1 Tuesday, 29 January 2008
2 [Pre-Defence Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon. May I welcome you all back for --
7 I won't say the whole of this year but for the new year, and we look
8 forward to moving along quickly toward the end of this trial. We have
9 more reason for hope in that regard than we had when we finished at the
10 end of last year.
11 We are sitting this afternoon to deal essentially with pre-Defence
12 matters with a view to commencement of the first of the Defence cases
13 tomorrow. Now, we will commence the proceedings by looking at the motions
14 that there are to be dealt with in this matter. In most cases they being
15 motions that are still in the process of initial submissions being
17 The first of them that I'm aware of is the Defence motion on
18 behalf of Mr. Boskoski for the admission of evidence pursuant to Rule 92
19 bis from a number of witnesses, I think, 11 all together. That was filed
20 on the 21st of January, and yesterday a response was received from the
21 Prosecution to that motion. There has, of course, not been time for the
22 Chamber to give a decision in it. I wouldn't anticipate that there's any
23 need for there to be mention of any particular matter about that motion.
24 It will be dealt with on the basis of the written submissions. I see no
25 sign of anybody anxious to say anything about it.
1 Did I provoke you, Mr. Mettraux.
2 MR. METTRAUX: You did, Your Honour.
3 Simply to give an indication and to confirm the position of the
4 Chamber that we do not think there is any reason to warrant the reply on
5 our behalf. Thank you.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
7 The second is a motion of the Defence of Mr. Tarculovski for
8 protective measures in respect of witnesses. That was filed on the 24th
9 of January. There's not yet been a response to it. So we just noticed
10 that it is in its early stages.
11 The third is a motion concerning an expert witness of the -- it's
12 a motion of the Boskoski Defence, filed pursuant to Rule 94 bis. It was
13 filed on the 24th of January, and there has not yet been a compliance with
14 all the procedural steps.
15 Mr. Saxon.
16 MR. SAXON: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I may simply be mired in my
17 usual confusion. That motion filed on 24th of January, wasn't that a
18 Prosecution motion?
19 JUDGE PARKER: It was and that only means that I got it wrong.
20 MR. SAXON: That's rare, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Oh, that's a good way to start the year, Mr. Saxon,
22 but we all know the truth of these matters.
23 It was a Prosecution motion concerning the Boskoski Defence expert
24 witness, and it was filed on the 24th of January, and it's nowhere near
25 ready for decision.
1 Is there any matter concerning it which either party feels they
2 need to mention in oral submission at this point or will it be dealt with
3 in the ordinary course on the written submissions?
4 Nothing -- yes.
5 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we are in the course of preparing a
6 written response and we hope to be able to file it in the course of this
8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
9 The next is a motion this time not by the Prosecution but by the
10 Defence for Mr. Boskoski for the admission of exhibits from the bar table.
11 It was filed only on the 25th of January. There has not yet been a
12 response which, in the ordinary course, would need to be filed on or
13 before the 8th of February. So, again, we must wait.
14 Could the Chamber mention that quite obviously the earlier the
15 responses can be filed, earlier than the last possible date, the earlier
16 it will be possible to reach a decision and therefore people will be able
17 to move on with greater certainty as to what is to be expected.
18 Now, the last motion of which I'm presently aware is a motion
19 filed by the Boskoski Defence on the 25th of January for disclosure; I
20 think it is pursuant to Rule 66(B). There has been no response to that.
21 Ah, the response now is in, yes.
22 Is there any matter about that motion which either party feels
23 they should raise at this point?
24 Mr. Mettraux.
25 MR. METTRAUX: Simply to indicate, Your Honour, again that we will
1 not seek leave to file any reply in relation to that matter.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
3 There's nothing further, Mr. Saxon, that you would wish to raise
4 in that matter?
5 MR. SAXON: With respect to that particular matter, no,
6 Your Honour.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
8 Now, I think that covers the motions that are alive. As you can
9 see, they have all happened in the last week. The earliest of them is
10 just one week from its inception. So there'll be a little bit of activity
11 over the next few days in respect of those, and the sooner we get
12 responses, the sooner they'll be able to be dealt with.
13 We now have an indication that there may be an issue concerning
14 Rule 65 ter (G) to be raised at this pre-Defence conference by the
16 Is that right, Mr. Saxon?
17 MR. SAXON: With your leave, yes, Your Honour.
18 Your Honour, if I may, could we move into private session, please.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
20 [Private session]
11 Pages 8638-8650 redacted. Private session.
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
1 JUDGE PARKER: There was a matter, I believe, Mr. Apostolski,
2 concerning 92 bis motions that you thought you may need to raise.
3 Is this a convenient time?
4 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
5 Considering the motion as per Rule 92 bis and the statements that
6 the Defence took from the witnesses, I can inform Their Honours that the
7 Defence of Mr. Tarculovski has taken four 92 bis statements, and we are
8 waiting for the translation of one of them to be finalised. We expect
9 that today or tomorrow as we were informed by the CLSS, the translation
10 will be completed, and immediately afterwards we will submit it.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. I did notice in one of the papers that
12 I've read that there were some issues that you were experiencing,
13 Mr. Apostolski, concerning translation, but I think they have been
14 resolved with time, are they? Were you having some difficulty with
16 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the statements were
17 not translated, although they're brief. The statements -- the 92 bis
18 statements were one page each, and we are waiting for the translation,
19 although we had submitted on the 29th of December, 2007, the translation
20 of the expert report of our expert that will come and testify before this
21 Court, so we are waiting for that translation to be finished. Otherwise,
22 all the written evidence that we had submitted to the CLSS were submitted
23 by the end of December and we can inform the Court that there are five
24 remaining documents that were not translated. We expect that they will be
25 finished very soon by the CLSS.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that. And while you're on your feet,
2 the matter of the uploading into the electronic Court system of the
3 documents you intend to rely on, is that something that is underway now?
4 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Yes, that is ongoing. And I
5 don't think there will be any problems related to that.
6 JUDGE PARKER: So it is actually underway now.
7 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
9 Mr. Mettraux.
10 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Well, perhaps on the same two themes for the 92 bis statement,
12 first, we would simply wish to indicate that ten out of eleven of our
13 proposed statements have now been certified. We are waiting for the last
14 one. They have also been uploaded in e-court and will be released very
15 soon. Concerning translation issues we would also wish to indicate that
16 there remains a number of documents which we have either sent to CLSS for
17 verification/corrections and a number of new documents which have come in
18 our possession and which have been sent to CLSS.
19 A number of those documents, Your Honour, do not appear on our
20 Rule 65 ter list as they have been provided to the Defence at a late
21 stage. What we believe we will do in the near future is as soon as we
22 obtain the official translations of those documents, we will file a motion
23 seeking leave to add them to our Rule 65 ter and we will do so as soon as
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
1 There was a suggestion, Mr. Apostolski, that there may even be
2 scope for a reduction in the number of witnesses you had contemplated
3 calling from your Rule 65 ter list.
4 Is that something you're able to be more clear about at this
6 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. That was the
7 next thing I wanted to speak about and inform the Court that in
8 coordination my learned colleague from the Prosecution, and the -- in the
9 agreement with the Prosecutor's office we will remove three witnesses from
10 my list. And we are making additional researches and I can inform the
11 Chamber that there is a possibility to further reduce our list for -- the
12 witnesses, but we will need additional days to finish the additional
13 investigations that my investigator is in charge of.
14 I could tell you those other witnesses, M-2D-001, M-2D-002, and
15 M-2D-003, regarding which the Prosecutor did not object their potential
16 removal from the list.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Thank you for that, and as soon as your
18 investigations have been completed, you will be able to formalise those
19 matters. Thank you.
20 Is there any other matter which, first of all, Mr. Saxon, you
21 would wish to raise?
22 MR. SAXON: No, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux? Ms. Residovic.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps briefly only
25 let me say that as the learned colleague Prosecutor stated thus far we're
1 still using the names of our witnesses from the confidential list and
2 tomorrow, in our opening statements we will use, instead of the names of
3 the witnesses the number under which that witness is included in the 65
4 ter list. We are doing that for the simple reason that the witnesses have
5 not given us final answer as to whether they will seek protective
6 measures. So that we do not seek to move into a closed session at the
7 moments when we are clarifying the contents of their testimony we will use
8 the number under which they are in the list of proposed witnesses.
9 Another thing that I wish to inform the Chamber about is that the
10 Defence envisages that the witness number 4 from our list will testify for
11 three and a half hours in the direct examination and three and a half
12 hours in the cross-examination, and one hour in the re-direct; that would
13 be the Defence`s proposal.
14 The witness number 5 [sic] will also testify for three and a half
15 hours in the direct examination, three and a half hours in the
16 cross-examination and for one hour in the re-direct.
17 The witness number 3 is proposed to testify for six hours in the
18 direct examination, six hours in cross-examination, and two-hours in the
20 As for witness number 1, that would testify for four hours in the
21 direct examination, for four hours in the cross-examination and for two
22 hours in the re-direct.
23 And the witness number 5, the Defence proposes that in the direct
24 examination that witness testifies for seven hours, seven hours in the
25 cross-examination, and additional two hours in the re-direct.
1 We wanted just to indicate that the issue that the Prosecutor
2 raised in the communication with the Defence, we wish to say that our
3 evidence from the list are uploaded in the e-court system and they are
4 here available from the hyperlink, so the Defence has no possibility and
5 feels no need to have the evidence presented in a different fashion to
6 both the Prosecutor and our colleagues.
7 We thank the Chamber for informing us in a timely fashion that our
8 first witness will start testifying on Thursday morning and I can say that
9 the Defence will have its opening statements tomorrow and we don't expect
10 that the opening statement will last for more than one session.
11 Thank you.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
13 Mr. Saxon.
14 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, there appears to be some confusion
15 perhaps it is only in the English transcript but the English transcript of
16 Ms. Residovic's explanation of how long each via voce Defence witness will
17 take refers twice to witness number 5 and perhaps that was just a mistake,
18 but perhaps we need to clarify whom is whom.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise if there was some
21 Your Honours, I stated that I will indicate in my opening
22 statements but also today when I'm indicating the viva voce witnesses and
23 the durations of their testimonies, I used the numbers that appear before
24 the name of the witness in our 65 ter list. And the witness number 4 from
25 the 65 ter list, the number 4, our proposal is that there is three and a
1 half hours in direct examination, three and a half hours in
2 cross-examination and one hour in re-direct.
3 Witness from that list, number 5, we propose again that his
4 testimony last for three and a half hours in the direct examination, for
5 three and a half hours in cross-examination and one hour in the re-direct.
6 Witness from our 65 ter list, under the number 3, we propose would
7 testify for six hours in the direct examination, six hours in the
8 cross-examination, and two hours in the re-direct.
9 Witness marked in our 65 ter list with the number 1, our proposal
10 is that they testify for four hours in the direct examination, four hours
11 in the cross-examination, and two hours in the re-direct.
12 And the witness number 5 from our 65 ter list -- I apologise,
13 number 2. This is where the confusion occurred. Number 2 in our 65 ter
14 list, our proposal is that they testify for seven hours in the direct
15 examination, seven hours in the cross-examination, and two hours in the
16 re-direct. I think that now I spoke slowly enough so that it is
17 interpreted and that I corrected the error that I made with the final viva
18 voce witness.
19 Thank you.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. Was there anything that you
21 wished to raise, Mr. Apostolski, that has not been dealt with?
22 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. At this time I
23 have nothing to add.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
25 The Chamber did notice that in estimating the time that each
1 witness might take the Boskoski Defence rather ambitiously calculated that
2 we sit for four and a half hours in court each day.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Four hours a day, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Four. Well, your written 65 ter brief footnotes at
5 four and a half hours. And it seemed that the Tarculovski Defence was
6 working on about three and a quarter hours.
7 The Chamber, with the best will in the world only seems to be able
8 to get three and three quarter hours out of a day, so if that could be
9 borne in mind. The calculations and estimates clearly may need some
10 adjustment, but the overall indications given by each Defence are, of
11 course, very encouraging as to the speed with which we can anticipate to
12 deal with the Defence cases and certainly much more encouraging than had
13 earlier been anticipated, so we look forward to that.
14 If there is no other matter, we are to sit tomorrow morning to
15 hear the opening submissions, and we hear the first of the Boskoski
16 Defence witnesses commencing Thursday morning.
17 We thank you for your attendance and assistance, and we will
18 adjourn now, to resume tomorrow morning at 9.00.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.15 p.m.,
20 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 30th day of
21 January, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.