1 Thursday, 24 November 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused not present]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon -- good morning to everyone in and
6 around the courtroom.
7 Today we'll have a housekeeping session but I'll first invite
8 Madam Registrar to call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
10 IT-03-69-T, The Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 The accused are not present. Chamber was informed that both
13 accused have waived their right to be present today and that's not new
14 for housekeeping sessions.
15 Mr. Jordash, Mr. Petrovic, that is correct, I take it? I haven't
16 seen yet the paperwork.
17 MR. JORDASH: That's correct, Your Honour.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Now, next time if the accused waived their right to
20 be present, the Chamber advises you not only to inform the Chamber but
21 also the Registry because otherwise transport police is waiting and
22 there's all kind of confusion. I do understand that Chamber has been
23 informed, but the Registry not, which caused quite a bit of fuss this
24 morning, so if you would please keep that in mind for future occasions.
25 Then I have quite a number of items on my agenda. We'll start
1 with the items which were found already in the Scheduling Order, and I
2 start with what the Registry was supposed to prepare.
3 Madam Registrar, has an English translation been attached to
4 Exhibit P1287?
5 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: It has been attached in e-court; therefore it now is
7 part of it. Then has the English translation of Exhibit P767, which was
8 an erroneous translation, has it been replaced with document
9 ID 0202-7320?
10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then have English translations been
12 attached to the documents with Exhibit numbers D280 up to and including
14 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Has document ID 1D06-4194 been attached to document
17 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The next one needs a bit more attention. The
19 Chamber has instructed the Registry to attach document 1D04-6949 to
20 document D274, but this -- under this document identification number we
21 also find a B/C/S attachment, whereas it was only intended that an
22 English translation should be attached to D274. Therefore, the Stanisic
23 Defence is invited to detach the English translation -- the B/C/S
24 attachment so that only the English translation remains and that then
25 should be attached to D274. Is this clear? Madam Registrar, any
1 questions in relation to this?
2 THE REGISTRAR: No, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then has 1D05-6514 been attached to document D310?
4 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
6 Then I go through instructions given to the parties. First,
7 Prosecution, has a surrogate sheet been uploaded for Exhibit P2977?
8 MS. MARCUS: Yes, it has, Your Honour, um, it's been uploaded
9 with doc ID V000-7024.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Madam Registrar, that should then be attached
11 to surrogate sheet too, or does it get a separate number?
12 THE REGISTRAR: No, Your Honour. It can be attached [Microphone
13 not activated].
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then it should be then attached to P2977.
15 Ms. Marcus, has a B/C/S version of Exhibit P243 [Realtime
16 transcript read in error "P2493"] been uploaded which corresponds to the
17 English version.
18 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. It's uploaded under doc ID
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 Madam Registrar, if something is uploaded, I take it that if it's
22 mentioned here, that you can attach whatever is uploaded to the original
23 document and if there are any problems, I'd like you to raise your voice,
24 and in the absence of any comments, we'll just move on.
25 Ms. Marcus, has a revised English translation been up loaded of
1 Exhibit P813 which includes the translation of the pages 4 to 8 of the
2 original document?
3 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. It is uploaded under doc ID
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then next on the agenda: Has a revised
6 document Exhibit P1050 corresponding to its English translation?
7 MS. MARCUS: Yes, it has. It's uploaded as doc ID 0608-0177-ET.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Marcus, have revised English
9 translations of Exhibit P1040, P1041 and P1042 been uploaded
10 corresponding in scope to the original documents?
11 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. For Exhibit P1040, we have
12 uploaded doc ID 0263-3400-EDT. For Exhibit P1041 we have 0263-3404-EDT.
13 And for Exhibit P1042 we have 0216-2249-EDT.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then moving to the next one, has a B/C/S translation
15 been uploaded of Exhibits P1043 and an English translation of
16 Exhibit P1011.
17 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, with respect to these documents, they
18 are the constitution, the SFRY constitution. The difference between the
19 English and the B/C/S was that there were extra sections included but the
20 actual articles were corresponding, the English and the B/C/S. So what
21 we've done is we've undertaken to ask the language assistants to compare
22 the two documents and we -- what we've done is we have made them
23 corresponds according to -- just to the articles of the constitutions.
24 So those corresponding versions, which I think Your Honours will find now
25 match each other, the English to the B/C/S, we have uploaded those two
1 versions as 65 ter 2868.1 and 65 ter 715.1 respectively.
2 So we would propose, with Your Honours' leave, that those 65 ter
3 numbers be uploaded one as P1011 and one as P1043. They now correspond.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
5 Madam Registrar, is this workable for you?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have -- we have new content for
8 Exhibit P1011 and P1043, although not that much different from what it
9 earlier was.
10 Has a revised English translation been uploaded of Exhibit P839
11 which includes translation of the pages 13 to 16 of the original,
12 Ms. Marcus?
13 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, I have two doc IDs for this. One
14 is X019-6320-BCST and X019-6329.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That is one for the B/C/S and one for the English
16 translation? What makes it two documents now?
17 MS. MARCUS: Just one moment, please, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, apparently the original document has
20 some B/C/S and some English.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MS. MARCUS: So the B/C/S is the translation of English and
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Madam Registrar, is that clear enough for you.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Next one: Has a correct English
2 translation been uploaded of Exhibit P732.
3 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. It's uploaded at doc ID
5 JUDGE ORIE: Has a revised B/C/S version of Exhibit P853 been
6 uploaded in which extraneous -- the extraneous page 3 has been
8 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, it's uploaded as doc ID 0109-8852.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then has the Prosecution verified
10 whether P1287 is a duplicate of P2482, and what is the result?
11 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, we've compared the two documents. They
12 are the same original text but one of the documents has a lot of
13 additional markings on it which, for us, are relevant. Therefore, our
14 proposal -- so the difference is P1287 is from the Croatian state
15 archives, and it contains the stamp of the Republic of Serbian Krajina,
16 whereas P2484 is from the ABiH archives, does not contain the stamp but
17 has handwriting which includes Roman numeral II and what we submit are
18 the initials of Franko Simatovic. Therefore, the stamps and notations at
19 the end of these documents are different. We uploaded the same
20 translation for both, which was incorrect because P2484 with the stamp
21 not appearing, it does appear in the translation. So we would submit
22 that there should be two separate documents and we will undertake to
23 provide a revised translation for P2484. We have submitted it already
24 and we anticipate that it should be ready sometime this morning. I'll
25 keep Your Honours informed of that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so the two documents remain known under their
2 individual numbers and a new translation is being prepared for P2484.
3 MS. MARCUS: Correct, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, P2484 was already admitted into
5 evidence, let me just check. Yes, I think it was. It doesn't appear on
6 the MFI list.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, it should be marked that a new
9 translation is being prepared at this moment and should then replace the
10 translation which was attached to it until now.
11 Has an English translation been uploaded of Exhibit P3000?
12 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, it has been uploaded as doc ID
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then that exhibit now is complete with this
15 translation. Has a complete English translation been uploaded of
16 Exhibit P1812?
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes. It has been uploaded with doc ID
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Same question for P878?
20 MS. MARCUS: It has doc ID 0104-7916-ET.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Marcus.
22 Then the next question is whether the Prosecution is of the view
23 that Exhibits D390 up to and including D392 and D395 can be public
24 exhibits, yes or no.
25 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, we suggest that they remain under
1 seal. We did not tender the documents so we did not notify Serbia that
2 they may be used, therefore the Serbian authorities have not had an
3 opportunity to seek protective measures. So we suggest until the
4 Stanisic Defence can notify Serbia and Serbia has this opportunity, that
5 the documents remain under seal.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
7 MR. JORDASH: We'll do that.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When will we hear from you?
9 MR. JORDASH: Well, we'll do that straightaway and we are in
10 Serbia's hands in relation to their response.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you need the assistance of the Chamber,
12 please don't hesitate to ask it.
13 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The next question of my list on this Scheduling
15 Order is that the Prosecution is invited to advise the Chamber whether
16 its comments about the status of parts of Witness Bosnic's testimony are
17 to be understood as a request to lift the confidentiality of these parts,
18 Ms. Marcus?
19 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we so request.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any objection against granting the request,
21 confidentiality to be lifted of part of the testimony?
22 MR. JORDASH: No, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then the Chamber will decide most likely this
1 morning about the status of those parts of the testimony.
2 Ms. Marcus, the next number invites you to advise the Chamber
3 whether the Prosecution intends to recall witnesses Novakovic, Corbic or
5 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, with respect to these witnesses, we
6 still have several outstanding RFAs to Serbia and to a number of
7 different agencies. We would appreciate the opportunity to wait until we
8 receive and process those responses to make a final decision as to the
9 recall of these witness. We are doing our utmost to expedite that
10 process to the extent it's within our ability do so and we'll keep the
11 Chamber informed.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which also means that witnesses Novakovic and
13 Corbic are still under a -- they are still barred from communicating with
14 whomever about their testimony, that remains in place.
15 Yes, number 17 as far as the Prosecution is concerned in the
16 scheduling, we'll come back to that later. It was about the bar table
17 motion. We'll revisit that matter soon.
18 Then I move to the Stanisic Defence, the questions outstanding.
19 Mr. Jordash, D451 needs to remain under seal or not?
20 MR. JORDASH: No, it doesn't. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then unless there's any objection, and apparently
22 there's not, D451 is now a public document.
23 Mr. Jordash, has a revised English translation been uploaded of
24 Exhibit D205?
25 MR. JORDASH: Yes, it has. Yes, it has.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Madam Registrar, again unless there are any problems, revised or
3 newly uploaded translations or documents at the specific request of the
4 Chamber of course can replace then the original -- originally uploaded
5 documents. If there's any question at any point in time, I would like to
6 hear from you.
7 Next one, Mr. Jordash, has a revised English translation been
8 uploaded of D305?
9 MR. JORDASH: Yes, it has, at 65 ter 1D02395.1.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. For the previous one, you didn't give an
11 ID number and since that has been done consequently by the Prosecution,
12 that was about D205, perhaps --
13 MR. JORDASH: It's been uploaded under doc ID -- sorry under doc
14 ID 0608-4196. By the Prosecution.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Was that D205?
16 MR. JORDASH: Yes, it was.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then that doc ID is now on the record
18 as well. I move on, has a complete English translation been uploaded of
19 document D380?
20 MR. JORDASH: No, we are still waiting a full translation.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the Stanisic Defence update the other
22 parties and the Chamber on its investigations about the provenance of
23 document D56, a document which was earlier not admitted but was
24 re-tendered by the Simatovic Defence.
25 MR. JORDASH: We obtained it from Mr. Stanisic. We've approached
1 the National Council but we haven't received any responses yet as to
2 whether they've -- have the document in their possession.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Can anything more be said about from whom
4 Mr. Stanisic received it?
5 MR. JORDASH: No, not at the moment. I can and should have asked
6 Mr. Stanisic further about that, and didn't. I can ask him about it and
7 inform the Chamber at the next court hearing. I beg your pardon, sorry,
8 there is more information. It was from one of Mr. Stanisic's assistants
9 which is a Risto Vejovic [phoen] who is dead. He died, I think, over the
10 last few years.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there -- but we have no further information
12 on where Mr. Vejovic got it, or you say it's one of his assistants. Any
13 particular time-frame for assisting Mr. Stanisic or specific position?
14 Was he -- I mean, this is a name, it may well be that in the evidence
15 more is known about him, but I don't have that on the top of my head.
16 MR. JORDASH: No, neither do I, but I do know he provided
17 statements to the Prosecution and so further information can be obtained
18 readily and I'll do that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could then perhaps the Stanisic Defence and the
20 Prosecution sit together and see what information they have about the
21 source of these documents, it may well be he said something about it in
22 the statement he has given, so that we get the best information available
23 at this moment.
24 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it to you whether it will be tea or coffee,
1 Ms. Marcus, Mr. Jordash.
2 The next item is about Exhibit P179 and Exhibit P473. I think
3 the Prosecution has expressed that there is agreement about signatures of
4 page 2 of the B/C/S version of Exhibit P179 and page 1 of the B/C/S
5 version of Exhibit P473. I would just like to know whether the Stanisic
6 confirms this agreement?
7 MR. JORDASH: We do.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You do. That's hereby on the record. Now, I, as I
9 said before, I come back to the bar table submission. You were invited,
10 Mr. Jordash, to file not later than six days before the housekeeping
11 session an update on the -- your first bar table submission, which was
12 filed on the 3rd of February, 2011, and more specifically, whether you
13 still intended to bar table this document as opposed to tendering them
14 through witnesses.
15 Now, we have been informed that there was an informal
16 communication that the Stanisic Defence would file a broader bar table
17 motion which would include documents from this initial bar table motion.
18 The question then immediately arises when do you intend to do so?
19 MR. JORDASH: May I just take a moment, please, and just consult
20 with my colleague.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. JORDASH: We'll be in a position to file the bar table motion
23 at some point next week. The problem, however, will still remain that
24 some of these documents have redactions. We are hoping to visit the
25 relevant archives in the next two weeks, so it may be that while we are
1 in a position to file the bar table next week, it may not be the most
2 efficient use of resources to do that before we've been to Belgrade and
3 seen the relevant documents without redactions.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I tend to agree with you that it doesn't make
5 much sense to hasten now to file a motion which has to be amended within
6 ten days from it being filed. Now at the same time of course bar table
7 motions should be filed preferably before the judgement has been
8 delivered, isn't it? Don't forgive -- forgive me my bad sense of humour
9 in the early morning hours of this day, but what about - today, we are at
10 the 24th of November - if the Stanisic Defence, I'm looking specifically
11 at you, Ms. Marcus, would have filed its bar table motion by mid-December
12 but then the final one, after having checked the non-redacted originals
13 in Belgrade, would that be a good idea?
14 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, generally speaking we are just a little
15 bit concerned about the lack of closure of the Stanisic Defence case and
16 the timing of that, so I just wanted to put that concern on the record.
17 But it seems to me that since we are going to have at least two of their
18 witnesses in December, anyway, that there wouldn't be any problem, I
19 think, with that motion being filed at the time Your Honour specified.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, perhaps I take it that you worked on
21 the preparation of such a motion anyhow, so where you have to verify the
22 originals, the unredacted originals, perhaps you could already provide a
23 list of the documents you intend to bar table to Ms. Marcus so that she
24 can start working on it, knowing that there is uncertainty about some
25 documents where you still have to inspect the original non-redacted
1 versions. Is that a solution that you, for example, provide that by the
2 end of next week to Ms. Marcus so that the Prosecution can proceed in its
4 MR. JORDASH: Yes. Just for Your Honours' information, we intend
5 to file, I think, at least two bar table motions. The first one will
6 relate specifically to state security reports and the like where
7 obviously the issue of redactions is most relevant. So we can provide a
8 list of those documents, I think, probably by the end of the week to the
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then the other one, do I have to
11 understand that the other bar table motion that -- because we are not now
12 talking about one broader one but about two bar table motions, is there
13 any redaction issue involved there?
14 MR. JORDASH: No, the second and maybe even the third will relate
15 to such things as supplies to Bosnia and supplies to Croatia.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So when I earlier asked when do you intend to
17 file the broader bar table motion, I now have to be more specific. The
18 first one is clear, we agreed that it is -- that the redactions play a
19 role there and that you provide Ms. Marcus with a list and the motion
20 will be filed by mid-December so as to avoid that we have to do it twice.
21 Now for -- I call them now bar table motion 2, when do you intend to file
23 MR. JORDASH: If we could have until the same time and if there's
24 a problem, we'll file for an extension. What we are trying to do is cut
25 down a number of exhibits which is taking some time, so we are doing our
1 best with the resources we have, but we would hope to file that by the
2 middle of December.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And that bar table motion 2 would contain what kind
4 of material?
5 MR. JORDASH: Bar table 2 will be almost exclusively concerning
6 supplies to Bosnia.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And then bar table motion number 3?
8 MR. JORDASH: Everything remaining, such as supplies to the
9 Krajina and then perhaps more miscellaneous, if I can put it like that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Leftovers. And what is your suggestion for the
11 timing of bar table motion 3?
12 MR. JORDASH: Well, we would hope again to do that by middle of
13 December and that may be unrealistic but we are as keen as the
14 Prosecution to get this done and close as much as we can, or finish as
15 much as we can of our case.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Trying to be as understanding as
18 we can, I think the delay to mid-December was due to the redactions.
19 Frankly, I'm not so sure why the delay to mid-December for the other two.
20 It would be our preference to have those two have an earlier dead-line
21 than that, Your Honour.
22 MR. JORDASH: It's simply not possible. With the resources we
23 have, it's simply absolutely impossible. We have moved almost all our
24 resources to dealing with these bar table motions and we are also having
25 to deal with Milovanovic who is a big witness and the outstanding
1 witnesses in our case, one of whom is also a rather large witness who
2 testified in, I think, four or five trials before this Tribunal. So with
3 the best will in the world with the resources we have, it's simply not
5 I should -- sorry. I should say that we have a team of two
6 counsel, three legal assistants, and interns of I think at the moment
7 five and everybody is working extremely hard. I just cannot see how we
8 could do it earlier.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll not revisit the earlier discussions about
10 financing of the Stanisic Defence team.
11 Let me -- Ms. Marcus, I do understand that you -- again, it was
12 perhaps bad humour but you really would like to have the bar table
13 motions before the judgement and for you, of course, it would be for
14 further preparation. Now, what exactly would be lost for you if you
15 would receive those let's say, by the 1st of January rather than the
16 1st of December? I mean, what would be the impact apart from, of course,
17 the overall impact that the later it comes the less time you have to
18 digest it and to comment on it, but how would it affect and impact on the
19 proceedings in December?
20 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, this is simply part of the overall
21 concern about the lengthy delay in the ending the case and the sort of
22 murky nature of their case still being open. That leaves a lot of
23 uncertainty. The later we have the documents, the less opportunity we
24 have to put it to the witnesses who are coming. We still don't know
25 which witnesses are coming, but the -- the analysis of the documentation
1 is something which -- which tells us more and more about their case.
2 It's how they present their case and the later they present their case,
3 the less opportunity that we have during the remainder of their case and
4 the start of the Simatovic case to rebut those contentions. So generally
5 speaking, it has to do with when their case closes and how we can prepare
6 to respond to the documents that we receive, but I leave it in
7 Your Honours' hands.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
9 MR. JORDASH: None of that, respectfully, is an accurate
10 portrayal of the situation. The Prosecution have the documents. They
11 can use them and have been able to use them over the last few months
12 during our case. They know what they are. They know the witnesses who
13 are outstanding. I don't see what is lost and nothing my learned friend
14 has just said indicates that anything is lost.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I think you, yourself, told us that you
16 are trying to reduce the number of documents to find the most relevant
17 ones, and, of course, all the time spent by the Prosecution on documents
18 you at the end find not relevant enough to bar table them is, well, may
19 be time which is wasted, lost, but we'll have a -- we'll consider the
20 matter and we'll -- we'll see whether we give further instructions to you
21 as to the timing of --
22 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- the filing of the three, as I now understand, bar
24 table motions.
25 Then I move to the Simatovic Defence. The first question as
1 found on page 4 of the Scheduling Order is moot by now or at least on
2 hold. The second question was the date of the two proposed Simatovic
3 Defence expert reports. I think you have indicated when you would file
4 them, but we see that one of the reports is more than 700 pages and I
5 think the Chamber has some concern about the size of the materials. I
6 think there was also a matter of whether or not one of the witnesses were
7 experts -- no, let's see, that's -- I leave that apart at this moment.
8 We have a more than 700 pages report from one of your expert.
9 Are there any related documents because we haven't seen the report, but
10 we have had a look at the table of contents. Are there any problems with
11 related documents and translation of related documents, especially if we
12 end up in this size of reports that create sometimes additional problems?
13 Could you update us on that.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as a Defence team we
15 will do our best to avoid any problems. However, working with this
16 report and the accompanying documents is not going to be easy at all.
17 This report, 700 pages long, is supported by several hundreds of
18 documents and some of those documents are being identified, are being
19 compared with the documents which are on our 65 ter list, which are
20 Prosecutor's documents, and those documents which are on none of the two
21 and the report still refers to them. When we finish the process of
22 identifying the documents and deciding which document falls under what
23 category, the remainder of the document will be sent for translation. We
24 expect that a significant number of documents is already on some of the
25 lists belonging to a party to the proceedings, but they will be documents
1 that were found on the EDS and that belong to other sources. The problem
2 is huge, the workload is huge, but we are doing as fast as we can. We
3 know, we are aware of the concern of our learned friends from the
4 Prosecution with this regard. We'll try to deal with the questions that
5 they put to us as soon as possible. However, as the Trial Chamber has
6 remarked, the report is voluminous and refers to a significant number of
7 documents. We are doing our best but we don't expect the job to be
8 either easy or fast.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This is the -- if you do not mind,
10 Mr. Petrovic, this is the kind of observations like the winter will be
11 cold and dark and snow may fall and we would then have to remove that
12 snow from the roads. I mean, where is your work-plan? That's first of
13 all. Where are we with the translation of the report itself? Have you
14 provided the whole of the report to CLSS and have you any idea on when
15 they would finish the translation of the report?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first an observation.
17 I wish to be very honest before Trial Chamber and I would like to present
18 the situation as it is, the situation may be somewhat darker but I can
19 explain why, if you believe this may be necessary. As far as the
20 translation of the documents is concerned, the report has been sent for
21 translation at the beginning of August of this year. If I'm not
22 mistaken, that was on the 4th of August to be very precise. According to
23 the update we received a few days ago, the translation of the report will
24 be finished by the end of this year. I'm talking about the report which
25 is 700 pages long. Our second report, which is much more concise, will
1 be translated by the end of the month of November. At least, that was
2 what we heard from the translation service.
3 We sent both reports in B/C/S versions to our colleagues from the
4 OTP hoping that that would facilitate their preparation for the testimony
5 of this witness.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Have you explored with the OTP whether there are
7 parts of the report where there's no dispute about? I mean, 700 pages is
8 not nothing. That's -- having looked at the -- having looked at the
9 table of contents, sometimes of the overall structure of armed forces or
10 whatever, I wonder whether there are no areas where the parties have no
11 dispute about.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have still not put
13 that question to my colleagues because I'm not sure whether they have
14 succeeded to review everything in detail - I'm talking about the B/C/S
15 material - but I believe that there are entire areas in both reports that
16 may be uncontestable. That is my impression of the Prosecution's
17 position. I believe that there are entire parts of those reports that
18 the OTP will not contest at all but it's up to them to say.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Whether or not that's true, then you are choosing
20 the wrong order, Mr. Petrovic. You shouldn't ask someone to write a
21 report about matters which are not in dispute. If you say the overall
22 structure - for example, I'm just giving one example - would most likely
23 not be contested, then you sit together with the other party and say we
24 want to establish the overall structures, we have an expert who could do
25 so but if we agree on it then we just present that agreement to the
1 Chamber. We don't have to hire a expensive expert to write a report
2 about that, then to have it being translated which takes, that's August,
3 September, October, November, December, that's five months. It's not
4 that you start with a report and then later try to find out whether
5 there's disagreement. You first should try to find out where the
6 disagreement is, where the dispute is, and then to find an expert who
7 will focus on that disagreement, rather than the other way around.
8 I'm -- especially if it all results in 30 or 40 pages, fine, then perhaps
9 it's easier to have that report written without, but if it results in 700
10 pages of report where you still are telling us that you now have to
11 identify what underlying documents are still there to be translated,
12 perhaps taking -- all that effort should be made only in respect of
13 matters which are in dispute and not in relation to matters which are not
14 disputed. That's the concern of the Chamber, Mr. Petrovic.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as regards the police
16 expert, there may be some parts, but those parts could simply not be
17 omitted from the text of the expert report because the expert report
18 follows a logical line, it is a whole and some parts had to be included
19 because we wanted to present a Trial Chamber with an expert report which
20 is grounded, which has a basis, which has its inner logic and that inner
21 logic is necessary for the work to appear to be integral. That's why
22 some of the parts seem to be superfluous. There's not too many of them,
23 but they had to be included to provide the report with a certain logic.
24 As far as the military expert report is concerned I feel that it
25 is necessary for me to say the following: Work with an expert who is a
1 military expert and who is a joint expert of both teams, we started
2 working with this expert many years before this Defence team was put in
3 place. For a long time, it was believed that the person responsible for
4 the expert report would be our colleagues from the Stanisic Defence team.
5 At one point in time, and that point in time came, if I'm not mistaken,
6 in May or June, decided to withdraw from our joint team effort so the
7 expert report that had already been drafted and that the current Defence
8 team could not influence at all, that expert report existed. There was
9 no time, no resources to draft a new expert report. So we were actually
10 put in a situation where we have very little choice. We needed the
11 expert report. The expert report was drafted much before. It should
12 have been our joint effort, our joint expert report, and as I said, one
13 point in time it became only our expert report, although we did not have
14 a decisive influence either on the structure of the report or the way it
15 had been drafted. This creates additional problems. If my colleague
16 Bakrac and I had been in charge from the very beginning I believe that
17 things may have been different, however, this is the course that the
18 events have taken so far. We are doing our utmost to remedy the
19 situation but we are asking for your understanding with that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
21 MR. JORDASH: I'm reluctant to intervene but my recollection is
22 that that report was a joint effort from the beginning and we did
23 withdraw from the report but our input into it was never intended to be
24 the decisive one. It was a joint effort and I'm sorry to contradict
25 Mr. Petrovic, but that report from the beginning, the funding of the
1 report was joint, the direction to the expert was joint, and we decided
2 not to pursue it. That's the situation from our perspective.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Now, apparently there are different views on what
4 caused the present situation, I think it's not for the Chamber to explore
5 that in depth. As a matter of fact, the Chamber is more interested at
6 this moment in how the matter was resolved and whether you together,
7 whether the Simatovic Defence alone -- my comments were of a totally
8 different nature. They were why have you not sat together with the
9 Prosecution to find out what really is in dispute so that the expert
10 could focus on that? And now to say that the report was there already
11 and, therefore, we couldn't change it anymore, we had no influence, I
12 would say it would have deserved an intensified effort to get out of the
13 report whatever is not in dispute, and if need be, replace it in a
14 summary form whatever the parties agree on so the logic is not lost. I
15 mean, it's not cutting out a whole part of an expert report, but to say
16 well, on this and this matter, the parties do agree that this and this
17 and they reach that agreement on the basis of A, B, C, series of
18 documents which they will not now further explore but that is where the
19 parties stand. That aspect, and that was the main comment I gave,
20 Mr. Petrovic, that aspect has not been addressed satisfactorily as far as
21 I'm concerned, but I'll further discuss it with my colleagues. And the
22 Chamber would like to be informed very quickly about the underlying
23 documents. I mean, if that takes translation effort until May 2013, then
24 we might have a problem. Therefore, I'm more interested in your
25 work-plan than an explanation on why things are as they are apparently at
1 this moment.
2 Ms. Marcus, you are on your feet.
3 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. Just to add to what has
4 been said. We sent an e-mail, as I think my colleague Mr. Petrovic was
5 referring to, on the 17th of November, which Your Honours have seen of
6 course and which relates directly to what we are discussing here. We
7 are, unfortunately and regrettably, not able to process the reports in
8 B/C/S, and we wouldn't even if they were in English, we wouldn't be able
9 to process them without the underlying documents, as well as a
10 cross-referencing of the underlying documents, whether they are on the
11 65 ter list or not, et cetera, so that we can read the report which is
12 based on underlying documents. So we would appreciate a specific idea of
13 when we might be provided with the underlying documents in addition to
14 the -- we have the approximate dead-lines of when we'll receive the
15 English translations, we'd also like to know exactly when we can expect
16 the underlying documents. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Petrovic, I mainly addressed what is in
18 dispute and what is not in dispute. Of course, another matter is
19 relevance. Now, perhaps it would be worthwhile to go through the report
20 again and also to find out what really is needed or not. Of course, if
21 we have a paragraph on -- paragraph on the Socialist Federal Republic of
22 Yugoslavia armed forces and get an explanation of what the definition,
23 the purpose, and the tasks of a land army are or of the navy, I take it
24 that the navy will focus on what happens on the waters rather than on
25 land, but of course, I've got no idea what to expect there, but it may be
1 very important also to find out what we really need for this case, what
2 the relevance is. Some portions of the document are very long. But,
3 again, not having seen the report, not having seen the appendages, the
4 appendages alone are well over 100 pages. I don't know what they are
5 apart from that it's appendages to part 1, part 2, part 3 or part 4. But
6 I really need a story different from the winter will be dark and long and
7 there may fall snow. That's not the basis on which we can proceed. So,
8 therefore, I would suggest that you present a work-plan including meeting
9 with the Prosecution, seeing how -- you understand what I mean? It's
10 the -- we want this part of your Defence case not to end up in a
11 disastrous situation.
12 I'll further discuss with my colleagues what we exactly
13 understand by a work-plan because I'm using these words rather loosely at
14 this moment and we might set a dead-line for that so that we are informed
15 soon and that we do not -- it's like financial crisis or Euro crisis,
16 Mr. Petrovic, the longer you wait, the more problematic the situation may
17 become. We'll discuss it and you'll hear further instructions from the
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Any further comment on this part of the agenda? If
21 not --
22 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MS. MARCUS: Sorry, just one more point very briefly on the bar
25 table motion by the Stanisic Defence. If the Chamber is inclined to
1 grant the mid-December dead-line for the filings, we would also
2 appreciate having a list for all three bar table motions this week or
3 next week. That would definitely facilitate things from our end. Thank
5 MR. JORDASH: That's the problem, we are identifying which
6 documents we want to put into the bar table. That's what's taking the
8 JUDGE ORIE: What the ones you intend not to have in the bar
9 table motions or do you still have to identify which ones you would like
10 to include? Of course, if you have a long list and you say we would like
11 to reduce it. We have 300 and we are still considering how we can bring
12 it down to 210 or, then you could already give the 300 and then
13 Ms. Marcus would know that there's a risk that 90 out of them might
14 finally not appear on the bar table motion. But if you say we have now a
15 list of 200 and it may well become 350 and we do not know yet the
16 remaining 150, then, of course, Ms. Marcus cannot possibly, with or
17 without risks, proceed preparing.
18 MR. JORDASH: Can I just have a moment, please.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 [Defence counsel confer]
21 MR. JORDASH: We can certainly give a definitive list for the
22 Bosnian bar table by, I think, the end of next week. I don't think we
23 will be able to move to the third one until --
24 JUDGE ORIE: In addition to the security list? There was -- I
25 would say bar table 1 was the one where especially the redactions play a
1 major role. There, I think you said that you could already provide a
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes, by tomorrow and then --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but this week. Now, you are offering to
5 Ms. Marcus a complete list of documents that will be covered by the
6 second bar table motion by the end of next week.
7 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And would you then please think about when at least
9 a list to be provided to Ms. Marcus on the third one.
10 MR. JORDASH: Certainly.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, it's perhaps not yet everything you
12 would wish, but it's at least something.
13 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I also have a few
14 corrigenda to make regarding what we've discussed already this morning.
15 I don't know if Your Honour wants me to do that now or later.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps, if you do it now. I must -- the
17 Prosecution has sent emails, I think, commenting on matters to be raised
18 during this housekeeping session. I was not able to read them, so it's
19 good that you have prepared it, but just be aware that I have not been in
20 a position to read them. It was, I think it was sent yesterday and I
21 couldn't spend time on it yesterday.
22 MS. MARCUS: I understand, Your Honour. Thank you, this is just
23 because of the transcript, a couple of the corrections are for the
24 transcript to make sure that it's correct. Today at transcript page 3,
25 where it says it refers to Exhibit P243 -- sorry it refers to P-- sorry
1 one moment. The transcript refers to Exhibit P2493 and it should be
2 P243. That may well have been my error, I apologise. At transcript page
3 4, I made a mistake, it seems, with respect to Exhibit P1050, P1050, the
4 translation is still being worked on. The revised version will be
5 available later today. So I gave a doc ID for that which is not correct
6 because it is not ready yet. And I do apologise. The doc ID I gave was
7 0608-0177-ET but I reiterate that that is not correct and the revised
8 version will be provided later today.
9 On transcript page 6, I left off a dash at the end of the doc ID
10 number for P853. The document has been uploaded, that's P853, the
11 document has been uploaded as 0109-8852-. Apparently the dash is
12 important. Finally on transcript page 6, Exhibit P2484 has a translation
13 apparently I gave the wrong doc ID for that. The correct doc ID is
14 0608-0177-ET. So in other words, I had given that doc ID for the wrong
15 document. So that's the doc ID for P2484. My apologies.
16 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Although there still are a few questions, I'll come
18 to that after the break, Ms. Marcus.
19 I now move to matters which are -- which were not on the
20 Scheduling Order, but also are not on the MFI list.
21 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: There are a few documents where a decision still has
23 to be taken whether they can be made public and I address the parties to
24 see what comments they have. P2448. Any problem in making it public? I
25 do not hear any objections. P3046? P3047?
1 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I'm so sorry, I simply can't check it
2 this quickly to be a hundred per cent sure. Is it -- I'm very happy to
3 prepare that and get back to you in ten minutes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then at least you have the numbers now. Then
5 I'll complete the series of numbers. Next one is D143 and the last one
6 is D232. The Chamber would very much like to hear from the parties
7 whether there's any objection against makes these documents public
9 The next item is the following, that in relation to a pending
10 request for protective measures from Serbia, D150 should be placed
11 provisionally under seal. It is a MUP SDB report on security issues in
12 relation to paramilitary formations including Arkan.
13 Madam Registrar, it should be provisionally now under seal.
14 I add to this that the Chamber informally has asked the Registry
15 to put Exhibit D372 provisionally under seal to protect the witness's
16 identity. We are talking about Witness DST-044. The Chamber has further
17 looked at P2151, and more in particular a description of a photograph, a
18 photograph found on page 9 of that document, whether it would reveal the
19 identity of the witness, Witness JF-024. We have considered this and
20 decided that the exhibit should be under seal.
21 Similarly, P441, a witness statement should be under seal. It
22 gives the comments of the witnesses about names on per diem lists and
23 these per diem lists are confidential documents. More specifically,
24 because of the decision of the Chamber of the 3rd of November, 2009,
25 granting protection to active BIA members. Therefore, P441 is now under
2 The Chamber has decided on admission of Exhibits D383 up to and
3 including D385 on the 22nd and the 23rd of August, and those decisions
4 were a little ambiguous, especially in view of the fact that there were
5 replacement -- there was a replacement of the documents. Therefore, the
6 Chamber would like to clarify that 1D5019 was admitted as D383, that
7 1D5020.1 was admitted as D384, and that 1D5021.1 was admitted as D385.
8 The latter two, that is D384 and D385 under seal.
9 And, Madam Registrar, you are instructed to make any changes to
10 the extent necessary in this respect in e-court. Is that sufficiently
12 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then we'll now take a break first. Also
14 in order to avoid that we all start suffering from a bookkeeper's
15 syndrome, we'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I first want to further address the status of parts
19 of Witness Bosnic's testimony. The Prosecution has requested to lift the
20 confidentiality. The Chamber hereby decides that transcript pages 12818,
21 line 2, up to transcript 12824, line 7 are now public.
22 I hope that we'll finish this morning, if not, I will suggest to
23 the parties and explore the possibilities of continuing briefly this
24 afternoon so as to have a clean desk, but I do not know whether there are
25 any problems as far as the parties are concerned, neither have I yet
1 explored with the Registry whether there will be a courtroom available
2 and whether we will have teams to support us.
3 MS. MARCUS: No problem from the Prosecution.
4 MR. JORDASH: The same here.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] The same.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I would then not start at quarter past 2.00 but
7 rather let's say 3.00 or 3.15. Madam Registrar, would you please try to
8 find out whether all the technical requirements are met if need be.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, dead-lines for your bar table motions.
11 Numbers 1 and 2, 15th of December. Number 3 at the end of the winter
12 recess. Which would mean, I think it's the 9th of January or something
13 like that.
14 MR. JORDASH: Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Petrovic, the Chamber will further
16 consider what we exactly understand to be a work-plan for you in relation
17 to the expert report and what we would expect you to -- and when you
18 would be expected to submit to the Chamber how you intend to proceed, and
19 again, very much on the practical level, the Chamber wants to avoid that
20 we end up in major trouble as far as timing is concerned. We'll give you
21 further instructions for that.
22 Then I move on to the list of exhibits of which the status is to
23 be considered. P2448.
24 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, from our view there is no problem with
25 any of the three Prosecution exhibits being made public. Thank you for
1 the extra time.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there any remaining concern with the
3 Defence on P2448, P3046, and P3047?
4 MR. JORDASH: No, thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then these three exhibits are on from now public
6 exhibits. Then D143?
7 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour, public is fine. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No concerns --
9 MS. MARCUS: No objections.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- from the other parties. D143 is a public exhibit
11 from now. D232.
12 MR. JORDASH: Same, Your Honour.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Same, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And Ms. Marcus remains silent on the matter but
15 agrees. D232 is a public exhibit from now on. I'd like to move on.
16 I'm at this moment more or less addressing the public that -- and
17 inform them that on the 7th of October, 2011, and the 11th of November,
18 the Chamber has issued two confidential decisions granting in part
19 applications from the Republic of Serbia for protective measures
20 specifying the kind of material that is to be protected for national
21 security interests for documents provided to the Prosecution and for the
22 testimony of two Prosecution witnesses. Now, connected to this the --
23 pursuant to the 7th of October decision, the Prosecution filed on the
24 11th of November, 2011, a list of names of persons mentioned in those
25 documents whose identities the Chamber has decided to protect.
1 As the Chamber has noted in its decision, it is not readily
2 apparent from the parties' submissions which of the Prosecution documents
3 subject to this decision are in evidence before the Chamber. The
4 Chamber, therefore, requests the Prosecution to file by the
5 15th of December, 2011, a list of the exhibits which are subject to the
6 Chamber's decision of the 7th of October, 2011. Should documents subject
7 to the decision be admitted at a later stage, the Prosecution is
8 instructed to file a supplement to the list as soon as possible. I just
9 wanted to verify whether this is clear for the Prosecution?
10 MS. MARCUS: Clear, Your Honour. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 Then -- then I would like to put on the record that the
13 Prosecution's oral motion to compel disclosure of interview notes for
14 Witness Novakovic, a motion of the 5th of October, 2011, was denied on
15 the same day, and that the parties were informed through an informal
16 communication. As for the reasons for this decision, I refer the parties
17 to the Chamber's general reasons on this issue contained in the Chamber's
18 12th of October, 2011 decision on Prosecution urgent motion related to
19 non-compliance of Stanisic Defence with Rule 65 ter G and Rule 67 of the
21 The next matter I would like to raise is the statement that was
22 admitted in relation to Witness Dragicevic. The statement was admitted
23 but the chart with comments and underlying documents were MFI'd. Now,
24 there also were 45 associated documents where no numbers have yet been
25 assigned, and there may be some overlap in the -- in those associated
1 documents and the chart documents. I, therefore, instruct the Stanisic
2 Defence to communicate with the Registry and the Registry to file after
3 that an internal memorandum with numbers assigned to any outstanding
4 documents. Is that clear both to the Stanisic Defence and the Registry?
5 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd like to hear further Defence submissions on
7 the bar tabling of two suspect interview excerpts, excerpts that were
8 tendered by the Prosecution after the testimony of Witness Helgers and
9 would like to.
10 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I was wondering if we might adjourn
11 this argument so that Mr. Stanisic could be present. I know that he
12 would be interested to hear the argument and we didn't understand that --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I can understand that. Then we'll put this one
14 on hold.
15 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps it would be best also for the Simatovic
17 Defence to --
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move on --
20 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MS. MARCUS: Sorry, on that issue, just to inform the Chamber and
23 put it on the record, we sent an elaboration of our submission, also a
24 reply to what had been said in court. We sent that via e-mail, it's a
25 lengthy one, we didn't file it yet, but this was an effort for us to
1 begin this conversation with the Defence teams with a view towards
2 possibly agreeing, which I understood was the request of the Chamber that
3 we try to find a way to agree, maybe they would propose additional
4 portions. So we set out our position in greater detail in that, if the
5 Chamber so requests we can file that or put it on the record some other
6 way. But I just wanted to put on the record that we had given them
7 additional information about our position on those excerpts of the
8 suspect interviews.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it those submissions are substantial in
10 the discussion, not merely practical, which doesn't even need to be put
11 on the record, not to be referred to in more general terms on the record
12 which we often do. Let me just consult.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
15 MR. JORDASH: The only problem we have with the Prosecution's
16 suggestion is that those submissions contain submissions which go beyond
17 the admissibility argument and goes to arguments about whether
18 Mr. Stanisic should be accorded any mitigation for his actions in
19 releasing the hostages and we would object to those submissions forming
20 part of the trial record at this stage.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
22 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Perhaps this issue -- I'm
23 perfectly glad to sit down with Mr. Jordash and have a discussion about
24 it, how to proceed. The issue seems to get a little bigger as time goes
25 on. If Your Honours request we can do written submissions. It is quite
1 extensive and it does contain both our position as to the mitigation
2 aspect as well as the mens rea aspect of their Defence.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, of course, the first matter to be decided
4 is whether they should be admitted, yes or no. Therefore, I invite you
5 to sit together with Mr. Jordash and see whether you can make a
6 distinction between the question which is before the Chamber at this very
7 moment, that is admission. Now, I do understand that admission also is
8 related to relevance. Of course, relevance may touch upon what the
9 relevance is. Is it for mitigation, is it for sentencing, is it for ...
10 So, therefore, it might not be always easy to make a clear distinction
11 between admission and matters apparently raised by the Prosecution. I
12 have not read it until now, which perhaps is a good thing, I'll check
13 with my colleagues whether they have read it -- yes, Mr. Jordash.
14 MR. JORDASH: On reflection, I withdraw the objection to those
15 submissions being filed. We'll file a written response, though, if
16 that's --
17 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine because the Chamber decided that they
18 should be filed, so whatever you have sent in your e-mail, you know, if
19 it's of really substance, then it should be filed.
20 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll receive a response by the Defence and if
22 Mr. Petrovic want to respond as well, that's also, but a time-limit for
23 that. Any suggestion, Mr. Jordash? Preferably this year.
24 MR. JORDASH: Not much left. End of next week.
25 JUDGE ORIE: End of next week.
1 Mr. Petrovic.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, then if we are going
3 to respond too, we'll do so in writing.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I only set a dead-line now for the Stanisic
5 Defence to file any submissions in response to the Prosecution e-mail
6 submissions still to be filed by Friday the 2nd of December.
7 Then I move on. On the 15th of November, the Stanisic Defence
8 has requested a Chamber order for a retranslation of a part of Exhibit
9 P1628, and specifically the words [B/C/S spoken], my pronunciation may be
10 very wrong. First, Mr. Jordash, the Chamber informs you that document
11 P1628 was vacated in the Chamber's 10th of March, 2011 decision, a
12 decision on the Prosecution's motion for admission of excerpts from the
13 Mladic notebooks. And I refer you to footnote 26 of that decision.
14 Nevertheless, the disputed excerpt was admitted in that same decision and
15 is in evidence as P2545.
16 Now, the Chamber understands from the request that the Stanisic
17 Defence has already asked CLSS for a revision of the translation, but
18 that it now continues to dispute the translation. The Chamber hereby
19 invites the Registry to make a Rule 33(B) submission on the Stanisic
20 Defence request, a submission by the 5th of December, 2011. And requests
21 that the Registry, in that submission, provide the Chamber with any
22 additional information it may have regarding the disputed translation of
23 the exhibit.
24 Mr. Jordash, so, therefore, we'll give it a follow-up, but now
25 not just we stick to the translation but whatever additional information
1 can provide on why they did not change it and perhaps what they have
2 considered, so a full explanation of the decision CLSS has taken and of
3 course we'll then also find out whether it still takes that position yes
4 or no.
5 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
6 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, excuse me.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Marcus.
8 MS. MARCUS: We were going to file a brief response to that
9 motion. I don't know if the dead-line would be the 29th, we can
10 certainly expedite that. I wonder whether maybe that could be filed
11 before the Registry's submission follows or as Your Honours --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if the Registry would wait until after you have
13 filed a response, that might save a further round of exchange of views.
14 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, Madam Registrar, the Registry is urged
16 not to file the 33(B) submission before the Prosecution has filed its
17 response so the motion.
18 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps be a bit clearer on the submission by the
20 Registry. CLSS -- the Registry is invited to inform the Chamber whether
21 it maintains its position, I think that's already what I hinted at, and
22 if so, for what reasons, also addressing the Stanisic Defence's arguments
23 for a different translation.
24 Yes. I'm addressing now the Simatovic Defence and the Chamber
25 would like to have a list filed assigning provisional pseudonyms to each
1 of your witnesses on your list, and that list should be filed before the
2 first witness appears.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That will be done, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
5 The Stanisic Defence has indicated in an informal communication
6 that it would like to call two of its witnesses out of turn, that is
7 during or after the Simatovic Defence case. On the 4th of November, the
8 Chamber has encouraged the Stanisic Defence to make such applications
9 without delay. However, such applications have not been received to
10 date, and just to clarify, the Chamber mainly encouraged you to make such
11 applications formally so as to give the other parties as opportunity to
12 review whether the calling of these witnesses out of turn would cause
13 them any prejudice.
16 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: I introduced the matter on historical grounds, how
18 it was, because DST-060 I do understand is part of an agreement now.
19 I'll put that on the record in a second. Now, there are a few questions
20 in relation to this scheduling of witnesses. First of all, the Chamber
21 does understand that there's an agreement that Witness DST-060 will be
22 called first next week and, therefore, will delay the start of the
23 presentation of evidence by the Simatovic Defence. Is that correctly
25 MR. JORDASH: Yes, it is.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
2 MR. JORDASH: What is slightly uncertain at the moment is how
3 long he will take. My estimation -- we haven't had a estimation from the
4 parties, but it may well be that that witness can finish in two days. I
5 don't intend to be more than an hour with him.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then one day remains next week, Wednesday. Is
7 the Simatovic Defence ready to then call its first witness who could
8 possibly start then on that Wednesday?
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in informal
10 communication, I'd addressed the Chamber, you have certainly seen what
11 our position on this issue are. At this moment if my reckoning is
12 correct, we have six Stanisic Defence witnesses who will testify and have
13 not done so yet. Out of the six, we have considered, in the case of two
14 or three of them, things carefully and we want to be as co-operative as
15 we can, but we agree that these two or three can testify during our case,
16 or perhaps after our case, although this may be a bit of a problem for
17 us. But those two or three witnesses, DST-060, DST-071, and
18 Witness Milovanovic who are to testify yet, it is very hard, almost
19 impossible for us to begin our case unless these people have testified
20 before as Stanisic Defence witnesses because their testimony is related
21 to what the other two or three witnesses may say. The structure of our
22 case itself depends on what we expect these witnesses may say before the
23 Trial Chamber here. That is why we kindly request that these two
24 witnesses complete their testimony and then literally within two or three
25 days we will provide our witness list without any further delay. But the
1 testimony of our witnesses before at least this part of the Defence case
2 of Mr. Stanisic is finished would be a huge problem for us, and we can
3 provide further explanation in writing, if necessary. Our understanding
4 is that DST-060 can come on Monday. There are indications that
5 Witness Milovanovic may be able to testify the following week, and if
6 that is so, as soon as that is done, we can bring our first witness on
7 any day of the week. We just kindly ask for some fundamental order that
8 the orders of the Trial Chamber and the rules be observed.
9 Thank you, Your Honour.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 Pages 15109-15112 redacted. Redaction Order.
9 Then, Mr. Jordash, do we well understand that Witness DST-081 has
10 been dropped by the Stanisic Defence?
11 MR. JORDASH: No, but we are very close to doing so. We are
12 trying to conduct some last-minute attempts to obtain some formalities
13 and I think we'll know the answer to that by Monday and be able to make a
14 decision, I think, early next week. I think it's -- I'll be frank, it's
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay the Chamber would like to be informed at
17 shortest possible notice.
18 Then, Mr. Petrovic, we have dealt with Witness DST-060, an
19 agreement is there. We have dealt with Mr. Milovanovic. Now, about the
20 two remaining witnesses out of turn, DST-061 and Mr. Brown -- no,
21 Mr. Brown and DST-071. DST-071, we know your position. We have
22 discussed that. DST-061 is, let me just see, one second.
23 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, DST-061, Mr. Brown, these two, what is your
25 position in relation to them specifically to be called out of turn?
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, although we believe
2 that this is a departure from the usual order of things, we kindly ask
3 the Chamber to accommodate us only in what is important to us. DST-060
4 and Mr. Milovanovic. For the other two witnesses, we agree that they be
5 heard at any time during our case or after our case, that means DST-061
6 and expert Brown.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: So your position in every respect is clear,
10 Mr. Petrovic. Of course, it depends on developments in the coming days
11 when the Chamber expects you to present your first witness.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And since there is a risk that we would not have --
14 that we would have neither Mr. Milovanovic or Witness DST-071, you
15 should, as I always requested also from the Stanisic Defence, you should
16 develop a plan B.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] We will do our best, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
19 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. Just with respect to the
20 Simatovic Defence witnesses, we would like to -- we've sent an e-mail to
21 them, I don't think we've received a response about the documents for
22 their witnesses. We have not received the documents yet for the first
23 witness that they intend to tender through that witness, so we would like
24 to make sure that we receive those well in advance of the witness coming.
25 If there's a chance that the first witness starts next Wednesday, we
1 would like to receive the documents, if possible, today.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, in case of plan B, plan B documents?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we will do that
4 today. We will provide the documents by close of business today.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then we move into private session. One
7 [Private session]
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 Just to follow-up on the last part of the discussion before we
9 went into private session, I see at this moment that -- but I have not
10 yet looked at the Prosecution, that there seem to be no objections
11 against Mr. Brown and Witness DST-061 to be called after the beginning of
12 the Simatovic case. Any problems as far as the Prosecution is concerned?
13 MS. MARCUS: We don't object, Your Honour, as long as they can
14 come as soon as possible.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then just to have it clear on the record that
16 the Chamber accepts that at least -- I'm not pronouncing the Chamber's
17 views on the others, but at least Mr. Brown and Witness DST-061 are
18 called out of turn.
19 Then I have to deliver the reasons for a decision before we go to
20 the MFI list. Let me just see.
21 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber delivers its decision on the Stanisic
23 Defence motion on the admission of transcripts and associated exhibits
24 pursuant to Rule 92 bis.
25 It was on the 27th of September of this year that the
1 Stanisic Defence filed a motion to admit the transcripts of evidence and
2 associated exhibits in lieu of viva voce testimony of four witnesses:
3 DST-057, DST-068, DST-071, and DST-080, pursuant to Rule 92 bis. The
4 Prosecution responded to the request in relation to the witnesses 57, 68
5 and 80 on the 11th of October, 2011, and in relation to Witness DST-071
6 separately on the 20th of October, 2011. This followed a corrigendum
7 filing by the Stanisic Defence and a decision of the Chamber to grant the
8 Prosecution until the 20th of October to respond to the motion in
9 relation to Witness 71.
10 The Prosecution opposed the motion to tender the written evidence
11 pursuant to Rule 92 bis and request that all witnesses be called for
12 cross-examination. On the 3rd of November, 2011, in an informal
13 communication, the Stanisic Defence dropped witnesses DST-068, DST-080,
14 and DST-057 from its witness list, leaving only the written evidence
15 relating to witness DST-071 to be considered by the Chamber.
16 On the 15th of November, 2011, the Chamber informed the parties
17 that the Rule 92 bis motion dealing with Witness DST-071 was denied, and
18 that the witness should be called for cross-examination. The Chamber now
19 provides reasons for this decision.
20 The Prosecution argued that Witness DST-071 must appear for
21 cross-examination so as to clarify and give context to issues relating to
22 the JNA and Serbian DB's role in arming, financing, and providing
23 logistical support to military, TO, and volunteer groups, and to
24 determine the witness's knowledge, if any, regarding the role of the
25 Serbian DB members and the relation between the Serbian DB and the
1 Red Berets. The Chamber considered that the witness's evidence relates
2 to live and important issues between the parties. The Chamber,
3 therefore, considered that the witness should be called for
4 cross-examination and denied the Stanisic Defence request for admission
5 of his written evidence pursuant to Rule 92 bis.
6 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
7 We now move to the MFI list, the most exciting part of
8 housekeeping sessions. And we'll start with Prosecution exhibits. We
9 start with P2979. The Prosecution has not sought to tender the document
10 on the 23rd of June, 2011, and it wanted it to have the document be MFI'd
11 and possibly tender it at a later stage. At the same time, I note that
12 the Stanisic Defence has questioned Witness DST-051 and Witness DST-032
13 about the document. Now, it has not been tendered. Could I receive an
14 update from the Prosecution.
15 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we do seek to tender it and
16 exactly for the reasons that Your Honours has just mentioned. Since it's
17 been used by both parties, we believe that Defence may not object to
18 that, but we do seek to tender it at this time.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any objections?
20 MR. JORDASH: Can I just have a moment, please.
21 [Defence counsel confer]
22 MR. JORDASH: No objections.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic?
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No objection.
25 JUDGE ORIE: P2979 --
1 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. JORDASH: I'm just trying to get on top of this issue. Our
4 objection is -- we do have an objection. We have an objection that the
5 document is admitted for the truth of its contents; we do not object to
6 it being admitted for impeachment purposes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll further consider that and I'll refrain
8 from a decision on the matter at this very moment.
9 We move on, P2980, incomplete translation. Is there a full
10 translation available?
11 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. It's been uploaded at
13 JUDGE ORIE: There was nothing else which was an obstacle to
14 admission, if I'm not mistaken. It's a document under seal.
15 Madam Registrar, the full translation may replace the incomplete
16 translation. P2980 is admitted under seal.
17 Move on to P2984. It was originally admitted as an excerpt.
18 Parties then agreed to have the entire document tendered. The full
19 translation was not there yet. Is it now?
20 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. It's uploaded as 65 ter 6208.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And the uploaded full translation may replace the
22 incomplete previous one. P2984 is admitted under seal.
23 Mr. Jordash.
24 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I just wanted to make sure that our position
25 on this is clear.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I thought it was that, that the parties had agreed
2 that -- on the entire document to be tendered.
3 MR. JORDASH: But only in light of my initial objection to the --
4 a portion of it being used, and once the portion had been admitted, we
5 agreed to allow the rest of the file to be admitted because of the
6 preliminary ruling. So we object for the reasons well known to the
7 Chamber concerning the admission of this personnel file.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say that -- but that was more or less
9 rejected by our decision, and you say under those circumstances, then the
10 whole of the -- then the entire document, but you are still not happy
11 with the document to be admitted at all.
12 MR. JORDASH: Exactly.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Full or in part. That's clear. It doesn't change
14 the decision. It's now the full -- the full document together with the
15 full translation that is admitted into evidence.
16 Next one, P2986, stills from a video. The Stanisic Defence
17 objected to admission until the relevance of this evidence was clear to
18 it. The Prosecution then indicated that the relevance would be clear
19 after the next piece of evidence was shown to the witness. However,
20 neither party ever revisited this matter. Therefore, I'd like to receive
21 an update whether the Stanisic Defence still objects to admission, or is
22 convinced by the next piece of evidence that it is relevant evidence, and
23 if relevant, whether there are any other objections.
24 MR. JORDASH: No objection.
25 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. And I don't think that the Simatovic
1 Defence objected to it. P2986 is admitted into evidence.
2 Next one is P2988. It is a document listing names of a
3 commission. Now, there is a similar, although not exactly the same list
4 in P421. It seems that no party has objected to the document but that we
5 just had not admitted it. Is that correctly understood, that there are
6 no objections? No objections. P2988 is admitted under seal.
7 I move on to P2989 which is objected to by the Stanisic Defence
8 as it considers it to be an attempt by the Prosecution to covertly
9 expound the Prosecution case, that's a matter that we dealt with in the
10 guidance. Therefore, also in view of that decision, the prejudice is not
11 sufficiently demonstrated and P2989 is admitted into evidence.
12 For P2992, the same is true, same type of objection. Here also
13 the prejudice is not sufficiently demonstrated, and P2992 is admitted
14 into evidence. For P2995, excerpts from personnel files, the objections
15 against admission were not the same for the two Defences. The
16 Simatovic Defence was concerned about a lack of evidence of who owned the
17 booklet contained in it and the lack of certification and the absence of
18 stamps. Whereas the Stanisic Defence objected for different reasons, the
19 same as with the two previous documents, that is lack of notice.
20 There was another matter which is whether or not the excerpt, the
21 selection made by the Prosecution of this personnel file, it was only an
22 excerpt, whether there is any additional agreement between the parties
23 whether additional pages should be added to this excerpt in case the
24 Chamber would decide to admit it into evidence.
25 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, as far as we know, the entire personnel
1 file for this individual was tendered by the Simatovic Defence as D456
2 which is MFI'd. We didn't object to the admission of the complete file.
3 I wonder whether that probably renders the debate about the excerpt of
4 that file moot. I would suggest if the Chamber agrees with my
5 assessment, that what we might do in this case, and this will come up as
6 Your Honours probably already noticed, this comes up many times where one
7 party tendered an excerpt of a personnel file and then later on the
8 entire file is being tendered. In such cases, I would like to request or
9 suggest that when we vacate the Exhibit for the excerpt or that we
10 either, I don't know how technically it would be done but we mark it not
11 admitted with a surrogate sheet that enables someone to cross-reference
12 because, of course, in the record we are discussing one exhibit number
13 which later on becomes a part, an excerpt of a larger exhibit. Just to
14 enable cross referencing we would recommend that as a technical solution
15 but of course we leave it up to Your Honours to think about that aspect.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, as far as D456 is concerned, there is a
17 translation missing, so whether or not it is exactly the same, the
18 Chamber has some difficulties in comparing this excerpt with D456, and
19 there's another matter, there's also a redaction issue in relation to
20 D456, where, of course, the -- it seems that this may have been resolved
21 between the Simatovic Defence and the government of Serbia, at the same
22 time as we indicated before, this does not in itself bind the other
23 parties so we do not know whether the Prosecution nevertheless would
24 insist on an unredacted copy.
25 MS. MARCUS: I see, Your Honour, yes, I should have mentioned
1 that we submitted the complete file for translation. As soon as that's
2 ready it can be uploaded and attached. That's with regard to the
3 translation. With respect to the redactions, I'll have to check that.
4 We do object to unredacted documents being tendered. I would also like
5 to confirm whether this file is probably part of our negotiations with
6 the government of Serbia as to unredacted versions and Serbia has agreed
7 to provide that for the ones that -- so I think that that will be
8 forthcoming and we can provide that as soon as we get it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, at this moment it's too early to already
10 decide on P2995, but we should clearly keep in mind that it's directly
11 linked to D456 and all the problems related to that last document.
12 Then we'll move on -- yes, Mr. Jordash.
13 MR. JORDASH: Just to secure the record, we don't agree with
14 Ms. Marcus when she suggests that the issue is moot because the party --
15 a party then puts in an additional part of the record. We still object
16 to the part of the personnel file and the full file for the reasons we've
17 given earlier.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have to check, as a matter of fact, whether
19 you objected to D456. Perhaps not because there was no translation yet.
20 We'll have a look at it. We'll leave it open for the time being.
21 Then I move on to P2996. I think that was also a notice matter.
22 The Stanisic Defence objected on the 14th of July. Notice of the
23 Prosecution, what they are doing, why they are doing it, and why they are
24 doing it so late, that's -- I could refer to it again as the guidance
25 issue. Now, there was another problem, that the English translation of
1 page 3 was missing. Could I first verify whether that translation is
2 complete now.
3 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. The complete translation has been
4 uploaded as BG03-2792-ET.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then the new translation replaces the
6 old incomplete one. And P2996 is admitted into evidence. The objection
7 by the Stanisic Defence is overruled because the prejudice has not
8 sufficiently been demonstrated.
9 Then we move on to P2997. The first question I'd like to ask the
10 Prosecution, whether apart from what else remains, whether this would be
11 a document that should be under seal?
12 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's then one. Then there was a
14 Simatovic Defence objection about date and lack of probative value. I
15 think it's on the record that I pronounce that this goes rather to weight
16 than to admissibility. Now, the Stanisic Defence objected again on a
17 different ground, that is, lack of notice. But apart from that
18 objection, the Stanisic Defence also wished to reserve its position
19 because you had not been in a position to re-examine the witness given
20 that the document came from a disclosure of 109 personnel files in B/C/S,
21 which you had no time to review.
22 Lack of notice is clear. The other reservation, Mr. Jordash,
23 could you update the Chamber on whether now having had an opportunity to
24 look at this disclosure, and not having had a possibility to re-examine
25 the witness, whether you still wish now -- knowing the content, whether
1 you still wish to re-examine the witness and that he should be recalled
2 for that.
3 MR. JORDASH: Well, the issue of notice is what is at the
4 foundation of that objection, that had we had, first of all, notice that
5 the file would be used, we would have approached a significant part of
6 our case differently, and in any event now the file has been used, we
7 still do not know what the Prosecution say that man did, what his acts
8 and conducts were and what the legal categorisation of them are. So we
9 are in the same position. We --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you said at the time that you had no
11 opportunity to re-examine the witness because you had no time -- you had
12 had no time to review the material. Now, you have had that time and
13 apart from all the other problems that may remain, does that trigger a
14 wish to recall the witness to be re-examined on this document?
15 MR. JORDASH: No, for the reasons that I've just outlined, that I
16 don't know the significance of that person within the Prosecution case so
17 I wouldn't know how to re-examine the witness on it.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So, therefore, there's no such request. Then
19 the Simatovic Defence objection is denied due to weight rather than
20 admissibility. The -- what remains of the Stanisic Defence objections,
21 prejudice has not sufficiently been -- has not been demonstrated
22 sufficiently and, therefore, that objection is denied. P2997 is admitted
23 into evidence under seal.
24 We move on to P3008. The Prosecution has sought only to tender a
25 few pages of this personnel file. Had, however, uploaded the entire
1 document. The Stanisic Defence has objected that the Prosecution had not
2 met the Prlic appeal threshold. The Simatovic Defence agreed with that
3 and also didn't think that it was appropriate for the Prosecution to
4 tender through this witness. That is, again, if I could say so, the
5 guidance issue.
6 Now, what I'm wondering is whether the Prosecution would be
7 willing to reduce the documents to the pages shown to the witness plus
8 whatever any other party would want to have added to that for purposes of
10 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, we have done that already. We've
11 reduced the document according to what we understood to be the
12 instructions of the Chamber on this issue. We have reduced it and
13 uploaded it to 65 ter 6240.1. We are also, of course, happy to accept
14 any additional portions of the file that the Defence wishes to add to
15 that, but we have at this point only included the excerpts that were
16 discussed with the witness.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any wish, apart from the objections against
18 admission, that if it would be admitted, that for further
19 contextualisation other parts of the document or, should I say the
20 personnel file, should be added?
21 MR. JORDASH: Could we have some time to check that, please.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Petrovic, same time?
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would you need, Mr. Jordash?
25 MR. JORDASH: Middle of next week, please.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Middle of next week. I then set the dead-line at
2 the 1st of December.
3 Now, may I take it that since P3009 addresses exactly the same
4 problems, that you would need that time for P3009 as well? Also another
5 personnel file. Has it been reduced, Ms. Marcus, that one?
6 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, and it's uploaded as 65 ter
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if the Chamber would decide to admit, would any
9 of the Defence teams want to add pages for contextualisation? Also
10 1st of December, Mr. Jordash?
11 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's then true both for you and Mr. Petrovic.
13 I'm looking at the clock, I think it would be good to have a
14 break. I meanwhile received confirmation that it is possible to have a
15 hearing this afternoon. Now, at what time would we start. I have a
16 meeting at 2.00. I suggest quarter past 3.00. Would that be ...
17 MR. JORDASH: That's fine, Your Honour.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] It's all right with us.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we'll now take a break and we resume at a
20 quarter to 1.00 and since it's very unlikely that we would finish this
21 morning, we'll continue this afternoon at quarter past 3.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.54 p.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I think we were at P3023.
25 Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, please accept my
2 apologies for interrupting you, but I would like your permission to say
3 just a few words regarding the continuation of the trial and the bringing
4 of witnesses.
5 Your Honours, I'm now talking about the plan B that you ordered
6 me to prepare. If the Trial Chamber should not grant our request that
7 Milovanovic testify before the beginning of our case, and if Milovanovic
8 is unable to appear on Wednesday or the week of 5th December, I kindly
9 ask the Trial Chamber that our plan B come into effect as of the
10 5th of December to avoid all uncertainty, first of all, as to what we are
11 supposed to tell our witnesses concerning organisation, procedure,
12 et cetera. So basically, if our two requests are rejected, that the
13 plan B starts as of the 5th of December.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We'll consider it, Mr. Petrovic. I must say that
15 many things have changed over the last 30 minutes, one of them I'd like
16 to briefly discuss in private session. Could we move into private
18 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
22 I think we are at P3023. That is the, if I could say so, the
23 Milosevic document. The Stanisic Defence has accepted admission for
24 impeachment purposes but opposed for the truth of the content. The
25 Simatovic Defence also opposed admission. The Chamber admits P3023 and
1 not explicitly or exclusively for impeachment purposes, which, by the
2 way, does not mean that the Chamber would easily, on the basis of this
3 document alone, accept the, if I could say so, the truth of what
4 Mr. Milosevic submitted in that document and we'll carefully consider
5 what weight to be given to the document in the context of the evidence in
6 its entirety.
7 Then I move on to P3025 up to and including P3028, four 1992
8 reports concerning White Eagles. Objections were there based on
9 redactions. The Prosecution submitted that it would be happy to tender
10 the unredacted documents but it just doesn't have them and that it would
11 request unredacted copies, Ms. Marcus.
12 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we have those unredacted copies.
13 For P3025, the unredacted version has been uploaded as 65 ter 6263.1.
14 And for P3026, the unredacted version has been uploaded as 65 ter 6264.1.
15 For P3027, the unredacted version is uploaded as 65 ter 6265.1. And for
16 P3028, the unredacted version is uploaded as 65 ter 6266.1.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that. The objection was based on
18 redactions. Simatovic Defence, are there any further objections?
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that P3025, up to and including P3028
21 are admitted into evidence. Now, Ms. Marcus, since they are now
22 unredacted copies, is there any need to have them under seal?
23 MS. MARCUS: No, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then they are admitted as public documents. Next
25 one P3029, the Stanisic Defence sought an opportunity to inspect the
1 content and the parties would further discuss whether anything else would
2 be needed for contextualisation, and I'd like to have an update.
3 Mr. Jordash?
4 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I don't remember this issue in that way.
5 I'm just looking at the Prosecution's chart.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you take your time to look at it and then --
7 MR. JORDASH: I think these were uploaded only last night, I
8 think, and that's why we haven't been able to turn our minds to it yet.
9 JUDGE ORIE: They were uploaded last night? Or ...
10 MS. MARCUS: I'm double-checking, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Meanwhile, I abuse the time available to
12 instruct the Registry and this deals with the previous documents, to have
13 the new unredacted copies -- to have the old redacted copies be replaced
14 by the numbers mentioned before by Ms. Marcus, and I'm talking about
15 P3025 up to and including P3028.
16 Ms. Marcus, uploaded when?
17 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I don't have that information yet, my
18 Case Manager is looking for it. But if I could add on the issue of
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what we were talking about.
21 MS. MARCUS: Yes, exactly one more issue on this. We made an
22 application on the 7th of October, 2011, I had like to renew that
23 application to admit other portions of this file. We've uploaded those
24 additional excerpts as 65 ter 6271, as I say, this is a renewal of our
25 application that we made on the 7th of October. They pertain to e-court
1 pages 11 and 12 from this file. We request that they either be added to
2 the exhibit or admitted as a separate Exhibit.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll hear from the Defence whether there
4 are any further submissions. Mr. Jordash.
5 MR. JORDASH: I can't remember the reasons why the Prosecution
6 say they should be added so perhaps if we could hear what the reasons
7 are. I mean, I would in any event need to see the additions.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest that you deal with it -- that you explain
9 each other's position out of court, that we'll then hear what then
10 remains as objections.
11 Then I move on to P3032. The issue being that the OTP did not --
12 there are two statements. They were not tendered and there seems to be
13 an agreement that only smaller portions of the statement would be
14 uploaded. Further, the source of the statements was unclear. Could I
15 hear whether smaller portions of the document have been uploaded and
16 whether there is further information as to the source of the documents.
17 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, the smaller portion has been uploaded
18 as 65 ter 6277.1. As to the origin, I'm sorry, I didn't have that noted
19 down, but I will check that and get back to Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll not decide on admission at this moment.
21 I then move to the last Prosecution exhibit, P3033. B/C/S translation
22 was missing. Is it there now?
23 MS. MARCUS: Yes. It is uploaded as 65 ter 6276.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And, Madam Registrar, would you please attach that
25 to the Exhibit P3033. Were there any objections against it? I have not
1 any notes of objections. If not, P3033, report of the
2 Humanitarian Law Fund, is admitted into evidence.
3 We move to the -- to the Defence exhibits. For D129, it may be
4 better to put that on hold waiting for the new bar table submissions
5 because they most likely would include or possibly would include this
6 document, D129. And the same would be true for the D130, D150.
7 Mr. Jordash, would you -- is my assumption that they are likely to appear
8 on a new bar table submission accurate?
9 MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: That would then be D129, D130, and D150. Now, for
11 D159, I would say a similar matter applies, that they may appear on the
12 bar table submission. At the same time here is an additional issue of
13 redactions. Of course, we do not know whether this will be resolved in
14 your, if I could call them like that, your 54 bis discussions with the --
15 with the Serbian government, that's one, but if not, then, of course, the
16 Chamber would have to know what kind of redactions are made before we can
17 make any determination whether it's acceptable to have it admitted. So,
18 therefore, if still redacted, I think it would be good to have it clearly
19 stated in the bar table submissions what the redactions are about.
20 Then I move on to a series of documents which is D230 up to and
21 including D251. There's one in those series which might need specific
22 attention, but I first go to what is common to all of these. The
23 Prosecution had objected to the admission of the associated exhibits
24 because it's -- these are associated exhibits to a -- to a witness
25 statement, a 92 ter statement, until it had some understanding of where
1 and how these documents were covered in the statement. Then on the
2 24th of June, that's three days after these submissions, the
3 Stanisic Defence said in court that the exhibit was still subject to
4 further discussion between the -- between itself and the Prosecution.
5 Therefore, for all these documents the Chamber would like to know whether
6 there are still any authenticity or provenance concerns.
7 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. We do not object to the admission
8 through the bar table, we'd submit, of D230, D231 and D235. With respect
9 to D232 MFI, we note that the English translation is incomplete and we
10 submit the document should remain marked for identification until the
11 complete translation is uploaded.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That is D232.
13 MS. MARCUS: 232.
14 JUDGE ORIE: You say English translation incomplete.
15 MS. MARCUS: Yes, otherwise on D232 we do not object to its
16 admission provided we can have information about origin. So that
17 document has the two issues, the translation and the provenance.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MS. MARCUS: With respect to D237 MFI, the document was not
20 contained in the witness comments chart nor included in the notice
21 documents for use with DST-051 to the best of our knowledge and we seek
22 further information as to its provenance.
23 With respect to D246 MFI we drop our objection to D246 and we
24 dropped our objection to D242, apologies for that being out of order. So
25 we drop our objections to D242 and D246 MFI. But we maintain our
1 objection pending receipt of provenance information and unredacted
2 versions for the following: For D241 MFI we seek provenance information
3 and unredacted version. For D244 MFI we seek provenance information and
4 an unredacted version. For D247, the same holds, we seek provenance
5 information and an unredacted version. And for D248, we seek only
6 information about its origin, same goes for D249, D250, and D251.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that D246 is ready to be admitted, and
8 is hereby admitted. Now, for D245, Ms. Marcus, I'm asking you to assist
9 me because since you didn't took the normal order, D245 is? Was that the
10 one that was not dealt with? Or ... Let me just check because I lost
11 track for a second.
12 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I'm sorry, I have that in a separate
13 entry. Yes, we do have a position on that. We maintain our objection
14 providing -- regarding authenticity until we receive information about
15 its origin. That's for D245.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. And then D242 is ready to be admitted,
17 if I understand you well. Objections dropped.
18 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: D242 is admitted into evidence. Then D237,
20 Mr. Jordash, nowhere traced in the witness statement and apart from that
21 another problem, do you insist on -- then perhaps you explain to
22 Ms. Marcus, not necessarily at this very moment, why is it nevertheless
23 in the chart.
24 MR. JORDASH: Well, we've -- I think the outstanding objection to
25 that was that it was -- they needed further information as to provenance,
1 but we've provided it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I don't think it was -- I think it was -- let me see
3 with respect to D237 MFI, the document was not contained in the witness
4 comments chart, not included in the notice document for use with DST-051
5 to the best of the knowledge of the Prosecution, and we seek further
6 information as to its provenance.
7 MR. JORDASH: Well, in relation to the first part, it's unclear
8 whether the Prosecution object to relevance and probative value. We
9 accept that the -- we accept the assertion that it wasn't connected to
10 the chart or witness, but we'd submit it pursuant to the bar table
11 procedure. We've indicated to the Prosecution that -- we've indicated on
12 two occasions that it was received from the National Council and the RFA
13 was 1D4884. Indicates on the 29th of June, and then the 3rd of July.
14 MS. MARCUS: In that case, Your Honour, we drop our objection.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that D237 is admitted into evidence.
16 What we then have the objections against D235 are still there,
17 Ms. Marcus, if I'm -- D232, English translation incomplete. Have you
18 already asked for a new one? It was not on my list of objections so
19 whether it's a new objection or whether it's -- could you take care,
20 Mr. Jordash, that the complete English translation will be there so that
21 we can further discuss admission.
22 MR. JORDASH: We checked and it appears to us that the
23 translation is complete.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Is complete by now.
25 Ms. Marcus.
1 MS. MARCUS: I'll accept Mr. Jordash's assertion on that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Did you have any other --
3 MS. MARCUS: Yes, we wanted information about the origin.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Any information about the origin, Mr. Jordash?
5 MR. JORDASH: We've supplied that previously on the 29th of June
6 and the 3rd of July, and it's RFA 1D1371.1 from the National Council.
7 MS. MARCUS: Objection withdrawn.
8 JUDGE ORIE: D232 is admitted into evidence. I think only two
9 now of the series are still missing. Let me just ... Yes, there were no
10 objections against D230 and D231. Therefore, D230 is admitted into
11 evidence, D231 is admitted into evidence. I think we had this series now
13 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it was not complete yet. Objections against
15 D235 were -- are not there anymore, therefore, also D235 is admitted into
17 Then we come to D253. There was a translation issue. Yes, it
18 was a translation issue and apart from that I noted that it was a fax --
19 it was a document sent by fax which starts on page 9 and I wondered
20 whether there was any concern about the pages 1 to 8 not being tendered.
21 Has a translation been uploaded, Mr. Petrovic?
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it has not been
23 resolved yet. It could be our mistake but it also could be some
24 confusion. I believe our friends from the Prosecution said they were in
25 a possession of a translation, but it has not been made available to us.
1 It could be our mistake but it also could be that it got lost on the way.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
3 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, we sent the translation to the
4 Simatovic Defence on the 9th of September. It is ERN 0606-0093 up to and
5 including 0606-0110. We can find that e-mail and resend it if it seems
6 to have fallen through the cracks.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Now, the other matter was that you would have a look
8 at the pages 1 to 8, whether it was of any concern to you that we start
9 only at fax page number 9.
10 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I'd like another moment to check that.
11 I didn't have that aspect noted down. I am sorry.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then next item D266, translation was pending.
13 Is the translation there now?
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that
15 document does not relate to our Defence team.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Apart from that -- yes, no, it has been dealt
17 with already in the housekeeping session we earlier dealt with it. I
18 think, as a matter of fact, that we have instructed the Registry to
19 upload it. The only remaining question then is whether there's --
20 whether there is any objection. Not? Ms. Marcus.
21 MS. MARCUS: No objection, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No objection. D266 is admitted into evidence.
23 D271 -- D271 is the chart with the witness's comment on documents to be
24 ten dared as evidence with that witness, Witness DST-035. Now, our main
25 focus will be on the underlying documents. And there is another matter,
1 the Prosecution has asserted that the witness has commented on 1D37
2 instead of 1D377 as is indicated on the chart. That's first a matter to
3 be verified. Has it been verified, whether there's any -- whether there
4 is any mistake in the chart on what exactly the witness had commented on.
5 MS. MARCUS: Our concern is precisely as Your Honour has
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And has the Defence looked at it? I mean, if
8 the parties agree that it's a typo, that may well be clear from the
9 document itself, then the matter is resolved, I would say.
10 MS. MARCUS: Yes, we would just request then that a corrigendum
11 cover sheet be uploaded so that it can be attached to the document.
12 MR. JORDASH: Can we just return to that in two minutes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, what then follows is the -- is the
14 underlying documents because there were a few objections raised and if we
15 have dealt with all the underlying documents we then can move to the
16 chart itself. For D272, is the first of the underlying documents. Does
17 the objection stand? At the time, Ms. Marcus, the claim was that you did
18 not -- could not understand the translation.
19 MS. MARCUS: The objection is withdrawn.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Is withdrawn. D272 is admitted into evidence.
21 D273, the -- there was no response of the Stanisic Defence against the
22 objection raised by the Prosecution, but the objection is denied because
23 it goes to weight rather than to admissibility. And D273, therefore, is
24 admitted into evidence.
25 D274, a translation was pending. It has now been attached and
1 uploaded. Any objections?
2 MS. MARCUS: No objection.
3 JUDGE ORIE: D274 is admitted into evidence. D276. Prosecution
4 objected to the irrelevance of this partial translation of a newspaper
5 article. Could the Stanisic Defence further explain the relevance.
6 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, we drop our objection as to relevance.
7 Sorry to interrupt, but we would maintain our objection until the full
8 translation of the article is provided, that was the other aspect of the
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And is there a B/C/S original because I think
11 it was not there? So you withdraw the objection but you are waiting for
12 the full translation, and then I have a note here that a B/C/S original
13 wasn't available.
14 MR. JORDASH: B/C/S original is uploaded and we are just waiting
15 for the translation now.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll leave it at that at this moment.
18 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, in relation to D271 -- sorry, yes,
19 D271, the Prosecution and the assertion that the witness commented 1D37
20 instead of 1D377, the confusion arose because the B/C/S version was under
21 1D37 and the English version was under 1D377.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and how are we going to fix this then? Because
23 we have now established what the confusion was about.
24 MR. JORDASH: I think we just select one, 1D377, and label both
25 in that way.
1 MS. MARCUS: Maybe I'm not understanding. If our understanding
2 as it is that the witness commented on 1D377, so are you saying - sorry -
3 that the English version of 1D37 was uploaded as 1D377? Because it's
4 obviously the underlying document.
5 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, it was mislabelled in the chart. That was
6 my confusion. In the chart that we put forward 1D377 was the English one
7 and the B/C/S 1D37 and it would make sense since the witness commented on
8 1D377 that that remains the number for both.
9 MS. MARCUS: Okay. So it seems we agree.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it seems you do. Let me see where I was. I
11 think we were at D277. The Prosecution wanted additional information as
12 to the provenance of the document, and also who made the decisions about
13 what portions would be shown to the Chamber and what criteria were used
14 and how it can be assured that it was done accurately.
15 Could we hear from the Stanisic, is one of the famous reports
16 with redactions we discussed earlier this week or the excerpts, I should
17 say excerpts.
18 MR. JORDASH: Precisely so, yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then that is a matter still to be discussed, I take
20 it, with the Serbian government.
21 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then we leave that open for the time being,
23 Ms. Marcus. Any further comments?
24 MS. MARCUS: We also sought information as to provenance, which
25 we can receive when we receive the other information as well.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it it comes from the Serbian
2 government, otherwise --
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes, for sure.
4 JUDGE ORIE: We'll leave that open. I move to D279 up to and
5 including D290. Translations were not there. The translations have now
6 been uploaded and attached. The Prosecution has informed the Chamber
7 that no more objections against admission do exist in relation to D280 up
8 to and including D290. In this series, I also have D279, Ms. Marcus, any
9 objections against D279.
10 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we'd like information on
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, can you answer? These are all
13 commission documents.
14 MR. JORDASH: If it's a commission document, I'm assured -- I'll
15 relatively sure and I'll have it confirmed that Mr. Stanisic received
16 them from the head of the commission.
17 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, to the best of our information this is
18 not a commission document.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then I made a mistake because I referred to them as
20 commission documents. Could you perhaps I could have a look at it, but.
21 MR. JORDASH: I think we are going to need a bit more time to
22 find out the provenance, I am afraid. Sorry.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then D280 up to and including D290 are admitted into
24 evidence. And D279 is still MFI'd.
25 The next one, D291, State Security Service 3rd department
1 Official Note. I think redactions was the problem. Most likely subject
2 to your conversations at this moment, Mr. Jordash, is it?
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes, it is.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then that remains MFI'd awaiting the outcome of your
5 conversations with the Serbian government.
6 Then D292, translation was faulty, there was a revised
7 translation. Has the revised translation been uploaded?
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then it may be attached to the -- to D292 and D292
10 since there were no objections as far as I know, but Ms. Marcus, you are
11 on your feet.
12 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, there are no objections. We just would
13 suggest that the document remain under seal and that the
14 Simatovic Defence needs to inform Serbia that the document was used so
15 that they can have an opportunity to seek protective measures.
16 JUDGE ORIE: D292 is admitted under seal, at least provisionally.
17 D293, the Prosecution would like to see the request for
18 assistance from the Stanisic Defence in relation to this document. Does
19 your objection stand, Ms. Marcus?
20 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Does that mean that you have had no access to the
22 RFA or has the access to the RFA raised any further concerns?
23 MS. MARCUS: To my -- to the best of my knowledge we have not
24 received the RFA, but I have to say that if we can be informed of which
25 RFA it was received, that may be sufficient for us to drop our objection.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash?
2 MR. JORDASH: This is for the Simatovic team.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm sorry.
4 Mr. Petrovic, under what RFA was this document received?
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to put the
6 ball back into the court of my colleague Mr. Jordash. The document is
7 1D2460. It's from the 65 ter list of the Stanisic Defence and we used it
8 from that list, so I don't believe I can answer the question of the
10 MR. JORDASH: If we could have some time for that check, too. We
11 think it came from the National Council.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we leave it to that for the time being.
13 As I said before, there are some uncertainties about this
14 afternoon. I would -- I would like -- the parties to remain standby so
15 that the Chamber has two or three minutes to further consider how we will
16 proceed. We'll, therefore, take a very short break.
17 --- Break taken at 1.41 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 1.46 p.m.
19 JUDGE ORIE: As I said before, it was uncertain whether we could
20 proceed this afternoon. Due to unforeseen circumstances, unforeseen
21 circumstances being circumstances not foreseen one hour ago, I should say
22 perhaps one hour and a half ago when I announced the be possibility of
23 sitting this afternoon, there are no three judges who are available and
24 fit to be in this afternoon session and that's the reason why we have to
25 cancel that option. Now, that means that because we want to finish this
1 housekeeping session, that we change slightly also the next week
2 schedule. We'll start on Monday finishing this housekeeping session
3 which takes most likely anything between one hour and a half or close to
4 two hours. I do not know whether it's of any use to even apply for the
5 possibility that the accused will arrive a bit later because they are not
6 very much interested, which I fully understand, in this housekeeping
7 session, but we'll start somewhere in the afternoon of Wednesday -- of
8 Monday afternoon the hearing of the witness, DST-060. That will then be
9 continued and on the base of a schedule that might be possible to finish
10 that witness in two days, would that include cross-examination?
11 MR. JORDASH: Well, we are waiting for the Prosecution and the
12 Simatovic team to give an estimation.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Any --
14 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, sorry, we stand by our estimate of
15 approximately four hours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, up to 45 minutes is
18 our estimate and we'll be trying to reduce it even further if it fits
19 into the schedule.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, what was the time, I apologise for not
21 having the original estimate in mind?
22 MR. JORDASH: I'm not sure I have it in mind, but I estimate I'll
23 be about an hour with the witness and in that vein I would simply remind
24 the Chamber of the usual examination to cross-examination distribution
25 of, I think it's 170 per cent for the cross-examining party.
1 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, the Defence original estimate for that
2 witness before he was converted to 92 ter was four hours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, that would make four hours to four
4 hours, that's a hundred per cent.
5 MR. JORDASH: Yes, but this is now 92 ter, so I'm just relying
6 upon what we were asked to do.
7 JUDGE ORIE: If I look at the whole of it, we would have one --
8 up to one-half session on Monday which is effectively a little bit less
9 than two hours, we would have three effective hours on Tuesday and we
10 would have three effective hours on Wednesday which should be enough to
11 conclude the evidence of the witnesses.
12 I would like to invite the parties to make a strict schedule so
13 that they reconsider again whether they really need all the time and that
14 the Chamber is being guided by the parties as when to stop, and it's
15 usually efficiency of examination-in-chief, and cross-examination is a
16 matter of being fully prepared and being fully focused. I already add to
17 this that on Wednesday there will be only two judges. We'll sit 15 bis,
18 I'll not be available on Wednesday.
19 Then we adjourn for the day and we'll resume on Monday, the 28th
20 of November, quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon in this same Courtroom
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m.
23 to be reconvened on Monday, the 28th day of
24 November, 2011 at 2.15 p.m.