1 Monday, 1st September 1997
2 (10.00 am)
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
4 Nice to be back after a fortnight's break. I hope you
5 are a little more refreshed. Can we have the
6 appearances, please?
7 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours please, my name is Niemann and
8 I appear with my colleague Mr. Turone and Ms. van
9 Dusschoten and Mr. Karin Khan. Mr. Khan is joining the
10 Prosecution team, your Honours, because unfortunately
11 Ms. Van Dusschoten is going to leave the Tribunal and
12 will no longer be with us after the September sittings,
13 so Mr. Khan will then take over in her place, if your
14 Honours please.
15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Congratulations, Mr. Khan. Nice to meet
16 you. Can we have the Defence?
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, I am Edina Residovic,
18 appearing on behalf of Mr. Zejnil Delalic. With me is my
19 colleague, Eugene O'Sullivan, professor from Canada.
20 Thank you.
21 MR. OLUJIC: Good morning, your Honours. I am Zeljko Olujic,
22 attorney from Croatia, appearing on behalf of Mr. Zdravko
23 Mucic. With me is colleague Michael Greaves, attorney
24 from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
1 MR. KARABDIC: Good morning, your Honours. I am Salih
2 Karabdic, attorney from Sarajevo and defending Mr. Hazim
3 Delic. With me in the team is Mr. Thomas Moran, attorney
4 from Houston Texas.
5 MR. ACKERMAN: Good morning your Honours, I am John Ackerman
6 and along with my co-counsel Cynthia McMurray --
7 something is wrong with the system here -- we represent
8 Mr. Esad Landzo. Thank you.
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Can we know what the Prosecution is
10 about this morning?
11 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours please, your Honours, the
12 Prosecution is ready to call Mr. Panzer, the witness, but
13 before I do that, might I pick up from where we left off
14 on the last occasion, if your Honours please, with
15 respect to the outstanding motions. It is the
16 Prosecution's intention, subject to the orders of the
17 court, to call Witness R during the course of next
18 week. There are two outstanding motions in relation to
19 Witness R, one relating to the question of calling him
20 in the first place and, secondly, the restrictive
21 measures that we seek to have applied to him. At some
22 convenient time to the court during the course of this
23 week, if it is suitable to your Honours, we submit that
24 it may be an appropriate time to hear those motions so
25 that we can be in a position to call him next week, if
1 it is convenient to the court. In the event that
2 your Honours are prepared to hear us on those matters,
3 Mr. Turone will argue the two motions that are
4 outstanding in relation to Witness R.
5 In relation to Witness S, we will be seeking to
6 withdraw in relation to that witness, but I will leave
7 that to Mr. Turone to formally do when he opens
8 submissions in relation to Witness R.
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Is the Defence aware of these arguments
10 which you want to make?
11 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, your Honours, we filed motions -- your
12 Honour, I may have mis-spoke. We are withdrawing in
13 relation to Witness S, and proceeding in relation to
14 Witness R, just in case I mis-spoke there. Yes, your
15 Honours, we filed motions in relation to this on 22nd
16 July 1997, so the motions have been filed for some time.
17 JUDGE JAN: I thought you were giving us Witness R.
18 MR. NIEMANN: We are proceeding with witness R.
19 JUDGE JAN: You have decided to produce him.
20 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, we are proceeding with Witness R.
21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I know there was some confusion.
22 MR. NIEMANN: There was, your Honour. I hope that I have
23 resolved the confusion now. We have advised the Defence
24 that the list that they request is available. So
25 Witness R we are proceeding with next week, Witness S we
1 will seek to withdraw. Thank you, your Honours.
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I do not know whether the Defence is
3 keen on arguing that this afternoon. If the Defence is
4 interested in the argument this afternoon, at about
5 2.30, I will take that.
6 MS. RESIDOVIC: As far as the Defence of Mr. Delalic is
7 concerned, we feel that we are ready to argue these
8 motions today.
9 MR. OLUJIC: We agree that these motions be discussed this
11 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, if 2.30 pleases the court it pleases
13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We will take the argument on protective
14 measures at 2.30.
15 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours please.
16 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, if I might? Just before the
17 next witness is called, if I may address you briefly on
18 a request that we filed on 29th August, requesting
19 clarification on your order of 1st August 1997. Part of
20 the contents of this request for clarification appear to
21 have been resolved since we filed this request on
22 29th August because the Prosecution has indicated they
23 intend to call officer Panzer in relation to the
24 allegedly seized items from Vienna. There is a second
25 part which is outstanding on which we sought
1 clarification and that is the use of the word "verify"
2 which is in your Honour's order, but is also used in the
3 motion filed by the Prosecution on 1st August 1997. The
4 Prosecution claims they can verify the proper procedures
5 and chain of custody by calling these police officers.
6 We hope there is no presumption in the use of the word
7 "verification" and the issue is still outstanding and
8 must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Definitely in every criminal
10 Prosecution it remains until everything has been
11 admitted and not before that. Verification does not
12 necessarily mean a concluded admission of whatever has
13 been tendered. It does not mean that.
14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you.
15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Before perhaps one forgets, let me give
16 a few announcements: according to our schedule, we are
17 not sitting on Friday the 5th, we will be not be
18 sitting. We also will not be sitting on Monday the 8th,
19 these two dates, because we are taken over by another
20 Trial Chamber. That is all for the time being. Can we
21 have the Prosecution witness?
22 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours pleases, I call Mr. Panzer.
23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Lest I forget, there is another
24 announcement I intend to make re the Prosecution motion
25 on handwriting samples which is still outstanding for
1 argument. We would like to take it on Wednesday morning
2 at 10.00 am, 3rd September. That is before we start any
3 other proceedings. Thank you very much.
4 (Witness entered court)
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Will you kindly swear the witness? The
6 interpreter should be sworn first. Swear the
7 interpreter and the witness.
8 THE INTERPRETER (sworn)
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much. You can swear the
11 WOLFGANG PANZER (sworn)
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed, Mr. Niemann.
13 Examined by MR. NIEMANN
14 Q. If your Honour pleases. Sir, would you please state
15 your full name.
16 A. Wolfgang Panzer.
17 Q. What is your date of birth?
18 A. 12th May 1956.
19 Q. Are you a citizen of Austria?
20 A. Yes, I am an Austrian.
21 Q. What is your profession?
22 A. I am a detective at the Vienna police department.
23 Q. Can you tell the Chamber what functions you perform in
24 the Austrian police department and what unit you are
25 attached to?
1 A. I work for Division 1 of the Vienna police department.
2 I work with several fellow officers in connection with
3 the former Yugoslavia and the successor states.
4 Q. What position did you hold in March 1996?
5 A. District Inspector is what I am now and at the time
6 I was team leader.
7 Q. When did you become a team leader prior to March 1996?
8 A. Since May 1995.
9 Q. Can you describe to the -- briefly describe to the
10 Chamber the responsibilities and duties of a team leader
11 as you performed them in 1996, March 1996?
12 A. I am in charge of all the case files that have to be
13 processed and passed on to the court.
14 Q. How many members did you have in your team in 1996?
15 A. There were four of us, so I worked together with three
16 other people.
17 Q. Could you name those three other people, please?
18 A. Bycek, Moerbaur, Hiermann were the fellow officers.
19 Q. In 1996, what was the nature of the crimes or the type
20 of crimes that you investigated?
21 A. Various areas were involved. Our division does not deal
22 with criminal matters per se, our division deals with
23 things related to national security and the protection
24 of the state.
25 Q. Thank you. In March 1996, can you tell the court when
1 you first learnt of the circumstances relating to this
2 matter in which you are now testifying in connection
4 A. It was a Monday, 11th March, after the consultations.
5 I was provided with a file that came from department
6 210, Interpol, and therein it was stated that one,
7 Zdravko Mucic, who resided in the 17th District, should
8 be investigated on a count of a request from the Federal
9 Ministry of Justice.
10 Q. Were you told what role you were to perform in relation
11 to this?
12 A. To process the file.
13 Q. What did that entail so far as you were concerned?
14 A. I gathered the information I could about Zdravko Mucic
15 on the basis of the information in police records.
16 Q. Were you to be assisted in this process by any parties
17 either inside or outside of your department?
18 A. On Monday I worked alone gathering this information.
19 Other officers were not around for whatever reason, so
20 I carried out this investigation on my own. Then it was
21 Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek and myself who proceeded to
22 gather further information about him, and the
23 fourth person in the team, Mr. Hiermann, had been
24 assigned to a different unit, he was working together
25 with people from the Ministry of the Interior on a
1 different case.
2 Q. Were any persons from the court assigned to assist with
3 preparation of documentation?
4 A. Well Monday, on 11th March, I did not know at all that
5 there was any connection with the International
6 Tribunal. That only emerged in the course of discussion
7 with the colleague from Interpol on 12th March, around
8 noon time, then I learned that there was this request
9 from the International Tribunal.
10 Q. Did you examine or read any documentation from the
11 International Tribunal at that stage, or were you just
12 simply informed of the interest of the Tribunal?
13 A. On Tuesday 12th, around 12.00, there was a meeting in
14 our office and there were people from Interpol present.
15 Mr. Gschwendt a supervising officer was there, a legal
16 expert, Hiermann and our team, Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek
17 and myself, and on that occasion I received a
18 translation of the request for extradition from Belgrade
19 that had been submitted to the Austrian Federal Ministry
20 of Justice, and in that connection I was told in the
21 course of the morning, that is to say on Tuesday
22 12th March at 10.00, there had been a discussion at the
23 Ministry of the Interior, that is to say my superior
24 authority, and the file I dealt with on Monday and that
25 I passed on Tuesday, that that had been submitted to a
1 representative of the Tribunal, Ms. Manke, and on the
2 basis of the information I provided, a photo that
3 I provided, it was confirmed that that individual was
4 indeed Zdravko Mucic and as against the Interpol
5 document, the first and last name indicated were right;
6 the birth date indicated there was 1956 and the place of
7 birth was mistaken, erroneous as well, so my task was to
8 determine -- I am talking about what I was doing on
9 Monday 11th -- whether that individual as described in
10 the Interpol document was the same person as found in
11 our registry and police files.
12 Q. So there was an interest both from Belgrade and from the
13 International Tribunal in relation to Mr. Mucic and it
14 was in relation to both these requests for extradition
15 that you were carrying out your enquiries?
16 A. I am only familiar with the document from the Belgrade
17 Ministry of Justice that was submitted to the Austrian
18 Ministry of Justice, and in that document it says that
19 should Austria not extradite Mucic to Belgrade that he
20 should then be prosecuted in Austria, and there was also
21 reference made to the possibility of him being
22 extradited upon a request by the Tribunal.
23 Q. Yes. I was not specifically asking about documentation,
24 merely the fact that you knew the two organisations were
1 Moving on, what was the next stage you took in
2 relation to this matter?
3 A. The next step was to ascertain whether Mucic was in
4 Vienna at all.
5 Q. How did you go about establishing that?
6 A. There is the address at which he is registered with the
7 police as living, so we checked that on a sporadic
8 basis, as it were, and on 13th or 14th, I believe it was
9 the 14th, we began putting that address under
11 Q. Did you participate in the observation of the address
12 that you had?
13 A. Yes, I was involved in that as well.
14 Q. What happened next? What was the next stage?
15 A. Tuesday and Wednesday, after two days of observation we
16 were not sure he was there, we came up with a pretext
17 and rang at his door and we asked about -- after the
18 door was opened we asked about someone. First his
19 daughter appeared, and she went and got her father, and
20 at that point in time it was clear to us that Mr. Mucic
21 did reside at the address indicated in the 17th District
22 of Vienna.
23 Q. Once you had confirmed that what was the next step that
24 you took?
25 A. Let me see now. On Tuesday 12th, in the course of the
1 discussion with Interpol, the people there, Magister
2 Gross, indicated that there was an arrest warrant
3 against Zejnil Delalic. We were familiar with him by
4 name from previous cases. The information we received
5 from Interpol indicated that there should be joint
6 action on the part of ourselves and the German police.
7 Mr. Delalic was to be arrested in Munich; Mr. Mucic was to
8 be arrested in Vienna. The whole matter was to take
9 place on Tuesday 19th March at 6.00 in the morning.
10 That was the plan. At the time we did not know whether
11 the German police knew where Delalic was, so our task
12 was, in the coming days, to establish whether Mr. Mucic
13 was still living in the 17th District and to make it
14 possible then to subsequently arrest him.
15 Q. In relation to this arrest that was to take place on
16 19th March, was any documentation being prepared or
18 A. Yes, fellow officer Bycek dealt with that. There is
19 the deposit, deposit 150 in the police headquarters, and
20 he started preparing a document and he put -- filled in
21 the relevant form. He put in the date, the name of the
22 person, the address involved, and then on that document
23 it is also indicated on what basis this was going ahead,
24 that is to say there was a reference to the court, the
25 fact that there was this court issued search warrant,
1 and then the date that had been issued, so this
2 preparatory work was carried out by Officer Bycek.
3 I think that had been done on Saturday or Sunday
5 Q. This document prepared by Officer Bycek, does that have
6 a particular name?
7 A. That is referred to as a Niederschrift, a record and
8 this is filled out on the spot and the grounds for a
9 search are indicated and the seized items are listed
10 there, so that is referred to -- that is what I referred
11 to as deposit 150, that is the Niederschrift and a copy
12 of that is handed over to the person involved, to the
14 Q. Is it partly -- is it correct to say that it is partly
15 prepared at the department and sometimes filled out at
16 the premises where the search is being executed?
17 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, that is a leading question.
18 I would ask my learned friend not to ask leading
19 questions. A sentence that starts "is it correct
20 that" --
21 MR. NIEMANN: I do not need to be instructed in leading
22 questions, your Honour.
23 MR. GREAVES: I would be grateful if my learned friend could
24 wait until I have finished and not interject like that.
25 It would be very helpful if my friend could not ask
1 leading questions.
2 MR. NIEMANN: Actually, your Honour -- never mind.
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It was rather leading.
4 MR. NIEMANN: Very well, your Honour, I will rephrase the
5 question. The Niederschrift document, where is that
7 A. It is a form that is printed by the relevant authorities
8 on behalf of the police. We have this in the police
9 headquarters, police station, I fill it out, somebody
10 else, whoever fills it out and it goes into the file for
11 the court.
12 Q. But where is it actually completed and filled out? Is
13 it completed and filled out in one place or a number of
15 A. As a rule, it is filled out at the premises where the
16 search takes place.
17 Q. Is that rule universally followed, or are there
18 exceptions to that?
19 A. The preparatory work, the fact that I fill some things
20 in in advance, is just meant to make life easier for the
21 officers who then complete the document at the
22 premises. Let us take the case with -- it is an ongoing
23 affair, there may be several searches that are involved
24 in that case. I may, in fact, fill it out at the
1 Q. You mentioned earlier that the Niederschrift document
2 was prepared in connection with a search warrant. Who
3 prepares the search warrant?
4 A. The search warrant was drawn up by Dr Seda, the
5 investigating judge from the Vienna district court. He
6 issued both the search warrant and the arrest warrant.
7 These can be issued only by a judge of the competent
9 Q. I take it Dr Seda was such a judge?
10 A. Dr Seda is a judge at the Vienna district court, he is
11 an investigating judge, examining magistrate if you
12 will, and he was in charge of all the procedures
13 involving foreign countries, so that is the area for
14 which the court has competence, that is what he dealt
16 Q. Where does Dr Seda get the information from that he
17 relies upon in order to draw up the search warrant?
18 A. From the security authorities of which I am a member.
19 In this case, Dr Seda obtained the information from
20 fellow officers at Interpol, and he was informed of this
21 well in advance, in fact, because with Felsenstein from
22 the Ministry of Justice, he had already been contacted
23 in relation with the request for extradition from
25 Q. What was the next step that you took in these
1 proceedings in relation to this matter?
2 A. From Thursday 14th , there were these teams there at the
3 address in the 17th District, keeping the address under
4 observation, either there or in the 14th District at the
5 INDA-Bau company. The observation was carried out on
6 Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday until the
7 time of the arrest of Mr. Mucic.
8 Q. Moving up to the time of the arrest, can you tell us
9 what time you arrived on the scene on that day?
10 A. The arrest of Mr. Mucic occurred on Monday, 18th March at
11 2.15 pm in the 17th District of Vienna in front of
12 Natagasse 11 and at that point in time, together with a
13 fellow officer, I was 100 metres away from that house,
14 Natagasse 11, because ten minutes before that he came to
15 his car that was parked there and then he went back into
16 the building, Moerbaur and Bycek --
17 Q. When you say "he went back into the building", who is
19 A. Mr. Mucic. So the arrest was at 2.15 pm. You asked me
20 where I was at that point in time. I was in the area of
21 Natagasse 11 at my observation post, together with
22 fellow officer Borlak. Prior to 2.15 pm, I do not know,
23 some 5 or 10 minutes before that, Mr. Mucic came out to
24 his car, he put a bag in there or something and then he
25 went back into the building. Mr. Moerbaur and Mr. Bycek
1 were at the INDA-Bau company. In the meantime, it must
2 have been 2.10, something like that, I got in touch with
3 my superior, Mr. Gschwendt and I told him by phone -- or
4 to be correct, Mr. Gschwendt informed me that the German
5 officers were going ahead with the arrest of Delalic, do
6 we know where Mucic is, and I said yes, he has gone
7 inside the building and I take it he is still there.
8 Two minutes later, the phone rings again, Gschwendt
9 gives me a call and says "the German officers have
10 arrested Mr. Delalic in Munich, where is Mr. Mucic?"
11 I said I cannot tell you exactly, but I assume he is in
12 the apartment.
13 At that point in time, Mr. Mucic comes out and goes
14 to his car, so I tell Mr. Gschwendt, "he is back, let us
15 get going", so that is when we went ahead with the
17 Q. This was a day earlier than had originally been planned
18 as the day of the arrest, is it?
19 A. On Tuesday, 12th March, for the first time, Magister
20 Gross informed us that both individuals should be
21 arrested; that is to say one in Germany by the Germans
22 and one in Vienna by us, and that these arrests should
23 take place on Tuesday morning, the 19th, at 6.00 am.
24 Now this matter was broached again on Saturday, that
25 would be Saturday 16th May, in connection with the
1 observation activities. We found that Zejnil Delalic
2 was in Vienna. He was driving a vehicle with German
3 licence plates, Munich licence plates at that, and he
4 was driving from Taubergasse 15 over to INDA-Bau in the
5 16th District. The message we received said we would
6 only go ahead with the arrest if both individuals are
7 there or if we know where both individuals are because
8 what we wanted to do was have the German officers arrest
9 Delalic in Munich and go ahead with a search there in
10 his apartment or on his company premises.
11 On Saturday 16th we spotted only Mr. Delalic, and
12 at that point in time we did not know where Mr. Mucic
13 was. We did not proceed with the arrest, it was not
15 Q. Was Mr. Delalic put under observation?
16 A. He was observed that day, in the morning he came out of
17 the building at Taubergasse and went back in. In the
18 afternoon he drove to INDA-Bau. He went into the
19 company premises there, he took out some folders, put
20 them in the trunk of the car, hopped in the car and
21 towards 3.00 pm he took the west autobahn, the motorway
22 towards Salzburg and we assumed he was going on towards
23 Munich from there. At around 5.30 pm at the Moserberg
24 border crossing he entered Germany.
25 At the time we took up contact with Magister Gross
1 again and he said once again that the arrest should
2 occur on Tuesday 19th March at 6.00 am. On Monday the
3 18th at 10.00 there was a meeting between a gentleman of
4 the Tribunal, this was at Interpol's premises. There
5 were people from Interpol, people from the Tribunal, and
6 my superior, Mr. Gschwendt was there, and once again it
7 was decided that the arrest would take place at 6.00 am
8 on Tuesday unless the Germans were to arrest Mr. Mucic --
9 no, let me correct that, Mr. Delalic, by 4.00 pm; again
10 only if we in Austria know where Mr. Mucic is, but the
11 Germans went ahead and forgot about us, as it were.
12 Fortunately we happened to know where Mr. Mucic was, and
13 that is then how things proceeded. Mr. Delalic was
14 arrested in Munich and Mr. Mucic was arrested in Vienna
15 by our officers on Monday the 18th at 2.15 pm.
16 Q. When you went to the premises of Mr. Mucic on that day,
17 March 18th, did you have that documentation with you
18 that you described earlier in your evidence, namely the
19 search warrant and the Niederschrift?
20 A. We had several files along. We had the court issued
21 search warrants, and the Niederschrift were in there,
22 because there were six places that were to be searched
23 on the basis of a court order. Now in my folder I had
24 the court issued arrest warrant against Mr. Mucic, the
25 court issued search warrant for his apartment,
1 Taubergasse 15, door 10, and the 150 document, the
2 so-called Niederschrift.
3 Q. Might the witness be shown Exhibit 151, please? Perhaps
4 I could just have a look at it for a moment? (Handed).
5 Could you look at this document you are now being shown,
6 please? Do you recognise that document, Mr. Panzer?
7 A. Yes, I do recognise it, of course. This is the
8 Niederschrift, this is this 150 document which was
9 prepared in advance by Mr. Bycek.
10 Q. Is it all filled out by Mr. Bycek, or has some of it
11 been filled out by somebody else?
12 A. I cannot really say. He prepared it in advance. With
13 regard to the information, this was filled in at police
14 headquarters, I assume it was Officer Bycek, but
15 I could not swear to it, but at all events, this was
16 filled out at police headquarters.
17 Q. Do you see your signature appearing on this document at
18 any place?
19 A. Yes, it is above my name.
20 Q. Do you see on the second page of the document there is a
21 reference to a number of listed items there. What does
22 that mean?
23 A. This means that these items were found in the apartment
24 pursuant to the search warrant and they were seized.
25 Q. The handwriting that appears on the front page of the
1 document which appears to be where the officers' names
2 are inserted, do you know whose handwriting that is?
3 A. That is Mr. Borlak's handwriting. He was along with me
4 in the apartment of Mr. Mucic. That is his handwriting.
5 Q. Do you see a signature on the second page under that
6 part which is entitled "signatures
7 concerned/representative". Do you see a signature
9 A. Yes, I do see a signature. Mr. Mucic signed this.
10 Q. Were you there when he affixed his signature to this
11 document? Were you present?
12 A. One of the officers, I cannot tell you which now, but
13 after everything took place, at the police headquarters
14 -- only Borlak, Bycek, Moerbaur and myself were at
15 police headquarters, that is 331 I am referring to.
16 There was someone in the room, but I cannot tell you
17 that I did see him sign it.
18 Q. Although you may not have actually watched him affix his
19 signature, were you in the room or nearby at the time,
20 so far as you can recall?
21 A. I was in the room throughout, just about all the time.
22 MR. NIEMANN: I tender that, your Honour.
23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any observations from the Defence about
24 tendering it? What number is it?
25 MR. NIEMANN: 151.
1 THE REGISTRAR: It will be admitted as Exhibit 151 and the
2 English translation 151A.
3 MR. NIEMANN: Might the witness be shown document 163,
4 please? (Handed). Mr. Panzer, I would ask you to look
5 at this document you are now being shown. Do you
6 recognise this document?
7 A. I recognise this document. This is the court issued
8 search warrant relating to Zdravko Mucic and others.
9 There is the six addresses where searches were
10 carried out.
11 Q. Is that the document you said that you had in your
12 possession when you went to the premises on that day,
13 18th March?
14 A. Yes, I had this along.
15 MR. NIEMANN: I tender the search warrant, your Honour. It
16 is numbered 163, if your Honours please.
17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, that can be admitted.
18 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours please. Your Honours, is that
19 a convenient moment before I move on?
20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: No, you can carry on. We will break in
21 30 minutes.
22 MR. NIEMANN: Mr. Panzer, you said in your evidence that you
23 saw Mr. Mucic come back out to his car again after he had
24 gone in and you had the conversation with your
25 superior. What happened then? What happened when he
1 came out to his car for the second time?
2 A. That was Monday 18th then, shortly before 2.15 pm,
3 I already knew Mr. Delalic had been arrested in Munich,
4 and in the meantime Moerbaur and Bycek were called over
5 from INDA-Bau. It took them about two minutes to come
6 along, it is about two minutes away, it is just round
7 the corner, and at 2.15 pm, Mr. Mucic went back to the
8 car through the Meisengasse, it was a white Suzuki, it
9 was parked in front of the building at Natagasse 11. He
10 had a key and unlocked the door to the car. At that
11 point in time, Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek, they had already
12 arrived, along with myself and Officer Borlak, and we
13 drove up to the level of Natagasse 11. Bycek and
14 Moerbaur leapt out and Mr. Borlak, and I was at the
15 wheel, so I was the last one to alight from the vehicle,
16 and then at 2.15 pm Mr. Mucic was arrested on the
17 sidewalk in front of the building at Natagasse 11.
18 Q. Was Mr. Mucic restrained in any way at that time?
19 A. What do you mean by restrained, if you please?
20 Q. Was he prevented from leaving or prevented from moving
21 in any way, and in which way, if that is so?
22 A. On the basis of Austrian law, when you arrest someone
23 there is no question of leaving. Mr. Mucic was arrested,
24 he was held. He had handcuffs put on with his hands
25 behind his back as per regulations, and Mr. Mucic had
1 absolutely no possibility at that point in time to leave
2 for anywhere.
3 Q. Did anyone say anything to Mr. Mucic at that time?
4 A. Mr. Moerbaur spoke to Mr. Mucic. He told him first of all
5 that he was under arrest pursuant to a court issued
6 arrest warrant, and as -- this is as he was putting on
7 the handcuffs. At that point in time I was already out
8 of the car and I stepped up several feet to Mr. Mucic.
9 I showed Mr. Mucic the warrant issued by the Vienna
10 district court. I asked him whether he was Mr. Mucic.
11 He said yes. There upon I told him that he was under
12 arrest pursuant to a court issued arrest warrant, that
13 he had the right to remain silent, that he had the right
14 to have -- to notify a member of his family, and that he
15 was entitled to consult a lawyer. I asked him whether
16 he understood that, I addressed him in German. He said
18 In the course of our talk, he also told me and
19 told Mr. Moerbaur, "oh, it is you, you were at my
20 apartment a few days ago".
21 Q. Who did he address that to when he said that? Who was
22 Mr. Mucic addressing when he said that?
23 A. To me. You have to picture this. This is all in a side
24 street in a two square metre big area. There are five
25 people, the person arrested, Bycek, Borlak, Moerbaur
1 and myself.
2 Q. What was the next thing to occur after that?
3 A. I asked him whether he had understood all that. He said
4 yes, and he was very calm. He was not worked up or
5 surprised or anything at all really. After that I told
6 him that we also had a court issued search warrant which
7 we were now going to execute. Fine, there upon we
8 boarded the car, drove round the block and then entered
9 the building Taubergasse 15, door 10. First we locked
10 up the car, and then we went up to the apartment.
11 Q. You mentioned a moment ago that you had had a
12 conversation with Mr. Mucic when he said you were the one
13 that had come to the door. In what language was
14 Mr. Mucic -- what language was Mr. Mucic using at the
16 A. Each and every conversation I had with Mucic, there were
17 in fact only two of them, one -- I forget, that was
18 Wednesday, Thursday, when we checked out to see if he
19 was in the apartment and then when I talked to him at
20 the time of the arrest in front of Natagasse 11, both of
21 those conversations were in German. Mr. Mucic, on
22 Wednesday, Thursday, we were in front of the apartment,
23 when we had come up on the pretext to see if he was
24 there, he answered my question in excellent German.
25 When I asked him whether he understood why he had been
1 arrested, he answered yes, and that conversation was in
2 German as well.
3 Q. You then went to the apartment, the address that was
4 mentioned on the search warrant, is that right?
5 A. Yes, that is right. We went to the apartment. This was
6 about five minutes after the arrest. He unlocked the
7 apartment door and we entered.
8 Q. When you say he, again who are you referring to? When
9 he unlocked the door?
10 A. He, Mr. Mucic, or rather we had the key to the apartment,
11 he had had that in his pocket. He handed it over, we
12 uncked the door. He had his hands handcuffed behind his
13 back and then we entered the apartment, Mr. Borlak,
14 Mr. Bycek, Mr. Moerbaur and myself.
15 Q. Did Mr. Mucic accompany you into the apartment?
16 A. Yes, naturally. In the street I told him that we were
17 going to proceed with a search and he said, "sure, let
18 us go over".
19 Q. When you entered the apartment, was there anybody else
20 in the apartment?
21 A. I cannot really remember, all I know is that we unlocked
22 the door and very shortly thereafter from a neighbouring
23 apartment his daughter Sanda came over, that is how
24 I remember it.
25 Q. Can you describe the apartment, the physical layout of
1 the apartment?
2 A. There is a small hallway, kitchen, bathroom and three
3 rooms. That is how I remember it. You go in and then
4 on the right up against the window there is a small
5 table, that is where we sat down and then behind that
6 I think there was Sanda's room. To the left of that was
7 the living room and then there was a connecting door
8 there to the room which I believe was Mr. Mucic's room.
9 That is all I can recall.
10 Q. Who, apart from you and Mr. Mucic, went into this
11 apartment at that time?
12 A. Mr. Mucic, myself and the three police officers entered
13 the apartment, Mr. Bycek, Mr. Borlak and Mr. Moerbaur.
14 Very shortly thereafter, Sanda came into the apartment.
15 That is how I remember it. I think she had been over at
16 a neighbour's. We sat down and I said "Sanda, look
17 here, we have got an arrest warrant for your daddy, a
18 court issued search warrant. I have already explained
19 everything to your father, everything we have to do
20 pursuant to the code of criminal procedure, so if you
21 would be so good, you could translate this for your
22 father into Yugoslavian". Sanda did so and Mr. Mucic was
23 acquainted then with the two warrants, not only in
24 German but also in his native language.
25 Q. Why did you have it translated considering that you had
1 already been speaking to him in German?
2 A. That is a practice that I always use when dealing with
3 foreigners. It is a preventative measure, as it were.
4 When I say foreigner, I mean any non-Austrian. That is
5 to preclude the possibility that such a person might
6 later say in court that he did not know why and on what
7 basis the operation was carried out.
8 Q. Did you then have a conversation with Mr. Mucic
9 concerning what it was that you were interested in
11 A. I talked to Mr. Mucic and I told him we were looking for
12 documents relative to war crimes in Bosnia, in
13 particular there were to be videotapes of Celebici camp
14 that he had made and he said he did not have anything of
15 the sort, but there were videos with footage from the
16 Celebici camp. I asked, "where are those video tapes?"
17 There upon we entered the living room and there is a
18 piece of furniture there up against the wall and he took
19 out some tapes, a dozen or so. He put those on the
20 table and then he picked out from that pile four video
21 tapes, and in respect of those he said that there were
22 reports about the war, footage of destruction and
23 footage of, shall we say, entertainment activities at
24 the camp.
25 Q. When you say "the camp", did you understand that to mean
1 any particular camp?
2 A. By "camp" what I am referring to is the Celebici camp,
3 that is the only camp I am familiar with.
4 Q. The conversation you had with Mr. Mucic about these
5 videos, was that conducted in the German language or was
6 it being translated for him?
7 A. That was in German.
8 Q. When he selected the four videos, did he then hand them
9 to you?
10 A. He took out the four videos. He told me that there were
11 images of war events, including footage of him and then
12 he handed those over to me. I asked whether we could
13 have a quick look at them and he said yes, and I think
14 Sanda, that is to say his daughter, turned on the VCR.
15 I put the videos in there, Sanda perhaps used the remote
16 control and then on fast forward had a look at a bit of
17 footage. I saw some footage there. There were some
18 officers, soldiers there, including Mr. Mucic, in
19 uniform, so I did this with the videos, just had a quick
20 look at them and then we seized those video tapes.
21 Q. When the video tapes were being played on the VCR, did
22 Mr. Mucic say anything at that time or did he remain
24 A. I cannot really say. It did not take very long. You
25 have to picture the scene in the apartment at the time;
1 there were four searches going on, Mucic's apartment.
2 Then I briefly went up to Delalic's apartment. There
3 the officers asked me something, then in the meantime
4 Mr. Bycek went down to Zejnil Delalic's, to the premises
5 of the BiH Club, the premises of the MAS Company. I was
6 up and about and when I found the time I put in a
7 videotape and had a quick look at it. As to whether he
8 said anything, quite frankly, I cannot answer that
10 Q. You said you seized the videos. What precisely did you
11 do with them when you took the four videos?
12 A. I took the videos, put them on the table that we sat at
13 after we came in, alongside other seized items which
14 Mr. Borlak or Mr. Moerbaur had brought to me. Now as you
15 can see on the record, the notebooks, the passports, the
16 papers and the telephone information.
17 Q. When you actually seized these videos, did anyone raise
18 any objection or say anything to you about the seizure
19 of the videos?
20 A. I do not know.
21 Q. Besides the four videos that you have mentioned, were
22 any other videos seized by you on that occasion?
23 A. In Mr. Mucic's apartment all we seized were the four
24 video tapes. Just to play it safe, I had a look at the
25 other video tapes. He told me that they contained
1 movies, Sanda and he said that, and I put those in, just
2 had a quick look, and in fact there were but movies on
3 there, so they were not relevant to the case and I left
4 those other video tapes in the apartment. So in
5 Mr. Mucic's apartment all that we seized were those four
6 video tapes, the four video tapes that he had handed me.
7 Q. You mentioned a moment ago that these video tapes were
8 referred to among the other items in the Niederschrift
9 or record document which is now Exhibit 151; is that
11 A. Yes, that is right.
12 Q. When was the entry made into Exhibit 151, the
13 Niederschrift, in relation to the items that are
14 mentioned on the second page? When was that actually
15 put on to the Niederschrift?
16 A. I assume that it was immediately after we reached police
17 headquarters and we began the inventory.
18 Q. Why did you not fill it out at the premises, as opposed
19 to police headquarters?
20 A. Because the person concerned, i.e. Mr. Mucic, was taken
21 by us to police headquarters, and we were going to be
22 interviewing him and that is why it was not necessary to
23 fill out this Niederschrift on the premises.
24 Q. Physically, where did you put the videos when you were
25 in the premises of Mr. Mucic in order to take them back
1 to the police headquarters? What did you carry them in?
2 A. The four video tapes and the items listed there were
3 placed together on the table, the one we had set near
4 the entrance, all items were placed in several plastic
5 bags and taken to police station headquarters.
6 Q. I take it they were taken to the police car and then
7 taken to police headquarters?
8 A. They went into plastic bags, then together with
9 Mr. Mucic, we drove to police headquarters. These seized
10 items had been placed in the trunk. We drove to police
11 headquarters; Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek went up to room 331
12 with Mr. Mucic, Mr. Borlak and myself also went up to
13 331. Mr. Borlak was carrying the items seized at
14 Delalic's apartment and I was carrying the items seized
15 at Mucic's apartment.
16 Q. Did you carry the items seized at Mr. Mucic's apartment
17 to the police car?
18 A. Two fellow officers from our department carried out the
19 search in the apartment of Mr. Mucic. Mr. Moerbaur went
20 up to Delalic's apartment and I went up to Delalic's
21 apartment and they would ask "is this relevant, should
22 this be seized or not?" After the search in Delalic's
23 apartment was over I happened to see a gym bag there,
24 I took that along and I put all the items seized in the
25 apartment of Mr. Delalic in that. That bag, I took that
1 to the car as well, and it said -- I think Mr. Borlak
2 carried the things upstairs at police headquarters with
4 Q. The question though is who carried the items seized in
5 Mr. Mucic's apartment to the police car?
6 A. I did.
7 Q. When you arrived at police headquarters, who took the
8 items seized from Mr. Mucic's apartment upstairs into
9 police headquarters?
10 A. I did.
11 Q. When you went to, I think you said room 331, what did
12 you then do with the items that had been seized from
13 Mr. Mucic's apartment?
14 A. First of all in the hallway I got hold of a cardboard
15 box that happened to be lying there. I took that
16 cardboard box and I put all the items from Mr. Mucic's
17 apartment into that box, I stuck a white card on it, a
18 reference card, as it were, and I wrote on that "search
19 Mucic apartment Taubergasse 15, door 10", and then
20 I wrote down the reference number of the court warrant
21 and then I put that in a cabinet.
22 Q. Was this cabinet -- perhaps you might describe the
23 cabinet for me.
24 A. Office furniture, one going from the floor to the
25 ceiling, 60 or 70 centimetres deep, one that can be
1 locked up.
2 Q. Does it have shelves in it?
3 A. Several shelves, yes.
4 Q. When you put the items that had been seized from
5 Mr. Mucic's apartment, which at this stage was in the
6 cardboard box, did you put it with any other items or
7 was it on its own?
8 A. There had been three searches where items had been
9 seized, Mr. Mucic's apartment, Mr. Delalic's apartment and
10 on the premises of the INDA-Bau company, the search
11 carried out by Mr. Navrat. When we reached that office
12 with Mr. Mucic and the seized items -- there had been a
13 separation from the outset, because there had been the
14 plastic bag in Mucic's apartment; then there had been
15 the gym bag in which the items from Mr. Delalic had been
16 placed, so all the items were always kept separate.
17 There was never any possibility of there being any
18 mixup, so even though everything already was separate
19 for security reasons, everything was placed in a
20 cardboard box and then the reference was put on there.
21 In the meantime, Mr. Navrat turned up with the things he
22 had seized, the folders and a box with the video tapes
23 and the same procedure was followed there; a box was
24 used, things put in there. Then there was this index,
25 reference cards put on there and then on its own shelf
1 in the cabinet, so for each of those was on each shelf,
2 Mucic, Delalic and INDA-Bau.
3 Q. When Mr. Navrat brought the material that had been seized
4 from INDA-Bau, can you recall who was in the room at the
5 time when he brought them in?
6 A. There was Mr. Mucic who had been arrested, Mr. Borlak,
7 Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek, myself, and in the room next
8 door there were two other officers who were writing
9 something about the search at Mr. Delalic's and they were
10 just on the other side of a connecting door there, in
11 the next office.
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Do you mind if you leave the next
13 question to the next part of the session?
14 MR. NIEMANN: Not at all.
15 MR. GREAVES: There is a matter I would like to raise before
16 you rise, please.
17 On 5th August this year, during the evidence of
18 Officer Navrat, I drew to your Honours' attention the
19 fact that whilst Navrat was still in the process of
20 giving evidence, he was seen to be engaged over the
21 luncheon adjournment in conversation with one Sabine
22 Manke. The fact that Sabine Manke was talking to
23 Officer Navrat whilst he was giving evidence was
24 objectionable for a number of reasons.
25 She is an employee of the OTP, and prima facie it
1 is a serious impropriety for an employee of the OTP to
2 be talking to a witness whilst that witness is on oath
3 and giving evidence.
4 Secondly, she is someone who has been engaged in
5 investigating this case, as part of her duties. Prima
6 facie that also makes it a serious matter for her to be
7 talking to witnesses giving evidence in relation to this
9 Thirdly, some weeks earlier, I had adverted to her
10 presence during the evidence of Officer Moerbaur in the
11 public gallery. She immediately left the public
12 gallery, and was therefore on notice that she should not
13 have anything to do with witnesses whilst giving
15 Fourthly, because she had had something to do with
16 transferring documents to The Hague from Vienna, she was
17 a potential witness. At that stage, your Honours, my
18 learned friend Mr. Niemann promised to make enquiries.
19 He has not thus far, a month later, reported back to
20 your Honours. I seek for him to give a report on the
21 incident of 5th August. I invite him to tell us what
22 steps have been taken in relation to this matter, and in
23 order to establish a proper control over OTP employees
24 and witnesses coming into contact whilst witnesses are
25 giving evidence.
1 We need to know what steps in particular have been
2 taken in relation to the conduct of Sabine Manke on
3 5th August, and I would respectfully submit we ought to
4 know why it has taken him so long to report back to
5 your Honours as he indicated he would.
6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much Mr. Greaves.
7 MR. GREAVES: I raise it now because, of course, we have a
8 witness giving evidence in relation to this very matter.
9 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, your Honour, I am happy to respond to
10 that. First of all, the question of OTP employees
11 speaking to witnesses, being offensive as it may to
12 Mr. Greaves, of course, is not universally offensive in
13 all jurisdictions. It may be in his jurisdiction but it
14 is not in others. There is no prohibition on the
15 practice here, so I suggest what may be objectionable to
16 in England is not necessarily objectionable here.
17 I would ask and invite him to give some authority for
18 the proposition which he expounds, particularly
19 authority based in international law.
20 With respect to the question of speaking to
21 witnesses, I had spoken to Ms. Sabine Manke, and I had
22 asked her the nature of her conversation. It is quite
23 common for employees of the OTP to speak to witnesses
24 when they arrive, it happens on a regular basis, but it
25 is always on the understanding that evidence of one
1 witness against another is not compared. We are not
2 suggesting that Ms. Sabine Manke is a witness in these
3 proceedings. If Mr. Greaves chooses to make her one in
4 the course of the Defence case, then he must bear the
5 consequences of the fact that she has not been so
6 nominated by the Prosecution.
7 Your Honours, it is well understood by officers of
8 the Prosecution that they are not to in any way
9 manufacture evidence or endeavour to make a farce out of
10 these proceedings. The officers of the Prosecutor are
11 professional people, they are not in any way personally
12 or in any other direct way involved in these
13 proceedings, from a political or other point of view.
14 They try to do their job in a professional way. We are
15 not here to win, but to see that justice is done.
16 I assure your Honours that officers of the Prosecutor
17 behave in a proper and professional manner. They are
18 aware of the consequences of speaking to witnesses, as
19 is Ms. Sabine Manke, and your Honours, as far as the
20 Prosecution is concerned, we are satisfied that there
21 has been no attempt to fabricate the evidence of any of
22 these witnesses.
23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think what Mr. Greaves is referring to
24 is not a question of whether anything amiss has
25 happened, but he wants your report on your undertaking
1 you made to make an investigation. That is his main
3 MR. NIEMANN: I have done that, your Honours and I am
4 satisfied that there is no impropriety.
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think before now, that is why he
6 raised it. If perhaps such a report had been made
7 before now, perhaps he might have not raised the issue
8 at all, it would not have been necessary.
9 MR. NIEMANN: Possibly so, your Honour, except I apprehend
10 that Mr. Greaves is proceeding on a basis of ethical
11 standards which apply in his own country and not
12 necessarily in all jurisdictions.
13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: There is still some suspicion that
14 something amiss might be happening. I think it is fair
15 that the Prosecution should take that into consideration
16 in determining how its own witnesses or officials or
17 possible witnesses would be associating with witnesses
18 already who are in the Tribunal and are likely to give
19 evidence, because the suspicion is still there.
20 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, the officers of the Prosecutor,
21 it is imperative that they have access to witnesses,
22 otherwise we simply cannot do our work and indeed we all
23 from time to time have access to witnesses, but in so
24 doing, we are aware of our professional
25 responsibilities. I am satisfied that Ms. Sabine Manke
1 is aware of her professional responsibilities and
2 behaved in an appropriate and proper manner.
3 JUDGE JAN: One thing I am not able to understand, do
4 ethical standards differ from country to country, what
5 is good and what is bad? I do not think you have really
6 national standards for that.
7 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, I understand that in the
8 United States, I will no doubt be corrected if I am
9 wrong, but the concern of counsel talking to witnesses
10 is not a concern. In the United States, counsel
11 regularly proof witnesses and do so right through the
12 proceedings. In some states, I am informed that indeed,
13 counsel will speak to witnesses whilst they are indeed
14 under cross-examination, which is not something I am
15 familiar with, but I know that in other jurisdictions
16 such as in England, counsel does not speak to
17 witnesses. There are differences right throughout the
18 world in relation to this. I understand in Europe it is
19 not common for prosecutors to speak to witnesses. In
20 the jurisdiction I come from, it is the same as the
21 United States.
22 Your Honours, there is a great deal of
23 difference. In my submission, when we are in this
24 situation, it is essential, your Honours, that the
25 primary concern, and that is the fabricating of
1 evidence, be avoided, but it does not necessarily have
2 to be resolved in the way it is resolved in some
3 jurisdictions, such as by putting prohibition on counsel
4 from speaking to witnesses.
5 JUDGE JAN: I thought fabrication of evidence was unethical
6 everywhere. That was the word you were using.
7 MR. NIEMANN: That is the very point I am making, your
8 Honours, that it is essential that people be aware that
9 the fabrication of evidence is something which is
10 entirely unacceptable and completely unethical no matter
11 where it happens, but the way to prevent it is not
12 necessarily done the same way in every jurisdiction.
13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Moran, any contribution?
14 MR. MORAN: I think Mr. Niemann may be labouring under some
15 kind of misapprehension that Ms. Manke is not a
16 witness. Ms. Sabine Manke has testified for the Office
17 of the Prosecutor. I know that Mr. Niemann is new to the
18 case and he may not have known that fact and I am sure
19 that he was not aware of that when he made his statement
20 a little earlier. I would suggest that Rule 90(d),
21 along with the order from the Tadic case, decision on
22 Defence motion to prevent contamination of testimony,
23 which the court has discussed at some great length,
24 would be the authority for Mr. Greaves' assertion that
25 witnesses, be they witnesses off the street or employees
1 of the Office of the Prosecutor, should not be
2 discussing this case with other witnesses in this case.
3 The one exception, of course, being Rule 90(e), that if
4 it is the lead investigator for the Prosecution and has
5 been designated as the lead investigator, then that
6 witness can sit in the courtroom and is not prevented
7 from being called as a witness.
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think Mr. Greaves' observation is a
9 very pertinent one and I think he did not do anything
10 more than reminding the Prosecutor about this
11 undertaking, and as I said, if it had been already made,
12 and then given to the Tribunal, this would never have
13 arisen. Despite the differences in ethical standards,
14 I think there is still a general one which will enable
15 the Tribunal to ensure that justice is seen to be done,
16 because if people outside who understand the situation
17 appreciate that a Prosecution witness is getting too
18 familiar with an official of that nature who also has
19 already given evidence, this might raise a few
20 eyebrows. But as far as you giving the undertaking, we
21 expect you to ensure that it does not continue. That
22 makes life better for everyone. I think we will have to
23 break now and come back at 12.15.
24 (11.45 am)
25 (A short break)
1 (12.15 pm)
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed.
3 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you.
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Before we continue, may I say that we
5 will still stop at 1.00 instead of eating into the lunch
6 break. You have to be aware of that.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: If it may please the court, I would like to
8 draw your attention to one thing. Several months ago,
9 when the breaks were only 20 minutes, our clients were
10 unable to leave the courtroom and the court at the time
11 decided to have a half hour break. After today's break,
12 I wish to inform the court that my client practically
13 does not have ten minutes of break because the way the
14 defendants exit and reenter the courtroom is organised
15 in such a way that practically we do not have time to
16 talk to our clients, nor does the client have time to
17 have a cup of coffee and rest and be prepared for the
18 continuation of the trial.
19 Therefore, I would like to ask the court to give
20 instructions to the Registrar to request organisation of
21 the break in such a way that would allow our clients to
22 have a rest during the break and to give their full
23 attention to the continuation of the trial. Thank you.
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much. I think we will
25 try and arrange that so that the Registry can make the
1 necessary adjustment to their movements.
2 THE REGISTRAR: We will do so, your Honour.
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, Mr. Niemann, you can proceed.
4 MR. NIEMANN: As your Honour pleases. Mr. Panzer, the cabinet
5 that you had referred to earlier in your evidence in
6 which the various items were placed, who had access to
7 that particular cabinet?
8 A. The people who had access to that cabinet were
9 Mr. Bycek, Mr. Moerbaur and myself, no one else.
10 Q. And the room in which you operated I think you described
11 as room 331, who had access to that room?
12 A. Our fourth colleague, who was not there most of the
13 time. Otherwise, it was only Mr. Bycek, Mr. Moerbaur and
15 Q. The cabinet in which you placed these items, at the time
16 that you put them in there, did the cabinet contain
17 anything else or was it empty at the time?
18 A. Completely empty.
19 Q. After the documents and items had been placed, including
20 the videos, had been placed in the cabinet, did you then
21 late in the day or during the course of the next day
22 proceed to do anything with the items that had been put
23 into the cabinet?
24 A. The items that had been seized from Mr. Mucic, Mr. Delalic
25 and the INDA-Bau firm were stored, sealed and the items
1 from the search were put in a specific compartment and
2 then late in the afternoon, in the evening of the
3 Monday, that is the 18th, those items that were seized
4 from Mr. Mucic were put in the inventory.
5 Q. By putting in the inventory, what does that entail?
6 A. What it means is that -- it is basically the same thing,
7 you have the document 150, and these items have to be
8 catalogued or put in the inventory so we can access them
9 later through the analysis report.
10 Q. With the items themselves, did you do anything to them?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did you subsequently deal with these particular items
13 that had been seized yourself, personally?
14 A. The labelling procedure was carried out, that is to say
15 you have a letter and then a figure. I did that.
16 Q. When did you do the labelling procedure?
17 A. It was in the early evening, I think, for Mr. Mucic and
18 for the other seized items it was in the morning of the
19 Tuesday, I think.
20 Q. Is that Tuesday 19th?
21 A. Yes, that is right, the 19th.
22 Q. When you labelled the items from Mr. Mucic's apartment,
23 did you use any -- what particular letters and numbers
24 did you use to identify those particular items?
25 A. The system was that I took letter M for Mucic, and the
1 video cassettes were given M1A through to D, and the
2 other documents, those I listed with M5, 6, 7. I cannot
3 remember how far it actually went.
4 Q. Okay. You mentioned earlier in your evidence that
5 during the course of this day, that is the 18th, that
6 Mr. Navrat had come into the office and brought in some
7 materials that he had seized; is that correct?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. Can you recall what it was that Mr. Navrat had brought in
10 as a result of his search?
11 A. Mr. Navrat brought to me twelve folders with various
12 papers, newspaper cuttings were there, and there was
13 also a box with video cassettes.
14 Q. With the twelve folders, did you do anything with them
15 in terms of identification of them?
16 A. I took a quick look at them with Mr. Moerbaur, just
17 flicked through them and then put everything into a box
18 and put them in the cabinet we described earlier. The
19 drawing up of the inventory of the twelve folders and
20 the cassettes only took place, I think it was the next
21 day, Tuesday 19th.
22 Q. When you drew up the inventory in relation to these
23 items, the twelve folders and the videos that had been
24 seized by officer Navrat, did you proceed to use the
25 same identification labels as you had used from the
1 items seized from Mr. Mucic's apartment, or did you do
2 with them something different?
3 A. Basically it was the same system, but there were a lot
4 of video cassettes that had been seized, and so what we
5 did was take I for INDA-Bau, I A, B, C, D, as we had
6 with Mucic. You only have 26 letters, and for INDA-Bau
7 I started with I for INDA-Bau and then the 12 folders
8 and then the video cassettes. It was probably 13 to 64,
9 I cannot remember.
10 Q. After you had marked each of these items with a label
11 and after you had entered them in the inventory, what
12 happened to the documents, the materials that were
13 contained in the locked cabinet?
14 A. That stayed with us until the analysis of the seized
15 items. There was a report subsequent to the analysis
16 and the items and the analysis report were passed on to
17 the appropriate authorities.
18 Q. By the appropriate authorities, are you able to tell us
19 who they were?
20 A. The way it works is that all the items that our
21 department had went to the chancery of our division or
22 department, it is then recorded and the seized items,
23 plus this document, are taken by somebody from the
24 police department in a vehicle to the place where they
25 are stored in the district court. They are taken in
1 there, that process is certified by a stamp, then these
2 are sent to the competent judge, who was Dr Seda in this
4 Q. The analysis of the documents that you referred to that
5 was carried out by the police, did you participate in
6 that analysis?
7 A. To a certain extent. All the documents were analysed by
8 Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek and I gave some support with the
9 video cassettes.
10 Q. When you say you gave some support with the video
11 cassettes, are you able to tell us what it was that you
12 did with them?
13 A. The four seized cassettes from Mr. Mucic -- we looked at
14 those and there were also the 26 from INDA-Bau and the
15 10 or 15 from Delalic.
16 Q. Might the witness be shown Exhibit 166? (Handed).
17 Mr. Panzer, I would ask you to open this and go through
18 the contents of that box and then I will ask you some
19 questions about it.
20 A. Can I take them out?
21 Q. Please do. Please take them out and look at them.
22 A. Looking at the first ones here, these are the folders
23 that -- I remember from what it says on the front of
24 them there. I recognise them from what we have on the
25 cover, I have my label, that is my signature that I put
1 on there.
2 Q. For the record, the witness pointed to the top
3 right-hand corner of the exhibit. When you say the
4 label, just give us the number of the label -- withdraw
5 that. That label you then pointed to, is there any
6 writing on that label?
7 A. On this one you have I, then a dash and 1. In other
8 words, it was the first folder that Mr. Navrat gave to me
9 and that I listed or labelled with I for INDA-Bau, that
10 is the first INDA-Bau folder.
11 Q. The I stands for INDA-Bau?
12 A. Yes, I stands for INDA-Bau.
13 Q. And the 1 stands for the document?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Can you go through each one of them now in order and see
16 if you can see those labels and tell us if you see the
17 labels, what is written on them? Just put them to one
18 side, please, when you have done that for me.
19 A. This one, I for INDA-Bau 1. I made that label myself.
20 This one, I for INDA-Bau 2 is the figure. I did that.
21 Here you can see I for INDA-Bau 4. I did that too. I
22 for INDA-Bau 5, I did that too.
23 I for INDA-Bau 9. That was me too. As far as
24 I remember there were nine folders that were quite full
25 of documents just for Mr. Mucic. There were all sorts of
1 things, pay slips and that sort of thing. I for
2 INDA-Bau 12, that was me. I for INDA-Bau 6, that was
3 me, too. I for INDA-Bau 7, that was me, I put that on
5 I for INDA-Bau 8. I wrote that. It is the
6 document concerning the premises of Faukerplatz in the
7 5th District, it concerns a steak house Mr. Delalic and
8 his brother were involved in. I for INDA-Bau 11,
9 I wrote that and stuck the label on. I for INDA-Bau 10,
10 I wrote and stuck that. I for INDA-Bau 3, I wrote and
11 stuck that one, too. I am not sure about that.
12 That probably has come off, I think. It should go
13 with that cover, but there is my writing, I put that on
14 too. As far as I remember, in this folder number 8,
15 Mr. Moerbaur found the sentence by a Bosnian court, it
16 was Mr. Mucic who was condemned in absentia, I think, 15
17 years, but in the other folders there were just
18 newspaper cuttings concerning Mr. Delalic.
19 Q. Are you aware of what either you or members of your team
20 did with the documentation that was contained in these
21 twelve folders?
22 A. The only thing done with these documents was done by
23 Mr. Moerbaur. No one else was involved.
24 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you. I tender those, your Honour.
25 I tender the twelve folders as one exhibit, 166.
1 MR. O'SULLIVAN: We object, your Honour. The whole issue of
2 admissibility is one that has not been determined yet by
3 this Tribunal in hearing evidence on this matter. It is
4 premature to attempt to tender this evidence. That is
5 our submission.
6 MR. NIEMANN: In my submission, your Honour, the question of
7 tendering them, it has reached the point in the evidence
8 where they should be tendered in the ordinary course of
9 proceedings. It is appropriate for me now to seek to
10 tender them, having regard to the stage of the evidence
11 reached by this witness. If my friend has any objection
12 to that, he may raise the objection now and we will deal
13 with it.
14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What are your objections to the
15 admissibility at this stage? The witness has already
16 indicated he gave them those marks, having received
17 these documents from the person who brought them.
18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: There are several points I would like to
19 make on that, your Honour.
20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Let us hear it.
21 MR. O'SULLIVAN: We have been hearing evidence now over the
22 last three months at different times, starting with
23 Gschwendt and Moerbaur back in early June. The
24 Prosecution has been held to strict proof on two counts;
25 first that proper procedures were followed and that the
1 chain of custody can both be proven, and in our
2 submission it must be proven beyond all reasonable
3 doubt. To determine that issue, final argumentation,
4 based on what is going to be close on 1,000 pages of
5 transcript, five or six Austrian police officers and one
6 OTP investigator, is necessary.
7 We received a letter from the Prosecutor last week
8 saying that we would have final argumentation, he would
9 be prepared to have final argumentation at some point
10 after the testimony of Officer Panzer. So we are
11 somewhat surprised now that halfway through the
12 testimony of this witness, he is tendering evidence
13 before the Tribunal.
14 It is understood there will be final
15 argumentation, both on fact and law, and we submit that
16 should take place after Officer Panzer has been
17 cross-examined and after the Prosecution decides that
18 they have called enough evidence, in their estimation,
19 when they think they can prove beyond reasonable doubt
20 that procedures and chain of custody have been proven.
21 It is premature, your Honours.
22 What is more, at this point there has been no
23 proof of the documents, which of course would be, in our
24 submission, part of our final submissions. We have to
25 consider everything that went on in Vienna and the whole
1 transfer of those documents, the care, the handling, the
2 processing and the transfer to this Tribunal, so it is
3 premature, in our submission, to deal with these issues
4 until final argumentation so that your Honours can
5 evaluate all the evidence you have heard and review all
6 the documents that have been tendered in support of all
7 these alleged searches and seizures.
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I accept that the Prosecution has any
9 other thing to say about these particular documents, and
10 I think these are the documents he wishes to tender now,
11 not all the others. There are still other documents
12 which are coming, because all he is now saying is that
13 the twelve files which he is now tendering are files
14 which were so identified by this witness when they were
15 brought to him.
16 MR. O'SULLIVAN: But your Honour, to admit these twelve
17 files, we have the issue of the chain of custody between
18 Navrat, Moerbaur and this -- in our submission, it is
19 premature to admit these. We have not even dealt with
20 the final argumentation on the chain of custody issue,
21 let alone proper procedures followed in Vienna in March
22 and April. Your Honour should hear all of that evidence
23 summarised and argued by counsel for the Defence before
24 arriving at a conclusion, and, in fact, the Prosecution
25 must prove beyond reasonable doubt that those aspects of
1 the search and seizure are proven. They have not done
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Beyond reasonable doubt is a different
4 matter, but I think it is for him to put up his argument
5 as to why he thinks they ought to be admitted now
6 without indicating how it came to be tendered.
7 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, your Honours. Firstly the question of
8 beyond reasonable doubt that counsel keeps referring to,
9 I do not know the basis of that. It would be of great
10 assistance to everybody if he could point to some
11 authority in support of that proposition. If all
12 documents had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in
13 the course of the trial, then I think that the concept
14 known as circumstantial evidence would never exist.
15 I am not aware of it and I am not aware of the need to
16 be proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is nothing in
17 the statute that suggests it has to be done. Certainly
18 if the Prosecution wishes at the end of the day to rely
19 on a document as proof of an element of the offence then
20 that is a different matter, but it is not one single
21 document in our submission that we are purporting to do
22 that with, and in any event, that would be something
23 that would happen very much later in the proceedings
24 when it came to either the prima facie case or at the
25 end of the proceedings altogether. In my submission,
1 your Honour, there is no support for the proposition
2 that these have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt at
3 all. The rules governing admissibility are very well
4 and clearly set out in the statute, my friend knows
5 that, and they are the rules by which we are bound.
6 Your Honours, these particular documents, as
7 I said earlier, and counsel knows full well what these
8 documents are sought to be tendered for, is the very
9 issue which he complains about, and that is the chain of
10 custody. These documents, your Honours, go to show that
11 the documents were in a particular state, we have heard
12 from Navrat as to the state that he found them in. The
13 next stage of the proceeding is when they came to the
14 police station, then this witness proceeded to deal with
15 them, and in my submission, that is evidence of the
17 We are not seeking to rely on the contents of
18 these documents for any other purpose than that, and in
19 my submission, they are properly admissible, they are
20 properly admissible now. They go to the very point that
21 my friend complains about, and in my submission, without
22 establishing this, he can argue about nothing because
23 nothing has been established in terms of tendering the
25 JUDGE JAN: This witness can depose about what was found in
1 the premises of Mr. Mucic and Mr. Delalic and this is all
2 he is saying. He is not talking about the contents of
3 the document. These documents were found in those
4 premises. Why can he not prove that?
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If you remember in an earlier hearing
6 we kept on emphasising that these twelve files can only
7 be tendered by the person who identified them, and so
8 designated them. This is why it is necessary to bring
9 this witness to indicate the files which he so
10 identified. I do not think the Prosecution is even
11 insisting that the contents of the documents which he
12 has so identified belong to a particular category, I do
13 not think they are saying that. All they are saying is
14 these items were those which were collected by Navrat
15 from the INDA-Bau offices or Mucic's house and then when
16 they were brought to the police station they were
17 categorised by a certain officer, and this is the
18 officer who categorised them.
19 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, without -- which one of us do you
20 want to hear first? Ladies first?
21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes.
22 MR. MORAN: Yes, your Honour.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you, your Honour. The Prosecutor has
24 not proved what you are drawing our attention to. This
25 witness, everything that has been done by this witness;
1 he recognised the label with his handwriting. This
2 witness is not a witness who took items from any space
3 that could have perhaps been the origin of items related
4 to Mr. Delalic. We have heard, and my colleague
5 Mr. O'Sullivan this moment said before us, we have 800
6 pages of testimony of witnesses from the moment they
7 entered any space where there could be any items related
8 to Mr. Delalic, including these.
9 Mr. Navrat has spoken about these items totally
10 differently during his testimony, different to what the
11 witness is saying today. Therefore, it is necessary for
12 us to have the possibility of final arguments for the
13 court to see once again the irregularity in the attempt
14 until this day for items to be brought to this court and
15 be presented as legal. In our law, there is a Latin
16 proverb which says what is irregular and illegal from
17 the beginning cannot become during the proceedings.
18 Therefore, I would like to ask you and to repeat
19 the argument of my colleague once again, this is not the
20 time where we can discuss the admissibility of
21 evidence. One witness recognises the colour, another
22 one recognises the handwriting on a very small label.
23 The content is not recognised by anyone. I would like
24 to wait for the witness to be cross-examined and then
25 after 1,000 pages of the transcript we can give our
1 final decision, when the court will be able to make a
2 fair and final decision. Thank you.
3 MR. MORAN: Your Honours --
4 MR. NIEMANN: I object, your Honour, to counsel joining in
5 these debates when it has nothing to do with this
7 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, as long as the Prosecution wants to
8 stipulate that these documents are not admissible in any
9 way against my client, either for inferences or anything
10 else, then that is fine. If he is making a limited
11 offer of these documents as only against some defendants
12 and not against others, that is fine. Otherwise, if
13 these documents are to have any admissibility or any use
14 in evidence against my client, I believe I have standing
15 to, in the words of Mr. Niemann, join into this.
16 I represent Hazim Delic and if this evidence is to be
17 used against Hazim Delic or used by the court in any way
18 to determine Mr. Delic's guilt, innocence --
19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, I see. There is a point there.
20 If counsel is likely to be affected by admission of the
21 document, he is entitled to --
22 MR. NIEMANN: And insofar as counsel wishes to limit himself
23 to that, your Honours, perhaps my objection was
24 premature and I apologise.
25 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, with that, I do not recall hearing
1 any testimony today from Herr Panzer concerning the
2 content of those documents. As I understood it, there
3 was a limited offer from the Prosecution not to offer
4 the contents of the documents. As I understand
5 Mr. Panzer's testimony, all he testified to -- I may have
6 missed something, if I did, I apologise -- he identified
7 twelve file folders as opposed to any of the contents of
8 those, so with that, as long as all they are trying to
9 introduce is simply the orange, green and whatever, all
10 rainbow coloured cardboard files, I do not know that we
11 would have any objection to that. Once they start
12 talking about the contents, that is a different matter.
13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I suppose that Delalic's counsel is
14 extending the argument beyond what was presented. The
15 witness did not, in any of the cases, indicate any
16 contents of the labels he is giving to those documents.
17 In the case of the files, the folders had nothing in
18 them. There might be things in them, but he said
19 nothing about anything in them.
20 The argument now which Delalic's counsel is saying
21 is that there should be a link between how he got these
22 folders and how he indicated those identification
23 marks. I think this has started all the way from Navrat
24 and he brought it to the police office, and then all he
25 did is try and identify them by the labels he put on
1 them and this is the identification he is now telling
2 us. What is in the folders, a particular document or
3 not, he does not know and I think he is not testifying
4 as to that. This is the position at this stage.
5 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honours, one further point in this
6 matter. I am holding the letter of 28th August 1997
7 sent to us by Mr. Niemann, in which he says:
8 "At the conclusion of the evidence of Mr. Panzer,
9 it will be the condition of the prosecutor that all the
10 preconditions to admissibility are met."
11 He then asks our advice as to whether we
12 anticipate any objections and if we do, whether we have
13 general objections, submissions to make on
14 admissibility. He asked us to inform him whether we
15 would be making such objections, making such argument
16 and submission this morning. We told him we would, he
17 agreed and that such argument to his attempt to tender
18 would take place after Panzer and before or during
19 Defence having an opportunity to present to your Honours
20 our arguments based on the testimony of all these
21 witnesses which covers hundreds of pages which is not
22 simply -- it is contradictory in our position, there are
23 many things that are inconsistent between witnesses,
24 documents improperly prepared, things that appear and
25 disappear. Your Honours, this is premature, the
1 understanding this morning was that we would not proceed
2 halfway through this person's testimony, that we would
3 wait until the end of this week, which is what we agreed
4 at 9.55 this morning and it is inappropriate
5 procedurally for the Prosecutor to attempt to tender
6 these limited number of items at this point.
7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Frankly, I agree to you entirely as to
8 the contents of these things being tendered. You know
9 nothing about the contents, so there is no way of
10 admitting them. The fact he organised the folders in
11 that way, I do not see much of an objection to that,
12 that he organised the folder in the way it has been.
13 This is all I think his testimony leads to.
14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: In our submission, that certainly does not
15 satisfy any burden of proof as to whether or not these
16 items are admissible. This is premature to attempt to
17 admit these things.
18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Which are the items to be admitted?
19 The documents or the folders?
20 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Is my friend admitting the folders or their
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: This is the question I expected. What
23 is being admitted? Is it the folders as they are, or
24 the contents of those folders?
25 MR. NIEMANN: For about the third time, your Honour, we are
1 merely seeking to tender the folders, not their
2 contents. We are not asking any inferences to be drawn
3 and it arises because counsel are insisting we prove
4 chain of custody. This is a process that one ordinarily
5 goes through when one proves chain of custody and we are
6 endeavouring to do it. We are not asking that the
7 contents of the documents be tendered at all. It merely
8 proves they came in this form.
9 While I am on my feet, perhaps I might proceed.
10 This notion, your Honours, that seems to be created here
11 that one does not tender something during the course of
12 the evidence of a witness is frankly, in my submission,
13 unheard of. The idea that counsel can have the luxury
14 of hearing all Prosecution witnesses, evidence-in-chief,
15 cross-examination, re-examination and then wait until
16 all the witnesses have ended is something unheard of.
17 Something similar of that has been provided for
18 your Honours in rule 73.3, which permits the preliminary
19 objection to be taken by motion prior to trial in
20 relation to the exclusion of evidence obtained from the
21 accused or having belonged to the accused.
22 I suggest, your Honours, that if the Defence had
23 availed themselves of the provisions of the rules in
24 order to do that at an appropriate and opportune time,
25 the idea of being able to argue the whole matter en
1 masse may well have been available to them. They did
2 not take advantage of the rules as they are provided, so
3 they cannot now come along and complain that they are
4 being deprived of an opportunity to argue the matter in
5 a global sense. They have to be content with dealing
6 with them document by document.
7 Insofar as the letter that has been referred to,
8 yes, I wrote a letter to them. Considering that counsel
9 chose not to rely on the provisions of 73.3, in order to
10 deal with this matter as a preliminary motion, I wrote
11 to counsel in an effort to see how agreement could be
12 reached between the Prosecution and the Defence on these
13 issues in order not to labour the court with the tedious
14 and long drawn out process of having to produce these
15 documents one at a time. The only response I got to
16 that, notwithstanding the fact that I asked to be given
17 a letter in reply this morning, was; leave it until the
18 end of the week and we will deal with it then. That is
19 fine, your Honours, and in relation to some of the
20 documents that is exactly what I intend to do. There is
21 a large bundle of documents I will seek to tender at the
22 end of the week because it seems to me to be
23 inappropriate to have Prosecution witnesses sitting
24 around waiting to give their evidence while we argue
25 points of law on the admissibility of each particular
1 document, the documents we allege came from these
2 particular folders. In our submission, counsel can
3 certainly argue those points then. These particular
4 documents are documents peculiarly relative to this
5 witness. This is the witness that received them and he
6 placed his label on them. Seeing that they are tendered
7 for the very limited purpose of establishing the chain,
8 in my submission, there can be no objections to their
10 JUDGE JAN: Admissibility to the extent they were found in
11 the premises occupied by the two accused. Nothing
12 beyond that.
13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I thought my explanation was fairly
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, I do apologise to my
16 distinguished colleague, he does not know this because
17 he joined the trial later, but the Defence for
18 Mr. Delalic has submitted a request to the court denying
19 the validity of these documents and their
20 admissibility. Therefore, objection regarding all the
21 cases before the court stands in accordance with the
22 instruction of the court for the admissibility to be
23 discussed, once the evidence is discussed. Therefore
24 regarding the question raised, we are asking to be given
25 the possibility for final argument regarding all the
1 evidence. As for the concrete situation, and also
2 regarding Rule 73 as well as Rule 95 in that respect,
3 I believe that the court would allow us after 1,000
4 pages of the transcript and several witnesses heard to
5 give our final arguments regarding the legality of the
6 proceedings and the relation from the moment the
7 document is seized until it arrives here and the
8 admissibility of every individual piece of evidence.
9 I would like to emphasise that during the hearing with
10 Mr. Delalic in August, at my objection that my defendant
11 is being shown documents allegedly seized during the
12 search, Ms. McHenry said at the time that that was not
13 used for that purpose and Defence did have the right to
14 question the admissibility of evidence once it is
15 offered to the court, using the American term, that
16 issues are discussed once you step on to the bridge.
17 As for the identification of the cases of items
18 that the Prosecutor is trying to tender and request a
19 decision of the court, I believe that also regarding the
20 fact that the witness spoke about today, we have totally
21 contradictory statements of witnesses before the court.
22 Everything this witness confirmed was that the sticker
23 in a corner of this folder was in his handwriting and we
24 have heard several witnesses until now that stickers
25 have been placed and have vanished, that stickers can be
1 easily removed and moved on to other items. Previously,
2 this witness has not identified in any way even the
3 folder that the sticker with this handwriting is on.
4 I do not want to give my final arguments now, but all
5 that justifies our request that the admissibility of
6 evidence, even what the statement has just said before
7 the court, cannot be decided on now, that is premature.
8 Until we show the court once again everything that has
9 happened from the moment a third party seized an item,
10 who and how brought it to the police station and who and
11 when placed stickers on it and where items were kept.
12 All those facts have -- there are different statements
13 from different witnesses on all those items. We cannot
14 be absolutely certain because we have a witness in front
15 of us, that everything he said can be a basis for a
16 decision to be made that everything is exactly as we
17 have just heard it. I am appealing once again that
18 admissibility of all the evidence is discussed after the
19 cross-examination of the witness and after the final
20 arguments have been presented.
21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Counsel appears to be putting two quite
22 different issues. What the Prosecution is now putting
23 forward before the Trial Chamber is admissibility of the
24 folders which this witness identified as created by
25 him. He was the one who made the folders and labelled
1 them. You are insisting on the question of the contents
2 of these folders which might be admitted into evidence
3 when it comes to be argued. Definitely that is not the
4 issue now. The issue is not a question of any
5 documents, the issue is whether the folders which were
6 collected by Navrat and brought to the office was kept
7 by this witness who is identifying them as the folders
8 which he kept. That is all the Prosecution is trying to
10 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, I do have some observations but
11 I see it is 1.00 and I remember your Honour saying as we
12 started this part that you were going to rise at 1.00.
13 May I make those observations at the end of the luncheon
14 adjournment please?
15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much. I thought we had
16 finished the last sentence. We will break now and come
17 back at 2.30.
18 (1.05 pm)
19 (Adjourned until 2.30 pm)
1 (2.30 pm)
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Can you invite the witness?
3 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps, your Honour, while the witness is
4 returning, may I mention something? It seems I was
5 given some incorrect information in relation to the
6 filing of a Rule 73 motion. It would seem that such a
7 motion was filed, though it is imprecise as to what the
8 final outcome of that was and what argument was mounted
9 in relation to it. Insofar as I said that a motion had
10 not been filed, I was wrong in that and I apologise to
11 the court and to Madam Residovic.
12 Your Honours, while I am on my feet, it was
13 mentioned by Mr. O'Sullivan that I had written a letter
14 saying that I would not deal with the exhibits until
15 after the conclusion of Mr. Panzer's evidence.
16 Your Honours, the letter is quite precise in saying
17 specific exhibits 109 to 147C. It makes no reference
18 whatsoever to Exhibit 166 which is the exhibit we are
19 now seeking to deal with. Lest there be any confusion
20 about the matter, whilst this witness is in the witness
21 box, and because of the specific evidence he will give
22 in relation to four videotapes, I will be seeking to
23 tender those and I put the Defence on notice of that,
24 your Honours.
25 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I had thought when we started
1 this morning that you had announced we would argue the
2 Witness R motion at 2.30 today.
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We still will. Actually, we are minded
4 first in admitting the twelve folders under the rule of
5 this chain of custody, because I think the chain of
6 custody was properly established. All the Prosecution
7 is saying and I still remember him and the witnesses is
8 that they are tendering the folders not the contents in
9 respect of the witness himself. He is the one who was
10 in charge of those folders and it is he who is now
11 tendering it in evidence. It could be admitted for that
12 purpose: you can still invite him.
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour --
14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The Trial Chamber notes the objection
15 of the Defence. They can raise whatever objections they
16 would wish to at a time when the documents in the
17 folders are being tendered. They can also in their
18 final submissions still object to it and put whatever
19 arguments they would want to. Even finally on appeal
20 they can still raise it, if the judgment relies on those
21 documents as evidence. You are still free, you are open
22 at any stage to rely on arguments which you are putting
23 on, but definitely we will admit it in evidence for this
24 purpose. You are not inhibited from whatever you want
25 to do with your objections. You understand what I have
1 said? You are free at all stages to raise the argument
2 that you pose to the admission of these documents.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, I have understood what you
4 said and I have understood that perhaps I should not be
5 presenting some of the arguments, but before I left this
6 courtroom I had also understood that you had given the
7 possibility to my colleague Mr. Greaves to give arguments
8 for the same issue for the chain of custody, and in that
9 respect I wanted to offer some more arguments before you
10 make a decision. We did not believe that you would be
11 doing during the recess, but I would like to ask you,
12 your Honour, to tell you precisely exactly what time can
13 the Defence of Mr. Delalic present its arguments related
14 to the incomplete chain of custody, which is something
15 that we have heard so many witnesses on and we have been
16 working on this for three months; and secondly, when
17 would we be able to ask you, if this witness identified
18 his own label and packaging, the folder, to ask the
19 Prosecutor for everything that is in the folder to be
20 presented to us at this time and then give our
21 objections to the content, because I can be neither wise
22 enough nor informed enough to know every detail that we
23 have discussed in the past three months. My remark not
24 to judge things in advance this morning, that we should
25 be expressing ourselves clearly, I do not wish by
1 defending the interests of my client at any time to
2 think that by offering us the frame and the label that
3 this witness placed not on the spot but at a certain
4 time later in the police station, that that could be any
5 indication that something that is in that document did
6 not come from somewhere else.
7 Just one more thing: the Defence will prove that
8 those materials contain things from Munich and from
9 Bosnia because the letter the Prosecutor has just
10 referred to, there are four pieces of evidence that were
11 given to Mr. Delalic during his interviews, those are not
12 documents coming from Vienna. That is why we believe
13 that without analysis and without arguments for
14 everything the witnesses have said, the chain of custody
15 nor what the witness has said here can be accepted
17 Another question: if we are accepting something in
18 advance, why should the Defence --
19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I have the intention of arguing this
20 issue. Before we went on break, what I was reacting to
21 was Mr. Greaves' reminder that we intended to close at
22 1.00. When we resumed what we initially had in mind was
23 the question of argument on the application for
24 protective witnesses. This is what we had and this was
25 what I stated in the morning when we resumed. What
1 I have just told you about arguments is that all the
2 Prosecution is trying to show is that this witness,
3 Panzer, was responsible for these folders. He was not
4 talking about the contents of the folders. If what you
5 are arguing is the legality of the folders, the chain of
6 custody of them, obviously there is clear evidence that
7 he handled these folders and these were the folders he
8 handled. There is nothing wrong in his telling the
9 Trial Chamber these were the folders he handled.
10 But when it comes to introducing evidence as to
11 documents in those folders, then you have a right to
12 challenge whatever, the legality of those things. At
13 this stage, you really have no problem, except assuming
14 that the moment the folders have been admitted,
15 everything goes with it. It does not. This is what
16 I am saying. At every stage you can still challenge
17 whatever documents are in these folders if it is
18 intended to use them against you. I think that is the
19 position. It is not final, you can still challenge it
20 later. Let us invite the witness. Let us take the
21 application for ...
22 MR. NIEMANN: Mr. Turone, my colleague would like the bench,
23 your Honour.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, before I sit down may I ask:
25 after that, do we have the possibility for
1 cross-examination with the witness for the chain of
2 custody, and after that to ask you to change the
3 decision that you have just made. Thank you.
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: He has not completed his evidence.
5 When you examine him, you will find out whatever you
6 think are the flaws in his chain of custody, if there
7 are any. Yes, Mr. Turone.
8 MR. TURONE: Thank you, your Honour. First of all, we
9 confirm that we are now in the position to definitely
10 clarify that we withdraw any request of protection
11 concerning Witness S, since the Prosecution is not going
12 to call this witness any more. On the other hand, the
13 Prosecution maintains the request of protection for
14 Witness R. Actually, there are two different motions
15 concerning Witness R, both filed on 22nd July, a motion
16 seeking leave to call this witness and a motion for his
17 protection from the public and the media.
18 It is not very clear from the transcript of
19 7th August whether the leave for Witness R was already
20 implicitly granted in the ruling of that day concerning
21 a group of new witnesses, but since formally maybe the
22 leave was not yet granted -- anyway, it is not clear to
23 me whether it was already implicitly granted or not --
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Because on that day you were not too
25 sure whether it was R or S. It was not easy to make any
1 decision on either -- you were not sure about the
3 MR. TURONE: We filed a motion to seek leave for calling
4 Witness R on July 22nd. I believe that this motion was
5 not yet decided even implicitly in the ruling, in the
6 later ruling given on 7th August. This is why I would
7 illustrate this motion too.
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If you remember, that day there was
9 argument between you and the Defence about who that
10 particular witness was. You have given several names
11 about this certain witness. It was not set.
12 MR. TURONE: It was not set, thank you, your Honour.
13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may continue.
14 MR. TURONE: Witness R has very recently informed the office
15 of the Prosecutor that he is willing to testify. He is
16 a relevant witness for a number of counts, a number of
17 killings and the count of inhumane treatment, and the
18 Prosecution provided the Defence with the identity of
19 witness R who was detained in the Celebici camp.
20 Moreover, in November 1996, the Prosecution provided the
21 Defence counsels with unredacted copies of the statement
22 made by Witness R to the Office of the Prosecutor. The
23 reason for which we seek leave to call this witness is
24 that a number, a relevant number of Prosecution
25 witnesses have decided not to testify in this trial, and
1 so we did not think Witness R to be absolutely necessary
2 when we filed our witness list on March 7th, but now the
3 Prosecution deems that this witness becomes important
4 because of the witnesses we lost in the meantime, and we
5 reapproached the witness in the meantime, and the
6 witness is now willing to testify.
7 Your Honours know that there have been a number of
8 circumstances such that we had to seek leave to call
9 other witnesses, we are still trying to figure out which
10 of our past witnesses will and will not testify. On the
11 other hand, as your Honours ruled already, what is the
12 root of contention in this issue is the Prosecution's
13 compliance with the disclosure obligations and the OTP
14 statement was disclosed in November 1996 and the
15 intention to call this witness, Mr. R as a witness, was
16 also made clear more than one month ago.
17 About the request of protective measures
18 concerning Witness R, we previously filed a number of
19 requests for confidentiality for a number of witnesses.
20 Witness R would have been in that group, but at that
21 time Mr. R had not agreed to be a witness in this trial.
22 Only recently, as I said, he reported to OTP that he is
23 willing to testify, but he fears reprisals for his
24 testimony, particularly after the recent publication of
25 the Prosecution witness list in a Bosnian newspaper, so
1 he requested the lowest level of protection, which is
2 protection from the media and the public. It is the
3 submission of the Prosecution that there is a need to
4 consider the different psychological approaches of the
5 different witnesses, witnesses being particularly
6 sensitive and vulnerable, maybe stressed by the fact
7 itself of seeing the Prosecution witness list published
8 with unpleasant comments in the daily newspapers, so
9 this is the reason for which we insist that these
10 protective measures be granted to Mr. R.
11 The trial, as we had already to consider many
12 times, would not become a secret trial anyway because
13 Mr. R would anyway testify in open session, only with
14 face distorted and a pseudonym. Thank you, your
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any opposition to this?
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: I apologise, your Honours. I get the
18 translation much later, so I was waiting to hear exactly
19 what Mr. Turone said. That is why I have been standing
20 and keeping quiet for a couple of minutes and
21 I apologise.
22 I should like to ask the Trial Chamber and my
23 learned colleague the Prosecutor to give us a list of
24 all the protected witnesses, because last time we saw
25 that there was a certain degree of confusion. Some
1 protected witnesses renounced their protection, others
2 insisted on it, so that actually we do not have complete
3 insight into all the witnesses that need to be
4 protected, and this is very important so that we can
5 respect those protective measures.
6 I am saying this because this morning when the
7 request was made for protection of Witness R, in the
8 translation we heard "witness A", so you see, all this
9 would facilitate the proceedings. As for the proposals
10 themselves that were made, I understand the need of the
11 Prosecution, given the circumstances, to provide
12 witnesses who would confirm the allegations of the
13 Prosecution. However, my learned colleague Mr. Turone
14 has just informed us that there will be a number of --
15 that a certain number of witnesses who were on the list
16 refused to testify in this court, so this is one of the
17 reasons why this witness who was not on the list is
18 being offered.
19 The Prosecution has so far informed us that only
20 two witnesses out of a list of 66 will not come to
21 testify in the Trial Chamber, and if that is correct,
22 and if the Prosecutor will have to provide additional
23 witnesses, could the Prosecution please inform us of
24 this larger number of witnesses who were on the list,
25 but who will not be coming to testify, so that the
1 Defence need not necessarily waste time preparing for
2 witnesses who will obviously not be coming. That is as
3 far as the general arguments are concerned.
4 As for this particular witness, regarding the
5 statement he made to the Prosecution more than a month
6 and a half ago, I accept that the court will assess all
7 the elements appropriately and pass the proper ruling.
8 I would also like to ask the Prosecution, regarding
9 Witness S: is this a witness that the Prosecution does
10 not wish to call or is it a witness who has refused to
11 testify since this is a witness from whom the Defence
12 took a statement before the Prosecution and informed the
13 Prosecution about it; then the Prosecution took a
14 statement from this same witness and put him on the
15 list. As far as the Defence of Delalic is concerned, it
16 is irrelevant who will provide the witness, because it
17 is important that they tell the truth, that is all. So
18 I am asking again whether it is the Prosecution that has
19 decided not to call this witness or is it the witness
20 himself who has decided not to come. Thank you.
21 MR. TURONE: We have no difficulty in telling the Defence
22 counsel that in this particular case of Mr. S, the
23 Prosecution decided not to call the witness. From the
24 other hand, for the other request of our learned
25 colleague on the Defence, we sent to Defence lawyers a
1 letter on August 22nd providing -- making available a
2 list of all protected witnesses with names and letters.
3 This list is available to all Defence lawyers.
4 JUDGE JAN: Her point is slightly different. What she says
5 is a number of witnesses are being dropped and they
6 should be informed about the names of those persons so
7 they do not waste time working on the statements of
8 those witnesses.
9 MR. TURONE: We will inform the Defence lawyers about that.
10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Those witnesses whom you no longer wish
11 to pursue, that is what she means.
12 MR. TURONE: The witnesses who refuse to testify, refuse to
13 come, so that the Defence lawyers might know exactly
14 which witnesses not to prepare.
15 JUDGE JAN: Whom you do not want to examine.
16 MR. TURONE: Even also, both the ones who do not want to
17 come, for being afraid or any other reason, and the ones
18 we decide not to call.
19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: How do you know these things until they
20 actually refuse?
21 MR. TURONE: Actually we do our best in order to inform the
22 Defence lawyer as soon as we receive information that a
23 witness is not coming, refuses to come. This sometimes
24 happens in a very sudden way as it was, for instance,
25 for the two witnesses we had to examine through video
1 link, they notified that they were not willing to
2 testify any more in the very days in which we were
3 preparing the testimony and the hearing, but I emphasise
4 that we will do all our best in order to inform the
5 Defence lawyers as soon as possible of the witnesses
6 who, for any reason, are not going to testify
7 immediately when we know that.
8 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, with all due respect to the
9 Prosecution, I know they have their witness problems.
10 At this point there are about as many characters here as
11 in War and Peace. It would be very helpful to me if the
12 Prosecution would take its witness list of March 7th or
13 whatever date it was, take a look at that witness list,
14 take off the names of the people they are not going to
15 call, put on the names of the people they are going to
16 call, put a pseudonym next to the ones they are going to
17 have a pseudonym for, so that we can --
18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I see your point, you are saying that
19 for those who the Prosecution do no longer want to call,
20 they can be sure of those ones.
21 MR. MORAN: That is correct.
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: But those who might refuse to attend
23 when they are called, they cannot be sure of those
25 MR. MORAN: I understand that, your Honour.
1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: They can perhaps give you the list of
2 those who they no longer want to come.
3 MR. MORAN: What I would respectfully request is the reverse
4 of that, just give us a list of who they want to call.
5 For instance, there is an expert witness they
6 designated, a retired officer in the Dutch army.
7 I believe the Prosecution is not going to call that
8 man. I do not know that, I have just heard that. It
9 would be nice to know. That is the type of thing I am
10 suggesting, your Honours. I am not asking for the world
11 and I understand that there is going to be times when
12 something happens, with these two video link witnesses
13 is, I guess, the best example, at the last minute
14 somebody says no, I am not going to do it. At this
15 Tribunal, we cannot send out the marshals and bring the
16 witnesses down in handcuffs. I understand the
17 Prosecution's problems in that and I am sympathetic to
18 them. On the other hand, if they could be sympathetic
19 to us, I have four file boxes full of documents and at
20 some point it would be a whole lot easier to get rid of
21 those documents and get it down to one document.
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think this should not be too
23 difficult for them to -- when they make up their mind
24 they will not call a witness, they can inform the
25 Defence about that. I think that is easy.
1 MR. GREAVES: I think what we are after is a definitive list
2 of what the Prosecution knows today about its
3 witnesses. We understand entirely that they are going
4 to get taken by surprise from time to time by someone
5 who says I am not coming for whatever reason, or
6 I cannot come for whatever, we understand that entirely,
7 but if they know now that somebody is not coming it is
8 going to save us all a lot of time and wasted effort in
9 looking at those witnesses' statements in the future.
10 That is what we are after, a definitive list of what
11 they know now. I see my learned friend has risen
12 probably to acknowledge that is what we are all after.
13 MR. TURONE: If I may add something. I would like to
14 emphasise that we do our best and we will try to do
15 better. For instance, there are some witnesses right
16 now we are not even -- they disappear. We are trying to
17 find where they are. They gave us the information about
18 their being willing to testify, but now they disappear
19 and they -- so there are situations like that, this is
20 why we have some difficulties, but we assure Defence
21 lawyers that we do our best to inform as soon as
22 possible whenever a real information about a witness
23 coming or not coming will be in our possession.
24 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, no one I think is questioning the
25 good faith of the Prosecution. I acknowledge that they
1 have behaved in a professional manner throughout this
2 entire trial, it is just a matter of -- there is a
3 dribble of information here and a drab of information
4 there and if we could just get it all put together.
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I suppose what you are requesting is
6 not a difficult point. If the Prosecution has made up
7 its mind not to call a particular witness, they inform
8 you. For those where they have not made up their mind,
9 they do not have to tell you. They can wait for the
10 person. I do not see the problem about it. It is only
11 those you are sure you are not calling, then you tell
12 the Defence that. For all those which are borderline,
13 you still wait until you make up your mind not to call
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, I just wanted to repeat the
16 same as colleague Turone has just said, that a certain
17 number of witnesses have said they would not come, so we
18 are just asking that we are given the names of those
19 witnesses, this number of witnesses, so that we should
20 not waste time preparing for their statements. So far
21 we know only about Witness S.
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We are still on the question of the
23 protection. You have not reacted to the particular
25 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I will react to that. No objection.
1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think that is what we wanted to hear.
2 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I think I have said nothing today
3 so let me very briefly enter this discussion. When this
4 case started, I understand that we all had a list of
5 witnesses that the Prosecution expected to call. The
6 court had it, the Defence counsel had it, we all had it
7 and we had a definable universe. We are in the position
8 now, all of us over here, of not knowing whether the
9 Prosecution intends to put on ten more witnesses or
10 twenty more witnesses or forty more witnesses. What
11 I would really like to have is not any kind of a final
12 decision by the Prosecution but they must have a working
13 list similar to the one that we had on March 7th. If
14 they could just give us a list "these are the witnesses
15 we intend to call between now and the end of this
16 trial", with the understanding that some of them may
17 decide not to come, that will let us know what the
18 universe is in terms of planning our cross-examination
19 of those witnesses, but trying to get our own cases
20 prepared in a manner that would allow us to start the
21 Defence cases reasonably close to the time that the
22 Prosecution ends theirs. Boil it all down, that is
23 probably what we are asking for.
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much. It appears there
25 is no objection to the application for the protection of
1 Witness R. All the others I think you can take care of
2 it, giving them your list of witnesses, those you know
3 you are likely to call.
4 MR. TURONE: We will do our best, your Honour, certainly.
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Can we now have the witness?
6 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, your Honour. Might the witness be
7 recalled? I take it from what fell from your Honour
8 immediately after we returned from luncheon adjournment
9 that your Honours have admitted Exhibit 166?
10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, with the limitation that it is
11 just the --
12 MR. NIEMANN: That is understood, your Honour.
13 (Witness entered court)
14 MR. NIEMANN: Mr. Panzer, you said earlier in your evidence
15 today that you had dealt with the videotapes that you
16 had received from Mr. Mucic's apartment, the four
17 videotapes, in a similar way that you had dealt with the
18 twelve folders. I ask that the witness now be shown the
19 four videotapes which are Exhibit 109, 110, 111 and
20 112. Mr. Panzer, the first one you have there in your
21 hand, do you see on that video anything that causes you
22 to recognise it?
23 A. This video is one I recognise on the basis of the label
24 and the sticker, which I put on there. That is my
25 writing on there. On the first line, it says "Celebit"
1 that I recognise. There were two videotapes that we
2 found at Mr. Mucic's apartment that had such a
3 reference. One of them said "Celebit", and the other
4 one said "Celebici" on it.
5 Q. Is that one of the videotapes you had inserted into the
6 video recorder and examined when you were at the
7 premises of Mr. Mucic?
8 A. I had a look at all four videotapes. They were put in
9 the VCR and I had a look at them. M1D, that tape,
10 I believe, has the footage where Mr. Mucic can be seen
11 together with other people in uniform. They are in a
12 room and there is some singing and drinking going on
14 Q. That is one of the four videos that was actually handed
15 to you by Mr. Mucic?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And the label that you identify or see on the video that
18 causes you to recognise, is there writing on that label?
19 A. What do you mean by label?
20 Q. The label or the sticker on the video that you
21 recognised it by.
22 A. There are two stickers that have been put on here.
23 These are the ones I put on. I put them on and I wrote
24 on them.
25 Q. The smaller of the stickers, what is written on the one
1 that you have in your hand?
2 A. I am not sure I know what you mean.
3 Q. The small sticker that you put on the video that you now
4 have in your hand, what is written on it?
5 A. There are these two small stickers, it says M for Mucic,
6 1 for the listing system and then D, meaning that this
7 is the fourth of the four videos.
8 Q. Now would you look at the next video, please -- perhaps
9 look through them and you might give them to us in their
10 correct order, that is A, B, C. Starting with the one
11 with A on it, would you look at that one, please?
12 A. I have had a look at them, because I did not understand
13 that there was not a sticker on here, but I see that
14 there is a sticker here under this small note, because
15 I put a sticker both on the tape as well as on the box.
16 This tape is one I recognise.
17 Q. What is written on the sticker? Can you see the
19 A. I recognise this sticker on the basis of what is written
20 here, Velija, that is a name I remember and I recognise
21 it on account of this sticker here, which I put. M1A, M
22 for Mucic, 1 for the tape and A because this is the
23 first tape that was seized.
24 Q. That was a tape that you played at the premises of
25 Mr. Mucic?
1 A. Yes, this tape as well, just very briefly.
2 Q. That was a tape that was handed to you by Mr. Mucic?
3 A. This is one of the tapes that Mr. Mucic handed me.
4 Q. Would you please look at the next one in order.
5 A. So, this is the right one here. I can remember this
6 tape as well, for two reasons. First of all because of
7 the word written here, "Celebici" that is written on
8 there, and then secondly because of this sticker, M1B.
9 I wrote that on here and I put the sticker on the tape
10 and then the case has the same sticker, M for Mucic, 1
11 for the tape and B because it is the second tape that we
12 seized. As I said, with regard to these four tapes,
13 I did not number them 1, 2, 3, 4; rather M for Mucic, 1,
14 I put that on all for tapes and then I made the
15 differentiation on the basis of the letters A, B, C and
16 D for each of the tapes.
17 Q. Was that one of the videos that you had inserted in the
18 video recorder and played while you were on the premises
19 of Mr. Mucic?
20 A. Yes, just briefly also, and this is also a tape that was
21 handed me by Mr. Mucic.
22 Q. Could you look at the next and final number?
23 A. This tape is one I remember, not on account of the label
24 but rather on account of the sticker I put on here, M1C,
25 once again M for Mucic, 1 because it is a tape and C
1 because this was the third tape. As you can see, I put
2 a sticker with the same reference on the case of the
3 tape and this is also a tape that was handed to me by
4 Mr. Mucic and one that I had a brief look at in his
5 apartment in his VCR.
6 MR. NIEMANN: I ask that those tapes be now handed to the
7 technicians in the booth in order that they might be
8 played one after the other on the video.
9 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I think it would be helpful to the
10 record, if these are going to be Prosecution's 109 to
11 112, if we got in the record in some way whether
12 Prosecution 109 is M1A or M1B or M1C. I think that
13 would make the record somewhat clearer.
14 MR. NIEMANN: I am happy to oblige my friend with that
15 your Honours.
16 JUDGE JAN: Another thing, he said briefly viewed, how long
17 each tape, a minute, two minutes?
18 MR. NIEMANN: Hopefully it will be just a few moments each
19 tape, your Honour.
20 JUDGE JAN: Are moments extending? What period of time?
21 MR. NIEMANN: I have not mentioned the time, but a total of
22 ten minutes.
23 JUDGE JAN: How long did he watch of each tape?
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It is just merely to recognise the
25 tapes or to have a fairly good view of the contents?
1 MR. NIEMANN: I will be seeking to do two things,
2 your Honours. Firstly for him recognise --
3 your Honours, what I will be seeking to do with the
4 witness is to have him identify as he has seen them,
5 which will take, as I understand it, a few seconds, but
6 as I indicated earlier I will be seeking to tender these
7 videos now and I will be seeking to play so much of them
8 as is necessary to show their relevance, but from either
9 event, it is very short. I am not going to labour the
10 court with the whole viewing of the whole videos which
11 would take, as I understand it, a few hours. I expect
12 the whole process to be over in ten minutes in total,
13 but I will be showing it for both purposes. I do have a
14 transcript of them which I can make available.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, I apologise once again.
16 Though this is not evidence that may have direct bearing
17 on Mr. Delalic, but after this witness has identified his
18 markings on the tapes and after all of us having heard
19 that he briefly viewed very short segments, I do not
20 know what will be shown, whether this insert seen by the
21 witness or something else that he watched much later and
22 analysed, and when things were changing so much from the
23 moment of seizure to this moment when he sees, for
24 instance, that a label is missing on one of his tapes,
25 I really do not know whether in the name of
1 identification, we are actually again admitting these
2 exhibits as evidence. In my system this is quite
3 different, but to me this appears like prejudicing the
5 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I have one concern. Apparently,
6 these tapes contain perhaps as much as an hour of video
7 in each tape. I do not think the court can make a
8 ruling about the relevancy of what is contained on the
9 tapes by looking at three or four minutes of a tape
10 because as I understand these tapes, they are vignettes
11 that have a lot of different things on them. If what
12 Mr. Niemann wants to do is let you see five minutes of a
13 tape which is relevant and based upon that five minutes
14 being relevant introduce in the record of this case an
15 additional 55 minutes that may be totally irrelevant,
16 then I think we all would have a substantial objection
17 to that. If what Mr. Niemann believes is that there are
18 only five minutes on each tape that are relevant to the
19 issues in this case, then it seems to me extracts should
20 be made from those tapes and the extracts admitted, but
21 to judge relevance of a 60 minute tape on a five minute
22 segment of it seems to me to be impossible and
23 relevance, of course, is important in terms of what gets
24 into this record.
25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I did not understand him to mean that.
1 Here is a witness who is in control of certain tapes.
2 He made his markings on them and they have been played,
3 he has viewed the tapes, so he should be made to say
4 whether these are the same tapes which were viewed at
5 the time when he had them.
6 MR. ACKERMAN: I agree with that. If that is all that is
7 being done, I have no objection. I understood he wanted
8 to play part of them to show the entire tape was
9 relevant. I cannot imagine that would work.
10 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, I was seeking to tender them for
11 both purposes now, to play them for the purpose of this
12 witness's identification of them and then to play a
13 segment of them for the purposes of identification.
14 Your Honours, the whole tape will be tendered, so it is
15 not as though -- if there is any argument of
16 completeness going on here then in my submission, your
17 Honour, the whole tape is available and the Prosecution
18 is not selectively trying to produce to the court as an
19 exhibit a redacted version of the tape, hence be
20 confronted with an objection by the Defence that we are
21 trying to put forward only those parts which we say suit
22 our case and not the Defence's.
23 Conversely, your Honours, I do not believe that it
24 is ever incumbent upon a party who has a video, a film,
25 a document or any other to be precluded from tendering
1 the whole document and reliance being only put on part
2 of it. In numerous incidences, for example invoice
3 books in a fraud case, there may be only three invoices
4 in a bound volume which are relevant to the case. For
5 all sorts of reasons the Prosecution may tender the
6 whole book as an exhibit in the proceedings, but only
7 seek to draw attention to three of the invoices. If
8 another party seeks to rely on parts of the invoices
9 which have not been raised by the Prosecution, well and
10 good, that is available to them to do that. But in my
11 submission, your Honour, I know of no rule which says
12 that you have to proceed to extract all that is
13 relevant. What I am trying to do is to achieve
14 efficiency. It seems to me, your Honours, that we could
15 sit here and listen to tapes -- I believe there is 17
16 hours in total.
17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: There might be some difficulties in
18 this one because here the witness is only saying that
19 these are the tapes he received and not what they were.
20 MR. NIEMANN: But there are two issues your Honour that
21 I would have thought it was necessary for me to
22 demonstrate if I am to tender them for contents. The
23 two issues are firstly his identification of them
24 because he has identified the case but it is necessary
25 to go further, I would have thought and to have him
1 identify the actual video film itself because the case
2 itself is probably not sufficient.
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I suppose that is when the issue of the
4 contents arises. That is not the issue at this stage.
5 MR. NIEMANN: No, your Honour, but at the same time they are
6 there and for the sake of efficiency, having regard to
7 the fact that I submit that there could hardly be any
8 argument about the chain of evidence in relation to the
9 testimony this witness has given so far concerning these
10 particular four tapes; these tapes were given to him by
11 Mr. Mucic. He had them, he took them back, he labelled
12 them, he played them, he saw them, and how could it
13 possibly be argued that the chain of evidence is
14 anything but complete?
15 The next step, your Honours, is to seek to tender
16 them as an exhibit in the proceedings. The chain of
17 evidence may be satisfied to your Honours' satisfaction,
18 but it may not be satisfied in terms of relevance. All
19 I am seeking to do, your Honours, is while the videos
20 are being played is to address both issues for the sake
21 of efficiency, firstly to deal with the question of the
22 chain and him identifying the tape as the one that was
23 shown to him by Mr. Mucic. The second issue,
24 your Honours, is while the tape is in the booth, in the
25 machine, to play them so I can address the question of
1 relevance and then seek to proceed to tender them. In
2 my submission, your Honours, if your Honours do not wish
3 me to do that I do not mind, but it seems to me an
4 efficient way to go about it.
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Actually, I would prefer you to confine
6 yourself to the chain of custody issue on the tapes.
7 When the issue arises on the contents of the tape, you
8 might be able to do that, because you might not be able
9 to do it through him.
10 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours please, I am happy to tender
11 them as part of the chain of evidence.
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think that is appropriate.
13 MR. GREAVES: Can I address your Honour as a matter of
14 relevance please? My learned friend has said he is
15 going to play only those parts of the tapes which are
16 relevant. It follows from that that there are large
17 parts of the tapes which are not relevant. What he is
18 trying to do is to admit effectively evidence which is
19 not relevant and, of course, Rule 89 says "only that
20 evidence which is relevant may be admitted". Therefore
21 those parts which he says are not relevant are going to
22 be admitted by his producing these items. It seems to
23 me he has some difficulty there. He may well talk about
24 efficiency but he has also to remember Rule 89 as well.
25 In my submission, Rule 89 takes precedence over
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What we think he should do now is to
3 show that these are the tapes which this witness had and
4 which he took from Mr. Mucic. I think that is all he
5 need do at this stage. If there is any other issue
6 which arises as to the relevance of these tapes to
7 whatever evidence he wants to give, he might at that
8 stage bring that in, but not at this stage when all he
9 is saying is he got these tapes from Mr. Mucic, nothing
11 MR. NIEMANN: I will proceed accordingly, your Honour, to
12 deal with them only on the basis of the chain. Might
13 the four videotapes be taken to the booth, please?
14 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, while that is being done, I think
15 Mr. Niemann said he was going to recite into the record
16 some kind of cross-reference so we know which
17 Prosecution exhibit equals M1A, B, C and D.
18 MR. NIEMANN: I am happy to do that. M1A, your Honour, is
19 Exhibit 109. M1B is Exhibit 110. M1C is Exhibit 111,
20 and M1D is Exhibit 112. Your Honour, there is a series
21 of translated transcripts that are attached which are
22 given the numbers 109a, 110A et cetera, in that order,
23 but it is the videotapes that we are concerned with at
24 this stage.
25 Now that the videos have been handed to the booth,
1 might we start, your Honour, with the first one, which
2 is Exhibit 109? I have prepared a transcript,
3 your Honours, but seeing as we are dealing with it only
4 on the basis of this witness identifying it for the
5 chain of evidence, I do not think it is necessary to
6 trouble your Honours with the transcript.
7 Mr. Panzer, I want you to, when the people in the
8 technician's booth are ready, I want you to look at your
9 video monitor in front of you and if you see anything
10 you recognise there, can you please say so and at that
11 stage I will ask that the tape be stopped and which will
12 move on to the next one. Would you please watch what
13 you are shown? The moment you recognise, if you
14 recognise anything at all, can you please say so. Might
15 be start with 109, which is video M1A?
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, we hope that the Prosecutor
17 is not showing this tape with the sound, because as far
18 as I understand, the witness does not speak Bosnian and
19 when he was watching it, he did not have a translation.
20 MR. NIEMANN: I do not know how my friend is aware of that,
21 but nevertheless I do not mind whether the sound is
22 turned on or off. I assume the sound was turned on, and
23 the fact that it is in a language the witness may or may
24 not know, and I am not sure that is established, one can
25 still identify language notwithstanding the fact that
1 one does not speak it. I have no problem with that,
2 your Honour, if they want to turn it off. There is more
3 to sound than simply language, your Honour, there is
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I do not think that is the issue at
6 this stage. He just should identify what he saw.
7 MR. NIEMANN: But he could have heard as well your Honour,
8 there could be sounds like music, cars braking, all
9 sorts of things he might recognise which do not
10 necessarily relate to what is said. Mr. Panzer, would
11 you now please look at your screen.
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I hope the witness understands we are
13 not having an extensive viewing.
14 A. I do not have anything on my screen here, it is all
15 dark. Oh, here it comes.
16 (Videotape played)
17 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps your Honours, we can ask the booth to
18 fast forward. It may be quicker to deal with it that
19 way. Mr. Panzer does not seem to recognise anything so
20 far, so if it could be fast forwarded through and he
21 sees something he recognises we might stop at that
23 (Videotape stopped)
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: All we want to know is whether these
25 are the tapes he viewed.
1 MR. NIEMANN: That is what we want to do. There are parts of
2 it which he now remembers, as I understand it, which he
3 did not remember before. Perhaps if it could be fast
5 A. May I put a question to you, Prosecutor? This tape,
6 could you play it on fast forward?
7 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps it might played on fast forward.
8 (Videotape played)
9 A. I think I recall that this woman on the phone here is a
10 relative of Velija and subsequently there is going to be
11 several people sitting in a living room. There is a
12 picture on the wall, I presume it is Velija. There is
13 Mr. Mucic there and I think that this is subsequent to a
15 (Videotape stopped)
16 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps it could be played fast forward.
17 Please watch the screen and make sure you have it on
18 your screen. Could you play it fast forward and look at
19 it. If you see any part that you recognise, tell us
20 quickly and we will stop the video at that point, but it
21 is not -- I notice it is not on my television screen at
22 the moment. Could it be fast forwarded?
23 (Videotape played)
24 A. Stop.
25 (Videotape stopped)
1 A. Prior to that there were the images that I referred to,
2 that is to say a picture of a young person on the wall
3 and then if you could play on from that point.
4 MR. NIEMANN: Play on, please.
5 (Videotape played)
6 A. Stop.
7 (Videotape stopped)
8 A. I remember this scene with the woman crying and now
9 shortly, we should be seeing Mr. Mucic in the group. If
10 you could please play on?
11 (Videotape played)
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What is the witness expecting? We just
13 want to know whether he viewed the tape and if he viewed
14 it, whether these were part of the scenes which he
16 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, your Honour. I think the witness has
17 probably seen enough, but he has indicated that there is
18 a scene of Mr. Mucic which is about to come on the screen
19 and for the sake of completeness, unless it be said that
20 it was not shown and any opposition by the Defence,
21 I thought it might be appropriate to wait.
22 A. Stop.
23 (Videotape stopped)
24 A. I remember this scene as well, where one of the men
25 shows a photograph. I take it Velija is on it.
1 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you. I do not think it is necessary to
2 see any more of that particular video. I would now ask
3 you to play the next video, number M1B, which is exhibit
4 number 110. Again, perhaps it could be -- I think if it
5 is played from the start, this may be more successful
6 this time, so could you play it from the start but not
7 at fast forward.
8 (Videotape played)
9 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps we could fast forward. If you see a
10 part you recognise, Mr. Panzer, please tell us to stop.
11 Could we fast forward, please?
12 A. M1B, there was landscapes shown and then there was a
13 parade where Dzemal Delalic and Zejnil Delalic appeared
14 in uniform and this -- this scene, stop, hold it.
15 (Videotape stopped)
16 A. I remember this as well.
17 (Videotape played)
18 A. Are you sure this is M1B?
19 MR. NIEMANN: I think the wrong tape has been put in the
21 (Videotape stopped)
22 A. I ask because there is a tape with three references
23 on -- rather licence plates, there are three licence
24 plate numbers, two Viennese and one from Munich and
25 I think that is M1C.
1 MR. NIEMANN: Can I ask that it be checked and see what one
2 they put in?
3 THE REGISTRAR: It is M1B.
4 MR. NIEMANN: It is M1B. Could you continue looking at it
5 and see if there is any part of it that you recognise.
6 Perhaps it should be gone through on fast forward.
7 (Videotape played)
8 A. Stop.
9 (Videotape stopped)
10 A. I remember this scene at the cafe with cases of beer and
11 the people there sitting on the chairs in front of the
13 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you. Could you now please proceed to
14 the next video which is marked M1C and given the number
15 Exhibit 111. Could you play that, please, again on fast
16 forward and Mr. Panzer when you see it, if you see any
17 part of it that you recognise, would you please ask for
18 them to stop the video?
19 (Videotape played)
20 A. Hold it.
21 (Videotape stopped)
22 A. This looks familiar. This is a scene of the car going
23 through the countryside, there is Konjic in the
24 background. This goes on for quite some time, but this
25 is something I do recall.
1 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you. Can we move to the final tape
2 which is M1D and given the number Exhibit 112. Again
3 could that be played on fast forward to commence with
4 and Mr. Panzer, if there is any part of it that you
5 recognise, would you please ask them to stop the tape.
6 (Videotape played)
7 A. Hold it.
8 (Videotape stopped)
9 A. This is the tape where for an hour and a half you can
10 see Mucic and his friends, fellow soldiers, they are in
11 a room there, there is just one woman there with them
12 and there is some singing and drinking going on there.
13 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you. When the tapes are returned from
14 the booth, I tender them, your Honour. No further
15 questions after that, your Honour, after I have dealt
16 with the question of tendering those four tapes.
17 (Handed). I tender those tapes, your Honours, on the
18 basis of establishment of the chain.
19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: They are admitted. In
21 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour we will proceed in this way.
22 First counsel for Mr. Delalic, second counsel for
23 Mr. Mucic, third counsel for Mr. Delic and fourth counsel
24 for Mr. Landzo. Thank you, your Honour.
25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed, Mr. O'Sullivan.
1 Cross-examined by MR. O'SULLIVAN
2 Q. Thank you. Mr. Panzer, I have a few questions for you
3 relating to this matter. To begin, I have a few
4 questions about you. To begin with, you have told us
5 you are a member of Division 1 of the Vienna police
6 department, is that correct?
7 A. Well, counsel for the Defence, our division is
8 Division 1 or department 1 and is one of five of the
9 police directorate in Vienna.
10 Q. In March 1996, you were known as a group leader; is that
12 A. No, that is not true. I was leader of a group in May
14 Q. What was your position in March 1996?
15 A. I was also group leader.
16 Q. How many years have you been a police officer, in total?
17 A. Since 1974.
18 Q. I take it that you have had a number of years of
19 training, both practical and theoretical, concerning the
20 handling of physical evidence; is that correct?
21 A. In the police school and in the detective course we were
22 shown how to deal with these matters of the code for
23 criminal procedure, yes.
24 Q. During your many years of experience, I would assume you
25 have had occasion to seize evidence pursuant to search
2 A. Yes, over the years a number of seizures in the
3 execution of orders from the court.
4 Q. I believe you just told the Tribunal that you carry out
5 these searches and seizures pursuant to the code of
6 criminal procedure; is that correct?
7 A. That is correct. The code of criminal procedure states
8 that when you -- on the basis of certain facts, the
9 investigating judge will draw up an order. There can be
10 initiative taken by the police itself. There are
11 provisions in the code that make that sort of procedure,
12 upon very strict criteria.
13 Q. In all respects regarding the alleged searches of
14 Taubergasse 15 and the premises of INDA-Bau that were
15 carried out pursuant to the code you have just
16 mentioned; is that right?
17 A. All searches in this case were ordered by Dr Seda, the
18 investigating judge.
19 Q. And they were carried out in their entirety pursuant to
20 the code; is that correct?
21 A. The order to carry out a house search was given to us by
22 the investigating judge. The people in Division 1 tried
23 to execute the order in compliance with the law.
24 Q. My question was quite simple: was it carried out in
25 pursuance of the code of criminal procedures; yes or no?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. There were two search warrants issued in connection with
3 the arrest of Mr. Mucic; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Before seeking to have the search warrants issued, you
6 had in your possession registration about the people who
7 were registered as living at Taubergasse 15 in Vienna;
8 is that not correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And you also had information concerning INDA-Bau, such
11 things as the structure, the company, the names of
12 directors, the names of shareholders?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Going back to Taubergasse 15, it was your colleague
15 Moerbaur who collected the information on the
16 individuals registered at that address, was it not?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honours, with the assistance of the
19 usher I would like the witness to be shown a document.
20 I have a copy for the witness which I ask be shown to
21 the Prosecution and a copy for each one of
22 your Honours.
23 THE REGISTRAR: This document will be marked D62/1.
24 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Mr. Panzer, I would ask you to have a look at
25 this document. It is in the German language with the
1 English translation attached. I would ask you to look
2 at the German, perhaps. You will see a cover letter
3 dated 15th March 1996, followed by registration
4 information for Taubergasse 15. Do you recognise this
6 A. Yes, it is a registration note about all the people who
7 were living at Taubergasse 15 who reported to the police
8 as having been there or still being there.
9 Q. In fact this document contains both the names of people
10 who are registered and those although are deregistered;
11 in other words no longer living at Taubergasse 15; is
12 that not correct?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. Looking at the first page, page 1 of the German version,
15 do you have that? The first name there is Sefika
16 Rizvanovic, born 14th December 1939, do you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. It says she was registered as living at Taubergasse 15,
19 door 15, since 13th January 1995, correct?
20 A. Yes, that is what it says.
21 Q. And door 15 is on the second floor next to door 14 at
22 Taubergasse, is it not?
23 A. I do not really know exactly where it is. 14 was on the
24 second floor. I do not know whether 15 was next door to
25 it or not.
1 Q. You knew that Sefika Rizvanovic is the sister of Zejnil
2 Delalic, did you not?
3 A. It says Nee Delalic. Whether it was his sister or not
4 I do not know.
5 Q. But you knew she was present the day the alleged search
6 of door 14 took place, do you not?
7 A. I do not really know. Hariso Delalic was there, but
8 Sefika, I really do not know. Hariso Delalic --
9 Q. For now I am asking you about Sefika Rizvanovic. Do you
10 know whether she was there that day and whether she was
11 the sister of Zejnil Delalic?
12 A. No, I do not know.
13 Q. On the same page, page 1 of the German version, the
14 third name down is a Salem Halilhodzic, born 5th July
15 1942, correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. He is registered at Taubergasse 15, door 14, living
18 there since 19th October 1995; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You knew he worked at the BH club located on the ground
21 floor of Taubergasse 15; is that not correct?
22 A. I do not know.
23 Q. You knew he was present at Taubergasse 15 the day of the
24 alleged search that took place at Taubergasse 15, do you
1 A. I do not know.
2 Q. On the same page, the next name down is Jasmina
3 Halilhodzic born 12th November 1950, correct?
4 A. Yes, I can see it.
5 Q. She is registered as living at Taubergasse 15, door 14,
6 since 11th January 1995, correct?
7 A. Yes, I can see that.
8 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Is it an appropriate time to take a break,
9 your Honour?
10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Do you mind if we have a break and come
11 back at 4.30?
12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Very well, thank you.
13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The Trial Chamber will break.
14 (4.00 pm)
15 (A short break)
16 (4.30 pm)
17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Can I interrupt you for a few seconds
18 by making an announcement? The Trial Chamber will sit
19 at 11.00 am tomorrow, because of a hospital appointment
20 a member of the Trial Chamber has. We will sit at that
21 time. Thank you. You may continue.
22 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, your Honour. Officer Panzer,
23 before the break we were looking at the exhibit marked
24 as D62/1 and you recall that this -- you have identified
25 it as the document that contains the names of the people
1 who were registered as living at Taubergasse 15 in the
2 middle of March, March 18th 1996, correct?
3 A. It is from 18th March, it is true -- it is not from
4 18th March. This does not necessarily mean though that
5 the people are living in the place that they were
6 reported as living to the police.
7 Q. But they were, in fact, registered as living there; is
8 that correct?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. This is also the document that accompanied the letter of
11 March 15th 1996 in support of the search warrants; is
12 that correct?
13 A. You are talking about this one? Do you mean this one?
14 Q. This document we are looking at --
15 A. Are you asking whether this was the basis for the search
17 Q. It was attached to the letter of March 15th 1996 which
18 is the first page in the bundle you have there. It was
19 attached to that letter of March 15th in support of the
20 issuance of the search warrant. If you go back a page,
21 I think. Is that correct?
22 A. I cannot really say. I do not know. This piece of
23 paper, I do not think it is something that went to the
24 court, because there was a report of several pages sent
25 to the court of 15th March through Interpol, in which it
1 was stated what was the information for the basis of the
2 search, but I do not think this was the paper.
3 Q. I ask you to look at the page just before the one you
4 have in front of you. That is the letter of March
5 15th to which you make reference. Attached to that
6 letter was this document regarding registration at
7 Taubergasse 15, correct?
8 A. You would have to ask Mr. Furst because he was the person
9 who sent this to the district court, not me.
10 Q. But you are familiar with this document we are looking
11 at regarding registration.
12 A. The first page is not mine. That was written by one of
13 my colleagues, the registration information. That is
14 not something I did. That was produced by Interpol, by
15 Mr. Furst, the administrative officer there.
16 Q. But the question is, you are familiar with the
17 pages that follow, the pages that list the names of the
18 people registered at Taubergasse 15.
19 A. Yes, I am familiar with those. I recognise them. It
20 was the Tuesday or the Wednesday that I gave documents
21 to Mr. Furst and I would assume that he used those and
22 that then he was in contact -- Interpol was in contact
23 with the district court, but it is not something that
24 I produced myself or sent.
25 Q. I draw your attention to the first page of the
1 registration, the one we were looking at before the
2 break. I ask you to find the name Ines Halilhodzic,
3 born 30th August 1970, can you see that there?
4 A. Yes, I can see it.
5 Q. This person is shown as registered as living at
6 Taubergasse 15, door 14, since 11th January 1995; is
7 that correct?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. The next name down is Damir Halilhodzic born
10 28th January 1977?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. This person is also registered as living at Taubergasse
13 15, door 14, since 11th January 1995?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. If you turn the page, still in the German version, the
16 fourth name down is Sanda Mucic born 27th April 1979,
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. She is registered as living at Taubergasse 15, door 10;
20 is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You know she is the daughter of Zdravko Mucic?
23 A. Yes, I do know that.
24 Q. She is the same Sanda Mucic who was present at apartment
25 10 after the arrest of Mr. Mucic.
1 A. I suppose that it is, I only know one Sanda Mucic.
2 Q. Could you also confirm that on the day of the alleged
3 search and seizure at Taubergasse 15, Hariso Delalic was
5 A. She was there, Mr. Moerbaur gave her a key to the
7 Q. You know she is the sister-in-law of Zejnil Delalic?
8 A. I know Hariso Delalic, it is the widow of the Sefik
9 Delalic who died. This is what Mr. Moerbaur told me.
10 Q. The deceased is the brother of Mr. Delalic which makes
11 Hariso his sister-in-law, correct?
12 A. Yes, one of the six or seven Delalic brothers, right.
13 Q. Also present on 18th March was Dzemal Delalic, present
14 at Taubergasse 15, who is the brother of Zejnil
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. If I could direct your attention to page 3 of the same
18 document, D62/1, looking at the top of that page, it is
19 headed "former registrations for Taubergasse 15"; is
20 that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. This is the list of people who were registered as living
23 at Taubergasse 15 but who no longer live there, correct?
24 A. What you can see from this registration where it says
25 "earlier registrations" is that all the people there at
1 one time lived at Taubergasse 15.
2 Q. Turning to page 4 of the German version --
3 A. I do not have 4. Then I have this (indicates). My
4 registration report stops at page 3.
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That is correct.
6 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Is there a page missing? It is a four
7 page document.
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: There is no page 4 on my document.
9 MR. O'SULLIVAN: There must have been a mistake in the
10 photocopying. This is the fourth page which should be
11 added to that document, your Honours. (Handed).
12 A. So that is page 4.
13 Q. Yes, you can see at the top of page 4 Zejnil Delalic
14 born 25th March 1948?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You will see he is no longer registered as living at
17 Taubergasse 15, door 14 after 20th November 1995,
19 A. That is what it says here.
20 Q. It says he moved to Germany.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I would like to talk to you a little bit about the
23 information you had concerning INDA-Bau prior to the
24 issuance of the warrants for that premises. Before
25 seeking that warrant, the part when your division looked
1 at the public records for the company INDA-Bau to
2 ascertain certain things about the company, did you not?
3 A. That is correct, and we carried out an investigation or
4 several investigations on the spot.
5 Q. You knew that that company was created in 1984; is that
7 A. I do not really know that. Mr. Moerbaur carried out that
8 investigation, it concerned INDA-Bau. I just went to
9 see if the firm actually existed and people working
10 there. There was some economic matter that was raised
11 concerning INDA-Bau, but I do not really know any more.
12 There was a sign up saying it was INDA-Bau and another
13 sign saying MAS, that is all I know really. That is all
14 I can tell you about INDA-Bau.
15 Q. My question for you deals more with your knowledge of
16 the documentation, the public records of the company.
17 The question is this: you knew that Zejnil Delalic was
18 not and had never been a director or shareholder of
19 INDA-Bau, is that not correct?
20 A. Yes, I knew that.
21 Q. You knew that no one named Delalic had ever been a
22 director or shareholder of INDA-Bau; is that not so?
23 A. Yes, I also knew that. Mr. Moerbaur told me that.
24 Q. You knew that Mr. Delalic lived and worked in Munich
25 Germany and not for INDA-Bau Vienna.
1 A. I did not know that. I did not know where he was
2 working. I was told by Interpol that Mr. Delalic was
3 residing in Munich. That is all I knew. Whether he was
4 actually there or not, I did not know.
5 Q. You were in charge of operations concerning the arrest
6 of Mr. Mucic, correct?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. You were also in charge of the searches and seizures
9 that occurred in connection with the arrest of Mr. Mucic
10 that took place at Taubergasse 15.
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. You also did quite a bit of the paperwork in connection
13 with the arrest of Mr. Mucic.
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. As well as the paperwork for alleged search and seizures
16 which followed his arrest; that is the searches of
17 Taubergasse 15 and INDA-Bau.
18 A. Yes, in conjunction with other officers, that is
20 Q. Your signature, for instance, appears on the record, the
21 Niederschrift prepared in connection with Taubergasse
22 15, door 10.
23 A. Yes, that is my signature, that is correct.
24 Q. And your signature appears on the report, the Bericht
25 inventory prepared for door 10 which is dated 22nd April
2 A. Yes, that must be my signature too. There is not only
3 mine though, there must be others.
4 Q. Your signature also appears on the report, the Bericht,
5 the evaluation prepared for door 10 dated 22nd April
7 A. Not necessarily, but basically I usually sign any piece
8 of paper that is produced by someone working for me.
9 This analysis or evaluation does not only concern the
10 documents, it also relates to the video cassettes and
11 Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek and myself worked on that, so
12 I imagine three signatures ought to appear there. There
13 are three names and three signatures.
14 Q. I am not suggesting there are other signatures or not on
15 the document, I am just saying that your signature is on
16 it; do you understand?
17 A. Yes, I would suppose so.
18 Q. With regard to INDA-Bau, your signature appears on the
19 report, the inventory, dated 22nd April 1996.
20 A. With regard to INDA-Bau, no, that would not be me,
21 Navrat was working with that. I was at Taubergasse 15
22 and Officer Navrat was at Koupstrasse 40.
23 Q. You are saying that on the report, the inventory for
24 INDA-Bau dated April 26th 1996 you did not sign that
1 A. We are talking about different things here. I am
2 referring to the report that was drawn up on the 18th by
3 Mr. Navrat. I am not sure which document you are
4 referring to.
5 Q. I will repeat my question. The date of the document is
6 April 22nd 1996. It is a report, an inventory prepared
7 in connection with INDA-Bau. Your signature is on that
8 document, is it not?
9 A. This is after the analysis had been carried out by our
10 group, so yes, my signature would be on that.
11 Q. That is all I am asking. Your signature also appears on
12 the report, the evaluation prepared for INDA-Bau which
13 is also dated April 22nd 1996?
14 A. I would assume so.
15 Q. You are not sure if you signed that document?
16 A. The analysis report concerns the documents and the video
17 tapes and since I was working with the video tapes,
18 I take it my signature would be on there.
19 Q. With regard to Taubergasse 15, door 14, you signed the
20 report, the inventory dated April 22nd 1996.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Still in regards to door 14, you signed the report, the
23 evaluation dated April 22nd 1996.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Just a couple more questions about documents. You
1 signed the search of the BH club at Taubergasse 15; you
2 signed the record, the Niederschrift of that alleged
4 A. I was down there with Bycek for a short time and with
5 Dzemal Delalic and then I went back upstairs to Mucic's
6 apartment. I was at various places in the course of the
7 search on 18th March.
8 Q. And you signed the Niederschrift for that BH club.
9 A. I really do not know, I might well have but I really do
10 not know. Were you to show me the document then I could
11 tell you whether I have signed it or not.
12 Q. Still in keeping with the BH club, did you sign the
13 report, the house search prepared in connection with
14 those premises?
15 A. Mr. Bycek wrote that report because he was executing
16 that search and I do believe that I signed that
17 document, yes.
18 Q. Finally, you also signed the report April 24th 1996 the
19 final report prepared in connection with all these
20 searches and seizures, did you not?
21 A. Yes, I did sign that.
22 Q. At Taubergasse 15, four premises were searched, correct?
23 A. Three places, door 10, Mucic's apartment, door 14, the
24 apartment of Zejnil Delalic and then on the ground floor
25 the premises of the BiH club which was also used by the
1 MAS company.
2 Q. So those are the only three searches at Taubergasse 15,
3 is that what you are saying?
4 A. That is right.
5 Q. Aside from you, there were several other police officers
6 at Taubergasse 15 that day, March 18th 1996.
7 A. Taubergasse 15, besides Borlak, Moerbaur, Bycek and
8 myself, there were two other officers, Unger and
9 Vinkelmann. They were in the apartment of Mr. Delalic
10 and Mr. Vinter and another officer, they were carrying
11 out a search at MAS in a house nearby.
12 Q. His name was Theringer?
13 A. Yes, thank you.
14 Q. Were there any other police officers at Taubergasse 15
15 that day?
16 A. We did not know how things were going to develop, but
17 otherwise I cannot remember; Tott, Graznek were at
18 Taubergasse 15 briefly in Mr. Dzemal Delalic's apartment,
19 they searched there, so they were there briefly as well.
20 Q. So aside from yourself and the seven police officers we
21 have named, how many police officers were there that day
22 at Taubergasse 15? You have just named one; could you
23 repeat his name?
24 A. In the building as a whole? On that day, if you take
25 the time between 2.15 pm and, say, 5.00 pm, somewhere
1 around that, I do not know when we left, maybe it was
2 closer to 4.00, but take everybody who was there at one
3 time or another, Mr. Borlak, Mr. Bycek, Mr. Moerbaur,
4 Mr. Vinter, Mr. Theringer, Mr. Unger, Mr. Vinkelmann,
5 Mr. Tott, Mr. Graznek and myself.
6 Q. Okay. Who conducted the alleged search and seizure of
7 the MAS company?
8 A. That was Taubergasse 28, is that right? Is that what
9 you are referring to?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Mr. Vinter and Mr. Theringer.
12 Q. Who conducted the search and seizure at the BH club?
13 A. In the BiH club there was a search but nothing was
14 seized. Mr. Bycek was in charge, I was down there at
15 certain periods of time and Mr. Dzemal Delalic was
16 present there.
17 Q. No other police officer was present?
18 A. Perhaps Mr. Moerbaur was down there briefly. After Mr. --
19 rather since Mr. Moerbaur was the one most familiar with
20 the case, he was the one who knew what was most relevant
21 and that is why he was in Mucic's apartment at door 10,
22 he was in Mr. Zejnil Delalic's apartment in door 14
23 upstairs and he was also at one or other point in time
24 downstairs at the BiH club as well.
25 Q. Okay. Who conducted the search at door 10?
1 A. Mr. Borlak, Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek and myself were there
3 Q. Who conducted the search of door 14?
4 A. Door 14, Mr. Unger and Mr. Vinkelmann. I was up there
5 when they had some questions and then Mr. Moerbaur was up
6 there occasionally as well.
7 Q. So I take it you were involved in the planning and
8 execution of this operation at Taubergasse 15?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. It is fair to say that this was a well manned, well
11 prepared operation?
12 A. I cannot really judge that.
13 Q. You cannot judge that based on your experience as a
14 police officer, that it was well manned and well
16 A. It is not for me to pass judgments. That is something
17 for my superiors. I think that we had sufficient
18 manpower there, for each search we had two officers on
19 the scene.
20 Q. You were at Taubergasse 15 for close to three hours in
21 total, give or take; is that correct?
22 A. I cannot say precisely, I just know that with regard to
23 Mucic's apartment, we started at 2.20 pm and we finished
24 with the record at 3.40 pm.
25 Q. But in total, you were at the premises, Taubergasse 15,
1 not searching the whole time, but in total about two and
2 a half or three hours.
3 A. It did not last that long. I cannot say exactly when we
4 left, but we should have been back at police
5 headquarters by 5.00 pm at the latest.
6 Q. How long does it take to drive from Taubergasse 15 to
7 police headquarters?
8 A. Depending on traffic, it can vary. We drove in in the
9 afternoon, rush hour in other words, so it would take
10 about 15 or 20 minutes, something along those lines.
11 Let us say rather 20 minutes.
12 Q. That is about three hours in total you were at
13 Taubergasse 15, is that not right?
14 A. If you take 2.20 in the afternoon, you add 20, that is
15 2.40, if I say I was back at the police headquarters
16 before 5.00, as I calculate, that totals up to 2 hours
17 and 20 minutes, not three hours. I said, I really
18 cannot say precisely when we were there, when we left.
19 Q. Given the number of people, police officers with you and
20 the time you had, it is fair to say things went smoothly
21 and there was no pressure on you to hurry your
22 operations; would you agree with that?
23 A. One could agree with that, yes.
24 Q. Did all four of the searches we have been talking about
25 begin at the same time?
1 A. On the whole there were six searches. With regard to
2 when they began, the searches at Taubergasse 15 began
3 pretty much at the same time because there were three
4 localities there, then right next door the MAS company
5 at Taubergasse 28 and the search at the INDA-Bau
6 company, that started a bit later, because Mr. Navrat and
7 two officers from the 16th District police station
8 carried out that search, and those officers were
9 borrowed, as it were. With regard to the Koupstrasse and
10 the Hasnastrasse, that is where Mr. Delalic lives,
11 I could not really tell you when those searches got
13 Q. What you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is
14 that door 10, door 14 and the BiH club, those searches
15 all started at about the same time?
16 A. In the building there at Taubergasse 15, yes, it is fair
17 to say that.
18 Q. Could you tell us how long the search of the BiH club
20 A. I could not say, I do not know.
21 Q. You were present, were you not?
22 A. I was present occasionally, and occasionally I was also
23 upstairs in the apartment at door 14. Most of the time
24 I was in Mr. Mucic's apartment.
25 Q. You said that the daughter of Mr. Mucic, Sanda Mucic, was
1 present at Taubergasse 15 that day.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. She arrived home after Mr. Mucic had been arrested.
4 A. As best as I can remember, practically right after we
5 entered Mr. Mucic's apartment, she came in.
6 Q. I realise it has been a while and as you have just told
7 us, you do not recollect everything about the BH
8 search. Might I remind you that, and would you agree
9 with me, that on that day, Sanda Mucic had been at work,
10 she had been to the dentist's and she arrived home at
11 about 15.30; do you recall that?
12 A. That may well be. I do not know. The fact of the
13 matter is that she was in the apartment very shortly
14 after we entered it with Mr. Mucic. Whether she was at
15 the neighbour's or whether she was at the dentist's,
16 I really cannot say.
17 Q. Do you recall her showing up at approximately 15.30 that
18 day? Does that sound right?
19 A. 3.15 -- could you please repeat the question.
20 Q. I said, does it sound right when I say that she arrived
21 at the premises, Taubergasse 15, you saw her for the
22 first time at approximately 15.30 on that day?
23 A. No, that is not right.
24 Q. What time did you say she arrived?
25 A. The arrest took place at 2.15 pm. About five minutes
1 later we were in the apartment and a few minutes after
2 that Sanda turned up.
3 Q. But do you recall her being at work and being at the
4 dentist, do you not?
5 A. I do not remember that, no.
6 Q. You knew that Sanda Mucic was only 16 years old, did you
8 A. No, I did not. I knew she was a young girl, but I did
9 not know her precise age.
10 Q. When she arrived, you did not ask for her identification
11 to identify her?
12 A. No, I did not. She introduced herself as Sanda Mucic
13 and on Wednesday or Thursday of the previous week, she
14 had called her father over and as I saw it, on that
15 basis it was perfectly clear that she was the daughter,
16 he was the father.
17 Q. Based on the information we just looked at in the
18 document that was marked D62/1, we saw there she was
19 born in 1979 which makes her 16 years old in March 1996,
20 does it not?
21 A. Yes, that is what it says here, but I was not aware of
23 Q. But your colleagues who were with you were aware of this
24 document, were they not?
25 A. I do not know. With regard to the Mucic case file,
1 Mr. Moerbaur and myself had most of the information. The
2 others were helping out, as it were. Mr. Bycek was
3 acquainted with the case to a certain extent as well.
4 Q. So both Bycek and Moerbaur knew that Sanda Mucic was
5 only 16 years old; is that not correct?
6 A. I do not know whether they knew that.
7 Q. At the conclusion of the events that day at Taubergasse
8 15, did you not get involved in the welfare of Sanda
9 Mucic, knowing that she was a minor, and requesting that
10 either she be turned over to child care services or put
11 in the custody of another adult?
12 A. As far as I know, there was some talk with Hariso
13 Delalic. She was told that her father was being taken
14 along, we did not know for how long. She said she would
15 look after the daughter and the son and I talked to
16 Mr. Dzemal Delalic, who also said that he would be
17 looking after the daughter and the son. Any reference
18 to the social services or whatever of the city of Vienna
19 was not required.
20 Q. The reason that was done regarding Sanda Mucic was
21 because everyone knew she was 16 years old, right?
22 A. I did not know that she was only 16.
23 Q. With the assistance of the usher, I would like to show a
24 document to the witness, please. There is a copy for
25 the witness, the Prosecution and your Honours.
1 (Handed). There is an English translation followed by
2 the German. What you are looking at is a report
3 prepared and signed by your colleagues Bycek and
4 Moerbaur, dated 14th March 1996. The second
5 paragraph says:
6 "In so doing, it was ascertained that Zdravko
7 Mucic resides along with his son Zoran, born on 23rd May
8 1977 in Konjic BH, and his daughter Sanda, born
9 27th April 1979."
10 I will stop there. It is clear that your
11 colleagues Bycek and Moerbaur who were with you in
12 number 10 knew that Sanda was only 16 years old based on
13 this document, would you not agree?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Mr. Registrar, what is the number of this
17 THE REGISTRAR: It is document D63/1.
18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I move to have this document admitted, your
20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any objections?
21 MR. NIEMANN: I have never seen it before, your Honour. If
22 I might have a minute to look at it?
23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: There is nothing to object to.
24 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I believe it is from the file provided to us
25 by the Prosecution.
1 MR. NIEMANN: I have no objection, your Honour.
2 MR. O'SULLIVAN: It is correct, going back to Sanda, that she
3 translated the arrest warrant into German for her father
4 because he did not understand German very well, did he?
5 A. Mr. Mucic speaks and understands German. I mentioned
6 that earlier when I was talking to the Prosecutor, but
7 I did ask when we were in Mr. Mucic's apartment, I did
8 ask his daughter to be so kind as to translate the
9 search warrant and the arrest warrant into Yugoslavian,
10 that is to say into her father's mother tongue, and
11 I wanted to be sure to preclude any problems in future,
12 so that is why that was done.
13 Q. I take it you do not speak or understand Mr. Mucic's
14 mother tongue?
15 A. That is right.
16 Q. Is it also not the case that Sanda Mucic acted as
17 interpreter between the police officers and her father,
18 more than just translating documents?
19 A. No, that is not right. I simply asked her to translate
20 that and the rest was said by myself or by fellow
21 officers directly to Mr. Mucic. Perhaps one question or
22 other went through the daughter, but otherwise
23 everything else was spoken in German to Mr. Mucic, with
24 Mr. Mucic I should say.
25 Q. But she did interpret certain things, is that not what
1 you just said?
2 A. She interpreted for me the search warrant and the arrest
4 Q. Did you not just say she interpreted some of the
5 conversation between you and Mr. Mucic?
6 A. I never said that.
7 Q. At door 10, there were allegedly documents seized; is
8 that correct?
9 A. There was notebooks, sheets that were seized, yes, that
10 is right.
11 Q. None of these documents were marked before being taken
12 away, were they?
13 A. Not with these stickers, that is right.
14 Q. They were not marked in any way, were they?
15 A. That is right.
16 Q. You said that you allegedly seized some videos from door
17 10 and they were not marked in any way before being
18 taken away?
19 A. No, that is right. They were not marked there.
20 Q. I believe you told us this morning that you put these
21 items into plastic bags to take back to police
22 headquarters; is that right?
23 A. These seized items found in Mr. Mucic's apartment were
24 put into plastic bags and then taken via a motor vehicle
25 to the police headquarters.
1 Q. These plastic bags were not marked in any way before
2 leaving the premises, were they?
3 A. Not there, no.
4 Q. And they were not sealed in any way, were they?
5 A. They were not sealed, no.
6 Q. I have a few questions about door 14. You told us that
7 that search was allegedly carried out by your colleagues
8 Unger and Vinkelmann?
9 A. Yes, that is right.
10 Q. I believe earlier you said your signature appears on two
11 reports dated April 22nd 1996 in connection with door
12 14; is that correct?
13 A. That is right.
14 Q. Among the items that were allegedly seized were some
15 documents from door 14, correct?
16 A. Door 14 seizure occurred through officers Unger and
18 Q. My question was: they allegedly took some documents from
19 that premises, correct?
20 A. There is one folder that was seized containing various
21 documents. As to exactly which documents they were,
22 I cannot really say.
23 Q. I was only asking you whether there were documents. So
24 there were documents and they were not in any way marked
25 before leaving door 14, were they?
1 A. That is right.
2 Q. There were also videos from that apartment which were
3 taken away and not marked before being taken away; is
4 that right?
5 A. That is also correct.
6 Q. They were taken back to police headquarters in a
7 container which was not marked, correct?
8 A. All the seized items in this apartment, Mr. Delalic's
9 apartment, were put in a sports bag. We also put the
10 report, the papers from the seizure in there as well,
11 the 150.
12 Q. That bag was not marked before leaving the premises?
13 A. No, it just stayed in the premises. I asked Mr. Dzemal
14 if we could take it, he said "yes, sir", and we took the
15 bag with the things in it.
16 Q. When you left the premises you had not put a police mark
17 on the bag; is that correct?
18 A. No, there was no police mark.
19 Q. And the bag was not sealed in any way, was it?
20 A. No, it was not sealed. It was sealed in the court, not
21 before. It can only be sealed on the request of the
22 person concerned.
23 Q. Let us turn to INDA-Bau for a second where again you
24 have prepared reports, I think you have confirmed that,
25 two reports on April 22nd 1996. Do you recall saying
2 A. These reports on 22nd April, they are reports concerning
3 the seizure where we produced a categorisation. It says
4 in the report an inventory of the items seized from door
5 15, 14 and INDA-Bau and it says in this report of
6 22nd April, there is an analysis of those seized items,
7 Mr. Moerbaur wrote that and signed the reports.
8 Q. But your signature also appears on the two reports of
9 April 22nd 1996?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The documents which were allegedly taken from INDA-Bau
12 were not marked before leaving the premises, were they?
13 A. Counsel, I have -- I took no documents from the INDA-Bau
15 Q. That is correct, but to your knowledge, nothing was
16 marked before leaving?
17 A. I do not know. That was Mr. Navrat who did that. Then
18 back in the office he gave me all the seized items from
20 Q. Okay. And the videos that he allegedly seized, they
21 left without being marked as well, correct?
22 A. Marking of all seized items during a search -- there are
23 only three, that was what I did on the 18th, maybe in
24 the afternoon or maybe on the next morning, on the
25 morning of the next day.
1 Q. You say that back at police headquarters, Navrat handed
2 you the items he allegedly took from INDA-Bau; is that
4 A. Yes. Mr. Navrat came out of his office into mine and had
5 the twelve folders in a cardboard box with the video
6 cassettes and the seizure report, document 150, put it
7 on the table. We were all in the room there with
8 Mr. Mucic, Moerbaur, Bycek, Mr. Borlak and he put it on
9 the middle of the table and gave it to us in that way.
10 Q. Everything was inside the cardboard box?
11 A. He gave me twelve folders and a cardboard box with
13 Q. With the folders in the cardboard box?
14 A. No, they were put in a box later.
15 Q. So they were brought in loose, he was carrying the
16 folders loosely and he had a cardboard box as well?
17 A. I think he had a number of plastic bags.
18 Q. None of the containers were marked or sealed, were they?
19 A. No.
20 Q. On 18th March, you said you returned to police
21 headquarters after leaving Taubergasse 15; is that
23 A. On the 18th, Monday 18th March, after the arrest, after
24 the house search, we went directly in a police car from
25 Taubergasse to the police headquarters into the internal
2 Q. What time did you arrive at headquarters?
3 A. I am not sure. I cannot say exactly. Around 5.00, a
4 bit before 5.00.
5 Q. What time did you leave headquarters that day?
6 A. It was on the next day.
7 Q. At what time?
8 A. It was probably around 1.30, so it was on Tuesday 19th,
9 1.30, around that time I left headquarters and then
10 I went back home, about 2.30.
11 Q. When we say 1.30 we mean 1.30 am, an hour and a half
12 after midnight, just for clarification.
13 A. That is correct, in the night from Monday to Tuesday
14 19th, 1.30 am.
15 Q. You say you were in room 331; is that correct, at police
17 A. That is my office.
18 Q. What are the approximate dimensions of that room
19 generally, approximately?
20 A. There are four people in it, around 40, probably, square
22 Q. Who were the four people that use that room?
23 A. Mr. Bycek, Mr. Moerbaur, at the time the officer who was
24 working on it, Mr. Herman and myself, but he was not
25 there at the time, he was being sent to the Interior
2 Q. This is your regular office; is that correct?
3 A. Yes, that is my office, my and my staff's office, my
4 colleagues' office.
5 Q. What kind of furniture is there in this room?
6 A. Various desks, chairs and a cabinet.
7 Q. So it is one desk -- four desks, one desk per person?
8 A. No, there are several others. It was actually designed
9 for more people, there are seven or eight desks but only
10 four people in there.
11 Q. You told us this morning that all the allegedly seized
12 items from the three locations, door 10, 14, and
13 INDA-Bau, were put into a cabinet in room 331; is that
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. If I heard you correctly, you said that only Bycek,
17 Moerbaur and yourself had access to this cabinet?
18 A. Yes, only the three of us had access to that cabinet.
19 Q. The only people who had access to room 331 were you,
20 Moerbaur, Bycek and your fourth colleague, Hiermann,
21 I believe you said?
22 A. Yes, only the four of us, but other people do come in
23 for an interview or a superior comes in. It is an
24 office, you know.
25 Q. I am thinking of the evening of 18th March. The only
1 three people who had access to this room were you,
2 Bycek and Moerbaur, is that right?
3 A. On the 18th, in that room, for the most part, until the
4 prisoner was handed over, the lady who was interpreting,
5 Ms. Supert; Mr. Borlak; Mr. Moerbaur; Mr. Bycek; myself;
6 Mr. Gschwendt, my superior on this case; Magister Famler,
7 who was the legal adviser from the department;
8 Mr. Navrat, who came in to give me the items. I think
9 Mr. Unger and Mr. Vinkelmann were in the next office
10 writing a summary report. As I remember, those were the
12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, perhaps this may be a good time
13 to break?
14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think you can stop now. We will
15 continue at 11.00 am tomorrow. We are enjoying your
17 (5.30 pm)
18 (Court adjourned until 11.00 am the following day)