1 Friday, 25th May 2001
2 [Evidentiary Hearing]
3 [Open session]
4 [The appellants entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.05 p.m.
6 JUDGE WALD: Good afternoon, everyone.
7 Will you call the case, Madam Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-95-16-A, the Prosecutor versus
9 Zoran Kupreskic, Mirjan Kupreskic, Vlatko Kupreskic, Drago Josipovic, and
10 Vladimir Santic.
11 JUDGE WALD: As everybody knows, this is a continuation of last
12 week's hearing concerning additional evidence under Rule 115. I do,
13 however, think it will be useful to have for the record, all the counsel
14 just get up and make their appearances known. We will begin with the
15 Defence counsel.
16 Mr. Radovic. I've decided to begin with the Defence counsel this
17 time. I began with the Prosecution last time.
18 MR. RADOVIC: [No translation]
19 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your
20 Honours, I'm Jadranka Slokovic-Glumac, Defence counsel for Mirjan
22 MR. ABELL: Your Honours, Anthony Abell appearing on behalf of
23 Vlatko Kupreskic, together with my co-counsel, Mr. John Livingston.
24 JUDGE WALD: Could we have counsel for the other defendants?
25 MR. VRDOLJAK: Good afternoon, I am Mitko Vrdoljak for
1 Mr. Vladimir Santic. I am sorry to inform you that my colleague,
2 Mr. Pavkovic, is ill and he couldn't come today. Thank you.
3 JUDGE WALD: Fine. Thank you.
4 MS. HERLJEVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. My
5 name is Goranka Herljevic, and I am co-counsel for defendant Drago
6 Josipovic, because, as you know, our chief counsel was not able to be
7 present today.
8 JUDGE WALD: Thank you very much. That's fine.
9 And now the Prosecution.
10 MR. YAPA: May it please Your Honours. I'm Upawansa Yapa
11 appearing for the Prosecution, with Mr. Anthony Carmona and Mr. Bill
12 Smith. Mr. David Leese is the case manager today. I thank you.
13 JUDGE WALD: All right. Thank you. As you know, what we plan to
14 do this afternoon is to hear the four Prosecution rebuttal witnesses. I
15 understand that from last week that the first one will be heard in open
16 session, that's correct, and the following three will be heard in closed
18 MR. YAPA: That's correct, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE WALD: And just to reiterate what we already know the
20 session will be limited to three hours. There will be a short break
21 around the time of two hours, which is necessitated by the transcribers,
22 but I won't take that short break out of your three-hour time.
23 The cross-examination, which I expect will be primarily by
24 Mr. Abell, will be limited to the same time as the Prosecution takes in
25 the direct testimony.
1 I also might mention Judge Vohrah is not able to be with us this
2 afternoon, but he certainly will be able to read the transcripts and watch
3 the proceedings.
4 I think that's all, so that we can proceed quickly and see --
5 you're on your feet, Mr. Yapa. Go ahead.
6 MR. YAPA: I thank Your Honours. As Your Honour mentioned, there
7 will be four witnesses who will be called by the Prosecution. They will
8 be -- keeping to the time, they will be very short and to the point. They
9 will be led by my learned friends who are on the Prosecution team. The
10 first witness who will be giving evidence in public will be Ole Hortemo.
11 Thank you, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE WALD: We can have the witness brought in now.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE WALD: Good afternoon, Mr. Hortemo. Would you take the
15 solemn oath first and then we'll hear your testimony.
16 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
17 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
18 WITNESS: OLE HORTEMO
19 JUDGE WALD: Please be seated. Make yourself comfortable.
20 Mr. Smith will engage in the direct questioning, and I just note,
21 Mr. Smith, that although Mr. Hortemo is testifying in open session, if any
22 point you believe that the identity of a protected witness may be
23 implicated, you can ask the Court to go into private session. Proceed.
24 MR. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour. And in relation to that, a
25 document has been prepared in relation to one witness that -- whose name
1 will be raised with his identification details, and we can stay in open
2 session and that can be confirmed by the witness and just filed
3 confidentially, if that is suitable.
4 JUDGE WALD: Let me make sure I understand what you're asking.
5 You have a document which would have a protected witness's name in it, and
6 how do you plan to handle that?
7 MR. SMITH: I would show the witness that document. It contains
8 the protected witness's name, date of birth, and address that was given by
9 that witness to Mr. Hortemo and get him to confirm that and once
10 confirmed, ask that that be tendered confidentially.
11 JUDGE WALD: Okay.
12 Examined by Mr. Smith:
13 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Hortemo. I'm going to ask you a few questions
14 today about a conversation you had with a person on mission in Bosnia in
15 May 1998. And the conversation that you had with this person, I believe,
16 was relatively lengthy so we can't -- I can't ask you questions about
17 every detail, but about some specific points within that conversation; do
18 you understand?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And your occupation at the moment, you are a police officer from
21 Norway; is that correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And you've been in the police force for 25 years, and 20 of those
24 years as a detective with the Norwegian police force; is that right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And your current position with the Norwegian police force?
2 A. Assistant chief of police in Kristiansand.
3 Q. And you've held that position since autumn of 1996; is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And in relation to working at the Tribunal, is it correct that you
6 worked here over two periods between 1996 and now?
7 A. Yes. I started in 1995 and to August 1996.
8 Q. And that was a year and a half period. And then you came back and
9 worked at the Tribunal for a second period, I believe from February of
10 1998 to June 1998; is that right?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And during this four-month period, what investigation were you
13 attached to? What were you investigating?
14 A. Crimes in Ahmici.
15 Q. And as a result of being involved in that investigation, did you
16 have to go to Bosnia on investigative missions?
17 A. Yes. During the springtime 1998 I went on four missions to
19 Q. And was one of those missions in early May 1998?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And can you tell the Court what the purpose of that mission was in
22 relation to the investigation at that time?
23 A. Well, one purpose was to meet people who had previously given
24 statements to representatives from the Tribunal and to see them again and
25 ask if they were still willing to testify. Another purpose was to look
1 for new witnesses and new evidence.
2 Q. And what was the particular reason why it was felt necessary to
3 ask the people that had previously given statements whether they still
4 wanted to testify? Was there a change in circumstances in Bosnia at the
6 A. Yes. Some of the witnesses had been interviewed several years
7 earlier and the situation had changed. Some of the witnesses were more
8 reluctant to be interviewed, to testify, because some had started to go
9 back to their village. They had not moved back maybe, but they had
10 started to go back to their houses to clean up and they were more
11 reluctant to testify against their Croat neighbours.
12 Q. And so for the people that had previously given statements that
13 you had to update their willingness if they wanted to testify, it
14 wasn't -- you hadn't decided to take a further statement from them as a
15 matter of rule?
16 A. No. We had a kind of a policy, an agreement in our investigation
17 team that if they had been interviewed at least twice previously, then we
18 should just take a note to show that they were still willing to testify,
19 and we asked them if they had new information to add.
20 Q. Now, I'd like you to look at a piece of paper that I will produce
21 to you. And on that piece of paper it contains a name and an address, and
22 the name of an interpreter. I have copies for Your Honours. And can you
23 tell the Court whether you spoke to the person that appears on that paper
24 on that mission in early May 1998?
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 Q. And did he provide you with those details that are listed on that
2 piece of paper?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And also, is the name of the interpreter that interpreted for you
5 to communicate with this witness, does his name appear on this piece of
6 paper as well?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I would just ask, that during your testimony if you need to refer
9 to that person's name, the person you spoke to, can you refer to him as
10 ADA, and if you need to refer to the interpreter, just say "the
11 interpreter." Do you understand that?
12 A. Yes, I understand.
13 Q. Now, what day and date did you speak to witness -- the person ADA?
14 A. It was the 3rd of May. It was a Sunday in 1998.
15 Q. Do you remember whether you spoke to him in the morning or the
17 A. It was in the morning.
18 Q. And had ADA, to your knowledge, given statements to other
19 investigators at the Tribunal before you had approached him?
20 A. Yes, twice in 1995.
21 Q. And before you spoke to him on that morning, did you know whether
22 or not he had been involved in the assisting of the Defence of Vlatko
23 Kupreskic in relation to contacting witnesses that may be used for the
25 A. No. I can't recall that we had any information about that, but
1 that appears during the conversation with him.
2 Q. Did you have any specific knowledge of this particular -- this
3 particular person, ADA, other than the fact that he'd given two statements
4 to the Tribunal, other than the information contained in those two
6 A. Not anything else. Then I had to add his previous statements, and
7 he was listed on my list of one of many witnesses I had to meet on that
9 Q. And just to be clear, the purpose that you wanted to speak to him
10 was? What was the purpose?
11 A. To see if he was still willing to testify.
12 Q. And where did you speak to him?
13 A. In the hotel, Hotel Metalurg, in the centre of Zenica.
14 Q. And that wasn't in the police building in Zenica, was it?
15 A. No. It was in the hotel.
16 Q. And who was with him when you spoke to him on that day?
17 A. Just the witness and my interpreter and myself. When he arrived,
18 he arrived together with two local police officers who brought him, but
19 they left the room as soon as we started.
20 Q. And approximately how long was your conversation with ADA?
22 A. Roughly one hour, maybe a little bit more.
23 Q. And did you record the substance of the conversation that you had
24 with ADA on that day?
25 A. Yes, I did. It was a summary. It was not word by word, but it
1 was the substance, the summary of what he told me.
2 Q. And when did you record the substance of that conversation? Was
3 it during it or after it?
4 A. I was typing on my computer during the interview, directly on the
6 Q. And have you read a copy of those notes since you've had that
7 conversation with him on that day?
8 A. Yes. On the 11th of May this year, I returned here and I was
9 shown this document.
10 Q. And do they accurately reflect the substance of the conversation
11 that you had with ADA on that day?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And do you have a copy of those notes with you today?
14 A. Yes, I have.
15 MR. SMITH: Your Honour, these notes are referred to in the
16 Prosecutor's filing of the 8th of May and also attached to his 92 bis
17 statement, this witness's, on the 14th of May. We have copies with the
18 Registry if you would like them.
19 Q. Can you tell the Court what the gist of the conversation was when
20 you first met ADA? How was the conversation -- how was it commenced after
21 the introductions were made? And briefly could you outline the mood and
22 the attitude that ADA had to this meeting?
23 A. Well, this witness was, I will say, reluctant to speak to us. And
24 I had been looking for him for some time, and I had -- previously I went
25 to his house, and I had been asking for him among his friends and other
1 family members, and in the end I asked the local police to try to pick him
2 up this Sunday morning.
3 And when he arrived, he was not happy to see us at all and he was
4 not willing to spend time together with us. So in a way, I had to beg him
5 to sit down and to -- if he still was willing, to answer some questions,
6 and in the end, he was. He was willing to do that, but he was not willing
7 to spend more time with us, because he said that his previous statements
8 should be enough for the Tribunal.
9 Q. Apart from what you've just said now, did he say anything more as
10 to why he was reluctant to speak to you or is it just as you've stated?
11 A. No. I can't recall exactly what he said, but my understanding was
12 that he was fed up by the Tribunal and that we had tried to trace him and
13 wanted to speak him -- to him again.
14 Q. And "fed up by the Tribunal," was that in relation to the fact
15 that he'd given two statements already or some other matter?
16 A. I think that was one reason, and that he didn't like that we were
17 looking for him and that the local police was sent to pick him up.
18 Q. Did you ask him about what his current work was at that time?
19 A. Yes, I did, because I had been looking for him for some time, even
20 on a previous mission to Bosnia, and I received different information from
21 other people where he was, and even his family members gave me different
22 explanations. Then I asked him where he worked and he told me.
23 Q. Where did he say he worked, who did he say he worked for, and how
24 much did he say that he was being paid?
25 A. Well, it took some time for him to explain this because he
1 couldn't remember exactly the place. It was in Split. He was working as
2 a construction worker, but he didn't recall the name of the company, not
3 his superiors, not -- he had no contact number, he had no address there to
4 contact him, and it seemed to be very difficult to find him there. So --
5 but he was changing his explanation and his story from time to time. So
6 it was a little bit difficult for me to really get to the point. Well, in
7 the end, he mentioned a man by name who he worked for who was a superior.
8 Q. And that man is contained in your notes; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did he mention who organised that he get work in Split, who set it
11 up for him that he got a job there?
12 A. Well, he ended up by telling that it was a man from the area who
13 went around and asked Muslims to go there and work.
14 Q. And did he say how much money he was earning a month?
15 A. Yes. He told me 3.000 German marks a month. And I asked him if
16 he had any contract, but he didn't. And I asked if he paid taxes, but he
18 Q. And you may have said this already, but did you ask him whether he
19 would be willing to testify at the Tribunal?
20 A. Yes. He started telling me that that he was still willing to
21 testify at the Tribunal, but he was reluctant to give more statements.
22 Q. Did he say whether or not he was asked by someone else to testify
23 at the Tribunal on their behalf?
24 A. Yes. Later on during the conversation, he told that he had met
25 two lawyers from the Defence counsel of Vlatko Kupreskic.
1 Q. And when he met those two lawyers, did he also meet them with
2 another person?
3 A. Yes. He mentioned another person Rahim Music, I think his name
4 was, but mainly he told about what happened to him and that he showed the
5 lawyers what had happened on the 16th of April 1993.
6 Q. And apart from being asked by the two Defence lawyers for Vlatko
7 Kupreskic, did he say whether or not anyone else asked him whether or not
8 he would testify?
9 A. Yes. Later on, after the arrest of Vlatko Kupreskic, he went to
10 Vlatko's house. He met Vlatko's wife, and she asked him if he was willing
11 to testify in favour of Vlatko.
12 Q. Did he explain in any more detail about the circumstances
13 surrounding Vlatko's wife's request for him to testify? Did he give any
14 more details about that?
15 A. Yes. But even on that, he was unclear because he was changing his
16 story a couple of times. But he told that he was offered a large amount
17 of money to testify.
18 Q. Did he say approximately how much money he was offered to testify
19 for Vlatko Kupreskic?
20 A. No. He just said it was a large amount of money and he was shown
21 the money. But he emphasised that he was not asked to lie or to say
22 anything or do anything unlawful, it was just to tell the truth, and then
23 he was shown a big bag of money filled up with German mark notes.
24 Q. And did he say who offered him the bag of money or showed him the
25 bag of money?
1 A. Yes, the wife of Vlatko Kupreskic.
2 Q. Once he had mentioned the fact that there was this offer of a
3 large amount of money to testify, did that strike you as unusual in
4 relation to your normal dealings with witnesses at the Tribunal, that
5 fact, was that an unusual fact?
6 A. Yes, it was unusual. It was a special event.
7 Q. And on hearing that, did you want to obtain more information as to
8 the circumstances surrounding the offer of this money?
9 A. Yes. Of course as an investigator, I tried to get more details
10 about this, and I asked him about this bag filled up with money, if he had
11 any clue where the money came from. I asked him how big was this bag. I
12 asked him to estimate approximately how many centimetres, how big the bag
13 was, but he was not able to do that.
14 And then I asked him to just show with his hands how big it was,
15 and he did. And he told me that it was a huge bag and he showed with his
16 hands. And when I asked him about the shape of the bag, then he started
17 to show me again, but then he had changed the size. So in a way, it
18 was -- there was some contradictory information as I saw it.
19 Q. Did you ask him about the colour of the bag?
20 A. Yes. And he was not able to tell the size of the bag, not able to
21 tell the shape of the bag, and not able to tell the colour of the bag.
22 Q. Did you ask him whether there was anyone else present when this
23 offer of money was made?
24 A. Yes, of course I did. And -- but even there, he was changing a
25 little bit so it was a little bit unclear. My understanding was that
1 first he was alone with the wife of Vlatko. But later on, he said that
2 another man had been with him and had seen this bag with the money and he
3 named this man.
4 Q. And do you know that man's name?
5 A. Sead Ahmic.
6 Q. So at one time he said to you that he was by himself with Ljubica
7 Kupreskic, and at another time he was with someone else?
8 A. Yes. So it was a little bit confusing the whole story, but I
9 think the summary I typed on my computer is fair to what he ended up with
10 as a story.
11 Q. Did he say why he went to Vlatko Kupreskic's house on the day when
12 the money was offered?
13 A. No. I can't recall if he told me that, if it was as a neighbour
14 or a friend. I can't recall that.
15 Q. And do you remember the approximate month or date or time that
16 this incident occurred? Did he tell you --
17 A. Well, when I asked about that, he was unclear about that as well
18 but he ended up telling he thought it was a February date.
19 Q. And apart from Vlatko Kupreskic's wife asking ADA to testify on
20 Vlatko's behalf, did he also tell you that other requests were made of
22 A. Yes. The wife of Vlatko asked him his help to find other Muslim
23 witnesses to -- who could testify in favour of Vlatko.
24 Q. And did you follow up whether, in fact -- or did he provide names
25 of those people that he --
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. That he gave to Vlatko Kupreskic's wife?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And what were the names?
5 A. I hope I don't mix it up but was it Sead Ahmic, -- well, then I
6 think I have to look at my papers if that's okay.
7 MR. SMITH: I seek leave of the Court that he refers to his
9 A. I'm afraid of mixing the names of the witnesses.
10 MR. SMITH: I seek leave of the Court for allowing this witness to
11 refer to his notes.
12 A. Yes, Sead Ahmic.
13 Q. And who else did he contact, did he say he contacted on her
15 A. Rahim Music.
16 Q. And did you follow up at some later time, whether, in fact, with
17 Rahim Music whether ADA did contact him?
18 A. Yes, I did. On a later mission, I went to Sanski Most.
19 Q. And did he confirm that ADA did contact him?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And just so the Court knows, how far is Sanski Most from Zenica by
22 car, approximately?
23 A. I'm not sure, but could it be two or three hours drive. I'm
24 really not sure, but I think it was something like that. It's north-west
25 of Zenica.
1 Q. And did ADA say anything about Vlatko Kupreskic's responsibility
2 for the crimes in Ahmici to you?
3 A. Yes. He was very strong about that. From his point of view,
4 Vlatko Kupreskic was innocent, totally innocent, and he described Vlatko
5 Kupreskic as a good man who would never participate in any war crimes.
6 Q. Did he also say anything about the truthfulness of other witnesses
7 who had testified at the Tribunal before this date?
8 A. Yes. He even said something about that. He told me that he knew
9 that some of the witnesses who had appeared in The Hague, at the Tribunal,
10 had been lying. And of course I asked him if he was willing to give me
11 the names, but he was not.
12 Q. And did he refer to which case? Because this conversation
13 occurred on the 3rd of May, 1998.
14 A. No. He was not even willing to tell me that, but I assume from
15 what he told that it should be the Blaskic case, but I'm not sure.
16 Q. And allegation has been made that ADA was offered a bribe by an
17 investigator from the Tribunal. He was offered a blank cheque that was
18 signed, an apartment, the -- the opportunity to move to another state, a
19 car, if he preferred to stay in Zenica. Did you or are you aware of any
20 investigator at the Tribunal involved in the offering of a bribe to ADA?
21 A. I did not, and I have never heard about it.
22 Q. The allegations that ADA made in relation to Vlatko Kupreskic's
23 wife, in relation to the offering of the money, are quite serious. As a
24 result of that allegation, did you attempt to follow up the truthfulness
25 of what he had said?
1 A. Oh, yes, I did, but I didn't find anybody who could confirm this
3 Q. And in your dealings with witnesses at the Tribunal, does this
4 person, ADA, stand out as a unique witness in your discussion or does he
5 fall into a category of one of many in light of the Tribunal's work?
6 A. No. After this conversation, he seemed to be unique.
7 MR. SMITH: I have no further questions, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE WALD: All right. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I make the time
9 consumed by the direct examination to be approximately just about half an
11 That's for your information, Mr. Abell. You can proceed with your
13 MR. ABELL: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Cross-examined by Mr. Abell:
15 Q. Mr. Hortemo, can we just understand a couple of things to start
16 with, please? This conversation was not prearranged, was it?
17 A. No, not in the way I wanted to meet him. I had him as one of many
18 persons on a long list I wanted to meet.
19 Q. So there was no appointment with a time that he knew he had to
20 meet you on that day?
21 A. Not on that day, but previously there had been some appointments,
22 but he never did show up.
23 Q. I'm interested in the day itself. It would have been, I'm sure
24 you will agree, a surprise to him to be picked up and brought somewhere to
25 speak to you; is that fair?
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 A. To some extent, because we had been looking for him for several
2 days and asking for him. So that was not a surprise, but maybe it was a
3 surprise to be picked up the Sunday morning.
4 Q. You made a note to the effect that he may have been a little drunk
5 during the conversation.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is that because that is how the man appeared to you?
8 A. Yes, it was.
9 Q. Right.
10 A. He was not much drunk, but that was my impression, that he was a
11 little bit drunk or had been drinking earlier.
12 Q. Did you consider that it was appropriate, Mr. Hortemo, to continue
13 with an interview with a man who may have been suffering from the effects
14 of alcohol?
15 A. Yes, because he was not drunk in that way.
16 Q. Well, forgive me. I'm looking at your own notes. First
17 paragraph: "ADA was possibly a little bit drunk during the
19 Did you think it was appropriate to have a conversation with a man
20 who would have been suffering to some extent from the effects of alcohol?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You did.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you agree, as a general proposition, that if someone is a
25 little bit drunk, they may not be as reliable as they are if they are
1 speaking to you and they are stone-cold sober?
2 A. That's not -- that's not my experience, that this situation should
3 affect his truthfulness.
4 Q. I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about a general
5 proposition. As a police officer, Mr. Hortemo, do you generally interview
6 people who are suffering from the effects of alcohol?
7 A. No, not if they are --
8 Q. No.
9 A. -- if they are obviously drunk, I will not.
10 Q. No. In your country, are there rules about the circumstances in
11 which you should interview a suspect?
12 A. Yes, there are, and there would be no problem to interview a man
13 in this situation.
14 Q. In your country, are there rules about not interviewing someone
15 who is drunk? It's a simple question.
16 A. There are not that kind of rules.
17 Q. I see.
18 A. I am allowed to interview a man in -- in this state as he was
19 here, yes.
20 Q. Very well. Let's see if we can agree with this as well: You made
21 a note on your computer - have I got that right? - of the conversation?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You don't suggest that it was a verbatim note, do you, a
24 word-for-word note?
25 A. No, it was not.
1 Q. Do you agree with this, that your computer was not -- you did not
2 show to the witness, the person you were interviewing, ADA, you did not
3 show to him what your note was?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. He wasn't given the opportunity, at the end of the conversation,
6 to see if he agreed with your version of what had been said?
7 A. No. It was not read back to him, but everything was be careful to
8 get paragraph by paragraph and --
9 Q. Forgive me --
10 A. -- get his information.
11 Q. Forgive me for interrupting you, but it will be easier for both of
12 us if you concentrate on my questions and answer my questions. All right?
13 A. All right.
14 Q. He wasn't asked to check to see if he agreed with what you had
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Right. And you have told us that there were occasions when what
18 he was saying seemed somewhat unclear?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What you were clear about, though, is this, isn't it, that he was
21 very sure that Vlatko Kupreskic was totally innocent, was a good man, and
22 had not participated in any military activities on the 16th of April of
24 A. Yes, he was very clear about that.
25 Q. He was also clear, according to you, about the fact that he had
1 not been told by Mrs. Kupreskic to lie.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What, according to your note, he claimed was that he was told to
4 tell the truth.
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Now, do you agree, looking at your note, that you have made a
8 A. Regarding a date, yes.
9 Q. Yes. The very first part of the statement that you would have
10 been typing, you put "88" presumably instead of "98"?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. That's a mistake you no doubt didn't spot on the day and didn't
13 spot presumably for sometime afterwards until you were asked presumably
14 earlier this month to look back over your notes.
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. It's only a small point, but we are all human and we are all
17 capable, aren't we, of making mistakes?
18 A. Of course.
19 Q. Sometimes they're small ones. Sometimes we are all capable of
20 making bigger mistakes.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Because I want to make it clear to you that the suggestion is that
23 this man, ADA, never said to you that Mrs. Ljubica Kupreskic had offered
24 him a large amount of cash or any cash at all.
25 A. He was as clear about that as he was about the other thing you
2 Q. Do you agree with this: For an investigator to offer a bribe to a
3 potential witness would be a very serious matter?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. If an investigator were to stoop to do such a thing, if, would you
6 expect that investigator to talk to other investigators about what he'd
7 done or keep it very quiet indeed? If. What would you expect,
8 Mr. Hortemo?
9 A. I have never been thinking about that because it's so strange, but
10 of course if you are doing something like that, you wouldn't tell.
11 Q. Of course. Thank you.
12 You looked into the -- what you say was clear about what ADA was
13 saying, and you were unable to substantiate that it had happened at all,
14 any bribe being offered by Mrs. Kupreskic despite investigating the
15 matter; have I got that right?
16 A. Pardon?
17 Q. You investigated, you looked into the matter as to whether
18 Mrs. Kupreskic had offered a large sum of money, and you were unable to
19 substantiate that it had happened, that's correct, isn't it?
20 A. That's correct.
21 MR. ABELL: Thank you. You will be pleased to hear, Your Honour,
22 that that concludes my cross-examination.
23 JUDGE WALD: I am very pleased to hear that. Thank you.
24 Do you want any redirect, Mr. Smith?
25 MR. SMITH: Just one question, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE WALD: Go ahead.
2 Re-examined by Mr. Smith:
3 Q. Mr. Hortemo, in relation to the discussion with ADA about the
4 offering of money by Vlatko Kupreskic's wife, you stated that you found
5 that to be unusual and then you stated that you asked him a number of
6 questions in relation to the bag and how big it was. About how long would
7 that discussion have taken with ADA do you think?
8 A. It's been quite a long time on that just to clarify, but it's
9 difficult for me to say how many minutes, but --
10 Q. But a reasonable period of time?
11 A. Ten minutes, more than that.
12 MR. SMITH: No further questions, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE WALD: All right. Thank you.
14 Mr. Hortemo, let me just make sure the Judges -- do you have any
15 questions for the witness? No. Then I think we're finished with your
16 testimony. We want to thank you very much for coming and assisting the
17 Chamber, and the usher will see you out.
18 THE WITNESS: Thanks.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 JUDGE WALD: Madam registrar, I just want to check one thing
21 and -- will there be any delay in going into closed session for the next
23 Mr. Carmona, do you have -- whatever you have to say, should it go
24 in closed or open session? The next witnesses will be in closed session.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
1 JUDGE WALD: Microphone, please.
2 MR. CARMONA: Your Honour, I was just concerned about what you
3 just mentioned to your learned colleague, the learned clerk, so that
4 basically, in fact, the next three witnesses we intend to call would be
5 witnesses in closed session.
6 JUDGE WALD: Yes. That's correct. We'll keep it in closed
8 All right we will go into closed session now and we can then
9 proceed to bring the first witness in. If we -- well -- do the shades
10 have to be down?
11 THE REGISTRAR: Yes.
12 [Closed session]
13 Pages 467-520 – redacted – closed session
5 [Open session]
6 JUDGE WALD: We're in open session now? Okay.
7 Again I would like to thank everybody for allowing us to terminate
8 this 115 session so expeditiously, and I wanted to reiterate what I had
9 said at the last week's session, that we are on a schedule and the Court
10 plans to keep to that schedule, with the possible exception of the
11 exchange we've just had, which may require a day or two's postponement so
12 we can encompass whatever is requested, the rulings on that.
13 I just wish to inform you that within the first few days of next
14 week, hopefully within the first two days, we will deliver to you the
15 Court's ruling on the applications that involve Witness AT and other
16 outstanding applications dealing with additional evidence.
17 We will render to you our decision on the 92 bis statements that
18 we had received. We were going to include within that ruling all the past
19 exhibits. We may postpone that a few days and give you rulings on all the
20 exhibits as soon as we've received them and the Prosecution's request, and
21 we will issue a Scheduling Order for the remainder of these proceedings.
22 I think that's all the business we have to transact today.
23 Mr. Abell.
24 MR. ABELL: Well, I need to say this. One of the documents that
25 we've acquired in the last week goes to the 92 bis, one of the 92 bis
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 witnesses, it's to deal with convictions. So I'm quite happy to hand that
2 up now. It only came the other day and so the -- such translation, as it
3 is, is only handwritten.
4 JUDGE WALD: Why don't you give sufficient copies of that one to
5 the registrar, to the registrar to make sure that we receive that but also
6 include it in your longer submission of the other documents so that we --
7 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, that will be done. I believe it was
8 actually faxed to us at our hotel this morning so it was untranslated.
9 JUDGE WALD: It's in B/C/S.
10 MR. ABELL: I'm sorry, it's the best we can do. I've got to let
11 you know it's because -- I'm not being critical, it's because of the time
12 table. We --
13 JUDGE WALD: I understand. But when will you have a translation
14 of that? I assume you can get us the translation sometime next week.
15 MR. ABELL: I would have hoped by the middle of next week.
16 JUDGE WALD: As I just said, please get that as quickly -- that
17 one particularly, even if it's out of order from the rest because we are
18 at the point of making our rulings on the 92 bis.
19 MR. ABELL: We understand. We will do our level best.
20 JUDGE WALD: At a certain point, we will just go. Thank you. I
21 think that does conclude the hearing.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.30 p.m.