{short description of image}

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

    16 document?

    17 MR. KEHOE: At this point, yes, Mr.

    18 President. This witness said he never saw the

    19 document.

    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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

    13 signature.

    14 Q. Is this the stamp of the military police

    15 administration?

    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

  9. 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

    11 fine.

    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

  10. 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

    23 agreed?

    24 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, if we could

    25 go to private session at this point, we could discuss

  11. 1 this.

    2 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, yes, please. Let's go

    3 into private session. That would be the best

    4 solution.

    5 (Private session)

    6 (redacted)

    7 (redacted)

    8 (redacted)

    9 (redacted)

    10 (redacted)

    11 (redacted)

    12 (redacted)

    13 (redacted)

    14 (redacted)

    15 (redacted)

    16 (redacted)

    17 (redacted)

    18 (redacted)

    19 (redacted)

    20 (redacted)

    21 (redacted)

    22 (redacted)

    23 (redacted)

    24 (redacted)

    25 (redacted)

  12. 1












    13 Pages 12680 to 12695 redacted - in private session













  1. 1 (redacted)

    2 (redacted)

    3 (redacted)

    4 (redacted)

    5 (redacted)

    6 (redacted)

    7 (redacted)

    8 (redacted)

    9 (redacted)

    10 (redacted)

    11 (redacted)

    12 (redacted)

    13 (redacted)

    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

    24 killed?

    25 A. I do recognise the signature of Mr. Vladimir

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

    4 evidence.

    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

    12 person.

    13 Do you remember this event? You have already

    14 mentioned this event. Do you recognise the seal or the

    15 signature?

    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

  5. 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

    10 examination-in-chief.

    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?

  6. 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

    22 Court.

    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

  7. 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

  8. 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

    5 cross-examination.

    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.

  9. 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

  10. 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,

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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

    20 you.

    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

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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