1 Monday, 16
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, I've asked that we begin today without
6 the witness in order that we can discuss the scheduling for this week.
7 For personal reasons, I cannot be here on Friday. I have to go to the
8 United Kingdom. As a result, we've only got four days this week. We
9 would, however, propose to sit later in the evening in order to
10 accommodate the hearing.
11 Now, is there anything you want to say?
12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. We would, in
13 fact, like to request a postponement of Mario Cerkez as a witness for at
14 least two weeks. I can very briefly give you the arguments because, on
15 Friday, the 13th, after 2200 hours, after we -- after the cut-off point in
16 the UN detention unit, we received this pile of documents. I cannot even
17 count them. It's about one foot of documents.
18 During the weekend, we tried to simply figure out what this was
19 all about. I have to tell you that we were unable to even sort them out.
20 Without going into any details, these documents were provided to us and
21 they were handed in to us under five categories. That's all I can say.
22 Plus, we received a portion of a translation of Witness AB. There are
23 some duplicates, there are some documents that have been discovered
24 before, there are some new documents, however, I am not able to tell you
25 how many of the new ones are in the pile, perhaps 60 to 70 per cent.
1 Our team has been working since Saturday to try to determine what
2 has been disclosed before, what is new. There are some new documents that
3 are not the Zagreb documents, they are from Blaskic. There are some
4 problems with translations. There are some whose authenticity we, in
5 fact, dispute, so without belabouring --
6 JUDGE MAY: I understand the point. But you know there's a
7 schedule, and one which the Trial Chamber has determined. I can
8 understand completely the difficulty which you are in, but one of the
9 matters we have to determine is whether any of those documents are
10 admissible, given their very late arrival.
11 Now, one course would be this: Rather than entirely rearranging
12 our schedule which, effectively, is what you are asking us to do, is for
13 your client to give his evidence on the matter which we have before us.
14 At some stage, us to look at the material and decide if any of it is going
15 to be admitted and, if necessary, your client can be recalled to give
16 evidence on any other matters which arise from any admissible material.
17 Now, we haven't seen what's been disclosed to you, and it may be
18 that we are going to have to rule upon it. But we've already scheduled
19 witnesses for that week, the 13th. We have arranged for other matters to
20 be dealt with on the 20th.
21 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, of course we considered
22 the number of options, of course I'm just giving you the gist of it. We
23 have considered a number of options including the options which you have
24 just mentioned. However, the problem is that we are unable to meet --
25 review these documents in a satisfactory manner. The accused has to be
1 able to see these documents. Some of the documents disclosed to us here
2 should be able to jog his memory. In other words, he should be able to
3 recall certain events which he has not been able to recall without these
4 documents. What we -- we have a basic dilemma, a balance between two
5 opposing rights.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE MAY: Let's hear from the Prosecution. What are all these
8 documents, please?
9 MR. NICE: They come in various categories but the majority or a
10 very large proportion of them are documents that have simply come very
11 late to us from the State of Croatia, therefore have to be produced and
12 have to be considered. We provided them as soon as we possibly can. The
13 balance of documents that may arise so far that is -- the balance of
14 documents that particularly relate to Cerkez as opposed to documents that
15 are produced in relation to the case generally, the balance of those
16 documents are documents produced because they may arise or we may seek to
17 refer to them in cross-examination.
18 We don't know what the defendant Cerkez is going to say and
19 therefore we've had to cast our net wide in light of the approach taken by
20 the Chamber indicated to us last week, and that explains the quantity of
21 material. We had no option but to do what we've done.
22 In relation to a couple of significant documents that are
23 obviously significant, I've telephoned Mr. Kovacic over the weekend and
24 explained the position on a couple of things to him so that, to that
25 degree, he's been able to make preparations. But I have to say that this
1 material has been kept back from -- by Croatia and only provided at the
2 very last minute. Of course, insofar as this material is documentation
3 generated by the defendant or sent to him contemporaneously, then no
4 doubt -- well, if his evidence was going to be in line with that
5 documentation, then there can be no prejudice to him. If a different
6 position obtains, well, then, different considerations arise, but the
7 material is quite properly with us and quite properly served.
8 JUDGE MAY: Is this the material which you're going to produce or
9 merely serving as a precautionary measure that you might use and you might
11 MR. NICE: Out of an abundance of caution and in light of the
12 Chamber's indication last week, yes.
13 JUDGE MAY: Just give us some idea, how many documents are there?
14 MR. NICE: The totality of documents, there are two files of
15 material produced. The amount that is headed as Cerkez documents is less
16 than one file.
17 I think there may also be some duplication within the documents
18 because, in an effort to make sure that we were covering everything on
19 Friday, teams of people dealing with things or different people, there may
20 be some duplication. But the Chamber will also remember that it has, I
21 think, given leave to the Cerkez defence team to discuss matters with the
22 defendant during the examination-in-chief and that, again, might solve the
23 problem substantially.
24 An alternative would be to -- an alternative would be to take his
25 evidence in chief and either part of the cross-examination or, if there is
1 to be a postponement, a postponement at that stage subject to any further
2 reconsideration by him in light of those documents.
3 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice, I believe as far as I
4 am concerned personally, that this type of practice is almost unacceptable
5 because we made a decision, the Trial Chamber made a decision Friday
6 morning. The fact that you filed this document Friday afternoon is, in my
7 opinion, a way to try to modify this decision, because Mr. Cerkez is going
8 to testify today on the documents that are already known to the Defence
9 and to the Chamber. And if you have additional documents, then you'll
10 need to ask the authorisation for these documents to be admitted, and
11 then, if necessary, the Defence will be given enough time to study these
12 documents. That was our decision. But then the same afternoon you file a
13 high volume of documents, and the aim of this is to modify, to alter, the
14 decision that has just been taken. I believe that this type of practice
15 is almost unacceptable, disloyal, because I believe that this is not in
16 line with the decision that had just been taken.
17 If the decision that has been taken has to be respected, then
18 Mr. Cerkez should testify on the basis of the documents that were known.
19 And as the Chamber specified, every time you want to introduce new
20 documents in the cross-examination, you have to ask for the authorisation
21 of the Chamber. That's what had been decided. You cannot do the kind of
22 thing you did Friday afternoon without having informed the Chamber.
23 Because you did not do so, you did not inform the Chamber on Thursday
24 about your intention, you cannot file in such a way such a mass of new
1 MR. NICE: I'm afraid Your Honour is completely wrong and I take
2 the --
3 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice, I don't allow you to
4 say that I'm wrong. Despite the independence that is yours, it's up to
5 the Chamber to decide on the right procedure, and you have to know that.
6 I'm not wrong. The Chamber made a decision and you have to respect that
8 MR. NICE: I go back to where I was. If Your Honour would --
9 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Once again, I would like to make
10 sure that you address the Chamber.
11 MR. NICE: I am addressing the Chamber, and I was just about to
12 begin. And if I may respectfully say so, Your Honour is incorrect in a
13 reflection of what was said on Friday. And what -- and I have to say on
14 behalf of the Prosecution --
15 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] I don't allow you to say that.
16 Once again, you have a certain way to intervene that I don't accept.
17 MR. NICE: Well, I'm sorry about that, but I have to say on behalf
18 of this Prosecution that what we have done on Friday was, as we understood
19 it, entirely in line with what was our duty to do, and it hasn't been
20 suggested by the Defence that we misinterpreted the Chamber.
21 Let's review the position. One, we were being provided, and have
22 been provided, very late in the day, with documentation by Croatia. We
23 have been processing that material as fast as we can and we've introduced
24 procedures to process it ever faster and we've been handing it over pretty
25 well sight unseen to allow for all eventualities. That's part of the
1 material. Our understanding of the Chamber's expressed view on Friday,
2 with which we were only too happy to comply and against which we raise no
3 arguments, was that we were to provide the material upon which we might
4 cross-examine before the defendant gave evidence.
5 As I think I explained on Friday, we were not in a position ahead
6 of time to have made preparations for this material. We have been fully
7 stretched in our preparation of this case. That is the reality.
8 We then turned our attention, with several groups of people, to
9 try to identify --
10 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Nice. You've
11 answered. But once again, it's not what had been decided. The Chamber is
12 now going to make a decision. But that's not what was decided on Friday.
13 It was decided that the examination-in-chief would be done using available
14 documents, and it was decided that it is only at the level of
15 cross-examination that you can introduce new documents. If you are not
16 familiar with the decision, please go back to that decision, and then you
17 will realise what is the actual content of this decision.
18 I'm not asking you for any additional explanation. Thank you very
19 much. The Chamber is going to make its decision. Thank you very much.
20 That's enough. Thank you. I'm not asking you for any more explanation.
21 As far as I'm concerned, I've heard enough.
22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, there are these ways forward: I think the
23 position is simply this, that the Chamber had no notion that an entire
24 bundle was going to be disclosed, and had we realised that was the
25 position, it may be that we would have come to a different decision. But
1 let us review the position now.
2 One possibility is to go forward on the documents which have been
3 disclosed so far. If there are matters on which you wish to cross-examine
4 which are new, you will have to ask leave. That would allow the accused
5 to give evidence in rejoinder, again on any matters which have arisen
6 since, or indeed at any other stage.
7 Another possibility is to put the matter off. Another
8 possibility, I should say, rather than that, is to simply disallow the
9 production of the documents at this stage, completely, and the case would
10 go on on the original basis.
11 The final possibility -- all of these we will have to
12 consider -- is to find another date on which the Chamber could possibly
13 hear the evidence. That is not one which we wish to encourage in any way,
14 because of the whole schedule. The week of the 13th we've already
15 scheduled for evidence. The week of the 20th is scheduled for the Zagreb
16 material. I don't know what the position is on the week of the 6th, when
17 we were not sitting.
18 MR. NICE: I think Your Honour identifies, if I may say so, the
19 alternative positions. I don't wish to take any more time except to say
20 two things: One, as the Chamber made the point last week, this
21 material -- some of it, in any event -- may prove to be significant in the
22 determination of where the truth lies. And if it's documentation
23 contemporaneous with events and of which the defendant Cerkez was aware,
24 or written by him, or whatever else, then it would be, in our respectful
25 submission, quite wrong in principle to deny the Chamber access to that
2 Second -- and I hope this will perhaps settle particularly His
3 Honour Judge Bennouna's concerns -- the first time that there was any
4 particular suggestion about the provision of material ahead of
5 cross-examination came from Your Honour, I think, last week, at the
6 beginning. Now, there was, as I've made plain, never any intention on our
7 part to ambush anybody, and I've been anxious to serve documents as the
8 Chamber, I think, knows. However, that particular practice is or would be
9 new to this Tribunal, although I can well understand its appropriateness
10 in the particular circumstances of documents being provided late to us,
11 and therefore we didn't raise an argument against it. But because of the
12 time of its first being mentioned, we were left with the position of
13 serving -- casting our net wide and serving this large amount of material
14 in order to comply with the order or the decision of the Chamber as
15 expressed last week and to do so as soon as we could. So I'm sorry, from
16 the point of view, of course, of the lawyers, that this material came as
17 late as it did, but as I repeat, it hasn't been suggested by them that
18 we've acted other than in accordance with the order. Thank you very
20 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, if I might just interject. The week
21 of November 6th I'm afraid is not going to be available for Mr. Naumovski
22 and I. We are planning to be interviewing our potential rejoinder
23 witnesses, having just received the rebuttal notice, along with the about
24 one foot of documents, at about 10.00 at night on Friday. So our plans
25 are to be working on rejoinder, or accumulation of rejoinder evidence
1 during that time. And if I might just say so, it is our intention to file
2 our objections to each of the rebuttal witnesses and rebuttal exhibits
3 that the Prosecution has served upon us. I hope that it will be available
4 on Wednesday morning. I'll try to get it filed earlier than that,
5 however, if I can. Thank you.
6 JUDGE MAY: Have you a bundle of that that we could have a look
7 at? Let's have some idea. Translated, I hope.
8 MR. NICE: The majority of it translated.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel.
10 MR. NICE: The majority of it translated, I think not all. We
11 have three copies, in fact, for Your Honour and Your Honour's colleagues.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, may I ask you: When did you first
13 appreciate or realise that you had those documents to serve?
14 MR. NICE: Thursday. A lot of this material came up from Zagreb
15 literally at the end of last week, and we had to make special arrangements
16 to get it here. That may help you if I tell you a little bit more about
17 the various processes that have been gone through in relation to this late
18 disclosed material. Originally, I think, it was searched and copied in
19 Zagreb and brought here and then processed here. In order to accelerate
20 the procedure, we've been engaging in part of the processing material in
21 Zagreb, so selection and processing, and then sending the material here in
22 a state that makes it nearer available for the Chamber's use. And a lot
23 of material was eventually produced and processed towards the end of last
24 week. And I think you'll actually find fax numbers on some of the
25 documents, that I've faxed dates on some of the documents that I'm
1 producing --
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: At the time when the Chamber made its order --
3 MR. NICE: Yes.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- there was always the potential for the
5 production of the documents?
6 MR. NICE: Certainly, yes. Yes. I wasn't -- I was aware that the
7 material -- I didn't know how much exactly, because I've always been in
8 Court and I haven't been able to keep my finger on every single pulse, but
9 I was certainly aware that there was documentation to be produced. And as
10 I made quite plain, as I understood it -- and I don't think I'm wrong in
11 this -- we were doing everything in compliance with the Chamber's orders.
12 We were gathering up the various categories of material and making it
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much.
15 MR. NICE: Yes.
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kovacic.
17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] If I may just say something. In the
18 end, of course, we cannot accuse the other side that they are trying to
19 ambush us. I really cannot go that far, and I do have arguments, but we
20 have a situation of an ambush for all intents and purposes. We -- given
21 the regime in the detention unit with which we must comply, we were last
22 able to talk to our client on Friday. When I came back to my office,
23 after 8.00, I receive a message that I will be getting a bundle of
24 documents after 10.00. Let me reiterate my request that the examination
25 of the accused be postponed for at least two weeks or any time after that
1 because, simply pursuant to Article 21(2) and 21(4), the accused has the
2 right to a fair trial and to know what he is accused of.
3 On the basis of documents that we have here, we cannot now
4 distinguish which are essential and which are not. Some may be peripheral
5 but some are essential. For instance, just as an illustration, one of
6 these groups, this one here, is a wartime journal of the Central Bosnia
7 Operative Zone, including the critical days, also obviously the dates
8 before and after the conflict, and some of these events are detailed
9 minute by minute. Of course, it is in Croatian. It is not a problem for
10 my client, but it is a problem of another kind.
11 This is a document of a superior command which he has never seen
12 before. Sometimes it is logged by various people, sometimes in very
13 cryptic terms. It took me a couple of hours to just decipher several
14 pages yesterday. I need assistance of an expert; the best expert would
15 have been my client. Also, it is handwritten. That further slows the
16 process, and I'm just giving you one example. Of course, this is only a
17 two-inch document, we don't know the number of pages, but there are a
18 number of other documents.
19 I believe that the accused has the right to know the material
20 which are produced in support of the accusations.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE MAY: We'll rise to consider this.
23 --- Break taken at 10.02 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 10.13 a.m.
25 JUDGE MAY: This is the 221st day of this trial. There have, so
1 far, been 227 witnesses. The trial started in April of last year. The
2 accused Mr. Cerkez is about to give evidence.
3 On Friday, the Prosecution served upon him two large bundles of
4 documents. These are documents which have been provided by Croatia, some
5 recently, some it may be not so recently.
6 The order made by the Tribunal on Friday of last week was this:
7 That the Prosecutor would have to seek leave if he were going to
8 cross-examine on any material which had not been disclosed. The result
9 was, as I have said, the disclosure of these large bundles of documents.
10 Mr. Kovacic, faced with this late disclosure, now seeks to put off, for at
11 least two weeks, calling his client.
12 It is our duty to ensure that the trial is both fair and
13 expeditious. By being fair, it means being fair to both sides. Having
14 all those matters in mind, we think the fairest and most expeditious way
15 of dealing with this application is as follows: There will be no
16 adjournment. The accused can give his evidence this week. At the same
17 time, none of this material, most, if not all of which we take to be
18 Zagreb material which was due to be disclosed in this case and ruled on
19 later, none of this material will be admitted.
20 If the Prosecutor wishes to seek leave upon any matter to
21 cross-examine the accused upon it, then he must do so. The position of
22 the Defence can be safeguarded in this way. First of all, they have leave
23 to speak to their client while he is giving evidence until
24 cross-examination begins. So they will have that opportunity of
25 discussing matters with him.
1 Secondly, if there is new material which is relevant which emerges
2 later in the trial from this particular bundle, then the accused, of
3 course, will have the opportunity of either being recalled to deal with
4 matters or, if it's more appropriate, he can give evidence in rejoinder.
5 In that way, we hope that we can balance the interests of both sides and
6 also ensure the expeditious trial.
7 As I have already indicated, this trial has gone on for a very
8 long time indeed and must be brought to a close, but, at the same time,
9 respecting the rights of both parties. Let us return the bundles.
10 Now, Mr. Kovacic, having regard to the time situation, you've got
11 a witness, Mr. Calic. He's fairly short, I take it. Would there be any
12 advantage in calling Mr. Cerkez first in order to ensure that his evidence
13 is heard this week and keep Mr. Calic waiting until later?
14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could we please take
15 care of Calic? As you said yourself, it's a short witness. He came from
16 the United States and he has to travel back tomorrow. When we finish with
17 Calic, could you please give us a 15-minute break so that we can
18 accommodate our views?
19 JUDGE MAY: Yes, let's get through Mr. Calic expeditiously. Yes,
20 can we call him, please.
21 And I should say we will sit later on the days that we are
22 sitting. This afternoon we have to take an extended luncheon
23 adjournment. The Bench has an appointment which has to be kept. But
24 we'll start again at 3.00 and we'll sit later in the afternoon, till 5.00
25 or shortly after.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
4 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 WITNESS: DRAGAN CALIC
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.
8 Examined by Mr. Mikulicic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Calic.
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. On behalf of Mr. Cerkez's Defence, I shall conduct your
12 examination-in-chief. Please answer my questions slowly and please make a
13 break between my question and your answer so that the interpreters could
14 do their work.
15 Please tell us, for the record, your full name, date, and place of
17 A. My name is Dragan Calic. I was born on the 29th of April, 1964,
18 in Zenica.
19 Q. Mr. Calic, you live in the United States of America nowadays; is
20 that right?
21 A. Yes, that's right.
22 Q. You are an ethnic Croat, Roman Catholic, and a citizen of the
23 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. You are married, you have a daughter and a son, age 6 and 9?
1 A. Yes, that's right.
2 Q. You are an electrical engineer?
3 A. Yes, that's right.
4 Q. Actually, you completed the secondary electrical engineering
5 school in Zenica?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You are not a member of any political party, nor have you ever
8 been a member of any political party?
9 A. That's right.
10 Q. Mr. Calic, tell me, please: Do you personally know whether there
11 are any other persons in the territory of the Vitez municipality who have
12 the same name and surname as you do?
13 A. I know at least two other persons with the same name and surname.
14 Q. Tell us, Mr. Calic, just in a few sentences: Why did you move out
15 of Bosnia with your family to the United States, and how did you do it?
16 A. Well, look; my wife comes from a mixed marriage. Her father is a
17 Serb, from Serbia. Her mother is a Croat. She is a child from a mixed
18 marriage. After everything that happened in Bosnia, I could not continue
19 living down there with my children. I wanted to bring my children up in a
20 better way, to my mind, in a better place.
21 Q. Very well. You took advantage of one of the many immigration and
22 employment programmes available; is that right?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. So since when have you been living in the United States?
25 A. December 1996.
1 Q. You said at the outset, Mr. Calic, that you were born in Zenica
2 and that that's where you completed your education.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. When did you come to Vitez?
5 A. I came to Vitez sometime in the first half of 1992.
6 Q. Did you have a permanent job?
7 A. No, I did not.
8 Q. How did you earn a living?
9 A. I worked on my own.
10 Q. At that time, the JNA and the Serb paramilitary forces had already
11 attacked the Republic of Slovenia first and then the Republic of Croatia
12 and then the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. What was your attitude
13 towards this aggression?
14 A. Well, it was negative. I joined the Territorial Defence units at
15 the time.
16 Q. What was your motive?
17 A. Well, my motive was like everybody else's, I believe; I wished to
18 help the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina, specifically in my own town, in
20 Q. How long did you stay in the Territorial Defence organisation?
21 A. Well, how long was it exactly? Five or six months? At any rate,
22 I was among the last to leave the Territorial Defence.
23 Q. When you say "among the last," which population are you referring
24 to? Which group of people?
25 A. Specifically I'm referring to the Croat population, the Croat
1 soldiers that were in units.
2 Q. Just in a sentence or two, what was your experience of this? Why
3 did you leave the Territorial Defence?
4 A. I already told you that I was never a member of any party, any
5 political party, any nationalist party. Never. I simply could not watch
6 this any longer; that is to say, the leadership of a political party
7 interfering in military matters, that is to say, the Territorial Defence
9 Q. Very well. Which party are you referring to specifically?
10 A. At that time, it was the Party of Democratic Action.
11 Q. That is the so-called SDA; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So what did you do then?
14 A. I talked a few times to the commander of the Territorial Defence,
15 Mr. Cengic. He also told me that he is powerless, that he cannot help me,
16 that he cannot help himself, that all of that bothered him as well, but
17 that this was force majeure.
18 Q. You are talking about Mr. Cengic. Is that Hakija Cengic?
19 A. Yes, yes.
20 Q. At that time, at the beginning of 1993, you joined the military
21 police of the HVO; is that right?
22 A. Yes, that's right.
23 Q. Among other things, you wanted to have financial security in this
24 way too, didn't you, because this is a professional job?
25 A. Oh, yes, yes. It is employment I sought as a professional and I
1 earned a monthly salary.
2 Q. However, it seems that you didn't get much of that salary that you
3 had sought this job for.
4 A. Well, I got half of one salary.
5 Q. Mr. Calic, you became a member of the military police.
6 Specifically which military unit? What was it called?
7 A. It was called the Brigade Military Police. We were in the 4th
9 Q. At that time, who was commander of the 4th Battalion of the
10 Military Police?
11 A. The commander of the 4th Battalion was Mr. Pasko Ljubicic.
12 Q. What is the position that you had in the military police? What
13 was your position? Did you hold any rank?
14 A. I was a regular policeman.
15 Q. You mentioned that you were a member of the so-called Brigade
16 Military Police. Please tell us: What kind of formation is this, this
17 Brigade Military Police?
18 A. It was a smallish platoon of the military police, 20-odd men. We
19 secured the brigade, or rather, secured the headquarters of the brigade.
20 Q. When you are saying "brigade," what brigade are you referring to
22 A. I am referring to the Viteska Brigade.
23 Q. At that time, where was the command post of the Viteska Brigade?
24 A. At that time, it was at the Workers' University hall but everybody
25 calls it the cinema hall.
1 Q. You who were members of this platoon that provided security for
2 the headquarters of the Viteska Brigade, did you, in this way, become
3 subordinate to the commander of the Viteska Brigade?
4 A. No. No.
5 Q. You, Mr. Calic, who did you receive your orders from,
7 A. I received my orders from my commander, the commander of the
8 Brigade Military Police, Mr. Anto Kovac.
9 Q. And who was Mr. Anto Kovac's superior?
10 A. His superior was Mr. Pasko Ljubicic.
11 Q. This smallish platoon of the military police within the 4th
12 Battalion of the military police, why was it called the Brigade Military
14 A. We spent most of our time with the brigade. We were at the
15 service of the brigade, and that is probably why we were called that, that
16 is to say, the Brigade Military Police.
17 Q. You mentioned that you secured the cinema building where the
18 headquarters of the Viteska Brigade was. Can you tell us in a few
19 sentences what your everyday duties were? What kind of work did you
20 actually do?
21 A. Well, that was security for the brigade, inside and outside the
22 building. In a few places, we had guards, that is to say, members of our
23 police. Inside, we had our own people at the desk, by the entrance, et
25 Q. Did you have any rooms of your own in the cinema building where
1 you could get some rest, where you kept your equipment, things like that?
2 A. We had two rooms that were made available to us in order to get
3 some rest, to keep our weapons and things like that.
4 Q. You have already told us, Mr. Calic, that your direct superior was
5 Anto Kovac and that his superior was Pasko Ljubicic, and that was that
6 chain of command through which you received orders for your daily jobs.
7 What was the procedure if, for instance, one had to perform a police job
8 for the Vitez Brigade? For instance, if one had to go out because of the
9 disrupt in discipline or perhaps bring in one of the Vitez Brigade men
10 because he had made a disciplinary transgression or something, what was
11 the procedure? Who did you get an order for such a job from?
12 A. The assignment, the order was given for the assignment by
13 Mr. Pasko Ljubicic, who would receive requests from the military.
14 Q. And you or some of your colleagues, to your knowledge, were you
15 ever given orders by any one of the senior officers in the Vitez Brigade?
16 A. Not to me.
17 Q. And if you were given such an order which had not gone down this
18 line, that is, the military police chain of command, how would you -- what
19 would you do with that order? What would you do then?
20 A. I would go to my commander, Mr. Kovac, and turn it over to him and
21 he would then decide what to do.
22 Q. Very well. I am still referring to the organisation. Wasn't that
23 organisation a bit cumbersome, perhaps not very efficient?
24 A. Well, to my mind, yes, because a request to take somebody under
25 custody, if I was, for instance -- if I was the one who received that
1 application, then that order would come from the upper floor, through me,
2 to Mr. Ljubicic in the hotel who would then sign that order or prepare a
3 different order, and then it would come back to me. So to me, it didn't
4 sound as a sensible procedure.
5 Q. So an order to assign the group of you military police on behalf
6 of the Vitez Brigade would go from the first floor of the command building
7 to the hotel, and then would come back to the command building.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Well, right, then. Do you remember if such a cumbersome situation
10 was then resolved differently in time?
11 A. Well, sometime in summer, we -- that is, our platoon of the
12 Brigade Military Police was placed under the orders, under the command of
13 the brigade.
14 Q. And it was only after that that you received orders from the
15 brigade, is it?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Very well. Mr. Calic, the gist of the procedure, of course, of
18 this case is the event which began on the 16th of April, 1993 in Vitez and
19 environs when an open conflict happened. What were you doing on the eve
20 of the 16th of April? That is, in the night of the 15th or 16th?
21 A. I was on my regular duty. We had shifts. From time to time when
22 there was no emergency situations, some people were at home, some were on
23 duty, some were on reserve. And at that time, I was on duty. I was in
24 the building at my workplace.
25 Q. Do you remember that evening and that night, and if you do, why?
1 Why did you think it out of the ordinary, a different night? How did you
2 see it?
3 A. That was a night like any other night. There wasn't much
4 difference except that we had to be -- the preparedness was raised to a
5 higher level, but I did not pay much attention to that.
6 Q. When you say that your preparedness had been raised to a higher
7 level, what do you mean exactly?
8 A. Our commander told us that there could be an attack by the Muslim
9 side which, naturally, I did not believe. Nobody believed that.
10 Q. You mentioned that such warnings had also come on previous
11 occasions too.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And how did your fellow policemen respond to this warning?
14 A. Well, everybody responded in a -- like me, more or less; nobody
15 thought that something might happen.
16 Q. But it happened nevertheless, didn't it?
17 A. Oh, well, yes.
18 Q. And what happened in the morning? How did you see that? What was
19 your experience like?
20 A. Sometime around half past 5.00, the shelling of the town began,
21 the town of Vitez. And Mr. Kovac ordered me and four or five military
22 policemen more to go to the elementary school building in Vitez so as to
23 keep under control a clear space in Stari Vitez, an area, an open area
25 Q. But what did he tell you, in point of fact? Why did you have to
1 keep an eye on that open area?
2 A. In order to provide broader, better security for the headquarters.
3 Q. You say that this open area was between the town in which you were
4 and the Mahala, isn't it?
5 A. Yes, that's where it is.
6 Q. And Mahala was mostly populated by Muslims?
7 A. Well, I do not really know the structure, I mean the percentages,
8 but I think so, yes.
9 Q. Was there any fire, any gunfire, from that direction against the
10 command building?
11 A. I did not notice anything on my side, and we did not have any
12 combat operations during those days, two or three days.
13 Q. You say "two or three days." You mean that is the time which you
14 spent at that position, is it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And then what happened?
17 A. And then Mr. Kovac did some shifts and thrust us to a different
18 post. How shall I explain it? He moved us to the building of the public
19 utilities company.
20 Q. But the task was still the same or a different one?
21 A. It was the same, except that we changed the location of the guard
23 Q. And was your task, as explained by Mr. Kovac to you, was to
24 protect the building, that building, or broader, to simply protect the
25 headquarters? How do you remember it?
1 A. Well, I remember it as the same task, that is, the security to
2 guard -- the same task except that the place is different.
3 Q. Very well. And how long did you spend there?
4 A. A day or two.
5 Q. So if you were two or three days in the school and then a day or
6 two here and the shelling began on the 16th, it means that we now reached
7 the 20th, 21st of April, isn't it?
8 A. Well, yes, I guess so.
9 Q. And where were you then moved?
10 A. When I came back to the brigade building, that is, to the cinema,
11 to the Workers' University building, and I stayed there working at the
12 reception desk on the reserve and suchlike jobs.
13 Q. And you didn't go to the cinema building in the meantime, that is,
14 between the 16th and the 20th or 21st, when you came back. Did you go to
15 the cinema building?
16 A. No, I did not.
17 Q. Right. So now you are in the cinema building for the first time
18 after the outbreak of hostilities. What did you find there: an
19 extraordinary situation or was it the ordinary situation?
20 A. No. It wasn't quite ordinary, because I found quite a number of
21 civilians there, all around; in passages, in offices, and so on.
22 Q. And what ethnic group did those civilians belong to?
23 A. I learned that later on. I mean, I asked, "What's this?" and I
24 was told that they were Muslims.
25 Q. Now, if you try to draw in your memory, could you tell us what
1 category of people were they, I mean in terms of age and sex.
2 A. Could you repeat this, please?
3 Q. I mean, were they men, women, and children, or perhaps a different
4 category of people, and what age groups, roughly?
5 A. Well, those were men. As far as I could see, they were men of
6 military age. There were some perhaps who were older, who, to my mind,
7 were not of military age, but they were there nevertheless.
8 Q. You tell us that it came as a surprise to you.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And did you then inquire around why were those men there, what
11 they were doing there, what for?
12 A. Yes, of course I did go around to ask about this, naturally.
13 Q. So what was the answer that you were given? What did you find
15 A. Well, in principle, I was given two answers. Two answers is what
16 I got. One was that they were detained there for their personal security,
17 and the second answer was to protect the soldiers in the town. I
18 asked -- I said, "What can a civilian do to me?" And then Mr. Kovac
19 explained to me that now he's a civilian but that nobody knows what he
20 might do within an hour's time, that perhaps what he might have concealed,
21 and suchlike.
22 Q. And how were those -- what treatment was accorded to those men?
23 Were they locked or could they move freely within the building? How was
25 A. It was very hard. It was very hard because, at that time, I was
1 spending quite a lot of time in the building. I often had to queue for
2 the toilet to relieve myself, because we all had to use the same
3 facilities, and it was very difficult.
4 Q. And what about food for those men?
5 A. Well, they had the same thing that I did. It was mostly
6 those -- for I don't know for how many days -- some tinned fish. I
7 couldn't eat it.
8 Q. And did you allow relatives to visit those men?
9 A. Yes, of course.
10 Q. Could they get food and perhaps other necessities from home, and
11 clothes, shoes from home?
12 A. Oh, yes. They were getting blankets and clothes, cigarettes, what
13 they needed, under our rules; I mean, things that they were entitled to.
14 Q. And when you found those men there, were you told who had brought
15 those men and under whose orders?
16 A. No, I was not notified about that. I learned that at a later
17 stage, that they had been brought in by the military police, civilian
18 police, Vitezovi, and so on.
19 Q. Did you see with your own eyes anyone ill-treat those people,
20 mentally or physically?
21 A. As far as I know, and as far as I can remember, I know of only one
22 case, and I believe I would have known had there been any other such
24 Q. What case are you referring to, Mr. Calic?
25 A. A group of detainees was going -- and I can't really remember
1 whether they were going to the doctor to have a medical checkup or coming
2 back from the medical checkup, and a member of ours used a branch or
3 something like that to hit a detainee.
4 Q. And did you find out why had he done that?
5 A. Yes. He told me -- later he told me that his mother -- I think it
6 was mother -- had been wounded from the -- and that the projectile had
7 come from the direction of a village called Sadovace, and that gentleman
8 who had been hit also came from that village.
9 Q. And do you perhaps remember the name of that person who was struck
10 by a military policeman?
11 A. Yes, of course, yes, because we were friends. Mr. Suad Salkic.
12 Q. You mentioned that people were either going to or coming from the
13 medical checkup, and therefore my question: Did they have regular medical
14 care and attention?
15 A. I don't understand what you mean "regular."
16 Q. I mean those men who were detained in the building, visited by a
17 physician to hear their complaints, to prescribe therapy; were they
18 receiving medical care?
19 A. Yes. Yes. Physicians came to the building and we also, when
20 necessary, took them. Say somebody would fall ill, then we would take him
21 to the surgery and bring him back.
22 Q. Mr. Calic, so you were there as a member of the military police,
23 the so-called Brigade Military Police. You performed certain duties. Who
24 gave you instructions for your work?
25 A. Mr. Anto Kovac.
1 Q. And during that period of time, did you ever get, from the
2 commander of the Vitez Brigade or any other commander, from the staff of
3 the Vitez Brigade, any order as to how you should treat those detained
5 A. I did not.
6 Q. How long did you stay in the cinema building?
7 A. Well, it could have been four or five days.
8 Q. And where were you assigned after that?
9 A. After that, I was assigned to the SDK building, to the public
10 auditing building.
11 Q. This Chamber has already heard evidence about Muslims being
12 interned in that building as well; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, absolutely.
14 Q. And what was the situation there? Where were those men?
15 A. People were in offices and places.
16 Q. I suppose that you knew some of those men.
17 A. Oh, yes, most of them.
18 Q. And how did you treat them? Were people ill-treated there or
20 A. No. No. No. The treatment was friendly. On one occasion, my
21 wife was mad at me because I wasn't coming home at all, because I never
22 went home and I couldn't go home because there was nobody to replace me.
23 And I couldn't simply lock the door and leave, leaving all those people
24 without any supervision, so that I asked a friend, a detainee, a prisoner,
25 I asked him -- and he is a Muslim -- and I asked him, I gave him my rifle
1 to stand guard while I went home and had a meal there. That's how it
3 I was -- and bad luck because my commander was, at that time,
4 touring the guard posts and it was night at that time. It was dark. And
5 this friend of mine told him to halt and to lie down, they wouldn't let
6 him come to him. And it was grassy and muddy so that my commander had to
7 lie down into that mud and then to explain who he was and what he was,
8 give his name. And then those men came out and asked him, "Who gave you
9 the rifle?"
10 He said, "Well, there was this man who stood on guard and he asked
11 me to replace him for a moment," and that's how it was.
12 Q. Mr. Calic, is it true that some men from the group which was both
13 in the cinema and the SDK were taken to dig all sorts of trenches,
14 fortifications and so on?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And how was that organised? How was that done? Who would come to
17 fetch those men? Who would lead them? What was the organisation?
18 A. In my view, it wasn't organised. At times it would be -- military
19 police would come. At times it would be Vitezovi members. At times,
20 again, it would be -- whether it was the Red Cross or the work platoon or
21 something like that.
22 Q. Did you have an opportunity to talk to those men who would come
23 back to the cinema or the SDK building after such assignments?
24 A. Well, at first I didn't know where those people were being taken
25 and why, but then when a group came back, I asked one of them, "Well,
1 where had you been?" And he showed his hands to me and I said, "What's
2 that?" because there were callouses, and he told me that they had gone to
3 dig some trenches.
4 Q. And as a military police member who were there on guard, did you
5 have some instructions as to how to organise that or did that bypass you?
6 How was that?
7 A. Well, it bypassed me. I was only to have a list. I had this list
8 and I was only to tick off men who were absent for one reason or the
10 Q. And those men, regardless of whom we are talking about, military
11 police, civil defence, Vitezovi, would they identify themselves? Would
12 they show a paper or a list of men that they would take out of the
13 building so as to do something?
14 A. No.
15 Q. And could you personally resist, say no to those men who would
16 come to take men out to dig?
17 A. No.
18 Q. To your recollection, how long were those men interned? When were
19 they let out?
20 A. Sometime in late April or perhaps early May.
21 Q. Mr. Calic, do you know a person called Dr. Mujezinovic?
22 A. Of course I do.
23 Q. And from your -- what you remember and your experience in those
24 early days of the conflict, what happened? What was the event that you
25 took part in and that had to do with Dr. Mujezinovic?
1 A. I don't know why was it that I had gone to the surgery, whether I
2 was ill or whether I went to pay a visit to someone. I don't really
3 remember. But at any rate, I was talking to Dr. Tibold, Dr. Franjo, and I
4 was talking to him and just, "Well, Doctor, how are you, how is things?"
5 "Well, I'm tired. There are lots of people, wounded are coming in, and I
6 don't have anyone to help me." And I said, "What do you mean you don't
7 have anyone, you have a doctor in the town." There was a doctor in the
8 town. And I had already asked Mr. Kovac before to release --
9 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Mikulicic, let's stay with the point if there is
11 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Right. A question to the point: Dr. Tibold said he was short of
13 men and you said there were men in town, meaning Dr. Mujezinovic, I
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And what did Dr. Tibold ask you then?
17 A. Dr. Tibold then asked me, "Well, Calic, if you can go and ask
18 Dr. Mujezinovic, tell him that I asked him, ask him in my name if he can
19 come and help us."
20 Q. And you did that?
21 A. And I went, knocked on the door, and the doctor opened the door
22 and he recognised me, smiled. He said, "What can I do for you?"
23 Q. And then you explained to him what it was all about, and what was
24 his reaction; was he willing to help or did he say, "No, I am not helping
1 A. The doctor was ready to help, he picked up his bag, and I told him
2 that I'd try because Dr. Franjo, the doctor, had told me that he had
3 certain working hours, but that I did not know how long they would be.
4 Q. Very well. So what you just described to us, did you behave as a
5 military policeman who took Dr. Mujezinovic under custody or was it just a
6 friendly assistance?
7 A. That was just friendly assistance.
8 Q. And so from Dr. Mujezinovic's flat you went to the surgery, did
9 you, with him?
10 A. Yes. Yes.
11 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I need another five
12 minutes, not more than five minutes.
13 JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn now. I will ask the Prosecution to keep
14 the cross-examination to the barest minimum, please.
15 MR. NICE: I've also explained to Mr. Kovacic that I would do that
16 if Mr. Cerkez was going to give evidence, in any event. At some stage,
17 nothing to do with this witness, a short administrative matter, a couple
18 of minutes.
19 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Mr. Calic, we're going to adjourn for half
20 an hour. Could you please remember not to speak to anybody about your
21 evidence until it's over, and that does include the Defence team.
22 --- Recess taken at 11.04 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 11.40 a.m.
24 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Mikulicic, I understand that arrangements can now
25 be made, another trial having adjourned, for us to go into a larger
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 courtroom, and that tomorrow, from tomorrow onwards, we can be in
2 Courtroom 3, which is what we'll do. Yes.
3 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Calic, you mentioned during your evidence
5 Mr. Hakija Cengic.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Just to remind the Trial Chamber, this is the person who worked
8 for the TO and he was a friend of yours?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What was his fate during the war? At one point he found himself
11 in a very, how shall we say, awkward position?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In order not to go very broad on this, can you just please
14 describe this very briefly and what your role in this was.
15 A. One day -- I believe this is sometime in June or July. I cannot
16 recall now -- there was an accident. A shell killed seven or eight
17 children, small children, who were playing on a playground near
18 Mr. Cengic's house. After this incident, I was in -- at that time, I was
19 in front of the command building, and Mr. Boro Jozic, Zeljko Sajevic were
20 there. They asked me -- and Mr. Cengic was a friend of mine. This is why
21 they asked me this. They asked me whether I could save him.
22 Q. Excuse me for the interruption, but who were you to save him from?
23 A. My understanding was that he was threatened directly by the
24 parents of the children who had been killed.
25 Q. The family somehow linked Mr. Cengic to the deaths of their
2 A. I believe that they did.
3 Q. And what did you do?
4 A. I went to Mrs. Gordana Badrov's house, and from there I took
5 Mr. Cengic, his wife, and I believe two children, and I took them to the
6 house of Mr. Ivica Santic. They were there throughout the night, and in
7 the morning Mr. Bruno Buzuk transferred them to the UNPROFOR base, where
8 they were -- to safety.
9 Q. Very well. So in a way, you hid Mr. Cengic and his family from
10 potential attacks on them?
11 A. Yes, that is correct.
12 Q. And again, that had nothing to do with your duty as a military
14 A. No.
15 Q. Mr. Calic, I'm going to ask you to look at a document which has
16 been tendered here as Z882.3. It's a Prosecution document. Will you
17 please review it, when it was issued, who issued it, who signed the
18 document. And my first question to you is: Have you ever seen this
19 document? Did you see it while you were in Vitez and while you were a
20 military policeman there?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Mr. Calic, directing your attention to the fact that this document
23 is addressed to Mr. Mario Cerkez, the commander of the Vitez Brigade. Its
24 date is 4 May 1993. This is a report on a control of apartments,
25 conducted by military police, consisting of three men: Ivica Jukic,
1 Dragan Toljusic, and Dragan Calic.
2 A. Yes, I see the names.
3 Q. Did you ever take part in this control?
4 A. I believe that I was not part of this group. Whenever I was a
5 part of such a group, I would sign, and I don't see my own signature
7 Q. Do you recognise the signature under number 3?
8 A. Yes. That is Mr. Kovac.
9 Q. And let me point out that Mr. Kovac was not listed as one of the
10 persons who conducted this control, so how come his signature is there,
11 knowing what you know about the operation of the military police?
12 A. Perhaps I was absent on some other grounds, and it is possible
13 that Mr. Kovac replaced me.
14 Q. Very well. This report was compiled regarding control of
15 apartments. Will you please now look at the addresses: Dr. Petra Mecovi
16 Street [phoen], where two apartments were controlled, and the rest of them
17 in Partizanska Street. Are these addresses in the immediate vicinity of
18 the command building?
19 A. Yes, that is correct. That's exactly where they are.
20 Q. What was the purpose of this control, according to your knowledge
21 and in your opinion?
22 A. This is part of the control and wider security of the command
23 building, because from these streets one had a clear view and therefore
24 potential line of fire to the command building entrance.
25 Q. Is this the reason why this report was drafted for and sent to
1 Mario Cerkez, the commander of the Vitez Brigade?
2 A. This could have been a part of a broader report on the security
3 situation as regards the command building.
4 Q. And my last question, Mr. Calic: During your stay in the United
5 States, have you been contacted by representatives of this Tribunal?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. On how many occasions?
8 A. On three occasions.
9 Q. In these contacts, did you sign any formal statements, any -- did
10 you make any formal statement?
11 A. No.
12 Q. The gentleman who contacted you as representatives of the
13 Prosecution of this Tribunal, did they tell you that they would contact
14 you again on the last occasion when they contacted you?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And did they ever contact you again?
17 A. No, not after the third contact.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further
19 questions, Your Honour.
20 MR. SAYERS: Just a few questions, Your Honour.
21 Cross-examined by Mr. Sayers:
22 Q. Mr. Calic, I represent Mr. Kordic, and the Trial Chamber has heard
23 some rumours of an asserted connection between Mr. Kordic and one of the
24 subunits of the 1st Company of the 4th Battalion of the military police
25 known as the Jokers. Just for the Trial Chamber's reference that's
1 Witness AA, Witness DD and Exhibit Z881.1. Did Dario Kordic have any
2 authority over the military police, to your knowledge, Mr. Calic?
3 A. To my knowledge, no. Mr. Kordic, to my knowledge, was a political
5 Q. Did Mr. Kordic have any connection at all to the group to which I
6 have just referred, the Jokers, to your knowledge, sir?
7 A. I have no such knowledge.
8 Q. Throughout your time in the military police and the years that you
9 lived in Vitez during and after the war, have you ever heard of anybody
10 trying to contend that Mr. Kordic had the slightest power or authority
11 over either the military police or the Jokers, a subunit of the 1st
12 Company of the 4th Battalion?
13 A. No, I never heard such a thing.
14 MR. SAYERS: Thank you, Mr. President. No further questions.
15 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I have reduced to the bare
16 minimum. I think I've only got one additional document to look at. I
17 shan't be long.
18 Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:
19 Q. Just to deal with your encounter in America with representatives
20 of this office, although you may have been contacted on three occasions,
21 was it just one meeting that you had with people of this office, on the
22 20th and 21st of May, 1998?
23 A. No, I had three separate contacts.
24 Q. Do you remember the occasion when you were spoken to in May of
25 1998 by a man called Harmon, by an investigator called Sorensen?
1 A. Yes, I remember, and there was another gentleman present.
2 Q. Yes. Very well. Are you saying, just to follow it and make it
3 short, you were only ever a member of the Brigade Military Police; is that
5 A. I don't understand the question really. What do you mean?
6 Q. You were a member of the military police?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Were you at all times working within a brigade, namely the Viteska
10 A. I was active within the military police which was part of the --
11 which was with the Vitez Brigade.
12 Q. Thank you. The dates of your working there, roughly when to
14 A. Sometime starting in latter part of March until, I believe,
15 October 1993.
16 Q. Four names, can you confirm that each of the following were in the
17 same unit of military police that you were: Ratko Nuk?
18 A. Ratko Nuk, yes.
19 Q. Zlatko Nakic.
20 A. Zlatko Nakic was with us occasionally and occasionally he was with
21 the 4th Battalion with Mr. Pasko. He and several others. But he also was
22 with us.
23 Q. Zoran Sero.
24 A. The same.
25 Q. And Neven Kovac.
1 A. Neven Kovac was not with the brigade unit with us. He may have
2 been in the regional one or in the -- or in the 4th Battalion with
3 Mr. Pasko in his building. I don't know.
4 Q. I want to understand what you're saying about orders given to your
5 unit. Are you saying that Ljubicic gave direct orders to your unit, even
6 though you were associated with the Viteska Brigade?
7 A. I was given orders by Mr. Anto Kovac.
8 Q. You can't say, one way or another, who gave orders to Kovac, can
10 A. To my knowledge, Mr. Kovac's immediate superior -- Mr. Kovac was
11 my superior and his immediate superior was Mr. Pasko Ljubicic, so I assume
12 he received his orders from Mr. Ljubicic.
13 Q. That's an assumption. You do not know and you cannot help us with
14 whether Kovac actually received orders and actually responded to orders
15 received by Cerkez.
16 A. I happened to be in the reception office on duties so I directly
17 received some orders about the rest from Mr. Ljubicic, and sometimes from
18 Mr. Zabac also.
19 Q. It's still not an answer to the question, and I'd like you please
20 to answer it. You cannot say whether Kovac received and responded to
21 orders received directly from Cerkez, can you?
22 A. I cannot know this.
23 Q. You have not been shown any order coming from Pasko Ljubicic and
24 directly instructing Kovac in relation to affairs of what we are calling,
25 in this trial, the Brigade Military Police.
1 A. Will you please ask the question again?
2 Q. Of course. You can have not been shown any order, and I mean
3 written order, coming from Pasko Ljubicic directly ordering Kovac
4 directing your unit, or subunit, as you say it was?
5 A. The orders that I saw were addressed to our military police
6 platoon. I never saw a document addressed to a person.
7 Q. And are you saying that these orders that you saw came from one
8 person or from more than one persons?
9 A. They were coming from Mr. Ljubicic.
10 Q. I see. Well, since you've been here preparing to give evidence,
11 have you been shown any documents coming from Ljubicic, instructing your
12 subunit of military police as to what they were to do?
13 A. No.
14 Q. And before I pass from that, can you identify for us, that is to
15 say, tell us about any particular order so that we can know the type of
16 order you're referring to, any particular order that you say came from
17 Ljubicic and went to your unit, telling your unit what to do?
18 A. An order to the Brigade Military Police to arrest certain
19 individuals for some reasons, some particular reasons.
20 Q. I see. What, for breach of discipline; something of that sort?
21 A. For desertion, various breaches, infractions.
22 Q. Any other category of document that you can tell us came direct
23 from Ljubicic?
24 A. From what I saw, it was mostly orders for us to -- for actions on
25 our part.
1 Q. Can you give us an example, please, because we haven't -- I tell
2 you, we haven't been able to find any, and I want you to tell us what we
3 should be looking for, if they existed.
4 A. An order to arrest an individual --
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. -- and things like that.
7 MR. NICE: Very well. Can the witness have 882.3 again, please.
8 The exhibit has been produced.
9 Q. Now, it was suggested to you what the reason for -- if you look at
10 the top of it, this document goes to Cerkez at the Viteska Brigade, and a
11 reason was suggested to you. You have no idea what the reason was, I
12 imagine, for why this document went to Cerkez, do you?
13 A. This could have been information about security, so that Mr. Mario
14 Cerkez, specifically, could know about what the security situation was
15 like so that he would see that measures were taken in order to ensure his
16 security, appropriate control, things like that.
17 Q. What you've told us is that your instructions came direct from
18 Ljubicic. So if you're right and if these instructions came down from
19 Ljubicic, the report should go to Ljubicic, with or without a copy to
20 Cerkez. There is no reference to Ljubicic on this document. Can you
21 explain why?
22 A. Maybe not this one. I believe, and that's the way we worked, that
23 all our reports went to Mr. Ljubicic, and this could have been a report
24 about security.
25 Q. When you spoke to Mr. Harmon and Mr. Sorensen and one other in
1 America, did you explain that Ljubicic was in command of the regional
2 military police?
3 A. No. Mr. Ljubicic was commander of the 4th Battalion.
4 Q. I'm going to suggest that you identified him as being in charge of
5 the regional police and said nothing about his being in charge of your
6 unit. Could that be right?
7 A. I'm saying once again what I've already said, and that is that
8 Mr. Ljubicic was commander of the 4th Battalion.
9 Q. Did you claim, and is it still your position, that you did not
10 even know at that time, that is, in 1998, who was the commander of the
11 Central Bosnia Operating Zone?
12 A. Of course I knew.
13 Q. And you didn't say otherwise, you claim, to those people who spoke
14 to you in 1998?
15 A. As far as I know, no.
16 Q. I think you have two brothers, Ljuban and Vlado.
17 A. I wish I had two brothers. I have only one brother.
18 Q. Named?
19 A. His name is Bernard.
20 Q. Those other names, are they part of your family?
21 A. No.
22 Q. You've said that the command for the brigade passed to Cerkez, or
23 to the brigade commander, at some time in the summer but before you left.
24 Can you be at all specific about when you say command passed directly to
1 A. I'm sorry, but I did not hear the translation of what you said at
2 first. I heard the end but not the first. There seems to be something
3 wrong with my headphones.
4 Q. I'll repeat it. You said that the command for the brigade passed
5 to Cerkez, or the brigade commander, at some time in the summer of 1993
6 but before you left. Can you help us with the precise date when you say
7 command passed?
8 A. You mean when the military police fell under Mr. Cerkez's command,
9 if I understand what you're saying?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. I think sometime in August or September 1993.
12 Q. Very well. The one other document I'm going to ask you to look
13 at, 1024.2.
14 MR. NICE: Original for the witness. Usual format.
15 Q. Now, this is a document dated the 6th of June. It's addressed to
16 the Brigade Military Police and it is a request for detention. If you'd
17 just, without taking that document off the ELMO, if you would be good
18 enough, without taking it off, if the witness would be good enough simply
19 to go and have a look at the signature at the end of the document. He'll
20 see it's signed by Bertovic, whom you're aware of. It's a request for the
21 detention of certain people. We needn't go into the detail of the
22 document any more than that. It contains no reference to Ljubicic. It is
23 effectively an order. Can you explain how such requests, which request
24 the immediate detention of someone, don't have to go through Ljubicic, if
25 your evidence is right?
1 A. We did not accept this request, we as the military police. This
2 was returned. This was returned. And it was said that it should be sent
3 to the commander of the military police, because I, for example, could not
4 obey Anto Bertovic's orders.
5 Q. I see. Are you saying you can remember that, or have you been
6 shown this document since you've been here?
7 A. Such documents, yes. There were a few such cases that we returned
8 such orders that we had received, because we could not receive orders from
9 Anto Bertovic or some other battalion commander.
10 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm not going to deal with that any
11 further. The Chamber will remember what Bertovic's evidence on the topic
13 Q. Just a few more questions. On the 15th, 16th of April, on the
14 night, where were you? Remind me.
15 A. I was in the cinema building. I was not on duty.
16 Q. And is your evidence that you have no idea what happened on the
17 night of the 15th, 16th; no idea of any preparations for an attack? Is
18 that your evidence?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Well, what did you learn of the attack that was mounted that
21 following morning?
22 A. I did not learn anything. I saw everything in the morning, around
23 5.30 in the morning, when the shelling of the town began. At first I did
24 not know what was being shelled and where, which part of town was being
25 shelled. Then we were given orders to go to the elementary school
1 building. I already said that. We were supposed to cover a clearing that
2 went from the direction of Stari Vitez, Mahala, to the secondary school
3 and the elementary school building.
4 Q. By "clearing," you mean clearing of Muslims?
5 A. No. I'm speaking about a clearing, an area that is clear, open.
6 Q. What were the Brigade Military Police, apart from yourself, doing
7 on the night of the 15th, 16th, please?
8 A. We were on duty, securing the command.
9 Q. Well, we know -- I needn't trouble you with the document. It's
10 671.5. It went in last week -- that by 2.50 on the 16th of April, there
11 were 50 Muslims in the cellar of the brigade police station. Can you
12 explain how they got there?
13 A. I'm not aware of that. At that time, I wasn't down there; I was
14 at the school, so I can't say anything about that to you.
15 Q. You saw Cerkez in the cinema complex on the night of the 15th,
16 didn't you?
17 A. I couldn't really remember who are all the people I saw at
18 headquarters. I can't. I can't.
19 Q. Was your memory better when you spoke to people in 1998 in
21 A. I don't know. These are certain periods of time, and I can't
22 really give you an exact answer.
23 Q. You have previous criminal convictions in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
24 A. Criminal proceedings were instituted against me, yes.
25 Q. In respect to what criminal offences?
1 A. Serious bodily injury with death as a consequence.
2 Q. Did you decline to reveal those details to the American
3 authorities when you obtained permission to go and live there?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Are you saying you told them all about it?
6 A. They didn't ask me.
7 Q. I see. Just a few more questions. You were involved, then, until
8 August in the detention of people in Vitez, would that be correct, or
9 later than August?
10 A. Could you please repeat that?
11 Q. You were involved in guarding, in detaining people against their
12 will in Vitez right away from April of 1993 until the summer or the
13 autumn, October.
14 A. No. No.
15 Q. You guarded individuals, did you not?
16 A. I did not guard any individuals. This was a larger group.
17 Q. Were you aware, and I'm going to try and take this very quickly
18 but I want your answers, please; were you aware of people being kept in
19 the building where Kovac had his office, and indeed, were you aware of a
20 woman being kept in Kovac's office?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did you hear any complaints by a woman who'd been detained, of
23 being raped?
24 A. I don't know about any woman.
25 Q. Do you accept that people were taken to dig trenches under
1 compulsion and under guard?
2 A. They went. There were cases of people going to dig trenches. I
3 already said that.
4 Q. And as you explained to the people who spoke to you in 1998, would
5 this be right, Cerkez never did anything to stop the use of people for
6 those purposes.
7 A. I don't know how much Mr. Cerkez knew in respect of that.
8 Q. Is the answer to my question that, to your knowledge, Mr. Cerkez
9 did nothing to stop the use of people for those purposes?
10 A. I am not aware of anything in this regard as to whether anyone did
11 anything. I complained to Mr. Borislav Jozic a few times, and he said
12 that he would make an effort to stop this because it was in violation of
13 some kind of convention or something.
14 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm dealing with matters quickly. I'm not
15 necessarily accepting topics. I am coming to the very last question I
16 want to ask him unless I'm told by my colleagues there's something I've
18 Q. Are you saying, about Dr. Mujezinovic, that you were the person
19 who collected him the night the fighting broke out? I'm sorry, on the
20 19th, some days later?
21 A. I don't know which day it was. It wasn't during the night. It
22 was during the day.
23 Q. All right. But as you understood it, was this the first time that
24 Dr. Mujezinovic had been approached and taken in and approached for
25 whatever purpose?
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. Did you go alone or with anyone else?
3 A. I went alone from the outpatient office, together with -- after
4 having talked to Dr. Tibold.
5 Q. You see, he has told us of being taken by two people, Anto Kovac,
6 known as Zabac, and Ratko Nuk, on the occasion he was taken to negotiate
7 matters, amongst other things. What you are speaking about isn't that
8 occasion, is it?
9 A. I don't know. I only know about the case when I went to ask the
10 gentleman to come to the medical centre.
11 Q. And certainly you didn't go with these two other people, Kovac and
13 A. No.
14 MR. MIKULICIC: Just a couple of questions, Your Honour.
15 Re-examined by Mr. Mikulicic:
16 Q. Mr. Calic, my colleague, the Prosecutor, asked you whether
17 Mr. Cerkez did anything to stop people from being taken away to trench
18 digging. You said that you were not aware of that. I'm going to ask you
19 something slightly different but on the same subject. In view of your
20 experience, including your professional experience as a member of the
21 military police, did Mr. Cerkez have the possibility and the authority to
22 issue such orders?
23 A. Absolutely not.
24 Q. Also you were asked about your previous criminal record, if any.
25 Was there ever a legal decision that was passed by which you were actually
1 found guilty of having committed a crime?
2 A. No.
3 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you. I have no further questions, Your
5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Calic, that concludes your evidence. You are now
6 free to go. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal.
7 [The witness withdrew]
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE MAY: Now, Mr. Kovacic, you said you wanted a quarter of an
10 hour; is that right?
11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Actually, we took advantage of the
12 break that we had. We talked, so I can communicate our position to you
14 Irrespective of the decision passed by the Trial Chamber, and we
15 appreciate that the fact that it could have helped, in fact, we have been
16 brought into an impossible position due to the conduct of the Prosecution
17 in respect of the discovery of documents. My professional obligation does
18 not allow me to advise my client to testify under such conditions nor can
19 my client do that without knowing the contents of the new evidence,
20 although they will not be used in the cross-examination or will be used
21 but only up to a point, but obviously these documents do exist.
22 I just wish to add yet another reason. It is not the Defence --
23 JUDGE MAY: You cannot challenge the Ruling of the Trial Chamber,
24 if that is what you are seeking to do. What are you going to do,
25 Mr. Kovacic?
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I am certainly not challenging the
2 Ruling of the Trial Chamber. I just wish to present the reasons why we
3 cannot accept this. On the contrary --
4 JUDGE MAY: No, Mr. Kovacic. It's not a question of your
5 accepting it or not. It's a Ruling, so you are bound by it. Now, what
6 are you trying to say? It's the time now for, if you wish to, to call
7 Mr. Cerkez. The decision whether to call him or not is entirely yours and
8 his together. We have refused the application for an adjournment. We are
9 not going to review that now. We've considered all the matters and given
10 our reasons.
11 If you are going to call him, call him. If not, don't try and use
12 the decision of the Trial Chamber as an excuse, if that's what you're
13 going to do. It sounds as though -- I may be wrong -- but that sounds as
14 though that's what you are trying to do and that would be wholly wrong.
15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by no means do I intend
16 to challenge in any way your Ruling. On the contrary, we think that your
17 Ruling has put us in a better position compared to the position that we
18 were in before that. However, I just feel duty-bound to tell the Court,
19 at least as a matter of courtesy, that we have been brought into a new
20 position due to the fact that the Prosecution has piled a heap of
21 documents on us. In some way it is being implied by the Prosecution that
22 the Defence is involved in some kind of conspiracy that could have
23 received these documents and manipulated with them or something like
24 that. We were not even close to these documents, and I think I mentioned
25 this before. We got the first documents in Croatia after the Prosecutor
1 did, after the Prosecutor paved the way for us, and we actually thank him
2 for it.
3 There is only one thing that I wanted to say to the Trial Chamber
4 in order to make our position better understood. In spite of these better
5 conditions that have been provided for us, we believe that we are
6 profession duty-bound to advise our client not to testify since he has not
7 seen the new documents. The documents have not been tendered yet, but
8 they will and might be tendered in due time, so we would like to thank you
9 and, of course, we are glad to answer any questions you might have, if
11 JUDGE MAY: So I take it you are closing your case, subject to
12 production of exhibits?
13 MR. KOVACIC: Yes, Your Honour, that is correct. We are closing
14 our case. We don't have any further witnesses. There is only one open
15 witness which we earlier mentioned, linguistic witness. Unfortunately,
16 there is not, so far, any agreement with the Prosecution on that issue.
17 We will simply give up, but if the Court will allow us to bring that
18 witness on rebuttal, perhaps we will appreciate that. If not, not.
19 JUDGE MAY: I just want to consult. There are various
20 administrative matters which we've got to deal with. There's the question
21 of rebuttal. So we will need to sit, I guess, for at least one more day
22 this week. I'll hear any submissions that anybody else has got to make
23 about things. Just one moment.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE MAY: In order not to waste time, what we need to do is to
1 consider the outstanding matters and anything else which usefully can be
2 done this week. What we have in mind is, since we are not going to sit
3 till 3.00, is to spend some time in discussing ourselves what remains to
4 be done and, if it's convenient, to sit again at 3.30. If the parties
5 would also like to consider the position as to when it might be convenient
6 to deal with all the outstanding issues, to deal with as much as we can
7 this week. It may be helpful at 3.30 to make a list of the things and
8 then decide when we're going to deal with them.
9 MR. NICE: I agree. I think I can help the Chamber. I don't
10 think the transcript is going to be a problem, that is, the Cerkez
11 transcript witnesses, not so far as we're concerned. I'll confirm that.
12 As to rebuttal, the argument was originally timetabled for Friday, and
13 I'll find out when we'll be ready to deal with that. Obviously, Thursday
14 might be easier. But on the other hand, the interests of the Chamber and
15 its members might be in favour of having it on Wednesday or even earlier,
16 if we can manage it. So I'll review that.
17 There is one short matter that I'd like to deal with in closed
18 session. Perhaps I can deal with that now.
19 [Closed session]
17 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 3.34 p.m.
2 [Open session]
3 JUDGE MAY: The first matter I'm going to deal with is to give a
4 ng in relation to a video recording, Exhibit Z1428. This was to be
5 admitted in the case in the -- during the evidence of Witness DL.
6 Objection was taken on the ground that that witness did not appear
7 although, in fact, it wasn't certain whether he did or not, and the Trial
8 Chamber agreed that it would look at the video to determine whether he did
9 or not.
10 A further objection was taken that the events shown were outside
11 the period of the indictment. However, the Trial Chamber have determined,
12 one, that Witness DL does indeed appear, the subject matter being a visit
13 of President Tudjman, and DL is quite clear, as is the accused Mr. Kordic,
14 who appears. In the view of the Trial Chamber, it's a relevant matter
15 although it's slightly after the time in the indictment and, therefore, it
16 is admissible. However, there is part of the recording which deals with
17 totally different matters and not the visit, and that will be deleted.
18 That deals with that matter.
19 We have considered what is outstanding, and we find the following
20 matters have to be resolved this week before Thursday: First of all, the
21 rebuttal witnesses, the extent to be permitted involving, too, the
22 disclosure of three witnesses. The next matter is the objections, if any,
23 to the Kordic Defence exhibits, which is being resolved. The Cerkez
24 expert witness, Ms. Nikolic-Hoyt. The Prosecution video of the scene,
25 which we have to see. The Cerkez transcript witnesses and the order of
1 cross-examination of the Court witnesses are all matters on which rulings
2 may be necessary and, if they are to be given, they should be dealt with.
3 There may be other matters.
4 The Chamber would have in mind dealing with these matters on
5 Wednesday or Thursday. We'll hear the parties on that and make a
6 decision. It would seem that there is at least half a day's work there,
7 maybe more, but in any event, it can be contained within the day. Any
9 MR. NICE: Can I help? I think, actually, a number of the issues
10 won't take particularly long, although, for example, looking at the list
11 of matters, as to the Cerkez transcript witnesses, although the evidence
12 that they give is not evidence with which we agree or which we accept, and
13 although the cross-examination in the other case in which they were called
14 was not necessarily on the points that we would have cross-examined on
15 ourselves, we take the view, subject to any different view of the Chamber,
16 that for what that material may be worth in due course, it being largely
17 cumulative, we don't object to any of them going before you. So we hope
18 that that's --
19 JUDGE MAY: Thank you, we'll admit those.
20 MR. NICE: -- helpful.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
22 MR. NICE: As to Nikolic-Hoyt, as I understand Mr. Kovacic this
23 morning, he was effectively abandoning her for the time being and just
24 leaving open as a possibility calling her at rejoinder stage. We, in any
25 event, were minded to argue that the evidence is tangential in the
1 extreme, and that the point that seems to be -- that Mr. Kovacic wants in
2 is the point that he and Mr. Naumovski have made whenever they speak to a
3 witness and say to the witness, "We speak the same language," and the
4 witness accepts it. That point is noncontroversial so far as we are
5 concerned and the way they deal with it. There may be other aspects of
6 the imposition of the use of the Croatian language which have been given
7 in evidence and which are relevant, but the particular point to which this
8 evidence seems to be going seems to be tangential and, in any event, is
9 reserved at best or worst for rejoinder. So I expect that issue may have
11 JUDGE MAY: Let me hear Mr. Kovacic on that.
12 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, I agree that it is indeed really not a
13 very important thing. But, however, there is a claim in paragraph 4, if I
14 am not wrong, I think it is 4 in introductory part of the indictment that,
15 among other things, based on the fact that Croatians in Bosnia were using
16 Croatian language, it is like a good base to conclude that Republic of
17 Croatia, if I may say, controlled that war.
18 On such a claim, I offered a witness expert who basically said
19 what language was spoken in all that country, at that time the same
20 country. We did hear the testimony about that also used, if you would
21 probably remember, a witness Anto Miketa who explained what were the
22 subjects in the school and books, et cetera, and I agree it is peripheral
23 but there is such a claim in the indictment and that was the only idea
24 about this expert testimony. For technical reasons, unfortunately, this
25 lady is not able to come, and the only technical possibility to avoid
1 video conference which is, I understood from the registry, very expensive,
2 it was merely a suggestion as an exception to have that testimony during
3 the rejoinder.
4 JUDGE MAY: So what are you asking us to do with that now,
6 MR. KOVACIC: I would like to have at least an open possibility to
7 call that expert witness during the rejoinder but not really as a
8 rejoinder witness because she certainly is not rejoinder.
9 JUDGE MAY: Very well. That does not have to be dealt with,
10 then. That still leaves the rebuttal, which may or may not be a
11 substantial issue, and the Kordic Defence exhibits.
12 MR. NICE: Can I help with Kordic Defence exhibits? There have
13 been two meetings, I think, last week involving both sides and registry,
14 and there's been a very substantial boiling down to a reduced mass what
15 are outstanding as issues between the parties, and we've been in the
16 process of preparing really rather a short document reflecting what's in
17 dispute. Over the period between this morning's hearing and today, I
18 think further items have been deleted by further consideration given to
19 the topics.
20 There is the potential for unresolved questions about certain
21 exhibits because a large number of exhibits, I think all Blaskic orders,
22 have yet to be translated, but the reality is that if they are Blaskic
23 orders on their face, there's going to be no grounds for objecting to
24 them. And providing we can technically keep open any objection in
25 relation to any particular exhibit that turns up, I think we'll be able to
1 lodge a very short document, or pretty short document, which won't take
2 you very long to dispose of, either on Wednesday or Thursday.
3 As to Blaskic orders and their provenance and so on, there is one
4 of the ones, as I explained already, I think this morning, that I've
5 referred to -- specifically to Mr. Kovacic. I haven't yet to Mr. Sayers,
6 but I did to Mr. Kovacic because of the prospect of evidence today,
7 explaining that we do now -- we will now be arguing that that document is
8 not a genuine document as to its purported date, and we have more material
9 on that. The Chamber may remember that document of the 15th of
10 June -- 15th of April. But that apart, I think the Blaskic orders, by and
11 large, will be admissible -- I beg your pardon. It's up to the Chamber
12 whether they are admitted or not. They won't be objected to by us.
13 And the remaining issues, probably less than half an hour, 20
14 minutes to resolve, I would have thought.
15 JUDGE MAY: The video.
16 MR. NICE: The video, I'm hoping that it's going to be made
17 tomorrow. I've asked -- well, I've asked for it to be kept as short as is
18 reasonably possible, while it's still going to be useful and of interest.
19 It covers, of course, not only locations that we wanted to cover, but also
20 those that Mr. Kovacic wanted to cover. And we, I think, managed to find
21 all, or all but about one or two, of the locations he asked us to film. I
22 think that its duration is likely to be, but this is very much a guess at
23 the moment, 40 minutes or thereabouts, and I'm very hopeful that it will
24 be available for the witness to answer questions about it on Wednesday. I
25 can't promise Wednesday, but I would hope Wednesday.
1 And as to rebuttal, we would, I think, be happy to deal with it on
2 either Wednesday or Thursday. I know that Mr. Sayers was going to provide
3 an argument on Wednesday. It may be that with a court day off tomorrow,
4 he'll be able to provide it a little earlier than that, but it's a matter
5 for him and the Chamber really.
6 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, with the day off tomorrow, we should
7 be able to provide our submission on the rebuttal witnesses and the
8 rebuttal exhibits. We'll do our best to get that polished up and in a
9 professional form and filed as early as possible tomorrow so that it would
10 be available, if the Court wishes, for argument on Wednesday.
11 On the matter of exhibits, my information from the Registrar is
12 that we now have all translations of all Croatian documents. They've
13 already been submitted. And I think that all of the formal matters
14 regarding authenticity, legibility, things of that variety, those have
15 already been worked out, so the argument on Mr. Kordic's outstanding
16 exhibits should be short.
17 With respect to the video, obviously we weren't invited to
18 participate in that process, and we would appreciate receiving a copy of
19 it so that we can review it before it is considered for admission into
21 There are a couple of issues that we would wish to discuss in
22 private session, but that can be left for Wednesday. And I notice that
23 there has been -- that the Court has recently entered an order requiring
24 additional secret witnesses to be disclosed to us by Friday. We would
25 appreciate it if the Court could accelerate the date for disclosure to the
1 date when the rebuttal conference is going to be heard. The date of
2 disclosure had originally been ordered to be the rebuttal conference on
3 Friday. If it's going to be held on Wednesday, we would greatly
4 appreciate it if we could know the identity of these last few witnesses on
5 that day. And I think that's all the matters that we have, Your Honour.
6 MR. NICE: So far as those are concerned, the position may differ
7 as between them. One in particular, it may be one for whom we would apply
8 for extension until at least Friday, for reasons that I can deal with
9 probably on Wednesday. I'm not sure about the position as to the other
10 two. I'll make inquiries as soon as we rise.
11 JUDGE MAY: The sooner they're disclosed, the better.
12 MR. NICE: Of course, yes. Absolutely.
13 I'm happy to say that the last transcript in respect of the
14 (redacted) in B/C/S has now been provided, so that's an exercise that's
15 been completed. We were served this morning with one affidavit by the
16 Cerkez case that I don't think is shown as relating to any witness, and it
17 may be there's now no longer any request to put the affidavit in. I don't
18 know what the position is on that.
19 MR. KOVACIC: No, Your Honour. It was just automatic work. In
20 the eve of the Cerkez testimony we filed that affidavit, but now it does
21 not fit into the Rule now.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice, I'm speaking on behalf
24 of the Chamber. The Chamber has just read the document entitled -- [In
25 English] [inaudible] concerning rebuttal case. [Interpretation] We were
1 surprised, because you are telling us that this list of rebuttal witnesses
2 can vary from 12 to 25 or 13 to 25, and you said that you would probably
3 call only 12 to 13 witnesses, but you had this list of 25 potential
4 witnesses. Obviously, we want to have a clear idea, a definite idea on
5 Wednesday or Thursday about the list of witnesses you intend to call as
6 far as the rebuttal procedure, and we want a definite list. We also want
7 to hear your submissions about the justification for calling these
8 rebuttal witnesses with regard to the ongoing procedure. As we've
9 explained, you have to explain why you call people in rebuttal,
10 mentioning, for example, new exhibits, et cetera. That's what we are
11 expecting from you on Wednesday or Thursday; i.e., we want to be something
12 very definite, once and for all, thus enabling us to organise the end of
13 the trial.
14 MR. NICE: Two points. One, I think -- I'm afraid I haven't
15 actually got the document with me. I foolishly didn't bring it down. But
16 I think that you'll find that the document discriminates between two
17 potential categories of witness. Notwithstanding the decision of the
18 Appeals Chamber, it seems to us there is proper scope for admitting
19 evidence by way of affidavit, and that argument will be addressed on
20 Wednesday or Thursday, and they're identified in the schedule that
21 accompanies the pleading as witnesses whose evidence might properly be
22 accepted in that form.
23 Thus I think the explanation for the difference in numbers.
24 Second, I think that the schedule also identifies the subject matter of
25 the witnesses, and thus the reason why they qualify as rebuttal but, of
1 course, I, or I think it will be Mr. Scott, will deal with matters more
2 fully on Wednesday or Thursday where there is an issue arising.
3 JUDGE MAY: We ought to have also a time estimate for the
5 MR. NICE: Yes.
6 JUDGE MAY: If you haven't done it already.
7 MR. NICE: I've proposed that already to Mr. Scott and we'll try
8 and do that. I think we can certainly do it with some. The -- many of
9 the witnesses would be giving evidence on very restricted issues and would
10 not be long and, indeed, I think we've even suggested within the pleading
11 as a possibility, were it to commend itself, that for some of the
12 witnesses, statements recently taken could qualify as evidence in chief if
13 adopted, freeing up time for cross-examination.
14 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, if I may --
15 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice, while you are on your
16 feet, if I understand you correctly, you say that, notwithstanding the
17 decision of the Appeals Chamber, you intend to use affidavits for rebuttal
18 witnesses. Have I understood you correctly?
19 MR. NICE: Correct.
20 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Do you think this is compatible
21 with the decision of the Appeals Chamber?
22 MR. NICE: We do. Indeed, we don't think that, as presently
23 formulated, Rule 94 ter necessarily contemplates evidence in rebuttal and
24 therefore one has to look at another route for the admission of affidavit
25 evidence, but we take the view that this will be a proper, helpful,
1 useful, and fair method for adducing evidence in certain circumstances,
2 thus our document.
3 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, we will be addressing that particular
4 point in our rebuttal opposition. We urge the Court to look carefully at
5 the Appeals Chamber decision because we think that it's completely
6 inconsistent with the proposal made by the Prosecution, but we can --
7 we'll outline that in our pleadings. As I said, that should be ready for
9 I did forget, there is one more outstanding issue, that's the day
10 late and dollar short issue, our request for a binding order for the
11 Kingdom of Sweden.
12 JUDGE MAY: That, I can tell you, is at hand.
13 MR. SAYERS: Thank you.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE MAY: Well, we'll sit again on Wednesday, then, since that's
16 the earliest available date to deal with these matters. Half past nine
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
19 at 3.57 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday
20 the 18th day of October, 2000, at 9.30 a.m.
13 Blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
13 Blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.