1 Wednesday, 21 September 2011
2 [Closed session]
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: We are now in open session, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. The Chamber has considered
13 Mr. Robinson's request to grant more time for the cross-examination of
14 witness KDZ-474, and has decided to deny it. As indicated to the parties
15 on 21 June 2010 and then noted on several subsequent occasions, the
16 Chamber considers a number of factors when deciding what the appropriate
17 time for cross-examination should be. These include, among other things,
18 the quantity and type of written evidence being tendered, including the
19 number of associated exhibits tendered through Rule 92 ter witnesses, as
20 well as the length of the testimony in the previous case. Accordingly,
21 having considered these factors with respect to Witness KDZ-474, the
22 Chamber decided that 3.5 -- three and a half -- hours more than adequate
23 to cover the issues raised in the witness's anticipated testimony.
24 It remains of the view that this is appropriate for a thorough
25 and efficient cross-examination.
1 While the Chamber does take into account the length of a
2 witness's testimony in a previous case, it does not necessarily follow
3 that the time for cross-examination should be arrived at by adding the
4 time spent on examination-in-chief in the previous case to the time spent
5 on examination-in-chief in this case. As stated before,
6 cross-examination is not an exercise in rehashing the same evidence
7 elicited in various other cases but is an exercise in challenging certain
8 parts of the witness's evidence which are directly relevant to this
9 particular case. Furthermore, as the Chamber indicated many times
10 before, when preparing for cross-examination of Rule 92 ter witnesses,
11 the accused should bear in mind that their cross-examination in the
12 previous case is often also part of the evidence in this case, and thus
13 he should focus his efforts on parts that clearly need further
14 cross-examination or were never properly cross-examined.
15 Finally, the Chamber notes that Mr. Robinson illustrated his
16 submission by using Mr. Panic, whose testimony was completed yesterday,
17 as an example of a witness for whom more time should have been given.
18 However, when asked to point to a specific topic that the accused did not
19 manage to cover with Mr. Panic, Mr. Robinson indicated that the accused
20 was, in fact, able to cover everything. In essence, Mr. Robinson's
21 submission is that the accused should be given substantially more time
22 than he needs in order not to feel rushed or forced into asking compound
23 questions. The Chamber considers, however, that this position is
24 untenable. We repeat our recommendation that Mr. Robinson should advise
25 Mr. Karadzic how to focus his cross-examination on the most relevant
1 issues first and how to avoid lengthy discussion of peripheral issues, as
2 well as to demonstrate to him that asking compound questions in fact
3 wastes more time than it saves.
4 Let us proceed with the evidence. We go back to closed session.
5 [Closed session]
11 Pages 19242-19347 redacted. Closed session.
22 [Open session]
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger?
24 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, in lieu of
25 the witness schedule and the timing of this issue, I wanted to quickly
1 make an oral application for leave to reply to the accused's response to
2 the motion related to videolink, and we would be asking to reply to three
3 different issues: Number 1, the accused's erroneous limitation of the
4 standard for videolink and reliance on that misstated and limited
5 standard found at paragraphs 2 to 3; the accused's reliance on a standard
6 that doesn't exist in the jurisprudence at paragraph 4; and his reliance
7 upon a position already expressly rejected by the Trial Chamber in
8 paragraph 5.
9 I'm not sure that a reply will be deemed necessary by the
10 Chamber. In light of the timing, it may well be that the Chamber is
11 already focusing on that motion and deems it unnecessary. If you do
12 grant this motion, we could certainly be apprised -- you can do it on the
13 spot or we could be apprised tomorrow morning and we would be prepared to
14 respond orally given what I understand to be the timing involved. And
15 when I say respond orally it would be if you did grant us leave I would
16 like the opportunity to at least have a session in between granting and
17 giving the oral reply.
18 JUDGE KWON: We will come back to you tomorrow morning, first
19 thing. But my understanding is that the Registry needs at least 10 days
20 to sets up a videolink.
21 MR. TIEGER: I understand that the Registry has been in the
22 process for doing so for some time in anticipation of the motion and the
23 possibility that it would be granted so I think preliminary steps and
24 preparations are already underway and that the time -- the normal timing
25 would not be an obstacle.
1 JUDGE KWON: Very well. The hearing is now adjourned --
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] May I, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic?
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] I'm not certain we tendered page
5 155 in Serbian and 141 into evidence. We discussed it with the witness
6 and, in particular, those six demands and the final remarks by Talic.
7 This is Rasula's diary.
8 JUDGE KWON: That -- if not, that will be added to the exhibit.
9 I thank again the staff for their indulgence. It has been added.
10 9.00, tomorrow morning.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.07 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day of
13 September, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.