1 Wednesday, 28 January 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, kindly call the
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
8 everyone in and around the courtroom.
9 This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic
10 et al.
11 Thank you, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 Today is Wednesday, 28th of January, 2009. Good afternoon to the
14 accused, the Defence counsel, Mr. Scott, Mr. Stringer, and their case
15 manager, and good afternoon to all the people assisting us.
16 First of all, before moving to the agenda, I'd like to say the
18 Yesterday, we ran out of time, and the Trial Chamber noted that
19 Mr. Scott was not given the same amount of time as the time Mr. Khan had
20 to convey his views, so we ran out of time, and at 10 to 7.00, knowing
21 that Ms. Alaburic was to take the floor, I told Mr. Scott that he had
22 five minutes left. So being short of time, this is the reason why I
23 believe Mr. Scott was not in a position to finish. If he wishes to
24 finish now, he may proceed. If he thinks it's not necessary, he can say
25 so. Please.
1 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. Good
2 afternoon to each of you. Good afternoon to all counsel and the accused,
3 all those in and around the courtroom who are assisting us.
4 Your Honour, I will have a couple of additional comments. I
5 appreciate the Chamber's giving me the opportunity to do that. I just
6 note for the record that while I think my comments, in fact, will take
7 less than five minutes, nonetheless I do want the record to be clear that
8 in connection with yesterday -- last evening's discussion, that the total
9 amount of time devoted by the Defence to that issue was approximately 27
10 minutes, according to our time records, and I had taken, as of the time I
11 sat down yesterday, approximately 10 minutes. So I'd like the record to
12 just simply reflect that accurately. I think my comments, however, will
13 be brief.
14 As I was saying, a disturbing part of the continuing series of
15 summaries that we received from the Stojic Defence team, and I might -- I
16 might briefly bracket a comment and say, everyone in the courtroom, all
17 of us, understand the difficulties of this complex litigation and the
18 burdens of it. The Prosecution certainly feels those burdens virtually
19 every day, did during the Prosecution case, continues to do so. This is
20 a big case. Someone once told me, "Big cases, big headaches," and
21 I think there's been a number of headaches in this case. So we're not
22 unsympathetic, Your Honours, to the difficulties it imposes on the
23 lawyers, on all sides, and on the Chamber and its staff as well, so we
24 certainly appreciate that.
25 Now, having said that, there is a disturbing aspect in the
1 summaries that indicates to us, in our submission, indicates a tactical
2 aspect of this sequential additional disclosure of information, and this
3 is where I was yesterday when I suspended my comments.
4 In the second summary that the Prosecution received in this
5 matter, in connection with one matter, in particular, P 02056, that
6 second summary said this, and I'm quoting:
7 "Slobodan Bosic will specially explain documents that relate to a
8 central document labelled P 02056."
9 That was the full information that we were provided. He will
10 discuss this document listed by number; nothing more said.
11 In the third summary that the Prosecution received on this
12 matter, it said this in connection with the same exhibit:
13 "Mr. Bozic will testify -- will also testify about his knowledge
14 regarding the formation of detention camps, et cetera," and I'm skipping,
15 continuing the same sentence, "... and relations of the Department of
16 Defence toured these detention camps and military prisoners (P 02056)."
17 No other information, but the same mysterious P 02506 -- 56,
19 In the fourth summary received last Saturday, we received this
21 "As far as document number P 02056 is concerned, Mr. Bozic will
22 testify that he never received this report, but he had contacts with
23 Marko Bozic, the individual who signed the report, who confirmed to the
24 witness that he never signed that document."
25 Dramatically different and dramatically more detailed information
1 about this document, dramatically different than the first three
2 generations of summaries, only first disclosed on the Saturday before the
3 witness was scheduled to testify. And it saddens me to say, Your Honour,
4 that it strikes the Prosecution team as having been tactical in nature.
5 That could have been set out weeks ago.
6 I will further abbreviate my comments to this, Your Honour, in
7 light of everything else that has been said: Mr. Khan has thrown around
8 the word "lamentable," since these matters were first raised, and I will
9 imitate him to that extent and use the same word, and I'll close my
10 comments on this point with this:
11 What is lamentable is that a lawyer of Mr. Khan's experience and
12 skill apparently cannot read the Rules, the case law of this Tribunal,
13 and the rulings of this Trial Chamber and know what the law is. What is
14 lamentable is that a lawyer coming from the country of Shakespeare cannot
15 read the English language enough to know that his summaries clearly do
16 not comply with what the Rules require. A plain reading of the English
17 language indicates they say nothing or very little about what the witness
18 will say.
19 Finally, Your Honour, it is lamentable that it appears that the
20 real motivation or at least a substantial one was a tactical one,
21 contrary to the clear guidance given just last week by Your Honour
22 Judge Antonetti when you said, Mr. President:
23 "At this stage in the presentation of the evidence on the part of
24 the Defence, you do have to show your cards. You can't keep them
1 Quoting, Your Honour.
2 Those are our comments, Your Honour, and I have abbreviated them
3 further to take as little time as possible. And I appreciate the Chamber
4 affording me the opportunity to complete my submission.
5 Thank you.
6 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, just two minutes.
7 I'm most grateful to my learned friend's succinct submissions --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Khan.
9 First of all, I shall make amends, mai culpa, because yesterday I
10 had given you 10 minutes and you used 25 minutes. Maybe I should have
11 stepped in in order to interrupt you, which would account for the fact
12 that possibly Mr. Scott felt that he had not been given the same amount
13 of time, which is perfectly understandable, and I thank him for his
14 concision today.
15 Just this: Why did I let you continue yesterday? Because at
16 some point in time, you dealt with an issue of law that had escaped me
17 and may have escaped quite a few, that I thought interesting. It was the
18 issue of footnotes related to confidential decisions, and you set forth
19 the principle or problem of whether confidential decisions may be used.
20 I thought it over, overnight, I thought about it all night, and I
21 don't have a solution, because other Trial Chambers have issued decisions
22 and we do not take them into account at all. Whenever there's a problem
23 and we ask our legal officers to do some research, then sometimes we may
24 be informed of confidential decisions, but the issue arises as to whether
25 they may be used, risking contempt of court. You never know. So you did
1 raise a serious and a real problem, and I was listening to you, and I let
2 you run your course, which may account for the fact that 10 minutes
3 turned into 25, and this may be a reason why Mr. Scott had the feeling
4 that he had not been given sufficient time.
5 Furthermore, when Ms. Nozica intervened, I did not understand at
6 all why she took the floor. I don't know. Whilst your presentation had
7 been clear, you had set forth your position, and she added something
8 which I did not quite understand.
9 After that, we had the counsel for Mr. Coric, I understood then,
10 because I was not able to verify what Mr. Scott said about things I said
11 several months ago, I did not have the transcript back then -- or
12 yesterday, so I had to check, and I let Mr. Coric's counsel speak.
13 So this is what I wanted to convey to you. I hope all this is
14 going to calm down and that we will continue to work in the good spirit
15 that has characterized these proceedings.
16 You may proceed now, Mr. Khan.
17 MR. KHAN: Mr. President, I'm most grateful for your comments and
18 guidance, and for the indulgence yesterday.
19 Your Honours, I take it from you that I was 25 minutes, rather
20 than the whole proceedings, including Judge Trechsel's comments and
21 interventions of Ms. Nozica and the other counsel that had intervened
22 being taking up 25 minutes, but, Your Honour, be that as it may, if I can
23 deal with the issue of law first.
24 There is a difficulty in consistency that the Tribunal has to
25 grasp regarding the confidential decision. For my own part, as far as
1 it's relevant, my view is that there has to be a distinction drawn
2 between the legal findings in the decision and the confidential mention
3 of a witness or an issue, because it must be an issue of this Tribunal
4 that the jurisprudence, which is very thoughtfully crafted and that
5 emanates from the Benches of this Tribunal, are disseminated as widely as
6 possible, but of course it's an issue for the Registry in due course, in
7 my respectful submission, as to how to disseminate the law of this
8 Tribunal as widely as possible. It cannot be right, of course, that
9 jurisprudence which may be helpful to one party or the other is not
10 usable. That's the issue of law.
11 Your Honour, I'm not going to belabour the point. I heard
12 Mr. Scott's, as always, very eloquent comments about me coming from the
13 land of Shakespeare. I also come from a land of Ghalib
14 because I am Pakistani, so this is not my only language, and the
15 deficiency that I suffer from in English, I would ask that he perhaps
16 give me a degree of latitude.
17 But, Your Honour, the real issue wasn't Bozic. We intimated all
18 along that we would try to provide more information. The real issue was
19 why, in fairness, could a party not respond between March 2008 and
20 January 2009 if it said that a summary is deficient? And, Your Honours,
21 there are six teams here. For general allegations to be made that
22 summaries are deficient is not good enough, in my submission. It must be
23 a duty of a party, who is in receipt of a Defence team's summaries, to
24 specify which of those summaries are in adequate, not to do so on for all
25 of those months, March 2008 to January 2009, but on the eve of each
1 witness's arrival, almost, start asking a small Defence team to scurry
2 around to ferret out more information is really not satisfactory, and
3 that's why I made the argument of legitimate expectation and waiver.
4 Now, these are principles of administrative law and of fair
5 process, and those are the principle submissions that anchored my however
6 feeble submissions.
7 Your Honour, I am grateful for Mr. Scott's very generous
8 comments. I can assure him, for all the other foibles of this courtroom,
9 I have not fallen asleep in this courtroom. Not only is there very good
10 coffee in this cafeteria, but it is also a very interesting courtroom
11 with very interesting members on all sides. So I have tried my best to
12 pay attention.
13 But, Your Honour, those are my very brief and no doubt very
14 feeble submissions.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
16 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I'll ask the Chamber to please indulge
17 me for 30 more seconds to address a point that both you, Mr. President,
18 raised after I sat down and Mr. Khan touched on again after I sat down,
19 very briefly.
20 Your Honour, the point about the confidentiality of the various
21 legal filings, while a creative and interesting one, we submit, is not a
22 serious issue in this case. All of that law has been cited in the
23 Prosecution filings, going back probably more than a year now. All the
24 case law has been cited. It's been -- there's been citations, I believe,
25 in the Trial Chamber's orders. All I might say, without disclosing any
1 confidential information, when simply there's simply a quote as to a
2 statement of law as to what a summary required, without disclosing any
3 witness information, et cetera, I don't think anyone can be seriously
4 offended by that. So with due respect, and if we can end on a note -- on
5 that note, perhaps, with due respect to my learned friend, the point
6 about the law not being available to him is not a correct one.
7 Thank you very much.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, we discussed this
9 among the Judges. You have received the list of all the witnesses to
10 testify in the coming months, so the remaining 2D witnesses, 3D
11 witnesses, 4D witnesses, 5D witnesses, and 6D witnesses. Therefore, you
12 have received all the summaries. Now, if you have enough time to look at
13 those statements, look at those that raise problems for you, and then you
14 can turn to the respective teams for supplements, so as to have to do
15 that one day or three days before the concerned witness comes.
16 Everybody's received their 65 ter list, everybody's received the
17 statements. Therefore, you and your team, you can look at them, and if
18 you realise, for instance, that for Mr. Coric's witness there's a very
19 poor statement that raises problems, just say so to them and ask for
20 supplements, without necessarily addressing the Trial Chamber on them.
21 And should there be any problems, then you do have the possibility of
22 addressing us. But you have received the scheduling for the entire
23 hearings, you have all the statements. Try to identify where there are
24 problems, because you're both right, we don't have to settle the matter,
25 but it must be said that the Defence has limited means, and it's part of
1 their goodwill. They do have limited resources.
2 And I heard Mr. Khan and you, Mr. Scott, say that there were
3 exchanges of four letters. I can imagine the latest one last Saturday.
4 I can imagine the problem it raised for the Defence, because they have to
5 proof the witness, they have to answer your mail. It's complicated.
6 They don't have a fleet of legal assistants helping them, so they do find
7 themselves in a situation of inferiority. So if, in advance, you can ask
8 them to supply you with specific supplements, that would be good for
9 everybody; for the Trial Chamber, for you, and for the Defence teams.
10 But I think everybody has now understood, in substance, what is essential
11 is that everybody can defend their cases as best as they can.
12 Yes, Mr. Scott.
13 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 I want to start by saying we'll certainly take that on board, as
15 we have in the past. I want that -- I do want to say, to be clear,
16 though, Your Honour, maybe not fully successfully, but we have, in fact,
17 and again with respect to my good friend, I disagree with him that the
18 matters haven't been raised. We have tried to keep these matters from
19 the Trial Chamber, and following up in part, in part, on the
20 encouragement from Judge Trechsel last fall. I think there was a time,
21 Judge Trechsel, he mentioned the same thing, and we took that on board at
22 the time. I take your comments today, Mr. President, on board as well.
23 But I think it's only fair to say the Prosecution has endeavoured to do
25 We don't burden the Chamber and the legal officers with all the
1 exchange of letters between counsel.
2 The motion that we filed in January was only after an exchange of
3 letters, several letters, only after specifically asking for it. And
4 with the witness schedule upon us, and what's happened in the past is we
5 don't file it until, quote, "too late," and then it become a
6 fait accompli or the Chamber says it's too late, so we waited until what
7 we considered the last possible moment -- excuse me. We waited until
8 what we considered a last reasonable moment for motions to be filed, for
9 it to come before the Chamber, for it to be heard and considered, and for
10 a decision to possibly be delivered before the witness was then scheduled
11 to testify.
12 So I don't want there to be any misunderstanding in the
13 courtroom, that what's actually happened, and we have raised -- we have
14 raised these issues in a regular basis, and they are not being raised one
15 to three days before the witness gets here. This matter started being
16 raised concerning Mr. Bozic some time ago, so I do want to be clear about
18 Your Honour, I will commit to the Chamber, if it will assist, and
19 the Prosecution always seeks to be constructive, as to the Stojic
20 summaries, we will go back through them again, the remaining witnesses --
21 of course, we just finished or are about to start the second witness and
22 just finished the first witness. I will commit to the Chamber that we
23 will go through the Stojic summaries, in particular, and communicate
24 further on that.
25 But having said that, Your Honour, I do that as a show of
1 absolute good faith and good intentions to the Chamber.
2 Having said that, I must nonetheless record that I don't accept
3 that the principle of the burden to bring the Defence into compliance
4 falls on the Prosecution. The Rules are there, the Rules are to be
5 complied with. Your Honour, the Defence might just as well say, and I'm
6 sorry if Mr. Kovacic doesn't like me to say this, but it's what's
7 reflected in the record. When Your Honour, President Antonetti, said
8 last April that the Praljak summaries are not adequate, does that mean
9 Your Honour, Judge Antonetti, that you have to remind them each day until
10 they come into compliance that their summaries are not adequate? It's
11 neither on the Chamber nor on the Prosecution's obligation to bring the
12 Defence into compliance. And while we will bend over backwards to do
13 what we can to assist these proceedings and assist the Chamber, we have
14 to say it's not our burden to do that.
15 Again, I'm very grateful to for the opportunity to address the
16 Chamber. Thank you.
17 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, I do apologise. I wanted to leave
18 matters as they were, rather than have a ping-pong match in court, but,
19 Your Honour, I did say yesterday it is very easy to paint a picture with
20 very broad brush strokes.
21 Your Honour, I invite my learned friend to disclose to the Trial
22 Chamber, otherwise we will do it, all the correspondence on this issue of
23 summaries since March 2008.
24 Your Honours, yesterday I referred to the only correspondence,
25 and let my learned friend correct me. The 1st of October, no mention of
1 specific inadequacies. The 23rd of October. But, Your Honour, the only
2 letter was the 5th of January, in which the Prosecution stated that they
3 request adequate summaries as previously requested in their letters of
4 the 1st of October and 23rd of October. And, Your Honour, those letters
5 do not support that proposition.
6 So, Your Honours, my learned friend is asserting that there has
7 been -- there is clear evidence that rebuts my central thesis that there
8 is a waiver by the Prosecution and that we have a legitimate expectation
9 that our summaries submitted in March 2008 are not called into dispute,
10 were not alleged to be deficient, until January of 2009, should have
11 stopped the Prosecution from asking for further and better particulars at
12 this late stage, because they were dilatory and they were tardy. Your
13 Honours, that is an oral motion that I made before the Trial Chamber.
14 And, Your Honours, given what Mr. Scott has said, I would ask for
15 a ruling that the Prosecution now -- it's too late in the day, in
16 relation to the Stojic team, to ask for further and better particulars.
17 We will endeavour unilaterally, as I said yesterday, to supplement where
18 we can, but their delay is not without legal effect.
19 Your Honours, I do invite Mr. Scott and I stand to be corrected.
20 Let's put forward to the Trial Chamber the correspondence in which he
21 states that our summaries were deficient between March of 2008 and
22 January of 2009. Your Honours, I have referenced the only correspondence
23 in my possession, which are the letters of the 1st of October and the
25 So, Your Honours, I would ask that this issue be looked at not
1 with broad brush strokes but with a fine brush.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may be heard, Mr. President, if I may be
3 heard for just one minute.
4 Obviously, this issue has been litigated and re-litigated. We
5 all know the law, and I think that it's not going to go away. I think
6 perhaps the best approach would be for the parties to sit down with the
7 senior legal officer under 65 ter private hearings and they can hash it
8 out, and if necessary, then come to court, but I think that's probably
9 the easiest way. That's my first point.
10 My second point is, I do take exception to Mr. Scott's yesterday
11 making certain remarks about me. I understand this was a segue into his
12 speech, but it would appear that he was characterizing me as some sort of
13 a ring leader of a motley crew of miscreants, and I don't think that's
14 fair. I have nothing to do with the other Defence teams. We try to
15 abide by the Rules. We disagreed on occasion. We did our best. But I
16 don't think it's necessary for Mr. Scott to malign me or to use me as,
17 you know, someone to kick around every time he has a disagreement with
18 other Defence teams.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, let's put an end to this
21 Our decisions were very clear. Unfortunately, this type of
22 discussion should have been broached and settled during the pre-trial
23 phase, and further to the Bonomy report, whenever a trial is being
24 prepared, the Pre-Trial Judge should not just read the memo drafted by
25 the senior legal officer, but should also get involved in the management
1 of the file and, based on witness lists, should have examined each of
2 them to ask for further information from all parties regarding exhibits
3 and statements, and then everything would have been settled during the
4 pre-trial phase rather than during the trial proceedings. So it's a kind
5 of cultural revolution that should be carried out in this Tribunal.
6 Pre-trial Judges should get more involved than that. Presiding Judges
7 have more power, as per the Rules, but all this is very difficult to
8 implement, to set in motion.
9 But hope springs eternal. We might get there some day.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 I hope it will be helpful if I return to the substance of this
12 issue; namely, what does the Chamber think is the obligation of the
13 Defences. And as you have no doubt seen in our decision of 22nd of
14 January, we have followed the case law, not really published case law,
15 which clearly says that it is not enough to say what the witness will
16 testify about, what will be the subject of his discussion, but that it is
17 necessary to tell the other party and the Chamber what he will actually
18 say. And we had this little exchange of views with Ms. Nozica where I
19 already referred to this and to the fact that even if the Prosecution has
20 taken a statement from the witness years ago, when he was still
21 considered to be a possible suspect, it may well be that in the meantime
22 he will tell something quite different. And in fact the last expert
23 witness we had here in certain points declared that now he had a quite
24 different view than the view he had barely four years ago.
25 So I think it's enough to look at what is set out in the 65 ter
1 list and circle, as I start doing it, every time the word "about" comes
2 up, to circle it, and to try to replace it by something affirmative that
3 the witness will say that, he will testify that.
4 I join those -- I think everyone is in agreement on the fact that
5 this is not very easy, it needs a certain effort. On the other hand,
6 certainly no formal statement is needed, and that already makes the
7 burden much lighter, because it's not necessary to have an entire
8 organisation, to bring in sworn translators or interpreters and so forth.
9 And, on the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that the Defence calls
10 a witness without an idea of not only what he is speaking about, but what
11 he is actually going to say, because that is what will assist the case of
12 the Defence.
13 I hope this helps to clarify what the Chamber meant in its
14 decision on 22nd January, and I think that to some extent, at least, it
15 is not difficult for Defence teams to look at what they have and see
16 where the problem actually lies. It's not so much really a question of
17 detail, but the difference between a witness testifying about something
18 and the witness saying this or something else.
19 Thank you.
20 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 I would only like to add, without prolongation of this debate,
22 that I would like to associate myself with the statements made by our
23 President Antonetti and also by Judge Trechsel. Our position has rather
24 clearly been exposed and submitted in our decision a week ago, and I
25 believe that it should be, of course, followed.
1 I would like only to add that really I would expect the parties
2 to proceed in this way, as we have asked for, and in a way to close this
3 issue without further discussion and, in a way, kind of accusing each
4 other with certain problems, which of course with some goodwill could be
5 solved. I believe it is an issue which now should be really closed, in
6 the interests of justice, in the interests of the good proceedings of the
7 Trial Chamber, and I would like to call on you to try to help us and to
8 proceed in a way which will be useful for this Trial Chamber itself.
9 Thank you.
10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I shall
11 be very brief.
12 Originally, I hadn't intended to join in this discussion.
13 I think all that is important has already been said. But in view of the
14 fact that my learned friend Mr. Scott explicitly mentioned
15 General Praljak's Defence counsel and my name at the beginning of page 12
16 as an example of inappropriate behaviour and inadequate summaries,
17 I think it is my duty to make two brief comments.
18 First of all, I wish to say for the record that I strongly
19 support the arguments given by the Defence counsel for Mr. Stojic. There
20 is absolutely no doubt that the theory on the waiver of the right
21 objectively stands, and this is a theory that this Court accepts, and it
22 attaches it to the criterion of due attention, due consideration; namely,
23 the Prosecutor has received summaries from all the Defence counsels on
24 the 31st of March of last year. It is true, though the Prosecutor has
25 slightly misinterpreted it, that the Chamber at that point had certain
1 objections regarding our summaries. As my Defence counsel takes all
2 these objections very seriously, we reviewed them, and we agreed to a
3 point that some of the summaries were inadequate, and we sought to remedy
5 However, even before trying to analyse this, as early as the 31st
6 of March, all the witness statements in our possession, of which the
7 summaries were disclosed, and we have 98 per cent of complete statements
8 of witnesses for which we have provided only summaries, all those
9 statements were on that day or the next day, in any event at the
10 beginning of April, were disclosed to the Prosecution. They were made
11 accessible on the e-mail. So the Prosecutor did not only receive
12 summaries, but also statements. It is true that a smaller number of
13 those statements were with English translations and the translations were
14 added subsequently.
15 Throughout that period, until quite recently, it never occurred
16 to me that it would be possible for the Prosecutor to have any problems
17 with the summaries of General Praljak. I wish to state here, for the
18 benefit of the Chamber, that simply there's nothing more than the
19 statements. The complete statements, the complete interviews, regardless
20 of whether we are going to question the witness about everything, we
21 cannot offer more than that. And it is clear from the case law that I'm
22 not obliged to have a statement, not to mention to disclose it, so I'm
23 doing much more than I am duty-bound.
24 From the 1st of April last year until the present, has not once,
25 in a single word, though we do attach small letters to new
1 translations -- he never called in question this question of summaries.
2 So I wish to avoid such discussions in the future that I'm not able, with
3 the team that I have and the only team that I can have on the basis of
4 the finances I have, that I'm not able to provide anything more except
5 the statements, when our case comes up, the complete text of the
6 statements. And we have already provided them with this.
7 So any effort to obtain from this Defence anything more is
8 prompted by some other motive. Let us encumber the Defence to deal with
9 insignificant matters and have less time for the substance. I'm just
11 And I support the theory of waiver. The Prosecutor should not
12 have sat quietly for a year and now raise a major issue regarding the
13 summaries by Mr. Stojic.
14 And, secondly, I have provided them with much more than it is my
15 duty to do.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will give an
17 oral ruling concerning the motion from the Prosecution on the Stijepo
18 Buljan summary.
19 On 13th of January, 2009, the Prosecution requested the Chamber
20 to instruct the Stojic Defence to submit an adequate summary of the
21 Stijepo Buljan testimony in line with 65 ter(G) of the Rules, and this to
22 be done by the 19th of January, 2009.
23 In the transcript, it was on the 13th of January that this was
24 requested, the 13th of January, and the answer to be given by the 19th of
1 On the 16th of January, 2009, the Praljak Defence made a written
2 submission in which it supports the view that the summary of Stijepo
3 Buljan is adequate and thorough.
4 On the 19th of January, 2009, the Stojic Defence made a written
5 submission according to which it informs the Trial Chamber that it will
6 provide a supplement to the summary of Stijepo Buljan as quickly as
7 possible. The Stojic Defence submitted this supplement on the 22nd of
8 January, 2009.
9 Having examined the submission by the Stojic Defence, the Chamber
10 deems that this has provided adequate information, making it possible for
11 the Prosecutor to prepare the cross-examination of the witness who is
12 scheduled to appear as of the 4th of February, 2009.
13 Given the supplementary element provided by the Stojic Defence,
14 the Chamber declares that the request made by the Prosecutor is
16 What is more, yesterday I read out an oral ruling, asking the
17 Prosecutor whether they wanted Zelenika to return for cross-examination
18 on the contribution to the Cvikl report. Yesterday, you said you were
19 going to look into this, so do you have an answer?
20 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
21 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry, Mr. Scott. I would only like to ask
22 you to wait for one minute.
23 I believe that the English translation of the previous oral
24 ruling decision was not the best one. The very last sentence said that:
25 "Given the supplementary element provided by the Stojic Defence,
1 the Chamber declares that the request made by the Prosecutor is
3 Now, I believe that the English equivalent to the French word
4 should be not "unfounded" but "moot," so I believe that there is a
5 certain difference between the two. So we used not "unfounded" but that
6 the request has become moot, m-o-o-t.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would just like to confirm this. I had the
9 same observation.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would ask the interpreters to
11 be very careful. This is not the first time that such errors have crept
12 in, and then there are huge consequences subsequently.
13 This is a very difficult job that you do, but an error can have
14 consequences, as we have already seen when Ms. Alaburic intervened,
15 picking up on something that she thought I had said. So I would ask the
16 interpreters to be extremely careful. Everything that we have has a
17 particular meaning, and this term "sans objet" does not mean "unfounded,"
18 it's not "sans fondement." It's not the same thing. So please be
19 professional in your approach to translation. And I would like to thank
20 you in advance.
21 Now I turn to Mr. Scott. For Zelenika, what does the Prosecutor
22 have to say?
23 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President, and I do appreciate the
24 clarification, and indeed there is a significant difference in it, and I
25 do appreciate everyone taking the time to correct it.
1 Your Honour, I've talked about this matter, consulted with
2 Mr. Stringer. Given the passage of time and the testimony of both these
3 witnesses that is now taking place, we would not persist in that motion
4 and it can be considered to the extent it may be outstanding, to be
5 withdrawn or, again, moot perhaps, as Mr. Karnavas says.
6 I might just -- if Your Honour will indulge me for one additional
7 second on two things.
8 I hope the Chamber will appreciate, and especially in the light
9 of the arguments made about waiver or standing silent, I hope the Chamber
10 will appreciate that I'm not going to respond further to the comments.
11 Someone has to stop, and that doesn't mean I agree, that doesn't mean the
12 Prosecution agrees, unless we be accused, "Well, Mr. Scott didn't say on
13 the 28th of January he's waived it." I hope that won't be the case. I
14 don't agree with a number of the comments that have been made, but it has
15 to stop somewhere, Your Honour. I hope the Chamber will appreciate that
16 I'm not making additional comments on this point in that spirit.
17 Your Honour, while I'm on my feet, as concerning a matter which
18 was raised yesterday, also I think it might be constructive, perhaps, if
19 we could address it. If we could go into private session just for a
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar.
22 [Private session]
11 Pages 36123-36124 redacted. Private session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, I give you the floor
14 for the IC numbers. I believe you have several of these.
15 THE REGISTRAR: That's correct, Your Honour.
16 Some parties have submitted lists of documents to be tendered
17 through Witness Marijan, Davor. The list submitted by 2D shall be given
18 Exhibit IC 00905. The list submitted by 1D shall be given
19 Exhibit IC 00906. The list submitted by 3D shall be given Exhibit IC
20 00907. The list submitted by 4D shall be given Exhibit IC 00908. The
21 list submitted by 5D shall be given Exhibit IC 00909. And, finally, the
22 list submitted by the Prosecution shall be given Exhibit IC 00910.
23 Thank you, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.
25 Ms. Alaburic, you have the floor.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
11 Pages 36127-36140 redacted.
20 Let me ask the Registrar to prepare the order so that I can sign
21 it. In this way, the witnesses outside the courtroom will not be aware
22 of what has been discussed. So we have now taken a look at this. We
23 will have to stop.
24 Mr. Scott.
25 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 I can assure the Chamber, only a procedural point, although again
2 some minutes having passed since the Prosecution was on its feet. We
3 obviously will have views on this topic as well, which I won't go into
5 It would assist and we would ask Your Honours is that if the
6 Defence submissions can be made and all come in at a certain time, so
7 that the Prosecution might be able to file one response, once all the
8 Defence submissions have been made, we would be most appreciative, and
9 I think it would be most sufficient on that point, Your Honour.
10 And I do have one other point to raise if the Chamber --
11 depending on what the Chamber has in mind for the schedule.
12 Thank you.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead, yes, do. Of course,
14 as soon as the written submissions of the Defence are registered, you
15 will be given time to respond.
16 What else did you want to say, Mr. Scott?
17 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, it relates to a matter -- first, if we
18 could go into private session, and then we'll have to determine whether
19 we have to go further than that or not. The first step is private.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, please, let's go
21 into private session.
22 [Private session]
11 Pages 36143-36146 redacted.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
at 3.51 p.m.
15 to be reconvened on Monday, the 2nd day of
16 February, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.