1 Friday, 26 March 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-06-90-T, the Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 For the continuation of the cross-examination, Mr. Kay, I think
11 we have to remain in private session.
12 MR. KAY: That's correct, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then could the witness be brought into the
14 courtroom. And, meanwhile, we move into private session.
15 [Private session]
11 Pages 27958-27979 redacted. Private session.
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Sacic, we're now in open session again. You'll
19 be cross-examined on matters, I take it, that were addressed in the
20 examination by the Chamber in open session as well.
21 You'll be cross-examined by Mr. Mikulicic. Mr. Mikulicic is
22 counsel for Mr. Markac.
23 You may proceed, Mr. Mikulicic.
24 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Mikulicic:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Sacic.
2 A. Good morning to you too.
3 Q. Since we're going to speak the same language, I would kindly like
4 to ask you to pause between my question and your answer to allow the
5 interpreters to do their job and I'll do my best to do the same.
6 A. Thank you.
7 Q. I'm going to ask you something else and we're going to contribute
8 to the efficiency of the examination, and that is to listen to my
9 question until I finished and then to try and answer it by concentrating
10 on what I actually asked you. Now if I want an additional explanation,
11 I'll ask for it. So just try to stick to the question.
12 A. I will do my best.
13 Q. Mr. Sacic, how long have you known General Markac?
14 A. I've known him since the beginning of 1990, or, rather, 1991,
15 yes, the beginning of 1991. We saw each other more intensively. And
16 before that, for four or five years on and off, we would happen to meet.
17 Q. Before Operation Storm, how long did you work with
18 General Markac? And in what capacity? What position did he occupy, what
19 position did you occupy?
20 A. Well, from 1991, in actual fact, from June 1991, I think -- well,
21 I don't think. I'm certain. He saw me as his deputy, and I saw him as a
22 highly respected commander.
23 Q. We know that Operation Storm, the events of which are the subject
24 of these proceedings and the indictment began in August 1995. So that
25 means that it's true that from June 1991, right up until Operation Storm
1 and through Operation Storm itself, you were under the command of
2 General Markac under one or another circumstances; is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you tell us, please, whether you got to know General Markac
5 during that time, and can you make -- can you tell us how far you got to
6 know him?
7 A. Well, I think I knew him a little less than his wife did, but I
8 knew him very well.
9 Q. Tell us, please, Mr. Sacic, what kind of boss, if I can use the
10 word, was Mr. Markac or commander? Did he respect law and order, the
11 rules governing his job and so on and so forth? How did you experience
13 A. Well, you told me to be short in my answers, otherwise I could
14 give you a very lengthy description and use superlatives, but let me be
16 I was always impressed by his humaneness, otherwise I couldn't
17 co-operate with him because I'm a deeply humane person too. Then his
18 altruism impressed me, his will to carry out his job, and his tasks to
19 the benefit of the homeland, Croatia
20 had a lot of patience. It wasn't always easy to work with me because I
21 am a temperamental man, but he knew that, and he knew how to approach me,
22 and so on.
23 Q. Thank you. But I asked with you respect to his respect of law
24 and order, disciplinary measures and so on and so forth.
25 A. Oh, absolutely. There was no doubt on that score whatsoever.
1 Every meeting, all his intentions from the word go, when that terrible
2 aggression came upon us in Croatia
3 from those very first days, he insisted that the units which we had
4 rallied together should immediately be trained according to the law, and
5 he put me in charge of organising seminars with experts in criminal law
6 and in other aspects of the law, and that's something that I did.
7 Q. Do you remember, Mr. Sacic, an example, a case when you heard
8 that General Markac -- did you ever hear General Markac issue anyone to
9 do anything unlawful?
10 A. No, never. Never heard, never saw.
11 Q. Do you remember any cases or happen to hear of any cases whereby
12 General Markac would post festum allow something to pass that was not
14 A. Well, he didn't have the authority to do that. There were units,
15 there were members of the Special Police with secondary school education
16 and so on, and had he -- we been different or had he been different, if
17 he didn't have the moral quality he did and if he was prone to allow
18 unlawful things to happen, our units simply wouldn't have followed us.
19 Q. Mr. Sacic, you personally or somebody whom you know or remember
20 who engaged in something illegal within the sector of the Special Police,
21 did you ever inform General Markac about that, if anything like that had
22 come to your attention?
23 A. Well, I remember that I reported myself to him on one occasion,
24 because I had a traffic incident and he punished me for that which was
25 absolutely in order because anybody engaged in a traffic incident of that
1 kind would be dealt with in the same way.
2 But that he was strict, that's right. He was always consistent,
3 and we respected that.
4 Q. You have sort of anticipated my next question, which is this:
5 When General Markac was informed of some unlawful act, how did he react?
6 That's what I was going ask you next.
7 A. Well, this -- I just happened to crash into another car so that
8 just a minor traffic offence and disciplinary infraction.
9 But he undertook what he was supposed to do under the law and the
11 Q. Now, Mr. Sacic, if one of your superiors, and that includes
12 General Markac, of course, and the assistant ministers or the minister
13 himself. But anyway, if one of your superiors were to order you to act
14 in an unlawful manner, how would you react as an official policeman,
15 military policeman [as interpreted]?
16 A. I wouldn't carry out the order.
17 Q. And what would you do specifically, apart from not carrying out
18 the order? Would you do anything else?
19 A. Well, probably I would inform my boss that somebody was asking me
20 to commit a criminal act or an unlawful act or an infraction. Not
21 probably. I'm sure I would do that.
22 Q. You've already said something about this in the previous
23 examination, but let me ask you: Does the Special Police have authority
24 under the law for conducting criminal investigations into the
25 perpetrators of criminal acts?
1 A. No, we didn't have that authority under the law governing the
2 internal affairs sector. There were offer services within the Ministry
3 of Interior who were in charge of things like that.
4 Q. Now the members of the Special Police, and I mean you personally
5 there, as well, did they have in the hierarchical sense or in the factual
6 sense authorisation to issue orders to other members of the police force
7 who did have the authority to conduct investigations and prosecute
9 A. No. And even if somebody were to allow -- to go ahead and do
10 something like that, it would be irrelevant because nobody would have to
11 listen to you and you would have to report it in your turn because it
12 would be an abuse of authority, overstepping your authorisation and that
13 would be treated as a disciplinary offence in itself, a serious one or
14 less serious, and possibly as a crime too.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, I wonder if this examination is
17 going beyond the scope of the subject, that is the subjects indicated by
18 the Chamber as those which we have to confine ourselves to.
19 MR. MIKULICIC: I just finish that subject, Your Honour, if it
21 JUDGE ORIE: That certainly helps.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you.
24 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Your Honour?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kuzmanovic.
1 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I think there might have a translation issue on
2 page 28, line 6, toward the end of that line.
3 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: Last two words.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, no, the problem was that I was engaged in a
6 search and, therefore, have not the scrollable transcript on my screen.
7 MR. MIKULICIC: Since this was my question, Your Honour, I could
8 easily tell what I asked.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. MIKULICIC: I'm sure I didn't ask witness whether he was in
11 capacity of military policeman.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please then repeat it so that ...
13 MR. MIKULICIC:
14 Q. [Interpretation], Mr. Sacic, there was a mistake in the
15 transcript. If you remember, I asked you the following question: I said
16 if one of your superiors, including General Markac, of course, issue --
17 if they would issue an unlawful order to you, how would you, as an
18 official, as a policeman, act? Did you have anything to do with the
19 military police?
20 A. No, not with the military police, no.
21 Q. Thank you. [Interpretation] Mr. Sacic, before we break, just a
22 few more questions.
23 Tell me, please, in your introduction you said that you sent
24 reports to the Main Staff of the Croatian Army about searching the
25 terrain and that during operations as the Special Police, you would
1 receive orders from the Main Staff and so on.
2 Now what was, in fact, the role of the Chief of the Main Staff
3 and the Main
4 Police, and later on with respect to searching the terrain? Just in a
5 few words briefly, please, because the Trial Chamber has already heard
6 testimony about that.
7 A. Well, I -- I don't know about that fully because my commanding
8 officer, General Markac, had more direct communication with them. But
9 what I know from him and from his conduct towards me as Chief of Staff,
10 and we can conclude that the Main
11 sure about that, the Chief of the Main Staff would send us his orders,
12 his decisions, and we then, as members of the Special Police, would --
13 were supposed to implement them within the frameworks of the defined
14 areas of responsibility of the period and that General Markac, at the
15 time, was in that military hierarchy, and that we were all subordinated
16 to him, to General Markac. And all of us at the time, also based and
17 conducted ourselves, conditionally speaking, as a military unit. And
18 everything we did was referred back to the Main Staff of the
19 Croatian Army.
20 Q. Just one more question staying with that topic.
21 Do you remember ever, either the command of the Military District
22 of Split
23 Special Police to go into action? You, as the head.
24 A. No, never.
25 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, this would be a suitable time for
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is.
3 But before we take a break, the witness in one of his previous
4 answers to Mr. Kay's question, said that the further details of an
5 on-site investigation to be conducted in the absence of --
6 MR. KUZMANOVIC: Do we need to be in private session for this,
7 Your Honour?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think we have to be.
9 Yes, we -- well, first, we can excuse the witness. I'm just
10 seeking some additional information.
11 Madam Usher, could you escort the witness already out of the
13 [The witness stands down]
14 JUDGE ORIE: And we move into private session.
15 [Private session]
11 Pages 27989-27991 redacted. Private session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Could I hear from the parties whether they think that we could
12 conclude the testimony of this witness today?
13 Earlier we were quite confident that we might not even need the
14 Friday. Now the question is whether we'll be -- whether we'll be able to
15 conclude at all at 1.45 p.m.
16 Mr. Mikulicic, Ms. Mahindaratne.
17 MR. MIKULICIC: Yes, I'm the last one in the row as it concerns
18 the Defence teams.
19 What I can say, Your Honour, that I will surely try to squeeze my
20 cross-examination in that way that I will leave, let's say, 15 minutes in
21 the last session for eventual re-cross or re-direct whatever it --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As matters stand now, position of the Gotovina
23 Defence is still the same.
24 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: If we would not be able to conclude at quarter to
1 2.00, of course, we still could consider whether we can get another hour
2 this afternoon, which certainly would have to be 15 bis because one of
3 the Judge would say not be available.
4 Mr. Kay.
5 MR. KAY: Your Honour, I have personal difficulties and so do my
6 team, in fact, for -- well, my team and are both leaving this afternoon.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And at a time which would leave no room
8 for ...
9 MR. KAY: No. I'm going directly from here.
10 JUDGE ORIE: That would mean that if we could not conclude the
11 evidence today, and, of course, Mr. Sacic is an important witness for
12 this case, that we'd have to continue next week.
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, so far I have only one question
14 in the re-examination, so I have no --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You don't think that would take 15 minutes.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the Chamber has put a lot of questions as
18 well, so we might have additional questions.
19 So, therefore, it is not an option to continue ...
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will not further explore the possibility
22 of continuing this afternoon. There are too many -- and, therefore,
23 whether we will conclude today or not or whether we have to continue on
24 Monday depends on how the cross-examination and re-examination develops.
25 Could the witness be brought into the courtroom.
1 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic.
3 MR. MIKULICIC: It just occurred something to me. In order to
4 speed up my questioning, during my questioning I intend to relate on
5 certain documents. In order to speed up the procedure, and I know that
6 the bringing up documents on our screens takes a lot of time.
7 JUDGE ORIE: If you have list --
8 MR. MIKULICIC: I will refer to the document and the number, and
9 I wouldn't -- most -- mostly I wouldn't ask to show them on the screen.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's, in itself, acceptable. The Chamber
11 has various relevant documents already printed out for themselves.
12 But please proceed.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Sacic, we'll continue. We'll still in open
16 MR. MIKULICIC:
11 Page 27995 redacted.
18 Q. I'll pass on to another question, Mr. Sacic.
19 When you were answering the questions of the President of the
20 Trial Chamber, you were shown a map, and you remember that you marked the
21 route that the Special Police units took from Gracac to Donji Lapac.
22 That's Exhibit C4.
23 From today's advantage point which is 15 years and seven months
24 after the events, can you say that the route that you marked on the map,
25 indeed, faithfully reflects the route taken by the units?
1 A. Well, I am ashamed to admit that even now, three or four days
2 after having marked that route, I'm not at all sure whether it was
3 faithful, and, of course, I cannot say that a battalion of the Special
4 Police took that very route in the direction of Lapac.
5 Q. To the question of the President of the Trial Chamber about the
6 uniform worn by members of the Special Police during the Storm operation,
7 you said, and the Chamber has heard much evidence about that, that
8 Special Police members wore green uniforms but exceptionally sometimes
9 would wear parts of a uniform with a camouflage pattern, but you said
10 that was very rare.
11 Do comment briefly. How rare was that? Could you be a bit more
12 specific? And which part of the uniform was it that could be different
13 in colour?
14 A. But it would certainly be rare. Our reserve forces were not that
15 fully equipped with uniforms as the active duty officers. So, from --
16 they still had uniforms from 1991, 1992 when we all wore camouflage
17 uniforms. And depending on their ability to prepare to go out in
18 terrain, they would sometimes have to change into dry clothes. In their
19 bags, they would sometimes have a jacket mostly, or a -- or a rain
20 jacket, pieces of canvas with a camouflage pattern.
21 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Could we please --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the document
24 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. The Prosecutor asked you whether you know that a member of the
1 Special Police was punished for setting fire to houses, and you said that
2 you remember that in the wider area of Zadar, somebody was punished; is
3 that correct?
4 A. Yes, that's correct. That's what I said.
5 Q. We have in front of us a report dated the 4th of August [as
6 interpreted], 1995, submitted by the commander of the special unit of the
7 Zadar-Knin police administration, Mr. Svemir Vrsaljko, to the attention
8 of the sector Special Police, Mladen Markac, where he says that on the
9 17th of September, arson was committed and that a certain individual did
10 it. Is that the case you referred to?
11 A. Yes, most certainly. I'm glad you called this up and I'm glad to
12 see that I was right.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mikulicic, 4th of August reporting, 17th of
15 MR. MIKULICIC: 4th of October, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, 4th of October. Then I have no problems in
17 following the evidence.
18 MR. MIKULICIC: And this is D531.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. My main concern was that it is maybe difficult
20 to report something in August which happened in September.
21 MR. MIKULICIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Then, Mr. Sacic, the Prosecutor showed you a witness statement,
23 namely, Exhibit P321. That was Witness Vanderostyne, who, in
24 paragraph 29 of his statement, stated that, on the road from Gospic to
25 Gracac everything was burnt.
1 Here's my question: Do you know that on the road from Gospic to
2 Gracac there are the settlements of Sveti Rok, Ricica, Lovinac?
3 A. Absolutely.
4 Q. Do you know that all these are Croatian villages which were set
5 on fire as early as 1991, when the rebel Serbs engaged in a rebellion
6 against the Republic of Croatia
7 A. Yes, I'm absolutely familiar with that, immediately familiar,
8 because I took part in the defence of those areas.
9 Q. Then the Prosecutor presented the statement of that same witness
10 and spoke about the route from Gracac to Donji Lapac. However, your --
11 you replied to that and I will no longer question you about that.
12 In that witness statement, though, the witness says that he
13 travelled from Zagreb
14 and Gospic than he saw large-scale destruction. I'm referring to
15 paragraphs of P531, paragraphs 18, 19, 21, and 23.
16 Can you tell the Trial Chamber, Mr. Sacic, whether it's true that
17 these towns of Karlovac, Otocac, and Gospic, throughout the homeland war,
18 were held by the Croatian side and that they were bombarded daily by the
19 Serb forces?
20 A. Yes. I can confirm that, and I feel very sorry for the
21 population of those towns. Yes, that is absolutely correct.
22 Q. The Prosecutor went on to ask you, and here's my transcript
23 reference, page 27825, line 4. Is it true that the inner control of the
24 Special Police, apart from their other tasks, also had the task the
25 collecting information about the members of the Special Police. Do you
1 remember that?
2 A. Yes, I remember the question.
3 Q. Mr. Sacic, you gave an interview to the investigators of the
4 ICTY. For the sake of reference, that's tape 2 of video V000-5730, page
5 13. Where were you were also asked and you answered that that service
6 engaged in intelligence activities like the military intelligence
7 administration in the military, and that its name was inner control just
8 for -- for formal reasons.
9 You said that they assisted you and General Markac in the
10 preparation and the planning of the action, that they made maps, and that
11 they had communication with the military intelligence administration
12 about the disposition of enemy forces and their strength. In other
13 words, that they were in engaged in an intelligence activity both in war
14 and in peace.
15 Can you confirm today that what you said to the to the ICTY
16 investigators at the time is your definition of the role of the inner
18 A. Yes, and I'm very proud that I was able to phrase it that well.
19 Q. Was the inner control in charge of disciplinary matters? That
20 was a question of the investigators. You replied: They only had to be
21 informed of breaches of discipline.
22 Now, my question to you is: Did the inner control section of the
23 Special Police, and my reference is D527, the regulation on the structure
24 of the internal affairs, was it the task that section to conduct
25 disciplinary action and take measures against members of the Special
1 Police who behaved illegally?
2 A. No. They could only submit certain information about morale in
3 the unit, conditionally speaking. That's what I understood to be their
4 task. To inform me as Chief of Staff, whether the morale in a certain
5 unit was satisfactory, whether they were motivated to carry out a certain
6 task to a sufficient degree with regard to the perils that they would
7 face. If there was defeatism, that was a very importantly information
8 for me to know so as to be able to decide where to deploy that unit.
9 MR. MIKULICIC: For the sake of reference, that interview,
10 65 ter 7556.
11 Q. My last question about that, Mr. Sacic is: Did you, as chief of
12 sector of the Special Police, have the possibility of using the inner
13 control as a tool to find out about breaches of discipline and a tool to
14 sanction those who breached discipline. Could you use it or could
15 General Markac use it?
16 A. The -- what you have -- what you quoted a short while ago was my
17 most important tool, that I get information about the enemy and combat
18 readiness and possible problems, if there would be a defeatism or
19 something like that. But, fortunately, that never happened.
20 MR. MIKULICIC: Your Honour, I move to private session, if you
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps -- yes, we move into private session.
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 28002-28038 redacted. Private session.
25 [Open session]
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May we have a break, please.
2 JUDGE ORIE: One second, Mr. Sacic.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
5 Mr. Sacic, your testimony has been concluded, which means that
6 you're excused. But I'd first like to thank you for coming the long way
7 to The Hague
8 you by the Bench and by the parties. I wish you a safe return home
9 again. You may follow the usher.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Thank you
11 very much. It's been a honour, and I'd like to say good-bye to you,
12 thank you sincerely and best wishes.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now we move back into private session,
16 Mr. Mikulicic, so that we can deal with two matters.
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 28041-28043 redacted. Private session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
25 The Chamber first would like to deliver a statement on the
1 priority of involving individuals in witness interviews who may have an
2 association to events relevant to the indictment.
3 Hereinafter, I will refer to these persons associated persons.
4 The Chamber considered that these person's association to the
5 events relevant to the indictment can be manifold, such as, for example,
6 due to their presence on the ground, their participation in meetings or
7 functions in certain hierarchies. An associated person can be anyone
8 with a certain interest in how events relevant to the indictment are
9 presented in this case.
10 On the 9th of December, 2009, the Chamber requested the parties
11 to submit their positions on the priority of involving associated persons
12 in witness interviews. This can be found on pages 25.954 to 25.955.
13 On the 15th of December, 2009, the Markac Defence argued that the
14 Prosecution's attempts to impugn investigatory techniques of the
15 Markac Defence were unsubstantiated.
16 On the 17th of December, 2009, the Gotovina Defence submitted its
17 views arguing that as long as there is full transparency about the
18 investigators's presence at the interviews, there is nothing improper in
19 utilising associated persons. The Gotovina Defence further submitted
20 that Mr. Robertsson, an investigator of the Prosecution manipulated
21 witness Forand's evidence.
22 On the 18th of December, 2009, the Prosecution submitted its
23 views, arguing that such involvement may be inappropriate where the
24 investigator was closely involved in the events that are the subject of
25 the statement. The Prosecution pointed to the possibility that the
1 involvement of such individuals may also unintentionally manifest itself
2 in the statement; for example, by influencing the witness indirectly.
3 The Prosecution also points to the fact that such investigators may be
4 important fact witnesses themselves whose recollections may become
5 tainted by their involvement in other witnesses' interviews.
6 On the 23rd of December, 2009, the Prosecution rejected the
7 Gotovina Defence's contempt allegations vis-a-vis Mr. Robertsson. And on
8 the 31st of December, 2009, the Gotovina Defence submitted further
9 support for its allegations, and on the 27th of January, 2010, final oral
10 submissions were heard by the parties, and this can be found at
11 transcript pages 27.061 up to and including 27.079.
12 The Chamber considered all written and verbal submissions of the
13 parties on this matter and finds that the reliability of a witness's
14 statement may be affected even associated person is involved in the
15 taking of the witness statement. The Chamber considers that there is an
16 inherent risk in such a practice and that the parties should refrain from
17 using associated persons in the taking of certain witness statements.
18 The Chamber adds that this does not mean that associated persons can no
19 longer participate in Defence or Prosecution teams, but, rather, that
20 they cannot be involved in taking witness statements which are related to
21 the person's association.
22 In a situation where witness statements have already been taken
23 with an involvement of associated persons, the Chamber finds that maximum
24 transparency only partially remedies the involvement. Such transparency
25 would at least better enable the Chamber and the parties to test whether
1 the inherent risk of such a situation had any influence on the witness's
2 answers, thereby creating a better position for the Chamber and the
3 parties to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether the reliability of a
4 statement is tainted.
5 In this case, the Chamber did not find any specific instances in
6 the facts presently before it where the involvement of an associated
7 person in the taking of a witness statement made the Chamber believe that
8 it had been corrupted.
9 Accordingly the Chamber will not pursue the suggestion of
10 possible contempt against Mr. Robertsson.
11 And this concludes the Chamber's statement.
12 The next item would be a brief statement on scheduling and final
13 briefs. The Chamber would like to provide the parties with some
14 information on further scheduling in this case.
15 We have four Chamber witnesses left to hear. Their testimonies
16 will most likely be heard in mid-April. We then also have a pending
17 application to re-open the Prosecution's case, which may result in the
18 hearing of further evidence. The Chamber would then, one week after the
19 hearing of the last witness, like to be informed about any rebuttal
20 evidence to be presented by the parties. The parties should then be
21 ready to submit their final briefs by the 31st of May of this year.
22 Should further developments make this time-line unlikely, the Chamber
23 will consider entertaining requests for extension of time.
24 With regard to the final briefs, although by no means meant as
25 exhaustive, the Chamber would already now like to provide the parties
1 with a few suggestions.
2 The Chamber would like -- would find it helpful if the parties,
3 in particular, the Prosecution, were to include in their final briefs,
4 specific and well-sourced information about the following:
5 Firstly, evidence with regard to each alleged incident of murder,
6 inhumane act and cruel treatment, plunder, wanton destruction, and
7 deportation and forcible transfer, which identifies the perpetrator,
8 including the affiliation, if any, with certain police, military or
9 paramilitary forces. This may include evidence about which forces or
10 units were present in the given locations or areas at the time. The
11 parties may, in this regard, use maps, showing the daily or hourly
12 advancement of forces on the ground. These should be maps already in
13 evidence, or, if a party wishes to produce maps, the party should clearly
14 indicate that these maps exclusively reflect its interpretation of
15 certain identified evidence.
16 And perhaps I should say "well identified evidence."
17 Secondly, for every mentioned incident, the Chamber would find it
18 helpful if the parties were to point out evidence indicating the
19 ethnicity of the victim or victims.
20 And this concludes the Chamber's statement.
21 Now, there's one matter which I already raise, and which will
22 give an opportunity to the parties to perhaps make brief written
23 submissions, unless a yes or a no would be sufficient immediately.
24 The 1991 population census has previously been discussed and
25 segments of it have admitted into evidence. The Chamber is still
1 considering whether the entire census or at least all parts relating to
2 the geographical scope of the indictment in this case should be admitted
3 into evidence. And the Chamber would like to receive the parties'
4 submissions on that.
5 If this takes more than one or two line, the Chamber would invite
6 the parties to make written submissions and then the dead-line would be
7 by next Wednesday. If, however, the parties could, in a one-liner,
8 present their positions, then they have an opportunity to do so. Usually
9 the Chamber is not seeking one-liners from the parties.
10 No one-liners, I hear, then we will receive your -- yes,
11 Mr. Kuzmanovic.
12 MR. KUZMANOVIC: I have got a one-liner, I guess. It is our
13 position that the entire census can be admitted, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. That saves you writing out further
16 MR. KAY: I will also agree with that, having read the transcript
17 just now, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic.
19 MR. MISETIC: Mr. President, I have actually two points,
20 including one on the previous point.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Two one-liners, that's --
22 MR. MISETIC: Well, the first one-liner is I think it would be
23 more beneficial to all parties if we knew the purpose for which the
24 census is intended. And then that would help us in whether we need the
25 whole census in or just what is relevant to the indictment period.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I have no one-liner answer to that question yet.
2 The other matter.
3 MR. MISETIC: The other matter is we have an issue concerning the
4 Prosecution being asked to put in this chart, specifying which units are
5 in the area, et cetera, in their final brief, in the sense that, assuming
6 we're filing final briefs simultaneously, we don't believe the accused
7 should be served for the first time without an opportunity to respond in
8 writing to whatever the specific allegation will be.
9 JUDGE ORIE: It is not anything more than visualising what is in
10 evidence, so instead of describing that on this -- the beginning of this
11 valley that it was that. It's just about visualising, nothing more
12 nothing less.
13 MR. MISETIC: We have a problem with that because the Court may
14 recall from 98 bis that there is an issue there. An incident took place
15 on -- let's say the 5th of August, and there's evidence that there were
16 units in that area on the 15th of September. You may recall that from
17 the 98 bis argument.
18 We would like the opportunity to be able to actually verify what
19 is being alleged, what the parameters are for, quote, troops in the area.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, I was talking about
21 daily or hourly movement of units. Of course, if there is no good
22 time-frame it wouldn't make any sense at all to produce any such maps.
23 It is just visualising of what is there as oral evidence, documentary
24 evidence. But we could discuss this perhaps in a bit further detail, if
25 need be. But, Mr. Misetic, I fully agree with you, that it makes no
1 sense to say where troops were on the 5th of August, if that -- because
2 that would have no relevance, apart from historical relevance from what
3 happened on the 15th or the 20th.
4 So, therefore, it is it illustration rather than anything else,
5 but sometimes describing an area or a territory is sometimes not easy,
6 and if you want to tell us exactly what happened on the 6th of August, at
7 8.00 in the morning, on the Plavno valley or what happened during that
8 morning, then sometimes visualising assists in understanding it.
9 That's what was on our mind.
10 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, just briefly to -- to --
11 JUDGE ORIE: I'm already stealing --
12 MR. KEHOE: I will just be 30 seconds.
13 I would, likewise, like to address at some point with the Chamber
14 this listing of murder victims and victims who were the subject of
15 inhumane acts. Because of all the difficulties we have had, not only
16 with the murder counts but the clarification schedule, we have got no
17 position of the Prosecution after two years of trial on that score. So
18 we would essentially be getting that discussion of their view on the
19 evidence at the same time that we're filing our brief, which would be
20 problematic, because we're supposed to be answering something that has
21 not been clarified to date.
22 We can discuss it at a later point, Mr. President, I just want to
23 reserve or bring that to the Court's attention.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And I would encourage you to be in -- to communicate
25 with the Prosecution how they understood this invitation from the
1 Chamber. It wasn't an order but it was something the Chamber would like
2 to see to happen and then to see whether you can agree on what, more or
3 less, how Ms. Mahindaratne understands it, how you understand it, so that
4 are you not taken by surprise.
5 Ms. Mahindaratne --
6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President --
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- a one-liner for the 91 census?
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President, we agree that the entire
9 census could be admitted into evidence.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 Mr. Mikulicic.
12 MR. MIKULICIC: Very short question, Your Honour, did Chamber
13 have in mind scheduling the closing arguments?
14 JUDGE ORIE: We have no expressed ourselves on it. I can't say
15 that we have not thought about it. But our thoughts have not developed
16 in such a way that we could, at this moment, give you further information
17 on that.
18 Then we -- with my apologies these were approximately seven
19 minutes is approximately 100 one-liners. We'll count the number of
20 lines. I apologise -- my apologies for that to transcribers,
21 interpreters, security, technical staff.
22 We stand adjourned - and now I have to - not until Monday but ...
23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
24 JUDGE ORIE: We stand adjourned sine die, which I hasten to add
25 is Latin for "without a day."
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.53 p.m.
3 sine die.