1 Tuesday, 20
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.04 p.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated.
7 Let me propose the following, that is, that we continue with the
8 agenda I gave yesterday, and perhaps I should give more opportunity to
9 speak to the Defence of Radic because that is our next case. Just a
10 second, please.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We have in front of us the
13 reports of expert witnesses for the accused Kvocka [as interpreted]. The
14 Prosecutor agreed to the admission of two reports without cross-examining
15 the witness. In view of Rule 94 bis (C), the Chamber will, therefore,
16 admit the reports as exhibits, as part of the evidence in this case,
17 without calling the witnesses in question to testify before the Bench. So
18 that is one of our rulings.
19 Still regarding the Defence of Mr. Kos, yesterday we resolved the
20 problem, that is, the issue, of protective measures. The witness who was
21 supposed to come and in respect of whom video conferencing was requested,
22 we will organise that at the same time, so we will have an opportunity to
23 hear the witness in that way. The protective measures which were
24 requested in respect of that witness, I think that the Kos Defence still
25 requests these protective measures even in case of videolink.
1 I should like to hear them on this issue, if necessary, at least
2 to confirm what I have just said, and in order to be clear on what kind of
3 protective measures are being sought. Can the Kos Defence please notify
4 the Chamber of that issue?
5 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, Your Honour. Perhaps we should go into
6 closed session to --
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] How much time do you think you
8 will need?
9 MR. O'SULLIVAN: No more than a minute or two.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just for the benefit of the
11 public which is following, as you can see, our proceedings, we will go
12 into a private session for just a few minutes.
13 [Private session]
13 Page 8637 redacted – private session
2 [Open session]
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We are in public session. As
4 regards the request made by the Kos Defence relating to the Detention
5 Unit, we will see to it that the appropriate measures are taken so that
6 the Defence can receive the information requested. The accused Radic, I
7 believe it's a priority, because next week we will be hearing the case in
8 defence of Mr. Radic.
9 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I said next week. No?
11 The week after. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for drawing my attention to
12 the calendar. Yes, you're quite right.
13 Still pending is the issue of expert witnesses. We have heard the
14 position of the Prosecutor, so I think that it is up to the Chamber to
15 issue its ruling now.
16 I don't know whether the Prosecutor, Ms. Somers, has anything to
17 add to the response. Yes, Ms. Somers, let us hear you. Do you have any
18 good news to tell us?
19 MS. SOMERS: On the expert witnesses for the Radic Defence, yes,
20 Your Honour, Mr. Fila and I have, as to the witness Kecmanovic's
21 statement, pursuant to the Chamber's urging us to find perhaps a written
22 means of addressing it as opposed to live cross-examination, we have
23 agreed in writing and have submitted a copy to the Chamber just to know
24 about it, that we, as the Prosecution, maintain our non-acceptance. But
25 rather than have cross-examination, we will submit our own expert report
1 in refutation of their report, and hope that that would suit the Chamber's
2 concerns over time, and I think Mr. Fila agrees that that might be as
4 On the other two -- the psychiatric reports, we, of course, have
5 not changed our position on. We will seek cross-examination of both
6 experts. And on the report of Mr. Beatovic, Dr. Beatovic, we also would
7 seek to challenge that and cross-examine. But we did try, where we could,
8 reach the accord, which will save a fair amount of time, I believe.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Ms. Somers.
10 Mr. Fila, do you wish to add something to the issue of expert
12 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, due to the problems with
13 translation, I agree with Ms. Somers that instead of hearing Professor
14 Kecmanovic, the Prosecution submits their written objections. If that is
15 what has just been stated, then we have an agreement on that, because I
16 have received a somewhat different translation.
17 As regards to other experts - I don't know their names by heart by
18 now - as well as Mr. Beatovic, it is the position of the Defence that
19 there is no need to call them to testify, the reason being judicial
20 economy, not that I would have any special objections to their testifying
21 here in Court. In our system, these testimonies would be considered only
22 in relation to sentencing, and in view of the relevant provision of your
23 Statute, you have an obligation to take into account the practice of
24 sentencing before domestic courts. That is not the case in our system.
25 For example, as regards Ms. Najman, the Chamber ordered that a
1 Dutch expert be appointed, and they managed to find an agreement. As
2 regards Professor Beatovic, again mindful of the judicial economy, I chose
3 him, because in the Kunarac case he was heard as an expert witness. He
4 was examined by the Prosecution and his testimony is on the record. I
5 have nothing against that portion of his -- of the record being made part
6 of the evidence in this case. I do not wish to contest any of that. So
7 that would solve the problem. That was the reason why I elected him as
8 our expert witness, because he has already been used for that purpose and
9 he has already been cross-examined, and things will move faster. If my
10 learned colleague insists on calling them, then I have nothing against
11 it. Thank you.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Fila. Your suggestion
13 is quite welcome.
14 Ms. Somers, do you have anything to say in response to this
15 suggestion of Mr. Fila? He chose one expert witness because he has
16 already testified in another case on more or less the same issue. I view
17 the Office of the Prosecutor as one and single institution. Do you have
18 anything to say in response to this suggestion of Mr. Fila?
19 MS. SOMERS: I do, Your Honour. I have something to say. Perhaps
20 in the other case the first admission of the psychiatrist was not the one
21 that he made in our case, which was that he did not follow procedure,
22 which suggests that it is a fundamentally-flawed examination, and
23 therefore I would request in this instance, irrespective of what may have
24 taken place in another Chamber, because that apparently was not a concern
25 there, we would have to examine him on his methodology and the procedure,
1 which, by his own admission, was not standard, was not followed.
2 The other psychologist, we have indicated we challenge on the
3 basis -- on a number of bases, among them bias, and would ask the
4 opportunity -- albeit I don't expect to have to extensively cross-examine,
5 nonetheless cross-examination, I think, is appropriate. We have set the
6 grounds out in our response.
7 On Dr. Beatovic -- I'm sorry. Perhaps -- was it Dr. Beatovic? I
8 thought it was a psychiatrist that was referred to in the other case, in
9 Kunarac. I may have misunderstood the use of it. I was referring to Dr.
10 van den Bussche. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding on my part.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I thought it was about
12 Professor Beatovic, because you said it was irrelevant. But Mr. Fila
13 suggested that in addition to admitting the report, that we also admit or
14 tender the record of his testimony and the record of his
15 cross-examination. That is what I wanted to hear you on, your opinion on
16 that suggestion.
17 MS. SOMERS: Yes, but I hope the Chamber doesn't mind that I did
18 inform it as well as the bases for our wishing to cross-examine the
19 psychiatrist. I think that also should be a matter for the Chamber to
21 The statement of Dr. Beatovic, we maintain, is irrelevant, purely
22 irrelevant. However, if the Chamber is going to consider it, we would
23 want to -- even though the Office of the Prosecutor is an integral
24 organisation, there are different aspects of a witness's testimony which
25 may be sought by one Prosecution team in a given case that may vary in
1 another case, and we would ask to have an opportunity as to the points
2 that we think need to be challenged, to have a quick but opportunity to
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Somers, I am not going
5 to give you any guidelines for your work, it's not my task here. But in
6 my capacity as a Presiding Judge and a Judge of this Tribunal, we have to
7 balance the objectives and have in mind the resources that we have for
8 that. We really need to know what is the objective of calling one
9 particular witness in view of the overall case. If it is, indeed, very
10 important that we should call him for the purposes of the case, then of
11 course we will call the witness to testify.
12 But I don't need a definite answer at the point, and I think that
13 we can move on with our next issue which is mentioned on the agenda that
14 we gave yesterday.
15 There is a request made by the Radic Defence for certain witnesses
16 to produce medical documents. The issue is under deliberation by the
17 Chamber and we will probably make our ruling shortly.
18 Still regarding our yesterday's agenda, the Zigic Defence, I think
19 we have all of the requests to that effect and they are pending, they are
20 being considered by the Chamber, and we will make a ruling.
21 I think that as far as our yesterday's agenda is concerned we have
22 covered all points, all issues.
23 We received a number of new requests or motions recently, and I
24 should perhaps give the floor to Mr. Fila to argue his motion for
25 protective measures. I don't know whether you need a private session, or
1 do you think you can argue the motion publicly?
2 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I refrain from
3 mentioning the names, I think I can address the issue in public, and the
4 names are not necessary.
5 The witnesses in question are witnesses who have not requested
6 protective measures on a prior occasion, except for the one who is a Serb
7 and who requested safe conduct here and back.
8 However, I must say that there is a leakage of information from
9 this Tribunal. People happened to learn about things, about testimonies,
10 which is then inevitably followed by a number of threats and various kinds
11 of trouble. You will remember the issue which we had in the Blaskic
12 case. All of a sudden, names of witnesses become publicly known. I am
13 absolutely sure that this cannot happen at this level here, at the level
14 of the participants here in the proceedings; however, we should try to
15 find out how such leakages are possible. That is the reason why certain
16 witnesses, all of a sudden, decide to request protective measures.
17 The situation has changed from this past Friday, and that is the
18 subject of my motion. I kindly request the Chamber to grant this request
19 for protective measures because these witnesses have explicitly told me
20 that they would not come here if they are not granted protective
21 measures. They are all non-Serbs, victims who were detained in the camp
22 and who are willing to put a nice word here before the Chamber on behalf
23 of Mr. Radic. That is why they are requesting these protective measures,
24 and these are the grounds for my motion.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Fila.
1 Before I give the floor to Ms. Somers, I need to ask two questions.
2 When you say that information leaks from this Tribunal, I don't
3 know whether you are referring to public sessions or private sessions.
4 Also, the list which you mentioned, I wanted to know whether it was a
5 confidential list or not.
6 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I really don't know. Yes,
7 it was a confidential document, but I don't know how it became known. We
8 also come to learn the names of Prosecution witnesses, I have to be honest
9 about that; but how such things become known, I really don't know.
10 Whether these people talk in public, in cafes, at home, whether this is
11 due to a lack of conscientiousness on behalf of certain individuals, I
12 don't know.
13 For example, a witness of mine recently received a telephone call
14 on behalf of someone who introduced himself as counsel for the accused
15 Radic and who told him that he didn't need to come.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] When you say that they talk in
17 cafes, at home, is it here, in The Hague, or over there?
18 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] No, not here, over there.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Fila.
20 We will see if there is anything we can do about it.
21 Ms. Somers, any comments, reactions, or suggestions in respect of
22 this motion?
23 MS. SOMERS: On this particular motion, Your Honour, we do not
24 oppose the protective measures, as we know them, that are suggested. Of
25 course, the matter of safe conduct is in the Chamber's hands and is really
1 not for us to comment on. But as to the measures, as long as it's an open
2 session, we think there's no objection.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Ms. Susan Somers.
4 Your reservation was on condition that these hearings be held in public
5 session. What exactly did you mean by "an open session"?
6 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, if I understand correctly --
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We are talking about protective
8 measures here.
9 MS. SOMERS: Right. And within the context of open session, a
10 pseudonym, distortion, absolutely no problem, no problem at all. Anything
11 else would be in the Chamber's hands. It's not something addressed to
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The Chamber is going to review
14 the matter and make a ruling certainly before you begin your case,
15 Mr. Fila.
16 For the Radic Defence, are there any other questions? I think
17 not. Yes, there are. Documents. But I've already told you that that is
18 under review, so please go on.
19 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes, there's no problem. I don't want
20 to spoil your week by telling you about my problems. I'll keep them to
21 myself. Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think, with respect to the
23 Radic Defence, we have no other issues to address.
24 I think that we still have a question which I forgot to mention
25 for the Zigic Defence, and that is the question of a witness that the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.
1 Zigic Defence would like to call in his two-fold capacity as a witness of
2 fact and as an expert witness.
3 Could you, Mr. Stojanovic, explain that for us? What is the Rule
4 that you are relying on for this?
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
6 I think that we would be saving on time and resources for the
7 Tribunal because this is one of the leading doctors of the general
8 hospital in Prijedor who personally treated Zigic's wounds; that is one
10 The second is that one of the leading physicians of that hospital
11 also had insight into the treatment of one of the dead in Keraterm whose
12 death is attributed to our client. This is a person who has the knowledge
13 of an eyewitness, on the one hand, and on the other, he has the expertise
14 of medical knowledge.
15 In our first revised list, we did suggest a medical expert
16 witness. This one would just stand in place of that former medical
17 expert. So he would not be an addition, but instead of the expert Dunjic,
18 we would have this person as the medical expert. So I think that it would
19 be useful and helpful, and it would save time.
20 We have submitted our request to the Registry. They have told us
21 that we should notify the Chamber about it. It is rather important that
22 we have a ruling quickly, because if it be granted, then the expert
23 witness could start working immediately. In any event, this same person
24 has been proposed anyway as an eyewitness and, in our judgement, he will
25 have to come anyway.
1 If I may add, his finding as an expert witness and his statement
2 as an eyewitness do not coincide in every respect.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, for me to be
4 able to understand better what you are telling us, when you say that this
5 expert witness is also a fact witness, the facts that he observed, were
6 they facts that have to do with the observation of a patient or some other
7 facts? In other words, the facts that he observed, are they facts related
8 to a patient of his, of a particular patient?
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] To make myself quite clear, I can
10 say that it is a physician who personally treated Mr. Zoran Zigic. He
11 amputated his finger, in fact.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but why not call him as an
13 expert witness? He observed this and he has his opinion, and that's it,
14 that would be it. That would mean that he would have to produce a report
15 in accordance with Rule 94 bis.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we accept your
17 suggestion gladly on condition that you make such a ruling. His presence
18 as a fact witness was on our list as a reserve, but we would prefer, in
19 fact, to bring him as an expert witness. If the Chamber were to accept
20 him as an expert witness, he would be deleted from the list of fact
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Another question for you,
23 Mr. Stojanovic, before I give the floor to Ms. Susan Somers, because there
24 are many things at stake here.
25 We also have your request of the 15th of February for protective
1 measures. Could you give us an idea primarily with respect to the grounds
2 for protective measures and the grounds for a videolink so that we can
3 hear the views of the Prosecutor after that?
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I think that we suggested
5 protective measures for four witnesses, if I'm not mistaken. Four or
6 five -- no, sorry, five. Four of them are of Muslim ethnicity, and they
7 personally feel, as they told us, that they would be at risk if it were to
8 be learnt that they were testifying here for somebody charged for crimes
9 against Muslims. All of them are, today, living in the Republic of
11 Also, and this may be more a problem for the Victims and Witnesses
12 Unit, they also requested dislocation. This is something that may be
13 discussed later should the Chamber, by decision, grant such a
15 The fifth witness is not of Muslim ethnicity. According to his
16 own assurances, he is prepared to mention certain names or certain persons
17 who committed some of the crimes of which Mr. Zigic is charged; however,
18 those persons are at liberty and, as far as we know, in his vicinity. So
19 that is the reason why he has requested protection from public knowledge,
20 that such statements should not become a matter of public knowledge.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. But, Mr. Stojanovic, the
23 reasons for the video conference?
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I think that for one witness, the
25 reason is rather simple. He simply doesn't dare fly, get on an
1 aeroplane. If necessary, we can consult a psychiatrist about this. But
2 if he were not to fly, it would take several days for him to come here and
3 get back again. That is the reason for one witness.
4 For the second, I must say quite openly that he was mentioned on
5 two Tribunal indictments and he does not feel quite safe coming into this
6 courtroom. The former main Prosecutor, Ms. Louise Arbour, withdrew
7 further proceedings against him, but I think if one were to put oneself in
8 his position, one might understand his fears of appearing in this
9 Tribunal. You have his name; there is no secret about it.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. We need
11 to speed things up a little because we have to finish at 3.00, as I have
13 Ms. Susan Somers, these matters that were discussed -- also, I
14 didn't ask Mr. Stojanovic to comment on the motion for the production of
15 documents and manuscripts, that is, the motion of the 13th of February,
16 2001, and the points having to do with protective measures.
17 So, Ms. Susan Somers, you have the floor.
18 MS. SOMERS: As to, Your Honour, the issue of the physician
19 appearing in an expert capacity, we do object. This particular physician
20 is intimately involved, factually, in the defence of the Zigic case. The
21 essence of expert testimony is impartiality, neutrality, objectivity, and
22 I submit to this Trial Chamber it is virtually impossible for this
23 individual to present an objective, impartial, and neutral line of
24 testimony. Therefore, I think the only capacity in which he could appear
25 and submit to full cross-examination that would be meaningful would be as
1 a fact witness.
2 Working slightly backward, a motion for production of documents
3 and manuscripts I don't believe I have seen. Oh, I see. It's on the
4 latter part. I'm sorry. I thought it was a separate document. If I can
5 take a minute and review it, I will certainly look at this. If this in
6 any way is supposed to substitute for 66(B), we'll have to look at that,
7 because that, of course, would have its own very specific language. But
8 let me just look at that in a moment, if I may.
9 On the issue of a witness who was formerly an indictee appearing,
10 that is a matter fully within the control of my counsel opposite. I could
11 only indicate that it was my understanding at the time of withdrawal of
12 indictments that the reasons were not going to issues of probable cause.
13 They had other concerns attached to them. So I cannot address anything
14 other than it is a judgement call by Mr. Stojanovic, and whatever measures
15 he deems appropriate to seek from the Chamber would have to be really in
16 his court to determine.
17 If I -- may I have just a moment to review the request on the
18 documents, and then ...
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
21 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, on issues of original signatures on
22 documents, I am not clear what document the Prosecutor has in the evidence
23 vault that would indicate whether it is a copy or an original. If I may
24 be permitted to check, I will do that. At this point, I don't know
25 whether it really is literally an original original, or a certified copy.
1 Excuse me.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MS. SOMERS: Mr. Saxon has indicated that it's possible that, as
4 this concerns a former witness, perhaps the Witness Unit may have a
5 document with the handwriting sample on it, because of requirements for
6 signing for various aspects of travel reimbursement or travel documents,
7 and that may be an alternative. But I shall check, certainly, and see
8 what the status of our document is.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The question is that the Zigic
10 Defence needs signatures to be able to make a comparative study. So to
11 know whether the signature in that document is the real signature, I have
12 to have a document with the real signature that is recognised as a real
13 signature, and that is what the Zigic Defence has asked, if I understood
14 them correctly. I didn't give him the floor about this because I thought
15 you had read the request. In any event, we have a written request and you
16 can respond in writing, and the Chamber will rule.
17 But I have a question for you, Ms. Susan Somers. This question of
18 a doctor who examined the accused Mr. Zigic, whether he should come as an
19 expert witness or a fact witness, you have told us your opinion. But if
20 he comes in his capacity as fact witness, would you admit that, being a
21 physician, that he can also be examined about his opinion and not simply
22 in the strictest sense regarding information? What is your position about
24 MS. SOMERS: It would depend on what opinion is being called for.
25 Normally treating physicians would indicate: I did A -- the patient came,
1 I did A, B, or C, released the patient with the following instructions.
2 To project into the future would require, I think, quite an establishment
3 of credentials, and I'm not sure that above and beyond what the physician
4 did as a treating physician would be appropriate to inquire into.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So this is a comment rather like
6 the one I make. Everyone is referring to his own system. In my system,
7 if a witness of fact is considered qualified to give an opinion on facts,
8 he can be asked about those opinions. If, for example, a party produces a
9 witness, being a qualified doctor with specialisation possibly, one might
10 agree to ask him about things which are not merely information but which
11 can fall under the category of expertise, opinion, qualifications, and so
12 on. Do you understand my point?
13 MS. SOMERS: I do, Your Honour, and I think that the Chamber does
14 this with witnesses, for example, from the police, asking questions based
15 on -- I hate to call it expertise, but experience, experiential
16 background. And I think that there is a certain latitude that is
17 afforded, but -- one perhaps can't exactly define it, but one knows it
18 when one sees it, has been exceeded, and I would assume that we would be
19 able to make our appropriate objections if the Chamber -- or if the line
20 of questioning, in our judgement, went beyond what would be appropriate.
21 But yes, of course this happens all the time.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I give the floor to
23 Mr. Stojanovic now to respond, because I didn't start out with you. So if
24 you could, rather quickly, tell us your opinion, because we have to
25 complete this Status Conference in 12 minutes' time.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I shall be very brief, Your
2 Honours. I think that it is a fact that -- that the fact that this doctor
3 treated Zigic personally is a great advantage for an expert opinion. In
4 any event, we feel that questions that may be addressed to him may be
5 divided into a section relating to the actual injury; and the second part
6 could be his expertise, his assessment of the intensity of pain suffered
7 by Zigic and what his physical capability was after that injury for a
8 certain given period of time. And another subject which is purely within
9 the area of expertise is the characteristics of the injuries of Emsud
10 Bahonjic, a person who succumbed, according to the indictment, to the
11 beatings of Zoran Zigic and who was admitted to that hospital twice during
12 his detention and about which there is the appropriate documentation.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. We have another
15 request from the Kos Defence which coincides, up to a point, with another
16 request of the Zigic Defence and which affects the position of Witness R.
17 We still do not have the response of the Prosecutor. We are aware of the
18 arguments with respect to Zigic. We will now only take Kos, in two or
19 three words, so that the Prosecutor may respond orally and the Chamber may
20 rule very quickly after that. Who would like to speak on behalf of the
21 Kos Defence?
22 Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan.
23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, I have very little to add to what
24 Your Honours have before you within the motion. The essence of our
25 request is that this is relevant evidence and there's a basis for
1 admitting it, and we respectfully request that you do so.
2 MS. SOMERS: If I may simply inform the Chamber --
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers, are you able
4 to say something?
5 MS. SOMERS: I just now received this from the Kos Defence, and if
6 the Chamber would permit us to review it, although I -- my initial
7 reaction is that it flies in the face of the Chamber's ruling about
8 statements, and I cannot --
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me for interrupting.
10 Would you prefer to respond in writing, Ms. Susan Somers?
11 MS. SOMERS: If the Chamber would indulge us, I think it would be
12 better. Thank you.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We would like to clean up the
14 table regarding rulings by the Chamber, and that is why I have asked you
15 for your response.
16 I think that's all. Is there anything else on the part of the
18 Yes, Ms. Susan Somers.
19 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, this may be a bad time because of the
20 Chamber's time constraints, but at some point there were several exhibits
21 which were raised for admission earlier and just have not been ruled on.
22 Would it be better to tack this onto the end of another hearing? Because
23 there are something like -- about eight, one of which we were minded of
24 yesterday kindly by Mr. Krstan Simic. I can read the numbers out if it
25 would help, and then if the Chamber wishes ... 3/173, 3/174, 3/175, 3/176,
1 3/177, 3/178, 3/179, and 3/181.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We have another seven minutes,
3 more or less. Mr. Simic, does that have to do with you? I think it
4 does. Do you have a position regarding these documents already?
5 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. In fact, I
6 received this filing from Ms. Somers today, and I will respond in
7 writing. But I would like to remind you of something that I omitted to
8 mention and which we consider to be very important. That is the question
9 of affidavits. We have tendered them, as prescribed by the Rules, and we
10 feel that they should be admitted without cross-examination, because we
11 underline that they are a specific type of testimony and that
12 cross-examination should be an extreme exception.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Simic, we're going to
14 talk about those documents on another occasion, once you have exchanged
16 With regard to affidavits, I think that I said yesterday that this
17 motion was under review, so perhaps this week or next week a ruling will
18 be made.
19 The Chamber said that it would make rulings at the end of each
20 Defence case, but, as you know, the Prosecutor always has seven days after
21 the appearance of each witness. When the Chamber said that it would
22 render its ruling afterwards, it always means after those seven days, that
23 is, seven days after the last day of your case. So you will have your
24 decision in due time.
25 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Susan Somers.
2 MS. SOMERS: Just confirming that the Chamber has our filed
3 response, that would be it.
4 Your Honours, may I make inquiry very quickly, so that we don't
5 let this go by the board, on the dates for videolink? Just so we can line
6 up all the -- any personnel who may be necessary. If possible, perhaps at
7 the first opportunity when we return from whenever we return from, we
8 could just not let that disappear. I think it's going to be important for
9 timing. Plus, also to have some exhibits sent, perhaps, along if they
10 need to be presented, if they're not terribly visible here, copies of
12 Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, that's fine.
14 We have worked well, we have completed our work six minutes ahead
15 of time, and today we didn't mistreat the interpreters. So it's not
16 always that we treat all the interpreters badly.
17 We will stop there. We won't be seeing each other for a long time
18 now, and we will come again on the date that you are familiar with, at
19 9.20. So I wish you success in your work.
20 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned
21 at 2.56 p.m.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.