1 Wednesday, 25 October 2000

2 [Status Conference]

3 [Open session]

4 --- Upon commencing at 4.00 p.m.

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Have the accused brought in,

6 please.

7 [The accused entered court]

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated, General

9 Galic.

10 I see that we are more or less the same team that was working

11 earlier. Good afternoon to you all.

12 Can the registrar call the case, please.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The case number IT-98-29-PT,

14 the Prosecutor versus Stanislav Galic.

15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

16 For the Prosecution and the Defence, can we have the appearances,

17 please. Mr. Blaxill.

18 MR. BLAXILL: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Yes, indeed, today the

19 Prosecution office is represented by my learned colleague, Mr. Stefan

20 Waespi, and Ms. Cynthia Fairweather in the role of case manager today, and

21 I am, of course, Michael Blaxill.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. The

23 Defence counsel.

24 MR. KOSTIC: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Nikola Kostic,

25 appearing with General Galic.

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Further to

2 the Scheduling Order dated the 4th October, 2000, today's hearing will be

3 devoted to a Status Conference convened in accordance to Article 65 bis of

4 the Rules, with a view to discussing the progress made in the preparations

5 for the trial. But first of all, we will continue, as we decided at the

6 end of the hearing last week, the debate regarding the motion for the

7 Trial Chamber to travel to Sarajevo. We shall do so, bearing in mind that

8 I am alone today, so I am the Pre-Trial Judge, and later on the Trial

9 Chamber, the full Bench, will be able to make a decision.

10 You will remember that the Chamber asked the parties to negotiate

11 a draft protocol regarding the planned travel, and during the hearing last

12 week the parties presented their arguments in that connection. We agreed

13 on that occasion that the parties should intensify their discussions on

14 the basis of a draft protocol prepared by the Prosecution and would

15 communicate to us today the results, at least some results, of their

16 negotiations, which means that I will receive information from you about

17 this matter, and after that we will set a date for the discussion and

18 possible ruling on the matter. So will you please convey to us your

19 commentaries, Mr. Blaxill, and perhaps Mr. Kostic after that.

20 MR. BLAXILL: Yes. We've had a limited opportunity to talk to

21 each other in the past couple of days, Your Honour, on the basis that

22 Mr. Kostic has, I know, been spending a considerable amount of time with

23 his client, which is understandable, as he had received certain documents

24 for us for the purposes of, as you may recall, mentioning adjudicated

25 facts and other issues, and clearly he needs to take instructions in some

1 detail on those various documents and various issues raised by them.

2 However, it's my understanding that I think Mr. Kostic and I were not at

3 odds as to the logistics, essentially, of the proposed sort of protocol

4 for a visit, and I had nothing particularly contentious mentioned by him

5 in that connection, and I'm sure, therefore, it would be an easy matter to

6 translate that into a workable document and file it accordingly.

7 Since then, however, and following a lead from Your Honours, when

8 you were sitting all three of you, discussing the issue of a potential

9 visit, I have, in fact, prepared an itinerary which I hope gives a fairly

10 accurate and suitable viewing platform, as it were, for Your Honours, if

11 you visit, and in fact goes street by street on a circuitous route,

12 mentioning a variety of landmarks in the process.

13 I am hopeful that we'll be able to negotiate further as to that

14 itinerary, because I think that in itself would influence very much the

15 logistics of how to conduct the thing on the day. I've also put in some

16 estimate of time as well to assist both Mr. Kostic and Your Honours in due

17 course, and I think, I think this is, therefore, something workable for a

18 day or two visiting in the area and do not involve unduly taxing trips.

19 To that extent, I've heard from Mr. Kostic that he, and I believe

20 his client through him, indicating that in essence, the proposed itinerary

21 appears to be relatively suitable. I anticipate they may have additional

22 landmarks that they would themselves wish to bring to Your Honour's

23 attention, and, therefore, I can anticipate some suggestions to the

24 itinerary prepared.

25 So that is the position, as far as I'm concerned, and taking note

1 of our timings, clearly I would imagine all issues could be finalised for

2 the purposes certainly of the next Status Conference in November when we

3 should -- the whole thing could be planned and filed by then, I'm sure,

4 subject to Your Honour's ruling, of course.

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Blaxill.

6 And the Defence. Do you have any comments to make? Because

7 Mr. Blaxill did envisage the possibility of certain additional suggestions

8 from the Defence counsel. Mr. Kostic.

9 MR. KOSTIC: Your Honour, Mr. Blaxill did provide me with a draft

10 of an itinerary. In addition -- and I think Your Honours might have that

11 already or maybe not, I'm not sure -- there is also a draft in terms of

12 some of the rules of the procedure when the visit is done. So that exists

13 also.

14 I have talked to my client about those issues. I do want to tell

15 you one thing both in regards to this itinerary and the language of the

16 draft Protocol that Mr. Blaxill, I think, filed and some of the other

17 matters that come from another case where this did not come to fruition.

18 Of course, that is all submitted in English, and my client would like to

19 see that in the Serbian language. What I did, Judge, was to try to

20 summarise it as much as I could for them in the Serbian language.

21 Having said that, the proposal that Mr. Blaxill provided us with

22 and that we covered seems acceptable. I don't think there's anything on

23 the list that we would necessarily object to. I think there are some

24 items, in fact, that are on the list because of the conversations that

25 Mr. Blaxill and I have had.

1 We do and will have some suggestions. My client has outlined some

2 things for me, and there are two issues that have created some problems

3 with that. They're not serious, but I just want to tell you the nature of

4 that, and that is that it has to be done carefully when we propose

5 something because it should somehow fit into the draft that Mr. Blaxill

6 gave us. In fact, it can be somewhat enlarged and expanded so that it

7 will be logical. Then we do have to make a list of some items which

8 Mr. Blaxill ought to look at, and obviously if he wants to register an

9 objection, he will have time to do that. We can do that fairly quickly.

10 And finally something that is sort of simple, but we're dealing

11 with some maps, Judge, that go way back. In fact, we're both working hard

12 with a 1982 map where some of the roads that are now in existence do not

13 exist on the map. So there are some just purely technical things to do.

14 But I think we can move ahead with that and accomplish it by the next

15 Status Conference. I think so far, we have not run into any serious

16 problems.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Kostic. You used

18 a word which I liked very much, an agreement that we will try to reach.

19 I agree with you that we need to have some rules that will be

20 applied during the visit. I'm now speaking in my personal name as the

21 Pre-Trial Judge. As I told you, the visit requested will be useful only

22 if it can shorten or reduce either the number of witnesses or the number

23 of exhibits or the time for each witness testimony. So if the visit

24 produces this effect in the trial, then we are fully inclined to consider

25 it. If not, as I have already told you, we have a problem with time, and

1 the most important problem is the question of judicial economy, and we

2 have to bear this in mind.

3 Having said that, I think that the visit should be fitted within

4 the preparations for trial, that is, within the pre-trial rules. And I

5 think it is clear for the parties that the presence of the accused raises

6 a large number of questions and security problems and so on. So I draw

7 your attention to Rule 65 ter, paragraph (E), where the Rule says

8 that.

9 "The Pre-Trial Judge may proprio motu hear the parties. The

10 Pre-Trial Judge may hear the parties in his or her private room, in which

11 case minutes of the meeting shall be taken by a representative of the

12 Registry."

13 This is paragraph (I). And it is understood that the accused is

14 not present at that meeting.

15 If we fit the visit within the framework of the pre-trial stage,

16 then it is not yet the stage -- the trial proper. So it should be viewed

17 as part of the preparation for trial because, as I have said, we will take

18 it into consideration only if the visit will reduce either the number of

19 witnesses, the number of exhibits, or the time required for the testimony

20 of each witness. So I should like the parties to take this into

21 consideration.

22 So the conclusion that we can make already is that the parties

23 will continue their talks on the subject, and for the next Status

24 Conference, perhaps we might already have some results or conclusions that

25 will be more specific, more detailed, and then the Chamber will be able to

1 take it into consideration before ruling.

2 Allow me also to add another point, and that is I insist that we

3 view this visit within the framework of the preparation for trial because

4 it is not certain that this case will be tried by this Trial Chamber. So

5 I think we have to prepare everything bearing in mind the possibility of

6 another Trial Chamber beginning the trial itself.

7 So Rule 65 ter, and I'm now talking about paragraph (K), which

8 talks about a pre-trial file, a complete file, and all these elements need

9 to be reviewed and annexed to this file so that a Trial Chamber, whichever

10 it may be, may be able to review all these elements. So that is another

11 reason that needs to be borne in mind and to focus your work, because what

12 may happen is that the Trial Chamber may not travel in full but only that

13 the Pre-Trial Judge may travel. So that's another way of viewing the

14 principle that I have referred to.

15 So for the moment, we will wait for this matter to be further

16 developed and then we will consider the results and decide whether we

17 shall go or not. If yes, what will be the framework and whether that will

18 require the complete Bench of the Trial Chamber or only the Pre-Trial

19 Judge. We will come back to all those matters then.

20 So now I should like to go on to the subject of this Status

21 Conference, the second issue that we're addressing today.

22 For the Pre-Trial Conference, we will be essentially referring to

23 the same points that were indicated last week. They are more or less the

24 same 11 points plus one that has been added. So I'm not going to list all

25 those points. You know them well. So as to avoid any waste of time. So

1 I will begin. There's always a last agenda item, other matters, so if

2 something has not been treated or considered and if one of the parties

3 consider that to be important to be discussed today, then we come to other

4 matters and you can always add to that list of agenda items.

5 So the first item that we reviewed last week was the disclosure of

6 exhibits by the Prosecution and the Defence. I think that there is

7 nothing new to be reviewed, and I think we can go on immediately to the

8 next point, which brings us to the very heart of the matter and that is

9 the points envisaged under 65 ter, paragraph (E), that is, to see what are

10 the results of the contacts that the parties had between themselves. So I

11 wish to review the progress achieved, in view of reaching agreement on

12 matters of fact and law that are not in dispute, and then we will see what

13 are the others.

14 Mr. Blaxill, could you tell us whether there are agreements or

15 disagreements.

16 MR. BLAXILL: Your Honour, at this point we are, in fact, really

17 waiting now for responses by Mr. Kostic, both in terms of a number of

18 listed facts, as I indicated had been delivered, Your Honour, and as to

19 which of those he feels able could be agreed or not agreed, and also, of

20 course, the judicial notice issue as well.

21 Now, within the document I served for his consideration relating

22 to factual admissions, if they are to be stipulated to, were certain legal

23 propositions broken out of the document itself. So I was hoping that we

24 would be able to get, with that one exercise, some responses which will be

25 both as to factual and legal matters which could or could not, as the case

1 may be, be agreed.

2 As I say, I know that Mr. Kostic on this visit has been spending

3 quite a bit of time with his client with those documents, and

4 unfortunately, from our point of view, we were not in a position to have

5 them translated into the Serb language beforehand, so that possibly has

6 slowed his efforts down a little bit. For that I duly apologise. It

7 simply was not possible to get it into his hands in his client's

8 language. Perhaps we've been relying on the fact that Mr. Kostic himself

9 has already stated he is totally bilingual in the Serbian language and

10 English, and perhaps we've relied upon that.

11 So in essence, we do await his responses when he has taken

12 instructions duly on those documents, and the moment we have those

13 responses we shall know to what level there is agreement or disagreement.

14 I think both documents are in a format whereby we can then very rapidly

15 break out that which is agreed and that which is not and make it a

16 fileable document for the purposes of the Trial Chamber.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Very well, Mr. Blaxill.

18 Mr. Kostic.

19 MR. KOSTIC: Your Honour, as I've indicated earlier, of course my

20 client would like to have the documents in Serbian, and whether I'm

21 bilingual or not is probably a side issue, or not an issue at all. It

22 just makes it a little easier for me to discuss these matters with him.

23 But the problem is, I think he still wants to see those documents.

24 The adjudicated facts document is 30-plus pages, with something

25 between 208 and 300 paragraphs, and that's a fairly large effort. We

1 have, actually, Mr. Blaxill and I, thought about some ways of trying to

2 shorten that period, but it still is -- it will take a little bit of

3 time. What we have done is obtain the Serbian language decision from the

4 respective cases, and we're going to provide that to Mr. Galic, or General

5 Galic, in some fashion. I think he wants to read them himself. I'm sure

6 he'll accept my interpretation and discussion of the same, but he wants to

7 see it in a language that he understands. So we are moving ahead with

8 that, but I do think it's going to take us until the next Status

9 Conference to work through that.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Kostic. In any event,

11 in order to be able fully to understand what has taken place, I should

12 like to know what is the position of the Defence, generally speaking. As

13 you know, the indictment contains a whole series of facts for which

14 General Galic is not responsible. There is the background, the context,

15 which doesn't really implicate General Galic directly; it is part of the

16 context. So could we know the position of the Defence? Will it take a

17 passive attitude and say, "I will wait for the Prosecutor to do their job

18 and I'll do nothing," or will there be a strategy of denying everything

19 stated in the indictment? Or again, it is possible, and which I think

20 would be appropriate, to take a position of active defence. We can take

21 as an example football teams. Those who are always defending risk losing

22 the game. So perhaps an active position would be to say, "This I agree

23 with, but this I do not admit at all." So what are the views of the

24 Defence? If I could hear them, this would be helpful for me to understand

25 the matters better. Mr. Kostic.

1 MR. KOSTIC: Your Honour, I think the client, of course, has to

2 make the decision finally. I can give him my suggestions and my advice,

3 but he has to read the two documents, in other words, the potential

4 stipulations and then the adjudicated facts, and give me his position on

5 the same.

6 I think there are some matters which are fairly straightforward.

7 I'm now, you know, dealing a little bit in the area of prognostication. I

8 think there are some areas of geography, perhaps some historical

9 background matters, which I suspect the client will look at and say,

10 "Well, that's really not the issue of the litigation here."

11 Then there are other areas which are basically lifted from the

12 indictment, and Mr. Blaxill, of course, would be very happy if we admitted

13 every fact in the indictment and the trial would be very short. So I'm

14 giving you the two extremes. We're not going to admit those. But there

15 is that grey area that I think the client has to very carefully analyse

16 what is sought, what the evidence shows so far, and then make a decision

17 whether there's going to be a contest, litigation on those issues or not.

18 So we do have those three areas that we're working on. And I want

19 to be careful, because the client -- again, at some point the client

20 waives his right to challenge those facts, and I want to make sure that he

21 fully appreciates and understands what he's doing. Thank you, Judge.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you, Mr. Kostic. It

23 should be noted that the accused is entitled to a speedy and fair trial,

24 and often to admit certain facts doesn't call in question the fairness of

25 the trial. Of course, it is up to you and up to General Galic to say

1 which choice you will make. But in any event, as you know, the accused is

2 entitled to a fair and speedy process, but also to defend, we have to

3 defend the interests of justice, and, wherever possible, we should have

4 judicial notice of certain facts, and the Chamber may do so ex officio, as

5 you know. I would like you to be fully aware of this position. We are

6 now in the stage of negotiating or agreeing or disagreeing, and the

7 Chamber will take a very active part. But after having ruled, the

8 attitude will be a flexible one. I have already told you about this, and

9 I think you should take that into consideration in order to organise your

10 work.

11 So I am now proceeding to the next item, which also comes under

12 Chapter 65(3), paragraph (E), the different documents that the Prosecution

13 needs to serve soon. There is the Pre-Trial brief, the list of witnesses

14 that the Prosecution intends to call, and the list of exhibits which the

15 Prosecution will submit.

16 Where do we stand, Mr. Blaxill, in relation to these three

17 different groups of documents?

18 MR. BLAXILL: Your Honour, they are all actively in preparation,

19 and they're all in preparation with a very focused eye on the date that

20 has already been ordered by this Chamber of the 7th of December, by which,

21 as Your Honours have stated "at the latest these documents will have to be

22 filed." It is on that basis that we are working simultaneously with

23 different people on these various documents. And I can say that I think

24 at the moment, if one can look at it almost like a horse race, I think the

25 witness summary is ahead or half a length ahead of the other two at the

1 moment. But we are, in fact, weaving, obviously, factual material into

2 the Pre-Trial brief, and this essentially is a development of all these

3 three together, because at the end of the day they are complementary to

4 that extent.

5 I can say though, and I would ask not to be held to it as a

6 definite promise, but only yesterday I did a review myself of the witness

7 list that we currently have in preparation, and I know we have mentioned

8 the figure of something like 183 witnesses to Your Honour.

9 Well, I think already there's every potential, taking the guidance

10 that Your Honours have offered in the past about how many witnesses per

11 fact and so forth, I think there's a prospect now that we're already under

12 a hundred. I think with expert witnesses we will go up a little, but I

13 think that is possibly a more encouraging picture for Your Honours in the

14 sense of judicial time, if nothing else, that I think we will be able to

15 achieve over 50 per cent reduction of the overall list of witnesses that

16 we have actually served on the Defence.

17 So as I said at the outset we took a rather broad view of service

18 so that, you know, they would be as well informed as possible. But of

19 course, that will also mean there will be, as you have suggested, Your

20 Honour, a kind of reserve list so that if for some reason something goes

21 adrift, we would have the reserve list, it would be disclosed, it would

22 have been served, and you would have been aware of it.

23 There is the present position, Your Honours. I can say yes, we

24 have been working on it, and we certainly have the deadlines of the

25 Chamber in mind.

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I don't know whether Mr. Kostic

2 has any comments to make regarding this point. I think it primarily

3 concerns the Prosecution, but of course, we are ready to hear you if you

4 have anything to say.

5 MR. KOSTIC: Your Honour, my concern is in this area something

6 that we've discussed before. I know that Mr. Blaxill has really been

7 working very hard. I think he even comes in on the holidays to work, to

8 put this together for the Chamber. If he's able to accomplish what the

9 Chamber wants in terms of the duties here, I still have one concern

10 that -- an issue that's been sort of talked about at the Status

11 Conferences but I'm still not clear, and that is the potential of

12 receiving, at some point, and it's not clear to me when, it could be any

13 time from now until November, December, January, and that is the result of

14 the computer search that they're doing, the 2.5 million pages of

15 information.

16 Now, I defined that, Judge, as a Rule 66 effort. So if I at some

17 point receive X documents and information that I should get per Rule 66

18 out of the computer search, how does that really fit in to what you're

19 asking the Prosecutor to do? And of course, it could put me in an

20 untenable situation that I've got all of the Prosecutor's information in

21 terms of witness lists and so on, and then all of a sudden there is -- I

22 hate to even use numbers, but let's say 5.000 or 10.000 pieces of paper

23 that I have to read and analyse and so on. That concerns me, Judge, and

24 I'm not sure what -- in fact, maybe the Court would give us some direction

25 as to how to handle that, that issue. Thank you.

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] There are here two aspects which

2 I believe need to be considered. To begin with, when one talks about

3 hundreds and thousands of pages -- I see in the transcript it says

4 2.5 million pages of information. What is that about? What is that,

5 Mr. Blaxill? Is it really necessary, even for the Defence, to have all

6 those pages? Are these pages all indispensable, even for the Prosecution

7 for the trial? Are there some criteria on the basis of which these

8 documents are selected or not? Because I don't think it overwhelms the

9 Prosecution or the Defence only but the Tribunal as such.

10 MR. BLAXILL: I think in essence, Your Honour, the system is

11 endeavouring to review everything that is in the archives of this

12 institution. Well, I say "this institution." I mean, in that particular

13 case, the Office of the Prosecutor.

14 Over a period of years they have assembled large quantities of

15 documents and items from a lot of places. Now, the reality is that a

16 simple head count of paper results in 2.5 million documents. Those

17 documents run the full spectrum of matters relating to the former

18 Yugoslavia and its conflict or conflicts.

19 The reality is that the first-level search carried out by a very

20 large team of people is screening out what is relevant to different areas

21 of the work of the Office of the Prosecutor, and I think already we've

22 gone through one layer that has probably worked it that only 25 per cent

23 of the documents of that 2.5 million could have relevance to a case such

24 as this. Our second level of scrutiny has probably taken out another 15

25 per cent to say, well, it's not relevant enough to be relevant to a case

1 like this and then more specifically to this case.

2 So, in fact, we have a kind of inverted pyramid. There is a

3 dramatic narrowing that is going on. And we are updated weekly. They are

4 processing documents as fast as they can.

5 In the course of doing this, the people conducting the searches

6 have been given a very detailed brief, and the criteria that have been set

7 are specifically focused for the case and everything has been defined.

8 Certain things have been prioritised as to documents which are of greater

9 or lesser significance, and, of course, we have also flagged up Rule 68,

10 which, of course, is a very significant obligation of the Prosecutor.

11 So I think at the end of the day, the spectre of 2.5 million

12 documents is not as awesome as it may sound when it is first said, and I

13 think that I indeed am personally involved in this exercise as well and

14 reading what are for me frightening numbers of documents. It's probably

15 only about 300 so far. I'm also finding that a large number of them are

16 documents I have seen before and are documents which we have already

17 selected for disclosure. So again, I think there is a duplication factor

18 in that yes, we've seen it, we've got it, it will be there for

19 Mr. Kostic.

20 So I think in essence, Your Honour, it's not the awesome problem

21 that it may appear. The only thing is I don't know when it will be

22 finally finished. It is simply a matter of logistics. They have large

23 numbers of staff working on it. We ourselves have a five-person team just

24 to handle our little tip of that pyramid. So with all those resources, we

25 hope it won't be long. I would have hoped early spring of next year at

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French

13 and English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 the latest would see it finished, but I'm -- it's a possibility, I think.

2 My team's expert on the subject is sitting to my left, and I'm seeking her

3 guidance. I think that's about the case.

4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Right. Well, it's good. You'll

5 have plenty of work in winter to keep you warm. But there is one thing

6 which I should like to hear so to people who are dealing with those

7 documents, did you set for them precise criteria for the work? I think it

8 is very important, because to look for a document which just mentions the

9 name of General Galic, then of course that will be one number, but if you

10 cross the name -- General Galic's name with other criteria, I suppose,

11 then you can bring the number down.

12 I'm saying this because I should like to raise another matter,

13 that is a matter that I should like to seek your opinion for the list of

14 witnesses. As you know, you need to give the name; the pseudonym; the

15 summary of facts on which each witness will testify; the points in the

16 indictment as to which each witness will testify, including specific

17 references to counts and relevant paragraphs in the indictment; and the

18 estimated length of each testimony.

19 Now, what I should like to discuss here is the summary of facts

20 and the estimated length of testimonies.

21 We are still saying that we need to cut down the number of

22 witnesses. We already touched upon that last week. We also added that

23 one should see how to cut down the length of testimonies, and I hope I

24 shall be able to -- what I call the technique which people usually use for

25 the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination. But let me just give

1 you an example.

2 For instance, if you're trying to get a fact, information from the

3 witness, you can ask him, "Well, and what happened?" And the witness

4 says, "Well, a truck arrived." The next question: "Where did it

5 arrive?" And the answer will be, "The truck arrived at Exhibit number 3,"

6 or room 3," or whatever. "Where did it stop?" Then you will say, "It

7 stopped with its back towards the premises room," or something.

8 And I can tell you already that I made a test. I counted the time

9 needed for question and answer, and this was about 18 seconds. Now, if

10 you ask only, "And what happened on such-and-such day?" then the witness

11 will say, "The truck arrived at the -- the truck arrived at such-and-such

12 place with its back door to the place." That lasts six seconds, which

13 means that one has cut the time down to one-third of the previous.

14 What I'm saying, that there is a certain technique, a certain

15 technique to obtain some pieces of information.

16 Now, if it is possible to bring down these summaries to the facts

17 that each witness will testify about and use them as reference points for

18 the witness, because I really do not want to, and I'm really not in favour

19 of bringing a witness here into the courtroom and then ask him, "Well,

20 what do you know about this?" and then the witness talks and talks and

21 gives us the whole history which perhaps is not needed. But if the

22 summary of facts already contains those important facts, you can say --

23 you can ask the witness, "Well, what do you know about this?" and then the

24 witness will give you the relevant piece of information, and after that,

25 you can go back to request whatever precision may be needed.

1 You can test this, and you will see that we conduct the

2 examination or the cross-examination with precise questions, but perhaps

3 longer so as not to triple the time, not to increase the time needed to

4 obtain information by three times, the information that we need.

5 I am leaving you with this idea to possibly articulate the

6 summaries of facts with the estimated or estimateable time of each of the

7 witnesses. Because if you say "I need two hours or five hours for this

8 witness," if one uses the technique of very many questions to get very

9 little information, that, of course, takes a long time. If you ask

10 questions and let the witness speak for a while, then the witness can take

11 some time. "Yes, the truck arrived in front of place number 3, and it

12 stopped with its rear part in front of that particular structure." And we

13 can resolve very much in this manner without, at the same time, bringing

14 into question the important things.

15 But at any rate, I want you to think about this. It may perhaps

16 disrupt some of the techniques that some people have become used to, but

17 we are here not only to concern ourselves with the number of witnesses but

18 also the length of their testimonies. We need to save the time, and if we

19 can do it, then we should do it.

20 As you know, the Chamber can order you to do that in order to save

21 the time without, at the same time, prejudicing the objective of the

22 parties to obtain the information which one of the parties wishes to

23 present to the Court.

24 I'm suggesting this technique. Perhaps I'm ambitious, and my

25 ambition is to try to improve things.

1 Now, how can we obtain information that we need and do so in the

2 shortest possible time? But -- we shall see, but will you please think

3 about this. How can one, with a view to these objectives, organise the

4 summary of facts that need to be brought before the Court and how that

5 some of these matters with a view to shortening the time? But I leave you

6 with this idea, and I believe you can perhaps start doing it and then see

7 how it works and then develop it further or not.

8 Now, I believe that Mr. Blaxill has already mentioned the judicial

9 notice. He also spoke to us about agreed things. Is there anything new

10 in that regard, Mr. Blaxill, the judicial notice?

11 MR. BLAXILL: No. I don't think I have anything to add to that

12 issue, Your Honour, other than what I might have referred to earlier on

13 this afternoon.

14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The Defence, whether the Defence

15 has anything to add with regard to the judicial notice?

16 MR. KOSTIC: No, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Let us now move on

18 to the next item, which is one which I mentioned, but I do not think we

19 discussed it fully, and that was the mutual disclosure pursuant to Article

20 66(B) and 67(C) of the Rules. Is there anything new?

21 MR. BLAXILL: There is, in fact, something new this very day,

22 something that I've discussed with Mr. Kostic, and he has given me a

23 notice today of certain additional items which are in fact exhibits

24 referred to by certain witnesses in their statements. I had already

25 agreed with him that I would look into the provision of those ahead of our

1 actual obligation to serve exhibits, simply because I think it will assist

2 him more to understand the evidence and significance of those particular

3 witnesses.

4 To that extent, there has already, therefore, been a request by

5 the Defence in respect of further disclosure, and in point of fact it is

6 the intention of the Prosecution to formulate a request. We are, in fact,

7 bringing together two or three important threads that we want to be able

8 to present a cogent and a comprehensive request to Mr. Kostic, and one

9 that would have meaningful requests in it. I don't plan at this time to

10 try and sort of fire a blanket request into the ethereal mist and see if

11 anything falls out of it. I don't think that's a good approach. So we're

12 going to try and work on something fairly focused to in fact invoke the

13 reciprocal disclosure which you indicated in a previous decision, which is

14 not immediately to hand, when you stated that the reciprocal disclosure

15 provisions had been triggered.

16 So that is the exercise, and I -- again, that should be in

17 preparation and be served prior to the conference on the 27th of

18 November. Those proposals I do, of course, have to -- in a sense I should

19 have prefaced by saying subject also to discussion of those issues with

20 our senior trial attorney when he returns from his unavoidable family

21 business in Australia. But those are certainly the propositions I shall

22 place before him for further action prior to the next Status Conference.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Kostic, do you have anything

24 new in this regard?

25 MR. KOSTIC: No, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Now let us move to

2 the next item, and it is Rule 67(ii), and that is the Defence shall notify

3 the Prosecution, et cetera. You tell us, Mr. Kostic, that you have not

4 reached a final decision on this point. That was the last time. Are

5 there any new developments, perhaps?

6 MR. KOSTIC: No, Your Honour. Our position is the same as last

7 week.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Then perhaps to

9 speed things up, I should perhaps say two things. If there is something

10 new, then please tell us; if not, then we simply go round and round.

11 The opening statements, in agreement with the -- pursuant to the

12 rules [In English] Pursuant to Rule 84 [Interpretation] -- it did not

13 appear in the transcript. Very well. And the question is whether the

14 accused will testify in line with Article 84 bis, or rather, do you now

15 have a clearer idea, Mr. Kostic?

16 MR. KOSTIC: Your Honour, again there's no change from our

17 position of last week.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Expert witnesses, anything new

19 in that? No? Yes, Mr. Blaxill.

20 MR. BLAXILL: Nothing for the Prosecution, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And the Defence, I can gather,

22 has nothing new. Well, it seems to me that since last week there hasn't

23 been much progress, if I can put it that way. We have then to move on and

24 try to make some progress for the next week.

25 There is yet another matter, and that is: In which language do

1 the motions of the parties be filed? As you know, this Chamber works with

2 two languages, and I believe that there is a problem here, and that is the

3 size of the documents, the number of documents, and the effect that it may

4 have on their translation. The Chamber decided to work with two official

5 languages of the Tribunal because we know that the documents, the rulings,

6 the motions, everything, is translated, but that happens afterwards, and

7 one must have to do before, so we have to organise really our work so that

8 the Chamber can really use two languages. When the Chamber announces its

9 decision, it does so in two languages.

10 However, bearing in mind the exceptional circumstances that we're

11 dealing with here and the deadlines which are perhaps somewhat strict,

12 perhaps we should be more flexible here and allow the parties to submit

13 their filings in English. I believe that is the preferable language for

14 you. But we have to really adopt the -- we cannot adopt that rule for the

15 whole of the trial; that is, we shall continue requesting the documents in

16 the two official languages of the Tribunal.

17 There is yet another problem which arises from the comments of

18 General Galic. Last time, last week, General Galic raised, I believe, two

19 questions: that is, the appointment of the Defence counsel which was

20 provisional; and secondly, that the Tribunal has not yet paid for a

21 co-counsel. I believe that Ms. Chen could tell us whether this has been

22 resolved.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. We finally received the request

24 from Mr. Galic in writing, and now the Registry is working on this. We

25 estimate that next week perhaps we can finish the whole process.

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And what about the fees? Is it

2 that the Tribunal is not paying? Is it that the Registrar is not paying

3 the fees to the counsel?

4 THE REGISTRAR: Actually, we're waiting for all the invoices

5 coming in from the Defence teams.

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. So the Tribunal has

7 not paid because the counsel has not submitted the invoice; is that it?

8 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. So we can ask

10 General Galic.

11 General Galic, will you stand up, please. Has there been any

12 progress in this matter, or specifically, do you have anything to tell

13 us?

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. There

15 is nothing new. Nothing new has come up in the past seven days. As far

16 as I know, nothing has changed. I made some requests in this regard, but

17 there is nothing in particular. Perhaps something is being done, but I am

18 not aware of anything having been resolved by now.

19 If I may yet add another thing, it seems that things are being

20 expedited, and the Defence has hardly enough time to focus on the work it

21 has to do and do it in detail. I don't know. Perhaps I fail to

22 understand, in view of the conditions that I have to live in, but the

23 organisation seems to be such that the Defence is not well organised.

24 That is what I wanted to say today. I do not know whether I'm in the

25 right or not, but I felt the need to say this.

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you, General Galic.

2 You may be seated.

3 Very well. Now that we have heard opinion of General Galic, I

4 remember that Mr. Blaxill said that this work is a race. Yes, in a way he

5 is right. The Tribunal, as you know, is a Tribunal which has a very

6 precise objective to attain, and we therefore all take part in that race.

7 To use the expression that Mr. Kostic used, yes, we work over the

8 weekends, we use our holidays to work. I think that the majority of

9 people in the Tribunal do that. I am now speaking for myself, but I also

10 do that.

11 Very well. We seem to have arrived to our next item, and that is

12 other business. But before that, I really say that we really, yes, we

13 have to move fast and the trial has to be prepared and we really have to

14 focus on it so as to properly prepare to go through all the Pre-Trial

15 business so as to prepare for the trial as soon as possible. Now the item

16 on the agenda now is other business. Do you have any other matters that

17 you wish to raise?

18 MR. BLAXILL: Your Honour, as I understand you rightly, you're

19 very kindly suggesting that we may be deemed to comply with our

20 obligations in filing documents in the English language so that we meet

21 our deadlines. I would like to assure Your Honour that we will still, in

22 any event, do our best to have the French translations at the same time or

23 to have an estimate as to when they will be available, at the least

24 courtesy to the Court, and of course we will endeavour to see that you get

25 the two as close together as possible.

1 Your Honour, there's just two other aspects, one which related to

2 the potential proposed visit, which is an issue Mr. Kostic raised -- it

3 slipped my mind earlier -- and another matter in relation to a document

4 that's come to light today. And I think, in fact, there's a degree of

5 delicacy attached, and I wondered if we could have a private session so

6 that there would be no sound broadcast, if that would be in order.

7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Let us go into private

8 session, please.

9 [Private session]

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 page 264 redacted – private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 page 265 redacted – private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 page 266 redacted – private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 page 267 redacted – private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 page 268 redacted – private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 [Open session]

14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think are we. No? Yes, we

15 are in open session now, and perhaps a brief comment regarding the

16 question of language, Mr. Blaxill. It is really a courtesy on your part,

17 and you said that you would do everything to have the translation. If

18 that proves to be impossible, we will accept your pre-trial brief in

19 English. If there are exceptional circumstances, this can be accepted.

20 Now, we come to the timetable, simply to remind you, although you

21 are well aware of it. So on the 27th of November, we will be meeting here

22 for a Status Conference, which will, in principle, be the last. I wish to

23 remind you that the 7th of December will be the deadline for the

24 Prosecution to have fulfilled all its obligation pursuant to

25 Rule 65 ter (E) of the Rules of Procedure, and the 14th of December will

1 be the deadline for the Defence to have filed its pre-trial brief pursuant

2 to Rule 65 ter (F) of the Rules of Procedure. The 23rd of January

3 [Realtime transcript read in error "June"], 2001 will be the date of the

4 Pre-Trial Conference pursuant to Rule 73 bis of the Rules of Procedure.

5 To respond to a concern expressed by Mr. Kostic, this is the

6 normal timetable for normal circumstances. If there are exceptional

7 circumstances such as, for instance, this two and a half million

8 documents, we will consider that to be an exceptional circumstance and we

9 will act accordingly. But in any event, I have told you already it is

10 good to have deadlines which make us work, if I might put it that way. We

11 are all in a race, and to have the target at the end is important so as to

12 be able to finish the race.

13 So we have these deadlines which I wish to maintain, except if

14 there are exceptional circumstances which would justify making an

15 exception.

16 So that is -- yes. Yes, Mr. Blaxill.

17 MR. BLAXILL: My apologies, Your Honour. As I see it on the

18 transcript on the machine here, it is stating the 23rd of June, 2001. I

19 know Your Honour said it was the 23rd January. I wouldn't normally

20 interrupt for a correction of the transcript but that's important, I

21 think.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. It is

23 somebody who doesn't want to work, because I did say the 23rd of January,

24 2001 and not the 23rd of June. Let me repeat. The 23rd of January. It's

25 clear now. The year is 2001. Fine. So there's no need to add that it is

1 not 2002. So it is the 23rd of January, 2001, and we will be meeting here

2 on the 27th of November, 2000. It's clear now.

3 I wish you success in your work. I think that the parties should

4 keep in touch. I would like to close by saying this: I have told you

5 that this pre-trial brief, we conceive it as being the result of various

6 activities developed together by the parties. It is not a document that

7 marks the beginning but, rather, it is a document that we must arrive at

8 as a result.

9 Also, it may be useful for the parties to read or review together

10 the indictment -- I think that is the first thing to be done -- in order

11 to come to an agreement or disagreement.

12 So I leave you with that thought. I think that you should

13 continue to maintain contact to be able to work well.

14 Madam Registrar draws my attention to the deadline for the Defence

15 for the pre-trial Defence brief did not appear on the transcript and that

16 is the 14th of December 2000.

17 I think there are no further matters to address, so we are waiting

18 the results of your work, the results that you will achieve. So until

19 next time, thank you.

20 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned

21 at 5.24 p.m.

22

23

24

25