1 Monday, 3 November 2008
2 [Appeals Hearing]
3 [Open session]
4 [The appellant entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 8.33 a.m.
6 JUDGE POCAR: Good morning, everybody. Madam Registrar, may I
7 ask you to call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
9 everyone in and around are the courtroom. This is case number
10 IT-00-39-A, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
11 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you. May I ask Mr. Krajisnik if he can
12 hear me and follow the proceedings through the translation.
13 THE APPELLANT: [Interpretation] Judge, I can follow in my
14 language, and I can hear well. Thank you.
15 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you.
16 Let me now call for appearances. For Mr. Krajisnik's counsel on
17 the matter of JCE, please.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Nathan Dershowitz, JCE counsel.
20 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. For the Prosecution.
21 MR. KREMER: Peter Kremer, Mr. President and members of the
22 Court, appearing for the Prosecution. Assisting me this morning are
23 Mr. Matteo Costi and Ms. Katharina Margetts and our case manager,
24 Alma Imamovic-Ivanov is also assisting.
25 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. Now for the amicus curiae.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
2 MR. NICHOLLS: Colin Nicholls acting as -- sorry. Colin Nicholls
3 acting as amicus.
4 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you.
5 Now, this is an evidentiary hearing on appeal in the case of the
6 Prosecutor against Krajisnik. Today we will hear the testimony of
7 Mr. George Mano and Mr. Stefan Karganovic who were summoned by the Appeal
8 Chamber on October 2008 under Rules 98 and 107 of the Rules.
9 Let me briefly summarise the evidence, which have ben admitted in
10 this appeal and it will detail the order in which we hear the witnesses'
11 testimonies today.
12 First, in its decision of 20 August 2008, the Appeals Chamber
13 admitted into evidence under Rule 115 statements by Mr. Mano and
14 Mr. Karganovic, both presented by the Defence. Mr. Mano's statement is
15 Exhibit AD1 and that of Mr. Karganovic is Exhibit AD2.
16 In its decision of 8 October 2008, the Appeals Chamber admitted
17 seven document presented by the Prosecution as rebuttal evidence to these
18 statements its exhibits AP1 to AP7.
19 I would like to remind the parties that Exhibits AD1 and AD2 as
20 well as the rebuttal evidence are under seal. Therefore if the parties
21 or amicus curiae wish to refer to these documents they should request
22 private session.
23 This morning we will first hear Witness George Mano. He appears
24 as a witness of the Appeals Chamber. The main examination will therefore
25 be conducted by the Bench. Mr. Krajisnik will then have the opportunity
1 of questioning Mr. Mano for 45 minutes, after which the Prosecution and
2 amicus curiae may pose questions to the witness for 45 minutes each.
3 We will then break and after lunch the Bench will examine Witness
4 Karganovic who is also a Chamber witness, and we will follow the same --
5 the same schedule as for the testimony of Mr. Mano.
6 We will rise, of course, for the usual breaks every one and a
7 half hours during the morning and the afternoon, and as usual the time
8 allotted to the parties is approximate and may with leave of the Chamber
9 be varied where necessary.
10 That said, I wish to remind the parties that they are not oblige
11 to use ought time allocated, and as always, Judges may interrupt them at
12 any time to ask questions to the witnesses.
13 So having said that about the manner in which we will proceed
14 today, I would now like to call Witness George Mano.
15 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Your Honour, may I address the Chamber for
16 one second with respect to the schedule?
17 JUDGE POCAR: Yes.
18 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: I had assumed on the basis of the orders of
19 the Court and the time schedule now that the amicus would be inquiring of
20 the witnesses on ineffective assistance of counsel and therefore would
21 include within their area of inquiry questions relating to JCE. I was
22 advised last night and again this morning that amicus is probably not
23 going to cover that area because of a lack of clarity as to whether that
24 is within the ambit of their area of responsibility.
25 So under those circumstances, if they choose not to inquire into
1 the JCE area, I with like with the permission of Mr. Nicholls to be able
2 to take ten minutes of the allocated time that they have to make some
3 inquiries, if it's not covered by the Chamber before, with respect to
4 ineffective assistance of counsel solely as it relates to the JCE issue.
5 And of course if necessary I can request from Mr. Krajisnik that I take
6 ten of his minutes instead of Mr. Nicholls' ten minutes. Thank you.
7 [Appeals Chamber confers]
8 [The witness entered court]
9 JUDGE POCAR: Well, I consulted my colleagues and this could be
10 appropriate. You certainly can do that taking from the time either of
11 the -- of Mr. Krajisnik also or of the amicus.
12 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honours, may I make my position clear as
13 amicus? I do not intend to cross-examine either of the witnesses for
14 reasons which I've already placed before the Chamber, and there is one
15 additional reason in the case of the witness Mr. Karganovic.
16 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. I take note of that.
17 WITNESS: GEORGE MANO
18 JUDGE POCAR: Now, good morning, Mr. Mano.
19 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
20 JUDGE POCAR: Can you hear me?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 JUDGE POCAR: Could you please read the solemn declaration given
23 to you by the usher.
24 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
25 whole truth, and nothing but the truth
1 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you, Mr. Mano. You may now be seated.
2 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, may I refer to notes if I'm not sure
3 about a date or a fact?
4 JUDGE POCAR: Of course you may.
5 Questioned by the Appeals Chamber:
6 JUDGE POCAR: Could you please tell the Court your full name and
7 date of birth first?
8 A. George Mano, July 24, 1961.
9 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. What is your address?
10 A. The street address or city?
11 JUDGE POCAR: Both.
12 A. Okay. I live at 202 Honmachi in Himeji Japan.
13 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. Could you now tell us what education
14 you have and give us a brief list of your previous and present
16 A. I teach English at a university in Japan. I've been living in
17 Japan for 13 years. For the past ten years, I've been teaching at the
18 university where I am currently employed.
19 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. Mr. Mano, the Court has asked you to
20 testify in the appeals proceeding in the case of the Prosecutor against
21 Momcilo Krajisnik. As it is the Court itself that has requested your
22 attendance, you will first be asked questions by the Judges. As I am the
23 Presiding Judge, I will begin the questioning myself, following questions
24 by the other Judges. You may then be asked questions by Mr. Krajisnik,
25 the Prosecution, and the amicus curiae.
1 Specifically, we will be asking you questions as to what you know
2 about the workings of Mr. Krajisnik's Defence team during trial and the
3 conduct of former counsel Nicholas Stewart in relation thereto.
4 Now, first, Mr. Mano, did you work for Mr. Krajisnik's Defence
5 team during his trial?
6 A. Yes. I was a volunteer intern in the summer of 2004.
7 JUDGE POCAR: How long did you work in the Defence team?
8 A. Approximately three months.
9 JUDGE POCAR: And that is from, to?
10 A. I started on July 5th, and my last day was September 24th.
11 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you. Apart from this, have you had or do
12 you have any other working relationship with Mr. Krajisnik?
13 A. I guess last year or maybe earlier this year Mr. Krajisnik, when
14 he took over his own defence, named me as one of his team for his appeal;
15 but I was not paid a salary.
16 JUDGE POCAR: What were your duties within the Defence team?
17 A. Are you referring to --
18 JUDGE POCAR: During the trial.
19 A. 2004?
20 JUDGE POCAR: Yes.
21 A. Well, I had various duties. I read documents that had been given
22 to the Defence from the Prosecution relating to facts that the
23 Prosecution and the Defence were asked to agree upon. I prepared
24 cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses. I wrote historical
25 background of the war for the Defence, and I also prepared a list or a
1 packet of information about expert witnesses for the Defence.
2 JUDGE POCAR: Why did you leave the Defence team? Sorry. I
3 didn't have the microphone. Why did you leave the Defence team?
4 A. Well, I had a full-time job in Japan. I only agreed to work for
5 three months.
6 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. During the work -- your work with the
7 Defence team, what was your professional relation to Defence counsel,
8 Mr. Stewart?
9 A. Well, I was a volunteer, an intern, an unpaid clerk, if you will,
10 for the Defence team. So he was my boss.
11 JUDGE POCAR: And for how long did you interact with Mr. Stewart
12 in this capacity?
13 A. For the entire time I was here. From July 5th until September
15 JUDGE POCAR: Now, moving to another question. Have you worked
16 or are you currently working on other cases before this Tribunal or any
17 other international criminal tribunal?
18 A. I assisted one other case briefly when I was here in the summer
19 of 2004. And when I say briefly, one day. I was asked by another
20 Defence team if I would help them review their final brief for the Court.
21 JUDGE POCAR: Can you tell us which was the case?
22 A. I don't remember the name of the case, but the lead attorney was
23 Michael Karnavas.
24 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you. I will now move to asking you
25 something about the exhibit unless there are other questions that my
1 colleagues want to put before I do that.
2 We have to go into private session. Thank you. Because the
3 exhibit is under seal.
4 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of Chamber]
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in private session.
6 JUDGE POCAR: So first since we are dealing with Exhibit AD1, can
7 the witness be presented with the exhibit.
8 So, Mr. Mano, this document is a letter of -- dated September 23,
9 2004, addressed by you to Mr. Van de Vliet of the Tribunal's office of
10 legal aid and detention. Could you please take a moment to familiarise
11 yourself with the document. Can you confirm that you wrote this letter?
12 A. Yes. This looks like the letter I wrote.
13 JUDGE POCAR: Does the letter represent the truth to the best of
14 your knowledge?
15 A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge.
16 JUDGE POCAR: Mr. Mano, I would like to turn your attention
17 specifically to page 3 of the letter stating that there is convincing
18 evidence that Mr. Stewart should not be left to handle this case.
19 Am I correct to understand from your letter that you reach this
20 conclusion based on Mr. Stewart's statement before the Trial Chamber that
21 he did not know whether or not Mr. Krajisnik was innocent?
22 A. Yeah. Probably I should have said that this statement, along
23 with everything else, should be convincing to anyone that he should not
24 be left to handle this case. But I did feel at the time that that
25 statement was completely out of line and would not be the statement made
1 by a competent attorney.
2 JUDGE POCAR: Well, could you explain the circumstances under
3 which Mr. Stewart made this statement?
4 A. Okay. I believe I -- okay. I did write that this was made
5 during an oral argument. I'm not really sure if it was during an oral
6 argument. It may have been during cross-examination of a witness. I
7 can't recall at the time, but he was talking to the Court, and I don't
8 remember the exact circumstances, but this statement by Mr. Stewart came
10 JUDGE POCAR: Let me take another point of the letter. At the
11 bottom of page 1, continuing on page 2 of your letter, you claim that
12 Mr. Stewart wanted to agree with the Prosecution to facts which in your
13 view are detrimental to Mr. Krajisnik's Defence. You give one example
14 concerning what you call a Serbian gang leader. Were there are other
15 examples of Mr. Stewart agreeing to facts that detrimental to
16 Mr. Krajisnik's Defence.
17 A. Yeah. Probably I should give you a little more information about
18 that. It was the second day I was here at the Tribunal when I was given
19 a list of these statements of facts to review before Mr. Stewart and one
20 or two other members of the team met with the Prosecution team to discuss
21 these facts and to agree upon some of them or all of them; and we went to
22 that meeting that day - I believe it was in the afternoon - and it was
23 clear to me that Mr. Stewart was agreeing to a lot of things that could
24 not be confirm or should not be confirmed that were highly detrimental to
25 Mr. Krajisnik's defence. So the next morning I sent an e-mail to
1 Mr. Stewart to meet with him because I wanted to tell him I was a little
2 bit concerned about this and maybe he should spend a little more time or
3 be a little bit more careful about the facts that he was agreeing to.
4 So I met with him. I believe it was late that morning on the --
5 that would have been the 8th of July, and he basically told me that I
6 didn't understand how the court worked and that it didn't matter what
7 facts he agreed to because it wouldn't harm the case. And that didn't
8 seem a very convincing argument to me, but I was no position to do or say
9 anything about it; but I thought he will certainly never invite me again
10 to one of these meetings.
11 However, later that day they had another meeting, and apparently
12 he didn't feel that the Defence team had enough members, so he grabbed me
13 from the Defence room and said could I join them. So we went into the
14 meeting with the Prosecutors, and I believe there were three at that
15 meeting. That would have been Mr. Harmon, Mr. Tieger, and Mr. Gaynor,
16 and there was one fact in there that really bothered me. It said that
17 this man, this Serbian gang member -- or gang leader, excuse me, was a
18 member of the SDS. So I asked Mr. Harmon how did you know he was a
19 member of the SDS. Did you discover his SDS party membership card? Did
20 he announce publicly that he was a member of the SDS, and Mr. Harmon
21 said, No but he worked hand in glove with members of the SDS. And I
22 said, Well that isn't what it says here it says he's a member of the SDS.
23 And Mr. Harmon said, Okay I'll remove it and Mr. Stewart said, No, no.
24 Let's leave it in. This was after Mr. Harmon say he would remove him.
25 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you. May I turn to another point. On page
1 1 you state that Mr. Stewart admitted in court that at the time he took
2 on the position of lead counsel he only had "an intelligent person's
3 knowledge of the facts of the case."
4 A. Yeah. I think he said an educated, layman's knowledge, isn't
5 that what the said? Or I'm sorry I misquoted it here. I think what he
6 said is, "I had an average educated layman's knowledge," something like
7 that. You can find that statement in his oral argument on July 16th.
8 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. You then say that Mr. Stewart
9 subsequently, that again I'm quoting your letter "added very little to
10 that storehouse of knowledge."
11 Apart from the examples mentioned in your letter, do you have any
12 other examples supporting this assertion?
13 A. Well, it was -- besides those particular facts because there were
14 many other of these factual agreements between the Prosecution.
15 JUDGE POCAR: Besides on these particular facts.
16 A. You want a specific example?
17 JUDGE POCAR: On the knowledge you have more facts supporting an
18 assertion that he add very little to that storehouse of knowledge.
19 A. Okay. Off the top of my head I don't think I can give you a
20 specific example, yeah.
21 JUDGE POCAR: Okay. On page 2 of your letter, I'm turning to
22 another issue, I think it's the last paragraph, yes, you say that
23 Mr. Stewart treated Mr. Krajisnik as his enemy. On what basis did you
24 reach such a conclusion?
25 A. Some of his comments to me privately. He -- as I said, he made
1 that statement to me when we were riding in the car one day, that he said
2 that in England they -- barristers say that the client is the enemy, and
3 there were many occasions -- or I shouldn't say many. There were several
4 occasions where he said to me -- or where he complained about
5 Mr. Krajisnik privately. That was the basis of my statement.
6 JUDGE POCAR: On page 2 of your letter you state again that
7 Mr. Stewart took, and I quote "little personal interest in the outcome of
8 the case." And you exemplify this by stating that he spent time abroad
9 for personal reasons instead of preparing for the case. Can you
10 elaborate on this?
11 A. Yeah. I found it very ironic that on July 14th he filed a motion
12 for adjournment, and then there was oral argument on July 16th for
13 adjournment. He was asking for three months to prepare for the case, and
14 then soon after the judgement came in that his motion was denied he went
15 on a vacation to Croatia for nine days, and he frequently was -- was
16 gone, you know, for one- or two-day periods during the time that I was
17 there. He also made a trip to Spain in September, from September 18th he
18 was gone for ten days. If he really was so short on time why was he
19 taking these personal vacations. And then everything else was handled in
20 kind of haphazard disorganised way. It didn't seem like there was a lot
21 of thought going into how he could best serve this defendant, and I -- I
22 don't know if that answers your question.
23 JUDGE POCAR: Mr. Mano, can you tell us if you ever raised the
24 issues you are raising in your letter directly with Mr. Stewart or with
25 the Trial Chamber before sending the letter?
1 A. It was very tough to talk to Mr. Stewart. As I mentioned in my
2 letter, he had a very condescending tone with people that he thought were
3 inferior to him. To raise this kind of issue with him would have been
4 very difficult. There may have been one or two times where I gave
5 suggestions where I thought his defence was going in the wrong direction,
6 and he immediately dismissed them. And as I mentioned in my letter, that
7 everyone working around him after a while just gave up trying to give him
8 advice because he wouldn't accept any outside advice from anyone. Unless
9 he came up with the idea on his own, he wasn't going to implement it.
10 And I should also meant that I believe Chrissa Loukas was having
11 some problems, and I know that she asked to be removed from the case
12 shortly after I left. So I think she had some problems also. Problems
13 with Mr. Stewart, I mean.
14 JUDGE POCAR: You believe that or -- or did Ms. Loukas confide to
15 you what she thought of Mr. Stewart in the case?
16 A. She expressed frustration on at least one or two occasions, and
17 there was one incident that I probably wasn't supposed to be privy to. I
18 went into -- came into the Tribunal on the weekend to use the internet to
19 check my e-mail because I didn't have internet access in my apartment,
20 and in the fax machine was a letter, a private letter to Ms. Loukas that
21 said that she was asking the -- some legal body in Australia for -- to be
22 promoted as lead counsel for the Krajisnik case. I believe that was the
23 content of it, but you'd have to ask her about that. I think I'm the
24 only person outside of Ms. Loukas who knows about that.
25 JUDGE POCAR: Let me ask you, do you want to state anything else
1 regarding the issues raised in the letter? Which I have not raised, I
2 mean, with you today.
3 A. Just that I should also mention -- it wasn't mentioned in this
4 letter, but it was mentioned in a later letter to Mr. Van de Vliet that
5 the Defence was really disorganised. There seemed to be no plan as to
6 how the Defence was going to proceed. Everything was a brush fire that
7 had to be put out immediately. So I -- that was another one of my
8 concerns was the disorganisation.
9 JUDGE POCAR: Judge Meron, you want to put a question, please.
10 JUDGE MERON: Mr. Mano, you mentioned several absences from the
11 trial --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
13 JUDGE MERON: I'm terribly sorry. Mr. Mano, you mentioned
14 several absences of Mr. Stewart from the trial. During those periods
15 what was happening? Did Ms. Loukas proceed with the trial? Was the
16 trial suspended or ...
17 A. In the month of August, for example, there were no courtroom
18 debts -- courtroom dates set, so it was time that we could use for
19 research. When Nicholas Stewart left most of us just continue doing the
20 research we were doing before he left.
21 JUDGE MERON: So the trial was not continuing during his
23 A. There were no trial dates during those absences; that's correct.
24 JUDGE MERON: Thank you.
25 JUDGE POCAR: Mr. Mano, may I ask you whether you ever discussed
1 the contents of your letter with Mr. Karganovic or any other member of
2 the Defence team?
3 A. This letter?
4 JUDGE POCAR: Yes.
5 A. Yes, I have discussed it with Mr. Karganovic.
6 JUDGE POCAR: When, before sending the letter?
7 A. No, no. Not before sending it. He was not a member of the team
8 at that time.
9 JUDGE POCAR: When did you discuss it with Mr. Karganovic?
10 A. It might have been a year or so later. I am not sure when he
11 took over the job of case manager for Mr. Krajisnik, but it was sometime
12 after that. I don't know exactly.
13 JUDGE POCAR: Are you aware that Mr. Karganovic wrote a statement
14 on 16 October 2007 containing certain allegations against Mr. Stewart?
15 A. I didn't know the date. I know that he was -- that he had in
16 mind the intent to write a letter. I have never seen the letter. I
17 don't know the contents of it.
18 JUDGE POCAR: And you said he discussed with Mr. Karganovic the
19 content of your letter. When you discussed that was before 16 October
20 2007 or after that date.
21 A. It was probably before, and I believe he told me at the time that
22 he had seen my letter in a file when he took over the job as case
23 manager; but again I'm not sure about that. You'd have to ask him that
24 question. The first time I talked to him about it was much later anyway.
25 JUDGE POCAR: What do you mean much later?
1 A. Much later than I sent it to Mr. Van de Vliet and before the date
2 you mentioned October 2007.
3 JUDGE POCAR: So before the date.
4 A. Right sometime in between those two dates.
5 JUDGE POCAR: So you discussed before Mr. Karganovic sent his
6 letter on 16 October 2007.
7 A. That's right.
8 JUDGE POCAR: Well, I have no other questions at the moment
9 unless my colleagues have questions. Judge Shahabuddeen.
10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Mano, when you discussed the contents of
11 your letter with Mr. Karganovic, did he at that time have any
12 professional connection with the case?
13 A. Yeah. He was the case manager at that time.
14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Oh, he was.
15 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. Judge Vaz.
16 JUDGE VAZ: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Good
17 morning, Mr. Mano.
18 A. Good morning.
19 JUDGE VAZ: [Interpretation] I'd like to go back in time a bit.
20 Could you please be more specific in relation to something that has to do
21 with Ms. Loukas. You said that one day you came to the Tribunal at --
22 and that you saw a letter for Ms. Loukas where she was asking to be
23 promoted to the lead counsel not Krajisnik case. Is that what you said?
24 A. I said a fax, yeah. It was a fax letter. That's correct.
25 JUDGE VAZ: [Interpretation] And how come you were able to see
1 this fax?
2 A. It was sitting in the fax machine.
3 JUDGE VAZ: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. And you
4 didn't speak to Ms. Loukas?
5 A. About the letter?
6 JUDGE VAZ: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 A. No, I did not.
8 JUDGE VAZ: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. This concludes the examination from the
10 Bench. I will now turn to Mr. Krajisnik. If he wants to question
11 Mr. Mano, he is allowed to do that. Please, Mr. Krajisnik.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Krajisnik:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Mano.
14 A. Good morning.
15 Q. In your letter, which was sent to the representative of OLAD, you
16 present a number of criticism in relation to the work of my attorney. I
17 will present them briefly even though His Honour Judge Pocar has already
18 mentioned them in a way.
19 You said that Mr. Stewart was not familiar with the historical --
20 historic background the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. My question
21 to you is what is your speciality? What is your occupation, actually?
22 A. I teach at a university in Japan. My main job is to teach
23 English to Japanese students at the university. However, the first four
24 years I was there I also taught a course on modern Eastern Europe. I
25 have a Masters Degree in history, specialising in the Balkans.
1 Q. That means, if I can put it that way, that you are -- that you
2 have an educational background in history and you are familiar with the
3 events in the Balkans between 1980 and 1995 -- 1990 and 1995.
4 A. I'm somewhat familiar with them.
5 Q. Thank you. In your letter you said that Mr. Stewart did not want
6 to accept any advice relating to his insufficiently of his knowledge of
7 the historic background in Balkans. Did you try to suggest to him that
8 you were somebody who knew more about those issues than he did?
9 A. I never said any such thing, but I did correct him on occasion,
10 and as I said, it wasn't only about the historical background of the
11 Balkans that Mr. Stewart did not want to hear about. It was any subject.
12 He would not take advice or criticism from anyone that he deemed was
13 inferior to him.
14 Q. In your letter, as far as I could understand, you say that he had
15 a condescending attitude towards his associates who would try to give him
16 advice. Is that the feeling you had also whether it came to his attitude
17 toward you?
18 A. Yes, it was.
19 Q. You also said that he really wasn't very interested in the
20 Krajisnik case. Is that true?
21 A. That was my impression.
22 Q. Now let me ask you this: You said here that you know that he had
23 frequent or almost daily contact with the Prosecution. Did he also have
24 contact with the Trial Chamber or officers of the Trial Chamber? Do you
25 know whether he had meetings with them or had written communication with
2 A. Well, first of all, I don't know if I said he had frequent or
3 almost daily contact with the Prosecution. Concerning the statements of
4 facts, he did meet with them for several days, and I was aware that he
5 was receiving e-mail from the Prosecution during that time period.
6 As far as the Trial Chamber goes, I -- I couldn't say. I don't
8 Q. Do you know whether he wrote to the Trial Chamber in relation to
9 any problem he may have encountered during his defence work?
10 A. You mean outside of the normal legal documents relating to
11 motions and objections and that kind of thing?
12 Q. Well, let me be specific. Did he write to the Trial Chamber in
13 order to warn them or to express concern about not having proper
14 conditions for work and that he needed adjournment for those reasons?
15 A. Well, he filed a motion for adjournment on July 14th, and he
16 argued orally on July 16th for an adjournment. In that oral argument, he
17 made a number of statements which everyone, of course, can read. It's a
18 matter of public record. That he needed more time, that his staff was
19 overworked, and he was overworked and so on. As I said, it's a matter of
20 public record. Everyone can see that.
21 Q. All right. With the permission of the Appeals Chamber and
22 everybody else, I would like to ask you to take a look at the documents
23 which have been prepared for you. I would like to compare some of these
24 parts of the documents with your statement. Therefore, would you
25 please --
1 MR. KREMER: I was handed a package of documents this morning.
2 I'm not sure if the Chamber has. Perhaps it not be handed out yet.
3 I gather from the preliminary remarks Mr. Krajisnik has just made
4 relating to the question that he is about to introduce through Mr. -- or
5 attempt to introduce through Mr. Mano documents of which he knows
6 nothing. His testimony already confirms that. And as far as I know, the
7 documents all are subsequent to Mr. Mano's employment with the Tribunal
8 and employment with the Defence team. So I'm just putting the Chamber on
10 The Chamber has these documents by way of a supplementary 115
11 application by Mr. Krajisnik and has not yet ruled on them, and it
12 relates to the testimony potentially of Mr. Stewart and Ms. Loukas and
13 Alexander Zahar. I would object to any questions relating to these
14 documents because the witness has no knowledge of them.
15 Thank you.
16 [Appeals Chamber confers]
17 MR. NICHOLLS: May I just intervene as amicus for a moment?
18 These --
19 JUDGE POCAR: Micro.
20 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm sorry. I didn't press it clearly enough.
21 These documents obviously are of considerable importance. The question
22 is of course in what way can they be introduced into evidence. The only
23 issue that does occur to me that may be of relevance is that the
24 documents themselves may contain matters of historic value on which the
25 witness may be able to express a view or which the witness may be able to
1 confirm. I merely say that because at some stage the Chamber may wish to
2 consider whether these documents should be introduce into evidence and in
3 particular who should introduce them.
4 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Your Honour, may I also address that question
5 for one moment? It would appear to me that if Mr. Stewart's own writings
6 confirm the testimony of the witness, the witness should be able to
7 review those documents and say, The writings of Mr. Stewart, the attitude
8 reflected in those documents, the statements that he made are all
9 consistent with my prior observations as reflected in my letter; and that
10 of course would be extremely important to the Tribunal. If the Tribunal
11 sees that a witness in 2004 indicated concerns with Mr. Stewart's
12 attitude toward the case and subsequent documents written by Mr. Stewart
13 confirm that, whether this witness is the appropriate person or not, it
14 is clearly of extreme value to the Tribunal in deciding the question of
15 ineffective assistance of counsel.
16 Thank you.
17 MR. KREMER: If I could -- Mr. President, with your permission.
18 I don't disagree with what my colleagues opposite have just said. The
19 statements to the extent that they're relevant to the time-frame that
20 this witness was with the Tribunal can certainly be put. My objection is
21 in relation to tendering these documents as exhibits and for Your Honours
22 giving them full weight without the proper person who prepared the
23 document being present to introduce it.
24 JUDGE POCAR: Well, on some of these documents there is a motion
25 pending on admissibility on which the Chamber has not pronounced yet. I
1 believe these documents should not be brought today into evidence, and --
2 but of course nothing prevents Mr. Krajisnik of putting questions to the
3 witness without, without, documents being shown to the witness himself.
4 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation] I thank you very much, Your
5 Honours. I would now need to reduce the amount of my questions.
6 Q. Let me ask you had this, Mr. Mano: When you came to Mr. Stewart,
7 did you know Krajisnik at that time?
8 A. I'm not sure what you mean by the question. Did I know who you
9 were, or did I know you personally?
10 Q. Did you know me personally? Had you met me by that time?
11 A. I've never met you.
12 Q. Did you have any contacts with me during the trial while you were
13 a member of Defence team?
14 A. No. As a matter of fact, I asked Nicholas Stewart if I could go
15 to meet you during one of his regular meetings with you in the
16 penitentiary, and I always -- he always came up with some excuse why I
17 couldn't go. I thought about going alone, but I was told I could not go
18 without permission of the lead counsel. So I have never met you until
20 Q. Does that mean that before sending this letter you had no
21 contacts with me in order to consult me about the letter or in order to
22 receive a consent from me for sending the letter?
23 A. That's correct. My goal in sending the letter, as I stated, was
24 to inform you, Mr. Krajisnik, about a situation that I thought you might
25 not be aware of but that you needed to know about.
1 Q. Thank you very much. Now, if I understood this correctly, these
2 exhibits will not be -- these documents will not be admitted into
3 evidence; but it was my understanding that I could refer to certain
4 quotations so that Mr. Mano can confirm whether what is in these
5 documents corresponds with his statement. May I ask for clarification
6 from the Chamber? Have I understood this correctly?
7 JUDGE POCAR: Mr. Krajisnik, you can put -- state facts or
8 statements to the witness and ask the witness if they correspond to
9 his -- to his knowledge or not.
10 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Judge.
11 Q. Now I would like to ask you, because you have some documents in
12 front of you, to find among these documents Exhibit number 3.
13 Since I do not speak the English language, I would like to ask
14 Mr. Mano to help me and the Trial Chamber.
15 JUDGE POCAR: Mr. Krajisnik, you can't refer to the documents as
16 such. The witness does not have the documents. So you may only refer to
17 statements or dispose facts and ask the witness to confirm or not confirm
18 what you are saying, but you are not allowed to refer to specific
19 documents. You can't ask the witness to -- to look at an exhibit,
20 because the witness does not have the exhibit.
21 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
22 Q. There is an indication that the Trial Chamber at the time thought
23 that Mr. Stewart was arrogant, unpleasant, and that in a way acted to the
24 detriment of Krajisnik's defence. Does this correspond to the
25 observation you made in your statement?
1 A. I don't know if it corresponds to my statement, but I would
2 certainly agree with it.
3 Q. Thank you very much. Also, there is an indication that the Trial
4 Chamber at a meeting -- or, rather, a representative of the Trial Chamber
5 objected to Mr. Stewart to the effect that he uses adjournments in the
6 trial to take care of his private problems, as it were, and also to deal
7 with some cases in London. Is this indication in a way identical to what
8 it was that you observed when you were with Mr. Stewart?
9 A. He certainly had some private problems that he would sometimes
10 take time off for. As far -- and he did go to London. At least I know
11 of one situation on July 21st. He went to London which -- and I believe
12 that was for taking care of business there. So certainly that did
14 Q. Thank you very much. If I put it to you that it is indicated in
15 a particular document that the Trial Chamber is of the position that
16 Mr. Stewart is not using his time for preparation but that, rather, in
17 fact he is shifting the burden to the shoulders of his co-counsel, which
18 is one the reasons why this co-counsel left the trial and the Defence
20 Is that your impression? Is that the impression you gain at the
21 time when you were involved in the trial and in contact with Ms. Loukas?
22 A. Yeah. I don't know exactly Chrissa Loukas wanted to leave. She
23 never told me her exact reasons. But it wouldn't surprise me if that was
24 one of the reasons why she left.
25 Q. Let me ask you something. If I put it to you hypothetically that
1 in the contacts between Mr. Stewart and the representatives of the Trial
2 Chamber he received an answer that he noted down in his own notes that
3 the Trial Chamber, but not only the Trial Chamber but also the Registry
4 was unsatisfied with his work because they said that he was not a
5 successful manager and that he didn't know how to organise the work of
6 the Defence.
7 A. I would -- I would believe that completely.
8 Q. At the time when you were on the Defence team, did you see that
9 Mr. Stewart had a plan as how to conduct the Krajisnik defence?
10 A. I saw no such plan.
11 Q. But can you give your own judgement on the basis of the
12 experience you have that Mr. Stewart, as he was taking certain steps like
13 the example that you refer to, accepting facts that were not facts, that
14 that was a strategic decision or a different kind of decision? If it's a
15 different kind of decision, could you please explain what would be the
16 consequence of that kind of decision of his?
17 A. I thought his defence was chaotic. I don't think he had a well
18 thought out plan. As I said earlier he seemed to rush from one brush
19 fire to another. There were one or two occasions where we would get an
20 e-mail and he'd say -- or sometimes an e-mail, sometimes a phone call
21 where he would say, "I need research on this topic right away. I have to
22 do something tomorrow on it." That didn't sound like he had thought
23 about this until that moment.
24 Q. In your letter you say that he did have respect for -- I beg your
25 pardon for this comparison, that he had respect for big fish but not for
1 small fry. He considered some members of the Prosecution team not to be
2 his equals. Does that show what Mr. Stewart's attitude was vis-a-vis the
3 other side?
4 A. Yes. I gave an example of that in my letter. I certainly
5 thought Mr. Harmon and Mr. Tieger were his equals, but he didn't think
6 that about Mr. Gaynor and probably some of the other people on the
7 Prosecution team. And I gave the example of one occasion where
8 Mr. Gaynor took over the Prosecution's case that day, and Mr. Stewart
9 left this room that we're in -- well, it might not have been this room
10 but one of these rooms and left the trial to Ms. Loukas that day; and he
11 said to me outside that he wasn't going to stay there because there were
12 only minnows was the word he used. I believe that he said that there
13 were only minnows in the room, something like that.
14 Q. You said that you worked on preparing witness statements. How
15 did you carry out this work? If my understanding of your work is
16 correct, what is exactly the kind of work you did for Mr. Stewart in this
18 A. The witnesses were deposed before they were brought to court to
19 testify, and we were given copies of their depositions, and if it was my
20 duty for that particular witness to examine the deposition and look for
21 contradictions or statements that were obviously false, I would read --
22 well, I would read through the deposition and make little notes, and then
23 I would type up my type findings and hand those to Ms. Loukas.
24 Q. You are talking about Prosecution witnesses, if I understand you
1 A. That's correct. At the time the Prosecution was presenting its
3 Q. As for experts, you referred to experts, in contact with
4 Mr. Stewart did you get any response as to whether he would call any
5 expert witnesses? If so, who and how many experts, and also for what
6 facts he wanted to call expert witnesses?
7 A. Well, one of my -- one of the other members of the team,
8 Brett Taxin made a list of expert witnesses from other cases that had
9 already taken place in the Tribunal; and I was preparing a document that
10 included some of those witnesses but additional witnesses that I thought
11 we might call. I prepared a booklet that included the names of these
12 potential witnesses and the content of their potential testimony as well
13 as copies of any publications I could find on the internet, and I handed
14 this entire package to Chrissa Loukas, as far as I know. Well, as far as
15 I know. I don't know if Mr. Stewart even looked at it. I don't know
16 what he did with it. The only thing I receive from him regarding expert
17 witnesses what is an e-mail. I can look up the date. If I can take a
18 moment to find it I can tell you what date that was. Would that be all
20 JUDGE POCAR: Sure.
21 MR. KREMER: Just while the witness is looking at the documents,
22 in the jurisdiction where I practised law if the witness comes to court
23 with the documents that the parties haven't seen the parties are entitled
24 to see those documents, and if I ask during the break if the witness
25 would allow me to review his notes.
1 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: If I may. In the jurisdiction where I
2 practice, it is a question as to whether the witness uses the
3 information, not whether he --
4 MR. KREMER: [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. Dershowitz.
5 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Yes. I think the document he looks at to
6 refresh his recollection should be made available, but I don't think the
7 other materials that he happens to carry into court should be turned over
8 simply for that reason, that he carried it into court. Thank you.
9 JUDGE POCAR: Of course we agree. We are referring to the
10 documents that he makes use of, I believe.
11 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: I'm saying only the ones he makes use of.
12 Mr. Kremer says anything he brought into court. That's the distinction,
13 I think, we're making.
14 JUDGE POCAR: I would believe that the documents that are
15 actually used and consulted should be -- should be disclosed to the
16 parties, but other documents, of course, that remain in the -- in the
17 briefcase or suitcase of the witness remain there and -- and will not
18 have to be disclose.
19 Well, could you refresh your memory on that date?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes I received an e-mail message on Sunday, July
21 18th, in reference to expert testimony because I had asked to take the
22 day -- or to not come to the Tribunal the following day, which was
23 Monday, because I wanted to go to the library at this University of
25 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. Mr. Krajisnik, you can continue with
1 your questions.
2 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
3 Q. You prepared some documentation on the basis of which Mr. Stewart
4 was supposed to decide which experts to call. My question is the
5 following: In your assessment, was it hard for Mr. Stewart to select
6 experts and to call them? Was there a technical problem involved?
7 A. Actually, I can't answer that question, but I can tell you what
8 he said in this e-mail if that's permissible. Should I read what he said
9 about expert testimony?
10 JUDGE POCAR: Yes, you may.
11 THE WITNESS: Okay. He said:
12 "We have to approach it as follows: One, prioritise our needs
13 for experts in particular areas. Two, identify suitable experts in the
14 priority areas. And three, prepare a rigorous and compelling case for
15 funding from the Registry."
16 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Thank you very much. Your answer is just fine. Now I would like
18 to put a few more questions only.
19 Did Mr. Stewart tell you that he had a plan as to exactly what
20 type of expert he would like to call?
21 A. No, he did not.
22 Q. Next question: Did you ever talk to Mr. Stewart and caution him
23 to the effect that it was very important for him to be aware of the
24 historical background of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
25 A. I mentioned that at least on at least one occasion, yes.
1 Q. In your view was he prepared or, rather, did he have a
2 satisfactory knowledge of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially
3 the war that is the subject of this trial?
4 A. No, he did not, and that's one of the reasons I spent several
5 weeks putting together a document which was a short summary of the
6 background information, the historical background for the conflict.
7 Q. If I understand you correctly, your actual line of work is that
8 of an historian.
9 A. That's one of my lines of work, yes.
10 Q. In your view, although perhaps this is not a proper question, are
11 you qualified to give suggestions to him in or to help him learn about
12 what he didn't know concerning the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
13 A. I don't have a document which says that I'm an expert, by think
14 that I have sufficient knowledge to inform someone about the background
15 of the conflict, yes.
16 Q. And may I state, if I understood you correctly, that Mr. Stewart
17 did not accept your proposals or the proposals of other associates when
18 these questions were being discussed?
19 A. When any question was being discussed. He didn't like to have
20 advice from subordinates.
21 Q. Specifically in terms of historical context, could you just give
22 an answer to that question? As far as the historical background is
23 concerned, he was not prepared to take any advice from anyone?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. As far as I can see on the basis of your CV, you are a lawyer as
2 A. I have a JD, but I'm not a member of the bar.
3 Q. But you have a degree in law; right? That is your education?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. Do you consider yourself to be qualified to assess the quality of
6 the work of a lawyer in proceedings such as mine?
7 A. It would depend, but in this case I think you would not need to
8 have a JD to see that Mr. Stewart was not managing the defence very
10 Q. I would like to go back to this question nevertheless. As a
11 person who has a degree in law, you could assess the strategy of the
12 defence. Do you think that you were meritorious in terms of assessing
13 the strategy that he had or didn't have? If he did have one it was a
14 poor one, as you said. And then there is this other statement that
15 indicates that there was some strain and -- well, could you as a lawyer
16 assess that?
17 A. I would -- my assessment would be based on my short experience
18 working for a law firm in the United States, and the way that law firm
19 was run was a lot different than the way Mr. Stewart was running the
20 defence for -- for you, Mr. Krajisnik.
21 Q. Does this now correspond to a particular indication that we have
22 in some documents that we are not going to tender today but that we did
23 provide to the Appeals Chamber in which we see that the representative of
24 the Trial Chamber concludes that Mr. Stewart was not a good organiser,
25 was not a good manager of the case?
1 A. He was disorganised, and he wasted time.
2 Q. All right. Now let me ask you whether Mr. Stewart ever raised a
3 question pertaining to joint criminal enterprise with the Defence team.
4 A. One of the -- one of my colleagues, I believe it was
5 Thomas Derrington, I'd have to check my notes, prepared a document about
6 it at my suggestion, because when I arrived I asked if there was a memo
7 stating the general background of the laws that were relevant to this
8 case; and he said there was no such memo, and then he began to prepare
9 one. Besides that document, I didn't see anything about joint criminal
10 enterprise; and I don't think I ever heard it mention by Mr. Stewart.
11 Q. Finally, Mr. Mano, I would just like to put a question to you.
12 Could you explain to the Trial Chamber in a bit more detail what your
13 motive was to write a letter concerning a man you did not know, to write
14 about irregular conduct of a man who worked with you or, rather, who you
15 volunteered to work with? And what was the reason for you to insist with
16 the Registry to have that letter presented to me as well, because at
17 first the Registry did not send that letter to me and did not make me
18 aware of it; you did not send that letter to me. You sent it to the
19 Registry, and it was supposed to reach me through the Registry. I would
20 just like you to describe this for me. What was your reason? Was it a
21 personal reason perhaps? Did it have to do with the credibility of your
23 A. Well, that's a number of questions. I'll try to answer all of
25 First of all, I have no personal grudge against Mr. Stewart, and
1 that was not a motivation. I have no strong feelings about him in any
2 kind of way. My motivation was to merely right what I thought was a
3 terrible injustice going on. I realised that although some of my
4 colleagues had expressed their doubts about the quality of defence to me
5 privately, that no one was going to do anything about it publicly. This
6 was partly due to the fact that a lot of them depended on letters of
7 recommendation from Mr. Stewart for their future careers.
8 Since I do not work in law and I basically have a secure job at a
9 university, I didn't need a letter of recommendation from Mr. Stewart. I
10 thought I was in a position to do something, and that if I didn't do
11 something about it, if I didn't at least make the Registry and the
12 Tribunal aware of what was going on; and you specifically, if I didn't
13 let you know specifically what was going on with your defence, that I
14 would be allowing a terrible injustice to continue. It's kind of like if
15 you know a building is going to burn down you should do something about
16 it. You should call the fire department. You should not just let it
17 burn. And that's how I felt.
18 So I -- before I left, I contacted Mr. Van de Vliet, made an
19 appointment with him, and I typed up the letter that you see and I handed
20 it to him because I wasn't sure how long I would have to talk to him. I
21 thought I better put something down on paper to get it on the record.
22 And in my discussion I said, "My main goal in giving this to you is for
23 you to have it translated and put in the hands of Mr. Krajisnik," and he
24 gave me his assurance that that would happen. He say, "I give you my
25 word." And as we know he broke his word, because he didn't put it in
1 your hands. The first thing he did was hand it over to Mr. Stewart.
2 Mr. Stewart, I don't know what he told him because I've never seen
3 Mr. Stewart's reply, and I -- I don't know if I can ask the Tribunal to
4 provide that to me, but I would -- I'd be interested to see what his
5 reply was. But in any case, he did not translate it and hand it to you.
6 He said he was not going to do that. So I had to find another means of
7 getting that letter into your hands, and I asked the translator from
8 another case to translate it for me and to fax it to you, and that's how
9 it finally got into your hands several weeks later.
10 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE POCAR: Well, it's 10.00. Judge Guney, you have a question
12 to put, please.
13 JUDGE GUNEY: [Interpretation] I have a question for you,
14 Mr. Mano, a question of general nature. You have said that you worked
15 with the former counsel Mr. Stewart for three months and that you did so
16 without pay. You were a volunteer. Given the practical difficulties
17 that you came across during those three months, what was your main reason
18 for accepting to work as a volunteer, and what was your main reason for
19 continuing with this work?
20 THE WITNESS: That's a good question, because I think everyone
21 who works here has different motivations. Some people are probably doing
22 it to advance their careers. Some people are probably doing it for the
23 money. In my case, it was neither one of those because my career is
24 entirely unrelated to my work in the Tribunal, and I wasn't paid for it.
25 Obviously from my background in history and from my background in
1 law, I saw this as an opportunity to work in both of those areas and
2 still keep my job in Japan. I realised I couldn't give up my job in
3 Japan and come here permanently, and I don't know if I could even work
4 here permanently; but I saw the option of coming here for the summer as
5 an intern as a wonderful chance not only to improve my knowledge of the
6 events in the Balkans and also get a little bit of law experience in as
7 well, but also to use my background in law and history to hopefully do
8 something good. So that's kind of how I came to this situation or to
9 this job.
10 JUDGE POCAR: Judge Shahabuddeen, please.
11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Mano, may I respectfully congratulate
12 you on your knowledge of history and of law, and may I put to you this
13 principle which I believe is to be found in the law, that is to say that
14 a court is not a historical institute. Do you know of that proposition?
15 THE WITNESS: I've never heard that expression before.
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, perhaps you could do some research on
17 it and find what are the limitations which are promised by that
19 Now, could I ask you this: Do I gather that your dissatisfaction
20 with Mr. Stewart is that he appeared to be to you reluctant to accept
21 advice and that he was unpleasant, arrogant, and condescending? Would
22 that sum up the ground of your dissatisfaction?
23 THE WITNESS: I think you should add disorganised to that.
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Disorganised. Very well, I will dutifully
25 add that concept.
1 Now, last question. Is this -- do you have any awareness of
2 where Mr. Stewart is at this time?
3 THE WITNESS: I have no idea.
4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you.
5 JUDGE POCAR: Well, if there are no other questions from the
6 Bench, I believe it's the right time to break now. It is now time to
7 break. I believe we should go into open session and just break
8 immediately afterwards.
9 [Open session]
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
11 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you. So now we break until 10.30. We
12 resume the hearing at 10.30.
13 --- Recess taken at 10.05 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 10.34 a.m.
15 JUDGE POCAR: The hearing is resumed, and I will turn to the
16 Prosecutor to question the witness.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Kremer:
18 Q. Mr. Mano, you commented during -- perhaps we could go to private
19 session immediately, Your Honour?
20 JUDGE POCAR: Yes. Let's go to private session then.
21 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of Chamber]
22 MR. KREMER:
23 Q. Mr. Mano, you commented --
24 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise, Your Honour. Your Honours, we're in
25 private session.
1 MR. KREMER:
2 Q. Mr. Mano, during the course of your testimony this morning you
3 mentioned that at some point you had your letter translated into Serbian
4 and you faxed the letter to Mr. Krajisnik. Do you have a date on which
5 you faxed the letter to Mr. Krajisnik?
6 A. Yes. October 19th.
7 Q. 2004?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And to your knowledge did he receive that letter personally?
10 A. I don't know if he received it that day, but I know he did
11 receive it.
12 Q. All right. And so you know that Mr. Krajisnik was aware of your
13 concerns relating to the conduct of his -- of Mr. Stewart in particular?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And I'm just going to bring to your attention the words of
16 Mr. Krajisnik in a hearing on February the 28th, 2005, at page 9603,
17 where Mr. Krajisnik says:
18 "I have to say that whatever both my counsel stated here today I
19 endorse. I do not have anything to comment, to raise in relation to the
20 services provided by my counsel. They are very good lawyers."
21 So I suggest to you, sir, that Mr. Krajisnik did not accept your
22 advice about the competence of his lawyers, because not four months later
23 he said they were very good lawyers in court before the Court. Do you
24 agree with that statement?
25 A. Are you asking me if I agree that Mr. Accepted my accept my
1 advice? Is that the question?
2 Q. I suggest to you he rejected your advice.
3 A. It would appear so that on that day he rejected my advice, but
4 from what I understand from his daughter, I'm in e-mail contact with
5 Mr. Krajisnik's daughter, that his attitude was that there was nothing he
6 could do about it; so we'll just keep going along with it as it is. It
7 was kind of an attitude that it was a hopeless situation, so I'll just
8 continue with it.
9 Q. How long have you been in communication with his daughter?
10 A. I think the first time I contacted her was maybe December of
12 Q. And you've been in e-mail communication ever since?
13 A. Yeah. It's not like I receive a message from her every week. I
14 get two or three a year from her, let's say.
15 Q. And do those communications relate to the trial and the appeal of
16 his case?
17 A. Sometimes.
18 Q. And is she providing you with information as to what his strategy
19 is in terms of his appeal and was during the course of the trial?
20 A. No. She has -- she does not get involved in the details of it.
21 Q. Now, we know from your evidence that Mr. Krajisnik was aware of
22 the contents of your letter. Did you send your letter to anyone else at
23 the Tribunal?
24 A. In the Tribunal? What time period are you talking about?
25 Q. Let's say -- let's start in 2004. We might go past there.
1 A. Okay. As I said, I had a translator from another case translate
2 my letter, so, yeah, there was definitely someone else from the Tribunal.
3 Q. All right. Did you have occasion to send your letter or any
4 other document to the Trial Chamber?
5 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I sent a letter to the Judges of the
7 Q. When?
8 A. November 26th.
9 Q. What -- what was in your letter?
10 A. I believe I sent a copy of the letter I sent to Mr. Van de Vliet,
11 his reply, my reply to him, and then a brief letter to the Judges saying
12 that I was very concerned about the situation and that he wanted them to
13 be aware of it.
14 Q. And did you ever get a response from the Trial Chamber?
15 A. I got a response saying that the Judges would not review what I
16 sent them because I was not working at the Tribunal, and they were not
17 allowed or permitted to receive information from people outside the
19 Q. And what provoked you to send a letter to the Trial Chamber
20 Judges about your impressions?
21 A. It was suggested to me that because of the response I had
22 received from Mr. Van de Vliet that maybe someone else at the Tribunal
23 should know about it, particularly the Judges.
24 Q. Who suggested that to you?
25 A. It was another Defence attorney.
1 Q. Who?
2 A. Michael Karnavas.
3 Q. Is it fair to say, Mr. Mano, that you have no professional
4 expertise in order to comment on the management or preparation of a major
5 criminal defence case?
6 A. I would say it's not fair.
7 Q. So you say you have experience in dealing with a major criminal
8 defence case, and you had that experience in 2004?
9 A. If you're asking if I have experience actually participating in
10 the preparation of a major criminal case, the answer is no, I do not have
11 that kind of experience.
12 Q. And you've never practice law; correct?
13 A. I work for a law firm in America for a short period of time.
14 Q. How long?
15 A. Three months?
16 Q. Intern?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I will ask the question again you have never practice law in your
19 life, have you?
20 A. As lawyer, no.
21 Q. You've never practice criminal law in your life, have you?
22 A. No.
23 Q. You've never taken a witness in court, have you?
24 A. No.
25 Q. You've never made closing or opening argument in court have you?
1 A. No, I have not.
2 Q. You've never prepared an expert for testimony, have you?
3 A. No, I have not.
4 Q. So when you joined the Defence team of Mr. Krajisnik on July the
5 5th, 2006, you had --
6 A. No, I joined on July 6th, 2004.
7 Q. July 6th 2004. You had three months of internship at a law firm
8 in the United States under your belt; correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And you described during the course of your testimony a number of
11 particular assignments that you had to do during the course of your
12 internship. Perhaps you could sort of go through them one by one in the
13 order that you remember them.
14 A. Okay. Well, the first one, as I said, was the agreement on facts
15 between the Prosecution and the Defence. There were, I believe, two
16 maybe three sets of facts that I was shown in the first week. After
17 that, what would be the next thing? Maybe the next thing was preparation
18 for cross-examination of the witness, and then I believe I started
19 working on the expert witness testimony, and that lasted for probably
20 several weeks, and then maybe there was another cross-examination of a
21 witness I had to prepare for. I can't remember. And then I worked on
22 the historical background document for several weeks, and then I believe
23 the last thing I worked on maybe was also preparation of a witness for
25 Q. So it sounds to me that you were given specific tasks with
1 specific goals; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And how large was the team while you were on it in the summer of
5 A. Yeah, it varied.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Speakers please not overlap.
7 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I didn't understand that.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters ask speakers not to overlap but to
9 make pauses between questions and answers for the sake of interpretation.
10 Thank you.
11 THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay. The team varied because some of the
12 interns came and went. Some had been there before I was there. Some --
13 and then left before I left. Others came sometime before I left and then
14 left after I left.
15 I think when I first came there, besides Nicholas Stewart,
16 Chrissa Loukas and Tatjana Cmeric, the case manager, there was also
17 Andrej Jonovic, and Mika Dixon, and there was the other intern
18 Thomas Derrington. There was someone named Karen Brackman [phoen] that I
19 didn't know very well. I think I only met her on one occasion. So that
20 was the team probably until the end of July.
21 Q. And to your knowledge was there also investigators working in the
23 A. I believe there was an investigator, yes.
24 Q. And there were also consultants and advisors that were available
25 to Mr. Stewart and the other -- and Chrissa Loukas?
1 A. What do you mean by consultants or advisors?
2 Q. Mr. Neskovic, for example?
3 A. If you look at the oral argument on July 16th, the Prosecution
4 raised Mr. Neskovic at that time; and Nicholas Stewart said that he
5 had -- if you -- I don't want to misquote him, but it was something to
6 the effect that he had very little contact with Mr. Neskovic and that --
7 because Mr. Neskovic if it's the person I'm thinking of only spoke
8 Serbia, and Mr. Stewart did not speak Serbian that his contact with him
9 when it did occur was through a translator and was written down.
10 Q. But he still was advising the team; correct?
11 A. Yes, but to a very limit extent, yes.
12 Q. And did these other interns and other people working on the file
13 have specific tasks like you did?
14 A. Yeah, of course.
15 Q. And they were clear tasks to them?
16 A. Well, in order to do a task I assume it has to be clear. I don't
17 know how you would do a task that's not clear.
18 Q. Okay. Now, your letter is dated the 23rd of September, 2004.
19 When did you prepare the letter?
20 A. I -- I couldn't tell you exactly, but probably over the course of
21 maybe one or two days before that.
22 Q. Did you refer to any materials, notes, transcripts, documents in
23 the preparation of your letter?
24 A. At this point in time I don't remember, but -- yeah, I can't say.
25 I don't know.
1 Q. Did anyone assist you in the preparation of the letter?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did you discuss the contents of the letter before you signed it
4 and gave it to Mr. Van de Vliet?
5 A. Discuss it with whom?
6 Q. Anyone.
7 A. No. Not that I'm aware of, no.
8 Q. Now, when you wrote your letter the first two words in your
9 letter are the words, "I believe."
10 A. Okay. Just a second. Can I grab a copy of the letter, because I
11 don't have one in front of me.
12 Q. Certainly.
13 A. Thank you. Okay. I have a copy now.
14 Q. I'm just -- you can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm suggesting to
15 you that this letter is nothing but your layman's opinion as to the
16 quality of Nicholas Stewart's management of the Defence team at the time
17 that you were there for three months in September -- or July through
18 September of 2004.
19 A. Was that a question?
20 Q. Yes. Do you agree with that statement or not?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Now, when you in the first big paragraph say "...'average
23 intelligent person's knowledge of the facts,'" I suppose from your
24 testimony this morning that you've realised that that quote suggesting
25 that those are the precise words of Mr. Stewart was inaccurate; is that
2 A. Yeah, you just asked me a while ago if I had any notes or
3 documents with me. I think I did not have any notes or documents with
4 me, so I was going by my memory of what he said in the room. I have
5 since then reviewed the oral argument of July 16th and this is maybe
6 slightly off, one or two words off.
7 Q. The Chamber can check to see how many words it's off, but why did
8 you put it in quotes when you hadn't verified that those were his precise
10 A. Yeah. I shouldn't it put it in quotes.
11 Q. But you agree it's inaccurate?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. All right.
14 A. It's not an accurate quote.
15 Q. And you use quotes elsewhere. At the bottom of the second page.
16 You say about Mr. Stewart, "...stated in court, in front of the Judges,
17 that he 'didn't know whether he,'" and then you have Krajisnik in
18 parentheses "'was innocent or not.'" Did you look for that quote in the
19 transcript before testifying today?
20 A. No, I didn't have time.
21 Q. And I -- I can tell you that I have --
22 A. Mm-hmm.
23 Q. -- and I can't find it.
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. I suggest to you, sir, that that quote is equally inaccurate.
1 A. Okay. Well, I don't know. I was doing this from memory, so I
2 have to look for it myself. If I find it, can I provide you with that
3 information at a later date?
4 Q. You have nothing with you today to show that that quote
5 attributed to Mr. Stewart in court is accurate, do you?
6 A. I have nothing with me today, no.
7 Q. And at the time that you prepared this, knowing that you were
8 going to be handing it to the Registry and attacking Mr. Stewart, you did
9 not take the time to verify that that quote was accurate, did you?
10 A. First of all, I was not attacking Mr. Stewart; and secondly, it
11 wasn't a question of taking the time. I didn't have the time.
12 Q. And I suggest to you that all of the other quotes that you refer
13 to could be similarly inaccurate; correct?
14 A. You can suggest that. I don't know if -- which quotes are you
15 referring to.
16 Q. The minnows quote for example. You say: "I was not going to
17 stay there. There is nothing but minnows there." Could you be mistaken
18 about that quote?
19 A. He did use the word minnows.
20 Q. But did he use it in the context you presented, sir?
21 A. He did use it in this context.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please make pauses between
23 questions and answers for the sake of interpretation and the record.
24 MR. KREMER: Thank you. I'm sorry.
25 Q. Now, you're suggesting from the minnows quote that Mr. Stewart
1 had a condescending attitude towards Mr. Gaynor and all of the other
2 junior Prosecutors working on the case; is that correct?
3 A. Yes. Or at least towards Mr. Gaynor. I can't speak for all of
4 the other junior Prosecutors.
5 Q. Would it surprise you, sir, that Mr. Stewart was in court with
6 Mr. Gaynor on several occasions and did the cross-examination of the
7 witnesses that Mr. Gaynor, in fact, presented?
8 A. Why would that surprise me?
9 Q. You suggested that it was beneath him to go in court with junior
11 A. He may have had no other option of appearing in court with
12 Mr. Gaynor.
13 Q. And you say on this particular day he was expressing his
14 condescending attitude by not being in court with Ms. Loukas when
15 Mr. Gaynor was taking a witness?
16 A. There is no question about that.
17 Q. I suggest to you, sir, that Mr. Stewart was in court the next
18 four days after Mr. Gaynor took this witness on the 26th of July, 1994 --
19 or 2004, I'm sorry, and that Mr. Stewart was in court the next four days
20 cross-examining -- hearing the evidence and cross-examining a big witness
21 put on by another junior counsel, Stephen Margetts. Are you suggesting
22 that his time was better spent in court on a witness taken by Mr. Gaynor
23 or Ms. Loukas instead of preparing for a more significant witness?
24 A. I'm not suggesting anything like that. I'm just telling you what
25 he said to me when he left the courtroom.
1 Q. And based on a passing comment which may have been a joke, you've
2 decided to suggest that he had a condescending attitude towards all
3 junior Prosecutors. Is that fair?
4 A. I didn't interpret it as a joke.
5 Q. Now, you gave your letter to Mr. Van de Vliet. Did he respond to
7 A. When?
8 Q. After you gave him the letter.
9 A. Well, we had a conversation in his office at that time, yeah.
10 Q. And did he ever send you something in writing explaining what he
11 had done with your letter, if anything?
12 A. Yes. On October 4th I received a fax from him.
13 Q. All right. And what did that fax say?
14 A. Just a second. Would you like me to read this or would you like
15 a summary of it? How would you like me to --
16 Q. Maybe you could just tell us the bottom line.
17 A. Basically he's saying that after hearing Mr. Stewart's
18 explanation that he thought that I did not have enough time spent with
19 Mr. Stewart to give the kind of evaluation on his performance that I had
20 suggested and that he was not prepared at that time to deliver the letter
21 to Mr. Krajisnik.
22 Q. Right. And you felt that it was necessary for you to pass your
23 letter to Mr. Krajisnik. Is it at that point that you decided to have
24 the letter translated and faxed to Mr. Krajisnik?
25 A. That's correct, yeah.
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. My goal was never to -- my goal was not just to put the document
3 in the hands of Mr. Van de Vliet. My goal was to get the letter into the
4 hands of Mr. Krajisnik.
5 Q. And if that was the goal, why didn't you use the procedure that
6 you ultimately succeeded in, and that is providing the information to
7 Mr. Krajisnik in Serbian?
8 A. By myself or what are you suggesting?
9 Q. You were able to have the letter translated.
10 A. Yeah, but if I had thought of that at that time I would have done
12 Q. Now, you mentioned that you had booked a meeting with Mr. Van de
13 Vliet and you prepared the letter for the purposes of ensuring that you
14 had something to bring to the meeting; correct?
15 A. Yeah, because as I said, I didn't know if I was going to be able
16 to have a long conversation with him or not. So I thought I should have
17 something prepared in writing just in case he said, "I only have a minute
18 with you. What do you want to say?" And I could say, "Here's the
19 letter. Read it and get back to me."
20 Q. And did you ever before preparing the letter ask Mr. Stewart for
21 a discussion about your views relating to specific problems that had
22 arisen, at least in your mind, during the course of your internship?
23 A. I think we covered this earlier this morning. I had raised
24 objections several times, but after, you know, several attempts at making
25 suggestions that were knocked down I, along with my co-workers, just gave
1 up trying to give advice to Mr. Stewart.
2 Q. Did you give Mr. Stewart a copy of your letter before you sent it
3 or gave it to Mr. Van de Vliet?
4 A. No, I did not.
5 Q. And it's at least implicit from the e-mail from Mr. Van de Vliet
6 to you that he had shared at least some of the information in your letter
7 with Mr. Stewart?
8 A. That's right. He showed him the letter, yes.
9 Q. All right. And Mr. Stewart gave his reaction?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. I'm going to read you from a transcript page from hearing
12 transcript imagine 9599, February 28, 2005, Mr. Stewart talking on the
14 "I have personally been subjected to the scurrilous attack from a
15 former member of my team with untruthful allegations about how I spend my
16 time, when there's an adjournment, how much work I do other than this
17 case of which I do practically none, Your Honour." Let's adjust stop
18 there. I suggest to you, sir, that this is a response by Mr. Stewart to
19 your letter; is that correct?
20 A. I don't know if it's correct, but it could possibly be, yes.
21 Q. And in respect of his statement about what he does other than
22 work on the Krajisnik case, he says he does practically none. Aside from
23 the one example of his going to London for one day, you have no other
24 evidence to provide or facts to provide to suggest that he was working on
25 other cases during the time that you were an intern?
1 A. He actually stated in the oral argument on the 16th of July,
2 2004, that he kept a working practice in London and that the Krajisnik
3 case was not the only thing he was working on.
4 Q. Did you understand that he just been put on the case less than a
5 year before, and he was extricating himself from the practice that he had
6 when he took over the Krajisnik case and was keeping the Trial Chamber
7 informed of how he was using his time in that regard?
8 A. Actually, he was put on the Krajisnik case more than a year
9 before, and I was aware that he was trying to extricate himself from his
10 law practice in London, yes.
11 Q. But getting back to my question, you know of only one example,
12 the trip to London for one day, that was business related?
13 A. He made another trip to London in September when he went to
14 Spain, he went to Spain on September 8th, and according to the e-mail I
15 have, he was planning on spending the last day in London before returning
16 to The Hague. I don't know exactly how long he spent in London.
17 Q. You don't know did in London either, do you, sir?
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. Okay. Now, how was it in September of 2007 that you came to send
20 a fax to Mr. Krajisnik at the penitentiary enclosing your letter?
21 A. 2007?
22 Q. Yes. September 13, 2007 you sent him a copy of the -- of your
24 A. Oh, I was asked -- apparently he had lost my earlier copy, so I
25 was asked to send it again.
1 Q. By whom?
2 A. I think by Mr. Krajisnik himself.
3 Q. Did you -- you also mentioned that you'd had some conversation
4 with Mr. Karganovic?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. How many times did you talk to Mr. Karganovic before September
7 2007 when you sent the letter to Mr. Krajisnik?
8 A. I don't know. Steve and I are friends. I don't know.
9 Q. How long have you been friends?
10 A. Since I started working at the ICTY.
11 Q. And did you stay in regular contact with him over the years?
12 A. Yeah. We lost contact for a little -- sorry for the
13 interpreters. We'd lost contact for a while but I've been more or less
14 in contact with him.
15 Q. When do you recall first discussing with Mr. Karganovic your
16 letter of September 23rd, 2004?
17 A. It was sometime after he became case manager for Mr. Krajisnik,
18 but I don't think I could pinpoint a date for you.
19 Q. And what was the nature of his inquiry about the letter?
20 A. I think he was expressing concern about Mr. Stewart's defence,
21 and I had mentioned my letter in that regard.
22 Q. And did you help him prepare his letter of October 2007?
23 A. I did not.
24 Q. Did he speak to you about his intention to prepare this letter?
25 A. I think I stated earlier today that I knew he was going to write
1 a letter, but I have never seen it; and I don't know the contents of it.
2 I don't know anything about it.
3 Q. I suggest to you that the accused and the appellant in these
4 proceedings, Mr. Krajisnik, has a first-hand and probably expert
5 knowledge of the historical background of the events in
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995? Do you agree with that statement?
7 A. I agree with that.
8 Q. And you have no doubt that Mr. Stewart and Mr. Krajisnik were
9 talking on a regular basis about the case and the preparations of the
11 A. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of the regularity of their
12 meeting, but I assume they did talk about the case.
13 Q. Right. And Mr. Stewart had Mr. Krajisnik to rely on for advice
14 as to the historical aspects of the case to the extent that he may not
15 understand them himself, did he not?
16 A. I guess you're assuming he would listen to his advice.
17 Q. He had Mr. Krajisnik available to give him advice. That was my
19 A. Oh, yeah. He was available for that reason, certainly.
20 Q. Right. And he also had Mr. Neskovic available?
21 A. Yes, he was available.
22 Q. And before making your criticism of Mr. Stewart and his lack of
23 knowledge of the historical and political matters relating to
24 Mr. Krajisnik's case or the case against Mr. Krajisnik, did you have
25 occasion to review Mr. Stewart's cross-examination of the political
1 insider witnesses like Krajisnik Witness 623 on -- who testified on the
2 20th through the 23rd of September, 2004?
3 A. Who was -- I'm sorry, who was the witness?
4 Q. I can't give you the name.
5 A. Okay. I might have actually been involved in reviewing the
6 depositions of those witnesses.
7 Q. All right. And so you would have been giving advice to
8 Mr. Stewart on areas for cross-examination; correct?
9 A. Generally I would type up my comments and hand them to
10 Ms. Loukas.
11 Q. All right. And she would pass them along to the counsel who was
12 going to be doing the cross-examination if it wasn't her?
13 A. I assume.
14 Q. Right. And so she was managing that part of the exercise, the
15 preparation for cross-examination?
16 A. I don't know if I would use the word managing, but it was our --
17 it was my regular procedure to type up my comments and then hand them to
18 Ms. Stewart -- or Ms. Loukas, excuse me.
19 Q. Right. And in terms of other political overview witnesses that
20 testified, Patrick Treanor the expert and his cross-examination in April
21 2004 by Mr. Stewart, did you have occasion to review that before you made
22 your comments?
23 A. Not before I made my comments, but since then I have.
24 Q. And why were you doing that, sir?
25 A. I was interested in the testimony of Mr. Treanor because I had
1 asked Chrissa Loukas -- Chrissa Loukas on one occasion what was the
2 foundation for allowing all of these witnesses. Mr. Krajisnik -- there
3 was no evidence that Mr. Krajisnik had ever committed a crime, that he
4 order someone to kill someone, for example, or that he was even present
5 in a lot of the municipalities and locations that the Prosecution was
6 mentioning. So I asked just a standard question any American would,
7 American attorney would ask is what's the foundation for bringing in
8 these witnesses. And then I asked was it Mr. Treanor, was it his
9 testimony, and Ms. Loukas said it was not but she did not tell me what
10 the foundation was.
11 Q. So notwithstanding that she said it was not, you took a look at
12 his cross-examination by Mr. Stewart, did you?
13 A. Yeah. I had already read Mr. Treanor's documents that he gave as
14 an expert witness because I was preparing the expert witness for our
15 client as well.
16 Q. All right. And you weren't privy to any of the discussions that
17 took place in the Defence team relating to the calling of expert
18 witnesses during the course of Mr. Krajisnik's case, were you?
19 A. You mean before or after I was there?
20 Q. After you left.
21 A. No, certainly not.
22 Q. So the only thing you can testify to is that Defence was
23 examining the possibility of expert witnesses on certain areas of the
24 case and that you participated in part of that exercise; correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. Now, you talked about the statement of admitted facts exercise.
2 It's my understanding that the statement of facts exercise was ongoing
3 when you join the team on July the 5th, 2004.
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. And from your testimony I understand that you -- you were present
6 at least a couple of meetings where the statement of admitted facts were
8 A. Two meetings.
9 Q. Two meetings. And you had occasion to review the proposed
10 statement of admitted facts and to comment on the accuracy or otherwise
11 of the statements proposed; correct?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And my understanding of the process is that for each fact the
14 Prosecution tendered for Defence review one or more statements of
15 witnesses who would testify as to that fact; is that correct?
16 A. I wouldn't say that's correct, because sometimes there were
17 general statements without a statement from a -- excuse me. There were
18 general statements that the Prosecution had written that may have come
19 from several witnesses or from -- or one line of one -- from testimony
20 may have provided several statements from the Prosecution. It wasn't a
21 one-to one correspondence, if that's what you're asking.
22 Q. But there may be two or three witnesses testifying as to a fact
23 or one witness testifying to as to several facts?
24 A. And there may be one sentence that produce three or four
25 different facts.
1 Q. Which -- each individual fact, and that was broken down so that
2 each individual fact in the statement could be looked at and either
3 accept or rejected; correct?
4 A. Yes. And there were also statements that were not attributed
5 to -- you know, there were additional phrases or sentences along with
6 those. Those were the real problems, not the statements from the
7 witnesses but the additional things that the Prosecutors put in.
8 Q. And the Defence could reject any statement; correct?
9 A. Certainly, yes.
10 Q. And in fact, is it not so that sometime after the meeting on July
11 the 9th, over that weekend a determination was made by Nick Stewart and
12 others on the Defence team not to pursue the statement of admitted facts
13 project any longer and require the Prosecution to call of these
14 witnesses, is that not so?
15 A. I'm glad you raised that because that's an interesting
16 circumstance. As I said, Mr. Stewart seemed to reject my advice, but on
17 that Friday, the 9th of July, we had one of our rather lengthy meetings
18 at his apartment regarding the case, and the other intern -- one the
19 other interns, Thomas Derrington, who had participated in one of the
20 discussions with the Prosecution regarding the statements of facts said
21 kind of off-hand that the Prosecution seemed very happy about the
22 agreements they made, and that seemed to have a strong effect on
23 Nicholas Stewart more than my objections that the Prosecution was
24 possibly taking advantage of him, that he was -- that they were happy
25 with the results; and I think that's what led him to conclude on Monday
1 that he no longer wanted to participate in the statements of fact
3 Q. I'll spare you the Prosecution's perspective, sir.
4 A. Okay. I'd like to hear it some other time though.
5 Q. But you do agree that on the morning of the 12th of July, 2004,
6 Nick Stewart officially informed the Court that all discussions relating
7 to the admitted facts for the two municipalities that had been used as
8 the experimental ones had been discontinued and the Prosecution would be
9 requested to prove all of the facts that it had sought to have proven by
10 way of admitted facts; correct?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 JUDGE POCAR: Mr. Kremer, I don't want to press you if you have
14 more questions, but you have been examining the witness for more than 45
16 MR. KREMER: I apologise for that. I am almost finished. Thank
18 JUDGE POCAR: I wanted to draw your attention to that.
19 MR. KREMER:
20 Q. Now, you talked about a plan. I guess nobody shared with you
21 what the Defence plan was. Is that your complaint?
22 A. My complaint is that no one -- is not that no one shared it with
23 me but that I wasn't aware of any plan existing, and the other interns
24 had the same -- at least the ones I talked to, had the same feeling.
25 Q. But one interpretation is that it was never shared with the
1 interns. Correct?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. And that the plan was clearly in the -- known to Mr. Krajisnik
4 and his Defence team of Ms. Loukas and Mr. Stewart?
5 A. You'll have to ask them. I don't know.
6 Q. You don't know. Yes.
7 MR. KREMER: Those are my questions.
8 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you.
9 Judge Meron wants to put an additional question. Please.
10 JUDGE MERON: Mr. Mano, did you share your views concerning the
11 quality of Mr. Stewart's representation with other members of the Defence
12 team except Mr. Karganovic and, if so, how did they react?
13 THE WITNESS: Okay. I certainly shared it with
14 Thomas Derrington, and with Andrej Jonovic and possibly with
15 Chrissa Loukas as well. I know sometimes Chrissa Loukas was very
16 stressed, so I may have shared it with her as well.
17 JUDGE MERON: Regarding Ms. Loukas which was my next question,
18 could you try to tell us the most specific discussion you had with her if
19 you can remember on this matter?
20 THE WITNESS: I can't --
21 JUDGE MERON: You said today on a number occasions you said that
22 you had the impression that she was aware of that, and she was worried
23 about the quality of the representation. Could I hear your specific
24 recollection of that?
25 THE WITNESS: I wish I had one for you, but four years have
1 passed. If I had written them down at the time probably I could share
2 them too, but I can't think of any specifically right now.
3 JUDGE MERON: Thank you, President.
4 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. Well, let me turn now to the Defence of
5 Mr. Dershowitz. I understand that the amicus curiae doesn't want to take
6 the floor, but --
7 MR. NICHOLLS: That is correct.
8 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you. So, Mr. Dershowitz, you may be
9 allowed to take some questions, to give some questions.
10 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Thank you very much, Your Honour. I must
11 admit I find it quite awkward to be in all of these wires, pushing the
12 microphone and at the same time trying to stand up and delivering in this
13 manner, but I will try my best under, for me, unique circumstances.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. N. Dershowitz:
15 Q. Mr. Mano, when you first joined the team, did Mr. Stewart ever
16 sit down with you and discuss the strategy or goal of the Defence?
17 A. No, did he not.
18 Q. And in your presence was there ever a discussion of the strategy
19 and goal of the Defence by Mr. Stewart?
20 A. No.
21 Q. And am I correct that you never heard a discussion as to what the
22 Prosecutor's burden was with respect to JCE, nor a discussion of what the
23 Defence should challenge with respect to JCE? Is that correct?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. And am I further correct that aside from the one documents --
1 MR. KREMER: Your Honours, I just -- I'm sorry to interrupt
2 Mr. Dershowitz. I'm just wondering about the propriety of the questions
3 given the fact that Mr. Mano is a friendly witness to the accused.
4 Basically we now have Mr. Dershowitz giving evidence and the witness
5 saying yes and no, and I just object to the form of the question.
6 Perhaps the questions could be formed a little less leading. Thank you.
7 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Your Honour, I believe the witness is a Court
8 witness and not a Defence witness, and I think that's the criteria that
9 is --
10 JUDGE POCAR: But in any event, can you put your questions in a
11 less leading way.
12 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: I will try, Your Honour.
13 Q. You indicated that you had prepared a report on experts.
14 A. It was more than a report. It was a folder full of documents.
15 Q. And did Mr. Stewart request that of you?
16 A. I believe I suggested it.
17 Q. Well, is the same thing true with respect to the historic
18 background that you prepared?
19 A. I suggested that to Chrissa Loukas.
20 Q. But you never had a discussion -- did you have a discussion with
21 Mr. Stewart before you undertook that work?
22 A. No. You mean about whether I should undertake it or not?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. No.
25 Q. In the country where I practice, it's sometimes said that one
1 person's history is another person's current events. When you prepared
2 the document of the history, did that cover the period from 1990 through
4 A. Absolutely.
5 Q. And was that the period the indictment?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So by historic events, you were also including events that were
8 relevant and material to the indictment; is that correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. And I may have asked you this, but to your knowledge the only
11 document that you had seen with respect to the legal requirements with
12 respect to JCE was prepared solely at your request; is that correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. You seem to be suggesting that most of the work, and I'll and
15 we'll get to the question of preparing the cross-examination, but that
16 most of the work that you did, you did as a self-starter, not at the
17 behest of Mr. Stewart or anyone else in the Defence team; is that
19 A. I don't know if I would say the word "most," but certainly a lot
20 of the work I did was self-started.
21 Q. Well, aside from preparing cross-examination material, the two
22 other items you worked on most of the time was the -- what you call the
23 historic background, what I call the facts relating to the case, and the
24 preparation of the listing of persons who could be expert witnesses; is
25 that correct?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And nobody suggested to you an approach to who should be
3 considered as expert witnesses and how it would fit into the Defence; is
4 that correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And do you have any personal knowledge as to whether the document
7 that you call the historic record and whether the document that you
8 prepared for purposes of listing expert witnesses and whether the
9 document that was prepared of law with respect to JCE, whether any of
10 those documents were ever thoroughly reviewed by Mr. Stewart?
11 A. I have no knowledge of that.
12 Q. And you never received any feedback from Mr. Stewart as to the
13 substance of any of those documents; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Do you have any knowledge as to whether you or anyone else on the
16 Defence team was ever requested to prepare a historic or a document from
17 a Defence point of view of Mr. Krajisnik's involvement for the period
18 1990 to 1992?
19 A. It did not come up while I was there.
20 Q. And with respect to your preparing witnesses for
21 cross-examination, you mentioned that the raw data you use was
22 depositions; is that correct?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Who had taken those depositions?
25 A. They have investigators who took those in most cases, in the
1 cases that I saw.
2 Q. And those investigators, were they investigators for the Defence
3 or were they investigators for the Prosecutor?
4 A. They were, I think, either investigators for the Prosecutor or
5 some kind of Tribunal investigators, perhaps.
6 Q. So you know of no raw data that you examined for purposes of
7 preparing witnesses for cross-examination which reflected materials from
8 a Defence point of view; is that correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. And you have no knowledge -- when you did this preparation, as
11 far as you could tell, there was no materials that were provided to you
12 which would indicate that it came from Mr. Krajisnik directly or anyone
13 on behalf of Mr. Krajisnik; is that correct?
14 A. There was one occasion where, I think, Mr. Krajisnik was asked to
15 provide a list of questions for a witness. I did not actually see the
16 list of questions, but I know he was asked to provide a list of
18 Q. But you didn't use that list for the purpose of preparing the
19 materials that you would prepare for cross-examination; is that correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. So if I understand you correctly, the guidelines for your
22 preparing materials for cross-examination was solely to see whether there
23 was any material in the depositions or other items that had been secured
24 by the Prosecutor or the Tribunal which would reflect an inconsistency
25 between that and what the witness was going to testify to?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And no idea and no materials were included which would counter
3 the witness's testimony from a Defence point of view or a document from a
4 Defence point of view which would aid the defendant or the Defence in
5 questioning this witness to show that the whole level of testimony was
6 inaccurate; is that correct?
7 A. Nothing that I didn't bring myself.
8 Q. And what you brought yourself was knowledge that you had, not
9 knowledge that you secured from Mr. Krajisnik --
10 JUDGE POCAR: Mr. Dershowitz, may I ask you to be less leading,
11 because I see you are going back to very much leading when putting
13 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: I apologise. I will try not to.
14 Q. In response to a question from the Court with, I think -- are we
15 in private session? You were asked to examine a last sentence-the last
16 full sentence on page 3 which says: "That statement alone should be
17 convincing evidence to anyone that Mr. Stewart should not be left to
18 handle the case," and in response to an inquiry from the Tribunal you
19 said you should have said "that and everything else." Could you please
20 explain what you meant by "everything else"?
21 A. Well, the concerns that I expressed in this letter, his lack of
22 knowledge, his refusal to take advice from anyone, his lack of personal
23 interest in the outcome, the combination of things.
24 Q. Also when you were asked a question by the Tribunal about that he
25 took little personal interest in the outcome, I think you indicated you
1 didn't have specific things in mind, but you seem to have had some
2 general impressions in mind. Can you explain what you had in mind when
3 you made that statement?
4 A. Yeah. He had said things to me either when I was riding in his
5 car or when I had time to talk to him alone that suggested to me that it
6 really wasn't important whether he won or lost -- whether he would win or
7 lose the case.
8 Q. Were there any other comments that he made that fit into that
9 general category?
10 A. I'm sure there were. That wasn't an exact quote. I don't
11 remember his words exactly. It was a long time ago.
12 Q. Well, putting aside his exact words, are you sure of the
13 impression that he conveyed to you and your reaction to his questions?
14 A. Oh, yeah, absolutely.
15 Q. You had been asked by Mr. Kremer whether you were aware of a
16 comment made by Mr. Krajisnik -- let me strike that. You were asked by
17 Mr. Kremer that if Mr. Krajisnik indicated in February of 2005 that he
18 was satisfied with the Defence, that would indicate that he rejected your
19 advice. If you also understood that Mr. Krajisnik had suggested that he
20 want to be self-represented and that if he was self-represented it would
21 not make things any worse, would that indicate to you that he did
22 recognise what you were saying as having validity?
23 A. It would seem to indicate that, yes.
24 Q. You were asked a number of questions with respect to the
25 substance -- the accuracy of your exact quotations, and you indicated
1 they may not have been accurate, but can you tell us in substance whether
2 each of the items that's contained in that --
3 MR. KREMER: I'm sorry to interrupt again, Mr. Dershowitz. I'm
4 sorry to interrupt, Mr. Dershowitz. I rise to object simply because I
5 don't understand what, if any, connection this has with JCE.
6 Mr. Dershowitz has a very specific function, and he asked two questions
7 about JCE and everything else is -- are questions that should have been
8 asked by Mr. Dershowitz, and he knows this; and I just stand to object on
9 that basis.
10 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: I would love the opportunity to respond on
11 that, Your Honour, and that is the conviction here was solely on the
12 basis of JCE. To the extent that counsel did not prepare, did not
13 prepare in general, and as I think this witness has indicated certainly
14 did not prepare at all with an understanding that JCE could be the
15 subject of the conviction; and it was the subject of the conviction, the
16 lack of preparation, the lack of doing any work with respect to JCE is,
17 in my view, indispensable to a determination of ineffectiveness of
18 counsel. Ineffectiveness of counsel is not in the abstract. It ties
19 into the specific charges and more so to the specific charges for which a
20 defendant was convicted. So to prepare for A when a defendant is
21 convicted of B is in my mind irrelevant. You must prepare for what the
22 defendant could be convicted of, and here the evidence seems to suggest
23 no preparation for purposes of JCE. So it's all relevant with respect to
24 JCE. And I only have about three more questions.
25 JUDGE POCAR: All right. Put the three more questions but try to
1 be more focused.
2 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:
3 Q. Again my question is you were asked whether or not the quotations
4 you made reference to were specifically accurate and whether the
5 quotation marks should have been around that, and I ask you whether those
6 quotations are in substance accurate.
7 A. In substance they are accurate.
8 Q. And you did it from memory; is that correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. You were asked two other questions by Mr. Kremer. One is whether
11 Mr. Stewart had access to Mr. Krajisnik for securing factual materials.
12 Do you have any knowledge as to whether Mr. Stewart ever secured factual
13 information from Mr. Krajisnik, except for the one example that you gave
14 where he was asked to provide questions for cross-examination? Were you
15 aware whether or not in any of the conversations he ever had with
16 Mr. Krajisnik whether he ever asked him facts responsive to allegations
17 that were made by the Prosecutor?
18 A. I have no personal knowledge of that, no.
19 Q. The same thing with respect to Mr. Neskovic.
20 A. Neskovic.
21 Q. Neskovic, where there was an indication that he was available.
22 Do you have any personal knowledge as to whether Mr. Stewart ever secured
23 information from him and ever use that information?
24 A. No. Actually, the -- quite the contrary. If you look at
25 Mr. Stewart's oral argument from July 16, 2004, when the Prosecution
1 raised Mr. Neskovic's name saying that he had billed the Tribunal for
2 some incredibly high number of hours, Mr. Stewart said, "I wasn't aware
3 of that." And then he went on to say that Mr. Neskovic is in Bosnia,
4 that he only speaks Serbian, that Mr. Stewart is in The Hague, and he
5 only speaks English, and that the few times he had contact with him were
6 via a translator and written material.
7 Q. And the final subject is Mr. Kremer asked you questions about the
8 proposed statement of facts and said that the normal procedure is to have
9 certain witness -- testimony from witnesses indicating that they would
10 support the statement. Do you have any idea whether simply because there
11 is an allegation that a witness will testify to something means, one,
12 that that witness is credible; two, that that testimony is admissible,
13 and I can go on.
14 A. Yeah, that's a good question. And also as I said, the
15 Prosecution elaborated on what the witnesses said. So there were a lot
16 of things that were objectionable about the material.
17 Q. So it wasn't just the substance but also the procedure by which
18 they were going to support it may have been able to have been challenged;
19 is that correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: I have no further questions. Thank you.
22 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. Before we conclude -- well, Judge Meron
23 first, and then I may have a couple of questions myself, but please.
24 JUDGE MERON: Just one question to Mr. Dershowitz. We know that
25 the witness worked for three months in the Tribunal as an intern. Now,
1 it may very well be that the question of joint criminal enterprise was
2 elaborated after that.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
4 JUDGE MERON: What is in fact the significance that we should
5 draw from the fact that --
6 JUDGE POCAR: Your microphone.
7 JUDGE MERON: I'm so sorry. What is the significance of the fact
8 that Mr. Mano cannot testify to anything he remembers about joint
9 criminal enterprise studies having being prepared in that span of time.
10 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Your Honour, the answer I think if you take
11 that coupled with a number of other things, it raises a question. It
12 certainly doesn't solve the question. But if you have a period of time
13 where the only one who had prepared materials was a member of the team
14 requested by Mr. Mano, if you add to that a statement that was made by
15 Ms. Loukas at one point in time which said that the priorities of the
16 Defence was not to do certain types of technical legal research, and then
17 depending upon what Mr. -- what the next case manager says, it may simply
18 be sufficient to raise a question as to whether there was ever -- that
19 Mr. Stewart ever engaged in preparing for joint criminal enterprise. And
20 the only way you'll ever have an answer to that question probably with
21 any degree of definity is whether Mr. Stewart testifies. When you take
22 those three pieces and put it together there is a strong inference that
23 that work had never been done.
24 Thank you.
25 JUDGE POCAR: Following on this question, Mr. Dershowitz, would
1 you in light of the limited time spent by the witness with the Defence
2 team and of the fact that he has been assigned specific tasks as he has
3 stated before, with a limited goal, would you allow for the possibility
4 that the witness was not given more substantive tasks, was not associated
5 in the preparation of the defence simply because perhaps the lead counsel
6 did not trust him enough in light of his lack of expertise, legal
7 expertise and legal practice, and didn't want to associate him, not
8 withstanding his wish to be associated?
9 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Your Honour, without a doubt that may be the
10 case, but when you allow for two witnesses to testify on the narrow
11 question, you have to control whatever information you can from those two
12 witnesses. There are other witnesses who I believe may be necessary to
13 get a full picture. I completely agree you will not get a full picture
14 from these two witnesses, but there are Mr. Stewart, Ms. Loukas, other
15 people, and you know -- but that's not -- that's not within my -- my
16 realm. I agree with you completely that you can draw certain
17 conclusions, certain limited conclusions, but you cannot draw conclusions
18 as to everything from witnesses who were not there for the full period of
19 time. But again, I think the reason for the hearing is because there is
20 enough within these documents to suggest some problem, and exploring them
21 increases the fact that there is a problem. It didn't fully answer the
22 problem, and that's -- that's my view on it. Thank you.
23 JUDGE POCAR: Judge Shahabuddeen, please.
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Mano, would you kindly correct my
25 impression in case it's wrong, as well as it may be, that is I gained the
1 impression from your evidence that the briefing notes on historical
2 matters which you prepared were limited really to a narration of current
3 events over one or two years, that they did not go into prior matters.
4 Is that correct?
5 THE WITNESS: No, that's not correct. I provided the background
6 for the conflict going back to before World War II.
7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: How far did that background note extend into
8 the past? Would you say ten years or hundreds of years?
9 THE WITNESS: No. As I said, I started with the background that
10 led up to World War II, so that would have encompassed a period of time
11 probably of 60 or 70 years.
12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you.
13 JUDGE POCAR: One more question just to -- Mr. Mano, to clarify
14 one issue which perhaps was not clear through the debate we had now.
15 You were saying you were given task of preparing witnesses for
16 cross-examination, but from some of the intervention I got you preparing
17 materials to be used for cross-examination.
18 What exactly was the task you assigned in the preparation for
20 THE WITNESS: Okay. As I said, I was usually given depositions
21 or something like depositions, statements by witnesses; and I was asked
22 to review the statements and try to find contradictions or obvious things
23 that could not be correct within those statements, and then I would type
24 out my own observations, and I would hand those to Ms. Loukas.
25 JUDGE POCAR: Okay. Thank you very much. Well, this concludes
1 the examination of Witness Mano. Mr. Mano, you may be excused and
2 accompanied out of the courtroom.
3 We go back to public hearing now.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE POCAR: So before closing this morning's session, may I
8 raise one issue. The Appeals Chamber received this morning a request by
9 Mr. Krajisnik to file, in relation to the hearing on Wednesday, next
10 Wednesday, to file Radovan Karadzic statement pursuant to Rule 92 ter.
11 Of course the Appeals Chamber will have to decide on this, but may I ask
12 the Prosecution if they have any comment on this now.
13 MR. KREMER: Yes, Mr. President. We have people meeting,
14 discussing it. I will meet with them during the recess and hopefully
15 will be in the position to file something today.
16 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you. So we defer this to the afternoon in
17 order to enable the Appeals Chamber to make a decision later on.
18 The hearing is now adjourned. We reconvene at 2.00 for the
19 examination of the Witness Karganovic. The hearing is adjourn.
20 --- Luncheon recess taken at 11.49 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 2.04 p.m.
22 JUDGE POCAR: Good afternoon everybody. We resume our hearing.
23 At the outset let me thank the Prosecution for the response we
24 received on the request of Mr. Krajisnik to -- leave to file a document
25 under Rule 92 ter. The Appeals Chamber will consider the issue and will
1 give an answer, announce its decision before the end of the afternoon,
2 before the end of the hearing.
3 Now we can perhaps proceed -- Mr. Krajisnik?
4 THE APPELLANT: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your
5 permission perhaps it would be a good idea before you reach your decision
6 with respect to the Prosecution's response that in my own name and
7 Mr. Dershowitz's name he present additional reasons which would be useful
8 to you in making your decision.
9 [Appeals Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE POCAR: Well, I consulted my colleagues. Yes, of course
11 this can be done, but I wouldn't like to open a long debate now; and it
12 should be understood it's the expense of the Defence time if they want to
13 add some reasoning.
14 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honour. Just Mr. Krajisnik
15 asked me to explain and to address one paragraph in the response which
16 says that Mr. Krajisnik provides no reason as to why it would be, you
17 know, compatible with the interest of justice. And the reason he had
18 wanted to have this done by a document is because he is pro se, and he
19 was concerned about his capacity and ability to be able to ask the
20 questions in an area that he thinks is significant as well as it could be
21 done by a document, and he thought that since Mr. Kremer can
22 cross-examine, Mr. Nicholls intends to cross-examine, and I have been
23 given permission to examine, that between those three the Court will have
24 enough of a face-to-face of Mr. Karadzic to be able to make the judgement
25 as to his credibility.
1 I just wanted to explain -- he wanted me to explain that in legal
2 terms, that's all. Thank you.
3 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. Any reaction on this just by the
4 Prosecution just to --
5 MR. KREMER: Our concern is the unfairness of the document going
6 in as a 92 ter statement solely without eliciting what Mr. Krajisnik
7 thinks are important aspects of the statement. We're on notice that he
8 may testify as to all of those points. Some of them are not very
9 detailed or elaborate and basically deal with all of the testimony, and
10 for us to be effective in our cross-examination we need to know through
11 the mouth of the witness what he's saying, why he's saying it, and how
12 he's saying it in order to be able to properly challenge both his
13 credibility in terms of making those statements and also the content of
14 them. So that would be my response.
15 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you. Well, the Appeals Chamber will
16 take --
17 [Appeals Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE POCAR: Yes. My attention is drawn on the one point made
19 by Mr. Dershowitz when you said a moment ago that you have given
20 permission to examine. You mean re-examine after the cross-examination.
21 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Yes.
22 JUDGE POCAR: Correct. I want to make sure the procedure is
23 clear to everyone.
24 Well, we will take into account -- the Appeals Chamber will take
25 into account the consideration just made by the parties.
1 I don't know whether the amicus wants to say something on this
2 specific point made by the parties.
3 MR. NICHOLLS: No, I have nothing really to add. The document
4 obviously has a value from the Chamber's view and indeed from counsel's
5 view, but it can't be evidence other than -- insofar as it is given from
6 the witness box.
7 JUDGE POCAR: Sorry, what do you mean by that, Mr. Nicholls? If
8 the document is admitted as evidence under 92 ter, it's evidence.
9 MR. NICHOLLS: No, I'm not saying that it should be admit as
10 evidence. I'm saying that it's useful from our point of view in that we
11 have it or counsel have it, but obviously he have must be given from the
12 witness box.
13 JUDGE POCAR: I'm sorry, Mr. Nicholls, I have to explain the
14 procedure then. If a statement is admitted under 92 ter of the Rules of
15 Procedure and Evidence, that document is evidence. Of course, it will be
16 taken into account together with the cross-examination. It takes
17 place -- it is in lieu of examination-in-chief, but it has the same value
18 of examination-in-chief, and of course we have to consider in light of
19 the cross-examination, the re-examination, but it's part of the evidence.
20 MR. NICHOLLS: Then in my capacity as amicus, I have no
21 submissions to make.
22 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you.
23 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: I just wanted to clarify. Under 93 ter,
24 there is no indication of interest of justice. Under 89(F) there is an
25 indication of an interests of justice. They are two different Rules. I
1 just wanted to highlight that.
2 JUDGE POCAR: We know the Rules, Mr. Dershowitz.
3 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Better than I do, I'm sure, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE POCAR: So I believe now we can reserve in the decision on
5 the request. We can proceed to examining Witness Karganovic. Can --
6 MR. KREMER: Just before we start, Mr. President, I just have one
7 question that arises out of our examination and cross-examination of the
8 witness this morning; and I would raise the question as to whether or not
9 Mr. Dershowitz, to the extent that he has any JCE questions, should not
10 go after the Bench, and I be given the last opportunity to ask questions
11 of Mr. Karganovic subject to the Chamber asking questions. I just say
12 from my experience this morning I think the process is entirely unfair to
13 have Mr. Dershowitz asking questions of a friendly witness -- of a
14 witness friendly to Mr. Krajisnik who Mr. Krajisnik who is proposing, who
15 the Chamber has chosen to call to be asked to basically rehabilitate or
16 attempt to rehabilitate the witness through leading questions after
17 cross-examination. That's my submission.
18 JUDGE POCAR: Well, I see my colleagues have also this view.
19 Probably it's -- we should proceed this way. So have Mr. Dershowitz
20 taking the floor before the Prosecutor. And of course understanding that
21 Mr. Dershowitz will limit himself to JCE issues.
22 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Your Honour, I have no objection. I just
23 wanted to make sure that I'm using Mr. Nicholls' time, not --
24 JUDGE POCAR: That's true.
25 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Thank you.
1 JUDGE POCAR: So can we have the witness brought in.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 WITNESS: STEFAN KARGANOVIC
4 JUDGE POCAR: Good afternoon --
5 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
6 JUDGE POCAR: -- Mr. Karganovic. Can you please read the solemn
7 declaration that the usher will show you.
8 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
9 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you, Mr. Karganovic. You may now be seat.
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
12 Questioned by the Appeals Chamber:
13 JUDGE POCAR: So could you please tell the Court your full name
14 and date of birth.
15 A. Yes, my name is Stefan Karganovic. I was born on June 16, 1950.
16 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. Which is your address?
17 A. My address in Holland is Usselinexstraat 60, Den Haag.
18 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. Could you now tell us what education
19 you have and give us a brief list of your previous occupation and your
20 current occupation.
21 A. Yes. My education is I went to the University of Chicago in the
22 United States. I have a degree in philosophy. I went to Indiana
23 University Law school and graduated there. I worked in some legal
24 capacities and also had a private businesses in the 1980s. I also worked
25 as an interpreter and a translator.
1 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. So, Mr. Karganovic, the Court has ask
2 you to testify in the appeal proceedings in the case of the Prosecutor
3 against Krajisnik.
4 A. Yes.
5 JUDGE POCAR: As it is the Court itself that has requested your
6 attendance, you will be first asked questions by the Judges.
7 A. Thank you.
8 JUDGE POCAR: And as I am presiding here, I will begin the
9 questioning myself, following questions by other Judges. You may then be
10 asked questions by Mr. Krajisnik, the Defence Mr. Dershowitz, and the
11 Prosecution, and the amicus curiae if he wants to do so.
12 Specifically, we will be asking you questions as to what you know
13 about the workings of Mr. Krajisnik's Defence team during the trial and
14 about the conduct of former counsel, Nicholas Stewart, in relation to
15 that trial.
16 A. Very well, Your Honour. May I just note that on the screen I do
17 not see anything. It would perhaps be helpful if I could also follow the
18 questions and the answers there. Ah, yes. Okay. Thank you.
19 JUDGE POCAR: Before I put you questions, one small thing. I
20 asked you your address.
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE POCAR: Do you want the address to remain in the record, or
23 you want to have it redacted.
24 A. Well, for the time being I suppose that is my official address,
25 although when I go to Belgrade I -- I can live at my aunt's house. I
1 could give you the address there. If there is a point to it I would be
2 happy to do it.
3 JUDGE POCAR: No, the problem is that since the hearing is public
4 if you want to have it public or not, the address. You don't mind.
5 A. No.
6 JUDGE POCAR: Okay. That's fine. Thank you.
7 So now I would ask the -- the usher to present the witness with
8 Exhibit AD2, which is a confidential exhibit; and so before putting
9 questions that would relate to that exhibit, I will ask the registrar to
10 go into private session.
11 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of Chamber]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in private session.
13 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you.
14 So, Mr. Karganovic, this document, as you see the statement of
15 October 16, 2007.
16 A. Correct.
17 JUDGE POCAR: You want a moment to familiarise yourself with the
18 document or you don't need that?
19 A. Well, since I wrote it, I think I'm familiar.
20 JUDGE POCAR: You're familiar with it.
21 A. There's only one correction I would like to make. In paragraph
22 one, the years should be moved one forward. There was a typographical
23 mistake, I suppose.
24 JUDGE POCAR: Paragraph one.
25 A. Yes. So it's from April of 2005 to May of 2006.
1 JUDGE POCAR: Okay. I thank you.
2 A. Sure.
3 JUDGE POCAR: So first can you confirm that you wrote this
4 statement in.
5 A. Yes, I can.
6 JUDGE POCAR: I note that at paragraph three, four lines from the
7 end, the word "Stewart" has been cross out by hand and replace by Loukas.
8 Could you enlighten us as to which one of these names is correct, to
10 A. Loukas. I again made a typographical error, and I corrected it
11 by hand, and I initialled the correction.
12 JUDGE POCAR: So with that change --
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE POCAR: -- can you confirm that the statement represents
15 the truth to the best of your knowledge?
16 A. Yes. The statement in B/C/S certainly does. As far as the
17 translation is concerned, I can only trust that it is correct.
18 JUDGE POCAR: That's well enough. Can you enlighten us now as to
19 whether you submitted the facts and your concerns contained in the
20 statement to the Trial Chamber?
21 A. I -- to be quite proper, I submitted it to Mr. Krajisnik, and I
22 believe that it was Mr. Krajisnik who then submitted it to the Chamber.
23 JUDGE POCAR: So if you don't -- so you did not submit it to the
25 A. I did not directly send it to the Chamber, no.
1 JUDGE POCAR: So can you explain to us why you chose not to
2 present this -- these facts during the trial?
3 A. Well, that is a fair question. It never occurred to me, to be
4 quite honest with you, Your Honour. I suppose when it is all over then
5 your impressions come together and you form a more coherent picture.
6 During the trial you're very busy. You don't have so much time for
8 It just never occurred to me to do that during the trial.
9 JUDGE POCAR: So you thought of submitting these facts only after
10 the trial had ended.
11 A. Yes. Yes.
12 JUDGE POCAR: And you don't think at any moment before the end of
13 the trial to -- to submit facts of this kind to the Chamber?
14 A. No.
15 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you. Now, I note that according to your
16 statement, you worked in Mr. Krajisnik's Defence team from April 2005 to
17 May 2006.
18 A. Yes.
19 JUDGE POCAR: According to the correction you made to the dates.
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE POCAR: In paragraph six, however, you state you were going
22 with Mr. Stewart to see Mr. Krajisnik in UN Detention Unit in autumn
23 2005. Can you explain the dates? Has that date to be corrected as well
24 or -- was it autumn 2006 or does it remain autumn 2005?
25 A. That is in which paragraph, Your Honour?
1 JUDGE POCAR: Six.
2 A. Six.
3 JUDGE POCAR: At the end of paragraph six.
4 A. I'm a little bit confused. It should have been 2000 -- now I'm
5 completely confused.
6 JUDGE POCAR: Because if you move the dates in paragraph one.
7 A. Yes, yes, yes.
8 JUDGE POCAR: What we do for the same dates for the rest of the
10 A. No, I do not think this has to be moved forward. This is
11 probably -- okay. If we're talking about the autumn, it should be 2005.
12 JUDGE POCAR: So this date would stand?
13 A. I think so. Yes. Yes, because I left the team in March or April
14 of 2006, two or three months before the trial was over. That was in
16 JUDGE POCAR: You say you left the team now in March or April
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 JUDGE POCAR: But in paragraph one it would be until May 2006.
20 Which is the correct date?
21 A. Let me take another look. May. All right. Probably May. I'm
22 not entirely certain of the date. It was before Mr. Krajisnik began to
23 testify. So it may have been May.
24 JUDGE POCAR: There are several other paragraphs with dates.
25 A. Okay.
1 JUDGE POCAR: Can we go through them and try to see whether the
2 dates are correct or have to be --
3 A. Sure.
4 JUDGE POCAR: -- or have to be considered in light of what you
5 said in paragraph one. In paragraph two you speak about April 2004. It
6 should be April 2005.
7 A. Yes, mm-hmm.
8 JUDGE POCAR: That's correct. That should be easy to correct.
9 What about paragraph five where you're speaking about autumn 2005.
10 A. I think that's correct.
11 JUDGE POCAR: That's correct.
12 A. That's the year when I started working.
13 JUDGE POCAR: In that same paragraph it says May 2005.
14 A. In paragraph seven you mean, Your Honour?
15 JUDGE POCAR: No, paragraph five. Fifth line. Third line on
16 page two. "It is only May 2005 that the --"
17 A. Mm-hmm. "It is only May --" I think that is correct, yes.
18 JUDGE POCAR: That is correct.
19 A. Mm-hmm.
20 JUDGE POCAR: The same would apply, I guess, two lines below, to
21 the late autumn 2005.
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 JUDGE POCAR: That's correct.
24 A. Mm-hmm.
25 JUDGE POCAR: Then in paragraph six you have a date summer 2005.
1 A. Which I again --
2 JUDGE POCAR: Again correct.
3 A. -- would say is correct.
4 JUDGE POCAR: Beginning of paragraph seven, first line, you say
5 May 2005.
6 A. Again I think is correct.
7 JUDGE POCAR: It's correct.
8 A. Mm-hmm.
9 JUDGE POCAR: And I think that's all.
10 A. Okay.
11 JUDGE POCAR: That's all. So at least we have tried to clarify
12 the dates in the document.
13 Now, one issue related to dates again. Amicus curiae has argued
14 that Ms. Loukas resigned in July 2005. Do you agree?
15 A. I certainly would agree that she left the team in July of 2005.
16 I -- I'm not sure when she technically tendered her resignation or when
17 her resignation is dated, but I do know that she remained for a couple of
18 weeks and to break in Mr. Josse who had been appointed to replace her as
19 co-counsel. So I'm not quite sure during those couple of overlapping
20 weeks that she was still technically still co-counsel or not. I just
21 didn't see any documents that would confirm that one way or another, but
22 she remain physically until the break that year, which began in late
23 May -- late July 2005.
24 JUDGE POCAR: Indeed the correction in the dates explains some of
25 the contradictions that I noticed in your statement, so I don't have to
1 go to that.
2 Let me ask you another question now.
3 A. Please.
4 JUDGE POCAR: If you go to paragraph three, you describe the
5 Defence team's work as an improvisation.
6 A. Yes.
7 JUDGE POCAR: Can you exemplify the basis on which you reached
8 this conclusion.
9 A. Yes. From the time at least that I joined the team, we did not
10 have any clear plan according to which we were working or at that time
11 when I joined reacting to the Prosecution's evidence, and later of course
12 our task became organising our own defence on Mr. Krajisnik's behalf. So
13 it seemed that we were lurching from one crisis to another, from one
14 emergency to another, and we often had to ask for extensions of time
15 because we did not really have a clear idea of what we wanted to do next,
16 and we were not sure if we were prepared for whatever was coming next.
17 In terms of the Defence case, I think the improvisation element
18 became particularly prominent because there was no clear pattern that I
19 could see in calling witnesses or specific criteria by which we would
20 select Defence witnesses to rebut a specific contention of the
21 Prosecution or to help establish some thesis by the Defence.
22 So there was no consistent, well-thought-out plan underlying what
23 we were doing and that's my definition of an improvisation.
24 JUDGE POCAR: What were exactly the tasks to which you were
25 assigned within the Defence team.
1 A. I had a dual task so to speak because I'm a B/C/S speaker. So a
2 large portion of my duties had to do with interpretation and translation.
3 Interpretation, obviously accompanying Mr. Stewart or Ms. Loukas or
4 Mr. Josse to the Detention Unit to talk to Mr. Krajisnik or talk to him
5 here, or translation. There was a lot of material that was generated by
6 Mr. Krajisnik in B/C/S which needed to be translated into English for the
7 benefit of his counsel. There was also quite a bit of documentation that
8 was coming in from the investigators in the field in Bosnian which needed
9 to be turned into English for the benefit of counsel. So that was one
10 significant part of it.
11 Related to that was my presence in the courtroom to serve as
12 liaison between the defendant and counsel.
13 Beyond that I had the task of organising documents as they were
14 needed, bringing them to counsel. We had an office rented on the
15 premises of the Dutch Bar Association where the bulk of our files were
16 located. There was also a closet here where some of the most frequently
17 used ones were being kept, but I tried to keep track of where things were
18 and to locate them and bring them to the attention of -- of counsel as
19 needed, assemble dossiers, so to speak, of documents that were pertinent
20 to a particular witness or subject and so on and so forth.
21 Also, I had the task of liaising with potential witnesses in the
22 former Yugoslavia for a while. Then that job was taken over by another
24 JUDGE POCAR: So it means that you say you were in the position
25 to follow everything that happen within the Defence team?
1 A. Yes. Yes. You could say that, but perhaps "everything" is -- is
2 a very broad concept. We had staff meetings generally once a week where
3 we would all assemble, or most of us would assemble, and we would talk
4 about pending tasks and things of that nature; but there were some
5 elements of should I call it confidentiality or of private interaction
6 between Mr. Stewart and Ms. Loukas while she was on the team, and later
7 on the same pattern continue with Mr. Josse, which I thought was
8 perfectly normal.
9 JUDGE POCAR: Let me come to some specific questions. In
10 paragraph five you speak of disagreements within the Defence team as to
11 which witnesses should be called.
12 Now, between who did these disagreements exist and for what
14 A. Mm-hmm. The disagreements existed fundamentally between
15 Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Stewart. Mr. Krajisnik had practically all times
16 his agenda, which witnesses would be the most suitable at any given time
17 to be called. Mr. Stewart had his ideas, and harmonising these divergent
18 approaches was not always easy.
19 JUDGE POCAR: On a related note, in the same paragraph, paragraph
20 five, you say that the Defence called only 20 witnesses as opposed to the
21 200 called by the Prosecution. Could you explain how, if at all, this
22 relates to the conduct of Mr. Stewart? Was his decision.
23 A. Well, the obvious answer to Your Honour's question is that he was
24 lead counsel and in overall in charge of planning and conducting the
25 defence. So in the final analysis it was choices that he made in that
1 capacity that resulted in so many witnesses being called. It's a
2 separate question whether these decisions were wise or unwise, practical
3 or not; but that's a value judgement, but in his capacity he's the one
4 who call the shots.
5 Of course the fact that Mr. Krajisnik testified and took up a
6 couple of weeks of Defence time also reduced the number of Defence
7 witnesses who could be called. So that had an influence over it too.
8 JUDGE POCAR: Let me move on to paragraph six.
9 A. Okay.
10 JUDGE POCAR: There you allege that Mr. Stewart admitted that,
11 I'm quoting: "... had no idea about how to mount the defence." In
12 paragraph nine you say more broadly the Defence team did not have a plan
13 for the defence. Is it your claim that none of the members of the team,
14 so no the team, not only Mr. Stewart, had a plan for the defence?
15 A. That is a very good question. If I can focus on paragraph six
17 JUDGE POCAR: Yes.
18 A. Is Your Honour referring to the interlude in the Defence unit --
19 I mean in the Detention Unit?
20 JUDGE POCAR: Yes.
21 A. Okay. Okay. Well, there I'm simply quoting what Mr. Stewart
22 said. It was said in the presence of Mr. Josse. One may take it for
23 whatever it's worth.
24 As far as paragraph nine is concerned, you're correct. I put it
25 more broadly there. I speak of the Defence team.
1 Perhaps in my mind the Defence is identified, personified by
2 Mr. Stewart only in the sense that he was the person who was making
3 overall and final decisions, and also in his interactions with
4 Mr. Krajisnik insisted very adamantly that he had to be ultimately in
5 charge. So perhaps I could have been more precise in -- in that
6 paragraph, but now that I look at this again I would say that I meant
7 basically the person who was running the show, Mr. Stewart.
8 That doesn't mean that other members of the Defence team did not
9 have their own ideas, but number one, they were not nearly as qualified
10 to venture ideas of this nature as an experienced barrister and Queen's
11 counsel as Mr. Stewart. Of course it would not have hurt, perhaps, for
12 lead counsel to talk to the members of his team and hear some suggestions
13 and ideas; but for one reason or another we never really had any team
14 discussions on strategic issues, what is to be done. Insofar as we had
15 discussions, it was how to accomplish something that was already decided
16 that needed to be done. Tactical rather than strategic, if I may put it
17 that way.
18 JUDGE POCAR: Let know now turn your attention to the issue of
19 expert witnesses that you mentioned in paragraph nine of your statement.
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE POCAR: You stated Mr. Stewart did not think expert
22 witnesses would clarify the issues of the case.
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE POCAR: Can you tell us specifically why Mr. Krajisnik --
25 if and why Mr. Krajisnik disagreed with Mr. Stewart in this regard?
1 A. Mm-hmm. Mr. Krajisnik very strongly disagreed with Mr. Stewart
2 on this point. He disagreed in the first place, and I can only try to
3 convey to you what I heard from him verbally. Mr. Krajisnik would
4 ultimately be the best person to answer your question, but from what he
5 said, he complained that the Prosecution --
6 JUDGE POCAR: But I understand you were translating and bringing
7 to Mr. Stewart, so --
8 A. Exactly, but I --
9 JUDGE POCAR: Exactly what I want to know you heard --
10 A. [Overlapping speakers] ... certainly, certainly. That's what I'm
11 going to focus on because I don't want to try to read anybody's thoughts,
12 especially a person who is available to answer questions. But
13 Mr. Krajisnik would point out over and over again that the Prosecution
14 brought so many expert witnesses, I think five or six or something like
15 that; and he thought from his intelligent layman's point of view that it
16 was very odd that in a case of this high profile and complexity the
17 Defence would not respond in the same manner, bring one expert witness to
18 deal with the findings and allegations of each of the Prosecution's
19 expert witnesses. He simply could not grasp why that would not be done.
20 And it was even more difficult for him to understand that given the fact
21 that after the number of years that he has spent here, he saw the way
22 other trials were being conducted, and he noticed the obvious, namely
23 that in the vast majority of the cases it was standard practice for the
24 Defence to bring expert witnesses depending on whatever they wanted to
25 prove or refute, but it was standard practice.
1 So he simply could not understand why that was not being done in
2 his case.
3 So his starting position was that we should -- it should be
4 one-on-one. The Prosecution had -- they had a military expert, a media
5 expert, a demographic expert, an expert on the destruction of cultural
6 monuments. I don't recall them all, but there were about five or six,
7 and he wanted us to respond tit for tat.
8 When Mr. Stewart did not agree to that, Mr. Krajisnik reduced his
9 demands to two. He said:
10 "Okay. Let's have a demographic expert because population
11 movement is a very important issue in my case. And also, let us at least
12 have a legal expert or constitutional expert who could look at the
13 government structure of the Republika Srpska and inform the Chamber about
14 what my position was within those structures and what I could and could
15 not do in terms of what I was being charged with in the indictment."
16 That didn't fly either, so Mr. Krajisnik, in his bargaining
17 style, dropped the legal expert and he said, "Okay. We must have the
18 demographic expert because that is absolutely a key issue in the case."
19 JUDGE POCAR: I understand that a demographic expert was
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE POCAR: In the person of Dr. Radovanovic.
23 A. Yes. Correct.
24 JUDGE POCAR: And was contact as a potential, but was not called
1 A. No, she was not.
2 JUDGE POCAR: Now was it a decision of Mr. Stewart not to call
3 her in and if it is so, for what reasons did Mr. Stewart not call her in?
4 A. Well, I was essentially in charge of their interaction because
5 Professor Radovanovic I guess doesn't speak enough English to communicate
6 directly; so I have that e-mail correspondence. They exchanged about
7 five or six letters about her possible appearance, and Mr. Stewart, I --
8 I really hate to use emotionally charged words because it's not very
9 objective, but I have to use the word, grudgingly went along with the
10 idea of looking into the possibility of engaging Professor Radovanovic.
11 So he sent her a letter through me asking her what she thinks
12 that she could do. She responded, and I remember that the first letter
13 or two were rather frosty, because Mr. Stewart's inquiry, not that he
14 meant it that way. I think having grown up in the United States, it's
15 not Great Britain but it's close enough, I have a much better idea of the
16 British mentality than somebody in Serbia. So he didn't mean it that way
17 but it came across that way, that he was being supercilious, just snotty
18 and not really respecting her work and her contribution sufficiently.
19 Unfortunately it came across that way. It wasn't meant that way.
20 So she responded in a frosty way. So this whole correspondence really
21 did not get off the ground the right way. And then it went on for a few
22 more letters and then it died down. Mr. Stewart simply decided not to
23 call her or to do anything more in relation to the subject of expert
25 JUDGE POCAR: I understand. Let me come to another set of
2 Before writing your statement, did you at any point discuss the
3 content of this statement with anybody?
4 A. No.
5 JUDGE POCAR: In particular, did you discuss the -- you did not
6 discuss it with Mr. Mano.
7 A. No, absolutely not. Absolutely. I might add that I was aware
8 that Mr. Mano also had misgivings about the conduct of the trial, but I
9 did not discuss my specific misgivings or the content of my statement
10 with him, nor did he discuss it with me, his own with me.
11 JUDGE POCAR: I have some more issues to deal with you concerning
12 the trial.
13 Were you aware that Mr. Stewart negotiated a set of agreed facts
14 with the Prosecution during the pre-trial stage.
15 A. No.
16 JUDGE POCAR: In July 2004.
17 A. I was not involved in that. That was before I joined the team.
18 JUDGE POCAR: And you were not aware that it had happen?
19 A. I am aware that agreed facts is a procedure that exists here, and
20 I might have assumed that that was done in this case as well, but I had
21 nothing to do with the process by which that was accomplished in this
22 particular case; and I have no knowledge about what these agreed facts
23 were ultimately.
24 JUDGE POCAR: Another question I would like to put to you. You
25 personally know Mr. Mano.
1 A. Well, I know him virtually. I think that would be a better way
2 of putting it than personally, because just as I arrived here and joined
3 Mr. Krajisnik's team, he was leaving. So we overlapped for a couple of
4 days. And I do remember that before he left to go to Japan he invited
5 all the team members, including me, to a Japanese restaurant. So that
6 was the only significant social contact that I with him there at that
7 time. After --
8 JUDGE POCAR: So you mean Mr. Mano left the Tribunal in April
10 A. He -- he left shortly after I arrived. I -- we did not overlap
11 for very long. I met him in the Defence room. We were introduced. We
12 were both from the United States; and we chatted, and we exchanged
13 pleasantries when we ran into each other, but we did not really socialise
14 to any great extent while here. We did go out to this Japanese
15 restaurant, after which we exchanged e-mail addresses and we occasionally
16 corresponded, and he would occasionally call me from Japan, which I took
17 as an expression of perhaps his loneliness in a foreign culture.
18 And he would, you know, talk to me about his job there, which was
19 teaching English, some issues that he had with his family, with his
20 brother in the United States, and so on and so forth. And after that the
21 first time that I saw him was today. As I was leaving for lunch, he was
22 leaving as well, so we just said hello to each other and that was it.
23 JUDGE POCAR: You said Mr. Mano invited all the team members to a
24 Japanese restaurant.
25 A. Yes.
1 JUDGE POCAR: Did Mr. Stewart participate in the dinner?
2 A. No, no. He did not participate. It was the support staff that
3 he invited.
4 JUDGE POCAR: In the limited time you overlapped with Mr. Mano,
5 could you get any impression at least on how Mr. Mano and Mr. Stewart
6 interacted between them?
7 A. While I was there I did not see anything wrong. No signs of
8 friction between them, so I have nothing special to report in that
10 JUDGE POCAR: Can I ask you if you and Mr. Mano ever discussed
11 Mr. Stewart's conduct as counsel?
12 A. Yes, we did.
13 JUDGE POCAR: When was that?
14 A. Over the time since we last saw each other here after he left and
15 I arrived, by telephone. He would call me. I know that he was close,
16 again by telephone, with Mr. Krajisnik's daughter Milica, and that he
17 would often call her and chat with her. So he did inquire about how the
18 trial was going. In his questions and inquiries there was a great deal
19 of concern that was evident about Mr. Krajisnik and how he would fare in
20 the end.
21 JUDGE POCAR: So you discussed Mr. Stewart's conduct after he had
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE POCAR: Not when you were together here.
25 A. No, we had no reason to.
1 JUDGE POCAR: And I understand it was Mr. Mano who took the
2 initiative to contact you. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes. He would always call me from Japan. I never called him.
4 But I enjoyed talking to him.
5 JUDGE POCAR: And did you discuss to take any action when
6 discussing on the phone or by mail you had concern about the conduct of
7 Mr. Stewart? Did you discuss the need to take action in that respect?
8 A. Mr. Mano had told me that he already taken some action. He told
9 me that while he was here before I arrived, he had noticed some things
10 that had concerned him in the conduct of Mr. Stewart and that he had
11 written a letter. I don't know now whether that letter was written to
12 Mr. Krajisnik or to the Registry detailing these concerns. And he also
13 told me that this letter was accompanied with a request, I believe, that
14 it be shown to Mr. Krajisnik, translated into B/C/S, first of all,
15 because he is American born, and I don't believe that he really speaks
17 So he wrote it in English. So -- and he requested that it be
18 translated into B/C/S and passed on to Mr. Krajisnik as an expression of
19 his concern, but that -- while that was ultimately done, I think, the
20 Registry showed the letter to Mr. Stewart and gave him an opportunity to
21 write a letter of rebuttal.
22 So that's what I know about his concerns in this area. I also
23 know that Mr. Krajisnik, from what he told me, that Mr. Krajisnik would
24 call him occasionally for the holidays and so on and so forth, and
25 Mr. Mano, I think, does have a limited knowledge of Serbian. And also
1 Mr. Krajisnik's daughter is very fluent in English, so he was able to, I
2 think, communicate.
3 JUDGE POCAR: [Overlapping speakers] ... all this information
4 you're giving now comes from Mr. Mano or you have this information from
5 other sources as well?
6 A. It comes from Mr. Mano.
7 JUDGE POCAR: Exclusively?
8 A. Yes. I had no other source.
9 JUDGE POCAR: When did you exactly learn of Mr. Mano's letter?
10 When was that?
11 A. I'm sorry, but I cannot give you an exact time, but it was during
12 the period after his departure or his return to Japan and now. So
13 talking about --
14 JUDGE POCAR: But how long could have been, because you are
15 saying -- you said earlier he left a few -- short time after you joined.
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE POCAR: You joined in April 2005.
18 A. Yes.
19 JUDGE POCAR: So how late did you learn of this letter?
20 A. I really --
21 JUDGE POCAR: One week? One month?
22 A. No, much more than that.
23 JUDGE POCAR: Three months? One year?
24 A. A couple of months, I think, but not one week.
25 JUDGE POCAR: So it could have been in the fall of --
1 A. Possibly, possibly.
2 JUDGE POCAR: Well, during the summer of 2005.
3 A. Yes, yes, yes, possibly.
4 JUDGE POCAR: I thank you.
5 Well, I see Judge Meron has a question for you. I pass him the
7 JUDGE MERON: Mr. Karganovic, thank you for your statement today.
8 You are involved in this case as an assistant to Mr. Krajisnik; right.
9 A. Yes.
10 JUDGE MERON: Today you are a witness --
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE MERON: -- for Mr. Krajisnik.
13 A. I think for the Chamber.
14 JUDGE MERON: For the Chamber.
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE MERON: So we are today in sort of a dual capacity witness
17 for us and assistant. Now, this statement, your written statement, I
18 would like to understand a little bit better whose idea was it to right
19 it? Was --
20 A. It was my idea.
21 JUDGE MERON: It was your idea. Not Mr. Krajisnik?
22 A. No.
23 JUDGE MERON: Not Mr. Mano's.
24 A. No, certainly not Mr. Mano's.
25 JUDGE MERON: But the information which you include in this
1 statement in response to the President you pointed to -- did I understand
2 you correctly that the information itself came from Mr. Mano?
3 A. No.
4 JUDGE MERON: No, that's not correct.
5 A. No, I did not say that. The information that I -- that I put in
6 my statement?
7 JUDGE MERON: Right.
8 A. No. It contains my observations.
9 JUDGE MERON: It's your -- so what was the information which you
10 obtain from Mr. Mano in reply?
11 A. About Mr. Mano's concerns and the letter that Mano had written
12 before I even arrived back in The Hague about Mr. Krajisnik.
13 JUDGE MERON: But the information in the statement is your
15 A. Yes. Time wise, it covers the period of my tenure as case
16 manager and has nothing to do with Mr. Mano or his presence.
17 JUDGE MERON: You were a case manager from April of 2004 to May
19 A. We corrected the years. Move one year forward.
20 JUDGE MERON: Five and six.
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE MERON: Now, these concerns which you expressed in the
23 statement, Mr. Karganovic, are of course very serious concerns.
24 A. Mm-hmm.
25 JUDGE MERON: During the time when you were a member of the
1 Defence team did you express them to anyone or just sat on them for a
2 long period of time?
3 A. Well, I did discuss some of these concerns, and they were shared,
4 actually --
5 JUDGE MERON: With whom?
6 A. With Kelly Pitcher a young lady who was an assistant on our team,
7 and she was in fact in charge of that office that we had on the premises
8 of the Dutch Bar Association. So we had discussions about the direction
9 in which the defence was going, how things were handled, and so on and so
11 I also had conversations about this with Ms. Loukas, because she
12 was very concerned throughout the period when my tenure coincided with
13 the last period of her role as co-counsel, and she expressed quite a few
15 JUDGE MERON: Did you ever share these concerns with Mr. Stewart
17 A. No. No, I did not.
18 JUDGE MERON: Why not?
19 A. Because with all due respect for the gentleman there, I -- I
20 think that there was a barrier, let me put it that way, that Mr. Stewart
21 constructed a filter. Let me use a gentler word. There was a filter.
22 And while we could talk about many, many things both case related and
23 non-case relate, there was a preserve, if you will, that he kept to
24 himself as his exclusive precinct whereas lead counsel he alone had
25 complete control, and he would not brook any contradiction. That goes
1 without saying, but he would not even encourage or -- or allow anybody
2 intruding with suggestions.
3 So that may be characteristic of another legal system, namely in
4 Great Britain, that is not so familiar to me. In America people discuss
5 everything in an office, and even people in leadership positions
6 encourage their -- their staff to come up with ideas and to talk about
7 things and kick ideas around, try to come -- come up with a better
8 solution. But in -- here we are talking about a different tradition, and
9 I'm not going to judge it. That's just the way I found it. And I did
10 not feel comfortable approaching Mr. Stewart even on a one to one basis,
11 having coffee with him and saying, "Hey, Nicholas, what do you think
12 about this? Is this the right way to go?" He created an atmosphere that
13 you did not feel comfortable doing that.
14 On the other hand, we had a very good, amicable relationship
15 going beyond the office and office issues. So if that sounds like that a
16 paradox to you, maybe this, but that's the way it was.
17 JUDGE MERON: So the most senior person with whom you say -- with
18 whom you share your concern about the quality of representation which
19 Mr. Krajisnik received was Ms. Loukas.
20 A. Yes, and it was reciprocal. It was a two-way street. She also
21 shared her concerns with me.
22 JUDGE MERON: Does your statement state clearly that you stated
23 these concerns to Ms. Loukas, because you do mention her a number of
24 times. I was not quite clear that you did it.
25 A. Maybe I did not say that. I'm not quite sure. I don't think I
1 did, but I'm saying it now.
2 JUDGE MERON: Thank you.
3 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. Judge Guney.
4 JUDGE GUNEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Mr. Karganovic, I have two questions --
6 A. Okay.
7 JUDGE GUNEY: -- to ask. The first one is you left the Defence
8 team before the end of the work. What did you do in the meantime? Did
9 you stay in contact with the member of the Defence team? This is the
10 first question.
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE GUNEY: The second point is the Prosecution contend that
13 you were not really involved in putting false allegation to a key
14 Prosecution witness, Milorad Davidovic, during the cross-examination at
15 the trial.
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE GUNEY: Would you please enlighten us more on this point?
18 Thank you.
19 A. Okay. As to your first question, you mean what did I do after
20 that, after I left.
21 JUDGE GUNEY: Yes.
22 A. Is that the question? After I left the Defence team, my mother,
23 my cousin, and I went to Serbia, and we spent the summer there.
24 As for the second question, Mr. Davidovic was a Prosecution
25 witness who was built as a very important Prosecution witness because he
1 may some very serious allegations about Mr. Krajisnik. He was a former
2 functionary of the Federal Yugoslav Interior Ministry, meaning the
3 police, and then he was a functionary of the Republika Srpska Interior
4 Ministry, I believe, in Bijeljina.
5 Mr. Krajisnik's investigators in Bosnia came up with some
6 derogatory information about Mr. Davidovic. There was an allegation that
7 Mr. Davidovic, while he occupied a position of power in Bijeljina during
8 the war, extorted money and goods from a person there, an individual. I
9 believe she was a doctor. I -- I think so. I'm not quite sure. I will
10 have to refresh my memory.
11 So the investigators who were working for Mr. Krajisnik suggested
12 that we look into that and find out if there was any truth to those
13 allegations, and Ms. Loukas told me to call this individual in -- at that
14 time I think in Sarajevo or around Sarajevo, and to inquire if there was
15 any truth in those allegations.
16 I did so. We had a friendly conversation, and I passed on to the
17 doctor the suggestion that he [sic] and his family may have been abused
18 by Mr. Davidovic during the conflict, and that was the night. And I
19 accepted the answer that I received, passed on the results of the
20 conversation to Ms. Loukas and that was it.
21 The following day or a few days later the Prosecution said in
22 court that, which was perfectly true, this doctor received a call from me
23 making these inquiries.
24 I only acted pursuant to direction from Mrs. Loukas, Ms. Loukas.
25 I did not make that call on my own, of course, and it was strictly to
1 elicit information that co-counsel thought would be valuable in the case.
2 It was conducted in a polite, professional way and that was it.
3 I nothing to do with the merits of the allegations. I did not
4 have -- I did not generate this information. It was passed on to us.
5 And my task on behalf the Defence team was only to verify it.
6 JUDGE GUNEY: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
8 JUDGE POCAR: It is the case that no more questions from the
9 Bench. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to break now because
10 otherwise we have to break in 15 minutes, and perhaps we may have the
11 time to discuss the other issue in between during the break. So perhaps
12 we break now, and we -- we reconvene in, say, 25 minutes. So 20 to 4.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 3.13 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 3.48 p.m.
15 JUDGE POCAR: We will resume the hearing, and -- I'm sorry. I
16 remind the parties we are private session dealing with document AD2, and
17 I will give the floor to Mr. Krajisnik to cross-examine the -- the
18 witness for a total of 45 minutes, but then of course we have Mr. --
19 well, you can divide the time if Mr. Dershowitz wishes, but there will be
20 10 additional minutes for Mr. Dershowitz on JCE as agreed.
21 So please, Mr. Krajisnik, you have the floor.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Krajisnik:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Karganovic.
24 A. How do you do, Mr. Krajisnik.
25 Q. In your statement you make a number of observations with respect
1 to Mr. Stewart's work; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I think the Trial Chamber dealt with that portion of your
4 knowledge and information and -- or, rather, dealt with your observations
5 in that statement; but I'd like to ask you about the part that you heard
6 from Ms. Loukas, what you heard from her. You say that in that
7 conversation you had with her, you saw that there were sharp differences
8 between Ms. Loukas and Mr. Stewart. Can you tell the Court briefly what
9 these sharp differences were?
10 A. Yes. The fundamental sharp difference between them was that
11 Ms. Loukas was bothered by what she perceived as a lack of Defence theory
12 or Defence strategy, a regulating principle that would help the Defence
13 team to set its priorities, determine its short-term and long-term goals,
14 and so on and so forth. She felt frustrated, that was my perception, in
15 the way somebody feels frustrated when they are unable to do what they
16 feel is the right thing under the circumstances or the -- I would add the
17 professionally right thing. She felt professionally frustrated. I think
18 that would be the most succinct way of putting it and the most accurate.
19 That is my perception, of course.
20 Q. You said that she said that she did not wish to share the blame
21 for the catastrophic results that would ensue. Now, my question to you
22 is this: Do you remember what she said to the Trial Chamber? Do you
23 remember what she said then? Did she say something similar when she
24 handed in her resignation to the Trial Chamber?
25 A. As for the first part of your question, I quote her literally.
1 She used the word "catastrophe." This is not a paraphrase. This is the
2 word Ms. Loukas used in her conversation with me.
3 As for the second part of your question, I probably was there,
4 but I do not recall what you're referring to. I simply don't recall it.
5 Q. Thank you. Now, if I say to you that in a certain number of
6 documents and notes made by Mr. Stewart from the meetings with
7 representatives of the Trial Chamber that Mr. Stewart himself made --
8 said the following: "If I don't get the necessary resources faced with a
9 situation of this kind, I can expect catastrophic results." So did you
10 feel a measure of concern on Mr. Stewart's part as well?
11 A. At the risk of -- I hesitate to say at the risk of disappointing
12 you, but I just have to be absolutely frank and tell the Chamber what I
13 know or what I reliably perceived; and I cannot read Mr. Stewart's mind,
14 I don't know inside how worried or not worried he may have been, but I
15 cannot really say that in any conversation with me that he expressed a
16 sense of foreboding about the possible result of the trial. I cannot
17 recall that at all.
18 He had -- and again I hate to talk this way with respect I have
19 for Mr. Nicholls. It's a different culture, different mentality, and I
20 think we all understand that. But the English do have a certain attitude
21 that they can put on, a care-free attitude. Oh, well, we'll -- you know,
22 we'll manage, that sort of thing. How they actually feel inside, who
23 knows. I'm not English, so it's hard for me to say.
24 So Mr. Stewart may very well have felt concern about the possible
25 outcome of the trial, but he did not really ever express it to me in
1 quite those terms.
2 Q. So your answer is that he did not show concern.
3 A. Not to me.
4 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, did Mr. Stewart, when you talked to
5 him, intimate what type of -- what area of the law he dealt with in
6 England as Defence counsel? Was it criminal law, commercial law? What
7 area of the law did he deal with as counsel in England?
8 A. What he was mostly dealing with in England, from conversation
9 with him, comments that he made, actually also on the internet you can
10 find out, he did, I think, a lot of commercial law, sports law, thing
11 like that. And also, I find this admirable, I believe that he was
12 involved in international organisations promoting human rights in -- in
13 the Middle East. I believe it was Kurdistan or something like that.
14 Q. Thank you. Can you now answer hypothetically? Was not
15 Mr. Stewart perhaps concerned about the outcome -- was he not concerned
16 about the outcome because he didn't understand the case fully? Might
17 that have been the case?
18 A. Well, your alternative question, whether he understood it, I
19 think I dealt with that issue in my statement, and it is not really
20 subject to my speculation. I heard him say, and so did Mr. Josse, in the
21 Detention Unit that he did not feel that he understood the case and that
22 he was at a loss to figure out what to do about it, how to conduct it.
23 Q. If I say to you now that in Mr. Stewart's notes we can read that
24 there is a statement by a representative of the Trial Chamber that --
25 that he -- that he was criticised for putting the burden on Ms. Loukas
1 whereas he was engaged in some private problems and dealt with cases in
2 London, would that be your experience as well and your knowledge?
3 A. Yes. I'm not familiar with the document you're referring to, but
4 certainty the issue is familiar to me. From my own observation, while
5 Ms. Loukas was here it did seem to me that whatever may have been the
6 allocation of duties between them that she ended up with more than her
7 fair share, with the proviso that I don't know when they made their deal
8 at the beginning of the trial whether it was 50/50, 60/40, 70/30, or
9 whatever. I have no idea what private arrangement they had, but it
10 certainly seem to me that she was being overworked; and she expressed to
11 me very grave concerns and frustration about that. She felt abused, to
12 be quite frank about it. So definitely that is true.
13 As far as his other professional activities are concern, I do
14 know that on a couple of occasions, not just while Ms. Loukas was here
15 but throughout the period of my tenure, he did spend a few days in London
16 to, as he put it, wrap up some pending cases that he was involved in.
17 I don't know whether that practice went back to the period before
18 I joined the team, but on a couple of occasions he did that while I was
19 here; correct.
20 Q. Another question: You told us that Mr. Stewart was not
21 au courant in the case, but did he try to learn about the case, to
22 familiarise himself, or was he in fact in favour of makeshift solutions,
23 and was he not really interested in the case at all?
24 A. If I may take a minute or two to give a bit more elaborate answer
25 to your question. I learned something later on from Mr. Josse that I
1 think is relevant to -- to this question, and it has to do with the way
2 things operate in -- in Great Britain. They have a system which we don't
3 have in America, barristers and solicitors. The solicitor and his staff
4 do most of the preparatory work, serve it on a silver platter to the
5 barrister. The barrister goes to court and presents the results to -- to
6 the Judge.
7 I -- I think that Mr. Stewart was very much a product of that
8 system. He saw himself as a barrister, and he, in the light of the
9 explanation that I later obtain from Mr. Josse of how the British system
10 worked, which was something that I was really not familiar with, not in
11 that detail, I always wondered what a solicitor was and how it differed
12 from being a barrister, then retrospectively I can use that explanatory
13 model to make a lot of his conduct more clear. It is as if he expected
14 the members of his team, including co-counsel, to in effect act as a
15 solicitor, co-counsel as solicitor in some sense and the other members of
16 his team as his assistants, preparing everything, he picks it up, takes
17 it to court and does his part.
18 To return directly to your question, I never had the impression
19 that he tried to do any serious academic work, to learn about the
20 background of the Yugoslav crisis or about the nature of the conflict
21 there. That may be an erroneous impression, but that is the impression
22 that I have.
23 In his home, for example, I -- I just saw two or three books,
24 journalistic work, basically, nothing serious. And in conversation with
25 him, I never had the sense that he had an in-depth knowledge about the
1 background and the underlying issues.
2 Q. Now I have a question regarding the documents. When I received
3 the decision from the Appeals Chamber, I received a huge archive. It was
4 delivered to me in the Detention Unit. Now I would like to know about
5 this archive.
6 I don't know. Do you know maybe what the sources of all those
8 Let me be quite specific. Do you know that Mr. Brashich was
9 appointed as my counsel before Mr. Stewart?
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note the witness is kindly asked
11 to wait for the interpretation to complete.
12 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Now I would like to --
14 A. [Previous translation continues] ... files from the trial period.
15 Yes, I am familiar indirectly by hearsay so to speak with this issue.
16 Apparently when Mr. Stewart took over the case, he asked
17 Mr. Brashich to send him his work product, and he ended up receiving a
18 couple of boxes of files, discovery material and other case-related
19 files, and many of those boxes were unopened, and obvious conclusion
20 could be drawn from that, yes.
21 Q. Now a specific question. Did your Defence team ever study those
22 documents? Did Mr. Stewart, himself, study it?
23 A. Well, I have to remind you that I arrived in April of 2005, and a
24 lot went on before my joining the team. So I cannot speak about what
25 happen before, but while I was there, the only contact I had with the
1 material in our office at the Dutch Bar Association building was a task
2 that Mr. Stewart gave me over the Christmas holidays in 2005 to spend
3 some time there, a couple of days, sift through a lot of paperwork that
4 was basically strewn all over, lying on the floor, see what I thought was
5 important and preserve it, and I'm trying to think the word he used, but
6 basically it means throw out the rest. So that is the only contact I had
7 with possibly some of that material.
8 Q. Did any members of the Defence team ever tell you that the
9 documents had been studied, the documents that they had received from
10 Mr. Brashich and from the Prosecution?
11 A. No. No, nobody told me that. Which doesn't mean that it wasn't
12 but nobody told me that.
13 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is kindly asked for the
14 interpretation to end before providing his answer.
15 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
16 Q. You stated here, and this is something that other persons said in
17 their statements, that many of the boxes full of documents were in actual
18 fact out in the -- were actually un-opened, that nobody went through them
19 at all?
20 A. What I can testify about is what I heard from Mr. Stewart for
21 one, that Mr. Brashich sent a number of boxes with documents and that
22 many of those boxes came from Mr. Brashich, from America, unopened, in
23 the same condition presumably that they were when they were sent to
24 Mr. Brashich. That much I know. I cannot really talk about anything
25 else in that regard.
1 Q. You mentioned Mr. Josse, the other co-counsel, and you mentioned
2 that Mr. Stewart sent him to Bosnia and that this was the first time that
3 he actually went there to that area.
4 Could you tell the Trial Chamber whether you received from
5 Mr. Josse any information as to what he was able to do, anything useful
6 that he was able to do given his meager knowledge of Bosnian at the time
7 when he went there?
8 A. Well, you can hardly expect someone --
9 JUDGE POCAR: Mr. Karganovic, may I interrupt you a moment. I
10 understand that you listen in the language of Mr. Krajisnik, so it's easy
11 for you to answer easily so you should wait a while to let the
12 interpretation to finish before you answer otherwise the interpreters
13 cannot pick up the answer correctly. So please keep that in mind.
14 THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay. Where were we? Ah ha, whether
15 Mr. Josse accomplished anything useful in Bosnia. Well, you can hardly
16 expect somebody in Mr. Josse's position to say, "I went there. I didn't
17 accomplish anything." He didn't say that in so many words, but prior to
18 his going there, in the period before the decision was even made to seen
19 him there, in conversation with Mr. Josse he made it clear that while
20 he -- he and his wife enjoyed travelling, they had never been very much
21 anywhere outside of England except maybe to France, that he had never
22 been to the Balkans, and that frankly he knew nothing or next to nothing
23 about the local affairs there. So he was a tabular rasa by his own
24 admission when he went there and the Chamber can figure out for
25 themselves when he joined the case and when he first went to Bosnia, I
1 don't know, two or three months later, how much can you master of this
2 huge material in the meantime.
3 So he went there. May I give my own thoughts here, speculate a
4 little bit, Your Honour?
5 JUDGE POCAR: Well, yes, you can.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.
7 JUDGE POCAR: Depending on what you say.
8 THE WITNESS: I'm not going so say anything terrible, just
9 something that I think makes common sense. For instance, Mr. Stewart had
10 a B/C/S speaker on the team, Mr. Jolovic at the time, who was fluent in
11 both English and B/C/S; and I believe he was born in Belgrade, was
12 studying in London, in England, and had extensive familiarity with local
13 issues. So it struck me as very odd when he decided to send Josse to
14 Bosnian. He asked me if I knew anybody who could -- who spoke English
15 who could act as Josse's interpreter there. Well, eventually I found a
16 friend and that worked out, but I thought that it was very odd that he
17 wouldn't send a team member who already had presumably some familiarity
18 with the issues.
19 The friend that I recommended in Bosnia was fine, but he was
20 studying something completely unrelated to anything that we were doing,
21 and he just happen to speak both languages, and to that extent he was
23 So it struck me as a very odd choice on his part.
24 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Karganovic, you mentioned and you told the Trial Chamber that
1 there were 20 witnesses who were called. Could you please tell the Trial
2 Chamber, if you recall, how many statements had been taken from the
3 witnesses, from potential witnesses? Could you give us a ball-park
5 A. [Previous translation continues] ... Yes. There were at least
6 200, and I still have them all in my computer.
7 Q. And now let me ask you this: How did the Defence teamwork out
8 the plan to call the 20 witnesses?
9 I apologise, but they tell me that this figure that you just gave
10 us, 200 witnesses, was not recorded in the transcript. Could you please
12 A. Yes. My answer was that there were about 200 witness statements
13 that were obtained by investigators in the field in Bosnia,
14 Mr. Krajisnik's investigators, that we had to work with, and I have them
15 all in my computer.
16 How -- how did --
17 Q. How did you call the witnesses? Could you please explain that to
18 the Trial Chamber? How did you decide to call those witnesses?
19 A. Initially it was a subject of intense negotiation between
20 Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Stewart, and frequent disagreements. It was hit
21 and miss. Obviously some of the people on -- on -- in -- under the best
22 of circumstances, they were sick or had some family issues, some would
23 not have been able to come anyway, or they would be able to come but
24 later. So you always encounter these bumps in the road. But when you
25 used the word "plan," there really was no plan that I was aware of. It
1 was haphazard. And an illustration of how haphazard this process was is
2 the following: Around January of 2006, the Defence team became pretty
3 desperate because we didn't know how -- on what basis to call witnesses,
4 and so Nicholas said to the person who was in charge of witnesses, "Just
5 take the list and go down the list alphabetically and see whom you could
7 Q. Mr. Karganovic, could you please tell to the Trial Chamber
8 whether Krajisnik gave his proposal to Mr. Stewart as to the witnesses
9 that should be called and that you made summaries of?
10 A. [Previous translation continues] ... my answer is yes.
11 Q. And were those witnesses called without Krajisnik's knowledge so
12 to speak I was advised only at a later stage how the witnesses were
14 A. There were often surprises in it for Mr. Krajisnik. Everything
15 was haphazard. Sometimes he would consult with Mr. Krajisnik, consult in
16 the sense of tell him who would be called, and times somebody would be
17 called and would pop up here. Mr. Krajisnik would be surprise. Or
18 Mr. Krajisnik would be under the impression that another person would be
19 called, and somebody that Mr. Stewart thought was more appropriate was in
20 fact called.
21 Q. Mr. Karganovic, let me remind you now. Did Krajisnik ask
22 Mr. Stewart to provide him with a list of witnesses that he intends to
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Please respond. And did he get it?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. No. What I mean is did Krajisnik receive from Mr. Stewart a list
3 of witnesses that Mr. Stewart intended to call?
4 A. I'm really not sure. We were making and changing witness lists,
5 and again I have all that in my computer.
6 The witness list was in a constant state of flux, so it is very
7 difficult for me to give a precise answer to your question.
8 Q. Fair enough. Let me ask you now did Krajisnik ask Mr. Stewart to
9 explain to him what was necessary -- what we needed to prepare in order
10 to challenge the indictment?
11 A. Yes, of course.
12 Q. Was it done more than once?
13 A. [Previous translation continues] ... few times.
14 Q. How did Mr. Stewart respond to that? Did he provide an answer?
15 A. I'm sorry, my previous answer is not complete. I think it's very
16 important. I said, "Quite a few times."
17 I was never present when Mr. Stewart may have provided a complete
18 answer to that question.
19 Q. I hope that we agree that you were the only person interpreting
20 the conversations between me and Mr. Stewart. Do you agree?
21 A. I do, conditionally. Don't forget that other B/C/S speakers
22 joined our team later on, including Mr. Sladojevic and another person.
23 So later on into 2006 we would sometimes take turn going -- turns going
24 to the Detention Unit. So I can only speak about what went on in my
1 Q. So your response is that in your presence while you were there
2 Mr. Stewart did not give Krajisnik an answer to this demand of Krajisnik
3 as to what needed to be done to challenge the indictment and to mount a
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Could you explain to the Trial Chamber what was the difference in
7 the views held by Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Stewart?
8 A. One fundamental difference in their approaches was that
9 Mr. Krajisnik, perhaps in a business-like fashion, kept insisting on
10 creating a defence plan, conducting a thorough analysis of the -- of the
11 Prosecution case in relation to the indictment and then devising
12 effective counter-measures, so to speak, which we would implement through
13 our case, the Defence case. And as I point out in my statement, which
14 would be in one of the paragraphs where I say that after the July break
15 in 2006 we had about two months before the resumption of the trial, and
16 during that period, until September, I believe in September I took about
17 ten days and -- off and went to Turkey with my cousin, but between then
18 and sometime in September, Mr. -- Mr. Stewart and I visited Mr. Krajisnik
19 quite often at the Detention Unit, and there were two major -- well,
20 three major topics that were discussed.
21 One that was put on the table by Mr. Krajisnik was devising a
22 defence plan.
23 Two, that where promoted by Mr. Stewart budget, the financial
24 issues, and not allowing the practice of Mr. Krajisnik asking witnesses
25 questions to be continued into the Defence case.
1 So it was a dialogue of the deaf with me in between. Neither
2 side really heard the other or paid much attention to what the other was
3 saying. It was two agonising months.
4 Q. Let me ask you this now: You said before the Trial Chamber that
5 you did not made your views public - I'm referring to the things that you
6 put in your statement - simply because you did not want your relationship
7 with Mr. Stewart to be changed, so to speak, to be disturbed in any way.
8 An unusual question: As a professional, did you feel that your
9 loyalty towards Mr. Stewart is something that is binding and prevents you
10 from going public with those things?
11 A. Well, I -- I don't know how you want to define loyalty, but I do
12 feel a sense of personal sympathy with Nicholas because he's an
13 exceptionally nice and sympathetic person. And if you mean that my not
14 wanting to cause him hurt or harm had something to do with it, it
15 probably did; but as well, I don't think that I really had enough time to
16 reflect on all these things while it was going on, while the trial was
17 going on, to -- to put everything together and to say, well, the -- in
18 the interests of justice I need to do this or something like that,
19 putting personal feelings and loyalties aside. It was later on that it
20 struck me that perhaps writing a statement on Mr. Krajisnik's behalf
21 listing my observations would be a good idea and -- and the right thing
22 to do.
23 Q. You attended the trial, the hearings. Did you -- were you at the
24 trial when Krajisnik presented his -- this agreement with Mr. Stewart out
25 in public and addressed the Trial Chamber to that effect?
1 A. When you asked that Nicholas be dismissed?
2 Q. Yes. Yes, that's correct.
3 A. Yes, I was there.
4 Q. Could we say that I disagreed with what Mr. Stewart was doing?
5 A. I think that is the only possible conclusion.
6 Q. Thank you very much. Now since we have very little time left, I
7 would like to ask you this: When you joined Mr. Stewart's team, on whose
8 recommendation, on whose orders -- let me put it this way: It is quite
9 usual here for the lead counsel to appoint his or her associates. Did
10 Mr. Stewart do that while you were here? Did he hire you?
11 A. Of course he hired me. That's the procedure. But --
12 Q. Yes, yes. Yeah.
13 A. I can --
14 Q. Please go ahead.
15 A. I can go on. I think your question was how did he get a hold of
16 me. Well, he knew me from before. We had run into each other around the
17 time when he took over the case. As a freelance interpreter for the
18 Tribunal, I went with him to see Mr. Krajisnik at the Detention Unit on a
19 couple of occasions while the issue of whether or not he would take up
20 the case was being debated. So he knew me. And apparently there was a
21 falling out with my predecessor, and he called me and asked me. He said,
22 "I'm looking into possible candidates, so I'm talking to one right now
23 but I'm not so sure whether he would be able to do it. Would you be
24 available?" And that's how it happened.
25 Q. In your statement you say that you're not in any kind of conflict
1 and that Mr. Stewart indeed is not angry with you. Is that correct?
2 A. I hope he is not angry at me. In fact, I see no reason why he
3 should be.
4 Q. Very well. Thank you. I'm just repeating what you said in your
6 Now let me ask you this, but I'd like to make a short
7 introduction first, and it is linked to the statement that you gave to
8 the Judges with respect to expert witnesses. What you said is this: You
9 said that on several occasions I insisted on calling a larger number of
10 expert witnesses because I considered that if we looked at it logically,
11 if the Prosecution called not five or six but nine expert witnesses, then
12 I thought that we should bring in nine too, and then I reduced the
14 Now, there's a story that we like to recount in my part of the
15 world and it is this: Somebody who didn't know what something good is
16 knows what it's expensive.
17 Now, what would be your answer? If Stewart saw that the
18 Prosecution has distinguished lawyers and that if they saw fit to call
19 nine expert witnesses, what prompted him not to call a single expert
20 witness, especially as we have papers here saying that Judge Orie was
21 wondering why expert witnesses were not called? So what do you think
22 prompted Mr. Stewart to decide not to call expert witnesses?
23 A. I would prefer to keep to the level of reporting as empirically
24 as possible, and I have already said what Mr. Stewart's explanation was
25 in so many words, said to me for his decision not to call expert
1 witnesses. I think that is the best answer that I can give, because if I
2 went beyond that it would be my personal speculation and that would not
3 be good.
4 Q. Can you repeat his answer, please -- or, rather, repeat your
5 answer. Why would he would not call expert witnesses if the example had
6 been set by the Prosecution in calling expert witnesses? Was he just not
7 interested in doing that? Was he disinterested? Did he consider this to
8 be part of his strategy or who knows what else? So could you look at
9 those alternatives and tell us what you think?
10 A. I certainly did not have the impression that the decision not to
11 call expert witnesses was the result of a sophisticated strategic
12 decision. The way he motivated it was simply by saying that in his view
13 they would not have anything substantial to contribute to the Defence
14 case, and Mr. Josse was present on several occasion when these views were
15 stated by -- by Nicholas, and that's as far as I can go really. That's
16 the only -- the only statement that he ever made that comes to the level
17 of an explanation for all its worth.
18 Q. Yes. Thank you. And I think I concluded one minute ahead of
20 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you, Mr. Krajisnik.
22 I will now -- Judge Shahabuddeen, you have a question now.
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Karganovic, if you are in charge of the
25 case would you have called all 200 of the witnesses whom you mentioned,
1 or would you have pruned the list a little?
2 THE WITNESS: First of all, I have to say that I feel
3 exceptionally honoured that even hypothetically you put me in the
4 position of being in charge of the case. Thank you very much. I am -- I
5 would not be up to it, but it's nice to think about something like that.
6 But specifically in response to your question, I definitely would not
7 have called all 200 witnesses, and I definitely would have pruned the
8 list. I don't think that to do a good job you -- you have to call one
9 witness for each Prosecution witness. Quality is much more important
10 than quantity.
11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, a follow-up question is this: I was
12 struck by your statement to the effect that Mr. Stewart simply said,
13 "Follow the list in alphabetical order and there you have it."
14 Now, later on you said that the list was constantly in a state of
15 making and changing. It was also constantly in a state of flux. Does
16 that mean that he did not apply to the decision of the order in which
17 witnesses should be called, a simple mechanical rule of thumb in terms of
18 statement of you should call them in alphabetical order but that he
19 applied some other criterion? What is your observation on that?
20 A. Mm-hmm. I did not have the impression that he had a criterion.
21 In fact, I took his instruction to go alphabetically as a cry of
22 desperation which indicated in pretty clear terms that there was no
23 criterion and that he perhaps was at a loss how to devise one. That was
24 my reaction to that instruction.
25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, first of all may I say that I opened up
1 by asking you to consider the matter on the basis that if you were in
2 charge of the case. So I recognise very fully that you were not, in
3 fact, in charge of the case.
4 Now, may I ask your attention to this: You referred to
5 Ms. Loukas, and you recalled her statement to the effect that something
6 would be a catastrophe. May I just clarify my own thoughts to the effect
7 that you were not saying that she said that to Mr. Stewart or to the
8 Trial Chamber, but she said that to you.
9 THE WITNESS: She very definitely said that to me. She said, to
10 expand a little bit on her statement, that she felt that the outcome of
11 the trial would be a catastrophe and that professionally she did not want
12 to be associate with it and that this was one of the major reasons for
13 her decision to leave the team.
14 As far as the other dimension of your question, I think it refers
15 back to something that Mr. Krajisnik asked. I'm sure I was there when
16 she made her statement, announced her intention to -- to leave the team.
17 I don't know what terminology she used, but personally I do not remember
18 her using the word "catastrophe," but it's very simple. One can check
19 the record. But if she didn't use the word "catastrophe," I'm sure she
20 used something dramatic.
21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: She didn't use that word to Mr. Stewart or
22 to the Trial Chamber. That was my question.
23 THE WITNESS: As far as the Trial Chamber is concerned,
24 assuming -- and I believe that I was there when she addressed the Chamber
25 on that issue. I do not recall her using that word. As far as her
1 interaction with Mr. Stewart is concerned, she did not use that
2 particular word in my presence. Privately, I don't know.
3 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you.
4 I will now turn to Mr. Dershowitz for questioning briefly the
5 witness on JCE-related matters.
6 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Cross-examination by Mr. N. Dershowitz:
8 Q. Mr. Karganovic, I'd like to start with the end then work a little
9 bit backwards.
10 Assuming again that you were elevated to the position of running
11 the operation, do you believe that the witnesses who were actually called
12 were the most qualified, and you believe that they were chosen because of
13 strategic decisions that they would be the most helpful to accomplish the
14 goals and objectives of the Defence?
15 A. My answer to your question is no. Many of the witnesses we
16 called may have been qualified to talk about micro-issues and something
17 that may have happened in some municipality that nobody had ever heard
18 of, but as far as the larger and determinative issues in the case, they
19 had very little, if anything, to say about them or to have an impact on
20 them by means of their testimony.
21 I can tell you that at some point we discussed, I mean the
22 Defence team, we discussed the notion of maybe inviting a few
23 high-profile witnesses who were involved in the political negotiating
24 process before and during the conflict to show that Mr. Krajisnik was
25 oriented towards finding peaceful solutions to -- to these issues that
1 were tearing Bosnia apart, and the names that were mentioned think I were
2 quite logical. Cutileiro was very important. Stoltenberg, also very
3 important. And Mitsotakis, the former Prime Minister of Greece. And it
4 just so happens that my cousin is married to a Greek, lives on the island
5 of Crete in the town of Kanji [phoen] and is a neighbour and friend of
6 Mr. Mitsotakis. So while all this was being talked about, I contacted my
7 cousin and she say, "Sure. I will talk to him, and I'm sure he'll be
8 happy to accept an invitation to testify." So at least we could have had
9 him. I'm confident also that Cutileiro and Stoltenberg probably would
10 have responded favourably.
11 However, as happened on quite a few occasions when ideas were
12 floated, they were discussed for a while and then simply dropped, and
13 this was dropped as well. So we had people from nondescript
14 municipalities, but we didn't have Cutileiro.
15 Q. Are you then saying there were no strategic judgements that
16 you're aware of not to call those witnesses that you've just listed, that
17 you're aware of?
18 A. Not that I'm aware of.
19 Q. With respect to experts, and I assume there you would have done
20 some pruning of the experts, do you know if the decision not to call
21 experts was made for solely strategic reasons?
22 A. I cannot think of any sensible strategic reason, but then I'm
23 committed not to reading other people's minds.
24 Q. Well, do you know whether these expert witnesses were interviewed
25 and whether the substance of what they would testify to is available
1 before the decision was made not to call them?
2 A. I'm not aware of any prospective expert witness being contacted,
3 much less interviewed, other than Mrs. Radovanovic. So the decision not
4 to call these other hypothetical expert witnesses was made sight unseen,
5 not because it was felt that they were unqualified or that they would not
6 be able to do a good report or anything like that. An attempt was never
7 made to locate them, let alone interview them.
8 Q. You have testified with respect to the fact that you didn't know
9 of a strategy or a goal. I'd like to focus specifically on the question
10 of JCE.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. Did Mr. Stewart, in your presence, ever address the question as
13 to what the Prosecutors would have to prove in order to establish a JCE
14 and what defences could be available to prevent them from carrying their
15 burden of proof with respect to JCE?
16 A. No. The closest that I heard Nicholas come to a serious
17 discussion of how we might save Mr. Krajisnik from destruction was when
18 he commented on one occasion, it was in the Detention Unit, that what we
19 should do is to try to put as much distance between Mr. Krajisnik and
20 Dr. Karadzic. In other words, that they were as separate in their
21 activities, their lines of work, and in their personal lives as possible,
22 and that this would be an important element in relieving Mr. Krajisnik of
23 excessive liability or guilt that might come his way as a result of his
24 perceived association with Dr. Karadzic.
25 That's the only discussion of that nature that I've heard.
1 Q. Was that discussion specifically keyed into JCE, or was it a more
2 generalised conversation?
3 A. It was part of a generalised conversation. In fact, I heard
4 Nicholas refer to JCE very few times. I -- it was not a topic that was
5 in the forefront of attention. In fact -- well, it's like in a war. You
6 don't know where the enemy will attack, but in fact the Defence was more
7 wary of the expanded Presidency issue as a mechanism of liability than
8 JCE. So I think we spent more time talking about whether or not there
9 was an expanded Presidency and whether Mr. Krajisnik had anything to do
10 with it than JCE.
11 Q. You testified that Mr. Krajisnik was asking for detailed
12 information about a defence. Did he ever raise the question in your
13 presence while you were acting as a translator as to what the elements or
14 ingredients or aspects were of JCE and ask for an explanation from
15 counsel as what that was?
16 A. Yes, he did.
17 Q. And did he ever get an answer to that question in your presence?
18 A. No. I do not recall his ever getting a coherent answer.
19 Q. And did he ask that question more than once?
20 A. Definitely.
21 Q. Are you aware of any assignments that were given during the year
22 and one-month period that you were the case manager to anyone on the
23 Defence team to specifically address JCE as a legal concept and/or to
24 then do a factual analysis of JCE in terms of the defence?
25 A. It did not come to my attention.
1 Q. Now again you had meetings both with Mr. Stewart but also at
2 least once a week there were meetings to discuss steps that had to be
3 taken; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And at no time during your meetings with Mr. Stewart or during
6 the weekly meetings did the question of JCE ever come up or the legal
7 work discussed or the factual work that had to be done in order to
8 address JCE; is that correct?
9 A. Especially the latter part of your question. I mean the concept
10 may have been fleetingly mentioned, but I think really your question is
11 was any serious consideration given to it both theoretically and
12 practically. Not to my knowledge. Not in my presence.
13 Q. And just the final question and that is did Mr. Stewart ever try
14 to secure from you any information about your knowledge of the period
15 from 1990 to 1992, and were you ever asked to pull together materials
16 that would be a Defence statement of fact or a Defence view or Defence
17 approach with respect to that period?
18 A. No.
19 Q. And do you know of anyone else who was asked to do that during
20 the year and one month that you were case manager?
21 A. I do not.
22 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Thank you. I have no further questions.
23 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. I understand there are no questions
24 from the Bench, so I will turn to the Prosecutor, Mr. Kremer, for his
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Kremer:
2 Q. Mr. Karganovic, is it fair to say that in response to the
3 Prosecution case the Defence approach was prove everything?
4 A. Could you clarify the question, please?
5 Q. There were no admissions made and the Prosecution was put to the
6 challenge of proving every fact that it alleged in the indictment against
7 Mr. Krajisnik? Correct?
8 A. I think I understand your question now, and it may go back to --
9 to the issue of agreed upon facts where I was not involved. So I came
10 into the case, I think, too late to be able to give a competent answer to
11 your question.
12 Q. Just accept my statement that there were no agreed facts, and in
13 the absence of agreed facts is it fair to say that the Defence, at least
14 when you saw it, was, "Prove everything, Prosecution"?
15 A. That is a possible conclusion and probably a fair one.
16 Q. All right. And in terms of the defence, you raised the question
17 of expanded Presidency. That was certainly an issue that was under
18 active discussion during the course of not only the Prosecution case but
19 also in preparation for the Defence case, yes?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And also you mentioned the distance between Mr. Krajisnik and
22 Mr. Karadzic. I assume that the Defence saw Mr. Karadzic's role in this
23 much more serious than they saw Mr. Krajisnik's role; correct?
24 A. I think that it would be fairer to say that the Defence, not
25 having had such a clear picture of Mr. Krajisnik's role, who knows -- and
1 by "Defence," I basically mean Mr. Stewart, who knows what picture they
2 had of the role of Dr. Karadzic? I think that his thought was that as
3 long as Mr. Krajisnik was portrayed in his official capacity as president
4 of parliament, without any executive responsibility, he would be in a
5 better position.
6 Q. Correct. And during the Prosecution case and during the Defence
7 case that is, in fact, how they attempted to portray Mr. Krajisnik. Is
8 that not so?
9 A. That is just president of parliament without any other
10 responsibilities of any importance, yes.
11 Q. Right. And that is Mr. Krajisnik's essential defence on appeal.
12 That's his ground of appeal. "The Trial Chamber got it wrong. I had no
13 authority." Is that is not right?
14 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Your Honour, I don't know if I have standing
15 to object, but I don't think Mr. Kremer is the one to described what the
16 main point on the appeal is, nor do I think Mr. Krajisnik -- I mean
17 Mr. Karganovic is. I think that's really for the Chamber to make a
18 determination on.
19 THE WITNESS: If I may chime in, I believe that I'm here to
20 testify along the lines of my statement about my observations during the
21 trial. Of course I'm familiar with Mr. Krajisnik's appeal, but I would
22 not feel that it is my role here to comment on that.
23 MR. KREMER:
24 Q. Did you or did you not assist Mr. Krajisnik in filing his appeal?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And in fact, your statement that you're testifying to today
2 suggests that it is an addendum to Mr. Krajisnik's appeal; is that
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And I suggest to you that the statement that you prepared was
6 prepared after discussions with Mr. Krajisnik and all of the specific
7 grounds that he had put in his notice of appeal with your assistance.
8 A. No. No, not at all. I wrote my statement myself without any
9 reference to his appeal or his grounds of appeal. It is based on my
10 observations while I was case manager during the trial.
11 Q. But you put it in these terms:
12 "I will describe in my experience and impressions gained while I
13 was a member of his Defence team during trial proceedings which refer to
14 the specific claims that Mr. Krajisnik made in his appeal."
15 A. Mm-hmm.
16 Q. I suggest to you, sir, that your statement is designed and
17 written particularly to blend in to the specific claims that
18 Mr. Krajisnik has made in his notice of appeal prepared with your
19 assistance. Do you agree with that or not?
20 A. I would not agree with that. There may be points of
21 compatibility between my statement and Mr. Krajisnik's appeal, but my
22 statement was not generated as adjunct to his appeal.
23 Q. When you prepare the statement did you had before you or had you
24 read Mr. Mano's statement that was prepared September 23rd, 2004?
25 A. I don't recall having had his statement. And his statement had
1 no influence whatsoever on my impressions.
2 Q. You did not take from Mr. Mano's statement the suggestion that
3 Mr. Stewart was fairly uninterested in historical and factual background
4 of the case?
5 A. No.
6 Q. You did not take from Mr. Mano's statement that Stewart was
7 paying visits to European cities and working in his practice in London?
8 A. I did not need the assistance of Mr. Mano or to read his
9 statement to point those things out because it was a matter of simple
10 observation and other members of the Defence team observed exactly same
12 Q. Now, with respect to Ms. Loukas, you indicated on the Davidovic
13 issue that you communicated to her the results of your conversation with
14 the doctor who was the husband of the other doctor whose equipment
15 allegedly went missing.
16 A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
17 Q. What specifically did you tell Ms. Loukas about your telephone
19 A. I told Ms. Loukas that the doctor said that the extortion that
20 was alleged on the part of Mr. Davidovic did not take place. The doctor
21 denied the allegation that was made by Mr. Krajisnik's investigators.
22 Q. All right. And you were present in court when the allegation was
23 put to Davidovic about this fact; is that correct?
24 A. I'm sure I was.
25 Q. Yes. And when Ms. Loukas put the allegation to him knowing it to
1 be false, did you stand up and correct the record?
2 A. I don't think that it is my role to intervene during a trial
3 in -- in such a manner. Ms. Loukas was conducting the examination, I
5 Q. All right. So you're saying that you were -- you were privy to
6 some unethical conduct and Ms. Loukas' behalf? Did you report this to
7 Mr. Stewart?
8 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Your Honour, I object to that question. It
9 presupposes that Ms. Loukas knew it was false solely because the victim
10 denied it. That may or may not have been the case. It's a question what
11 she knew, and I think it's unfair to ask this witness that question.
12 MR. KREMER: I'll ask it differently.
13 Q. Did you tell Mr. Stewart that you were concerned about the
14 cross-examination that was being actively objected to by the Prosecution,
15 continuing when you had told her that the witness did not stand by the
16 investigator's statement?
17 A. The Defence, meaning both Ms. Loukas and Mr. Stewart, were both
18 aware of the outcome of my telephone call, and the speculation was that
19 Mr. Davidovic was such a powerful and intimidating figure that even
20 though these people may have been hurt by him, they did not dare to talk
21 about it. So that was their view of it.
22 Q. And you're aware of the fact, because you were in court, that at
23 some point after the 27th of June, 2005, Mr. Stewart withdrew those
24 specific questions on the basis that they had no -- they had no
25 substantiation; correct?
1 A. I have no specific recollection, but I believe if you say so it's
2 a matter of record, but I just want to emphasise that I have nothing to
3 do with it because I was not in charge of the case.
4 Q. You have never been a practising lawyer; is that correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. And in your CV when you refer to yourself as having been a public
7 defender, that's inaccurate; is that correct?
8 A. What is accurate is that I worked for the office of the public
9 defender in Oceanside, California for a private firm, which did contract
10 work for the public defender; and I performed the duties that I indicated
11 in my CV.
12 Q. So then your CV is inaccurate in that it refers to the office of
13 the public defender in San Diego County because that is not who you
14 worked for; is that right?
15 A. I'm not so sure you're correct in that, because all of us in that
16 office, insofar as we dealt with public defenders' work, were paid by the
17 office of the public defender, i.e., the State of California.
18 Q. You refer to the San Diego County, and I'm informed by the letter
19 that is AP2 that the department of the public defender in its present
20 form was only established in 1988. So you could not have worked for them
21 in 1991 to 1994. How do you explain that.
22 A. I have no need to explain it because it was very definitely a
23 department of the public defender in California in San Diego County and
24 it contracted the office that I worked for in Oceanside and referred work
25 to it.
1 Q. All right. Now, you also in your CV refer to the fact that
2 you're in private practice but you weren't in private practice as a
3 lawyer, were you?
4 A. Where is that.
5 Q. In 1992 to 2001.
6 A. That was Seattle.
7 Q. In Washington?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, you also refer to the fact that you were a legal assistant
10 on the Dragan Obrenovic Defence team. You were not a legal assistant for
11 the Dragan Obrenovic Defence team, were you?
12 A. Yes, I was.
13 Q. I'm going to refer you to a letter written by Eugene Wilson.
14 David Eugene Wilson. Do you know him?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And I believe you've seen this letter.
17 A. Okay.
18 Q. I'll just read something that he says. Did you ever -- before I
19 do that, did you ever represent to him that you'd practised law?
20 A. No.
21 Q. In a letter that Mr. Wilson wrote to Mr. Petrov in the Popovic
22 case, he says:
23 "In his interview with me, Mr. Karganovic told me that he was a
24 licensed attorney having graduated from law school in either Illinois or
25 Indiana," and then he has, "which I cannot remember now, and that he had
1 served as a public defender in California. He stated that he no longer
2 practiced law since he had decided that he did not enjoy being a lawyer
3 but preferred being an interpreter in the Serbian and Spanish languages."
4 And he said, "I made no attempt to verify his status credentials as a law
5 school graduate and a licensed attorney," because he hired you as a
6 translator interpreter at that time?
7 A. That's correct he initially hired me as a translator and
8 interpreter then I became case manager and legal assistant in the case.
9 Q. And so you're saying that Mr. Wilson, who is a partner in a law
10 firm and describes himself as being a senior prosecutor in the State of
11 Washington for the federal government, a magistrate for eight years and
12 is now a senior partner in one of the large law firms in Seattle, he's
13 got to wrong?
14 A. Partially, yes.
15 Q. Partially. Now, when you left the Obrenovic team, where did you
16 get employment?
17 A. With the Stanisic team.
18 Q. And how long did you work for the Stanisic team?
19 A. That was for about a year and a half.
20 Q. And why was your employment terminated?
21 A. Because after Mr. Stanisic returned to Belgrade he decided that
22 he did not wish to employ me any more, or, rather, there was a problem
23 with the funding in the case, and Stanisic did not feel that he could
24 privately fund my services.
25 Q. Mr. Wilson in his letter suggests otherwise. I'll read what he
2 "I do -- I do not know the exact date, but around 2005
3 Mr. Karganovic telephone me and told me he had been fired, discharged,
4 from the Stanisic team in a dispute with the client."
5 Did you have a dispute with the client that led to your
7 A. No, I did not have a dispute with the client and I resigned. I
8 was not fired. I have my letter of resignation which I sent to
9 Mr. Knoops and he can confirm that.
10 Q. Now, the reason Mr. Wilson sent his letter to Mr. Petrov was
11 because you had offered a proffer to testify in the Popovic case; is that
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And he was sending the letter because he felt that you were about
15 to disclose confidential information or had already disclosed
16 confidential information to the Popovic Defence team concerning
17 solicitor-client privileged information that took place in the Obrenovic
18 case; correct?
19 A. That was his perception, yes.
20 Q. Yes. And prior to -- when was the first time you met with the
21 Defence of the Beara team?
22 A. I had known them for a number of years.
23 Q. Yes. But in terms of this proffer, when -- I know that it was
24 written in 2008, but in one of the correspondences that you have filed
25 you suggest it was about a year before that you had spoken to them about
1 making a proffer. Is that fair?
2 A. I'm not sure, but a year or less.
3 Q. So sometime in the fall of 2007?
4 A. Could be, yes.
5 Q. And I suggest to you, sir, that in 2006 you had spoken to
6 Mr. Wilson about working for the Beara team and he had said, you cannot
7 do it. The client doesn't agree. Is that correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And the Beara team actually made an application to the Registry
10 to speak permission, Mr. Wilson and his client objected, the Prosecution
11 objected, and you were told no; yes?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. And not withstanding knowing that confidentiality of the
14 relationship with Mr. Obrenovic was an issue, a year later you went and
15 spoke to the Beara team and revealed some confidences, did you not?
16 A. No. The idea was not for me to reveal confidences, but to
17 impress those aspects of the bargaining process where Mr. Obrenovic may
18 have been exposed to undue pressure by the Prosecutor. In other words,
19 my proffer was essentially to testify about what the Prosecutor did or
20 said in relation to the accused and not to talk about confidential
21 conversations or case planning between the accused and his lead counsel.
22 Q. You -- you know that when Mr. Wilson sent this letter he had
23 already seen your proffer, did he not?
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 Q. Yes. And I'll just read to you what he says in his letter:
1 "Those proofing notes clearly set forth that Mr. Karganovic
2 intends to violate his duty as a member of the Obrenovic Defence team to
3 maintain the confidentiality of all communications within that team. He
4 has indicated that he will do so by testifying as to his supposed
5 recollections of such communications, including supposes statements by
6 the accused Obrenovic to his Defence team." He was concerned enough to
7 write this letter to stop you from violating those confidences; is that
9 A. Yes that's correct. He was concerned --
10 Q. And --
11 A. May I finish my answer, please. And his concern -- and it was
12 precisely when I reconsidered the whole issue that I decided that I would
13 be treading too close to a dangerous area and that it may not be possible
14 to isolate those aspects that would not infringe on the client-attorney
15 relationship that I decided to ask to be withdrawn as a witness and I did
16 not go ahead and testify in that case. So I think that I should be given
17 credit for acting with prudence rather than criticised for acting
18 improperly because I did not in the end act improperly or run the danger
19 of so acting?
20 Q. Let me put this to you: In Wilson's letter describes your
21 proffer in the following terms:
22 "Mr. Karganovic's description of the debriefing session --
23 debriefing process is inaccurate, greatly misleading, and filled with
24 innuendo. It is not -- it is insulting not only to Mr. McCloskey but to
25 ourselves, Mr. Obrenovic's attorneys. Both Mr. Slijepcevic and myself
1 have been attorneys for many years, more than 40 in my own case. I was
2 the chief federal Prosecutor in my federal district in the United States,
3 a Judge for eight years, a US Army lawyer and a military Judge, and have
4 been a Defence lawyer in the private practice of law for more than eight
5 years. Mr. Slijeptovic --"
6 A. Slijepcevic.
7 Q. "-- has been an attorney for more than 34 years and was a Judge
8 in Belgrade before being fired by Mr. Milosevic's regime for refusing to
9 adhere to the party line."
10 Those are his comments about your proffer and I suggest to you,
11 sir, that you're prepared to say anything for Mr. Krajisnik, as you were
12 prepared to say anything to support the Beara defence?
13 A. I appreciate these are Mr. Wilson's comments. I know Mr. Wilson.
14 He is a honest person and I respect him. However, he has a stake in
15 making sure that I do not discuss some of those things even in the very
16 limited way that that discussion was projected, because it would
17 adversely effect a plea bargain which in the capacity of lead counsel he
18 was closely involved. So he has a motive in portraying what I had
19 proposed to do but did not in the most negative possible light.
20 Q. All right. Let's talk about motive. What is the Stichting
21 Srebrenica Historical Project?
22 A. It is a non-governmental organisation which was founded here in
23 The Hague with myself as its president which has the purpose of
24 investigating crimes and victims on both sides of the conflict in the
25 area of Srebrenica.
1 Q. And who funds it?
2 A. It is funded by contributions. We receive logistical support
3 from the government of the Republika Srpska.
4 Q. And did you hold a conference in Banja Luka on the 4th of
5 October, 2008?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And the reportage for that conference suggests that again you
8 were holding yourself out to be an American lawyer. Perhaps we can --
9 I'll just read you from a clip that attributes some comments to you. And
10 I can bring it up if need be.
11 A. Fine.
12 Q. Here it is. There's a quote in -- in Politika web site,
13 www.politika.rs about this conference. You organised this international
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you are attributed to have said the following:
17 "It is correct that a major number of captured Bosniaks had been
18 executed in Srebrenica and that constitutes a major war crime. However,
19 there is not a single piece of evidence that the crime had been committed
20 pursuant to an order by the civil or military leadership of Republika
21 Srpska. Moreover, there is no evidence that over 8.000 Bosniaks had been
22 killed in Srebrenica as much as the number of Bosniak victims has been
23 increased so have the Serb victims in this territory been reduced not to
24 say underestimated." Stated the American lawyer Stefan Karganovic,
25 president of the historical Serb project Srebrenica. Are those your
2 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Your Honour, I object. The introduction to
3 this whole statement was saying you are quoted as saying you are an
4 American lawyer, and the quote has nothing no there to say that the
5 witness said he is an American lawyer. So the whole premise of the
6 question is invalid and I move that it be stricken.
7 JUDGE POCAR: Mr. Dershowitz, I have started having some problems
8 with your inventions because you're supposed to be a JCE counsel, and you
9 are taking -- intervening on everything. A line of questions will go to
10 the credibility of the witness, so I don't think it's appropriate you're
11 doing that.
12 MR. KREMER: Just two --
13 Q. Are those your words?
14 A. The words that you quoted for the most part are my words.
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. And they express my sentiments whether I quite put it that way or
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. As far as the other part of it is concern, I would just like to
20 point out that a graduate of the school of the geology is a geologist. A
21 graduate of the school of accounting is an accountant. I should think
22 that a graduate of a school of law would be a lawyer.
23 Q. Now let's just deal with your -- your current relationship with
24 Mr. Krajisnik.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You're currently helping him with his appeal in various
2 capacities as interpreter, translator, as legal researcher, fact-finder,
3 et cetera. And are you being remunerated for that assistance?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And how long have you been working with him on his appeal?
6 A. I have been assisting him virtually since shortly after the
8 Q. All right. And how would you describe this in terms of
9 occupation of time, full time, part time?
10 A. I think that it varies from one period of time to another, but
11 there were times when it was pretty much full time as, for example, when
12 Mr. Nicholls was involved for a couple of months. It was a great deal of
13 work. And of course I also had to translate and summarise large portions
14 of the judgement before he actually received it late in 2007, and that
15 took an enormous amount of time and effort.
16 Q. All right. Now, you perform some services for Mr. Nicholls, is
17 that fair?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you were retained to -- or part of the Colin Nicholls Defence
20 team from the 15th of December, 2006, I believe, to the 24th of April,
22 A. I was [Overlapping speakers] a member of Mr. Nicholls team. I
23 worked with Mr. Nicholls, it being understood that I was assisting
24 Mr. Krajisnik, and I was working with Mr. Nicholls with Mr. Krajisnik's
25 knowledge and approval.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note would the witness kindly be
2 asked to speak into the microphone.
3 MR. KREMER:
4 Q. Karganovic, could you speak into the microphone. The
5 interpreters are having some difficulties.
6 A. I work with -- well, my answer appears here, so I think we're all
8 Q. So when you were working, and I'll use are words, I'll get to it
9 later, when you were working with Mr. Nicholls, you were also working
10 with Mr. Krajisnik?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And Mr. Nicholls was aware of that?
13 A. Very much so.
14 Q. And when you became part of -- or when you started to assist
15 Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Nicholls expressly advised you, did he not, that the
16 only confidential communication that would take place between he -- or
17 that is written or otherwise between he and the client would be material
18 coming from him and not from anyone else who is working for
19 Mr. Krajisnik, is that not so?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And -- and it's my understanding that during the course of your
22 working with Mr. Nicholls that you put into the confidential envelopes
23 that he was sending to Mr. Krajisnik material other than he had seen or
24 authorised, is that fair?
25 A. That is fair and I would like to explain that if I may.
1 Q. Just answer the questions.
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. You did that; correct?
4 A. Yes, that is correct.
5 Q. And when Mr. Nicholls found out about your actions he terminated
6 your services immediately, did he not?
7 A. In relation to him, yes.
8 Q. Yes. And you continued to work for Mr. Krajisnik.
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And at some point when explaining this to the Registry, you said
11 that your -- you felt that even though you were working with Mr. Nicholls
12 and you were being paid by the Registry to work with Mr. Nicholls, your
13 accountability and your loyalty was to Mr. Krajisnik first; correct?
14 A. Certainly I regarded myself as an assistant to Mr. Krajisnik.
15 Mr. Krajisnik, during that period, with all due respect for Mr. Nicholls,
16 emphasised every single time that we went to see him, Mr. Nicholls and I,
17 that he wanted to represent himself, that he did not want Mr. Nicholls to
18 represent him or to write his appeal, and that he was unhappy with the
19 situation that he perceived of Mr. Nicholls being imposed.
20 My role in that interaction between the two of them was as an
21 interpreter. It was mostly confined to going to the Detention Unit with
22 Mr. Nicholls. The other part of what I was doing was to translate for
23 Mr. Nicholls and for the benefit of Mr. Krajisnik some materials that
24 Mr. Nicholls had sent me. So it was both translating and interpreting;
25 and I was paid by the Registry, you are correct there, but not as a
1 member of Mr. Nicholls' team because I was never formally appointed a
2 member of his team. I was paid simply in my capacity as an interpreter
3 and translator.
4 I did the same kind of work in other cases without being a member
5 of that team.
6 Q. All right. Certainly Mr. Nicholls thought you were part of the
7 team because he terminated your services.
8 A. Well, it struck me as very odd that he -- that it should occur to
9 me -- to him to terminate me when I was not aware and I had no reason to
10 think that he considered me his employee. And if you read the letter
11 that I sent to him on that occasion, I think that you will clearly see
12 that. You will see my perception of it.
13 Q. In any event you were suspended on the 24th of April 2007. On
14 the 25th of April did you have communication with Mr. Nicholls on behalf
15 of Mr. Krajisnik, telling Mr. Nicholls that Mr. Krajisnik no longer
16 wanted to receive any communication from him?
17 A. It's possible that I sent him an e-mail to that effect, and it
18 would have been at the request of Mr. Krajisnik.
19 Q. Yes. Now, you'll agree with me that in the September 3rd, 2007
20 letter that Mr. Petrov sent to you that Mr. Petrov disagrees with your
21 interpretation that you were not part of the Colin Nicholls Defence team;
22 is that correct?
23 A. I don't see the letter in front of me, but I certainly recall it
24 and I certainly do recall that Mr. Petrov did not share my view on that
25 particular point, but I want to re-emphasise that in this institution, to
1 the best of my knowledge; and I've been here for about five or six years,
2 when someone is a member of a team, when one is -- when one becomes a
3 member of a team a letter of appointment is issued to that effect. I
4 never received one in relation to Mr. Nicholls and his team.
5 Q. And in any event, Mr. Petrov in his letter said, "Your statement
6 that you were never a member of Mr. Nicholls' Defence team is inaccurate
7 regardless of the fact that Mr. Nicholls may have only used your services
8 on an ad hoc basis," correct? That's his position?
9 A. That's his position. I respect Mr. Petrov, but I disagree.
10 Q. In your letter of the 29th of June 2007 which is attached to a
11 filing by Mr. Krajisnik, it's a letter in respect of the allegations
12 about misuse of the improper procedure, you make some suggestions that
13 Mr. Nicholls did not give you proper instructions about the use of the
14 confidential envelope. I gather from your answer this afternoon that you
15 agree that you did received instructions on the use of the confidential
16 envelope and that your placing additional materials into the confidential
17 envelope was never approved by Mr. Nicholls?
18 A. I think that it would be helpful if these materials that you
19 refer to were introduced into the evidence so that the Chamber could read
20 them and draw their own conclusions instead of just reading excerpts,
21 because in my response to Mr. Petrov, I point out that even though
22 technically that procedure may have been for the purpose of material to
23 be passed from counsel to client, everything that I passed on to
24 Mr. Krajisnik using that procedure was case related. It was material of
25 the type that we have discussed a little bit earlier while I was
1 translating for Mr. Krajisnik sections of the judgement and doing
2 transcript research. So there was no private communication there
3 whatsoever. That's point number one.
4 And point number two, on several occasions when Mr. Nicholls and
5 I went to see Mr. Krajisnik at the Detention Unit, I had passed similar
6 material by hand to Mr. Krajisnik in Mr. Nicholls' presence, and
7 Mr. Nicholls did not object. So my interpretation of his failure to
8 object was that it was a functional endorsement. He did not ask to
9 review the material to see what it was. He took it on faith as in fact
10 was the case that it was all case related.
11 I realise --
12 Q. Just --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I'm going to invite the Chamber to look at the material that
15 Mr. Petrov forwarded to me. This witness is using considerable amounts
16 of time rambling on.
17 A. I'm sorry.
18 Q. And Mr. Petrov has decided in his letter quite clearly after a
19 diligent investigation what he thinks the position is, and I'll leave it
20 to the Chamber to decide on this question.
21 A. I think that is best, but I -- I object to your calling my answer
22 rambling because I'm not rambling.
23 Q. All right. We will disagree over how we describe it.
24 A. Fine I can also disagree with some of the positions or
25 interpretation that Mr. Petrov has taken.
1 Q. Let's go to your letter of October 16, 2007.
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. Paragraph 9, and that's the only one I'm going to deal with and
4 then I'm done:
5 "It seems the Defence team did not have a plan according to which
6 it operated particularly in the phase when the Defence started to present
7 its evidence and no longer just reacted to some moves of the Prosecution.
8 The approach was more often than not experimental rather than
9 functionally directed," and then you give one example.
10 "For instance, for some time we discussed about whether or not to
11 open the issue of Muslim armament for which the accused had collected a
12 lot of evidence in order to prove that the Serbian side was not an
13 unprovoked aggressor in BH and, rather, reacted to other threats and
14 provocations. Without any particular reason or explanation simply
15 Stewart put this project ad acta and there was no presentation on
16 evidence on this matter."
17 Do you under oath accept that statement that there was no
18 statement of Muslim army in the Krajisnik case?
19 A. No. I think that you're reading into that passage perhaps what
20 you prefer to read into it. This is very specific. We are talking about
21 a very specific project within the Defence team at this time to create a
22 dossier on Muslim arming that would target that issue in a -- in an
23 elaborate way, not just a few questions being put to this or that witness
24 but something that would deal with the issue in a systematic way. That's
25 what I'm referring to here. And under oath I can state that's exactly
1 the way it happened.
2 Q. So you won't disagree with me when I suggest to you that there
3 was considerable cross-examination on the Muslim armament issue of
4 Prosecution witnesses? I refer to the witness Deronjic, Ramic,
5 Hasanovic. Correct?
6 A. Of course I won't disagree with you, but that is a completely
7 different kind of approach than the one that I'm talking about here.
8 Haphazard rather than systematic in the course of the presentation of
9 defence evidence.
10 Q. And during the course of defence evidence there was evidence led
11 of Muslim disarmament -- or armament is that not right through the
12 witness of Savkic, through the evidence of Bjelica; correct?
13 A. Correct, but here we're talking about a systematic presentation
14 of that topic, not a few unrelated haphazard questions.
15 Q. And in respect to the witnesses, let's just talk about the
16 numbers. You mentioned that several witnesses were unable to travel and
17 couldn't testify. A number were unwilling to testify. Is that not so?
18 A. Some were afraid, yes.
19 Q. Some witnesses perhaps didn't give you sort of the detail that
20 was required to mount the kind of sophisticated defence that was perhaps
21 being -- was under consideration?
22 A. I was not the judge of the adequacy of that detail.
23 Q. That was for the lawyer, was it not, or the lawyers?
24 A. That was for Mr. Stewart to decide on the final analysis.
25 Q. With Mr. Josse?
1 A. Or Ms. Loukas.
2 Q. At the time, yes.
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. KREMER: I'm not sure when the Court wants to take a break.
5 I think I'm close to my limit of time.
6 JUDGE POCAR: You have around five minutes.
7 MR. KREMER: I wondered if --
8 JUDGE POCAR: And we won't take a break if you finish in five
10 MR. KREMER: I wonder if I just consult with my colleagues if
11 there's anything they can think of. If I could just have a minute.
12 JUDGE POCAR: Sure.
13 [Prosecution counsel confer]
14 MR. KREMER:
15 Q. Just -- just a couple of questions to conclude. I'm looking at
16 a -- a list of Defence witnesses that were called, and you will agree
17 with me that the Trial Chamber gave the Defence a limited number of hours
18 in which it could produce its defence; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And decisions had to be made in regard to who to call and for how
22 A. Clearly.
23 Q. And Mr. Krajisnik had formed the opinion from before the Defence
24 case even started that he was going to testify; is that correct?
25 A. No, it is not.
1 Q. No? Okay. Mr. Krajisnik did decide to testify at some point?
2 A. Yes, he did.
3 Q. Yes. And his testimony lasted about 40 court days.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And that consumed a large part of the time that was allocated to
6 the Defence; correct?
7 A. That is correct. And in my earlier testimony I said exactly what
8 you're saying now.
9 Q. All right. And from reviewing just generally what the witnesses
10 are talking about, there's a wide range of witnesses that talk about the
11 politics before the war and even during the war. There are witnesses
12 that talk about the political negotiations involved -- involving
13 Mr. Krajisnik and others of the RS government; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. There are representative witnesses from municipalities, from the
16 SDS Main Board, et cetera.
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. All commenting on various issues that have been identified as
19 important to Mr. Krajisnik's defence; right?
20 A. Yes. Comments may have been made on most of the important
21 issues, but arguably what was absent was systematic and concerted
22 treatment of many of them.
23 Q. So you disagreed with, I guess -- the number of witnesses called
24 could have been greater, is that what you're saying?
25 A. I'm not arguing with the number. I would be more inclined to
1 argue with the nature of the quality of some of the witnesses. And
2 again, if I may unworthily elevate myself to the hypothetical position to
3 which the distinguished Judge placed me, I probably would have excluded
4 some of the witnesses and included some of -- some that I felt were more
5 important or more pertinent to key issues, but that is a subjective
6 judgement of course.
7 Q. But you will agree with me that you weren't there for the whole
9 A. Of course, but I'm talking about the period when I was there,
10 which was when most of the witnesses if not -- well, most of them
11 testified while I was there. I was not there while Mr. Krajisnik was
13 Q. And you were not there when most of the Prosecution witnesses
14 were testifying?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And so that there is a large part of the case that you're
17 missing, and that influences your ability to offer any opinion on what
18 should have been done by the counsel who had been there from the
19 beginning and finished the trial to its conclusion, is that -- or saw it
20 to its conclusion?
21 A. Oh, please, give me a break. I'm a literate person. I know how
22 to look things up. Just because I missed a part of some event it doesn't
23 mean that I cannot catch up.
24 I -- of course, being personally there is a huge advantage. That
25 doesn't mean that I cannot find out what went on in my absence.
1 Q. How did you find out by asking other people?
2 A. Well you can do that. You can go to the internet page and look
3 up testimony that you thought might be interesting. There are many ways,
4 very simple ways to find out and catch up.
5 Q. But you were in court as a case manager, you were in court for
6 the full period?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you weren't able to do any trolling through the record as it
10 A. Well, I don't want to use a negative word about your question,
11 but it is a bit tendentious because court is five hours. You have duties
12 outside of court, and then you still have some time over the weekend and
13 in the evening that you can use anyway you want. I'm not saying that I
14 was perusing previous witness testimony. The only point that I'm making
15 is that there are various ways of becoming informed about what went on
17 Q. Yeah. But when you were working for the approximately 13 months
18 as the case manager, interpreter, translator for the Krajisnik team, you
19 had a full-time job.
20 A. I had a full-time job.
21 Q. Yes. Thank you.
22 A. That doesn't exclude doing other things when the job is over.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 A. Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you. Judge Shahabuddeen, you want --
1 Questioned by the Appeals Chamber
2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Just one -- just one question,
3 Mr. Karganovic.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for His Honour.
5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Sorry. It concerns the testimony which
6 Mr. Krajisnik gave over 40 days. Now, who examined Mr. Krajisnik for
7 those 40 days?
8 A. I believe it was both Mr. Stewart and Mr. Josse.
9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: And then the time would come when
10 Mr. Krajisnik would be re-examined. Who would have re-examined him?
11 A. On any specific occasion --
12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: During those 40 days of testimony --
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: -- a time would have come when he would have
15 been re-examined by counsel. Which counsel?
16 A. Mm-hmm. Your Honour, if the purpose of your question was -- is
17 to find out whether I was keeping up with Mr. Krajisnik's testimony after
18 I left the team, as I mentioned, shortly thereafter my mother, my cousin
19 and I went to Serbia. So I was not --
20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: So you are not in a position to answer that
22 A. No, I'm not. No I'm not.
23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: All right.
24 A. I was not following it that closely.
25 JUDGE POCAR: Well, this concludes the testimony of
1 Mr. Karganovic. We thank you. You can -- you may be excused, and the
2 usher would lead you out of the courtroom.
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE POCAR: Before we adjourn, I would like to -- sorry, we can
6 certainly move into open session now.
7 Are we in open session?
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, we're back in open session.
10 JUDGE POCAR: Thank you.
11 Now, before we adjourn, I was saying, I will have announce the
12 decision of the Appeals Chamber as concerns the request filed by
13 Mr. Krajisnik as concerns the statement of Radovan Karadzic.
14 The Appeals Chamber has decided that under Rule 92 ter, the
15 statement as annexed to the request should be admitted into evidence at
16 the proceedings to be held on November 5, 2008, provided, of course, that
17 the requirements set forth in Rule 92 ter are met, that is that
18 Mr. Karadzic is present and is available for cross-examination and other
19 questioning and will attest that the written statement reflects his
21 There is a partial modification of the Scheduling Order of
22 October 21. The hearing will start at 9.00 and not at 8.30. This being
23 said, I think we --
24 MR. KREMER: I just --
25 JUDGE POCAR: Please.
1 MR. KREMER: I'm sorry to interrupt, but I just have a question
2 in terms of the schedule for Wednesday. How much time will the
3 Prosecution have to cross-examine? When will we start to cross-examine?
4 I think it's important to know whether we have three hours, six hours, or
5 nine hours.
6 The other --
7 JUDGE POCAR: Yes.
8 MR. KREMER: The other question I have and relates to today's
9 hearing, I note that the Scheduling Order has an impact summary required
10 for the 14th of November on the Karadzic testimony, but there was no
11 order allowing impact submissions on the testimony today, and I'm just
12 inquiring whether that was an oversight or wasn't intended to have
13 submissions made regarding the testimony today. And then there's also a
14 word limit. There's none prescribed in the order, and perhaps some
15 direction as to how long the submissions should be.
16 [Appeals Chamber and legal officer confer]
17 JUDGE POCAR: Well, on the last question we have to go back to
18 private session, but on the -- on the scheduling for Wednesday, the
19 hearing will be like follows: There will be -- of course we will have to
20 ascertain of course the conditions of 92 ter, and that would be the
21 beginning the hearing. Then as of when this is done, the Appeals Chamber
22 decided that the cross-examination by the Prosecution should take one
23 hour and a half, and thereafter there should be a re-examination. That
24 would be half of that time, so 45 minutes. This is what we have agreed.
25 May we go back to private session now.
1 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Your Honour, can I just -- the 45 minutes is
2 with reference to me; is that correct?
3 JUDGE POCAR: Yes.
4 MR. N. DERSHOWITZ: Thank you.
5 JUDGE POCAR: May we go back to private session now?
6 [Private session]
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.51 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 5th day
22 of November, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.