1 Wednesday, 18 July 2001
2 [Radic Defence Closing Statement]
3 [Open session]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.25 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning. Please be
7 seated. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, to the technical booth, the
8 interpreters, Registry staff, counsel for the Prosecution and counsel for
9 the Defence. We are here today to continue our proceedings, and today, it
10 is the turn of Defence counsel for Mr. Radic.
11 So, Mr. Fila, you have the floor for your closing arguments.
12 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Your Honours, Judges of
13 this Tribunal, before I begin with my closing arguments, I should like to
14 point out that I feel pleased that we have come to the end of a major
15 undertaking relatively quickly, in view of the fact that the proceedings
16 started on the 22nd of February last year. And I think that we would have
17 been even more efficient if it had not been for the changes that occurred
18 and the subsequent arrest of Mr. Prcac which slowed the proceedings down.
19 I think that the merit for such good quality work lies primarily
20 in the efficiency and quality of Your Honours, the Trial Chamber, my
21 learned friends of the Prosecution. And for my part, I apologise if, in
22 any way, I have slowed down proceedings, and I particularly apologise to
23 the interpreters if I have caused them any problems.
24 I wish to say that one has to bear in mind that the accused, too,
25 have contributed to speeding up these proceedings. As regards Mladjo
1 Radic, who I am representing, it should be borne in mind that he did
2 cooperate with the investigators of the Tribunal; that he voluntarily
3 agreed to testify; that he authorised me to agree to many adjudicated
4 facts and to many other points that had been proposed by Prosecutor,
5 Mr. Niemann.
6 All this was designed to achieve greater understanding on the part
7 of the Trial Chamber and the Prosecution, because at least one of the
8 messages of this Tribunal was that those who cooperate with the Tribunal
9 can count on a more favourable position than those who refuse to do so.
10 If I may, I would now address my closing arguments proper.
11 As you know, the final brief, which the Defence for Mr. Radic has
12 filed, consists of 200 pages and embraces all the submissions I have made
13 ever since the beginning of this trial. To repeat all this would be to
14 insult the Trial Chamber, because the Trial Chamber understands very well
15 what I have said. What I do wish to address will be linked more to the
16 closing arguments of the Prosecution than my closing brief.
17 As we all know, Article 1 of the Statute defines the jurisdiction
18 of this Tribunal, and it is to criminally prosecute persons responsible
19 for serious violations of international humanitarian law. I underline the
20 word "serious." In the report of the United Nations Secretary-General,
21 Omarska holds a prominent place when it came to the decision to form an ad
22 hoc tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
23 Regarding the stipulations that we have made and the cooperation
24 with the Prosecution in general, one thing is quite clear, and that is
25 that Omarska and what happened in the investigations centre at Omarska
1 does constitute a serious violation of international humanitarian law, and
2 there is no doubt about that whatsoever. That is evident also from the
3 stipulations that we have made.
4 What is disputed is the role of Mladjo Radic, also known as Krkan,
5 in the events at Omarska and which, as I have said, does come under the
6 competence of the International Tribunal, pursuant to Article 1. In other
7 words, the question is whether any of the acts of Mladjo Radic can be
8 considered to be serious violations of international humanitarian law. Is
9 he liable, according to the provisions of Article 7(1) through (5), for
10 everything that occurred in Omarska?
11 I think, however, it is worth mentioning something of great
12 importance for this Tribunal in traditional law which we are all
13 professionals in, the trial -- the Court has a twofold role to establish a
14 crime and to punish him. First, as reprisal for what he did and also
15 general deterrence, that is, to deter others from committing such a crime
16 again. Those are the two aims of punishment.
17 However, this Tribunal has a third function which makes it
18 especially responsible, and that is the creation of international law,
19 something that Your Honour, the President of this Trial Chamber has
20 insisted upon as has the first President of this Tribunal, Mr. Cassese.
21 The result of the work of this Tribunal and the work of the
22 Tribunal in Rwanda, if possible, will provide a basis for the future
23 permanent criminal tribunal. If we err, both you and the Prosecution and
24 ourselves, this will be a historical error, not an ordinary error of any
25 local court.
1 I'm saying this because it is my opinion that we have to be very,
2 very cautious. We have a saying that you have to cut a hair into four, so
3 subtle the rulings of this Trial Chamber. So the point I wish to make is
4 that we have to quadruple our attention when a decision a made by this
5 Tribunal because we have no right to make a mistake. Regular courts in
6 national jurisdictions have this right. This Tribunal does not have such
7 a possibility. A legal error made by this Tribunal would have permanent
8 consequences, and this is something that must make us extremely cautious.
9 Finally, I -- towards the end, I will also comment on the
10 vocabulary that has been used with this particular point in mind, but I
11 will come to that point later. So as I was saying, the competence of this
12 Tribunal is not debatable for the events in Omarska because what happened
13 there is certainly a serious violation of humanitarian law. It is also
14 undisputed that the persons facing this trial are members of the lowest
15 level of the hierarchy in Omarska.
16 There was no one in rank below Mladjo Radic. He was an ordinary
17 policeman. Whether he was or not shift leader de facto, we will come to
18 that later, but it is a fact that he was an ordinary policeman as were
19 Kvocka and the others, but that is another matter. I'm underlining this
20 because, as opposed to the situation in 1993, and 1995, and 1998, we have
21 the chain of responsibility for the centres such as Omarska, Trnopolje,
22 Keraterm and so on. So we can clearly identify the chain of command which
23 went from the lowest level upwards to Drljaca, and part of the security of
24 the camp were -- are the defendants here in this courtroom.
25 When the Prosecutor spoke about Omarska, she said something that I
1 absolutely disagree with, and Mr. Simic also commented on this. She said
2 the Serbs established the Omarska camp. According to Article 6 of the
3 same Statute, your competence is limited to natural persons, and Article 7
4 indicates when those natural persons are responsible.
5 It's not right to say the Serbs did that because we're all Serbs.
6 We are Serbs. There are Serbs in Belgrade. There are Serbs in America
7 and Canada. It's not quite right to say that we all did that.
8 It is clearly known who, in the chain of command, did this and
9 Ms. Somers could have done that and she could have even charged somebody
10 who has still not been charged. One thing is undisputed, that this was
11 not done by all the Serbs, and what is particularly important for us who
12 are in these proceedings now is that this was not done by these four [as
13 interpreted] defendants.
14 If we were to review the indictment, we will see that at the
15 beginning, they were charged with the conditions, organisations,
16 establishment, and all other things regarding the camp. In the past
17 period, many of those charges have been dropped, at least that they have
18 nothing to do with the formation of the investigation centre, as it is
19 officially known. What is hidden behind that name we all know, you can
20 call it a concentration camp or what you will. But one thing is quite
21 certain, they did not make it up. They did not form it.
22 From the Prosecution evidence presented, it can be seen that food
23 was not prepared in the camp. It was brought to the centre. Other people
24 were responsible for preparing the food. The quality and quantity of the
25 food was not under control of the security service of the camp or the
1 investigation centre, rather.
2 Another half of the indictment discusses what they did to improve
3 things. We'll come to that. But they were not directly responsible for
4 the quantity and quality of the food.
5 As regards water, if the Prosecution had made an effort ever since
6 1993 to this day, they could have checked the quality of the water, and
7 they would have come to the same conclusion that I came to that that water
8 was checked before the events in Omarska, during the time of the centre,
9 and today, and that the water is the same today as it was then. It is not
10 technical water. It is normal tap water. Whether it was of high or
11 medium quality, that is another matter. So the accused also had no
12 responsibility regarding the water.
13 As for accommodation, it is a fact that such a large number of
14 people in such small quarters is far from humane, it's atrocious, but we
15 have to see whether these people are responsible for this. Did any one of
16 them, for instance, Mladjo Radic, say, "Put a thousand people in this
17 building," or did someone else decide about that. So as I am saying, you
18 are trying the people of the lowest rank.
19 I'm referring, again, to the indictment where it says that Mladjo
20 Radic was responsible when there were no investigators, no visitors, and
21 two other superiors above him. If we assume that he was shift leader when
22 the commander wasn't there, and his deputy was not there. So you see how
23 many levels we find in the indictment to establish his own liability. So
24 the indictment itself limits that liability. That brings me to the point
25 that these three points were in no way influenced by any of the accused,
1 that is, food, water, and accommodation.
2 Health care, again, is not part of their responsibility. There
3 was some kind of health care. There was no medication in Prijedor itself,
4 not just in the centre. And, again, what formal and legal role did they
5 have in that? None.
6 There was the centre management, Simo Drljaca and it is not a
7 matter of us shifting the blame to him. We are just referring to what he,
8 himself, said. In the film, he said he was the centre commander, and in
9 the order on the establishment of the centre we see his signature. So
10 this is part of the evidence presented in these proceedings. He is the
11 person people are reporting to so we have written evidence to support
12 this. On the part -- on the basis of the evidence produced by the
13 Prosecution, we see the salaries that the defendants received as ordinary
14 policemen. Who knew that in May, June, or July, that some ad hoc Tribunal
15 would be set up in The Hague and then to make up wage lists and make up a
16 police station department? These are facts as we can see from the
18 That brings us to the second question: What could they have done
19 to improve the conditions which were bad, but for which they were not
20 responsible? This is a question that is fully addressed in our final
21 brief. But to be able to answer that question, we have to say who is
23 Who is Mladjo Radic, known as Krkan, who my colleague and myself
24 are representing? He comes from a poor peasant family with nine
25 children. His father only just managed to see him through elementary
1 school. He worked as an ordinary worker. He had a chance to finish a
2 short course and become a village policeman.
3 At the relevant period, he had 20 years of service behind him as a
4 policeman, and everyone knew him in the area. In that 20-year period, he
5 didn't make a single step forward in his career. He is the lowest level
6 beat policeman. He is not even a patrolman, who is also a policeman but
7 slightly further up in the hierarchy.
8 The only thing that the Prosecution could charge him with in his
9 career was the reward he received of 50 marks after all this, and witness
10 Bogdan Delic, who signed this and whom we called as a witness, explained
11 that this was a printed form and this was a way to help people
12 financially. What it, in fact, meant was 50 German marks. Of course,
13 salaries in those days was the equivalent of two or three German marks.
14 In the relevant period, the accused Mladjo Radic, whom we all
15 agree upon was a policeman - in communism it was called a militiaman - is
16 a family man with three children. His wife was a cook. He got the
17 nickname Krkan because he likes to eat. He was under 180 centimetres tall
18 and 140 kilogrammes in weight. If you add a rifle to such a heavy body,
19 it looks like a macho man. But in fact he is just a heavily built man
20 with a big tummy.
21 He has been referred to as a bull, a psychopath, sadist by
22 Ms. Somers, expressions which are not at all nice. And we have the
23 findings of a Dutch psychiatrist. Most of those terms come under
24 psychiatry. We see exactly how Ana Najman and the psychiatrist described
25 him, and you see the description is quite the opposite. All the people
1 who spoke about him, about his work before and after the events, speak in
2 the best of terms. They even said he never even hit anyone. He didn't
3 even intervene properly. What he cared most about was to have a good bite
4 to eat.
5 How does that fit into these descriptions of bulls, machos,
6 sadists, and I don't know what? The psychiatrist tells us that he was not
7 aggressive, a family man, accepting orders. We have science on the one
8 hand and lightly uttered insulting terms on the other. So we have
9 science, the psychologist and psychiatrist, and on the other side, lightly
10 used, difficult words. These are hurtful.
11 We had a well-known Yugoslav poet called Miljkovic who killed
12 himself, who committed suicide, and he said, "An overly strong word killed
13 me." I'm sure this is difficult to interpret. Words are our weapons as
14 jurists, but we have to be careful how we use them.
15 So one morning Mr. Mladjo Radic came to the Omarska Police Station
16 Department, to his regular job - and this was his regular work until
17 retirement - and he was told that he had to go to the investigations
18 centre. They put him in a van, they take him there, they give him a guard
19 post, and that is where he had to stand. And he did so for two and a half
21 The Prosecution, as the main proof against Mladjo Radic, showed
22 you a clip, a video clip, which was meant to show the macho position of
23 Mladjo Radic from which you are asked to infer that he was a shift leader,
24 which is command responsibility under Article 7(3). Look at that film
25 carefully and look at the still made from that video and which shows who
1 are the people liable under 7(3). This is Prosecution Exhibit -- I'll
2 give you the number later. We see Simo Drljaca, Meakic, and two other
3 officers. None of them are holding a rifle to their stomach. They are
4 dressed normally. And by their position and attitude, they show that they
5 have power. In fact, that is how it was. Simo Drljaca describes himself
6 as the commander of the centre. Meakic was without any doubt the
7 commander of the security. And these are the two who belonged to the
9 But why Mladjo Radic? If we're talking about command
10 responsibility, 7(3), why isn't he in the company of these others? Making
11 statements to the press, showing them around, that is how people in
12 command behave. He was photographed together with all the other guards at
13 his guard post.
14 Another conclusion that you are asked to make on the basis of that
15 photograph is that he was shift leader. If he was, why isn't Milojica Kos
16 and Gruban, why don't we have them at the same post, standing in the
17 circular window as Mladjo Radic is, if that is the position of the shift
18 leader? So we know if one person passes on duty to another, as the
19 Prosecution would have us believe, they would have to have the same post.
20 It would be first Krkan with the rifle, then Gruban, then Kos. I don't
21 know who.
22 Almost all the Prosecution witnesses have said that Mladjo Radic
23 was more or less always there except occasionally, when it was very hot,
24 as Mladjo Radic explained; or when Meakic told him, "Go and answer the
25 phone in the office"; at times when he was given another assignment to
1 bring someone over, to bring something, and so on. But on the whole,
2 mostly his guard post was where he was photographed. He didn't
3 intentionally go there that day to be photographed.
4 So from the same video clip, the Defence draws quite the opposite
5 conclusion from the one drawn by the Prosecution. This film proves that
6 Mladjo Radic was an ordinary guard. He had the qualifications of an
7 ordinary guard. His whole 20-year career was the career of an ordinary
9 What distinguishes him from others? He is an active policeman and
10 not a reservist. He was active as a policeman in the area of Prijedor,
11 Ljubija, Omarska, and so on, and people knew him. People knew him because
12 he had a specific appearance and a specific nickname. And that is how he
13 is easily remembered and that is why his shift is referred to as Krkan's
14 shift, that is the reason, because you identify a shift by someone you
16 So as not to repeat everything that Mr. Krstan Simic and
17 Mr. O'Sullivan have said, mutatis mutandis, the Defence supports
18 everything they have said regarding 7(1) and 7(3) and the organisation of
19 the centre.
20 I would just like to add a few words regarding Mladjo Radic to
21 make it quite clear that he does not belong under 7(3). Was he de jure
22 shift leader? For him to be that, there would have to be a decision. In
23 the same way that Meakic was appointed security commander, so all the
24 others would need a written decision for their appointments and Mladjo
25 Radic would need to have such a decision as a shift leader. There is no
1 question that there is no such written order, so de jure he was not that.
2 Now, de facto, a question arises that was repeatedly mentioned by
3 Your Honours. How is it possible for the same number of people who were
4 in the Omarska Police Station Department to now cover a large centre?
5 There may have been hundreds of thousands of men. And for nothing to
6 change in the command structure, how is that possible? For Meakic to be
7 at two places at once? How is it possible for all those tasks to be
8 carried out without assistants, deputies, chiefs to have been appointed?
9 Let us deal with one thing at a time. To put together the shift
10 leader and the corporal of the guards, a mixture of military and civilian
11 terms is unpermissible, which the Prosecution is doing. A shift corporal
12 in Tito's Guards was a general. When I served in the JNA, I had that
13 rank. It is the lowest possible military rank, corporal of the guards. I
14 never got to Tito. Maybe I would have become a general too.
15 If he had been shift leader, somebody would have had to appoint
16 him as such. However, we also have a formal reason to claim that that was
17 not the case. In 1994, two years after the relevant period, he was
18 appointed shift leader. Why would he be appointed twice? Why wouldn't he
19 receive a salary as an ordinary policeman in 1992 and 1993? And only in
20 1994, because he was about to retire, he was appointed shift leader to get
21 a slightly higher pension. No one can be appointed to the same position
23 Can we indirectly conclude from his conduct that he did duties
24 which were reminiscent of those of a shift leader. Look at the very broad
25 spectrum of things that were done; lining people up, hoisting the flags,
1 singing, going left and right, moving around, saying something they don't
2 know what. And then we hear the -- there was a rumour in the camp that he
3 was shift leader. We also heard that he was the commander and all kinds
4 of other things.
5 So nowhere have we seen or heard that anyone said that Krkan
6 ordered somebody to be beaten, somebody to be killed, somebody to be
7 placed somewhere, that he actually issued an order. Nobody has told us
8 that except by inference.
9 When you see the way he assisted people by bringing a bag of bread
10 to the hangar to be distributed among the detainees and the moment he
11 left, another guard grabbed that bread to give it to the pigs. If he's
12 such an authority, if he's a shift leader, how can a guard in his own
13 shift turn a deaf ear to his order?
14 The Prosecution asked all witnesses: "Did Krkan prevent them from
15 beating you?" Except for two cases which we will analyse later, no one
16 said that they were present when this occurred. Then came the next
17 question: "Did Krkan give any orders to anyone?" And what was the answer
18 given by all the witnesses, all of them, without exception? "There was
19 anarchy in the centre. You could be beaten by anyone. You could be
20 killed by anyone. No one needed an order to do that."
21 Therefore, if we start out from this point, which is whether
22 Mladjo Radic actually ordered somebody to stop beating somebody else, if
23 we turn the question around that way, we ought to turn it around again and
24 ask whether any -- he ordered anybody to be beaten or killed, and more
25 than one person was beaten, as we know.
1 In the introduction made by Mr. Niemann, he said that the
2 Prosecution would show that there was -- that the Defence will move to
3 show that there was anarchy in the camp and no clear line of command. We,
4 through witnesses, showed who was there, all the people who were there,
5 and not even Meakic had control over them. We had the army from the
6 outside that was placed -- we had the army outside and we had the army
7 inside. And we listened to a soldier here who said that he didn't know
8 who his commander was either but he knew that the police wasn't.
9 Then we had the police force from Banja Luka. These people
10 weren't superior to them there. They were there for 20 days. Not even
11 Drljaca was able to undertake anything, and they did what they did. They
12 looted, pilfered, killed, beat and so on.
13 Then we have the inspectors as another category. They came by a
14 design of their own. They had their own policemen, policemen who brought
15 in the detainees and serviced the investigators. These policemen did not
16 stand guard. On guard was Mladjo Radic.
17 Witness AK, a Prosecution witness, used the word anarchy himself,
18 the term "anarchy." He said, "That at any time, anybody could have beaten
19 us where and when they liked." Now, let us take a look at that, what the
20 other witness said was that people came in from outside as well.
21 The entrance gate was one kilometre away from the administrative
22 building which is where Mladjo Radic was. The factory guard was on guard
23 at the entrance gate and some other people. So the entrance and exit from
24 the centre was not under the competence and jurisdiction of the Omarska
1 I have said that the shift was referred to as Krkan's shift
2 because people knew him, knew Krkan, because he was one of the three
3 professional policemen who were in Omarska; Meakic, Kvocka, and Radic,
4 those were the three professional policemen there. He had been in service
5 for a long time and many people knew him.
6 But I think you all noticed, and that is the pivotal point, that
7 all shifts were bad, but the Krkan's was the worst. And probably when you
8 came into the customs control in Holland, people would say Krkan's shift
9 was the worst. As soon as they entered the Netherlands, people would say
10 that. But when we actually asked them why Krkan's shift was the worst, we
11 asked: "Did Krkan beat you? No. Did Krkan kill anyone? No." They
12 mentioned names, these witnesses mentioned names, the names of four
13 people; Drazenko Predojevic.
14 They also mentioned another person who was never in Krkan's shift
15 which was established later on. His name was Pavlic. And they spoke
16 about Pavlic's misdeeds and said that was Krkan's shift. He was heard
17 here, and we were able to ascertain that this Pavlic was never in Krkan's
18 shift. But according to the various witnesses, he was in Krkan's shift
19 too, and that is why Krkan's shift was said to be the worst shift.
20 It's easy to put a label on someone, to utter words easily, but
21 when you come down to brass tacks, you have to see what this actually
22 means and why somebody said something, what the person was like, whether
23 he liked to eat a lot and they said it because of that or whether he was
24 actually aggressive.
25 The truth is something that has been falsely presented here, that
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and the English transcripts.
1 is why I say you have not gained the right impression. Radic said to
2 the -- testified, the Prosecution says that Radic said that he did not
3 know who was going on, what was happening. That, quite simply, is not
5 Radic said he knew what was going on. He saw that there were many
6 dirty people there. Of course they would be dirty when there was so many
7 people in such a small space. He heard moans and groans. He knew what
8 was going on, and he went to Drljaca and asked him to release him from
9 that duty. And we know what Drljaca said in response to his request to be
10 transferred. He said, "It is not up to you to do any thinking of your own
11 but to execute orders." And the kind of characteristics that the
12 psychiatrist found Krkan had, he said, "I understand. Yes, sir." He went
13 home and complained to his wife. That's all he could do.
14 And now we come to the most subtle point which is the key issue in
15 this case. If we were to take, for purposes of example, that all the
16 witnesses had told the truth and that is that Mladjo Radic never killed or
17 beat anyone, and if you take him to have said the truth and when he said
18 that he would not beat anybody or not kill anybody, that this was
19 recompense for himself in a way, redemption for himself, and in this way,
20 he was looking after his family and keeping his three sons and family
22 This brings us to a moral issue, not a criminal issue, according
23 to the Statute in Articles 2 to 5, but a moral dilemma as to what a human
24 being can do faced with a situation that kind. Because we must ask
25 ourselves the alternative. The alternative was for him to escape.
1 Ms. Somers even said that in a way. If one person could go to be
2 butchered, then Mladjo Radic could have escaped as well. He could have
3 not turned up to work, but what would have happened to him? What would
4 have been the consequences of his action? So that was the dilemma he
5 faced. Quite certainly he wouldn't have been allowed to live in peace.
6 We have the military court's decisions which we have attached to
7 our final brief, and we see these judgements. We see what happened to the
8 people who left. So let me stress this was a moral dilemma. Perhaps a
9 stronger personality, a more resolute personality could have said, "Well,
10 I can't take this anymore. I have to leave regardless of the consequences
11 to myself, my wife, and my children."
12 But we're not all made of the same material. We are all different
13 human beings. What weighed heavily was his patriarchal upbringing and his
14 care and responsibility for his family and his children. And he said to
15 himself, "I'm not going to do anything active, and come what may, I'll try
16 and get through it somehow."
17 Don't forget another thing, they were all told that this would go
18 on for two or three days. That this was a centre. Something had
19 happened, the takeover of Prijedor. We are going to rally up the people
20 here to ascertain who the culprits were. This will last for a few days
21 and then we will go home. That was the general belief.
22 This assertion stated by Meakic which was repeated here by all the
23 witnesses, they all said that they didn't know how long this would take,
24 and it was prolonged for one, two, three days, ten days, the first group,
25 the second group. This led to the fact that the command structure in
1 Omarska didn't change at all. They were told that the investigation
2 centre, which was to last for the next two years. They weren't told that
3 it would last for two years, that they would have 2000 detainees.
4 Had they have known that, the command structure would have
5 changed. There would have been a camp commander, there would have been a
6 camp management and everything else, but all this was supposed to be
7 temporary, provisional. They expected the whole thing to be disbanded in
8 just a few days' time as, in fact, did happen on the 6th of August.
9 Mladjo Radic said in -- when cross-examined in answer to questions
10 put to him by the Prosecution that he heard moans and groans and that he
11 saw people who had a stench about them, who were black and blue with
12 bruises. He didn't say that he did not see dead people or people being
13 beaten. It is the thesis and the position of the Prosecution that he was
14 in the command structure because somebody said, "Stop the beatings,
15 Krkan's coming." This was taken to show that. One witness said another
16 name, not Krkan and the Prosecution is well aware of that. But that
17 person is another accused so I don't want to mention his name.
18 But why would they be afraid if somebody had said Krkan's coming
19 in Krkan was in this structure and if they had this general purpose,
20 common purpose, this genocide intent. Why would Krkan then prevent
21 something from happening for which he was positioned there to implement?
22 So that, too, speaks about the individual trends, individual
23 statements made by individuals. And he said, "I will not beat. I will
24 not kill, and I don't want to see this happen. I will help to the best of
25 my ability as much as I am able to."
1 Let us go back to the beginning now. We have ascertained that
2 there was no responsibility, especially of this lowest level echelon for
3 the establishment of the investigation centre and the conditions that
4 prevailed in them. The second part of the indictment and the charges
5 against Mladjo Radic is what they did to improve conditions which they
6 were what they were. They were terrible conditions, inhumane. We agree
7 with all.
8 You were you were always present. You know that I said to all the
9 witnesses that came here that I am very sorry that they had to experience
10 the difficult things they did. But where is Mladjo Radic's role and
11 position in all this? Let us have a look at that.
12 Now, what does the Prosecution wish us to believe? If we bring in
13 witnesses, and we did bring in about 40 witnesses who testified that
14 Mladjo Radic helped people. He helped the whole Ljubija group plus the
15 women which would make it at least 150 people from Ljubija and the women
16 as well, even the ones who claimed that they were raped, and I'll come to
17 that later, said that he brought in food to them. He would give --
18 distribute the food to the guards and tell them to distribute it on to the
20 Now, if the witnesses say that someone did that, then the
21 Prosecution says, "There you are. That's proof that he was in the command
22 structure. He was in superior command." If we say that he did not do
23 that then he is a person without any soul. He didn't do anything to
24 improve conditions.
25 So if Mladjo Radic gives a piece of bread to somebody then he --
1 necessarily means that he was a shift leader. If not, he was a bull, a
2 sadism, a psychopath, or whatever. So you can't have it both ways, you
3 must decide what you want to prove and show. You can't be doing two
4 things at the same time.
5 Had every one of the guards tried to protect these 150 people,
6 attempted to protect them, this would have been an enormous thing, 150
7 people. There were 150 people from Ljubija, and many witnesses,
8 Prosecution witnesses such as Witness Y, P, E, all these witnesses
9 confirmed this, bore this out. And all our witnesses from DC1 to DC7 plus
10 Mujagic also confirmed this. They said the whole group was protected
11 during lunchtime.
12 However, to final dilemma through this protection that he offered,
13 is it -- did he show what is necessary under Article 7(1) or 7(3) or did
14 he show the humane qualities that he had, the humane qualities of Mladjo
15 Radic? And we're going to show this, quite simply, in a different way.
16 If he did have the power to order any of this, first of all why did he do
17 so clandestinely by bringing in food, medicines, letters, and so on. Why
18 did he do this secretly if he was one of the commanders there, he would
19 have done it quite officially, quite openly, out in the open.
23 (redacted) If somebody is a commander, if he is the head person there,
24 the chief, why does he have to hide and do things secretly? He could just
25 come up, take the man out, and take him off. I cannot understand the fact
1 that humanism, humanitarian qualities, humane qualities are mixed up with
2 command responsibility, these are two quite different and separate
4 We have the testimony of witnesses from the kitchen, and we know
5 that suppers were distributed to people who stayed on in the night shift.
6 This food that arrived in the evening from the kitchen was food that was
7 distributed by Krkan to the women who had their meals upstairs on the
8 first floor. Is that proof that he was shift leader as well then because
9 he said, "Give this piece of bread to so and so or you take a piece of
10 bread," or things like that.
11 Let us conclude. One thing is certain, and that is that in the
12 Investigation Centre of Omarska, chaos reigned. Chaos. The centre was of
13 a temporary nature, provisional nature, and that's why things were like
14 that. To all practical terms, nobody knew who was whose superior, and the
15 30 people who were on the shift didn't listen to anyone. He did no one
16 [as interpreted]. Many of the guards that came here said that nobody
17 could issue them any orders. And don't forget there were reserve
18 policemen there too. Nobody knew who these reserve policemen were. Were
19 they people who had lost someone dear to them at the front and reacted as
20 they did?
21 So where does the power, where does the power of Mladjo Radic lie
22 in preventing this? How could he have prevented this? I said that from
23 the video clip that you could see quite clearly where his guard post was.
24 That was what I wanted to say with respect to charges under Article 7(3).
25 I would now like to bring up two names which the Prosecution
1 referred to in respect to Article 7(1). They are Hase Icic and Nusret
3 Hase Icic was the only man who the Prosecution was able to find
4 and the Bosniak Intelligence Service, which interrogated all the people
5 who passed through Omarska, the only person who has said that he ever saw
6 Mladjo Radic do anything in the "white house." Nobody said that he was
7 present at all. Nobody even saw him go into the "white house" or pass by
8 the "white house." Only this man, Hase Icic, said that.
9 And what does Icic say? That he came in the morning at 10.00 or
10 before 10.00, in the early morning hours, that's when he came; that he saw
11 Mladjo Radic when he got off the bus and then they went off to the "white
12 house." In the evening, at night, at about 2300 hours, he once again sees
13 Mladjo Radic who now goes into the "white house" and is supposed to take
14 him off for interrogation.
15 Now let us stop, let us pause. Everybody said, including the
16 Prosecution witnesses, that there were three shifts. Everybody testified
17 to that, that the shifts rotated 7.00 in the morning, 7.00 in the
18 evening. Now, if Hase Icic didn't see Mladjo Radic at 10.00 a.m., he
19 could not have seen him at 11.00 at night performing his duties. He might
20 have seen him pass by or having a cup of coffee off duty, because he had
21 no transportation to take him home. But on duty, no, because another
22 shift would have taken over at that time.
23 How come it was only Hase Icic who was interrogated by the
24 investigators at 11.00 p.m. at night? The others didn't. We heard that
25 the women went to sleep at 9.00, 9.30, having cleaned up all the rooms.
1 Now, suddenly Hase Icic says that he was interrogated at 11.00 at night.
2 Nobody said that Mladjo Radic, Krkan, asked for money from anyone, wanted
3 to extort money from anyone. The only person who said that was Hase
4 Icic. And the only man who said that Mladjo Radic was present during a
5 beating, not that he ordered a beating to take place but that he had seen
6 it taking place, was Hase Icic again.
7 There is a Latin maxim, testis unum, testis nullum. That is not
8 an absolute because it is testis unum but not testis nullum in the case of
9 rape. But testis unum, testis nullum is applied in continental law in
10 Yugoslavia linked to another Latin law maxim, and that is in dubio, when
11 in doubt, pro reo.
12 So how are we now going to assess the statement made by Hase
13 Icic? He is the only man who has said something that nobody else ever
14 saw, heard, and testimony different from everyone else. Not only is his
15 testimony hanging in the air as an individual, but when you bring it into
16 context and in relation to what the other witnesses said, and I repeat
17 they were Prosecution witnesses, it indicates that he is contradictory not
18 only to the other witnesses but contradictory to himself as well.
19 Therefore, we cannot believe him beyond reasonable doubt, because
20 everything that he says was doubtful.
21 The second witness to which the Prosecution refers, particularly
22 in their closing argument, is Nusret Sivac. Those are the only two men
23 that Mladjo Radic is charged with under 7(1).
24 Now, what does he say? There were some beatings on the way to the
25 restaurant, to the canteen, and this beating in which Nusret Sivac was
1 involved, many witnesses have testified to, when the floor was slippery.
2 Some said from water, others from detergent, others from sweat. And we
3 know that there were not the necessary sanitary conditions. If they had
4 detergent to wash dishes, then it means that the hygiene conditions were
5 not that bad, and so on and so forth.
6 However, Nusret Sivac was the only man to state that Mladjo Radic
7 was, in a way, in charge of all that. But he was the only one to claim
8 that. Other people were heard, other testimonies were heard, and he was
9 seen upstairs in the tower at his usual guard post, not that he was
10 downstairs and that would let people move in and out.
11 And that same man, Nusret Sivac, said that he bowed down his head,
12 and that when he raised his head, I remember him answer, "No, I didn't see
13 Mladjo Radic there anymore." I remember that answer very clearly. So
14 how, then, was he in command and present? So when he raised his head, he
15 was not present anymore. When he began his testimony, he said Mladjo
16 Radic was present; when he finished his testimony, he said he wasn't. So
17 testis unum, testis nullum, and in dubio pro reo. So I do not think that
18 the Prosecution has shown beyond reasonable doubt Radic's involvement in
20 This brings me, Your Honours, to Counts 14 -- that is, the counts
21 involving rape, Counts 14 to 17. I don't know whether we should at this
22 point move into private session. I will endeavour and try to avoid
23 mentioning anything that might be harmful in any way but ...
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, it's really up to
25 you. If you think it will be easier for you to address the issue in
1 private session, then we will do so, at least for a couple of moments.
2 Let us move into private session.
3 [Private session]
11 Pages 12581-12586 redacted. Private session.
25 [Open session]
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So we are in open session now.
2 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] The Defence feels that it has devoted
3 sufficient attention to this issue, and we will no longer refer to the
4 brief which discusses all these matters in greater detail.
5 Let me now focus briefly on the closing arguments of the
6 Prosecution orally delivered, and this is something I think I have to
7 comment upon. It is not a matter of the sentence proposed by the
8 Prosecution, that is their right to propose whatever they wish, but there
9 are words which it is difficult to utter without giving them very serious
11 To say of someone that there are no mitigating circumstances, this
12 implies tonnes of burden on an individual, tonnes of weight. Bearing in
13 mind everything I have said about Mladjo Radic and his life, after all, he
14 spent his whole life decently without violating the law ever, without
15 doing anything shameful. On the contrary, everyone describes him in the
16 best terms, even Muslims. So let me just remind you of the people from
17 Ljubija. Let me remind you of the Croats who spoke well about him, his
18 kums, his friends.
19 No one said that he was anybody's enemy. He was never
20 discriminatory ethnically. He had a family of three sons. The oldest,
21 again, is in the police in the K4 and UNMIK and all those international
22 forces have no criticism against him. He is here to listen. We are
23 talking about children. What is it like for a child to hear that his
24 father has no mitigating circumstances?
25 So we have to pay attention as to the words we use. And when we
1 mete out a sentence in Yugoslavia, we know exactly what mitigating factors
2 are; family status, criminal record, any recognition. Did any one of them
3 say that they were proud of being there, that they were happy that they
4 were in that centre? Didn't you hear from each and every one of them that
5 it was terrible for them? They wanted to get out as quickly as they
6 could? Didn't you hear from all four accused the same, and yet we are
7 told that they sadistically enjoyed the suffering of a people that they
8 had shared life with for decades.
9 We hear that they are going back to Prijedor and links are being
10 re-established among the ethnic communities. So I really don't
11 understand. I find it very difficult to accept such harsh words. Why
12 would he have not accepted certain adjudicated facts and other things if
13 they had been happy to be there, they carried letters, packages, and other
14 things if they were happy to see those people behind bars? I really
15 cannot understand that.
16 Then also allow me to remind you of the words uttered by
17 Prosecutor Niemann, that every cooperation with the Tribunal will be
18 rewarded. What did Mladjo Radic fail to do as requested by the
19 Prosecution? And he reward he got was that there are no mitigating
20 circumstances. Is Ms. Somers asking us to convey a message to all others,
21 "Do not cooperation with the Tribunal. Behave like a person who behaved
22 in that way because whatever you do, you will be found not to have
23 mitigating circumstances."
24 Those of us who have been here in this Tribunal for years are
25 trying to persuade people to surrender and to cooperate, and this Tribunal
1 will know how to appreciate every positive step and that they will know
2 how to weigh their guilt.
3 If an ordinary guard is to be sentenced for life, what are we
4 going to do with the leaders? Are we going to impale them or ask for a
5 death penalty or what? The old Greeks used to say "pan metron ariston,"
6 and I originate from there. So the important thing is to have a feeling
7 of balance.
8 Allow me, finally, to say something that I hesitated a lot about,
9 whether I should say that or not. I am a member of a very small nation, a
10 nation that was exposed to something in 1999, the bombing by the strongest
11 forces that exist in the world. In that bombing, 1.700 civilians; women
12 and children were killed, and several hundred were wounded. All this was
13 described by Jamie Shea as collateral damage, all those dead and wounded
14 people. We were horrified. Fortunately the world was horrified too.
15 This was described as collateral damage. Men, people cannot be
16 called collateral damage. Never did any one of us say that the dead
17 Muslims were collateral damage. "I beat him. I didn't know he would
18 die." That is collateral damage.
19 The radio television of Belgrade was hit. Sixteen journalists
20 were killed, hospitals, schools, a train was machine-gunned, a convoy of
21 Albanian and Gypsy refugees were shelled.
22 I'm not saying this for any ulterior purpose, but simply to
23 underline that words are very dangerous. For us, words are our
24 instruments, our tools, and we must have a scale to measure them. It is
25 terrible to say of someone that he is guilty. It's easy to say of someone
1 that he is not guilty one someone is not guilty; when he is really
2 innocent. I'm not meaning a mistake. But it is very bad to use words
3 like bull, sadist, and so on.
4 And allow me, finally, to thank you for your attention, to
5 apologise once again to the interpreters. To thank you for your patience
6 and to add about common purpose. I didn't discuss this because I don't
7 see what I could add to what I have written and what Mr. O'Sullivan has
9 Even when talking about a common purpose, we have to bear in mind
10 who we are talking about. A village policeman belonging to a police
11 station department in Omarska. What common purpose can he have except to
12 put his children through school? It is difficult to push a common
13 policeman into a common purpose.
14 Let us not forget that the Muslims were the first to form their
15 organisation and the SDS was the last. And if someone did have a purpose,
16 they will come here and we have them here or, rather, you have them here
17 almost all of them in your hands or at least indictments for all of them.
18 It's just a question of time as the Prosecutor has said.
19 So let us make that distinction. Who could have had a purpose?
20 Who was the creator? The sentences that are being proposed by Ms. Somers
21 are for those people. Otherwise, we will have no criteria. That is why I
22 said at the very beginning that it is extremely important for this
23 Tribunal to convict for serious crimes and not all. That it sentence even
24 in the case of rape, if the object was sexual violation, that is not the
25 competence of this Tribunal. It is the competence of a regular court.
1 Let me not go back to the testimony of Stanko Beatovic who went a
2 little further than he should have, but we know what rape is. Use of
3 force or threat must be present for the existence of rape, the criminal
4 act of rape. And resistance might be present on the part of the victim.
5 And when someone is in a camp, then the resistance doesn't have to be
6 waving around hands and legs and screaming, but it is sufficient for that
7 person to indicate her opposition. And all this I have discussed in my
8 written brief. So please, when meting out your judgement, please bear in
9 mind the meaning of words and the level of the people we are talking
11 Omarska was certainly a disgrace, but it is also true that the
12 people we are trying here are of the lowest level. There's no one below
13 them. We cannot treat them as if they were Karadzic and Mladic so that is
14 the distinction.
15 Thank you very much. In my proposition, I submit that the
16 Prosecution has not proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Mladjo
17 Radic. Thank you.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Fila.
19 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I do apologise, I'm sorry. May I say
20 something else to Your Honours?
21 Having used less time than I am entitled to, and as you know, I
22 use Latin a lot, there is another Latin saying I would like to say, to use
23 bis dat qui cito dat, who speaks briefly gains double. Thank you.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Fila. That was
25 your choice to say one time so we appreciate your effort. We will now
1 have a half-hour break upon which we will start with the closing arguments
2 for the accused Mr. Zigic. A half-hour break now.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.52 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 11.27 a.m.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
6 So we're now going to proceed with the closing arguments on behalf
7 of the accused, Mr. Zigic.
8 Mr. Stojanovic, you have the floor.
9 [Zigic Defence Closing Statement]
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Your Honours, I must admit that the inspiration and guideline for
12 this closing argument has, to a large extent, been a very frequent
13 question which was asked by our Honorable President by the witnesses at
14 the end of their testimonies, "Is there anything you wish to say? Is
15 there anything that you wish to add, something that you haven't said so
16 far?" But it seems to me that the answer to this question would result in
17 a lengthy and complex argument with various subject matters, a little bit
18 of everything.
19 However, I think that even such a complex argument could be
20 divided into three major groups. The first part would actually be a
21 supplement to the answers to some questions that have been raised or
22 debated so far to a great extent. The second part of the argument would
23 address the final submissions of the Prosecution. Finally, the third part
24 of the closing argument would be a kind of summary of the trial of these
25 proceedings as it is interpreted and viewed by this Defence team with some
1 brief explanations.
2 As part of this first group, first part of the argument, I would
3 like to address the issue of persecution as it is defined in Article 5 (H)
4 of the Statute of the Tribunal. "Persecutions on political, racial, and
5 religious ground," as it is phrased in the original text of the Tribunal.
6 As early as in the Nuremberg Statute, instead of the word, of the conjunct
7 "and" which linked up all these various bases for the persecution was the
8 word "or." And we do not know why the Statute of this Tribunal has chosen
9 the word "and," the conjunct "and" which creates a certain confusion, that
10 is to say, it seems that for the offence of persecution to exist, it is
11 necessary to have all three requirements, all three grounds fulfilled, and
12 in a cumulative way.
13 However, we don't think it is very difficult to solve the issue
14 because the word, the offence, itself, that is "persecutions" is stated in
15 plural form. And it follows from that that from the existence of one
16 single criminal offence of persecution, it is enough to have only one of
17 these grounds. However, there can also be two grounds or even all three
18 grounds for the offence of persecution to be established.
19 However, the list of grounds for persecution has not been
20 exhausted in that manner. Persecution can be committed on other grounds
21 as well. Persecutions both of individuals but also smaller or larger
22 groups of individuals. There can be, for example, persecution on
23 economical grounds, persecution of drug addicts, persecution of sects
24 which need not be of religious character.
25 Furthermore, there can be persecution of refugees from other
1 countries or immigrants from other countries, persecution of members of
2 various other movements which are not of political character; persecution
3 of homosexuals, and various other types of persecutions.
4 However, these persecutions do not constitute the criminal offence
5 that is described in Article 5(h) of the Statute. In our submission, not
6 even the persecution of enemy armed forces in war, in particular, in
7 theatre of operations, even if the war does fulfil the criteria described
8 in Article 5(h) of the Statute can constitute the offence of persecution,
9 and not only the persecution of members of armed forces.
10 For example, we do not see why members of the opposing party in an
11 armed conflict which can also be a civil war, the other belligerent party
12 would place such individuals, would place such members, would assign such
13 members of the opposing party to sensitive important positions and posts.
14 Let me mention the example of the civil war in the States or the
15 example of the civil war in Spain. So members of the confederation forces
16 of the old south, did they remain on key positions within the armed forces
17 of the north or did they ever hold any political, important political
18 positions of the north including important economy positions in similar
20 Citizens of Germany, did they remain on such positions in the
21 United States and Great Britain during the Second World War, for example?
22 It is therefore necessary to establish the grounds of persecution both in
23 the indictment and in the judgement, but it is also necessary to provide
24 detailed explanation for such grounds because they constitute an important
25 element of the offence without which the offence of persecution, as it is
1 described in Article 5(h) of the Statute, cannot exist.
2 In addition, one should make a distinction and one should restrict
3 oneself to the persecution which is not merely a standard consequence, a
4 usual consequence of any armed conflict. So far, Your Honours, this has
5 not been done. Often attempts were made to merely allege grounds for
6 persecution but in a quite inadmissible, impermissible way by merely
7 alleging that the accused committed persecution on political, racial, or
8 religious grounds.
9 However, it is our submission, Your Honours, that no person can be
10 convicted for a serious criminal offence in a rather unclear or
11 unspecified manner. But even worse consequence would be to have a
12 conviction for something that was not even committed. If we say that John
13 Doe, if we allege that John Doe committed persecution on political,
14 racial, or religious grounds, by using the word "or," we make a very firm
15 assumption that some of it is lacking or did not exist.
16 The word "or" presupposes exclusion of some kind. Therefore,
17 there is something that is lacking, that did not exist, yet a conviction
18 is sought for that act. For the existence of this particular criminal
19 offence, a discriminatory intent is also required. Therefore, what is
20 required here is the most severe type of premeditation, and in that
21 respect, we cannot speak of the application of the mental element or
22 recklessness. Not even dolus eventualis in respect of that element is
24 Severe forms of inebriation, the state in which certain criminal
25 offences are committed, cannot be even linked with this type of intent.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and the English transcripts.
1 This is obvious, this is manifest also in the case in point, where the
2 grossest type of behaviour in a state of inebriation was demonstrated
3 towards everyone. There is considerable case law coming from national
4 courts in Yugoslavia in respect of this problem and for these types of
5 criminal offences, but that case law is not uncommon with Anglo-Saxon
6 courts either.
7 There seems to have been a pause in the interpretation so let me
8 repeat my last sentence.
9 In that respect --
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] There seems to be a problem.
11 Just a moment, please. I think that we are now ready to continue. I
12 think so at least.
13 Mr. Stojanovic, you may continue.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 In this respect, there is considerable case law coming from the
16 national courts in Yugoslavia for similar criminal offences, but that case
17 law is not uncommon with Anglo-Saxon courts either.
18 By way of illustration, let me quote the judgement, the decision
19 in case DPP versus Majewski of 1977. A United Kingdom court held the
21 "Where the crime charged is an crime of specific intent,
22 intoxication may amount to a defence if it is sufficient
23 to negative intention."
24 Speaking of discrimination, as this Defence team has already
25 indicated in its final brief, the discrimination presupposes a comparison
1 of some kind, implies that a comparison is being made.
2 Discrimination in itself is a particular kind of treatment of a
3 specific group of people, a group of people, of individuals, which
4 corresponds to the grounds listed in Article 5(H) of the Statute, which
5 treatment is much worse than the treatment of a different group of
6 people. For the record, I stated one additional requirement, and that is
7 a continuously worse treatment, treatment perpetrated in a continuous
9 This other group of people, this other group of individuals must
10 be of the same kind as the group of individuals which is discriminated
11 towards, and to which the discriminator belongs in a certain manner.
12 However, what is lacking here is the proper definition of the group which
13 is being discriminated against; whether the members of that group are only
14 Muslims, as it has been often alleged, or both Muslims and Croats, or
15 other non-Serbs as well, which would then constitute discrimination on
16 ethnic grounds; or was it the discrimination of political character, which
17 the Prosecution failed to specify in any way, although this assumption
18 might seem to be more realistic than the one advocated by the Prosecution,
19 a political persecution in which religious and national elements were
20 abused for the purpose of achieving exclusively political goals.
21 Was it only a group of Muslims from the camps, whereas the
22 attitude of Zigic towards numerous Muslims outside the camps at the same
23 time was not addressed at all.
24 Finally, was it only a group of individuals who, in the opinion of
25 their captors, were extremists, because from the facts established, it
1 could be seen that certain prohibited actions of the accused Zigic were
2 perpetrated only against certain specific individuals. Therefore, for the
3 discrimination to be proved, it is necessary to make that comparison, in
4 particular in the case where established facts point to that reality.
5 As far as the accused Zigic is concerned, facts have indicated
6 that, beginning with the fact relating to Zigic's conviction in Banja
7 Luka. However, no comparison was made, nor has it been proved with
8 anything that Zigic had adopted a different and continuously different
9 treatment, generally speaking, towards, according to the allegations of
10 the Prosecution, a discriminated group in relation to the members of some
11 other group.
12 Finally, it is our submission, Your Honours, that discriminatory
13 intent must fulfil the requirement of a widespread character or systematic
14 character of the acts alleged. Discriminatory intent must fulfil that
15 condition, must fulfil that test.
16 Mens rea as such must follow the grounds of actus reus, which
17 means that the intent on the part of the perpetrator must be a firm one,
18 must be a continuous one, relatively speaking, and all-encompassing.
19 Therefore, such an intent towards individual members of the group and not
20 towards the group in its entirety, or only at one isolated moment or
21 place, would be irrelevant.
22 The second question that we would like to address here is the
23 dilemma. Recklessness or dolus eventualis. It would appear that the
24 Prosecution, in its final brief, even appears to equate the two, if we
25 have understood correctly the formulation used in paragraph 108 of that
1 final brief. But it is not the same thing.
2 The Anglo-Saxon category of recklessness is closer to negligence
3 than intent with respect to the consequences of the act in question, and
4 it is less favourable vis-a-vis the accused than dolus eventualis, and
5 even more so than dolus directus. In the continental system of Europe,
6 for acts of this kind, as a rule, what is sought is dolus directus
7 followed by dolus eventualis.
8 There are no grounds, especially not in the Statute of the
9 Tribunal, for the responsibility of the accused to be expanded according
10 to the mens rea element. There is no logic either, as we put forward in
11 our final brief, for the Anglo-Saxon mental element to impose itself to
12 the European man instead of an existing European one, especially as the
13 latter, on a world level, is more universal, particularly for grievous
15 As far as the indictment is concerned, which refers to Mr. Zigic,
16 we believe that these debates can be highly topical in charges for the
17 beating of certain individuals where these individuals later died. It is
18 our position that this problem can be solved easily with the application
19 of a solution which has already become present and generally applicable in
20 international law, which has been well thought out and dovetailed amongst
21 dozens of states.
22 We are talking about the solution pursuant to Article 30,
23 emanating from Article 30 of the Statute of the International Criminal
24 Court, where a person can be deemed responsible who effected actus reus
25 with intent and knowledge, along with a highly precisely defined intent
1 and knowledge, if the knowledge and intent have been precisely defined.
2 However, neither when it comes to intent nor when it comes to knowledge is
3 there any recklessness to be found.
4 The relationship towards the consequence there is based on the
5 ordinary course of events, in the ordinary course of events. This last
6 sentence has, as its implication -- has an implication not only with
7 respect to mens rea but also to actus reus.
8 In respect of causality, the Statute of the ICC quite obviously
9 advocates the theory of adequate causality. Why and on what grounds would
10 this Tribunal place far less advantageous circumstances for the accused's
11 responsibility than has been dovetailed or is applied through the vast
12 majority of countries throughout the world? Why would it want to do
13 this? Especially as I'm convinced that this Tribunal represents a
14 forerunner of an international criminal court with great prospects that,
15 for a certain time, it de facto be transformed into precisely that.
16 As to the common purpose theory or doctrine, this Defence has, on
17 several occasions, addressed the issue and we wish at this point to
18 emphasise something with respect to its application. The doctrine or
19 theory is an exception from customary individual criminal responsibility,
20 and that is why it must be interpreted narrowly when it comes to
21 application. We think that this was done precisely in the Appeals Chamber
22 judgement with respect to the Tadic case as well as in the judgements upon
23 which they refer.
24 In two other cases, Essen Lynching and Borkum Island, the common
25 purpose of German citizens was not ascertained as being the persecution of
1 other nations although this, undoubtedly, was the goal of the war which
2 the German authorities waged. Quite simply, it was the killing of a group
3 of English and American pilots as well as their war adversaries.
4 We must not forget that in each concrete case, we must, without
5 doubt, ascertain that a consequence -- that the consequences have arisen
6 in the relationship between causality and the crime committed within the
7 common purpose, that is to say, that the concrete crime is the result of
8 the common purpose. Whether the survival of the former multinational
9 Yugoslavia or the emergence of an entity oriented Bosnia-Herzegovina as
10 Zigic's goal, was it a common one, a common purpose? Zigic does not know
11 that to this very day, that is to say, he does not know whether he took
12 part in a common purpose, a common goal.
13 The existence of an armed conflict, this particular condition is
14 necessary for the application of both Article 3 and Article 5 of the
15 Tribunal's Statute although as practice has shown so far, in two different
16 ways, for those two different articles. An armed conflict is a major
17 event with a multitude of consequences. It is our impression, however,
18 that in this case, in this trial, mention was made of it only in order to
19 apply punitive standards, the mere observation of the fact that the armed
20 conflict existed and nothing more than that.
21 Sometimes in the course of this trial, I seemed to gain the
22 impression that only one side was at war which is an argumentum in
23 absurdum. According to witness statements [Realtime transcript read in
24 error "in arguments"] put forward by the Prosecution, of those who were
25 detained in the camps -- I said witness in the -- "testimonies of
1 witnesses put forward by the Prosecution," and therefore according to
2 those testimonies, nobody attacked the Serbs, nobody took part in the
3 battles and other conflicts either in a material or another way aided
4 this, and nobody bore or used weapons.
5 Allegedly, there were no prisoners of war. But if all this is
6 absent, then an armed conflict is absent too by the same token. It is
7 true that with respect to this particular condition, it is sufficient for
8 a conflict of that kind to exist in some other area of one and the same
9 state. But there was not a great deal mentioned about those other areas
10 and regions.
11 An armed conflict necessarily produces prisoners of war and there
12 is no doubt that hundreds of these prisoners of war were detained in both
13 Omarska and Keraterm. A typical example of these prisoners of war were
14 Sead Jusufovic, nicknamed Car, Emsud Bahonjic, and the people from the
15 Brdo area captured in battle.
16 The status of prisoners of war can never be changed by the mere
17 fact that they were detained together with civilians. Therefore, as a
18 whole, the standards must be applied to these people which are prescribed
19 to prisoners of war and not for civilians.
20 In its motion for judgement of acquittal, the Defence has already
21 expressed its position that for the application of Article 3, it is not
22 sufficient to ascertain the existence of an armed conflict alone, but that
23 that conflict must have the character of an all-out war. It is true that
24 this kind of attitude, in the extent to which the definition of an armed
25 conflict is different from the definition of war proper, it will diverge
1 from existing practice too. This position, in addition to the numerous
2 arguments that we have already put forward in that respect has other very
3 numerous and serious arguments in its favour as well.
4 Here, the linguistic, grammatical, and even historical
5 interpretation is being opposed to the utilitarian and opportunistic
6 approach. However, even if there is a mistake in the language, in the
7 linguistics, it should be put right by a correction or an amendment, and
8 not by making another mistake. Language which is expressed through the
9 written or spoken word is a basic tool and instrument of law, and words
10 should not be destroyed. By destroying words, we destroy law, especially
11 legal safety or security. We will also be forfeiting communication among
13 On the other hand, we will be stimulating, conditionally speaking,
14 the law maker to ago ahead with work of poor quality. There are we are
15 advocates of the rule of broad application of linguistics and grammatical
16 interpretations and explanations, and these can be deviated from only when
17 the contents are unclear.
18 Of course this is a principled approach, a general approach to
19 which we should aspire and for which we need to perfect language and legal
20 technology and techniques. The perfection of language is, of course, an
21 ideal to which we must all aspire but which, most probably, will never be
22 reached fully. However, we are nonetheless talking about clear words with
23 clear meanings. If we were to take this argumentation of mine to an
24 extreme, we could conclude this presentation with the words by saying that
25 what I said should not be taken and conceived of in that way but, rather,
1 that we must draw another meaning from everything said. The word is law
2 as all the great religions prescribe, and that is one of the heritages of
3 our civilisation.
4 We should like now to go on to the second part of this
5 presentation with a brief focus on the final brief and the closing
6 arguments made by the Prosecution, and that is a sore spot with us, I have
7 to say. Nonetheless, in this review, many questions -- I will not deal
8 with many of the questions presented as our response can be found in
9 detail in our own final brief.
10 Generally speaking, quite different from this Defence which has
11 always tried to present everything that was said in the course of the
12 proceedings and evidence put forward for each part of the indictment, the
13 Prosecution, in its closing argument, in its final brief and closing
14 arguments, has restricted itself and limited itself very narrowly to
15 individual statements made by witnesses called by the Prosecution itself.
16 However, these statements were very frequently inconsistent with respect
17 to the testimonies made by other witnesses.
18 So, for example, they refer to the statement made by one witness
19 although, from the subsequent or other -- of the statements of at least 20
20 other witnesses called both by the Defence and the Prosecution, this fact
21 does not emerge, but the statements of these -- this vast majority of
22 witnesses are completely ignored. These statements by individual
23 witnesses are most often, come most often from precisely those witnesses
24 who were the least credible witnesses.
25 The Prosecution usually refers to these statements for which it
1 has more material to give thought to false testimony rather than referring
2 to them. The Defence has given a detailed and precise assessment of all
3 these statements in its brief but would now just like to make a general
5 Generally speaking, what the Prosecution relies on and refers to
6 is just a drop in the ocean. Expressed mathematically, it is only one or
7 two per cent of the bulk of what, during the trial, has emerged and was
8 stated with respect to a certain event. So, for example, the massacre,
9 talking about the massacre which occurred on the 24th of July, 1992, the
10 Prosecution bases its case on two or three sentences whereas 15 witnesses
11 have testified to this event on many hundreds of pages.
12 We do not challenge the -- dispute the possibility, although it is
13 only a theoretical one, that you may draw a conclusion even from only one
14 or two per cent of the material presented on a certain event in a certain
15 case, but this can be done only after an assessment and careful analysis
16 of the remaining 99 per cent of the material available. Most important of
17 all, one must be very convincing in one's explanation of how that 99 per
18 cent is unacceptable.
19 It is not up to us to meddle in the affairs of the Prosecution,
20 but we must express our great disillusionment due to the fact that life
21 sentences are being requested for somebody whereas in a very superficial
22 manner and in a highly minimal portion, they treat the events. We ask the
23 Court to protect us from things of that kind. All the more so as the
24 Defence, in its final brief, has not omitted to analyse each piece of
25 testimony and evidence, regardless of whether it is to its advantage or
2 As has been stated, the Prosecution, as opposed to this Defence,
3 relies almost entirely only on statements of the witnesses that they have
4 called. Regarding statements of witnesses called by the Defence, the
5 Prosecution does not even mention or comment upon. Nevertheless, as an
6 exception in the final brief of the Prosecution, reference is made in a
7 couple of places to the testimony of one Defence witness which is not to
8 Zigic's advantage, as well as to Zigic's statement in which he admits
9 certain acts. That admission is not considered, in any way, to be a
10 mitigating circumstance by the Prosecution even though in that admission,
11 sincere remorse is expressed for everything admitted to, and in spite of
12 the fact that an apology has been made to the victim.
13 Furthermore, in her final arguments, the Prosecutor claims that
14 admissions, apologies, and expressions of remorse were lacking which we
15 find difficult to attribute to any forgetfulness on the part of someone
16 who frequently refers to that in a negative context.
17 In the closing arguments, it is claimed that Zigic was brought by
18 force and against his will before this Tribunal. However, from the
19 document issued precisely by the Honourable President of this Chamber, it
20 is evident that this was done upon Zigic's will.
21 I should at this point ask for the assistance of the usher so that
22 we might read a part of those instructions as we haven't done so hitherto,
23 regardless of whether we do so on the basis of the English or the B/C/S
24 versions. I think we are familiar with this. For the benefit of the
25 public, could we place this on the ELMO, please. I'm referring to a
1 document called "Instruction further to Rule 59 bis for passing on the
2 arrest warrant issued on the 15th of April, 1998, in case number IT-95 --"
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Mr. Stojanovic, I'm
4 sorry for interrupting you. What is the number of the exhibit, please?
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, to this day we have
6 not been given a number for this exhibit, though we did make such a
7 request ever since our opening statement, even in writing. We were even
8 in a dilemma as to whether it is an exhibit, because it is a document of
9 this Tribunal, and we applied to the Court to assist us in defining the
10 status of this document. It may be a part of the file, of the record of
11 this case.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But this document, is it a part
13 of the documents which were exchanged between the Prosecution and the
14 Defence for the Chamber to be able to rule on it or not? Or is it a new
15 document now? Because I remember seeing this document.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is a document
17 whose admission I sought throughout the Defence case, starting from my
18 opening statement. It is a document on the basis of which Zigic was
19 arrested and transferred to the Tribunal, but I have not been given a
20 number for this document to this day.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but you did submit this
22 document in your opening statement; is that what you're telling us?
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I mentioned it only. I mentioned
24 the number and the date, but I didn't tender it, I didn't show it.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think at this stage we are
1 trying to introduce new documents, so that is what I'm asking you. We are
2 now at the closing argument stage, not in the stage of the presentation of
3 evidence. I don't know if you're aware of that.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we wish to show this
5 document on the ELMO and to read a part of the contents of that document.
6 Nothing more. We are not tendering it.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In any event, there's something
8 here that I need to confer with my colleagues on.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, you may continue
11 and show the document.
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] So I would like to read the first
13 paragraph on page 2 of that document.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I don't think that is of much
15 assistance, Mr. Stojanovic. We would prefer to see the English version on
16 the ELMO, don't you think?
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] For the transcript, we are
18 providing the English version. So the first paragraph of that decision
20 [In English] "Having heard the Prosecutor to the effect that the
21 accused is presently in custody on other matters in Banja Luka, Republika
22 Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina; (2) that he is willing to surrender
23 himself to the Tribunal for trial; (3) that the authorities of Republika
24 Srpska are prepared to release him from custody for the purposes of
25 allowing him to surrender to members of the Prosecutor's staff; and (4)
1 that members of the Prosecutor's staff stand ready to visit Banja Luka to
2 take the accused into their custody, having made arrangements to allow the
3 prompt transfer of the accused to the seat of the Tribunal in The Hague."
4 [Interpretation] We no longer need the assistance of the usher,
5 and we are grateful to him.
6 From this general position of the Prosecution on admission and
7 defence, if it were to be accepted in its entirety, then the Defence
8 should draw certain lessons and pass on this experience to other future
9 clients and others; that is, that from the Defence testimonies, only
10 negative conclusions are made, whereas the host of positive statements are
11 totally ignored. No attempt is even made to challenge that evidence. So
12 that the defence is not only unnecessary but is even harmful, so there is
13 no need for it anyway. However, we are confident that the position of the
14 Prosecution, as well as the response of the Defence regarding such a
15 position is basically flawed.
16 We should like to address several specific submissions from the
17 final brief of the Prosecution. Thus, in paragraphs 54, 114, and 389, it
18 is alleged that Zigic can be liable merely for the fact of being a guard
19 in Keraterm. However, according to Zigic's testimony that the Prosecution
20 also refers to in this section, as well as the testimony of several
21 witnesses, Zigic's duties in Keraterm were limited to the first ten days
22 or so of June 1992. In that period, the detainees were, after
23 interrogation, released home in large numbers. Food and other necessities
24 could be brought to the detainees. The situation in the camp was,
25 relatively speaking, good, and according to the testimony of Prosecution
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and the English transcripts.
1 witnesses, in that period, not a single murder occurred in Keraterm in
2 that period. According to witness Abdulah Brkic, for example, there were
3 no major excesses.
4 On the other hand, the very fact that someone was a guard in a
5 camp is not sufficient for him to be charged. There are no such
6 indictments before this Tribunal, and a number of guards have already
7 appeared in this courtroom in the capacity of witnesses. However, Zigic
8 was not even a guard. His only duty, a minivan for supplies, as claimed
9 by Witness DD/9 on page 10410, line 6, of the transcript. In view of the
10 condition he was in at that time and that he had an injured hand and his
11 experience as a taxi driver, it was not unusual for him to have been given
12 such an assignment.
13 In paragraph 62, second sentence of the Prosecution brief, it is
14 alleged that Witnesses AK, AJ, and Emir Beganovic testified that Zigic had
15 called them out from Mujo's room and taken them to the "white house" where
16 they were beaten, and a reference is even made to particular pages of the
17 transcript. However, that is incorrect. Witnesses AK and Emir Beganovic
18 did not say that Zigic had called them out and taken them to the "white
19 house," and no such testimony can be found in the transcript.
20 In paragraph 79, the Prosecution alleges that for liability,
21 presence on the site of events is sufficient in itself. Such a solution
22 has not been adopted in practice, and certain exceptions are made only
23 when it comes to command responsibility. Even if someone's presence were
24 to constitute encouragement for someone else to commit an act, that is not
25 sufficient for the person present to be condemned or convicted. In the
1 first place, a mens rea on the part of the person present must be
3 To what extent the mens rea of the person present is important can
4 be seen, for instance, from the premise that a person who is asleep may
5 also be present, or he may only be dozing without noticing anything
6 happening around him. It may be a person who may be dangerous for the
7 victim. But it is our person that under those circumstances, there can be
8 no serious allegation regarding the responsibility of the person present.
9 Secondly, that would mean that the person present, for him to be
10 exculpated, he would have to flee from that spot. In that context, the
11 Prosecution needs to tell us what it is that implies his obligation to
12 flee, particularly the person whose duty or need is to remain there;
13 whether a person who is drunk and sick and who is present should flee not
14 to be considered liable even if they move with difficulty. Finally, a
15 person present, even if awake, may not even notice everything happening
16 around him, particularly not each and every detail especially if he has no
17 interest in those events or is busy doing something else.
18 In our concrete case, presence at an event has not been defined
19 and it is debatable. Is only an eye witness present or is somebody who is
20 not an eye witness present and yet is close by. Can a person who is three
21 metres, 10 metres, 100 metres away consider -- be considered to have been
22 present and so on.
23 In paragraph 84 of the same brief of the Prosecution, it is stated
24 that Zigic was a reserve policeman when he allegedly beat Witness T.
25 However, that same brief refers to Zigic's statement to the effect that he
1 was in the reserve police until the 10th of June, 1992, and that Witness T
2 was beaten sometime between the 15th and 17th of June, 1992. The Defence
3 is not challenging those dates roughly.
4 Anyway, Witness T claims that "Zigic," i.e. the person who beat
5 him, was wearing a military and not a police uniform. And this issue is
6 addressed in further detail in the final brief of the Defence.
7 In paragraph 101 of the Prosecution brief, the position is taken
8 that the common purpose doctrine was implicitly recognised in the Criminal
9 Codes of the former Yugoslavia relying on the statement of the expert
10 witness Boro Cejovic; however, that is far from the truth. Professor
11 Cejovic spoke about criminal associations as a form of conspiracy. This
12 is a recommend in any event of the Soviet model which has been abandoned
13 in practice and the draft new Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of
14 Yugoslavia it is -- it has been totally omitted.
15 It does have some minor similarity with the common purpose
16 doctrine just as any form of complicity may contain certain elements of
17 this doctrine. But similarity in criminal law means nothing and as a
18 criterion, it is usually extremely harmful. Starting from an analogy when
19 somebody is sentenced for crimes which are similar to those that have been
20 prescribed as being criminal acts on the basis of similar institutions,
21 someone is a murderer or is not a murderer. If reference is being made to
22 certain legal provisions from the former Yugoslavia, the most important
23 question is whether that institution could apply, in this specific case,
24 to the accused, Zigic. It certainly could not, and that is why the
25 Prosecution does not even make an attempt at answering this most important
2 Paragraph 225 of the brief relates the killing of Becir
3 Medunjanin, and this is corroborated with allegations in footnote number
4 468 in which it says that Witness T testified that Fadil Avdagic was
5 present on the first day when Becir Medunjanin was beaten, and reference
6 is made to certain pages of the transcript. However, nowhere in the
7 transcript can we find that Fadil Avdagic was present only the first day,
8 and this is something that the Prosecution has made up and added.
9 It is our assessment that this was done because Fadil Avdagic gave
10 a completely erroneous description of Zigic and so as to remove the
11 consequences of his very poor testimony from the standpoint of Zigic's
12 indictment on the killing of Becir Medunjanin, an attempt is being made to
13 present him as a witness of the first beating only and not of subsequent
14 ones due to which Medunjanin passed away.
15 In paragraph 230 of the final brief of the Prosecution, the
16 killing is described of Hankin Ramic based exclusively on the testimony of
17 Azedin Oklopcic. Oklopcic claims that the perpetrator of that killing was
18 Zeljko Timarac, and the Prosecutor, in her final closing arguments quite
19 in contradiction to her final brief mentions exclusively Zigic without
20 giving any explanation. Why she does so and what the aim is is something
21 we do not know.
22 The killing of Becir Medunjanin is completely redacted from the
23 testimony of Witness Azedin Oklopcic, and is described quite differently
24 in other paragraphs differently from what that particular witness said.
25 Actually, Azedin Oklopcic is not even mentioned with Medunjanin's killing
1 and Witness Azedin Oklopcic, who was called by the Prosecution, described
2 in detail the killing of Hankin Ramic and Becir Medunjanin as a single
3 event which occurred simultaneously and at the same location.
4 However, the witness said that Zigic had not killed Medunjanin.
5 So this appears to be the reason why, in the description of this unified
6 event given by this witness such a -- what we would describe as an
7 unnatural surgical cut was made. In this and the following paragraph,
8 Zigic is not mentioned of the perpetrator and Hankin's killing is placed
9 at the doorstep of the accused, Kvocka, with the reasoning that the
10 accused, Kvocka, was aware that violent and dangerous persons were
11 frequently entering Omarska and abusing the prisoners. And in the
12 footnote 477 it says that witnesses AK and J had stated that Kvocka was
13 present when a group of people, among whom was the accused Zigic entered
14 the camp and abused the detainees.
15 This wording gives the impression that Zigic was frequently in
16 Omarska. However, from -- judging by the statements of witnesses the
17 Prosecution is relying on, it is evident that they saw Zigic in Omarska
18 only once, though they spent a long time there, and not at the time that
19 Hankin was murdered but on another occasion.
20 Paragraph 239 adds liability for torture and rough treatment of
21 Abdulah Brkic which is something that does not exist in the indictment.
22 In that paragraph, again, in footnote 490, Witness AK is said to have said
23 that Zigic called out Emir Beganovic, Witness AK, Asif Kapetanovic, and
24 Witness AJ, something that Witness AK did not say.
25 After that, in the same paragraph, comes a fabrication. There's
1 no other word for it. Since the Prosecution lacked the motive for the
2 torture of Witness AK who said that he didn't know why Zigic beat him, the
3 motive had to be construed on the basis of untruths, and we quote from the
4 text of the Prosecution, [In English] "The final point as he beat the
5 prisoners, the accused, Zigic, began to scream that the detainees had
6 killed his entire family and we will do the same to you."
7 [Interpretation] And then we have the footnote 495 indicating that
8 this is a quotation from the testimony of Witness AK to be found on page
9 2035 of the transcript.
10 Then in paragraph 242 --
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Mr. Stojanovic, are
12 you about to conclude one -- a particular point or would this be a good
13 time for a break for you?
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your
15 permission, let me just finish this point and then it will take me a
16 minute or two. After that, I may need another hour.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well then.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] And then in paragraph 242 in
19 connect with the same act, it is mentioned that this Zigic's, "We will do
20 the same to you," constitutes intimidation of witnesses because they are
21 Muslims. Therefore, it is presented as if Zigic was taking his revenge
22 for something that the Muslims had allegedly done to him which could be an
23 element of torture.
24 In actual fact, in the actual transcript regarding this event, we
25 find that Witness AK said that Zigic had allegedly said that they had
1 killed Slavko Ecimovic's entirely family and he was also in the "white
2 house" and that they would do the same to the witness. That is page 2035,
3 lines 15 to 22 of the transcript. It cannot be seen from this statement
4 what is essential for torture, and it is also well-known that Slavko
5 Ecimovic was not a Muslim. So if the situation had been depicted
6 properly, the argument on Zigic's alleged persecution of Muslims could not
7 have been reinforced.
8 Your Honours, the next paragraph is linked to this but,
9 nevertheless, I think this would be an appropriate moment for the break.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, I think so. Otherwise we
11 have a long period and then a short one. So it's better to have more or
12 less equal periods of work. So we have a 50-minute lunch period now.
13 --- Recess taken at 12.58 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 1.56 p.m.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
16 Mr. Stojanovic, you have the floor to continue with your closing
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Let me
19 continue and follow up to the text which is still on the transcript.
20 In support of the same charge, in paragraph 240 of the brief, it
21 is stated that Witness AI said that he had seen Kvocka when Zigic called
22 Asef, Kiki, Rezak, and Began, when he called them out, and that that was
23 to be found on pages 2150 and 2152 of the transcript. Again, an untruth
24 which, by the nature of things, can only be intentional. No where in the
25 transcript can it be found that the witness said that that calling out had
1 been done by Zigic. During the cross-examination, the witness in question
2 described the individual who called out the above-mentioned individuals
3 differently than Zigic, he gave a different description of him.
4 During the oral arguments, during the closing arguments, the
5 Prosecution placed the contact of Zigic and Brkic in which Zigic made
6 Brkic write down who was the president of the SDA in Puharska, (redacted)
7 (redacted), that it be placed in the context of
8 the event involving Becir Medunjanin, because it was more suitable to the
9 Prosecution case. And when I say that it was more suitable for the
10 Prosecution, I say it conditionally, because it has always been our belief
11 that a conviction of an innocent man should not suit the Prosecution.
12 This interpretation is done only now, after the Defence mentioned
13 this detail in the (redacted), final brief.
14 However, we allow for the possibility that the other side is not reading
15 our submissions, or is not reading or erroneously interpreting
17 Paragraph 388 of the Prosecution brief addresses the issue of
18 Zigic's persecution not only of Bosnian Muslims, but also Bosnian Croats
19 and other non-Serbs. As far as Croats are concerned, as far as we know,
20 in the indictment against Zigic, and in Schedule D, no mention was made of
21 any Croat. It is only disputable what Drago Tokmadzic is, but Zigic has
22 nothing to do with the murder of the said individual.
23 However, we must emphasise the fact that four Croats came to
24 testify on Zigic's behalf during this trial who, among other things, spoke
25 in favourable terms about the attitude of Zigic towards Croats during the
1 relevant times, but also before and after that. The witnesses I'm
2 referring to are Ivica Sikic, Danilo Dejanovic, Mile Ivankovic, and Drazen
4 As for other non-Serbs, there is a statement of witness Nedenko
5 Milicka [phoen], a Ukrainian, which is part of the record, in addition to
6 the statement given by (redacted), an Albanian, who spoke about
7 an extraordinarily favourable attitude of Zigic towards members of other
8 ethnic groups.
9 Paragraph 393 of the brief addresses the position of the
10 Prosecution in respect of the event involving Zigic's kum, Hasan
11 Karabasic, and the interpretation given to this event is disgraceful for
12 the Prosecution.
13 As stated by the Prosecution in the paragraph that I mentioned,
14 [In English] "The incident happened outdoors within Trnopolje camp, in
15 plain view of all around." [Interpretation] The text is followed by
16 footnote 665, with a note that that was stated by Witness V and that his
17 words could be found on page 3746 of the transcript.
18 However, everything that Witness V said about this fact, that is,
19 the same witness, can be found on page 3728, lines 8 to 11 of the
20 transcript, and I will now quote the original transcript:
21 [In English] "You described the incident in Trnopolje with Hasan
22 Karabasic. Can you tell us where this took place, roughly speaking?
23 Within the framework of Trnopolje, was it outside, inside? What part?"
24 Answer: "It was outside. It was opposite the cafe."
25 [Interpretation] As we can see, Witness V was very clear when he
1 stated that the incident in question had taken place outside the Trnopolje
2 camp. However, Prosecutor, in its final brief, referring to the very
3 statement of the witness, is attempting to mislead us and state that the
4 witness in question had said that the incident had taken place inside the
5 camp. This is a very important, essential fact in view of several aspects
6 of the issue.
7 In the following paragraph, it is stated that Zigic tortured Hasan
8 Karabasic which is with no -- which is groundless, unfounded totally. It
9 cannot be seen what is it that he wanted from his kum. In paragraphs 396,
10 397 and 398, an alleged event involving Zijad Krivdic is described whereas
11 in 397, Zigic's responsibility is sought pursuant to Article 7(1) of the
12 Statute as well as a conviction for offence of outrages upon personal
13 dignity upon Zijad Krivdic.
14 The Defence does not wish to address this alleged event in any
15 serious manner because, first of all, it hasn't done it so far because
16 Zigic was never charged with any criminal offence against Zijad Krivdic.
17 Not only the fact is not pleaded in the indictment, it is not even
18 mentioned in Schedule D. Therefore, the Prosecution seems to be claiming
19 that Zigic is responsible for the crime with which Zigic has not been
20 charged at all, and in respect of which he didn't lead any Defence, he
21 didn't present any Defence.
22 During the oral argument of the Prosecution, it is stated that
23 Zigic had shot at this man and that he had smashed part of his skull. One
24 should not forget here that the Prosecution proposed this individual,
25 Zijad Krivdic, as a rebuttal witness, as a physically and psychologically
1 healthy man, and it did so last month.
2 The murder of Becir Medunjanin is discussed in paragraphs 409 and
3 410 of the final brief. What is interesting here is that the statement of
4 Fadil Avdagic, that Duca in the "white house" had kicked Becir Medunjanin
5 and slit his nose is put forward as one of the important arguments and it
6 is also stated that Zigic and Duca laughed when the individual in question
7 sustained that injury.
8 The Defence is not clear here whether the Prosecution is not
9 following the statements of other witnesses, is not taking into account
10 statements of other witnesses, in particular, Witness T, or whether the
11 Prosecution is attempting to put forth to the Court something that cannot
12 even -- cannot be presented.
13 Duca had slit Medunjanin's nose while the latter was still in the
14 barracks and it was -- and he came to Omarska with a slit nose as it was
15 claimed by Witness T, and there were -- and all other witnesses who spoke
16 about that event said that Medunjanin had arrived in Omarska with a slit
17 nose. Fadil Avdagic stated that the nose of Becir Medunjanin had looked
18 normal before Duca kicked him in the "white house" and this was discussed
19 in detail by the Defence in its final brief.
20 What is ironical here is that it is the fact that it is on the
21 basis of this untruth which the Prosecution must have noticed. The
22 Prosecution is now trying to use this as an aggravating circumstance when
23 they speak about some perverse satisfaction during the beatings of
24 prisoners, an allegation which is elaborated in pair 514 and, in
25 particular, in footnote 968.
1 At this point, the Defence wishes to draw your attention to a very
2 important portion of a document which was presented during this case. It
3 is the submission of the Prosecution with summarised witness statements
4 pursuant to Rule 73 bis (B)(iv) dated 17th of September, 1999, which
5 submission was signed, first of all, by Mr. Grant Niemann, the then senior
6 trial attorney for the case.
7 On pages 49 to 55 of the B/C/S version of this document, abridged
8 statements of four witnesses are mentioned. The witnesses that were
9 proposed by the Prosecutor concerning the charge of the murder of Becir
10 Medunjanin. There is a note below -- before these statements which I
11 would like to quote at this point. I quote -- the interpreters do not
12 have the original text.
13 "Zigic is not mentioned as a participant in any of these
14 statements as far as I can see, since Zigic did not play --
15 did not have any role as a superior. I don't see how we can
16 charge him with this death without any evidence of his
17 participation in the event. Unless investigators bring
18 additional evidence, I don't think that we have any other
19 opportunity but to leave this out of this portion of the
20 schedule to the extent it refers to Zigic and to place this,
21 to insert this within the context of general allegations
22 against Kvocka and others because the event occurred in
23 Omarska. However, I think that without further evidence, I
24 think that the allegation will have to be redacted from this
25 portion of the document."
1 We wonder why and on the basis of what Zigic was charged with the
2 murder of Becir Medunjanin. The brief in question was filed in 1999, and
3 the indictment was filed earlier on. Furthermore, we wonder why it is
4 necessary to justify this charge without choosing means or manners to do
6 As far as the false interpretation of the statement -- testimony
7 of Witness DD/9 in paragraph 411 of the final brief by which the
8 conviction of the accused Zigic is sought for the murder of Drago
9 Tokmadzic is addressed in detail in our written final brief due to the
10 intentional misrepresentation of the testimony of the witness by the
11 Prosecution on the 11th of July, 2001. The Prosecution has accepted this
12 objection made by the Defence, and the day before yesterday, it filed a
13 written apology for this mistake and it has -- they have corrected their
14 final brief with this respect.
15 I think that one could perhaps say -- we could, perhaps, say we
16 accept this apology by the Prosecution to the extent they accept Zigic's
17 apology to (redacted). However, we should like to ask here whether
18 it would be -- we wonder whether it would be possible for the Prosecution
19 to apologise at least ten more times for such intentional mistakes, and we
20 would leave the sorry task -- and we would leave the Trial Chamber the
21 sorry task in catching them in further mistakes. It would have been much
22 better for various other corrections to have been made at that time, and
23 not only corrections that the Defence has drawn your attention to.
24 After the counsel for the Prosecution stated the day before
25 yesterday that witnesses Ivica Sikic and Soka Sikic had given Zigic their
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and the English transcripts.
1 car, their weapons, and their son to rob Edin Ganic, we are compelled to
2 ask the Trial Chamber to provide protection for the witnesses from such
3 onslaught, unjustified onslaught.
4 Generally speaking, it is the submission of this Defence team that
5 to seek a life sentence on the basis of falsely interpreted evidence, on
6 the basis of evidence which was not even read or, even worse, on the basis
7 of fabricated contents of the transcript, is something really appalling.
8 There is one single exception, one single case in which the
9 Prosecution has taken into account the evidence of the Defence. That
10 exception is stated in paragraph 416 of the final brief of the
11 Prosecution, where it is stated that Zigic, in the night of 24th July,
12 1992, was not at the barbecue at his house but that he was at the Prijedor
13 hospital at around 2100 hours, where he stabbed to death Omer Karadzic.
14 And they refer in this respect to the exhibit which is only a criminal
15 report. First of all, the exhibit in question is merely a criminal report
16 which does not, in itself, prove that Zigic did such a thing. It is only
17 an initial document of that kind, and we have to mention that Zigic was
18 never convicted for such an offence.
19 But there is something else that is worth mentioning at this
20 point. All alibi witnesses said that they had finally gathered in the
21 house and in the yard of Zigic's house, that is, the house of his parents,
22 sometime after 10.00 p.m.
23 Furthermore, those witnesses who had seen Zigic before this time
24 claim that he had left the house and the yard on several occasions before
25 that, that he was absent for brief periods of time; and the reason for him
1 doing that was to get some more food and liquor.
2 Thirdly, the hospital in question is located some 500 metres from
3 Zigic's house, in the direction of the town and in the opposite direction
4 of Keraterm, which means that it is twice as far from Keraterm than
5 Zigic's house is. And even if Zigic had gone towards Keraterm after the
6 hospital, he would have had to pass by his house before that.
7 In any case, certain events, even if they had occurred, which
8 occurred at some 500 metres from Zigic's house, which is the direction
9 opposite of the direction of Keraterm, at 9.00 p.m., cannot challenge the
10 alibi of barbecue from 10.00 p.m. until 4.00 a.m. And if Zigic had been
11 in hospital, if Zigic was in hospital, then it means that he was not in
13 However, I think that it is even more important that the
14 Prosecution, although they had ample opportunity to do that, failed to
15 verify their doubts during the cross-examination of Defence witnesses.
16 And now they're trying to put forward the consequences of their failure to
17 do so.
18 In paragraph 418, the Prosecution requests that Zigic be convicted
19 of torture and inhuman treatment against Fadil Avdagic and Dalija Hrnjak.
20 How can he be convicted of crimes with which he was not even charged?
21 Those acts were not pleaded in the indictment at all.
22 In paragraph 428, it is stated that Zigic put a knife to Edin
23 Ganic's throat, and that this was allegedly claimed by Edin Ganic himself
24 on transcript page 5912 to 5913, and Husein Ganic, transcript page 5770.
25 However, although we are dealing here with a father and son who lived
1 together and worked together, their testimonies differ substantially on
2 this detail too.
3 Husein Ganic claims that Zigic took him outside at the end of the
4 compound and that he and a group of others brought his son to him and
5 mistreated him before his very eyes - this can be found on a page of the
6 transcript, 5672 - while Edin Ganic claims that he was taken out and taken
7 to his father's room, the room his father was put up in, which is on quite
8 the opposite side of Keraterm, and that they mistreated him there.
9 However, while Edin Ganic claims that Zigic put a knife under his
10 throat in front of his father Husein and that Husein pleaded with Zigic
11 not to kill Edin - that is on pages 5912, 5913 of the transcript - Husein
12 Ganic doesn't make any mention of that event at all, nor does he recall
13 it. The father, who allegedly remembers everything, the only thing he
14 doesn't seem to remember is that before his very eyes they put a knife to
15 his son's throat and that he entreated them to spare his son's life.
16 Therefore, Husein Ganic did not say what the Prosecution refers
17 to, and this can represent yet another attempt on the part of the
18 Prosecutor, in an unlawful manner, to "put right" the contradictions
19 between two Prosecution witnesses and their testimonies.
20 The Prosecution prepared witnesses for testimony which it called.
21 However, the statements that they already made before the Trial Chamber
22 are being distorted, are distorted by them, and they do this even with the
23 testimonies of some Defence witnesses. The Defence, therefore, is giving
24 careful consideration to the following: How, then, does the Prosecution
25 go about preparing witnesses for their testimonies?
1 In their presentation, the Prosecution especially exploits the
2 statement made by Dusko Sikirica, the accused for genocide and other acts
3 in the Keraterm case, the statement which charges Zigic but for nothing
4 specific. That statement is dated the 4th of July, 1992 and has been
5 marked as Exhibit 3/249.
6 On condition that this is, indeed, an authentic document, we
7 should like to state the following in its regard: If we recall the
8 statement made by witness Dusan Zelenjakovic, the Keraterm Commander Dusan
9 Knezevic was very angry when he learnt of the death of a colleague of his
10 called Drago Tokmadzic and saw that he was dead. So in front of that
11 witness, he told everybody that he had ordered that the detainees must not
12 be beaten. He quite certainly, therefore, requested a report from his
13 security commander, Dusko Sikirica, who in turn, in order to disguise and
14 mask his acts and the acts of the guards to whom he was superior,
15 attempted to show that - and I say this under quotations - "those from
16 outside were to blame for everything that happened," and not him or any
17 one of the guards.
18 In this report of his, first and foremost, he is not there
19 personally, who has been charged for shooting, raping, and so on, since
20 the beginning of Keraterm. So if the report is correct, then probably
21 Sikirica should not have been accused either, charged with this.
22 Second, in that particular report, we don't see Sikirica's guards,
23 the Banovic brothers. So that if the report is true, they, too, should
24 not be charged and accused; but they are. His report makes no mention of
25 them, but they are mentioned by many witnesses in connection with the
1 killing of Emsud Bahonjic, Sead Jusufagic, nicknamed Car, some Albanians,
2 Drago Tokmadzic, and others.
3 We don't see two other guards either whose superior Sikirica was
4 and who Witness DD/4, also a guard, on page 10567 of the transcript, line
5 16, mentions in connection with the killing of Drago Tokmadzic. Instead
6 of all those guards of his and himself too, Sikirica mentions Zigic who,
7 in the 15 days which came prior to the report, was very ill. Because he
8 was so ill, he had to be hospitalised, and after that he was in prison
10 However, although Sikirica refers to the complaints of his own
11 guards, Witnesses DD/6, DD/4, DD/7, and even DD/9 who were precisely those
12 kinds of guards in Keraterm know nothing about all that. They did not
13 complain to Sikirica about Zigic.
14 Let us return, for a moment, to a statement made by the
15 Prosecution to the effect that none of the accused have shown remorse for
16 everything that happened in Prijedor nor are they repentant, and that
17 was -- went out into the public. The night before last,
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina television showed a programme with a report from The
19 Hague as did many other TV companies from the former Yugoslavia and
20 outside it. The accent was placed on the oral presentation of the
21 Prosecution about the fact that none of the accused had apologised or
22 expressed remorse for the events in Prijedor that took place in -- since
23 1992. They also broadcast the fact that none of the accused gave
24 themselves up voluntarily.
25 In today's paper, the "Oslobodjenje" which is the -- a paper of
1 Bosnia and Herzegovina with the largest circulation, and I'm referring to
2 page 5, it says also -- there is a text which refers to the statements of
3 the Prosecution when they said that none of the accused had expressed any
4 remorse or regret, and that is a very important portion of the article and
5 the text also contains a photograph of the four accused including the
6 accused Mr. Zigic.
7 However, let us remind not so much the Trial Chamber whom we are
8 convinced remembers all that, but in the interests of preventing
9 disinformation from going out into the public and being broadcast, that
10 the accused Zigic in his statement pursuant to Rule 84 bis expressed
11 profound regret and apologies to all the Muslims who consider that, in one
12 way or another, they were hurt by his conduct and behaviour.
13 This refers, in particular, to (redacted) to whom Zigic
14 publicly apologised in his statement and expressed remorse. He also said
15 that all this including his behaviour towards Sead Jusufagic, Car, he
16 would never repeat again. He would never behave in the same way again.
17 This Tribunal was established in order to contribute to a
18 conciliation of nations on the territories of the former Yugoslavia. By
19 putting out disinformation of this kind on the part of the Prosecution,
20 all we are contributing to is the opposite goal. We wonder how (redacted)
21 (redacted) and all the others when they hear that Zigic -- when
22 they are told that Zigic never even apologised. Zigic, however, from the
23 bottom of his heart, and publicly, did do this. He expressed his deep
25 The Prosecution mentioned the statement of the accused Zigic which
1 is not all-embracing, use the parts of the statement on several occasions,
2 and I'm sure that they knew full well of his apologies and remorse, but
3 they are not putting out the truth to the public and this can result in
4 pressure from public opinion on the Trial Chamber.
5 The Defence, however, is convinced that the Trial Chamber will
6 react in the proper manner here, in the right way. At all events, this
7 brief, oral intervention on the part of the Defence at this place and at
8 this time has, as its goal, to do away with the harm that the Prosecution
9 has done with the disinformation that is has broadcast to the public.
10 The third part of my presentation would represent a brief summary
11 of the trial as seen by the Defence. One morning when the trial started
12 in a hotel in The Hague, I was woken up by a sudden thought, and the
13 thought was that the police could come and arrest me on a charge that I
14 had, in the period of two months, killed, for example, a certain Jan Timan
15 in some place called Beverijk for example. They take me to a judge and
16 the judge said that Jan Timan has disappeared and that two witnesses,
17 could be five witnesses, why not, said that they had seen me do it, commit
18 the act. It is quite possible that you could find people like that
19 because I wrote very stringent criticisms and articles in the press and
20 scientific journals against many powerful people and institutions. But I
21 do not know name Jan Timan at all, nor do know where place Beverijk is
22 because I was never there, nor do I know anybody there. I am imagining I
23 am speaking to the Court.
24 The Court then tells me that I should disclaim this charge made by
25 those witnesses. Now, I asked myself the question: Which and what kind
1 of witnesses am I going to find and in what space of time? I cannot
2 defend myself by alibi, a defence by alibi, because not only did nobody
3 see me go up to bed, but mostly because it is impossible, in the space of
4 just two months, to cover all my actions with watertight proof and
5 evidence. And to have all this at hand after so many years, years during
6 which I had never, nothing had told me that I would have to evidence and
7 prove my actions over all those many years for every given day and time.
8 But even if I could find witnesses of that kind, the basic
9 assumption there is that the killing actually did take place, and I don't
10 know that with any certainty at all, whether it actually did take place.
11 However, if I ensure, find the witnesses and the killing did not happen, I
12 have secured a false witness for myself. But I won't even know that it is
13 a false witness because I don't know with any degree of certainty that the
14 killing had actually taken place. However, if I fail to find some
15 witnesses because, let us say, that the killing didn't take place, then I
16 will be condemned as a murder because there are witnesses who say that I
17 am, indeed, the killer.
18 It would be necessary for those witnesses to testify a negative
19 fact, that is to say, that I did not do the killing. That means that they
20 must be eyewitnesses too. Most frequently, eyewitnesses are killers or
21 participants in killings. If there are no other eyewitnesses or I fail to
22 come up with them for the simple reason that they don't want to come or
23 they are unavoidably detained for other reasons, then I'm finished.
24 With murders and killings, there are usually no other eyewitnesses
25 or very few. And how can I learn who they are and where they are, whether
1 they are alive at all or not? Unless I have a great deal of luck working
2 for me in my investigation, I'm a condemned man.
3 Finally, I've just thought of something for which I can breathe a
4 sigh of relief. There are no chances of anybody being accused in Holland
5 of things like this under conditions of that kind.
6 To summarise, the Defence of the accused Zigic, in its final
7 brief, was categoric and clear. Zoran Zigic did not commit a single
8 murder that he has been charged with in the indictment, nor in any way did
9 he participate in it. Zoran Zigic, on a couple of occasions, did hit
10 detainees as he himself said in his statement given pursuant to Rule 84
11 bis which he acknowledges, and for which he is profoundly and honestly
12 sorry and expresses his remorse. However, from this recognition, we can
13 see that in this procedure and behaviour there was no discriminatory
15 In the foregoing context, persecution, the act of -- the crime of
16 persecution as described in the indictment remains void of all of its
17 essential elements and void of its most important content. For that crime
18 to be proved, there is no adequate mens rea nor any of the other
19 circumstances that were brought up by the Defence team during this trial.
20 However, even if, on the basis of facts ascertained in this way as
21 seen the way the Defence sees them, we were to assume the standpoint that
22 Zigic, nonetheless, did perform acts of persecution, we must bear in mind
23 the fact this his participation in the persecutions were -- took an
24 exceptionally mild form. One must make a great differentiation and
25 distinction between persecution, for instance, by long-term, continuous
1 bombardment of villages and towns, and the alleged persecutions by using
2 the words "balija" or things like that.
3 What would have happened if Zigic had done this to the same people
4 in Prijedor during peacetime? He would go to the -- he would have been
5 taken before a magistrate and if he was less lucky, he would be held
6 criminally responsible for minor criminal offences and he would get
7 probation of a sentence or a symbolic financial fine, and we cannot
8 exclude the fact that everything would have ended up by just being --
9 receiving a court reprimand. It would be very -- a very happy thing if
10 all war crimes were to end with acts of this kind.
11 In the preamble of the code of conduct for lawyers before this
12 Tribunal, it states, among other things, that a lawyer before the Tribunal
13 is duty-bound to be courageous, brave. On the other hand, somewhere in a
14 judgement by the Appeals Chamber in the Tadic case, and that is something
15 which is fairly common knowledge, it is stated that lawyers, attorneys
16 with a lot of practice and experience were, in the course of their career,
17 faced with situations when they had to say something which the Trial
18 Chamber did not, perhaps, like to hear.
19 I hope that by saying this, I have made a -- the proper
20 introduction to what I'm going to say now. It is our impression that the
21 witnesses of this Defence team have sat for a much more difficult test
22 than the Prosecution witnesses. We state this on the basis of a synthetic
23 overview, and if I had more time, I could go into it in more precise
24 details and more analytically.
25 The Defence witnesses were forced to answer far more unpleasant
1 and complex questions that were put to them. They were asked many more
2 things, things that often had nothing to do with the indictment, and they
3 were not allowed not to respond even to those questions which were not
4 directly linked to the indictment and only led to the denunciation of
5 their superiors, their fellow citizens, their friends, and relatives.
6 They abided by all this, and did what they were asked. In our opinion,
7 they passed the test with flying colours.
8 The Prosecution witnesses were spared these questions. These
9 questions were never asked of them and, on occasion, they were even
10 allowed, without any reason, not to provide an answer to some important
11 questions. And a case in point is, for example, Witness AD. He did
12 precisely that. However, the Defence interprets this difference in a
13 positive light.
14 Firstly, the Prosecution witnesses were victims, and so it was
15 difficult to ask them painful questions. Nonetheless, the Defence
16 witnesses, many of the Defence witnesses were victims too.
17 Secondly, and more importantly, the Defence does not hide its
18 satisfaction over this approach because it enables us to dispel all doubts
19 in the minds of the Judges with respect to Zigic's responsibility.
20 A more cautious approach in this direction could have left a great
21 deal of reservations in the minds of the Judges. All of this, however,
22 does not at all mean that this Trial Chamber, in the opinion of the
23 Defence team, does not -- that it was always proper, correct, showed a
24 maximum degree of patience and attention towards all the Defence
1 In closing, on behalf of this Defence team and in the name of the
2 accused, I should like to express our heart-felt gratitude to this Trial
3 Chamber for its correct and proper approach and conduct, for the
4 understanding it has shown as well as the patience, and its very frequent
5 assistance in helping us conduct this highly complex and unwieldy
6 procedure, and helping us in our difficult work.
7 In my own personal name, I should just like to add one more
8 thing. With its approach to this trial, the Trial Chamber has offered me
9 the opportunity once again, with all the effort that this requires, for me
10 to feel the pleasures of working in my own profession, which in my own
11 family has been a tradition. I was deprived of this pleasure and
12 privilege for many years and so I am profoundly grateful to them for
14 But my colleagues of the Prosecution also had their part in giving
15 me this satisfaction and privilege, and as the dean of this Tribunal said
16 on one occasion, and the great lawyer himself, Mr. Grant Neimann, that we
17 are here as boxers, fiercely fighting; but outside the room, outside the
18 courtroom, we can only be the best of friends.
19 A wonderful colleague also once pointed something out to me. She
20 said that there can be differences between the two parties and the two
21 sides. When, with respect to the Defence case in the Celebici trial,
22 there was a proceeding which I thought was at the very edge of fair play
23 or not fair play, I suggested to a representative of the Prosecution,
24 Mr. McHenry, that the Prosecution could behave in the same way, not for
25 revenge purposes but in order to strike a balance in the procedure. She
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and the English transcripts.
1 looked at me and said very honestly and seriously the following: "But,
2 Mr. Stojanovic, the Prosecution must have higher standards than the
3 Defence." I remained speechless with admiration.
4 And finally, this Defence team is not going to enter into any
5 bidding like at an auction and propose disproportionate, immoderate,
6 unobjective and incompetent demands with respect to sentencing. The many
7 serious mitigating circumstances have already been highlighted in our
9 We expect of the Trial Chamber only that which can and must be
10 expected: the right decision pertaining to responsibility, a just decision
11 on sentencing, and a well-expounded judgement.
12 Once again, I should like to express our gratitude to all the
13 Judges. It was both a pleasure and privilege to have been able to take
14 part in this strenuous, responsible, and complex task. Thank you.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So we come to the end of the
16 closing arguments for the accused Mr. Zigic. Thank you very much,
17 Mr. Stojanovic.
18 So for today we are going to stop there, and tomorrow we will meet
19 again at 9.20 to hear the closing arguments on behalf of the accused
20 Mr. Prcac by Mr. Jovan Simic. I assume you are ready. So we will hear
21 the closing arguments for Mr. Prcac tomorrow morning.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.54 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 19th day of July,
24 2001, at 9.20 a.m.