1 Tuesday, 5 July 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 4.06 p.m.

5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Mr. Court Deputy.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case

7 number IT-01-48-T, the Prosecutor versus Sefer Halilovic.

8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

9 This is a status conference. The purpose of this conference is to

10 facilitate the proceedings of this case, and frankly speaking, this Bench

11 was very disappointed and frustrated with no witnesses for the last week.

12 I believe that we need an explanation from the part of the Defence.

13 Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

14 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honours, thank you. The Defence

15 apologises for the time lost. As concerns the witness who we were

16 delaying about, he's now arrived in The Hague. I've seen him this

17 morning. I've sent proofing notes through the e-mail which may or may

18 not have reached the Chamber because they were only sent just before we

19 came to court. He'll be ready to testify tomorrow.

20 We do apologise for that -- for the procedure with him. As I

21 indicated in a note I think that was circulated, we only became aware of

22 his existence quite recently and it became apparent to us that he was a

23 witness of potential importance. We did go to see him as quickly as we

24 could and thereafter, the delays occurred in a somewhat unpredictable way

25 following his health developments. He had a what might be described as a

1 rolling series of appointments and the future course of those

2 appointments was very hard to predict. At the time it looked like they

3 would be limited and in the end they weren't. But he had the last of

4 those yesterday and he's now arrived today.

5 Now, it's an unsatisfactory situation and we are apologetic for

6 it. I'm not sure how we could have handled that matter differently but

7 in any event it happened the way it did and now he's ready to testify.

8 As to other witnesses, the fact of the matter is that we have

9 continued to cull the witness list down. There is a further development

10 that I'm going to let the Tribunal know about soon. But the witnesses

11 that now appear to remain are only four in number.

12 Now, the witness that we have been talking about has instructed

13 me today - and really only today did this matter arise - that he wants to

14 make an application for protective measures. I'll have to provide some

15 further details to the Prosecutors about that and see what their attitude

16 is. I can deal with that straight away if you want me to, Your Honour,

17 but it might be better to let the Prosecutors hear what we have to say

18 and consider their position. I'm in the Tribunal's hands about that.

19 That's why I'm not mentioning his name now. I'm sorry if I seem to be

20 ponderous, but that's why.

21 As to the other witnesses, Bahrudin Comor was listed for Thursday

22 but he's not going to be called as a witness now. The Defence and

23 Prosecution have held some discussions and a stipulation has been agreed

24 on in respect of certain matters, particularly legal matters relating to

25 the SVB. That will be filed with the Court in due course but the words

1 have been agreed on. When they are, I'm going to raise a couple of other

2 matters that go along with it and the Prosecutor will respond to those

3 and we had in mind to do that tomorrow. But so that there will be a

4 legal submission -- effectively an agreed fact or stipulation that will

5 be filed with the Court. And having had those discussions with the

6 Prosecution and having agreed on that the Defence is now not going to

7 call Bahrudin Comor. He's been advised of that.

8 That leaves Witness G who is to appear on Friday. We are advised

9 that he will be appearing with counsel, and there will have to be further

10 discussions with the Prosecutor as to how long that's going to take but I

11 anticipate he's a very short witness.

12 The other remaining witness on the live witness list was the

13 witness who we indicated was present in Uzdol. Again, although he hasn't

14 indicated as yet I see the possibility of a similar application being

15 made. I'd prefer not to name him yet. We think the passport issue is to

16 be resolved with him. We hope it's resolved today but as we understand

17 his passport has been issued and it's on its way back to him so we expect

18 and hope he'll be present on the weekend and ready to proceed next week

19 on Monday.

20 That would conclude the live evidence the Defence was proposing

21 to call. There then remains the decision to be taken as to what to do

22 with any witness that Your Honours refuse to allow us to proceed with

23 98 -- sorry, 92 bis. There may be witnesses that Your Honours say can't

24 be dealt with that way and then we have to make a decision as to whether

25 to call those.

1 But as we understand some of those will be dealt with today and

2 others will be dealt with soon. Again, we don't anticipate that that

3 should cause major delays. And again, none of those witnesses, being

4 92 bis as they are, none of those witnesses seem to be central to the

5 case although there are some in respect of which there is room for

6 discussion and debate here.

7 So for that's the position of the Defence case now, that -- we

8 have lost some court time. I acknowledge and as I've said I apologise

9 for it. I should say on behalf of the team that I'm lead counsel of that

10 they really have, Your Honours, been working extremely long hours and

11 endeavouring to avoid the sort of problems that have arisen and there has

12 been a series of matters which have conspired to lead to these delays.

13 However, although there have been delays, the delays have allowed for the

14 Defence to further shorten its case so that in terms of completing this

15 trial we hope that it will not compromise those matters.

16 That's the report I can give you at this stage on the reasons why

17 there were delays.

18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Although there is only four

19 witnesses left, would you please be kind enough to submit a confidential

20 list of the witnesses in the order that they are going to be called.

21 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE LIU: And as for the protective measures, what specific

23 measures in your mind at this stage?

24 MR. MORRISSEY: With respect to the witness who would testify

25 tomorrow --

1 JUDGE LIU: We could go into the private session if you believe

2 that we should.

3 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes perhaps we should.

4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will go to the private session, please.

5 [Private session]

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 6 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 7 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 [Open session]

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

23 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honour, I think those concluded the

24 matters that I -- I'm sorry, Your Honours, I'm just receiving some

25 static. Pardon me, my earphones were playing up. That concluded the

1 matter I was going to raise, Your Honours. I understand there are a

2 number of matters Your Honours want to raise here. My learned friend is

3 going to deal with I think the bulk of those. And at 5.00 I'm meaning to

4 go back and deal with the witness once more and -- in respect of a couple

5 of documents. But yes, those are the matters I wish to raise.

6 JUDGE LIU: Well, thank you. And I believe there are some other

7 matters we have to deal with that are mainly the procedural matters. If

8 you have some previous appointment, you may withdraw at that time. I

9 believe Mr. Mettraux is capable to deal with all those issues. Thank

10 you.

11 The next issue is about the 92 bis statements. The Defence filed

12 a 92 bis motion confidentially on the 29th of June 2005. The Defence

13 requests the admission of the statements of eight witnesses pursuant to

14 Rule 92 bis of the Rules. The Prosecution response to the Defence motion

15 was filed on the 5th of July 2005. After considering the arguments of

16 the parties, the Trial Chamber will now render its decision.

17 The Trial Chamber recalls the decision of the Appeals Chamber in

18 Galic and has adopted the requirements set out therein. As concerns the

19 first witness whose statement was filed in attachment A, the Prosecution

20 has objected to the admission because parts of this statement would go to

21 the acts and conduct of the accused as charged in the indictment. After

22 careful consideration, the Trial Chamber does not agree with the

23 Prosecution's position. The statement, including the parts of the

24 statement challenged by the Prosecution, concern general information on

25 the ABiH or information regarding acts and conducts of others than the

1 accused. The Trial Chamber finds that the statement meets the

2 requirements of Rule 92 bis. It's relevant and cumulative in nature and

3 therefore it's admitted.

4 The part of the statement concerning a letter by the accused sent

5 to the Croatia press after the war is not an issue which would be pivotal

6 to the Prosecution's case. The Trial Chamber sees no need to call this

7 witness for cross-examination.

8 As concerns the witness statement filed under attachment B, the

9 Trial Chamber finds that the statement meets the requirements of Rule 92

10 bis as it does not go to the acts and conducts of the accused and is

11 relevant and related to political and historical background. The

12 statement is admitted. The Trial Chamber sees no need to call the

13 witness to appear before this Trial Chamber for cross-examination.

14 The admission of the statement of the witness which was filed

15 under attachment C was not objected to by the Prosecution. The Trial

16 Chamber finds that the statement meets the requirements of Rule 92 bis

17 and the statement is relevant and cumulative in nature. The statement is

18 admitted.

19 The next is about the statement filed under attachment D. The

20 Trial Chamber finds that parts of the statement challenged by the

21 Prosecution do not go to the acts and conduct of the accused but, rather,

22 relates to acts and conducts of others. Moreover, the statement is

23 relevant and related to relevant historical and political background.

24 The statement therefore is admitted. The Trial Chamber does not consider

25 the evidence of this witness to be evidence which could be pivotal to the

1 Prosecution's case and sees no need to call the witness for

2 cross-examination.

3 As for the statement filed under attachment E, the Prosecution

4 has requested the witness provide oral testimony on certain paragraphs,

5 submitting that these paragraphs go to the acts and conduct of the

6 accused. Furthermore, the Prosecution has requested to cross-examine the

7 witnesses -- the witness on other paragraphs, submitting that the

8 evidence of the witness is pivotal to the Prosecution's case. The Trial

9 Chamber will allow for cross-examination on the challenged paragraphs.

10 The Trial Chamber will defer its decision on the admission of the

11 statement until such time that the witness has been cross-examined on the

12 statement.

13 As for the statement filed under attachment F, the Trial Chamber

14 finds that the statement does not go to acts and conduct of the accused

15 as charged in the indictment. It's relevant and it's of cumulative

16 nature. The statement is admitted. The Prosecution has submitted that

17 it does not wish to cross-examine this witness. The Trial Chamber does

18 not see a need to call this witness for cross-examination either.

19 As for the statement filed under attachment G, the Trial Chamber

20 found that the relevant parts of the statement have been read out in

21 court during the testimony of a witness, that is Ramiz Delalic. As a

22 result, the evidence contained in this statement is already part of the

23 record. The evidence therefore is unnecessarily cumulative in nature and

24 will not be admitted.

25 The statement filed under attachment H, the Trial Chamber found

1 the statement concerns evidence that does not go to the acts and conduct

2 of the accused and is of a cumulative nature. Although the statement has

3 already been discussed with the witness Delalic, the statement of 6 June

4 2005 clarifies a part of the statement of 17th May 2005. The statement

5 is admitted. The Prosecution has not requested to be allowed to

6 cross-examine this witness. Nor does the Trial Chamber see a need for

7 cross-examination. It's so decided for the first group of the 92 bis

8 witnesses.

9 As we understand, the Prosecution will file their replies to the

10 second group of the 92 bis witnesses very soon. Could I get some

11 confirmation on this aspect, Mr. Weiner?

12 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour. We were hoping to file by the end

13 of tomorrow.

14 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much indeed.

15 [Trial chamber and registrar confer]

16 JUDGE LIU: I've been reminded that for those documents admitted

17 into the evidence, I would like to request the parties to ask for

18 certification of these statements.

19 I hope that we could deal with the next groups of witnesses

20 within this week so that, to give the parties enough time to call those

21 witnesses which need to be cross-examined since the Defence case is

22 extremely short, for four witnesses I believe that we only need about a

23 week's time.

24 Yes, Mr. Morrissey?

25 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour I'll just say we are grateful to the

1 Prosecution for hurrying up as they are and they were assisting hopefully

2 were assisting each other but we were discussing the stipulations and I

3 can say that Mr. Weiner made great efforts to meet with me and I'm

4 grateful for him doing that. But we will respond very quickly when the

5 Prosecution makes its response to the extents that we need to respond.

6 We'll do that straight away. We don't need any extra time. If we were

7 to get the Prosecution's response by Thursday -- by Thursday, we will

8 reply on Friday morning. We would have a brief reply that we could make

9 and we think it's realistic to do that.

10 Your Honours, could I indicate I would be disappointed if we go

11 as long as a week with what remains of the live evidence because the only

12 witness for next week is the -- is the last witness, and I anticipate

13 that his evidence would be a day but could go longer if the Prosecution

14 have more to put to him but I think it's realistic to budget one day with

15 him. So yes, Your Honours, we will do all we can to comply and thank

16 you.

17 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. I only hope

18 that the parties could take the extra effort to facilitate the

19 proceedings of this case.

20 Concerning of the motion for enforcement of court order re:

21 electronic disclosure suite, this Bench have some problems or questions

22 with the filing as well as with the reply by the Prosecution. So we may

23 ask some questions to the parties. The Trial Chamber is seized by the

24 motion for enforcement of court order re: electronic disclosure suite

25 filed by the Defence on the 24th June 2005, seeking an order from the

1 Trial Chamber for the enforcement of the May 7, 2004 order regarding the

2 providing of an annex to the end, EDS, to the Defence, and to order the

3 Prosecution to notify the Defence every time new documents are being

4 placed in the Halilovic folder by the Prosecution with a short

5 description of the material being placed therein.

6 The Prosecution responds to the motion for the enforcement of

7 court order re: electronic disclosure suit was filed on the 30th of

8 June. Provision of the index as to who is -- seem to be not feasible but

9 may be indexed as to Halilovic's folder. We are still not quite sure

10 what kind of index the Prosecution or the Defence mentioned here.

11 Yes, Mr. Mettraux.

12 MR. METTRAUX: Yes, good afternoon, Your Honour. We had the

13 opportunity to describe the sort of index we had in mind, and we don't

14 think it would be such a burdensome exercise for the Prosecution in the

15 sense that the information we would expect is the information which we

16 normally provided with when we receive disclosure under Rule 68 or under

17 Rule 66(A), namely a very short, generally one-liner description of the

18 document together with the ERN number of that document. Really the

19 material that we need in order to be able to go through the EDS material

20 is simply a document which would indicate to us very, very briefly

21 whether there is any chance of relevant material to be found in each and

22 every document. It doesn't have to be lengthy. It doesn't have to be

23 particularly precise but it has to give us an idea of what is to be found

24 in each of the documents.

25 We had been given in the past by the Prosecution what they called

1 at the time an index which was no more than the list of ERN numbers and

2 those numbers means nothing for the Defence. We would have to open each

3 and every one of the documents to find out ourselves what those documents

4 contain. Furthermore, many of those documents would appear to be in the

5 B/C/S language and neither counsel would be able to read those documents.

6 So to answer Your Honour's question, the information which we would ask

7 the Prosecution to provide would be a one-liner such as those one-liners

8 which we have provided in relation to material which they have disclosed

9 to us in the past. "Order of the 15th of January signed by Mr. Salko

10 Gusic," for instance, or something to that effect which would avoid

11 having to open each and every document.

12 JUDGE LIU: Well, you still did not answer my question

13 specifically. You mean all those documents in the Halilovic's folder or

14 is it beyond that folder?

15 MR. METTRAUX: I must admit that we have some sympathy for the

16 Prosecution difficulties. We are not suggesting that it's an easy

17 exercise for the Prosecution either. We are simply submitting that it's

18 easier for them than it is for us, and that there is a court order

19 ordering them to provide us with search information.

20 We would like to be reasonable in that regard. We think that

21 whatever material would be relevant to us would or should be found in the

22 Halilovic folder and at this stage we would only ask to be provided with

23 an index in relation to that folder. If the Prosecution were to discover

24 that material relevant to our case was misplaced or placed in another

25 folder, I mean we would expect to receive notice of that fact. But at

1 this stage we would only insist on the Halilovic folder being indexed.

2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Did the Prosecution already

3 provide to the Defence such index and how this work and how many

4 documents Halilovic's folder contains? Yes, who is in the position to

5 answer that? Yes, Mr. Re.

6 MR. RE: I'll attempt to do so. The question Your Honour is

7 asking is have we provided them with an index. Well, no, we can't. It

8 doesn't exist. That's what we are trying to explain. When we put

9 together a case -- the Prosecution in the letter which we annexed to our

10 response to the motion, we explained there are over 4 million pages in

11 our collections. There are many hundreds of thousands of documents

12 relevant to the ABiH collections and what's loosely called the Bosnian

13 government or Bosnian Muslim side. Now, to find any documents for a case

14 such as this one - the Hadzihasanovic case, the Delic case, the Oric

15 case - we have to go through different collections of documents. And

16 when I say collections, I mean large numbers of documents which have

17 either been provided to the Prosecution or seized by the Prosecution in a

18 search warrant from various locations throughout the former Yugoslavia.

19 They don't all exist in the same place. And they're catalogued whether

20 they come in according to the collection they come from. For example,

21 the Sarajevo collection, which is described in the EDS, is -- are those

22 documents taken from a search of the ABiH archives in Sarajevo in October

23 2000. Some of those documents were used in the Hadzihasanovic case, some

24 of them in the Delic case, some of them in this case. There are

25 thousands of documents there. We analyse them by -- a language assistant

1 looks at them to try to find relevant things. Investigator, criminal

2 analysts, lawyers then go through and pick and choose those which are

3 relevant and put them together as part of our case. But the remaining

4 documents are just untranslated. They never will be translated. There

5 are too many of them and they remain in that collection.

6 Now, at the moment we have no way of indexing them for anyone to

7 find them, us or the Defence. So what we do is we have something called

8 an "IF," which is an information form which contains some information,

9 and there is some metadata. Our evidence section at the moment is

10 attempting to put together a system whereby an index might be available

11 of some of the documents, maybe about half of them, but they can't do

12 that before about September of this year. There will be no index before

13 September of the documents in the 34 separate collections. We are in the

14 same position as the Defence. Now, if documents go into the Halilovic

15 one, it's exactly the same situation.

16 JUDGE LIU: So you mean there is no special folder for

17 Halilovic's case?

18 MR. RE: There is. There is. But I'm told it's empty. We have

19 been -- my friends can correct me if I'm wrong -- we have been providing

20 documents as we find them by CD or by paper disclosure, with indexes,

21 list of index of what the documents are. So they have all the documents

22 that we have used or we have decided are relevant. They have access to

23 the entire OTP evidence collection with two exceptions, those are witness

24 statements and Rule 70 material. In relation to witness statements and

25 Rule 70 material we have searched those, we have put all the relevant

1 search terms into those two collections and we have disclosed anything

2 which is within Rule 66 or that we consider, and it has to be our

3 assessment, within Rule 68. Those documents -- Rule 70 won't go on to

4 the collection. The witness statements will when they are all redacted.

5 That's going to take some time to do so. But in the meantime we are

6 searching them. So we are providing the Defence with any documents that

7 we finds in those two other collections. But in relation to the general

8 collection, of the 70 per cent of the -- 70 per cent of our 4

9 million-plus documents, the Defence have the same access to those

10 documents and the same search capabilities an as we do.

11 Your Honour has seen at the trial the Defence have produced a

12 number of documents that either the Prosecution did not have or did not

13 find and there is an obvious reason for that: because the Defence is in

14 a much better position to know where the documents are filed, where they

15 are archived and what their relevance is than investigators working in

16 another language. So the Defence actually have an advantage over the

17 Prosecution in finding these.

18 But there is a difference we want to emphasise between

19 Halilovic-specific folder and the general collection which is where the

20 documents are. We just can't index them in the sense of providing an

21 index that you might find at the back of a book or the front of a brief.

22 It's just not possible at the moment.

23 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Any way, I'm very surprised to

24 hear there is no Halilovic case folder.

25 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour, we will briefly respond to

1 that. There is indeed a Halilovic folder which has three subfolders

2 which contain documents. In addition to that, as my learned friend

3 pointed out, we have access to a general collection. And one of the

4 difficulties with the searches is that you cannot search both collections

5 at once so you have to repeat your search every time. And as we pointed

6 out in our motion, it has officially a 70 per cent retrieval power which

7 is the official line. But our expert in the team, Mr. Cengic, has

8 established I think beyond reasonable doubt that the retrieval power of

9 this system is much lower than that and we have been unable to trace

10 documents which we know to be in this system.

11 Again, we are quite sympathetic to the Prosecution position but

12 we would like to point out that Rule 68(ii) provides that it's for the

13 Prosecution to provide us with an appropriate computer software to do

14 those searches and at this stage the EDS system is anything but adequate.

15 JUDGE LIU: Well, let me consider this issue carefully and I

16 believe that we have to hand out with the other judges and the -- we have

17 to look into the practice of other Chambers on this matter. It seems to

18 me that Mr. Mettraux, you are very familiar with the documents on the

19 part of the Prosecution already.

20 Yes. Well, just for the information of the parties, the decision

21 on the admission of the Witness Karic's formal statement is filed today.

22 The decision on Mr. Halilovic's 96 statement will be filed by tomorrow.

23 The decision on the admission of the exhibits tendered from the bar table

24 will be rendered by tomorrow. This is just for the information of the

25 parties.

1 Well, the next issue is about the planning of the trial. I

2 believe at this stage the Prosecution has already received all the

3 statements of the witnesses, including the 92 bis witnesses. Could I ask

4 the Prosecution at this stage whether you are going to have some rebuttal

5 procedure in this case?

6 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, it's not clear at this time as to

7 whether or not we would have any rebuttal. They are proofing their

8 witness that is going to testify tomorrow today, and new proofing notes

9 and more information can result. The witness that is scheduled for

10 Friday, I don't believe we've received a -- we haven't received any

11 proofing notes. I don't believe we've received any extensive statement,

12 and I think everyone is waiting to or the Defence is waiting to meet with

13 counsel and the witness. With regard to the witness that's coming on

14 Monday, we have a -- not a proofing statement, a short, 65 ter summary or

15 a 65 ter summary. We have the Prosecution interview but we are waiting

16 for proofing notes. What I thought was going to be a very quick witness

17 now there is an indication that it could be an all-day witness. So we

18 don't know enough or we don't have enough information at this time to

19 really advise the Court whether or not there would be a rebuttal.

20 JUDGE LIU: When do you think you will be in a position to inform

21 us whether there is any rebuttal?

22 MR. WEINER: When we receive more information and hear these

23 people testify. We have -- the next -- after the one for tomorrow we

24 have two witnesses that we have very little information. We really can't

25 glean what they are going to testify to especially the one on Friday. We

1 have no idea.

2 JUDGE LIU: I believe you have received all the statement of

3 those witnesses already so more or less you can see a roughly the picture

4 of the Defence case.

5 MR. WEINER: It's not really clear. For the witness for Friday

6 we don't have a clear picture on what the witness is planning to testify

7 to. With regard to Monday we have some idea and tomorrow, but I spoke to

8 counsel this morning and I said, did the witness for tomorrow bring

9 documents with him or her? And they were uncertain at that time. And

10 this was in the morning so I'm not clear whether or not that person has

11 brought any documents. Will the witness for Friday bring any documents?

12 Unclear. Monday? Unclear. Until we get an idea of what if anything

13 they are going to be producing and what if anything they will be saying

14 we really can't answer that. I would surmise there would be very little

15 if any rebuttal, but I would not close the door to that until we really

16 hear them or get some more information.

17 JUDGE LIU: Maybe next Monday, you are in a better position to

18 inform us about your decision concerning rebuttal.

19 MR. WEINER: I hope so.

20 JUDGE LIU: Well, let's set next Monday for the date that we will

21 get more concrete information about the positions on the Prosecution

22 concerning of the rebuttal.

23 We hope that we could have the rebuttal procedure, if there is

24 any, before the summer recess.

25 So tentatively, tentatively, at this stage, I hope the parties

1 could file their final brief by Tuesday, 16th August, right after the

2 summer recess. And if possible, we will have the final arguments next

3 week; that is, on the 22nd of August. This is a very tentative schedule.

4 I just want to warn the parties to be prepared for that date.

5 Are there any other matters that the parties would like to raise

6 at this stage? Yes.

7 MR. METTRAUX: Yes, Your Honour, very briefly. The first one

8 concerned the Defence exhibits. Because the Defence has decided to call

9 such a limited number of witnesses, we are going to be left with a number

10 of documents which we would like to tender and what we are proposing to

11 do is we have asked the Prosecution to consider the binder of documents

12 which we intend to seek to tender and which we also provided to Chamber,

13 for them to consider whether they have any objection to any of those

14 documents, and if so, to which one. If to none, we would seek to tender

15 those by agreement.

16 There is also the possibility of the Defence making a brief and

17 very short motion to amend its Rule 65 ter of exhibits. We've received a

18 number of new documents in the past week or two and we have also received

19 a number of translations from CLSS of documents which neither counsel had

20 been able to read and it may be that we may be able to file a short

21 motion, either at the end of this week but probably at the beginning of

22 the next when we've received all translation to amend our Rule 65 ter.

23 We would think that it would relate to 10 or 12 new documents, and again

24 we with would provide copies immediately to the Prosecution to see

25 whether they would have any objection to that tendering.

1 Yes. We've also sought now to cut the list even further than the

2 list which appeared at the front page of the binder which we provided to

3 the Defence and -- to the Chamber and to the Prosecution and we will

4 discuss that matter even further with the Prosecution, but we anticipate

5 that there is going to be only very few documents that we will seek to

6 tender.

7 The second issue which I would like to address very briefly is an

8 application for provisional release which the Defence will be making

9 tomorrow, for the provisional release of Mr. Halilovic between the time

10 of the end of the trial until that time when judgement in this case is

11 rendered and/or the time for final argument. So this motion will be

12 filed first thing tomorrow morning. Actually it's been provided to the

13 Registry already.

14 Third matter briefly is the issue of Rule 65 -- Rule 68

15 disclosure. We would like to place it on the record at this stage that

16 this is the Defence understanding, that a full and complete Rule 68

17 search of existing Prosecution material has been conducted. Experience

18 taught us, at least in this Tribunal, that a number of documents suddenly

19 appear in proceedings when the matter goes on appeal and we would like to

20 make sure that if there is an appeal in this case this doesn't happen.

21 We would just like to place that this is our understanding at this stage,

22 that all of the material in possession of the Prosecution has been going

23 through carefully Rule 68 search.

24 The last two matters, Your Honour, is concerning a number of

25 letters which the Defence has sent to the Prosecution and for which there

1 has been no responses. At this stage, we will await those responses and

2 hope that they will be coming before the end of our case. If that were

3 not to be the case we reserve our right to ask the Trial Chamber to draw

4 a number of inferences from this failure.

5 Finally, and lastly, the issue of cross-examination material.

6 There is a court order to the effect that cross-examination material

7 should be provided to the Defence, I believe the words of the court are

8 "as soon as possible." We would just like to indicate that we have

9 received none so far and we would be grateful to receive that material

10 both for the witness tomorrow but also if possible for the witness for

11 Friday to receive that material if possible today.

12 That's all, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. As for the first issue, that

14 a -- I believe that there is various ways for the parties to tender their

15 documents. Maybe when we render our decision concerning the documents

16 tendered through the bar table, that will be helpful also to the Defence

17 case.

18 As for the provisional release, as I said that we are expecting

19 the parties to file their final briefs on the 16th of August and final

20 argument will be heard on Monday, 22nd August. So at that time the Bench

21 will consider the request of the provisional release but not before,

22 because we had a very tight schedule at our hands. And I also hope Mr.

23 Halilovic will be present during the final argument.

24 Well, as for the 68 disclosure, I believe Mr. Mettraux has said

25 what he wanted to say and it is in the record already. I understand so

1 long as the case is going on, the 68 -- Rule 68 matters will be with us.

2 As for the last matter, about material in the cross-examination,

3 it is true that the Bench made a decision and we delivered several oral

4 decisions concerning of this matter, and I hope that the parties could

5 treat this matter with the attitude of bona fide so as to facilitate the

6 proceedings of this trial. Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

7 MR. MORRISSEY: Just with respect to that last matter, I can

8 indicate that I think Mr. Re is proceeding with bona fides, he spoke to

9 me today. We have arranged in relation to tomorrow's witness that he

10 will give me such material tonight. I happen to know the Prosecution

11 have got a number of pressures on them and we appreciate that in the real

12 world, that in respect of this witness there is no doubt that he's made

13 the relevant efforts and that he's going to give me what I need tonight.

14 I think that's an example of what Your Honour refers to. We have no

15 suspicion about that. As long as I get it tonight, with respect to this

16 particular witness I'm happy.

17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. It's very encouraging.

18 Are there any other matters on the parts of the Prosecution? Mr.

19 Weiner.

20 [Prosecution counsel confer]

21 MR. WEINER: No, Your Honour, other than just in response to the

22 request for Rule 68, for the Court to please be advised and for the

23 record that Rule 68 is ongoing, that whenever we receive a list of

24 witnesses, we make checks on those witnesses. When witnesses are

25 definitely on the list, we run checks on those and if there is anything

1 that is Rule 68, it's provided. Thank you.

2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Morrissey?

3 No?

4 Well, I believe that's all for today's status conference, and I'm

5 looking forward to see you tomorrow for the next witness.

6 The hearing for this afternoon is adjourned.

7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.01 p.m.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25