1 Friday, 14 September 2001
2 [The accused entered court]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 [Open session]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.
6 JUDGE LIU: Call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number
8 IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Mladen Naletilic and Vinko Martinovic.
9 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, please continue with your
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 WITNESS: Witness O [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Cross-examined by Mr. Krsnik: [Continued]
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness.
16 A. Sir, good morning.
17 Q. One more time, I would like to advise you and request of you,
18 because of all these technical matters, that we have to really focus on
19 the questions, which will be brief, so that we can finish as quickly as we
20 can. And I thank you for that.
21 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, would you please turn off your mike after
22 your question.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Witness, you were brought to the military investigative judges in
25 Mostar. Is that correct?
1 A. I don't know who it was, whether that was an investigator or
3 Q. A prosecutor was present, as well as a lawyer?
4 A. That was not my impression.
5 Q. I'm not asking about an impression; but as a citizen of Mostar,
6 did you recognise the court building in Mostar?
7 A. No, that was not the court building, that was the faculty
8 building. Not the court.
9 Q. At that time, the court was moved to the faculty building. Is
10 that correct?
11 A. I'm not aware of that.
12 Q. As president of the Crisis Staff regarding the -- at the request
13 of the Crisis Staff, it had been moved to that building after the
14 aggression of the Serbs in '92?
15 A. I don't know that.
16 Q. The judge read you a decision about your detention and the
17 provisional detention of 30 days?
18 A. I just know that I was taken from the Heliodrom from there, and I
19 never -- and I was never brought back.
20 Q. But you were handed in a decision on a provisional detention of
21 30 days. Is that correct?
22 A. No.
23 Q. When were you in the military investigative prison in Ljubuski?
24 A. A month after I had been brought to Heliodrom, I was taken to
25 Ljubuski. So I don't know exactly when it was because there were some
1 Croats there as well.
2 Q. Croats were there, too?
3 A. Yes, that's right, they were there, too. But because they were
4 all civilians, the educated persons, I did not gain an impression that
5 this was an investigative prison; that is, it looked more like a camp to
7 Q. All these Croats and the intellectuals that you mentioned, they
8 all had similar decisions of the investigative judge handed to them?
9 A. I don't know that.
10 Q. Can you tell me, after you were released from this investigative
11 prison, you were placed in the public security station in Mostar?
12 A. No, I was taken straight to the Heliodrom.
13 Q. Perhaps you did not understand me. Well, I was referring to the
14 point after Ljubuski.
15 A. No, after Ljubuski, I went straight to Heliodrom. After
16 Heliodrom, from the Heliodrom, under the auspices of the Red Cross, I was
17 exchanged at Kocine. I never saw the MUP building again.
18 Q. Were you given a document at the exchange, the record of the
20 A. No.
21 Q. Were you aware that at that time, people who were under
22 investigation, if they were exchanged, the investigation could have been
23 suspended and the suspect could have been exchanged?
24 A. I was not aware of that. I was not aware that I was a suspect or
25 that there would be an exchange.
1 Q. The investigator in charge read you the reasons why criminal
2 proceedings had been launched against you, which is provided for in the
3 law books in Herzegovina and the procedure for launching of criminal
5 A. But I never saw the document.
6 Q. But as an educated man, you were aware that you were in court and
7 in front of a judge?
8 A. No, I had no such feeling that he was a judge and that that was a
9 court. Here I feel like I'm before a Court and before serious people.
10 Q. Do you feel like that only before this Court or any other court?
11 A. I was never -- I have never been in front of a court until today,
12 so I have no particular feeling, how it looks.
13 Q. Do you recognise Croatian courts?
14 A. I think at that time it could not have been a Croatian court. The
15 Croatian State is something completely different. It could have been some
16 kind of Municipal Court of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
17 Q. Do you recognise the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
18 A. Of course I would have recognised such a court.
19 Q. At that time, the Military Court was the Military Court of the
20 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
21 A. I was a member of the Crisis Staff, and I did not have such
22 information because --
23 Q. Very well, thank you. Can you please tell me, when did you arrive
24 at the Public Security Station?
25 A. On the 10th, around 2.00.
1 Q. October, which year, which date?
2 A. It was '93. Of course, the conflict started on the 9th, and on
3 the 10th we were all led out of the building where we lived and taken to
4 the SUP, so it was on the 10th of May, 1993.
5 Q. In the police station, that is, the Public Security Station, you
6 were processed, and then, along with a criminal report, you were remanded
7 to the investigative judge to make a decision about your further
8 detention, based on the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
9 A. That was not my feeling.
10 Q. In the Public Security Station, you had your own office, with a TV
11 set in it, you had your room where you slept and an office where you
12 received friends and associates; is that correct?
13 A. That is not correct.
14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm going to mention a
15 name which may clue somebody in to the identity of this witness. So for
16 just that one question, could we please move into the private session.
17 [Private session]
12 Page 2193 redacted, private session.
16 [Open session]
17 JUDGE LIU: Now we are in the open session. You may proceed.
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Can you please tell me, this meeting, you said, was also attended
20 by Mrs. Bisera Turkovic?
21 A. Yes, the ambassador in Zagreb.
22 Q. Right. Can you tell me, the delegation of HZ H-B I think at that
23 time was already -- were they distributing some documents to the
24 representatives of the International Community?
25 A. I really don't know that.
1 Q. You attended the meeting throughout?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You sat all at the same table?
4 A. We were all in a coffee bar that was outside.
5 Q. And in front of you, nobody distributed any documents to the
6 representatives of the International Community?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Can you tell me, please -- you told my learned friend of the
9 Prosecution that Professor Hadziosmanovic was relieved of his duty towards
10 the end of '92; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, that is correct. Not relieved of his duty, but simply he
12 was -- he had two positions and then he continued in just one position,
13 and I was appointed to that second position.
14 Q. That is fine. I'm just verifying that because of one fact. Now,
15 tell me, President Izetbegovic, the president of your party, was in Mostar
16 on several occasions; is that correct?
17 A. I don't think that it was several times. I think it was twice.
18 Very early on, too.
19 Q. And do you know that he once spent a night at Mr. Hadziosmanovic's
20 and the second time at Mr. Karabeg's?
21 A. I don't know where he spent the night.
22 Q. On the second occasion when he stayed with Mr. Karabeg, you were
23 present with him all the time, and what followed that visit was the
24 removal of Mr. Hadziosmanovic from his post; is that correct?
25 A. No.
1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to refer
2 to the document that was provided by the Prosecution, and the witness does
3 not have the document in front of him. Can he please be provided the
4 Exhibit 218, 219, from yesterday's session, the document that was put to
5 him by the Prosecution?
6 JUDGE LIU: Could I remind you that those documents were
7 temporarily put under seal by the Prosecution, so you should bear in
8 mind. Thank you.
9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. And I am
10 taking that into account. I have one question regarding the document.
11 I'm actually not going to discuss the contents of the documents but just
12 verify a signature there.
13 Q. So will you please open the Croatian version of that document. On
14 page 2, there is some stamps and some signatures. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Mr. Krsnik, my apology again. I think at
17 least one of these documents was identified. And for the same reasons as
18 before, if we are going to do this, unfortunately we have to go back into
19 private session, because if he says...
20 JUDGE LIU: Okay, we will go back to the private session.
21 [Private session]
12 Pages 2197 to 2204 redacted, private session
15 [Open session]
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] In the upper left corner -- may I
17 proceed, Your Honours? Thank you.
18 Q. In the upper left corner, is that the emblem of your party, the
20 A. No, it isn't.
21 Q. Tell me -- would you please be so kind and turn the page? Is this
22 the seal of the SDA?
23 A. It must be something local, some improvisation. It's much
24 more robust.
25 Q. What do you mean, "local"?
1 A. Well, it looks rather puny to me.
2 Q. You see, this document, above that seal we see that the document
3 comes from Sarajevo, and that is the SDA secretary, the secretary of the
4 SDA, as such?
5 A. I've never seen that.
6 Q. I'm not asking you if you saw it before. I'm asking you if you
7 can identify it, the seal.
8 A. Well, I repeat that something -- I can't recognise -- I do not see
9 it, I cannot -- I do not see it as the proper emblem of the SDA.
10 Q. But have you heard of the SDA secretary, Mr. Cengic?
11 A. Well, I just answered that a while ago. Until November, I didn't
12 know any one of them. And even after November, I didn't know too many,
13 apart from my region, because I had no communication with Sarajevo so I
14 was closed.
15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] With the permission of the Chamber,
16 may I read some passages from this document and ask the witness if he can
17 tell us something about that, as a high SDA official? It has to be
18 translated to him. If the document is going to be read, could these parts
19 of the document be placed on the ELMO, please, because the interpreters do
20 not have copies of this document.
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think we have the English translation.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, of course. This is the
24 translation of this document in Croatian, which I have it. If you do not
25 think it is necessary, then I will not go into that. I only wanted to ask
1 one question. But, right, I can ask a question even without reading the
3 JUDGE LIU: You may ask the question.
4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
5 Q. You were conversant with the SDA policy, weren't you, and about
6 the deliberate evacuation of Bosniaks so as to present them as victims to
7 the rest of the world?
8 A. No.
9 Q. (redacted)
19 Q. But since you were in Bugojno, do you know the fate of Croats in
21 A. I don't.
22 Q. But did you hear, at least afterwards, that they had all been
23 expelled, ethnically cleansed, by Bosniaks in Bugojno?
24 A. No.
25 Q. As a high-ranking SDA officer, did you know that they were
1 ethnically cleansed, that is, expelled from Konjic and Jablanica?
2 A. No.
3 Q. During your missions, did you visit the camps with detained Croats
4 prior to the conflict on the 9th of May in Mostar? Did you lend them any
5 assistance, camps such as the museum at Jablanica with 1.000 Croats,
6 mostly women and children, then Musala in Konjic, Celebic at Konjic,
7 elementary school in Bijelo Polje, Mostar? Did you ever go there? This
8 was all prior to the 9th of May, 1993. Did you have any information about
9 them and did you go there?
10 A. Excuse me. I had no such information.
11 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, you're really giving a very hard time to
12 the interpreters and the typists. Thank you.
13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] My apologies.
14 Q. So as a high-ranking SDA official, you had no idea that this was
16 A. I didn't.
17 Q. And tell us, was the government of the Bosnian people taking place
18 through the SDA party?
19 A. No.
20 Q. And the final thing of the arming needed to form the Muslim army,
21 was it done through Islamic organisations throughout the world?
22 A. I do not know that. I was a civilian.
23 Q. And never at the SDA meetings, you never talked about arming your
25 A. No.
1 Q. Tell us, when you were taken into custody following the criminal
2 report, after you were taken to the investigating judge, was a large
3 amount of German marks found on you?
4 A. No.
5 THE INTERPRETER: 100.000 German marks. The interpreter
7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Did it cross Armija? Do you have any information about that? I
9 mean the Croatian State.
10 A. I really do not know. It wasn't my business. My business was to
11 try to bring the tensions down.
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, not 100.000. The
13 transcript says 1.000, and my question was whether when the witness was
14 taken to the police station in Mostar for interview, were 100.000 German
15 marks found on the gentleman. And his answer was "No." Am I right?
16 The witness confirms, merely for the transcript. Thank you.
25 (redacted) Alija Vidimilic, Salih Cemalovic,
1 and Edo Rizvanovic. Do you recall that?
2 A. No, I don't. Perhaps I was there, perhaps I wasn't.
3 Q. Do you recall at that meeting discussing that Dajdza had provided
4 a thousand rifles for Muslims?
5 A. I really don't know that.
6 Q. Would you tell the Chamber if you know who Dajdza is?
7 A. I've heard about the man.
8 Q. Did you hear that he was an officer in the Croatian army?
9 A. I heard that he was a man -- an officer in the Croatian army.
10 Q. Have you heard that he was a Bosnian by ethnicity?
11 A. I knew him as Mato Sarlija.
12 Q. Mato Sarlija, Dajdza. And his real name, do you know his real
14 A. No, I don't.
15 Q. Were you present at a meeting of the regional board on the 16th of
16 April, 1993 with Safet Orucevic, Efendi Tinjak, Efendi Kojic, Mito Hujdur,
17 Arif Pasalic?
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Do you want me to repeat those
19 names? I'm asking the interpreters. Should I repeat those last names?
20 Perhaps I was too fast. Thank you very much.
21 Q. So which was attended by Mufti of Herzegovina, Efendi Kojic,
22 Efendi Tinjak, Efendi Omerika, Safet Orucevic, Zijo Demirovic, Mito
24 Were you present at that meeting?
25 A. Maybe I was; maybe I wasn't. I don't remember. There were a
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 number of Bosniaks meeting to discuss individual issues.
2 Q. Let me remind you it was a joint meeting of the Islamic community
3 and all members of the Mostar SDA.
4 A. Could be. I mean, stood to reason to cooperate with all
5 institutions working with the Bosniak people.
6 Q. And do you remember how Mithat Hujdur on that occasion said that
7 in an hour's time, Mostar would be taken?
8 A. No, he wasn't that kind of man.
9 Q. Right. He would still be alive had he been that kind of man.
10 And do you remember that on the same occasion, you -- and that was
11 also the meeting when the schism between Muslims took place. Do you
12 remember that you said on that occasion that Muslim interest in Mostar has
13 only one mentor in the person of Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, and you said that
14 Mostar needs to be a Muslim city in all its glory?
15 A. I do not think I could think something like that even in a dream
16 in view of my previous life there of 50 years. There's no way I could
17 have said anything like that.
18 Q. Tell me, the Vance-Owen Plan guaranteeing equal rights to all
19 three ethnic communities, the SDA refused to sign that plan. But with the
20 HDZ of Herzegovina, you nevertheless divided the territory into provinces
21 pursuant to an agreement between Izetbegovic and Boban,
3 JUDGE LIU: I saw Mr. Scott is standing.
4 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I've tried to avoid interrupting but for
5 some minutes now, we are going back and forth between identifying
6 information. I have tried not to intervene. I think at this point we
7 have to go into private session, perhaps stay there for a while because--
8 well, I'm not going to say anything more in open session. I think we must
9 go to private session.
10 JUDGE LIU: We'll have that in the transcript redacted
12 Now shall we go into the private session.
13 [Private session]
12 Page 2214 redacted, private session.
12 Page 2215 redacted, private session.
12 Page 2216 redacted, private session.
24 [Open session]
25 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours, I am going
1 to conduct the cross-examination on behalf of the other accused, and I
2 think we can stay in the open session. May it please the Court.
3 Cross-examined by Mr. Par: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Good morning, Witness O. I am Mr. Zelimir Par. I am one of the
5 co-counsels of the accused Vinko Martinovic.
6 And let me ask you first about an event which you referred to
7 today -- actually yesterday, which you said that it took place in April
8 1993, and this was --
9 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Par, would you please turn off your microphone
10 after your question.
11 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. However, I have not
12 quite yet posed the question.
13 Q. This was the so-called attack against the SDA -- on the SDA
14 premises carried out by the persons named Takac and Blazevic?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. My question to you is can you be more precise about the date in
17 April when this took place, perhaps you recall the date or perhaps there
18 is even a document in the SDA archives which registered that event?
19 A. The incident took place in April. I'm not sure that I would be
20 able to give you the exact date. And as far as documents are concerned, I
21 think that during the attack, all documents were destroyed in possession
22 of the regional board.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 Now, regarding that same period, can you tell me whether at that
25 time, Mostar was already a divided city? Was there a line of separation
1 at Bulevar?
2 A. I believe no -- not, because I lived on the west side, and a large
3 number of citizens lived in the west side. And I don't think that this
4 was the case.
5 Q. Can we agree that it was only after 9th of May, after the attack,
6 that this line was established, that the armed units were deployed there
7 and that, de facto, the city was divided at that time?
8 A. Well, yes, and that line of separation remained there until the
9 end of war. And it can still be seen to date where the two sides were
10 during the conflict.
11 Q. Very well. Now, I would like to move on to another area of
13 From your evidence, which you gave yesterday and today, I noticed
14 that you actually testified in two ways; one was your personal suffering
15 and the suffering of your family, which was sometimes tinged with emotion,
16 which we all appreciated. However, you also gave a different kind of
17 evidence regarding political assessment of the political circumstances in
18 Mostar at the time. You talked about the aggression, about the plans of
19 Croats. You talked not only about things that you personally experienced,
20 but also about the future borders that Croats were contemplating, who said
21 what, who had what intentions. And without going into any of the
22 specifics of those issues, I'm trying to establish the position which you
23 implicitly hold when giving such answers.
24 So all these political judgements which you offered during your
25 evidence yesterday and today, did you present them believing yourself to
1 be an expert on those issues, and can you argue these contentions, or are
2 these simply your thoughts based on your experience from the period, based
3 on your political involvement in these affairs, or are these your personal
4 views and opinions, if you can answer briefly?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. "Yes" means these are your personal views and conclusions?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, these personal views, opinions and conclusions that you just
9 confirmed, did they coincide with the positions of the SDA party, of which
10 you are a member?
11 A. I believe they did, because I could not be a member.
12 Q. When you said you couldn't be that, does that mean that you feel
13 yourself bound by the party discipline, as you put it to yourself today?
14 A. No. The platform that I adopted.
15 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have no
16 further questions.
17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Any re-examination?
18 MR. SCOTT: Just about five or six questions of clarification,
19 Your Honour.
20 Re-examined by Mr. Scott:
21 Q. Witness O, there were some questions about the referendum on the
22 independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the time of that referendum,
23 who was attacking, what nation or group of people was attacking the Croat
24 and Bosniak communities?
25 A. Serbs, that is, the JNA, with the paramilitary units of the State
1 of Serbia.
2 Q. And in declaring the sovereign independence of Bosnia and
3 Herzegovina, it was independence from whom?
4 A. It was independence -- the transition led to that. It was the
5 first time in history that Bosnia was able to declare itself for what it
6 was. All the ethnic groups that were mentioned by the learned colleague
7 yesterday, Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Macedonians, Montenegrins all gained
8 their own state, and Bosnia and Herzegovina was being liquidated as a
9 state, it was supposed to disappear. But the United Nations recognised it
10 after the referendum. And after the referendum, the flag of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina was hoisted on the East River.
12 Q. Witness O, thank you for your answer. But listen very
13 specifically, please, to my question now, and that is: From what former
14 country or nation - or collection of countries - was it that by this
15 referendum the country of Bosnia-Herzegovina was declaring its sovereign
16 independence? From whom, or what, if that's perhaps better?
17 A. From Yugoslavia, which was composed of Serbia and Montenegro and,
18 of course, of all other former republics which made up Yugoslavia.
19 Q. And what would have been the result, if you will, if the
20 referendum had not been passed by both the Bosniak and Croatian people;
21 what would the result have been?
22 A. The result would have been a division. Serbia wanted its part,
23 Croatia wanted its own part.
24 Q. Let me ask you, turning to one other topic in about one question
25 or two: The questions concerning Mr. Hadziosmanovic, if he was at some
1 times out of step with the SDA platform, can you tell the Chamber, please,
2 why he was not also removed as the head of the SDA in Mostar? Why was he
3 left in that position?
4 A. He was left in that position because it was a local position at
5 the level of Mostar and only in the area where we lived, that is, half of
6 Mostar, because the aggressor was on the other side. And it was
7 expected -- it was perceived that he had gone astray and that things
8 needed to be corrected, that he had -- and there was a platform which
9 stated clearly that Bosnia and Herzegovina was a unified country
10 consisting of three ethnic groups, and that all of the sides were
11 constituent parts, and that the Bosniaks were a constituent part of it.
12 Q. Final question, then: Is it fair to say that the SDA essentially
13 were exercising some discipline on Mr. Hadziosmanovic without, however,
14 removing him from this second post?
15 A. You see, it is clear, when somebody is holding two posts and one
16 is taken away, it is a kind of a pressure on this person. But time showed
17 that after the conflict, Mr. Hadziosmanovic embraced other options which
18 were damaging to the Bosniak population, and had he sided with his own
19 people, he wouldn't -- that would not have been the end of his career.
20 MR. SCOTT: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
22 Judge Clark has a question to ask the witness.
23 Questioned by the Court:
24 JUDGE CLARK: Witness O, this document that was given to you by
25 Mr. Krsnik, is it a document -- do I understand your evidence to be that
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 you don't recognise the title of the party on the beginning of the
2 document in Serbo-Croatian? Yes, that document.
3 A. No, it seems to me this was in handwriting. I had never seen it
4 like that.
5 JUDGE CLARK: Yes. So your evidence is it doesn't look like the
6 normal heading of a document emanating from the headquarters of the SDA?
7 A. No, no, it doesn't. The only justification may be the wartime and
8 just lack of resources.
9 JUDGE CLARK: I see. So your evidence is it isn't the normal
10 appearance of a document, but it could be a document from the SDA?
11 A. One should probably ask those who compiled it and who signed it.
12 I really don't know.
13 JUDGE CLARK: Well, we haven't heard where this document came
14 from, but I'm sure in due course we will. But you don't recognise it as
15 being in the usual format, and you can't say any more than that?
16 A. I can't say more than that. In fact, I just don't know.
17 JUDGE CLARK: Thank you very much.
18 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
19 JUDGE LIU: Any questions out of Judge Clark's questions? No, it
20 seems to me "no".
21 Thank you, thank you, Witness. Thank you very much for coming to
22 help us and to testify before this Trial Chamber. The usher will show you
23 out of the room when he pulls down the blinds.
24 THE WITNESS: With your permission, if I can make a brief
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, yes, you may.
2 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, Mr. President, I would like to say
3 that I am very excited by the way we were received, and I think that this
4 is a very professional atmosphere. One feels very good and very safe in
5 this environment, and I want to thank you one more time.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE LIU: This Trial Chamber would like to give our best wishes
8 to you in the building of the beautiful town of Mostar. Thank you.
9 THE WITNESS: I thank you, too.
10 JUDGE LIU: You may leave now.
11 [The witness withdrew]
12 JUDGE LIU: During the course of the direct examination of this
13 witness, the Prosecution proposed to tender certain documents; namely,
14 P125.1, P126.1, P218, P219 and P480. This Trial Chamber would like to
15 know the initial response from the Defence counsels' side.
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. The Defence
17 of the first accused, Mr. Mladen Naletilic, in respect of these four
18 documents, does not object to their being put into evidence.
19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Krsnik.
20 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence of Vinko
21 Martinovic has no objections to the introduction of these exhibits. Thank
23 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. This Trial Chamber will make the
24 decision in due time.
25 Now is the time for a break. We will adjourn until 11.30.
1 --- Recess taken at 11.00 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 11.34 a.m.
3 JUDGE LIU: As you may have heard from the announcement, this
4 Tribunal of the United Nations has requested all the United Nations Duty
5 Stations to observe three minutes in silence to pay respect to those
6 innocent lives who died in that terrible incident, at 12.00 sharp.
7 We will be reminded at that time.
8 As for the first set of documents we discussed before the break,
9 this Trial Chamber believes that since there is no objections from the
10 both sides, they are admitted into the evidence. And Registrars will be
11 instructed with the proper number.
12 THE REGISTRAR: His Honour, this document submitted by the OTP
13 will be admitted into evidence. So they are EP5, EP125.1.
14 JUDGE LIU: Well, we don't have to do it right now. Maybe we
15 could do it next Monday, after full consultations with the Prosecution
17 THE REGISTRAR: So I would be able to give all the numbers by
19 JUDGE LIU: Sure.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, there's something that I would like to say; that
22 is, after the Trial Chamber has heard the two first Prosecution witnesses,
23 it feels that it has to remind both parties of the time frame that was
24 scheduled for this case. As indicated already at Pre-Trial stage of the
25 proceedings, and reiterated by this Trial Chamber at the opening of the
1 trial, both parties have ten weeks to present their cases to the Chamber.
2 The Pre-Trial Judge, Judge Wald, told me that she has persuaded the
3 Prosecution to reduce the number of witnesses to 50.
4 If taking into account the ten weeks, every week we will have five
5 witnesses, which means one witness for each day. At the conclusion of the
6 first week of the Prosecution's case, the Trial Chamber is concerned to
7 see that neither of the parties presents and cross-examines the witnesses
8 in a way that is sufficiently efficient and concise to guarantee the
9 expeditiousness of the trial.
10 The Trial Chamber has the impression that proceedings seem to run
11 considerably behind the schedule. For this reason, and in the full
12 consideration of the rights of the accused, the Trial Chamber wishes to
13 call upon the parties to strictly adhere to the following in furtherance
14 of a fair and expedient trial while examining and cross-examining
15 witnesses in the coming weeks: Questions should be put to the witnesses
16 in a short and clear way. There's no need for counsel to give a lengthy
17 introduction before actually putting his question to the witness. A short
18 and direct question, which should generally not be leading, will help the
19 witness to respond with likewise clear and a direct answer.
20 The counsel asking the witness should direct the witness to the
21 very issue and prevent him or her from deviating from the question. The
22 Trial Chamber is fully aware and respects the fact the witnesses before
23 the Trial Chamber are generally very anxious to give a full account of
24 what happened to them during the conflict. However, the Trial Chamber has
25 to insist that witnesses are asked by the questioning counsel to stick to
1 their questions, not only for the reason of trial constraints but also
2 because of the necessity that evidence is presented clearly linked to the
3 complete indictment.
4 The parties will inform their witnesses accordingly and explain
5 that this is in the witness's very interest to provide the Trial Chamber
6 with specific and clear evidence that relates directly to the charges of
7 the case concerned, because only such evidence can be considered when
8 making the findings.
9 The Trial Chamber further elects to ask the parties to refer to
10 the Chamber to the parts of the indictment that are being addressed in the
11 course of the examination or cross-examination of a witness. This will
12 help the Trial Chamber to follow the evidence presented closely, which
13 again, is in the interest of both parties.
14 The compliance of the parties with the aforementioned principles
15 is indispensable to the conduct of these proceedings with due regard to
16 the rights of the accused and in a reasonable time frame, and is therefore
17 appreciated by the Trial Chamber.
18 Mr. Scott.
19 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I don't want to belabour these issues
20 now, because we do have witnesses waiting and, of course, only a short
21 remaining time for today's schedule. I would like to ask that the Chamber
22 provide an opportunity at some point, perhaps when we don't have a witness
23 facing quite such urgency, to address the matters a bit further.
24 A very, very quick response, Your Honour, is this: We have
25 certainly always anticipated that some of our witnesses would be longer
1 than others. I think you will find before this trial is over that some of
2 the witnesses will be quite short in time. However, it was clear that
3 some witnesses, such especially as these first ones, and some others
4 later, will be -- will take more time, will cover more of the issues in
5 the case, more of a background, more of the political issues, if you will,
6 and will take more time. So I must say it was always anticipated, for
7 instance, that the second witness will take a substantial amount of time.
8 And that's not, at least to us, was not a surprise.
9 I must say, Your Honours, and again, I don't want to delay the
10 next witness too much, we are frankly -- I must say we have been a bit
11 surprised about this ten-week schedule and the mention of 50 witnesses.
12 We are not aware of any prior ruling to that effect. There had been
13 conversation -- there had been dialogue between counsel and the Pre-Trial
14 Judge about these matters, but I can tell you that the Prosecution Bench
15 was unaware of any past ruling about ten weeks and 50 witnesses.
16 We will do our best to present the case as efficiently as we can,
17 but I would be less than honest if I didn't tell the Chamber that these
18 schedules come as news to us. But we will do our best.
19 JUDGE LIU: Well, I would like to remind you of the list of the
20 witnesses you provided to this Trial Chamber before the trial and every
21 description of the facts of the testimony. There is estimated time for
22 each witness. I just hope you adhere to this time schedule you proposed
23 in your list.
24 Yes, Mr. Krsnik. No?
25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I apologise. My learned friend has
1 already stated his view on the schedule of our work, and I thought that I
2 should do it also on behalf of Mr. Naletilic. I wish to confirm and agree
3 with what our learned friends say. We have never adopted any decision on
4 the duration or the number of witnesses. So the Defence wishes to say
5 it's surprised. If it is brought down to 50 witnesses, the Defence simply
6 cannot provide proper defence with only 50 witnesses. It is really too
7 few. But this is the first time we hear about this, so on this occasion
8 we merely wanted to state our surprise with this new information. Thank
9 you very much.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric.
11 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, briefly, I confirm what
12 our learned friends from the OTP have said and what my Colleague Krsnik
13 has said. We are indeed taken by surprise by this, and I think we shall
14 need your instructions in this regard so that we can comply with the
15 decisions of the Chamber.
16 And I should also like to ask that we try to reach somehow some
17 agreement in this case, and I apologise for raising this matter. But so
18 far the practice in this Tribunal was that the cross-examination could
19 take, as we have two accused here, two clients, that that could take as
20 much time as the direct examination, so half of the time should be
21 accorded to Mr. Krsnik and half of the time should be used by me. Do we
22 agree with this? Do you agree with this, at least that's how it will be
23 in this case, that each one of us will be accorded half of the time
24 allotted to the direct examination? Thank you.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, the equality of arms does not necessarily mean
1 that you use exactly equal time for both parties. It depends on the
2 contents of the questioning. This Trial Chamber will take note of the
3 views expressed by both sides.
4 So, Mr. Scott, are you ready for your next witness?
5 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. Mr. Stringer will be handling the
6 next witness. Thank you.
7 JUDGE LIU: Are there any protective measures?
8 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President. Good morning, and good morning
9 to Your Honours.
10 The next witness, Your Honour, is the subject of a specific
11 decision which was issued by the former composition of Trial Chamber I,
12 Judges Rodrigues, Riad and Wald, the decision dated 22nd of January, 2001,
13 and it provides, first and foremost, that the proceedings in respect of
14 this witness will take place in closed session. And I have a couple of
15 brief introductory comments to make about the decision, but perhaps I
16 should make those in closed session, and I would ask that we move into
17 closed session at this time.
18 JUDGE LIU: We'll move into closed session.
19 [Closed session]
12 Pages 2232 to 2263 redacted, closed session.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
18 12.59 p.m., to be reconvened on
19 Monday, the 17th day of September, 2001,
20 at 9.30 a.m.