1 Monday, 16 November 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Cermak not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.11 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. I apologise for the late
8 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
10 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-06-90-T, the
11 Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 As scheduled, we'll have a housekeeping session to start with
14 this morning, before we start with the case presentation by the
15 Markac Defence.
16 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, if I could beg the Court's
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC: We have a preliminary issue that I think is
20 important enough to raise before the MFI session, with the Court's leave.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and can it be done in open session?
22 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
24 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 We named our witnesses in May. We provided the Prosecution with
1 a list of who our witnesses were going be and all the parties within
2 the -- basically the first two weeks of our Defence case. We made a
3 Rule 66 request in April, and again in May, and again in June, and again
4 in October, and again in November. Our first Rule 66(B) disclosure that
5 we received, I believe, was either last week or the Friday before last
7 Last night, at 2.00 morning, we were notified that, of course,
8 had I known I would have taken the cab from the -- from Amsterdam. I'm
9 just joking. Had I known we would have obviously picked it up at 2.00 in
10 the morning, but nobody was up at 2.00 in the morning. The documents in
11 the Rule 66(B) disclosure that we received last night pertain to the
12 witness -- one of the witnesses who will be testifying presumably today,
13 if we are done with our first witness early enough. And it's -- as the
14 Court is aware, we can't contact the witness once the witness has begun
15 testifying. We have not been given the opportunity to look at these
16 documents, to potentially discuss the documents with the witness who is
17 coming to testify. Some of the documents, I have been just recently
18 informed by my Case Manager, are documents that deal with VONS meetings
19 in which our client -- or which our witness was present with
20 President Tudjman among others.
21 So it really puts us at a large disadvantage and quite frankly is
22 unfair, and given the fact that the notice out there has been in
23 existence for months, if not -- for weeks if not months, we are in a
24 position in which we -- we are put a very difficult position with respect
25 to this witness, and it is a very important witness. And he can only
1 testify this week, and the Prosecution is aware that he can only testify
2 this week. And we are -- we are at a loss to know what to do at this
3 point, given the fact that this witness is probably going to testifying
5 So I guess from my perspective, I don't want any of these
6 documents showing up on a cross-examination list and being used in
7 cross-examination because I think it is prejudicial to our case.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Waespi.
9 MR. WAESPI: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.
10 Obviously this is a huge disclosure obligation on us, and we try
11 our best to comply with it. I think in relation to the second witness,
12 the big one that might start today, there were more than 7.000 hits which
13 are generated by the so-called ISU search. We review those, and the last
14 batch apparently was disclosed last night. I'm fairly confident that the
15 key exhibits that I'm going to use in cross-examination including the
16 VONS meetings have been disclosed before. What this might be -- I'm not
17 aware might be a translation or -- or something else, or duplication, but
18 all the key exhibits that pertain to this witness were disclosed quite
19 some time ago, and certainly not tonight.
20 If this last batch of disclosure revealed a document for which,
21 you know, the -- which is totally new and surprising to Defence, I'm sure
22 we find a solution. Frankly, I haven't seen the 2.00 disclosure. I'm
23 not sure what's on it. I'm happy to look at it, but I doubt that there
24 is it anything which is -- which I'm going use in -- in my
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
2 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I rise because in addition to the
3 issue of material being used in cross-examination by the Prosecution,
4 there's also the issue, of course, of material that the Defence may feel
5 is relevant and probative of certain issues in this trial that we haven't
6 had an opportunity to review, to see if we wish to put it in because we
7 think it has some significance to the trial even if the Prosecution
8 perhaps doesn't.
9 So, as far as I see from the disclosure list, we're talking about
10 118 documents that were disclosed to us at 2.00 this morning.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Mr. Kuzmanovic, you are talking about 66(B) disclosure.
13 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Correct, Your Honour. We made a --
14 JUDGE ORIE: That is any documents in the Prosecutor's custody or
15 control which are material to the preparation of the Defence or are
16 intended for use by the Prosecutor as evidence. And you'd say that once
17 your list of witnesses was available to the Prosecution, they could have
18 made up their mind what they want to use and what they do not want to
20 Now, I do understand that the 118 documents were disclosed this
21 night at 2.00 p.m.
22 MR. KUZMANOVIC: 2.00 a.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, it's not yet 2.00 p.m.
24 Mr. Waespi, you say you're confident that it must be translations
25 issues and the like and not really something material.
1 Well, one of the things I do not fully understand is why in this
2 and -- there are -- I have no problems in accepting that in this huge
3 disclosure obligation that it is at 2.00 a.m., that is seven hours before
4 the start of the hearing that day, that, at that moment, something is
5 possible, which would not have been possible three days earlier.
6 That's something I really do not understand.
7 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, as I mentioned before, this is a huge
8 hit list in relation it this witness, and I have made available a lot of
9 resources this week to comply with these disclosure issues, and a team of
10 people worked over the weekend, and they finished their searches, and the
11 Case Manager came in yesterday evening to review those searches, and --
12 and disclose it to the Defence.
13 And as far as I know, there are still quite some materials which
14 pertain to the Rule 66(B) request. These are all the public appearances
15 of the second witness which is an enormous amount of materials. This is
16 still ongoing and it might reveal some new documents again. Not
17 documents I'm going use. Those have all been disclosed, which is unusual
18 in fact. There is not one document on my list of cross-examination that
19 has not been disclosed to the -- to the -- to Defence before that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, if -- I would have told my father such a
21 story, I would have known his answer. He would have said, So you started
22 too late?
23 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, there are many, many witnesses which
24 require an enormous amount of resources. We do our best do comply with
25 these searches. That's all I can say.
1 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I think the other thing I wanted to
2 add is we have received rolling disclosures. I think this was batch 6 of
3 the disclosures, and the disclosures have all been placed on a CD in our
4 locker which is fine if it's during the working day, or even if it's not,
5 we can see the e-mail and go get it at our locker. But there isn't --
6 there is usually a spreadsheet on that CD which is easily e-mailable, so
7 we could have at least looked through that to be able to -- to do that
8 remotely. Every time there is a disclosure somebody has to haul off to
9 the Tribunal, to the locker, to get the CD, so obviously at 2.00 a.m. it
10 wasn't practical, but if somebody was up early enough, like our
11 Case Manager was, he could have at least looked through the spreadsheet
12 to see what was there.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is the spreadsheet now available at least, so you've
14 seen it by now? Yes.
15 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I have not but my Case Manager and co-counsel
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Waespi, one of the matters raised by
18 Mr. Kuzmanovic was that he -- well, he's not allowed to have further
19 contact with the witness once he has taken the stand. Would you allow
20 for an exception in relation to these 118 documents, upon -- well, let's
21 say, good cause being shown on the basis of the -- of the spreadsheet,
22 that it would be unreasonable not to allow Mr. Kuzmanovic to discuss some
23 of these documents with -- with the witness?
24 MR. WAESPI: No, I have no problem with that.
25 Can I just make another point, in relation --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Before -- this was a quick answer.
2 Mr. Kuzmanovic, would that -- of course, that requires a quite a
3 bit of self-discipline. Do you think that this would, at least to some
4 extent, create not a solution but at least some relief?
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I think it would. I think that's a
6 reasonable solution. It all really depends on how quickly we can get
7 through the documents and obviously, as officers of the court, we will
8 let the Court know that the only things we would talk about with the
9 witness are these new documents.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and nothing else under those circumstances.
11 Mr. Waespi, you would like to add something.
12 MR. WAESPI: Just two points in relation to disclosure. As you
13 know, there is a huge Rule 68 disclosure ongoing in relation to the
14 Cermak Defence which ties up a lot of resources from our side as well,
15 and they have reminded us, rightly so, I think a week ago, that we should
16 speed that up process.
17 Second, we asked Markac Defence in relation to the second
18 witness, to which this disclosure relates to, to move him up, because we
19 knew that it's going to be massive disclosure, and unfortunately, as
20 Mr. Kuzmanovic pointed out, the witness is so busy that we couldn't move
21 him back. But we tried to, as we always do, to accommodate each other's
22 schedule but it was not possible.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see that goodwill apparently is there but
24 that does not always create results which are workable.
25 MR. KUZMANOVIC: That's correct, Your Honour. I mean, we are
1 in -- Mr. Waespi and the Defence are in constant contact via e-mail and
2 during the breaks about things that were coming up with respect to our
3 case, and it's not that we are accusing the Prosecution of doing this
4 deliberately. We're not.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No.
6 MR. KUZMANOVIC: It's -- you know, the other issue that we have
7 with respect to the relief that the Court has in mind for us is that we
8 have to look at these documents, read them and analyse them. They are
9 not just four- or five-page documents. You know, some of these documents
10 are 20, 30 pages long. Some of them don't have translations. So it
11 takes us a little bit longer.
12 But we will -- maybe when -- after the first break we can let the
13 Court know how long it might take to us look and analyse these documents
14 before we can really say whether that relief that the Court is thinking
15 of is even practical.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would it be an idea -- Mr. Waespi was quite
17 clear on -- he was quite confident that likely most of this material was
18 already disclosed once. He must have good reasons for that and he could
19 share those reasons so that it might be easier for you to find out
20 whether this material has been disclosed earlier.
21 MR. WAESPI: I'm mainly talking about the VONS meetings. These
22 are key documents and I would be surprised if a totally new VONS meeting
23 document was disclosed last night, but I might be wrong.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's see. Mr. Waespi, if -- there must have
25 been reasons why these 118 documents were selected for further
1 disclosure, which means that they had not been disclosed previously or
2 not exactly in the same format or whatever. Well, the one who -- the one
3 who decided that, or at least the one who selected those documents as
4 still to be disclosed, must have had an idea on why these documents
5 needed to be disclosed and perhaps that knowledge could assist
6 Mr. Kuzmanovic.
7 MR. WAESPI: Yes. There is basically the result of the
8 Rule 66(B) request to have documents in which the witness appears. These
9 are numerous press conferences, and I'm quite sure many of them relate to
10 these public appearances of this witness, and -- but the VONS meeting
11 apparently, you know, catch the eye of Mr. Kuzmanovic and that's an
12 important document. And -- and all the other documents, as I say, are
13 numerous documents which recall public appearances of witness.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is more or less rumble for you than --
15 rather than -- yes. At the same time, we know that sometimes public
16 appearance can provide important information.
17 Mr. Kuzmanovic.
18 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, that is exactly the point, I guess.
19 You know, we don't have the database that the OTP has, and the whole
20 reason for Rule 66(B) was to enable to us be able to find some of that
21 information that either is not in the public domain, is not in any of our
22 databases, or -- I mean, that is the whole purpose of that disclosure and
23 the request for the disclosure. So we will -- we will look at this
24 obviously during the first break. We will consult with Mr. Waespi and
25 then we will let the Court know, if that is okay with the Court, what
1 we -- what we would recommend to do.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Misetic.
3 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President, just to correct the record.
4 That's the only reason I rise.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. MISETIC: The overwhelming majority of these documents
7 actually appear to be presidential transcripts. From just a quick scroll
8 through them, I would say at least 70 per cent of them, and therefore, if
9 they're of the length of a typical presidential transcript, these are
10 probably at least 50 pages long in the original, so they are quite a bit
11 of work to review.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then, of course, we have seen some
13 presidential transcript but, of course, I have got no idea whether there
14 are any new ones among them.
15 Mr. Waespi, could you please pay attention to that as well to
16 what extent presidential transcripts are new.
17 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, one last request. I realise, and I
18 don't know how practical it is, but I would ask if there are further
19 disclosures, that at least the spreadsheet get e-mailed to us if that is
20 possible, and then we'll obviously look through that and be able to
21 determine whether it's something that we need to review right away and
22 get from the locker or not.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Mr. Waespi, may I take it that before further disclosure takes
25 place, that always, immediately, a spreadsheet will be sent to the
1 Defence so that what they find on the CD doesn't come as a surprise.
2 MR. WAESPI: Yes, we will do that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Well, I'm afraid that the Chamber, I'm looking at the parties,
5 apart from taking notice of this at this moment, before you have had an
6 opportunity to look at it, I think it would be -- it would be too early
7 to make any drastic decisions based on the submissions and observations
8 until now.
9 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I agree with Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
11 Mr. Misetic, in view of your observations in relation to
12 material -- documents material to the preparation of the Defence, I take
13 it that when -- once have you seen this list, and if there are any
14 further observations to be made, that you will make them.
15 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will then start with the housekeeping
18 The first one I would like to deal with on my list is D1569, if I
19 could say the famous Goran and -- Goran Vunic documents.
20 One of the things that's still missing, Mr. Waespi, is what the
21 position of the Prosecution is in relation to these documents, and you
22 will certainly remember that we're talking about authenticity and names
23 being in there or another name being in that document.
24 MR. WAESPI: Mr. Carrier --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier will deal with the matter.
1 Mr. Carrier.
2 MR. CARRIER: Good morning, Mr. President. Yes, I think the
3 Prosecution's position was similar to your own position when the issue
4 came up, which was whether or not authenticity attested to by another
5 person who is not testifying, who isn't here, who's not been
6 cross-examined, is sufficient in order to authenticate the document.
7 So the Prosecution takes the same position whether that's a
8 proper way of doing it. The document in question, I understand, didn't
9 have a stamp on it and that's where the issue arose, but other than that,
10 the Prosecution doesn't have any other position on those documents.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Any further submissions in response to what
12 Mr. Carrier says.
13 MR. KEHOE: Just with regard to this document, Mr. President, the
14 concerns expressed by the Prosecution simply go to the weight of the
15 document, not to its admissibility.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 I think there's hardly any risk that if D1569 is admitted into
18 evidence, that not only immediately all alarm bells will be ringing when
19 we see this document also in comparison to other --
20 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President --
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- documents, that's P1063 and D918.
22 Then, under those circumstances, the Chamber decides that D1569
23 is admitted into evidence.
24 Then we move on to D1669, D1670, D1671, and D1672. Let me just
25 have a look; one second, please.
1 These are all bar tabled housing law documents. One of the
2 matters was that these bar tabled documents that the Chamber was still
3 waiting for the filing of -- the joint filing of a -- by the parties,
4 this being a bar table document which is in need of a spreadsheet, in
5 which relevance, et cetera, and any observations are laid down.
6 Mr. Carrier.
7 MR. CARRIER: Yes, Mr. President. My understanding is that these
8 documents are going to be dealt with on Friday in the -- in the joint bar
9 table submission. As you just said. But I don't think there's much
10 point in going through it out now other than -- because in the bar table
11 submission will a column with Defence position and another column with
12 the Prosecution's position, so it should be laid out --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and that will be filed. I do understand that
14 such a spreadsheet will not be evidence but just serves as guidance for
15 the Chamber.
16 So, therefore, we would like to know -- that joint filing
17 apparently is not yet prepared or is not -- the filing is not there yet.
18 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, if I could just correct that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. MISETIC: It is my understanding from my Case Manager that
21 these specific documents will not be part of the joint filing. It's my
22 understanding the joint filing deals with documents from the past.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The ones in the past.
24 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
1 MR. MISETIC: We have circulated a new proposed bar table, which
2 we have submitted only to the Prosecution and the parties at this point,
3 which contains the Vaganj, the housing law, and certain other documents
4 which we will then all put into one filing for the Chamber and -- and
5 file. So all of that will be in the filing that deals with new bar table
6 documents which we are going bar table into evidence.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Because what we now need is a -- the Chamber has to
8 decide on -- I just mentioned four documents, which are, from what I
9 understand, all housing -- I see one is Housing Act, Official Gazette
10 number 51. Law on Modification of the Law on Housing, Official Gazette
11 number 42. Law on Changes and Amendments to the Law on Housing,
12 Official Gazette number 22 of 1992, I think, Article 2. And the
13 Official Gazette number 70, Law on Amendments to the Law on Housing.
14 These are the documents I just referred to. Now, we expect a
15 filing, a spreadsheet filing, a joint filing by the parties on relevance,
16 et cetera, as we have explained before.
17 Now, for those documents that were already admitted into evidence
18 we expect this new, could I say, consolidated filing giving all this
19 information, not to be evidence but as guidance for the Chamber.
20 Now, should we now admit these documents already before we have
21 received these new four ones where we have not yet received a submission,
22 joint filing, spreadsheet, in relation to these documents or should we
24 MR. MISETIC: Your Honour, I would propose that we clear the
1 copy of our proposed submission, we have the comments from the
2 Prosecution actually on the bar on the housing laws. If necessary, if
3 you wish, we can do a separate filing today and just file that on the bar
4 table because it is already done.
5 JUDGE ORIE: What we will do, we'll then clear our MFI list by
6 deciding on admission. But, at the same time, we'll add to the pending
7 issues list, the issue of still needing a spreadsheet in relation to
8 these four documents, or if there are more, then we'll hear from you.
9 MR. MISETIC: That's fine, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then under those circumstances, D1669, D1670, D1671,
11 and D1672 are admitted into evidence. And I put clearly on the record,
12 that the Chamber expects, could the parties commit themselves to a date?
13 MR. CARRIER: Sorry, I believe we've already put our comments and
14 we had no objections so ...
15 MR. MISETIC: As I indicated, Mr. President, the actual housing
16 law bar table is ready and we could file it today if necessary. However,
17 last week we sent that as part of a larger bar table proposal which is
18 still with the Prosecution, and we're waiting for the Prosecution's
19 comments on other documents. I think it would be more efficient if we
20 just made one filing where everything was on it, but if the Chamber
21 prefers --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps since we have now dealt specifically with
23 these four documents, that we separate them from the others, that it is
24 clear that by this Wednesday --
25 MR. MISETIC: Today. Today. We'll file it today, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You'll file it today so that we have the spreadsheet
2 information, joint filing, today on these documents.
3 Then I move to D1684.
4 There's no issue about admission. The main -- the only remaining
5 matter seems to be whether the -- now the relevant portion has been
6 uploaded in e-court so that we are not stuck with a huge document,
7 whereas it is only intended that portions of it are admitted into
9 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, the excerpts that were used with
10 Witness Rincic have been uploaded as 65 ter 1D2979. The Court Officer
11 has linked this already to D1684, and it is ready to be admitted into
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, if you could confirm this, the
14 Chamber is ready to decide.
15 THE REGISTRAR: That's correct, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: D1684 is admitted into evidence.
17 I now move to D1717, which is a video of a concert. I think
18 we've seen 17 seconds, and the parties were invited to agree on what
19 songs were and what songs were not sung. And I do understand that even
20 for the short clip shown that there was an objection, because it lacked
21 relevance. An objection by the Prosecution.
22 Could I hear from the -- from the parties. And it's mainly about
23 what was not sung during the remainder of the concert.
24 MR. CARRIER: Perhaps I'll just start, Mr. President.
25 This was something that was addressed during the evidence of
1 Mr. Pasic. And during his testimony he said he wasn't actually there,
2 number one. So he wouldn't be in a position to say what was sung or
3 wasn't sung for the reminder of.
4 What's on the video itself, the Prosecution's position is that's
5 not a complete record of what transpired during the concert. It ends
6 rather abruptly. It doesn't contain the entire concert, so to -- for the
7 Prosecution to be in a position to say what was not or was sung during
8 the entire concert, obviously we're not in a position to do that. We
9 have video. We have watched the video. We can say what was and what was
10 not sung on the video itself, but in terms of concert, you -- it is
11 impossible seeing a little piece of something to say, Well, therefore,
12 because nothing is in that video-clip, it couldn't have been happening
13 off camera.
14 JUDGE ORIE: No, I do understand that if the parties agree that
15 on the video-clip that no Ustasha songs were sung that, of course, is not
16 a guarantee to say that perhaps someone in the audience may have
17 whispered some Ustasha songs.
18 Of course, what the Chamber wanted to avoid is that we have to
19 look at the two-hour video, then we would need to have all the songs
20 translated and then, at the end, to find out that no Ustasha songs were
22 That's not the way in which the Chamber wants to spend their days
23 and therefore the parties invited to check and to see whether they could
24 agree on whether any Ustasha songs during this concert as shown in the
25 video were sung. That is the issue.
1 Have the parties looked at it, have they made up their mind, have
2 they tried to reach agreement on whether what they saw and what they
3 heard, whether there were any Ustasha songs.
4 Mr. Misetic.
5 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I think there is agreement that
6 there are no Ustasha songs on this video. I am unaware of the reference
7 to this being a partial video. As Your Honour has indicated, it is a
8 two-hour video --
9 JUDGE ORIE: But then let's be -- Mr. Pasic may not have seen it
10 all. What we have is the video. Of course, we could try -- we could
11 advertise and invite people who have seen parts of the concert which were
12 not shown on the video and then distribute the video among half of the
13 population of the Croatia
14 anything which does not appear in that video. That is, of course, not
15 the way in which we would like to proceed.
16 Have the parties agreed on whether, as shown on the video, this
17 concert, whether there's any reason for the Chamber to look at it,
18 because Ustasha songs would be -- would have been sung. That's the
20 MR. CARRIER: As I said, on the basis of what's on the video
21 itself, the Prosecution is in a position so say there are no Ustasha
22 songs sung on the video. That is not to say that no Ustasha songs were
23 sung during that concert. Again, the video ends --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier --
25 MR. CARRIER: -- abruptly, and so we're not in a position to say
1 whether or not it goes on.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, did I not yet address that matter a
3 second ago? You just repeat what you said.
4 Therefore, there seems to be no need for the Chamber to look at
5 this video. There has been a concert, whether fully recorded or not is
6 the second matter, but from the available recording of that concert the
7 parties agree it does not show or produce any Ustasha songs.
8 Is that in agreement? Is there agreement on that?
9 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President. And there's one other point
10 just with respect to that video and I think it is agreed, but if it is
11 agreed, then there is no need for the Chamber to look at the video. But
12 that is the -- Mr. Pasic testified that the concert involved two opera
13 singers named Matic and Cigoj, and the other relevance of this video is
14 that Mr. Matic and Mr. Cigoj are on this video, at a concert in Knin,
15 and --
16 JUDGE ORIE: But for that purpose I think we looked at 17 seconds
17 only or something like that --
18 MR. MISETIC: That's --
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- and that would be sufficient.
20 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that then one saves 1 hour, 59 minutes, and
22 43 seconds.
23 Mr. Carrier.
24 MR. CARRIER: I'm not going to repeat myself, but given the
25 Mr. Pasic wasn't there, perhaps the -- if it is going to be admitted,
1 that description of the document be changed where it says he was there.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I have for D1717, as a description, "Video of
3 concert in Knin castle." Nothing more, nothing less.
4 MR. MISETIC: But, Mr. President, there is a different one on the
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. MISETIC: -- but I will make sure that the one that's on the
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Carrier, any further objections, then, or -- if
11 this is done?
12 MR. CARRIER: No.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: The portion uploaded, is that the portion shown or
15 is there anything more in it, Mr. Registrar? As far as you are ...
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it is not clear from the date in
17 e-court whether that is a full clip or just what was shown in court.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could the parties inform the Chamber, whether we
19 have 17 seconds or two hours.
20 MR. MISETIC: We're checking on that right now, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if it is two hours, you perhaps could
22 already reduce it to 17 seconds.
23 I'll move on to D1719, and I already indicate that the Chamber
24 will not decide on admission at this moment. However, this document,
25 which is -- if I could briefly describe it as the Jarnjak interview.
1 Mr. Misetic --
2 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, if I could perhaps state our
4 Having reviewed it, I think we're satisfied that the relevant
5 portions of this video were put on the transcript for purposes of
6 impeachment, and therefore, we no longer feel the need to move this into
7 evidence. Unless the Chamber feels the need to do so.
8 JUDGE ORIE: As I said before, the Chamber will not -- I earlier
9 said that the Chamber would not decide on admission. You say, Well, we
10 don't need it anymore. So then the remaining position question is
11 whether the Prosecution and/or the Chamber think that this material is
12 such that it should be received in evidence.
13 Mr. Carrier.
14 MR. CARRIER: No, our position is it should not be.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then it is only the Chamber will have to consider
16 whether or not we can do without.
17 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I also have an answer for D1717, if
18 you wish.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you just allow me to visit first D1719. The
20 Defence has withdrawn this from its tendering.
21 Mr. Carrier doesn't seek it to be admitted into evidence. It
22 keeps the MFI
23 whether the Chamber would like to have this document in evidence and will
24 call upon the producing party to produce it. I would say to tender it.
25 Otherwise, of course, the Chamber always has the possibility to make it a
1 Chamber exhibit.
2 But, for the time being, D1719 keeps the status of a document
3 marked for identification.
4 D1717, Mr. Misetic.
5 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
6 I understand that in e-court is actually a list of all the songs
7 that were sung. My Case Manager advises me that we have both a short
8 clip of the 17 seconds ready and the entire two-hour concert ready, and
9 it is simply up to the Chamber which clip you prefer.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, what songs were sung,
11 once the parties have agreed that these are no Ustasha songs, then we do
12 not have to know the whole programme. Is it?
13 MR. MISETIC: That's fine, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, I suggest, and I will hear from
15 Mr. Carrier whether he agrees or not, that we keep it to the 17-seconds
16 video even without the list, which would be good musical education but
17 not assist the Chamber in deciding matters it has to decide.
18 Mr. Carrier.
19 MR. CARRIER: Just with respect to the list itself, it's not
20 something that I'm positive that we have had a chance to review the list.
21 So I understand what Your Honour is saying, but if the list is --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you agree that no Ustasha songs were sung,
23 what's the use of going through the list?
24 MR. CARRIER: To look at the list and see what the actual list
25 consists of because I want to make sure that the list actually
1 corresponds to what was on the videos. Simple as that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So you would say there is a possibility that you'd
3 find on the list Ustasha songs which are not shown on the video and that
4 would then meet your concerns that the video might not be show nasty
5 songs which, nevertheless, may have been performed at the concert. Is
6 that -- I'm trying understand your reasoning.
7 MR. CARRIER: My reasoning is simply is just to -- out of an
8 abundance of caution just to look at the list and see what's on the list.
9 Having not seen it --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if is not evidence, what would be your
12 MR. CARRIER: That's fine. That was the only concern, that it go
13 into evidence or not go into evidence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: No. I suggested that we do not have to know the
15 full programme of the concert if the parties agree that no Ustasha songs
16 were sung, and that who has a beard and who has no beard, and who is
17 singing, we can look at that 17 seconds.
18 The Gotovina Defence is invited to upload the 17-seconds version,
19 and to -- if it was uploaded, the list, to strike that, so that the only
20 thing that then remains is the 17-seconds video, not for the music sung
21 but mainly for the presence of persons on that video, and Mr. Pasic, I
22 think, testified about that, and was not in agreement with those who
23 organised the concert.
24 MR. MISETIC: We will do that, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then -- could you inform the Registrar
1 once this is done.
2 D1717, being a 17-second video-clip as shown to the witness
3 Petar Pasic, is admitted into evidence. If there's any problem with the
4 uploading of this document, the Registrar and the Chamber should be
5 informed immediately.
6 Then we move on. D1728. That was a bar table submission which
7 the Chamber had not seen at the time. It was tendered. There were no
8 objections. The Chamber meanwhile has read the document and D1728 is
9 admitted into evidence.
10 We move on to D1784. We first had a document, the expert report
11 of Mr. Deverell. Then the -- what was found in the corrigendum was
12 worked in, in the original document. There was a second corrigendum and
13 there was a problem with the page references. That was the problem at
14 the time. Then later, during the testimony of Mr. Deverell, the
15 Cermak Defence agreed -- agreed that the portion on the Grubori document
16 that was still remaining in the report, so not the part that was already
17 taken out before the report was presented but what remains in the report
18 would then be taken out as well. I don't remember exactly. It was, I
19 think, page 53 or something like that.
20 MR. CAYLEY: Page 55, Your Honour, lines 17 to 26.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 Have we now a document uploaded in which all the corrections,
23 including the corrections to the page references and this page 55 has
24 worked -- has been worked in so that there's a final version which meets
25 in every respect what should be admitted.
1 MR. CAYLEY: It does, Your Honour. We have done exactly as we
2 agreed with the Prosecution, as the Court requested.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then there was no further objections.
4 So, under those circumstances, D1784, as uploaded now, is
5 admitted into evidence.
6 Then I move on to D1686. This all started, I think, with the
7 HINA report. Then we had additional information from the Helsinki Watch
8 web site. And then later, the parties were provided with additional
9 material Mr. Skegro had been provided.
10 Now the Chamber has not looked at that material because we found
11 it appropriate that the parties would say have it and would consider what
12 they want to tender, and I -- when I'm talking about D1686, we should
13 keep in mind that it is related to P2642, which is a report regarding the
14 media situation in Croatia
15 The Chamber wonders what the parties would like to have in
16 evidence so that a -- that balanced information or -- as complete as
17 possible information is available to the Chamber, or whether they would
18 say, The less the Chamber knows about it, the better it is.
19 Mr. --
20 MR. CAYLEY: We would seek the admission of D1686 into evidence
21 for the very reason that you said Your Honour, in order to provide a
22 balanced picture to the Court. There was an issue of the translation of
23 that document. I think you will recall that it had to be read into the
24 record because we only took it off the web site as we were going along.
25 But a translation of that document has now been produced and has been
1 uploaded, and we would therefore seek admission of it into evidence.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think the portion from the Helsinki Watch
3 web site was exhibited, if I'm not mistaken. And then what then remains
4 are the judgements, Croatian judgements provided by the witness, once he
5 had left this courtroom.
6 MR. CAYLEY: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any reason to have them in evidence as
8 well, which might be good to complete the picture, because I do
9 understand that the judgement may give some better insight on what has
10 happened and what has not happened.
11 MR. CAYLEY: I think we are still waiting to receive those from
12 him, but I can certainly follow that up.
13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
14 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cayley, my information at this moment is that
16 some material was sent by Mr. Skegro, that it was received by the Chamber
17 but made available to the parties.
18 MR. CAYLEY: I --
19 JUDGE ORIE: As I said before, the Chamber considered it not that
20 it for us to decide what was in evidence, but rather, to make it
21 available to the parties to see, check relevance and to see whether they
22 wished to tender any of that material.
23 I immediately add to that, that since there was a matter of
24 accusations which were then denied, that, if judgements were rendered in
25 this respect, that it might complete the picture so as to know whether
1 there's anything relevant in it or that we could just forget about it.
2 MR. CAYLEY: Well, if it has been transmitted to us, Your Honour,
3 I was unaware of that, but I'm sure it has been, and we will get on to it
4 and check it and then come back to the Chamber.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm looking at the Prosecution.
6 Could you confirm that you have received it, because ...
7 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Mr. President --
8 JUDGE ORIE: And of course, I can imagine that D1686 does not
9 immediately trigger your attention for material which was sent but is not
10 to be found under number D1686, which is just the HINA report.
11 MR. CARRIER: Mr. President, my understanding is we did receive
12 the judgements. They haven't been translated. However, perhaps if I
13 could just have an opportunity just to make a few comments on P2642,
14 which ties in, obviously, to everything else. But I think that document
15 served as the good-faith basis to put a certain question and then it
16 basically ran its course. The Prosecution's position is that none of
17 that needs to actually become exhibited in the case which would mean that
18 P2642, D1686 -- and then there no need to go through the translations of
19 the judgements. The question was asked, it was answered, and the
20 Prosecution is satisfied with leaving it there.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the Chamber will consider it, but the Chamber
22 might want or might -- might be inclined to say that if we heard a
23 beginning of a story, then another part of a story which may be half of
24 the story or three-quarters of the story or 20 per cent of the --
25 25 per cent of the story, that if there is material which would complete
1 our view on the matter, that we would then like to see that as well, and
2 not -- because I did understand from the witness, but, please, I don't
3 know whether my recollection is complete in that respect, something had
4 happened, although not what he was charged with. Now, under those
5 circumstances, what has happened, I do not know whether in this judgement
6 anything is established about that. But to have a complete picture, to
7 see whether we can just forget about all of it or whether, well, 5 or
8 10 per cent remains. That may be possible on the basis of these
9 judgements. I do even understand that he sent even more material than he
10 announced in court.
11 So we leave that open at this moment. But your suggestion is ...
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: I can be more complete now.
14 Mr. Skegro has sent material in files named P1, P2, P3, P4, R1,
15 and T1; six documents.
16 The P documents stand for criminal verdict; the R stands for -
17 and I'm certain that I'll pronounce it wrongly - "rjesenje" which is a
18 Croatian word for "decision," from what I understand; and the T documents
19 stands for "tuzba" which is explained as a Croatian word for "private
20 criminal indictment."
21 The first -- the four P documents refer to, as Mr. Skegro calls
22 it, the pistol story; R1 and T1 refer to the stolen money story. This
23 material, which was sent electronically, has been forwarded by our
24 Registrar on the 7th of October in the early afternoon.
25 "The parties are invite by the Trial Chamber to review these
1 documents and consider whether or not to tender them into evidence.
2 Furthermore," Mr. Registrar reports to the parties, "I have been asked to
3 inform the parties that the Trial Chamber, not having reviewed the
4 material itself and having been briefed on the contents only very
5 superficially, reserves its position in respect of the use of its
6 discretion under Rule 98." That is more or less what I earlier said
8 The parties are invited to review that material and to see
9 whether there's any wish to tender it. If so, then, of course,
10 translations will be made. The Chamber will consider it. If the parties
11 would decide that they have no interest whatsoever, then the Chamber
12 would still consider whether this material, which was send by Mr. Skegro
13 at the request of the Chamber, whether we want to use our discretion
14 under Rule 98.
15 So we will hear from the parties. At the same time, at this
16 moment, D1686 and D20 -- P2642, any mutual objections or ...
17 Of course, when talking about the D documents, any objections
18 from the Prosecution and/or any objections against the P documents by the
20 No objections. Then D1686 and P2642 are admitted into evidence.
21 I move on to P2640, minutes of a presidential meeting,
22 11th of April 1995. The Cermak Defence would consider what portion of
23 this relatively large document of 120 pages would be needed to create a
24 proper context for the portion which got specific attention during the
25 evidence of Mr. Skegro.
1 MR. CAYLEY: I believe that we've already informed the
2 Prosecution and are waiting to hear from them on that issue. It was
3 simply putting the original part that the Prosecution were relying into
4 some form of context, and I think the same applies to the next exhibit.
5 But certainly if they've not yet made a decision on that, we can discuss
6 it. It --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, the Chamber was more or less
8 waiting for an agreement on the selection and there also was some --
9 MR. CAYLEY: There was a translation issue.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- translation issue there as well. So the Chamber
11 was wondering whether any agreement had been reached by the parties on
12 this, so that we could have the relevant portion uploaded with the right
13 translation and then decide on admission.
14 Mr. Carrier.
15 MR. CARRIER: Yes, with respect to the context issue for P2640,
16 as well as P2641, I think that has been resolved, and there's agreement
17 between the parties with respect to that.
18 Your Honour is correct. There is a second issue with regard to
19 the translation. My understanding is that that was sent to the Registry;
20 however, we're still waiting for a response. We have requested a final
21 translation. Just hasn't come back. So we're still waiting for that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Carrier, you say, The matter is
23 resolved, we have agreement with the Cayley Defence -- with the
24 Cermak Defence, with Mr. Cayley. From his words, it was not obvious that
25 he was aware of the agreement. He made a proposal, apparently. You did
1 not disagree. Is that --
2 MR. CAYLEY: What I -- Mr. Carrier's recollection may be better
3 than mine. All I recall is we certainly gave the pages that we requested
4 that should be included and I don't think there was any other proposal,
5 and if Mr. Carrier's saying that he agrees to that, then yes, we're in
6 agreement. I can clarify the transcript.
7 JUDGE ORIE: That's then -- then the translation issue remains.
8 I then suggest that we -- at this moment that we keep the status of P2640
9 as an MFI
10 is invited to upload exclusively, perhaps apart from the cover page,
11 which indicates what the document is about, but as far as the substance
12 is concerned, only those pages and remove everything else, so that the
13 only matter that then remains is translation.
14 Mr. Cayley, if that -- it has not yet been done, I take it?
15 MR. CAYLEY: No, I don't think it has, Your Honour, but we'll
16 certainly do it. And I will speak to Mr. Carrier in the break so that we
17 can make sure it gets down.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then finally, translation to be dealt with
19 as soon as possible.
20 P2641, minutes of a VONS meeting, same problem. But no
21 translation issue, apparently. Only a selection, a portion to be
22 selected. Agreement there as well. Not yet uploaded?
23 MR. CAYLEY: Correct, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then P2641 is admitted into evidence. The section
25 that has been selected and on which selection the parties have agreed for
1 purposes of context.
2 If the selected portion is not uploaded within the next 48 hours,
3 the Chamber wants to be informed and, of course, the Registrar should be
4 informed about that.
5 Mr. Carrier.
6 MR. CARRIER: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 I apologise, there might be some confusion because Mr. Cayley
8 likely was dealing with Mr. Hedaraly on this issue. I have a note from
9 Mr. Hedaraly to the effect that both of the contextual portions of the
10 transcript have been uploaded, but perhaps Mr. Cayley can confirm that.
11 MR. CAYLEY: I would need to check, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's like in one of the plays of Moliere,
13 where Mr. Jourdain says, I didn't know that I've spoke in prose for the
14 whole of my life already.
15 Mr. Cayley, you are now been informed about what you have done in
16 your past.
17 That doesn't change anything, that P2640 is a still an MFI
18 awaiting the settling of the translation issue. And that P2641 is
19 admitted into evidence.
20 We move on to P2643. That is an article in "The Independent"
21 publication on Tudjman tapes, 1st of November, 2000.
22 This is a document, in relation to which Mr. Skegro has sent us
23 the R and the T document. This also has been provided to the parties.
24 The -- here, again, it may be wise to wait until the parties have
25 looked at this T and this R document, so as to know what additional light
1 it sheds on the testimony of Mr. Skegro. Also, because I think he
2 testified that it would have been better to look at the original rather
3 than at any publication on the conversation which was reported in P2643.
4 Could I urge the parties to make up their mind, both in relation
5 to the P documents and on this T and R document as well so that we would
6 hear no later than, well, let's say by the end of this week, what the
7 parties intend to do with it. Even if there is no full translation yet
8 ready, I may take it that both parties will have an opportunity to look
9 at these documents as to find out perhaps on a more superficial level
10 what they are about and whether they want to use them, yes or no, and
11 then, of course, if they will be tendered into evidence, then we would
12 need a formal translation.
13 Mr. Misetic.
14 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I hesitate only because we have not
15 been disclosed, as far as I know, the underlying transcript of the
16 conversation at issue in P2643.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether it exists. Of course,
18 Mr. Skegro suggested that it would be better to look at that. Whether it
19 is there or not, I do not know.
20 But perhaps Mr. Carrier can inform us.
21 MR. CARRIER: We are actually in the midst of trying to obtain
22 that underlying document.
23 JUDGE ORIE: To obtain it, which means that you don't have it.
24 You're not trying to find it, or are you trying to?
25 MR. CARRIER: We don't have it. We are trying to get it.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Mr. Misetic -- Mr. Carrier, is there any expectation as far as
3 when -- whether it is likely that you will receive it, and if so, when
4 you would receive it?
5 MR. CARRIER: I can't advise. We asked for it some time ago and
6 then there was a bit of a problem in obtaining it, so at the moment I
7 just don't know when it is going to comment, if it exists. I don't know
8 anything other than we've asked and we've made another request, and we
9 still haven't received it, so ...
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
11 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, the transcript is allegedly cited
12 in -- it is cited, I should say, in the article itself so I would assume
13 that that indicates that it does exist. If it now doesn't exist, then
14 that would, I think, go to the admissibility of this document.
15 So, we would reserve until we actually get the chance to see the
16 underlying transcript because the witness seemed to dispute the
17 description of the underlying conversation, and I think in fairness to
18 the witness and parties, we should be able to assess and put into context
19 whatever was discussed.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think he said there was nothing illegal in
21 the matters that were discussed and that we could see that from the
22 original of the transcript. Now, of course, if you say, It's quoted;
23 therefore, it does exist, it suggests that, at least at the time, it did
24 exist. And I have sometimes, in my life - I'm not saying in this case -
25 I have seen quotes of documents that have never existed at all which were
1 just false quotes. So it is an open matter.
2 I would say that we would look at this, also in relation to the
3 T and the R documents you'll still review. It may be that it will shed
4 some additional light on the matter or not. It seems not to be a key
5 issue in this case. Therefore, the parties are invited to make up their
6 minds, as far as matters stand now, on the basis of the material which is
7 available, and we are all aware that there may be other material, that
8 is, the transcripts themselves, still to come, but that's not certain.
9 Then, under those circumstances, P2643 keeps the status of a
10 document marked for identification.
11 The last one on my list is P2644. We are awaiting -- we were
12 waiting for a new translation.
13 Is the new translation there and uploaded? There were no
14 objections against the document as such.
15 It's a P document, so I would expect a document -- expect an
16 answer from the Prosecution.
17 Mr. Carrier.
18 MR. CARRIER: Sorry, I understand there was a translation issue
19 raised by the Gotovina Defence. I'm not sure whether or not it has been
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could you find that out in the next break, and
22 inform the Chamber, I would say, within 24 hours?
23 MR. CARRIER: Sorry, apparently -- I have just received a note
24 saying it has not been dealt with yet. It was sent to be reviewed, as I
25 understand, and there's been no response to that yet.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No response to that yet. Could you try to find out,
2 since it is a document which is, apart from the translation issue, ready
3 for admission, under what -- with what urgency the matter can be dealt
4 with by CLSS.
5 Then the last matter on my list is that it was brought to the
6 Chamber's attention that D896 seems to be a duplicate of D629 -- D625.
7 I've not personally checked that. If it is correct, D896 should be
9 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, if we can just check on the break.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you would be so kind to do that, Mr. Kehoe.
11 I think that I went through what I found on my MFI list.
12 Any other matter to be raised?
13 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
14 JUDGE ORIE: There are two matters which I would like to briefly
16 First, in relation to the Cermak Defence, still there were
17 ongoing talks on agreement on the basis of the Milosevic and Martic
18 material. Apart from the disclosure which was kept separate.
19 Has that resulted yet in ...
20 MR. CAYLEY: I think those talks are still ongoing, as far as I
21 understand it. I'm not actually involved in those talks on the team. I
22 think Mr. Waespi ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
24 MR. WAESPI: Yes, that relates to the -- we received a draft
25 filing on Friday and, just before court, discussed it with Mr. Cayley,
1 and I think can be signed today.
2 It's basically a notice to the Trial Chamber, if the Defence
3 agrees about agreed facts, plus a map that shows where these facts took
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's be very practical. Mr. Waespi, you are
6 confident that it could be filed today, because, apparently, you agreed
7 with the suggestions made. If not, within the next 48 hours a -- it
8 would then be a joint filing, I take it, agreed facts, the joint filing.
9 If it's not being filed within the next 48 hours, the Chamber would
10 expect you to revisit the matter and to take initiative to that in court.
11 Then, finally, we have the famous outstanding matter of "fire" or
12 "strike." D970 compared to P1272. The word "udari."
13 Mr. Misetic, could I hear from you? I do understand that you
14 have submitted the matter to CLSS and that they informed you that there
15 was no reason to translate the word in a different way as they had done.
16 And if I'm -- it was "strike" rather than "fire," is that ...
17 MR. MISETIC: Yes. I would have to look back quickly at my
18 e-mail communications here. But what happened is, we submitted that
19 sentence to CLSS. They agreed that it needed to be changed and made a
20 change to say, Put the towns, et cetera, under artillery fire.
21 We then went back and said, There's another document in evidence
22 where the same word "udar" is translated as "strike" and not "fire," and
23 we believe that for the sake of consistency of the two documents that the
24 word should be translated the same. Our suggestion was "strike," but if
25 is "fire" in both or "strike" in both, just as long as it is translated
1 the same way.
2 Their response back was that they wouldn't translate it -- change
3 the translation because it was a faithful translation of the word "udar"
4 in the second, meaning in D970, and therefore they refused to change it.
5 So --
6 JUDGE ORIE: That means that the result is that we have still the
7 same word translated differently.
8 MR. MISETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... different ways, yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: In two different ways. Of course, I'm not familiar
10 with the reasons. Is this context, is this any grammatical -- well,
11 whatever it is. Would you like the Chamber to ask for further
12 explanation --
13 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- and more an explanation which goes into the
15 details of why in the one context the one translation is used and in the
16 other context another word apparently has been used.
17 Is that what you would like the Chamber to --
18 MR. MISETIC: Yes. I have tried that myself already and have not
19 received a response, and therefore I would ask the Chamber if -- to make
20 an inquiry.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the inquiry would then seek a -- well, as
22 an expert explanation on the use of the different words, where the
23 original, although I think, but the one is "udari" and the other is
24 "udar," but I take it that may be a matter of --
25 MR. MISETIC: Singular and plural.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Why in the one translation the one word has
2 been chosen and why in the other translation the other word has been
4 MR. MISETIC: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: If you would have any suggestions as to how to
6 formulate such a question, the Chamber would like to receive it within
7 24 hours. If you have no further detailed suggestion, that's not a long
8 list of matters to be raised but that the most -- the sharpest way in
9 formulating that question, if we do not receive anything from you, of
10 course, then the Chamber will do it itself.
11 MR. MISETIC: Yes, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
13 I have no further matters on my list.
14 Any of the parties? If not -- yes, Mr. Cayley.
15 MR. CAYLEY: Just very quickly, Your Honour, so we can move
16 straight on to the witness. I've checked D896 and D625. They are indeed
17 complete duplicates. They're our documents, so one of them can be
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and then we will vacate the second one that
20 you -- if you give me a minute.
21 D896 is vacated.
22 If there is no further matter, we'll have a break, and we will
23 resume at five minutes past 11.00, and -- yes.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 11.14 a.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: In view of the time estimates given for the first
2 witness in the Markac Defence, the Chamber will not, at this moment,
3 further deal with the disclosure issue raised before the break, because
4 there's not much of a chance that we would start the second witness
5 today, and this gives the parties a bit more time so that we could
6 communicate on the matter this afternoon, if need be, unless there's any
7 such urgent matter that we would have to hear about immediately.
8 MR. KUZMANOVIC: No, Your Honour. I think what we'll do is,
9 obviously if we do not get through with this witness, or do by the end of
10 the day, we will have time today and we'll address it tomorrow. Thank
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Kuzmanovic.
13 Then, this is the moment where the Markac Defence will start its
14 case presentation. And we'll hear the testimony of the first witness the
15 Markac Defence will present.
16 Before, however, we start hearing that evidence, the Chamber
17 would like to go into private session.
18 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
19 [Private session]
11 Pages 24510-24518 redacted. Private session.
3 [Closed session]
11 Pages 24520-24561 redacted. Closed session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
8 We started hearing the case presentation of the Markac Defence
9 this morning in closed session. The reasons for turning into closed
10 session will be put on the record at a later stage.
11 We adjourn for the day, and we will resume tomorrow, Tuesday, the
12 17th of November, 9.00 in this same courtroom, III. And just as
13 information for the public, we expect that we would go into closed
14 session immediately after the case has been called for unknown period of
16 We stand adjourned.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.
18 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 17th day of
19 November, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.