1 Wednesday, 30 January 2002

2 [Interlocutory Appeal Hearing]

3 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.

4 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Please be seated. Madam Registrar,

5 would you have the accused brought in.

6 [The accused entered court]

7 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] First of all, I would like to say

8 good morning to the interpreters to make sure everybody is at his place.

9 Good morning; and good morning to the Prosecution and to the amici curiae;

10 and good morning to the accused.

11 First of all, I would ask Madam Registrar to call the case which

12 we are hearing this morning.

13 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President and

14 Your Honours. This is case number IT-99-37-AR73, IT-01-50-AR73,

15 IT-01-51-AR73, the Prosecutor versus Slobodan Milosevic.

16 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Registrar.

17 I would ask for the appearances for the parties. First to the

18 Prosecution.

19 MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I represent the

20 Prosecution, myself Carla del Ponte, with my colleagues Geoffrey Nice,

21 Norman Farrell, and Peggy Kuo. Thank you, Mr. President.

22 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you. The accused has no

23 Defence counsel, at least not as far as I know. And in this case, we have

24 amici curiae, who might identify themselves as well for the proper conduct

25 of the proceedings.

1 MR. KAY: Steven Kay of Queen's Counsel for the amici curiae, with

2 Branislav Tapuskovic of the Yugoslav bar.

3 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.

4 Now that everybody has identified him or herself, I would like to

5 give a brief background for this case. Let me first remind you, and I

6 remind the accused, that on the 13th of December, 2001, Trial Chamber III

7 ordered that: The indictment in the three cases which have been

8 identified by the registrar, that is, the Croatia indictment and Bosnia

9 indictment, be joined and that they be given a joint case number;

10 secondly, that the Prosecution, within 28 days from the date of the

11 decision which I have just mentioned, file a joint indictment; third, that

12 the Kosovo indictment be the subject of a separate trial which would

13 commence on the 12th of February of 2002; and four, that the trial

14 relating to the events in Croatia and Bosnia commence immediately

15 afterwards before this same Chamber. That is the decision of 13 December

16 2001.

17 On the 20th of December 2001, the Prosecution sent to the Appeals

18 Chamber an application for leave to file an interlocutory appeal against

19 that part of decision rejecting the joinder of the Kosovo indictment and

20 the indictments respectively concerning Bosnia and Croatia, in accordance

21 with Rule 73(D) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

22 On the 9th of January, 2002, the Appeals Chamber authorised the

23 Prosecutor to file an interlocutory appeal of that decision of 13 December

24 2001, emphasising, however, that such authorisation should not be

25 interpreted as preventing the Trial Chamber, should it so decide, to

1 commence the trial in respect of the Kosovo indictment at the date which

2 had already been set. That is, as I remind you, the 12th of February

3 2002.

4 Lastly, on the 15th of January, 2002, the Prosecutor filed to the

5 Appeals Chamber an interlocutory appeal against the decision on the

6 application for joinder, requesting in substance that the Appeals Chamber

7 set aside the decision of the Trial Chamber and order the joinder of the

8 Croatia and Bosnia indictments and the Kosovo indictment.

9 The Prosecutor claims, and now I quote, four points which are the

10 subject of the debates this morning: First of all, that the Trial

11 Chamber, according to the Prosecutor, erroneously found that the

12 Croatia/Bosnia, and Kosovo indictments could not be joined because they

13 did not form the same transaction.

14 Two, the Prosecutor claims that the Trial Chamber erred in the

15 exercise of its discretion by failing to take into account the true

16 prejudice to the Prosecution by requiring certain witnesses to testify in

17 separate trials.

18 Three of the Prosecutor's argument: The Trial Chamber erred in

19 the exercise of its discretion in finding that a joint trial would

20 prejudice the accused, contrary to all the representations on the record.

21 And fourth point: The Trial Chamber erred in the exercise of its

22 discretion by considering as a reason for denying joinder that a joint

23 trial would be unmanageable for the Trial Chamber, without stating any

24 reason in support of that conclusion.

25 The amici curiae in this case have not provided to the Appeals

1 Chamber their written observations in respect of the appeal. Nonetheless,

2 today, meeting, the Appeals Chamber wishes them to be heard should they so

3 wish.

4 In agreement with my colleagues, we have decided that this hearing

5 would take place as follows: After this introduction, the Prosecutor will

6 present its application in 30 minutes, approximately. One can be somewhat

7 flexible. After that, it should be about 10.15, the Judges will ask

8 questions.

9 Then the floor will be given to the accused, should he wish to be

10 heard, for that same amount of time to present an argument. And of

11 course, the Judges could put questions to him should they so wish. We

12 should then be approximately 11.30. We'll take a break. And after that,

13 for a short amount of time, approximately 15 minutes, we will hear the

14 amici curiae, and perhaps the Judges may have some questions to put to

15 them. And should that be necessary, but only should the accused raise

16 objections because he is his own defence, there may be a reply given to

17 the Prosecutor.

18 Having said this, I give the floor immediately to Madam

19 Prosecutor.

20 MS. DEL PONTE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank

21 you, Your Honours.

22 In 30 minutes, we will try, that is, myself and my college

23 Geoffrey Nice, to provide additional information about the motive set

24 forth in our written brief. We confirm that the application of Rule 49 of

25 the proceedings is necessary. This is the same transaction; one strategy,

1 one plan, one scheme and, we add, one and the same accused ascribing to

2 him a single crime, series of crimes, the same facts. All of this, Your

3 Honours, connects the three indictments very clearly. That is forced and

4 violent expulsion of non-Serbian populations of large parts of the

5 territory of Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo.

6 The grand plan, overall plan, of the accused Milosevic, which was

7 clear already in 1989, was an essentially Serbian state, dominated by

8 Belgrade. There is a nexus in these events, a nexus of fact, which we

9 will prove chronologically. And the common denominator of all this

10 criminal activity was - and this must never be forgotten - the forced

11 expulsion. My colleague will explain the details to you.

12 I myself would like to emphasise, as you already know but I will

13 again emphasise, that we are ready to begin the Kosovo trial. We will be

14 ready for the trial of the two other indictments on the 1st of July,

15 2002. The 1st of July, 2002, we will be prepared to commence the two

16 other trials; and in addition, in two months from today, we will be able

17 to present the list of witnesses, the list of documents - that is, the

18 exhibits - and the pre-trial brief. Of course, I will call it

19 "provisional" as the Rules of Procedure and Evidence authorise me to do.

20 I would like to put forward a few observations, Mr. President, in

21 respect of the indications given in the motivations for refusal to join

22 the indictments in which it was said more than three years have gone by

23 between the events in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the first episode in Kosovo.

24 This does not mean that the three years do not represent a period

25 that should be examined during the trial because one must not disregard

1 the fact that after four and a half years of war in Croatia and Bosnia,

2 the Serbs had had enough of war.

3 The economic situation in the country was disastrous; the war had

4 been a total failure; the popular support in Serbia was disappearing; and

5 most of all, the resources necessary to carry out another war, another

6 conflict in Kosovo, were no longer available.

7 The striking example which makes it clear to us that the accused

8 Milosevic did in fact have the intention of continuing his plan of ethnic

9 cleansing is the fact that during the negotiations for the Dayton

10 Agreements, Milosevic did not want to include Kosovo.

11 You know, Your Honours, Mr. Rugova asked the Americans to include

12 the situation in Kosovo, which was not at all calm, but Mr. Milosevic, the

13 accused Milosevic, refused that categorically. Therefore, all

14 negotiations, Mr. President, which took place between 1996 and 1997 on

15 Kosovo, independently of the Dayton Agreements of 1995, failed.

16 In 1998, you have the resignation of the army and the secret

17 services because they protested, that is, the chiefs were protesting,

18 against Milosevic's policies in Kosovo.

19 And finally, the well-known agreement which was negotiated by

20 Holbrooke was something that the accused Milosevic did not apply. And we

21 are now still speaking about Kosovo.

22 What happened, the attitude, the behaviour of the accused during

23 that period, which is very significant, also is the preparatory period for

24 the Kosovo conflict, because the Serbian question is something that the

25 accused Milosevic had in his mind from the very outset, that is the

1 expulsion of the non-Serbs, a concept which did not exclude Kosovo and

2 especially because there was fighting for control of the territory.

3 There you have it, Mr. President. One final consideration: We

4 have said and repeated this morning that no prejudice must occur to the

5 accused through the joinder of the indictments in this trial. I am asking

6 you, Mr. President and Your Honours, that no prejudice come to the victims

7 because the victims have the right to be able to have a single trial. We

8 will not have victims to have priority because they appear first as before

9 others, that is the victims from Croatia and Bosnia, and no prejudice for

10 the victims. And that is true. The -- we do not have partie civile, but

11 the victims are here, and there are many of them. And I thank you.

12 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Prosecutor. If

13 I've understood correctly, in the time that you have, which is somewhat --

14 which is flexible - that's why I set up a framework, but it's an

15 organisational one - I believe that one of your collaborators is going to

16 take the floor.

17 Geoffrey Nice, please proceed.

18 MR. NICE: As it please Your Honour, I shall fill the remainder of

19 the half an hour. When it comes to questions, I may call on either my

20 learned friends Mr. Farrell or Ms. Kuo, to whom we're particularly

21 indebted for drafting the brief, to answer any of the detailed questions

22 that you may ask.

23 The matter has been extensively argued in our brief, and I will

24 simply supplement the arguments there rather than, I hope, repeat them.

25 This is the first, perhaps, time when Rule 49 will fall for detailed

1 consideration by this Appeals Chamber, and in those circumstances, I

2 propose to raise some slightly detailed arguments about its proper scope.

3 Can I invite Your Honours' attention straightaway to Rule 49, and

4 I hope Your Honours won't mind if I deal with it in English, making the

5 odd observation about the French version, which I hope is accurate.

6 Rule 49 itself permits joinder of crimes in one indictment if the

7 series of acts committed together form the same transaction and the same

8 crimes were committed by the same accused. The short point that we desire

9 to make at the beginning is that the words "committed together," which the

10 Court will find on the second line of the Rule, and which may not be

11 reflected in the French version, may have been a bit of a trap for the

12 Trial Chamber. It may be that those words add nothing and could simply be

13 excised as surplusage. It may be on a proper consideration of

14 particularly Rule 2, that if they are to be carefully construed, they are

15 to be construed with a comma between the two of them, that the word

16 "committed" should be joined to "series of acts" rather than being

17 connected to the word "together" in the way the Trial Chamber seemed to

18 find. And we make that point in particular as a matter of common sense

19 but also as a matter of consistency with Rule 2 to which I would then

20 invite Your Honours' attention.

21 Rule 2's preamble, of course, allows that the definitions can be

22 flexible to the extent that the context requires, and for "transaction"

23 says as follows:

24 "A number of acts or omissions, whether occurring as one

25 event ..."

1 and we would invite you really to draw a line after the word "event,"

2 "... or a number of events at the same or different locations and being

3 part of a common scheme, strategy, or plan."

4 In our respectful submission, the definition is clear to the

5 effect that criminal acts may be joined in a single indictment if, on the

6 one hand, they are one event; alternatively, if they are a number of

7 events, whether at the same or different locations, that are part of a

8 common scheme, strategy, or plan. And immediately it's obvious that if

9 the words "committed together" really bind any indictment and bind any

10 joinder of offences within an indictment, then the second limb of this

11 definition simply has no scope. And it's never been suggested in this

12 Tribunal that that is the case. It's always been accepted by the practice

13 of the Tribunal that acts at different places and times connected in a

14 certain way can form the basis of a single indictment.

15 So our submission is that the simple reading of the definition of

16 "Transaction" in Rule 2 reveals that those words "committed together" in

17 Rule 49 take the case no further.

18 I set that out right at the beginning for this reason: If the

19 Court would be good enough now, please, to go to the decision of the Trial

20 Chamber, and since I know that you are familiar with it, I can deal with

21 it in summary starting at about paragraph 31.

22 The architecture of the judgement at this stage is as follows:

23 The Trial Chamber went first to look at such assistance for the phrase

24 "same transaction" there was to be found in decisions of the ICTR. At

25 33 -- I beg your pardon. At 32, it made a reference to the requirement in

1 civil law of connexite. At 33, it turned to the common law, and in

2 particular to the United States Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,

3 Rule 8, which it sets out almost in full.

4 That rule can be broken down. It depends how you deal with the

5 grammar, but it can be broken down either into one part and the second

6 part being into three subparts or perhaps into four parts. We would

7 invite you to say that one way or another it comes to four parts as

8 revealed in footnote 28 of our brief, which you can find, for ease of

9 reference, on page 10, I think it is, of our brief.

10 Material for the Court's considerations in understanding the Trial

11 Chamber's decision are the last two lines of the American Rule, picking it

12 up from the word "or." This is in paragraph 33 of the decision. "... or

13 on two or more acts or transactions connected together..." and the Court

14 will observe that the Trial Chamber emphasised the words "connected

15 together," although we say it was inappropriate to do so, and then it goes

16 on "... or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan."

17 So this part, or these two parts, of - it may be a four-part rule

18 in the Federal Rules of the United States - envisages a joint indictment

19 where there are acts connected together. And we would say that matches,

20 in our jurisprudence, the "single event" concept; alternatively, it

21 permits joinder of acts that constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.

22 The word "strategy" doesn't appear there, although it does in our Rules.

23 Continuing with the judgment at 35, the English cases are referred

24 to, which perhaps have less significance because they are differently

25 founded. And then at 36, the Chamber said this, and in our respectful

1 submission, incorrectly: "Accordingly, in the view of the Trial Chamber,

2 the essence of the test is to determine whether there were a series of

3 acts committed which together formed the same transaction, that is, part

4 of a common scheme, strategy or plan." With that we have no objection.

5 It goes on: "However, the reference to a 'series' and the use of

6 the phrase 'committed together' in Rule 49 indicates that the acts must be

7 connected in the same way that common law and civil law jurisdictions

8 require."

9 It goes on: "There is no power to join unconnected acts on the

10 ground that they form part of the same plan." That, we respectfully

11 submit, is wholly wrong. It is contrary to the definition in Rule 2, and

12 insofar as it seeks to reflect the guidance it receives from the American

13 statute, it is reflecting only one part of what would appear to be a

14 four-part rule.

15 It goes on to say: "As Judge Shahabuddeen explained, the plan

16 must be such that the counts represent interrelated parts of a particular

17 criminal episode." And we can look for the detail of that if there's time

18 and if it's necessary.

19 We would again draw to your attention that, in that particular

20 case, His Honour Judge Shahabuddeen was dealing with a single count that

21 was again a single episode. It was the subject for an application to

22 amend. But what he was saying related only to the single-episode part of

23 joinder provisions.

24 The Chamber went on to say: "If there was no such series of acts

25 and no such plan, any application for joinder must fail. Where there is

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 no similarity in time and in place, the conclusion that the counts

2 represent interrelated parts of a particular criminal episode will be more

3 difficult, albeit not impossible, to draw."

4 Again, the Trial Chamber seems to have been focusing its attention

5 throughout on the words "committed together" from Rule 49, which we say

6 are of no effect, and seem to be focusing within the definition of

7 "transaction" on the single event rather than on the multiplicity of

8 events of forming a plan which has always been our case.

9 Just to conclude this - and it is the longest part of what I have

10 to say this morning; the rest will be dealt with much more swiftly - for

11 the reason that you are dealing for the first time -- this Chamber is

12 dealing for the first time with Rule 49 in some detail, we simply offer

13 some dictionary definitions - may I have them distributed, please - in

14 both English and French, of the words "scheme," "strategy," and "plan";

15 in English, from an Oxford dictionary; and in French, from I think Le

16 Petit Robert, in case this will be of assistance to you.

17 It seems to us on looking at these definitions - and we'll perhaps

18 leave them with you for want of the time to go through them in detail -

19 that there is a logic in the way Rule 2 was drafted. "Scheme" is a

20 smaller activity or has a smaller scope than strategy; "strategy" itself

21 having a smaller scope than "plan." Each term perhaps having been

22 carefully chosen, even if borrowed, initially from the more narrowly

23 defined American statute; each word being chosen perhaps with the type of

24 activities likely to be dealt with by tribunals of this sort.

25 I hope Your Honours will forgive me if again, having made the

1 French available, I focus just very briefly on the definitions of the

2 words in English. Scheme: A systematic plan or arrangement for obtaining

3 some particular object or putting an object into effect. Strategy: A

4 plan designed to achieve a particular long-term aim. Plan: A detailed

5 proposal for doing or achieving something.

6 My last point before I move on on this topic is to make a

7 reference to the way the amici argued this before the Trial Chamber. They

8 argued that the word "strategy" was itself enough in law to sustain

9 joinder on the grounds that strategy was the connection of a common modus

10 operandi. We didn't adopt that proposal. We don't reject it but we

11 certainly didn't adopt it and feel that it would fit uncomfortably within

12 the structure of Rule 2.

13 Nevertheless, in arguing the way they did, they were reflecting

14 policies on joinder that are widely held throughout the world, and it may

15 be that the word "scheme," now that we've looked at the definition, would

16 be apt for justifying joinder of activities that had similarities. Of

17 course, when the amici made the point they did about the similarity of

18 activities justifying joinder, that concession by them -- not concession

19 by them, that approach by them would entirely sustain our argument that

20 this was a single plan. The very similarity of activities that on their

21 approach would justify joinder supports our suggestion that this is a

22 plan. This is a plan in the mind of the accused, maybe developing over

23 time, but consistent and taking its effect and finding its reflection in

24 the various indictments, the three indictments that have been proffered

25 against him.

1 Your Honours, on the topic of the ability in law to join these

2 offences, we rely on everything else that is said in our brief, because I

3 have my eye on the clock. We draw particularly to your attention, for

4 example, the Nuremberg indictment where things were explored on a much

5 larger basis and developing over time. But we rely on all the other

6 matters that were referred to there.

7 I turn, in the remaining time available to me, to the other

8 particular topics. One of them is the status of the entities, Croatia,

9 Bosnia, or Kosovo. Were they different in a way that barred joinder? Two

10 points, quite briefly, supplementary to what we've already said: The

11 status of the bodies attacked is wholly irrelevant. If a person, by his

12 criminal act, seeks to take or retain territory according to a particular

13 plan of his own - doesn't matter where the territory is - nothing flows

14 from the difference in character, if there was any, between those

15 territories.

16 But the second point, slightly more detailed but supplementary to

17 that, is this: As a matter of history, the differences were nothing like

18 as stark as the Trial Chamber appeared to think. Dealing with Croatia,

19 Croatia's independence was recognised eventually on the 15th of January of

20 1992, having been declared effectively in October of 1991. The indictment

21 against this accused starts in August of 1991 at a time when that state

22 was in no different state from any other part of the former Yugoslavia,

23 including Kosovo, save to the extent that Kosovo had a different history

24 including its own very, very substantial autonomy until that autonomy was

25 ended to the extent it was by this accused.

1 So in the case of Croatia, the first part of the time period being

2 dealt with internal, the second part as an international armed conflict,

3 in the case of Croatia, there is similarity, if not identity, of status

4 with Kosovo. It's also worth observing that there are other similarities

5 which emerge from the confirming materials and elsewhere in all three

6 territories, similarities in the various pre-independence moves taken and,

7 to some extent, taken on the instigation of this accused in the form of

8 referendums and declarations of independence and so on. Preparatory

9 acts.

10 When one turns to Bosnia where there were similar preparatory

11 acts, the position there is the persecution charge starts technically one

12 month before independence was effectively acknowledged in March as opposed

13 to in April of 1992, but effectively at the same time. But of course, in

14 the case of Bosnia, as in the case of Croatia, the plan to do what was

15 done must have pre-existed - and it will be our case pre-existed - the

16 actual effecting of independence. So in each case the plan was in the

17 mind of the accused, and it's the plan that substantially matters at a

18 time when the states were in no different position from Kosovo.

19 So far as Kosovo itself is concerned -- and here again, you'll

20 find evidence of preparatory acts in the form of plebiscites and so on.

21 So far as Kosovo is concerned, the Chamber will recall, as indeed the

22 learned Prosecutor has herself reminded us, of Mr. Rugova and the

23 independence he claimed for Kosovo in the early 1990s. So by the time

24 which we are more immediately concerned, there had already been parallel

25 institutions and, it will be our case, it may be tolerated for his own

1 purposes by the accused, but some de facto independence accorded by itself

2 to that state for a substantial part of the period of time leading up to

3 the start of the indictment.

4 Accordingly, in our respectful submission, nothing follows from

5 the so-said difference of status; and indeed, the similarities of status

6 simply strengthen our application.

7 The gap between the conclusion of the Bosnian indictment and the

8 start of the Kosovo indictment is seeming in a sense only -- and again, I

9 adopt what the Prosecutor has herself said and amplify it in this way:

10 First, there are acts of violence as early as middle of 1996, a mere six

11 months after the end of the Bosnian indictment. Second, as we know from

12 the various documents served, the pre-trial brief, and indeed I think the

13 indictment in the Kosovo case, the campaign of violence was well underway

14 in 1998 to such an extent that hundreds of thousands were recorded as

15 displaced by October. Were that not the case, then the international

16 community would not have intervened in the way that it did, making in due

17 course the threats that it did that brought all these matters eventually

18 and by whatever means to a conclusion.

19 So it's not a three-year period or anything like it. It's a much

20 more -- it's a much shorter period than that if "period" is relevant at

21 all. And along the way, there are plenty of documents revealing human

22 rights abuses that were being meted out to the Kosovo Albanians and, of

23 course, by those of the Serb persuasion at a time when the accused had the

24 overall control that he did.

25 We say, therefore, that first the time interval is in fact

1 insignificant or in law insignificant. The question is whether there was

2 a single plan, and that question is not affected by the time interval. It

3 appears again that the Trial Chamber has been over concerned by the words

4 "committed together," by the American requirement for -- under that

5 particular limb of its joinder provision for proximity of time and space

6 and hasn't been focusing on the correct approach which is dictated by the

7 definition of "transaction" in our Rule 2.

8 Your Honours, can I move on -- if Your Honours just give me one

9 minute.

10 Yes. Perhaps just -- perhaps one other point that I should make

11 about the time interval and about the period between the beginning of the

12 1990s and 1999.

13 We set out that one of the restraining acts on the accused was the

14 Christmas threat made to him by the American President, or on behalf of

15 the American President, that action in relation to Kosovo would lead to

16 international intervention. We said on the last occasion that that was

17 one of the reasons why this was, as it were, a crime delayed.

18 Another reason it was crime delayed was that of course, for the

19 time being by the various steps the accused had taken in diminishing

20 Kosovo's autonomy and so on, he had actually achieved his purpose of

21 controlling Kosovo, and it was only when that control was manifestly

22 broken that he put into effect the single plan that we say it would always

23 have been his intention to apply there or anywhere else that behaved in

24 the way that this province did.

25 Can I then turn to the discretionary matters and amplify just a

1 little what has been said in our brief about those.

2 In our submission, the Chamber has misdirected itself in a way

3 that justifies intervention. The test for intervention by this Chamber

4 appears to be that if a Trial Chamber took into account things it didn't

5 or failed to take into account things it should have done, then

6 intervention may be appropriate.

7 Dealing with the Prosecution witnesses, no attention was paid to

8 the real prejudice that comes to the Prosecution from there being two

9 trials, and the prejudice articulated before the Trial Chamber is as

10 follows: The witnesses who will be giving evidence in both trials, if

11 there are two trials, are indeed not victims, typically. Typically, they

12 are high-level insider witnesses, as they are described, who can provide

13 direct evidence of what this accused was doing, what he was thinking, and

14 what he was saying.

15 This Tribunal knows full well the pressures on witnesses of that

16 sort, the difficulties of obtaining their cooperation and testimony, and

17 the very real probability that they will only ever be able to give

18 evidence once. Giving evidence in this Tribunal for people of that

19 category may well involve substantial consequences for them, either of

20 their own volition in moving and being non-traceable or, alternatively,

21 consequences of a less attractive kind coming to them from those who do

22 not like the fact that they have given evidence.

23 If there are two trials and witnesses capable of giving this

24 evidence of central value about the accused, if such witnesses are only

25 able to give evidence once, then the other trial, the trial in which they

1 do not give evidence, will have been deprived for no good reason and, in

2 our respectful submission, contrary to all sense of the most valuable

3 evidence in this case.

4 Prejudice to the accused I can deal with very shortly. The matter

5 was fully explored by the Trial Chamber. Every expression was to the

6 effect that the accused would not be prejudiced by a joint trial and that,

7 indeed, for him life would be easier. Trials are always stressful, but

8 life would be easier for him with a single trial. He made no comment to

9 the contrary effect and indeed is arguably to be taken as accepting that

10 at one stage. The amici expressly acknowledged it as, it appears, did one

11 of the Judges of the Trial Chamber. And in those circumstances where

12 there is no material on the record to justify the conclusion that he would

13 be prejudiced, it was quite wrong of the Trial Chamber to reach that

14 conclusion.

15 Likewise with trial management. There was simply no material -

16 none could be pointed to, none was identified - going to show that two

17 trials would be easier to manage than one. The contrary, in our

18 submission, is the case. With two trials, problems with disclosure, the

19 problems preparing for one trial while running another would be problems

20 liable to lead to confusion and difficulty for both parties and for the

21 single Trial Chamber, and it's our respectful submission that it was

22 totally wrong for that conclusion to be reached.

23 Your Honour, that, I think, concludes all I want to say at this

24 stage, unless I'm advised to the contrary by any of my friends.

25 As to the timetable issues that the Prosecutor herself dealt with,

1 I'm in a position to amplify those. Can I simply make one point for the

2 avoidance of any doubt? It appears in our brief but should perhaps just

3 be repeated. If there is to be a joint trial, of course there are reasons

4 why it would be preferable for the trial to start with a single opening

5 and with the evidence advancing in a chronological order, so that would be

6 broadly Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, but once it became clear in the Trial

7 Chamber's ruling that they intended to have charge of both cases

8 themselves in any event and for one to follow the other, then as we make

9 clear, it would be possible to -- to keep, to hold the 12th of February

10 trial date, to start with the Kosovo evidence, and to fit in the various

11 procedures appropriate to the other indictment or indictments through the

12 year, making obvious appropriate allowances for preparation, and then to

13 have a single trial.

14 The evidence would have been given, as it were, a little upside

15 down, but that's no problem. Professional Judges with the staff available

16 to them will be well able to marshal the evidence and will be having the

17 benefit of arguments at the end of the case on marshalled evidence so that

18 things can be restored to their correct chronological order, given that

19 chronology is valuable. So that once it became plain that the same

20 Chamber was to try both cases, then adjournment wasn't necessary. And

21 although of course we would prefer to be able to do things in the most

22 orderly way, there's always a balance that has to be considered in

23 procedural matters in criminal trials, and we remain in a position to deal

24 with it in that alternative method although this, even if joined is

25 decided is appropriate by this Chamber, may be something for a Trial

1 Chamber itself to consider.

2 Your Honours, I don't know if I can help further at this stage.

3 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Nice. I turn to my

4 colleagues to ask whether they have any questions they would like to put

5 to counsel. Judge Hunt, Judge Guney.

6 Judge Hunt.

7 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Nice, let us assume that we accept your argument

8 that we disregard the wording of Rule 49 and therefore hold that the --

9 for that and other reasons perhaps, the Trial Chamber has miscarried its

10 discretion because it misdirected itself in law. So you are then asking

11 us to reconsider the matter ourselves, to tell you what Rule 49 really

12 does mean, make our own findings of fact and then exercise our own

13 discretion. That is what your application is, isn't it?

14 MR. NICE: We're asking you to say that the Trial Chamber was

15 wrong in law, and insofar as it exercised its discretion, it exercised it

16 incorrectly, and in consequence of that, the appropriate disposal would be

17 that these cases should be joined because that would be the proper

18 consequence of those findings, yes.

19 JUDGE HUNT: But that involves this Chamber exercising its

20 discretion in the place of the Trial Chamber.

21 MR. NICE: Yes.

22 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Well, now, may I ask you a few questions

23 directed to that issue? Let's take the same transaction issue, the

24 factual basis for it. In order to explain the three-year break that the

25 Trial Chamber relied upon, you tell us in your brief that, repeating

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 something which was said at the hearing, that this was a crime waiting to

2 happen but which was delayed only because of international pressure.

3 I assume, therefore, that you have some evidence, apart from the

4 rather circumstantial inferences that the Prosecutor referred to this

5 morning, that this was something which was in being back before 1995, that

6 the attack upon Kosovo was part of this grand strategy or plan. Is that

7 the Prosecution case?

8 MR. NICE: I think I put it somewhat differently, and I put it

9 this way: Plan - and these words are always sometimes interchangeable -

10 or purpose, whatever, but plan in the mind of the accused was a plan to

11 gain or retain, as I characterised it on the last occasion, areas of

12 territory occupied by Serbs for Serb control.

13 Now, that plan was going to take effect whenever it needed to take

14 effect. The plan was constant. Its execution was to some extent

15 dependent on opportunity or on other events.

16 For example, supposing in Vojvodina as opposed to compliance there

17 had been, for some reason, disinclination to be under Serb rule. Then the

18 same action, we respectfully suggest, would be bound to have been taken

19 there as was taken in Kosovo, to retain - and it would have been pursuant

20 to the same plan, for the plan was in the mind of the man - to retain for

21 control the maximum part of Serb-occupied territory that could be so

22 maintained.

23 JUDGE HUNT: It means -- I'm sorry. I'm waiting for the

24 translation to finish.

25 That means then that we have to read paragraph 113 of your

1 pre-trial brief in a very limited way. That is the one which says the

2 Prosecution evidence will show that the accused and his co-perpetrators

3 conceived of a plan to expel a substantial portion of the Kosovo Albanian

4 population by no later than late 1998. It was implemented in mid-March

5 1999. The objective was to obtain Serbian control. And then as such, the

6 objective was consistent with the efforts taken by the FRY and Serbian

7 authorities between 1989 and 1991. And it is consistent - you'll notice

8 the word "consistent" - with the criminal activities of the accused in

9 Croatia and Bosnia.

10 Now, that rather tends to suggest that this was a completely

11 independent conspiracy or plan.

12 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, if the paragraph reads in that way,

13 and it doesn't necessarily read in that way to everyone, but if it reads

14 in that way, then that's unfortunate but is not something that should

15 determine this issue.

16 The plan existed by, it says, no later than 1998, reflecting the

17 point I made earlier that the plans in relation to the other two entities

18 existed before the crimes were committed and existed at a time when in

19 neither case was the body concerned an independent state as

20 characterised. So that the plan existed then, and I relied then, as

21 indeed I do today, on the consistency of this -- I relied, on the earlier

22 occasion, as I do today, on the consistency of the plan with the

23 activities that had happened in Croatia and Bosnia, for that very

24 consistency shows that they were all part of the same mental process, of

25 the same mental plan.

1 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Well, then, let's move on to your point about

2 the witnesses.

3 In paragraph 55 of your brief, you said as former members of the

4 accused's inner circle, these individuals have expressed credible security

5 concerns as discussed in the Prosecution's motion and during the hearing.

6 May I suggest to you that there's not a word in either your motion

7 or in the transcript which supports that there have been expressions of

8 concern by any witness. They're all matters of this is life and the

9 Prosecution expects and there are security problems, but there's nowhere

10 anywhere any previous statement any witness has expressed concern.

11 Now, if you take what is usually done for protective measures, we

12 usually have the material placed before the Chamber in which that is

13 recorded, but it hasn't been recorded anywhere here except for the first

14 time in your brief.

15 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm aware of the approach that Your Honour

16 has taken in particular when presiding over Trial Chambers in relation to

17 protective measures, and it may be that there has been a developing

18 practice and a changing practice in relation to protective measures, and

19 it may be that there are still differences of approach in other Chambers,

20 but I take entirely the point that at the moment there is nothing

21 expressed of the kind that Your Honour required to grant protective

22 measures in those cases over which Your Honour presided.

23 However, a few points. First, as I made plain before and repeat

24 now, insider witnesses are inevitably still very much in the process of

25 development. That was inevitable because many of them, only for the first

1 time, became available on the detention of this particular accused and the

2 process of preparing the ground and they becoming willing witnesses and so

3 on takes time. Thus we may in certain cases only be at the stage where I

4 can do no more than set out what the position is understood to be because

5 we haven't quite reached that final position of expressed fears announced

6 by actual witnesses.

7 I -- yes, I don't flinch from that, but the Chamber, in our

8 respectful submission, is entitled to and actually obliged to look not

9 just at the material I'm in a position today to add about these particular

10 witnesses but to look at its experience in other cases, to look at what we

11 do know about witnesses who simply from time to time disappear, to look at

12 the expressions of fear that are sometimes reflected in other trials by

13 concrete acts that follow and show the fears were well-founded.

14 To look at all that material, and to say we had a particular

15 category of witness that we have identified, it is quite inevitable, as

16 indeed is our experience, that fear is a regular feature of the approach

17 of these potential witnesses.

18 And I must make this point: In a case like this, with an accused

19 whose - I borrow the amici's words - modus operandi may very well have

20 been to leave few footprints behind him, we may ultimately get the best

21 evidence from just one or two such witnesses. We don't know yet. And

22 therefore, the risk is one that, in our submission, has to be taken very

23 seriously and hasn't been addressed by the Trial Chamber.

24 JUDGE HUNT: Well, only because you had never previously said that

25 these proposed witnesses had expressed concern.

1 MR. NICE: If I expressed it differently, I'm so sorry.

2 JUDGE HUNT: I'm just reading what you said in your appellant's

3 brief. You said, "they have expressed," and that is an unfortunate

4 expressionism.

5 MR. NICE: If it overstates the position, or if it's a reflection

6 of -- it may not overstate the position, but it may be a reflection of

7 material that isn't before us in a black and white form.

8 JUDGE HUNT: One matter that the Trial Chamber didn't consider but

9 I think it's open to us to consider if we're reopening this whole issue,

10 what about Rule 94 and judicial notice? Surely these are the very cases

11 to which judicial notice must apply.

12 MR. NICE: If Your Honour is suggesting that a witness of

13 potentially great value giving evidence of background in relation to one

14 trial could have his evidence then adopted in another, two or three points

15 of concern arise: One, anecdotal but personal; so far in this Tribunal, I

16 haven't had a great deal of success with the application of that Rule and

17 have found it fairly restrictive in its scope.

18 JUDGE HUNT: That, if I may say so, is a result of the problem

19 where you have different accused in different trials and with access to

20 different material to affect the findings. Here you have the same accused

21 and you say all three areas are relevant, and these witnesses can give

22 evidence in the first trial about all three.

23 MR. NICE: That brings me to the second point, and that is this:

24 The Trial Chamber in its ruling clearly envisages that evidence would be

25 separable. It makes this clear by its reference to the possibility of

1 excluding evidence that would be, as it were, cross-prejudicial. I use a

2 shorthand. If that's right, then one could reasonably envisage that the

3 Trial Chamber would be restricting the evidence on one indictment to what

4 it decided is absolutely relevant to that indictment and would not permit

5 a witness to give all of his evidence. This is, incidentally, another

6 reason, and I'll perhaps, with your leave, come back to it in a second,

7 why joinder should be accepted. But that approach would seem to be

8 clearly to the effect that evidence should be partitioned. Therefore, if

9 in the trial that goes first, let it be Kosovo, such a witness gives

10 evidence and is restricted because the Chamber says, "We can't have his

11 Croatia Bosnian evidence, that's for another time," then the application

12 of the judicial notice provision would not work.

13 And third, there's the issue of cross-examination. For the same

14 reasons I've already given, the Chamber would inevitably be restricting

15 any cross-examination or observations by the accused which might be used

16 as the basis for questioning by the amici or the Chamber itself to that

17 which related to that particular trial. And again, the scope of the

18 witness's evidence would be restricted, and 94 would not save the day.

19 JUDGE HUNT: And to my last point, and this is about the state of

20 readiness for the Prosecution to commence Croatia and the Bosnia matters,

21 during the course of the hearing, you said that you will be ready by

22 summer, although you would prefer autumn, and then only if you worked very

23 hard and you got some additional resources. I wish you the best of your

24 British luck in getting additional resources. But let's assume you get

25 them. As somebody from the Antipodes, those phrases "summer" and "autumn"

1 don't mean very much to me. Can you tell me what you intended? What is

2 "autumn," for example? I mean what month of the year?

3 MR. NICE: I think in this hemisphere, it's September, and that's

4 what we originally envisaged. And I hope to set Your Honours' concerns at

5 rest: Yes, the institution as a whole has difficulty finding additional

6 resources. Yes, at the time I made those observations, there were serious

7 resource difficulties on getting the trials ready any earlier than that.

8 Yes, those difficulties have continued. But when you can't get new

9 resources, you can sometimes redeploy from within in order to meet what

10 the Prosecutor decides may be her priorities. And we have laid a plan,

11 and according to that plan, although it would involve a very great deal of

12 work by all teams involved, we could have a provisional list of witnesses,

13 exhibits, and pre-trial brief by two months, say, the 1st of April. And

14 if it was decided both to join but to defer for a chronological start - a

15 new shorthand - then we would be ready by the 1st of July.

16 JUDGE HUNT: I was just going to say that certainly was a speedier

17 one than you were prepared to give as an estimate previously.

18 Now, in relation to that, the Bosnia indictment is obviously based

19 upon some very familiar incidents. There's Srbrenica and the Foca cases

20 and Sarajevo, and they have all been the subject of trials that have been

21 completed or underway, so you will have little difficulty being ready in

22 relation to those in the Bosnia indictment.

23 But there are a number of incidents, a great many of them, which

24 relate, for example, to the Krajisnik case. And I'm not sure whether you

25 are aware of the difficulties that your colleagues are having in getting

1 that one ready for trial. I can give you a short chronology of the

2 changing success or lack of it, if you wish. But at one stage, they were

3 talking about, with the translation problems, the translations wouldn't be

4 completed until March 2003. Now, that obviously has been corrected

5 somehow.

6 But bearing in mind that they are even now unable to say when that

7 case will be ready, and the last thought of it starting was, I think, in

8 September this year, what weight can we place upon these estimates that

9 you have given of being ready the 1st of July of this year?

10 MR. NICE: Three points, I think in answer to that, two or three

11 points: First, we are, of course, aware of the difficulties of other

12 cases, although not as intimately as aware as they are. Second, because

13 there is a common crime base to many of these cases, you will be heartened

14 to know that those leading the investigation and the lawyers are taking

15 all steps they can to avoid any duplication of preparation and to use each

16 other's efforts to save resources and to abbreviate the lead time for each

17 case.

18 Third: I suppose I should allow for this as a possibility in

19 relation to the very large crime base of the Bosnian indictment. If by

20 July there was still some outstanding crime base work to be done -- one

21 hopes it wouldn't apply, according to the essence, we can be there. But

22 if some remaining crime base were to be done, the interests of the trial

23 could either, (a), require that that material come in late, or a little

24 late; or (b), could require an appropriate amendment of the indictment

25 for, of course, it is not always necessary to have every municipality

1 covered in every case. Now the overriding principle in the case of this

2 accused was that it was appropriate - and one can understand this - that

3 every crime base should be covered that's covered, as it were, in the

4 subcases. That is not actually always a policy that has been followed in

5 other cases. And I referred earlier to the balancing act that always

6 occurs in these cases. If a balance had to be struck, it could sometimes

7 be struck in a way that may exclude evidence.

8 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you, Mr. Nice.

9 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Judge Guney.

10 JUDGE GUNEY: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Hunt.

11 Mr. Nice, in the light of the arguments you developed in your

12 brief, and also in the arguments you put forward to this Chamber today,

13 could you further develop or clarify your views as to the following

14 specific item: The decisive difference there may be in time and space in

15 the various locations and time periods as covered by the Kosovo indictment

16 and by the other indictments. There's a time gap of three years. Does it

17 negate the thesis of a common scheme? That is the point I put to you.

18 MR. NICE: Thank you, Your Honour, for the opportunity of making

19 our position plain. It doesn't negate the position at all for, perhaps,

20 two or three reasons. First, as a matter of fact, if it's significant at

21 all, the time period is actually rather less. Violence begins almost

22 immediately after Dayton, six months afterwards, and in any event, was in

23 full swing in 1998. It happens not to have been charged before 1999, but

24 never mind. So factually, the period is much shorter.

25 Second point, the time interval is wholly irrelevant if the

1 material is there to sustain the argument that it's all pursuant to the

2 same plan. Now, there are many examples that are referred to in the brief

3 from other jurisdictions of -- is it politicians in America charged with

4 corruption offences, and there are offences lasting six years, and cases

5 in England where nine years between offences is not an excessive gap. So

6 there is no automatic bar of any kind that derives from an interval of

7 time. It's simply a question to see whether what happens is pursuant to

8 the same plan. We say that it is clear and will become quite clear from

9 all the material that the plan in the mind of the accused was reflected in

10 these different ways.

11 And perhaps the third point that I could raise is this: Supposing

12 merely hypothetically that there had been two other locations where it had

13 been necessary for him, pursuant to his plan, to take similar actions for

14 Vojvodina or Montenegro, one in 1996 and one in 1997, or one in 1997 and

15 one in 1998, the presence of two other intervening links in the chain

16 would make no difference. Their absence from the chain makes no

17 difference. The chain is complete if, and we say it is manifestly

18 complete, all acts are pursuant to the same plan. It's as simple as that.

19 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 Judge Pocar, and then Judge Meron. Judge Pocar, do you want to

21 put your questions?

22 JUDGE POCAR: Just a small question. I would like the Prosecution

23 to elaborate a bit more on the interpretation Mr. Nice has given of

24 Rule 49 of the Rules. I had the impression that your interpretation,

25 Mr. Nice, leads, in fact, to applying to Rule 49 the same test that would

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 be applicable under Rule 48, so the same test that would be applicable for

2 joinder of accused.

3 Do you see any weight in Article 49 using a different expression

4 as compared with the expression used in Rule 48? I'm aware that your

5 interpretation may find a certain support in the French text of the Rules,

6 but of course, both texts have to be taken into account. So the specific

7 point I wanted to put before you is the difference in expression between

8 the two Rules, and whether this has an impact also on the relation you

9 make in interpreting Rule 49 with reference to the definition in Rule 2.

10 MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. I've given thought recently to

11 Rule 48 and its potential impact. It seems to me that, of course, both of

12 them must build on the definition of Rule 2 insofar as that definition

13 doesn't need to be amended, changed or made elastic in light of the

14 context. And Rule 2 does seem to be a very straightforward rule,

15 permitting of two alternative ways of the same transaction test being

16 satisfied, either as a single event or as a series of acts subject to a

17 plan. And before I move from that, there can be no way in which Rule 48

18 could properly be construed excessively narrowly if the various trials

19 before the Chamber, not before other Chambers, are properly constructed

20 because there are many trials of middle- and senior-level politicians and

21 military men where it couldn't be said that it's the narrowest

22 interpretation restricted by time and space that has been effected. They

23 are all broad in geography and time so that Rule 48 is built on that

24 two-part definition in Rule 2.

25 Rule 48 says that persons accused of the same or different crimes

1 committed in the course of the same transaction may be jointly charged and

2 tried. Rule 49 simply says that two or more crimes may be joined in one

3 indictment if the series of acts, and I miss out the other two words, form

4 the same transaction and the said crimes were committed by the same

5 accused. If we omit those two words, I'm not sure that there is any

6 difference in construction in any event. And those two words take the

7 matter no further and, it seems to us, are probably surplusage, or

8 probably best interpreted by adding a comma between the two of them. But

9 I don't think anything else flows from it than that. If I haven't met

10 Your Honour's particular concerns, let me know and I'll try and deal with

11 them in another way.

12 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you.

13 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Judge Meron.

14 JUDGE MERON: Thank you, President.

15 Judge Guney asked you a question about the three-year gap. I

16 would like to approach that same subject from a somewhat different

17 perspective. You will recall that as a part of the "same transaction"

18 analysis, the Trial Chamber cited the Dayton agreement as marking a clear

19 separation between the acts charged in the Bosnia and Croatia indictments

20 and those charged in the Kosovo indictment.

21 Does Dayton undermine your "same transaction" argument?

22 MR. NICE: Not at all. And the learned Prosecutor rather falls

23 sore perhaps this issue where she revealed that, of course, it was hoped

24 and expected, perhaps, by Mr. Rugova that Kosovo's problems would be

25 solved there. Not at all. It was off the agenda by reason of the acts of

1 this particular accused. He was able to leave his plan uneffected, and he

2 was able to put it into effect when it was necessary. So Dayton is an

3 irrelevance for the purposes of the time gap.

4 JUDGE MERON: Thank you. My second question pertains to the scope

5 of our review. You will recall in the oral hearing on the Prosecution's

6 motion for joinder, Judge May outlined a two-stage analysis, the first

7 being a legal question relating to the same transaction; and the second a

8 discretionary one involving factors to be weighed.

9 And my question is this: Assuming that the Appeals Chamber agrees

10 that there was an error in law, error of law regarding the same

11 transaction analysis, what are the limits of our review of the Trial

12 Chamber's weighing of discretionary factors? In other words, is the Trial

13 Chamber's weighing subject to the same deference as any other

14 discretionary ruling?

15 MR. NICE: Two points: I think first, as we make clear in our

16 brief, the material before this Chamber is the same as, as full as, the

17 material before the Trial Chamber. Accordingly, there is no need, once

18 the correct legal test is identified, to defer particularly to their

19 judgment in the way that deference is required where, for example, the

20 Trial Chamber has been dealing with witnesses who it has seen in person

21 and has had extensive evidence and argument and so on, and a particular

22 matter falls for review by an Appeal Chamber part way through a trial or

23 at the end of the trial doesn't arise here. Same material available to

24 each Chamber; therefore, no special deference is required.

25 The second point, one possibility - we do not encourage it - the

1 reverse, would be if you found there was an error, then it could be said

2 send it back for reconsideration. But in light of the time scale and for

3 all sorts of other reasons, we would ask you not to do that but to make

4 the decision here and now. But that's a possibility. And therefore, this

5 Chamber is in a position to exercise the discretion afresh, and we would

6 invite it to do so.

7 JUDGE MERON: My final question pertains to the question of

8 management of the trial. You will recall, Mr. Nice, that the Trial

9 Chamber was very much concerned about judicial economy and the timetable

10 for the trial or trials. If all the three indictments were joined, do I

11 understand that the Prosecution would give an assurance or it is giving an

12 assurance to the Appeals Chamber that (a), you will be prepared to begin

13 the Kosovo prong of the joint trial on February 12th, and that also in the

14 event of a joinder, the Prosecution would be able to avoid any gaps

15 between the three prongs of the joint trial?

16 MR. NICE: Yes to both of those questions. We can make -- give

17 you those assurances.

18 Can I use your question just to make one point that I desire to

19 make? And is worth emphasising because it arises from the same general

20 topic and it's this: We have no doubt that economies, judicial economies,

21 will be far greater in a single joined trial than with separate trials for

22 several reasons. First, there's the question of overlapping witnesses who

23 only come once and will be able to cover matters comprehensively.

24 Second and realistically, where a Trial Chamber starts the process

25 of introducing economies by application of 92 bis and by use of other

1 means of getting evidence properly before it in a short form, once it

2 starts doing that, it begins to have a cumulative effect, and we are quite

3 satisfied that if a single Trial Chamber had all this material before it,

4 it would probably find ways, in cooperation with the Prosecution and

5 others, substantially to save time that would otherwise be spent in two

6 trials each starting at the beginning and trying to find ways of

7 economising.

8 JUDGE MERON: Thank you, Mr. Nice. I have no further questions.

9 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Meron.

10 Many questions were put to you. I will make a first comment

11 addressed to the Prosecutor.

12 You are putting a great deal of energy into demonstrating the

13 scheme and the common design. What I would like to know is how could that

14 common design -- why was that not put forward earlier on? How was it that

15 in the Office of the Prosecutor that plan was not conceived of beforehand,

16 because we have now, in fact, with -- three indictments that were

17 separated temporarily. There were two separate Prosecutors but there is

18 one single Office of the Prosecutor, and so I don't understand. This is

19 question that I'm asking you.

20 How can one speak today about a great common scheme, common

21 design, whereas your own office did not consider them so single when

22 the -- when the indictments were drawn up at the time of preparing the

23 indictments? It's a question of strategy, Mr. Nice.

24 MR. NICE: I hope it's not a question of strategy, Your Honour,

25 because I'm sure that the Prosecutor wouldn't have done anything on

1 strategic grounds even if she'd done them on practical grounds.

2 The fact of the matter is that the Kosovo indictment was ready to

3 be indicted first and it was thus indicted. The investigations into the

4 other two areas took some time to reach fruition, for understandable

5 reasons not the least the delay in cooperation of the various states

6 concerned.

7 When they were available for indictment, two alternatives were

8 possible. One was to amend. We accept that. And one was to prefer

9 separate indictments so that each state could see how cases were put in

10 respect of its victims.

11 Whatever reason, and I take general but not particular

12 responsibility for this, the decision was made to put in three separate

13 indictments rather than to go for joinder.

14 Now, as it happens, that has worked rather fairly for the accused,

15 because if it had been done by amendment, he, and he's somebody not

16 recognising the Court, would have had on him the burden of justifying

17 severance if it hadn't been argued on his behalf by anybody else. So in

18 the event, it's perhaps worked out rather more fairly. But the

19 substantive point, in our respectful submission, and I think it comes from

20 Kovacevic but I'm not sure, the formulation of charges, which is a matter

21 of history, cannot and should not affect the proper determination of the

22 scope of an indictment at this stage. And if I simply say to Your Honour

23 that has always been the view of everyone in the office, including the

24 Prosecutor herself, I know, that this was one case.

25 Of course, the Prosecutor herself may come from a jurisdiction or

1 have experience of jurisdictions where problems of joinder are foreign or

2 unknown, but be that all as it may, it's always been regarded as one case

3 within the office and always expected that it should, if the material was

4 available and the indictments were ready, be dealt with as one case, and

5 it would be, in our respectful submission, inappropriate and wrong to

6 determine this according to pleading history.

7 And if I can add one point here that it's a sort of common sense

8 point, but it has impact. In our respectful submission, it would seem

9 wrong and it would be wrong for this accused to face two trials. This

10 Tribunal is providing -- legally can he face just one? It will probably

11 be expected that he should be dealt with in one trial. And apart from all

12 the other difficulties of a forensic nature that would lie in the way of

13 his being dealt with in two trials, it would simply be just that he falls

14 for determination once in relation to his culpability, if any is proved,

15 in relation to these unhappy events of the former Yugoslavia.

16 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you. My second question is

17 that you would have two trials because one remembers that Mr. Milosevic is

18 alone in two indictments, Bosnia and Croatia, but not alone in Kosovo.

19 And as we would like in this Tribunal, all the accused must be present

20 here. There would be some point whether there would be a second trial, a

21 Kosovo trial, because by the 2nd [as interpreted] of February, it would be

22 an illusion to think that the Kosovo trial could bring together

23 Mr. Milosevic, Mr. Sajinovic, Mr. Ojdanic, and Mr. Stojiljkovic.

24 So my question is, in respect of the witnesses, you answered

25 Judge Hunt and you said that there was really prejudice to the accused in

1 respect of the witnesses, that these witnesses seem to be close to the

2 accused. But does that mean that for that future second Kosovo trial you

3 consider that the question of the trial -- of that trial would be

4 compromised? Do you understand what I mean?

5 MR. NICE: I do understand what you mean, and it's a real and

6 practical problem. And I'm grateful that you've identified it because

7 there are two things I want to say about it.

8 First, however the cases may be managed, it's likely that there

9 would be two Kosovo trials. The only way in which there could ever be one

10 would be if all the accused who are ever to surrender or to be surrendered

11 surrender first. So it's one of the unhappy inevitabilities,

12 possibilities. There are always going to be two Kosovo trials.

13 Secondly, yes, there is some concern that witnesses who may come

14 for the Kosovo trial of a particular type will be uncomfortable about

15 coming a second time, dissuaded from coming a second time, frightened from

16 coming a second time, and that is something that has to be lived with, but

17 that will have its consequence on those other accused. Here the

18 consequence would be for this particular accused and is a very grave

19 consequence that I do not wish to envisage.

20 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Another question. In your brief,

21 you mentioned on several occasions or, actually, you cited references in

22 respect of the Nuremberg trials, particularly as regards the issue of

23 distinction transactions, and you asserted that in Nuremberg that had been

24 conceived of one single common enterprise, which, according to you, went

25 back to 1919. Could you give us some clarification about that, further

1 details?

2 MR. NICE: I may seek some assistance on this. I think -- it

3 doesn't -- it goes back in the indictment to an uncertain date but is

4 referred to in the pleadings thereafter as arguably commencing at a

5 particular date, 1919. I think that's as far as I can take you in the

6 detail of that. The materials are in the book of authorities. It may be

7 I can get some further assistance from one of my colleagues on that if you

8 require it. But I think that the formulation of the charge was simply on

9 days before, and it was clear from the -- it was clear from the

10 presentation of evidence that they countenanced a very long period before

11 in the build-up to trial.

12 I see I'm getting some acknowledgement. Perhaps I'm right on

13 that.

14 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Do you want immediate assistance or

15 are you going to look for some. Mr. Farrell can help you right away?

16 Would you like -- I suppose that you studied the Nuremberg indictments and

17 that you looked to see whether they were several indictments at the

18 outset. That is what the Tribunal is interested in. No immediate

19 answer?

20 MR. NICE: Just the one indictment. Just the one indictment. Not

21 a question of amending, as far as we know; just the one. There was one

22 single indictment, yes.

23 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] My final question is that, in

24 concrete terms, you know that this Chamber had taken a provisional

25 decision stating that, theoretically, that would not prevent the Chamber

1 from exercising its discretionary power but that it should not mean that

2 it has any power of superiority. But we did say in our previous decision

3 that -- and that's what authorised this appeal, that the trial on Kosovo

4 would begin on the 12th of February.

5 In concrete terms, how would things go? How would they happen?

6 So on the -- assuming that -- that the Chamber were to grant your request,

7 how do -- on the 12th of February would things go? What would happen?

8 Would we start with Kosovo just like that or would you ask Chamber III to

9 reconsider the issue? How would it be looked at? How would you go about

10 doing it?

11 MR. NICE: If this Chamber were to order joinder of the

12 indictments, I'm sure it would be a proper courtesy to give the Trial

13 Chamber itself the opportunity to consider its own conduct of its own

14 trial in light of that ruling. What we would suggest to the Trial Chamber

15 would be that, if they wished to carry on with the February the 12th start

16 date, there should be opening addresses on February the 12th effectively

17 restricted to Kosovo, and of course the opening about Kosovo will in any

18 event take in some of the earlier history and some of the intervening

19 events but not in great detail; that the evidence on Kosovo would then

20 begin, and we would, so far as possible and sensible, start the evidence

21 with crime base evidence because that has almost the guarantee of no

22 linkage to other cases. We would then provide provisional lists of

23 witnesses and exhibits and a provisional pre-trial brief or amended

24 pre-trial brief on the 1st of April, and no doubt the Chamber would then,

25 in its management of the case, have to decide whether there should be a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 further opening statement in relation to the balance of the joint

2 indictment and when that should be.

3 My provisional view is that we might encourage the Chamber to take

4 those steps either at a particular part in the year, the end of the

5 session or the beginning of the next session, or alternatively at a

6 particular stage in the evidence, or alternatively when all the Kosovo

7 evidence was over.

8 One way or another, and as I said earlier, subject to necessary

9 time that would have to be allowed to the accused to deal with

10 administrative matters, there would be no necessary break in the

11 presentation of evidence and argument for the three joined parts of the

12 case, or two joined parts of the case.

13 But that's how I would see it happening, but it would be subject

14 to the Trial Chamber's management, of course.

15 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Nice. I was thinking

16 that insofar as you were prepared for a joinder, because that's what you

17 wanted, I thought on the 12th of February you would be very eager before

18 Trial Chamber III to show a great overall picture before going first into

19 Kosovo and then to something else. I thought you would give a kind of

20 a -- kind of a great fresco because you're sure that there is a common

21 plan in the three indictments. So you seem to be saying no, it would

22 begin with Kosovo and then it would continue with the others, or am I

23 wrong?

24 MR. NICE: I would very much like to give the great fresco on the

25 12th of February and, to the extent possible and if that's what the

1 Chamber wanted, I would, but I also have to reflect on the fact that by

2 then the accused had not by then been served with a witness list or list

3 of exhibits and that there would be a degree to which I would be properly

4 constrained because I hadn't yet decided and communicated what the

5 evidence was going to be. But I would be very much in the Trial Chamber's

6 hands.

7 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Well, I wasn't planning to interfere

8 with what the Trial Chamber would do, Trial Chamber III, but I simply want

9 to know in respect of this common enterprise that you have been referring

10 to in order to justify application of Rule 49, I wanted to know whether

11 that would be clear as of the 12th of February or would we be moving

12 chronologically in respect of the case. That was the comment I was

13 making.

14 Very well. Let me turn to my colleagues. Have they any further

15 questions to put to the Prosecution? No. All right.

16 Now let me turn to Mr. Milosevic. You have heard these long

17 discussions about the possible joinder of the two indictments because a

18 decision has been taken to -- already taken to join Croatia and Bosnia.

19 So you understand that we are talking about whether this -- whether the

20 Kosovo indictment should be joined to the other one.

21 You have the same amount of time to respond if you wish, the same

22 time that the Prosecution did. Would you like to use that time, and what

23 do you have to say to the Chamber? You may remain seated, if you please,

24 or you can stand, as you like.

25 The floor is yours, Mr. Milosevic.

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] By adding up three lies, you will

2 not get the truth. You will simply enlarge the lie itself. So these

3 three indictments have to have a link that goes through all of them, to

4 use the expression that I heard here, and that link is the crime that has

5 been committed for a long time against Yugoslavia and against my people.

6 This here is obviously a huge abuse of power which is aimed at

7 creating a historic fallacy that will be used by those to accuse those who

8 defended Yugoslavia of breaking it up. It will also be used to accuse

9 those who defended their country of crimes, and this will be done so that

10 those who supported separatism, terrorism, and secession of Yugoslavia

11 would in the end be -- would receive amnesty, and all of this because they

12 were supported by the powers who wanted to establish their control over

13 the Balkans so that they would use this geopolitical location to further

14 their control of other areas.

15 You have spoken here about three linked issues, but authors of

16 that so-called plan are so certain of it that it took them ten years to

17 bring indictments for Croatia and Bosnia. These indictments are absurd.

18 They're nonsensical because Serbian politics, Serbia, and I myself were

19 involved in creating peace in Bosnia and Croatia. We were not involved in

20 making war, and we used all of our influence in order to achieve peace as

21 soon as possible.

22 At the very beginning of the conflict in Croatia, we supported

23 finding a political solution, and based on those efforts of ours, we were

24 able to immediately establish the protected zones of the United Nations

25 and to calm the situation down.

1 On the 24th of March, 1992, late Croatian President Tudjman

2 addressed his nation from the Ban Jelacic square in Zagreb by saying

3 verbatim, "There would be no war if Croatia didn't want the war. However,

4 we believe that that was the only way to achieve independence for

5 ourselves." And it is true, there would be no war if Croatia didn't want

6 one, but Serbia did not participate in that war as a warring party. It

7 was an internal conflict.

8 And why did Croatia want this war? Not because it wanted the

9 Croatian nation to exercise its right for self-determination. They wanted

10 this war because they wanted to expel close to half a million of Serbs

11 from Croatia, half a million of Serbs from Serbian Krajina, Serbs who

12 lived there for centuries on its own territory. They lived there as

13 people would live on their own territory. They did not usurp the

14 territory. And this continued until the Croatian government, who

15 supported the war, came and took power. Croatia had a Constitution which

16 said that Croatia was a state of Croatian people, Serbian people, and all

17 other nations living in Croatia. This Croatian Constitution was amended.

18 Serbs lost their rights, and they lost their status of constituent people

19 in Croatia and this is why they rebelled against it.

20 At that time in Croatia, Serbs didn't even -- at that time, Serbs

21 didn't even know about this. And now you are talking about a plan in

22 which, with the support of Germany, at the end of 1991, there was a

23 premature recognition of Croatia which fueled the beginning of the

24 conflict. And let me state this once again. The only aim, the only goal

25 of Serbia in that conflict was to achieve peace as soon as possible. We

1 were never called on the carpet for those conflicts by Croatian

2 government, and here today we are being told that there was a plan

3 throughout all that time.

4 The only thing that is clear is that there was a plan against the

5 state which at that time was a model state of European federalism. That

6 was the state of Yugoslavia. And in Yugoslavia, we had multiple nations

7 living in a federal system in which they were entitled to have all rights,

8 all equal rights to live and develop successfully and to serve as an

9 example for the entire world of how people can live together. We fought

10 for Yugoslavia, for preserving Yugoslavia throughout the whole time.

11 And finally, every fact will simply support what I am saying.

12 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is the only state that has maintained its

13 ethnic composition. We had no deportations there from the beginning to

14 the end of the Yugoslav crisis. That wasn't the case in other republics

15 of former Yugoslavia. Half a million Serbs were expelled from Croatia.

16 And looked like what happened in Bosnia, without even going into other

17 areas of the former Yugoslavia.

18 So I would call this an evil and a hostile activity aimed at

19 justifying the crimes that were committed against my country and by using

20 this tribunal as a means of war against my country.

21 Let us take a look at Bosnia and Herzegovina. We attempted to

22 achieve peace from the very beginning in that country. Look what happened

23 to Cutiliero's plan which was supported by everyone. At the initiative of

24 American ambassador, the Muslims rejected this plan and then the conflict

25 erupted. So how is it that Serbia is accused of anything that --

1 everything that took place in Bosnia when it is a well-known fact that we

2 tried to use our influence to establish peace there, that we used all --

3 all initiatives aimed at finding peace?

4 In 1993 in Athens, there was a meeting at which the Vance-Owen

5 Plan was signed. It was signed by all parties. I went to Pale together

6 with Mr. Mitzatakis and former President of Yugoslavia Dobrica Cosic to

7 support accepting this plan. Unfortunately, it was rejected on the 3rd or

8 5th of May - I can't remember any more - in 1993. And at that time, we

9 introduced a blockade of Republika Srpska in order to force them -- in

10 order to force their then-government to accept that peace plan.

11 That was the role that Serbia played. We tried to establish

12 peace. And the only thing that we reiterated was that the only formula

13 for achieving peace in Bosnia was the formula that would equally protect

14 interests of all three nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina; Serbs, Muslims,

15 and Croats. Dayton managed to succeed because this formulas was accepted,

16 because they tried to equally protect interests of all three nations. And

17 now here we are told that Dayton was supposed to deal with Kosovo as

18 well. This is nonsense. Dayton negotiations were organised to impose

19 peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and nobody even considered opening up the

20 issue of Kosovo, which is an internal issue of the Republic of Serbia.

21 Nobody could even dream that somebody could attempt to make this into an

22 international issue.

23 You cannot link Serbia nor Serbian politics with any crimes, and

24 you can especially not sue and charge for acts for which we were never

25 condemned. We were simply shown respect for huge peace efforts that our

1 country invested into those events. It was invested by Serbia and Serbian

2 politics.

3 And if we are talking about Bosnia, let me tell you that 70.000

4 Muslim refugees lived in Serbia during the conflict in Bosnia. Do you

5 think that somebody would want to leave their house and go to the country

6 which endangers him? How many lives did we save? How many of your

7 hostages we went to save in Bosnia? We saved your pilots. We saved your

8 soldiers. How many peace initiatives were supported by us? And in the

9 end, we were the ones who were most responsible for the fact that peace

10 was established and for the fact that Dayton was, in the end, successful.

11 We managed to achieve full peace and detente.

12 And let me tell you how the trouble started in Kosovo. It started

13 because -- precisely because there was a plan to put the Balkans under

14 somebody else's control, to put the territory of the former Yugoslavia

15 under somebody else's control. They started insisting on destabilisation

16 of Kosovo, and they started doing that when it became clear that

17 everything will come to a peaceful end. And this is how it all happened.

18 In November of 1997, a summit of southeast Europe was held in

19 Crete. All of us were present, heads of state and prime ministers of

20 Eastern European countries. At that time, on our own initiative, we spoke

21 very much about removing barriers, about removing tariffs, about

22 integrating within the southeastern Europe and about improving our

23 cooperation. I had direct dialogue with Albanian prime minister Mr. Fatos

24 Nano. We spoke about improving our relations, removing visas, improving

25 transport and all other cooperation. Mr. Fatos Nano and myself spoke in

1 front of TV cameras. And at that time, he said -- he mentioned all of

2 these matters that he and I discussed. And also said that the issue of

3 Kosovo is an internal issue of the Republic of Serbia. This all promised

4 that there would be a peaceful resolution to all problems. And this, in

5 fact, sounded the alarm that alerted those forces that continued to carry

6 out crimes against my country. These are the forces that attempted to

7 destabilise Yugoslavia and to carry out the intervention that they, in

8 fact, did carry out. After about a month or two, a letter arrived from

9 Kinkel and Vadrine stating how concerned they were about Kosovo. And ten

10 years had passed in the meantime. Ten years had passed from the time when

11 you claim that Serbia had taken control over their own territory. There

12 were no murders during that time, nor robberies, nor arson, nor arrest,

13 nor torture in Kosovo. We didn't have a single political prisoner in

14 Yugoslavia. Not a single one.

15 20 Albanian newspapers were published in Kosovo in Albania

16 language, and you could buy them at every corner. None of these

17 newspapers were ever banned. Albanian parties operated freely, including

18 separatist political parties. Somebody here said we were tolerant with

19 respect to them. No. We simply believed that everything was in order

20 except for violence. And at that time, those forces that are responsible

21 for breaking up Yugoslavia, for occupying Yugoslavia, gathered criminals

22 throughout Europe and sent them to Kosovo to organise various

23 organisations, and they instigated terrorist acts in the beginning of

24 1998. And then they failed. And by the autumn of 1998, they were

25 completely eliminated, and they were sending back on tractors the weapons

1 that they smuggled through. And during that year, they mostly killed

2 Albanians.

3 I don't have facts to give you here, because I didn't know that I

4 would be given opportunity to speak here publicly. I was only informed

5 yesterday that I will have a hearing today. I had no idea even what this

6 hearing would be about. So therefore, I don't have the facts ready here

7 to give them to you. But let me tell you something --

8 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Milosevic.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- Albanian terrorists killed two

10 and a half more times Albanians during 1998 than Serbs. They killed

11 Albanians who were policemen, who were mailmen, who were forest takers,

12 and who were retirees going to pick up their retirement benefits. They

13 tried to create terror among Albanians and to kill as many Serbs as

14 possible. We protected our citizens, both Albanians and Serbs, from

15 terrorism. Their attempts failed in autumn of 1998. And then

16 Mr. Holbrooke came to ask for a verification mission to create a pretext

17 for attacking Yugoslavia. And let me --

18 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Mr. Milosevic, allow me to interrupt

19 just for a minute. It's not for me to take the time away from you. You

20 are going to be given the opportunity to speak again. This Tribunal, the

21 legality of which you challenge, gives you ample opportunity to fully

22 express your views.

23 Let me make this comment to you: I have the feeling that you are

24 ready for trial straightaway. You could start the trial today, this very

25 day, so it seems. Very much to your credit, you seem to be ready for

1 trial. But let me try to ask you, if you can try to do so, ask you not to

2 totally forget the issue. We are the Appeals Chamber; we are not the

3 Trial Chamber who is going to try you. We fully understand that for you,

4 the threat that runs across the three indictments is the fact that your

5 country has been victimised. We heard what you said. But do not confuse

6 the levels of judgment. You will be given ample time, the same time as

7 given to the Prosecutor.

8 I can tell you that as the President of the Appeals Chamber, you

9 will be given all the time you need. But don't mistake your purpose.

10 What you say shows obviously that you believe in what you say. It is your

11 right. That right will be granted to you. But let me remind you that in

12 this instant case, we are dealing with procedural matter. It is important

13 to us, maybe not to you but it is to us because we are the custodians of

14 international standards, of the demand for an equitable justice. So we

15 ask your views.

16 At the end of the day, do you want to be tried on one distinct

17 trial, the Kosovo trial, that would be separated from the Bosnia and

18 Croatia trials? Or do you want to be tried in one trial? This is a

19 simple question. You may decide not to answer it. We will take this in

20 the record. I'm going to let you speak again, but please answer this

21 question. Of course, you are an accused who is not deprived of common

22 sense, of intelligence, but I want you to understand the full extent of

23 the question raised here. Thank you for trying to do so. You have the

24 floor again.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, this is the first time

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 that I'm not being interrupted, and this is the first time I'm given an

2 opportunity to say something. And every opportunity that I'm granted to

3 address the public regarding the crimes that have been committed against

4 my country will be used by me. I am not doing this because of procedural

5 reasons. I am not interested in procedural reasons. I am doing this in

6 order to reply to the attack that is being conducted against my country

7 and my people, and the crime that is still being committed against them.

8 I wish to draw attention of the public that --

9 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] You will be given even more time at

10 the time of the trial. I'm sure you will understand that this was not the

11 purpose of the hearing today. You can start speaking again. But let me

12 tell you this, because you, too, you go beyond this courtroom. You

13 address your audience. I also am accountable to the international

14 community which created this Tribunal. Me, too.

15 I want this to be stated here clearly in this courtroom: The

16 Rules of Procedure and Evidence matter very much to you, but they matter

17 very much to the Prosecutor, to civilisation altogether. They must be

18 complied with. The discussion at stake today revolves around the question

19 of how the trials are going to start before the Trial Chamber. I don't

20 want you to say and to be able to say that I interrupted you. So of

21 course I'll take the time I spoke away out of the time you are being

22 given.

23 Please, you have the floor again.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to emphasise that the crimes

25 that are being committed against my country are still being committed

1 now. The last Serb that I'm aware of was killed in Kosovo over

2 Christmastime. 350.000 people were expelled from Kosovo under the

3 auspices of the United Nations, under the protection of terrorist

4 activities of Albanian terrorists who are protected by the United Nations,

5 from the arrival of this so-called protection forces of United Nations

6 who, according to the Resolution 1244, had an obligation to guarantee

7 personal security and property security to every citizen of Kosovo under

8 their protection. Albanian terrorists managed to expel 350.000 people,

9 burned tens of thousands of houses. Sometimes 50 or 60, and sometimes all

10 Serbian houses in a village would be burned, and this was all carried out

11 in full view of the troops who came to Kosovo as occupation troops under

12 the flag of the United Nations. They transformed themselves into

13 occupation forces and became allies of those same terrorists that killed

14 and set on fire so many people. And this is going on to this very day.

15 And they say that they are not aware that this was taking place.

16 Can you believe that tens of thousands of houses were set on fire without

17 forces who were present there being aware of that? Can somebody damage

18 and destroy - and I'm now referring to that time during the tenure of the

19 United Nations forces - 107 Serbian churches? Can somebody destroy and

20 set on fire a church without forces being aware of this?

21 So now we are talking about associating for criminal purposes of

22 these forces that carried out this criminal conduct against Yugoslavia.

23 They associated themselves with Albanian mafia and drug trafficking mafia

24 in order to commit a crime not only against Serbs but also against all

25 other non-Albanians, including the Catholic Albanians, including even

1 Albanians who in any way by even, for example, accepting their monthly

2 retirement benefits displayed some kind of loyalty to Serbia as their

3 state. What is taking place there, in fact, rehabilitates the Nazi

4 policy, the policies of Mussolini and Hitler, and this big noise that is

5 raised here about Greater Serbia, the so-called idea that we were

6 described here which never even existed.

7 So all this noise about Greater Serbia is raised in order to cover

8 up the fact that Greater Albania is being created, the same Greater

9 Albania that was created by Hitler and Mussolini during World War II. So

10 compare these two schemes with what is being carried out now, where they

11 want to take territory away from Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, and when they

12 want to impose another kind of despotic rule.

13 So it is obvious that this is a crime. It is obvious that this

14 link that connects all this indicates that there is a crime being

15 committed against Yugoslavia. But I want to tell you that is not easy to

16 forge historical facts. It is not easy to forge them even when a small

17 number of people is familiar with them. And it is completely impossible

18 to forge them when the entire nation knows of these facts and when

19 millions of people know of these facts.

20 I don't want to offend anyone here, but Judges in this trial, in

21 view of their roles, should be not you, who are professional Judges, but

22 those who decided to kill children in my country, who launched NATO

23 aggression against my country, who dropped 25.000 tonnes of bombs during

24 78 days and killed mostly the elderly, women, and children. They should

25 be the Judges. But the people will be the ones to judge in the end, and

1 not only the people of Yugoslavia but the peoples of all countries who

2 care about freedom and equality.

3 Therefore, it is not -- it is for a good reason that we say that

4 the people and the God are the final Judges. It is not just about me, the

5 fact that I am being tried for something that was, in fact, my

6 accomplishment, but also you and your employers who carried out crimes

7 against my country should be judged.

8 And since you told me that I should request something from you,

9 here is my request: I want to be freed. I want you to free me because

10 you and the rest of the world realise that this battle that is being

11 carried out against my country and my people is not something that I can

12 evade. I have no intention of evading this battle. The fact that you are

13 keeping me here in these not decent circumstances in order to deny any

14 opportunity to me to express my arguments, this is not something that will

15 serve as an honour to this institution, even if this institution were an

16 illegal [as interpreted] one, and you are fully well aware yourselves that

17 it is not a legal institution.

18 Now that we are talking of this institution, let me say that you

19 should have accepted the opinion expressed here by amici curiae, that ICJ

20 should decide on the ability of this tribunal to be the trier of the

21 facts. However, you didn't ask for ICJ's opinion, and we all know why is

22 that so.

23 So in view of this, let me call this criminal attitude in

24 attempting to turn the victim into a culprit. And this refers to my

25 people, to my country, and to myself personally. This is an unprecedented

1 attempt to turn a victim into a culprit. Therefore, I think that it would

2 be logical and just to let me go because I will not flee. I am fully

3 prepared to come to any hearing because this is not a battle that I will

4 miss.

5 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Thank you. I would like to

6 congratulate you. You took exactly the amount of time that was allotted

7 to you. In fact, even less. I would like to respond to two points, and

8 then we'll take a break. I would like to tell you that you are on equal

9 footing, as you like, Mr. Milosevic, and if you do not have Defence

10 counsel with you, that is simply because you choose. That has to be

11 stated; that has to be clear. And even in detention, you have legal

12 advisors, which is your right. It is also your right not to have Defence

13 counsel here, but let's not speak about the fact that there is not -- the

14 allegation that there is not an equal footing, and the Judges are here to

15 ensure that equality is respected. As regards release, you can ask for

16 that before the appropriate Chamber.

17 It is 11.45. We're a little bit late, but each party had to speak

18 freely and did so. Now, we're going to resume the hearing at 12.00. The

19 Judges will perhaps ask the accused some questions, and then we will hear

20 the amici curiae, and perhaps the reply of the Prosecutor since the

21 accused took the floor.

22 Very well. We suspend the hearing, and we will resume at 12.00.

23 --- Recess taken at 11.38 a.m.

24 --- On resuming at 12.02 p.m.

25 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] We will now resume the hearing.

1 Madam Registrar, have the accused brought into the courtroom, please.

2 We will now resume our work. We still have to hear the amici

3 curiae. But before that, we had anticipated the possibility of the Judges

4 asking questions.

5 First let me turn to my colleagues. Any questions to ask? No

6 questions.

7 If you allow me, Mr. Milosevic, I do have one question that I'd

8 like to ask you and ask you to answer as quickly as possible.

9 I am referring now to the Appeals Chamber. Must the Appeals

10 Chamber deduce from the long monologue that you gave, must it assume that

11 you have a kind -- as former head of state, that you have a geopolitical

12 vision of the whole case, about the matters that affected your country?

13 In respect of concrete terms - let me bring you back to concrete matters -

14 must the Trial Chamber therefore conclude that you would prefer to defend

15 yourself as part of a single trial or, to the contrary, to have two

16 trials? My next -- my subsidiary question is: Do you not care at all?

17 Could you answer us very specifically and very briefly, answer

18 that question that the Presiding Judge is asking you. Thank you.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that these indictments,

20 which are obviously false, should all be dismissed. I never heard of

21 indictments without supporting evidence. I never heard of indictments

22 that resemble political pamphlets with poor, bad intentions.

23 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Excuse me. I'm asking the questions

24 here, Mr. Milosevic. You were able to speak freely a little while ago.

25 We're not going to go back to that.

1 I have a very specific question. I am convinced that a person who

2 has held responsibilities, as you did, must understand what is behind my

3 question. My question is not a political one. It is not one -- not

4 political at all. It does not call for a political answer. I will ask

5 the question again.

6 When you spoke, as you did, for 30 minutes a little while ago,

7 when you spoke in a very summary manner of the -- all of the events,

8 whether it be Bosnia, Croatia, or Kosovo, or even other provinces, does

9 this allow us to conclude that you yourself, you the accused, would prefer

10 to defend yourself as part of a single trial? That is my question.

11 If you can't answer, simply say, "I can't answer." Or if you

12 don't want to answer, say, "I don't want to answer." But let's not go

13 into everything we already know and to what you've already said and in

14 fact which should not be argued before us but before our colleagues.

15 It's a very simple question, Mr. Milosevic. Can you answer me

16 very concretely?

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, precisely regarding what you

18 mentioned, I wish to say that the entire world knows that this is a

19 political process. So we are not here speaking about legal procedures

20 that evolve into political ones. This is a political process to begin

21 with, and as far as what I would prefer, I would prefer the truth. The

22 truth is stronger than and louder than aircraft carriers and any kind of

23 weapons. So the truth will triumph. And how you are going to conduct

24 your proceedings, that's up to you. I will give you no suggestions

25 regarding that.

1 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Very well. I thank you for your

2 counsel. Please be aware that the trial -- the Chamber will try to

3 understand exactly what it is you said and that is what concerns it right

4 now in respect to procedure and law.

5 If there are no further questions, I will now turn to the amici

6 curiae so in respect of the discussions described and limited by the

7 Prosecutor's appeal you can put forward your own arguments. Thank you

8 very much.

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, esteemed Judges of

10 the Appeals Chamber, we agreed today as amicus curiae I will present our

11 views regarding all of these issues that were raised here today. I will

12 attempt to be direct, and I will attempt to adhere to the time allotted to

13 us, given to us to express our position regarding all of these matters

14 that need to be decided upon.

15 I have to begin from the same point that the Presiding Judge Jorda

16 used as a starting point. I will also adhere to the same chronology,

17 except this chronology, in our view, needs to be presented in a somewhat

18 different manner.

19 What I would like to begin with is the following: On the 11th of

20 December, as you know, the Trial Chamber made -- adopted a decision to

21 join the Croatian and Bosnian indictments into one and decided to keep the

22 separate -- to keep the Kosovo indictment separate. Two days later, a

23 written decision was distributed, and all of us amici curiae were in full

24 agreement and were unanimous supporting the reasons advanced by the Trial

25 Chamber, the reasons why they believed that this could not constitute one

1 and the same transaction. So in that respect, we amici curiae were

2 unanimous.

3 We do not have a binding obligation to be unanimous like the

4 Prosecution has to be. We, all of us, can have our own opinions and can

5 differ among us. However, in this case, we were unanimous.

6 We believe that the Trial Chamber came forward with very

7 convincing reasons why this could not be interpreted as the same

8 transaction in accordance with the roles [as interpreted]. So this is the

9 first thing I wanted to say.

10 And now, following the chronology, I will say the following: That

11 on the 12th and 13th of December - I have to draw your attention to this -

12 25th Plenary Session of the Tribunal was held. And in accordance with

13 Article 6, some rules of procedure were amended and some new ones were

14 adopted. So two days after the Trial Chamber adopted the decision to

15 sever these trials, Rule 116 bis was adopted concerning the expedited

16 proceedings, and then the Prosecution filed their motion for leave to

17 appeal in accordance with Rule 73[D]. On the 28th of December, 2001,

18 these new Rules entered into force. So this means that they entered into

19 force after the Prosecution submitted its motion for leave to appeal.

20 As you know, on the 9th of January, 2002, we had a Pre-Trial

21 Conference which was dedicated to all these matters. And on that same

22 day, the three-member Trial Chamber granted leave to Prosecution to appeal

23 based on Rule 73[D]. We were distributed this decision on the following

24 day, on the 10th of January. We then received some further documents on

25 the 16th of January, and then the hearing -- today's hearing was

1 scheduled.

2 So let us take a closer look at Rule 116. It discusses the

3 expeditious -- expedited appeals procedure, and it concerns appeals under

4 Rule 73, which means that it basically removes the Rules 109 to 114. In

5 other words, this means that this appeal filed by the Prosecution which,

6 in accordance with the old Rules had a very defined schedule, had very

7 defined time frames, is now being treated as an expedited appeals

8 procedure. And this all happened after the Trial Chamber decided that the

9 trial should start on the 12th. So what am I trying to say here?

10 First of all, we should ask ourselves whether we can apply to this

11 case Rule -- the new amended Rule 116 which eliminates the regular appeals

12 procedure and refers to the appeal by Prosecution which was filed in

13 accordance with old Rule 73[D]. We, as amici curiae, believe that this is

14 not tenable. This would be contrary to legal principles. And I'm not

15 going to dwell on this any more. But this is just one aspect of this

16 entire problem.

17 The other aspect is just as important. You had an opportunity to

18 hear from Mr. Milosevic that it was not until yesterday that he was

19 informed of this hearing and that he basically was unable to prepare for

20 this hearing and was unable to answer your questions in an appropriate

21 way. So he found out about this hearing yesterday. And as you are well

22 aware of, Rule 6 specifies provisions regarding the amendment of the

23 Rules. I think that the Tribunal followed this Rule. It amended Rule 116

24 and now the expedited proceedings are applied to all of these matters.

25 However, we should not neglect the provisions of this rule under (D),

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 which that (D) subsection says the following, that: "The amendments will

2 enter into force seven days after the adoption of the document, however,

3 will not be applied in a way that would jeopardise the rights of the

4 accused."

5 In this situation, we really have to wonder whether we will come

6 to a situation where we will not be able to have a fair trial if the

7 expedited proceedings are applied in this case. When they are applied

8 with respect to an issue that is -- that finds itself for the first time

9 before this Tribunal. We are now talking about the issue of joinder of

10 three indictments.

11 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] You are an amicus curiae,

12 Mr. Tapuskovic. Please help the Court. I don't know what you plead to.

13 Are you pleading to the procedural error by an Appeals Chamber? Please

14 assist the Court, tell us what you plead about. Are you pleading on

15 behalf of the rights of the accused, or are you pleading that there was an

16 error? The changes to 116 bis were not in substance but formal ones.

17 Please specify what you are pleading to in order to assist the Court.

18 This is the reason why you are being here.

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that is true. We are amici

20 curiae, but the way I see the role of amici curiae, and the way it has

21 been described to us so far, our role is to raise any issue that deserves

22 the attention of the Tribunal in order to ensure the fair trial. So we

23 are here to ensure the fair trial. Judge Robinson warned us many times

24 that we need to raise all issues that have a bearing on the fairness of

25 the trial.

1 So I believe that it is my duty to draw your attention to this,

2 that we have to have in mind that we cannot apply this rule concerning the

3 expedited proceedings in this case because the importance -- because of

4 the importance of this issue.

5 JUDGE JORDA: [Interpretation] Sorry for interrupting. We are sad

6 that you didn't produce written submissions. You had ten days in order to

7 do so, to file written submissions. We can admit you intervening today on

8 the merits of the issue put to the Chamber and to the Court, but just

9 wanted to notice this.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, all I can say is

11 this can be raised at any minute. It is true that we did not submit

12 written motions. I didn't want to bring to your attention the

13 difficulties in our daily work. We receive loads of materials on a daily

14 basis, and I have to raise this with the Registry because we have not

15 received all the materials pertaining to the trial that is to begin on the

16 12th of February. On the 25th of January, we were finally distributed all

17 the materials concerning this trial, but physically we had no time to

18 review this. It was impossible for us to write a written motion under the

19 circumstances. However, I am raising this issue now.

20 I am putting this question to you, and I believe that a question

21 of such a delicate nature as this one, as the one we have heard today,

22 should take into account the fairness, and we should not apply expedited

23 proceedings. We should apply the old Rule, especially in view of the fact

24 that the Prosecution filed its motion while the old Rules were still in

25 force. And it is up to you to decide on this. However, I just want to

1 bring to your attention this very delicate issue. I want to put it on

2 your table, if I can s