1 Thursday, 15
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 4.19 p.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, ladies and
7 gentlemen; good afternoon to the technical booth, the interpreters, the
8 registry staff.
9 Madam Registrar, can you call the case, please.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Mr. President. It is case number
11 IT-98-29-PT, the Prosecution versus Stanislav Galic.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Can we have the appearances.
13 The Prosecution first, please.
14 MR. IERACE: Good afternoon, Your Honour. My name is Mark
15 Ierace. I appear for the Prosecution, together with, on my left, Michael
16 Blaxill, trial attorney; on my immediate right, Edel Guzman, our case
17 manager; on my far right, Chester Stamp, who is a trial attorney replacing
18 Sureta Chana, who has left the case; and behind me, legal officer, Stefan
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Ierace.
21 Now the Defence, please. Ms. Pilipovic.
22 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, good afternoon. My
23 name is Mara Pilipovic. With my legal assistant, Mr. Savo Pilipovic, I
24 represent the defence of General Stanislav Galic.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I am
1 really very, very sorry for this delay. I don't have the right words to
2 express my apologies to you. Anyway, the words are lacking. It's not
3 really -- it is really my fault and not the fault of any other people, and
4 I do apologise. So let us begin now.
5 We are here in accordance with the Scheduling Order of the 21st of
6 February, 2001. Therefore, today's hearing will be a Status Conference to
7 analyse and see where we stand with respect to Rule 65 bis of the Rules of
8 Procedure. We will also consider the motion of the Prosecution for travel
9 to Sarajevo, dated the 14th of July, 2000, and perhaps I would suggest
10 that we begin with this point, after which we will have the Status
11 Conference proper to see how we stand with respect to the provisions of
12 Rule 65 ter.
13 So we come to the motion for travel to Sarajevo. Mr. Ierace.
14 MR. IERACE: Your Honour, before I --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Your Honour. I note that on some past
17 occasions submissions in this Chamber on that topic have been
18 confidential. Does Your Honour wish that these proceedings this afternoon
19 be confidential as well?
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think that there may be
21 aspects which would require that we go into private session, and this
22 would probably be preferable even for the Defence, so let us go into
23 private session for a few minutes, please.
24 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 [Private session]
13 Pages 316-325 redacted – private session
21 [Open session]
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So now we can pass on to our
23 Status Conference. I should like to say that I have in mind a sort of
24 general scheme for this Status Conference.
25 We will follow the order from the Scheduling Order, but in my
1 mind, the main objective is to take stock of the situation on the basis of
2 the brief filed by the Prosecution, and we thank you very much for your
3 cooperation. I also have in mind that perhaps we should have in mind
4 during our debates the Celebici ruling and the Tadic appeals rulings as
5 well, and if we can get any advantage from agreements or, rather, judicial
6 notice. Also, as a major point, is the question of reciprocal
7 communication. We know that we still haven't completed this, but we must
8 always view things in their entirety, in the light of these three main
9 points, if I may call them that.
10 So before embarking upon the main issues of the Status Conference,
11 I should like to suggest a plan of work for the months to come. So that
12 the Chamber may supervise the preparation of the case, I suggest that the
13 parties meet in my presence, that is, in the presence of the Pre-Trial
14 Judge, once a month up till July in order to discuss the progress made.
15 Each of those Status Conferences will be devoted to different issues,
16 bearing in mind the objectives and contents of Rule 65 ter [Realtime
17 transcript read in error "64 ter"].
18 Allow me to explain. But before referring to that content, I
19 would like to say that I suggest that the parties meet in my presence each
20 month, but there is nothing to prevent the parties from having meetings
21 outside this courtroom and not necessarily in the presence of General
22 Galic. Some of those working meetings could even be coordinated --
23 MR. PILIPOVIC: I have only one small objection about
24 translation. Now we see that it reads "Rule 64 ter" and I heard "65
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, you're quite right. Thank
2 you very much. We're talking about 65 ter. I'm sure the court reporters
3 will correct that at the end.
4 As I was saying, there is nothing to prevent the holding of
5 working meetings amongst us, and those meetings may be coordinated by the
6 legal officer once instructions or directives have been given for such
7 working meetings.
8 Let me tell you why I'm saying that. My experience tells me that
9 it is always important for the Prosecutor and Defence counsel, that is,
10 both counsel, should meet and discuss things together. If we limit our
11 discussions to meetings in the courtroom, we hear each other, yes; but
12 from the point of view of productivity, of achieving agreements, very
13 often the progress is not as one would wish.
14 If one goes to a certain place and meets to discuss a certain
15 matter, achieve a certain result, and on the basis of the result, then we
16 could say, "Have you considered this situation or this hypothesis or
17 another situation?" and then this date and the contents that I have
18 indicated will be a kind of turning point between previous meetings and
19 the following meetings. It will be a kind of follow-up to things we have
20 discussed here. As I have said, those meetings can be held outside the
21 courtroom. They would not be formal meetings but really working
23 What is the content which I feel needs to be organised in this
24 way? It is always as a suggestion that I am making this to the parties.
25 If you look at Rule 65 ter, you have paragraph (E), which tells you the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.
1 objectives of the Pre-Trial Conference, and (ii) and (iii), which talk, in
2 a general nature, of the Prosecution case, the matters of fact and law
3 which are contested and those which are not in dispute, and also agreement
4 on disagreements. I think this is very important. Why? Because it is
5 agreement on disputed issues that will define the actual objective of the
7 Therefore, I would suggest, as a first objective of the discussion
8 between the Prosecution and the Defence, that that should be the first
9 point. Why am I saying this? Because we have suggested to the Prosecutor
10 to give us the pre-trial brief, which they have done, even though it is
11 provisional, so that they may use it as a tool, as an instrument of their
13 What I think is that in order to facilitate the work of the
14 Defence, instead of saying that we are going to discuss the whole
15 pre-trial issue, we are going to debate and analyse this particular issue,
16 but it is a set of issues which have a certain logic and follow logically
17 on to each subsequent stage. Things are linked together, as you know.
18 If we analyse well everything on which agreement has been reached,
19 things that are contested, if we are aware of the Prosecution case and if
20 we reach conclusions on that and disputed matters of fact and law, we are
21 ready to go on to (iv), that is, everything that has to do with the
22 testimony, that is, the list of witnesses the Prosecution intends to call,
23 indicating several things.
24 But instead of talking about a list of witnesses, we would also
25 discuss the entire testimony, the testimony of witnesses who will come to
1 the courtroom, the witnesses that will appear through affidavits, expert
2 witness statements, depositions, video testimony; therefore, everything
3 that has to do with the testimony. Instead of talking about a list of
4 witnesses, we will be talking about the evidence which will prove the
5 points which are in dispute. As soon as we reach conclusions on the basis
6 of this methodology of meetings that I have suggested, we will have come
7 to the next major topic of Rule 65 ter, that is, a list of exhibits.
8 Again, instead of talking about a list of exhibits, I would suggest that
9 we discuss, in a broader sense, every kind of document; for example,
10 expert reports, disclosure of lists of exhibits.
11 You see, there would be a logical sequence and a division of
12 several areas which, in my view, would facilitate the life of the
13 Prosecution, but also and above all, the work of the Defence. Why? I
14 would like to facilitate the work of the parties and, of course, also of
15 the Chamber and myself, so that we should be quite clear that we will be
16 discussing the whole issue of the pre-trial stage but in segments that are
17 linked to one another.
18 So if we agree on a particular point of fact and law, and
19 especially if we agree on facts, I can go on to discussing how we can
20 prove those facts through evidence, and we will discuss that alone. And
21 then it would be logical to address everything that has to do with the
22 evidence, that is, the documents.
23 So instead of analysing each of those points now, where we stand
24 in relation to this or that, I would suggest that we begin to work
25 together in this way that I have just described. So I leave that
1 suggestion with you and I would like to hear your reaction. But, as I
2 have just said, we are going to have a meeting every month but that means
3 that we might have two meetings, for instance, before the meeting here in
4 the courtroom, we could have informal meetings in my office or somewhere
5 else, with the parties; the presence of General Galic is not necessary.
6 He will be able to follow progress made because we will be coming back
7 here in the courtroom every month. So we would have these informal
8 meetings with the assistance of the legal officers. So, as I have just
9 said, there is the content side, which I have divided up into three
10 segments, and then the methodology aspect. The courtroom will be the
11 place where we will share information about everything we have agreed
12 upon, and even the meetings that will be held outside the courtroom will
13 always be reported upon so that all the information would be available.
14 So that is my suggestion and I would like to hear your reaction to
15 these suggestions, because I have said, the objective is to reach July and
16 have the case ready for trial by then. I have already told you that this
17 Chamber will certainly not be opening the trial, but it is the duty of
18 this Chamber to leave things well-prepared for whoever it will be that
19 will be trying the case.
20 So, Mr. Ierace, what is your response?
21 MR. IERACE: Your Honour, in relation to the matters of law, the
22 provisional pre-trial brief provides an ideal vehicle for discussion
23 between the Prosecution and Defence with a view to narrowing what the
24 issues are in terms of the law.
25 In relation to the evidence, might I respectfully suggest that a
1 convenient way to approach that would be to do so by subheadings of
2 evidence, for example, one particular monthly meeting might consider the
3 evidence which pertains to the scheduled sniping incidents. The Defence
4 could indicate which parts of the evidence of the sniping incidents it
5 takes exception to, in other words, which parts it has no objection to and
6 which parts it does, which parts it requires the Prosecution to prove by
7 the calling of sworn evidence or the tendering of exhibits. That process,
8 whilst it would involve considerable time on the part of the Prosecution
9 and Defence leading up to the monthly meeting, would predictably not
10 involve nearly as much time in the chamber and would ultimately save much
11 time during the course of the trial.
12 There would be, it follows, four monthly meetings or
13 eight bi-monthly meetings between now and July, and there is a -- there is
14 extensive evidentiary material that would have to be covered during the
15 course of those meetings. I respectfully submit that perhaps, for the
16 first meeting, we focus on a relatively small body of evidence because I
17 anticipate that in that first meeting we will be refining the process of
18 going through the evidence.
19 Since my friend has the Pre-Trial brief, there would be no
20 impediment to the Defence commencing its review of the statements of law
21 which are contained within that document, that is, the provisional
22 Pre-Trial brief. That amplifies the law which is relied upon as set out
23 in the indictment. Perhaps each meeting could consider one aspect of the
24 law or one section of the Pre-Trial brief which relates to statements of
25 law, as well as a particular body of evidence.
1 A convenient body of evidence for the first such meeting perhaps
2 may be the remaining sniping incidents, or at least, say, ten sniping
3 incidents. Perhaps my friend and I could agree upon ten - we are meeting
4 tomorrow, as it is, at 2.00 - and by correspondence inform the Court which
5 particular ten sniping incidents we propose to deal with at the first
6 monthly meeting. That could be combined with an aspect of the law which
7 is covered by the Pre-Trial brief.
8 Your Honour, I offer that as merely a suggestion as to how we
9 might proceed. And whilst that is not much in terms of what has to be
10 covered over eight meetings, I anticipate that the process will become
11 refined, and that will enable us to cover more of the evidentiary material
12 in matters of law as we progress. Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Ierace.
14 Ms. Pilipovic, please.
15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my friend just said
16 that we are going to hold a meeting tomorrow afternoon at 2.00 p.m., and
17 bearing in mind your points, which we accept fully, we will come up with a
18 schedule that would incorporate your proposals.
19 Regarding the submission on the 23rd of February, we believe that
20 it will help the Defence prepare its case, but it is also clear that it
21 does not contain points of fact, even though it does contain points of
23 My friend also mentioned in his letter of the 14th about the
24 difficulties that they are encountering. They are similar to the ones
25 encountered by the Defence. I believe that tomorrow in the meeting we
1 will come up with a plan which we will be able to then follow.
2 I would also like to inform the Trial Chamber that pursuant to
3 point 1 of your order ordering disclosure, the Defence has provided
4 certain material to the OTP which my investigators were able to collect in
5 the last month and a half. I would also like to point out that there are
6 certain difficulties in gathering this material, because the Sarajevo
7 Romanija Corps has been disbanded. We have information that part of that
8 material has been destroyed, part has been lost, but the Defence will do
9 its utmost to disclose all the material which it gathers, pursuant to Rule
10 66(A) and 68.
11 Also, I received information from my friends that part of the
12 material which is indispensable to the Defence for its further preparation
13 I will able to receive by 6 April of this year. We expect that jointly we
14 will be able to focus on working together, and, as we agreed today,
15 tomorrow we will focus on facts on which we can agree and which are in
16 dispute. This will be one of the foci of our meeting tomorrow, and I
17 think we will use subsequent meetings to further these issues.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] If I understood correctly, you
19 agree, in general terms, with this plan of work that I have suggested.
20 Mr. Ierace, let me mention another issue. If you agree with this
21 proposition, that is one question. And another is: I believe that you
22 will be having a meeting tomorrow, or shortly, and you will be discussing
23 a timetable in accordance with the instructions of the Pre-Trial Judge.
24 So my other question is whether you would accept that the legal officers
25 may be present with you to help with the organisational aspects and the
1 scheduling aspects. Those are my two questions: agreement with this plan
2 and presence of the legal officer for organisational assistance.
3 MR. IERACE: Your Honour, I do agree with the plan, and in
4 relation to the presence of legal officers, does Your Honour have in mind
5 legal officers of the Chamber?
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. Mr. Olivier Fourmy.
7 MR. IERACE: I have no objection to that, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Pilipovic, same question to
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understand your
11 proposal to mean that the legal officer should attend our meeting so that
12 they would know about our schedule of meetings; in other words, that we
13 would inform them on when these meetings would be held. Is my
14 understanding correct?
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think you were going to
16 discuss the organisation of work, and instead of me issuing a Scheduling
17 Order off the bat, I would prefer the parties, together with the legal
18 officer, to draft that Scheduling Order themselves, on the basis of which
19 we will continue to work. So the presence of the legal officer is simply
20 to help in the organisation and execution of this work plan.
21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, and that is fine, Your
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Now I must ask Mr. Olivier
24 Fourmy whether he is available and willing. I see him nodding in the
25 affirmative. He has no microphone to use, so that's fine. I think that
1 having established this work plan and a schedule, I hope we will be able
2 to reach July, once we have gone through all the stages, and we have this
3 working tool provided by the Prosecution, so I think we can now really
4 move on into a stage of greater effectiveness.
5 I don't think that we have any other specific issues to raise
6 regarding the Status Conference. Is there anything else that anyone would
7 like to raise?
8 Mr. Ierace.
9 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Your Honour. There are a few matters.
10 Firstly, in relation to evidence by videolink, that is something which the
11 Prosecution favours, in particular, from Sarajevo. In relation to four of
12 the sniping incidents, which are not in question otherwise, there are
13 witnesses in each of the four who would either prefer or who would insist
14 upon giving videolink evidence, in other words, not travelling to The
15 Hague. The reasons for that range from age - one witness is aged 81 - to
16 family reasons and to health. If it is acceptable to the Chamber, I have
17 in mind that those witnesses, and perhaps others, could give their
18 evidence from within the United Nations field office in Sarajevo so that
19 they could be examined and cross-examined and shown exhibits by videolink
20 from the Trial Chamber here at The Hague.
21 Your Honour, there is one remaining matter. There have been some
22 discussions between my friend and I in relation to an order of the Chamber
23 dated the 5th of June last year. In that order, the Chamber established a
24 protocol to apply when one party wishes to question either a witness or
25 potential witness of the other party. It appears at paragraph 7 of the
1 orders made on that date. Effectively, it requires the interviewing party
2 to contact the other party, given in writing and allowing reasonable
3 notice. It also requires that if the witness to be interviewed so
4 requests, then the party who intends to call that witness may be present
5 at any such meetings.
6 Your Honour, many of the individuals whose identity has been
7 disclosed from one side to the other clearly fall into the category of
8 being a witness or potential witness, but beyond those two categories
9 there are many names which are not so easily categorised.
10 My friend and I are content at this stage to attempt to resolve
11 that issue between ourselves and in due course inform the Chamber of the
12 result of those discussions so that there is a public record of it.
13 However, if we are unable to resolve it, if it is a matter which requires
14 an order of the Court, then so be it, and we would seek leave to approach
15 the Chamber on short notice to have that issue resolved, because if it is
16 not, it will impede the investigations by both the Prosecution and the
17 Defence. It does need quick resolution. We are hopeful that we can
18 resolve that tomorrow afternoon. If not, would Your Honour allow us to
19 contact the Chamber to seek an early hearing date of that issue? Thank
20 you, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, quite, Mr. Ierace. We are
22 quite ready to hear your submissions, if necessary.
23 Perhaps, Ms. Pilipovic, you can agree with that.
24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely, Your Honour. My
25 friend and I have agreed that tomorrow we will attempt to meet and find a
1 position that is jointly acceptable. I would like to take the opportunity
2 and raise the question of the experts whom the Defence would try to call.
3 We approached the registry with the request: a ballistic expert for
4 shelling, an expert for sniping, a military expert, and a historian.
5 The Defence estimates that the amount of time needed for these
6 experts to produce their findings, taking into account the scope of this
7 case and the time frame, this time frame would in total be about 520 hours
8 for all experts involved. However, we have not received a decision on the
9 part of the registry so far, but we need to proceed with our preparations,
10 and we would seek assistance from the Trial Chamber to help us speed up
11 this process of decision-making on this issue.
12 The second issue that I wanted to raise has to do with your
13 decision of the 5th of June, page 3, paragraph 4, regarding disclosure of
14 material and confidential information which the Defence would provide to
15 the experts. We would like to ask whether we need special authority by
16 the Trial Chamber to turn over these confidential materials in our
17 possession to the experts, the experts that the Defence is seeking to call
18 on behalf of General Galic.
19 These are the issues which I have raised, and perhaps I can also
20 expect your response in writing or perhaps also in another Status
21 Conference. However, it would be in the interests of the Defence to
22 receive such ruling in writing, preferably.
23 Also, I would like to ask about the decision on our cameramen
24 which would be coming with us to the Sarajevo trip. The issue is the fact
25 that they may have some problems in going to Sarajevo. I don't know what
1 the effect would be of the presence of the Defence with their own camera
2 crew in the city of Sarajevo. Perhaps we may need your assistance in
3 that. Should we turn to the registry for this? Or perhaps the Trial
4 Chamber can go to the registry itself so that we get the permission to
5 have our own crew film all the locations mentioned in the indictment so
6 that my friends from the Prosecution and myself could have this material
7 developed in time for the trial and so that we could adequately prepare
8 for the trial.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Ms. Pilipovic. I
10 don't know whether Mr. Ierace has any reaction or comments to make on
11 matters raised by Ms. Pilipovic.
12 MR. IERACE: Your Honour, if it assists Ms. Pilipovic in her
13 dealings with the registry, and indeed if it assists Your Honour, the
14 Prosecution does intend to call experts in the area of ballistics.
15 Indeed, we intend to call an expert or experts in relation to artillery,
16 as well as the capability of small arms such as rifles and machine-guns.
17 That may be of some assistance to my friend in terms of arguing to the
18 Registry that there is a prima facie entitlement to respond to our expert
19 evidence. We do not intend to call an historian so I can't assist her
20 with that.
21 In relation to the application of the orders of the 5th of June
22 last year to the provision of information to an expert, my friend referred
23 to paragraph 4 of the orders. I think that paragraph 4 is confined to
24 nonpublic information, that is, information which has come into the
25 possession of the Defence from the Prosecution which is then deemed to be
1 of a confidential nature. I have difficulty in imagining what such
2 information would be relevant or useful to an expert, certainly a
3 ballistics expert or an historian.
4 Your Honour, in relation to the third point raised by my friend,
5 that is, securing ease of access to Sarajevo, naturally, it is in the
6 interests of justice in this trial that both sides have equal access to
7 all relevant sites in Sarajevo, and the Prosecution acknowledges that
8 proposition. Thank you.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
10 Mr. Ierace.
11 I think we have several points here that we need to clarify
12 further to be able to work on them. But I think there are also aspects
13 which can be an object of discussion at our next meeting. The question of
14 video testimony, we can develop that when we come to the question of
15 testimony in general. But, of course, there are things that can be
16 prepared in advance.
17 The question of expert witnesses, Ms. Pilipovic, this is a problem
18 that you should resolve with the Registry. If you are not satisfied with
19 the decision of the Registry, then you must address the President of the
20 Tribunal, because the Chamber does not have any powers over the Registry.
21 This may be strange for people from the civil law system, but that is how
22 it is. The administrative powers are held by the President of the
23 Tribunal. If you ask the Registry for something and it does not respond
24 in the way you expected it to, you have to address yourself to the
25 President of the Tribunal.
1 So I think that is all we can do today. I believe you will be
2 meeting tomorrow to discuss logistical and practical matters. You will
3 tell Mr. Fourmy where and when you will meet so he can join you regarding
4 the schedule, and after that we can prepare a series of questions which we
5 can develop jointly.
6 I think that a summary that we can make of what we have done today
7 would be that we have at least identified more or less structured contents
8 and more or less structured methodology which together can help us to make
9 progress in preparing the case. I think there is also a novel element and
10 that is the presence of the legal officer of the Chamber as an element in
11 between the Trial Chamber and the parties, and I think this can be an
12 asset which can contribute to further progress.
13 Before adjourning, I would like to address General Galic.
14 General Galic, can you stand, please?
15 [The accused stands up]
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I wish to ask you what you know
17 I'm going to ask you, because that is part of our Rules, to ask you how
18 things are, how you are feeling, and how your conditions of detention
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, I would like to thank
21 you for asking these questions. I have nothing special to say. Now the
22 Status Conferences are frequent enough and not so much changes during that
23 period in the Detention Unit. But thank you for asking.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, General Galic. You
25 may be seated.
1 [The accused sits down]
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So tomorrow I can say that we
3 will be meeting, though indirectly, and further progress will be made. I
4 really hope that some important results will be achieved for our next
5 Status Conference, that there will be some good agreements and some good
6 disagreements; that is, we will be able to identify clearly the things
7 that divide us and the points that we have in common so that the case can
8 be well-prepared when the time comes.
9 I wish you success in your work tomorrow, and until our next
10 meeting, this hearing is adjourned.
11 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at
12 5.31 p.m.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.