1 Monday, 4 October 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus

8 Momcilo Krajisnik.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 A lot of housekeeping matters today. Let me start with one of

11 the issues raised by the Defence, which was sitting in the afternoon in

12 order to give more opportunity to visit the accused in the morning hours.

13 We will sit in the afternoon in the week starting Monday, the 18th of

14 October, for that whole week. And then in addition to that, Tuesday, the

15 26th of October. I have the court schedule, including the courtrooms,

16 here for the parties. The court schedule for November is not yet final.

17 There's only one thing that has been scheduled in accordance with the

18 request of the Defence, that is, that the week starting the 8th of

19 November, which is only a four-days week because the 12th of November is

20 a UN holiday, but that week we'll also sit in the afternoon.

21 Madam Registrar, I have a copy of a fax sent to me available for

22 the parties where the information is. No, it's not a fax; it's an

23 e-mail.

24 Next on our agenda is the admission of pending exhibits. Madam

25 Registrar, you've distributed the updated list.

1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

2 JUDGE ORIE: I think as far as Prosecution exhibits are

3 concerned, we start with P111. Madam Registrar, if you could please

4 guide us through the list.

5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

6 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P111, conclusions of the

7 Crisis Staff of the Serbian municipality of Sanski Most, dated 4 June

8 1992. P111.1, English translation.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Since there are no objections --

10 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 MS. LOUKAS: In fact I had registered an objection --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 MS. LOUKAS: -- in relation to, in fact, the exhibits

15 provisionally marked 111 to 113.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 MS. LOUKAS: And my objection was registered back on the 25th of

18 May, 2004, at pages 2848 and 2849. That's where I raised objections in

19 relation to the questions of provenance, and I wanted to hear from the

20 Prosecution in relation to further information on that question.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, do you have any supplementary

22 information for the Defence?

23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I don't recall what we discussed the

24 last time. I should point out with regard to Exhibit 111, that same

25 document was also marked as Exhibit number, I think, 189, that Mr. Harmon

1 showed to Witness 628. And it was our position -- as I understood the

2 Defence objection was that this was a Crisis Staff -- minutes of a Crisis

3 Staff meeting. There was no seal or no signature on the document.

4 However, we argued that that went to the weight of the evidence. The

5 Court could look at that document, see the numbering, see if the

6 numbering fit in with the numbering on other Crisis Staff documents

7 before and after that date and also the testimony of both Witness 628 and

8 Mr. Karabeg about the content of those particular items. We believe we

9 gave the Court enough reason to admit the documents and take into fact

10 the absence of a seal and a signature as something that would go to the

11 weight of that evidence.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 MS. LOUKAS: I would indicate, Your Honour, just in relation to

14 the question --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please speak -- yes.

16 MS. LOUKAS: I would indicate, Your Honour, in relation to the

17 question relating to P111 and P189, they in fact appear to be slightly

18 different documents in the sense that it appears that the text is the

19 same, but Your Honour will note that there's underlining on one and no

20 underlining on the other, and there appears to be some sort of a smudge

21 on one and not on the other which may look like a stamp or not, but you

22 certainly can't tell from the photocopy that we have. So, Your Honour,

23 in essence, of course, in substance, the documents, in terms of text, it

24 appears identical, but there are differences between the two documents,

25 and I think that should be noted as well whilst we're dealing with this

1 question of exhibits.

2 But nevertheless, I've heard what Mr. Hannis had to say in

3 relation to this question, but I maintain my objection.

4 JUDGE ORIE: And is it generally your position that if a document

5 -- if there's no signature, if there's no -- let's see. The other matter

6 was the -- no seal and no signature, does that exclude a document unless

7 it's introduced by the author or whatever other way? Should it then be

8 excluded from evidence, in your view?

9 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. I'm not positing that position.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Why, then, specifically here?

11 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, in relation to these documents, I

12 have registered my objection. I have indicated that further information

13 should be forthcoming from the Prosecution in relation to the question of

14 provenance. That further information has not been forthcoming and I

15 maintain my objection. It is for the Prosecution, Your Honour, to prove

16 their documents and it's not a question of whether the Defence accepts or

17 otherwise. The onus is on the Prosecution.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Hannis, you said we should compare it, I

19 think. What we have in -- let me just have a look.

20 Ms. Loukas, 111, isn't it true that there is a written statement

21 of Jutta Paczulla who says: I've seen the original and this is a copy.

22 I compared them. And that she inspected the original that was given to

23 her by the agency for information and documentation in Bihac, and that

24 she returned the original to this body. What more do you think the

25 Prosecution at this time should --

1 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, just in relation to that

2 question, that, of course, was noted on the occasion that I registered my

3 objection, but the mere fact that a document has a stamp from AID,

4 particularly when questions have arisen in relation to documents emerging

5 from AID, I would submit in and of itself is not an adequate answer to my

6 questions in relation to provenance.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis.

8 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, again, we think if you look at the

9 contents of the document and consider it in conjunction with the

10 testimony of Mr. Karabeg and Witness 628, as well as some of the 92 bis

11 testimony of other witnesses from Sanski Most, we think the Court can

12 satisfy itself that this document is what we purport it to be, that is,

13 the minutes of a Crisis Staff meeting in Sanski Most on that date in June

14 1992. In addition, the fact that there are some slight differences

15 between those two versions, we think is also further evidence that's

16 consistent with testimony you've heard from I believe it was Mr. Hidic

17 from Bosanski Petrovac, as well as Mr. Karabeg, in talking about how,

18 generally, Municipal Assembly documents and documents in the government

19 organs at the municipal level at that time, in 1992, before they had

20 computers and before they had copying machines, often times multiple

21 copies of the same minutes or the same order would be typed up, sometimes

22 on different machines by different people. So that accounted for slight

23 variations between documents reporting the same thing, same order or same

24 decision.

25 I don't know if -- I don't have in front of me the citation to

1 the transcript portions where those two witnesses talked about that

2 general procedure, but I believe that is in evidence in this case.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, if there are no further submissions on

4 those documents, then the Chamber will decide soon, finally, on

5 admission.

6 That was -- you made your objections, Ms. Loukas, P111 up to 113,

7 isn't it?

8 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour. The objections

9 cover 111 to 113.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we don't have to ask Madam Registrar to

11 read the other documents at this moment. Then the next one on the list

12 is P189.

13 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. That's associated.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Together with 111, 112, 113, we'll deal with 189,

15 which is, of course, related to that.

16 The next one, Madam Registrar.

17 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P200, two bundles of documents containing

18 35 tabs, under seal.

19 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, I invited Madam Registrar to read all

21 the exhibits in relation to one and the same witness. If there's any

22 objection, please say so, but I'll then ask Madam Registrar to finish her

23 reading and then we'll hear what exactly your objection would be.

24 MS. LOUKAS: I might indicate, Your Honour, prior to Ms. Philpott

25 reading out the exhibits, Your Honour may recall on the last occasion the

1 Prosecution and I indicated that that was a situation which the

2 Prosecution was to make a selection in relation to the documents and then

3 forward the selection to me so that I could indicate what the Defence

4 approach would be. As I understand it from Mr. Hannis, that selection

5 has not as yet been made.

6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, that's correct. I have to apologise to

7 the Court and Defence counsel on this. This was Mr. Resch's witness, and

8 since he left, I've taken up the responsibility for going through that

9 binder and making those deselections. He left me some information, but,

10 Your Honour, I haven't gotten to do that yet. I still need to do that.

11 JUDGE ORIE: How much time do you think you would need for that?

12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I think during the week we have off

13 next week, I should be able to complete that.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that means that Ms. Loukas will receive her

15 information by not later than the -- I think it's the 15th, that's a

16 Friday.

17 MR. HANNIS: That Friday, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: The 15th of October. And then Ms. Loukas, how much

19 time would you need to then prepare your position in respect of

20 admissibility?

21 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I don't think very long at all.

22 I think -- of course, we'll be back in court on the 18th, but I'm sure

23 I'll find some time that weekend to do it.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

25 MS. LOUKAS: Defence lawyers don't need sleep.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, keep awake, Ms. Loukas. You know when -- you

2 have to sleep in order to keep awake.

3 Then we'll -- P200 will be dealt with in the week starting the

4 18th of October.

5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, could you -- are there further

7 selections to be made? Because I see there are two more binders in

8 relation to Witness 633, that is, P202 and P203. Have other selections

9 to be made, Mr. Hannis?

10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I believe most of those selections

11 pertain to Exhibit 200.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 MR. HANNIS: The 202 and 203 were basically a register with a

14 list of cases and I don't think that needed as much attention, but it

15 ought to be dealt with at the same time.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it depends. Whatever is ready at this moment,

17 we'll try to get rid of that.

18 Ms. Loukas, is there anything you still expect from the

19 Prosecution in relation to 202 and 203?

20 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, in relation to that, whilst I

21 take on board the fact that it's important that we deal with as many

22 exhibits as we can at this point, I think, in view of the fact that the

23 selection has yet to be made, it's best that we keep those exhibits --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Together.

25 MS. LOUKAS: -- in a global aspect.

1 JUDGE ORIE: So 200, 202, and 203, these are all together four

2 binders and one binder for translations.

3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that 201, I didn't mention

5 that. So all these binders, we'll deal with that in the week starting

6 the 18th of October. Then 201.

7 THE REGISTRAR: 201, Order dated the 1st of June, 1992 by the

8 commander of the 6th Partisan Brigade on establishing discipline in the

9 units of the brigade during combat operations, and that exhibit is marked

10 under seal, and P201.1, English translation.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Since there are no objections, 201 is admitted into

12 evidence. Madam Registrar, could we continue with 217 and could you

13 Please read out all the exhibits related to Witness 565.

14 THE REGISTRAR: P217, Photograph of garages Sanski Most; P218,

15 photograph of inside of the garage Sanski Most Betonirka, where the

16 witness was detained; P219, CD containing a clip relating to Manjaca

17 camp --

18 MS. LOUKAS: That's the matter, Your Honour, in which an

19 objection has been registered, 219.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And could you briefly remind us. I have not

21 reread. I have to apologise.

22 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I registered an objection. That was a

23 matter relating to a video from CNN, and I objected on that basis. There

24 was also outstanding matters in relation to the transcript. They were

25 dealt with on the last occasion that we had a housekeeping day, as it

1 were, on the 3rd of September. But in relation to this question, there's

2 the outstanding objection in relation to CNN video clip coming in as

3 evidence. And I understand that I've subsequently received an e-mail

4 from Mr. Gaynor indicating that the Prosecution presses the tender on the

5 basis of television coverage, international television coverage that was

6 available at the time. But I nevertheless maintain my objection in

7 relation to evidence coming from CNN, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Just CNN or from every broadcasting --

9 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I won't admit to having any biases for or

10 against CNN.

11 JUDGE ORIE: No. You say BBC would be just as bad.

12 MS. LOUKAS: But, Your Honour, no, I do -- my objection of course

13 is not strictly limited to CNN.

14 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, no.

15 MS. LOUKAS: But in the circumstances, Your Honour, I do

16 nevertheless maintain my objection in relation to video clips or footage

17 of that nature.

18 JUDGE ORIE: In general? You would -- of course, we have

19 different aspects of that. The first one, of course, the content, which

20 I can imagine that the Defence would fear that there's manipulation of

21 whatever kind. The second issue, as raised, as I do understand, by the

22 Prosecution, is that at least this was covered by public broadcasting,

23 which means that, true or not true, at least people were in a position to

24 look at it; which of course is, as such, could be a relevant fact. And

25 then my next question would be: How about the press, not television but

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 newspaper articles, magazine articles? Would you take a similar

2 position?

3 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I take a case-by-case approach to

4 matters of this nature, of course. But as a general observation, Your

5 Honours, the first aspect that Your Honour raised in your comments in

6 relation to potential manipulation of news sources is, of course, the

7 fundamental basis for my objection. The second aspect, of course,

8 that -- the nature of public broadcasting and the fact that there was

9 coverage available, of course, does not mean that that international

10 coverage was at the time available to Mr. Krajisnik. So that --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that goes to weight. That goes to weight

12 rather than to admissibility. Because in order to establish that someone

13 had access to public coverage, at least you should establish that there

14 was coverage, and of course then the second question is whether someone

15 had access to that. So therefore, then, you have left the realm of

16 admissibility, it seems, and you've gone to whether the evidence would be

17 sufficient to establish what you want to establish.

18 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. But perhaps a sort of halfway

19 house might be a level of provisional admissibility, subject to whether

20 or not any further evidence emerges from the Prosecution that may in any

21 way ensure that that weight -- that evidence may have any weight.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, going back to the first question, which

23 is, well, whether or not something happened. Well, let's just assume

24 that witnesses told us that there are three sheds or, well, whatever, and

25 then on a video you see three sheds. Would that -- of course, with all

1 risk of manipulation and you have to be very cautious in accepting that

2 what is shown on the video clip is true. On the other hand, it could

3 have some -- it could support oral evidence given in this court. It

4 could -- but would you nevertheless say that it's under all circumstances

5 inadmissible or ...

6 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour, I don't, and I've made that clear.

7 Your Honour, the situation is that I've made my objection. The

8 Prosecution have put forward their position. Your Honour, in essence, I

9 have no further submissions to make on the question, and it's subject to

10 a ruling from Your Honours.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll carefully reread what you said at

12 earlier occasions on these exhibits and we'll give a decision.

13 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that there's no further submissions to be

15 made by the Prosecution.

16 MR. GAYNOR: No, Your Honour. We made some submissions on the

17 3rd of September.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll decide once having reread the 3rd of

19 September submissions.

20 Then, Madam Registrar, the -- I think we went through this

21 witness now. So P217 and P218, where there no objections that they are

22 admitted into evidence.

23 And we next move to our next witness, next witness being

24 Mr. Egrlic. Madam Registrar.

25 I made a mistake. I thought that we went already through the

1 video and dealt with all the exhibits, but there's still P220. Madam

2 Registrar.

3 THE REGISTRAR: P220, under seal, first book of witness's diary,

4 and P220.1, under seal, English translation.

5 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objections, P217, P218, and

6 P220 and the translations, are admitted into evidence.

7 Madam Registrar, next witness, the exhibits related to the

8 witness Egrlic.

9 THE REGISTRAR: P221, map of Kljuc.

10 P222, map of villages in Kljuc.

11 P223, announcement by MBO and SDA that Muslim residents of Kljuc

12 shall stand under no obligation to serve in units of the reserve of the

13 JNA, dated 21 September, 1991. P223.1, English translation.

14 P224, public statement by Kljuc SDA regarding political, security

15 situation in Kljuc municipality, dated 21 September 1991. P224.1,

16 English translation.

17 P225, radio Kljuc broadcast, including announcement by the

18 municipal board MBO Muslim Bosniak organisation, dated 17 September 1991.

19 P225.1, English translation.

20 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, just going back to 220.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 MS. LOUKAS: That was the matter in which there was this

23 outstanding issue of the quotation marks. On the last occasion we had a

24 housekeeping day, that was the 3rd of September, that was a matter in

25 which it was the question of the -- not the admission of the whole diary,

1 but a portion, I think, the day before and the day after and what have

2 you. So it's not a question of the whole diary coming in, and as I

3 understand it, what went in was not the entire diary, but the selected

4 pages that Mr. Gaynor and I agreed on.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Gaynor.

6 MR. GAYNOR: Exactly. That's correct. We agreed on the pages

7 which should be admitted and those pages were tendered to the registrar.

8 So the --

9 JUDGE ORIE: So the selection -- then first of all we should

10 check the ERN numbers, whether they relate to selected pages. Because

11 now we have the selection of some 26 pages, it seems, ERN pages, at

12 least. And that is already the selection? Or is that the full of --

13 MR. GAYNOR: No. The B/C/S version was about four or five pages.

14 ERN numbers of those pages are in the record of the 3rd of September.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Madam Registrar, then we should make P220 --

16 it should receive other numbers, other ERN numbers, the selected ERN

17 numbers. And apart from that, it should then read to be "A selection of

18 the first book of witness diary, under seal." Is that --

19 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. The selection is agreed. What's not agreed is

20 an issue relating to the insertion of quotation marks in the English

21 translation by CLSS. And you'll remember we consulted with CLSS as to

22 whether they stood by the inclusion of those quotation marks and they do.

23 So I believe the Defence still maintain their objection to those

24 quotation marks.

25 JUDGE ORIE: So then the first thing we'll do is to, on the list,

1 introduce new ERN numbers for the selection, to change the description in

2 selection of first book of witness, and then we'll give a decision on the

3 quotation marks.

4 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. Just in relation to the issue of

5 the quotation marks: Your Honour, I've received the e-mail from Mr.

6 Gaynor in relation to the approach adopted by CLSS, after we were in

7 court on the last occasion, on the 3rd of September, in relation to

8 housekeeping matters. I've of course consulted with Ms. Cmeric on this

9 issue, who is, of course, our expert on matters of this nature. The

10 position of the Defence is this, Your Honour: Whilst the -- and of

11 course, this is not, I think, one of the --

12 JUDGE ORIE: It's not one of the core issues of this deal.

13 MS. LOUKAS: It's not a deal-breaker, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 MS. LOUKAS: But, Your Honour, the point I would make is this:

16 There have been insertion of quotation marks into the English version

17 that don't appear in the B/C/S version. The interpreters, the

18 translators indicate that they feel it might be helpful in terms of the

19 reading of the particular document. Whilst the at the same time, Ms.

20 Cmeric has been through the B/C/S version and there are portions of the

21 diary, of course, matters that are in quotes. But this just happens to

22 be a particular portion that is not in quotes. And in those

23 circumstances, Your Honour, I maintain my objection.

24 JUDGE ORIE: You say you could not make any distinction any more

25 between parts with quotation marks in the original -- well, of course,

1 they do appear in the translation, and other parts of the document where

2 the quotation marks do not appear in the original, would a italics be a

3 solution?

4 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I don't think I have a problem with

5 italics. I'll just confirm with Ms. Cmeric.

6 [Defence counsel confer]

7 MS. LOUKAS: No, we don't have a problem with italics, Your

8 Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: It seems that the parties could agree that in order

10 to make a clear distinction between where quotation marks appear in the

11 original and where quotation marks do not appear in the original, that

12 those quotation marks added by CLSS would now be in italics, so that a

13 clear distinction in the translation exists. Well, I'm not a mediator,

14 but at least the problem seems to be solved, but of course you have to

15 now prepare those four or five pages, quotation marks.

16 MR. GAYNOR: That's not a problem. I'll do that, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

18 MS. LOUKAS: That was a very successful mediation, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we get new ERN numbers. Madam Registrar,

20 have you got them already? Okay. We'll deal with that perhaps later

21 today or ... Description changes, ERN numbers are changing, and we

22 receive a new copy with italics rather than quotation marks.

23 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then nothing opposes admission any more.

25 Madam Registrar, next witness. I think you read already the first up

1 until 225. Is that correct? Then would you please continue, 226 up to

2 -- this witness. Perhaps do it page by page, because it's a very long

3 list of exhibits. We have P225. You've read that. So we're now at the

4 bottom of this specific page. Yes.

5 THE REGISTRAR: P226, Decision confirming previously adopted

6 decision regarding the Kljuc municipality joining the Banja Luka

7 community of municipalities, dated 1st of December, 1991. P226.1,

8 English translation.

9 P227, Official statement from MBO re: Arming in Kljuc

10 municipality, dated 21 September 1991. P227.1, English translation.

11 P228, Order from meeting of presidents, SAO Krajina, by Radoslav

12 Brdjanin, establish units for front line, mobilise TO, move civil defence

13 into TO and the TO into war units, dated 29 October 1991. P228.1,

14 English translation.

15 P229, Announcement by the municipal board of MBO and the town's

16 board of SDA, Kljuc, regarding resident instructions, issued by SDS,

17 dated 31 October 1991. P229.1, English translation.

18 P230, information on plebiscite dated 7th of November, 1991.

19 P230.1, English translation.

20 P231, joint announcement from MBO SDA condemning the policies

21 leading to conflict, dated 24 December 1991.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we stop here, Madam Registrar, because

23 otherwise it might be too much and not -- because there are another two

24 pages for this witness.

25 No objections, Ms. Loukas? Then P221 up to and including P231,

1 as just read out by Madam Registrar, are admitted into evidence. Well,

2 perhaps it would have been wise to have included 231.1 for the English

3 translation of 231. That is admitted into evidence as well. And we'll

4 now continue with 232.

5 THE REGISTRAR: P232, Radio Kljuc broadcast of Hronika regarding

6 the report from the joint public forum of SDA and MBO, dated 16 January

7 1992. P232.1, English translation.

8 P233, Handwritten diary referring to various meetings of SDS and

9 other matters during the period 5 February 1992 through to 29 July 1992.

10 P233.1, English translation.

11 P234, Handwritten and signed minutes of the 6th meeting of SDS

12 Kljuc, held on 18 February 1992. P234.1, English translation.

13 P235, Handwritten and signed minutes of the 8th meeting of SDS

14 Kljuc, held on 29 April 1992. P235.1, English translation.

15 P236, Order by the chairman of the council for national defence,

16 dated 5 May 1992. P236.1, English translation.

17 P237, Order for general mobilisation ARK, dated 04 May 1992.

18 P237.1, English translation.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas.

20 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I thought I'd wait for Ms. Philpott to

21 go through a whole series of them prior to indicating. First of all, in

22 relation to P235.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 MS. LOUKAS: There was a translation issue in relation to that

25 particular document.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It appears already on the list.

2 Has the Prosecution provided a new translation?

3 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I believe that Mr. Margetts did provide

4 that correct version, but I haven't been able to consult with him this

5 morning to confirm that.

6 JUDGE ORIE: What is in the hands of Madam Registrar appears at

7 least the original ERN number. I do not know whether if a corrected

8 version is made, whether it keeps its old ERN number or whether it gets a

9 new ERN number.

10 MR. HANNIS: It doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that

11 that's the corrected one, Your Honour. I would have to double-check with

12 Mr. Margetts. I seem to have a vague recollection that he did come up

13 with that the next day, but I didn't talk with him yet this morning.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you could please seek confirmation of

15 that.

16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

17 JUDGE ORIE: A quick forensic investigation shows that the

18 handwriting on the sticker is the handwriting of the registrar who was

19 sitting on the day that the exhibit was presented to the Court and not of

20 the registrar who sat the next day. So would you please find out. So

21 that's a reason not to give a decision yet on 235.

22 Ms. Loukas.

23 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. Also there's translation issue in

24 relation to P237, firstly in relation to paragraph 4 and paragraph 5.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Could Ms. Loukas stand closer to the

1 microphone, please.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, the interpreters have difficulties

3 following you if you're --

4 MS. LOUKAS: If I move across. Yes. Yes, Your Honour. So

5 there's an issue in relation to the translation of 237. Ms. Cmeric has

6 had the opportunity to go through these documents and compare them. And

7 I think I might state at this point more generally, Your Honour, we

8 reserve the question of translation objections because of, of course, Ms.

9 Cmeric has not had the opportunity to go through every document at this

10 point. And in terms of the time that we have available to us, and I just

11 want to put that marker there, that there are outstanding translation

12 issues.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 MS. LOUKAS: But specifically, in relation to 237, the

15 translation of the second line on paragraph 4 and that second-last word

16 in paragraph 5, according to Ms. Cmeric, there are translation issues

17 there.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 MS. LOUKAS: And also --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Were they raised already? I hope you -- do forgive

21 me for not having every detail in my mind.

22 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. I can indicate that, for example,

23 the issue with P235, that was raised in court.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's also clear from the list.

25 MS. LOUKAS: P237, I don't think that was raised in court, but

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Ms. Cmeric subsequently noticed the issue there.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MS. LOUKAS: I can also indicate, just going ahead, Your Honour,

4 that there is a translation issue in relation to 242 and 252.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. 242.

6 MS. LOUKAS: And I think the --

7 JUDGE ORIE: And 252. Yes. If there's any translation issue

8 that arises at a later stage, then the Chamber would appreciate if it

9 would be communicated with the Prosecution so that the parties could see

10 whether there's any issue or not. And of course, I also take it that

11 minor mistakes will remain there. I mean, even interpreters are not

12 perfect.

13 MS. LOUKAS: I appreciate that.

14 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore, of course, I also take it that if any

15 translation issue is raised, that it should go to something of some

16 relevance and importance.

17 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, indeed, Your Honour. For example, though, that

18 issue in relation to, say, 252, as I understand it, goes to that issue

19 that's already occurred and it is a significant issue, this issue of

20 mopping up versus cleansing and what have you.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 MS. LOUKAS: So it is of significance, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand.

24 MS. LOUKAS: But what we can do, of course, Your Honour, with

25 translation issues is that Ms. Cmeric can prepare a list and forward it

1 to the Prosecution so that these --

2 JUDGE ORIE: So if you can solve it, fine; if not, the Chamber

3 will decide.

4 MS. LOUKAS: Yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: So apart from 235 and 237, the other exhibits on

6 this page, that's 232 up until and including 234 and 236 are admitted

7 into evidence.

8 Madam Registrar, next page, 238 and following.

9 THE REGISTRAR: P238, Order by Branko Basara, 6th Partisan

10 Brigade commander to the commander of 5th infantry battalion that men

11 from other battalions be transferred to other battalions in the region.

12 P238.1, English translation.

13 P239, Public announcement Kljuc Crisis Staff that the public

14 security station has changed uniforms of the police officers, dated 8th

15 May 1992. P239.1, English translation.

16 P240, Kljuc Municipal Assembly review of Muslims who were

17 employed at executive positions in Kljuc, dated 26 June 1992. P240.1,

18 English translation.

19 P241, Ruling by the War Presidency of Kljuc Municipal Assembly

20 regarding relief of duty of the president of Executive Council of Kljuc

21 municipality, dated 21 July 1992.

22 P242 --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, I think that you still have to read

24 241.1, the English translation. I think it's not on the transcript yet.

25 THE REGISTRAR: P241.1, English translation.

1 JUDGE ORIE: And then since objections are raised in respect of

2 242, we do not have to deal with that at this moment, and we continue

3 with 243.

4 THE REGISTRAR: P243, Decisions of executive committee of the

5 Kljuc Municipal Assembly on the level of payment of taxes and extent of

6 validity of federal and public relations, dated 12 May, 1992. P243.1,

7 English translation.

8 P244, Minutes of meeting with presidents of municipalities and

9 military commanders, dated 14 May 1992. And P244.1, English translation.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that there are some question marks in

11 relation to the English translations on 238 and 244.

12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, just as the parties sometimes have to go back

14 and find out what exactly was the case, Madam Registrar was not in court,

15 our Madam Registrar was not in court that day, so she'll find out about

16 the numbers. But apart from the question marks, I take it that the

17 parties will accept that once the final numbers are found, they will be

18 filled in, but the documents as such will be admitted into evidence.

19 That would mean 238 up to and including P241; then P243 and P244. The

20 Chamber will give a decision later, once the parties have exchanged their

21 views on the translation of P242 on that exhibit.

22 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to 240, Your Honour, there is an

23 objection in relation to that document.

24 JUDGE ORIE: And that objection was?

25 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, that was a document in relation

1 to a witness that Mr. Stewart was dealing with. But that's a document

2 that the Defence would require further information in relation to

3 provenance and authenticity. Of course, I take on board that the

4 approach from the Prosecution would be that's a matter that goes to

5 weight rather than admissibility, but nevertheless, I do object to that

6 particular document.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Margetts is not there, so, Mr. Hannis.

8 MR. HANNIS: Nothing further to add at this time, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then where I said 240 was admitted into

10 evidence, this decision will be reviewed whether it needs any -- whether

11 it is a correct decision, yes or no, in view of the objection expressed.

12 We'll come back to that at a later stage.

13 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, we continue now on the next page

15 with 245.

16 THE REGISTRAR: P245, statement of Omer Filipovic to Kljuc SJB

17 dated 29 May 1992. P245.1, English translation.

18 P246, material in handwriting which speaks about the preparations

19 for ethnic cleansing of Kljuc, dated 10 June 1992. P246.1, English

20 translation.

21 P247, order issued by the Kljuc municipality defence command,

22 dated 28 May 1992. P247.1, English translation.

23 P248, report in relation to structure and tasks of Kljuc civil

24 defence, dated 1st of May, 1992. P248.1, English translation.

25 P249, list of prisoners for exchange, compiled by Samac Serbian

1 municipality, dated 29 June 1993. P249.1, English translation.

2 P250, report of the public security station, Kljuc dispatch, 25th

3 September 1992. P250.1, English translation.

4 P251, Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of the

5 Interior, Sarajevo, Banja Luka security services centre, Kljuc public

6 security station, report on the work and activities of the Kljuc public

7 security station during the combat activities in the municipality, dated

8 July 1992. P251.1, English translation.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, just in relation to the last series

11 read out by the registrar, Ms. Philpott. There's an objection in

12 relation to document 246. And again, that's a matter relating to a

13 witness that Mr. Stewart was dealing with.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I then take it that we can read the line of

15 that objection in the transcript of the 28th of July.

16 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. I don't think an objection was

17 registered at the time, but this issue of the exhibits was left

18 outstanding, and I'm -- the objection is indicated in relation to that

19 document. It's a document that has comment at the beginning, and it's a

20 sort of handwritten list in B/C/S. And again, Your Honour, it's an

21 objection in relation to provenance. We would require some further

22 information in relation to that from the Defence perspective.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Ms. Loukas, if there's an objection, you

24 mentioned that at the time and we deal with that immediately if it should

25 banned from the courtroom and not be shown to the witness. And

1 otherwise, issues like translation, et cetera, that they can be raised at

2 a later stage. So new introduction of objections two months later is not

3 in accordance with the practice in this courtroom. And I do not know

4 whether the Prosecution would have any response to the objection made.

5 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I can indicate, Your Honour, that the two last

6 objections that I've indicated, I think it's 240 and 246, were in

7 relation to a witness that Mr. Stewart was dealing with.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 MS. LOUKAS: The documents have subsequently been reviewed and

10 the objection is put forward today. I appreciate what Your Honour said

11 in relation to the usual procedure, but nevertheless, Your Honour, my

12 obligation at this point is to ensure that the objection is made.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Hannis.

14 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, with regard to 246, I sat in with

15 Mr. Margetts during that witness. I believe there was some objection or

16 discussion about that one, but I thought that Mr. Margetts then asked

17 some further questions of the witness that dealt with matters relating to

18 the provenance of that document. I'd have to --

19 JUDGE ORIE: So what you say, it's still of some use to check the

20 28th of July transcript. Yes. We'll do that.

21 And as far as the provenance is concerned, of course, I have

22 not -- I could try to find it in my computer, but that might take too

23 much time at this very moment. As far as the provenance is concerned,

24 Mr. Hannis, would there be any additional information? Because what I

25 see at this moment, as far as the provenance is concerned, is that the

1 manuscript was found within documentation of Kljuc public security

2 station, and then it says what -- that's on the cover page of the

3 document. And then any further information --

4 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I believe that was something we

5 received from AID and that was information that this supposedly was found

6 in the police station in Kljuc. I believe Mr. Egrlic was asked some

7 questions about whether he recognised the handwriting on that document.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

9 MR. HANNIS: -- Mr. Kondic.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Clue will be in the 28th transcript. So we'll then

11 concentrate on that. That was 246. Ms. Loukas, any further objections

12 on that page?

13 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour, not in relation to that last series

14 of exhibits.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then admitted into evidence are Exhibits 245,

16 247 up until and including 251. When the original is admitted into

17 evidence, the translation is also admitted into evidence.

18 Madam Registrar, we'll then continue with -- not with 252 and

19 252A, because that is a -- there is an issue of translation, I think it

20 was. Ms. Loukas, 252, 252A, and 252A.1. Just not to miss anything, I

21 see that 252 is a television clip. It's not CNN, but it's TV Banja Luka.

22 Is there any objection against the introduction of this?

23 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I'm just going to consult briefly

24 with Ms. Cmeric, because again this was a witness that Mr. Stewart was

25 dealing with and that I wasn't.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. My question here is translation only or

2 also ...

3 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, just in relation to 252, there was just

4 an issue in relation to translation, and I think the translation issue

5 was raised at the time.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have noted that. But that's all, and it's

7 not -- Banja Luka TV here is not something to --

8 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: -- object to as public television coverage is.

10 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. That's a matter -- as I indicated,

11 that's a matter that Mr. --

12 JUDGE ORIE: It's translation only.

13 MS. LOUKAS: -- consulted in relation to the issue of the

14 outstanding exhibits and there's no objection raised in relation to that

15 particular exhibit.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Translation only. Is there any problem with

17 the transcript as such? Sometimes we have the problem of the subtitling

18 being translated. I don't know whether there's any -- we'll check that

19 in the transcript of the 29th of July.

20 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I've consulted my expert on translation

21 issues, and apparently there isn't. Is that correct?

22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Just translation. Then we continue, Madam

23 Registrar, with 253.

24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

25 THE REGISTRAR: P253, under seal, pseudonym sheet for Witness

1 188.

2 P254, map of Biljani area in Kljuc, titled "Biljani overview."

3 P255, official note issued by the MUP, ordering the mopping up of

4 Sanica, dated 10 July 1992. P255.1, English translation.

5 P256, order issued by the Kljuc command assigning combat

6 operation tasks to its military units in the area, dated 9 July 1992.

7 P256.1, English translation.

8 P257, exhumation report. P257.1, English translation.

9 And those are all the exhibits for KRAJ 188.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections, Ms. Loukas? No. Since I do not

11 hear any objections, the exhibits P253 up until 257 -- up to and

12 including 257 are admitted into evidence, and unless I make any specific

13 reference to translations -- so that's the dot 1 versions -- not to be

14 admitted, they're always included in the admission. Madam Registrar,

15 we'll continue with P270.

16 THE REGISTRAR: P270, ICTY witness statement dated 8 June 2001.

17 P270.1, B/C/S translation.

18 P271, record of witness interview, High Court in Sarajevo, dated

19 23 August 1995. P271.1, English translation.

20 P272, order of the Crisis Staff of the Pale municipality, listing

21 telephone lines to be disconnected, dated 7 May 1992. P272.1, English

22 translation.

23 P273, letter from Dr. Radovan Karadzic requesting an inventory of

24 all vacant housing facilities dated 19 July 1992. P273.1, English

25 translation.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Any objections in

2 relation to that?

3 MS. LOUKAS: No, not to the last series, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then P270 up to and including P273 are

5 admitted into evidence, including translations.

6 Madam Registrar, 274 and following, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: P274, audiotape of broadcast on Serb Radio Sanski

8 Most. P274.A, transcript of Exhibit P274. And P274A.1, English

9 translation.

10 P275, photograph of corridor of SUP building in Sanski Most.

11 P276, photograph of cell in SUP building in Sanski Most.

12 P277, record of the identification of the body of Efendi Emir

13 Seferovic. P277.1, English translation.

14 And P278, record of release of Nadim Biscevic from Manjaca war

15 camp. P278.1, English translation.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas any objections to the exhibits introduced

17 through witness Biscevic.

18 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour, not to the last series that we've

19 just gone through.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Then P274 up to and including P278, including

21 translations, where applicable, are admitted into evidence.

22 Madam Registrar, the next one would be the series for Witness

23 623.

24 THE REGISTRAR: There's one pending exhibit for Witness 623. It

25 is Exhibit P281, under seal. It's the witness statement of 2002 and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 2003, signed 01/11/03, under seal. And P281.1, the B/C/S translation,

2 under seal.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas.

4 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. That was the witness that

5 Mr. Stewart was dealing with. As I understand it, I think that both Mr.

6 Hannis and Mr. Stewart were meant to come up with a sort of redacted

7 version of the statement that incorporated the paragraphs sought to be

8 included by both the Prosecution and the Defence.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Hannis.

10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, this second statement, there were only

11 about 10 or 12 paragraphs that the Prosecution was requesting be

12 considered that were referenced in his 2004 statement.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 MR. HANNIS: I was waiting to hear from Mr. Stewart as to which

15 paragraphs he wanted in addition to that. He had sent me an e-mail, but

16 I don't have any further confirmation if there were any additional

17 matters after the testimony was completed.

18 JUDGE ORIE: From what I remember is that there were certain

19 paragraphs Mr. Stewart would like to have included because he wanted to

20 cross-examine the witness on those parts. Could we find out -- I don't

21 think it's a very difficult exercise - whether the paragraphs mentioned

22 in Mr. Stewart's e-mail would still be the ones he would like to be

23 included. Once that's done, the Chamber would very much like to receive

24 a copy of that statement, which contains only those paragraphs either one

25 party or the other party would wish to have in evidence.

1 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour, just in relation to that, I do

2 recall that Mr. Stewart handed up the copy of that e-mail that indicated

3 the relevant paragraphs, but it appears that Mr. Hannis was waiting to

4 hear from Mr. Stewart and Mr. Stewart was waiting to hear from Mr.

5 Hannis. There seems to have been something of an impasse.

6 JUDGE ORIE: This is an excellent morning to exchange views, I

7 would say.

8 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: So the Chamber -- I take it that redacted version

10 could be provided this week. I mean, it's just a black marker, I think,

11 that should be used intensively. And so 281, we'll deal with that later

12 this week, once the parties -- once the Prosecution has provided the copy

13 containing the parts deemed relevant by both Prosecution and Defence.

14 Then, Madam Registrar, we are moving to our next series.

15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

16 JUDGE ORIE: I think that the series of exhibits introduced

17 through the witness Kljuic, we should not deal with them, because

18 cross-examination is still pending. So the next one would then be the

19 series of exhibits starting with 303A, introduced through Witness 048.

20 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. Regarding the point that

21 you just raised with regard to Mr. Kljuic, that's also true for Mr.

22 Biscevic, who still has to be dealt with in cross-exam.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do agree with you. I have overlooked that.

24 MR. HANNIS: His begin with 274, I believe.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's 274 up until 270 -- what we could do,

1 and perhaps -- I'm trying to get this list shorter. Ms. Loukas, I

2 suggest that we give a decision, but if in cross-examination anything

3 comes up which would cast a different light on the decision on admission,

4 we could still review that and see whether what was provisionally

5 admitted in evidence at the end of the examination-in-chief, that it's

6 either finally is or -- is excluded -- not admitted at the very end.

7 Yes?

8 MS. LOUKAS: That seems sensible, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then, Madam Registrar, then we start with

10 this proviso with Exhibit P291.

11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

12 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P291, witness statement dated 18 April

13 2001, 23 May 2001, 5 December 2002. P291.1, B/C/S translation.

14 P292, binder of intercept transcripts, B/C/S and English.

15 P292A, CD of intercepts.

16 P293, map, ethnic structure of BiH according to settlements,

17 according to the first results of 1991 census.

18 Exhibit P294A, photograph.

19 Exhibit P294B, photograph.

20 Exhibit P295, Mazowiecki report dated 28 August 1992.

21 P296, Mazowiecki report dated 17 November 1992.

22 P297, Mazowiecki report dated 27 October 1992.

23 P298, Glas Srpski Banja Luka, 8 December 1992, European "NO".

24 P299, Mr. Okun's demographic data, dated 1991.

25 P300, video clip, Biljana Plavsic and Arkan.

1 P301, CD of clip from the 34th session of the People's Assembly,

2 27 August 1993.

3 P301A, English transcript of P301.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas.

5 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I can indicate in relation to

6 that last series of exhibits that there are, in fact, no pending

7 objections. But there is just one matter in relation to 292. That, of

8 course, is the binder of intercepts. And the question there was, of

9 course, that there would be no witness comments and that they should be

10 excluded, the actual commentary aspect of the intercept list. And I

11 think Your Honours were going to hand back the document with their

12 comments, and I think the Prosecution were going to come up with a

13 document that didn't have the comments.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. From what I remember, Mr. Hannis, the issue

15 was whether the witness could be presented with the list of intercepts,

16 including his comments to that. And whatever comment he would have, he

17 could do that without consulting the previous comments he gave and were

18 put on paper. So therefore, we -- I don't know whether a copy has been

19 already been presented to Madam Registrar without the --

20 MR. HANNIS: I don't think that's been done yet, but I'll check

21 with Mr. Harmon on that.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No further issues, Ms. Loukas?

23 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. That was the only issue pertaining

24 to that last series of documents, exhibits that were just dealt with.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Then admitted into evidence is P291. Not admitted

1 into evidence yet is P292, awaiting a new version of that document by the

2 Prosecution. Admitted are, then, P292 [sic] up to and including P301,

3 under the proviso that if anything comes up in cross-examination of

4 Witness Kljuic that would cast a different light on the admissibility of

5 these exhibits in evidence, that the Chamber will then, upon request of

6 either party, pay attention to that matter.

7 Then, Madam Registrar.

8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

9 JUDGE ORIE: Just in order to clarify a potential source of

10 confusion. I said P292 is not admitted, awaiting a new version of that

11 document by the Prosecution. That was the written list with the comments

12 of the accused -- of the witness which should be taken out.

13 Then 292.A, which is the CD of the intercepts, is, however,

14 admitted, because that's without comments.

15 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. The outstanding question is

16 purely in relation to the comments.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And therefore, that appears on page 33, line

18 21, where it reads at this moment in the transcript "P292 up to and

19 including P301." That should read: "P292.A, up to and including P301."

20 So it's only P292 that is not yet decided.

21 Madam Registrar, we now move to Witness 048.

22 THE REGISTRAR: P303A, BiH agency for research and documentation,

23 sector aid, Bihac witness statement dated 31 March 1998, under seal, and

24 P303A.1, English translation, under seal.

25 P306, declaration of witness identifying voices of the

1 participants of intercepted telephone conversations, dated 29/09/04,

2 under seal.

3 P306A, intercept transcript dated 24/06/1991.

4 P306B, intercept transcript dated 05/06/1991.

5 P306C, CD of intercepts.

6 And P307, draft report on the work of the Municipal Assembly and

7 War Presidency from 01 January 1992 to 20 April 1993. And P307.1,

8 English translation.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 Ms. Loukas.

11 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. These, of course, the exhibits

12 remaining from the witness that was dealt with just last Friday, the

13 witness I was dealing with. I registered my objections on Friday

14 afternoon just before we concluded for the day. And of course, they're

15 at pages, in terms of the LiveNote, the last two or three pages of the

16 transcript. And they basically relate to the draft nature of the report

17 provisionally marked P307 and the -- and of course, there was the issue

18 that the actual conversations, Your Honour, are there merely for voice

19 identification, and I objected in relation to the question of personal

20 knowledge and what have you. And I won't mention the names, as the

21 witness was subject to protective measures.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 MS. LOUKAS: And of course, there was the --

24 JUDGE ORIE: That was about P306 and P307. Is that correct? No.

25 There were others as well. Yes. P306A,B, and -- well, it's -- let me

1 just see. Yes. The only -- 303A is the only one, I think, where no

2 objection were raised. Is that correct? Agency for research.

3 MS. LOUKAS: Well, no, Your Honour. I think there was -- first

4 of all, prior to the witness commencing, I did object in relation to the

5 Bosnian statement when we had that issue of 89(F) and what have you.

6 Then the -- it basically comes I think down to three outstanding issues.

7 It's a question of the draft nature of the report under 307, the question

8 of the voice identification of individuals of whom the person has no

9 personal knowledge, and the question of the Bosnian statement objection

10 that I indicated before the witness commenced. So it comes down to --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have to reread the transcript from last

12 Friday and then give a decision on that. So no decisions are yet taken

13 on the admission of exhibits introduced through Witness 048.

14 We'll have a break soon. I would like to start after the break

15 with the reading out of the 92 bis summaries, and I would then like to --

16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

17 JUDGE ORIE: But before doing that, perhaps we could finish

18 before the break with the exhibits. I've forgotten the Defence exhibits.

19 MS. LOUKAS: -- Defence object to exhibits.

20 JUDGE ORIE: They're smaller in number, but not --

21 MS. LOUKAS: I can indicate, Your Honour, I'm noting the time. I

22 don't think that we could get through the outstanding issues in relation

23 to the Defence exhibits.

24 JUDGE ORIE: We've got four only. I do not know what -- whether

25 there are a lot of objections. It's D12, 13, 24, and 25.

1 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, the only one I recall having an

2 objection to previously was D12.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 MR. HANNIS: That was a draft of witness statement of Mr. Karabeg

5 that he never signed. I raised that objection at the time it was

6 introduced. But I didn't object to him being asked questions about it,

7 and I think that was discussed in testimony. I don't have a strong

8 position one way or the other. I just don't think it's necessary. And

9 since he did not sign it, those parts that he didn't talk about in his

10 testimony haven't been adopted by him.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then the others, 13, 24, 25?

12 MR. HANNIS: No, no objections to the others.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, on D12, we'll later decide.

14 Could you please read out D13, 24, and 25.

15 THE REGISTRAR: D13, typewritten information sheet dated 07 March

16 1992. D13.1, English translation.

17 D24, order to carry out the decision of the Presidency of the

18 Republic of BiH, dated 29 April 1992. D24.1, English translation.

19 D25, pages 10625 to 10631 of the trial transcript of case

20 IT-99-36, the Brdjanin case.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Since there are no

22 Further objections, D13, D24, and D25, including translations,

23 are admitted into evidence.

24 Then after the break I would like to start with the reading out

25 of the 92 bis summaries, then give the parties an opportunity to make any

1 further submissions on pending motions. That's videolink, where we

2 received already the written response by the Defence. Adjudicated facts,

3 where I said something about that last Friday. And if there's any need

4 to say anything further on the certification of appeal of the decision on

5 protection of Witness 623, then I'll hear from the -- although I did

6 understand, although it has not been said in this courtroom, that the

7 Prosecution would refrain from a response.

8 MR. HANNIS: That's correct. I don't know what we said before,

9 but that is correct.

10 JUDGE ORIE: That's off the list then anyhow. Then we'll adjourn

11 until 11.00. Yes, Ms. Loukas.

12 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. Just before Your Honours leave

13 the Bench, I would indicate that there are some further outstanding

14 issues in relation to the Defence exhibits that we can deal with after

15 the reading of the 92 bis summaries or just prior to the reading of the

16 92 bis summaries.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if we're dealing with exhibits, let's try to

18 finish them as far as possible. So perhaps then we'll first give an

19 opportunity to Ms. Loukas to deal with the exhibits.

20 And then, of course, the other issue still to be discussed is the

21 issue of the dossiers, where the Prosecution would come up with, I would

22 say, a more -- not a too abstract approach, but just to see what kind of

23 documents they would like to introduce.

24 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, just a quick request. If we could

25 address the dossier issue after we deal with the Defence exhibits, I

1 would greatly appreciate that. I don't believe it will be lengthy --

2 JUDGE ORIE: You would prefer to first deal with the dossiers and

3 then to deal with the pending motions?

4 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, I take it that there's no

6 objection to this changing the order.

7 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. I'm always happy to indulge Mr.

8 Tieger.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll adjourn until 5 minutes past 11.00.

10 --- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.

11 --- On resuming at 11.13 a.m.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, since we changed the order, you're

13 invited to first address your matters in relation to the exhibits.

14 MS. LOUKAS: In relation to the Defence exhibits?

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the dossier issues, which of course has got to

16 do something with exhibits as well.

17 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're invited to ...

19 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, as I understood what was occurring with

20 the dossier issue was the Prosecution were going to outline the various

21 categories that they -- and they were going to flesh out in a bit more

22 detail what they were seeking, and then we would be able to respond.

23 Depending on what emerges from the Prosecution once this subject is

24 detailed, Your Honour, I doubt very much that the Defence would respond

25 today. I think we'd have to take that on board and -- rather than give

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 it a knee-jerk reaction at this point, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Tieger, you see that my invitation to Ms.

3 Loukas is passed to you now.

4 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour. It's important, I think, to

5 observe that dossier concept was broached earlier and accepted earlier,

6 on March 12th, at a Pre-Trial Conference. The Prosecution announced,

7 after having discussed it briefly with the Defence prior to that, that it

8 would be submitting dossiers.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- Pre-Trial Conference on March 12th,

10 where we --

11 MR. TIEGER: 65 ter.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

13 MR. TIEGER: Now, I will note that the record of that particular

14 65 ter will reflect that I was not personally present, but I had an

15 opportunity to review Mr. Harmon's notes --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 MR. TIEGER: -- both immediately after that session and yesterday

18 as well. There was nothing, of course, particularly remarkable or

19 revolutionary about the Prosecution's proposal; self-propelled exhibits,

20 without benefit of or need for an individual witness through whom they

21 were adduced has been part of this institution for years now. It took

22 place in the Blaskic case, in the Kordic case. It was recently approved

23 in the Milosevic case.

24 If the concern -- so let me backtrack a bit and say I do not

25 understand there to be any objection conceptually to the idea of

1 dossiers. There was none expressed at the time of the 65 ter. We moved

2 forward to creating those dossiers. I recall personally discussing the

3 fact that the dossiers were moving forward with the Defence and no

4 objection was raised. I therefore presume that the only issue at the

5 moment is what specifically may be in the dossier.

6 The generic answer to that question is simply documents of the

7 type which we have already seen. We had an excellent opportunity during

8 the course of our review of the pending exhibits today to see precisely

9 the kind of exhibits that the Prosecution anticipates will be in the

10 dossier. So without going into the kinds of specific categories - and

11 those obviously could be relatively endless - I think the exercise in

12 which we engage today provides both the Court and the Defence with a

13 useful example of what we can expect to see in a dossier.

14 We understand that there may be particular documents that are

15 submitted through the dossier to which the Defence may object for one

16 reason or another, and obviously the Defence will be given an opportunity

17 to carefully review the dossier submissions for precisely that purpose.

18 But I emphasise again that the dossiers, in concept, were not objected

19 to, and there is no basis for objection that I can see. And I want to

20 assuage the Defence, if it has concerns, that the dossiers would somehow

21 be moved into evidence without a reasonable opportunity for them to

22 review the individual documents, individual dossiers, to determine

23 whether or not there was an objection to particular documents.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me just try to understand you. You said

25 that today we have seen an example, although you didn't want to

1 categorise them, that is, decisions of crisis staffs or requests from the

2 Crisis Staff to a certain authority, either to cut telephone lines or to

3 re-install the water supply. Well, whatever. You're referring to this

4 kind of mainly, well, municipal governance, or -- is that --

5 MR. TIEGER: I think most of the dossiers we anticipate will

6 relate to particular municipalities. So the dossier would consist of

7 documents of precisely the type that the Court mentioned related to that

8 particular municipality. Those would include Crisis Staff documents,

9 directives from that particular municipality, directives that had a

10 bearing on the operations of that particular municipality, military

11 documents and so on. We also anticipate the possibility of thematic

12 dossiers that might be of assistance to the Court, for example, a dossier

13 that aggregated propaganda documents. But again, each dossier would have

14 its own theme, if you will, and all documents that were relevant to that

15 particular theme and that advance the Court's understanding would be

16 compiled and presented through that dossier.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps not only the exhibits we dealt with

18 this morning are exemplary, but perhaps the objections to the exhibits

19 are exemplary as well. Provenance was one of the issues raised a couple

20 of times this morning, also in relation to documents on which there

21 appear to be a signed indication of the provenance of that document, that

22 it was received from a certain agency and the original was still there

23 but a copy was received. So there we have some clue as far as the

24 provenance is concerned. How do you think you'll deal with that issue?

25 Because I take it that just putting documents on our table and say:

1 Well, they look very much alike, so therefore just accept them. How are

2 you dealing with the provenance? Do we get information about that? Do

3 we get statements signed about the provenance, or ...?

4 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I neglected to mention that particular

5 issue during my acknowledgment of the 65 ter. That issue was indeed

6 raised and discussed during the 65 ter, when the Prosecution advised that

7 it would be submitting, along with the documents, an index to those

8 documents, which would include information about the provenance of those

9 documents. So at the time the dossier concept was first broached and

10 approved by all parties, that was considered to be part of the submission

11 that would be anticipated.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, we now see that the issue is dealt with

13 on two different levels. The first one, the conceptual level; the second

14 one, I would say the technical level. And it's already indicated by Mr.

15 Tieger that there would be a third level, that is, objection against one

16 particular exhibit or for reasons unknown yet. I don't know whether

17 you're in a position to respond at this moment.

18 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I will give a preliminary

19 response.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MS. LOUKAS: Mr. Tieger, of course, referred to the 65 ter in

22 March, where I think it was accepted by Mr. Stewart as a concept in

23 general terms, in principle, that would be acceptable. Of course, we

24 don't have a transcript of that particular 65 ter, but in broad terms --

25 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether we have a transcript or not.

1 MR. TIEGER: No, there is no transcript, but of course there's a

2 tape, and I'm hoping that Ms. Loukas is not questioning the

3 contemporaneous notes.

4 JUDGE ORIE: To start with, I don't think she intended to say

5 that. I was just -- I understood this to be something you could not

6 easily review over the weekend, Ms. Loukas.

7 MS. LOUKAS: Precisely, Your Honour. In fact, never let it be

8 said that I would be in any way questioning the contemporaneous notes.

9 But my only point is this, and I think what I said was that it was

10 accepted by Mr. Stewart as a concept in general terms, in principle, that

11 would be acceptable.

12 Of course, we don't have the transcript, and that's a side-issue

13 I want to raise. I think, Your Honour, it would be useful, I think up to

14 a point we did have -- transcripts were automatically received of the 65

15 ters. I think we have something now of a backlog in relation to those

16 and I think it would be useful for all parties if we could have

17 transcripts of the remaining 65 ters, informal meetings that we've had

18 between the parties. It would be appropriate, in my submission, that we

19 receive the transcripts of the --

20 JUDGE ORIE: I think that's --

21 MS. LOUKAS: That's a side-issue.

22 JUDGE ORIE: At several occasions we have discussed whether a

23 full transcripts should be made because it requires a transcriber to be

24 present and I think that the parties often agreed that we would say we

25 have the tape whenever it's needed. And this might be a moment to find

1 out exactly what has been said, not because one party doesn't agree with

2 the other, but just to know what was said.

3 MS. LOUKAS: And as I've already --

4 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore, as I can imagine, even with the

5 assistance of the Chamber, that someone would listen to the tape,

6 identify the relevant part, and that that part is either on an audiotape

7 or otherwise transcribed. So that we know exactly what has been said at

8 that moment.

9 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. But as I've already indicated,

10 the Defence accepts that there was a general discussion of that nature on

11 that day and obviously I don't think any of us could be in a position to

12 indicate specific details without the transcript. But there is -- there

13 was a generalised discussion of that nature and there was an acceptance

14 in principle. So that's the first point.

15 The second point is this: Just in relation to the discussion

16 that occurred late in Friday's session. I indicated that, on page 77 of

17 that day's transcript, that it might be useful if Mr. Hannis or a member

18 of the Prosecution team were to produce a list of the categories of

19 documents that are being proposed. And Your Honour, of course, then

20 invited the Prosecution to avoid that the discussion today occurs on too

21 abstract a level.

22 Just in relation to that, Your Honour: Mr. Tieger has, of

23 course, helpfully this morning indicated orally what again the broad

24 outlines would be. And of course, they appear to go beyond matters of

25 municipal governance and include documents of a military nature and also

1 dossiers of a thematic nature across the case.

2 As I've indicated, in principle, the Defence does not have an

3 objection to this particular aspect, but I must raise again the fact that

4 the Defence is already labouring under severe time constraints in terms

5 of inadequate preparation time for the trial overall. So I think we

6 would have to reserve this question in terms of the amount of documents

7 we're talking about, in terms of the time that we have available to deal

8 with the sort of documents we're talking about. Your Honour, they are my

9 preliminary observations. In principle, it's not a concept that the

10 Defence is opposed to, but I think it has to be taken on board that we

11 are in a situation where we are labouring under severe time constraints.

12 So if we're served with, you know, thousands of pages of documents and we

13 have to agree the next day whilst we're still struggling under the time

14 pressures of dealing with the fire-fighting exercise of the trial

15 schedule, along with the outstanding issues of 92 bis and what have you,

16 there's in fact, Your Honour, a limit to what a small Defence team can

17 achieve, as compared with the numbers of people available to the

18 Prosecution in assisting them with the production of these documents.

19 We have human limits, Your Honour, as to what we can achieve on a

20 small -- with a small team and limited time. And I do make that point.

21 We know that there are many thousands and thousands of documents in this

22 case, and I guess the basic point is the Defence team has human elements

23 in terms of time available.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand.

25 Two issues have been raised: Time, which you can't respond to at

1 this moment, I take it, Mr. Tieger; quantity. What about quantity? If

2 you are preparing these dossiers, do you have any idea on whether we get

3 three binders full of propaganda or would you select the most important

4 ones and come up with 30 pages? What do you have in mind?

5 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, regardless of what we had in mind

6 previously, I certainly understand that the Prosecution is being invited

7 to be attentive to the concerns expressed by the Defence and by the Court

8 throughout the pendency of the case. I think there's no doubt that there

9 are, as the Court is aware, many, many, many documents relevant to each

10 of the individual municipalities and relevant to a couple of themes that

11 we've already discussed. I hear the Court as urging the Prosecution to

12 be as selective as reasonably possible, trying to balance the information

13 which the Court needs to make an appropriate decision with the various

14 constraints impacting the case. I don't know that it's helpful for me at

15 this point to provide the Court with an estimate of, for example, the

16 number of pages, the number of documents, the number of binders that

17 could be expected for any given municipality, and I do expect that they

18 would vary. Surely a document-rich municipality is one for which the

19 Court would expect the Prosecution to produce more than for one that did

20 not generate that kind of material. On the other hand, I hear the Court

21 as urging the Prosecution, nevertheless, to be selective within those

22 individual categories as well.

23 I appreciate that's more of a conceptual answer than a specific

24 one, but perhaps the best way to address it would be for the Prosecution

25 to submit its first dossier, see where the objections, if any, lie,

1 determine whether or not, in light of the size of that municipality, the

2 relative significance of that municipality, the size of the dossier

3 appears appropriate.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, first of all, it seems, Mr. Tieger, as

5 if you are able to mind reading where you said that you understood that

6 the Prosecution is being invited to be attentive to the concerns

7 expressed by the Defence. That was certainly on our mind.

8 The second thing I'd like to say is the following: If we have a

9 document-rich municipality, whether or not you should then also produce a

10 significant higher number of documents is still to be considered, I would

11 say. It depends on the importance of those documents. We have a similar

12 issue was dealt with with the adjudicated facts of last Friday. Of some

13 camps we do know far more detail. It's not always necessary then to use

14 that detail in presentation of a case. Sometimes you might know from 20

15 prisoners exactly how much weight they lost, which is, of course, more

16 information than perhaps from another camp. But that does not

17 necessarily mean that these individual data on the loss of weight is that

18 important that it should be presented.

19 I think your suggestion that you should slowly start to introduce

20 these dossiers after having reviewed their content with in the back of

21 your mind the observations made by the Defence and the observations I

22 just made, might be a good approach, because I do not hear any objection

23 against the concept. I'll ask to identify the relevant portion of the

24 March meeting so that the Chamber is also fully aware of what the parties

25 at that time said, apart from to what extent a 65 ter meeting always in

1 all its details binds the parties. But we'll look at that.

2 Ms. Loukas, I think we provisionally dealt with this issue.

3 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. I've made my preliminary

4 observations. I think everybody --

5 JUDGE ORIE: -- knows what the next steps are, yes.

6 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I think that the next topic in the

7 agenda, therefore, is the question of Defence exhibits.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Defence exhibits. Other than those still

9 pending on the list.

10 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. Now, the first aspect is D7 on

11 the exhibit list.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 MS. LOUKAS: What occurred there was that during the

14 cross-examination of Mr. Treanor, a particular map was submitted in

15 association with the question of the Cutileiro plan. The map was then

16 replaced in the exhibit as the Prosecution had served upon us their map.

17 Now, what occurred then was that I think there was a discussion between

18 Mr. Tieger and Mr. Stewart, and Mr. Tieger can correct me if I'm wrong,

19 and it was of course the fact that Mr. Treanor had been cross-examined on

20 the first map. So it becomes, I think, abundantly clear that what should

21 be in the exhibit is copies of both maps and one can become 7A and the

22 other can become 7B. I think 7A would be the original map that was

23 tendered and was used to cross-examine Mr. Treanor. And then 7 -- no?

24 Is it the other way around?

25 [Defence counsel confer]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honour. I think it would be that --

2 sorry, Your Honour. I'm just confirming which one is 7A and which one is

3 7B. 7A I think would be the current exhibit, which is, of course, the

4 map that was provided by the OTP.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, do we have ERN numbers on them?

6 Because I --

7 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, there are.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I can easily identify what ERN number D7 now has and

9 then you could indicate to us which one should then be 7A and 7B.

10 MS. LOUKAS: Precisely, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I have D7 at this moment, the copy in the hands of

12 the registrar bears last four digits 4000 as an ERN number.

13 MS. LOUKAS: That's correct, Your Honour, and that would be D7A.

14 JUDGE ORIE: That would be D7A then.

15 MS. LOUKAS: And then D7B does not have an ERN because that was

16 the document that we produced.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I perhaps -- and which has not been

18 admitted into evidence. Could I just have a look at D7B, then, so to see

19 whether it comes ...

20 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. That was, of course, the document

21 that Mr. Treanor was cross-examined upon, and therefore the relevance of

22 ensuring that both maps are within that particular exhibit.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I certainly remember the two maps. As a

24 matter of fact, the difference is that D7, which then will become D7A, is

25 more or less by hand dividing the territories and giving the keys also in

1 handwriting on a pre-existing map; whereas the other map, from what I see

2 in the B/C/S, already specifically refers to this map as a Cutileiro map

3 and which is produced not by further design on an existing map, but seems

4 to have been created as a Cutileiro map. At least, that's what it says.

5 Any objection?

6 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour. I think that's an appropriate way

7 to proceed. I would simply note by way of small amplification that --

8 and I believe this recollection is accurate - at the time the documents

9 were first tendered, there was some discussion about the provenance. The

10 Defence indicated candidly they had secured some of the documents off of

11 the Internet. They asked us if we had some documents that could assist.

12 We searched and found some documents that had been produced to the OTP by

13 Mr. Cutileiro, including the map and we presented them to the Defence.

14 The Defence then substituted that map. Our only concern was that, as Ms.

15 Loukas indicated, that Mr. Treanor had been asked questions about that

16 first map and it seemed like it should not disappear from the record.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So whatever the provenance of that map

18 provided by the Defence may be, there's no objection against admitting it

19 into evidence, although with these provisos, these cautions, I would say,

20 from Prosecution side, as D7B. Madam Registrar, D7 will then be D7A, and

21 -- yes, Mr. Krajisnik.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, Your Honour. The map that

23 was put forward by the Prosecution is a Muslim map. It is not

24 Cutileiro's map. It's a mistake. I do apologise for having to

25 intervene, but that's what I wanted to say. It is a version of a Muslim

1 map. It is not Cutileiro's map, the one provided by the Prosecution.

2 And I do apologise once again. Thank you.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I think it's a map which was introduced

4 through Mr. Treanor. I am not aware of the existence of any Muslim or

5 Serb or Croat or whatever kind of maps. I know that some maps are

6 created by persons with a certain nationality or ethnicity. This might

7 be of relevance for interpreting the data on this map.

8 But I do understand that, Ms. Loukas, that Mr. Krajisnik at least

9 opposes against this map as depicting a Cutileiro plan, and of course

10 then we have to consider at what stages. But --

11 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I would indicate in relation to

12 that, and of course further evidence will emerge, but as I understand it,

13 there's a question of what was a proposed Cutileiro map, what was the

14 proposal that came from the Bosnian Serbs, what was the proposal that

15 came from the Bosnian Muslims, and what was the proposal that came from

16 the Bosnian Croatians. But of course they're matters that will be

17 cleared up further in evidence. But at this stage --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. Could we -- but is it the

19 position of the Defence that the map, well, let's say with the

20 handwritten legenda on it, that that is a map as introduced by Mr.

21 Treanor, a map used during the Cutileiro --

22 MS. LOUKAS: No, in fact --

23 JUDGE ORIE: -- exercise, or is it something that comes from --

24 MS. LOUKAS: Well, no. The distinction is this, in fact, Your

25 Honour: D7B is the map that was actually used by the Defence in

1 cross-examining Mr. Treanor.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MS. LOUKAS: 7A, D7A, is the map that the Prosecution produced.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. But both parties claim that

5 these maps are in whatever relation with I would say the Cutileiro

6 exercise, then. Is that -- is there any dispute about -- well, whoever

7 drafted them and in what stage of the negotiations they were used or

8 introduced by whom is perhaps still uncertain. But is there any

9 disagreement as these two maps having played a role at least during the

10 Cutileiro exercise?

11 MR. TIEGER: No disagreement as to 7A, Your Honour. As to 7B,

12 again, I related its provenance. I don't know what role it played during

13 the Cutileiro discussions. It was the document to my recollection that

14 was presented to Mr. Treanor. Therefore, it has relevance in these

15 proceedings. I should also add that I believe 7A, which was the

16 subsequent document chronologically, was presented and discussed during

17 the course of Mr. Okun's testimony, so it's also imbedded in these

18 proceedings, I think.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, I'm a bit hesitating at this moment

21 because it seems that Mr. Krajisnik has some additional information for

22 the Chamber of which, of course -- I do not know whether it's more

23 appropriate to invite him to address the Chamber directly, which usually

24 in procedural matters is not a thing we do. But I leave it up to you

25 whether you want to respond first or whether you want to --

1 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, at this stage I don't propose to

2 say anything further. It appears that Mr. Krajisnik does want to

3 indicate something to the Trial Chamber. So at this stage I don't wish

4 to say anything.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Krajisnik, I'll allow you to address the

6 Chamber, but at this moment we are not discussing the content of this

7 evidence. We're just discussing at this moment the request of the

8 Defence, and you've heard the Prosecution, that the Prosecution agrees

9 that the other map should be in the record as well. So we're not at this

10 moment in a discussion as to what is the right map or what's the wrong

11 map or who drafted it rightly or wrongly, but just the issue at this

12 moment is whether, on our list of exhibits, this second map should also

13 appear. So that's the issue. Please tell us what you would like to tell

14 us.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I really do apologise most

16 profoundly for having to ask for the floor. I would just like to assist

17 the Trial Chamber, in actual fact. Every side put forward its proposal

18 before Cutileiro: the Serbian, the Croatian, and the Muslim side. And

19 Mr. Cutileiro just provided one map, a single map, and it is this map

20 here. Now, the proposal that we've just heard from the Prosecution is

21 one of the versions put forward by the Muslim side. I just wanted a note

22 to be taken of that.

23 So please, I do apologise for asking for the floor. I know it's

24 not the done thing. But I just wanted to prevent you going down the

25 wrong road. It's difficult to retrace one's steps after that. And there

1 is evidence. All the papers published the map and you can look into it.

2 So that's what I wanted to bring to your attention and I do apologise

3 most profoundly for taking the floor and taking up your time. Thank you.

4 JUDGE ORIE: No problem. You have drawn your attention, as was

5 already done in cross-examination, that there might have been more maps

6 used during the Cutileiro exercise, and as indicated by Ms. Loukas, it's

7 a matter of presenting further evidence on who exactly, when, et cetera.

8 So that's -- if it goes beyond the cross-examination of Mr. Treanor and

9 if it goes beyond the cross-examination of Mr. Okun, of course, if it

10 ever comes to that, there will be a stage in these proceedings where the

11 Defence presents its case and where ample opportunity will exist on the

12 presentation of further evidence on the Cutileiro exercise, which of

13 course the Chamber is aware is one of the important issues, it seems,

14 until now for the Defence.

15 Madam Registrar, I now hand over to you, if you haven't got a

16 copy yet, then the second map, which will be D7B. Yes.

17 Any further issues on Defence exhibits? Apart from the list

18 of --

19 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I just noted in D8, I think

20 there's a translation pending, and we're just wondering what the status

21 is in relation to D8. And we can inform the Chamber that we have, in

22 fact, the English translation, and we can tender that. We have seven

23 copies.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do I understand that you did not only put the

25 question, but also answered the question? Is that --

1 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, indeed, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, if that's something you could do more

3 often, then that would be great.

4 MS. LOUKAS: It's something of an internal Socratic method, Your

5 Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the translation is there and can be -- has

7 the Prosecution already received a copy of the translation? No. Could

8 we provisionally, unless the Prosecution comes back with any complaints

9 about the translation, could we provisionally now admit it as D8.1.

10 Madam Registrar. And if you would then perhaps read out what it is a

11 translation of.

12 MS. LOUKAS: I can indicate, Your Honour, that it is the official

13 translation that we've received --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 MS. LOUKAS: -- from CLSS.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you know sometimes --

17 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed I do, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 THE REGISTRAR: D8.1 is the English translation of pages 101,

20 102, and 103 of book written by Alija Izetbegovic, entitled "Memoirs."

21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

22 Any other issues in relation to your exhibits?

23 MS. LOUKAS: The next topic we come to, Your Honour, in terms of

24 the Defence exhibits, relates to D12, D13 and D14. Mr. Hannis indicated

25 this he was registering I think an objection of sorts in relation to D12.

1 JUDGE ORIE: D12 only, yes.

2 MS. LOUKAS: What remains outstanding in terms of that particular

3 witness, of course, is the material in relation to Mr. Adil Draganovic.

4 Mr. Hannis and I have discussed this. I have the bundle of material that

5 was provided by the Prosecution that -- Your Honours may recall that when

6 I was cross-examining this particular witness, the Prosecution made a

7 suggestion which seemed eminently sensible in the circumstances, that we

8 present that material to the Chamber. So we do have that material, and

9 I'd be seeking to tender that material in relation to that particular

10 witness.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 Is that related in any specific way, then, to -- do you have any

13 suggestion for the numbering? Should we just give it a separate number

14 or should we make it D13 or D14? You said I haven't got the total list

15 here, but ...

16 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I had wondered about that, about

17 where precisely we might insert it. I suppose it could become 14B or

18 something of that nature, or 12B. Because we don't want to sort of have

19 this material outside the series of exhibits relating to this particular

20 witness. That's the problem.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then perhaps D14. If we would renumber D14 to

22 be D14A, and then to have this material D14B. Is that acceptable, or am

23 I then creating links which are without any foundation?

24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I understand what you're trying to

25 accomplish. I don't have an objection to that. It seems to me it's more

1 related to Mr. Karabeg's statement in D12 than it is to D14. But either

2 way is fine with me.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Shall we then more or less -- we could

4 also -- we could then keep D12 as it is and make this D12A, perhaps.

5 Yes, Ms. Loukas. D12A.

6 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. These are the documents in

7 question, that I've been anxious to unload for some time now.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll take some of the burden off your

9 shoulders.

10 Any further issues in relation to Defence exhibits?

11 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please put on your microphone.

13 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honour. There's just another issue in

14 relation to this particular witness, and that is that there was some

15 questioning in relation to a question of a diary that was to be produced,

16 and thus far, I think this was back in -- the 24th, 26th of May, around

17 this period. Of course some time has passed since then and we've

18 received no notification as to this outstanding diary.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis.

20 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I checked on that yesterday. The diary

21 has arrived. In addition, Mr. Karabeg I believe testified that he had

22 made some notes with regard to a particular meeting that was with his

23 diary. I understand from the investigator's report that he has found the

24 diary but he said he did not found the notes.

25 We have the diary. As I understand there was so the issue, some

1 concerns about personal matters in the diary and what we had proposed at

2 the time was when we received it was to give it to the Court to see if

3 there were any personal matters that either of the parties should not see

4 and if you identified anything that was relevant to the issue, then you

5 could let under the circumstances know, we would make the translations,

6 give it to the Defence and submit whatever portions were necessary.

7 JUDGE ORIE: When it the diary arrive.

8 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I don't recall. We've had it for some

9 time.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Then if it was your plan to give it to the Court,

11 then it could have arrive soon after that moment.

12 MR. HANNIS: Yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Well let's try now to get things on the right

14 path. If you would -- have you any idea on how many pages there are?

15 MR. HANNIS: I don't recall, Your Honour. I had the ERN range in

16 the e-mail, but I don't recall how many pages it was.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll receive that soon and see whether

18 it's -- with what precision we could check in the in the diary whether

19 personal matters are involved.

20 MS. LOUKAS: Now there's just one final outstanding matter in

21 relation to this particular witness, Your Honour. That was -- as part of

22 the questioning I referred this particular witness to evidence that he

23 had given in a previous trial, and Your Honours asked for the relevant

24 pages. And again, this is a matter I discussed some time ago with Mr.

25 Hannis. Rather than just giving the page, there's a tiny bit of context.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 So there's an additional page as well so that the matter is not taken out

2 of context, Your Honour.

3 So I can indicate I have copies of the relevant portions that --

4 copies of the previous transcript that I referred the witness to.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Questions were about -- so it's not evidence,

6 but it's just to -- should we mark it for identification? So this is the

7 statement the witness is confronted with? Mr. Hannis, I see you're on

8 your feet.

9 MS. LOUKAS: I actually cross-examined on statements that --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay.

11 MS. LOUKAS: -- from the previous transcript.

12 MR. HANNIS: No. I have no objection if Your Honours want to

13 mark it as an exhibit. I would suggest D12B, if it's necessary.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Prosecution has seen the selection made by the

15 Defence and --

16 MR. HANNIS: Not recently, but I have seen it.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. And there's no objection to that.

18 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, just in relation to the suggestion made

19 by Mr. Hannis, I think that -- I think the decision was that material

20 relating to Mr. Draganovic would come under 12B, so perhaps it would be

21 more suitable for this transcript to come under perhaps 12C. I think we

22 already have a 12B. -- 12A.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, you're the only one who knows

24 whether we have a 12B or not.

25 MS. LOUKAS: I think Ms. Philpott with her usual efficiency will

1 sort out that particular problem with the A,B, C.

2 JUDGE ORIE: We have not, but of course we have now on our desk

3 the Draganovic material, and it might be suitable to make that 12B. And

4 then this would be 12C. And again, Ms. Loukas, I'm very bad in numbers.

5 99-36 is what case.

6 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, that's Brdjanin and Talic, Your Honour, the case

7 against Mr. Brdjanin and Mr. Talic -- the late Mr. Talic.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 Madam Registrar, then the selection of the Draganovic material

10 would be under 12B. No objections. Therefore we admit it into evidence.

11 And then the pages 6071 and 6072, and the pages 6159 and 6160 of

12 the Brdjanin and Talic case, which is the testimony of Mr. Karabeg in

13 open session, are admitted under 12C.

14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

15 JUDGE ORIE: I'd better leave it to Madam Registrar, because I'm

16 making a mess out of it. 12A, B, and C will be now newly introduced by

17 Madam Registrar only, and there will be no C.

18 THE REGISTRAR: D12A will be the material relating to Mr.

19 Draganovic.

20 And 12B will be the pages from the Brdjanin trial, 6071, 6159,

21 and 6160.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, I hesitate to interfere, but I have

23 four pages, and I just mentioned four. You come to three. I think you

24 missed 6072.

25 THE REGISTRAR: 6072. Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE ORIE: The four pages under 12B.

2 Any further issues?

3 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. Just in relation to D21. That

4 was, in fact, an exhibit from the Defence that was actually withdrawn at

5 the time because the Prosecution had a copy in their binders. But, of

6 course, there's still the remaining question in relation to these

7 particular exhibits of this particular witness in relation to P200, as to

8 a selection being made. So if as part of the selection this document

9 isn't included then we would have to reinsert it into the Defence

10 exhibits.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 MS. LOUKAS: So there's just that remaining issue which we need

13 to --

14 JUDGE ORIE: D21 should be reinserted if P200 would not contain

15 this document any more after the selection is made.

16 MS. LOUKAS: In fact, Your Honour, it's P200, tab 32 that we're

17 dealing with in that particular instance, to give it more specificity.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any further issues.

19 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to D26, and this is the last matter

20 pertaining to Defence exhibits, Ms. Cmeric noted that a copy was required

21 from the Defence in English in relation to this particular document, and

22 we do have those copies now to submit to the Court.

23 JUDGE ORIE: And that will then be D26.1, I take it.

24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, if that's the English, I think that

25 would be D26 --

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's the original, yes.

2 Madam Registrar, it looks as if here the English is the original

3 one. It's the -- at least I see the statement signed.

4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that at this moment we have the

6 English, so we're waiting for the B/C/S version rather than ... I do

7 think that, because Madam Registrar says me that that's the case.

8 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. It was indicated in the list that

9 it was English copy was requested, but we have both, in any event.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps Madam Registrar, could you please check in

11 the ...

12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

13 JUDGE ORIE: Both copies are there already. So we should just

14 then check on the list whether they're both registered as such. Ms.

15 Loukas, there's another pleasant surprise that you've done already what

16 you intend to do.

17 MS. LOUKAS: [Microphone not activated] Sorry, Your Honour. Of

18 course, it's never a surprise, but it's just I think that the list we

19 received on the 29th of September said that it was required. So Ms.

20 Cmeric, with her usual efficiency, matching Ms. Philpott's usual

21 efficiency, have managed to produce the desired result.

22

23 JUDGE ORIE: And you said it was the last issue to be raised in

24 respect of --

25 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Your Honour, at this stage I think the -- at

1 this stage we've dealt with the -- as many outstanding issues as we can

2 in relation to both the Prosecution exhibits and the Defence exhibits.

3 And I think the next topic is 92 bis summaries.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 MS. LOUKAS: There is one matter I'd want to raise in respect of

6 that, and it might be, in view of the topic, appropriate to go briefly

7 into private session.

8 JUDGE ORIE: We'll turn into private session.

9 [Private session]

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 6621 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 6622 redacted. Private session.

12

13

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 [Open session]

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

16 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, we can proceed with the reading of the

17 summaries, if you wish.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and please do so at such speed that the

19 interpreters and the transcribers are still able to follow you.

20 MR. GAYNOR: Certainly, Your Honour. The first witness is

21 Witness 219.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps before we -- I explain just briefly for the

23 record that these are summaries of written statements of witnesses who

24 have not testified viva voce but whose statements are admitted into

25 evidence and therefore can play a role in determinations this Chamber has

1 to make. And for the purpose of public being aware what happens in this

2 trial, short summaries of these statements are read.

3 Please proceed, Mr. Gaynor.

4 MR. GAYNOR: The first witness is Witness 219.

5 "The witness and others were taken to the army barracks in Brcko

6 on 6th of May, 1992. The women and children were separated and taken

7 away. The men, aged 15 onward, stayed behind. Only Muslims and Croats

8 remained in the barracks. The following day, more people were brought

9 into the barracks. Again, the women and children were separated and

10 taken elsewhere.

11 On 7th May 1992, the witness was taken with others to clean the

12 centre of Brcko town. There were men in uniform around, but otherwise

13 the town was empty. The witness and the others were split into groups to

14 clean the SUP building.

15 In front of the SUP building, Goran Jelisic lined up three men

16 from the witness's group and beat them with a baton. He took the men

17 into the SUP police station. Minutes later, two of the three men raced

18 out of the police building. A shot rang out from inside the building,

19 then some policemen and Jelisic raced out of the police building. A

20 policeman caught one of the men and turned him over to Jelisic. Jelisic

21 shot the man in the back. One of the soldiers said to Jelisic, "Adolf,

22 that's your 52nd today." The other man who had run away was also caught.

23 Jelisic asked the witness about the Green Berets, the ZNGs, and

24 the HVO, and cursed the witness's mother. Jelisic hit the witness on the

25 head and neck with a baton and pointed his gun at the witness.

1 The witness was made to carry two dead bodies out of the SUP

2 building. The witness and others were later lined up in the street and

3 forced to sing, while Jelisic conducted with his baton."

4 Your Honours, Mr. Hannis will read the next two.

5 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Your Honours, the next witness is KRAJ

6 213.

7 "The witness describes executions by Serb police of Muslim

8 civilians that took place outside the SUP building in Brcko on or about 6

9 May 1992.

10 On 4 May, the witness was arrested by Serb soldiers and taken to

11 a mosque. There were up to 200 men in the mosque, between the ages of 18

12 and 60, and they were guarded by men wearing uniforms of Arkan's

13 soldiers, White Eagles, and other groups. Detainees at the mosque were

14 interrogated, and asked questions such as where they lived and what party

15 they belonged to. One detainee tried to escape from the mosque and was

16 shot in the back by one of Arkan's soldiers.

17 The witness and 15 others were moved to the military barracks in

18 the middle of Brcko town. Most of the men moved to the barracks were

19 from Brcko Novo, Mujkici, and Meraje. The next day, the witness went to

20 clean up glass around the SUP building. While the witness cleaned, Goran

21 Jelisic questioned him about the SDA, young Muslims, and the ZNGs. The

22 witness and others were then taken into the SUP building for

23 interrogation. Jelisic beat the witness on the head and shoulders with a

24 baton during the interrogation.

25 While in the SUP building, the witness heard gunfire outside.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 The two soldiers guarding the witness ran out of the room, and the

2 witness ran after them. The witness was later told by men who were

3 outside that Hasan Jasarevic had tried to escape from the building but

4 was caught and killed by Jelisic.

5 The witness loaded the bodies of three murdered detainees into a

6 refrigerated truck. One of them had been castrated.

7 Jelisic introduced himself and gave them his nickname, "Serb

8 Adolf." He ordered the witness and other men to form lines in front of

9 the SUP entrance and sing Serb national songs.

10 The witness saw Jelisic take a man down a small side-street. A

11 shot was heard. Jelisic returned from the side-street alone. A

12 refrigerated truck later drove to the street where the man had been

13 taken. The witness saw a detainee come out of the building with a

14 bandaged hand. He moved slowly, limping on one foot. Jelisic beat the

15 man on the shoulders with a baton and told him this was the last time he

16 would see his town. The witness saw Jelisic take the man down the same

17 side-street and heard gunfire. The witness also saw Jelisic take a third

18 man down the side-street and heard gunfire."

19 The next witness, Your Honour, is KRAJ 212.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly make a break for the interpreters.

21 Thank you.

22 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. KRAJ 212.

23 "The witness provides evidence of the targeting of prominent

24 members of the Bosniak community in Brcko by Serb forces.

25 On 5 May 1992, the witness was detained at the Laser Bus Company

1 in Brcko. Goran Jelisic, together with other members of the Bosnian Serb

2 forces, arrived and began to threaten and intimidate the group as they

3 searched for members of a particular, well-known, Muslim family. The

4 witness was taken to the Luka detention camp on 8 May, where he believes

5 up to 1.000 men were detained. Killings in Luka camp were frequent and

6 brutal. Further, persons with the last name of Ramic and Causevic were

7 often called out and killed. These families were known to be active

8 members of the SDA.

9 The witness described the removal of dead bodies or corpses from

10 Luka. He was asked to carry bodies on five occasions to a dumping area

11 adjacent to the administrative offices in the camp. On each occasion he

12 saw approximately 20 bodies piled in this area. One morning, he saw two

13 persons in a refrigerated truck come to Luka to collect the corpses and

14 drive them away.

15 A police inspector from the SUP interrogated the witness at Luka.

16 The witness was asked whether he was a member of the SDA, who was in the

17 SDA, and whether he had family in the Bosnian army. Because he didn't

18 give the interrogators any information, the witness was told he would

19 never leave Luka. The witness remained at Luka until July, when he was

20 transferred with all the other detainees to the Batkovic camp in

21 Bijeljina, where he remained until November 1992, having obtained his

22 release by paying 2.000 Deutschmark."

23 Mr. Gaynor will read the next two, Your Honour.

24 MR. GAYNOR: The next witness is Witness 215.

25 "The witness describes the murder of a man and the mistreatment

1 of herself in Brcko in May 1992.

2 On 1st of May, 1992, the day after the bridges were blown up in

3 Brcko, the witness was stopped by police and ordered to return home. On

4 the same day, she heard intense shelling coming from parts of Brcko town.

5 Several days later, the witness and others were met by soldiers

6 dressed in camouflage uniforms, armed with rifles and knives, and

7 displaying the Serbian tricolour on their sleeves. The soldiers spoke

8 with Serbian accents and said they were Seselj's men.

9 One of the soldiers struck a Serb man for hiding with Muslims.

10 One soldier observed that the man was hiding while the soldiers came to

11 fight for a Greater Serbia.

12 A soldier shot the man in the temple with front of the witness

13 and a child. After killing the man, the soldier who killed him racially

14 insulted the surviving Muslims.

15 The Muslims were then detained in a house. Soldiers discussed

16 what to do with the civilians. The options discussed including taking

17 the young women to brothels, separating the young boys from the women, or

18 taking them to Luka. Later, the witness saw the bodies of several people

19 who had been killed."

20 The next witness is from Sanski Most and is Witness 481.

21 "The witness gives evidence about the destruction of residential,

22 religious, and cultural property in Hrustovo and Vrhpolje; the rounding

23 up of civilian non-Serbs for transfer to camps and detention facilities;

24 beatings and the killing of a number of men in Kenjari on or about 27th

25 of June, 1992. He also provides details about the Detention Centre known

1 as Krings Hall in Sanski Most and the removal of non-Serbs from the

2 municipality.

3 The shelling and attack of Hrustovo and Vrhpolje started at the

4 end of May 1992, by the 6th Krajina Brigade, commanded by Basara. The

5 mosque was targeted, and houses were burned and looted. There were large

6 numbers of soldiers in the villages. Many civilians were killed or taken

7 to Manjaca.

8 The village of Kenjari was surrounded by troops on the 27th of

9 June, 1992. The villagers were rounded up and the men were separated

10 from the women. A number of men were taken to Dujo Banovic's house; the

11 witness describes the killing that took place there.

12 The witness went to Tomina, where he joined other Muslims that

13 had been displaced from Hrustovo and Vrhpolje. Serbs drove this group of

14 refugees to Krings Hall in Sanski Most. The witness describes the

15 inhumane conditions at the camp, including inadequate space and sanitary

16 facilities, insufficient food, and no medical facilities. He describes

17 beatings there, including the beating to death of one detainee.

18 The witness was released from the Hall on the 4th of August,

19 1992. He left Sanski Most on 18th August 1992 on a convoy that went to

20 Travnik."

21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.

22 We have two more items on our agenda. Any further submissions in

23 relation to the videolink motion? We have received the Defence response.

24 Is there any need, Mr. Hannis, to further respond to that?

25 MR. HANNIS: Mr. Hannis. Nothing further, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm sorry. Then the issue of adjudicated facts,

2 which was addressed briefly last Friday; that might take a bit more time.

3 But of course, if you'd say: No, we perfectly understand what the

4 Chamber seeks and we've made up our mind to make new proposals. But

5 otherwise we should have the break first.

6 Mr. Gaynor.

7 MR. GAYNOR: I can outline very briefly the Prosecution's

8 position about this now or after the break, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It also depends on how much it would take, how

10 much time it would take.

11 MR. GAYNOR: It will take about a minute or two.

12 JUDGE ORIE: A minute or two. Has the Defence any outspoken

13 position in relation to ...

14 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, just in relation to this, of

15 course, we were awaiting to hear what the Prosecution had to say before

16 we could finalise our response. In the circumstances, Your Honour, I do

17 have some other matters that need to be dealt with after the break.

18 JUDGE ORIE: So then let's perhaps have the break now and deal

19 with the remaining matters after the break.

20 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. And when one looks at of course what occurred

21 last Friday afternoon, Your Honour invited the OTP to file a

22 substantially reduced list of proposed adjudicated facts, and of course

23 before the Defence can in essence respond to that, we need to know what

24 the Prosecution --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course I do understand that you cannot

1 already respond to such a list, a new list.

2 We will adjourn until 5 minutes to 1.00.

3 --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 1.01 p.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, may I invite you first to express the

6 position of the Prosecution on the issue of the adjudicated facts.

7 MR. GAYNOR: I'll take care of that, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Gaynor, then.

9 MR. GAYNOR: First of all, Your Honour, we've read what Your

10 Honour said on Friday and we will indeed review the adjudicated facts. I

11 just want to clarify before I make a couple of points whether Your Honour

12 wishes us to review the two pending motions for adjudicated facts or the

13 two pending motions plus the adjudicated facts of which Your Honours have

14 already taken judicial notice.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, we have two motions already decided

16 upon on adjudicated facts. The whole exercise of making the adjudicated

17 facts more manageable and more, well, I mean, if we have to refer always

18 to 873 for a detail here or to 255 for a detail there, that would not

19 make much sense if we would leave out the already large number of

20 adjudicated facts admitted into evidence in the earlier decisions.

21 So the Chamber would then have in mind to reorganise the whole of

22 it. But of course, the adjudicated facts already admitted into evidence

23 are there, so it's not to reconsider whether or not in another form these

24 facts could be admitted into evidence. But it would not make much sense

25 to have the half dealt with in the new way and the earlier part in the

1 old fashion.

2 MR. GAYNOR: So we'll review the entirety of the adjudicated

3 facts.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And so to make them -- to reduce the size

5 considerably, make them more manageable, and to leave out a lot of

6 matters that have -- are not really of probative importance for the case

7 as a whole.

8 MR. GAYNOR: We'll do that, Your Honour. I just want to bring

9 Your Honours' attention to an inherent difficulty with adjudicated facts.

10 We see it as our duty as faithfully as possible the fact found by the

11 Trial Chamber. We don't see that we have any liberty to summarise a set

12 of 10 or 20 facts into let's say a three-line sentence. So that's part

13 of the reason why --

14 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. And I can imagine that you would

15 need some more guidance. On the other hand, I do understand that if in

16 other judgement that it is established that -- well, let me give a

17 similar example. If five detainees lost anything between 20 or 25 kilo

18 or that there are five precisely recorded facts that there was no soap,

19 there were no showers, et cetera. Then, with all respect for the

20 faithful following of facts established by other Trial Chambers, of

21 course, it would be a bit silly not to say, well, a couple of detainees

22 or a number of detainees lost considerable weight.

23 And there could even be another solution, that we make a -- well,

24 let's say a working set of adjudicated facts based on the precisely

25 stated adjudicated facts. So that in court we could say: Well, there's

1 no need to go into any detail on how much detainee X, Y, or Z, in

2 addition, lost, because there's sufficient evidence on this camp, loss of

3 weight, because we have established that a couple of detainees lost

4 considerable weight. You understand what I mean? Because otherwise if

5 you want to refer to the adjudicated facts, which makes, for example, new

6 evidence superfluous or repetitious, then we would have to say: Well,

7 it's in 753, detainee X lost 22 kilos. And we then have in 789, we have

8 another detainee who lost 18 kilos. That's not a very practical way of

9 doing that.

10 Perhaps even the parties could sit together, perhaps together

11 with one of the legal officers of the Chamber, to see how we can make

12 them -- a reduced list more manageable. You understand approximately

13 what I mean.

14 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. If I can just raise one point. I think we

15 have two options. One is to seek out redundancy in that existing facts,

16 that is, a fact which is unnecessarily repetitious of an earlier fact.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They can take that out.

18 MR. GAYNOR: In which case we could take that out and that would

19 be a relatively easy operation to carry out and totally

20 non-controversial, I would imagine, with the Defence.

21 However, if Your Honours are inviting us to make a summary of

22 numbers of facts and to summarise that in one paragraph, that would

23 probably, I would, result in an extraordinarily huge amount time -- with

24 the Defence.

25 JUDGE ORIE: When we are trying to get a practical solution for

1 the problems, it should not be the entry to creating more problems.

2 MR. GAYNOR: Exactly.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, one of the suggestions might also be that

4 you make a working document, you say it's still the adjudicated facts

5 that are in evidence, but if we refer to that and that and that we call

6 that so-and-so-and-so. Until now, of course, not a lot of attention has

7 been paid anyhow to the adjudicated facts by the parties because we have

8 not -- I would say not dealt extensively with some of the municipalities

9 where the largest numbers of adjudicated facts are situated.

10 But if you would say, well, we cannot find a working solution

11 together with the Defence -- so apart from taking out whatever is

12 repetitious, then I think one of the legal officers of the Chamber might

13 be of assistance to find a solution.

14 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Your Honour. We'll --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Most likely, that will be Mr. Acquaviva.

16 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, any further submissions in respect of

18 the adjudicated facts?

19 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. We've now heard the response from

20 the Prosecution to Your Honour's invitation in relation to adjudicated

21 facts, and again, subject to time availability, the proposal in relation

22 to potential meetings with the representative from the Trial Chamber will

23 be taken on board, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then what else was on our -- let me just

25 check. I lost my agenda. I notice that you have some other issues, Ms.

1 Loukas, you would like to raise. You'll have an opportunity to do that.

2 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Your Honour will recall when I was dealing

3 with a witness on the 24th of September, 2004, that there was an

4 additional matter that was contained within the witness's evidence that

5 did not appear in any of the previous statements. I discussed the matter

6 with Mr. Gaynor and we agreed that this portion had not been in any way

7 dealt with in any of the previous statements. And as we were subject to

8 time restraints at the time, we agreed that that concession could be made

9 and we could inform Your Honours in relation to that.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Was that a closed session witness? I think it was.

11 Or private session?

12 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. It was open session, as I recall.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you then please repeat what it was that did

14 not appear. Of course, we can look it up, but for the transcript --

15 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, it actually appears on page 23 of the

16 transcript on the 24th of September, 2004. And the question was: "Did

17 he say that he was speaking on behalf of himself, on behalf of the SDS,

18 or on whose behalf was he speaking?" And the answer was, "He said he was

19 speaking on behalf of the body he represented, the Municipal Board of the

20 SDS and the Executive Board of the Municipal Assembly of Kalinovik and

21 all the institutions that come under the Executive Board itself." It's

22 that particular --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Where he did not indicate a similar spokesmanship in

24 his statement.

25 MS. LOUKAS: Correct, Your Honour.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE ORIE: That's then on the record.

2 As the parties have seen,the court schedule is not yet complete

3 up to the end of the year, but since one of the questions on the

4 Prosecution list was what would be our last day to sit in December --

5 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. And also what week, I think it

6 was, that we would not be sitting in November.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that's on a note. Did I put that on

8 the list? No. Most likely, that will be the week of the 13th, if that's

9 a Monday, until the -- no. It should be then the 14th, I take it. Yes.

10 No. Let me just --

11 MS. LOUKAS: The 12th is a Friday. So that would be the 15th.

12 JUDGE ORIE: The 15th. Most likely we'll not sit in the week of

13 the 15th of November up until the 19th, which is then the Friday. That's

14 as far as scheduling goes at this moment. That would be the week we're

15 not sitting. The Chamber intend to sit, well, just until the recess, and

16 of course the last Friday before the recess will be the 17th of December.

17 And as indicated, the Chamber intend not to restart until the 17th of

18 January, which is one week after the recess has finished.

19 MS. LOUKAS: So, Your Honour, I think that leaves, of course, the

20 question of the videolink motion.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 MS. LOUKAS: I think there's also the question of ...

23 JUDGE ORIE: I think that you could expect a decision either

24 tomorrow or the day after tomorrow on the videolink motion.

25 MS. LOUKAS: In relation to that.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

2 MS. LOUKAS: I think there's also the question of the additional

3 information that was received in relation to --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but we should deal with that in private

5 session.

6 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. That's why I didn't mention

7 it, but --

8 JUDGE ORIE: I have it on my mind to turn into private session

9 for that reason.

10 MS. LOUKAS: -- averted to it. Your Honour --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Not at this very moment, but later.

12 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. So that leaves a couple of other

13 matters from the perspective of the Defence. There's also the question

14 of the timing for the return of Witness 526.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

16 MS. LOUKAS: Mr. Kljuic, who's not subject to any protective

17 measures.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Hannis, do you have any idea when you

19 intend to recall Mr. Kljuic for cross-examination?

20 MR. HANNIS: As I recall, Your Honour, he told us he could make

21 two or three days available in mid-or late November and we would wait and

22 see which week we would be off.

23 JUDGE ORIE: From the 20th of November.

24 MR. HANNIS: Yes.

25 JUDGE ORIE: The 22nd is the week where -- a Monday when we'll

1 restart.

2 MR. HANNIS: Okay.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, so the expectation the week of the 22nd

4 of November.

5 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. And I think that there

8 was a question of the delivery on the Trial Chamber -- on its decision on

9 the Defence motion in relation to KRAJ 623.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You can expect a decision either tomorrow or

11 the day after tomorrow. It will be an oral decision.

12 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Just as the other one will be an oral decision,

14 the --

15 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, there's just a couple of other matters.

16 Firstly, Mr. Stewart has I think emailed the Prosecution in relation to

17 getting an update in relation to the amount of hours that have been used

18 thus far by the Prosecution and what's pending. So I place that on the

19 record, that we need a response to that at some point soon.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Time used as you may have noticed, the

21 Chamber, or rather Madam Registrar, also keeps a very precise time

22 record. So if there's any need for information, I'll not invite her to

23 give all the -- the way we deal with it, but if any information is needed

24 from there, please ask us and we'll see what we can do for you.

25 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour. The other aspect is that we

1 also are seeking from the Prosecution a scheduling update. At this

2 stage, I think the schedule that we received takes us up to the 29th of

3 October. I think that schedule is dated the 10th of September. So we

4 really need to have a scheduling update.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, when do you think you could --

6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we were sort of awaiting some of these

7 decisions. We'll try and give them an update tomorrow or Wednesday.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, you'll get new information soon.

9 MS. LOUKAS: The other aspect, Your Honour, is of course that --

10 JUDGE ORIE: It's as if you're cross-examining me, Ms. Loukas.

11 The word "of course" always come from your mouth, if you put a question

12 to -- yes, please.

13 MS. LOUKAS: It's only because I'm inviting a "yes" answer, Your

14 Honour.

15 In relation to 89(F), there's been quite some use of 89(F) in the

16 proceedings thus far, and the Defence would like to place a marker down

17 in relation to the question of the use of 89(F). Firstly, when one looks

18 at the information that was received by e-mail from, I think, Mr. Zahar

19 in relation to the issue, it basically outlined a procedure that, in

20 essence, has not been followed by the Prosecution. The brief description

21 that was given was that the OTP will identify what it considers to be the

22 important aspect of a witness testimony, which parts the witness will be

23 examined, the OTP will also identify the part of the statement that will

24 be completely skipped over and those that will be merely read onto the

25 record. The Defence will be notified of the proposed approach. And

1 various other procedural matters that were indicated there. And this

2 e-mail of the 12th of March, 2004, the Defence does want to place on the

3 record in relation to that that we have not been favoured generally with

4 that approach that was outlined by the Trial Chamber, and the Defence

5 does wish to put down a marker that we would expect that the procedure

6 that was outlined thereby by the Trial Chamber be followed in relation to

7 89(F). That's the first aspect, the aspect relating to the procedure.

8 And secondly, from the Defence perspective, we would submit an

9 overuse of the 89(F) procedure generally in the Prosecution case and

10 we're putting down a marker here in relation to further use of 89(F) in

11 relation to witnesses of one might put at the higher level of the

12 dimensions of evidence that we have to face. And Your Honour, I just

13 want to put that marker down, that it's clearly a situation whereby if

14 one looks at, for example, the Appeals Chamber decision on 89(F) more

15 generally, and of course the dissent that Judge Hunt went into, he refers

16 to the fact that the question of discretion on the part of the Trial

17 Chamber and the fact that the majority decision did not in fact deal with

18 the question of -- yes, the majority Appeals Chamber decision does not

19 address the issue of discretion. And I think that's a matter that needs

20 to be obviously more fully formulated.

21 So it's basically those two markers. Firstly, the question of

22 the fact that the Trial Chamber did outline a procedure to be adopted in

23 relation to 89(F) as at the 12th of March. It appears not to have been

24 adopted in a wholesale manner, as one would have anticipated. And

25 secondly, as a matter of substance, the Defence is concerned at the

1 excessive use of 89(F) in witnesses who go to -- if one put might it, the

2 more -- the aspects of the case that do go to acts and conduct of the

3 accused or matters more proximate to the accused. So in those

4 circumstances, Your Honour, I think there need to be a marker put down by

5 the Defence in relation to both the procedural aspects of 89(F) and also

6 the substantive issues relating to 89(F).

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Hannis, before I give you an opportunity

8 to respond to that, if you want to do that immediately, I make one

9 practical observation, that is, to identify in a statement the parts you

10 would like to examine the witness further on is quite easy. You split up

11 the statement in parts A and parts B, or parts E, for examination, and

12 parts N for non-examination. So therefore, it doesn't take a lot of work

13 to do that. If you have to make up your mind, it's easily put there in

14 such a way that the other party could easily understand what may be the

15 subject of your examination. But that's the practical matter.

16 But, of course, I say this in relation to the procedural

17 complaints by Ms. Loukas, and of course the other matter is the

18 discretion of the Chamber and the -- what Ms. Loukas called the excessive

19 use of 89(F) and of which I can imagine that another party would say the

20 abundant use of 89(F). Please proceed.

21 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. First of all, with regard

22 to the procedure, as I recall, we understood Mr. Zahar's proposal as

23 simply that: a suggested procedure for us to use. In our practical

24 experience, what we initially envisioned as marking parts of the

25 statements as the ones that we wanted to further examine on, giving those

1 to the Defence to see if they had any comments on, getting back doesn't

2 work in real life when victims and witness has time and money pressures

3 about when this witness can come. And when we talk to them we find out

4 often times that things in the statement maybe aren't the way that they

5 seem to be and we found that that procedure at least in our experience

6 wouldn't work very well. I do hear what the Court is saying and I hear

7 the Defence complaint that perhaps we're using 89(F) too much. But in

8 the end, the witness is here and can be cross-examined on matters that go

9 more to the core or acts and conducts of the accused. It's been a

10 learning experience for us and I know at one time Your Honour commented

11 that you would have expected the original projected time of four hours,

12 if we used 89(F) to be more in the nature of two hours instead of the

13 three hours I took with one witness in particular.

14 But every sentence, every paragraph opens up a new question when

15 we go through their statement and it's hard to predict in advance which

16 ones will require further follow-up.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, the marker is there, put there by the

18 Defence. The problem is that if a witness arrives and if changes have to

19 be made in the portions on which the Prosecution intended to examine the

20 witness and the portions it would just satisfy itself by reading out the

21 statement, of course, there's one risk. If you assess the necessity of

22 further examination in advance and you have to adjust that assessment at

23 a later stage, I can imagine that the Defence would object for making

24 changes at such a late stage. On the other hand, if we leave them

25 without any information, they might concentrate on the wrong parts.

1 So therefore, I invite the parties to further -- perhaps together

2 then with Mr. Zahar to find a solution for this problem which is mainly a

3 practical, procedural problem. Yes? Mr. Hannis is nodding yes. Your

4 nodding is not yet on the transcript, Ms. Loukas. I don't know whether

5 it's yes or no.

6 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I can indicate that I'm happy to meet

7 with the Prosecution and Mr. Zahar.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.

9 MS. LOUKAS: On issue. What remains, therefore, Your Honour, of

10 course, is - and I hesitate to use the word "of course" - what remains is

11 that we have outstanding submissions to be made in terms of 92 bis, quite

12 a number of witnesses to be dealt with. And of course, the parties had a

13 meeting with a representative from the Trial Chamber, Mr. De Hemptinne in

14 relation to that and I did indicate in relation to that meeting that in

15 view of the time constraints under which the Defence team is operating,

16 that meeting the 92 bis schedule as outlined at that meeting will be a

17 course of quite some difficulty. And I wanted to place that on the

18 record as well, Your Honour. We're struggling at this time to meet the

19 exigencies of the current court schedule, let alone adding a timetable in

20 relation to 92 bis that may, well, in my submission is not realistic in

21 all the circumstances. And I wish to place that on the record as well.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, of course, 92 bis statements are usually

23 in relation with viva voce testimony and not always, but mainly they are,

24 and it's of some importance to deal with them to the extent possible

25 together and not to deal with the 92 bis statement on municipality X,

1 where the viva voce evidence has been heard six months prior to that

2 moment. So therefore, I wouldn't say that the Chamber would not be

3 willing to accept some flexibility, but certainly within limits. Of

4 course, the limits further to be determined. But I noticed you have put

5 on record now that you're struggling with that. And I might invite Mr.

6 De Hemptinne to further speak with you.

7 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. It's just that -- and I think

8 whereas the Defence in general, both Mr. Stewart and I, have placed on

9 record on a number of occasions that, in view of the size of our Defence

10 team and what we have to confront in terms of the magnitude of the

11 material in the case, and of course it is still a fundamental issue in

12 relation to the equality of arms, in essence. So I think what I do need

13 to place on the record at this stage, as a last matter of housekeeping,

14 as it were, is that I'm proposing to file a motion to withdraw, Your

15 Honours, on the basis that the Defence has had inadequate time to

16 prepare, woefully inadequate time has been granted, and in those

17 circumstances, cannot provide an effective defence in the time that's

18 been made available, and all the implications that that carries for a

19 fair trial for Mr. Krajisnik. And I consider that it is my professional

20 obligation to file a motion to withdraw, and I wish to place that on the

21 record as well, Your Honours, that I am proposing to undertake that

22 course.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I don't think it's a subject on which

24 the Prosecution would like to respond at this moment, apart from that

25 might be something you would not intend to respond on anyhow.

1 Ms. Loukas, you indicated that you'll file such a motion. Then

2 of course the Chamber will have to consider that motion.

3 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. When I find time in amongst

4 all the other --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that would be the ultimate consequence of

6 having insufficient time, not even finding the time to file a motion to

7 withdraw. At the same time, I think it goes without saying that whatever

8 the decision will be, that the Code of Conduct and the Rules of the

9 Tribunal impose obligations on counsel even if they have expressed their

10 wish to withdraw.

11 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. And of course it's not --

12 that's why I foreshadowed it now, Your Honour, because it's not an

13 indication that I would make lightly, it's certainly a matter of which

14 I've consulted widely and noted the Code of Conduct, and that's why I say

15 I consider that it is my professional obligation to file this motion,

16 both in terms of protecting the interests of Mr. Krajisnik and his right

17 to a fair trial, and in terms of my professional obligations.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, we'll receive that motion and

19 we'll deal with it.

20 Mr. Hannis.

21 MR. HANNIS: One last matter, Your Honour. I wanted to inquire

22 about the schedule tomorrow. I understand --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll say something about that at the end of

24 this session. But before we do that, we have one other issue we should

25 deal with in private session. We'll turn into private session for the

1 next, well, approximately seven to ten minutes.

2 [Private session]

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 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 6649 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 6650 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 6651 redacted. Private session.

12

13

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 [Open session]

17 JUDGE ORIE: We're in open session again. We're close to the

18 conclusion of today's hearing. Tomorrow we'll start at 11.00. I'll just

19 try to verify.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE ORIE: I start hesitating about my own time schedule for

22 tomorrow. Let me just see whether I can ... I'll sort that out

23 immediately when I leave the courtroom at this moment. The reason for a

24 late start, whether it's 10.30 or 11.00, is that the Dutch head of state

25 will visit the Tribunal tomorrow and that the Judges have some duties

1 during the first hours of the day. I'll let you know within the next

2 hour whether we'll start at 10.30 or 11.00.

3 Then, if there's no other issue to be raised at this moment,

4 we'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, time still to be indicated, where

5 we'll have one break time still to be determined. And we'll then

6 continue until a quarter to 2.00. Yes, it's in Courtroom I.

7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

8 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 5th day of

9 October, 2004, at 11 a.m.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25