1 Tuesday, 29 August 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, sir. I take this opportunity to
7 remind you that you are still bound by the declaration that you made at
8 the beginning of your testimony to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
9 nothing else but the truth.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. I'm not quite sure where are
13 Mr. Milovancevic.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 WITNESS: WITNESS MM-116 [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Re-examination by Mr. Milovancevic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, good morning.
19 A. Good morning.
20 Q. At this stage the Defence is entitled to re-examine you, and the
21 Defence will use this right. But please bear in mind that we have to
22 pause between question and answer.
23 Do you recall whether the Prosecutor asked you about the ethnic
24 make-up of the work force in Croatia in 1990?
25 A. Yes, I recall that.
1 Q. Do you recall the fact that you accepted the percentage put to you
2 by the Prosecution in that context?
3 A. Yes, I do recall. I didn't fully accept it, but I did agree that
4 that was roughly the percentage.
5 Q. I had -- I have the following question to put to you: Are you
6 aware of the ethnic make-up of the management level of the MUP in 1990 in
8 A. In 1990 the ethnic make-up and the size of the work force is
9 something that I am not aware of, because this was an official secret.
10 After 1990, the ethnic make-up changed in favour of the Croatian side.
11 Q. Thank you. Further to your last answer, I will ask you the
12 following: Who was the minister, the chief of police of the Croatian MUP
13 in 1990? Do you know the name of the man?
14 A. I believe his name was Josip Boljkovac.
15 Q. What was his ethnicity?
16 A. He was a Croat.
17 Q. Can you tell us who his predecessor was at the post of the
18 Ministry of the Interior?
19 A. I can't recall. I worked there for a while and I know that they
20 rotated every four months, but I know that Minister Spegelj was a Croat.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I thank you, I have no further
22 questions for you.
23 Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
25 Questioned by the Court:
1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Witness, I would like to ask you the following:
2 For the pre-election campaign you mentioned that there was a lot of
3 nationalist propaganda on the side of the Croats. You referred to the
4 Croats. And you were -- you talked of -- you spoke of prohibited
5 iconography. Do you remember?
6 A. Yes, Your Honour, I do.
7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: [Microphone not activated].
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: What laws are you referring to?
10 A. I was referring to the criminal code of the Socialist Republic of
11 Croatia and the law on violations against public law and order.
12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: What was prohibited and contained as punishable
13 acts in these two laws?
14 A. I can't recall specifically the provisions from either of the law,
15 but the law on the violations of the public law and order, it was said
16 that speech, writing, and that other manners of disrupting public law and
17 order -- I can't recall specifically, but any kind of hostile slogans or
18 anything of that sort are -- either in speech or in writing was
19 prohibited, but I can't recall the exact definition.
20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: It's okay.
21 But I would like to know who told you that acts which were
22 prohibited not -- should not be prosecuted during that time?
23 A. Your Honour, under the circumstances of increased unrest, there
24 was an unwritten rule that we should not have any contacts with the new
25 government. This was not an explicit order. This was not -- it was,
1 rather, a position of my superiors, and I shared that position, that we
2 should not go against the people.
3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Who is "the people"?
4 A. If I understand you well, the people who displayed this conduct
5 were either -- were Croats, parts of the Croat population who were either
6 affiliated with the HDZ or whose sympathies lay with the HDZ.
7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: So the same would be true for this action you told
8 us about which was directed against the chiming of the bells of the
9 Orthodox church?
10 A. Yes. I recall talking about the bells chiming, but this was a
11 different situation, because what I was talking about before was simply an
12 extremist outburst, and this here was religious observance. It wasn't
13 anything in contravention of, let's say, accepted behaviour.
14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: What kind of action was that against religious
16 A. Roughly speaking, under the circumstances of euphoria we would
17 have about 100 or even as many as 200 phone calls into the police station
18 complaining about the bells chiming, disturbing their sleep, and so on and
19 so forth. But this here was not a disruption of law and order. It
20 constituted or amounted to an expression of intolerance toward another
21 ethnic community.
22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. Then I would like to ask you about
23 these Croats who were emigrants and who came back. You called them -- you
24 spoke of terrorists with an Ustasha ideology. Do you remember that?
25 A. Yes, I do, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And you were speaking of members of a terrorist
2 organisation; is that true?
3 A. That's true.
4 JUDGE HOEPFEL: What do you mean in terms of "terrorist
5 organisation"? Is this an organisation which was declared terrorist
6 according to the laws at the time or was this your personal opinion?
7 A. If I may be permitted to explain this. In the area where I
8 resided, there were many people who were -- who had emigrated abroad, and
9 they were economic emigrants in search of better fortunes. However, as in
10 1945, a defeated army left the area. This was an army that collaborated
11 with the Nazis and Germans. As they fled abroad, there they organised a
12 terrorist organisation which was condemned, even abroad. I believe one of
13 them was SHS. There was extreme emigrant organisations abroad which
14 constantly organised different sabotage actions. One I mentioned was in
15 1968, 1972, where 19 people were infiltrated under the -- it was called
16 the Radusa operation. And another one where, in 1988 in Drnis, in my own
17 hometown, a monument to a national hero was bombed. These were people who
18 were opposed to anything Yugoslav, and they organised a number of sabotage
19 operations, maybe as many as 100 sabotage operations throughout
21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And you're not speaking of the time of this
22 pre-election campaign but of the decades before, are you?
23 A. That's correct. I mentioned the decades before that because it
24 was precisely from these structures, from these centuries of power that
25 certain groups of people came to the country, such as Barisic who had been
1 convicted and who took part in the Radusa operation, and a number of
2 others. This added to the fear among the population because the
3 then-Croatian state had gone over the limits of morality by allowing
4 terrorists who had already been convicted to enter that country. In 1990,
5 certain people started arriving in Croatia who originated from such
6 groups, and they formed units, armed paramilitary groups, and so on and so
8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: So you are speaking of people who entered Croatia
9 in 1990 and who were already convicted?
10 A. That's correct.
11 JUDGE HOEPFEL: By which country and when?
12 A. The terrorist who was at Radusa was convicted by the former
13 Yugoslavia -- or rather, by Croatia itself. I don't know which area had
14 the territorial jurisdiction, but I believe he was sentenced to 20 years
15 of imprisonment. And the other person was also convicted. The two were
16 convicted, but there were also people with no prior convictions who were
17 nevertheless part of terrorist organisations and who then came to Croatia.
18 They were also within reach of the Yugoslav -- they were not within reach
19 of the Yugoslav authorities, and that was why they were never convicted.
20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And the persons you talked of now who were
21 convicted, did they serve their sentence? Had they already served their
23 A. The person from Radusa, I believe he served his sentence, yes.
24 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And did he in any way continue with criminal
1 A. To my knowledge, he attacked a column of the Yugoslav People's
2 Army in the area of Kupres, in Herzegovina, and that was where he got
3 killed. He organised an attack on a column of regular -- of a regular
5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: When did this happen and when was he killed?
6 A. This took place in 1991.
7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And please, the second part of my question was:
8 When was this person killed, and where, maybe?
9 A. I was not there. Based on the knowledge I have, the intelligence,
10 he was killed in 1991 as he was attacking a column of tanks of the
11 Yugoslav People's Army that was moving through that area.
12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: "That area," this is in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
13 A. That's correct. That's in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
15 Then you were talking of -- the Defence counsel asked you about
16 the assassination of an ambassador, I think in 1972, did you say?
17 A. Yes. I do recall that, but I don't recall the year. I forgot.
18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Where was that act committed?
19 A. I believe that crime was committed in Sweden. The Yugoslav
20 ambassador was attacked in the premises of the embassy. The terrorist
21 inflicted severe wounds on him - he shot him with a pistol - and as a
22 result of that, the ambassador died. The ambassador's name was Rolovic.
23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And what happened to the criminal, to the
25 A. The perpetrator was tried in the country where he committed the
1 crime, and he served his sentence. However, in the 1990s he appeared in
2 Croatia, again to form terrorist organisations and to fight against the
3 regular Yugoslav army units. I don't know what became of him, but I heard
4 that he was killed.
5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. I have no further questions.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.
8 May the Chamber please move into private session.
9 [Private session]
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 Yesterday you referred to reaction, and you just -- you said
14 reaction of Serbian population, Serbian police, as vehement. This was --
15 I guess the paging -- yesterday's pagination will have changed. Can -- is
16 anybody able to tell me what was page 18 -- that which was page 18
17 yesterday, what will it be today? Yesterday's -- okay. At page 18
18 yesterday, lines 7 to 12. And now what I want to find out is: What did
19 the population and the police do by way of this vehement reaction?
20 A. Your Honour, in the course of 1990 we didn't have any Serb police.
21 We had the Yugoslav police or, that's to say, the police of the Socialist
22 Republic of Croatia, which was composed of Croats, Serbs, Muslims, and any
23 other ethnic communities residing in the area. Therefore, in the course
24 of 1990 we have the Yugoslav police, as it were. After the extremist
25 outbursts by some parts of the Croatian population, members of the HDZ,
1 which was based on the Ustasha ideology, the Serb population in Croatia
2 lived in fear because they had already been through massacres at the hands
3 of the very same ideology in 1945, and this same ideology was now being
4 revived in 1990 by the very members of the HDZ and their leaders.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you for what you have just said. You have
6 still not answered my question. Will you please answer my question.
7 A. I apologise. Can I please ask you to repeat the question. But
8 you mentioned Serb police, and there was no such thing in 1990 or until
9 the August of 1990 -- or rather, throughout 1990.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, I'm quoting what you said. You said: "The
11 weapons were seized in places. I'm not sure what particular
12 municipalities. That was quite a long time ago. But at any rate, the
13 reaction of the Serbian population of the Serbian police, was vehement
14 because this was an illogical decision."
15 Now, you are -- you talked about Serbian police, so don't say to
16 me police didn't exist at the time. Now, I'm asking you: What was this
17 reaction of the Serbian police, Serbian population, that was vehement? I
18 want you to tell me what it is they did that was vehement.
19 A. Your Honour, I will answer the question although I do assert once
20 more that there was no Serb police, officially speaking, but there were
21 Serb members of the police who expressed their dissatisfaction with the
22 situation, just as the Croats who were of the same position expressed
23 theirs. Because the situation in the municipalities with the Serb
24 majority, this situation showed that the -- there would be an escalation
25 of the tension, and the Serb population was asking the authorities in the
1 municipality to protect them.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: When you talked, at the lines that I quoted for
3 you, of Serbian police, what were you referring to? Were you referring to
4 Serb members of the police?
5 A. That's correct, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then I ask you: What is it that the Serb members
7 of the police and the Serbian population did that was vehement? Just
8 answer that question.
9 A. Serb policemen could not be indifferent to that. There was a
10 problem. They shared the opinion of their people, I presume, and the
11 people was apprehensive. They were frightened from certain sanctions
12 coming from the other side and that there might be problems. I wasn't
13 there when the people took the arms, took them away, but they were
14 dissatisfied. They organised rallies opposing the Croatian police from
15 taking the arms from majority Serb municipalities, and that opinion was
16 shared by policemen who were Serbs and policemen who were not Serbs but
17 had this mind-set and opinion. This shouldn't have happened because it
18 was in nobody's interest.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, I ask you for the last time: What is it that
20 the population, the Serbian population and the Serb members of the police,
21 did that was vehement by way of reaction to this that you say was unfair?
22 I want to know how they behaved, how the Serbs behaved. This vehement
23 action that you referred to, just tell us what it was.
24 A. I cannot understand that question. Really, Your Honour, I cannot
25 fully grasp the question. Maybe the interpretation is poor, I don't know.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'll try for the very last time. You said in your
2 evidence "... the reaction of the Serbian population of the Serbian
3 police" - and I guess you wanted to say "and of the Serbian police" - "was
4 vehement because that was an illogical decision. I believe that they took
5 or seized the weapons in Obrovac and other municipalities, I'm not quite
6 sure which ones at this point in time."
7 That's the sentence as you said it. I'm just using your own
8 words, and I'm saying: When you said that the Serbian population and
9 police reacted vehemently, I just want you to tell us, what is it that
10 they did that was vehement?
11 A. Now the question is clear, Your Honour. To my knowledge,
12 Croatian --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Serbian people, correction.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- or a group of a couple of
15 thousand of Serb inhabitants in the municipality of Knin forced their way
16 into the police station and seized the arms to prevent the arms getting
17 into the hands of the other side. I'm not sure whether the Serb police
18 took part in this. In our police station, we did not take any arms. We
19 threw the arms away because we didn't want to shoot.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: You threw the arms away. Where to -- where did you
21 throw them away?
22 A. On the table, it was a demonstrative act, gesture, to -- combined
23 by the words: "We don't want to shoot at our own people." Everybody was
24 our own people at the time.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand. In your evidence again yesterday you
1 used the following terms, and I would like you to explain them to me. You
2 spoke of -- and you were talking about the police -- the special unit,
3 the reserve force, and the ordinary police. Do you remember that? Can
4 you tell us -- can you define each and tell us what each does.
5 A. Your Honour, I fully understand your question. I will try to
6 explain. Ministry of the Interior -- let's skip the ministry, the
7 administrative -- I'm talking about the Secretariat of the Interior in
8 Sibenik and other municipalities. Those are the ordinary police whose
9 task is to prevent violations of public law and order, to control the
10 traffic, and to detect crime. These are divided into crime in regular
11 police and in traffic police, transit police.
12 And according to the effective laws at the time, we had -- we were
13 entitled to reserve force of policemen. I don't know how many there were
14 in each police station. It depended on the problems in the area, on other
15 things, but they were not kept in military records, they did not -- they
16 were not part of the military reserve. They were police reserve. We had
17 some exercises from time to time, and we would invite them.
18 The third group is the special police. It was at the republic
19 level of battalion size, and at police stations we had special police at
20 the level of company or platoon. They were specially trained, they wore
21 the same uniform, but they had special equipment and were specially
22 trained. Regular police would have classical or regular equipment or
23 side-arms, but special police, they were younger, they were fitter, they
24 could apprehend more problematic criminals, et cetera. If -- I believe I
25 can explain more, if necessary.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're going to have to. You haven't told us what
2 the reserve did, the reserve police.
3 A. Reserve police, or police reserve, served -- if called up, they
4 had the same authorities and powers as the regular police or active
5 police. They were accompanied by reserve policemen. So they would buff
6 up the ranks and the numbers of regular police in the protection of law
7 and order, in transit regulation, depending on the need at the time.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You told us that the special police were -- the
9 special units were at the republic level of battalion size, and at the
10 police stations where you had special police at the level of company or
11 platoon and they had special training. What did they do, having got that
12 training? What role did they play in society?
13 A. At the level of a republic, maybe they were the size of a brigade,
14 not a battalion, but at the level of police stations, they were either a
15 reinforced platoon or a company. But that special police unit at the
16 local level, they would perform the regular functions, but they had
17 special exercises, or part of their time was dedicated to ju-jitsu,
18 training in fire-arms, and they were supposed to be used to break up
19 demonstrations, protests, for special tasks, apprehending crime groups or
20 problematic criminals; what could not be performed by regular police
21 officers. And this is common to all countries. For instance, to
22 apprehend criminals of graver crimes, such as murderers, et cetera.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may have answered this question sometime during
24 your evidence, but I'm sorry if I'm going to be asking something that you
25 have answered already. I don't remember it. What's your ethnic group?
1 A. I'm a Serb.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what was the ethnic group to which Ante Bojas
4 A. He's a Croat.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You testified that the barricades had been
6 organised by the civilian population and that the police encouraged them
7 to behave in a civil way. Do you remember that?
8 A. Yes, I do recall.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, did this civilian population that established
10 these barricades have authority to do so?
11 A. No, they did not have the authority to do so.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: And was it -- was it not the duty of the -- the
13 ordinary or regular -- what you called regular police today that you said
14 were responsible for traffic?
15 A. I said that under normal circumstances that would have been their
16 task, but under the circumstances at the time nobody could have prevented
17 that because the -- it was a spontaneous reaction of the people. The
18 people erected barricades to counter the wilful acts of the Croatian
19 authorities, to prevent 1941 from repeating itself. You cannot divide
20 between 1941 and 1991 because, unfortunately, in our area, the Second
21 World War has not ended.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I have no further questions.
23 Any questions arising by the questions from the Chamber,
24 Mr. Milovancevic?
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Thank you.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
2 Mr. Black?
3 MR. BLACK: None, Your Honour. Thank you.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Black.
5 Sir, thank you very much. This brings us to the end of your
6 testimony. The Chamber takes this opportunity to thank you for coming to
7 testify in these proceedings. We understand that you are -- you may be a
8 very busy person and taking time off to come and do this, it takes a bit
9 of sacrifice on your part, even if you were not busy. So thank you very
10 much. You are now excused from further attending court. You may stand
11 down. Thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we call the next witness, we have, I think,
15 some outstanding housekeeping matters to talk about. In particular, we
16 had raised, I think, the timing of the Defence case and the time allocated
17 to the various witnesses who must come. This makes our life very
18 difficult if we don't know what time to allocate to a particular witness.
19 It makes it difficult for the Chamber to control and run the proceedings.
20 And I think we need to talk about that and decide what we are going to do.
21 Yes, Mr. Milovancevic, it looks like you are ready to say
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
24 Concerning scheduling of witnesses, or my assessment of the
25 duration of Defence examination of witnesses, indeed there occurred a
1 problem and we are fully aware of it, as the Trial Chamber has already
2 detected it. Our assessment was given at a time when we had no previous
3 experience in giving assessments. We tried to be as conservative in our
4 assessment as possible. We tried to give to the Chamber our assessment
5 that was, in our view, realistic at the time. But things do not unfold
6 the way the Defence would wish and some aberration has occurred.
7 What I would like to say is that during today, for all the
8 witnesses that are on the list, we will try to re-assess in the light of
9 our recent experience and try to fine-tune that assessment and try to make
10 it as realistic as possible. We'll have to take into account the fact
11 that we have given up the testimony of Mr. Martic, with the intention of
12 covering all the issues through other witnesses that Mr. Martic was
13 supposed to testify about. This is the gist of our position.
14 On behalf of the Defence team, I would like to submit an appeal to
15 be understanding of our position. We don't want to find ourselves in a
16 position for the Chamber to find us in contempt or disrespecting the
17 Chamber or our learned friends. It would be impossible to try this case,
18 because by doing so we would have been making our own life difficult. So
19 this was not intentional. When creating the new assessment, we are going
20 to be guided by your assessment. We are not going to exceed the time; we
21 are going to try to stick to the limits imposed by you. If examination
22 can be done in less time, all the better, because, after all, our
23 defendant is incarcerated and we must be mindful of that.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt you, Mr. Milovancevic. I know you
6 have not mentioned the name of this person, but I'm sure people who know
7 all these positions would be able to identify him and we are not in
8 private session. Would you like that to be redacted?
9 May we ask that page 17, starting from line 25 and then up to page
10 18, line 5, be redacted, please.
11 And may we then move --
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- may we then move into private session for the
14 duration of what you are saying, Mr. Milovancevic. I interrupted you.
15 [Private session]
11 Pages 7323-7325 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 You may proceed, Mr. Whiting.
23 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 I -- the first point is, from the point of view of the
25 Prosecution, we believe that the most important figure is the total amount
1 of time that's going to be taken by the Defence for its Defence case,
2 which has now been set by the Trial Chamber at, I believe, 260 hours. I
3 think that's the figure. We certainly do not think that anything that has
4 occurred thus far would justify an increase of that amount of time. On
5 the contrary, we think both because of witnesses being dropped and, in our
6 view, because of the nature of the evidence that has been led, there could
7 be a basis for a decrease in that.
8 In any event, what concerns us the most, as is -- as witnesses --
9 as the first several witnesses have taken significantly longer than have
10 been anticipated, is that that figure be a firm figure and that there --
11 we would ask that the Trial Chamber make it absolutely clear to the
12 Defence that that figure will not change absent extraordinary
13 circumstances. And I suppose what our concern is - and it has happened in
14 other cases, and we really don't want to see it happen here - is we'll get
15 -- that time will be used up getting through half of the witnesses and
16 then, with a week or two left of the Defence case, we will receive an
17 application for an additional several weeks or several months of the
18 Defence case because here is a list of very important witnesses who've not
19 been heard and who must be heard in order for the accused to Defence
20 himself. It is that position that I think should be avoided at all costs,
21 and the only way to avoid that is to make it clear now that that time is
22 fixed and that the Defence must operate within that time so that if it
23 decides it's going to take several days longer with a particular witness,
24 that that -- that comes off the clock and that comes off -- that is within
25 that fixed time and that they must make up that time by shortening other
1 witnesses or dropping other witnesses.
2 Now, of course the -- we don't -- the accused has to have a right
3 to fully defend himself, and if the Defence can show that there is a basis
4 for increasing that amount of time for the Defence case, then so be it.
5 That's available to the Defence to try to make that showing and for the
6 Trial Chamber to rule on it. However, as I said, based on everything that
7 has happened thus far in the Defence case, I don't think there is a basis
8 for such a -- for any kind of increase in the Defence case. But it's that
9 total number and that problem that we're most worried about from the point
10 of view of the Prosecution.
11 Now, with -- with respect to individual witnesses and estimates of
12 time for individual witnesses as we go along, I'm a little concerned about
13 kind of the -- what I'm hearing from the Defence, which is the focus all
14 the time on their inability -- the problem being that they -- that they
15 were unable to assess how long these witnesses would take and that seeming
16 to be the problem. And I think it's fair to say that with respect to each
17 witness, perhaps with the exception of this last witness, the assessment
18 has been far below what the witness has actually taken, suggesting that
19 these revised estimates are going to increase rather than decrease, which
20 I think, obviously, would then cause a collision with the total number of
21 hours that have been allocated to the Defence.
22 I would also submit that, in our view, the problem is not simply
23 the assessment of -- a problem of the assessment of time that each witness
24 is going to take, but in our view the witnesses have taken longer than
25 they should have, for various reasons. And they -- the examinations could
1 be done more efficiently and quickly, and I think the Trial Chamber has
2 been seeking to have that happen, it has not happened, and that is, we
3 think, the problem. We think there's been a lot of time wasted, and that
4 time, again, should come off the -- that comes off the total amount of
5 time that's been allocated for the Defence.
6 The third point is that in principle with respect to particular
7 witnesses, for example, this next witness, the Prosecution does not have
8 an objection to the Defence asking for more time for a particular witness,
9 if there is some showing of why that is justified, why -- where -- what is
10 the -- what has occurred -- what is the departure from the prior estimate?
11 Are there more matters that are going to be covered? What is -- and the
12 Defence counsel, to be fair, made some attempt at such a showing. But in
13 addition, we would -- in order to keep the focus on the total amount of
14 time that's being taken by the Defence, we would suggest that the Defence
15 also perhaps offer ways in which it's going -- it's going to shorten its
16 case. If it's going to ask for doubling the length of this witness, well,
17 how is it going to shorten the case in other ways? Is this witness going
18 to cover another witness's testimony, and therefore that witness will not
19 have to come? Or are they going to shorten another witness? Are they
20 going to drop witnesses? That way, keeping the focus on the total amount
21 of time that's being taken by the Defence.
22 With respect to this next witness, I agree, yes, that there is a
23 basis for increasing the length of this next witness, and I'm fine with
24 that. I would ask two things, however. One is that the Defence be a
25 little bit more specific about how much time, because I don't think
1 Defence counsel will mind me saying that in several conversations with
2 Defence counsel before today - yesterday, in fact - I was told that the
3 examination-in-chief would last three days. Today he's estimating -- he
4 said, I think, the figure 16 hours for this witness. If it's -- if it's
5 three days examination-in-chief, assume three days for cross-examination
6 and questions from the Bench, that's in excess of -- by my count, that's
7 in excess of 16 hours. That's over -- I believe that's over 20 hours. So
8 just if Defence counsel could be more specific about how much time it
9 really expects to take in examination-in-chief.
10 Second -- the second thing I would request is if the -- the
11 Defence counsel provided us some time ago with a 65 ter summary for this
12 witness, and that was presumably at the time when it thought this witness
13 would take eight hours total. We have not been provided with any new 65
14 ter summary, any supplement, any additions, and it would seem to me -- I
15 would -- given what the Defence is now telling us, that they want to
16 double or triple the length of time to take for this witness, it would
17 seem to me that there should be some supplemental information, some
18 additional matters that this witness is going to cover, some additional
19 detail, so I am a little surprised that we have not received such a
20 supplemental 65 ter filing for the witness.
21 I think that's -- I think those are all the points I wanted to
22 raise. It's just the emphasis on the total amount of time and trying to
23 anticipate how that -- where we will be a week or two before the end of
24 that total amount of time is taken up. Thank you.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Whiting. You will have noticed, if
1 you -- or if you didn't, then I'll have to repeat myself. When I spoke
2 before you spoke, I indicated to Mr. Milovancevic that we're taking into
3 account the fact that Mr. Martic is not going to testify and some other
4 four witnesses are not going to testify, therefore we expect a change -
5 obviously a change by way of a decrease - in the number of hours that he
6 is going to -- that the Defence is going to take to present its case.
7 Hand in hand with that I mentioned the fact that, unlike the Defence
8 estimate of 300 hours or 320 hours, the 73 ter decision mentioned 260, and
9 we've got to try and keep within that 260. We expect that 260 to come
10 down because of the fact that Mr. Martic is not testifying and four other
11 witnesses and other factors.
12 And while you may say that the Prosecution has no objection to the
13 next witness's time being doubled, the Chamber is not satisfied that a
14 case has been made to double that number, and we're going to go according
15 to the time that was given. I see that the Defence had estimated eight
16 hours and -- I think we have to stay within that eight-hour time-limit and
17 try to finish within that time period. And we can deal with the situation
18 at the end of that eight-hour period to see what else needs to be done, or
19 how much more time is to be given. But for now we are assuming that we're
20 finishing this witness in eight hours.
21 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
23 MR. WHITING: If I may, I'm sorry to interrupt. On -- just on
24 that subject, I would ask -- just so we don't later have any issue about
25 the Defence being unable to submit the evidence to the Court that it
1 wanted to submit, that the Defence -- Defence counsel be given another
2 opportunity to justify with more specificity why he might want more time
3 with this witness, just so that we have a good record on this issue. I
4 don't want to -- I'd rather not deal with this issue later on, on appeal,
5 if there is an appeal.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, but then -- for the Defence to do that, we
7 must get the filing of a 65 ter summary of this witness, saying exactly
8 the things you were asking for, unless, Mr. Milovancevic, you have them at
9 hand. The point at issue, Mr. Milovancevic, is that the argument you made
10 about wanting 16 hours for this witness doesn't make out a case. Do you
11 want to make a case for applying for more time? And of course, it's got
12 to be substantive.
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in order to fully
14 understand the position of the Defence, I have to say that the Trial
15 Chamber has set the number of hours within which the Defence has to
16 present its case. And this is maybe for the fourth or fifth time that I
17 say that we will abide by that guidance, and we will bear in mind the
18 suggestion that we should decrease the time. However, we also stated that
19 instead of Mr. Martic there will be other witnesses called. We withdrew
20 our submission that Mr. Martic should testify, and his testimony would be
21 far longer than will be of those other witnesses.
22 Now, as for the submission of the Prosecutor, it's a bit
23 far-fetched and it's not based on any fact. On what basis does he say
24 that at the end of the day we would be asking for more time? We will
25 stick to the time limit or to the hour limit that the Trial Chamber has
1 set. We asked for 320 hours; the Trial Chamber set it at 260 hours. We
2 will abide by that. Now, what course will be taken further will depend on
3 the situation that arises on our -- perhaps submissions on what the Trial
4 Chamber's guidance may be.
5 Now, as for the next witness, Your Honour, this witness's
6 testimony goes to the core of the case. Perhaps I should be able to give
7 you a more detailed explanation after the break because it might take a
8 bit longer than the usual break that we take.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: We don't want to waste time talking about what we
10 are going to do because we are eating on the time we should be using to
11 lead evidence. You see, just bear this in mind and be thinking about it
12 during the break, Mr. Milovancevic, that when you say there are no facts
13 on which the Prosecution bases what it says, do you remember that from the
14 beginning of the Defence case not one witness has kept within the time,
15 and therefore the pattern is emerging that makes any observer to say: How
16 are you going to meet the time limit if this pattern is going like this?
17 And this emergence of that pattern is the fact upon which a fear emerges
18 that we may not stay within the 260 hours. So there are facts to do so
19 and you have got to be able to say exactly how you are going to offset
20 those things.
21 In its estimation of the time that it gave in the 73 ter decision,
22 the Chamber was anticipating a number of witnesses coming by way of 92
23 bis. You have plainly rejected that. You say you want them all coming
24 in, and that has a knock-on effect on the time that is going to be taken.
25 And you have got to be able to put facts before us to say how you are
1 going to catch up this time.
2 Let's take the break. We'll come back at quarter to 11.00 and
3 we'll carry on from there. Court adjourned.
4 --- Recess taken at 10.17 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 10.46 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you had wanted to say something.
7 Let's try to be brief and get on with the job. You can rest assured the
8 Chamber is hearing what you are saying.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will
10 be quite brief. When I suggested that the time for the next witness be
11 prolonged to 16 hours, I included there the examination-in-chief,
12 cross-examination, Judges' questions, and re-examination. The ground for
13 that being that the person held all the key positions at the critical
14 time. That's one point.
15 The second point is that the Trial Chamber has set the hour limit
16 within which we have to complete our presentation of evidence, and we are
17 aware that it is our duty to complete our case within that time limit. It
18 is up to the Defence to choose the pace at which it will examine the
19 witnesses, and our possible omission to honour or to fully examine our
20 witnesses is something that can only be criticised by our client,
21 Mr. Martic.
22 As far as the time assessment is concerned, as I said, we will
23 re-assess our schedule because it is in our interest to give an assessment
24 that will be as realistic as possible in view of our recent experience.
25 As far as Mr. Prosecutor's concern about something that has not happened
1 yet or what is about to happen in November is something that we cannot
2 take into account now and it will be up to the Trial Chamber to judge
3 whether we are indeed honouring the schedule that we have set, and we will
4 endeavour to do that.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think -- unless anybody has something to say, I
6 think we've heard what you have to say, Mr. Milovancevic. We've heard
7 what the Prosecution had to say.
8 Judge Nosworthy has something to say. Will you please say
9 something, Judge Nosworthy.
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Milovancevic, I do believe that Mr. Whiting
11 whilst making his observation had spoken on your behalf at least twice,
12 but this is what I want to say to you in particular. I have noticed a
13 very marked improvement with the last witness in terms of how he was led
14 and in terms of his responses, which was very much more according to that
15 which the Trial Chamber would expect. I want to commend you and I
16 certainly remain optimistic that with the coming Defence witness you are
17 going to bear in mind your duties and prepare your witnesses properly, so
18 you have effective management of the time, because it is the duty of the
19 Defence to manage the time that is allotted efficiently and economically.
20 So I remain optimistic with this last witness who did not tarry and who
21 kept a good pace, with your guidance, that this is a taste of things to
22 come. Thank you.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.
24 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And may I add a little remark, but more critical
25 to you, Mr. Milovancevic. I would not regard the manner of speaking or of
1 speech of a certain witness a reason to give him longer time unless he has
2 a speaking problem, a disability. That is what I wanted to remark.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. When I
4 was mentioning his manner of speech, I meant his speaking pace, because
5 you have a person who needs several sentences to just make one point, but
6 I bear in mind your remarks and try to be as much to the point as
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
9 Then taking on what Judge Nosworthy has said and also what Judge
10 Hoepfel has said, let me say to you it rests upon you to keep control of
11 the witness. I also mark -- noticed that your questions were much shorter
12 in the -- with the last witness. If you keep it at that and get the
13 witness to listen carefully to what you say and answer directly to that,
14 if you want any elaboration, you will ask for the elaboration, but let him
15 not -- don't let him give elaboration at every turn, even when it is not
17 I want to suggest that you call the next witness and let's see how
18 we go with the witness.
19 [Closed session]
11 Pages 7337-7392 redacted. Closed session.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 30th day of
7 August, 2006, at 10.30 a.m.