1 Monday, 28 June 2004

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, will you please

6 call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Case IT-01-47-T, the Prosecutor

8 versus Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

10 Can we have the appearances for the Prosecution, please.

11 MR. MUNDIS: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours,

12 Counsel, and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the Prosecution,

13 Ms. Tecla Henry-Benjamin, Daryl Mundis, and the case manager, Mr. Andres

14 Vatter.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16 And for the Defence, please.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. President.

18 Good afternoon, Your Honours. On behalf of General Hadzihasanovic, Edina

19 Residovic, counsel; Stephane Bourgon, co-counsel; and Alexis Demirdjian,

20 legal assistant.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.

23 On behalf of Mr. Kubura, Fahrudin Ibrisimovic, and Nermin Mulalic, legal

24 assistant.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

1 The Chamber bids good afternoon to all those present,

2 representatives of the Prosecution, the Defence counsel, and we hope that

3 we will be seeing the other Defence counsel in future. And I also bid

4 good afternoon to all staff members, including Madam Court Reporter and

5 the interpreters.

6 We need to continue our proceedings today with the hearing of a

7 witness. Mr. Mundis -- or rather, Mrs. Benjamin informed us orally last

8 week about the programme for this week, and could you now confirm for us

9 the programme for this week, please.

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

11 Your Honours, due to the fact that I was not present last week,

12 it's a bit unclear to me as to which witnesses the Chamber was previously

13 informed would not be available this week, but I am in a position to

14 inform the Trial Chamber and the Defence that we have the witness

15 Mr. Peter Hackshaw available today. The witness that was scheduled for

16 tomorrow is not available due to personal reasons, a family emergency.

17 The information that we have from the witness is that he will not be

18 available for a period of approximately two weeks.

19 The witness who was scheduled for Wednesday is in fact available

20 on Wednesday and could be made available tomorrow, if that would suit the

21 Trial Chamber and if there are no objections from the Defence.

22 The witness who was the subject of some litigation concerning

23 protective measures and who was previously scheduled to testify via

24 videolink, the VWS informed us that it might be possible to bring him

25 later this week. They were going to be speaking with him later this

1 afternoon. The latest information I have is that they will attempt to

2 make that witness available later in this week, but there is, of course,

3 no guarantee that they will be successful in doing that. We will, of

4 course, keep the Trial Chamber and the Defence informed as we receive

5 information from VWS.

6 Mr. President, while I'm on my feet, if I could raise --

7 [Prosecution counsel confer]

8 MR. MUNDIS: If I could while I'm on my feet, Mr. President,

9 raise two other issues, the first having to do with the contested

10 documents. I understand there was a discussion about this on the 23rd of

11 June. We believe at this point in time, Mr. President, that the

12 remaining translations will be available by the end of this week.

13 I spoke briefly with the Court's legal officer immediately prior

14 to this hearing. We are in the process of providing a spreadsheet along

15 the lines indicated by the Presiding Judge in the middle of last week.

16 We hope to have that available by Thursday of this week, but we will

17 certainly have it available by Friday of this week.

18 I should also indicate that as far as we are able to ascertain,

19 the only missing translations relate to the war logs or war diaries and

20 several of the videotapes. It appears to the Prosecution that some of

21 the material indicated on the legal officer's memo as being missing in

22 fact is not missing from the copies of the binders that we have. So

23 there certainly might be some instances where individual sets of the

24 binders may be missing one or more documents, but in fact the

25 Prosecution -- or other sets of those binders are complete. We are

1 endeavouring to ensure that all the parties, as well as the Trial

2 Chamber, obviously, have copies of all the documents, and we believe that

3 there could be some administrative reasons due to the large volume of

4 material that was photocopied in which some of the binders may not be as

5 complete as they should be. So we are working on that.

6 I should also, however, indicate that the war -- the diaries of

7 the witness ZP who testified, certainly those diaries will not be

8 available at any time in the near future due to the large volume of that

9 material. Of course, those are not material that the Prosecution intends

10 to tender into evidence but is simply being made available to the Chamber

11 and the Defence for purposes of determining whether the witness may or

12 may not need to be re-called as a Court witness.

13 That's pretty much where we stand with respect to the contested

14 documents and missing documents to those materials. I will, of course,

15 continue to work with our case manager and the Trial Chamber's legal

16 officer to identify any remaining gaps in that material in order to make

17 it available to the Trial Chamber as quickly as possible, but we do

18 expect to have the war logs or war diaries and the final video

19 transcripts available by the end of this week, if not the middle of the

20 week.

21 And finally, Mr. President, I have one remaining issue that I

22 would like to call to the Trial Chamber's attention: As Your Honours are

23 aware, last week I was in Sarajevo interviewing some witnesses. One of

24 those witnesses will be available, as I said, either Wednesday or perhaps

25 Tuesday if that would be more convenient. Both of these witnesses relate

1 to the Trial Chamber's oral order that we produce a witness who is

2 capable of testifying as to technical issues surrounding orders.

3 The witness for this week was formerly the communications officer

4 of the 3rd Corps. His testimony will go to part of what the Trial

5 Chamber has asked us to provide.

6 The second witness was the Chief of Staff during part of the time

7 period of the 3rd Corps. This witness as of right now does not possess a

8 valid Bosnian-Herzegovinian passport. We are working with the Bosnian

9 officials in order to expedite the issuance of such a passport. This

10 witness is also listed on the filing that we filed in early June as being

11 an individual that the Prosecution anticipated could have authenticated a

12 large number of the documents that are on the contested exhibit list.

13 During the course of the interview with this witness, he was

14 shown three documents that the Prosecution submits has his signature on

15 them. The documents obviously were photocopies. The witness, however,

16 during the course of the interview indicated to us in the presence of the

17 Defence during the videotaped interview that the signatures on the

18 documents were "a good copy of his signature but in fact were not his

19 actual signature."

20 This raises several very important issues, Mr. President, and

21 this is precisely why I felt that it was necessary to raise this with the

22 Trial Chamber. Obviously the Prosecution as well as the Defence and the

23 Trial Chamber are seeking here to ascertain the truth. We are now in a

24 position where a witness that we anticipate calling could very well

25 testify that some of the documents contained in the archives of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 3rd Corps may not be authentic documents. For this reason,

2 Mr. President, the Prosecution will seek an adjournment as soon as the

3 currently scheduled witnesses have testified in order that we may submit

4 a number of documents to a forensic handwriting specialist to ascertain

5 whether in fact these documents do support the Prosecution theory that

6 the witness in question actually signed them.

7 At the same time and in order to be as thorough and complete as

8 possible and in light of what the Prosecution has previously indicated to

9 the Trial Chamber, we believe it is important particularly at this point

10 in time that those documents which purportedly bear the signature of the

11 two accused also be submitted for forensic analysis.

12 As I speak, one of our analysts is determining the precise number

13 of documents that these three individuals signed - in the Prosecution's

14 submission - that being the witness, the Chief of Staff witness that I

15 spoke with last week, as well as the two accused.

16 Once we have the total number of such documents, the Dutch

17 forensic laboratory, which is the one that we primarily deal with, would

18 be in a position to tell us approximately how long it might take them to

19 review these documents.

20 I understand, Mr. President, that this is a difficult situation,

21 but in light of the fact that this witness has indicated that he did not

22 sign these documents although he acknowledged that it appeared to him to

23 be a, again, good copy of his signature, is extremely troubling to the

24 Prosecution. But in our discharging of our duties in terms of seeking

25 the truth, we believe that the best course is to ask for this adjournment

1 and use the time during that adjournment to ascertain, if possible,

2 whether these documents were signed by the individuals that the

3 Prosecution believes they were signed by.

4 I have not had a chance to discuss this with the Defence, because

5 a decision was just taken shortly before this session. So I do not

6 expect them to be in a position to respond. But our position at this

7 point in time would be that we are not in a position to call the Chief of

8 Staff as a witness until the issue of authenticity of the documents can

9 be examined via forensic methods.

10 [Prosecution counsel confer]

11 MR. MUNDIS: We would propose, in terms of an initial request

12 concerning this adjournment, that we would again hear the witnesses, the

13 two witnesses scheduled for this week; we then adjourn until immediately

14 after the August recess, at which point in time we will be in a better

15 position to know precisely whether or not the forensic expert has

16 completed his report or at that time would be in a position to indicate

17 when that report might be finished. Also at that time, we would then

18 have the remaining crime-base witness who is not available this week, as

19 well as the Chief of Staff witness and perhaps or most likely the

20 forensic witness. So we would then have - assuming we can get the other

21 previously scheduled witness subject to the protective-measures

22 litigation here this week - we would then have three witnesses after the

23 August recess. Of course, we don't control the forensic lab, and in

24 terms of how much time they might need to undertake this process is

25 unknown to us, and we cannot approach them until we have a complete

1 number, in terms of the documents that we would ask them to analyse. And

2 again, we are in the process of compiling those figures right now. But I

3 do raise this because it is a serious issue and we do believe that

4 because of what this witness has told us, it's an important issue that

5 needs to be resolved, not only in light of the Defence objections but in

6 light of the duty of all of us to ascertain the truth of what happened.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, let us go into

8 private session, please.

9 [Private session]

10 (Redacted)

11 (Redacted)

12 (Redacted)

13 (Redacted)

14 (Redacted)

15 (Redacted)

16 (Redacted)

17 (Redacted)

18 (Redacted)

19 (Redacted)

20 (Redacted)

21 (Redacted)

22 (Redacted)

23 (Redacted)

24 (Redacted)

25 (Redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Pages 9642 to 9661 – redacted – private session.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (Redacted)

2 (Redacted)

3 (Redacted)

4 (Redacted)

5 (Redacted)

6 (Redacted)

7 (Redacted)

8 (Redacted)

9 (Redacted)

10 (Redacted)

11 (Redacted)

12 (Redacted)

13 [Open session]

14 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session,

15 Mr. President.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. We

17 are in public session.

18 Just a moment, please. There seems to be another matter. You

19 have the floor.

20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, perhaps before we

21 bring in the witness it would be a good idea to finish with the document

22 that the Defence tendered on Friday when we heard the witness Adamovic.

23 If you are agreeable, we have provided a list to the secretariat on

24 Friday. We now have copies -- I'm sorry, to the registry.

25 So could the usher please give a copy of the list to Their

1 Honours and my learned friends opposite as well as the other participants

2 in these proceedings.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. On Friday many documents

4 were referred to and as usual we asked the Defence to prepare a

5 recapitulation so that we might give exhibit numbers to the documents.

6 The Prosecution told us that they had no objections to make with

7 respect to the authenticity or relevance of those documents.

8 So I give you the floor, and then the registrar will give us the

9 numbers one by one.

10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the documents that

11 we showed to the witness have been divided into three themes, and our

12 capitulation follows the same procedure.

13 We have also provided the translations of two laws, the Law on

14 Criminal Procedure of the SFRY, which was taken over by decree and

15 applied in Bosnia and Herzegovina until 1998; and also, a translation of

16 the Criminal Code of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

17 which was also a component part of the valid legislation of

18 Bosnia-Herzegovina during the war.

19 Therefore, our first suggestion is that documents under theme 1 -

20 there are two documents - be tendered into evidence as Defence exhibits.

21 The first document is dated the 12th of December, 1993. It is a report

22 of the district military court for the period 1st January to 10th

23 December 1993. And the second document is also a report on the work of

24 the district military court, dated the 8th of March, 1994, and it covers

25 the period between 19th of October, 1993 until the date of the report,

1 that is, the 8th of March. So we would like these two documents to be

2 given final exhibit numbers as Defence exhibits. These documents were

3 identified by the witness, who was at the time vice-president of the

4 district military court in Zenica.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Benjamin, any objections

6 to these documents?

7 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Mr. President, the Prosecution had indicated

8 on Friday that we have no objections.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, we have two

10 documents under theme 1. Two exhibit number, please.

11 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The first document, dated the

12 12th of December, will be DH274; its English translation, 274/E. The

13 second document, 275; the English translation, 275/E.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can we go on to the next theme,

15 please.

16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Under theme 2 there are several

17 sections. The first section are investigation reports and they are

18 listed from 1 to 5. The first document is an on-site investigation

19 report of the 26th of December, 1992; the second, the 16th of February,

20 1993; the third, the 1st of June, 1993; the fourth document, the 23rd of

21 July, 1993; and the fifth, the 20th of August, 1993. The witness has

22 recognised all these documents. He actually participated at two on-site

23 investigations, and the Defence is tendering them into evidence as DH

24 exhibits.

25 Shall I cover all the documents under theme 2 and then have the

1 numbers?

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Benjamin, regarding the

3 first five documents of theme 2, any objections?

4 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: No, Mr. President. The documents being all

5 official documents, the Prosecution has none.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Registrar, five

7 numbers.

8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The first document will be 276;

9 the English translation, 276/E. Number two, dated the 16th of February,

10 1993 will be 277; the English translation, 277/E. The third document

11 will be DH278; its English translation, 278/E. The fourth document of

12 the 23rd of July, 1993 will be 279; and the English translation, 279/E.

13 Regarding the fifth document, dated the 20th of August, 1993, the

14 document will be DH280; and the English translation, 280/E.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

16 Please continue.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The next nine documents are

18 criminal reports against certain individuals. Number 6, criminal report

19 against Ramadani Munever and Smolo Faruhdin, dated the 14th of December,

20 1992; then a criminal report against Jasarefic Mirsad and Hadzic Asir,

21 dated the 21st of April, 1993; number 8, criminal report against Delic

22 Latif, dated the 10th of June, 1993; number 9, criminal report against

23 Trako Zikret, dated the 1st of August, 1993; number 10, criminal report

24 against Alija Islamovic dated 11th of December, 1993; number 11, criminal

25 report against Hodzic Sead, dated the 27th of October, 1993; number 12,

1 criminal report against Pasalic Kenan and Delic Zahid, dated the 15th of

2 November, 1993. Number 13 is the criminal report against Cengic Miralem

3 and Pinjic Nijaz and Vilic Adem, dated the 5th of December, 1993; and the

4 last, a criminal report against Amidzic Nermin dated the 14th of

5 December, 1993.

6 As these are reports authenticated by the witness, we would like

7 to tender them into evidence as Defence exhibits.

8 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: No objections, Mr. President.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Benjamin has no

10 objections, so Mr. Registrar, can we have two numbers.

11 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The first dated the 4th of

12 December, 1992 will be DH281 and 281/E.

13 The next document, the 21st of April be 282; English translation,

14 282/E.

15 The next document dated the 10th of June will be 283; English

16 translation, 283/E.

17 The next document of the 1st of August will be 284; English

18 translation, 284/E.

19 The next document, of the 11th of September, 1993, will be 285;

20 English translation, 285/E.

21 The document dated the 27th of October, 1993, will be 286;

22 English version 286/E.

23 The next document of the 15th of November, 1993 will be DH287;

24 English translation 287/E.

25 The document dated 5th of December 1993 will have the number 288;

1 English translation, 288/E.

2 And finally, the document dated the 14th of December, 1993 will

3 be DH289; English translation, 289/E.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

5 Please continue.

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The next three documents are

7 bills of indictment, issued without any investigation, and the witness

8 commented on these. The first is dated the 22nd of January, 1993; the

9 second, of the 25th of November, 1993 against Mostarlic Suljo; and

10 another document dated the 25th of October, 1993, which is a bill of

11 indictment against Cahtarevic Hidajet. I should like these documents to

12 be admitted into evidence as exhibits. Thank you.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Benjamin.

14 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Again, for the same reasons, the Prosecution

15 has no objection.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17 Mr. Registrar, three numbers, please, for these three

18 indictments.

19 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The 22nd of January, 1993 will be

20 DH290; the English translation, 290/E.

21 The document, the 25th of November, 1993 will be DH291; English

22 translation, 291/E.

23 And finally, another document of the same date entitled "Bill of

24 indictment against Cahtarevic Hidajet" will be DH292; and the English

25 translation, DH292/E.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have the floor for the

2 three documents regarding detention.

3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The next three documents relate

4 to detention, and they are documents dated the 16th of February, 1993

5 ordering detention; then another document of the 16th of February, 1993,

6 which is an official note; and the document dated the 27th of July, 1993,

7 a ruling, number KV 223/93. And I am tendering these into evidence.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Ms. Benjamin.

9 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: [Previous translation continues] ... No

10 objections.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, three numbers.

12 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm going to slow

13 down because apparently the interpreters can't follow.

14 The first document, dated the 16th of February, 1993 will be

15 DH293; its English translation, 293/E.

16 The document dated the 16th of February, 1993, the number will be

17 DH294; the English translation, 294/E.

18 And finally, the document dated the 27th of July, 1993 is

19 admitted under DH295; its English translation, 295/E.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 And now, the next set of documents, requests for investigations

22 and decisions to open investigations. You have the floor.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The next 13 documents are

24 requests for investigations. The first three, and then followed by

25 decisions of the investigating judge to open an investigation. So I

1 tender document number 21, dated the 6th of October.

2 Document dated the 14th of October, 1993; and document dated the

3 15th of November, 1993 as number 23.

4 Then the decision on the opening of an investigation dated the

5 4th of December.

6 The decision to open an investigation, dated the 7th of January,

7 1993.

8 The decision to open an investigation dated the 16th of August,

9 1993, listed as 26.

10 Document 27, dated the 27th of August, 1993, a decision to open

11 an investigation.

12 Another decision to open an investigation, dated the 27th of

13 December, 1993, listed as number 28.

14 The decision to open an investigation dated the 30th of May,

15 1994, listed as number 29.

16 And the document dated the 25th of December, 1993, listed under

17 number 30.

18 We should like to tender these documents into evidence as Defence

19 exhibits. These are actually ten documents. I was wrong when I said

20 there was more.

21 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: No objections, Mr. President.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, the numbers,

23 please.

24 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The first document dated the 6th

25 of October, 1993 is admitted as DH296, its English version being 296/E.

1 The document dated 14th of October, 1993 shall be admitted as

2 DH297, its English version being 297/E.

3 The document dated the 15th of November, 1993 is admitted into

4 evidence as DH298; its English translation, 298/E.

5 The document dated the 4th of December, 1992 is admitted as

6 DH299; the English version 299/E.

7 The document dated the 7th of January, 1993 will be DH300 and the

8 English translation 300/E.

9 The document dated the 16th of August, 1993 is admitted as DH301;

10 the English translation, 301/E.

11 The document dated the 27th of August, 1993 is admitted as DH302;

12 its English translation will be 302/E.

13 The document dated the 27th of December, 1993 is admitted into

14 evidence as DH303; its English version, 303/E.

15 The document dated the 30th of May, 1994 is admitted into

16 evidence as Exhibit 304; its English version, 304/E.

17 The document dated the 25th of December, 1993 is admitted into

18 evidence as DH305; the English version, 305/E.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Three numbers for

20 the indictments after investigation.

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Three indictments listed under

22 numbers 31, dated the 27th of November, 1993, against Ramadani Munever.

23 Then document 32, dated the 20th of December, indictment against

24 Dahranovic Sadik and document 33, dated the 14th of September, 1994, an

25 indictment against Pasalic Kenan and Delic Zahid. We are tendering these

1 three documents into evidence as Defence exhibits.

2 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: The Prosecution has no objection.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Benjamin.

4 Three number, please.

5 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The indictment dated the 27th of

6 November, 1993 will be DH306; the English translation, 306/E.

7 The indictment dated the 20th of December, 1993 will be DH307;

8 the English version, 307/E.

9 And the final indictment, dated the 14th of September, 1994 is

10 admitted into evidence as DH308; the English version, DH308/E.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Then we have judgements. I

12 have counted 19 of them, but number 36 is missing.

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The Defence is

14 tendering all judgements listed from 34 through to 53, but number 36 has

15 been left -- has been omitted, so I will just list the dates.

16 Number 34, 3rd of April, 1993; 35, 14th of May, 1993; 37, dated

17 30th of May, 1994; 38, the 7th of December, 1994; 39, the 9th of

18 December, 1994; number 40, dated the 21st of December, 1994; number 41,

19 dated the 27th of April, 1995; number 42, dated the 19th of May, 1995;

20 number 43, dated the 25th of May, 1995; number 44, dated the 29th of

21 June, 1995; number 45, dated the 11th of July, 1995; number 46, dated the

22 15th of August, 1995; number 47, dated the 6th of November, 1995; number

23 48, dated the 27th of February, 1996; number 49, dated the 13th of March,

24 1996; number 50, dated the 11th of June, 1996; number 51, dated the 19th

25 of June, 1996; number 52, dated the 4th of July, 1996; number 53, 11th of

1 July, 1996.

2 The witness authenticated these judgements. He was a member of

3 the trial chamber in some of these cases, so we feel that all the

4 necessary conditions have been met for these judgements to be admitted

5 into evidence as Defence exhibits.

6 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: The Prosecution has no objections.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understand, you are

8 withdrawing judgement number 36. It's not being tendered.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think there's

10 nothing listed under number 36. When I was showing the list to the

11 witness, I explained that it was by omission that this number was not

12 filled in. So it's merely a technical error.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I see.

14 Mr. Registrar, can we have the numbers for all these judgements.

15 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The first document, dated the

16 3rd of April, 1993 is admitted as DH309; its English version, 309/E.

17 The judgement dated the 14th of May, 1993 will be 310; its

18 English version, 310/E.

19 The judgement dated the 30th of May, 1994, it will have an

20 exhibit number, DH311; English translation, 311/E.

21 The document dated the 7th of December, 1994 will be DH312; its

22 English version, 312/E.

23 The document dated the 9th of December, 1994 is admitted as

24 DH313; English version, 313/E.

25 The document dated the 21st of December, 1994 will be DH314;

1 English version, 314/E.

2 The judgement dated the 27th of April, 1994 is admitted into

3 evidence as DH315; its English version, 315/E.

4 The document dated the 19th of May, 1995 is admitted into

5 evidence as 316; its English version, 316/E.

6 The judgement dated the 25th of May, 1995 is admitted as DH317;

7 its English version, 317/E.

8 The document dated the 29th of June, 1995 is admitted as DH318;

9 English version, 318/E.

10 The document dated the 11th of July, 1995 is admitted as DH319;

11 its English version, 319/E.

12 The document dated the 15th of August, 1995 is admitted as DH320;

13 its English version, 320/E.

14 The document dated 6th of November, 1995 is admitted as DH321;

15 English version, 321/E.

16 The document dated the 27th of February, 1996 is admitted into

17 evidence as DH322; its English version, 322/E.

18 The document dated the 13th of March, 1996 is admitted into

19 evidence as DH323; its English version, 323/E.

20 The document dated the 11th of June, 1996 is admitted as DH324;

21 its English version, 324/E.

22 The document dated the 19th of June, 1996 is admitted as DH325;

23 English version, 325/E.

24 The document dated the 4th of July, 1996 is admitted as DH326;

25 and the English version, 326/E.

1 And finally, the document dated the 11th of July, 1996 is

2 admitted as DH327; English version, 327/E.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 And so we come to theme 3, Susanj. There are some documents

5 which already have exhibit numbers. There are nine documents from 7 to

6 15.

7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. The first

8 six documents are already in the file as Defence exhibits. The Defence

9 showed documents from 7 through to 15 to the witness. These are

10 documents of the Prosecutor's Office. The witness is a judge, so

11 naturally he couldn't authenticate any of these documents; however, he

12 explained that it was customary for the prosecutor to check with other

13 bodies the reports that are not complete.

14 As the witness has not authenticated these documents and they are

15 not documents of the court in which he was a judge, we suggest that these

16 documents be only marked for identification; that is, document dated the

17 2nd of April, 1996; the document dated the 5th of April, 1996; the

18 document dated the 4th of July, 1996; the document dated 21st of July,

19 2000; the 31st of July, 2000; the 27th of September, 2000; the 2nd of

20 November, 2000; and the 5th of May, 2001; and finally, a letter dated the

21 5th of May, 2001. We suggest that these documents be marked for

22 identification only and then the Defence during its Defence case will

23 provide the necessary -- will take the necessary measures for them to be

24 finally admitted into evidence as exhibits. Thank you.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

1 Ms. Benjamin.

2 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Mr. President, the Prosecution has no

3 objections.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, we have nine

5 documents to be marked for identification, please.

6 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the first

7 document, dated the 2nd of April, 1996, will be DH328 ID; English

8 translation, 328/E ID.

9 The document dated 5th of April, 1996 will be DH329 ID; 329/E ID.

10 The document dated the 4th of July, 1996 will be DH130 ID; its

11 English version, 330/E ID.

12 The document dated the 21st of July, 2000 will have 331 ID;

13 English translation, 331/E ID.

14 The document dated the 31st of July, 2000 will be DH332 ID;

15 English translation, 332/E ID.

16 The document dated the 27th of September, 2000 will be 333 ID;

17 English translation, 333/E ID.

18 The document dated the 2nd of November, 2000 will be 334 ID; its

19 English version, 334/E ID.

20 The document dated the 5th of May, 2001, 335 ID; and the English

21 translation, 335/E ID.

22 The document of the same date but described as KTA 97/93,

23 cantonal prosecutor's office in Zenica letter, will be 336 ID; and its

24 English version, 336/E ID.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

1 We just have the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Code.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Finally, the Defence acquiesced

3 to the request of the Trial Chamber because we feel it is indeed

4 important that we have as an exhibit copies of the Criminal Procedure

5 Code as well as of the Criminal Code that was in force in

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time. So the Defence is tendering the Criminal

7 Procedure Code in English and the Criminal Code of the Socialist Republic

8 of Bosnia and Herzegovina - also the English translation - copies of

9 which have been provided to the Trial Chamber and the registry, and we

10 are tendering them into evidence as Defence exhibits.

11 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: No objections, Mr. President.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Two

13 exhibit numbers, please.

14 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The Criminal Procedure Code will

15 be 337; and the Criminal Code, 338.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17 So we'll now have the technical break. It is ten to 4.00, and we

18 will resume at twenty past 4.00.

19 --- Recess taken at 3.50 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 4.20 p.m.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to give the floor to

22 Mr. Registrar who has something to tell us about a number that has been

23 given.

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

25 Just for the record, document DH328 has been marked for

1 identification, and the last two numbers, 337, that is, also have an

2 English translation, and they will be entered as 377/E and 377/E for the

3 English version of this document [as interpreted].

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And now I would kindly ask the

5 usher to fetch the witness.

6 Mr. Mundis, you have the floor for any documents which you might

7 wish to tender.

8 MR. MUNDIS: Not to tender documents, Mr. President, but simply,

9 as promised, I would give you the numbers of the three documents that I

10 showed the Chief of Staff last week, and I thought I would take that

11 moment while the witness is entering the courtroom to do so.

12 These documents are contested exhibit numbers 162, contested

13 exhibit number 327, and contested exhibit number 573. It is the last

14 document, number 573, that the witness basically indicated that he would

15 not have signed such a document. Again, he was shown a number of other

16 documents as well, but those are the three documents that the Prosecution

17 asserted bore his signature.

18 Thank you, Mr. President.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for this

20 clarification.

21 Mr. Bourgon, you have the floor.

22 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

23 I would just like to inform the Trial Chamber what my learned

24 friend has said is quite correct. The only thing I would like to mention

25 is that when he said he would not have signed such a document is -- what

1 he meant was this was a political document and that's why he wouldn't

2 sign it.

3 Your Honours, if you wish to take a look at this document, you

4 have to know why the witness said he would not have signed this document.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

6 [The witness entered court]

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

8 First of all, can you hear the translation of my words into a

9 language that you can understand? Can you just say so?

10 THE WITNESS: Clearly, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You have been

12 called as a Prosecution witness. I am going to ask you to take a solemn

13 declaration. But before that, I would like you to give us your name and

14 your date of birth, as well as the place where you were born.

15 THE WITNESS: My full name is Peter Desmond Hackshaw. My date of

16 birth is the 8th of November, 1960. And I was born in New Zealand.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And what is your nationality or

18 citizenship?

19 THE WITNESS: A New Zealander.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. And what is your

21 current professional position?

22 THE WITNESS: I am an investigator and acting team leader of

23 investigation team 9.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you already testified

25 before an international tribunal as an investigator or is this the first

1 time you have been called to testify?

2 THE WITNESS: This is the first time, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you please read the text of

4 the solemn declaration shown to you by the usher.

5 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

6 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may be seated.

8 WITNESS: PETER HACKSHAW

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to the

10 Prosecution, who are going to be putting questions to you, I would like

11 to provide you with some information as regards your testimony here.

12 You will first answer questions put to you by the Prosecution

13 within the scope of their examination-in-chief. These will be followed

14 by the questions put to you by the Defence counsel, who are going to lead

15 their cross-examination. The main objective of the latter is to verify

16 your credibility, and also they might want to ask you questions about the

17 general context of their case.

18 After that, the three Judges, who are sitting in front of you,

19 can ask you questions. They can do that at any moment. The Judges

20 prefer to wait until the very end because sometimes the Judges' questions

21 will already have been answered by you in replying to the questions put

22 to you by the Prosecution or the Defence.

23 After that, the Prosecution and the Defence will have the right

24 to re-examine, and these questions may be followed by additional Judges'

25 questions. And after that both parties will have the right to put

1 additional questions arising from the Judges' questions.

2 Your testimony will take place today and tomorrow, but since you

3 are a member of this institution, you will not have a problem staying

4 here one day longer.

5 You have just entered a solemn declaration and promised that you

6 would tell the truth. That means that you will be telling the truth.

7 And I have to remind every witness that if -- a false testimony may be

8 subject to a heavy penalty or imprisonment.

9 The second thing that I would like to mention, although it does

10 not apply to you, is that in case a witness might incriminate himself in

11 replying to any question, the Trial Chamber may grant such a witness a

12 certain immunity.

13 The questions may sometimes be complicated. If that is the case,

14 you may always ask the party putting it to you to rephrase the question

15 so as to enable you to answer it properly.

16 So this was just general information as to how your testimony is

17 going to take place. If you have any problems at any point, please ask

18 the Judges to assist you.

19 I don't know who is it going to be who will be leading the

20 examination-in-chief, Mr. Mundis or Mrs. Benjamin. It seems that this is

21 going to be Mrs. Benjamin.

22 Mrs. Benjamin, you have the floor for the examination-in-chief.

23 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Thank you, Mr. President.

24 Examined by Ms. Henry-Benjamin:

25 Q. Mr. Hackshaw, could you state for the Trial Chamber for how long

1 have you been employed with the ICTY.

2 A. Five and a half years.

3 Q. For how long have you -- in what capacity were you employed?

4 A. I started off as an investigator, and then about a year and a

5 half ago I was asked to take the role of the acting team leader.

6 Q. So firstly, state for the Trial Chamber your role as team leader,

7 acting team leader.

8 A. My role is to supervise, oversee the other investigators on my

9 particular team as well as coordinate the activities of language staff

10 that assist our team and the analytical support staff that are available

11 to our team.

12 Q. Now, was this role specific to any particular team?

13 A. Yes. It's specific to investigation team 9, which is the team

14 that is responsible for the investigation of those crimes alleged to have

15 been committed by Bosnian perpetrators.

16 Q. And specifically, is team 9 attached to any particular case?

17 A. A number of cases; obviously, the case against the accused Enver

18 Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura is one of ours.

19 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us now your duties as an investigator,

20 please.

21 A. Principally they are to gather evidence, facts, testimony and

22 documents that may be used to prove or disprove the matters under

23 investigation.

24 Q. Now, as an investigator, you -- your role begins from the

25 instructions of a particular individual on the team; am I right?

1 A. Yes, that's correct. Obviously it depends on what point the

2 investigation is at. Generally, pre the indictment stage we take

3 particularly legal direction from trial attorneys who are also attached

4 to that particular project. Obviously once it reaches the indictment

5 phase, there is the senior trial attorney appointed to the case, if one

6 is not already attached to the case, and we then take direction from

7 them.

8 Q. Now, could you walk the Trial Chamber through the case of

9 investigations from the commencement of your instructions to the

10 completion of your task. Tell us how it begins, from the time you

11 receive instructions until they are completed.

12 A. Sure. In the particular case of -- against the accused

13 Hadzihasanovic and Kubura, during 1999 the team conducted a research

14 project trying to identify crimes throughout Bosnia that may merit

15 further investigation, and as a consequence of that, the crimes in

16 Central Bosnia that are alleged to be committed by members of the ABiH

17 and the Mujahedin were identified as an appropriate project. The --

18 Q. Could I interrupt you for a while. You indicated that the team

19 conducted a research project. Could you tell us how you went about doing

20 this, please.

21 A. Principally we researched data, documents, that were contained

22 within the ICTY OTP holdings.

23 Q. And when the research was completed? Could you move on to the

24 next step.

25 A. What we then had to do was to formulate an investigation proposal

1 which we put to the senior management of the OTP, and at which point they

2 approved it as an investigation. And from that point on, we commenced

3 the investigation.

4 Q. Now, what did this investigation proposal contain?

5 A. It contained various allegations of criminal wrongdoing that we

6 had identified and that we continued to investigate.

7 Q. Did the proposal in itself state how you were going to approach

8 the investigations?

9 A. To a certain degree, yes, investigation proposals do. Obviously

10 there's always a need for flexibility in any investigation because things

11 develop and -- you know, you can't necessarily guarantee what the outcome

12 will be.

13 Q. Okay. So we submitted an investigation proposal. And once the

14 proposal was admitted, where do we go from there?

15 A. Then we formulate, I suppose, strategies about how things will be

16 done. And in the case of the investigation into the ABiH and Mujahedin

17 activity in Central Bosnia, it was decided that certain members of the

18 team would investigate the crime-base or the alleged crime-base incidents

19 further, while other investigators would look at the command and control

20 aspects of the case.

21 Q. Now, how did you physically do this investigation? Did it

22 warrant you staying at the ICTY, going on to the field? How did you

23 conduct the investigations?

24 A. Both. It requires continued research into -- and analysis of our

25 own holdings, as well as preparing and executing missions, the purpose of

1 which is to gather evidence.

2 Q. Now, let us look at the latter part, the missions. Could you

3 tell us how the missions were conducted.

4 A. Certainly. Generally we would have an objective -- or always we

5 would have an objective that we hoped to achieve. For example, in the

6 case of collecting crime-base testimony, an investigator would look at a

7 particular crime; they would then endeavour to identify a number of

8 witnesses that could give testimony about those events, and then the

9 investigator would be required to write a mission plan, which outlines

10 the objectives that he or she hopes to achieve, the persons that they

11 intend to interview, the time frame involved, the expense involved,

12 safety and security aspects involved. They would then give this proposal

13 through the chain of command to obtain formal approval to be allowed to

14 make that mission possible.

15 Q. So we have executed the proposal and we're on our mission.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Could you give us a broad view of what transpires on the mission.

18 A. This is where we travel into the field and you do your job,

19 whether it be locating your witnesses and interviewing them, recording a

20 statement, or whether it be looking through documents that are housed at

21 a particular archive.

22 Q. Let's take, for instance, the taking of statements. What is the

23 purpose in mind when you take the statements, and how do you achieve the

24 statements -- taking of the statements from the potential witness?

25 A. Basically, in the case of -- where you're interviewing somebody

1 who has -- who doesn't speak English, the statements are recorded in

2 English, they're typewritten, and done so through the use of an

3 interpreter.

4 Q. Now, when you -- when you have a witness or potential witness

5 that you are taking a statement from, what is -- how do you -- do you

6 have a particular way that you take the statement? Is there a particular

7 format?

8 A. Yes, there is. The OTP has a witness-statement templates that

9 used to record the details. It's -- basically it starts with a cover

10 page where the witness details are recorded, and then you go into the

11 body of the statement where the facts or information are recorded. It is

12 then read back to a witness, and the witness -- in a language they

13 understand and if there are any alterations to be made, those alterations

14 are made. And then the witness is asked if they are happy with the

15 statement to sign the statement.

16 Q. In the instance when the witness may have referred to documents,

17 how do you deal with recovering the documents?

18 A. Generally, where there are a number of documents either that

19 perhaps we've taken down with us into the field that we want the witness

20 to look at or where they provide documents in support of their statement,

21 the most common practice is for those statements to be annexed to the

22 witness statement.

23 Q. Now, what happens when the statement is taken and the mission is

24 completed and you return to the ICTY? Can you explain to us the

25 procedure that takes place there.

1 A. Certainly. When we return to the OTP the statement and any

2 documents which are annexed to it or any audio-visual material that we've

3 been given is submitted to the Evidence Unit. What we do is we enter the

4 statement electronically into a -- or a reference to that statement into

5 our electronic database that -- historically, that physical computer

6 entry gets -- creates what used to be called an IF, or an indexing

7 information form. And that indexing information form, along with the

8 statement, gets - and any attachments to it - get submitted to the

9 Evidence Unit.

10 Q. We have discovered sometimes that a witness may say, "I submitted

11 X document," and this is not annexed to the witness statement. Could you

12 tell us what happens in situations like that. What is the cause?

13 A. The cause could be because it's a miscellaneous document which is

14 not related to the specifics in the statement. If that's the case, the

15 document or a piece of evidence should be entered into the index

16 information form, should be given an index information form of its own,

17 so as it's effectively recoverable by way of electronic search.

18 Q. Could you assist us in the instance where a potential witness,

19 when he eventually comes to court, says to us, or in the proofing, "I

20 never said X." Could you explain to us what transpires during the taking

21 of the statements.

22 A. As I mentioned before, the investigator would take the statement

23 through -- with the assistance of an interpreter. It then gets read back

24 to the interpreter in a language that they understand. And then they are

25 asked to sign it, to show that they accept that it's true and correct.

1 Q. But these statements are never tape recorded, are they?

2 A. Not -- no, the policy is that witness statements should be

3 typewritten. There undoubtedly are situations where material has been

4 audio-recorded. Certainly if anybody is a potential suspect, then audio

5 and/or video recording is the normal practice.

6 Q. What about the issue of protective measures? Do the witnesses or

7 the potential witnesses indicate to you at the time of the taking of

8 statements of a request for protective measures?

9 A. Yes, sometimes they do. And we had -- within our own team, we

10 had witness information forms that we endeavoured to maintain for most

11 witnesses which were supposed to clearly reflect any concerns they may

12 have. Of course, frequently material is obtained from a witness and

13 there's quite some passage of time that goes between them finally coming

14 here to give testimony, if required, and obviously we have to re-check

15 whether those protective measures are still in place at a later point.

16 Q. But as an investigator with the OTP, if a witness requests or

17 indicates to you that that witness received -- needs protective measures,

18 certainly wouldn't the witness have to provide certain grounds to you?

19 A. Yes, the witness would. I mean, we -- we would expect, although

20 many, many of our witnesses have concerns, we expect it to be -- or them

21 to be able to justify actual reasons for that concern.

22 Q. And how do the investigators of the OTP go about verifying these

23 concerns?

24 A. If you're uncomfortable accepting what the witness has to say,

25 then you would have to perhaps interview other persons, speak to the

1 local authorities, review documents which may support what they've said.

2 There are any number of means of obtaining verification.

3 Q. Now, sometime early in June of 2004 did you conduct one of these

4 particular missions with respect to this case, Hadzihasanovic and Kubura?

5 A. Yes, I did. I visited -- I was asked to visit the offices of the

6 prosecution service in both Zenica and Travnik to look for any

7 investigations or reports of crimes that had been referred through the

8 district military prosecutor.

9 Q. Okay. So you said you went to Zenica and Travnik. For the

10 benefit of the Trial Chamber, I'd like you to walk us through Zenica

11 mission first, please. Tell us what happened.

12 A. Prior to going on this mission, one of the -- my colleagues that

13 was involved had contacted both the prosecutor at the Zenica court and

14 the -- sorry, at the prosecution service and the -- one of the

15 prosecutors at the Travnik office of the prosecution service and asked

16 them to provide all case files referred through the district military

17 prosecution office for the period of 1993 and the beginning of 1994.

18 Q. What was the purpose or the objective of this particular mission?

19 A. The objective was to find what files had been referred through

20 the district military prosecutor, as the information that I'd been

21 provided with indicated that all military prosecutions or all reports of

22 criminal activity or alleged criminal activity, the one point that all

23 that information was supposed to go through was through the office of the

24 district military prosecutor.

25 Q. Did you go on this mission alone?

1 A. No, I didn't. I was accompanied by investigator Michael Koehler

2 who is also on my team, and one of the leadership team analysts, Alasdair

3 Macleod.

4 Q. Okay. So could you step by step relate for the Trial Chamber

5 concisely what the mission entailed; what you did, how you acquired what

6 you acquired, if you acquired anything.

7 A. Yes. We went to the Zenica -- the office of the prosecution

8 service in Zenica, where they had collated the files that we had asked

9 for, that is, all case files that they held that had been referred

10 through the district military prosecution service. They had also

11 compiled a number of case files that had been referred through the higher

12 public prosecutor in Zenica, and we physically went through each of those

13 files, the purpose being to try and see whether there was any

14 investigation requests or reports that related to the crimes alleged

15 against the accused Hadzihasanovic and Kubura.

16 Q. And were you looking at any particular area, or were you looking

17 at all the crimes in general that's in the indictment?

18 A. We were looking at the -- specifically, we were looking for

19 allegations which mirrored those within our indictment.

20 Q. So you perused the records, as you indicated to us. And could

21 you tell us a little bit about the system, how it was organised, what you

22 found.

23 A. Yes. In respect of the files that had been forwarded through the

24 district military prosecution, there were actual case files of matters

25 which had been finalised, which had been rejected, and which had been

1 stayed. And there was a similar number of cases that had been referred

2 through the higher public prosecutor.

3 Q. Was there a register in place?

4 A. Yes. They had registers, and they -- registers were prefixed

5 with letters. And by that I mean the registers were used to show the

6 receipt of any such file or report. Those that -- those case files that

7 had known perpetrators were prefixed with the letters KT. Those files

8 where the perpetrators were unknown were prefixed with the letters KTN.

9 And there was a third register, which from our assessment of it looked

10 like miscellaneous incoming correspondence, which was prefixed -- each

11 item was prefixed with the letters "KTA."

12 Q. Okay. For example, let's say, for instance, we were looking at

13 Dusina, for example. How would you go about looking at Dusina?

14 A. Initially, we endeavoured to review all the physical case files

15 that were present, and there was only -- the only case files that were

16 actually present were KT files, namely those that had known or named

17 perpetrators. And through the use of an interpreter, they went

18 individually through every single file that was made available to us, and

19 we recorded brief details about each case file that was presented.

20 Sorry, one thing I meant to mention is that at the Zenica office

21 of the prosecution service they maintained separate registers for -- the

22 higher public-prosecution service had a separate register in which they

23 recorded all KT -- one for KT, one for KTN -- and the military

24 prosecution service had maintained separate registers for KT and KTN

25 cases, the difference in the main being that the military prosecution

1 service related to -- or it appeared from our review that the military

2 prosecution service related to matter where is military personnel were

3 involved and the matters that were referred through the higher public

4 prosecutors in the main were where civilian personnel were involved.

5 However, we did come across cases where, in the higher public

6 prosecution register, where civilian and military personnel were accused

7 of crimes.

8 Q. And how did you relate it to the indictment?

9 A. Initially what we did was we went through the military

10 prosecution files KT, which were the -- which were physically present,

11 and we recorded short details of each one, and then we went -- sorry, and

12 then we went -- sorry. Certain members were doing certain -- different

13 piles. There were basically files that were given to us in a number of

14 piles. And because of the short time that we had and the volume of

15 materials, we just simply reviewed those files that had gone through the

16 higher public prosecutor, namely the civilian -- or the alleged civilian

17 perpetrator files.

18 Q. Now, did you -- but how did you proceed to come to an analysis as

19 to whether or not you found the file or you didn't find the file? Did

20 you cross-match? How did you do this?

21 A. Yeah, we did. We basically found towards the end of the period

22 that there were files missing, and obviously that's a serious flaw in the

23 whole exercise. So what we tried to do was we tried to check the

24 registers. Now, the registers are where each particular case is supposed

25 to be logged upon receipt and then given its number.

1 Once it became obvious that there were actual case files missing,

2 we then had to go to the registers and try and record or review them,

3 each individual entry, to see whether it related to anything in our

4 indictment.

5 Now, obviously with the volume of files that had been referred

6 through either the district military prosecutor or the higher public

7 prosecutor, it was -- we chose to focus on serious crimes against the

8 person.

9 Q. Now, what was the reason given for missing files?

10 A. In relation to the KT --

11 Q. And this is Zenica we're dealing with.

12 A. In relation to the files -- the case files at Zenica, it was

13 explained to us that certain files were considered open or case files

14 were considered open and that they had been, once the district military

15 prosecution office ceased to exist, they had been referred out to the

16 municipal courts in -- wherever the crime was alleged to have occurred.

17 Q. So you have told us that you physically searched through each

18 register. Now, in your search, did you find anything in relation to the

19 offences mentioned in the indictment?

20 A. In relation to serious crimes against the person, for example

21 murder or manslaughter or aggravated robbery, we didn't.

22 Q. What about the -- under the KTN category, which is the unknown

23 perpetrators? Were you able to come across anything related to the

24 indictment?

25 A. What we had to do, because there were no case files to review, we

1 selected the serious crimes against the person, and in most cases victim

2 details were recorded in the register and we recorded those victim

3 details. And then when we came back to The Hague we physically attempted

4 to cross-reference the victims from the initial report to those that

5 featured in our indictment.

6 Q. And would I be correct if I said the analysis was basically the

7 same for Travnik?

8 A. Yes. We worked almost in reverse at Travnik, because when we

9 arrived, they made it clear to us that there were certain case files

10 missing. So as a consequence -- and because of even more serious time

11 constraints at Travnik, we chose to look only at the registers in the

12 first instance, and we tried to isolate those crimes that were serious

13 crimes against the person, and then we tried to cross-reference. We then

14 tried to find the case files that they referred to. And if they weren't

15 present, we recorded the victim details from the register.

16 Q. And did any of the files you found in Travnik correspond to the

17 offences you were looking for in the indictment?

18 A. No, they did not.

19 Q. Now, you told us on several occasions that you recorded and you

20 made a record. How did you record this?

21 A. We recorded it simply in our notebooks.

22 Q. And each member on the team recorded each person's task - am I

23 correct - in different notebooks?

24 A. Yes. For example, at the Zenica prosecution service, I had a

25 pile of KT files that were finalised or in a binder that said they were

1 finalised. So I recorded those details.

2 Q. So if the Trial Chamber wishes to go into detail as to what you

3 would have accomplished on the mission, would it be in that notebook?

4 A. Yes, it would.

5 Q. And if I were to show you the notebook, would you be able to

6 verify that that is the said notebook?

7 A. I certainly would.

8 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Mr. President, may the witness be shown the

9 notebook, please.

10 A. Thank you. Yes. That's -- this is the notebook that I

11 maintained throughout this three-day exercise.

12 Q. And could you tell us, if there's some sort of order that you

13 followed in the notebook, if you put it in different categories. How was

14 the notebook compiled?

15 A. First of all, it related --

16 Q. Could you --

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon.

18 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have received

19 these notes. I would just like to see exactly physically what the

20 notebook looks like in order to be able to compare the notebook with what

21 we have.

22 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: My apologies.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please show the

24 notebook to the accused as well, please.

25 We would like to have a look as well.

1 You may proceed.

2 Mr. Bourgon.

3 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

4 We have looked at the notebook. I would like to remark that the

5 numbers on the notebook and on the photocopy are not the same. My

6 learned friend has already explained that.

7 However, I would like my learned friend to tell us exactly what

8 number we're dealing with when she's referring to the notebook.

9 Otherwise, we will not be able to follow the examination-in-chief. It's

10 very difficult for us to find the hour and the minutes, so if my learned

11 friend could tell us exactly what pages she's dealing with, and if she

12 could also tell us exactly what is the purpose of the question that she's

13 putting and the notebook that she's showing to the investigator.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 Mrs. Benjamin, why are you showing the witness the notebook?

16 And secondly, could you please make sure to mention the number,

17 because it seems that the numbers in the notebook do not correspond to

18 the numbers in the photocopy.

19 You may proceed.

20 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Mr. President, I think my friend jumped

21 ahead of me.

22 But the purpose of actually wanting to put or intending to put

23 the notebook in evidence is for the Trial Chamber to be able to see the

24 way in which the documents were recorded and what was recorded, because

25 certainly in the interest of time, I don't think we're going to be going

1 through each item in the notebook; hence the reason.

2 There is also, as my friend would see, three bundled he received.

3 So far we have done the first one which is 0357-7025, which is his

4 notebook.

5 Have you seen it? Do you have it? Do you have it? Okay.

6 And that is the sample that would be --

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon, the Prosecution

8 intends to show the witness the notebook because it wishes to tender the

9 notebook into evidence. There are some other documents which I don't

10 have, but maybe you will be able to explain.

11 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

12 It is true that we have not discussed that in any detail. I

13 didn't know that this will be tendered into evidence, but the witness is

14 here and he will give us his conclusions before the Trial Chamber.

15 However, the documents should be translated into the language

16 that the accused can understand. And in addition to that, a motion

17 should have been made for the changes in the list of evidence. That's

18 the basic procedure. I didn't know that. I knew that this witness would

19 come to testify. Last week I asked for this document because I knew that

20 the document was mentioned, but not for a single moment did I think that

21 it would be tendered into evidence.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Benjamin, the Defence says

23 that the document that you have in your hands and that is in English has

24 not been given to the accused because it hasn't been translated, and this

25 is a problem, obviously.

1 The Defence counsel should be able to discuss any document with

2 the accused in order to provide for the useful cross-examination. Since

3 they have not been able to discuss the document with their clients

4 because the document is not in B/C/S, there has been a problem which they

5 have just mentioned. What is your reaction? How are you going to

6 respond to this intervention?

7 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Mr. President, the intention of the

8 Prosecution was not for the document to be entered with respect to the

9 content, but to the form and the way in which -- the procedure which was

10 followed by the investigator. And I did indicate to my friend when he

11 asked me for the notes on the document that we would be happy to present

12 it for him so that they can see what transpired. As they went, they

13 recorded.

14 If the Defence has a problem with the procedure, then certainly

15 we can -- we have no problem in withdrawing the notebook. But the only

16 intention was to show the Court the system that is followed, really. It

17 was just for -- not for substance, just for form. But if they have a

18 problem with it, we can withdraw it.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Bourgon, apparently

20 you have been informed of the Prosecution's intention to tender this

21 document into evidence, not the document itself because it has any

22 particular value, but just to show the way an investigator works.

23 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Yes, it is possible that they --

24 that we have discussed that, but -- and I have received the document, but

25 we have not discussed it in any detail. What I can tell you is that we

1 have received a statement. I was in Sarajevo. We discussed this with my

2 learned friend in Sarajevo. I asked why the statement wasn't signed.

3 Then we spoke about that with our learned friends in The Hague, and we

4 did not have any objections to this being shown in order to speed up the

5 procedure. However, if my learned friend wants to talk about the

6 procedure that was used, I believe that it is sufficient to have the

7 witness here. The witness may be asked questions, and then the witness

8 will be able to explain what procedure he applied.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Benjamin, what's your

10 response to this? Maybe you can ask the witness a question without

11 actually tendering this notebook into evidence. The witness is here, and

12 he is maybe best suited to tell us how he proceeded. And the Trial

13 Chamber obviously will want to ask some questions because if we're

14 talking about an investigator, then obviously this investigator will be

15 able to clarify some matters for us. I know that he is an investigator,

16 but I don't know what is he by profession, what are his professional

17 qualifications. Maybe as an investigator he also could be an IT expert.

18 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Mr. President, I think, having walked the

19 witness through the procedure that they undertook in relation to this

20 specific mission and in relation to missions generally, the notebook was

21 being tendered into evidence or attempted to be tendered into evidence to

22 support or to corroborate what he actually just said.

23 If my friends on the other side feels that, you know, it

24 shouldn't be there, we don't have a problem. We've already laid the

25 foundation as to how he did his work, how the mission was done, and he --

1 all he basically said is that he recorded each thing. Nothing in that

2 notebook is of any value to us anyway. So we -- the Prosecution wishes

3 to withdraw the notebook.

4 Q. And I think the Court was quite right in guiding us. I think we

5 omitted in letting the Court know your professional qualifications. So

6 maybe before we go on to the other aspect, could you please state for the

7 Court your professional qualifications. We got how long you worked here

8 but we didn't get your professional qualifications.

9 A. Prior to joining the transcribe, Your Honours, I spent 15 years

10 in the New Zealand police, during which time I obtained my detective

11 rank, and subsequently got promoted from being a detective to a sergeant

12 and then back into the role of a detective sergeant within the criminal

13 investigation branch.

14 Q. Perhaps for the benefit of the Trial Chamber you can tell us what

15 are the requirements when applying for the position of investigator at

16 the ICTY. What professional qualifications are required?

17 A. Generally, in the majority of cases you're expected to have a

18 police and law-enforcement background, with a strong previous background

19 in serious-crime investigation.

20 Q. Thank you. And we concluded what takes place on a specific

21 mission, as you just indicated. Now, on your missions to crime-base

22 areas or to the area where the conflict has arisen, did any time in your

23 investigations would you have to pay visits to archives, courts,

24 et cetera?

25 A. Yes. Throughout the course of this investigation and others that

1 are being conducted by our team or have been conducted by our team, we

2 have visited a number of archives.

3 Q. Could you tell us how the mission was conducted relating -- in

4 relation to archives specifically, and if any particular archive.

5 A. Yes. Obviously the first phase of any such operation is to get

6 permission to actually visit a particular archive. Once that permission

7 has been granted, you would try and obtain as many persons to assist you

8 as possible, and certainly, archive searches are not restricted to simply

9 investigators. We rely on military analysts, leadership, research

10 personnel, and obviously language support staff. We would -- depending

11 on the objective of going to any archive, we would prior to going

12 endeavour to make some sort of checklist which would give those that are

13 perhaps not familiar with the case that we were relying on some broad

14 outline of the type of material that we're looking for.

15 Q. And how was this exercise conducted physically?

16 A. The actual search itself?

17 Q. Yes, please.

18 A. Well, generally, you simply visit the premises where material is

19 stored, and with your interpreter you will try and gain an overview, or

20 somebody would realistically try and gain an overview. For example, if I

21 went to the ABiH military archive, common sense would say that if I'm

22 investigating crimes in Central Bosnia, then I would focus more on the

23 files that related to the 3rd Corps of the ABiH than I would to other

24 corps, because that's their particular area of responsibility.

25 And then we would -- you would physically start searching the

1 binders that any such material is housed in, trying to gain an overview

2 as quickly as possible in situ of what the binder contained or what the

3 case file contained. Because time and resources are always a significant

4 factor in any such search, you would -- if time allowed, you would try

5 and photocopy as much of the material as you could so as it can be

6 reviewed back in The Hague with more care, I suppose.

7 Q. How do you determine which document you seize from the archive?

8 A. Well, like I mentioned, if I was going down -- if I was

9 organising a mission in relation to the alleged illegal activity of the

10 3rd Corps of the ABiH, if I was looking for documents in -- that

11 reflected any aspect of that, I would organise for a checklist to be made

12 up of important places, dates, personalities, so as that those that

13 didn't have as much understanding of the case had some mechanism in place

14 to confidently at least review material.

15 Q. You personally, in your dealings with the document, let's say

16 from the ABiH archives. Do you remove original documents? Do you remove

17 copies?

18 A. In the case of the search we actually conducted at the ABiH

19 archive, we were only given permission to photocopy material.

20 Q. What of the civilian archives? Have you had conduct of

21 investigating civilian archives in relation to this trial?

22 A. Yes. We reviewed material that was housed in the Presidency

23 archive, the Bosnian Presidency archive. There have been searches were

24 also conducted at the headquarters of the 7th -- what was the old

25 7th Muslim Brigade - I understand it's now the 7th Mechanised Brigade -

1 based in Zenica. We've conducted -- not me personally, but other members

2 attached to the team -- have conducted a review of material at the

3 archives of the Party of Democratic Action, or the SDA. There's been

4 some review and searches through the military -- the ABiH military

5 security archives.

6 Q. And if I were to ask you your observations on these archives,

7 what would you say to the Trial Chamber with respect to your observations

8 and the operations of these archives?

9 A. It's fair to say that they vary considerably in how they are

10 maintained, and they vary considerably in the volume of material that's

11 housed within them. That's my observation.

12 Q. When the investigation is completed and the mission is completed,

13 when you return to The Hague, what is your role in respect to the

14 continuance of the -- following the documents with respect to the trial

15 stage? What is your role?

16 A. We -- you need to -- the investigator needs to ensure the

17 documentation is brought back, and depending on the quantity of material

18 that's seized from a particular archive, you need to make sure that

19 it's -- the security is -- of the transportation of that document or

20 quantity of documents is maintained. For -- yeah -- then it's got to be

21 submitted into the Evidence Unit. Now, in the case of the search that

22 was conducted at the former ABiH archive, the volume of material was such

23 that we actually sent somebody from the Evidence Unit down and they --

24 while we were searching on a nightly basis, the person from the Evidence

25 Unit was down in -- at the Sarajevo field office where the documents were

1 being kept and they were physically starting their evidence-stamping

2 procedure, just to try and improve the whole processing of it once we got

3 it back to The Hague.

4 Q. With respect to the crime-base witnesses, how did you proceed

5 with the investigations in the field with respect to the crime-base

6 witnesses? What was the criteria for choosing these witnesses? How did

7 you go about this?

8 A. We would receive information about potential witnesses from a

9 number of sources. Sometimes it was through previous witnesses that we'd

10 already spoken to who nominated further witnesses who could help us.

11 Sometimes it was through searches of our internal database where, if

12 they'd been interviewed by other organisations and we'd been provided

13 with a copy of their statement, we would go and revisit them. Sometimes

14 it was through material that came to our attention by way of open source;

15 open-source material, media articles. Sometimes, in the case of

16 international witnesses, it was through -- again, through data that we

17 already held or through other witnesses that we'd already interviewed.

18 Q. And finally, when the statements are taken -- and correct me if

19 I'm wrong -- I believe most of them are taken in Bosnia, in particular to

20 this case. Am I correct?

21 A. The bulk of what I would term "crime-base witnesses" were

22 interviewed in Bosnia.

23 Q. Now, when is the translation done? Because most of these

24 witnesses are not English-speaking witnesses. Am I correct?

25 A. Yes, you are correct.

1 Q. So could you explain to the Trial Chamber when the translation is

2 done, how it's done, and when does the witness sign this document in his

3 own language.

4 A. Generally, the witness doesn't sign a statement in -- that's been

5 translated into his own language. What happens is the statement is

6 brought back to The Hague, the statement is submitted to the Evidence

7 Unit, and under the old indexing information form, which was the

8 electronic form we generate for each document or statement that we bring

9 back for each piece of evidence, there used to be a facility that was an

10 electronic translation tab where you would request a translation of the

11 statement which was recorded in English into a language -- into B/C/S.

12 Q. So at the field office in Sarajevo, what does the witness sign?

13 A. The witness signs -- in the majority of cases, the witness signs

14 the English copy of the statement, which has been read back to them in a

15 language -- in B/C/S.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Mr. President, Your Honours, this concludes

18 the examination-in-chief.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to take a break, as

20 is customary, and we shall continue at five to 6.00. After that, we will

21 work until the end to have day, and I suppose the Judges will have quite

22 a lot of questions to put to the witness.

23 --- Recess taken at 5.28 p.m.

24 --- On resuming at 5.59 p.m.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to give the floor to

1 the Defence for their cross-examination.

2 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

3 Cross-examined by Mr. Bourgon:

4 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Hackshaw.

5 A. Good afternoon.

6 Q. I think we arrived at this Tribunal almost at the same time, and

7 I know we've seen each other, but we've never had the opportunity of

8 working together.

9 For the benefit of the record, please let me introduce my team

10 and I. I'm accompanied today by Mrs. Edina Residovic and by my colleague

11 Mr. Alexis Demirdjian. My name is Stephane Bourgon, and together we

12 represent General Hadzihasanovic.

13 I have, of course, a few questions for you, and I think I can

14 finish at least for my part today, which will leave the questions from

15 the Judges -- from the Bench tomorrow.

16 I'd like to begin by confirming a few of the details that you

17 have given in response to questions that were put to you by my colleague

18 from the Prosecution. I'd like to begin first by the fact that one thing

19 was mentioned during your examination-in-chief, and that is that we have

20 received from the Prosecution a statement which is in English and which

21 is entitled "Declaration of Peter Desmond Hackshaw." That is yourself;

22 is that correct?

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. And I take it that this declaration is a declaration that you

25 made yourself; is that correct?

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. You are the drafter of this declaration.

3 A. Yes, I am.

4 Q. Now, I just ask this question because the statement itself is not

5 signed. But you acknowledge that this is your statement?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. And I take it also that since you did make this statement - and I

8 think we've had it now for about a week - that you did not make any

9 modifications to the statement that was disclosed to the Defence.

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. And no additions were made to the same statement.

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. Thank you. I'd like to move on by confirming that you have a

14 background as a police investigator and that the matter of investigation

15 itself is nothing new to you. You have a lots of experience in this

16 field. Is that correct?

17 A. Yes, that is correct.

18 Q. In fact, you've been working for a number of years before joining

19 the ICTY as an investigator.

20 A. That is correct.

21 Q. And today you are the team leader in, I guess, an acting capacity

22 of team number 9, and you've been in this position for 18 months.

23 A. Yes, that's correct. I'm the acting team leader.

24 Q. As far as the Tribunal goes, you have been at the Tribunal now

25 for five and a half years; is that correct?

1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. Which I take it means that you have been involved in a number of

3 investigations over and above the investigations related to this case.

4 A. Yes, that is correct.

5 Q. What I don't know and I would like you to confirm is whether you

6 were always a member of team number 9 ever since you joined the Tribunal.

7 A. Yes, I was. And beyond some deployments during 1999 in

8 Macedonia, Albania and Kosovo, my entire working life at the Tribunal has

9 been on team 9 projects.

10 Q. And team 9, as you mention, is the team which is dedicated to

11 crimes allegedly committed by Bosnian Muslims.

12 A. That's correct. It's the team that investigates crimes allegedly

13 committed by Bosniaks.

14 Q. By Bosniaks.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Well, Bosniaks includes also -- Bosniaks could be Croats from

17 Bosnia?

18 A. Yes, that's correct.

19 Q. So you work on both sides, and not only specifically on crimes

20 committed by Bosnian Muslims on the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

21 A. Yes, I think it's fair to say that it's crimes committed by the

22 Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I would hate the record to reflect that

23 I thought the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina consisted solely of Muslims.

24 That's -- that would be misleading.

25 Q. Thank you very much. It's a very, very -- I appreciate the

1 answer, and I appreciate, of course, the difference between the two.

2 So for you it's crimes allegedly committed by the Army of

3 Bosnia-Herzegovina, either against the two common enemies at the time,

4 which is either the Serbs, but of course the Army of Republika Srpska, or

5 the Croats, or the Army of the HVO.

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. There could also be other possibilities.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Now, in your capacity as the acting team leader, would I be right

10 in saying that you are involved in the strategy, the Prosecution strategy

11 behind this case, and that is that you are intimately involved with the

12 senior trial attorney in designing the investigation mission and the

13 gathering of evidence in this case?

14 A. Now, I'd be very cautious in saying yes to that. As I mentioned

15 before, the steering of the investigation in this particular case lay

16 firmly at the feet of the trial attorney, namely Ekkehard Withopf, who

17 was assigned to the case from his arrival at the Tribunal. Once the

18 case -- once there is an indictment issued, clearly it becomes the role

19 of the senior trial attorney to steer the Prosecution side of things.

20 Q. And would the senior trial attorney in this case have been

21 involved also in the investigation stage leading to the indictment?

22 A. Yes, absolutely. Ekkehard Withopf was integrally involved right

23 throughout his time here at the Tribunal, both as a trial attorney and

24 then more recently upon his appointment as the senior trial attorney.

25 Q. But, of course, the senior trial attorney has had to work not

1 only in this case but other cases as well.

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. Now, you yourself as the team leader, you mentioned that you

4 supervised the other investigators and that you also coordinate the work

5 of the analysts and the work of the language assistants.

6 A. Yes, that's correct.

7 Q. If I would suggest to you that amongst all the investigators in

8 team number 9 the investigator that is closest to the Prosecution

9 strategy would be you.

10 A. Yes, I would say that's correct.

11 Q. And I take it that any proposal for an investigation mission

12 following instructions by the senior trial attorney would first go to

13 your desk before any one of your investigators would deploy to Central

14 Bosnia to investigate part of this case.

15 A. That's -- I can only answer that that would -- that wouldn't

16 always be the case. I think it would be fair to say that on occasions if

17 I am -- have some involvement in one of the other projects and can't be

18 present when certain issues are discussed, then it would be other

19 investigators dedicated to this project who would discuss strategy,

20 objectives with either the senior trial attorney or others involved,

21 other legal personnel involved.

22 Q. Now, yourself, Mr. Hackshaw, do you feel confident that you are

23 aware of the challenges and the issues in this case?

24 A. Most of them, yes.

25 Q. Now, how many investigators can we find in team number 9?

1 A. Seven at the moment.

2 Q. So seven investigators. And how many analysts and how many

3 language assistants?

4 A. Three analysts at the present and four language assistants.

5 Q. And when we talk about an analyst, are these all members of what

6 we call the military analysis team, or is it a mix from members of the

7 military analysis team and also the leadership research team?

8 A. No. The three that are immediately attached to the team are

9 criminal or intelligence analysts. The leadership research team and the

10 military analytical team operate on a team basis, independently of us;

11 however, we have assigned personnel from within those units who work

12 specifically on our projects.

13 Q. So that's in addition to the persons we've mentioned, namely

14 seven investigators, three analysts, four language assistants, yourself.

15 That's the team.

16 A. That's right.

17 Q. And you can call upon dedicated persons from the leadership

18 research team and from the military analysis team.

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. So those are the resources you have to work with in order to

21 build up the cases for which you are responsible.

22 A. Yes. That's the resources as they stand to date -- today.

23 Q. Now, if I -- you've been there for 18 months, but you were the

24 leader. If I would ask you: How many missions have been conducted in

25 this particular case in 18 months? I understand that you may not have

1 the exact answer, but a rough figure.

2 A. You're right, I don't have the exact figure. I would say

3 probably between a dozen and two dozen.

4 Q. Between 12 and 24 missions --

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. -- over the last 18 months.

7 A. No, look, I would have to refer to other material to give you an

8 accurate answer. I feel uncomfortable.

9 Q. I'm more looking for averages so that we have an understanding

10 of the situation in which you are placed to gather evidence in a case.

11 Now, on the average, how many investigators would take part in

12 investigating -- in an investigation mission? Is that investigators,

13 analysts, language assistants, or how many people approximately on the

14 average?

15 A. It varies considerably. If it was a large mission the objective

16 of which was to search a large archive, there could be a dozen personnel

17 involved at the least. If it was simply interviewing a dozen crime-base

18 witnesses, that could be done by two investigators over several weeks.

19 Q. So that's -- a small mission or a typical witness-interviewing

20 mission would consist of, on the average, two investigator and one

21 language assistant, or thereabouts.

22 A. No. It would normally consist of -- if it was two investigators

23 doing witness interviewing, they would have two language assistants.

24 They would be doing separate interviews.

25 Q. So a team approximately of four people. And those language

1 assistants, are they always the ones that travel with you from the

2 Tribunal or do you also use field language assistants that are provided

3 to you from a field office, for example?

4 A. More often than not we use language assistants that are provided

5 with us -- provided to us in the field.

6 Q. And your mission base, if I can use this expression, in your

7 case, working on Central Bosnia, would I be right in saying that your

8 mission base would be Sarajevo?

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. Because the Office of the Prosecution has an office in Sarajevo;

11 is that correct?

12 A. That's correct. And Banja Luka.

13 Q. And in Banja Luka.

14 A. That's right.

15 Q. But for Central Bosnia, which one would you use? Or could you

16 use both?

17 A. No. We would traditionally use the one in Sarajevo.

18 Q. So you would in any investigation mission, you would fly to

19 Sarajevo, and then I take it -- I suggest - I mean I'm not sure - that

20 vehicles would be made available to you so that you could drive to

21 Central Bosnia and perform your work.

22 A. Absolutely correct.

23 Q. Thank you. Now, one of the trials, of course, that you have been

24 working on in 18 months is the trial against General Hadzihasanovic and

25 Mr. Kubura.

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. And this initially started in your knowledge, because you were --

3 I'm not sure if you were there when it began, but as a project in 1999.

4 A. That's correct, and I was here.

5 Q. You were there in 1999.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. So you were there to identify the initial in-house data leading

8 to an approval to try and arrive with an investigation --

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Sorry, with an indictment.

11 A. Correct, yeah. Well, to start with, to identify information to

12 get a investigation proposal approved.

13 Q. Thank you. And when you mentioned that as you get this

14 investigation proposal approved it is very important for the team to

15 establish some kind of a strategy in order as to what evidence it will go

16 and obtain and where.

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. And that such a proposal of course would be based on time, on

19 money, on security, and, of course, most importantly, on the objective of

20 what you're going to go and obtain.

21 A. Yes, all those things. That's correct.

22 Q. And you mentioned that when you initially completed this project,

23 that your target - correct me if that's a wrong terminology in your

24 language. I just suggest that "target" is a word that you may have used

25 - were crimes originally committed by the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina

1 and by the Mujahedin.

2 A. Yes, that's correct.

3 Q. So the crimes committed by the Mujahedin was an important aspect

4 of your investigation.

5 A. Yes, it was.

6 Q. And as part the investigation proposal that was approved, finding

7 out persons responsible for the crimes committed by the Mujahedin was one

8 of your principal objectives.

9 I can rephrase that if you want. Just -- I do not want to

10 confuse you. I'm just suggesting to you that you made an investigation

11 proposal. Is that -- that's correct?

12 A. Yes, members of the team did.

13 Q. And in that investigation proposal, you have targets or issues

14 or -- what is the term that you do use?

15 A. We would use -- "targets" is appropriate.

16 Q. "Target" it will be. And one of those targets were crimes

17 committed by the Mujahedin.

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. Now, in terms of the taking of statements in the field, I would

20 just like to come back very quickly to what my colleague -- the question

21 that she asked you to see if I did understand correctly that a statement

22 is first recorded in English, but on the basis of verbal answers given in

23 Bosniak. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes. The investigator would either ask the witness questions or

25 allow the witness to tell their story. Whatever questions or prompts the

1 investigator would use would be then translated by a field interpreter

2 into a language that's used by the witness.

3 Q. Mm-hm.

4 A. And then the answers or responses are then translated back into

5 English. And they are what's recorded.

6 Q. And then would I be correct in saying that the statement itself

7 is not written on that occasion but that the normal practice is for the

8 investigator and the language assistant to go back and to reflect over

9 all the notes in order to draft up a statement? Is that the normal

10 practice?

11 A. No, that's not the normal practice at all. The normal practice

12 is to record the statement in the presence of the witness.

13 Q. Is the statement drafted on the spot?

14 A. Yes, the statement is typed up in the presence of the witness.

15 Q. And it's typed up?

16 A. It's typewritten.

17 Q. Now, in the presence of the witness?

18 A. That's correct, in the majority of the cases.

19 Q. And in other cases, would it be -- would it happen that a

20 statement would be typed up later when you come back either to The Hague

21 or to Sarajevo and then you go back to see the witness and you show him

22 the result and you ask him if he agrees with what has been typed up?

23 A. No, I think -- that would be a very rare practice.

24 Q. A rare practice.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Normally it's typed up with the witness being present.

2 A. Absolutely.

3 Q. Now, if there are documents, of course, you've mentioned that

4 usually they would be -- there were two types of documents, either the

5 one that you take with yourself to the field and show to the witness; is

6 that correct?

7 A. Yes, that's one type.

8 Q. And the one that the witness might give to you in the course of

9 his interview.

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. And that both documents would usually be attached to the

12 statement.

13 A. If the quantity is such that they can be easily annexed, then it

14 makes good sense -- it's a good practice, I believe, to make sure that

15 they're referred to in the body of the statement.

16 Q. Now, normally if you come back and this is, as you mentioned the

17 procedure called is indexing information form, or the IF'ing.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And that allows you to record this information into electronic

20 form when you come back. So it's kind of scanned and put into a

21 database.

22 A. Yeah, the statement or material that's annexed to it or that

23 accompanies it is -- first of all, it is referenced -- it's submitted to

24 evidence along with the index information form, which is now called a

25 mini information index form. That's simply -- I think the easiest way to

1 describe it would be that it is a -- it's a cover page that allows us to

2 electronically search for that reference material, whether it be a

3 statement, video, document. It allows us to electronically search for

4 that.

5 Q. So normally it should be easy by entering the name of a witness

6 to gather all the information that -- which was ever obtained by this

7 witness.

8 A. Yes, if we are talking about material that we have physically

9 taken possession of ourselves.

10 Q. But if there's another team that saw the same witness and

11 obtained a statement, would there be a way to cross-reference these two

12 so that all statements could be disclosed to the Defence, for example?

13 A. Yes, I suppose in theory there is a way. When you prepare an

14 indexing information form, it has the facility to electronically

15 associate other material to it. For example, if I took a statement from

16 a witness and they provided me with a substantial amount of documentation

17 that perhaps was not necessarily related to the issue that I was talking

18 about with them, obviously that information needs to be inputted into the

19 system because although it might not be of interest to me it may well be

20 of interest to another team. And we have the ability electronically to

21 input material independently but associate it electronically.

22 Now, I'm certainly not aware of it being a common practice for

23 people to, say, for example, if a witness was interviewed in relation to

24 the Blaskic trial in 1998 or 1999 and then that same witness is then

25 re-interviewed by our team in the year 2000, it's -- as far as I'm aware,

1 it's not a common practice to associate those two statements together.

2 Q. It is not something that you would check for before you go.

3 A. Oh, certainly you would try and research anybody you were going

4 to talk to before you went.

5 Q. No, but if there was -- you would not necessarily search for that

6 material before you deployed to Central Bosnia, in the sense of getting

7 their previous statement so that you can put everything together when you

8 come back. That would not be common practice.

9 A. You would try and research any previous statements, for obvious

10 reasons. However, once you got back with a fresh statement, in many

11 cases two or three years later from the same witness, you would not

12 automatically associate them through the available electronic means.

13 Q. Okay. I fully understand.

14 Now, a quick question: You mention that as part of your

15 investigation duty, you said that you were to gather both information to

16 prove but also to disprove the culpability of a target. Did I get this

17 right?

18 A. Yeah, I mean, absolutely right. It's -- you know, my

19 understanding of evidence is that it's the facts, testimony, and

20 documents which may be used to prove or disprove the matters under

21 investigation.

22 Q. Now, when you do get a document that tends to disprove, what --

23 are there any special procedures when you come back to put it in a

24 separate pile and identify it immediately as Rule 68 material or -- how

25 do you do that?

1 A. Well, I think during the investigation phase, certainly before an

2 indictment has been issued, there's an onus on people to at least be

3 aware and to take into consideration other projects ongoing within the

4 ICTY or within the Office of the Prosecution, because common sense is

5 that one person's witness in this Tribunal may well be another person's

6 target. So, yeah, I mean ...

7 Q. So you do care about these things.

8 A. Yeah, and more so as the information databases have become

9 densely populated, this is more so -- this has become a more prominent

10 feature. In fact, in mission planning now, it's generally expected that

11 if I had a list of half a dozen witnesses that I intended to interview,

12 then now it's a reasonably common practice to publish those potential

13 witnesses to other team, because other teams, although they may have a

14 different interest, they may still have an interest in a particular

15 person.

16 Q. Thank you. Let me move on to more specific information on this

17 particular case. I'd like to begin by confirming with you that you are

18 aware that in the year 2000 a request for state assistance, or I think

19 they are called RSAs, if I'm right.

20 A. They're called -- anything, any request we make of another

21 government is called an RFA, or a request for assistance.

22 Q. A request for assistance, RFA.

23 A. Yeah, that's correct.

24 Q. And would you -- can you confirm that in 2002 three requests for

25 assistance were forwarded - one to the Travnik cantonal prosecutor's

1 office, one in the Travnik cantonal court, and one in the Zenica cantonal

2 court, in order to obtain information as to criminal complaints or

3 prosecutions or judgements of war crimes - whether any of those had been

4 submitted or had arose from the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Are you

5 aware of this fact?

6 A. I'm -- yeah, I'm pretty sure that's correct.

7 Q. Now, I have these three letters here. These three letters are

8 contested exhibits in this case. And just for the sake of the

9 transcript, I would like to confirm that these requests, the one

10 addressed to the Travnik cantonal prosecutor's office is contested

11 exhibit 640; that the one addressed to the Zenica cantonal court is

12 contested exhibit 638; and that the one addressed to the cantonal court

13 in Travnik is contested exhibit 639.

14 I'm not going to show you, because you're aware of these requests

15 for assistance being forwarded to these three agencies to request if any

16 war crimes had been prosecuted in those three agencies from the beginning

17 of 1993 until somewhere in 1994, or the time period relevant to this

18 indictment.

19 A. Yes, that would make sense.

20 Q. And that in the three cases you did receive replies to your

21 requests.

22 A. I can only assume that you're correct, yes.

23 Q. Now --

24 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] I would like to say that the three

25 numbers that I have given are the replies that we have received, not the

1 requests sent by the OTP.

2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... [In English] The three

3 numbers I just gave you, I see that the Prosecution on the other side --

4 the three contested exhibits I have are the replies that were received

5 from these three agencies.

6 Now, would I be correct in saying that on the basis of these

7 replies you concluded as part of your investigation that General

8 Hadzihasanovic had taken very limited measures to prevent war crimes or

9 to punish the perpetrators of war crimes in the relevant period?

10 A. Sorry, without seeing the replies to refresh my memory, I

11 couldn't say.

12 Q. Okay. I'd prefer -- maybe it's better if I do show you the

13 documents so that there are no confusion.

14 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could the usher show

15 the witness the three documents. I don't have copies, because these are

16 documents that we all have in our possession. So could we have 638, 639,

17 and 640.

18 Mr. President, I have copies with me, so we can easily give them

19 to the witness to look at.

20 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Mr. President, before the witness gets hold

21 of the document, I think we need to verify the status of the document.

22 Could we have a minute, please?

23 [Prosecution counsel confer].

24 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Mr. President, it's my understanding that my

25 colleague who was with us before, Mr. Withopf, withdrew these documents.

1 They were contested documents and they were documents that were

2 withdrawn. Am I correct? I'm not sure if the Defence can assist us.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are told that these

4 documents were withdrawn.

5 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President --

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please.

7 JUDGE SWART: [Interpretation] There may be some confusion,

8 because you used the internal OTP number, but the contested documents

9 have a different number. For example number 639 that you mentioned, this

10 would be contested document 420; is that right?

11 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you are quite right.

12 The three documents have the numbers which are the numbers from the first

13 list. I would nevertheless like to show those three documents to the

14 witness and then I will decide whether I wish to tender them myself or

15 not. But I think it is important to show them to the witness.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But let us check straight

17 away whether those documents have been withdrawn or not.

18 Madam Benjamin -- so it's not 638, 639, 640 but 420, 419 and

19 probably 418. So 418, 419, 420. Have they been withdrawn? Yes or no?

20 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: I think, Mr. President, there was a

21 confusion with the numbers. They have not been withdrawn. They are 418,

22 419 and 420. Thanks.

23 So my friend confused us a little bit.

24 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: We have no objections.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Luckily, the Judges know the

1 documents by heart.

2 So let us show the documents to the witness.

3 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I also

4 wish to thank the Chamber for identifying the documents. I just checked

5 whether the expert used these documents, and he did, but I didn't verify

6 the numbers, so I apologise, Mr. President.

7 Q. [In English] Mr. Hackshaw, I would simply ask that you take a

8 quick look at those documents. See if you recall ever seeing those

9 replies from those three organisations giving you information as to what

10 if any war crimes had been either purported, prosecuted, or on which

11 there may have been a ruling --

12 A. Yes. I --

13 Q. -- in the relevant period.

14 A. Yes. I've seen these before.

15 Q. Now, Mr. Hackshaw, can you confirm that on the basis of these

16 documents, that it was your assessment -- and when I say "your," I'm talk

17 about team 9's assessment, of course -- that General Hadzihasanovic had

18 taken very limited measures to prevent or punish war crimes during the

19 relevant period?

20 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: I beg to object. I don't think --

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Benjamin.

22 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Mr. President, I don't think this is for

23 this witness to decide. I really don't think so.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

25 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: [Previous translation continues] ...

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are asking a legal question

2 which has repercussions on the criminal responsibility of the accused and

3 it is not up to the witness to respond to such a question, Mr. Bourgon.

4 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. All that

5 I was asking was to ask the investigator - he has instructions, he needs

6 to find documents, discuss them with others - and then the prosecutors

7 enter into the game. But as an professional investigator, he could have

8 an opinion. I could ask him his opinion as a professional investigator

9 working in the OTP whether his conclusion was, on the basis of these

10 documents, that very little measures were taken -- very few measures were

11 taken by General Hadzihasanovic either to prevent or to punish war

12 crimes. I think that this question can be put to such a witness. But I

13 am in your hands, Mr. President.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, you have heard the

15 question, which is a relevant question you're being asked. But let us

16 not forget after all that you were the head of team 9. You were a

17 high-level investigator, therefore. And a high-level investigator is

18 capable, on the basis of documents, not to make a legal analysis, but to

19 have a basis on which to think over the direction his investigations will

20 take.

21 So the question that is being put to you: Having read these

22 three responses coming from a judicial authority, can you answer the

23 question that has been put to you by the Defence? In your capacity as

24 investigator, not as your -- not as a Prosecutor, because that is not

25 your role, but documents that you have in front of you, do they allow you

1 at your level - not at the level of the supreme responsibility of the

2 Prosecutor - to draw any conclusions? So can you answer this question or

3 not?

4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I think I can. Yes, I think I can, in part.

5 I think in relation to 638, that lists nine people's names, I would say

6 that would cause me to want to explore the issues further.

7 I think in relation to 639, which discusses the Travnik district

8 military court, that would also cause me to want to explore the issue of

9 referrals through the district military prosecutor further.

10 And the third one, 640, I think -- yeah, that would at the very

11 least make me want to explore the issues of referrals.

12 MR. BOURGON:

13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hackshaw.

14 I'll take these documents back, as they are contested exhibits,

15 and I'll -- I do not have intention to withdraw the objection of the

16 Defence, but I thought it was important for you to recognise them so we

17 are at least one step closer to, of course, these documents being

18 admissible.

19 Now, Mr. Hackshaw, on the basis of your answer you just gave me,

20 can you confirm that these three documents -- of course, they were

21 received. You saw the dates in April of 2002 and May of 2002. Did you

22 have a chance to see those dates?

23 A. No, I didn't. No. Sorry.

24 Q. I'll just say that 640 -- no, the right numbers are -- so the

25 exact numbers is the document from the cantonal prosecutor's office in

1 Travnik is dated 16th of April, 2002; and that the document from the

2 cantonal court in Travnik is dated 22nd of April, 2002; and the document

3 from the Zenica cantonal court is dated the 10th of May, 2002.

4 Now, Mr. Hackshaw, you can confirm that all these three

5 documents, these replies, were received well after the filing of the

6 indictment against General Hadzihasanovic; is that correct?

7 A. That is correct, yes.

8 Q. And that if I look at the reference, in terms of when these

9 requests were sent to those three agencies - I'm not going to go through

10 the dates - but you wouldn't be surprised in learning that they were also

11 sent to these three agencies way after the initial appearance of General

12 Hadzihasanovic?

13 A. Yes, that's correct.

14 Q. And can you also confirm that on the reception of this letter

15 this was an element of information that would tend to show that the

16 indictment was correct, wouldn't it?

17 A. I think it --

18 Q. It went -- in the sense of your investigation.

19 A. Yeah, I think that would be fair to say.

20 Q. Now, would you also -- would you confirm to me that having

21 received this information, you did not -- or no actual teams, no

22 investigation mission were sent to look at the archives of the Zenica

23 cantonal court, of the Travnik cantonal court, and of the Travnik

24 cantonal public prosecutor's office.

25 A. No, not immediately after. No.

1 Q. Not until your mission in June of 2004.

2 A. No. There were some previous to that. I think at the latter

3 part of 2003.

4 Q. Now, on the basis of -- we've talked about the replies. Now,

5 today, as the team leader of -- of team number 9, you now know that the

6 situation is completely different. Are you aware?

7 A. No, sorry, I'm lost.

8 Q. I will rephrase this question. You had a picture that you made

9 some conclusions on the basis of these three replies that you received in

10 2002. I guess we agree on this.

11 A. No. I think -- well, the conclusion that I draw if those looking

12 at them today is that certain aspects certainly needed to be explored

13 further.

14 Q. And -- but you now know -- I put it to you that you know on the

15 basis of the evidence that has been introduced in evidence in this case

16 that the picture is very different from what you could get from these

17 three letters.

18 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: And I wouldn't allow the witness to answer

19 that. Mr. President, I have to object. This witness is not in conduct

20 of this trial. My friend has been trying that since with the last

21 witness. This witness is not in conduct of this trial. This is an

22 investigator.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. I'm afraid you're going

24 too far. The question you are putting to the witness is absolutely the

25 responsibility of the Prosecution. The investigator as such has not been

1 conducting the Prosecution from A to Z. So your question is going

2 outside what the witness can answer.

3 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. But I

4 have shown him the documents that are in the file, and I'm asking him to

5 make conclusions as an investigator, to compare two documents that he

6 obtained during the investigation.

7 I would like to ask the registrar if he could show the witness

8 again documents DH274, a document admitted today; another one, DH119,

9 dated the 10th of January, 1994; and another document, DH155, a document

10 dated the 20th of March, 1994.

11 We have given the registrar a list with the numbers, so I don't

12 think it will take too long and he will quickly be able to find those

13 documents.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have plenty of time.

15 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence would

16 like to apologise to the Chamber. We wanted to save the Chamber of too

17 many binders, but tomorrow we will photocopy the documents and prepare a

18 binder for you.

19 Thank you, Mr. President.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are you sure of your numbers,

21 DH119 and 155?

22 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

23 Q. [In English] Mr. Hackshaw, I would like you to take a quick look

24 and that you would begin with the document which bears the number DH155,

25 and that is a document which is dated on the 20th of March, 1994. Do you

1 have this document?

2 A. Yes, I do.

3 Q. Do you recognise that this is a document that comes from the

4 Military Police Battalion of the 3rd Corps and that is addressed to the

5 security sector of the 3rd Corps?

6 A. Yes, that's correct.

7 Q. And that according to this report you can see that "In the

8 period" - and I quote from paragraph A - where it says that "In the

9 period of 14th September 1992 to 1 March of 1994 a total of 377 criminal

10 reports were filed," and then you have a breakdown of these reports. And

11 if you follow with me, would you agree that there are members of the BH

12 army, 17 officers and 295 soldiers; and that the HVO, 7 officers and 206

13 soldiers; civilians, 274; and then Ministry of the Interior, 1; and then

14 Serb soldiers, 4; and not found or at least not identified, 20? Is this

15 what this document is saying?

16 A. Yes, it is.

17 Q. Now, I'm simply asking you, Mr. Hackshaw, whether this document,

18 as the leader of team number 9, was shown to you when it was introduced

19 in evidence in this trial.

20 A. Not that I'm aware of.

21 Q. Is the information contained in this document something that was

22 shown to you -- in the sense of look at all these criminal reports -- is

23 that something that was shown to you or discussed with you?

24 A. I believe that I'm familiar -- I've seen either this or a similar

25 document. It may not necessarily be for that period of time.

1 Q. But this was actually introduced in evidence in the first week of

2 May. Can you confirm that between the first week of May and now this is

3 information that you had to discuss as your duty, as the leader of team

4 number 9?

5 A. No, I haven't discussed this with the Prosecution team that I can

6 recall.

7 Q. Thank you. Can we look at the next document, and that is a

8 document DH119, dated 10 January 1994. Do you have this document?

9 A. Yes, I do.

10 Q. If I look at this document, I look at -- this is a document that

11 comes from a report on the work of the Travnik disciplinary military

12 prosecutor's office for the year 1993; is that correct?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. And in this document -- is this document or the contents thereof

15 something that was discussed with you from -- between the month of May

16 and now, in terms of your investigation into this case?

17 A. From May this year?

18 Q. May of this year?

19 A. To now?

20 Q. Until today.

21 A. Not that I recall specifically, no. I'm sorry.

22 Q. Thank you. I would like to move to the third document, and this

23 is a document which is DH274. Do you have this document with you?

24 A. No. I have something that has "234" handwritten on it. That's

25 probably --

1 Q. It's a document dated 12 December 1993.

2 A. Yes, that's correct.

3 Q. You have it?

4 A. Yes, I do.

5 Q. Thank you, you this document comes from the Zenica direct

6 military court; is that correct?

7 A. Yes, that's correct.

8 Q. And I would refer to the fourth paragraph, beginning with the

9 word "during." Do you see this paragraph?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. And I simply quote the paragraph: "During this year, the court

12 received a total of 432 criminal charges involving 869 individuals, out

13 of which number 250 cases involving 573 individuals were completed and

14 182 cases involving 236 individuals are still in progress."

15 A. Yes, I'd agree that's what's written.

16 Q. Is this a document or the information contained in this document

17 something that was discussed with you as the leader of team number 9

18 between the first week of May when it was introduced and today?

19 A. Not that I have any recall. Not personally with me.

20 Q. Now, I ask you, Mr. Hackshaw, whether between the first week of

21 May and now there was a change in your investigation due to the fact that

22 there was much evidence introduced into this trial which shows that

23 General Hadzihasanovic has taken numerous steps?

24 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: No, no, no, Mr. President. No. That is out

25 of order. This witness is not involved in this trial. He's not presumed

1 to know the evidence that has been led in this trial, and he's asking him

2 to speculate, and I would not -- I have to object.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. The question put to you

4 appears to assume that you were informed of all the documents admitted

5 into evidence. So Ms. Benjamin is explaining that the witness is not in

6 charge of the trial. The only question you can put to him is that when

7 he went on mission sometime ago, was he familiar with these documents.

8 And he said no. So I think he said all that can be said.

9 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Let me

10 rephrase the question in a different way which will allow the witness to

11 answer.

12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... [In English] Can you confirm

13 as a leader of team number 9 that over the recent months there has been a

14 focus in the investigation that you are leading because of the evidence

15 introduced in this case?

16 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: But that is precisely the same way that you

17 put it just now in another way. He does not have any control over the

18 evidence that is being led in this case and how the evidence is led.

19 This is an investigator.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecution is repeating

21 that this witness is only an investigator but still a high-level

22 investigator. But he's not in charge of the Prosecution, so it is

23 Ms. Benjamin that could have asked the question and not you. So he can't

24 answer that question.

25 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. But to

1 finish off for today, I would liking to ask the following:

2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... [In English] You were asked

3 to go on a mission in Central Bosnia; is that correct?

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. And that is the mission that you described earlier on to my

6 colleague when she put questions to you.

7 A. That is correct.

8 Q. And you described the aim of that mission, which was to visit

9 first the Zenica high public prosecutor's office.

10 A. The mission was to visit the prosecution service in Zenica and in

11 Travnik.

12 Q. Two places.

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. And when you decided -- when this specific investigation mission

15 was approved, what was the basis for taking on this mission?

16 A. My understanding of the basis that over recent months there had

17 been attempts by the investigation and Prosecution team to try and

18 clarify the issues surrounding referrals, who referrals were made through

19 of allegations of criminal misconduct. And as such, the team had

20 established that the correct procedure was that every referral in

21 relation to military personnel should have gone through the district

22 military prosecutor. And my objective was to see what material had in

23 fact gone through the relevant district military prosecutor during the

24 time of our indictment.

25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hackshaw.

1 I have one last question which I will put to you with a document,

2 and I will -- I guess this will be all we have time for today. Now, this

3 is a letter which was addressed to both Defence teams by the Prosecution

4 concerning your mission in Central Bosnia. And I would like you to take

5 a look at this letter and I will put some questions to you on this basis.

6 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is a letter

7 that we received from the Prosecution. I've already told my learned

8 friend that I intend to use this letter during the cross-examination, and

9 I have copies for all the parties in the courtroom.

10 Q. [In English] Mr. Hackshaw, having seen this letter, have you seen

11 this letter before?

12 A. Yes, I think I have, very briefly.

13 Q. I refer you to the second paragraph. First let me ask you: You

14 confirm that this, of course, has a direct link with your mission in

15 Central Bosnia.

16 A. Yes, I can.

17 Q. Now, I refer you to the second paragraph, which says that "The

18 task of the Prosecution is currently undertaking in this respect..."

19 Now, this task, would I be correct in saying that this task is to

20 identify cases handled by the legal system in Central Bosnia?

21 A. Handled or referred through the district military prosecutor,

22 yes.

23 Q. "And that this task was complicated by the fact that the

24 perpetrators of such offences are generally unknown." This is what this

25 letter says.

1 A. That's what the letter says, yes.

2 Q. And that -- if I go on with this paragraph, that it says that "To

3 this end, the Prosecution is looking for the help of the defence in

4 identifying who the perpetrators are." Is that about what this letter

5 says?

6 A. Well, yes, they're asking for your knowledge of any specific

7 cases.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] That was my last question for

10 today, Mr. President. Tomorrow things may be corrected, but I believe

11 that I have used an hour today which means that tomorrow I am still left

12 with a half an hour, with your permission, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, then. Since we have

14 only this witness tomorrow, we will have lots of time at our disposal. I

15 believe that you will be given your 30 minutes and the other Defence team

16 is going to have some time for their possible questions, and

17 Mrs. Benjamin will probably have some questions in re-examination, and

18 the Judges will need at least one hour. So yes, you will be given the

19 floor tomorrow to resume your cross-examination.

20 Mr. Witness, you have entered into solemn declaration. You are a

21 witness to the justice. Your situation is the same as of any other

22 witness, which means from today to tomorrow you are not supposed to talk

23 to anybody, not even to your superior, because your testimony will

24 continue tomorrow. Once you leave the courtroom, you have to go straight

25 home. You are not supposed to meet with your superiors, and you will

1 please come back tomorrow at 9.00.

2 And once your testimony is finished, you will be able to talk to

3 everybody, but from today to tomorrow you are not supposed to talk to

4 anybody because this rule applies to all the witnesses. This is an

5 fortunate situation because you are coming back tomorrow. If we were to

6 tell you to come back in six months, then you would not be able to talk

7 to your superiors for six months.

8 Again, I would like to invite all of you to come back tomorrow at

9 9.00.

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.,

11 to be reconvened only Tuesday, the 29th day of

12 June, 2004 at 9.00 a.m.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25