1 Wednesday, 26 September 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Would you call the case, please,
7 Mr. Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
9 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor
10 versus Prlic et al.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 On this Wednesday, 26 of September 2007, I would like to greet
13 everyone in this courtroom; Mr. Scott, on behalf of the Prosecution; the
14 witness; all of the members of the Defence teams; in particular,
15 Mr. Murphy, who will not be with us for much longer. So I'd like to
16 extend him a particularly warm welcome; and, of course, my greetings to
17 the accused as well; and all of those who help us to fulfil our mission.
18 Now it is time for the re-examination. We have time for us,,
19 exceptionally, and I give the floor to Mr. Scott.
20 WITNESS: NICHOLAS J. MILLER [Resumed]
21 Re-examination by Mr. Scott:
22 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. Good morning, Mr. President,
23 Your Honours, everyone in and around the courtroom. And, good morning,
24 Dr. Miller.
25 THE WITNESS: I can't hear. Obviously, I can understand, but
1 something is not on. Okay. Thank you.
2 MR. SCOTT: If I can just -- if I could ask the usher's
3 assistance, we might as well do it now, if we could bring up all of the
4 exhibits, please, and if the witness could be supplied the exhibits,
5 please. Might as well give him - we won't use all - but the easiest thing
6 to do is to give them all to him. Perhaps, I'm sorry, it's the third
7 binder, I think. It's the smaller of the third binder is, probably, the
8 one that may be needed. Thank you.
9 Thank you, Usher.
10 Q. Dr. Miller, I'd like to cover a few topics that were raised during
11 your cross-examination. The first of those is on the topic of separate
12 armies in the federation, which you were asked about on several occasions,
13 in particular by Mr. Karnavas. In particular, Mr. Karnavas asked you
14 about a statement that was made on page 2 of your, what I'll call the,
15 Herceg-Bosna Report, P10240.
16 You have that in front of you. Just refresh everyone's memory.
17 In the bottom of the main text on page 2 of that report, I'll just pause
18 to make sure everyone has had a chance to find that.
19 Toward the bottom of that page, of the main text, you say, this
20 was the statement where you attributed -- you quoted material attributed
21 to Mr. Prce saying: "the Croat side does not support a unified army in
22 BiH." You recall both that statement and the questions that you were
23 asked during cross-examination?
24 A. I recall that I was asked questions. I don't think I recall them
1 Q. All right. You discussed, let me put it then in this further
2 context, you discussed with Mr. Karnavas that at that time, in the two
3 entity arrangement, that is, the BiH Federation, the Croats and Muslims,
4 on the one hand, and the Serb entity, the Republika Srpska, on the other,
5 there were armies or were supposed to be armies at the entity level; that
6 is, what was -- in terms of the Federation, there was supposed to be a
7 federation army. Do you recall that?
8 A. I do.
9 Q. And, in writing, what you wrote here, again, by way of reference,
10 since Mr. Karnavas questioned you about that, if you look in your report,
11 it actually goes over to the top of page 3 until we get to footnote 7, you
12 will see that what was referenced, what you cited or quoted from was
13 something called, "Is Dayton Failing," which, obviously as we can all see,
14 was part of your report, although that particular document was not
15 previously marked as an individual exhibit.
16 In light of the questions that were raised, I've now had that
17 marked as Exhibit P10286, which I believe has been put in front of you and
18 was distributed this morning.
19 MR. SCOTT: I know it went to Defence counsel. I assume the
20 Chamber has it as well. It's P10286. It's a longer document but there is
21 only a couple of small parts or one small part that I direct your
22 attention to.
23 Q. The material you quoted from, and in light of the discussion that
24 you had with Mr. Karnavas, let me ask you to go to page -- the numbers
25 are -- excuse me, the pages are numbered on the top right corner, and if
1 you can go to page 8 of the document, you'll see that, if you go to the
2 bottom of page 8 E, the Federation army HVO and ABiH, I'm putting that in
3 context; then if you go to the top of page 9.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. At the top of page 9, again just to put it in context, the carry
6 over from the previous page says, "Rather, party loyalty has become the
7 primary criteria for command in the Federation army." Then, what you
8 quoted from in your report comes next, when it says, "The reasons for this
9 was explained by the Federation Defence Minister, Miroslav Prce: 'The
10 Croat side does not support a unified army in BiH because we do not want
11 to create another mini former JNA,'" which then continues on as the same
12 quote. That is on page 2 of your report that I directed your attention to
13 a moment ago.
14 Now, sir, my question to you is: Is it correct that the statement
15 attributed to Mr. Prce and the discussion that is it being had here is
16 specifically in the context of the Federation army?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, this is improper redirect examination
19 because he's talking about an army for BiH. There is nothing here about a
20 Federation or an entity. We are talking about one particular army, and he
21 quoted. The quote is here. It's up to the Trial Chamber now to
22 determine. This gentleman did not create the report. He did not
23 interview the gentleman who made the report. The Trial Chamber can read
24 the quote and can determine whether it's to the Federation or to the army
25 of Bosnia-Herzegovina altogether, but he is not qualified at this point to
1 give some sort of a guess or an assumption as to what exactly the
2 gentleman meant. It is, the text speaks for itself. That's the best
3 evidence that we have. Not what this person thinks the individual meant
4 at the time, because it's very clear what army they are talking about.
5 MR. SCOTT: Well, so says Mr. Karnavas. So says, so argues
6 Mr. Karnavas, but that's not -- you're exactly right, the document speaks
7 for itself, and what Mr. Karnavas didn't point out to the Chamber and when
8 the Chamber did not have the full document in front of it. As it does
9 now, you can plainly see that the entire context of the discussion is the
10 Federation army. That's what it says.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: It is not my --
12 MR. SCOTT: Beyond that, I, indeed, leave it to the Chamber to
13 properly draw its conclusion, but it was this man who cited it in his
14 report; and contrary to what Mr. Karnavas says, it is this man who knows
15 the proposition for which he cited it, not Mr. Karnavas.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Let me just point out for the record that, when the
17 Prosecution brings in a witness and does a direct examination, it is for
18 the Prosecution to provide the Trial Chamber with all the information.
19 I'm working off of what they provided me. I'm working off the direct
20 examination. To now try to play the victim, that somehow the Prosecution
21 has been victimised by this bad old Karnavas is simply wrong. It's pure
22 bad advocacy on the part of the Prosecution. He could have simply pointed
23 this out with the gentleman on direct examination, but to --
24 MR. SCOTT: No need to, Your Honour, until Mr. Karnavas took the
25 matter of the material out of context.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: I took it the way it was presented in the report.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, we are wasting
3 time, once again. The Judges will have to rule in the long run on your
4 thesis, on your submissions, and those of the Prosecution. We have before
5 us a document that is relevant, since it is directly related to your
6 cross-examination, page 8, paragraph E: The armies of the Federation,
7 HVO, ABiH. So we are really completely within the topic.
8 So, between what the witness says and the document says, the
9 Judges will be able to assess the issue. So let Mr. Scott ask the
10 questions, the witness will answer, and then we shall see.
11 So please pursue, Mr. Scott.
12 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. That actually concludes on
13 that particular document, but leading then to the three documents, the
14 three signed documents, if you will, then, part of Exhibit P10267, that
15 were discussed previously.
16 Q. And if you can go to that, Dr. Miller, I believe it will be in
17 that smaller of the third binder, 10267, which a number of people have
18 spoken to you about.
19 For reasons discussed yesterday, I'm skipping past the first 18
20 pages; and if you could please go to the document within that larger
21 document, that is a letter or report, excuse me, a report dated the 29th
22 of June 1998, from a Lieutenant General Stanko Sopta to Ante Jelavic, the
23 Minister of Defence. Do you have that?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. Now, Dr. Miller, I'm putting these documents and these questions
1 to you in the context of the question of the separation of the two armies
2 that you talk about in that part of your and other parts of your second
3 report, and I would just like you to look -- I would just like to point
4 you to several parts of the document and then ask you a couple of
6 In the first paragraph of that document, although the paragraphs
7 might not be entirely clear, but there is a paragraph -- there is a
8 sentence that says, "Under such conditions," and then it goes on to say,
9 at the ends of that, it says, "to build up a military power system that
10 will serve as a guarantee of the existence of the Croatian people in BiH."
11 And, then, in section 1, it talks about schooling, and the context will
12 indicate we are talking about military training, academy, training, in the
13 Republic of Croatia.
14 Going on to the first paragraph, starting on the second page, it
15 refers to military schools in the Republic of Croatia should be the basis.
16 In approximately the middle of that page, in the middle of the
17 paragraph, in the middle of that page, it talks about, "complete
18 orientation toward the Republic of Croatia, compatibility with commanding
19 personnel in the arm forces of the Republic of Croatia, which is necessary
20 in cases of synchronised activity."
21 If you go to page 3 of the document, the first so-called bullet
22 item on that page, the status of HVO members, "to be solved by official
23 recognition of the entire time period of every member of military
24 personnel who participate in the home land war, and by making a payment
25 for pension and medical insurance benefits in the Republic of Croatia for
1 the entire period."
2 The next bullet item, "to level the status of HVO members with the
3 status," with the status, "of HV, army of Croatia, members, the regular
4 payments of salaries and all social and retirement benefits."
5 Next page, it references to financial issues, giving numbers in
6 kuna per month. The Chamber will recall, by now, that "kuna" was the
7 Croatian currency at this time; not the currency of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
8 but the currency of the Republic of Croatia.
9 Further down on that page, in the next to the last paragraph,
10 again, it talks about the Croatian population in BiH, and in the last
11 line, "will defend Croatian territory and interests in BiH."
12 And in the last two pages, 5 and 6, it discusses the building of
13 barracks for this HVO army, even without SFOR, UNPROFOR, the international
14 peacekeeping force had by 1998 become SFOR; and, in the middle of page 5,
15 it talks about, "in order to overcome the situation, we propose to start
16 with building the barracks in private arrangements, which means without
17 approval of the SFOR.
18 And, then, on the bottom of page 6, carrying over to page --
19 excuse me, page 5 carrying over to page 6, it talks about how this can be
20 done; and even if SFOR turns out to prohibit it, it can be left -- it can
21 be still be set aside and used later or when SFOR leaves, at the top of
22 page 6.
23 Sir, with all that in mind, can you tell the junction whether that
24 information would be consistent with what you found in researching your
25 second report about the desire to maintain the HVO as a separate military
2 A. I would say that the implication from this letter goes beyond even
3 that and suggests that the HVO, or at least this person, would have liked
4 the HVO to become, in essence, a part of the army of the Republic of
5 Croatia; so, yes, and more.
6 Q. Could I ask you to go to that part of that longer, larger
7 document, again, which is a letter dated the 26th or a report dated --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, since we are on this
9 document now, I'm wondering who actually wrote this document. So was it
10 written by someone who was very close to the Republic of Croatia or
11 someone from the outside, someone who was neutral, and so on and so forth?
12 It's obvious that, for a historian, the author of a document can -- is
13 very relevant to the meaning of the document, depending on the ideas and
14 mental patterns of the author, as well as the author's aspirations.
15 When you studied this document, did you analyse those criteria?
16 You see that the document says certain things. Did you ask yourself who
17 is the author, what was his purpose, what was the context, why did he
18 write this document? Did you ask yourself that type of question?
19 THE WITNESS: When I looked at the document, I looked at the first
20 18 pages most closely, and I do not know any of the biographical details
21 about Stanko Sopta.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you studied the content
23 without asking yourself any questions regarding the author of the
25 THE WITNESS: That's true.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
2 Then pursue, Mr. Scott.
3 MR. SCOTT: If I might just assist the Chamber, and I'm sure the
4 Chamber has seen this, but this is a report from Mr. Sopta, who is
5 indicated as Lieutenant-General and the commander of the 1st Croatian
6 Guards Corps; and on the front page of the report, the letterhead, if you
7 will, indicates Joint Command of the Federation, 1st Croatian Guards Corps
8 of the Federation Army to Minister of Defence Ante Jelavic.
9 Q. If I could ask you, Dr. Miller, then, to find the next document,
10 which is, I believe, a report from this same Mr. Jelavic to the Ministry
11 of Defence of the Republic of Croatia, dated the 26th of June 1998. Let
12 me know, please, when you have that.
13 A. I do.
14 Q. Let me just again point out a couple of -- several things, only a
15 few things in this letter, and you will see, again, on the first page, the
16 second part of the page starts with, "We drew up an estimation of
17 financial means in kunas," which, as we saw a moments ago, is the currency
18 of the Republic of Croatia. And, then, in that regard, if I can ask you
19 to look to about the middle of the second page, where it gives the
20 financial needs for the first half of 1998, I would like to use -- there
21 is different numbers here, so we can just use one number, one currency as
22 a point of reference. I'm going to talk about kuna.
23 Do you agree that it appears to indicate that, for the first half
24 of 1998, the HVO would be founded approximately 50 million kuna from the
25 Federation of BiH; and, during the same period of time, it would be funded
1 by 80 million kuna per month, it should be said, per month, from the
2 Republic of Croatia?
3 A. I agree. That's what it says.
4 Q. So, actually, the HVO is receiving more money from the Republic of
5 Croatia to support itself in its operation than it was receiving from the
7 A. Yes, it was.
8 Q. And the last document, very briefly, is a one-page report -- well,
9 one page with attachments, excuse me, dated the 4th of June 1998, again,
10 within the HVO from someone who is listed as the assistant to the Minister
11 and then Miroslav Prce, and indicating various financial needs for, again,
12 the HVO in the June 1998 time frame. Do you see that the number indicated
13 is 342 million, again, Croatian kuna?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. And, once again, Dr. Miller, those additional two documents that
16 I've just taken you to, how do those fit into your report, the parts of
17 your report, your second report, where you talk about the maintenance of a
18 second or separate HVO army?
19 A. The first of these two additional documents, you know, we can draw
20 from this that the HVO was reliant on the Republic of Croatia for
21 funding --
22 Q. Very well.
23 A. -- which I --
24 Q. Sorry, go ahead, please, if you want to add?
25 A. Well, we are extrapolating, but the first of these two documents,
1 the fact that the Republic of Croatia is paying approximately 45 per cent
2 more - I don't know quick math - than the federation itself, yeah, it
3 would imply that the HVO is reliant or perhaps over-reliant on the
4 Republic of Croatia for funding. I guess that it would be it.
5 Q. Moving from that topic to a couple of miscellaneous, I might call
6 them miscellaneous, questions before we come back to one or two of the
7 major topics that were put to you during cross-examination. Mr. Karnavas
8 also asked you about what services were being provided by the government
9 of Bosnia-Herzegovina; and, by that, I guess it is typically meant that
10 these purposes the government in Sarajevo, in the time period around, and
11 I'm not sure it was exactly specified, but 1992, 1993.
12 I believe your testimony or your answer in response to
13 Mr. Karnavas, What services were being provided at least in some areas, I
14 think you said, "Probably none."
15 Do you recall that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, let me just try to clarify your answer a little bit. How
18 about Defence? Was the government of the Bosnia-Herzegovina providing
19 Defence and fighting the Serbs, for example, in Eastern Bosnia and the
20 Croats in various parts of Bosnian territory?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, sir. First of all, he said, "Probably
23 yes," meaning that -- or, "Probably none," whatever the answer was on
24 cross-examination. In other words, it was speculative at best. First,
25 does he have actual knowledge? Did he study? Let's lay a foundation;
1 otherwise, we are just asking him to speculate based on -- or leading him
2 down the road, asking leading questions where he's going to say, Yes, of
4 Perhaps the gentleman would be asked, then, What sort of financial
5 assistance or military assistance the Muslim government was getting from
6 Croatia and from Iran and from Saudi Arabia and from Afghanistan and all
7 the Mujahedin? We can go down the road. He either knows or he doesn't
8 know. If he doesn't know on cross, he certainly doesn't know on redirect.
9 MR. SCOTT: Well, it's interesting, Your Honour, because
10 Mr. Karnavas had no objections to the witness's answers during
11 cross-examination, when the witness said, "Probably none," and I didn't
12 hear Mr. Karnavas withdraw his question --
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Because --
14 MR. SCOTT: -- or the answer, because he says now that the witness
15 was speculating.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Because at that point, there is no need to go on.
17 Once he says, "Probably none," am I to press him some more? Because he's
18 demonstrating that he doesn't have knowledge on that. Now, if he wants to
19 lay a foundation and proceed, I don't have a problem, but let's lay a
20 foundation and let's ask non-leading questions.
21 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, this is entirely appropriate reply to
22 questions put by Mr. Karnavas in his cross-examination. It's entirely
23 appropriate that the witness be allowed to clarify an answer that he gave
24 during cross-examination.
25 Q. My question to you, sir, was --
1 MR. KARNAVAS: May I have a ruling, please, Your Honours? May I
2 have a ruling?
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, Mr. Karnavas wants to
4 know whether or not the witness has actual knowledge with regard to the
5 questions that you are asking, so I will address him the question.
6 You have heard what the Defence counsel has just said. Do you
7 feel that you are able to answer the question asked to you by the
9 THE WITNESS: The question asked, in my view, the question asked
10 by the Prosecution is a refinement of the question that Mr. Karnavas
11 asked, when he asked me about services. I took that to mean -- actually,
12 I did not put that in a military context; perhaps, I should. I have -- I
13 have no personal information to impart about the military activities of
14 the Bosnian government during the war. I was not there; however, the
15 common sense answer, the common knowledge answer to that question is, yes,
16 the Bosnian government did provide military services to others in Bosnia
17 during the war.
18 MR. SCOTT:
19 Q. Do you know whether the government in Sarajevo facilitated and
20 provided for the delivery in various places of humanitarian aid, for
22 A. Again, I have no specific knowledge. I couldn't say chapter and
23 verse, but I think it's general knowledge that that's the case, yeah.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, the question was health care,
25 education, pension funds, salaries. That is what we are talking about.
1 The electricity, water, what were their capabilities? That was the nature
2 of the question. We are not talking about whether they were funding their
3 own military or providing humanitarian assistance that was coming in to
4 their own people. That's not the essence.
5 We are talking about at the state level, the state institutions.
6 What were the responsibilities towards its people, the
7 Bosnia-Herzegovinians, whether they be Croat, Muslim or Serb, and what was
8 it able to provide at the time. That was the essence. Now, if the
9 gentleman knows, concretely, fine; otherwise, these are self-serving
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Mr. Karnavas, who is
12 raising the question, has already raised the question with other
13 witnesses; and, hence, it's obviously a question that's important to him.
14 The government of Bosnia-Herzegovina presided by Izetbegovic, well, was
15 the government able to meet the obligations of any government with regard
16 to education, pensions, salaries, water, electricity, and so on and so
17 forth, everything that you see on line 13 and 14 -- 12 and 13 of page 14.
18 This question has already been raised in this courtroom. To your
19 knowledge, according to your research, having studied reports and articles
20 in the press and the knowledge that you have, did you think about this
21 question or did you not think about this question at all? This is what
22 the Defence would like to know, and the Judges would find it interesting
23 as well. So what do you have to say on that issue?
24 THE WITNESS: Categories Mr. Karnavas uses in lines 12 and 13, I
25 did not look at. They were before the scope of the report I was writing
1 and so I did not, and I have no previous outside knowledge.
2 MR. SCOTT:
3 Q. So, just to be fair on this, because given what's been said and
4 the questions --
5 [Overlapping voices]
6 MR. KARNAVAS: He cannot pursue --
7 MR. SCOTT: Counsel --
8 MR. KARNAVAS: -- Your Honour, He cannot pursue that --
9 MR. SCOTT: -- Your Honour, could I be heard one at a time.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: -- to be fair --
11 MR. SCOTT: -- yes, I can --
12 MR. KARNAVAS: -- he cannot pursue that line.
13 MR. SCOTT: -- yes --
14 MR. KARNAVAS: -- he can just move on --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Each one should speak in turn.
16 Mr. Miller, you said that you were not aware of the problems the
17 government might have -- the government headed by Mr. Izetbegovic might
18 have met. You said, "I was not aware of that." Is that what you said?
20 Mr. Karnavas and Mr. Scott got up at the same time. Mr. Karnavas,
21 what did you want to say following this answer?
22 MR. KARNAVAS: I want to say is the following, Your Honour: Now
23 that we know that he had no prior knowledge, he hasn't studied, there is
24 no foundation, now is the time for Mr. Scott to move on to another
25 question, not to be fair to the gentleman. The gentleman is being treated
1 fairly. He wasn't asked to go into that area, fine. He has no knowledge
2 about that area, fine. But now there is no sense in beating a dead horse.
3 He has to move on.
4 The gentleman does not have the requisite foundational knowledge
5 in order to answer any questions that Mr. Scott wishes to pose. And in
6 fairness to the gentleman, he wasn't asked, one, to determine what were
7 the services that the government had to provide; two, what was it able to
8 provide; three, what did it actually provide? Those were not part -- it's
9 not part of the report. It's not part of the gentleman's knowledge, and
10 so why now is Mr. Scott pursuing the same course of action? He doesn't
11 need to try to rehabilitate the witness.
12 MR. SCOTT: Now let me respond, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, I will be giving you
14 the floor in minutes, as the President. But from what I understand from
15 the discussions, Mr. Karnavas is saying that the witness cannot answer
16 these points because he was not aware of that. And Mr. Karnavas is
17 inviting you to move on to another question because, since he cannot
18 answer, it would be useless to go on in this direction.
19 So you may have a different opinion. What is your opinion?
20 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, just for the record, you've now allowed
21 Mr. Karnavas to go on several times repeatedly without allowing me to have
22 any time for a response, and I object to that.
23 Now, given the time to respond, it is entirely appropriate on
24 cross-examination --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, don't say that. I'm
1 just giving you the floor right now to answer, so please answer. Would
2 you like to be mentioned in the transcript that I did not allow you to
3 speak? That's not true, because I just allowed you to take the floor, so
4 don't say that.
5 MR. SCOTT: You did finally.
6 My point is this: It is entirely appropriate, when the witness is
7 challenged and his credibility is attacked, his report is attacked on a
8 point; and Mr. Karnavas asks him a question and accepts the answer that
9 presumably suits him when he says, when the witness's answer yesterday
10 was, "Probably none," which there was no objection - Mr. Karnavas didn't
11 say there was no basis for the witness's answer; he accepted an answer
12 that he presumed that he liked - it's entirely appropriate on redirect to
13 come back and seek to clarify the witness's answer.
14 If the witness had no information on these matters, then he has no
15 information on this point for either the Prosecution or the Defence. So
16 when he said yesterday, "Probably none," then the answer is to be stricken
17 for all accounts. It didn't support Mr. Karnavas's view and it may not
18 support my view. But what we are seeing here, again, is what sow often
19 happens, Mr. Karnavas wants to play by one sets of rules and he wants the
20 Prosecution to play by a different set of rules.
21 He stands up; and by becoming theatrical, raising his voice with
22 the Court, and waving his arms, he wants to bully the Court to taking a
23 certain position. That is entirely inappropriate. This witness has been
24 treated quite harshly in the last two and a half days, and I simply would
25 like him to give the opportunity to clarify some certain points that were
1 put to him. That's entirely appropriate for redirect examination.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: There were several questions that I was posing to
3 the gentleman, and the answers were, "I don't know," "I don't know," "I
4 don't know." At some point, on more than one occasion, Mr. Scott got up
5 and objected that the gentleman was being treated unfairly and that he was
6 being embarrassed and this was deliberate. Those were questions that were
7 relevant, in my opinion, to the study.
8 So, if he says -- at some point, I was invited by the Trial
9 Chamber to just ask one global question, because it didn't make sense to
10 go into say, -- well, I asked him what was the budget, what was this, what
11 was that, the answer was, "I don't know," "I don't know," "I don't know."
12 So I don't know what the Prosecutor is now claiming.
13 Once the gentleman says that he doesn't -- if he gives me a
14 speculative answer, there is no need for me to press. I accept it. I
15 accept it for what it is; that is, that he's speculating and it has no
16 evidentiary value. So for me to press him at that point doesn't make any
17 sense. All I'm saying is, at this point in time, the gentleman himself
18 has indicated that he doesn't have any knowledge. He wasn't asked to look
19 into it. He wasn't over there during the war period, and he cannot simply
20 ask -- in any question any answers now would be speculative at best.
21 That's why I'm inviting the Trial Chamber to instruct the
22 Prosecution to move on.
23 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, one final comment, one final comment, and
24 then I ask the Court to allow me to ask two more questions on this topic,
25 and I will move on, but one further comment on that. I did object. The
1 Chamber will recall I objected over and over and over again to the --
2 questions were being put to the witness that were outside the scope of his
3 report and, clearly, for the purposes of embarrassing him, and saying,
4 What do you know about this? How many pension funds existed in Bosnia in
5 1996? I mean, ridiculous questions this witness couldn't possibly be
6 expected to know off his head.
7 It was badgering the witness. I objected, I objected, I objected,
8 again. The Chamber didn't do anything to stop it. Now, for Mr. Karnavas
9 then to get up and complain plain that and say I'm the one trying to take
10 advantage of the situation is completely wrong. Now, I'd ask the Chamber
11 if I can ask two questions about the topic.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, now you will be able
13 to ask questions, but, Mr. Scott, I don't agree with what you're saying on
14 line 5, page 19. You said that Mr. Karnavas asked questions -- ridiculous
15 questions on pension funds and salaries. No. They are not ridiculous
16 because these are administrative questions related to the budget, and they
17 are included, they are mentioned, in the document. And, since they are
18 mentioned in the document, he is asking questions based on the document.
19 So don't tell me that he's asking ridiculous questions. They may not be
20 relevant. They may not have any probative value. I mean, the answer to
21 the questions may not have a probative value, but the Defence is allowed
22 to ask this type of questions.
23 You may believe that they are ridiculous. They might be
24 ridiculous, but Mr. Karnavas has the right to ask questions. And the
25 witness to say, "I don't know," "I don't know," "I don't know." This is
1 true, and you're 100 per cent right in saying that the witness answered he
2 did not know and you objected because you thought that this was beyond the
3 scope of the study, but the Chamber allowed it to go on because if we
4 decide to simply stick to the scope, the risk is to forget the context and
5 all the background. Sometimes you have to go beyond the scope to
6 understand what is the background and the context. That's all.
7 So the Chamber does not forbid you from asking questions. On the
8 contrary, all we are expecting is just questions, but we would like the
9 questions to be useful and necessary and help us understand this case
11 So now you may proceed.
12 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. I just have two questions on
13 this topic before I move on to another topic, and I didn't really intend
14 for this to be -- go this long. I just want to assure the Chamber. But
15 in light of the various interventions, it's gone longer than I expected.
16 Q. Dr. Miller, let me just ask you two final questions on this topic,
17 the services and the status and abilities of the government of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina during this periods of time.
19 Did, for example, did the Bosnian government or the state of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina have an ambassador at the United Nations and
21 representatives who dealt with the international community?
22 A. Yes, it did.
23 Q. And, in terms of the questions that were put to you about its
24 ability to deliver social services, for example, to its various citizens,
25 be they Muslim, Croat, or Serb, can you tell the Chamber, please, what do
1 you think would be the impact on Bosnian government's ability to provide
2 such services, for example, in Mostar, where one major party - and I'm not
3 talking about the Serbs - was withdrawing its ministers and
4 representatives from that government, was occupying its sovereign
5 territory, putting its cities and towns under siege, and shooting at and
6 killing his soldiers and representatives?
7 MR. MURPHY: I'm going to intervene on this one, because this is
8 this an outrageous question. It's leading. It calls for speculation, and
9 it's quite, obviously, outside the expertise of this witness based on his
10 own testimony yesterday.
11 MR. SCOTT: Well, Your Honour, he's been questioned on why, again,
12 he puts in cross-examination, Why was the government not fulfilling its
13 duties and responsibilities to provide social services? Well, I think
14 it's relevant for the Chamber to know, you know, how were they supposed to
15 do so under the circumstances, when there was, for instance, a city of
16 Mostar that was under siege? They just act like that's somehow not a
17 factor. I think the witness can comment on that, just as he has been
18 allowed to comments on numerous other questions that have been put to him
19 by the Defence.
20 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, these are all questions which are --
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Prlic?
22 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: [Interpretation] Just briefly, an intervention
23 on my part. As we are talking about redirect here, it refers to the
24 cross-examination. In the cross examination, clear questions were posed
25 related to 1994 and 1995; and, in most of those questions, that period of
1 time is incorporated. So what services did the government of
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina fulfil in 1994 and 1995? Now, why would we take these
3 years 1994 and 1995? Because the entire report refers to the period after
4 the Washington Agreement. So that is the basic subject of the entire
5 cross-examination that was conducted.
6 Why did Herceg-Bosna continue to function after the Washington
7 agreement? That is why the questions were asked. What powers did the
8 government of Bosnia-Herzegovina have? This is directly related to the
9 report, where it says quite clearly, "Social and other services are handed
10 via Herceg-Bosna rather than through the BH government." That's what it
11 says, and that was the foundation, that was the basis, upon which my
12 Defence counsel asked all his questions. Who was in charge of supplying
13 electricity? Who paid out the pensions? Who was in charge of providing
14 water, the water supply? Was there a Bosnia-Herzegovinian budget in 1994,
15 yes or no?
16 So those were the questions that my Defence counsel asked, and the
17 Prosecution in redirect absolutely does have the right to deal with those
18 questions, if it considers that the witness did not provide the answers
19 that he deemed should have been given. But now he's dealing with
20 questions that were not raised in the cross-examination. So the questions
21 weren't related to the situation of war but the subject that we are
22 discussing here.
23 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, Mr. Prlic has just
25 made a statement, and he said that redirect questions can be asked when
1 they have a direct connection with the questions raised during the
2 cross-examination. Now, if you start dealing with the "siege of Mostar,"
3 in between inverted commas, this is something which has not been mentioned
4 during the cross-examination. This is where the problem lies. You want
5 to deal with something which has not been dealt with before.
6 So, in this case, you have to ask the Chamber for the
7 authorisation to raise this type of question. This is what the rules
8 stipulate, and this is what Mr. Prlic was mentioning since he knows the
9 rules as well as I do.
10 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. I appreciate being counseled
11 on points of practice of law by Mr. Prlic. I think my error was in using
12 the siege of Mostar as a particular example, and I would modify my
13 question to that extent. My general point to the witness was what can you
14 expect the kind of services to be provided under wartime conditions, which
15 did indeed continue after 1993 into 1994 into 1995, the very period that
16 was being discussed? But, Your Honour, I think the point has been made;
17 and, in the interests of time, I will move on.
18 Q. Sir, another point: At one point, Mr. Karnavas was questioning
19 about value judgements; and, at one point, he did volunteer that he liked
20 your value judgement, apparently, and that's going to be my question. He
21 said that you had expressed a value judgement indicating that Mr. Prlic
22 was a moderate.
23 Now, I want to be clear about this because I, for one, did not
24 hear or see that answer in your testimony, so I want to ask you: Did you
25 testify that you, Dr. Miller, considered Mr. Prlic to be a moderate?
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, excuse me. If the Prosecutor would like
2 to quote the text, because the context in which that came in - and I don't
3 mean to be obstreperous; he can answer the question - is where the
4 gentleman indicated, and I believe it's at the bottom of page 1: "Some of
5 the more moderate Bosnian Croats were dispatched to the Federation and the
6 state government," and we all know what positions Dr. Prlic held during
7 that period of time, in post.
8 The gentleman didn't know, didn't know, for instance, that Mr.
9 Prlic was the Minister of Defence for the Federation. He knew that he was
10 the Minister of Foreign Affairs after Dayton, but he didn't know all the
11 others positions that Dr. Prlic held. But if you reed this saying -- if
12 you go on, he's talking about the "hard liners," whoever they may be,
13 stayed behind. And the question had to do with, Who was dispatched -- Who
14 was dispatching those who were being dispatched?
15 And since Dr. Prlic was one of the individuals who was
16 participating heavily in the establishment of the Federation and in
17 posts-Dayton events, I took it upon myself to say, Well, obviously, if
18 he's being dispatched and he's part of the Federation government, he must
19 be included in one of these moderates because of the context.
20 Now, if he wants to rephrase the question, that's fine. But
21 that's the context in which it was raised, and the gentleman could not
22 provide an answer as to who was being the dispatching.
23 [Overlapping voices]
24 MR. SCOTT: I remember, Your Honour, quite clearly --
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, he can quote the transcript --
1 MR. SCOTT: -- that Mr. Karnavas said --
2 MR. KARNAVAS: -- he can quote the transcript.
3 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Karnavas said something very close to the effect,
4 "I like your value judgement," indicating that Mr. Prlic was a moderate,
5 and I simply would like to make clear, so the record is indeed clear, so
6 it's not mischaracterised some six months or a year from now, as to what
7 the witness's evidence on that and whether he expressed a value judgement,
8 Dr. Miller's value judgement, as whether Mr. Prlic was a moderate.
9 THE WITNESS: I personally expressed no judgement as to whether
10 Mr. Prlic is a moderate or something else. The judgement in the report
11 that I used was that moderates collectively were sent to Sarajevo to get
12 them out of Herceg-Bosna.
13 MR. SCOTT:
14 Q. And you don't know whether -- you don't have any independent
15 knowledge whether Mr. Prlic was considered one of those moderates or not?
16 A. I do not.
17 Q. Turning to the media articles that you talked about, and there was
18 extensive cross-examination from a number of parties on that, your
19 references to, for example, -- what we are getting into now is your
20 references to Danas and Vreme and that part of your second report -- well,
21 no, excuse me, primarily your first report on the patterns and practices
22 in the conflict.
23 If I could just start, if I might be able to assist, you were
24 trying to remember the name of another Croat publication that you said you
25 had referred to. I may be wrong, but might it possibly have been
1 Slobodani Tjednik?
2 A. It's possible.
3 Q. All right. On the first day, on Monday, on the top of page 19 of
4 the first report, Exhibit P10239, top of page 19, I put this to you on
5 Monday just as an essentially a summary statement of the -- at the ends of
6 your report, quoting: "Thus, by mid-1992, a pattern of violence purposely
7 focused on civilians as a means of compelling them to abandon a given
8 territory had emerged and was widely reported and known locally,
9 regionally, and internationally."
10 And my first question to you is: Following the rather intensive
11 cross-examination, Dr. Miller --
12 MR. KOVACIC: I --
13 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, if I can finish my question, if I can at
14 least finish my question first.
15 Q. -- whether in light of the -- despite the cross-examination that
16 you've been exposed to in the past several days, whether you continue to
17 stand by that conclusion?
18 A. I do.
19 MR. KOVACIC: I had an objection to the transcript, but it seems
20 to have become clear in the meantime, so I won't take up any more time.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, thank you very much.
22 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Counsel.
23 Q. I see in the answer Dr. Miller that your answer was that you
24 continue to stand behind that conclusion?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. When you did your research, is it fair to say that you were
2 conducting your research, not as someone who was a novice or new to the
3 topic of Yugoslavia, but as someone who has spent the last 15 or 20 years,
4 15 or 20 years, studying, reading about, teaching about, writing about,
5 Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslavia?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. If I understood the cross-examination, I think one of the points
8 that was being made is that both Vreme and Danas tended to be read by, IF
9 I understood you correctly or the questions that were put to you, among
10 others by more educated people, at least that seemed to be a part of what
11 was being said. Do you recall that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The articles you cited in your papers, when you cited those, was
14 it your idea or intention --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott?
16 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you wait a minute,
18 Mr. Scott. Mr. Praljak got up.
19 Mr. Praljak, the floor is yours.
20 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] How does the witness know
21 that Danas and Vreme was read by educated people? On the basis of what
22 research is he able it to know that and say that?
23 Thank you.
24 MR. SCOTT: By the question put to him by Mr. Petkovic's counsel.
25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise but my
1 question wasn't put that way at all. I don't know the structure of the
2 readers of either Vreme or Danas. What I did mention was the word
3 "intellectuals" in the context of several people in Sarajevo, a number of
4 people in Sarajevo who probably read Vreme and Danas, and that's the only
5 thing that I said, the only adjective I used. Otherwise, I don't consider
6 that there is any research on the makeup of the readers of journals like
8 Thank you.
9 MR. SCOTT: Well, Your Honour --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Miller, there are two
11 newspapers, Vreme and Danas, read by readers. It seems that there is a
12 discussion on the type of readers. Do the readers -- given the quality of
13 the articles written in these newspapers, are these readers people who
14 have a certain education, or are these newspapers which can be read by
15 just anyone, or is it necessary to have a certain level of education to
16 understand the articles written in these newspapers?
17 THE WITNESS: One simply has to be able to read, Your Honour.
18 There -- they make no special demands on the reader.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fair enough. Okay. One just
20 has simply to be able to read, but let me take one typically French
21 example to make you understand what I'm talking about. We have different
22 types of news papers in France, but we have news papers that not everybody
23 can read. Everybody how knows how to read is able to read, but let me
24 make it more diplomatic as an example. The French farmer will not be
25 reading Le Monde Diplomatique. So that's the problem.
1 Concerning these two newspapers we are talking about, do you
2 believe that a farmer in Bosnia and Herzegovina is able to read these
3 newspapers? Being able to read is one thing, but you have to be able to
4 understand what is written in the newspaper. It's just the same as was
5 your thesis. Everybody can read your thesis, but you still need to be
6 able to understand what you're reading. I'm talking about your Ph.D.
7 thesis. Anybody can read it, but you have to be able to understand it.
8 Reading is not understanding, and it is the understanding of the
9 content of the articles that is the issue Ms. Alaburic had mentioned. Do
10 you have an answer to that or not?
11 THE WITNESS: Sure, but I'd like to avoid getting into any value
12 judgements about the capabilities of Serbian Muslim or Croatian peasants
13 in Bosnia, and just say Vreme and Danas are news weeklies. I would say
14 that they are no more taxing on the intellect or -- of the given reader
15 than Time or Newsweek in the United States.
16 I don't read French, and I don't have personal experience with the
17 French press. So, I mean, the greater question I suppose is: Who
18 actually does do the reading? But they are not -- they are not
19 particularly taxing journals, magazines.
20 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,
21 I feel the need to clarify my question. My question about some dozen
22 intellectuals in Sarajevo did not have to do with the quality of the texts
23 contained in the articles contained in Vreme and Danas and the
24 intellectual capabilities for understanding those texts.
25 My question, in fact, referred to the following fact: That
1 throughout the conflict, on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, there
2 were a certain number of intellectuals in Sarajevo, Zagreb, and Belgrade,
3 who endeavoured to read all the newspapers from that area, regardless of
4 whether they were printed in Sarajevo, Belgrade, or Zagreb, but that it
5 was a very, very small number of people, mostly people who delved in some
6 intellectual activity.
7 The publications weren't accessible to the population at large.
8 People in rural areas didn't have access to that kind of media and never
9 saw those publications. So that's what I wanted to say in actual fact.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Mrs. Alaburic clarified
11 what she meant in her question. This seems to be clear. Do you have any
12 answer? Mr. Miller, do you have any answer to what Mrs. Alaburic just
13 said, or do you agree with her?
14 THE WITNESS: So I can give you a proper answer, I'm going to look
15 at what she said again. In general, I don't disagree with that. I think
16 there is more to be said about the nature of my report in that sense, but
17 I don't disagree with her comment.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good. We have made progress.
19 Mr. Scott, please go ahead.
20 MR. SCOTT:
21 Q. Perhaps, if I have used the word "intellectual" instead of more
22 educated people, we might have avoided some of that. But, be that as it
23 may, my next question to you, sir, before coming back a bit on this topic,
24 would have been -- is this: The articles that you cited in your papers,
25 when you cited those - and I think you indicated this, but, again, because
1 of the extent of cross-examination, I just want to give you a further
2 opportunity to be as clear as possible - was it your idea or intention
3 that when you cited these articles that -- these were the media reports,
4 what have you. I'm saying articles, media items, was it your idea or
5 intention that these are the only items reporting this information, or did
6 you cite these particular papers or items as being representative, albeit
7 you've said they were more moderate, but representative of the local and
8 regional coverage more broadly?
9 A. I consulted more, and I found this -- I included these because
10 they were representative of broader coverage.
11 Q. And going back to the question of the circulation of some of these
12 publications, would it be correct to say that just as a say a Bosnian, to
13 use the term that sometimes we have been asked to be very specific, if a
14 Bosnian Croat in Sarajevo or a Herzegovinian Croat in Mostar would today,
15 for instance, go to a newsstand and pick up a copy of Globus or pick up a
16 copy of Slobacna Dalmacija, just as they would today? Yesterday, you said
17 these were times of publication that people in Sarajevo and Mostar and
18 other places would also pick up and read, even if it was not the a local
19 press; is that correct?
20 A. They could.
21 Q. In that following on this same theme, Ms. Alaburic also asked you
22 about something to the effect of, Was it true that only about 10 per cent
23 of people in the former Yugoslavia might get their news from newspapers or
24 printed media, as opposed to more, I suppose, like many people in many
25 countries I think today, for better or for worse, getting much of their
1 information from the electronic media. And I don't think there was any
2 specific firm information on that, but let's assume, for the moment, that
3 if it's something like 10 or 25 per cent of the population looks at
5 Now, if that's the case can you tell us among that 10 or 25 per
6 cent, what percentage of people in that percentage of people where do you
7 think the more educated people in any given culture or society would
8 fall? Within that 10 or 25 per cent?
9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise. I
10 think before this question is put, we have to establish whether this
11 witness is a population expert. He cannot answer this question as a
12 historian. He can answer it as an average person who is informed about
13 the conditions and the situation in the former Yugoslavia if he knows.
14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to clarify the
15 following. I think it is not correct to put a question ranging from 10 to
16 25 per cent, because if it refers to my question, the figure I gave was 10
17 per cent, and this is a result of research carried out at the time.
18 It refers to the consumption of the entire press, which included
19 women's magazines, motoring magazines, and so on and so forth. So the
20 percentage of the population who read political weeklies and newspapers
21 was exceptionally small. This can also be concluded from the circulation
22 of Danas and Vreme at the time, which was about 25.000 for Danas in
24 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] When Danas--
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, please remain
1 seated. What Mrs. Alaburic stated was very clear. She said she spoke of
2 10 per cent and not 25 per cent, so let's stay with 10 per cent.
3 Mr. Kovacic raised an objection with regard to the skills of the
4 witness or his ability to discuss statistics.
5 Mr. Miller, what do you have to say on that topic? One of the
6 Defence counsels feels that you are not able, on the basis of a figure, a
7 statistical figure, to give an appropriate answer. What could you answer?
8 And then my colleague would also like to say something.
9 JUDGE PRANDLER: I would like to say the following: It is already
10 high time to let Mr. Scott finish his examination -- re-examination, and,
11 really, I would like to ask the teams of the Defence to let him to do
12 that. You are six teams. If you continue this way, to speak about a
13 minor question, in my view, it is a very minor question, how many
14 percentage of a country is reading this or that newspaper, and now you are
15 taking this time away from the Prosecution.
16 So I would like to ask Mr. Miller to answer Judge Antonetti's
17 question, and to let afterwards to let Mr. Scott to finish with his
19 MR. SCOTT: Before that, Your Honour, I would, again, Your Honour,
20 I would like to be heard.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott --
22 MR. SCOTT: I would like to be heard to respond to the Defence
23 before we go to the next question of the witness. Let me have a response
24 to what the Defence says before the Court goes further.
25 What we've seen here is, once again, the same thing that what
1 Mr. Karnavas was objecting to earlier. There is one set of rules for the
2 Defence and one set of rules for the Prosecution. It was okay, it was
3 okay, yesterday, for Ms. Alaburic to assert facts which is not evidence.
4 She is not testifying, but she says, "I think it's 10 per cent." That's
5 not evidence. There is no evidence in the record that says that. It's
6 Ms. Alaburic's suggestion. She may have researched it, that's fine. I
7 can go and conducts my research as well.
8 There is no evidence in the record that it's 10 per cent. We
9 have -- with all due respect to Ms. Alaburic, it's not evidence. Now, all
10 I'm simply putting to the witness is -- and, further, when she asked him
11 that question, and, again, as did Mr. Karnavas, when she got an answer
12 from the witness, she didn't object, Well, the witness doesn't have any
13 basis to answer that.
14 So now I'm following up, trying to clarify, and I get an
15 objection. It's just not fair, Your Honour. This is absolutely unfair
16 the way these objections are made.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are quite right, Mr. Scott.
18 Nonetheless, yes, I agree that you are right.
19 But Mr. Miller, with regard to statistics, can you give an answer?
20 Yesterday, apparently you were, so what about today?
21 THE WITNESS: Yesterday, I was. I think I just went with what was
22 suggested to me. I have no special training on the demography of Croatian
23 or the readership of these journals. I spent a lot of time studying,
24 especially in the Serbian context, in modern politics, and I don't think
25 there has been a whole lot of research that would actually establish the
1 sorts of answers that we are looking for here.
2 Yesterday, when the question was put to me, it was stated that 10
3 per cent -- actually, the question got garbled, you might remember, in the
4 translation in the transcription. At first, it said one thing; and, then,
5 I believe, in the second instance, it said 10 per cent used the print
6 media and 90 per cent use the electronic media. There was no electronic
7 media, unless I'm not understanding the concept properly, in 1991 and
8 1992. I would suggest that, just as sort of generally, intuitively even,
9 that 10 per cent, if it's true today, would have been much higher in 1991.
10 But, no, I don't have any special training on this question.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, yes, indeed, I did
12 note yesterday that there was some confusion. You mentioned electronic
13 media. I thought perhaps you were referring to television and radio. Is
14 that what you meant? You weren't referring to internet because in 1991,
15 well, that didn't exist.
16 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the electronic media
17 is a term covering primarily radio and television. In the early 1990s, on
18 the territory of the former Yugoslavia, there were republican radio and
19 television stations. There were several in each republican centre, and
20 each regional centre had its own radio station. In the early 1990s,
21 private radio and TV stations began to be established on the territory of
22 the former Yugoslavia, so that there were also radio and television
23 stations at municipal level.
24 Any serious investigation of public opinion or what can be
25 considered to be common knowledge in that certain area could certainly not
1 bypass the electronic media. This was what my question referred to, in
2 essence: That one cannot conclude about the state of common knowledge
3 based exclusively on the printed media, especially those which had very
4 small circulations on their own markets and were not sold at all on the
5 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just as a footnote, let me refer to footnote 8,
8 where, in fact, Radio Zagreb was quoted. It would not be correct to say
9 that the witness did not at all take cognizance of electronic media.
10 I have another little problem, Mr. Miller. I see a certain
11 contradiction in what you said yesterday and today about the selection of
12 these two weeklies. Today, you have said, and this is on page 30, line
13 16, 17, that you picked these because you thought they were
14 representative, representative of broader coverage. Yesterday, you find
15 that on page 85, on line 17, you said that you picked these because they
16 were reliable.
17 And, in my view, these are two different things. Representative
18 and reliable is not the same. Very often, things that are popular and
19 less serious may be more reliable for the general opinion. I would like
20 to you comment on this.
21 THE WITNESS: Fine. I would happy to. I was adopting the word
22 "representative" from Mr. Scott's question; and in his question, I
23 believe he said, he acknowledged that I had already argued that much --
24 that this was much more moderate coverage than some of the material I did
25 not include.
1 And so what I meant today by "representative" was that this was
2 sort of a standard basic understanding that we can assume on the part of
3 the population of former Yugoslavia. I did choose -- I mean my approach
4 might not have been the type of approach that lends itself to legal
5 analysis, I don't know, but my own approach as a historian was to take
6 evidence from those journals that I found to be and that I believe would
7 be acknowledged to be most reliable. I don't -- it's sort of -- these are
8 addressing two different questions about the way I framed my research.
9 Does that explain it? I mean, I don't feel a contradiction.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, as Judge Prandler
12 said, we really need to move to what is essential. I completely share his
13 points of view.
14 So please continue.
15 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. If I can just finish up on
16 Judge Trechsel's question.
17 Q. When you say -- let me go back to what you just said, Dr. Miller.
18 Can I put it this way in terms of when you say reliable and
19 representative: When you say it was "reliable" -- I guess my question
20 that flows from that is: When you say it was "reliable," was it uniquely
21 these two articles that were the only sources reporting this type of
22 information or similar information?
23 A. No, absolutely not. As I said before, the others were reporting
24 it perhaps even more loudly, more prominently.
25 Q. All right. Sir, going back then.
1 MR. SCOTT: I regret to the Chamber that it's taken us this long;
2 although, I think, I'm looking to Ms. Winter and my actual time is quite a
3 small fraction that's been used in terms of the time on the clock. So I
4 am trying to move as quickly as I can, without the interventions.
5 Q. Going back to the point by -- that Ms. Alaburic was attempting to
6 make or was making and putting fair questions to you about this, and
7 that's why we got off on this, whether it was 10 per cent or something
8 more. But to avoid any further argument, let's say 10 per cent. It's not
9 in the record, there is no evidence, but let's just assume 10 per cent.
10 Would you, basically, as a historian, as an educated person
11 yourself, would you -- can you inform the Chamber of your view as to
12 whether 10 per cent of the population that would read the print media, so
13 to speak, would typically include the more educated members of that
14 particular culture or society: People were university educations, people
15 that were trained in business, people that have government positions?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. That would include, for example, professional soldiers with a
18 military academy education?
19 A. Sure.
20 Q. An assistant Minister of Defence in Croatia with an extensive
21 university education?
22 A. Absolutely.
23 Q. A trained economist, economics professor, and a local and regional
24 politician who was president of a self-declared regional government?
25 A. I would think so, yes.
1 Q. A defence department or ministry head with a university degree in
2 economics and previously an assistant Minister of Interior?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. The head of a military police with an engineering degree and who
5 had been the director of -- a director of a significant mining business?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. If I can ask you to look at the bundle that has been marked as
8 Exhibit P10285?
9 A. All right.
10 Q. Sir, in light of the challenges that were made to your second
11 report about Herceg-Bosna, and in terms of the -- some of the comments
12 about Herceg-Bosna, or a third entity being illegal or unconstitutional, I
13 would just like to points to you several places in this bundle of
14 documents which I've given you, which is again P10285. The first of these
15 is a report on -- from the Peace Implementation Conference in December
16 1996. And if I can please direct your attention, for example, to page 5
17 of that document --
18 A. All right.
19 Q. At the paragraph numbered 9, just, again, as we lead into this
20 topic: "The Peace Implementation Council reaffirms that all
21 administrative and other structures in the Federation must now be fully
22 and irreversibly integrated and calls for the immediate dissolution or
23 where appropriate transfer to the Federation of remaining structures of
24 the so-called Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna or the Republic of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, which are not in accordance with the constitution."
1 If I can ask you then to go to the page 20 -- excuse me, page 8 of
2 that same document, if I'm not -- no, I'm sorry. My apology.
3 If you go to the next document, which would be on page 16 of the
4 bundle -- let me make sure. I apologise. At page 16 of the bundle, there
5 is a document titled, "The 9th Report of the High Representative for
6 implementation of the Bosnian Peace Agreement." This is a report in April
7 of 1998.
8 And if I can ask you to go to page 8 of the report itself, which
9 is page 23 in e-court, but page 8 of that particular report, number 53,
10 paragraph 53: "There is still evidence that structures of the Republic of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the 'Croat Republic of Herceg-Bosna' continued to
12 operate, despite the fact that they should have been disbanded following
13 the establishment of Federation structures and common institutions of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina. My office," that is the office of the High
15 Representative, "will continue its efforts to disband these parallel
17 If I can ask to you go to the next document in the bundle, which
18 is at e-court page 31, it is an article by the High Representative, dated
19 February 12 of 2001. It's an article by the High Representative entitled,
20 "Jelavic and HDZ play on the card of fear and work against Croats."
21 And on the page 2 of that -- of that article, on page 32 in
22 e-court, there is a paragraph that is titled, "There will be no third
23 entity": "It is also clear that there will be no third entity. The cap
24 badges are nothing more than a blue print for a territory doomed to
25 poverty and isolation. Any self-proclaimed third entity would be sealed
1 and sanctioned by the international community."
2 And, then, it goes on to point out again, as we've heard before,
3 how such an entity would, in fact, exclude Croats in other parts of
5 If I can ask you to go to the next document in the bundling which,
6 is the decision of the High Representative, dated March 7, 2001, which is
7 page 34 in e-court. This is the "Official Decision of the High
9 And going to the second page of his decision, on page 35 in
10 e-court, second paragraph on that page, reads: "Instead, Mr. Jelavic has
11 directed violated the constitutional order of the Federation of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina and of Bosnia-Herzegovina. This culminated on
13 Saturday, 3 March, 2001 in Mostar, with the unconstitutional initiative
14 led by Mr. Ante Jelavic, to undermine the constitutional order of the
15 Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Bosnia-Herzegovina and establish an
16 illegal parallel structure."
17 And, at the bottom of that page, when he's talking about these
18 efforts, at the very last line on this page: "on the establishment of an
19 unconstitutional and illegal parallel structure.
20 The top of the following page, page 36 in e-court, the High
21 Representative refers in that paragraph to "illegal or anti-Dayton
22 activities including the establishment and maintenance of parallel
24 In his first paragraph, under "Conclusions," he refers to the
25 "illegal initiative."
1 Now, sir, in the interests of time, since we've already gone quite
2 long, these documents, would that be further support and consistent with
3 what you say in your report about the -- you were taken to task for using
4 at one point the word "illegal structures." Does this support your report
5 in that respect?
6 A. Yes, it does.
7 Q. And, specifically, another document, which is in the third binder
8 which was exhibited before, but we didn't get to it specifically, was
9 P10284. I cite that one in particular because that is specifically cited
10 at footnote 23 of your report.
11 A. Yes, got it.
12 Q. P10284 is the 19th Report by the High Representative to the
13 Secretary-General of the United Nations covering the periods from February
14 to June 2001. At the bottom of the page, under 1 and then bullet
15 item: "On the third of March, the HDZ, which had been ousted from power
16 by the alliance for changes after the November elections, proclaimed the
17 so-called Croat self-rule. Four days later I decided to remove
18 Mr. Jelavic, the Croat member of the BiH Presidency and HDZ president from
19 his positions, as he personally led this serious violation of the
20 constitutional order. On the 6th of April, I appointed a provisional
21 administrator for the Hercegovacka Banka, which acted as the financial
22 backbone of the HDZ-led illegal parallel structures."
23 On page 4 of that same report, paragraph number 10, the High
24 Representative gives a further account of these efforts. And just in
25 light of the other issues about the separate army, at the end of paragraph
1 number 10, and as cited in your report, specifically cited in your report,
2 that is the event: "On the 13 March, HDZ officials ordered the disbanding
3 of the Croat components of the Federation army, followed on 28 March by a
4 walkout of Croat officers and soldiers from their barracks."
5 Paragraph 11: "The efforts of this illegal 'Croat self-ruled'
6 control the Federation financial institutions, mainly the customs office,
7 and the Croat majority areas has failed thanks to the firm attitude of the
8 federation government."
9 You can confirm to me, I'm sure, that this report is cited at
10 footnote 23 of your Herceg-Bosna report?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And, finally, the last document in the big bundle that is in the
13 last bundle we were looking at, which is P10285. The bundle of documents
14 we were just looking at.
15 If you can turn to the last document, which is a press release
16 from the office of the High Representative, dated the 23rd of March 2001:
17 "UN Security Council supports High Representative, condemns
18 attempt to establish Croat self-rule in BiH. At its meeting yesterday in
19 New York, the United Nations Security Council condemned 'recent unilateral
20 moves by the so-called Croat National Congress to establish Croat
21 self-rule in open contradictions of the provisions of the peace
23 And, then, that goes on to the second to last paragraph, on that
24 page: "The action taken by the High Representative fully endorsed and
25 supported by the EU which," at the end of that paragraph, "condemns the
1 unilateral moves by the so-called Croat National Congress to place
2 themselves outside the provisions of the Dayton peace accords."
3 Next page: Fully applauded and approved by the US representative
4 Mark Minton.
5 Next paragraph: Fully endorsed and supported by the French
6 representative to the Security Council, and so on.
7 Sir, do those additional documents I've shown you support your
8 report and the conclusions stated in your report?
9 A. Yes, they do.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: I'd ask that the gentleman be asked by the Bench
11 where in these documents does it show that at least my client, Dr. Prlic,
12 was involved in any of these events. I'd also ask the gentleman, since he
13 read the indictment, where is Mr. Jelavic in the indictment and to what
14 extent his activities in 2001 have anything to do with this particular
16 This is the whole point. Why is this relevant? I sat there.
17 I've allowed him to go on. He's made his record. But the bottom line is,
18 we need to know why is this relevant considering the time and scope of the
20 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, these aren't questions for the witness.
21 They are arguments by counsel. The Chamber already ruled, originally, in
22 accepting this person's testimony and the report -- to receive the
23 reports, at least provisionally, and indicating that it was relevant. And
24 for the very same reasons they were relevant at that time, they remain
1 As to the particular individual involvement of various persons in
2 these efforts, if various parties want to go into that, it certainly may
3 come up again in the future, but it was not, again, not the intended scope
4 of this witness. But the witness was challenged, was specifically
5 challenged, on his second report and especially on the characterisation of
6 these efforts, these entities being illegal. And the evidence is clearly,
7 in my view, I'm arguing, I'm counsel, I submit that the evidence is
8 consistent with that.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Prlic?
10 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise. I don't
11 usually participate a great deal in all this. I'm not a lawyer, of
12 course; although, I was a professor at the Faculty of Law before my
13 indictment. As this is redirect, two points were put, two theses were
15 Yesterday, my counsel asked whether the taking over of functions
16 by Herceg-Bosna and the establishment of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the
17 Federation, was a parallel process, and these documents speak to that.
18 The international community is asking for these functions to be
19 transferred, both from Herceg-Bosna and the Republic of
21 The second issue that was raised was one of illegality. The title
22 of the document is, "The Persistence of Herceg-Bosna." So the fact that
23 it lasted and the illegality of the constitutional -- of the institutions
24 in the documents presented here, we are dealing with decisions made in
25 2001. In both these decisions and the comments from the office of the
1 High Representative, and the UN documents, it says that illegal structures
2 were created, establishment, the establishment of illegal structures. So
3 these are illegal structures created in 2001.
4 In my view, the duty of all of us in this courtroom is to put our
5 case correctly. That's why I wanted to raise these two issues; although,
6 this type of redirect calls for new examination by the Defence, in view of
7 the types of questions put, because points that were raised very clearly
8 during the cross-examination were now put in a quite different context,
9 both as regards their contents and their time.
10 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] May I, with Your Honour's
11 leave put, one question to the witness? He said that he read Hrvatski
12 Vojnik, and that publication was published by an institution I worked in.
13 It was -- I was one of the founders. So does the witness know what kind
14 of texts and viewpoints were expressed in that publication?
15 And, secondly, certain political stand points are being
16 transformed here into legal acts, legal documents. The stand points of
17 the High Representative on self-administration which have changed today
18 are supposed to produce criminal activity regardless of the year.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, it so happens that you [as
20 interpreted] are one of the founders of the publication you have read, so
21 he's asking you whether --
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Sorry. In the transcript, it is not "you," but
23 "Mr. Praljak." It says that, "you are one of the founders." No. Mr.
24 Praljak is one of the founders.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. That's exactly what I
1 said. Mr. Praljak was one of the founders of this magazine. Were you
2 aware of that?
3 And he's asking you what was the purpose of this magazine? What
4 kind of ideas did it convey? These are the kind of thing he would like
5 to know.
6 THE WITNESS: As I said yesterday, and you might recall that I
7 wasn't even entirely certain of the title, I was including it in a long
8 list of magazines that I occasionally read back in the early 1990s. It's
9 been that long since I looked at it, and I really couldn't characterise
10 the content in any kind of depth or breadth at this point.
11 It is interesting to find out, which I did not know, that
12 Mr. Praljak was a founder of that magazine. If and when I read it in the
13 future, that will perhaps make it even more interesting than it would
14 normally be.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
16 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I have no more questions and I thank the
17 Chamber for the time that was allowed, and thank you, Dr. Miller.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic?
20 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't wish to
21 interrupt my colleague, Mr. Scott, while he was asking questions about
22 whether the various ministries were within that 10 per cent of the
23 population that reads the papers. But I'd like to be allowed to ask one
24 or two questions now, to ask the witness some questions, because I think
25 the way in which this was formulated by Mr. Scott implies the existence of
1 a Yugoslavia market for newspapers and the possibility that, in any place
2 in the former Yugoslavia, any type of media could be accessed.
3 Further cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:
4 Q. I'd like to ask, therefore, the witness the following question:
5 Do you know that, as of the autumn of 1991, some publications that were
6 published in Belgrade were not accessible to citizens in Croatia, so the
7 citizens of Croatia couldn't read these papers; as, indeed, the Ministry
8 of Defence or the government, they could not read those publications
9 either, Serbian publications, or rather, publications printed in Belgrade?
10 A. I am aware of that.
11 Q. And my next question, in view of the fact that we are dealing with
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina: Does the same situation apply to Bosnia-Herzegovina?
13 What we said for Croatia, does it also apply to Bosnia-Herzegovina? Did
14 the same situation prevail there?
15 A. I can only offer an educated guess. Would that be adequate?
16 Q. Well, can we conclude that you cannot confirm the fact that, at
17 the end of 1991 and during 1992, the population of Bosnia-Herzegovina was
18 able to read Vreme, Danas, or any other Belgrade or Zagreb publication?
19 A. I was in Zagreb in 1992, so I know that the media market had
20 closed up. I can only say that since Bosnia was not actively involved in
21 warfare during most of -- well, technically, all of 1991, that Sarajevo, I
22 would guess, had access to both types of press, probably more likely to
23 have Vreme than Danas, if we are going to use those two as examples. But,
24 of course, I don't have any scientific knowledge on that matter.
25 Q. Let's leave scientific knowledge for the time being. Do you have
1 any other knowledge, other than your assumptions --
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mrs. Alaburic, may I ask you what kind of
3 procedure this is. We've had direct, we've had cross, and we've had
4 redirect. What you are raising you could have raised in cross.
5 What is the justification for prolonging this morning by raising
6 these again, please?
7 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was not able to ask
8 these questions during the cross-examination because this particular
9 matter was raised only in redirect, re-examination. And I think that
10 Mr. Scott, on the basis of the questions I asked during my
11 cross-examination, tried to say that the Ministry of Defence and the
12 authorities generally were able to access and read Vreme and Danas, and
13 that that was somebody creating a certain policy and then could reap
14 knowledge from Danas and Vreme as a source.
15 So I thought that this would mislead the Trial Chamber, and my
16 exclusive intention was to assist the Trial Chamber in understanding the
17 fact that a Yugoslav market did not exist, and that's why I thought it
18 relevant to ask these additional questions. I refrained from objecting
19 when Mr. Scott was asking these while he was asking them.
20 Now, if you consider that to be improper, next time, every time, I
21 will rise to my feet and utter my objection.
22 Thank you.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic?
24 MR. KOVACIC: I would like to make an objection with respect to
25 the proceedings, the process. I think it is with critical value, relative
1 critical value. I can do this without the presence of the witness, but
2 may I have three minutes to raise my objection on procedure, procedural
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
5 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, I am referring to the undoubtable
6 rights of the accused given by the Statute and Rules and Regulations of
7 this Tribunal to be precisely informed about the accusations and counts
8 they -- that stand before them.
9 We heard through this testimony and the expert report, at least
10 with respect to the post-Dayton Accord report, that the Prosecution was
11 quite frank and open, saying that they would wish to prove their thesis
12 about the extension of the HR HB after Dayton as well. So that's quite
14 On the other hand, when we look at the indictment, especially
15 paragraphs 15 and 16, we have defined the time for the duration of this
16 famous HZ HB as part of a joint criminal enterprise, and we are told in
17 that portion or excerpt that that institution of the joint criminal
18 enterprise, in which the HZ HB was the main instrument, that it lasted
19 from the 18th of November until April 1994.
20 We've just now heard, or rather, we have been discussing this for
21 two days now, according to the second expert report, and also by the
22 express statements of the person representing the OTP, it was precisely
23 stated and quite clearly stated that through this evidence, they are
24 maintaining that the HZ HB continued to exist. Ergo, I must understand
25 this as a criminal enterprise, because that's how the indictment defines
1 it, even after the Dayton agreement.
2 Now we know according to practice at this Tribunal, and you'll
3 remember what I'm talking about, that there were many, many problems with
4 the murky way in which the -- and unclear way in which the indictment was
5 compiled, and there was an appeals judgement. If I may rephrase it, it
6 says, more or less, the following, that the accused could have been
7 informed about changes in the indictment -- could be informed about
8 changes in the indictment during the proceedings and the conduct of the
9 Prosecution and the exhibits presented by the Prosecution during the
11 In other words, if the accused were sleeping during the
12 proceedings going on, for example, and didn't understand that the
13 Prosecution could, through its exhibits, in fact, change and amend the
14 indictment, then that was to his detriment.
15 Now, learning from that example and following case law and court
16 practice --
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber must rule on a
18 criminal enterprise that extends until April 1994, not beyond. If the
19 Prosecution wishes to amend the indictment, the Prosecution must submit a
20 motion. So there is no amendment to the indictment simply because
21 Mr. Scott is addressing questions to the witness. So let me reassure you
22 on this point.
23 The Trial Chamber, when it rules, will not say that the criminal
24 enterprise lasted until 1995, because within the scope of the indictment,
25 there is a limit. It is April 1994. It does not go until 1995.
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. That's what
2 I wanted to hear, the position of the Trial Chamber. So, as the Trial
3 Chamber, you have now given me instructions and guidelines, that I need
4 not defend my clients for everything that happened after 1994; that is to
5 say, after the Washington agreement or after the date stipulated in the
7 That is your position as the Trial Chamber, and now I have
8 received my answer and relevant information about what the indictment
9 actually states and is. However, Your Honours, and this is my proposal,
10 that you request of the Prosecution explicitly to state here whether the
11 assertions that we have heard over the past two days here, referring to
12 the second expert report, whether by that the Prosecutor is in effect
13 modifying and amending the indictment, because it is the right of the
14 Prosecution to amend the indictment or modify it.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, on this legal issue,
16 what is your opinion? I think -- I think I've understood now that
17 Mr. Kovacic would like to know your point of view.
18 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour the short answer - and I would be happy to
19 discuss that at greater length when the time allows and, I think, when the
20 witness has been excused. I really don't see any reason to have the
21 witness here for this - but we are not seeking to amend the indictment.
22 But this evidence, in our view, is directly relevant to the time
23 charged in the indictments and to issues raised in the indictment. And,
24 again, I'd be happy to get into that at another time without the witness
25 and with certain things that are in closed session.
1 As to why these are relevant, the short answer is we are not
2 amending the indictment. But to be very clear, it's the Prosecution
3 position is the evidence that's been given in the last several days is
4 extremely relevant to what is charged in the indictment.
5 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you for enabling
6 us to get that reply. So now I'm quite certain that I need not put up a
7 defence in relation to that.
8 Now, my next proposal is that the Trial Chamber excludes this
9 testimony and excludes both the expert reports because we've just heard
10 that it's irrelevant -- or rather, to exclude the second expert report - I
11 made a mistake - and part of the testimony referring to the second expert
12 report because we just heard that it is irrelevant.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It should take place in the
14 following manner: The Prosecution will draw up a list of exhibits to be
15 tendered with IC numbers. You will make your own list, state your
16 objections, and this will be debated by the Trial Chamber. We shall not
17 go into this debate now. It will take place before the Chamber, and the
18 Chamber will hand down a written ruling.
19 Very well, Mr. Miller, I would like to thank you. Your testimony
20 has now come to an end; and on behalf of my colleagues, I would like to
21 extend to you all of my best wishes for your return home.
22 As we will now take a break, if there are no other questions to be
24 Well, no, I see Mr. Scott has risen.
25 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, Your Honour. I know you probably didn't want
1 to see me on my feet again. It's not for anything, I hope, that I don't
2 think would be controversial. I would like to address one matter, which
3 again, I don't think will be difficult. But, I think, again, it would be
4 appropriate for the witness to be excused first, and then I would like to
5 have one minute of the Chamber's time.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, witness, if you can now
7 leave the courtroom. Thank you very much.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, Mr. Scott, the floor is
11 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. I think the Prosecution, as
12 a whole, and myself personally, would be remiss if I did not take the
13 opportunity. I didn't take the time yesterday. I had asked Mr. Murphy if
14 he indeed to be here today to be assured of that, but I would like to add
15 my thoughts and appreciation to Mr. Murphy to join those that were
16 expressed by the Chamber yesterday.
17 It's been a pleasure to work with Mr. Murphy as an advocate. I
18 think the Chamber has had the privilege to see a very fine and effective
19 advocate at work in this courtroom, and I want to express my best wishes
20 to him. I think that, if I the Chamber would allow me.
21 In sometimes watching what I sometimes considered to be the
22 Murphy-Karnavas good cop-bad cop, I don't think anyone but Mr. Murphy
23 could possibly better serve as a good cop. And if he won't be offended if
24 I say this, as one good cop to another good cop, I express my thanks and
25 best wishes for the work he has done, and I should say best wishes for the
1 future as he goes into his new work.
2 Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
3 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, I'm very grateful to Mr. Scott for those
4 kind words, and I couldn't think of a better way of retiring from the
5 police force than with those kind observations.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, thank you very much.
7 And next week, as you know, we have some witness schedule. So we
8 will meet on Monday at 2.15.
9 Thank you very much.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 10.48 a.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Monday, the 1st day of October,
12 2007, at 2.15 p.m.