1 Wednesday, 3 May 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Raseta, the Bench takes this opportunity to
7 remind you that you are still bound by the declaration you made yesterday
8 to tell the truth, nothing else but the truth.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 WITNESS: RADE RASETA [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Perovic.
14 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Before I start with -- or resume my
15 cross-examination, I would like to give a copy of the statement the
16 witness gave to the ICTY investigators, and I would kindly ask the usher's
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we rely on your estimate last night that you
19 won't be more than 10 minutes, Mr. Perovic?
20 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] I believe that I shall finish within
21 15 minutes.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Perovic: [Continued]
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Raseta, good afternoon.
25 A. Good afternoon.
1 Q. Yesterday the Prosecutor gave you a document, which is Prosecution
2 exhibit number 95, the report you sent to the chief of the security
3 administration of the VJ, General Dimitrijevic; do you recall that?
4 That's the report dated 2nd May.
5 A. Which page are you referring to?
6 Q. I'm referring to the document in general now, but I'm actually
7 dealing with page 22 of your statement, paragraph 72. Have you found it?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. This is a document you confirmed in your response to the
10 Prosecutor that you drafted it and sent it to General Dimitrijevic; is
11 that correct?
12 A. Yes, but on the basis of the contents produced by the security
14 Q. I have two questions in relation to this document. First is the
15 following: In paragraph 71 of your statement to the OTP, you state that
16 you have no knowledge of any attacks, especially not air attacks, on the
17 refugees in Western Slavonia during the so-called Operation Flash.
18 However, in this report you state on page 1, the last paragraph of -- on
19 that page, and I'm referring to the report for General Dimitrijevic, that
20 during combat activities on the 1st of May, 1995, two, as you put it,
21 Ustasha MiG-21 aircraft were struck down. That's what you state in your
22 report to General Dimitrijevic. Is that correct?
23 A. It is correct that this is contained in the report. However, I
24 repeat again that this is the part of the report drafted by the security
25 organ that I merely took over. Do you understand?
1 Q. I do understand. However, as far as I understand, you sent
2 unverified information to General Dimitrijevic in the security
3 administration of the VJ?
4 A. That's also the report of Commander Perovic, which was sent along
5 the relevant lines to the VJ General Staff. If my part of the report was
6 incorrect, so was that part of the report too.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Perovic, you actually start asking the next
8 question before the interpreter is finished. Could you slow down, please?
9 You're moving very fast. And, Mr. Raseta, you also reply very quickly.
10 Can you take a break after the question, just to allow the interpreters to
11 interpret. I could hear the interpreter speaking without a breath in
12 between. I think we shouldn't subject them to so much pressure.
13 Thank you very much, Mr. Perovic. Take it slowly.
14 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for that, Your Honour.
15 Q. On page 3 of this report you sent to General Dimitrijevic --
16 MR. BLACK: Your Honour, I apologise for the interjection. Could
17 we perhaps see this report on the e-court because I think it's very
18 difficult for the witness to answer questions about what's in the report
19 without seeing the report.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: May we see the report on the e-court, please,
21 Mr. Perovic?
22 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] That's Exhibit 95, which was
23 presented to the witness by the OTP yesterday.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's true. Let's have it on the screen.
25 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. We're referring to page 3 of the report, that's to say the last
2 page, and the paragraph wherein you state that there was a discussion at
3 the meeting of the Supreme Defence Council of the RSK, I will read this
4 paragraph out to you. The report reads: "All the participants in the
5 discussion and proposals agreed that Ustashas should not be given in to.
6 However, the approaches as to the method whereby the situation should be
7 resolved differed all except for Martic, Celeketic and some other closest
8 associates of the Main Staff were in favour of a peaceful solution of the
9 newly arisen situation by way of negotiations, and as a pre-condition for
10 that, they require that the commander of the 18th Corps of the army of the
11 RSK should sign a cease-fire agreement with the commander of the other
12 warring party, which would mean a surrender and a capitulation of this
13 part of the territory."
14 My question in connection with this is as follows: Were all those
15 present at the meeting of the Supreme Council in favour -- except for
16 Martic and Celeketic, as you put it, in favour of the idea that a part of
17 the RSK territory, namely Western Slavonia, should be the subject of a
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. All those present, except for Martic and Celeketic, were in favour
21 of a capitulation in Western Slavonia?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Another question in this context. Do you know that under the RSK
24 constitution capitulation is provided for as one of the gravest crimes?
25 A. I don't recall that. I read the constitution, but I don't recall
1 that part.
2 Q. I have no further questions in relation to this document.
3 In your statement for the OTP you state, among other things, that
4 on the basis of your military knowledge and experience, you did not deem
5 the use of the Orkan, VBR Orkan, to have been an appropriate weapon to be
6 used against Zagreb in retaliation for Western Slavonia. You also state
7 that on this occasion innocent people were casualties.
8 And in view of the fact that a good part of your career you spent
9 in armoured and mechanised units, as you state in your personal
10 background, my question is the following: On the basis of your
11 experience, on your relevant experience, what would have been an adequate
12 response to such a situation, since you concluded that the course taken
13 was inadequate?
14 A. The appropriate course of action would have been to fire at
15 targets from which the territory of the Republic of Serbian Krajina was
16 fired upon. I'm primarily referring to targeting targets that are points,
17 whereas I said yesterday that the multiple-barrelled rocket launcher aims
18 at an area and one never knows how large an area will be hit. Artillery
19 pieces are one type of weaponry, and multiple-barrel rocket launchers are
20 quite another.
21 Q. In connection with this, or, rather, with your remark that
22 innocent people were killed when Zagreb was shelled, I have the following
23 question for you: Do you know how people were killed in Western Slavonia
24 during Operation Flash?
25 A. About 100 people. I believe so. Of course, I'm not trying to
1 find any justification for that either. I believe, and I do not approve
2 of -- of the suffering and the killing of innocent people on either side.
3 Q. According to Croatian sources we were able to hear about, 168
4 people were killed in Operation Flash. Do you know how many people were
5 killed in the shelling of Zagreb?
6 A. I believe the figures are at around 30 and about 100 wounded.
7 Q. According to Croatian sources that we arrived at during this
8 trial, there were five killed persons as a result of the shelling of
9 Zagreb. Are you aware of this?
10 A. No, I'm not.
11 Q. Yesterday at one point in your testimony you mentioned
12 retaliation. That's how you called or styled the shelling of Zagreb. I'm
13 asking you as a military expert why did you use that particular term?
14 MR. BLACK: Objection, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Black.
16 MR. BLACK: Sorry for the interruption.
17 I would just clarify that this witness, while he does have a
18 military background, has not been offered, certainly by the Prosecution, I
19 don't believe his expertise as a military expert has been established as
20 such. And consequently I don't have any objection to him answering the
21 question, but I don't think it should be presented as expert opinion under
22 the Rules.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you hear that, Mr. Perovic? Do you have any
25 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] I accept the remark by my learned
1 friend, and I will rephrase the question.
2 Q. I will omit the part of the question referring to him as a
3 military expert, but the rest of my question stands.
4 A. It wasn't I who used the term "retaliation," rather, it was
5 General Celeketic. I said yesterday that retaliation was not a term
6 normally used during the military studies.
7 Q. How would you then qualify the shelling of Zagreb?
8 A. The return fire and revenge for what had happened in Western
10 Q. As revenge or as an attempt to put a stop to the attack against
11 Western Slavonia?
12 A. I believe it was far too late to stop the attack against Western
13 Slavonia. By that time the Croatian forces had captured almost the entire
14 territory of Western Slavonia. And I'm saying by the time Zagreb was
15 shelled, at least I believe so. You seem to be saying that this
16 particular action was taken at the -- in the initial stage of the attack
17 against Western Slavonia.
18 Q. In your report to General Dimitrijevic you state that five
19 to 6.000 people, refugees in Western Slavonia, of whom more than 3.000
20 were elderly and children, were encircled by the Croatian forces and even
21 subject of strikes and that this was happening between the 1st and the
22 3rd of May, 1991; is that correct?
23 A. That's correct. However, I repeat this was not my data, but
24 rather the data received from the intelligence department.
25 Q. Let us move on to a different topic, which indirectly is related
1 to the former topic. At the meeting of the Supreme Defence Council of the
2 RSK, you came to know that General Celeketic, the commander of the Main
3 Staff of the army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, gave his resignation
4 after the shelling of Zagreb. What was the reason for his removal or,
5 rather, for his resignation?
6 A. He told those of us who were present that he could not ever
7 forgive himself for having lost Western Slavonia when he had promised the
8 president of the Republic that not even an inch of the land would be
9 captured whilst he was commander. I believe this to have been the main
10 reason for his resignation.
11 Q. In paragraph 76 on page 24 of your statement for the OTP, you
12 mention as the reason for his resignation something quite different. You
13 state that the Celeketic had told you that the chief of the VJ General
14 Staff, Colonel General Perisic decided to fire him and replace him with
15 General Mrksic. Is that the correct quotation from your statement?
16 A. Yes. The quotation is correct. However, what you're asking me
17 about now is something that I arrived at as a result of what General
18 Celeketic told me himself. I believe that the information concerning
19 Perisic wanting to fire him was something that reached us only after
20 Celeketic had resigned.
21 Q. If that's true, then I am going to ask you the following: The
22 withdrawal of Celeketic or his removal, for which even Belgrade was
23 designated as the place where the initiative was launched for, could it be
24 perceived as a punishment for the shelling of Zagreb?
25 A. I cannot categorically claim either way, because I do not have any
1 information to that effect.
2 Q. I asked you this because in the following paragraph, that's to say
3 paragraph 77, you state that from the chief of the intelligence service of
4 the RSK, Knezevic, you learnt that the big boss, and I suppose you meant
5 Milosevic, was very angry at the -- with the shelling of Zagreb. Did you
6 have any such information?
7 A. No, except for what Lieutenant-Colonel Knezevic told me.
8 Q. Did Knezevic tell you anything else in addition to the fact that
9 the big boss was very angry? Did the big boss mention a dangerous
10 escalation of the conflict?
11 A. I don't remember that.
12 Q. That's contained in your report to Dimitrijevic.
13 A. Could you please refer me to that?
14 Q. I'm sorry, not in your report to Dimitrijevic, but rather in your
15 statement for the OTP. "Knezevic told me that the 'big boss' considered
16 the shelling of Zagreb a dangerous escalation ..."
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is that how Knezevic put it to you?
19 A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. You spoke, among other things, of the fact that Colonel Gacic
21 refused to carry out Celeketic's order to shell Sisak. This is contained
22 in paragraph 82 of your statement on page 26. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. After all these events Gacic went back to the army of Yugoslavia,
25 and as you put it, he was not punished for having refused to carry out
1 Celeketic's order; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Does this not illustrate that the VJ and the SVK were not, after
4 all, one tissue, as you described it yesterday?
5 A. However, Gacic refused to carry out an order in the SVK and not in
6 the army of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. For having done that, he
7 should have incurred consequences down here and not up there in the VJ.
8 Q. Well, in the VJ there were no consequences for him, were there?
9 A. No.
10 Q. In paragraph 90 on page 28 of your report -- of your statement you
11 state that while you -- that during your service in the security organs of
12 the SVK, you did not see any reports on alleged violations of customs and
13 laws of war. My question is the following: Was this the case because
14 there were none, or were there some other reasons?
15 A. In stating this I referred primarily to the documentation that I
16 had at my disposal in the Security Service, that's to say, that I did not
17 come across any such documents.
18 Q. In this same paragraph you also state the following: "I don't
19 recall that murder or other crimes were widespread, but there were
20 isolated cases of murder." Is that correct?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. That's an accurate piece of information?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. In paragraph 91 you state that in 1994 a military prosecutor
25 office was established in the SVK. You go on to say the president of the
1 military court was Colonel Milan Vignjevic. Did you file before this
2 Prosecutor's office any report which had to do with alleged crimes?
3 A. I don't remember that. If there were such instances, then such
4 reports must have been filed by the police, by the military police.
5 Q. But nobody placed any obstacles in your way of cooperating with
6 that particular institution?
7 A. Of course not.
8 Q. I have no further questions for you, Mr. Raseta.
9 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have completed my
10 cross-examination. Thank you.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Perovic.
12 Mr. Black?
13 MR. BLACK: No questions, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Black.
16 JUDGE HOEPFEL: No, thank you.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Judge?
18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: No, thank you.
19 Questioned by the Court:
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Raseta, I am going ask you a few questions and
21 we can get done with this. Let's start at the end where you've just been
22 testifying, while it is fresh. You have been asked a question about what
23 you said in paragraph 90 of your report where you state that there were
24 isolated killings, and you further state that you do not recall these
25 being investigated. You remember what has just been asked? You remember
1 that, Mr. Raseta?
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Raseta.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Raseta, your microphone is not on.
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you hear me now?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, I can hear you now.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this related for the
8 most part to individual killings that occurred in the units of our army,
9 whether by accident or because of quarrels among the men. It was those
10 killings that I was referring to, not other kinds of killings.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, I understand that. I hadn't asked my
12 question yet. My question really to you is: Are such isolated killings
13 normally investigated in the military?
14 A. Yes, an investigation is obligatory, it's mandatory.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. And you also testified this
16 afternoon that the shelling of Zagreb was too late to stop the attack on
17 Western Slavonia. Do you remember that?
18 A. Yes.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just for the record, when was Western Slavonia
21 A. I don't recall the precise date and time, but I do know that all
22 these events, which occurred in Western Slavonia, the withdrawal of the
23 18th Corps and parts of the population, most of the population, had
24 already occurred. They had already reached the borders of
25 Republika Srpska. Practically Western Slavonia was just about to fall or
1 had already been taken by the Croatian forces. And Zagreb was fired upon
2 on the second day, I think, or I don't know what day, but later.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The second day after what? The second day after
4 the fall of Western Slavonia?
5 A. Yes. When Western Slavonia was already controlled by the Republic
6 of Croatia.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: You testified yesterday to the effect that the
8 Yugoslav army gave the SVK logistical support. You remember that?
9 A. Yes.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you able to flush out for us what you actually
11 mean by logistical support? Can we give specific kinds of support that
12 were given by the VJ to the SVK?
13 A. This was exclusively logistical support, meaning fuel, lubricating
14 oil, ammunition, foodstuffs, quartermaster supplies, weapons. I'm
15 referring to artillery weapons. That was what logistical support meant.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Excuse my ignorance of military affairs. What is
17 meant by quartermaster supplies?
18 A. Footwear and clothing.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yesterday you mentioned that the shelling of Zagreb
20 would have been -- reporting of the shelling of Zagreb would have been
21 made to Mr. Milan Martic. This was in answer to a question whether you
22 knew that whether he was aware of the shelling. Do you remember that
24 A. I'm certain that he knew that General Celeketic, the commander,
25 would have had to inform him of that.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you aware of any disciplinary action taken by
2 Mr. Martic against those who shelled Zagreb?
3 A. I'm not aware of that, no.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You also mentioned yesterday that the attack on
5 Zagreb was not mentioned in the meeting of the 1st of May, 1995. Do you
6 remember that?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was such an attack mentioned at any other meeting
9 before it took place?
10 A. I don't remember that it was.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Captain Raseta, I have no
12 further questions.
13 Mr. Black, any questions arising from the questions by the Court?
14 MR. BLACK: None, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 Mr. Perovic?
17 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] Only one, Your Honour.
18 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Perovic:
19 Q. With respect to the questions put by His Honour, as for the length
20 of Operation Flash, the combat operation in Western Slavonia, are you
21 aware of when an agreement was reached with the Croatian government with
22 the mediation of Mr. Akashi and UNPROFOR in Western Slavonia, do you know
23 anything about this agreement?
24 A. No, I don't know anything about it.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. PEROVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions,
2 Your Honour.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Perovic.
4 Mr. Raseta, thank you so much for coming to testify. This is the
5 end of your testimony. You are now excused. You may stand down. And
6 thank you once again for coming to testify.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. And good day to you all.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we call the next witness, there are just a
10 few housekeeping matters to raise with the parties. The Prosecution filed
11 a motion for protective measures for Witness MM-088. I think this motion
12 was filed on the 28th of April. Am I right?
13 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon, I think it's Witness 080.
15 MR. WHITING: That's correct, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I believe that this witness is coming
17 immediately after the next witness.
18 MR. WHITING: Yes, Your Honour. We would anticipate that he would
19 testify -- he won't testify this week, it will be no sooner than Monday.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. The reason the Chamber raises this point is
21 because it does seem as if he has to come fairly soon, Mr. Milovancevic,
22 and the Chamber is mindful of the fact that the Defence has not had the
23 full two weeks within which to respond. Nonetheless, in view of the
24 scheduling of the witness, the Chamber would like to know whether the
25 Defence is in a position to respond as quickly as possible to this motion.
1 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we received the
2 submission on the 28th of April, and we can give our written response
3 tomorrow. Thank you.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The Chamber is grateful to
5 you for that accommodation, and the Chamber would like to repeat its
6 request to the Prosecution. The request was first made on the 8th of
7 March, to try and make these motions timelinessly [sic] to allow the
8 Defence to answer in time. Don't want to belabour the point, but just
9 want to repeat that request. And with respect to this witness this
10 request is even strengthened by the fact that the witness, according to
11 the statement expressed concern as early as October 2005 about his fears
12 to testify.
13 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I certainly take the Court's point.
14 With respect to this witness, I will only say this: That the -- that the
15 fears that were expressed at that time were -- were vague and it was not
16 in the context of this witness testifying. At that point you will recall
17 that the witness was not even on the witness list of the Prosecution. He
18 was added only later. And it -- the motion that was just filed was as a
19 result of a conversation with the witness that occurred very recently.
20 But, having said that, I take the Court's point. We'll try to file these
21 as quickly as possible when we get the information. Oftentimes we get
22 that information in the process of scheduling the witness which occurs
23 only a week or two before the witness appears, so that's why these motions
24 have come this way.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand. The discussion that you refer to
1 as "recent," it's as recently as February of this year; isn't that so?
2 MR. WHITING: I can't speak with certainty on that, but I believe
3 that it's not February, I believe it's within the past couple of weeks.
4 But I could be corrected on that. I may be wrong about that, but that's
5 my recollection.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: We shall not belabour the point.
7 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
9 Once again, thank you, Mr. Milovancevic, if you can file that
10 response tomorrow.
11 There was sometime back some discussion about the agreed facts.
12 The Bench is mindful of the fact that at some stage it was agreed that
13 there was no need to file any corrected version of those agreed facts.
14 But it's been brought to the attention of the Chamber that without the
15 corrected version filed as an exhibit, this does -- it's -- those facts
16 are sort of floating and if they could perhaps be filed as an exhibit, and
17 given an exhibit number, that would be much helpful. I'm sorry that the
18 Bench is causing you a duplication of work, but it's all questions of
19 procedure that we're still grappling with.
20 MR. WHITING: Your Honour it will no difficulty to do that. I'll
21 undertake with the Defence to coordinate that.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: That would be much appreciated. Thank you very
24 Could we move into private session for the next item, please?
25 [Private session]
11 Page 3983 redacted. Private session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Mr. Whiting.
14 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, unfortunately I have to inform the
15 Court that we have a little gap here in the schedule. We had anticipated
16 that this last witness would go longer and that he would take two days, a
17 day for the direct examination and then a full day for the
18 cross-examination; however, he went more quickly than we anticipated. So
19 our next witness actually will not be ready until tomorrow at 2.15 and I
20 really apologise for that.
21 However, there are a few housekeeping matters of our own that I
22 would like to raise, if I may. But before I do that, Mr. Black wanted me
23 to ask if he could be excused.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Black, you are excused from hearing about the
25 housekeeping matters.
1 MR. BLACK: Thank you.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
3 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, and I told Defence counsel yesterday
4 that I would raise these matters, so it is no surprise. But what I
5 thought would be helpful would be -- as we're nearing the end of the
6 Prosecution case, if we would anticipate perhaps the schedule that would
7 occur between the Prosecution case and the Defence case, and I thought it
8 would be useful to do that now in advance so that everybody would be
9 prepared for whatever schedule is decided upon by the Trial Chamber.
10 We -- on our current schedule, we anticipate that the Prosecution
11 case will finish by the 2nd of June of this year. Of course there may be
12 slippage, but I wouldn't anticipate that it would be more than a few days
13 or a week. So assume that we finish the 2nd of June, which is in a month.
14 What I thought would be helpful is to discuss briefly what occurs
15 after that. Now, naturally under Rule 98 bis, the Defence may, if it
16 chooses, make a submission that the Prosecution has not met its case on
17 any or all counts. 98 bis, as the Court is no doubt aware, has been
18 recently amended in the last year or so, so that is now -- what used to be
19 a lengthy written process is now an oral process. The submissions are
20 made by the Defence orally, the Prosecution responds orally, the Trial
21 Chamber rules on that orally.
22 What I would imagine, what I would propose, I should say, is that
23 after the close of the Prosecution case that we set aside approximately a
24 week for that process to occur. And the reason I say a week is that I
25 would imagine the Defence would want perhaps a few days to prepare a
1 98 bis submission, prepare their oral submission, the -- they could then
2 make that submission, the Prosecution could respond that day or perhaps
3 would ask for the Court's indulgence to respond the next day. Simply if
4 the Prosecution has to kind of marshal its evidence and make its response
5 specifically. And then the Trial Chamber could rule on that within
6 whatever time is appropriate. But that process could be -- could be
7 completed, I would think, within a week or 10 days.
8 After that I would propose that the Defence -- that the Defence be
9 required to make its submissions under Rule 65 ter (G). That Rule
10 requires the Defence at the close of the Prosecution case, and I would
11 think after the 98 bis process has taken place, to file their witness list
12 with their summaries of witness -- what the witnesses will testify about,
13 their exhibit list and so forth, much as the Prosecution did at the
14 beginning of its case.
15 Once that is filed, I would propose that that be filed immediately
16 after the 98 bis ruling by the Trial Chamber. Once that is filed, I would
17 ask for -- that there be two weeks before the Defence case begins.
18 Because the Prosecution needs, and I would submit is entitled to, that
19 minimum amount of time in order to prepare for the testimony of the
20 Defence witnesses. That process entails checking to see if we have any
21 information about these witnesses, doing searches and so forth. And two
22 weeks is really, I would submit, the kind of minimum amount of time that
23 we need in order to do that.
24 So on that schedule, what I'm imagining is approximately a
25 three-week period between the end of the Prosecution case and the
1 beginning of the Defence case, assuming that those suggested dates can be
3 If we could move briefly into private session, just to address one
4 point on this.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
6 [Private session]
11 Pages 3988-3989 redacted. Private session.
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 Yes, Mr. Whiting.
17 MR. WHITING: Before I raise that last matter, I would just say
18 that with respect to the proposed schedule and Defence counsel's response,
19 and I will -- I will discuss this with Defence counsel, and maybe we can
20 reach some agreement, but of course the burden, there is a burden on the
21 Defence here, because they -- they are the ones who have to produce the
22 witness list and exhibit list and 65 ter list, so that is usually I can
23 say frankly where delay occurs, and so that's why I want to raise it now
24 so that maybe that could be avoided.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would imagine that the data for that kind of
1 preparation is already available for the Defence. It's just a question of
2 putting it down on paper and giving it to you. They already know what
3 witnesses they are going to call, what summaries they intend to file. One
4 would imagine.
5 MR. WHITING: One would imagine. And if that's true, then I would
6 agree with Your Honour that there would be no difficulty meeting the
7 proposed dead-line.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Looking at Mr. Milovancevic's face, it looks like
9 indeed my imagination is correct.
10 Am I right, Mr. Milovancevic? All right. The smile says it all.
11 Thank you very much.
12 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, the last matter that I wanted to raise,
13 and I've discussed this with the Defence, is the Court is perhaps aware of
14 the -- of the summer recess that has been -- that we have this year, and
15 it's -- it's a little odd because it's kind of early.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: 17th July to 6th August.
17 MR. WHITING: Correct. And I have discussed this with the
18 Defence, and I'm wondering if -- I mean, I raised it with the Defence, but
19 I think I can make the proposal on behalf of the Prosecution and the
20 Defence, is if we could, rather than resuming on the 7th of August, if we
21 could resume one week later on the 14th of August. And that has to do
22 with schedules of the Prosecution and of the Defence regarding personal
23 obligations. And I know it's a loss of a week of trial time, I'm aware of
24 that. I don't believe that at least speaking for the Prosecution, that we
25 have asked for any time off from the schedule. Of course there have been
1 gaps, I'm getting a look, I don't think we have.
2 In any event, I -- it would be greatly appreciated, I can --
3 speaking for the Prosecution, and I think also for the Defence if we could
4 extend it that -- an extra week. I do think that during that break time
5 work will be done towards the trial. We won't just be taking a break,
6 though we will obviously be doing that. There will be work being done
7 with respect to the final briefs, with respect to other ongoing trials, so
8 it's not completely lost time. And, as I said, all I can say is that I
9 would be grateful if we could do that.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you say this is for personal obligations,
11 personal reasons?
12 MR. WHITING: For myself, yes, Your Honour. I would like to be
13 quite candid about that. It is a family obligation back in the United
14 States that I have.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: And can the Chamber -- is it possible to slot that
16 week in the break between the Prosecution case and the schedule we've been
17 talking about, so that at least it is used productively in chambers rather
18 than just sort of --
19 MR. WHITING: I'm not sure I understand, Your Honour. I'm not
20 sure I understand what Your Honour is saying.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, we have just been talking about scheduling
22 once the Prosecution case closes and what is going to happen, and I'm just
23 saying, is it likely that that week that the Prosecution is asking for,
24 can be part of the three-week break, or whatever length of time break that
25 we have between the close of the Prosecution case and the opening of the
1 Defence case?
2 MR. WHITING: You mean that we would shorten that three -- take
3 one week from that three weeks.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Be a part of that break. Is that possible?
5 MR. WHITING: Well, if Your Honour -- and I'm sorry if I'm looking
6 a little bit slow here, but if Your Honour is saying the break between the
7 Prosecution and the Defence case may fall at that time, I don't think it
8 will, but if Your Honour is saying that instead of a three-week break
9 between Prosecution and Defence, we take a two-week break -- I'm sorry,
10 Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: The first, the former. The Bench means the former.
12 MR. WHITING: I see. I don't think that will occur because --
13 no, no, I'm sorry. Your Honour, the time of that one week that is
14 important, it is that week in August that is important. It's not flexible
15 from my point of view. And I do think that the Defence also would
16 appreciate that week. As Your Honour is aware, August is traditionally
17 the time when people take holiday and take breaks.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not aware, I'm sorry.
19 MR. WHITING: Well, that's certainly true in Europe.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I come from the south.
21 MR. WHITING: Right. And I come from -- I don't come from Europe
22 myself, but I've grown accustomed in my years here. And in any event, all
23 I can say, Your Honour, is that we would be grateful if we could have that
24 week. Thank you.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
1 Mr. Milovancevic, is it correct that that week in August would
2 suit the Defence also?
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour. We
4 have already discussed this matter with our learned friends from the
5 Prosecution, and this is, in fact, a joint submission on our part.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: To enjoy a traditional European holiday in that
7 week. Thank you very much. Now I understand. The Chamber has heard you.
8 Thank you very much.
9 You are not asking for an answer now, are you? Or would you like
10 to have it now.
11 MR. WHITING: It's up to Your Honours.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Let me find out from Their Honours.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. By a majority, your application has been
16 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. I repeat that we are most
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
19 Court adjourned until tomorrow at quarter past 2.00.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.22 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 4th day of May,
22 2006, at 2.15 p.m.