1 --- Upon commencing at 10.08 a.m.
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Good morning, ladies and
3 gentlemen. Can we have the appearances, please?
4 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, please, my name
5 is Niemann and I appear with my colleagues Ms. McHenry
6 Mr. Turone and Mr. Huber for the Prosecution.
7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Can we have the
8 appearances from the Defence, please?
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours.
10 I'm Edina Residovic appearing on behalf of Mr. Zejnil
11 Delalic along with my colleague Professor Eugene
12 O'Sullivan from Canada.
13 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours,
14 I'm Tomislav Kuzmanovic. With me is Nico Duric
15 representing Mr. Zdravko Mucic.
16 MR. KARABDIC: Good morning, Your Honours,
17 I'm Salih Karabdic, attorney from Sarajevo appearing
18 together with Thomas Moran on behalf of Mr. Hazim
20 MS. McMURREY: Good morning, Your Honours,
21 I'm Cynthia McMurrey, and along with my colleague Ms.
22 Nancy Boler, we represent Esad Landzo.
23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Nancy Boler is not
25 MS. McMURREY: Your Honours, she just stepped
1 out of the courtroom, momentarily, to set-up an
2 appointment. She will be right back. Thank you.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, before I call
4 the witness, may I give you some information? After
5 yesterday's hearing, in view of the speed with which
6 the witnesses are appearing, the Defence of Mr. Zejnil
7 Delalic has done its best to ensure some more witnesses
8 for this week. You are certainly aware that bringing
9 witnesses from Bosnia is a difficult undertaking and
10 any change in the order, of course, is difficult.
11 On the list of witnesses are two witnesses
12 under pseudonyms B and C, who are living and working in
13 Vienna. We contacted them yesterday and they are ready
14 to arrange with their employers whether they can travel
15 this morning, and they will confirm by midday whether
16 they will be able to come on Friday, in which case we
17 would have two more witnesses to hear on Friday.
18 That is the best we were able to do following
19 your instructions and to contribute to the greater
20 expediency of the proceedings. If you approve of this
21 proposal of ours because these two witnesses were not
22 on the list for this week. As soon as they confirm
23 their arrival, I would give their names to my
24 colleagues in the Defence as well as my learned friend
25 the Prosecution, and I also wish to inform the court
1 that these witnesses will not require protective
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much for
4 your effort in cooperating. I think the error was
5 because you mis-timed the length of each of the
6 witnesses and also you assumed that the repetitious
7 nature of the evidence would not matter at all. I
8 think in the interest of everyone, if you try and
9 provide for at least ten of your witnesses every week,
10 because my understanding of it is that the
11 responsibility for bringing them here is that of the
12 victims and witnesses unit. They look after them; they
13 pay for them and they return them. Perhaps all you do
14 is to give them the list of the witnesses who would be
15 appearing for the week and then they will try and do
16 that. I expect you will do that because that is the
17 only way we could move smoothly.
18 If you looked at your list of witnesses, even
19 your updated one, you will also find that you can
20 easily adjust and get some of these witnesses much
21 quicker than you have done before. To project for five
22 witnesses who are likely to say about the same thing
23 and thinking that irrelevancies might be ignored makes
24 it difficult for one to be efficient and effective.
25 From my observation, you have to provide for
1 not less than ten witnesses every week. If we do not
2 exhaust them, there can be a normal overflow and they
3 will join the next week and we will see. But
4 definitely that depends on the need to call the
5 witnesses themselves because that is what creates a lot
6 of problems.
7 We will now give the appropriate directive
8 for the witnesses you are likely to call so that we
9 make sure that the administration cooperates with you
10 when you ask for the increase.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, have I
12 understood you well that you give me permission to call
13 these two witnesses, even though they were not
14 announced on the list for this week.
15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You can call them.
16 There's no problem. We still have tomorrow and Friday
17 to sit. I hear we have no sitting on Monday but we
18 will continue on Tuesday. At that time, your other
19 witnesses for next week have arrived, and I think you
20 should be able to supplement even that one so that we
21 will take all of them next week. You have permission
22 to request them.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you.
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, Mr. Niemann?
25 MR. NIEMANN: The Prosecution's position on
1 this is that we're anxious to cooperate as much as we
2 can in moving along the calling of witnesses. The only
3 thing we ask is that we're given the names of these
4 witnesses preferably before lunch today or by lunchtime
5 today so that we can prepare.
6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think you can
7 cooperate by giving the names of the witnesses to the
8 Prosecution so they can prepare.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: Yes, Your Honour. I will
10 know by noon whether they will be able to come in
11 fact. I think they will and then we will immediately
12 inform the Prosecution and my colleagues on the Defence
13 of their names.
14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: But in addition to that,
15 those who are likely to arrive, those witnesses for
16 next week who are likely to arrive, we can start with
17 them on Friday because I hear you are expecting
18 witnesses tomorrow to arrive by the victims and
19 witnesses unit. When they do arrive, we can start with
20 them on Friday instead of having another unmerited
22 You can now call the witness. Call the
23 witness, please.
24 (The witness entered court)
25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Please swear the
2 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
3 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, you may sit down,
7 SADIK DZUMHUR
8 EXAMINATION BY MS. RESIDOVIC:
9 Q. Good morning, sir.
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. I apologise for not having informed you
12 yesterday that there was a possibility of you being
13 called, so it's an apology to you and also to the Trial
14 Chamber because you were not in your hotel room,
15 otherwise we could have started with your testimony
17 Will you please introduce yourself to the
19 A. My name is Sadik Dzumhur.
20 Q. Thank you. Before I proceed with my
21 questions, I wish to draw your attention to a technical
22 matter. Actually, my questions and your answers need
23 to be understood by everyone in the courtroom. For
24 that purpose, the interpreters need time to translate
25 both the questions and the answers. You will hear on
1 the headphones, on the table, the interpretation of my
2 question, and only then will you please answer that
3 question; is that clear?
4 A. Yes, thank you.
5 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, will you please tell me when and
6 where you were born?
7 A. I was born in Konjic in 1945 on the 6th of
9 Q. Could you tell the court what is your
10 educational background?
11 A. I completed the highest school of
12 administration in Sarajevo.
13 Q. What is your citizenship, Mr. Dzumhur?
14 A. My citizenship is Bosniak, a citizen of the
15 state of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 Q. What is your occupation?
17 A. I'm a legal officer.
18 Q. Tell me, Mr. Dzumhur, please, what position
19 you held on the 6th of April, 1992 when the war in
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina started?
21 A. I think at the time, according to our war
22 assignments, I was in the war presidency in Konjic.
23 Q. At the beginning of the war in April, were
24 you active in the defence forces of Konjic?
25 A. Yes, I did take part in certain combat
1 operations. Earlier, I was administrator of the
2 training centre attached to the TO staff in Konjic, so
3 that I was given the assignment to allocate the
4 republican war reserves which I did.
5 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, at some point in time, were you
6 transferred to the public security station in Konjic?
7 A. Yes, I was transferred to the public security
8 station because, in view of my earlier experiences, I
9 was requested to do that and to work in policing.
10 Q. For how long in 1992 did you remain in the
11 public security station in Konjic?
12 A. I think until mid June in '92 when the
13 preparations were underway for the Borci operation
14 when, in fact, I left Konjic.
15 Q. Is it true that as of mid June 1992 and
16 later, you were mostly involved in combat operations
17 together with units of the police or did you also
18 engage in other activities?
19 A. Yes, both. We participated in combat in
20 Glavaticevo when a unit of the MUP was subordinated to
21 the municipal staff and our task was to go to
23 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, is it true that upon arrival in
24 The Hague, you handed over to me some personal
25 documents indicating what your duties were in 1992?
1 A. Yes, that is correct. I did hand over those
2 documents to you.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: May I ask for the usher's
4 assistance to show Mr. Dzumhur these documents
5 confirming the testimony of this witness regarding his
6 activities and duties. Can the document be marked for
7 identification, please?
8 THE REGISTRAR: Defence document 179/1.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC:
10 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, is this your personal document
11 which you received as a member of the special unit of
12 the public security station in Konjic when you were
13 engaged in security of the war presidency?
14 A. Yes, it was issued by Mr. Guska, chief of the
15 public security station.
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: Since this is a document
17 belonging to this witness, confirming his duties in a
18 particular period of time, I'm tendering it into
20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any objection?
21 MR. TURONE: No objection, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The document is
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you.
25 Q. Is it true to say, Mr. Dzumhur, that also
1 upon arrival in The Hague you gave a representative of
2 the Defence your official identity document which has
3 an indication of your authority as a member of the
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 MS. RESIDOVIC: I should also like to ask for
7 the usher's assistance to show the witness this
8 document and for it to be marked for identification
10 THE REGISTRAR: Defence document 180/1.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC:
12 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, is this your own official
13 identity card as a member of the MUP?
14 A. It is.
15 Q. Are the authorisations of the holder of this
16 identity card indicated in this card?
17 A. Yes, they are.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: As this is a document
19 belonging to this witness, indicating the
20 authorisations of this witness, in support of the
21 credibility of this witness, and which is relevant to
22 this case because it shows the responsibilities of a
23 part of the armed forces, I am tendering it into
25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, it's admitted.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you.
2 Q. You have already said something about this,
3 and could you now tell us regarding your war
4 assignment, in the month of April, within the war
5 presidency, which task were you involved with?
6 A. I was involved in police matters providing
7 security to the war presidency and, as I have already
8 told you, I was an administrator in the training
9 centre. I had some experience in that regard so that
10 was the kind of assignment that I received.
11 Q. As a member of the public security station in
12 Konjic, do you know whether, after the adoption of new
13 regulations in mid April, your chief of the MUP was a
14 member of the war presidency of the municipality of
16 A. Yes, he was a member of the war presidency.
17 However, he was not a subordinate to the war
19 Q. Could you tell us who he was subordinate to,
20 who the chief of the public security station was
21 subordinate to, that is, the MUP in Konjic?
22 A. The public security station of Konjic was
23 subordinate directly to the republic MUP, to the
24 ministry of the interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
25 Q. Was MUP, according to the regulations of
1 Bosnia and Herzegovina and according to the practise at
2 that time, was it part of the armed forces of Bosnia
3 and Herzegovina at that time?
4 A. Yes, it was.
5 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, the court already knows, from
6 certain evidence that has been heard here, that persons
7 of Serb nationality from the area of the Town of
8 Konjic were arming themselves illegally before the war
9 through the assistance of their party, the SDS. Could
10 you tell us if the public security station in Konjic
11 had any orders from its ministry and any authority, any
12 authorisation, to search for such weapons, to detain
13 such persons and to conduct interrogations?
14 A. According to our regulations, carrying
15 firearms was illegal. The public security station had
16 authority to detain persons who violated, who violate
17 such regulations. They also have the authority to
18 interrogate them and to seize such weapons.
19 Q. Since an immediate threat of war was declared
20 in the country, could you tell us if you, yourself,
21 during that time, if you -- if from the ministry of the
22 interior, you received an order to intensify your
23 activities regarding a search of persons who were
24 illegally armed and regarding the seizure of such
25 weapons and detention of these persons?
1 A. Yes, such an order was received by everyone
2 in the public security station and we did increase,
3 intensify our activities. We had a number of cases
4 like that, a number of reports indicating that persons
5 of Serb nationality were illegally arming
6 themselves. This was happening in the town itself and
7 the countryside and the surrounding villages, so we
8 organised a number of actions and we managed to collect
9 a certain amount of weapons. I was personally involved
10 in a number of these actions and if you want me, I can
11 tell you specific example. We found a rifle, M-48 in
12 one of the flats, a 7.9 calibre, it was under an
13 aquarium, it was fully charged with five bullets.
14 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, are you aware of any such
15 searches being conducted in the area of the villages,
16 Celebici and Idbar?
17 A. We had drafted a plan of action, including
18 Celebici and Idbar and unit of Rale Musinovic received
19 an assignment in that regard. They were supposed to
20 uncover the perpetrators, detain them and seize their
21 weapons. This happened and I believe that the
22 detention place was the barracks in Celebici. At the
23 time we didn't dispose of any other such premises.
24 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, do you remember when the
25 barracks of Celebici was first used for detention and
1 interrogation of persons who were found to be in
2 possession of firearms?
3 A. I have already told that. I think that this
4 happened in Celebici and Idbar during the action of
5 seizure and location of such persons. I think that was
6 the first time that these people were arrested and
7 taken to Celebici.
8 Q. Could you tell us if this was before the
9 combat activities in Donje Selo and Bradina?
10 A. In Bradina, that is, in Donje Selo, we had
11 received a report.
12 Q. I don't want to go into that right now.
13 Could you tell us about Rale Musinovic and the searches
14 in Celebici and the detention of these people. Did
15 that occur in May, before these police and military
16 operations took place?
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, do you know Mr. Zejnil Delalic?
19 A. I didn't know Zejnil Delalic before the war,
20 I knew him only because people were talking about him,
21 they respected him and I heard that he had bought some
22 equipment, some very expensive equipment for --
23 dialysis in Konjic.
24 Q. Did you know, were you personally introduced
25 to Mr. Zejnil Delalic at the beginning of war, did you
1 know that he was in Konjic at that time and did you
2 meet with him at that time?
3 A. At that time, I didn't meet with him except
4 for maybe one or two occasions in the war presidency.
5 He was together with Saban Duracic who had a task to
6 prepare the premises of the war presidency which was
7 supposed to be transformed into a local centre,
8 cultural centre and they were discussing some practical
9 arrangements in that regard.
10 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, we have heard here, the
11 president of the war presidency, but in view of your
12 assignments within the war presidency, do you have any
13 personal knowledge as to whether Zejnil Delalic was a
14 member of war presidency at the time?
15 A. No, he was not a member of the war
17 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, since the court is also aware
18 that in the territory of the Municipality of Konjic,
19 there is a number of military facilities, could you now
20 tell us whether you know which military facilities were
21 taken over in the month of April and were you, in any
22 way, involved in that?
23 A. I think that I heard at the time that the
24 barracks in Celebici were supposed to be surrendered
25 without any fighting. That had apparently had been
1 agreed upon. And one member of policemen was drafted
2 into a team and there was also one unit from the
3 Territorial Defence which took part in that.
4 Q. But were you personally involved, a member of
5 that group?
6 A. No, I was not personally involved, but I had
7 a task to receive the weapons at the farm of Mr. Zejnil
8 Delalic, that is the farm of his sister, which farm was
9 taken for the needs of the municipal staff at that
11 Q. Could you tell us, if you know, who brought
12 the weapons to the farm and who, in addition to
13 yourself, took over the weapons?
14 A. It was Major Kevric who took over the weapons
15 together with me, and the weapons were brought by
16 Zejnil Delalic and some other people from the
17 Territorial Defence. I think they brought the weapons
18 in a Lorry, a FAP Lorry, a yellow Lorry, as far as I
19 can remember. And part of the weapons was immediately
20 distributed to the combat fighters who had no weapons,
21 who were unarmed at the time.
22 Q. Do you know whether there were any other
23 military actions regarding the take-over of the JNA
24 facilities in Konjic at that time?
25 A. These actions were mostly a mixture of police
1 and military actions. I remember there was a very
2 heavy shelling at that time by the former JNA after the
3 take-over of the facility. They had dropped several
4 bombs, each weighing 500 kilograms.
5 Q. Thank you. Let's move to another issue. The
6 court also knows that the Town of Konjic was encircled
7 and surrounded and that communication lines had been
8 cut-off at the beginning of May. Could you tell us now
9 what kind of connections, what links did the MUP have
10 with the surrounding area, especially Sarajevo, and in
11 what way did that communication function? How did they
12 contact their subordinate ministry -- superior
14 A. They had its centre for communications, from
15 time to time we would use the communication centre of
16 the Territorial Defence, which was located in the
17 family house of Mr. Zejnil Delalic. And it was good
18 equipment, so from time to time we would use it, but
19 not very often.
20 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, do you know what happened with
21 the Celebici barracks after it had been taken over from
22 the former JNA?
23 A. Several units, one of the units from the MUP,
24 headed by Rale Musinovic took over the barracks. They
25 took up their quarters there and they remained there.
1 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, do you know when the operation
2 for the lifting of the blockade of Donje Selo was
3 conducted and what kind of role did the public security
4 station, that is the MUP in Konjic have, the units to
5 which you belong?
6 A. We were trying the resolve the problem
7 through negotiations. The then commander of the police
8 and myself, upon a verbal order of the chief, we went
9 to Celebici and we tried to tell them that they should
10 surrender the weapons peacefully and that the extremes
11 should be removed so that a normal life would
12 continue. They did not agree to that and they
13 threatened us with liquidation. One part of the police
14 force, which was not sufficient at the time, because we
15 had information that they were heavily armed was there
16 and we then requested assistance from the Territorial
18 Q. Do you know who signed the order for lifting
19 of the blockade of Donje Selo, did you see personally
20 that order and do you know who it was signed by?
21 A. Yes, I know who signed the order. On behalf
22 of the Territorial Defence, it was Mr. Ahmed Boric who
23 signed the order and on behalf of the HVO, it was Dinko
24 Zebic and also Jasmin Guska, who, at the time, was the
25 chief of the public security station.
1 Q. During that military operation, Mr. Dzumhur,
2 were there any casualties, was anyone killed from the
3 defence forces of Konjic?
4 A. Unfortunately, yes, two policemen were killed
5 during that operation, Boric and Niksic.
6 Q. Do you know, Mr. Dzumhur, whether during that
7 operation, a number of inhabitants of Donje Selo was
8 arrested, that is persons who had taken part in the
9 military operation?
10 A. Yes, certain people were arrested. They --
11 most of them surrendered to the military police of the
12 HVO, they thought it was some kind of -- they would be
13 safe in that way. However, certain numbers surrendered
14 to the MUP units and they were all taken to Celebici
15 after that.
16 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, do you know anything about the
17 fighting in Bradina and possible arrest and detention
18 of people after that operation? To put more precisely,
19 do you know anything specific about the operations and
20 who was in charge of arresting and detaining people who
21 were captured during that operation?
22 A. On several occasions, my chief and myself, we
23 visited the area and these people, the people, the
24 rebels who were surrendering, who surrendered, were
25 then handed over to the military police of the HVO and
1 the Konjic MUP. And they were taken to Celebici by
3 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, at that time, before the war and
4 at the beginning of the war, and during these military
5 operations, was there a prison in Konjic?
6 A. Yes, there was a prison in Konjic, but it was
7 used exclusively for the needs of the MUP. It
8 consisted of three cells, I believe, and this was by no
9 means enough. Yes, this was not enough for all of
10 these persons who had been detained and that's why the
11 chief of the station, Jasmin Guska, probably in
12 consultations with some representatives of the HVO,
13 decided that the place -- the detention place would be
14 in Celebici, because, at the time, the Celebici
15 facility was not shelled, it was situated far enough
16 from the military operations. It was possible to
17 improvise something there and it was a suitable place
18 and that's why they decided to use it for that
20 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, is this something that you know
21 personally, from your personal knowledge, were you
22 present when your chief issued such an order to the
23 members of the MUP, who were arresting these people?
24 A. Yes, I was personally present there. We had
25 already been told about that. Members of the MUP and
1 the HVO were already informed about that and I was also
2 personally told by the chief that that would be the
3 most suitable way of handling the situation.
4 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, do you know if any weapons were
5 found in the possession of these people, the people who
6 were detained?
7 A. Yes, they were found in possession of weapons
8 and persons who surrendered, they had probably
9 discarded their weapons beforehand, so in accordance
10 with that, in view of such a situation, we had
11 previously been ordered to search the area. The action
12 lasted for about one month and throughout that period,
13 we managed -- we found about 700 pieces of weapons,
14 rifles, machine guns, a certain amount of ammunition,
15 hand grenades and so on.
16 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, do you know what happened with
17 the people who were arrested at that time? Was it
18 necessary at that time to conduct interrogations of
19 these people?
20 A. After they were accommodated in the facility,
21 an investigation committee was established. And as far
22 as I can remember, I think that certain members of the
23 MUP and members of the HVO and I don't know whether
24 there was one member of the TO. Anyway, these were the
25 people who composed this -- who were members of this
2 Q. Do you know who the president of the
3 commission was?
4 A. Yes, I know. It was Goran Lokas, who, at
5 that time, was chief of security at the joint command.
6 Q. You indicated that there was a number of
7 inspectors, detectives from the MUP who were members of
8 this commission, do you know, Mr. Dzumhur, who
9 appointed these people to the investigation commission,
10 the commission that was supposed to conduct
11 investigation against the arrested persons?
12 A. Yes, I know that Jasmin Guska was the
13 representative of the MUP at that time and that he was
14 the one who appointed certain members. The HVO also
15 appointed a number of people to the commission -- of
16 Croatian nationality and there was one more person, I
17 believe that his name was Pajic, Detective Pajic, and
18 he was appointed by the Territorial Defence.
19 Q. You have told us something about military
20 operations in Donje Selo and Bradina. Could you now
21 tell us, do you know whether Zejnil Delalic, according
22 to your personal knowledge, took part in any of these
24 A. No.
25 Q. At the end of May, 1992, did you learn at one
1 point that Zejnil Delalic was appointed coordinator by
2 the war presidency?
3 A. Yes, this is something I heard at the time.
4 It was a very important event for the presidency, Mr.
5 Delalic was an important person, a businessman and who
6 was the only person who was able, at the time, to hold
7 such a post.
8 Q. Before I ask you one other question, I would
9 like to know whether the MUP was a part, whether it
10 belonged to the armed forces?
11 A. Yes, yes, it did, but it was not subordinate,
12 it was not under the command of the joint command.
13 Q. Do you know, Mr. Dzumhur, whether Zejnil
14 Delalic, since he was coordinating the work between the
15 defence forces and the war presidency, and as you just
16 pointed out, the MUP was not within the joint command,
17 do you know if he ever contacted with the
18 representatives of the MUP?
19 A. Yes, as far as I know, he had several
20 contacts with the chief of MUP in connection with
21 certain logistic problems. The MUP had remained almost
22 intact in terms of equipment and weapons. They had the
23 weapons that the joint command did not have, so they
24 probably discussed the possibility of distribution of
25 these weapons, especially in -- during the actions in
1 which MUP was not taking part.
2 Q. As a coordinator, was Zejnil Delalic in any
3 way, any time superior, in superior position in
4 relation to the public security station and you,
5 yourself, personally?
6 A. No, he wasn't, and he could not be superior
7 in any way to them because it was the responsibility,
8 the authority of the ministry of the interior of the
9 republic and he could not be, he was not a superior to
10 any of us.
11 Q. You have just stated who was in charge of the
12 appointment of the members of the investigative
13 commission and you know who was personally involved in
14 that within the MUP, could you now tell us whether at
15 that time, according to your personal information,
16 Zejnil Delalic was involved in the appointment of the
17 members of the investigative commission?
18 A. I told you that the military investigative
19 commission consisted of members of the MUP,
20 representatives of the HVO and one person from the
21 Territorial Defence. Zejnil Delalic, therefore, had no
22 authority or competencies to appoint anyone to that
24 Q. At that time, who appointed Croats, members
25 of the HVO, to the commission?
1 A. Well, all HVO members were appointed by the
3 Q. You also said that Goran Lokas was appointed
4 president of this military investigative commission.
5 Mr. Dzumhur, do you know whether Mr. Lokas, at the
6 beginning of June, 1992, whether he left Konjic at one
7 point in time or whether he ceased working in that
9 A. I think that he remained within the
10 commission for about 10 days and then he had some
11 traffic accident and he had problems with his knee and
12 that was the reason why he stopped working for the
14 Q. Do you know if anyone from the HVO, after
15 that, took over and whether anyone from the HVO
16 continued working for the military investigative
18 A. Yes, of course, because this particular post
19 belonged to the HVO and it was Mr. Jerko Kostic who was
20 delegated to that post, from the HVO in Mostar, as a
21 replacement for Lokas.
22 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, did you know Jerko Kostic from
24 A. No, I did not.
25 Q. According to your understanding of the
1 function that Mr. Delalic had at the time as a
2 coordinator and as the person in charge of logistics,
3 was he the person who was able to appoint Mr. Kostic to
4 any post, any function?
5 A. No, it was not possible. I have already
6 stated that it was the exclusive authority of the HVO
7 to appoint members of the Croatian nationality of the
8 HVO to that commission. And Mr. Kostic could only be
9 appointed by the HVO.
10 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, did the public security station
11 give any authority over the military investigative
12 commission or over any other kind of action in
13 connection with the prisoners?
14 A. No, it could not do such a thing. It would
15 have been illegal.
16 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, while you were carrying out your
17 duties as a member of the public security station, were
18 you ever in the possession of some information as to
19 the results of the interrogation conducted by the
20 representatives of the military investigative
22 A. No, I was not. However, the people who were
23 interrogated at the time had been armed, that was
24 proved. And we sent several patrols out in the field
25 on the basis of what they had told the commission, on
1 the basis of the information that they had provided us
3 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, were you at any point in time
4 informed, in writing or orally, about the work of the
5 investigative commission or about the interrogations of
6 the arrested persons?
7 A. No, I was not.
8 Q. Do you know whether the public security
9 station or you, yourself, received any report regarding
10 alleged mistreatment of the arrested persons?
11 A. No, no, I haven't received any such
13 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, you have indicated that Mr.
14 Zejnil Delalic never received any authority from the
15 public security station in connection with this
16 investigative commission. From your personal
17 knowledge, could you tell us whether Zejnil Delalic had
18 any authority, any competencies to release or to detain
19 such persons?
20 A. He never had such authority. He was not able
21 to detain anyone. Such a possibility simply did not
22 exist at the time.
23 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, do you know that at the
24 beginning of the work of the commission, a certain
25 number of persons were released and do you know what
1 kind of response such decisions of the military
2 investigative commission received from others?
3 A. Yes, I think that between 50 and 60 people
4 were released at the very beginning by the commission.
5 Q. Did you know, at the time, that certain
6 persons had authority to release prisoners, regardless
7 of the commission?
8 A. I remember that the chief of the public
9 security station, Jasmin Guska, on one occasion
10 released a person by the name of Zelenovic from
11 Bradina; however, the person by the name of Kovacevic
12 from Konjic, Smajo Kovacevic, who reacted. He, I
13 think, had asked the chief to do that.
14 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, do you know that the military
15 investigative commission ceased to function at one
16 point in time? If you know that, are you aware of any
17 reasons why they stopped working?
18 A. Well, they had probably completed their work
19 or maybe they were given other assignments. I don't
20 know anything else about that.
21 Q. Since we have discussed the manner in which
22 these persons were released, I would now like to know,
23 Mr. Dzumhur, whether you, at any point in time in any
24 way, were involved, whether directly or indirectly, in
25 the release of any detained person from Celebici?
1 A. In an indirect manner, yes, I was involved.
2 I think the name of the person was Golubovic. After
3 the killing of the two policemen in Donje Selo,
4 Golubovic was a suspect because he had a sniper rifle,
5 but he and his father were very good hunters and they
6 had very good rifles. So he was a suspect for the
7 killing of these two policemen.
8 I heard certain rumours from my colleagues.
9 There was an anti-Serb atmosphere in Konjic at that
10 time and we had to work hard to quell passions. In the
11 area of Tisovac, Chetniks were conducting some
12 operations, and I said to one of my colleagues that
13 there were lots of fools who were likely to enter
14 Celebici and to do something which would cause us a lot
15 of trouble later on, something that would influence a
16 number of subsequent events, so I tried to do something
17 about that.
18 While we were discussing, he made a contact
19 with Cerovac who, at that time, was replacing Commander
20 Ramic and he mentioned to him this problem. I don't
21 know what happened later on, but I know that this
22 person by the name of Golubovic was subsequently
24 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, you were saying that after the
25 take-over of the barracks, a unit headed by Rale
1 Musinovic was accommodated there. Will you tell us,
2 please, upon whose orders or who could have issued
3 orders for this MUP unit to be stationed there and to
4 interrogate the detainees in the Celebici barracks?
5 A. This order was issued by the chief of the
6 public security station, Jasmin Guska, and he was the
7 only person who could have done it.
8 Q. During the time that Rale Musinovic was
9 engaged in these activities, who was he subordinated to
10 or, rather, who was his superior?
11 A. His superior was the chief, Jasmin Guska.
12 Q. You said that Zejnil Delalic at the time
13 engaged in logistics and was a coordinator between the
14 war presidency and the defence forces. Could he have
15 in any way been a superior to Rale Musinovic?
16 A. He could not have been his superior in any
17 sense of the word because I said a number of times that
18 Rale Musinovic belonged to the public security station
19 and that his superior was the chief of that station,
20 Mr. Jasmin Guska.
21 Q. Do you know, Mr. Dzumhur, whether, at the
22 time, there were members of any other police within the
23 Celebici compound?
24 A. There was a unit of the HVO military police.
25 I think that heading that unit was somebody called
1 Ivica Vujicevic or something like that.
2 Q. Who was the commanding officer of that
3 military police unit of the HVO?
4 A. It must have been the leader of the unit who
5 was again subordinated to the HVO commander.
6 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, according to your personal
7 knowledge and understanding of the role played by
8 Mr. Delalic at the time, could he have been a superior
9 to Ivica Vujicevic?
10 A. No, the chain of command is clear. The
11 superior to Vujicevic was the military police leader
12 who was, again, accountable to the HVO commander.
13 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, do you know until what date
14 members of the MUP and the HVO military police provided
15 security for the barracks and security for the
16 detention centre that existed in Celebici at the time?
17 A. They performed those duties until the end of
18 June, when I left to another assignment, that is, the
19 Borci Operation. From then on, I did not go back to
21 Q. You said that, at the very beginning of the
22 war, you were active in the Territorial Defence staff,
23 and I understood that you were aware that a joint
24 command was formed. On the basis of your general
25 knowledge or personal experience, do you know who the
1 guards were accountable to? If you don't know, you
2 will tell us so.
3 A. I think that all the guards there, after TO
4 units arrived there, were subordinate to the municipal
5 TO staff.
6 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, please tell me, are you aware,
7 as a member of the MUP, whether at any point in time in
8 1992, the detainees in the Celebici prison were used to
9 do work, cleaning work in town or something like that?
10 A. No, they were never used. I apologise for
11 smiling because they couldn't have been used as the
12 town was exposed to constant shelling. I think only
13 occasionally they were used to clean the compound,
14 which was in their own benefit, or maybe to repair a
15 car or something.
16 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, you also said that occasionally,
17 as the public security station, you also used the
18 communication centre of the Territorial Defence housed
19 in the ground floor of Mr. Zejnil Delalic's house. Why
20 did you use that communication centre?
21 A. You see, our own communication centre, as
22 compared to the TO communication centre, was far
23 inferior. So we went to the municipal staff's
24 communication centre which, as I said, was housed in
25 Mr. Zejnil Delalic's house. Those were the reasons,
1 and we used that centre occasionally because of its
2 power. It was a powerful centre.
3 Q. Let me go on to another area now.
4 Mr. Dzumhur, you said that one of your units took part
5 in the Oganj Operation in the direction of
6 Glavaticevo. As a part of the armed forces of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina, did you and under what
8 circumstances second or transfer your units to another
10 A. Yes, this did occur and we did so in two
11 ways, either by transferring units to another command
12 or by organising joint actions. On a number of
13 occasions, we would transfer some TO units to another
14 command, depending on the needs of combat operations.
15 Q. In the Operation Oganj, the aim of which was
16 to liberate the area in Borci, do you remember whether
17 your unit in that operation was under the command of
18 the municipal staff of the Territorial Defence of
20 A. I think it was and I remember that was one of
21 our most difficult tasks that we had, and I remember
22 this because my son was with me in that operation.
23 Q. Can you recall if, sometime in 1992, Zejnil
24 Delalic became a military commander?
25 A. I spent quite some time on Mount Igman after
1 that. Sometime, I think in the beginning of August, I
2 heard that Zejnil Delalic had been designated as head
3 of a group to make a breakthrough towards Sarajevo. I
4 was heading a unit of the MUP forces which was then
5 subordinated to Tactical Group 2, and our goal was the
6 same, to make a breakthrough to Sarajevo.
7 Q. At the time Zejnil Delalic was commander of
8 that group, did any of the units of the Konjic MUP come
9 under his command?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Was any unit, in a previous or later period,
12 belonging to the Konjic MUP, come under the command of
13 one of the commanders of Tactical Group 1?
14 A. I mentioned that it was, I think,
15 subordinated to Polutak. I think it was one unit.
16 This was to do with Hadzici, Tinovo Brdo and something
17 like that.
18 Q. When a unit is transferred to the command of
19 another commander, be it Polutak or Commander Alic, is
20 all the authority transferred to the commander of the
21 Tactical Group?
22 A. Yes, for as long as the operation lasts, but
23 upon return to base, all authority ceases.
24 Q. While that unit is under the command of the
25 commander of Tactical Group, either, 1 or 2, did other
1 units of the public security station remain in Konjic?
2 If they did, under whose command were they?
3 A. The units, of course, remain and they are
4 always under the command of the same person, that is,
5 the chief of the public security station, Jasmin Guska.
6 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, after becoming commander of
7 Tactical Group 1, was Zejnil Delalic at any point in
8 time the commander of all formations of the public
9 security station of Konjic?
10 A. No, that is impossible.
11 Q. According to your knowledge, as a commander
12 of Tactical Group 1, was Zejnil Delalic, at any point
13 in time, a commander over all the units of the HVO in
15 A. No, he was not.
16 JUDGE JAN: It's nobody's case that he was
17 ever the commander of the HVO.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, General Divjak
19 told you that all formations of the armed forces
20 implied the HVO, MUP and the TO, and that that
21 appointment has no sense because all formations cannot
22 be all formations. That is why I'm asking this
23 witness, who lived in Konjic, whether he can confirm
24 what General Divjak testified to in this court.
25 JUDGE JAN: You should ask that question from
1 an HVO man. He's a MUP man. He can only talk about
2 his own department.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, he comes from
4 Konjic and he's familiar with far more details than we
6 Q. As you know this about Mr. Zejnil Delalic, as
7 commander of Tactical Group 1, can you tell us,
8 according to your personal knowledge, where was
9 Tactical Group 1 based?
10 A. I think at first in Pasaric and then on Mount
12 Q. As a citizen of Konjic and as a person
13 employed in the public security station, do you know
14 whether the base of the Tactical Group, the
15 headquarters of the Tactical Group, was transferred
16 from Pasaric to the house of Mr. Zejnil Delalic?
17 A. I know for sure that it was not because
18 something like that is not logical. People could not
19 come from Mount Igman to Konjic. The distance is 40
20 kilometres and more between the two. These areas were
21 under shelling so it was not possible to travel
22 always. The headquarters were stationed next to the
24 Q. After the appointment of Mr. Zejnil Delalic
25 as commander of Tactical Group 1 and after he went to
1 the area of combat, did you come across him personally?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge or did
4 anyone ever tell that you Zejnil Delalic had any
5 responsibility over the Celebici prison?
6 A. I never heard anything to that effect, that
7 Zejnil had any responsibility. This is the first time
8 I hear any such things.
9 Q. Did you ever hear or do you know yourself
10 whether any of the guards from the Celebici prison were
11 members of Tactical Group 1?
12 A. I don't know. I don't know that.
13 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, two more questions only. Do you
14 know that sometime in 1992, a smear campaign was
15 launched against Zejnil Delalic?
16 A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
17 Q. Do you know when Zejnil Delalic left Konjic?
18 A. I do not know exactly, exactly.
19 Q. Do you know that, after he left this campaign
20 against him as a member of the intelligence service was
22 A. Yes, it was intensified. All kinds of
23 rumours were spread about him. And those of us living
24 there who knew that all of this was nonsense, we just
25 laughed at this propaganda.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you, Mr. Dzumhur.
2 That ends my examination-in-chief of this
3 witness, Your Honours. Thank you.
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any cross-examination
5 from the Defence, please?
6 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Let's hear you.
8 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, while he's going to
9 the microphone, I have an 11.30 meeting the registry
10 has asked me to attend. Will the court excuse me for a
11 few minutes and I may be a few minutes late returning?
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes.
13 MR. MORAN: I will have a few questions on
14 cross-examination. Thank you, Your Honours.
15 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KUZMANOVIC:
16 Q. Good morning, sir. Sir, my name is Tomislav
17 Kuzmanovic and I represent Mr. Mucic in this case.
18 There are several questions I'd like to ask you. Along
19 those lines, if you don't know the answer, an "I don't
20 know" is sufficient. We don't want you to guess,
21 okay? Do you understand? You have to answer "yes" or
23 A. Yes, I understand. I said "yes."
24 Q. I didn't hear you, I'm sorry. If the answer
25 can be given as a "yes" or a "no," that will be
1 sufficient as well; do you understand?
2 A. I do.
3 Q. Thank you. You are aware, sir, that on June
4 11th of 1992, there was an order which ordered the MUP
5 guards within the sports centre Musala and Celebici to
6 be cancelled and that TO guards numbering 20 to 30
7 people where the security of the prison should be
8 formed; is that correct?
9 A. I don't know anything about that.
10 Q. Are you aware that on June 11th of 1992 this
11 proposal that I discussed earlier of the switching of
12 the guards, that guards would be taken from the
13 structure of the Konjic second unit?
14 A. No, I'm not aware of that because I told you
15 earlier on that in mid June, I was engaged in other
16 activities relating to preparations for Operation
18 Q. When you say "mid June," do you have a
19 specific date?
20 A. The exact date for what?
21 Q. That you were involved in other activities
22 outside of Konjic?
23 A. Sir, this happened six or seven years ago so
24 it is impossible to remember the date.
25 Q. Where did those duties take you, sir, outside
1 of Konjic?
2 A. In my testimony, I said that one of our units
3 was transferred under the command of the TO in
4 Operation Borci and the actual location was Zljebine
5 next to Glavaticevo. These were our initial
7 Q. Did that take you outside of Konjic?
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The answer that he did
9 not know is sufficient. I think if he was not around
10 he could not have known.
11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I'm asking the witness --
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I'm telling you it's
13 improper to ask such questions. He said he didn't
14 know, he wasn't around and he was not in that area.
15 MR. KUZMANOVIC:
16 Q. After mid June of 1992, you had essentially
17 nothing to do with what was going on in Konjic; is that
18 a fair statement?
19 A. I had nothing to do with some things, and
20 some other things I had something to do with, like
21 police affairs.
22 Q. Why don't you describe for us, sir, what
23 things you did have to do with after mid June 1992 in
25 A. I had to do with people working in logistics
1 in the MUP to provide certain materiel so that we
2 could prepare for Mount Igman.
3 Q. Is it a fair statement, sir, that after mid
4 June 1992, you had no personal knowledge of anything
5 that may have been going on inside of Celebici?
6 A. If you have an idea of the distance between
7 Celebici and Glavaticevo, and at the time to go to
8 Glavaticevo, we had to cover about 150 to 200
9 kilometres across Mount Igman and the villages at the
10 foot of Mount Bjelasnica. Anyway, I wasn't really
11 interested as to what was happening in Celebici. There
12 were people who had those responsibilities. I had
13 others and I was focusing on those.
14 Q. I understand that, sir. A simple "yes" or
15 "no" would have sufficed. Is it a fair statement that
16 after mid June 1992, you did not receive any written
17 orders that were related to Celebici at all?
18 A. I did not receive any.
19 JUDGE JAN: But you haven't asked him if he
20 received any written orders with regard to Celebici
21 before June. Ask him that.
22 MR. KUZMANOVIC: That was my next question,
23 Your Honour.
24 JUDGE JAN: Please do.
25 MR. KUZMANOVIC:
1 Q. Had you received any written orders before
2 mid June 1992 in regard to Celebici?
3 A. No, I never did.
4 Q. If such orders had been issued, who in your
5 organisation would be the one to receive these orders?
6 JUDGE JAN: Tell him what sort of orders.
7 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Orders relating to
8 Celebici. Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE JAN: But that is a wide field.
10 MR. KUZMANOVIC: It is a wide field. If he
11 knows, I'll narrow it down.
12 JUDGE JAN: Please narrow it down.
13 A. You see, I said that a commission was formed
14 in Celebici, and the members of that commission had a
15 joint body and they reported to the people who had
16 appointed them. They couldn't submit to me any
17 reports, nor did I receive any reports. They would
18 report to the people who were their superiors.
19 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honours, should we
20 break here?
21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Have you any further
23 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I will have some further
24 questions, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We will break now and
1 reassemble at 12 noon.
2 --- Recess taken at 11.31 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.04 p.m.
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Please kindly invite the
6 (The witness entered court)
7 THE REGISTRAR: I remind you, sir, that you
8 are still under oath.
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed with the
11 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Sir, I just have a couple more questions for
13 you. I would like to have a couple of documents marked
14 for identification with the assistance of the usher,
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Please identify them.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Defence document D-10/2 and
19 MR. TURONE: May the Prosecution know of it?
20 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, I am sorry, I have a
21 copy for the Prosecution. I don't have a copy of the
22 second one and I apologise, but if you would like to
23 have a look at it before the witness does, that would
24 be fine with me.
25 MR. TURONE: Excuse me, is there any
1 translation into English of it?
2 MR. KUZMANOVIC: No, there's not, sir.
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: How could you tender
5 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, I will provide
6 the translation after the break, if that is all right.
7 JUDGE JAN: What is this document about?
8 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, itís an order
9 relating to the setting up of the investigatory
10 commission and also the report of the investigatory
11 commission. I apologise for not having them translated
12 for everyone here. If Your Honours would like, I could
13 make sure that it gets translated over the lunch hour
14 and they could be admitted subject to that.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, if I may be of
16 assistance, my colleague has recently joined us. As
17 far as I can see from here, these documents have
18 already been provided. Can I please have a look at
19 them? Maybe some of them have already been admitted
20 into evidence. Yes, this document, for example, the
21 15th of June, is part of the expert opinion of the
22 military expert. I cannot tell you what the exact
23 number is, but it is the third volume, V5-D. There's
24 also an English version of this text. If I may be of
25 assistance, can I see the other document as well,
2 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, I would ask for the
3 assistance of the usher, please.
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Are you sure this
5 witness is in a position even to identify that?
6 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Well, I'll find that out,
7 Your Honour, when I ask him. That's document V/D --
8 I'm sorry, 5/D/18. Thank you, Counsel, and I apologise
9 to Your Honours.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: The other document, in order
11 to facilitate things, as far as I can see, it is the
12 document that has been admitted into evidence during
13 the testimony of Witness D.
14 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour, rather than
15 unnecessarily cluttering the case with more paper, I
16 would ask that after the witness reviews
17 documents that they be withdrawn with respect to their
18 marking so that we don't have to have duplication and I
19 apologise again for that.
20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, let's look at it
21 and let's be sure whether he can identify it himself.
22 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Certainly.
23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Whether he's in a
24 position to do so.
25 THE WITNESS: What do you want me to do?
1 MR. KUZMANOVIC:
2 Q. I would just like you to take a look at those
3 documents, perhaps to refresh your recollection. Have
4 you had a chance to do so?
5 A. This is a report of the military
6 investigative commission, which I never received, nor
7 do I have anything to do with it. I can just read it
8 and that's all. I have never had any such document in
9 front of me and I am not familiar with it.
10 Q. Okay.
11 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Have you now --
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Yes, I have, Your Honour.
13 Despite the fact that he's not seen them and not had
14 them, I would like to ask him a few questions relating
15 to events that relate to these documents.
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: A matter which he has no
17 idea about?
18 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Well, Your Honour, he's
19 reviewed the documents and I just want to ask him about
20 specific dates of things relating to these documents.
21 If Your Honour pleases, I will be very short.
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I am not too sure it's
23 even right to do that because he says he's never read
24 them, it was not sent to him, so he knew nothing about
25 it, If he knew such a commission was appointed.
1 MR. KUZMANOVIC: That's correct.
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, he said that.
3 JUDGE JAN: And the composition.
4 MR. KUZMANOVIC: That's correct.
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That's all he knows
7 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Well, if Your Honours will
8 permit me, I will be very brief with respect to the
9 questions I have. Thank you.
10 Q. Sir, you will note on the order, it's dated
11 June 15th, correct, of 1992?
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 Q. And the order, after you've read it, has to
14 deal with the interrogation of persons regarding the
15 military operation at Bradina, is that correct, at
16 least according to what the order says?
17 A. Yes, please ask your question.
18 Q. The copies of who was supposed to get the
19 order, as far as the document is concerned, don't
20 include anyone who would be, at least at June 15th of
21 1992, associated with running or commanding Celebici?
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I believe that these are
23 matters on the face of the document, you can understand
24 it to be so. If it is so indicated on the face of the
25 document, you don't have to ask him about it unless
1 he's never received it.
2 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. With respect to the second document, sir,
4 which is the report, that's also dated June 18th, is it
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. And that confirms that at least as far as the
8 people who are listed on that report all had weapons on
9 them, correct, from your recollection?
10 A. I have never read this document and I never
11 had the need for such a document. I never saw it. It
12 was not directed to me, and here it says, "Military
13 Investigative Commission" without any signatures or any
14 other such markings. So a report like this should
15 contain, in my opinion, all necessary information. It
16 should have the marking "military secret" on that and
17 so forth.
18 I have never seen such a document. It was
19 not possible that I would be the addressee of such a
20 document and I cannot say anything about it. I cannot
21 confirm it. I was not in charge of anything like
23 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I
24 would ask that those documents be marked withdrawn,
25 since they were marked.
1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you.
2 MR. TURONE: May I ask, for the record, that
3 numbers of the exhibits be made clear because I think
4 it doesn't come out clear enough in the record. Thank
5 you very much.
6 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, we're taking a
7 little while to get wired up and I apologise.
8 THE REGISTRAR: The first exhibit, D-10/2, is
9 the document identical to the Defence Exhibit, Annex
10 5-D, 18/1. And Defence Exhibit D-11/2 is identical to
11 Prosecution Exhibit 162.
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: And counsel applied to
13 withdraw those exhibits.
14 THE REGISTRAR: They have not been tendered
15 but they have been marked.
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, as well, they
17 should be.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: Sorry to interrupt, but this
19 is not the evidence that has been just read out, D-162,
20 this is a completely different piece of evidence. This
21 is a Defence Exhibit that was introduced through
22 Witness D. The evidence that has just been read by the
23 registry refers to the information regarding the prison
24 in Celebici and we are talking about the Defence
25 Exhibit here, D-50/1. This is an abbreviated version
1 of the report on the arming of the population of
2 Serb nationality in Brdani, dated 18th of June,
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you. You may
5 proceed, Mr. Moran.
6 MR. MORAN: Thank you very much, Your
7 Honour. You Honour, I want to say, I appreciate you
8 allowing me to leave a few minutes early for a meeting
9 which turned out to be cancelled and I apologise. Good
10 afternoon, sir.
11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MORAN:
12 Q. My name is Tom Moran and I am going to be
13 asking you a few questions. Most of my questions
14 probably just call for a "yes" or "no" answer. If you
15 listen to my questions and if you don't understand
16 them, will you stop me and I'll rephrase them and work
17 with you so that you understand what I am asking? Will
18 you do that for me, sir?
19 A. Yes, I will.
20 Q. Thank you very much, sir. I understand that
21 you were present for some of the fighting at both
22 Bradina and Donje Selo; is that correct, sir?
23 A. On several occasions, as I have already
24 stated, I was part of the fighting, together with my
25 chief, Jasmin Guska. I visited the area where the
1 fighting was conducted, and later on also during the
2 attack when Bradina fell.
3 Q. Let's focus on when Bradina fell. Was there
4 any resistance from the people inside of the village or
5 was it simply the troops of the government firing into
6 the village and attacking without receiving
7 resistance? I'll bet that question wasn't clear. Let
8 me try that again.
9 During the fighting, sir, did the people
10 inside the village resist the government forces? For
11 instance, was there a lot of firing from the village at
12 the government forces.
13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You call it fighting.
14 Do you mean by two people?
15 MR. MORAN: Of course, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: One side doesn't fight.
17 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, as you recall,
18 there's been a lot of testimony here that there was no
19 resistance from the village. This man was present
20 there and I want to find out whether there was.
21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What happened at the
22 time they took over Bradina?
23 MR. MORAN: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That should be enough
25 for you.
1 MR. MORAN:
2 Q. At that time, was there firing from the
3 people inside the village?
4 A. May I answer now?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. First of all, let me clarify one thing that
7 has to do with a war situation. When the road was
8 deblocked, my colleague, Rajko Dordic, who was
9 an operations manger of the municipal staff of the
10 Territorial Defence, organised the deblocking of the
11 road in accordance with the military regulations and
12 strategies. He had dug out trenches and he did
13 everything that was required in a military sense. He
14 organised the blocking actually, I'm sorry. Then they
15 entered the village and the firing started and it was a
16 real war.
17 Q. So there was firing, a lot of firing from
18 both sides at Bradina?
19 A. It happens all the time in a war. That's the
20 way you do it.
21 Q. I understand that, sir, and I just wanted to
22 make it clear that both at Donje Selo and at Bradina
23 there was fighting. As people on both sides were
24 shooting at each other, there was?
25 A. Up to a certain point in time they did fire,
1 but they realised that they were in such a situation
2 that it would be stupid for them to get killed, and
3 both sides understood that. It stopped and these
4 persons started surrendering themselves.
5 Q. Yes, sir. By the way, both at Bradina and
6 Donje Selo, we've heard testimony that there were some
7 of the people fighting on the side of the Bosnian
8 government, the government authorities. A group called
9 the Green Berets, did you see any Green Berets fighting
10 at either Bradina or Donje Selo?
11 A. I know only that Green Berets exist in
12 Sarajevo. Such formations in Konjic, I am sure about
13 that, never existed, nor do they exist now.
14 Q. Sir, as I understand it, one of your duties
15 after the fighting and after people were surrendering
16 at both Bradina and Donje Selo was to arrange for their
17 transport from Bradina and Donje Selo to the Celebici
18 camp; is that right, sir?
19 A. Not to organise it, but to ensure a safe
20 passage for the transport. It was not my task to
21 provide vehicles and things like that and for them to
22 enter the area. I was just supposed to provide a safe
23 transport to Celebici because Konjic was exposed to
24 constant shelling. I was in touch with them all the
25 time and they kept informing me about the situation on
1 the road.
2 Q. As I understand it, at both Bradina and Donje
3 Selo, prisoners were being loaded onto vehicles at
4 several different locations at pretty much the same
5 time; is that correct, sir?
6 A. Well, more or less, the way they kept coming,
7 we transported them to the best of our possibilities at
8 that time. We only disposed of several trucks and
9 these were the vehicles that we used for transporting
11 Q. As I understand it, while the loading was
12 going on, you were moving pretty continually from place
13 to place where people were being searched and loaded
14 onto vehicles; is that correct, sir?
15 A. Yes, perhaps not all the time, but I did
16 visit these points. These checkpoints were not very
17 far from the area. They were pretty close to us.
18 Q. You didn't see the guards beating any
19 prisoners, did you?
20 A. My task, among other things, was also to make
21 sure that such a thing does not happen, that prisoners
22 do not get beaten, and I was successful to some extent
23 in that. There may have been such cases, but that I
24 didn't see. Perhaps they didn't do it in front of me.
25 Q. So if it happened, you didn't see it?
1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That's what he said.
2 MR. MORAN: Yes, Your Honour.
3 Q. Now, after the prisoners were in Celebici,
4 you visited the barracks several times, didn't you,
6 A. I had been to the barracks several times
7 before that.
8 Q. Yes, sir. I want to focus on the time period
9 after the prisoners were in the barracks, when they
10 were being housed in the barracks. You visited
11 Celebici several times after that, didn't you, sir?
12 A. Yes, yes, I did.
13 Q. You saw some of the prisoners while they were
14 outside the hangar doing things; isn't that right,
16 A. There were not many of them outside hangars.
17 They were probably going to the toilet or something.
18 There were not many of them, but that was all I simply
19 saw, several people and that's it.
20 Q. You didn't see anybody that looked like they
21 had been beaten, had you? Did you?
22 A. Well, I must tell you that all of us who had
23 been involved in that, we all looked a little beaten
24 up, you know, all of us at that time.
25 Q. Because of the fighting?
1 A. Because of various reasons and
2 circumstances. If you were in Bradina, you probably
3 saw the kinds of roads that we have. It's very
4 difficult -- it's very likely that you can get injured
5 and all kinds of injuries happened at that time,
6 fractures, falls and things like that.
7 Q. Of course during the fighting with people
8 running through the woods and things like that, they're
9 going to pick up scratches and injuries of all sorts,
10 aren't they?
11 A. I, myself, tripped several times. I mean,
12 you can see the traces on my face.
13 Q. Now, sir, when the people were arrested
14 at Celebici -- excuse me, at Bradina and Donje Selo,
15 did you just simply arrest everybody you could find or
16 did you arrest just people that you had reason to
17 believe had been armed?
18 A. First of all, let me clarify. I never
19 arrested anyone. This was done by the MUP units and
20 the military police of the HVO, but in most of the
21 cases, people would surrender.
22 Q. And many of them surrendered with their arms,
23 with their weapons?
24 A. I don't know that. They surrendered to the
25 police of the HVO, but it's true that we found lots of
2 Q. By the way, and this is going to sound like a
3 silly question, but at the time in May and June of
4 1992, it was illegal in the Republic of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina for citizens to have military type
6 weapons, machine guns, hand grenades, fully automatic
7 rifles, that kind of thing; is that correct, sir?
8 A. Yes, it was a criminal offence according to
9 our laws. It was illegal to possess military weapons
10 and military equipment, something that would be used in
11 military operations.
12 Q. Sir, I thank you very much.
13 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I'll pass the
15 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, may it please the
17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed.
18 MS. McMURREY: Thank you.
19 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. McMURREY:
20 Q. Sir, I just have one question, and I am
21 defence attorney for Esad Landzo, Cynthia McMurrey.
22 You are aware of the murder of a group of military
23 police in the middle of July of 1992; is that true?
24 A. I learned about it immediately after the
1 Q. In fact, you appeared on the scene of the
2 murder; isn't that correct?
3 A. Yes, immediately after the murder.
4 Q. That was an extremely brutal murder of about
5 nine military police; would that be accurate to say?
6 A. Yes, that's an excellent description. That
7 is exactly what it was; it was brutal. One of them had
8 his ears cut off. That is how the Chetniks acted.
9 Q. As a result of this murder, it caused a
10 general outrage and anger in most of the population of
11 the Konjic municipality against the Serbs, didn't it?
12 A. I think it wasn't a generalised feeling, but
13 it significantly increased tensions in the town.
14 MS. McMURREY: I have no further questions,
15 thank you very much.
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any questions by the
18 MR. TURONE: Yes, Your Honour, just a few
20 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. TURONE:
21 Q. Good morning, sir, my name is Turone and I am
22 going to ask you some questions for the Prosecution.
23 A. Good morning.
24 Q. You said this morning something about the
25 investigating commission headed by Goran Lokas and you
1 said something about Mr. Delalic concerning this
2 commission. You said he didn't have any function for
3 appointing members, if I am not wrong. My question
4 is: Did Mr. Delalic have any other function
5 whatsoever, anyhow related to the investigating
7 A. From my testimony, you were able to see that
8 he had no function there because he was a civilian and
9 because he was a coordinator. If I need to clarify
10 what --
11 Q. I don't think it's necessary, thank you. You
12 said just a few minutes ago that you visited Celebici
13 several times after the prisoners were brought there.
14 Can you say approximately how many times did that
16 A. I do not know for sure but three or four
17 times with the chief of public security, Jasmin Guska,
18 and I was present there maybe twice when he personally
19 questioned some prisoners.
20 Q. Was that the purpose of your visits? Which
21 was the reason for your visits there?
22 A. The purpose of our visit was a routine tour.
23 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, isn't that true that on 31 May,
24 '92 in the courtyard of the MUP building in Konjic,
25 you were present when a group of Serb prisoners,
1 including among others Rajko Dordic and Novica Dordic
2 were heavily beaten?
3 A. I think that they were never brought in front
4 of the MUP building and I met Mr. Dordic in the MUP but
5 not then and with that group, and I brought him pills
6 because Mr. Dordic worked with me and I knew that he
7 suffered from kidney trouble and had difficulties with
8 his eyes and I brought him these pills and that is
10 Q. So if a witness testified about these facts I
11 told you, in this same courtroom, and said that you and
12 other MUP leaders watched the beating without reacting
13 to it, that testimony would be incorrect; is that what
14 you mean?
15 A. I claim, and I'm under oath, that there was
16 never any beating of Mr. Dordic in my presence.
17 Q. If the witness came in this courtroom --
18 A. In my presence.
19 Q. -- And said that you were there and watched
20 the beating without reacting to it. You say that this
21 testimony would not be correct; is that what you say?
22 A. What I'm saying is that Rajko Dordic was
23 never beaten up in front of the MUP in my presence.
24 Q. I understand that. My question was about if
25 a witness said something different about this and said
1 that you and other MUP leaders watched this beating of
2 members of Serb people, including Rajko Dordic and
3 Novica Dordic, you mean that this testimony is
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I'll take his answer
6 that it is incorrect.
7 MR. TURONE: Okay, thank you.
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: He said it twice.
9 MR. TURONE:
10 Q. Mr. Dzumhur, isn't it true that in the first
11 half of June, in an area inside Celebici, close to
12 tunnel 9, you were present when a group of Serb
13 prisoners, including among others Zara Mrkajic and Miro
14 Golubovic were heavily beaten by Bato Alkadzic and
15 other soldiers?
16 A. At what time was this?
17 Q. I'm not in a position to tell you the time.
18 Please answer my question. Isn't that true that in the
19 first half of June, before mid June approximately, one
20 day during that period of time in an area of Celebici
21 close to Tunnel 9, you were present there when a group
22 of Serb prisoners, including Zara Mrkajic and Miro
23 Golubovic were heavily beaten by guards and soldiers
24 and Bato Alkadzic was one of them; is that true?
25 A. I believe I visited Celebici for the last
1 time in June, but that was at 12.00 at night. We came
2 on a routine control and I never was present at any
3 such event. We came about midnight.
4 Q. Was there any time you were present in
5 Celebici when prisoners were beaten and you could see
7 A. No. Sir, I worked professionally in the
8 army. I know the code of conduct. I'm familiar with
9 the Geneva Conventions and I know what I had to do and
10 that is how I acted. I didn't spend any time there.
11 If I did have to go to Celebici, I came to do my work,
12 my police work, and left. In other words, I was doing
13 my duty.
14 Q. Thank you. This is my last question. If
15 another witness testified about these beatings inside
16 Celebici in that circumstance and did that in this
17 courtroom, and if this witness said that you and other
18 MUP leaders were present right there and did not
19 prevent the beating from taking place, although seeing
20 them, that testimony would not be correct, would it?
21 A. Let me repeat. I'm under oath and I said
22 that the last time I was in Celebici was about midnight
23 and that I did not attend anything like that.
24 MR. TURONE: Thank you very much. This
25 concludes my cross-examination, Your Honours. Thank
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.
3 Any re-examination?
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: No, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE:
6 Q. Let's get something clear. You went to the
7 Celebici camp to the area used for holding the
8 prisoners, isn't it?
9 A. No, but nearby.
10 Q. You were visiting the prison and the inmates
11 when you went to Celebici camp?
12 A. I said a moment ago, no, I didn't approach
13 close, except a couple of times when the chief of
14 police was interrogating a number of detainees, but I
15 never entered the place where the prisoners were held,
17 Q. You never went to the tunnel where many of
18 them were held?
19 A. Never, never.
20 Q. Do you, by the way, know the person who was
21 in charge of the prisons of Celebici? Who was the head
22 at that time?
23 A. What period of time?
24 Q. Up to June 15 when, perhaps, you ceased to go
1 A. Until June the 15th, I know that a MUP unit
2 was accommodated in Celebici and that heading that unit
3 was Rale Musinovic.
4 Q. And you know that the MUP was in charge of
5 the prisoners; they were looking after the persons
6 detained there?
7 A. In that period, yes.
8 Q. When did they cease to take charge of the
9 persons in the prisons there?
10 A. I don't know exactly, but I said about
11 mid June new TO forces arrived and that several
12 policemen remained behind.
13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much. I
14 think this is all for this witness. Thank you for your
15 assistance. You are discharged.
16 (The witness withdrew)
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, as I said this
18 morning, I have been in touch with our witnesses in
19 Vienna and they have confirmed that they will be able
20 to come here tomorrow by 12 noon, so that I could call
21 the first of the two witnesses at 2.30. These are
22 witnesses Ciso Ismet and Delalic Emir. Immediately
23 during the recess, we will submit to the Trial Chamber,
24 the Prosecution and our colleagues the names of the
1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.
2 Actually, we have a few motions which have been
3 submitted. I don't know to what extent counsel are
4 prepared, but I wouldn't mind taking the motions at
5 2.30 when we resume.
6 We have Landzo's motion for adequate time to
7 prepare his defence; then the motion for joint defence,
8 requests on presentation of evidence. We also have
9 Landzo's motion for leave to call expert witnesses.
10 Then we have Delic's motion for binding order to
11 Yugoslavia. I'm not sure the Prosecution has reacted
12 to any of them. I have not seen any. This is why I'm
13 wondering if perhaps we might be able -- when we resume
14 at 2.30, we should take them.
15 I hope you understand what the Trial Chamber
16 wishes to do at 2.30. We'll take these motions, but
17 for the one on the joint defence motion for judicial
18 independence, I think you'll look at your Rule 15 of
19 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence again so that you
20 will see the matter for application, so it's not one
21 for open hearing. It is for application to the
22 presiding judge who then takes a decision so what we
23 will communicate our decision.
24 At 2.30, we will take these motions.
25 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.45 a.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.38 p.m.
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Good afternoon, ladies
3 and gentlemen. I suppose we'll start with the motions
4 in the way we have listed them here. The first one, I
5 think, is a long standing one. The motion by Landzo,
6 for adequate time to prepare defence, what do you say
7 about that? Because you have adequate time. What is
8 pressurising you?
9 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I do have to say
10 that since I filed this motion, the registry and I have
11 come to an agreement that they will bring an
12 investigator to The Hague on June 10th to the 15th, so
13 that complaint, I would like to waive. We still have a
14 very significant problem. Considering the accelerated
15 trial schedule that we're placed under right now, we
16 all have expert witnesses and investigators that need
17 to meet and consult with our clients and with the
18 attorneys in order to prepare for the defence. What
19 has occurred is, we're in trial Monday through Friday.
20 The only time that any experts or investigators have to
21 meet with the defendants themselves are after court,
22 which is only from when they get back to the detention
23 centre and would be from 6.30 to 8.30 or on the
24 weekends. There are now in excess of 40 Defence
25 lawyers involved in meeting with their clients at the
1 detention centre. There are four rooms available and
2 it's almost impossible to make the appointments in
3 order to have sufficient time to meet with your
5 We're asking that during the week, when we're
6 in trial and the defendants are being held here in the
7 Tribunal, I know it presents some kind of security
8 problems, but I believe that the rights of the accused
9 to a fair trial and adequate time to prepare their
10 defence outweighs the security problems at this time.
11 If during the breaks or during lunch period we could
12 have the experts and the investigators utilise this
13 down time here at the Tribunal, it would certainly
14 assist everybody in time and preparation for their
16 JUDGE JAN: In this regard, have you spoken
17 to the registrar? Maybe she can make some
19 MS. McMURREY: We have spoken to the registry
20 many times. I think everybody along this bench --
21 JUDGE JAN: On this particular problem?
22 MS. McMURREY: Yes.
23 JUDGE JAN: What is their response?
24 MS. McMURREY: Their response is that we only
25 have a limited amount time. On Wednesday night it's
1 even less than 8.30 to meet at the detention centre.
2 And that's the Dutch regulations that we have to adhere
3 to, since they're the host of the UN detention centre.
4 Because the Dutch regulations don't allow for that, we
5 are precluded from meeting with our clients then.
6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Speaking for myself and
7 not for any other person, I think you're familiar that
8 it's a most unusual thing for a Defence, which has been
9 known for more than a year before now, to start talking
10 about this type of argument. Because I do not see -- I
11 have read your motion and none of those issues is new.
12 They have been with us, some of them been examined and
13 you have indicated the possibility of these experts
14 about some eight or nine months earlier than now, and
15 you still talk about them. You think, even with this
16 period, you are unable to get your expert to discuss
17 with you and the accused. And the court should now
18 wait and set perhaps a particular period for you to be
19 ready. This is your argument. I don't know, it's
20 never done in that way. Well, I have never known it to
21 be done in that way. You may know it to be done in
22 that way, but no need to be so. You've had sufficient
23 time and the accused has been examined several times.
24 You have even talked about these experts so many months
25 before now, so I am not too impressed by all the
1 arguments that you are putting forward. Also, your
2 limitations and your ability to discuss these things
3 and get it through, it doesn't impress me at all.
4 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, for the record, I
5 would like to state that I only became lead counsel
6 recently and there was no preparation for the Defence
7 prior that moment, except for my interviews when I went
8 to Konjic.
9 JUDGE JAN: You were on this trial since
10 March last year.
11 MS. McMURREY: I have, but, Your Honour, I
12 was co-counsel and I didn't plan the strategy or
13 develop the strategy of the Defence at that point.
14 JUDGE JAN: Anyway, it doesn't matter.
15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Try to do your best.
16 The trial is still on, you do your best.
17 MS. McMURREY: I am doing my best. I am
18 doing my best, but all I was requesting was that we
19 find some kind of arrangement to have more time to meet
20 with the defendants outside of the courtroom.
21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That's not what the
22 Trial Chamber can arrange because it's not within our
23 power to do that.
24 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, I filed this
25 motion in March because that was the time Mr. Mucic had
1 all his problems with the registry. And the Trial
2 Chamber at that point said, don't let it get out of
3 hand. If you have a problem that you can't solve with
4 the registry, bring it to the court's attention.
5 Therefore, that's what I did. And I was only abiding
6 by what I thought was the proper procedure, according
7 to what you said at that time.
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If it's an
9 administrative matter, which we can give directions, we
10 could do that. If it's a directive which might affect
11 the regulations of the prisons and the way the Dutch
12 authorities organise them, procedures, it's fairly
13 difficult for us to break through.
14 MS. McMURREY: If it affects the rights of
15 the accused, I believe it becomes a matter of the trial
17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: So many things affect
18 the rights of the accused and when they are competing
19 rights, one has to give way.
20 MS. McMURREY: I have one other issue that I
21 would like to raise before the Trial Chamber in this
22 motion. It's that, when Defence counsel go to Bosnia
23 to do their investigation, we have to take cash, German
24 Marks with us, out of our own pocket, to finance the
25 trip ourselves. When we get there, we have to pay for
1 our travel -- I mean, not our travel, our airline
2 tickets are provided. We have to pay for our hotel
3 room, we have to pay our investigator, we have to pay
4 the rental car, we have to pay our interpreters.
5 Frankly, we just can't afford to do that. We are
6 asking that a quality of arms be had because the
7 Prosecution does not have to come up with the money out
8 of their pocket to finance their trips for
10 MS. McHENRY: If I may just, actually, most
11 of this is not the business of the Prosecution and so I
12 don't want to do it, but it is the case that certain
13 things, such as paying for the financial difficulties
14 that may happen in trips, certainly have happened to
15 the Prosecution too.
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Don't wait for it.
17 MS. McMURREY: We're equally in debt and
18 paupers. I wish that there was some way that we could
19 find a way to finance these investigative trips without
20 having to go into debt, is my question. I have brought
21 this up with the registry many times. Basically we
22 would just like more access with our clients. Also, I
23 would like it to be noted when our investigator goes to
24 the prison to talk to the defendant, if the presence of
25 the attorney is not -- if the attorney is not present,
1 the meetings are not considered privileged and
2 confidential. I think that that infringes upon our
3 ability to prepare for a defence, that we have to
4 present every time an investigator meets with the
5 defendant. The confidentiality and the privileged
6 information between the investigator and the defendant
7 should be extended not only when the attorney is
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We have arrived to the
10 general principle now, which is confidentiality between
11 counsel and the accused. Now you want to extend it to
12 include this investigator?
13 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Let me make a
15 suggestion. Do you know how law is created? With
16 time. Perhaps without pressing it for some time, the
17 prison might understand. We'll try and explain to
19 MS. McMURREY: We'll work on that and try to
20 get it privileged because our investigator is coming on
21 June 10th and I would like to not have to be sitting
22 there holding his hand when he meets with Mr. Landzo.
23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you.
24 MS. McMURREY: Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, in connection
2 with this proposal, although this does not concern the
3 Defence of Zejnil Delalic in a direct way, I would just
4 like to give my support to the endeavours of the Trial
5 Chamber. We do need your support. At the moment we
6 are presenting our case. Let me just point out to the
7 fact that prison facilities are very small and it's
8 very difficult for us to get enough time to meet with
9 our clients. I am not going to say that we are doing
10 this in a pantry or anything, but we are grateful for
11 any room that we can have access to. There are 40
12 lawyers there, families also have the right to visit
13 their relatives in the detention unit.
14 Now that we are presenting our Defence in
15 full manner, it is very difficult for us to get even
16 one hour during the weekend to clarify certain things.
17 That's why I would like to suggest, to the Trial
18 Chamber, which has to ensure the rights of the accused,
19 to make a proposal to the registry and this is what
20 we've been doing, but the detention unit in a direct
21 way, to give priority in according facilities and time
22 at the detention unit, so that we are enabled, in this
23 way, to work in an adequate manner.
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.
25 You know, up to now, we had only one Trial Chamber. We
1 now have about three or two, I would say, functioning.
2 I suppose as time goes on and the facilities expand and
3 the United Nations knows the pressures and everything,
4 they'll do something. We're very cooped in our
5 chambers and as time goes on, we'll cope with it more.
6 Thank you. Mr. Moran.
7 MR. MORAN: Yes, Your Honour, I was going to
8 suggest, we're guests of the Dutch facilities at the
9 prison. We being the entire Tribunal family, if you
10 would, and they're not going to change their rules for
11 us, presumably. I know we have an investigator coming
12 in, it will be the first time he's been in The Hague
13 since before the trial, just to do final discussions
14 with Mr. Delic. There's at least about three hours a
15 day he could meet with him in this building. If it
16 were permitted by the security people, that is
17 something that the Tribunal controls. By the time
18 someone gets to the Defence rooms, they've been through
19 two metal detectors and are not likely to be smuggling
20 any contraband or anything. In fact, our investigator
21 is an attorney. We've not brought him in several
22 times, frankly, because of the cost. If he's not
23 meeting with Mr. Delic on a fairly regular basis, a
24 vacation in The Hague, which I am sure he'll enjoy, but
25 it would seem to be a waste of the United Nations'
1 resources. We need these meetings just for the last
2 minute preparation. We're planning tentatively, to
3 having him talk to our colleagues. At about July the
4 6th, we're going to be putting on witnesses. So we
5 need to get those final preparations and those final
6 thoughts from Mr. Delic to the investigator directly.
7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Normally I come from a
8 common law system where the judge is not informed with
9 the accused regulation of his Defence. We're usually
10 aloof and allow him to prepare his Defence and present
11 it. I don't get involved with the accused's preparing
12 his Defence and know who is doing it with him and those
13 who are arranging it with him. Severely, doesn't
14 concern -- one might speak to the authorities to assist
15 him, but we are not participants in that type of
17 MR. MORAN: Yes, Your Honour and although
18 we'd be more than grateful for any help. And I don't
19 think you'd want to be meeting with your witnesses and
20 helping prepare them, although we'd be most grateful
21 for that. This is a technical thing and Ms. McMurrey
22 has been the lead on this and at some kind of impasse.
23 It's something that is really nobody's fault and nobody
24 is pointing fingers of blame at anyone. When we
25 started this trial, there were six people in the UN
1 detention centre and now there's 26 and they have
2 actually moved one into the regular Dutch facility
3 outside of the UN facility just because it's so
4 crowded. People have been arrested and people have
5 been turning themselves in, and they are no longer
6 fugitives from justice and that's a good thing. But
7 all good things have their bad sides and at this point
8 I think we're seeing the bad side that there has been
9 such an increase in defendants, in such a short period
10 of time, that no one has been able to cope with it and
11 frankly, --
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The length of the trial
13 has also contributed to this condition.
14 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I would not disagree
15 with you, I was counting it up and if you really want
16 to know, I can compare the number of days Prosecution
17 had with some other trials you've seen on television.
18 I think we've been pretty prompt with this. Our trial
19 has had problems again and they're no one's fault. You
20 get an expert witness for the Prosecution that gets
21 involved in a traffic accident in England, that's
22 nothing any one can control and those things cause
23 delays. But I don't think that any deliberate attempt
24 on any one's part to delay this trial. I think
25 everyone wants to get this trial done, and gone and
1 over with.
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you.
3 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I would just like to briefly
4 address the court on that same issue relating to more
5 form related substance. But that form is very
6 important. That's access to our client so we can
7 adequately prepare our Defence. And as the case has
8 been moving along, and as you know I am relatively new
9 here. I have noticed that it is difficult to get
10 quality time, so to speak, to be able to sit down, hash
11 out the issues and go over the weeks testimony, go over
12 whatever documents are necessary and to come to some
13 conclusions. And along those lines are supportive of
14 co-counsel's motion and perhaps plea that on the issue
15 of form, that we be allowed some more meaningful access
16 to our clients. Thank you, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much. I
18 think that should be enough adequate time to prepare
19 for the Defence. Now, the next one, I think we will
20 join Defence presentation on request of evidence. Can
21 we hear who is presenting that? Is it Ms. Residovic
22 who is presenting that?
23 MS. McMURREY: Your Honour, we have Michael
24 Greaves who is a legal representative for all four
25 defendants and we ask that the court allow leave of
1 court to have Mr. Greaves argue this motion, on behalf
2 of all of us, instead of the judicial economy, instead
3 of hearing all four of us at a different time like you
4 just did, you can hear from one person who represents
5 all of us. Thank you.
6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We'll hear Mr. Greaves,
7 we've missed him for some time.
8 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, thank you. Your
9 Honour, Articles 20 and 21 of the statute of this
10 Tribunal can be given a short but, I hope, accurate
11 label. These are the fair trial provisions that this
12 Tribunal operates under. They are the kind of rules or
13 provisions which are found in a number of different
14 similar statutes throughout the civilised world. And,
15 indeed, in one case before the appeals chamber in the
16 Tadic case, the judges in that case noted that the fair
17 trial guarantees that exist in Article 14 of the
18 international covenant on civil and political rights
19 have been adopted almost verbatim in Article 21 of our
21 They turn up in a number of different places
22 in almost identical form, the European Convention on
23 Human Rights or in national laws which are of the bill
24 of rights type. They also appear in Article 75 of
25 Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention which has identical
1 wording for those provisions which are made for persons
2 who are detained and who are tried by the detaining
3 power for war crimes.
4 Those provisions, Your Honour, are set out in
5 Articles 20 and 21. The relevant provisions are, in my
6 submission on behalf of all four defendants, these:
7 Article 20, paragraph 1, which require, because of the
8 use of the words "shall ensure," that a trial is fair
9 and expeditious, that the proceedings are conducted in
10 accordance with the rules of procedure and evidence
11 with full respect for the rights of the accused.
12 What are those rights? In our submission,
13 those rights are set out in Article 21 of the statute.
14 It is headed "Rights of the Accused." The important
15 ones in connection with this motion are these: Article
16 21(1) says that all persons shall be equal before the
17 International Tribunal; 21(2), in the determination of
18 charges against him, the accused shall be entitled to a
19 fair and public hearing subject, of course, to Article
20 22, which is the victims and witnesses provision.
21 Article 21(4), in the determination of any charge
22 against the accused pursuant to the present statute,
23 the accused shall be entitled to the following minimum
24 guarantees in full equality, subparagraph (e) to
25 examine or have examined the witnesses against him and
1 to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses
2 on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses
3 against him. I stress those last seven words because,
4 in our respectful submission, those are mandatory
5 provisions which are not optional for this Tribunal,
6 have to be applied, are mandatory.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could we ask counsel to
8 slow down, please?
9 MR. GREAVES: Looking at the generality of
10 these provisions, they might --
11 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You are being advised to
12 slow down.
13 MR. GREAVES: I'm sorry, thank you. They are
14 what might properly be called the equality of arms
16 Can I remind Your Honours of what the learned
17 judge, Judge Vorah, said in his separate opinion on the
18 Prosecution motion for production of Defence witness
19 statements. That was in the case of Prosecutor versus
20 Tadic, a decision rendered on the 27th of November,
21 1996. The learned judge said this concerning the
22 equality of arms principle: "The principle is intended
23 in an ordinary trial to ensure that the Defence has
24 means to prepare and present its case equal to those
25 available to the Prosecution which has all the
1 advantages of the state on its side.
2 The European Commission of Human Rights
3 equates the principle of equality of arms with the
4 right of the accused to have procedural equality with
5 the Prosecution. It seems to me that from the above
6 authorities that the application of the equality of
7 arms principle, especially in criminal proceedings,
8 should be inclined in favour of the Defence requiring
9 parity for the Prosecution in the presentation of the
10 Defence case before the court to preclude any injustice
11 against the accused."
12 I read that out in full because, in my
13 respectful submission to Your Honours, that is a
14 concise but accurate exposition of what all of us
15 understand by the principle of equality of arms. Of
16 course, no Defence counsel is going to say, "If the
17 Prosecution have 20 investigators, we should have 20
18 investigators." That would be unrealistic,
19 particularly as the duties of the Prosecution are much
20 wider and greater than those of the Defence.
21 But in a particular trial, equality of arms
22 means the creation of a level playing field, so that
23 the Prosecution operates according to the same regime
24 as the Defence and vice versa. We respectfully submit
25 that it is neither proper nor, indeed, lawful for
1 different regimes as to the presentation of evidence to
2 be applied as between the Prosecution and the Defence.
3 That applies across the board, not just to the question
4 of the calling of witnesses.
5 As I've indicated, the provisions of Articles
6 20 and 21 are not optional but are mandatory guarantees
7 to the Defence that they will be treated in precisely
8 the same way as the Prosecution in respect of those
9 matters which are set out as fair trial provisions.
10 Can I remind Your Honours of this? During
11 this case, the Prosecution were able to call such
12 witnesses as they chose. There was one exception, as I
13 recall, which led to the Prosecution applying to call a
14 handwriting expert. That application was declined on
15 very specific grounds and is not, in our submission,
16 touched by the generality of the proposition that I've
17 placed before you.
18 Having called those witnesses, I think, and
19 I'm sure Ms. McHenry will correct my mathematics if I'm
20 wrong, 60 witnesses, the Prosecution were able to ask
21 time and time again the same question. "What do you
22 know of the murder of so and so? What do you know
23 about the conditions pertaining in the camp," for
24 example, questions which had been covered sometimes at
25 great length by other Prosecution witnesses. At no
1 stage did Your Honours seek to determine which
2 witnesses the Prosecution could call, to pick and
3 choose from their list or to establish a witness list
4 of your own choosing which was different from that
5 presented according to Your Honours' order by the
6 Prosecution at the outset of the trial and amended from
7 time to time.
8 Rights the court does have are these: Under
9 Rule 89, to exclude evidence which is irrelevant or has
10 no probative value or should be excluded because of the
11 provisions of 89(D), I think it is. Similarly, under
12 Rule 95, you are entitled to exclude evidence on this
13 basis: "No evidence shall be admissible if obtained by
14 methods which cast substantial doubt on its reliability
15 or if its admission is antithetical to and would
16 seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings."
17 We respectfully submit that there is no power
18 in law under the rules or under the statute for Your
19 Honours to choose on behalf of the Defence which
20 witnesses the Defence calls.
21 Your Honours will recall that shortly after
22 the close of the Prosecution case and the determination
23 of the submissions that were made at that time that
24 there was no case to answer. The Prosecution submitted
25 a motion which dealt with two matters; firstly, the
1 point at which a defendant, if he chose to do so, could
2 or should give evidence within his own defence case;
3 secondly, the order in which cross-examination would
4 take place of Defence witnesses as between the counsel
5 of co-accused and the Prosecution.
6 When dealing with the issue of the order in
7 which Defence witnesses would be called, we submit that
8 Your Honours applied the appropriate principle which is
9 that it is not for Your Honours to organise and
10 determine the Defence case.
11 In our submission, the issue of the order in
12 which witnesses are called is, in fact, a lesser one
13 than the issue of which witnesses are called. If, as
14 Your Honours determined, you have no right to determine
15 at what point the defendant gives evidence, a fortiori
16 we submit there is no power in Your Honours to
17 determine which witnesses shall be called.
18 If a witness is called who gives evidence
19 which is irrelevant or which does not bear probative
20 value, then, of course, Your Honours have extensive
21 powers to say, "That evidence is irrelevant and will
22 not be heard. That evidence is not of probative value
23 and we will not admit it." But Your Honours do not
24 have, we submit, under the rules, under the statute,
25 the authority, the lawful power to determine on behalf
1 of the Defence which witnesses will be called.
2 The effect of what Your Honours seek to do
3 is, in my submission, twofold. You seek to put
4 yourselves, effectively, in the place of Defence
5 counsel whose job it is to organise their defence and
6 to decide and determine which witnesses are to be
7 called. We respectfully submit that that is descending
8 into the arena in a way which is not appropriate for a
9 trial of this kind.
10 Your Honour, in the motion or the response
11 that the Defence made to the Prosecution's motion about
12 the order of Defence witnesses, you may recall one
13 example was given from the Belgian system. We submit
14 that this is a sensible and accurate reflection of the
15 fair trial provisions that exist throughout the
16 civilised world. The quotation runs as follows and it
17 comes from the International Encyclopaedia of Laws,
18 Kluwer International. One of the most fundamental
19 rules in Belgian evidentiary law is that an accused
20 person is presumed to be innocent. That, of course, is
21 our rule.
22 This rule has several very important
23 consequences as far as his legal position in this
24 connection is concerned. The first one is that he is
25 never obliged to prove his innocence. The second one
1 is that he disposes of the privilege against
2 self-incrimination, so nobody can compel him to
3 cooperate in an active way in his own condemnation.
4 The third one is implied in this privilege he has the
5 right of silence. The fourth one is that if there is
6 uncertainty about the proof of his guilt, he should be
7 given the benefit of the doubt. This is the one that I
8 wish to emphasise. The fifth consequence is that he is
9 free to organise his Defence in the way that he wants.
10 Your Honour, I say and make these submissions
11 on behalf of all the defendants, not because one seeks
12 to prevent Your Honours from chivvying people along,
13 hurrying people up. Those are the tasks of all
14 judges. I appear regularly in a court in North Hampton
15 where we have a judge who regularly, sometimes to the
16 great concern of those who have never appeared in front
17 of him before, hurries people up in the most
18 extraordinary way. Sometimes you will be standing on
19 your feet making your submission and the judge is
20 getting up and going for the door to go think about it
21 before you've even finished. It's perfectly proper, of
22 course, for Your Honours to look at the issue of
23 getting a move on. No one would wish to gainsay that,
24 but that cannot, we submit, extend to fettering the
25 discretion of counsel who are charged with the defence
1 of their client, fettering that discretion to choose
2 which witnesses are called.
3 In our respectful submission, the desire of
4 Your Honours to say we will choose which witnesses you
5 may call is one which is not based on a proper
6 application of Article 21 which is, I'm afraid, as I
7 described it earlier, not optional.
8 JUDGE JAN: May I say a few things? You have
9 to draw a distinction between eyewitnesses and other
10 witnesses --
11 MR. GREAVES: The statute doesn't make such a
13 JUDGE JAN: -- it might come down to that are
14 we bound to hear the same evidence thrice, four times,
15 five times, six times?
16 MR. GREAVES: If you had set up such a regime
17 at the beginning of this trial, Your Honour --
18 JUDGE JAN: That's what I said. Draw a
19 distinction between the eyewitnesses and other
20 witnesses. I don't think there's any law which forces
21 us to hear the same evidence on the same issue more
22 than twice, thrice, four times. With what you said, as
23 regards to which witness you want to produce, you're
24 free to do that. We're not here to tell you which
25 witness to examine and which witness to examine on a
1 particular point. That is entirely your discretion.
2 You can always -- the Belgian principles, as far as the
3 Belgian law is concerned, they are perfectly right and
4 I am entirely in support of them.
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Does the Prosecution
6 have any contribution? If they do, we'll hear them and
7 then we'll find out.
8 MS. McHENRY: Just very briefly, Your Honour,
9 the Prosecution would first note that it's not entirely
10 clear what is being disputed here. I think there is
11 absolutely no dispute that counsel, be they for the
12 Defence or the Prosecution, are entitled to present
13 their case. It's also, I think, beyond dispute that
14 Your Honours have the right, indeed, the duty to
15 control the courtroom and to prevent irrelevant or
16 unnecessarily duplicative testimony.
17 Further, as far as I know, Your Honours have
18 not told the Defence attorneys that they cannot call a
19 particular witness. That being said, we're not sure
20 exactly what the particular issue is. The Prosecution
21 does not agree that different rules are being applied
22 for the Prosecution and the Defence.
23 As Mr. Greaves pointed out, there were
24 instances where the Prosecution was not entitled to
25 call witnesses, either because Your Honours felt we had
1 not adequately given good cause or because Your Honours
2 found the proffer of the testimony to be irrelevant.
3 We can also note in the Prosecution's case the Defence
4 had very detailed witness statements of what the
5 witnesses were going to testify to. So to the extent
6 there was going to be irrelevant or unnecessarily
7 duplicative evidence, that could be raised by the
8 Defence. It may well be that in this case where Your
9 Honours are trying, correctly, to move things along, to
10 ask for more detailed proffers from the Defence
11 attorney. Certainly, it's also the case that Your
12 Honours and other judges can put time limits, put
13 limits on the numbers, any number of things.
14 That being said, that Your Honours certainly
15 have power to control the courtroom, we would also
16 agree that there are some disputed matters and that
17 there is a fine line between cumulative testimony and
18 corroboration, particularly where credibility of the
19 witnesses is in issue. Again, the Prosecution would
20 point out that both the Prosecution and Defence have
21 been prevented from exploring certain areas because
22 Your Honours found it to be irrelevant or duplicative.
23 Obviously, Your Honours have rights. We do agree that
24 with respect to matters that are very important and are
25 contested, some leeway needs to be given to all sides
1 to explore those issues.
2 That's all we have to say, Your Honour,
3 unless you have any specific questions.
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: No, no, nothing
6 Yes, Mr. Greaves, if you have something to
8 MR. GREAVES: One recalls both Dr. Calic and
9 Dr. Gow covered, in part, similar ground. They are not
10 victims. I note that my learned friend speaks about
11 witnesses not being allowed to discuss matters which
12 were irrelevancies. I have conceded that Your Honours
13 plainly have the power to prevent irrelevant evidence,
14 indeed, probably the duty to prevent irrelevant
15 evidence. That is so, I suspect, in every legal system
16 that exists.
17 The example that I picked out about the
18 handwriting expert was to show that there were
19 specific, proper reasons unrelated to Your Honours
20 descending into the arena. The point is this: The
21 statute is there. It says what it says. The regime
22 has been set up for the Prosecution. It should be the
23 same for the Defence. It's the level playing field.
24 That's all we ask, a level playing field, no more and
25 no less than that.
1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.
2 JUDGE JAN: Your witnesses will be treated in
3 the same fashion as the witnesses for the Prosecution.
4 You have the same rights regarding the production of
5 evidence as the Prosecution, but we can always control
6 duplication, triplication, quadruplication of
7 evidence. I'm trying to draw a distinction between
8 eyewitnesses and other witnesses.
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Greaves, I'm not
10 interrupting you, I'm just trying to ensure that there
11 are two differences of approach in terms of proceedings
12 generally, whether criminal or civil. The perception
13 of relevance or irrelevance, to a large extent, depends
14 on how particular counsel sees his or her defence.
15 Now, we have always relied on both Articles
16 20 and 21, and we can see the expedition which Article
17 20 expects the Trial Chamber to observe and the doing
18 of justice to the accused persons. If you compare that
19 with the unlimited right to call witnesses, whether
20 relevant or irrelevant, or to tender evidence, even if
21 it is conflicting or irrelevant, cannot stand with the
22 right of the Trial Chamber to manage the case presented
23 to it.
24 Now, when you talk about unrestricted right
25 to call evidence and tender whatever testimony you
1 think, in your own perception, is relevant, you are
2 sometimes treading on the toes of expedition under
3 Article 20 which is still not right. It is the Trial
4 Chamber which is the guardian of that particular
5 provision, not counsel.
6 Perhaps it is forgotten in the doing of
7 justice, the Trial Chamber has a duty to the accused
8 persons, to counsel and to all parties in the case.
9 The moment you start assuming or having a perception
10 that there is inequality or perception and that the
11 Trial Chamber is having a different view in respect of
12 one case, then you get into trouble of thinking that
13 things are going against you. Sometime I'll ask
14 counsel and, perhaps very wrongly, I'll say to look at
15 their case again, look at it afresh and see whether
16 they are doing the right thing. They should look at
17 the indictment again, look at the evidence against them
18 and see where they are going. It is the duty of the
19 Trial Chamber to do that. We do not leave the
20 management of the case to counsel, because counsel
21 himself is not an impartial participator in the whole
22 proceedings. It is our duty to do what we are doing.
23 Now, you talked about Article 21. You cannot
24 for one moment suggest to anybody that there is no
25 unrestricted rights to call witnesses. You can't say
1 that. The parity which you ascribe to both parties
2 exists and the parity is not compared on a general,
3 neutral plain. It is compared on the type of
4 proceedings which each one is trying to develop before
5 the Trial Chamber, that they should be given the same
6 right, the same opportunities. That does not mean that
7 one should abuse his own right because he is allowed to
8 call evidence. That is not the issue. The
9 interpretation has not been exhausted, I know. There
10 are a few cases which have interpreted it, but every
11 situation has its own interpretation. It's not the
12 same for all.
13 You've compared the Prosecution with the
14 Defence. Obviously it can never be the same. The
15 Prosecution has a global case to make against four
16 persons. Each accused has a case to make on his own
17 defence, so how do you put the two together?
18 You see, there are very few things which goes
19 beyond practise. It comes with theory as a whole, the
20 theory of judicial administration, the theory of the
21 way the court administers matters before it. But one
22 thing you will have, as long as one's decision is not
23 based on his whims, merely on one's caprice, no matter
24 what Article 21(4)(e) says, it cannot be a violation.
25 It cannot be a violation that someone decides to call a
1 witness who is not even referring to the issue merely
2 because counsel thinks that an analogy can be drawn.
3 If you think that sufficient evidence has been given
4 and has been admitted in respect of what has been
5 argued, obviously surplus does not improve the
6 quality of evidence given.
7 Nobody is saying that you should not call
8 your witnesses, but you should call your witnesses who
9 are relevant to the case and who will give admissible
10 evidence. That is what the Trial Chamber is saying.
11 In fact, perhaps one might consider this. It is the
12 Prosecution which should be concerned that one is going
13 to the assistance of the Defence by helping him to trim
14 down his own witnesses. They should be angry, not for
15 the Defence, which has taken on the advantage of that
16 extra effort.
17 JUDGE JAN: Take your own client's case. The
18 first list submitted was of 365 witnesses. The Trial
19 Chamber had the right to know --
20 MR. GREAVES: He's actually my former
22 JUDGE JAN: Your former client, I beg your
23 pardon. With 365, don't you think the Trial Chamber
24 has the right to know what these witnesses are going to
25 say? The allegation against you is your command and
1 responsibility with regard to Celebici camp, what
2 allegedly happened in Celebici camp. Now, if you start
3 producing witnesses who have no relation at all to
4 Celebici, who can throw no light on what this camp was
5 and what your precise duties there were, if there were
6 any, how interested in the other evidence? Now
7 interpret Article 20 of the statute. Are we bound to
8 hear everyone he produces who says nothing about what
9 actually happened in Celebici camp and he had no
10 relation to those acts?
11 You're also talking about an expeditious
12 trial. We're talking about a fair trial. We are only
13 interested in the evidence which relates to the issue
14 against you, the charges against you. We aren't
15 interested in hearing all the evidence of the 365 who
16 probably have never even heard of Celebici. Therefore,
17 we wanted to know what those witnesses are going to
18 say. What is their evidence going to be relevant for
19 for our purposes?
20 MR. GREAVES: I'm not going to comment on a
21 witness list that's been submitted by --
22 JUDGE JAN: You're saying that we are
23 choosing the witnesses. We are not choosing the
24 witnesses. Choose your own witnesses. All we say,
25 don't duplicate, don't triplicate, and you don't even
1 have to prove facts which are given by the Prosecution
2 witnesses themselves.
3 MR. GREAVES: One of the difficulties we face
4 is this: We can't --
5 JUDGE JAN: We have not chosen any
6 witnesses. We just said produce your evidence, but it
7 should be relevant and don't duplicate. Then we said,
8 so far as eyewitnesses are concerned, they are in a
9 different position. Well, if you have any
10 eyewitnesses, please produce them and we will examine
11 them all.
12 MR. GREAVES: Of course I hear what Your
13 Honour says. We're faced with looking at the
14 transcript which says this: "Now, as I said what the
15 Trial Chamber intends to do is come up with our own
16 list of witnesses," and so one can be forgiven for
17 thinking that Your Honours intended to choose for the
18 Defence which witnesses were to be called.
19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You are correct. I said
20 that; I did. I thought I was being of assistance to
21 the whole exercise, to make sure that things are
22 properly done in the interests of the accused persons
23 themselves. But if you look at it very carefully, if
24 you look at the synthesis of both the type of practise
25 we are applying here, the Trial Chamber is properly
1 entitled even to do that. It is entitled. Forget your
2 legal arguments. They might sound interesting, but
3 definitely go back, think about the two philosophies
4 which have been matched in our procedure. You will
5 find that we are perfectly entitled to do that in the
6 interests of Article 20.
7 JUDGE JAN: We have not done that so far.
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: No, we have not, but we
9 are perfectly entitled --
10 JUDGE JAN: We just asked counsel to cut down
11 the list, if possible, so that duplication,
12 triplication are avoided.
13 MR. GREAVES: If that's as far as it goes,
14 then, of course, nobody could have any exception to
15 it. But it may be that counsel, out of a sense of
16 over anxiety for his client, does call somebody who Your
17 Honours think is duplication. Of course, one of the
18 problems is that we can't see into Your Honours' minds
19 and we don't know what decision you have taken about
20 any particular witness, whether you --
21 JUDGE JAN: You have the evidence before you
22 when you examine the witness. You know you are
23 examining a certain person on such and such an issue or
24 you examine two witnesses or three witnesses on that.
25 You know that --
1 MR. GREAVES: The Prosecution may challenge
2 that evidence, and until Your Honours come to a final
3 judgement, we don't know --
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: This is what we object
6 MR. GREAVES: -- which witness -- sorry, the
7 evidence of which witness you accept. Do you accept
8 the Prosecution version of that or the Defence? So we
9 can't see into Your Honours' minds and know with
10 accuracy which evidence you accept so --
11 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You put the
12 administration into the extra expense of bringing down,
13 in respect of each of the accused persons, the same
14 witness. This is what happens. So if for one thing
15 which, perhaps, one or two witnesses could do, you have
16 caused the administration to pay for about eight or
17 more witnesses. That is grossly undesirable. If,
18 perhaps, you are paying your own fees, if the accused
19 persons themselves are paying for it, they would not
20 want to do it. Nobody would have been paying for
21 duplicated evidence.
22 MR. GREAVES: If you'll just give me a
23 moment, I have just had something drawn to my attention
24 and I'd just like to read it, please, before I open my
25 mouth again and say something unwise. Would you just
1 give me a moment, please?
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Perhaps you should have
3 it very clear in your mind that what we are avoiding is
4 waste of funds; waste of time. Both, cumulatively.
5 Because the moment you call duplicated witnesses, it
6 extends the time for trial. It increases the funds
7 spent for the trial. It just doesn't make sense. In
8 fact, when I consider it very carefully, very few
9 lawyers, counsel would like to duplicate this, the
10 witnesses, you wouldn't, because of the obvious risks
11 involved in duplicated witnesses.
12 MR. GREAVES: That's right, one tries to,
13 where possible to avoid duplication. Let's take for
14 example, one's own experience of, for example, a pub
15 brawl which ends up with the participants being --
16 JUDGE JAN: Eyewitnesses, you're talking
17 eyewitnesses. We'll not stop you from producing any
19 MR. GREAVES: Those are both eyewitnesses,
20 but then there are, of course, the police officers who
21 attend the scene afterwards. You may well find
22 yourself or other bystanders who do not witness the
23 event, but the aftermath or some other thing, one
24 certainly calls people who duplicate evidence and do
25 not get criticised for it.
1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You're comparing general
2 principle with actual cases before us. We're dealing
3 with the particular matter before us. I know the
4 effect of what it could be and there's no point arguing
5 it at length.
6 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, I don't want to go
7 on, I hate going on at length. What concerns us is
8 that we cannot see into Your Honours' minds and know
9 what you've accepted it. And if it's challenged by the
10 Prosecution, although there is no general requirement
11 for corroboration, there is no doubt that if three or
12 more people confirm some thing, then they can support
13 one another in the acceptance in that testimony.
14 JUDGE JAN: As I said the other day, it's not
15 the number of witnesses, it's the quality of the
16 evidence that is more important. As experienced
17 counsel, you know that what will carry weight and what
18 will not carry weight. For example, on a particular
19 issue, you produce a man who is really responsible or
20 who is probably head of the whole thing and then you
21 try to corroborate a reply, proper evidence. If you
22 don't read the manners directly, who has the direct
23 knowledge, how would you expect the other witnesses who
24 do not have that knowledge to talk about it?
25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Here we have same cases
1 in talking about the authority, role on authority and
2 responsibility of a particular officer. You have a
3 chief of staff of that same particular officer. You
4 have the authority appointing him. You still have to
5 find another officer of a different jurisdiction and,
6 in turn, to bring some officers of that jurisdiction.
7 What is the relevance? Especially in respect of the
8 authority of that, where in fact the appointing
9 authority has already given evidence.
10 MR. GREAVES: Can I proffer a final example?
11 JUDGE JAN: I hope you got the point.
12 Duplication and triplication doesn't help.
13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That's what we're
14 talking about.
15 MR. GREAVES: I have heard all what Your
16 Honours say. Can I just give one last example? Which
17 may assist Your Honours to see where the difficulties
18 may arise. The Prosecution has a witness who deals
19 with a matter for the first time. They cross-examine
20 that witness and suggest that he's not telling the
21 truth or that he's made some inconsistent prior
22 statement. You can't just leave it there. If there's
23 another witness who deals with that same point, it is
24 the duty of the Defence to call that witness, so that
25 that witness may support and demonstrate that the first
1 witness, contrary to what the Prosecution has said, is,
2 in fact, a truthful, accurate and reliable witness. In
3 the absence of --
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You might have produced
5 two conflicting Defence witnesses.
6 MR. GREAVES: I am anticipating and hope that
7 when the second witness is called, they don't deviate
8 from that which is anticipated. That's the example
9 that I give to demonstrate why the process may be
10 thought by counsel, who, of course, doesn't know what
11 Your Honours have accepted, feels it necessary to call
12 their second witness as to the same point. That's the
13 problem. Your Honours may seek to say this is
14 duplication and, therefore, --
15 JUDGE JAN: Triplication, quadruplication --
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Saying the same thing.
17 We've heard the arguments. We've heard what the
18 Defence objects to. We'll stay within the guidelines
19 which the law allows us to apply.
20 MR. GREAVES: I have made my submissions and
21 I urge them upon Your Honours.
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, my learned
24 colleague has articulated all our arguments. However,
25 Judge Jan has asked one question and in relation to
1 that question, I would kindly ask Your Honours to
2 permit me to state my opinion.
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: My fear is that we would
4 descending and discussing the case which we have and I
5 do not intend doing that. You've made your objections
6 and we've had them. We've indicated application of the
7 rules as we have them, so it doesn't really matter.
8 Let's not discuss the case which is on hand. It's
9 already at hand so why do you discuss it?
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: My comment does not have to
11 do with the argumentation because I fully support what
12 colleague Greaves has said. But only it has to do with
13 equal treatment of all witnesses, regardless of whether
14 they are victims or not. This is a question that has
15 not been discussed.
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We don't have to discuss
17 the quality on that. Thank you very much. Now the
18 next motion is for leave to call expert witnesses.
19 Now, I really don't know why you want about eight
20 expert witnesses for Landzo.
21 MS. McMURREY: Well, Your Honour --
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Is he a historian?
23 MS. McMURREY: Yes, historian. We are the
24 only defendant accused in the Tribunal alleging an
25 affirmative Defence of some sort, lack of mental
1 capacity and diminished physical ability.
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Nobody has accused him
3 of that.
4 MS. McMURREY: No, no, Your Honour, that's a
5 Defence, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You still have a
8 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour, we do.
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What I mean by that, you
10 have abandoned.
11 MS. McMURREY: The only one we abandoned was
12 alibi, Your Honour. Therefore, 50% of our case rests
13 upon expert testimony. Therefore, we have listed,
14 first of all, many of the doctors listed had examined
15 Mr. Landzo a long time ago. They are coming from prior
16 examinations and they have known him through the period
17 of 1992. Three of the doctors were --
18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You mean his childhood
20 MS. McMURREY: One of them was a
21 paediatrician, yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE JAN: He was born with some
24 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour. It was a
25 congenital problem and we feel it's necessary. And I
1 have taken, if you --
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: No matter what is what.
3 JUDGE JAN: Produce your witnesses and we'll
4 see how far they're relevant when they come.
5 MS. McMURREY: I have already from the
6 original list that I gave, I have taken several of the
7 experts off. I really do feel that the ones that I
8 have asked to be designated are necessary. I would
9 also like the court to be aware and ask that this be
10 accepted now as a supplement to my motion for
11 designation. I just received it from my investigator.
12 It is something that resembles, a curriculum vitae, but
13 it no way arises to that. These are the doctors from
14 the Konjic municipality. If I could, here are the
15 three copies for the Court, a copy for the Registry and
16 the Prosecution has already been provided a copy, if I
18 JUDGE JAN: We'd be interested in his mental
19 condition at the time when the offences are committed,
20 not before, not after.
21 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE JAN: Have the doctors speak about
23 that. Fair enough, we'll examine them.
24 MS. McMURREY: That is, I am limiting to the
25 time of the allegations in the indictment to 1992.
1 JUDGE JAN: Because the law, as I understand
2 it, you may be insane before and you may be insane
3 afterwards --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE JAN: There's no such defence of
6 insanity available.
7 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour, I am aware
8 of that. That is where I am limiting the Defence to
9 the time in 1992. Are there any further questions,
10 because I am asking leave of court to designate these
11 witnesses now. And if they're so designated -- I see
12 that Ms. McHenry, of course, would like to respond to
13 this. Would you like to go ahead? I'll respond to
15 MS. McHENRY: The Prosecution would certainly
16 like to respond before Your Honours take this matter
17 under consideration.
18 JUDGE JAN: Would you like to file a response
19 or just reply now?
20 MS. McHENRY: Why don't I just reply now and
21 if Your Honours think it would be helpful for us to
22 supplement with a written response, we're happy to do
23 so. As far back as January, 1997, Your Honours
24 directed everyone to give notice of expert witnesses
25 and to give certain information about them. Not only
1 has the Defence of Mr. Esad Landzo not done that, to be
2 perfectly frank, the Prosecution still does not even
3 understand what all the affirmative defences are. I am
4 raising this now for two reasons: One is to prevent
5 the unnecessary expenditure of time and money by
6 various bodies of the Tribunal, including the
7 Prosecution. The other one is to save time, to make
8 sure that the Prosecution can be adequately prepared
9 for this defence in advance so that we are not caught
10 by surprise, such that we then have to ask for some
11 sort of lengthy recess to prepare. Given that these
12 are very specialised matters that we are talking about,
13 and let me be very frank, the Prosecution bench does
14 not include any psychiatrists or medical doctors. So,
15 these are very specialised areas. For that reason, we
16 think we may need more information than would be
17 necessary if we knew, in effect, what was going on.
18 I will give just one example. The defence of
19 diminished physical impairment. It is hard for the
20 Prosecution to believe that the Defence is, that
21 because of his asthma and because of an injury to two
22 fingers, Mr. Landzo was incapable of committing the
23 acts with which he is charged. If that is not the
24 Defence, if that's not what they're stating, then we
25 would argue that the evidence is entirely irrelevant.
1 If it is their argument that he could not have
2 committed the acts with which he is charged because his
3 physical impairments were so severe, then certainly the
4 Prosecution is going to have to undertake its own
5 investigation and, presumably, it its own examination.
6 We have been reluctant to request additional experts
7 and to do all that when it seems so unlikely that, in
8 fact, this is going to be what the exact Defence is.
9 Certainly with respect to the physical
10 impairment, we would be asking for further details
11 about the nature of the Defence and the nature of what
12 the Defence experts would testify to. A one sentence
13 description that medical doctor or paediatrician who
14 treated Mr. Landzo for respiratory problems, does not
15 under these circumstances give the Prosecution
16 sufficient information with which we could even prepare
17 for cross-examination. We fear this will cause a
18 lengthy delay later on and because we haven't wanted to
19 do that, is why we filed the motion a few months
20 earlier, asking that they provide more precision. We
21 think that they have not adequately complied with Your
22 Honours' ruling.
23 Similarly, let me go on to another issue,
24 which is Dr. Gripon. In the recent filing by the
25 Defence of Esad Landzo, the defence indicates that Mr.
1 Gripon may not produce an expert report, but that, in
2 any event, he will be relying upon, and I now quote,
3 "Upon his personal interviews with Mr. Landzo, his
4 family, his friends, soldiers from Celebici camp and
5 other persons familiar with his personal environment in
6 1992". Again, for the Prosecution to be able to
7 examine Dr. Gripon, we would have to have access well
8 in advance to the material relied on by Dr. Gripon in
9 coming up with his evaluation. We'd be asking Your
10 Honours to order the Defence to provide to the
11 Prosecution, the material relied upon by Dr. Gripon in
12 forming his expert opinion by June 1998.
13 THE INTERPRETER: We ask counsel to slow
14 down, please.
15 MS. McHENRY: Then, just finally, the
16 Prosecution notes that the Defence historian, although
17 he's a historian, he is scheduled to testify about the
18 psychology of ethnic groups and individuals caught up
19 on the war and international humanitarian law. Again,
20 the Prosecution is unclear whether this person is being
21 called as a historian or as a psychologist or even the
22 relevance of this. So, in order that the Prosecution
23 can be prepared for this Defence and so that this trial
24 is not delayed further, we would be asking Your Honour
25 to direct the Defence to provide a significant amount
1 of additional information at the present time.
2 MS. McMURREY: May I respond to Your Honour?
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, you may.
4 MS. McMURREY: I think that the Prosecution
5 has stipulated that they have received ample notice of
6 our intention of calling Dr. Gripon and the other
7 experts that I have listed. What they are complaining
8 about is that I have not provided a report --
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: And that you're not
10 likely to provide one.
11 MS. McMURREY: That I may not. First of all,
12 I don't believe that any decision or order of this
13 Trial Chamber or any rule of evidence or any rule of
14 procedure in the statute requires us to have a report
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Not you, the experts.
17 MS. McMURREY: I'm sorry, the expert, asked
18 for me to request that they make one. But if there is
19 an existing report that we are relying on, that we have
20 a duty to disclose it to the Prosecution. I agree with
21 that. Number one, they called Professor Economides and
22 Dr. Gow without supplying us any expert report before
23 these experts testified. They did not ask for a report
24 from these experts. If I don't choose to have a report
25 written, then I believe my explanation, which satisfies
1 the court's order of January, 1997, which says that we
2 give them a description of the area that they will be
3 testifying about. I believe that page 3 of the
4 designation of expert witnesses gives a description of
5 what it is Dr. Gripon will testify to, what he replies
6 upon in forming his testimony, the evidence that he
7 will give.
8 Also going on now to the part about the
9 Defence of diminished physical capacity. It's listed
10 there that he has an injury to his two right fingers
11 that makes them useless and also that he has a
12 congenital respiratory problem. The only thing-- Ms.
13 McHenry is absolutely correct, that is the Defence of
14 lack of mental capacity. The witnesses came here.
15 They said that someone was beaten 200 times with a
16 baseball bat for five hours. We have a right to bring
17 experts to say that it would not have been possible for
18 that defendant to do that. That is the basis of that
19 defence. It was, I think, even though it wasn't
20 spelled out before, it was quite clear in what it was
21 that we alleged what his injuries were and from the
22 testimony of the Prosecution witnesses.
23 Therefore, I believe that the only
24 non-compliance that the Prosecution can complain of at
25 this point is that we did not provide a report of Dr.
1 Gripon. Dr. Gripon will either be here tomorrow or
2 next Thursday to complete his evaluation of Mr.
3 Landzo. When he completes his evaluation, I may or may
4 not ask him to write a report. If I do ask him to
5 write a report, I will most certainly supply it to the
6 Prosecution as soon as I receive it.
7 MS. McHENRY: May I just clarify. The
8 Prosecution is not stating that every expert witness
9 has to provide an expert report. I'm sorry if Defence
10 counsel took it that way. The Prosecution is stating
11 that the Defence has to give the prosecution adequate
12 notice of the substance of the testimony and an
13 opportunity to review the material relied upon by the
14 expert. Now sometimes that happens by way of an expert
15 report, but we're not saying it is necessary. But with
16 respect to Dr. Gripon, we'd certainly be asking for a
17 more detailed description of what his testimony is
18 going to be, rather than just the mental health of the
19 accused. We would be asking for the opportunity to
20 review the material which he relied on, be they
21 interviews with other people, be they medical reports,
22 et cetera. That's with respect to -- we are not
23 objecting to the calling of Dr. Gripon or the other
24 three mental health professionals for whom we've
25 received notice some time ago and for whom we have
1 expert reports.
2 We are objecting, though, to the manner in
3 which we have been advised and the specifics we have
4 been given about the physical impairment Defence, as
5 well as the historian who is going to talk about the
6 psychology of ethnic groups. So I won't repeat what I
7 was going to say, I just want to clarify that.
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If my understanding of
9 Dr. Gripon's expertise is correct, I think he's only
10 coming to discuss matters relating to physical
11 disability or his capacity to commit the acts which the
12 accused has been charged.
13 MS. McHENRY: I think Dr. Gripon -- Ms.
14 McMurrey will correct me -- but Dr. Gripon is the
15 fourth mental health expert they wish to call.
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mental health too?
17 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour, he is a
18 forensic psychiatrist. He is the, really the main
19 expert. He has been on the case evaluating Mr. Landzo
20 since March of last year. He is the forensic expert
21 we're calling. The other doctors that evaluated him
22 prior to, Lagazzi, Loga and van Leeuwen, as through the
23 registry, he is using their material in order to
24 formulate as a basis for his own studies and
1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: He has no expert for
2 physical disabilities?
3 MS. McMURREY: The only experts I am calling
4 for the physical disabilities are the doctors who
5 treated Mr. Landzo in the Konjic area at the time that
6 he was treated, you know, from the time he was born for
7 the respiratory problems and from the time he had the
8 surgery from Dr. Buturovic in 1991 for the fingers.
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You included the first
10 three specialists, who treated him first?
11 MS. McMURREY: Pardon?
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You've included the
13 first three specialists, Loga and the team. They are
14 also included?
15 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour, they are.
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: In addition to Gripon
17 who is using their report?
18 MS. McMURREY: Yes, Your Honour, I have four
19 psychiatrists, mental health experts to call. Because
20 this is really the first time a lack of mental capacity
21 Defence has been used in a war crimes trial. I feel
22 that each one has just a little something different to
23 say about their perception, whether it goes to PTSD or
24 whether it goes to --
25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I mean he's using the
1 reports of the others and then basing it on his own.
2 MS. McMURREY: Yes, that's true.
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Are all of the others
4 also experts?
5 MS. McMURREY: Yes, the others are also
6 experts, that is correct.
7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Is he a super expert
8 above all of them?
9 MS. McMURREY: He's a forensic psychologist,
10 there's a difference. I mean psychiatrist.
11 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: My understanding of
12 medical experts may be a little old-fashioned, I
13 suppose, but I believe the law is very clear on what is
14 medical evidence on the state of a person's mental
16 MS. McMURREY: I think it's clear in Texas,
17 and it may be clear in Nigeria. I am not quite sure
18 how clear it is here yet. I feel that these four
19 experts are necessary.
20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you. Thank you
21 very much. Now we have also motions for protective
22 measures, which Delalic has brought. Ms. McHenry, have
23 you been served with the motion for protective
25 MS. McHENRY: We were served with them during
1 the lunch break and I have not yet had an opportunity
2 to read them.
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Perhaps we might be able
4 to take them tomorrow, if possible. We'll take them
5 tomorrow morning. The Trial Chamber will now rise. I
6 think we'll reassemble tomorrow morning at ten.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.00
8 p.m. to be reconvened Thursday, the 28th day
9 of May, 1998 at 10.00 a.m.