1 Thursday, 15 June 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the

6 case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Good

8 morning to one and all. Case IT-04-74-T, Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning. I'd like to

10 welcome all those present. In a few moments we're going to have the

11 witness brought into the courtroom, and we shall be sitting today until

12 1.45.

13 If nobody wishes to say anything, then we can have the witness

14 shown in straight away. Yes, Mr. Murphy.

15 MR. MURPHY: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours. Just

16 briefly. We have received this morning from the Prosecution a document

17 called "Prosecution's submission on the admission of documentary

18 evidence." It appears to be making some legal submissions regarding the

19 admissibility of the documents the Court was discussing yesterday. Your

20 Honour, on reading this document, it would seem advisable for the Defence

21 to consider making a written response, and accordingly we would ask the

22 Trial Chamber to defer making a decision on the admissibility of those

23 documents until we've had the opportunity to respond in writing. Thank

24 you, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

1 MR. SCOTT: Good morning, Mr. President and Your Honours. I

2 appreciate Mr. Murphy's comments. Since it is the Prosecutor's

3 submission, I would like to discuss it very briefly.

4 The Prosecution, Your Honours, is very concerned with what

5 appeared to be, and perhaps we misunderstood, but what appeared to be a

6 ruling yesterday, or some statements yesterday on the admission of

7 documentary evidence which, again with the greatest respect, we think are

8 not only contrary to the prior guidelines and rulings made by this Trial

9 Chamber, either the Pre-Trial Judge or the previous Trial Chamber or this

10 Trial Chamber, but even more importantly, are inconsistent and contrary to

11 the established jurisprudence and practice of this International Tribunal

12 in establishing certain requirements for the admission of documentary

13 evidence that are not the requirements, that are not the jurisprudence of

14 this Tribunal, and are contrary to the long-established practices in this

15 Tribunal going back for many, many years.

16 Of course, it's always a disadvantage for the Ad Litem Judges, for

17 Judge Prandler, for Judge Trechsel, of course coming to the institution

18 only a very few weeks ago and not to know what the long-established

19 practices and customs of the institution are.

20 We have provided a submission this morning to hopefully assist the

21 Chamber in considering this issue further. To preview our final position,

22 Your Honour, our position is that all of the ECMM documents should be

23 admissible through this witness, that this witness can confirm the

24 authenticity of every document. He has reviewed each document, can verify

25 that these are official documents of the European Community Monitoring

1 Mission. They are at that, they are what they purport to be, and that

2 goes to authenticity.

3 He can also, the documents on their face, establish their

4 relevance. As we said in our submission, for most documents, for the vast

5 majority of documents relevance can be determined or based upon the facial

6 inspection of the document. Beyond those two requirements, some

7 authentication: Is the document what it purports to be? Some threshold

8 relevance. And the jurisprudence of the Tribunal is emphasise the word

9 "some"; some relevance. Beyond those two things, Your Honour, the rest of

10 these determinations all go to weight, and as the Trial Chamber has said

11 repeatedly and as the Pre-Trial Judge has said repeatedly, the matter of

12 weight is to be determined and given at the close of all of the evidence

13 during the Trial Chamber's deliberations and the consideration of each

14 piece of evidence, whether it be testimony or an exhibit, in the light of

15 the overall trial record.

16 And we submit, Your Honour, that that is the jurisprudence and

17 practice of the Tribunal, and in many cases, and indeed I would -- I would

18 say in virtually most cases, substantial amounts of documentary evidence

19 has come into these trials without, without coming through or in

20 connection with a particular witness. In many cases exhibits -- documents

21 have been admitted from bar -- from counsel table based upon various

22 representations by counsel, and that has been -- that has been a common

23 practice in this Tribunal for years. So we invite the Chamber to

24 reconsider its position, or perhaps if we misunderstood the statements

25 yesterday, those can be clarified.

1 We have made a filing today. It was filed with the Registry this

2 morning, as Mr. Murphy has indicated, setting out what we believe the

3 jurisprudence of the Tribunal to be.

4 In a nutshell, Your Honour, and if the Court has again the

5 courtesy copy that was distributed this morning, if I could direct the

6 Court's and the courtroom's attention to page number 8. If I can just

7 briefly indicate again. This, at the end of the day, in this 10-page

8 submission is the summary, is the synopsis of the Prosecution position,

9 and I'm sorry you didn't have those. I -- thank you. I'll give the

10 Chamber a chance to look at that. And if you could please direct your

11 attention to page 8.

12 We believe, Your Honours, that the Tribunal jurisprudence and

13 practice considers primarily three factors or considerations. First of

14 all, as I've indicated a moment ago: Authenticity. Where did the

15 document come from? Is it what it purports to be? In this case we have a

16 witness -- we've got a witness on the witness stand who comes from ECMM,

17 who by all indications, by all appearances, is a knowledgeable man, an

18 educated man who has been very familiar with the record-keeping and

19 reporting practices of ECMM. He has looked at every document, ECMM

20 document the Prosecution wishes to tender, and based upon his familiarity

21 with ECMM practices and record-keeping, he can say, and will say if he has

22 not already, that all of these documents, however there may be - 360,

23 something in that vicinity - that all of these documents are what they

24 purport to be. They are all records and reports of the European Community

25 Monitoring Mission.

1 Now, secondly, again as we said a moment ago, is the document

2 relevance -- is the document relevant? Excuse me. Does it bear some

3 connection to the facts of this case? As we say here in our example, if

4 the document on its face is about the expulsion of Muslim civilians in

5 Stolac in July, August, 1993, then it is on its face relevant to the case.

6 It bears on the facts of this case. And again, the jurisprudence is that

7 it have "some relevance."

8 Now, of course if one of us picks up a document and it's about

9 something that happened in Tuzla in December, 1994, or about the World Cup

10 in 2006, it's not relevant. The document is not relevant, or at least

11 probably is not relevant based upon some very further showing that of

12 course a party would have to make to show some connection, but generally

13 presumptively, it would not be relevant unless some further linkage was

14 made.

15 Number 3, probative value or weight. Your Honour, again we submit

16 that as this Trial Chamber and as this Pre-Trial Judge has said

17 repeatedly, there is a very vast difference and distinction between

18 admissibility and weight, and all these additional factors do indeed go to

19 weight. And as we said about -- several lines into our point number 3 on

20 page 9, the probative value or weight of a document should be determined

21 in light of the overall evidence and positions and presentations of the

22 parties in the case. If, at the end of the day, a document for a variety

23 of reasons appears unreliable or appears substantially "out of sync" with

24 the vast weight of the evidence, then the Chamber of course may accord it

25 little or no value or weight at the end of the day.

1 Your Honour, that's our submission. I have no problems, and

2 indeed anticipated that the Defence may wish to make a written response.

3 That would certainly be appropriate, we would certainly have no objection

4 to that, but Your Honour, it's our fundamental position that these are the

5 rules of evidence, and the admission of documentary evidence should apply

6 in this case, and that this witness Mr. Beese can provide all necessary

7 foundation for the admission of all of the ECMM exhibits. Thank you.

8 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, my only purpose in really addressing the

9 matter today was to say that we would like the opportunity to consider

10 this filing and respond to it. Unlike the Prosecution, we have every

11 confidence in the abilities of Judge Prandler and Judge Trechsel to read

12 and understand the jurisprudence of the Tribunal. We think that we can

13 make it clear.

14 The only point that I would make today in response to Mr. Scott's

15 submission is there seems sometimes to be an assumption on the

16 Prosecution's part that there are no rules of evidence at all at this

17 Tribunal. In fact, Rule 89 makes it clear that the Chamber may only admit

18 evidence which is relevant and which it deems to have probative value, and

19 also that the Chamber may exclude evidence if that probative value is

20 substantially outweighed by the need to ensure a fair trial. So there is

21 in fact a judicial function in scrutinising documents before they are

22 admitted and it's not permissible for the Prosecution simply to present

23 the Trial Chamber with a metre or two of documents and say we hereby move

24 these in. Your Honour, that's all we're saying at this time.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.

1 Regarding what was said, it is up to me to redefine matters.

2 First of all, one must not forget that the proceedings underway --

3 in the proceedings underway, grosso modo, the Prosecution would like to

4 show more than 9.000 documents, and this has never been seen in the

5 experience of this Tribunal, that many documents.

6 Secondly, if the Prosecution wishes to introduce about 9.000

7 documents, then the Defence would have the same right to introduce

8 documents, which means that with this rhythm we would have 20.000

9 documents quite easily, which is something never seen by this Tribunal.

10 It has never been confronted with anything like that.

11 In your submissions that I was able to glance through over the

12 past few minutes, you relate to three cases, Blaskic, Hadzihasanovic, and

13 Simic. And in the Hadzihasanovic case, for example, I was the president

14 of the Trial Chamber. In that particular trial we had 3.000 documents.

15 Never in the history of this Tribunal did the Trial Chamber have that many

16 documents. So I consider myself to be very well qualified to address the

17 issue of documents.

18 During the Status Conferences, we indicated several times - and

19 this was confirmed by written rulings - that documents could -- must be

20 introduced if and through a witness. That is a basic principle. And if

21 we have a witness who is part of this European Mission, as in this case,

22 the documents which he had knowledge of in exercising his duties within

23 the European Mission should be presented to him. So documents he has

24 knowledge of.

25 Yesterday, I said that I noted in the pile of documents that I had

1 here that there were documents which were dated posteriorly, that is to

2 say which were compiled after the witness's departure, and I said that if

3 the witness wasn't there any longer I don't see how this witness could say

4 he could recognise or be asked to recognise a document which was compiled

5 after he had left.

6 And secondly, the second point was that during the testimony of

7 the witness yesterday we found out that in May he wasn't there for 15

8 days, for a fortnight, so I assume that documents compiled during that

9 period of time were documents which he did not see and have knowledge of,

10 and so I indicated that today was the time to present him with these

11 documents while he was exercising his function during his mission, and

12 then he could say, yes, I know this document, I know that document, and so

13 on and so forth. And then we would have the pertinent documents and of

14 course the probative value and what weight we're going to attach to it

15 would be determined later on.

16 So it seems that you might not have understood all these reasons.

17 So you put in a written submission, filed a written submission, and the

18 Defence, quite legitimately, has the right to answer, to respond to your

19 written submission, and then we're going to rule on the admission of

20 documents. However, I'd like to point out at this juncture that in asking

21 that these -- to -- that in filing a written submission, you might have a

22 favourable or unfavourable ruling. That is at your own risk. So you're

23 going to have to choose how you're going to introduce your evidence and

24 exhibits, but in common law, the right of cross-examination, if documents

25 have been admitted without allowing the Defence to cross-examine, they can

1 in certain cases be a -- a problem for the future.

2 Let me quote an example. Let me just quote an example. You have

3 document 2612, for instance, which should not be presented to the witness,

4 and you're asking for the admission of that document in a written

5 submission. The document 2612, for instance, is a document, ECMM

6 document, the 2nd of June, 1993, is the date, and the witness was

7 certainly exercising his duties at that time, and it has to do with the

8 capture of people -- of 100 persons by the HVO in May, 1993, who were

9 taken to a detention centre; to Stolac, in fact. So that is a document

10 which the Defence can cross-examine the witness on. And you are saying,

11 no, we can have the document admitted by -- in written form. So that

12 document can be presented to this witness in the coming few minutes, and

13 he can say, "Yes, I confirm that such-and-such an event happened in

14 Stolac." And then during the cross-examination at later stage, the

15 Defence can examine the witness on that point. So I can do the same

16 demonstration with other documents, using the example of other documents.

17 I understand very well that the Defence wishes to introduce a

18 maximum number of documents through -- in written form, or in writing, to

19 gain time, because you have these 10.000 documents. So this intent on

20 their part can impinge upon the Defence rights, because the Defence also

21 has the right to examine. That is an absolute right.

22 And so the Defence, having been apprised of your written

23 submission will go through the documents one by one and the Judges will

24 issue a final ruling. Perhaps we will support your proposal, perhaps we

25 will reject it. We'll see in due course, having given it due thought.

1 But for the moment, the course to take is when you have a witness here,

2 you should present him with the documents that he drafted himself or

3 documents that he had knowledge of.

4 I don't think you understood this, but that's your problem. And

5 let me remind you that in the interests of justice, the Judges should be

6 in possession of all the elements, all the pertinent elements, and then

7 those elements will be the subject of a debate, because how else can we,

8 when faced with thousands of exhibits, thousands of documents, not ask

9 useful questions on important documents? So you have to sift through the

10 documents, decide which you're going to present, which you're not going to

11 present, and then you're going to ask to have them tendered into evidence.

12 Maybe my colleagues would like to intervene at this point, and I

13 give them the floor.

14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Previous translation continues] ... a request

15 from one of the parties before us. The other party will have the right to

16 comment. Then we, the Chamber, will discuss it. I think it is not

17 conducive to the good exercise of our task if these matters, now the

18 substance is discussed before we have even had time to read the request

19 let alone the answer of the Defence.

20 We will not interrupt, I think, to decide this immediately. We

21 will sit this afternoon. I would suggest that the Prosecution goes

22 through the motions they think are necessary to make these documents

23 admissible, and then we will hear comments from the Defence, and I think

24 then we in Chamber will deliberate and come to a conclusion. That's the

25 proceeding -- the way to proceed that I would propose.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Would the Defence like to

2 address the matter? Counsel Karnavas.

3 MR. KARNAVAS: Good morning, Mr. President; good morning, Your

4 Honours. I totally agree with Judge Trechsel, even though yesterday we

5 parted ways on certain objections.

6 I thought it was perhaps premature for Mr. Scott to go ahead and

7 give an oral presentation of this -- of his -- of his submission. We

8 would like a chance just to respond.

9 I would also suggest to the Prosecution that they do whatever they

10 feel is necessary today. We will not be objecting for the sake of

11 objecting. If we feel that it is necessary for us to state a position, we

12 will state a position. It will be probably a position that is joint. We

13 don't -- we don't want to obstruct, and so I do think it would be

14 appropriate, particularly given some confusion that after you hear

15 submissions, oral submissions on the documents being presented today, that

16 you deliberate on it. But for future purposes, we do need an opportunity

17 to thoroughly review this and compose a joint response which we believe

18 would more or less tailor what Professor Murphy has indicated on the

19 record. And I might add that one of his specialties is evidence.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judge would like to

21 intervene.

22 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I simply

23 would like to say at this juncture that I share the views expressed by my

24 fellow Judge, Judge Trechsel, and I really feel that after the

25 presentation of the Prosecutor's views on that issue, and also after we

1 have heard both Mr. Murphy and Mr. Karnavas then we are going to consider

2 the matter again and then we have to come to a conclusion.

3 Thank you, Mr. President.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

5 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, if I -- one minute. Thank you, Your

6 Honour, one minute.

7 Of course, as I said, we fully anticipated in making a written

8 submission that the Defence would make the appropriate responses in the

9 time -- whatever time the Court provides. That was a given, of course.

10 And of course if the Chamber wishes to make a written ruling, that also is

11 of course expected, and of course we know that the Chamber might rule for

12 us, they might rule against us. That is the nature of the exercise.

13 Your Honour, since this has come up repeatedly, I do want to make

14 one statement, not only about the documents but the case in general. I

15 want to be very clear on this: The Prosecution makes no apology for the

16 size or complexity of this case. It is what it is. Perhaps in the future

17 when war criminals are committing crimes, they will consider smaller,

18 simpler crimes. I will today ask, and hopefully this will be broadcast,

19 to all future war criminals, please commit only simple, easy-to-prove

20 crimes.

21 MR. KARNAVAS: I object. I object to those comments,

22 Mr. President. I think they're totally inappropriate. To be referring to

23 the accused as war criminals --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Karnavas, you'll have

25 the floor in a moment. Allow Mr. Scott to finish and then you can speak

1 after him. If you keep interrupting and intervening, we'll get nowhere.

2 So I want each of the parties to be able to present their views, and your

3 time will come to present your views and to respond to what Mr. Scott has

4 said.

5 Mr. Scott, please continue.

6 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, my comment just now was not directed to

7 these accused specifically but to the principles in general, and if you

8 look at the transcript on page 12, you will see that.

9 I'm quite familiar, Your Honours -- well, let me just finish that

10 thought. We will present -- Your Honour, the Prosecution is doing its

11 very best, has done its very best, will continue to do its very best to

12 present indeed a complex, large, and difficult case to you as best we can,

13 and undoubtedly we will make mistakes and undoubtedly it will not be a

14 perfect case, but I can assure the Chamber that this is a large, important

15 case and we will do our very best to present it to you as best we can.

16 As to the practice of common law cross-examination, Your Honour, I

17 can assure the Chamber I -- I, too, like Mr. Karnavas and like Mr. Murphy,

18 have been doing this, have been practising common law cross-examination

19 for at least the past 27 years and I, too, like many other people in the

20 courtroom, have routinely caught -- taught trial advocacy in the common

21 law system. So no one needs to remind us of their credentials on this. I

22 think everyone in the courtroom can be presumed to be a professional in

23 this regard.

24 Our position on the documents has nothing to do with the

25 cross-examination. It is the admission of the documents themselves. Of

1 course, of course the Defence has every right to conduct a full

2 cross-examination within the bounds of the Rules of Evidence and

3 Procedure, including as to Mr. Beese, and I am quite confident, I'm quite

4 confident that the cross-examination of Mr. Beese will be an extensive and

5 complete one.

6 Finally, Your Honour, I will just indicate, and again, I fully

7 agree that the matter should be briefed, but I just want to look ahead.

8 If the Trial Chamber -- if the guideline remains as indicated yesterday,

9 then the Prosecution, with all respect, asks the Trial Chamber, all three

10 Judges of the Trial Chamber, to then give us very clear -- a very clear

11 ruling as to what additional piece of evidence is required from a

12 particular witness to establish the necessary foundation for the admission

13 of a document beyond what we have said this morning. If there is

14 something more the Chamber wants, if there's some additional piece of

15 evidence the Chamber says is necessary, we need to know this, because we

16 have a long trial ahead of us, we indeed have hundreds and thousands of

17 exhibits, and if those rules are not very, very clear and we can prepare

18 our case and find our witnesses and present our case as best we can, it's

19 very, very difficult. So if there is some additional piece of evidence,

20 beyond authenticity, beyond what the document purports to be, beyond being

21 relevant on its face, we need the Chamber to tell us very, very clearly

22 what that additional item is.

23 Thank you, Mr. President.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Karnavas.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. It is my habit, and

1 perhaps it's a bad habit, to interrupt when I hear offensive comments

2 coming from the Prosecution, and I have no -- I make no apologies for

3 interrupting a Prosecutor when I feel he or she is offending my client or

4 other accused in the court. I thought Mr. Scott's comments, though he

5 claims were not directed to these accused, were nonetheless inappropriate,

6 not just for this Tribunal but in any court to make those suggestions.

7 And secondly, I would like to say that it is the Prosecutor that

8 chose to draft the indictment in the way he did. It's regrettable that

9 this Tribunal has had a practice of rubber stamping, more or less, the

10 previous indictments and perhaps not being more attentive at the beginning

11 in requiring a proofing chart as this Trial Chamber had requested. I know

12 that measures are being taken now to rectify those -- those issues, but

13 nonetheless, the Prosecutor chose a very wide indictment with a lot of

14 documents, many of them which are not necessarily relevant, and I think it

15 is the responsibility of the Prosecutor to establish relevancy.

16 I don't want to go into the merits of this. I merely interrupted,

17 however, because I thought Mr. Scott was beyond the pale with his

18 comments, and I think he owes the accused in this courtroom an apology.

19 That's what I think. Thank you.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Kovacic?

21 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just briefly. I would

22 like to follow on from what my colleague Mr. Karnavas just said in

23 launching protests about what the Prosecutor said. I have a concrete

24 solution. I propose that we delete from the record the statement made by

25 the Prosecutor in line -- on page 12, line 11, because the presumption of

1 innocence is a principle which functions in all courts and must function

2 here, because he categorically stated that we -- here we have war

3 criminals. A judgement has not yet been made. We don't know about that,

4 and I think there is no place for things like that in the record. So I'd

5 like to have this redacted from the record. Page 12, the sentence begins

6 on line 11. Because the implications are quite clear, I believe.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We are going to

8 deliberate this afternoon with respect to the redaction of page 12, line

9 11, from the record. I have understood that the Defence would like to

10 respond in writing to the admissibility motion, as Mr. Murphy stated a

11 moment ago. So we can give a ruling either in oral form or written form

12 once we have both sides' written responses. So we're going to make a

13 ruling at the beginning of next week, once we have all your written

14 responses.

15 Very well. We conferred straight away on the expungence, on the

16 redaction of the transcript. As far as line 11 is concerned, that is a

17 hypothesis, "... and perhaps in the future, if war criminals ..." So

18 those are hypotheses; if. And we can't say that hypotheses in the future

19 can be applied to the present, so there's no call for the Trial Chamber to

20 order that portion redacted and expunged, because the phrase and sentence

21 applied to the future, envisaging other persons. And Mr. Scott, in

22 continuation, explained that he did not have in mind the persons present

23 in this courtroom. So there is no need to redact that.

24 Now, with respect to the written decision, the written ruling on

25 the admissibility of exhibits and evidence, we are going to do that once

1 we've received your written submissions and have studied them. So as soon

2 as possible send in your written submissions, and joint ones as you did in

3 the previous cases of appeal, and then we'll study them straight away.

4 Having said that and having spent half an hour discussing that

5 point, we're now going to have the witness shown in, and of course the

6 Prosecution is free to present any documents it likes to the witness.

7 [The witness entered court]

8 WITNESS: CHRISTOPHER BEESE [Resumed]

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please be seated. The Chamber

10 took a few moments before we had you introduced because we had a matter to

11 attend to beforehand. As the problem is on the road to being resolved,

12 without further ado, I'm going to give the floor to the Prosecution to

13 carry on the examination-in-chief.

14 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

15 Examination by Mr. Mundis: [Continued]

16 Q. Good morning, Mr. Beese.

17 A. Good morning.

18 Q. Yesterday when we broke we were discussing meetings that you had

19 had involving Mr. Stojic. Based on your meetings with him, sir, did you

20 on any occasion make any observations concerning his authority?

21 A. Mr. Stojic --

22 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, I'm sorry to object, but once again may

23 it be made clear as to whether the witness is now going to testify from

24 his personal knowledge, which would be acceptable, or whether he is going

25 to speculate and give an opinion on this question.

1 MR. MUNDIS: Again, Mr. President, the question was: "Based on

2 your meetings with him, did you on any occasion make any observations

3 concerning his authority?"

4 Q. And, Mr. Beese, I would ask you to carefully consider that

5 question as put to you.

6 A. Mr. Stojic appeared to have full authority. His subordinates

7 certainly deferred to him with considerable respect, and I never had

8 reason to believe in my dealings across the region that his authority was

9 questioned.

10 Q. Mr. Beese, what is the basis for your statement that Mr. Stojic

11 appeared to have full authority?

12 A. There were occasions in the field, particularly during cease-fire

13 talks and disengagements, where if we came across resistance from more

14 junior HVO commanders, at some point we would not be able to take matters

15 further and would notify the junior commander that we were referring the

16 matter to his superiors in Mostar, and particularly Mr. Stojic, at which

17 point the demeanour of the junior officer usually changed and became more

18 cooperative.

19 Q. Again, Mr. Beese, can you point to any particular instances where

20 this was the case? You've mentioned occasions in the field. Can you give

21 us any particular examples?

22 A. There were occasions in the Gornji Vakuf cease-fire talks, both

23 with Zeljko Siljeg prior to the cease-fire and then later to junior

24 commanders in Pajic Polje, where we thought it necessary to remind them of

25 the commitments given by their superiors, and that is not specifically Mr.

1 Stojic, that is the superiors in Mostar, meaning Mr. Prlic, Mr. Stojic, or

2 General Petkovic, and on those occasions both the gentlemen concerned

3 became a great deal more cooperative.

4 Q. Mr. Beese, I believe you testified about this yesterday, but could

5 you tell us who Mr. Stojic's deputy was?

6 A. I understand it was Mr. Slobodan Bozic.

7 Q. Based on your meetings, can you tell us or describe for us the

8 relationship between Mr. Stojic and Mr. Bozic?

9 A. Mr. Stojic -- Mr. Bozic was appointed the interface between the

10 Ministry of Defence and international agencies. Therefore, while

11 initially we spoke directly with Mr. Stojic - that is myself, Ray Lane,

12 and others - in the latter months if we had a concern and addressed it to

13 the ministry, we would address it directly to Mr. Bozic who would receive

14 our concerns, assist us where he could, or refer the matter to his

15 superiors, which in all cases would be Mr. Stojic.

16 Q. Mr. Beese, you just mentioned "if we had a concern." What type of

17 concern or concerns did you convey to the HVO Ministry of Defence?

18 A. We had concerns for access. If we wished to move to an area, as

19 I've earlier said, to Stolac, for instance, we would have to gain a pass

20 from the Ministry of Defence, in which case we would obtain it through

21 Mr. Bozic. But if we had concerns about denial of access that had

22 previously been agreed, such as access to Doljani and Sovici, we would

23 apply to the Ministry of Defence through Mr. Bozic for access again and

24 remind him of the commitments of his party.

25 Q. What was the result of these instances where you expressed concern

1 for access to these areas after having raised them with Mr. Bozic or the

2 Ministry of Defence?

3 A. On occasion access might be improved. Perhaps it depended upon

4 our own demeanour and how -- how we presented our case, whether forcefully

5 or less forcefully, although Mr. Bozic was usually concerned to hear that

6 we were frustrated, and committed to attend to the matter.

7 Q. And what steps were taken by Mr. Bozic to attend to the matter?

8 A. In terms of access to areas that were denied, it usually made no

9 difference at all.

10 Q. Mr. Beese, I'd now like to turn your attention to Mr. Petkovic.

11 You testified yesterday that you met with him on a number of occasions.

12 Can you tell us approximately how many occasions you met with

13 Mr. Petkovic?

14 A. I cannot recall specifically, I'm afraid, but it would have been

15 quite regularly during certain periods of my stay in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16 I can -- I can say it was more than 20, less than 30.

17 Q. What were the subject matters of the discussion with Mr. Petkovic?

18 A. They were usually concerned with cease-fire arrangements where a

19 cease-fire was to be brokered or implemented. Then we were dealing with

20 General Petkovic.

21 Q. And based on these meetings, sir, can you tell us anything about

22 Mr. -- or General Petkovic's demeanour?

23 A. During my meetings with Mr. Petkovic and observing him through

24 those meetings, whether the meetings were chaired by me or simply observed

25 by me, he was a very calm man in discussion, forceful, persistent, but not

1 the least bit impolite to anyone, whether it was those of us

2 internationally or his apparent adversaries. The only matter I have cause

3 to question on is that, given the number of cease-fires that he attended

4 and brokered and that were immediately broken, one has to question the

5 sincerity of some of his actions.

6 Q. Again, sir, can you gives any examples of these cease-fires you

7 just described?

8 A. I have related a number in my account, but most specifically in

9 Gornji Vakuf, later agreements in Medjugorje, Mostar, Vitez, and -- and a

10 number more that I was not attending to.

11 Q. Other than these cease-fire discussions, do you recall any other

12 topics that you discussed with General Petkovic?

13 A. Not specifically, no.

14 Q. Let me ask you, sir, if you were able, based on these meetings

15 that you had with General Petkovic, to have any observations concerning

16 his relationship either upwards or downwards with the chain of command.

17 A. In my experience, his subordinates, that is junior military

18 commanders, deferred to him and always gave him the floor to speak. He

19 was evidently the senior person present in cease-fire talks where he was

20 present. He himself deferred to Mostar. He appeared to know exactly what

21 was required of him by his superiors.

22 Q. Mr. Beese, when you mentioned on line 14 junior military

23 commanders, can you tell us, if you recall, any specific junior military

24 commanders you had in mind?

25 A. Colonel Zeljko Siljeg, and Colonel Miroslav Lasic. I can also say

1 I think that Colonel Tihomir Blaskic was -- was a subordinate of -- of

2 similar level.

3 Q. Can you elaborate, sir, upon the statement you made on line 17 and

4 18, "He appeared to know exactly what was required of him by his

5 superiors." What do you base that on?

6 A. Given that a cease-fire would usually follow political direction

7 from Mostar, his responsibility was to implement a cease-fire. He

8 appeared to know whether he needed to hurry through that cease-fire, agree

9 it and implement it, or delay it.

10 Q. Are you personally aware, Mr. Beese, of any situations where it

11 appeared to you that General Petkovic did not exercise effective control

12 over his subordinates?

13 A. The only case I witnessed was the case that I referred to in the

14 Dario Kordic trial, but that was dealing with a politician rather than a

15 military commander.

16 Q. Mr. Beese, I'd now like to turn your attention to Mr. Coric. You

17 mentioned him yesterday. Do you recall approximately how many times you

18 met with Valentin Coric?

19 A. I believe no more than about five times.

20 Q. Do you recall, sir, the time period when you had those meetings?

21 A. In the early -- in the mid-part of my tour; that is, February,

22 March and April, 1993.

23 Q. Mr. Beese, what were the reasons that you went to see Mr. Coric?

24 A. I asked to speak to him on the matters of the abductees in Mostar,

25 the abductees of the night of the 5th of February, to see if the HVO had

1 completed their investigation and were prepared to release a report. I

2 also raised with him the matter of the transportation of prisoners by

3 ambulance, which we witnessed in Mostar.

4 Q. Where did these meetings take place?

5 A. I met with Mr. Coric in an office in the Ministry of Defence.

6 Q. Can you elaborate in any way upon this issue of the matter of the

7 transportation of prisoners by ambulance?

8 A. I was personally concerned to see what appeared to me the routine

9 carriage of prisoners in ambulances, that is people who were dressed in

10 uniform but were not armed, were not badged, and appeared to be prisoners

11 of the armija, travelling through Mostar in the backs of ambulances.

12 Q. When you went to see Mr. Coric, Mr. Beese, what capacity was he

13 serving in?

14 A. He was the head of the Vojna Policija, the HVO military police.

15 Q. Based on your observations as an ECMM monitor, what were the

16 functions of the HVO military police?

17 A. While they were military police, and while it is not unusual in

18 conflict to find that military police have greater powers than in

19 peacetime, it did appear that the Vojna Policija carried out the direction

20 of both political and military government in Mostar and therefore they

21 were not simply confined to military matters. If something had to be done

22 in policing terms, for better or worse, it was usually carried out

23 generally by the Vojna Policija as opposed to routine traffic issues and

24 such like carried out by the civilian police.

25 Q. Mr. Beese, before it disappears off the screen, I just would like

1 to ask a question of clarification concerning the prisoners that were in

2 the ambulance. What -- of what military force were the prisoners?

3 A. I believe they were from the armija, from their uniforms and their

4 demeanour.

5 Q. What force was holding those prisoners?

6 A. The HVO.

7 Q. Mr. -- Mr. Beese, based on your meetings with Mr. Coric, can you

8 convey any observations concerning his demeanour?

9 A. He spoke very good English. He was very straightforward to deal

10 with.

11 Q. I'd now like to turn your attention, Mr. Beese, to a subject that

12 we touched on briefly yesterday, and that's the hierarchy with respect to

13 command and control within the HVO. Can you please describe for us who

14 was at the top of the HVO chain of command.

15 A. My comments will be based on my observations only. I was not a

16 student of the structure of the HDZ or the HVO and therefore my

17 observations were purely based on practical experience and expediency at

18 the time.

19 It was quite apparent to me, most particularly when I met Mate

20 Boban on the 8th of May, that he was the senior figure in

21 Bosnia-Herzegovina for the Bosnian Croats. On that particular day, others

22 in the meeting, Mr. Prlic, Mr. Zubak, Mr. Bozic, Mr. Stojic, deferred to

23 Mr. Boban. Mr. Boban had a forceful character, a sharp eye, and a sharp

24 mind. He appeared to be the senior party.

25 The next senior party appeared to be Mr. Jadranko Prlic, who, as

1 I've said before, appeared to know all things and appeared to be able to

2 give direction on all matters, whether civilian or military.

3 Mr. Stojic was evidently senior in the military hierarchy. I

4 would have assumed him to be the commander of military forces, albeit

5 through generals. Those were -- were the principal senior players that I

6 dealt with. There were a number of more junior ministers, including Mr.

7 Coric running the military police, Mr. Tadic running humanitarian affairs,

8 and the mayors of a number of towns who, like Jozo Maric, was not only a

9 mayor, I understand of Grude, but also responsible for matters of culture

10 and education.

11 Q. Mr. Beese, I neglected to ask you this earlier, but on those

12 occasions when you met with Mr. Stojic, what type of clothing was he

13 wearing?

14 A. He wore camouflage uniform.

15 Q. Now, you mentioned a few moments ago based on your observations

16 that you were -- or that your comments are based on observations and that

17 you're not a student, and you indicated the HDZ. "I'm not a student of

18 the structure of the HDZ." Based upon your observations, can you tell us

19 what the HDZ was?

20 A. I understood it to be the political party from which the HVO was

21 descended. There are -- it is quite possible to attach a badge, a name to

22 anything. Ultimately it was my responsibility to determine who was

23 responsible and for what. It didn't particularly matter what they called

24 themselves, referred to themselves as, or what badge they carried, and

25 therefore whether something was referred to as an HDZ policy or an HVO

1 policy or a Croat policy, to me it was one and the same. We are talking

2 here about a nationalist movement.

3 Q. Mr. Beese, in terms of your dealings with HVO military officials,

4 did anyone ever raise with you the issue of uncontrolled elements or

5 irregular militia?

6 A. Yes. When we had cause to complain that certain activities were

7 taking place, whether it was the attacks on villages, burning of villages,

8 even shelling around Gornji Vakuf, I was frequently deflected with

9 comments about uncontrolled elements or irregulars.

10 Q. What steps as an ECMM monitor did you take to investigate these

11 claims or to verify these claims?

12 A. It was not always possible to gain access to areas in which

13 elements operated, whether regular or irregular. Therefore, we noted the

14 claim that a particular action was carried out by a -- an unaccountable or

15 irregular force, and we could do little more than that.

16 Q. Do you recall any particular incidents where this issue arose?

17 A. There were claims of uncontrolled elements working for both

18 parties. There were uncontrolled elements said to be working around

19 Doljani and Pasovici, clearing Muslim villages, but there were

20 counterclaims from the HVO of uncontrolled or extreme elements operating

21 in Central Bosnia also for the Moslem party.

22 Q. I'd like to focus your attention on these claims of uncontrolled

23 elements in Doljani and Pasovici. Do you recall any of the specific

24 discussions that you had as an ECMM monitor concerning those claims?

25 A. I expressed concern for -- for the advances and activities in

1 Sovici and Doljani as I knew of them, but as I couldn't see them and

2 couldn't identify the persons at the time, it was difficult for me to --

3 to carry the matter further.

4 Reports from monitors from those areas did report that when they

5 attempted to enter the area of Doljani and Sovici they were turned back by

6 people who did not appear to be regular HVO. They appeared to be

7 irregulars with a separate agenda.

8 Q. And again, sir, did you raise this issue with any HVO commanders

9 on the ground?

10 A. The concern at the time was more for the granting of access so we

11 could prove matters for ourselves.

12 Q. Let me turn now to another topic that was again raised yesterday

13 on several occasions. You indicated confrontation between the Serbs and

14 the HVO and the ABiH forces.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Again, sir, based on your time as an ECMM monitor and your

17 observations on the ground, were you able to observe relations between the

18 HVO and the Serb forces?

19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Mr. Murphy -- Mr. Mundis. I don't

20 even see you. Might I return to this access and irregular forces issue.

21 Have I understood correctly that there were instances when the HVO

22 authorities had granted a right to access to Doljani and Sovici and then

23 monitors were stopped by personnel which was not regular HVO personnel?

24 Is that what you were telling us?

25 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, on a number of occasions we complained

1 to the HVO authorities that will we had not gained access to the

2 Doljani-Sovici area when access had been granted by the authorities in

3 Mostar. We explained that a number of teams had been turned back by -- by

4 Croat personnel who we could not necessarily identify as HVO though it was

5 remarked to me by monitors that when they encountered these people, they

6 did not appear to be a formal military formation, they appeared to be

7 irregulars or some such. They had very little discipline. In fact, a

8 German monitor, Klaus Nissen, was turned back from a checkpoint with a

9 Nazi salute and a recommendation that he return to his country of origin.

10 When we complained about these matters, we understood that it

11 would be very simple for the HVO leadership to communicate with their

12 people in the area. They had direct access by road through Tomislavgrad.

13 There was no obstruction to them. There were known to be significant

14 numbers of HVO forces and HV forces in that area. There's no reason why

15 access would not have been granted nor authority exercised over these

16 people.

17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much.

18 MR. MUNDIS:

19 Q. Mr. Beese, just staying on the subject of irregular or --

20 irregular forces or uncontrolled elements, did you ever -- on any occasion

21 did you ever personally observe uncontrolled elements or irregular forces

22 engaged in combat?

23 A. The behaviour of people in conflict and their appearance did not

24 necessarily demonstrate their membership of any particular structure,

25 regular or irregular. At times of conflict, uniforms become worn, grubby,

1 badging less distinct, appearance less distinct. It is not always

2 possible to determine whether someone's a regular or an irregular.

3 Q. Let me now return to the subject that I was about to go to, and

4 that is relations between the HVO and the Serbs. Did you as part of your

5 duties on any occasion observe situations of cooperation between those

6 forces?

7 A. Yes, I did.

8 Q. Can you please elaborate or explain those instances to us.

9 A. There were -- there were two -- two distinctly different interests

10 here. The first was a wish expressed to me by Jozo Maric that he be able

11 to visit Banja Luka and to have detailed discussion with the Serbs there.

12 He alluded to matters of prisoner exchange and to other bilateral

13 relations. That was in -- in March, 2003 [sic]. Then again, a little

14 later, there were discussions between Mr. Maric and, I believe, Colonel

15 Milosevic, the Serb commander of the Trebinje area, on matters of mutual

16 interest. That is one side, the desire to have improved communications

17 with them.

18 Our teams did monitor and witness a degree of cooperation between

19 the Croats and the Serbs in so much as when Travnik was attacked by the

20 HVO on the 4th of June, I believe it was, and the HVO forces, forced to

21 withdraw from that area, they passed west through the Serb lines,

22 south-west through Serb territory and back into Herzegovina in the south.

23 The same thing happened when the HVO ceased to cooperate with the

24 armija in Zepce later in the year. The -- there was evidently a degree of

25 collusion where Serb armour was brought in from the front line to support

1 a Croat attack on Zepce. The Croats later withdrew west through the front

2 lines in that area and back again down through Herzegovina.

3 The same happened in the Konjic area where the Croat citizens --

4 MR. JONJIC: [Interpretation] On the record, page 29, line 8, it

5 says that it was a meeting in March, 2003. So that's obviously a mistake.

6 THE WITNESS: I apologise. 1993.

7 To return to my answer: Croatian people were withdrawn from the

8 Konjic area also through the Serb lines to the east and back south again

9 into Herzegovina. I believe that demonstrates a degree of cooperation.

10 MR. MUNDIS:

11 Q. Again, sir, just for the record, when we -- when you refer to Serb

12 forces, what -- of what military force were these Serb forces?

13 A. This is the Bosnian Serb army.

14 Q. Do you happen to know its abbreviation in the Serbian language?

15 A. We would have referred to it as the BSA, but, no, I have no

16 further knowledge of it.

17 Q. Let me ask you, sir, because on page 28, line 10, you made

18 reference to HV forces in the area in response to an earlier question.

19 Can you elaborate upon that?

20 A. I'm sorry, which area?

21 Q. We'll just go -- just one moment, please.

22 [Prosecution counsel confer]

23 MR. MUNDIS:

24 Q. This part of your answer -- I'll just read the sentence two

25 sentences prior to this. This is on line 8 through 10 on page 28: "They

1 had direct access by road through Tomislavgrad. There was no obstructions

2 to them. There were known to be significant numbers of HVO forces and HV

3 forces in that area."

4 A. That is area south-west between Prozor and Tomislavgrad and west

5 of Jablanica.

6 Q. And, sir, what was the basis for your conclusion or your testimony

7 that there were HV forces in that area?

8 A. Our monitors had reported the presence of HV forces for a number

9 of weeks in that area. I personally saw HV forces in that area.

10 Q. Do you recall the approximate time period that you saw HV forces

11 in that area?

12 A. Late February through March.

13 Q. On how many occasions?

14 A. I cannot recall the number of occasions. I can think of at least

15 two occasions when I personally saw HV personnel and trucks.

16 Q. How do you know they were HV personnel and trucks?

17 A. On one occasion I saw HV plates on the back of a truck. That's

18 registration plates, badging. More generally, if one saw significant

19 numbers of troops -- and by "significant numbers," on one occasion our

20 monitors reported the movement of 30 buses full of troops from Split

21 through Tomislavgrad to the north. The troops frequently disembarked in

22 Tomislavgrad. They wore new uniforms, they were freshly cut, dressed, and

23 not at all of an irregular bearing. They didn't appear to be experienced,

24 they had the nervous swagger of new soldiers, new to an area, and on some

25 occasions through Herzegovina one saw troops with HVO badges pinned to

1 their arms rather than sewn.

2 Q. Why would the troops one saw in Herzegovina have HVO badges pinned

3 to their arms rather than sewn?

4 A. In the early days there was a denial of the presence of HV forces

5 in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

6 Q. Mr. Beese, you mentioned that you saw these people in the area

7 south-west of Prozor and Tomislavgrad and west of Jablanica. Did you see

8 them in any other locations?

9 A. There were reports of them in Southern Herzegovina, around

10 Ljubuski.

11 Q. Mr. Beese, did you personally prepare any reports on HV

12 involvement in the conflict during the time that you were there as an ECMM

13 monitor?

14 A. I did.

15 Q. Do you recall approximately when you made such reports?

16 A. The report would have been written around the time that I moved

17 from the south to Zenica.

18 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I would ask that the witness be shown

19 Exhibit P 02620.

20 Q. Do you see a document before you on the screen?

21 A. I do.

22 Q. Can you tell us what this document is.

23 A. It is a report submitted by me to the ECMM office in Zagreb

24 concerning HV involvement in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

25 Q. And, Mr. Beese, how do you know that this document was submitted

1 by yourself?

2 A. It is -- it is shown at the top to be from the Deputy Head of

3 Mission, RC Zenica. That would have been me at the time.

4 Q. Can you go down, please -- if we could go down to paragraph 2 of

5 this -- or section 2 of this document.

6 Does this section, Mr. Beese, set forth your observations

7 concerning HV support?

8 A. It does.

9 Q. And if you note section 3, which begins on the bottom of this page

10 and continues on the next page, can you tell us what that is, please? Go

11 to the next page.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Can you tell us what this is, this part of the report?

14 A. This is a -- as much evidence as we could summon on the matter.

15 Q. Now, Mr. Beese, concerning this report, who actually drafted it?

16 A. I did.

17 Q. And what did you base this report on? What was the source of

18 information contained in this report?

19 A. Personal observations of HV forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the

20 considerable reports in writing from my teams, and personal recount from

21 my teams. There were, of course, many claims from the armija of such.

22 Sometimes the claims were exaggerated. In this particular case it was

23 essential that we proved it for ourselves.

24 Q. Other than this report, Mr. Beese, that you yourself drafted, were

25 you aware of any other ECMM reports concerning HV involvement?

1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If I may ask a question with regard to this

2 document. When one looks at the top of it, it has again a date and

3 mentions which clearly are procedural and related to the OTP. Is this an

4 original document where this heading was added or is it a document that

5 was copied from another document, retyped?

6 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the original report that I wrote was

7 written without the various headings, times, and the like. It is -- it is

8 possible that it was copied onto a Capsat machine from a report of mine.

9 I did produce the original report on Capsat. It was the only means we had

10 to type. We had to type through a Capsat machine. It may well have been

11 stored on one of the very few personal computers we had in Zenica and then

12 cut and pasted onto a Capsat machine.

13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could you be a bit more precise perhaps as to how

14 much editing has been done. You have told us that the headlines have been

15 added. Has there been other editing done to it?

16 THE WITNESS: Not that I can recall, sir.

17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation].

19 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, we're not getting any interpretation.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are not getting any

21 interpretation. I will repeat my question.

22 I am addressing Mr. Mundis. Looking at this document, P 02620,

23 initially it was a part of other documents, and now I am asking you

24 whether this document should be under seal or not, because when we were

25 first discussing some documents under Rule 70, you asked that they be

1 under seal.

2 MR. MUNDIS: I can -- I can certainly address that issue of --

3 that Your Honour has expressed. Some -- perhaps I could go into private

4 session, please, very briefly.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will go into

6 private session.

7 [Private session]

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 3227-3232 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 [Open session]

12 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we're in open

13 session.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So in open session,

15 I would like to say that we referred to document P 02620, an ECMM document

16 that was presented to the witness. So we're going to continue with the

17 examination-in-chief after the break, because it's 10.30, and we'll

18 reconvene at ten minutes to eleven.

19 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.

20 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, please proceed.

22 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

23 Q. Mr. Beese, right before the break we were discussing your 3 June

24 -- or 3 June, 1993, report on HV involvement. Were you aware if at any

25 time after your report was drafted whether an update report was prepared?

1 A. I initially prepared a report whilst working in Southern

2 Herzegovina. A second version was produced at the request of Ambassador

3 Jean-Pierre Thebault for presentation to headquarters in Zagreb.

4 Q. When was that report prepared or produced?

5 A. The second report, I believe the one we're looking at, on the 3rd

6 of June is the report.

7 Q. After your report was prepared, do you know of an update to your 3

8 June, 1993, report was produced?

9 A. I believe that Jean-Pierre Thebault referred to it and possibly

10 added further information in his own reports later but it was not replaced

11 as such.

12 Q. Do you know -- do you have any knowledge as to when Ambassador

13 Thebault added further information in his own reports?

14 A. I cannot recall.

15 Q. How did you become aware that Ambassador Thebault may have added

16 to your report?

17 A. Sight of reports.

18 MR. MUNDIS: I'd ask, Mr. President, that the witness be shown

19 P 03827. I do note for the record as of yet we -- we do have the

20 translation.

21 Q. Mr. Beese, do you see a document on your screen?

22 A. I do.

23 Q. What -- what is this document?

24 A. This is an update on the involvement of the -- HV involvement in

25 Herzegovina.

1 Q. And when you say it's an update, an update of what?

2 A. It refers to my previous report. It is presumably an update to

3 that report.

4 Q. And who drafted this report?

5 A. This was produced by Jean-Pierre Thebault.

6 Q. And how do you know that?

7 A. It is announced at the top that it's from the head of the regional

8 centre Zenica.

9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Beese. I'd now like to turn to a topic again that

10 was discussed yesterday, and that was humanitarian convoys. During the

11 time, sir, that you were with the ECMM, do you know if any reports were

12 produced concerning restrictions on humanitarian convoys?

13 A. The various teams working on convoy routes, such as mine initially

14 in the Mostar area, would have referred the matter of convoy restrictions

15 to the headquarters in Split and Zenica. The headquarters in Zenica would

16 refer the matter to Zagreb, and I believe there were special reports

17 written by the humanitarian office of the ECMM in Zagreb about these

18 affairs.

19 Q. And again, Mr. Beese, how would these headquarters have produced

20 reports?

21 A. Generally using information received by the teams in theatre.

22 Q. Do you recall the specific dates of any such reports?

23 A. I do not, I'm afraid.

24 MR. MUNDIS: I'd ask that the witness be shown P 02424.

25 Q. Do you see that document, Mr. Beese?

1 A. I do.

2 Q. Can you tell us, based on the face of this document, what it is?

3 A. This is a document written by Christian Warming, a political

4 analyst in the headquarters Zagreb, based on reports given him from the

5 regional centre in Zenica.

6 Q. Could we please go to the second page of this document. And who

7 produced this document, Mr. Beese?

8 A. This is from the head of regional centre, Jean-Pierre Thebault.

9 Q. And the subject of this report?

10 A. It concerns the freedom of movement on roads necessary for

11 humanitarian transportation.

12 Q. Now, if we could please go back to the top of that, or if you

13 could focus your attention on the top of this document. Do you have any

14 knowledge about the information contained at the top of this document

15 above the line that says "From"?

16 A. The -- the line at that starts "NL Burum ..." which refers to the

17 particular satellite system through which this message was transmitted,

18 the message was transmitted apparently on the 16th of May, and it gives

19 the time.

20 Q. Do you -- do you know what those square stamps on the right-hand

21 side indicate?

22 A. I'm not familiar with them. Those would appear to be the stamps

23 of receipt and transmission by the communications centre in the Hotel I,

24 Zagreb.

25 Q. Thank you.

1 MR. MUNDIS: I would ask that the witness now be shown P 03627.

2 Q. Do you see that document, Mr. Beese?

3 A. Yes, I do.

4 Q. What is this document?

5 A. That is a further report on the roads and transportation of

6 humanitarian aid, sent by the head of regional centre Zenica, Ambassador

7 Jean-Pierre Thebault, to the headquarters of the ECMM.

8 Q. And again the line above the line that says "From HRC Zenica,"

9 what does that refer to?

10 A. Perhaps you can just draw the document to the top. That again is

11 the transmission methodology; sent by Capsat on the 23rd of July, 1993.

12 Q. Can you tell us now -- turning to another topic, Mr. Beese. Can

13 you tell us about any instructions that ECMM received concerning -- again

14 in late May. I want to focus your attention on late May, early June,

15 1993. To your knowledge, did ECMM receive any instructions concerning the

16 implementation of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan?

17 A. It did, yes.

18 Q. Can you tell us what those instructions were?

19 A. There was agreement between the HVO and Presidency that the

20 Vance-Owen Peace Plan should be implemented as far as it could in free

21 Bosnia, and the ECMM was instructed by the Zagreb headquarters to assist

22 with the implementation of that peace plan.

23 Q. Do you recall any of the specifics as to what ECMM was to do with

24 respect to the implementation of this plan?

25 A. ECMM was to ensure as best it could that all parts of free Bosnia

1 understood that the Vance-Owen Peace Plan was to be implemented and to

2 give guidance to local authorities as to how they might proceed to prepare

3 for implementation.

4 Q. And what type of guidance was to be given to local authorities as

5 to how they might proceed to prepare for implementation?

6 A. There was a need, first of all, to convince local authorities that

7 this was a genuine request, given that the area was far from quiet and

8 peaceful. Secondly, to ensure that they had time to nominate their

9 representatives region by region, party by party.

10 Q. Were there issues concerning whether this request was genuine?

11 Because you've told us you needed to convince local authorities that this

12 was a genuine request. Why was that necessary?

13 A. Many local officials could hardly believe that, given the degree

14 of hostility and unrest in the region, that it was at all feasible to

15 implement a normal -- a normal civil institution. They believed it to be

16 impossible. So, to an extent, did we.

17 Q. Why? Why did you believe it to be impossible?

18 A. We had two principal concerns: The first was that it wasn't -- it

19 wasn't feasible for the parties to prepare for implementation. I was

20 aware that delegates in Central Bosnia, while travelling to and from towns

21 through front lines in the course of their business, had been either

22 brutalised or, in some cases, killed. That meant that some parties would

23 be disinclined to put forward their best men if they were going to be

24 either imprisoned or killed.

25 Secondly, the Vance-Owen Plan at that stage, with its description

1 of provinces 8 and 10, were still taken by the HVO to mean that they would

2 run that not simply as an area for which they were responsible but for

3 which they had total control and ownership of despite the fact that in

4 many parts of it they did not hold majority by population.

5 Q. When you say, Mr. Beese, that this was "... still taken by the HVO

6 to mean ..." can you tell us who you were referring to within the HVO.

7 A. Discussions with Mr. Prlic in Mostar had given us cause for

8 concern, but he gave us reason to believe that if the Vance-Owen Peace

9 Plan was implemented, that they would have total control and therefore

10 they would impose their choice of culture, education on the -- on the

11 people.

12 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, just as a point of clarification since

13 my client is mentioned, and I know I do get to cross-examine, but he's

14 mentioning "us," and I would like to know, perhaps Mr. Mundis, this is his

15 next question, whether he's going to tell us whether this is firsthand

16 knowledge or hearsay; and if it's hearsay, from whom. That way I could

17 better prepare for my cross.

18 MR. MUNDIS:

19 Q. Can you answer the question, sir? When you said "he gave us

20 reason to believe," were you personally in attendance at meetings where

21 this was discussed?

22 A. Yes. I refer to a meeting with Mr. Prlic that is described in my

23 account.

24 Q. Do you recall where we might find that in your account, or the

25 date?

1 A. In meetings leading up to the Mostar meeting of 18 April.

2 Therefore, between the 1st and the 18th of April.

3 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I would ask that the witness's account

4 as marked yesterday, I believe that might still be with the registrar or

5 the usher, if that could be provided to the witness, please.

6 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

7 MR. MUNDIS:

8 Q. I'd ask, Mr. Beese, if you could please leaf through that until

9 you find the appropriate passage or passages.

10 A. There is no apparent reference to the Vance-Owen Peace Plan and

11 our concerns during the meetings, and I'm referring to particularly, I

12 think, to the meeting of 15 or 16 April.

13 Q. Perhaps, Mr. Beese, if you could turn your attention back to

14 paragraph 296, which is on page 56, and perhaps looking at the preceding

15 page where a date is indicated.

16 A. Thank you.

17 Q. Now, paragraph 296 reflects meetings held on what day, or a

18 meeting held on what day?

19 A. It indicates here the 7th of April.

20 Q. Who was in attendance at this meeting?

21 A. Jean-Pierre Thebault, myself, and Mr. Prlic.

22 Q. Can you please read paragraph 296 out loud.

23 A. "It was always difficult to listen with patience to such political

24 dogma. Prlic had a new agenda which bore no resemblance to my own

25 proposal for the setting up of joint municipal commissions. On the

1 contrary. The Vance-Owen Plan suggested to the HVO that they would in

2 principle control Herzegovina and Central Bosnia right up to the line

3 between Travnik and Kiseljak. The Lasva Valley. And the HVO thought that

4 they would own this patch. They never questioned the difference between

5 having responsibility for an area and outright ownership of a province.

6 Prlic wanted his schools to teach the Croatian language and customs. He

7 wanted the HVO car registration plate system to predominate and for the

8 BiH forces in HVO provinces to disband completely or to surrender to HVO

9 control. Nothing, not one tiny element in the discussion suggested room

10 for negotiation or for compromise."

11 Q. Now, Mr. Beese, what was the basis for you writing this paragraph

12 in your account?

13 A. This is my conclusion drawn from the conversations of the meeting

14 with Mr. Prlic and Ambassador Thebault.

15 Q. A meeting at which you attended.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now, let me ask you if you can elaborate upon that portion of the

18 report where you indicated a difference between having responsibility for

19 an area and outright ownership of a province. Can you explain what you

20 meant by that?

21 A. The production of maps for the Vance-Owen Plan had on occasion

22 been coloured to show who had responsibility for them and were produced

23 presumably to demonstrate to each of the three parties to the plan that

24 there was an element of fairness or sharing out of responsibility by

25 territory. However, that's a very different thing to the way by which you

1 run an area for which you are responsible, and consistent with the lack of

2 evidence of any consultation with or discussion with the Muslim or Bosnian

3 faction, it was apparent that the HVO gave direction not through

4 discussion but achieved their aims through direction and control. That is

5 not a normal way to bring a minority, or even a majority in some areas, to

6 your thought.

7 MR. KARNAVAS: One other point of clarification: Might we know

8 what his proposal was and where we can find it? Because he notes that "my

9 own --" "it did not --" "which bore no resemblance to my own proposal."

10 This is in paragraph 296. I assume that he had a proposal, he myself; he

11 had such authority. And of course I would suspect that he had a proposal

12 in writing or one was memorialised someplace. If we could get some

13 answers regarding this particular point. I think it's very vital to our

14 discussion today.

15 MR. MUNDIS: And of course -- and of course it can be covered --

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. That didn't -- I was aware

17 of that question.

18 MR. MUNDIS: Of course, I'm sure this will also be explored in

19 cross-examination.

20 Q. But, Mr. Beese, can you tell us about the reference in paragraph

21 296 to what appears to be your own proposal for setting up joint municipal

22 commissions.

23 A. It had been a consistent theme in the context of cooperation and a

24 reduction of tension that in each town a conference be established or a

25 commission where both parties were present. Given the level of tension in

1 the area and conflict, if those commissions, conferences, could not

2 regularly meet and resolve their disputes, it would be impossible to

3 implement a political solution to open conflict, and therefore I had

4 proposed that a prerequisite to the implementation of any plan every town

5 should have a commission with two parties sitting at the table full time.

6 Q. And, Mr. Beese, how was your proposal to establish these

7 commissions conveyed?

8 A. My proposal dates back much earlier and is consistent with our

9 need to bring parties together to end conflict, not solely to implement a

10 political solution. There was a need for both parties to be at the table

11 all the time and not simply when the international agencies suggested that

12 for once they should talk to each other over a table. So it was not

13 produced solely as a solution to implementation of the Vance Peace Plan.

14 Q. Was your proposal set forth in a document or orally at meetings or

15 both or in some other manner?

16 A. At meetings I would have suggested on every occasion that it was

17 necessary for the two parties to talk and work together, so therefore is

18 not set down as a document.

19 Q. Let me now turn to another topic that was mentioned briefly

20 yesterday, being the concept of propaganda.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a question to ask with

22 respect to paragraph 296. You said that you proposed to Mr. Prlic to

23 create a commission in -- a mixed commission in the municipality. Now,

24 was that an initiative that you took yourself? Was it a idea that came

25 from you, or were you exercising what was decided on the basis of the

1 Vance-Owen Plan? So was it your own initiative or were you transmitting

2 to Mr. Prlic what should be implemented within the frameworks of the

3 implementation of the overall Vance-Owen Plan?

4 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, we received very little direction from

5 our superiors in Zagreb as to how we were going -- we were to go about

6 this task. We in RC Zenica discussed it amongst ourselves, the senior

7 monitors, as to how this could be implemented given the conditions. It

8 would have been a prerequisite, I think, under anybody's understanding of

9 the implementation of a political solution that there should be some means

10 by which the two parties would come together in every municipality. They

11 did not because of the conflict. It was a concept that we believed was

12 essential for success of the plan. It was not a plan given to us by our

13 superiors in Zagreb.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. That was a very

15 precise answer.

16 Now, with respect to this municipal commission, did you personally

17 speak to people from the municipalities in Mostar, for instance, and say

18 that they should take part in the work of these mixed commissions?

19 Because we have the impression that your contacts were only with certain

20 persons from the HVO. Did you contact other persons in the municipality,

21 in the field? Did you have any other contacts?

22 THE WITNESS: Our teams spoke with the heads of municipalities and

23 the authorities of both sides across the region, but for us, if you like,

24 centrally, that's the head of regional centre and myself, the principal

25 concern was that delegates, for instance, from the SDA, from the Muslim

1 side, were being abused at HVO checkpoints, on one occasion one had been

2 killed, and a particularly important one had been imprisoned. If there

3 couldn't be a presentation of these representatives at the table, then any

4 -- any thought of discussions around a table would have been quite

5 impossible. We had to resolve the blocking points before we could make a

6 mechanism work.

7 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

8 Q. Yesterday, Mr. Beese, you mentioned propaganda. Can you tell the

9 Trial Chamber which party or parties engaged in what might be termed

10 propaganda?

11 A. There was a degree of propaganda on both sides, I should say at

12 the beginning.

13 Q. Let me stop you there. By "both sides," which sides are you

14 referring to?

15 A. The Croat and Muslim elements both used propaganda to some extent.

16 Q. And how do you define propaganda? What do you mean by that term?

17 A. Propaganda is passing a message, spreading dogma in order to

18 encourage others to support your position.

19 Q. Can you describe some examples of propaganda that you became aware

20 of while serving as an ECMM monitor in Bosnia?

21 A. Propaganda took many forms. I believe it was essential for the

22 HVO to ensure that their people and supporters had a consistent message.

23 Verbally to us their constant reference to Muslim aggression was

24 propaganda aimed at determining our opinion as to who is right, if you

25 like, or who is wrong, or who is responsible for violence. There was also

1 propaganda spread to the peoples of Herzegovina through media, whether

2 that is press or television. There is the raising of flags. There is the

3 presentation of -- of values. I can't say whether they were official or

4 not, but the display of pictures of Ante Pavlovic and symbols of Ustasha

5 not only publicly displayed but in the offices of HV officials was

6 designed to produce a message. There were messages given.

7 On occasion at meetings I had with HVO officials, on occasion

8 Mr. Tadic -- I arrived at a meeting to find a television crew was there.

9 The crew filmed our discussion, filmed him leading me from office to

10 office. The -- our conversation and discussions were not recorded and

11 therefore the images, I believe, were used to give an impression that we

12 were supporting and supportive of Mr. Tadic's policies. The wording

13 applied to the transmission would have been at the television's choice

14 rather than what we actually said.

15 The same was the case at a meeting I had with Mr. Maric in Grude,

16 where Mr. Maric was addressing a meeting of relatives of people who had

17 been held captive by the Serb forces in -- predominantly in the Banja Luka

18 area where the meeting was televised. I believe that it was designed to

19 show that we supported Mr. Maric's call for humanitarian effort in

20 releasing these prisoners to support the HVO position that they were an

21 aggrieved party.

22 Q. Mr. Beese, you mentioned, or testified as reflected on lines 21

23 and 22 of page 54, that propaganda was spread to the peoples of

24 Herzegovina. Were you aware of any propaganda in other areas covered by

25 regional centre Zenica?

1 A. Propaganda takes many forms. Propaganda can be used, for

2 instance, by the use of specific words. The word "Mujahedin" itself can

3 be used as propaganda.

4 Q. How so?

5 A. By both parties. One party can suggest, for instance, if you --

6 if you announce to a Croat village that the Mujahedin were about to come

7 over the hill, you could reasonably expect the villagers to take flight.

8 They had no reason to wait for the Mujahedin to turn up, with all that the

9 word "Mujahedin" meant, to see what their intentions were.

10 But likewise, in the southern area, if you said that Tuta was

11 coming, that was bad news. You weren't going to get the sort of hearing

12 you might get from an organised unit of the HVO. You were going to be

13 subject to the determination of Tuta. That was bad news.

14 So the use of these words, whether to encourage people to fly or

15 to condemn another party by referring to Mujahedin, for instance, is in

16 itself a form of propaganda.

17 Q. And these two examples that you've given, Mr. Beese, of propaganda

18 relating to the Mujahedin and propaganda relating to Tuta, which party or

19 parties were employing these two specific lines of propaganda?

20 A. The HVO referred to Mujahedin in meetings that I had with them,

21 specifically a meeting with Mr. Prlic. Other more junior HVO officials

22 referred to Muslim extremists and Mujahedin. I raised the matter with

23 Valentin Coric who had complained about extreme Muslim elements, the

24 Mujahedin in Central Bosnia. I asked him how they came to be in Central

25 Bosnia, as almost any movement into and out of Central Bosnia was governed

1 by HVO and their checkpoints.

2 Q. Mr. Beese, based on your work as an ECMM monitor, did you see any

3 effects of this propaganda?

4 A. Yes, two effects. The first to convince the people of Herzegovina

5 that the Muslims were indeed extreme. It would have been very difficult,

6 given my understanding of the bond within families in Herzegovina, those

7 that I met, they were not keen to send their sons to war unless there was

8 just cause for this war. Muslim aggression justified defence, and

9 therefore by broadcasting details of Muslim aggression by any means would

10 encourage families to release their -- their sons, husbands, fathers for

11 the fight.

12 Q. You indicated two effects. That was the first. Do you recall a

13 second effect?

14 A. The second effect was the just cause of territorial claim. The

15 use of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, for instance, to demonstrate Croat

16 ownership of provinces, and to some extent to convince people of success.

17 Whilst engaged in the Gornji Vakuf cease-fire and withdrawal

18 talks, I returned to Siroki Brijeg one night to find that whilst we had or

19 were discussing active cease-fire and withdrawal it was pointed out to me

20 by two people that on television in our base, that the mayor of Siroki

21 Brijeg was pictured urging his troops on, that is those that were -- had

22 come from Siroki Brijeg to Gornji Vakuf, in -- in the fight. And to see

23 them urging on at a time when we were actively discussing cease-fire was

24 extraordinary, and I can only believe that the -- the importance of that

25 was to demonstrate that the HVO or the Croats had not been beaten and were

1 still doing a good job at the front.

2 Q. Mr. Beese, did you notice, as an ECMM monitor, were there any

3 noticeable effects of propaganda by the HVO in Central Bosnia?

4 A. The HVO in Central Bosnia would use flags to show that territory

5 was theirs. The routine use of flags was extremely provocative. They

6 would raise a flag wherever they had a post, whether that post was manned

7 by a thousand men or simply two. And the continued raising of flags of

8 one particular party in a federation, particularly on the interface

9 between the two peoples, which Central Bosnia might seem to have been, was

10 inflammatory. The raising of the HVO flags in Travnik during Mr. Boban's

11 visit had specifically sparked protests and violence. So the raising of

12 flags raised tension but demonstrated to people that there was a Croatian

13 presence and some success.

14 Q. To your recollection, Mr. Beese, were -- was the subject of

15 propaganda covered in ECMM reports?

16 A. The raising of flags was. The -- some of the incidents that I've

17 referred to with television coverage were also recorded, but I can't refer

18 to specific reports.

19 Q. Okay.

20 MR. MUNDIS: I would ask that the witness be shown P 02692.

21 Q. Do you see that document on the screen before you, Mr. Beese?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. What is this document?

24 A. It is a message from the Danish delegation of the ECMM in Zagreb

25 to a gentleman whose name is unfamiliar to me.

1 Q. Okay. Can we please turn to page 7 of this document.

2 Can you, please, Mr. Beese -- actually, we want page 7. Sorry, if

3 you could go forward two more pages. The cover page -- I'm looking for

4 the page with the number 7 at the bottom.

5 Can you tell me, Mr. Beese -- I would like you to look at the

6 section headed 8.6, "RC Zenica reports." And particularly the first two

7 paragraphs of that part. If you could take a look at that, sir.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Can you tell us what this special report -- or what this report is

10 referring to?

11 A. It concerns the conflict in Travnik and the withdrawal of Croatian

12 people from Travnik and from some surrounding villages into stronger

13 pockets, in particular Busovaca and Vitez.

14 Q. And the second paragraph under that section?

15 A. It concerns the allegations of atrocity in some of the Croat

16 villages that people had fled from.

17 MR. MUNDIS: I'd now ask that the witness be shown Prosecution

18 Exhibit P 02849.

19 Q. Do you see that document, Mr. Beese?

20 A. I do.

21 Q. Can you tell us what this document is?

22 A. It's a Capsat report from the head of regional centre Zenica,

23 Ambassador Thebault, to the headquarters of ECMM in Zagreb, particularly

24 to the Head of Mission, to the Deputy Head of Mission, chief operating

25 officer and humanitarian cell.

1 Q. And do you know what this document concerns?

2 A. Yes, I'm aware of the situation it refers to.

3 Q. Can you tell us what it refers to, please.

4 A. The reports that we received from our teams in Travnik were to the

5 effect that the Croats in Travnik had withdrawn their civilian population

6 prior to a military assault. The military assault failed. The HVO

7 announced that the Muslim element had driven their people out of Travnik.

8 We believe this was not correct and that therefore this was propaganda.

9 Q. Could we please go to the top of page 4 of this document.

10 A. The print's a little small for me. Thank you.

11 Q. If we could get that enlarged, please.

12 A. Thank you.

13 Q. I'd like to draw your attention, sir, to the first --

14 approximately the first ten lines or so under paragraph 5.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Mr. Beese, can you elaborate on anything that's written in this

17 report?

18 A. I don't have access to HVO policy directly. I've not been briefed

19 by the HVO, but it did appear to us that they had a desire to withdraw

20 their people from areas that might later be considered pockets and to move

21 their people to areas in which they were stronger. There were two reasons

22 to do this: First of all, they could better make use of people in

23 stronger communities that they could defend. Secondly, it would change

24 the voting pattern in that area in Croat favour.

25 The use of propaganda, the claims that the Mujahedin were coming,

1 was one way of encouraging Croats to leave their homes. The second is a

2 direct order to move out of their homes. There were occasions known to me

3 when Croats wished to move to a different centre. On one occasion we were

4 aware that Croat civilians wished to move from the Vitez-Busovaca area up

5 into Zenica where they may have felt safer and better looked after than in

6 the pockets. We understood from witnesses that they were prevented from

7 doing this by the Vojna Policija.

8 Q. Mr. Beese, a few moments ago you mentioned reports concerning

9 Travnik. Do you recall whether there were any ECMM reports that were

10 specifically produced concerning events in Travnik?

11 A. Yes. We had based a team, a competent and experienced team in

12 Travnik at that time.

13 Q. And who were -- who were the members of this competent and

14 experienced team that was in Travnik at that time?

15 A. Torbjorn Junhof was the head of the coordination centre there, a

16 Swedish officer, supported by Philip Watkins, a British officer.

17 Q. And do you recall, sir, what type of information they were

18 reporting from the Travnik area? Well, first of all, let me ask you the

19 time period. Let me ask you to focus on the time period in June, 1993.

20 Do you recall any of the events that they were reporting in June of 1993?

21 A. They witnessed the onset of open conflict in Travnik from which

22 they were withdrawn by UNPROFOR. They then patrolled the villages around

23 the area of Travnik to ascertain what was actually happening on the

24 ground.

25 Q. What was done with the information that Mr. Watkins and Mr. Junhof

1 reported to the regional centre?

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Kovacic.

3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I hate to interrupt but

4 I think we'll lose quite a lot of time if we deal with Travnik. Travnik

5 is not in the indictment, as far as I know. I think that that part of the

6 story is a little irrelevant, or are we opening up the question again of

7 what is and what is not in the indictment, but Travnik is definitely not

8 in the indictment. Thank you.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Yes. Mr. Mundis,

10 what is your objective in pursuing the subject of Travnik?

11 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, Travnik, as you -- as you are all too

12 familiar, is in Central Bosnia and of course the regional centre Zenica

13 was reporting on events in Travnik, but I will move on.

14 I would ask that the witness be shown a document which is marked

15 P 02168.

16 Q. And while that's coming up on the screen, let me ask you this,

17 Mr. Beese: What type of political reporting, if any, was ECMM doing

18 during the time period you were Deputy Head of Mission?

19 A. We were required to report on political matters of the moment, in

20 particular in June, July on Vance-Owen Peace Plan and the -- the municipal

21 structures in place at the time.

22 Q. Do you now see, sir, the document that's before you?

23 A. I do.

24 Q. What is this document?

25 A. It's a Capsat report from Ambassador Jean-Pierre Thebault to the

1 headquarters of the ECMM.

2 Q. And what is the subject of this document?

3 A. The political and military situation in middle -- Central Bosnia.

4 Q. Have you seen this document before, Mr. Beese?

5 A. Yes, I have.

6 Q. What would have been the basis --

7 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm referring to

8 relevance once again. I agree the ECMM office in Zenica was active in

9 that area, and geographically it's all referred to as Central Bosnia.

10 However, in the indictment only Gornji Vakuf and Prozor are mentioned in

11 Central Bosnia. Now we're going to be talking about Zenica, Travnik,

12 perhaps Vitez and Busovaca again, and so on and so forth.

13 I think that if we are dealing with these documents, we should

14 focus on the parts dealing with the towns mentioned in the indictment.

15 Geographically, they are part of Central Bosnia, but this is another part

16 of Central Bosnia, and it's not in our indictment. Thank you.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Then go on to ask

18 your question about towns that are in Central Bosnia.

19 MR. MUNDIS: I'm not sure, Mr. President. It's a bit unclear to

20 me whether I should proceed or --

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, proceed, but focus on what

22 is contained in the indictment.

23 MR. MUNDIS: Let me just briefly respond that of course the

24 Prosecution's allegations do concern the policies of the HVO and that

25 those policies, as this witness has testified about over the course of the

1 past two days, included certain elements within Central Bosnia. There

2 have been issues discussed concerning Central Bosnia. So we're simply

3 showing this witness some document or a document concerning the political

4 and military situation in an area that we believe is part of this case in

5 terms of HVO policies has been discussed.

6 Q. So again, Mr. Beese, can you tell us what would have been the

7 basis for this report, P 02168, that was prepared by the head of the

8 regional centre Zenica, Ambassador Thebault?

9 A. Could I see, please, a little more of the report?

10 Q. Would you like to see the following page?

11 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, before we answer the question, if I may.

12 I'm just a little troubled by Mr. Mundis's previous answer. I hesitate to

13 react today because I felt that yesterday perhaps I reacted more than the

14 Bench wanted me to, but in this instance it would appear now that matters

15 are being discussed and evidence is being brought in that is not

16 necessarily in the indictment. However, it's going to be used somehow to

17 either enlarge the indictment at the end of the trial. I really have a

18 very difficult time understanding what is the purpose of talking about a

19 policy that is outside this indictment. You know, is this for context

20 purposes? Maybe it's because of my Anglo-Saxon background, training, that

21 I don't understand this form of drafting indictments, but it seems like

22 everything, including the kitchen sink now, is being thrown at us, and I

23 need to know with specificity what it is that I am -- that I need to

24 respond to.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But let's hear the

1 question first, because you're anticipating something that we don't know

2 yet what we're going to hear.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. The Judges have just

5 remarked that in the indictment there's the general thesis of the joint

6 criminal enterprise with all its different aspects and facets, and one

7 should focus on that issue as well, of course. Yes.

8 MR. KARNAVAS: And if I might take the opportunity, since the

9 joint criminal enterprise was brought up, that is -- that is even more the

10 reason, that is even more the reason - I underscore that - when it comes

11 to cross-examination the Trial Chamber must be very mindful to allow the

12 Defence every opportunity to explore all of these issues as opposed to

13 limiting us as it has been, albeit sometimes we call it crime base, but I

14 think this underscores the complexities that Defence is facing with

15 respect to putting limitations on cross-examination. And I want to thank

16 Judge Trechsel for pointing out the fact that this goes to the general

17 concept of -- of what I would call the beast of joint criminal enterprise.

18 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, if I may add two words.

19 [Interpretation] Even if we use the facts concerning the region of Central

20 Bosnia within the context of this indictment, as we know from judgements

21 in other cases, the circumstances and the events are not the same as those

22 mentioned in our indictment. All of Central Bosnia was surrounded by the

23 BH army -- excuse me. Not all, but a large part, the northern part; Novi

24 Travnik, Vitez, Busovaca. They were totally encircled. So the context

25 must be different, and this has been established in other cases. So it is

1 not possible for the context to be the same. Therefore we cannot mention

2 this in the same context.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Continue,

4 Mr. Mundis.

5 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

6 Q. My question to you, Mr. Beese, was actually upon what basis did

7 Ambassador Thebault draft this report that you see before you?

8 A. Ambassador Thebault produced the report from evidence produced to

9 him from his teams on the ground. It endeavoured to show the situation in

10 Central Bosnia. And whilst one talks of Central Bosnia, I mean

11 particularly the Lasva Valley. We believed that the chain of

12 HVO-controlled municipalities along the Lasva Valley had a relevance not

13 only to the Lasva Valley but to provinces 8 and 10. They were not

14 separate from, they were a part of that. Indeed, they formed the northern

15 flank, if you wish to call it that, and boundaries of provinces 8 and 10.

16 Therefore, what happened in the Lasva Valley was directly relevant to what

17 happened south of it.

18 Q. Mr. Beese, I would like to ask you now, again, based upon your

19 observations, if you were able to reach some conclusions or ideas about

20 what the HVO goals were. Again, based on your observations.

21 A. With particular relevance to this region, the Lasva Valley, there

22 was a need for three things: The first was to withdraw Croat civilians

23 forcibly or voluntarily behind, that is south of the -- of the line into

24 provinces 8 and 10. By causing a degree of confusion by attacks, by

25 propaganda, it both encouraged Croats to leave their areas and return

1 south. It also supported the view that there was Muslim aggression.

2 Ultimately, it seemed to us the purpose of the Croatian communities along

3 that line - Kiseljak, Busovaca, Vitez - were, if you like, the border, the

4 front line. These people were responsible for drawing the attention of --

5 and preventing incursion by 3rd Corps of the armija south to support units

6 around Jablanica. They were, if you like, a screen to prevent

7 reinforcement of the relief of Jablanica and the Konjic area by 3rd Corps.

8 Q. And, Mr. Beese, in the wider area of Herzegovina, based on your

9 observations, what did it appear to you to be the goals of the HVO?

10 A. The goals appear to be the establishment of a mini-state and that

11 Herceg-Bosna would not simply be a concept but would be a mini-state, and

12 would be a mini-state that had all the necessary instruments of

13 government, of an operating economy, jobs for people, and a specific way

14 of life.

15 Q. Did you personally, Mr. Beese, observe any steps being taken in

16 this direction?

17 A. The -- the issues of culture, the raising of flags, the matters of

18 education, passports, number plates, demonstrated that a desired way of

19 life was to be implemented. The concentration of votes and therefore

20 political control through the movement of Croat civilians would support

21 the state definition of borders of that through control of all territory

22 south of the Lasva Valley, the attempt to secure all parts of the power

23 producing mechanism from the source of water in Lake Ramsko, the

24 hydroelectric facility towards Jablanica and south on the Neretva and

25 control of the factories below would produce an economy which would pay

1 people's wages and earn currency from export of power and products to

2 other areas.

3 Q. Mr. Beese, I'd now like to turn your attention to an entirely

4 different subject. Can you tell the Trial Chamber whether you were here

5 in The Hague last week or not.

6 A. I was.

7 Q. And for how long -- when did you arrive and when did you depart?

8 A. I spent two days in The Hague last week; Wednesday and Thursday.

9 Q. And, Mr. Beese, during that time period you met with my colleague

10 Mr. Bos; is that correct?

11 A. I did.

12 Q. And among other things, you were asked to review a large number of

13 documents.

14 A. I was.

15 Q. Do you recall, sir, approximately how many documents you reviewed?

16 A. I reviewed something in the region of five lever-arch files.

17 Q. Can you tell us, if you have an idea, approximately how many

18 documents were contained in these five lever-arch files?

19 A. No, not by number of documents. A significant number.

20 Q. And approximately how long, Mr. Beese, did you review these

21 documents provided by Mr. Bos?

22 A. I was asked to show that the documents were, to the best of my

23 knowledge, the product or through-put of the ECMM. I was not required to

24 read them word-for-word, simply to support the view that they were ECMM

25 source documents.

1 Q. And how long did it take you to go through these binders?

2 A. Two to three hours.

3 Q. How many of the documents in the binders did you actually look at?

4 A. I looked at every single page.

5 Q. And the five binders that you reviewed contained what type of

6 documents?

7 A. Principally ECMM reports of the type we've seen on the screen

8 today.

9 Q. And what -- can you be more specific when you say "ECMM reports of

10 the type we've seen on the screen today"?

11 A. The majority were Capsat reports from RC Zenica and its supporting

12 teams to Zagreb, and a number from Zagreb on beyond to the Presidency.

13 Q. And if you remember, sir, the reports that you reviewed, what were

14 their frequency?

15 A. There were -- there were daily reports, there were weekly

16 summaries, and there were special reports.

17 Q. Other than the ECMM reports, whether daily, weekly, or summary,

18 special reports, what other types of documents, if any, were contained in

19 the five binders?

20 A. There were a number of documents which were not ECMM documents or

21 products but which had been passed by ECMM from the theatre to other

22 destinations.

23 Q. Can you give us an example of a type of document that was not an

24 ECMM document but which had been passed by ECMM from the field?

25 A. Copies of letters sent to the ECMM or relevant to the ECMM by the

1 parties, either from Mr. Arif Pasalic, for instance, in Mostar, or from

2 Mr. Boban or Mr. Prlic.

3 Q. What was the time period of the documents in the five binders that

4 you reviewed?

5 A. They were approximately from the time of my arrival to some months

6 after I departed.

7 Q. And what was the geographic scope of the reports contained in the

8 five binders that you reviewed?

9 A. Bosnia-Herzegovina as controlled by the forces of the BiH or HVO.

10 Q. Which -- if you recall, sir, which regional centres were covered

11 by the documents -- regional centre or centres, that were covered by the

12 documents in the five binders?

13 A. Those relating to RC Zenica, whether it was based in Split or

14 Zenica.

15 Q. When you reviewed the documents, Mr. Beese, did you direct Mr. Bos

16 to remove any of the documents?

17 A. There were a number of documents, not very many, but some which I

18 could not substantiate or indicate were part of the ECMM reporting

19 process.

20 Q. Do you know what happened to those documents?

21 A. Mr. Bos removed them from the files.

22 Q. Based upon your review of these documents, Mr. Beese, the

23 documents provided by Mr. Bos, what conclusions did you reach about the

24 material contained in the five binders?

25 A. That Mr. Bos had assembled a number of critical documents. They

1 were a selection, they were by no means, of course, all the reports issued

2 at the time, but they covered many of the matters pertinent to affairs in

3 Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time.

4 Q. How do you know that they covered many of the matters pertinent to

5 affairs in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time?

6 A. Because I was party to those affairs myself.

7 Q. And with respect to those affairs --

8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, if I may just add a question.

9 Would you say, sir, that this also applies to reports filed at the

10 time when you had already left the area? Would you still consider that

11 you were a party to the events?

12 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, no, I was not party. I simply

13 confirmed to Mr. Bos that I was aware of the personalities and could

14 confirm their presence in theatre at that time and that the content of the

15 messages was consistent with my understanding of affairs, which did not

16 change greatly in the months after I left, and that the tone of the -- or

17 the -- the way the reports had been written was consistent with the styles

18 applied by the various monitors who compiled the reports.

19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

20 MR. KARNAVAS: I will need to touch upon this at some point after

21 Mr. Mundis finishes. I take it he's laying a foundation, but I do want to

22 touch back on this because I believe the gentleman has speculated about

23 reports that were generated after he left, and I would like to know on

24 what basis - because he wasn't in the field - other than pure speculation.

25 MR. MUNDIS:

1 Q. Mr. Beese, I believe there's a mistake in line 17 in part of your

2 answer. I believe that what you said was the way the reports had been

3 written was consistent with the styles applied by the various monitors.

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. What's the basis for that conclusion?

6 A. Many monitors, of course, came from countries other than those

7 that speak English as their first language, therefore their particular use

8 of English phrases is particular. It doesn't mean to say it's wrong or

9 inaccurate, but they have a particular style and choice of words.

10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Beese.

11 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution has no further questions for the

12 witness.

13 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I take it, if I may, based on this

14 presentation from -- from -- the last serious of questions by Mr. Mundis,

15 which perhaps in my opinion should have been done at the beginning of the

16 direct examination, but far from me -- far be it from me to give advice to

17 the Prosecution, this was a basis for laying the foundation for which all

18 these other documents will be coming in.

19 If I may, just on this very, very narrow issue, unless the Trial

20 Chamber wishes to do so, I would like to conduct what we could call a voir

21 dire, a questioning on a limited basis, because at some point we may be

22 asked whether we're going to have any objections as to the documents

23 coming in. And so I would ask, or I would ask the Trial Chamber to ask,

24 for instance, whether he can vouch to any degree of certainty - of course

25 under oath - that these documents are authentic, number one; and number

1 two, are reliable. In other words, they haven't been altered in any

2 fashion. And especially as to documents that may have been generated

3 after he left the field. I know that he's talking about reading through

4 the tea leaves, that, yes, this is the same phraseology that folks that

5 come from various countries might use, but that doesn't necessarily mean

6 that the document itself has -- is authentic or reliable.

7 So I would like that to be asked, and also perhaps some questions

8 as to the chain of custody: Where were these documents kept? Who were

9 the custodians? Where are these archives? And so on and so forth. I

10 think those are critical issues, and perhaps also, since we have the

11 gentleman here, whether Mr. Bos also has other documents that it might be

12 relevant to the entire case, not just for the Prosecution, or that might

13 go to his mindset as to what the events were and who was responsible for

14 certain incidents in Central Bosnia or other places in Bosnia-Herzegovina

15 during the critical period of the indictment.

16 So I would be more than happy to conduct this mini-voir dire, as

17 it were, or perhaps the Trial Chamber might wish to ask these questions.

18 I'm merely making the suggestion and request.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Karnavas, you're going

20 to begin with your cross-examination, and within the cross-examination you

21 can, of course, ask the witness document by document, the ones admitted or

22 your documents, you can ask him about the authenticity of the documents,

23 but that comes at the cross-examination stage. During the Prosecutor's

24 stage with the documents and the authenticity of the document, if you feel

25 that the document is a false one, and then you can take that matter up,

1 and if you doubt the authenticity of the document, then you'll be able to

2 ask the witness about it. Otherwise, the documents that were presented to

3 the witness, you were all able to note that they had the ECMM stamp on the

4 documents, and all the documents also have the time, the hour, minutes,

5 second when they were sent out to Zagreb or elsewhere. So there are a

6 number of elements on the basis of which we are able to conclude that

7 those documents come from the authority mentioned on the document itself.

8 Except if you think that certain passages have been falsified, and then

9 it's up to you to prove it. Otherwise, all the characteristics of the

10 document point to the fact that they were ECMM and that they were

11 officially sent to the Prosecutor through official channels from the ECMM

12 to the Prosecution. So there's an international authority transmitting

13 the documents to the Prosecution. And it might seem -- it would seem

14 unbelievable that this authority would falsify documents, but perhaps you

15 have reason to believe this to be true. If so, it's up to you to prove it

16 and not to throw out these statements without proving them, make the

17 allegations without proving them.

18 So you haven't got the originals. Most of the time they are

19 copies, of course. They are faxes as well, or documents sent out through

20 electronic communication. So they are in a copy form. They are not the

21 originals as such.

22 Counsel Karnavas.

23 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. First and foremost, I

24 want to make sure that the record is very clear that no allegations have

25 been made.

1 Secondly, I do have experience with this particular organisation

2 in being rather uncooperative in my experience in providing access to its

3 archives. We don't have access to everything. And I don't have access to

4 all the originals.

5 Be that as it may, it has been the practice in other Trial

6 Chambers not to admit any documents until after the cross-examination,

7 thereby allowing both parties to present their positions. In other words,

8 the Prosecution would ask the Court which documents -- or the Court would

9 ask the Prosecution which documents it wishes to tender, it would then

10 turn to the Defence to see whether there would be any objections. The

11 objections might be noted for the record for appeal purposes, even under

12 this particular system, and then the Trial Chamber would make a decision

13 whether a document would come in or not, and of course if the Defence

14 would be objecting to a particular document on authenticity, it would be

15 up to the Defence or to the party who is objecting to demonstrate as to

16 why that document would not come in.

17 So there are no accusations being made. On the other hand, I'm a

18 Defence lawyer, and I take nothing and no one at their word. I'm entitled

19 to challenge. At this point in time the gentleman wishes to bring in --

20 or the Prosecution is going to bring in documents which were generated

21 after the gentleman was with this particular organisation. I merely wish

22 to have one particular question posed to this witness, whether, based on

23 observing these documents, can he with any degree of certainty tell us

24 whether these documents are indeed authentic, and are they reliable?

25 Those are two very -- questions. I think it's not unreasonable and

1 nothing should be read into those.

2 So I'm not suggesting that this organisation or any other

3 organisation is trying to do anything in particular, and if I conveyed

4 that, I apologise to the gentleman and to the organisation, although it

5 has been uncooperative with us.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The questions that

7 have just been raised can be raised before the start of the

8 cross-examination. It is obvious that you're going to be allowed to ask

9 questions of that nature, but you should go ahead and ask them at the

10 start of the cross-examination. We're not going to raise them now and

11 then wait two months before continuing. So keep your ammunition for the

12 beginning of the cross-examination.

13 Now, I'm looking at Mr. Mundis. What are the exhibits that you're

14 going to ask to be tendered into evidence, admitted into evidence?

15 MR. MUNDIS: All of these documents, Mr. President. We're asking

16 that all of these, these five finders, the approximately 40 documents that

17 were shown to the witness, the witness's account, we're asking -- we will

18 be tendering all of these documents. It might be easier for us to produce

19 a spreadsheet with the information. I don't believe it's a particularly

20 useful exercise for me to read into the record several hundred numbers of

21 documents we propose to tender into evidence, but it is our intention,

22 through this witness and his testimony over the past two days, that all of

23 these documents are relevant, reliable, have probative value, and should

24 be admitted into evidence.

25 And I'm fully aware that the Defence are going to respond to the

1 written document we filed today but it's certainly our position, Mr.

2 President and Your Honours, that all these documents be admitted into

3 evidence based on this witness's testimony. I want to make that

4 absolutely clear for the record.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Mr. Karnavas,

6 before I give you the floor.

7 To summarise, you presented a first set of documents beginning

8 with 1.215, and it goes on to 9.607, and those exhibits were presented to

9 the witness who commented on them on the basis of your questions and in

10 response to your questions. So this is recapitulation.

11 Then you also presented a document which was not in this set here,

12 in this binder, but was in the other pile that I have to my left, and this

13 morning you questioned the witness about some of them.

14 You're now saying, officially, that you're going to ask that all

15 the documents be tendered into evidence, that is to say those on the list

16 plus the others, not all of which were presented to the witness. Those

17 not presented to the witness, with the exception of one such document,

18 will be the subject of a written submission from you, and the Defence will

19 be responding to the procedure of admission without having the documents

20 presented, and then also with respect to the relevance and ultimately the

21 probative value and weight of those documents.

22 So I have just summarised the situation at ten minutes past

23 twelve.

24 Mr. Mundis, could you tell me if I have got the situation right

25 and summarised it properly?

1 MR. MUNDIS: Perhaps it's an interpretation problem. Our

2 position, Mr. President, is that these documents, the materials in the

3 five binders, were presented to the witness but were not done in court.

4 That is, the witness sat down, as he testified about, and reviewed them.

5 So we would -- we would ask that it be reflected in the record that our

6 position is they were presented to the witness but not in court, and he

7 described -- he testified about the procedure that was taken out of court.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Very well. Yes. I'm

9 going to give the floor to Counsel Karnavas, but when I personally looked

10 at this yesterday, and I think my colleagues will agree, in my mind when I

11 discussed this, the documents between Mr. Bos and the witness, and you

12 told us how he went through them with Mr. Bos, because we still have some

13 time left, you could present them very quickly to the witness in the

14 presence of the Defence counsel before this Trial Chamber. We could take

15 binder number 1, and you could say we have Exhibit 626, ECMM. Yes, I

16 recognise it. Then go on: 954, ECMM document; yes, I confirm that. And

17 then you could go through these documents in front of everyone, and that's

18 what I suggested you do yesterday. You preferred to follow a different

19 line.

20 Counsel Karnavas.

21 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, and I feel like we're on

22 the same wavelength right now, because I was just going to say why can't

23 they just do it on the record? I take them at their word that they went

24 through the documents with the gentleman, but we need to make a record,

25 and albeit we had some questions being asked for foundational purposes, I

1 think it's much better to have the witness go through the binders. We can

2 go through -- we do have some time because we're scheduled to be here

3 until 1.45. Go through them. And of course I would then ask at the

4 conclusion of all of this, I would still ask that though they are tendered

5 they not be admitted into evidence until after the conclusion of the

6 cross-examination. That's all I'm asking. But I do think that it would

7 be clearer and nicer, since we have the witness here, to just go through

8 the -- through the -- we can take a little break. I understand Mr. Mundis

9 is up on his feet but perhaps is a little tired also from having to

10 prepare for this witness, but after the break I'm sure he can rejuvenate

11 himself so we can go through these documents, make our record, and then

12 it's the way you proposed it, Mr. President. I think that's a good

13 process for the rest of the trial.

14 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, if I could --

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, I will give you the

16 floor, but Counsel Karnavas has just put forward a suggestion which agrees

17 with the one I made yesterday, coincides with that, and that is that --

18 yes, we're going to take a break now, but when we reconvene, we put your

19 binder to the witness so that he can see it and then he can say 626, yes,

20 500 et cetera, yes, I have seen the document, I confirm it, and so on and

21 so forth. When we get through them all, the Chamber, as also suggested by

22 the Defence, will see. After the cross-examination, the Chamber will give

23 a definitive ruling and then there will be no problem. [In English] What

24 do you think?

25 MR. MUNDIS: Well, Mr. President, if it takes us one minute per

1 document, it will take about six and a half hours to do that. If it takes

2 30 seconds, it will take us about four more hours. I'm happy to do that,

3 but really, Mr. President, with all due respect, I'm not sure it's the

4 best use of the Trial Chamber's time.

5 Again, the witness has testified about what he did. There is a

6 record of what he has done with respect to these documents. However,

7 perhaps during the recess I can consult with my colleagues and we can see

8 what we can do about using the remaining time.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In actual fact, if we need the

10 e-court system, it will take a long time, but if you take the binder

11 physically and place it before the witness's eyes, then we'll be able to

12 follow it all, 626, and all the other numbers. It will just take a

13 second. So my solution would be to place the hard copy in front of the

14 witness and then you can say 626, okay; 954, okay; et cetera, onwards, and

15 we could get through it very quickly. We won't need six hours.

16 Mr. Scott, I said that you sent in a written submission. It can,

17 of course, be orally modified to suit the development of events, and the

18 Prosecution always has to adapt itself to be adapted to the latest

19 developments. Mr. Scott.

20 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. Apology to my colleague

21 Mr. Mundis. I intervene because this is an issue that doesn't relate only

22 to Mr. Beese but will relate to a number witnesses in the future, and

23 indeed there will be a witness coming next week from another organisation

24 which we will propose and handle exactly same way that we have done with

25 this witness unless and until the Trial Chamber gives us very clear

1 instructions to the contrary.

2 Your Honour, with all respect, this would be an incredible waste

3 of time. The witness has testified under oath, under oath - and there is

4 no reason to say he's lying - that he did this. He said he looked at

5 every document, and he confirmed that they were ECMM documents. He went

6 through every one. He said he went through every single one. Now, if

7 Mr. Karnavas has some reason to think that Mr. Beese is lying, put the

8 question, put the basis to the witness and ask him. Why should we spend

9 -- you have limited the Prosecution to 400 hours to present our case.

10 Now, why should we spend any part of our 400 hours going through one

11 document at a time, 350; is that correct; is that correct; is that

12 correct? The witness has done it. He testified to it under oath, and

13 unless Mr. Karnavas or some other Defence counsel has a reason to say this

14 man is lying and he didn't do that, then the record has been made. There

15 is a record in the case that this has been done. He's identified it, he's

16 so testified. We can ask him again if he did it and we can say what we

17 already did, and he can say it again: I reviewed every document with

18 Mr. Bos last week and I confirmed that all the ones except for the ones

19 that were removed were ECMM documents. He's already testified to that.

20 There is no reason to believe that that is false.

21 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may just propose a solution -- a solution.

22 And first of all, I think Mr. Scott ought to keep his powder dry. Nobody

23 is accusing anybody of lying, and I take offence to that. I take offence

24 to that. It is highly unprofessional.

25 Another solution would be, since they're in binders, for the

1 gentleman, over the break, to look at them and then Mr. Mundis can say, In

2 binder number 1, going from this number to that number, did you review

3 them? Yes, and so on and so forth. That's -- that's another solution.

4 It's not document by document, but where I come from you go through every

5 document every single time, and perhaps the Prosecution should not have as

6 many documents. That's not my fault. They chose this approach, not me.

7 MR. SCOTT: Well, I don't know where Mr. Karnavas practised law

8 but that's what we do where I come from.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you. The practical

10 solution would be to take a break now. We could have a half-hour break,

11 slightly longer, and then the witness can go through the binder again and

12 I myself will be asking him when we reconvene, asking him whether the

13 documents he saw in the binder correspond to what he told Mr. Bos, to know

14 that they are ECMM documents, that some of them he knew while he was on

15 duty in the field, others that he didn't know of but that he did know that

16 they were official documents, and so on. So perhaps we could settle that

17 question that way.

18 Yes, Counsel?

19 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise, but I'd just like to

20 mention that the Defence does not have the files, the binders. So once

21 again, if we apply this method, the method that you yourself as the

22 learned Judge have proposed, we won't be able to control the proceedings

23 because we don't have the binders.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. If you don't have

25 the binders, I can give you my own. That way you'll have the documents

1 and you'll have half an hour to go through the documents.

2 Mr. Mundis, the Defence -- well, yes. They have the numbers but

3 they don't have them in front of their eyes. So if you have an extra

4 binder, provide me with one. I'll give them the Chamber's binder so that

5 they have a chance to go through it. I won't need half an hour to go

6 through all the documents.

7 MR. MUNDIS: I have one set of the materials here, which I need to

8 give to the witness, or if the witness is going to be asked to review them

9 over the break, then he needs a set. Mr. Bos apparently has another set

10 in his office we can provide, I guess, to the Defence at the break. Of

11 course, they're all in e-court and they can print them all out, but we'll

12 provide a copy to the Defence, and I would ask that the usher then provide

13 Mr. Beese with a set of all five binders of the documents during the

14 recess.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you have two sets

16 of documents, one set that can be given to the witness and another set

17 that can be given to the Defence. If you don't have sufficient copies,

18 I'm happy to place my documents at the disposal of the Defence counsels.

19 So we all have half an hour to go through them.

20 It is now 20 minutes past twelve. We reconvene in half an hour's

21 time, that is to say approximately ten to one, and I hope you have a good

22 half-hour reading time.

23 Yes, Witness. Go ahead, please.

24 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, so we can establish the basis upon

25 which I pass these documents, I pass these documents on the basis that I

1 understood the subject matter, I understood the markings such as

2 destinations and transmission, and I had no reason to believe these were

3 anything other than legitimate ECMM communication. I could not, of

4 course, validate that they were the transmission of the time as I was not

5 in theatre through the entire period. Is that sufficient for your needs,

6 sir?

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Obviously we understood

8 that you weren't in theatre during some of these documents, when some of

9 these documents were compiled. That's what I said yesterday. But you can

10 look through the documents now and say, yes, this is an ECMM document, and

11 everybody will know and understand that you weren't actually there. So

12 you can do no more than that. So it's 12.20. We reconvene at ten minutes

13 to one.

14 --- Recess taken at 12.18 p.m.

15 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let us resume the hearing. I

17 take note of the fact that the witness was able to go through the binders

18 in the almost 40 minutes that we had of a break, and I should like to take

19 note that the Defence also had a chance to look through those documents,

20 albeit quickly.

21 Mr. Beese, can you confirm that during those 40 minutes you were

22 able to consult the five binders that you were provided with by the

23 Prosecution?

24 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I was.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Can you confirm for

1 the record that those binders contain documents which are numbered, they

2 have reference numbers, and you were able to go through those documents?

3 THE WITNESS: I was able to go through them, Your Honour, yes.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Among the documents

5 that you went through, were there documents relating to the time period

6 that you were on duty in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and were there also documents

7 which were drafted after your departure from Bosnia-Herzegovina? Would

8 that be right?

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, there were.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. For the record once

11 again, could you tell me when you arrived in Bosnia-Herzegovina and when

12 you left Bosnia-Herzegovina.

13 THE WITNESS: I arrived in Bosnia-Herzegovina on the 8th or 9th of

14 January, 2000 -- 1993, and I departed on the 21st of July, 1993.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you arrived on

16 the 8th of January, 1993, and you departed on the 21st of July, 1993.

17 Now, among the documents that you looked through, were there

18 documents which were drafted before you arrived in January, 1993?

19 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Were there documents that were

21 drafted after your departure on the 21st of July, 1993?

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Within the documents drafted

24 after your departure, were there documents that emanated from the European

25 Mission that originated from the ECMM, and were there other documents as

1 well?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, there were, to both.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The documents drafted after your

4 departure, did they relate to events which you yourself had knowledge of

5 ex officio, or did they refer to individuals whom you might have met at

6 the time?

7 THE WITNESS: They related to events that I was familiar with,

8 Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Having examined all the binders,

10 as far as you're concerned are there any documents which to your mind have

11 nothing to do with the events that you were familiar with, or are you

12 telling us that all the documents that were presented by Mr. Bos to you

13 and which you were able to go through relate to the period that you were

14 familiar with?

15 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, on examination, there are four

16 documents within these files for which I cannot show there is any

17 connection with the ECMM. It does not mean to say that they are not

18 relevant material, but I cannot demonstrate that they are part of the ECMM

19 means of communication.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. And those four

21 documents, can you give me the references, the reference numbers, or not?

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. Document 09044. Also document

23 02935. Also document 03346. And finally, document 03539.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the document 9044, 2935,

25 3346, and 3539, in your opinion have nothing to do with the ECMM, but you

1 do not exclude the possibility of them being pertinent and relevant; is

2 that what you're saying?

3 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Now to make up for

5 lost time, but my colleague has a question before we do that.

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Can you say anything about the authenticity of

7 these four documents? Whether they are authentic?

8 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour, I cannot confirm that.

9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. So on the basis of

11 what has been stated -- Mr. Mundis, go ahead.

12 MR. MUNDIS: Sorry to interrupt, Mr. President. Although these

13 four numbered documents were clearly in the binders that Mr. Beese had, I

14 just note at this point in time they are not on the list and they are not

15 among the materials that were provided to the Trial Chamber. So I believe

16 that the copy that Mr. Beese had inadvertently had some documents which

17 apparently Mr. Bos did not remove from the set that the witness reviewed.

18 But just to be clear for the record, the four numbers he read out are not

19 among the documents that are included on the spreadsheet.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So that was a

21 mistake. They were documents that normally would not have been presented.

22 So you're saying that those four documents are not on the list that you

23 would like to have tendered into evidence.

24 I'm now looking at the Defence. Are there any observations that

25 anybody would like to make? Counsel Ibrisimovic, quickly, please

1 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. On

2 the list of documents that the Defence was provided on the 13th of June,

3 there are four documents which were drafted before the witness arrived in

4 Bosnia-Herzegovina. They date back to the beginning of 1992 and 1993 when

5 the witness was not in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't know whether the

6 witness has seen those documents, but I have them on the list. They are

7 the first four documents on our spreadsheet, or list.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, if I ask the question it is

9 because I noticed that myself.

10 Mr. Beese, the Defence has just noted that there are four

11 documents which were drafted before your arrival. Perhaps you had

12 knowledge of those documents once you arrived?

13 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, could you refer to those four documents

14 for me?

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Counsel Ibrisimovic, could

16 you give us the reference numbers of those documents, please.

17 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] 00626, 00954, 01045, and 01050.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 626 is the 24th of October,

19 1992, ECMM, relating to the activities of the 23rd of October, 1992.

20 The next document, 954, is a document that was drafted at 18.18,

21 addressed to Zenica, and is a report which concerns Christmas Day, 1992.

22 Document 1045 is a message for the Danish delegation to Zagreb.

23 The date is the 2nd of January, 1993. It says "priority."

24 And the fourth document, 1050, is a document which begins at the

25 4th -- on the 4th of January at 18.15 hours and goes up to the 31st of

1 August -- well, actually there are a number of entries.

2 Mr. Beese, those documents, what about them?

3 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, taking 1050 first, that is, I believe,

4 a diary written by an ECMM monitor, covering the period that I was in the

5 region. Although it is first dated the 4th of January, I did arrive on

6 the 2nd of January in theatre. So it does cover the same period.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the others?

8 THE WITNESS: They do refer to events before my arrival. They are

9 matters that I was generally aware of, but I agree, I apologise, they were

10 prepared and transmitted before my arrival, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you for those

12 precisions.

13 The rest of the Defence team. No observations from the Defence?

14 Then the Chamber, which deliberated, considers that on the one

15 hand there were documents that are being tendered, documents presented by

16 the Prosecution which begin with 1215, and that is this binder here with

17 the table, so these are documents that have been recognised, and they are

18 admitted.

19 All the other documents in the other files and binders, those

20 documents will have an identification number, marked for identification,

21 and the Chamber will only give a ruling on the documents at the end of the

22 cross-examination. But it would like to suggest to the Prosecution that

23 they indicate, when the time comes, which documents they would like to

24 present to other witnesses or introduce through other witnesses,

25 particularly those that were drafted after the witness's departure in

1 1993.

2 So we're going to have the cross-examination, after which we will

3 decide and give a ruling, and it is up to the Prosecution to tell us

4 whether among the list of documents there are those that might be

5 introduced through another witness or other witnesses. We will also make

6 a ruling on the written submissions that have been filed, and we of

7 course invite the Defence to submit their written submissions,

8 collectively, perhaps, within a 10-day deadline, shall we say? Try and

9 send them in as soon as possible so we can deliberate and on that basis

10 make a ruling in the matter, because the question might arise and will

11 probably arise another time.

12 Mr. Beese, that completes your examination-in-chief. You will be

13 recalled to the Tribunal at a date to be made known to you by the

14 Registrar for the cross-examination stage, and then you will be, of

15 course, answering questions put to you by the Defence counsel and any of

16 the accused who wish to ask you any questions. It will be in a few weeks'

17 time, so the Defence and the accused will have a chance to prepare

18 themselves for the cross-examination.

19 Between now and then, you are to have no contact with the

20 Prosecution or members of the Defence teams, because having made the

21 solemn declaration, you are now a witness of the justice system. So

22 you're in a rather specific situation. So please don't make contact and

23 have contacts either with the Prosecution, which has completed its

24 examination-in-chief. That's how we stand now.

25 Mr. Mundis.

1 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. I probably should have

2 jumped up a minute or two earlier. I did explain to Mr. Beese that he

3 would have to come back, and actually in order to check some available

4 dates with Mr. Beese, we are proposing that Mr. Beese return for

5 cross-examination commencing on Monday, the 14th of August, 2006. That

6 would be immediately upon the return from the summer recess.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So the date might be

8 an excellent date indeed, however, I understood it -- as I understood it,

9 the Defence, with respect to the 15th of August, would prefer it if we

10 were to take up our proceedings again on the 16th of August. And I see

11 Mr. Karnavas would like to say something.

12 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Actually, if we

13 could have it, like, on the 17th, because for those of us who are

14 practising our religion, the 15th of August, both in the Greek Orthodox

15 and the Roman Catholic religions, that's a very large holiday. It's

16 usually the third largest holiday after Christmas and Easter, being

17 Madonna Day. That's the one reason.

18 Hopefully by that point in time we will have the translations. I

19 particularly don't like to have Mr. Beese come right then. I would prefer

20 him coming later only because, obviously while the Prosecution will be

21 basking in the sun and relaxing, we're going to be busy having to prepare

22 for Mr. Beese. I spoke with some of my colleagues, and it would appear

23 that the cross-examination is going to take an extensive period of time.

24 I think, by my estimation, I alone will need four to five days with

25 Mr. Beese. I think some of the others may wish to have a day or two, but

1 I think in total it's nearly ten days that we're going to be asking

2 Mr. Beese to be cross-examined in light of the length and the breadth of

3 his direct examination. He went into all sorts of areas; military,

4 political, economic, and so on and so forth. So anyway, I just bring that

5 out.

6 And again, at this time I would want to make this oral application

7 that we start perhaps on the 17th so that those of us who might be in

8 another country for this particular holiday would have a chance to get

9 back, you know, and I certainly would appreciate that because of my

10 elderly relatives, and this is one of the days that I usually visit every

11 year.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There was an oral submission,

13 first of all the matter of the 15th, and you would like to see us begin on

14 the 17th of August. That's the first possibility. But there's a second

15 possibility which was raised, and that is that you would prepare to start

16 on the 17th of August but not straight away with this witness because you

17 have all the intellectual preparations that go with the cross-examination,

18 and you have the right, just like anybody else does, a few days of rest.

19 So you feel that it would be better if the cross-examination of this

20 witness should not start on the 17th of August but perhaps we could have

21 another witness on the 17th of August, which would allow you to go ahead a

22 few days later.

23 Mr. Mundis, that was the gist of the problem.

24 MR. MUNDIS: Certainly the scheduling matters are entirely a

25 matter for the Trial Chamber. We would certainly, given the fact that we

1 spent barely more than five and a half hours, we would certainly, for the

2 record, oppose any cross-examination that will last five or seven or 10

3 days with respect to Mr. Beese, and I want that made very clear on the

4 record at this point in time.

5 We can certainly endeavour to bring another witness in on the

6 17th. I'm not sure if we would be sitting on Friday the 18th of that

7 week. If not, then I will endeavour to bring in a very short crime base

8 witness and that would be the only witness we would have that week.

9 Again, if Mr. Beese is available the following week, we would bring him at

10 that point in time.

11 I also note that we are a two months away from this proposed

12 cross-examination and there is adequate time, in our respectful views, for

13 the Defence to both have a few days' rest and to prepare for the

14 cross-examination of this witness. So, again, we would oppose, for the

15 record right now, any cross-examination lasting the amount of time

16 Mr. Karnavas has suggested.

17 I'm at the Trial Chamber's liberty. I would appreciate hearing

18 from whether we're sitting only the 17th during that week and I will

19 endeavour to bring in a short crime base witness.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Now, as to the

21 duration of the cross-examination, as you know the Appeals Chamber will be

22 making a ruling on that score, so let's wait to hear what the Appeals

23 Chamber has to say, and after that we will determine the time that will be

24 allocated to all the teams for the cross-examination. So that remains to

25 be seen. The Chamber does not want to rule on that today because we shall

1 wait to hear the ruling by the Appeals Chamber. Once we have heard it, we

2 will be able to tell you how long the cross-examination will last. I

3 think that we all understand that now.

4 Mr. Mundis has just told us that to all intents and purposes he

5 could get a crime base witness for the 17th. So what about the following

6 week, the week after that?

7 Mr. Beese, could you come in the week after the 17th and 18th?

8 That means that the cross-examination of the witness -- and the witness

9 also has other things to attend to, I'm sure, so he will have to consult

10 his calendar, but would that next week be acceptable from the Monday after

11 the week of the 17th?

12 Mr. Karnavas?

13 MR. KARNAVAS: I believe that would be appropriate, Your Honour,

14 and of course I do want to stress one point: Mr. Mundis said we have two

15 months to prepare. We need to keep in mind that the 127 pages have not

16 been translated, so it will be less than two months, but I believe that

17 wouldn't be a problem the following week. And since we're only going to

18 have one day, I think it might be best to not even -- you know.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Yes. Right.

20 Mr. Beese, you were able to follow the debate. The week -- the

21 15th of August, I think, is a Tuesday. So that will be Monday the 21st of

22 August. Yes, Monday, the 21st of August at 14.15 hours we would start

23 your cross-examination. And as you have gathered yourself, I'm sure it

24 will take several days. So try and secure that week between the 21st and

25 the 26th of August and place yourself at the disposal of the Trial

1 Chamber. I hope that that will be possible.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. That's fine. There

4 we have it.

5 We meet again, Mr. Beese, on the 21st of August at 14.15 hours. I

6 shall now ask Madam Usher to escort you out of the courtroom. I wish you

7 a pleasant journey back, and happy holidays.

8 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 [The witness stands down]

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We still have a quarter of an

11 hour. Would any of the parties like to make any further suggestions,

12 raise any questions? I can see Mr. Karnavas jumping up, and Counsel

13 Kovacic as well. Let's hear Mr. Karnavas first.

14 MR. KARNAVAS: I believe we probably have the same concern. It

15 was brought to my attention during the break, as one of my team members

16 was preparing for the documents for next week, that many of the documents,

17 as I understand, for the next witness are in Spanish and they have yet to

18 be translated into English. That's what I was told. I brought it up to

19 Mr. Mundis's attention, although I don't know whether that's his witness

20 or not. Perhaps we can hear from the Prosecution whether they intend to

21 be introducing Spanish documents or going through the documents with the

22 Spanish-speaking witness, but perhaps we could get some clarification on

23 this matter.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis.

25 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, we'll make some inquiries about this

1 following the rising of the Court this afternoon. My understanding from

2 Ms. Winner is that some additional material was placed on EDS as of

3 yesterday. We're in the process of providing the letter and indexes to

4 that. Some of the translations may be in that disclosure. But we'll make

5 these inquiries and inform the Defence later this afternoon as to the

6 status of any outstanding translations concerning the Spanish documents.

7 MR. KARNAVAS: And I appreciate that. I would, however, request -

8 and I think it's a minor request, not terribly inconvenient for the

9 Prosecution - to sort of give us the heads-up in advance and let us know

10 these sort of things, because we're basically drowning on this side. I

11 don't know about that side, but we're drowning here. We're barely being

12 able to prepare witness for witness. So if we have some advance notice

13 when they put stuff on the EDS. If they're translating at the last

14 moment, we need to know, because now we spend the entire weekend

15 preparing, and it makes for a very long trial. I mean -- and I

16 understand, Your Honours, you do the same thing, but in any event we do

17 need some advance notice. And as you can see we are trying to be very,

18 very reasonable on this side. I can say the same thing more or less by

19 the Prosecutor, but not always, but more or less. Anyway ...

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. That is the least of

21 it. Mr. Karnavas has raised a problem, Mr. Mundis. As far as I

22 understand it, they are additional documents that probably arrived in the

23 course of the proceedings that you have placed on the electronic system,

24 the EDS, and what you placed on the EDS system were documents in Spanish

25 and thence the difficulty for the Defence, and quite legitimately they

1 would like to have the translations provided as soon as possible. Of

2 course I personally also join in what the Defence has said, and I know

3 that their job is a difficult one in view of the masses and masses of

4 documents that they have to get through and that we hold sittings one day

5 after another with new witnesses coming in and so on. So it's quite

6 considerable work that they have to get through. And if they have

7 additional work because of additional difficulties and new documents, then

8 the Defence is kindly requesting that you could let them know in advance

9 if any documents like that are going to come up, because if they come up

10 on the EDS and they aren't able to confirm and verify them, then either by

11 professional courtesy could you pick up the phone and tell them straight

12 away and tell them that, well, there are five or six new documents that

13 have arrived. I think that is the least you could do in order to help out

14 the Defence counsel with that particular problem. So these fraternal

15 relations will, I hope, prevail and enable justice to march forward.

16 So is that something that you can do? Is it possible? Can you

17 ring up your learned friends and say that's the situation, "We've got new

18 documents coming"? And also to inform the legal officer of the Chamber as

19 well, of course, because I've just discovered this at this late hour.

20 MR. MUNDIS: I think that's something that we can probably

21 accommodate the Defence with, but I do again want to make a point -- I

22 believe a point in this respect, and that is we're not talking about new

23 documents, we're talking about translations of existing documents. And in

24 this instance, because the original documents are in Spanish, I understand

25 that that's different from a situation where the original document is in

1 Bosnian or Croatian or Serbian. But the point is we're not talking about

2 new documents. At least, that's my understanding sitting here today.

3 We're talking about translations of existing documents. And I understand

4 it's a fine line where we're talking about a language that perhaps not as

5 many people in this courtroom can read, but these are not new documents,

6 they are simply translations of documents that are already on the witness

7 list and the original language of which is Spanish.

8 But we will endeavour to communicate to the Defence as soon as

9 additional translations are put into the EDS system for them. And also,

10 if Your Honour wishes, we will convey that to the Chamber's legal officers

11 as well.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Kovacic, did you want to

13 address the same matter?

14 MR. KOVACIC: I was going to raise the same subject, but it is

15 already settled. Thank you.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. As far as next week

17 is concerned, Mr. Mundis, could you tell us who the witness is, the number

18 of documents, things like that?

19 MR. MUNDIS: I'd ask to go into private session in order to --

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Fine. Mr. Registrar.

21 [Private session]

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 3290-3293 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 [Open session]

3 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're back in open session,

4 Mr. President.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The meeting is adjourned for

6 today. We reconvene on Monday at 14.15. Have a good weekend, everyone.

7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.42 p.m.,

8 to be reconvened on Monday, the 19th day of June,

9 2006, at 2.15 p.m.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25