a Rule 98 bis application
6 has been made and rejected or none at all is made. So we can't do that
7 until such time as the Defence have indicated their position.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE HALL: The -- such tentative inquiries as have been made as
10 to the position of the accused on the 98 bis question have not, as
11 I understand it at this point, been -- the responses have not been clear,
12 as far as the Chamber is concerned, and in terms of the -- where we
13 expect to be after Tuesday afternoon, the -- we would have been looking
14 to hear finally from the Defence on Wednesday, but might I be so bold as
15 to inquire as to whether they could respond now?
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I understand the wish of all the
17 parties for us to express our position at this point, but if you
18 remember, when we were talking about that during the status conference,
19 I said very clearly that we need the whole parameters in order to be able
20 to make our decision. Your Honours, despite what is the position of
21 Ms. Korner and the Office of the Prosecutor, we feel that the bar table
22 motion, the decision on the bar table motion, and especially the decision
23 as on exhumations is definitely something that we have to know before we
24 will make the decision to apply for 98 bis. I'm really sorry. Before
25 that we are not in a position to say what -- whether we are going to
1 start the 98 bis application or not. Thank you.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 [Trial chamber and legal officer confer]
4 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, there is nothing -- may I say there is
5 absolutely nothing in the rules that says Your Honours can't order the
6 Defence to tell us today.
7 JUDGE HALL: I appreciate that, Ms. Korner, but it seems that
8 Mr. Zecevic's reservation, even up to this point, although as he's
9 indicated there are only two matters that he's awaiting, is not
10 unreasonable and we are at Thursday. As I indicated, we expect the
11 Prosecution to close its case by Tuesday afternoon, which means that the
12 relevant decisions would be in the hands of the parties by Monday, and by
13 Wednesday, as I indicated, we expect the Defence to indicate their
15 MS. KORNER: All right. Well, Your Honours, in that case,
16 clearly the response to the application by Mr. Stanisic will have to
17 await that.
18 JUDGE HALL: Yes, we understand.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, there are, of course, a number of other
20 matters that need to be dealt with. I don't know if Your Honours have
21 any other matters you want to raise.
22 JUDGE HALL: There may be one or two matters that -- to which we
23 would return but if there are any matters the parties which to raise at
24 this point, please proceed.
25 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, there were two defence
1 applications in respect of documents on Monday, and if I may I'll come
2 back to that and deal with two matters that the Prosecution want to
3 raise. The first is your oral ruling given on, I believe, Monday in
4 respect of the Prosecution application to -- for Your Honours to
5 reconsider your decision to admit the unsigned statements, unsigned
6 documents, that were obtained by investigators in Omarska and other
7 places. And the oral ruling was that it -- having gone through our
8 application or -- sorry, the oral ruling giving reasons, says this:
9 "The Trial Chamber recalls it did not admit the Official Notes
10 for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Instead it admitted the
11 documents as evidence of the procedures followed by the investigators at
12 Omarska while interrogating detainees and as proof of what the
13 investigators noted the detainees declarations to be, not as free and
14 voluntary statements of the detainees themselves. The Chamber also held
15 that the issue of what weight to be assigned to the contents as outlined
16 above will remain a task for the Trial Chamber at the end of the trial."
17 Your Honours, can I just confirm, please, that that it's the last
18 part that gave us cause for concern, of what weight to be assigned to the
19 contents. It started off by saying that you would not admit them for the
20 truth of the matters contained therein but then you add what weight will
21 be given to the contents.
22 JUDGE HALL: "As outlined above."
23 MS. KORNER: Yes, but therefore we understand -- Your Honours,
24 I'm sorry, it may be us again, it probably is, but that doesn't make it
25 in our view entirely clear that you will not consider the contents at
1 all. You'll merely consider the procedure. Because if you're deciding
2 what weight to give to the contents that in itself suggests that there is
3 some evidence that these are true statements. And, Your Honours, that
4 was the gravamen of our application for reconsideration. So if the
5 answer -- if the answer is that you're only going to consider them for
6 the procedure, that's one matter, but if you're going to consider the
7 contents as well, that's another matter entirely.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: "As set out above," Ms. Korner.
9 MS. KORNER: Yes.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: There's "the content as set out above."
11 MS. KORNER: But Your Honour, I would --
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: That --
13 MS. KORNER: With respect --
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: That makes a clear restriction, as we say in the
15 previous paragraph.
16 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honours. "As evidence of the
17 procedures," so how do the contents, the procedures are, evidence of the
18 procedures, they took statements or purported to make these Official
19 Notes of what purportedly the people told them unsigned and the rest. So
20 what we are saying is the contents in themselves cannot -- should not be
21 considered at all, save insofar as, I suppose to the limited extent of
22 that's what appear in the notes.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, the statements include the
24 observations that the interrogating officer took from the detainees. It
25 has been claimed that there was an element of coercion in the
1 circumstances under which these statements were taken. For that reason,
2 the Chamber declined to rely on the contents -- on the truth of the
3 contents. However, the Chamber also said that what we may eventually
4 have a look at by the end of the trial is the fact that this is -- that
5 the statements is exactly what the interrogating officer took down and
6 that fact, of course, is something that can be taken into account and
7 may -- probably will. I don't know. But we'll see when we get to the
8 end of the trial. That's as far as we can go in telling you what this
10 MS. KORNER: Right. So Your Honour is -- do I understand, Your
11 Honours are going to look at the contents.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: End of story.
13 MS. KORNER: Yes.
14 JUDGE HALL: You had another matter to raise, Ms. Korner?
15 MS. KORNER: Yes, I did. That is the so-called Defence response
16 to our notice to the trial -- our notice of compliance in respect of the
17 exhumations. Now, Your Honours, the first thing is we would submit that
18 under Rule 73 that wasn't a motion and the Defence have no right to
19 respond under the rules. Second thing is, however, if Your Honours
20 propose to consider it, there are misstatements of fact contained in that
21 response. If Your Honours say that you will not take it into
22 consideration, then I won't trouble Your Honours with it. If Your
23 Honours say you will take it into consideration, then I will trouble Your
24 Honours with what we say is erroneous in the Defence notice.
25 JUDGE HALL: Well, even if the -- it being a notice, there was no
1 quote unquote "right to respond," the reaction of the Defence to the
2 information is useful for the Chamber in its -- how it finally disposes
3 of this, so if you have errors in their observations to bring to our
4 attention, by all means please go ahead.
5 MS. KORNER: Thank you. Paragraph 8 of the joint Defence
6 response, in inverted commas, says that:
7 "Contrary to point 8 of the directions, documents in the
8 Prosecution database are not translated into a working language of the
10 Your Honours, that was not the direction that was given, that
11 they should be translated, clearly that would be an impossibility in the
12 time that we were given to deal with this.
13 The direction in point 8 read:
14 "It should finally include an indication of whether the document
15 is not yet available in a working language of the Tribunal," and we gave
16 that indication.
17 The second matter is this, they said:
18 "Contrary to point 7 of the directions, the notice does not
19 contain for each document or item a brief description of its contents."
20 Your Honour, we understood that to read that it should be a
21 description such as "autopsy report," or whatever it is, "declaration of
22 death from a court." All of that is indicated to give a totally full
23 description of each and every one of the documents in there would have
24 taken months because we would have had to open up every document, read
25 the contents, some of which are not translated, the reason for which we
1 explained, and we understood that to mean simply so that Your Honours
2 could know what the document was, in other words as I say, declaration of
3 death and the like. And that's what we've done.
4 Your Honours, finally, I feel it worth reiterating, as a result
5 of this so-called response, that we have throughout, from the moment
6 that -- before this case began, at one of the earliest Status Conferences
7 or 65 ter indicated our intention to put in a database. We have invited
8 the Defence at any stage to inspect the documents and that's right from
9 the beginning. This only came up, I believe, in around September of last
10 year when the Defence made that request, and as I say, and I reiterate we
11 have always said -- or July or whatever it was -- way after the case
12 started. We have always said if this was not accepted, we will call
13 evidence and we reiterate that and we will not -- depending on the
14 ruling, close our case if that is the effect of it, without calling the
15 evidence which is available to us. So I want to make that absolutely
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Ms. Korner.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Just very briefly, Your Honours, it is true that in
20 the pre-trial phase the Office of the Prosecutor offered the exhumations
21 database for stipulation, we said no, clearly.
22 Then they -- they invited us to review that document again and we
23 say, "Okay, give us the document. We'll review it."
24 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, I wasn't necessarily inviting a
25 response to the last specific point raised by Ms. Korner.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry.
2 JUDGE HALL: Because this ground has been raked and re-raked over
3 again, and the Chamber is in the process of -- it understands everything
4 that counsel has said and repeated, and we are in the final stages of
5 issuing our decision.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand that, I'm sorry, I just wanted to --
7 JUDGE HALL: But I wondered whether you yourself had anything to
8 raise independently of the concerns of the Prosecution.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: You mean on the exhumations?
10 JUDGE HALL: No, no.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: On the issue of exhumations or --
12 JUDGE HALL: No, generally, in terms of the stage we are at in
13 the trial.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, there are two pending issues about the
15 documents: One is the Doboj document -- documents where we, I believe,
16 found an agreement with the Office of the Prosecutor for a number of
17 documents, and the second thing is the Lisica book documents, and it was
18 my understanding that Ms. Korner wanted to address that immediately after
19 she finishes with the two issues that she put forward concerning -- which
20 were the issues which she actually stated just before now.
21 So whether you want me or Ms. Korner --
22 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, you --
23 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honour, that is -- I was dealing with,
24 firstly, effectively, it was our applications and then our response to
25 what the Defence raised on Monday in respect of documents.
1 So that's the situation and I can move on. Those are the two
2 matters that we wished to raise as part of our case. And obviously, the
3 Ewan Brown documents, if I can put it -- the military documents which we
4 didn't put in.
5 Your Honours can I turn to the vexed question of the Lisica book,
6 and I think I need to take a little time of this -- over this. Your
7 Honours, this matter first arose way back in May, to be precise on the
8 11th of May last year when Mr. Cvijetic was cross-examining a witness.
9 And he put to the witness the document, and I think we had better
10 probably pull it up again -- and I'll just give the number. I think it's
11 MFI-263 -- sorry, 1D263.
12 I'm sure Your Honours remember it, but what was said about,
13 Mr. Cvijetic moved for it to be tendered into evidence, and this is at
14 page 9949 of the transcripts. Mr. Demirdjian said:
15 "Could we ask where this document comes from because at the
16 bottom of this document it seems to be a compilation and we see a page,
17 137, and this is repeated with a number of other documents that the
18 Defence seek to show."
19 Can I just pause nor a moment, Your Honour? I just want check
20 that this was -- was this in open session? I'm just checking, Your
21 Honour, that this was said in open session. I'm not entirely clear and
22 I should have checked that earlier.
23 Mr. Cvijetic responded:
24 "Your Honours, this document, as well as others that will follow,
25 we've received from the team for investigation of war crimes based on our
1 request dated the 16th of October 2007. We will submit this document to
2 the Prosecution."
3 I happened to be in court at that stage and explained that this
4 document saga, as I said, was a long-running one, and said:
5 "The Defence cannot extract one page from a book and then decline
6 to give us the rest of the pages. We are formally now requesting that we
7 be supplied with the whole book from which this is page 137."
8 Mr. Zecevic then intervened, I suppose you can say both leading
9 counsel took over and said:
10 "Your Honours if I may intervene, there is no book. I don't know
11 where Ms. Korner came up with the suggestion that this is a book.
12 Someone, somebody wrote 137 on the document. I don't know what it stands
13 for, I don't know what it stands for."
14 Your Honours, there was further discussion and at that stage, the
15 documents, there was one other document, were MFI'd, but we made a clear
16 and unambiguous request for the book.
17 Your Honour, the matter re-arose again with Mr. Brown last week
18 at -- can I just get the right page? Yes. Mr. Zecevic at page 1963,
19 having shown Mr. Brown both 1D263 and 1D264, moved again to have the
20 documents admitted into evidence. And Your Honours may recall there was
21 a long discussion which Mr. Zecevic ended up saying, at page 18967:
22 "Your Honours, I don't have any indication, nor can I say, that
23 this is a book. This might be, as far as I'm concerned, this might be
24 the archive of the 3rd Tactical Group in Doboj, and maybe it was archived
25 like this and given the pages. I really don't know."
1 And then Judge Harhoff asked: "Did you try?"
2 Your Honour, Mr. Zecevic:
3 "Your Honours, I am asking them for help to give me. I don't
4 have resources, nor do I have investigators in the field."
5 And so on and so forth. And didn't answer Your Honour's question
6 as to whether he actually tried, and it was quite apparent from what he
7 was saying that he hadn't.
8 Your Honours, following this exchange, we decided that we would
9 make inquiries. It took one phone call from an investigator in the
10 Sarajevo field office to establish from the RS MUP that there was a book.
11 The arrangements were made -- this was on the Thursday -- arrangements
12 were made for investigator to collect an electronic version of the book.
13 Inquiries reveal that the book was given to the Defence in 2007.
14 And if necessary we are going to ask for a statement to that effect.
15 On Friday, at the first break, Mr. Zecevic handed me what
16 purports to be a copy of a -- photocopy of the book. I won't say it's a
17 startling coincidence that we when we start to make inquiries suddenly
18 the book appears.
19 Your Honours, we were additionally asked to make further searches
20 of our documents because it became clear that one of the documents at
21 least was in EDS. So what we have now done is as follows: We have not
22 been given a full copy of the book by Mr. Zecevic. We hope that what we
23 will get when we get it, we haven't yet got it from the RS MUP, will be a
24 full copy of the book. Your Honour, we've checked or we've had somebody
25 check because, of course, there is no translation of anything, the book
1 which was published in 2000 is entitled, "Lisica, Commander When
2 Required." That's a translation. It appears that he also wrote another
3 book, and he says, in the foreword to the book, that he has not published
4 the documents which were issued by his superiors and sent to his unit.
5 So we have in this book apparent copies of documents which he obtained or
6 retained, we don't know which, but not on his own announcement anything
7 that was sent to him. So we don't have the actual surrounding context.
8 The book itself is missing pages. And we've not been provided
9 by, and I understand from Mr. Zecevic that's deliberate, he hasn't given
10 us the whole copy. In addition to that, a number of documents have been
11 sought to be admitted from -- during the course of this case. There are
12 five documents which do not appear in the book, three of the MFI'd
13 documents are -- sorry, perhaps the easiest way to do this -- only three
14 of the MFI'd documents actually come from the book, and I'll read them
15 out: That is MFI 263, D1263, MFI D1264, and MFI 1265. The other
16 documents which have been MFI'd which purport to be Lisica or Bjelosevic
17 are not in the book.
18 However, we did do a search, and apart from the one that was
19 found in EDS, the search has produced one other document which is
20 MFI 264. Additionally, there are some other documents, not sought to be
21 put in to the Defence but which from -- we had to get somebody to read
22 them because they are not translated, do appear. There are other Lisica
23 documents and we disclosed them yesterday to the Defence.
24 The -- all of which may I say were in EDS.
25 So the situation is this, Your Honour: Some of the documents -
1 and I'd like Mr. Zecevic to repeat which ones he's asking to be fully
2 admitted as exhibits - we do have. Two to be precise, I think, and plus
3 some others that he hasn't sought to have admitted. In those
4 circumstances, we are not objecting, and I think we didn't object to the
5 one that's already been admitted, as Mr. Zecevic pointed out was in EDS.
6 As regards the others, can I put it this way: Now that we've
7 been given at the nth stage of this case, some indication of where these
8 documents come from, with the caveat that there are no -- these are not
9 originals, the other ones that Mr. Zecevic wants to put in, that we don't
10 have the surrounding documents and it's dependent on -- nor indeed the
11 whole book at the moment, we may want to come back over that when we get
12 the whole book or books, we are prepared to say that the documents that
13 Mr. Zecevic, if he repeats which ones they are and which we have, as it
14 were originals, we will withdraw our objection to their admission,
15 because we accept that we've got documents from this series, but can
16 I point out that all of this could have been avoided if the Defence had
17 been up front with us right from the beginning back in May of last year.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, let me be very short and very clear.
19 I don't think this deserves any particular attention. Your Honours,
20 I took this case in 2008, so the documents which have been received in
21 2007 I just got from the previous lead counsel, and information that
22 I got from him were these information that I presented to the Trial
23 Chamber. So if the book was received by the previous counsel, I really
24 don't know. I didn't have that information. And you can trust me on
25 that because there is no point for me to say that I got the book and
1 I didn't want to disclose that to the Prosecutor. I think that's --
2 that's really -- I don't even want to comment there. The point of the
3 matter is, Your Honour --
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just ask, does anyone know where the book
5 is at this moment?
6 MS. KORNER: By the way, Your Honours, Mr. Cvijetic got the book,
7 Mr. Cvijetic made the application for these documents, Mr. Cvijetic who
8 was putting this matter had the book.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, we asked the two documents be
10 admitted, 1D263 MFI, 1D264 MFI.
11 Your Honours asked me if I knew, is it -- from which book does it
12 come from? I said at that point that I don't know if it is a book or it
13 might be the archives. After that, my assistant in Belgrade found the
14 book, bought the book, scanned the documents, I don't intend to rely on
15 the comments of Colonel Lisica. I thought what we are talking here about
16 are the documents from that book.
17 I gave all the documents from that book to Ms. Korner, and what
18 I got from Ms. Korner, based on the Rule 66(B) is the document which was
19 disclosed to me with the ERN number and which is apparently from the very
20 same book. It's the OTP document, it's on the EDS, it has the ERN number
21 03562583. And it has the number of pages, 69, 70, and 71, just like the
22 documents I'm offering, and these documents were put into the database of
23 this Tribunal by the Office of the Prosecutor. So the Office of the
24 Prosecutor was aware of the existence of the book and didn't question the
25 authenticity or any other suggestions that Ms. Korner was making towards
1 the Defence when it uploaded this document into the EDS.
2 Now, this document apparently was received from the suspect
3 during the interview. That is the explanation that we got from the
4 Office of the Prosecutor. Now -- so the Office of the Prosecutor didn't
5 have a problem of uploading the document which it received from the
6 suspect but is having a problem when the Defence is offering this, from
7 the very same source, the documents from the very same source, from the
8 same book.
9 Now, I don't think -- I don't think that we have to discuss this
10 any further. We will supply the Office of the Prosecutor with the whole
11 scanned book, and if it is my understanding that Ms. Korner is now
12 willing to withdraw their objections to 1D263 and 1D264 and 1D265 which
13 are all three MFI'd, so therefore I think it closes the matter. Thank
14 you very much.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: So we are talking about three documents, 263, 264
16 and 265?
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, that is correct, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: And that's for the 11 May transcript as well as
19 for Mr. Brown's testimony?
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. Mr. Brown 's documents were 263 and 264, and
21 265 was from May.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: 256 was from May and 263 was from May as well but
23 then you --
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, yes, but -- [Overlapping speakers].
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- then you [Overlapping speakers] twice.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, yes.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, okay.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: But it was repeated again with Mr. Brown. Thank
4 you very much.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE HALL: Having regard with what is common ground between the
8 parties, the order of the Chamber is that the documents previously marked
9 for identification are now entered as exhibits. The numbers being.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: 1D263.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, 1D263, 264, and 265. Thank you.
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, then Mr. Krgovic, on Monday, asked for
13 the following documents to be admitted or will be asking subject to
14 our -- 2D32, we do not object. This is at page 19243 of the transcript.
15 2D39, we do not object. Now, the third one, he said 2D1 -- 2D40, Your
16 Honour that was not objected to pending translation alone. That was
17 objected to on the basis of relevance and admissibility. So I don't know
18 whether Your Honours want to -- or whether Mr. Krgovic wants to deal with
19 that because at the moment we raise the same objections. That's 2D40.
20 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic?
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Let me just first check, because
22 I think that this document had been MFI'd solely because of translation.
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, the relevant page of the transcript
24 are pages 5885 through to 887.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that this
1 document is relevant due to the fact because it demonstrates and deals
2 with the situation in the area of the CSB, immediately before the
3 outbreak of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it indicates that
4 there was an escalating security situation in the course of 1992.
5 Similarly in the reports from 1992, Mr. Zupljanin is treating these
6 problems in the same way as was done in this document. This demonstrates
7 under which circumstances the CSB operated in 1992 and it registered a
8 lot of incidents that took place in 1991 and were then repeated again in
9 1992 and that Mr. Zupljanin dealt with them in the identical way. For
10 that reason, I believe that this document is relevant because it shows
11 the modus operandi of Mr. Zupljanin throughout this whole period.
12 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Perhaps -- how this came
13 about. This was Mr. Zepinic who was giving evidence.
14 "Q. Mr. Zepinic, you also received information that among the
15 refugees, either Serbs or Croats that passed through the territory of
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, a certain number of members of armed forces were
17 hiding, and I'll show you a document dated the 5th of December," and it's
18 that one. "This document essentially speaks about an incident at Kljuc,"
19 which is a misnomer, in fact, because it speaks about a whole lot of
20 other stuff. "Please look at the document and could you tell me exactly
21 what the document is?"
22 Now, fact, Mr. Zepinic never -- the question appeared to be
23 "among the refugees, either Serbs or Croats that passed through the
24 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a certain number of members armed forces
25 was hiding." Well he never answered whether "yes" or "no." And it goes
1 on from there.
2 Your Honours, this is December 1991, and notwithstanding
3 Mr. Krgovic's explanation, we fail to see how this can be relevant to any
4 issue at all in the case.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, concerning nexus, this
6 document was given to Mr. Zepinic, if you look at the last page of the
7 document, and that was exactly the reason why I showed it to him.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE HALL: The Chamber is of the view that the document may be
10 useful in terms of the -- what we understand the case for the Defence --
11 the accused Zupljanin to be as demonstrating a pattern of activities and
12 to that extent it is relevant and may be admitted.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, the next document, I believe, that he
14 wanted in is 2D122. I haven't the faintest idea what that is because we
15 weren't given anything.
16 JUDGE HALL: Just a moment, please.
17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
18 JUDGE HALL: So it's 2D14 and the order is that the previous MFI
19 designation is removed so it's entered as a full exhibit. Thank you.
20 Yes, Ms. Korner.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I've got a list saying 2D122, which is
22 headed "Criminal File Re: Attack on JNA and Hambarine." No idea when it
23 was sought to tender it, no idea what it is because no documents were
24 provided, so I'm not in a position to deal with that. As regards 2D123,
25 124, 125, again no translations were provided but I'm told they've been
1 uploaded into e-court. They are more Official Notes, I understand, from
3 Your Honours, originally when this matter was being dealt with,
4 Judge Harhoff -- all right, says this:
5 "We reiterate our objection to these notes. We say they are
6 absolutely valueless for any evidential purpose."
7 But in any event, Judge Harhoff said there was a limitation on
8 how many of these notes could go in for the purpose of, as Your Honours
9 have ruled, showing the procedure. So we raise that.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I sent the OTP a list
11 where these documents are included. Actually, these documents used to be
12 originally 1D documents. As far as I understand from my case manager,
13 this was put into one file in e-court so they are all translated. We are
14 talking about 1D22, 123, 124, and 125, and I showed these documents to
15 this witness. Ms. Korner is right when she said that a page of the
16 transcript is missing for the first part, but if you give me five or six
17 minutes, I can check this and give you an exact reference. So we have a
18 set of documents which is a criminal file relating to Hambarine and also
19 other documents introduced through this witness. As I said, I will give
20 you the exact transcript page in a matter of a few minutes.
21 JUDGE HALL: Having heard counsel -- sorry.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have it. I made a
23 mistake. I sent it to the Prosecutor but the document was not listed in
24 the original list, so all those documents that I mentioned, 2D122, 2D123,
25 2D124, and 2D125, they are all in evidence. Transcript page -- it was
1 the 4th of November, transcript 16866 up to 16872, and then 16884, 16887,
2 and then 16880, 16882, and 16890 and 16891.
3 MS. KORNER: Is Mr. Krgovic saying they've already been admitted,
4 in which case this is all a bit of a waste of time?
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] They were admitted only for the
6 purpose of MFI'ing because we didn't have the translation at the time.
7 However, now that the translation has been associated with exhibits,
8 I would like them to be fully tendered.
9 JUDGE HALL: There was only -- the MFI was only because they had
10 not yet been translated.
11 MR. HANNIS: May I speak about this, Your Honour? I was present
12 when this discussion occurred and I raised the objections, although it
13 was Mr. Olmsted's witness, I raised the objections concerning the
14 Official Notes, and it wasn't just about the translations. We had a long
15 discussion with you all and with Judge Harhoff about this, and my
16 objection initially was, I said, you've heard evidence about the
17 circumstances under which some of these interviews were taken at Manjaca,
18 it should raise a concern about whether or not they were reliable and
19 voluntary because there was evidence about physical abuse of the
20 witnesses, and I said that what I saw this as was an attempt to get
21 around Rule 92 bis and 92 ter by getting in witness statements of absent
22 witnesses this way. The Chamber took the position that, no, this was not
23 a witness statement of a named person, rather it was an Official Note of
24 the authorised official of the MUP official, and I understood that.
25 However, three of these that you're looking at now, I think 1 -- 2D123,
1 2D124, and 2D125, you need to look at them carefully because you'll
2 recall it was an issue about whether or not the detainee had signed the
3 statement, or in some cases it was not signed by him, rather it was
4 signed by an authorised official. And I think in one case, it was an
5 authorised official who was named by the testifying witness as somebody
6 he knew who was working there with him, and I could see Your Honours
7 accepting that then as an Official Note prepared by an authorised
8 official who we knew was there and working.
9 But if you look at 124 and 125, I think you'll see one has a
10 handwritten mark but we don't know whether it's the handwritten mark of
11 the detainee or their authorised official. There is no name, there is
12 just a scribble. Another one was an X under the typewritten words
13 "authorised official" but nothing else. So those two we think there is
14 insufficient evidence about the authenticity and you shouldn't consider
15 those two at all. Thank you.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Chamber has
17 already decided to enter this into evidence. The MFI tag was given only
18 because of the translation. Mr. Hannis is now asking to you review your
19 own decision. This is the set of the documents that the Prosecution
20 objected to and now they are trying to ask you to review again something
21 that they had asked to you review before. So the sole reason that this
22 is not a full exhibit is the issue of translation.
23 I'm talking about the whole set of the Official Notes that
24 I proposed for tendering. Some of them that were accompanied by
25 translation were already admitted as full exhibits and those who -- which
1 were not admitted didn't have translation. This is quite clear, if you
2 look at the transcript you will see that the sole reason for the fact
3 that they have been only MFI'd is the lack of translation.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 [Trial chamber and legal officer confer]
6 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I would direct you to
7 page 16883 at line 25 and carrying on to page 16884, and at the time
8 Judge Harhoff was speaking, and he said:
9 "So we will only consider those Official Notes that appear as
10 nothing but Official Notes; that is to say, without any signature by the
11 detainee. Those notes which have a signature and thus could be
12 understood to be statements, in our view, would not fulfil the
13 requirement of 92 bis and therefore will not be considered."
14 And one of these, I'm not sure, I think it's 124, the only
15 signature it has, if any, appears to be of a detainee and not an
16 authorised official, and 124 simply has an X under the typewritten word
17 "authorised official." And because we had no English translation at the
18 time I was making the objection I couldn't make any further argument.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HALL: To the extent that this overlaps with the -- what
21 has now become the vexed issue of the status of these Official Notes we
22 don't intend to revisit our ruling which we have spoken to on previous
23 occasions and this morning, and the -- both in terms of the procedure
24 that is likely to be followed and the recollection of ourselves and the
25 notes -- such notes as the Judges would have made, we are satisfied that
1 the only remaining issue on these documents was the translation, as
2 Mr. Krgovic has indicated, and the translation now having been completed
3 the MFI status is removed and the documents are admitted as full
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, those are all the matters that we wish
6 to raise. Your Honours, however, I really wish to know now, if I may,
7 for reasons which are going to cause me professional problems, about
8 the -- what's going to happen now.
9 Your Honours have now moved back the rulings until Monday of next
10 week. There is, in fact, a seven-day period whereby either side can
11 appeal those rulings. Are Your Honours intending that we should close
12 our case on the Tuesday, after you've delivered the rulings, which we are
13 prepared to do, but subject to any appeals? Your Honours will then
14 order, I take it, the Defence to tell you on Tuesday, and us, whether or
15 not they are going to be doing a Rule 98 bis. If --
16 JUDGE HALL: We thought we had already done that.
17 MS. KORNER: What?
18 JUDGE HALL: We thought we had already done that.
19 MS. KORNER: Yes, well, I'm sure that Your Honours have.
20 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] Yes.
21 MS. KORNER: If they are, when do you intend that the 98 bis
22 hearing will be held? Will the defence be obliged to tell us on what
23 areas they propose to address you in this case, because if they don't,
24 and we are -- no idea what they are going to address you on, then the
25 upshot is, surely as day follows night or night follows day, whichever
1 round it is, that we will be seeking time because we won't have the
2 faintest idea what the Defence submissions are going to be. So can I put
3 that into the melting pot, please?
4 JUDGE HALL: Well, it's -- I know we started a little late, but
5 it's 10.27 now. Should we -- would the prudent thing be to take the
6 break and continue this discussion after 20 minutes?
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, I believe so, because, Your Honours, there was
8 one other matter which Ms. Korner raised and then she apparently forgot
9 about it and that's the Doboj documents which we agreed upon. We have to
10 inform Your Honours about the documents, and we have to give our position
11 on these four -- the last four documents which Your Honour instructed us.
12 JUDGE HALL: So we take the break and resume in 20 minutes.
13 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 11.11 a.m.
15 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic? I was about to say I should
16 explain to counsel that the extended time that we took during the break
17 was refining what we had indicated in terms of the -- what we expect from
18 the counsel for the Defence in terms of any 98 bis application, and we
19 repeat what we said earlier about expecting a communication by Wednesday
20 as to whether there will be such an application, and if there is, it will
21 be heard on Thursday next, and each accused -- counsel for each accused
22 is permitted maximum of two hours to make such presentation as they
23 choose. And in the absence of -- should counsel for one accused not take
24 advantage of that, the -- that time, you may not borrow the time
25 allocated, the counsel who does speak may not make use of the extended
1 time, the time allotted to each accused is two hours and we expect the
2 Prosecution to begin their response immediately that counsel for the
3 Defence would have made their submissions on 98 bis.
4 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, that is the point. Unless we are
5 told in advance on what aspects of a case that has lasted for the best
6 part of 18 months, the Defence propose to submit, how can we possibly be
7 in a position to answer without any gap at all?
8 JUDGE HALL: Well, with respect, Ms. Korner, we understand your
9 wishing to be alerted as to what you should prepare -- how you should
10 prepare your response, but we do not think that we can require the
11 counsel for the Defence to indicate the basis on which such application
12 is made until they make it, save for the utility of, in their Wednesday
13 communication, and I think we think in terms of Wednesday at noon, if
14 they could summarise the areas in respect of which the Thursday oral
15 submissions would be made, but that apart, we would have thought that the
16 Prosecution, by the nature of their responsibility, would be prepared
17 for -- defend the evidence that has been put forward, obviously on a
18 prima facie basis, on the whole of the indictment. And any indication as
19 counsel for the Defence might make in their e-mail communication of
20 Wednesday, would be to reduce, if anything, the extent of the matters
21 which the Prosecution may wish to address because, as I said,
22 I appreciate your concern but I don't think that the Chamber is able to
23 assist you by requiring the Defence to give advance notice of where they
24 are going.
25 MS. KORNER: I've said this before and I'll repeat it: Your
1 Honours have the powers to make any order you choose within the bounds of
2 the -- what is relevant and to a particular case. Your Honours may
3 I inquire why Wednesday? And if Your Honours are going to give us the
4 written decisions on Monday and we are going to be sitting on Tuesday,
5 any reason why the Defence should not tell us on Tuesday?
6 JUDGE HALL: Well, the -- I suppose it could be argued in one
7 sense that there is little practical difference between Tuesday and
8 Wednesday, but in terms of the orderly progression of this matter, it
9 seems to us that the Prosecution closes its case on Tuesday, the Defence
10 who, for their own purposes, for similar reasons, have indicated that we
11 expect the Prosecution to have been thinking all along as to where they
12 are going, the Defence having themselves been doing this for their own
13 purposes would have, after the close of the Prosecution's case on
14 Tuesday, time to reflect on and refine the position which they will
15 communicate on Wednesday.
16 You had something to say, Mr. Zecevic?
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours. Mr. Hannis and I discussed the
18 matter about the Doboj documents and we agreed, if it pleases the Court,
19 that the easiest way to do it was actually we provided the list of the
20 documents which have been stipulated by the parties to the Registrar and
21 Registrar will assign the 1D numbers to these documents. I think that's
22 probably the easiest and the most efficient way, at least that was our
23 opinion, but of course we are in the hands of the Trial Chamber.
24 JUDGE HALL: We agree. Thank you.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
1 The second thing, Your Honours invited us -- sorry.
2 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the 16 documents will be assigned
4 numbers 1D419 through 1D434. Thank you.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
6 Your Honours, the second thing is Your Honours instructed us to
7 give our joint position on these four documents, which were -- sorry,
8 three documents again. Three documents which Ms. Korner sent by e-mail
9 yesterday. Now, Your Honours, as concerns the document 65 ter 15, number
10 15, we oppose this document for the very same reasons why we opposed 65
11 ter 14 in our response to the bar table motion; namely, that it is
12 outside of the scope of the indictment because it refers -- actually this
13 document is from August 1991 and it is not signed, and it says, "The
14 command staff of" something "DJ of Bosnian Krajina." We don't know what
15 the DJ is.
16 However, Your Honours, the -- if the purposes for request of
17 the -- for these documents to be admitted, if the purpose of the
18 Prosecutor is to establish that there has been volunteers in the JNA and
19 VRS, I don't think that that is an issue in the case. We don't challenge
20 that at all, that there has been volunteers in both JNA and VRS in the
21 relevant time of the indictment.
22 Now, concerning the second document, 65 ter 839, on the face of
23 it, Your Honours, it appears that there is some irregularity in this
24 document, namely that this document is compilation of two documents, and
25 therefore, on the face of it, Your Honours, on the contents of this
1 document, we do not -- we do not object, but the problem is -- the
2 problem is that if it's two documents and there might be -- Mr. Krgovic
3 suggested that there might be a case that one of the documents which is
4 contained in this was already admitted or was MFI'd during the cross of
5 Mr. Brown, we would like to reserve the time and inform the Trial Chamber
6 on this particular document after we review other documents tomorrow, if
7 that is okay with the Trial Chamber.
8 And the last document, 65 ter 1583, we do not oppose. Thank you,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic. Let me hear whether
11 Mr. Krgovic has anything to --
12 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
13 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, this was a joint
15 position of both Defences. When I compared 65 ter 839 and 2D119, I found
16 that four pages from 65 ter 839 are identical to four pages of 2D119.
17 That's why I think that we should take a look at other documents. It
18 could be simply that the person drafting the other document simply
19 incorporated the first document so that's why we want to double check the
20 sources in order to be sure that this is not a simple duplication.
21 Otherwise, in principle, we do not object to this document.
22 MS. KORNER: Can I deal with that matter first? There are
23 undoubtedly similarities between the second page of the document 1D --
24 2D119 and the second page of this one. However, they are completely
25 differently typewritten, the dates on the front of the document are
1 completely different, and both documents make sense when read, if you see
2 what I mean, so we disagree. And short of any evidence to show that it
3 is the same document, Your Honours, we say it's a separate document with
4 very, very similar content which may be explicable by the fact that both
5 documents relate to the resubordination of the police to the 1st Krajina
6 Corps, one on the 23rd of October and the later one in November which is
7 the specific police brigade which was to be headed eventually by
8 Lieutenant Colonel Peulic. But we say the fact that they are very
9 similar does not make them, as it were, a mix of documents. You can see
10 from the layout and the type face that they are different.
11 However, I'm perfectly happy to wait as we have to wait anyhow
12 for next week or whenever it is.
13 Your Honours, as far as 65 ter -- 65 ter 15 is concerned -- can
14 we have that up, please?
15 It is right, as Mr. Zecevic says, that this document is dated
16 24th of August 1991. The letter that sent this document, so it's not
17 unsigned or anything, is as we say, already put into the bar table motion
18 as 65 ter 14.
19 Can we go back, please, to the front page in the English?
20 Your Honour, this does not go to whether there were volunteer
21 units, we know that's not disputed, though the exact nature of these
22 volunteer units is the subject of dispute. This document we say is part
23 of the background and is relevant to the issue of a joint criminal
24 enterprise between the military, the political, and the police, Bosnian
25 Serbs. The Court has heard a great deal of evidence about what was
1 happening in the police in 1991 going back to, I believe, June or July,
2 and, in particular, we rely on the fourth paragraph:
3 "The volunteer units organised in this way have only one task to
4 perform, to protect their people from being massacred by enemy forces
5 which irrationally hate the Serbian nation. The units will never be sent
6 to attack some other nation. Their role is purely defensive and nothing
8 Your Honour, we say this is -- and it's a very long document,
9 well, four pages. It is exceedingly relevant and admissible, even though
10 it is outside the period of the charges laid.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, could you remind us the number of
14 the last one, where there is no problem?
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Of course, Your Honours. We do not oppose the
16 65 ter 1583. That is our joint position, both Zupljanin and Stanisic
18 JUDGE HALL: So 56 ter 15 and was it 1583, we agree should be
19 admitted, 1583 there is no objection and in terms of 15 we accept the
20 submission advanced by the Prosecution that the relevance is patent from
21 the paragraph on page 4 that counsel has just cited, and we defer
22 decision on the third -- the second named document which is the third in
23 the package of --
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Yeah, 65 ter 839.
25 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. That is deferred.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE HALL: There is another matter which the -- on which the
3 Chamber has discussed during the break, and we require the -- this has to
4 do with the application for provisional release, and we would require a
5 response, obviously in the alternative, by the OTP by Wednesday, at the
6 close of business on Wednesday.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, there is one other matter I would
8 like to raise.
9 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, on session held on 18th of January,
11 during the cross-examination of Mr. Brown, pages 18852 and further down,
12 another two or three pages, until 18854, I expressed our grave concern
13 with the comment which Ms. Korner made about the law library. You will
14 remember that Ms. Korner said at one point that apparently she wasn't
15 aware, I don't understand how, but anyhow, she said that she wasn't aware
16 that there had been some parts of the law library which has not been
17 translated or something along that line -- those lines, and that she will
18 review this -- their position on the law library.
19 Your Honours, it took us more than nine months of work to
20 stipulate to the law library. We filed a joint -- the joint motion by
21 the Office of the Prosecutor and both Defences where we stipulated the
22 laws. Now, we want to rely on that.
23 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, I think I know where you're headed and
24 may I inquire, having regard to the -- because I remember well the issue
25 that came up, whether counsel have met out of court to identify whether
1 there is a problem, and if there is, whether there is a possible
2 solution? The reason why I've interrupted you in the course of what
3 you're saying is that I don't know that it would be helpful to hear from
4 counsel from both sides exploring further this issue of what the law
5 library is, how it was compiled and all of that. It seems to me a
6 situation that invites a purely pragmatic solution and the first step
7 would be, as I said, for counsel to meet out of court. So are you able
8 tell me whether you, plural, have made any efforts in that regard since
9 we last -- since the 18th of January?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm afraid not, Your Honours. We didn't because we
11 had other issues which were more -- we prioritised the issues because we
12 were talking about these documents that we mentioned earlier today.
13 JUDGE HALL: Well, may I presume to suggest that I think the
14 Chamber would be better assisted if counsel were to seek to do that, and
15 if, heaven forbid, we are forced into a position where the Chamber has to
16 intervene, then we would have to but obviously that's not a course
17 that -- that's a course that we would wish to avoid if at all possible.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: I fully accept and I agree with Your Honours, and
19 as far as the Defence is concerned, we are ready to start talking about
20 that immediately. Thank you very much.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, the reasons I said I wasn't aware of
22 that is because the only issue which we considered was the relevance. We
23 did not bother to check that each and every one of the laws, the endless
24 laws the Defence wish to put in, had been translated.
25 JUDGE HALL: So counsel will report in due course on this matter.
1 If there are no other matters that counsel have, the Chamber has
2 a few minor matters with which to -- sorry, Mr. Krgovic?
3 MR. KRGOVIC: Yes, Your Honours. I have one small matter because
4 when we discussed about 2D documents, the document 2D67 was omitted by
5 the Prosecution submission, so we agree that we tender.
6 MS. KORNER: We have no objection to that one.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: To be precise 2D67 MFI.
8 JUDGE HALL: So again the MFI status is removed and the document
9 is admitted as a full exhibit. Thanks.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: A couple of small matters to round up this
12 We think we should advise the Prosecution that some of the minor
13 matters that are thought to be still outstanding, in fact, have already
14 been dealt with, and one issue is the Prosecution's request for
15 clarification of the 92 bis package for Witness ST-048. And our rule was
16 that the Rule 92 bis decision of 2 November 2010 states in the
17 disposition that we grant leave to the Prosecution to amend the Rule 92
18 bis package of Witness ST-048 and admits his package.
19 And the second issue was one where there was a doubt about the
20 documents that were footnoted in expert Dorothea Hanson's report which
21 was filed on 15th November, 2010. And the ruling -- sorry, 2009. And
22 the ruling of 9 December, 2009, was the following, and I quote:
23 "In respect of the second issue relating to the additional
24 documents to be admitted through Hanson and Christian Nielsen, the
25 Chamber's view was that this could cause prejudice to the Defence not
1 having been put on notice that these extra documents would also be so
2 admitted into evidence but since none of the Defence counsels had taken
3 issue with it we agree, so they are all admitted."
4 So these were the two small matters that I just wanted to clear
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So we thank counsel for their assistance
8 today and we take the adjournment to reconvene at 2.15 on Tuesday, and I
9 believe we are in Courtroom I.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.37 a.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 1st day of
12 February 2011, at 2.15 p.m.