Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 18460

 1                           Wednesday, 15 December 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [Status Conference]

 4                           [The accused entered court]

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

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning,

 7     everyone in and around the courtroom.

 8             This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and

 9     Stojan Zupljanin.

10                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officers confer]

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE HALL:  I apologise.  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

13             Good morning to everyone.

14             May we have the appearances for today's Status Conference,

15     please.

16             MS. KORNER:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This morning for the

17     Prosecution, in order to match the Defence, it's Joanna Korner,

18     Matthew Olmsted, and Alex Demirdjian, assisted by Case Manager

19     Crispian Smith.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic,

21     Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for

22     the Stanisic Defence this morning.  Thank you.

23             MR. KRGOVIC:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Dragan Krgovic,

24     Aleksandar Aleksic, Igor Pantelic, and Miroslav Cuskic appearing for

25     Zupljanin Defence.

Page 18461

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 2             The -- you would all have received from the

 3     Senior Liaison Officer an agenda for today's exercise, and the -- I'm

 4     reminding myself as to what this contains, and incorporating the latest

 5     information that we have on Witness 008, and in -- in that -- in the

 6     context of the item listed as -- at A, in what order will the OTP call

 7     its remaining witnesses after the recess, included in that is the current

 8     position on witness number 8.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Does Your Honour wish to go straight to that rather

10     than the first two?  The first two, although they're in italics for some

11     reason, but I'm perfectly happy to deal with that -- that question --

12             JUDGE HALL:  Well, you may proceed as you prefer.

13             MS. KORNER:  Well, no, Your Honours, I mean, I'm perfectly happy

14     to deal with that, because it's obviously the last remaining bits of the

15     Prosecution case.

16             Witness 008, as Your Honours know and the Defence know, has been

17     in hospital for roughly the last two weeks.  The report that we received

18     from VWS the day before yesterday, which, I understand from Mr. Krgovic,

19     last night obviously the Defence weren't informed of this - and I see

20     Mr. Zecevic shaking his head - he was not fit enough to give evidence or,

21     indeed, in the view of the hospital, should not remain another night in

22     The Hague.  He's been returned to where he lives for further medical

23     treatment, and that took place yesterday morning.  And VWS sent a memo

24     through to some of the parties anyhow.

25             What we're seeking to do is to see if we can arrange a videolink

Page 18462

 1     after the new year.  He would be the last witness.  The order of

 2     witnesses will be the two witnesses Your Honours have ordered to be

 3     re-called for further cross-examination on Monday, the 10th, which is, I

 4     think, 181 and 191, in either order; followed by Witness 228; followed by

 5     Ewan Brown.  And because of the shortened week, we anticipate that

 6     Mr. Brown will go into the following Monday, maybe Tuesday.  We

 7     anticipate he'd start on the Tuesday after -- the Tuesday, the 11th.  And

 8     I believe we're sitting a few hours on Wednesday; I can't now remember.

 9     So we've got an extended sitting on Tuesday, we'll sit on the Wednesday,

10     certainly he'll be completed in-chief during that time.  And then

11     cross-examination the following Monday.  And then, finally, Witness 008.

12     And that will conclude the Prosecution's case at present.

13             I'm -- I was slightly wondering what the question was meant to

14     imply, "How long will the OTP need after outstanding decisions are

15     rendered in order to close its case."

16             But maybe we can come onto that -- well, in fact, I suppose

17     that's the next witness.  Your Honours, I don't quite understand that

18     question.  I have to tell you.  It's how long is a piece of string.  I

19     don't know what Your Honours' rulings are going to be.  If Your Honours

20     rule against us on the exhumations, then we'll have to call all the

21     exhumation evidence; that will take some organising and presumably take a

22     little time.  The quater witnesses, which Your Honours still have to rule

23     on.  If Your Honours rule against us on that, we'll have to look for

24     other witnesses.  But, as I say, at the present, I'm not quite clear what

25     Your Honour means -- what Your Honours mean by that question, B.  Because

Page 18463

 1     we would close our case, subject to the rulings, immediately after

 2     Witness 008.

 3             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the Judge, please.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry.

 6             If I might interrupt to go back to the item listed at 1, the --

 7     I -- you may not find what I'm about to say helpful, but from the

 8     Chamber's point of view, we're stating the obvious when we say that

 9     the -- we are not unaware of the necessity which has become critical of

10     disposing of the outstanding motions before the Prosecution closes its

11     case, and against the boundaries in terms of dates that we have indicated

12     by which we expect the Prosecution's case to have been completed, that

13     means, internally for us, the deadline against which we are working to

14     ensure that all of the outstanding motions are dealt with.  As I said,

15     you may not find that sufficiently, precisely, helpful, and -- but that's

16     where we are.

17             MS. KORNER:  Yes, Your Honours.  We would -- we had some

18     hopes that -- we know the Defence, as Your Honours have seen from the

19     e-mail that was sent, have a particular interest in the Rules ...

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE HALL:  The -- to add a layer of confusion or uncertainty to

22     what I have just said, one of the things that is operating in the mind of

23     the Trial Chamber is that the -- after the decisions would have been

24     rendered, the -- we -- we must accept that the parties may contemplate

25     the matter of -- of -- of an appeal.  And that is -- it is against that

Page 18464

 1     background that the -- we think that there would be a seven-day buffer

 2     after the decisions are rendered.

 3             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, we understand that.  We were hoping

 4     that we would get some decisions by the end of this week.  May I say that

 5     our list of decisions which have never been ruled on, save for one of

 6     them, which was the one in February of this year, for leave to amend its

 7     65 ter -- sorry.  Yes, for leave to amend its 65 ter exhibit list to add

 8     the documents which have been marked for identification which we'd filed

 9     in February of this year, and Your Honours may recall I've mentioned it

10     from time to time because we still have to file a further one to deal

11     with subsequent documents which have been marked for identification, and

12     the Defence, likewise, I think, Your Honours have been told, are going to

13     file a similar one in respect of their documents.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Well, I could say that there is a decision on MFI

15     documents which should be out today.

16             MS. KORNER:  Right.  Well, that would be very -- Your Honours,

17     may I say that will be extremely helpful, because all we were about to

18     suggest was our list doesn't include where Your Honours have written --

19     sorry, issued an oral decision that says "written reasons to follow."  We

20     noticed one came out yesterday.  Can we say - we hope in the spirit of

21     helpfulness - we've accepted the oral rulings.  Obviously at some stage

22     reasons would be useful.  But it doesn't seem to me that that's the most

23     urgent thing to deal with.  What we really need is ones that have never

24     been ruled on at all.  And we -- and I'm grateful for Your Honours

25     indicating we'll get the MFI decision today.

Page 18465

 1             As I was about to say, the other one that seems to be, and

 2     obviously is, of some importance to the Defence is the one that was filed

 3     in May of last year -- sorry, yes, May of last year, relating to

 4     Rule 66(C).

 5             So, Your Honours, we would hope that we would get the decisions

 6     by the time we call our last witness.

 7             As far as -- which could lead me on to item number 2, the joint

 8     Defence request to extend the time to reply to the bar table motion.  We

 9     think that's a matter for Your Honours.  I mean, Your Honours now have

10     the timetable in mind of what you want to do.  So we take a neutral

11     position on this.

12             If they get their 35 days, that brings us to January the 6th,

13     from the date we filed the motion, which was December the 2nd, and

14     that -- if we were given seven days to respond, that takes us up to the

15     13th of January.  So -- but, as I say, we think that's entirely a matter

16     for Your Honours.

17             So we're neutral.

18             Your Honours, I think the next set of questions is really for the

19     Defence.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  Item 3(c).

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, in order to be able to give the

22     proper answer to the question posed as 3(c), we would obviously need to

23     know the whole parameter of the case.  Before that, I'm afraid we cannot

24     be very helpful to Your Honours.  We are, at the moment, analysing the

25     Prosecutor's case.

Page 18466

 1             But before we know the decisions, so we have the full decisions,

 2     the full body of decisions which are pending, and before we hear the rest

 3     of the -- the Office of the Prosecutor case, we will not be able to

 4     indicate whether we are going to trigger the 98 bis submission or not.

 5             Your Honours, the -- you -- are you certainly aware of the fact

 6     that during the case, during the case, during the Prosecutor's case, we

 7     had additional, I believe, 57 new witnesses which were added in the

 8     meantime, in the course of the case.  Your Honours, let me remind you

 9     that the last batch before the -- before we started, the trial was 79,

10     and now we reached 165, which means that the disclosure more than doubled

11     during -- in the course of the trial.

12             Therefore, we do have to analyse that from the perspective of the

13     whole parameter of the case.  Therefore, we need all the decisions and to

14     hear all the evidence which the Office of the Prosecutor intends to call

15     in its case before we can -- we can -- we can be able to assist the

16     Trial Chamber whether we are going to trigger the 98 bis or not.

17             What I can -- what I can say at this point is that after the

18     rulings, after the rulings of the Trial Chamber, we will be able within

19     the 24 hours to inform the Trial Chamber whether we are going to trigger

20     the 98 bis.  And also, if we are triggering the 98 bis, we can start on

21     Monday after the end of the Prosecutor's case, which I would say is the

22     24th of -- of the January.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Well, I think those last two answers are helpful,

24     Mr. Zecevic.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well --

Page 18467

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Because the -- I appreciate that any position that

 2     you would have had to the question in its stark form would be tentative.

 3     And dependant on the -- whatever your -- having regard to the stage that

 4     we're at, whatever your -- wherever you thought you were tending to be,

 5     that would have to abide the completion of the Prosecution's case and all

 6     its aspects.  But I understand from your last two answers that you would

 7     not need a great deal of time, once the Prosecution were to draw a line

 8     under its case, for you to indicate finally, what your position is there.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is correct, Your Honours.  So immediately

10     after we have the rulings, the whole set of rulings by the Trial Chamber,

11     within 24 hours we will inform the Trial Chamber of our intention to

12     trigger 98 bis.  And if we -- if we decide to trigger the

13     98 bis submission, then we can start on Monday after the close of the

14     Prosecutor's case.

15             Thank you.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, do you diverge from Mr. Zecevic on this

17     question?

18             MR. KRGOVIC:  Your Honour, it was joint submission by Mr. Zecevic

19     so ...

20             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

21             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, I have to say I do not see how

22     the re-call of two witnesses for further cross-examination, the evidence

23     of Mr. Brown, and any rulings on -- on -- that Your Honours make will

24     really alter the position as it is today.  We have called 98.8 per cent

25     of the evidence we intend to call.  The rulings which await - you may

Page 18468

 1     think, if you consider the matter - really don't affect it.  And I think

 2     Mr. Zecevic should be in a position, and Mr. Krgovic, to be slightly more

 3     helpful than they have been today.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  We might agree entirely with everything you have

 5     just said, Ms. Korner, but I -- I don't know that we could press counsel

 6     for a more definitive answer than they have given today.  Indeed, I would

 7     presume to add that -- I'm somewhat surprised that they haven't been able

 8     to volunteer and give us some inkling as to where they are, but more than

 9     that I wouldn't say.

10             MS. KORNER:  Well, it's clear, Your Honour -- well, all right.

11     I've made the position.  If Your Honour don't feel that it would be right

12     to press the Defence further, then I can't really urge Your Honours to do

13     that.

14             JUDGE HALL:  At the risk of -- no, I ... I -- I wouldn't say what

15     I was about to say in -- in fairness to Defence counsel, suggesting that

16     the answer to (d) may very much reflect what the answer was to (c).  So I

17     didn't say that.

18             But could we have a response the item listed at item 3(d)?

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, Your Honours.

20             Your Honours, as you quite correctly stated, depending on the --

21     on the decision of 98 bis, the Defence informed the Trial Chamber already

22     in March of this year, during the Status Conference held on the

23     19th of March, that we would need, in case we are to present the Defence

24     case, that we would need two months to prepare the Defence case.  Which

25     means that in -- in -- in period of 60 days after the decision on 98 bis,

Page 18469

 1     on the 60th day we will file the 65 ter list for the Defence case, and

 2     that is all the information that I think I can give to the Trial Chamber

 3     at this point.

 4             However, in order to -- to be as fair as possible, I have

 5     discussed with Mr. Krgovic, and if we are presenting the Defence cases,

 6     of course, based on the -- the 98 bis decision, we will be able to

 7     finish - and we can assure the Trial Chamber - that the both Defences

 8     will finish the Defence case before the winter break next year.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  We -- we -- we recall, Mr. Zecevic, your indication

10     that you would require two months.  But could you, for the record, assist

11     us as to why - having regard to the progress of this trial, and that

12     the -- in the nature of trials, the Defence case doesn't -- whereas it

13     probably only finally coalesces at that the close of the case for the

14     Prosecution, but nevertheless it is constantly being formed from the --

15     from even before the trial begins - why you would require as long as two

16     months?

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honour, if we are to present a Defence case,

18     we want to be as specific as we can.  That requires us to analyse the

19     Office of the Prosecutor case in its entirety.  As I stated before, we

20     had 57 witnesses which have not been even considered before the trial.

21     We have more than doubled the disclosure, which had not been considered

22     before the trial.  This obviously has changed the -- the Office of the

23     Prosecutor's case immensely, I must say, and, therefore, all our

24     preparation in the pre-trial phase for our Defence case has been in some

25     way -- has to be in some way altered.

Page 18470

 1             Your Honours, we need the time to talk to the -- to the

 2     witnesses, have -- have their witness statements prepared in order to

 3     shorten the -- the time needed for the presentation of the Defence case.

 4     We need to finalize the -- the expert reports.  And we have to select

 5     documents which we are going to be relying upon in the Defence case.  And

 6     I stated already in March, Your Honours, that we would need two months,

 7     60 days, for that.  And I'm afraid I can't be of any more help to -- to

 8     the Trial Chamber in -- in that regard as -- as I stand here in the -- we

 9     haven't altered our position a bit from -- from the -- from the

10     March Status Conference.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you for your indications.  And, of course,

14     we understand that one of the fine arts of life is to make safe

15     predictions of the future.

16             But, if you say that you need a full 60 days before you can

17     present your witness list, then we would need at least a week before we

18     could have the Pre-Trial Conference.  And after the Pre-Trial Conference,

19     at least a couple of days would be needed to make whatever adjustments

20     are determined at the Pre-Trial Conference.

21             So what you're saying is that you're not asking for two months;

22     you're effectively asking for two and a half months.  Unless what you

23     really mean is that on the 60th day you would be able to call your first

24     witness.  But that would then require that you submit your 65 ter list of

25     witnesses and exhibits much earlier, two or three weeks prior to that.

Page 18471

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, that is precisely why I stated, Your Honours,

 2     very clear on the record this morning that 60 days is the time needed for

 3     the preparation of the case.  Preparation of the case means before we

 4     file our 65 ter list.  Because after that, after that, Your Honours, when

 5     we file the 65 ter list, when we file -- when we -- when we disclose to

 6     the Office of the Prosecutor the 94 bis expert report, when we disclose

 7     to the Prosecutor the statements of the witnesses, there's no more

 8     preparation for us and all the exhibits.  So we are not -- we are not in

 9     a position to prepare anymore after -- after we file 65 ter list.

10     Because that is -- that is the parameter that we are offering as -- as a

11     frame of our Defence case.

12             Your Honours, that is why I suggest and I tried to assure the

13     Trial Chamber what -- whatever we are -- we are perfectly aware of the

14     time that is needed for the Trial Chamber and the -- and our friends from

15     the Office of the Prosecutor to analyse our 65 ter list and the time

16     needed for the preparation of the Defence conference, Pre-Defence

17     Conference.  But, again, what we are assuring the Trial Chamber is that

18     whatever the date is when we actually start calling our first witness,

19     the Defence, the both Defences will finish by winter break of next year.

20     And I think that -- that -- that's -- that is in complete conformity with

21     the -- with the -- with the schedule of this case as we understand it

22     from -- from the words of Mr. President in his address to the

23     Security Council and the schedule which is available to us, because it

24     says that the Judgement in this case is -- is expected to be in

25     September 2012.  That is -- that is our understanding.

Page 18472

 1             Therefore, we think that this gives more than enough time for --

 2     for -- for the Trial Chamber to render the Judgement by the time

 3     anticipated in this case.

 4             Thank you.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  That is a matter which the Chamber will

 7     have to consider --

 8             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I'm waiting for Mr. Zecevic -- sorry,

 9     for Mr. Krgovic to say anything, but I'd like to say something about

10     what's just been said, if I may.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic.

12             MR. KRGOVIC:  What Mr. Zecevic said is a joint submission by both

13     Defence.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Ms. Korner.

15             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, can I say this, first of all,

16     Your Honours have sat through this case and have read our pre-trial brief

17     and you would have seen that the nature of our case has not changed in

18     one iota what we have said in respect of how Mr. Stanisic and

19     Mr. Zupljanin are indeed to be held responsible for the crimes alleged.

20             The extra witnesses called, 44 were to cover adjudicated facts,

21     so, Your Honours, that simply dealt with matters that would otherwise

22     have been in evidence as adjudicated facts from other cases.

23             Stanisic surrendered to the Tribunal on the 10th of March --

24     11th of March, 2005.  That's five years ago.  Since which time, which is

25     clear from his interview where he mentioned that he was reserving things

Page 18473

 1     for his Defence, he has been preparing his Defence.  If the Defence are

 2     in a position to say that if they don't start until what would then be

 3     effectively some time mid-April and probably after Easter, which is, we

 4     have to say, not in the spirit of what the Security Council wants this

 5     Tribunal to do.  They are in a position to say that they will have

 6     finished by Christmas, both of them, well then they know, roughly, what

 7     they're going to be dealing with in terms of the Defence case, I'm

 8     afraid.  And so they've clearly got an idea of what Defence evidence they

 9     want to call, even if they haven't finalized it.

10             As Judge Harhoff has pointed out, if we wait until whenever it is

11     in March to get the list, there has to be a gap, first of all, to have

12     the Defence conference, and, secondly, for us to do the researches we're

13     entitled to do on the witnesses.  And so, Your Honours, we would submit,

14     particularly in the light of the fact that both Defence teams are well

15     staffed, have had ample time to prepare, that, really, that is too long

16     to wait for the list of witnesses an exhibits.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, could you give us an indication about

18     the time you need to -- after having the witness list and the exhibit

19     list?

20             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] -- sorry.  It depends on

21     the number of witnesses that are listed.  But, clearly, we have to do our

22     own searches on those witnesses to be in a position to -- to see what it

23     is we want to deal with, with this particular witnesses.

24             We are not in -- we will be reluctant, also, to -- to do what the

25     Defence have been doing, which is, namely, to interview witnesses as they

Page 18474

 1     appear, shortly before they testify.  We don't think that's at all a

 2     satisfactory method of going about things.  So we want time to

 3     investigate, ourselves.

 4             So, give or take, we'd probably be asking for a month.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  As I said, this is something that the Chamber will

 7     have to come back on.  But there is one brief comment I feel constrained

 8     to make before we leave this topic, and that is -- and if I misconstrued

 9     what Mr. Zecevic intended to convey, I apologise, but it is that the --

10     such reports as the President is required to make to the Security Council

11     as to the progress of these matters before the Tribunal would reflect

12     what the Tribunal is doing and not the other way around as being the --

13     this closing date having been indicated and it means that the parties

14     have until that date to do whatever they have to do.  So that if, in

15     fact, the Trial Chamber in managing the progress of the matter is able to

16     expedite and speed things, it is its duty to so.  So the -- the -- such

17     comments that are made outside of the Chamber, and by which I include the

18     reports to which Mr. Zecevic refers, are not determinative at all of the

19     way in which this matter will be run.

20             In terms of the item listed at 3(e), there is three -- and (f),

21     there is a subsidiary that the Chamber has which Defence counsel may not

22     be able to answer immediately, but we would wish their report on it as

23     soon as possible, and the -- well, the first question is stated is -- as

24     stated in the agenda, is that the -- this trial, involving persons who

25     are jointly accused, we assume that the conventional practice would be

Page 18475

 1     followed and that is that the case of the first named accused will be the

 2     first to proceed.

 3             The ancillary question or subsidiary question - however you

 4     choose to characterise it - is that Defence counsel have indicated that

 5     there are a number of joint witnesses, and the Chamber would wish to be

 6     informed, enlightened, as to how they intend to deal with these joint

 7     witnesses, having regard to the fact that we are faced with separate

 8     accused.  Although they are jointly charged, they are separate cases.

 9     So, as I said, we would -- we appreciate that you mightn't be able to

10     answer that subsidiary question at this moment, but are we safe in

11     assuming that it is the case of Stanisic which will proceed first?

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, your assuming is right, that

13     the Stanisic case would go first.  As you correctly indicated, the

14     ancillary question we cannot, of course, give an answer today to the

15     Trial Chamber, but as soon as practically possible, we will be able to

16     provide that answer to the Trial Chamber.  Of course, pending the 98 bis

17     decision.  That is -- goes without saying, I guess.

18             JUDGE HALL:  I should say, and I omitted to say this earlier,

19     that today's exercise is a purely practical one in terms of managing

20     the -- and projecting where we go forward.  And to the extent that it may

21     imply that the 98 bis exercise would result in an adverse ruling for the

22     Defence is not something that is in any way suggested.  We're taking a

23     purely practical approach as to the -- what would happen if the

24     Defence -- if the accused have to mount a Defence.

25             So no questions that we would have raised today or nothing that

Page 18476

 1     we should have said should in any way suggest that we have prejudged any

 2     decision that would be taken on any 98 bis application or submissions.

 3             The -- as we wrap up this item, I am, again, constrained to

 4     inquire of the Defence counsel whether there's any -- whether they where

 5     able to indicate the number of witnesses.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, we are not able to indicate the

 7     number of witnesses, but we anticipate that the -- that the -- as -- as

 8     you correctly said, and that is why we say that we assure the

 9     Trial Chamber that we can finish by winter recess, is that the number of

10     witnesses will be joint for both -- both accused.  And as a matter of

11     fact, I informed already the Trial Chamber that we will have some joint

12     experts in this -- in this respect.

13             So therefore that is why we -- we can give the assurances to the

14     Trial Chamber that we will finish by winter break.  And it doesn't mean

15     that we know what it -- what our Defence case is going to be at this

16     point at all, which is contrary to -- to what Ms. Korner said.

17             And I would also like to -- to state one thing:  Your Honours,

18     the Office of the Prosecutor indicated first that in seven months they

19     will close their case.  Then it was extended until July.  And now we are

20     coming to the January next year, probably, for the end of their case.

21     Therefore, any comments on the -- on the length of Defence case or -- or

22     the time required for the preparation of the Defence case, I think, is

23     inappropriate if it comes from the Office of the Prosecutor.

24             Thank you very much.

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may add

Page 18477

 1     something.

 2             Three months ago I could have said to you with certainty how many

 3     witnesses the Zupljanin Defence will call and what our Defence case would

 4     look like.  However, in the last three months, in relation to my client,

 5     via adjudicated facts, the OTP introduced so many new facts and so many

 6     pieces of new evidence that I'm now unable to tell you how many witnesses

 7     we would be calling and how many pieces of evidence I would need to

 8     tender in order to challenge everything that the Prosecution has stated

 9     here in the last three months.

10             This is why I'm unable to tell you now what evidence we would be

11     relying, in relation to which facts.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

13             There is a question, moving on, as -- there is a question as to

14     the -- whether the Defence require the investigator Michael Koehler to

15     testify.

16             Could the Prosecution -- is there any light that the Prosecution

17     can shed on this?

18             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  Your Honours, we put that in because together

19     with the bar table motion we have included, in fact, I think somewhat in

20     advance of the new rule, the provenance of the documents we seek to put

21     in.  Mr. Koehler made a statement saying that he had dealt with that

22     column, checked the entries on the relevant forms to show whether the

23     witnesses came -- the witnesses -- the documents, plus a number of other

24     matters.  Now, Your Honours, we thought it right to inquire whether the

25     Defence wished to cross-examine on other matters that he's dealt with

Page 18478

 1     which are contained in his statement.  He gives a list of the various

 2     activities he's undertaken and/or in respect of any of the documents for

 3     which he has given the provenance, and that's the reason we put that in.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, as we indicated in our motion for

 5     extension, we are still analysing the bar table document.

 6             But as it stands at this -- at this point, we don't think that we

 7     would require Mr. Koehler to testify.  That is on behalf of

 8     Stanisic Defence, because I haven't consulted with this with Mr. Krgovic.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

10             The query that the OTP has about the status of the site visit

11     material, we are somewhat at a loss as to what the -- their -- the query

12     is about.  Because we thought it was well settled that the evidence is

13     not received at a site visit, and the protocols about the site visits,

14     which would have been stated at the beginning -- and we would have had

15     occasion -- there's one occasion that I distinctly remember - there may

16     be more than one - where, in terms of a specific photograph, when it had

17     been submitted, and the Chamber was satisfied that it was entirely new

18     and that the usual rules about relevance and absence of prejudice would

19     not have -- would have meant that no harm was done to the case of either

20     accused by admitting it, that we took the exceptional decision to allow

21     that in.  But the basic rule is that material garnered on the occasion of

22     the site visit is inadmissible.

23             So could the Prosecution indicate what their concerns is here or

24     what their interest is here?  Thank you.

25             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, it came up for two reasons.  The first

Page 18479

 1     is this:  That it is not clear from the protocol of the site visit, which

 2     I may say was not something that existed when we carried out a site visit

 3     in Brdjanin, where everything was recorded, that none of it will be used

 4     in evidence, because under the protocol, which Mr. Smith kindly turned up

 5     for me, four reads:  The photographs may be admitted into evidence at a

 6     later stage.  And then if any -- 5:  If any specific observations are

 7     made, these will be recorded using an audio recorder.  This recording

 8     will be transcribed upon the return of the Trial Chamber.  The transcript

 9     may be admitted into evidence at a later stage.

10             And that's all very up in the air, as it is -- as it were, and so

11     we're anxious to know: Is Your Honours' final decision on this that none

12     of the evidence, photographs, or whatever, except for the exception you

13     made, or the transcripts of the recorded conversations will come into

14     evidence?  That's the first matter.

15             The second matter that arises is this: If Your Honours, as a

16     result of Your Honours' own observations, have queries about evidence

17     they've heard, about places or incidents, because of those observations,

18     then rather than, as it were, appearing in the Judgement, if Your Honours

19     have any matters that they have queries about, they ought to be raised

20     with counsel.  I don't know whether Your Honours do have such queries;

21     but if do, then can we simply suggest this: That if there are matters

22     that you find in some way raise questions about the evidence you've heard

23     in the court, well, then, we would suggest that the way of dealing with

24     it is to raise those matters with counsel so that we can deal with it.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Well, I would have thought that goes without saying,

Page 18480

 1     Ms. Korner.  And that the Chamber could not substitute its own

 2     observations for evidence.  And to the extent that there appeared --

 3     that -- that any Judge's observation appeared to be inconsistent or

 4     conflicted with the evidence, then it's a matter that -- that the Chamber

 5     would be bound, as a matter of principle, to raise with counsel and in

 6     the extreme case to have a witness called by -- called by the Bench

 7     itself.

 8             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, I'm grateful for that.  I mean,

 9     I imagined that was the position, but I thought it ought to be clear on

10     the record.  And equally - I think Your Honours made that clear now -

11     although the protocol says "may," Your Honours are ruling that it will

12     not come into any or be used as any evidence at all.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Personally, Ms. Korner, I am always reluctant to use

14     the word "never."

15             To repeat what we have done so far, is that when it has been

16     shown in specific instances that it should be admitted, we have done so;

17     and, no doubt, it is unlikely to happen in the remainder of the

18     Prosecution's case.  But as the Defence case develops, the similar

19     applications may arise.  But in each case, the decision to admit this new

20     evidence is an exception to the general rule, as to matters that were

21     thrown up by the site visit.

22             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I fully understand.  Thank you very

23     much.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

Page 18481

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  As for the decision included in point (e) on the

 2     agenda, which is the decision on the motion on Rule 66(C), we had hoped

 3     that we could issue today an oral ruling which would indicate the

 4     disposition of that decision, but I am afraid that, simply, the final

 5     disposition has not been brushed up to such an extent that I dare issue

 6     that oral ruling now without running into difficulties when I finally get

 7     to the point where I can finalize the disposition.

 8             But one thing that I can assure you is that it will be issued

 9     first thing in the new year and certainly before your last witness.

10             MS. KORNER:  Yes, Your Honours, can I say, I think that is more

11     Mr. Krgovic.  The Prosecution don't -- don't have a vested interest in

12     that one so much.  It doesn't affect their case one way or another.  But

13     I think Mr. Krgovic is the one who wants that answer.

14             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The Defence of Stojan Zupljanin is

15     particularly interested in resolving this issue, and we would ask that

16     the ruling be handed down, if possible, before the end of the Prosecution

17     case so that the Defence would have enough time to go over these

18     documents before the Defence case starts.  And since the Trial Chamber

19     indicated that the ruling would be handed down before the end of the

20     year, that would mean that we would have enough time to go over the

21     documents.

22             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Very well.  That stands as indicated.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

24                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

25             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

Page 18482

 1             The items listed at (f) and (g), these were included on the

 2     agenda by the Defence, and it would be helpful if counsel could expand on

 3     what we have.

 4             Thank you.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 6             Your Honours, before we go to -- to (f) and (g), and (h), I

 7     guess, I would just like to clarify the -- the -- the item under letter

 8     (d).  It is my understanding that -- of your -- of Your Honours that

 9     we -- that the MFI decision will be issued shortly.  Is that correct?

10             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  Today.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  Okay.  Then I guess the -- the letter (d) is moot

12     for the moment.

13             Your Honours ...

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, concerning the -- the -- the item

16     under letter (f), you will remember that I made a submission, an

17     observation, actually, to the Trial Chamber about the late disclosure of

18     the -- of the batch of Doboj documents.  What -- what we -- we are in a

19     communication with our friends from the Office of the Prosecutor.  What

20     we are suggesting is two alternative approaches.

21             One is we gave a list of the documents that we think are relevant

22     and -- and are proposing that this list of document, these documents, be

23     admitted on agreement base into the evidence.  On agreement of the

24     parties.  If that would not be acceptable for the

25     Office of the Prosecutor, then -- then we suggested that maybe the other

Page 18483

 1     way would be that we re-call the witness, or some of the witnesses, from

 2     Doboj, the OTP witnesses who testified over here, in the course of

 3     Defence case.  But for that we would obviously need the assistance of the

 4     Office of the Prosecutor.

 5             And those are the two alternatives that we have in order to be

 6     able to expedite the proceedings in this case as much as we can and to be

 7     of assistance to the Trial Chamber in that respect.  That is concerning

 8     letter (f).

 9             As to issue of -- under letter (g), status of disclosure of the

10     Pecanac documents, we received yesterday a list of -- or, actually, a

11     disclosure of 23 documents which the Office of the Prosecutor feels might

12     be relevant for this case, and -- and I'm pretty sure, because we asked

13     that we be disclosed the whole list of the Pecanac documents, that we

14     will be receiving that shortly and that, therefore, there would be, I

15     hope, no -- no -- no need for the Trial Chamber to be involved in -- in

16     this disclosure, because I -- I'm pretty sure that we -- the parties will

17     be able to deal with this on the -- on the direct basis.

18             And as for (h), the exhumation database status, Your Honours --

19             JUDGE HALL:  If I might speak to that, Mr. Zecevic.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you.

21             JUDGE HALL:  That is a matter which could be looked at from two

22     ways.

23             One way of looking at it is that it is an extremely simply and

24     straightforward matter.  However, looked at from another perspective, it

25     is exceedingly complicated, having a variety of layers of issues which

Page 18484

 1     are not readily reconciled with each other; let me put it that way.  And

 2     it is the -- the Chamber is acutely aware of the need to dispose of this

 3     in some manner or other as -- as soon as possible, but the consideration

 4     of the several issues has, quite frankly, bedevilled us as to what the

 5     eventual disposition would be.  The only thing that we can say is that we

 6     know we have to make a decision; that's our job.  And we had

 7     anticipated - I should say we had hoped - that we would have been able to

 8     dispose of that that this week.  But obviously that is not now going to

 9     happen.  But it is something which we are very actively considering, and

10     we -- we -- we hope that in the first week after we resume that we will

11     be able to -- to give a decision.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Could I just ask a question in extension of the

13     Presiding Judge's comment.

14             One thing that is not completely clear - at least to me - is the

15     time when the Defence teams were, in fact, given access to the database

16     and to the source documents.  Because I would have thought that during

17     the negotiations that took place between the Prosecution and the two

18     Defence teams since June, that the Defence teams would have had access to

19     the database and the source documents and that, in effect, several

20     attempts were made during those months, that is to say, during July,

21     August, and September, to try it out.  But when I read your submissions,

22     it seems as if this was not the case.

23             So I'm just wondering if it is true that you did not have access

24     to the database and the source documents until, I think, sometime in

25     October; and why was that?

Page 18485

 1             Are you able to clarify?

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, if I may -- if I may inform the

 3     Trial Chamber, I will try to be as precise as I can, because I don't have

 4     the precise dates.

 5             As far as I recall, the -- the first document was the motion

 6     filed by the -- by the Office of the Prosecutor on the 22nd of July.  I

 7     think July.  Just immediately before -- immediately before the -- the --

 8     the break, the summer break.

 9             In the course of that week, we had some -- some discussion with

10     the Office of the Prosecutor, and it was -- it was presented to us that

11     we will be receiving that in order that we see the database documents,

12     the spreadsheets, and if we can give a comment, which we agreed to, but

13     then the Office of the Prosecutor filed the motion immediately to the

14     Trial Chamber.  Therefore, there was no point of negotiating -- there was

15     no negotiations prior to the -- to the document being filed in the --

16     on -- by the motion on the 22nd of July.

17             After we reviewed the documents, we found that there is one --

18     almost 1800 names which do not appear in the schedules, and then we went

19     for the -- to the meeting with the -- with the Office of the Prosecutor,

20     where we opposed that, and that is the first submission that Ms. Korner

21     and myself made to the Trial Chamber as to the legal question whether or

22     not this would be allowed or is -- or is allowed or not.

23             At that point, on that meeting, which was in September, we

24     requested the disclosure of all the underlying material concerning only

25     the victims listed in the schedules to the indictment, because that is

Page 18486

 1     our position.  And that list, that -- these underlying documents were

 2     disclosed to us on the 24th -- 19th of October.  And that is when -- that

 3     is the first time we saw the underlying documents, on the

 4     19th of October this year.  We reviewed that underlying documents and

 5     then I made a submission stating that we cannot accept or cannot agree on

 6     the -- on the spreadsheet offered by the Office of the Prosecutor because

 7     the underlying documents are not existing.  In our opinion.

 8             And that is -- that is the situation, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Can --

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  May I, just to clarify, ask this:  What you --

12     what was disclosed to you in the beginning with the motion is the

13     spreadsheets A and B?

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is correct.

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Only.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Microphone not activated] Yes.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Then in October you got the underlying documents

18     for the witnesses listed in the indictment; right?

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  For victims.  Victims listed in the -- [Overlapping

20     speakers] ...

21             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...  Victims listed in the

22     indictment.  Oh, I said witness, sorry.  Victims listed in the

23     indictment.  Of course.

24             In what form did you get those documents?

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, again, Your Honours, we got the spreadsheet

Page 18487

 1     with the hyperlinks, with the hyperlinks to the alleged underlying

 2     documents which would be proving the data indicated in the spreadsheets.

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  So we again received, I believe, four spreadsheets

 5     or --

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So --

 7             MR. ZECEVIC: -- even more, and some documents to that, yes.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  To fully understand this - and I'm addressing the

 9     Prosecution as well - there are the spreadsheets, the original

10     spreadsheets.  I understand how you got the underlying documents.  Now my

11     question is:  Is that -- is that part of the database?  Is that the

12     database we're talking about?  Or is the database still something else?

13                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And -- and could I, because now I'm confused,

15     could I put another question to -- in extension of Judge Delvoie's

16     question, namely:  When you received the first spreadsheets in July, were

17     those spreadsheets hyperlinked?

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  No.  No, Your Honours.  Those are just the annexes

19     to the motion filed by the Office of the Prosecutor on 22nd July, Annex A

20     and Annex B, just a list of the victims.

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  List of victims plus the list of the documents

22     without hyperlinks.  In Annex B had you a list of the documents, if I

23     understand it well.  Isn't that right?  The list of the documents.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  I have it over here, Your Honours.  If you just

25     bear with me one second, I will check.

Page 18488

 1             Your Honours, I have over here the both -- the both documents.

 2     The annexes.

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] I have B in front of me

 4     on the screen.

 5             I have the Annex B on the screen.  Annex A as well.  But Annex B

 6     gives names of victims.  And then ...

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  And then some data --

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: -- but not the documents proving that they --

10     [Overlapping speakers] ...

11             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...  no, no, not the

12     documents itself.  But it gives -- it gives the numbers of the -- the

13     title and the numbers of the documents.  But without hyperlink.

14             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, can I explain that the hyperlinking --

15     that there was a delay, because we handed over all that.  Then the

16     Defence said it would be much simpler if we could hyperlink it for them

17     so they could actually see it.  Then that took forever.  But it was at

18     their request.  They didn't want to go and hunt around, using the ERNs,

19     and I understand that perfectly.  But they asked to us to do that and so

20     we did it.  And it was a major, major effort.

21             But can I say, Your Honours, straight away, from virtually day

22     one of this case, or the first 65 ter, we have been saying we were

23     prepared to let the Defence inspect anything they wanted to in respect of

24     exhumations.  I believe it was when Judge Harhoff was the

25     Pre-Trial Judge.  And he may recall -- I forgot what -- 65 ter, we said,

Page 18489

 1     We are hoping the exhumations will be agreed.  There is a database.  The

 2     Defence can inspect at any stage at which they wish to.

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, before we go into all that.  In order

 4     to understand precisely what is available and what is not available, when

 5     you're mentioning a database, what do you mean by a database?

 6             MS. KORNER:  It is a tool.

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes.

 8             MS. KORNER:  Which is the repository of the information and a

 9     guide to what it is, effectively.

10             It does not contain, for example, the - it cannot - the actual

11     physical items by which bodies were identified or the clothing or

12     whatever it is.  But it does contain a guide to how each of these victims

13     was identified.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And it contains the documents as well?

15             MS. KORNER:  And if there's a statement --

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes.

17             MS. KORNER: -- then the statement is there.  It's -- [Overlapping

18     speakers] ...

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Death certificates and all that, they're in

20     there?

21             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  Thank you.

23             MS. KORNER:  At least I -- can I just say, I think so.  I mean, I

24     haven't personally looked at it myself.  But I think that's how it's

25     arranged.

Page 18490

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And this is a database containing all victims

 2     from 1992 to 1995 or 1996, if I understand it well?

 3             MS. KORNER:  It can -- unfortunately Ms. Pidwell's not here,

 4     because she's been dealing with it mainly.  But my understanding is it

 5     contains all the victims connect -- we've extracted.  It's a much bigger

 6     database, because it obviously contains Srebrenica and places like that.

 7     But it contains all the victims who have been identified as being killed

 8     from incidents which are reflected in our indictment, not -- as

 9     Mr. Zecevic says, not all of them are named in our -- our -- are named in

10     our indictment, because subsequent information has come to light.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

12             MS. KORNER:  And just to make it clear, there are two differing

13     strands to the Defence objection.  The first is a legal one, namely, that

14     we should not be allowed to lead evidence through the database of victims

15     who are not named on our indictment.  And that's a question of the

16     various cases that have come before the Tribunal.  And the second matter

17     is this:  That we shouldn't be allowed to use the database as the proof

18     of death of anybody.  That, in other words, we need to call the -- the

19     experts who dealt with the exhumations, the evidence which shows that

20     these bodies are, indeed, the bodies of people who were killed at the

21     time.  They're saying, as I understand Mr. Zecevic, Your Honours should

22     not allow in the database as showing that all or any of these victims

23     actually died.

24             So that's -- no are the two strands.  One is, are we allowed to

25     call evidence through the database of all of the people or only those

Page 18491

 1     named.  Secondly, is what's contained in the database sufficient proof.

 2     Or do we have to call each and every individual who found the bodies,

 3     identified them, and the method of identification.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, back -- still, before we go into the

 5     discussion, just the understanding.

 6             Is it right to say that - I could call it in the worst case

 7     scenario - OTP could provide the Trial Chamber and the Defence with the

 8     database, as such, database with 3.290 names and relating documents?

 9             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  I mean -- at the worst case scenario, yes.

10     Somebody could stand there going through it all.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  No, not standing there and going through it all.

12     Tender it.  Provide it to us.

13             MS. KORNER:  The whole database?

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes.

15             MS. KORNER:  As opposed to the hyperlinked schedules that you've

16     got?

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Well, we didn't get the hyperlinked schedules.

18             MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ...

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  The Defence did.  So I don't know -- I don't know

20     how the hyperlinks schedules could perhaps resolve the problem of having

21     the database or not having the database.

22             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... hyperlinked.  I

23     won't -- when Your Honour Judge Delvoie asked for it, you didn't get the

24     hyperlinked one, you just got the -- the schedules, the spreadsheet.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Perhaps with the hyperlinked ones it's enough,

Page 18492

 1     but ...

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             MS. KORNER:  Can I -- sorry, I now -- because we've got

 4     overlapping and I was distracted for a moment.

 5             Your Honours want the full database?

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  We are not ruling yet.  But it's -- it's a

 7     possibility we're exploring, yes.

 8             MS. KORNER:  Right.  Well, Your Honour, I don't want to say this

 9     off the top of my head.  I would have to make inquiries of the person

10     who's actually been dealing with it as to exactly what we could provide,

11     if required.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  If I may be of assistance, very briefly,

14     Your Honours.

15             The Annex B contains the names of the -- of the victims and some

16     data and some -- some documents, ERN numbers.  These documents have not

17     been disclosed to us prior to filing of this, of these annexes, A and B,

18     on the 22nd of July.  After we reviewed, we asked that these particular

19     ERN documents be disclosed to us.  We were told that is the database.  So

20     we say, Yes, disclose to us the database but only for the victims which

21     are listed in the schedules of the indictment.  And that is the part of

22     the legal argument that we presented to Your Honours.

23             Now, when we received the -- the alleged underlying documents,

24     the database, we found out that the database is nothing else but a number

25     of other spreadsheets with no documents whatsoever, no death

Page 18493

 1     certificates, no -- no -- nothing of the sort.  No decision of the Court

 2     of declaring the person dead -- the missing person dead or any kind of

 3     documentation, except on a -- on a very small basis.  There are some

 4     documents.

 5             But if you -- if you -- if you would --

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... and what about the

 7     hyperlinks then?  Is that a very small basis you're talking about?

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.  The hyperlinks actually connect one -- one --

 9     one spreadsheet to the other spreadsheet to the other spreadsheet and the

10     fourth spreadsheet.  And there -- and the spreadsheet -- [Overlapping

11     speakers] ...

12             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... and not to the

13     document?

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  And there is -- well, that is precisely the

15     problem, because there is no underlying documents, or we have not been

16     disclosed the underlying documents.

17             When we went to the meeting, we -- we -- we had a meeting with --

18     with the lady who is in charge of the -- of the database for the Office

19     of the Prosecutor --

20             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Ms. Kipp.

21             MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... yes, Ms. Kipp.  And we

22     actually tried to find out the documents for one particular victim.  We

23     said, for example, number 112.  And after 20 minutes it was -- she

24     couldn't find it.  So we say, Well, that is the -- that is it the -- that

25     is the situation, Your Honours.

Page 18494

 1             MS. KORNER:  I don't think it's appropriate.  That was a -- a

 2     counsel to counsel meeting.  Your Honour, that simple isn't right,

 3     because we've just turned it up, ourselves, and the autopsy reports are

 4     all there.  We can see them.

 5             Now, Your Honours, the difficulty with all of this is that too

 6     many crooks, really, have been involved all together in this.  But the

 7     simple answer is, if Your Honours want to understand the database, we can

 8     call Ms. Kipp who is the one who's really been dealing -- she wasn't the

 9     original person; that was an OTP investigator who no longer works.  But

10     she is familiar with the database and she can explain it exactly.  But

11     it's not right to say that no documents are in there and weren't

12     hyperlinked.

13             Now, it may be that there are links, if you like, to other

14     databases, for example, where there have been declarations of death by

15     the Sanski Most Court, because there are a number of associated

16     databases.  But, as I say, if Your Honours want to know exactly how this

17     database is assembled, what it contains, and what is available, then it

18     is really simpler for us to call Ms. Kipp than for everybody to start

19     guessing and speculating.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  One last question on this, as far as I'm

21     concerned, Ms. Korner.

22             You told us that you made the hyperlinks of the material you

23     disclosed to the Defence and that took an eternity, right, to do?

24             MS. KORNER:  It took a long time to do, yes.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  You did that only for the victims in the

Page 18495

 1     indictment, or is it done for the other 1.806 as well?

 2             MS. KORNER:  No, it's not.  Because the only request we had was

 3     for the victims of the indictment -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... so if -- if the Court

 5     would ask you to provide the same thing but for all of the victims, that

 6     would take some time?

 7             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  I can't tell you exactly how long, but I know

 8     it took -- I think it took the best part of three weeks to do that, yes,

 9     to do the ones that were named in the indictment.

10             So we'd be talking about another month, I think.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  I would like to apologise.  I didn't want to

13     disclose the contents of the counsel-to-counsel meeting.  I just wanted

14     to inform to the best of my abilities the Trial Chamber of what appears

15     in our view to be the problem.

16             Your Honours, we had listed six -- six parameters or six

17     particular documents for each and ever victim, and we say:  Okay, victim

18     number 1, can we have these six documents, or at least three documents

19     for that particular witness?  What we received is another spreadsheet.

20     When you click on the hyperlink, there is not a document that we asked

21     for or any other document.  What we get is another spreadsheet where

22     this -- where this victim is -- is listed.  And -- and when we -- when we

23     ask what -- what is the meaning of this, they said, Well, this

24     spreadsheet is the list of the victims as given by one of the sources.

25             Now -- and that -- that is creating a problem.  Because there

Page 18496

 1     might be the underlying document - I'm not saying - but we haven't seen

 2     it.  We have not received the underlying document.  When I say, Can I

 3     have the death certificate of that particular person, or the Court

 4     decision that the missing person has been declared dead, the specific

 5     person, that would be more than enough.  But we never received any such

 6     document.  Well, maybe some, but we haven't received the majority -- for

 7     the majority of the -- of the -- of the victims that we asked for.

 8             Thank you.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour --

10             JUDGE HARHOFF: [Overlapping speakers] ...

11             MS. KORNER: -- I think the problem has been - if I may say so

12     with the greatest respect, and I have ever sympathy with Mr. Zecevic on

13     this - is that they've not been using it properly.  Because we've just

14     pulled up -- we've just clicked on one and we've found the death

15     certificate.

16             So I think that Mr. Zecevic and myself, obviously, are not expert

17     enough in the use of these databases.  But it is possible to do it.

18     There are documents in it.  And, I mean, we literally have just clicked

19     on one and pulled up a death certificate.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But are you in the database now or are you on the

21     spreadsheets?

22             MS. KORNER:  We're on the hyperlinked -- [Overlapping

23     speakers] ...

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Spreadsheets.

25             MS. KORNER: -- spreadsheet.

Page 18497

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  That's not the database.

 2             MS. KORNER:  Not the database.

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

 4             MS. KORNER:  Hyperlinked spreadsheet.  So the -- it's been one of

 5     the problems.  But it's -- as I say, it's Your Honours who've got to make

 6     the decision.  And it's probably the simplest, and it shouldn't take very

 7     long, if we call Ms. Kipp, possibly putting Mr. Brown off, or whatever,

 8     and get her to explain this to you and show you.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, I wonder whether calling Mrs. Kipp

11     just to let her explain how the database is -- functions and runs and

12     what is supposed to be in it would be of some assistance but not

13     entirely.  Because what is basically needed are the underlying documents.

14             Of course, if it is in the form of a database, which, as you

15     said, is merely a tool to be -- to enable us to -- or to enable whoever

16     to search in a more easy fashion than with a bunch of paper, but, still,

17     it would seem to me that Defence and the Trial Chamber must have access

18     to the documents, to the underlying documents, the source material.

19             MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... Your Honours --

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So how can -- how could that eventually be

21     arranged?

22             MS. KORNER:  But they do.  I mean, this is the point.  The

23     hyperlinking that we did, can I say it's not altogether sometimes the

24     easiest, I accept, because there's an ERN range and it contains other

25     documents, but they're all there.  The hyperlinking.  And, Your Honours,

Page 18498

 1     as I said, we can produce the documentation.  I mean, we could actually,

 2     physically, I suppose, assemble a pile and do that.  And that will take

 3     two months.  And that would suffice, I think, for the

 4     non-computer-databased-literate people.  But it's an enormous waste of

 5     effort.

 6             Your Honours, in no other case in this Tribunal has there ever

 7     been this kind of argument.  And the reason is because it's accepted we

 8     have in this Tribunal the paperwork which these days is put onto

 9     electronically to show that these people are dead and that they died as a

10     result of the crimes that were committed.

11             If, however, Your Honours feel that the database and the tool

12     that is there is not sufficient, then we will take whatever time it

13     takes, physically assemble every piece of paper in a pile - for the --

14     I've forgotten how many victims it is now - and then Your Honours and

15     Defence can go through them.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Nobody is saying that, Ms. Korner.  Not that I

17     heard somebody say that.

18             What we are saying is -- well, what I'm wondering now is, you say

19     it -- it -- it works with the hyperlinks.

20             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  Let's suppose it does.

22             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But you have hyperlinked spreadsheets on 1.41

24     victims --

25             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

Page 18499

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE: -- and there -- it's not yet done for 1.806

 2     victims.  So that will take time.

 3             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So my question is:  Is it feasible that instead

 5     of doing this and providing us with -- with the spreadsheets, that you

 6     will provide us directly with the database?  I don't know whether it's

 7     materially possible to -- to give the database to -- to the Court, or

 8     access to the database to the Court and to the Defence, but -- and if

 9     it's a good tool, if, of which I'm not yet sure, then you wouldn't have

10     to -- to -- to do the hyperlink work which would take you a month.

11             MS. KORNER:  All right.  Your Honours, can I discuss that?  I

12     don't -- I really am not up to speed enough on how this would be possible

13     or what needs to be done.  So I'd need to discuss it with -- well,

14     certainly with Ms. Kipp, and possibly with Mr. Smith about what we can do

15     about that.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  It would -- it would perhaps be of assistance,

17     Ms. Korner, if in the meantime we could have the spreadsheets you already

18     provided to the Defence, the hyperlinked ones.

19             MS. KORNER:  We can provide them to Your Honours as well.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

22             As we move towards the time when, for the usual technical

23     reasons, we must rise, the -- item (i), the OTP motion of the

24     13th of December to reconsider denying protective measures to two

25     witnesses, could we get an oral response from the Defence today?

Page 18500

 1                           [Defence counsel confer]

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  Can we consult over the break and inform the

 3     Trial Chamber immediately?

 4             JUDGE HALL:  The -- are there matters to be dealt with following

 5     a break?  Or are we at the end of --

 6             MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... Your Honours, I do have a

 7     couple which weren't on the agenda because it only came up yesterday.

 8     And they're short.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

10             MS. KORNER:  But I wouldn't mind being able to --

11             JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... well, I suppose it would

12     be convenient to take a break now and resume in 20 minutes.

13                           --- Recess taken at 11.12 a.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 12.01 p.m.

15             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, in the break I have been given an

16     answer to Your Honours' question as to whether you or the Defence could

17     be given access to the actual whole database.  The answer to that is, No,

18     very simply, because it's specific to the Office of the Prosecutor, the

19     software, and it's linked with other matters.

20             So the answer is, No, we can't do that.  So the best we can hope

21     to do is, if Your Honours would want us to do that, is to hyperlink the

22     remainder.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you, Ms. Korner.

24             Well, then -- then we would like to have, if possible, because

25     it's -- it's ready, the hyperlinked spreadsheets today.  Could that be

Page 18501

 1     done?  Yes, for the 1400, of course -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

 2             MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... yes --

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... for the --

 4             MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... Your Honour, yes.  Yes,

 5     that can be --

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE: -- for the ones in the indictment.  And then we

 7     expect to be able to assess whether this is good material, for whatever

 8     better word, by Friday and that you know whether we need the -- the other

 9     ones to be hyperlinked as well.

10             Does that work?

11             MS. KORNER:  Yes, certainly, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

13             MS. KORNER:  Were there any other matters Your Honours wanted to

14     raise, then?  Because I need to come back to a couple of matters, as I

15     said.

16             JUDGE HALL:  No, you had indicated had you some matters to raise,

17     so, thank you.

18             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  Your Honours, the first is this.  And I should

19     really have mentioned it under "decisions needed on pending motions."

20     Your Honours, we filed a motion on the 9th of this month seeking

21     reconsideration of your oral ruling -- no, sorry, it's the one before

22     that.  Oh, yes, the admission of unsigned -- sorry.  On

23     23rd of November - I'm so sorry - of your ruling on the admission of

24     unsigned statements.  And the reason we raised that is because we've

25     either asked for permission to call an extra witness or to extend the

Page 18502

 1     testimony of Witness 023 -- I'm sorry, 228, to deal with that.  So,

 2     again, if we could have that decision this week.

 3             Your Honour, the last matter is this.  And it relates to the

 4     indictment.  And I feel I ought to raise it at this stage.

 5             If Your Honours and the Defence go to Schedule B, the killings

 6     related to detention facilities, number 6 relates to the

 7     Koricanske Stijene massacre.  And it says that it's in Skender Vakuf.

 8     Now, as technical points are being taken in this case, Your Honours may

 9     recall that the witness who was asked about it said that in fact the area

10     of the killings was contained within the Travnik municipality rather than

11     the Skender Vakuf.  It was -- it was in the Serb-held part of that

12     municipality.

13             It's right to say that every adjudicated fact that we originally

14     had over this municipality talks about Skender Vakuf.  But that -- I do

15     have to remind Your Honours that that is the -- the evidence that we've

16     had, and whether either the Defence or Your Honours would require us to

17     amend that description to reading something like, "in the vicinity of

18     Skender Vakuf."

19             As I say, it is a highly technical point, but I don't want to

20     lose a particular incident because of a technical point.

21             So I'm raising it at this stage.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Is -- I'm not sure whether you are seeking leave to

23     amend at this stage or whether you are inquiring of the other side

24     whether they would take the -- to use your words, "technical objection,"

25     because, if it is the latter, I would have thought that when the

Page 18503

 1     objection is taken it would then provide the foundation for submissions.

 2     But, for myself, the -- I don't know that the Chamber would proprio motu

 3     require an amendment.

 4             But let me consult my brothers.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Does the Defence have a response to this matter?

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that this

 8     is not only a technical issue.  It is also an issue of responsibility and

 9     the jurisdiction over that area and who is responsible for that.  This is

10     something that we will be dealing in our final brief.

11             MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... I don't think

12     Mr. Krgovic has been listening to the evidence.  It's quite clear that

13     Banja Luka accepted jurisdiction over the investigation of this killing

14     because they sent along the technicians and everybody like that.

15             Your Honour, as I say, the killing are entirely related to

16     detention facilities.  And, of course, it's related to the fact that the

17     men who were killed all came from Trnopolje.  But it's right to say that

18     there is some evidence, whether it's right or wrong we don't know, but

19     it -- there's some evidence which hasn't been challenged --

20             JUDGE HALL:  May I suggest, Ms. Korner, that having now had the

21     benefit of what at least the Defence of Zupljanin would say, that you

22     should advise yourself as to whether the prudent course would be for you

23     to make a formal application for amendment of the indictment in that

24     regard.

25             MS. KORNER:  Well, then, can I do that right now, Your Honour.

Page 18504

 1     It seems to be the simplest and we can get it out of the way.  Can I

 2     apply to amend item 6, the killings at the Vlasic Mountain, to read "in

 3     or in the vicinity of the -- Skender Vakuf."

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zecevic, before you take the floor, could I

 8     just be sure about what exactly it is Ms. Korner is suggesting.

 9             On page 21 of the indictment, which is Schedule B, killings

10     related to detention facilities, there's a heading which is called 6.

11     That indicates Skender Vakuf.

12             And then there's an explanation in the next column, which is

13     labelled 6.1, and that reads:  "The execution of a large number of men

14     from Trnopolje camp at the Vlasic mountain."

15             Now, where is it that Ms. Korner wants to have the amendment?  Is

16     that in the heading, under 6, or is it the subheading, under 6.1?  Or

17     both?

18             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... Your Honour, it says:

19     The execution of a large number of men from Trnopolje camp at the Vlasic

20     mountain.  That's correct.  Vlasic mountain is the English translation of

21     Koricanske Stijene ... more or less.

22             I heard somebody yell "no," so I thought I better add "more or

23     less."

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, what I'm asking for the amendment to

Page 18505

 1     where it says:  "6, Skender Vakuf."

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And could you repeat to us, again, the amendment.

 3             MS. KORNER:  "In or in the vicinity of Skender Vakuf."

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  [Microphone not activated] Ms. Korner, to add to

 6     the confusion, I'm afraid, I noticed that in your -- in the

 7     spreadsheet A, exhumations, the victims are listed by municipality.  Yes?

 8     And incident number 6.1.  Is, indeed, Skender Vakuf; but the header says

 9     "municipality of exhumation."

10             Is that -- is that right?  I mean, it -- it -- it doesn't seem

11     right.

12             MS. KORNER:  I don't know that it can be because --

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  It doesn't seem right.  Because in the -- in

14     the -- in the -- there is another -- another indication that for 200 out

15     of 295 victims under -- under 6.1, the whereabouts are unknown.  Which

16     seems to indicate that there is no exhumation site.

17             MS. KORNER:  My recollection is, and I believe the witness dealt

18     with it, is that the bodies have not yet been exhumed.  Because you

19     mentioned there is --

20             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... okay.  So for the

21     general -- for the Annex A exhumation spreadsheet where it said in the

22     first column, column A, "municipality of exhumation is ..."  shall I take

23     that to be incorrect?

24             Do you take, for instance --

25             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... Your Honour --

Page 18506

 1                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  You have listed -- the -- the victims are listed

 3     in different worksheets in the spreadsheet by municipality.  You have

 4     Banja Luka, Bileca, and whatever.

 5             MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... yes --

 6             JUDGE HALL:  And that's normally - normally - the municipality

 7     you find under A but under the header "municipality of exhumation,"

 8     which --

 9             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I -- can I say, I think I need, again,

10     and I'm sorry, to make some inquiries about this.

11             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

12             MS. KORNER:  If it is meant to be -- I think it's meant to be the

13     municipality of -- of --

14             JUDGE DELVOIE: -- of the incident.

15             MS. KORNER:  Of the incident.  But --

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yeah.  Then --

17             MS. KORNER:  I'm afraid I really will have to go back over that

18     one.

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Then I just mention another slight problem.

20     Within this incident there are, I think, four victims listed as being

21     from Prijedor or ... in the Column A.

22             MS. KORNER:  Column A.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Municipality of exhumation, well, to see that,

24     you need -- you need to put together the Prijedor worksheet and the --

25     and the Skender Vakuf worksheet.  Or you can look to both worksheets and

Page 18507

 1     see that in each of them you have listed incidents 6.1, which if the

 2     incident happened in Skender Vakuf, it can't happen in Prijedor.

 3             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  No.  I mean, it's a question.  Your Honours

 4     are quite right.  And I will make some inquiries and try and sort that

 5     one out.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And same goes perhaps for Banja Luka.  I -- I

 7     think I know that Banja Luka and Sanski Most are two different

 8     municipalities, if I'm not wrong.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour is quite right.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  Under Banja Luka there are some 20 entries

11     "Sanski Most."

12             MS. KORNER:  Yeah.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But it's for the same incident.

14             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  Your Honours, can I say, I'll get back to you

15     on that one as well.

16             JUDGE HALL:  So is the position that you're withdrawing your oral

17     motion with a view to returning after you would have had an opportunity

18     to look at this --

19             MS. KORNER:  No, Your Honour.  That's a separate matter as to

20     how -- that's got nothing do with what the indictment says.  The

21     indictment says:  "Place, Skender Vakuf."

22             As I say, it is so mind-bogglingly technical and so little to do

23     with the actual proof of case.  But it is a fact.  And as I say, if

24     Your Honours, as a result of Mr. Krgovic's intervention --

25             JUDGE HALL:  Okay.  I just wanted to be clear with having regard

Page 18508

 1     to the --

 2             MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... no, I think it still

 3     should because it -- it -- there is now an argument as to whether the

 4     actual site of the killing, which is what this is meant to represent, was

 5     Travnik or Skender Vakuf.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  So could we hear the Defence on the application to

 7     amend made by the OTP.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours we were not put on notice that

 9     this is going to be on the -- on -- one of the issues on the agenda for

10     today's Status Conference.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Well, as Ms. Korner has indicated, whereas this is a

12     motion without notice, it is, on the face of it, fairly straightforward

13     and something which counsel could not unreasonably be invited to respond

14     on -- on -- in -- to immediately.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  I -- I understand, Your Honours.  But I didn't have

16     time to consult with the -- either Mr. Krgovic or the members my team.

17     If you would give us a couple minutes, we will be able to -- to give an

18     answer to Your Honours.

19             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... that's quite right

20     because it was only yesterday when I was actually going through the

21     indictment as a precursor to this Status Conference that I was reminded

22     that that had been the evidence.  And so I didn't bother to add it to the

23     list.

24             JUDGE HALL:  You say "a couple of minutes," Mr. Zecevic.  Is it

25     necessary for us to rise, or is this a matter you can sort out

Page 18509

 1     sotto voce?

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  We can consult in the courtroom, I guess,

 3     Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  Yes, please proceed.

 5                           [Defence counsel confer]

 6                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officers confer]

 7                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, Your Honours, I consulted with Mr. Krgovic,

10     and I will leave the floor to him to respond.

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in general, we don't

12     have anything against this amendment sought by the OTP.  But I think that

13     what they just said was not precise enough when it comes to the site of

14     executions or killings.  I think they would need to give the details

15     about the municipality and the exact site, in order to avoid any

16     uncertainties about the area of responsibility.

17             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, the fact is that through, I

18     would think now, half a dozen cases, if not more, the Koricanske Stijene

19     killings have been listed as occurring in the municipality of

20     Skender Vakuf.

21             Now, I don't think that it's worth our while exploring the exact

22     geographical location of those killings.  And I think all I have to do is

23     give a description which locates them sufficiently.  And that's all that

24     I'm doing.

25             JUDGE HALL:  And if I may add, unless I misunderstood

Page 18510

 1     Mr. Krgovic, the issue is the amendment of the indictment, not the

 2     quality of the evidence in support of the charge, so it's ...

 3             So leave to amend the indictment, as prayed, is granted.  And --

 4     leave to amend the indictment is granted as prayed, if I might correct

 5     myself.  And we require the Prosecution, for tidiness, to file a

 6     corrected indictment accordingly.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Can it just be a correct -- Your Honours, rather

 8     than the whole indictment, just the corrected schedule to the indictment?

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  Yes.

10             MS. KORNER:  Thank you.

11             JUDGE HALL:  A correction reflecting the amendment.

12             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

13             Your Honours, it has been pointed out to me to answer

14     Judge Delvoie's question about Banja Luka and Sanski Most, and I will do

15     it now so you can get some idea, although I'll double-check it, is that

16     that relates to the victims who were suffocated outside Manjaca camp

17     which is in the Banja Luka municipality but their bodies were actually

18     exhumed in Sanski Most.

19             So it's under the overall title "Banja Luka."  But the bodies,

20     because it's the Manjaca camp, were actually exhumed in Sanski Most.  And

21     that, I'm told, is the explanation of that.  I'll have to check on the

22     Skender Vakuf.  But I have a feeling -- or, rather, we think that those

23     are recent exhumations which have been taking place in Skender Vakuf.

24     And they are in fact the bodies, very recently, indeed, the bodies of

25     those who were killed at the Koricanske Stijene.

Page 18511

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Then I have perhaps two other clarification

 2     question, Ms. Korner.

 3             There are three incident codes -- no, no -- that's an easy one.

 4     That's -- I don't need to bother you with that.

 5             But there are quite some victims that are not linked to an

 6     incident in the indictment.  What is your view on that?

 7             MS. KORNER:  Could Your Honour perhaps give me an example and

 8     I'll see if my ever-hard-working juniors behind me will give me the

 9     answer.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Well, Ms. Korner, I could give you 1.425

11     examples.

12             There are -- you have -- have you the column of the incident

13     code.

14             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  In -- for 1.425 victims, victims' names.

16             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  The incident code cell is blank.  There is no

18     incident code.

19             And the incident code is what links the victim to a certain

20     incident in the indictment.  For example, 6.1 is Koricanske Stijene.

21             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So what about the 1.425 that have no incident

23     code?

24             MS. KORNER:  I just don't know at the moment, I'm sorry.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

Page 18512

 1             MS. KORNER:  I really -- I think I'll -- I need to speak to

 2     Ms. Kipp about all of this.

 3             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And what strikes me is -- oh, no.  No.  The

 4     majority of them are -- not the majority.  All of them, except one, are

 5     new victims.  So new victims without incident code.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I will certainly get back to

 7     Your Honours on -- on that as soon as I've got an answer.

 8             Your Honours, would it perhaps -- would Your Honours agree to

 9     this.  I don't know if Your Honours want to sit again this week.  But we

10     could provide the answers via e-mail, copied to the Defence, to the

11     Legal Officer to the questions Your Honour has just asked.

12             But, I mean, if Your Honours wasn't to sit, then I can certainly

13     deal with it tomorrow.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Well, we were thinking that there may be a

15     possibility that we would have to -- having regard to the matter of

16     the -- when we would have had -- when the Chamber would have had the

17     opportunity to consider the material which the OTP has been directed to

18     provide by the end of today, when we would have analyzed it, there may be

19     a possibility - you would be notified by e-mail in the course of

20     tomorrow - but there may be a possibility that we would reconvene on

21     Friday.

22             MS. KORNER:  On Friday.  Right.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  [Microphone not activated] Friday, on Friday

24     morning.

25             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

Page 18513

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, Your Honours invited us to give or

 2     position on the motion of the 13th --

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, please.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC: -- of February considering denying protective

 5     measures to two witnesses.

 6             Well, Your Honours, I can inform you that the position of the --

 7     both Defences is that we take no position on that -- on that motion of

 8     the Office of the Prosecutor.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  And there is one additional matter.

11             I would respectfully need to ask Your Honours to rule today on

12     our motion for extension of -- of time.  Because, Your Honours, we asked

13     for the -- for the extension to respond to the bar table motion.  And,

14     unfortunately, the deadline for response is tomorrow, so we would need to

15     know what is the -- I mean, we know that the Office of the Prosecutor

16     took no position on that, but we don't know what the -- the decision of

17     the Trial Chamber.

18             Thank you.

19                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officers confer]

20             JUDGE HALL:  The Chamber, having considered the application by

21     the Defence for an extension of time, agrees to the motion in part and

22     grants an extension to Wednesday, the 22nd of December.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

24             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, can I just go back, for a moment, to

25     amending the indictment.  It's been pointed out to me that as we don't

Page 18514

 1     yet know whether there's going to be a Rule 98 bis submission and we

 2     don't know yet whether that may have an effect on the indictment, could

 3     we leave the formal amending -- written amendment until after the 98 bis?

 4     I mean, everybody knows it's there.  Because if we have to amend the

 5     indictment as a result of any rulings then, we have yet another amended

 6     version.  So perhaps we could just save that.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Unless I'm persuaded otherwise, it seems eminently

 8     sensible, Ms. Korner.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Thank you.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Provided that, of course, the OTP flags this as a

11     matter with which they have to deal.

12             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  No, no, we've got this flagged, Your Honour,

13     and we'll make sure that it's there after the Rule 98 bis.

14             JUDGE HALL:  So I believe that brings us to the end of the

15     matters with which we had to deal today.

16             And as I indicated to Ms. Korner, we adjourn with the

17     possibility ...

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE HALL:  Parties should also expect to receive from the

20     Chamber by tomorrow a Scheduling Order.  The -- to set out the

21     time-periods within which the remainder of the trial, more specifically

22     the case for the Defence, or the progress of the trial pending the --

23     following the close of the case of the Prosecution, would be expected to

24     follow.

25             The -- it may be necessary, as I indicated earlier, to reconvene

Page 18515

 1     on Friday morning, after the Chamber would have had a chance to consider

 2     the material that the Prosecution has been directed to supply by this

 3     afternoon.  And if that should occur, the parties will be notified in the

 4     usual manner by e-mail in the course of tomorrow.  Failing that, we would

 5     reconvene at the conclusion of the winter recess.  And the last version

 6     of the calendar I saw is that we're sitting on the afternoon of the 10th.

 7     But, of course, persons know that the calendar is subject to change,

 8     particularly so far in advance.

 9             So should we not reconvene on Friday, I take the opportunity to

10     wish that everyone has a safe and happy holiday and that we all return

11     refreshed for a productive new year.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, Your Honours, if I may just -- one

13     question.

14             Your Honours, I believe the arrangements for the travel of

15     Mr. Stanisic on provisional release have been made for Friday, and there

16     is -- there is -- there is a certain procedure, as you know, that the

17     officer needs to fly in here and take him at the airport.  So if it would

18     be possible that Mr. Stanisic, if we are sitting on Friday, that

19     Mr. Stanisic waive his presence for that Status Conference.

20             Thank you.

21                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

22             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, so we take that as an application that his

23     presence be waived, and it is, of course, granted.

24             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

Page 18516

 1                           --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned at

 2                           12.45 p.m.