Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 160

1 Friday, 8 December 2006

2 [Rule 77 hearing]

3 [Open session]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 5.10 p.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is the case

8 number IT-95-14-R77.6, the Prosecutor versus Domagoj Margetic.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 Could I have the appearances. Prosecution first.

11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Ann Sutherland,

12 Salvatore Cannata, assisted by Sebastiaan van Hooydonk for the

13 Prosecution.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Sutherland.

15 For the Defence.

16 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.

17 Veljko Miljevic, attorney-at-law from Zagreb, Defence counsel for the

18 accused Domagoj Margetic.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Miljevic.

20 Mr. Margetic, I had not yet asked you whether you can hear me and

21 the others speaking in this courtroom in a language you understand.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can hear it, Your Honour, but I

23 would just like to note that I haven't been feeling very well for several

24 days now, so from the point of view of my health, I am really unwell.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any medical report to support this,

Page 161

1 Mr. Miljevic?

2 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my client, the accused

3 Margetic, was not receiving any kind of medical treatment and was not sent

4 to hospital, although an emergency team was supposed to send him to the

5 Mercury hospital in Zagreb three days ago. However, due to these

6 proceedings having being scheduled, he has refused that. Nevertheless, he

7 has not been feeling well. Today he felt well enough to appear before the

8 Court. So I believe that although the state of his health is very poor,

9 and I think that is due to the very unfavourable climate at present in

10 Zagreb, he is nonetheless in a position to following the course of these

11 proceedings.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Miljevic.

13 Mr. Margetic, if your health would deteriorate to such an extent

14 that you'd consider that you could not follow these proceedings and not be

15 able to instruct counsel, please address me and then the Chamber will

16 consider that situation.

17 Then, Ms. Sutherland, the Chamber has received a motion asking for

18 two things. First of all, disclosure, and second, disclosure of

19 documents, and second, to dismiss the case right away.

20 I'd like to ask you to respond to that motion. I know that

21 usually there's more time to respond to a motion, but it goes without

22 saying that it doesn't make much sense to give you the usual time. So

23 you're invited to respond.

24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, very briefly in relation to the

25 first matter of dismissing all the charges. It's the Prosecution's

Page 162

1 submission that there has been a case to answer. The Prosecution brought

2 evidence last Thursday which, in our submission, fulfils the -- the

3 elements of the charges and, therefore, there should be no dismissal of

4 the case. That's it in a nutshell.

5 JUDGE ORIE: That's the dismissal of the case. And about

6 disclosure?

7 MS. SUTHERLAND: About disclosure, Your Honour, in the

8 Prosecution's view, there is no Rule 68 material to be disclosed. The

9 witness list, in our submission, has always been a confidential document

10 and still remains so. We -- there is no 11 July, 2006 decision.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any other decision of that same one which

12 might have some relevance for the case?

13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, there's a decision earlier in July.


15 MS. SUTHERLAND: However, that does not make the witness list a

16 public document.

17 JUDGE ORIE: No, but I do understand that's your interpretation of

18 the document, but the question is whether that document could have

19 relevance. But it could, also in view of what the Defence took as it's --

20 as it's major argument, whether that could have any real relevance for

21 them.

22 MS. SUTHERLAND: There is the decision of the 3rd of July of the

23 Trial Chamber admitting the witness list into the Jovic case.


25 MS. SUTHERLAND: We have that exhibit here, but we have not

Page 163

1 disclosed that because, in our view, that's not exculpatory material. We

2 can --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Is there only a duty to disclose exculpatory

4 material? Could you explain to us why, looking at the line of the

5 defence, this could not, not saying what it finally would do, but ...

6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the Prosecution has -- has a burden,

7 obligation to disclose evidence that it's going to bring in its own case.

8 JUDGE ORIE: That's under 66, yes.

9 MS. SUTHERLAND: And under Rule 68, anything that may exculpate

10 the accused. And in our view, this decision does not make the document a

11 public document.

12 JUDGE ORIE: And should it have been included in relevant material

13 under 68(2), which is not exculpatory material, but -- relevant material

14 held by the Prosecutor? So we could avoid a discussion on whether it's

15 exculpatory or not. Would you consider this to be without relevance?

16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Given the defence that's been raised last

17 Thursday, that document could be seen as being relevant.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do we have to make a ruling or are you willing

19 to, based on what you said, that you feel that the Prosecution would be in

20 an obligation to disclose this material as being relevant although not

21 exculpatory under Rule 68(2)?

22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. We can provide a copy now.

23 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber invites you to disclose that document to

24 the Prosecution -- to the Defence.

25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, if we have dealt with that matter,

Page 164

1 there is one matter I wish to bring to the attention of the Trial Chamber.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps let's do -- if you want to bring

3 something to our attention, please do so, and then once you have done so,

4 Mr. Miljevic, then I'd like to hear from you whether you'd need more time

5 to review this document just disclosed to you and considered to be

6 relevant, or whether we could proceed.

7 Yes. Then, Ms. Sutherland, you may address us.

8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, just before we adjourned last

9 Thursday, Your Honour sought a commitment from the accused that he would

10 not publish anything in relation to this case, and the accused gave an

11 unequivocal undertaking, and he said, "Your Honour, Mr. President, I

12 undertake not to discuss the proceedings in any way, and you can see that

13 I have not published anything about the Tribunal or the proceedings in my

14 blog, and I have absolutely no intention of discussing the proceedings

15 with anyone. I will comply fully with the order that I have already

16 received from you, Your Honour."

17 I'd like to provide the Chamber with a document, and if that could

18 be marked as the next exhibit.

19 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that it has been disclosed to Mr. Miljevic.


21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Miljevic, so the Chamber receives a document now

22 which you are aware of.

23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I don't know whether you want to

24 deal with this matter now or at the close of proceedings.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Let me -- what would be your preference?

Page 165

1 MS. SUTHERLAND: One doesn't normally deal with contempt within a

2 contempt proceeding.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Contempt within a contempt, yes.

4 MS. SUTHERLAND: I -- I leave it in Your Honour's hands.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'd like to hear from Mr. Miljevic what

6 he thinks is the proper conduct of the proceedings in relation to this

7 document.

8 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know what

9 document you're referring to. If it's the document that I received just

10 now, dated the 3rd of July, 2006, then the Defence -- oh, no.

11 JUDGE ORIE: We're now talking about the other document, that is

12 the document the Prosecution would like to tender. It has got something

13 to do, I take it, with publication on the Internet of events related to

14 this case.

15 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour, it was on the website

16, and it appeared on -- at least on the 5th, 6th, and 7th

17 of December and possibly before that date as well.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Miljevic, we are talking about that document.

19 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I got that document

20 about 10 minutes ago. I managed to look at the content of the document.

21 It's quite clear to me everything that's written here. However, I cannot

22 state anything in relation to the content of the document. I've seen it,

23 and my client can state his views on it, the accused Margetic. I have

24 nothing to state. Otherwise, I believe that is not the subject of these

25 proceedings. Perhaps it can be the subject of some other proceedings, but

Page 166

1 most certainly not these proceedings in relation to this indictment.


3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Miljevic, the Chamber has some difficulty

5 in accepting your last -- that it can not be subject of some other

6 proceedings but most certainly not these proceedings. It is about a

7 commitment made in the framework of these proceedings.

8 At the same time, I notice that Mr. Margetic would like to say

9 something. Is that true, Mr. Margetic? And, if so, please tell us what

10 you would like to tell us.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I adhered to all

12 instructions issued by this Tribunal, even more so, as I've been ill. So

13 I haven't been doing any writing on my web page.

14 As for what we received from the Prosecution, thank God everyone

15 can see that I did not write that, but Brian Gallagher, a British

16 journalist. Indeed, Your Honours, I have fully abided by your order. I

17 wish to note to you that it says here in the text, when journalist called

18 me and asked me to make a statement, Your Honours, I said that I have been

19 instructed to the effect that proceedings are confidential and that I am

20 not allowed to discuss it. And you see, Your Honours, that the British

21 journalist, in his text, quoted me accurately.

22 It's not my fault if some journalist looked something up on the

23 Internet and is now writing about that. I really cannot be held

24 responsible for other journalists' articles. Then I can be prosecuted for

25 the articles written by all journalists who write about this Tribunal.

Page 167

1 I'm not the author of these texts and that can be seen very clearly. I

2 was sick in bed for the last 10 days or a week, and I should have been in

3 hospital, as a matter of fact.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Is it contested that this was published on the

5 website

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, over the past 10 days

7 several web pages appeared where they write about my case. The right

8 address of my blog is So that is not the right address.

9 This is a blog that was opened by way of support to me and people

10 published some of my articles about domestic policies in Croatia.

11 However, I have nothing whatsoever to do with these articles. I did not

12 write them. I did not publish them, Your Honours. I have fully abided by

13 your order. That can easily be checked. I didn't want to give any

14 statements to Vecernji list, Hrvatski list, HINA, no media. I told

15 everyone that I was not allowed to make any statements.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetic, your position is clear.

17 Mr. Miljevic, could you tell us whether you need more time to look

18 at the material that was just disclosed to you, that is the 3rd of July

19 decision.

20 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Five minutes at the most, Mr.

21 President.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE ORIE: We stand adjourned until 25 minutes to 6.00.

24 --- Recess taken at 5.27 p.m.

25 --- On resuming at 5.35 p.m.

Page 168

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Miljevic, have you had an opportunity to look at

2 the newly disclosed material? So I'm not talking about the web blogs, but

3 about the 3rd of July.

4 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have now had an

5 opportunity to read this material dated the 3rd of July this year, and I

6 think that in terms of Rule 68(2), it is relevant material. However, as

7 for our own motion that was sent in the English language from Zagreb

8 yesterday on the 7th of December, 2006, it is evident that the decision of

9 the Chamber, presided over by Judge Robinson on the 22nd of August this

10 year, it is clear that this decision was based on a Prosecution motion --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Miljevic, you are --

12 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: You are arguing now your case. My question simply

14 was whether you had seen it because --

15 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] No.

16 JUDGE ORIE: -- my next question -- the 3rd of July you said I

17 have now had an opportunity to read this material. So the answer seems to

18 be yes. And then my next question would be whether we could proceed with

19 the case or whether you would need more time to study it.

20 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I now managed to read

21 this document dated the 3rd of July. It is relevant. However, we believe

22 that exculpatory material is actually the Prosecution motion of the 21st

23 of August upon which the decision of the Chamber of Judge Robinson was

24 based on the 22nd of August. However, I would like to have more time with

25 my client, who availed himself of this, of the opportunity of this break

Page 169

1 to study this other material that has to do with the publication of these

2 articles by journalist Gallagher. So now he looked at these articles

3 and --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Miljevic, the Chamber, of course, has used its

5 time also to consider the other matter and we're not going to pursue that

6 at this moment during this case. The Chamber understands why the

7 Prosecution introduced it. Whether there should be a contempt in this

8 contempt case is to be considered not now but at a later stage.

9 Do I understand that you'd like to see the motion underlying the

10 decision by Judge Robinson on the 22nd of August? Is that correctly

11 understood, Mr. Miljevic?

12 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] The Prosecution motion dated the

13 21st of August, 2006, requesting a decision to be made, and the decision

14 of the 22nd of August actually accepted that motion. The Prosecution

15 motion is partly quoted in the decision of the 22nd of August, and that is

16 why we would like the Prosecutor to disclose their motion dated the 21st

17 of August in its entirety.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please respond.

19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, in our view, the motion is

20 irrelevant. The decision is -- says what it says, and the decision again

21 on the 22nd of August does not state that the witness list is a public

22 document.

23 JUDGE ORIE: To say that it's irrelevant, if the 3rd of July

24 decision is relevant, if the 22nd of August decision is relevant, it's not

25 easy to understand that the motion underlying the 22nd of August decision

Page 170

1 would be irrelevant.

2 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry, Your Honour. Irrelevant was a bad

3 choice of words. It relates to obviously the 22nd of August decision. It

4 was filed on a confidential basis in that case. The Trial Chamber chose

5 to quote from part of the decision -- part of the motion. In our

6 submission, the Defence doesn't need the motion. The decision stands on

7 itself, and it in no way makes the witness list a public document. And if

8 Your Honour wants me to expand more fully on why I think --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it then you would like to go into

10 private session or ...

11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I can make the submissions in --

12 in --

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Sutherland, you're invited to make further

15 submissions on the relevance of that material or irrelevance in the view

16 of the Prosecution.

17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the Prosecution position has always

18 been that the witness list is confidential. The OTP's letter dated the

19 6th of April, 2006, which is Exhibit 3 in this case, addressed to Jovic

20 and to this accused, explicitly warned them that the material was subject

21 to oral and written non-disclosure orders.

22 On the 26th of June, 2006, the Prosecution sought to have the

23 witness list admitted into evidence in the Jovic case. The witness list

24 was referenced in the annex to the motion as Exhibit C1 in the Marijacic

25 and Rebic case. The Trial Chamber in the Marijacic and Rebic case deemed

Page 171

1 it relevant to that case, and the Prosecution deemed, therefore, that it

2 was relevant in the Jovic case. The Chamber in the Marijacic and Rebic

3 case admitted the document as a confidential document, and that's at

4 transcript page, of the 19th of January, 2006, 284 to 285.

5 On the 3rd of July, the Jovic Trial Chamber admitted the documents

6 listed in annex 1, tables A and B into evidence and ordered the Registry

7 to give appropriate exhibit numbers to the items of evidence. Nowhere in

8 the decision does it state that Exhibit 18 is a public document.

9 On the 22nd of August, the Jovic Trial Chamber issued a decision

10 which ordered the Registrar to separate the confidential and public lists

11 of the witness list which were contained in Exhibit 18 and to designate

12 Exhibit 19 to the two confidential lists. Nowhere in the decision does it

13 state that Exhibit 18 is or was a public document or that it was not

14 confidential prior to the decision.

15 The Prosecution cannot, of its own volition, change the status of

16 a confidential document. It must first obtain permission to do so by a

17 Chamber of the Tribunal. The witness list is a confidential document. It

18 was filed as a confidential document in the Marijacic and Rebic case and

19 that status remained in the Jovic case.

20 The Defence assert that the documentary evidence, which shows that

21 the exhibit was public, should have been disclosed pursuant to Rule 68,

22 but it's the Prosecution position that the exhibit was never a public

23 document.

24 JUDGE ORIE: I understand all of that. Nevertheless, let's

25 just -- for argument's sake, let me just imagine that in the motion

Page 172

1 preceding the 22nd of August decision, the Prosecution would say, "We made

2 a huge mistake. We let something go into the public domain where we

3 should not have done that. Please correct that by this and this." If

4 that would be true, that certainly would be relevant for the Defence,

5 wouldn't it? I mean, it's clear that you said that the decision doesn't

6 say it ever was a public document, but if, for example, the Prosecution

7 would have said so in its motion, which Mr. Miljevic doesn't know, he

8 would like to have a look at it, that might be used by the Defence as

9 supporting their position.

10 So, therefore, your whole explanation doesn't come to the core of

11 the problem. The core of the problem is whether the motion underlying the

12 22nd of August decision, whether that document could in any way assist the

13 Defence any further than the decision of the 22nd of August does. That's

14 the issue.

15 MS. SUTHERLAND: Just a moment.


17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to

18 locate a copy of it myself.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Sutherland, have you located a --

20 MS. SUTHERLAND: It's just been brought up on the screen on the

21 JDB. If I can just have a moment, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Sutherland.

23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, we can provide the Defence with a

24 copy of the confidential -- confidentially filed motion.


Page 173

1 MS. SUTHERLAND: We can -- but again, it's our position that that

2 motion does not assist the Defence, because the status of the document is

3 given to it by the Trial Chamber, and the Prosecution cannot change the

4 status of that document.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand all that, but perhaps the

6 Chamber would be assisted by having a full oversight of what happened in

7 relation to public, non-public, et cetera. Therefore, I think it's

8 certainly relevant. Whether it assists the Defence or not. It might even

9 assist the Prosecution, which I would -- I don't think that you would say

10 that it would not be relevant for that reason.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Miljevic, then, disclosure will take place

12 confidentially. Yes, you'll understand. And I hope Mr. Margetic also

13 understands.

14 Then, Ms. Sutherland, another question. We -- you had not put all

15 your questions in cross-examination as you would like to put them to

16 Mr. Margetic. Is any of these questions related to the motion, the motion

17 of the 21st of August? If not, I'd like to give you an opportunity to

18 proceed with your cross-examination of Mr. Margetic. And meanwhile,

19 Mr. Miljevic can have a look at the 21st of August motion. Yes.

20 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then you'll receive that, I take it, soon.

22 Copies are prepared at this moment?

23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, it's coming down in a few minutes.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Miljevic, you will receive a copy of the

25 21st of August motion in a few moments.

Page 174

1 Meanwhile, I would like you to ask you, Mr. Margetic, to take the

2 stand again to be further cross-examined. So would you please take the

3 seat.

4 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the accused Margetic

5 will be cross-examined. He's ready, but he begs you just to give him five

6 minutes because he needs to go to the bathroom.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is someone available to indicate to

8 Mr. Margetic whether -- perhaps the security could assist Mr. Margetic in

9 finding the bathroom, and then we'd really like to continue and not spend

10 any more time on things that perhaps should have been done before.

11 Mr. Margetic, would you please take the -- take the place where

12 witnesses are examined.


14 [Witness answered through interpreter]

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetic -- I would like Mr. Margetic to renew

16 the solemn declaration he gave last time. Would you please read the

17 solemn declaration, Mr. Margetic.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

19 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated, Mr. Margetic.

21 You may proceed, Ms. Sutherland.

22 Cross-examination by Ms. Sutherland: [Continued]

23 Q. Mr. Margetic, it's your position that the witness list is a public

24 document, is it not?

25 A. Not since the 22nd of August, but I did think it to be that

Page 175

1 between the 11th of July and the 22nd of August.

2 Q. The document that you say you saw on the Internet in mid-July

3 which said that the document was now public, what did the document

4 actually say?

5 A. I cannot remember now, but I do know that even after that other

6 documents that I saw, the decision dated the 22nd of August and the press

7 briefing of the 23rd of August, reassured me that I was right because

8 these documents state quite clearly that those lists were made public, yet

9 they should have been kept confidential.

10 Q. I asked you what was the content of the document that you saw on

11 the Internet in the mid-July which told you that the document was -- that

12 the witness list was public? What was -- what was the contents of that

13 document? I'm not talking about the 22nd or the 23rd of August. I'm

14 talking about the document that you said you saw on the Internet. Just

15 tell the Court about the contents of that document.

16 A. I cannot recall, but I do remember that the document I saw on the

17 Internet contained reference to public document number -- public Exhibit

18 number 18, and that it in turn contained two witness lists.

19 Q. Did this document list all of the witnesses and say that a

20 variation of protective measures had been lifted in relation to all the

21 witnesses?

22 A. Not all witnesses were listed there, but, for instance, when

23 Stjepan Mesic was no longer a protected witness, the contents of his

24 testimony was not published, but the fact of his testimony became public.

25 And I had no reason to believe that anything else applied in this case.

Page 176

1 Q. Mr. Margetic, I'm talking about the document that you say you saw

2 on the Internet making this document, the witness list, public. Did it

3 list all the witness names and say that a variation of protective measures

4 had been granted in relation to all of those witnesses? Yes or no? It's

5 very simple.

6 A. No, the witness list was not contained there, but it said public

7 Exhibit number 18 for three witness lists. So I'm just telling you what I

8 remember from the Internet.

9 Q. A moment ago you said two witness lists. What is it, two or three

10 witness lists?

11 A. No. I said three, and then the decision of the 22nd of August

12 separated two lists. Two lists were set aside, but the original number of

13 lists was three.

14 Q. And so the document that you saw in mid-July spoke about -- or

15 mentioned Exhibit 18. Expressly said Exhibit 18 in the Jovic case is now

16 a public document. Is that correct? Do I understand you well?

17 A. Yes. As far as I can remember, that is what happened. And the

18 decisions that followed reassured me that I had been right, because the

19 decisions that were published later speak about public Exhibit number 18

20 that was made public but should have been kept confidential.

21 Q. Mr. Margetic, that's your interpretation of that document. I

22 don't agree with it. I will move on.

23 You make no --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question. The document that you saw

25 on the Internet, was that a document in the format of the Tribunal?

Page 177

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember now, but I think

2 that the -- the link was from a Tribunal server. You have to bear in mind

3 that this was before my arrest.

4 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking about the link. I'm asking about the

5 document itself. Was that a document that had the appearance of

6 originating from the Tribunal?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my opinion, yes.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking about opinions. I'm asking about

9 facts.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It appeared to be to me. So to me

11 it looked like a document originating from the Tribunal.

12 JUDGE ORIE: And did it contain the word "public".

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it mentioned public Exhibit

14 number 18. I remember that clearly.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Ms. Sutherland.


17 Q. Mr. Margetic, you make no mention of the fact that this witness

18 list was made public in the accompanying article to the witness list that

19 you published on, do you?

20 A. I said in my previous testimony that we journalists, when we

21 publish a document that used to be confidential, because of the exclusive

22 nature of the information, we always put confidential document. That's

23 what we do.

24 Q. Mr. Margetic --

25 A. That's how we deal with any document.

Page 178

1 Q. You don't have to give an explanation. I know what you testified

2 to last time. It was a simple question. Did you or did you not put the

3 fact that this witness list was -- had been made public in your

4 accompanying article?

5 A. I did not consider that to be relevant for the article that I

6 actually wrote.

7 Q. You made no mention of this in the second or third articles, did

8 you, that you published?

9 A. No. As far as I can remember, I did not.

10 Q. In fact --

11 A. But this -- this is irrelevant.

12 Q. No, it's not irrelevant, Mr. Margetic, because --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetic. Mr. Margetic. Whether a question is

14 relevant or not is a matter to be argued later whether counsel -- it is

15 not to be judged upon by a witness.

16 Please proceed, Ms. Sutherland.


18 Q. Mr. Margetic, what you in fact did say in Exhibit 6, which is the

19 first article, was, "I decided to publish this list of protected

20 witnesses." And further down, "I am not bound by any obligation to

21 protect a secret, anyone's and on anything. I'm not a secret agent, and

22 my duty is not to hide confidential information. My duty, when I come

23 into possession of such information, is to make it public, accessible to

24 everyone."

25 So you put there in that article that you were publishing

Page 179

1 protected witnesses, that it wasn't your duty to hide confidential

2 information, and yet it's your position that this witness list was a

3 public document.

4 A. In this part that you just quoted, I spoke about the principle

5 that govern journalism, the principles that guide journalists when they

6 write their texts and when they do their job.

7 Q. Mr. Margetic, Exhibit 10, the second article, what you said in

8 that article was, "Who were The Hague's protected witnesses."

9 Exhibit 11, the second article, "I was sent the list of all the

10 protected witnesses in the proceedings against Tihomir Blaskic."

11 In Exhibit 23, on the 20th of August, 2006, in the handwritten

12 note that you gave, "I give you my word and promise that I will never

13 again disclose or in any way use confidential ICTY information."

14 Why was there a need to refer constantly to protected witnesses

15 and confidential information if in fact what you're saying is true, that

16 the list was public?

17 A. You quoted the title of my article, which reads: "Who were the

18 protected witnesses in The Hague." So this is in past tense. And this

19 indicates quite clearly that they are no longer protected.

20 Q. Mr. Margetic, the reason --

21 A. So there is a grammatical difference between English and Croatian

22 here.

23 Q. The reason why the title is "Who were The Hague's protected

24 witnesses" is because the Blaskic trial was back in 1997 and 1998. It's

25 past tense. You were saying who were the protected witnesses in that

Page 180

1 case.

2 A. No. In the Croatian language, the wording "who were the protected

3 witnesses," this tense is used for when this no longer applies. This is

4 the past tense in Croatian. So this is what I wrote, who were. At that

5 time, I consider them not to be protected witnesses any more.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetic, if I say, who were the football players

7 of Dinamo Zagreb, then you could think of who were football players. Are

8 they still football players or are they not football players anymore or

9 are they still playing for Dinamo Zagreb? This linguistic explanation is

10 of no assistance to the Chamber. And I would say you focussed on one

11 title. Could you also respond also to the other ones, that is, I will

12 never again, at least that's what was put to you, I'll never disclose or

13 in any way use -- I'll never again will disclose or in any way use

14 confidential ICTY information. Could you respond to that as well, because

15 such a linguistical way out seems not to be there or is that a wrong

16 understanding?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for this statement -- well, I

18 promise I would know longer publish confidential information of the

19 International Criminal Tribunal. That statement I wrote to the

20 International Criminal Tribunal from detention in Zagreb because I really

21 wanted to make this promise. Once I found out that obviously the list

22 became protected again after I heard of The Hague order. I wanted through

23 this promise to have the Tribunal know that I would no longer wish to

24 publish any kind of confidential information or to commit any violation

25 vis-a-vis this Tribunal. However, before that, I did not know that this

Page 181

1 was confidential material. As soon as I found out, I removed the

2 confidential material from my web page, and I never published it again.

3 As for the promise, I sent it because it was only logical to me

4 that I make this promise, that I give this undertaking to the Tribunal,

5 that I would no longer publish confidential information once I found out

6 that that was the nature of the information.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Sutherland, please proceed.


9 Q. Mr. Margetic, in your first -- the second article that you wrote,

10 which was entitled, "Who were The Hague Prosecution's protected

11 witnesses," you state in that article: "It so transpired that the list of

12 protected witnesses who testified against Tihomir Blaskic includes men

13 whose first and last names are definitely not among the usual Bosniak

14 Muslim ones in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the persons in question are

15 those who have dubiously acquired Bosnia and Herzegovina citizenship."

16 And then you go on to list a number of witnesses with their initials and

17 their pseudonyms.

18 You also said further in the article: "Isn't Carla Del Ponte

19 therefore protecting international Islamic terrorists?"

20 You provided the public audience with the identities of persons

21 whom you describe as international Islamic terrorists, didn't you?

22 A. That's not how I described them. It is some international

23 documents declaring them wanted persons say that, and also some

24 international organisations represent in Bosnia-Herzegovina. You have to

25 realise that 11.000 terrorists are in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina

Page 182

1 at this point in time according to information of international agencies,

2 not according to my own information.

3 Q. That is how you described them in your article, did you not, the

4 one that you published on your website, or on the website


6 A. I mentioned facts that are derived from documents of international

7 organisations that have a presence in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

8 Q. You said in your evidence on Thursday at page 138 that four of the

9 witnesses were participants of various terrorist organisations. Even if

10 this was true, and even accepting your scenario that the witness list was

11 public, why publish the entire witness names, the entire list, if you

12 didn't want to cause them any interference or harm?

13 A. First and foremost, I published the list because I thought that it

14 was a public document at the point in time when I published it. That was

15 the primary reason why I published it. And then comparing information

16 with the information of international organisations present in

17 Bosnia-Herzegovina, I came to the knowledge that I wrote about. But first

18 and foremost, I published it because I thought that I was actually

19 publishing a public document. Had I believed that -- I did not want to

20 harm any witnesses, and that is proven by the fact that some witnesses --

21 I mean, you have the same names in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Several thousand

22 people with the same names. I never published their addresses, their

23 years of birth, no personal details that could identify them.

24 As for identical names in Bosnia-Herzegovina like those from the

25 witness list, there are 500 to 1.000 people of identical names. You can

Page 183

1 find that on the Internet.

2 So there was no chance that anybody could have identified them. I

3 did not publish their years of birth, their addresses, nothing that could

4 disclose their identity.

5 Q. Mr. Margetic, you published those names as witnesses who have

6 testified in the Blaskic proceeding. You are narrowing down the names,

7 are you not? Yes or no?

8 A. I don't understand your question. What do you mean narrowing down

9 the names?

10 Q. By publishing the names and saying that they testified in the

11 Blaskic proceedings, you are narrowing down the names of people in order

12 that they can be interfered with by you or anyone else.

13 A. No, that is quite untrue. I told you just now why that is

14 impossible, because you have a witness's name and surname. As for people

15 with such names and surnames, for example, there are about 500 persons

16 with that same name and surname in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the same name and

17 surname. I did not publish anybody's address or year of birth, no

18 personal details that would single out one out of those 500.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetic, you're now testifying of what is

20 possible and what is not possible, which is perhaps not -- it's logic

21 rather than anything else. This is your logic. The Chamber will consider

22 whether it has a similar logic.

23 Ms. -- Ms. Sutherland, we are limited in our time. You've got a

24 couple of more minutes but then we'll have to finish.


Page 184

1 Q. Mr. Margetic, it's reasonably likely that, by coining the

2 witnesses as international terrorists and publishing their identities, you

3 would put them at risk of harm, would you not?

4 A. I did not identify them as terrorists. It was international

5 agencies, international organisations present in Bosnia-Herzegovina that

6 did that. Again, the High Representative's office from the European Union

7 for Bosnia-Herzegovina and other agencies that are present in

8 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

9 Q. Mr. Margetic, you've answered the question. I'll move on to

10 another topic.

11 You said in Exhibit 19, which is the memorandum of service of

12 order to the Zagreb County Court, you told the Zagreb County Court that

13 you removed the protected material from the website. You also say -- and

14 that was on the 4th of August. You also say in Exhibit 20, which is the

15 record of interrogation of you on the 6th of August at the Zagreb County

16 Court, you told that court on that day that you again had removed the

17 protected material from the website, and you testified last Thursday at

18 page 136 that you also removed it. However, you didn't remove all the

19 material relating to the protected witnesses, did you?

20 A. When I was getting the material, I got the entire material, the

21 entire list. I got it off my web page. I took it off my web page.

22 Q. You removed the witness list, but you kept the accompanying

23 articles there which named protected witnesses.

24 A. I personally took off all the material that were related to the

25 witnesses. Again, I'm saying it's not my fault if somebody else published

Page 185

1 something, but I took it off.

2 In the report of the county court in Zagreb, the dates are not

3 right, and I don't know why they became part of the report. On the 6th of

4 August, in view of my hunger strike and my state of health, on that date I

5 could barely say a few words in court.

6 Q. Mr. Margetic, it's disingenuous of you to say that you removed the

7 material when you didn't. You left the offending articles which named

8 protected witnesses on your site. You simply removed the witness list.

9 Isn't that correct?

10 A. Again, I'm repeating what I did. I personally removed what you

11 call the incriminating material from the website. And the website was

12 abolished as such on the 1st of August, so there's no way that something

13 could have appeared on the website on the 4th of August. The website no

14 longer physically existed online from the 1st of August onwards. It was

15 no longer on the Internet.

16 Q. You know the evidence of Mr. Osorio which has been admitted by

17 agreement with the Defence in this case, which is Exhibit 21, where

18 Mr. Osorio states that he saw all of the material on the website

19 The website was subsequently temporarily

20 shutdown, and when it came back up, the offending articles were still

21 there. Do you still say that you removed all the material?

22 A. After the 1st of August, I in no way returned my web page. That

23 can easily be checked with the provider of Internet services, whether I

24 did anything with my web page as from the 1st of August onwards.

25 Madam Prosecutor, the provider of my Internet service can say

Page 186

1 exactly whether I did anything after the 1st of August. That would be

2 quite untrue. If somebody else did something, I don't know about that,

3 but I did not. The provider of Internet services can certainly confirm

4 that --

5 Q. Mr. Margetic --

6 A. -- because an offline page was taken off the Internet on the 1st

7 of August.

8 Q. Mr. Margetic, turning to the other websites where this material,

9 your material, is then reproduced onto other websites, and that's Exhibit

10 12 and Exhibit 13, which shows the articles on on the 7th

11 of August, the material is still there. And Exhibit 13 is the

12, which has hyperlinks back to your

13 website and had the protected articles on that website.

14 As a regular Internet user, you know that by putting material, by

15 posting material onto a website, you have no control over its further

16 dissemination when other web users can copy that material onto their own

17 websites.

18 A. That is not correct. There is a law on authorship rights.

19 was protected by copyright, and that was stated

20 clearly at the bottom of the Internet page. According to Croatian law and

21 international law, anybody who took any kind of information from that web

22 page without my consent committed a violation without my express consent.

23 You did not --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetic, I'm going to stop you there. The

25 question was whether it's possible or not, not whether it is legal or not.

Page 187

1 Therefore, this type of interpretations does not exist with the Chamber at

2 this moment.

3 Ms. Sutherland, at the same time, I said you had a couple of

4 minutes. These minutes are gone by now. You do not suggest that any of

5 these later publications are any later than the 22nd of August, do you?

6 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: No. So therefore it's mainly about what was on

8 Mr. Margetic's mind that you asked him about.


10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then -- I said a couple of minutes, and

11 it's -- some eight minutes have gone. That's more than a couple.

12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. I just have one --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One final last question.


15 Q. So, Mr. Margetic, did -- did you provide consent to the other web

16 users to put these articles onto their websites, in particular, Mr. Ivica

17 Grgic?

18 A. No, not at any point in time.

19 JUDGE ORIE: That was your last question?

20 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Miljevic, is there any need to put any further

22 questions in redirect to Mr. Margetic?

23 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Does the material that was disclosed to you today

25 cause you to tender it in evidence, or would you like the Chamber to look

Page 188

1 at it, to consider it when making its determination?

2 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Is the question addressed to me?

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the question is -- because if you keep it for

4 yourself, the Chamber will not be able to consider it.

5 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would kindly ask

6 that the Trial Chamber look at this material. In the meantime, I've

7 managed to read it, and I would particularly like to draw your attention

8 to paragraphs 4 and 5 before the final proposal of the Prosecutor, and I

9 believe that this is the most important document in this entire set.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before we do so, we first like to thank

11 Mr. Margetic for his testimony in his own case and to invite him to go

12 back to the place where the accused is seated.

13 [The witness stands down]

14 JUDGE ORIE: Let's be very practical. Which of these documents

15 would you like to tender into evidence? Would you like to have the 3rd of

16 July decision in evidence?

17 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] The decision of the 3rd of July may

18 be relevant, but it is not a key document. But this motion of the 21st of

19 August is definitely a key document, not just the relevant material but,

20 in the Defence's view, this is definitely exculpatory material.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you tender that, I take it.

22 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Miljevic, since you make the 22nd of August

24 decision so pivotal to this case, isn't -- is my recollection right that

25 it has not been tendered into evidence by the Defence?

Page 189

1 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, it seems to me that it was

2 tendered into evidence last time, seven days ago.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Not from what I remember, but do I --

4 THE REGISTRAR: The Registry has no record of Defence exhibit.

5 JUDGE ORIE: So, Mr. Miljevic, I understand that at least it was

6 your intention to have that in evidence, so if you tender it now, then

7 there's a chance that it will be admitted. I see you're nodding yes. Is

8 that -- have you got a copy for Madam Registrar so that at least we have a

9 document, an exhibit in evidence, rather than just a reference to a

10 document which is not in our hands?

11 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] I believe that a record has been

12 made of that in our transcript. The only copy of the 22nd of August

13 decision that I had was handed over into the record. I don't know whether

14 this was actually exhibited, but the transcript, I'm sure, will reveal

15 that we actually handed it over and that it is now part of the record.

16 When I examined the transcript, I made note of the fact that it was handed

17 over or submitted, and now today we receive the 21st of August motion, and

18 we would like to tender it into evidence. And I only have one copy of the

19 21st of August motion that has just been given to me.

20 JUDGE ORIE: You'll receive another copy if you want to tender

21 that in evidence at this moment.

22 Yes, Ms. Sutherland.

23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, we can provide another copy.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Of what?

25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Of the 22nd of August.

Page 190

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's a clean copy, because I remember that it

2 was an unclean copy the last time. Any objection against admission into

3 evidence of the 3rd of July decision we are talking about? An exhibit

4 number will be provided later by Madam Registrar. And then by the motion

5 dated the 21st of August and the decision dated the 22nd of August all

6 2006.

7 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam registrar, the 3rd of July would have

9 Exhibit number ...

10 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit 1.

11 JUDGE ORIE: 1. And the 21st of August motion would have ...

12 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit 2.

13 JUDGE ORIE: And the 22nd of August would shall Defence 3.


15 MS. SUTHERLAND: And Exhibit 2 under seal, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They are all under seal. Certainly D1, D2, D3

17 as well all under seal.

18 Yes. Mr. Miljevic, that means that these documents are not in the

19 public domain. And, Mr. Margetic, that these documents, not saying

20 whether they ever were, but at least from this moment, from now on are

21 certainly not in the public domain, and you should keep that in mind very

22 carefully.

23 Yes.

24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, just a procedural matter for Exhibit

25 35 of the Prosecution exhibits. I don't think that was actually tendered

Page 191

1 into evidence last Thursday.

2 JUDGE ORIE: And that was the ...

3 MS. SUTHERLAND: Which was the e-mail the 3rd of April from

4 Sebastiaan van Hooydonk to Domagoj Margetic.


6 MS. SUTHERLAND: And the attachment.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is the letter accompanying the forwarded

8 exhibit list. It's -- no. I'm now confusing matters. Yes.

9 Are you talking about the -- did you say the 3rd of April or --

10 not the 6th of April?

11 MS. SUTHERLAND: It was -- the e-mail sent on the 3rd of April

12 attaching an electronic copy of the letter which was dated the 6th of

13 August [sic] which was then provided to Mr. Margetic via courier which he

14 received then on the 16th of May.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said it was Exhibit number 35. Yes. Yes.

16 It has --

17 MS. SUTHERLAND: That's on page 144 and 145 of the transcript.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said it wasn't actually tendered but now it

19 is. I do understand. Yes. Then --

20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Exhibit number 35.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection, Mr. Miljevic? I see you're nodding

22 no. Then Exhibit --

23 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] I do have an objection. First of

24 all, there is no document dated 3rd of April. There is a document dated

25 6th of April that is now tendered into evidence, but this document dated

Page 192

1 the 6th of April, 2006, was never received by Domagoj Margetic.

2 Furthermore, the Prosecutor obviously got her months mixed up, because it

3 is impossible to send something in August for the accused to receive it on

4 the 16th of May. So we have a complete case here.

5 Domagoj Margetic said quite clearly, and there is a Prosecution

6 document to that effect, that on the 15th of May he had received a CD, but

7 the covering letter dated the 6th of April was not received by him. And

8 as regards August, the month of August, this has absolutely nothing to do

9 with this whole affair.

10 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that -- I don't know how it came onto the

11 transcript, but I think that where on page 32, line 7, the word August

12 appears that April was meant. Is that correct, Ms. Sutherland?

13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. That having been clarified. Then there

15 is a document on the 3rd of April, that is Exhibit 35, Mr. Miljevic, and

16 that's an e-mail which preceded the 6th of April letter. That's how I

17 understood it. Is that a correct understanding, Ms. Sutherland?

18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Any other objection, Mr. Miljevic?

20 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I do have more objections.

21 The 3rd of April memo cannot have anything to do with the disclosure that

22 was carried out in May. So the 3rd of April memo, as my defendant said,

23 this he never received. I'm talking about facts. Domagoj Margetic never

24 took receipt of anything in April, and as -- as regards the 5th of May.

25 JUDGE ORIE: We are talking about admission of evidence. We are

Page 193

1 not talking about evaluation of evidence. We're not talking about to what

2 extent this evidence is contradicted by anyone else. Any objection

3 against admission?

4 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] No objections to its admission.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then Exhibit 35, Prosecution 35, is

6 admitted into evidence.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE ORIE: In view of the last few remarks, the Bench would have

9 one or more questions to Mr. Margetic, so I would like, Mr. Margetic, you

10 to take the stand again and to listen carefully to the questions put to

11 you.

12 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Domagoj Margetic will

13 respond to all the questions from the Bench, but he would like to get a

14 five-minute break.

15 JUDGE ORIE: We're running out of time. To the extent that

16 Mr. Margetic could stand it for another 15 minutes, he's invited to do so.

17 If it's really impossible, then of course we'll let him go.

18 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Okay. He will bear this.


20 [Witness answered through interpreter]

21 Questioned by the Court:

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetic, Judge Moloto will have one or more

23 questions for you.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Margetic.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

Page 194

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is on. Looking at Exhibit 6, which was the

2 article accompanying your -- your publication of the list, you indicated

3 that you received the list some two months prior from Ms. Carla Del

4 Ponte's assistant. Am I correct?

5 A. That's correct.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: And that was the newspaper publication or the

7 actual printout of the -- from your website is dated the 26th of July,

8 2006. You agree with that?

9 A. Yes, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: So that two months prior would have been somewhere

11 around the 26th of May. Isn't that true?

12 A. Yes. But when I said approximately, that could be mid-May. But

13 on the whole, you are right, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: In fact, on the Defence response states

15 definitively as the 15th of May. Isn't it so?

16 A. [No interpretation]

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you also indicated in Exhibit 11 that this

18 assistant of Ms. Del Ponte's was a certain Mr. David Akerson; is that

19 correct?

20 A. Yes, that is correct, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you stated so in Exhibit 11. Isn't that

22 correct, sir?

23 A. Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: So how did you know that it came from Mr. Akerson?

25 A. Because all the mail, in the previous case where we were the

Page 195

1 accused, was always forwarded to the Defence counsel by Mr. Akerson, and

2 since I represented myself, he was the person who sent all the motions and

3 all the materials to me.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You can't say because you have received all

5 previous mail from a particular person, therefore a specific document

6 comes from Mr. Akerson, issued -- you are a journalist. You should have

7 proof that it came from Mr. Akerson. How did you know that it came from

8 Mr. Akerson?

9 A. What I just explained to you was sufficient for me to believe that

10 it was Mr. Akerson who sent me this material, since he was the person who

11 sent all the materials to me in the previous case as the person who

12 represented -- because I represented myself in the previous case.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: But you don't say in your -- in your e-mail -- on

14 your website that you believe it's Mr. Akerson. You say it is him. You

15 are definitive.

16 A. Yes, that is correct. This is what I wrote, because I thought

17 that it was he who sent me that. There was nobody else to send me,

18 because he, on behalf of the Prosecution, disclosed the evidence to the

19 Defence, and there was nobody else to do it. And now Ms. Sutherland is in

20 that role, and in the previous case it was Mr. Akerson.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you have always received any documentation from

22 Mr. Akerson that he sent to you, because he kept on sending information to

23 you?

24 A. With the exception of the first indictment, all the other

25 submissions sent by the Prosecution were signed by Mr. Akerson. And in

Page 196

1 our case, the indictment was signed by Madam Del Ponte. All the other

2 materials were sent by Mr. Akerson.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's right. And you have received it?

4 A. That's correct. I did receive this CD.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you received all other correspondence from

6 Mr. Akerson?

7 A. As far as I can remember, apart from the witness list, there were

8 some other documents on this CD that were disclosed to us by the

9 Prosecution in our capacity as Defence counsel. I can't remember what was

10 on there, but I do remember that there was some other material on the CD.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... on the CD, sir?

12 A. Apart from the witness list, I can't remember exactly what else

13 was there. Some other materials pertaining to the previous case before

14 this Tribunal.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: That CD came via a covering letter, didn't it?

16 Under a covering letter.

17 A. No. The CD was in a box, in a -- I don't recall which company it

18 was that delivered that, but that CD was in there in that box.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: And there was no covering letter?

20 A. No. And there was no list detailing everything that I received in

21 the package. The package came, I took receipt of it, and inside was this

22 CD containing the materials.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, you're saying you received a document from a

24 company -- I see a shipment waybill here --

25 JUDGE ORIE: The receipt, is that already in evidence,

Page 197

1 Ms. Sutherland? Yes, under --

2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. That's Exhibit 2.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Exhibit 2, yes. Perhaps it could be shown to the

4 witness.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Exhibit 2, sir. It's delivered by TNT to you, to

6 Mr. Domagoj Margetic. Do you remember receiving that?

7 A. In view of the fact that there were these deliveries coming

8 through TNT all the time, I don't know whether this particular one that

9 you're showing me was one that was actually received by me, but I see

10 there is no signature of mine here.


12 A. Usually I'd have to sign in a notebook that the delivery man would

13 give me. I had to certify that I received the shipment.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: But according to -- according to the next page,

15 under the same exhibit number, that is [indiscernible - low microphone

16 volume] consignment received in good condition, a Margetic. That's a

17 report from the same company telling us what happened to the delivery.

18 A. I am saying to you, Your Honour, that I cannot say whether I did

19 or did not receive this one. I know that my signature's not there, but

20 always I would have to sign for them this very similar piece of paper,

21 very similar to this. I would have to sign it for the delivery man who

22 would make the delivery.

23 Perhaps there were, say, over 30 deliveries that this company

24 brought to me from the Tribunal.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: The list of witnesses, did you receive it only in

Page 198

1 CD form? You never received it in hard copy. You talk about three

2 versions of lists that you received. Were they all in CD format?

3 A. Yes. All this material was exclusively in CD format. I never

4 received them in any other form. Only on this CD that I got in mid-May.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Those were the questions by Judge Moloto. Does this

8 trigger any questions by the parties? But please keep in mind that we'd

9 like to finish today.

10 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour, but the Prosecution would like

11 to call Mr. Sebastiaan van Hooydonk in rebuttal to ask him a couple of

12 questions. Unless, of course, Your Honours feel that the matter has been

13 resolved.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has decided that it will deny the request

16 to hear further evidence. Not -- you should not accept this as being

17 based upon what you said if the Chamber thinks the matter has been settled

18 but also, for procedural reasons, there have been opportunities to call

19 other evidence in chief.

20 Mr. Margetic, we have the following in mind: We give you now a

21 couple of minutes to go to the bathroom. Then I'd like to give both

22 parties an opportunity to make a final statement of approximately five

23 minutes, not more, and then also give an opportunity to once add anything

24 in writing if some matter would need some elaboration, and that be filed

25 then on the same day, the Prosecution first and then the Defence. That

Page 199

1 seems to be a practical arrangement.

2 Yes. Perhaps, Mr. Margetic, you'd take already your time while we

3 are dealing with these procedural matters.

4 [The witness stands down]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Would this suggestion find any objection by the

6 Prosecution?

7 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour, but perhaps five to seven

8 minutes if that's possible.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There are urgent other matters that make it

10 impossible for us. I would say six both and I would be very sharp and

11 strict.

12 Mr. Miljevic, would you oppose the suggested procedure, that is

13 that you have an opportunity, six minutes, to make final argument and then

14 add anything in writing at a time, date, to be set by the Chamber?

15 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that it

16 would be useful for the closing argument to be longer. However, as for

17 the key features that I wish to present in defence of my client, I can do

18 that within six minutes' time. However, since I am based in Zagreb, after

19 all, I would kindly ask that the written final submission be made on

20 Monday or Tuesday at the latest.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, of course there's nothing against doing

22 it very quickly, but if we would take more time, then you would have to

23 come back once more, and that seems too much to the Chamber. And since

24 the parties now do agree six minutes each, we will give an opportunity,

25 you, Ms. Sutherland, to be the first one and -- once Mr. Margetic has

Page 200

1 returned.

2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, do we need to have a break to change

3 the tapes?

4 JUDGE ORIE: No, we don't have to.

5 To be very practical, because it takes more time and we are really

6 having major problems, I now suggest to the parties that final argument

7 would be done in -- totally in writing. These are public documents, so

8 everyone can consult, Mr. Miljevic, because we're really running into

9 trouble if we continue. Would that be agreeable, Ms. Sutherland?

10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. When would you want the

11 filing?

12 JUDGE ORIE: When do you think you could be ready?

13 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm on a plane tomorrow.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I take it that you've written it down

15 anyhow, so in order to present it.

16 MS. SUTHERLAND: We could prepare it -- put it into a filing form

17 this evening and it can be filed on Monday.


19 Mr. Miljevic, would this be agreeable to you as well? Then you

20 have an opportunity to read first what the Prosecution has written on

21 Monday, and then you have an opportunity, well, let's say another how many

22 time -- how much time would you need, three days, four days?

23 MR. MILJEVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, three or four days

24 after that would suffice for my purposes. On Monday, I'm making my

25 closing arguments in a big trial, 4.500 pages, but if I get this document

Page 201

1 from the Prosecution on Monday, I will certainly be able to meet the

2 deadline set by the Trial Chamber.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I take it, Ms. Sutherland, that you will find a way

4 of communicating the document in such a way that Mr. Miljevic has it as

5 soon as possible.

6 Mr. Miljevic, you will then have until the end of next week to

7 file your closing argument in writing. These will be public documents.

8 Mr. Margetic, the Trial Chamber has decided, with the consent of

9 the parties, that final arguments will be made in writing. From the

10 proceedings in this case, I think it has been made abundantly clear where

11 the issues are, so to that extent, there should be no problem to do this

12 in writing, and apart from that, these final arguments in written form are

13 public documents, are available to the parties. Of course the parties

14 should keep in mind that if there is any confidential material dealt with

15 in the final argument, then a redacted version should be provided as well

16 so that it's available to the public.

17 Anything else?

18 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Miljevic?


21 JUDGE ORIE: Then the Chamber adjourns. We'll receive final

22 argument in writing, and of course I couldn't say that for sure at this

23 moment, but most likely, after having received this in due time, the

24 Chamber will give its judgement.

25 We stand adjourned.

Page 202

1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.58 p.m.