1 Friday, 3rd September, 1999
2 [Rule 77 Hearing]
3 [Open session]
4 [The appellant entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.
6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The Appeals Chamber is
7 in session again. The case continues. The next
8 witness --
9 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, I would wish to
10 mention something before the next witness is called.
11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes.
12 MR. ABELL: I would wish to draw the
13 Tribunal's attention to the scheduling order dated the
14 10th of February of this year. That is the scheduling
15 order which commenced these contempt proceedings, and
16 the reason that I'm raising it is because the parties
17 were requested by the Chamber to assist this Chamber,
18 and I'm reading now from the order, "... in assembling
19 and presenting evidence concerning the aforementioned
20 allegations of contempt." I feel it is my duty, as
21 counsel for one of the interested parties, to assist
22 this Chamber in a certain matter.
23 The scheduling order of that date, the 10th
24 of February of this year, says this: "Considering the
25 documents," those are the documents which have been
1 filed, "appear to disclose grave allegations of
2 contempt of the International Tribunal against
3 Mr. Milan Vujin, lead counsel for appellant at the time
4 of the events complained of, including ..." and then
5 there are five examples of alleged contempt, which, for
6 shorthand, we have all called the five allegations.
7 The reason that I'm mentioning this now is
8 for this reason: Yesterday, we heard from
9 Mr. Preradovic. Mr. Preradovic was, of course, one of
10 the witnesses contained within the documents and which
11 this Chamber, in my submission, very correctly decided
12 was admissible and important to hear from in deciding
13 these contempt proceedings.
14 What I'm seeking to draw this Chamber's
15 attention to is this: I stress that I am not making a
16 speech. We have yet to hear any evidence which
17 Mr. Vujin may care to call on his side of the matter.
18 So I'm not arguing the merits of the case now. But on
19 the evidence we have so far heard, this Chamber would
20 be entitled to infer and find proved that there are two
21 species of contempt in relation to Mr. Preradovic.
22 Firstly, this Chamber would be entitled to
23 conclude that the document filed with this Court on the
24 5th of February of 1998, that is the statement
25 purportedly signed by Mr. Preradovic, this Court would
1 be entitled to conclude that that document was a
2 forgery. I'm not going to go into the merits now and
3 say why that is, but the Court would be entitled to
4 conclude that, putting all the evidence we heard
6 Secondly, the second species of contempt is
7 this: that in that same scheduling order, order
8 2, "Without prejudice to the order for protective
9 measures for Witnesses A and B issued by this Chamber
10 today, Mr. Milan Vujin, his representatives, and agents
11 shall refrain from contact with any person identified
12 or referred to in the documents without the prior
13 approval of this Appeals Chamber pending determination
14 of this matter."
15 That was the 10th of February. Shortly
16 thereafter, as a witness in these contempt proceedings,
17 Mr. Preradovic's statement was served, if that's the
18 right expression, was filed and accepted by the
19 Chamber, and the evidence we have heard is that on the
20 15th of March of this year, almost a month after that
21 order, just over a month after that order, Mr. Milan
22 Vujin and a man by the name of Saponja visited
23 Mr. Preradovic. I stress: I'm not making a speech.
24 I'm not seeking to persuade Your Honours one way or the
25 other. I'm pointing out that that is the evidence
1 we've heard, subject to hearing Mr. Vujin about it, and
2 this Court would be entitled to conclude that that in
3 itself is a grave and serious contempt, for it would
4 appear prima facie to fly in the face of the order that
5 I just referred to.
6 The reason I'm raising it is because the five
7 examples of contempt in the scheduling order [French
8 translation] to Mr. Preradovic. That's the point.
9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: There was a technical
11 MR. ABELL: I'm so sorry, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: It has now been
14 MR. ABELL: I'm grateful.
15 JUDGE HUNT: What was the point? We lost the
16 point. We had a French translation at the time. What
17 was the point you were making?
18 MR. ABELL: The point that I was making and
19 the reason that I'm addressing Your Honours now is
20 this: I don't want there to be any misunderstanding
21 between myself, Your Honours, and the other interested
22 parties, including Mr. Vujin, as to whether or not the
23 Mr. Preradovic allegations, if I can put it that way,
24 are inside or outside these contempt proceedings.
25 That's the point.
1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, what is your
3 MR. ABELL: It would be my submission that
4 this Chamber should include the Preradovic allegations
5 within the contempt proceedings. In other words, if
6 this Chamber considers that there was either the forged
7 document submitted in February 1998 or the visit in
8 contempt of the court in March 1999, or both of those
9 proved, that this Chamber should hold Mr. Vujin in
10 contempt, guilty of contempt. I'm seeking to clarify
11 the position because, as I say, the Preradovic
12 allegations are not specifically referred to in the
13 five examples. I particularly have in mind "... all
14 said to have been done between September 1997 and April
15 1998." That's in the scheduling order.
16 I would argue that in that scheduling order,
17 what the Court is really saying is this: "Considering
18 that the documents appear to disclose grave allegations
19 of contempt of the Tribunal against Mr. Milan Vujin,
20 lead counsel for the appellant at the time of the
21 events complained of, including ..." and then there are
22 the five examples, I would submit that that means that
23 this Chamber was ordering that they will look at the
24 evidence as a whole; and if the evidence discloses any
25 contempt whatsoever, committed at any time whatsoever,
1 whether within or without the five examples, that this
2 Chamber should then hold Mr. Vujin guilty of whatever
3 contempt it is, whether it be within or without the
4 five examples. That is my submission.
5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you, Mr. Abell.
6 [Appeals Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, I think we
8 will hear Mr. Vujin on your representations, and the
9 Prosecution, and we will make a ruling.
10 Mr. Vujin, would you like to say something?
11 I should explain that the Chamber would be interested,
12 at this stage, in hearing from you on the submission of
13 Mr. Abell that you should be called upon to answer
14 whether there has been a breach by you of the Chamber's
15 scheduling order of, I think, the 10th of February, not
16 whether you have, in fact, been in breach of it, but
17 whether you should be called upon to answer.
18 MR. VUJIN: Your Honours --
19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: My colleague on my left
20 suggests that it may be to your advantage to defer your
21 intervention until we've heard from the Prosecution so
22 that then you could reply to everything.
23 So we'll give the floor to the Prosecution.
24 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honours. Your
25 Honours, the view of the Prosecution is that it is, of
1 course, for the Appeals Chamber to determine if they
2 will include this matter in their deliberations. It is
3 not outside the time scope, but it is perhaps outside
4 the exact language of the matters that would be
6 In making this decision, the only point that
7 the Prosecutor would make would be that should the
8 Appeals Chamber determine it will include this matter,
9 this potential forgery, then, of course, the question
10 would be whether Mr. Vujin was given sufficient time to
11 prepare to respond to this particular allegation.
12 In regard to the 10 February, 1999 order, we
13 note that the language there does not make it clear if
14 the documents referred to mean the documents that would
15 be submitted in the future or only those documents
16 which had previously been submitted.
17 At the time of the 10 February order, the
18 statement attributed to Mr. Preradovic had not been
19 provided to the Chamber. That was provided in March of
20 1999. The statement itself was dated the 15th of
21 February of 1999, so that that was not among the
22 documents in existence at the time of the 10 February
23 order that were before the Appeals Chamber.
24 So the Appeals Chamber would have to
25 determine if its order were meant to include,
1 prospectively, documents that were introduced.
2 The Prosecution also notes that when the
3 statement attributed to Mr. Preradovic was provided,
4 the Appeals Chamber indicated that it would issue
5 further orders in respect of that statement and other
6 statements, and we are attempting to find those orders
7 to see if there is similar language about having no
8 contact, in those orders.
9 So the main point that we would have is that
10 should this matter be considered, because it would
11 appear to raise grave concerns, then our main issue
12 would be that Mr. Vujin be given sufficient notice so
13 that he could prepare to meet it.
14 As for the contact itself, of course, it is
15 outside the time frame but probably within the spirit
16 of the concerns raised before the Appeals Chamber.
17 Thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Ms. Hollis, I don't have
19 the scheduling order of 10th February before me, but is
20 my recollection correct that Mr. Abell read out
21 something to the effect that the scheduling order -- by
22 the scheduling order, the Chamber was enjoining
23 Mr. Vujin to avoid contact with the named witnesses?
24 Is that correct and is that one of your
25 grounds, Mr. Abell?
1 MR. ABELL: Yes, Your Honour. It may be wise
2 if I, again before Mr. Vujin addresses Your Honour, now
3 that Your Honour has the document before you, it may be
4 wise if I took you to it.
5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes.
6 MR. ABELL: Before Mr. Vujin speaks. I don't
7 want to interrupt my learned friend, Ms. Hollis, but I
8 would wish to say a little more before Mr. Vujin --
9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Let us hear Ms. Hollis
11 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour, that is among
12 the orders, but the language is that: "Mr. Vujin, his
13 representatives and agents shall refrain from contact
14 with any person identified or referred to in the
16 It does not indicate if that is prospective
17 in nature or if it means the documents presently of the
18 Appeals Chamber.
19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Where are you reading
21 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, that is the next to
22 last page of the order, and it is under -- it is 5324,
23 and it is under order number 2.
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I can't find that,
25 Ms. Hollis.
1 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, we --
2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Some help is being given
3 to me. Yes, I have that provision before me now.
4 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. That is the
5 provision the Prosecution referred to in regard to
6 whether that was meant to be -- to include all
7 documents which would come before the Chamber as well
8 as documents presently before the Chamber, or whether
9 that language was intended by Your Honours to include
10 only those documents presently before you. That would
11 be the issue that you, the Chamber, perhaps after
12 argument, would have to decide.
13 Again, this was the 10th of February. The
14 statement that is being discussed, of Mr. Preradovic,
15 was not taken until the 15th of February and was not
16 provided to the court until the 8th of March.
17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: "Documents" is -- the
18 term "documents" is defined in the middle of the
19 previous page as, I think, referring to ten documents.
20 Was Mr. Preradovic identified in any of these
22 MS. HOLLIS: No, Your Honour.
23 Mr. Preradovic's statement, the statement that was the
24 basis for his testimony, was provided after this order
25 was given. If his name was mentioned earlier, the
1 Prosecution is not aware if it was mentioned in the
2 other documents, but his statement itself was not taken
3 until the 15th of February and was not provided to the
4 Chamber until March of 1999.
5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I see. Well, perhaps we
6 better hear from Mr. Abell and then I'll give the floor
7 to Mr. Vujin.
8 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, just to -- now that
9 Your Honour has the order before you, just to clarify,
10 as I say, the Chamber would be entitled, in the light
11 of Mr. Preradovic's evidence, to come to the conclusion
12 that there are two contempts, leaving aside whether
13 they are within or without these contempt proceedings.
14 The two contempts are as follows: Firstly,
15 the statements submitted by Mr. Vujin on the 5th of
16 February of 1998. The Chamber would be entitled to
17 conclude that is a forgery. Without dealing with all
18 the evidence now, the Chamber could, on the evidence,
19 conclude that is a forgery. That is within the dates
20 on the scheduling order, all said to have been done
21 between September 1997 and April 1998 basis mentioned
22 in the documents.
23 The second contempt that this court would be
24 entitled to conclude had been committed, and the court
25 may -- it's a matter for Your Honours -- conclude, if
1 proved, it's a very grave contempt, is approaching
2 Mr. Preradovic on the 15th of March of 1999, after he
3 had been admitted in evidence as a witness earlier in
4 March of 1999.
5 It would be my submission that the scheduling
6 order that Your Honours now have before you, dated the
7 10th of February of 1999, must in common sense be an
8 enjoinment to Mr. Vujin not to contact any witnesses,
9 not just in the documents in that filing. And I
10 concede that Mr. Preradovic's name does not appear in
11 the list of witnesses in that filing, but the spirit of
12 the order in the scheduling order of this Chamber must
13 be forbidding Mr. Vujin from contacting any witness who
14 thereafter is admitted into evidence in the documents.
15 Otherwise, if a further piece of evidence which is
16 damning against him is served upon him, he could, with
17 impunity, interfere with that witness and say, "Well,
18 nobody said I couldn't." It must.
19 In any event, even if this document doesn't
20 cover it, it would be a contempt per se, I would
21 submit, in any event, as an interference with a witness
22 that the court is to hear from.
23 Indeed, in that regard, I'm looking at the
24 rules which would have applied from November 1997
25 onwards. There are later rules. There are the rules
1 that apply -- the Chamber's rules that applied from
2 December 1998 onwards, Rule 77 -- within those rules --
3 I'm looking at Rule 77(B), which came out in
4 December 1998, 77(B): "Any person who threatens,
5 intimidates, causes any injury, offers a bribe to, or
6 otherwise interferes with, a witness who is giving, has
7 given, or is about to give evidence in proceedings
8 before a Chamber, or a potential witness, commits a
9 contempt of the Tribunal."
10 That was in force, of course, on the 15th of
11 March of this year.
12 77(E): "Nothing in this rule affects the
13 inherent power of the Tribunal to hold in contempt
14 those who knowingly and wilfully interfere with its
15 administration of justice."
16 I would, therefore, submit that a visit to
17 someone who has been served on Mr. Vujin as a witness
18 in contempt proceedings against him, in any event,
19 under Rule 77 would commit a contempt. But I also
20 argue, submit in the alternative, that the spirit of
21 this Chamber's scheduling order dated the 10th of
22 February of 1999 must not only be referring to
23 witnesses already served but must be taken as referring
24 to any witnesses who are to be served.
25 I use "serve", the English word. In England
1 we say the witness statement is served. That means
2 formally supplied to the other side as being a witness
3 who is to be relied on.
4 I stress: I don't come to this Chamber to
5 prosecute this case. This is the Court's motion. It
6 is a matter for the Court what is within and without
7 the contempt proceedings. It's the Court's decision.
8 I make these submissions at this time in the spirit of
9 trying to assist this Court to do justice.
10 If this Court has heard evidence of two
11 potentially serious contempts, then it would be a grave
12 injustice if, by a technicality, as it were, those
13 contempts were to be ruled, as it were, offside,
14 outside the ambit of these proceedings. This Chamber
15 considered Mr. Preradovic's evidence would be relevant,
16 otherwise the statement wouldn't have been admitted
17 into evidence and we wouldn't have heard from him.
18 Lastly, as to the point which my learned
19 friend, Ms. Hollis, makes about notice, I would say
20 this: Mr. Vujin has had notice of the allegations
21 contained in the statement since March of this year.
22 He has had plenty of notice as to what the allegation
24 Finally, as Your Honours have the scheduling
25 order of the 10th of February before you, can I remind
1 Your Honours again that we're not really dealing here
2 with an indictment or list of charges, because, if I
3 can take Your Honour to the -- it's the second page,
4 halfway down the page: "Considering that the documents
5 appear to disclose grave allegations of contempt of the
6 International Tribunal against Mr. Milan Vujin, lead
7 counsel for the appellant at the time of the complaints
8 complained of, including ..."
9 In other words, as I've already said, in my
10 submission, is those five matters are merely examples.
11 This Chamber could have, if it wished, amended those
12 examples to add the two more that I have suggested and
13 perhaps alter the closing date, as we call it in
14 England, or the last date, from April '98 to perhaps
15 April '99, or March the 15th, 1999.
16 Your Honour, those are my submissions. I
17 merely remind Your Honours, if I may say so, what His
18 Honour Judge Hunt said the other day, that this Chamber
19 is here to do justice, having heard all the evidence.
20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Indeed. Indeed. So
21 we'll hear Mr. Vujin now.
22 MR. VUJIN: Your Honour, without any wish to
23 say in advance who exerted pressure on witnesses and
24 who was obstructing the Tribunal, because that is a
25 matter that you are going to decide on, and we too
1 shall be making certain -- submitting certain motions
2 with regard to that, having heard the witnesses,
3 especially Witness B yesterday, who confirmed that he
4 was asked to write a statement against lawyer Milan
5 Vujin, which I cannot understand in any other way but
6 as being an instruction to the witness and pressure to
7 bear on him.
8 What our learned colleague Mr. Abell
9 presented here today represents something which I
10 constantly assert should not be allowed before such an
11 august gathering as this Tribunal, and that is
12 indefinite charges, unspecific charges, vague ones.
13 I have been brought before this Tribunal, and
14 as Your Honour, as President of the Appeals Chamber,
15 said, that you cannot treat me, don't want to treat me
16 and do not wish to treat me as an accused, but there
17 have been serious allegations that I obstructed the
18 work of this Tribunal. I never did so.
19 As far as the allegations that I went against
20 the scheduling order of the 10th of February, in my
21 understanding, I did not do so. If I have erred in
22 understanding it, then that can be a mistake.
23 You have heard from witness Preradovic that
24 no pressure was brought to bear on him, and I should
25 now like to raise the following question:
1 Because I am here being charged by giving a
2 false document, a forgery, you yourselves will be able
3 to ascertain whether it is a forgery, indeed, or not,
4 and I think that the competent court in Yugoslavia,
5 that is to say, in the Republika Srpska, will also be
6 able to ascertain the conduct of (redacted).
7 I feel that my right to defend myself before
8 this Tribunal would have been curtailed had I not
9 attempted to gather the evidence which brings into
10 question the assertions of those individuals who have
11 initiated these proceedings against me before this
12 Tribunal and who have many reasons to do so.
13 Therefore, I claim that, in my opinion, I
14 have not violated a single order issued by this
15 Tribunal and this Chamber, and that if there is
16 something that could be brought into question, then
17 that it could only be a matter of not understanding the
18 essence and substance of that scheduling order, in the
19 sense that it was interpreted extensively or
20 intensively, for all future -- this would apply to all
21 future documents, and I don't know whether they have
22 all been tendered or not.
23 Several days ago, we received a ruling here
24 whereby Witness F would be heard to testify. I should
25 not be surprised if, indeed, tomorrow we were once
1 again to have a ruling whereby a new witness would be
2 questioned and heard.
3 Now, I'm going to raise the following
4 question: As I don't know who the witnesses are, how
5 can I myself prepare my defence? It is quite obvious
6 that these proceedings and the conduct on the part of
7 the appellant are being drawn out because he wishes to
8 exert certain pressure against me as an individual, as
9 a man who is there to work in the Tribunal and to
10 continue to do so.
11 Thank you, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Vujin, I mentioned
13 before to you that the Appeals Chamber is not at this
14 time concerned with the question of whether any
15 additional contempts were, in fact, committed, but only
16 with the question of whether there is a case for adding
17 further allegations to those set out in the scheduling
18 order of the 10th of February.
19 Now, I think the municipal rules may vary,
20 but generally there is a principle that nobody has
21 property rights in a witness. So one can understand
22 your interest in approaching certain persons who might
23 give evidence, but the scheduling order recognised
24 that. It didn't impose a general ban on contacts with
25 witnesses; it merely said that you were to refrain from
1 contact with any person identified or referred to in
2 the documents without the prior approval of the Appeals
3 Chamber. In other words, your right to contact them
4 was preserved, subject, however, to obtaining the prior
5 approval of the Chamber.
6 So we would like you to reply to the point as
7 to whether the scheduling order of the 10th of February
8 should or should not be amended to include additional
9 allegations in respect of the matters raised by
10 Mr. Abell. He raised two matters, I think. One was
11 this: He said that the Chamber would be competent to
12 infer from all the evidence that a certain document was
13 a forgery, and that, he said, would constitute a
14 contempt, if you were a party to that forgery.
15 Secondly, he said that the evidence thus far showed
16 that you had been in contact with Mr. Preradovic on the
17 15th of March.
18 Maybe there you could tell us your views as
19 to whether Mr. Preradovic was or was not included
20 amongst the names which were identified in paragraph 2
21 of the scheduling order; that is, persons who were
22 mentioned in the ten documents referred to in that
23 order. Would you like to speak to us on these points?
24 MR. VUJIN: Yes. As regards the document,
25 whether it was forged or not, I believe that this can
1 be looked into within the framework of what has been
2 done so far. If this were to be a special item, it
3 would be a separate indictment and I would oppose that;
4 however, I'm not opposed to having this discussed. I
5 believe that it will be discussed, and as a matter of
6 fact, this discussion has already started before this
8 As regards the date when it was sent to me,
9 at that time it was faxed to me, and there was no
10 Preradovic statement there at the time, and I thought
11 that this did not relate to Preradovic. It said "A"
12 and "B," and also "D," "E," and other witness
13 statements were there but not Preradovic's.
14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you.
15 Mr. Abell, would you like to address us very
16 briefly on this? I think you accept that
17 Mr. Preradovic was not one of the persons identified by
18 a reference in paragraph 2 of the order of the 10th of
19 February. His statement apparently came in later on.
20 So you have framed your submissions on the basis of
21 Rule 77.
22 MR. ABELL: I concede that Mr. Preradovic's
23 name does not appear amongst the documents filed in the
24 scheduling order of the 10th of February of last year.
25 I put my submission, for Your Honours' assistance, on
1 two bases: (1) that the scheduling order of the 10th
2 of February, the spirit of that order must be, in my
3 submission, designed to forbid Mr. Vujin from
4 contacting any present person mentioned in the
5 documents or any future witness served upon him, and
6 Mr. Preradovic's statement had been served upon him
7 before the 15th of March of this year.
8 We hear what he says about maybe
9 misunderstanding it. If I may say, with respect to him
10 and his submissions, that is a matter of evidence and
11 defence on the merits, whether Your Honours accept that
12 or not, given that he is apparently a senior lawyer in
13 his own country, whether he could have misunderstood
15 But it is my submission that on the document
16 itself, what the Court is saying, and I remind Your
17 Honours: "Without prejudice to the order for
18 protective measures for Witnesses A and B," in other
19 words, there are separate protective measures for them,
20 "issued by the Chamber today, Mr. Milan Vujin, his
21 representatives, and agents shall refrain from contact
22 with any person identified or referred to in the
23 documents without the prior approval of this Appeals
24 Chamber, pending determination of the matter."
25 To prevent witnesses being spoken to, that's
1 obviously what it's designed to deal with, and it would
2 be my submission that if there was any doubt in the
3 matter, the proper course would be to seek the leave of
4 the Chamber or the Registry to approach a witness.
5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: If you pause there, may
6 I take the benefit of your submissions on this point:
7 You speak of the spirit of the Court's scheduling order
8 of the 10th of February. I am not sure whether I
9 should describe the proceedings as quasi-criminal, but
10 they certainly involve the making of grave allegations
11 against the practitioner. Now, would you say that it's
12 a safe ground to proceed on; namely, that the Court
13 should take the view that the spirit of its order
14 encompass the allegations to which you are alluding?
15 MR. ABELL: I've used the phrase "spirit." I
16 hope it's not a bad word to have used. What I'm really
17 saying is that that order, number 2, should be taken to
18 mean and would reasonably be taken to mean, I would
19 submit, by any sensible lawyer, as an instruction that
20 Mr. Vujin must not contact without permission any
21 present witness or future witness in the proceedings.
22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I think you concede that
23 the concept of a future witness is not specifically
24 included in the paragraph.
25 MR. ABELL: I concede that it's not spelled
1 out, but I submit that any sensible lawyer, knowing
2 that he is an accused person in contempt proceedings --
3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: What I'm asking you is
4 whether you consider that that is a sufficiently safe
5 platform on which to frame charges of a certain
7 MR. ABELL: Well, my answer to that is that I
8 do, yes. It is, of course -- I stress: I'm not here
9 to prosecute this case. I represent an interested
10 party. It is a matter for this Tribunal. That's the
11 first submission. I said that I put it on two bases.
12 The second basis, the second submission, is
13 that not withstanding the scheduling order that
14 Mr. Preradovic was a witness, served as a witness,
15 admitted into evidence, before the 15th of March of
16 1999, and within the Rules, and I'm looking at Rule 77
17 as it then was, bear with me, 77(B), these are the
18 Rules which were published on the 17th of December,
19 1998, which I believe to be the ones currently
20 operating on the 15th of March of 1999, 77(B): "Any
21 person who threatens, intimidates, causes any injury,
22 or offers a bribe to, or otherwise interferes with, a
23 witness ...", very wide-ranging provision, would
24 include "... a witness who is giving, has given, or is
25 about to give evidence in proceedings before a Chamber,
1 or a potential witness, commits a contempt of the
3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Would that necessitate
4 the framing of fresh proceedings, or is that something
5 which could be taken into account by the Appeals
6 Chamber if it were to decide -- if it were to
7 decide these proceedings in a certain way?
8 MR. ABELL: I would not submit that fresh
9 proceedings would be necessary. I would submit, and I
10 was just about to say, 77(E), again from the same set
11 of Rules: "Nothing in this Rule affects the inherent
12 power of the Tribunal to hold in contempt those who
13 knowingly and willfully interfere with its
14 administration of justice." This Chamber rightly, in
15 my submission, has wide-ranging powers to hold in
16 contempt someone who it may consider has knowingly and
17 willfully interfered with the administration of
19 In my submission, separate proceedings would
20 not be necessary. I've raised this because it's right
21 that all parties -- and Your Honours, as I said
22 earlier, I raise this in the spirit of assisting Your
23 Honours, it's right that we should all know, if I can
24 be quite blunt about it, where we stand in relation to
25 Mr. Preradovic, who I stress is a witness whose
1 evidence was admitted in March of this year as clearly
2 being very relevant to these proceedings.
3 To summarise, it's two submissions: (1) the
4 terms of the scheduling orders themselves would make
5 this a contempt, on my construction of them; and (2)
6 under Rule 77, in any event, it is a contempt and, if
7 Your Honours were to take a certain view of the
8 evidence, could be dealt with.
9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. The Chamber
10 appreciates your assistance.
11 Mr. Vujin?
12 MR. VUJIN: I think that the insistence by my
13 learned colleague, Mr. Abell, that what I did wrong be
14 included into the proceedings does not have a legal
15 foundation even in Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure
16 and Evidence because the only provision of that Rule of
17 December -- with the amendments of December 1998, we
18 clarified this, we cleared the matter up at our first
19 session; that is to say, that we would be applying the
20 Rules of Procedure and Evidence which held true
21 previously, because the period we're discussing was
22 encompassed by the existing Rules.
23 It states there only four violations: [as
24 read] "Everybody being a witness before a Chamber
25 contumaciously refuses or fails to answer a question,
1 intimidates witnesses in front of the Chamber, and (3)
2 gives information to the Trial Chamber, and without
3 reason does not comply with an order to attend before
4 or produce documents before a Chamber, commits a
5 contempt of the Tribunal."
6 Of course, that Rule from that time contains
7 the provision that nothing in this Rule influences the
8 inherent right of the Chamber to proclaim guilty those
9 who consciously or intentionally obstruct it in doing
11 My contact with Witness Preradovic, I said
12 when it took place-- that is to say, it was not
13 encompassed in the 10th of February scheduling order --
14 at all events was not with the idea of consciously
15 obstructing justice but precisely to bring justice to
16 this Tribunal and for the Tribunal to be able to
17 determine justice.
18 [Appeals Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The Chamber takes this
20 provisional position: that we will call the next
21 witness and we will hear his testimony, and over the
22 coffee break, we shall be considering these submissions
23 with a view to giving a ruling later on. If it is
24 possible to give a ruling at that stage, we will; if
25 not, we will further defer it. Thank you.
1 Shall we call the next witness then? The
2 next witness, I think, is Mladen Tadic. That's not a
3 protected witness, is it? I think not.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Mladen Tadic, can
6 you hear me?
7 THE WITNESS: I can.
8 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Will you take the solemn
10 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
11 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Do sit down.
14 WITNESS: MLADEN TADIC
15 Questioned by the Court:
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Mladen Tadic, where
17 were you born?
18 A. I was born in Kozarac.
19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: When was that?
20 A. On the 30th of January, 1949.
21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Where do you live now?
22 A. I live in Kozarac.
23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: And what work do you
25 A. I have a catering shop.
1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: A catering shop.
2 Mr. Tadic, did you make a statement in this case on the
3 21st of November, 1998 at Kozarac?
4 A. Yes.
5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Would the Registrar show
6 the witness this statement?
7 THE REGISTRAR: The statement will be marked
8 as Exhibit 25.
9 A. That's the statement.
10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You signed it? That is
11 your signature at the bottom?
12 A. Yes.
13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: And it was freely given
14 by you?
15 A. Freely. I wish to point out that I would
16 like to expand this statement --
17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You will be --
18 A. -- if possible and as much as possible.
19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You will be given that
20 opportunity presently, but tell me, as the statement
21 stands now, its contents are true and correct?
22 A. True and correct. The contents are true and
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now you may tell us,
25 what is the expansion you propose?
1 A. Well, you know what? I'm a protagonist in
2 all these events related to Dusko Tadic, my brother.
3 It is with my help that he came to Germany.
4 Also, I'm the one who engaged the first and
5 second lawyer; that is to say, the gentleman in Munich
6 and then Mr. Vujin. So I know many things that are
7 related to the defence itself and also the way in which
8 my brother has been defended.
9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Is there anything else
10 you would like to add?
11 A. This is only the beginning. As I came to
12 Belgrade, I addressed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
13 of Yugoslavia, and at their suggestion I was advised to
14 address the Bar Association of Yugoslavia, rather,
15 Mr. Vujin. At that time, I came to see Mr. Vujin and I
16 engaged him to be one of the defence counsel for my
18 Throughout all these activities related to my
19 brother's defence, I was not directly involved in
20 finding witnesses, et cetera. However, as a man and as
21 the brother of the accused, I kept watching all of
22 this, at least from the sidelines, and I realised that
23 the way in which my brother is being defended is not
25 There was not a good connection between
1 Mr. Wladimiroff and Mr. Vujin. Chaos prevailed.
2 Everybody worked on their own, and in that way Dusko
3 Tadic could not have been defended.
4 On the one hand, Mr. Wladimiroff and his
5 lawyers were prevented by the authorities of Republika
6 Srpska to reach the right witnesses. On the other
7 hand, all the doors were open to Mr. Vujin in Republika
8 Srpska. However, I cannot understand that in the five
9 years that he's been defending Mr. Tadic, that all
10 these lawyers could not prove that Dusko Tadic was not
11 in Kozarac at all at the time when the conflict
12 occurred in Kozarac, and that was the basic matter that
13 had to be proven. Also, these false testimonies like
14 that of (redacted). All of that only worsened
15 the situation. The truth and nothing but truth has to
16 be sought.
17 I live in Kozarac today. The situation has
18 changed in Kozarac. Today there are over 150 Muslims
19 living in Kozarac, perhaps even more. Perhaps 200.
20 All of them come to my cafe. I have not found a single
21 one who said "Dusko's guilty. Dusko did that." Often
22 a neighbour comes by to see me, who lost three sons
23 during the conflict, and he said, "We know that none of
24 this is Dusko's fault." Also a neighbour who lost his
25 son says, "We know full well that Dusko's not guilty at
1 all." They come to my place all the time. No one has
2 said a word against Dusko to me until now.
3 I think the defence had to be based on Muslim
4 witnesses. That is what I wished to say.
5 One more thing. I don't know why Mr. Vujin
6 did not present to this court the way in which Dusko
7 reached Germany. All the doors to Germany was open.
8 It was very easy for him to get to Germany.
9 For example, if my brother were a
10 nationalist, a chauvinist, how come he came to stay
11 with my former wife, who at that time lived with a
12 Muslim? How come Dusko obtained a Muslim passport,
13 which I can show you now -- this is a passport for his
14 family -- on the 1st of February? Then he was arrested
15 on the 12th of February.
16 If he hated Muslims and if he were a
17 chauvinist, he certainly would not have taken this
18 passport. This is one of the first passports issued
19 with a lily. So it's illogical. All of it is
21 Concerning his rival in Germany, I think that
22 the authorities of Republika Srpska did everything in
23 their power not to reach the truth. Thank you.
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: All right. Mr. Tadic,
25 we have heard from you, perhaps a little further than
1 we intended to hear you, but there will be some
2 questions put to you by Mr. Abell, that gentleman over
3 there. He's representing Mr. Tadic.
4 Questioned by Mr. Abell:
5 Q. Mr. Tadic, I'm going to ask you some
6 questions, please, and it may be helpful if you make
7 sure that you have your statement in front of you,
8 because I'm going to ask you some questions arising
9 from what you've said in your statement.
10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, just a
11 minute. Mr. Tadic took me by storm, so may I just, as
12 a matter of formality, find out whether any counsel has
13 any objection to his statement and, if not, to regard
14 the statement as admitted?
15 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, of course.
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Then it is so ordered,
18 MR. ABELL:
19 Q. You speak in your statement of a
20 Mrs. Isailovic?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. Who was acting for someone called Dragan
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. She was his lawyer?
1 A. Yes.
2 THE INTERPRETER: The witnesses's answers are
3 inaudible. Could he please speak into the microphone?
4 MR. ABELL:
5 Q. They are telling you to speak into the
7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Could you pull the
8 microphone --
9 A. Yes. Yes. That's the way she introduced
10 herself to me.
11 MR. ABELL:
12 Q. And you say that she and her husband came to
14 A. That's right. I was greatly surprised by
16 Q. Can you help us by telling us the approximate
17 date when Mrs. Isailovic and her son visited you?
18 A. You know what? I cannot give you the date,
19 but I know that it was before the agreement reached
20 between Mr. Wladimiroff and my brother was cut off;
21 that is to say, before the verdict.
22 Q. So the time we're talking about, can we be
23 clear about this --
24 A. Right.
25 Q. -- is when the trial -- the evidence in the
1 trial was over but before the Tribunal had pronounced
2 its verdict?
3 A. Yes. Yes.
4 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff was still in the case but was
5 shortly to leave it, shortly after that conversation;
6 is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And Mr. Vujin, later on, began to act for
9 your brother Dusko Tadic?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. Tell us why you were surprised that
12 Mrs. Isailovic came to speak to you.
13 A. Well, first of all, I knew her husband very
14 well. We trained together in Belgrade, karate, and we
15 didn't see each other for a long time. He was visiting
16 the Opacic family, and then he recalled by his
17 surname. At that time I was the only person from that
18 region who practised karate in Belgrade, and then he
19 came to see me with his wife and he warned me about the
20 things that were going on.
21 Q. What did he warn you about? You understand,
22 I'm particularly interested about anything to do with
23 Mr. Vujin.
24 A. Yes. Yes. I understand. I was surprised,
25 but I was not directly involved in Dusko's defence. I
1 was not as engaged as (redacted). I invited him
2 to Banja Luka immediately so that he would hear our
4 So Mr. Isailovic told me that a delegation of
5 Republika Srpska had come to the Hague and on the team
6 was Mr. Vujin as well, and it was suggested to him that
7 he defend Mr. Opacic. This was illogical to me. On
8 the one hand, Opacic was one of the Crown witnesses
9 against Mr. Dusko Tadic and, on the other hand,
10 Mr. Vujin was defending Mr. Dusko Tadic. So this was a
11 bit ridiculous to me. The very fact that --
12 Q. Pause so that we understand. Mr. Vujin
13 was -- had seen and visited Dragan Opcic as a lawyer;
14 is that right?
15 A. That's what Mrs. Isailovic and her husband
16 told me.
17 Q. You know that Dragan Opacic had been a
18 Prosecution witness against your brother?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you're saying that the conflict between
21 those two positions was what worried and surprised you;
22 have I got that right?
23 A. Well, certainly. It was illogical for the
24 same lawyer to defend the person who is accused and the
25 person who is levelling the accusations.
1 Q. You say in your statement that Mrs. Isailovic
2 and her husband tried to persuade you that Mr. Vujin
3 had the wrong defence strategy, and if he carried on
4 that way, Dusko Tadic would be convicted. What did
5 they say -- "the wrong defence strategy." Try to
6 explain what they were saying to you about that,
8 A. Well, they told me the same thing that
9 Mr. Veljko Guberina told me -- he was Mr. Vujin's
10 colleague -- and that is to say that Mr. Vujin is an
11 advocate of the regime and that our greatest mistake
12 was to have engaged him. That's something -- is
13 roughly what they said.
14 Q. "An advocate of the regime". Just spell
15 out. Just tell us what you mean by that, "an advocate
16 of the regime".
17 A. Well, I mean by that that if Mr. Vujin was
18 president of the Bar Association of Yugoslavia, he was
19 placed in that position by the ruling authorities in
20 Yugoslavia. That is to say that he had to listen to
21 their diktat.
22 Q. And what was their diktat?
23 A. Their diktat was that most probably -- this
24 is my assumption -- that witnesses be prevented from
25 saying the truth about what happened in Kozarac, or,
1 rather, the truth about Dusko Tadic. Dusko Tadic was
2 supposed to be the one who was to shoulder the brunt of
3 the responsibility for what had happened in Kozarac.
4 They tried to prevent all the witnesses from telling
5 the real truth.
6 Q. Why were they preventing the witnesses from
7 telling the real truth? What was the logic in that?
8 A. Well, not to discover other people, not to
9 reveal who these other people were and who inflicted
10 this greatest of shames upon the Serb people there in
11 the Kozarac region.
12 Q. Now, let's be clear about who told you that.
13 I think you said it was Mr. Guberina who told you this
14 about Mr. Vujin being an advocate of the regime.
15 A. You know what? Since I knew Mr. Guberina
16 before, from before the war conflicts, it was a bit
17 ridiculous to me and I felt a bit embarrassed of
18 Mr. Guberina. He grabbed me by the collar and he said
19 an ugly word to me. He said, "Why didn't you come to
20 see me first? You engaged a man who is going to do his
21 best to --"
22 Oh, I think I moved something on this desk.
23 The volume is too high.
24 Q. Take the statement off the buttons.
25 MR. ABELL: I wonder if the clerk could
2 A. I hope so. Maybe I did something wrong
3 here. It's too loud, way too loud.
4 MR. ABELL:
5 Q. Is that better?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Right. Don't lean on the green
9 A. Thank you.
10 Q. You were just saying that Mr. Guberina
11 grabbed you by the collar and said an ugly word to you,
12 and he said, "Why didn't you come to see me first? You
13 engaged a man who is going to do his best to --"
14 "Going to do his best to --" Complete the sentence,
16 A. Is going to do his best to protect the people
17 who committed these atrocities in Kozarac, Omarska,
18 Trnopolje, and Keraterm.
19 Q. Who was Mr. Guberina referring to when he
20 said you were engaging -- or your brother's going to
21 engage a man who's going to do his best to protect
22 those other people? Who was being referred to? Which
24 A. Mr. Vujin.
25 Q. Who is Mr. Guberina? What is he? What is
1 his job?
2 A. Mr. Guberina is one of the top lawyers in the
3 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. At least that's what
4 is believed.
5 Q. Can you help me about this? If you don't
6 know, say so. How old is Mr. Guberina?
7 A. I don't know, but I think between 60 and 70,
8 if not even more. Between 60 and 70. He's pretty
10 Q. Let me put it this way: Did you regard him
11 as an older or a younger lawyer than Mr. Milan Vujin?
12 A. Older. He even said to me that Mr. Vujin was
13 his assistant.
14 Q. What, at that time or back in the past?
15 A. The past.
16 Q. So he was a senior lawyer to Mr. Vujin, in
17 other words?
18 A. Yes. Yes.
19 Q. Now, I want to come on now to any
20 conversations that you personally had with Mr. Milan
22 You say in your statement -- and I'm looking
23 at the English of this translation, it's page 2 -- you
24 say that you were present in your cafe in Kozarac
25 during a conversation between Milan Vujin and somebody
1 called (redacted)?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. Is he somebody who was a witness --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- in relation to your brother's trial?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. A defence witness in your brother's trial?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And again, so that we understand who (redacted)
10 is -- I think that is either a short name or a
12 A. It's a nickname.
13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, I'm advised
14 that you are in an area which makes it prudent to go
15 into private session.
16 MR. ABELL: Yes. I think I understand. What
17 I wanted to do was to make sure that Your Honours knew
18 who this person was speaking of, if Your Honours know
19 who this person is speaking of.
20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Perhaps we could go into
21 private session and you could develop that.
22 MR. ABELL: Certainly, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Registrar, would you
24 make any arrangements?
25 [Private session]
13 page 1002 redacted – private session
13 page 1003 redacted – private session
13 page 1004 redacted – private session
13 page 1005 redacted – private session
13 page 1006 redacted – private session
13 page 1007 redacted – private session
13 --- Recess taken at 11.05 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 11.44 a.m.
15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The Appeals Chamber is
16 in session again. Mr. Abell, the members of the
17 Appeals Chamber have --
18 [Open session]
19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. Mr. Abell, the
20 members of the Appeals Chamber have been considering
21 the submissions which have been made by you and your
22 colleagues. We are not now in a position to give a
23 final ruling.
24 What we would ask is this: You have referred
25 to an allegation of forgery. Now, was your submission
1 on that point made on the basis of the material so far
2 submitted to the Appeals Chamber or do you have
3 additional material which you propose to submit?
4 MR. ABELL: The submission that the document,
5 which was filed on the 5th of February, 1998, that that
6 is a forgery, is based upon the evidence which has been
7 heard and the documentation which has been put in.
8 Perhaps technically, as I think Your Honour
9 alluded to yesterday, it is necessary to establish
10 formally in evidence if there is any dispute about it,
11 that that document was filed at this Chamber on the
12 date in February, 5th of February, 1998, but subject to
13 that it is based on the evidence that we have heard and
14 the documentation which we have seen thus far.
15 I don't know if Your Honours want me to
16 address you, as it were, on the merits, to explain the
17 chain of evidence that shows it.
18 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: No. No, we don't want
19 you to.
20 MR. ABELL: I didn't think Your Honours
21 would, but --
22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: We don't want you to
23 embark on that at this stage.
24 MR. ABELL: I quite understand.
25 [Appeals Chamber confers]
1 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, forgive me. Could
2 I say just one thing? I discussed this, if I may say
3 so, very briefly with the Prosecution yesterday. Steps
4 are being taken in order to look at the two photocopy
5 documents. On the one hand, the photocopy documents
6 submitted in February of 1998, and on the other hand,
7 the document which Mr. Vujin himself produced yesterday
8 as "the original".
9 It will be necessary, but the Chamber hasn't
10 done this in detail yet, but it is my submission that
11 the looking -- looking at those two documents -- I
12 don't want to address Your Honours on the merits now
13 and I may be slipping into it, but I'm simply --
14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: No. We would ask you to
15 take care not to slip into the merits of this case.
16 MR. ABELL: I won't, but what I'm simply
17 seeking to say is that a close examination of the
18 documentary evidence put in evidence already will be
19 profitable, and I think both the Prosecution and myself
20 looking at ways in which certain parts can be enlarged
21 to make that comparison more helpful, easier to make.
22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Let me invite Mr. Vujin
23 -- I see him on his legs -- to speak.
24 MR. VUJIN: Your Honours, of course that the
25 comments made by Mr. Abell, with regard to them, Your
1 Honour drew Mr. Abell's attention yesterday that the
2 decision on this, a ruling on whether the document is a
3 forgery or not, be left to the Chamber to decide.
4 What Mr. Abell has been suggesting here
5 today, that is to say, a comparison of the documents
6 which I, as the lead counsel, tendered to the Appeals
7 Chamber, with all the other written statements, as a
8 new exhibit in the course of these appeals proceedings,
9 and what I showed yesterday to be the original, I
10 completely agree that an examination of this should be
11 made, and you'll be able to ascertain that it is one
12 and the same document, and I have no fear of that.
13 What Mr. Abell has been avoiding, in efforts
14 being made to present incorrect assertions, is that
15 neither he nor anybody else even attempted to show a
16 document which (redacted) showed to the witness we
17 heard yesterday; that is to say, to witness
19 I insist upon the fact that that particular
20 document be found so that we could then see which is
21 the forgery, if there is a forgery at all, because that
22 particular document, unfortunately, neither I nor my
23 Defence counsel has in our possession.
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, the Defence
25 is due to begin, I think, sometime on Monday. When
1 would you be in a position to present any additional
2 material relating to the comparison which you say is
3 now on the way?
4 MR. ABELL: Well, Your Honour, I might need
5 briefly to discuss with the Prosecution. We had a very
6 brief discussion yesterday in relation to the enlarging
7 of certain documents. What Your Honour has to
8 understand, of course, is we only saw "the original"
9 when it was produced by Mr. Vujin yesterday. He's the
10 only person in possession of that document and so the
11 comparison couldn't be made.
12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: So shall we stand this
13 matter over until Monday? That will be the ruling of
14 the Chamber at this time.
15 Now you can resume your examination of this
16 witness, but, Mr. Registrar, I don't understand the
17 technology very well. Do we now have to change over
18 gears and go into private session?
19 [Private session]
5 pages 1012 to 1038 redacted - in private session
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
11 12.48 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,
12 the 6th day of September, 1999, at
13 10 a.m.