1 Tuesday, 23 November 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Momcilo Krajisnik.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Good morning to everyone. I'd like to thank the technicians and
10 the interpreters for staying with us yesterday relatively late. I didn't
11 pay any attention to it, but it's always, even if I do not say anything
12 about it, it's always highly appreciated, and I should avoid it to happen
13 too often.
14 Then I informed the parties that some material has been
15 received -- let me just check.
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I was to announce that some material has been
19 received from Mr. Kljuic's diary. A submission was made by the Defence.
20 It's still in B/C/S at this moment. I do not know how complete it is, but
21 just inform the parties that at least some material has arrived. It will
22 be distributed already in B/C/S to start with, and then we would like to
23 have a translation as soon as possible.
24 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll convey that to
25 Mr. Stewart.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
2 Then, Ms. Loukas, are you ready to start your cross-examination?
3 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. I can indicate, Your Honour, having considered
4 the matter overnight, in light of Your Honour's ruling yesterday afternoon
5 and having had the opportunity of having a conference with Mr. Krajisnik
6 this morning, I can indicate there will be no cross-examination of the
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No cross-examination.
9 MS. LOUKAS: Of course, that's subject to any questions, any
10 further questions Your Honours might have and any questions arising out of
11 that, should there be any questions, but at this stage there's no further
12 cross-examination from the Defence.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Since there are no questions from the Bench either,
16 there's no need to ask the Prosecution whether any further questions would
17 arise out of the examination of the witness by -- the cross-examination of
18 the witness or the examination by the Bench. Nevertheless, I'd like to
19 ask the witness to enter the courtroom.
20 So, Madam Usher, if you would please escort Mr. Music into the
22 MR. HANNIS: And, Your Honour, then, once we've excused him,
23 before we bring in the next witness, I would just like to alert the Court
24 to two sort of procedural scheduling matters.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that they relate to the 6 or
1 8 December issue.
2 MR. HANNIS: That's one, and the other relates to the witness that
3 we finished or that we ended with on the 14th of November.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 WITNESS: MEHMED MUSIC [Resumed]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Music.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Music, what you would have expected is that you
10 would be cross-examined by Defence counsel at this moment. The Chamber
11 has just been informed by Defence counsel that they have no further
12 questions for you.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Let me therefore explain at this moment the
15 situation. You've testified yesterday. Most of what you said was related
16 to what was already contained in your earlier statements. You also
17 testified yesterday about matters that were entirely new. You may
18 remember the visits of two individuals you mentioned visiting the places
19 where you were detained. Since the Defence had had no opportunity to
20 prepare for that, the Chamber decided yesterday that this would be
21 excluded from your testimony in this court, although if at a later stage,
22 for reasons known to the parties, the Prosecution would like to have that
23 part of your testimony also included, they could apply for that and that
24 the Chamber would then give a decision, and then also, on those parts of
25 your testimony, an opportunity would be given to the Defence to
1 cross-examine you on those parts. But that's the situation at this
2 moment. So it's a bit uncertain now what will happen. There's a fair
3 chance that this concludes your testimony and that you'll not be called to
4 reappear in this courtroom. There is, however, also a small chance that
5 at a later stage the Prosecution will apply for inserting the parts I just
6 mentioned in your testimony and to be admitted into evidence, in which
7 case you would be recalled in order to answer questions to be put to you
8 by the Defence.
9 I'd like to instruct you, since the situation is uncertain, not to
10 speak, especially not about those portions of your testimony which were
11 new, that is, your observation that Mr. Krajisnik -- that you once saw
12 Mr. Krajisnik when detained in the police station and that you saw a
13 couple of times Mr. Mandic when you were detained at Kula prison.
14 Ms. Edgerton.
15 MS. EDGERTON: Just to bring to the Court's attention something
16 Your Honours may not be aware of. Mr. Music has recently given evidence
17 in court in his own country about -- I was informed of this when he came -
18 about the facts related to his detention, but in respect of a completely
19 different accused. But it may be the case, between now and a time in the
20 future when he might come to testify, that he might be called again to
21 testify in his own country about some of the evidence he's put before the
22 Trial Chamber in the last day.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, is there any submission you would
24 like to make in this respect? I am about to give as guidance to this
25 witness that whatever legal obligations he has, whatever it would imply as
1 far as preparation is concerned, that he should meet his legal obligations
2 in his own jurisdiction.
3 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour, and I've got a matter arising
4 from what's just been said, of course. But I can deal with that
5 subsequently to Your Honour's direction to the witness.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we don't -- it will have no consequences
7 for any further guidance or instructions to be given to the witness?
8 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Music, I just instructed you not to speak,
10 especially about those portions. I do understand that in these uncertain
11 situations, that might not be easy for you, but I'd nevertheless ask you
12 to do that. I would also like to hear from the Prosecution, as soon as
13 possible, whether it's even considered to make any application to reinsert
14 the stricken parts of the testimony so that Mr. Music is not unnecessarily
15 under this pressure for a longer period of time.
16 Mr. Music, I add to that that if you're called to testify in any
17 proceedings in your own country, and if you have to discuss these matters
18 with those who are involved in those proceedings, the instructions I just
19 gave you should not prevent you from meeting any obligations in your own
20 jurisdiction. So whenever you're called or whenever you have to discuss
21 those matters with the parties that will call you in your own system,
22 you're fully entitled to do so and to meet your obligations.
23 This perhaps is -- these are issues of a legal, technical nature.
24 Do you have any questions in relation to it, or do you -- or did you fully
25 understand what I just said to you?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have completely understood. But
2 might I just be allowed to say a word? Yesterday, when you played the
3 tape, Mr. Sipcic, and the fact that he set aside 47 Bosniaks, I learnt
4 yesterday that that was the man. I only learnt that yesterday. He worked
5 in the factory in Hadzici for 13 years and he was in the Territorial
6 Defence. He was a lieutenant colonel. And he shook his hand while I was
7 going by. That's what I wanted to add yesterday.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that you now give us some
9 additional information. If that would cause any of the parties to put any
10 additional questions, I'll give them an opportunity to do so. The
11 relevance, especially in view of the determinations we'll have to make,
12 might be small, but ...
13 Ms. Loukas.
14 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Just in relation to that, Your Honour, of
15 course the witness's evidence at this stage has been completed, and that
16 additional piece of evidence I would submit should be disregarded in the
17 circumstances, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll give a ruling on that perhaps. We might
19 do that five minutes later than at this very moment.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, we'll give a ruling on that, but for
22 psychological reasons, the Court prefers to do that after five minutes,
23 perhaps when the witness has left, and you might understand what that
24 actually means.
25 Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Music. Well, it's a bit
1 unexpected, perhaps, for you that your testimony is concluded now.
2 Whenever you have any specific questions in relation what I just told to
3 you and what you said you fully understood, you can always ask them, the
4 victims and witness section, and they'll then give you the answers, if
5 need be, after consultation with the Chamber.
6 Mr. Music, I'd like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague
7 and to have answered all the questions put to you, and I'd like to wish
8 you a safe trip home again.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, the Chamber still owes you and the
12 Prosecution a decision. The Chamber will disregard the additional
13 observations made this morning by the witness, Mr. Music.
14 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour pleases. There's just one further matter
15 that remains, of course, and that is in relation to what was indicated by
16 Ms. Edgerton for the Prosecution whilst Your Honours were dealing with the
17 witness, and that is that the witness has given evidence in another
18 jurisdiction. Now, of course, that should have been previously disclosed
19 to the Defence, and I'd first like to inquire through the Trial Chamber
20 when the Prosecution first became aware of that aspect, and of course why
21 the Defence was not informed of this giving of evidence in another
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
24 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honour, we became aware of this when we were
25 told of this by Mr. Music when he came for his proofing on Sunday, and in
1 fact, it took some time to get to the bottom of it, and we're still not
2 quite sure we're at bottom. But this only happened, he told us, on
3 Tuesday of last week, so there's simply insufficient time to react in any
4 constructive way for either side.
5 We still don't know and are not able to get a clear answer from
6 Mr. Music. I'm not sure he himself understands whether or not it was in
7 fact testimony or whether he appeared before an investigating judge in his
8 own jurisdiction, and you can appreciate why -- he's not quite certain
9 himself. So we're not in any position to react as quickly as we might
10 have otherwise.
11 In any case, what we can do is make a request through the liaison
12 officer of the Bosnian authorities for further details about whatever
13 evidence he might have given, in what form, to ask for a copy of the
14 transcript, if one exists, and certainly review it for any material that
15 might well be Rule 68 and make the appropriate disclosures.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. On the other hand, of course,
17 the testimony of the witness has, at least as it stands now, been
18 concluded. Ms. Edgerton, would it not have been wise, even if you had no
19 details, to at least tell the Defence what you knew at that time, that
20 there was information about whether it would be an interview, testimony,
21 whether it would be any statement given to an examining magistrate, and
22 that you were just informed about it and that you had no further details,
23 but that the Defence -- they might have -- know more about it. They might
24 even have assisted you. I'm not -- because now we are in a situation that
25 of course you'll now disclose any further information you get. But let's
1 be very practical. I think the Defence would agree that whatever
2 information is available should be disclosed to the Defence, and if that
3 would cause the Defence to make any further replications, we'll hear from
4 them, and it's now at least on the record that where you knew that last
5 Tuesday in one way or the other, the witness had expressed himself in a
6 setting of -- well, let's say criminal procedure, in whatever stage, that
7 the Defence was unaware of that. And if that would have any further
8 consequences based upon further information to be received, we'll hear
9 from the Defence.
10 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, Your Honour. Quite simply, I forgot.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's human.
12 Ms. Loukas.
13 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I take it that's an apology from
14 Ms. Edgerton, and I accept that apology in the circumstances. But, Your
15 Honour, there are two points here that Your Honour has made and that I
16 wish to underline. Firstly, that I put that marker down, that it must not
17 occur again. It's critical, and it is in the interests of justice that
18 all the material that the Prosecution have is disclosed to the Defence,
19 firstly. And secondly, as a result of having received this material, if
20 there's any further application that needs to be made, of course the
21 Prosecution and the Trial Chamber will be appropriately informed.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Ms. Loukas.
23 Then, Madam Registrar, would you please guide us through the
24 exhibits that have been introduced through Mr. Music.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P407A, witness testimony, dated 18 April
1 1993, and English translation.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Is that testimony or statement? I think it's a
3 statement. Yes. It's written down there. It's a statement of the
4 witness given to the local authorities.
5 THE REGISTRAR: P407B, statement dated 23 March 1994, and English
6 translation. P407C, statement dated 26 June 1997. And P407C.1, B/C/S
7 translation. P407D, statement dated 21 February 1998, and English
8 translation. P408, map marked on three places by witness, including
9 locations of Blazuj and Hadzici. P409, photograph bearing ERN number
10 0052020035. P410, photograph bearing ERN number 0052020020. And P411,
11 excerpt of transcript, conversation between Karadzic and Momcilo Mandic.
12 P411.1, English translation.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I think there we might have a mistake.
14 MS. EDGERTON: With respect to the last thing.
15 JUDGE ORIE: P411, yes. Because I think that P4 -- no. I think
16 it's -- I think it's right.
17 Ms. Edgerton.
18 MS. EDGERTON: Sorry. Because the description was read out as
19 being an excerpt of the transcript ...
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And it should be?
21 MS. EDGERTON: It is, in fact, the full transcripts in both
22 languages. The audio -- the CD will be delivered.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And therefore, perhaps we should renumber them
24 to make the original transcript P411A, the English translation P411A.1,
25 and then the CD gets number P411, still to be delivered.
1 And then let me just -- the reports that were presented numbers
2 were replaced, and they are withdrawn or not admitted by the Chamber. But
3 at least they're not in evidence. That's clear. Yes.
4 Are there any other procedural issues at this moment?
5 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I understand what's outstanding is
6 not scheduling matters that Mr. Hannis wanted to raise with the Chamber
7 and Mr. Stewart.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It's good to you remind me. We were informed last
9 week that the plenary will not take place at the 6th of December, but only
10 on the 8th of December, and therefore we had some rescheduling issues.
11 Mr. Hannis.
12 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. We were contacted by
13 Mr. De Hemptinne from your chambers yesterday and looked at that. We
14 had -- because we had thought that the plenary was going to be on the 6th,
15 we didn't have anybody scheduled for that date. And the first witness we
16 have scheduled that week is a witness who is -- for whom we have requested
17 a summons or a subpoena to attend, which the Court has granted and sent
18 out and as I understand it, it's been served. So that's the date he is
19 going to attend.
20 To try and move him up now might require, I don't know if it's
21 going to require another subpoena order. So we were considering if we
22 could find some short witness that we could put on and complete in a day.
23 I'm not sure who fits that bill, Your Honour. Perhaps a 92 bis witness
24 that's only going to come for cross.
25 That takes me to the related issue. Mr. Bjelobrk, who we ended
1 with on the 14th, the Court still had to decide whether or not you were
2 going to require him to return for further cross-examination. So if you
3 do, that's somebody we might be able to plug in to that date.
4 MR. STEWART: Didn't Mr. Hannis --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone, please.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, microphone.
7 MR. STEWART: Sorry, Your Honour. I'm just wondering, in order to
8 save going off on the wrong tangent, I don't know whether Mr. Hannis got
9 my e-mail yesterday evening.
10 MS. EDGERTON: No, I didn't. I haven't read it.
11 MR. STEWART: Well, perhaps he's got it and hasn't -- as sometimes
12 happens hasn't put it top of his list of priorities. I'm not personally
13 offended, but perhaps that happened. May I -- it might be helpful, if I
14 say, Your Honour, the central point of my e-mail was a very specific
15 request that we should not deal with Mr. Bjelobrk on the 6th of December.
16 I explained some of the reasons to Mr. Hannis, but so we don't go off in
17 that direction, I did make that specific request.
18 JUDGE ORIE: May I invite the parties to see whether they could
19 agree on a witness to be plugged in on the 6th of December.
20 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I think we -- sorry. I'm sure we can.
21 It was specifically Mr. --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. I do understand. And then I'll wait --
23 yes. Any other issue, Mr. Hannis.
24 MR. HANNIS: That raises the possibility, Your Honour, because I
25 think on December 2nd and 3rd we have two other witnesses who are
1 returning for cross. And we might be able to switch one of those to
2 Monday and put Mr. Bjelobrk in on Thursday or Friday, the 2nd or 3rd of
4 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'm sorry. I'm trying to be helpful
5 here. The point of my e-mail was, and I'll be absolutely frank about it,
6 Your Honour --
7 JUDGE ORIE: If you need more time --
8 MR. STEWART: No. It's this, Your Honour: It's that I wish not
9 to have to be here on the 6th of December and the point I made was that
10 whatever witness comes in on the 6th of December, please would be it one
11 that Ms. Loukas could deal with rather than me. That was the point. So,
12 for example, if Mr. Kljuic came back, the same problem would arise.
13 MS. LOUKAS: Actually, Your Honour, there is one point I can make,
14 seeing that it's a witness that I would have to deal with, and it's this:
15 I think that we've got a witness coming back, a witness that I'm dealing
16 with, and that's -- and I don't think he's a protected witness.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, may I -- may I --
18 MS. LOUKAS: So I can't --
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- suggest to the parties that you try to --
20 MS. LOUKAS: And I think he was meant to come back late that first
21 week of December. I think it perhaps was the 3rd or the 4th. And perhaps
22 he could be dealt with on the 6th.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, I feel that on all sides there is a
24 willingness to agree the Chamber would be very happy to hear about the
25 agreement you reached.
1 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. Perhaps the end result rather
2 than trying to decide by committee in court.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then there was another issue whether it would be any
4 problem to sit on the 6th in the afternoon rather than in the morning.
5 MR. HANNIS: That's not a problem for us, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I take it from the nodding from the Defence that
7 there's no problem.
8 MR. STEWART: I'm saying it's not a problem for Ms. Loukas, Your
9 Honour. That's my prerogative to -- but I hope she agrees.
10 JUDGE ORIE: It's always good that someone takes care of you. So
11 then any other --
12 MR. HANNIS: The other matter was, Your Honour, on the 14th, as
13 you'll recall, we went over time so long that we actually ran out of
14 videotape, and so we had a couple of portions on the transcript that don't
15 appear on the videotape and we talked about at other next session somehow
16 trying to put that information on the record.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. HANNIS: I think we had about --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Of course it is in the transcript.
20 MR. HANNIS: -- about three pages' worth of transcript.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do remember that we said that we would
22 announce that there were some parts which did not appear on the video and
23 I don't know whether it's on the audio, but at least that it's clear that
24 on the 14th of November, a small portion of three pages of transcript does
25 not appear on the videotapes.
1 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. And for the record, I think all
2 that happened on -- during that time was that the witness was called back
3 in. He was informed that the Chamber still had to make a decision about
4 whether he would be required to return. He was advised not to discuss his
5 testimony unless and until the Court advised him otherwise.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm grateful for your assistance in what I
7 should have put into the record. But I'd forgotten about it, that it
8 still had to be done. Thank you very much, Mr. Hannis.
9 Any further issues?
10 MR. HANNIS: No, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No. Then before the Prosecution is invited to call
12 its next witness, which will be Mr. Mandic, I would just make the
13 following observation: I think Mr. Mandic is one of the witnesses which
14 is covered by the submission the Prosecution made in respect of witnesses
15 that could potentially become adverse witnesses. The Chamber is aware of
16 it. The Chamber has considered how to deal with that. I know that the
17 classical common-law solution is that at a certain moment -- well, you
18 have different terms for that, that the witness turns hostile or, well,
19 several expressions are used for the same, that it is that the witness
20 does not answer the questions in such a way the party that called him
21 could expect him to do. The Chamber takes the position that whenever the
22 calling party considers this situation to arise that it should be made
23 clear, and the Chamber will then decide what to do. As you may have
24 noticed, this Chamber is not following the, I would say the strict
25 common-law tradition where at that moment permission will be given to the
1 party that called the witness to treat him as if it was a witness of the
2 opposite party. As you may have noticed, sometimes in these kind of
3 situations, the Chamber has shown more initiative than you would expect
4 from a Chamber under the common-law tradition. And if that situation
5 would happen, in view of, in this case, the Prosecution, the Prosecution
6 is invited to draw the attention of the Chamber to the fact that, in the
7 view of the Prosecution, this situation -- that the situation has become
8 the one as mentioned in your submission.
9 It might be that the Chamber at that moment will allow the
10 Prosecution to put questions in a more leading way to the witness, but not
11 necessarily on all issues. Perhaps on the issue the witness is testifying
12 about at that moment. The Chamber might also take more initiative at that
13 very moment. It very much depends on how the situation arises.
14 So there's no fixed solution for that situation, that is to say,
15 now from now on this witness is considered to be adverse witness or not.
16 The Chamber will consider the matter when it comes to that, and we'll take
17 into consideration also the course of the examination taken until then and
18 how the witness answered the questions.
19 So it's perhaps not the full guidance you would have expected, but
20 that might not be a surprise with this Chamber in matters of examination
21 of witnesses.
22 Are there any further questions? So the most important thing is
23 that the Chamber should be aware when the Prosecution considers the
24 situation to be the situation of an adverse witness.
25 MR. TIEGER: And Your Honour, just for clarification, I understand
1 that there's no particular formula or term of art that --
2 JUDGE ORIE: You could--
3 MR. TIEGER: -- the Court has in mind. It simply wants to be
4 aware of the Prosecution position.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. Perhaps -- but it could be done in such a
6 way, and that's why I'm addressing this issue at this moment. It could be
7 done in such a way that it's not a full explanation to the witness of what
8 the Prosecution considers the situation to be. I'm keeping in mind what I
9 just said. It might be enough for both parties and for the Chamber if an
10 indication would be there that the Prosecution considers the situation
11 such that a different approach, in its opinion, would be required. I
12 mean, I think if you would have any other, I would say, code, feel free to
13 use it, but not -- I would say not a big chance that the Chamber would
14 miss your message or that the Defence would miss the message. But if you
15 have any suggestion. I saw Mr. Hannis writing.
16 MR. TIEGER: No. I agree, Your Honour. I think there are a
17 variety of possibilities and I think during the course of the examination,
18 we will certainly make an effort, if necessary, to provide the appropriate
19 and effective signal to the Court and to the Defence.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if matters would be unclear, we always
21 could -- then a simple request, whether it would not be a proper moment to
22 ask the witness to leave the courtroom for a second, certainly might help
23 us out.
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we -- the Defence suggests that there's
1 unlikely to be a need or indeed a justification for any code on this
2 matter. There are two elements. One is -- one is it's a public trial, so
3 far as possible, code should be avoided.
4 JUDGE ORIE: No. But if the code is discussed in public. The one
5 and only reason for a code rather than, well, a full explanation would be
6 that the witness is not explained in full detail why he is considered to
7 have become an adverse witness at that moment. I mean, and why he's
8 treated in a different way. I mean, it's mainly a matter between the
9 parties, I would say. It's a procedural issue. And the code, of course,
10 is now discussed in public, so it's just to put the marker.
11 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, what I had in mind was this. I
12 was going to deal with that point. That so far as a code in terms of what
13 the application is, we suggest there's no need, because when the point
14 first arises, as frankly it's probably bound to, really, when the point
15 first arises, if it doesn't, then end of question, but when it first
16 arises, it is likely to be very apparent why it's arisen and very apparent
17 to the witness, and it's likely to be quite unnecessary to disguise from
18 the witness the fact that he is viewed by the Prosecution as giving in
19 some sense hostile or adverse evidence. So it's going to happen, and
20 there's no need to disguise it. And that fits the fact that it ought, as
21 far as possible, not to be coded as far as the public is concerned. So
22 that's going to be a question of the application being made. And then
23 everybody, including the public, will understand very clearly that there
24 is an application in relation to, well, hostile witnesses, one of the
25 convenient labels which is applied.
1 The next question, which is the development of the submission in
2 relation to that particular part of the evidence, is one on which it may
3 or may not be necessary to ask the witness to leave court.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. STEWART: Sometimes it will be blindingly obvious to the
6 witness what the point is and no harm whatever will be done by discussing
7 it in his presence. Sometimes it will in the judgement and submission of
8 the parties be necessary for him to leave and we could deal with it that
9 way. But I do suggest that a code in terms of what type of application is
10 being made is unnecessary.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I should not have used the word "code" but at
12 least that the signal is clear enough for the parties and the Chamber that
13 we have reached the situation where this matter needs further attention.
15 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, the other point -- there is another
16 point not related to this witness. I'm sorry, I didn't jump in quickly
17 enough about five or ten minutes ago. I would like, preferably now, but
18 I'm not wedded to this particular moment, but I would like at some point
19 to raise the question of the material mentioned last night which has been
20 sent by Mr. Krajisnik to the Trial Chamber. I'm in Your Honour's hands as
21 to when exactly we deal with it, but I would ask for it not to be deferred
22 for too long.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I write that down. I'd rather start with the
24 witness now.
25 MR. STEWART: Yes, indeed, Your Honour. If we could just not lose
1 sight of that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Instructions have been given as I said to you
3 yesterday so the Chamber is still totally unaware of whatever the material
4 is and we'll hear about it on short notice.
5 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour, there is then a specific matter
6 in relation to this witness which would be better dealt with before the
7 witness comes into court.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. STEWART: And it's this, Your Honour: In an absolute
10 nutshell, it's the -- and I've indicated this to Mr. Tieger, either
11 yesterday or the night before, I think, probably. The Defence is
12 concerned -- the sheer volume of material in relation to this witness.
13 And in an attempt not to overload the Court with too much stuff for the
14 purpose of this submission, what we have done, Your Honour, is we have
15 prepared a schedule, or Ms. Dixon has prepared a schedule, which outlines
16 in summary the material which we have received. May I hand up this
17 schedule, copies? I have got plenty of copies this morning. Four is
18 enough for the Trial Chamber and the registrar, I hope, but we've got
19 more. One, two ... Is three enough for the Prosecution?
20 Your Honour, just to explain and just outline what it is. The
21 e-mails, they go in reverse-date order. What we set out here is a list of
22 49 e-mails received from the Prosecution in relation to this witness over
23 the last week, from Monday, the 15th of November --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Only 14 yesterday, I see.
25 MR. STEWART: There's only 14, yes. It was a quiet day yesterday,
1 Your Honour. I will say straight away, Your Honour, that this does not
2 fundamentally involve a criticism or an attack on the Prosecution. This
3 is not -- this is not some acrimonious battle between us and the
4 Prosecution. This is simply, we say, the way it is. So it's not -- we're
5 not talking about blame here. Everybody works very hard on this. But we
6 are talking about -- this is simply, actually the way the world is in
7 relation to this material. So we received these 49 e-mails over the last
9 To give -- it's a slightly crude piece of information, but we've
10 given the size of the attachments to the e-mail. To give some sort of
11 scale: A day's transcript, and we're all familiar with a day's
12 transcript, a day's transcript usually runs out at something like 300 to
13 350 kilobytes. So a megabyte is three days' transcript.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Unless it's a picture.
15 MR. STEWART: Absolutely, Your Honour. Of course. We recognise
16 and we've made some notes here to indicate that if you're talking about,
17 for example, a video file, that's usually a very large file in terms of
18 megabytes and so on, and we've tried to make some adjustment for that.
19 But the broad picture is very clear anyway. But what it means is that
20 where we see, say, the first one -- or it's the last e-mail, but the first
21 one on the list, 53 kilobytes, that's going to be about 15 pages of
22 material, something like that, and then correspondingly the arithmetic
23 it's not -- well, it's not going to be too challenging for anybody in
24 court. But disclosure history is a different sort of item under e-mail
25 number 2 anyway. But when we see, for example, item 6, number 6, 92,
1 similarly, that's about 25 pages of stuff. But item 8, 545, 1 -- 545.
2 That's going to be about 160, 170 pages of stuff, and then 128 is going to
3 be about another 30 or 40 pages. So --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Is that all new material? And if we're talking about
5 exhibits, we all know that -- and of course I'm not contesting what you're
6 saying, but of course much depends on whether it's text format, which
7 usually a lot of information is stored already in a few kilobytes, whereas
8 if you make a copy of a document, then of course if it's a scanned
9 document, that takes a lot of kilobytes or even megabytes, where it's more
10 easy to look at the content of those documents. But I do understand you.
11 You say these are considerable quantities of information passed to the
12 Defence recently.
13 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, yes. And the refinement,
14 Ms. Dixon particularly has spent so many hours on this material anyway
15 that the refinement of asking her to go through and divide up the material
16 into those categories for this purpose, frankly, I wouldn't have wished or
17 have been able to impose that on her in the time available. But, Your
18 Honour, when we see a file, I believe this is an intelligent inference,
19 that if we see a file which is 27, 30, 175 kilobytes it's actually most
20 unlikely to be a scanned document because it would be bigger. So the fact
21 that it is bigger means that it is text.
22 So there's an awful lot of stuff. And when we look over the page
23 at 12, 13, 14, we look at the e-mail 16, some of those are video
24 apparently -- although may be transcripts, actually, I think the V
25 references. And also, Your Honour, it's a combination of B/C/S and
1 English. So in a sense there's a duplication there. More of it is
2 English than B/C/S, because there's, for practical purposes, everything in
3 B/C/S also at some point appears in English but the converse doesn't
4 apply. So more than half the material is English.
5 So we see all those. And the e-mails themselves do tend to be
6 rather short because they say - paraphrasing here - more stuff for you is
7 the paraphrase really of every e-mail after the first one. And then we
8 get -- and, for example, number 33, nice and short e-mail number 33,
9 notification of CDs in locker. So we go down to 143 locker and we pick
10 out the CDs.
11 But those are the e-mails and, well, Your Honour can get the
12 picture there. This is over the last week. The -- and everyone has to be
13 processed. And I did ask Ms. Dixon, but I think we forgot to clarify how
14 many hours she had spent on this matter but I think it must be at least --
15 well, it was 40 hours plus, 50 hours. It was the whole of last week.
16 I -- Ms. Dixon really was just working on Mandic, with very little else on
17 all this stuff, just processing it. So Your Honour can see, we delegate,
18 we do try to put the work where it should be. We feel we're not
19 sufficiently using Ms. Dixon's brainpower here, actually. But
20 nevertheless, she has this particular task.
21 When we go on to item -- main item 2 here, printouts of all
22 exhibit lists, that's another matter. That's the, if you like, the
23 running form of exhibit lists where we get a provisional list of exhibits
24 and so on. We don't complain about that in principle, though we are
25 finding that the way in which witnesses are arriving, being dealt with, is
1 meaning that everything on both sides is being dealt with in a
2 tremendously last-minute way. But that applies for the Prosecution as
3 well as us. But this particular witness has given rise to more
4 generations of exhibit lists than most witnesses do. We typically find
5 that there's a provisional list followed by a final list. That's a usual
6 situation. But here you can see we've gone through several generations of
7 exhibit lists.
8 When we've got to main item 3 here on the second page, a number of
9 files and total size of digital material supplied by the Prosecution,
10 we've got some pretty large amounts of material there. We've got 38.4
11 megabytes, which is a great deal of stuff. If a megabyte is three days'
12 transcript, that's the equivalent of -- I'm doing it in transcript
13 equivalents because it's easy to grasp then. That's the equivalent of
14 about 13 days. If we look at the Rule 68 material disclosure,
15 19th November, the last item on that page, that's the equivalent of about
16 13 days of transcript.
17 But when we look at over the page at -- there are three items,
18 transcripts on Radic testimony in Brdjanin, five files, 1.3 megabytes,
19 Mandic interviews, 37 documents, and then disclosure 15th November, which
20 is a combination of potential exhibits and Rule 66 material, 1606
21 documents in total, 9.22 gigabytes. Our calculation -- it has to be a
22 calculation, because it follows from the simple arithmetic I'm about to
23 produce that we haven't read the stuff. That's the equivalent of about
24 25.000 pages of documentary material.
25 We've stripped out the video, because that's a very large file.
1 But we are --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Photographs are stripped as well?
3 MR. STEWART: We haven't -- we haven't --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Audio.
5 MR. STEWART: We haven't been able to do -- well, audio. I --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Audio is in the beginning, I see. Yes. Ten audio
7 files, 302.
8 MR. STEWART: They're separate. And I'm told by Ms. Dixon, who
9 has been handling this, that there were just not many photographs in this
10 material. It was -- it was for practical purposes the vast bulk of it was
11 written material. It's B/C/S and English again, Your Honour. I'm not
12 able to do the precise division. But again, we can confidently say that
13 far more than half of it will be English rather than B/C/S. But if it's
14 25.000 pages, our rough conscientious calculation would be that there's
15 the equivalent of something like 15.000 pages of English material in
17 Going on to number 4, material supplied to Mr. Krajisnik himself.
18 He received the audio files of the Mandic interviews, which are about I
19 think -- I used to know the number but now I forget but it's about 200 and
20 something, 200, 250 pages. I see some nodding. We've got that about
21 right. He received the audio files on the 15th of October. But Your
22 Honour will appreciate that at that point no decision had actually been
23 made on whether Mr. Mandic would be giving evidence, and I did make it
24 clear in court that I really was asking Mr. Krajisnik not to spend time on
25 material. Whatever the assessment of the likelihood of Mr. Mandic giving
1 evidence, that we really can't afford for Mr. Krajisnik to be spending his
2 time on contingent work like that. He's got so much else to do. But he's
3 had that material. He did also on the 18th of -- sorry. He had the audio
4 files on the 15th of October. So he'd had the audio files quite some time
6 On the 18th of November, so we're just talking about last week,
7 aren't we? We're talking about last Thursday. He was supplied with nine
8 CDs containing Mandic material. And that included B/C/S transcripts of
9 interviews. So that was the first point at which he'd got the transcripts
10 as opposed to the audio files of the interviews.
11 He's still awaiting item 5, B/C/S versions of documents which have
12 been continually disclosed in this rolling programme way since the hard
13 disk transfer. When I talk about the hard disk transfer, I'm talking
14 about that 9.22 gigabytes. And we've received practical help here, Your
15 Honour. Mr. Curilan, he gets in touch with us the best available
16 mechanical, electronic means are chosen by Mr. Curilan and Ms. Dixon for
17 transferring the material over, and we've got external hard drives. We do
18 it as quickly as we possibly can, and I must say, to compliment my team
19 and Mr. Curilan as well. It's done efficiently. But it doesn't mean
20 there's not an awful lot of stuff.
21 So, Your Honour, it's not -- Your Honour asked a question about
22 five minutes ago. Is it all new? No, it's not all new. Some of this
23 stuff, maybe quite a lot of this stuff is there somewhere in all the
24 material we've got. So it's not all new. But I can't answer the question
25 what's new, what's isn't new. I can't even answer the question -- excuse
1 me one moment.
2 JUDGE ORIE: What is new and what's not new.
3 MR. STEWART: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I've just been handed a new
4 note here. Yes. It links in with what I'm just saying. Mr. Curilan --
5 yes, we received a great deal of material back in June. There was some
6 hard disk transferring and a lot of material which we might otherwise have
7 had difficulty laying our hands on was transferred over. But there was no
8 folder relating to Mandic. The documents that are now said potentially to
9 relate to Mandic, no disrespect to Mr. Mandic, the documents related to
10 Mandic are naturally scattered around in different folders. Again, we
11 don't criticise that. That's the way in which it would happen in this
12 case. But they're scattered around different folders in such a way that
13 when we find out only recently that Mr. Mandic is going to give evidence
14 at all, and then we are provided with material in this form more
15 specifically in relation to Mandic, it is simply, and the simple numbers
16 that we've put before the Trial Chamber over the last few minutes, it is
17 simply more material than can be humanly processed and handled in the time
18 available. That's -- we would say that that is simply obvious. How could
19 any team, without being -- even, well, however massive, actually, because
20 it's got to end up concentrated in the brains somewhere of the people who
21 are actually at the sharp end dealing with the matter in court. But how
22 could any team handle and process tens of thousands of pages of material
23 in this form, given that -- and Your Honour will be familiar with this,
24 that a list of reference numbered items that appears on your screen when
25 you open a folder is, however user friendly it is in computer terms, is
1 hard work then to track down what it is. Because it -- constant
2 cross-referencing. And I've had folders, of course, where the first thing
3 I've had to do is just try and find out which are B/C/S and which are
4 English. And of course I delegate and it's dealt with very efficiently by
5 my team. I delegate that division as much as I possibly can so that I
6 don't bluntly waste my time with material in a language which I simply
7 don't read. So we certainly do everything we can to make the task as
8 efficient. We apply our subsidiarity to that particular exercise. But we
9 are still left with far more material, and Mr. Krajisnik as well. Your
10 Honours can see from this. Mr. Krajisnik is also left with far more
11 material than he can realistically process and deal with in the time
13 Your Honour, there is a disclosure history document. I think it
14 emanated from the Prosecution. But there's a disclosure history document
15 from which one could see in detail when batches and items of material have
16 been disclosed by Prosecution to Defence over a longer period, going back
17 to the time before we, Ms. Loukas and I and many other members of the
18 team, were involved in this case, and that's available. But Your Honour
19 knows, and it's part of your general position, Your Honour knows that
20 we've been engaged on the Defence in what, in our submission and our
21 description, has been a fire-fighting exercise in relation to every
22 witness that comes along. And we have come very close in the past to
23 making a similar submission and a similar presentation, if I can call it
24 that, to the Trial Chamber in relation to one or two other witnesses. And
25 particularly at the end of July, as I indicated at the time, we were only
1 able to deal with some witnesses at the end of July by the team working
2 beyond what would possibly have been sustainable, just in the light of the
3 fact that we were coming up to the end of July, and there was some respite
4 ahead of us. Otherwise we would have made a similar submission in
5 relation to -- well, certainly at least one witness, whose name I forget,
6 but I've got a sort of clear picture. But even that material was nothing
7 like the scale of what we now see in relation to Mr. Mandic. It is --
8 it's a staggering amount of material. And of course it may be, and of
9 course it very likely would be, that when you -- when one examines this
10 material and strips out the irrelevant from the relevant, one would expect
11 that the volume of the material would reduce enormously. One would expect
12 that these tens of thousands of pages would reduce down to something which
13 is within the normal, manageable scale for, we hope, a competent legal
14 team. But that stage of the exercise has got to be done, and we can't --
15 we don't for one moment question the honesty and conscientiousness of the
16 Prosecution. We rely on them here.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, if you wanted to draw the attention of
18 the Chamber to the overwhelming quantity of recently disclosed material,
19 or at least material that was recently delivered, you succeeded in doing
21 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is now wondering what consequences are.
23 You wanted to be attached.
24 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I can move very quickly. I'm happy
25 that that picture has been clearly conveyed.
1 Your Honour, the position is that we once again, I'm afraid, it is
2 absolutely unreasonable for the Defence to be expected to cross-examine
3 Mr. Mandic this week, next week, or imminently. This -- well, for the
4 reasons. I've said everything I've got to say about the material. That's
5 our submission. At the moment, it doesn't really need any elaboration.
6 And the question I did raise then with Mr. Tieger, which is really then
7 for him to answer, is whether in those circumstances, he would wish to
8 proceed with the examination-in-chief of Mr. Mandic and finish that and
9 bring him back, or whether Mr. Mandic isn't dealt with at all. And
10 that's -- after all, that is -- everybody's in the Trial Chamber's hands.
11 But that question in the first place is a question for the Prosecution.
12 But our submission on the Defence side is that when I say
13 "imminently," of course that's a little bit of a piece of string, but
14 Your Honour will understand that I mean -- I mean really not this side of
15 Christmas, actually, unless everybody else got swept out of the way to
16 make way for preparation for Mr. Mandic, which is quite unrealistic.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the Defence applies for
18 considerable postponement of cross-examination of this witness if he would
19 be examined in chief at this moment. Any further --
20 MR. STEWART: No, Your Honour. That's it in a nutshell. I hope
21 that didn't take an inordinate amount of time.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It took some time.
23 MR. STEWART: Inordinate is the key. If it didn't take
24 inordinate, then I'm content.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, any response to --
1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Let me begin by indicating that I appreciated in some respects the
3 tenor of Mr. Stewart's presentation, the fact that he went out of his way
4 to indicate that he casts no blame in the Prosecution's direction and I
5 hope I can respond in the same spirit. But I need indicate that I
6 strongly disagree with Mr. Stewart's position.
7 Let me make approximately four general points in connection with
9 First of all, I think the recitation about the overwhelming nature
10 of the material is somewhat misleading. I note, for example, that one of
11 the first items that Mr. Stewart cited and to which he directed the
12 Court's attention was number 8, an item that had 545 kilobytes, I think.
13 To the best of my understanding, that's a re-disclosure of the transcripts
14 which were disclosed earlier, this time with line reference numbers.
15 There are other re-disclosures, a variety of those, that appear in the
16 course of this document that would tend to give the Court the impression
17 that new documents are being presented which require new attention, rather
18 than accurately reflecting the process in which we were actually engaged,
19 and that was attempting to focus the Defence's attention on those
20 documents that were likely to be the subject of the examination of this
22 In that regard, I would indicate that Mr. Stewart graciously
23 mentioned to me yesterday that he was aware that the Prosecution was
24 constantly giving as much help as is reasonably possible, was very much
25 aware of our effort to direct the Defence's attention to those documents
1 which were most relevant and which would be the subject of the
2 examination, or likely to be the subject of the examination. And we
3 attempted to do so in both proactive ways and by making ourselves
4 available for that purpose if approached. For example, when Mr. Stewart
5 talks about getting an enormous amount of disclosed materials, everyone's
6 aware that the Prosecution has certain disclosure obligations. At the
7 same time, we affirmatively advised the Defence that, in our view, it
8 wasn't necessary to focus its attention on most of those documents, and we
9 tried to identify, before the week break, in fact, those intercepts to
10 which we would most likely be directing attention and those documents to
11 which we would most likely directing attention. In addition, throughout
12 the process --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, at the same time, you know that whatever
14 advice is given to you by the opposite party, it always meets some
15 suspicion, which is part of the role played by the various participants in
16 such proceedings. So I do appreciate that even if you do this with the
17 best of intentions, at the same time, it could even have an adverse effect
18 and could understandably have that effect.
19 MR. TIEGER: I understand, Your Honour. But everyone has to make
20 decisions in the course of this case. Most of these documents have been
21 the subject of attention before and have been disclosed before. No one
22 can reasonably be contending that it's their intention to review each time
23 a high-level witness is called all the documents that might arguably be
24 discloseable in -- under the Rules to that witness, particularly if
25 they've been the subject of general attention before. So I think that
1 kind of guidance is in fact useful in making that kind of discretionary
3 Let me get to the third point, which I think may be in some
4 respects the most significant. In the end, we get to approximately
5 60-plus, more or less, exhibits, which represent our final list. Those
6 exhibits are represented for the most part, and I can't say each and every
7 one, but certainly in a major portion of items that were shown to the
8 witness during the course of the two interviews that were conducted, and
9 therefore were part of that process available to the Defence when the
10 interviews were disclosed; or consistent documents related to activities
11 of the government organs.
12 At the outset of this case, and in part for this very reason, the
13 Prosecution had a witness who offered a very comprehensive view of the
14 government organs and their activities and the documents related to those.
15 Most of the documents I'm talking about were part of that presentation or
16 at least related to that presentation. In short, there's nothing new
17 about the exhibits on this list. They are part and parcel of the case
18 that has been before the court and the Defence since this case began in
19 February of 2004, for almost a year now.
20 It may have been the case that we could have proceeded in the more
21 conventional fashion with a provisional list and then a final list. If
22 so, we will attempt to do so in the future rather than make successive
23 disclosures which we hope are of assistance to the Defence in paring down
24 and focussing the Defence on the items which are most likely to be used
25 during the course of the examination. I certainly didn't anticipate that
1 those repeated disclosures of similar items would be used to suggest that
2 the Prosecution was cumulatively adding to the Defence's burden.
3 Finally, Your Honour, you asked Mr. Stewart what his submission
4 was leading to, and he indicated what it was. I also need to indicate our
5 position with respect to the Defence's request, and that is, we strongly
6 oppose any bifurcation of this process. This witness was scheduled quite
7 some time ago. There was no question that a witness at this level was
8 going to implicate a large volume of material that needed to be considered
9 and reviewed. The time to make the argument that the witness shouldn't be
10 here is then. This is a particularly inappropriate situation in which to
11 bifurcate testimony. This witness's testimony will be highly observed,
12 highly discussed. It's not a case in which I think the Court can
13 effectively leave a significant gap between the examination-in-chief and
14 the direct examination. The witness is here now, and the Prosecution
15 believes we should proceed.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's 20 minutes past 10.00. We'll have an
17 early break. The parties should prepare for the examination-in-chief of
18 Mr. Mandic to start after the break, and the one point you did not bring
19 to the attention, Mr. Stewart, which is point number 6, is the only point
20 we could help you out, that is, to give the reasons for the decision on
21 the testimony of three new viva voce witnesses, which will be delivered
22 immediately after the break.
23 MR. STEWART: Yes, indeed, Your Honour. And is Your Honour
24 inviting any response from me in relation to Mr. Tieger's submissions?
25 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not inviting, but if you ask whether you could
1 respond, then you have some limited time to respond to this.
2 MR. STEWART: My position is this, Your Honour, that if Your
3 Honour accepts my application, I don't need to respond. But if there's
4 any possibility of my application not being endorsed by the Trial Chamber,
5 then I would wish to respond, yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is inclined to postpone its decision on
7 whether or not it requires the Defence to at least start to cross-examine
8 the witness Mr. Mandic, to postpone that until after we've heard the
9 examination-in-chief. And therefore, we have to decide whether we require
10 the Prosecution to examine the witness at this very moment. And as I said
11 before, the parties should be prepared for that. That is an indication
12 that most likely the Chamber, after the break, will ask the Prosecution to
13 call the witness and to examine the witness. But our final determination
14 will be made during the break. But you should prepare for a denial of an
15 application. If that would include not to start the examination-in-chief
16 at this moment, but I think you left that to Mr. Tieger. And he said that
17 he would like to start the examination-in-chief and that he strongly
18 opposes a bifurcation of the testimony. And as far as the second question
19 is concerned, the Chamber is inclined not to give a decision on that at
20 this moment, but to wait until after the examination-in-chief.
21 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, the way I understood Mr. Tieger's
22 submissions, but it's not my understanding in the end which is critical,
23 the way I understood Mr. Tieger's submissions was that he was saying,
24 among other things, that there should -- he leads to a different
25 conclusion, but he says there should not be divided examination-in-chief
1 and cross-examination. But he reaches a different conclusion. And he
2 says therefore we should have the whole lot now, examination-in-chief,
3 followed by cross-examination. My application should be rejected. I'm
4 saying that I'm entirely neutral as to whether if there isn't
5 cross-examination at this point, this side of Christmas is the way I put
6 it, I'm entirely neutral as to whether there is examination-in-chief or
7 not. I have no submission to make.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's fully understood.
9 MR. STEWART: Yes. But, Your Honour, if I do have a response on a
10 few of Mr. Tieger's points, should I offer that to the Trial Chamber now
11 or after the break.
12 JUDGE ORIE: No. Perhaps you should offer it to the Trial Chamber
14 MR. STEWART: Yes. Well, Your Honour, first of all, on the rather
15 small point of e-mail number 8, in fact, e-mail number 8 is -- attaches
16 the interview transcripts with numbering. So that's not in a sense an
17 additional item. But, Your Honour, I didn't even know what that item was
18 attached to e-mail number 8. All I was doing was using it as one of my
19 simple arithmetical illustrations having offered the caveat that some of
20 the material wouldn't be new material. So that's a non-point.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is convinced that each party would be
22 able to pick up those portions that would cause a lot of extra work as far
23 as the Defence is concerned and that would cause less work as far as the
24 Prosecution is concerned. Of course, they want to emphasise both elements
25 of this long list of a huge quantity of material.
1 MR. STEWART: Yes. My point there, Your Honour, was that although
2 Mr. Tieger, I understood, was not in any way suggesting that what I said
3 was deliberately misleading -- he used the word "misleading," and the word
4 misleading is absolutely unfair altogether there as it was simply one of
5 my arithmetical illustrations in circumstances where I made it clear that
6 I wasn't saying what the attachment was. That's all. The word
7 "misleading" was not appropriate at all there.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It's not the core of the issue.
9 MR. STEWART: But, Your Honour, a key point is this: That the --
10 Mr. Tieger says that the OTP, the Prosecution has directed attention to
11 the documents most relevant and which would be the subject of their
12 examination-in-chief. Those are two entirely separate points. Of course,
13 so far as they indicate to us which documents will be the subject of their
14 examination-in-chief, that is most helpful. Of course it is. And then
15 that appears on the list of exhibits. But that other category, which is
16 absolutely different, and Your Honour made an observation about that, the
17 documents most relevant. Well, excuse me, but we would like to be able to
18 assess which documents are the most relevant for the Defence case.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I think I indicated --
20 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour did, and we certainly would.
21 The -- so far as Mr. Treanor's evidence, I think it must have been
22 Mr. Treanor, he wasn't very heavily coded I think there. It was
23 Mr. Treanor's evidence that was being referred to. Well, it would be nice
24 for the Defence to have the opportunity of going back and carefully
25 reviewing Mr. Treanor's evidence, an opportunity which frankly we do not
1 have because we carried on from one witness to another. But in any case,
2 we, after all, didn't even get, and again there's no criticism here, the
3 Prosecution were making decisions about whether Mr. Mandic would be a
4 witness at all. But in circumstances where we've only received the
5 interviews of Mr. Mandic and the materials specifically relating to
6 Mr. Mandic in the last few weeks, we could hardly have done much with
7 Mr. Treanor's evidence by specific reference to Mr. Mandic. Who is also,
8 as it happens, really the first of a little group of witnesses, because we
9 certainly see Mr. Trbojevic as part of the same group in a way. But he's
10 the first of a group of witnesses here that we've had to deal with.
11 Just on the question of the successive lists of exhibits. We're
12 certainly not suggesting that the Prosecution should deal with that
13 problem by then only providing us with something at the last minute. We
14 know that they were trying to be helpful here. It's simply a fact that
15 every time something changes, we've got to review the changes. That's
16 part of our job. And it's very difficult to do.
17 So, Your Honour, the --
18 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you a question to both parties. For
19 example, if I see that you get new exhibit lists, one on the 15th of
20 November, in the morning, the second one on the 15th, in the afternoon,
21 the third one on the 17th, in the morning, and two and a half hours later
22 another one, then another one on the 22nd of November, well, two new ones.
23 If you sent that to each other, at least in this case, when the
24 Prosecution sends that to the Defence, would you mark the changes you made
25 in relation to the previous version? Because that, for example, would
1 save enormous time if you have a whole list of exhibits and if you mark
2 them by either underlining or putting it in bold, then at first eye you
3 see what has changed. Are these techniques used by the parties in order
4 to make it easier for the others to --
5 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, first of all, I don't -- I'm not aware
6 that that particular technique was used in those particular instances. I
7 think it is important, however, to reiterate that that is something to
8 which we would respond immediately, and I think the Defence knows that if
9 they called us and said which of these are new, we would identify that
10 immediately, and we've always made ourselves available for that purpose
11 and indicated that we were prepared to respond to such.
12 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, this is a non-problem. The -- thank
13 you for raising it on the technical level, Your Honour, but this is not in
14 fact a problem. We are -- we are really pretty readily able to identify
15 the changes. That's not -- Ms. Dixon can do that in a matter of minutes,
16 and if she is got any doubt about that she rings Mr. Curilan. That gets
17 sorted out. That isn't the problem, Your Honour. And in principle, of
18 course, it's entirely correct and helpful for the Prosecution if they
19 provided us with a document and an hour or two later there's a change, to
20 let us know that straight away. It's not really the core point, Your
21 Honour. This question about the successive list of exhibits is not the
22 central point. It's that that's the Prosecution's selection of what they
23 regard as the most relevant. It goes back to the fundamental point which
24 is we're the Defence. We have a different job. We have a different
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. The Chamber will consider the
2 observations and the submissions made by the parties. The Chamber will
3 deliver the decision on the three viva voce witnesses, at least the
4 reasons for that decision, after the break. We'll adjourn until five
5 minutes to 11.00, and the parties should be prepared to -- at least the
6 OTP should be prepared to call its next witness.
7 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
9 JUDGE ORIE: As announced before, the Chamber will now give the
10 reasons for an oral decision on the Prosecution's motion to call three new
11 viva voce witnesses.
12 Mr. Tieger, before I do so, I wonder whether it still has to be in
13 private session. I take it that the main reason for private session
14 doesn't exist any more.
15 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, as I think back on it, I believe that's
16 correct. However, well, unfortunately, I can't make the complete
17 representation that none of the reasons that prompted the request for
18 private session exist any longer.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It was not protection of witnesses. I think it was
20 mainly the protection of information on who to call and what measures were
21 needed to make them appear at this trial.
22 MR. TIEGER: If the Court would indulge me for just one moment.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. TIEGER: Thanks, Your Honour. I think the Court is right.
25 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore, this decision can be delivered in open
2 These are the reasons for the decision on the Prosecution's motion
3 to call new viva voce witnesses and for associated orders, a motion that
4 was filed confidentially on the 13th of October, 2004.
5 The Defence has responded on the 26th of October, 2004.
6 The Chamber granted the motion on Friday, the 29th of October,
7 2004, and the following are the reasons for that decision:
8 On the 4th of December, 2003, when the Prosecution submitted its
9 second revised list of witnesses, the Chamber was informed that the
10 Prosecution had already undertaken contacts with certain individuals -
11 still to be named - who could provide particularly relevant evidence on
12 the matters at issue in this case. It reserved 8 "positions" out of the
13 101 granted by the Chamber in its decision of the 28th of February, 2003,
14 for these witnesses still to be named.
15 In the instant motion, the Prosecution identified three such
16 persons, namely, Momcilo Mandic, Milan Trbojevic, and Nedjeljko
17 Prstojevic, and proposed to examine them for approximately eight hours, on
18 the 23rd of November, 2004, the 6th of December, 2004, and in February
19 2005, respectively. The Prosecution further set forth in general terms
20 the evidence it expects the three individuals to be able to give. In the
21 motion, the Prosecution requested videolink testimony for one of the three
22 individuals, Momcilo Mandic, but later (transcript page 7357 and 58)
23 withdraw the request, acknowledging that a safe conduct would be
24 sufficient. Moreover, the Prosecution requested a subpoena
25 ad testificandum, and related request to Republika Srpska, to compel Milan
1 Trbojevic to appear as a witness in this trial.
2 The Defence opposed the motion, arguing that the Prosecution has
3 provided insufficient information to justify calling these witnesses at
4 this stage, especially as to when each witness was initially approached by
5 the Prosecution, when it was decided that they would be called as
6 witnesses, or why these individuals were not approached earlier. It
7 acknowledged that the Prosecution had given notice that Nedjeljko
8 Prstojevic was contacted in early November 2003. The Defence disputed the
9 importance of the testimony by the three witnesses, stating that the
10 evidence of these witnesses on the "nature of the Bosnian Serb state" and
11 the "organisation and activities of the Bosnian Serb Presidency and the
12 Bosnian Serb government during 1992" have been extensively covered by
13 other witnesses, including Treanor. It also stated that it is not clear
14 whether the new witnesses will be able to provide direct and firsthand
15 evidence about these areas, which, according to the Defence, is a
16 requirement that OTP has to meet to support an application of this nature.
17 On the 27th of October, 2004, the Chamber invited the Prosecution to
18 provide more details on when each of the three prospective witnesses was
19 first contacted.
20 At this moment, I draw the attention of the interpreters to slight
21 changes in the text that has been provided to them in the few next
23 On the 28th October, 2004, the Chamber was informed, and the
24 Defence was notified by the Prosecution, that Momcilo Mandic was first
25 contacted by the Prosecution representatives in March 2003, while Milan
1 Trbojevic in late February 2004. On the 29th October, the Prosecution
2 clarified in court that Mr. Trbojevic was not contacted before the stated
3 date because he was involved in the defence of another accused before this
4 Tribunal, and that the OTP had understood him to fall nonetheless within
5 the unnamed individuals who could be called as witnesses and due to
6 limited resources to address the large potential pool of extremely
7 valuable witnesses in the case.
8 The Chamber takes into account that the Prosecution had reserved
9 the possibility to call certain witnesses within the total amount allotted
10 by the Chamber. The Chamber agrees with the Defence that a satisfactory
11 explanation ought to be provided as to why a witness was not and could not
12 have been reasonably approached before the list of witnesses was provided
13 to the Chamber and the Defence. Also, the requesting party must show that
14 the evidence expected by the witnesses not mentioned in the list of
15 witnesses is of sufficient importance to justify adding the witness after
16 the beginning of the trial. The Chamber makes a positive finding on both
18 The Chamber has heard the explanation given in court by the
19 Prosecution and acknowledges the relevance and importance of the evidence
20 expected by the three named individuals. It notes that the evidence given
21 by Mr. Treanor was exclusively based on documents and not on his direct
22 knowledge of the events. It also accepts that Mr. Trbojevic was not
23 contacted at an earlier stage because he was engaged in defence matters
24 before this Tribunal.
25 Taking into account the foregoing, the Chamber granted the motion
1 in full. The Chamber has also issued the requested safe conduct for
2 Momcilo Mandic and the subpoena ad testificandum for Milan Trbojevic.
3 These are the reasons for that decision, and since there was
4 already since long pending another matter, and that is, the admission of a
5 number of exhibits, I'd like to give that decision now as well, although
6 still we cannot cover the full list, because we waited some time for the
7 exhibits P200 up to P203. The Chamber still has not received that
8 information but now prefers to give a decision on the other exhibits.
9 Although some of the documents are confidential documents, since nothing
10 of the content will be disclosed, the Chamber takes it that this decision
11 on admission of certain exhibits can be issued in open session.
12 The Chamber still has to decide on the admission of certain
13 exhibits. The Chamber, after careful consideration, admits Exhibits P111,
14 P112, P113, and that is also P189 - they are related - P219, P246, P303A,
15 P307, and D12, dismissing the objections, which all referred to their
16 weight rather than to their admissibility.
17 With respect to Exhibit P306 (intercepted communications), the
18 Chamber takes into account the objection of the Defence and, noting the
19 response of the Prosecution, admits the exhibit, but for the purpose of
20 identification of the voices therein through that witness.
21 The Chamber is aware that the Defence is still waiting for
22 submissions by the Prosecution on Exhibits P200 up to and including P203
23 and will deliver its decision on those after the Defence has had time to
24 consider those submissions.
25 That is the Chamber's decision about the exhibits.
1 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour, in relation to that. I
2 might indicate, in relation to P200 to P203 that I have received
3 communication from Mr. Hannis in relation to those particular exhibits. I
4 sought some further information just prior to the weekend, and Mr. Hannis
5 has responded to that. And I'm in a position to -- I can finalise that
6 issue of P200 and P203 this week.
7 The other aspect is that there are outstanding -- still
8 outstanding translation errors in relation to P200 to P203 that Ms. Cmeric
9 has brought to my attention, but I think we can finally put by the end of
10 this week P200 to P203 to rest.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That would shorten our list of outstanding
12 exhibits. Thank you very much for your information, Ms. Loukas.
13 Mr. Tieger.
14 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, there's one more matter in connection
15 with the upcoming -- well, first of all let me allow the Court to finish
16 its agenda.
17 JUDGE ORIE: No. I didn't have any other point. What I would
18 have asked you is whether you're ready to call your next witness,
19 Mr. Mandic.
20 MR. TIEGER: Prosecution is ready, Your Honour. I know the Court
21 might have had additional information in connection with that, but in
22 addition, before the witness is called, there's one issue I wanted to
23 raise. So if the Court was going to request the Prosecution to call the
24 next witness, then I will raise my issue.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
1 MR. TIEGER: And that is simply this: We have been advised that
2 Mr. Mandic is accompanied by his counsel, Mr. Tomic, who has asked for
3 permission or asked us to convey his request for permission to be present
4 in court, and I do so at this time. We have no objection.
5 JUDGE ORIE: You have no objection.
6 How about the Defence?
7 MR. STEWART: I don't seem to have any objection, Your Honour. We
8 wonder again, though, this seems to be very late notification. It seems
9 likely that Mr. Mandic, Mr. Mandic being accompanied by his counsel, can't
10 just have happened in the last half-hour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
12 MR. TIEGER: No. It's -- that's the case. And I think counsel
13 knew that he would be accompanied by his counsel as well. I was aware of
14 this request, I suppose, late last night or early this morning. If I
15 failed to bring it to counsel's attention, it's simply because I didn't
16 appreciate that it would be an issue that would necessitate a great deal
17 of deliberation. And I apologise for that.
18 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I didn't say it would take a great deal
19 of deliberation, but these things sometimes do. And we didn't have -- we
20 didn't know. I was going to say we didn't have any idea. We asked
21 ourselves the question all along whether Mr. Mandic, given his position,
22 might or might not at some point produce counsel. But, Your Honour, we
23 have -- we assume that no doubt the Trial Chamber will be operating
24 similar guidelines to the case of a previous witness.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I would have appreciated to know it in advance,
1 because I would then have sought the instructions we gave to -- at earlier
2 occasions to follow a clear line, always doing the same.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Since the Chamber very much wants to achieve
5 consistency, we'll have a break of five minutes so that we can find my
6 exact formulation used at earlier occasions.
7 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry that break is required, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn for five minutes.
9 --- Break taken at 11.19 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 11.34 a.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Before we proceed, the Chamber has a few questions to
12 you, Mr. Tieger. Is there any intention whatsoever to prosecute
13 Mr. Mandic for any offence within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal?
14 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I'm going to recommend, as I would have
15 in any event, that with all the witnesses who were subject to interviews
16 under -- pursuant to Rules 42 and 43, that the Court proceed with the
17 appropriate admonition, indeed the same admonition that was given to
18 Mr. Radic.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please remind me what admonition --
20 MR. TIEGER: I actually have the printout of what the Court said.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. TIEGER: -- in front of me. I'd be happy to provide it for
23 the Court -- to the Court, rather. And it was the general admonition
24 pursuant to Rule 90(E).
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have Rule 90(E) in front of me, so if
1 that's ...
2 Yes, I do understand, but that's still no answer to my question.
3 My question was whether there was any intention at this moment to
4 prosecute Mr. Mandic for any offence following within the jurisdiction of
5 this Tribunal.
6 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, I think that, with all respect,
7 that is a question directed to investigative matters that are pending
8 before the Office of the Prosecutor now, and while I think it's
9 appropriate to acknowledge, as we have in the course of the interviews
10 conducted with Mr. Mandic, that he falls within the ambit of the -- of
11 Rule 2, defining suspect, that the issue of any prosecution that would be
12 initiated by the Prosecution is simply one that's within the investigative
13 province of the office and is pending.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, it might have some relevance
15 to know the answer to the question under Rule 90(E) as well, because the
16 Chamber may compel the witness, and this might be one of the circumstances
17 to be taken into consideration when it comes to that point. But I do
18 understand that the Prosecution does not want to express itself on this
19 issue at this moment.
20 MR. TIEGER: That's correct, Your Honour. If and when the issue
21 of compulsion pursuant to 90(E) arises and that implicates that issue in
22 such a way that the Prosecution feels it should provide the Court with
23 additional information, we'll endeavour to do so.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then wait and see. Are you aware of any
25 intentions on the domestic level to prosecute Mr. Mandic for any acts or
1 conducts which might be of relevance for his testimony here?
2 MR. TIEGER: I am aware of a pending case involving financial
3 matters on -- related to, as I understand it, his activities during the
4 course of the conflict. Beyond that, I don't have any information
5 concerning the intention of domestic authorities.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And financial matters that you would consider
7 to fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal or ...
8 MR. TIEGER: No.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Well, these were the questions for the
11 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, the only observation we have is that we
12 understand the Prosecution's answer, therefore, as being that the question
13 of an indictment of Mr. Mandic before this Tribunal is not ruled out, that
14 it is --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's how I understand at this moment and that
16 the Prosecution will give further details in relation to perhaps specific
17 questions where the witness might -- where it might come to the
18 application of Rule 90(E).
19 MR. TIEGER: Let me be a bit clearer on that. I was attempting to
20 take no position, because I think that's an appropriate safeguard in
21 respect of the Prosecution's investigative efforts, and so rather than
22 trying to communicate anything one way or the other, I was simply drawing
23 a line on that issue and indicating I thought it was inappropriate to
24 breach that line and express a view on any pending deliberations.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But by doing that, it's not excluded.
1 MR. TIEGER: I -- whatever was happening within the OTP, I didn't
2 want to take a public position on it. So I wasn't publicly excluding it.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I understand it may well be that the Prosecution
4 internally had decided under no circumstance to prosecute Mr. Mandic, but
5 does not want to express itself in public on these issues, whatever the
6 content of its position may be.
7 MR. TIEGER: I think that's an accurate summary.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, that's not entirely satisfactory.
10 I understand there may be a fine distinction, that what we got to is that
11 Mr. Tieger is not able to tell the Trial Chamber that the Prosecution of
12 Mr. Mandic has been ruled out. But there's a certain unreality. If
13 prosecution of Mr. Mandic had been ruled out as an internal decision by
14 the Prosecution, then, with respect, it's unreal to expect that to
15 information wouldn't have communicated itself in some way or another to
16 Mr. Tieger, and one would expect that the prosecuting team in this case
17 calling Mr. Mandic to give evidence would be, well, fantastically unlikely
18 not to find out what the position was in relation to Mr. Mandic.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I do understand that it's a general policy
20 issue whether or not to express yourself on these kinds of issues, even if
21 it would not -- even if it would not do any damage to the Prosecution in
22 this case, that in general terms the Prosecution does not express itself
23 on this issue at this -- such occasions.
24 MR. TIEGER: That's correct, Your Honour, and I'm expressing a
25 view that no public position has been taken by the Tribunal.
1 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, that's entirely clear, then. So it has
2 this result, then: That as far as this witness is concerned, then, he
3 presumably, because after all he's the one making the request to have
4 counsel, he's presumably understanding that, from where he sits, the
5 possibility of his prosecution before this Tribunal has not been ruled
6 out. And that's in a sense all that needs to be established.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. For those not being aware of any internal
8 discussions within the OTP, well, let's say those who are not in that
9 inner circle, should take into account that it's not excluded that in this
10 circle one would have the intention to prosecute or perhaps the intention
11 not to prosecute. We do not know, and therefore we have to take into
12 account all possibilities. I think that's it.
13 I'd like, first of all, to ask the counsel which accompanies
14 Mr. Mandic to be escorted into the courtroom.
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I wonder if we might go into private
17 session for a moment to raise another point in relation to this matter.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We can do that. But I take it that that
19 would -- should be in the absence of the -- of counsel as well, of counsel
20 of the witness.
21 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because I just asked the usher to bring him or
23 her in.
24 MR. STEWART: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: But I'll ask her to stop for a second.
1 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
2 We'll go into private session.
3 [Private session]
3 [Open session]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort counsel into the
6 [Witness's counsel enters courtroom]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Counsel. I do understand that you have
8 come to this courtroom to accompany Mr. Mandic when he will give his
9 testimony in this case against Mr. Krajisnik. First of all, I'd like you
10 to identify yourself.
11 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] My name is Dusan Tomic, attorney from
12 Sarajevo. At the proposal of Mr. Mandic, I have been asked to be with him
13 because Mandic is a suspect, and I accept it and have been working for the
14 past three months with him and worked to have Mr. Momcilo Mandic to come
15 before this Tribunal and to testify and speak the truth.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Tomic, I take it that your name is spelled
17 T-o-v-i-c; is that correct?
18 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] Correct.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tomic, are you aware of the Rules applicable to
20 witnesses who fear that answers given to questions put to them by the
21 parties and by the Chamber would incriminate them? Are you aware of the
22 system in this Tribunal?
23 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] Yes. And it is precisely for that
24 reason that I am here, to protect the interests of the witness, which, if
25 he gives a wrong answer, could incriminate himself.
1 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, excuse me, I'm sorry. A minor matter
2 but perhaps just worth raising now. I believe counsel's name is spelled
4 JUDGE ORIE: T-o-m, I see. Yes. As a matter of fact, I looked at
5 the transcript. I didn't hear it well, and therefore I sought a
6 verification. But it's Tomic. Yes.
7 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: If a witness fears that answering a question might
9 incriminate him, are you aware of what the options are for the Chamber?
10 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] Yes. However, my client wished to
11 come here before you, and as I've already said, to testify by telling the
12 truth, and he also wished me to accompany him, in order to give him
13 support by my very presence. He says he feels this support when I'm with
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And what are the options for the Chamber, as
16 far as you're aware of?
17 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber can tell the witness
18 not to answer a question, which would protect him. If his answer could
19 incriminate him, in the view of the Trial Chamber. They could caution him
20 not to answer. I think that you can also insist, as the Trial Chamber,
21 that he give an answer, but his answer will not be held against him in any
22 further proceedings. That is how I understand it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And is that what you discussed with Mr. Mandic?
24 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Mandic knows about all these
25 conditions. He himself was a judge in Sarajevo. He was also the minister
1 of justice. So these things and facts are not alien to him. However,
2 despite all this, he does feel that my presence would not cause any
3 detriment, and it would be helpful, especially in the psychological sense,
4 making him feel at ease and relaxed, and to be here so that I can caution
5 him not to incriminate himself in any way in the answers he gives.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are aware that your role will be limited to
7 that function?
8 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I am. And I am not asking for
9 anything more than that. My passive presence, to give him the security he
10 feels he needs. It can do no harm. It won't harm the Tribunal or the
11 Court. Quite the contrary; I think it can be helpful and assist the Trial
12 Chamber in arriving at the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Tomic. Having set out clearly
15 now what your role could be and under what circumstances you could
16 intervene and limitations of such interventions, the second matter I would
17 like to bring to your attention is that the Chamber would like to avoid
18 any direct contacts while giving evidence. So apart from the issue you
19 could raise and you just mentioned, and therefore, you're invited to take
20 a position if the Prosecution would not mind just in that chair, which
21 allows no eye contact between the Prosecution -- between the witness and
22 you, Counsel. One of the reasons why the Chamber has chosen to ask the --
23 ask counsel to sit there is that this most likely will prevent him from
24 overhearing whatever is said in B/C/S at the Defence table.
25 May I invite you to sit there in the -- at the very last chair,
1 Mr. Tomic.
2 Is there a microphone for Mr. Tomic there if he would need one?
3 Madam Usher, would you then -- Madam Usher, would you then --
4 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may we make a couple of observations
5 while the time is available?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I'd like to ask Madam Usher then to try to
7 find Mr. Mandic.
8 MR. STEWART: Yes, indeed. Before Mr. Mandic was actually brought
9 in, Your Honour. First of all, I wonder, just for completeness, as we did
10 with previous counsel that accompanied a witness, if we might inquire
11 through the Trial Chamber which bar Mr. Tomic is admitted by or to.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you answer that question, which bar you
13 are a member of, Mr. Tomic.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone.
15 MR. TOMIC: [Interpretation] I'm a member of the bar of the
16 Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Sarajevo.
17 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour. The second point, well, it
18 was simply for a matter of absolute completeness. The witness's
19 description of the effective Rule 90(E) was entirely accurate as far as it
20 went, but without the bit at the end which is that the fact that the
21 answers may not be used in previous proceedings --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll read the Rule as a whole to the witness.
23 MR. STEWART: I'm obliged, Your Honour. The third point was this,
24 Your Honour, I wonder... Your Honour: That I wonder if Your Honour would
25 give Mr. Tomic clear guidance also that there should be no communication
1 between himself and Mr. Mandic at all out of court.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll do that at the end. I mean, if the
3 witness is not allowed to speak to anyone.
4 MR. STEWART: Indeed. The other thing is this, Your Honour.
5 We're very grateful for Your Honour's protection of confidentiality of
6 communications on the Defence table, but conversations in B/C/S will only
7 take place in form of a soliloquy or a reverie or a monologue by
8 Ms. Cmeric, because no one else here will understand what is being said.
9 But it could happen, of course.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do agree with you. I'm a bit disappointed
11 that you didn't learn the language yet.
12 MR. STEWART: We're trying, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Mandic into
14 the courtroom.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Mandic, I take it.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Before giving evidence in this court, the Rules of
19 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that
20 you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. May I
21 invite you to make that solemn declaration, of which the text is now
22 handed out to you by Madam Usher.
23 WITNESS: MOMCILO MANDIC
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
1 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated, Mr. Mandic.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mandic, before I allow the Prosecution to start
5 with the examination, I'd like to draw your attention to Rule 90(E) of the
6 Rules of Procedure and Evidence. I also understood from Mr. Tomic, who is
7 present here, that he has already explained the gist of that Rule to you.
8 But I'll read it in full to you: "A witness may object to making any
9 statement which might tend to incriminate the witness. The Chamber may,
10 however, compel the witness to answer the question. Testimony compelled
11 in this way shall not be used as evidence in a subsequent prosecution
12 against the witness for any offence other than false testimony."
13 I do understand that specifically in view of this Rule, that you
14 asked Mr. Tomic to be present. The Chamber explains to Mr. Tomic what the
15 limits of his role are, and perhaps the most important for you is that
16 there should be no interference whatsoever with your testimony, apart from
17 the application of Rule 90(E). That's also the reason why we asked
18 Mr. Tomic to sit in such a position that he would have no contact while
19 giving your testimony.
20 Mr. Tieger, you may proceed.
21 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Examined by Mr. Tieger:
23 Q. Good morning, Mr. Mandic.
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. First, although we have been referring to you repeatedly, can you
1 please state your full name for the court record, please.
2 A. I'm Momcilo Mandic, son of Savo and Milka, born on the 1st of May,
3 1954, in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I have a degree in law and I live in
5 Q. Thank you, sir. I'd like to provide the Court with some idea of
6 your background. Perhaps the most efficient way of doing that would be
7 for me to recite some of the significant aspects of your biography and
8 then simply have you affirm whether or not those are true.
9 Now, you attended the police school in Baca in Sarajevo from 1970
10 to 1973; is that correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And after graduation, you began working for the SUP in Sarajevo,
13 that is, the police department in Sarajevo?
14 A. SUP Sarajevo, yes.
15 Q. Now, you also attended the law faculty or law school in Sarajevo,
16 from which you graduated in 1977; is that correct?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. You subsequently passed the bar exam and you also received an MA
19 in 1989, your thesis being the role of the witness in evidence procedure;
21 A. The role of the witness in criminal proceedings, yes, that is
23 Q. Now, during the course of your work for the SUP Sarajevo, you were
24 an inspector for crimes and sexual offences?
25 A. At first I was a crime technician, and then, as I got my degree, I
1 was promoted all the way up to the head of department for crimes and
2 sexual offences at the Sarajevo SUP.
3 Q. At the beginning of 1984 -- or excuse me, at the end of 1984 or
4 beginning of 1985, you began working as a judge for criminal proceedings
5 in the Sarajevo basic court; is that correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And before I go on to the positions you assumed thereafter, I
8 should also ask if you were known -- well-known, in fact, throughout
9 Bosnia as a sportsman, having been the Yugoslav champion in judo.
10 A. At that time, that is to say, during the Olympic Games, before and
11 after that, I was a member of the judo club Djelineca [phoen] in Sarajevo
12 and I was a top-seeded judoist in that situation, and I lived in Sarajevo,
14 Q. Now, in February or March 1991, is it correct that you became the
15 assistant minister of the interior, that is, assistant minister for crime?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. In April of 1992, following the outbreak of the conflict, you
18 became deputy minister for the Serbian Ministry of the Interior for a
19 short period of time?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. In May of 1992, you became the minister of justice for
22 Republika Srpska; is that correct?
23 A. On the 19th of May, 1992, I became minister of justice in the
24 first government of Republika Srpska, yes.
25 Q. In 1993 and 1994, you served as the director or chief of the
1 bureau of Republika Srpska in Belgrade; is that right?
2 A. In December 1992, I went to Belgrade, and for a while I was deputy
3 director of the bureau, who was then Momcilo Pejic, and then I became head
4 of the bureau of Republika Srpska in Belgrade.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note that the witness is speaking
6 very fast and we did not get the date when he became head of the bureau.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Mandic, I'm informed by the interpreters
9 that you spoke too quickly for them to be able to notice what date you
10 became the head of the bureau of the Republika Srpska in Belgrade, and I
11 would like to ask you to slow down your speed of speech.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In December 1992 I went to Belgrade,
13 and for a while I was deputy director of the bureau. At that time, it was
14 Momcilo Pejic. In the beginning of 1993, I was appointed director of the
15 bureau of Republika Srpska in Belgrade.
16 MR. TIEGER:
17 Q. And just to clarify quickly the role of the bureau and the bureau
18 chief of the RS in Belgrade was essentially one of a consular nature,
19 involving coordinating affairs on an international level for
20 Republika Srpska, meeting with diplomats and so on; is that right?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Is it also correct that in September or October of 1995, you
23 became director of the Privredna Banka in Serbian Sarajevo?
24 A. Correct. In the month of September 1995.
25 Q. In 2001, you became chairman of the managing board of Privredna
1 Banka and remained in that position until April of 2003; is that right?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. You also became chairman of the managing board of the Autoradna
4 company in Trebinje in 2002 and served as chairman of the managing board
5 for the wire company in Srpsko Gorazde also in 2002; is that right?
6 A. That's correct. That's correct.
7 Q. Now, Mr. Mandic, you indicated that you left Sarajevo in December
8 of 1992 to become -- to go to Belgrade, to serve with the bureau of
9 Republika Srpska, thereby leaving your position as minister of justice.
10 Did you decide that you wanted to leave the position of minister of
11 justice or were you instructed by your superiors that you -- that it was
12 time to leave and you would no longer be minister of justice?
13 A. On the 16th of November, 1992, at the Assembly meeting held in
14 Zvornik, Professor Djeric, the then prime minister, submitted a
15 resignation and that led to the fall of that government. I was told that
16 the next prime minister designate did not want me on his cabinet, and the
17 top leaders of Republika Srpska recommended to me to go to Belgrade, that
18 I would be given a job in the bureau of Republika Srpska. So I was
19 prepared to go to Belgrade and to work there.
20 Q. Who made the decision that you would no longer serve as minister
21 of justice and would instead take the position in Belgrade?
22 A. I think that it was the decision of the new prime minister, or
23 rather, a prime minister designate, and the top leadership of
24 Republika Srpska. I'm referring to the Presidency, to Mr. Karadzic,
25 Biljana Plavsic, and Nikola Koljevic.
1 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I'm going to refer the witness at this
2 point to -- and ask a question about a portion of his previous interview.
3 So I'm alerting the Court and counsel to that.
4 Q. Mr. Mandic, you recall that you met with members or
5 representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor on two previous occasions
6 and provided answers to questions on tape; is that right?
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. And during the first of those interviews, do you recall that
9 questions were asked about your departure from the position of minister of
10 justice --
11 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may we be clear at this point.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. STEWART: Is it Mr. Tieger's intention at this point to seek
14 any in any way to undermine, contradict, the answer which his witness has
15 given him? Because if that's so, then at this fairly early stage in this
16 witness's evidence we are already in the territory of potentially the sort
17 of applications which were discussed a little while ago.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
19 MR. TIEGER: Well, first of all, I would again urge, as I did with
20 earlier witnesses, that we try, insofar as possible, to dispense with
21 formalistic distinctions and simply try to proceed in the most effective
22 and reasonable way to elicit information as accurately as possible. My
23 indication, I was turning to the transcript, was precisely that, and I
24 thought it was understood as such.
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, Mr. Tieger is -- a compliment.
1 Mr. Tieger is a master - it's a barbed compliment - at not directly
2 dealing with the point. It's a forensic skill. But he has not said
3 whether he is now going to seek to undermine in some way the witness's
5 JUDGE ORIE: From what I understand at this moment, is that
6 Mr. Tieger - at least that's how I understood his submission - is now
7 proceeding to establish whether there's any inconsistency between the
8 answer the witness just has given in his previous statement? Is that a
9 correct understanding?
10 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
12 MR. TIEGER:
13 Q. Mr. Mandic, I think I had asked whether you recall that some
14 questions --
15 A. May I just clarify something? I'm sorry. In the month of
16 September, at the Assembly meeting in Bijeljina, that is to say, before
17 the first government was dissolved, I expressed my wish to serve as a
18 minister without portfolio and to go to Belgrade. That is true. However,
19 the Assembly then made a decision that I should remain minister of justice
20 until the month of November.
21 Q. And is it correct, Mr. Mandic - and in this respect I would direct
22 the Court and counsel's attention to the interview of March of this year,
23 at page 27, I believe lines 18 through 19 - is it correct that the
24 decision that you would no longer serve as minister of justice was a
25 political decision made by Radovan Karadzic and Momcilo Krajisnik?
1 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, Mr. Tieger is not simply questioning in
2 order to establish whether there is any inconsistency with the answer just
3 given. That did -- even the further answer which Mr. Tieger gave when
4 pressed to the Trial Chamber skilfully avoided answering the particular
5 question which I had put through the Trial Chamber, with respect, and it
6 is quite clear that this is not some neutral exercise of establishing
7 whether there's an inconsistency. Mr. Tieger did not like and was not
8 happy with the answer given by the witness and was therefore seeking to
9 get a different answer. And that is directly and immediately in the
10 territory of, again, precisely that sort of application which was
11 discussed earlier. And, Your Honour, it's -- whatever the Trial Chamber's
12 rulings in relation to this application, we -- the Defence submits it
13 should not be fudged. It must at every point be very clear what is
14 happening, what Mr. Tieger is seeking to do, and then the Trial Chamber
15 can make its ruling. But this avoidance of a direct answer to the
16 Defence's questions through the Trial Chamber, with respect, ought not, in
17 fairness, to continue.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, from your question to the witness after
19 you answered my question, it appears that not much was needed for
20 establishing an inconsistency.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, it appears that you would like to
23 confront the witness with something that at first eye seems to be an
24 inconsistency, and you're allowed to do so.
25 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I observe: I'm not challenging
2 that ruling at all. The form of Mr. Tieger's question at lines 23 -- 22,
3 23, 24, 25, as they're just about to disappear off the screen, the
4 previous page, page 63.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. STEWART: -- was absolutely cross-examination form, and nobody
7 ought to be under any illusions about that. We -- it's not simply drawing
8 attention to inconsistencies. It was specifically put to the witness in
9 cross-examination form.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for your observation.
11 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
12 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Mr. Mandic, let me draw your attention to the questions and
14 responses that took place in March of this year during that interview.
15 You were asked at page 26, line 33: "Who advised you that you would be
16 assuming this position?" And at that time, the subject was the -- your
17 assumption of the position at the bureau in Belgrade. And you answered,
18 beginning at the top of page 27: "We were called by the leadership, and I
19 think at that time the prime minister was Mr. Dusko Kozic or Lukic. I
20 don't know who was the prime minister at that time. So the present were
21 the prime minister, Radovan Karadzic, and Momcilo Krajisnik, and they told
22 us that -- that we had to be, me and Mico Stanisic, had to be removed from
23 the leadership of Republika Srpska due to the personal conflict between us
24 and Biljana Plavsic and Mr. Nikola Koljevic, and that -- and also that at
25 that time, it was more important that the two of them remain in the
1 leadership of Republika Srpska than the two of us, and that's why we were
2 sent to Belgrade. They are the ones who informed us of that, but we do
3 not -- I do not know who appointed to those positions."
4 And then you were asked: "Why was it important that Biljana
5 Plavsic and Nikola Koljevic remained in the leadership." And you
6 said: "It was a political decision made by Radovan Karadzic and Momcilo
7 Krajisnik because we were just in charge of ministries and actually
8 executed other people's decisions, and Nikola Koljevic and Biljana Plavsic
9 were on higher positions."
10 A. All of that is correct. Perhaps I got a bit confused at the
11 outset, but it is true that Mr. Krajisnik called myself and Mr. Mico
12 Stanisic and informed them that the Presidency made a decision, that is to
13 say, the top leadership of Republika Srpska, to the effect that, at the
14 request of Biljana Plavsic and Nikola Koljevic, the two of us go to
15 Belgrade to hold different office and that we cannot continue serving on
16 the Executive during that period.
17 Also, they said that if they were to remain on the leadership, and
18 they were considered to be continuity from the Presidency of pre-war
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina, it was the top leadership of Republika Srpska that
20 was -- that decided to send the two of us to Belgrade, to different
21 positions, so that Biljana Plavsic and Nikola Koljevic could stay on in
22 order to be part of the leadership together with Krajisnik and Karadzic
23 and the prime minister - I think it was Lukic at the time - and that they
24 would be in charge of Republika Srpska. That's correct. That's exactly
25 what I had said.
1 It was Mr. Krajisnik who spoke to us, as far as I can remember.
2 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I have a practical matter, entirely
3 practical matter, which is this. I don't know exactly what's happened,
4 but the reference which Mr. Tieger gave to page 26, I think it was
5 line 23.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's actually 33, but I'm not quite sure.
7 MR. STEWART: I'm sorry. You -- 33 is absolutely right, Your
8 Honour. For some reason if I said 23, in my mind I had 33. Yes. I think
9 it was page 26, line 33. But it appears on my copy about a third of the
10 way down page 28. So I don't know what's happened.
11 What -- I can tell Your Honour that we have, as the list was
12 actually what was referred to in relation to that e-mail number 8 in the
13 list this morning, the point that Mr. Tieger picked up. We did receive a
14 further -- further copies of the statements with the lines indicated, but
15 those came too late for me to usefully use them because, not surprisingly,
16 I had already made some markings on my existing copy and have certainly
17 not had time to transfer all those markings, if indeed I ever do that to
18 the new lined copy. I don't know if that's the explanation, but at the
19 moment I'm going to need a little bit more practical help in pointing me
20 to the right passage if we're not singing from the same hymn sheet as far
21 as the numbering is concerned.
22 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, can I make a couple of quick practical
23 suggestions in response.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do.
25 MR. TIEGER: First of all, I don't know if simply having a copy of
1 the same document I'm referring to will be of assistance, but we'll be
2 happy to provide it. Second, we'd be happy to give counsel some
3 additional time to find the reference if it doesn't correspond precisely
4 to the line reference that I'm indicating when directing his attention to
5 it so that he can find it. Finally, if there is a discrepancy between my
6 indication of the line reference number or even the page number, that we
7 discover, perhaps we can undertake an effort at the end of the examination
8 or end of each day to make sure that those reference numbers correspond to
9 the exhibit that's actually in court.
10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I think the answer --
11 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand.
12 MR. STEWART: Thank you very much for the offer of the copy. I
13 gratefully accept that, because that will simply save Ms. Dixon one more
14 printing job. So that's a great help.
15 So far as extra time is concerned, of course, as I did do a moment
16 ago, I will do my very best to find the passage as quickly as possible,
17 and I'll only interject if I'm finding difficulty and I'm not able to keep
18 up. So I don't -- in a sense, don't worry about me. I'll soon squeal if
19 I'm getting left behind. And I will then, Your Honour -- well, I'll
20 consider whether I solve this problem between now and tomorrow by taking
21 that extra rather irritating but nevertheless perhaps necessary time to
22 transfer all my own personal notes from the old version of the statements
23 to the new version of the statements. But, you know, hey, it's all good
25 JUDGE ORIE: It's 25 minutes past 12.00 now. We'll adjourn until
1 a quarter to 1.00, and the Chamber wants to remind the parties that it has
2 full understanding for all the practical difficulties, but that finally
3 we're here to hear the testimony of Mr. Mandic, and nothing else.
4 We adjourn until a quarter to 1.00.
5 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, before there's any adjournment, I
6 wonder, because I was going to leave it to the end of the session.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No. I take it that you're talking about the
8 instructions. I took it as a matter of fact that there will be no contact
9 between the witness and Mr. Tomic.
10 Mr. Tomic, once the testimony has started, the witness should
11 refrain from any conversations about his testimony, and therefore, you are
12 instructed - and you, Mr. Mandic, you're also instructed - not to speak
13 with anyone, not even during the breaks, about the testimony you have
14 given or you're about to give in this court. I'll remind you to that at
15 the end of today's session, but already now for the first break, Mr. Tomic
16 being around, it's wise to give you this instruction.
17 We'll adjourn until a quarter to 1.00.
18 --- Recess taken at 12.26 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
21 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Mandic, let me turn quickly to your assumption of the position
23 of assistant minister for the MUP of the Socialist Republic of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1991. Who selected you for the -- or who nominated
25 you to be the candidate on behalf of the SDS for that position?
1 A. The first discussions I had, or rather, I was invited by the --
2 Vitomir Zepinic, the deputy MUP minister, to talk to Radovan Karadzic and
3 Rajko Dukic. Rajko Dukic was the president of the cadres commission and
4 Radovan Karadzic was the head of the Serbian Democratic Party.
5 Q. The translation we received for Mr. Dukic's position was president
6 of the cadres commission. Would that also be known as the SDS Executive
8 A. The president of the Executive Board and president of the cadres
9 commission, by virtue of office, as president, I think.
10 Q. And I think we sometimes have referred to that in translation as
11 the personnel commission, what you're referring to as the cadres
12 commission. Would that be accurate?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Now, among your other responsibilities as the SDS representative
15 who assumed that position, were you involved in ensuring that SDS
16 selections for the MUP were actually realised, were fulfilled?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. And is it -- did you have repeated discussions with Dr. Karadzic
19 and Mr. Dukic about those selections and the question of who the Serb
20 candidates would be on behalf of the SDS and whether or not those
21 nominations were actually being realised?
22 A. For the most part, they were. Yes, I did talk to Mr. Dukic as
23 well, and Mr. Karadzic, Dr. Karadzic, but also with the regional leaders
24 of the Serbian Democratic Party from the environments from which the
25 candidates came from to assume the individual functions and posts.
1 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, that's rather a compendious question
2 that's just been asked. I wonder if in future perhaps Mr. Tieger might be
3 invited to break down questions a little more carefully and possibly also
4 to avoid introducing in a leading form such -- well, in the first place,
5 superfluous words as "repeated," and perhaps leave those elements for
6 further questions.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. TIEGER: I think that's fair, and I'll attempt to do so.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm glad you accept it. Please proceed.
10 MR. TIEGER:
11 Q. Mr. Mandic, by the end of 1991 and beginning of 1992, was the
12 question of whether Muslims and Croats were moving successfully toward the
13 sovereignty and independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina considered a
14 pressing issue for the SDS?
15 A. Could you be more specific and tell me what you mean? I was a
16 high-ranking functionary in the MUP at the time. Could you tell me what
17 you mean, what direction you mean?
18 Q. Well, by the end of 1991, had a separate Serbian Assembly been
20 A. Yes, it had.
21 Q. And by the end of 1991, had Serbian authorities and SDS
22 authorities established a Council of Ministers, consisting of the
23 highest-ranking -- consisting in large part of high-ranking members of the
24 government of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina who were
25 SDS members?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Okay. Let me ask you to turn your attention now to our next
3 exhibit in order, which is -- which consists of the minutes of a meeting
4 of the Council of Ministers held on January 11th, 1992.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would that be number?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit number P412.
7 MR. STEWART: Excuse me, Your Honour, I wonder, just as a purely
8 practical matter, when the exhibits are handed to Mr. Krajisnik, they're
9 prepared, which is helpful, with the English and B/C/S together, but I
10 wonder, as the usher is handing the exhibit to Mr. Krajisnik, if she would
11 simply detach the English and let me have the English and leave the B/C/S
12 with Mr. Krajisnik.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, I take it that you'll follow this
15 MR. STEWART: Thank you very much.
16 JUDGE ORIE: You're allowed to do so by the Chamber.
17 MR. TIEGER:
18 Q. Mr. Mandic, that you have exhibit before you at this point?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, one of the issues of -- well, first of all, let me ask if you
21 were familiar with and knew the members of the Ministerial Council who
22 were identified in the upper portion of the first page as the Ministerial
23 Council members who attended the meeting; that is, Dr. Zepinic,
24 Mr. Terzic, Mr. Pejic, and so on.
25 A. Yes. Yes, mostly, for the most part, yes. For example, Ljubislav
1 Terzic, I don't know who that man is. But otherwise, 90 per cent of the
2 others on the page, I do recognise. They were mostly ministers from the
3 government of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, from amongst
4 the ethnic Serbs.
5 Q. And were you also familiar with those persons indicated two
6 paragraphs below as also being in attendance, including Dr. Karadzic and
7 Mr. Krajisnik?
8 A. Yes, that's right.
9 Q. Now if I can direct your attention to the second page of the
10 document, at least the second page in English, which is agenda item
11 number 2, and that is the execution of tasks resulting from the
12 declaration of the promulgation of the Republic of the Serbian People of
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina.
14 First of all, Mr. Mandic, does that refer, insofar as you're
15 aware, to the declaration of the promulgation of the Republic which took
16 place on January 9th, 1992?
17 A. I think it is, yes.
18 Q. And looking at the second paragraph following that identified
19 agenda item, did the Council of Ministers identify the priorities which
20 emerged or sprang from the declaration; that is, the priorities that would
21 have to be pursued in response to the declaration?
22 A. Precisely so.
23 Q. And did that include the defining of ethnic territory and the
24 establishment of government organs in the territory?
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. Now, the paragraph above indicates that a discussion of the issues
2 regarding the tasks resulting from the declaration included Dr. Karadzic
3 and Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Dukic. Let me turn back to something you
4 mentioned earlier, and that is, you referred to the -- in some of your
5 responses before we took the recess, to the top leadership of
6 Republika Srpska. Can you tell us who were the top leaders of
7 Republika Srpska in 1992?
8 A. In 1991?
9 Q. Well, the council of -- I asked you about 1992, and the -- this
10 meeting of the Council of Ministers to which we're referring is the
11 beginning of 1992, so I'd like to know throughout the pendency of 1992,
12 who the top leadership was.
13 A. The top leadership was -- of the Bosnian Serbs in 1992,
14 Dr. Karadzic, Dr. Radovan Karadzic, Dr. Biljana Plavsic, Dr. Nikola
15 Koljevic, Momcilo Krajisnik. I think they were the four top-level leaders
16 in Republika Srpska at that time.
17 Q. And within that group, did any particular person or persons have
18 greater power or influence than the others?
19 A. In my opinion, the absolute number one was Dr. Radovan Karadzic,
20 without a contest.
21 Q. And was a clear number two?
22 A. In my own personal position, the number-two man was Momcilo
23 Krajisnik. However, there was a latent conflict there, or around the
24 number two, between Biljana Plavsic and Nikola Koljevic, sort of dead
25 heat, on the one side, and Mr. Krajisnik on the other. But Mrs. Biljana
1 Plavsic and Nikola Koljevic considered that they should be the number two
2 in terms of power and political power especially in Republika Srpska.
3 Q. Irrespective of Ms. Plavsic's and Dr. Koljevic's desire to be the
4 second-most important people in Republika Srpska, did anyone actually come
5 close to having the kind of power and influence that Dr. Karadzic and
6 Mr. Krajisnik had?
7 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we suggest that that question shouldn't
8 bracket Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik together in that way, especially in
9 the light of the answers which counsel has already elicited from this
10 witness in relation to their positions.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The objection is sustained. Mr. Tieger, would
12 you please split it up.
13 MR. TIEGER:
14 Q. Mr. Mandic, isn't it correct that -- and, Your Honour, at this
15 point I am going to seek clarification or impeachment or additional
16 information about a response the witness gave.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
18 MR. TIEGER:
19 Q. Mr. Mandic, isn't it correct that Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik
20 had greater power and influence than anyone else in Republika Srpska?
21 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, Mr. Tieger's attempting to ignore Your
22 Honour's quite explicit instruction.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I think that the witness has expressed
24 his opinion that Dr. Karadzic was first and that Mr. Krajisnik was second,
25 although others might have thought about it in a different way. You then
1 wanted to establish, as far as I understand, the distance with anyone
2 else. That should be done by reference to one of these persons. If you
3 say I leave that question and now I rather put another question, but if
4 you'd like to draw our attention first to elements of the statement, then
5 please give us the source.
6 MR. TIEGER: Okay. Well, first -- I will, Your Honour.
7 Q. Mr. Mandic, perhaps it's helpful if I draw your attention to a
8 portion of the transcript.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please first indicate, Mr. Tieger, tell
10 us --
11 MR. TIEGER: I was just about to do that, Your Honour. That would
12 be page 88 of the March interview, beginning at page 5.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Line 5, I take it.
14 MR. TIEGER: Line 5. Thank you.
15 Q. And Mr. Mandic, you were asked then as follows: "Mr. Mandic, you
16 mentioned that although Mr. Krajisnik and Dr. Karadzic were long-time
17 friends, over time some rivalry came to existed and that reflected their
18 influence on Serbian people."
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- one second, Mr. Tieger.
20 Do I take it that you're not asking any further questions as far
21 as the distance is concerned to other people but you're now asking about
22 the number one, number two issue?
23 MR. TIEGER: I believe I'm trying to clarify the issue of whether
24 in fact there is such a distance, and then further, whether or not --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You may proceed.
1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
2 Q. Again, Mr. Mandic, recalling the question you were asked in March
3 of 2004, you responded: "This rivalry was the result of the influence
4 they had in certain aspects of the state, because the division of power
5 was not clear enough at the time. So Radovan Karadzic was the president
6 of the Republic and as such was in charge of the police, the army, the
7 armed forces. So he had that kind of power, whereas Momcilo Krajisnik was
8 the president and chairman of the Assembly and had deputies and presidents
9 of the municipalities under him. So basically, that's what I meant when I
10 said the influence on people. And that's -- that was the reason for
11 rivalry, this division of power. They both had the power but different
12 kind of power." And then you were asked: "Were there any other rivals or
13 would anyone else come close to having the kind of influence and power
14 those two had?" And your answer was: "No. Among Serbs, no. That was
15 only later that Ratko Mladic as commander of the army gained some
16 popularity among Serb people."
17 A. Yes, that's precisely what it was, and I stand by the statement I
18 made. Yes.
19 Q. Now, Mr. Mandic, let me ask you, then, some questions about the
20 extent of that power and influence. First of all, could anyone enter the
21 government without the permission of Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik?
22 A. No.
23 Q. And did they select people and keep around them in positions of
24 authority persons --
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I didn't object to the first of those
1 questions because, logically, to ask if anyone can enter the government
2 without the permission of Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik implies that you
3 must have the position -- the permission of each of them separate. So
4 logically the objection I made to the previous question doesn't apply to
5 that. But it does apply to this further question. As soon as Mr. Tieger
6 puts them together then in selecting jointly, he's -- the question is
7 subject to exactly the same objection as a few minutes ago.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first try to find out whether we understood the
9 answer of the witness correctly.
10 When you said -- Mr. Mandic, at least when you said that one could
11 not enter the government without permission of Dr. Karadzic and
12 Mr. Krajisnik, do you mean to say that you needed the permission of both
13 of these persons?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was the so-called dovetailing
15 of views. If there was permanent division of views -- divergence of views
16 between Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik then usually it would be
17 Mr. Karadzic's person who would be elected, but that was rare.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Tieger, on the basis of
19 this answer.
20 MR. TIEGER:
21 Q. And in selecting persons for governmental positions, did
22 Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik look to and select people whom they
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Were Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik friends, in addition to being
1 political allies?
2 A. From times gone by, they were friends, before the multi-party
3 elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
4 Q. Do you know for approximately how long they had been friends
5 before the multi-party elections?
6 A. I don't know, because I didn't know them personally. Until I
7 became assistant minister, I didn't know either one of them personally.
8 However, in my discussions with other friends, I knew that they were close
9 and that they were friends.
10 Q. Now, you referred earlier in the course of reviewing the interview
11 of 2004 to the different way in which -- different ways in which
12 Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik exercised their power. Let me ask you to
13 listen to Prosecution's next exhibit in order --
14 THE REGISTRAR: P413.
15 MR. TIEGER:
16 Q. -- which is an intercepted telephone conversation of April 17th,
18 [Intercept played]
19 Petar LUGONJA: Hello good morning.
20 Secretary: Good morning.
21 Petar LUGONJA: Petar Lugonja needs to speak to Momcilo Mandic,
23 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes?
24 Petar LUGONJA: Hello.
25 Momcilo MANDIC: Hey Petar.
1 Petar LUGONJA: Momo, hi there.
2 Momcilo MANDIC: Hi, Pero.
3 Petar LUGONJA: What are you up to?
4 Momcilo MANDIC: Here I am.
5 Petar LUGONJA: How's it going?
6 Momcilo MANDIC: It's fucking all right. How about you?
7 Petar LUGONJA: Well fuck.
8 Momcilo MANDIC: Problems.
9 Petar LUGONJA: It's fucking shitty. I wanted to ask you to check
10 it out.
11 Momcilo MANDIC: What's up?
12 Petar LUGONJA: Well, I'm fucking having these three people here
13 in Ilidza. Tomo is pulling to his side because he's from the police. I
14 believe that he's -- that he's mainly right. Then there's Prstojevic, the
15 president of the party and of the Crisis Staff and there's Kezunovic, the
16 prime minister, you know.
17 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes.
18 Petar LUGONJA: It seems to me that this Kezunovic guy is in some
19 way right most of the time, but Prstojevic is -- he seems to be gathering
20 some kind of scum around him, some incapable people. Does anyone at this
21 moment have the influence to calm this thing down? To find a fourth
22 person who, who can fucking unite all this?
23 Momcilo MANDIC: Well, I'll call Prstojevic to come in and I'll
24 talk to him here.
25 Petar LUGONJA: Yeah, but it's of no fucking use. Kezunovic is
1 from up there in Pale and he's a good guy. I guess he took his family up
2 to Pale yesterday and the day before and he also spoke to Karadzic about
3 something, you know.
4 Momcilo MANDIC: Yes.
5 Petar LUGONJA: But a new man has to come there, one that can
6 really unite us. Now, if there is a discord, they can go fuck themselves
7 awful them. I'll fuck kill them all.
8 Momcilo MANDIC: Come on, Pero pal, you're the smartest and most
9 able there.
10 Petar LUGONJA: Well it's impossible, fucking hell. Koljevic came
11 last night. They closed themselves in there and won't let anyone in. A
12 meeting, pal. What fucking kind of behaviour is that? That's just a
13 bunch of fucking crooks.
14 Momcilo MANDIC: Well yeah, they're running to the boss. All
15 right, I'll talk to Koljevic and up there to Karadzic.
16 Petar LUGONJA: Karadzic as well. Please tell him. Listen.
17 Momcilo MANDIC: I will.
18 Petar LUGONJA: There has been a split and it's been a mess in
19 Ilidza since day one. Don't let us have a man because this guy cannot
20 give any orders.
21 Momcilo MANDIC: All right.
22 Petar LUGONJA: Take care of mobilisation. We are unable to move
23 people. You know what we lack? I wanted to come up there. Is it to be
24 to get to you?
25 Momcilo MANDIC: It's possible, brother, it's possible, but.
1 Petar LUGONJA: All right I'll see I have--
2 Momcilo MANDIC: When it's -- when these guys from the party are
3 -- today -- tomorrow everyone will be here for a meeting so get here
5 Petar LUGONJA: Right. I'll call you when -- to drop by and to
6 put forth some of these things.
7 Momcilo MANDIC: Agreed.
8 Petar LUGONJA: It only matters to us that we have someone to --
9 to get a fucking move on.
10 Momcilo MANDIC: Agreed. Agreed.
11 Petar LUGONJA: Right. Cheers. Bye.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that there are no major inconsistencies in
13 the transcript of the telephone conversation. If so, I'd like to be
14 informed by the interpreters.
15 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
16 MR. TIEGER:
17 Q. Mr. Mandic, first, can you identify the participants in that
19 A. Petar Lugonja, who was one of the top people in the municipality
20 of Ilidza, and myself. So it is Momcilo Mandic and Petar Lugonja.
21 Q. And can you explain to us what Mr. Lugonja was calling you about.
22 A. I and Petar Lugonja had known each other for years from our sports
23 days and he was an activist of the Serb Democratic Party in Ilidza. At
24 that time, there was some disagreement between the police authorities and
25 the municipal authorities. He thought that the president of the
1 municipality, or rather, the Crisis Staff of Ilidza, Prstojevic, was
2 bringing together some people who were not proper and who were not
3 behaving appropriately, that they were impeding the setting up of civilian
4 authorities in Ilidza. That's why he asked to have that problem resolved
5 by President Karadzic.
6 Q. So Mr. Lugonja was having a dispute with Mr. Prstojevic. There
7 was essentially a battle for leadership?
8 A. They clashed in terms of their views as to how power should be
9 established and in Ilidza. And as a consequence of that, Petar Lugonja
10 left Ilidza and Bosnia very quickly and went to Belgrade, whereas
11 Prstojevic stayed on in Ilidza, for a long, long time. So Prstojevic had
12 this stream of his own, so to speak.
13 Q. Was Mr. Prstojevic a deputy in the Assembly?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did he have a relationship with Mr. Krajisnik? Was he close to
16 Mr. Krajisnik?
17 A. I think that Mr. Krajisnik had major influence over Mr. Prstojevic
18 as a deputy in the Assembly.
19 Q. And was that the reason why Mr. Prstojevic prevailed in this
20 conflict for local authority?
21 A. I think that the entire leadership of Republika Srpska had greater
22 confidence in Mr. Prstojevic and that's how it happened. So it wasn't
23 only Mr. Krajisnik, but it was Mr. Karadzic too, and Mr. Koljevic.
24 Q. You mentioned that Mr. Krajisnik had major influence over Mr.
25 Prstojevic. Was Mr. Krajisnik able to influence the events in Ilidza
1 before and during the war, as a result of his relationship with Mr.
3 A. I think that Mr. Krajisnik had great authority among the MPs and
4 the presidents of the municipalities, and that in that way, he could
5 influence Mr. Prstojevic. He could give him instructions in terms of how
6 he should exercise power in Ilidza. I think that these people were not
7 very well versed. They were surprised by the war and they came to hold
8 certain offices where they could not really manage. Mr. Prstojevic was
9 one such person.
10 Q. And in addition to the influence that Mr. Krajisnik had over
11 events in Ilidza through Mr. Prstojevic, did he have influence and control
12 of events in other municipalities through the deputies and presidents of
13 the municipalities?
14 A. Are you referring to the beginning of the war or the course of the
15 war itself?
16 Q. I'm referring to the period of time from the beginning of the war
17 through the end of 1992.
18 A. Yes. Yes, he did.
19 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, the question is: Why the first bit of
20 Mr. Tieger's question, where he said in the and in addition to the
21 influence that Mr. Krajisnik had over events in Ilidza through Mr.
22 Prstojevic, did he have influence and control of events in other
23 municipalities?" The question would have been complete if it started:
24 Did he have influence and control of events in other municipalities,
25 without Mr. Tieger introducing into the question his own summary of what's
1 been said, which is rather doubtfully an accurate summary.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I think the question would have been more
3 neutral and less leading not to make the -- but I'm just looking at
4 whether the earlier testimony did not give a clue to that.
5 MR. TIEGER: I think it does, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what I'm checking at this moment. Could
7 you please assist me, Mr. Tieger, to give me the line. Because it's in my
8 mind, but I can't find it at this moment.
9 MR. TIEGER: I think it just escaped. I think it was --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
11 MR. TIEGER: I think it is 13 [Microphone not activated] Ending
12 the 13. [Microphone not activated]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, without a microphone --
14 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry. Roughly page 83. I couldn't see where it
15 began, but ending roughly at line 18. But the transcript was running as I
16 was trying to capture that segment.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Stewart, at least we have some -- the
18 witness answered that I think that Mr. Krajisnik had great authority among
19 the MPs and the presidents of the municipalities and that in that way he
20 could influence Mr. Prstojevic.
21 Therefore, the link is in the answer of the witness. There was no
22 need to intervene. Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
23 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, with respect, I'm afraid I do persist
24 with my objection there, because the witness's answer there at lines 14,
25 15, 16, 17, that what happened was that Mr. Tieger had asked the witness
1 specifically whether Mr. Krajisnik was able to influence the events in
2 Ilidza, and the witness in a sense confirmed that he was able to. He
3 started off in general terms by saying he had great authority among MPs
4 and presidents of municipalities, so in that way he could influence
5 Mr. Prstojevic; in other words, as one of the people in that category.
6 And then he could give him instructions in terms of how he should exercise
7 power in Ilidza. It is a jump to, in addition to the influence that
8 Mr. Krajisnik had over events in Ilidza through Mr. Prstojevic, first of
9 all, it's a jump, but secondly, and in parallel to that particular
10 objection, I do persist with my submission, Your Honour, that that was an
11 entirely unnecessary element of the question, that did he have influence
12 and control was, as I think Your Honour recognises.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, first of all, I gave my ruling. And I'd
14 like not to make my rulings to start with debate. Second, I already told
15 Mr. Tieger that leaving out the first part would have been the appropriate
16 way of doing it. The jump is not such that it's not admissible.
17 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
18 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I observe that of course I
19 100 per cent subscribe, with respect, to the view that rulings shouldn't
20 become the subject of retrospective debate. Your Honour, what would
21 therefore be preferable would be that when Mr. Tieger is invited by the
22 Trial Chamber then to point to the specific passages in the transcript
23 which are supposedly in answer to my objection - unless it's absolutely
24 crystal clear, which in this case it wasn't - that I should be invited
25 then to make my submissions before the Court makes its ruling.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber tries to evade a situation where
2 95 per cent of the time is taken by procedural debate and only 5 per
3 cent - and I know that this is an exaggeration - is reserved for hearing
4 the testimony of the witness.
5 Mr. Tieger, you may proceed.
6 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I say on that --
7 JUDGE ORIE: I said -- Mr. --
8 MR. STEWART: -- Mr. Tieger can avoid that situation by asking the
9 right questions in the right form, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, I said that Mr. Tieger could proceed.
11 Mr. Tieger, please do so.
12 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Mr. Mandic, before the procedural discussion that just took place,
14 you had discussed a conflict within a local municipality, within the
15 leadership of the local municipality. Let me ask you about a conflict
16 within the leadership of the country. First of all, I think you indicated
17 that Mr. Djeric was the prime minister in 1992.
18 A. When I was minister of justice.
19 Q. In 1992, did Mr. Djeric come into conflict with Mr. Krajisnik?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What was the cause of that conflict, or the nature of that
23 A. I cannot say exactly, but I know that there was great animosity on
24 the part of Mr. Djeric vis-a-vis Mr. Krajisnik and that he thought that as
25 prime minister he should exercise a great deal more of power and that he
1 should then act in accordance with government decisions. For a while he
2 didn't even want to communicate with Mr. Krajisnik.
3 Q. And as a result of the conflict with Mr. Krajisnik, did Mr. Djeric
4 leave his position as prime minister? That is, was his departure as a
5 result of his conflict with Mr. Krajisnik?
6 A. I don't think that that was the only reason. I think there was a
7 rift within the government itself, and in these relationships,
8 Mr. Karadzic did not support Mr. Djeric, as opposed to the Presidency
9 members, Biljana Plavsic and Nikola Koljevic, and then, on the 16th of
10 November, in Zvornik, Mr. Djeric, in disagreement with the top leadership
11 of Republika Srpska and some ministers, he submitted his resignation in
12 Zvornik, as far as I can remember.
13 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I really do not wish, with respect, to
14 be intimidated by the suggestion that -- or the implication that a lot of
15 time is being wasted this morning on procedural matters.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not waste -- I'm not blaming anyone. I just said
17 that this Court would rather not at this moment spend more time on
18 procedural debate. Of course, necessary debate will be allowed, but it
19 should not be more important than hearing the evidence. And I did not, as
20 far as I remember, blame any party for that.
21 MR. STEWART: Well, I'm sorry. I apologise, Your Honour, then if
22 I heard something between the lines that wasn't there. I apologise for
24 JUDGE ORIE: It wasn't there.
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it is my job to object to any questions
1 which are being put in what in our submission is improper form, and the
2 question as a result of the conflict with Mr. Krajisnik did Mr. Djeric
3 leave his position as prime minister, that is, was his departure as a
4 result of his conflict with Mr. Krajisnik, apart from the fact of it being
5 repeated as only one question, in fact, is not a proper question. It's
6 blatantly leading. Again, the question could have been simply: Do you
7 know -- it could have been in the form: Do you know for what reason
8 Mr. Djeric left his position as prime minister?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, you're invited to put your questions in a
10 less leading way. And, Mr. Stewart, you are asked kindly by the
11 interpreters to slow down for the record. It's not for the interpreters,
12 but from the transcribers.
13 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
14 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mr. Mandic, you mentioned earlier the different persons or bodies
16 through whom Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik exercised power. First of
17 all, is that correct? You recall discussing that?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Were there particular persons through whom they exercised their
20 power? First of all, were there particular persons through whom
21 Dr. Karadzic exercised his power, individuals?
22 A. People were sent to certain municipalities. Now, what was the
23 name? I can't remember exactly. On behalf of the president of the
24 Republic. They were called "Povjerenici," commissioners who were sent to
25 different municipalities by the president. The municipalities were not
1 functioning at the time, so he sent his own people to exercise power
2 there. They were called commissioners. When municipal authorities were
3 not functioning. I don't know whether that is what you're referring to.
4 If you could explain your question a bit, please.
5 Q. Well, apart from those individuals, were there particular people
6 with whom Dr. Karadzic had been associated or was associated and upon whom
7 he particularly relied?
8 A. There were a few, and they were his advisors. They held the
9 position of his advisors. If you are referring to people outside, in the
10 institutions of government of Republika Srpska, that is to say, outside
11 the government itself, outside the ministries, and outside the Assembly.
12 Q. Well, let me ask you about certain individuals and then ask you
13 whether or not those were people who were close to Mr. Karadzic and
14 through whom he was able, in part, to exercise power. Danilo Veselinovic,
15 Jovan Tintor, Mico Stanisic, Vlasta Kuzmuk [phoen], Tomo Kovac [phoen],
16 Dragan Kijac and at the beginning, General Mladic and Ms. Plavsic.
17 A. These are the people I meant, precisely. And for the most part,
18 they held the position of advisors to the president of the Republic.
19 Those are the people I meant. These are the people who enjoyed
20 Mr. Karadzic's trust.
21 Q. Let me ask you the same question --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, may I remind you, you were invited to put
23 the questions in a non-leading way. Of course, mentioning the names is
24 quite leading. You should have first invited the witness to ask him
25 whether he could remember any names of those individuals he had in mind.
1 I think that would have been the proper way of doing it.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. TIEGER:
4 Q. Mr. Mandic, let me ask you the same question with respect to
5 Mr. Krajisnik.
6 A. Yes. Mr. Krajisnik did have people who enjoyed his confidence.
7 Q. And do you recall who some of those people were, and can you name
8 them? Can you identify them for us?
9 A. Well, for the most part, they were deputies from the pre-war
10 Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina and presidents of municipalities who were
11 appointed to those positions at the beginning of the war. For example,
12 Professor Vojislav Maksimovic, Petar Cancar, Velibor Ostojic, and these
13 people who were involved in parliamentary work before the war and at the
14 beginning of the war, inter alia.
15 Q. Now, irrespective of the particular individuals who were
16 identified with them or through whom Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik
17 exercised power, did Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik work closely -- work
18 together and cooperatively in 1992?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. And later, after -- beyond 1992, did some rivalry between -- did
21 any rivalry between Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik begin to develop or --
22 well, begin to develop or appear to develop?
23 A. My personal opinion is that after a few years of the war, a few
24 years into the war, there was a kind of rivalry that sprang up in terms of
25 the exercise of power, and then there was a stratification among people as
1 to who was closer to Dr. Karadzic and who enjoyed his confidence more, and
2 who was closer to Mr. Krajisnik.
3 Q. I'll ask you to look quickly at Prosecution's next exhibit in
4 order, and that's B008-4259.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, would you be able to deal with it in two
6 minutes? If not, we perhaps rather stop for the day.
7 MR. TIEGER: I would be reluctant to make a guarantee for the
8 Court, and I know we went over time yesterday, so I wouldn't want to be
9 the cause of going over time today. So perhaps it would be more prudent
10 to take it up tomorrow.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Mandic, we'd like to see you back tomorrow
12 morning, 9.00, in this same courtroom. May I again instruct you not to
13 speak with anyone about the testimony you have given until now and the
14 testimony you're still about to give. That includes --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's the way it's going to be,
16 Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So, therefore, even if you are together with
18 your counsel, then this should not be the subject of any conversation.
19 The same is true for anyone.
20 Unless there's any procedural issue to be raised at this very
21 moment, which I hope is not, we'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 24th day of
24 November, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.