²¹³¹²

Tuesday, 27 May 2003

[Open session]

--- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: The Detention Unit have sent notice that the accused has a fever and is, therefore, unable to attend today. He will be seen by the doctor later today and we will have a report on his condition, and we will then make a decision as to future hearings this week, if that is possible, in the light of the report, but plainly we can't sit today, and it must be unlikely that we'll sit tomorrow.

Yes. That being so, of course this does not count as a sitting day from the hundred days given to the Prosecution. There are two matters I can deal with which are rulings on the 92 bis applications made yesterday. We'll consider any other business that anybody thinks appropriate.

Let me deal with, first of all, the statements of witnesses B-1455, and 1775. These statements will be admitted under Rule 92 bis subject to the witnesses appearing for cross-examination. These statements do not contain evidence connected with the acts and conduct of the accused. They are crime based and cumulative in the sense already defined by the Trial Chamber in earlier rulings, that is that they relate to events in Zvornik municipality about which much evidence has already been given.

In relation to the transcripts of Osman Selak, who has given evidence earlier in two trials, the Trial Chamber will admit those transcripts except for the evidence concerning the political and military ²¹³¹³ command and control structure which evidence must be given live, and on condition that the Prosecution indicate which matter in the transcripts it seeks to rely on.

I make it plain that it is a matter of concern to the Trial Chamber that this amount of material should be served on it and the accused without proper indication, as I think was the practice of the Prosecution, if I remember, with the last transcript witness we had, Mrs. Bosanac, that the various passages relied on were marked. We do so for this reason: That for anybody to read that amount of material without a clear guideline as to what is relied on and what is not is a very difficult task and a burden which should not be undertaken unless it can be lightened. And if the Prosecution are going to seek in future to rely on any transcripts, they must clearly mark them from the very outset with the passages on which they rely. It is -- we take the point made by the amicus that it really is very difficult if evidence is not given live to follow it if there is not a clear guide as to what is relevant and isn't.

On the other hand, and I speak for myself as I said during the course of argument, it is important in these trials that where possible and where the fairness of the trial is not compromised, that where witnesses have given evidence before under declaration, that such transcripts be used, if possible, but it must be done on the basis that anybody can, with a reasonable amount and not an unreasonable amount of work, understand what the nature of the evidence is. I would also add that the exhibits which have come with this ²¹³¹⁴ witness are not satisfactorily produced at the moment. They need dividers and numbering and a proper list attached to them. So the Prosecution will see to that too.

I deal with those matters. I don't know if there are any other matters which it would be suitable to deal with given that the accused isn't here and can't hear what's said.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just on the issue of the Selak transcript, a guide to that transcript will be supplied today, and exhibits will be done forthwith.

The only request the Prosecution would have, that in the event that we do not sit tomorrow, or it seems that this witness will have to return to his home, the Prosecution would ask for permission to speak to the witness on the limited issue of any security concerns he may have. It is our belief that, given the nature of his testimony and what we know about his situation, that he may have some concerns.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Kay, I have in mind that we have your paper as to the future role of the amicus. I don't know if there's anything further you want to add to that in due course. We have it under consideration. Plainly in the light we haven't dealt with it because we were considering the application on behalf of the Prosecution for an extension, now that we have that information, we will consider your position.

MR. KAY: Yes. I understood that, first of all, we would have a decision over the Prosecution's section of the case, how long that was to ²¹³¹⁵ be, but I thought it was good to put it in in a timely form so that the Trial Chamber, which I'm sure was already looking to the issues ahead, so that we could see that far ahead at least.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. I mean, as far as you and Mr. Tapuskovic are concerned, there plainly are a number of months before we get to the end of the Prosecution case.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Unless there are any other matters which anybody wants to raise, the Court will adjourn. We may not sit again unless there's good reason to do so, but we will let everybody know as soon as we can what the position is about the next sitting and make a decision, if we can, about the rest of this week as early as possible. We will adjourn.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned sine die at 9.17 a.m.