1 Monday, 11 February 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The accused Milan Simic not present]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Case number

8 IT-95-9-T, the Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav

9 Tadic and Simo Zaric.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The trial is ready to proceed. The Bench has

11 noticed that Mr. Simic is not in the courtroom. I would like to find out

12 whether there is any information from Mr. Zecevic.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Actually, we are as

14 surprised as the Trial Chamber is, because we have had no information

15 whatsoever prior to this moment that our client will not appear in the

16 court. We had a meeting with our client, I believe on Thursday, Friday --

17 Friday, in the afternoon, and it was -- we were told by our client that he

18 will appear in the court. And as far as I know, he is willing to -- he is

19 not waiving his right to be present in the courtroom -- of presence in the

20 courtroom during the testimony of the next witness, [redacted], and

21 as well as this witness, concerning the A and B document. I can probably

22 check it out, but I was already in the courtroom when I found out -- when

23 I found out that my client is not coming.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber is informed that the

25 Registry has made arrangements for the videolink, one-way videolink,

1 whereby Mr. Milan Simic can remain in the detention unit and follow the

2 proceedings from here, but we cannot watch him, and that he will be given

3 a telephone link to yourself, Mr. Zecevic, for continuation -- for any

4 communication he may wish to make, but there was no instruction from the

5 Trial Chamber that the fact that that is ongoing, then he should not be

6 brought to court. So we are also taken by surprise.

7 So maybe we will adjourn, allow to you make contact and find out

8 what the position is. We are aware, from the information from the Legal

9 Officer, that the Prosecution is beginning with the witness on Variant A

10 and B, the documents that have been pending for sometime, and maybe you

11 can have instructions from him just for that purpose, and then we will see

12 what transpired later.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honour. I will do that immediately as we

14 are adjourned.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: So we will rise to allow to you do that, and then

16 you can inform the Court attendants as to what the position is.

17 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: The Court will rise.

19 --- Break taken at 2.29 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 3.09 p.m.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I talked with my client just a couple

23 of minutes ago, and he waived his right to be present during the testimony

24 of the witness B. O'Donnell concerning the A and B documents but he

25 actually did not waive his present -- to be present during the start-up of

1 the testimony of the next witness, [redacted].

2 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. I think let's go ahead with the Variant

3 A and B issue, and then we'll discussion what arrangements can be made

4 later.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, my colleague Ms. Reidy

8 will handle the issue of the Variant A and B document and produce the

9 evidence relating to that. But perhaps before that takes place, there's

10 just one or two matters that I think I ought to raise at this juncture.

11 And I'll be very brief.

12 Firstly, on the issue of translations, I can tell the Chamber that

13 the Prosecution documents that were untranslated have now been

14 translated. And I will at an appropriate moment produce them. They are

15 in fact P37, P38, P39, and P41. But rather than produce them now, I'll do

16 that at a later stage to ensure that this afternoon goes a bit smoothly.

17 Secondly, the Prosecution has collated all the Defence material,

18 all the Defence documents produced to us by all Defence counsel. We have

19 produced a set of box files or binders which contain all of the Defence

20 material. It's now undergone the process whereby it's been given an ERN

21 number. That's a computer number that identifies a particular document.

22 And we've made four copies of these sets of binders. We propose to

23 deliver those to the Defence. The only issue that arises is that of

24 course it will contain defence material from one Defence team and defence

25 material from another Defence team and so on, and so therefore one Defence

1 team's materials may be revealed to another Defence team, because it's all

2 contained in the one set of documents. So I'll call upon the Defence to

3 let us know sooner rather than later if they have any objection to that.

4 I hope not, because the effect of that is to collect all of the Defence

5 material. We'll all be able to go straight to the document once the

6 Defence produce it, and it will make life just so much easier in dealing

7 with these documents. So that's the second issue that I wanted to raise.

8 And I hope that they'll be able to give us an indication hopefully in the

9 next 24/48 hours what their view is about us handing over to them these

10 four sets of collated Defence documents.

11 And finally, one last matter, the issue of Esad Dagovic. You'll

12 recall that he was the witness who remains to be cross-examined by the

13 Defence. We have contacted him. Because of his personal commitments, he

14 can only give evidence on Wednesday. He's now come some four times, I

15 think, to the Tribunal and is experiencing difficulties with his

16 employment, even though he lives in a nearby country. And because of

17 that, I'm going to ask for the Chamber's indulgence in allowing the

18 Prosecution to call him on Wednesday and if necessary interpose him in the

19 evidence of another witness. So that's a matter, I think, that the

20 Chamber should let us know fairly soon so that if you are not minded to

21 grant the application, then we can make alternative arrangements. But

22 that is our application, that we would like to call him and get his

23 cross-examination over and done with on Wednesday if possible. Thank

24 you.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think on the last point on the witness who

1 is coming, he's a protected witness. He's got a pseudonym, isn't he?

2 So -- isn't he the one who is a protected witness?

3 MR. DI FAZIO: No, he's not. No. The next witness may have a

4 pseudonym, but Mr. Dagovic does not.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: He doesn't.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: So there's no problem with him in that respect.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. For that alone and for the fact that you have

8 to call him on Wednesday for cross-examination, maybe I can hear from the

9 Defence counsel, and that may mean interrupting any other witness that may

10 be in the box, whether they have any objection to that.

11 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, I don't know if I speak for everyone, but

12 for our team, we have no problem. We realise Mr. Dagovic has missed a lot

13 of work, and if he has to be put in the middle of somebody else's

14 testimony, that's fine with us. We have no objection. Nobody has any

15 objection from the Defence.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. So you can go ahead, Prosecution, and

17 make those arrangements for the witness to come on Wednesday.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, thank you. I'll undertake that. And Ms.

19 Reidy will handle matters from now on. Thank you.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy?

21 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honours, I think in the matter of

22 Variant A and B, we have a witness who is ready to testify,

23 Mr. Bernard O'Donnell, who is an investigative team leader with the OTP.

24 A summary of Mr. O'Donnell's testimony was previously distributed to the

25 Defence counsel at the end of last year's session with a number of

1 documents which Mr. O'Donnell may be referring to in his testimony, and I

2 have with me today documentation which the Chamber may wish to have in

3 front of them to assist them in Mr. O'Donnell's testimony. The plan is

4 that Mr. O'Donnell would take the Chamber through the different versions

5 of the Variant A/Variant B document which the OTP possesses, and then

6 after that, Mr. O'Donnell also has further information in his possession

7 which attest to the reliability of the document in so far as we would seek

8 to have it admitted into evidence. So Mr. O'Donnell is waiting outside to

9 be called, and if the Chamber would like, I can have these documents

10 distributed to the Bench and to the Legal Officer now.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think we can have the documents distributed,

12 and in the meantime, the usher can call the witness into the courtroom.

13 MS. REIDY: Your Honours?

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

15 MS. REIDY: The Defence have received these documents already.

16 And I would just perhaps draw the Bench's attention now to -- I don't know

17 if they have been distributed. There are 11 documents which may be

18 cross-referenced in Mr. O'Donnell's testimony. They are not the Variant

19 A/Variant B document but 11 other supporting documentation. Of the 11,

20 two of them exist in the translated form only in draft, from the

21 translation unit here but in draft, because it was not envisaged by the

22 Prosecution that each of these supporting documentation would necessarily

23 be fully entered into evidence and be given a separate exhibit number, but

24 simply that they would be documents which would be used, as I said, to

25 address the reliability of the Variant A/Variant B document. Should the

1 Trial Chamber wish any of these documents indeed to be given their own

2 exhibit number and to be fully entered into evidence, then of course the

3 ones that are currently in draft form, we would get a final version of.

4 I have consulted my colleagues on the Defence bench about this,

5 and as far as I'm aware, I don't believe that any of the Defence counsel

6 have an objection to using the draft translations of documents 7 and 8 on

7 the index. The documents have been drafted by -- the translations have

8 been drafted by the translation unit within the Tribunal, and if they are

9 referred to, it would simply be one line from each document that would be

10 referenced.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. I think you can go ahead. The decision as to

12 whether or not whatever documents will be admitted or given numbers will

13 be made as each document is discussed by the witness.

14 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 [The witness entered court]

16 JUDGE MUMBA: May the witness make the solemn declaration.

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

18 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

19 WITNESS: BERNARD O'DONNELL

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Please sit down.

21 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy, your witness.

23 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honours.

24 Examined by Ms. Reidy:

25 Q. Good afternoon. Could I ask you to state your full name for the

1 record, please?

2 A. My full name is Bernard Patrick O'Donnell.

3 Q. And I think the Chamber knows you were employed as an investigator

4 with the Office of the Prosecutor. Could you please let us know since

5 when you've been employed?

6 A. I've been employed by the Office of the Prosecutor since June,

7 1996, and since October, 2000, I've been an investigations team leader.

8 Q. Thank you. Have you previously given testimony to the Tribunal in

9 the role -- in your role as an investigator?

10 A. Yes, I have, Your Honours, in relation to the case of Goran

11 Jelisic.

12 Q. Thank you, have you ever given testimony before on the document

13 which you're here to testify about today, what we call Variant A/Variant

14 B?

15 A. No, I have not.

16 Q. Thank you. Before we turn to this document, can I ask you, in

17 your six years or almost six years as an investigator, to what extent have

18 you been involved in dealing with documentation which comes in to the

19 Office of the Prosecutor?

20 A. Your Honours, in particular, during the years from 1997 until

21 2000, part of my duties involved the management of documentary evidence.

22 I was involved in the development of systems for managing that evidence

23 and also looking at issues of authenticity.

24 Q. Thank you. And in looking at matters -- at issues of

25 authenticity, have you also undertaken missions to the former Yugoslavia

1 in order to authenticate documents?

2 A. Yes, I have.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MS. REIDY: Could I ask if the witness could be shown what's on

5 the Court record as P3 ID? Or P3 ID ter, which would be the B/C/S

6 version?

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Baen?

8 MS. BAEN: Just one quick remark, Your Honour. The witness has

9 testified about authenticity, and I understand what his job has been and

10 what he does as an investigator, but when you talk in terms of

11 authenticity, that's a legal conclusion only for you the Judges to

12 decide. So I'm not really objecting at this point. I just -- I think you

13 understand our point. The point is if he keeps talking about, "This is an

14 authentic document," that's really for the Trial Chamber to decide.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Baen. Sometimes these terms are used

16 loosely here. I think we all know what the witness can do, how far the

17 witness can go. I'm sure Ms. Reidy will take care of that in her

18 examination-in-chief. Thank you.

19 MS. REIDY: Yes. Thank you very much. I take my colleague's

20 point in view, but I think that Mr. O'Donnell simply said he's

21 investigated issues relating to authenticity and not made a statement on

22 the record as to whether a document is authentic or not. Okay.

23 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, do you have in front of you a document P3 ID? What

24 it should be is a document known as the Instructions for the Organisation

25 and Activity of the Organs of the Serbian People, dated the 19th of

1 December, 1991.

2 A. Yes, I do. The document I have in front of me is marked ID 3.

3 Q. Thank you. And I take it that the document you have in front of

4 you is an English language version of that same document?

5 A. That is correct.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 MS. REIDY: Could I ask the usher make sure the witness has in

8 front of him a B/C/S version. So it should be ID 3 ter.

9 Your Honours, if I may intercede, I can tell from my vantage point

10 that the document which has been placed in front of the witness is a

11 newspaper article which is the reproduction of this document in

12 Oslobodenje Bosna which was a document that came to the Trial Chamber's

13 attention through the testimony of the expert witness, Mr. Donia. There

14 were, however -- when this document was first tendered into evidence, the

15 two copies I believe provided to the Chamber which were reflected in the

16 transcript is a copy with the number "100" in the corner, 00184274. And I

17 believe that was an -- my understanding is that that was also -- formed

18 part of the Registry's record to date of the document. And it is that

19 that I'd like to be placed in front of the witness.

20 Your Honours, if the B/C/S version has not yet been entered into

21 the record, then I have available to me copies in B/C/S of that document.

22 May we just proceed to that. I just thought that there was already a

23 recorded version.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: A B/C/S version. There doesn't seem to be any,

25 maybe, from the registry assistant.

1 MS. REIDY: Okay. Thank you. Then we'll just proceed.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: If you have the copies ready, maybe we can just go

3 ahead with those.

4 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

5 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, I'll turn you back now if I may to the document

6 that you have in front of you with ID 3, the English language version of

7 the instructions for the Serbian people. And can I ask you, you've seen

8 this document before, have you?

9 A. Yes, I have.

10 Q. Thank you. Does the document you have in front of you, ID 3 in

11 the corner --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours. Would it be possible that

14 the original, the Serbian version, is put on the ELMO so we know about

15 which document are we discussing? I'm sorry, if that is possible. But is

16 it that the Registry doesn't have one? Is that the point? Was that the

17 point?

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Because we have a new registry assistant, so we seem

19 to have a problem.

20 But the Prosecution has --

21 MS. REIDY: [Microphone not activated]

22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

23 MS. REIDY: Mr. Zecevic, if you'd indulge me one or two more

24 questions, I'll have the witness place a B/C/S version on the ELMO. It

25 may be the easiest.

1 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you. Thank you so much.

2 [Trial chamber and registrar confer]

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber now has been informed that

4 actually the B/C/S version is stapled together with the English version,

5 and the B/C/S version has got a "ter" on it, whereas the English version

6 is only ID 3, which is correctly marked, actually.

7 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So now what you want to put is the B/C/S

9 version on the ELMO.

10 MS. REIDY: That's correct, Your Honour. And from my video

11 screen, I think that's -- the front page, at least, is on the -- is indeed

12 on the ELMO.

13 Okay. Could I ask the usher, could you please just keep the front

14 page of the document there. Yes. Thank you.

15 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, I think we can now proceed with your evidence. I

16 asked you, I think, whether you're familiar with this document. And I'll

17 ask you to look on your ELMO at the B/C/S version. You're familiar with

18 this -- with the document which is now shown on the ELMO?

19 A. Yes, I am, Your Honours.

20 Q. Can I ask you in what context you've become familiar with this

21 document that's on the ELMO.

22 A. The document on the ELMO is copy number 100 of the Variant A and

23 Variant B document. The original of that document I took possession of in

24 Sarajevo in November 1997.

25 Q. Thank you very much. When you say, Mr. O'Donnell, that you took

1 possession of the original of this document in Sarajevo in 1997, did you

2 yourself find the document, or how did you come to acquire it for the

3 OTP?

4 A. The document was found by the AID in Sarajevo. And I took

5 possession of the document from the AID in Sarajevo.

6 Q. Could you just explain to us for the purposes of the record what

7 "AID" stands for.

8 A. I believe the acronym stands for the Agency for Research and

9 Documentation in Bosnia.

10 Q. Thank you very much. When you took possession of that -- of the

11 original of this document, what steps did you take, then, when you brought

12 the document back to The Hague?

13 A. The original document that I brought back was sealed in an

14 envelope. I conveyed that back to The Hague myself and lodged it into

15 evidence. The document remained sealed in evidence until October of 2001,

16 when it was unsealed for an inspection by the Defence counsel.

17 Q. Thank you very much. Mr. O'Donnell, the document that is on the

18 ELMO bears the ERN number, I believe, of 00184274?

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. Can I ask you, is this the document that you yourself brought back

21 from Sarajevo, or is it -- is it the document that you brought back from

22 Sarajevo?

23 A. No, it is not. This particular copy of the document was received

24 by the Office of the Prosecutor before I brought the original back.

25 Q. Do you have any information as to whether this was a copy of the

1 document which you yourself then collected the original of?

2 A. Yes, it is. This particular version of the document is copy

3 number 100. We received that twice at the OTP before I received the

4 original from the AID in Sarajevo. That is, we received two photocopies

5 of the document from Bosnia before I took possession of the original.

6 Q. Thank you. So do I understand from your evidence, then, that

7 there are three copies of the document in evidence and the original which

8 you yourself put in a sealed envelope?

9 A. There are three copies. One of those was scanned on location in

10 Sarajevo, and a further two photocopies were provided to the OTP.

11 Additional to that, there is the original that I myself put into

12 evidence.

13 Q. Thank you very much. Is this the only copy of the document which

14 you personally received into evidence for the OTP, or have you ever

15 received any other copies of this document?

16 A. I also received a certified copy of another version of this

17 document, copy number 101/3. I obtained that from the AID in Bihac, in

18 Bosnia.

19 Q. Do you have any information as to where this document with the

20 number 101/3 was originally found?

21 A. According to information from the AID at the time I took a

22 certified copy of the document, the document had been located in SDS

23 premises in Bosanski Petrovac in 1995.

24 Q. Thank you. With relation to either the document with number 100

25 in the corner or 101/3 in the corner, did you personally take any steps to

1 investigate the authenticity of the document?

2 A. Yes, I did. In relation to copy number 100, I obtained

3 information from the AID in Sarajevo about the seizure and handling of the

4 document from the time it was found to the time that I took the original

5 of the document. That information I can give, if you wish.

6 MS. REIDY: Well, do Your Honours wish to hear further detail on

7 that evidence or would they prefer to continue with an overview on the

8 manner in which the documents were obtained by the OTP?

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy, it's your case. It's you who has to put

10 the evidence before the Trial Chamber. It depends on what you want to

11 show the Trial Chamber and the Defence counsel.

12 MS. REIDY: That's fine, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: You can go ahead.

14 MS. REIDY:

15 Q. Yes, Mr. O'Donnell, if you could explain to the Chamber the

16 evidence which you have about the authenticity of the document?

17 A. In relation to copy number 100, that document was found by the AID

18 in offices of the Serbian Democratic Party in Sarajevo during the spring

19 of 1992. The document was held in the custody of AID until I took the

20 original of that document in November, 1997.

21 In relation to the other document that I mentioned, copy number

22 101/3, the document was found by the AID in SDS -- sorry, Serbian

23 Democratic Party premises in Bosanski Petrovac in 1995, and it was kept at

24 the Bihac offices of the AID from that time. Excuse me. I took a

25 certified copy, compared that with the original and certified the copy as

1 being a faithful reproduction. The original of that document is still

2 held in the AID in Bihac.

3 I've also made inquiries in relation to several other versions of

4 the document. One of the documents, copy number 96, was found in premises

5 used by the Serbian Democratic Party in Trnovo. That was located in

6 August, 1992.

7 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, can I just interrupt you for one second? Perhaps

8 for the benefit of the Chamber -- of the Bench, if we are going to discuss

9 the other documents, we could make reference to the documents which have

10 been distributed to the Chamber.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

12 MS. REIDY:

13 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, if I may interrupt you, would it be -- I could ask

14 you about -- let me go back. You've testified that there is also another

15 copy number 96. How many copies are you aware of of the OTP being in

16 possession of?

17 A. Seven different copies, Your Honour.

18 Q. Thank you. And do you have information as to the location where

19 each of these seven versions was found?

20 A. Yes, I do.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 MS. REIDY: Your Honours, for the benefit of the Bench, you've

23 been provided with a bundle of documents, indicated 1 through to 20.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

25 MS. REIDY: And each of them represent a different photocopied

1 version of the Variant A/Variant B document with seven different numbers

2 in the corner.

3 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, can you tell us -- you said there are seven

4 different versions. Can you tell us which seven versions those are?

5 A. Yes, Your Honours. Number 47, number 55, number 93, number 96,

6 number 100, number 101/3, and number 104.

7 Q. Thank you. Could I ask you to start with the first number, then,

8 you've indicated, number 47? Do you have information as to where that

9 version of the document was seized or was located?

10 A. That document was located in May of 1992, according to information

11 we were given, by the AID in Sarajevo in the offices of Radovan Karadzic.

12 The one copy of that was received by the Office of the Prosecutor on the

13 12th of December, 2000.

14 Q. Could you just indicate to us the ERN number of that document?

15 A. The ERN number of that document was SA 030028 to SA 030036.

16 MS. REIDY: I think, Your Honours, you will find that's tab number

17 2 in the bundle in front of you.

18 Q. Is there more than one copy of that number 47 in the possession of

19 the OTP, to your knowledge?

20 A. There is. There is a second copy, which is -- which has the

21 evidence reference number SA 016723 to SA 016731.

22 Q. Thank you. And do you have any information as to when that was

23 received by the OTP?

24 A. It was received from the AID in Sarajevo. I don't have the date

25 of that one.

1 Q. I believe the next number you mentioned was number 55.

2 MS. REIDY: And for the benefit of the Bench, that would be

3 numbers 3 and 4 marked on your documents.

4 Q. Could you please give us any information you have as to the

5 origins of number 55?

6 A. Your Honours, copy number 55 was seized by SFOR the international

7 stabilisation force in Bosnia. That was located in February of 2000 in

8 premises occupied by the Serbian Democratic Party in Livno in Bosnia. We

9 have two copies of that, one being the original. Firstly, the copy, which

10 is R 0142817 on the first page, was received by the Office of the

11 Prosecutor on the 7th of April, 2000. The original of that document,

12 which commences with R 0172125, was received on the 11th of October, 2001.

13 Q. The next document which you refer to, you said was a number 93,

14 again could you give us any information you have as to where version

15 number 93 was located?

16 A. Copy number 93 was located by the AID in Sarajevo from the offices

17 of Milici Boksit. It was -- firstly SA 032072 was received by the OTP on

18 the 12th of December, 2000. A second copy of that, starting with

19 00306063, was received by the Office of the Prosecutor on the 6th of

20 April, 1995, from the AID in Sarajevo.

21 Q. Thank you. And I'll ask you about number 96, which you began to

22 talk about. What information do you have as to where, at least the

23 original copy of that was found?

24 A. Copy number 96 was located by Bosnian police in premises used by

25 the Serbian Democratic Party in Trnovo. That was located in August of

1 1992.

2 Q. Thank you. I believe, before I interrupted you, you were about to

3 tell the Trial Chamber that you had some information as to investigations

4 you made with respect to number 96. If perhaps you could now tell the

5 Trial Chamber any investigation you've made with respect to authenticity

6 or chain of custody of number 96?

7 A. We spoke to the people involved in the actual finding of the

8 document, obtained information from them and also others who were involved

9 in the chain of custody of that document at the time that it was

10 transferred to the AID in Sarajevo. We obtained a statement from the

11 person involved in the seizure of the document, who outlined the

12 circumstances and from then, we obtained details of the document's

13 transfer to Sarajevo and its secure custody within the AID in Sarajevo.

14 Q. Thank you. And when you say, "We," do I understand you personally

15 partook in that mission investigating the chain of custody of this

16 document number 96?

17 A. That's correct, Your Honours. I took part in one of the original

18 missions. Some further work was done by other investigators after that.

19 I personally spoke to the person who found the document and obtained a

20 statement from him.

21 Q. Thank you very much. And just so it's clear on the record, the

22 information you have given about number 47, number 55 and number 93 to

23 date, were you personally involved in any of the seizures or the receipt

24 of those documents?

25 A. No, I was not. The information that I've given is from official

1 records of the Office of the Prosecutor.

2 Q. Thank you. So when you were asked to testify about the

3 authenticity as well as your own personal knowledge, you've made further

4 investigation as to information held by the OTP surrounding the

5 authenticity of these documents?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. Thank you. The one document I believe that we have not discussed

8 at all is a document with, I think you said it was number 104 in the

9 corner?

10 A. Yes, that is correct.

11 Q. Thank you. Do you have any information as to where this was

12 originally found and how the OTP came to possess a copy of it?

13 A. Copy number 104 was seized by the AID in Sarajevo from Serbian

14 Democratic Party premises in Sarajevo. We have received several different

15 copies of that document. One of those is on original fax paper, that is

16 SA 022339, obtained from the AID in Sarajevo on the 12th of December, in

17 2000. We also received a second copy of that starting with SA 026736.

18 That was also obtained in December of 2000. There is another one,

19 00896976, obtained on the 18th of November, 1999; another starting with

20 06 -- sorry, 01065629, which was obtained from the Bosnian Ministry of

21 Defence on the 1st of September, 2000; and another copy of that document,

22 00606883, which was tendered as a Defence exhibit on the 25th of March,

23 1998 to the Court.

24 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Donnell.

25 Can I just to make sure the evidence is clear on the record and

1 that it's clear for the Bench. The first one you referred to you said was

2 an original -- on the original fax paper and bore the evidence reference

3 number SA 022339. I believe that is -- it should be document number 20 in

4 the documents which were given to the Bench.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, it appears to have that number. Yes.

6 MS. REIDY:

7 Q. That is the one that was found on original fax -- original fax

8 paper.

9 A. That is correct.

10 Q. And you said, I believe, that there was a second version of 104,

11 which was found in around the same time with SA 026736.

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. And both of those are originals that are now in the possession of

14 the OTP.

15 A. The copy on original fax paper is in the possession of the OTP.

16 The other one is a photocopy of the document on original fax paper. That

17 is also in the possession of the OTP.

18 Q. Thank you. And for the record, that would be the second document

19 SA 026734 is -- or 36 is number 19 on the bundle before the Trial

20 Chamber.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

22 MS. REIDY:

23 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, I think you've now testified that you yourself took

24 possession of the original of copy number 100, that you also obtained a

25 certified copy of number 101/3, and that you investigated the chain of

1 custody with relation to copy number 96?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. With relation to either of those three, have you ever sought to

4 obtain authentication of the document by way of discussion with somebody

5 who may have seen the document contemporaneously, so in 1991 or 1992?

6 A. Yes, I have. In relation to copy number 101/3, which was found --

7 located in Bosanski Petrovac, I spoke to a witness in relation to that

8 document who saw parts of the document in 1992. That person was shown

9 excerpts from the document and stated it was the same document as he saw

10 parts of in 1992.

11 Q. Thank you. And could I ask you whether or not the witness who you

12 spoke to was present in Bosanski Petrovac in 1992 or were they elsewhere

13 in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

14 A. The person was in Bihac in 1992 and saw the document there.

15 Q. Thank you very much. Mr. O'Donnell, out of the numbers that --

16 out of the different versions which we have in front of us, 47, 55, 93,

17 96, 100, 101/3, and 104, are any of them different -- distinguishable from

18 each other in terms of layout or style?

19 A. One of the documents is different in terms of layout. Copy number

20 101/3 from Bosanski Petrovac, the pagination is different on that document

21 to the other versions of the Variant A and Variant B document.

22 Q. Thank you. To the best of your knowledge from having worked with

23 these documents, is the content of each of the documents identical?

24 A. Yes, it is.

25 Q. Thank you. You've said that document [Realtime transcript read in

1 error "100 and 100/3"] 101/3, the one from Bosanski Petrovac, is different

2 in pagination. Do you have any explanation as to why that document would

3 differ from any of the other documents?

4 A. Copy number 101/3 seems to be a subset of document 101. The

5 document was located in Bosanski Petrovac. There are other documents

6 which were located in Bosanski Petrovac, and one of those makes reference

7 to the Variant A and Variant B document. That document is the minutes

8 from the first meeting of the party secretariat of the Serbian Democratic

9 Party, which is attached at Tab 3 to my summary.

10 In item 2 of the minutes --

11 MS. REIDY: Excuse me, Mr. O'Donnell. For the benefit of the

12 Bench, that is the second bunch of documents. It's listed as number 5 in

13 the index, List of Supporting Documentation for Testimony of

14 Mr. O'Donnell. And there is both a B/C/S and a final English version of

15 that document.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Zecevic.

17 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours, I have the intervention in the

18 transcript 22/21. It says: "Thank you. You've said that document 100

19 and 100/3." Until now we were talking about 101/3. I'm really -- if my

20 learned colleague can clarify that.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

22 MR. ZECEVIC: Because I understood that the different pagination

23 was referring to the copy of the document 101/3. And it says here

24 "100/3." It's really very confusing for us. Thank you.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: The answer, actually, at 24 -- line 24 does refer to

1 copy number 101/3. So maybe Ms. Reidy, you can correct that, what you

2 referred to and what you meant.

3 MS. REIDY: My learned colleague is absolutely right. And if that

4 is simply a transcript error, then I'd like it to reflect. The document I

5 meant to refer to is 101/3, which is different in layout than the others.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

7 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

8 Q. Mr. O'Donnell --

9 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Ms. Reidy. Before we proceed, the

10 list of supporting documents unfortunately does not have tabulations down

11 the side. So it's number 5. Could you give some indication as to how

12 many pages in so we can find it quickly and follow with you?

13 MS. REIDY: [Microphone not activated]

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

15 MS. REIDY: It is, Your Honours, approximately 50 per cent of the

16 way through the -- through the pile you have in front of you, the 11

17 documents. Each -- none of the documents are particularly long, so

18 that -- it starts off with the English version. In the corner -- in the

19 right-hand corner, it says "Translation," and then the evidence reference

20 number is given. It will be 0328568 [sic].

21 JUDGE MUMBA: [Microphone not activated]

22 MS. REIDY: That's correct, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: 03028568, yes.

24 MS. REIDY: I apologise for the lack of tabulation on the side of

25 the documentation.

1 Q. Okay. Mr. O'Donnell, I think we all have in front of us the

2 document. Maybe I would like --

3 MS. REIDY: Would the Defence like to have a copy of the B/C/S

4 placed on the ELMO?

5 Perhaps I could ask the usher just to place a copy of the B/C/S on

6 the ELMO.

7 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, I believe you were about to explain how this

8 document could provide information as to why copy 101/3 differs in

9 pagination and layout from the other Variant A/Variant B versions.

10 A. Your Honours, at item 2 of that document, which is on page

11 03028568, it states: "The instruction on the organisation and activity of

12 organs of the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina in emergency

13 circumstances needs to be typed in seven copies, and every member of the

14 secretariat is to be given a copy."

15 So we know that in Bosanski Petrovac, a copy was received and

16 seven copies of that document were typed. The document 101/3 is from

17 Bosanski Petrovac.

18 Q. Thank you very much. Mr. O'Donnell, I believe you're in

19 possession of a number of other documents similar to the one we've just

20 looked at which also make reference to a Variant A/Variant B document. Is

21 that the case?

22 A. Yes, that is correct.

23 MS. REIDY: And Your Honours, as the documents are not tabulated,

24 perhaps it will be of assistance just to simply go through them now in the

25 order they are presented to you.

1 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, can I ask you, do you have in front of you a

2 document entitled "The Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Board of

3 the SDS Municipality of Kljuc"?

4 A. Yes, I do.

5 Q. Could I ask you to advise how this document assists you in your

6 investigation as to the authenticity of the Variant A/Variant B document?

7 A. On page 00924117, which is a translation, it states that, "Veljko

8 Kondic informed the meeting of the instructions for the organisation and

9 activities of the Serbian people in BH. All organs will be required to

10 act in accordance with the instructions." That's on the 23rd of December,

11 1991.

12 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me. Once again because of the lack of

13 tabulation, Mr. O'Donnell, you're giving this evidence before we've had a

14 chance to find the page.

15 THE WITNESS: My apologies, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Could you tell us is it before the last document,

17 number 5? And then we could put some yellow stickers on for ourselves.

18 MS. REIDY: I'm sorry, I thought it was on the record. I

19 apologise. This is document number 1 of the bundle which has been

20 provided to the Bench, and the passage to which Mr. O'Donnell was

21 referring is the first page of that bundle.

22 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.

23 MS. REIDY:

24 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, again, I'm going to turn to the second document of

25 the bundle which the Bench have in front of them, which will be, I think,

1 six pages into the bundle, six or seven. And it will start in the

2 right-hand corner with the evidence reference number 01901474.

3 Mr. O'Donnell, this document was tabbed, I believe it's number 2, on your

4 summary witness statement, and the translation indicates it's minutes of

5 the third meeting of the executive board of the Serb Municipality of

6 Bosanska Krupa?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. Again, could you explain to us what information you have about

9 this document and how it relates to Variant A and Variant B?

10 A. The document is dated the 27th of December, 1991. Under the

11 agenda at point 3(A), it's mentioned, "Implementing the instruction on

12 establishing a Crisis Staff." Further down under 3(A), it states, "The

13 chairman briefed those present on the instruction on establishing SDS

14 Crisis Staffs in BH, and in accordance with the said instruction, proposed

15 the establishment of a Crisis Staff."

16 Q. Thank you. And do I take it that both of the parts you've

17 referred to are on the first page of that translation 01901474?

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. Thank you. Could I turn now to both documents 3 and 4 in front of

20 the bundle of the Bench, and what I believe are 2(B) and 2(C) of your

21 witness summary? And I believe they also originate from the municipality

22 of Bosanska Krupa?

23 A. That is correct.

24 Q. Could you please advise us again on what relevance they have to

25 the authenticity of Variant A/Variant B?

1 A. The first document, which the first page is 01901476, the document

2 is dated on the 5th of April, 1992 and states, "Pursuant to Article 82 of

3 the Serbian Municipality of Bosanska Krupa Statute, and Article 23 of the

4 executive committee rules of procedure," and then it states, "And the

5 instruction on organisation and activity of the Serbian people of BH in

6 extraordinary circumstances, I order the following." So the order is

7 issued on the basis of the instruction, in other words the Variant A and

8 Variant B document.

9 The next document, the first page of the translation is 00884611,

10 again, this is another document from Bosanska Krupa, and again dated the

11 5th of April, 1992, and it starts off with the same heading, "Pursuant to"

12 the same things, "and the instruction on the organisation" -- sorry, "on

13 the organising and activity of the Serbian people of BH in emergency

14 circumstances."

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy, maybe we can take a break. We have

16 worked over our normal break time because of the adjournment we had.

17 Maybe we can take a break now - I think it's 1610 - for 20 minutes, since

18 we have only three accused persons and resume our proceedings at 1630

19 hours this afternoon.

20 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour.

21 --- Recess taken at 4.09 p.m.

22 --- On resuming at 4.34 p.m.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Prosecution is proceeding.

24 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honours.

25 Q. Welcome back, Mr. O'Donnell. I believe we before the break had

1 discussed the documents 1 through to 4 on the index before the Bench.

2 That's one document from Kljuc and three from Bosanska Krupa. And you had

3 indicated in what way they are relevant to the authenticity of the

4 Variant A/Variant B document.

5 The fifth document on the list before the Bench is the document

6 from Bosanski Petrovac, which has already been discussed. I believe it's

7 number 3.

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. Thank you. I believe there were a number -- a number of other

10 documents which you are aware of in the possession of the OTP which go to

11 the authenticity of the Variant A/Variant B --

12 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me. Just a point of clarification. "The

13 fifth document on the list before the Bench," you say, "is the document

14 from Bosanski Petrovac, which has already been discussed. I believe it's

15 number 3." Well, it's number 5, I think. Yes?

16 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour. I'm sorry. Maybe I should

17 explain. I, in fairness, wasn't currently finished. Mr. O'Donnell, as

18 requested, submitted a witness summary which was filed previously at the

19 end of the last break. And in his witness summary, there were a number of

20 documents attached which were tabulated tab 1, tab 2(A), (B), (C), tab 3,

21 tab 4, tab 5, and tab 6. Now, I know the Defence have those documents in

22 that order. And then I was instructed today that whilst the Bench has in

23 front of it a filing on the witness summary of Mr. O'Donnell, that the

24 documents tab 1 through to tab 6 did not accompany that witness summary

25 and therefore this new bundle was put together for the use by the Bench

1 today during the testimony of Mr. O'Donnell. And I keep cross-referring

2 back so Mr. O'Donnell is clear which document he's referring to and also

3 which one the Bench has. I'm sorry for the confusion. That's how the

4 double numbering arose.

5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: That's no problem. It's just that we obviously

6 want to keep it clear in our heads here.

7 MS. REIDY:

8 Q. Just to make it clear, the document that was number 5 on the list

9 in front of the Bench, it is also recorded as tab number 3 on the witness

10 summary of yourself, Mr. O'Donnell. This is correct? That's the Bosanski

11 Petrovac minutes?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. Could you indicate -- you've also at tab number 4, which was

14 attached to your summary witness statement -- could you tell us what

15 document that was?

16 A. That document is from the Prijedor municipal board of the Serbian

17 Democratic Party.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 A. They are abridged minutes of a meeting from the 27th of December,

20 1991.

21 Q. Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell.

22 MS. REIDY: And for the Bench, that would be document number 6 on

23 your index, the document following the minutes from Bosanski Petrovac.

24 And in the corner, they would have the ERN reference 03016080.

25 Q. Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. If you could again indicate for the

1 Trial Chamber the relevance of this document to Variant A/Variant B.

2 A. This document was actually seized by members of the Office of the

3 Prosecutor during the execution of a search warrant on premises of the

4 Serbian Democratic Party, the SDS, in Prijedor in December 1997.

5 On the first page of the document, which is 03016080, under

6 "Proceedings," in point 1, it states, "President Miskovic then read out

7 the instructions forwarded to the Prijedor SDS municipal board by the

8 Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia and Herzegovina." Since there

9 were two versions, only version 2, which is relevant to Prijedor

10 municipality, was read out. The document then sets out certain steps that

11 are taken, which include the establishment of a Serbian assembly, which is

12 one of the provisions contained in the Variant A and Variant B document.

13 Secondly, the establishment of a Crisis Staff, which is covered at point 3

14 under the first stage of version 2 of the Variant A and Variant B

15 document. Thirdly, the introduction of around-the-clock duty in SDS

16 premises, which are also covered by the instructions. And the makeup of

17 the Crisis Staff is consistent with the Variant A and Variant B document.

18 Q. Thank you. So I understand you to mean that in your examination

19 of this document as an investigator, this is something reflecting the

20 implementation of the Variant A/Variant B document?

21 A. The document contains the same measures as outlined in the Variant

22 A and Variant B document, so that is correct.

23 Q. Thank you. Could I ask you now to move to tab 5 of your witness

24 summary, which I believe is a document coming from the SDS municipal board

25 in Trnovo?

1 A. That is correct.

2 Q. Thank you.

3 MS. REIDY: For the benefit of the Bench, that is the document

4 after the one we just discussed. It's number 7. And the English

5 translation is a draft version, and it has in the corner the first page, L

6 0027211.

7 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, could you assist the Chamber in the relevance of

8 this document to Variant A/Variant B?

9 A. This document is dated the 27th of December, 1992. On page 2 of

10 the translation, which is L 0027212, it states about halfway down the

11 page, last line, "The Assembly of the Serbian People which must be

12 constituted." On page 3, which is L 0027213, it states, "Pursuant to

13 instructions regarding the organisation of the Serbian people, members of

14 the secretariat are also members of the Crisis Staff."

15 Q. Thank you very much. Could I ask you do you have any information

16 as to where -- the seizure of this document?

17 A. This document was received by the Office of the Prosecutor on the

18 8th of March, 2000. The document was seized from SDS premises in Trnovo.

19 Q. Thank you. And am I correct that it was the seizure of documents

20 in Trnovo that you made investigations about and took statements from

21 March, 2000?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. Thank you. Finally, I think in your summary, witness summary, you

24 make reference to a sixth document, that coming from a Donji Vakuf, and on

25 the list in front of the Bench, that would be number 8, again the one

1 following the Trnovo document which was just discussed. It is again a

2 draft English translation and the right-hand corner bears the evidence

3 reference number L 0009336.

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. Thank you. And once again Mr. O'Donnell, if you could just

6 indicate to us the relevancy of this document for the purpose of

7 indicating Variant A/Variant B?

8 A. The first page of the document refers to, "The instructions for

9 organisation and activities of the organs of the Serbian people in Bosnia

10 and Herzegovina in extraordinary circumstances of 19 December, 1991."

11 This document was provided to staff from the Office of the Prosecutor by

12 an official from the Republika Srpska. It was provided on the 25th of

13 April, 1996 by the secretary to the Assembly of the Autonomous Region of

14 Krajina.

15 Q. Thank you very much. Mr. O'Donnell, can I ask you, are you aware

16 of any other documentation similar to the ones that you've just taken us

17 through, which cross refer to or go to the reliability of the Variant

18 A/Variant B document?

19 A. Yes, I am. Your Honours, I'm aware of several other documents.

20 The first is from Tuzla, dated the 3rd of March, 1992.

21 MS. REIDY: And Your Honours, this is the document which is

22 provided to you as number 9 in the bunch of documents, and again the

23 English translation has, bears in the right-hand corner 03036251. And it

24 would be immediately after the one that we've just discussed.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

1 THE WITNESS: That document makes clear reference to the Variant

2 A/Variant B document. Another document is dated the 24th of December,

3 1991, and --

4 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. O'Donnell, could you just go back

5 to document number 9? Where is the clear reference to Variant A and

6 Variant B, if you don't mind?

7 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, on page 1 of the translation, which is

8 03036251, approximately halfway down the first paragraph, after the date

9 21 November, 1992, it says, "And Article 4 of the instructions on the

10 organisation and activity of organs of the Serbian people in BH,

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, under emergency circumstances of 19 December, 1991."

12 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.

13 THE WITNESS: The next document -- the B/C/S version is

14 SA 026744.

15 MS. REIDY: Your Honours, that would be document number 10 on the

16 list in front of you.

17 Q. Could you just put the title of this document on the record for

18 us, so that it's clear.

19 A. The title of the document is "Serbian Democratic Party Crisis

20 Staff for the City of Sarajevo." The --

21 Q. Could you please -- yes, could you please point to us where the

22 relevant portion for Variant A/Variant B is.

23 A. On the translation, Your Honours, the translation page is

24 03026901. Approximately three quarters of the way down the page, it

25 states: "Specific tasks to first level of Variant B of the

1 instructions for the organisation and activity of the organs of the

2 Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina in a state of emergency."

3 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I apologise, Mr. O'Donnell, for being sort of

4 rather, shall we say, picky on these numberings, but that last document

5 that we have, the second page has a different number to the one that you

6 have read. You read "03026901." Page 2, we have "00969864" and the

7 following page "65." So I want to make sure we are talking about the same

8 document.

9 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour, there are in fact two different

10 documents. The -- if you have in front of you the translation -- the

11 English document which has the evidence reference number 03026901, the

12 preceding page is SA 026744.

13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I see --

14 MS. REIDY: Which is the document Mr. O'Donnell originally

15 referred to. These are inverted.

16 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I see where the confusion is, because the

17 "03026901" is not on the top right-hand corner where it should be but

18 towards the bottom of the page, where I wasn't necessarily looking.

19 MS. REIDY: That's right, Your Honour. Is it clear now which

20 translation relates to which document?

21 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you.

22 MS. REIDY: Okay. Sorry for the confusion.

23 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, I think you've testified that out of the documents

24 we've referred to, one of them from Donji Vakuf was given to the OTP by

25 the authorities of the Republika Srpska. Have you yourself obtained any

1 other documentation from the authorities of Republika Srpska which testify

2 to the existence of this Variant A/Variant B document?

3 A. Yes, I have, Your Honours. One of the documents which refers to

4 the Variant A and Variant B document is the 50th session of the Assembly

5 of the Republika Srpska. That document was obtained in December 1997 from

6 government officials in Pale in the Republika Srpska during a mission that

7 I was part of for the Office of the Prosecutor.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MS. REIDY: The Bench will find at number 11 - which will be the

10 final document, so we can come to a close - three pages, two pages of

11 translation and one in B/C/S. And the English version in the right-hand

12 corner bears the evidence reference number 00969864. And those are

13 excerpts from the transcripts to which Mr. O'Donnell has just referred.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

15 MS. REIDY:

16 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, just before we look at the document, you were

17 saying to me -- you said that the document was obtained from government

18 officials in Pale that you were part of. Do you have information as to

19 what this document is and how it came to be constructed and by whom?

20 A. The document is an excerpt from the transcript of the 50th session

21 of the Assembly of Republika Srpska. We obtained the complete Serbian

22 version of the 50th assembly session whilst in Pale. That was obtained

23 from Ms. Rajka Stanisic in Pale. Whilst there, I obtained a statement

24 from Ms. Stanisic, who outlined the details for handling that type of

25 documentation and also the transcribing of the assembly sessions, which

1 she said was, word for word -- Ms. Stanisic was the secretary to Radovan

2 Karadzic and Momcilo Krajisnik.

3 Q. Thank you very much. And so in this transcript that you obtained

4 at the time, the mission you've just described, could you tell us where or

5 how it goes to the authentication again of Variant A/Variant B.

6 A. Your Honours, on the translation, page 00969865, starting from

7 line 2, is an excerpt from the speech of Dr. Radovan Karadzic. He

8 states: "I want to say how it was at the moment the war began. In the

9 municipalities where we were in the majority, we had municipal power, held

10 it firmly, controlled everything. In the municipalities where we were in

11 the minority, we set up secret government municipal boards and municipal

12 assemblies, presidents of executive boards. You will remember the A and B

13 variants. In the B variant, where we were in the minority, 20, 15 per

14 cent. We had set up a government and a brigade, a unit. No matter what

15 size, but there was a detachment with a commander," and the quote goes

16 on.

17 Q. Thank you very much.

18 JUDGE SINGH: Just a little clarification. What does this

19 sentence two lines down say? What does "HTV" mean? "I hope that this

20 will not be going out on HTV."

21 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I believe it refers to Croatian

22 television.

23 JUDGE SINGH: So that is part of the secret process which he

24 referred to in line 5? "We set up a secret government."

25 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, the sentence "I hope this will not be

1 going out on HTV" I think refers to his speech, saying these things before

2 the assembly.

3 JUDGE SINGH: Thank you.

4 MS. REIDY:

5 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Donnell.

6 Mr. O'Donnell, I think you've testified here to your participation

7 in the seizure of a number of documents, your investigation into the

8 authenticity and chain of custody of a number of those documents, and to

9 the seizure of other documents which refer to the Variant A/Variant B

10 document. Having dealt with documentation collection over your six years

11 as an investigator, is it possible to summarise the information available

12 which would go to producing a prima facie indicia of reliability of the

13 Variant A/Variant B document?

14 MS. BAEN: Objection. Calls for legal conclusion.

15 MS. REIDY: Your Honours, it doesn't call for a legal conclusion.

16 It just calls to summarise the information available from which you may be

17 able to draw some sort of conclusion from as to whether or not there is

18 enough reliability.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy, I think you can go ahead.

20 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 A. Matters which may be relevant to the authenticity of the document,

22 are firstly that seven different numbered copies of this document have

23 been located. They have been found in various locations across Bosnia:

24 Four of those from Sarajevo, two of which we have the originals of, copy

25 47 and copy 100; copy 96 from Trnovo; copy 101/3 from Bosanski Petrovac;

1 and copy 55 which was found in Livno as late as February 2000 in premises

2 of the SDS by the international stabilisation force in Bosnia.

3 On copies of the document are handwritten notations which appear

4 to be consistent with the document having been distributed and used.

5 There are also documents which corroborate the existence of the

6 document and the implementation appear to corroborate the implementation

7 measures outlined in the Variant A and Variant B document. Those

8 documents are from Kljuc, from Bosanska Krupa, from Trnovo, from Bosanski

9 Petrovac and from Tuzla.

10 Also during the execution of official search warrants by the

11 Office of the Prosecutor, on premises of the Serbian Democratic Party in

12 Prijedor, documents were located which clearly refer to this document.

13 Also some of the documents which refer to the Variant A and

14 Variant B document have been provided officially by the Republika Srpska.

15 The document at my tab 6, the document from Donji Vakuf, was provided by

16 the secretary to the Assembly of the Autonomous Region of Krajina. The

17 minutes of the 50th session of the Assembly of Republika Srpska were

18 obtained in Pale from representatives of the Republika Srpska government,

19 and the secretary to the assembly explained to us the procedure for

20 transcribing those.

21 And also, in December, 2001, we received documents from the

22 archives of the Republika Srpska Ministry of Defence in Banja Luka which

23 refer to the Rogatica assembly during the period July, 1992, to September

24 1993, and that document also refers to this document.

25 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell.

1 I think the Prosecution has placed on the record all the

2 information it wishes to at the moment for -- with relation to the

3 reliability of the Variant A/Variant B document.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy, because we have these two sets, I was

5 wondering if we could have them numbered for identification purposes so

6 that when the Defence are cross-examining, maybe it will be easier to

7 refer to the numbering.

8 MS. REIDY: Certainly, Your Honour. Would you -- when you refer

9 to the two sets, the first set would be 1 through to 20 of the --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: I think this one is easy. And then we can have a

11 collective number, and then they can have slash 1 up to 20. It's much

12 easier that way, I think.

13 MS. REIDY: Certainly. Would Your Honour prefer to have them as a

14 subset of the ID 3 document or a completely new numbering for ID?

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I can see your point, because we seem to have

16 two numbers for the ID 3, the one we are actually dealing with.

17 MS. REIDY: It may be easier just to give it a new number because

18 I know we have ID 3, I think we have ID 3/A, which I believe is a

19 newspaper reproduction of the article. So maybe we can just start afresh.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

21 MS. REIDY: I'd have to ask the assistance of the Registry to know

22 which number we've--

23 JUDGE MUMBA: The last number, so we can have the next number.

24 THE REGISTRAR: It will be P45, Your Honour.

25 MS. REIDY: P45 ID.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: For identification purposes.

2 MS. REIDY: And may I ask the registrar to mark the bundle of

3 documents 1 through to 11 as P46 ID? And then they could be referred to

4 as P46 ID/1, P46 ID/2, et cetera.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, within the bundle.

6 Any cross-examination?

7 MS. BAEN: Yes, Your Honour, just one moment, please.

8 JUDGE SINGH: Just before you cross-examine, could I have a look

9 at the original P3, 100 original? Is that with you?

10 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, you're talking about the original which

11 Mr. O'Donnell testified to putting into a sealed envelope?

12 JUDGE SINGH: Yes. May we have a look at that, please?

13 MS. REIDY: It's not present in the courtroom. It's in the

14 vault. It's sealed. But during the cross-examination of Ms. Baen, I

15 could ask our evidence unit to extract it from the vault and Mr. O'Donnell

16 would be able to unseal it, as his signature is on the seal.

17 JUDGE SINGH: Very well.

18 MS. BAEN: That was going to be my first question, if we could see

19 that. So thank you.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: You have no other questions to proceed with while we

21 wait for the document?

22 MS. BAEN: I have questions. I was just waiting for to you say

23 "go," Your Honour.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. You can go ahead.

25 MS. BAEN: Thank you.

1 Cross-examined by Ms. Baen:

2 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, my name is Catharine Baen. I think we have met on

3 at least one occasion before.

4 A. Yes, we have.

5 Q. Through this trial. Before I go into my questioning, I want to

6 make sure we get this straight because you've talked about a lot of

7 documents, but the one I want to focus on is PID 3. You understand that's

8 the focus of this hearing?

9 A. Yes, I do.

10 Q. Okay. Which is the copy which has 100 on it. You understand

11 that's the one we are talking about?

12 A. Yes, I do.

13 Q. Okay. So let's focus on -- because the law of this Tribunal is

14 for something to be admissible, you have to look at the reliability of the

15 document and the circumstances under which that document was seized,

16 okay? So you understand that's the focus, correct?

17 A. Yes, I do.

18 Q. All right. You stated you've been working here at the ICTY since

19 1996, correct?

20 A. That is correct.

21 Q. And you first saw this document ID 3, the one with the 100 on it,

22 in 1997, correct?

23 A. No, that is not correct.

24 Q. Okay. When was the first time you saw it? ID 3 with the 100 on

25 it?

1 A. We received, as I think I said in my earlier testimony, two

2 versions at the Office of the Prosecutor before the original was taken by

3 myself from the AID in Sarajevo.

4 Q. Okay. I'm talking about the document that was seized in Sarajevo

5 that you discussed earlier, PID 3.

6 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, with due respect to my colleague, I'm not

7 clear about how it was received. PID 3, which is the one that was

8 submitted, is indeed copy number 100. However, it has, I think, the

9 English translation is E 00 -- it's in front of me -- and the -- and I

10 believe the B/C/S ERN is 00184274. Now, that is the one that's -- it's

11 copy 100, as Mr. O'Donnell has testified. There are three copies of this

12 document plus the original which is now been sought from the vault, and I

13 think Ms. Baen either has to refer to ERN numbers of copies or -- because

14 otherwise to talk about PID 3 --

15 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I have just one question which hopefully will be

16 of assistance here. We are talking about copies, copy 100, then we

17 mention an original. Now, my question is: Is PID 3 a photocopy of copy

18 100, and not the original?

19 MS. BAEN: That's exactly where I'm going, Your Honour. That's

20 what I'm trying to ask.

21 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay.

22 MS. BAEN: Thank you.

23 Q. Let me try it this way. The "original" that you obtained in

24 Sarajevo was in 1997, correct?

25 A. That is correct.

1 Q. You're calling this an original. This document, which I think --

2 MS. BAEN: Is Ms. Reidy going to -- are you going to get the

3 document?

4 MS. REIDY: [Microphone not activated] Yes. We have sent a member

5 of the trial team to the evidence unit to extract it from the vault.

6 MS. BAEN:

7 Q. This document that you're calling an original, the document that

8 you obtained in Sarajevo in 1997, that in fact is a photocopied document;

9 isn't that correct?

10 A. Your Honours, the pages of the document are photocopied. The

11 numbering is in original pen.

12 Q. And the reason you're calling it an original is why? It's a

13 photocopy.

14 A. The copy number 100 that I referred to as the original has the

15 distribution number written in original pen.

16 Q. Number 100, correct?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. Okay. So you yourself -- let's talk about back in 1997 in

19 Sarajevo. This document 100 that you got, who did you get it from?

20 A. It was obtained from a representative of the AID in Sarajevo.

21 Q. And who -- but who is this person? Could we have a name, please?

22 A. The name of the person is Mr. [redacted].

23 Q. [redacted]. And he gave this document to you where?

24 A. In the offices of the AID in Sarajevo.

25 Q. And what information did he give to you about this document when

1 he gave it to you?

2 A. He gave details about the document being located in Sarajevo.

3 Q. What details?

4 A. The fact that the document was obtained in 1992 by the AID from

5 premises used by the SDS in Sarajevo.

6 Q. So who from the AID seized the document back in 1992?

7 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, may I just address the Bench on this

8 matter, if it's going to become an issue? While I understand the

9 Defence's desire to have names and that, I understand that the rules of

10 this Tribunal, and particularly the evidence as to admissibility -- or the

11 rules regarding admissibility of documents don't require the original

12 person who seized the document to come and testify, and the investigator

13 who has information or who talked directly to someone is an appropriate

14 witness to call.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy --

16 MS. REIDY: There may be people --

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay.

18 MS. REIDY: -- who like Mr. [redacted] who Mr. O'Donnell feels at

19 liberty to provide their name. Other people, I don't believe the

20 situation is quite as free. And particularly I think with a name such as

21 the one which Ms. Baen is looking to elicit I'd ask the Chamber whether it

22 is essentially necessary and if so, that perhaps I would ask for specific

23 protective measures for the disclosure that be put in writing, under seal,

24 and that name would not be given to persons outside of this particular

25 evidentiary hearing.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Prosecution, for instance, would be in a

2 better position to know the identity of the various people the witness in

3 the witness box may be mentioning, and they may know whether or not those

4 people should be protected. So it's up to the Prosecution each time such

5 information is sought by the Defence or whoever to inform the Trial

6 Chamber that for purposes of protection of this particular person, you

7 wish to do A, B, C, D, for instance, and then that can be done, we can

8 have the name perhaps in writing, and a seal, or we can have a pseudonym,

9 you know, whatever protective measures may be relevant.

10 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honour. That's -- then precisely what

11 we'd seek to do is -- in leading evidence we didn't put names on the

12 record specifically for that reason. And until the cross comes on, I'm

13 not sure which names Defence may seek to elicit. So in this

14 specification, we do not wish the name of this person to go on the record

15 for personal security of this individual. And again, we would propose to

16 proceed by way of having the name put in writing and then kept under seal,

17 if the Chamber indeed want the name for the record.

18 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, may I respond?

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Baen.

20 MS. BAEN: This whole A/B hearing and rescheduling and all this

21 stuff, we wouldn't even be here -- we wouldn't even have to do this maybe

22 if we'd been given all the witness statements in the chain of custody with

23 respect to PID 3. That's all we asked for. And we were told or given

24 through a witness statement of Mr. O'Donnell that he talked to all these

25 witnesses and he had evidence on the chain of custody. But that's all.

1 We didn't have any information on what the witnesses were going to say,

2 which is the most important thing. Who cares what their names are. That

3 was the whole point of even objecting. We could have saved a lot of court

4 time and we can still save court time if, as the law requires in the

5 jurisprudence of this Tribunal, we know all the circumstances regarding

6 the seizure of the document. The whole test of whether or not it's

7 admissible and authenticated is reliability and probative value. If we

8 don't have any of the information -- I mean, this is just taking so much

9 time, when we probably could have settled this out of court if they would

10 just give us the information. We've been given no notice as to what

11 happened when this document was seized. We were told -- I hear -- well,

12 it was in his witness statement that this document was seized in 1992 and

13 that he saw it for the first time in 1997 when he obtained it in

14 Sarajevo. What happened between 1992 and 1997? What happened in 1992?

15 Was there a search warrant? You know, AID -- I mean, that's the whole

16 point.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

18 MS. BAEN: We have spent so much time going round and round and

19 taking the Court's time and taking all of our valuable time when if we

20 could just get the chain of custody of this one document -- we don't even

21 need to talk about these other versions of this document. That's the

22 whole point, Your Honour, that we've been trying to make.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy.

24 MS. REIDY: May I respond?

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

1 MS. REIDY: I mind my colleagues desire not to waste Court time on

2 this; however, as I think our submissions have shown, we have spent

3 numerous time trying to provide information, evidence, to the Defence.

4 We've been available at all cases as to questions going to the

5 admissibility of this document. It eventually came to this hearing.

6 The Chamber may be aware that this case -- this document also got

7 called in to question in the case of Talic. In fact, all our

8 documentation was used for that case. Mr. O'Donnell was prepared to

9 testify, when the Defence seeing the documentation withdrew their

10 objection. Now, it is of course the prerogative of this Defence not to

11 follow that line.

12 But I think that Ms. Baen is adopting here a very specific

13 particular common law approach to this evidentiary hearing which is maybe

14 more common to her own jurisdiction, which I with full respect do not

15 completely agree is appropriate in this jurisdiction.

16 This question as to admissibility of this document, which is what

17 this hearing was about, was addressed at some length by the Trial Chamber

18 in Talic and Brdjanin on the 28th of January and lots of the jurisprudence

19 from the Appeals Chamber of this Tribunal was discussed by the Trial

20 Chamber in that decision. And so the question is whether or not a

21 document should be admissible then is to the general reliability of the

22 document, including the general circumstances of its seizure.

23 Now, Mr. O'Donnell has come here to testify on that and testified

24 to certain knowledge. It doesn't require in my -- in our submission, the

25 disclosure of every single chain of custody document for every single

1 document which the OTP has. That hasn't been the practice to date. And

2 the testimony is -- from Mr. O'Donnell, it's his credibility as to

3 whether he spoke to these people and the information he received. And

4 unless we're being challenged to call every individual who may at one time

5 have seized a document during the war period or since or handle it, I

6 think the burden on this Tribunal will be in the extreme. So it's my

7 submission that Mr. O'Donnell can provide information but the submissions

8 that Ms. Baen has made as to the waste of time to the Court by showing the

9 other documents and by not having the chain of custody statements is

10 misplaced.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy, I think the best way to go about this is

12 simply to allow Ms. Baen to cross-examine and see what information she

13 wants to seek from the witness.

14 MS. BAEN: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: And if any questions are misplaced, of course the

16 Bench will say so.

17 MS. BAEN: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Baen, you can continue.

19 MS. BAEN: I would like to apologise to Ms. Reidy. I did not --

20 she's worked very well with us. And I -- if she was offended by me saying

21 she wasted time, I did not mean to offend her.

22 Secondly, with respect to what she mentioned about Brdjanin and

23 Talic, that case, the lawyer on that case has been here - he's a Defence

24 lawyer. He's here for four years - is a very good friend of mine, and

25 we've discussed this document at length. He's actually the person who

1 recruited me over here in this Tribunal. The reason why -- if she wants

2 to talk about the reason why he said to let it in is because there's no

3 way they can ever bring the author of this document to authenticate the

4 document. You can let it all in, but the jurisprudence of the Tribunal

5 says if you cannot produce the author of the document, then it is not

6 authenticated and should be given no weight. That goes all the way back

7 to the Tadic hearsay decision in two separate decisions by the Trial

8 Chamber in Celebici. That is why -- they said go ahead and just let it in

9 this other case, just so this Trial Chamber is aware of what's going on in

10 the other Trial Chambers.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So proceed with your questions, Ms. Baen.

12 MS. BAEN: I don't even know where I left off.

13 Okay. The document is here now, PID 3? Did it arrive?

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Is it available or not yet available?

15 MR. DI FAZIO: It's here and the accompanying rubber gloves to

16 handle it.

17 MS. BAEN: Can we please see the document? Can the Trial Chamber

18 see it?

19 MS. REIDY: May I suggest that the document is -- I think it is

20 visible is in a plastic bag and is currently under seal. And it's

21 Mr. O'Donnell who sealed it, so --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: I was wondering. Because if it's visible from the

23 plastic seal, then this Defence counsel can look at it.

24 MS. REIDY: No. Within the plastic seal, it is again in an

25 envelope which has been sealed, and it is under that seal which

1 Mr. O'Donnell has placed his signature as the last person to have opened

2 it. So if the Bench and the Defence counsel would like to inspect the

3 folder and then maybe Mr. O'Donnell could break the seal and the document

4 inside it could also be available for inspection.

5 MS. BAEN: Actually, Your Honour. We've already seen it and we

6 know what it looks like. But we would like for the Trial Chamber to be

7 able to see it.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: But for purposes of your cross-examination, you can

9 go ahead without looking at it. Isn't it?

10 MS. BAEN: I --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: I --

12 MS. BAEN: Judge Singh has asked --

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, I'm aware of that. But for your continuation

14 of the witness.

15 MS. BAEN: Well, my first question when I got up here, I was going

16 to ask him if he had this "original" here with him, and I was going to ask

17 him to let the Trial Chamber see it.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We can see it at our own time.

19 MS. BAEN: Well, my cross-examination -- I'll try to work with the

20 Chamber. My cross-examination was going to follow, which I thought was

21 the most important thing, was the viewing of the actual document. But if

22 you want to look at it later, then I respect the Court's decision.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can go ahead with your cross-examination.

24 In the meantime, the Trial Chamber can have a look at the document.

25 MS. BAEN:

1 Q. So back in 1992, when this document was first seized in Sarajevo,

2 who seized it?

3 A. I cannot say exactly who the person was who seized it.

4 Q. Was it seized pursuant to a search warrant?

5 A. In discussions with members of the AID - and one of those was

6 Mr. Alimanovic, but there were other people - one of the people we spoke

7 to was familiar with the circumstances of the document having been

8 seized. That person stated that in the spring of 1992, various SDS

9 premises were searched by the AID. I do not know if it was in pursuance

10 of a search warrant.

11 Q. So why did these people go, whoever they were, go to find this

12 document? Under what circumstances?

13 A. After the start of the war, the information I have is that the SDS

14 premises were vacant and therefore the premises were searched by the AID.

15 Q. When you're talking about based on this information that you have,

16 what information is it that you have? What is all the information

17 regarding the seizure of this document?

18 A. The information is that the document was seized by AID staff in

19 the spring of 1992 from SDS premises in Sarajevo. We also have details of

20 the fact that the document was kept in the AID in Sarajevo. A copy -- a

21 photocopy was provided. The first one was in 1994, then another in 1995,

22 I believe, and then the original was taken by me in 1997.

23 Q. What I'm trying -- "chain of custody" means from the date it was

24 seized up until the date it comes into court. Who were all the persons

25 who touched that document? That's what I'm trying to find out,

1 Mr. O'Donnell, is this information that you have, we need to know, the

2 Trial Chamber needs to know, the circumstances under which it was seized

3 and from the date it was seized where that document has been. So who was

4 the person who actually seized it? Do you know?

5 A. No, I do not know. But if I could answer your questions, Your

6 Honours --

7 Q. My question is: Do you know who the person is?

8 A. No, I do not.

9 Q. Do you know the circumstances under which that person, whoever it

10 was, went to seize that document?

11 A. No, I do not.

12 Q. Do you know exactly where that document was kept in this office in

13 the SDS in Sarajevo?

14 A. No, I do not.

15 Q. You don't know if it was in a file drawer or if it was in a

16 correspondence file or if it was in a propaganda file? You don't know

17 where it was found at all. You have no information?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. So you don't know who seized it in 1992, but based on this person

20 giving it to you in 1997, you're assuming this document was kept where?

21 A. Do you mean before it was seized or after it being seized?

22 Q. Before you took possession of it and brought it here to the ICTY,

23 where was it kept?

24 A. It was kept in the offices of the AID in Sarajevo.

25 Q. Where in the offices of the AID?

1 A. In a -- in various --

2 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel is kindly requested to slow down,

3 please.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Baen, can you please slow down and pause after

5 the witness has answered, for the interpreters.

6 MS. BAEN: Certainly, Your Honours. I'm anxious to try to finish

7 this today. I'm sorry.

8 A. Your Honours, within the AID were a number of cabinets. The

9 cabinets were for the storage of information which came from various

10 locations. The information that we were given in relation to this is that

11 this document, after coming into the AID, was secured within the premises

12 of the AID in Sarajevo.

13 Q. Who told you that?

14 A. Employees of the AID in Sarajevo.

15 Q. What are the names of the employees?

16 A. One of the people -- I've already stated, which is

17 Mr. [redacted]. Another -- sorry, other employees, we would have to

18 check. In relation to security concerns, Your Honours, I am aware that

19 one does have security concerns.

20 Q. Where are the -- you mentioned in your statement that you had

21 taken statements from all the people in the chain of custody with respect

22 to PID 3. Where are those statements?

23 A. We have statements from a number of people from the AID which are

24 here within the Office of the Prosecutor.

25 Q. How many statements are there?

1 A. I would have to check but at least three.

2 Q. Do you have any idea why the Defence does not have these

3 statements, have never been given copies of these statements?

4 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, that's a question which the witness is

5 not in a position to answer. He's here to testify simply to the document

6 and not to relationships between the Defence and the Prosecution.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy.

8 Ms. Baen? That is a submission you can make.

9 MS. BAEN: The submission I'm making is we don't have any

10 information with respect to the chain of custody of this document. They

11 haven't given us anything. He says he's taken several statements. Who

12 are they? What happened? How were these documents seized? Where was it

13 kept? We have zero information.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: He's giving the answers as far as he knows. So if

15 you're not satisfied with his answers, you can make your submissions on

16 that.

17 MS. BAEN: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: He can't say what he doesn't know.

19 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, he took the statements himself, he said.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, he did say about three.

21 MS. BAEN: Yes. But he doesn't say what they say in the

22 statements, he doesn't say the names, he doesn't give us the information

23 that's in the statements.

24 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, with respect, I think Mr. O'Donnell has

25 given the general information of the statements that -- where they were

1 seized, when they were seized, where they were taken. He hasn't given the

2 names for the reason put on the record, that there may be security

3 concerns with individuals working for the AID and their role, particularly

4 during the war and the seizure of documents. Maybe - I think to be fair

5 to the witness - Ms. Baen would clarify what information she feels that is

6 available to Mr. O'Donnell that he hasn't already provided that is

7 contained in the statements.

8 MS. BAEN: Let me just try to shorten this.

9 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Sorry, Ms. Baen, I'm just wondering, because the

10 Prosecution sort of interjected and Ms. Reidy said that the issue of why

11 the Defence doesn't have copies of those statements is a

12 Defence-Prosecution issue, and this witness has, presumably, no control

13 over the OTP sharing this information with you. So maybe that's an issue

14 we might address, but not in the context of Mr. O'Donnell being able to

15 assist on it.

16 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, exactly. This is what I was asking. I

17 was saying we could save a lot of time, maybe we wouldn't even be

18 objecting to this document, if we had the information regarding the

19 seizure of the document. That's the whole point. And that's why I -- if

20 we could save the time by getting that from the Prosecution, if they want

21 to redact the names of those witnesses or what have you, then that's

22 fine. But to go on for hours and hours when we might not have to be doing

23 this, is just -- I was trying to be reasonable. I really have been trying

24 to be reasonable.

25 JUDGE SINGH: Ms. Baen?

1 MS. BAEN: I'll just keep cross-examining.

2 JUDGE SINGH: Just one minute, please. In November last year,

3 after the Court made certain rulings on these documents and requested that

4 the Prosecution and the Defence cooperate on the matter, and you were

5 given the summary and you -- or the other Defence lawyers saw these

6 documents, was any request made from the Prosecution to provide the

7 witness summaries? In other words, the persons who are concerned with

8 these documents?

9 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, there was no formal request. However,

10 I've had numerous conversations with my colleague Ms. Reidy.

11 JUDGE SINGH: Did any Defence counsel put it in writing to the

12 Prosecution, to end this matter, "Look, please let us have the statements

13 of these witnesses so that we can have a look at them and make an informed

14 decision?" Was that done?

15 MS. BAEN: We --

16 MR. PANTELIC: If I may, Your Honours, just very short

17 explanation. In our, I would say, ongoing cooperation related to this

18 particular issue, I cannot say precisely, but on many occasions, we asked

19 from the Prosecution to provide us with all statements, documents,

20 relevant issues, regarding the chain of custody.

21 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Pantelic, that's all too general. What I meant

22 is you've got a summary from the Prosecution, right?

23 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

24 JUDGE SINGH: And I think that summary must be saying certain

25 things in respect of these documents, and also I don't know what it says

1 but it may relate to tracing the history of these documents in some short

2 way. Did you ask for amplification of this so you can decide then? And

3 then we wouldn't have to waste this much time.

4 MR. PANTELIC: The answer is yes, Your Honour. We -- I believe we

5 work in bona fides manner and during all our conversation we asked every

6 single detail in this respect. And finally, this is the first moment - I

7 think that my colleagues would agree with me - that we realised that there

8 are certain statements and number of statements. This is the first

9 moment. Am I correct, Your Honours? For today, that we realise that

10 there are several statements with regard to this issuing.

11 JUDGE SINGH: But it must be quite obvious to everybody that this

12 witness is not the one who seized the documents, that if they came from

13 the AID office, they must have come down somehow through different people.

14 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct.

15 JUDGE SINGH: So that line was not pursued. That's all the I want

16 to know.

17 MS. BAEN: I'm sorry, I can't see you, Judge Singh. It was

18 pursued in that the purpose of this hearing, my understanding was, that he

19 was -- this witness was going to give the whole chain of custody, the list

20 of the witnesses, the circumstances under which they were seized, and then

21 we didn't get it. That's -- my understanding in looking back at the

22 transcript in this trial is that the purpose of this hearing was for the

23 Prosecutors to prove up admissibility and authenticity, and it was -- I

24 have mentioned to Ms. Reidy before, based on the witness summary they gave

25 to us, that it doesn't have the whole chain of custody, but she told --

1 our conversation was that -- well, we had a difference in opinion as to

2 what was required for the chain of custody apparently, even as recent as

3 today in the hallway, so ...

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It seems to me that the understanding of

5 tracing from the origins of the seizure up to this witness's handling of

6 the document seems to have been some misunderstanding. Since you are on

7 your feet, you can go ahead with your cross-examination. I think to

8 protect the names of the people who gave this document to the Office of

9 the Prosecutor, we can have the witness write them down and then the

10 document will be under seal, to complete the evidence of the witness, if

11 you desire that, Ms. Baen.

12 MS. BAEN: The most important thing is not the names, it's the

13 circumstances under which it was seized, because the whole test is

14 reliability. And the case law in this Tribunal says also that we have the

15 right to cross-examine the person who is sponsoring the witness who seized

16 it or who authored it. The issue is not the names of the witness. The

17 issue is the information.

18 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, maybe Ms. Baen could tell us --

19 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me just one second.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy, since Mr. O'Donnell has said that there

22 are at least three statements, what objection would you have to have those

23 statements produced under seal?

24 MS. REIDY: Well, Your Honour, I think there is -- well, there is

25 two -- I would -- given that -- let me put it back. The production of

1 these statements under seal would, in the normal course of things, protect

2 the individuals' names from being allowed, permitted, to get into the

3 public arena, and that I appreciate. There are, however, I am led to

4 believe - I'm certainly not familiar with all these statements - a number

5 of documents at any one time mentioned in these statements, not

6 necessarily just Variant A/Variant B. I'm not sure it's clear that -- why

7 Defence counsel need access to that sort of information. If that is the

8 way the Trial Chamber wishes to proceed, then --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: No. You were explaining that these statements are

10 not only dealing with the documents at issue in this case. They are

11 statements dealing with a whole variety of documents, in which case maybe

12 the larger part of the statement may not be relevant. Is that what you're

13 trying to say?

14 MS. REIDY: If that is the -- if the Trial Chamber wishes to

15 direct that we should disclose chain of custody statements taken, then I

16 would -- well, request, if that's the ruling of the Trial Chamber, that we

17 would be able to redact bits of the statements which have no relevancy to

18 this document trial and with -- preferably redact the names, since

19 Ms. Baen has indicated it's not of any interest to her, as to the name of

20 the person who actually seized the document. However, I would submit, of

21 course, we will comply with any order that the Trial Chamber would hand

22 down. But again --

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Have you seen the statements yourself?

24 MS. REIDY: The exact three Mr. O'Donnell is referring to, I'm

25 honestly not sure, but yes, I have seen a number of statements which

1 relate to chain of custody of documents.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Let's stick to the ones Mr. O'Donnell has mentioned,

3 about three statements.

4 MS. REIDY: There is a statement at paragraph 4 of his witness

5 summary, which again I'm not sure if the bench have copies of this. And

6 it says that the witness took a statement from an employee regarding chain

7 of custody, stating that the document was found in the main office of the

8 Sarajevo SDS party. That document -- that statement I can tell the

9 Chamber I definitely -- I have read. And I have read a number of other

10 chain of custody statements. I'm not sure I've read all the ones relating

11 to this document but certainly a number of statements which have been

12 taken relating to chain of custody.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Because you see, if you read the three referred to

14 by Mr. O'Donnell and if you're in a position to redact them and leave only

15 the relevant information and redact the names as well, maybe that can be

16 done. That would satisfy the Defence.

17 MS. REIDY: Well, then, Your Honour, if it's the Trial Chamber's

18 instructions, then we would make available the statements redacted of any

19 information not relating to any other document and of specific names of

20 employees of the AID, but I would again ask for these statements to be

21 kept under seal by the Defence because they are someone's internal -- I

22 know they do relate somehow to admissibility, but they are also internal

23 OTP documents that somebody from our records -- and again I do believe

24 that with respect to the rules of evidence on admissibility, they are

25 primarily governed by Rule 89, as a rule, the general disclosure of these

1 statements are not -- is not required, notwithstanding Ms. Baen's

2 submissions on admissibility. But as I said, we would -- I can locate

3 those statements, I can have them redacted leaving the information

4 relevant to Variant A and Variant B open to the Defence, and again, redact

5 statements of particular -- specific employees who may be endangered by

6 their name getting into the public sphere.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe what we can do is we will give you the time

8 after tomorrow, you look at the statements and then make your submissions

9 as you see fit. Maybe because you read so many of them so you can't

10 really be clear in your mind which ones are -- Mr. O'Donnell was talking

11 about when he mentioned about three.

12 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour. I said the one reference in

13 paragraph 4 of Mr. O'Donnell's, I -- definitely, I can tell the Chamber

14 now, would require specific redactions, including the name of the

15 employee, and I will undertake to investigate more closely the other

16 statements. Do I understand, then, from Your Honour that when you say,

17 "Make your submissions," you would mean, "Make your submissions on the

18 disclosure of these statements," or --

19 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no. Finally, finally, at the end of the

20 day.

21 Yes, Ms. Baen, you can go ahead, if you have any more questions,

22 that is.

23 MS. BAEN: I do have more questions, but without the statement and

24 the people -- how can I cross-examine if I don't have the information on

25 chain of custody? I'm not clear. If the Chamber could give me some

1 guidance on that.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: I thought the witness had given you some answers of

3 the matters which he knew about and of the matters which he didn't know

4 about. Are you saying that of the matters which he doesn't know about,

5 because of that, you have no further questions?

6 MS. BAEN: Well, he could not give me the answer as to the entire

7 chain of custody from 1992 to 1997, and that's the whole issue. So that's

8 why -- he said there were three witness statements taken, but I have no

9 idea what the witness statement said, and he doesn't have the statements

10 here. So there is nothing to cross-examine him on until I have the

11 information to cross-examine him on.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

13 MS. BAEN: I'll go into another area to try to move things forward

14 but --

15 JUDGE MUMBA: This is what I was trying to get at, any other area

16 while we wait for the statements.

17 MS. BAEN: Okay.

18 Q. Let's talk about your knowledge of -- your general knowledge of

19 documents created in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia. As an investigator

20 for the OTP, and a team leader, you've seen and handled probably thousands

21 of documents right?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. Many from Bosnia and all of the former Yugoslavia; is that

24 correct?

25 A. That is correct.

1 Q. And looking at ID 3, there is no stamp or seal on that document,

2 is there?

3 A. No, there is not.

4 Q. And there is no signature, is there?

5 A. No, there is not.

6 Q. In fact, it looks sort of like it could be a draft and not an

7 official document; is that correct?

8 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I think now Ms. Baen is asking the

9 witness, you know, opinion, and then she is making assumptions about what

10 a draft looks like. I mean, it is obvious that it doesn't have a seal and

11 it doesn't a signature. What that means is not -- Mr. Donia could have

12 testified to this but the Defence wouldn't allow him. I think it's unfair

13 now to ask the witness who has come to testify to the admissibility of the

14 document.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I mean, he can't be asked what about what his

16 opinion of it is.

17 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, I thought he had handled lots of --

18 reviewed lots of documents. And with respect to Dr. Donia, he did testify

19 about this very thing. I have the transcript right here in front of us.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, yes. I can recall some of it.

21 MS. BAEN: Authenticity, whether or not there was a stamp, a seal

22 or a signature, according to, again, the jurisprudence of this Tribunal,

23 goes to authenticity.

24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Ms. Baen, I understand asking was there a stamp,

25 was there a signature and so on, but correct me if I'm wrong here, but I

1 thought in your opening with this witness in your cross-examination, you

2 reminded the Chamber that Mr. O'Donnell is not an expert on authenticating

3 documents. So now, this seems to be at cross-purposes with your initial

4 submission.

5 MS. BAEN: I see your point. I see your point, Judge -- Your

6 Honour. Excuse me, Your Honour.

7 [Defence counsel confer]

8 MS. BAEN:

9 Q. In the documents you reviewed in your investigations, the

10 documents from Serbia, the -- or and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the official

11 documents usually have a stamp or a seal or a signature; isn't that

12 correct?

13 A. Yes, that is correct.

14 Q. And I think you testified that this document has none of those on

15 it; is that correct?

16 A. That is correct.

17 Q. Is the name Bosanski Samac anywhere on ID 3?

18 A. No, it is not.

19 Q. Is there any evidence that ID 3 was ever distributed in Bosanski

20 Samac?

21 A. No there is not.

22 Q. Is there anyone who can testify what the -- who the number 100

23 refers to specifically?

24 A. No, there is not, that I'm aware of.

25 Q. All right. Let's go now to these other versions of the A/B

1 document that you've brought up. But before I go into those different

2 versions, when you were testifying about them, you mentioned Bosanski

3 Petrovac and Bosanska Krupa; isn't that correct?

4 A. Bosanska Krupa and Bosanski Petrovac, yes.

5 Q. And neither Bosanska Krupa or Bosanski Petrovac are anywhere near

6 Bosanski Samac; is that correct?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. In fact, it's in western Bosnia?

9 A. It's in the Autonomous Region of Krajina, yes.

10 Q. So the different documents you talked about, before we -- excuse

11 me, before we go into the different versions of the A/B document, let's

12 talk about the transcripts from the speeches and these various minutes

13 from the different municipalities you discussed. Let's focus first on the

14 speech transcripts. In these speech transcripts that you read to the

15 Chamber and have reviewed, was the Variant A/B document ever read out in

16 totality in those speech transcripts?

17 A. One of the documents refers to -- and I'm not sure whether it was

18 the whole of the document being read out or part of it so I'm just

19 checking that.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 A. Yes. In fact, it appears to have been. The Prijedor municipal

22 board of the SDS minutes from the 27th of December, 1991, it appears that

23 the document was read out there.

24 Q. The document was read out in totality?

25 A. It says, "President Miskovic then read out the instructions

1 forwarded," and it is apparently referring to this document.

2 Q. It says he read an entire document, but they don't read out the

3 entire document, so we have no idea exactly what that document said; isn't

4 that correct?

5 A. It is correct that the document -- sorry, the reading of the

6 document is not recorded in the minutes. However, as to whether we know

7 what was said, the details given indicate the substance of the document.

8 Q. How can we know what the substance was if we don't have the

9 minutes and we don't have a transcript wherein all of the document was

10 read?

11 A. Your Honours, four things that I can point to in those minutes:

12 Firstly, the establishment of the assembly; secondly, the establishment of

13 Crisis Staffs; thirdly, introducing around-the-clock duty in SDS offices;

14 and fourthly, the composition of the Crisis Staff, which appear to be in

15 line with what was in that document. So even though it's not read out --

16 sorry, it's not recorded what was actually said when it was read out, what

17 was discussed refers to the content of the document.

18 Q. Okay. If -- maybe conceptually, it could have been the same as

19 this PID 3. However, there is no way to know what the actual content was

20 unless it was read out, correct?

21 A. I would disagree because of the points I've just made.

22 Q. Anywhere in that transcript, was there any information with

23 respect to who the author of this Variant A/B document is?

24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me Ms. Baen, when you're saying, "the

25 transcript," we are talking about the last document in this bundle, the --

1 are we? Because otherwise we will have a confusion between the use of the

2 words "abridged minutes" and "transcript."

3 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, I was -- in P46 ID, I was referring to the

4 transcript of the speech given by Karadzic.

5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes, that's fine, but as with the Prosecution, if

6 you can give us the numbers, then there will be no confusion on the record

7 either. That's fine.

8 MS. BAEN: Thank you.

9 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, could you repeat your question?

10 MS. BAEN:

11 Q. Did you have any information as to the -- who the author of this

12 Variant A/B document is?

13 MS. REIDY: Your Honours?

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy?

15 MS. REIDY: I'm afraid I'm going to have to interrupt and seek a

16 ruling from the Chamber as to whether or not this question is relevant. I

17 know Ms. Baen says that she wants to establish who the author is and she

18 feels it goes to admissibility, but the Rules - and I'm afraid these are

19 legal submissions - say that any evidence may be admitted which has

20 probative value and the evidence -- and the Chamber may call evidence as

21 to authenticity. Nowhere in the Rules or in the jurisprudence is it said

22 that evidence can only be admitted where authenticity -- or where

23 authorship is established. So why Ms. Baen -- again, I just think that

24 this is an irrelevant line of questioning because it doesn't go to the

25 Rules of Evidence applicable in this Tribunal, which is whether or not

1 this document has -- is of probative value.

2 MS. BAEN: I can read directly from case law here in the

3 jurisprudence. It's from Prosecutor versus Aleksovski where the Appeals

4 Chamber said -- and the judgement Aleksovski -- excuse me, in Celebici and

5 Tadic says, it's Prosecutor versus Delalic decision on the motion of the

6 Prosecution for the admissibility [microphone not activated] 1998, the

7 Chamber in that case, relying on the Tadic --

8 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down for the

9 interpretation?

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Baen, please slow down.

11 MS. BAEN: The Chamber in the above -- in this case, relying on

12 the Tadic hearsay decision, held that in assessing the probative value --

13 JUDGE MUMBA: You're not slowing down, Ms. Baen. You are too fast

14 for the interpreters.

15 MS. BAEN: I'm sorry. I'll try to slow down. I just want to get

16 this over with. "An important factor would be whether or not the alleged

17 author of the document appears as a witness. Otherwise, the contents of a

18 document remain unauthenticated and not subject to the kind of scrutiny

19 which comes with the cross-examination of the witness."

20 The Chamber in another decision, Prosecutor versus Delalic

21 judgement, November 16, 1998, the Chamber found the documents, although

22 may be relevant to the issue at hand, none of them have been authenticated

23 as the parties alleged to have created them never gave evidence. The

24 Chamber said that because there was no evidence of authenticity, they were

25 unreliable and attached no weight to them.

1 And then I can keep citing more case law.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: No. It's not necessary because that's what I said

3 earlier, that these are matters for submissions.

4 MS. BAEN: I was answering Ms. Reidy's response saying that

5 nowhere in the jurisprudence was there a requirement that the author

6 testify in order to authenticate a document.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: I think you can go ahead with your

8 cross-examination. I think both parties seem to be confusing what they

9 should make in their submissions and what should be put out in

10 cross-examination. I think they are having a problem with that.

11 MS. BAEN: Sorry, Your Honour, I'll try to get through this. I'm

12 just answering Ms. Reidy's submissions.

13 JUDGE SINGH: Ms. Baen, what do you mean by "who is the author"?

14 The document here at the top says -- or claims to say that is the main

15 board. Maybe there are ten authors, I don't know, five authors, three

16 authors. You follow?

17 MS. BAEN: I do follow, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE SINGH: That's what it says there: " Serbian Democratic

19 Party of Bosnia-Herzegovina, main board." And it does appear, for what

20 it's worth at the moment, that the main board issued this document, that

21 it may have been the author of this document. So when you talk about

22 authorship, can you call, say, 10 people, 15 people? You won't know who

23 they are, who made the drafts, who finally -- it is a whole process. Do

24 you follow?

25 MS. BAEN: I do follow, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE SINGH: This is an important document or seems to be an

2 important document.

3 MS. BAEN: I think it's the most important document in this trial

4 so far, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE SINGH: Yes.

6 MS. BAEN: The document says -- or purports to have been authored

7 by a group.

8 JUDGE SINGH: Yes.

9 MS. BAEN: There has been no testimony that someone authored

10 that. We have no evidence so far as to who wrote the document.

11 JUDGE SINGH: No. Direct your questions to the witness, please.

12 MS. BAEN: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 I was going to continue. My counsel just said to remind the

14 Chamber it's 6.00.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe you can complete your questions.

16 MS. BAEN: I have a bunch more questions, Your Honours. And the

17 most important part would be the chain of custody with respect to the

18 document PID 3 between 1992 and 1997. And if we could review those

19 statements, maybe I won't have any questions, which -- I would love it if

20 I had no questions. I don't want to talk about this any more, really.

21 And I know you don't want to hear about it.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: It's up to you, Ms. Baen.

23 What I can say is that the Prosecution should produce those

24 statements redacted to the Defence before 11.00 tomorrow morning. Do not

25 wait for the sitting time, because we don't want to waste any more trial

1 time. We have the whole morning tomorrow to deal with this, so that the

2 Defence can look at those documents so that when we start our proceedings

3 at 14.15, we'll be in a position -- they'll be in a position to say

4 whether or not they'll proceed with cross-examination.

5 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honour. Absolutely. No problem with

6 complying with that time line. And if the Defence wants to come to the

7 Tribunal earlier, we can probably make the documents available earlier.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think the Trial Chamber will order the

9 Defence counsels to be at the Tribunal by 10 hours. And by then, the

10 Prosecution must be ready with the documents. So at least before 11 hours

11 give it to them so that there is time to look at them, consult with each

12 other, consult with their clients, and then be able to inform the

13 Prosecution or be ready for the proceedings at 14.15. We have to use the

14 mornings, even though we are not sitting, for everything that has to be

15 done in the cases, in the ongoing trials, instead of waiting for trial

16 time to start discussing what should have been discussed outside trial

17 time.

18 MS. REIDY: Absolutely, Your Honour. And I'm happy to use this

19 evening and tomorrow out of court time to satisfy the requests of the

20 Defence. But I would ask that they place on the record or in writing

21 exactly what it is they're looking for, because -- I think Chamber is

22 probably apprised of the fact there's been a misunderstanding of this. Is

23 it simply document copy 100 or is it another chain of custody statements

24 with relation to, for example, number 96 from Trnovo, which Mr. O'Donnell

25 has testified to, or are we referring only to those statements which

1 specifically and explicitly record some handling of the

2 Variant A/Variant B with copy number "100" in the corner? Now, if that

3 could be clarified preferably on the record with some written record I can

4 keep going back to, that would be of great assistance.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Baen.

6 MS. BAEN: Very clearly, as we pointed out last fall, we're only

7 interested in PID 3, the document that has the number "100" on it. We do

8 not care anything about the chain of custody on any of these other

9 versions of A/B. We don't care about those.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: I think that is clear.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, just one other matter that

12 might arise.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: The original, I see, is just behind the law

15 clerks. I don't know if you want to look at it. May I suggest that --

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think we may go ahead and look at it now,

18 now that we have adjourned the proceedings formally.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. If Your Honours, please, the witness is in

20 fact the expert on all the sorts of procedures that I think must be

21 undertaken --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. In fact, it would be better if the witness can

23 unseal it, handle it. We don't only have to view it. We don't have to

24 handle it.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: I would be grateful.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yeah. Maybe we can proceed with that now.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I think that could be adopted to maybe

3 maintain its integrity. Thank you.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Maybe the document could be given to

5 Mr. O'Donnell.

6 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I should have got fitted up for those

7 gloves beforehand.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Go ahead, and we'll wait patiently.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Excuse me, Your Honours. In the meantime, maybe we

10 should have certain technical problems tomorrow morning in light of the

11 beginning of the trial -- the big trial tomorrow. So maybe the security

12 will not allow us to come to the Tribunal and -- or maybe --

13 JUDGE MUMBA: I doubt that very much, because all the lawyers and

14 supporting staff who have continuing trials are allowed into the

15 Tribunal.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. It's better. Because maybe certain level of

17 assistance from the Registry could be useful to inform the guards at the

18 entrance that we have certain things to do here. Because I don't know

19 really how --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. Because the proceedings which are going on

21 tomorrow will continue, and so the Defence counsel can -- will be allowed

22 into the Tribunal any time.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. Thank you for that clarification.

24 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, the document is unsealed. Would you

25 like me to put that on the --

1 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no. Can you walk with it, you know, let us

2 view it, and show it to the Defence counsel. It doesn't have to be on the

3 ELMO. Yes, you can just hold it up.

4 THE WITNESS: [Indicates]

5 JUDGE MUMBA: It was seen already, wasn't it, by the Defence?

6 MS. BAEN: Yes, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. O'Donnell, apart from the handwritten "100,"

8 what is the "26" in the circle, centre top of the page?

9 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I don't know what that number refers

10 to.

11 JUDGE SINGH: If you would look at the number "100," and if you

12 would also compare it with the others that you have talked about today, I

13 would like you to study the print and just tell me whether "100" is a

14 photocopy, whether it's a print copy, or a typed copy. You can do that

15 tomorrow.

16 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. Did you want me to tell you

17 whether the -- where it is written in, 100, whether that is --

18 JUDGE SINGH: No, no. The content. The content. Just have a

19 look at it carefully and just give us your opinion, for what it is worth.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. The proceedings will continue tomorrow

21 at 14.15 hours.

22 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, may I just --

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy.

24 MS. REIDY: Just for the record, although Mr. O'Donnell has taken

25 the oath and is currently under cross-examination, I presume for the

1 purpose of production of these documents that I'm allowed to talk to him

2 and discuss the documents and the location of them and redaction --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Of the statements, yes. I'm sure the Defence would

4 have no objection, so that we have the matter dealt with in the morning

5 hours.

6 MS. BAEN: No objection at all, whatsoever.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE MUMBA: I would like the witness to leave the courtroom.

10 Perhaps he can take the document with him, since he has to look at it. I

11 just want to discuss a few matters before we rise.

12 [The witness stands down]

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The arrangements for the videolink from the

14 Detention Unit into the courtroom has been finalised by the Registrar's

15 Office. We have been informed that it is possible for Mr. Milan Simic if

16 he's in the Detention Unit to follow the proceedings. He can view us --

17 he can view the courtroom. He can also communicate with counsel by

18 phone. But we cannot have it the other way; we can't see him, which is

19 really not necessary. So I wanted to advise the Defence counsel for Milan

20 Simic to look at these facilities and see how best we can utilise them.

21 As indicated earlier, when we were requesting for these

22 facilities, the Trial Chamber is interested in sitting longer hours in

23 order to get on with the trial, because we've been handicapped by the

24 health of Mr. Milan Simic. So these facilities are available, and I do

25 expect that the Defence counsel will discuss with their client. We'll

1 look at the proceedings as they go. We'll see whether or not the

2 facilities will enable him to follow and be able to communicate, so that

3 with the three remaining accused persons, we can perhaps take advantage of

4 the longer sitting hours, even if it's for half day, and move much faster

5 that we are doing.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: We understand, Your Honours, and that is exactly

7 what we intended to do tomorrow. Thank you.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So we will rise now and continue our

9 proceedings tomorrow at 14.15 hours.

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

11 at 6.15 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,

12 the 12th day of February, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25