1 Friday, 17 November 2000

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.

5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, we have various matters to deal with this

6 morning, administrative matters. It may be sensible to list them at the

7 outset so we know where we're going. The first matter is the matter of

8 the rebuttal witness that you wish to raise again. The second that I have

9 is the Zagreb material, as to whether any of that can usefully be dealt

10 with today. If so, the Chamber would encourage that. And the third is an

11 ex parte matter which you want to raise.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE MAY: Of course, I'm reminded in relation to the Zagreb

14 material there are, of course, the witnesses who it is suggested should be

15 involved, and it may be that, in relation to some of them, at least, a

16 ruling will be required today if you're going to try and call them next

17 week and they're coming from somewhere outside this building.

18 MR. NICE: Yes.

19 JUDGE MAY: There is a further matter which the Registrar has

20 raised with me, and that is the date for finality for exhibits. The

21 position in this case, and from the Registrar's point of view -- in fact,

22 from every point of view -- is unsatisfactory, with exhibits still coming

23 in. Now, we know the background to it. It is because of the Zagreb

24 documents and the late disclosure of material. But nonetheless, the

25 matter has to be looked at from the management of the trial, and we'd be

1 minded to make a date for the last admission of any exhibits, and it will

2 be very soon. But we can discuss that. It may be when we've dealt with

3 the Zagreb material. There's also some material, some exhibits you want

4 to introduce during the rebuttal case, I understand, from your

5 submissions.

6 MR. NICE: There may be, but I've got some further news on the

7 rebuttal position generally to give you, in any event.

8 JUDGE MAY: Yes. And Witness AO, have you any information about

9 him?

10 MR. NICE: Certainly. I had proposed through your legal officer

11 that the ex parte matter might conveniently be taken early rather than

12 late in case there was anything arising out of it for dealing inter parte,

13 but I'm entirely in the Court's hands in relation to that. And I should

14 say that, so far as the ex parte matters are concerned, there's a topic we

15 were touching on yesterday to be dealt with, although I think probably

16 dealt with fairly lightly, and one other or two other issues, each of them

17 very short but properly to be raised.

18 So far as rebuttal case generally is concerned and the proposed

19 reconsideration of a witness, it may be that the reconsideration of the

20 witness, which Mr. Scott will deal with, should be dealt with in private

21 session, and in any event, I'd like private session just for a minute to

22 bring you up-to-date on witnesses whose names might not otherwise be made

23 public. So if I could have a short private session for that, I'd be

24 grateful.

25 [Private session]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 27143 redacted – in private session.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 27144 redacted – in private session.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [Open session]

21 JUDGE MAY: We're in open session.

22 Mr. Sayers, having heard that this witness is not here as he

23 should have been, he having been the subject of a subpoena, the Trial

24 Chamber will have to consider what action it's appropriate to take, but

25 that's purely a matter for the Trial Chamber. It's the Chamber's subpoena

1 and it's for the Chamber to decide what enforcement action is

2 appropriate.

3 That leaves the question of the status of that witness' evidence,

4 the position being that he had been cross-examined, that after his

5 cross-examination, a document came to light which had a bearing on his

6 credibility and his evidence, and it was on the basis of that that he was

7 ordered to return for cross-examination. It may be a matter which should

8 be the subject of submissions or it may be something which can be dealt

9 with by way of closing argument. I would like to reflect on that. But

10 perhaps you can help me with this: Have we had the Nordbat document? Has

11 it been disclosed to the Chamber? Offhand, I cannot remember.

12 MR. SAYERS: I believe -- I believe it has been.

13 JUDGE MAY: I think we were shown it, but I don't think it was

14 ever formally exhibited.

15 MR. SAYERS: We can certainly provide it to the Court. But if I

16 may, Mr. President, I'd like to be heard just for a few minutes on this

17 issue because it is fairly important.

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

19 MR. SAYERS: Just by way of background and to remind the Trial

20 Chamber, the subject of late disclosures in this case has been one of

21 constant, recurring, and continual concern. Witness AO, the Court will

22 recall, was a witness who was not on the 350-odd witness list originally

23 submitted by the Prosecution.

24 The Court will also recall the constant updates to that original

25 witness list before this trial began and, in fact, I believe, that the

1 Prosecution was permitted to continue disclosing witness statements and

2 new witnesses to us as much as six weeks into the trial.

3 Now, this witness was not identified until January, the end of

4 January of this year. Prior to his testimony, Mr. President, we had asked

5 for a videotape that was referred to in some of the materials that were

6 disclosed to us, and we also asked for all prior statements, as required

7 by Rule 66(a)(2).

8 We were told on February 9th of this year that, after an extensive

9 search of the Prosecution's database, all that was found but the notes

10 that was disclosed to us before that date. Then, the Court will recall,

11 this witness testified on March 6th and March 7th, and the day after he

12 testified, three additional disclosures were made to us. First, the

13 videotape that we had asked for a month before and then two additional

14 statements.

15 Now, the Prosecution has just stated that the witness entertains

16 doubts as to the validity of those statements, but he signed both of

17 them. And those statements fundamentally contradict the evidence that

18 this witness gave. We immediately raised this issue with the Trial

19 Chamber and, on March 9th, we had oral arguments on our application to

20 exclude and strike this witness's evidence on the grounds of late

21 disclosure. What the Trial Chamber decided to do was, rather than have

22 the testimony stricken, summon the witness back for cross-examination.

23 Now, I am obliged to point out that that was eight months ago.

24 Eight. Now, here we are, close to the end of the case. We wonder whether

25 the -- if I may rhetorically say this -- whether the Prosecution's case is

1 ever going to end. With respect to this witness, the Prosecution has been

2 put on notice for eight months that his testimony was going to be

3 required.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Could you slow down, Mr. Sayers? Please,

5 Mr. Sayers, will you slow down.

6 MR. SAYERS: That this witness was going to be required to testify

7 this week. This week has been set aside for clean-up matters such as

8 Colonel Husic yesterday, and Colonel Morsink. And there's just no excuse

9 for trying to jam the witness in at some future point in the case when we

10 are going to be busy with other matters, including, I might add, preparing

11 our final trial briefs. And that is a matter that I wanted to raise with

12 the Trial Chamber, but that's a separate issue.

13 JUDGE MAY: Let us stay with AO. If you want to renew your

14 submission that his evidence should be disregarded, then obviously that's

15 one which we would consider. In order to do that, we'll need to have the

16 statements and any other material you rely on. If you could let us have

17 that, we will deal with it next week.

18 MR. SAYERS: We will prepare that expeditiously, and I am just

19 informed by my assistant that the Nordbat was D200/1 but it was admitted

20 under seal. That's all I have to say on that issue. We will be more than

21 happy to make written submissions and I will try to have them on Monday.

22 JUDGE MAY: Yes, and if you will attach all the documents,

23 including the Nordbat document, to it so we've got them in one place, it

24 would be convenient.

25 MR. SAYERS: Most definitely, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE MAY: Now, you said something about you want to raise trial

2 briefs.

3 MR. SAYERS: The only anomaly that I see -- and perhaps, given the

4 mutating state of the witnesses to be called in the Zagreb case and the

5 rebuttal case, this may not be a concern, but the original schedule

6 anticipated by the Trial Chamber was to have the Zagreb evidence put on

7 next week, the evidence of Witness AT the week after that, the week of

8 December the 4th would be reserved for rebuttal evidence, and then I

9 believe December 11th and 12th was reserved for rejoinder evidence. And

10 the way that it looks right now, it may well be that we can squeeze our

11 rejoinder case into two days.

12 But given the requirement of Rule 138 that requires final trial

13 briefs and requires them to be filed five days before the oral argument,

14 assuming that one day per party is allocated for oral argument and that

15 ours would be in the middle, i.e. December 14th, and our final trial brief

16 would be due December 9 -- actually, December 8th --

17 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Sayers, you needn't trouble with the Rules for the

18 moment. We'll have to apply common sense to the situation.

19 MR. SAYERS: I was ardently hoping for that, Your Honour, because

20 it seemed anomalous to be submitting trial briefs while the evidence is

21 going on.

22 JUDGE MAY: Not that I want to encourage you to forget it and

23 leave it on one side. We would want them before oral argument. But if

24 it's the night before oral argument, maybe so be it.

25 MR. SAYERS: Might I just suggest this, Mr. President: As the

1 Court can well understand, this being, as far as I'm aware, the longest

2 war crimes trial in legal history --

3 JUDGE MAY: Not so.

4 MR. SAYERS: No?

5 JUDGE MAY: No. The Tokyo Trial was 419 days. But go on.

6 MR. SAYERS: It lasted 18.5 months, Your Honour, and this one has

7 lasted 19 months, but maybe that's just quibbling. But the point is it's

8 the second -- either the longest or the second longest war crimes trial in

9 legal history.

10 The evidence in this case has spanned 227 days and there are many

11 thousands of exhibits. I've lost count of them. There is about 30.000

12 pages of trial transcript. The Court well knows that these trial briefs

13 are going to be fairly --

14 THE INTERPRETER: Could you slow down, Mr. Sayers, please.

15 MR. SAYERS: If they're submitted the night before oral argument,

16 it effectively makes the brief useless, we would respectfully submit to

17 the Court. So I would simply hope that we could --

18 JUDGE MAY: What are you going to suggest?

19 MR. SAYERS: That we could finish all of the evidence during the

20 week of December 11th; the rebuttal, rejoinder, everything. The whole

21 case, the presentation of evidence, finished by the end of the week of

22 December 4th. And then we have two days, the 11th and the 12th, to

23 prepare ourselves for final argument and submit the trial briefs on

24 December 11th. And that way the Court, the legal officers, everyone else,

25 will have the opportunity to consider them. Maybe not a lot of

1 opportunity but at least some opportunity to reflect upon the broad

2 contours of the arguments that are made, and that is a suggestion that

3 seems to me to make sense and be workable in light of the shrinking

4 rebuttal case that seems to be envisaged by the Prosecution at this point.

5 JUDGE MAY: So you are envisaging two days or so for the

6 rejoinder, which would be the 3rd and the 4th of the month, and that means

7 the rebuttal would also have to be -- would be three days, effectively.

8 MR. SAYERS: Three days for rebuttal, two days for rejoinder. I

9 don't see that there's necessarily any difficulty in meeting that

10 schedule, especially given the fact that the rejoinder witnesses that I

11 can recall right now -- the rebuttal witnesses that I can recall who will

12 testify don't seem to me to be lengthy witnesses at all. And we'll

13 probably only have one lengthy rejoinder witness, and even he won't be

14 particularly lengthy, so we should be able to squeeze it into two days.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I know that you use language

17 carefully. You said at least three of the rebuttal witnesses will not be

18 in attendance. Does that mean that it is possible that you may have

19 another one or two who may not --

20 MR. NICE: Anything is possible, on performance thus far, but --

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you certain of the attendance of the --

22 MR. NICE: I'm pretty certain of the attendance of the other

23 three, or four, but they will not take very long, I don't think. I think

24 there must be a possibility of them all being accommodated in a day or, at

25 most, a day and a half. That would be my guess. Because their topics are

1 all very discrete, as you would expect from this type of witness. One is

2 the Kacuni checkpoint on the 24th of January. One is the tape that we had

3 dealt with yesterday. One is the Travnik witness. I won't name him. And

4 that's it. So there is a good chance, I think, of there being a

5 substantial part of that week available for rejoinder or preparation of

6 final briefs or whatever.

7 JUDGE MAY: The most satisfactory thing would be to get the

8 evidence in as quickly as we can --

9 MR. NICE: Yes.

10 JUDGE MAY: -- so that counsel have got time to work on the

11 briefs, which is the fairest way to deal with it, the most expeditious.

12 MR. NICE: While I'm on my feet, may I agree with what Mr. Sayers

13 proposes in principle about some of the suitable abbreviation and an

14 exchange on -- the 11th is, I think, the Monday; is that correct? The

15 Monday is being proposed? Which would give Tuesday and Wednesday and then

16 speeches on Thursday and Friday, and would, of course, give that

17 additional weekend for preparation of briefs. But I mean we are all in

18 the Court's hands. Obviously, Friday, from the Court's point of view,

19 would be preferable, but I think probably Monday, from our point of view,

20 would be preferable. Maybe we should specify Monday morning rather than

21 Monday evening in order that the parties can have the best part of two and

22 a half days.

23 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Mikulicic.

24 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let us hear the

25 other side too. With all due respect, Your Honours, the view of

1 Mr. Cerkez's Defence regarding the timetable and the calendar in closing

2 arguments, or rather submission of closing briefs, is very much different

3 from what Mr. Kordic's Defence has said.

4 Of course we share the concern of the Chamber and the efforts made

5 to bring this case to a close and to comply with the timetable.

6 Nevertheless, some extraordinary circumstances have arisen, and not, of

7 course, overnight. These are circumstances which are of an objective

8 nature and have been in existence for the major part of this trial. Most

9 of them are objective, that is. And I'm quoting now: "which the

10 Prosecution uses in this case and the tremendous number of documents and

11 witnesses we heard, that is, the huge material that we have before us."

12 Mr. Cerkez's Defence is in a quite different position, defined by

13 the decision of the registry, in view of the resources available, and I

14 mean human resources, because we simply do not have a team which could

15 monitor the process analytically as it unfolds and we were simply unable

16 to keep pace with the documentation which keeps flowing in and prepare for

17 the cross-examination, preparing our evidence, and also prepare the

18 closing argument.

19 I should like to remind the Chamber of the practice of other -- of

20 the Tribunal in other cases, which were much shorter in terms of evidence,

21 in terms of witnesses, in terms of their duration; in cases of Blaskic,

22 Aleksovski and Kupreskic, and these are all the Lasva Valley cases, once

23 upon a time covered by one indictment. Their Defences had some time

24 available between the completion of the submission of evidence and the

25 submission of closing briefs, and that period of time between the closing

1 of the case and submission of closing arguments were never less than four

2 weeks.

3 We think that the closing brief and closing argument are to crown

4 the case for every party. We believe that it is the right of the accused

5 but not his duty, and we believe that if the time left for the exercise of

6 this right in a radical manner would also compromise the right of the

7 accused to resort to this means, and I shall wish once again to point at

8 the Tribunal's practice in other cases.

9 What Mr. Cerkez's Defence wishes to say is that we are simply not

10 able nor are we ready to disclose our closing brief within the time limit

11 that was mentioned here, and we simply ask to be given a deadline which

12 would at least equal to the time allotted to the Defences in other cases

13 here, that is, in cases of Blaskic, Aleksovski and --

14 JUDGE MAY: Let me interrupt you on one point. I know that in

15 Kupreskic -- I think the Defence were given a month, the parties were

16 given a month. That was in the days before the slowness of these

17 proceedings became such a problem. In my view -- of course we will

18 consider your submission and we'll have to think about them, but in my

19 view, to allow counsel time, and such a length of time, cannot be

20 consistent with the Court's duty to try cases expeditiously. If we're not

21 trying this case -- if we're trying this case, we're not trying another

22 one.

23 Now, the practice that I'm used to is that, at the end of the

24 trial, no matter how long it is, immediately the evidence finishes,

25 counsel is making his closing submissions. That is the practice. And the

1 idea that he goes away for a month to think about it would be unacceptable

2 and be regarded as absurd.

3 Now, I agree that this is a different jurisdiction and that this

4 has been a very long trial, and I acknowledge the burden which it's been

5 on counsel, of course, but we have to balance the needs of all the parties

6 and of a fair trial with those of an expeditious trial.

7 Now, how long are you asking for?

8 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, of course I accept

9 all that you have just said, and of course I understand how difficult it

10 is for the Chamber to try to reconcile two opposed interests: one for a

11 fair and expeditious trial, that is, a fairness trial [as interpreted];

12 and, on the other side, the rights of the accused in a case. Of course,

13 it is not always easy to reconcile such opposed interests as they may

14 appear, especially in the context that I'm raising today. However, I

15 repeat once again: There is a practice in this Tribunal, as I have

16 mentioned, and that is that in none of the cases that I mentioned the

17 Defence was left less than four weeks to prepare their closing submissions

18 and closing argument, and that is --

19 JUDGE MAY: If it is a practice, it's one that needs to be

20 revisited.

21 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Mikulicic, I'm surprised by

22 your intervention. Of course, I do not question all the other -- the

23 information that you have about other cases, but this timetable, the

24 manner in which we shall use the time available here -- of course with

25 some small modifications, but this timetable was set some time ago, and we

1 have already agreed that we should finish everything, including closing

2 arguments, by the 15th of December, and at that time you did not raise any

3 objection to this timetable. You accepted it.

4 Now, we have all drawn various conclusions here and there, and I

5 should like -- I understand that you need some time in order to bring

6 up-to-date your final conclusions in the function of the last testimony

7 that will come. That is, naturally, we cannot finish one day and ask you

8 to submit -- to make your submissions the next day because, of course, in

9 the last testimony, there may be something which will interfere with that

10 but that doesn't prevent you from preparing your closing argument in

11 advance then and then redesign it and then modify it, if necessary.

12 Now, I believe it may be a question whether this is the longest or

13 is not the longest trial, but it may be the second longest but I'm sure

14 that you will not be waiting for the very last moment to start preparing

15 your document. We are quite ready to give you a week, shall we say,

16 between the end of the testimony and the beginning of the final

17 conclusions. Those will be three days, that is, a week or four or five

18 days without -- including the weekend, should be used or, at least in my

19 view, should be used, which is only natural and logical. You should use

20 them in order to update -- to bring up-to-date your final conclusions.

21 You should not leave that for the last moment. That is not possible, and

22 that is my suggestion to you.

23 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, far be from me to

24 argue this, but I wish to assure you that we never had time. We never had

25 time. We never had a moment of time throughout this case. For the past

1 few weeks, over 2.000 new documents were filed and disclosed to us. Over

2 5.000 pages. And it was like that throughout this case. I wish to assure

3 you, Your Honour, that Mr. Cerkez's Defence, I repeat, in view of its

4 limited human resources due to the decision of the registry, never had a

5 second off. The only time that we shall have will be the time that you

6 will give us to prepare our closing argument because, I repeat, we simply

7 were not able to prepare -- to start preparing the closing arguments

8 earlier because of the team as we are. This is due to objective

9 circumstances, and I have to underline this.

10 I have to add one more thing: Depending on the time that you will

11 give us to prepare our closing argument, the quality of our brief will

12 depend on the time you will give us for it. We believe that there is a

13 brief -- this submission will help not only Mr. Cerkez's Defence but also

14 the Trial Chamber. Naturally, we are in your hands, but I wish to repeat

15 there are these circumstances which I have underlined. There are these

16 circumstances which happened, yes, indeed. This case has taken a very

17 long time and my client spent 19 months waiting for the beginning of the

18 case. 19 months, Your Honours. And now we are arguing about two days or

19 four days or about one week or four weeks.

20 If this is -- then look at from that point of view, when I think

21 about how long it took this case to start being heard, then I think the

22 time that we are asking for is, indeed, negligible but, I repeat, we are

23 in your hands. I may be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: It seems that we have all had to make adjustments

25 from practices in our domestic jurisdictions. I would think the time

1 suggested by Judge Bennouna would be the absolute maximum, if we were to

2 give a week, including weekends. A timetable was, in fact, set, as Judge

3 Bennouna said, and four weeks is not a practicable period. There is

4 simply a period of four weeks between now and the end of the term, and we

5 have agreed that the trial would finish at the end of this session. So I

6 think the Trial Chamber would be willing to consider the kind of time

7 period suggested by Judge Bennouna, but I would think that that would be

8 the absolute maximum.

9 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Mikulicic, we -- clearly the timetable is a matter

10 for fitting in, in due course, but as you hear, we are to finish in

11 December. Now, how the time is spent between then and now is, of course,

12 a matter for counsel. I think that most of the rebuttal evidence, I will

13 be corrected, is, in fact, directed at your co-accused and not at

14 Mr. Cerkez.

15 MR. NICE: All of it.

16 JUDGE MAY: All of it. So in fact, it's right that there is the

17 rebuttal evidence, it's not a matter which concerns you particularly

18 closely. I don't imagine the rejoinder evidence will particularly involve

19 you, but it may do. We have simply the Zagreb material to get through,

20 which we will rule on Monday. I do not anticipate that it will be the

21 size which it is at the moment which is in evidence but it's, of course,

22 too early to say. Once that is done, it means that effectively the

23 evidence involving your client -- unless, of course, there is some

24 rejoinder evidence that you wish to call, but it seems unlikely, given

25 what it is -- will be over.

1 The position then, if I am then right, is that you will have

2 something in the order of three weeks to prepare. And may I suggest that

3 you start preparing now if you haven't already. One of the rules which I

4 recollect is that really one should start beginning preparing the closing

5 address at the beginning of the trial, if not before. But that's the

6 position at the moment.

7 Yes, shall we deal with the other matters we have to.

8 MR. NICE: Yes, Your Honour. There's one tiny detail that was

9 outstanding. Your Honour effectively raised the issue whether any other

10 rebuttal witnesses would, themselves, produce or seek to produce

11 documents. I think, at the most, one may, as I am presently advised, but

12 it's certainly not my expectation that it will be very much.

13 JUDGE MAY: I raise it because, somewhere in your submissions,

14 there's a document which is referred to as rebuttal exhibits.

15 MR. NICE: Yes, there is. Mr. Scott did that. He did that

16 uninvited, just in order to assist. But I think that the large parts of

17 that have now gone, and Mr. Scott can probably deal with that when he

18 deals with the next witness. Nevertheless, I think the quantities of

19 material likely to be produced or sought to be produced are very small.

20 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, it may be convenient then to deal with the

21 rebuttal witness.

22 MR. NICE: Yes. I know that it's uncertain what, if any,

23 protection he would want, but probably some. Accordingly, it would be

24 proper not to deal with him by name. It may be proper and safer in the

25 circumstances to deal with him, at any event, in private session. I'm in

1 the Court's hands for that. Mr. Scott is going to deal with that.

2 Before he does, can I just make one point? Mr. Sayers draws to

3 our attention that our pleading incorrectly states or understates your

4 ruling in respect of this witness. Quite right. Although what is set out

5 there was sincerely set out, it's an incorrect statement and the genesis

6 of that lies with me because I can remember acting on the basis of that

7 written note, and I think that simply got reflected at later stages in the

8 drafting.

9 JUDGE MAY: If you will remind us as to our ruling about the

10 witness.

11 MR. NICE: It was -- yes. "Doubtful probative value having regard

12 to the summary that we have seen." That's how you expressed it.

13 JUDGE MAY: Of course, we have already made a ruling. So this is

14 a wholly exceptional course which you're taking to ask us to reconsider

15 it.

16 MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes, but there are very particular

17 considerations. Indeed, the timing of that earlier hearing which, as the

18 Court will recall, was accelerated reasons that weren't forecast earlier

19 from the Friday back to the Wednesday. That had a particular bearing on

20 this case. Of course, as Mr. Scott will explain, we knew the position on

21 the Thursday and we communicated it to your legal officer on the Thursday

22 and would have known it on the Friday. Perhaps that Mr. Scott can deal

23 with it in private session or as otherwise the Chamber decides.

24 JUDGE MAY: Are there any other matters, before we go into private

25 session, that should be dealt with in open session?

1 Mr. Sayers, are there any other matters, or Mr. Kovacic?

2 MR. SAYERS: There are a number of matters that we need to deal

3 with in private session, Your Honour, but the only matter that can perhaps

4 be dealt with in open session is the objection that we've made to three of

5 the Prosecution's own employees testifying as quasi-expert witnesses, for

6 the reasons stated in our papers.

7 JUDGE MAY: That comes in under all the Zagreb witnesses and

8 material and we can deal with it then.

9 Yes, Mr. Kovacic.

10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] While we are still in the open

11 session, perhaps I misunderstood. If I did, well, I believe that you

12 intend to relate the ruling on our question for the longer time on

13 preparation to all the other rulings. Because what you told us today, a

14 moment ago, it seems that you have not decided yet, and we should like to

15 have a clear ruling, if possible.

16 JUDGE MAY: Well, what we've said is that we'll consider a week,

17 and you can take that as the ruling.

18 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] But again, you said "considering a

19 week," so is that the ruling? Do we have a week?

20 JUDGE MAY: No, it depends how we get on, but we will consider a

21 week, up to a week.

22 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

23 JUDGE MAY: We'll go into private session.

24 [Private session]

25 [redacted]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Pages 27162 to 27179 redacted – in private session.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.00 a.m., to be

7 followed by an Ex Parte Hearing.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25