1 Tuesday, 2 May 2000
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.42 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be
7 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen; good
8 morning to the technical booth. Is everyone present?
9 Yes. Once we resume, I'm going to ask the Office of
10 the Prosecution to introduce themselves.
11 MS. HOLLIS: Good morning, Your Honours.
12 Brenda Hollis, Michael Keegan, and Kapila Waidyaratne
13 appear on behalf of the Prosecutor.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
15 very much, Ms. Hollis.
16 And now the Defence, in the order of the
17 accused, will they please announce their names.
18 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning,
19 Your Honours. Defence of Mr. Kvocka, Mr. Lukic and
20 co-defence Mr. Simic.
21 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Kos is
22 represented by Zarko Nikolic and Jelena Nikolic.
23 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
24 good morning, I'm Toma Fila and together with Zoran
25 Jovanovic we represent Mr. Mladjo Radic.
1 MR. TOSIC: [Interpretation] Good morning,
2 Your Honours. I'm attorney Simo Tosic from Banja Luka,
3 my co-counsel Mr. Slobodan Stojanovic, attorney from
4 Belgrade, and we represent Zoran Zigic.
5 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning,
6 Your Honour. Jovan Simic, Dusan Masic, and Goran Rodic
7 representing Dragoljub Prcac.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] For the
9 accused Kvocka we have Lukic and Simic. And if I heard
10 well, I didn't quite hear the first name of Mr. Prcac's
11 attorney. Could you repeat your name, please?
12 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Jovan Simic.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.
14 Thank you.
15 Mr. Dubuisson, can you call the case,
17 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes, Your
18 Honour. It is case number IT-98-30-T, the Prosecutor
19 versus Miroslav Kvocka, Milojica Kos, Mladjo Radic,
20 Zoran Zigic and Dragoljub Prcac.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
22 very much. I see that Mr. Nikolic has something to
24 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour,
25 the co-counsel's name has not entered the transcript,
1 so could we correct that, please.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Could you
3 repeat it, please? And in that way it will be
5 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] The Defence of
6 the accused Kos consists of Mrs. Jelena Nikolic,
7 Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan, and Zarko Nikolic.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We have it
9 now. Thank you very much.
10 We're going to resume our case, and I now
11 turn to Ms. Hollis.
12 Is there a technical problem, Mr. Dubuisson?
13 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] No, I want to
14 make sure that the accused can follow the proceedings.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The
16 accused, can you all follow us? Yes, I see a nod in
17 the affirmative.
18 Ms. Hollis, you have the floor.
19 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honours. The
20 Prosecution has filed a motion for clarification of
21 various matters prior to the commencement of the
22 Prosecution's case in chief. We believe that
23 clarification of these matters will make the
24 proceedings move more efficiently and more
25 expeditiously. We would like to address these matters
1 in turn as we have presented them in the motion, and
2 different of those of us on the trial team will be
3 dealing with each matter. Mr. Michael Keegan will be
4 dealing with the first matter that we have raised in
5 this motion, with permission of the Court.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Hollis,
7 does the motion have to do with protective measures,
8 the motion you filed on Friday?
9 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, the motion has to
10 do with protective measures and a variety of other
11 issues as well, including, Your Honours, a request that
12 Your Honours take judicial notice of facts that have
13 been presented to you; also a request that decisions be
14 made concerning a motion for protective measures; also
15 that clarification and decisions be made regarding the
16 Prosecution's proposed procedure of using trial
17 summaries and prior testimonies for witnesses.
18 In addition to that, Your Honour, a
19 discussion and decisions about the procedure on
20 cross-examination. And finally, Your Honour, a request
21 that a decision be made concerning the outstanding
22 motion for a site visit.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I was
24 about to propose, and I think we envisaged a Status
25 Conference for tomorrow. I don't know whether you
1 agree, but perhaps we could deal with all those matters
2 at the Status Conference tomorrow, and we could now
3 immediately resume the proceedings. I don't know
4 whether the questions you have mentioned, particularly
5 the question regarding witnesses, perhaps we could deal
6 with that matter today, and tomorrow we can address the
7 whole motion at the Status Conference. Otherwise,
8 there is a risk that we will be having a Status
9 Conference rather than the trial hearing.
10 What is your response to that suggestion,
11 Ms. Hollis?
12 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, first of all, the
13 Prosecution's understanding is that we would -- when we
14 recommenced, the initial agenda item would be the
15 Status Conference. We apologise if we misunderstood
16 that, but that was our understanding, that the very
17 first thing we would do would be to have a Status
18 Conference and then move into presentation of
20 Be that as it may, Your Honour, several of
21 the things that I have mentioned do impact on all of
22 the witnesses, such as the issue of trial summaries and
23 prior testimony, the issue of cross-examination, and
24 the issue also of protective measures does not apply to
25 the first witness but does apply to the second, third,
1 and fourth witnesses to be called.
2 So the Prosecution would respectfully submit
3 that it would, perhaps, be most efficient if we were to
4 deal with the preliminary matters before resuming the
5 witness testimony.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And is your
7 witness present? You have witnesses ready?
8 MS. HOLLIS: We have witnesses for this week,
9 Your Honour, yes. Your Honour, we do not have a
10 witness present at this moment because of our
11 understanding about the Status Conference, but we would
12 be able to bring the witness here very quickly.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] How long
14 would you need to bring the witness here?
15 MS. HOLLIS: The witness is a short distance
16 from here, so it would depend upon whether the witness
17 is prepared to arrive, how long it would take them to
18 prepare, and then bringing them here would be a matter
19 of probably half an hour, Your Honour. So perhaps an
20 hour, if we were to make the call now.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Hollis,
22 do you intend to make an opening statement in relation
23 to Mr. Prcac before we recommence?
24 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour, there will be
25 an opening statement regarding Mr. Prcac.
1 JUDGE WALD: Ms. Hollis, has the Defence
2 counsel received these various motions that you filed
3 on Friday?
4 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, it's our
5 understanding that they have. I can't speak for them,
6 but that is our understanding.
7 JUDGE WALD: I know that I didn't receive
8 them, and I was here on the weekend. Yesterday was a
9 holiday. I think that if there are many procedural,
10 preliminary procedural matters that you, the
11 Prosecution, believe should be decided, it's probably
12 incumbent upon you to file earlier. We simply didn't
13 receive those.
14 MS. HOLLIS: I apologise for that, Your
16 JUDGE WALD: Well, I don't know whose fault
17 it is, but I think it's just a caution to file ahead of
18 late Friday if it's a holiday weekend, because they
19 were not delivered to us, and I personally would not be
20 in a position to make an off-the-top of the head
21 judgement without even reading your written materials.
22 MS. HOLLIS: Of course, Your Honour. We
23 understand that.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Then, I
25 think, Ms. Hollis, it would be a good idea to begin
1 with the opening statement on Mr. Prcac. Then we could
2 have a break, in order to get the witness here, and
3 then we can begin with the testimony of the witness.
4 And if he needs protective measures, we can decide on
5 the spot, and tomorrow we can have the Status
6 Conference at 1.30, I think we planned to have it. And
7 that would give time for the Defence to prepare and for
8 us also to study the material. Do you agree with
10 MS. HOLLIS: We will certainly comply with
11 your wishes, Your Honour. As I said, two of the
12 matters at least do impact on this witness as well.
13 The first witness is not a protected witness, so
14 there's no need for a decision on that. However,
15 whether we will be allowed to use the prior testimony
16 and whether we will be allowed to use trial summary
17 will need to be decided for this witness, Your Honour.
18 And I would ask Your Honour if we could be
19 allowed to have our case manager depart the courtroom
20 so that she can ensure that the witness is contacted
21 and brought to the building immediately.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. We
23 agree. We are granting permission for the assistant to
24 leave. You can begin with your opening statement,
25 Ms. Hollis. You have the floor.
1 MS. HOLLIS: And Mr. Michael Keegan will be
2 presenting the opening, Your Honour.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters have
4 a copy, please.
5 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. The
6 interpreters have requested a copy, and I need to
7 apologise up front. Based on the discussions at the
8 close of the last Status Conference we had, we
9 anticipated, as we indicated, the Status Conference to
10 begin with, and therefore we didn't bring the copies in
11 this morning. So at this point, I'm sorry. I'll just
12 endeavour to read very slowly.
13 Your Honours, as this Chamber is aware, this
14 case is about the ethnic cleansing and persecution of
15 Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats in the area of the
16 opstina of Prijedor.
17 During the period alleged in the indictment,
18 the accused Prcac, as with the other four accused in
19 this case, participated in the brutal campaign
20 orchestrated by the Bosnian Serb authorities in an
21 effort to rid the region of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian
22 Croats as part of an effort to create a Serbian state.
23 In particular, the accused Prcac knowingly participated
24 in the crimes committed in the Omarska camp, one of the
25 integral components of that brutal campaign.
1 In the initial opening statement, my
2 colleague, Grant Niemann, spoke to you of the who,
3 when, where, and why of the crimes committed in opstina
4 Prijedor, including those committed in the Omarska,
5 Keraterm, and Trnopolje camps. He described for you
6 the responsibility of the accused Kvocka, Kos, Radic,
7 and Zigic. With the joinder of the accused Prcac, we
8 need to add him to the equation of criminal
9 responsibility and to describe his participation in the
10 campaign of terror that took place in opstina Prijedor
11 between April and December 1992.
12 The accused Prcac, along with the other four
13 accused, is individually responsible for the crimes
14 committed against the prisoners in the Omarska camp.
15 In addition, Prcac, like the accused Kvocka, Kos, and
16 Radic, held a position of superior authority but failed
17 to prevent or to punish the mistreatment of prisoners
18 by his subordinates. His criminal conduct, along with
19 that of his co-accused, ensured that the vast majority
20 of the non-Serb population that survived the attacks on
21 their homes or their imprisonment in the camps would
22 feel compelled to leave Prijedor.
23 The conduct of the accused Prcac, like that
24 of the other four accused, was a manifestation of
25 collective criminality; that is, criminal conduct
1 carried out by a group of individuals acting in
2 pursuance of a common criminal design. The common
3 criminal purpose or design that united the accused
4 Prcac with the other four accused in this trial was the
5 forced removal of the majority of Bosnian Muslims and
6 Bosnian Croats from the territory claimed as Republika
7 Srpska through a campaign of terror and persecution.
8 To that end, the specific province of the accused Prcac
9 and his co-accused was the Omarska camp.
10 In that camp, the five co-accused subjected
11 the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat prisoners, and the
12 others who the Serb leadership associated with those
13 two groups, to confinement under barbarous conditions.
14 Prisoners were murdered, tortured, sexually assaulted,
15 beaten, starved, and otherwise physically maltreated.
16 Prisoners were also subjected to brutal interrogation
17 sessions designed solely to create false confessions
18 and false facts that could be used by the Bosnian Serb
19 authorities as propaganda to justify their crimes and
20 the ongoing persecution of the Bosnian Muslims and
21 Bosnian Croats.
22 It is well recognised that members of a group
23 engaged in a common criminal plan or design may
24 contribute to the commission of the crime or crimes in
25 different ways yet be held equally responsible for
1 them. Some members of the group may physically
2 perpetrate the criminal act or acts, while others may
3 aid, abet, or otherwise facilitate the commission of
4 the crimes. Despite the variations and the form of
5 participation, however, the moral gravity or
6 responsibility of each of the participants in the crime
7 is often no different from one another.
8 In the present case, the brutal crimes that
9 were committed in the Omarska camp were directly
10 assisted and facilitated by the conduct of the accused
11 Prcac. While he may not have physically committed or
12 perhaps not been physically present when each of the
13 specific criminal acts alleged in the indictment or the
14 attached schedules were committed, those criminal acts
15 could not have been committed as they were without his
16 assistance, approval, and acquiescence. Thus, the
17 evidence will establish that the accused Prcac
18 knowingly participated in the crimes committed in the
19 Omarska camp by ordering, committing, and aiding and
20 abetting the commission of those crimes through his
21 approval, encouragement, and acquiescence.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel, slow down,
24 MR. KEEGAN: As my colleague described to you
25 in the initial opening statement, there are three
1 separate theories of responsibility under the "common
2 purpose" doctrine that are applicable in this case. I
3 will not repeat the full text of those arguments now;
4 rather, I would refer the Chamber to the text of the
5 prior opening address and the pre-trial brief submitted
6 by the Prosecution regarding the accused Prcac.
7 I would, however, like to summarise the three
8 theories and address some of the facts that were not
9 fully addressed earlier.
10 The first theory of liability under the
11 "common purpose" doctrine is where all the individuals
12 involved in the criminal acts share the same criminal
14 The second theory is a specialised derivative
15 of the first. It relates to what may be called,
16 perhaps, the "criminal enterprise" doctrine and is
17 related to the jurisprudence of the concentration camp
18 cases which arose from the Second World War. That
19 theory dictates that the accused must have known the
20 nature of the criminal enterprise and had the intent to
21 further its purpose.
22 The third theory involves responsibility for
23 criminal acts that may fall outside the original common
24 design of the group. Under this theory, an accused may
25 nevertheless be held criminally responsible if those
1 acts were the natural and foreseeable consequences of
2 the execution of the original criminal design.
3 It is the Prosecution's position that the
4 evidence will establish Dragoljub Prcac's criminal
5 responsibility for the crimes charged beyond a
6 reasonable doubt under any one or all three of the
7 above theories.
8 The evidence that will be presented will
9 establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the common
10 purpose of the Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje camps
11 was the brutal confinement of Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian
12 Croats, and others who were identified with those
13 groups until they were either killed or expelled from
14 the Prijedor region. The evidence will prove that the
15 camps were an essential component of the overall
16 persecution of Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats, and
17 others and played a major part in the ethnic cleansing
18 of the Prijedor area. The evidence will prove that
19 Mr. Prcac, along with the other co-accused, actively
20 participated in this criminal enterprise: the Omarska
21 camp. The evidence will show that through his conduct
22 in the camp he followed, supported, and sustained the
23 criminal conduct of the camp system.
24 It is impossible that the accused Prcac, or
25 any of the other co-accused, could have belonged to the
1 staff of the Omarska camp for a substantial period of
2 time, as they all did, without being aware of the
3 criminal purpose and conduct of the camp system. It
4 was equally impossible to hold positions of
5 responsibility and authority for the operation of the
6 Omarska camp, as this accused did, without being aware
7 of the system, without being aware that on a daily
8 basis prisoners in that camp were being murdered,
9 raped, beaten, tortured, and starved to death.
10 Faced with these clear facts, as it has
11 already been made clear from the pre-trial submissions
12 of the Defence, the accused, including Prcac, are
13 trying to portray that they had no choice in their
14 actions or that they had no real authority in the
15 camp. The indications already before the Trial Chamber
16 are that the Defence will try what is a fairly common
17 tactic of Defence counsel, to place the blame on the
18 dead guy, in this case, Simo Drljaca, the former chief
19 of police, or another accused who is not present before
20 this Chamber, Zeljko Meakic.
21 The evidence in this case, however, clearly
22 shows that this attempt to portray themselves as pawns
23 in a system without rules or clear command structure
24 falls without any merit. Rather, the evidence
25 establishes, as anyone with a reasonable knowledge of
1 the facts of this case would expect, that the crimes
2 committed against the Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian
3 Croats that are alleged in the indictment were executed
4 pursuant to a well-devised plan and by forces that were
5 well organised and structured.
6 As to the question of whether a chain of
7 command and the authority inherent therein existed in
8 the Omarska police, that is, amongst those responsible
9 for the camp, in the initial opening address, my
10 colleague, Mr. Niemann, referred you to document 32A in
11 the materials used for that address, which was a
12 directive, dated 11 May 1992, from the chief of police
13 in Prijedor, Simo Drljaca. That directive makes clear
14 the strict organisation and chain of authority that
15 existed. I quote: "The senior officer-policeman
16 worker relationship is to be tightened to the maximum.
17 All orders are to be acted upon without question. Any
18 refusal to do so would result in termination or removal
19 from the reserve forces."
20 An example of the level of organisation and
21 discipline that did, in fact, exist within the police
22 forces and could be achieved when the superiors and the
23 police forces wished to do so is evidenced by the
24 bragging of Simo Drljaca and other SDS leaders after
25 the takeover of Prijedor. That as a result of the
1 outstanding organisation and discipline of the police
2 forces, they took over power in the town of Prijedor in
3 less than an hour, using a force of over 1500 men
4 without firing a single shot.
5 Finally, the evidence of the witnesses will
6 establish beyond any doubt that there was a clear chain
7 of command in the Omarska camp and that there was a
8 clear -- and that the accused Prcac held the position
9 of deputy commander, with the authority to control the
10 conduct of the shift commanders, the guards, and
11 visitors, such as the accused Zigic. He also had the
12 authority to grant the prisoners more freedoms and
13 rights within the camp, including access to potable
14 water, reasonable living conditions, and hygienic
15 standards, and contact with their families and friends
16 to receive clothing, hygienic supplies, food, and
18 As to the knowledge of the accused Dragoljub
19 Prcac about the nature of the camp's operation and his
20 criminal intention, the evidence shows that the accused
21 knowingly participated in the crimes that occurred in
22 the Omarska camp. During the commission of specific
23 crimes in the camp, the accused Prcac would, at times,
24 be present but would do nothing to stop the commission
25 of those crimes. On many occasions he called out
1 prisoners using lists that had been prepared. Those
2 prisoners were then beaten or tortured or disappeared.
3 He also permitted individuals from outside the camp,
4 such as the accused Zigic, to regularly enter Omarska
5 and to subject the prisoners to all forms of
6 maltreatment, including murder. The accused Prcac,
7 like Kvocka before him, manifested this conduct during
8 a period when he had considerable authority, and indeed
9 exercised the power of life and death over the
10 prisoners in Omarska.
11 The evidence will show that the accused Prcac
12 moved around the camp and was seen in all areas, unlike
13 the interrogators who apparently never moved around in
14 the camp. As a result, the accused would have been
15 intimately aware of the physical conditions of the
16 prisoners and the appalling nature of the conditions
17 they were existing in. The evidence will show that
18 when the commander of the camp, Zeljko Meakic, was not
19 in the camp, the accused Prcac was and served as the
20 commander or senior man in charge. The evidence will
21 show that before guards could act on certain requests
22 from the prisoners, they had to check with the
23 commander, Mr. Prcac. The evidence will show that the
24 accused Prcac had the authority to direct where
25 prisoners went in the camp, and if a guard disagreed,
1 it was the accused's word that prevailed. Finally, the
2 accused Prcac's failure to take reasonable steps to
3 prevent the crimes that were occurring or to try to
4 punish those that committed them, or to alter the
5 conditions of the confinement of the prisoners, was a
6 calculated disregard of his obligations as a policeman
7 in Bosnia-Herzegovina and those of a superior in the
8 Omarska camp. Such a cruel omission or failure to
9 exercise his obligations also created a powerful
10 inference of intent to participate in the repressive
12 It is also relevant to recall that full
13 loyalty to the SDS and its programmes was a requirement
14 to hold any position of authority in any sector of
15 government or the economy at that time, including the
16 police service. The position of the deputy commander
17 of one of the most important camps was no small
19 As the deputy commander of the camp,
20 Mr. Prcac's presence and his total failure to restrain
21 the guards' misconduct could have only encouraged the
22 continued abuse of prisoners by guards and so-called
23 visitors to the camp, such as the accused Zigic. By
24 standing by and providing this encouragement, Mr. Prcac
25 voluntarily participated in the common criminal design
1 that was the Omarska camp. Moreover, by presiding over
2 such criminal acts, the accused demonstrated his intent
3 that they occur. The result of his approval,
4 encouragement, and acquiescence in the conduct of the
5 guards and visitors, such as Zigic, at Omarska was
6 manifested in the many crimes that were committed
7 there, including, in the latter part of July, the
8 murder of a great number of prisoners who had been
9 captured in what's been referred to as the Brdo region,
10 on the left bank of the Sana River in the opstina
11 Prijedor. After those prisoners arrived in the camp,
12 they were subjected to brutal beatings and many were
14 The Omarska prison camp was at the vanguard
15 of the Bosnian Serb system of persecution and ethnic
16 cleansing. The day-to-day participation in and support
17 for the crimes that were committed in the Omarska camp
18 is evidence of the accused Prcac's intent to
19 participate in this system. The accused Prcac, along
20 with the other accused in this matter, shared the
21 common criminal design to persecute Muslims and Croats
22 in the Prijedor region so as to cleanse that region of
23 those who would not participate in the Serbian state.
24 Finally, the pervasive nature of the cruelty,
25 violence, and disregard for human life that existed in
1 the Omarska camp on a daily basis dictates that all of
2 the particular acts of violence and the crimes alleged
3 in the indictment fell within the natural, foreseeable,
4 and horrible consequences of the operation of the
5 Omarska camp.
6 The accused's continued and knowing
7 participation in the operation of the Omarska camp
8 makes him criminally responsible for all of the acts
10 In summation, the evidence presented during
11 this trial will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
12 the accused Prcac, along with the other four accused,
13 shared a common criminal purpose, the forced removal of
14 a majority of the Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats
15 from the territory claimed as Republika Srpska through
16 a campaign of terror and persecution. To that end, the
17 accused Prcac and his co-accused, through their actions
18 in the Omarska camp, actively participated in this
19 common design, and in doing so bears responsibility for
20 the crimes against humanity and violations of the laws
21 of war that are charged in the indictment, both as an
22 individual and as a superior for his failure to take
23 reasonable steps to prevent the crimes from occurring
24 or for failing to punish those who committed the
1 Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
3 very much, Mr. Keegan. I think that we are now going
4 to have a break.
5 Ms. Hollis, have you received any information
6 regarding the availability of the witness?
7 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, the witness is
8 available here, but I've received no indication as to
9 how quickly the witness will be in place.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We're going
11 to have a 25-minute break, then.
12 --- Recess taken at 10.20 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 11.39 a.m.
14 [The witness entered court]
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be
17 Ms. Hollis, you have the floor, and we have
18 the motions.
19 Excuse me. Mr. Simic, do you wish to say
21 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I
22 do not intend to enter a debate as regards the opening
23 statement of Mr. Keegan. However, I should like to
24 expose one objection of the Defence as a whole.
25 Mr. Keegan made an allegation during his
1 opening statement which may be a result of either
2 misinterpretation or a misunderstanding. He stated
3 that the accused are trying to place the blame on
4 Mr. Meakic, that is, to place the blame on some other
5 persons. I have to say that we have submitted
6 preliminary briefs that the accused have been
7 interviewed, that Mr. Kvocka and Mr. Radic have
8 testified, and I have to say that not at one point did
9 they ever try to put the blame on Mr. Meakic. They
10 were simply trying to explain the status of Mr. Meakic,
11 who was the commander of the police station in
12 Omarska. And the Prosecutor himself has quoted the
13 relevant decision in his opening statement a number of
14 times. We have to stress this because this may have
15 some adverse consequences for the Defence. This is a
16 public trial and we have to stress this, we have to
17 make this objection so as to avoid any adverse effect
18 on the Defence and any damage that may be caused to our
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
21 very much.
22 Mr. Keegan, do you wish to respond?
23 MR. KEEGAN: No, Your Honour, we don't.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So it was
25 more of a rhetorical objection.
1 We have a witness here in the courtroom, but
2 it seems that Mr. Tosic has something to say.
3 Mr. Tosic.
4 MR. TOSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I
5 just wish to put forth several facts. I don't know
6 whether the witness should remain in the courtroom.
7 This is something that I want to say before the
8 testimony of the witness. I should like the Court to
9 ask the witness to leave the courtroom because I have
10 something to say which bears on the preliminary matters
11 as regards the presentation of evidence. I did not
12 want to interrupt Mr. Keegan in his opening statement,
13 but I should like to speak now.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Tosic,
15 would it be possible for you to make your comment after
16 the testimony of this witness?
17 MR. TOSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I
18 wish to say that before the beginning of the testimony,
19 because I believe that certain facts and certain
20 circumstances should be clarified before this witness
21 begins his testimony.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but
23 Mr. Tosic, you understand the proceedings. It is very
24 difficult to bring the witness in the courtroom and
25 then ask him to leave the courtroom. I mean, this does
1 not seem serious, a serious way of proceeding.
2 MR. TOSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if
3 you do not think that the witness should leave the
4 courtroom, well, let him stay in the courtroom. But I
5 have to stress certain facts which bear upon his
6 testimony. I personally do not have anything against
7 his staying in the courtroom. Perhaps when I say what
8 I have to say, you will see whether it is necessary for
9 the witness to leave the courtroom or not.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Hollis,
11 do you have any information as regards the intervention
12 of Mr. Tosic?
13 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, the Prosecution
14 would suggest that to avoid any appearance that the
15 witness' testimony may be prejudiced by what he may
16 hear, that indeed if there are preliminary matters,
17 that he be asked to leave the courtroom so that those
18 preliminary matters can be discussed. That way, Your
19 Honour, there would not even be an appearance that this
20 witness' testimony was somehow influenced by whatever
21 it is that Mr. Tosic wishes to raise. So we would
22 agree with Mr. Tosic that caution would make it the
23 better practice for the witness to leave the courtroom
24 while he raises whatever concerns he has.
25 In addition, Your Honour, we do note that, of
1 course, the Defence has an opportunity to make an open
2 in response to ours, and since we did make an
3 additional open, we take Mr. Tosic's remarks to be
4 basically in a form of an opening in response to ours.
5 It could be that other of these Defence counsel also
6 wish to make similar remarks. If they do, of course it
7 is for Your Honours to determine whether they may do
8 so. But again, we believe it would be better for this
9 issue to be dealt with outside the presence of this
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] If I may
12 have a minute, please.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Witness, we
15 have to apologise for this, but we have to ask you to
16 leave the courtroom for a short period of time, and
17 afterwards you will be back. Thank you very much for
18 your understanding.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Tosic,
21 it is always possible to tell the Judges that you
22 intend to say something before the witness is brought
23 in. I think that this is the procedure that should be
24 observed. If there is a motion, it has to be made
25 orally, after having consulted the other party. In
1 that way, we can proceed in a more efficient manner.
2 And now you have the floor, Mr. Tosic. Let
3 us hear you.
4 MR. TOSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, our
5 position is the following: We do not wish to have
6 testimony of the witness before a Status Conference,
7 and I think that the reasons will justify our motion.
8 As regards the indictment; namely, the
9 amended indictment with Mr. Prcac, we have not yet
10 received it. I do not think that any changes in terms
11 of identity have been added to the indictment. What we
12 have now is the indictment from July 1999, and in
13 accordance with Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure and
14 Evidence, we believe that this indictment should be
15 made available to us; namely, the amended indictment.
16 We do not wish to obstruct the proceedings in
17 any way. I shall say that we will waive our right to
18 object to the amended indictment. However, I must
19 stress that we do not have the amended indictment. We
20 assumed that no changes as regards the identity have
21 been added to the indictment, and I believe that the
22 charges have remained the same as regards my client.
23 However, I must say that I have not seen the amended
24 indictment, neither has my client. And we believe that
25 this amended indictment should be made available to the
1 Defence before the presentation of evidence, before we
2 start with the testimony of the witness.
3 Furthermore, as regards the facts --
4 non-contested facts, there are 444 of them, and I am
5 not in a position to state our view of the facts. We
6 have already discussed them during the last Status
7 Conference, but I have to say that I do not -- I don't
8 know what these facts are all about. I haven't
9 received a copy of the translation. I don't know
10 whether we're talking about some new facts or whether
11 these are the previous 583 facts, or if this is a
12 summary of the facts that we have already received.
13 As regards the motion submitted by the
14 Prosecutor, dated February 2000, we are not familiar
15 with the contents of the motion and we cannot state our
16 position. The Prosecutor has suggested that we should
17 use trial summaries from some other cases. I have to
18 say that we have received only a list of witnesses. I
19 can only surmise as to the identity of the witness that
20 we have today in the courtroom, but that is all. I
21 think that we should have been provided with a list of
22 witnesses at least one week beforehand so that we could
23 prepare ourselves in a timely fashion for our defence.
24 As far as I know, the witness who has just
25 left the courtroom, Mr. Emir Beganovic, testified in
1 the Tadic case. I do not know what the position of the
2 Chamber is. The Prosecutor has requested that the
3 testimony from the Tadic case should be admitted. But
4 I still don't know whether we should be allowed to
5 cross-examine the witness in question.
6 So these are the circumstances that should be
7 dealt with at the Status Conference. These are the
8 matters that should be taken care of before we begin
9 with the testimony of the witness. That is what I had
10 to say, Your Honour.
11 If I may add just one thing. The documents I
12 have referred to have not been translated, witness
13 summaries, trial summaries, nor the facts, adjudicated
14 facts. I don't know about my colleagues, but I have
15 received the relevant documentation only this morning.
16 So I don't think that it would be appropriate for us to
17 begin with the testimony of the witness before we have
18 resolved all the procedural matters. I think it is
19 inappropriate that we should not have the amended
20 indictment and that we should be using the indictment
21 dated from the previous year. We have five accused
22 here, and I think that all of the Defence counsel
23 should be made familiar with the amended indictment.
24 I'm speaking on behalf of my client, but also on behalf
25 of the Defence as a whole. We do not intend to object
1 to the indictment or to obstruct the proceedings in any
2 way. We will waive our right to do that. But we are
3 simply asking for this indictment to be made available
4 for us. We need some time to read it, and afterwards
5 we will state officially that we will waive our right
6 to object to the indictment. We need to know that
7 nothing of a significance has been changed.
8 And again I must stress that it is highly
9 inappropriate for us to discuss something that we have
10 not seen. I wanted this matter to be entered in the
11 record, to be made part of the record, before we start
12 with the proceedings of the presentation of evidence.
13 There is a number of things that have to be dealt with
14 prior to the testimony of the witness. It is all the
15 same for us as regards the timing of the testimony,
16 whether we should begin today or tomorrow, but these
17 are matters that cannot be circumvented or bypassed.
18 We have seen the witness but we don't know
19 exactly about his identity. We are from the relevant
20 area, and that's why we happened to know who the
21 witness is. But you said that I should have addressed
22 the Chamber beforehand, before the witness enters the
23 courtroom. But we were simply not in a position to do
24 so because we didn't know who would be the next
25 witness. It is only at the beginning of the session --
1 I believe that we should enter the courtroom first and
2 that only then the witness should be called in. I did
3 not wish to interrupt the proceedings before the break
4 because Mr. Keegan was having his opening statement,
5 and I don't think that it was appropriate for the
6 witness to be brought into the courtroom before we have
7 settled all the procedural matters as regards the
8 presentation of evidence.
9 On the other hand, I do object on the course
10 of action taken by the Prosecutor. I think that it was
11 necessary for us to be informed about the witness who
12 was supposed to testify today. I know that we have had
13 enough time to prepare ourselves, but we should have
14 made -- we should have been informed about the identity
15 of the witness. We should have been told explicitly
16 that Emir Beganovic would testify. We cannot surmise
17 as to the order of witnesses. We do not know, for
18 example, who will be the next witness tomorrow. If we
19 finish the testimony of this witness in half an hour,
20 we are not in a position to know anything about the
21 next witness. And there are a number of things that we
22 have to discuss with our clients, things that they may
23 have remembered in the meantime and that concern the
24 relevant witness.
25 Therefore, I think that all these matters
1 should be resolved at a Status Conference, as has been
2 suggested by Ms. Hollis, and then only after that, that
3 we should begin with the presentation of evidence;
4 namely, the testimony of various witnesses. Thank you
5 very much.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you,
7 Mr. Tosic. We have to have in mind the need to proceed
8 in a speedy and efficient manner, and we wanted to have
9 a joinder of the accused in this case, we wanted to
10 proceed with the accused Prcac, and we thought that you
11 would be ready for the proceedings. It is true that we
12 announced a Status Conference, but maybe it was not
13 clear whether the Status Conference would take place at
14 the beginning or at the end of the week. But be that
15 as it may, I shall now give the floor to Ms. Hollis, to
16 give her an opportunity to respond to the motion by the
18 Ms. Hollis.
19 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour. Your
20 Honour, I'll try to touch on all the different matters
21 that were raised by Defence counsel.
22 Involving the amended indictment, of course,
23 the procedure that was followed is we had a joinder, as
24 you indicated, and the Court ruled on a joinder. It is
25 the Prosecution's understanding that, indeed, the
1 Defence has a copy of the Prcac indictment, so indeed
2 they have a copy of the indictments on which we are
3 proceeding. That's our first point as to the
4 indictment. So, indeed, they do have a copy of the
5 relevant indictments on which we're proceeding in this
7 Secondly, regarding the facts that were
8 submitted, it is the Prosecution's understanding that
9 as of our last discussion, we were asked to provide
10 again the facts that had been agreed upon by all the
11 parties with another cover sheet and another filing.
12 We did that. So that, indeed, what has been provided
13 to this counsel are the facts that they have previously
14 agreed to, and that was filed on the 28th. But the
15 facts are the same that have been agreed to since the
16 Status Conference on the 24th of February, with the
17 four accused previously in the case, and the facts that
18 the Defence counsel for Mr. Prcac agreed to in our
19 Status Conference regarding him.
20 Your Honour, as to the motion we referred to
21 of February of 2000, the Defence should have been, and
22 we believe were, served a copy of that motion when it
23 was filed. So we believe they would have that motion
24 in their possession and could have reviewed it.
25 JUDGE WALD: Excuse me, Ms. Hollis. Which
1 motion? You just gave us the date.
2 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, I believe the
3 counsel is referring to a motion which we adopt as part
4 of our argument on judicial notice, and that would have
5 been a motion that we did file. It would have been a
6 motion that should have been served on the counsel, and
7 we believe that they had it when we had our previous
8 discussions on judicial motion.
9 JUDGE WALD: Does that include the requests
10 in your current motion? I did get a chance to get a
11 hold of it during the recess. Your request in the
12 current motion that the Chamber make findings based on
13 the judicial notice?
14 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, my recollection is
15 that that matter was raised in our Status Conference on
16 the 24th of February with the Defence counsel present.
17 The motion prior to that I don't believe may have
18 addressed that particular point. But that matter was
19 raised in February in our Status Conference at which
20 these counsel were present.
21 Your Honour, regarding the list of witnesses,
22 the current order of witnesses, a courtesy copy of that
23 was placed in the lockers for four of the accused
24 counsel on Thursday evening. The order was filed on
25 Friday, the 28th. The counsel for Mr. Prcac had a
1 locker but the guard at this security -- outside
2 security desk did not have the number of the locker.
3 So on Thursday evening, the 27th, we were unable to put
4 the courtesy copy into his locker. But the very next
5 morning, at the beginning of business, a courtesy copy
6 was provided to the Defence unit to be provided to
7 counsel for Mr. Simic. So service was made of a
8 courtesy copy on four of the counsel on the evening of
9 27 April and the notice was filed on the 28th, and a
10 courtesy copy was provided through the Defence unit to
11 Mr. Prcac's counsel. So indeed since Friday, at least,
12 counsel would have known who our first witness is, and
13 that's Mr. Emir Beganovic, as it is listed on that
15 In regard to objections about trial
16 summaries, trial transcripts, the first witness is a
17 witness for whom we will be offering both a trial
18 summary and a trial transcript. So perhaps it is
19 appropriate to deal with that matter before the witness
20 is brought back in.
21 In regard to the translation of these items,
22 Your Honours, our understanding is that Rule 66 sets
23 forth two categories of disclosure that must be
24 provided in a language the accused understands. The
25 first of those is the confirmation material. That was
1 done. The second of those are statements of witnesses
2 we intend to call. That has been done. The trial
3 summaries, we do not believe, are statements of the
4 witnesses, and we have not provided those in B/C/S.
5 The adjudicated facts and other motions, there is no
6 requirement we're aware of that we provide those in
7 B/C/S. Indeed, Your Honours, it is our understanding
8 that one of the requirements for counsel to practice
9 before this Tribunal is that at least someone on the
10 team is able to operate in one of the two languages of
11 the Tribunal. So to the extent that is a problem,
12 perhaps we should address that early on in the case.
13 But we believe we have provided the appropriate
14 materials in the language of the accused, and the other
15 types of materials that Defence counsel addresses, in
16 our opinion, do not have to be provided to the counsel
17 in B/C/S.
18 Your Honour, if I have failed to address any
19 of the points, please remind me and I will address
21 JUDGE WALD: I have one question. In your
22 opinion, will inquiry, and particularly
23 cross-examination, of the witness who's now waiting
24 outside involve some of the requests you made for the
25 way in which cross-examination should be required and
1 limited, which I've only had a chance to glance at at
2 the recess?
3 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. We believe
4 that it will for all of these witnesses, even those
5 without prior testimony, because of the number of
6 Defence counsel who will be questioning the witness.
7 So again that is a procedure --
8 JUDGE WALD: That is something which Defence
9 counsel got, they did get that motion which contains
10 that requested limits or order of cross-examination?
11 MS. HOLLIS: That was filed on Friday, Your
12 Honour. That is part of the additional matters.
13 JUDGE WALD: It's in the same motion with the
14 summaries, but I don't know whether they've had a
15 chance to look at it or not before they began any --
16 MS. HOLLIS: That I don't know, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Tosic.
18 MR. TOSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with
19 all due respect to the Prosecution, I personally never
20 received the indictment for Mr. Prcac. I don't know
21 about other Defence counsel. But I have not received
22 it, nor my client.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me
24 for interrupting you, but the indictment is a public
25 act, a public document, isn't it, Mr. Dubuisson?
1 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed,
2 it is a public document.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may
4 continue, Mr. Tosic.
5 MR. TOSIC: [Interpretation] As regards the
6 second matter, the generally established facts, it is
7 not true that all of us Defence counsel, before
8 Mr. Prcac joined us, agreed with those facts. As far
9 as I know, out of the 583, Mr. Simic and I did not
10 agree with a large number of those facts. So that we
11 cannot accept the statement by Ms. Hollis that we have
12 agreed on all those facts.
13 As for the order of witnesses, I agree, we
14 were given a list of witnesses but no additional
15 information to tell us whether the Prosecution will
16 abide by that order of witnesses. So if that is the
17 final list in which the witnesses will be called, then
18 I hope we will be so informed.
19 As for the translation issue, we received
20 mostly the English, not even the French versions, and
21 as far as I know, not one of my colleagues, or our
22 clients, have received the motions or these facts or
23 any other documents in our own language. I apologise.
24 We received the French version and not the English
25 version. That was my mistake.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, I
2 can see that you're on your feet.
3 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I
4 had not intended to join in this discussion, but we
5 were promised that we would be given statements by two
6 witnesses today, and we haven't received that. They
7 are Witnesses AG and AH, completely new witnesses who
8 were never mentioned before, and we were told in the
9 motion submitted by the Prosecution, given to us on
10 Friday night -- I must point out that we had a weekend
11 and we had a holiday yesterday, our clients have been
12 in detention for two years, and suddenly we're given
13 these documents are given to us overnight. But these
14 statements were promised to us, and to this moment, we
15 haven't received those statements. We haven't received
16 another nine statements which were due to us. I am not
17 trying to criticise anybody, but you will receive my
18 response to what I received Friday night. But, you
19 know, it is rather difficult for all of us to get
20 together and agree on our responses. Otherwise, the
21 trial will last very long. And we must have time, at
22 least 24 hours, to study things. Even the promised
23 statements have not reached me of those two witnesses.
24 And I think that we should respect one another's
25 words. I think you know what I mean.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Perhaps it
2 would be better to say -- to hear the Defence and then
3 have the response of the Prosecution. Otherwise we'll
4 never leave here.
5 Mr. Nikolic now.
6 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour,
7 allow me to briefly join in this discussion regarding
8 certain points that have been raised here.
9 The motions of the Prosecution are dated the
10 28th of April. That is when a list of witnesses was
11 submitted which differs significantly from the previous
12 list of proposed witnesses and which were covered by
13 the Prosecution's motion compiled in accordance with
14 Rule 65 ter. This new motion, with the new list of
15 witnesses, was not compiled in accordance with the
16 provisions of Rule 65 ter. We received last night, in
17 our locker, something that looks like that and which is
18 also dated the 28th of April; however, at first glance
19 are these technical errors or something, but they do
20 take time.
21 Jasmir Okic is mentioned here under number
22 12. In the list of witnesses, he comes under number
23 9. All the other numbering of witnesses from this
24 motion, which should correspond to 65 ter, does not
25 correspond to the numbering in the list of witnesses
1 submitted on the 28th of April, except for the two last
3 Secondly, no where is mention made of which
4 circumstances the witness is going to testify and in
5 reference to which accused, as required by the
6 provisions of Rule 65 ter.
7 So these are problems confronting the
8 Defence, especially now, two days prior to trial, and I
9 will use the words used by Judge Wald when she said,
10 "It isn't reasonable," because we had quite a long
11 recess, and the Defence could have studied all these
12 things in a timely fashion, instead of talking about
13 them now, documents that we received last night. There
14 are 444 adjudicated facts. Just to look through that
15 list requires time. Thank you, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you,
17 Mr. Nikolic. I think now we have to give the floor to
18 Mr. Simic.
19 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you,
20 Your Honour. I had not intended to speak, but as the
21 discussion is broadening, I feel it necessary to
22 express my position.
23 Indeed, it is rather unusual, after two years
24 of preparations, that we should encounter so many
25 technical errors on the part of the Prosecution.
1 However, if the Trial Chamber rules that we should hear
2 Mr. Beganovic as a witness, since he is already here, I
3 would suggest that today we have the
4 examination-in-chief in the classical manner, without
5 tendering the transcript or the summary, that we
6 respect the Rules, and only as of future witnesses we
7 apply the Rules that may be adopted tomorrow at the
8 Status Conference. We would indeed like this trial to
9 be as efficient as possible, that we avoid any waste of
10 time, because after all, this is a serious case.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank
13 Mr. Jovan Simic now. Do you have any
14 observations or comments to make?
15 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I
16 would not really have anything much to add to what my
17 colleagues have said. But I would like to say,
18 regarding the witnesses that apply to my client, I have
19 not received all the statements -- I do not have the
20 statements of the witnesses who are going to testify
21 about my client.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Hollis
24 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, we have made
25 disclosure to Mr. Prcac's counsel. We have continued
1 to make disclosure to Mr. Prcac's counsel. And we are
2 aware that there are some statements, and I'm not -- I
3 can't tell you at this moment how many, that need to be
4 provided in the B/C/S. The translation unit, which is
5 not part of the Office of the Prosecutor, is working on
6 that. We do not have those. But to say he has not
7 received statements of witnesses relevant to his
8 client, we suggest, is not correct. Any witness who
9 testifies about what happened in Omarska camp during
10 the period Mr. Prcac was there is a witness relevant to
11 Mr. Prcac, at least in the Prosecution's submission.
12 In regard to the issue of the translations,
13 again that comes back to what is required for us to
14 provide in B/C/S and what other kinds of documents the
15 Defence may need to have in B/C/S. We believe we have
16 complied, with a few exceptions, with our requirement
17 to provide the documents in B/C/S that are required of
18 us. If the Defence counsel are having difficulties
19 because they do not have the material in a language
20 that they understand, that needs to be raised and it
21 needs to be sorted out; we agree with that. But that
22 is not a matter that is the responsibility of the
23 Prosecution. And again we believe it needs to be
24 sorted out in light of the practice rules for Defence
25 counsel who appear before this Tribunal.
1 Mr. Emir Beganovic was listed as our number 1
2 witness in a notice to the Defence. It was given to
3 them on the 6th of March. Now, our witness list did
4 change, and indeed, on the 28th we did file a notice,
5 and it was a notice of change of witness list. And as
6 I mentioned before, they were given -- four of the
7 accused counsel were given a copy of that the night
8 before we filed it, and counsel for Mr. Prcac was given
9 a courtesy copy of that Friday morning through the
10 Defence unit. So we did provide that.
11 We also provided the transcript of the prior
12 testimony of Mr. Beganovic in the lockers, and that was
13 provided -- that may have been provided over the
14 weekend, Your Honour.
15 And I'm not sure I have addressed all of
16 those issues. But, indeed, the witness order was made
17 known to them. We did provide the materials, at least
18 over the weekend, for them regarding Emir Beganovic.
19 With regard to witnesses who were referred to
20 as AG and AH, those witnesses are witnesses who have
21 particular circumstances and we indicated that we would
22 provide the statements relevant to those witnesses once
23 we have a decision about protective measures. We did
24 not provide it to the counsel prior to them because we
25 want the Trial Chamber to act on protective measures
1 before we disclose to the Defence the identity of those
2 two witnesses. They are not witnesses that are in our
3 first four or five or six who will be called, and that
4 is the reason that they were not provided those
5 statements. And we indicated that we would be
6 providing them when we had the Status Conference, which
7 I as I mentioned earlier, the Prosecution believed
8 would have been the first order of business for us
10 Your Honours, if there are other matters that
11 I have not addressed, if you will ask me any questions
12 you have, I will address them.
13 Your Honour, also one final thing about why,
14 at this late date, we are changing witness orders, that
15 will be raised in the protective measures motion
16 tomorrow, or whenever we deal with that, because the
17 Prosecution feels a very compelling need to inform this
18 Trial Chamber of the various difficulties potential
19 witnesses are having in this case. And we will take
20 that, I believe, more appropriately in a private or
21 closed session. But that is the primary reason for the
22 change in our witness list, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE WALD: Ms. Hollis, let me get your
24 reaction to the Defence counsel, Mr. Simic's, I think,
25 proposal that for the remainder of today we might take
1 the first witness on direct and then reserve the
2 questions raised in your motions for tomorrow's Status
3 Conference when they can hopefully be decided. Is that
4 a doable scenario from your point of view?
5 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, there are certainly
6 areas that are not covered by the prior testimony that
7 we could begin with today, and then once we determine
8 prior testimony, we will know whether we need to lead
9 that evidence or not. So we could certainly make a
10 start with this witness before introducing the prior
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.
13 I think that we can all see that it is always more
14 difficult to get started again, because, after all, all
15 of us, the Judges and the Defence, received a large
16 pile of documents on Friday and we saw them for the
17 first time during the break. What the Chamber had
18 planned was to make the best of the time, and we
19 thought that by hearing testimony would be a way to do
20 that, and then to have a Status Conference at which we
21 can discuss matters and deal with them.
22 So we have two possibilities now: either we
23 discuss the motion for protective measures in order to
24 begin the testimony with all the witnesses, or we begin
25 only with the examination-in-chief of this witness and
1 deal with all the other matters afterwards. So in any
2 event, as we had planned to have the Status Conference
3 tomorrow, at 3.30, that is, after the normal working
4 day, perhaps it is too late now because we have to do
5 something tomorrow morning. And also there's the
6 problem of witnesses and their position, because
7 they're here and waiting. Perhaps, however, in order
8 to be more efficient, it would be better to have a
9 discussion on the motion now regarding the protection
10 of witnesses and then we could be ready for tomorrow,
11 and all the other matters could be discussed at the
12 Status Conference tomorrow at 3.30.
13 I should like, however, to hear Ms. Hollis
14 and perhaps the Defence as a reaction to what I have
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me.
18 Ms. Hollis.
19 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, because Witnesses
20 2, 3, and 4 are the subject of our written motion for
21 protective measures, or will be the subject of oral
22 motions for protective measures, we agree that it would
23 be expeditious to deal with that motion today. That
24 way, we wouldn't have to interrupt proceedings tomorrow
25 when we call Witness number 2 and possibly number 3.
1 We do agree with that suggestion, that we deal with
2 that motion today.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you,
4 Ms. Hollis. I should like to confer with each of
5 Defence counsel quickly.
6 Mr. Simic.
7 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I
8 support the proposal that we deal with this matter
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Mr. Nikolic.
12 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] We agree, Your
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila.
15 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I agree,
16 Mr. President.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
18 very much. Mr. Tosic.
19 MR. TOSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our
20 position is the one I presented a moment ago, that is,
21 that we first deal with all the procedural matters and
22 then hear the testimony of the witness. Thank you.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Simic.
24 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] We agree, Your
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Perhaps we
2 should have a short break for the Defence to be able to
3 familiarise themselves with this motion, after which we
4 will resume work and make the best of all the time at
5 our disposal, until 2.30, to discuss this motion for
6 protective measures and possibly to deal with other
7 matters as well, if possible. So I'm making this break
8 for us to be able to reorganise a little, and if I may
9 suggest that we have the discussion in closed session.
10 Is that agreeable, Ms. Hollis?
11 MS. HOLLIS: We would request that, Your
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.
14 I'm saying that for the benefit of the public, so that
15 when we will be talking about protective measures, we
16 are going to have a closed hearing after the break.
17 And the break will be for 20 minutes.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
19 12.27 p.m., to be followed by a Status