Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 19246

 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

Page 19247

 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

14     839.

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

Page 19248

 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.

Page 19249

 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

21     release?

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

Page 19250

 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

Page 19251

 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

14     position.

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

Page 19252

 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

Page 19253

 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

Page 19254

 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

 9     means.

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

Page 19255

 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

 9     Tribunal."

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

Page 19256

 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

16     clear.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Ms. Korner.

18             Yes?

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.

Page 19257

 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.

Page 19258

 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

Page 19259

 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."

Page 19260

 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

Page 19261

 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 -

Page 19262

 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

Page 19263

 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

Page 19264

 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.

Page 19265

 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

Page 19266

 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

Page 19267

 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

Page 19268

 1     uploaded into e-court.  They are more Official Notes, I understand, from

 2     Omarska.

 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

Page 19269

 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,

Page 19270

 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

Page 19271

 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

Page 19272

 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

 4     exhibits.

 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

Page 19273

 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

Page 19274

 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

Page 19275

 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.

Page 19276

 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

Page 19277

 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

Page 19278

 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

Page 19279

 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

 7     more."

 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

17     Defence.

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.

Page 19280

 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

Page 19281

 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.

Page 19282

 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

11     hearing.

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

Page 19283

 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

 5     out.

 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.