Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 9745

 1                           Monday, 25 January 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good morning to everybody in and around the

 6     courtroom, and welcome again to all of you back from what I suppose

 7     should have been a very productive but also restful break.  I hope we are

 8     all ready to get moving and get a very smooth ride, having got that

 9     length of a break.

10             Mr. Court Officer, will you please call the case.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

12     everyone in and around the courtroom.

13             This is case number IT-04-81-T, the Prosecutor versus

14     Momcilo Perisic.  Thank you.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

16             Could we have appearances, please, for the day, starting with the

17     Prosecution.

18             MR. HARMON:  Yes.  Good morning, Your Honours.  Welcome back to

19     The Hague, and a happy new year to Your Honours.  Counsel, the same to

20     you.

21             Mark Harmon, Barney Thomas, Dan Saxon, and Carmela Javier

22     appearing for the Prosecution.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Harmon.

24             And for the Defence?

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Welcome to the warm

Page 9746

 1     and sunny Hague.  Boris Zorko, I would like to introduce to you as our

 2     new case manager; he's been around these halls before.  Mr. Mair --

 3     Chad Mair, Tina Drolec, and we have with us today two of our interns to

 4     sit in, and Mr. Alex Fielding, and Orla Cronin.  I'm Gregor Guy-Smith,

 5     and Mr. Novak Lukic and I are representing Mr. Perisic today.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, and welcome back to you also,

 7     Mr. Perisic.

 8             Just before we start with the proceedings of the day, can we do a

 9     few housekeeping matters, please, two oral decisions that the Chamber

10     would like to render.

11             On the 18th of January, 2010, the Prosecution filed its

12     confidential request for change in status of certain exhibits -- I beg

13     your pardon.  May the Chamber please move into private session.  I'm

14     sorry; it's the fact of the holiday.

15                           [Private session]

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 9747

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16                           [Open session]

17             THE REGISTRAR:  We're back in open session, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

19             On the 18th of January, 2010, the Prosecution filed its second

20     Prosecution filing pursuant to the Trial Chamber's decision of the

21     21st of December, 2009, regarding the outstanding documents marked for

22     identification whereby the Prosecution requests the admission into

23     evidence of six documents; namely, P1279, P1371, P1809, P2149, P2150, and

24     P2151, previously marked for identification.

25             The decision of the 21st of December, 2009, denied the admission

Page 9748

 1     into evidence of these documents without prejudice until such time as a

 2     number of conditions set out therein were met.  The Prosecution now

 3     submits that such conditions have been complied with.

 4             Once again, does the Defence have any objection?

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  No.  With the understanding that the Prosecution

 6     has complied with this Court's orders, we have no objection.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

 8             Well, the Trial Chamber is then satisfied that the conditions as

 9     set out in its decision on the 21st of December have been met, admits the

10     mentioned documents into evidence, and orders the following:

11             1.  In relation to P1279, the corresponding B/C/S and English

12     transcripts shall be attached to this exhibit.

13             2.  In relation to P1371, the revised B/C/S translation shall

14     replace the one currently on e-court.

15             3.  In relation to P1809, the full English translation shall

16     replace the six partial and incomplete ones currently on e-court.

17             4.  In relation to P1249, P1250, P1251, for each of these three

18     exhibits the Prosecution shall re-upload on e-court the B/C/S document

19     completed with the prior-to missing page so that each shall form one

20     complete item.

21             I wish to beg your pardon.  I have a problem.  I realise that

22     that last paragraph 4 refers to 1249, 1250, 1251.  The first paragraphs

23     refer to 2149, 2150 -- and 2150.  I beg to withdraw this decision.  It

24     will be re-rendered.  Thank you.

25             Having done that, may I call Mr. Harmon, please.

Page 9749

 1             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, we have one remaining witness to call,

 2     and that is Mr. Garry Selsky this morning.  We will not be recalling

 3     Mr. Randall.  I communicated to the Trial Chamber and to Defence counsel

 4     the status of P600, which is a photograph that purported to come from the

 5     Orahovac site.  That is not the photograph of the ammunition box that was

 6     recovered at the Orahovac site.  It was recovered at another site.

 7     Therefore, we will not recall Mr. Randall.  We will limit our evidence

 8     today to Mr. Garry Selsky.

 9             Apologies to the Court for any inconvenience that it occasioned

10     by virtue of our submission.  Same to the Defence.

11             Mr. Thomas will lead the next witness.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Am I right to say the next witness is 92 bis?

13             MR. HARMON:  Yes, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

15             Mr. Thomas.

16             MR. THOMAS:  Good morning, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good morning.

18             MR. THOMAS:  Before I call Mr. Selsky, who I don't intend to

19     examine, being a 92 bis witness, but he's required to attend for

20     cross-examination, Your Honours, I wonder if I could just deal firstly

21     with his -- first of all, the declaration which Your Honours have already

22     ruled is to be admitted as an exhibit.

23             The relevant P number was 1833.  It was -- Your Honours ruled

24     that it was to be admitted as an exhibit following redaction of certain

25     portions.  Those redactions have now been undertaken, and the redacted

Page 9750

 1     declaration has been up-loaded into e-court.  I don't know if anything by

 2     way of any formal tendering of that particular document as an exhibit is

 3     required, given Your Honours' ruling.

 4                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Court Officer is trying to update me.  I'm not

 6     quite sure I'm on the same page as you are, Mr. Thomas.  All I know is

 7     that you've asked for Mr. Selsky to come and testify.  What exhibit he's

 8     coming to testify on, I really don't know.  However, Mr. Court Officer

 9     seems to be on the same page as you, and he wants to give us an

10     explanation which is very complicated for me as to what has happened so

11     far with respect to the e-court position of that exhibit.

12             Mr. Court Officer, please.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I will try to simplify

14     my explanation.

15             The document under 65 ter number 08234, which was redacted and

16     up-loaded into e-court under 65 ter 08234A, has been assigned

17     Exhibit P1833 and has been admitted into evidence, though it still lacks

18     redacted B/C/S translation to be attached to it.  That's all.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  But it's still in evidence.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

22             Mr. Guy-Smith.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes.  If I might, just for a minor point of

24     clarification.

25             With regard to this Court's ruling concerning this particular

Page 9751

 1     document, paragraph G of the document, it is our position, continues to

 2     contain opinions and references to unnamed parties which the Prosecution,

 3     in their initial submission, indicated they would strike from this

 4     declaration.

 5             So to that extent, we believe that it would still be appropriate

 6     that paragraph G be stricken, even in light of the ruling made by this

 7     Court, because it falls within the legal understanding and the

 8     undertaking made by the Prosecution as it relates to any opinions or

 9     references made to unnamed third parties.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Thomas.

11             MR. THOMAS:  Well, Your Honours, that may have been the position

12     of the parties, but it was not ultimately the position of Your Honours.

13     And in your decision, you stated very clearly which parts of the

14     declaration were to remain and which were to be redacted.  So it was

15     purely conforming with the very specific directions contained in

16     Your Honours' decision that the present exhibit was redacted in the way

17     that it was.  The Prosecution simply isn't at liberties to do otherwise,

18     Your Honour.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

20             As I said earlier, we don't have the exhibit before us, and we're

21     not here dealing with admissions of exhibits, if a decision has been

22     taken to admit a particular exhibit, it has been admitted.  If anybody

23     wants to challenge that admission, we can do that at a separate stage.

24     At this point in time, we're really trying to get the witness into court.

25             MR. THOMAS:  Your Honours, one matter before Mr. Selsky comes in.

Page 9752

 1             In preparing for his evidence today, he went back through the

 2     analysis that he had undertaken.  In the course of doing so, he found a

 3     number of errors which he has corrected by way of a further declaration

 4     over the weekend that was taken in accordance with 92 bis before a

 5     Registry officer yesterday.  That also has been up-loaded into e-court

 6     and provided to the Defence.  It does no more than identify what

 7     corrections he wishes to make to the numbers that are recorded in his

 8     original declaration.  And for the purpose of having the complete

 9     picture, Your Honours, I'm seeking at this moment to tender also as an

10     exhibit the supplemental 92 bis declaration that Mr. Selsky swore

11     yesterday.  That document has been up-loaded into e-court.  We can put it

12     on the screens, if that will assist Your Honours.  But I see my learned

13     friend is on his feet.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith.

15             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes.  In the spirit of the new year, considering

16     the state of this particular witness's testimony, we will have no

17     objection to the Prosecution's proposed correction of the previous 92 bis

18     declaration.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

20             MR. THOMAS:  I'm very grateful to my learned friend for that

21     indication, Your Honours.  The 65 ter number concerned is 08234B, and if

22     that could please be tendered as an exhibit, if Your Honours so agree.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Indeed, it may be tendered.  Okay.  65 ter 08234B

24     is admitted into evidence, and may it please be given an exhibit number.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honours.  This document becomes

Page 9753

 1     Exhibit P2892.  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 3             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 4             Mr. Registrar, that concludes all preliminary matters relating to

 5     Mr. Selsky.  He can be called for cross-examination at this point,

 6     please.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  He may come in.

 8                           [The witness entered court]

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May the witness please make the oath, standing.

10             THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

11     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

12                           WITNESS: GARRY SELSKY

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Selsky.

14             Before you sit down, what does P stand for, Mr. Selsky, in your

15     initials?

16             THE WITNESS:  Paul.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  You may be seated.

18             Mr. Thomas.

19             Sorry, your learned friend is on his feet.  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I was being a bit eager, that's all.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.  I thought you

22     were not able to drink water seated.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'll have to try and see.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Thomas.

25             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

Page 9754

 1                           Examination by Mr. Thomas:

 2        Q.   Mr. Selsky, could you give us your full name and occupation,

 3     please.

 4        A.   My name is Garry Paul Selsky.  I'm a member of the Office of the

 5     Prosecutor, I'm a senior investigator, and have been since

 6     September 1998.

 7        Q.   And you're the author of a declaration dated October 2007 and

 8     also the supplementary declaration dated yesterday that have been

 9     tendered in support of account of Srebrenica-related shell casings?

10        A.   October 2007, yes, and yesterday.

11             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you.  Mr. Selsky, would you please answer any

12     questions that my learned friends may have for you.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith.

15             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16                           Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:

17        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Selsky.

18        A.   Good morning.

19        Q.   Happy new year to you.

20        A.   As well.

21        Q.   You indicated that you've been an investigator since 1998, and,

22     as I understood it, a senior investigator as well.  I take it that's

23     since that time as well, since 1998?

24        A.   Yes.  I have been an investigator since 1972 in my home

25     jurisdiction of Canada, and I commenced here in 1998.

Page 9755

 1        Q.   And with regard to your investigation as a -- in Canada,

 2     domestically, what kind of investigations did you do, sir?

 3        A.   Everything from murder, sexual assault, to organised crime,

 4     drugs, immigration and passport.  In municipal jurisdictions, from

 5     battery thefts to different complaints of family abuse.

 6        Q.   So it would be fair to say, so we don't have to detail your

 7     career, that you are certainly a well seasoned and well qualified

 8     investigator; correct?

 9        A.   I believe so.

10        Q.   And in that regard, in terms of your seasoning and

11     qualifications, you understand both the methodology of investigations and

12     the importance of maintaining particular types of chronologies or, let's

13     say, sheets that indicate the manner in which the investigation's gone

14     forth; correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   You also, of course, understand, as a seasoned and experienced

17     investigator, the importance of memorialising all of the contacts that

18     you have made and the individuals that you have dealt with in your

19     investigation; true?

20        A.   I didn't catch the word, "context "or "contacts"?

21        Q.   Contacts.  Individuals who you have dealt with in your

22     investigation.  True?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And the reason for that being important, and by that I'm talking

25     about is the memorialisation of what I would call time, place, and

Page 9756

 1     individual, is so that there is a clear understanding of what you've done

 2     in your investigation as well as a chain of evidence, correct, among

 3     others?

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Chain of evidence?

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Chain of evidence, so that we know where the

 6     evidence was found and where the evidence -- and how the evidence came to

 7     you.

 8             THE WITNESS:  On evidence seizures made in the field or here, we

 9     would bring it -- complete a MIF, describe the items --

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:

11        Q.   I'm sorry, sir, I don't mean to interrupt you.  I'm talking just

12     about generally the issue of the importance of memorialising all of the

13     participants and the dates in which things occurred.  That's all I'm

14     talking about for the moment.

15        A.   I understand.

16        Q.   That's something that's pretty important, is it not?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Okay.  Now, as an investigation becomes larger and there is more

19     evidence to seize or more evidence to investigate, that issue also

20     exponentially becomes something of greater importance because of the need

21     to make sure that the items seized are properly identified; correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to take -- I think you mentioned an MIF, seizures

24     went through MIF.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 9757

 1        Q.   I'd like to take a -- you mentioned, I think it was MIF; seizures

 2     went through MIF?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Okay.  I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that particular acronym.

 5     I don't know whether the Chamber is.  Could you please explain to us what

 6     MIF is?

 7        A.   Just off the top of my head, it's just a procedure in regards --

 8     electronic procedure in how we register evidence into the evidence room.

 9        Q.   Okay.  And what does MIF stand for?

10        A.   I just -- I don't have a recollection right now.  I'm sorry.

11        Q.   Okay.  Now, with regard to your efforts in this regard, and by

12     that I'm talking about your efforts with regard to the question of the --

13     as I understand it, the identification of small-arms cartridges, what I'd

14     like to do for a moment is understand something.  And do you, by any

15     chance -- if we could have P1833, which I believe is the declaration that

16     you have submitted in this regard, up on the screen.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Now, you can stop there for the moment,

18     Mr. Registrar.

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please speak into the

20     microphone.  Would the speakers kindly pause between questions and

21     answers.  Thank you.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes?

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do you have the interpreter?  If you put on your

25     earphones, she's asking you:  One, to speak into the microphone, and also

Page 9758

 1     that the parties, I think both of you, speak loudly and speak into the

 2     microphone.  I can't see what's written here.

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:  All right.  Can you hear me now?

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  To pause between questions.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Okay, thank you so much.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  To pause between questions.

 7             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 8        Q.   Before we discuss your declaration specifically:  Did you keep a

 9     chronology of the documents that you reviewed with regard to your efforts

10     to determine the provenance or the identity of small cartridge casings?

11        A.   I started with the Dean Manning investigations report and his

12     findings on Srebrenica, and I worked down from there.

13        Q.   And I take it you have a document that reflects all of the times

14     that you have reviewed, signed OTP statements.  Correct?

15        A.   No, I don't.

16        Q.   You have a document that indicates the chronological efforts you

17     made with regard to review of all the documents you reviewed in

18     preparation of this particular declaration; correct?

19        A.   I'm sorry.  Can you rephrase that, please?

20        Q.   You have a document, the same kind of thing, a chronology?

21        A.   No, I don't.

22        Q.   Okay.  And with regard to the OTP investigators that you have

23     spoken to during 2003/2007, I take it once again, based upon your

24     previous two answers, that you have no document that reflects your

25     chronology of speaking with various OTP investigators as it relates to

Page 9759

 1     this particular issue.  And once again I'm talking about the issue of

 2     small-arms cartridges.

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   Okay.  Now, if we could have your declaration up on the screen

 5     now.  I believe that we've just dealt with -- first of all, looking at

 6     this, and perhaps we should look at the first page, and I do apologise.

 7     I want to make sure this is the declaration that you take as being your

 8     own, that you signed.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may just interpose on that point.

10             I see that the declaration on the screen has some redactions on

11     it.  I have and I believe the rest of the Chamber has been provided with

12     a hard copy which is unredacted.  My question, really, is:  What do we go

13     by?  Do we go by what's P1833 that's redacted?

14             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I believe so, yes, and I will be questioning

15     about P1833 as redacted.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If we could take a look at the second page.

18        Q.   I'd like you to take a look at this to see what has been admitted

19     as P1833 is, in fact, the declaration that you read and signed.

20             Do you recall, on the 26th of November, 2009, being in the

21     presence of the Registrar with Mr. Harmon and signing a declaration?

22        A.   Yes.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Could we go to the next page.

24        Q.   And looking at the next page, it says:

25             "Declaration by a Person Making a Written Statement Pursuant to

Page 9760

 1     Rule 92 Bis."

 2             Do you recall being present when this document was executed?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And that is your signature where it says "Witness's Signature";

 5     correct, sir?

 6        A.   At the bottom, yes, left-hand side.

 7             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Could we go to the next page, please.

 8        Q.   You will note on the next page there are a number of areas that

 9     have now been blackened or redacted, and I trust that as you look at the

10     document, you'll be able to make a determination whether or not this is

11     the declaration that you did, indeed, execute.  And looking at the first

12     page, do you recall this language?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And could we go to the second page just to make sure that that's

15     your signature, sir.

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I think we've gone the wrong way.  I think we

17     need to go the other way.

18        Q.   And looking at the bottom of that page, is that your signature,

19     sir?

20        A.   Yes, it is.

21        Q.   Excellent.  And now if we could return to the first page of the

22     declaration, itself, which should be back one page.  And if we could

23     focus on paragraph 3(A).

24             As I understand what you actually did here, was it you retrieved

25     3.638 small-arms cartridges or shell casings in the OTP evidence vault;

Page 9761

 1     correct?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Now, with regard to that statement, just going that far,

 4     no further, when did you do that?

 5        A.   At the end of August 2007 and throughout the first two weeks of

 6     September 2007.

 7        Q.   Now, with regard to that particular activity, I take it that the

 8     evidence vault is a place that you do not have free access to, but,

 9     rather, it's a place where you have to sign -- you have to sign for the

10     actual evidence to take it out so there's a record of what's been in the

11     evidence vault and what's been taken out.  Is that correct?

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16        Q.   Okay.  Is there a record or sheet of some sort that indicates

17     when you visited the evidence vault for purposes of engaging in this

18     particular exercise, so that if we were to look, we would see a document

19     that establishes the time that you said that you were there in August,

20     that you came in on a certain date?

21        A.   I don't know of such a document.

22        Q.   You didn't sign such a document?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   So you could go into the evidence vault whenever you wanted to;

25     is that fair?

Page 9762

 1        A.   No.  I had to make contact with Susan Artega.  She had the keys

 2     to the vault.  She had the keys to different areas.  And she retrieved

 3     the items off the exhibit shelves, she removed the bags to a table or a

 4     cart area that we used, and she took the exhibits back to those

 5     locations.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Could you give us just an example -- since from what I

 7     understand you can't give us a date specific, could you give us an

 8     example of how this process worked?  Did you call her up on the phone and

 9     say, Hello, Ms. Artega, I'm coming by today and I would like to see the

10     following evidence?

11        A.   Yes, we had -- I had given her a list of ERN numbers in regards

12     to the shell casings and asked her if she could make a list of those.

13     Subsequently, I would call her and make arrangements to meet on the third

14     floor of the Office of the Prosecutor, and she would either be there or I

15     would meet her at the vault door.  And we would go into a portion of the

16     vault area that is used for examination purposes.

17        Q.   Okay.  And when you got into the portion of the vault area that

18     is used for examination purposes, once again I take it, because I'm not

19     sure as to what occurred, but I take it what happened was that she had

20     brought with her a number of sealed envelopes that contained the actual

21     physical evidence that you were going to examine.  Is that correct?

22        A.   The exhibits were in boxes, in bags, five, six metres from where

23     we were working.  So she would go to that location, retrieve a box or a

24     bag of cartridge casings, and give it to us, and we would identify it via

25     the ERN number.

Page 9763

 1        Q.   Okay.  I understand that the only thing that you have not

 2     responded to is the issue of the evidence -- the actual physical evidence

 3     being sealed, that it came to you in a sealed fashion, so that when you

 4     obtained it, it was in a pristine position.  By that, I mean that it

 5     wasn't open and available for rummaging about?

 6             It's a question, sir.

 7        A.   I'm sorry.

 8        Q.   Was it sealed?  When you got the evidence, was it sealed, in a

 9     sealed box, bag, container?

10        A.   Some of the boxes I observed her breaking a seal.  Some of the

11     boxes were opened.  Some of the large plastic bags that she took from the

12     shelves were sealed, and some of the bags were unsealed.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may just interrupt a little bit,

14     Mr. Guy-Smith.

15             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Sure.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Selsky, at page 18 on your screen, line 6, you

17     say:  "... and give it to us."  Now, this is, I think, Ms. Artega who

18     would give it to "us."  Whom were the "us"?  With whom were you in the

19     vault room?

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 9764

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 9765

 1        A.   No, just the --

 2        Q.   My question is:  Did you ever have him vetted, sir?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Now, in 2007, when you indicated you retrieved 3.638

 5     small-arms cartridges or shell casings, could you tell me, how did you

 6     count them?  And I mean, by that, did you have a computer or some form of

 7     manner of counting these shell casings?  You do it by hand and go one,

 8     two, three, four, five?

 9        A.   Yes.

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12        A.   And Susan Artega was within eyesight of us and participating in

13     some of the counts, not all of them.

14        Q.   I'm sorry, I missed that.

15        A.   Excuse me.  In some of the counts, she was right there.  Other

16     times, she was walking -- or at a small table near us, or walking to the

17     shelf area to get another exhibit.

18        Q.   Okay.  And now I take it that those working notes, and by that I

19     mean simply the pieces of -- let me ask you this:  Did you do this on a

20     piece of paper?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Memorialise the number of shell casings?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And you retained that piece of paper, I take it?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 9766

 1        Q.   You have that piece of paper today?

 2        A.   Not here.

 3        Q.   But you do have it?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   With a date on it?

 6        A.   I don't believe there's a date on there.

 7        Q.   Oh.  And after you -- after you counted up the shell cartridges,

 8     you came up with this total number, is that correct, of 3.638?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Okay.  Now, I want to continue.  You said that, with the same

11     paragraph, which is paragraph 3(A), that they were seized by OTP staff

12     between 1996 and 2001.  Now, did you personally seize any of these items

13     of evidence?

14        A.   No, I did not.

15        Q.   The first time that you came in contact with these items of

16     evidence was in August of 2007, when you engaged in your counting?

17        A.   No.  I had completed an examination of some of the same exhibits

18     in 2004.

19        Q.   Oh, okay.  When you say "some of the same exhibits," I take it

20     there's some document that you have in your possession that shows the

21     correlation between that which you exhibited in 2004 and that which you

22     exhibited in 2007.  Is that correct?

23        A.   I don't have the exact correlation, but there's two documents

24     that I have:  One that was completed in November 23rd of 2004 and this

25     one.

Page 9767

 1        Q.   And the one that was completed in November 2004, is that a -- is

 2     that a document for which you also wrote a declaration?  I'm sorry.  Are

 3     the efforts that you engaged in in 2004 ultimately memorialised in a

 4     declaration?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And was that a declaration that was also done for purposes

 7     of investigation of this case?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And in 2004, when you engaged in those efforts, that you

10     examined, as I understand it, some of the same items of evidence;

11     correct?

12        A.   I just did a -- a sampling of different bags in a collection of

13     casings that came from Srebrenica.

14        Q.   When you say that you did "a sampling of different bags ... of

15     casings that came from Srebrenica in 2004," could you -- did you

16     memorialise what bags you took what shells out of for purposes of this

17     sampling that you engaged in?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Okay.  And you have those records?

20        A.   I have a spreadsheet, yes.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Okay.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  For my own edification, Mr. Selsky, when you say

23     you did "a sampling of different bags in a collection of casings that

24     came from Srebrenica," do I understand you to say that you have not

25     looked at each cartridge out of the 3.638, you have not looked at each

Page 9768

 1     one of the 3.638 shell cartridges?

 2             THE WITNESS:  The two inspections varied, Your Honour.  The first

 3     one in 2004 was a sampling where we looked at specific -- each cartridge

 4     from a bag of evidence that was taken from Srebrenica, and it was a

 5     random sampling.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  When you say it was a sampling and you looked at

 7     each cartridge, then you confused me.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes, but there was just copious amounts of

 9     cartridges in boxes and bags in the exhibit vault, and we just took a

10     sampling to determine if -- what type of shells, casings, there were

11     there.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And just so that we understand exactly what you

13     mean by "sampling," my question to you is:  Do I understand you to say

14     you did not examine each cartridge of the 3.638?  You examined a few out

15     of several bags?

16             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, in 2004 we took a sampling of our ERN

17     bags, okay.  And when we just took this bag and then randomly took

18     another bag, we would look at what was the content of each bag and how

19     many casings there were, and what decriptives they were.  So we might go

20     past ERN 8 or A00-01234 and we might take A00-01235 and miss an exhibit

21     bag.  In the 2007, we asked for a number of ERN ranges, and when we

22     looked in each bag, we examined each shell individually.  And at times we

23     looked at the bottom of the shell with a magnifying-glass because there

24     was corrosion.  They came from excavation sites, so there was rusting of

25     some of the cartridges.  So when the shell, at the bottom, when it

Page 9769

 1     wasn't -- the case markings weren't visible, we would discard that item

 2     and we wouldn't -- we wouldn't guess or we wouldn't make any further

 3     examination of it.  We would just discard it -- or not discard it, but

 4     put it to the side with the collection that we had been going through.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is your short answer that you did a sampling in

 6     2004, but in 2007 you looked at each one of the 3.638?  That's your short

 7     answer?

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

10             Thank you.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12        Q.   Now, with regard to your 2004 findings, and I'm now looking at

13     paragraph D of your declaration, if we could scroll down so you can see

14     it, I take it that part of what you were just discussing with His Honour

15     is contained in the very first sentence, in which you said that you tried

16     to determine what factory engraving marks were present and what year they

17     were manufactured.  If you couldn't get that information, then you didn't

18     include that in your sampling?  Correct?  I'm asking if that's correct.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Thomas.

20             MR. THOMAS:  I'm sorry, Your Honours.  My friend may have simply

21     misspoken or he may be at cross-purposes, and I just wanted to clarify

22     something for the record.

23             He prefaced his question by saying that In relation to your 2004

24     findings, and then he quoted from the declaration.

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm sorry, I meant 2007.  I misspoke, and thank

Page 9770

 1     you very much, Mr. Thomas.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 3             Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 5        Q.   With Mr. Thomas' correction, let me repeat my question.  With

 6     respect to your 2007 findings, you looked at each shell casing to

 7     determine what factory engraving marks were present and what year were

 8     their manufacture.  If you found some that you were not able to make that

 9     determination, then you took them out of the equation; correct?

10        A.   No, they were still in the count, but they -- they weren't

11     identified as a PPU 1993 or PPU 1994, or as the schedule indicates; it

12     was just another shell that we -- we also didn't count a PPU shell from

13     1989 or 1979.

14             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Sure, okay.  I'm sorry, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I was just going to say:  How many of the shells

16     did you find that were not identifiable by a PPU?

17             THE WITNESS:  We didn't specifically record that information,

18     Your Honour, as it was -- it wasn't in our finding, it was just put

19     aside.

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:

21        Q.   We'll come back to that, the statement "it wasn't in our

22     finding."  I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by that, so

23     we'll come back to the issue of those that you put aside.

24             But just for purposes of just trying to get at some understanding

25     here of the process that you did engage in:  As of November of 2007, you

Page 9771

 1     examined 3.638 seized shell casings; correct?

 2        A.   According to my affidavit or my declaration yesterday --

 3        Q.   No, no, I'm not talking about your declaration yesterday.  I'm

 4     talking about what you did in 2007.  That's what you said you'd done;

 5     right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Okay.  Now, if I understand your testimony correctly, that means

 8     that you had the opportunity to look at, examine, all of the shell

 9     casings that you'd examined in 2004, plus some additional number;

10     correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Okay.  Now, the declaration that you just recently filed, whose

13     number, I believe, is P2892, indicates that there are an additional six

14     shells; correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Okay.  And so between the time that you signed your declaration

17     in 2009 and over the weekend, you determined that you were shy by six

18     shells, correct, six shell casings?

19        A.   I looked at the MIF, the exhibit report numbers, and in the lines

20     listed, I noticed the discrepancies.  And at that time I notified

21     Mr. Thomas of my findings on Friday late afternoon, when I visited the

22     same vault with Susan Artega, the same individual that gave me the

23     exhibits before, and we examined each bag to make sure that that count

24     reflected the same count that the MIF -- the exhibit report had

25     indicated, and I made my corrections thereafter.

Page 9772

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So would that be a convenient moment?

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Oh, I'm sorry.  Yes, it would.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We'll take a break and come back at 11.00.

 4     Court adjourned.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  Mr. Guy-Smith.

 8             And just to give everybody a forward warning, given the fact that

 9     we started 30 minutes late this morning, this session will end at 12.00

10     so that we go back to our normal times.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you for that, Your Honour.

12        Q.   Mr. Selsky, continuing with your declaration, paragraph D, that

13     is, you've indicated the shell casings were predominantly manufactured

14     from the Prvi Partizan Uzice, PPU factory, at Uzice, Serbia; correct?

15        A.   Are you referring to paragraph D?

16        Q.   Yes.

17        A.   Okay.  Yes.

18        Q.   Okay.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I probably have a problem with English here.  When

20     you say "predominantly manufactured from," are you suggesting that they

21     were partially manufactured from that factory and partially from another,

22     but the predominant manufacturing took place at this factory?

23             THE WITNESS:  Exactly, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And not talking about numbers?

25             THE WITNESS:  No.

Page 9773

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you.

 2        Q.   Following up on the Judge's question, did you make a

 3     determination on -- when you used the term "predominantly" here, did you

 4     make a determination of what other places the shell casings were

 5     manufactured in?

 6        A.   There was other markings that related to a factory in Konjic.

 7        Q.   I see that you're looking at the screen, so I take it you're

 8     getting that information from your declaration.

 9        A.   Yes, I'm refreshing my memory from it.

10        Q.   Okay.  But just so we're clear, you don't have an independent

11     memory of this examination process that you went through, and you're

12     relying on your declaration for purposes of refreshing your memory with

13     regard to, now, the specific issue as to where the shell casings, in your

14     estimation, were manufactured; correct?

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Thomas.

16             MR. THOMAS:  I have to object, Your Honour.  That's a compound

17     question where the first half asserts or suggests that he does not have

18     an independent memory of this examination process, and it ends with

19     "turning to the specific issue as to where the shell casings were

20     manufactured."  These are two different things, Your Honours, and I don't

21     want that answer to be interpreted as suggesting that Mr. Selsky doesn't

22     have an independent memory or recollection of this examination process.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Well, I appreciate Mr. Thomas' testifying with

24     regard to Mr. Selsky's memory.  Mr. Selsky's asked the question, he's

25     clearly a seasoned investigator, and he can answer the question in the

Page 9774

 1     manner that he sees fit.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  But do you accept that the question

 3     was compound?

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I do not.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, I'm sorry, the question is compound.  First

 6     of all, you have no independent memory; secondly, you are relying on your

 7     declaration for purposes of refreshing your memory.

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:  With regard to the specific issue of the

 9     manufacturing, which is what I'm referring to.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So it's two -- there are two -- more than one

11     question.

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  It's qualified --

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You can take it a step at a time.

14             MR. GUY-SMITH:

15        Q.   Do you have an independent memory of where the shell casings were

16     manufactured?

17        A.   All of them?

18        Q.   The question is:  Do you have an independent memory?

19        A.   No.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Now, with regard to Prvi Partizan Uzice, do you know

21     where -- do you know where that was independently?  Did you independently

22     investigate that area?  Did you go to the factory?

23        A.   No.

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 9775

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   I see.

 7        A.   And Kasimir Pikos [phoen].

 8        Q.   Okay.

 9        A.   An investigator.

10        Q.   And Kasimir Pikos is an investigator?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Now, with regard to the Partizan factory, in terms of the

13     analysis that you were engaged in, did you make any determinations with

14     regard to the relationship that the Partizan factory had with the

15     Government of the Republic of Srpska?

16        A.   No.

17        Q.   Did you make a determination about any contracts that existed

18     between the Partizan factory and the Government of the

19     Republic of Srpska?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   Did you make any determinations about any contracts for

22     production of ammunition made between the VRS and the Partizan factory?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   Did you examine at any point in time any documents that would

25     establish a financial relationship between either the Republic of Srpska,

Page 9776

 1     and by that I mean the government, or the VRS with regard to the issue of

 2     the ordering and payment by those entities for ammunition?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   With regard to the next sentence in your declaration, in D, you

 5     say:

 6             "There was a small percentage from Igman Konjic," then it says,

 7     "YK (UK) factory at Konjic BiH which was taken over by HOS Croatian

 8     forces in 17 April 1992."

 9             So before we go any further, I take it that those cartridges, in

10     your examination of them, had some kind of markings upon them.  Correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Do you know who was using those cartridges, and by that I mean

13     what side of the conflict?

14        A.   I'm unaware.

15        Q.   Okay.  With regard to the -- with regard to the issue of the PPU

16     cartridges, those that you were able to identify as PPU cartridges, were

17     you able to make a determination as to which side of the conflict was

18     using those cartridges, or did you find that cartridges were something

19     rather fungible?  And by that I mean that all sides used what was

20     available to them, however they could get their hands upon them?

21        A.   I'm unaware.

22        Q.   Okay.  Now, your conclusion here that there was a small

23     percentage from Igman Konjic is based upon your examination of those

24     cartridges.  And by that I mean there was some kind of a grey marking

25     upon them.  True?

Page 9777

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Okay.  If we could turn the page and go to the

 3     next page.

 4             I'm sorry, before we do that -- excuse me, Mr. Registrar.

 5        Q.   Before we do that, the last indication in D is:

 6             "The cartridges with the engraved markings are described as

 7     follows:"

 8             Correct?  And I'm going back to what you said in paragraph D, the

 9     last thing you said in paragraph D.  And let's pull it back for you so

10     you know I'm not pulling the wool over your eye.  Right:

11             "The cartridges with the engraved markings are described as

12     follows:"

13             And then we go on to the next page; correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Okay.  Let's go on to the next page.  Thank you

16     very much.

17             If you could just go from where it says "I" just to where the

18     first redaction is, I would appreciate it, and enlarge that part for the

19     gentleman.  No, up.  Wrong part; up.  Yes.  Down so he can see the whole

20     thing.  Have the screen go down a little bit just so we can see a little

21     bit.  Perfect.  Thank you so much.

22        Q.   Now, you've indicated, using designations I, II, III, then IV,

23     and V, those cartridges that have engraved markings on them; correct?

24        A.   I'm sorry?

25        Q.   You've used, for purposes of describing those cartridges that had

Page 9778

 1     engraved markings on them, those that are designated I, II, III, IV and

 2     V; correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Now, help me here, if you could, please.  Where, on this chart,

 5     are those cartridges that you were referring to previously, which are the

 6     small percentages from Igman Konjic which apparently had the designation

 7     of YK upon them; where are those?

 8        A.   They aren't indicated in there.

 9        Q.   How many of them were there?

10        A.   I can't recall.

11        Q.   I see.  Now, those cartridges were cartridges that were

12     apparently cartridges dated -- having the date of 1992; is that correct?

13        A.   I can't recall.

14        Q.   I see.  Is there a reason why those cartridges are not contained

15     in this chart when you indicate, in paragraph D, the following:

16             "The cartridges with the engraved markings are described as

17     follows:"

18             And it is -- from what I understand your answer to be, that you

19     have clearly deleted, redacted, or left out, whatever word you choose to

20     adopt here, sir, cartridges that were from the Igman Konjic factory?

21        A.   They didn't fall in the time-frame from 1993, 1994, and 1995.

22        Q.   I'm sorry, I don't know what that means, They didn't fall within

23     the time-frame 1993, 1994, 1995.  These were cartridges that were found

24     at the sites by the investigators; correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 9779

 1        Q.   You earlier said -- and page 25, line 21, I said we'd get back to

 2     this.  Your language was -- this was in response to a question by

 3     Judge Moloto:

 4             "I was just going to say," this is the Judge, "how many of the

 5     shells did you find were not identifiable by a PPU?"

 6             And your answer was:

 7             "We didn't specifically record that information, Your Honour, as

 8     it was -- it wasn't in our finding.  It was just put aside."

 9             Now, you then, at a point in time, mentioned that you did not put

10     into your findings any cartridges that may have been identified in 1979

11     or 1989?

12        A.   Correct.

13        Q.   Now, did you find cartridges of 1979 and 1989?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Those were cartridges that were found in the sites that are the

16     subject matter of your declaration, sir?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   How many?

19        A.   I can't recall.  I didn't count the ones that we set aside and

20     that I didn't record in my findings here that dealt with 1993/1994.

21        Q.   Okay.

22        A.   They were in the count, but they weren't counted specifically as

23     25 from 1969 and so on throughout the years.

24        Q.   Did you have any discussion with your fellow investigators about

25     the import of the date of the ammunition, what significance the date of a

Page 9780

 1     shell casing might have?

 2        A.   The date 1993 to 1995 was related to the indictment period, and

 3     that's what specifically we looked for.

 4        Q.   In your capacity as a senior investigator here for many years,

 5     sir, you're well aware of the fact that substantial amounts of ammunition

 6     that pre-dated 1993 was used throughout the region by all sides, were you

 7     not?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   As an investigator, I take it it's your position, and I'm asking

10     the question sincerely, that that information is not critical to an

11     understanding of what was occurring with regard to any possible

12     responsibility or liability of individuals, in terms of transferring

13     ammunition or other material?

14        A.   I'm sorry, I don't grasp your question.

15        Q.   Wouldn't you agree with me, sir, that ammunition that was

16     produced before 1993 is critical to an understanding of the liability or

17     responsibility of those individuals who are charged with, among other

18     things, the delivery of materiel?

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Thomas.

20             MR. THOMAS:  Objection, Your Honour.  That calls for an opinion

21     on the part of the witness, who is also not the trier of fact in this

22     case.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:

24        Q.   As a senior investigator, let me rephrase --

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Who was also not a trier of fact?

Page 9781

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  He's -- I believe he's objecting that I'm

 2     invading -- I'm asking him to invade the providence of the Chamber, and

 3     I'm more than happy to rephrase the question.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm grateful to you for the explanation.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 6        Q.   In your estimation, was the presence of ammunition that pre-dated

 7     the indictment period, in the very sites that were part of your

 8     declaration, of any import?

 9             MR. THOMAS:  Same objection, Your Honour.

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:

11        Q.   Do you believe that the absence of ammunition, identified

12     ammunition, pre-1993 -- let me rephrase that.

13             Would you agree with me that your report is incomplete, inasmuch

14     as it fails to identify pre-1993 ammunition that was found at the sites?

15        A.   Your Honour, I was tasked to examine the shell casings and look

16     for the shell casings that were manufactured from the period

17     1993 to 1995.  And that was my task, and I effected it as best I could.

18        Q.   Okay.  With regard to that response, I take it that was the same

19     task that you had from the very beginning of this endeavour.  That was

20     the same task you had in 2004; correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Okay.  Could we have 1D07-0356 up on the screen,

23     please.

24        Q.   Considering your last answer, Mr. Selsky, this is your

25     declaration from 2004.  And, first of all, let's take a look at it just

Page 9782

 1     to make sure that you recognise it.

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If we could scroll down.  And if we could go to

 3     the next page.

 4        Q.   If you could look at the bottom, is that your signature?

 5        A.   Yes, it is.

 6        Q.   And do you confirm that this is the declaration that you executed

 7     in 2004?

 8        A.   Yes, it is.

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Okay.  If we could go back to page 1.

10             And with Mr. Perisic's indulgence, because one of these is now

11     in -- I don't know if we can do this, if we can do a split screen and if

12     we can have up on the screen right next to that his declaration in 2007,

13     which would mean that we would have to have the Serbian off for a moment.

14     Can we do that?  That would be P1833.

15        Q.   In paragraph B of your 2004 declaration, you indicate what

16     endeavours you went through, which is similar to paragraph D of your 2007

17     declaration.  As a matter of fact, I think that it would be fair to say

18     that apart from the number of seized items in 2004, the number being

19     1.579, and in 2007 the number being 3.638, that the language of these two

20     paragraphs is substantially similar, if not identical.  One of the places

21     where there's a distinction being that in 2004 you indicated "seized

22     casings" in paragraph B, and in 2007 you indicated "seized shell

23     casings."  But apart from that, the language is the same; correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   With regard to the identification of those shell casings that

Page 9783

 1     were engraved, there is, I would hazard to say, a marked difference in

 2     the information that you presented in 2004 from that which you presented

 3     in 2007.  And by that I mean looking at the 2004 declaration, under B(i),

 4     you have "PPU, 1994, 1993, 1992, and pre-1992"; correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   That information does not exist in your declaration in 2007;

 7     correct?

 8        A.   Some of it does.

 9        Q.   Okay.  With regard to the pre-1993 information, that information

10     has been excised from your declaration in 2007; correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   With regard to the next entry, that being B(ii) in your 2004

13     declaration, none of that information is contained within your

14     declaration in 2007, is it?

15             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And if we could turn the page of the 2007

16     declaration to the next page, that may be of some help to Mr. Selsky.

17             THE WITNESS:  No.

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:

19        Q.   Okay.  Now, with regard to the information contained in your 2004

20     declaration at B(ii), you indicated to us that you were tasked with the

21     responsibility of looking for, if I'm not mistaken, evidence that covered

22     the indictment period that includes the years 1993 --

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please speak into the

24     microphone.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Please speak into the microphone.

Page 9784

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Sure.

 2        Q.   You were tasked with the responsibility of looking for, if I'm

 3     not mistaken, evidence that covered the indictment period that included

 4     the years 1993 and 1994.  Correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Am I correct that in the following -- that with regard to your

 7     declaration in 2004, under B(ii), the years 1994 and 1993 would fall

 8     directly within the indictment period and directly within the

 9     responsibilities for which you were tasked?

10        A.   Is that a question, please?

11        Q.   It certainly is.

12        A.   Can you rephrase it, please?

13        Q.   Sure.  Am I correct that with regard to your declaration in 2004,

14     under B(ii), the years 1994 and 1993 would fall directly within the

15     indictment period and directly within the responsibilities for which you

16     were tasked?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Moving on, that information is not contained in your

19     declaration in 2007; right?

20        A.   Yes, and it's my recollection that I don't believe we found any,

21     but I don't know why it wasn't included in that 2007 declaration,

22     Your Honour.

23        Q.   Well, now you've said two things.  Now you've said you don't

24     believe you found any, and you don't know why it wasn't included.  When

25     you say that you don't believe you found any, when you made this

Page 9785

 1     declaration, you made this declaration, I'm assuming, in good faith and

 2     certainly telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

 3     with regard to what you'd done.  And since these are engraved markings,

 4     they clearly are things that you found, aren't they, sir?

 5        A.   Which declaration are you talking about?

 6        Q.   2004.

 7        A.   I can't recall the actual numbers that we noted in regards to

 8     (ii) 1994, 1993, 1992, and pre-1992, Your Honour.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Well that's distinct from the statement that you've just

10     made, Mr. Selsky, which is, "And it's my recollection that I don't

11     believe we found any," isn't it?

12        A.   Correct.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             Moving on to B(iii) of your 2004 declaration, if I'm not

15     mistaken, the entry of "322 92," "322 92" is not contained in your 2007

16     declaration; correct?  The other two items are.

17        A.   Can you just --

18        Q.   Sure.  If you take a look at your declaration, 3(iii), you see

19     the numbers "10 94," which I believe is represented in your 2000 [sic]

20     declaration under (iii) as "10 94."  And there's a comment; it says

21     "324 94," which I believe is included in your 2000 [sic] declaration

22     under IV.  And the last one, "322 92," has gone missing.  It's not in

23     your 2007 declaration, is it, sir?

24        A.   It's -- no, it's not there.

25        Q.   Okay.

Page 9786

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  With -- if we could have the next page of

 2     1D07-0356.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just before we do that, what would you like to do

 4     with 1D07-0356?

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I haven't done anything with it yet.  I'm moving

 6     to the next page, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm sorry.

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm moving to the next page.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm sorry.

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Could we turn to the next page?  That would be on

11     the right-hand side of the screen.  The other one.  Yeah.  If it's of

12     difficulty, I can do this another -- thank you.

13        Q.   Okay.  Now, I'd just like to look at the very first two lines --

14     just the very first two lines:  "Total number of ammunition examined,"

15     I'm sorry, and then it says under that pre-1992, "1277;" right?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Now, going to your -- that's good.  Now, going to your

18     declaration in 2007, I don't see any indication of the number of pre-1992

19     ammunition totals.  Do you?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   Now, with regard to the -- with regard to the numbers that you

22     have supplied us with as related to the 2007 declaration, you indicate,

23     out of the total number of shell casings examined of 3.638, you found the

24     following shell casings were from the years as below described, which

25     comes to a total number of 546, if my math is correct, which means there

Page 9787

 1     is a balance of some 3100 -- well, a little bit less, actually, 2900-plus

 2     shell casings that I am assuming are pre-1992 shell casings.  Is that

 3     correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Why didn't you put that figure in?  Not important?

 6        A.   I can't recall right now.

 7             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If I could have a moment, please.

 8                           [Defence counsel confer]

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I thank the Chamber's indulgence.  I will not be

10     moving 1D07-0356 into evidence, and I have no further questions at this

11     time.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

13                           Questioned by the Court:

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Selsky, in response to my question earlier,

15     you said that the words "predominantly manufactured from

16     Prvi Partizan Uzice" meant that it was partly from there and party from

17     another factory.  Which other factory contributed to the manufacture of

18     those that were manufactured predominantly by Prvi Partizan?

19        A.   The one from Bosnia, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm not quite sure.  Did you understand my

21     question?

22        A.   Yes.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What was my question?

24        A.   What was the proportionality of the totality of the casings.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  No, you've misunderstood my question.

Page 9788

 1        A.   Sorry.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You said to me -- the word "predominantly" doesn't

 3     refer to numbers, it refers to the manufacturer.  Now, you say, if I may

 4     quote verbatim from the 2007 declaration, you say:

 5             "The shell casings were predominantly manufactured from the

 6     Prvi Partizan Uzice PPU factory in Uzice, Serbia."

 7        A.   Then I didn't grasp your question properly, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I have still not put my question yet.

 9        A.   The first time you asked me that, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And I asked you, What do you mean by

11     "predominantly"?  Do you mean -- the first time I asked you was, Do you

12     mean by the word "predominantly" that the manufacture was done at more

13     than one factory, but the bulk of the manufacturing took place at Prvi.

14     And you said, Yes.  And my question now is:  What is or what are the

15     other factories which contributed to the manufacture of those shells that

16     were predominantly manufactured by Prvi Partizan Uzice?

17        A.   I didn't ask -- answer your question --

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Correctly.

19        A.   -- Correctly, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You want to correct that?

21        A.   Yes.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  What did you understand me to be

23     asking you?  You understood me to be saying the majority of shells came

24     from Prvi?

25        A.   Yes, and that's my finding and my understanding.

Page 9789

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, if by the word "predominantly" you meant the

 2     majority, then I've got to go back and ask you the same -- the question

 3     slightly differently now in order that we are on the same page.

 4        A.   I'm sorry.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's fine, that's fine.  According to this

 6     declaration, what is the total number of the PPU 1993 to PPU 7.9 that you

 7     have on page 2?  You've got "PPU 1993, 79," "PPU 1994, 299," and then

 8     "10 94, 109," and then 38 through 20.  What's the sum total of that?

 9        A.   I didn't add it up.  Just --

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Please add it up right now.

11        A.   May I have a pen and paper, please.  Thank you.  545,

12     Your Honour.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  545.  Would 545 be the majority of 3.638?

14        A.   No, but in total that's what our findings were of all the shells

15     we looked at.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I don't know what you mean by "totality" in

17     context.

18        A.   Of all the 3.000 somewhat shells we looked at, predominantly the

19     shells came from or had the markings of PPU; with different years.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But it's 545.  We've just added now.  It's 545.

21        A.   Yes, from the years 1993/1994, but there was other years

22     involved.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You see, actually I would like to deal -- I will

24     deal with the question of years later, because I've got a problem with

25     that, too, based on your declaration.  But for now, when you say the

Page 9790

 1     words "predominantly manufactured from," you meant the majority; I do not

 2     understand how 545 can be a majority of 3.638.  This is what is in your

 3     declaration.  I can only deal with what's in your declaration.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But I'm saying:  How does anyone come to say the

 6     predominant product came from Prvi Partizan if only 545 came from there

 7     out of a total of 3.638?

 8        A.   It was my understanding, when I was referring to the word

 9     "predominant," I was dealing with the 3.000 in total, not just the exact

10     finding of, you know, 545, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  I think the record will just have to show

12     that we don't understand each other on that one.

13        A.   I'm sorry.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I still don't understand your answer.

15             But talking about the years, and I know that you've been asked

16     extensively on the question of years here, pre-1992, pre-1994, the last

17     sentence in your declaration of 2007, on the first page, says that:

18             "Cartridges with the engraved markings ..."

19             But before I get to that, before I ask you that, after dealing

20     with the Prvi Partizan Uzice, you say:

21             "There was a small percentage from Igman Konjic YK (UK)

22     factory."

23             That's from BiH.  I guess you determined that by the markings and

24     engravings on those shells, that they came from Igman Konjic.

25        A.   Yes, and that they were pre-1993.

Page 9791

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Right.

 2        Q.   Right.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Fair enough.  Now, the problem is this next

 4     sentence -- this last sentence on this page says:

 5             "The cartridges with the engraved markings are described as

 6     follows:"

 7             The sentence does not say that "cartridges with engraved markings

 8     and dating post-1992 are described as follows:"

 9             Therefore, there isn't a basis, in the sentence as written, for

10     excluding pre-1993 casings.  Do you agree with me?

11        A.   Yes.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  My question is:  Why would they have been excluded

13     if there is no such basis for their exclusion in your declaration?

14        A.   I was tasked with determining if --

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You haven't told us your task in this document.

16     All you have told us that one of your duties had been to investigate the

17     case against Momcilo Perisic, who was chief of General Staff of the

18     Army of Yugoslavia from 1993 to 1998.  And you've told us that you were

19     examining casings that were found in the Srebrenica killings of -- I must

20     be sure -- I mustn't use an unredacted document when we have a redacted

21     document.

22             Can we go to the first page of the right-hand side, please?  No,

23     that's not it, that's not it.  On the left-hand side.  The first page of

24     that document that's redacted on the screen, please.  Thank you.

25             Okay.  On this one, can we enlarge it a little bit, please.

Page 9792

 1     Thank you.

 2             In trying to determine your task from this declaration, sir, we

 3     are referred -- we see that you say here:

 4             "I previewed signed OTP statements, documents, and spoke to OTP

 5     investigators during that period.  I note my findings.  I retrieved 3.638

 6     small-arms cartridges or shell casings in the OTP evidence vault that

 7     were seized by OTP staff between 1996 and 2001 from execution sites and

 8     primary and secondary burial sites in the Srebrenica area, BiH."

 9             From that, the only impression I can get is that you're

10     investigating the whole thing that you are talking about there.

11        A.   I understand your point, Your Honour, and I should have made it

12     much more clear in my declaration.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much if you accept that you should

14     have made it much more clearer in your declaration.  Thank you for the

15     explanation.

16             Now, my last question:  If you could just take us through your

17     declarations and tell us the significance of the writings that you've got

18     there, you know.  And I am assuming that "PPU 1993" means that it comes

19     from the Prvi Partizan Uzice and it was manufactured in 1993.  Is that

20     what it means?

21        A.   That's my understanding, but I don't have any expertise in that

22     area, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What would then "10 94" mean?

24             If you go to the second page of the left-hand side, for the

25     benefit of the witness.

Page 9793

 1        A.   Your Honour, I can answer that.  I -- we looked at that portion

 2     or that stamp, and I wasn't able to answer that through talking with the

 3     investigators, and I relied on our trial team to call in an expert for

 4     that type of information.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And, therefore, you can't say that "10 94" comes

 6     from PPU?

 7        A.   No.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Similarly, "324 94" you can't say comes from PPU?

 9        A.   No.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What does "PPU 7.9" mean?

11        A.   It's the 7.9 calibre, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So we don't know what year of manufacture these 20

13     were -- what is the year of manufacture of these 20?

14        A.   No.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We cannot say they are post-1992, nor can we say

16     they are pre-1993?

17        A.   Correct.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  I guess that clarifies me on those

19     little markings.

20             Any re-examination, Mr. Thomas?

21             MR. THOMAS:  Very briefly, Your Honours, thank you.

22             And if we could please have -- in fact, we may have it on the

23     screen already.  If we could have page 1, please -- sorry, the previous

24     page of the declaration that's on the left-hand side of the screen,

25     please.  And if we could have paragraph D enlarged, please,

Page 9794

 1     Mr. Registrar.

 2                           Re-examination by Mr. Thomas:

 3        Q.   Now, Mr. Selsky, I want to take you back again to the statement

 4     of yours that the shell casings were predominantly manufactured at

 5     Prvi Partizan.

 6             You examined something in excess of three and a half thousand

 7     casings?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   All right.  Of those three and a half thousand casings, was there

10     a marking that most of them bore?

11        A.   "PPU."

12        Q.   All right.  Were they just from 1993 or 1994, or were they from

13     other years as well?

14        A.   From the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and early 1990 markings,

15     Your Honour.

16        Q.   If we go to the next page in your declaration, please.  In the

17     bottom section of numbers that we've already discussed, the section that

18     adds up to 545, you have included listings for PPU 1993 and 1994.  You

19     see that?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   You've already given us your explanation as to why you limited

22     your description to 1993 and 1994, but do we take it that there were a

23     significant number of PPU shells that you observed with markings of 1992

24     or earlier?

25        A.   Yes, and that's where I derived predominantly from there was a

Page 9795

 1     high percentage; 60, 70 per cent.

 2        Q.   Do I understand, then, that if you add that figure to what we

 3     have there, the 545, that you get more than half of 3.600 odd?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   All right.

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me.  I think your math might be off.

 7     Apart from the fact that it's leading, so the record is clear here, I

 8     don't know how we get to the "more than half."  I just think your math

 9     might be off, Mr. Thomas.

10             MR. THOMAS:

11        Q.   You've used the word "predominantly"?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   You've explained to us that in using that word you were

14     attempting to convey that more than half of these 3600 shells were

15     manufactured by Prvi Partizan; is that right?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   On the page that we see, page 2 of your declaration, you have

18     listed only 1993 and 1994 entries and some selected others from PPU which

19     add up to 545; is that right?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Well, three, at least, of those relate to PPU; is that right?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Do I understand that what you have excluded from that list is

24     anything that bore the marking of PPU 1992 or earlier?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 9796

 1        Q.   All right.  When you add what --

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me.  I don't believe that that's an

 3     accurate statement of his testimony.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Thomas.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I believe it would be accurate to say that he

 6     excluded anything that did not have a 1993 or 1994 marking upon it, but

 7     whether it would be PPU or otherwise would not be accurate.

 8             MR. THOMAS:  Sorry, Your Honours, I don't understand my friend's

 9     objection.  I'm asking him if that's what he excluded.  I'm not quoting

10     any testimony back to him.  I'm asking him if that's what he did.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You should be asking him what did he exclude,

12     rather than telling him what it is you think he excluded.

13             MR. THOMAS:

14        Q.   What did you exclude?  In relation to PPU, because that's all I'm

15     interested in at the moment, what did you exclude from that list that we

16     see on the screen on the moment?

17        A.   The pre-1992 shell casings.

18        Q.   All --

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Pre-1992 or pre-1993?  In other words, did you

20     exclude 1992 as well?

21             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So it's pre-1993?

23             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

24             MR. THOMAS:

25        Q.   Are you able to tell us whether any of those pre-1993 shells also

Page 9797

 1     had "PPU" on them?

 2        A.   Yes, and I estimate that approximately 60 to 70 per cent of the

 3     casings that we examined of the -- that totalled 3600 casings were

 4     from -- had the markings "PPU" on them.

 5        Q.   Okay.  And was your examination in 2007 at the request of the

 6     Prosecution team?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And were you asked to look for particular things?

 9        A.   Yes.  The ammunition that was manufactured by the PPU factory in

10     the indictment 1993 to 1995.

11             MR. THOMAS:  All right.  Thank you, Your Honours.  Those are my

12     questions.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

14             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Your Honour, I have one question which is

15     occasioned by the question that you asked, but I'm more than happy to

16     wait until you ask first, because --

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let me ask first.

18             Taking you back to my questions, Mr. Selsky, would it then be

19     fair to say, according to this declaration, the total number of PPU shell

20     casings that are post-1992 is 378; that is, 545 minus 109, 38, and 20?

21             THE WITNESS:  No, Your Honour, it's in -- the totality of the

22     number is of 3.644.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry.  I would like you to please listen to my

24     question and make sure you understand my question.

25             THE WITNESS:  Please.

Page 9798

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  My question is:  Is it fair to say, according to

 2     this declaration, the total number of PPU shell casings that are

 3     post-1992, that is, the ones that you decided to take into account here,

 4     is 378?

 5             THE WITNESS:  Oh, I stand corrected, Your Honour.  I didn't grasp

 6     your question again.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's 545 less 109, 38, and 20.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  In other words, 299 plus 79 is 378?

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So that is the number that you were interested in,

12     that you were tasked to look for.  Post-1992 PPU, 378?

13             THE WITNESS:  And any -- you know, any casings that related to

14     the period.  And that's why we noted the 10 94, and the 324 94.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Okay.  Thank you so much, except that we

16     don't know where they come from, those, the 10 94 and the 324, we don't

17     know which factory they come from.

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Thank you.

20                           Further cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:

21        Q.   The question that I then had was using the figure 3.638, in

22     recognising what you said to His Honour with regard to the 378 casings

23     that have been identified for the years 1993 and 1994 as coming from the

24     PPU, that figure, 378, represents 10.4 per cent of the total number of

25     shell casings that are involved in your declaration; correct?

Page 9799

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Thomas, I guess you have no questions arising

 4     from the questions of --

 5             MR. THOMAS:  I --

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Before I do so, before I ask you that question,

 7     just one question from the Judge.

 8             JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] I have only one question to ask to

 9     be quite sure about the figures you have given.  Among the casings you

10     have examined which had no markings, did these casings or cartridges

11     which had no specific mark or were they too damaged so that you couldn't

12     see any specific markings?

13             THE WITNESS:  Excuse me.  Most of the shell casings that we

14     examined had markings of some -- the older they were, the more difficult

15     they were to examine.  And if we could not readily note that they were

16     from the 1993 to 1995 period, we counted them, but we set them aside and

17     they weren't included in the 1993 to 1994 portions.  There was a few

18     shells that we couldn't -- because of rust and contamination, we couldn't

19     tell what factory or what type of markings, but those were rare to find.

20     The other markings were somewhat visible, using the magnifying-glass, to

21     determine the year.  If it was pre-1993, we didn't waste much time and we

22     set it aside.

23             JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

24             MR. THOMAS:  No questions, sir, thank you.

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  None, Your Honour.

Page 9800

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Selsky.  That brings us

 2     to the conclusion of your testimony.  We want to thank you for coming in

 3     to testify.  You are now excused.  You may stand down.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 6                           [The witness withdrew]

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Would this be a convenient time to take a break?

 8             We'll take a break and come back at half past.  Court adjourned.

 9                           --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If we could start with revisiting the decision

12     that we withdrew this morning, the oral decision.  It's supposed to be in

13     open session.  We are in open session.  I just have to re-read it all

14     over again, because we withdrew it in its entirety this morning.

15             On the 18th of January, 2010, the Prosecution filed its second

16     Prosecution filing pursuant to the Trial Chamber's decision of the 21st

17     of December, 2009, regarding the outstanding documents marked for

18     identification, whereby the Prosecution requests the admission into

19     evidence of six documents, P1279, P1371, P1809, P2149, P2150, and P2151,

20     previously marked for identification.  The decision of the

21     21st December, 2009, denied the admission into evidence of these

22     documents, without prejudice, until such time as a number of conditions

23     set out therein were met.  The Prosecution now submits that such

24     conditions have been complied with.  And the question to the Defence was:

25     Has the Defence any objection to the admission of these documents?

Page 9801

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And the answer is, no, with the understanding

 2     that the Prosecution has complied with the Court's order.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.

 4             And the Trial Chamber is satisfied that the conditions it set out

 5     in its decision of the 21st of December, 2009, have been met; admits the

 6     mentioned documents into evidence, and orders the following:

 7             1.  In relation to P1279, the corresponding B/C/S and English

 8     transcripts shall be attached to this exhibit.

 9             2.  In relation to P1371, the revised B/C/S translation shall

10     replace the one currently on e-court.

11             3.  In relation to P1809, the full English translation shall

12     replace the six partial and incomplete ones currently on e-court.

13             4.  In relation to P2149, 2150, and 2151, for each of these three

14     exhibits the Prosecution shall re-upload on e-court the B/C/S document

15     complete with the required missing page so that each shall form one

16     complete item.

17             Okay, thank you so much.

18             Mr. Harmon.

19             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, with the admission of those six

20     documents into evidence, we rest our case.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

22             Mr. Lukic, I seem to recollect that the Defence indicated that

23     they would be in a position to deliver to the Prosecution their witness

24     lists of the Defence within 48 hours of the Prosecution resting.  Today

25     is Monday.  Wednesday, they shall be delivered?

Page 9802

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We are going to meet our obligations

 2     by Wednesday, Your Honour.

 3             Can we have enough time granted to us, please, by the end of the

 4     day?  We just have a problem with technical uploading.  But, of course,

 5     we are going to stick to the dead-line that you are going to give us.  We

 6     have a technical problem with uploading documents in e-court, and we are

 7     literally working on that day and night.  What we would like is to have

 8     all documents accessible to the OTP straightaway as soon as we give the

 9     list.  Thank you.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Lukic, with the caveat

11     that it is not a dead-line set by the Chamber; it's a self-imposed

12     dead-line by the Defence.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  If you recall, the

14     original decision was the 15th of December, and then you made a decision

15     in writing, as a matter of fact, that Mr. Harmon would tell us when his

16     case is completed, and then within 48 hours we would have to provide our

17     list and our documents.  It has to do with your decision in writing,

18     dated the 8th of December.  I may be mistaken.  I don't know exactly.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Point taken.  I won't take the matter any further.

20     Thank you so much, Mr. Lukic.

21             And then to what date shall we then postpone?  Are we starting

22     the Defence case on Thursday or on Wednesday?  If we give you the whole

23     day, then we start the Defence case on Thursday?

24             MR. HARMON:  I have a suggestion, Your Honour.

25             I have been told by Mr. Lukic that there are approximately 60

Page 9803

 1     witnesses and a thousand documents.  We obviously need to have time to

 2     review those.  May I suggest that the Court schedule a conference, either

 3     a 65 ter conference or a pre-Defence conference.  Shortly after receipt

 4     of the documents from the Defence, we will be in a better position to

 5     inform the Court a number of things relating specifically to compliance

 6     with Rule 65 ter, and give Your Honours some insight into our position.

 7     But without that at hand, it's difficult for us, at least, to contribute

 8     to a meaningful selection of the date.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And can we schedule that conference for Thursday?

10     Is it possible to do that?  Are you --

11             MR. HARMON:  Well, it -- I understood Mr. Lukic to say that there

12     may be some difficulty in uploading this and he will comply, but I don't

13     know if compliance is Wednesday at 5.00 in the afternoon or 8.00 -- 10.00

14     in the evening.  May I suggest Friday?

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Friday?

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I think probably with all the considerations that

17     will go into this, Mr. Harmon's suggestion is a good one and that we

18     schedule a 65 ter conference for Friday.  That will give us the time to

19     make sure that we can do the best we can to get all the things up-loaded,

20     with all the difficulties we have, and it will give the Prosecution time

21     to review our documents and make whatever determinations they deem

22     appropriate.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  We then come back to court on Friday.  And

24     if it is Friday, then that's Friday, the 29th.  That's in Courtroom I.

25     That's at 9.00 in the morning.

Page 9804

 1             Court adjourned.

 2                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.40 p.m.,

 3                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 29th day of

 4                           January, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.