1 Wednesday, 5 December 2001
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.
5 JUDGE HUNT: Call the case, please.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. This is the case number
7 IT-98-32-T, the Prosecutor versus Mitar Vasiljevic.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Now, Mr. Vasiljevic, you are still bound by the
9 solemn declaration that you took earlier, do you understand that?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, Your Honour.
11 WITNESS: MITAR VASILJEVIC [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Groome.
14 MR. GROOME: Good morning, Your Honours.
15 Further cross-examination by Mr. Groome:
16 Q. Good morning, Mr. Vasiljevic.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. I just wanted to ask you a few questions this morning about your
19 examination by Dr. Lopicic and some of the matters that you discussed
20 with her. It appears from her report that when the interview began with
21 Dr. Lopicic, you cleaned off the table and prepared the table for the
22 interview; is that correct?
23 A. Yes. If you mean in the detention unit.
24 Q. Yes, sir.
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. And according to Dr. Lopicic, immediately after that -- I'm sorry.
2 Immediately after she introduced herself and explained who she was and
3 what she was doing, you began to describe to her your family history; is
4 that correct?
5 A. Not right away. I don't know how we communicated during the
6 conversation. If you mean that I started right away, we had our
7 conversations for a day and a half.
8 Q. Well, let me read the line in the report that I'm referring to.
9 He she says, "After my introduction, he starts talking about himself and
10 his family, about his events as well as about many years of his drinking
11 problem." Am I correct in taking from that that you initiated much of the
12 conversation regarding your family history and your drinking problem? It
13 wasn't in response to specific questions from the doctor, you spoke freely
14 about your background and history?
15 A. Well, I don't know how I should put it. I don't know exactly how
16 we started that conversation directly, precisely.
17 Q. Well let me ask you about the incident involving your belief that
18 your mother committed suicide. You -- that was not in response to a
19 question by her regarding the circumstances of your mother's death, that
20 was something that you had -- you told her about, you volunteered that
21 information; is that not correct?
22 A. I think that in those conversations with the doctor as they
23 proceeded, these life problems, how should I put it, and the situations
24 that I had as a child and onwards and I told the doctor that my mother
25 committed suicide. It's an assumption that that was so because to this
1 very day, we don't know the cause of her death in order to be able to say
2 exactly. And There is no grave. For anybody to be able to say that this
3 and this is what happened, we to this day can't say.
4 Q. Now, Mr. Vasiljevic, it appears from the way of the report is
5 written that the topic of your mother's possible suicide arose in the very
6 first session that you had with the doctor; is that correct?
7 A. You mean the first day, the first day of the talk. Perhaps the
8 first hour or the first half an hour, I don't know exactly what time it
9 was, sir.
10 Q. Okay. So I am correct in believing that it was first brought up
11 by you within the first half hour or first hour of your discussions with
12 the doctor; correct?
13 A. Yes, probably that is true. Probably. I don't know the exact
14 time, the hour, but ...
15 Q. Now, this was the first time you met Dr. Lopicic; correct?
16 A. Yes. I didn't know her before.
17 Q. Now, it also appears from the report, and correct me if I am
18 wrong, that your aunt -- of the people who were aware of the possible
19 suicide of your mother, two of those people were your aunt and uncle from
20 Vardiste; is that correct?
21 A. No, my older aunts and uncles both on my mother's side and my
22 father's side, they know and they never told us anything directly when we
23 were children. I don't know. I remember my mother as if through a dream,
24 but nobody ever emphasised this or told us about it. I think she had a
25 nervous disorder. I feel very uncomfortable about speaking to this. I
4 [redacted], I don't feel comfortable talking about this. I
5 really don't know what to say about this.
8 A. Yes, she took vinegar.
9 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Domazet.
10 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since these are
11 questions and since Mr. Vasiljevic began to talk about things that relate
12 to his family and some people who are still alive today and they relate to
13 illnesses in his family, I would request if it would be possible to
14 discuss this at a private session so that Mr. Mitar Vasiljevic could
15 respond to these questions in a private session.
16 JUDGE HUNT: I suppose it's simpler to do it that way,
17 Mr. Groome.
18 MR. GROOME: I have no objection to that.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Will it take very long, this particular part of your
21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, my cross-examination actually is going
22 to be much shorter than I had given an estimate yesterday and it will --
23 all of it will involve these personal details so perhaps --
24 JUDGE HUNT: Very well then, we'll go into private session. Just
25 one moment.
1 [Private session]
13 Page 3803 – redacted – private session.
13 Page 3804 – redacted – private session.
13 Page 3805 – redacted – private session.
13 Page 3806 – redacted – private session.
13 Page 3807 – redacted – private session.
13 Page 3808 – redacted – private session.
13 Page 3809 – redacted – private session.
14 [Open session]
15 JUDGE HUNT: We are in public session now.
16 MR. GROOME:
17 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, you described to Dr. Lopicic that when you began
18 drinking or when drinking became a problem in 1984, that you would recall
19 these events where, as you described it, you would talk nonsense; is that
21 A. In 1984, I believe that was the first time that I went to hospital
22 in Uzice because of alcohol.
23 Q. And --
24 A. So I was already very deep into it.
25 Q. Around that period, did you begin to have different events in
1 which you could not recall, but you believe that -- you could not recall
2 exactly what you said but you believe that you had spoken nonsense? Did
3 you say that to Dr. Lopicic?
4 A. I couldn't remember, those were the 1980s. Before that, I would
5 always know with whom I had been drinking and what cafes I had gone and
6 how I had ended up at home, but in 1984 and 1985, no, even if I tried to
7 remember, I needed more time to remember such details. And you know when
8 I was in a cafe, I was always in a very good mood, I enjoyed telling jokes
9 and I allowed other people to tell jokes about me. I was never bothered
10 by that. I just wanted to have people laugh around me.
11 Q. Would it be fair to say that you learnt about some of the things
12 that you said from the people you were with, that you had no recollection
13 because you were drunk, but other people that were present told you some
14 of the things that you said; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, that would happen also, yes. I couldn't remember things.
16 Sometimes if I -- if I had gone to three or four cafes, people would tell
17 me where I had been. Sometimes I would remember, sometimes I wouldn't
18 have any recollection of that.
19 Q. Now, you characterised some of the things you said as nonsense and
20 am I correct in believing that when you say nonsense, you mean things that
21 were not true. You said things that were factually incorrect.
22 A. How shall I put it? Those things happened under the influence of
23 alcohol but, you know, people tend to exaggerate also afterwards when they
24 tell jokes about what had happened. People in cafes are mostly tipsy or
25 drunk. It's not that we were ashamed, but you know, there were cafes
1 where everybody was drunk.
2 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, my question to you is: On these occasions when
3 people told you some of the things you said, isn't it true that some of
4 the things that you said were not true, they were factually incorrect; yes
5 or no, please?
6 A. I'm not sure I understand you. If somebody told me what I had
7 talked about, whether I denied it, whether that was true or not, I really
8 don't quite understand what you mean with your question. Would you please
9 repeat your question? I'm not sure I understand you correctly.
10 Q. You described to Dr. Lopicic that when you drink, as early as
11 1984, you would say nonsensical things, you would talk in nonsense. My
12 question to you is: That -- what you're describing as nonsense, isn't it
13 a fact that some of those things you said were untrue?
14 A. Yes, yes. Many times people would tell jokes at my expense but
15 they would also say things that were simply not true.
16 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, isn't one of the other things that you told
17 Dr. Lopicic is not only did you say nonsensical things you could not
18 recall, but you also made promises to people that you never kept; isn't
19 that also true? Didn't you also tell Dr. Lopicic that when you drink you
20 make promises to people that you do not keep?
21 A. Yes. Yes. I would forget. If I promised something, sometimes I
22 would forget. I remember promising once to a Muslim colleague of mine to
23 go and do some work on his house. The following morning, the phone rang
24 and I completely forgot what I had told him but then later on I would
1 Q. Now --
2 A. Yes, yes, there were such cases when I promised things and then
3 completely forgot about them or, for example, people would ask me to pass
4 a message to someone they knew in the village and I would forget that as
6 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Vasiljevic, if you just answer the question,
7 we'll on a lot more quickly. If there's something to add, Mr. Domazet
8 will give you the opportunity of adding to it after the questions by
9 Mr. Groome have finished. But you do tend to give us everything that you
10 think should be said. Just answer the question to start with and
11 Mr. Domazet can ask you to expand upon it later.
12 MR. GROOME:
13 Q. I want to now take to you April of 1992. In your discussions with
14 Dr. Lopicic, you describe an event in which after you moved your family
15 out of Visegrad, you went, and without your wife's knowledge, you took
16 your daughter from school and brought her with you to see some relatives;
17 is that correct? Yes or no, please.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And when you took your daughter from school, I believe you told
20 Dr. Lopicic that your wife became so concerned that she contacted the
21 police; is that correct?
22 A. Yes. The child was supposed to be taken back from school and it
23 was my mistake, I'm fully aware of that, I was not on time. I went to see
24 a relative with my daughter and yes, yes, when I failed to notify my wife.
25 Q. Were you drinking at the time?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And did you keep your daughter at the relative's house over
3 night? Is that why your wife became so concerned, because you were there
4 over night?
5 A. No, not over night. I didn't stay over night. I never thought
6 about it. The child didn't come back home. I didn't go back home and it
7 never occurred to me to inform my wife and so when she realised that the
8 girl was not coming from school, she became upset. She called the
9 hospital, the police, they informed everyone. They were afraid.
10 Q. Did the police locate you where you were with your daughter?
11 A. No, no, they didn't know where I had gone with my daughter. I'd
12 gone to see a relative of mine who lived in an area two or three
13 kilometres away from my place. Nobody asked any questions about it later
14 on. Nobody knew me in that area. It's just that I didn't inform her.
15 Q. Now, I also see in the report that you said to Dr. Lopicic that
16 towards the end of May that you had memory lapses, that there were events
17 and things that occurred that you have forgotten. Did you say that to
18 Dr. Lopicic?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And those memory lapses, are they due to you drinking?
21 A. Well, partly, of course alcohol affected me but it is also the
22 strange feeling that I had at those moments. I would be frightened, I
23 would start talking. It was something that I had never experienced
25 Q. Now, Mr. Vasiljevic, given what you've told us about your cousin
1 who was killed, there's very little detail about him in the report and I'm
2 wondering, did you discuss at any great length your cousin with
3 Dr. Lopicic?
4 A. Well, yes, I did. I don't know how much time we spent discussing
5 it, but she did ask me about him, yes.
6 Q. Did you ever tell her his name?
7 A. I believe I did. I don't know. I think I did. I don't know
8 whether I told her his name. I probably did.
9 Q. And did you describe for her how you felt or your reaction to his
10 death? Did you describe that to Dr. Lopicic?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, in the -- at some point, you and Dr. Lopicic talked about
13 what happened on the 7th of June down by the Drina River and it appears,
14 according to the report, that you told Dr. Lopicic that after Milan Lukic
15 told the men to go down -- to get out of the car and go to the river, that
16 you actually embraced Meho. Did you tell Dr. Lopicic that?
17 A. I said that Milan embraced Meho. She may have misunderstood me or
18 maybe it's just a mistake in what she wrote about it.
19 JUDGE HUNT: I must say that's the word I read too, Mr. Groome.
20 Have you got the page reference?
21 MR. GROOME: It's page 9, Your Honour, about the middle of the
23 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
24 MR. GROOME:
25 Q. So you -- you're saying that you did not say that to Dr. Lopicic.
1 What you told her was that Milan Lukic embraced Meho?
2 A. Yes, I believe that's what I said. Maybe she made a mistake when
3 she wrote it down.
4 Q. Now, with respect to what happened regarding the horse, according
5 to the report, it appears that you told Dr. Lopicic that you rode past the
6 hotel on the horse; is that correct? Did you tell that to Dr. Lopicic?
7 A. I think that it was not quite clear. I told her about where I
8 worked. I probably told her that I worked in the Panos restaurant, but I
9 don't think that she correctly understood me.
10 Q. Well, my question to you is: When she says, "He passed by the
11 hotel," did you tell Dr. Lopicic that on that horse, you passed by the
13 A. No, I told her the restaurant, not the hotel. I could not have
14 said that. I am familiar with the restaurants of course and the hotel, so
15 probably we spoke about the hotel where I used to work for a number of
16 years, but I think maybe the doctor didn't put it down correctly. She did
17 a lot of writing. She may have made a mistake. I could not have said in
18 front of the hotel because I had not reached the hotel. I had already
19 fallen down.
20 Q. Aside from writing down notes, did she tape record her interview
21 with you?
22 A. No, I don't think she did. Only if she had something in her bag,
23 in her purse. She didn't tell me that it was being recorded at any rate.
24 I may have said in the vicinity of the hotel, near the hotel. That is
25 possible, but --
1 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Groome, I've reread page 9. Are you suggesting
2 that we should interpret that particular statement that it was the accused
3 who embraced Meho because it would then mean that we would also have to
4 read it as having suggested that he, the accused, ordered them to go to
5 the Drina and ordered to start the shooting at them.
6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, that was how I had originally read it
7 last night, but I'm satisfied with his explanation that he was referring
8 to Mr. Milan Lukic as he did at his testimony earlier.
9 JUDGE HUNT: Perhaps you were working late at night.
10 MR. GROOME: As usual.
11 JUDGE HUNT: I must say that I was surprised when you put the
12 suggestion, and I am glad to say that to hear that my memory was correct,
13 but I was going to interrupt you for another purpose, really.
14 Mr. Domazet, do you know whether the doctor did record all of
15 this? It's quite reasonable and frequently that doctors do this. Do you
17 MR. DOMAZET: No, Your Honour, I don't know. Really, I don't
19 JUDGE HUNT: I thought it might save a little time. I'm sorry
20 then, Mr. Groome, I thought that might assist.
21 MR. GROOME:
22 Q. Also from the report, it appears that maybe it was the doctor's
23 misimpression or something you said to the doctor that Zika Savic, the
24 ambulance driver was one of those people that ran to your immediate
25 assistance. Did you tell the doctor that Zika Savic was there when you
1 fell off the horse and that he ran to your immediate assistance?
2 A. No, no. I don't know how she phrased it. We discussed it for a
3 while, for quite some time actually but he wasn't there at that moment. I
4 don't know how the doctor phrased it.
5 Q. I will read that particular sentence so you will know how she
6 phrased it. "Some people ran to him, among them Zika Savic, the driver of
7 the ambulance, and they took him to the hospital in Visegrad." That's how
8 she phrased it. Did you say that to Dr. Lopicic?
9 A. No, no, that's not the way I put it. I told her what I had stated
10 before the Court. I don't know on which -- on what information she based
11 her conclusions, but I didn't say that I was next to Zika Savic at the
12 very spot.
13 Q. Now, Mr. Vasiljevic, I wanted to take you back to that interview
14 that you, myself, and an investigator from the Office of the Prosecutor
15 had in November of the year 2000 and you will recall that I had asked you
16 at that time whether at the time of the river shooting on the 7th of June,
17 whether you felt you were suffering from any psychiatric disorder or
18 mental disorder and you said no.
19 My question to you today is do you still stand by that answer or
20 is it an answer you would like to change?
21 A. What do I know? I mean to be perfectly frank, it's not something
22 that I knew about at that time. I didn't know the right diagnosis and
23 those feelings that I had, the impressions that I could talk to creatures
24 and heavens over the phone, some saints or the devil himself. I don't
25 know. I just remember being frightened, but it was all mixed up. It was
1 a big confusion for me. I don't know. I don't know how to tell you this.
2 Q. But all the symptoms that you are now describing, and you have
3 described to Dr. Lopicic, they all occurred after you went into Uzice
4 hospital; correct?
5 A. Well, as I told her, I did have some kind of premonition -- no,
6 that's not the right word. I -- it seemed to me that I knew things, that
7 I knew that someone I know would be killed, but I didn't dare say it as if
8 some higher power prohibited me from saying that. I don't know how to
9 explain this to you. It's all very, very strange.
10 Q. Well, let's go back to the 7th of June. At that time, were you
11 having premonitions from higher powers?
12 A. Yes. You mean in June? June and July?
13 Q. I'm talking about the incident in --
14 A. You're talking about June.
15 Q. The day I'm talking about is the day Meho died. The day Meho
17 A. Yes, yes.
18 Q. When I asked you earlier or a year ago, you said that you did not
19 think you were suffering from any mental disorder on that day. It was
20 after that day and my question to you today is do you still stand by that
21 answer or do you wish to change it?
22 A. How -- I don't know how to put it. It was this fear that I
23 experienced. I don't know how to explain this to you. It's not that it
24 was all the time.
25 Q. I'm asking you do you want to change that answer; yes or no?
1 A. Even before that, I experienced -- I really don't know how to put
2 it. I experienced such problems, some lapses like some void spaces.
3 There was something in the air which made me feel uncomfortable and I had
4 this feeling of -- this desolation.
5 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, we're not talking about feeling uncomfortable,
6 we're not talking about feeling empty, we're talking about whether you
7 believe you were suffering from a mental disorder on the 7th of June, the
8 day Meho Zavic was killed. Do you feel you were suffering from a mental
9 disorder on that day?
10 A. Maybe I was. It's -- I don't know how to express myself.
11 Something did exist, but I cannot be precise.
12 Q. And a year ago, when you gave a very clear and unequivocal "no,"
13 that your mental problems began after that day and, in part, as a result
14 of that day, when you gave that particular answer, were you not telling us
15 the truth on that day?
16 A. Maybe we didn't discuss the subject. I told you what I told you.
17 I never thought that it would come to this. What I said, I said.
18 Q. Now, according to Dr. Lopicic's report, it appears that -- or the
19 first symptom that I can find in the report is after you were in Uzice
20 hospital and my question -- and I'm sorry, and according to what you told
21 Dr. Lopicic, it seems that those symptoms began to appear as your access
22 to alcohol was restricted, when it became difficult for to you drink. Is
23 that correct?
24 A. I wasn't drinking in the hospital for about 15 days or maybe it
25 was just small quantities. It's not that I had any problem while I was
1 abstaining from, for example, three days, and after those three days I
2 would start eating again. As for what happened in hospital, I don't know
3 what to tell you. I was afraid for my family.
4 Q. Well, Mr. Vasiljevic, the symptoms you described to Dr. Lopicic,
5 your thoughts about the birds outside, your thoughts about what you could
6 do when you blinked, your conversations with other worldly entities, all
7 of that occurred after you stopped, you began to abstain from alcohol; is
8 that not correct?
9 A. Yes. Yes. Even before.
10 Q. Well, let's -- which symptoms did you experience prior to stopping
11 the drinking in the hospital? Which of those symptoms did you have prior?
12 A. Blinking. Every time I would blink, somebody got killed, and if I
13 thought that it was a child, I would feel terrible. I don't know who else
14 I imagined I was talking to and then those telephone conversations.
15 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, let's just take blinking. When did you first
16 believe that every time you blinked, somebody died?
17 A. How would I know? I wasn't yet in hospital. Before that, I don't
18 know exactly how long.
19 Q. Are you saying that you had these thoughts prior to going into the
20 hospital, that when you blinked, people died?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And did you have these thoughts about blinking prior to the death
23 of Meho Zavic?
24 A. I believe I did. I believe I had those ex -- experienced those
25 things even before.
1 Q. And did you have those thoughts prior to the death of your cousin?
2 A. I believe I did, but it happened gradually.
3 Q. So Mr. Vasiljevic, I would imagine we each blink two or three
4 times a minute. Are you telling us that as from a period before your
5 cousin's death up until the time that you received medicine, you believed
6 every time you blinked, people died?
7 A. No, no, not all the time. It's just that I would have this
8 feeling all of a sudden. It sounds stupid, I know, because we all need to
9 blink from time to time, but all of a sudden, I would just see this
10 darkness around me. I don't know.
11 Q. Can you give us an example of somebody who you believe you killed
12 when you blinked?
13 A. I don't know how it happened. Mostly it would be my children,
14 that's what I was afraid of. It's all of a sudden somebody informed me
15 that my child had died.
16 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, are you saying that when I asked you that question
17 a year ago about your mental health or your mental state of mind on the
18 7th of June, that even though at that time you believed when you blinked
19 people died, you told me unequivocally that you did not feel that you were
20 suffering from any mental disorder? Is that correct?
21 A. No, I said what I said, but we didn't -- let me tell you, it was
22 uncomfortable for me to speak about alcohol and all other mental problems.
23 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, you spent quite an extended period of time in the
24 psychiatric ward of Uzice hospital. You never told any of those doctors
25 about this problem you had with blinking and killing people, did you?
1 A. No.
2 Q. And you didn't tell any of these problems that you were having
3 regarding the birds outside, did you?
4 A. Not the birds, maybe they noticed something or when I would get
5 out into the compound and -- when I saw a crow, for example, I would be
6 afraid. I wasn't afraid of pigeons, but it was the crows that seemed
7 malefic to me, ominous.
8 Q. But my point is at the time you were being treated as an inpatient
9 in the psychiatric facility, you never told your doctors about these two
10 symptoms upon which Dr. Lopicic has based a rather significant finding.
11 It was her that you told for the first time; is that correct? Yes or no,
13 A. I think so, yes.
14 MR. GROOME: Nothing further.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet.
16 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since my initial
17 questions relate to members of his family that the accused has already
18 talked about, I would like to request private session, please.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, we'll go back into private session.
20 [Private session]
13 Page 3824 – redacted – private session.
15 [Open session]
16 JUDGE HUNT: We are now back in public session.
17 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Vasiljevic, in response to Mr. Groome's question whether these
19 specific things about blinking and other things, whether you discussed
20 that with doctors, you said no, and you answered him. My question is: Do
21 you remember now at this point in time what you told the doctors at that
22 time in 1992, what you told the psychiatrists in the hospital and what
23 they asked you?
24 A. I am not able to remember exactly what we talked about. I know
25 only that once, the doctor who testified here said, "Oh, well, you've
1 really calmed down, haven't you? What's the matter with you?" This was
2 during the regular round.
3 Q. Is this something that you personally remember?
4 A. Yes. I know this during one of the rounds after my treatment she
5 had said, "Well, you've really calmed down. What is going on?"
6 Q. Do you remember the first few days during your treatment at the
7 psychiatric ward? Do you remember what kind of questions were asked of
8 you and what you told the doctors?
9 A. I remember that I was restrained. That's one thing that I
11 Q. As far as what you know about that illness and Mr. Groome's
12 questions regarding that during that topic and that during the first
13 interview, you said that you didn't have any mental disorders, were you
14 aware, besides what you knew about treatment for alcoholism, were you
15 aware that you had any other mental disorders?
16 A. No, I didn't know. They don't tell patients such things. There
17 were more -- other patients there who had more serious disorders and they
18 can't comprehend anything that would be told them about their disorder.
19 Q. One more thing about what happened to your mother. How much were
20 the people who were around you, who were not members of your immediate
21 family was known about her disorders?
22 A. Well, everybody in the village knew that. Nobody told us children
23 anything about that, nobody from the neighbourhood, they felt sorry for us
24 but everybody else knew more than we did. We were just kids.
25 Q. And later, when you grew up, did anybody tell you anything more
1 specific about this?
2 A. No, not in the neighbourhood, nobody ever did. We knew what the
3 problem was so nobody really told us anything about it. People felt sorry
4 about that, but nobody ever insisted on talking about it. We knew that we
5 knew a little bit about it. How much ...
6 Q. Can you assume why nobody talked to you about this subject with
7 you and your brother?
8 A. Everybody felt sorry about it. It's not comfortable for people to
9 talk about illness. I wouldn't ask anybody questions about an illness
10 myself to upset them, to upset a child.
11 Q. When you say a child, that was when you were little, but my
12 question also relates to a later time. Were they also later evading this
13 subject because when -- later when you were grown up, you could have
14 understood these things in a different way?
15 A. Well, I never really asked anybody much about it. Perhaps
16 sometimes if somebody would tell me about it, yes, and they would usually
17 tell me the best thing about it. And if anybody ever said anything about
18 my mother, they would say she was a good woman. She worked. She was hard
19 working. She liked to work a lot. But nobody ever said anything bad.
20 Very few people would mention that she was ill. People would avoid saying
21 that. Nobody wanted to talk about that.
22 Q. Do you think that anybody from your family would have any reason
23 to be silent about this or to conceal this fact?
24 A. Well, it wasn't concealed. It was common knowledge that we knew
25 about this and how she disappeared, that she was missing. I know that as
1 a child, everybody looked for her, my father's family, my mother's family.
2 Many people from the village went to search for her for at least a month
3 but they never found anything.
4 Q. Except the people that you mentioned earlier, the people from your
5 inner family circle, do you have information about anybody else suffering
6 from similar conditions from your family?
7 A. No. No, I don't have any information about that other than the
8 people that I mentioned, two aunts, my niece, and my mother. No, I
10 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Vasiljevic. I don't
11 have any further questions.
12 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you, Mr. Vasiljevic. You can return to your
13 usual place behind your counsel.
14 [The witness withdrew]
15 JUDGE HUNT: Now, Mr. Groome, we're very grateful to you for this
16 anticipated schedule. You have somebody coming on Friday, I see and
17 somebody on Monday and then some experts. First of all, are those expert
18 reports provided yet?
19 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. This actually bears some
20 explanation. I have some copies for the remainder of the bench. If I
21 could pass those up and perhaps maybe work through the list and bring them
22 to the Court's attention, a number of matters.
23 JUDGE HUNT: What I want to reiterate and I want to make this very
24 clear that we have asked the Prosecution to fill in the time which is
25 available until the Defence witnesses are available to continue with the
1 Defence case. We're not expecting the Prosecution to complete its case in
2 reply before the Defence case completes. It's purely a practical problem
3 that we have already discussed so that whenever Mr. Domazet is able to get
4 his two witnesses that he has outstanding along, we'll go back to deal
5 with his case and then you can continue with your case. Insofar as
6 anything happens during the continuation of the Defence case which
7 arises -- gives rise to a matter in reply, you will be fully protected --
8 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE HUNT: -- in relation to that.
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, perhaps the best way for me is to work
11 down through the witnesses. Mr. Selsky -- the witness is of such a
12 nature I would think it would be appropriate that I make an offer of proof
13 and have the Court make a ruling it whether it will permit me to call
14 Investigator Selsky so with the Court's leave I will do that now and
15 perhaps discuss whether the Court will permit me to call Investigator
17 JUDGE HUNT: No, I just asked you, so that we're clear, when you
18 say an offer of proof, you're going to show us his statement, are you?
19 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour, there's no statement from
20 Investigator Selsky. I'll just describe in a few sentences what I
21 anticipate asking Investigator Selsky and see whether I will be permitted
22 to call him.
23 JUDGE HUNT: So You are just going to describe the nature of the
24 evidence which you would hope that he could give.
25 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE HUNT: I have to keep asking these questions because
2 sometimes I think we speak a very different version of the language and I
3 want to make sure that I have your terminology right. Yes, what would you
4 anticipate he would say?
5 MR. GROOME: What I would call Investigator Selsky to testify to,
6 is Investigator Selsky is a investigator working on the case of Mr. Dragan
7 Nikolic another indictee before this Tribunal. When Mr. Nikolic was
8 arrested, he had two false identification papers of the Territorial
9 Defence in his possession. During the interview of Mr. Nikolic, he was
10 asked why he had these false identification papers and his explanation was
11 as follows: That during the war it was very difficult for private citizens
12 to obtain medical treatment and that he, as well as many others, obtained
13 false documents purporting to be those of Territorial Defence
14 members in order to permit him to obtain medical services when he required
15 them on two different occasions. So that would be my offer of proof
16 regarding Investigator Selsky.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Well, I think there are two matters there. First of
18 all, how does it relate to the Defence case that has not been raised
19 already in the Prosecution case? And secondly, what does it establish
20 against the accused?
21 MR. GROOME: I would be introducing that evidence and arguing from
22 it, Your Honour, that it is to show the unreliability of the records at
23 Uzice. That it is quite possible that among other problems with those
24 records, it was common for people to use false documents of Territorial
25 Defence members in order to achieve or to receive medical treatment.
1 JUDGE HUNT: And the medical records, however, were tendered
2 during the course of the Prosecution case.
3 MR. GROOME: I'm not offering -- I'm not purporting to tender any
4 medical records through Investigator Selsky.
5 JUDGE HUNT: No, no, the issue about the medical records and their
6 reliability surely arose during the course of the Prosecution case in
7 chief. They're Exhibits P136 and 137 or were they tendered during the
8 Defence case? I can't remember.
9 MR. GROOME: There were two pages of two of the records were
10 tendered in the Prosecution's case, P136 and 137.
11 JUDGE HUNT: That's right. Well, then, how does this arise out of
12 the Defence case?
13 MR. GROOME: There was no -- this -- I can't imagine how this
14 would have been relevant in the Prosecution's case in chief, this
15 evidence. It arises because the accused now in the Defence case has
16 alleged that -- introduced I think about seven or eight different ledgers
17 purporting to be accurate records of all the people that were in Uzice
18 hospital including the records pertaining to himself. I would be offering
19 to rebut the reliability of those records.
20 JUDGE HUNT: I think it must be the French translation I can hear
21 going but it was -- they're obviously a long way to catch up and I'm
23 Mr. Groome, you tendered documents showing his name in them that
24 belonged to the Uzice hospital, did you not?
25 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE HUNT: And not for the purpose of demonstrating that he was
2 there, but for some other purpose, I assume.
3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, those records were seized as part of the
4 Court order. They were introduced to -- in the sense of fairness and in
5 the sense of completeness of the evidence in the case, it seemed
6 appropriate for the Prosecution to put all of the relevant evidence that
7 it should consider in this case before it. I made the decision to do
8 that. I made the Court aware of this evidence in my opening and presented
9 it in the case in chief because I felt, as an officer of the court under
10 my duty and responsibilities as an attorney before the court to put all
11 evidence even the evidence that may be -- that could be, or inferences
12 could be drawn adverse to my case to put that before the Court.
13 I did not take on the burden at that stage of proving the
14 unreliability of the records that are maintained by Uzice hospital. It
15 has been an issue raised on the Defence case and although this particular
16 evidence is not directly on point, I believe it does -- it is relevant and
17 does bear on the Court's consideration of what weight it should put on the
18 total records that we -- that have been admitted in this case from Uzice
20 JUDGE HUNT: I can see the argument you make as to relevance, but
21 you -- I am concerned, myself, to see where this arises as a case in
22 reply. Now, if you tender the documents in chief, for whatever purpose,
23 and you clearly were not doing it in order to prove that he was there.
24 You were going to ask the Trial Chamber not to accept the accuracy of
25 those records so that was an issue which arose during the Prosecution case
1 in chief. That's so, isn't it?
2 MR. GROOME: Perhaps the Court could assist me. When you say
3 "issue" can you please perhaps define what it is -- can you articulate
4 the issue that you see that I have raised during the Prosecution's
5 evidence in chief.
6 JUDGE HUNT: The reliability of the two documents which you
7 tendered because you were not putting them forward as being accurate
8 because that would have destroyed your case in relation to the second
10 MR. GROOME: Can I take from the Court's comments then that
11 this -- the Court would have considered this relevant and admissible
12 evidence on the case in chief.
13 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. There is, of course, a lot of evidence about
14 the unreliability of the records. One would expect hospital records to be
15 unreliable from the way in which they are usually kept. Perhaps 40 years
16 of hearing cases arising in medical negligence and the like, I've become a
17 little cynical about hospital records, but there are many problems with
18 these records not the least of which some of the people who were alleged
19 to have been in hospital with the accused in Visegrad.
20 But that is an issue which clearly arose at the time of the tender
21 of Exhibits 136 and 137 and this material would have been relevant because
22 you would have gone on to show that they were unreliable for various
23 reasons, one of which is that people assumed false identities. But may I
24 just ask you this question, and perhaps we're coming down to the reality
25 of it. If the Prosecution case related only to the issue of when he
1 arrived at the hospital, I don't know whether this is really relevant. If
2 the Prosecution case is still he was never in the hospital, it is still
4 MR. GROOME: I guess, Your Honour, as I view the case, the
5 important fact is whether he was in the hospital at the time of the
7 JUDGE HUNT: Well, this is something I asked you some time ago
8 when I had hoped that we would be able to dispense with a large number of
9 witnesses and you told me then that it was still the Prosecution case that
10 it was not the accused who was in the Uzice hospital because of the
11 x-ray. Now, I think --
12 MR. GROOME: That has not changed Your Honour and I find it very
13 curious that all the medical personnel that came here, at least the ones
14 that I was present for, not one of them looked across the courtroom and
15 said "That's the person I treated," or nor was there any other kind of
16 identification procedure to draw the connection between the hospital
17 record and the actual person.
18 JUDGE HUNT: A number of witnesses actually said that they would
19 not be able to recall what he looked like.
20 MR. GROOME: That's correct.
21 JUDGE HUNT: But two of them gave evidence of having known him
22 personally as the waiter, and I think that rather ties it in. There's
23 been no suggestion anywhere in the case that there were two waiters in
24 Visegrad called Mitar Vasiljevic.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, what I've endeavored to do on behalf of
1 the Prosecution is to show that there are a number of indications that
2 these records are not reliable. Whether that unreliability means that
3 Mr. Vasiljevic was never there or was there at a different time period, or
4 perhaps was there under a different name, I will not be able to offer the
5 Court a clear explanation. There is no definitive explanation that I can
6 glean from the evidence. I believe there is sufficient evidence and will
7 be arguing that there is sufficient evidence, that records taken in
8 totality are unreliable and should not be relied upon by the Court in
9 making a determination that Mr. Vasiljevic was not present at the house
11 JUDGE HUNT: The next problem, of course, is that what you are
12 offering is not Mr. Nikolic to come along to say that he got these things
13 falsely but to have hearsay evidence that that's what he said.
14 MR. GROOME: Well, my next point on that is because it is a rather
15 tangential issue, if Mr. Domazet does not agree to the evidence in the way
16 that I wish to present it, I would endeavour to speak with Mr. Morrison
17 and to explore the possibility of having Mr. Nikolic available in the new
18 year for cross-examination and direct testimony on this matter.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, well that may be the answer to that particular
20 problem but my own problem at the moment and I'll ask Mr. Domazet what his
21 view is, is that you are seeking to raise in reply something which was
22 relevant in chief and which was raised in chief.
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I operated on a good faith basis that
24 this was the most appropriate place to seek to introduce this evidence. I
25 would ask, it seems that the Court and myself have maybe different
1 experience in this. I would ask an opportunity to maybe do some research
2 and to submit written papers on -- or some written argument regarding
3 where such evidence may be most appropriate as I am unfamiliar with some
4 of the positions the Court is informing me of now.
5 JUDGE HUNT: There has been, if I may say so, a great deal of
6 laxity in some of the earlier cases in this Tribunal where they had an
7 almost completely new case in reply and then they had a case in rebuttal
8 or rejoinder I think it was at that stage, and surrebuttal or surrejoinder
9 and so on it went on. But I did make it very clear and I've made it
10 very clear during several times in this case that evidence in reply must
11 be strictly evidence in reply.
12 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. It would be my position that until
13 the Defence introduced evidence that he was not present at the time of the
14 crime, that there really was nothing to reply to. The fact that I chose
15 to introduce the totality of the evidence that had been gathered by the
16 Prosecution and to put all of that evidence before the Court, it would be
17 my position until I have an opportunity to further research it, that that
18 should not in and of itself be a bar to replying to the Defence case.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Well, we'll come back to it at 11.30.
20 But Mr. Domazet, I will ask you what your attitude there is.
21 There are two ways of looking at it. One is that it is not strictly
22 evidence in reply and would require leave to reopen the Prosecution case
23 to call it. That may be one way around it. The other is that it is of
24 such tangential importance in the case that it shouldn't be, that leave
25 should not be granted. But nevertheless, we'll come back to it at 11.30.
1 --- Recess taken at 11.01 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 11.33 a.m.
3 JUDGE HUNT: Now, Mr. Domazet, what is your attitude first of all
4 as to whether it is properly in reply and secondly, is there any reason
5 why the Prosecution shouldn't be able to reopen their case to prove it?
6 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] During the examination of the
7 witness, I did not notice, Your Honour, that there was any challenge as to
8 the way he was -- as to the way the members of the Territorial Defence
9 were admitted into hospital, at least as regards Uzice. If I understand
10 my learned colleague, Mr. Groome correctly, the investigator who was not
11 the investigator of this case because I don't remember seeing his name or
12 hearing his name from any of these witnesses, I don't see that there was
13 any testimony that the accused Nikolic had two forged identity cards of
14 the Territorial Defence, that that was the reason for medical treatment.
15 Whether that was the reason on behalf of Mr. Nikolic, I never
16 noticed that that was any -- that that constituted a problem for admission
17 of patients who very often came to the hospital without any medical
18 documentation. I personally don't see any relevance of this information
19 if that's what the investigator is supposed to testify about; however,
20 should the Court find that it does have any relevance, let him be
21 examined. But personally, I don't see any reason why that should be
22 included in the case in reply.
23 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, it hasn't been tendered on the basis of
24 that any reference has been made to Mr. Nikolic before or to this
25 investigator. It is an attempt by the Prosecution to demonstrate that the
1 medical records would be unsafe because of a practice about which
2 Mr. Nikolic apparently spoke of people obtaining forged identity cards of
3 Territorial Defence members in order to get medical attention easily.
4 Now, what you say would be material going to its weight and you
5 would be able to see whether you can cross-examine that or to -- you can
6 point to other material that has been said in the case, not all of it
7 uncontradicted but nevertheless it has been said that everybody got
8 medical attention whatever their ethnicity and even without medical
9 records. That doesn't make it irrelevant, though. It remains relevant.
10 You can attack its weight as much as you wish. My concern was a technical
11 one, but you say, as I understand it, if we believe it has some relevance,
12 we make no judgement about its weight, but if it's relevant, you won't
13 object to the investigator being called.
14 Is that what you're saying?
15 MR. DOMAZET: Just that, Your Honour, yes.
16 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Well -- just sit down for a moment, would
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Mr. Groome, we can see that there is some basis
20 for arguing its relevance and on that basis, we will permit you to call
21 the investigator. I think more properly, it should be as part of your
22 case in chief, but that probably doesn't matter very much.
23 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honours. If I can maybe --
24 JUDGE HUNT: But we're making no decision on its weight, that's a
25 different matter altogether.
1 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour. Then with respect to the
2 voice experts, the Court asked me earlier had that report been filed, and
3 it had been filed several weeks. I had spoken to Mr. Domazet earlier
4 today. He does wish to cross-examine the people involved in the
5 preparation of that report. If I can explain to the Court, there is --
6 JUDGE HUNT: Can you give us the names of the witnesses because I
7 have not seen this report.
8 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I will have somebody get the
9 report, a copy of the report for the Bench now. The two people that were
10 involved in the analysis of the audio tape were a Dutch examiner, a
11 forensic examiner, and because it was in a different language, he sought
12 the assistance of a linguistic expert in Serbo-Croatian language. So I
13 would have both -- I'm attempting to have both of them available. I have
14 not gotten definitive word on their schedules yet. We are -- I should
15 have word in the near hour or two. We are attempting to secure their
16 attendance for next Monday and Tuesday.
17 JUDGE HUNT: So it's the Dutchman and the one who speaks B/C/S.
18 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE HUNT: They are the two witnesses.
20 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. The report was filed on the 23rd
21 of November and I can give the Court the name of the Dutch expert, his
22 name is Dr. Broeders. The name of the assistant, the linguistic
23 assistant, is not included in the report and she is actually requesting
24 some protective measures so -- she's concerned about her identity being
25 revealed publicly.
1 JUDGE HUNT: You mean a pseudonym and facial distortion.
2 MR. GROOME: At least a pseudonym. I will inquire about the
3 facial distortion.
4 JUDGE HUNT: All right. Well, now, Mr. Domazet, have you any
5 problem about the timing of them being called next week?
6 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I received the report
7 from the Prosecution, I believe, on the 22nd of November or thereabouts.
8 I have examined the report. The only problem I have with it is that I was
9 not in a position, being here, to identify any of my experts to examine
10 the tape because I haven't received the disputed tape yet, that is the
11 tape which is purported to carry the voice of (redacted). I have tapes
12 of the interview given by (redacted) to Yves Roy in Sarajevo
13 used for the purposes of comparison. However, as for the second tape
14 which is being challenged here, and in respect of which the (redacted)
15 (redacted) stated that it was not his voice, I have only the transcript
16 of some portions of the tape but not the tape itself.
17 If I can reserve my right for later on, if I can obtain the tape
18 and then carry my -- conduct my examination subsequently, I would not have
19 any problems with examining the witness, the expert in question on
21 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, this has been the problem throughout.
22 You are never in a position to cross-examine because you say you haven't
23 got an expert report. Now, you are entitled to complain if you have not
24 been given access to the tape and because it's still within the 21 days,
25 by the time you get to the 10th, you have the right to object to it. But
1 we are not going to have this done piecemeal, a bit here and a bit there.
2 Are you going to get a local expert to have a look at it or are you going
3 to have to go back to Belgrade to do it?
4 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I would request
5 that this tape be given to me, a copy of this tape be given to me so that
6 I can have it examined, but I don't have anything against this witness,
7 Dr. Broeders, if I understand it correctly, to be examined.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, I wonder whether I'm getting through. I
9 hope I am. Your obligation in cross-examination is to put to a witness
10 your case. So far, you haven't done it because, as you say, you've never
11 had a report. For example, Dr. De Grave should have been cross-examined
12 upon what your expert was going to say and you didn't cross-examine him
13 because you didn't -- you hadn't organised your own expert which means now
14 the Prosecution has got a case in reply. This is not the way litigation
15 should be conducted.
16 I see little, if any, point in you not having an expert report
17 when these witnesses are called because you will then subsequently call
18 them and the Prosecution will have to bring back either their experts or
19 some other experts in a case in surrejoinder or surrebuttal, I've
20 forgotten which it is, and this is just not going to happen. Now, if you
21 say you haven't been given the tape or a copy of the tape, that is
22 unfortunate and it will be sufficient, I'm afraid, to say that we won't be
23 able to hear these witnesses next week.
24 Why hasn't a copy of the tape been given to Mr. Domazet,
25 Mr. Groome?
1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if I can just clear up a few things for
2 the record. The day that I received this report, because of the unusual
3 circumstances regarding this tape, I both notified Mr. Domazet and the
4 legal officer of the Court, the very day I received the report, and I made
5 all of this information available to Mr. Domazet. I asked him to
6 coordinate with the case manager whatever he needed. He was given
7 transcripts, he was given at least some of the tapes. I cannot tell the
8 Court now why Mr. Domazet doesn't have that tape. I know it was made
9 available to him back in the beginning of October when I received the
10 report. The report is dated October 9th so that's when the report was
11 first given to the Defence and the Court's legal officer was made aware of
12 this unusual set of circumstances.
13 JUDGE HUNT: He told me it was the 22nd of November he was given
15 MR. GROOME: That's when I filed the report, Your Honour, but I
16 think Mr. Domazet will -- I think he will admit and his memory will be
17 refreshed because I had a specific meeting with him on this very unusual
18 set of circumstances and I also told him that I would be advising the
19 Court's legal officer because of the unusual issues raised by this. All
20 of that information was available from October 9th onward. If it's an
21 oversight on the Prosecution's part, I apologise. I think Mr. Domazet
22 will also confirm that all this evidence has been available at any
23 request. Had Mr. Domazet told us on the 10th of October or the 11th of
24 October, "I got all the copies of the tape but the one I need," that would
25 have been corrected back then.
1 JUDGE HUNT: Unfortunately, though, I have to point out to you
2 that Rule 94 bis requires it to be filed not less than 21 days and there
3 is a decision of the Appeals Chamber, I've forgotten in which case, which
4 has read that very strictly indeed. In fact, I would have thought, with
5 all due respect to them, too strictly. But we are bound by that decision.
6 MR. GROOME: I recognise that, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE HUNT: That is very unfortunate. Especially as this is
8 third time it seems to have happened that Mr. Domazet's not prepared to
9 cross-examine somebody.
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I was also -- my belief that given
11 Mr. -- this witness's admission, I'm trying to be careful of what I say
12 because this was also in protected -- in a private session. Because of
13 this witness's admission to the actual meeting, to the conversation, to a
14 lot of the topics raised in that conversation, it was my belief that until
15 he said, "That is not me," it would not have been my attention to have
16 sought the introduction of that tape or the introduction of that expert
17 report and I believe it was filed either the very day or the very next day
18 after that witness said, "That's not me."
19 JUDGE HUNT: I can understand why you haven't filed it but I'm
20 concerned that we are bound by a decision which has read this as some sort
21 of derogation from a party's right to have live oral witnesses being
22 called without expert reports being filed.
23 However, if there's any way around it, I mean -- I don't know when
24 it can be done, but if a copy of the tape can be provided to Mr. Domazet,
25 he may be able to have somebody look at it before then.
1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I will have a copy furnished to
2 Mr. Domazet immediately.
3 JUDGE HUNT: I would hope, if I may say so, that Mr. Domazet would
4 not take a technical point of two days in the light of the unfortunate
5 history of this case.
6 MR. GROOME: It would be my understanding -- if his experts wish
7 to listen to the original, I will make immediate arrangements for the
8 original to be shipped or sent in some secure method to whatever expert
9 nominated by Mr. Domazet. I would imagine they would want to see the
10 original tape.
11 JUDGE HUNT: There was some mention made at the time that this
12 tape was played that it had been a filtered copy to get rid of background
13 noise or something. Which one is it that the experts have to listen to?
14 MR. GROOME: I would think that would be a question to be
15 answered by the experts nominated by the --
16 JUDGE HUNT: My reason for raising it is do you think you can give
18 MR. GROOME: Certainly.
19 JUDGE HUNT: So there can't be any further delay.
20 MR. GROOME: Certainly. I would just ask for the original to
21 remain in our custody until an expert is nominated. We will send it to
22 them by some secure means so that they have the original. I will furnish
23 Mr. Domazet with a copy of the tape today.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Now, the comparison was with an interview with the
1 MR. GROOME: Yes.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Nobody sent them the tape of his voice here.
3 MR. GROOME: No, although I have asked for a copy of that but I
4 have no intention or plans to have any further analysis done at this
6 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Mr. Domazet, it may mean that you'll have to do
7 an awful lot of work on the telephone, but if this can be done in time for
8 you to deal with them at least on Tuesday, it would be of great assistance
9 to us. I can't imagine that their evidence would take more than a day
10 between the two of them, would it.
11 MR. GROOME: I don't believe so, Your Honour. I've been rather
12 generous with my estimates of time.
13 JUDGE HUNT: I think, Mr. Domazet, you owe a small debt that you
14 are required to discharge by doing something as rapidly as possible, if I
15 may put it in that way because we have been frustrated by the absence of
16 your experts in so many ways that this time, I think we should ask you to
17 really pull out all stops. You're going to have, I should think, the
18 whole of this afternoon and the whole of tomorrow to organise it.
19 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I understand it
20 correctly, you expect me to have the results by Monday, the results of my
21 expertise of these tapes, expert examination of these tapes so that the
22 witness can be -- the witnesses can be cross-examined on Monday.
23 JUDGE HUNT: I said Tuesday, actually, but I think Monday might be
24 pushing it too far. But if you can get them organised and the tapes are
25 sent, and you can get a report by fax, you should be in a position to
1 cross-examine them.
2 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can try; however, I
3 really don't believe that such an expert analysis can be conducted by then
4 and that the results can be obtained by Monday. I don't really think it's
5 possible, but I said, bearing in mind everything that you've said, and
6 that we should not delay the proceedings any further, that the witness
7 could be heard on Monday or Tuesday as was envisaged by Mr. Groome. I
8 asked for the tape to be given to me because my idea was to conduct an
9 expert analysis of the tape since, as far as I understand the analysis so
11 we do not still have a firm conclusion that it was indeed his voice.
12 In view of all other evidence, I do not ascribe such importance to
13 this analysis to these results as the way think stand now. Things may
14 change after the examination of the witness, agree. However, once again
15 let me state that it is true that I discussed the matter with Mr. Groome
16 and that he had told me, I believe it was in October, that there was a
17 report which, however, did not establish with certainty that that indeed
18 was the witness's voice. And Mr. Groome told me that one more analysis
19 would be conducted before he finally decides to use that as evidence.
20 Since Witness VG81 did not raise this issue, this was not raised
21 during her examination, I didn't think that this would indeed appear as
22 evidence before the Court. So it was only on the 22nd that I received it,
23 that I really examined it, but at that time I still didn't know that it
24 would be tendered into evidence. So that is perhaps one more explanation
25 concerning our conversations regarding this piece of evidence.
1 JUDGE HUNT: May I just clear something up there. As I told you,
2 I have not seen it or if I have, I have not read it. Did you say that the
3 expert's report so far only raises this to the stage of possibility, that
4 it is possible that it was the particular witness's voice? That's as far
5 as it goes.
6 MR. DOMAZET: Yes. [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Groome, what's that going to do for us?
8 MR. GROOME: I believe the way it's order worded is that the
9 voices are consistent, it's the --
10 JUDGE HUNT: Consistent, that only means possible.
11 MR. GROOME: Well, they're not different people.
12 JUDGE HUNT: They're not inconsistent.
13 MR. GROOME: Based on the limitations of the technique that was
14 used, they cannot say beyond a scientific certainty that it's the same
15 person but it would be the position of the Prosecution that the fact that
16 the expert analysis reveals that they are --
17 JUDGE HUNT: They can't exclude, that's what they're saying, isn't
19 MR. GROOME: That's right. And coupled with the witness's
20 admissions about having the conversation, coupled now with the testimony
21 of the person who was present there during the conversation, that taken
22 all together, the Court would be entitled to infer from all that evidence
23 that was the same person who made that statement.
24 JUDGE HUNT: So then the purpose of calling VG81 is to prove the
25 circumstances in which the tape-recording was made.
1 MR. GROOME: That's correct.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Because she didn't deal with it in her evidence.
3 MR. GROOME: That's correct.
4 JUDGE HUNT: This is the thing that was raised on the first day of
5 the -- first week of the trial. You made some reference to a tape at that
7 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Or Mr. Domazet did. It now starts to fall into
10 Well, then, you will say that it's admissible simply through
11 VG81's evidence.
12 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE HUNT: And the weight to be given to it depends on the
14 expert reports, but not the admissibility of the tape.
15 MR. GROOME: The admissibility would not depend upon the expert
16 report. The admissibility would be solely dependent upon the witness.
17 The weight, however, would depend both on the expert report, his admission
18 that the conversation took place and her testimony that "That is the same
19 voice, that's a person I know and that's the tape-recording that I made of
21 JUDGE HUNT: Well, that gives me a very different impression of
22 what it's all about. If the expert says simply that he can't exclude it,
23 that they are consistent but he can't say anything more than that, the
24 cross-examination of him would not prove to be of such importance that you
25 would need a case in reply, for example.
1 MR. GROOME: I will not be --
2 JUDGE HUNT: Not in reply but whatever it is, the old terminology
3 I thought went out with the passing of the Judicature Act in 1861, but
4 they still survive in the Tribunal here, I see.
5 The surrebuttal case, so that if Mr. Domazet is unable to
6 cross-examine them based upon a report, but then calls his own experts
7 assuming that they come to a different conclusion, you're not in any way
9 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Mr. Domazet, thank you for that. That puts a
11 very different complexion upon the situation. May I suggest, however,
12 that you do your best to get an expert's report so that you can
13 cross-examine this witness, but there doesn't seem to be the same problem
14 about bringing witnesses backwards and forwards as we have, for example,
15 in relation to the x-ray. But I hope that you will approach your attempts
16 to get an expert to look at it in time with more enthusiasm than you
17 expressed here in court.
18 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'll do my
20 JUDGE HUNT: That was not meant to be a criticism, that was just
21 perhaps an unfortunately-worded aside.
22 All right, then. Well then, we can call those witnesses but I
23 suggest that we do it on the Tuesday, Mr. Groome, to give Mr. Domazet the
24 opportunity, but please make sure that he gets a copy at least of the
25 principal one and that the originals of both the original and the filtered
1 versions are sent to the expert nominated. I hope not through the
2 Tribunal's mail system because that sometimes takes weeks to get to
4 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
5 And just if I can just remind the Court of my initial comment.
6 These witnesses haven't committed, we haven't had -- confirmed their
7 availability. We are making our best efforts to do that. We have
8 confirmed with VG81. She will be leaving her home on the Saturday and
9 will be here on Monday to testify. Now that we have moved those witnesses
10 to the Tuesday, would the Court wish me to move Investigator Selsky to
11 Monday and have a complete day Monday or still have two --
12 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, if you wish. We are obviously not going to be
13 able to fill it up with anything else and we may as well not break up our
14 time here too much. We're very grateful to you, Mr. Groome, and I know
15 that we have been critical of you at times, but we're very grateful for
16 you trying to fill in the time caused by the absence of the Defence
18 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Now, there are a few other matters that I would like
20 to ask you.
21 Going through all the evidence of the witnesses as to the times
22 when events took place, it is very hazy in places, understandably, because
23 they didn't have watches when the building was being burnt down. But a
24 number of them talk about dusk. Now, this was the week before the summer
25 solstice and if it was up here, I can tell you it was probably not dusk
1 until about 10.00 at night, but I have no idea what it is was in this area
2 we're interested in here, on the eastern side of Bosnia
3 way of obtaining any details as to when the sun sets on those -- I suppose
4 both parties have an equal interest in this so I'm not terribly concerned
5 how it's done, but if we can get some agreement as to when sun set was.
6 There's been some evidence that it was raining in the afternoon. Whether
7 that affected when sun set would have been seen.
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, as the Court knows, in preparation for
9 this trial, we attempted to do that and from all the international
10 records that we could find, there was no location that was even close
11 enough that I thought would have any reliability for the Court. If Mr.
12 Domazet -- maybe there would be local -- more local records, witness
13 information. I know in my own country there will be such records. I will
14 furnish the material that we were able to gather on this and perhaps if
15 both are put before the Court, the Court can decide which data will be
16 more reliable.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Mr. Domazet, I'm sorry, I'm just waiting for
18 the translation. It is probably more in your interest than the
19 Prosecution's interest to get the times sorted out, but I am a little
20 concerned that we are left without anything other than sheer guess work at
21 some of the times and references to dusk about the best that we get for
22 some of them.
23 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE HUNT: What's the nearest city closest to Visegrad that
25 would have some meteorological records?
1 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if we're talking about
2 Serbia, then it's probably Cacak which is a little further away than Uzice
3 or Kragujevac which is still further away. If we're talking about Serbia,
4 as far as information that we can obtain, there is a Hydro-Meteorological
5 Institute of Serbia
6 kind to the courts, and they do have this information and can provide such
7 information. I can tell you that probably that we can agree with the
8 Prosecution regarding this information and we can obtain this information
9 in relation to the western countries such as the Netherlands
10 darker in that period at least an hour or an hour and a half than it does
11 here so the sun rises an hour to an hour and a half earlier.
12 So this is seven or eight days before summer solstice and I know
13 that in my town, dusk is at around 8.00 p.m.
14 think that it really gets dark sometime between 8.00 and 9.00 p.m., and I
15 think that that would also be valid for this particular period, so I think
16 that we can make an attempt to obtain all this information and to get a
17 uniform position regarding this particular statement.
18 JUDGE HUNT: The distance between Visegrad and Uzice was an hour
19 and 20 minutes' drive an according to the doctor and an hour according to
20 the ambulance and I think somebody gave us an estimate of the distance. I
21 don't know in which direction it is and how far it would throw out any
22 records they have, but there may be some way of assessing the difference
23 between Uzice, that's the place that you're thinking of, and Visegrad.
24 We'd get some -- at least a better idea than we've got at the moment.
25 Well, can I leave that to you?
1 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Now, in relation to your psychiatric report, it has a
3 number of an annexes which are in Cyrillic, I don't know how important
4 they are, but if even Dr. Moljevic has trouble reading Cyrillic, you can
5 imagine the trouble we'd have. So if you can get an English translation,
6 that will be of some assistance to us.
7 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, I will do so, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Now, Mr. Groome, I'm sorry, you're on your feet
9 already is there something you wanted to raise.
10 MR. GROOME: I just wanted to finish a few comments on the planned
11 reply case just to give the Court some additional information.
12 JUDGE HUNT: Just before you go back to that, can I just deal with
13 two matters?
14 MR. GROOME: Sure.
15 JUDGE HUNT: One of them is this document which was handed to us
16 today called stipulations in relation to the testimony of Witness VG81.
17 This is one of the problems I have with the expression stipulations. Can
18 I just state my understanding of it and see if it agrees with yours.
19 This of course is to avoid having to tender the statement and
20 insofar as these statements here assist the Defence, the Prosecution
21 accepts that the matters are as stated in this document and insofar as
22 they assist the Prosecution, the Defence accept that they are as stated in
23 this document.
24 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, this document is just the history
25 of it. Mr. Domazet gave us a copy yesterday asking us to agree and sign
1 it. There were a few things that I asked. I asked that the quoted
2 portions of the statement that were relevant be put in rather than
4 JUDGE HUNT: Because you wanted to be able to rely upon them so
5 that he is accepting that they are in the statement and you are accepting
6 the other matters which are mainly omissions from the statement, you are
7 accepting that they are correct.
8 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE HUNT: I'm happy about that. Should we make this as
11 MR. GROOME: I think properly a Defence Exhibit.
12 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. 34, I think, is the next number, isn't it,
13 Mr. Domazet?
14 That will be Exhibit D34.
15 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, 34.
16 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry, I thought you had already agreed. Yes,
17 thank you very much.
18 And the final matter I want to raise is a matter I asked Ms. Bauer
19 and she was going to just check. We finally had the documents that were
20 tested, sort of looked at with some care by the witness and there were two
21 documents. One was a big book which only had an alphabetical list of all
22 the patients who were dealt with and then there was a smaller one which
23 was called the patients from the war zone or some such expression. What I
24 wanted to make sure was at the very early part of the trial, you made a
25 formal concession that the Prosecution had had those documents examined
1 and were unable to challenge their authenticity. Was it -- did it include
2 those two books P136 and 137?
3 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Bauer very properly thought that she better not
5 go right out on a limb without checking and I just wanted to make sure
6 what she said tentatively was correct.
7 MR. GROOME: Yes, that there was no obvious signs of forgery in
8 those matters.
9 JUDGE HUNT: Well, those are the matters I wanted to raise with
10 you. Now we'll go back to your time table.
11 MR. GROOME: I just wanted to point out to Your Honour that the
12 fact witness I have down for day one is in fact a witness by the pseudonym
13 of VG87, that is the Prosecution number. We have not -- I'm sorry, VG86.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Fact witness number 1?
15 MR. GROOME: Right, on day one.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Yes.
17 MR. GROOME: And the other witness is fact witness number 2 is
18 VG97. The question arose yesterday whether statements had been provided
19 to the Defence and I can say for VG81, 86 and 97 those statements, I
20 believe, are in the possession Defence at least nine months at this stage.
21 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry, you gave me three numbers there, 81, 86
22 and 97.
23 MR. GROOME: That's correct. Which one is 81.
24 JUDGE HUNT: Which one is 81.
25 MR. GROOME: 81 is the one I will be calling on Monday.
1 JUDGE HUNT: I see, I'm sorry. Yes, but that was the one that I
2 asked you about, did it contain a reference to the evidence -- to the
3 matter she's about to give evidence on?
4 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour, there is no statement regarding that
5 although Mr. Domazet, in my meetings with Mr. Domazet, I've explained the
6 entire circumstances of that event.
7 JUDGE HUNT: You see, you raised in your own defence yesterday the
8 fact that you only worked on a few line descriptions of the Defence
9 witnesses. That's the unfortunate consequence of the way in which the
10 Rules are drafted, that the Defence does not have to provide statements
11 but the Prosecution does. And that's the difference, you see.
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, my -- the question it seems to me that
13 the rules require me to provide statements that are in my possession. It
14 doesn't require me to take a statement of anything that the witness may
15 testify about. Clearly, if the investigator were to forget to ask the
16 witness a particular question, I don't think the fact that it didn't exist
17 in a statement would be a bar to the witness testifying about that.
18 JUDGE HUNT: It wouldn't, but then you see there's another
19 principle that the Defence must be forewarned of the case you are to
20 present and there must be some forewarning. That issue is how long and if
21 it's not in a written statement which is obviously the safest way is that
22 they are notified precisely of the nature of the evidence to be given.
23 The fact that there's not a signed document is not the end to it, I agree
24 with you there. But all of the cases, particularly a recent decision of
25 the Appeals Chamber have made it very clear that the Defence are entitled
1 to be forewarned of the precise nature of the evidence that the
2 Prosecution's going to lead whereas of course the Prosecution do not get
3 the similar benefit from the Defence who only have to give an outline of
4 the evidence in their pre-trial brief.
5 MR. GROOME: I can have the -- well, the investigator who spoke to
6 the woman is away until the end of the month. If Mr. Domazet is -- feels
7 he would benefit him to -- for me to write down what I've already told
8 him, I would be more than happy to do that, but that would be my
9 recollection of having spoken to the investigator who spoke to the
11 JUDGE HUNT: I don't want there to be any subsequent confusion or
12 dispute as to whether or not they have been given fair warning. That's
13 why statements are obviously the best, but if you have given him fair
14 warning of the nature of the evidence you anticipate that she will give,
15 then that would be sufficient. But I just don't want there to be any
16 dispute when she's giving evidence about this sort of matter.
17 MR. GROOME: I will confirm that with Mr. Domazet and if there's
18 anything I can do to assist him in his preparation, I will do that today.
19 JUDGE HUNT: I can't imagine that she is going to take very long
20 in her evidence.
21 MR. GROOME: I don't think so.
22 JUDGE HUNT: And that if you do have a discussion with
23 Mr. Domazet, and if there is any problem about it, you can fill him in now
24 so that there won't be any problem when she comes to give evidence on
1 MR. GROOME: I will do that, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, right.
3 MR. GROOME: And finally there is one witness who I have not put
4 on the schedule -- I'm sorry, Mr. Domazet seems to want to respond.
5 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, Mr. Domazet.
6 MR. DOMAZET: After Mr. Groome, yes.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much.
8 MR. GROOME: There is one additional witness although a witness
9 that in light of the Defence case I think will be extraordinarily
10 important, has up until this date refused to give a statement or even to
11 talk with us. Because of the importance of this witness, I will be making
12 a personal trip to speak with this witness and to seek to gain her
13 cooperation, but I just want to make the Court aware that there is the
14 potential for one additional fact witness, that, as of now, there is no
15 statement to provide, and there is even no commitment that she will be
16 able to or willing to testify.
17 JUDGE HUNT: I can see now why you don't want us to be sitting on
18 Friday. I'm not criticising you. I'm just commenting that's all.
19 Well, provided again that there is fair warning given to the
20 Defence of the nature of the evidence which that witness will give, if you
21 persuade her, I think you said, to come give it.
22 MR. GROOME: I will do that today.
23 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Right. Well, thank you for that. I expect
24 Mr. Domazet to be producing either one or both of his witnesses first
25 thing, that is, on the 9th of January so we can finish the Defence case
1 before you then proceed with these others. So for the arrangements you
2 are making you should bear in mind that he has one or perhaps two
4 MR. GROOME: Just one additional matter just for the purposes of
5 formality, I will be seeking to cross-examine the radiologist and the
6 psychiatrist who have submitted expert reports.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Yes, I would understand that.
8 Yes, Mr. Domazet, now you wanted to say something.
9 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Regarding the
10 witness that Mr. Groome mentioned just now, witnesses VG86 and VG97 whom
11 he is planning at this stage of the proceedings. I have their statements,
12 the statements that they gave to investigators, I received these
13 statements before the start of the trial so this is not in dispute.
14 What is in dispute, I believe, is why they are appearing at this
15 stage in the re-examination when they were not suggested or proposed as
16 evidence of the Prosecution because as far as I understood, at this stage
17 of the proceedings, the Prosecutor could rely on witnesses which are about
18 the defence of the accused so these statements were taken previously and
19 they could have been used during the case in chief as witnesses of the
21 JUDGE HUNT: What you're saying is that they're not properly
22 called in reply; is that what it is?
23 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely, Your Honour. I
24 believe that at this stage of the case in reply -- of the rebuttal, they
25 actually could have testified while the witnesses, other witnesses were
1 testifying. So I don't understand why they are being proposed for
2 questioning during rebuttal.
3 JUDGE HUNT: I'm just seeing whether we had copies of them in the
4 Prosecution documents but we don't seem to have them.
5 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, they were never intended as witnesses so
6 I doubt that they would have been submitted at the start of the trial.
7 JUDGE HUNT: I was perhaps relying on the number but we can really
8 only determine this if it's a real issue by having a look at the
9 statements, I suppose.
10 MR. GROOME: I can explain.
11 JUDGE HUNT: What's the nature of their evidence?
12 MR. GROOME: Witness number VG86 was also present during the
13 statement made by the person and was present during the taping of that
14 conversation and will testify to that. I'm sorry, VG86 -- I'm sorry, my
15 apologies, Your Honour, I'm getting the numbers mixed up. It's VG97 is
16 the witness who was present during that conversation.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then her statement -- or his statement would
18 similarly be silent upon this matter, I suppose.
19 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Yes.
21 MR. GROOME: The other witness, VG86 was a witness who observed
22 the accused fall off the horse. It was provided to Mr. Domazet soon after
23 it was taken under Rule 68. It was not appropriate or not presented in
24 the evidence in the case in chief because it was not the Prosecution that
25 was putting forward that he fell off a horse. It becomes relevant now
1 because the witness saw Mr. Vasiljevic fall off a horse and will say that
2 it occurred on the 21st or 22nd of June, a couple of days before she left
3 Visegrad, but more importantly, she will say that it happened after
4 several days or almost a week after another event, the disappearance of a
5 person whom we have independent evidence already in the case in terms of
6 the case of the Red Cross missing persons list and we can independently
7 verify when that person disappeared. So by connecting her observations
8 about the horse after this other person disappeared, it goes directly on
9 point to when Mr. Vasiljevic fell off the horse and that's why we are
10 seeking to call that witness.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Well, now, Mr. Domazet, that makes it clear.
12 VG97 is in exactly the same situation as VG81 and you would be entitled to
13 find out from Mr. Groome in the same amount of detail what the nature of
14 her evidence, I think it was a her, is going to be and that clearly does
15 arise because the witness whose name we're trying not to refer to at this
16 stage denied that he was the voice on the tape. So that would be a matter
17 properly in reply just as VG81 is.
18 Now that you know what VG86 is going to give evidence about, do
19 you object to that in answer to your client's evidence as to when it
20 happened and the evidence of these witnesses? It is, indeed, associated,
21 I think, with the statement made by the -- or alleged to have been made by
22 the witness on this tape.
23 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. As far as Witness
24 VG97 is concerned, if the Prosecution claims that it is a witness that can
25 speak or tell us something about the fact and that he claims that he was
1 present during the conversation, this is something new, it's not in the
2 statements of the witness that I have from before because it relates to
3 something that happened afterwards and this is why I reacted in this way.
4 If this witness is supposed to testify to the same topic as VG86,
5 then, yes, that is relevant at this stage. As far as Witness VG86 is
6 concerned, if the Prosecution wishes to prove that there was, that a fall
7 from a horse occurred which had been denied so far and that it happened on
8 a different date, then, yes, let this witness be questioned as well. I
9 have no objection to that.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Very well, then, well there you have it. But in
11 relation to 97, Mr. Groome, I suggest that you discuss with Mr. Domazet to
12 make it very clear that he does understand the true nature of the evidence
13 which she is to give which is in addition to her statement.
14 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Well, are those the only matters that we need to
16 dispose of at this stage?
17 There was the consent that was signed by Mr. Domazet to this
18 psychiatric examination. We have not so far made those exhibits but I'll
19 have it placed as a Court document, the same as we did for the earlier
20 orders for medical examination.
21 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE HUNT: You've seen that, have you?
23 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. And if I might just say one thing
24 regarding that examination. The only days that the doctor was available
25 was from the 11th to the 13th. I've made it clear and asked Mr. Bruff to
1 speak with Mr. Rohde that Mr. Vasiljevic is not to be interrupted and the
2 doctor will not seek to examine him while we are working in Court on the
3 Tuesday. But it might be good for the Court to also state that or to
4 convey that to the Registry so that Mr. Vasiljevic is here as long as he
5 isn't required in court and that then doctor will be available as soon as
6 we are finished here in court to go to Scheveningen Detention Centre and
7 begin the examination on the evening of the 11th.
8 JUDGE HUNT: If you knew the history of the troubles we've had
9 through the Registry of getting the accused persons backwards and forwards
10 from Scheveningen Detention Unit, you would be not even game to make that
11 submission, but perhaps they have been cured since the problem. Basically
12 they went one at a time and we used to have to start at 9.00, half past
13 nine, quarter to ten so they could take the one car backwards and
14 forwards, but I gather they have bigger vans now.
15 I will say that the Trial Chamber hopes that the Registry will be
16 able to arrange for him to be returned to the detention unit as soon as
17 he's finished here in court without having to wait for the usual departure
18 of people who are taken to the detention unit. There are a number of
19 those vans. I've seen them coming and going now and I'm sure they will be
20 able to arrange a special visit, a special return visit for Mr. Vasiljevic
21 so that we are able to get on with this case. And I add to this plea to
22 the Registry that the President has, on a number of occasions, asked me
23 how this case is going because he is very concerned about the fact that it
24 is going to run into next year.
25 Yes, Mr. Domazet. Have you some problem with this?
1 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, not with this, I
2 agreed to this, the Prosecution expert witness to examine the accused and
3 this would probably be done at the detention unit, as far as I
4 understand. However, I just wanted to state the following: Are we still
5 agreed to have the expert witnesses on Tuesday if Mr. Groome finds out
6 that they are available? If it's not possible, then I request to be
7 notified because this is then the last day and I need to know this in
8 order to be able to plan my return to Yugoslavia
9 So if it is not possible to hear these expert witnesses on
10 Tuesday, I just wanted to request then to be notified.
11 JUDGE HUNT: That's fair enough.
12 MR. GROOME: I will notify the Chamber and Mr. Domazet as soon as
13 I receive word.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Very well, then. That means we are adjourning now
15 until Monday at 9.30 when we will have Investigator Selsky and VG81. And
16 hopefully on the Tuesday, we will have the two voice experts. Well, thank
17 you very much. We'll see you on Monday. We will adjourn now. 12.30
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.30 p.m.
19 to be reconvened on Monday the 10th day of December,
20 2001, at 9.30 a.m.