Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 44199

 1                           Thursday, 16 June 2016

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused not present]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.46 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you.  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is

 9     case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             The Chamber received a waiver signed by Mr. Mladic that he waives

12     his right to be present in court today.  I take it that that will be

13     filed if it is not yet.

14             MR. IVETIC:  It will, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, thank you.  Therefore, we'll proceed in the

16     absence of the accused.

17             I move to another development, which is that the Chamber was

18     informed that the witness who was expected to be back at 9.30 this

19     morning left this country shortly after midnight and invites the parties

20     to make written submissions as to how to proceed under those

21     circumstances, and we'd like to receive those submissions by Friday,

22     close of business.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, if we may, we already have other

24     filing deadlines for Friday, and this is a rather novel issue.  Can we at

25     least have until Monday?


Page 44200

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Although you have some extra time perhaps

 2     today, but the Chamber nevertheless is willing to give you until Monday

 3     but then 9.00 in the morning, please.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, of course, if the deadline is changed that

 7     would, of course, be for the Prosecution as well.

 8             We just discussed for a second whether it would be appropriate to

 9     first hear from the Defence and then from the Prosecution, but the

10     Chamber considers it appropriate that both parties give their input, not

11     necessarily the one responding to the other.  And if there will be any

12     follow-up, then that's still possible.

13             Then I think under present circumstances -- but let me just

14     confer for a second with Mr. Registrar.

15                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, in the present circumstances, there's no need

17     for Russian interpretation any further.  Therefore, the Chamber would

18     wish to thank the Russian interpreters for their assistance provided

19     during the last two days, and the interpreters are excused.

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll say a few more words about the present

22     situation, the absence of the witness.  Then I'll deal with some rather,

23     perhaps to some extent, boring procedural matters.  And at the very end,

24     the Chamber will say a few words about scheduling in the near future.

25             So let me start with Witness Demurenko.  Under normal

 


Page 44201

 1     circumstances once a statement is admitted, of course, the Chamber would

 2     decide on the associated exhibits as well.  We'll not do that at this

 3     very moment, and the parties are invited to include in their written

 4     submissions what to do with the associated exhibits, if they consider it

 5     appropriate to receive any evidence at all.  And then we'll deal with

 6     that later.

 7             Then quite a number - it's my estimate - that it will take some

 8     35, 40 minutes to read most of the decisions.  I'll try to do it not too

 9     quickly.  And I'll start with a decision on the Defence renewed bar table

10     submission in relation to 65 ter number 1D02597.

11             On the 18th of January, the Defence filed its fifth bar table

12     motion tendering into evidence, inter alia, the document bearing

13     Rule 65 ter number 1D02597, a bulletin from the Republic of Bosnia and

14     Herzegovina, which provides information about an alleged attack on the

15     20th of October, 1993 in Sarajevo.

16             On the 1st of March, the Prosecution responded not opposing its

17     admission, subject to the Defence providing a complete English

18     translation.

19             On 30th of May, the Chamber issued its decision, denying

20     admission without prejudice.

21             On the 10th of June, the Defence filed a renewed bar table motion

22     re-tendering the document with a complete translation.

23             The Chamber finds that the document is relevant to the Sarajevo

24     component of the case, observes that it is stamped, and considers that it

25     bears sufficient indicia of reliability and authenticity for the purpose


Page 44202

 1     of admission.

 2             The Chamber also considers that the Defence has set out with

 3     sufficient clarity and specificity how the document would fit into its

 4     case.  Pursuant to Rule 89(C), the Chamber admits the document into

 5     evidence and gives the Prosecution, if there's any remaining issue, a

 6     week to revisit the matter.

 7             I see that there's some -- that's perhaps about the complete

 8     translation, which is not available for a long time to the Prosecution.

 9             I can read face expressions.  I see that there's at least some --

10             Mr. Tieger, Mr. Weber, Mr. Traldi, your faces are ...

11             MR. TIEGER:  I appreciate that, Mr. President.  I can't alert you

12     to a specific issue now.  We'll rise if it's appropriate shortly.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  As always, and since we are in court now, and

14     since the translation has been received only very recently, the Chamber

15     decides already on admission but allows the Prosecution to revisit the

16     matter within one week.

17             Mr. Registrar, for 65 ter 1D02597, what would the number?

18             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit D2124, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  D2124 is admitted into evidence.

20             I now move to a decision on the Defence renewed bar table

21     submission as to Rule 65 ter 1D02541.

22             On the 18th of January of this year, the Defence filed its fifth

23     bar table motion tendering into evidence, inter alia, the document

24     bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D02541, a bulletin from the Republic of

25     Bosnia and Herzegovina, which provides information about the treatment of


Page 44203

 1     Serbs in ABiH-held territory.

 2             On the 1st of March, the Prosecution responded, opposing its

 3     admission because only brief portions of the original were translated

 4     into English.

 5             On the 30th of May, the Chamber issued its decision denying

 6     without prejudice the admission of this document.

 7             On the 10th of June, the Defence filed a renewed bar table

 8     submission re-tendering this document with a complete translation.

 9             The Chamber finds that the document is relevant to the Sarajevo

10     component of the case, observes that it's stamped, and considers that it

11     bears sufficient indicia of reliability and authenticity for the purpose

12     of admission.

13             The Chamber also considers that the Defence has set out with

14     sufficient clarity and specificity how the document would fit into its

15     case.  Pursuant to Rule 89(C), the Chamber admits the document into

16     evidence.

17             The Prosecution, since the full translation is available only

18     since the 10th of June, has one week to revisit the matter if need be.

19             Mr. Weber.

20             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, on this one we have checked the

21     translation and it's acceptable to the Prosecution.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the week is over for you.  No further time will

23     be given to the Prosecution to revisit the matter.

24             Mr. Registrar, the number would be?

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D2125 Your Honours.


Page 44204

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  D2125 is admitted into evidence.

 2             I now move to Rule 65 ter 12990a.

 3             On the 18th of January, the Defence filed its fourth bar table

 4     motion tendering into evidence, inter alia, the document bearing

 5     Rule 65 ter number 12990, an extract from a book entitled "Wartime

 6     Letters of Radovan Karadzic," published by the International Committee

 7     for the Truth About Radovan Karadzic, in Belgrade, in 2004.

 8             On 23rd of May, 2016, the Trial Chamber issued its decision

 9     denying admission on the basis of insufficient indicia of reliability and

10     authenticity.  The Chamber found that the document appeared to be a

11     reproduction of a letter type-signed by Radovan Karadzic, bearing no

12     official stamps or signatures, in a book extract that was neither sourced

13     nor named.

14             On the 8th of June of this year, the Defence filed a renewed bar

15     table motion requesting admission and uploading a new version of the

16     document, bearing Rule 65 ter number 12990a, which incorporates

17     information on the document's provenance.

18             On the 10th of June, the Prosecution responded indicating that it

19     no longer objected to the admission of the document.

20             The Chamber is satisfied that the newly uploaded version of the

21     document provides sufficient information on its provenance and finds that

22     it is relevant and of probative value for the purpose of its admission

23     into evidence.  The Chamber also finds that the Defence has set out with

24     sufficient clarity and specificity how the documents would fit into its

25     case.


Page 44205

 1             The Chamber therefore admits the document bearing Rule 65 ter

 2     number 12990a into evidence pursuant to Rule 89(C) of the Rules.

 3             Mr. Registrar, the number to be assigned would be.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit D2126, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  D2126 is admitted.

 6             I now move to 65 ter 1D05719.

 7             On the 9th of June, the Chamber, in its decision on the Defence

 8     motion to admit into evidence Subotic and Poparic's expert reports and

 9     related documents, indicated that it would deny admission into evidence

10     of the document bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D05719, a photograph of a

11     monument.  The disposition of the decision erroneously referenced the

12     document as being admitted into evidence.  The Chamber clarifies that the

13     document is denied admission into evidence.

14             I now move to a renewed request for the admission of Rule 65 ter

15     number 1D05915a.

16             On the 2nd of June of this year, in its second Defence case

17     omnibus decision, the Chamber denied the admission into evidence of a

18     video bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D05915a without prejudice.  This was

19     because the Defence had not provided the Chamber with a copy of the

20     video.

21             On the 6th of June, a copy of the video was made available to the

22     Chamber.

23             On the 7th of June, the Defence filed a motion requesting that

24     the video be admitted into evidence.  Given that the video was initially

25     tendered in a joint submission, the Chamber understands that the


Page 44206

 1     Prosecution does not object to the admission of the video.

 2             The video concerns alleged shelling incidents in Sarajevo as

 3     charged in the indictment and contains clips from news reports.  A still

 4     from the video was put to witness Zorica Subotic in court on the 30th of

 5     September, 2015.  Under these circumstances, the Chamber admits Rule 65

 6     ter number 1D05915a into evidence.

 7             And, Mr. Registrar, what number would be assigned to this video?

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit D2127, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  D2127.

10             I now move to D2022 and D2086.

11             On the 8th of June, the Chamber admitted these two exhibits into

12     evidence and instructed the Defence to upload into e-court English

13     translations that match the B/C/S originals of both documents.

14             On the 14th of June, the Defence informed the Chamber and the

15     Prosecution, via e-mail, that it had uploaded the revised translations

16     into e-court.

17             The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to:

18             Replace the existing translation of Exhibit D2022 with the

19     revised and reduced translation uploaded under doc ID 1D31-1020; and

20             Replace the existing translation of Exhibit D2086 with the

21     revised translation uploaded under doc ID 1D31-1021.

22             I now move to the decision on Defence renewed bar table

23     submissions as to Rule 65 ter numbers 1D03471 and 1D05966.

24             On the 18th of January, the Defence filed its fifth bar table

25     motion tendering into evidence, inter alia, the document bearing Rule 65


Page 44207

 1     ter number 1D03471, a document containing excerpts of information on

 2     paramilitary groups operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  The Defence also

 3     noted that the document, and I quote: "Appears to be an annex to UN

 4     Security Council document."

 5             On the 1st of March, the Prosecution responded not opposing its

 6     admission.

 7             On the 30th of May, the Chamber issued its decision denying

 8     admission without prejudice on the basis that the document did not bear

 9     sufficient indicia of authenticity and reliability.

10             On the 13th of June, the Defence filed a renewed bar table motion

11     re-tendering the document under the same 65 ter number as well as the

12     document bearing 65 ter number 1D05966.

13             The Defence submits that the Prosecution has confirmed that both

14     documents are official documents received from the UN.  The document

15     bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D03471 is a preliminary version of the report

16     received from the UN Commission of Experts, and the document bearing

17     65 ter number 1D05966 is the public version of the report and a UN

18     Security Council document.

19             The Chamber finds that both documents are relevant to the

20     Sarajevo component of the case and further observes that the Defence has

21     demonstrated sufficient indicia of reliability and authenticity for the

22     purpose of admission into evidence.  The Chamber also considers that the

23     Defence has set out with sufficient clarity and specificity how the

24     documents would fit into its case.

25             Pursuant to Rule 89(C), the Chamber admits both documents into


Page 44208

 1     evidence.

 2             And, Mr. Registrar, invites you to assign a number.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter number 1D03471 will be Exhibit D2128.

 4             And 65 ter 1D05966 will be Exhibit D2129.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  D2128 and D2129 are admitted into evidence.

 6             And if there's any problem remaining, the Prosecution has one

 7     week to revisit the matter.

 8             I move to the Chamber's decision on Defence renewed bar table

 9     submission as to 65 ter 1D02644.

10             On the 18th of January, the Defence filed its fifth bar table

11     motion tendering into evidence, inter alia, the document bearing Rule 65

12     ter number 1D02644, an ABiH statement from Nihad Hodzic dated 2nd of

13     November, 1993, concerning the alleged actions of ABiH forces in and

14     around Sarajevo during the indictment period.

15             On the 1st of March, the Prosecution responded opposing its

16     admission because the Defence only provided a partial English

17     translation.  The Prosecution also noted that the statement related to

18     the document bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D02642, an ABiH special report

19     dated the 6th of June, 1993, which was admitted into evidence on the

20     30th of May as Exhibit D1792.

21             On the 30th of May, the Chamber issued its decision, denying

22     admission without prejudice.

23             On the 13th of June, the Defence filed a renewed bar table motion

24     re-tendering the document with a complete translation under the same

25     65 ter number.


Page 44209

 1             The Chamber finds that the document is relevant to the Sarajevo

 2     component of the case and further observes that it bears sufficient

 3     indicia of reliability and authenticity for the purpose of admission into

 4     evidence, including signatures.  The Chamber also considers that the

 5     Defence has set out with sufficient clarity and specificity how the

 6     document would fit into its case.

 7             Pursuant to Rule 89(C), the Chamber admits the document into

 8     evidence.

 9             And invites you, Mr. Registrar, to assign a number.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  That's Exhibit D2130, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  D2130 is admitted into evidence.  And, as always,

12     the Prosecution has one week to revisit the matter if there's any need to

13     do so.

14             Next item is a decision on Defence renewed bar table submission

15     as to 65 ter 1D02958.

16             On the 18th of January, the Defence filed its fifth bar table

17     motion tendering into evidence, inter alia, the document bearing Rule 65

18     ter number 1D02958, a portion of a 13 August 1994 UNPROFOR report

19     concerning Sarajevo.

20             On the 1st of March, the Prosecution responded not opposing

21     admission, subject to the Defence uploading into e-court the entire

22     document.

23             On the 30th of May, the Chamber issued its decision, denying

24     admission without prejudice.

25             On the 10th of June, the Defence filed a renewed bar table motion


Page 44210

 1     re-tendering the complete version of the document under the same

 2     Rule 65 ter number.

 3             The Chamber finds that the document is relevant to the Sarajevo

 4     component of the case and observes that it bears sufficient indicia of

 5     reliability and authenticity for admission into evidence, including a

 6     stamp, signature, and information regarding the author and recipient.

 7     The Chamber also considers that the Defence has set out with sufficient

 8     clarity and specificity how the document would fit into its case.

 9             Pursuant to Rule 89(C), the Chamber admits the document into

10     evidence.

11             And invites you, Mr. Registrar, to assign a number.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  That's Exhibit D2131, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  D2131 is admitted into evidence.

14             Since the full version was only filed, I think, on the 10th of

15     June, if there's any need to revisit the matter, the Prosecution has got

16     a week to do so.

17             These were the rather administrative matters.  I would now

18     briefly turn to scheduling.

19             As matters stand now -- of course, with the uncertainty of the

20     developments of today, but as matters stand now it seems that the

21     in-court presentation of Defence evidence is complete, again, with this

22     caveat, that we have two issues pending.  The first is absence of

23     Mr. Demurenko today, and the other one is the submissions still to be

24     expected this Friday on another witness and whether and how we could

25     receive the evidence of that other witness.

 


Page 44211

 1             You're on your feet Mr. Ivetic.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  We're still expecting, I believe

 3     two -- pardon me, two decisions from the Chamber as to documents that the

 4     Chamber had ruled should be brought in through a witness.  And depending

 5     on the decision on those motions that we have filed, of course, those

 6     witnesses in question might need to be called.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's -- we'll see how that further develops.

 8     It's only -- I'm looking at the situation as it appears now, and as I

 9     said before there are a few matters of uncertainty which may or may not

10     change the situation.

11             But however that develops, the Chamber will formally close the

12     Defence case once it has decided on all evidentiary motions, and that

13     includes the ones you referred to, and, of course, any follow-up would be

14     considered.

15             Once the Defence case has formally been closed, there will be a

16     possibility for rebuttal and rejoinder evidence to be presented, and the

17     Chamber will set the deadline for the final briefs in due course.

18             However, I wish to remind the parties that they were already

19     advised informally that the deadline could be the 1st of September, 2016,

20     and the Chamber has emphasised again and again that any delays in hearing

21     evidence in court should not be understood as that there was more time to

22     prepare for the final briefs, that the time should be used even if not

23     every evidentiary issue had been finally settled.

24             There is a fair chance that we would not have a hearing soon.  Is

25     there any matter the parties would like to raise at this very moment?


Page 44212

 1             MR. TIEGER:  Well, Mr. President, we had considered raising the

 2     timing and extent or duration of the closing arguments.  I can tell you

 3     we've had discussions with Defence about that noting, in particular, the

 4     correspondence and guidance we relied upon in comparison with the

 5     Karadzic case for determining the size of the final brief, and so we

 6     settled on an agreed proposal for that.

 7             And, well, one thing we can do, I suppose, is communicate

 8     informally with the Chambers about that when the deadline for the final

 9     brief is formally set.  I think that's -- I'm seeing Mr. Ivetic nod.  I

10     think he's -- it's just a question of how we communicate this to you, but

11     I think the timing would be more appropriate since it is linked to a

12     date, if we did so, after we had the date formally set for the deadline

13     of the final brief.

14             MR. IVETIC:  I see no problem with identifying the time-period

15     between the actual filing date and -- that -- we can do that I think, and

16     then we can all do the math based upon the date, sure.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  If you have agreed on it.  Apparently I take it that

18     you have a number of days or weeks or months, I wouldn't think about

19     years, after the final briefs have been submitted.  If you could inform

20     the Chamber on how many days or weeks or months that would be now already

21     so that we would have an indication by way of a joint submission.

22             MR. TIEGER:  Happy to do so.  The date we -- the date we selected

23     jointly or agreed upon was appropriate, working from the September 1st

24     date, was October 10th.  In part, because of the day of the week on which

25     September 1st fell.  But the idea was roughly five weeks.


Page 44213

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2             MR. TIEGER:  And in terms of the length of argument, we discussed

 3     the fact that in the Karadzic case ten hours were allotted for each side,

 4     but that was -- and -- but given the length of time we can sit on a given

 5     day or in -- in continuity for each session, it's very clear that that

 6     would encompass three courtroom days, and there's no way to -- whether

 7     it's nine hours or ten hours or ten and a half hours, whatever it was in

 8     that area, so we consider just to propose three days for each -- each

 9     party.

10             And, finally, with respect to rebuttal and surrebuttal.  In

11     Karadzic, that was an hour and a half for each side, and we would also

12     suggest that there be at least one courtroom day in between the end of

13     closing and the commencement of rebuttal.  But since rebuttal is an hour

14     and a half, obviously the rebuttal and surrebuttal would take place in

15     the same day.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm a bit confused.  You said in Karadzic rebuttal

19     and surrebuttal one hour and a half.  For each side we would also suggest

20     that there be at least one courtroom day in -- oh, between the end of the

21     closing and the commencement of rebuttal.  So, yes, I do understand.  You

22     do it on one day but you'd like to have one day in between the --

23     [Overlapping speakers].

24             MR. TIEGER:  I say a courtroom day.  Obviously if the closing

25     ended on a Thursday, then that would be -- that issue would be mooted by


Page 44214

 1     virtue of the calendar days if it elapsed.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's clear.

 3             Mr. Ivetic, we can consider this as a joint submission?

 4             MR. IVETIC:  You can.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Okay, is there any ...

 6                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just have a look.  One second, please.

 8                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Any other matter?

10             MR. TIEGER:  Mr. President, I'm advised that there is one

11     additional bar table submission that appears not to have been mentioned

12     in the course of the motions raised by the Bench so far, and that relates

13     to exhibit 1D032854 [sic].  I simply wanted to alert the Court to the

14     fact that we did not object to that.

15             MR. IVETIC:  If I can ask to check that number.  We don't have 1D

16     numbers that high, so ...

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, usually it is after the zero there are

18     following four digits.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Just repeat the number, please.

20                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

21             MR. TIEGER:  1D03284.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Now we are within the range of the numbers used

23     [Overlapping speakers] ... --

24             MR. TIEGER:  [Overlapping speakers] ... because that's what I saw

25     on my screen as well.


Page 44215

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  It's hereby on the record that the Prosecution does

 2     not oppose that motion.  Most likely we'll then deliver a short written

 3     decision on the matter, but that's hereby on the record.

 4             Any other matter to be raised at this very moment?

 5             Nothing.  Then we will adjourn, sine die.

 6             We stand adjourned.

 7                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 10.28 a.m.,

 8                           sine die.

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25