1 Tuesday, 3rd June 1997

2 (10.00 am)

3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

4 We are just having seen for the first time and I think

5 Mr. Greaves mentioned something like that, the protection

6 for a defence witness.

7 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, can I mention there is no

8 transcription coming up on the screens. My screen is

9 blank. I'm sorry.

10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I am sure the Prosecution has this

11 application and it has no objection to it.

12 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, we received it a couple of

13 minutes ago. To the extent that the motion is

14 requesting protection from the public or media of the

15 identity of these people and that they be heard in

16 private session, the Prosecution has no objection, but

17 we just got it a few minutes ago. To the extent that

18 there is other things, I am not sure they go to the

19 Office of the Prosecutor. If they do, we have not had

20 a chance to look at it, but I can say -- we can say we

21 have no objection to them getting protection from the

22 public or media.

23 JUDGE JAN: If you notice at the last page, he has made

24 certain requests that they be moved out of Vienna and

25 transferred to preferably a German speaking area of

1 Switzerland. Look at the last page.

2 MS. McHENRY: I believe that is a matter the Office of the

3 Prosecutor takes no position on. I don't believe that

4 it's within our purview.

5 JUDGE JAN: Is there any urgency about it?

6 MR. GREAVES: I think the phrase used this morning by the

7 Victim and Support Unit is time is getting on. We would

8 like this as soon as possible, particularly bearing in

9 mind the summer holidays are upon us.

10 JUDGE JAN: We will have to consult the Registrar also

11 before we make any decision on this.

12 MR. GREAVES: Of course we understand that but, as we say,

13 time is getting on and matters are becoming really

14 rather more urgent than they have been.

15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: We should be able to take it later in

16 the day.

17 MR. GREAVES: I am very grateful to your Honours. I say

18 that on behalf of my leading counsel and myself and

19 I thank the Prosecution as well.

20 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Let us get on with the day's

21 proceedings. Who is your next witness?

22 MS. McHENRY: The Prosecution calls Mr Bart d'Hooge.

23 JUDGE JAN: How do you pronounce it?

24 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I believe we should ask the

25 witness that. As you may have noticed, my --

1 JUDGE JAN: I found some difficulty.

2 MS. McHENRY: I am not good with many different kinds of

3 names, and I consider Flemish names among them.

4 (Witness enters court)

5 Mr Bart d'Hooge (sworn)

6 Examined by Ms. McHenry.

7 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Take your seat.

8 MS. McHENRY: Sir, would you please state your full name?

9 A. My name is Bart d'Hooge.

10 Q. How are you employed at the present time?

11 A. I am an investigator with the OTP.

12 Q. By OTP do you mean Office of the Prosecutor?

13 A. The Office of the Prosecutor.

14 Q. Prior to working for the OTP how were you employed?

15 A. I was an investigator with the Belgian Criminal Police.

16 Q. How long were you an investigator with the Belgian

17 police?

18 A. For about ten years.

19 Q. Have you been involved as part of your work within the

20 OTP in investigation into crimes alleged to have been

21 committed in the Celebici detention camp?

22 A. I have been working on the Celebici case since 1st

23 September 1995.

24 Q. As part of the investigation did you participate in

25 interviews of any accused?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Which accused?

3 A. I participated in the interview of Mr Mucic, Mr Landzo

4 and Mr Delic.

5 Q. Let me start off with Mr Mucic. When was Mr Mucic

6 interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor?

7 A. Mr Mucic was interviewed in Vienna, if I remember well,

8 in March 1996.

9 Q. Do you know when Mr Mucic was arrested?

10 A. Mr Mucic was arrested in Vienna on 18th March.

11 Q. Were you present when Mr Mucic was arrested?

12 A. We were not present during the arrest, but I was in

13 Vienna.

14 Q. Did you yourself have any contact with Mr Mucic on the

15 18th, the day he was arrested?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Okay. Did you have any contact with Mr Mucic on 19th

18 March?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. Can you please describe what happened and how it

21 was that you had contact with Mr Mucic and briefly just

22 describe the surrounding circumstances?

23 A. The interview took place in the building of the Ministry

24 of Justice in Vienna in one of the rooms that were

25 provided to us by the local authorities.

1 I participated in the interview together with

2 Mr Abribat, Mr Nicholson and our interpreter.

3 Q. Let me go back for a minute. Where was it that you

4 first saw Mr Mucic on 19th?

5 A. We first saw him together with Dr Sada, a judge from the

6 Vienna court, in an office.

7 Q. Okay. What occurred during this meeting? Was this the

8 OTP interview or was something else going on?

9 A. That was an interview done by Dr Sada about the

10 extradition procedure.

11 Q. Okay. Did you or anyone else from the Office of the

12 Prosecutor ask any questions or participate during this

13 meeting with Dr Sada?

14 A. No.

15 Q. What happened after the meeting with Dr Sada?

16 A. After the meeting with Dr Sada we changed rooms. We

17 went to another room.

18 Q. Who is "we"? Who, in fact, went to the other room?

19 A. The members of the OTP. Mr Mucic went away for a rest,

20 I think. He took a rest.

21 Q. Who showed you this other room?

22 A. Dr Sada.

23 Q. After Dr Sada showed you this room, what did you do, you

24 and the other members of the Office of the Prosecutor?

25 A. It was a very small room and we set up the audio

1 equipment and video equipment.

2 Q. Okay. Then what happened?

3 A. Then Mr Mucic came back. We talked briefly to him and

4 then started the interview.

5 Q. Okay. When you say you talked briefly to him, can you

6 just tell us what -- can you give us the circumstances

7 surrounding the brief talk?

8 A. Yes. We wanted to explain Mr Mucic the way in which the

9 OTP conducts an interview, meaning that we have to audio

10 record, video record. We explain him the rights

11 according to Rule 42 and 43, just technically how we do

12 an interview.

13 Q. Okay. Who conducted the interview on 19th March?

14 A. Mr Abribat.

15 Q. Okay. On 19th March did anyone from the Office of the

16 Prosecutor other than Mr Abribat speak with Mr Mucic?

17 A. No.

18 Q. At any time prior to or during the interview did

19 Mr Mucic suggest that he might wish to have an attorney

20 present when he spoke with representatives of the Office

21 of the Prosecutor?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Did anyone suggest to Mr Mucic for any reason that he

24 should not have -- for any reason that he should not

25 have an attorney?

1 A. No.

2 Q. Now, you've already stated that Mr Mucic was advised of

3 his rights under the Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Are

4 you aware of whether or not there is a recording of

5 Mr Mucic being advised of his rights under Tribunal

6 rules and procedures?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Did Mr Mucic indicate whether or not he was willing to

9 give an interview and, if so, whether or not he wished

10 an attorney to be present?

11 A. No, he agreed to be interviewed and he didn't express

12 his desire to have legal counsel present.

13 Q. Was the interview of Mr Mucic completed on the 19th?

14 A. No, no.

15 Q. Did the interview then continue?

16 A. I continued on 20th and 21st March.

17 Q. Okay. Going now to 20th and 21st, can you explain the

18 procedure for those days that the interview -- the

19 circumstances surrounding the subsequent portions of the

20 interview on 20th and 21st?

21 A. Again at the start of the interview we advised Mr Mucic

22 of his rights, asked him if he agreed to be interviewed

23 with or without legal counsel and started the interview,

24 took a break, continued after the break.

25 Q. Okay. When Mr Mucic was advised of his rights on 20th

1 and 21st, was that also recorded?

2 A. Everything was recorded.

3 Q. Was there a time, in fact, either on 20th or 21st, when

4 an attorney appeared?

5 A. On 20th March I think around the lunch break.

6 Q. Please describe what happened?

7 A. I think we just finished the first part of the interview

8 and proposed to have a lunch break, and an attorney

9 appointed to him by the Austrian court, by the Vienna

10 court, came into the room. I think his name was Dr

11 Manfred or something. He told us that he was appointed

12 by the court as the defence of Mr Mucic. He asked us

13 if he could have a copy of the indictment and the rules

14 of the Tribunal. Then he spoke briefly with his client

15 in private.

16 Q. Then what happened?

17 A. Then he went away.

18 Q. Okay. Did he say anything -- did the attorney say

19 anything to you before he went away?

20 A. Yes. He advised me that Mr Mucic said that he did not

21 want a legal counsel present.

22 Q. Okay. This occurred during a break; is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. When the interview commenced again was there any

25 notation or record made of the fact that -- reference

1 made to the fact that this person had appeared?

2 A. Yes. I cannot remember the exact words, but it should

3 be somewhere in the transcript.

4 Q. Okay. If you looked at a copy of the transcript would

5 it refresh your recollection?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Okay. I would ask that the witness be given a copy of

8 the exhibit -- Prosecution Exhibit 101 for

9 identification purposes. (Handed to witness).

10 Sir, I'm going to ask that you direct your

11 attention to page 33 of the transcript.

12 A. It is the third paragraph:

13 "We would like to state, as required by Mr Mucic,

14 defence counsel shall not be present at the

15 questioning".

16 This is, I think, what I mean.

17 Q. Thank you. At any time on 20th or 21st did Mr Mucic

18 ever -- I'm sorry. I already asked that. At this

19 time -- excuse me. Can the witness keep that?

20 Sir, I would ask you to also look at Prosecution

21 Exhibit 101 and tell me if you recognise it and, if so,

22 what it is, and then with the usher's assistance if

23 something else could be given to the Registrar for

24 marking.

25 A. This is the English transcript of the interview that we

1 conducted in Vienna, and this is the transcript in

2 Serbian, Bosnian, Croat versions.

3 Q. Were you present at all times during 19th March?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you yourself conducted the interviews on 20th and

6 21st?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Have you reviewed the transcript of the interview of

9 Mr Mucic?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Does it fairly and accurately reflect the interview?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay. Sir, you are being shown what has been marked

14 for identification purposes as Prosecution exhibit 101A

15 and 101B, if I have the numbers correct?

16 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, that is 101A and 101B.

17 MS. McHENRY: Okay. Sir, can you recognise what those are?

18 A. These are sealed envelopes with the original videotapes

19 of the interview that was conducted in Vienna.

20 Q. Okay. Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution seeks

21 to introduce Prosecution Exhibits 101, which is the

22 transcript, 101A and 101B, which are the sealed tapes

23 originals. I'm sorry. We have a technical issue

24 before there is any objections. Just let me ask. We

25 also have copies of the videos, an extra copy and it's

1 really if the Registrar could instruct me whether or not

2 they require that the envelopes be unsealed and, if so,

3 whether or not they then would re-seal them, because we

4 have them available, but if the originals are going to

5 be unsealed, I understand that the Registrar may require

6 that?

7 THE REGISTRAR: Actually all the envelopes that we receive

8 which are sealed are opened to verify the contents of

9 the envelope. That was already the case with the

10 exhibits in the case of Mr Delalic. The sealed

11 envelopes that we have received were opened and then the

12 exhibits were numbered. These were exhibits that all

13 the parties received. When we receive copies of

14 additional tapes, it's not necessary to put them in an

15 envelope, nor to give them other numbers if they are

16 copies of videos. They are simply given the letter

17 C. The first envelope is A, the second B and this

18 would be exhibit 101C.

19 MS. McHENRY: Does the Registrar then reseal the envelopes

20 or do they leave them unsealed once they've been

21 marked?

22 THE REGISTRAR: We close them again, but we do not seal

23 them, and then they are deposited under protection.

24 MS. McHENRY: Thank you. In that case I don't believe it's

25 necessary to introduce the extra copies. At this time,

1 your Honours, the Prosecution seeks to introduce

2 exhibits 101, 101A and 101B.

3 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, Tom Moran for Hazim Delic. First,

4 I would ask that the court order any reference to

5 Mr Delic in these be redacted for the reasons set forth

6 both in my pre-trial memo and I believe I filed a

7 specific memorandum of law on this. Basically I don't

8 have the right to cross-examine Mr Mucic. I would ask

9 at least until such time as he takes the stand that all

10 references to Hazim Delic be removed from both the

11 transcript and redacted from the tapes. I believe

12 there is about fifteen references to him.

13 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: That is not possible.

14 JUDGE JAN: How can you redact it? You can argue this

15 should not be used as evidence against him as far as you

16 are concerned. You can argue that.

17 MR MORAN: That is my fall-back position.

18 JUDGE JAN: This is what he is supposed to have said.

19 This is on the record. Whether that can be used as

20 evidence against you is a different matter altogether.

21 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You cannot have redaction.

22 MR MORAN: Then I would object to them being used

23 altogether.

24 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think that is not the purpose for

25 which they are intended. They are intended for another

1 issue. When the question of being used arises, it

2 might depend on the purpose for which it was being

3 intended, not Hazim Delic.

4 MR. MORAN: I think it is Rule 8 where I have to object

5 contemporaneously. Just in all caution I bring that to

6 the court's attention.

7 JUDGE JAN: It will be a question of law whether the

8 statement of one accused can be used as evidence against

9 the other.

10 MR. MORAN: That is correct, your Honour. I am bringing it

11 to the court's attention. That's why I am making the

12 objection.

13 JUDGE JAN: I want to find out: these audio, videotapes,

14 the initial ones, are they initialled by this witness or

15 do they bear his signatures? I just want to find out.

16 MS. McHENRY: Sir, is it the case that these sealed

17 envelopes bear your signature?

18 A. My signature, the signature of a witness and the

19 signature of the accused.

20 JUDGE JAN: On the tapes?

21 A. On the envelopes.

22 MS. McHENRY: On the envelopes.

23 JUDGE JAN: The envelopes were sealed by the Registrar you

24 just told us.

25 MS. McHENRY: I'm sorry. Maybe I did not express myself

1 well. Let me ask the witness. I think when I was

2 referring to what the Registrar does, it was once we

3 introduce them into evidence. It was not what had

4 happened previously, who had sealed them previously.

5 Let me just ask the witness. Sir, who sealed those

6 envelopes?

7 A. I sealed the envelope.

8 Q. Okay. Thank you.

9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Who authenticated the tapes

10 themselves?

11 MS. McHENRY: Well, let me ask: what happened, sir to the

12 originals of the videotape?

13 A. We didn't dispose in Austria of equipment to make a copy

14 of the videotapes as set out in the rules, so we brought

15 the videotapes -- we put them in an envelope, brought

16 them back to The Hague, made a copy here and then went

17 to the prison with the original tapes. We put them

18 again in an envelope, showed them to Mr. Mucic and we

19 sealed them and everybody signed on the envelope,

20 because it's impossible to put the signature on the tape

21 itself.

22 Q. Okay. Do you recognise your signature as being the

23 signature you placed on the envelope at the time that

24 the originals were placed in the envelope and sealed?

25 A. Yes.

1 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think that is satisfactory.

2 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honours, I simply want to join Mr. Moran

3 and at this point object to the use of any statements

4 contained on these videos regarding my client,

5 Mr. Landzo, as evidence in this case, just to have it on

6 the record that I'm making the objection

7 contemporaneously.

8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much. Even if you did

9 not, I think we observe the rules. Yes? Let's us hear

10 you.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I would

12 like to join the objection of my learned colleague,

13 Mr. Moran, that these tapes can (sic) be used against our

14 client Mr. Delalic.

15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Is that all you have for this?

16 JUDGE JAN: There is a slight correction to the

17 transcript. There is a slight correction to be made in

18 the transcript. You said "cannot be used." The word

19 is "can be used" in the transcript.

20 MS. McHENRY: Certainly the Prosecution will stipulate that

21 Ms. Residovic is objecting to the use of this statement

22 against her client.

23 JUDGE JAN: There is no admission on your part.

24 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you.

25 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, we do have more for this

1 witness. Has your Honour ruled on the admission of

2 Prosecution's Exhibit 101, 101A and 101B? I do not know

3 if there wants to be voir dire or we should continue

4 with respect to other interviews. I'm at the court's

5 pleasure.

6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes.

7 JUDGE ODIO BENITO: I'm sorry. You see why you have to

8 speak slowly and clearly, precisely for these kind of

9 reasons. Thank you.

10 MS. McHENRY: With the record clearly reflecting that

11 they've been admitted into evidence, I will now go, sir,

12 with respect to Mr. Landzo. You indicated, sir, that

13 you had participated in an interview of Mr. Landzo. Can

14 you please tell us the date and the place and who was

15 present other than members of the Office of the

16 Prosecutor when Mr. Landzo was interviewed?

17 A. Mr. Landzo was interviewed by members of the OTP in the

18 detention unit in Scheveningen.

19 MS. McHENRY: I'm sorry. Ms. Residovic, may I ask that you

20 turn off your microphone. Thank you.

21 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): I apologise. May I put

22 a question? I did not hear the Ruling of the trial

23 chamber that these documents have been accepted as

24 evidence. After you there is the possibility of

25 cross-examination and as far as I know only then can the

1 evidence be admitted.

2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Well, what we've admitted are the

3 tapes and the documents which have been authenticated

4 even by the witness himself and the accused person.

5 They have signed it and security was guaranteed, so

6 I think they're admissible.

7 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your

8 Honour.

9 MS. McHENRY: Sir, if you would please continue, I believe

10 you were telling us the date and place and who was

11 present when Mr. Landzo was interviewed?

12 A. Mr. Landzo was interviewed by members of the OTP in the

13 detention unit in Scheveningen, and I believe it was in

14 July 1996.

15 Q. Okay. Who was present other than members of the Office

16 of the Prosecutor and a translator?

17 A. Defence counsel of Mr. Landzo.

18 JUDGE JAN: And Mr. Landzo.

19 MS. McHENRY: Thank you, your Honour. Was Mr. Landzo also

20 present?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Thank you. Sir, was Mr. Landzo advised of his rights

23 under Rules 42 and 43?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Was the interview recorded and a transcript subsequently

1 made?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. With the usher's assistance I would now like to

4 show the witness some exhibits. These have been

5 previously provided to defence counsel. (Handed to

6 witness). Maybe before anything is opened it can be

7 shown to the witness, if that is possible. Those are

8 just three extra copies for the court's convenience,

9 Mr. Registrar.

10 Sir, showing you what has been marked for

11 identification purposes as Prosecution Exhibits 102,

12 being the binder, and 102A, being the envelope, can you

13 please tell us if you recognised what those are?

14 A. Yes. This is a binder with the English transcript of

15 the interview, the Serbo-Bosnian transcript and some of

16 the exhibits used during the interview.

17 Q. Have you reviewed the translation of the interview of

18 Mr. Landzo?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Does it fairly and accurately reflect the interview

21 taken of Mr. Landzo?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Was that Prosecution Exhibit 102 that you just referred

24 to, if you can look in the --

25 A. This is number 102.

1 Q. Now directing your attention to Prosecution Exhibit 102A

2 for identification purposes, can you please tell us if

3 you recognise what that is?

4 A. This is a sealed envelope with four tapes of the

5 interview of Esad Landzo. It's marked on it 18th July

6 1996, detention unit, Scheveningen.

7 Q. Are these the originals of the videotapes, sir?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. When was this envelope -- is the envelope in a sealed

10 condition?

11 A. It's two sealed with two signatures on the envelope --

12 three signatures.

13 Q. Those signatures are on the envelope?

14 A. My signature, Mr. Landzo and Mr. Brackovic.

15 Q. Was Mr. Brackovic the defence counsel of Mr. Landzo?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. At this time the Prosecution would seek to admit into

18 evidence Prosecution exhibit 102 and 102A?

19 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honours, I would like to conduct

20 cross-examination for the purpose of establishing a

21 foundation for objecting to the admission of these

22 transcripts and videotapes.

23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You would when the evidence is given,

24 because all he's now showing you are the secure tapes

25 signed by the three of them, which is sought to be

1 introduced into evidence.

2 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, she is offering them into evidence.

3 JUDGE JAN: Yes.

4 MR. ACKERMAN: If the court admits them at this point, I am

5 deprived of the opportunity of developing an objection

6 and there's an objection that I can develop if I'm

7 permitted to cross-examine at this point. I don't want

8 to sit here silently and let them be admitted and then

9 be told later that it is too late, they have been

10 admitted and I did not make a proper objection.

11 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I do not know what objection you now

12 have for the signed and sealed envelopes which contain

13 those things.

14 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, if I may be --

15 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honours, my objection will be they were

16 not taken in accordance with the rules of this court.

17 I can evenly establish that by cross-examining this

18 witness. I cannot establish it by standing here giving

19 evidence out of my own mouth, but I do not want to waive

20 the opportunity to object to the admission of these.

21 She has now offered them. She is asking you, the

22 Prosecutor, to make a ruling now on whether or not

23 they're admissible. I object to their admissibility,

24 and I can show why they're not admissible if I'm

25 permitted to do a cross-examination.

1 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, you can examine him as to whether

2 the rules were complied with. Let us hear your

3 cross-examination because I do not know what you want to

4 establish.

5 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you your Honour.

6 JUDGE JAN: This is a record prepared by him. Whether he

7 has done it rightly or wrongly that can being argued in

8 the light of your cross-examination. It may be a bit

9 premature to cross-examine him at this stage. Your

10 objection has been noted and come on the transcript.

11 MR. ACKERMAN: Let me tell you of my concern. It may be

12 confusion between systems. At this stage in the courts

13 I normally practice in if the court were to say on the

14 record that these documents are admitted, then I am no

15 longer able to contest their admissibility. They have

16 been admitted. So in the courts that I practice in

17 I have to lay the foundation for my objection and make

18 that objection now or be forever barred. If that's not

19 the case, I'm willing to wait until my normal turn in

20 cross-examination and then show the court that there's a

21 reason why they should not be considered by the court.

22 Perhaps all that has happened at this point, if they've

23 been marked and are now available in the event the court

24 decides that they were properly taken, and if that is

25 the case, then I'll wait until my turn. Now according

1 to our rules, illegally obtained evidence can be removed

2 at any time.

3 JUDGE JAN: At any time. You see --

4 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I am sure it is so according to your

5 own rules.

6 JUDGE JAN: Even if a document has been admitted and later

7 on it is found it has not been obtained in accordance

8 with law, it can always be excluded from

9 consideration.

10 MR. ACKERMAN: Then I am at the court's pleasure. Would

11 you prefer that I proceed now or wait until my normal

12 turn of cross-examination at this witness? It is

13 completely up to the court. I am happy.

14 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: All you need to do is show at any

15 stage these documents were not obtained legally and the

16 rules have not been followed. The moment you show that

17 you bring yourself within the exclusionary rules of this

18 court.

19 MR. ACKERMAN: I fully understand that, your Honour. The

20 only question is when would the court want me to do

21 that, now or later in cross-examination?

22 JUDGE JAN: Wait until the examination-in-chief is over.

23 Your objection has come on the record.

24 MR. MORAN: I would renew the same objections to exhibits

25 102 and 102A that I had on 101, 101A and B and C.

1 I renew all those objections.

2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: It is the same rule you apply.

3 MR. MORAN: I understand, your Honour. It is just a matter

4 of making sure I do come within the contemporaneous

5 objection Rule in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

6 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, for the same reasons

7 Mr. Delalic makes the same objection to the use of these

8 statements against him.

9 JUDGE JAN: It gives a much wider field. Even if a

10 document has been admitted and it is found to be wrongly

11 admitted, it can be excluded from consideration. That

12 gives you a much wider scope.

13 MR. GREAVES: I make the same proposition on behalf of

14 Mr. Mucic? Can I also say this? I think the word

15 "admitted" is perhaps an unfortunate word to use in the

16 circumstances. I hate to refer always to one's own

17 system. In England the word "produced" would be

18 used. The Prosecution is asking the witness: "Do you

19 now produce the tape or the transcript?" Perhaps that

20 avoids confusion, because the word "admission" in legal

21 terms can have a wide variety of meanings and can be

22 misconstrued.

23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually it's not the Prosecution

24 which admits evidence. It's the Trial Chamber which

25 does.

1 MR. GREAVES: It is anticipated your Honours do that. So

2 the process which my learned friend is, in fact, doing

3 is inviting the witness to produce and place in the

4 custody of the court the physical evidence. I hope

5 that's a useful suggestion. It may not be.

6 MS. McHENRY: Sir, going to Mr. Delic, you indicated

7 previously that you participated in --the interviews

8 which you participated in including those of Mr. Delic.

9 Can you please tell us when Mr. Delic was interviewed,

10 where and who was present?

11 A. Mr. Delic was interviewed in the detention unit in

12 Scheveningen. He was interviewed in the presence of

13 his defence counsel and members of the OTP.

14 Q. Was Mr. Delic's defence counsel present on both

15 occasions?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Was Mr. Delic advised of his rights under the Tribunal

18 Rules of Procedure, including Rules 42 and 43?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. Were the interviews recorded and a transcript

21 subsequently made?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Do you know why there were two interviews of Mr. Delic?

24 A. I believe Mr. Delic requested himself to be interviewed

25 again, because if I believe -- if I'm correct, he wanted

1 to make some corrections to his first interview.

2 Q. Okay. With the usher's assistance may I ask that

3 certain proposed exhibits be shown to the witness?

4 (Handed to witness). I would just ask that before any

5 envelopes be unsealed that they be shown to the witness:

6 I will note far for the record that copies of all

7 these exhibits have previously been provided to defence

8 counsel and three copies of Prosecution -- proposed

9 Prosecution exhibit 103 are being provided to the court

10 for its convenience.

11 Sir, I'm asking you to look at what has been

12 marked for identification purposes as Prosecution

13 Exhibit 103. If you can please tell us if you

14 recognise it and, if so, what it is?

15 A. These are the English and Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian

16 transcript of both of the interviews and exhibits used

17 during the interviews.

18 Q. Okay. Have you reviewed the transcripts of the

19 interviews of Mr. Delic?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Okay. Do the transcripts fairly and accurately reflect

22 the interviews the Office of the Prosecutor took from

23 Mr. Delic?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Do the transcripts accurately reflect that the Rules of

1 the Tribunal, including that the accused was advised of

2 his rights, were followed?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Okay. Now I'm going to ask that you look at

5 Prosecution -- what has been marked for identification

6 purposes as Prosecution Exhibit 103A, and if you could

7 please with respect to 103A tell us if you recognise it

8 and, if so, what it is?

9 A. Yes. These are the videotapes, original videotapes of

10 the interview with Hazim Delic conducted on 7th

11 January. The second interview in the detention unit in

12 Scheveningen, sorry.

13 Q. Can you please tell us when these tapes were placed in

14 the sealed envelope and who witnessed their being placed

15 in the sealed envelope?

16 A. This was done immediately after the interview and it was

17 done in the presence of the accused and his defence

18 counsel. There's -- both their signatures are on the

19 front said and also on the back.

20 JUDGE JAN: Your signature?

21 A. My signature and the accused and the defence counsel.

22 MS. McHENRY: Directing your attention to what has been

23 marked for identification purposes as Prosecution

24 exhibit 103B, can you please tell us if you recognised

25 that and, if so, what it is?

1 A. Four originally videotapes of the interview conducted on

2 19th July, also in the detention unit at Scheveningen.

3 Q. Okay. These are Mr. Delic's interview?

4 A. Yes, first interview.

5 Q. Can you please tell us when those were sealed, in whose

6 presence and whose signature appears on the envelopes?

7 A. They were sealed immediately after the interview. My

8 signature is on the envelope as well as the accused and

9 his defence counsel on both sides.

10 Q. Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would seek to

11 admit into evidence exhibits 102, 102A and 102B. The

12 Prosecution has no objection if your Honours want to

13 defer admitting them into evidence until after

14 cross-examination. The court's indulgence. That

15 concludes the examination-in-chief of this witness.

16 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, to make sure that I understand the

17 -- understood the court's ruling to Mr. Ackerman, if at

18 any time in the future I can show that these -- that

19 there was some problem with the admissibility of it, I

20 can then move to exclude them from evidence, given that

21 understanding of what the court's ruling was, at this

22 point I will not raise any objections at all to their

23 admissibility.

24 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, that is the Ruling and you can

25 proceed to prosecution examine the witness.

1 MR. ACKERMAN: I assume, your Honours, that there will come

2 a time, if not today, within the next day or two that

3 the Prosecution will seek to play these videotapes in

4 open court. I think Rule 78 requires that. We would

5 certainly want to make sure that our objections are

6 properly lodged before the tapes are played in open

7 court, because I think they have to be played in open

8 court under Rule 78. So I would want to make sure that

9 my objections are properly lodged before the Prosecution

10 seeks to have them played for the court.

11 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think you have made your objection

12 and the Trial Chamber has noted the objections.

13 Whenever the tapes are played, I think we will follow

14 it.

15 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honours, on behalf of Mr. Delalic,

16 I would like to renew our objection regarding the

17 previous statements by the other co-accused, that none

18 of their statements can be used against Mr. Delalic.

19 MR. GREAVES: A similar objection is made on behalf of

20 Mr. Mucic.

21 MS. McHENRY: Again, just so the record is clear, it is the

22 Prosecution's position that under -- that the accused

23 may not -- excuse me. Let me find the Rule. Under

24 Rule 73 with the exception of Mr. Mucic on one issue, the

25 accused may not challenge -- they may not seek the

1 exclusion of these into evidence. I understand the

2 court may have a different opinion, and I also -- if

3 evidence later comes up suggesting -- raising new

4 issues, the Prosecution, of course, reserves its right

5 to call additional witnesses if necessary. Other than

6 that -- I just wanted the record to be clear I'm not

7 asking that the court do anything at this point.

8 I would also, just so the record is clear, indicate that

9 the Prosecution does not believe that it's necessary to

10 play all the tapes in open court. Proceedings -- the

11 Rule proceedings must be in open court but it does not

12 mean, I believe, that every exhibit needs to be shown in

13 its entirety. We will defer to the court. If the

14 court wishes us to play the interviews in their

15 entirety, we will do so. Otherwise we would just plan

16 on introducing the videotapes into evidence, the

17 transcript and then, if necessary, we will use some of

18 it in closing argument, but unless your Honours direct

19 us to, we were not intending really just for matters of

20 time to play the interviews in their entirety but they

21 are in evidence. Thank you.

22 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Have you looked at Rule 95 as to the

23 circumstances under which evidence could be admitted?

24 MS. McHENRY: Yes, your Honour.

25 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You have seen that.

1 MS. McHENRY: Yes, your Honour.

2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: That is an overriding provision for

3 whatever might be admitted.

4 MS. McHENRY: That's right. I understand that, your

5 Honour. The Prosecution also believes that Rule 73 is

6 applicable, but I don't believe that this issue is going

7 to come up because, of course, the Prosecution believes

8 that these interviews were taken in full accordance with

9 all protections, including the Tribunal's and any

10 internationally accepted rights. So I was just for the

11 record both noting our objection and noting that if

12 additional issues were raised later, we may seek to call

13 additional witnesses.

14 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: One's apprehension is your submission

15 that you only need to play a number of the tapes for the

16 purposes of authenticating what has been claimed to have

17 been done. At least you know that any aspect of it

18 that has been challenged ought to be heard.

19 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I believe -- I'm not sure

20 I understand. To the extent I do, I do not disagree

21 with your Honours. That is why the Prosecution try to

22 bring witnesses to discuss in detail Mr. Mucic's

23 challenge, because we know that those are challenges.

24 With respect to the other accused, in particular

25 Mr. Landzo and Mr. Delic, in all frankness we do not know

1 what the challenge is. So other than to have the

2 witness state that the rules were complied with, we

3 believe we've done everything we can, and if something

4 later comes up such that the Prosecution believes it

5 appropriate to bring more evidence to clarify an issue

6 that the accused has raised, we will certainly do

7 that.

8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: So the limitation of the number of

9 tapes you wish to show will depend largely on the

10 challenges of the defence irrespective of the fact

11 whether it has been admitted, because they might still

12 challenge aspects of it which might not be consistent

13 with the rules as a whole. They have been admitted for

14 the purpose of evidence but the complete compliance with

15 the rules as a whole might depend upon what has been

16 shown on the tapes.

17 MS. McHENRY: Well, your Honour, we are entirely at the

18 court's pleasure. We believe that the witness has

19 testified that the rules have been complied with, and we

20 have admitted into evidence the transcript of the entire

21 interview as well as the tapes, and we believe that they

22 are admitted into evidence and that the Chamber may use

23 them whenever they wish. We are certainly very willing

24 to have the tapes shown in their entirety, if it's

25 necessary, or for the defence or the Trial Chamber to

1 look to certain portions of them.

2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: What I wanted you to understand is

3 that their admission is still subject to

4 cross-examination.

5 MS. McHENRY: Yes, your Honour.

6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes.

7 MS. McHENRY: Certainly we have no objection to there being

8 any cross-examination on any relevant issue.

9 MR. GREAVES: Can I just mention one thing which is to do

10 with the public nature of evidence? This is not an

11 objection. It is merely something for discussion by

12 your Honours. If the tapes are not played or the

13 transcripts are not read out, the public at large will

14 never know what the defendant said about these

15 matters. It is an important aspect that all evidence

16 be, as it were, subject to the closed session idea,

17 heard in public. If your Honours simply take the tapes

18 and transcripts away and read them privately, the people

19 out there in the public gallery will never know what the

20 evidence is and that is unfortunate.

21 JUDGE JAN: It is your case that the transcripts do not

22 accurately represent what has been said in the

23 interview. For the public the transcript is all there.

24 MR. GREAVES: I am merely saying the public is not going to

25 know what the evidence is.

1 JUDGE JAN: The transcripts are there.

2 MR. GREAVES: They are not being read out in public.

3 MS. McHENRY: I believe, and the Registrar can correct me if

4 I am wrong, all exhibits are public and so this evidence

5 is available to the public.

6 MR. GREAVES: Thank you.

7 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think the witness is now open for

8 cross-examination for anybody who wants to.

9 JUDGE JAN: Is that the agreed order of cross-examination?

10 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you, your Honours. The agreed order

11 of cross-examination is, first, defendant Landzo;

12 followed by defendant Mucic; followed by defendant

13 Delic; followed by defendant Delalic. Thank you.

14 Cross-examination by Mr. Ackerman.

15 MR. ACKERMAN: It is Mr. d'Hooge, isn't it?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Am I saying that right?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Why don't you correct me. I really want to try to say

20 your name right?

21 A. D'Hooge.

22 Q. D'Hooge?

23 A. Close enough.

24 Q. Mr. d'Hooge, I don't have a lot of questions for you.

25 I have a few. To the extent that those questions

1 appropriately call for a "yes" or "no" answer, I'd

2 appreciate that. In other words, what I'm saying is

3 I'm not interested in you having -- in having you answer

4 questions that I don't ask you. Do you understand what

5 I'm getting to (witness nods) thank you. You shook

6 your head "yes." Can we have a "yes" for the record

7 please?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. I take it that English is not your native language?

10 A. That is correct.

11 Q. Your native language is Flemish?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Do you speak any other languages?

14 A. I speak French and English.

15 Q. All right. What day was it that you told us that you

16 went to the detention centre to do your interview of

17 Mr. Landzo?

18 A. I believe it was 19th -- no, 18th July.

19 Q. About what time did you go there?

20 A. That must have been around 9 o'clock. If you want to

21 be sure, I can take a look at the transcript. It's ...

22 Q. Did you go with anyone or did you go by yourself?

23 A. We went by car with the Tribunal car, with the members

24 of the OTP.

25 Q. And that would be who?

1 A. The persons present during the interview.

2 Q. That would be who?

3 A. That would be myself, Ms. McHenry, the interpreter and

4 Mr. McLeod.

5 Q. So the Prosecutor, Ms. McHenry, was present during the

6 course of this interview?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And is therefore one of the witnesses as to what

9 happened during the course of this interview; correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. When you first arrived at the prison to conduct this

12 interview, tell me where you first went?

13 A. We went to the reception where one of the security

14 guards came to pick us up and brought us to the

15 detention unit.

16 Q. Was Mr. Brackovic with you at that point?

17 A. I can't remember.

18 Q. You don't remember where you met him?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Where did you go after you were picked up at the

21 entrance to the prison by a security guard? Where did

22 you go then?

23 A. To the UN detention unit.

24 Q. Where in that detention unit?

25 A. I think to the room where we conducted the interview.

1 The recreation room, I think.

2 Q. Is it a small room, large room?

3 A. It is a large room.

4 Q. Was Mr. Brackovic there when you got there?

5 A. I believe so.

6 Q. Was Mr. Landzo there when you got there?

7 A. I believe so.

8 Q. Was anyone else there when you got there?

9 A. I don't think so.

10 Q. Who brought the equipment that you used to do the audio

11 and video of this interview?

12 A. We brought the equipment.

13 Q. "We" being you, Ms. McHenry and the interpreter?

14 A. And Mr. McLeod.

15 Q. Was Mr. McLeod present throughout this entire interview?

16 A. Mr. McLeod was not present in the room where the

17 interview was conducted but was in an adjoining room

18 where the back-up material was placed.

19 Q. What is the back-up material?

20 A. I believe the video recorders, audio recorders, the

21 monitor.

22 Q. Was he in a position where he could see what was going

23 on during the interview or simply hear it?

24 A. I believe he could hear and see what was happening.

25 Q. So he had a monitor there where he could monitor what

1 was going on during the interview?

2 A. His role is to monitor the sound and the image.

3 Q. Do you know where Mr. McLeod is from?

4 A. Mr. McLeod is from Scotland.

5 Q. Do you know if Mr. McLeod speaks Serbo-Croatian?

6 A. He doesn't speak it.

7 Q. You do not speak Serbo-Croatian?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Ms. McHenry does not speak Serbo-Croatian to your

10 knowledge?

11 A. No.

12 Q. The only representative there from the Office of the

13 Prosecutor that spoke Serbo-Croatian was the interpreter

14 or from the -- was the interpreter from the office of

15 the Prosecutor?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. That was the only representative there that spoke

18 Serbo-Croatian; correct?

19 A. If you mean representative of the Office of the

20 Prosecutor, yes.

21 Q. That's what you mean. Of course, you know that

22 Mr. Landzo speaks Serbo-Croatian?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And Mr. Brackovic, of course?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Are you familiar with how fluent Mr. Brackovic is in the

2 English language?

3 A. No.

4 Q. All right. Prior to the time that this interview began

5 did you hear or observe any conversation that took place

6 between Ms. McHenry and Mr. Brackovic?

7 A. I can't remember.

8 Q. You can't remember whether there was such a conversation

9 or -- is that what you mean?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You don't recall today seeing the two of them converse

12 prior to the taking of this statement?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Do you recall a private conversation that took place

15 between Mr. Brackovic and Mr. Landzo in your presence or

16 out of your presence prior to the taking of this

17 statement?

18 A. No.

19 Q. After the very beginning of this statement, when you

20 went through the process of advising Mr. Landzo of his

21 rights, his rights to remain silent, his right to

22 counsel, things of that nature, was there then a moment

23 where Mr. Landzo and Mr. Brackovic had a conference out of

24 your presence in order to make a decision whether or not

25 to go forward?

1 A. I can't remember.

2 Q. You cannot tell this Tribunal, I take it, that there was

3 a time at the beginning of this statement where

4 Mr. Brackovic in lieu of the warnings that had been given

5 to his client had a conference with his client regarding

6 the nature of what was about to take place, you have no

7 knowledge about that, I take it?

8 A. If this did not happen during the recording.

9 Q. And you don't know that it happened at any other time?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Do you have the exhibit which I think is 102 in front of

12 you, the transcript? Could I ask the Registrar to give

13 it to him, please? (Handed to witness). Now I think

14 you have told us -- that is exhibit 102 that you are

15 looking at now?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. I think you told us that it contains both the English

18 and the Serbo-Croatian transcript of the interview?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Could I ask you to look at the Serbo-Croatian transcript

21 of the interview and just tell us if you can read and

22 understand that?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Okay. You have told the court that you have looked at

25 this and it is a true and correct transcript of the

1 interview that you conducted; correct?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. You, of course, could not make that determination with

4 regard to the Serbo-Croatian transcript, could you?

5 A. No.

6 Q. So when you told the court that you were referring only

7 to the English transcript?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Could you tell the court how you went about making the

10 determination that it was a true and correct

11 transcription of your interview?

12 A. I revised and checked the English transcript of this

13 interview and qualified people from the translation unit

14 checked both versions.

15 Q. Well, you told the court that you had done it, and

16 I want to know exactly the process you went through in

17 doing that?

18 A. Since I do not understand or read Serbo-Croatian,

19 I can't have done the Serbo-Croatian revision.

20 Q. So you cannot tell the court, as you sit here today,

21 from your own personal knowledge that the Serbo-Croatian

22 transcript is correct?

23 A. Of course not.

24 Q. How did you make a determination that the English

25 transcript is a true and correct reflection of that

1 interview? How did you do that? Physically how did you

2 do that?

3 A. Because I went through the transcript. I read it.

4 I listened to the tapes.

5 Q. Did you sit with the transcript and go through it word

6 by word?

7 A. Yes. Word by word, yes, I think so, yes.

8 Q. How long a time would that have taken you?

9 A. I can't remember.

10 Q. Now what, of course, you were listening to was the

11 interpretation of the Serbo-Croatian into English and

12 comparing that English interpretation with the English

13 transcript; correct?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. Again, you were not able to interpret the Serbo-Croatian

16 yourself to see if the English transcript is a correct

17 interpretation of the Serbo-Croatian, were you?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Could you look, please, at page 3 of that transcript?

20 About one-third of the way down the transcript indicates

21 that there is a statement made by someone identified as

22 "I2". That would be you, would it not?

23 A. That is.

24 Q. So in the transcript you are designated as "I2". That

25 would be Investigator 2; correct? Ms. McHenry is

1 indicated as Investigator 1, "I1"; correct? Was she at

2 that time an investigator employed by the Tribunal

3 rather than an attorney with the Prosecutor's office?

4 A. I think Ms. McHenry is employed as an attorney.

5 Q. Even though she is designated here as an investigator,

6 she at that time also was an attorney; correct?

7 A. I think this is a detail.

8 Q. The answer is yes. As far as you know, she was an

9 attorney with the Prosecutor's office and not an

10 investigator on that day?

11 A. That is correct.

12 Q. It is correct, is it not, that in that paragraph that --

13 it is the second I2 paragraph on page 3 -- you make the

14 following statement:

15 "I have asked the interpreter not to interpret

16 every single word, especially when we're speaking about

17 background matters".

18 Those are your words?

19 A. Exactly.

20 Q. Now if I were, for instance, to say to you right now

21 what time did that happen, I doubt that you would be

22 able to give me an accurate answer to that question

23 until I give you some background, that being what that

24 means; correct?

25 A. Could you please be more specific about the question?

1 Q. Yes. If I were to simply ask you a question: "What time

2 did that happen?" ?

3 A. This?

4 Q. You see, that's the problem. You don't have any

5 background. You don't know what I'm talking about, do

6 you? Now if I tell you I'm referring to the beginning

7 of this interview and then say to you: "What time did

8 that happen?", I have given you the background that

9 enables you to answer my question, haven't I?

10 A. Although it's not very clear to me what you're pointing

11 at.

12 Q. You have asked the interpreter with this statement that

13 I've referred to here on page 3 not to interpret

14 background matters, haven't you?

15 A. I asked her not to interpret every word when it referred

16 to background.

17 Q. Your language was:

18 " ... especially when we're speaking about

19 background matters"?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. All right. Because you do not understand

22 Serbo-Croatian, you have no idea what it was the

23 interpreter did not interpret to Mr. Landzo, do you?

24 A. To me, you mean?

25 Q. When you would ask a question in English?

1 A. Uh-huh.

2 Q. The interpreter would then interpret that question into

3 Serbo-Croatian and ask it of Mr. Landzo. That's the way

4 it worked, wasn't it?

5 A. That is the way it worked.

6 Q. Because you don't know Serbo-Croatian, you have no idea

7 what that interpreter left out of the question that was

8 asked of Mr. Landzo?

9 A. I don't think that she left any word out of the

10 question. Maybe words out of the answer. That is the

11 purpose of this sentence.

12 Q. But it doesn't say that. It says not to interpret

13 every single word, especially when speaking about

14 background. That's what it says, doesn't it?

15 A. It reflects the answer of the accused, not my questions.

16 Q. So what you're saying is that there may be answers of

17 Mr. Landzo that do not appear in this transcript because

18 they were not interpreted?

19 A. There might be some words out of the answer of Mr. Landzo

20 that were not completely interpreted.

21 Q. Because you don't speak Serbo-Croatian, you cannot tell

22 this court, as you sit here today, whether the

23 interpreter interpreted every word of your question,

24 whether the interpreter interpreted every word of

25 Mr. Landzo's answers?

1 A. I repeat that the purpose of this sentence is to

2 interpret every word of my question but not of the

3 answer, because of the limited time. That is purpose.

4 Q. But it doesn't say that, does it? It doesn't say:

5 "Interpret every word of my questions but leave out the

6 answers." It doesn't say that there, does it?

7 A. For me this is very clear.

8 Q. Read the part that says: "Interpret every word of my

9 questions but be free about your interpretation of the

10 answers." Just read that if it is clear?

11 MS. McHENRY: I am going to object. I think the question

12 has been asked and answered. The record speaks for

13 itself. I think this is now argument rather than

14 questioning.

15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much. Actually you

16 have made your point that he was trying to guide the

17 interpreter to what she should say and what not to

18 within the limits of what he was doing.

19 MR. ACKERMAN: As long as the court understands my point,

20 I'm satisfied.

21 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes. I think that's what you are

22 trying to show.

23 MR. ACKERMAN: What day and month did you begin this

24 investigation, the Celebici investigation, did you begin

25 working on it?

1 A. 1st September 1995.

2 Q. So by the time you took this statement you had been

3 engaged in this investigation for how long?

4 A. Ten months.

5 Q. So in a ten month investigation when you are talking a

6 statement from my client, perhaps one of the more

7 important duties you performed in this case, your

8 concern was to try to save time; is that your testimony?

9 A. I think we only had one day to interview your client.

10 Q. It's true, is it not, that the only way that we can --

11 that the Tribunal can know and that we can know for

12 certain what was left out of either questions or answers

13 in terms of the interpretation is to have the

14 interpreter go through the tapes and make that

15 determination? Because you don't know Serbo-Croatian,

16 you could not do that, could you?

17 A. I could not do it. That is correct.

18 Q. That's all I have. Thank you.

19 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Any other cross-examination?

20 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honours, may I say this? I am in a bit

21 of a quandary. I had filed earlier in this case a

22 motion to permit me to file a challenge to this

23 statement in accordance with the rules for that

24 challenge to be filed late, and therefore to let me go

25 into a complete presentation in an effort to try to

1 suppress the statement. You will recall that I argued

2 that in front of this court several days ago, my

3 contention being that Mr. Brackovic was insufficiently

4 familiar with Anglo-American jurisprudence and therefore

5 did not and could not have given his client proper

6 advice. Although it was made fairly clear to me from

7 the bench when I made the argument what this court's

8 ruling is going to be, the matter was taken under

9 advisement and I was advised that there would be a

10 ruling later on. That ruling has not yet been made so

11 I still don't know if I am permitted to go forward with

12 that matter, but in any event it would be done with

13 different witnesses. I think that would complete my

14 cross-examination of this witness in any event.

15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually what you sought to do then

16 was to bring an application out of time.

17 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, your Honour.

18 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Outside the period. That is what was

19 rejected.

20 MR. ACKERMAN: Exactly. All I am saying is it has not been

21 formally rejected.

22 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: No, it has been. The Ruling has been

23 but apart from a more considered version not having been

24 circulated but it was ruled you cannot be allowed.

25 MR. ACKERMAN: That is fine. I certainly had that sense at

1 least.

2 A. Could I --

3 MR. MORAN: I think I am in the same boat that Mr. Ackerman

4 is in; is that correct? I made a similar application

5 and although the written decision isn't out, that it has

6 been overruled?

7 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, on the same basis we indicated

8 that you could not bring that application at that time.

9 MR. MORAN: That's fine, your Honour.

10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Because -- yes.

11 MR. MORAN: I just wanted to make sure that I understood the

12 court's Ruling. I would not argue with the court over

13 its Ruling. I just wanted to -- unnecessarily.

14 A. Could I add something?

15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes. Yes, Mr. Olujic, you have

16 something to say?

17 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your Honours.

18 Cross-examination by Mr. Olujic

19 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): My name is Zeljko Olujic,

20 Mr. d'Hooge. I am defence counsel of Mr. Zdravko

21 Mucic. Can you hear me?

22 A. I just want to add something. A few minutes ago I asked

23 permission of the court to add something to my

24 testimony. Is it possible that I do it now?

25 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honours, I think he is asking to answer

1 a question of mine which I'm convinced he has already

2 answered. If the Prosecution wants to ask him

3 additional questions on re-examination, that's their

4 business, but I don't think it is anticipate the

5 business of the witness to begin volunteering.

6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually you've closed your case and

7 the cross-examination has ended?

8 A. Okay.

9 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Thank you. Mr. d'Hooge, am

10 I pronouncing your name properly? Mr. d'Hooge?

11 I consider you to be a highly qualified person, a highly

12 qualified witness. You are a policeman coming from

13 Belgium. You have considerable experience of ten years

14 in the service. Could you tell us, please, whether you

15 graduated from the police academy?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Did you study at the police academy any law subject such

18 as the criminal procedure law of Belgium?

19 A. Yes, not only at the police academy but also at

20 university.

21 Q. Which? The school of law?

22 A. And criminology.

23 Q. That's very fine. Tell us, Mr. d'Hooge, according to

24 the Belgium law on criminal procedure with respect to

25 arrest do you know how long a person can be kept in

1 detention before a decision is taken by the

2 investigating judge, how long that person may be held by

3 the police?

5 MR. OLUJIC: All I'm asking is this, your Honours, to

6 lead up to the procedure which took place in Austria and

7 it has to do with my client who had to be treated

8 according to the laws of Austria and the Republic of

9 Croatia, and considering the witness is a qualified

10 person, I'm asking how these matters are regulated in

11 his country.

12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, you can put your question and he

13 can answer it?

14 A. Excuse me. I didn't understand.

15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You should answer the question?

16 A. I would like to explain, although I don't think this is

17 the correct place, but we have a totally different legal

18 system than the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the

19 Tribunal. The --

20 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Counsel just wants to know. Answer

21 his question.

22 A. As the police, we can keep a suspect for 24 hours before

23 he is interviewed by a judge.

24 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Thank you. You travelled

25 to Austria, to Vienna. Do you know how this is

1 regulated by the law on criminal procedure of Austria,

2 since you were going to Austria; in other words, how

3 long a suspect may be held by the police before he is

4 interviewed by the judge?

5 A. I am not familiar with the Austrian system.

6 Q. You don't know?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Okay. Fine. Could you tell us, Mr. d'Hooge -- let us

9 reconstruct the events of 20th March 1996. At 9.30 you

10 interviewed Mr. Mucic. Does that correspond to the

11 truth?

12 A. Could I have a look at the transcript, please?

13 Q. Will you please provide the witness with the

14 transcript? (Handed to witness).

15 A. With the transcript of the ... I have found it.

16 Q. Yes. Fine. On that occasion did you ask Mr. Mucic --

17 did you advise him that he is entitled to an attorney of

18 his choice, and if he cannot find him then one would be

19 assigned to him, and then did you go on to say -- to ask

20 him whether he agreed to be interviewed without the

21 presence of an attorney? So will you check, please?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Then you told him that he was entitled to an interpreter

24 free of charge, an attorney free of charge and an

25 interpreter free of charge?

1 A. (Witness nods).

2 Q. Tell us, please, in connection with the previous

3 question for the benefit of the record, the transcript,

4 will you please give us your answer in words, "yes" or

5 "no." So you asked Mr. Mucic or rather you mentioned to

6 him in addition to a defence attorney that he was also

7 entitled to an interpreter. Isn't that so. You

8 nodded "yes", but will you say "yes"?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you. Mr. d'Hooge, when you were in Vienna how

11 many times did you ask Mr. Mucic whether he agreed to be

12 interviewed without an attorney, if you remember, of

13 course?

14 A. I can't remember. I should inspect the transcript, the

15 English transcript.

16 Q. You don't remember, therefore? You can't recall?

17 A. Yes.

18 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think the Trial Chamber will rise

19 for 30 minutes and you will come back with your

20 cross-examination.

21 (11.30 am)

22 (Short break)

23 (12.05 pm)

24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHITE: I apologise for our few minutes

25 lateness. We were having a discussion. Can we invite

1 the witness now? Invite the witness.

2 (Witness re-enters court)

3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Kindly warn him he is still on his

4 oath.

5 THE REGISTRAR: I should like to remind you that you are

6 still testifying under oath.

7 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, may

8 I proceed?

9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, you can.

10 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your Honours.

11 Mr. d'Hooge, let us complete this section regarding

12 the events on 20th March 1996. You were conducting the

13 interview with Mr. Mucic, were you not?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Thank you. Tell us, Mr. d'Hooge, in addition to that

16 interview and the meeting with Mr. Mucic in Vienna, after

17 Vienna did you have occasion to talk to Mr. Mucic again?

18 A. I believe that Mr. Mucic requested to have a talk with

19 me. That was later. I don't remember the date

20 exactly, but I think it was in the month of August 1996.

21 Q. In August 1996?

22 A. I believe so, yes.

23 Q. Do you think so or you actually spoke to him in The

24 Hague after returning from Vienna?

25 A. I spoke to Mr. Mucic in The Hague after returning from

1 Vienna.

2 Q. And that was certainly in August 1996, as you say?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Who else was present at the interview in August 1996

5 apart from you?

6 A. First of all, I would like to say that it was not an

7 interview and present was Mr. Mucic himself.

8 Q. I'm sorry. I'm just asking who was present apart from

9 you when you had this contact -- let us call it that --

10 with Mr. Mucic? You and Mr. Mucic and who else?

11 A. I think Ms. McHenry was present, defence counsel.

12 Q. Who was that, defence counsel of Mr. Mucic or another

13 defence counsel?

14 A. It was the defence counsel of Mr. Mucic.

15 Q. Was that talk recorded on tape and on video?

16 A. Everything was video recorded and audio recorded.

17 Q. Who was present on behalf of the technical services?

18 A. According to my knowledge I think it was Mr. McLeod.

19 Q. Was it recorded with one, two, three or more cameras?

20 A. I cannot remember.

21 Q. Your Honours, we are now discovering that in addition to

22 the talk the witness had with Mr. Mucic in Vienna, he had

23 another interview in The Hague which the defence counsel

24 of Mr. Zdravko Mucic is not familiar with, nor do we have

25 a transcript, nor a video recording. Therefore, I am

1 unable to continue the cross-examination before I am

2 supplied with both the video and the transcript of that

3 talk, so that I can check all this once again and

4 continue the cross-examination.

5 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour --

6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Ms. McHenry?

7 MS. McHENRY: If I may be heard to potentially clarify

8 matters, and I believe, your Honours, the witness may

9 also clarify this, but given the defence counsel has

10 made this, I will state for the court that it is correct

11 that at some point Mr. Mucic wrote a letter asking to

12 speak to Mr. d'Hooge. It was given to Mr. Mucic's

13 lawyer. Mr. Mucic's lawyer then said: "Yes, let's have

14 this meeting. Mr. Mucic has something he wants to

15 say." It was recorded Mr. Mucic made a few comments.

16 The Prosecution did not ask any questions, and

17 Mr. Mucic's attorney indicated that he agreed that it was

18 not an interview. In fact, it was a couple of minutes

19 discussion. If my memory serves me correct -- I do not

20 want to be a witness about this; it is all in recording

21 -- Mr. Mucic suggested two people be talked with or two

22 witnesses were not reliable or something to that

23 effect. Mr. Mucic's counsel was present and in all

24 respects it was agreed how it would be handled. It was

25 not an interview. There was no transcript made. That

1 was also agreed with defence counsel.

2 So to the extent that this defence counsel says he

3 does not know anything about it, I am afraid that the

4 Prosecution assumes and must assume that defence counsel

5 communicate with each other. Certainly the Prosecution

6 is willing to -- if he has not already gotten the

7 information about this from prior counsel, the defence

8 counsel will give him a copy of -- the Prosecution will

9 give him another copy of this few minute exchange, and

10 if it's necessary, the witness can be recalled. He can

11 also ask this witness about it, but if that will help

12 expedite things.

13 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually your submission is that there

14 was no transcript of that discussion.

15 MS. McHENRY: There was a recording made but there is no

16 transcript, because it was agreed by everyone concerned,

17 including Mr. Mucic and his defence counsel that it was

18 not an interview and so there was no need. It was

19 something requested by Mr. Mucic. He had, I believe, a

20 little advice that he gave the Prosecution, and no

21 transcript was made. I don't believe any transcript

22 had to be made, but if this defence counsel has not

23 gotten all the material he believes necessary, the

24 Prosecution will provide another copy of what it has.

25 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: But the witness has not denied that a

1 video recording was made.

2 MS. McHENRY: That is correct, your Honour. I think that

3 that's correct and the Prosecution is offering to

4 provide another copy of that to this defence counsel,

5 and I'm just trying to expedite matters, but also trying

6 to clarify that in terms of this counsel saying the

7 defence counsel of Mr. Mucic was not aware of it, I'm

8 trying to clarify that defence counsel of Mr. Mucic was

9 present at all parts of this.

10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually your main complaint is that

11 you are unable to go on with your cross-examination

12 unless all these facts are made known to you.

13 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I fully

14 appreciate the concern of the Prosecution concerning my

15 contact with the previous defence counsel, but

16 independently of that we have noted something that is

17 astonishing, the more so as we claim that the former

18 attorney does not have possession of that recording.

19 Therefore, the manner in which this was done is in

20 complete contradiction with the Rules 42 and 43

21 regarding the collection of evidence. That is why we

22 are requiring that we be supplied both with the

23 transcript and the video recording, so that we might

24 continue the cross-examination, because at this point I

25 do not know.

1 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Let us get the sequence right. Is

2 that so-called interview, because they do not regard it

3 as an interview, part of the transcript or evidence

4 which they are trying to tender? Is it part of it? Are

5 you aware whether that conversation is part of the

6 evidence they are trying to introduce into evidence,

7 because if it is not, perhaps you might wish to

8 introduce it, but you might not hold them against -- not

9 providing it, because they have not used it. You did

10 not have it, and if you want to have it, I suppose you

11 can now have it. I'm only surprised that the counsel

12 did not have any copies of it, both the audio recording

13 and the summary of whatever was discussed. He should

14 have had it.

15 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): I must express the concern

16 that the previous attorney didn't have it, because I

17 don't believe that he would not have given it to me if

18 he had it. He had no reason not to pass it on to me.

19 As for the transcript itself, it emanates from the

20 recording. Therefore it is very simple to transfer the

21 content of the recording into a text. Clearly the

22 Prosecution has this and the defence does not. It is

23 also quite clear, as confirmed by the witness, that he

24 was present during that conversation in The Hague in

25 August 1996. Your Honours, we are truly handicapped.

1 We do not have something that may tomorrow be used in

2 the proceedings by the Prosecution. We are not aware

3 of that, but we do not have possession of it.

4 Therefore, in order to be able to continue the

5 cross-examination I am requesting that we be supplied

6 with both the recording and the transcript, because even

7 Mr. Mucic never received this.

8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think the Prosecution has offered to

9 turn them over to you. I think they have.

10 MS. McHENRY: That is correct. We will also turn over a

11 copy of the recording we have. There is no transcript

12 made. Of course, defence counsel can make his own

13 transcript, if he believes it is necessary. I will, of

14 course -- I think it is clear, but to the extent there

15 is any confusion, the Prosecution does not intend to

16 bring any of this into evidence. It is entirely

17 irrelevant but, of course, we will immediately make sure

18 that this defence counsel has a copy of the contact.

19 JUDGE JAN: You said it's only a few minutes talk with the

20 accused so it can easily be made available.

21 MS. McHENRY: Yes, your Honour. We are happy to make it

22 available, and we are happy if it is then necessary

23 later on for defence counsel to recall this witness, if

24 he wants to, no objection whatsoever.

25 JUDGE JAN: If it is a few minutes you can give him it

1 immediately during the lunch break.

2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, your Honour, please.

3 JUDGE JAN: You can have it after the lunch break. It is

4 said to be only a few minutes. They don't call it an

5 interview. I think counsel on both sides agreed it is

6 not an interview at the time it was being recorded. So

7 they can give it to you immediately after the lunch

8 break.

9 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): I am grateful. I would

10 like to have that. I propose that I continue the

11 cross-examination after that of Mr. d'Hooge.

12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Then I do not see any problem with

13 this, if they are prepared to hand over the tapes to

14 you. You can do that. Then how soon will you be

15 ready? Tomorrow morning or today, if you want to watch

16 the video? It depends on you.

17 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): I think by tomorrow morning

18 I would be ready to continue the cross-examination.

19 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think that should be all right.

20 MS. McHENRY: If it's at all possible, the Prosecution, just

21 because we have witnesses coming in this afternoon to

22 start tomorrow morning, and because I believe it's very

23 short, we might suggest that we just continue on with a

24 late afternoon session, but, of course, it is entirely

25 up to your Honours, but I will emphasise that it's a

1 very short matter. So it would be the Prosecution's

2 preference that we get this witness completed today but,

3 of course, it's up to your Honours.

4 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: He still has to study the tape himself

5 and satisfy himself that he can make use of it. It

6 might appear that he might not even need them. It

7 depends. Actually it depends on the information you

8 have about the tapes.

9 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): When I see them.

10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: So --

11 MS. McHENRY: No objection, your Honour.

12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually why don't we postpone your

13 cross-examination and if there is any other

14 cross-examination, we can go on with that?

15 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your Honours.

16 Cross-examination by Mr. Moran.

17 MR. MORAN: May it please the court.

18 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, Mr. Moran, you can carry on.

19 MR. MORAN: Good afternoon, sir?

20 A. Good afternoon.

21 Q. My name is Tom Moran and in case you don't know it

22 I represent Hazim Delic in this case. I'm going to ask

23 you a few questions and I think that we may be able to

24 get done fairly quickly. Let me just tell you so

25 there's not going to be any surprises, one, I'm going to

1 go into some general background with you and your

2 experience and the investigation of this case, and then

3 I'm going to go into some specific areas involving your

4 testimony earlier today, and I think we can probably

5 wind it up at that point.

6 Now, as I understand it from your testimony with

7 Mr. Ackerman, your native language is Flemish and you

8 also speak English and French?

9 A. That is correct.

10 Q. So, of course, English is not your native language?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Sometimes I talk a little fast and sometimes my

13 questions are a little hard to understand, because I

14 don't just do as good a job on asking them as

15 I should. Now, if that happens, will you stop me and

16 ask me to rephrase it, repeat it or whatever so you

17 understand it?

18 A. I will certainly do.

19 Q. Okay. Will you just answer the question that I asked?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Okay. The other thing is will you answer out loud?

22 Let me tell you why. That woman sitting in front of

23 you, the blond lady named Melanie is the court

24 reporter. She has to write down everything everybody

25 says in here and she can't write down a nod?

1 A. Okay.

2 Q. Fair enough. Sir, tell me a little bit about your

3 education? I understand that you went to the law

4 faculty at the university of, where, Brussels?

5 A. I was a law student in Gent.

6 Q. In Ghent. You have a law degree?

7 A. I was what you call a junior law degree. I completed

8 the first cycle.

9 Q. So you don't have enough legal education to be admitted

10 to practise law but you have enough where you are pretty

11 familiar with the legal system in the continent of

12 Europe?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And the legal system in the continent of Europe is

15 pretty different to what I'm used to or other people

16 from the Anglo-Saxon, aren't they?

17 A. That is correct.

18 Q. Some of the things that would be routine in law in the

19 civil law system might be very, very strange to me as an

20 American lawyer, an Anglo-Saxon lawyer, and vice versa?

21 A. I think so.

22 Q. In fact, the rules of the Tribunal, although they are

23 amelled (sic), lean fairly heavily towards the

24 Anglo-Saxon legal system, don't they?

25 A. I think so, yes.

1 Q. You are pretty familiar with the rules. I noticed when

2 you came in this morning you had a copy of the Rules of

3 Evidence and Procedure and the statute, that big thick

4 book. Do you still have it with you, by the way, so if

5 we need to refer to it we can refer to it. You were a

6 police officer for ten years. What were your duties as

7 a police officer in Belgium?

8 A. I was an investigator in homicide and terrorism.

9 Q. Okay. By the way, are you just lent to the Tribunal or

10 have you severed all of your contacts with the Belgian

11 police?

12 A. No, I'm --

13 Q. Seconded?

14 A. No, not seconded; employed. I'm UN staff.

15 Q. You are a permanent employee. You have resigned?

16 A. No, I have not resigned. I am what you called

17 detached.

18 Q. On leave?

19 A. On leave, yes.

20 Q. So when you have leave here, you'll go back to the

21 Belgian Police Department?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. As part of your duties as a police officer and homicide

24 investigator you testified fairly regularly, didn't you?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. A lot of times?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. So what we're going through today is nothing new to you?

4 A. It's nothing new.

5 Q. So you're pretty familiar with this process and pretty

6 comfortable with the process. By the way, you talked

7 to Ms. McHenry before you testified today about what you

8 were going to testify about in preparation for your

9 testimony here today, didn't you?

10 A. That is correct.

11 Q. Okay. Let's talk a little bit about the background of

12 the investigation in general. As I understand it the

13 investigation in general was hampered because the

14 parties really didn't want to cooperate with the

15 Tribunal; is that fair?

16 A. It depends on what you're referring to. I don't think

17 during the investigation we had a lot of problems of

18 getting cooperation of witnesses and parties.

19 Q. Well, in fact, there were a couple of non-governmental

20 organisations, what would be called in the UN parlance,

21 NGOs, that helped you find witnesses, weren't there?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. In fact, there was one in Belgrade?

24 A. I believe so, yes.

25 Q. That was the Association of Detainees, wasn't it?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. What they did was go out and find witnesses, people they

3 thought had relevant knowledge; right?

4 A. I think that is correct for certain witnesses. For

5 other witnesses we probably gave them the names and

6 asked them to locate them.

7 Q. What the association did was they took a statement from

8 those folks and translated it into English and had that

9 person sign it; isn't that right?

10 A. Not to my knowledge.

11 Q. You never saw any statements gathered by the Association

12 of Detainees?

13 A. No.

14 Q. So if someone from the Association of Detainees said

15 publicly that they had gathered statements, had

16 witnesses sign them, translated them into English, had

17 the witness sign them and mailed them to a member of the

18 staff of the Office of the Prosecutor, that person would

19 be mistaken; is that right?

20 A. That is possible but I can't remember having seen such a

21 statement.

22 Q. Okay. Fair enough.

23 THE INTERPRETER: If counsel could please speak slower for

24 the interpretation. Thank you.

25 MR. MORAN: Sure. Okay. Let me go to some of your

1 testimony on direct about your interview in Vienna;

2 okay?

3 A. Okay.

4 Q. You testified on direct that a lawyer by the name of --

5 it's in my notes but there was a lawyer that showed up?

6 A. I think his name was Dr Manfred, Manfred being the first

7 name. I can't remember the family name.

8 Q. He asked for a copy of the indictment and the rules of

9 the Tribunal; right?

10 A. That is correct.

11 Q. And you gave him both of those?

12 A. No. We gave him the phone number (sic) since we didn't

13 have the copies of the indictment and rules with us,

14 extra copies, I mean.

15 Q. But you had a copy of the indictment?

16 A. I believe we had a copy of the indictment, yes.

17 Q. And you had a copy of the rules?

18 A. We didn't have this book but we had a document, a

19 prepared document with Rule 42 and 43?

20 Q. Okay. So you had some portion of the rules at least.

21 By the way, on the 19th there was an interview with Dr,

22 what was it said --

23 A. Sada.

24 Q. The judge in Austria?

25 A. That is correct.

1 Q. You were present during that interview?

2 A. That is correct.

3 Q. In fact, that wasn't really an interview. That was a

4 court proceeding, wasn't it?

5 A. I think you can call it an interview.

6 Q. You could or you --

7 A. No, I think it's an interview.

8 Q. Okay. Well, he was acting as a judicial officer,

9 wasn't he, a judge?

10 A. (Witness nods). Yes.

11 Q. What language was that conducted in? Was it conducted

12 in English, French or Flemish?

13 A. I think it was conducted in German, Austrian.

14 Q. Okay. You don't speak German at all?

15 A. I speak a little bit of German, yes.

16 Q. Enough so you can order lunch?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay. Not much more than that?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Okay. So you don't know what Mr. Mucic was asked during

21 that proceeding, do you?

22 A. I understood a few things but not the entire interview,

23 no.

24 Q. You don't know what -- whether or not he asked for an

25 attorney, do you?

1 A. I know that he asked for an attorney. That was what Dr

2 Sada told us, that he asked for an attorney for the

3 extradition procedure.

4 Q. Now if the court record just said he asked for an

5 attorney, would that probably be correct?

6 A. He asked for an attorney for the extradition procedure.

7 Q. I said if the court records reflect he asked for an

8 attorney, would that probably be correct?

9 MS. McHENRY: Your Honours, I'm going to object to this.

10 The court record speaks for itself. As far as I know

11 there's been no indication that this witness has seen

12 the court record and the witness has already answered

13 the question that he has knowledge of.

14 MR. MORAN: Okay. So you really don't -- all you know

15 about what Mr. Mucic asked for in the way of an attorney

16 is what somebody else told you?

17 A. Dr Sada informed us that Mr. Mucic asked for an attorney

18 for the extradition procedure.

19 Q. And that was on what day of May -- what day of March?

20 A. 19th.

21 Q. 19th? Are you familiar with a man named Richard

22 Goldstone?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Who is he?

25 A. He was The Prosecutor of the Tribunal.

1 Q. And at that point he was the chief Prosecutor of the

2 Tribunal?

3 A. That is correct.

4 Q. Appointed by the Secretary General?

5 A. I believe so.

6 Q. Okay. If I could show this man a document?

7 MS. McHENRY: The Prosecution is aware of the document.

8 MR. MORAN: (Handed to witness). I sincerely hope so.

9 JUDGE JAN: It is the indictment.

10 MR. MORAN: Yes, your Honour.

11 JUDGE JAN: I do see from the cover.

12 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, just so the record is clear, I can,

13 if the court wants, introduce this thing into

14 evidence. It is a copy of the release from the

15 Tribunal's official press staff along with a copy of the

16 indictment in English, French and I believe in

17 Serbo-Croatian, but --

18 JUDGE JAN: I believe it is an admitted document.

19 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, if it is not admitted it is sure

20 part of the record. If it's not part of the record we

21 can all go home.

22 Sir, I would ask you to look at the back of that

23 document, page 14, or if you feel more comfortable in

24 the French version, it is also page 14 of the French

25 version. Is there a date on that, way down at the

1 bottom?

2 A. Yes, 19th March 1996.

3 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not at the time Mr. Mucic

4 was arrested in Vienna whether the Austrian authorities

5 gave him some kind of a document in German telling him

6 about his rights as a person who was arrested, basically

7 an information sheet?

8 A. I don't know.

9 Q. Are you familiar with a man named Eric Ostberg?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And a man named Giuliano Turone?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And a woman named Teresa McHenry?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And a man named Stefan Waespi?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. In fact, they are all sitting over on the Prosecution

18 side now, aren't they?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. If they were to have presented a document to the Trial

21 Chamber alleging to be an English translation of

22 something that was given to Mr. Mucic, would you disagree

23 that that was not -- would you say they weren't correct?

24 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I'm going to object to this, to

25 this witness being asked about things that he has no

1 knowledge of. He's really just being asked to vouch

2 for our credibility, and although we anticipate it would

3 be positive, we really think that it's entirely

4 irrelevant.

5 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually spare him some legal

6 opinion.

7 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I don't want to get him into

8 trouble with his bosses. Are you familiar with a

9 document called Prosecution Response to Mucic Defence

10 Motion to exclude evidence?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Okay. Let's jump forward to your interview with my

13 client, Mr. Delic, the first interview; okay? Who was

14 present at that interview?

15 A. Mr. Delic was present. The interpreter, myself,

16 Ms. McHenry and Mr. McLeod.

17 Q. In fact, Ms. McHenry is referred to in that transcript

18 as "I2", isn't she?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. She took part in the interview?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you recall Mr. Delic telling you during that interview

23 that he was sick?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And do you know whether he was taking any medication for

1 his illness -- first, let us back off. Do you know

2 what was wrong with him?

3 A. I believe that Mr. Delic was suffering of headaches.

4 Q. He was feeling pretty bad?

5 A. I don't think he was feeling that bad, because he agreed

6 with the interview, so ...

7 Q. Do you know what medication he was taking?

8 A. I can't remember the exact name but I think there is

9 some mention in the transcripts of the exact name.

10 Q. In fact, he later asked for another interview in January

11 of this year, didn't he?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. And the basis for him asking for that interview was

14 because he was so sick during the first interview he

15 made mistakes; isn't that right?

16 A. I don't know if the reason was he was so sick. I think

17 he wanted to make some corrections.

18 Q. So there were some things that weren't correct in there?

19 A. According to Mr. Delic, yes.

20 Q. By the way, did you -- when you were informing Mr. Delic

21 -- let me just broaden it to the other two people whose

22 statements you took, Mr. Landzo and Mr. Mucic. Did you

23 tell them that they have the right under the Vienna

24 Convention of 1962 to have counsel representative

25 present?

1 A. I'm working as an investigator for the Tribunal.

2 I follow the rules that are set out in the Rules of

3 Evidence and Procedure.

4 Q. Now let's try it again, sir. Did you tell him or them,

5 any of them, that they have the right under the Vienna

6 Convention on counsel relations from 1962 to have

7 contact with members of their consulate?

8 A. I am not familiar with that document so I didn't advise

9 him of it. I only follow the rules of the tribunal.

10 Q. In your ten years as a homicide investigator in Belgium

11 and your how many years as an investigator here?

12 A. Since 1st September 1995.

13 Q. Was it common or uncommon for you to interview people

14 who were not citizens of Belgium?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Which, common or uncommon?

17 A. It's very common.

18 Q. And nobody ever told you -- by the way, do you know

19 whether or not Belgium has ratified the Vienna

20 Convention of 1962?

21 A. I don't know.

22 Q. Okay. So you've never -- nobody -- you've never told

23 anybody that they have the right under Treaty to see a

24 counsel from their country?

25 A. I'm not familiar with that. In Belgium we have a book

1 on criminal procedure which we follow to the rules and

2 I think these rules are pretty good, so ...

3 Q. How familiar are you with the rules of the detention

4 centre? You've got them right next to you?

5 A. Not very familiar.

6 Q. Okay. Would you dispute with me if I told you that

7 those rules say that an inmate, a prisoner, a detainee

8 can refuse a visit from any person other than a

9 representative from the Office of the Prosecutor?

10 A. I have no knowledge about that Rule.

11 Q. Okay. Let me jump back to something we talked about a

12 little earlier and that was your discussion with

13 Ms. McHenry about your testimony here today. When was

14 that?

15 A. I believe I saw Ms. McHenry yesterday around lunch,

16 I think, during the lunch break.

17 Q. Okay. What did you all talk about?

18 A. I basically asked questions of what was going to happen

19 here in the courtroom.

20 Q. And what did she say?

21 A. She gave me the answers to my questions.

22 Q. What kind of questions are we talking about?

23 A. That there would be first an examination-in-chief, then

24 cross-examination, that's all.

25 Q. So she didn't discuss at all with you the content of

1 what you were going to say?

2 A. I think that is up to me, the content.

3 Q. Okay. So you've talked to her a lot about this case?

4 A. Well, I work with her since 1st September 1995, so ...

5 Q. She knows what you know pretty much and you pretty much

6 know what she knows?

7 A. That is a fair statement.

8 Q. So there wouldn't be any need for her to do anything

9 more than talk to you about the procedures that were

10 going to occur here today?

11 A. I don't believe so.

12 Q. Okay. How long was that conversation?

13 A. Maybe 20 minutes, fifteen, 20 minutes.

14 Q. Okay. Judge, if I can just a second to flip through my

15 notes, I think I'm done, subject to any further cross

16 I may need after Mr. Mucic's lawyer does his cross.

17 Going through my notes -- and these are my notes, okay,

18 and they're not a transcript and I may have made my

19 notes wrong, and if I did, stop me and tell me I did a

20 lousy job taking notes, and I'll not be offended; okay

21 -- my notes reflect that you were asked something along

22 the lines -- this involved Mr. Mucic:

23 "Did anyone suggest he might wish to have an

24 attorney?"

25 The answer was "no"?

1 A. Could you please repeat?

2 Q. My notes reflect that you were asked on direct:

3 "Did anyone suggest he", that is Pavo Mucic,

4 "might wish to have an attorney?"

5 Your answer was "no." Is that what you testified

6 to? If it isn't, if my notes are wrong, I told you it's

7 my notes. It's not a transcript?

8 A. I think that is correct.

9 Q. That really wasn't right, was it? Dr Sada told you he

10 wanted a lawyer, didn't he?

11 A. Dr Sada told me and my colleagues that Mr. Mucic wanted a

12 lawyer for the extradition procedure, which is totally

13 under the Austrian law and has nothing to do with the

14 Tribunal and with the interview.

15 Q. Your Honours, subject to possibly additional cross based

16 on the cross that may occur this afternoon, I'll pass

17 the witness.

18 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You mean for the time being you have

19 no further questions to ask?

20 MR. MORAN: That is correct, your Honour. If something

21 pops up I may have something more, but I don't think

22 so.

23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Any further cross-examination?

24 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I will

25 cross-examine this witness. However, I would suggest

1 that this cross-examination be moved to the afternoon

2 not because we are closing to 1 o'clock, but because as

3 the defence counsel of Zejnil Delalic I just found out

4 that the Prosecutor has in their possession a videotape

5 containing a conversation with Mr. Mucic. As we

6 discussed our reciprocal discovery, and the request and

7 motion that is over one year old, pursuant to Rule 66B,

8 I now have to regretfully say that even though the

9 Prosecutor had in their possession materials that may be

10 of interest to Zejnil Delalic, they never informed the

11 defence of it and I request that this document be

12 submitted to the defence counsel, to Mr. Delalic, at the

13 same time as it is delivered to Mr. Mucic's attorney,

14 because it may affect our cross-examination. Even

15 though the Prosecutor has on numerous occasions said

16 that they were conducting their Prosecution in good

17 faith, the Rule 66B has not been honoured and I,

18 therefore, request that a copy of this videotape also be

19 submitted to us so that I will be able to continue with

20 cross-examination of this witness in the afternoon.

21 Thank you.

22 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Do you know the particular videotapes

23 which you expect them to turn over to you so that you

24 might ask them of the particular ones?

25 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I want the

1 videotape of Mr. Mucic, the conversation from August 1996

2 which this witness confirmed to have taken place in the

3 presence of Ms. McHenry. I asked in June to get a

4 transcript of Mr. Mucic's statement before the

5 investigator of the Tribunal and I only received them in

6 November and today I am, finding out that there is an

7 additional statement in existence. I am sure it may

8 potentially be of interest for Mr. Delalic, which is then

9 set in Rule 66B.

10 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, we believe that we have complied

11 with our discovery obligations in full, but we are also

12 happy to give defence counsel another copy of -- a copy

13 of this recording that we are prepared to give to

14 Mr. Mucic's counsel also. We have no objection to

15 giving it to them. We have no objection to their

16 continuing their cross-examination tomorrow.

17 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You mean not this afternoon?

18 MS. McHENRY: I am sorry, your Honour. I had heard your

19 Honours previously to state that we would continue this

20 morning (sic). We are also -- I believe -- I don't

21 know how long it takes to make a copy. We can

22 certainly give it to her during the lunch break and

23 continue late this afternoon if that is also possible.

24 It is entirely up to your Honours.

25 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Counsel would wish to continue

1 cross-examination in the afternoon.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, if the

3 cassettes are not ready and if we only receive them

4 before the resumption of the afternoon session, then we

5 propose to do it tomorrow.

6 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, on the basis

7 of the request of Mr. Delalic's attorney and based on the

8 fresh information that that was 130 minute long

9 interviews, not just several minutes, then I really feel

10 that we should continue tomorrow so that we could

11 prepare. Madam Residovic has just mentioned that we

12 need to view the tapes. We need the transcripts so

13 that we can prepare for the cross-examination of this

14 witness.

15 JUDGE JAN: Is it 130 pages?

16 MS. McHENRY: No, your Honour. I'm totally confused. I

17 do not believe it's anything close to 130 minutes. If

18 I said something which defence counsel interpreted to

19 mean it is 130 minutes, certainly I withdraw that

20 statement. I'm a little confused, because it's not 130

21 minutes.

22 A. Certainly not.

23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually this was not my understanding

24 of the scope of the video or the conversation which went

25 on between the parties. I thought it was a short

1 conversation.

2 JUDGE JAN: A few minutes.

3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: It should not have lasted a long

4 time. Actually I was talking about Delalic's counsel

5 starting its own cross-examination, but since they have

6 also introduced the question of their having a videotape

7 submitted to them, that might be a good reason for

8 waiting until tomorrow so that the cross-examination can

9 all take place about the same time. It depends. I do

10 not know what Mr. Mucic might have had in mind, but since

11 the conversation was the initial reason for seeking an

12 adjournment, one should understand exactly how you got

13 your information about the scope of the videotape.

14 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, it is correct

15 that a colleague said that it was only several

16 minutes. She did not mention the 130 minutes and also

17 it was the intervention of the Judge Jan. However, my

18 client, Mr. Mucic, claims that this conversation took

19 much longer but that is the basis for our needing to see

20 this tape. Maybe it is 3, 15, 20, 30 minutes, but we

21 cannot say anything until we see the tape. So this is

22 why I said it that maybe we should wait until tomorrow

23 so we are prepared. We may not be prepared this

24 afternoon. If it is only a couple of minutes, then

25 there's no problem. We can continue with the

1 cross-examination of this witness.

2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Well, we might still hope that you

3 will be able to view the tapes and assess your ability

4 to study it. When we come at 2.30 and you are unable to

5 do that, then we adjourn until tomorrow, because from

6 all the indications there wasn't a real interview and

7 perhaps it might not be as long as has been thought.

8 So we will adjourn until 2.30.

9 (1.00 pm)

10 (Luncheon Adjournment)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (2.30 pm)

2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Is counsel satisfied with their

3 viewing of the videos?

4 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, if I may be heard for one minute,

5 I think I may be able to clarify things. The first

6 thing that I want to state is that my recollection of

7 how long it was was entirely wrong. The entire thing

8 has been video recorded and a copy was given to

9 Mr. Tapuskovic, but I believe it is closer to over an

10 hour, and so defence counsel have not yet been given a

11 copy of it. Mr. Olujic and I watched a small portion

12 together. What the Prosecution would suggest in an

13 effort to move things forward and save time is that the

14 witness be called back and we watch the tape, everyone,

15 so everyone can see it and see exactly what happened.

16 I have confirmed with counsel for Mr. Mucic that we are

17 not seeking to introduce this in evidence against

18 Mr. Mucic or anyone else, just so there is no appearance

19 that anything has been hidden from anyone, and

20 I certainly apologise for my incorrect recollection of

21 how long it was.

22 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I take note

23 or we take note of the corrections of our learned

24 colleague. There is absolutely no doubt now that the

25 tape is much longer than we thought originally. In any

1 event we request that we apply the rules of evidence and

2 procedure in the International Tribunal of the Hague,

3 that we be given the tape to examine it, together with

4 the transcript, so that we might continue the

5 cross-examination of today's witness. Therefore, it is

6 necessary for us to adjourn today to resume the hearing

7 tomorrow by when we will be ready to continue our

8 cross-examination. Thank you.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I fully

10 agree with the proposal of my learned colleague,

11 Mr. Olujic. I heard the apology of Ms. McHenry for an

12 inadvertent error, but it must be noted before this

13 Trial Chamber that this was a flagrant violation of the

14 obligations of the prosecution under Rule 66B regarding

15 disclosure of evidence, and that is why we request that

16 the videotape, together with the transcript, be

17 submitted to the defence counsel, as it is of interest

18 for the preparation of the defence and of the

19 cross-examination. We are absolutely opposed to the

20 viewing of the tape in the presence of the witness or

21 any other such procedure before an exhibit is admitted

22 as evidence. So I do not understand on what grounds

23 the Prosecution could have proposed that we view the

24 tape together.

25 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, first, I had a little memory lapse

1 last week and I apologise for that and I understand how

2 that could happen to the Prosecution, but it seems to me

3 to be a most irregular procedure to show to fact finders

4 something that not only has not been introduced into

5 evidence but nobody has the slightest idea what is on

6 it. I have never heard of such a procedure and it

7 seems to me to be quite irregular. I think we would

8 object to that procedure. Anything else is fine, but

9 I think somebody in the courtroom ought to know what's

10 on something before it's shown to fact finders.

11 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I believe the defence is --

12 specifically the last thing is correct and so we have no

13 objection to adjourning until tomorrow morning. I will

14 advise everyone that the Prosecution -- I will hesitate

15 to speak about anything now, but the present position of

16 the Prosecution is that it is still not an interview and

17 therefore it's not required that a transcript be made.

18 However, the Prosecution would be happy to make a

19 transcript specially -- in an effort to move things

20 along, but certainly there is absolutely no possibility

21 that a transcript could be made by tomorrow. That is a

22 very long procedure and again one that the Prosecution

23 doesn't think is required, especially -- and, in fact,

24 at least with Mr. Tapuskovic, who was given a copy of it,

25 he himself had agreed with that, but in any event we are

1 happy to give defence counsel copies immediately and we

2 are happy to adjourn until tomorrow morning, when the

3 proper procedure can be resolved, including the option

4 of playing the tape so that there's no suggestion of

5 anything improper.

6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually the Trial Chamber itself was

7 a little hesitant in coming this afternoon, but we just

8 thought we should come and be sure that it might not be

9 possible to go on with cross-examination until the tapes

10 have been made available and counsel have viewed them

11 and been able to prepare their own cross-examination

12 strategies. Actually that is what we have-- we know it

13 was not possible to get it played. Mr. Olujic, do you

14 still want to say anything because -- do you still want

15 to say anything?

16 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Yes, your Honours. Thank

17 you for your concern, but I wish to underline once

18 again, so that there should be no confusion tomorrow

19 morning, that we are requiring that we receive not only

20 the tape but the transcript as well. There is no

21 reason to act contrary to the Rules of Procedure and

22 Evidence of the International Tribunal in any case and

23 especially in this one, which may be legally highly

24 relevant. We do not know, I wish to underline once

25 again, what we will find on that tape, but let me repeat

1 we request to be supplied with both the tape and the

2 transcript. Thank you.

3 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, may I add

4 that the transcript is very important, so that the same

5 may be shown to the witness, so that he may be

6 cross-examined on that basis and, secondly, let me add

7 that since we do not know the contents of the

8 conversation and as it may be of interest for the

9 defence of Zejnil Delalic, we are not interested in the

10 conversation between defendant Mucic and the

11 Prosecution, but this may be evidence under Rule 68, and

12 this may be one of those pieces of evidence that could

13 be exculpatory. That is why the transcript is

14 absolutely essential. Thank you.

15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Can we hear you, Mr. Ackerman?

16 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, just so that I don't have to

17 raise this in the morning and leave at least this

18 afternoon for it to be considered, the same Rule that

19 provides for the kind of recording that was done with

20 regard to this statement provides that a transcript

21 shall be prepared as soon as possible thereafter and

22 provided to counsel. I understand that the Prosecution

23 takes the position that Mr. Tapuskovic waived that on

24 behalf of his client. I haven't seen the tape and none

25 of us have seen the tape. If my client's name is

1 mentioned on that tape anywhere, I was entitled to have

2 that transcript and tape a long time ago. It may not

3 be there. If my client's name is not on it and it says

4 nothing about my client, then it's not a problem for me

5 but I'm not going to know that until tomorrow morning.

6 What I did not want to do was come in here tomorrow

7 morning and say: "Aha, my client's name is on it.

8 Let's have another adjournment".

9 THE INTERPRETER: Would counsel please slow down a tad?

10 Thank you.

11 MR. ACKERMAN: And have to have another adjournment because

12 my client's name shows up on it. Perhaps the

13 Prosecutor at least knows the answer to some of those

14 questions now and can clear up some of that matter now,

15 but I think in any event the rules require that a

16 transcript has to be made of that tape. Thank you.

17 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Logically it should follow that the

18 transcript should accompany it, since they go in pairs,

19 I think.

20 MS. McHENRY: Well, your Honour, I believe that the Rule

21 specifically states whenever the Prosecutor questions a

22 suspect, and I believe that there is not -- this is an

23 interview that Mr. Mucic -- it's not even an interview.

24 Mr. Mucic requested the meeting to give information and

25 he was not being questioned. In terms of responding to

1 Mr. Ackerman's specific question, although I have not

2 seen all of the tape during the lunch hour, and I do not

3 want to rely on my recollection, I do not anticipate

4 that there is any discussion of other accused on the

5 tape. So to the extent that anticipation is helpful

6 for you, certainly -- anyway. So that is to the extent

7 that is of assistance.

8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Ms. McHenry, let me give you a little

9 tip. I think in things of this nature it is always

10 some wisdom to try and anticipate this thing happening,

11 because if there is a conversation, whatever you call

12 it, between the Prosecution and the accused person, at

13 some stage the defence will raise it, whether it is

14 exculpatory or inculpatory, one of you would remember it

15 and raise it. So it is safer and in the interests of

16 justice to have both the transcript and video recording

17 to all parties concerned. As long as anyone is affected

18 by it, let him have both the transcript and the video.

19 JUDGE JAN: We have Rule 66(A):

20 "All statements made by the accused are to be made

21 available to the defence".

22 MS. McHENRY: Yes, your Honour. Let me be very clear.

23 Mr. Tapuskovic was present and was given a copy of the

24 tape. So --

25 JUDGE JAN: But there are four accused here and they have

1 the right to obtain the statements of the accused to

2 find out what exactly they have said.

3 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I believe that there can be --

4 your Honour, I believe that we would want to fully look

5 at the tape to see what has been -- what exactly this

6 contact consisted of. I can certainly agree with your

7 Honours that the Prosecution wishes a transcript had

8 been made, and had we been cautious we would not have

9 relied on defence counsel and the Prosecution agreeing

10 that it did not fall within the requirements of the

11 Rule, and certainly we will make a transcript as soon as

12 possible in case there's any issue, and your Honours are

13 exactly correct in that.

14 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: At this stage the Trial Chamber will

15 now adjourn until 10.00 am tomorrow morning. Let's be

16 sure whether the transcript and the tape could be

17 delivered to the counsel today.

18 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I believe the tape can be

19 delivered as soon as this hearing is over. I think

20 there is no possibility that the transcript could,

21 because it is a very time-consuming procedure. So I

22 don't believe that is possible.

23 Your Honour, we will have other witnesses, if it

24 is the defence and the chambers' pleasure --

25 JUDGE JAN: Today?

1 MS. McHENRY: No, tomorrow morning. So we could continue

2 with that tomorrow morning.

3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Until the transcript is ready.

4 MS. McHENRY: Exactly. Give the tapes immediately, get the

5 transcript prepared immediately and then call the

6 witness back once the transcript has been prepared.

7 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: That should be convenient for

8 cross-examination as long as you wait until the

9 transcript is ready and handed over to counsel so they

10 can use it for the purpose of cross-examination, but for

11 the time being any other witness can continue.

12 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, if I may be

13 allowed, of course I hope those other witnesses are not

14 linked to this matter. As far as I have understood the

15 witnesses are two policemen from Vienna, which I should

16 cross-examine, asking questions linked to Mr. d'Hooge and

17 I'm handicapped because I haven't had occasion to

18 cross-examine Mr. d'Hooge. Therefore, if there are

19 other witnesses that are not linked to the question of

20 extradition and unlawfulness, then there's no problem.

21 Otherwise these things are closely interrelated. There

22 is witness d'Hooge, who has not been cross-examined by

23 defence counsel of Mr. Mucic and my learned colleague,

24 I see, intends to cross-examine him too, and we don't

25 know in which context tomorrow's witnesses will be

1 testifying or, rather, I assume they'll be talking about

2 the legal rights that were provided or not provided to

3 Mr. Mucic in Vienna. So I think that we cannot continue

4 with the hearing of witnesses until we hear Mr. d'Hooge

5 through. I'm saying this so as to spare the Trial

6 Chamber a further waste of time and the possibility of

7 raising this objection tomorrow, which we would not like

8 to have to do. Thank you.

9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Have you given them the name of the

10 next witness?

11 MS. McHENRY: Yes, your Honour. The next two witnesses are

12 Austrian police officers, who will testify concerning

13 the arrest and searches made in Austria at the time of

14 the arrest. The Austrian police officers have no

15 involvement, information, knowledge, anything about

16 Mr. Mucic's request in August of 1996, while he was in

17 The Hague to speak to Mr. d'Hooge. So the Prosecution

18 fails to see how the defence is hampered in any way,

19 shape or form by the fact that they will not have had a

20 transcript of something that occurred in August.

21 Certainly if they have anything else that they wish to

22 cross-examine Mr. d'Hooge about in Austria, we believe he

23 could do that now and then counsel could reserve

24 anything to do with this August thing, and even, if

25 necessary, to call back the Austrian police officers,

1 but because the Prosecution fails to see how this issue,

2 which is Mr. Mucic's request and contact with the Office

3 of the Prosecutor in August, would have any relationship

4 to what the Austrian police officers testify happened in

5 March of 1996, we would propose that the Austrian police

6 officers be examined, and then if something entirely

7 unexpected comes up and there is some relevance between

8 the two, of course they could be recalled.

9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I hope Mr. Olujic is satisfied by this

10 explanation. I personally do not agree to this until

11 the issue actually arises.

12 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Your Honour, I said this

13 for the sake of caution, because the witness has not

14 been fully cross-examined in relation to everything that

15 happened in Vienna, and now we are having police

16 officers coming who should testify, among other things,

17 certainly Mr. d'Hooge must have contacted them, but they

18 also have to testify on his actual arrest in Vienna.

19 I'm not claiming anything but there may be a link

20 between the actions taken by Mr. d'Hooge in Vienna and

21 these police officers. How am I able to cross-examine

22 them before having completed the cross-examination of

23 Mr. d'Hooge? I am saying this not to have to make any

24 objections tomorrow but I have understood the

25 Prosecution very well.

1 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think you can when you hear them.

2 Except you can show there's any connection between the

3 activities of the two, there's no point wondering what

4 they will say in respect of what they did. I think

5 that's what concerns you in cross-examination. So

6 I think we will adjourn until tomorrow morning.

7 (2.55 pm)

8 (Hearing adjourned until 10.00 tomorrow morning)

9 --ooOoo--

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25