1 Tuesday, 15 October 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.
6 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Naletilic and Martinovic.
9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Good morning, Witness, can you
10 hear me?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, yes, I can.
12 JUDGE LIU: Are you ready to start?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am.
14 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
15 WITNESS: WITNESS NX [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott.
18 Cross-examined by Mr. Scott: [Continued].
19 MR. SCOTT: Good morning, Your Honours. Could we go to private
20 session for a few minutes, please because I think the next questions may
21 tend to identify the witness.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will go to private session, please.
23 [Private session]
13 Pages 16510–16520 redacted – private session
13 [Open session]
14 MR. SCOTT:
15 Q. Sir, did you know who Miljenko Lasic was during this time and what
16 his role was in the HVO military?
17 A. Marinko Lasic?
18 Q. No. I think Miljenko Lasic. If I have the name wrong, forgive
19 me. Did you know who the commander of the operative zone, the HVO
20 operative zone, which included Mostar, did you know the name of that man,
22 A. At that time, I didn't know what that person's name was, but later
23 on, I found out what it was. I found out that there was someone called
24 Lasic who was one of those responsible for the operative zone in Mostar
25 but at the time, I didn't know him at all and I didn't know that this was
1 the man.
2 Q. When you say you found out later, how much later did you find that
4 A. I don't know exactly. I can't remember. But later on, this name
5 was familiar to me, but it's not at all important.
6 Q. Did you know another senior HVO commander in the area at that time
7 called Zeljko Siljeg?
8 A. I met Mr. Siljeg perhaps on one occasion in Tomislavgrad but I
9 really don't know him very well.
10 Q. He was another operative zone commander, I think, for the
11 northwest zone, which included Prozor and Gornji Vakuf and those areas,
13 A. I don't know, I don't know what he was in charge of, and I don't
14 know what he did. As far as that military aspect is concerned, I really
15 don't know. I don't know enough about this.
16 Q. Well, that's part of my question, sir. You see, you've given
17 various observations about military matters but would you agree with me,
18 sir, that Mr. Lasic and Mr. Siljeg, for example, would know a lot more
19 about military matters in the Jablanica, Siroki Brijeg, Prozor region,
20 than you would?
21 A. I can't comment on that. I don't know what Mr. Siljeg knew at the
23 Q. All right. Well, tell us again -- I think you may have started on
24 this yesterday but I'm not sure we ever really completed it, what HVO
25 military units do you say were engaged in the actions around
1 Sovici-Doljani in mid-April to early May, 1993?
2 A. I know that when I was in Sovici on the 17th, I met certain people
3 who were in charge of those units, and I can remember certain names, but
4 nothing in particular.
5 Q. All right. Well, let me approach it differently. If not unit
6 names, let me mention some individuals or officers to you. Did you know
7 someone named Slavko Puljic?
8 A. No.
9 Q. You did know Mr. Stipe Pole, correct? Because I think you've
10 mentioned him before.
11 A. Yes. He was the commander of our battalion, of the
12 Mijat Tomic Battalion.
13 Q. And who did you understand his superior to be? Who did he take
14 orders from and report to?
15 A. Well, he would report to his superiors, first of all in the
16 Herceg Stjepan Brigade, and then after that, I don't know, to higher
18 Q. And who was his superior in the Herceg Stjepan Brigade?
19 A. I think it was Mr. Sagolj at the time.
20 Q. Was Mr. Sagolj, Zdravko Sagolj, was he involved in the actions
21 around Sovici-Doljani at that time?
22 A. No, he wasn't.
23 Q. Who was Marko Rozic?
24 A. Marko Rozic was the chief of the defence department.
25 Q. What was the difference in role between someone like Mr. Rozic,
1 who was the head of the defence department, and Mr. Pole, who was chief of
2 the -- or commander of the Mijat Tomic Battalion?
3 A. I'll try and explain this. Mr. Stipe Pole was the commander of
4 the Mijat Tomic battalion. He was a military commander, whereas
5 Mr. Marko Rozic was the head of the defence department. He kept records
6 on soldiers, he mobilised them, et cetera. So he was involved in
7 administrative affairs.
8 Q. Who was Ivica Azinovic?
11 [redacted] Can we
12 momentarily go to private session, Mr. President?
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will go to the private session, please.
14 [Private session]
13 Pages 16525 to 16537 – redacted – private session
24 [Open session]
25 MR. SCOTT:
1 Q. Sir, turning now to the last set of questions that I will put to
2 you, I'm going to start out by make the Prosecution position quite clear
3 about this. Sir, it is the Prosecution position that the man
4 Mladen Naletilic, Tuta, was involved in commanding the HVO actions at
5 Sovici-Doljani during the period mid-April to early May, 1993. And that's
6 correct, isn't it?
7 A. As far as I know, that is not correct.
8 Q. Well, tell us again one more time, please, exactly your position
9 on the involvement, if any, of Mr. Naletilic in the events around
10 Sovici-Doljani from mid-April to early May, 1993.
11 A. I provided a detailed explanation in my prior testimony with
12 regard to all events.
13 Q. Sir, is it your understanding -- is it your testimony -- is it
14 part of your position, I'm trying to understand fully the scope of what
15 you're telling the judges, is it part of your position that Mr. Naletilic
16 was not an HVO military commander at all? Or do you know that he was a
17 commander but your position is he wasn't there?
18 A. I don't know that he was a commander, and all the other matters
19 have been explained. I explained them earlier on in my testimony.
20 Q. Let me ask the usher to show you Exhibit 578.13. I asked you --
21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes?
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I have to object. This document
24 concerns the 26th of August, 1993, and it has nothing to do with Sovici or
25 Doljani or with Alojz Rados which is what you established, what you
12 Blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts. Pages 16540 to 16543.
1 decided in your ruling. It has nothing to do with it. I don't think it's
2 relevant and I don't think it can be used to cross-examine the witness.
3 It concerns August, 1993 and has nothing to do with Sovici-Doljani at all.
4 JUDGE LIU: It is true that this document dated the 26th August,
5 1993, but still, we don't know how the Prosecutor is going to use this
7 Mr. Scott, unless this document has some relevance to the events
8 that happened in Sovici and Doljani, we will not allow you to use it.
9 MR. SCOTT: Very well, Your Honour. I will put the question this
10 way. I thought the document was one example or illustrated the point I'm
11 about to put.
12 Q. Sir, I asked you earlier today if the commanders, Lasic and
13 Siljeg, who were senior HVO commanders, if you thought they knew more
14 about the HVO military structure and who the HVO commanders were, than you
15 did. I think at the time your answer was you really couldn't say. Is
16 that right?
17 A. I stand by what I said earlier on.
18 Q. Well, how do you react, sir, if I put it to you -- counsel doesn't
19 want me to show you documents -- if I put it to you that both the
20 commander Lasic and the commander Siljeg, in connection with events
21 involving Sovici-Doljani both describe Mr. Naletilic as playing a
22 commanding role. What's your reaction? How do you respond to that?
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have never seen a
25 single document that would -- in which it says that Mr. Lasic or Siljeg
1 described Tuta as being a commander.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that Mr. Prosecutor will lead us to
3 that point, and his question to this witness will be based on this
4 document, if I understand rightly, because I haven't read that document
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this isn't mentioned in
7 this document either.
8 MR. SCOTT:
9 Q. Sir, first of all I'm going to put to you my question again. We
10 will come to some documents, I assure you, momentarily. But I have put
11 the Prosecution case to you and giving your position, that you've
12 explained to the Chamber, that you do not consider that Mr. Naletilic was
13 involved in Sovici-Doljani, allowing that you did see him apparently
14 briefly on one day -- on one occasion, how do you respond to the
15 proposition that the two senior HVO commanders prepared documents
16 suggesting that he was in a commanding position? Do you think
17 Mr. -- Again, I ask you, do you think Mr. Siljeg and Mr. Lasic knew more
18 about the HVO military than you did?
19 A. I really don't know what Mr. Siljeg and Mr. Lasic knew at the time
20 and I don't know what they spoke about or what they would say. I really
21 know nothing about this and I'm not familiar with any of these allegations
22 you have made.
23 Q. All right. Could the usher please assist in showing the witness
24 Exhibit P301.1? This, sir, is a document prepared over the typed name of
25 Zeljko Siljeg dated the 16th of April, 1993. Directing your attention to
1 paragraph numbered 7, does it not say, "Coordinating with Tuta is being
2 done through the Posusje unit on Sovicka Vrata"?
3 A. I really can't comment on this document. This is the first time
4 I've seen it and if any of it is correct, then -- well, I really can't
5 comment on it. I'm not familiar with this document, and I'm not familiar
6 with military aspects.
7 Q. Is it your position, sir, that the Convicts Battalion was not
8 engaged at Sovici-Doljani or you're simply saying Mr. Naletilic personally
9 was not engaged?
10 A. You've put two questions to me. As I explained, I explained the
11 role of the Convicts Battalion and with regard to the second question, I
12 have also provided a detailed explanation. I don't think it's necessary
13 to repeat it.
14 Q. Well, tell me again, please, maybe I didn't hear it fully or
15 correctly, what do you say the role of the Convicts Battalion was in
17 A. I don't know what that unit's role was, but I do know more or less
18 which routes they moved along, and I have provided you with information on
19 this. I provided you with information on this yesterday.
20 JUDGE CLARK: Perhaps you would tell us again because I don't
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, that unit went
23 over the tops of the surrounding hills, and descended in the direction of
24 Tovarnica and Kosna Luka, that was the defence line that they reached.
25 MR. SCOTT:
1 Q. Where are those locations -- I'm afraid at the moment we don't
2 have any maps in front of us. Where are the locations you just mentioned
3 in reference to the villages of Sovici and Doljani?
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the locations haven't
6 been recorded in the transcript. Only Luka has and the other locations
7 have not been entered in the transcript. Perhaps the witness could repeat
8 the names of the locations because the witness did provide the names.
9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Witness, would you please repeat the names
10 you mentioned just now?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So up from Pasije Stijene, Bacine,
12 Soaca, Pomena, down towards Pisvir, Tovarnica and towards the place Kosna
14 MR. SCOTT:
15 Q. And, sir, can you tell us, can you give us a bit more assistance,
16 please, as to the relationship between those locations you've just given
17 us and the villages of Sovici and Doljani? Are these other close by
18 villages, a few kilometres away, or what relationship do these locations
19 bear to Sovici and Doljani?
20 A. Well, Soaca and these other places, right up to Pomena, well, they
21 are about - it's difficult for me to say exactly - but perhaps about five
22 or six kilometres, as the crow flies, from Sovici, but there are
23 surrounding hills, so if you go by foot, it's a lot further. It's
24 surrounded by hills.
25 Q. Sir, I told you I would show you a couple of documents. I've
1 shown you one by Mr. Siljeg. I'd like to show you one by -- coming from
2 the Mijat Tomic Battalion, if I could have the usher's assistance to show
3 you 443.1. Do you see, sir, that this is a -- it says, "Urgent
4 communication from the Mijat Tomic Battalion addressed to four persons, in
5 person, it says. Milenko Lasic, to Tuta in person, Zeljko Siljeg and this
6 man that you've it testified about before, Zdravko Sagolj. Do you see
8 A. Yes. I can see the document.
9 Q. Do you remember, sir, I'm not asking you -- I'm not going to say
10 anything specific about your role since we are in open session, in the
11 Jablanica area during this time, but do you remember, sir, a number of the
12 local HVO in Jablanica being very unhappy that the Red Cross were going to
13 return the Muslims to -- that had been expelled from Sovici-Doljani to
15 A. I don't remember that and I'm not familiar with what you have just
17 Q. Let me just probe one step further, see if it will refresh your
18 memory. Toward the end, the next to the last sentence or paragraph in
19 this correspondence says, if you can follow me, please, in the Croatian
20 version, "We would therefore like to mention once more that they should
21 not be allowed to return to the Jablanica or indeed the Prozor or Konjic
22 municipalities under any circumstances."
23 Now, do you remember that, sir?
24 A. I really can't remember this document. This might be a document
25 from the command but I don't know what the intention was, what they wanted
1 to do in this way. It's difficult for me to comment on this document
2 because it's the first time I've seen it. It's from the command. It's
3 from the military part.
4 Q. Sir, can you explain to the Chamber, can you help us, if you can,
5 with why, if Mr. Naletilic did not have a significant role in these
6 events, if you will, if he did not have a stake in what happened there,
7 why would this communication be addressed, among other senior HVO
8 commanders, to Mr. Tuta in person?
9 A. I don't know. You should ask the person who wrote this. I don't
10 know anything about this document. I can't comment on it because it's not
11 a document from the field in which I was involved.
12 MR. SCOTT: I'll ask that the witness please be shown Exhibit
14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes?
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] This document is not at all
17 acceptable and it's not suitable for any kind of examination. It's
18 apparently an interview that Mr. Naletilic allegedly gave to some
19 newspaper. It has nothing to do with this case and it has nothing to do
20 with this examination. And it's from 1995.
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, we haven't read that document yet, and we do not
22 know the contents of this document. We want to know whether this related
23 to the events that happened in Sovici and Doljani.
24 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour, it does. And it is very relevant
25 because it purports to be an interview given by the accused it touching on
1 a number of items that have been covered in the course of this case,
2 including the participation in Sovici-Doljani.
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm telling you now,
4 this interview was never authorised. We never established that
5 Mr. Naletilic ever gave that interview. It's a newspaper article. It's
6 not a document. And you know our position. You've known it for a year
7 now, you've known our position about newspaper articles and my claim is
8 that this interview is fabricated. So the Prosecution should obtain
9 authorisation and should bring the journalist who actually conducted the
10 interview, if an interview really was given. This document, if this is
11 what we are going to call it, it's not a document in my opinion, it's a
12 newspaper article, this is not something that's suitable for examination.
13 I can recall many of your comments, especially many of the comments that
14 Judge Clark made when I had cross-examination to conduct, I quite clearly
15 expressed my position and said that I wouldn't use newspapers and
16 newspaper articles because I didn't consider them to be serious. This
17 document is simply not suitable for examination.
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik --
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] It could only be used if it has
20 something to do with this witness. If this witness had said something to
21 the newspapers but now we are asking this witness to comment on something
22 that someone said for a newspaper paper. The matter would be quite
23 different if [redacted] had give and interview and if we had asked him,
24 "Did you say this or that?" But there is no point in asking him to
25 comments on what a third person said.
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, it depends on this document, or this
2 newspaper article is related to the matter which is subject of this trial.
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No, no.
4 JUDGE LIU: Why not?
5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No, no.
6 JUDGE LIU: Why not? So long as it's a relevant document, we
7 could use it in a courtroom.
8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't want to
9 contradict you. I never have, but we can't say that a newspaper article
10 is a relevant document and have this witness comment on it, have this
11 witness comment on a newspaper article that regards a third party.
12 Whenever we had to deal with newspapers, then we would ask whether the
13 witness had given the interview and if he had, then yes, we should use it,
14 but we have never asked a witness in the course of cross-examination about
15 other newspaper articles and this can't be relevant, Your Honours. This is
16 from 1995 and we really don't know whether this is a real interview or
17 not. We can't get involved with speculations, illusions, insinuations.
18 But the witness should be asked whether he knows anything about this
19 interview. That should have been the first question. And if the witness
20 knows nothing about it, then it's not possible to carry on with the
21 cross-examination. Let's first try to establish what the witness knows
22 about this.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, I don't think the witness will know
24 everything about any interviews or any articles in the newspapers. That
25 is not the issue. The issue is that there is an allegation, or maybe, in
1 this newspaper, and the witness has the full right to present his view
2 concerning of this article. He may agree with the contents of this
3 article or he may not, disagree. He may disagree with anything related to
4 this article. You may proceed, Mr. Scott.
5 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, just for the sake of the record, there
6 has been no proper foundation that Mr. Naletilic in fact gave this
7 interview and until there is some foundation, this is inappropriate and
8 I'm making this objection for the record, obviously, but certainly, there
9 must be some foundation laid that Mr. Naletilic actually gave such an
10 interview and that if he did give an interview that the words that were
11 spoken were correctly transcribed.
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think Mr. Prosecutor will lay some foundations
13 for this article and for this interview during his cross-examination. You
14 may proceed, Mr. Scott.
15 MR. SCOTT:
16 Q. For the record, witness, in light of the conversation or
17 discussion that's just been occurring, this is an interview that was
18 published in the Croatian news magazine "Nacional", on the 24th of
19 November, 1995, an open source document, widely read in Zagreb and other
20 places; is that correct, sir? You know this publication, don't you?
21 A. I know the publication, yes.
22 Q. And in fact, given the photographs that you've said you -- the
23 time that you saw Mr. Naletilic and the photograph that I showed to
24 you yesterday, can you look in the Croatian-language version and can you
25 tell the judges whether those appear to be indeed photographs of
1 Mr. Naletilic, person -- one of the -- that you've talked about?
2 A. Yes. I can see them.
3 Q. Mr. Naletilic said that, in fact, the Convicts Battalion was
4 involved in the fighting at Jablanica, Doljani and Vakuf. Do you think
5 Mr. Naletilic would know more about his involvement there than you do?
6 A. This is really the first time I've seen this interview, regardless
7 of the fact that I'm familiar with this newspaper. If Mr. Naletilic was
8 perhaps -- did give this interview, then you should ask him about this. I
9 really don't know what he said. I really wouldn't like to comment on it,
10 and I'm not familiar with this interview. I don't know anything about
11 this interview. It's the first time I've seen it.
12 Q. My final question to you, sir, if you will please turn to the
13 fourth page of the Croatian -- of the copy of the Croatian article, fourth
14 page, in the far left column, I'll come back to the English,
15 Mr. President, in a moment, but I will first orient the witness. Do you
16 have the fourth page? And in the bottom of the far left column, just
17 immediately above where it says, the number 16 and "Nacional," if you can
18 see the question that is -- the answer that is given to the question
20 While you're looking at that, Mr. President, I ask the Chamber and
21 the English readers direct their attention to the top of page 7 of the
23 Sir, based on this "Nacional" interview with Mr. Naletilic, was he
24 asked the question, "Has the Convicts Battalion participated --
25 MR. MEEK: Your Honour I object to the form of the question, the
1 Prosecutor keeps putting in the question that this interview was given by
2 Mr. Naletilic. That has never been determined. And I object to the form
3 of the question.
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think the witness has the full right to
5 disagree with whatever the Prosecution said.
6 MR. SCOTT:
7 Q. Sir, was the question -- was this question asked, "Has the
8 Convicts Brigade participated in the fightings which will be investigated
9 by the International Tribunal for War Crimes such as the Ahmici event?"
10 Answer: "No we were not at Ahmici. Before that, we had been in Travnik
11 but we were protecting Muslims there. We even arrested some 50 of our
12 smugglers there. We fought Muslims at Jablanica, Doljani, Vakuf, wherever
13 it was a matter of survival, either us or them." I'll stop there.
14 Sir, in the light of your position, presumably the reason you were
15 brought here as a rejoinder witness, that Mr. Naletilic was not involved
16 at Sovici-Doljani, what is your reaction to that?
17 A. I told you my position with regard to this article, and as for the
18 role of the Convicts Battalion in Doljani and Sovici, I also explained
19 that in great detail earlier on.
20 Q. Well, sir, I said my last question. Allow me one more. Sir, then
21 to conclude my examination, can the Chamber understand that the
22 full -- only evidence that you have to offer to this Chamber on the point
23 of Mr. Naletilic's involvement in Sovici-Doljani, the only information you
24 have firsthand, is that you saw him for a few moments on one day? Now,
25 that's the full scope of your evidence on the point, isn't it?
1 A. I wouldn't comment on my own testimony. The Honourable Chamber
2 will establish the relevance of my testimony based on the facts that I
3 have put forth here.
4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Witness, thank you. Mr. President, thank you. I
5 have no further questions.
6 JUDGE LIU: Any re-examination? Mr. Krsnik?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Re-examined by Mr. Krsnik:
9 Q. [Interpretation] [Interpretation] Witness, I will not keep you
10 much longer. I just need some clarifications. Firstly, can you please
11 tell us whether you are -- can we please move into private session for
12 just one question?
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will go to the private session, please.
14 [Private session]
13 Pages 16556-16572 – redacted – private session
1 [Open session]
2 JUDGE LIU: If there is any documents to tender through this
3 witness by both parties, I hope that both parties will submit their
4 written filings this week.
5 Yes, Mr. Scott.
6 MR. SCOTT: If the Chamber is willing I'm happy to do it orally
7 and avoid one more piece of paper, but whichever the Chamber prefers.
8 JUDGE LIU: We prefer to have the written submissions.
9 MR. SCOTT: All right. Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE LIU: And this is the last witness of the whole case. The
11 case has been going on for quite a long time. So Mr. Krsnik, I understand
12 that your client has the right to remain silent during the whole
13 proceedings of this trial, but if he wants to make a statement to this
14 Trial Chamber, we just give him an opportunity to do so. I'm not forcing
15 any statement.
16 MR. KRSNIK: I know.
17 JUDGE LIU: I just want to say that -- yes?
18 THE ACCUSED NALETILIC: [No interpretation]
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] My client, we have already submitted
20 this written motion. Perhaps you have found it in the file. We asked for
21 a lie detector, we asked other Trial Chambers for a lie detector and this
22 request was not granted and since we have been -- since this request has
23 been rejected once, I think that we don't have the right to ask -- to make
24 the same request a second time. The Trial Chamber did not grant our
25 request and since this is a binding decision, I have explained to my
1 client that we could not ask for this again, but this is what he wanted to
2 say, that he was prepared to undergo a lie detector test at any time, but
3 otherwise he stands by his position, the one that he expressed at the
4 initial appearance and when our case commenced. He would like to testify
5 but with the use of a lie detector but otherwise he stands by the position
6 that he has already expressed, and that is that he does not want to
7 testify in the courtroom.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
9 Mr. Par, how about your client?
10 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] As far as our client is concerned, he
11 does not want to testify. He doesn't have the intention of making a
12 statement, apart from the statement he made at the very beginning, and
13 that was to say that he was not guilty, but I don't know whether we have
14 concluded this case. I don't know if this is the end of the entire
15 proceedings, since certain issues have not been decided on with regard to
16 the presentation of evidence, and I'm referring to the wooden rifle being
17 subjected to an expert analysis. Thank you.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Well, this Trial Chamber is
19 seized with a motion for the extension of time for all the parties to file
20 their final brief. Mr. Scott, have you received that motion?
21 MR. SCOTT: What's the date? I don't think so.
22 JUDGE LIU: I think it's on the 14th of October, 2002.
23 MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour, I have not seen it.
24 JUDGE LIU: We are waiting for your reply so that we could act
25 upon this motion filed by the Defence counsel.
1 MR. SCOTT: I have not seen it, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek?
3 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, if it please the courts, I don't want to
4 direct my comments to Mr. Scott personally, but I will. Mr. Scott, the
5 motion was filed jointly on behalf of Mr. Naletilic, Mr. Martinovic -- in
6 any event, Mr. Scott, the motion was filed jointly, basically -- I
7 apologise that you didn't get it. It was filed yesterday morning.
8 Basically it just states that because of the length of time it took for
9 the rebuttal witnesses, which had been scheduled for only three days last
10 week, the rejoinder had been scheduled for one day this week, that in all
11 fairness, that not only both accused' Defence counsel be allowed 48 hours
12 to file the final brief rather than Wednesday until Friday but also all
13 parties including the Prosecution based on equality of arms. I don't know
14 if you have any objection to that or you don't.
15 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Meek, I think it will be fair for the
16 Prosecution to read your motion in detail. Then he could give his
17 response to this matter.
18 MR. MEEK: At least where we come from, Your Honour, it may not be
19 such -- if he knows the basis - it's a very short motion - I told him
20 orally what it was. If they have an objection they can make it now. If
21 they want to look at it in writing that's fine too. I would just say to
22 the Trial Chamber that the Prosecution probably the combined experience in
23 this Trial Chamber between the four Prosecutors exceeds 14 to 16 years.
24 What you see here on the Defence side is what you get. We don't have the
25 staff that the Prosecutor has. However we do ask that if we be allowed
1 that, that the Prosecution be allowed an extra 48 hours to file their
2 final brief. I don't see it as such a big issue that Mr. Scott can't
3 answer right now. If he doesn't want to, that's his prerogative.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?
5 MR. SCOTT:
6 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I think I can probably respond. I'm
7 not blaming counsel for not having seen the papers. I just simply haven't
8 seen them yet. If I understand what's being proposed, the extent -- the
9 deadline for filing the brief for all parties would be Friday instead of
10 next Wednesday, and the oral argument schedule would remain the same?
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
12 MR. SCOTT: I don't really have any objection, Mr. President. I
13 mean the only question would come up in my mind, frankly, would be it
14 would leave both parties and the Chamber somewhat less time to review the
15 pleadings before the closing arguments, but that's the only comment I
16 would have. Mr. President, you know this case has been hard fought on all
17 sides and if it would assist the Defence counsel to have two more days at
18 this point to finish their brief I'm not going to object to that.
19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. We will make decisions taking into
20 consideration the views expressed by both parties and we will have the
21 final argument on the 28th, 29th and the 30th. It is the intention of
22 this Trial Chamber to give each party one day, that is, more or less four
23 hours to deliver their final arguments. Both parties have to understand
24 that we already have your final brief at our hands so there is no need to
25 read or to repeat what is already said in those final briefs, just sum up
1 your case. Yes?
2 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President, I appreciate your bringing
3 this up because it's something I have thought about in recent days and
4 again, in light of our dialogue yesterday about practices do vary from
5 case to case and Chamber to Chamber. In terms of the time allowed, I
6 appreciate what the Chamber has just said, is it contemplated then for
7 there to be any response -- any type of reply to the closing arguments
8 from one party -- where I come from, which is neither it particularly here
9 nor there except to relate my own experience, there is a -- again a
10 rebuttal argument, and so I simply want to be advised what the Chamber's
11 practice -- will even side give up -- presumably we go on the 28th, one
12 accused goes on the 29th and one accused goes on the 30th and I suppose
13 when we are done on the 28th, we're done. Is that what the Chamber
14 contemplates or will there be a chance to respond to the Defence argument?
15 JUDGE LIU: According to the rules, rebuttal argument is allowed
16 but we will set very strict rules concerning the scope of the rebuttal
17 argument. And very limited time will be allocated to both parties.
18 Probably one hour for each party, to do their rebuttal argument and
19 rejoinder argument. So we will finish the whole proceedings on the last
20 day of October. That is the Thursday.
21 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Having said that, the sitting is adjourned until
23 the 28th, Monday.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
25 1.00 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday
1 the 28th day of October, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.