1 Wednesday, 15 May 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 5.01 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
7 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 Good afternoon on my behalf as well.
10 We -- in order to hear the remainder of the evidence for today,
11 we move into closed session.
12 [Closed session]
11 Pages 11152-11162 redacted. Closed session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 Mr. Shin, you're on your feet.
11 MR. SHIN: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Just one housekeeping
12 matter. In our 92 ter application we had noted one proposed addition --
13 associated exhibit, but upon further reflection, we will not be tendering
14 that as an associated exhibit, so as a result, there will be no
15 associated exhibits for the 92 ter statement.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information. No further
17 witnesses. I would like to use a little bit of time to deal with two
18 matters, the first very short.
19 The Chamber wishes to inform the parties that on the 30th of May,
20 2013, we'll start our morning session at 9.00 a.m. as opposed to the
21 usual 9.30 a.m.
22 Then I would also like to deliver a decision which is a decision
23 on the addition of three exhibits to the Prosecution's 65 ter exhibit
25 On the 12th of April of this year, the Prosecution filed its
1 seventh motion to add exhibits to its 65 ter exhibit list to tender
2 through Witness Tomasz Blaszczyk, who is RM214, and Witness RM269. The
3 Prosecution contends that the three proposed exhibits are relevant and of
4 probative value, in particular with regard to the accused's whereabouts
5 during the commission of crimes alleged in the indictment. The
6 Prosecution seeks to amend its Rule 65 ter exhibit list at this stage as
7 it only obtained information from Witness RM269 making the proposed
8 exhibits relevant and only received it on the 26th of February, 2013.
9 The Prosecution submits that the Defence will not suffer prejudice from
10 this addition as they will have enough time to review them before the
11 testimony of the witnesses.
12 On the 26th of April, the Defence filed a response objecting to
13 the motion in its entirety on the ground of lack of good cause,
14 submitting that the Prosecution filed its motion to add these three
15 exhibits to the Rule 65 ter list almost two months after it became aware
16 of their relevance.
17 The Chamber notes that the Defence has not disputed the relevance
18 and probative value of the proposed exhibits, which consist of a one-page
19 document, two aerial photographs, and a copy of an identification card.
20 While the Chamber considers that the Prosecution could and should have
21 sought the addition of these exhibits at an earlier stage and good cause
22 for the delay has not been shown, it recalls that good cause is only one
23 factor in the Chamber's consideration of whether the addition of proposed
24 exhibits is in the interests of justice.
25 The proposed exhibits are of prima facie relevance and of
1 probative value and relate directly to the testimony of the two witnesses
2 with whom they are to be used. Witness Blaszczyk and Witness RM269 are
3 currently scheduled to testify in the week of the 20th of May and towards
4 the middle of June 2013 respectively. Taking into account the limited
5 length of the proposed exhibits, the Chamber finds that the accused will
6 not be unduly prejudiced by their addition to the Prosecution's 65 ter
7 exhibit list at this stage. Moreover, the Defence will be able to
8 further address any prejudice it may have suffered from the late addition
9 to the Rule 65 ter exhibit list when the documents are used and tendered
10 by the Prosecution. In conclusion, the Chamber finds it to be in the
11 interests of justice to grant the addition of the exhibits bearing
12 provisional Rule 65 ter numbers 28786, 28787, and 28788.
13 This concludes the Chamber's decision.
14 If there are no further procedural matters to be raised -- I see,
15 Mr. Groome, you're on your feet.
16 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I know that Mr. McCloskey has informed
17 the Chamber that there -- we'll not have sufficient evidence to fill all
18 of the hearing time this week. I did want to remind the Chamber of a
19 proposal I made last week to discuss how best to deal with evidence of a
20 number of experts. I would suggest or request that we introduce that
21 topic at some point this week and perhaps even if it's productive to
22 speak about specific experts, I think that might allow greater efficiency
23 later in the case.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber has already discussed your
25 suggestion. I think the Chamber asked Mr. Lukic whether he had any
1 position on the matter. If he has, we would even have time now to hear
2 from him.
3 MR. LUKIC: I was a bit confused yesterday. I think it was
4 raised yesterday.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. LUKIC: I mixed the issues and I didn't address actually the
7 right issue and we did not file anything since we received the e-mail
8 from the OTP two, three days ago.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think the proposal and suggestion was to
10 have an administrative hearing --
11 MR. LUKIC: On Monday.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- in which matters would be sorted out in relation
13 to -- if I'm -- well, six expert witnesses.
14 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. And I guess what I'm suggesting
15 now is that given there might be some time -- extra time this week, to
16 deal with it this week.
17 MR. LUKIC: I'm afraid that we will not be ready this week. I
18 just discussed it with my colleagues, and I don't think that we can be
19 prepared to elaborate on this issue on Friday.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Would you prefer to deal with the matter in writing
21 or would you rather --
22 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. That's what we thought to ask
23 Your Honours, to deal with the matter in writing.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Groome, any -- and is that after you will
25 have met with the Prosecution - there's a lot of time for cups of tea and
1 coffee over the days to come - or will it be that you respond without
2 having met with the Prosecution to further discuss the matter? The
3 Chamber would prefer a response after you had met.
4 MR. LUKIC: Probably that would happen.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
6 MR. GROOME: I was just thinking about it, Your Honour. To
7 proceed in writing would be for the Prosecution to file a 92 bis
8 application for each of these experts, and then in the response, I guess
9 the Defence would indicate whether they had additional questions, and it
10 would seem to me that just a short discussion just on the principle of
11 whether this would be an appropriate way to proceed might be --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to keep matters clear. Your suggestion
13 was let's have a hearing or an administrative hearing on the matter.
14 That was your proposal and suggestion.
15 I expect Mr. Lukic to respond to that suggestion or proposal. It
16 was not a formal motion, but I suggested that he would first meet with
17 you to see whether you could resolve the matters among yourselves.
18 MR. LUKIC: Maybe Mr. Groome does not want to meet with me.
19 MR. GROOME: I'm happy to meet with anyone who wants to discuss a
20 way to make the trial more efficient. Mr. Lukic did suggest that we
21 proceed in writing and I guess that's what I was responding to.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And then I suggested that it might be better that he
23 first meet with you and then decide whether it's still -- whether he
24 wants to respond in writing to your suggestion. We would not give him
25 much time for that. I would say after discussion, he would be able to
1 put that on paper within half a day or a day reasons why there still is
2 any disagreement.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Or perhaps at that point in time after the
5 discussion with you, Mr. Groome, he may even prefer to then address the
6 Chamber orally, and then we'll see where we are and whether there's any
7 need to file any 92 bis or 92 ter motions in relation to those experts,
8 and the Chamber will then consider how we will proceed, whether there's
9 still a role to be played at that stage for the Chamber.
10 MR. GROOME: The Prosecution will proceed accordingly,
11 Your Honour.
12 MR. LUKIC: Us too.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then tomorrow we'll have two witnesses, and I
14 do understand that the parties take an effort to see whether the evidence
15 of the two witnesses could be concluded tomorrow. Is there any chance --
16 you'll save Friday coming to court if you would conclude tomorrow, if
17 that is attractive for you.
18 I see some smiles on the faces, which is a sufficient response to
19 what I just said.
20 We will adjourn for the day, and we will resume tomorrow,
21 Thursday, the 16th of May, at 9.30 in the morning in this same
22 Courtroom III.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.47 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 16th day
25 of May, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.