1 Friday, 2nd October, 1998
2 --- Upon commencing at 9.54 a.m.
3 (Open session)
4 JUDGE JORDA: Registrar, have the accused
5 brought in.
6 (The accused entered court)
7 JUDGE JORDA: I would like to say good
8 morning to the interpreters, to the court
9 stenographers. Since everybody is here, I would like
10 to say good morning to them as well. I would like to
11 give the floor to Mr. Nobilo, once General Marin has
12 been brought in.
13 (The witness entered court)
14 JUDGE JORDA: General, do you hear me?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE JORDA: All right. We can now continue
17 with the examination-in-chief. Mr. Nobilo?
18 MR. NOBILO: Thank you, Mr. President. We
19 have actually reduced the number of our documents and
20 we have actually reached the last one now. After that,
21 we will show the Brigadier some defence exhibits, which
22 still have not been tendered, but which were submitted
23 during earlier cross-examinations.
24 THE REGISTRAR: This is D409, A for the
25 French version, B for the English version.
1 MR. NOBILO:
2 Q. Brigadier, on the 29th of January, 1993, from
3 the command of the Operative Zone, Chief of Staff,
4 Franjo Nakic, is writing to all the Brigades of the
5 Operative Zone of Central Bosnia and other units, with
6 a combat report on the situation in the zone of
7 responsibility of the Nikola Subic-Zrinjski Brigade of
8 Busovaca on the 29th of January, 1993. We will not be
9 reading the document because it speaks of the situation
10 on the front, on that day. Just tell me who wrote this
11 document and who signed it.
12 A. As can be seen from the document, I cannot
13 exactly recall who drafted the document, but it was
14 signed by the Chief of Staff, Franjo Nakic. This is
15 his signature and it carries the stamp of the Operative
16 Zone of Central Bosnia. Such reports and others like
17 it, whenever the communications were such that we could
18 send reports of this kind, we would send them to the
19 neighbouring Operative Zone to inform them regarding
20 the situation in our Operative Zone where combat
21 activities were under way.
22 Q. We shall now show the witness several
23 documents that the Defence has already presented in
24 Court. The first one is D73. Exhibit D73. It would
25 be a good idea to put it on the ELMO so that everyone
1 can see it, or the English version on the ELMO and the
2 Croatian to the witness.
3 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. He
4 has refreshed my memory. Actually, this is D73, isn't
5 it? Which was not admitted at the time and that is
6 what you wish to do now, to tender it. What is this
7 document? Anyway, we're listening to you, tell us what
8 is this Exhibit D73?
9 Mr. Registrar, you have marked it? Can I
10 make little notes on it? I know the registrar is
11 watching over me just in case. I know he doesn't like
12 me to scribble on it. Anyway, Mr. Nobilo, it is D73,
13 because it was not authenticated by the witness, it was
14 not admitted, so remind us, what this exhibit is?
15 MR. NOBILO: Yes, Mr. President. The
16 document is very brief. It was issued by Darko
17 Kralijevic, the commander of the Vitezovi unit on the
18 24th of April, 1993, and it is a certificate confirming
19 that the flat at address Marshal Tito Street,
20 entrance to the second floor is given for temporary use
21 to Jako Krizanac. The former owner of the flat was
22 Faro Ecnicic, obviously a Muslim. The stamp is
23 of the Vitezovi unit and it is written by Colonel Darko
24 Kralijevic. So I should like to ask the Brigadier
25 first whether he has seen this document, where and
1 when? And whether he knows anything about Jako
2 Krizanac, that Kralijevic gave this flat too?
3 A. The document I am holding in my hand and
4 which we are now reviewing is one that I did not see
5 personally, but I do remember that there were such
6 documents and such certificates. And let me remind you
7 of General Blaskic's order that we discussed yesterday,
8 prohibiting occupation of other peoples' flats who were
9 temporarily absent due to the war. I know that there
10 were such instances and such documents were issued by
11 various entities and one of those was the command of
12 the special purpose unit, Vitezovi, for which it had
13 absolutely no competence.
14 Q. Did such cases prompt Blaskic to issue the
15 order that we referred to yesterday?
16 A. Such cases did, indeed, prompt General
17 Blaskic to issue that order prohibiting the use of the
18 housing stock, that is the flats vacated by people
19 because of the war.
20 Q. Will you please look at the stamp of the
21 Vitezovi unit. It says at the bottom, "Defence
22 Department, Special Purpose Unit, Vitezovi and Vitez."
23 And above that it says, "Republic of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatian Community of
25 Herceg-Bosna." No mention is made there of the
1 Operative Zone of Central Bosnia, why?
2 A. When talking about the organisation of
3 forces, I said that the Vitezovi special purpose unit
4 was not within the organisational structure of the
5 Operative Zone, but was organisationally linked to the
6 defence department of Herceg-Bosna. The competence of
7 the Operative Zone commander in relation to this unit
8 was only as far as its operational use was concerned,
9 whereas disciplinarian matters, logistics and other
10 matters were dealt by this unit, directly with the
11 defence department.
12 Q. Counsel, thank you. We shall now move on to
13 another document, D88, which was submitted but not
14 admitted. Let me briefly present that document.
15 JUDGE JORDA: No objections for this
17 MR. KEHOE: At this point, yes, Mr.
18 President. This witness said he never saw the
20 JUDGE JORDA: Yes. He didn't identify it.
21 It is obviously not his document. But it is a type of
22 document that he recognises. I think that
23 identification need not necessarily mean that a person
24 has to have written it. Brigadier, it's a type of
25 document that doesn't surprise you that you consider it
1 to be quite possible, one of a kind, isn't that so,
2 Brigadier? That is what Mr. Nobilo is asking you.
3 THE WITNESS: Mr. President, I am not
4 surprised by this document. As far as I recall, there
5 were such documents. But, personally, I cannot claim
6 that I held this particular document in my hands.
7 JUDGE JORDA: In that case, I think there
8 should be no problem. The exhibit is admitted on
9 condition that its weight will be assessed by the
10 Judges and its relevance.
11 MR. NOBILO: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. The next document is D88.
13 The second document is of the 4th Battalion
14 of the military police, issued on the 27th of January,
15 1993, the Commander, Basko Ljubicic, is addressing to
16 the military police department in Mostar an
17 extraordinary report.
18 "On the 24th of January, 1993, at 1445 hours
19 on the main road, Kiseljak to Busovaca, at the locality
20 called Kacuni, fire was opened from infantry weapons on
21 members of the military police from Busovaca, Ivica
22 Petrovic. He was killed on that occasion, together
23 with another civilian person who was with him in the
24 car. The fire was opened by Muslim forces and the army
25 of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Both persons were mutilated and
1 cut up with knives.
2 On the 25th of January, 1993, the clashes
3 spread to the entire territory of Busovaca
4 municipality. We have information that the deputy
5 Commander of the first company, Zoran Ljubicic, was
6 hurt in conflicts with Muslim extremists. We were
7 unable to transport him to the hospital and it is
8 possible that he has died. Conflicts are continuing."
9 My first question, Brigadier, is whether you
10 have seen this letter?
11 A. I have not, but I do remember the event and
12 the killing of Ivica Petrovic as we were informed about
13 it by a letter from the Nikola Subic-Zrinjski Brigade.
14 Q. Is it true that this is how the January
15 conflict in Busovaca started?
16 A. On the basis of the report from Nikola
17 Subic-Zrinjski in Busovaca, it is true that this was
18 one of the immediate causes which led to a later
19 escalation of the conflict in Busovaca municipality in
20 January, 1993.
21 Q. Mr. President, we are tendering this exhibit
22 into evidence because the witness has confirmed the
23 events referred to in this document?
24 MR. KEHOE: Again, Mr. President, the
25 Prosecutor has the same position on the document as we
1 had with the prior.
2 JUDGE JORDA: The Judges will admit the
3 document and they will judge its relevance.
4 MR. NOBILO: The next document is D90.
5 Q. On this document a name is written, so please
6 do not read it or mention it and please do not place it
7 on the ELMO because I think it is a Prosecution witness
8 who was protected. In this document, D90, we're only
9 interested in the second page and the signature of
10 Vladimir Santic. Do you recognise that signature at
11 all? Do you know it? That's all. Yes or no?
12 A. I do know Vladimir Santic and this is his
14 Q. Is this the stamp of the military police
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, we are tendering
19 this exhibit into evidence on the basis of the
20 recognition of the signature and the stamp.
21 MR. KEHOE: No objection, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE JORDA: Very well.
23 MR. NOBILO: The next document is D91. The
24 same witness is referred to so we won't be showing it
25 on the ELMO. But we would like to show you the
1 signature and the stamp. D91.
2 JUDGE JORDA: On the ELMO?
3 MR. NOBILO: My learned friend, Mr. Hayman,
4 feels that D90 and D91 should be under seal because
5 they mention a protected witness.
6 MR. KEHOE: Yes, the document has the
7 witness's name on it, it's not supposed to be seen by
8 anybody, including the Brigadier, with all due respect,
9 Brigadier. In any event, if you just ask about the
10 signature and take the document back, that would be
12 MR. NOBILO: Yes, but we have to authenticate
13 it. If you accept this document without
14 authentication, we won't show it to the Brigadier.
15 JUDGE JORDA: Will you accept it? Anyway,
16 the Judges can't see it for the moment. And anyway, we
17 must try and find a way out of this dilemma. How are
18 you going to have this witness identify this document?
19 Through what? Has the witness seen this document?
20 MR. NOBILO: He hadn't, I think, not yet, but
21 by means of the stamp and the signature. But on the
22 second page of the document, where the signature is,
23 the same name is mentioned again.
24 MR. KEHOE: The Brigadier is going to accept
25 that this is the stamp and this is the signature, then
1 we accept that. Then we have no objection to the
2 document. But what we do object to is that the fashion
3 of showing this document without somehow taking some
4 measures not to disclose the name of a protected
5 witness, that's the problem.
6 MR. NOBILO: I think that we cannot accept
7 this objection because it doesn't say anyway that the
8 person mentioned in this document is a protected
9 witness. The Brigadier or anyone else who may be in
10 the public gallery cannot know that this man was here
11 at all as a witness. So we haven't disclosed the
12 identity of the witness.
13 JUDGE JORDA: You know this exhibit,
14 Mr. Kehoe, is it your exhibit?
15 MR. KEHOE: No, it is a Defence Exhibit, Mr.
16 President, that was --
17 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, but you are saying that
18 this person should be protected, how do you know that?
19 Everyone is talking about somebody who needs to be
20 protected, but nobody seems to have seen his name.
21 Mr. Kehoe, you have called for protection for a person
22 whose name is figuring in this document, are we
24 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, if we could
25 go to private session at this point, we could discuss
2 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, yes, please. Let's go
3 into private session. That would be the best
5 (Private session)
13 Pages 12680 to 12695 redacted - in private session
14 (Open session)
15 MR. NOBILO: The next document is D93. Could
16 it please be shown to the witness.
17 Q. So this document was created on the 30th of
18 January and it was signed by Vladimir Santic and it is
19 sent to the head department of the military police and
20 it is a report on military policemen who were killed in
21 the fighting in Busovaca.
22 Tell me, Brigadier, do you recognise Santic's
23 signature and do you perhaps know the persons who were
25 A. I do recognise the signature of Mr. Vladimir
1 Santic, Commander of the company, and the seal is the
2 seal of the 4th unit of the military police. I do not
3 know anyone of the five policemen who are mentioned as
4 killed in this report.
5 Q. Thank you. I suggest that this be moved into
6 evidence. The next one is 95?
7 JUDGE JORDA: Same objection, Mr. Kehoe?
8 MR. KEHOE: Yes.
9 JUDGE JORDA: Very well. The same answer of
10 the Judges. Same objection, same response from the
11 Judges, such to the decision on relevance.
12 MR. NOBILO: The next document is D94. Could
13 it please be shown to the witness?
14 Q. So the next document is also a report of the
15 military police of January 29th and it is sent to the
16 Operative Zone of Central Bosnia and the report
17 pertains to killings of Croats in Lasva and Dusina.
18 And Zvonko Rajic is mentioned and then under number 1,
19 Marko Rajic, Pero Rajic, Jozo Kegelj, 60-years-old,
20 many names, et cetera, et cetera, fifteen people all
21 together who were killed in this action taken by the
22 army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. These are civilians in
23 Lasva and Dusina.
24 On the next page there is a seal and
25 somebody's signature. Can you identify this document
1 in terms of its contents, signature and seal or in some
2 combination of those three?
3 A. Mr. President, on this document I recognise
4 the seal. I do not recognise the signature, but these
5 events that are mentioned in the report, them, I do
6 remember. Under No. 1, No. 1, Zvonko Rajic, as far as
7 I can remember, he was Commander of a company in the
8 settlement of Dusina in the Lasva region. That is what
9 this place is called.
10 Q. And the killing of the Kegelj family, was
11 that something that resounded throughout the Lasva
12 River Valley; do you remember that?
13 A. Yes, yes, information on these events quickly
14 spread throughout the Lasva River Valley. As far as I
15 can remember, I saw a picture of the bodies of the
16 killed persons. I saw their corpses, I think, in 1993,
17 on a picture. So, practically, this is the first
18 event, the first big killing, slaughter of the
19 population of the Lasva River Valley and it occurred in
20 January, 1993.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, we wish to offer
23 this document into evidence, D94.
24 MR. KEHOE: Same position.
25 JUDGE JORDA: The Judges also maintain their
1 position. All right, this is D95.
2 MR. NOBILO: This was D94 and the next one is
3 D95, the next one that we are going to tender into
5 Q. So D95, this is a report of the Commander of
6 the 4th Battalion of the military police to Tihomir
7 Blaskic in Kiseljak on the 25th of January, 1993, and
8 the report says on the 25th of January, 1993, at 1.00,
9 in the village of Kacuni, in the fighting between the
10 members of the HVO units of Busovaca and the units of
11 the BH army, Ivica Petrovic was killed and one unknown
13 Do you remember this event? You have already
14 mentioned this event. Do you recognise the seal or the
16 A. I remember the event. I remember the death
17 of Ivica Petrovic and I recognise the seal of the
18 command of the battalion of the military police.
19 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, we tender this
20 into evidence.
21 JUDGE JORDA: Same objection by the
22 Prosecutor, same position by the Judges. That has been
23 admitted, but the Judges reserve the ability to
24 evaluate the relevance of the exhibit. Last document?
25 MR. NOBILO: We give up on this document
1 because, perhaps, it has insufficient detail for
2 identification. But, yes, yes.
3 JUDGE JORDA: Is that the completion of your
4 cross-examination or do you have any further questions
5 to ask before we take our break?
6 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, we tender the
7 documents from D198 to D -- if we include the last one
8 also, 409, so from 198 to D409, we tender them all into
9 evidence and in this way, we do conclude our
11 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, if I can request
12 that the admission of these documents be reserved until
13 the end of the examination. Some of these documents,
14 obviously, the witness had never seen before, et cetera
15 and it's difficult at this point to point out exactly
16 which ones they are. So if we could just reserve on
17 the admission until the end of cross-examination, I
18 think it would be helpful.
19 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, that seems to be a
20 legitimate request, considering the large number of
21 exposed documents and we will look into the question
22 again at the end of the cross-examination. We're going
23 to take a twenty minute break. We've had a long
24 morning. We're going to take our break.
25 Mr. Kehoe, did you want to ask a question?
1 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I would like at
2 some point to discuss the issue of cross-examination.
3 I don't know if you want to do it now. We'll take it
4 up after our break.
5 JUDGE JORDA: I think that we first have to
6 take a break. The interpreters will have had a long
7 morning. I suggest we take a break and that we start
8 again after a good twenty minute pause.
9 --- Recess taken at 11.05 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 11.35 a.m.
11 JUDGE JORDA: The hearing is resumed, please
12 have the accused brought in.
13 (The accused entered court)
14 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe, the floor is yours
15 for your cross-examination, but perhaps you want to say
16 something first to us?
17 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, Your Honours,
18 thank you very much. As Your Honours know that we have
19 been sitting through the testimony of Brigadier Marin
20 for some days now and we do have, I believe, in excess
21 of 200 exhibits that we have that has come before the
23 I will say to you, Mr. President, Your
24 Honours, very few of them have been seen by the Office
25 of the Prosecutor prior to this time. I will also note
1 that many of these documents, as Your Honour well
2 knows, are subject to a binding order issued by this
3 Chamber to various entities in the Republic of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina and have not been delivered as this
5 Court knows.
6 What the Office of the Prosecutor is
7 requesting and request making this motion pursuant to
8 the Court's powers under Rule 54 and rule 90(G) and
9 Rule 90(F) is a postponement of the cross-examination
10 of this witness until Wednesday morning. This
11 particular witness has given us documents that are
12 extremely dense, extremely complicated. Just a portion
13 of those documents have been read by the Defence as is
14 their privilege and their right. Nevertheless, there
15 are significant amounts of information located in these
16 documents that need to be explored and the fact of the
17 matter, Mr. President and Your Honours, we have not
18 seen these documents.
19 So these particular documents in conjunction
20 with the testimony of a witness that is obviously very
21 significant for the Defence requires time and
22 preparation. Now I will say to you, Mr. President and
23 Your Honours, such time and preparation will be time
24 well spent. Not only for the preparation time, but
25 also it's going to avoid a needless consumption of
1 time, simply because with that additional time, the
2 Office of the Prosecutor, in her preparation, will be
3 able to focus precisely on the documents that need to
4 be addressed and considered during the
6 Suffice to say, Mr. President, Your Honours,
7 the information that we have received is massive,
8 significant and the testimony is to, pardon me, Your
9 Honour, not clear testimony, but it is somewhat dense
10 in the sense that individual lines or individual items
11 of testimony by the witness involve any other number of
12 other items that must be explored on
13 cross-examination. For all those reasons, Mr.
14 President, Your Honours, we would request a continuance
15 of the cross until Wednesday.
16 JUDGE JORDA: Before I give the floor to Mr.
17 Hayman, Mr. Kehoe, about how much time do you think
18 you're going to need for your cross-examination?
19 MR. KEHOE: It is difficult to say, Mr.
20 President. It is difficult to say at this juncture of
21 the 200 documents, which are not going to be discussed
22 by the Prosecutor, and what need to be discussed in
23 detail. I will say that in consultation with Mr.
24 Harmon and Mr. Cayley, there are some of these
25 documents that we will not be discussing at all.
1 Alternatively, there will be some documents that we'll
2 be discussing in depth.
3 It is difficult, Mr. President, and again I
4 hate to be vague, it is difficult to give an accurate
5 estimate of the cross-examination. This particular
6 witness has been on, I believe, four days. Is that
7 correct, Mr. Dubuisson? Four days with the half days,
8 four full days.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Six days.
10 JUDGE JORDA: Are you aware that this is now
11 Defence time that we're counting here?
12 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I am aware of
13 that, and of course the Office of the Prosecutor has no
14 objection in this time not being held against the
15 Defence. The Prosecutor just believes that in order to
16 have a cogent, focused, cross-examination with this
17 amount of detail, and there is a significant amount of
18 detail in these documents, that there has to be
19 additional time focusing on the testimony in
20 conjunction with the stack of documents that we have
21 all received.
22 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you, Mr. Kehoe.
23 Mr. Hayman, what is your opinion about this?
24 MR. HAYMAN: Mr. President, Your Honours, we
25 vigorously oppose a delay in the cross-examination and
1 please allow me to say why.
2 First, what is the actual timing of the
3 events with respect to this witness's testimony? The
4 Defence gave notice of his testimony, including a
5 summary of his testimony on the 15th of September.
6 Nine days passed. On the 24th of September he began
7 his testimony. On the 25th he testified for a half
8 day, therefore, the Prosecutor had a half day to review
9 the witness's testimony up to that point. Then they
10 had the weekend, which constituted the 26th of
11 September, the 27th of September and half of Monday,
12 the 28th of September. That was a two and a half day
13 break for them to review the testimony to date and to
14 prepare their cross-examination. The witness then
15 testified on September 29th and for a half day on
16 September 30th. Again, the other half of that day was
17 available for preparation of cross-examination and for
18 review of the documents of which counsel speaks.
19 Yesterday, of course, the witness testified
20 and today briefly this morning. What do we have before
21 us? We have a weekend. We have this afternoon in
22 which we will not, of course, be in session. There is
23 Saturday, there is Sunday, there is Monday morning.
24 That's three full days, quite frankly, before Monday
25 afternoon, the Monday afternoon session comes around,
1 and realistically we have, perhaps, two hours or less
2 left in the day today. So for all practical purposes,
3 the Prosecutor, even if he commences now, does not have
4 to really commence his cross-examination until Monday
5 afternoon, which follows the upcoming three day
6 equivalent break.
7 The point, Your Honours and Mr. President, is
8 that between the day we gave notice, the 15th of
9 September, and next Monday afternoon, 20 days will have
10 passed. Between the first day of his testimony, the
11 24th of September, and next Monday afternoon, 12 days
12 will have passed, of which 6.5 days the Court was in
13 recess. The Prosecutor has had an extraordinary
14 opportunity, because of the schedule and the weekends
15 that have come along by happenstance with respect to
16 this witness's testimony. The Prosecutor has had an
17 extraordinary opportunity to review the testimony, the
18 transcripts, indeed, the documents, over a lengthy
19 period of testimony.
20 We maintain that they've had a very fair,
21 indeed leisurely, one might even conclude, opportunity
22 to review these documents, which are voluminous, but
23 they are not in the main lengthy documents. They are
24 not lengthy documents. So our point number one is a
25 delay of this nature is not justified because of the
1 passage of time.
2 Point number two, it's not justified because
3 of other facts and circumstances. What has the
4 testimony of the Brigadier involved? It has involved
5 the events at the heart and core of this case. What
6 was the level of command and control within the HVO?
7 What information was available to the accused on the
8 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th of April? If they're not
9 prepared to cross-examine on those issues, we submit
10 they weren't prepared to bring this case in the first
11 instance. This is the core of the case.
12 Point number three, to grant them this type
13 of delay would result in unequal treatment of the
14 parties. I would point, for example, to the testimony
15 of Mr. Pajic, or Dr. Pajic, in the Prosecutor's case.
16 Through Dr. Pajic, the Prosecutor introduced at least
17 1.000 pages of numeroulist and other voluminous
18 legislative statute and materials. He testified
19 extensively concerning those materials between the 30th
20 of June and 1st of July, 1997. Cross-examination
21 commenced immediately thereafter, on the 2nd of July,
22 and concluded on the 3rd of July. A second example of
23 what I refer to when I speak of unequal treatment of
24 the parties that would result from granting the
25 Prosecutor's motion are Exhibits 406, 456 and 457 of
1 the office of the Tribunal Prosecutor. I would hold
2 them up, but they're probably too heavy for me to hold
3 up those four volumes of documents.
4 JUDGE JORDA: Excuse me. Are you talking
5 about the binders? I am not quite following you.
6 Could you show them to me, please? Are you talking
7 about the binders, are you? Yes, I got the answer from
8 the registrar.
9 MR. HAYMAN: Four volumes, Mr. President.
10 And these, along with the other volumes, are documents
11 which the Prosecutor introduced with no witness
12 whatsoever. There was no right of cross-examination
13 afforded the Defence with respect to these documents.
14 These documents in the main were sourced to the
15 Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but since we know
16 that they are principally HVO documents, that doesn't
17 tell us very much. It doesn't help us how the BH
18 government got them. We have no right of
19 cross-examination with respect to these four volumes of
20 thousands of pages. They had twenty days to prepare,
21 twelve days to actually review the testimony and the
22 documents and they're still not satisfied. To grant
23 their motion would result in unequal treatment of the
24 parties which is contrary to basic notions of fairness
25 and equality of arms.
1 There is a third reason that this motion
2 should not be granted, Your Honours and Mr. President,
3 and that is this witness needs to conclude his
4 testimony. Of course the Prosecutor needs to be given
5 fair and ample time to cross-examine, but the witness
6 is under some time pressure to return to duty. He
7 serves in an integrated federal army of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina and he needs to move on. We need to
9 complete his testimony so that he can return to his
10 duties. He cannot stay here in perpetuity.
11 Lastly, point number five, there would be
12 prejudice to the Defence from granting this motion. I
13 have already described the unequal treatment that would
14 result. We've already given notice of an additional
15 witness that would testify, we thought next week.
16 Obviously, that witness won't testify next week if the
17 cross-examination is delayed. Delay in and of itself
18 is, we believe, unfair. Let none of us forget, of
19 course, that the accused here is in custody. Thank
21 MR. KEHOE: With regard to the last point, we
22 have not received any notice on any witness for next
23 week. We have not gotten any notice. Let me talk
24 about a couple of items that were raised by counsel.
25 The first is this long period of time that the
1 Prosecutor allegedly has had to examine this
2 information, given notice of this particular witness.
3 I invite the Court to look back at the
4 factual summary that was given to the Prosecutor by the
5 Defence and compare that particular document to the
6 information that this particular witness has testified
7 about. I think that that will suffice by a pure
8 examination of that one-page document as to what this
9 witness has set forth. What is not in there is
10 astonishing, but I invite the Court to look at it.
11 The second item, with regard to unequal
12 treatment; at the very outset of this case, because of
13 a letter on Mr. Donja and Mr. Dornja, the witness
14 postponed his cross-examination for two weeks because
15 he maintained it wasn't the right name.
16 Let's discuss Major Bower, where the Defence
17 had the opportunity to delay because he didn't want to
18 finish his cross from between the 5th of June and the
19 29th of June. And to compare this situation with
20 Professor Pajic is not accurate.
21 Professor Pajic was talking about public
22 documents in the public record. They were the Narodni
23 lifts. They were laws on the books of the Croatian
24 community and then the Republic of Herceg-Bosna. We
25 have just gotten in excess of two hundred and some odd
1 exhibits, a handful of which we have seen.
2 And with regard to this leisurely pace, my
3 numbers may be correct, and Mr. Dubuisson, correct me
4 if I'm wrong, but we have received 161 documents since
5 Monday, and most of those documents talking about the
6 fighting that took place in Central Bosnia, are, as
7 counsel points out, at the heart and core of this case.
8 Now, we talk about fundamental fairness, and
9 there is also the fundamental requirement that we
10 attempt to search for the truth through these documents
11 and through this witness's testimony. Heaven knows,
12 the Prosecutor doesn't want to delay this particular
13 witness any more than need be, Mr. President, and Your
14 Honours; however, given the voluminous amount of
15 information this particular witness has presented to
16 this Chamber and to the Prosecutor, and in light of the
17 fact we haven't seen it, adequate preparation time
18 needs to be given to the Office of the Prosecutor, as
19 it was given to the Defence when they requested it, in
20 order to focus this cross-examination on the important
21 issues that the Chamber wants to discuss.
22 Thank you, Mr. President, I don't have
23 anything else.
24 JUDGE JORDA: I would turn to my colleagues.
25 Judge Riad.
1 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. Hayman, when is Brigadier
2 Marin due to go back to his professional work?
3 MR. HAYMAN: Let me find out what the latest
4 contact on that was, if I may, Your Honour.
5 My understanding is the fact that he won't be
6 available for at least much of next week is causing
7 some pressure. But we have told him, you know, to
8 expect several days next week, and he has to stay and
9 he has accepted that. But the prospect of the whole
10 week, much less the prospect of spilling over to the
11 next week, is, I think, a difficult one for him.
12 He is in an integrated federal army, and the
13 sooner we can finish and get him back in a normal
14 service of duty situation, the better for his
15 professional and personal situation.
16 JUDGE RIAD: So I gather we can at least have
17 him next week.
18 MR. HAYMAN: I think, yes. We have told him,
19 and the witness isn't in the room, but this is a public
20 session, perhaps it shouldn't be in public session;
21 suffice it to say, he will remain next week to complete
22 the cross-examination.
23 But if we do not start until Wednesday
24 afternoon, which is a half day, if counsel is
25 committing they will finish between Wednesday afternoon
1 and Friday noon, then that is something different from
2 what they said so far. I don't think they are
3 committing to do that. And I would think that would be
4 a legitimate avenue of inquiry, as well. Thank you.
5 MR. KEHOE: Judge Riad, in response to that;
6 it depends what this witness has to say. This
7 particular witness was on direct examination for six
8 days. Six days. So, even on the best of
9 circumstances, if we follow the pattern set forth by
10 the Defence, he still wouldn't finish next week.
11 So, using what was given to the Defence
12 during their case of a parody of time between the
13 Prosecutor and the Defence, the Brigadier still
14 wouldn't finish during the six days allocated next week
15 given the fact that under the best of circumstances we
16 only have four, I believe, three or four.
17 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. Hayman, for the sake of
18 argument; since you had six days, if the Prosecution
19 requires six days even next week wouldn't be enough, if
20 we started Monday. Would the witness be able to come
21 back again, as it happens sometimes before?
22 MR. HAYMAN: Your Honour, I think to answer
23 that question fully I would need a private session.
24 JUDGE JORDA: I think that you're right about
25 the private session, so we're going to move into
1 private session now.
2 (Private session)
13 Pages 12714 to 12725 redacted - in private session
21 Whereupon the proceedings adjourned
22 at 12.39 p.m., to be reconvened on
23, the 6th day of October, 1998 at 2.00 p.m. Tuesday