140724ED

Page 24624

1 MS. HASAN: I have no questions.

2 JUDGE ORIE: No further questions. No. Any questions,

3 Mr. Lukic? Mr. Stojanovic? It's really time for a holiday because ...

4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have just a few

5 questions, as we indicated yesterday, and I would now like to ask

6 Mr. Kovacevic those questions with your kind permission.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 Re-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacevic, I would now like to go through

11 the time line of events on the 12th of July, as far as you're able to

12 remember, of course. In your statement, in paragraph 14, you said that

13 you received the order to head towards Potocari sometime between 1000 and

14 1100 hours; do you remember that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. My question to you: To the best of your recollection, when did

17 you reach Potocari, approximately? When did you reach the area where you

18 indicated yesterday that you gave the statement?

19 A. Around noon, half past 12.00, not later than 1.00 p.m.

20 Q. The next step, to the best of your recollection, how much time

21 did you spend in that area, on the road in Potocari?

22 A. In front of the building itself, after the interview, hmm, I may

23 have spent not more than 7 to 8 minutes. This is when the general came.

24 And then we moved behind the building and we spent about half an hour

25 there.

Page 24625

1 Q. The next step, you receive further orders to go back to your

2 initial positions, and now, to the best of your recollection, when did

3 you leave the area of Potocari?

4 A. I think it was at 1.30, not later than that. After we received

5 the order we left the area where the houses were. There is a road behind

6 the Cinkara, the factory. We crossed the bridge and then we went back to

7 the Djogazi-Peciste line.

8 Q. To the best of your recollection, how many people, how many

9 soldiers, were there escorting General Mladic?

10 A. Well, I couldn't give you the exact number but I think about five

11 or six people. Not more than that. But I didn't really look all that

12 closely. After the General addressed us and told us to move on, we

13 simply left the area.

14 Q. Throughout that time, did you notice at any time that

15 General Mladic addressed the people there, using a loud speaker?

16 A. No. We went to the other side, and we did not see what happened

17 with the General because he was on the other side. I didn't see it.

18 Q. Do you know the person that might be your neighbour or your -- or

19 the neighbour of the woman that -- whose statement you heard yesterday,

20 whose name is Momir, who was supposed to be in your unit that day?

21 A. No. Momir was not with me. I only know Momir, aka Penzijica,

22 who was the deputy commander for security, and I think that we had not

23 seen each other for a month before those events, and I don't even recall

24 if we met at all after the events.

25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, now I would like

Page 24626

1 us to look at the document that has the 65 ter number 31004 and let us

2 look at page 2 of this document in the B/C/S version, and I think it's

3 page 2 in the English version as well. I would like to look at page 2.

4 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, look at the last paragraph in B/C/S. It is the

5 penultimate passage on this page in the English version, Your Honours.

6 It says here in the statement taken from this witness: The next morning,

7 Ratko Mladic arrived. Would this correspond to the time when you were in

8 Potocari, this statement made by this witness that it was in the morning?

9 A. In all of my statements, I said that around 10.00 a.m.,

10 I received an order, while I was at the initial positions. After that we

11 had to prepare the unit, we had to gather up, and then we had to move

12 from the top of Caus to Potocari. In normal conditions, regular

13 conditions, if you don't search the terrain, it would take you an hour to

14 get there. So this -- I don't know, really, what to say. I don't see

15 how this could be true. Also, several thousand people? Hmm.

16 Q. I will be asking you about that specifically in a minute. So the

17 next part of this sentence reads, okay:

18 "Ratko Mladic arrived with several thousand of his soldiers."

19 Were you able to estimate now, not counting these people who were

20 escorting General Mladic, as you told us, how many people -- how many

21 soldiers of the VRS could have been there, counting your soldiers too?

22 A. My soldiers were in the courtyard of this building. They were

23 not out in the street. The general showed up, he was walking from

24 Srebrenica, and on both sides of the road there was this huge crowd of

25 people from Srebrenica, women, children and so on. I noticed the general

Page 24627

1 as he approached. Before that, or indeed afterwards as I was on my way

2 back, I did not see any troops, apart from those people that I saw while

3 we were behind this building. So a hundred soldiers, it's a huge mass of

4 people. You would have to notice them. The general showed up, he was on

5 foot, and he was surrounded by five, six, a maximum of eight people.

6 Q. I would like us to move on to the next page in the B/C/S version,

7 the English version is fine. I would like us to focus on the last

8 paragraph on this page in the English version, Your Honours. It says in

9 this statement: "With my neighbour Momir and Zoran Kovacevic, son of

10 Bosko, born in the village of Hurenovac," well, it says "Hurenovac" here,

11 "Bratunac municipality."

12 A. It's Kunjerac, it's a typo.

13 Q. That's right. So is there a village in the Srebrenica

14 municipality that would have something to do with your life, which would

15 be called Hurenovac?

16 A. I don't know about that.

17 Q. What is the name of your village?

18 A. It's Kunjerac. It's called Kunjerac. A hamlet of the village of

19 Loznica.

20 Q. Thank you. Let me finish by asking you if, at any time after the

21 war, on any occasion, in any situation, you have been able to meet with

22 the witness who provided this statement?

23 A. No, never. And since I hunt, I walk around her house, as I go

24 out to hunt, and her neighbours sometimes ask me to help them, if they

25 have something to be done. I have heard that she lives in Srebrenica but

Page 24628

1 I can't verify that.

2 Q. After the war, have you at any time, Mr. Kovacevic, have any

3 personal problems with your Muslim neighbours who have come back?

4 A. No, never. We are on the same terms as we used to be.

5 Q. And what kind of terms are we talking about?

6 A. We were friends, neighbours. There is no difference that would

7 be based on ethnicity, at least that's the way I feel about it.

8 Q. Have those people returned to their homes?

9 A. Well, these are mostly poor people. They had nowhere to go.

10 I think that at least the elderly have come back. There are some young

11 people, but I don't know them, really, so I can't tell you who they are,

12 but for the most part, yes.

13 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, thank you very much for your clarifications.

14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

15 questions for this witness.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic. Judge Fluegge has a

17 question for you.

18 Questioned by the Court:

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Kovacevic, Mr. Stojanovic asked you a minute

20 ago what is the name of your village. You said:

21 "It's called Kunjerac, a hamlet of the village of Loznica."

22 Is that the place where you lived in -- used to live in 1995?

23 A. No. That's where my father and my family live. I live in

24 Bratunac. I have a house in the Podgradac neighbourhood of Bratunac.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is Loznica a part of the Bratunac municipality?

Page 24629

1 A. Yes.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You were born there?

3 A. Yes.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you still living in -- it's not recorded.

5 You said: "I have a house in the ... neighbourhood of Bratunac." But

6 can you please repeat the name of the location.

7 A. Podgradac. It's about 1200 metres from the centre of Bratunac in

8 the direction of Srebrenica.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And you used to live there in 1995 and also

10 today; correct?

11 A. I moved into my house in 1980 and I have been living there, it's

12 my own house, since then.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And you're still living there?

14 A. Yes.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kovacevic, could you think of any reason why

17 Ms. Salihovic would lie about what she stated specifically as far as your

18 activities are concerned?

19 A. I have given this some thought, when my father told me that she

20 had said that, so I have been thinking about it since then and I really

21 cannot think of a reason why. Perhaps if she saw the interview, she may

22 have been prompted by something to say that, but now as to what this

23 motive was, I really can't think of it, because if it had happened the

24 way she described it, it would be only logical for her to tell me, to ask

25 me: Neighbour, were you there or not? Or if she realised that she had

Page 24630

1 made a mistake, now it would be only natural for her to apologise to me

2 because of course, you can make a mistake, but if you realise that you've

3 made a mistake, you have to do something about it. I really cannot

4 comprehend why she has done that.

5 JUDGE ORIE: You say that you expected her to ask you whether you

6 were there or to apologise if she made a mistake. If she is quite

7 positive in her recollection, there would be no need to ask you. Would

8 you agree?

9 A. Yes, but she could at least come to me and say: "Why did you do

10 it," out of resentment, because if I were in her shoes, that's what

11 I would do. I would ask her: "Why did you do that?" Because if there

12 is somebody who did something bad, you can't keep on being friends with

13 them.

14 My brother was killed in 1992. If I had heard that somebody had

15 killed him, I would not feel resentment but I would ask this person:

16 "Why did you kill my brother?" So I really -- if you think about this in

17 purely human terms, as a human being, I really cannot understand it.

18 In particular, the fact that she established this link between me

19 and Momir, and the war ended 20 years ago. People know everything in

20 Bratunac and I have never heard anyone in Bratunac say that somebody from

21 Bratunac took part in the separation, apart from Momir, aka Penzijica.

22 We all know what happened, and the moment General Mladic appeared,

23 everybody was running away from him, like the devil from the cross, and

24 that's what we did. And now she is saying this. I could understand it

25 if I had been close to the factory but I was not. So there was no

Page 24631

1 possibility for her to see me at all. There was just this interview,

2 this footage. Maybe that's what prompted her to say this.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Did you ever try to find out who separated families

4 at that point in time? Because if you say you are accused of having

5 participated, did you ever try to find out who, then, if not you, did

6 such things?

7 A. Well, everybody in Bratunac, everybody is saying things about

8 that. It's being discussed because it's a matter of general interest.

9 Of course, I am ready to be held accountable for everything that I have

10 done and I'm a reserve officer, I know what my responsibilities are. I

11 am ready to be held accountable for the things that I did, but this is

12 something that I did not do and that's why I'm bothered by it.

13 JUDGE ORIE: That's not really an answer to my question. My

14 question was whether you ever tried to find out who, then, may have

15 separated members of families at that point in time, at that location.

16 A. Well, if you talk to people in Bratunac, you know who is supposed

17 to know things. It's not the people who were in the army but those who

18 were milling about. And I'm always trying to find out, I have been

19 trying to find out, who took part in the separation, and I have not heard

20 from anyone about anyone else because people from our brigade were there.

21 Perhaps some civilian from Bratunac took part in that, but whoever I talk

22 to, they were unable to identify any other person that took part in it.

23 Somebody that I could talk to.

24 JUDGE ORIE: But you said it was not members of the army? Is

25 that well understood?

Page 24632

1 A. Certainly not. I'm saying members of the army, members of

2 civilian structures from Bratunac, because it would have to be that the

3 army or the civilian structures, as I've said. And through all these

4 conversations, had I ever been told a single name of any person, either

5 from the army or from the civilian structures, I would have said so.

6 I would have cleared my own name, if you will. But really, nobody in

7 Bratunac could have told me anything, whoever I talked to. It's been

8 15 years or so. And then people say they heard this or that or saw this

9 and that, but this directly, because I'm interested in that too, I simply

10 don't know. Perhaps someday there will be proceedings regarding this.

11 JUDGE ORIE: When you're saying, members of the civilian

12 structures, who do you have in mind, or who were perhaps talked about as

13 members of the civilian structures being there at the time?

14 A. It's not that people were talking, but I'm just assuming that in

15 those moments, it is only the civilian structures of government that can

16 decide and the army and the SUP. There is nobody else. That's why I'm

17 saying it's either the civilian structures or the army or the MUP. Who

18 else could it have been? It's not that someone can come in as a private

19 individual and do that kind of thing. So it's either in the name of the

20 army or of the civilian authorities or of the SUP. That is something

21 I never managed to find out.

22 The only truth I know is Momir, Penzijica. He's the only one who

23 was there, he knows who he operated with, and I really don't know

24 anything about that. I really wouldn't talk about that because I could

25 only engage in guesswork and that wouldn't be right.

Page 24633

1 JUDGE ORIE: And this Momir, Penzijica, who was that exactly?

2 A. Momir Nikolic, nicknamed Penzijica, that's what we call him. We

3 often forget his real name. The deputy commander of the brigade, the

4 deputy chief of security of the brigade actually, and he has been

5 convicted and he said everything he had to say.

6 JUDGE ORIE: But you did not talk to him in person?

7 A. No, no, I had no opportunity to do that. Before Srebrenica, a

8 month before that, I think I did not see him, and I never saw him

9 afterwards.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. One more question. You said you didn't

11 see General Mladic addressing the crowd by megaphone. Did you hear

12 anything? Because the use of a megaphone may carry quite a distance.

13 A. Well, I wasn't interested. To tell you the truth, I wasn't even

14 paying attention. I don't remember. My memory doesn't tell me anything.

15 This really has not remained in my memory. About 50 metres behind that

16 building or so, that's where we were, by some other houses so why would

17 I say anything else? I can only say what is true, and that is that I

18 don't know.

19 JUDGE ORIE: I have no further questions. Ms. Hasan, any further

20 questions for the witness?

21 MS. HASAN: Yes, just a few, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.

23 Further Cross-examination by Ms. Hasan:

24 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, do you realise that Ms. Salihovic provided her

25 statement on the 26th of July, 1995, shortly after these events?

Page 24641

1 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I believe we gave a transcript

2 reference in court that day. I dealt with the witness and I believe

3 there was a transcript reference to a protected witness - we are in open

4 session - and I believe that reference is given in court following the

5 break, following one of the breaks in the proceedings.

6 JUDGE ORIE: We will check whether that is a -- I have a vague

7 recollection that we looked at that and that the situation was quite

8 different but I'm not sure about it. So therefore we will verify it and

9 if the situation is indeed very different, we will let you know through

10 an informal communication and in that case would invite you again to give

11 further references.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, do you have any recollection exactly,

14 apart from that it was after the break, but any page, any date, any line,

15 so that we can perhaps check it even during the break and -- if you would

16 try, then --

17 MR. IVETIC: I'm trying to retrace our steps on the transcript,

18 if I can. I can't remember the exact -- actually, I do now remember the

19 name of the witness.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, we'll have a look at it during the break, if

21 you do the same, then --

22 MR. IVETIC: Okay.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Then I move on.

24 On the 9th of July, during the cross-examination of

25 Luka Dragicevic, the Prosecution relied upon the following exhibits:

Page 24642

1 P6649, which was a criminal report dated the 26th of October, 1992;

2 P6650, a receipt dated the 28th of September, 1992, for weapons received

3 by Milan Lukic from the VRS Visegrad command; and lastly, P6651, which

4 was a certificate issued by the 1st Visegrad Infantry Brigade. P6649 was

5 tendered by the Prosecution under seal. All three of these exhibits were

6 MFI'd pending provision of provenance information by the Prosecution, and

7 the Chamber would like to receive that provenance information. If you do

8 not have it immediately available, we would hear from you after the

9 break.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE ORIE: We will take the break first. There are a few

12 matters the parties have to sort out during that break. The Chamber will

13 then give the guidance it announced and we also may spend a word on --

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic or Mr. Lukic, my colleague draws my

16 attention to the fact that when I read the issue about the disclosure,

17 report on disclosure, which we were inclined not to do but then urged the

18 Defence to inform the Prosecution, the Chamber, without delay, if there

19 would be a problem meeting the deadline agreed on by the parties, that

20 you were on your feet and I may have missed that. I don't know if you

21 want to add anything or make any submissions in that respect.

22 MR. LUKIC: I think that from that moment the situation changed

23 drastically. We started actually to send the statements. I was not

24 aware that our case manager is not forwarding the statements to the

25 Prosecution. So I think that the situation changed, and I don't see any

Page 24643

1 major problems in meeting our deadline by the 15th of August.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If that would change in any way, then we

3 would like to be informed immediately and you should give notice to the

4 Defence -- to the Prosecution as well.

5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Having dealt with all that, we take a break first,

7 and we will resume at 10 minutes to 11.00, then hear a few matters from

8 the parties, and the Chamber will issue the guidance and will also say

9 something about the restart after the recess.

10 We take a break.

11 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.

12 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.

13 JUDGE ORIE: There were a few leftovers from before the break.

14 Mr. Ivetic, could you -- did you find the reference to where you

15 responded to the issue that was raised about admissibility of statements

16 taken by third parties, not for Tribunal purposes, and their

17 admissibility?

18 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. The discussion was at transcript

19 page 23 --

20 JUDGE ORIE: If you give me one second, then I'll try to

21 immediately look at it. Was that the 9th of July or was it --

22 MR. IVETIC: That's correct, 9th of July.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look. 9th of July. Yes.

24 MR. IVETIC: Transcript page 23752.

25 JUDGE ORIE: One second, 752. I'm with you on 752.

Page 24644

1 MR. IVETIC: And therein, I talked about a statement taken by the

2 Bosnian AID, 1D1370, that was discussed at transcript pages 18.000 --

3 JUDGE ORIE: One second, let me just first find your reference.

4 Line 5, I hear.

5 "Just while we are waiting, Your Honours, I can direct Your

6 Honours to transcript page 18652 through 18654." Yes, I have a vague

7 recollection that we looked at it at the time but let's do it again at

8 this very moment.

9 MR. IVETIC: Okay. And then there's --

10 JUDGE ORIE: It was 18 -- and that's -- let's have a look. Let

11 me see what date that is, 18652. 652 that should be the 1st of November.

12 Yes. Yes. I'm at 18652. And where, then, exactly we said because

13 it's -- could you assist us, Mr. Ivetic, what exactly was said there

14 which would support --

15 MR. IVETIC: THE admission of the AID statement 1D1370 was

16 denied.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Was denied. And for what reason exactly and where

18 do we find that?

19 Mr. Shin said:

20 "This is not the proper way of introducing a witness,

21 particularly one that the Defence intends to call as Mr. Lukic

22 indicated."

23 Then I asked Mr. Lukic to respond specifically on it, and then

24 there was an issue about relevance.

25 And then I said:

Page 24645

1 "If you want to call that person as a witness, then you are, of

2 course, free to do so, if there will be a Defence case, Mr. Lukic."

3 And we denied the admission, but where do I read, because that

4 was the crucial point, where do I read that it was because it was a

5 statement taken by a third party. Because here there is certainly a --

6 I remember that we looked at it at the time --

7 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: -- upon you giving this reference.

9 MR. LUKIC: We did, and then we had a further discussion at

10 transcript page 23765 on the matter, again on the 9th of July, where we

11 went through this. And you had asked if it's different where a witness

12 is on the Defence witness list, and I indicated that at the time that the

13 admission of that document was denied, there was no Defence witness list

14 in existence.

15 JUDGE ORIE: No, but it was announced that he would be called as

16 a Defence witness --

17 MR. IVETIC: Correct.

18 JUDGE ORIE: -- so even if there is no formal list.

19 But where do I see, because that was the issue, that just because

20 it was a statement taken by a third party, that that would make that

21 statement inadmissible? Because that is the issue that was your claim.

22 MR. IVETIC: That was my objection, and you asked for one

23 reference and we gave this reference which we believe, that's how we

24 understood the denial of admission to be based upon the fact that it's a

25 statement of an out-of-court declarant that we [overlapping speakers] --

Page 24646

1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, under those very specific circumstances.

2 Isn't it true that we have admitted many, many statements which were

3 taken out of court by third parties, not taken for the purposes of this

4 Tribunal, and that if there was not such a -- such a complicating factor,

5 that we usually just admit it.

6 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, that's not my recollection. It's not

7 the recollection of my colleagues as well.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we -- I do then understand that -- and

9 did I -- you said it was again discussed at --

10 MR. IVETIC: 23765, where you raised the issue of it being a

11 Defence witness and we talked about the same things that we just talked

12 about now. So we talked about it twice on the 9th of July, this

13 particular transcript selection from the 1st of November.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let me just reread it. I think it starts at

15 23765 almost at the bottom.

16 MR. IVETIC: That's correct.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Paragraph -- page -- line 18. So then in all

18 clarity, what the Chamber would like to receive from you is a reference

19 in which clearly and, if not exclusively, then at least mainly on the

20 basis that a statement was taken not for Tribunal -- that a statement was

21 taken by a third party although not for Tribunal purposes, that that in

22 itself was a reason to deny admission. I think that's what the Chamber

23 is seeking at this moment. If you could find one, we would appreciate if

24 would you bring it to our attention.

25 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I will endeavour to comply.

Page 24647

1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Yes.

2 Then what else do we have? I think the provenance of 6649, 6650,

3 and 6651 were -- and these numbers relate to P exhibits that we are --

4 still would like receive that from the Prosecution.

5 Mr. Weber.

6 MR. WEBER: Good morning, Your Honours. With respect to P6649,

7 that's the official criminal report from the Uzice SUP regarding the

8 detention of Milan Lukic dated 28 October 1992. The Prosecution received

9 that document from the Republic of Serbia pursuant to RFA SRB 1696 which

10 requested the criminal case file from the district court of Uzice against

11 those same proceedings against Milan Lukic for the possession of illegal

12 arms in October 1992.

13 According to these materials, the charges were dismissed on

14 4 November 1992.

15 With respect to the P6650, these were two certificates that were

16 issued by the Visegrad command of the VRS confirming the issuance of

17 weapons and communication radio to Milan Lukic.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could you please slow

19 down? Thank you.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We noticed that it would be very difficult for

21 the interpreters.

22 Mr. Weber.

23 MR. WEBER: Thank you to everyone. This was also received

24 pursuant to RFA SRB 1696, so the same criminal case file. P6651 are the

25 certificates issued by the 1st Visegrad Infantry Brigade related to

Page 24648

1 Milan Lukic's and Dragan Dragicevic's membership in the brigade. The ERN

2 that was tendered for this document is 04224603. With respect to this

3 document we got from an individual source, the document also is identical

4 to ERNs 06446129 and 06446130 in the Prosecution's possession, which also

5 originate from the criminal case file related to the same criminal

6 proceedings from the Uzice court. We received a copy of the same

7 versions of these certificates pursuant to RFA SRB 1696.

8 With respect to the document P6651, it was previously admitted as

9 Exhibit P314 on 26 March 2009 in the case of Prosecutor versus Lukic.

10 This can be found at transcript page 6375 of the Lukic proceedings.

11 That's the information available to the Prosecution.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Do the objections stand against admission? I think

13 it was not objections but it was just pending further information about

14 provenance.

15 MR. IVETIC: That's my recollection as well, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE ORIE: And now having received that information, is there

17 any objection?

18 MR. IVETIC: No.

19 JUDGE ORIE: P6649, P6650, and P6651, which were marked for

20 identification, are hereby admitted into evidence.

21 I think we have dealt with all the leftovers from before the

22 break. Any other matter to be raised by the parties?

23 Then I would finally give the guidance the Chamber announced.

24 The Chamber has carefully considered the use of court time from

25 the beginning of the Defence case until this point in the proceeding and

Page 24649

1 notes that in several respects the parties should improve. The Chamber

2 recalls the frequent guidance it gave during the Prosecution's case in

3 chief to which it now adds the following guidance. At the outset, the

4 Chamber notes its responsibility for ensuring the rights of the accused

5 as set forth in the Statute but emphasises that this duty must be

6 exercised with the -- and at the same time the Chamber should meet its

7 obligation to ensure an expeditious trial.

8 To this end, the Chamber notes with concern that many court hours

9 have been spent adducing evidence of questionable relevance, much of

10 which appears at this moment to also have questionable probative value.

11 Many Defence witnesses have given a great deal of evidence about matters

12 that neither appear to form part of any recognisable defence, nor relate

13 in any material way to the crimes alleged in the indictment.

14 Additionally, during cross-examination, it has often come to light that

15 the source of a witness's knowledge about a particular incident merely

16 stems from media reports or from the Karadzic Defence. The Chamber also

17 notes that often these witnesses make sweeping generalisations in their

18 statements which then trigger the Prosecution to spend a great amount of

19 time in cross-examination attempting to show what is readily apparent

20 from the start; that is, that sweeping generalisations have little, if

21 any, probative value.

22 Conversely, relevant content has sometimes been removed from

23 witness statements, apparently triggering the Prosecution's need to

24 explore these subjects as well as the reasons for removing them, all of

25 which needlessly uses a great deal of valuable court time.

Page 24650

1 Moreover, the Chamber notes the unfortunate tendency of both

2 parties to adduce evidence that is unnecessarily repetitious or that

3 relates to matters that are not in dispute in the first place. For

4 example, the Chamber has now heard several witnesses give evidence

5 concerning the strength and positions of ABiH units, but when these

6 matters are explored by the Chamber in court, it discovers that the

7 parties are more or less in agreement about such facts and there was

8 never a reason to spend court time adducing the evidence to begin with.

9 Lastly, the Chamber notes the frequency with which the Defence

10 has been ill prepared to present evidence in the form of witness

11 statements. There have been numerous occasions in which different

12 versions of a witness statement have been mixed up. The statement

13 tendered in the Rule 92 ter motion has turned out to be different from

14 the version offered in court, the wrong documents have been uploaded into

15 e-court, and documents have been misidentified in Defence Exhibit lists.

16 More significantly, the Chamber notes with serious concern that witnesses

17 have testified about alarming statement-taking practices, such as being

18 pressured to sign statements which they knew to contain errors, or

19 signing statements that they have not read. A great deal of court time

20 has been used trying to clarify and correct such issues as, for example,

21 those encountered with the statements of Witnesses Deronjic, Batinic, and

22 Tusevljak.

23 For the reasons discussed, and in keeping with its responsibility

24 to conduct an efficient and expeditious trial, the Chamber finds it

25 necessary to issue the following guidance to the parties which the

Page 24651

1 Chamber expects to be followed closely for the remainder of the trial.

2 First, the parties are expected to limit the production of

3 evidence to matters that are relevant and start by adducing evidence

4 which is most relevant. The Chamber reminds the parties that relevant

5 evidence has been defined by the Appeals Chamber as evidence relating to

6 a material issue and that the material issues of a case are to be found

7 in the indictment. Inasmuch as the Defence finds it's preferable to use

8 witness statements from other trials, it is expected to remove irrelevant

9 material from such statements before they are tendered in this case.

10 Similarly, the Prosecution is expected to not waste court time

11 cross-examining witnesses on matters of questionable relevance.

12 Second, the Chamber expects each party to pay close attention to

13 the probative value of the evidence it adduces or seeks to counter. In

14 short, this means that the Defence should avoid adducing evidence,

15 including in written statements, for which there is no factual basis or

16 which could be characterised as a sweeping generalisation.

17 Similarly, the Prosecution should carefully consider how much

18 time, if any, is needed to test such unsubstantiated evidence on

19 cross-examination. The Chamber draws the attention of the parties to its

20 3rd of July, 2012, decision on the admission of exhibits tendered through

21 Witness Harland, in which the Chamber stated that, absent corroborating

22 evidence, weight will not be given to the unsupported, unsourced opinion

23 of a witness.

24 Third, the Chamber expects the parties to carefully consider the

25 necessity of adducing repetitious or background evidence. The Chamber

Page 24652

1 reminds the Defence that should it wish to offer evidence that is, for

2 example, cumulative in nature, or which relates to the historical,

3 political, or military background of the case, it should seek to do so

4 pursuant to Rule 92 bis, a Rule created precisely for the purpose of

5 expediting complex trials by eliminating the need to use court time for

6 adducing such evidence.

7 The Prosecution is similarly urged to carefully consider what, if

8 any, cross-examination is needed when presented with such background

9 evidence.

10 Fourth, the Chamber expects the parties to work together to avoid

11 adducing evidence about matters which are not in dispute. This cannot be

12 over-emphasised. There should be a question asked by each party before

13 any statement is tendered or any question is put to a witness: Does this

14 concern a matter that is in dispute? If there is any doubt about the

15 answer to this question for either party, the parties should work

16 together on the matter rather than wasting valuable court time arguing

17 about matters for which no argument is needed.

18 Fifth, the Chamber expects the Defence to be significantly more

19 diligent in the preparation and presentation of its case, especially with

20 respect to the manner in which it obtains, corrects, and uses witness

21 statements. To this end, the Chamber invites the Defence to seriously

22 consider whether presenting its witnesses viva voce might be more

23 conducive to an expeditious trial by avoiding arduous examinations

24 concerning witness statements.

25 In conclusion, the Chamber expects the parties to take seriously

Page 24653

1 the guidance just delivered and make the changes necessary to follow it

2 strictly. Otherwise, the Chamber will find itself in a position where it

3 has to take action, such as denying the admission of evidence, including

4 92 ter statements, requiring 92 ter witnesses to testify viva voce, and

5 terminating examinations of -- or cross-examinations due to lack of

6 relevance or probative value.

7 The Chamber now addresses the Defence in particular.

8 The Chamber has been reluctant to consider the application of

9 Rule 46 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence until this week, when the

10 Chamber has again heard evidence of serious problems with the

11 statement-taking practices of the Defence team.

12 Should such questionable practices continue, the Chamber will be

13 compelled to carefully consider whether and to what extent action might

14 be necessary under Rule 46.

15 And this concludes the guidance of the Chamber.

16 The only matter now remaining is to adjourn. If the Chamber

17 looks at the court calendar as it was issued until now, it seems that we

18 would restart on the 26th of August, which is a Tuesday. The Chamber is

19 not aware of any reason why we would not start on Monday, the

20 25th of August. Therefore, the parties should be prepared and the

21 Chamber adjourns -- will adjourn until the 25th of August. If we have

22 overlooked any reason which has caused the court calendar to tell us that

23 it would be the 26th, then we will let you know as soon as possible.

24 I do understand that Mr. Mladic would likely briefly consult, and

25 since we are about to adjourn for the summer recess, you have an

Page 24654

1 opportunity, if -- but at inaudible volume. At least for us inaudible.

2 [Defence counsel and Accused confer]

3 JUDGE ORIE: Is there anything resulting from the consultations

4 with Mr. Mladic?

5 MR. LUKIC: I don't think that's new topic. Mr. Mladic is

6 complaining that he cannot continue sitting five days a week but it's

7 really too tiresome for him.

8 JUDGE ORIE: That matter is pending and at this moment we are

9 digesting the newest medical reports. And the Chamber will certainly

10 consider whether those reports should have any consequences for the court

11 schedule. So it's not that we are not continually thinking about it and

12 it's not that we are not evaluating the newest report. One of the

13 problems being that some of them were drafted in a language not everyone

14 understands in this courtroom.

15 Then we will adjourn and I wish everyone, although the Chamber is

16 fully aware that circumstances are not the same for everyone, but I wish

17 everyone a good time to have sufficient time to rest and to recover from

18 the hard work everyone is doing in this courtroom, no one excluded.

19 We adjourn and we will resume Monday, the 25th of August, 9.30 in

20 the morning, courtroom -- most likely Courtroom I, but if any other

21 courtroom, to be announced.

22 We stand adjourned.

23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.23 a.m.,

24 to be reconvened on Monday, the 25th day of August,

25 2014, at 9.30 a.m.